five year review - o-field study area · pdf fileoriginal five year review for the o-field...
TRANSCRIPT
ORIGINAL
FIVE YEAR REVIEWFOR THE
O-FIELD STUDY AREA
FINAL DOCUMENT
DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION STATKMENTAPPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE:
DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED3084-B-l
Edgewood Area - Aberdeen Proving Ground, MarylandJuly 1999
ORIGINAL
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Five-Year Review Signature Cover
1 Site Identification
Site Name: O-Field, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground
Region: 03 State: Maryland
EPA Identification : M D22 1 0020036
City/County: Harford County
Site Status
National Priorities List (NPL) Status: Final
Remediation Status: Ongoing Operation
Multiple Operable Units (OUs): [Y] N
Construction Completion Date: To-Be-Determmed
Funding Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Account Lead Agency: United States Army
Recycling, Reuse, Redevelopment Site:
.| Review Status
Who conducted the review (EPA Region, State, Federal Agency): Federal Facility
Author Name: Cindy Powels
Author Title: O-Field Project Officer
Author Affiliation: Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Review Period: From: April 13, 1999
Date(s) of Site Inspection: May 27, 1999
Review Period: From: April 13, 1999 To: July 27, 1999
Type of Review: Statutory Number of Review: 1
Triggering Action Event: Remedial Action Start for O-Field OU1
Trigger Action Date: June 11,1992*
Due Date: June 11, 1997
Deficiencies: None identified
Recommendations and Required Actions:
O-Field OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater): Continue Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of theGroundwater Treatment Facility and Extraction System.
• O-Field OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area - Landfill): Continue O&M of the PIU. Further evaluate in-situtreatment technologies for application at Old O-Field.
• O-Field OU3 (Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediment): Continue long-term monitoring of siteconditions
• O-Field OU4 (New O-Field Source Area and Groundwater): Select remedy(ies) for New O-FieldEvaluate potential long-term O&M and monitoring needs.
General: Prepare a subsequent Five-Year Review for the O-Field study area, because waste remains on siteat OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area - Landfill), treatment is ongoing for OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater),and a decision is yet to be made for OU4 (New O-Field).
Note: June 11, 1992 is the start date in CERCLIS for remedial action at O-Field. Operation of the O-Fieldgroundwater extraction and treatment facility began in April 1995
Protectiveness Statement(s):
The remedies at OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater), OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area), and OU3 (Watson CreekSediment and Surface Water) are protective of human health and the environment.
The remedy for the New O-Field source area and groundwater (OU4) has not been selected at this time.However, it is anticipated that all remedial actions selected for New O-Field will be protective of humanhealth and the environment.
Because the remedial actions at OU1 through OU3 are protective, and the anticipated remedial action atOU4 will be protective, the remedies for the O-Field Study Area, APG - Edgewood Area, are protective ofhuman health and the environment.
Other Comments:
Technologies are being evaluated for in-situ treatment of OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area).
Signatures:
Abraham Ferdas DateDirector, Hazardous Site Clean-Up DivisionUS Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Tim McNamara' ^ DateDirector, Directorate of Safety, Health and EnvironmentAberdeen Proving Ground, MD
ORIGINAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE O-FIELD OPERABLE UNITS 2-12.1.1 Old O-Field: Operable Units 1 & 2 2-12.1.2 Watson Creek: Operable Unit 3 2-32.1.3 New O-Field: Operable Unit 4 2-7
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2-72.2.1 Climatology 2-8
2.2.2 Site Topography 2-82.2.3 Surface Soil 2-8
2.2.4 Geology/Hydrogeology 2-82.2.5 Surface Water 2-132.2.6 Lithology of Bottom Sediment 2-14
2.3 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 2-14
2.3.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater 2-142.3.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area 2-142.3.3 OU3: Watson Creek 2-152.3.4 OU4: New O-Field 2-16
3.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY 3-1
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS 4-14.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER 4-1
4.1.1 Remedy Selection 4-14.1.2 Remedy Implementation 4-14.1.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-44.1.4 Current Status 4-5
4.2 OU2: OLD O-FIELD SOURCE AREA 4-84.2.1 Remedy Selection 4-84.2.2 Remedy Implementation 4-84.2.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-104.2.4 Current Status 4-12
4.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK 4-134.3.1 Remedy Selection 4-134.3.2 Remedy Implementation 4-144.3.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-15
4.4 OU4: NEW O-FIELD 4-154.4.1 Remedy Selection 4-154.4.2 Remedy Implementation 4-164.4.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-16
5.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINDINGS 5-15.1 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 5-1
5.2 INTERVIEWS 5-1
5.3 SITE INSPECTION 5-2
DACA31-94-D-0064 i Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Table of Contents(continued)
5.4 ARARS REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 5-35.4.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater ............................................................................... 5-35.4.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area ................................................................................ 5-35.4.3 OU3: Watson Creek ................................................................................................. 5-35.4.4 OU4: New O-Field .................................................................................................... 5-3
5.5 DATA REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 5-35.5.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater ............................................................................... 5-35.5.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area ................................................................................ 5-65.5.3 OU3: Watson Creek ................................................................................................. 5-65.5.4 OU4: New O-Field .................................................................................................... 5-6
6.0 ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6-16.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER ................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-16.1.2 Adequacy and Continued Need forO&M .................................................................. 6-16.1.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-16.1.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-16.1.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-16.1.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-16.1.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-1
6.2 OU2: OLD O-FIELD SOURCE AREA ................................................................................... 6-16.2.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-16.2.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M .................................................................. 6-26.2.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-26.2.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-26.2.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-26.2.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-26.2.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-2
6.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK ....................................................................................................... 6-26.3.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-26.3.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M .................................................................. 6-26.3.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-26.3.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-26.3.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-26.3.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-26.3.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-2
6.4 OU4: NEW O-FIELD ............................................................................................................. 6-26.4.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-26.4.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M .................................................................. 6-36.4.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-36.4.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-36.4.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-36.4.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-36.4.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-3
7.0 DEFICIENCIES ................................................................................................................................ 7-1
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIRED ACTIONS ...................................................................... 8-1
DACA31-94-D-0064 ii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Table of Contents(continued)
ORIGINAL
9.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS 9-1
10.0 NEXT REVIEW 10-1
11.0 REFERENCES 11-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
A O-Field Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Data Summary
B Photographs of the OU1 and OU2 Remedial Actions
C Interview Summary and Site Inspection Checklist
D Groundwater Monitoring Data for the WTA and UCA, Old O-Field
E Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Data
DACA31-94-D-0064 iii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
ORiGi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2-1 Location of Aberdeen Proving Ground 2-2
2-2 Location of O-Field Disposal Sites 2-4
2-3 Aerial Photograph of Old O-Field-October 1984 2-5
2-4 Aerial Photograph of New O-Field and Watson Creek - October 1984 2-6
2-5 Cross-Section Map, Old O-Field 2-9
2-6 Old O-Field Cross Section A-A' 2-10
2-7 Old O-Field Cross Section B-B' 2-11
2-8 Old O-Field Cross Section C-C1 2-12
4-1 Groundwater Extraction and Monitoring Well Network 4-2
4-2 GWTF Process Flow Diagram 4-3
4-3 Cross Section of the Permeable Infiltration Unit 4-9
4-4 Plan View of the Permeable Infiltration Unit 4-11
B-1 Aerial View of the GWTF (OU1) B-1
B-2 GWTF Control Room B-1
B-3 View from the Mezzanine of the Entire Treatment System B-2
B-4 Lime Reaction Tanks B-2
B-5 Clarifierand Sand Filter B-3
B-6 Clarifier and Vapor Phase Carbon Units B-3
B-7 Sludge Holding Tank and Liquid Phase Carbon Units B-4
B-8 Air Stripper, UV/OX Unit, and Control Room B-4
B-9 Second Stage Neutralization Tanks B-5
B-10 Carbon Units and Filter Press Room B-5
B-11 Application of Sand during PIU Construction (OU2) B-6
B-12 View of the Completed PIU B-6
B-13 Aerial View of the GWTF (OU1) and PIU (OU2) B-7
B-14 Aerial View of the O-Field Study Area B-7
D-1 VOC Contaminant Isoconcentration Map - WTA (November 1997) D-17
D-2 CWM Degradation Product Isoconcentration Map-WTA (November 1997) D-18
D-3 VOC Contaminant Isoconcentration Map - UCA (November 1997) D-19
D-4 CWM Degradation Product Isoconcentration Map-UCA (November 1997) D-20
E-1 Old O-Field GWTF Daily Average Effluent Discharge, September 1996 to January 1998 E-1
E-2 Old O-Field GWTF September 1996 to January 1998 Effluent Discharge Data - EffluentMonitoring System Dissolved Oxygen E-2
E-3 Old O-Field GWTF September 1996 to January 1998 Effluent Discharge Data - EffluentMonitoring System pH E-3
E-4 Old O-Field GWTF September 1996 to January 1998 Effluent Discharge Data - EffluentMonitoring System -Temperature E-4
E-5 Old O-Field GWTF Total Effluent Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) E-5
DACA31-94-D-0064 iv Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Table of Figures(Continued)
E-6 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 -Aluminum E-6
E-7 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 -Arsenic E-7
E-8 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 - Barium E-8
E-9 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 - Copper E-9
E-10 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Iron E-10
E-11 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Lead E-11
E-12 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Nickel E-12
E-13 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Zinc E-13
E-14 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Total Suspended Solids (TSS) E-14
E-15 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Turbidity E-15
DACA31-94-D-0064 v Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
3-1 Chronology of Site Events 3-1
4-1 Annual O&M Costs for OU1: Old O-Field GWTF 4-4
4-2 Summary of Chemical Analysis of Old O-Field Groundwater 4-6
4-3 Annual O&M Costs for OU2: Old O-Field PIU 4-12
4-4 Watson Creek Remedial Action Schedule 4-14
4-5 Annual O&M Costs for OU3: Watson Creek 4-15
5-1 O-Field GWTF - Average Monthly Effluent Discharge Flow Summary, September 1996 toMarch 1999 5-5
5-2 Old O-Field GWTF - Effluent Monitoring System Data Summary, September 1996 toMarch 1999 5-6
8-1 Recommendations and Required Actions
A-1 Comparison of Maximum Groundwater Chemical Concentrations with Water Quality ControlCriteria A-1
A-2 Summary of Chemicals Detected in Watson Creek Sediment, O-Field Area, 1993- 1996 A-2
A-3 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Groundwater- 1993 A-3
A-4 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Groundwater- December 1997 A-5
A-5 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Surface Soil, 1992-1997 A-9
A-6 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Surface Water -1997 A-12
A-7 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Sediment, 1993 -1997 A-13
A-8 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Subsurface Soil -1997 A-16
D-1 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results, Water Table Aquifer, Old O-Field D-1
D-2 Summary of Analytical Results, Surface Water Samples, Old O-Field D-12
D-3 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results, Upper Confined Aquifer, Old O-Field D-13
DACA31-94-D-0064 vi Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
4,4-DDE 4,4-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (pesticide)
ACEM Automated Continuous Environmental Monitor
AEL Airborne Exposure Limit
APG Aberdeen Proving Ground
APG-EA Aberdeen Proving Ground - Edgewood Area
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria
bgs below ground surface
SQL Below Quantitation Limits
STAG Biological Technical Advisory Group
BZ 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (riot control agent)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CG Phosgene (choking agent)
CN Chloroacetophenone (tear producing compound)
CMS Chloroacetophenone in Chloroform (tear producing compound)
COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations
CS Ortho-chlorobenzylidenemalonitrile (tear producing compound)
CWM Chemical Warfare Material
DM Adamsite (vomiting compound)
D.O Dissolved Oxygen
DOE Department of Energy
DSHE Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment
ECN Electrochemical Noise
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FFS Focused Feasibility Study
FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
ft feet
ft/d feet per day
ft3 cubic feet
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
GAG Granular Activated Carbon
GA Tabun (nerve agent)
GB Sarin (nerve agent)
GES Groundwater Extraction System
CIS Geographical Information System
gpm gallons per minute
DACA31-94-D-0064 vii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
List of Acronyms(continued) QP
<
GWTF Groundwater Treatment Facility
H, HD, HS, HT.... Mustard (blisteragent)
IAG Interagency Agreement
ICF KE ICF Kaiser Engineers
IDW Investigation Derived Waste
in/yr inches per year
IT International Technologies Corporation
L Lewisite (blister agent)
LCU Lower Confining Unit
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MES Maryland Environmental Service
ng/L micrograms per Liter
mg/L milligrams per Liter
MIC Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion
MINICAMS Miniature Continuous Air Monitoring System
msl mean sea level
NA Not Applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
ND Not Detected
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
OU Operable Unit
PETN Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (explosive compound)
PIU Permeable Infiltration Unit
ppb parts per billion
RAB Restoration Advisory Board
RBC Risk-Based Concentration
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
sq. ft square feet
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound
TAL Target Analyte List
TCL Target Compound List
TEU Technical Escort Unit
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UCA Upper Confined Aquifer
DACA31-94-0-0064 viii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
List of Acronyms(continued)
UCU Upper Confining Unit
U.S United States
USACHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, formerly known asthe U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USAEHA)
USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center, formerly known as the U.S. Army Toxic andHazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA)
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UV/OX Ultraviolet Light Catalyzed Oxidation
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VX o-ethyl, s-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonothioate (nerve agent)
WP White Phosphorus (smoke agent)
WTA Water Table Aquifer
WWII World War II
Y2K Year 2000
DACA31-94-D-0064 ix Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
oINTRODUCTION
The United States (U.S.) Army, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hasconducted a five-year (statutory) review of the remedial actions implemented at O-Field, Edgewood Area,Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland. This review was conducted from April 13, 1999 toJuly 27, 1999. This report documents the results of the analysis conducted by International Technologies(IT) Corporation, formerly ICF Kaiser Engineers - Environment and Facilities Management Group, underContract No. DACA31-94-D-0064, for the Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) at APG
The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documentedin five-year review reports. In addition, five-year review reports identify deficiencies found during thereview, if any, and recommendations to address them. The Lead Agency (US Army) must implement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).CERCLA 121(c), as amended states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less oftenthan each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health andthe environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.
The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the leadagency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of theselected remedial action.
This is the first five-year review for the APG-Edgewood Area (APG-EA). The triggering action forthis statutory review is the initiation of remedial action for O-Field, as shown in EPA'sCERCLISS/WasteLAN database: June 11, 1992. (Note: Operation of the Old O-Field groundwaterextraction and treatment facility began in April 1995.) Specifically, this five-year review is being activatedby the continuing presence of contaminants at the site above levels that allow for unlimited andunrestricted exposure.
DACA31-94-D-0064 1 -1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
APG is a 72,516-acre (39,882-acre land area) installation located in southern Harford County andnortheastern Baltimore County, Maryland, on the western shore of the upper Chesapeake Bay (Figure2-1). The installation is bordered to the east and south by the Chesapeake Bay; to the west byGunpowder Falls State Park, the Crane Power Plant and residential areas; and to the north by the City ofAberdeen and the towns of Edgewood, Joppatowne, Magnolia, and Perryman. APG is divided into twoareas by the Bush River: the Edgewood Area of APG lies to the west and the Aberdeen Area lies to theeast.
APG was established in 1917 as the Ordnance Proving Ground and was designated as a formalmilitary post in 1919. Equipment and ammunition testing and training school operation began at APG in1918. Between this time and the onset of World War II (WW II), activities at APG included research anddevelopment and large-scale testing of a wide variety of weapons and other equipment.
APG's primary mission continues to be the testing and development of weapons, vehicles, and awide variety of support equipment. Within APG-EA, chemical warfare research, development, and relatedactivities have occurred. Specific activities at Edgewood have included laboratory research, field testingof chemical munitions, pilot-scale manufacturing, and production-scale chemical agent manufacturing.
Many areas of the Gunpowder Neck of the APG-EA have been used as impact areas for thetesting of ordnance; as such, there is the potential for encountering unexploded ordnance (UXO) and/orintact or leaking liquid-filled rounds deposited there during testing. Disposal and testing activities havealso taken place in areas along the Gunpowder Neck. O-Field was one of the major disposal areas atAPG-EA (the disposal history of O-Field is discussed in more detail below).
O-Field is located in a restricted area of the Installation. Access to the restricted area is strictlycontrolled. Unauthorized access is prevented through the employment of a wide variety of securitymeasures; these measures include, but are not limited to, access control points, random patrols bysecurity forces, and the employment of Technical Physical security devices.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE O-FIELD OPERABLE UNITS
Past disposal operations at the O-Field area led to contaminated soil and groundwater at, andnear, O-Field. The Army has decided to manage the environmental contamination in the different media atthe O-Field area in a phased approach. This separation of environmental media into Operable Units(OUs) allowed the Army to begin remediation prior to full assessment of the O-Field Area. According tothe NCP, an OU is defined as a discrete action, which is an incremental step toward comprehensivelymitigating site problems. The OUs for the O-Field area have been defined as follows:
OU1 - Old O-Field Groundwater;
. OU2 - Old O-Field Source Area (Landfill);
OUS - Watson Creek Sediment and Surface Water; and
. OU4 - New O-Field Source Area and Groundwater.
2.1.1 Old O-Field: Operable Units 1 & 2
Old O-Field is bordered by surface water on three sides: Watson Creek to the north and east, andthe Gunpowder River to the west (Figure 2-2). Groundwater at Old O-Field discharges to Watson Creekand indirectly, via Watson Creek, to the Gunpowder River. Periodic disposal of waste materials at the O-Field area began before WW II. The first documented use of Old O-Field occurred in May 1941 (Yon etal., 1978), although other records suggest that disposal activities occurred as early as the late 1930s.
Disposal practices at Old O-Field included the shallow burial and open-pit burning of munitions,bulk and laboratory samples of CWM, contaminated equipment, and other hazardous materials. Recordsindicate that some of the burial trenches were 100 yards long, 10 feet (ft) deep, and 10 ft wide; however,
DACA31-94-D-0064 2-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
PENNSYLVANIA
\EdgewoodI area
/ PROVING ("GROUND
39'20' -
SOURCE: USGS, 1989.
3 KILOMETERS
US ARMYENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064 , RQURE 2-1IT Cororation ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDIT Corporation2113 Emmorton Park Rd.
f4X£%3%>2104° LOCATION OFPREPARED JH TASK NO. 17044)6
cr owe HO:
FIG2-1.PPT
ABERDEENPROVINGGROUND
2-2
Section 2.0Background
most known trenches were much shorter. The existence of approximately 35 trenches was documented inhistorical records (Yon et al., 1978). Inspection of survey notes and historical aerial photographs revealsthat the trenches and pits were not distinct.
During the period of 1941 to 1949, tons of chemical-filled/explosive-loaded munitions, contaminatedplant equipment, pipes, and tanks were buried or placed on the ground surface in the area of Old O-Field.Interviewed personnel stated that the area contained 55-gallon drums of mustard (HD) and lewisite (L); itemsfilled with chloroacetophenone (CN), chloroacetophenone in chloroform (CMS), and adamsite (DM);munitions containing explosive charges; and munitions filled with white phosphorus (WP) and other chemicalwarfare materiel (CWM).
Several decontamination and cleanup operations were performed at Old O-Field from 1949through the early 1970s. The most notable of these efforts was carried out in 1949 when 1,000 barrels ofdecontaminating agent were applied to the field in an attempt to detoxify mustard agent that had beenscattered over the site by several spontaneous detonations. The decontaminating agent containedapproximately 95 percent 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. Tetrachloroethane and its degradation products havebeen identified at elevated levels in the groundwater at Old O-Field. Thus, in addition to the presence ofCWM and other hazardous materials in the groundwater at Old O-Field, it appears likely that thedecontamination effort in 1949 actually resulted in additional contamination.
From the late 1960s to the early 1970s, the U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit (TEU) performedsurface sweeps of the area. A number of suspect CWM-filled rounds were recovered from Old O-Field,temporarily stored in Conex containers at Old O-Field, and then transported and stored in the storagebunkers at N-Field. In the early 1980s, the U.S. Army TEU began another surface sweep. A series ofaerial photographs taken in 1984 show that nearly all the vegetation on Old O-Field had recently beendefoliated and burned (Figure 2-3). Historical records suggest that an ignition of WP initiated the fire.
In March 1994, a survey was conducted from the perimeter of Old O-Field to identify items visibleon the surface. The survey was conducted by two UXO specialists from the bucket of a cherry pickerprovided by APG. The cherry picker was parked on the road around the perimeter of Old O-Field and theboom was raised and positioned approximately 20 to 30 ft inside the fence of Old O-Field. Due tovegetation cover over the surface of most of Old O-Field, only approximately 15 to 20 percent of thesurface was visible, making it impossible to determine whether observed items comprised the completelist of exposed materials. In addition to this visual survey, a video tape and still photographs were takenof the field from the bucket of the cherry picker by the UXO specialists. To supplement theseobservations, a remote-controlled helicopter was later used to fly over Old O-Field while videotaping andphotographing the field. Items identified during this survey included: a large steel tank, cylindricalcontainers (approximately 3 ft long x 10- to 12-in diameter), stacks of sand/dirt-filled ammunition crates,drums, and ordnance items. Most of the ordnance items that were visible were located in a trench on theeastern side of Old O-Field. The types of ordnance items included: 4.2-inch mortars, 75-mm projectiles,105-mm projectiles, 175-mm projectiles, canisters, a 750-pound bomb, and other projectiles. The contentsof the items, if any, were unknown.
As a result of disposal and decontamination activities at the site, the groundwater has becomecontaminated. This groundwater contamination poses potential environmental risks to sensitive aquaticand terrestrial ecosystems in Watson Creek, the Gunpowder River, and the surrounding wetlands. Inaddition to the groundwater contamination at Old O-Field, the presence of chemical-warfare agents andmunitions in the landfill pose a threat to human health and the environment.
2.1.2 Watson Creek: Operable Unit 3
Watson Creek is a 60-acre estuarine water body, located in the O-Field Study Area on theGunpowder Neck peninsula in APG-EA. It is bordered on the south and west by O-Field, on the north andeast by M-Field, and discharges to the northwest into the Gunpowder River. The location of Watson Creekis shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-4. Watson Creek receives surface water runoff and groundwaterdischarge from O-Field, M-Field, and other areas of the Gunpowder Neck. The Watson Creek watersheddrains into the Gunpowder River, which in turn drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
DACA31-94-D-0064 2-3 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
\ \
-N-
GUNPOWDERRIVER
O
LEGEND
TREEUNE
WATER600
FEET
US ARMYENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. MCA!1-M-l>-OOt4netnui
nsposc
LOCATION OF0-F1ELD DISPOSAL
SITES
2-4
Figure 2-3. Aerial Photograph of Old O-Field - October 1984
f
Figure 2-4. Aerial Photograph of New O-Field and Watson Creek - October 1984
Section 2.0Background
Surface water exchange between Watson Creek and the Gunpowder River is restricted to anarrow culvert under Watson Creek Road. This culvert restricts tidal flushing of the creek (U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Hygiene Agency [USAEHA], 1977).
Watson Creek provides an aquatic habitat for several species of freshwater and estuarine aquaticlife. However, various factors such as seasonal temperature fluctuations, restricted tidal flushing, highorganic loading, and salinity (ranging from 0.5 to 10 parts per trillion) may impact the abundance oforganisms in Watson Creek. In addition, the culvert at Watson Creek which was constructed to enlargethe water surface area for wildlife "altered the natural habitat, greatly reducing the innate ability of thecreek-estuary systems to maintain conditions favorable for a balanced and healthy ecosystem..."(USAEHA, 1977). Marshy areas surround Watson Creek on all sides and are especially prevalent in thearea immediately south of Watson Creek. Marshes within this area are characteristically dense and arelargely covered by Phragmites, a reed-like plant which produces a very dense root mat.
Old O-Field (OUs 1 & 2) has been identified as the primary source of contamination for WatsonCreek. Construction of the Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment Facility (GWTF) mitigated a significantportion of the groundwater impacts to Watson Creek. New O-Field (OU4) has also been identified as asource of sediment contamination in Watson Creek. Remedial actions for OUs 1 through 4 are discussed inSection 4.0
2.1.3 New O-Field: Operable Unit 4
New O-Field is bordered by Old O-Field to the north, Watson Creek to the northeast and east, H-Field to the south, and Watson Creek road to the west. An aerial photograph of New O-Field is providedin Figure 2-4.
Records indicate that in December 1950, the survey and layout of the second disposal area withinthe boundary of the O-Field area was accomplished. Yon and others (1978) reported that 9 pits at NewO-Field were used for disposal operations from 1950 to 1961. The disposed material is reported to haveincluded explosives; acids; research laboratory samples of o-ethyl, s-diisopropylaminoethylmethylphosphonothioate (VX), Sarin (GB), and impregnate; HD and WP-filled shells; ortho-chloro-benzylidenemalonitrile (CS), DM, and CN. The pits were 20 ft wide and ranged in length from 40 to 100 ft.The depth of the pits is not known, but is probably similar to the depth of pits at Old O-Field (maximumdepth of at least 12 ft) (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 1989). In later years, until disposal ended in thelate 1970s, the primary activity at New O-Field was the destruction of materials by burning (USGS, 1989).This most likely included the burning of wastes containing chlorinated solvents (Nemeth, 1989).
Two unintentional fires also occurred at New O-Field. An accidental ignition of one disposal pitwas reported in New O-Field in August 1961. The report describing this incident states that the pitcontained 55-gallon drums of acid on dunnage; one 300-gallon tank contaminated with HD; laboratorysamples and waste material consisting of VX, GB, phosgene (CG), and numerous bottles ofmiscellaneous laboratory chemicals; GB-contaminated pipe; and 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ)contaminated rags. The ignition of the pit was reported as being caused by an unknown laboratorychemical after a brief but heavy rain shower.
In April 1997, a brush fire occurred in the marsh and adjacent woods at New O-Field. The causeof the fire is unknown. During site walks of the burned area conducted by the TEU, DSHE, and ITpersonnel, UXO and construction debris was observed on the surface of the marsh adjacent to New O-Field. This area is typically referred to as the push-out area, because it appears to contain materials thatmay have been displaced during surface clearing of burn pits.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The O-Field area consists of approximately 260 acres, bordered on the north and east by WatsonCreek, on the south by H-Field, and on the west by the Gunpowder River. Watson Creek drains into theGunpowder River, which in turn drains into the Chesapeake Bay. Descriptions of the climate, sitephysiography/topography, soil types, regional geology, hydrogeology, and surface water are provided inthis section.
DACA31-94-D-0064 2-7 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 2.0Background
2.2.1 Climatology
The climate in this region is classified as humid temperate, with hot, humid summers andrelatively mild winters. The average annual precipitation at APG is 42.75 inches with maximum rainfalloccurring during the summer (Nutter, 1977). In 1990, a weather station was established at H-Field (justsouth of O-Field). Annual precipitation at H-Field ranged from 35.55 inches to 46.08 inches per year(in/yr) between 1990 and 1993, and averaged 41.08 in/yr (USGS, 1996). The Phillips Army Air Field islocated on the Aberdeen Peninsula of APG, about 5 miles northeast of the O-Field area. Minimum annualprecipitation measured at this site occurred in 1930 and was 22.32 in/yr. Maximum annual precipitationoccurred in 1996 with a value of 64.03 in/yr.
2.2.2 Site Topography
The topography of the O-Field area is generally flat, with natural land-surface elevations rangingfrom slightly above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 19 ft msl. Since construction of the PermeableInfiltration Unit (PIU), the land-surface elevations at Old O-Field range from 10 to 26 ft above sea level(APG, 1997b).
New O-Field is situated on a topographic high with a marshy low-lying area located to the northand east which is associated with Watson Creek. The natural topography at New O-Field is disturbed byprevious excavations and two open trenches.
2.2.3 Surface Soil
In the O-Field area, the uppermost soils are about 3 ft thick and are composed of dark brown,clayey to sandy silt (USGS, 1989). Information obtained during the Remedial Investigation shows that thetop soil in the Old O-Field area ranges in thickness from 0.2 to 0.9 ft, and consists of dark, gray-brownsandy silt with varying amounts of clay and organic matter (APG, 1999d). Cohesiveness of the soil varieswidely depending on the content of clay and organic matter. Surface soil samples collected from theperimeter of Old O-Field were found to be primarily silty sand. Soils at New O-Field consist of mixtures ofsilt, silty sand, and silty clay.
