NCD980557656_19991101_NC State University (Lot 86 Farm Unit 1)_FRCBERCLA RD_Design Criteria Report - Groundwater Remedial Design-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DESIGN CRITERIA REPORT
RECEIVED
NOV 2 31999
SUPERFUND SECTION
FOR NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
LOT 86 GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL DESIGN
Prepared For:
-
Environmental Protection Agency
and
North Carolina State University
Prepared By:
Mid-Atlantic Associates, P.A.
409 Rogers View Court
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
November 1999
MP?;~J1~iNT}~
Eni:incrring & Enl'ironmenrul Soforion,t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared For:
M!1?;¾l1~4NTl£
Engin.eering & Environmental Sollitions
409 Rogers View Court I Raleigh I North Carolina 127610
800-486-75681919-250-99/8 / 9/':}-250-9950 Facsimile
W\1'tt'.mat1{m/ine.com
DESIGN CRITERIA REPORT
FOR NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
LOT 86 GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL DESIGN
November 1999
Mid-Atlantic Associates Job No. 099R0769
Prepared By:
Environmental Protection Agency
and
MID-ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES, P.A.
North Carolina State University
Darin M. McClure, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Thomas A. Proctor, P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1
2.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS ...................... 2
3.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................... 3
4.0 TREATABILITY STUDY ......................................................................... 4
5.0 PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 5
6.0 VOLUME OF MEDIA REQUIRING TREATMENT ......................................... 6
7.0 TREATMENT SCHEMES ........................................................................ 6
8.0 INPUT AND OUTPUT RATES ....... : ......................................................... 6
9.0 INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITIES .................................................... 6
10.0 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 7
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................ 8
12.0 LONG-TERM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 8
13.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 9
DRAWINGS
Drawing 1
Drawing 2
Drawing 3
Topographic Site Map
Location of Proposed Recovery Wells
Process Flow Diagram, Groundwater Treatment System
MP?;{\J,~~N!l~
Engineering & Enrirnnm('n/a/ So/111ion.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Lot 86 Site (Lot 86) is a 1 .5-acre site
located on the west side of Raleigh, North Carolina. The Lot 86 site served as a
disposal site for chemical and low level radioactive wastes generated in the
educational and research laboratories at NCSU from 1969 to 1980. The wastes
were placed in 22, ten-foot-deep trenches and covered with native soils. Leachate
from the waste caused groundwater and soil contamination. Groundwater in the
vicinity of the site contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs), principally
chloroform, methylene chloride, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and trichloroethene.
Lower levels of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and pesticides have also
been detected. Contaminant concentrations are highest in shallow groundwater
adjacent to the site and decrease with depth and with distance from the site.
The site was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in October 1984. A Remedial Investigation (RI) report
evaluating the type and extent of soil and groundwater contamination was
completed June 10, 1994 by Brown and Caldwell. A Draft Feasibility Study (FS)
evaluating a range of remediation alternatives was prepared in February 1996 by
Brown and Caldwell. A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by the EPA on
September 30, 1996. EPA selected groundwater pump and treat and in-situ soil
mixing and encapsulation as the remedy for this site.
Following completion of the RI/FS, NCSU undertook additional studies and
investigations at the site. From these endeavors it was concluded that once the
source materials were removed from the site, it was possible that the groundwater
contaminant plume could be adequately remediated by natural attenuation
processes. Soil stabilization in the former waste disposal area was completed in
October 1999. Therefore, the source of the contamination has been eliminated.
Natural attenuation is currently being evaluated as an alternate groundwater remedy
for this site. Initial results of this evaluation are documented in the "Additional Site
Investigation and Evaluation of Monitored Natural Attenuation" report prepared by
GEi Consultants, Inc. in October 1998.
