NCD980602163_19951020_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Groundwater Monitoring - Peer Review by George Bain-OCR

OCT-20-95 FRI 02:34 BC GeoLo,ic,Inc 91 (1 679 :269€,
)966 Bachelor Creek Road
Asheboro, NC 27203
[phone]
FAX [phone]
To:
Company:
Location:
Fax Number:
From:
Company:
Date:
Subject
BC GeoLogic, LLC.
£nt•iromntnl41 Cc,mulc,mt.<
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Total number of pages transmitted, including this Transmittal Sheet: ~
MESSAGE
p. (11
BC GeoLogic, LLC
Environmental Consultants
Robert Glaser, Hydrologist
Hazardous Waste Section
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Bob:
910 879 2696
October 19, 1995
Attached is the requested peer review of the Division's plan for upgrading the PCB
landfill groundwater monitoring network. Thanks for sending the additional infonnation
which allowed me to finally understand what the likely groundwater in situ flow regimen
looks like.
Having done that, it is my strong recommendation that additional monitoring wells are
also needed near the landfill in what, according to the data from the auger holes, is the
upgradient part. To do otherwise will leave us v.'ith a rather incomplete monitoring
scheme and ~o possibility of defining likely flow paths.
Please call me if you wish to discuss any part of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Attachment
cc: William Meyer
P.02
PEER REVIEW
PROPOSED PCB GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
At the request or"'Bill Meyer of the North Carolina Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste, for peer review of a supplemental ground water monitoring system for the State's
PCB land fill, I have reviewed the follo\.\ing:
1. Correspondence from Glaser to Bain dated 09/07/95
2. Internal memo from Glaser to Meyer dated 04/06/95 outlining plans for the
monitoring system upgrade
3. Various site maps contained in item 2, above
4. Table of site water level measurements from 11/92 to 3/95, also contained in item 2,
above
5. Table of site landfill elevations and a copy of part of the USGS topographic map
covering the site
6. Internal memo from David Lo,rn to Sharon Rogers on PCB waste thicknesses.
Finding a need for additional infom1c1tion to complete my review, I requested any as-built
drav.ings, detailed site topo maps, PCB fluid elevations, ge.ologic logs, etc. These were
receive-don October 10. I have since reviewed the following:
1. Revised water level ele\'ation information for M\V4
2. Engineering soil classification logs for the four wells and the eight iruti.al auger holes
3. As-built topographic maps and construction details for the PCB site
4. A large oblique aerial photo of the landfill site
5. Recent (October 5, 1995) water level elevations for the site
6. Various welJ construction diagrams, driller's logs, auger hole location maps, and
various reports and conespondence from 1978 through 1983.
OCT-20-95 FRI 02:~6 BC GeoLo,ic ,Inc 910 879 2696
REVIEW AND EVALUATION
As is my normal practice in assessing the quality of groundwater monitoring networks, I
first attempted to construct a potential groundwater flow direction map for the site in
order to detennine whether the existing wells were placed in geographically strategic
positions best suited for detection of any fugitive PCB discharge. This exercise led to the
discovery that the resulting groundwater contour map didn't make good hydrologic sense
when compared to the site topography. The principal problem appeared to be that the
monitoring well with the lowest measuring point (MP) elevation (from the table of water
level elevations) had the rughest water level elevation.
Since receipt of the additional information, it is apparent that the MP elevation for MW4
is correct on the various maps but is incorrect on the current table of water level
elevations. Subsequently, I have used the revised water level elevations along with water
level data from three initial auger holes to construct a generic water table map for the site
(Figure 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Proposed State Plan
The DSWM Plan is essenrially as follows.
1. Install m·o additional wells to deeper depths at sites W2 and W3 to detennine the
vertical component of flow.
2. Install four additional wells (two sets of nested wells --one deep and one shallow) at
two locations in the northeast quadrant of the landfill site.
On review of the State Plan and examination of the additional material submitted to me , I
find the following.
1. The locations of the existing monitoring wells, relative to the landfill as plotted on
various maps and to elevations from the site detailed topographic map, are internally
consistent.
2. Groundwater in each of the monitoring wells, as recorded in tables furnished to me,
fluctuates several feet each year in response to seasonal precipitation and
evapotranspiration demand. There appears to be no doubt that each is a functioning
monitoring we)l.
3. I concur Vvith the DS\\IM that there is a need for additional spatial coverage and also
\\1th the concept of addition of deeper monitoring v.-ell installations at the locations of
the existing wells to better define the vertical component of flow.
F'. 04
4. The elevation of the water in the waste cell (337 feet) when compared to the average
site water level near the ~u (299 feet), although not proof that the site is not leaking,
is evidence that, if it is, it is doing so at a very low rate.
5. Plotting of groundwater levels from the existing network, supplemented by
information on water levels from auger holes located near the crest of the knoll from
the initial investigation, show that the present net does not do an adequate job of
defining the shape of the upper surface of saturated rock and soil (i.e ., the water table)
in the immediate vicinity of the PCB landfill. That is, there is not good definition of
the upgradient part of this site.
6. In addition, well MW4, even with a corrected MP elevation, has a water level that
appears to be anomalously high if only ~-ater levels from the existing network are
used to construct a water level contour map.
7. The addition of water levels from the initial auger holes (although not the best of
good science since they are not from the same period of time) causes the water levels
from the existing network to make more hydrologic sense. See Figure 1. When a
water table contour map is constructed with the addition of auger hole v.rater levels,
upgradient is directly beneath the cell and possibly both to the southwest and
southeast, principally along the small ridges in those directions. Discharge is to the
northwest and northeast, toward Richneck Creek and possibly south toward the
unnamed tributary.
8. Since one cannot evaluate flow direction and/or the hydraulic effect of the landfill on
the local hydraulic regime, better definition of both the site water table and the
vertical component of groundwater flow is required .
Recommended Alternate Plan
Therefore, I recommend:
l . Addition of one more well at site MW4 at a deeper interval to document vertical
groundwater movement at this point, as well as to solve any ambiguity as to the
representativeness of data gathered there to date.
2. Install three shallow top-of-water-table monitoring wells at former auger sites 4a, 3,
and IA (Sheet 3, Suerdrup and Parcel, 8/12/81) to document the upgradient part of the
site water table and so that adequate groundwater flow maps can be dra,1.n.
3. Install the three shallow monitoring wells (item 2, above) first, to construct a more
accurate site ~"8ter table map from which on-site adjustments can be made, as
necessary, in the location of the two new well nests proposed for the northeast
quadrant.
3
OCT-2~-95 FRI 02:37 BC GeoLo,ic,Inc
4. Strongly consider the addition of a two-well nest immediately south of the ~u at a
location based on the new groundwater flow map (item 3, above).
5. CoJlect ae0Jo2ic data, as well as soils engineering data, from any new holes driJled for
construction of the monitoring wells.
6. Finally, I "ish to caution that my recommendations for the number of wells and their
locations are based on current acceptable practice for monitoring systems in aranular
materials and should be adequate for monitoring the change in groundwater head
across this site, as well as the potential flux of grotmdwater.
