feasibility study and proposalfeasibility assessment and proposal permeable reactive barrier remedy...

DuPont EngineeringBarley Mill Plaza - Bldg 27Lancaster Pike & Rte. HIWilmmgton. OE 19805

bcc: E.J. Lutz, DuPontJ.A. Wiikens, DuPont

DnPontLJiirtmi . _ 0 p & ButleriURSD

J.E. Wolfe.URSDW.R. Kahl, URSD

J. Wokasien, URS-BuffaloFile:Newport/DlNE7105^outh Landfill

Mr. Randy Sturgeon, 3HS23 January 22' 2001Remedial Project ManagerU.S. EP A, Region in1650 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103-2029

FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PROPOSALSOUTH LANDFILL PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER REMEDY

Newport Superfund Site, Newport, DelawareDear Randy,

DuPont has developed a more protective and cost-effective remedy for the SouthLandfill at the Newport Superfund Site. We propose a permeable reactive barrier (PRB)-basedtreatment remedy for the South Landfill. Overall, the new remedy would consist of apermeable reactive and slurry wall surrounding the landfill to the extent practical, riverbankstabilization with a HOPE geomembrane, single-barrier HDPE cap tied into South JamesStreet, and monitoring. We believe that this remedy meets the NCP selection criteria and is asuperior alternative to both the ROD and ESD remedies.

We have demonstrated the ability to treat all of the metals migrating from the landfill.This remedy is essentially the same as that proposed on July 7, 2000, with the addition ofmagnesite (a hydrated magnesium carbonate mineral) to treat manganese. At present, ourin-situ field tests have demonstrated in excess of 250 years' treatment life. We will submit theresults of ongoing testing (extending the predicted wall life further) in early February.

DuPont has every intention to complete the South Landfill remedy in September 2001.Due to the short timeline, we are preparing (at risk) a pre-final design plan in parallel with theattached assessments. We expect to submit a pre-final design plan on, or before,February 2, 2001, and begin pre-bid discussions with potential contractors soon. While we thiswork is done at risk, we are committed to completing this work on schedule, if at all possible.

We look forward to an early review of this proposal and upcoming design plan. Pleasecall me if you, or your staff, have any questions regarding this proposal.

Sincerely,

Jim L. AkerProject Director

JLA.pbbcc: K. Olinger, DNREC

C. Clayton, USCOEP. Meitner, Legal

BR32U73I

FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSALPERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER REMEDYNEWPORT SUPERFUND SITENEWPORT, DELAWARE

January 2001 Project No. D1NE7105

CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUPAn Alliance betw&en

DuPont and URS Diamond

Barley Mill Plaza. Building 27Wilmmgton, Delaware 1980S

AR32U732

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...................................................................................

Section 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Site Background....................................................................................... 1-11.2 Remedy History and Proposed Change ................................................... 1-1

Section 2 Description of Proposed PRB Remedy........................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Waste Treatment and Containment Conceptual Approach...................... 2-12.2 Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall and Permeable Reactive Barrier .................. 2-32.3 Single Barrier Cap....................................................................................2-42.4 Monitoring Treatment Effectiveness ....................................................... 2-4

Section 3 PRB Technology Demonstration.................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Permeable Reactive Barrier..................................................................... 3-13.2 Laboratory Evaluations for Barium and Zinc Treatment......................... 3-2

3.2.1 Batch Tests for Barium and Zinc Treatment................................ 3-23.2.2 Column Tests for Barium and Zinc Treatment............................ 3-2

3.3 In-Situ Field Demonstration for Barium and Zinc Treatment................. 3-43,3.1 Field Tests Procedure................................................................... 3-43,3.2 Results..........................................................................................3-4

3.4 Manganese Treatment.............................................................................. 3-53.5 Impact of Site Geochemistry On Metals Mobility and Treatment

Effectiveness............................................................................................ 3-63.6 Wall Life Projections...............................................................................3-6

Section 4 Rationale for Selection.................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment..................... 4-14.2 Compliance With ARARS....................................................................... 4-24.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance ............................................ 4-24.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment........... 4-34.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ........................................................................ 4-34.6 Implementability...................................................................................... 4-34.7 Cost.........................................:................................................................ 4-44.8 State and Community Acceptance........................................................... 4-4

Sections Summai...................................................................................................................,..... 5-1

Section6 References...................................................................................................................... 6-1

^RR32U733

ACMEOMT1OH CROUP4fl*i« ftfhnwtind UKS CMiwM

S:\NEWPORT\NQV2000F6ASIBILITYREP7\7105SLW.DOC\18-JAN-01\7105\ 1

TABLE OF CONTENTSFIGURES

Figure 1 Permeable Reactive Barrier RemedyFigure 2 Sample Cross-Section of South LandfillFigure 3 Detail of Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall

APPENDICESAppendix A Laboratory Report - Development of Data for a Permeable Reactive BarrierAppendix B PRB In-situ Field DataAppendix C Detailed Cost EstimatesAppendix D HELP CalculationsAppendix E Proposed Changes to Performance StandardsAppendix F South Landfill Explanation of Significant Differences

COOKMAT1 REMBDIATXX OWX»*fAlM>Mm

Gt*M H) UM CWOM RR32U73U S;\NEWPOR'nNOV2000FEASIBILITYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\ia-JAN-On7105\ 11

Executive SummaryDuPont proposes utilizing a new, innovative technology for treating the South Landfill waste atthe Newport Superfund Site: a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) coupled with an impermeableslurry wall and an engineered cap. This technology is proposed as a protective and cost-effectivealternative to both the treatment remedy described in the 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) andthe in-situ chemical treatment remedy described in the 1995 Explanation of SignificantDifferences (ESD). This proposal supports adopting the PRB treatment technology, which hasbeen demonstrated in both laboratory and field trials, for application at the Newport Site.The National Contingency Plan (NCP) indicates a preference for innovative technologies thatoffer comparable or superior performance, fewer adverse impacts, and/or lower costs for similarlevels of performance as achieved by demonstrated technologies. When compared with the 1993ROD and 1995 ESD remedies, the proposed PRB alternative offers at least equal (and in manyways superior) performance in terms of controlling contaminants migrating from the SouthLandfill at a significantly lower cost.

Q The 1993 ROD required treatment of the South Landfill waste materials using soilmixing and in-situ stabilization. New data indicate that the cost of the 1993 ROD remedyexceeds S17MM.

Q The 1995 ESD remedy specified in-situ chemical treatment. The ESD remedy would costover S23MM.

Q DuPont estimates that the cost of implementing the PRB alternative is $5MM.In addition to this clear cost advantage, DuPont believes that the proposed PRB remedy rankssignificantly higher than the original 1993 ROD and 1995 ESD remedies with respect to the nineEPA criteria used to evaluate remedies (see Section 3). DuPont believes this PRB remedyprotects human health and the environment, complies with ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.It also minimizes total waste volumes and provides protectiveness for centuries. This remedy isequal to or better than the prior technologies with respect to meeting relevant performancestandards and has demonstrated an exceptionally high capacity for meeting the standards wellinto the future.

S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBHJTYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\1B-JAN-01\7105\

SEGTIONONE Introduction

1.1 SITE BACKGROUNDThe DuPont Newport Superfund Site (Site) occupies approximately 120 acres on the banks of theChristina River at James and Water Streets in Newport, Delaware. The Site includes landcurrently occupied by the Ciba Specialty Chemicals plant (a paint pigment production facility),the former DuPont Holly Run facility, the North and South Landfills (separated by the ChristinaRiver), and a former employee recreational area, known as the ballpark. On August 22, 1988,DuPont entered into an Administrative Order of Consent with EPA and agreed to perform aRemedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for the Site, which led to the 1993 ROD.As a part of earlier pigment operations, off-specification products were disposed in the North andSouth Landfills. The South Landfill, which operated from 1.902 to 1953, was used for thedisposal of Lithopone wastes. Waste slurries from the purification of zinc and barium ores werepumped from the plant and discharged into a bermed area, creating the South Landfill. In the1970s, the South Landfill was covered with soils from excavations for the construction of theDelaware Highway 141 Christina River Bridge.

1.2 REMEDY HISTORY AND PROPOSED CHANGEThe 1993 ROD called for the portion of the South Landfill owned by the State of Delaware(including the roadway) to be excavated and placed in the portion of the landfill owned byDuPont. Original estimates of the total amount of materials to be excavated were approximately37,000 cubic yards. Data developed by the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT)and recently refined by DuPont indicated that 85,000 cubic yards would require excavationbecause the contamination was deeper than originally anticipated, representing a 230% increasein cost.In 1 4, DelDOT :id DuPont independently su- nitted alternate remedy proposals to the EPA inan e, irt to add the contamination in a less costly manner. In 1995, EPA selected analternate remed> \>r the South Landfill and issued an Explanation of Significant Differences(1995 ESD) to modify the 1993 ROD. The revised remedy changed the treatment technologyfrom in-situ stabilization to chemical precipitation with sodium sulfide and sodium sulfate. The1995 ESD also upgraded the containment system from a soil cover to a low permeability cap, acircumscribing groundwater barrier wall, and a groundwater pump and treat system.Since the 1995 ESD was issued, considerable additional information has been collected thatimpacts prior assessments and supports a new, innovative, cost-effective treatment technology(DuPont, 2000). These new data indicate that a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) and engineeredcap will provide a better remedy than either the 1993 ROD or the 1995 ESD remedies. Theproposed PRB remedy is more permanent, implementable, and cost effective than the prior tworem'edies. In addition, the PRB remedy will provide equal or better protection of human healthand the environment and will not increase the waste volume. This technology can be appliedsimply and effectively using proven construction methods, and it will reduce the requiredimplementation time to less than one year.

COflPOPWT! MMBDtATKJN ORDUP

t H* ftu. §UUnf 37H ft 0 £ H / 0 O S:\NEWPORTWOV2000FEASIBIIITYREPT\7105SLWDOC\18-JAN-01\7105\ 1-1

SECT10NQNE____________________Introduction

The following table presents a summary of the major design elements of the 1993 ROD, the1995 ESD, and the current proposed PRB remedy.

Comparison of Remedy Design Elements

Element

Cap

Treatment

Groundwater BarrierWall

Groundwater Pumpand Treatment

James Street

Riverbank

1993 RODRemedy

Soil Cap (10-5cm/s)

In-Situ SoilStabilization

None

None

Remove andRebuild

Contain withArmoring

199$ ESDRemedy

Dual Layer Capwith Geomembrane

and Liner

Soluble SodiumSulfide and Sulfate

10-7cm/sWallCircumscribingEntire Landfill,south of NCCoSewer Line

Maintain InwardGradient and TreatWater on-site

Remove andRebuild


Current ProposedPRB Remedy

Single Layer Capwith HOPE

Geomembrane Liner

PRB with Gypsum,Iron, & Magnesitealong two sides of

landfill

10"7cm/s Wall southof NCCo Sewer

Line along one sideof landfill

None

Tie Cap into theRoadway


The PRB remedy is equal to or better than the 1993 and 1995 remedies with respect to meetingrelevant performance standards and has demonstrated an exceptionally high capacity for meetingthe standards well into the future.

CORPORATE REMEOUT10N QROUP

& R 3 2 H / O / S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBILITYREP-n7l05SLW.DOC\22-JAN-OH7105\ 1"2

SECTION! WO Description of Proposed PRB Remedy

2.1 WASTE TREATMENT AND CONTAINMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROACHThe current proposed remedy for the South Landfill includes a complete barrier system tophysically separate the waste material from the environment. The barrier system will consist of alow-permeability (10~7 cm/s or less) slurry wall coupled with a permeable reactive barrier wall,as shown in Figure 1. The slurry wall will be placed parallel to the Christina River along thesouth side of the New Castle County sewer main. The PRB wall will surround the remainder ofthe landfill. Both barriers will be vertically keyed into the relatively impermeable marsh depositbelow the landfill (see Figures 2 and 3). The slurry wall and reactive barrier will contain, to theextent practical, all of the waste material within the South Landfill, including the portion on theState's property as shown in Figure 1, and treat migrating constituents at the landfill boundary.The riverbank will be capped by clearing existing vegetation, extending the synthetic cap to themean low tide (-1.6 feet MSL) elevation, and covering the riverbank with armor stone (per recentEPA discussions). The landward slurry wall, engineered landfill cap, and riverbank cap willprevent further migration through the waste material not contained within the circumscribingslurry/reactive wall structures. The riverbank cap will also prevent further erosion and completethe containment of the waste.The slurry wall will be 36-inches wide with a 3-foot key into the clayey-silt marsh deposit. Thepermeable reactive barrier (approximately 18-inches wide) will be a mixture of treatment agentsand clean sand in the weight ratio of 100:20:5:5 (DelDOT-grade mortar sand: gypsum: iron:magnesite). Gypsum (CaS04«2H20) and magnesite (Mgs(CO3)4(OH)2»4H2O) are slightly soluble,and the iron (metallic, zero-valent), is insoluble in comparison to the highly soluble reactivematerials used in the 1995 ESD remedy. Therefore, these materials will not be readily flushedfrom the wall should infiltration rates increase. Theoretically, the PRB will actively treatmigrating groundwater for hundreds of years. Field and laboratory investigations are currentlyunderway for confirm longevity.All groundwater originating in the waste material will pass through the permeable barrier fortreatment to the same low levels established in the 1995 ESD. The PRB is designed to treatsoluble metals concentrations to below the following levels, providing equal treatment of thewaste constituents.

NEMCDMTON <MOU*

RR32U738 <~t 1S:\NEWPORT\NOV 2000 FEASIBILITY REPW105SLW DOC\22-JAN-01\7105\ 2-1

SECTION! WO Description of Proposed PRB Remedy

Metal

BariumCadmiumCopperLead

ManganeseNickelZinc

Maximum Concentration (PPb)7,80041815

1,000730120

Within the reactive wall, the iron will treat soluble zinc via surface adsorption reactions. Thegypsum and magnesite will precipitate soluble barium and manganese as barium sulfate andmanganese carbonate, respectively. The treatment (while able to remove other dissolved metals)will not specifically target cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel because the concentrations forthese metals already meet the performance standards. Section 3 and Appendices A and B presentthe laboratory and field data used to develop this remedy.Two additional contaminants of concern, arsenic and chromium, are also not expected to beimpacted by the PRB treatment. Chromium concentrations are already below levels consideredprotective and do not warrant further treatment. Recent sampling during the April, 2000 in-situPRB field tests (DuPont, 2000) indicated that arsenic is also below levels considered protectiveof the environment and human health.Monitoring wells placed inside the permeable reactive barrier (see Figure 3) will confirmgroundwater treatment and provide an early warning against premature wall breakthrough toensure protection of human health and the environment. Approximately 10 monitoring wells (on200-foot centers) will be installed in the outside six inches of the barrier. In addition,downgradient wells will be installed to observe metals attenuation.A single layer cap will cover all of the waste material and extend beyond the limits of the slurrywall and reactive barrier to the riverbank and wetlands areas, respectively. The cap will have amaximum permeability of 10-7 cm/sec and will be designed as shown in Figure 2. The designincludes a single barrier synthetic geomembrane layer, a drainage layer, protective soil, andtopsoil. The cap design is a change from the 1995 ESD requirement for a dual-barrier capcontaining at least a synthetic geomembrane liner. The dual layer cap in the 1995 ESD remedywas essential for reducing groundwater infiltration to the maximum extent practical because thetreatment agents were extremely soluble and could be flushed from the waste by infiltratingrainwater. Maximum reduction of infiltration is not as critical to the current proposed PRBremedy because the treatment agents are either sparingly soluble or insoluble and also becauseany infiltrated water will be treated as it flows through the PRB.

Ou**» lot OM

• pOOll/ Jy S;\NEWPOR'nNOV2000FEASlBILIPrREPTi7105SLW.DOC\l8.JAN-01\7105\ 2-2

SECTIONTWO__________Description of Proposed PRB Remedy

As in the 1995 ESD remedy, additional fencing and a vegetative barrier (perhaps thorny plants)will be installed around the entire South Landfill area to control trespassing. The institutionalcontrols have already been established, including a notification attached to the deed regardingpast land use, restrictions on future land use, and health and safety requirements for maintenanceworkers of the roadway and sewer main that run through the South Landfill. These steps willprotect maintenance workers during future subsurface work.The present worth cost of this remedy is $5,050,000. Detailed cost estimates are provided inAppendix C. Appendix D presents recommended modifications to the Performance Standards asthey apply to the proposed PRB remedy.

2.2 SOIL-BENTONITE SLURRY WALL AND PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERThe South Landfill will be treated by directing groundwater through a 2,000 feet long permeablereactive barrier which borders two (of three) sides of the landfill. A slurry wall will containgroundwater on the third side of the landfill. The low-permeability marsh deposit confininglayer will form the bottom of the containment system. This layer is continuous and at least 10feet thick so that an adequate "key" can be made. As shown in the ESD proposal, the SouthLandfill site and subsurface conditions are ideal for a soil-bentonite slurry wall. The topographyis relatively flat, and the depth to the confining layer is shallow enough (less than 30 feet) to useconventional backhoes for excavation. In addition, construction quality control and qualityassurance procedures are well established for slurry walls to ensure continuity and lowpermeability.The soil-bentonite slurry wall is proposed along the river side of the landfill because landfillmaterials have been previously found at the riverbank. Within this region it is infeasible tocontain the waste within a reactive barrier; hence, the impermeable barrier will isolate the wastematerials from the river via physical and hydraulic separation.The slurry wall and reactive barrier will contain, to the extent practical, all of the waste materialwithin the South Landfill, as shown on Figure 1. The alignment is based on EPA's agreement(EPA, 1996b) that the wall can be placed on the south side of the New Castle County sewermain. EPA approved this location because the residual risk from the untreated material coveredby a geomembrane and stone along the riverbank was less than the risk of a catastrophic sewerline failure. The areal extent of the waste to the north and east was confirmed with recentGeoprobe® borings (DuPont, 2000).The soil-bentonite slurry wall will be designed to have a maximum permeability of 10-7 cm/sec.The slurry wall will be a minimum 36-inch-wide wall with a 3-foot key into the clayey silt layer.The soil-bentonite backfill will consist of clean backfill mixed with bentonite slurry (EPA1996a). The Pre-Final design and construction bid documents are currently being prepared.The permeable reactive barrier will be 18 inches wide with a 3-foot key into the clayey-siltmarsh deposit. The barrier will be a mixture of treatment agents and clean sand in the weightratios of 100:20:5:5 (sand: gypsum: iron: magnesite). All groundwater passing through the wastematerial will pass through the permeable barrier. The PRB will contain slightly soluble gypsumand magnesite and insoluble iron. Laboratory column studies showed an eight-inch wall would

S:\NEWPORT\NOV20QOFEASIBILITYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\1B-JAN-01\7105\ 2-3

SECTIONTWO__________Description of Proposed PRB Remedyprovide over 100 years of wall life when installed with an engineered single-barrier, syntheticcap, as described previously. Hence, an 18-inch width would provide a very high level ofconfidence of achieving all treatment goals and an effective treatment barrier life of severalhundred years.The low-permeability marsh deposit confining layer will form the bottom of the containmentsystem. This layer is continuous and at least 10 feet thick so that an adequate "key" can be made.The existing cover soil and the low-permeability geomembrane cap on the South Landfill willcompletely separate the waste from the environment. The geologic occurrence (continuity andthickness) and hydraulic characteristics (permeability) of the confining layer found beneath theSouth Landfill waste material has previously been described (DERS 1995).

2.3 SINGLE BARRIER CAPThe cap will cover all of the waste material and extend beyond the limits of the slurry wall andreactive barrier. The cap will have a maximum permeability of 10-7 cm/sec. The cap will bedesigned as shown in Figure 2. The design includes a barrier layer (such as a syntheticgeomembrane), a geotextile drainage layer, protective soil, and topsoil.Infiltration through the cap was estimated with the Hydrogeologic Evaluation of LandfillPerformance (HELP) model to determine cap performance (see Appendix D). The modelindicates that the single barrier cap will reduce infiltration over 99.98 percent from currentconditions (16 vs. 0.0031 in/yr). The difference between a single barrier and the dual barrierspecified in the existing performance standard is negligible (0.94 gal/year).The cap design is a change from the 1995 ESD requirement for a dual-barrier cap with both asynthetic geomembrane and a geocomposite clay liner. Reducing groundwater to the maximumextent practical was a critical element of the 1995 ESD remedy because the treatment agentswere extremely soluble and could be flushed from the waste by infiltrating rainwater.

2.4 MONITORING TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESSMonitoring wells placed inside the permeable reactive barrier will monitor treatment and providean early warning to facilitate protection of human health and the environment. Approximately10 monitoring wells (on 200-foot centers) are proposed within the permeable reactive barrier(see Figure 1). One-inch diameter wells will be installed in the outside 6 inches of the barrier(see Figure 2). In addition, monitoring wells will be installed downgradient of the South Landfillto monitor metals attenuation as groundwater migrates from the landfill (see Figure 2).Installation of wells in the outer third of the permeable reactive barrier will monitor treatmentconditions and metals capture. In addition, since laboratory and field tests have shown hundredsof years wall life with much thinner installations, placement of the wells in the outer third willprovide adequate early warning, in the unlikely event that breakthrough occurs at some point inthe future.

CCflPOflATl REUECMT1ON OROUPAn Am* MM»

{Wo* Kf UKS OHtm*

••toy MM Plum. luM»« 1?SAN£WPORT\NOV 2000 FEASIBILITY REPT\7105SLW DOC\22-JAN-Q1\7105\

SECTIONTHREE___________PRB Technology Demonstration

Multiple phases of laboratory studies and field tests have demonstrated the viability of a PRB forthe treatment of metals of concern, most notably barium, zinc, and manganese. Initial studiesachieved removal of all metals except manganese (DuPont, 2000). Subsequent laboratory batchtests using an additional treatment reagent (magnesite) have demonstrated excellent manganeseremoval. Confirmatory laboratory column studies and in-situ field tests confirm that the PRBtechnology described below treats the South Landfill with equal or better protectiveness thanprior technologies.