Mid-Atlantic Associates, P.A. (Mid-Atlantic) has been retained to complete a
Remedial Design for groundwater remediation at Lot 86. This report includes
preliminary design assumptions, waste characterization, influent and effluent quality
and quantity, materials and equipment, process flow, performance standards, and
monitoring requirements. This "Design Criteria Report" is accompanied by a "Data
Acquisition Report," "Preliminary Plans and Specifications," and a "Plan for
Satisfying Permitting Requirements." After approval of these documents by EPA
and NCSU, a "Draft Construction Schedule" and "Final Design" will be completed.
MP?s-~J,~◊N!l9.
£11gineeri11!/ & £11l'iro1rm1•111a/ Solutions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot86
Raleigh, North Carolina
2.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS.AND PARAMETERS
November 1999
Page 2
Preliminary design assumptions and parameters for the groundwater remediation
system at the site include recovery well radius of influence, recovery well pumping
rate, number of recovery wells, well construction data, treatment technology and
treated effluent disposal. These assumptions and parameters were developed from
data generated during the aquifer pumping test, information contained in the ROD,
historical site data, and initial inquiries into treatment and disposal options. Based on
this information, the preliminary design assumptions and parameters are outlined
below.
o Number of Recovery Wells -Based on the estimated size of the
contaminant plume ("Record of Decision for NCSU Lot 86 Superfund Site,"
October 1996) and the estimated recovery well radius of influence, 11
recovery wells will be utilized for the system (Drawing 2).
o Recovery Well Radius of Influence -Based on the results of the aquifer
pumping test, an effective radius of influence for recovery wells at the site
is conservatively estimated at 40-50 feet. (See "Results of Data Acquisition
Activities for NCSU Lot 86 Remedial Design," November 1999.) Placement
of wells based on this radius of influence should provide optimal recovery
of groundwater and prevent further off-site migration of contaminants.
• Recovery Well Pumping Rate -Based on the results of the aquifer pumping
test, a design recovery well pumping rate is estimated at 0.6 - 1 .2 gallons
per minute (gpm). The sustained pumping rate during the aquifer pumping
test was 0.65 gpm (see "Results of Data Acquisition Activities for NCSU
Lot 86 Remedial Design," November 1999).
• Well Construction Data -Recovery wells will be constructed of 4-inch
diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing and standard 304 stainless steel 0.020-
inch wire-wrapped screen. The wells will be installed to depths ranging
from approximately 70 to 85 feet below land surface and terminated just
above bedrock. Each well will be constructed· with a 2.5 foot section of
solid casing at the base of the screened section to serve as a "silt basin".
o Treatment Technology -As stipulated in the ROD, the treatment
technology to be implemented at the site will be air stripping. A low-profile,
trickle tray air stripper is proposed. Extracted groundwater will be routed to
a holding tank and then transferred to the air stripper by a transfer pump.
Prior to discharge, the water . will be "polished" by A620 CARBOND
Filtration Media TM (CARBOND) (Drawing 3).
MP?s-~t1~~N!lS:
En11i11cerinfi & l:111•iro11me111al Solutio11s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot 86
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 1999
Page 3
• Effluent Disposal -Treated effluent from the groundwater remediation
system will be discharged in accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or a permit to discharge the
treated effluent to the local publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
3.0 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
The Lot 86 site was used as a hazardous chemical and low level radioactive waste
disposal site from approximately 1969 to 1980. NCSU reported that it had
disposed of approximately 11,000 cubic yards of chemical waste generated in its
educational and research laboratories. Quantities reported included lightly
contaminated soils and water as well as actual waste materials. Chemicals buried
at the site include solvents, pesticides, inorganics, acids, and bases. The chemical
wastes were placed in trenches and covered with approximately two feet of native
soils. There were 22 trenches approximately ten feet deep and from 50 to 150 feet
in length. In October 1999, Marshall Miller & Associates completed in-place
stabilization of the trench materials, eliminating the contaminant source. The
stabilization/remediation of the contaminant source should result in a decline in (and
an eventual. elimination of) contaminants leaching to groundwater. The stabilization
·of the source will also reduce the amount of recharge to the shallow aquifer in the
immediate vicinity of the source area. The reduced recharge may also decrease the
rate at which contaminants disperse from the source area.