There is no affordable monitoring system, in my opinion, that will guarantee 100%
early detection of any contaminant in a fractured rock system such as underlies this
site. The location, attitude, direction, aperature width, number, and degree of
interconnection of rock fractures arc essentiaJJy unknowable below the ground surface
or beyond the edge of a borehole. Therefore, the placement of monitoring wells for
early detection of contaminant release is an exercise in the chance interception of the
critical fracture(s). Thus, the practicing science, as here, is reduced to making the
best educated guess as to the most probable discharge locations: hence, the need for
the best possible groWldwater potential flow map. Hopefully, any discharge from
sites such as this will occur along the soil/weathered rock interface which is much
easier to monitor for contaminant discharge.
4
BC Geologic, LLC
Environmental Consultants
Robert Glaser, Hydrologist
Hazardous Waste Section
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Bob:
October 19, 1995
Attached is the requested peer review of the Division's plan for upgrading the PCB
landfill groundwater monitoring network. Thanks for sending the additional information
which allowed me to finally understand what the likely groundwater in situ flow regimen
looks like.
-.
Having done that, it is my strong recommendation that additional monitoring wells are
also needed near the landfill in what, according to the data from the auger holes, is the
up gradient part. To do otherwise will leave us v.'ith a rather incomplete monitoring
scheme and no possibility of defining likely flow paths.
Please call me if you wish to discuss any part of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Attachment
cc: William Meyer
OCT-20-95 FRI 02:34 BC GeoLo9ic,I nc 910 879 2696
•
3966 Bachelor Creek Road
Asheboro, NC 27203
[phone]
FAX [phone]
To:
Company:
Location:
Fa.x Number:
From:
Company:
Date:
Subject
BC GeoLogic, LLC.
£m.,iromnent4/ Consu/t.-mts
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
P.01
PEER REVIEW
PROPOSED PCB GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Bili Meyer of the North Carolina Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste, for peer review of a supplemental ground water monitoring system for the State's
PCB land fill, I have reviewed the follov.ing: ·
1. Correspondence from Glaser to Bain dated 09/07/95
2. Internal memo from Glaser to Meyer dated 04/06/95 outlining plans for the
monitoring system upgrade
3. Various site maps contained in item 2, above
4. Table of site water level measurements from 11/92 to 3/95, also contained in item 2,
above
5. Table of site landfill elevations and a c-0py of part of the USGS topographic map
covering the site
6. Internal memo from David Lo\vn to Sharon Rogers on PCB waste thicknesses.
Finding a need for additional infom1ation to complete my review, I requested any as-built
drav.ings, detailed site topo maps, PCB fluid eleYations, geologic logs, etc. These were
received on October 10. I have since reviewed the following:
1. Revised water level eleYation information for MW4
2. Engineering soil classification logs for the four wells and the eight initial auger holes
3. As-built topographic maps and construction details for the PCB site
4. A large oblique aerial photo of the landfill site
5. Recent (October 5, 1995) water level elevations for the site
6. Various well construction diagrams, driller's logs, auger hole location maps, and
various reports and correspondence from 1978 through 1983.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION
As is my nonnal practice in assessing the quality of groundwater monitoring networks, I
first attempted to construct a potential groundwater flow diredion map for the site in
order to determine whether the existing wells were placed in geographically strategic
positions best suited for detection of any fugitive PCB discharge. This exercise led to the
discovery that the resulting groundwater contour map didn't make good hydro logic sense
when compared to the site topography. The principal problem appeared to be that the
monitoring well with the lowest measuring point (MP) elevation (from the table of water
level elevations) had the highest water level elevation.
Since receipt of the additional infonnation, it is apparent that the MP elevation for M\V4
is correct on the various maps but is incorrect on the current table of water level
elevations. Subsequently, I have used the revised water level elevations along with v,:-ater
level data from three initial auger holes to construct a generic water table map for the site
(Figure 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Proposed State Plan
The DSWM Plan is essenrial/y as follows.
1. Install m-·o additional wells to deeper depths at sites W2 and W3 to determine the
vertical component of flow.
2. Install four additional ·weHs (two sets of nested wells --one deep and one shallow) at
two locations in the northeast quadrant of the landfill site.
On review of the State Plan and examination of the additional material submitted to me, I
find the following.
1. The locations of the existing mol?,itoring wells, relative to the landfill as plotted on
various maps and to elevations from the site detailed topographic map, are internally
consistent.
2. Groundwater in each of the monitoring wells, as recorded in tables furnished to me,
fluctuates several feet each year in response to seasonal precipitation and
evapotranspiration demand. There appears to be no doubt that each is a functioning
monitoring well.
3. I concur v.,ith the DS\VM that there is a need for additional spatial coverage and also
\\-1th the concept of addition of deeper monitoring well installations at the locations of
the existing wells to better define the vertical component of flow.
4. The elevation of the water in the waste cell (337 feet) when compared to the average
site water level near the cell (299 feet), although not proof that the site is not leaking,
is evidence that, if it is, it is doing so at a very low rate.
5. Plotting of groundwater levels from the existing network, supplemented by
information on water levels from auger holes located near the crest of the knoll from
the initial investigation, show that the present net does not do an adequate job of
defining the shape of the upper surface of saturated rock and soil (i.e., the water table)
in the immediate vicinity of the PCB landfill. That is, there is not good definition of
the upgradient part of this site.
6. In addition, well MW4, even with a c-0rrected MP elevation, has a water level that
appears to be anomalously high if only water levels from the existing network are
used to construct a water level contour map.
7. The addition of water levels from the initial auger holes (although not the best of
good science since they are not from the same period of time) causes the water levels
from the existing network to make more hydrologic sense. See Figure 1. When a
water table contour map is constructed with the addition of auger hole v.rater levels,
upgradient is directly beneath the cell and possibly both to the southwest and
southeast, principally along the smalJ ridges in those directions. Discharge is to the
northwest and northeast, toward Richneck Creek and possibly south toward the
unnamed tributary.
8. Since one cannot evaluate flow direction and/or the hydraulic effect of the landfill on
the local hydraulic regime, better definition of both the site water table and the
vertical component of groundwater flow is required.
Recommended Alternate Plan
Therefore, I recommend:
1. Addition of one more well at site MW4 at a deeper interval to document vertical
groundwater movement at this point, as well as to solve any ambiguity as to the
representativeness of data gathered there to date.
2. Install three shallow top-of-water-table monitoring wells at former auger sites 4a, 3t
and lA (Sheet 3, Suerdrup and Parcel, 8/12/81) to document the upgradient part of the
site water table and so that adequate groundwater flow maps can be drav.n.
3. Install the three shallow monitoring welJs (item 2, above) first, to construct a more
accurate site \.Vater table map from which on-site adjustments can be made, as
necessary, in the location of the two new well nests proposed for the northeast
quadrant.
3
4. Strongly consider the addition of a two-well nest immediately south of the cell at a
location based on the new groundwater flow map (item 3, above).
5. Collect geologic data, as well as soils engineering data, from any new holes drilled for
construction of the monitoring wells.
6. Finally, I \.\ish to caution that my recommendations for the number of wells and their
locations are based on current acceptable practice for monitoring systems in granular
materiaJs and should be adequate for monitoring the change in groundwater head
across this site, as well as the potential flux of groundwater.