3.1 PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERA permeable reactive barrier is an in-ground emplacement of chemically active materials in thepath of groundwater movement. Laboratory and field tests showed aqueous contaminants will beremoved as groundwater passes through the barrier. Metals were removed by precipitation andsorption. The barrier will be of sufficient width to provide adequate residence time and long-term capacity (hundreds of years), and deep enough to key into impermeable layers at the base ofan aquifer (ensuring that all groundwater will pass through the reactive materials). Onceinstalled, the barrier will require virtually no maintenance, only groundwater monitoring toconfirm treatment.To evaluate PRB technology for metals treatment at the Newport South Landfill, a series ofbatch and column experiments was performed focusing on barium and zinc treatment. These arethe two metals which exceed the treatment performance standards in groundwater within theSouth Landfill. First, screening batch tests were conducted with materials, which potentiallycould remove the metals. Two materials, gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O) and zero-valent iron (iron),showed excellent removal properties for barium and zinc, respectively. Barium precipitated asbarium sulfate; zinc is removed by adsorption.Gypsum and iron were then used in continuous-flow column tests to demonstrate theireffectiveness together with the sand that would make up the bulk of the PRB. Wall lifeprojections were then made based on the column tests and flows through the PRB underassumptions of different landfill cap configurations. Hydraulic permeability tests wereperformed to ensure PRB permeability throughout the remedy's life.As a final technology demonstration, in-situ field tests were constructed using a designpreviously used by the U.S. EPA and DuPont. A 12-inch diameter column of the PRBsand: gypsum: iron mix was placed in the ground in the presence of contaminated groundwater.A one-inch monitoring well was placed in the middle of the column prior to backfill.Performance was determined by sampling the water that had passed through 5.5 inches ofreactive material. The results of these tests validated the laboratory projections (DuPont, 2000).A second round of batch, column, and in-situ tests were then conducted, focusing on manganeseremoval. Batch tests showed the addition of magnesite (a slightly soluble form of magnesiumcarbonate) treated the manganese. (Manganese appears to be mobilized by the presence of ironin the PRB). Column and in-situ test borings with magnesite added to the sand-gypsum-ironmixture demonstrated effective treatment of the waste and removal of all dissolved metals towell below their performance standards._

/\ R 3 C /4fc SAN6WPORTWOV 2000 FEASIBILITY REPW105SLWDOC\22-JAN-01\7105\ 3-1

CORPORATE REMEDIATION DHOUf

SECTIONTHREE____________PRB Technology Demonstration

3.2 LABORATORY EVALUATIONS FOR BARIUM AND ZINC TREATMENTThis section describes the laboratory evaluations that were performed to develop the permeablereactive barrier treatment technology. Appendix A describes the evaluations in detail.

3.2.1 Batch Tests for Barium and Zinc TreatmentBatch tests were used to screen potential treatment materials. Groundwater from two locationsinside the South Landfill were tested, representing areas of high barium or zinc concentration.The barium-rich water was used to evaluate the gypsum treatment effectiveness. The zinc-richwater was used to evaluate the treatment effectiveness of zero-valent iron, millscale, steel slag(from BOF, basic oxygen furnace process), and iron sulfide.These tests covered a broad range of concentrations for each active material. Groundwater andthe reactants were put in 125 cc polypropylene bottles, the headspace purged with nitrogen, andthen agitated end-over-end for 24 hours. Samples of the liquid phase were then passed through a0.45-micron filter and analyzed for the constituents of interest. Control samples followed thesame procedures except that no reactive material was added.Barium concentrations were reduced from 290,000 ppb to less than 500 ppb by the addition of0.5 weight percent of gypsum. The resulting concentration was substantially lower than therequired 7,800-ppb standard (see Appendix A).Zinc concentrations were readily reduced from approximately 1,000 ppb to less than 10 ppb (vs.a goal of 120 ppb) by several materials, including zero-valent iron (Peerless -8 +50 mesh), ironsulfide, steel mill scale, and steel slag. The first two showed exceptional activity. Zero-valentiron (iron) was chosen for further evaluation due to its high activity and DuPont experience atother sites.Of the other metals of concern, cadmium, copper and lead were less than the detection limits of4 ppb in both feeds and treated waters. Nickel was significantly less than the goal of 730 ppb inboth feeds and all treated waters, and was reduced in all cases except mill scale. Manganese wasgenerally not reduced by the materials, and in some cases manganese levels increased as a resultof treatment, although final concentrations in the laboratory studies remained below thetreatment performance standard of 1,000 ppb established in the ESD.

3.2.2 Column Tests for Barium and Zinc TreatmentContinuous-flow column tests were conducted with the selected reactive agents - gypsum andiron. The column tests were performed to assess wall life (capacity), synergistic (or antagonistic)effects of combining the materials, and potential performance limitations (such as plugging).Two independent tests were run, on barium-rich and zinc-rich samples from South Landfill wellswith the elevated barium and zinc concentrations.

CORPORATEAX WH IMS

S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBIUTYREPn7105SLW.DOai8-JAN-01\7105\ 3-2

SECTIONTHREE___________PRB Technology DemonstrationWhile the barium and zinc concentrations leaving the landfill vary along the perimeter, DuPonthas chosen one wall composition which would ensure treatment of both barium and zinc at alllocations. Based on the batch tests and a projection of reactant needs, a mix composition waschosen with parts by weight of:

Sand : Gypsum : Iron = 100 ; 20 : 5An inert material, mason sand - a standard Delaware Department of Transportation material, waschosen as the base material for the PRB. Permeability tests showed that 20 weight percentgypsum mixed with mason sand had a permeability of 6 x 10"4 cm/sec. Waste permeabilitiesranged from 2 x 10"5 to 1 x 10"6 cm/sec (Kiber 2000). The permeable barrier will thus have ahigher permeability than the landfill material, preventing a "bathtub" effect.For the laboratory experiments, two independent column tests were run concurrently, one withbarium-rich feed water and one with zinc-rich feed water. Each test consisted of a reactivecolumn filled with the above mix, and a control column filled with sand alone. Pressure dropacross the columns was measured to determine the permeability of the columns over time.Barium removal was readily accomplished from both the barium-rich and zinc-richgroundwaters. With the barium-rich feed, 500,000 ppb barium was reduced to nominally 1,000ppb. With the zinc-rich feed, 70,000 ppb barium was reduced to nominally 100 ppb. Theseresults were consistent over the one-month test, and demonstrated barium removal to well belowthe 7,800 ppb limit.Zinc removal was difficult to quantify due to analytical complexities (possible interferences,etc.), but the performance was clear. While the zinc-rich feed water varied from 100 to 1,000ppb, zinc was consistently reduced to non-detect (25 ppb) in both the active and control columnsover the one-month test. The mortar-sand backfill also has some limited affinity for metalsadsorption. Thus zinc levels were well below the standard of 120 ppb.Of the other metals of concern, cadmium, copper and lead were less than the detection level of 4ppb in both feeds and treated waters. Nickel was less than 30 ppb in treated groundwater, wellbelow the goal of 730 ppb. Manganese, up to 100 ppb in feeds, was observed in zinc watercolumn effluents at 200 to 8,000 ppb. -In barium-rich effluents, manganese was found at 200 ppbto non-detect (10 ppb) levels.Reactive column flow and pressure drops were used to calculate the column materialpermeabilities after 45 days of flow. The hydraulic conductivity was 2.2 x 10"4 and2.6 x lO cm/sec for the zinc and barium columns, respectively, the same magnitude as the freshmixture (~6 x 10"4 cm/sec). No permeability decrease was thus observed over many simulatedwall lifetimes, and wall plugging should not be expected to occur.

CORPOMATI ntutounoN*i Atone*

Oift* »M OM•My Ml>l«* »•**•• IT _ .

S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBIUTYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\22-JAN-01\7105\RR32U7UI*

SECTIONTHREE___________PBB Technology Demonstration

3.3 IN-SITU FIELD DEMONSTRATION FOR BARIUM AND ZINC TREATMENTTwo in-situ boring clusters, each consisting of a treatment well and a control boring, were placedin locations that had shown elevated levels of barium and zinc in the Geoprobe® groundwatersampling (DuPont, 2000). Each treatment boring consisted of a 12-inch diameter column oftreatment material consisting of sand, gypsum, and iron in a weight ratio of 100, 20, and 5,respectively. A 1-inch PVC pipe was placed in the middle of the boring, surrounded by thetreatment material.Each control boring was placed about fifteen feet (up- or side-gradient) from their respectivetreatment pair and were similarly constructed except that clean sand was used in place oftreatment material (see Figure 1). The PVC pipe was screened five feet from the bottom of eachwell. A standard bentonite seal was placed above the treatment material or clean sand.The field demonstration supported the laboratory tests. Barium, zinc, cadmium, copper, nickel,and lead were treated to below their respective performance standards. Manganese levels,however, while below the performance standard in the zinc-rich well, were above theperformance standard in the barium-rich well.The manganese results indicated that the presence of iron reduced the oxidation potential of thegroundwater and made manganese more mobile. The difference between the laboratory columnresults and in-situ results is due to the different groundwater and in-situ soil conditions and isvery difficult to predict, confirming the importance of the in-situ test borings.

3.3.1 Field Tests ProcedureWater was pumped from the wells between sampling events to confirm treatment performanceunder field geochemical conditions and, secondarily, to simulate wall life. A maximum pumpingrate for the field tests was calculated by multiplying the laboratory column test rate of 0.5 L/dayby the ratio of the area of the field test (at the annular diameter midpoint) to the laboratorycolumn test. The calculated maximum pumping rate was 8.125 L/hr; the average actual pumpingrate was 4.5 L/hr with a range of 3.0 to 6.3 L/hr. The test and control wells in each well clusterwere pumped at the same rate using a dual-head peristaltic pump. Filtered groundwater sampleswere analyzed each day the test columns were pumped.

3.3.2 ResultsBarium removal was demonstrated in both the barium-rich and zinc-rich locations. At thebarium-rich groundwater location, the barium concentration in the water from the control wellranged between 44,500 and 103,000 ppb, compared to a concentration range of 11 to 58 ppbfrom the treatment well. At the zinc-rich groundwater location, the barium concentration in thewater from the control well ranged from 133,000 to 230,000 ppb, whereas the bariumconcentration in water from the treatment well ranged from 160 to 540 ppb (DuPont, 2000).

f\ H 0 b H / t S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBIUTYREPW105SLW.OOO22-JAN-01\7105\ 3-4

SECTIOMTHREE ______PRB Technology Demonstration

Zinc removal was difficult to observe because of the low zinc concentrations in both locations.The zinc concentrations in the zinc-rich control well ranged from 15 ppb to non-detect. All zincconcentrations in the water from the zinc-rich treatment boring were below 6 ppb and most werenon-detect. In water from the barium-rich control well, the zinc concentration was never higherth'an 47 ppb. Zinc concentrations in the water from the treatment well were never above 9 ppband were non-detect in all samples after the second day of the field test.For other constituents of interest, cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel were nearly below theirdetection limits throughout the field tests. None were above the practical quantitation limit.Calcium was detected in water from the control wells, at an average of 20,000 ppb, and in muchhigher concentrations in water from the treatment wells (an average of 550,000 ppb). The highercalcium concentrations are the result of gypsum dissolution. Manganese was detected in waterfrom the zinc-rich wells at levels below 1,000 ppb. Manganese was also below the treatmentstandard in the barium-rich control well. Water in the barium-rich treatment well was about15,000 ppb, exceeding the treatment standard.

3.4 MANGANESE TREATMENTThe initial in-situ tests (and subsequent laboratory tests) confirmed that the presence of iron inthe PRB created reducing conditions that mobilized manganese, which is naturally present in sitesoils and as a minor constituent in the iron, sand and gypsum. After additional testing, theaddition of magnesite (magnesium carbonate) to the PRB composition was found to giveexcellent results in laboratory batch tests (see Appendix A). The terms "magnesite" or "MgCO3"are used here even though the actual composition is a more complex hydrate.Barium-rich and zinc-rich groundwaters were independently spiked with soluble manganesechloride to give approximately 20,000 ppb of manganese. In separate tests, the waters were thenall treated with the initial sand : gypsum : iron wall mixture of 100 : 20 : 5. To this mixturemagnesite was added in a series of batch runs analogous to those of our other studies.Manganese solubility was dramatically decreased at even the lowest levels of magnesiteaddition. Even with the initial magnesite addition, manganese was below the required 1,000 ppb.No adverse effects were observed on the removal of other metals.

Manganese Concentrations (ppb) at Increasing Magnesite LevelsMagnesite "Weiglit Ratio" *

0.00.81.63.26.3

Barium-rich feed water18,700 '477186141100(dl)

Zinc-rich feed water15,800260115

<100<100

* Magnesite "Weight Ratio" (WR) is the weight of magnesite with respect to sand,i.e., sand : gypsum : iron : MgC03 = 100 : 20 : 5 : WR

CORPOIWTE RIMtWAnON OMUP«n '•.ma «•»•«••

Duff* «f* LT»» Okmnri

amtrUiPtau.iiKAinr -> rS:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBILITYREPT\7105SLW.DOai8-JAN-01\7105\ 3~5

SECTIONTHREE___________PBB Technology DemonstrationTo confirm these batch results, both laboratory column and field tests are currently being run.They use the weight ratio [sand : gypsum : iron : magnesite = 100 : 20 : 5 : 5] and followed thesame protocols as previously described for the tests without the magnesite addition.

3.5 IMPACT OF SITE GEOCHEMISTRY ON METALS MOBILITY AND TREATMENTEFFECTIVENESS

The in-situ tests illustrated the sensitivity of metals mobility to geochemical conditions. The lowlevels of zinc at the landfill boundary and the elevated manganese in the treatment borings aredirectly attributable to soil and groundwater chemistry.Clearly, zinc is immobile in a reduced environment where sulfides are present. Inside thelandfill, high zinc levels (where found) are due to the nature of the wastes deposited in thelandfill and low sulfide levels. Historic groundwater data show dramatically different pH andmetals conditions across the landfill. As zinc migrates to the boundary, the levels are reduced bythe metal sulfides present in other wastes. This explains the low levels of zinc found at thelandfill boundary.Barium is unaffected by oxidizing or reduced conditions. Hence, elevated barium levels havebeen detected throughout the landfill. The presence of sulfates in natural soils precipitatesbarium. Where present at the landfill boundary, barium levels are low.Manganese (where present in soils) is more mobile in reduced conditions created by metalsulfides in waste ones. Iron (zero-valent iron) in the treatment barrier dramatically lowers thereduction potential and mobilizes manganese. The addition of a slightly soluble carbonate(magnesium carbonate) to the treatment mix precipitates manganese.

3.6 WALL LIFE PROJECTIONSThree factors determine the wall life for the South Landfill PRB - groundwater contaminantlevels, groundwater flow from the waste material, and reactant capacity. Groundwatercontaminant levels are determined by waste characteristics and contact of groundwater withwaste. Groundwater flow can be controlled by the design of the landfill cap permeability (andsubsequent infiltration). Reactant capacity is a function of initial concentration and solubility(these constituents must dissolve at a level greater than that required for metal precipitation) andiron loading.The only factor that cannot be controlled is the concentration of contaminants in groundwater.Groundwater flow (cap permeability) and reactant capacity can be designed to ensure adequatewall life and long-term performance. Cap infiltration was estimated using the HELP(Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance) Model for the current cover and the proposedHDPE cap. The proposed cap has such a low infiltration rate (0.0031 irt/yr) that only a fewweeks of testing are equivalent to hundreds of years of treatment. In-situ data are included inAppendix B, and the HELP model calculations are included in Appendix D.

COAPORATt RBiWMTION OROUP

ARwU*t/H/ S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBILITYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\22-JAN-01\7105\ 3-6

SECTIONTHREE___________PRB Technology DemonstrationIn-situ testing has shown that the PRB with gypsum, iron, and magnesite meets the treatmentstandard, even after the equivalent of decades of infiltration as shown in the following table.Field and laboratory tests are continuing to extend the wall life prediction.

Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall Life Predictions from In-situ Tests

Cap TypeCurrent Conditions (3 ft. soil)

Soil (18 in.) + Drainage Layer + HOPE+ Basin Road

InfiltrationRate, in/yr.

60.0031

Wall Flux,cm3/cm2/day

1.240.00064

Field Year/gal treated

0.0012.22

Wall Life,Years0.04179

These cases represent a wall only 5.5 inches thick, the radius of the in-situ boring. In practice,the wall will be 18-inches thick, thus yielding an estimated wall life more than three times thatpredicted above (>250 years). This evaluation shows that the single barrier cap with drainagelayer tied into the existing roadway ensures centuries of treatment.

CORPORATE ftEMCDMnON OHOOPAn.UMMMMBi

Ouforl ind UPt DMMfltf

rhUPlKLBuMnfir - PK, /* *1 I T I. Q 77"•'"•w—" ""* R W 4 / U / U Q S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBILITYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\22-JAN-01\7105\ ->"'

SECTIONFOUR________________Rationale for Selection

The current proposed alternative was evaluated in detail and compared to the previously selected1993 ROD and 1995 ESD remedies in order to determine which would be the most effective inachieving the goals of CERCLA and in achieving the remedial action objectives for the Site.The following nine EPA criteria were used during the evaluation to guide remedy selection:

Q Overall protection of human health and the environmentQ Compliance with applicable or relevant appropriate requirements (ARARs)Q Long-term effectiveness and performanceQ Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatmentQ Short-term effectivenessQ ImplementabilityQ CostQ State acceptanceQ Community acceptance

The first two criteria are threshold criteria and must be met by the chosen site remedy (exceptwhen an ARAR waiver is invoked). The next five criteria are the primary balancing criteria, andthe remaining two criteria are referred to as modifying criteria. The following sections present acomparison of the current proposed PRB remedy to the previously selected remedies for theSouth Landfill using the nine EPA criteria.

4.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe current proposed PRB remedy offers a greater degree of overall protection to human healthand the environment than either the original 1993 ROD remedy or the 1995 ESD remedy. In theoriginal ROD remedy, the stabilized waste would continue to leach small amounts ofcontaminants to the river and wetlands because the waste would not be isolated from thesurrounding environment.Both the 1995 ESD and the current PRB remedies include complete containment systems thatwill isolate the waste materials from the surrounding environment. The difference between thesetwo containment systems is that the PRB remedy incorporates a reactive barrier as pan of thecircumscribing wall. Contaminates in water from inside the landfill will be treated as it flowsthrough the reactive barrier component of the wall. In the unlikely event that the soil cover andcap fail, the PRB would continue to treat fluids exiting the landfill, safeguarding against releasesto the surrounding environment. Furthermore, the PRB remedy is a passive treatment system,relying upon natural processes to treat the landfill fluids. Unlike the 1995 ESD remedy, the PRBremedy is not dependent upon the continuous operation of a mechanical extraction and treatmentsystem for optimal performance.

CORPORATE KEMEDIATOH GROUPin Al.iK* e«M»

OaPtiMlMtimt RR32U7U9S \NEWPORT\NOV2CXX) FEASIBILITY REPT\7105SLWDOC\ia-JAN-01\7105\ 4-1

SECTIONFQUR __________ Rationale tor Selection

Sewer line workers and highway workers will continue to be protected by special health andsafety measures. Institutional controls preventing new utilities in the landfill will protect otherutility workers.

4.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARSMost of the major ARARs for the South Landfill are related to the protection of wetlands, withthe exception of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D closurerequirements and Delaware Regulations Governing Solid Waste (see Table 12 in the ROD). Allthree remedies meet their respective ARARs. Care will be taken during the design andconstruction of the PRB remedy to prevent any adverse effects in the South Wetlands and theChristina River. The riverbank cap ensures long-term containment of landfill material outside ofthe slurry wall and sewer line. Experience with the wetlands and vertical barrier remedies at thesite demonstrate that vegetation rapidly re-establishes in the armor stone, and the stone creates adiverse microenvironment for foraging fish and birds.

4.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERFORMANCEThe PRB remedy has increased long-term effectiveness when compared to the 1993 RODremedy because it isolates the waste materials from surrounding environmental receptors via asystem of circumscribing walls, and it contains a cap that is less permeable than the soil covercontained in the original remedy. The 1993 ROD stabilization remedy does not isolate the wastematerials from the environment and is susceptible to fracturing, caused by differential settling,which could create free pathways for unimpeded contaminant migration.The PRB remedy also presents improved effectiveness over the 1995 ESD remedy because it isdesigned for long-term (decades) leachate migration through treatment materials that are eithersparingly soluble (gypsum and magnesite) or insoluble (iron). The 1995 ESD treatment agentsare extremely soluble, hence susceptible to flushing from the waste by infiltration. Due to thedifferences in solubility of the reactive materials in the two remedies, the PRB remedyperformance is not as dependent upon the cap integrity as the 1995 ESD remedy. Should thePRB remedy cap fail, infiltrated water would merely flow through the PRB and be treated.Placing monitoring wells within the barrier provides decades of advance warning to ensurecontaminants are treated and contained. Conversely, cap failure for the 1995 ESD remedy couldresult in flushing of the reactive agents and potential releases of waste materials to thesurrounding environment.The 1995 ESD remedy also requires the continuous operation of a groundwater extraction andtreatment system to ensure waste containment and remedy success. Any downtime experiencedby this pump-and-treat system could impact the performance and effectiveness of the 1995 ESDremedy. The effectiveness of the PRB remedy is not dependent upon external mechanicalsystems.

>•»S:\NEWPORTWOV2000FEASIBIUTYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\ia-JAN-01\7105\ 4-2

SECTIONFOUR_______________Rationale for selection

4.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENTAll three remedy options would significantly reduce the mobility of the metals throughtreatment. However, the original 1993 ROD remedy would increase the waste volume byapproximately three percent (15,000 cubic yards) (Kiber, 2000), and the 1995 ESD remedy isestimated to increase the total waste volume by five percent (DuPont, 1999). Anotherdisadvantage of the 1995 ESD remedy is that the groundwater treatment system will generateadditional waste materials that would require off-site disposal. The current proposed PRBremedy will immobilize migrating metals via precipitation and adsorption reactions within thewall, with no net increase in waste volume. This will aid the design and construction of thetreatment remedy and will minimize any decrease in floodplain volume.The use of slightly soluble gypsum and magnesite in the PRB will add calcium, magnesium,sulfate, and carbonate to groundwater. Calcium and magnesium are common metals and"hardness" ions with no toxicity to humans or animals. In fact, hardness ions have been found toreduce the toxicity of other metals in surface water. Likewise, sulfates and carbonates will nothave an adverse impact at these levels.

4.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESSWhile all remedies are equally effective in the short term, the PRB remedy will be faster toimplement due to both its less invasive techniques and use of proven installation methods.Furthermore, the PRB remedy will not disturb the existing soil cover until the cap is installed,reducing potential risks for environmental releases and exposure to the waste materials. The1993 ROD and 1995 ESD remedies both require two construction seasons for implementation,including over 50 weeks for the 1993 ROD soil mixing. The PRB remedy requires only oneconstruction season to implement, thus minimizing impacts to traffic along South JamesStreet/Basin Road.