2.2.4 Geology/Hydrogeology
O-Field is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Coastal Plainsediments at Old O-Field that extend to a depth of approximately 80 ft below ground surface (bgs), aresubdivided into the following hydrostratigraphic units (from top to bottom): water table aquifer (WTA);upper confining unit (UCU); upper confined aquifer (UCA); and lower confining unit (LCU) (USGS, 1989).At least the upper 30 ft of sediments are estuarine, overbank and channel deposits derived fromglacial/interglacial period activity and present day Susquehanna River drainage. At New O-Field, thewater-bearing units and confining units are not hydraulically distinct. A detailed description of theconnection between the water-bearing units is presented in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study(RI/FS) Report for the O-Field Area (APG, 1999d). The following sections describe each generalhydrogeologic unit. Detailed cross-sections are provided in Figures 2-5 through 2-8.
2.2.4.1 Water Table Aquifer
The sequence of sediments that include the WTA ranges in thickness from approximately 13 to23 ft. The water table has been encountered within 4 to 8 ft bgs, but averages about 10 ft bgs. Typicalgroundwater elevations range from 2 to 4 ft msl. The WTA sediments contain considerably more silt inthe northern and central portion of the site, relative to the southern portion. The upper part of the WTAconsists of a sandy silt that overlies a fine- to medium-grained quartz sand with interbeds of silt andcoarse sand. The unit generally consists of fines down to the clay unit located in the UCU, as well as athin organic silt layer occurring at the base of the WTA in some locations.
The WTA is recharged primarily by vertical infiltration of precipitation on the Gunpowder Neck.While rainfall and snowmelt are transported as runoff to the Gunpowder River and Watson Creek, mostprecipitation is evaporated or transpired by vegetation. The remainder of the precipitation infiltrates
DACA31-94-D-0064 2-8 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
-N-
MW6-3AMW6-2A
+ WPS
+WP3
100H5SCALE
100 2OO2
FEET
LEGENDMONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
EX1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
CWP3 CREEK WELL POINT
LINE OF CROSS SECTION
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. OACA31-M-D-OOM
MM/MM »»« avmIMC
7-27-»» GWCR-SIT
FIGURE 2-5AKKOdN PDOVIN6 SKOUM)
CROSS SECTIONOLD O-FIELD
APG, MD
2-9
ORIGINAL
SILT AND CUTWITH TRACE SANO
MW02 MW2-2(ABANDONED)
PM3B
NORTHWEST
A
SAND
SAND WITHTRACE GRAVEL
SILT + CLAY
CLAY + SILT
PM2A WELL IDENTIFICATIONNUMBER
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 24X
SCREENED INTERVALNOT TO SCALE
DEPTH OF BORING
LITHOLOGY CHANGE
HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITCONTACT
CONTACT INFERRED
NOTE:DATA BASED ON PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTSEXCEPT FOR OF WELLS.
AN INTERPRETATIVE LOG WAS USED FOR0-FIELD WELLS.
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. DACA31 -94-0-0064
/group2IIJ Emmorton Porti RoodEdoMood, Utxyond 21040(410) 812-8350A M«mb«r of TM IT Group
PKCPAKED MM/DWM
CHECKED JC
DATE 7_27-99
170409
ICF DWO NO:
GWCRO-AA
FIGURE: 2-6ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
OLD 0-FIELDCROSS SECTION
A-A"APG, MD
2-10
ORIGINAL
-10-
SILT AND CLAYWITH TRACE SAND
-20-
SANDY SILTWITH UTTUCLAY
-SILTAN6"CLAY- — — 1 0 UCU30MC-SANO- ^vw
SANDY SJLT I WITHLITTLE I CLAY
SUAVELY SAND"WIW TRACESILT - .
ORAVtL AND SAfID WITH TRACE SJLT
_————————
SAND WITH TRACE SILT
SILT AND CLAY
SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND ORAVEL
SILT AND CLAYWITH TRACE SAND
SAND
SAND WITHTRACE GRAVEL
SILT + CLAY
CLAY + SILT
PM2A WELL IDENTIFICATIONNUMBER
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 24X
SCREENED INTERVAL
-DEPTH OF BORING
LITHOLOGY CHANGE
HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITCONTACT
CONTACT INFERRED
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
DATA BASED ON PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTSEXCEPT FOR OF WELLS.
AN INTERPRETATIVE LOG WAS USED FOR0-FIELD WELLS.
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. DACA31 -94-D-0064
'ffvufiITGoipoMHB2113 Emmorton Port RoodEdqSKOOd. Maryland 21040(410) 612-6360A MsmtMf of The IF Croup
PREPARED MM/DWM
CHECKED JC
DATE 7-27-99
87040S
DWG NO:
GWCRO-BB
FIGURE: 2-7ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
OLD 0-FIELDCROSS SECTION
B-B"APG, MD
2-1 1
ORIGINAL
SAND
SAND WITHTRACE GRAVEL
SILT + CLAY
CLAY -I- SILT
CREEK
— 10— — WLT -ANB- CtAY =
•UTlUt SAND- — —
SAND WITH TRACESILT AND GRAVEL
SILT AND CLAY WITH TRACE SAND
CRAVE! AND SANDWITH TRACE SILT
SAND WITH TRACEGRAtfEL AND SILT
-10-
-20-
-30-
PM5 WELL IDENTIFICATIONNUMBER
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 24X
•SCREENED INTERVAL
DEPTH OF BORING
LITHOLOGY CHANGE
HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITCONTACT
CONTACT INFERRED
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
DATA BASED ON PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTSEXCEPT FOR OF WELLS.
AN INTERPRETATIVE LOG WAS USED FORO-FIELD WELLS.
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064JTCapoaOaa2113 Emmorton Port RoodEdqewod, Uorykmd 21040(410) 612-6350
. A Monlw of fh« IT Group
PREPARED MM/DWM
CHECKED JC
DATE 7-27-99
870405
ICF DWO NO:
GWCRO-CC
FIGURE: 2-8ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
OLD O-FIELDCROSS SECTION
C-CX
APG, MD
2-12
Section 2.0Background
through the vadose zone and recharges the water table. Groundwater elevations in the WTA on thenorthern and eastern side of Old 0-Field near Watson Creek fluctuate in the range of one to four feetabove msl. Groundwater levels in the WTA tend to be highest in late winter and early spring, declinethrough the summer, and reach annual lows in September or October. A silty layer above the WTA mayalso slightly impact water levels measured in wells located beneath this silty layer.
Step drawdown tests performed at Old O-Field (APG, 1993) and aquifer tests performed at NewO-Field (APG, 1999d), showed an average horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 30 ft/d for the water tableaquifer.
2.2.4.2 Upper Confining Unit
The UCU consists of a silt and clay layer, which is gray, micaceous, and contains varyingamounts of very fine sand. This unit appears to grade from high clay content at Old O-Field to high siltcontent at New O-Field (USGS, 1996). Thickness ranges from approximately 4 feet at Old O-Field to 0.5feet or less at New O-Field. The UCU has encountered at approximately 25 ft below Old O-Field and 11 ftbelow New O-Field (USGS, 1989). The top of the UCU undulates and slopes down and eastward towardWatson Creek. The variation in elevation may be due to erosion by streams, uneven deposition and theexistence of natural paleochannels in the area.
Due to the variability of thickness and clay content, this unit is believed to be leaky and/ordiscontinuous beneath Old and New O-Fields. Aquifer testing performed at New O-Field in 1993,confirmed that the upper water-bearing unit is leaky (APG, 1999d). The vertical hydraulic conductivity ofthe UCU and its thickness are significant factors that govern the flow of groundwater and contaminantsbetween the WTA and the UCA. A vertical hydraulic conductivity of 0.02 ft/d was calculated (APG.1999d) for New O-Field, and estimated at 0.01 ft/d for Old O-Field.
2.2.4.3 Upper Confined Aquifer
The UCA is beneath the UCU and is comprised of saturated sands and gravels interbedded withclay layers, and ranges in thickness from 2 to 13 ft. The UCA is bounded by less permeable silt and claylayers above, and by a thick clay layer below. The dark to reddish gray or grayish brown sediments of theUCA typically coarsen downward from a sand and silt to a gravel near the base of the unit. At mostlocations the sand fines downward immediately below the gravel layer, but at some locations (MW2-1,MW2-2, EX2, MW4-2A, MW4-1B, MW6-2B, and MW6-3B) the gravel layer lies directly over the LCU.
At Old O-Field, typical UCA groundwater elevations range from 1 to 2 ft msl. During periods ofhigh recharge, confined aquifer response to water table loading has resulted in water levels in the UCArising over 3 ft msl (APG, 1999f). The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the UCA ranges from 20 to 30ft/d and averages 22 ffd based on drawdown and recovery tests at New O-Field (APG, 1999d).
2.2.4.4 Lower Confining Unit
The LCU is a dark gray to black clay, probably deposited in a marginal marine or estuarineenvironment. This unit has been encountered at depths of 20 to 39 ft bgs at Old O-Field (USGS, 1989).Laboratory analysis of six cores taken from two sites at Old O-Field resulted in a range of verticalhydraulic conductivities from 4.7 x 10"6 to 4.7 x ID/* ft/d with a median of 1.6 x 10'5 ft/d (USGS, 1989).These values are quite low, an indication that the LCU is a relatively impermeable aquitard. The unitaverages about 50 ft thick beneath Old O-Field. The lateral extent of the clay is not well known; however,a clay of slightly different lithology is present at a similar depth to the south at H-Field. This indicates thatthe lower clay unit may be continuous between O-Field and H-Field (USGS, 1989).
2.2.5 Surface Water
The O-Field area is bordered on three sides by water: Watson Creek to the north and east andthe Gunpowder River to the west. Watson Creek has an approximate 850-acre watershed anddischarges to the Gunpowder River. The culvert constructed at the mouth of the creek restricts tidalflushing, enlarges the surface water body for wildlife habitat, and causes high organic loading in the creek(USAEHA, 1977).
DACA31-94-D-0064 2-13 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 2.0Background 0"
The stage in Watson Creek is primarily due to wind direction. Consequently, the tides in thecreek frequently do not show a diurnal response. Watson Creek surface water elevations average 1.2 ftmsl (APG, 1997a). The stage in the Gunpowder River varies between one and three feet over the diurnalcycle.
When the tide in the Gunpowder River is higher or lower than that in Watson Creek, water flows intoor out of the creek through the culvert and continues to do so until the incoming tide in the Gunpowder Riveris equal to that in the creek. If the tide in the Gunpowder River does not reach the height of the culvertconnecting Watson Creek to the river during high tide, or if the tide in the river does not drop below theculvert during low tide, water continues to flow out of or into the creek, respectively. In addition, unless awind driven tide reverses the flow, Watson Creek preferentially discharges to the Gunpowder River(USGS, 1996).
Weekly groundwater and surface water elevation measurements are collected from WatsonCreek well points CWP6, CWP1A, and CWP2A located adjacent to Old 0-Field. CWP6 is located inWatson Creek approximately 50 ft from the nearest extraction well (PM2). Comparison of groundwaterand surface water data measured at CWP6 suggest that Watson Creek is a losing stream in this area.This implies that groundwater is flowing from Watson Creek towards the extraction well field which is inagreement with groundwater flow potential shown in groundwater elevation maps constructed for the site(APG, 1998a,b). CWP1A and CWP2A are located approximately 150 ft and 250 ft from the nearestextraction wells (EX8A and EX4A), respectively. Most surface water elevation measurements are lowerthan groundwater elevation measurements at these well points suggesting that groundwater flow potentialis toward the well field.
2.2.6 Lithology of Bottom Sediment
The lithology of the bottom sediment within Watson Creek is distributed by current-velocityeffects. Coarse-grained materials are found in the areas where current velocities are insufficient totransport them and yet sufficient to transport the fine-grained materials. Organic-rich, fine-grainedmaterial settles out of suspension in more quiescent areas of the creek. Tidal currents in the GunpowderRiver are such that its bottom sediments are composed of sand which is coarser along the shoreline dueto wave action. At the culvert of Watson Creek, where the current is high, the sediment is entirelymedium- to coarse-grained sand and gravel. Within Watson Creek, the sediment within the inlet thatreceives incoming tidal currents is predominantly composed of sand to organic-rich sand where current isreduced. Bottom sediment within the creek tributaries and along the western edge of the main creek bodyconsists of a layer of organic detritus, approximately 6 inches thick (USAEHA, 1977). The western edgeof the creek inlet also contains fine-grained material as bottom sediments.
2.3 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
2.3.1 OU1: Old 0-Field Groundwater
The groundwater at Old O-Field contains both inorganic and organic contaminants. Inorganiccontaminants include aluminum, antimony, arsenic, boron, copper, iron, manganese, sodium chloride, andzinc. Dominant organic compounds include chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic andnitroaromatic compounds, and chemical warfare agent degradation products. Contaminantconcentrations are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1. The primary areas of contamination arenortheast and east of Old O-Field. Groundwater sampling conducted as part of site investigations prior toinstallation and startup of the extraction well field determined that contaminants were present in both theWTA and the UCA. Although there are no human exposure pathways for groundwater at Old O-Field;groundwater acts as a transport medium for contamination from OU1 to OU3.
2.3.2 OU2: Old 0-Field Source Area
Historical activities at Old O-Field included the demilitarization, burning, and disposal ofmunitions, bulk and laboratory samples of CWM, contaminated equipment, and other hazardousmaterials. The practice of trench construction at Old O-Field consisted of digging down to the water-table(or to a depth of 8-10 ft), disposing the items, and then backfilling the trench. Because of the seasonal
DACA31-94-D-0064 2-14 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
fluctuation of the water-table level, it is possible that items at the bottom of the trenches are periodicallybeneath the water-table. The items placed in the unsaturated zone could periodically be exposed to waterafter storm events, when percolation of surface water occurs. It is possible that the items havedeteriorated and are presently releasing their contents.
The approximate area of the field is 400 ft by 600 ft, or 240,000 square ft (sq ft). Based on areview of available aerial photographs, maps, statements, testimony, opinions, and other historical data,the dimensions of trenches and pits at Old O-Field were estimated as follows:
. The percent of surface area excavated for pits ranges from 50 to 70 percent, or 120,000 to168,000 sq ft;
. Average trench depths range from 5 to 8 ft; therefore, the total trench/pit volume is estimatedto be 600,000 to 1,344,000 cubic ft (ft3);
• The percentage of the volume containing ordnance, explosives, reactive material, or agent-containing objects is estimated to be 20 to 30 percent, or 120,000 to 403,000 ft3 (Tarno,1994).
The CWM that are known to have been disposed of at Old O-Field include L, mustard (H, HD, HS,and HT), GB, Tabun (GA), and VX. Assorted types of other agents (i.e., choking, blood, riot control,vomiting, and possible incapacitating) were also disposed in this area. Breakdown products of mustard,including 1,4-dithiane, 1,4-oxathiane, and thiodiglycol, have been detected in the groundwater at Old 0-Field. Records also indicate that a number of other chemicals and items were disposed at this site.These include the chemicals used in the manufacture of CWM and agents, laboratory wastes, andmiscellaneous items. The site also contains significant quantities of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, theprimary constituent of a decontaminating agent, which was applied in large quantity (1,000 barrels) to OldO-Field in 1949.
Based on historical information, it has been estimated that more than 70% of the CWM-filledordnance items and bulk containers at Old O-Field may contain HD. It has also been estimated thatapproximately 5% of the remaining ordnance items and bulk containers contain CG, and the remainderare filled with L and other materials, including high explosive and incendiary substances (Yon, 1994). Aconservative percentage for nerve agent-Filled ordnance has been estimated at approximately 0.3% of thetotal number of ordnance items (Yon, 1994). In addition to the above, it is believed that WP exists at Old O-Field both in ordnance and other containers. Because WP spontaneously ignites and burns when exposedto air, the presence of WP leads to an elevated risk of spontaneous fire at Old O-Field, which may result indetonation or other types of release.
Due to the presence of CWM, UXO, and WP at Old O-Field, the principal risk to human health andthe environment at OU2 is an air release of CWM resulting from fire, accidental detonation of ordnance, orevaporative release. This threat has been reduced significantly through the construction of the PIU on thesurface of Old O-Field (Section 4.2).
2.3.3 OU3: Watson Creek
As mentioned previously, Old O-Field and New O-Field were both identified as potential sourcesof contamination at Watson Creek. Therefore, sampling events were conducted at Watson Creek inSeptember 1993 (Phase I), March 1995 (Phase II), and June 1996 (Phase III). Results from all threephases of sampling are discussed in the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for Watson Creek (APG,1997a). A summary of the chemicals detected in the Watson Creek sediment is presented inAppendix A, Table A-2
The risk assessment concluded that Watson Creek surface water does not pose a threat tohuman health, terrestrial species, or aquatic species; therefore, remediation of surface water is notneeded. The results of the sediment sampling indicate that there may be a small threat posed to sensitivesediment-dwelling organisms by the metals detected in the sediment; however, the overall health of thesediment-dwelling community does not appear to be threatened based on toxicity testing.
DACA31-94-0-0064 2-15 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 2.0
Background ", ID; < :> • v
Section 2.0Background
The principal contaminant migration pathways from Old O-Field to Watson Creek have beenpartially mitigated by the OU1 action (interception of contaminated groundwater, treatment, and dischargeinto the Gunpowder River) and the OU2 action (the PIU on the Old O-Field source area). Furthermore,gradual redistribution of the fine-grained sediment particles is expected to occur naturally over timethroughout the creek bed (due to changes in water elevation, movement of fish and other organisms, etc.).In addition, other chemical and physical processes, such as reduction, complexation, and ion exchange,may naturally lower the bioavailable metals concentrations in the sediment. It is therefore reasonable toexpect that the concentrations of metals within Watson Creek sediment will decrease over time, even inthe absence of active remediation.
2.3.4 OU4: New O-Field
The results of site investigations confirmed the existence of well-defined underground disposaltrenches at New O-Field. In addition, areas containing construction debris, UXO, burn pit push-out, andpotential CWM were identified along the perimeter of the New O-Field disposal area after the range firewhich occurred in April 1997. During the Remedial Investigation (Rl), organic and inorganic compounds,including solvents, explosives, and CWM degradation products were identified in groundwater andsoil/sediment at New O-Field. The chemicals detected in groundwater, surface soil, surface water,sediment, and subsurface soil are summarized in Appendix A, Tables A-3 through A-8.
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted in 1994/1995 (to evaluate the1993 to 1995 data) and 1998 (to evaluate data obtained since the fire in April 1997). Based upontraditional risk assessment guidelines, there is no current human health risk and only limited ecologicalrisk associated with surface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater. However, there is potentialfor human health risk due to potential UXO/CWM on the surface of the marsh/woods and buried in thetrenches. As a result, three principal areas of concern were identified for alternative development in theFS: marsh and woods (including UXO, potential CWM, solid waste, and contaminated sediment/soil);disposal trenches (including materials buried in both the open and covered trenches); and groundwater(APG, 1999c).
DACA31-94-D-0064 2-16 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
3.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY
A chronology of events for the O-Field Study Area is provided in Table 3-1. Environmentalinvestigation at O-Field began in the late 1970s. In 1990, APG-EA was placed on the National PrioritiesList (NPL), which is a list, generated by the EPA, of uncontrolled hazardous substance releases in theUnited States that are priorities for long-term remedial evaluation and response. At that time, the U.S.Army and EPA signed an Interagency Agreement (IAG) to: 1) address the environmental impacts of pastand present activities at APG; and 2) oversee the development, implementation, and monitoring ofappropriate response actions at the site in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations.
TABLE 3-1. CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS
EVEN DATE
Initial Discovery January 25, 1980*
Pre-NPL Activities: j
TEU Surface Sweeps** Late 1970s/Early 1980s
Environmental Survey 1977-1978 (USATHAMA, 1983)
Surface Water Quality and Biological Study i 1977 (USAEHA)
Hydrogeologic Assessment of O-Field 1984 - 1987 (USGS, 1989)
Preliminary Assessment November 11, 1980*
Site Inspection December 31, 1984*
NPL Listing February 21,1990*
Federal Interagency Agreement March 27, 1990*
Record of Decision (ROD) Signature September 27, 1991 (OU1)*October 11, 1994(OU2)*September 23, 1997 (OU3)*
Remedial Design Start November 4, 1991 (OU1)*November 15, 1994 (OU2)*
Remedial Design Complete September 28, 1995 (OU1)*June 1997 (OU2 - with the exception of thesprinkler system water storage tank)
Construction Dates (Start/Finish) 1993 - 1995 (OU1);1996-1998 (OU2)
Remedial Action Start :1992(OU1)*; 1998 (OU2); 1999 (OU3)
ROD Amendments or Explanation of Significant 1999 (OU1)Differences (ESDs)
RI/FS Complete 1999 (OUs 1-4)
First Five-Year Review Report July 1999
Notes:
USATHAMA = U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency* Source: CERCLIS Site Information, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites, June 1999.** Includes Unwanted Chemical Surety Material cleanup
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
3-1 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
Section 3,0Site Chronology r>-
'
In 1991, the ROD for OU1 specified the construction of a groundwater extraction and treatmentsystem. In 1992, the RI/FS for the remainder of the O-Field Study Area was initiated. Based on thefindings of the RI/FS, remedial alternatives were developed and evaluated for OU2 through OU4.Selected remedies were outlined in RODs for OU2 and OU3 in 1994 and 1997, respectively. Theremedial actions selected for OU1 through OU3, and proposed alternatives for OU4, are described inSection 4.0.
DACA31-94-D-0064 3-2 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS |
4.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
4.1.1 Remedy Selection
In September 1991, the ROD for OU1 specified extraction and treatment of the contaminatedgroundwater plume at Old O-Field to prevent further discharge of contaminants into Watson Creek andsubsequent environmental impacts. The selected remedy included downgradient extraction of thegroundwater; treatment using chemical precipitation for metals removal followed by ultraviolet lightcatalyzed oxidation (UV-OX) for organics removal; and discharge to the Gunpowder River (APG, 1991).
Specifically, the ROD required that extraction wells be located in areas of highest groundwatercontamination downgradient of the source, and that the overall system be designed to capturecontamination emanating from the landfill to the maximum extent possible. Monitoring wells were to beinstalled to determine horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradients and contaminant distributions in thegroundwater. Because contamination was identified in both the WTA and UCA, this implied thatextraction wells would be installed in both aquifers.
4.1.2 Remedy Implementation
Construction of the Groundwater Extraction System (GES) began in 1993. The GES interceptsgroundwater emanating from Old O-Field and flowing toward Watson Creek. The system currently utilizes14 extraction wells installed in the WTA (Figure 4-1). Twelve extraction wells (MW4-3A. EX1, EX2A,EX3A, EX4A, EX5, EX6A, EX7, EX8A, EX9, PM2, and PM3A) became operational in 1995; and twoadditional extraction wells (EX10 and PM5) were commissioned in December 1997.
Three extraction wells (EX3B, EX8B, and PM3B) were installed in the UCA (1993-1994), but werenever commissioned. This was due to the concern that pumping from wells screened in the UCA coulddraw down additional contamination into the UCA from the more contaminated WTA. Aquifer testsconducted at the time of the system design indicated there is a hydraulic connection between the WTAand the UCA in the Old O-Field area. Pumping from the UCA would, therefore, have the potential tocreate a downward gradient from the WTA transporting contaminants into the less contaminated UCA.Pumping from the WTA would likewise create a potential upward gradient. Also, there has been anobserved natural upward gradient between the WTA and UCA, which was further incentive not to pumpfrom the UCA. Constant-rate pump tests scheduled for August 1999 may provide more insight intowhether or not to pump the UCA.
Each of the active extraction wells is housed by a Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) box-likestructure called a well house. The well house contains an air pressure system, a flowmeter, a capsuhelicgauge, and a heater to prevent water in the hoses from freezing in winter. The air intake, air exhaust,water discharge, and capsuhelic hoses are connected to the pump. In Fall 1998, the original bottom-loading auto-pumps inside the extraction wells were replaced with surface mounted double-diaphragmpumps to improve performance and reduce iron fouling. Each pump is rated for a maximum flow of 10gallons per minute (gpm) and delivers an average of 2 gpm. Groundwater pumped from the extractionwells is transported through 1 inch insulated piping to the Extraction System Collection Tank (T-18). TankT-18 has a conical bottom and drain connection to allow heavier-than-water free product to be collectedand removed from the system. A transfer pump delivers the groundwater from T-18 through 3 inchinsulated piping to the GWTF. A vapor control system, which consists of two 175-pound granularactivated carbon (GAC) units arranged in series, is used to capture fugitive volatile organic compounds(VOCs) from T-18 generated as a result of the normal filling and emptying process.
The GWTF treats contaminated groundwater extracted by the GES. The GWTF process flowdiagram is presented in Figure 4-2. Photographs of the interior of the GWTF are provided in AppendixB. The GWTF utilizes chemical precipitation for metals removal, air stripping for VOCs removal, UV-OXfor the destruction of VOCs and CWM degradation products, and GAC units for final polishing. The
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
WP7
-N-
W
wf - ' 0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
400
i
^EX10 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPINGnn,Ru
O WP3
EXTRACTION WELL (UPPER CONFINED AQUIFER)
MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPINGEXTRACTION WELL (WATER TABLE AQUIFER)
WELL POINTS AND CREEK WELL POINTS
WATER
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERCONTRACT NO. DACA31 -94-D-0064
ITCarpcntiaa211:3 Emmorton Pork RoodEdge«ood, Morylond 210+0(410)612-6350
PREPARED BY: DWM
CHECKED: CF
DATE: 7-27-99
TASK NO: 870405
ICF DWG NO:
FIG4-01
FIGURE 4-1ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
GROUNDWATEREXTRACTION AND
MONITORING WELLNETWORK
4-2T)JU
Jt.'
Dry Lime
Groundwaterfrom
Extraction
1X
MixTank
LimeSlurryFeed
GWEqual.
Tankfls1,2,
108,11
LimeReact.Tank
4ITo
Atmosphere
VaporPhaseCarbon
Solids
InclinedPlate
Settler
i
^
Neutr.Tank#1
Sludge
r
H'O'Feed N .OH Feed
AirStripper
Cartridgi
FilterSystem Carbon #2
Backwash
HoldingTank
k
Ige
i
Filtrate
1I
Solids
TreatedEFF.
StorageTankfts13&14
*- Bio.Bldg.
Press Discharge to Gunpowder RiverI1
Disposal
To Tank #s1&2
Figure 4-2. Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment Facility: Process Flow DiagramJ.0
Section 40Remedial Actions
GWTF was designed to operate at an influent flow rate of 30-gpm, but has been modified to operate at acurrent rate of 36-gpm (Appendix C).
Groundwater is pumped from the extraction wells to T-18, and then into one of four EqualizationTanks (T-1, T-2, T-10, and T-11) through a 3-inch conveyance line. These tanks allow the extractionsystem to operate continuously, independent from the treatment system schedule.
Lime slurry (calcium hydroxide) is added and mixed with the influent groundwater in the limereaction tank. This raises the pH and causes heavy metals to precipitate. These conditions also formcalcium carbonate, which precipitates and removes hardness and alkalinity from the groundwater. Solidsgenerated as a result of this reaction settle in an inclined plate clarifier. Solids removed by the clarifier aretransferred to a sludge holding tank. Solids from the sludge holding tank are dewatered by means of aplate and frame filter press. The filter cake generated from this process is stored for off-site disposal.The clarified effluent is neutralized with sulfuric acid in the first stage neutralization tank. Neutralizationalso provides a more optimum pH for precipitation of aluminum. A continuous backwash upflow sand filterremoves residual solids present after acid addition to the clarifier effluent. Backwash from the sand filteris transferred to the sludge holding tank. Effluent from the sand filter is sent to the air stripper.
The air stripper removes VOCs present in the groundwater through a countercurrent exchangewith air. The gaseous emissions from the air stripper pass through a vapor-phase GAC system, whichadsorbs the VOCs stripped from the groundwater. Liquid effluent from the air stripper passes through twocartridge filters arranged in parallel to remove solids that may be present before the effluent is sent to theUV-OX system.