There is no affordable monitoring system, in my opinion, that will guarantee 100%
early detection of any contaminant in a fractured rock system such as underlies this
site. The location, attitude, direction, aperature width, nwnber, and degree of
interconnection of rock fractures are essentially unknowable below the ground surface
or beyond the edge of a borehole. Therefore, the placement of monitoring wells for
early detection of contaminant release is an exercise in the chance interception of the
critical fracture(s). Thus, the practicing science, as here, is reduced to making the
best educated guess as to the most probable discharge locations: hence, the need for
the best possible groundwater potential flow map . Hopefully, any discharge from
sites such as this will occur aJong the soil/weathered rock interface: which is much
easier to monitor for contaminant discharge.
4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
PJ·;..,,A ---~ .. a a a
DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
MEMORANDUM
.NA
DEHNR
TO:
FROM:
Bill Meyer, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management a}
Ed Mussler,E.I.T., Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Manageme~
Greg Eades,E.I.T., Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management iJ,
RE: Volume of Soil Estimated.in the PCB Landfill
The approximate volume of soil in the PCB landfill has been calculated. There is
approximately 36,500 cubic yards of material in the landfill. Assuming an average weight of
1.5 tons per cubic yard, there are approximately 54,750 tons of material in the landfill.
The volume and weight of the wet and dry soil that may be available was determined. The
amount of wet and dry soils in the landfill are conservatively estimated as:
Volume of Dry Soil-21,500 cubic yards
Volume of Wet Soil-15,000 cubic yards
METHODOLOGY
The average-end-area method of calculating the volume was employed. This method tends to
over estimate the actual volume, so it should represent a maximum amount of soil in the
landfill. The supplied drawings were consulted. It was assumed that the final contours were as
depicted and that the grading plan was the subgrade. Five feet were subtracted from the top
elevations to account for the closure cap system, and 7 feet were added to the grading plan
elevations to account for the leak detection layer, clay barrier layer and leachate collection
system. Seven cross sections were chosen and the geometry plotted. Given the simple nature
of this design we were able to determine the area of right triangles . These areas were summed
and multiplied by two to account for the entire cross section of the landfill. The volume of soil
was estimated using the following formula:
V = L (Al+ A2)/ 2 (27ft3 per yd3)
The weight of the soil was conservatively estimated by assuming that the soil has a unit weight
of 1.5 tons per cubic yard. The cross sections and calculations are attached.
Water level measurements in the landfill are available from two measurement points, the
leachate sump pipe and the gas vent well. The water level readings from the two points were
obtained and translated into an elevation. The two measurements are within six inches of each
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
other. The top nineteen feet (at the maximum point of the landfill) is dry, and the maximum
depth of saturated soil is ten feet.
The approximate volume and weight of soil which may be recovered from four cased wells,
each two feet in diameter was also determined. The wells were assumed to be evenly spaced
across the flat bottom portion of the landfill (i.e. no wells were located over sideslope
portions). Each well could yield:
Volume of soil in two foot diameter well,-91.11 cubic feet
Dry Weight of soil per well-89.48 pounds per cubic foot
Total Dry Weight of Soil from four wells -4 tons per well
The soil was assumed to have a dry denisty of 111 pounds per cubic foot. The weight of
saturated soil was adjusted to its dry weight equivalent. The adjusted density per well is 89 .48
pounds per cubic foot.
LIMITATIONS
The information and numbers generated herein are based upon commonly accepted engineering
methods. All of the drawings and measurements have been supplied by others and the resulting
information is as correct as the data supplied to us. The actual conditions and amount of
saturated and unsaturated soil within the landfill may vary, dependent upon the variance of the
actual conditions in the landfill. A reasonable dry weight and density of the soil was assumed
for computational purposes; the actual soil is highly variable.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Edward F.
Environmental Engineer
Solid Waste Section
C:\ WPDOCS\COMMENTS\PCBVOLl .DOC
r
· NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
I ! I i I : i i l I
I ! J
__ b_, r-: 5o:' '1.4-l' ! I 1 l 1 : : ··;·'-1 -+--+---+-I -+--+-l -+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+---+---+---+---+--+--...--+I --+---+--+-+--I
1----,l-:--+L.-~ ...-i -?t-'.11 ,--",.1-+i ...--+--r---,-: -.... ,""9'lb7l +-t -! -IAI=-7i! L +' "'ri.V~ t-Z4b {4 i · 1 I -=I 4-~kl +t t
1--.--+-'-----'------+--+---!-~ 1 [ ' --1~,=11..'""'r.----r+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+!-+-+-+---l----l---!---!-_.:.._-L-I--L-l--l--l-_L_-l--l
I
.
!
! I ! ! ' : : ~---,,-.__.___.___,~• ,.---•;-; -+---+--+--+--+--+--+-~~--+--+--,.---+--+--+--+--'--+--+-+-+-4---+...--l Lt;, ]5S I i 14' i
·-&,:I l 340', ~ ,;z.o1 "'i A~: --~[1f(p.o'~ . ""' r~--ff1-2t ~: f12.cp {H "L
7--1_ i;_1 ; : ! ; ; . i I I T'------,.__ .,-i -+--+--+---+--+---+---+---+---+--t--'-_.;:.---,--+---+--+--+--+--+--.---+--'-"·--,---I
1-----,--+-?---'---+--+' --+'-+··-+-..,,.........,_+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-J...._+--+--;__;__l...,_,;__J___,;--1--+--+-+-+__;_-+~ U.: i J5 I l ! ! . ! 11?1 ! ' ! I i l i I '-i -+-+--! -t--+--+--+-+----'--+-+--1---'---+--+--'--+-+--'--+--+-+--+-+--+---+-+--+-l
A ~ i ~ l E,r{J Ot '41.Jfil 1i ~ o-[4-r !
Project Title: Lf= [uMe -I (_,_
By: ------........,,,..-Checked By: _,__,-...,:...,.~-
Sheet I of ·z.....
Date: lo/(,jc, '('
Date: ;;/4 /f S-7 7
l
· NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGE1\1ENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
i i ! i I i _ i ~, i
I i ! i
::
l t i S1't ! , I " : i I . I i I
: -rvr:: i_ 1s' l ~ I 2~ + q_z._,_<?L-s-)~ -i-Zl-',g,.__"-::;'--'f!'---i¢.-;j. "'H--+-+---'--+--l--+--+--1----'---1-__;_-+----'--+--_J__-l--;..__\---l---l---1 i , i S4 ! -+----.---.---__,___,..___,__ ___ _,___,___,__--'-···-,! ---;---,-_._-+-_,_-+--+-+---!--+--1
. : . ! : ' ' ' ! i ·--v, ;-i-~-=~-20.,--: +-o~J--;-¼----l ---=-~-r51-=-(.-'-~-~,-;--: --+-~-t-~-,--+--1--+--;----'---+--+--'--,--+----+--'--+--+---1--1
---~6 --1 ~.ii:-r i I ; -+-i ~--~.,---;--1-J"!l--l--'1--i--'1--+---':--1--1--'__;_--+___,.---'----'--+---'--+--'-__J_---'-_j_-J
, i i I ··-:,_: -+--+---!l--1--1--1-:!-'---+__;___J____,_--+-+---1--+--'----'----'--1 ' ;
'
' i
!· I' I~ ½N1 I t ~ t vr_+V~i+ ~" f -J,, ~1 "t~q'!-! _-"'t-6•+· -+---+--!-i--'---'-..!...: --1
! i i ! i : (1}a.. fl~ Oo~ ie,~ ! -#,f~( 5011 i · !
:
: i
I
:
: !
i : I
j l ' '
!
'
' I : • i .