4.6 1MPLEMENTABILITYThe PRB technology is easier to implement than either the soil stabilization or the in-situchemical treatment methods due to its shorter construction period, use of proven constructionmethods, and inherent protection of the sewer line by less-intrusive equipment. Both the 1993ROD soil mixing remedy and the 1995 ESD remedy must cover the entire landfill area, ensuringthat all waste volume is treated in place. Conversely, the PRB remedy will be emplaced alongthe circumference of the landfill, and will need to treat only the volume of waste materialleaching from the landfill. The 1993 ROD and 1995 ESD remedies would require a longer timeframe to implement with greater interruptions to Basin Road traffic, even when multiple mixingunits or chemical infiltration units were considered. The PRB remedy would only sporadicallyrestrict traffic in one direction (at any time) for only a few weeks.

AR32U/0 1 S:\NEWPORT\NOV2000FEASIBIUTYREPT\7105SLW.DOC\18-JAN-01\7105\ 4-3

CORPORATE &&*KAT1QN GROUP

Quflanl Mnt UflS Dltmand

SECTIONFOUR____ ___________Rationale lor SelectionThe PRB remedy is also easier to implement because it is a passive treatment remedy with anextended life span of several hundred years. Contaminants will be removed from thegroundwater as it flows through the treatment materials. Treatment success is not contingentupon continuous operation of a containment system. The 1995 ESD chemical treatment remedywould require the continuous operation and maintenance of a groundwater extraction andtreatment system to contain the waste materials.

4.7 COSTThe cost for the 1993 ROD, 1995 ESD, and PRB remedies were investigated in detail (seeAppendix C) and are summarized in the following table. Additional treatability studies wereperformed to confirm the cost of the 1993 ROD remedy (waste volume is approximately 500,000cubic yards). As illustrated, the PRB remedy is the most cost-effective option.

COST COMPARISON ($MM) :ROD, ESB and PRB Remedies :><

ItemSite PreparationFinal Cover/Capincluding RiverbankBasin RoadExcavationStabilization orTreatment (PRB)Slurry WallCost SubtotalOther Direct CostsConstruction SubtotalO&M (NPV)Contingency (5%)Total

ROD Remedy0.2

0.5

1.8

9.80.0

12.33.8

16.10.40.8

17.3

ESDRemedy0.2

2.8

0.0

14.30.217.53.120.61.41.1

23.1

PRB Remedy0.25

1.97

0.0

0.980.153.351.084.430.380.24

5,05

4.8 STATE AND COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCEDuPont expects that both the state and community will support the PRB remedy because it iscost-effective and reduces impact on the Basin Road traffic.

ftR32i»752B«by Ul PtK. •Uktaf If" SMEWPOR'nNOV2000 FEASIBIUTYREPTV105SIW.DOCV22-JAN-01\71Q5\

SECTIONFIVE_____________________Summary

In summary, DuPont proposes changing the Newport South Landfill remedy from the 1995 ESDremedy to the current proposed PRB remedy. The PRB remedy includes a barrier-PRB wallsystem and cap that would isolate the waste materials from the surrounding environment andtreat waste constituents at the landfill boundary. The PRB remedy changes the waste treatmentfrom sodium sulfide/sulfate injection to the in-situ permeable reactive barrier treatmenttechnology. This technology will remove soluble metals permanently from the groundwater viaadsorption and precipitation reactions within the wall materials. The net present worth cost ofthe proposed PRB remedy for the South Landfill is $5,050,000.DuPont believes that this proposed remedy ranks significantly better than the original 1993 RODand 1995 ESD remedies with respect to the nine criteria used to evaluate remedies. DuPontbelieves this PRB remedy would protect human health and the environment, would comply withARARs, would be cost-effective, and would utilize permanent solutions and alternativetreatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

CORPORATf HEMCD1AHON GROUPAn Afe4flC4 B«n

OuPonl ,na UBS

RR32U753 SANEWPQR'HNOV 3000 FEASIBILITY REPT\7105SLW DOC\18-JAN-01\7105\

SECTIONS IX_____________________References

DuPont. July 7, 2000. Permeable Reactive Barrier Treatment South Landfill NewportSuperfund Site Newport, Delaware.

EPA. August 26, 1993. Record of Decision, E. I. DuPont Newport Superfund Site, New CastleCounty, Delaware.

___. August 17, 1995. South Landfill ESD.

_____. February 7, 1996a. South Landfill Value Engineering Report Comments.

___. June 28, 1996b. South Landfill.

Kiber. February 2000. South Landfill Site Stabilization/Solidification Treatability Study. FinalReport.

RR32U75U S \NEWPORT\NOV 2000 FEASIBILITY R£PT\7105SLW.DOC\18-JAN-OU7105\ 6- 1

FICURES

AR32U755

PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER REMEDY

Area to be CappedRiverbank Sectionto be StabbedGroundwaterBarrier Wal

El DuPontNewport Site

Riverbank

LocationJames

PermeableReactive

• Barrier WalSouth Disposal Site

iSouth Wetlands

VegetatedBoundary

Current Locationof South JamesStreet/Basin Road

LegendMonitoring WelPortion Owned byState of Delaware

James Street i' . 1 Wetlands

Uplands

Corporate Rwnedtation GroupAn Alttanei

Dufont and Th» F-C Diamond Newport, DelawareI "" ~ "~ "" " " "——— """ \za———

AR3214756 Barley Mill Plaza, Building 27Miming ton. Ddowor« 19880-0027

Permeable Reactive Barrier Remedy

OuPont Newport South Landfill

_P.O ri ".n n p n (1/1,0-0 n 0 "/* ""/ ' / / '

SOUTH NORTH20 r-

10

0C/l

LJLJ

o

LJ_JLd

-10

-20

WB-7G.S.-12.2

WB-9 nG.S. = 7.9

20

10

0

•10

uUJ

LJ

-20

-30 •- . -J-30

LEGEND:

COVER SOIL. TYPICALLY GRAY TO BROWN. n ——— I SANO- COLUMBIA FORMATION, TYPICALLY ORANGESILT TO SILTY CLAY I ' " I TO ORANGE BROWN, FINE TO COURSE SAND,

i' * ' SOME GRAVEL

FILL MATERIAL \S \ CLAYEY SILT, MARSH DEPOSIT. TYPICALLYFILL MATERtAL \S \J/ __ |

PRB WALL

RR32U758

Corporate Rwrwdtotkm GroupAn AlUanc* 6«hu««n

DvPmt and r?w W-C Diamond Crmtf

Barlsy MHI Plaza. Building 27Wilmington, Odo*ar« 19880-0027

Detail of PRB Wall

DuPont Newport SiteNewport, Delaware

BWl11/M/OO

APPENDICES

AR32U759

TJ•omzoX

AR32U760

APPENDIX A

LABORATORY REPORT- DEVELOPMENT OF DATA FOR APERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER

AR32U76

A-1

BASIC BATA REPORT FOR RARIOM ANO ZINC TBEATMENT

flR32i*762

June 28, 2000

To: P. Brandt ButlerCRG/WCD

From: John A. WilkensCR&D

Newport South Landfill:Laboratory Development of Data for a

Permeable Reactive Wall

Permeable Reactive Wall — Developmental Basis

A permeable reactive wall (PRW), a.k.a. permeable reactive barrier, is an undergroundemplacement of reactive material in the path of flowing groundwater, such that aqueouscontaminants are removed or destroyed as groundwater passes through the wall. Manymetals can be removed by precipitation or sorption. Such a wall would be two- to three-feet thick, and deep enough to key into impermeable clay layers at the base of an aquifer.It would circumscribe the South Landfill except in the area where there would be abarrier slurry wall. Once emplaced, a wall requires virtually no routine maintenance, justmonitoring of the external groundwater for performance confirmation.

To determine whether PRW technology would work for barium and zinc removal fromthe Newport South Landfill, a series of batch and column experiments was performed inthe laboratory. First, scouting batch tests were made to see what materials had thecapability to remove the metals. Two materials, gypsum (CaSC>4.2H2O) and zero-valentiron showed excellent removal properties for barium and zinc, respectively. These werethen used in continuous-flow column tests to demonstrate their effectiveness together andwith the sand that would make up the bulk of the PRW. Wall life projections were thenmade based on the column tests and flows through the PRW under assumptions ofdifferent landfill cap configurations.

As a final technology demonstration, we employed a significant new in-situ field test thathas been demonstrated by the U.S. EPA and DuPont. A 12-inch diameter column of thePRW sand:gypsum:ZVI mix was emplaced in the ground in the presence of contaminatedgroundwater. Central in the column was a one-inch monitoring well. Performance wasdetermined by sampling the core water that had passed through six inches of reactivematerial. The results of this test further validate the laboratory projections.

RR32U763

Laboratory Batch Tests - Procedures

Batch tests were employed for screening reactive materials for use in a PermeableReactive Wall. Two types of water were tested, representing areas of high barium or zincconcentration. Appropriate materials were used for each removal action:

> Water from a barium-rich zone within the South Landfill• Material: CaSO4.2H2O (gypsum)

> Water from a zinc-rich zone within the South Landfill :~|• Materials: Zero-valent iron, millscale, steel slag, iron sulfide >

These tests covered a broad range of concentrations for each reactive material, to Idetermine the level at which each would potentially become effective. Reaction times 'were standardized at 24 hours; experience with kinetics experiments showed that this wasa good measure of relative performance. Groundwater and materials were put in 125 ccpolypropylene bottles, the headspace purged with nitrogen, and then agitated end-over-end for 24 hours. Samples of the liquid phase were then passed through a 0.45-micronfilter and analyzed for the constituents of interest. Control samples followed the sameprocedures except that no material was added.

Analytical Procedures

Sample analyses were performed by DuPont's Corporate Center for Analytical Sciences:

> Barium and zinc were analyzed using ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma -atomic emission spectroscopy) down to 100 ppb and 25 ppb, respectively.

> Other metal concentrations were determined using ICP-MS to the following levels(ppb): aluminum 100, cadmium 4, calcium 100, copper 4, iron 100, lead 4,magnesium 100, manganese 100, nickel 100, potassium 100, and sodium 100.

> Anion concentrations were determined using 1C (ion chromatography) down to 500ppb: sulfate, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate.

Laboratory Batch Tests -- Results

Barium concentrations were reduced from 290,000 ppb to less than 500 ppb by theaddition of 0.5 weight percent of CaSO4.2H2O, through the precipitation of BaSO4. Thiswas substantially lower than the required 7,800 ppb standard. Additional gypsumconcentrations decreased barium levels to a minimum of approximately 150 ppb;illustrative results are shown in the following table:

i

i.

Wt. %CaSO4.2H2O0.514929

Barium cone.,PPb290,000492416224177143

Zinc concentrations were readily reduced from approximately 1000 ppb to less than 10ppb (vs. a goal of 120 ppb) by several materials, including zero-valent iron (Peerless -8+50 mesh), iron sulfide, steel-process mill scale, and steel slag, with the first twoshowing exceptional activity. Zero-valent iron, used as a PRW additive for chromiumremoval and dechlorination of organics, performed very well for zinc removal. Themechanism is not the cementation as in copper removal, but is probably sorption ontohydrous iron oxides surfaces. The performance of zero-valent iron is shown in the tablebelow:

Wt. % ZVI0.51

2 and higher

Zinc cone.,ppb10203839<10

Of the other metals of concern, cadmium, copper and lead were less than the detectionlimits of 4 ppb in both feeds and treated waters. Nickel was less than the goal of 73 ppbin feeds and all treated waters, and was reduced in all cases except mill scale. Manganesewas generally not reduced by the materials, and in some cases showed increases,although below the limit of 1000 ppb.

Laboratory run sheets follow for the independent batch experiments with gypsum forbarium removal and zero-valent iron for zinc removal. They give full details of theexperimental conditions and the concentrations of metals found at all levels of gypsumand ZVI addition.

AR32U65

1

moa

OCOCOO

E ^ .. .. ..oz 5f 22®I B Scs,?T1 c c a .« » £ £ 're o « o-s tt 3 -9 c? £ « 5 II 3 c3I §A

0)

i iCO

D.9 10 CM O O

CM CO Q QCf ^ CM; o oC o -i A " " "2 -p^

^ " K-t; to coC LL LL.0)

O

oCD s

x x

c3CC

o*••o.0"1

aaCO

c3CC"5T3C111"5xa

0)"to

£

*

S.xs

OCD

5

"a.(O

613t-

i->X5•5

X

i

Soor

V-0)Q.toa.

CDaJS

en3••O

D)*«

E>a

D>CB3"o

O)

O)CB

O>"tot>

o>a*D)

o

o

o

oo

O»

X

5

s

oo

1-o

§inCM

ooinCM

ooo

oooo

ooo

ooo

-inCM

g

ooo

ooo

ooo

oooo

oo

1-

T~

o

CM

CO

CM

COtoo

CMtoo

8o

ooo

CM

mCM

CONCM

f-CMO

CM

O

O

O

inooo

ino

(Oo

o

CM

(O

CM

CMr-

LOCM

"

SO

Ooo

CO

inCM

<o

CM

So

CM

O>O>d

ood

ino

COo

oe»COCM

CO

COCM

o>CM

O>r*-

CM

§O

8o

-CM

COo>CM

2

9CM

COO)

OCMOd

mo

ino

8CMCM

COCO

CM

CMO)

m5>**

ooo

ooo

LO

inCM

8c\i

CM

CM

5

inCOCO

ood

ino

inoT"

g

CM

8OCM

toa>

totoo>

go

so

to

inCM

COCO

CM

f-

toa>

J

OCOod

ino

inor-

SO>

So>

3*•

o>-So

8O

1".

CM

COCO

r*-iri

sa>ooS

ood

ino

u>o

§in

COoin

CMOCOCM

toT-oCOCM

§O

§o

CO

inCM

S

CMO)oi

gCOCM

(OCO

ooCMd

mo

r-o

o

S

CO

sCM

toCO

CO

toCO

§o

§o

o>

inCM

CO

o

r--mIO

iCO

CM

OCOCOd

mo

too

stoo

CMCO

8

toS!

isCM

§O

Ooo

o

inCM

CM(D

8

CO

in(O

inCOCM

OO

d

o>oZ

cc111X5

undwater

m fil

ter

5) inCM 2S . £O s O)CC c — o oc c .c"5 ™ —to 5. «-1 2 »•S =w ,c _S

Q. £ «

8 1 !

*fe * -2* <o a5 3 E

IccOto —£0

1 1c. u-o .x

S, *•§ "5 sf-. m ^S n it

~ i O> O>

2

I I ,«.- 33 O•B S wto a tocc B o? i i

•o

ichmon

LL.

s (DuPont,

ooo(00CCoCO

ooCMXCM

OCOtoOtoI

oCOtop

BLX

i

nO)

SLxi

aECBV)

toOto3O

CMIICDEotocoo_»Et-

,9CC

S5n

O)

in

i

CLs-€3Eo£

io(0

a.

CO

«*1^ J52 "T; -*

1 5 1i i 1n n iio o oo o o

_x

— 3

"5 "5 B•s -5 t>> > K

CDN(0CDCD

50)c

_ _ ^_ _ _ _ CDCO0)ffl

AR32U66 I!

CN

«,I f*C§I

c?5d

CMn«CNT-coau.

(DO)rea.»-o.aE3ZJ£O- sooz

oooCMTj-

*~

o**reQc_omDuCOO

CaSO4

N>•X*-C0)coaoo

soCMri1~

b>4->sa2Q.Ato_i

eCM*•to£L.0Ctoto"501VCC

NX

5«ooaO

iaECO

ftaaCOco*•2**»ucoOcoc<

c3CC•5•CCtuCOXQ

L.0a.

L.Q>a

6

o+*CO

QO.Ea.

£*c**z

0**to**z0•o™o3LL

0S°wO£U

0**^

CO

k.*.atoa.

k075S

CN

SoCMX

$

CDa>CJ

ooin

oom

ooo•*"

oooCO"1

oooCM"

oo

d1

ooIOCM

OOd

-

TTr-co

ooto

ooin

ooo

ooo•*

oooCOCD-

Oo

^

oinSo

ooooo

CM

•*CM

oom

ooin

ooo_

oooco~

ooo-CMm

mo

COd

oooo

ooooo

CO

mCO

ooin

ooin

ooO

OOOCO

OooO)CMin

ino

COd

oCMOO

ooooo

Tfr

inCO

oom

oom

ooo

ooo•*"

ooo%m

mo

md

o•voo

§0o

m

mCO

oom

oom

ooo

oooTf

oooTCom

ino

md

o>o>roo

ooo0o

CD

r

oom

ooin

ooo

ooom"

oooOJin

tno

ind

oooo

ooo0o

r-

CMCO

Sm

oom

ooo

oooID"

oooCO1in

ino

ind

CMooCMO

ooo0o

CO

COO)

oom

ooin

ooo

oooo"CM

OOO1CDCD

ino

rd

oCOCOo

ooooo

o>

CDoin

oom

ooin

ooo

oood

oooro<o

mo

CDd

COoo•<ro

ooooo

o

.QQQtoC5**CO

€0Ocou"to0

"aCO

COZ

X

7

CS

oS

.0a.

0LL

3O

o

•aO

<

£

sd

oCOc\CO

ooTTCMJ-

O

o

inCOCO

TJ-

o

t

oCOCD-*"

•d-

o

mCM

oooo"o>CM

-

OCOr-_CO

oo•*5

r*-

o

•rCOCVJ

COCOoCM"

oooto'CDh-

O

mCM

CMOJ•*

CM

Oo>oO)"

ooenCM"•t

r-

o

COCM

COto_CM"

oooenh-

o

inCM

CD5

CO

oCO10en"

oot"•r

(O

o

CO•q-CM

TOO>

OOoog

o

mCM

COcn

*r

oo

ooCOm•*

CO

o

SCM

•*ino>

ooo3r

o

inCM

Tj-CMCM

in

ooITP:

ooCOoCO

r

o

oa>

CMtoCO

r*-"£

o

mCM

<*f -

CD

OOO*t

OoCDCNCD

r-

o

t .in

CO

ooooO)CO

o

inCM

h-r -

t

oo•*o

ooCOccCO

CO

o

a>

otor-_

oooh-"iCD

O

inCM

r-in

CO

ooaCM

oooo>CN

OCM

O

O>CO

Tj-OCO

oooor

o

mCM

COr

O)

cc\c\CO

oooCO•*

oCM

o

o

cnCMh-

ooo00COCO

o

inCM

CO•*

O

COCDNOfCDCD

5COcCDJ*

i<—y

fiR32if767

CO

UJoinco

COo

m

inepCN00enUJ

N O CD Q)> re re S™ ^ *•* f\ re> ^ Q Q Q_

2 c (=0..E O 09*

oAc o"3o

oI

o

C 10 O O O(D CM O O O

•^ 9 PO i-

II II II II

c3CC

oso.0"i

ODo(0

c3DC

T3LUIBXa

ai*•

eX

I

otoCOU

"5.CO

£

i-

5>_x

-cx2

i5?

o£5

0ana.

£ToE

D>"33U

wo>CO

D)"537S

D>'0enCO

O)"5t>

o>0D>

d

uu

uo

-X

5

2

o

o

ooCM

OomCM

§o

o8O

ooo

ooo

-mCM

ooinCM

§d

ood

ood

oooo

o

^

gS

5>CM

inCMtoo

inCM(Oo

8o

so

CM

inCM

CO•*CM

§d

CM(Dd

oind

inooo

o

LO

o00

CM

CO*

CM

CO

~COCMT-

§O

§o

CO

CM

CM

tod

in

QjQid

ooo

oh-

*t

otoCM

3CM

CO

CM

8

CM

OOo

so

-inCM

3TfCM

d

CM

COO)

OCMOO

in

COr-

oeoOS-CM

o>CM

CM

COCMO>

^

CMO>

**

Ooo

ooo

in

mCM

o>CM

CM

d

r-o>

inCOCO

ooo

oCO

inCO

otoeoCM

o>inCOCM

oCOCOo>

r*-co00o>

8O

8O

to

inCM

inCOCM

$

o>eooi

J

OCOOo

oCO

inCO

oCMCOCM

CMCOCM

COCM

CMCOCMT-

8O

8O

r-

mCM

CMCOCM

CD

CM

OOo>

ooo

oCO

o>00

oinCM

eoinCM

COTfCM

tooeoCM

8O

OOo

CO

inCM

COinCM

CO

CO

CM

IDCO

ooCMO

OCO

Y-

o

oCOo>T-

COen

to

inCO

COoeoa>CO

8O

8O

o>

inCM

COCO

COCO

enCOoiCO

CO

CM

OCOCOO

o00

^a>

oCM00T—

CMCO

CM

*f-o>CM

*8O

§O

o

inCM

CMCO

CO

CO

oCO

inCOCM

ooo

occ

o o *• "" ** '-

CD _•o u,X

xx x «2 £ -f 2 fc a>cfl i= -* • —• »" .. _ "•.9 S V

•ocoE-C

> o. 0-g 3 = .

1 ? 0 "5- i |01 co o E in* .11 inO j2 n* C Ot "O

. ..

s z »0 — « O S "? nZ

O •*•

0 o v ^ to toa. r cc H co co

« SOP ^ COQ. .-co

« jC ~ -g *_

Q T- it |Jl O "W .-£*•«^~ ^-" ^ CM™5 5 "i cc o S 5o .x .x _• x " -g

S * x "x 7< < "5 .x

_to0NCOCDCD

5 § 5 5 5 > > H S >

AR32U768

T* '(J

UC-ccIu0J1(cQ

<V £-

:cc3 Ic :

c<

£ dCC

T£C

C</tcc,3C2

incrfN

aLU

CDD)ma.b.

3

J£OoCDOZ

oooCM

^

<DCOnc_oto3OOo

2CO

LUOin00(00)_CD

0.

SX•*-•cCDCoa.oo

ooo>

s

0)renQ.£a_re

"c01

*•to0H

"toto3to0CC

NX

SCOOOaq

a.CO

.aaatoc

oncentrati

ococ

c3CC"5T)cLU*->toXa

0D.

0a

6z

jg"«ctooa.V

7

S«D

Z

Fluoride

0™o.cO

0a3CO

>_toD_

0

E

CMX

5oCMX

i

ooin

oooin

ooun

ooin

oooN."1CO

ooin

"

r-

ooinCM

OOO

-

Ooin

ooom"

ooin

oom

oopco"CO

oom

h-

r-

omood

ooood

CM

ooin

ooo_in

ooin

ooin

oopCO

oop

f-

CO

oood

ooood

CO

oom

oop

ooin

oom

ooCDco"CO

oop

~

"ooCMOd

ooood

-

ooin

oop

oom

oom

oooCO"CO

oop

CO

CO

tooCOod

ooood

m

ooin

oooCO"

oom

oom

oooden

oop

CO

en

ooCOod

ooood

CD

oom

oopCM"

ooin

oom

oooo"

oop

CO

en

ood

ooood

-

ooin

oooCM

OOin

ooin

oooCM'en

oop

CO

o>

oood

ooood

CO

ooin

oop

ooin

ooin

oootoO>

OOp

CO

en

ooCOd

ooood

en

oif

oooto

sin

ooin

oopo>

oop

CO

en

ood

ooood

o

JOaQCO

**21:0ucooS

S

D.