Hydrogen peroxide is added downstream of the cartridge filters prior to treatment of the effluent inthe UV-OX system. When exposed to ultraviolet light, hydrogen peroxide forms highly reactive hydroxylradicals that break the structural bonds of organic molecules to produce chloride ions, smaller organicmolecules, carbon dioxide, and water. Effluent from the UV-OX system passes through two GAC filtersarranged in series, which remove residual organics that may still be present in the groundwater. Effluentfrom the GAC filters is neutralized, if necessary, in the second-stage neutralization tank and then stored inthe effluent tanks (T-13 and T-14), prior to discharge to the Gunpowder River.
An in-line biomonitoring system monitors the final effluent for any signs of toxicity that might resultfrom inadequately treated groundwater. In the event that the organisms held in the biomonitoring systemexhibit stress, the effluent water, which is stored in T-13 or T-14, may be treated again, if needed.
4.1.3 Operation and Maintenance
As mentioned previously, the GWTF has been in operation since April 1995. The system isoperated three shifts per day, five days a week. Annual costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) aresummarized in Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1.ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR OU1: OLD O-FIELD GWTF*
DATES
FROM
April 1995
October 1995
October 1996
October 1997
October 1998
TO
September 1995
September 1996
September 1997
September 1998
September 1999
TOTAL COST(ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1,000)
approximately $1,300,000
$2,696,000
$2,125,000
$2,154,000
$1,759,000
O&M costs include operators, oversight, base support, biomonitoring, equipment, and materials.
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
4-4 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
Section 4.0Remedial Actions
Operating conditions at the GWTF are dictated by the results of post-ROD treatability studies andguidance from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Treatment goals include MarylandFreshwater Acute/Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria and a limitation of 100 parts per billion (ppb) total VOCs.Consequently, the following National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Limitswere established by MDE for the GWTF:
• Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.): > 5.0 milligrams per Liter (mg/L);
pH Range: 6.5 to 8.5 units;
• Total Volatile Target Compounds: < 100 ppb;
• Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 10,000 microgram per liter (ng/L) (30-day average limit) and15,000 |ag/L (maximum daily limit); and
Metals: See Table 4-2.
The GWTF discharge also complies with certain specific water quality parameters including:
Temperature: < 90 °F (32 °C) outside mixing zone; and
• Turbidity: < 150 units at any time.
Effluent water quality parameters (D.O., pH, and temperature) are continuously monitored at the GWTFand analytical parameters (VOCs, metals, and TSS) are monitored on a monthly basis, to ensurecompliance with these limits. A comparison of influent and effluent data to discharge limits is provided inTable 4-2
4.1.4 Current Status
An ESD from the Interim Action ROD for OU1 was finalized in 1999 (APG, 1998c). Thisdocument describes the following changes that have been made to the design and O&M of the GWTFsince the ROD was signed in September 1991:
• Non-pumping of the UCA;
• Addition of air stripper to the VOC removal process (as needed) to provide greater flexibilityand reliability;
Addition of the liquid phase GAC adsorption units to polish the treated water;
• Addition of vapor phase GAC adsorption units for the air stripper;
Changes in the effluent monitoring program (reduced sampling and analysis frequency toonce per month and eliminated quarterly acute biomonitoring toxicity testing); and
Batch treatment of investigation derived water (IDW) from other IRP sites.
In recent years, several optimization activities have been conducted to evaluate and subsequentlyimprove performance of the GES/GWTF system. These activities are described below.
• Well Field Modification - The objective of the well field modification was to optimize captureof the contaminated groundwater beneath the Old O-Field landfill (APG, 1998a). Theextraction system was modified in August 1997, to include 25 additional monitoring wells, 1new extraction well, 1 converted extraction well (originally a monitoring well), and nine wellpoints, all installed in the WTA. Twelve additional monitoring wells were installed in the WTAin March 1999.
Treatment Capacity Evaluation - In 1997, the treatment capacity evaluation was initiated todetermine whether upgrades to the existing system would be necessary to sustain an influentflow rate of 40 gpm. The original design capacity of the GWTF was 30 gpm. Increases in theinfluent flow rate may become necessary to accommodate flow from the extraction systemduring periods of high recharge and also from an increase in the number of extraction wells in
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-5 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 4.0Remedial Actions
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS - OLD O-FIELD GWTF"
PARAMETER
InorganicsAluminum, TotalArsenic, Total
Barium, Total
Copper, Total
ron, TotalLead, TotalNickel, TotalZinc, Total
INFLUENTAVERAGE b
fog/L)
1,447
452
50
190
11,8354.3
15929
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
ChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfide1,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform1,2-Dichloroethane
2-ButanoneCarbon Tetrachloride
1,1,2-Trichloroethane4-Methyl-2-PentanoneTetrachloroethene
1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneEthylbenzeneStyrene
Total Xylenes1,1-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
BenzeneTolueneChlorobenzene
Total VOCs
ND27.2
1.00
10222.4
59.0
251434
236
10.0
107
36.2137
2813,571
10.11.34
4.23
1.53
596
95.6
7.48
47.7
6,038
EFFLUENTAVERAGE b
(H9/L)
137
193
23.7
12.3
123
2.61
2.08
25.2
1.67
ND
ND
5.518.34
2.00ND
1.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
NDND
2.60
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.05
ND
ND
ND
22.16
DISCHARGE LIMITS30-DAY
AVERAGE(MJ/L)
1,200
550
NA
490
510
80
290
310
NA
NA
NA
NANA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ONE DAYMAXIMUM
(H9/L)
3,030
1.390NA
1,280
1,230100
550
1,020
NA
NA
NA
NANA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NANA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
CWM Degradation Products
Thiodiglycol
1,4-Dithiane1,4-Oxathiane
624
85189.7
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
• Data collected from June 5, 1996 to June 18, 1997.6 Compounds listed as ND are not included in the calculation of the average.
NA = Not AvailableND = Not Detected
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
4-6 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
Section 4.0Remedial Actions
the system. Hydraulic capacity tests were conducted in two phases during Spring 1997 andFall 1998. During the first phase, tests indicated that the GWTF could sustain a flow rate of36 gpm, without significant modification to the existing system (APG, 1999b). However, theperformance of centrifugal pumps at the GWTF was identified as a potential limiting factor foran increase to 40 gpm. Therefore, the second phase began with a re-evaluation of thecentrifugal pumps. Upon conclusion that the pumps were capable of sustaining a flow rate of40 gpm, another hydraulic capacity test was conducted on October 7, 1998. During this test,the GWTF sustained a flow of 40 gpm for 6.5 hours without complication. Also, analyticaltesting indicated that performance of the GWTF would not be impaired by the additional flow.Based on this evaluation, regulatory approval was granted in Spring 1999 to increase theinfluent flowrate in 2 gpm increments from 32 gpm to 40 gpm. Currently the plant is operatingat an influent flow of 36 gpm.
Needs Assessment/Efficiency Study - A draft efficiency study, Needs Assessment for theGroundwater Containment and Treatment System of the O-Field Landfill at Aberdeen ProvingGround, was submitted in January 1999. The objective of this study was to evaluate potentialopportunities which could improve performance, while providing cost savings. Based onbackground information, operational records, and other information obtained on site, thefollowing program elements were identified for evaluation (APG, 1999a):
=> Well field management; => Biomonitoring water conditioning system;
=> Groundwater extraction system pump => Well field control and operationsperformance and system fouling; management;
=> Tank T-18 GAC usage; => GWTF control and operations monitoring;
==> Lime feed system performance; => Biomonitoring system control and operation;
=> Sand filter performance; => Control system Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance;
=> Emergency power system => Well field environmental monitoring program;DsrformsncG'K ' => GWTF environmental monitoring program;
=> Air stripper performance; and
=> Sludge management; => Data management and reporting.
Detailed recommendations are available in the 1999 draft report. However, several of the keyrecommendations are listed below:
=> Use a variable speed pump at T-18 to prevent agitation of the groundwater in the tank,thereby reducing VOC releases and subsequent carbon usage.
=> Conduct an experimental run by-passing the air stripper to evaluate the performance ofthe remaining unit operations, as well as compliance aspects of the treated groundwater.
=> Add a third carbon unit in series (liquid and vapor phase) to extend the life of the carbonunits.
:o Evaluate the use of sodium and/or magnesium hydroxide for metals precipitation, therebyreducing the sludge disposal costs.
=> Re-design the compressor to start-up automatically after a power failure, therebyreducing labor hours for manual startup.
=> Evaluate surface mounted double-diaphragm pumps for use in the well field.
=> Evaluate potential replacement of the sand filter.
=> Consider automation of the well field flow monitoring system and biomonitoring system.
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-7 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 4.0Remedial Actions Q *i •
— v ' "^•
=? Evaluate the air monitoring program from a regulatory perspective to re-define the currentair monitoring program.
• Modification of the Biomonitoring System - Potential upgrades to the biomonitoringsystem are currently under consideration, to compensate for problems encountered due tohigh specific conductance (i.e., salinity) of the groundwater. A side-by-side evaluation of theexisting equipment and salt water equipment has been conducted. In early August 1999, theexisting fresh water system will be replaced with a new salt water system.
Y2K Compliance - A Y2K evaluation was initiated in May 1999 to identify components of theGWTF and well field which required modification for Y2K compliance. All equipment excepttwo personal computers and four recorders in the control panel were identified as Y2Kcompliant. The two personal computers required a flash BIOS upgrade which was availablefrom the manufacturer's website. Effort is underway to have the four recorders in the controlpanel upgraded by Retro Electric, the construction contractor, as early as August 1999.
4.2 OU2: OLD 0-FIELD SOURCE AREA
4.2.1 Remedy Selection
In September 1994, the ROD for OU2 dictated the construction of the PIU on the surface of OldO-Field to greatly decrease the likelihood, and potential impact, of a potential explosive event byabsorbing shock waves, filling any voids, and reducing the flow of CWM vapor (APG. 1994).
4.2.2 Remedy Implementation
Construction of the PIU was initiated in Summer 1996 and completed in Fall 1997 (with theexception of the water storage tank which was completed in 1998). The PIU consists of an initial 2-ft layerof sand (minimum), geotextile support material (geogrid); subsurface trickling system; subsurface airmonitoring system; final 3-ft layer of sand; erosion control mat; 6-inch gravel erosion control layer; and asprinkler system. As a result of the installation of the PIU, the land-surface elevations now range from 10to 26 ft above sea level at Old O-Field (APG, 1997b). A cross-section of the PIU is presented in Figure4-3. Aerial photographs of the PIU are provided in Appendix B.
Placement of the initial sand layer was accomplished using low-ground-pressure teleoperatedequipment. Cameras mounted on the equipment allowed workers to operate the machinery fromapproximately 1.5 miles away, further reducing potential risks due to explosion or CWM vapor release.The initial sand layer ranged from 2- to 14-ft thick depending on the original surface elevation of OldO-Field; the final sand layer was 3 ft thick. The 5-ft minimum thickness of sand was selected based onthe containment of a blast from detonation of up to 5 Ibs. of explosives. According to historical disposaland recovery records, 99.6% of ordnance items believed to be within the site contain a mass of explosiveless than this amount (APG, 1995).
The sand cover, designated as "Number 2 Blended Concrete Sand" is a blend of a gravelly soiland a medium to fine sandy soil. The measured permeability of the sand using a constant head testprocedure (American Society of Testing and Materials [ASTM] D-2434) varied from 1.7 x 10'2 to 6.4 x 10"4
cm/sec. A poorly graded sand was selected to better absorb and dissipate the energy from a potentialordnance explosion. The advantages of using a permeable sand cover include the following:
• Reduces the hazards associated with the explosion of a round within Old O-Field by reducingthe explosive force and the release of shrapnel and contaminants.
• Provides a self-healing cover as the sand flows into voids in the event of an explosion orduring settling.
Restricts the migration of CWM vapor and reduces the possibility of CWM vapor's release tothe atmosphere in the event that an agent filled munition explodes.
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-8 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Sprinkler System
Figure 4-3. Old O-Field Permeable Infiltration Unit, Typical Cross-Section
Section 4.0 Or?:'f-} jfyii,Remedial Actions
. Restricts airflow to the subsurface, thereby, significantly reducing the risk of WP ignition andsubsequent explosion.
Absorbs shock applied to the top of the PIU (such as the impact of falling trees) and pressureexerted due to movement of vehicles. These shock and pressure hazards could potentiallydetonate fuses, busters, initiating devices, and other shock sensitive materials.
Prevents exposure of munitions and reduces the potential for human and animal contact withexposed ordnance.
• Allows infiltration of rainwater and future application of appropriate solutions to achieve in-situtreatment of the buried materials.
A geogrid was installed beneath the subsurface trickling and air monitoring systems to providesupport and to allow flow through of sand from the top layer to the bottom layer in the event of anexplosion or during settlement. The geogrid material contains large open spaces, or apertures, whichallow the sand to pass through. In addition, the geogrid will provide temporary support for the subsurfacetrickling and air monitoring systems in the event of potential large-scale settlement.
The subsurface trickling and a subsurface air monitoring systems were installed between the twosand layers The subsurface trickling system is designed to allow application of appropriate solutions forin-situ treatment of buried materials. A plan view of the PIU trickling system is presented in Figure 4-4This system consists of six independent grid systems of piping with 4-inch headers running east west and3/i-inch pipes placed on 20-foot centers north to south. A main header has been installed to feed eachsystem with a shut-off valve located on the perimeter road of Old O-Field. The piping is a perforated high-density, extra-high molecular weight polyethylene pipe capped at each end. Each system was designedto deliver a maximum of 200 gpm.
The subsurface air monitoring system is designed for early detection of any CWM vapor before itis released to the atmosphere. The air monitoring system consists of 12-inch wide filter fabric-wrappedsynthetic drainage strips. The strips are first placed on 50-foot centers along the longitudinal axis of thesite and then on 50-foot centers perpendicular to that axis. A strip is also placed around the perimeter ofthe field into which all grid strips are tied.
The final 3-foot sand layer was applied after installation of the subsurface air monitoring systemThis sand layer was then covered with a permeable erosion control mat and a 6-inch gravel erosioncontrol layer Following the completion of the erosion-control layer, the sprinkler system was installedThe intent of the water was to reinforce the vapor barrier properties of the sand and reduce the migrationof CWM, while also enhancing the hydrolysis of CWM. The sprinkler system has 14 sprinkler heads, eachcapable of distributing 50 gpm of water over a 100-foot radius across the site The system also includes a1,000-gpm pump system and a piping system to convey water from a 200,000 gallon dedicated waterstorage tank (40 ft diameter and 24 ft cylinder height).
4.2.3 Operation and Maintenance
O&M of the PIU involves routine maintenance of the surface sprinkler system (including the waterdelivery system), subsurface trickling system, and subsurface air monitoring system The subsurfacetrickling system and subsurface air monitoring system have not yet been utilized; however, they requireperiodic inspection for system integrity. Visual inspections of the PIU surface for low points or areas ofsubsidence and sprinkler heads for signs of damage or debris (i.e., bees' nests) will be conducted weeklyby the operators of the GWTF. In addition, topographic surveys will be conducted annually to documentany areas of subsidence. Periodic testing and maintenance of the diesel engine, pumps, andinstrumentation will be conducted as per manufacturers' specifications Annual O&M costs aresummarized in Table 4-3.
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-10 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
SU8SURFACF TRICKliKG/- ' J NSYSIS.M FH • '(70NF I)
/ 3 \ S U U A C F TRICKMKG/' .3V ' ; SYSItM FILL LINt VT 7V
• ' J ' Vl//
>WW~ ~^. ,17- ~ ' .r—._.—.- "^
]'••• j ,-. .! IN HOPP P^RFJRATFI j i i N LAILRAL (EDR n il ry3.
i 1"'' vL-' j i I \ 'A \ \v
-i J\
AJH MONilORINC fSTATION I'
Note: 1 = Zone Number
Base Map: USAGE, 1998
US ARMYENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064IT Corporation2113EmmortonP«rtiRd.Edgmnxxl, MD21040(410)»U-«350
JH f TASK NO. J70405
o7iM. i FIG4-4 PPT
FIGURE 4-4ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
PLAN VIEW OF THESUBSURFACE
TRICKLINGSYSTEM
Section 40Remedial Actions
TABLE 4-3.ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR OU2: OLD O-FIELD PIU*
§ DAH
FROM
October 1997
October 1998
FES - -': :..:":TO :
September 1998
September 1 999
J TOTAL COST(ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1 ,000)
3241,000
$179,000
* O&M costs include oversight, base support, equipment, and materials.
4.2.4 Current Status
In addition to the PIU, the ROD for OU2 required long-term air monitoring for CWM vapors and anevaluation of technologies for in-place treatment of the landfill. These two issues are discussed in detailbelow:
Air Monitoring Evaluation - In 1994, prior to construction of the PIU, five AutomatedContinuous Environmental Monitors (ACEMs) were installed along the perimeter of Old O-Field to monitor possible releases of low level toxic chemicals including CWM. This systemwas designed to provide continuous real-time measurements which would trigger an audiblealarm when concentrations exceeded specified Airborne Exposure Limits (AELs). Thesubsurface air monitoring system installed in the PIU was designed to be compatible with theACEM system; however, it was not commissioned due to concerns regarding moisture in thesubsurface.
In December 1997, a draft report was prepared which re-evaluated air monitoring alternativesfor Old O-Field. The report stated that a release of CWM vapor to the surface of the PIU washighly unlikely under a non-explosive scenario based on: i) no detections of CWM vaporduring four years of continuous real-time monitoring; ii) the physical properties of CWM (i.e.,low vapor pressure and volatility and high vapor density); and, iii) the physical characteristicsof the PIU (i.e., greater than five feet of sand with considerable water storage capability)(APG, 1997c). This was confirmed by flux chamber sampling conducted on the surface of thePIU by the EPA in December 1998 (EPA, 1999).
The 1997 air monitoring report also provided an evaluation of the following site monitoringtechniques: ACEM System, Miniature Continuous Air Monitoring System (MINICAMS), OpenPath Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR), Extractive FTIR, Passive Soil Gas MonitoringSystem, Moisture Level Measurement, and Seismic Monitoring. A description, expectedperformance, cost estimate, and initial screening of each technique was provided in thereport. The applicability of each technique for above ground monitoring, subsurface activemonitoring, and subsurface passive monitoring was also discussed.
In 1999, explosive scenarios were modeled using equations developed by the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE, 1992) and the Army's D2PC Air Dispersion model. Three typesof munitions were selected for the simulations: a 155 mm projectile (filled with 11.7 Ib of HD),a 100 Ib M47A2 bomb (filled with 73 Ib of HD), and a 1000-lb bomb AN-M79 (filled with 417 Ibof CG). These munitions were selected based on estimated abundance at Old O-Field,quantity of explosive, and quantity of agent. Based on the worst-case scenario, it wasdetermined that an explosion could result in a lethal release of CWM to the atmosphere.However, construction of the PIU has significantly reduced the likelihood of an explosiveevent at Old O-Field. While it is understood that an explosion-induced release can only bedetected using traditional vapor detection devices after the explosion has occurred,monitoring for the occurrence of the explosion itself and development of an after-explosion
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
4-12 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
Section 4.0Remedial Actions
response action plan are practical and beneficial solutions. Therefore, the followingmonitoring techniques are currently under consideration:
=> Seismic monitoring instruments capable of detecting underground disturbances;
=> Moisture level sensors to ensure that the PIU subsurface is kept perpetually wet; and
=> Post-explosion verification-sampling similar to emergency response actions todetermine if a release has actually occurred.
In-Place Treatment of the Landfill - Since completion of the PIU, activities have beeninitiated to evaluate integration and optimization of the two interim remedial actions at Old O-Field: the PIU and GWTF systems. As a result of a brainstorming meeting in 1996 andsubsequent evaluation, enhanced corrosion was selected for further study. The objective ofenhanced corrosion at Old O-Field was to degrade the metallic casings of the munitionsburied in the landfill, in an attempt to further reduce the risk of explosion. Two types ofenhanced corrosion were studied, biocorrosion (also referred to as microbiologicallyinfluenced corrosion [MIC]) and chemically enhanced corrosion.
The biocorrosion studies were completed in three stages: i) surface soil analyses todetermine if microorganisms capable of promoting MIC were present in the soil; ii) bench-scale tests to evaluate various amendments for increasing microbial activity; and, iii) fieldmonitoring tests using Electrochemical Noise (ECN) technique to evaluate baseline corrosionactivity at Old O-Field.
Laboratory studies on the chemical corrosion of munition casings were also conducted toevaluate in-situ chemical corrosion at Old O-Field. The chemical corrosion studies wereconducted in two stages: i) immersion tests were performed to evaluate varyingconcentrations and combinations of candidate solutions; and, ii) the four preferred solutionsfrom the immersion tests were tested in soil columns to simulate field conditions at Old O-Field.
The results of both the biocorrosion and chemical corrosion studies were evaluated forpotential application at Old O-Field. Both studies were successful, and showed that thedegradation of the metal contents of the landfill can be achieved biologically or chemically.However, chemical corrosion was selected as the preferred technique for the followingreasons:
=> Enhanced chemical corrosion is a proven technique;
=> Performance consistency and corrosion rates are more predictable;
=> Pits already developed by microorganisms can be enlarged faster by chemicalmeans;
=> Corrosion enhancement is possible in oxygen deficient environments;
=> Synergistic effects of chemicals can be realized;
=> No adverse effect on existing remedial systems (PIU and GWTF); and
=> Relatively short implementation time, therefore less expensive than MIC.
Detailed results of these two studies are provided in Biocorrosion Potential at Old O-Field(March 1999) and Chem/ca//y Enhanced Corrosion Potential at Old O-Field (June 1999).
4.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK
4.3.1 Remedy Selection
The ROD for OU3, signed in September 1997, specified Limited Action as the most appropriateremedy for the Watson Creek sediment (APG, 1997d). The selected remedy involved implementation of
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-13 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 4.0Remedial Actions
the following actions at Watson Creek: institutional controls, physical security measures, public educationprograms, long-term monitoring (LTM) of site conditions; and five-year reviews.
Institutional controls such as access restrictions and land-use restrictions are currently in place atOU3. Watson Creek is located in a restricted area of APG; therefore, access to this area is strictlycontrolled by APG security. The restricted area is also subject to random patrols by armed securitypersonnel. Additional access restrictions may be required at Watson Creek in the future if securitypractices are downgraded, however this is not anticipated considering the current activities at APG.
Land-use restrictions include: 1) the posting of signs prohibiting unauthorized entry into WatsonCreek; 2) the prohibition of activities at Watson Creek other than future monitoring; 3) inputting theserestrictions into APG's Geographical Information System (CIS), which is utilized in the development ofAPG's Real Property Master Plan; and 4) incorporation of these restrictions/prohibitions into any realproperty documents necessary for transferring ownership from the Army, in the unlikely event that theArmy sells the property. The real property documents would also include a discussion of the NPL statusof the site, as well as a description of the contamination at this site. The Army will certify to the EPA on anannual basis that there have been no violations of these prohibitions. If a violation has occurred, adescription of the violation and corrective actions to be taken will be provided.
In conjunction with institutional controls, existing physical security measures shall be maintainedand additional security measures will be implemented, as needed. Physical security measures includethe posting of signs and maintenance of fences within the restricted area.
A public education program is being developed to inform workers and local residents of thepotential hazards due to the presence of UXO in the sediment, and potential impacts to the aquaticenvironment caused by the disturbance of contaminated sediment in Watson Creek.
4.3.2 Remedy Implementation
A Project Plan for Remedial Actions at Watson Creek was finalized in March 1999, which outlinesthe long-term monitoring objectives for OU3 regarding contaminant distribution in relation to major stormevents, changes in ecological risks, and bioaccumulation of contaminants in the ecosystem. This planalso outlines the following activities which will be conducted as part of the public education program:preparation of a fact sheet, periodic newsletter updates, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetingupdates, APG Boaters Guide updates (including internet information and news releases), distribution ofinformation at public meetings and community events, and worker education (APG, 1999e). Remedialactions at Watson Creek will be accomplished according to the following schedule (Table 4-4).
TABLE 4-4.WATSON CREEK REMEDIAL ACTION SCHEDULE
ity Frequency Start Date
Public Education
Bathymetry and SedimentCharacterization
Continuous
One-time field survey
Storm Event Hydrology Continuous tidalmonitoring
Winter 1998/1999
Summer 1999
Winter 1998/1999
Sediment Chemistry andBioassay
At least annuallyfollowing a major stormevent
Initially after a major storm event. Ifthere are no substantial stormevents prior to August 1999,sampling will be conducted at thattime.
Tissue Sampling and Analysis(Bioaccumulation Investigation)
One-time investigation August - October 1999
Source: APG, 1999e.
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
4-14 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
Section 40Remedial Actions
4.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
Sediment samples will be collected for both chemical analysis and bioassays. Tidal monitoringdata will also be measured on a continuous basis. These results will be evaluated in subsequent five-year reviews to ensure that there are no changes which would raise the human health or ecological risksassociated with Watson Creek. Annual O&M costs are outlined in Table 4-5.
TABLE 4-5.ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR OU3: WATSON CREEK*
DAIFROM
October 1997
October 1 998
F E S • • , ' ' • ' ^ • • ' . : " ' • •
:£•-• , : :' : "to". •:•••September 1998
September 1999
TXJTALCOST(ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1,000)
$259,000"
$34,000
O&M costs include oversight, base support, equipment, and materials.
** Includes costs for the five-year LTM contract.
4.4 OU4: NEWO-FIELD
4.4.1 Remedy Selection
Remedial alternatives are being evaluated for OU4, but remedy selection has not occurred as ofJuly 1999. Due to the complicated nature of this OU, alternatives have been developed separately foreach area of concern (marsh and woods, disposal trenches, and groundwater) and may or may not beaddressed under one ROD.
Alternatives for the Marsh and Woods (UXO Impacted Area)
« No Action;
« Limited Action;
. Sand Cover;
Surface Clearance of UXO and Off-Site Disposal,
Surface Clearance of UXO, "Hot Spot" Removal, and Off-Site Disposal; and
Surface Clearance of UXO, "Hot Spot" and Surface Debris Removal, and Off-Site Disposal.
Alternatives for the Disposal Trenches
. No Action;
Limited Action;
Soil Cover Over the Two Open Trenches and Repair of the Covered Trenches;
Excavation, On-Site Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal; and
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal.
Alternatives for the Groundwater
« No Action;
Limited Action/Monitored Natural Attenuation; and
. In-Situ Biodegradation.
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-15 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 40Remedial Actions ' - J '-:A.j.
More than one ROD may be necessary to address all of the areas of concern. Therefore, caremust be taken to select remedial actions that are compatible with each other. For example, if a sandcover is chosen for the UXO impacted area, natural attenuation in groundwater may effectively halt in theshort term. Also, if the disposal trenches are left unaddressed, in-situ biodegradation may be necessaryto address a potential increase in groundwater contamination. In contrast, if the disposal trenches areremoved, monitored natural attenuation could be a preferred alternative for groundwater. The first RODfor OU4 is anticipated in late 1999.
4.4.2 Remedy Implementation
Implementation of the selected remedy(ies) for New 0-Field is scheduled to begin in 2000/2001.
4.4.3 Operation and Maintenance
O&M will be determined at a later date based on the remedy(ies) selected for OU4.
DACA31-94-D-0064 4-16 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
5.0 1 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINDINGS
5.1 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
The five-year review was led by Cindy Powels, O-Field Project Officer, DSHE, APG. Thefollowing team members assisted in the analysis and/or review:
Gerald Garcia, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) - DSHE;
. Paul Harvey, ORISE - DSHE ;
Steven Hirsh, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region III;
Kathy Davies, Hydrogeologist, EPA Region III;
• Curtis DeTore, Remedial Project Manager, MDE;
• Victor Cohut, O-Field Project Manager, IT Corporation,
Timothy Longe, O-Field Technical Manager, IT Corporation; and
Jennifer Harris, O-Field Project Engineer, IT Corporation.
The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review,interviews, site inspection, ARARs review, and data review. There were no significant changes in theARARs or site contaminants; therefore, site risks were not recalculated. The community was informed ofthe five-year review through the RAB meeting in April 1999.