A significant amount of site data has been collected during previous investigations
to assist with characterizing the waste (contaminated media) at the site. Thirty-
three monitoring wells were installed near the disposal area prior to 1993 and
groundwater sampling has been conducted since the early 1980s. In 1993, eight
new monitoring wells were constructed during the Remedial Investigation. Samples
were collected from 20 wells by Brown and Caldwell Consultants for the Remedial
Investigation in 1993. VOCs were the most prevalent group of compounds present
in the groundwater. Additionally, low levels of SVOCs and pesticides were
detected.
VOC concentrations were notably higher in the shallow aquifer than in the bedrock
aquifer, with the highest concentrations detected near the former waste disposal
area. VO Cs were not detected in concentrations at or above the laboratory's
practical quantitation limit (POL) in samples collected from background and
upgradient wells. The highest dissolved VOC concentrations were detected in
samples collected from wells in the upper five to ten feet of the saturated zone,
immediately west and northwest of the former waste disposal area, near the
disposal trenches. Contaminants exhibiting the highest concentrations included:
acetone, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methylene chloride,
MP?;{\f1~4N!l~
£111/inccrin}/ & En1•ir1111mc111al Solutions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot 86
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 1999
Page 4
tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene. Low levels of VOCs were detected in some
of the deep wells. SVOCs and pesticides were reportedly detected at low
concentrations in groundwater samples collected from three shallow wells.
The following metals were reportedly detected in samples collected from
downgradient wells at concentrations above those present in samples collected
from the upgradient wells: arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, and zinc.
GEi Consultants, Inc. installed 12 additional wells in 1998 for a natural attenuation
study (" Additional Site Investigation and Evaluation of Monitored Natural
Attenuation as a Groundwater Remedy," October 29, 1998). GEi has periodically
collected groundwater samples from 32 wells from 1997 to 1 999 and analyzed the
samples for approximately 90 compounds. Samples collected from wells upgradient
of the former waste disposal area did not exhibit concentrations at or above the
laboratory's PQL for the contaminants of concern (1, 1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2-
dichloropropane, benzene, bromodichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,
methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene) with the exceptions of
iron and manganese. Similar results were obtained for samples collected from
downgradient wells across the eastbound lane of Wade Avenue (200-300 feet
north and northwest of the former waste disposal area) with the exception of low
levels of chloroform detected in samples collected from wells MW-42 and MW-43.
Samples collected from monitoring wells screened in the shallow aquifer near the
northwest corner of the former waste disposal area continue to exhibit the highest
concentrations of contaminants, especially in samples collected from MW-12.
Contaminants exhibiting the highest concentrations from the January 1999 samples
included: chloroform (110,000 µg/L), benzene (14,000 ~tg/L), 1,2, dichloropropane
(24,000 µg/L), and methylene chloride (12,000 µg/L). A chloroform contaminant
plume for the shallow aquifer based on the January 1999 sampling is shown in
Drawing 2.
4.0 · TREATABILITY STUDY
The ROD stipulates that the method of treatment of groundwater contaminants will
be air stripping combined with effluent "polishing." The ROD also states (page 19)
"groundwater remediation will focus on chloroform, methylene chloride, benzene, and
carbon tetrachloride as these chemicals were most frequently detected in the
groundwater." Most volatile organics, such as the ones listed, are readily removed by
air stripping, ·the selected remedial alternative. Subsequent treatment with CARBOND
will provide additional treatment after air stripping to remove other contaminants
such as acetone that are not as easily removed by air stripping.
MP?;t\fl~◊N!l<;
Engi11eel"i11g & Enl'iroumento! Solutiu11s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot 86
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 1999
Page 5
Our preliminary study has indicated that treatment with a Shallow Tray® trickle-tray
air stripper, or equivalent, and polishing with CARBOND should provide an effluent
with concentrations sufficient to meet effluent discharge permit requirements. Actual
effluent requirements will be established when the required discharge permit is
applied for and obtained.