CO

toZ

*

Z

cS

D~

£ta

0LL

3U

COU

O

_

N

COm

dz

ooc\cc

oom10

mCM

r--CO

ooenCO

CO

oooCM"CO

oto

oCMp

OoenCOCO

-

oooID

OoCOin

CMCO

oomcr>

ooen"CO

ooCM

CO

O

COCO

ooCOCO

CM

Q

10If

scrm

0)0)0)

CO^

8COd

ooCD

O

enCO

oooCO

CO

oaenin

oOenin

COo>CO

ooCOen

oo

CO

oopCO

o

o

ooooCO

»

ooc\cCO

oCOoCD

CMCO

ooh-co

oCMO)CO

ooenco"CO

o

o

ooN.CD

m

ocra

to

o

Ir

8CO

§mto"to

o

o

ooCO

CO

CO

ooh-cnm

oCOCD"

CD

ooCOin

•<*m

oood

o

o

ooCDinin

r--

ocrenin

oCMoCO

COCM

ooCO*-

m

ooCMin"CM

O

O

ooCOCO

CO

XXX

XXx

XX

XXX

XXX

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

oo

^

en

ooCOCOin

aoen

o

oCO

:

-fr

o

ooCMdCM

•t

o

o

ooO)

CM

oT—

CM^CDorra

1TOCDCD

w0

<

Laboratory Column Tests - Procedures

Continuous-flow column tests were then run to determine the performance over time of aproposed reactive wall mix on the South Landfill groundwater. Two independent testswere run, on barium-rich and zinc-rich waters. These waters were taken from thehighest-concentration wells for barium and zinc in the current field sampling, anddiffered from the sources (no longer available) used for the batch tests.

A standard Delaware Department of Transportation material, mason sand, was chosen asthe base material for the PRW. From permeability data (developed by KiberEnvironmental), it was determined that 20 weight percent gypsum could be mixed withthe mason sand and maintain a permeability (6 x 10 cm/sec). This is greater than that ofthe landfill material, and thus will permit flow of groundwater out of the landfill. Thecomposition of groundwater leaving the landfill at any point is not known with certainty,so that it is not possible to delineate zinc-removal and barium-removal portions of thePRW. Consequently, one wall composition was chosen to accommodate both the worst-case barium and zinc levels. Based on the batch tests and a projection of reactant needs,a mix composition was chosen with parts by weight of:

Sand : Gypsum : ZVI = 100 : 20 : 5.

For the laboratory experiments two independent column tests were run concurrently, onewith barium-rich feed water and one with zinc-rich feed water. The supply reservoirswere nitrogen blanketed with a positive-flow purge. Each test consisted of a reactivecolumn filled with the above mix, and a control column filled with sand alone. Thevertical Lucite® columns were 2-inches inside diameter. Reactive sections were eightinches long, with one inch of pure sand above and below the mix, and glass wool at theentrance and exit. The control columns contained ten inches of sand. An upward flow ofgroundwater was maintained at 500 cc/day through each column using low-flowperistaltic pumps, giving a throughput of four active void volumes per day.

Flow pressure drops across the reactive columns were measured to determine thepermeability of the columns, and to project whether there would be a decrease inpermeability as a PRW ages. For this, pressures were measured at the entrance and exitpoints of the reactive sections by independent manometers. This arrangement isillustrated in the drawing that follows.

J•'• >

JflR32k770 !

The feed flow to each (Ba, Zn) system wasmaintained by a peristaltic pump with low-flow heads. A rate of 500 cc/day/columngave four reactive void volumes of flowper day.

Zinc columns, with the reactive unit on theright. Eight inches of reactive mix waspreceded and followed by one inch of puresand. Plastic mesh spacers separatedreactive mixes from pure sand, and glasswool was used at the inlets and outlets. Forthe control column, a sand bed 10 inchesdeep was used. A small amount of thegypsum formed small balls, seen as whitespots, while most was uniformly dispersedthroughout the column.

Barium columns quickly turned dark grayin operation; the water gave off a strongsulfide odor. Manometer tubes were laterinserted in the upper and lower ports of thereactive columns to determine the pressuredrop across the reactive bed.

RR32U77I

Laboratory Column Tests -- Apparatus

Overview of column apparatus, showingtwo independent, concurrent tests. Left(zinc-rich) water reservoir fed left twocolumns, right (barium-rich) reservoir fedright two columns.

Nitrogen blanket over feed reservoirs wasmaintained by continuous low flow andexit bubblers filled with mineral oil.

RR32U72

OutletFlow

Newport South Landfill Column Test

Column Pressure Drop Measurements

outlet

Pressure drop across column= Plnlet " Pout lei

inlet

Inlet Flow

NOTES:

> Independent water manometers were used for pressure measurements at inlet andoutlet taps

> Outlet flow is at the level of Poutiei> Distance between Poutiet and Pjniei = 8 inches> Sand beds: 8 inches of reactive bed, with 1 inch of sand above and below reactive

section> Inlet and outlet taps are within sand beds, as close as possible to the beginning and

end of reactive sections

RR32U773

Laboratory Column Tests -- Results

Barium removal was readily accomplished from both the barium-rich and zinc-richgroundwaters. With the barium-rich feed, 500,000 ppb Ba was reduced to 1,000 ppb.With the zinc-rich feed, 70,000 ppb Ba was reduced to 100 ppb. These results wereconsistent over the one-month test, and demonstrate barium removal to well less than the7,800 ppb limit.

Zinc removal was difficult to quantify due to analytical complexities (possibleinterferences, etc.), but the performance was clear. The zinc-rich water feed variederratically from 100 to 1000 ppb Zn. Regardless of the input level, the zinc wasconsistently reduced to non-detect (25 ppb) in both the active and control columns overthe one-month test. Thus zinc levels were well below the standard of 120 ppb. With thebarium-rich feed water, no zinc was detected in the feed or effluent streams. This wasconsistent with the strong sulfide odor of this water, which implied that zinc had been fprecipitated in-situ as the sulfide. $

Of the other metals of concern, like with the batch tests, cadmium, copper and lead were tless than the detection level of 4 ppb in both feeds and treated waters. Nickel, at about 10 • *ppb in feeds, was less than 30 ppb in effluents, well below the goal of 73 ppb.Manganese, up to 0.1 ppm in feeds, was observed in zinc water column effluents at 0.2 to8 ppm, and in barium water column effluents at 0.2 ppm to non-detect (10 ppb). :

T.

Reactive column flow pressure drops were used to calculate the column materialpermeabilities after 45 days of flow. The hydraulic conductivities were 2.2 x 10"4 and 2.6x 10"4 cm/sec for the zinc and barium columns, respectively, the same magnitude as thefresh mixture tested by Kiber Environmental, ~6 x 10"4 cm/sec. No permeabilitydecrease was thus observed over many simulated wall lifetimes, and wall pluggingshould not occur.

Data sheets follow which show the progress through the continuous column tests. First isa table of the results from the zinc-rich water test, then one for the independent barium-rich water test. These follow zinc and barium removal, for which analysis was regularly idone. Third is a pair of tables showing the full scan of metals analysis, which was donefor a few days.

j15

Newport South LandfillBarium and Zinc Removal Column Tests

Date

3-183-193-203-213-223-233-243-253-263-273-283-303-314-34-54-74-104-124-14

RunDay

2345G7891011121415182022252629

Zinc WatFeed

Bappb70,50068,50072,50070,00074,60074,60068,00072,50071,50074,60071,80072,40079,30055,20054,00049,40054,40056,80070,500

Zn ppbnrnrnrnr

168158827

1.710950368195926966

1,0505406735816357

pr Columns ffrom weCor

Ba ppb4,83029,30053,50059,00061,80064,00094,70070,00066,40062,10056,10056,10062,20073,00053,00044,60055,00052,40052,700

trolZn ppb

nrnrnrnrndndndndndndndndndndndndndndnd

i RDw-11Re,active

Ba ppb640480453nr

114nr

183109113871731739196801336648

<100

Zn ppbnrnrnrnrndndndndndndndndndndndndndndnd

KEY-Feed = Supply reservoir for both Control and Reactive ColumnsControl = Exit (top) concentration from column filled with 100% sandReactive = Exit (top) concentration from column filled with reactive materials in sandnd = non-detect (25 ppb) for zincnr = no meaningful analytical result

AR32U75

Newport South LandfillBarium and Zinc Removal Column Tests

Date

3-183-193-203-213-223-233-243-253-263-273-283-303-314-34-54-74-104-124-14

RunDay

234567891011121415182022252629

Barium VjFeed

Ba ppb I Zn ppb496,000518,000551,000601,000600,000417,000293,000421,000430,000441.000402,000426,000513,000617,000587,000392,000348,000372,000420,000

ndndndndndndndndndndndndndndndndndndnd

ater Columns ffrom well RDW-21Control

Ba ppb 1 Zn ppb214,000473,000509,000464,000564.000475,000281,000418,000377,000416,000363.000439,000546,000381 ,000549,000448,000348,000395,000

nr


ReaBa ppb

1,1101,100800

1,000328344446609617661

1,0001,1601,1901,000863692824824nr

ptiveZn ppb


KEY:Feed = Supply reservoir for both Control and Reactive ColumnsControl = Exit (top) concentration from column filled with 100% sandReactive = Exit (top) concentration from column filled with reactive materials in sandnd = non-detect (25 ppb) for zincnr = no meaningful analytical result

»R32i«776u

Newport South Landfill laboratory Column TestFull Metals Analysis, ppb

NaMqAlKCaMnFeNiCuCdPb

NaMqAlKCaMnFeNiCuCdPb

Run Day 9

Zinc WaterFeed54,34518.393

<104,87569.008

114<1012<415<4

Control83.37930,026

196,36365,235

<10408<457<4<4

Reactive83.34927,821

176,480

606,986583

3,64622<4<4<4

Barium WaterFeed8,218118<10

300,0887,058<10<10<4<4<4<4

Control10,526

<10<10

33.4568,726<10<10<4<4<4<4

Reactive1 1 ,300

<1020

33.863592,178

<103.381

19<4<4<4

Run Day 20

Zinc WaterFeed I Control | Reactive41.45015,252

<104,09452,190

6237511<4<4<4

66,20722,040

155,45951.919

<10299<4<4<4<4

67,42023,177

<105,627

599,024209

3,61319<4<4<4

Barium WaterFeed I Control I Reactive7,699153<10

34,2527,553<10<10<4<4<4<4

11,193<10<10

40.1168.304<10<10<4<4<4<4

11,984<1032

40.084581 .750

<103.436

19<4<4<4

RR32U777

Wall Life Projections

Four components control wall life. Permeability maintenance, addressed above, wasdetermined to be good. Gypsum levels must be adequate for both barium removal and toaccommodate losses due to solubility in the effluent water. Iron levels must be adequatefor removing zinc. The column tests were a definitive physical demonstration that allfour parameters were more than adequate and would perform together as a whole.

The key to wall life projections is the amount of groundwater which will pass through thewall, requiring treatment. This groundwater flow is controlled by the nature of thelandfill cap, and wall life was projected for different landfill cap configurations. Thecap/infiltration performance was calculated using the HELP (Hydrologic Evaluation ofLandfill Performance) Model. The table below shows rainwater infiltration rates to thelandfill through the cap, the corresponding wall fluxes, the field years simulated by eachday of laboratory operation, and the wall life projected after 29 days of laboratory columnoperation. These cases represent a wall only eight inches thick, the length of our activecolumn. In practice, the wall will be two or three feet thick, thus giving an additional lifefactor of at least three times the lifetimes given below.

Cap Case

Current Conditions (3 ft. soil)[base case — no cap]

Asphalt (4 in.) + Stone (8 in.)Soil (18 in.) + Bentomat

InfiltrationRate,

in. H2O/yr6

0.10.02

Wall Flux,^ •»

cm /cm /day

1.24

.0207.00413

Field Years/Lab Day

.054

3.2716.4

Wall Life,Years

1.5

90450

Field Well-Column Test

As a final technology demonstration, we employed a significant new in-situ field testmethodology that has been demonstrated by the U.S. EPA and DuPont. A 12-inchdiameter column of the PRW sand:gypsum:ZVI mix was emplaced in the ground in thepresence of contaminated groundwater. Central in the column was a one-inch monitoringwell. Metals removal was determined by sampling the core water that had passedthrough six inches of reactive material. Accelerated wall life was simulated by drawingwater from the central well. The results of this test further validate the laboratoryprojections. Detailed results of this field pilot are reported separately.

,jflR32i*778 ]

Acknowledgements

This program was carried out in conjunction with numerous people in DuPont'sCorporate Remediation Group and Woodward Clyde Diamond, and Noel Scrivner ofDuPont Engineering Technology.

The analytical services for this program were performed by the DuPont Corporate Centerfor Analytical Sciences. The primary CCAS personnel involved were Jane Ramsey andMark McElwee.

The R&D program was performed by William Bazela and John Wilkens, of DuPontCentral Research & Development.

HR32U779

A-2

BASIC DATA REPORT FOR MANGANESE TREATMENT

ftR32l»780

December 15, 2000

To: P. Brandt ButlerCRGAVCD

From: John A. WilkensCR&D

Newport South Landfill:Manganese Removal from Groundwater:Laboratory Development of Data for

Permeable Reactive Barrier

Summary

This document summarizes our work demonstrating the removal of manganese fromNewport South Landfill groundwater. Previous laboratory studies and field tests havedemonstrated the viability of a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) for the removal of othermetals of concern, most notably barium and zinc. The laboratory portions of thistechnology were summarized in my memo of June 28.

Those previous studies achieved removal of all metals to EPA-specified levels except formanganese. Subsequent laboratory batch tests have demonstrated excellent manganeseremoval by the addition of magnesium carbonate (hydromagnesite mineral) to the PRBmix. Laboratory column studies and field tests are under way to confirm the batch resultspresented here.

Permeable Reactive Barrier — Technical Basis for Manganese Removal

Previous work demonstrated the simultaneous removal of barium and zinc fromgroundwater using gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) and zero-valent iron, respectively, in standardmortar sand from DelDOT, with a weight ratio:

Sand : Gypsum : ZVI = 100 : 20 ; 5.

The presence of zero-valent iron in the PRB mix is believed to have made thegroundwater more reducing, thereby creating more-soluble Mn+2 from the relativelyinsoluble Mn+4. Various materials were investigated for suppressing manganesesolubility. Great laboratory success was found using a form of magnesium carbonateclosely related to its mineral hydromagnesite (4 MgCOa . Mg(OH>2 . 4 H2O). This willsubsequently be referred to as simply magnesium carbonate.

&R32U78

Laboratory Batch Tests — Results

Laboratory procedures are as presented in the June 28 memo.

Barium-rich and zinc-rich groundwaters were independently spiked with MnClj to giveapproximately 20,000 ppb of manganese. In separate tests, the waters were then alltreated with the initial wall mixture of "sand : gypsum : iron :: 100 : 20 : 5." To thismixture, MgCOs was added in a series of batch runs analogous to those of our otherstudies. Manganese solubility was dramatically decreased at even the lowest levels ofMgCO3 addition. Even with the initial MgCC>3 addition, manganese was below therequired 1,000 ppb. No adverse effects were observed on the removal of other metals.

.81.63.26.3

18,700477186141

IQO(dl)

15,800260115

100 (dl)

MgCO3 "Weight Ratio" is the weight with respect to sand, i.e.:______sand : gypsum : iron : MgCO3 : : 100 : 20 : 5 : WR

100(dl)•t*

Based on these results, a magnesium carbonate weight ratio of five has been chosen forthe reactive barrier composition, giving a total PRB composition of:

sand : gypsum : iron : MgCOs : : 100 : 20 : 5 : 5.

Laboratory run sheets for the above runs follow. They give full details of theexperimental conditions and the concentrations of metals found at all levels ofmagnesium carbonate addition.

AR32U782a

eoOuot

CDO

CD m .?*X

01

ooos o> *-ACMr-00enUJ

a> v v« « S*D a

£ o JS "• £V & 3 COm p O "? *~

» o "3 Mg O O Jc oCD O

n 3

I Z

•o

g$ S*• i— — ; ot; CJ *-?O ^CO II Ii ii II

S t(S fi-S £•« WE ?

caa

1zR

D(0

C

a•5•o11

i

1

g

£

o

*aE

£|

1

1x

g

§o£

1o"n

c

Taraet

D

S

D1SC

D

1

O

*

8

8

8

D

.X

1

IOeo

Oodo

oogogo

ogo

ooo

ooo

-IOIN

888d

8oooO

o

r-eo

S3

COenat

io

eno>eoO

eoO*•«W10oa

CO

«8

1tod

^o

oo

o

r>ien

crien

eor-S

onoeoo

eoeno

1

contain v

n8

R$

d

8o

o>o

ooooo

^en

(Denen

(D

aeoonu>*"

enIOv

»r notes

mix a

s p<

*8

1d

8

"

^

<ooo

IOen

eoeoen

eoonS

teo

totoeo

OID

IO

8

iS

K(O

O

en"

8oo

oo

CO

Si

eoeoen

g(O

IO

(O

I11at5»•"to

§

feN

JQ(D

s

o

ooen

00U)on

IOeoon

gCM

en

CM

-§

g8U)

MN

ICO(N

O

^00

g

oogT"

gd

§o

eo

in(M

8

8d

8o

So

o

•o* iu Jc o

I I g « ¥'s-a 2? I a i*

flR32lT783

Aaotoco1•**

s0O"5

2

aCO

nZ

-

1iJOa.

£

3U

t*u

"Ou

*

cN

am

d

-

a>CM

oo

oor*-eo"

oooo

oo

oo

oo

ooor-"

oo

oo

c

ooooCO

-

o(M

CN

Oo

£

oooat(D

oo

o><D

OO

Ooo

5oo

oo

c

moo

CM

CMCM

a>m

oo

s

oooCOs•«-oo

eoCM

OO

oooioo

oo

c

oo

CO

CM1

*oo

5

§oCM

*-oo

oo

oo

oooIoo

oo

c

oo

-

inCM

r-m

oo

oo

oooCDCM

*-

OO

oo

oo

ooo

3Oo

oo

c

oo

m

i--CM

.OO

oo

§ooom*-oo

o>

oo

§o5Io

§

•g

oo

(O

*o(O

oo

oo

oooo

CN

oo

oo

oo

ooosCD

oo

oo

c

oo

1*-

oCM

eoin

oo

ooCOo»

oooin

oo

ooCDCO"

oo

ooooCM<D

oo

oo

c

eooCM

CO a>

ooosCO*~

1

toa>

ai£V>c

«

3 1o1D- ?

£ Ic•§vtcouV?"S&nc,

E SI yCO g-Q ~ i

1 i.g a> oto -t;S 1u Ec .2"N T>*-" « £I 1 •?

tnS « «»

« c n

8 a IN .E .0

5 E -oc = co 3-

Q. "I O

•* •tt "« 5 oo *

01 .2

s S:m u.

"t o

INatwtoOO

5 mI M

GO CD .«

a>*s KI o a* «' S §s«I 1 itiE g 5 aS® 9- = -8 1tt E " T i1 5 aj*c o

ss soCO H II II II

"5 3 TOm £• ° <0 .-& . <TJS g tS £2 <D !"m -S

'E

.

ctt1I

iCO

d of Run

cu.'B1

|

£

g

i

G

*"5CO

£,8

|

1z5

|o2

I

a"S

D

I

DT33

D

S

D

1

Taraeta

*

*

8

8

D

.X

J

IOK-

goo

ooIoooo

goo

ooo

ooo

-mCM

888d

8d

SCD

3oo

*OOO

ss

r-.00aIO

o

eno>eoo

eoOCM

Samples

CM

8

r-eo8

CO

o'

d

oTTO

O

Oon

enen

to

soneno

ooono

1

contain v

CO

§

8r-rsid

8doCD"

00SCD

CMen

CM

g

$

S

IOenIO^

on10*"

jr notes

mix a

s p<

*fe

$sd

2N.in(DT—oo

~en

toonon

toens

toeo

to(O

CO

£

U)

8

!fe

ri

oco'

oCD

IOen

CO

on

Sen

toCMto

w3to

SQ.

1W

(O

^

3

CM

CO

cb

CD"

too»

eotoen

IO00

8

enCMCMV

on

CM

N.

8

Im

t*.CM

t—

COCMO

h-r-.

g

gg

ood

io

eo

S

8

8d

8o

go

o

•* .S

s E s _ 2 I

ftR32U785

i

Aoamn

oncentrati

oi

o,(0

n2

*

Z

CS

DZ

.Qa

«u.

3O

01O

•ou

<

N

01CD

dz

acr

a•T-00

ao

cIT

OOeor

•«*•

oo

<*

ooor*.

•*

oo

oCM_

OO•*to"m

-

ccCRIT

Gar-00

oa

occCN

Occ00~r*-

•*

oo

^

oooCMCOCD

•*

Oo

mCM

oo

CN

GG00GCO

oCNT™

OQ

OO

mV

CN«

^

OO

•*

oooCDCOCO

•*

Oo

mCM

oo

CO

Ga-*tCO

omr-00

oo

oo

ooGVCOin

•*•

oo

-

oooCMOr

•*•

oo

mCM

oo

•*

aGa^

o00cc00

oo

oo

ooGO*CMr--_

1t

oo

•*

o8on8t

OO

inCM

oo

in

oaif00

o•*c-00

oo

oo

ooom*oo>"•*

oo

•*

Ooo%CD

•«•

Oo

mCM

oo

(D

CGr--r-

a<<im00

oo

oo

oocino11•*

oo

't

ooo•*r•*

•*

oo

u>CM

Oo

I1-.

GGIfCO

aoaen

oo

oCMam

oomCNCN

•*

Or-oCD*

•*

OOo

T-

•*•

oo

mCM

oo

CO O>

oooC!CO

s

mm

10

AR32U786

Laboratory Column Tests

Continuous-flow column tests have begun, to determine the performance over time of thenew reactive wall mix (100 : 20 : 5 ; 5) on the South Landfill groundwaters. The twoindependent tests use barium-rich and zinc-rich waters. The zinc water comes from thenew (November 2000) zinc control well where cuttings were used for backfill. Thisshould give us a good source of zinc without any effects of control sand. The bariumwater comes from RDW-2 as in our previous work, and should give us the highestpossible barium feed concentrations.

The laboratory apparatus and procedures follow the descriptions in the June 28 memo.