5.2 INTERVIEWS
Interviews were conducted with the following Maryland Environmental Service (MES) personnel(GWTF O&M contractor) on May 27, 1999:
Robert Shewell, Plant Superintendent;
Joseph Ambrozewicz, Public Health Engineer IV; and
Edward Ramos, Environmental Systems Operator III.
A summary of the interview is provided in Appendix C. The following modifications to the GES andGWTF have been performed by MES since January 1998:
• Well Field:
==> Replaced all down-hole Clean Environment Pumps (air-pressured bottom-loading auto-pumps) with surface mounted double-diaphragm pumps in the well field to reduce ironfouling,
=> Replaced the elapsed time indicators with flow meters to provide a more accuratemeasurement;
:=> Replaced the pump and installation of a level controller in T-18 to improve performance,provide a steadier flow to the GWTF, and reduce organic vapors in the tank;
=> Replaced the conveyance lines running from the extraction wells to T-18 (planned forsummer 1999) to improve performance; and
=> Connected the emergency generator to the air compressors to provide electricity to thewell field in the event of a power outage.
. GWTF:
=> Installed air operated clean-outs for the sand filter to improve performance;
DACA31-94-D-0064 5-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 5.0Five-Year Findings
=> Upgraded all pumps in the plant from 30 gpm to 45 gpm to allow for an increased influentflowrate;
=> Removed the previously disconnected sodium metabisulfite tank and lines to providebetter access to the active tanks and lines in this area;
=> Replaced all of the 55-gal vapor phase carbon units with new more efficient units; and
=> Relocated the T-6 acid feed from directly into the tank to the line leading to the tank toimprove performance.
During the interview the O&M contractor listed the following additional modifications that wereunder consideration: replacing the air stripper with two additional liquid phase carbon units, modifying thebiomonitoring system, adding a second cleanout access port on the clarifier, and replacing the sand filter.
The contractor also mentioned that the effluent has remained within compliance limits since 1998and the only major O&M concerns have been related to leaks and conductivity problems associated withthe biomonitoring facility. Regular maintenance includes checking the extraction system every shift,blowing out the conveyance lines weekly, and servicing the plant equipment as per manufacturers'specifications. Overall, according to the O&M contractor the plant runs well. Currently, the GWTF isoperating at 36 gpm and upon approval from MDE and DSHE, the influent flow rate will be increased to40 gpm.
5.3 SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection was conducted by IT Corporation personnel on May 27, 1999. During the siteinspection, personnel visited the GWTF, well field, PIU, Watson Creek, and New O-Field. As mentionedpreviously, O-Field is located in a restricted area of the installation; however, fences are located aroundthe perimeter of the O-Field landfill and extraction system well field. A few sections of the fence aroundthe well field have been temporarily relocated, but will be reinstalled once field activities have beencompleted. The gravel roads surrounding the landfill and asphalt road leading to New O-Field (WatsonCreek Road) do not appear to be damaged. The PIU on the surface of the landfill appears to be in goodcondition, with no signs of settlement, cracks, erosion, or holes. The gravel surface is also free ofvegetation, to minimize the risk of fire. There are no signs of erosion or instability on the slopes of thelandfill. All of the monitoring wells and extraction wells are functioning properly and have locking caps.
During the site visit, the elevation in Watson Creek was higher than that in Gunpowder River.Waterfowl were seen in the area. Signs posted near the culvert between Watson Creek and theGunpowder River state:
WARNING:WATSON CREEK IS CLOSED
For Information/Authorization on Access to Watson Creek, Contact:USAGAPG Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment
Environmental Conservation and Restoration DivisionBuilding E4430(410)436-3320.
The fence at New O-Field was locked properly and in good condition. Signs posted at the edgeof the cleared area state the following:
DANGER - NO TRESPASSINGUNEXPLODED ORDNANCEUS ARMY PROPERTY
KEEP OUT.
The once regularly mowed area was overgrown with tall grass and the disposal area continued to showvisible signs of settlement. Monitoring wells at the site were properly secured.
DACA31-94-D-0064 5-2 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 50Five-Year Findings .• -•'. ^! f\Ja |
5.4 ARARS REVIEW
As required by the NCR, selected remedies must be in compliance with all "applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements" (ARARs). ARARs are the cleanup standards, standards of control, andother substantive environmental requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or Statelaw that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, orother circumstance of a Superfund site. The ARARs for the site are reviewed in this section by OU.
5.4.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater
The GWTF effluent is required to comply with the discharge requirements discussed in Section4.1.3, including: Maryland Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria and NPDES discharge limits. No changes inthe ARARs have been identified which affect the cleanup levels and/or the protectiveness of the remedyfor OU1.
5.4.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area
The following ARARs are applicable to air monitoring at OU2: National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS); Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), Title 26, Subtitle 11; AR 385-61 (TheArmy Chemical Agent Safety Program); and DA RAM 385-61 (Toxic Chemical Safety Standards). Thereare no changes in the aforementioned ARARs which would affect the cleanup levels and/or theprotectiveness of the remedy for OU2.
5.4.3 OU3: Watson Creek
State surface water quality standards and Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) wereapplied to surface water at Watson Creek. Location-specific ARARs included Federal and Stateregulations protecting endangered or threatened species; migratory birds; and bald and golden eagles. Nochanges to these ARARs have been identified which would affect current plans for long-term monitoring atWatson Creek.
5.4.4 OU4: New O-Field
The following chemical-specific ARARs are applicable to OU4: Risk-Based Concentrations(RBCs) for tap water and soil; and EPA Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)Screening Levels for flora and fauna. RBC values were obtained from the EPA Region III RBC table, April1998. Although there have been changes to the RBC table since April 1998, none significantly impactthe original results of the human health risk assessment. There have been no significant changes to theBTAG Screening Levels since the risk assessment was completed in 1998; therefore, ecological riskshave not been reevaluated.
5.5 DATA REVIEW
A summary of the data reviewed for the five-year review is provided in this section. Data hasbeen provided through the end of the 1st quarter of this year (March 1999).
5.5.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater
5.5.1.1 Well Field Data
As of June 1999, there were 14 extraction wells in the WTA, 58 monitoring wells in the WTA, 17well points and creek well points, and 19 monitoring wells in the UCA (including the three non-commissioned extraction wells in the UCA). The location of monitoring wells, extraction wells, and wellpoints at Old O-Field are presented on Figure 4-1.
For the first two years of GWTF operation (1995 to 1997), groundwater sampling was conductedquarterly at 25 WTA wells (including 12 extraction well locations), seven UCA wells, and two surfacewater locations. Since 1997, 37 new monitoring wells have been installed in the WTA (Section 4.1.4).Modifications have been made to the long-term monitoring program to replace the extraction wellssampled with corresponding monitoring wells. Currently, groundwater samples are collected quarterlyfrom approximately 30 wells and analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, CWM (mustard)
DACA31-94-D-0064 5-3 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 5.0 _Five-Year Findings f)T?i (•> r r\; ~i
degradation products, and wet chemistry parameters. Select groundwater samples are also analyzedannually for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, radionuclides, nerve agent degradation products, andexplosives compounds. Historical analytical data for the sampled wells are presented in Appendix D.
Based on the groundwater monitoring data, contour maps are drawn representing total VOCconcentrations and total CWM (mustard) degradation products found in the WTA and in the UCA. Sampleisoconcentration maps for November 1997 are provided in Appendix D. Additional isoconcentrationmaps for VOCs and CWM (mustard) degradation products in the WTA and UCA are available in thequarterly sampling reports for Old O-Field.
In the WTA, contamination from VOC and CWM (mustard) degradation products is highest in thecentral part of the well field. There is an area of especially high concentration near wells EX3A, PM3Aand EX8A. This is consistent with a zone of high hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer. Concentrations inthe northern edge of the well field where wells MW02, PM1 and EX1 are located, and the southern edgeof the well field where MW01 and new wells OF61, OF62, and OF63 are located, tend to taper off.Estimated non-detect lines are located just beyond the last sampled monitoring well locations. In general,contaminant concentrations in the WTA demonstrate seasonal fluctuation, with VOCs generallydecreasing and CWM (mustard) degradation products remaining relatively constant.
In the UCA, the areas of highest concentration tend to mimic those in the WTA. For example,maximum VOC concentrations are found in wells EX3B, PM3B, and EX8B. In these wells, VOCconcentrations appear to be increasing over time; whereas, CWM (mustard) degradation products haveremained rather consistent. However, there is only limited groundwater monitoring data for this aquifer.
In addition to the chemical data, weekly water measurements and daily extraction pump rates areused to evaluate capture at Old O-Field. Since startup in 1995, total extraction rates for the well field havevaried from 10 gpm to as high as 30 gpm. In addition to localized influences from the extraction system,variations in water levels in the WTA are significantly impacted by seasonal fluctuations (i.e., rainfall).Potentiometric maps are constructed weekly and provided in the quarterly sampling reports for Old O-Field. Sample potentiometric maps are provided in Appendix D.
5.5.1.2 Surface Water
Two surface water samples (SW1 and SW2) are collected near well points CWP2A and CWP6during each quarterly sampling event. Since the GWTF has been in operation, total VOCs have rangedfrom below quantitation limits to 207 ug/L (February 1997) in SW1 and 44.48 ug/L (January 1996) in SW2.During this same time frame, total CWM (mustard) degradation products have ranged from belowquantitation limits to 398.6 ug/L (February 1997) in SW1 and 48.9 ug/L (May 1997). Contaminantconcentrations demonstrate season variation, but appear to be decreasing over time. Historical analyticaldata for the two surface water sample locations are presented in Appendix D.
5.5.1.3 GWTF Effluent Data
The GWTF discharged over 23 million gallons to the Gunpowder River from September 1996 toMarch 1999. The average daily discharge rate (based on monthly averages of daily discharge) during thisperiod was 32,556 gallons. A summary of average daily discharge quantities is provided in Table 5-1 andFigure E-1 in Appendix E.
The GWTF effluent discharge data are monitored in comparison with compliance limitsestablished by MDE (Section 4.1.3). The following effluent discharge parameters are evaluated: waterquality (D.O., pH and temperature), metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, copper, iron, lead, nickel andzinc), TSS and turbidity, and total VOCs. Three CWM degradation products (thiodiglycol, 1,4-dithiane and1,4-oxathiane) are also monitored; however, these chemicals do not have effluent discharge limits.Water quality parameters are monitored hourly, while the remaining parameters are analyzed monthly(currently twice a month, but changed in the ESD to once a month). As mentioned in Section 4.1.2, theeffluent is also continuously monitored by the biomonitoring system. A detailed discussion of the effluentmonitoring program is provided in the O&M Manual (APG, 1996c).
DACA31-94-D-0064 5-4 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 5.0Five-Year Findings
TABLE 5-1.OLD O-FIELD GWTF
AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FLOW SUMMARYSEPTEMBER 1996 TO MARCH 1999
Month
Sep-1996Oct-1996
Nov-1996
Dec-1996Jan-1997Feb-1997Mar-1997
Apr-1997
May-1997Jun-1997
Jul-1997Aug-1997
Sep-1997Oct-1997
Nov-1997Dec-1997
Jan-1998Feb-1998
Mar-1998Apr-1998May-1998Jun-1998
Jul-1998
Aug-1998Sep-1998Oct-1998
Nov-1998Dec-1998
Jan-1999Feb-1999
Mar-1999
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Total
Monthly AverageDaily Discharge(gallons per day)
27,905
28,181
28,399
32,35336,80733,855
35,845
32,01930,752
30,33532,14130,44028,18228,267
29,380
31,14932,634
37,083
35,22936,27035,241
36,466
33,473
34,40427,91727,854
31,82635,300
34,66636,136
38,717
32,55638,717
27,854N/A
Number ofDischarge
Days
30
30
25 I
25
2324
25
20
22222221
20
2021
252320
252222
23
24
2324
25
2322
2119
23
23
30
19714
TotalGallons
Discharged
837,141845,441
709,971
808,823846,551812,520896,123
640,383
676,549667,364707,094
639,232563,649
565,330616,980
778,715750,583
741,650880,725797,935775,311838,729803,357
791,301670,007696,362
731,988776,598727,980
686,588
890,485
747,467
896,123
563,649
23,171,465
N/A Not Applicable
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
5-5 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
Section 50Five-Year Findings
?•-»-;,, .•Jt-i V
Water quality parameters (D.O., pH, and temperature) are monitored on an hourly basis usingcalibrated meters located on the effluent line. A summary of the data collected from September 1996 toMarch 1999 is provided in Table 5-2. Figures E-2 through E-4 demonstrate that discharge occurredwithin the set regulatory limits of the aforementioned parameters for the GWTF; hence, no dischargeviolations occurred.
TABLE 5-2.OLD O-FIELD GWTF
EFFLUENT MONITORING SYSTEM DATA SUMMARYSEPTEMBER 1996 TO MARCH 1999
Parameter
Limits
AVERAGEMAXIMUMMINIMUM
# of Data Points
D.O.(mg/L)
>5.0
8.1716.245.01
12,884
PH(std units)
6.5 - 8.5
N/A8.256.87
12,882
Temperature(°C)
< 32.2°
22.431.010.3
12,884
Samples are collected from the influent and effluent lines, and various unit processes along thetreatment train. Summaries of the results of influent and performance monitoring are provided in theOperations Summary Report for the Old O-Field GWTF, September 1996 - January 1998 (APG, 1998b),and subsequent quarterly reports. Effluent characteristics monitored for compliance (VOCs, total metals,TSS, and turbidity) are plotted versus effluent discharge limits on Figures E-5 through E-15. Graphs arenot provided for CWM (mustard) degradation products since they were not detected in the effluentsamples. Figures E-5 through E-15 show that discharge occurred within the compliance limits of theaforementioned parameters for the GWTF; hence, no discharge violations occurred.
5.5.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area
Data from more than four years of continuous real-time monitoring using the ACEM and MINICAMsystems have never been positive, even prior to construction of the PIU when the munitions were at least5.5 feet closer to the ground surface. In 1998, EPA conducted flux chamber sampling on the surface ofthe PIU and identified no detectable levels of chemical agents (EPA, 1999).
5.5.3 OU3: Watson Creek
Monitoring data is not yet available for OU3. The Project Plan for Watson Creek was finalized inMarch 1999, and initial sampling is scheduled for late summer/early fall 1999. Sampling and analysisdata will be evaluated in subsequent five-year reviews.
5.5.4 OU4: New O-Field
The ROD(s) for OU4 has not yet been finalized. It is highly likely that LTM will be a component ofthe selected remedy(ies) for this OU; therefore, sampling and analysis data will be evaluated '~subsequent five-year reviews.
in
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
5-6 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
16.0 ASSESSMENT
The remedies selected for O-Field OUs 1 through 3 remain protective of human health and theenvironment. This determination is supported by the conclusions presented in this section.
6.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
6.1.1 Effectiveness of Remedy
The GES and GWTF are effective in meeting the remedial action objectives for OU1, which are toprevent migration of contaminated groundwater to Watson Creek and to adequately treat extractedgroundwater before discharge to the Gunpowder River. The GES is providing continuous capture ofcontaminated groundwater from Old O-Field by maintaining an inward gradient toward the extractionwells. The GWTF is also treating the extracted groundwater to within or below compliance limits prior todischarge.
6.1.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M
The O&M requirements for OU1 are adequate and properly implemented. Maintenance activitiesin both the well field and plant help to optimize performance of the GES and GWTF systems. Long-termO&M of the GES and GWTF may be necessary, because the source remains in place at OU2.
6.1.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure
No early indicators of remedy failure have been identified.
6.1.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels
The remedy for OU1 continues to achieve the remedial action objectives, paraphrased in Section6.1.1, as contaminated groundwater is intercepted and extracted before it can discharge to any surfacewater body or migrate off site. There are no cleanup levels for groundwater because the remedy is acontainment measure, the source of contamination is still in place, and groundwater is not a source ofdrinking water. However, performance and monitoring data show that groundwater is adequately treatedto within or below compliance limits prior before discharge.
6.1.5 Opportunities for Optimization
Several optimization studies have been performed for the GES and GWTF. Upgrades have beenmade to the existing pumps in the well field and additional extraction wells have been installed.Modifications have also been made to the GWTF to increase the influent flow rate near 40 gpm. Asmentioned in Section 4.1.4, future opportunities for optimization include implementing therecommendations of the efficiency study, replacing the freshwater biomonitoring system, and upgradingthe recorders in the control panel which were identified for Y2K corrective action.
6.1.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors
There have been no changes in ARARs or risk-related factors associated with OU1.
6.1.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site
There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources, or pathways at OU1. However,the UCA will be re-evaluated once the results of the August 1999 pump test are obtained.
6.2 OU2: OLD O-FIELD SOURCE AREA
6.2.1 Effectiveness of Remedy
The PIU provides an effective cover for the Old O-Field source area, by eliminating the risk of afire and decreasing the likelihood and impact of a potential explosive event. CWM vapors have not beendetected over the four years of continuous air monitoring. Long-term O&M is required to ensure that thePIU provides adequate blast and vapor protection.
DACA31-94-0-0064 6-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 6.0 r
Assessment J r> I
6.2.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M
The O&M requirements specified for OU2 are adequate and properly implemented. ContinuedO&M may be required for an extended period of time, unless the source can be remediated in a shortertime frame.
6.2.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure
There are no early indicators of potential remedy failure for OU2.
6.2.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels
The PIU currently meets the remedial action objectives set for OU2.
6.2.5 Opportunities for Optimization
As discussed in Section 4.2.4, the following opportunities for optimization are being consideredfor OU2: i) modification of the existing air monitoring system; and, ii) integration studies to evaluate in-situ remediation.
6.2.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors
There have been no changes in ARARs or risk-related factors associated with OU2.
6.2.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site
There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources, or pathways at OU2.
6.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK
6.3.1 Effectiveness of Remedy
Limited action was selected as the remedy for OU3. The data collection activities on site arescheduled to begin in Summer 1999. Therefore, effectiveness of the remedy will be evaluated at a laterdate.
6.3.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M
The plans for LTM at OU3 seem adequate, but will be re-evaluated if monitoring resultsdemonstrate the need for additional action.
6.3.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure
There are no early indicators of potential remedy failure for OU3.
6.3.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels
The institutional controls, public education program, and LTM program planned for OU3 meet theremedial action objectives for the site.
6.3.5 Opportunities for Optimization
There are currently no opportunities for optimization for OU3.
6.3.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors
There have been no changes in ARARs or risk-related factors associated with OU3.
6.3.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site
There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources, or pathways at OU3.
6.4 OU4: NEWO-FIELD
6.4.1 Effectiveness of Remedy
As of June 1999, the remedy for OU4 has not been selected.
DACA31-94-D-0064 6-2 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 6.0Assessment
6.4.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M
Not applicable.
6.4.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure
Not applicable.
6.4.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels
Not applicable.
6.4.5 Opportunities for Optimization
Not applicable.
6.4.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors
There have been no changes in ARARs or risk-related factors associated with OU4.
6.4.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site
There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources, or pathways at OU4.
DACA31-94-D-0064 6-3 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
7.0 DEFICIENCIES
There have been no deficiencies identified as a result of this five-year review.
DACA31-94-D-0064 7-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIRED ACTIONS
Although there were no identified deficiencies, the following recommendations have beendeveloped as a result of the five-year review:
OU1: O&M and groundwater monitoring should continue for OU1, to maintain protection ofhuman health and the environment. In addition, one data gap has been identified regarding pumping ofthe UCA. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, it was determined during the design of the extraction systemthat pumping the UCA could actually drawdown additional contamination from the more heavilycontaminated WTA; therefore, the UCA extraction wells were never commissioned. A recent evaluation ofthe trends in the UCA wells has shown a potential increase in contaminant concentrations. As a result, aUCA pump test has been scheduled for August 1999. Based on the results of this test and recentchemical sampling in the UCA, a determination should be made whether or not to begin pumping theUCA.
OU2: O&M should continue for OU2, to maintain the integrity of the cover and ensure that thesprinkler system will operate properly in the event of an emergency. In addition, further evaluation of in-situ treatment technologies to potentially integrate and optimize the performance of the PIU and GWTFsystems is recommended.
OU3: Implementation of the long-term monitoring program should continue as outlined in theROD for Watson Creek.
OU4: The priority for OU4 is selection of appropriate remedial actions for the three areas ofconcern (marsh and woods, disposal trenches, and groundwater). Once remedies are determined andimplemented, long-term monitoring and O&M needs should be evaluated.
Table 8-1.Recommendations and Required Actions
feommendation7quired Action
Continuing O&M/Monitoring at OU1 and OU2
Long-Term Monitoring for OU3
UCA Pump Test
Pumping of the UCA (TBD)
Technology Evaluation forIn-Situ Remediation of theSource Area (OU2)
Remedy Selection for OU4
LeadAgency
Army
Army
Army
Army
Army
Army
MilestoneDate
Ongoing
Ongoing
1999
TBD
1999-2001
1999-2001
OversightAgency
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
i ... .. .,EPA
Does the ActionCurrently AffectProtectiveness?
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
N/A
DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999
8-1 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area
Final Document
9.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS
The remedies at OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater), OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area), and OU3(Watson Creek) are protective of human health and the environment. The remedy at OU4 (New O-FieldSource Area and Groundwater) has not been selected.
OU1: The GES/GWTF provides adequate containment of the contaminated groundwateremanating from the Old O-Field landfill. Weekly groundwater contour maps confirm that capture ismaintained between the landfill and Watson Creek. The system is operating as designed and noadditional threats to human health or the environment have been identified since the system wasimplemented in 1995.
OU2: Placement of the PIU on the surface of the Old O-Field landfill protects human health andthe environment by eliminating exposure to surface munitions/containers, reducing the risk offire/explosion, and providing blast protection in the unlikely event of an explosion. The sand cover alsominimizes the transport of CWM vapor from the buried containers to the surface. Studies have beenconducted recently which identified enhanced in-situ treatment as a means to further reduce the potentialfor an explosion at Old O-Field. Overall, the remedy for OU2 is functioning as designed and no additionalthreats to human health or the environment have been identified since the system was completed in 1998.
OU3: Although the levels of contamination in the Watson Creek sediment were not identified asa threat to human health, the potential for encountering UXO was identified as a risk during the RI/FS.Localized areas were also identified that might adversely affect benthic communities. Due to the potentialshort-term risks from buried UXO, Limited Action was selected for OU3. By limiting disturbance of thesediment through institutional controls, potential adverse effects to both humans and benthic communitieshave been minimized. LTM activities will be conducted to ensure that the remedy provides an adequateprotection of human health and the environment.
OU4: The remedy for the New O-Field source area and groundwater has not been selected atthis time. However, it is anticipated that all remedial actions selected for New O-Field will be protective ofhuman health and the environment.
DACA31-94-D-0064 9-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
[10.0 NEXT REVIEW |
This is a statutory site that requires ongoing five-year reviews. Based on the initial trigger date ofJune 11, 1992, the Army will conduct the next five-year review for O-Field and the Edgewood Area byJune 11, 2002.
DACA31-94-D-0064 10-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
111.0 REFERENCES
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1991. Interim Action Record of Decision Old O-FieldSite. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Final Report. September 1991.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1993. Containment and Treatment of ContaminatedGroundwater at Old O-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by Roy F. Westonand the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August 1993.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1994. Interim Remedial Action - Aberdeen Proving GroundOld O-Field Source Area, Record of Decision. Final Document. Prepared by ICF KaiserEngineers. September 1994.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1995. Design Report for the Old O-Field Source Area,Aberdeen Proving Ground. Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers. January 1995.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1996a. Old O-Field Source Area Subsurface TricklingSystem Plan & Details. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. May 1996.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1996b. Old O-Field Source Area Permeable InfiltrationUnit, Substitution of Geogrid for Hydraulic Compaction. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers.June 1996.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1996c. Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment FacilityOperations and Maintenance Manual. Draft Document. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. andU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 1996.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1997a. Focused Feasibility Study for Watson Creek.Aberdeen Proving Ground. Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers. June 1997.
APG, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1997b. "Top of Stone Survey Compared to Final Sand Survey'.O-Field, Aberdeen, Maryland. Prepared by Roy F. Weston and the US Army Corps of Engineers.July 26, 1997.
APG, US. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1997c. Evaluation of Air Monitoring Alternatives, Old O-Field. Draft Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.September 1997.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1997d. Record of Decision - Remedial Action, WatsonCreek Sediment (O-Field Operable Unit 3). Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers.September 1997.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1998a. Modification of Well Field at Old O-Field.Phase I Technical Report. Draft Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers. March 1998.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1998b. Operations Summary Report for the Old 0-Field Groundwater Treatment Facility, September 1996 - January 1999. Prepared by ICF KaiserEngineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. March 1998.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1998c. Explanation of Significant Differences from theInterim Action Record of Decision. Aberdeen Proving Ground. Final Document. Prepared byICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November 1998.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999a. Needs Assessment for the GroundwaterContainment and Treatment System of the O-Field Landfill at Aberdeen Proving Ground.Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation. January 1999.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999b. Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment FacilityTreatment Capacity Evaluation. Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. January 1999.
DACA31-94-D-0064 11-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
Section 11.0References J > -.'
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999c. Feasibility Study for New O-Field (O-FieldOperable Unit 4), Draft Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers. February 1999.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1999d. Remedial Investigation Report for the O-Field Area -Phase I. Aberdeen Proving Ground. Revised Draft Final Document. Prepared by ICF KaiserEngineers. March 1999.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999e. Project Plan for Remedial Actions - WatsonCreek (O-Field Operable Unit 3). Prepared by General Physics Corporation. March 1999.
APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999f. Groundwater Flow Model for the O-Field Area.Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May1999.
DOE, Department of Energy, 1992. A Manual for the Prediction of Blast and Fragment Loadings onStructures, February 1992.
EPA. 1999. Trip Report for Flux Chamber Sampling at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Edgewood, MD. FromDavid B. Mickunas, Chemist, EPA Environmental Response Team Center, To Cindy Powels,Environmental Engineer, DSHE, APG. January, 1999.
Nemeth, G. 1989. RCRA Facility Assessment Report, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,Maryland. U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
Tarno, Robert L 1994. An Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risk at Old O-Field: An Overview of theExplosive Element, Draft Document. Prepared for ICF KE by Denver Research Institute, Denver,CO.
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1977. An Assessment of Surface Waters, Aberdeen ProvingGround- Edgewood Area, Maryland. Water Quality Biological Survey No. 24-0043-78.
USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989. Ground-Water, Surface-Water,and Bottom-Sediment Contamination in the O-Field Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,and the Possible Effects of Selected Remedial Actions on Ground-Water. Open-File Report 89-399.
USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). 1996. Hydrogeologic Setting,Hydraulic Properties, and Groundwater Flow at the O-Field Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground,Maryland. Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4248.
Yon, R.L., D.J. Wenz, and C. Brenner. 1978. Information Relevant to Disposal of Hazardous Material atO-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Record Evaluation Report 1978-1, ChemicalSystems Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.
Yon, Roy. 1994. Various written and personal communications including Memorandum ConcerningRational Percentages of CWM and Other Materials in O-Field. SciTech Services, Inc.,May5, 1994.
DACA31-94-D-0064 11 -2 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document
-A'.jL
Appendix AO-Field Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Data Summary
Table A-1.Comparison of Maximum Groundwater Chemical
Concentrations Detected with Water Quality Criteria*
fPARAMETER
Antimony
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2-Dichioroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
1,4-Dithiane
Thiodiglycol
MAX. CONC.
DETECTED
(PPb)
100
2,243
11,000
134,000
245,000
108,000
17,400
30,700
859,000
7,890
6,040
750
430
15,000
2,420
14
295
2,430
18,600
6,407
360
2,586
219
3,860
2,200
5,154
1,000,000
CWA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
'FRESHWATER
ACUTE,
•^••fiipibK-88
360
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
120
5,300
35,200
250
28,900
118,000
11,600
32,000
-
-
5,280
17,500
11,600
18,000
45,000
CHRONIC(Ppb)
30
190
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
110
1,240
20,000
:2,400
840
-
--
9,400
21,000
MARINE
ACUTE(PPb)
1,500
69
-
-
-
-
-
-
95
5,100
50,000
160
113,000
220,400
430
9,020
10,200
6,300
224,000
-
2,000
CHRONIC(PPb)
500
36
-
-
-
-
-
-
86
-
129
450
5,000
-
—
--
* Source: OU1 ROD (APG, 1991).