5.0 PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
One important factor when designing an air stripper and determining the need for pre-
treatment is water chemistry. The presence of significant amounts of naturally
occurring compounds can adversely affect an air stripper's removal efficiency through
fouling. Air stripper fouling can be divided into four different types: iron and
manganese precipitation, biological film growth, scaling due to carbonate deposition
(hardness), and solids sedimentation. The following paragraphs illustrate why it does
not appear that pre-treatment of the extracted groundwater will be required prior to
air stripping.
Routine maintenance is usually sufficient for iron and manganese concentrations of
less than five milligrams per liter (mg/L). For concentrations greater than 10 mg/L,
pre-treatment by means such as pre-aeration and filtration of precipitates should be
provided. Based on historical data collected at the site, we anticipate the extracted
groundwater to contain iron and manganese concentrations of less than five mg/L.
We also anticipate that the use · of the holding tank will_ reduce the influent
concentration of these metals by settling .. Therefore, pre-treatment to combat iron
and manganese precipitation is not necessary.
High concentrations of total biodegradable · organics can result in microbial film
growth in air strippers and cause operational problems. Although most of the
contaminants present at the site are biodegradable to some degree, it does not
appear that concentrations are high enough to cause fouling due to biological film
growth. Cleaning during periodic maintenance of the air stripper should be sufficient.
Therefore, pre-treatment to combat biological film growth is not necessary.
It is very rare to have hardness be the cause of fouling in an air stripper. There is
usually not enough evaporation in an air stripper to cause precipitation from hardness.
Based on our knowledge of groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the site, we do
not anticipate fouling due to carbonate deposition to be a problem.
Proper design, construction, and development of the recovery wells will limit the
amount of suspended solids in the extracted groundwater. By routing the extracted
groundwater to a holding tank, suspended solids which may be present will be
allowed to settle prior to transferring the groundwater to the air stripper. Based on
these parameters and design characteristics, pre-treatment to reduce the amount of
MP?;~J'l~◊N!J~
E11Ki11c1•rinJ: & f:nl'iro11me111al Solutions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot 86
Raleigh, North Carolina
solids deposited in the air stripper is not necessary.
6.0 VOLUME OF MEDIA REQUIRING TREATMENT
November 1999
Page 6
The ROD indicates that approximately 300,000 gallons of groundwater are
contaminated and that the groundwater remediation system is expected to operate
for 30 years. Based on these assumptions and a total groundwater extraction rate of
11 gpm, approximately 1 73 million gallons of groundwater will require treatment.
However, due to natural attenuation processes, the actual volume requiring treatment
could be substantially less. Solids removed from the holding tank may need to be
treated and/or disposed.
7.0 TREATMENT SCHEMES
It is anticipated that the contaminated groundwater will be extracted and pumped
into a holding tank. The .quality of the extracted groundwater along with the use of
the holding tank should provide sufficient "pre-treatment" to prevent significant
fouling in the air stripper. From the holding tank, the extracted groundwater will be
pumped into the air stripper (Drawing 3); The air stripper has been sized and designed
to efficiently remove the majority of the VOCs and SVOCs from the extracted
groundwater. Once the air stripper basin is full, the treated effluent will be pumped
through the CARBOND, which will effectively remove the remaining organic
compounds, and subsequently to the discharge point. It is not anticipated that any
further means of treatment will be required to meet the performance standards
presented in Section 11.0.
8.0 INPUT AND OUTPUT RATES
A flow rate of approximately 0.6 - 1 .2 gpm is estimated from each recovery well.
Based on an estimated 11 recovery wells and a recovery rate of 1 .0 gpm per well,
the input rate into the groundwater remediation system is estimated to be 11 gpm.
Rather than a continuous flow from the holding tank to the air stripper, the contents
of the holding tank will be batched through the air stripper at 1 2 to 15 gpm. The
output rate from the air stripper is expected to be 15 gpm.