Wall Life Projections

Wall life projections will be made on the same basis as described in the June 28 memo,with one significant difference. The landfill cap will be changed from the previousBentomat cap to a 40-mil HOPE cap. This will further decrease the rainfall infiltrationby a factor often. This leads to a flow through the PRB of only ten percent of that usedin earlier wall life calculations, and hence to a laboratory simulation rate of 160 wall-life-projection years per day of lab operation (vs. 16 years/day in June).

Wall life will not be limited by magnesium carbonate losses due to solubility ingroundwater passing through the PRB. Based on such solubility losses, the wall lifewould be tens of millennia.

Field Reactive-WeU-Column Test

A field test to confirm the laboratory results is also beginning, under the leadership ofRusty Kahl. This will follow the protocols of the previous field trial, with the addition ofa third well. The additional well was back-filled with the original drilling cuttings to giveus a benchmark and supply of water unaffected by any PRB materials, including the sandcontrols.

Acknowledgements

This program was carried out in conjunction with numerous people in DuPont'sCorporate Remediation Group, the URS Diamond Group, and Noel Scrivner of DuPontEngineering Technology.

Analytical services were performed by the DuPont Corporate Center for AnalyticalSciences under the direction of Jane Ramsey.

The R&D program was performed by William Bazela and John Wilkens, of DuPontCentral Research & Development.

RR32U787

T)•omzDXco ;

i

RR32U788

APPENDIX B

PRB IN-SITU FIELD DATA

AR32i*789

Appendix B - Field InvestigationsTable of Contents

Appendix B.1 -Geoprobe Investigation

Figure B.1 Field test locationsFigure B.2 Cross-section A-A1Figure B.3 Cross-section B-B1

Geoprobe Field Logs

Appendix B.2 - Permeable Reactive Barrier In-Situ Test Boring Results

Figure B.4 Permeable Reactive Barrier Test Boring

Table B.1 Simulated Wall Life CalculationsTable B.2 Zinc-Rich Control Well: Soil CuttingsTable B.3 Zinc-Rich Control Well: Mason SandTable B.4 Zinc-Rich PRB Material Well: 5 Wt. Parts MgCO3Table B.5 Barium-Rich Control Well: Soil CuttingsTable B.6 Barium-Rich Control Well: Mason SandTable B.7 Barium-Rich PRB Material Well: 5 wt. parts MgCO3Table B.8 Barium-Rich PRB Material Well: 5 wt. parts MgCO3,

Rotosonic InstalledTable B.9 Barium-Rich PRB Material Well: 15 wt. parts MgCO3,

Rotosonic Installed

RR32U790

APPENDIX D.1

6EOPBOBE® INVESTIGATION

AR32t*79l

< L_~(L r

H

3 u

id dl if | a;

• M i n n

«l -C £

2 = a_ o a01 ; - '~ *g ,£ zcto

& t Jf ™lJ £8]-ii rtjyKIiu 'il

cn

CMCOcn

H

00mooQDIDO

COPO

^ ra tn

OC

6 5 ' ' " ' . - . - . . -.- «. _ _3- n

(T. Q °

5" a Si?S o

O73OCOCOmoido00IGD

;-«>-v;y=4;h ;i-s,.;K:\\i\v/.-%•.. -r ••••• .• • •.-•••,•.•' ••••-. .': ,S.-

-o z ow n nn cru -norS aS 5fj jo -H A «.. 5; H J.n. v> r.. *J3 E £2 -<***._* ^n i ~ lp P| ^ 3

^ ~ *ll T^ H [ ^n^5 s<

Sfi3BS» _ C3 E

H nKH« n~

n

n ^ 1 I I 1 1 sa

O £M ^ ¥ *P ;HM (o H

S M*—' rn</>g

C". -o ? _ pa -<rH-< n

» Q P ^5a 3 g

ni I in -c

Tfte W-C Diamond GroupAQMtionotURSCatponeon , - , i j i .«, ,

3"

LOG OF BORING NO. £5" /3. i/i> I!

__ £J __

_ —

_,.r _. <f . __

_ .

r/2~

^-

E-28-— —i — -

— —

-31—_ -

PROJECT NO.:-DATE BEGAN:.OATE COMPLTFIELD GEOLOGICHECKED BY;

Z (L

|i

BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS z

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

ZM

?M"

24"

UJ

ce0.

COORDINATES

N . . P

SURFACF R-

OESCRIPT10N

t* i V t i

/f " woodIi " iJef M w ' i/iM T (M'1M ^^ <

. w i 1.. dJT'(') fA*\ S«*****1 3W |

17'' Ai£ tn/A'l \ ~**1 w'**M St> VC(

»

-

-

TT J/» *" ** 1 1 v v . o^* \ui . nt?n'nj n A ^ / iir

FED:-ST- ^

JdlZm ———— nmiiMf? uc-rwnn. & j»l fcc' W|M|

•v

^

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

"~ . •»—

~. —

\

"" r

"- r-

•7"

H. -

-. _

NOTES:A|| JLt6c/rtp<np*t& **'*'vTsvcJ o^ln " o»rc& **>«€.

cnrCMCOCC

**)

The W-C Diamond GroupAOMuonoiUltSCoipoetaon

LOG OF BORING NO. i

l/l

IT

m ztnou

COORDINATESN faZZ.7o7.7~ r fcozzio.g"

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

h-ZLH

HH

5

^0 hcoro-tr

1-tH

SIL.Y

12*

Ho"

PROJECT NO.: ^ T l~r „„ . nrDTU | n 4Tr Je. | NOTES;- T.

DATE BEGAN: ^ / ———— GVIUDEPTH____DATE/HME _____DATE COMPLETED: **/°0——— DRILLING METHOD: fr pre "/H Pf-nnnCHECKEO BY: T.

O

F—188 BORINfi NO.

The W-C Diamond Group *~~ i i iADiviucnoiWSComontion T~"* 11 I -, _I > fi-Id 1— o^y

LOG OF BORING NO. &S-2-j"• "f

PROwDATEDATEHELDCHEC

I—

— —

zt

||BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

1 PROFILE

COORDINATES

M F

SURFAOF R,-

z/

DESCRIPTIONG'*****jH Cff»*t t s1 t *i c,' £- STVAIOV *Vn C\»*i - 6-r*i*,{4-S a*1

i

ECT NO.: ————————————— qwi.-OFPTH PATF/"MP .,. ..„.,,,HFOAN: —————— . ——— '. ———— rw-nroTu niTrAiuirCOUPLETGEOLOGI

XED BY: -

ED: —————————— nmi I.INP, UFTHOn-3T:

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

AR3214797

The W-C Diamond GroupAOMwntrfWtSCorporation I *tf> 1*1 I f\f\

•u"

LOG OF BORING NO. »____________- i

CD

y> sCOORDINATES

w fc02Z.3t>

SURFACE EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

LSL

-1-

— IP

f

'']

U5LFPROJECT NO.: wf" ' "^———— GWU DEPTH

DATE BEGAN:——zfa/oo——;———— GW^DEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: j/**/?0———— DRILLING METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST:—— . K .———— GwM*. tfr.CHECKED BY: _£.

NOTES:*tr.\ltr: (W«Li fAV,O

F-188 - BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupAQMxonotUflSCerpontiofl i T A> i i i -*-•

C/t\

tf

LOG OF BORING NO. 4^ "3

UJ 2

QUJ

ai«2<

ZZ

CD Z

COORDINATES

Eb

DESCRIPTION

CO

REMARKS

-g - %''

f. Pr

Al)

^

PROJECT NO.:——————————————— GWL: DEPTH ——— DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: ——————————'.———— GWL: DEPTH ____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ——————————— DRILLING METHOD: _______RELD GEOLOGIST:—.____'.__ .———CHECKED BY: ——————————————

NOTES:

The W-C Diamond GroupA Oivitioa al MS Corporation " <* j I I _

L. OA

LOG OF BORING NO. ?J

>' w

t! CD Z

C|,| ^ . . . * rf—— _——— . - - ** JW /• H

>

wouUJce

sCOORDINATES

M &22£"o7. / F1 * v ^ ^ w - ^ ^ . b,

SURFACE EL: ___________ wc.

DESCRIPTION 4*

REMARKS

OL

4r

_-^_ w

ML

PROJECT NO.:_M *ig2d— t£DATE BEGAN: ——^/^/oo ———— GWuOEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: jVp/oO——— DRILUNG METHOD:RELD GEOLOGISTCHECKED BY: —H

NOTESi

O

AR32i*800BORING NO.

TTSre IV-C Diamond GroupA Divaioa of IKS Corporation fuli Lo^

LOG OF BORING NO. 'H /^j1

PROJDATEDATERELCCHEC

I!

-8-

— \\ —

ztBLOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

*•

iu.OCC0.

COORDINATES

N F5URFACF Fl:

DESCRIPTION

b>r\- cif ^ / fibinto} ' L-~ / '^ H>rt v\ri- •&* <4rr. £\at| -J .*j-rt*</V

( M fc?'1

£\l'Wi **\ - -F Sft^MSi -Vr. cl"»i(|C.

<;l-Mi *J \ --F- £*r >k /'**'$ $'*M M

tMM"

^"WO o-F Sa-fle (g, (2.7

ECT NO.: ——————————————— GWU DEPTH .DATE/TIMFRF^AfJj ————— ,,, . riM - nrp-nj n ITT /nurCOMPLE1GEOLOG1

KED BY: -

fED: —————————— nmt i twfi urmnrvST- , ... ._ ...

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

flR32i*80l

The W-C Diamond Group4 OfnuMO/tfR? Corporation F "tf3 I A

LOG OF BORING NO. ' Z-/Z

.

K

Qui

18Ya

IstnouUJce

COORDINATESN fc**1l3.7 F fcoZ-Z .T

DESCRIPTION

CO

REMARKS

-y-

//v

•=?-PROJECT NO.: " ^^———— GWjDEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: ——VZ3/og> ———— GWUDEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: —VWoo——— DRILLING METHOD: ______FIELD GEOLOGIST - 7 - ———— fo yg y t|CHECKED BY: " "*~ AR32U802

F-188 BORING NO.cucc-r r>r

. W-C Diamond GroupA Division of (JUS Corporation ^ > „ I I

I * «- I -0. L-

LOG OF BORING NO. J

e Ii'CD z

12

2 nwo

UJ(E

CO-ORDINATES ^CD

E

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

t $, l-Wj

-Ifl

D-F -^AMtue »2

PROJECT NO.:————————————— GWU DEPTH ——— DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——————————I———— GWjDEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: —————————— DRILLING METHOD: ______FIELD GEOLOGIST:——————————— _________________CHECKED BY: ———————————————

NOTES:

AR32I4803

The W-C Diamond Groupf7e|i Loci

LOG OF BORING NO. <^- bj"

a^I

I!_

— 1 —

-— —

— z-

-

-3-~ ^

r"i__ _

r^~

-6-PM ^

-

PROJECT N0.:_DATE BEGAN:.

g£BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(IN.)

ff

Ht'

PROFILE

COORDINATESHI t2i33t.3 F C>oil1*.XCUIRFACF n.

%DESCRIPTION

i "? 3V:\ u r sMt-1! C-~F S S/ lD fc* S=~-4.

t'SA ]

i

»*1 - -f SfJ^u / Ai-f S>~Af £lCT~ v^,9-Mj £.$a*vt Vr * JP. ftfxA cfe

r^^/MM

Mtu)PWT oLr CVM-OFPTM nATT/TlUF

——— V. /SP ——— ! ——— . ,. rtUJI-HFDTU nATF/TIUC

DATE COMPLETED: £/*V°° ———— OBJLI ING METHOO:RKLD GEOLOGIST: .tS« K - , fr<* roio */ H A- sl«* <SCHECKED BY: -T. Uuu btU

F-iaa

\

aVVV,

REMARKS

NOTES:

flR32l»80tfBORING NO.currr nr

iit

iJ

)t

• r

\

i

c

"1r,J

. ^

. i, i

; j

' T

-ii

ajdJ

Tfte W-C Diamond GroupA DMsion at UttS Corporation r7elA L-^\

LOG OF BORING NO. '^ /^-j1

i|j »^J **uu.

PROJDATEDATERELDCHEC

I!

—— J0 —

-U-

— —

Z C^

iltfl 3LOWS PER

6-INCH

HCREMENTS

-

Z

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

V

PROFILE

COORDINATES

Kl F

DESCRIPTION

6#A

L 'cAiV l-T f ' *'*'* ^ 1 *"**f / C v&MCt/

L. f «v "t" "-"Q1" kn ^ - <&&*•"*- &f"**~ty~'« A PV ll

•

ECT NO.: —————————————— CW.tflFpTH ,,.... OATE/TIMFBEGAN: ————————— I ——— RIM - HFPTW riAir /TIIJFCOMPLETED: —————————— nnn I iwn UFTwnn.GEOLOGIST:. -. .

KED BY: -

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

NOTES:

,R32«05

The W-C Diamond Group4 0rnMono/Uff5 Corporation <--\

LOG OF BORING NO. /Z-J QUJ

iss< OWS PE

6-INCH

EMEN

CD

C3 ntnou

UJcr

COORDINATES

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-Hf "

/r

IB'

fl

4PROJECT N0.:DATE BEGAN:———'1/1*1/0 f ———— GWL: DEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ^ (°v——— DRILLING METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST:-CHECKED BY; ——-

NOTES:

aAR32I*806

F"188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group *-** i i iA Division of URS CorpoftHm >-<• „ II I _I i €-|d L. O<\

LOG OF BORING NO. 6»S-~1X™»

J

. I/)

S3

dfiK•Ml


?PQ*UJ

SS

-#-

-'1-

— |0-

-II-

-\1-

itfa^is^< BL

OWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

3fc"

UJU_Oce0.

COORDINATES

HI F

9^FAOF Fl;

DESCRIPTION

5 ft fr

^ T T ~"7-iw, -^^fr^ly0/~> y-»' v/ y s-v*^] '^-* >^ Sit-T ^ 5 ^ -g w!rC.S ^ cV ^ ^

_ _ - — — l^'B/7>V> -Ori f wzfcOiA m--Fi>H^< | i_-f" -t± 4-r. -f *3**«-\f c.S->X3|

c\t*i (M L)

13

e o <vp S P II*

ECT NO.: ————————————— GVAj DEPTH DATE/TIMEBFRAN: ————— .... . —— R^M -nrnTii nATF/nuFCOMPLETED: —————————— nan i iwrs UF-mnn.GEOLOGIST-KED BY: .

USCS SYMBOL

*//Z-——————————————

REMARKS

NOTES:\

AR32l»807

The W-C Diamond GroupA Division of UWS Corporation „ _ _o<\

LOG OF BORING NO.

. U)> *\jj a

£

3vCOORDINATES

SURFACE EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

i0

-4-

-7*"

PROJECT MO • NfaOpMS- 5LFDATE BEGAN:——*/*•**/°°—_——— GVIL: DEPTH___DATE COMPLETED: --- M——— DRIUJNG METHOD:RELD GEOLOGIST:—g- ^1———— Grwrdafc y ^ ft.CHECKED BY: ——H

NOTES:

AR32li808F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group^Vld L-OC\_A OMsion of UR5 CaraanBoo r^yI t

LOG OF BORING NO.J i

« u

R TSEP CHWS IN EM

E

BLO 6

NCR SAMPLE

RECORY

VE

COORDINATES

N ________ESURFACE EL___

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

_ _ O")

C

___ ,_._., .,_ . NOTES:PROJECT NO.:——————————————— GWL DEPTH___.DATE/TIME wit.*.DATE BEGAN: ——————————'.———— GWL DEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: —————————— DRILLING METHOD: ______RELD GEOLOGIST:——————————— _________________CHECKED BY: —————————————

The W-C Diamond Group. r ^ i i i1 i €- 1 «A L OA

V

LOG OF BORING NO. ~® /5j"

_j .Lii ^tjjj


I

H— 1^-

^ ^

•M* «MB

||

BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS Z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

1 PROFILE

COORDINATESKJ F

SURFACT PI-

DESCRIPTION

1 T1 C~* f i ^. \ t ~l "

VW ~ ~T" s* *V*"" *X / /Vl i__ i

-

ECT NO.: ————————————— CM :nFP-m . HATT /TIUFBFRAN? ——————— CWL-nFPTH FlATF/flUff

COMPLETED: —————————— nnn i INR UF-mnn.GEOLOGIST*

KED 9Y: .

F-188

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

AR32I48IOBORING NO.curc-r rvr

The W-C Diamond Group *—* i i tA Division of UKS Corporation >—»« „ I 1 II / €-ld U

LOG OF BORING NO. 6S'fJ u3-.tr°-5S

y?Z3%a Sjuj5z 3<oirt ^ rn

TUI

-'ICO Z

Si2 ptnou

UJce

COORDINATES£ 01332.

EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-5'-

lPROJECT NO.: M f 5U=————— GWj DEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:DATE COMPLETED: »/tH/oo———— DRILLING METHOD:RELD GEOLOGIST:——6,.&&l——,——— Gt rebfc ">CHECKED BY:'!—T. CoJMpbell————— ________

NOTES:

AR32WII

.—•

The W-C Diamond Group I

______________________________ °3- "]

LOG OF BORINGOLJ

§i$<

°-5Ss?aOu>CD Z

Ca!£2 ulWO

(JUJcc

COORDINATES

N ________ESURFACE Ft-

DESCRIPTION

CO

REMARKS

jftfi

c-?

Z4iT-o

//

C.

PROJECT NO.:————————————— CWU DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——————————'.———— GWL: DEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: —————————— DRILLING METHOD: ______FIELD GEOLOGIST:——————————— _________________CHECKED BY: ——————,———————

NOTES:

F-188 BORING NO.RHFFT nF

The W-C Diamond GroupA Division of UK Corporation F "tf I ai

LOG OF BORING NO. /

aii CD z

a: _ ..___.___w

<>tnoaUJcc

COORDINATES

SURFACE EL

DESCRIPTION

V^

dREMARKS

D

f -

'

11"

rJpJsaL <tt~m

PROJECT NO.: NVQP* -^r———— CANU DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: ——Z/ZH/OO ———— Q^ DEp7H____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ——X/W00———— DRILLINGRELD GEOLOGIST JSJafiii-____ GgjopfoW. "/ Hfr beeves.CHECKED BY: —T- C*^fWU———— __________________

NOTES:-, K.ardLu

AR32ii813

The W-C Diamond GroupL OS

LOG OF BORING NO.

. l/l>a y>Q.

MOOUJce

COORDINATES

SURFACE

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

C

-4

— 5 '—

9/3*7, 5

ii

PROJECT NO.: """P*Hj SlF——— GWUDEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——*/"/.", ——— GWUOEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ?***>*——— DRILLING METHOQ: ______RELD GEOLOGIST:——K' KfrKI———— GtPproke, y^ft- 5ieCA; SCHECKED BY: _£_'- L'''

NOTES:Env. 2

F-188 BORING NO.CUFCT ne

The W-C Diamond Groupf J* €• | A L

LOG OF BORING NO. &*'\° 72-j1

• v\III P**

'.I/

PRO.DATEDATEREUCHEC

II

_ —

-a-

r'h

JECT NO.:-I BEGAN:.: COMPLF) GEOLOGI:KED BY:

$3°

BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

PROFILE

COORDINATESM F

SURFACF Ft-

DESCRIPTION

*yf\ A-

"_~ ~^ ^_--f sANb ^^ \ -- t lL t A SD *T* • J '^ r\ lj " j—' * 1 * O * ! Tl *

• T". i-.S"**- - tj **"*** / -

t ^ *"""" 7

•

——————————————— GWL DEPTH DATE/TIMEP1M -nFOTH nATTT/TlkJC

FED: ——————————— DRILLING METHOD: ————————————— -<STr ' .

! USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

AR32U8I5

TZre 0W Diamond GroupLoa

LOG OF BORING NO. S?S> Uj"


I!

^ ^

•# «-»

-H-

HltftfB \ ^\^ /

2=o2501 BL

OWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

U"

V

PROFILE

COORDINATESM C2-IT4/-3 F £oZW?SURFArF FI -

DESCRIPTION

—— ———— p

ECT NO.: — .— . f — . ———— . — _ — Q**i-nFpTH . pATF/riuFBEGAN: T J/K -^. ——— ,.. , , RVH • RFPTW n ATF /TIUFCOMPLETED: 3 1/00 ——— noni.Mft UF-mnn-GFni HOIST- •?: K*^ . . . Ct relse V H &• sl€CA/t&KED BY: - TCovAjpbe^l

L_

guc.

REMARKS

NOTES:

AR32148I6

The W-C Diamond Group t—». i t i ^LOG OF BORING NO. - U 3

j>'» Si 3*5

CO Z

zaMOUUlCC

COORDINATES

EL

DESCRIPTION

t/i REMARKS

-10-

-IV-

5/VA

73"

51 LT *>

Vi

•H-PROJECT NO.:——————————————— GWL DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:—————————!——— GWU DEPTH___DATE COMPLETED: —————————— DRILLING METHOD:RELD GEOLOGIST:————————i—— __________CHECKED BY: —————————————

NOTES:

AR32U8I7

Tie W-C Diamond Groupf7el«L OA

LOG OF BORING NO. 6S-1*~>J. W

2&KV*-


?P§1

-*6-

^ «*•

_\( _

^ *H

^Kuj£

11« BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

[RECOVERY

(IN.)

^ — ' —

|

PROFILE COORDINATES

N F

StIRFArF F|.

DESCRIPTION

- 3" W.cW {T AIS- of S-W^ .61*JP. SfrKb '

__ _ IB±_far*nl sMVt, c«-ivx •* Vi^UeKg^-xTo CCA -V«* "

gVC^ o^SIV^Pl^ |L/

i

ECT NO.: —————————————— an-nFPTH nATT/nuFBF.GAN' ————— .. —— ...1 ———— r«i -riFOTu nnr/niiFCOUPLETGEOLOGt:

KED BY: -

ED: ——————————— nn» i ifufi uF-mnn-iT- -

hawenCJ13

REMARKS

NOTES:

«R321»8I8•188 SORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA On>&on of (JUS Camonttfxi ^"* „ I I I _I * C-I d L- O<\

LOG OF BORING NO.QUJ

l§5<

sCD

Ytnoo

UJce

K SURFACE ELa.

COORDINATES

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

•vH-t, "--f5*Vfi

10*_«2 _ i"

-Pl&x w S

-r-

PROJECT NO.: N^MTT 5tF————— GWL.DEpTH ___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——VW.OD——i———— GWLDEPTH.DATE COMPLETED: ——z/ /°°———— DRILLING METHOD:RELD GEOLOGIST:—g-K»Ki.'————— G-gj&pfyU V HCHECKED BY: —X.

NOTES:

-M-i

AR321*8I9

The W-C Diamond Group4 OMiwt of UV Corporation f *tf> I J

LOG OF BORING NO. "'2""j

S

PROJDATEDATEHELDCHEC

1!