A-1
Table A-2.Summary of Chemicals Detected in Watson Creek
Sediment, O-Field Area, 1993 -1996">
Chemical
Inorganics (mg/kg):
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency ofDetection
85/85
85/85
85/85
33/85
29/85
85/85
85/85
84/85
80/85
85/85
85/85
85/85
~85/85
72/85
85/85
85/85
42/85
13/85
85/85
85/85
80/85
Range of DetectedOn-Site Concentrations"3'
281 -22,000
0.467-82.5
1.05-111
0.451 -3.35
1.36-4.62
179-4,510
1.22-132
4.3-31.3
0.737-305
771 -41,200
1.05-109
1 32 - 5,970
10.3-637
0.23-5.91
1.49-42.7
79-2,190
0.97-3.66
0.14-7.34
573-11,110
0.906-43.5
16.2-1,130
Organics (^g/kg):
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Butanone
Diethyl phthalate
Methylene chloride
4,4-DDE
5/27
5/18
3/27
5/27
2/27
4/18
140-1,500
770-4,100
17-57
71-180
3V-100
20.7-^34.5
10,100-16,300
4.8-7.1
50.8-74.3
2.4
ND
1,590-3,070
29.2-35.2
21.8-28.4
67.8-80.2
28, OOO"- 327666 '"
59.8-91.4
3,780-5,480
231 -367
ND
42.3-49.1
1,730-2,230
1 2 -3.2
ND "
4,210-8,190
41.7-588
283-410
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CWM Degradation Products (mg/kg):
1,4-Dithiane 1/17 21,000 ND
Notes:ND = Not Detected(a) Chemicals not detected substantially above the levels reported in laboratory or field
blanks (validated as "B") were exduded from this summary.(b) Summary of all three sediment sampling events at Watson Creek: Phase I - September 1993;
Phase II - March 1995; and Phase III - June 1996.(c) Background samples were collected from Dundee Creek and Saltpeter Creek in October 1992.
A-2
TABLE A-3SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
1993
MHBt- .1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichtoroethene
1 ,2-Dichtoroethene (total)
Acetone
Benzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
SVOCaJBg/l) -rt; /• :,;• :>-;\M;;,J&V,,
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichtorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichtorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Chloroaniline
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Diethylphthalate
Phenol
DEG pmoN pRODuetSi(ug/ij a1 ,4-Dithiane
1 ,4-Oxathiane
Diisopropylmethylphosphonate
sopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA)
Methyl phosphonic acid
METALf (ug/l)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
CopperIron
S fe&F V'tfU'Jf-sS^Vi ^14' "^rftrm *§lBt i**h- Ahvr •
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
• ' . - . . - . . : . . . ' ' ;?•:-. 'I..
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
.-* • "''•<':$'• "'''•' ' ' ' • - :
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
50.5-879
2 -11.1
5.4 -132
0.2 -1.1
698-21,000
ND
10.3-18.9
5.2 -24115.6 -29,700
K§2noeisE tcte<&^wIKMMHS.jg j g»|pg ;
SCfSA-*C^SW»-Js'.'*«>" -rsv "vS^SS i /S^&s.-St .-. '
7.3 -48
ND
6.9-11
10-3,000
15
5
ND
5.3 -1,000
0.91
6.9 -47
15 -1,700i.".^;.-^.;.:.,. -'
1.6 -140
1.1 -3.9
7.8 -13
1.1 -14
3.0
5.8
5.3 -5 .5
3.11 -6.6
3.8 -27
1.4 -5.6
ND' '•*';:•?•.• ;"''f." .v..- -'; • -
1.52-2
2.73 -2.97
17.7 -18.6
114 -356
139 -3,120
450 -81,400
2.6 -42.3
14.5 -369
4.0 -9.0
2,150 -36,800
9.5 -879
19.2 -42.5
3.8 -52429 -99,400
va'RanneiDetected'iD^E'
-i Mln ^KSMaxS
29 -31
6.6
ND
10-2,300
ND
9.1 -25
5.6
5.8 -750
ND
6.9 -390
78 -1,500
6.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.0
3.6
2.09-3.47
2.2 -27
1.3-3.8
3.4-15
1.85 -2.47
2.77
38.2 -44.6
302 - 490
143 -1,920
285 -18,700
2.9 -15.6
429 -322
4.2 -5 .2
3,850 -23,600
18.6 -25.8
12.3 -15.6
3.8 - 2 5 7
293 -40,400
A-3
TABLE A-3 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
1993
METALS (upr *«~ -" .'?#.* 5.eadMagnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum (Filtered)
Arsenic (Filtered)
Barium (Filtered)
Calcium (Filtered)
Cobalt (Filtered)
ron (Filtered)
Lead (Filtered)
Magnesium (Filtered)
Manganese (Filtered)
Nickel (Filtered)
Potassium (Filtered)
Sodium (Filtered)
Vanadium (Filtered)
Zinc (Filtered)RADIONUCLIDES (pCi/l)
Gross AlphaGross Beta
^ ^ HI K|EmjEBa8 HTO «|
.* r-i $$w~%*4i1.5 -436
336 -10,750
3.2 -866
0.1
15.4 -24.6
628 - 12,200
1,670 -52,600
ND
5.9 - 74
50.5 - 879
2 -11.1
5.4-132
698 -21,000
10.3 -18.9
15.6 -29,700
1.5 -436
336 -10,750
3.2 -866
15.4 -24.6
628-12,200
1,670 -52,600
ND
5.9 -74
1.0 -11.0
3.6 -17.3
^ BSfJJHHBiPSjBS^ sPii l K;-;-~ ' :- ' • .„*•?. <Cf , ';**• 1« :--:^ fcr;:1
1.50 -56
3,040 -85,800
75.3 -990
1.10
11.10 -85.4
1,060 -18,400
4,690 -37,800
6.20 - 126
20.7 -3,240
97.8 -1,620
5.7 -47.6
10.5 -154
2,190 -35,500
5.8 -31.6
13.3 -19,900
2.3
1,850 -82,400
9.1 -885
10.4 -28
648 -18,400
4,760 -34,800
11.40 -13.7
6.8 -3,200. . ' ' , - - " ! > -
1.70 -10.4
5.5 -16.7
Bmg 8l5iM^K»ji ^B^&J! !l*"|CTT
2.0 -13.3
2,420 -50,800
97.7 -840
ND
14.1 -30.6
540 -13,600
7,300 -31,900
8.2 -26.8
74 -608
46.1 -2,850
7.4 -8.9
30.8 -161
3,940 -24,500
176
59.8 -23,800
1.9
2,430 -56,100
98.7 -786
17
821 -13,900
7,260 -31,900
8.5
9.0 -554
.I," ::'.:;/.,.:••%*$!$. ,.".:.
1.0 -4.1
3.3 -6.8
ND - Not Detected NE - Not Evaluated
A-4
TABLE A-4SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
DECEMBER 1997
li C i P'' W' ii*1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-DichloropropaneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneBromoform
BromomethaneCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroethaneChloroformcis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
-,-1 ,3-DichloropropenemJibromochloromethane
EthylbenzeneMethylene chlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneToluenetrans-1 ,2-Dichloroethenetrans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
TrichloroetheneVinyl chlorideXylene (total)
SVOCs (ug/l)IB1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
• • • ; . . .
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
ND
1 -24
1 -3
ND
5 -6
2
ND
ND
1 -3
ND
ND
ND
ND
2 -3
ND
ND
5 -1,500
ND
ND
1
3 - 12
ND
3 -730
6
1 -12
ND
2 -23
2 -1,400
2 -7
ND
3
4
2 -12
ND
7
ND
27
ffll fflmiMfSffs^m imwwl
2
4 - 12
1 -4
3
4 -7
1 -5
3
10 -16
4 -20
2
1
2
2
2 -5
2
3
4 -790
1
1 -2
3 -4
6 -11
2 -120
2 -980
3 -29
9 -20
1 -2
1 -470
4 -1,000
7 -290
2
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 -2
ND
ND
3 -30
3 -23
ND
17
2 -35
ND
ND
ND
ND
3 -9
ND
ND
47 -790
ND
ND
ND
4 - 12
ND
2 -280
2 -5
5 -54
ND
8 -550
28 -610
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
ND
1
ND
A-5
TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
DECEMBER 1997
| | ^^^ tttt ^Mytefiftj&&t&tt£ttS^^ : ^b^3tt$ittA&& J BI iffl9iMIMIii BttB JB3fElff JPE^ ! ^Si
^KSi3§i08 ^ ' ^w-" .2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzothiazole
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
>Chlorophenylmethylsulfone
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Dimethylphthalate
di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
Phenol
Pyrene
NE
NE
NE
~NE
NE
NE' NE~"
""NE"NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
"NENE
NE
ND
ND
38
ND
ND
4 -5
2
2
ND
2
ND
2
ND
ND
2
ND
4
ND
ND
2 -5
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
2 -190
ND
3
ND
ND
1
DEGRADATION PRODUCTS (ug/l) ;
1,4-Dithiane
1 ,4-Oxathiane
Diisopropylmethylphosphonate
Methyl phosphonic acid
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.1 -1
1.4
9.2 -30.5958 -2,290
iRanqgJR cjgai tfatea
SJMKK ***yjrirtgFftjliiy*j IjLbJ&w
fTE^aa' "{S^i? jr •.'.." * SPR? •**"•" -.,"f"i' 'r-fNjS^^- .••.-, !?*••' •,-, ••• • . -:< '• ';-- •-'•*,' >'•• •>!"*:• '.'•*•.
2 - 3
3
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
3
2 - 14
2 -3
6
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
2
2.1
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
0.7 -1.8
0.2 -1.3
7.8 -20.6836 -942
; ' j ^ ; / :ND
ND
ND
ND
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.9 -1.9
ND
3 _ .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
9 - 12
ND
ND
7 -20
ND
ND
ND
2
i- :.'K; " ' •'- •
0.6 -2
1.7 -2
8.8 -44.91 4 1 - 3 4 2
A-6
TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
DECEMBER 1997
| gHj |m^ ^Hg
^^^SHH^w^wlPESTICIDE^BS (us/If -]•;4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin ketone
gamma-Chlordanef t JJEn?A f |»C y . / f t f« f lHP* • < - ;:/^°;:~*ME: I AUo (VtQfjf! • ' :
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
3arium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
jpper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum (Filtered)
Antimony (Filtered)
Arsenic (Filtered)
Barium (Filtered)
Beryllium (Filtered)
Cadmium (Filtered)Calcium (Filtered)
[B^BSBS gl sJMK
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NEj*JBlt&~ :>ji'" •»•«>%"• 'tV'VrP^l V •-•" : - ^!*>J*i*
50.5 - 879
ND
2 - 11.1
5.4 - 132
0.2 - 1.1
31.8
698 - 21,000
ND
10.3 - 18.9
5.2 - 241
1 5~6 - 29,700
1.5 - 436
'336 '-' 10,750
3.2 - 866
0.1
15.4 - 24.6
628 - 12,200ND
ND
1,670-^52,600
ND
""'ND5.9 - 74
50.5 - 879
ND
2 - 11.1
5.4 - 132
0.2 - 1.1
31.8
698 - 21,000
pBMl|fe'i *? sSP*'M33cP*5l
2.6 - 10
3.6 - 14
3.4 - 12
ND
2.4
19
ND" • - • • , • :'• .. •; ••••<?,;•.. .'• . • . '" • " ' - -.
30.2 -946
ND
3.2 -44.6
33.7 -204
0.1 -0.21
4.1
5,040 -26,400
ND
0.7 -11.8
1.8 -30
320 -19,600
2.3 -61.1
3,590 -99,400
45.2 -1,110
ND
2.1 -19.4
524 - 14,800
ND
ND
5,270 -25,900
2.5 -3 .8
1.5 -23.6
6.8 - 3,020
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.3 - 16
3.9 - 14
1 - 30
2.8
7.6
ND
2.7. i •• . . .. . . , . . , .
26.6 - 106
ND
3.1 -41.5
30.2 - 322
0.15 -0.33
ND
5,870 - 19,600
ND
2.4 -17.4
1.8 -5 .3
257 -41,000
1.2 -13.7
3,960 -56,300
51.3 -1,240
ND
3 -8.5
1,020 -9,300
ND
ND
6,670 -25,200
2.5 -3.6
1.5 -3.2
3.2 -2,150
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i:«M^ *pi8.9 - 28
3.8 - 13
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND>- .' •
68.5 -1,460
2.9
44 -8.8
16.2 -272
0.11 -1.2
0.3 -0.85
2,480 -105,000
051 -7.1
0.69 -26.6
1.2 -15.4
15.7 -129,000
1.1 -18.3
3,430 -155,000
131 -2,630
0.1 -0.17
1.2 -257
517 -28,900
ND
ND
9,900 -1,000,000
ND
2.5 -12
26 -741
20 -855
ND
3.3 -6.6
15.2 -308
0.1 -1.1
0.31 -2.12.490 -131,000
A-7
TABLE A-4 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER
DECEMBER 1997
hromium (Filtered)
CobaltjFiltered)
Copper (Filtered)
Iron (Filtered)
Lead (Filtered)
Magnesium (Filtered)
ManganeseJ F Ntej^ed)
Nickel (Filtered)
Potassium (Filtered)
Sodium (Filtered)
Vanadium (Filtered)
Zinc (Filtered)
ND
10.3 - 18.95.2 - 241
15.6 - 29,700
T.5 - 436336 - 10,750
3.2 - 86615.4 - 24.6
628 - 12,200
1,670 - 52,600
ND
5.9 - 74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.59 -6.5
1 - 26.3
1.1 -9.3
22.4 -99,300
3,41 0 - 1 5 8 , 0 0 0
1.8 -267 __531-29 ,600
9,320 -1,010,000
1.1 -1 .32.5 -645
RADIONUCUDES (pCi/l)
Gross AjphaGross Beta
1.0 - 11.03.6 - 17.3
0.64 -0.790.93 - 1.14
6.611.18
5.6411.8
ND - Not Detected NE - Not Evaluated
A-8
TABLE A-5SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE SOIL
1
IllB IIlETALSsp? ) '"•• " Ufeg
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
otal Cyanide
Vanadium
Zinc
u&vRang« Detected1*
HI Sp>K38HMWMi¥NiS&
2,630 - 16,900
NE
1.09 - 3.74
9.83 - 90.2
0.624 - 1.09
1.4
71.4 - 2,170
5.29 - 70.8
1.5 - 25.6
3 - 27.5
3,190 - 23,500
5.49 - 117
63 - 3,920
4.95 - 1,140
0.07
2.67 - 24.3
95.9 - 1,700
0.442 - 0.497
NE
366 - 658
NE
NE
10.5 - 59.2
4.89 - 242
5,800 - 26,800
ND
3.4 - 316
53.4 - 159
0.546 - 1.18
0.911 - 6.98
415 - 27,900
16.5 - 1,900
3.62 - 7.42
37.7 - 22,800
9,680 - 15,600
41.4 - 350
1,060 - 8,820
102 - 1,740
0.144 - 0.992
7.99 - 23.5
218 - 630
0.444 - 0.612
1.26 - 416
214 - 801
0.361 - 0.474
0.2 - 0.3
11 - 46.7
123 - 8,810
1,810 - 14,800
ND
0.831 - 8.15
14 - 291
0.8 - 1.14
0.68 - 14.6
651 - 45,600
10.7 - 111
1.39 - 4.58
7 - 524
3,710 - 16,200
10.8 - 324
667 - 12,800
110 - 1,930
0.07 - 1.53
4.04 - 35.2
211 - 1,060
ND
0.67 - 4.3
327 - 1180
ND
ND
8.53 - 40.2
36.1 - 1,100
VOCsdigflJ^R. , • > : • • • : • • : • - :. ^ ' • •1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Vlethylene chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylene
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
SVOCs (ng/kgj1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
cenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
6.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15.0
ND
ND
ND
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
3920 - 35,000
0.73 - 37.6
2.3 - 31.5
13.3 - 714
0.03 - 0.4
0.11 - 15.5
144 - 12,600
5.6 - 709
0.84 - 12.7
7.5 - 4230
4,160 - 140,000
14.7 - 916
310 - 5,280
13 - 1320
0.05 - 2.7
2.2 - 77.7
310 - 1,310
0.58 - 1.9
1.4 - 33.4
42.3 - 9,830
ND
0.33 - 1.1
8.3 - 41.6
15.2 - 2,520
ND
2
ND
ND
8 - 1,400
22 - 54
18 - 21
2
1 - 570
2 - 12
2 - 24
2 - 42
2 - 16
13
870
ND
ND
ND
ND
NE
NE
NE
NE
110 - 160
ND
190 - 500
50 - 430
138 - 223
ND
A-9
TABLE A-5 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE SOIL
i ^H^ tiillliiiliHp !SVOCl ig/Sg^ li lP^ "1"Anthracene
3enzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
3enzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Burylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
p-Chlorophenylmethyl sulfoxide
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
'\ ,2-Dichlorobenzene
'\ ,3-Dichlorobenzene
^\ ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane (total)
Diethyl phthalate
di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
-luorene
Mexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
ndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
EXPLOSIVES (ug/kg)
Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)
CWM DEG. PRODUCTS (ug/kg)
Diisopropylmethylphosphonate
Thiodiglycol
PESTICIDES/PCBS (ug/kg)4,4'-DDD4,4'-DDE4,4'-DDTAldrinalpha-ChlordaneHeptachlor epoxidegamma-ChlordaneHeptachlorEndrin ketoneEndosulfan IEndosulfan sulfateEndrin
M^ lB^?^ ^ S
NE
56 - 230
60 - 440
35 - 350
200
36 - 140
NE
NE
NE
NE
71 - 380
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
51 - 72
NE
33 - 320
NE
NE
NE
40 - 210
NE
NE
NE
27 - 170
38 - 620
NE
NE
NE
2.84.1 - 3922.6 - 143
NE
NE
NE
NE
NENE
NE
NE
NE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
140 - 930
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
260
320
540
ND
ND
130
ND
ND
110 - 7,800
2,600 - 3,500
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
24,200
'.•
ND
ND
17.4 - 59.521.7 - 11954.5 - 1799.89 - 18.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
38 - 50.424.5 - 25.6
flE!HHn!y^M * " > *'T 45"*iBRiSRK
150 - 160
340 - 900
460 - 1,100
820 - 2,100
300 - 490
240 - 570
NE
NE
NE
NE
480 - 1,100
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
440 - 1,300
NE
NE
NE
420 - 660
NE
NE
NE
130 - 420
470 - 1,300
• . - - • >.?':n-: -. -
NE
NE
NE
4.96 - 24.45.26 - 39.84.56 - 111
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
mpmnpspBBBBff"
14.1 - 186
0.835 - 330
5.54 - 240
47 - 970
25.5 - 620
22.3 - 1,270
64 - 490
72 - 89
ND
ND
0.27 - 430
26.3 - 303
62
60
120
130
ND
230
45 - 590
57 - 6,820
217
56 - 2,100
240
94.7 - 430
ND
57 - 224
63 - 370
6.36 - 320
0.244 - 530
• '• " ' . • : • . • . . ,- ^ • - '•".'':"•
33,600
1.5 - 82.3
18,000
2.3 - 7.30.85 - 23
2.4 - 195 - 7.8
13
ND
0.31ND
ND
ND
ND ,.ND ||
A-10
TABLE A-5 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE SOIL
In4 -j PSflalllB8 "'i -l iilIre •v-.'?%iHl9i ^B j.p-?.;r'ftJ*u*:SM
£GTf /tljiMSIJi ^ bfef f . rff/t«yPI*iliii^i
Endrin aldehydeAroclor-1260alpha-BHCdelta-BHCDieldrin
DIOXlNS^UQiNs (ppb) ifs1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF1, 2,3,6, 7,8-HxCDD1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDFT ,2~3',7~8,9-"HxCD"D1,2,3,7,8~9-HxCDF1,2,3,7,8-PeCDb1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF2~3,7,8~-Tcbb2,3,7,8-TCDFTotal HpCbb'otal HpCDFotal HxCDD
Total HxCDFTotalPeCbDTotal PeCDFTotal TCDD"Total ITCDF"RADIONUCUlES (PCi/g)Gross AlphaGross BetaCesium-137Lead-210Lead-212"Lead-214Radium-226Potassium-40
W^^WSfe?^^^NENENENENE
Bats -iti AasjBy.i--' • ... A"* .•.St.,SB8w.ti',.-«*3(w?.*(!. : >- • -.t&NENENENENENENENENENE
NENENENENENENENENENENENENENENE
" • # * • « • „
2 - 9.10.6 - 5.8
NENENENENENE
NDND
9.55 - 24.217.6 - 58.7
ND-•'••:• ;";i.'' ' • ,.' .aJ'T'-^.-xV'^'.~-». '.;; \ ' *> •:* *fM^*-Si- -, ^ •••* •>•'
6.30.9
0.260.930.11ND
0.25I ND
0.079NDNDND " 'ND"
0.064NDWoND
0.521.2ND1.3ND ""
0.45"ND"0.43
NENENENENENENENE
ND100NDNDND
' ' ^';-' " -' * ' ".-'•' . -' ••*"• - / "
0.68 - 6.00.63 - 2.20.26 - 0.710.66 - 4.7
NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
_. ^JQ^-
ND0.45 - 1.30.66 - 4.7
0.50.25 - 6.4
ND2.7
0.18"6^21
NENENENENENENE
~NE
;Range;Detectetl•/ •rSgin;1997- ..--^piiPiwia - j.' itoaaft
&&mt#&X''-^NDNDNDND
3.4 - 25
0.9110 - 11.0000.0127 - 006840.0275 - 0.21000.0091 - 0.20000.0014 - 0.02180.0011 - 0.00610.0028 - 0.02770.0014 - 0.01290.0014 - 0.03360.0015 - 0.01570.0013 - 0.00710.0014-0.00270^0011 - 0.01110.0018 - 0.02350.0011 - 0.00520.0003 - 0.00050.0023 - 0.00710.0565 - 0.41900.0151 - 0.2850O.OT56 - 0.25800^0274 - 1.71000.0017 - 0.04510.0209 - 0.79400.0043 - 0.04210.0193 - 0.1920
12.1 - 24.412.7 - 18.3
0.418 - 1.012.13 - 3.12
0.441 - 0.7080.455 - 0.613
1.92 - 2.321"03 - 4.84
ND - Not Detected NE - Not Evaluated
A-11
TABLE A-6
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE WATER
• « a| |||«|||»MB|™JM»
V OCS (uQ/IjF S >t»rSi|s3ifi« ^KSfKmi'i Vrs
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
vlethylene chloride
Trichloroethene
3enzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
3enzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
di-n-Butylphthalaterluoranthene
lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
Pyrene
DEGRADATION PRODUCTS (ug/l)
1,4-Dithiane
1 ,4-Oxathiane
Metals (ng/L) "Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
JJ8SMHBBB98SBsMBiBHKmB:
Htm^Hlrf r TTn^ TfffffJfffBHBr
3B8B^^sw^Sr^ssTwM!-*ffltii«™^RNE
NE
NE
vrfetJ?# ~ i i f^WfiNE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE:>?;*":- . • > . . . '.^ - ! ;••, :-. ;-
NE
NE, \ ' - • : • • • ' ; • • " • . ; ; . • ' :-::
148 - 3,120
ND
2.1
9.4 - 65.2
ND
ND
9,850 - 78,800
6.7 - 9.7
5.1 - 5.8
62 - 7.3
178 - 3,900
2.2 - 4.4
5,720 - 226,000
37.8 - 247
ND
ND
2,280 - 72,100
ND
0.4 - 0.5
12,200 - 1,920,000
7 - 22.96.2 - 26.4
HByiff'-Ti TfBBtT iiBwBnT' 'i "PBBfJLgaBSm5iiimiillillMrlimjfflBB.il
i|r T: ;> ;:'':i 4y-l*.'-. >'Hw'>??SR flHE$^k»v ^fttt
14 - 8
22
r£. ' ;|r*:-WiS^-;:-;lfl2
3
4
2
1
2
1
9 - 17
2
2
2
. r-' \-. ^••i' - : . '-.. : •-• -:-0.8 - 2
1.7
162 - 17.300
2.8
20.1 - 32.4
32.4 - 396
1.1 - 1.2
2 - 6.9
17,300 - 36,300
1 - 24.6
9.9 - 23.6
4.9 - 118
271 - 30,300
2.2 - 89
12,400 - 22,000
57.4 - 1,010
0.42 - 0.53
8.4 - 28.5
1,380 - 2,720
2.9
1.2
15,300 - 31,900
3.5 - 6048.1 - 1,470
ND - Not Detected NE - Not Evaluated
A-12
TABLE A-7SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SEDIMENT
MFT/ll'*! ffiifSfSIHr-' * *** *fMIwlC- 1/%L«O IJAUffi ^Br 3jjM!l|pi
AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickel""PotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumr^»al Cyanide
.adium£ihcVOCs (ng/kg)^ *1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon disulfideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthyibenzeneMethylene chlorideStyreneTetrachioroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneXyleneSVOCs(ng/kg)^2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene
naphthene
MttMtt tt HIPPsTO^ * "!HPl»P "Wi«jlll miy j• fflfflHHmr™^^^^^^^BM8BM *lSSffl9-' UJNUHIflPMIIIAIHIIIIIVUI A*- i "" !3>
759 - 22,2001.8
2.61 - 7.366.28 - 99.5
0.132 - 2.590.252 - 2.07
96 - 2,8605.45 - 50.71.41 - 35.12.88 - 74.3
3,350 - 41,5003.56 - 91.1198 - 4,800232 - 1,040
0.339 - 0.3981.89" - 56.8126""-" 2,220
0.714 - 1.54ND
704 -"5,340NDND
7.22 - 72.89.83 - 284
3~;^?*$^ •:;•>:£>:'••
NENENENENENENENENENENENENENENENENE
NDNDND
ND
JHui BlHnn938s •JEVSSJi BBKBBHHBEMHEBBiK BHyTr WHSpWWa'iJ,". V3 ^B?!W*!I* tt • "•""WSfcWWf,
l e ^PHS i l2,520 - 35,700
7.6 - 593 - 35.4
21.6 - 3960.6 - 1.50.5 - 71.8
613 - 11,6009.7 - 2,8301.2 - 10.6
40.1 - 16,2004,820 - 42,300
29.7 - 707362 - 3,680
31.8 - 5550.14 - 0.5
3.7 - 184157-1,100
ND1.1 - 137
~""i32""-"~1,3800.29 - 0^6
6.66.9 -27 .5153 - 2,480
ND15NDNDND8
4 - 66 - 9
ND
ND "4
NDND"1110
6 - 1 54
470ND
"NDND
f Mfflrtectejteg
titmf in <i 'mi >iiiiniinr<mi aiy MHHKM I'm <
2,860 - 13,3006.75 - 181.04 - 44.621.6 - 3380.73 - 12.31.13 - 16.7932 - 6,94018.3 - 3162.39 - 16.539.8 - 2,150
9,040 - 141,00018.3 - 1,600580 - 4,090
44.4 - 9030.1 - 2.85
7.47 - 467229 - 1,160
0.71
0.9 - 16.9118 "- 5,06004 - 0.43
ND15.3^-61.739.7 - 3,380
"• - .!'-.". -• . ' ' -'
NENENENENENENENENE""NENENENENENENENE
NENENEND
^ tt|MH^ K! £ ^Fn ^HH^ ^H^I| ®*WUII |IIB ^ 5; -
srfy»w6i :. t i3M®i-i *si;(filBFWPIw! !* %-«?SP|1R BS»5p fop
4,410 - 23,0000.95 - 1.9
1.5 - 17.930.9 - 5900.04 - 2.30.32 - 4.9333 - 10,2004.8 - 1511.1 - 24.4
11.1 - 2093,100 - 38,800
16.2 - 605309 - 6,28015.3 - 4180.07 - 0.782.4 - 33.6
231-2 ,6300.73 - 2.50.68 - 1.876.3 r -"16,900
ND1""1 - 4 ^ 9 "9.6 - 44.7
30.8 - 1,280: '- • - , • • , , " . ; - •
11 - 14ND "~
24 - 334.0 - 8.010 - 740
ND1.0 - 31
ND2.6
" NDND
2.0 - 1,2002.0"NDND
2.0 - 510ND
551,300
6513.5 - 4,250
A-13
TABLE A-7 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SEDIMENT
$££&£?*•• - CS- ^plf ^^P?!