9.0 INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITIES
Groundwater samples collected from extraction well EW-1 during the aquifer pumping
test exhibited detectable levels of benzene, carbon tetrachloride and chloroform
("Data Acquisition Report for NCSU Lot 86," November 1999). Other contaminants
MP?;~J1~4N!lS:.
Engineering & E111•iro11men1al Sol111ions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot 86
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 1999
Page 7
present in the extracted groundwater may not have been detected in these samples
due to the high quantitation limits for the compounds. The influent to the remedial
system should include these compounds along with other compounds listed in
Section 3.0. The actual compounds and their concentrations will vary based on the
pumping rate from each well and the dilution of contaminants from mixing with less
contaminated groundwater. The actual quality of system influent will be determined
when the system is operational and influent samples are collected. Based on the
estimated concentrations of compounds in the extracted groundwater from each
recovery well, Mid-Atlantic estimated the quality of influent which will be delivered to
the air stripper. The estimated influent concentrations of the chemicals of concern are
summarized in the table below.
COMPOUND ESTIMATED INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
(µg/L)
Benzene 4,025
Carbon Tetrachloride 1,166
Chloroform 28,614
Methylene Chloride 3,323
Tetrachlorethene 447
Acetone 2,629 .
Bromodichloromethane 664
1,2-Dichloropropane 3,629
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 472
Trichlorethene .1, 739
Toluene 105
Manganese 3,671
Arsenic 76
Iron 456
The contaminants most frequently detected and at the highest concentrations in the
groundwater at the site are readily removed by air stripping. The goal of the air
stripping and subsequent "polishing" by CARBOND will be removal of the
contaminants so that chemical analyses of the treated effluent result in "non-detect"
levels for the VOCs and SVOCs or an effluent quality at or below limits imposed by
the discharge permit.
10.0 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
The contaminated groundwater will be extracted using electric, submersible pumps.
Extracted groundwater will be routed through underground piping to a holding tank to
allow solids to settle prior to entering the air stripper. Water from the holding tank
MP?;~\E~◊N!J~
Enxi11eering & Enl'ironme111al Solutions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot 86
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 1999
Page 8
will be transferred to the air stripper via a transfer pump. After treatment, water from
the stripper basin will be pumped via a transfer pump through CARBOND filtration
media, a totalizing flow meter and subsequently to the discharge point (Drawing 3).
The system will be equipped with level controls, sampling ports, meters, alarms,
gauges, and valves to allow for optimal system performance, sufficient safety
requirements and minimum operation and maintenance. The materials and equipment
to be used for the remediation system are specified in the accompanying Preliminary
Plans and Specifications.
11.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
As stated in the ROD, the goal of the remediation system is "to restore the
groundwater to its beneficial use". The remediation system will operate until the
remedial objectives outlined in the ROD are obtained. The remedial objectives for the
groundwater at the site are summarized in the table below.
CONTAMINANT REMEDIATION OBJECTIVE BASIS (ug/L)
Benzene 1 N.C. Groundwater Standard
Carbon Tetrachloride 1 Contract Ouantitation Limit
Chloroform 1 Contract Ouantitation Limit
Methylene Chloride 5 N.C. Groundwater Standard
Tetrachloroethene 1 Contract Quantitation Limit
Acetone 700 N.C. Groundwater Standard
Bromodichloromethane 1 Contract Quantitation Limit
1,2-Dichloropropane 1 Contract Quantitation Limit
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 1 Contract Quantitation Limit
T richloroethene 2.8 N.C. Groundwater Standard
Manganese 370 Background Concentration
. Arsenic. 10 Contract Quantitation Limit
The effluent from the remediation system will be treated sufficiently to meet the
requirements of the discharge permit.
12.0 LONG-TERM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The ROD stipulates that groundwater samples will be collected on a semi-annual
basis for the first five years of system operation and an annual basis thereafter. It is
anticipated that effluent monitoring requirements (POTW or NPDES) will require
monthly monitoring of the treated effluent, at a minimum. In addition, weekly site
MP?s-~tr~❖N!J<:.