B V4 BM

^ ^——

Oi.]Z4

w 9LOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(IN.)

1 PROFILE

COORDINATESN F

SURFACF Fl •

5£

DESCRIPTION**& ?j 0 0-f 5'ft- 1^1^ tV 9 '

1

ECT NO.: ——————————————— CML:DFPTI4._ _ OATt/TlMEBEGAN: ————————— ! ——— r.tti . nirpTH OATT /nurrCOMPLETED: —————————— HRM I iwn UFrwnn.GEOLOGI!KED BY: -

5T-

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

NOTES:

flR32l»820

' i

\

- 1• 4

«

i

J

Ii

nF-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group«. —el d L- oci4 WMMM of UlS Corporation l** «. I i I —l d L- o

LOG OF BORING NO.J. w2

OLJ

a:11en O Stn do

UJcc

COORDINATES/

EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

— . B nc? A- c f t4! 5 1

i4v

2?

PROJECT NO.:.DATE BEGAN:———l/g»JoO ———— GWLOEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: Wp0 — DRILLING METHOD:RELD GEOLOGIST:—IV w^-————— Ge fy-oe. SCHECKED BY: _Lr" "U"11

NOTES:

The W-C Diamond Group4 Ormrn* o/ UfS Corpo/mlofl f ?elA Loci

2,/LOG OF BORING NO. "^ /^

j"• "i


I!

-$>-

-i-mm ^—

-IO-

-II-

-iv

!UIT ' —————————————————

*~ LLa! ^

BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS Z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

-.— —

^

an"

PROFILE

COORDINATESM F

SURFAP.F Fl -

DESCRIPTION

Tfc— — • ——

i i^ f i i/LVJ • I™

Tr*, /T1 -F.sit/JD 4r

1 •"3 VD o-F Srt"MfL£@ (H jGoECT NO.: ————————————— cw-nrPiu nATf/nucBEGAN: - ———— __ ————— , . nw >nrpTU nATF/nuFCOMPLETED: —————————— nmiiNO UETHOO: , _HFOI ndST:KED BY: _

aV,VIc

REMARKS

Mo Sd-**-fW-£- \&£tt*

8--IO H"

NOTES:

IR32U822r-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupADhmonotURSCupenlion F ^ tf 1*1 I

LOG OF BORING NO.J. (/i5 =

O u

IIcn

cc«-* UJs?a

(nouUJce

COORDINATES

SURFACE EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

i'. It-.]

>t— A

L-H

3-

V ' *

^PROJECT NO.:——————————————— GWU DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:—————————'.——— GWUDEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: —————————— DRILLING METHOD: ——————FIELD GEOLOGIST:———————'.————— ___________________CHECKED BY: —————————————

NOTES:

AR32U823

The W-C Diamond GroupCI

LOG OF BORING NO. <£$- lcj"


I

^™" 1 ™"

^ ^™

1 ™

^ ^^

dV ^

-U-

Ii BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

aSccQ.

COORDINATES

M F

SURFACF Fl •

y1 2-

DESCRIPTIONt?r a\"

ECT NO.: ———————————— cwL-nrp-m nAir/nuFBEGAN: ————————— '. —— , . nut . HFPTU HATT /nuPCOMPLETED: — ———————— , nun i iwr. UFrwnn-GEOLOGI!

KED BY: -5T*

a

3

REMARKS

•

NOTES:

AR32.82.r-!88 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupADMvonofUHSCorjutfVion 1 /€. A Loci3-

LOG OF BORING NO. 65 -(S^ ^j"

>' -*UJ 3


3 ^

^ ™ I * HH

— 2.—

-r-

— i5 —— ———————————————————————————————————————— .

8CD ZSAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

V

ZH"

PROFILE

COORDINATESM fclimi p fc 0/770. 2-SIIRFAPF FI-

OESCRIPTtON

L * " / —/i

D A>W>'N- i 6 ViwiS'M * 1 -"l *££

-f*l~, «*A - -f - V"** — A / /^l L/***

ii3 &

&x-V- 5^*71 ^>- cuAV .U\ » Luu 4- / >\ > i iiiSVV Cr«^>*»-^ CC lT* -! [ 0 T| 1

D/TJWvv- ~> • Sc>*— **y ••-'I ~1 >.

FCrNO.T SiJprt,. ^ .,. nwi -nFP-rw nATF/nuFRFCANr ———— 2/W/Ot) CWL-QFTTl1 HATF/nuF

COMPLETED: /»/p° ————— HRH . me UF nn.GFniOQST: .•• VM , f lM W */4 r" T B'V*'-KED BY: - 1- Coi toeAl

>

a

tnCJ

REMARKS

NOTES:fr :Ko »f^n.

AR32-482S

The W-C Diamond GroupADrioionofMSCtmntion "P* _ I I I _r * «• i <t u oci

LOG OF BORING NO. &>'/£*~*_!

"Snx£

m ^ ^ i"

^ ^»

- "•

-*• »

^ ^*-

• ^ W^——

ii1/1 BLOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(IN.)

1 PROFILE

COORDINATESN _ F

SURFACE FI -

* fc -

DESCRIPTION

7Qf\%'

j

PROJECT NO.: ————————————— mM -HFOTW ni-nr /TUICDATE BEGAN: ————————— '. ——— mM .nro-nj n*Tr/nucDATE COMPLETED: ——————————— nntJ i iwrs uryunn.RFID GEOI.OOIST* -., . .(CHECKED BY: -

gt/u

REMARKS

-

NOTES:

AR32l*826

it

-1i

\t

i

1

c

11

iiiJ

The W-C Diamond Group4 OwiMMO/Utt Corporation ^\. _ II II » €-ld I—

LOG OF BORING NO.

>UJ

u

QUJ

UJ

l§5< CD

Z

arUJcc

COORDINATEStzmz.3

SURFACE EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-\ H(Z-

-z-

ZH"

-fr.

GWL: DEPTH ——— DATE/TIME -NOTES:.DATE BEGAN: ———>f«HK/———— ^ DEpTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: 1*1*°———— DRILLING METHOD:RELD GEOLOGIST--CHECKED BY: —1 flR32i»827

F-18J3 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA OMMM at UHS Corporation

LOG OF BORING NO. _^5" 'j*

-j h_UJu.

PRO*DATEDATEFIELCCHEC

I!

1

^m ——

fc v

OLJz£

|i BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS Z

1 SAMPLE

[RECOVERY (

1

ccCU

COORDINATESM F

SURFACF Fl- , , -

f?eU Loc,

( ' 2/: /Z-

DESCRIPTION

Tz"^ <s\ r crfi^AAjp/ & fJ $ f

/ - K/D 3T~ OT*vlTl 'r K'y(3

CCT NO.: ————————————— fiw.nFPiw nATT/nuFflFfr AN* /*iu , ncDTU n t TF /nucCOMPLETED: ———— — ... ., . HDII nwrr wFTHnn-GEOLOG3

XED BY: .ST-

F-iaa

SCS SYMBOL

3

—— «

REMARKS

NOTES:

SORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond GroupA Oivtuon ol MS Corporation "w _ I I Iield L

/ S" ~*1 ' ]

LOG OF BORING NO. kk'l '_ i /^J

• "1

UU.

PRO^DATEDATEF1ELCCHEC

|f

-i-

r~•B ~J "

* * " \ ^ ^%y

-..•T .

GUI

ittfl BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

tv

32"

[ PROFILE

COORDINATESN tZtfCf3./ F fcDltOS-.j

<:ilRFArF Fl.

DESCRIPTION

v , 1 *^\ W I L_gj-ICTiAA- \C— v— ' *_ _ *°

Pi->-r-VL. '*VUf •** C V* » VU> C-»ZV2£

LLQ.

-7Z"

^ -tl *' "I i^ Ci C

ECT NO.: N ferr ':iLr ———— QW .nFPTH PIATF/TIUFBEGAN: —— 2. 2fl/oo — _ _ ^^ ,nrDTU n*TT /TIUFCOMPLEIGEOLOGI

XED BY: .

^D: —— VWP0 ———— nRII.MNG MFTHOO: ,„ .., . „»T» ^ • cL*V* rr> .tf ^ Jn ^^/ H wf^ v* 1 A.I/ ^

1 ,. C<uvty|p>JM/\1

F-iaa

•>SCS SYMBOL

D

REMARKS

NOTES:

jLtrtlLfcT: KftTeU 6*vV.dAR32U829

BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA Onisioa ot UflS Corportoon

LOG OF BORING NO. &> ' (T _ i %.j"

PROJDATEDATEFIELDCHEC

I!

•• *•*

>v *N

^ M i

Z(LUJP

3°

BLOWS PER

6- INCH

INCREMENTS

i

z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

I PROFILE

COORDINATES

KJ F

SlIRFAPF FJ.

DESCRIPTION

***, / -, — )

V C* W" Sa- P* i' O

IECT NO.: ————————— - ———— . fflm-nFPTM pATf/nyFBFGAN: —————————————— _ CWL'DFPTH nATF^l^PCOMPLETED: —————————— not. i IKIR UFTW n;GFOI OCI.ST- _ ..KED BY: .

F-iaa

•h

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

— fl n 32 1| 8 3 Q ———BORING tfO.SHEET OF

;j

The W-C Diamond GroupA Division ef UftS CofpoftDott r^* I I I

I / C-ld U

LOG OF BORING NO. 'Ou uJ

UJ

_f33«SCO Z

WS P

INCH u~5:5

2 jp«Ou

UJcc

COORDINATES

SURFACE EL:

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

0

-z-

14,: 6"

PROJECT NO.: NWpTr °l-r_____ CWU DEPTH ____DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:DATE COMPLETED: •*/Jfl(00————— DRILLING METHOD: __

GEOLOGIST:— •|Uhl————— frtM»-er\ie */ H MrCHECKED BY: T

NOTES:

AR32l*83lF-188 BORING NO.

77?e W-C Diamond GroupA OMMMO/UUCtepontion „ _ _*

LOG OF BORING NO. V (^ /2_j"• "?

_j >_UJu.I

r9:

^h* 1 1 """

1 V*"

P BLOWS PER

6-iNCH

INCREMENTS z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

— — —

_ — - —

1 PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F

SURFACE fl: ,

DESCRIPTION

UOff

tA/<* S-T

'1I tO

Vs^^rv- &i r&Lst ] \ 1 C-l<-n Y

•\-l(JtL

•

PROJECT NO.: ————————————— CWL^OFPTH nATT/nuPDATT RFGAN- ———————————— __ — CWL*nFPT%4 nATF/TIUFDATE COMPLETED: —————————— nan ( run UFTHHO;nn.D GEOLOGIST-CHECKED BY: -

t ~ """ '" —— ————————————— B LJ Q V li~~WF-iaa n.»w«*-w

SCS SYMBOL

3

*•

REMARKS

NOTES:

BORING NO.SHEET OF

W-C Diamond Groupf7

LOG OF BORING NO. //>

9:03V)5

R TSEBLOWS P

6-INCH

INCREMEN PLE Y

j S

RECO

COORDINATES^2/17^,2 F lotZlO.I

EL:

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

? (,50

PROJECT NO.: Nwy»«i &™————— OWL: DEPTHDATEDATE COMPLETED: Vf*fc°———— DRILLING METHOD:HELD GEOLOGIST:CHECKED BY: T.

NOTES:

ftR32l»833

Tie W-C Diamond Group _Loq J

LOG OF BORING NO. ' '2o "

*»M

K

-H-

^

Isin

WS P

INCH

EMEN

LO 6 CR

PLE

S O

COORDINATES

SURFACE EL

DESCRIPTION

of

CWL: DEPTH ——— DATE/TIMEJATE BEGAN:———WWl™ '——— GWU DEPTH___DATE/HME

•/>-" > 0"_____ nan i iu^ »»tfnjrt«.JATE COMPLETED: ?-f-7pu———— DRILLING METHOD:7ELD GEOLOGIST:-:HECKED SY: —L

REMARKS

.NOTE& r i: IWcU £ivvif>n • iJ

ISfl BORING NO.

Tfte W-C Diamond GroupL O<

LOG OF BORING NO. *R TS

BLOWS P

6-INCH

INCREM

P YS

RECO

COORDINATES

EL-

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

— V—"

_£_ Hf

t1

PROJECT NO.: ""P r *v____ CWC:DEpTH ___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——^M/PP——:———— GWjDEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: _1 ™————— DRILLING METHOD:RELD GEOLOGISTu-CHECKED BY: —L-

NOTES:JnHer*. Mawi Ervtf-

AR32i*835

The W-C Diamond GroupAtMtMnrftASCffpofftiM (*€.!«. L &£\

LOG OF BORING NO. ' ^ l/2

SiUJ

Q-o

in3*3m z wou

UJcc

COORDINATES

EL:

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-c » ,

sicr

UaJ I*"

PR«CT N0.= ?^ 5LF————— CW, DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——Ul^.—————— ..nr™ DATE/TIME

REU)CHECKED BY: —31

DATE COMPLETED: _^mt«2———— ORUJNG METHOD:

NOTES:

RR324836F~'M ' BORING NO.

SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond Group *—• „ ^, «> €-|d U OA

i i iA Divaion of UHS Corponoon >•"* „ II I|d U

LOG OF BORING NO. §S'

. w_j j_

UJu.

PRO*DATEOATHFIELCCHEC

1

"* * 7 f "^ •—

OWp.

UJ C

P 3LOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(IN.)

u.OCL

COORDINATES

w F

SURFAOF Fl- ..,..—, -

c_ : z//£-

DESCRIPTION

16'

ECT NO.: ——————————————— GWL: DEPTH , ..OATF/TlMFBFGAN- ————————— _ CWL-DCTTH nATF /TluF

COMPLETED: ——————————— DRILLING MFTHOD: .. ,,.,.,,( OLOGIST*

XED BY: .

i

SCS SYMBOL

a

REMARKS

NOTES:

>R32,837r_iaa onoiwr ton

The W-C Diamond Group> „ I J |> «£. I d U

LOG OF BORING NO.a:

UJJ3 ~ OS 5

COORDINATES

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-3-

PROJECT/NO.: Nwyrt -SlF————— 5^ DEpTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: ———*/*/*>——!———— CVKUOEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: Zfo/P°———— DRILUNG METHOD:FIFJ.D GEOLOGIST- -a> . J/f*T3<>* ^fr -MffttefiCHECKED BY: T.

NOTES:

AR32l»838F-186 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group ^ i I Ir?el«L Lo<\

. uia^

UJu.

PRO%DATEDATERELCCHEC

11

-$-_

_jBLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS Z

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

ccQ.

LOG OF BORING NO. _^~^COORDINATES

Kl F _ _

SURFACF Fl- -.„. - ,, ,

DESCRIPTION

504

IECT NO.: ——————————————— GWUDEPTH ...-DATF/TIMF ™ „ ._RFRANr —————— __ —— ; ———— . rwi-nFOTlrt HATF/TlllF

COMPLT1) GEOLOGIXED BY: .

fED: ———————————— DRILLING METHOD:ST- /r

/i.

SCS SYMBOL

J

REMARKS

NOTES:

R32l»839BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group

LOG OF BORING NO. 6S- 2-'j1.in

ScS


1!

\\

— i-

• ^—

-3-

-4-

v *ta

IB •••

7

z&

Q-o

P BLOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

1 PROFILE

COORDINATES

SURFACF Ft .

z V3

DESCRIPTION

feW.w , . b^AV

'T'. r u \ //u U\

FCT NP • Ntwto»t"T oUr rui-nrpTU n»Tr/nuffBEGAN: —— V*y00 — i ——— mu - nrpiw OATF /TILJFCOMPLETED: 2V2SA*J ———— npti i iMft UFTwnn.GEOLOGIST- ^ Kw; , . ( pr-k* _!/4fr Sl-f' '-5KED BY: - 1. Co fbtU

R

a

U)cREMARKS

NOTES:

Tmrno

1

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA D*m>« of WS Captation a

LOG OF BORING NO. &s'z -f\j. t/iSad»-^ UJ

UJu.


£~5"&£

-6-

P-» *••*

—— • ^——

-<!-^ •*•

•« -

•* ™

— \D—

-U-

-a-

1 3-

44 ——————————————————————————

isa|is< BL

OWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY ( aScc

Q.

COORDINATES

fj F

SURFAPF Ft.

2/'3

DESCRIPTION

5tf43i'- —— — ——— —— ———— «J ——

i

Sfrft

_ ___ ltf&''

6r^ , tVd^^ S\i-T bi r-c-Ts>^ -P.gr> l /- - ^/ D L />1<-| uu-^ / Pes Wt r& cfl

^fe^AoCrtUfcvt^;

!

_ __._%:'S:Tnav i.'-h-T. SAiM» ^ «?f .-*-s

t&* __ _iW

/] fl- CT -Vr. &x."4c Or* UivtC

ECT NO.: ————————————— cw.nFPTW oATF/Tf"FBEGAN: ————————— '. ——— mM-rtFPTU nATP/nuFCOMPLETGEOLOGI.KED BY: .

ED: —————————— nRii t.iMR up-mOD: , , ,3T-

SCS SYMBOL

ID

REMARKS

NOTES:

flR3248l»l

The W-C Diamond Group««»—— -"-*«— ir«-IA u oc\ m

* 11

LOG OF BORING NO. &> zj"

UJu.


p

-\i-

Zo.

a°VI BL

OWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(IN.)

1 PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F

7 3/?- <3

DESCRIPTION

t^Nfo 5 T - VS^ It

i

ECTNO.: ————————————— cM.-nrPTM nATF/nurBFCAM- — ————— , CWL-nFPTH nATF/HUFCOMPLETED: —————————— HRH i INR urrwnn-GEOLOGIST- . _.KED BY: -

2ccws REMARKS

NOTES:

H D Q 9 It Q It 9AnOt.'rOHw

3

0;i

i

*

U

ilu

F—

The W-C Diamond GroupA Kviiian of UK Corporation "&* _ I I-Id

LOG OF BORING NO. - /z.2u

i°(/>

"53s?a3»SCO

3 LUviau

UJcc

COORDINATES

SURFACE EU

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

"Y"U / -I r^ . ^|U |

"^~

-7PROJECT* N0.:_! p hl————— GWL:DEPTH ___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——2-/2g/oo ———— GWL:DEPTH____DATE/HMEDATE COMPLETED: ——UgfeZ———— DRILLING METHOD:HELDCHFCKFO BY- T C<u«>

NOTES:

The W-C Diamond GroupA Civilian of UK Corporation Ip" > — f 1 I -. _

T

j".01

LOG OF BORING NO. &>-~l~

I

7

-

»

PROJECTDATE BEDATE COFIELD GECHECKED

t~-

1-

o-

ll_

\1-

4^ ——————————————————————

iitn BLOWS PER

6-INCH

MCREMENTS

|

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

I PROFILE

COORDINATESKJ F

StJRFArF PI-

^A %

DESCRIPTION

<r A. A

^ffcj

^ 4-r, -f. S * ^ W^U

— — — — _ _____ _— —— - ———————

&fJ& of SflMpL^ /9 1 2.

NO.: ————————————————— GWL: DFP7H OATF /HIJFRANr .._ ——— __ CVyL'HFPTH nATF/TlUF

MPLETED: —————————— rum i tun UFTwnn.OLOGIST-BY: -

F-iaa

^

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

ftR32U8«*UBORING NO.SHEET OF

The W4 Diamond Group a-*** i i iA Division of MS Corponoon V"W _ I I IU

LOG OF BORING NO. S "Z-ZJ3"

01UJ

Sis* 2»OCO Z

UJ

COORDINATES'ca

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-3 -

*

*PROJECT NO.: J ZL1 £———— CWL DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE RFr.AM. 3/2Y/00 GWL:DEPTH____DATE COMPLETED: */**/!><?———— DRILLING METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST - Jriii______ Ocoffp e V PV sleaVe~&CHECKED BY: —T. Cfti^bt^————— __________________

NOTES:

F-iaa BORING NO.

TThe W-C Diamond Group \

" Lo^ iLOG OF BORING NO. Gs-2"^ ,

UJ 1101 CD Z

U<tt2 [3(OO

CJUJcc

COORDINATES' ED

EEL-

OESCRIPT10N

REMARKS

•v~ U

-17.-

• f% i

ft:T AoPROJECT NO.:——————————————— CWUDEPTH ———— DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——————————!———— GWL: DEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: —————————— DRILLING METHOD: ______HELD GEOLOGIST:——————————— _________________CHECKED BY: ———————————————

NOTES:

i IIBORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond GroupA Division of UKS Cotfonoon

LOG OF BORING NO. J^S ' 2j"• °1

uu.


I

~ \ ~

GUI%

IIui BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

1 PROFILE

COORDINATES

W F _. ._

SURFACF F!.-

f7eU Loci

•?B ; 3/3DESCRIPTION

i\1^7

•

ECT NO.: ——————————————— GWL: DEPTH ...... -DATE/TIME. , -. ... ...BEGAN:,., ———————— . . —— ,.. . rua.nc-oTu AATF/TIUFCOMPLE1GCOLOGI

XED BY: .ST-

USCS

SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

The MN? Diamond GroupRe IA Loci

LOG OF BORING NO. 22

. inOuJ

II01PLE

woacc

COORDINATES

SURFACE EL:

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-4 - HB

-G -

4 ' ?j0V-*

PROJECT NO.: Myy^ SLF———— GWL: DEPTH ___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: V"/pf , ———— CWL: DEPTH___DATE COMPLETED: V^00———— DRILLING METHOD:,FIELD GEOLOGIST:—*• &»U.CHECKED BY: —1

NOTES:

01. 01*—' oSHEET OF

The W-C Diamond GroupA ftwtiion of MS Catporwoon "&-1, j I I

( i €-|d U

LOG OF BORING NO. 5-2-Z-^- /^j". wi

-i .UJu.

II

igi

I[0_

"IM "

Z a.

^BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS z

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

1 PROFILE

COORDINATESM F

DESCRIPTION

— 1 ' f 3

1 T-C

'•O * *j lO'f v v / S i »vvty C_A— nXy poc/V T B~f cWf€'*i 5ic"r ^

^ — fPBOJFPT NO_! —————————— /-uj.nraTU o.-rr- .,r-

DATE BEGAN: ————————— —— __ «.. -nrOTH n*TF AHIFDATE COMPLETED: —————— .... . „. noniiMr uprunn-HELD GEOLOGI!CHECKED BY: -

?T*

'

SCS SYMBOL

D

REMARKS

NOTES:

RR32U8U9BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupAffwMrfUKCixpwMiM i J-A i j I ^a

V

* 1

LOG OF BORING NO. LS'2S•

*— *

PRO*DATEDATERELCCHEC

i• P 1 .*J "*

•• H

v* hfl

^ * |HB

i!BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS Z

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

&cc0.