ifexL ..,.; •.•*:• w •i.-'-'-^A'i Nvva^k^LLHJ VlLiiiL: /'.-jLi.,i' jesKiTSafei'laiiffiiid
'' Bgf M^gl fljfej
plH^^ fflffi ^3wg£
Iti3& Ri&fiCittDttifi£ftB( tt£Sliltt Sttitti BMBKte? ' *"'*
BTOM^MiiStBiBBB^H^H^ ^ ^ ^ ^ KSS^^gS' fflKffl BfflB^ lBB^BfflBfrntf'mx7arffIIUlIA3*RIHaK^ BMP^ ^ ^BIimi aBBm^V
flKCHMHIBrafe'a^-* * K?*-«»BSgiMilt£8'ftMi ^AcenaphthyleneAnthracene3enzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo[g,h,i]peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateCarbazoleChryseneDibenz[a,h]anthraceneDiethylphthalatedi-n-ButylphthalateFluorantheneFluoreneHexachlorobenzenelndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene2-Methylnaphthalene4-MethylphenolNaphthalene3henanthrenePyrene
ND52 - 17081 - 280
140 - 250130 - 370
ND130 - 140"5400"
~ND100 - 330"
NDNDND
98 - 600140NDND
90 - 30061
98 - 470160 - 600100 - 480
66 - 9577- 10083 - 1,40091 - 2,10076 - 2,90063 - 1 ,20050 - 380
ND""~34~-~46
69 - 1 ,800130ND100
72-160021
930 "85 "-2,400
ND" ND
ND36 - 1 ,000
1TO - 1 ,600
1301,000
340 - 3,300470 - 5,900210 - 6,200440 - 2,600300 - 1,500
NE"ND
560 - 4,4001,000NENE
170 - 4,800NDNE
520 - 2,600NENE"ND
130 - 2,800150-6,800
110190
1.79"- 1,8003.96 - 1,900
71 - 2,70036.6 - 1,900170 - 1,300
2",000"""ND
0.909 - 2,20016.7 - 610
55067
i"TooNDND
1,600NDNDND
3.16 - 2000.403 -"1,200 '
CWM-DEG. PRODUCTS (ug/kg) s* -^lDiisopropylmethylphosphonate NE ND NE 3.5EXI$CJSM { /Kg)* ^ ' ^^»^'^:,--^..^- -\ ^.- ' t- >*--r ' •",• '. •^.^•^¥*^-.^t^\: ^^S^f^. •'y***-Pentaerythritol tetranitrate ND 7,910-26,600 7,280-9,380 9,380PESTICIDES/PCBs (jig/kg) rt- '«4,4-DDD4,4-DDE"4,4'^DDTAldrinaTpha-BHC '"""alpha-ChlordaneAroclor-1248Aroclor-1260DieldrinEndosulfan IEndrin aldehydeEndrin ketonegamma-BHCgamma-ChlordaneHeptachlorHeptachlor Epoxide
5.1 - 5.34.8 - 11
NDNDND5
NDNDNDNDNDND3.14ND3.14"ND
5.7 - 274 - 40
4.7 - 98ND
~"4.1 "-7.22.4
1,100470
7"5"-"203 . 8 - 1 120 - 360
6.3ND
4 - 4.58.1 - 134.1 - 22
6.6 - 91.811.3 - 1,"9707.25 - 59.2
NDNDNDNDND
8.46NDNDNDNDND
22.1ND
2.6 - 283.6 - 141 . 0 - 3 0
ND^ND2.8NDND
2 . 4 - 7 . 6"ND "ND "19ND2.7NDND
DIOXINS/FURANS (ug/kg) n /1,2, 3,4,6,7, 8, 9-OCDD1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF12,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDD
0.77 - 1.4NDND
0.77 - 5.42171.1687 - 7.75
"0.9157 - 1.83
0.69 - 4.4ND
0.86 - 0.9
3.3300 - 9.990000236 - 0.2270 "" I0.1030 - 0.538v |
A-14
TABLE A-7 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SEDIMENT
pSMfclillDIOXINS/FUH«(mg/kg> fe'1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD1,2,3,4, 7, 8-HxCDF1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD1, 2,3,6,7, 8-HxCDF1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF2,3,4,6, 7, 8-HxCDF2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF2,3,7,8-TCDD2,3,7,8-TCDFTotal HpCDDTotal HpCDFTotal HxCDDTotal HxCDF~~Total PeCDDTotal PeCDFTotalTCDD
alTCDFJIONUCUDjp (pCi/g)
Gross AlphaGross BetaCesium- 137Lead-210Lead-212Lead-214Radium-226Potassium-40rhorium-234
NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
1.5 - 12.40.4 - 7.9
NENENENENENENE
^^^ tKWiiijXsii&^r!
MKM^a^Ma^ Ss
1.4458 - 10.28NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
0.24 - 3.660.13 - 11.41
0.6867 - 1.351.6867 - 11.69"
0.22891.0843 - 7.04
ND0.4337 - 5.77
NENE
" NENE
"NENENENENE
1.8 - 1.90.28 - 0.29
ND2.8ND
0.36 - 0.4NDNDND
0.24NDNDNDND
1.4 - 1.52.4 - 2.62.5 - 2.74.8 - 22
0.95 - 1.411
0.29 - 0.520.68 - 2.7
NENENENENENENENENE
£^91®8~|8?SSi•• iWr ^Ma^^P^'••'•"WSffW-* ™'"™*" 'l"""*~"* • "& As
0.0331 - 0.38800.0037 - 0.03410.0023 - 0.01580.0092 - 0.10200.0057 - 0.02980.0054 - 0.05410.0061 - 0.04600.0015 - 0.01480.0016 - 0.00990.0041 - 0.02710.0063 - 0.06870.0026 - 0.03400.0002 - 0.00190.0045 - 0.04880.2310 - 1.51000.0537 - 0.55100.0721 - 0.5120OV1320 - 1.52000.0108 - 0.09460.1030 - 0.9690
^0. 0170 - 0.06190.0736 - 0.4540
. -18.8 - 19.321.7 - 33.21.06 - 1.64.49 - 7.21
0.392 - 1.150.8223.589.643.62
ND - Not Detected NE - Not Evaluated
A-15
TABLE A-8SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SUBSURFACE SOIL
ISiBMMMiMMMM PH ff^H8B3G9I HH^B^ E^ H^ H^HS^ BBnBBflllHK^w 9 BKM^ yMHt*gSHBH BH|B|H IH^ IB ^ I ^H^H^ I ^ H^HQB B§B| ^ aMK
WPSPlfeS^aSS^S^ it-S^S:.-:; ' *-'AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumTotal CyanideVanadiumZincVOCs(ug/kg)1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon disulfideCarbon tetrachloridecis-1 ,2-DichloroetheneMethylene chlorideTetrachloroetheneToluenetrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideSVOCs (ug/kg)1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
?Swi ^Si BIB^8li
2,670 - 17,300ND
1.04 - 5.2912.1 - 125
0.735 - 1.42ND
71.4 - 7406.64 -41.52.01 - 15.63.35 - 23.1
4,160 - 23,0005.88 - 31.4126 - 3,700
8.37 - 472ND
2.78 - 17.9120 - 1,580
0.33 - 0.407ND
334 - 496NDND
12.4 - 41.64.89 - 120
NENENENENENENENENENENENENENE
NENE
jgi&lj&i&HtegsssSiSiH9Hl Bi8HH8HBBHHBSHHI
2000 - 19,3000.75 - 4.40.77 - 37.1
9.9 - 1280.03 - 0.810.09 - 2.583.2 - 9,470
2.6 - 52.30.94 - 9.7
2.7 - 2062,410 - 30,200
2.5 - 276288 - 3,840
25.4 - 4800.01 - 0.29
2.2 - 31.6237 - 11100.58 - 1.20.52 - 2933.9 - 318
ND0.27 - 0.33
3 - 48 99.8 - 3750
' •:=;•• " : • • •
1.0 - 2.02.0 - 4.0
1.06.0 - 95
ND1.0ND
3.0 - 921.0 - 1401.0 - 1001.0 - 4.01.0 - 5.01.0 - 83
ND
77220
A-16
TABLE A-8 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW 0-FIELD SUBSURFACE SOIL
2-MethylnaphthaleneAoenaphtheneAnthraceneBenzo[a]anthraceneBenzo[a]pyreneBenzo[b]fluorantheneBenzo[g,h,i]peryleneBenzo[k]fluoranthenebis[2-EthylhexyljphthaTate"ChryseneDibenz[a, hjanthraceneDiethylphthalateFluoranthenejFluoreneNexachlorobenzene|lndeno[1,2,3-cdjpyreneNaphthalenePentachlorophenolPhenanthrenePyrene
NENE
NENENENENE"NENENENENENENENENENENENE
50 - 60227? - 4,940
9 - 10300.234_- 168"f.41 -"132"""
21.8"- 1,10010~9 - 340
""15.1 - T,9004 3 - 7 4 0
0.128 - 3769279-856
44 - 55100 - 31,200
"""41.1140 - 320
"29.2"- 140105"- 372
1900.853 - 5380~089 - 320
PEG. PRODUCTS (ug/kg)DiisopropylmethylphosphonateIsopropylmethylphosphonic acid
NENE
1.1 - 17.5"1.58
LOSIVES (ug/kg)Pentaerythritol tetranitrate NE 23,500
TICIDES/PCBS (ug/kg)4,4'-DDD4.4'-DDE4,4'-DDT
_clor-1016TUclor-1254
DieldrinEjidrin ketoneHeptachlor epoxide
NENENENENENENENE
5.2 - 7.00.34-17"8 .7 -25
230" 160
5.76.6
0.27IONUCLIDES (pCi/g)
Gross BetaLead-210Lead-212Lead-214Radium-226Potassium-40
NENENENENENE
6.09 - 7.031.23
0.335-0.5560.322.37
4.0"- 5.87
ND - Not Detected NE - Not Evaluated
A-17
Appendix BPhotographs of the OU1
and OU2 Remedial Actions
Figure B-1. Aerial View of the GWTF (OU1)
Figure B-2. GWTF Control Room
B-1
Figure B-3. View from the Mezzanine of the Entire Treatment System
Figure B-4. Lime Reaction Tanks
B-2
Figure B-5. Clarifier and Sand Filter
Figure B-6. Clarifier and Vapor Phase Carbon Units
B-3
Figure B-7. Sludge Holding Tank and Liquid Phase Carbon Units
Figure B-8. Air Stripper, UV/OX Unit, and Control Room
B-4
Figure B-9. Second Stage Neutralization Tanks
Figure B-10. Carbon Units and Filter Press Room
B-5
Figure B-11. Application of Sand during PIU Construction (OU2)
Figure B-12. View of Completed PIU
B-6
Figure B-13. Aerial View of GWTF (OU1) and PIU (OU2)
Figure B-14. Aerial View of the O-Field Study Area
B-7
Appendix CInterview Summary
and Site Inspection Checklists
INTERVIEW SUMMARY
Personnel Interviewed: Robert Shewell (RS), Plant Superintendent, MESJoseph Ambrozewicz (JA), Public Health Engineer IV, MESEdward Ramos (ER), Environmental Systems Operator III, MES
Jennifer Harris, Staff Engineer, IT Corporation
Location: Q|d o.FJe|d GWTF Contro| Room
D*te: May 27, 1999, 8:30am
1. When did MES begin operation of the GWTF?
January 26, 1998 (RS)
2. What changes have been made to the GWTF/well field since that time?
GWTF:
=> Relocated the T-6 acid feed from directly into the tank to the pipe leading to the tank.(ER)
=> Determined that the air stripper was only designed for 12gpm, plan to resize for 55 gpm.(JA)
=> Installed a double-diaphragm pump for the clarifier. (RS)
=> Installed air operated clean-outs for the sandfilter. (RS)
=> Upgraded all pumps in the plant from 30 gpm to 45 gpm.
=> Removed the sodium metabisulfite tank and lines (not in service for quite awhile). (RS)
=> Changed all 55-gal vapor phase carbon units (in plant and T-18) to new type with the inletat the bottom and outlet at the top (rather than both inlet and outlet at the top of the drum)- increased life of drum by 50%. (JA)
Well Field:
=> Replaced all Clean Environment pumps with double diaphragm pumps (installed in thewell house, versus inside the well). (RS)
=> Replaced the "clickers" (elapsed time indicators) with flowmeters (measure gallons). (RS)
=> Upgraded the capacity of the pump at T-18. (JA)
=> Planning to replace all lines from the extraction wells to T-18 (in late summer). Alsoadding 4 more inspection points. (RS, JA)
=> Connected emergency generator to power the air compressors. (ER)
=> Installed level controller in T-18 to maintain constant flow into the plant. (RS)
C-1
3. What recommendations would you make to improve the treatment process, if any?Opportunities for optimization?
=> Remove air stripper and add two more carbon units (liquid phase). (RS)
=> Modify the biomonitoring system (new tanks and lines) to reduce leakage problems andimprove performance. (RS)
=> Upgrade the clarifier - add a second cleanout access port. (JA)
=> Upgrade the sandfilter. (RS, ER)
4. Monthly or bi-monthly sampling? Any change in parameters or locations sampledsince early 1998?
=> No changes to the GWTF performance sampling - still twice a month with the sameparameters. (JA)
5. Have all monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports been in compliance with the NPDESpermit? (i.e., dissolved oxygen > 5.0 mg/L; temp. < 90 °F; pH between 6.5 to 8.5;turbidity < 150 units; and total VOCs < 100 ppb). Any areas of concern?
=• None. (RS)
6. Any problems with the biomonitoring system?
=> Leaks in the lines. (RS)
=> Conductivity problems. (RS)
=> Currently evaluating salt-water technology. (RS)
7. What recommendations would you make to improve the extraction system, if any?
=> None, once the conveyance lines have been replaced (scheduled for late July 1999)(RS)
=> The pumps are all new, so no upgrade is needed. (RS)
=> The upgrade to the T-18 structure may not be needed because the new carbon units aremuch more efficient. (RS)
8. What's the normal maintenance schedule for the process equipment and extractionwell pumps?
=> Well field checked every shift (vs. once a day). They keep a running total of re-starts andchangeouts, and are modifying the pumps to match the characteristics. (RS, JA)
=> Plant equipment is maintained as per manufacturers specifications. (RS)
=> Weekly blowout of the lines to T-18. (ER)
9. Have there been many ACEM false alarms lately?
=> Approximately 3 per day. (RS)
C-2
; vrlt
10. What types of activities are required for O&M of the PIU?
=> Maintenance of the PIU is still the responsibility of the USAGE.
=> Once MES is responsible for maintenance, they will:
- Walk the cap weekly to inspect for low areas or holes. (RS)
- Check the sprinkler nozzles (for bees nests, etc.). (RS)
- Lubricate equipment as needed. (RS)
- Run the pumps as per manufacturers specifications. (RS)
11. Any other comments?
=> Plant runs well. (RS)
=> Problems finding replacement switches (no longer manufactured). (RS)
=> Controls are all working well. (RS)
=> Currently running at 36 gpm. After 2 NPDES permit cycles, and with DSHE's approval,they will upgrade to 40 gpm. (RS)
C-3
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR OLD O-FIELD (OU1 AND OU2)
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Old O-Field
Location and Region: Maryland, Region 111
Lead Agency: Army
Date of Inspection:
EPA ID:
Weather/Temperature:
May 27, 1999
MD221 0020036
70's, Partly Cloudy
Personnel Conducting Inspection: T. Longe and J. Harris, IT Corporation
Remedy Includes: _/_ Landfill
Groundwater Pump & Treatment
Surface Water Collection & Treatment
Other
II. INTERVIEWS
1. O&M Site Manager:
Interviewed:
2. O&M Staff:
Interviewed:
3. O&M Staff:
Interviewed:
Robert Shewel Plant Superintendent
(Name) (Title)
/ at site _ at office
Joseph Ambrozewicz Public Health Enqr. IV
(Name) (Title)
•/ at site _ at office
Edward Ramos Envir. Svs Operator III
(Name) (Title)
_/ at site _ at office
Mav27. 1999
(Date)
_ by phone
Mav27, 1999
(Date)
_ by phone
Mav27, 1999
(Date)
_ by phone
III. ONS1TE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED
1. O&M Manual
2. Maintenance Logs
3. Health & Safety Plan
4. OSHA Records
5. MSDS File
6. Discharge Records
7. Daily Access Log
^_ Readily Available Up to Date
_^_ Readily Available Up to Date
^f_ Readily Available Up to Date
_^_ Readily Available Up to Date
j/L Readily Available Up to Date
_,/, Readily Available Up to Date
_/. Readily Available _ Up to Date
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization:
2. O&M Cost Records:
Armv Contractor: Marvland Environmental Service
Available from DSHE
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period: None
V. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Fencing:
B. Site Access:
C Perimeter Roads:
/ Gates Secured Not Applicable
/ Access Restrictions / Signs
Roads Damaged / Roads Adequate
•/ Downranqe Security
D. General
1. Vandalism
2. Trespassing
3. Land-Use Change:
_^L Not Applicable
_£ None
_/_ None
C-4
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR OLD O-FIELD (OU1 AND OU2) - CONTINUED
VI. LANDFILL COVER
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement: •/ Settlement not evident Not Applicable
2. Cracks: •/ Cracking not evident Not Applicable
3. Erosion: </ No signs of erosion Not Applicable
4. Holes: •/ Holes not evident Not Applicable
B. General
1. Vegetative Cover: No signs of stress / Not Applicable
2. Alternative Cover: •/ Aggregate Not Applicable
3. Wet Areas: •/ No wet areas Not Applicable
4. Slope Instability: •/ No signs of instability Not Applicable
5. Retaining Walls: / Deformation notevident
Not Applicable
JL VII. GROUNDWATER REMEDY
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines Not Applicable
1. Pumps and Electrical: / Good Condition Needs O&M Not Applicable
2. Lines and Valves: Good Condition / Needs O&M Not Applicable
Note: Scheduled maintenance in July - replacement of all lines leading to T-18.
B. Treatment System Not Applicable
1. Treatment Train: Metals precipitation, air stripping, cartridge filters, UV/OX system, carbon units(liquid and vapor phase)
Note: System in good condition. Maintenance log up to date Treats approx. 30,000 gal per day.
2. Electrical Enclosures & Panels: •/ Good Condition Not Applicable
3. Tanks and Storage Vessels: _/_ Good Condition Not Applicable
4. Discharge Structure: •/ Good Condition Not Applicable
5. Treatment Building: Good Condition Not Applicable
6. Monitoring Wells: •/ Functioning & Good Condition
•/ Routinely Sampled
Not Applicable i
•/ Equipped w/Locks j
VIII. NOTES
Please refer to the interview questionnaire for additional information
C-5
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR WATSON CREEK (OU3)
or?;
•1. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location and Region:
Lead Agency:
Watson Creek
Maryland, Region III
Army
Date of Inspection:
EPA ID:
Weather/Temperature:
May 27, 1999
MD2210020036
70's, Partly Cloudy
Personnel Conducting Inspection: T. Longe and J. Harris, IT Corporation
Remedy Includes: Landfill
Groundwater Pump & Treatment
Surface Water Collection & Treatment
</ Other Limited Action (institutional controls, public education, LTM)
II. INTERVIEWS (NOTAPPUCABLE)
1. O&M Site Manager:
Interviewed:
1. O&M Manual
2. Maintenance Logs
3. Health & Safety Plan
4. OSHA Records
5. MSDS File
6. Discharge Records
7 Daily Access Log
(Name)
at site
III. ONSITE DOCUMENTS
Readily Available
Readily Available
Readily Available
Readily Available
Readily Available
Readily Available
Readily Available
(Title)
_ at office
(Date)
_ by phone
AND RECORDS VERIFIED
_ Up to Date
_ Up to Date
_ Up to Date
_ Up to Date
_ Up to Date
_ Up to Date
_ Up to Date
•/ Not Applicable
V Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization:
2. O&M Cost Records:
Army Contractor: General Physics
Available from DSHE
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period: None
V. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Fencing:
B. Site Access:
C. Perimeter Roads:
Gates Secured
•/ Access Restrictions
Roads Damaged
S Not Applicable
</ Signs
/ Roads Adequate
•/ Downrange Security
D. General
1. Vandalism / Not Applicable
2. Trespassing / None
3. Land-Use Change: •/ None
VI. LANDFILL COVER (NOT APPLICABLE)
A. Landfill Surface
1 . Settlement:
2. Cracks:
3. Erosion:
4. Holes:
Settlement not evident /
Cracking not evident •/
No signs of erosion /
Holes not evident •/
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
C-6
• A ?"A ;.V
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR WATSON CREEK (OU3) - CONTINUED
B. General
1 . Vegetative Cover:
2. Alternative Cover:
3. Wet Areas:
4. Slope Instability:
5. Retaining Walls:
No signs of stress
Aggregate
No wet areas
No signs of instability
Deformation notevident
/ Not Applicable
_/_ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
/ Not Applicable
_/. Not Applicable
H VII. GROUNDWATER REMEDY (NOT APPLICABLE)
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines _s£_ Not Applicable
1 . Pumps and Electrical: Good
2. Lines and Valves: Good
B. Treatment System
1. Treatment Train:
2. Electrical Enclosures & Panels:
3. Tanks and Storage Vessels:
4. Discharge Structure:
5. Treatment Building:
6. Monitoring Wells:
1
Condition Needs O&M
Condition Needs O&M
/ None
Good Condition
Good Condition
Good Condition
Good Condition
Functioning & Good Condition
Routinely Sampled
VIII. NOTES
The elevation in Watson Creek was higher than that in the Gunpowder River
- Signs are posted around the edge of the creek stating that it is closed.
- Waterfowl were seen in the area.
/ Not Applicable
/ Not Applicable
Not Applicable
/ Not Applicable
/ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
/ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
Equipped w/Locks
during the site visit.
C-7
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR NEW O-FIELD (OU4)
1. SITE INFORMATION t
Site Name: New O-Field Date of Inspection:
Location and Region: Maryland, Region III EPA ID:
Lead Agency: Army Weather/Temperature:
May 27, 1999
MD2210020036
70's, Partly Cloudy j
Personnel Conducting Inspection: T. Longe and J. Harris, IT Corporation
Remedy Includes: Landfill
Groundwater Pump & Treatment
Surface Water Collection & Treatment
•/ Other Remedy not selected at this time.
II. INTERVIEWS (NOT APPLICABLE)
1 . O&M Site Manager.
(Name) (Title)
Interviewed: at site _ at office
(Date)
_ by phone
III. ONSITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED
1. O&M Manual _ Readily Available _ Up to Date
2. Maintenance Logs Readily Available Up to Date
•/ Not Applicable
•/ Not Applicable
3. Health & Safety Plan _ Readily Available _ Up to Date j/_ Not Applicable
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
OSHA Records
MSDS File _
Discharge Records
Daily Access Log
O&M Organization:
O&M Cost Records:
Unanticipated or Unusually
Fencing: •/_
Site Access: /
Perimeter Roads:
General
1. Vandalism _,/
2. Trespassing >/
3. Land-Use Change: y
\
Landfill Surface
1. Settlement:
2. Erosion:
3 Open Areas:
Readily Available Up to Date •/ Not Applicable
Readily Available Up to Date •/_ Not Applicable
Readily Available Up to Date •/ Not Applicable
Readily Available Up to Date _</_ Not Applicable
IV. O&M COSTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
High O&M Costs During Review Period: None
V. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
Gates Secured Not Applicable
Access Restrictions / Signs _/__ Downrange Security
Roads Damaged / Roads Adequate
Not Applicable
None
None
/I. LANDFILL COVER (NOT APPLICABLE)
Settlement not evident /_ Not Applicable ;
Erosion evident / Not Applicable
Holes not evident •/ Not Applicable
C-8
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR NEW O-FIELD (OU4) - CONTINUED
B. General
1 . Vegetative Cover: No signs of stress / Not Applicable
2. Alternative Cover: Aggregate / Not Applicable
3. Wet Areas: No wet areas •/ Not Applicable
4. Slope Instability: No signs of instability _/_ Not Applicable
5. Retaining Walls: Deformation notevident
/ Not Applicable
VII. GROUNDWATER REMEDY (NOT APPLICABLE)
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines / Not Applicable
1. Pumps and Electrical: Good Condition Needs O&M Not Applicable
2. Lines and Valves: Good Condition Needs O&M Not Applicable
B. Treatment System Not Applicable
1. Treatment Train: •/ None
2. Electrical Enclosures & Panels: Good Condition / Not Applicable
3. Tanks and Storage Vessels: Good Condition / Not Applicable
4. Discharge Structure: Good Condition / Not Applicable
5. Treatment Building: Good Condition / Not Applicable
C. Monitoring Wells / Functioning & Good Condition
Routinely Sampled
Not Applicable
•/ Equipped w/Locks
VIII. NOTES
- Signs posted at the edge of the cleared area state the following:
DANGER - NO TRESPASSINGUNEXPLODED ORDNANCEUS ARMY PROPERTY
KEEP OUT.
- The once regularly mowed area was overgrown with tall grass.
- The disposal area showed visible signs of settlement.