• i I
i ! : ' ; i
i ' i
•
l : I i
Project Title: ·-pc_3 LF Vo/UIY/e 10T/4 l-
By: -'l'l Date: /6/6/4r;
CheckedBy: ~ Date: /b/1,,/rr
Sheet z. of '2.--- --
! -.; l
I :
i
I I I
! • I
• I I ;
I
!
I i
i
I
· NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
i i ' I ' i I i i l i \
I , i , I . ' I I .l. I
o t lfi tJk-ii I
; I ' I I i I I i ! I -i-
: i . i I I i ! r--: v !' I
I
, I
!
i
!
i '
i
'
' I ;
I i
! I i
;
'
I
' l
Project Title: 'Pci3 LF-WE(vi,+oc5'°D/( -
By: ~ oi\te: iG 6 ff
Checked By: ='i?£ Date: ;o 6 J _,,.
Sheet _J_ of_/__
i
I
· NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
I i i I i I I i I ,..! :
, 1~(,,Jo Cclldvl r..+' ( ,t/Jf l5o I ! I 1:0" I
' i \ I /! ! i I i
l i ; I ! I I I j I I
L<a•«. ~<: ~ €,Jt.l ;)<t 0""' I~« s~ It, l I Cl. .,,~ ;J"' 0~ g,~,
1 !
_ L21-= I ~a I : 1
·A~i= -: -·v2 i (~1~.37-~'-!Yrd--,-;}+--=-1--4+-48-0-l-+-f-rf-~ ----'-i---'-1 -==f-: --\;y:,-:6--1-0-... !...-+-::.1-+--+--;.\-+--l--+-...L,__~~---l--l
I
I I
i
I ! I
9-f <J fft"".·~: z.-r--.. ~--;)-S_,___bo--+}=-'-l--4...r--+----+--+---'----4--+--+-~~__;_i--'
l I
i ! i i I i
1J J~' ltvU : e.J, i _J I,., .. I ~,~J,fl ·" H j1 ~7 ; i i I f \ '-+----+--"--~--+-----....-~--1
~ i~~! 4 -f-i------:
1
---t-~-j--,--;--+--+--+--+--+--+~--'---c--l--+---'--l--i---_;___.--I
' 1 '
j ! i i i i i
l : ' I j ' ' i I I
i
,-.s,J !
?T' l l I V
1 . : 1 ; 1 • 1 r i I
/' . . 'Toh( j [.+1V1H· V.1.+~1r -:: /4144 ~~i llSsrz. tS:bo~ ~1-
. i I . i i !~ I' ! ! V : I ! ! l i I :
Project Title: Vo\uW\-e.5ATUi2AflEbS'o11l, --:Pc.E LF .
By: }f~ Date: tc/l-/2<
Checked By: flj~ Date: to/&/9 s-
Sheet _/_of_/_
;
l
1 j
i
i
'NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGE1\.1ENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
\ ! i I i l !
I
I !
I . I . ,
1
II I / II 1 I II i
I . I 2ci-5 i
I
: ,1, V ,~ -i
,.
I i
I
I I i i
.
l lv/l i f j=I i T
I ~ I $52,~<
I !
1 i
I
I
;
335 V
.
I ············,1···········------'---+--t--+---------3•7'2.~'-'---t-✓-+:--+l---~'-;--;---;----,--+-+l --;.i--f----'--'---'---'--'+--+--+--'--'-----'--I
: i : i i ! : --·-·::us~ -··:f 3Si _--~~-~---; 1;__~-~{"'-+~ __ _k11tl: -~·o'-4'='4..+-l-.!.!!10+-ri!....:i~7_;_·_· j__J~----,--+--+--+---+-j__c__c_-j
I I ! I ! l ! I I j 1
1-----..--..--+---i-i ' .
•------!--!--I '
Project Title:
By : //4 L Ek.HATE" LEVEl,,-PCB LF
Date: rofc/t,'i"
Checked By: {fm:r;;;: Date: 10 /1,; /c;J/ r 1
Sheet J_ of _L_
· NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGE1\1ENT
SOLID WASTE SECTION
CALCULATION SHEET
i i I i i I i i : i !
i ! i I I
I l I l I _! J
i : i ,!o' I I ! i
i l i ; l ! I
I
; ; i 2,_~r i !' l l -'I . -'--'---'-i--'---'---i----1
•--~w-:-~_ rtf ~ ! ~~-~-~fr¼r 1 <r ). 111~t1 k i g, s ~ .~t~~··,!'--'.' .---'-:_.,___,.1 ,-,~-'-:=-+-+4__,. ~~s--ri J/
;
I !
!
, __ ,,,,__, ___ ,:_:~~!--+--t----+i_ __, -t-----,---t--t----t----+--t-----,--t---~--+--+-_;__--'--_;___:___;___;__-i--+--c--+---'-;'--'-----1
l l ! l '
1 t I l
Project Title J CB L f=' -:5o r' I
By: <.. Date:
Checked By: ~ Date:
Sheet _I_ of /
I ;
w ell s
llt!I fJzbvrM5 ~ Bet Geo11ogic, LLC
Environmental Consultants
Mr. Robert Glaser
Hazardous Waste Section
Solid Waste Management Division
DEHNR, PO Box 27687
Raleigh , North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr Glaser:
Sept. 25, 1995
I have reviewed the materials sent to me by your letter of September 7, 1995. In addition to reading and
studying those materials, I have:
I. Tried to construct a groundwater flow direction map from the topographic map.
2. Compared the location of the existing and proposed locations of monitoring wells with those
probable flow lines.
3. Compared the seasonal fluctuations of each of the wells one to another, and
4. Tried to draw an approximate water level contour map based on available information.
For the most part, I concur, tentatively, with the locations picked for the newer monitoring wells and with
the concept of nested wells at each location and with their depths. However, I note the well having the
lowest location, topographically, has the highest water level elevation making for a very poorly defined
water level contour map. In addition, the topography that you furnished me is no doubt not the
topography of the site since the PCB cell was installed.
Before making any further judgments about the proposed expanded monitoring plan, would you please
provide me with the following:
I. As built drawings of the construction features of each of the wells.
2. Any other particulars such as geologic log, elevation of the bottom of each well, etc.
3. An as built detailed topographic map of the site, if it exists, or an aerial photo, if it does not.
4. Any fluid levels within the cell, if such exist.
Sincerely Yours;
George L. Bain, PG f).-f f2?
~
3966 Bachelor Creek Road, Asheboro, NC 27203 • [phone]
I State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solld Waste Management
James B. Hunt. Jr .• Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
WIiiiam L. Meye~. Director
Mr. George Bain
3966 Bachelor Creek Road
Asheboro, North Carolina 27203
September 7, 1995
RE: PCB Landfill Ground Water Monitoring System
Dear Mr. Bain:
AVA
DEHNA.
Please find enclosed the Solid Waste Management Division's (Division) proposal for upgrading the ground water
monitoring system at the PCB Landfill. Mr. Meyer has informed me that you have agreed to perform a peer review and
provide comments to the Division.
In an effort to facilitate yom review, I have enclosed a list of references and data used in the preparation of the
proposal. The material includes:
I. two years of water level measurements from the four wells at the landfill;
2. a copy of the survey performed at the landfill;
3. a map showing the area within 0.5 miles of the landfill;
4. a map (on 11 by 17 inch paper), to scale, illustrating the relative location of the chainlink fence smrounding the
landfill and the existing monitoring wells; and
S. a memo discussing the approximate thickness of the landfill.
If there are any questions please call me at [phone] ext: 300 or Mr. Meyer at [phone]. I am looking
forward to receiving your comments.