COORDINATES

N F

c •; %

DESCRIPTION

^~) V* "*

10")

•

IECT NO.: ————————————— cw-nFP-m nA-rr/nue'BEGAN: ————————— I ——— CWjDEPTH DATE/HME _., _.COMPLETED: ———————————— ORR1INQ UFTHOD: .

1 GFOLOGJST-XED BY: -

H LJ "J -J 1. W fcflr-iaa n-.^^-rww^

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

NOTES:

BORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond GroupAKnoionolMSCoraonaon « — -<\

7 Z ' /LOG OF BORING NO. 2 ^ ~^ ^3

t/ is R TSEBLOWS P

6-INCH

INCREMEN PLE Y

SRECO

COORDINATES

SURFACE EL:

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-3-

SPROJECT NO.: ffc*ftfrf5f-P———— CVi/L: DEpTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:———2/«/oo—;———— Q^^pgp^____DATE/TIME ________ JnlUr.DATE COMPLETED: *!*#&>———— DRILLING METHOD: °FIELD GEOLOGIST:—!CHECKED BY: —U

F-188 BORING NO.

7/7CIV-C Diamond GroupA Qrvuiofl of URS Carp&tton

LOG OF BORING NO. &S Z"j"

UJu.


gp

^ - ——————————————————

3°

VI 0 51

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

PROFILE

COORDINATES

M F

0

^b ; y3

DESCRIPTION

°M r

TV A hi**- e/ -T^MX-q ftui.1 '

Lf X /C\»yy S/uT - ^

ECT NO.: ————————————— CM -nrPiw nATF/nuFBEGAN- ———————————————— .^ __ . gw. . npPTM DATF /T1LIF

COMPLETED: ——————————— CURLING MFTHOD: ,,GEOLOGIST- __KED BY: -

F-iaa

!• '-

1

SCS SYMBOL

D

REMARKS

NOTES:

AR32^f852SORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond Group <-* i i iA OMXHMI of URS Coiportoon r~~ s> ,_ I I II i €-| «1 I—

LOG OF BORING NO. £?5~2-^P ^j

• 1

uu.

PROJDATEDATEFIELCCHEC

11

LIS:

O'ujP~

3LOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS z

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

PROFILE

COORDINATES

M F

SURFACF FI ; ,

DESCRIPTION

i^fy1 I \y_____ ——————— - —— — " ; / i

ECT NO.: ——————————————— CWUDEPTH DATE/TIME ,., .... .flFfiAN- _ .. ., nu-nronj niTF fnnfCOMPLE1GEOLOGIKED BY:

fED: ———————————— DRILLING METHOD: - -ST- ...._,„. ,_ . ,,.

USCS

SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

* 03? U853

F—I8fl onpiwr. wn

APPENDIX B.2

PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERIN-SITU TEST RORINB RESULTS

AR32l*85l*

U- 4DIAMETER

PVC PROTECTIVE

1" CAP

GRADE

MORTAR SAND

1" SCHEDULE 40 BLANK PVCFIELD LENGTH ADJUSTED

MINIMUM OF 1.5' OF BENTONITE SEAL

FLUSH THREADED COUPLING

FILTER PACK TO 2' ABOVE SCREEN- FIRST CONTROL WELL FILTER PACK

IS SOIL CUTTINGS- SECOND CONTROL WELL FILTER PACK

IS MORTAR SAND- TREATMENT WELL FILTER PACK ISIRON/GYPSUM/SAND/MAGNESIUMCARBONATE MIXTURE

5' LENGTH SLOTTED SCREEN

END CAP WITH SUMP/SEDIMENT TRAP

.nT?U«55

Corporate Remediation GroupAn AUianct b«tw**n

ZhiPont and 77l» URS Diamond

Barley Mill Plaza. Building 27Wilmington, Delaware 19805

PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERTEST BORING

DuPont Newport FacilityNewport South Landfill

Newport, DelawaresouDffll

6/27/00

OOHHED

fvmtuWRK

WMMDEL

wnaviD

CM fU NO.7105AOO1

neuKB.4

Table B.1Simulated Wall Life Calculations

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field TestsNewport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware

Case

Unit Wall Life Calculations .Current Conditions (31 of soil)

Asphalt (4") and Stone (8")

Soil (18") and Bentomat

Soil (18"), Drainage Layer, HOPE,and Basin Road

*.-.„ ;>~''-' i+t%li;r7inr""1"i-L9* lW<''§'#lf|; ii?f>w-;,:,!i,-H .-,.. (-i- £-\\Kj- I ;-, £-1 OfFl ij'V-"- #'•*••?<*•

Current Conditions (31 of soil)




;• -, 1 Ban" urr 1", 2f ii M ;Current Conditions (3* of soil)




*$*',"'S ' f P*1' 'UJfJ '."HiJsTS ^ KS S !

Current Conditions (3* of soil)




Cumulative FieldTest Flow(Liters) . ,

,--. '>••, ., \.<- •-••. • • ' " '1

1

1

1

"4V '--"-'S ^-f i'-: "*£••*'

265

265

265

265

ilit> W£209

209

209

209

s ii fesi S&JifeSfS fe ^ "* t &i!? ^ SP*S|W ^ ls •91.5

91,5

91.5

91.5

.Case,Wajl RUK,'"''•'.- ' ;«," J-'- 1 ' >'"' '

(cmA3/cmA2/day)-'-' "S'- '<4:&

1.24

0.0207

0.00413

0.00064

1.24

0.0207

0.00413

0.00064

1.24

0.0207

0.00413

0.00064

&V**, . jfl ^ t -Sg Tfeaj BMfej fcfe$ ^ | ^ ^ SR

1.24

0.0207

0.00413

0.00064

i^z : Simulated Wall Life lil

.••,.;'.:.;;.,'-\'(Years)->:u-.A.<;-iA.", v.>'** -:\:;'=--;s*is""-V ;;-s?,; ?' > 'yt*;- IL ':-

0.000303 (0.11 days)

0.01 8 (6.62 days)

0.091 (33.2 days)

0.587 (214 days)

0.080 (29.3 days)

4.8

24.1

155

0.063 (23.0 days)

4

19

122

fflgjfrffi j*'!' u f 'u - ui tt i ij y9wBWw i C ^ w!8S8BB?IS

0.028 (10.2 days)

2

48

54

The derivation of the wall life calculation is shown on the next page.

Table B.1 *Simulated Wall Life Calculations f

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests |Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware

Simulated wall life (Ttf) is derived from the equalityx, = x,

in which X is the horizontal distance that groundwater travels through the in-situ test material(denoted by subscript /) or the permeable reactive barrier (denoted by subscript w). Thedistance terms can be separated in order to isolate the simulated wall life:

in which ris total time of either the in-situ test or the simulated wall life in years, Vfa is the flowrate of the in-situ test in l_/d, At is the test flux area in cm2, and qw is the case wall flux incm3/cm2/day.

Because the volume for the in-situ test are taken from the total time of the test, the time unit /,is the same as the total time and so cancels 7). Solving for the wall life then gives the equation(with conversion factors):

The total volume of the in-situ test determines the simulated wall life because the other twoterms are constants. The case wall flux is a constant for the cap condition being simulated.The test flux area is a cylinder with a length equal to the screened length of the well and aradius at the mid-point between the well screen and the bore hole radius. The ends of thecylinder are assumed to be impermeable and therefore not to contribute to the flux area. Thusthe area is

A, =

RR32U857

Table B.2Z-1 : Zinc-rich control well backfilled with soil cuttings

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware"Zinc-1" Treatment

Well

•a meters

ra0-•D4)LL

"raoh-

Dissolved

pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickel3otassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mV[amhoNTUmg/L°C

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

13-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)174374106

ND (0.00012)6.0

ND (0.53)174

ND(1)ND (0.0320)NO (0.0600)

0.032 J12.5

ND (0.0036)68.3

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)

0.005 J219

ND (0.0300)24.931.1

ND (0.0084)3.8215.3

0.0061 J0.139

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

12.0ND (0.0036)

66.6ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)

0.0032 J210

ND (0.0300)24.130.1

ND (0.0084)3.7114.9

0.0049 J0.107

15-Dec-OO

-27.8

126

ND (0.01 90)13.1

0.0042 J68.3

0.0048 J205

ND (0.0300)25.032.2

ND (0.0084)3.9716.2

0.123

0.0501 J12.3

ND (0.0036)62.7

ND (0.0027)198

ND (0.0300)23.0

. 29.8ND (0.0084)

- 3.7815.2

0.0750

18-Dec-OO

-46.5

60

0.082412.4

ND (0.0036)66.6

0.0035 J219

ND (0.0300)24.531-3

ND (0.0084)3.9815.8

0 0857

ND (0.01 90)12.6

ND (0.0036)66.3

ND (0.0027)214

ND (0.0300)24.532.1

ND (0.0084)3.9715.8

0.0857

20- Dec-00

6.4

0.15600

9.41ND (0.37)

16036094

ND (0.0001 2)ND (7.5)

5.1

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0914 J12.6

ND (0.0036)66.3

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

222ND (0.0300)

25.131.5

ND (0.0084)4.0815.9

ND (0.0026)0.0814

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0457 J12.5

ND (0.0036)65.7

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

221ND (0.0300)

24.830.7

ND (0.0084)4.0415.7

ND (0.0026)0.0432

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

&R32U858

Table B.2Z-1 : Zinc-rich control well backfilled with soil cuttings

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware"Zinc-1" Treatment

Welle£oEran0.TJ<UU_

~m"o1-

•ooo(A<Ab

pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVpmhoNTUmg/L°C


1 -Dec-00

94

12.7ND (0.0036)

70.3

0.0056 J206

0.0595 J27.232.9

ND (0.0084)

0.220

- 12.0ND (0.0036)

- 69.8

ND (0.0027). :. .. 204ND (0.0300)

27.032.4

ND (0.0084)

0.118

4-Dec-OO

90

12.6ND (0.0036)

75.0

ND (0.0027)2230.03 J26.533.1

ND (0.0084)

0.108

12.9ND (0.0036)

• - 77.4

ND (0.0027)225

ND (0.0300)27.334.0

ND (0.0084)

0.0991

6-Dec-OO

6.37

0.181.50

10.5ND (0.37)

15141094

ND (0.00005)ND(3)

ND (0.53)151

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

13.6ND (0.0036)

68.7ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)

0.0047 J216

0.0481 J26.033.7

ND (0.0084)4.0216.4

0.0042 J0.139

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

13.1ND (0.0036)

. 68.8ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

213ND (0.0300)

25.633.6

0.0294 J3.8716.0

0.0041 J0.0714

8- Dec-00

86

12.2ND (0.0036)

66.8

ND (0.0027)191

ND (0.0300)24.830.0

ND (0.0084)

0.250

11.4ND (0.0036)

65.4

ND (0.0027)181

ND (0.0300)24.329.5

ND (0.0084)

0.206

12-Dec-OO

6.21

0.1740

12.3

72

0.0822 J12.4

ND (0.0036)63.8

ND (0.0027)202

ND (0.0300)23.731.9

ND (0.0084)3.7915.6

0.152

0.0486 J12.4

ND (0.0036)64.3

ND (0.0027)201

ND (0.0300)23.732.3

ND (0.0084)3.8515.8

0. 40

Analyte not detected atNDlconcentration shown

Result was between theJ MDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

J

IIAR32«*859 fl

Table B.3Z-2 : Zinc-rich control well backfilled with mason sand

Permeable Reactive Barrier Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware"Zinc-2" Treatment

Wellu>ooEramCL•o0)U.

"raoH

TJU>

"oWinb


Units

mVj_imhoNTUmg/L°C


1 -Dec-00

201

3.45ND (0.0036)

152

0.0112 J30.7

0.0965 J19.01 1 .6

ND (0.0084)

0.334

1.18ND (0.0036)

152

ND (0.0027), 35.8

ND (0.0300)19.512.6

ND (0.0084)

0.263

4-Dec-OO

6.55

0.1500

13.2

55

3.26ND (0.0036)

119

ND (0.0027)76.1

ND (0.0300)18.817.9

ND (0.0084)

0.416

3.54ND (0.0036)

120

ND (0.0027)78.6

ND (0.0300)19.218.6

ND (0.0084)

0.412

6- Dec-00

6.7

0.14007.2ND (0.37)

20024796

ND (0.001 2)38.0

ND (0.53)200

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

5.44ND (0.0036)

99.5ND (0.0066)

0.0347 J0.0038 J90.2

ND (0.0300)18.519.6

ND (0.0084)7.2447.7

ND (0.0026)0.500

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

5.17ND (0.0036)

100ND (0.0066)

0.0334 JND (0.0027)

92.6ND (0.0300)

18.920.2

ND (0.0084)7.3045.4

ND (0.0026)0.497

8-Dec-OO

61

6.02ND (0.0036)

91.2

ND (0.0027)97.3

ND (0.0300)18.817.5

ND (0.0084)

0.425

6.60ND (0.0036)

90.6

ND (0.0027)88.6

ND (0.0300)18.116.9

ND (0.0084)

0.402

12-Dec-OO

6.56

0.1370.20

9.96

89

0.0324 J6.96

ND (0.0036)94.3

ND (0.0027)96.4

ND (0.0300)18.018.5

ND (0.0084)7.1738.7

0.441

0.0336 J6.30

ND (0.0036)91.2

ND (0.0027)82.8

ND (0.0300)16.517.5

ND (0.0084)6.9436.4

0.402

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D: Viiek AR32i*860

Table B.3Z-2 : Zinc-rich control well backfilled with mason sand

Permeable Reactive Barrier Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware"Zinc-2" Treatment

WellS.0)EraraQ.201LL

"rao

-o0)

"oU)(Ab

PHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVurn hoNTUmg/L°C


13-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)193230107

ND (0.001 2)15.5

ND (0.53)193

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

6.84ND (0.0036)

91.1ND (0.0066)

0.0230 JND (0.0027)

95.3ND (0.0300)

17.017.5

ND (0.0084)6.9233.2

0.0032 J0.393

ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

6.85ND (0.0036)

88.8ND (0.0066)

0.0220 JND (0.0027)

96.0ND (0.0300)

16.917.4

ND (0.0084)6.8233.8

0.0031 J0.395

1 5-Dec-OO

-36.7

111

ND (0.01 90)6.81

ND (0.0036)80.5

ND (0.0027)95.9

ND (0.0300)16.116.8

ND (0.0084)6.5333.3

0.400

0.0279 J6.87

ND (0.0036)78.7

ND (0.0027)96.7

ND (0.0300)15.716.0

ND (0.0084)6.3931.8

0.391

18-Dec-OO

-47.5

154

0.0546 J3.88

ND (0.0036)80.9

0.0027 J60.5

ND (0.0300)12.613.7

ND (0.0084)7.1434.7

0.477

ND (0.01 90)3.86

ND (0.0036)75.7

0.0027 J59.9

ND (0.0300)12.213.1

ND (0.0084)6.8034.4

0.368

20-Dec-OO

6.47

0.120.60

7.21ND (0.37)

15921094

ND (0.001 2)ND (7.5)ND(1.1)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

' 0.0565 J5.4

ND (0.0036)84.6

ND (0.0066)0.0204 J

ND (0.0027)82.1

ND (0.0300)15.716.4

ND (0.0084)7.0630.9

ND (0.0026)0.556

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0459 J6.74

ND (0.0036)90.1

ND (0.0066)0.0204 J

ND (0.0027)97.0

ND (0.0300)16.916.9

ND (0.0084)6.9033.2

ND (0.0026)0.536

... Analyte not detected atND concentration shown

Result was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

'1

J«R32li86l

Table B.4Z-3 : Zinc-rich PRB material well (5 wt. parts MgCO3)

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport Delaware"Zinc-3" Treatment

Welltao0Erara0_T)0)U_

2"o1-

•oID

"5winb

PHRed oxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperironLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVu,m hoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lrng/Lrng/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lrng/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

1 -Dec-00

137

1.56ND (0.0036)

395

ND (0.0027)11.2

0.0455 J2,0801.60

ND (0.0084)

0.180

:,. 0.0780 JND (0.0036)

402

ND (0.0027)5.49

ND (0.0300)2,2601.24

ND (0.0084)

0.0141 J

4-Dec-OO

8.95

100

11.6

14

0.135ND (0.0036)

460

ND (0.0027)3.93

ND (0.0300)1,9560.607

ND (0.0084)

ND (0.0086)

0.0285 JND (0.0036)

466

ND (0.0027)1.28

ND (0.0300)1,9500.689

ND (0.0084)

ND (0.0086)

6-Dec-OO

1617722310 J

ND (0.00012)7,500

ND (0.53)14532.1

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.426ND (0.0036)

414ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

4.19ND (0.0300)

1.8600.693

ND (0.0084)9.3256.4

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00005)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0489 JND (0.0036)

414ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

3.06ND (0.0300)

1,8300.659

ND (0.0084)9.0552.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

8-Dec-OO

9.21

0.9006

8.4 J

0.225ND (0.0036)

393

ND (0.0027)4.86

ND (0.0300)1,4600.688

ND (0.0084)

0.0265

0.0532 JND (0.0036)

403

ND (0.0027)1.84

ND (0.0300)1,4800.754

ND (0.0084)

ND (0.0086)

12-Dec-OO

8.68

0.8432.60

8.78

19

0.0483 J0.0624 J

ND (0.0036)380

ND (0.0027)6.24

ND (0.0300)1,6100.725

ND (0.0084)7.6548.9

ND (0.0086)

0.0428 J0.106

ND (0.0036)373

ND (0.0027)6.29

ND (0.0300)1,6100.820

ND (0.0084)7.5546.1

ND (0.0086)

ND

J

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the POLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

Table B.4Z-3 : Zinc-rich PRB material well (5 wt. parts MgC03)

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport Delaware"Zinc-3" Treatment

WellU)ooErara0.•aa>u.

2"5i-

TJO

"5IOtob

pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8. 3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsen|cSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVu.mh.0NTUmg/L°C


1 3-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)21819915

ND (0.00012)6,500

ND (0.53)218

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0 190)

0.0631 JND (0.0036)

397ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

6.43ND (0.0300)

1,4800.745

ND (0.0084)7.0241.8

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

1 ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.0430 JND (0.0036)

400ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

5.36ND (0.0300)

1,4900.771

ND (0.0084)7.0443.0

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

15-Dec-OO

-175.5

21

ND {0.01 90)0.0358 J

ND (0.0036)399

ND (0.0027)7.83

ND (0.0300)1,1700.871

ND (0.0084)6.0440.1

0.0122 J

0.0293 J0.0253 J

ND (0.0036)365

ND (0.0027)6.16

ND (0.0300)1,1300.802

ND (0.0084)5.8737.4

ND (0.0086)

18-Dec-OO

-190.1

201

ND (0.01 90)0.0645 J

ND (0.0036)420

ND (0.0027)2.6

ND (0.0300)1,6600.430

ND (0.0084)7.1434.7

ND (0.0086)

ND (0.01 90)0.0171 J

ND (0.0036)410

ND (0.0027)2.48

ND (0.0300)1,6300.527

ND (0.0084)7.6845.5

ND (0.0086)

20-Dec-OO

7.218725040

0.00012 J7,100

ND (0.53)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0561 J0.0251 J

ND (0.0036)365

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

4.64ND (0.0300)

1,7200.472

ND (0.0084)6.8232.3

ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.069 J0.0163 J

ND (0.0036)393

ND (0.0027)3.2

ND (0.0300)1,6200.500

ND (0.0084)6.8534.0

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atND concentration shown

Result was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D, Vitek

AR32t*863

Table B.5B-1 : Barium-rich control well backfilled with soil cuttings

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport. Delaware"Barium-1"

Treatment Well£0)E2CDD_

"o>LL

—o1-

4)

"5inina

PHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8. 3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIron ;LeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mV(am hoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

1 -Dec-00 4-Dec-OO 6-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)10936.08.0 J

ND (0.00005)17.0

ND (0.53)109

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.184ND (0.0036)

34.2ND (0.0066)

0.0106 JND (0.0027)

2.61ND (0.0300)

10.510.2

ND (0.0084)3.1321.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00005)ND (0.0320)

0.160ND (0.0036). • - - 30.7ND (0.0066)

0.0091 JND (0.0027)

1.93ND (0.0300)

9.339.80

ND (0.0084)2.7219.9

ND (0.0026)0.0088 J

8-Dec-OO

5.98

41.41.21.8411.95

6.8 J

0.269ND (0.0036)

31.7

ND (0.0027)2.92

ND (0.0300)9.478.62

ND (0.0084)

0.0142 J

1.09ND (0.0036)

33.5

ND (0.0027)7.23

ND (0.0300)10.39.95

ND (0.0084)

0.0317

12-Dec-OO

5.2 J

0.0199 J0.179

ND (0.0036)31.1

ND (0.0027)2.55

ND (0.0300)8.828.60

ND (0.0084)2.8321.1

0.0094 J

0.0320 J0.185

ND (0.0036)33.6

ND (0.0027)2:61

ND (0.0300)9.249.00

ND (0.0084)2.9722.2

0.0150 J

ND

J

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vifek

Table B.5B-1 : Barium-rich control well backfilled with soil cuttings

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware"Barium-1"

Treatment Well«5joEraraQ.T30)LL

"ra"oH

T30)>Ommb


Units

mVLimhoNTUmg/L°C

"mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

13-Dec-OO

6.73

4.422.70

7.2ND (0.37)

11142.0

ND(4.1)ND (0.0001 2)

15.2ND (0.53)

111ND(1)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.180ND (0.0036)

34.4ND (0.0066)

0.0088 JND (0.0027)

2.65ND (0.0300)

9.699.05

ND (0.0084)3.0122.1

ND (0.0026)0.0123 J

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.177ND (0.0036)

34.2ND (0.0066)

0.0086 JND (0.0027)

2.47ND (0.0300)

9.588.94

ND (0.0084)2.9721.9

ND (0.0026)0.0112 J

15-Dec-OO

126.6

ND (4.1)

ND (0.01 90)0.185

ND (0.0036)33.4

0.0035 J2.62

ND (0.0300)9.199.14

ND (0.0084)3.0422.6

0.0163 J

ND (0.01 90)0.189 .