Engineering & Enl'ironmenta/ Solutions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Design Criteria Report
NCSU Lot 86
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 1999
Page 9
visits may be required initially for system operatkin and maintenance.
13.0 REFERENCES
1. Nyer, Evan K., "Practical Techniques for Groundwater and Soil Remediation",
Lewis Publishers, 1993.
2. Suthersan, Suthan S., "Remediation Engineering Design Concepts", CRC
Press, Inc., 1997.
MP?;~J,~◊NTJ~
En[lineering & £n1•ironme111,il So/111/ons
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I DRAWINGS
I
I
'I
I·
I
I
I
I
I MP?;¾J7~4N!l~
Engincerin11 & £11vironme111a/ Solutions
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .~ ~ I~,
~~
I
I
tFJe / -.
~ . .
WJ
NORTH I
I
I
I
I MID-ATLANTIC
ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Ba1.IJ1••r✓.111 ~ Bir.lroJ1•11,11l6.l lo.htlio.111
·I REFERENCE:
RALEIGH WEST, NORTH CAROLINA
SW-RALElGH 15' QUADRANGLE
35078-G6-TF-024
□MA 5255 I SW-SERIES V842
PHOTOINSPECTED 1988
1968
PHOTOREVISED 1987
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
TOPOGRAPHIC SITE MAP
NCSU LOT 86
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN
BY: 0
DRAFT
CHECK:
ENG
CHECK:
APPROVAL:
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
0 2000'
SCALE: ,--2000·
□ATE: SEPTEMBER 1999
~i~ 099R0769.07 .
CAO 01-076903-07 NO:.
DWG:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MID-ATLANTIC
~ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Engineering & Envtronmenlal Solutions
REFERENCE: SEE "NOTES'"
LOT 86
SUPERF\JND SITE
APPROXIMA1E UMrT OF
CHLOROFORM PLUME WITH
CONCENTRATIONS >50 ug/L
LOCATION OF PROPOSED RECOVERY WELLS
FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL DESIGN
NCSU-LOT 86
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
LEGEND
(I RW-1 PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL LOCATION
~ WOODUNE
! -+ ESTIMA1EO GROUNDWATER FLOW OIREGTION
NOTES:
MAP PREPARE□ BY GEl CONSULTANTS IN OCTOBER 1998.
♦ SITE MAP BASED ON SURVEY DRAWINGS "WELL AND
FEATURE LOCATIONS," DA1ED JULY 19, 1997;
"ROAD LOCATION AND DRILL posmON LOCATION,"
OA1EO NOVEMBER 1 B, 1997; AND "MONrTOR WELL
AND HEADWALL LOCATION MAP" OA1EO AUGUST 4,
1998; ALL BY MURPHY SACKS.
♦ FORMER WASTE BURIAL AREA PER MARSI-W..l. MILLER &
ASSOCIA1ES, MARCH 1998
a
SCALE: 1•-100'
100'
DRAWN
BY: DATE: NOVEMBER 1999
DRAFTING CHECK
BY:
ENGINEER CHECK
BY:
APPROVED
BY:
JOB NO: 099R0769.00
CAD # 01-076911-07
DWG NO: 2
-------------------
. -"'-~
~
-r-:-7_
-.......... • , -u • "'""""" L__J -...... -----' C --.....
, .. , .. , ..
,) • 'J
""""" ...... """""' '""--'""-"""' -..... ... , --· ... ,
r,pc,t.r,11
NOT 10 SCALE
DRAWN~ DATE: NOVEMBER 1999
MID-ATLANTIC PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM BY:
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM DRAFT JOB NO: 099R0769.00
ASSOCIATES, P.A. NCSU LOT 86. CHECK:
ENG
B,a1J11t111rJ111 d 811 r.lroJ1.1111111taJ Sohrt/0111 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA CHECK: CAD NO: 01-076906-07
REFERENCE: ARCADIS GERAGHTY & MILLER DRAWING APPROVAL: DWG: 3