Respectfully' Si~~~
Hazardous Waste Section
Solid Waste Management Division
cc: Bill Meyer
. Sharron Rogers
R:\BOB-O'O-BAIN.WPD
P.O. Box 27687 . Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX 919-71~3605
An Eauof Oooortunitv Affirmative Action Employer 50'I. recycled/ 10,, post-consumer paper
0
'7<i";:J.
j. i.
~C,
..t> "" Lil ~
l • 0 • D
J ~ f < \f\
z. £' i¥ ~ -; t ii 11 1 z. r.. ~
%' ' C:-~ \J' 'Z.. 'K
~ v-
::r, C/) c:, rr, n ► :< ► .... r--~ ~
--= " L:J= C, ::,:,.. ~ CJ) c-, ::c
-CD ::C
-r-rn rn ::,:,.. :z:
3: = c-, n c:, :r ::r,
:l> ~ c:::, :;,;: ► rr, X '"O -C c:, z r-:Z: a, a, r--~ ~ -<
::x: ::x: :I: ► ►
0 '2o :i 1 .E r~ " ...I:> -J 4'-!:;--
• 15' .
B ~ ;;;.,
0
lj;, 3
:L £
~J.
V
fr
"' ~
□ (a• 11,.'IO ')
~ [J (EL~ J1i>.OSJ
o(.a=-1t.i .0;1
!: t: □ (E.-1..: lt.J ,4:,) ~ 0 E ,, ■ (a: 11-1.!>'!.I
! F □ (E.L=-IU.SOJ \ 0
□ (_a: 12.1.ss') ';:. V,
;l [. :!
F~ i □ (a:12£>.~') ,, "'
:-,J -2,
El
...
TO:
From:
BIii Meyer
Bob Glaser
April 26, 1995
RE: PCB Landfill Ground water Monitoring System
Please find attached my recommendations for upgrading the ground
water monitoring system at the PCB Landfill. In preparing my
recommendations, I reviewed the following material.
1. the 1980-1983 PCB Landfill files In Sharon Roger's office.
2. the preliminary geologic report for Region K < Region K Includes
warren county>.
3. Ground water Bulletin # 15, ·ceology and Ground-Water Resources In
the Raleigh Area, North Carolina". This document was prepared
cooperatively by the uses and the North carollna Department of
water and Air Resources.
4. Memoranda dated: 7 /5/94 from David Lown to Sharon Rogers; 2/1/95
from BIii Sessoms to PCB LF file; and 10/24/94 from Bill Sessoms to PCB
LF file.
cc: Dan Bius
Sharron Rogers
workplan for Upgrading the cround water Monitoring System at the
PCB Landfill
summary
The Solid waste Management Division <SWMD> has evaluated the current
ground water monitoring system, consisting of four wells, at the PCB
Landfill. The SWMD recommends upgrading the current system by
Installing six additional wells. TWo wells would be coupled with existing
wells MW-2 and MW-3, to form well nests. The other four wells would be
Installed north and northeast of the landfill In two well nests. Each well
nest would Include two wells Installed adJacent to one another and
screened at different Intervals. Assuming no unexpected circumstances
are encountered, the upgraded monitoring system should provide the
PCB Landfill with a better detection monitoring system.
IOtroduction
The PCB landfill ls approximately 3.7 acres In size. The landfill was
constructed such that approximately 50% of the cell was above the natural
grade and 50% below. Based on blue line drawings of the landfill, It Is
estimated that the landfill, Including the liner system, was approximately
38 feet thick and ranged from elevation 354 feet to approximately 316
feet above mean sea level.
The current ground water monitoring system at the PCB landfill was
Installed In 1982 and consists of four monitoring wells screened In the
surflclal aquifer. These wells range In depth from 39 to 51 feet and are
completed between 10 and 17 feet below the water table.
Hydroqeo!ogy
The parent rock beneath the PCB landfill has been mapped as a mica schist
by the North Carolina Geologic survey. The estimated depth to
competent bedrock Is between 70 and 90 feet. saprollte and residual soils,
Including silty sand, sandy silt, and clay, overlie the bedrock.
The ground water flow direction at the site varies seasonally between
north and northeast. During the winter and spring, the flow Is generally
to the northeast and during the summer and fall th·e flow Is generally to
tne north. Monthly water level measurements, collected over a two year
period from the four on-site monitoring wells, were used to determine
1 Of 4
' ' . I
the trends In the ground water flow direction.
The water table extends Into the silty sand unit or the upper portion of
the saprollte. The average water table elevation varies between the
monitoring wells from a high of 319 feet In the upgradlent well to a low of
295 feet above mean sea level In the downgradlent well.
e1ao for upgrading the Ground water Monitoring svstem
The plan for upgrading the ground water monitoring system at the PCB
landfill has several goals Including: better definition of the lithology
underlying the site; determining the vertical component of ground water
flow; defining any variations In the ground water flow direction In the
residual soils and the saprollte; and determining the ground water flow
rate.
Initially, the SWMD recommends the Installation of six monitoring wells.
one well would be Installed adjacent to MW-2 and one well adjacent to
MW-3. These wells wm probably be completed In the saprollte zone,
Immediately above the bedrock surface <auger refusal>. The saprollte Is
expected to range from 60-90 feet below land surface.
The other four wells would be Installed as two well nests, north-northeast
of the landfill and as close as technically feasible to the landfill. Each well
nest would Include two wells Installed adjacent to one another and
screened at different Intervals. Within each well nest one well would be
screened below the seasonally low water table and one well would be
screened In the saprollte zone. The specific screened Interval for the wells
would be selected after reviewing the lithology encountered In the boring
and the boring logs from the other wells. Figure 1 attached Illustrates the
recommended locations for the proposed wells.
After all of the wells are Installed, the SWMD recommends that aQulfer
testing be performed on selected wells. Data from this testing would
provide an Indication of the hydraulic conductivity no of the subsurface
material. The K values would enable the SWMD to develop an estimate of
the ground water flow rate.
At the conclusion of this work and assuming no unusual circumstances are
encountered, these six wells, In conjunction with the existing wells, should
provide a better ground water monitoring system for the PCB landfill.
2 Of 4
E!eld work Guldennes
All field work shall be conducted In conformance with accepted
engineering and geologic practices as well as the Groundwater section's
Guidelines for the Investigation and Remediation of Solis and Groundwater
and the Hazardous waste section's sample Collection Guidance Document.
Well Installation shall be In conformance with the North carollna Well
construction Standards. A site safety plan shall be developed and
followed by all field personnel. All appropriate decontamination
procedures documented In the references above shall be followed.
curing the Installation of each boring/Well, a Qualified geologist shall be
present and a boring log completed for each well. Spilt spoon samples
shall be collected at a minimum of every five feet and where there has
been a significant change In the penetration/drilling resistance. Soll
cuttings shall be containerized until the analyses of ground water samples
have been received from the laboratory. At such time, the appropriate
disposal option shall be selected.