C-9
Appendix DGroundwater Monitoring Data forthe WTA and UCA, Old O-Field
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old 0-Field
'.MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01 (Dup)
MW01
MW01 (Dup)
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MW01
MWOlfff^MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02~
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
" MW02(biip)
MW02
MWOT
MW02 ~
MW02
MW02
MW02.EMW4-2A
MW4-2A" """
MW4-2A~
MW4-2A
MW4-2A
20-May-93
22-Feb-94
23-Jun-94
22-Sep-94
18-Jul-95
17-Oct-95
18-Jan-96
18-Jan-96
24-Apr-96
24-Apr-96
25-Aug-96
19-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
20-May-97
28-Aug-97
10-Nov-97
T2-Feb-98
20-May-98
25-Aug-98
17-Nov-98
•.•.••;*&fceilfe&
4-May-93
20-May-93
26-Aug-93
2-Mar-94
29-Jun-94
28-Sep-94
24-JUI-95
23-Oct-95
24-Jan-96
26^Apr^96
26-Aug-96
20-Nov-96
11-Feb-97
21-May-97
2-Sep-97
2-Sep-97~
10-NOV-97
~13^Feb-98
5-May-98
26-Aug-98
9-Nov-98
"94-eb-99 -, ;15-Jun-93
~25-Feb-94
~ 22-Jun-94
26-Sep-94
20-Jul-95
BQL
14.40
BQL
BQL
BQL
802.10
338.10
328.00
BQL
BQL
46.00
17.00
BQL
2.00
16.00
342.00
6.00
23.00
3.40
23.70
261.60
BQL
87.19
111.72
55.29
"""TgT.do35.26
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
7.00
7.00
1.00
BQL
25.00
g7do2.00
7.00
4.00
6.20
4.30
'5.20
321.10
1,388.74
1~421.00
1,494.00
1 053.94
arCvmDecompositicmpRxluctOig )-!Thfodlgfycol
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
31.60
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
" BQL
8.70
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
2.70
BQL
BQL
BQL"BQL
BQL
"BQLBQL
2oT~.0(f
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL "
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
9.60
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
1800
BQL
91.6
39.3
127.00
apKNi&iiBQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
8.27
4.00
4.00
3.00
BQL
BQL
0^40 "
BQL
BQL
0.30"~~2AO
"~BQL
0 .40
BQL
BQL
;A 8.50
17
592
574
708
1680
6 8 7 "
337^00
131.00
91.00
54.00
"70.00
37.20
8".30~
"10.20~
" 12.70
13.20
7.60
59.00
6.00
0.60
6^20
48.30
600
247
1140
220
" 1 ,240.00
^OxathianeicBQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
3.97
3.00
2.00
2.00
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.90
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
": BQL
42
90.9
~121
164
297
150"
65.90
88.40
18.00
11.00
14.00
4.80
0.30
0.90
2.30
1.90
1.50
3.50
BQL
~ BQL
6.10
8.50
300
112
451
133
499.00
wta-figs3 D - 1
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
LSampfcgipcatgaiil
sSspair.'V- iL1^^* '**.* •- i -•£
MW4-2AMW4-2A
MW4-2A
MW4-2A
MW4-2AMW4-2A
MW4-2A
MW4-2AMW4-2AMW4-2AMW4-2A
MW4-2A(DUP)
MW4-2A
": b-fM\S!4iSMii!MVW^DUlf*
MW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3A
MW4-3A
MW4-3A
MW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3A
MW4-3AMW4-3A
MW4-3A
MW4-3A
MW62Ax»/PMW62ADUF*
OF6A(R)OF6A(R)OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
OF6A(R)
^Cfikfciiiifiitlftwttififttll
•2";^ <^?M:^19-Oct-95
19-Jan-96
25-Apr-96
25-Aug-96
19-Nov-9613-Feb-97
21-May-97
4-Sep-97
12-Nov-9717-Feb-9815-May-9815-May-98
2-Dec-98
lo^eB fdau"•"*10-R»bt9SPI
8-Sep-9324-Feb-9422-Jun-9423-Sep-94
25-Jul-9524-Oct-9525-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
27-Aug-96
21-Nov-9613-Feb-9721-May-973-Sep-97
11-Nov-97
19-Feb-98
4-May-98
. if 12-Feb-99Jfftv
rsj~12-Feb-99£.<''
20-May-9325-Feb-94
27-Jun-9423-Sep-94
20-Jul-95
19-Oct-95
19-Jan-96
25-Apr-96
26-Aug-96
20-Nov-9612-Feb-97
21-May-97
4-Sep-97
11-Nov-97
20-Feb-98
1,023.20768.73
1,740.40
918.00
649.001,628.00
1,336.00657.00
343.00295.00255.00267.00
359.80l!fiilS£20«WX'!f*4p:40:^
10,389.005,161.803,271.904,035.203,098.104,598.00598.58
4,896.00
1,105.00
1,592.003,051.002,162.001,668.00535.00
894.00
373.00
* yZ29.00
287.10
5,452.507,774.304,917.00
1,464.802,852.84
254.81
3,182.00
7,009.90
1,865.00
820.00
4,707.00
6,958.00
937.00
423.00
1,869.00
SfiftWiitDccorj-Jlikxifglycoip
BQL
52.00
BQL
BQL
168.00217.00
8.60BQL
17.0012.10BQL
BQL
BQL
Hi®BQt?,F^
;: "?4i:BQL '».;:••842016500162004120722.00
9,950.00162.00
13,200.00
85.00
BQL
10,200.003,990.005,160.00
870.00880.00
1,020.00
••;-j%-BQL ••• 'BQL
980010600
1770014700
49,800.00
8,530.00
88,600.00
548.00
19,600.00
218.0023,200.00
4,870.00
3,010.00
1,200.00
12,700.00
n .rtpj-1
520.00259.00
652.00
248.00
319.00
586.00326.00
234.00170.00114.00383.00358.00
92.30
«|£74£JOi%J:1^83C80|S
BQL
1610264033705590
3,050.001,040.00
1,110.00
2,550.00
1,990.001,640.002,410.001,100.002,020.00
1,700.00
762.00
- 218,40181
242.50P?;
6990214014800
2830
531.00
2,080.00
2,880.00
2,780.00
4,370.00
13,500.00
2,950.00
1,650.00
2,080.00
616.00
10,300.00
m&mtimifflflffc | |rfj||wi iS£V-''
:
294.00
153.00
215.00
59.00
89.00
204.0032.40270.0015.6028.00110.00109.00
26.60
^24.00^
• '25.00 "r-257
364
977
761
2030861.00354.00
392.00
427.00
180.00259.00187.00166.00
71.10190.00
50.60
.4-r 43.801- 49.90
1040406
1560872
152.00
425.00726.00
661.00
336.00
112.00
186.00
81.10
151.00
62.00
1,250.00
wta-figs3 D - 2
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
OF6A(R)OF6A(R)
• ; . : . . 004033:$OF13B
OF13BOF13B
OF13B
OF13B
OF13BOF13B
" "OF13B"OF13BOF13BOF13BOF13B
OF13B~DUPOF13B"""OF13B
OF13BOF14B
OF14B""OF14BOF14B
OF14B
OF14B~"OF14BOF14B
OF14B "OF14BOF14BOF14BOF14B
OF14B (DUP)
OF14B
OF17AOF17AOF17A~OF17A
OF17A"
OF17A
OF17AOF17AOF17AOF17AOF17A
OF17A
iD&c&tfiictKfc•BC.HKSllHnilC W5kTU""J3J|! '
JWJyJBffip lHiliiiiMaCTi :
19-May-98
1-Dec-98
1-Mar-9428-Jun-9428-Sep-94
21-Jul-95
20-Oct-9523-Jan-9626-Apr-96
28"-Aug"-"96""'19-Nov-9612-Feb-9722-May-9731-Mar-9831-Mar-986-May-98
H-Dec-98 "
: ;*9j£<»l£99,*:- ••'
1-Mar-94"27-Jun-9427-Sep-9420-Jul-95
Ts-Oct-QS""""
23-Jan-96
25-Apr-9626-Aug-9619-NOV-961 1-Feb-9721-May-972-Sep-9711-Nov-97
13-Feb-98
^6^May^9824-Feb-9422-Jun-9426-Sep-94
~'"'l9-Jul-9518-Oct-95
19-Jan-96
25-Apr-9625-Aug-96
19-NOV-9611-Feb-9722-May-97
3-Sep-97
mnlMnliFwlMn H nT
IHralWHSBIrf2,053.00
257.90
Bi!:'iS3f6ilffi!?:j::
111.90367.60122.74
114.70
60.3679.16
117.30
108.00135.00236.00127.00
""" 137700""225700
114/10
63.20
89.00411.0056.5077.30
113760
315.10351.7061.0092.003'15^00"156.00665.00
3,845.00"""2,429766""
2,204.00
2,226.004,413.602,762.005,255103,370.25
7,220.00
7,108.30
1,657.60890.00886.00
1,863.00822.00
2,634.00
f eWWDecbi
liEIHlilsKLC I2,248.00982.20
;•;.• 2i| 3,po; £BQL
78.1
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
"BQL "5.00
BQL
34.10BQL
BQLBQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL ""
BQL
BQL
BQL
" " "BQL "44.00BQL
BQL
22.40" ""4.0019.00BQLBQL "" ""
BQL
BQL ;
82901350
21100
5380
28,50000
46,000.00
si'a^oo"913.00
2,080.001,620.00
57.70
8,180.00
QposflforttRrft CUfttf lsni H^
4,952.00576.30
1i751.00«27303710
5840
211
562.00
734.00418.00783.00""626.00
1,700.001,540.002,440.002,500.001,158.00"309.70
: 266.60 ;;,
12401580
1460
1,230.00838.00
1,210.00567.00940.00 ~492.00
1,490^00720.00
1 ,250.002,260.00350.00 '"
320.00
2,750.00274043607580
4,220.00
5,890.00
5,750.00
1,470.002,080.001, 360.00"1,290.00962.00
8,220.00
oduct(jig/L)slr§,OJtatttaie's
490.00
38.20
^S/*57^7!Efcw,1010
12902100
94.6
252.00300.00205.00
" "236 00186.00397.00368.00
" 436.00" 2 4 6 . 0 0
54.20"
f 125.30538
382704
658.00
45476b
"523.00284.00280.00219.00212.00240.00402.00364.00
""""neToo120.00
s 743.00
481
399
1500""1,280.00
1,170.00
1,080.00
243.00101.00111.00162.00
32.70
363.00
wta-figs3 D - 3
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
OF17AOF17AOF17AOF17A
-%.OFt7A- -•£OF20AOF20A
OF20A
OF20A
OF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20A
OF20A
OF20A (DUP)OF20AOF20A
OF21
OF22AOF22AOF22AOF22AOF22AOF22A
OF22A
OF22A
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1 (Dup)
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1
PM1(Dup)PM1
^0ftts~,Coltecte<if
12-Nov-9717-Feb-9815-May-98
28-Aug-98
•IO-Feb-99 . . , -24-Feb-9427-Jun-94
26-Sep-94
19-Jul-95
18-Oct-9519-Jan-9625-Apr-9625-Aug-9619-Nov-9611-Feb-9722-May-973-Sep-9712-Nov-97
20-Feb-98
20-Feb-9815-May-981-Sep-98
10-Feb-9926-Aug-9619-Nov-9622-May-972-Sep-9719-Nov-97
16-Feb-98
7-May-98
14-Aug-98
2-Mar-94
28-Jun-94
29-Sep-94
24-Jul-9524-Jul-95
20-Oct-95
24-Jan-96
26-Apr-9626-Aug-9620-Nov-9613-Feb-9720-May-9729-Aug-9729-Aug-97
IO-Nov-97
jj ^o /ilv^p1
3,214.00377.00476.00
1,057.80
i 283.307,447.624,484.60
5,677.80
2,228.14
184.401,197.302,235.403,331.003,453.001,579.001,197.00438.00128.00
401.00426.00
1,921.00363.70
393.10
949.00809.00963.00380.00498.00710.00
NO SAMPLE
718.90
BQL
37.00
8.06BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
6.31
9.00
31.00
2.00
2.00
1.001.00
BQL
.iThkxHglycofe9,010.00
36.70120.00
1,275.00
,;•;:,' 3*40C'*BQL178
341
39.4
BQL
37.40BQL
47.0054.2042.6034.5028.30BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
19.10
BQLBQL
51.80
146.009.00BQL
18.00
BQL
109.30
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
#Dithlan$t3,340.003,050.003,470.00
2,998.40
260.20*!
58606440
3970
2650
133.00359.00573.00
1,220.001,840.001,500.00618.00743.0041.20
350.00320.00
1,180.0081.20
169.30
736.00235.00540.00370.00208.00914.00
225.00
575.60 V31.7
282
910
380.00383.00
266.00
10.00
40.0070.0016.00
11.70
22.80105.0093.00
206.00
vsmmimSfiQjtathtape^
394.0086.00
257.00
227.00
' ;::59i40 r>
863
1040
664
512
226.0069.00
253.00179.00236.00148.0082.1028.409.40
116.00
120.00154.00
23.00
; 42.70. .248.0091.90
242.0071.7015.00
88.30
24.80
-81.90
7.06
56.6
171
73.4075.80
56.20
3.00
9.0010.00
3.20
2.00
2.8011.90
10.20
16.90
wta-figs3 D - 4
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old 0-Field
PM1
PM1
*:• :PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2(Dup) """
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
PM2
:PM3A
PM3A
PM3A
PM3A
PM3A
PM3A~"
PM3A
PM3A
PM3A ~~"
PM3A
PM3A~
PM3A
PM3A
PM3A
pm^m-'PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
PM4
IO-Nov-97
13-Feb-98
i&i«*y!il]©S8yte'28-Feb-9421-Jun-9427-Sep-9421-Jul-9519-Oct-95
19^Oct-95
23-Jan-96
" 26-Apr-96"
28-Aug-96
21-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
21-May-97
2-Sep-97
11-Nov-97
12-Feb-98
*immmm28-Feb-94
~~ 21-Jun-94"
26-Sep-94
20-Jul-95
"l9-6ct"-95
22^Jan-96
25-Apr-96
27-Aug-96
21-NOV-96
13-Feb-97
22-Ma7-97
29-Aug-97
11-Nov-97
12-Feb-98
4-May-9825-Feb-94
""22-Jun-94
26-Sep-94
20-Jul-95^
T9-6ct-95"
19-Jan-96
23-Apr-96
25-Aug-96
19-NOV-96
11-Feb-97
22-May-97
4-Sep-97
11-NOV-97
19-Feb-98
BQL
2.00
jl S-OO - ;,.
647.00
1,373.80
1,482.30
1,052.80
1,174.21
"Tl797lO~
1,203.40
T,oW.7b935.00
922.00
3,597.00
3,421.00
3^952700
4,331.00
6,409.00
'MSWKwtv10,745.10
8,057>~2"
7,713.50
1764160
5,37abb
553730
3,878.70
1309700
2,298.00
5,750.00
4,193.00
4,875.00
5,025.00
'"2,60230
728.00
225.92
^487.50
932.90
509.81
952^25
519.20
2,044.20
1,819^00
"1 ",437. 00~
1,224.00
637.00
571.00
~ 968. 00
1,039.00
,, CWMD«6f
*nifcp»rf i n hirf ni:
BQL
BQL
^^BQl :BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL '"
BQL
BQL
1 12".00 "
133.00
538.00
608.00
1,160.00
774.00
1,800.00
.2,480.00 '
1130
1060
1490
341.00 ~
2,750.00
99.60
127.00
BQL
225.00
1,080.00
2,120^00
1 ,3oaoo41.30
525.00
211.00
BQL23i~"~
32.1
BQL
3,340^00
192.00
BQL
BQL
776.00* ~BQL ~" ""
3.10
BQL
481.00
2,000.00
nlWi'l|fen;i.Pr>
206.00
15.00
•:*mwam915
1360
1730
672
596.00
' 679.00 ""
939.00
419.00
659700
997.00
1,160.00
1,230.00
3,280.00
8,920.00
1,470.00
3,360.00 :
1820
2390
1860
~1690"
"2,330.00
988 "00
904.00
587.00
462.00
'l7l 90.00
1400.00 "
17051.00
3,580.00
2,500.00
1,400.00
193
824
264
""5747o6"
"934.00
7^13.00
" 446700
~ 964.00
240.00
"1, 680.00
2,440.00
291.00
1,590.00
5,460.00
oductOtg/L^
16.90
2.50
aisstaflfc.-.:-.208
353
463
132.00
130.00
153"ob"
184.00
102.00
"~ "107^00
238.00
220.00"~~"l"87.bb
292.00
1,210.00
188.00
^395.00
486
418
538
769
523.00
"" 448.00
300.00
198.00
125.00
140.00
142.00
~ 138.00
208.00
164.00
249.00
108
278
131
348.00
364.00
258.00
299.00
236.00
98.90
475.00
496.00
79.50
273. 00 "
410.00
wta-figs3 D - 5
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
^MiMM^M^ ^Ai m l Mfif i '- -MPM4
PM4 (DUP)
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
PM5
mr-ms^mPM6
PM6
PM6
PM6
PM6
PM6
PM6
PM6
PM6 (DUP)PM6
PM6
PM6 (DUP)PM6
PM6 (DUP)
PM6
PM6 (DUP)
PM6
PM6 (DUP)
PM6
PM6
PM6
PM6
PM6
EX1
EX1
EX1
EX1
EX1
EX1
18-May-98
18-May-98
W:MO^Feb-9a^«24-Feb-9423-Jun-9423-Sep-9419-Jul-9518-Oct-9519-Jan-9623-Apr-9625-Aug-96
19-Nov-96
12-Feb-97
21-May-973-Sep-97
11-Nov-9720-Feb-98
23-Feb-94
23-Jun-94
23-Sep-9419-Jul-9517-Oct-9518-Jan-9623-Apr-9625-Aug-9625-Aug-9619-Nov-9612-Feb-9712-Feb-9721-May-9721-May-9728-Aug-97
28-Aug-97
11-Nov-97
11-Nov-97
20-Feb-98
18-May-98
4-Sep-98
9-Dec-98
10-Feb-9924-Aug-932-Mar-9428-Jun-9429-Sep-9424-Jul-95
23-Oct-95
54.00
119.00
&M4M$2,768.607,393.407,543.702,214.533,384.801,955.49
2,205.101,006.00
2,263.00
3,944.006,747.001 ,985.002,561.00
97.00
2,589.60
913.60
1,388.704,822.603,944.801,140.20106.10510.00669.00
5,927.00212.00199.0071.0076.00
3,111.00
3,042.00
2,194.00
2,632.00
732.00
1,801.00
6,935.10
4,307.00
2,321.1079.16
BQL
23.16
14.180.005.41
aTfiro<flglycotBQL
BQL
msataOim5480
255001170038400
15,200.0011,300.007,440.001,420.00
5,080.00
14,900.00
9,670.0010,300.007,480.001,500.00
» ,90|aHM».BQL
BQL
BQL
391.00174.00125.00BQL
BQL
BQL
875.0014.1013.90
13.9014.40
2,320.00
12,900.00
BQL
120.00
350.00
41.20
13,280.00
10,700.00
706.00
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
4.50
29.40
^834S:t(l1840793034204280
2,460.002,880.001,470.002,170.002,220.00
2,120.002,100.002,480.002,320.003,050.00
;330.00J1170
691
33205330
2,750.003,170.00
90.00724.00
1,290.005,210.00187.00164.00245.00213.00
2,980.00
2,880.00
5,550.00
6,020.00
6,989.00
3,491.00
2,083.10
6,518.20
5,296.60
380
42
64.2
1130221
484.00
fOxaWlane-0.90
7.00
UPU73.20 :»r384.00
2,350.00824.00
1.450.00664.00729.00576.00138.00
190.00
272.00
139.00362.00122.00
206.00
r38%40;70, •• ,
276
181
1330828.00365.00614.0036.00
243.00402.00418.0015.7015.70
18.80
1770
216.00224.00
329.00
320.00
705.00213.00
41630
557.20
520.80
101
9.44
11.6314
66.30
684.00
wta-figs3 D - 6
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
' ffliSffiEX1
EX1
EX1
EX1
EX1
EX1
EX1
EXT
EX1
•:•>. •- EXjfeK^,EXKpHPJiv
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A
EX2A ;
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A
EX3A (DUP)
EX3A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
^ *7"r"[> ? I r*? !"»: "rj,».' «t,«n' (- -4V!fl'? "*i; i't jA •••&"• '.'i-?i' _ ;»»i *-43
24-Jan-96
29-Apr-96
28-Aug-96
21-Nov-96
13-R;tv9~7" "
20-May-97
2-Sep-97
To-Nov-97" "
13-Feb-98
^s:**mmm.t m&imi
15-Sep-931-Mar-94
28-Jun-9422-Sep-9425-Jul-95
24-Oct-95
25-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
28-Aug-96
20-NOV-96
"l3-Feb-97~
20-May-97
2-Sep-97"
12-Nov-97
12-Feb-98
4-May-989-Sep-93
28-Feb-94
22-Jun-94
27-Sep-94
25-JuU95 ~
24-Oct-95
25-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
28-Aug-96
21-NOV-96
~13-Feb-97
21-May-97
2-Sep-97
12-NOV-97" ""
H-Feb-98"
11-Feb-98
4-May-9815-Apr-93
25-Feb-94
27-Jun-94
35.87
BQL
57.00
18.00
(Too12.00
3.00
8^66
3.00
#-*g»PO;-' ' -;
r-^oo- -^331.70
245.93
266.00
103.80
747\50
643.40
525739
512.70
"483700~
273.00
"""" 366.00
248.00
474.00
434.00
636TOO
561.00
5,735.70
6.93
259.40
2,408.80
75.90
22,520.90"""
13,133.44
241.00
3,391 .00
1,193.00
"10,796!00
1,1 62XDO
3,728.00
27715.00
1,~4"l9.00"
1,753.00
728.00
2,763.00
359.41
772.40
Kt CWftHQd<xxnp08(tfo»Product(ng )fThfodfoivCol
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQ"LBQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
.: -.BQI i/'
*•• .BQEfj-;:22930010829.1
BQL
53.80
80.00"
83.00
BQL
15.60
1 Y.50
42.30"52.b6"'~
BQL
BQL
200.00
4320
BQL
BQL
540
BQL
7,520.00
217.00
10lTo6
906.00
490.00
3,590.00
212.00
2,390^00
1,340700
1,500.00
920.00
656.00
27000
BQL
301
-iDfthtaneiS78.00
52.00
87.00
26.60
T13.00
144.00
179.00
91 740
17.00
- 16100 J,
"-15.00 -
2021
1910
3770
2550
1 ,040.00
"2,140.00
266.00
923.00
1,510.00
2,220.00
2,000.00
2,570.00
1,37000
27580.00
4,400.00
3,900.00
1269
1.91
BQL
1440
1610
1,430.00
529.00
50"00
912.00
131.00
990.00
"99.80
1,800.00
" 596.00 "
860.00
780.00
534.00
1990
626
3150
^Oxathfahe
24.00
19.00
22.00
5.70
29.20
29.40
17.00
17.00
2.80
' 2M
iio756
750
1410
1070
385.00
729.00
125.00
337.00
28600
440.00
370.00
200.00
477.00
305.00
796.00
1,100.00
189
1.08
8.02
249
228
194.00
82.00
10.00
96.00
16.10
101.00
8.00
148.00
57.40
38.00
36.00
25.70
690
200
1500
wta-figs3 D - 7
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
Sampte.LocatiMM*v. » ^f^&^y> jjfs••<•'.•', fij££vX~.>'' ..1 :!$$?;&
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A
EX4A (DUP)
•'-,EX4A-«^W
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX 5
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX5 (DUP)
EX5
EX5 (DUP)
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX5
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A (DUP)
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A
EX6A(DUP)
iDtoC^ectedd
EiS^ js^^^S^S^W™BJT': ,.; .WIPIPI r^f?
23-Sep-94
25-Jul-95
24-Oct-9525-Jan-9630-Apr-9628-Aug-96
21-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
21-May-974-Sep-9712-Nov-9716-Feb-98
16-Feb-98' "" ~~ '' A ft^ iif ^ft; fc •'•'
, • • ': " IllOjf *9O
13-Sep-93
24-Feb-94
23-Jun-94
23-Sep-94
25-Jul-95
24-Oct-95
25-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
26-Aug-96
21-Nov-96
21-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
13-Feb-97
21-May-97
21-May-97
28-Aug-97
12-Nov-97
20-Feb-98
4-May-98
2-Jun-93
27-Jun-94
23-Sep-94
25-Jul-95
25-Jul-95
24-Oct-95
25-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
26-Aug-96
21-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
20-May-97
28-Aug-97
28-Aug-97
rp?AEiyOG8|
899.00
875.16
3,077.00
1 ,932.00
3,455.20
1 ,084.00
701.00
4,559.00
1,101.00
|_ 1 ,448.00
2.00
656.00
658.00
287.00
11,359.00
7.114.50
837.90
11,084.50
6,750.00
6,220.00
1,865.00
3,072.00
7,820.00
5,259.00
5,021.00
5,620.00
5,623.00
7,916.00
8,801.00
5,859.00
1,276.00
260.00
653.00
2,874.70
2,332.20
432.70
538.46
513.33
0.00
1,257.10
5,790.00
149.00
486.00
1,439.00
1,588.00
748.00
765.00
i fSwMffKKiQfPsMilpwIflIJtPvw
113
BQL
887.00
125.00
474.00
BQL
16.80
1,490.00
350.00
674.00
357.00
634.00
659.00
uttoo •$•;24000
7000
577
39400
4350
22,200.00
6,230.00
23,800.00
13,000.00
11,000.00
12,800.00
7,850.00
7,670.00
9,060.00
12,500.00
8,880.00
2,970.00
4,530.00
221.00
BQL
44.1
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
25.50
BQL
BQL
13.90
55.20
16.20
14.00
13.70
PriHhlSnSiiiminuimp1480
110
923.00
513.00
343.00
264.00
311.00
868.00
409.00
329.00
952.00
1,170.00
1,260.00
•? -.. 628.0<**.
5243
2650
666
12900
5440
3,990.00
1,700.00
1,600.00
4,100.00
3,480.00
2,870.00
2,250.00
2,910.00
3,050.00
3,280.00
2,380.00
5,110.00
7,290.00
1,710.00
50
426
236
126
110
197.00
64.00
33.00
21.00
25.70
46.20
41.10
464.00
24.00
bOfieftfiioA^tMiJW*J*»*ir *? •'**?: • •*
3>^ M* HMMMW*»^
656
56.00
395.00
295.00
181.00
33.00
85.90
220.00
85.80
58.90
102.00
142.00
150.00
•W-ISSIOO'--561
501
209
2660
1430
1,320.00
433.00
363.00
366.00
211.00
194.00
340.00
365.00
295.00
320.00
333.00
338.00
378.00
111.00
15.1
125
54.4
49.3
39.4
63.70
21.00
12.00
5.00
6.10
9.50
880
117.00
5.80
wta-figs3 D - 8
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
^Sample Location^wislllP': '• -isViltillfptkitai i
EX6A
EX6A (DUP)
EX6A
-^'•"'-EXSA^Sf?
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7
EX7~
EX7
EX7(DUP)""
EX7
EX7(DUP)"
EX7
EX7,. -^-ir;EX8A
EX8A
EX8A
EX8A
EX8A
EX8A
EXSA"EX8A("Dup)"
EX8A
EX8A (Duipy ~"
EX8A
EX8A
EX8A
EX8A
EX8A
EX8
EX8A
EX8A
EX8A-'v:»->
EX9
EX9
EX9
EX9
EX9
EX9
11-NOV-97
11-Nov-97
23-Feb-98
g^MttJWT.*:14-Sep-93
1-Mar-94
28-Jun-94
23-Sep-94
25-Jul-95
24-Oct-95
25-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
28-Aug-96
21-Nov-96
1 3-Feb-97'~'~21-May~97~""
29-Aug-97
29-Aug^97
IO-Nov-97
IO-Nov-97
13-Feb-98
••:^MH«feB8.f .3-Sep-93
22-Nov-93
28-Feb-94
22-Jun-94
26-Sep-94
25-Juf-95
24-Oct-95
24-Oct-95
25-Jan-96
"25-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
~27-Aug^96"
"21-NOV-96
13-Feb-97
""27-May-97"
2-Sep-97
12-Nov-97
13-Feb-98
5 4-May-9830-Aug-93
23-Feb-94
23-Jun-94
"22-Sep-94"
25-Jul-95
24-Oct-95
3,224.00
4,856.00
794.00
5::~*O»:00-;=/v
27.19
63.20
0.00
8.83
3,615.60
10.30
43.96
67.30
79.00
64.00
218.00
3^00
38.00
52.00
36.00
~33X>0
40.00
fl 63.00
102,067.00
138,190.10
31,306.40
51,669.00
27,934.00
13,237.63
20,391.40
3,557.60
15,787.70
23,368.85
11,793.00
7,274.00
14^662.00
48,290.00
"407374.00
11,471.00
4,733.00
17,411.00
9,803.00
2,541.30
213.34
136.00
"T, 11 3.60
4,828.80
3,195.00
••» CWM>EfettamnriaHfe fcPir>riiict 1 uaffifc&
giniodigiyco!*979.00
1,390.00
220.00
It^Off -
660
70.8
493
185
43.4
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
122.00
~"~ 2.60
BQL"' "BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL5775
2170
B'QL"1730
2670
90.9
677.00
1,080.00
747.00
768.00
153.00
BQL
127.00
457.00
327.00
415.00
BQL
253.00
83.00
1550
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
1,450.00
tf i i iSjfyss^ te^nti *nJKt£&* &$
3,930.00 I 309.00
2,020.00
755.00i:f*525.00?ii
342
362
99.6
141
461.00
320.00
281.00
98.00
105.00
230.00
287.00
"T63.00~
261 W"
417.00 ~~
"~652.00~
59ZOO
750.00
1,300.001111
2300 ""
2300"
1600
1540
1050
1,340.00
1,460.00
900.00
915.00
271.00
620.00
308.00
474.00"
669.00
1,460.00
554.00
753.00
200.00
1683
400
"280
2120
2,1 moo4,150.00
164.00
89.30
^363flfe!1*
232
' 184
34.7
83.9
279.00
185.00
102.00
50.00"
28.00
89.20
115.00
118".00
89.00"
""100.00
177^00""
" 144.00
170.00
; - -300.0045.7
16~9~0"
""sVs""965
1010
475
503.00
598.00
303.00
284.00
165.00
244.00
118.00
194.00
160.00
156.0"0
73.90
167.00
x 8&00
775
81.7
62.6""950""
513.00
852.00
wta-figs3 D - 9
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
^OxaOiIane
EX9EX9EX 9EX9EX9EX9EX9EX9EX 9
25-Jan-9630-Apr-9626-Aug-96
~21^Nov^96
2,294.003,806~.00929^00525.00
172.00BOLTBQL
~65Tf6~
1,510.00" 389.00^"^626.06"1>93!00
13-Feb-9720-May-97
12-Nov-97
23-Feb-98~
159.00^4 96.004,647301,867^00
1,888.00
57.40^
~r.Q<[9,240.00'
2^00.00"
215.00156700
3,430.00~8,440.0CT
3,150.00
335.00
126^00134.00""59760""45.5024^50
_235.00^"318."db~
235.00
862.00*^ 4^43.60^OF40
OF40(DUP)OF40
OF40
11-Feb-985-May-98"
BQL
9-NOV-98
BQL
BQL
NO SAMPLEBQL "EiQLBQL
NO SAMPLE!~BQLBQL
BQL
NO SAMPLEBQL
XQL 1 _BQL
OF40.DUP** BQL-OF42OF42
11-Feb-985-May-98
1.00BQL
BQLBQL
2.000.50
BQL
BQL
2-402.9CKOF48
OF48~(DUP)OF48
11-Feb-98
6^Ma7-986-May-98
1,546.00iT2Too108.00
19.00
BQL
UO.OO"S^OO"
3.20
13.00"0~60"
0.90
38140 1,083.20, r 256.40OF49OF49OF49
16-Feb-987-May-98
9-Dec-98
3,333.00835.00
1,441.50
33.90BQL
5.40
761.00143.00461.10
96.80121.00
37.60OF49 5,071.30 9;30 367.90 65.90OF50
OF50
OF50
13-Feb-98
7-May-98
9-Dec-98
15,255.00
956^00
2,730.00
BQL
8,792.50 849.60
3,420.00226 00
880.70
248.00
41.00
104.10
OF50 12-Feb-99 13,919.50 2,172.00 1,041.20 1151.20
OF51 12-Feb-98 19,487.00 4,990.00 5,100.00 398.00
.OF51: 8-May-«8 5,791.00 440.00 3,000.00 ; 350.00OF52 13-Feb-98 611.00 BQL 41.00 21.80
OF52 342.00 BQL 1,157.00 118.00
OF53 10-Dec-98 1,193.00 928.00 1 ,043.00 161.90
OF53 1,344.90 494.50 855.10 94.60OF54 17-Feb-98 2,220.00 2,260.00 5,000.00 237.00
»;?f-95.00\
OF55 8-Feb-99 1,933.70 738.50 333.50 .91,90
OF56 12-Feb-98 5,224.00 1 ,090.00 2,950.00 202.00
OF56 8-May-98 2,849.00 63.00 2,600.00 380.00OF57OF57
OF57
19-Feb-9818-May-98
IO-Dec-98
4,663.00819^00
2,666.00
690.0090.10
691.20
12,200.005,054.00
1,143.90
1,250.00113.00
237.00
wta-figs3 D- 10
Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field
Samplft Locitionj
OF57 DUP
t • • • • ; • •OF61
OF61
OF61(Dup)
OF61
OF61
OF61 (DUP)
"OF61> - - -:f\COA *»R*<;°4 --•.VWiyfe^-s;
OF62
OF62
OF62
OF62 (DUP)
OF62 i:5|P*:
OF63
OF63
OF63
OF63 (DUP)
OF63
OF63
OF63- •?>»:,-•OF64
oj-64.;,;,, .EX10
EX10
EX10(DUP)
ExiO'--;.-;-;WP10
WP10
WP10
WP10 -WP7
wpfWP7
WF?7St:'*jWP11
WP11
WP11
wpn ^ ;WP14
WP14
WP14
WP14
{Dattfe<tcfedf|f
10-Dec-98
(g*.iPFaw&28-Aug-97
11-Nov-97
11-Nov-97
23-Feb-98
20-May-98
20-May-98
30-Nov-98
££.ig-ft£M$$28-Aug-97
11-Nov-97
23-Feb-98
23-Feb-98
20-May-9828-Aug-97
11-Nov-97
24-Feb-98
24-Feb-98
20-May-98
17-Nov-98iv- 10-Feb^99g>.
20-Feb-98
i8-Mavy|8i*12-Nov-97
13-Feb-98
1 3-Feb-98
4-May-983-Sep-97
11-Nov-97
~~ 1~6-Feb^98
15-May-984-Sep-97
11-Nov-97
11-Feb-98
5-May^R
3-Sep-97
11-Nov-97
24-Feb-98
18-May-984-Sep-9711-Nov-97~""11-Feb-986-May-98
KOiEMiVOCSt
2,716.00
P»:1i944;80«*5,933.00
7,533.00
7,409.00
677.00
321.00
~272lJb~~
432.40
>®l;658^0
1,266.00
1,252.00
789.00
932.00
:'trt*2o;oo. • . .92.00
131.00
"Hiso^oo"177.00
31.00
302.50
115.00
15,464.00
1 10,434.00
1,239.00
245.00
216.00
*•* 238.00
593.00
1,860.00
773"!00""
311.00
31.00
55.00
2.00
t 5.00
778.00
791.00
8.00
14.00
9.00
2.00
BQL
23.00
,- CWiyt0)SC«npositioi Pn*duct(ufl/t>-aThiodiglycol:
630.20
*•*., r45;50 ; ^BQL
BQL
BQL
6.00
BQL
BQL
BQL
'•- 'i'SOL*4'''''"1
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL ;
BQL
BQL
BQL"BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
33,000.00
16,600.00
BQL
BQL
BQL
•> 2;00
2,740.00
1,410.00
134.00
250.00 i
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQLBQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
.Dithlam tHOxathfane3,133.00 284.50
•.y2;245iS0:813.30
62.80
4,960.00
3.30
2.10""~1720~~
1.50
'?,?:. *4JSO?3
0.90
3.30
1.70
1.80
0.30
0.20
BQL
0.20
0.20
0.40
BQL
0.40
10,100.00
6,392.00:;
346.00
452.00
749.00
14.00
721.00
6,190.00
2,i7o.oo650.00
60.50
38.60 ""
33.00
91.00
125.00
935.00
7.10
12.40
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.40
• >2,52ir.6Q
13.30
26.30
352.00
1.80
0.70 ~"
0.70 '"
0.30
?f;*si3.6a;«5.00
11.30
3.00
3.20
/fir BQL -0.50
cT.eo0.60
0.60
BQL
0.40
f ;--:>1.00":.-
7,400.00
^ ;383.op?36.30
36.70
70".40
'7 .70
173.00
173.00
"~ 169.00
^25.50
5.10
s.ib"'"2.10
i 3.00
72.70
86.40
1.30
2.10
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
wta-figs3 D - 1 1
Table 0-2.
Summary of Analytical Results
Surface Water Samples, Old O-Field
S^pJe'I catlcfti^^ jSgsiAife^^S B^B?«^«53!<-*w3w8«^^w
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SW1
SWI ;SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2 , -
CWP2A ,
CWP5A
f gagca refct&e
2-Mar-94
24-Jun-9428-Sep-94
24-Jul-95
23-Oct-9524-Jan-9629-Apr-9627-Aug-9619-Nov-9611-Feb-9721-May-973-Sep-9710-Nov-9724-Feb-987-May-9829-Aug-989-NOV-98
i08-Feb-992-Mar-9424-Jun-94
28-Sep-94
24-Jul-95
23-Oct-9524-Jan-9629-Apr-9627-Aug-9619-Nov-9611-Feb-9721-May-973-Sep-9710-Nov-9724-Feb-988-May-9828-Aug-98
9-Nov-98
OB-Feb-99
''08-Feb-99
08-Feb^99
W^M^^S'iliiiPJIili lMmroiElIali
652.21ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.00
ND
207.0047.002.00ND
ND
3.00ND
ND
:''i3;pND,*v> •131.32
ND
ND
ND
ND
44.4816206.00ND
1.0032.003.00ND
ND
8.00ND
ND
-.6.30
40.00
1,433.40
IrffCWlfldTifrfS
916
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
114.004.90ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
:%-;f«ND^>f|
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
29.902.30ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ...
BQLA *BQL
uposiflSB Jf:
£vUllllMlUl$»
2220
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
1.50262.0041.40
ND
ND
0.502.50ND
ND
0.20 ?62.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.00
ND
0.30
0.0141.50
ND
1.50ND
0.50
ND
ND
ND S
32.40695.60
Dd8g£(|ig7E)
SI MMiUiHlIMM-422
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.20
22.604.60ND
ND
ND
0.90ND
ND
tfiv^ND-" 'V
18
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.00ND
ND
ND
5.10ND
0.40ND
ND
ND
ND
>«*-?,.:. N D - •
•f ^i6.60
•t; 157.00
D-12
Table D-3.Summary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsUpper Confined Aquifer (UCA), Old O-Field
i Hnple Location*
j Si??i$i|fiPM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B (Dup)
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
PM3B
• - PM3B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B
EX2B (Dup)
EX2B
EX2B (Dup)
H EX2B
WS&5BPnf33&SO: m7-Oct-93
22-Nov-93
28-Feb-94
27-Jun-94
27-Sep-94
21-Jul-95
20-Oct-95
23-Jan-96
23-Jan-96
29-Apr-96
27-Aug-96
20-Nov-96
12-Feb-97
22-May-97
29-Aug-97
12-Nov-97
16-Feb-98
6-May-98
14-Sep-98
•^p-Dec^*-
30-NOV-93
22-Feb-94
24-Jun-94
28-Sep-94
18-Jul-95
18-Oct-95
24-Jan-96
25-Apr-96
27-Aug-96
19-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
20-May-97
4-Sep-97
IO-Nov-97
13-Feb-98
7-May-98
7-May-98
24-Aug-98
24-Aug-98
10-Nov-98
8,001.00
7,344.00
7,648.00
6,248.00
6,182.00
5,526.00
7,473.00
7,104.00
5,633.00
9,626.00
7,861.00
6,178.00
11,999.00
9,371.00
10,540.00
9,059.00
11,904.00
10,546.00
1 1 ,200.00
11,479.00 f
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
14.40
BQL
6.00
3.00
77.00
BQL
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
5.50
5.90
1.90
jg j'GWjjPiiSBCt
424
336
726
316
287
BQL
174.00
87.80
93.30
41.60
BQL
3.90
BQL
15.90
14.10
BQL
37.90
5.50
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
9.30
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
njfXMitujnjij o
39.6
178
29.9
42
41.9
19.3
15.6 J
14.00
14.00
16.00
19.00
10.70
11.60
30.40
24.90
174.00
48.00
16.10
34.40
22.00
66.5
36.2
48.4
128
144
295.00
138.00
106.00
207.00
154.00
130.00
215.00
268.00
376.00
874.00
419.00
486.00
259.90
234.40
181.90
OUBftfoflBLjtfjM
4.95
133
5.36 J
8.58 J
8.39 J
6.57 J
5.77 J
4 J
5 J
5J
5.00
3.90
3.20
5.60
4.20
13.90
5.30
1.20
6.70
5.10
42.5
37.7
44.5
85.3
115
185.00
99.00
80.00
113.00
78.90
96.40
75.90
73.70
127.00
157.00
167.00
187.00
115.40
94.20
78.50
uca-figs3 D-13
Table D-3.Summary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsUpper Confined Aquifer (UCA), Old 0-Field
•: tnnl»-l nMtHAti l
: : ' : •TB^^^^^^^^w^Pq
:. EX2ft{i«i «l
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B (dup)
EX3B
EX3B (Dup)
EX3B
EX3B (Dup)
EX3B
EX3B (Dup)
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B
EX3B DUP
EX3B
EX3B DUP
EX3B
'- EX3B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
EX4B
tfTiifn' CV iltnr tBtB 1•BHMKMnKHBBMJ1B1MHB8H1BJ3PBS*BS^ ® *S?**"*™ * 1
29-Jun-94
27-Sep-94
21-Jul-95
20-Oct-95
23-Jan-96
25-Apr-96
27-Aug-96
27-Aug-96
20-Nov-96
20-Nov-96
12-Feb-97
12-Feb-97
21-May-97
21-May-97
2-Sep-97
12-Nov-97
12-Feb-98
12-Feb-98
8-May-98
8-May-98
14-Sep-98
*-:-2ifie£98'v;-''-
23-Apr-93
30-Nov-93
22-Feb-94
24-Jun-94
22-Sep-94
18-Jul-95
17-Oct-95
22-Jan-96
30-Apr-96
28-Aug-96
20-Nov-96
11-Feb-97
22-May-97
4-Sep-97
12-Nov-97
19-Feb-98
14-May-98
gTOTAtVOCa!
6,390.00
6,149.00
5,566.00
8,353.00
5,887.00
6,410.10
5,519.00
6,115.00
4,910.00
5,549.00
9,552.00
12,450.00
11,226.00
12,765.00
12,023.00
11,998.00
11,415.00
11,409.00
10,920.00
13,130.00
10,900.00
12,931.70
30.00
BQL
17.00
28.00
22.00
20.00
13.70
28.90
37.80
54.00
225.00
42.00
48.00
10.00
BQL
76.00
95.00
;trfito<Hglycd£
; BQt3£3(f34.5
77.4
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
147.00
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
2.40
BQL
173.00
30.90
BQL
R*Dttftten<Jt
S&SjBatell11 j13.6
14.6
13.30
11 J
13.00
16.00
16.00
12.70
12.20
11.30
14.10
19.70
21.70
96.00
15.80
16.00
17.00
39.00
37.00
29.60
16.10 ;2 J
3.59
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
3 J
3 J
1.00
1.50
1.30
1.60
2.20
1.70
1.90
2.50
s^dSt ssfc' erwgjs
3.53 J
4.12 J
4.76 J
4.48 J
3 J
4 J
4.00
4.00
4.20
4.00
4.00
3.90
3.70
3.70
3.40
3.90
3.80
3.60
6.70
6.40
6.00
4.70
3 J
4.35
BQL
2.46 J
2.66 J
2.17 J
1.84 J
3 J
4 J
3.00
2.80
2.70
2.50
3.80
3.00
3.10
4.00
uca-f\gs3 D-14
Table D-3.Summary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsUpper Confined Aquifer (UCA), Old O-Field
N^ple Locati fcypate tocted?
[ EX4B | 26-Aug-98
r ••••EX4B^;i|s^^*iijfc^8^r4EX6B | 7-Jun-93
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B (Dup)
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B
EX6B (Dup)
'* y-^exsBjg^M
EX6B(Dupy e<
EX8B
EX8B
EX8B
EX8B
EX8B
EX8B
EX8B (Dup)
EX8B
EX8B
EX8B (Dup)
EX8B
EX8B (Dup)
EX8B
EX8B (Dup)
EX8B
EX8B
29-Nov-93
22-Feb-94
24-Jun-94
22-Sep-94
18-Jul-95
17-Oct-95
18-Jan-96
29-Apr-96
29-Apr-96
25-Aug-96
19-Nov-96
11-Feb-97
20-May-97
28-Aug-97
12-Nov-97
23-Feb-98
19-May-98
1 7-Aug-98
17-Aug-98
ff*30|j(|p8?P; 3q-Nqyg98 :
29-Jun-94
26-Sep-94
20-Jul-95
19-Oct-95
22-Jan-96
25-Apr-96
25-Apr-96
27-Aug-96
20-Nov-96
20-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
13-Feb-97
22-May-97
22-May-97
3-Sep-97
12-Nov-97
9.60
fivjm^riBQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
19.60
BQL
BQL
18.00
21.00
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.00
BQL
1.00
111.00
4.10
6.20
i ?«6:50^-;-
1.50
30,753.00
29,712.00
13,661.00
29,566.00
17,484.00
25,855.30
25,461.40
12,644.00
25,162.00
25,622.00
39,370.00
39,800.00
30,898.00
28,989.00
39,880.00
31,424.00
T: CWM Decomposition Product (jig/L)
'm**mmBQL
^.••'BpL?;^
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
-,-.- BQL'-- •'•>;'•
BQL
384
306
32.3
BQL
200.00
112.00
154.00
106.00
56.30
57.40
84.30
87.80
4.30
114.00
102.00
112.00
&&&&&&2.70
; 2:60 '••'*BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
23.50
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
1.20
BQL
BQLv- 'rBQLi ';
BQL
11.9J
11.2 J
16.1
7.92 J
7 J
15.00
7J
7.00
4.70
4.70
3.90
4.10
6.20
5.50
5.80
2.50
388®B8S*i!r-3.60
W-afrP". £BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
3.10
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
5.22 J
BQL
9.98 J
1.01 J
8 J
10J
8J
6.00
4.40
4.50
BQL
BQL
4.30
3.30
4.30
4.30
uca-figs3 D-15
Table D-3.Summary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsUpper Confined Aquifer (UCA), Old O-Field
EX8B
EX8B
EX8B
£' -BJ9B?ft: .v.?OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12B
OF12BOF12B (Dup)
OF12BOF12B
OF12B (Dup)
OF12B
Kll iSS^^ZWfftfr---* .i: ^ Sw^ ii W<^§j|i4^ ,DttfIa'r* li,
16-Feb-98
8-May-98
15-Sep-98
^••.*pfc£&<<f?
23-Feb-94
24-Jun-94
22-Sep-94
19-Jul-95
18-Oct-95
18-Jan-96
23-Apr-96
26-Aug-96
20-Nov-96
13-Feb-97
21-May-97
3-Sep-97
12-Nov-97
20-Feb-9820-Feb-9819-May-9831-Aug-98
31-Aug-98
18-Nov-98
32,848.00
36,430.00
29,080.00
J^34|iS2StoO^
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
7.00
23.00
17.00
3.00
7.00
9.00
7.006.0080.003.20
5.10
5*0
67.30
52.00
14.30
;v,:; /:BQlSc,>
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
39.30
3.50
8.00
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
7.10
9.30
7.00
P^ 6.10 3 "
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
7J
11 J
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.1J
--
BQL
BQL
BQL
8.50
BQL
BQL
.V.-,iBQL- ••>>•
7.70
9.10
8.80
'•".£»•- 7.7 WS'-y't
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
2 J
3 J
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
--
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
ecu.
uca-figs3 D-16
•ND-
100e=SCALE
too 200
FEET
LEGEND^ Of 1
NO—— 5OO1.OOO5,000
10,000
MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
NON DETECT
INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
US ARMYENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. MAA13-t1-D-0014
RZ/DWM
JC
7-26-M
MKMi 0430C
FIGO-1 .dwg
FNUHE 0-1lUJOPOJI
OLD O-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
VOC CONTAMINANT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - WTAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
FOR NOVEMBER 1997
D-17
100HSCALE
100 200a
FEET
LEGEND^ Of I
0 CXI
-- MO —- soo --- 1 ,000 -
— s.ooo —
MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPtNC EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
NON DETECTINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/LINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/LINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
10,000— INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
US ARMYENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONDUCT NO. OAAA1S-11-O-OOU
RZ/DWMJC
07-2«-99
*•» 043OC
nOO-2.dwg
noo«;
OLD O-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
CWM MUSTARD DEGRAD. PRODUCT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - WTAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
FOR NOVEMBER 1997
D-18
LEGEND
tooeSCALE
10O 20O
FEET
i on
-NO—-500-
! ,000
5,000
MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
-NON DETECT-INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/LINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
-INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
10,000 INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
US ARMY
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERCONTRACT NO. DAAA15-91-D-0014
ffC2113 Dnmortwi Park RoodCdff«m>4. «gr)*»xl 71040(410) 61Z-USOA Htirinf of T)N n Croup
RZ/DWM
JC
07-M-99 FIGD-3.dwg
HGURE D-3ABCROCEN PROVIHC CttOUNO
OLD O-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
VOC CONTAMINANT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - UCAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
FOR NOVEMBER 1997
D-19
..-,: 1 - lii.» ATrL
-N-
LEGEND
100eSCALE
100 20O
FEET
OF1
-ND —
-300
MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
-NON DETECT
-ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L
US ARMYENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
CONTRACT NO. DAAA1S-91-D-0014
HZ/DWM
JC
07-M-M
TASK MO, 04IM
FIGD-4.dwg
FIGURE D-4ABCROCEN PROVINC 6KOUNO
OLD O-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
CWM MUSTARD DEGRAD. PRODUCT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - UCAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
FOR NOVEMBER 1997
D-20
TIDAL GAUGE ELEVATION1.20
OF460.30
OF560.92
CWP1ANA
OF22A0.79 CWP2A
1.31EX100.79
OLD0-FIELD
MW4-2A0.79^ JDF21
^0.88
E-X1521OF6A(R)0.70
DF59-0.37
MW6-1AA-0.16
EX6A0MW6-3A-2.20
100 100 200
SCALE FEET
LEGEND_.., MONITORING WELL OR NON-OF1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLEX1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
CWP5 CREEK WELL POINT—0.1' GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
-0.1' INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION '
CONCENTRIC CONTOUR
5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETABOVE MEANSEA LEVEL)
-5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETBELOW MEANSEA LEVEL)
NA NOT AVAILABLE
BALTIMORE DISTRICT
US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-D-0083
2113 EMMORTON PARK ROM)• IGF KAISERa«WOOO. Horytand 21040
(410) 612-6350
RZ
ocean x
MTC 8-10-98
TASK NO: M7B>
CT CM NOt
GWMAP-65
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
OLD 0-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
OLD 0-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 17 SEPTEMBER 1997
a33'0
TIDAL GAUGE ELEVATION1.60
OF 400.83 F47
-0.45
OF48 ^
OLD0-FIELD
OF530.64 OF55
0.79 MW4-3A0.22
OF17A0.91
CWP51.38
E-X0579OF6A(R)0.68 PM6
0.54
MW6-3A-0.27
MW6-2A-0.13
100 100
SCALE
200
FEET
-riOF1
LEGENDMONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
CWP5 CREEK WELL POINTor GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
O.r INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
CONCENTRIC CONTOUR
5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETABOVE MEANSEA LEVEL)
-5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETBELOW MEANSEA LEVEL)
NA NOT AVAILABLE
BALTIMORE DISTRICT
US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-0-0083
1CF
2113 EMUOKTON PARK ROADEDGQWOO. Itoytand 21MO(+10) 612-6350
RZ
CHCCKCO JC
DA1C B-10-98
TASK NO: 6C70S
CF DM NO:
GWMAP-66
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
OLD 0-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
OLD 0-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 22 OCTOBER 1997
o3.J
TIDAL GAUGE ELEVATION0.91
WPS0.06
F14B-0.340EX1
-6.58DF40nso
OF460>65
OF560.74PM3A
0.76
CWP1A.82
0.82OF22A
0.77 CWP2A.16
MW4-10.81
OLD
0-FIELD5.32
&OF54MW4-2A0.90$ JDF21
^0.83OF53°-78 CiF5S^MW4-3A
0.72 ^ o 68 OF17A0.86
OF570.83
OF640.84
OF6A(R)OJ96
OF59-0.23
100 100
SCALE
2OO
FEET
LEGENDMONITORING WtLL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
CREEK WELL POINT
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
CONCENTRIC CONTOUR
5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETABOVE MEANSEA LEVEL)
-5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETBELOW MEANSEA LEVEL)
NA NOT AVAILABLE
BALTIMORE DISTRICT
US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-0-0083
2113 EMMORTDN PMK MW>
^ ICF KAISEREWEHOOO. ***** 21040(410) B12-43SO
RZ
CMBCKD
•*« 8-10-9*
TASK NO: MTU
GWMAP-67
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
OLD 0-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
OLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 3 DECEMBER 1997 o
23
TIDAL GAUGE ELEVATION1.25
PM2^i;^
EXSAtif 0.51
OF45-4.46
CWP1A1.89
OF22A0.79 CWP2AEX10
-0.83 WP100.97MW4-1
0.83OLD
0-FIELDMW4-2A0.964>
JOF21^0.82
OF531.02 OF55
0.64
EX5-1.46 OF58
0.58OF6A(R)1.05
F59-0^20
MW6-1A0.22
MW6-2A
1.04AOF62^0.90
SCALE FEET
LEGENDMONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
[> EX1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL
> CWP5 CREEK WELL POINT0.1' GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
— O.T INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
CONCENTRIC CONTOUR
5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETABOVE MEANSEA LEVEL)
-5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETBELOW MEANSEA LEVEL)
NA NOT AVAILABLE
BALTIMORE DISTRICT
US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-D-0083
2113 EMUORTON P/WK ROM)ICF KAISERcDCewOOO Morytand 21040
(410) 612-KSSO
RZ
CHECKED
MTC 8-10-98
TMX Nft M703
CF ONC NO:
GWMAP-68
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
OLD 0-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD
OLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP DECEMBER 19 1997
50o2
Appendix EOld O-Field GWTF
Effluent Data
40,000
38,000
T3
w 36,000
Figure E-1. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge
September 1996 to March 1999
26,000
Date
E-1O
17.00
16.00
15.00
14.00
13.00
o> 12.00E
11.00xO
10.00
9.00
Figure E-2. Old O-Field GWTFEffluent Monitoring System
September 1996 to March 1999Dissolved Oxygen
Number of Observations - 12.884
' c£i of ^-S/* vO°f ^
Date
£'E3
n•ocn
Ia
950
900
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
Figure E-3. 'v O-Field GWTFEffluent Monitoring System
September 1996 to March 1999pH
Number of Observations - 12.882
•4' <#»
Ti>ulwi|2 - Inlal 1 111 pi I Chan
Date
E-3
Figure E-4. Old O-Field GWTFEffluent Monitoring System
September 1996 to March 1999Temperature
Number of Observations -12,884
Maximum Allowable Temperature 32.2 C
,i I 111 letup Tlid
Date
O)3
Oc0O
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure E-5. Old O-Field GWTFEffluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Total Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Monthly Average
Total VOC Effluent Discharge Limit -100 ug/L
Total Efl VOCs - Total VOCi Charl
A o> /A A y oo x*y w^ K'O' v^ rtyk J ^*" ^*^ *O
Sample Date
E-5
Figure E-6. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Aluminum
O)3
CO
c0)OC0O
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Effluent Discharge Limit - 1200 ug/L
Overall Melals>3 - Aluminum Chan
Sample Date
E-6
O)
o
600
550
500
450
400
350
300c0)oo 250O
200
150
100
50
0
Figure E-7. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Arsenic
Effluent Discharge Limit - 550 ug/L
*>-4'
Oveiall MelalsS - Arsenic Chan
Sample Date
E-7
a3J
Figure E-8. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Barium
200
o>
co
c01oc0o
Effluent Discharge Limit - 150 ug/L
c£> <#» $>
Sample Date
Overall T 1 - barium Chart
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Figure E-9. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Copper
ra
C0
CVu0o
Effluent Discharge Limit - 490 ug/L
-*——»
-* _,9"c
Overall Metals3 - Copper Chart
Sample Date
E-9
D
O)3
CO
CVOCOO
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure E-10. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Iron
Effluent Discharge Limit - 510 ug/L
-cX vdo •$• K*'
OvefallM- ' 's3 Iron Chail
Sample Date
F-10
J
90
80
Figure E-11. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Lead
70
60
D)
f 50O'c ;1 40ocoo
30
20
10
Effluent Discharge Limit - 80 ug/L
Overall Melals3 • Lead Chart
^' c/'
-* • • • * • • • • 4 • *
.&V c& J^J 'b V
Sample Date
E-11
-i' /\' <'
3 ^ ^
ojjo
O)3
C0
CffiuC0O
300
250
200
150
100
50
Ovorall M«la!s3 - Nickel Chart
Figure E-12. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Nickel
v>N
Effluent Discharge Limit - 290 ug/L
-•—»—•—»—»- •+—+
-1'
Sample Date
E-12
-•—«—•—*—•—•—•—*-
rx%
sP4''
O
Ol3
C0)oC0o
400
350
300
250
200
Figure E-13. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Zinc
Effluent Discharge Limit - 310 ug/L
<*>
Overall Meldls3 - Zinc Chan
Sample Date
E-13
o
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
- 12.0
Figure E-14. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
One-Day Maximum Effluent Discharge Limit - 15 mg/L
co
c0)oc0o
10.0
8.0
6.0
Overall Metals3 - TSS Chan
Sample Date
E-14
60
Figure E-1 . ^Id O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)
September 1996 to March 1999Turbidity
50
Ijo153
O
40
« 30Eo
Q.0>z
HZ
20
10
Maximum Effluent Discharge Limit - 50 NTU
Overall Melals3 - Turbidity Chart
Sample Date
E-15 O