Each well shall be constructed: a> In accordance with the attached
diagram; b> In conformance with the State's well construction standards;
and c> to be capable of yielding a ground water sample representative of
the ground water Quality at that location. The well casing and screen shall
be constructed of 2 Inch diameter PVC. The manufactured well screen
shall be sized appropriately, according to the soil type. Each well shall be
completed with a s or 10 foot wen screen. The annular space from the
bottom of the borehole to a distance of 2 feet above the top of the well
screen shall be filled with an appropriately sized sand pack. A two foot
bentonlte seal shall be placed on top of the sand pack. Above the
bentonlte seal the annular space will be filled with a bentonlte-cement
grout. Each wen shall be completed with a protective steel outer casing
and a locklng cap. A sloping pad shall be constructed around the base of
the well In order to direct water away from the well.
Upon completion of the well, a water level measuring point shall be
established and the elevation determined to the nearest 0.01 foot.
Each monitoring well shall be developed after the seal and grout have
stabilized and no sooner than 24 hours after completion of the well. The
well shall be developed until all suspended materials are removed or a
reasonable volume of water has been removed. All well development and
purge water shall be containerized until the analyses of ground water
samples has been received from the laboratory. Atsuch time, the
3 of 4
..
r1 appropriate disposal option shall be selected.
After all wells are completed, hydraulic conductivity value<s> will be
developed for the aQulfer. A minimum of six slug tests or one pumping
test shall be performed In order to develop the hydraulic conductivity
value<s>. The specific wells to be used In the aQulfer testing shall be
selected after an evaluation of the soil sample descriptions has been
completed.
Report
At the conclusion of the field work a brief report will be prepared
describing the upgraded ground water monitoring system. The report
will Include: a> a narrative of the work completed; b> a generalized cross-
section and c> an updated potentlometrlc map.
4 of 4
41 • 0 •
~ t g L "' ii L.
F.: f ! ti l z. (' t.., -c-f r z. ~ ~ rt "
""C :z:
c.r., n 55 -c:, :0
-r-rr, rr,>::z
X :Z:n ►Cc:,
"'Cl ~ c:=: r-::z .---<
; J t
f v-
~
I:::
~
~
~
(!)A 'rr rt!-,
•
• ..D _, :.. !,,
'F" •
J
!1 ~
•
ffiJ 00 fil ~ ~ -, -..
0 (E.L• 111"10) '
0 0 (EL• lft,oa;)
a ta• ,u 03) ~i a (u.• i1J.◄r.) ~ (7 c. Tl ■(a• It.I\!-) IF a {a• ,u ~)
; \ 0 o (El.• mss) ,_ ~ !i ' CJ i!L• 12,, -4(.) ( ~~ ,:. "
,t ~
__ }
Steel Outer Casing
1lf plastic inner casing)
Land
Neat Cement Grout
Well Casing
(2" or larger diam.)
elletized Bentonite --i.,,c
Clean Washed
Sand or Gravel
Lockin~ Cap
...
--r. ... -N Surface
~-;: • ... -~ II)
• ,...
_:L
a,
Cl) ·-"-tU >
• ... -C\I
I
• ... -,....
0 Cf)
,... Cl)
I "i: • tU => .......
Well Screen ---+-....;..H,.=.; '°
......_____.· ---J_
r FIGURE 13.
NOTE:
1. Borehole t,, be
larger than outside diameter of
casing .
2. Casing and screen to be
centered in borehole.
3 . Top of well screen should not
be above mean high seasoned
water level.
4. Casing and screen material to
be compatible with type of
contaminant being monitored .
5. Well head to be labeled with
highly visible warning saying:
•well is for monitoring and not
considered safe for drinking:
6. Well to be afforded reasonable
protection against damage
after construction .
GWS 1 O/e4
Recommended Construction Details For A Contaminant Monitor Well
n An Unconfined, Unconsolidated Aquifer.
July 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Sharon Rogers C'{) f
David J. Lown U'td'f
Approximate Thickness of Waste at the Gas Vent
PCB Landfill, Warren County
The thickness of the PCB contaminated waste at the landfill
may vary from 22.5 to 25.5 feet thick. During the sampling of the
waste through the gas vent, I recommend the following:
1) sample runs be reduced to a maximum of six inches
per run at a depth of 24 feet below the top of the
concrete slab at the gas vent; and
2) sampling be stopped when any of the components of
the liner at the base of the landfill are
identified.
The components of the liner that should be identifiable
include, in descending order, the fabric filter, nine inches of
sand, compacted clay. The compacted clay is five feet thick and
overlies one foot of fill and the 30 mil PVC liner. Figure 1 shows
the details of the bottom liner.
The estimated original thickness of the landfill is based on
the drawings that you provided. Figure 2 is copied from the
drawing labeled "Cross-sections." Table 1 shows the measured
thicknesses of the landfill at the gas-vent slab.
Changes in the thickness of the waste is based on survey data
found in Randy McElveen's files on the landfill. The slab may have
settled two to three feet. The data was collected by the Solid
Waste and the Hazardous Waste Sections for the elevation of the
monitoring wells and the concrete slab at the gas vent. This data
is shown in Table 2. The concrete slab at the gas vent and the
four monitoring wells were surveyed after completion of the
landfill. This data is shown on the as-built drawing "Misc.
Details." The concrete slab and the monitoring wells were
resurveyed in 1991 and 1992.
The accuracy of this data is questionable. On the as-built
drawing, the monitoring well elevations are only given to the
nearest foot and what was surveyed at the well (top of casing, top
of concrete slab) is not indicated. The Hazardous Waste and Solid
Waste Section survey data differ by as much as 0.22 feet.
Memo
July 5, 1994
Page 2
According to the cross-section the base of the waste (top of
the liner) should be at a depth of 30.5 feet below the concrete
slab. If there has been 3 feet of settlement and compaction, the
base of the waste is at a depth of 27. 5 feet below the slab.
Because of the possible inaccuracies of the data, I recommend that
the sampling interval be reduced beginning at 24 feet below the
slab. Regardless of when the sampling interval is reduced, it is
important to always be looking for the liner components.
cc: Bill Meyer
Attachments
' ·•
I .
! .;. .. ..: ~
..... ;;-..; .. i
Eo tf-oW\
CLAY
'eR IDG 1N6-/"ATER.I._. L
L£UMATi. C..oLLEC.. T 10,J
SUSGRADE
~
LANDFILL
Cc;uNr'(
s ....... " '1''
._ F"ABR.\C. FILTErt
c. '°''/ s'
F,·11 I'
So.."'d q'1 -:,o MIL PVC,
Bor ToM LtNfR s.._p-r-ol ,-1.e.
--· -·------·-·--------• r·
' "" . . 00 . 4
I ~ ~
; .. -· . . . ,----------
i ...
~
f
::f
-~ ~
-+-
~
"' I
~
0
~ :----·
N -~
',· ~
. ~
· le\J)
........ -· -
-\--------..
. \
... \
,
-·--------'---
.......
0 1.{")
0 0
_.
---------.. --·--· I ·--------· --------~
..
·\ -------------'--------~ 0
\[)
\
\
I I !
... · ...
. . r
i •• ~~ .· . .:: -:
• · .• r.
Thic...K.-..e-5-S or LANDFILL-e +-ka. ve L,\. +
T~~c..k~e~s (_F"+)
5
7, 2-
'$0µ,rc..E ~ A5 .-bc.uir c::::lra..c.v;"'°j "C.,¢s-scc....fio.-.s.✓-'
Se.~+;a~ /0/fos N ,
. -..... .
. . , ., ·: ·i ., :i
DAT£
<D I//Jo/82
~
II /3o/'l 2
-10/ 17 I°' I
A
10/I7/'fl
5 ;2. ,/'I 2.
~
Jl/'SO /i 2. S/ 2, /'IZ.
)If
I 2 1,3 3
1 H ~ I e v ~ 4 io "'
~ * WELL J. k)El.L 2-
Et..EV. £LI: V
/2.,l-'
JIJ,!t
/O.O 2¥. 13
-o, z. '2...
2, 2. 2.01
£ { ev~+·, c\t\S' Me~:S1..L1"ed l \I\. f ~c...+,
~ol..(f"c.,LS:
(D
II (so I 8 z_ -£le: Vo.. -Lolo\.5
®10/17/11
(!) 5 /2 er ;,z
3'/,2 I
'ftJ,2.S
3/, Of
1. g, '15
3, I 2.
-0, /'=,
.
I
MP Elev
for Well
MW-1
Date (feet)•
11/24/92 343.99
12/23/92 343.99
1/26/93 343.99
2/26/93 343.99
3/26/93 343.99
4/23/93 343.99
5/20/93 343.99
6/25/93 343.99
7/23/93 343.99
8/30/93 343.99
9/27/93 343.99
10/22/93 343.99
11/18/93 343.99
12/17/93 343.99
1/25/94 343.99
2/24/94 343.99
3/25/94 343.99
4/28/94 343.99
5/18/94 343.99
6/27/94 343.99
7/28/94 343.99
8/26/94 343.99
9/26/94 343.99
10/24/94 343.99
11/16/94 343.99
12/19/94 343.99
1/25/95 343.99
2/23/95 343.99
3/29/95 343.99
WL below
MP
(feet)•
43.58
43.72
43.74
43.3
42.75
41.98
41 .18
40.6
40.56
40.86
41.26
41 .7
42.08
42.52
43
43.34
43.34
42.63
42.2
41 .68
41.77
42.08
42.5
42.94
43.26
43.66
44.02
44.26
44.54
Ground Water Elevations
MW-1
MW-1
Elev of
Water
Level
(feet) •
300.41
300.27
300.25
300.69
301.24
302.01
302.81
303.39
303.43
303.13
302.73
302.29
301.91
301.47
300.99
300.65
300.65
301.36
301.79
302.31
302.22
301.91
301.49
301.05
300.73
300.33
299.97
299.73
299.45
301.4021
Page 1
MP Elev
for Well
MW-2
Date (feet)•
11/24/92 329.98
12/23/92 329.98
1/26/93 329.98
2/26/93 329.98
3/26/93 329.98
4/23/93 329.98
5/20/93 329.98
6/25/93 329.98
7/23/93 329.98
8/30/93 329.98
9/27/93 329.98
10/22/93 329.98
11/18/93 329.98
12/17/93 329.98
1/25/94 329.98
2/24/94 329.98
3/25/94 329.98
4/28/94 329.98
5/18/94 329.98
6/27/94 329.98
7/28/94 329.98
8/26/94 329.98
9/26/94 329.98
10/24/94 329.98
11/16/94 329.98
12/19/94 329.98
1/25/95 329.98
2/23/95 329.98
3/29/95 329.98
WL below
MP
(feet)•
35.75
34.76
34.76
33.84
32.78
31.64
31.14
31.72
32.5
33.76
34.66
35.38
35.98
36.3
36.08
35.68
34.42
33
32.74
33.3
34.21
35.04
35.84
36.48
36.88
37.34
37.56
37.44
36 .5
Ground Water Elevations
MW-2
MW-2
Elev of
Water
Level
(feet) •
294.23
295.22
295.22
296.14
297.2
298.34
298.84
298.26
297.48
296.22
295.32
294.6
294
293.68
293.9
294.3
295.56
296.98
297.24
296.68
295.77
294.94
294.14
293.5
293.1
292.64
292.42
292.54
293.48
295.2393
Page 1
,. (feet)•
MP Elev
for Well
MW-3
Date
11/24/92 325,12
12/23/92 325.12
1/26/93 325.12
2/26/93 325.12
3/26/93 325.12
4/23/93 325.12
5/20/93 325.12
6/25/93 325.12
7/23/93 325.12
8/30/93 325.12
9/27/93 325.12
10/22/93 325.12
11/18/93 325.12
12/17/93 325.12
1/25/94 325.12
2/24/94 325.12
3/25/94 325.12
4/28/94 325.12
5/18/94 325.12
6/27/94 325.12
7/28/94 325.12
8/26/94 325.12
9/26/94 325.12
10/24/94 325.12
11/16/94 325.12
12/19/94 325.12
1/25/95 325.12
2/23/95 325.12
3/29/95 325.12
(feet)•
Wlbelow
MP
23.37
21.32
21.32
20.95
19.3
18.6
19.56
20.56
21.52
22.84
23.64
24.12
24.42
24.06
23.24
22.44
20.35
20.03
20.68
21.91
22.97
23.72
24 .4
24.86
25.12
25.42
25.16
24.74
22.96
Grour.d Water Elevations
MW-3
(feet) •
Elev of
Water
Level
MW-3
301.75
303.8
303.8
304.17
305.82
306.52
305.56
304.56
303.6
302.28
301.48
301
300.7
301.06
301.88
302.68
304.77
305.09
304.44
303.21
302.15
301.4
300.72
300.26
300
299.7
299.96
300.38
302.16
302.5828
Page·1
(feet)*
MP Elev
for Well
MW-4
Date
11/24/92 322.82
12/23/92 322.82
1/26/93 322.82
2/26/93 322.82
3/26/93 322.82
4/23/93 322.82
5/20/93 322.82
6/25/93 322.82
7/23/93 322.82
8/30/93 322.82
9/27/93 322.82
10/22/93 322.82
11/18/93 322.82
12/17/93 322.82
1/25/94 322.82
2/24/94 322.82
3/25/94 322.82
4/28/94 322.82
5/18/94 322.82
6/27/94 322.82
7/28/94 322.82
8/26/94 322.82
9/26/94 322.82
10/24/94 322 .82
11/16/94 322.82
12/19/94 322.82
1/25/95 322.82
2/23/95 322.82
3/29/95 322.82
(feet)*
WL below
MP
20.58
17.84
17.84
19.04
17.82
17.36
18.16
18.86
19.58
20.54
21 .12
21.5
21.76
20.86
20.26
19.32
18.7
18.61
19.06
19.98
20.8
21.38
21 .88
22.24
22.46
22.72
22.06
20.94
20.48
Ground Water Elevations
MW-4
(feet) •
Elev of
Water
Level
MW-4
302.24
304.98
304.98
303.78
305
305.46
304.66
303.96
303.24
302.28
301.7
301.32
301.06
301.96
302.56
303.5
304.12
304.21
303.76
302.84
302.02
301.44
300.94
300.58
300.36
300.1
300.76
301.88
302.34
302.6907
Page 1
TO:
RECORD OF
COMMUNICATION
SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION
0 PHONE CALL
0 OTHER (SPECIFY)
FROM:
0 DISCUSSION FIELD TRIP 0 CONFERENCE
(Record of item checked above)
DATE
IC-24-9
q µ, '¥.-\ 1 ~-;; 1 .o. u...~ I~ 'IS 1-, ~"'I"'\"-\ t., "~ )-.rr p I p,;,;:. _ "D..::: 1 E. tz. •••ll v E.. ~LE:-/~.,:., aJ
~ Y~>..11 p, pt;,;: C..~-:::U~~ ~D "TO-p 0~ \-\~ f'\f>E.
QE\E.v~no~ Ot:: \11=1..\"'i P\f>E ~\A-\o ... \2.1.'?;<.
('Fw~ v../~~~,.:. C.cuh.)-:-y 'PC....~ Li:..i..1=:,F11_1._ ":::~T.:Z \J,~ -10l,1\9\ -le., \.-1.1-\A.j
'
Rec C2.Sr..~;~,._ ,~,~,-~ e. c.s.1.:/r~ er-Fr,--;:: J~,:., Tt, \Jrz:J..:::-r-p, F'~.
-4,21
-----+-
--.-,.-,,,,,,:,.i, --~-----. ~ -' / ''\'\. -,·
co---n
i \
\
~Sc:S:: ~,a...'
U-l.:z~ fl°Fis ~
--t-1 I
-·---------------------------------------------,
CONCLUSIONS, ACTIO~I TAKEN OR REQUIRED
: • \ . .\"L:. 1 2.\, ~3 ~t!-..p'..::,
=-12.(&-,\'1
:. \l~\,,)'r" lc.;,p1.,..1~c...: \2!c,\9 -4 .2.1
-12.1,'1'2..
INFORMATION COPIES
TO:
.:,Hv..l R~ ~ \?..to-19-lnS
-:. 124.4{
;,""fL-"'Hf'f?pE:. ~ 1'2..l.,l'i-12..'~2.
-:: \l~.2.1
-~ ~ i2 t'! ~o .,.._ b \'.&?::' ~!._~c~-r=., ~~::Q.~~LSCe.J0~1 .:c!l<\~~:.l,-2~~".::!..,_l:....!::bh~:,:~ kS:::w:.:'~.l\ ::r_+_:-.:~~e-~".:::>::2_.=.k~.___.::"-:.!.\ :.::C:..::~!.:._,.::;;-:::---!!0:::'..:::::·---:....:..· ___.'..:I?."'~. ~:.c~~-~"=T~A.k~\ !.:' '"7:.::.:_:=..;.---
EPA Form 1300-6 (7-72i F" c "e-"t"(~~";> e..;,-r;.
'
1
• 0 (µ• 11,.'lo:)) '
'i? • ~ 0 (_E.L .. l1D.OSJ
0 (_a=-1'1.1.0~')
z: 'z. 0 (.Q= J'Z.J ,4~1 i! C7 E 'Tl • (u..• 11-1. !,~}
I F 0 (a" 121 so) \ 0
V, 0 (_a= l'Z.J.S5/ 19.:I :! .l-[.
F~ ~ O (a=1Zo""-J ,, ..:-
l • 0 • D
J ~ l f "' z. i8 ~ -; z:
! ! cl i ~ z. z:.. I:'
%1 I
C-C v-'Z. ~ ,..;
[ v-
,J ~
E~ L~
:r, V'J 0 ,.., n ► :c ► ... ,-
~ ..
0 -; 'j;, .:I .
-0 ::z:: ::t.r: 0 ::i,.-F _;. ~ c.n C"? :c, -c:c :c, ,, ---1,--n, t rT'1 ::i,.-z
3: ::z: C"? "' n
~ :r ::i,.-c::::, C, "" -o ~c ,..,
0 ,--z a, a, ,..... --I :"': :"': -<
::c ::c ::c ,.. ►
I . ------------------r------------------------------
TO:
RECORD OF
COMMUNICATION
0 PHONE CALL
0 OTHER (SPECIFY)
FROM:
0 DISCUSSION 0 FIELD TRIP 0 CONFERENCE
(Record of item checked above)
TIME ______________________ ..__ _________________ ......_ _________ _
SUBJECl
SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION
-t/ 27
S .c,,:;;
~1. 7?'
' -5 .o
., ... ··•
....L
I
; --~·-----
~) 1_,t_ I::-.·,:
......__,,.....
-----------------------------------------------------1 CONCLUSIONS. ACTIO~l TAKEN OR REQUIRED
INFORMATION COPIES
TO:
--·-\ \ C
: I ~ L).v
I I
I
---~-5 ;::..;--
-~ 1,1
.. ----------------------------------------------------'
EPA Form 1300-6 (7-72)
I.fl ~ tw, (!gln,/11) =s: Q '() (_j 1 !: ,f) ;-V)..:..---·-□ ~ ijo" ';ji 0 ~ • J 5 ~0 1\ er u: If' y; 0,, t'll..J-1 (Ill': E.l.. =-111. ~1) r,:,; 0 ;J ~ ~ "' ... __, --;:J" 0~ I /t ~ lI> ., ~,,.. II\.·. ,r-r:; r:;; ~ , \ ,t-"'.,,-' "' ~-. ;:i r'~' ·"' . ~ --=-r.;:s_ ~ -;-. ;r--t-·_ 1:1--1 Ji1/Jf ~~.it .... ~ ■ ui0 ~o r-□ ,r,Q lf\Q lh. VI •I' •• A Yi V'I p v, '-l k N '·. r-LJlAi .J -L11..11t F~ ' ~ I ,_ ·, 9 ,ti ... ('() I-"'.. ·:·\ ~-. . DFIU-------i5 ~ r-I ~ "' ~ . . ('II If\ ~ \ W1T.\11J FtNl.E • 3,1 J..<.&.-., l';; ~ "' r .,-o-"' "' ; ~I :/ ~ _____,r I' .:,~r:. _, 0-: o ~ ___ :; 11-.., 0 tiW·4 ~i~•~:\A~~ ~•--,o -:(a•:~) o/t,~ Y ~~•~•sl r--: ~ .. 't<= C) V I.II -i-~--+ U,) ' --0<------!-------K r ~ N r k -~t-. Jl •I'_ I<" <r; Y' ', ISi .._: '-.. ~ 7 '\+ _!✓ '-.. ~ ~-/ I o~,;w-3 N (f.w1 E.L. .. 4Z.S4) ~o .N -: -r ~ u\ ia u ~ ~ \\I , .. I U;fzE.NI> D ■ 0 • Sfl2JNl'.I.L,z. f},.b!, VWT PAI> ~.i,ro~r,J(, \.JE.U.~ WET" #!U. WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL SITE MAP 4V>.1..J-ur-1~ Fi=>JC£. DATE: DRAHII BY: ,. ... , I SCALE: I'= l_{)l)_' CHKED BY: ·HHA nEv.:
r ....
..J .,
l'Ll
I "I r,.. ' ~ . '-:? i al ~· I Q I rJ .:::,: ~i I
,.,.,
tO r .
~ d) 1 -t-J, }--
N
I t-J l'i' ~ -:; ~ v'> i 11". If) r I-\:1 "' 1,1
' ~ -8 ~ ~ -:f ~ ef-. j. ~ ~ ~: ~:
..:
1-
'2 in
Ill 1/)
7 y)
-e4 ,-
I ! r-, r-:'
..9 \['
\fl
t-t
~
I I c$) ({>
,/1 J ti\ 'J i -J') I }-1
I I I -. ..J