ND (0.0036)34.2

ND (0.0027)2.63

ND (0.0300)9.479.28

ND (0.0084)3.0122.7

0.0112 J

18-Dec-OO

12.5

6.0 J

0.0448 J0.189

ND (0.0036)33.9

ND (0.0027)2.65

ND (0.0300)9.458.80

ND (0.0084)3.1324.2

ND (0.0086)

ND (0.0 190)0.194

ND (0.0036)35.1

ND (0.0027)2.54

ND (0.0300)9.929.24

ND (0.0084)3.2624.8

ND (0.0086)

20-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)11639.6

ND(4.1)ND (0.0001 2)

14.5ND (0.53)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0540 J0.195

ND (0.0036)33.9

ND (0.0066)0.0080 J

ND (0.0027)2.85

ND (0.0300)9.488.56

ND (0.0084)3.2224.2

ND (0.0026)0.0234 J

ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0483 J0.214

ND (0.0036)36.8

ND (0.0066)0.0078 J

ND (0.0027)2.87

ND (0.0300)9.949.58

ND (0.0084)3.2125.7

ND (0.0026)0.0119 J

.Analyte not detected at^concentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

RR32U868

Table B.6B-2 : Barium-rich control well backfilled with mason sand

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field Tests, Newport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware

u>S"53ECDroQ,•o0)LL

"ra"oK

TJeo5(AIOb

"Barium-2"Treatment Well

PHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickel3otassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mV[amhoNTUmg/L°C


1 -Dec-00 4-Dec-OO 6-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)1452765

ND (0.00005)20.8

ND (0.53)145

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

4.63ND (0.0036)

44.5ND (0.0066)

0.0092 JND (0.0027)

1.74ND (0.0300)

9.405.62

ND (0.0084)6.1020.2

ND (0.0026)0.0158 J

ND (0.00005)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

4.56ND (0.0036)

44.1ND (0.0066)

0.0083 JND (0.0027)

1.04ND (0.0300)

9.435.53

ND (0.0084)6.2120.1

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

8- Dec-00

6.93

40.160

11.21

93

8.61ND (0.0036)

37.4

0.0120 J44.4

0.03908.745.62

0.0139 J

0.0985

5.54ND (0.0036)

43.5

ND (0.0027)1.72

ND (0.0300)9.556.25

ND (0.0084)

0.0215 J

12-Dec-OO

ND(4.1)

0.0327 J7.50

ND (0.0036)32.6

ND (0.0027)2.10

ND (0.0300)7.255.58

ND (0.0084)5.2018.9

ND (0.0086)

0.0201 J723

ND (0.0036)33.1

ND (0.0027)2.01

ND (0.0300)7.325.58

ND (0.0084)5.1218.4

ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek AR32l*866

<n5"55E2<D0.2LL

"(D"oh-

TJ0)

"ow>Mb


PHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVumhoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

13-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)11433

10.0 JND (0.00012)

8.7ND (0.53)

114ND(1)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0345 J7.50

ND (0.0036)33.3

ND (0.0066)0.0141 J

ND (0.0027)2.52

ND (0.0300)7.355.66

ND (0.0084)5.0818.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

7.34ND (0.0036)

33.0ND (0.0066)

0.0141 JND (0.0027)

2.45ND (0.0300)

7.355.64

ND (0.0084)5.0018.0

ND (0.0026)0.0095 J

15-Dec-OO

6.8244.238.80.10

9.37

8.8 J

0.0506 J5.59

ND (0.0036)31.8

ND (0.0027)3.17

ND (0.0300)7.506.32

ND (0,0084)4,6919.8

0.0126 J

ND (0.01 90)6.30

ND (0.0036)32.2

ND (0.0027)3.08

ND (0.0300)7.666.27

ND (0.0084)4.8220.2

ND (0.0086)

1 8-Dec-OO

9.4

14.0

0.047 J4.31

ND (0.0036)33.7

ND (0.0027)3.61

ND (0.0300)8.856.49

ND (0.0084)4.3220.8

ND (0.0086)

ND (0.0190)5.71

ND (0.0036)33.0

ND (0.0027)3.64

ND (0.0300)8.526.29

ND (0.0084)4.4320.4

ND (0.0086)

20-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)11225.49.6 J

ND (0.0001 2)18.3

ND (0.53)112

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0376 J4.93

ND (0.0036)32.8

ND (0.0066)0.0190 J

ND (0.0027)5.31

ND (0.0300)8.455.46

ND (0.0084)4.2020.2

ND (0.0026)0.0147 J

ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0402 J5.82

ND (0.0036)34.4

ND (0.0066)0.0202 J

' ND (0.0027)5.56

ND (0.0300)8.505.96

ND (0.0084)4.1220.8

ND (0.0026)0.0092 J

3-Jan-01 12:00Bottom

ND (0.37)11623.6410

ND (0.0001 2)6.7 J

ND (0.53)116

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.4104.80

ND (0.0036)31.0

ND (0.0066)0.0181 J

ND (0.0027)7.78

ND (0.0300)7.564.16

ND (0.0084)2.9016.5

ND (0.0026)0.0090 J

ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

4.35ND (0.0036)

30.0ND (0.0066)

0.0167 JND (0.0027)

6.97ND (0.0300)

7.394.05

ND (0.0084)2.8716.5

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek HR32U867



(0jjj"SiE2TOD_TJ

ii

_o1-

T30)

"oinb


pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperionLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickel3otassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVurnhoNTUmg/L°C



ND (0.37)11124.61,070

ND (0.00012)ND(15)

ND (0.53)111

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.3504.36

ND (0.0036)29.8

ND (0.0066)0.0160 J

ND (0.0027)7.70

ND (0.0300)7.323.92

ND (0.0084)3.1417.2

ND (0.0026)0.0090 J

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

4.28ND (0.0036)

30.0ND (0.0066)

0.0156 JND (0.0027)

6.70ND (0.0300)

7.363.95

ND (0.0084)3.1117.1

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

3-Jan-01 12:00Top

J

ND (0.37)12320.9194

ND(0.00012)8.9 J

ND (0.53)123

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

2.325.23

ND (0.0036)30.6

ND (0.0066)0.0175 J

ND (0.0027)10.5

ND (0.0300)7.544.06

ND (0.0084)2.9516.6

0.0029 J0.0103 J

ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

4.37ND (0.0036)

30.2ND (0.0066)

0.0163 JND (0.0027)

7.15ND (0.0300)

7.404.04

ND (0.0084)3.0216.5

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

3-Jan-01 15:00Top

%

ND (0.37)11325.215

ND (0.00012)12.4

ND (0.53)113

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0608 J4.34

ND (0.0036)29.2

ND (0.0066)0,0157 J

ND (0.0027)7.23

ND (0.0300)7.203.85

ND (0.0084)3.0916.8

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

4.26ND (0.0036)

29.7ND (0.0066)

0.0155 JND (0.0027)

6.73ND (0.0300)

7.263.89

ND (0.0084)3.1616.1

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

11-Jan-01

ND (0.37)1022665

ND (0.00012)9.0

ND (0.53)102

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

2.595.44

ND (0.0036)27.7

ND (0.0066)0.0160 J

ND (0.0027)12.4

ND (0.0300)6.923.39

ND (0.0084)3.0816.5

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0 190)

3.85ND (0.0036)

29.3ND (0.0066)

0.0145 JND (0.0027)

7.94ND (0.0300)

6.823.57

ND (0.0084)3.1416.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

12-Jan-01

ND (0.37)1072815

ND (0.00012)8.9

ND (0.53)107

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.4874.60

ND (0.0036)25.9

ND (0.0066)0.0151 J

ND (0.0027)9.94

ND (0.0300)6.523.16

ND (0.0084)3.1617.4

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0290 J4.36

ND (0.0036)25.4

ND (0.0066)0.0136 J

ND (0.0027)8.38

ND (0.0300)6.383.18

ND (0.0084)3.1816.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDLandthePQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

&R32U868

oEraa.TJ<ULL

15"o1-

TJ

OIO•Ob

"Barium- 2"Treatment Well

pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIron_eadMagnesiumManganeseNickel3otassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVjamhoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

12- Jan-01

ND (0.37)11227.115

ND (0.00012)8.9

ND (0.53)107

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.4874.60

ND (0.0036)25.9

ND (0.0066)0.0151 J

ND (0.0027)9.94

ND (0.0300)6.523.16

ND (0.0084)3.1617.4

ND (0.0026) ,ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0290 J4.36

ND (0.0036)25.4

ND (0.0066)0.0136 J

ND (0.0027)8.38

ND (0.0300)6.383.18

ND (0.0084)3.1816.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

15-Jan-01

ND (0.37)11227.119

ND (0.0001 2)9.6

ND (0.53)112

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

1.145.34

ND (0.0036)29.3

ND (0.0066)0.0160 J

ND (0.0027)10.5

ND (0.0300)7.053.43

ND (0.0084)2.7916.9

ND (0.0026)0.0175 J

ND (0.0001 2) .ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

4.00ND (0.0036)

27.2ND (0.0066)

0.0141 JND (0.0027)

7.98ND (0.0300)

6.753.49

ND (0.0084)3.1817.0

ND (0.0026)0.0095 J

ND

J

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

ii

Table B.7B-3 : Barium-rich PRB material well (5 wt. parts MgCOS)


u>S"wEraraD_T>d>U_

"ra"ot-


PHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperironLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVumhoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L,mg/L,mg/Lmg/Lmg/L

:- mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

; ,.mg/Lmg/L

^mg/L;mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

1 -Dec-00 4-Dec-OO

-

6-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)12072295

0.00011 J2,150

ND (0.53)120

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

4.420.0113

3300.0295 J0.0421 J0.13783.01.254133.71

0.0248 J3.0937.4

0.07391.19

ND (0.00005)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.107ND (0.0036)

325ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

5.60ND (0.0300)

4191.97

ND (0.0084)2.0739.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

8- Dec-00

7.7

0.310.20

5.08

435

6.500.0071 J

269

0.081648.30.6581833.72

0.0183 J

0.852

0.107ND (0.0036)

252

ND (0.0027)6.05

ND (0.0300)2321.85

ND (0.0084)

ND (0.0086)

12-Dec-OO

17

0.0711 J0.263

ND (0.0036)229

ND (0.0027)8.06

ND (0.0300)1881.84

ND (0.0084)1.6735.8

ND (0.0084)

0.0287 J0.275

ND (0.0036)241

ND (0.0027)8.67

ND (0.0300)1902.00

ND (0.0084)1.7837.6

ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between the MDL andthe PQLTables prepared by W. R. Kahl,checked by D. Vitek

Table B.7B-3 : Barium-rich PRB material well (5 wt. parts MgC03)


e0)0)Etoco0_T>Vb_

2oH


PHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVumhoNTUmg/L°C


13-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)13169.017

ND (0.0001 2)850

ND (0.53)131

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0846 J0.302

ND (0.0036)206

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

9.09ND (0.0300)

1291.87

ND (0.0084)1.6736.2

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0,00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.230ND (0.0036)

221ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

8.85ND (0.0300)

1421.96

ND (0.0084)1.6736.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

15-Dec-OO

7.575.70.1800

8.77

16

ND (0.0 190)0.235

ND (0.0036)189

ND (0.0027)9.27

ND (0.0300)1051.93

ND (0.0084)1.6935.5

0.0228 J

ND (0.01 90)0.431

ND (0.0036)194

ND (0.0027)9.56

ND (0.0300)1112.02

ND (0.0084)1.7535.7

ND (0.0086)

18-Dec-OO

-20.4

34

0.195 J0.459

ND (0.0036)167

ND (0.0027)10.6

ND (0.0300)67.72.2

ND (0.0084)1.8637.1

ND (0.0086)

ND (0.0190)0.362

ND (0.0036)157

ND (0.0027)9.63

ND (0.0300)69.61.98

ND (0.0084)1.8

37.2

ND (0.0086)

20-Dec-OO

ND (0.37)12872.050

ND (0.0001 2)440

ND (0.53)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

1.970.936

ND (0.0036)132

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

11.9ND (0.0300)

62.21.65

ND (0.0084)1.6433.5

ND (0.0026)0.0248 J

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0582 J0.582

ND (0.0036)157

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

9.63ND (0.0300)

70.01.92

ND (0.0084)1.6636.6

ND (0.0026)0.0101 J


ND (0.37)13245.760

ND (0.0001 2)245

ND (0.53)132

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.5821.39

ND (0.0036)100

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

12.0ND (0.0300)

32.81.46

ND (0.0084)1.3531.8

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.637ND (0.0036)

103ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

10.9ND (0.0300)

35.71.42

ND (0.0084)1.2831.7

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between the MDL andthe PQLTables prepared by W. R. Kahl,checked by D. Vitek

Table B.7B-3 : Barium-rich PRB material well (5 wt. parts MgCO3)


tn0)"SErara0.T)<uLL

_o1-



Units

mV^mhoNTUmg/L°C



ND (0.37)13046.415

ND (0.00012)336

ND (0.53)130

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.687ND (0.0036)

114ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

11.0ND (0.0300)

41.91.46

ND (0.0084)1.2831.3

ND (0.0026)0.457

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.637ND (0.0036)

120ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

11.0ND (0.0300)

43,21.50

ND (0.0084)1.2831.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

3-Jan-01 12:00Top

ND (0.37)13247.624

ND (0.00012)250

ND (0.53)132

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.661ND (0.0036)

106ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

11.1ND (0.0300)

34.71.45

ND (0.0084)1.2931.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

; 0.685 .ND (0.0036)

105ND (0.0066)

- ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

10.8ND (0.0300)

37.11.43

ND (0.0084)1.2631.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

3-Jan-01 15:00Top

ND (0.37)13343.017

ND (0.00012)323

ND (0.53)133

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.673ND (0.0036)

123ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

11.1ND (0.0300)

41.31.46

ND (0.0084)1.2631.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.625ND (0.0036)

124ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

10.7ND (0.0300)

41.01.46

ND (0.0084)1.3531.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

9-Jan-01

ND (0.37)12846.2183

ND (0.0001 2)2882.4 J128

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

13.46.82

ND (0.0036)105

0.0172 J0.0132 J0.035239.20.27634.71.46

0.0109 J1.9630.4

0.02690.255

ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0 190)

0.373ND (0.0036)

109ND (0.0066);ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

11.6ND (0.0300)

34.71.32

ND (0.0084)1.4931.3

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

11 -Jan-01

ND (0.37)1215424

ND (0.0001 2)230

ND (0.53)121

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.188 J0.894

ND (0.0036)92.9

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

12.6ND (0.0300)

25.31.32

ND (0.0084)1.3831.2

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.627ND (0.0036)

99.4ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

11.3ND (0.0300)

29.61.26

ND (0.0084)1.3230.7

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atND concentration shown

Result was between the MDL andthe PQLTables prepared by W. R. Kahl,checked by D. Vitek

RR32l*872

Table B.7B-3 : Barium-rich PRB material well (5 wt. parts MgCO3)


OT

3"SEra(00.32ii

2ol-


PHRed oxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVumhoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

12-Jan-01

ND (0.37)1294522

ND (0.00012)238

ND (0.53)129

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.2440.974

ND (0.0036)92.0

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

13.9ND (0.0300)

25.51.37

ND (0.0084)1.3530.1

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0318 J0.658 -

ND (0.0036)97.6

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

13.1ND (0.0300)

28.91.28

ND (0.0084)1.3731.2

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

15-Jan-01

ND (0.37)1423827

ND (0.00012)211

ND (0.53)142

ND(1)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

1.843.48

ND (0.0036)90.9

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)

0.0052 J17.3

0.049123.01.38

ND (0.0084)1.4931.0

0.0033 J0.0539

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.649ND (0.0036)

99.6ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

12.4ND (0.0300)

27.51.27

ND (0.0084)1.3230.0

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between the MDL andthe PQLTables prepared by W. R. Kahl,checked by D. Vitek AR32l*873

Table B.8B-4 : Barium-rich PRB material well (5 wt. parts MgCO3), Rotosonic installed


inS"Se«(0D_T3Q)LL

5tjh-

TJ0>

"oin<nb


pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickel3otassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVjirn hoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

-,

11-Jan-01

39.81627826

ND (0.0001 2)6,1001.2 J

82.979.6

0.0322 JND (0.0600)

33.21.08

0.0283800

0.0296 J0.0147 J0.21230.61.491,4001.12

0.0182 J6.8234.1

0.03982.99

ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.0756 JND (0.0036)

454ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0620 JND (0.0300)

1,4100.370

ND (0.0084)5.3233.8

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

12-Jan-01

41.11537129

ND (0.0001 2)7,200

ND (0.53)70.782.1

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.3560.268

ND (0.0036)393

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.517ND (0.0300)

1,4700.343

ND (0.0084)5.2635.7

ND (0.0026)0.0168 J

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0666 J- 0.0748 J

ND (0.0036)393

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0903 JND (0.0300)

1,4400.332

ND (0.0084)5.0534.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

15- Jan-01

33.212149

ND(4.1)ND (0.0001 2)

5,600ND (0.53)

54.666.5

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.850 J0.0826 J

ND (0.0036)418

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.242ND (0.0300)

1,0700.248

ND (0.0084)3.9132.2

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0445 J0.0584 J

ND (0.0036)448

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.1030ND (0.0300)

1,1200.259

ND (0.0084)3.8631.6

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

17- Jan-01 10:00

37.211942

ND(4.1)ND (0.00012)

6,400ND (0.53)

44.574.4

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.174 J0.119

ND (0.0036)465

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.356ND (0.0300)

1,3200.178

ND (0.0084)3.1522.6

0.0030 JND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0 190)

0.0532 JND (0.0036)

450ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0540 JND (0.0300)

1,2600.171

ND (0.0084)3.1329.2

0.0029 JND (0.0086)

ND Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl. checked by D. Vitek' AR324871*

w£oEraraO.

~o>U_

_

O1-

T)<B

"5IftIflb


PHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickel3otassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVLimhoNTUmg/L°C

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/LmoAmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

17-Jan-01 15:00

30.797.438

ND(4.1)ND (0.0001 2)

4,800ND (0.53)

36.061.4

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.0515 JND (0.0036)

488ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.108ND (0.0300)

8620.130

ND (0.0084)2.6724.5

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.0504 JND (0.0036)

515ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0440 JND (0.0300)

8800.139

ND (0.0084)2.7925.8

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

19- Jan-01

25.27230

3,300

21.650.4

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.0536 JND (0.0036)

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.321ND (0.0300)

0.115ND (0.0084)

2.1621.8

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0 190)

0.0520 JND (0.0036)

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.1370ND (0.0300)

0.116ND (0.0084)

2.1120.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

ND Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek AR32t*875

£"SEreraQ.V<aLL

"rooH

-O0)

"ominQ


pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8.3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperiron_eadMagnesiumManganeseNickel3otassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mViimhoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

9-Jan-01

40.9157111270

ND (0.001 2)5,900

ND (0.53)74.881.9

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

11.21.77

0.0079 J590

ND (0.0066)0.0071 J0.0530

14.80.2971,2500.5140.0099 J6.6945.1

0.02180.470

ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0 190)

0.0851 JND (0.0036)

438ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)ND (0.0067)ND (0.0300)

1,4600.143

ND (0.0084)6.1944.6

0.0028 JND (0.0086)

11 -Jan-01

50.21541044.8 J

ND (0.001 2)7,500

ND (0.53)53.3100

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.157 J0.0914 J

ND (0.0036)395

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.198ND (0.0300)

1,7400.311

ND (0.0084)6.1754.5

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0515 J0.0571 J

ND (0.0036)395

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0137 JND (0.0300)

1,5700.244

ND (0.0084)5.8548.6

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

12-Jan-01

43.913176

ND(4.1)ND (0.001 2)

6,900ND (0.53)

42.987.8

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0688 J0.0680 J

ND (0.0036)403

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0637 JND (0.0300)

1,5800.222

ND (0.0084)5.2544.0

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0611 J0.0544 J

ND (0.0036)417

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)ND (0.0067)ND (0.0300)

1,5300.213

ND (0.0084)4.7643.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

15- Jan-01

4311164

ND(4.1)ND (0.0012)

6,400ND (0.53)

25.286.1

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0505 J0.0478 J

ND (0.0036)436

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.116ND (0.0300)

1,3500.169

ND (0.0084)4.2344.6

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)

0.0275 J0.0435 J

ND (0.0036)445

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0101 JND (0.0300)

1,3200.153

ND (0.0084)4.0740.2

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

17-Jan-01 10:00

38.910654

ND (4.1)ND (0.001 2)

7,000ND (0.53)

28.477.9

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.0481 JND (0.0036)

447ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.188ND (0.0300)

1,1900.170

ND (0.0084)3.8982.6

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.0001 2)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.0400 JND (0.0036)

466ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0169 JND (0.0300)

1,4200.106

ND (0.0084)3.7554.7

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

ND Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek flR32l4876



in

0>EcoCDQ.T)

LL

2o\-

T30)

"5•nIOb


pHRedoxConductivityTurbidityDissolved OxygenTemperatureAlkalinity to pH 8. 3Alkalinity to pH 4.5ChlorideTSSMercurySulfateSulfideBicarbonateCarbonateArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZincMercuryArsenicSeleniumAluminumBariumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Units

mVMmhoNTUmg/L°Cmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

17-Jan-01 15:00

36.297.250

ND(4.1)ND (0.001 2)

5,800ND (0.53)

24.772.5

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0190)

0.0375 JND (0.0036)

487ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0854 JND (0.0300)

1,1200.102

ND (0.0084)3.2544.2

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)ND (0.00012)ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.0 190)

0.0365 JND (0.0036)

484ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0106 JND (0.0300)

1,1100.102

ND (0.0084)3.2242.8

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

19-Jan-01

35.287.039

3,600

16.770.3

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)ND (0.01 90)

0.0375 JND (0.0036)

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)

0.0524 JND (0.0300)

0.0663ND (0.0084)

2.2730.9

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

ND (0.0320)ND (0.0600)N 0(0.0190)

0.0376 JND (0.0036)

ND (0.0066)ND (0.0071)ND (0.0027)ND (0.0067)ND (0.0300)

0.0564ND (0.0084)

2.1728.4

ND (0.0026)ND (0.0086)

ND Analyte not detected atconcentration shownResult was between theMDL and the PQLTables prepared by W. R.Kahl, checked by D. Vitek

'1.i

J

AR32U877

mzoXo

AR32i*878

APPENDIX C

DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

AR32I4879

SOUTH LANDFILL PROJECT REMEDY ALTERNATIVESCOST ESTIMATES

NEWPORT SUPERFUND SITE

NEWPORT, DELAWARE

prepared for:

DUPONT CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

prepared by:

URS CORPORATION

282 DELAWARE AVENUEBUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202

DECEMBER 2000

J:\35B-i9.00\lLxa.-l\SI.r Costs I2I90WESTIMATE COVER.doc1J/OB/I9W 7:58 AM

RR32U880

PERMEABLE REACTIVE WALL

ESTIMATE

C:\WINIX)WS\Dcsk!op\SLF Costs I2I700\ESTIMATE COVER.doc

o o o m o o m v> v> o O t^- o vi o o <-H o <N tn oo o v> oooooooooo CN t^- oo oo CN m r^ooco o vj oo m o o oo o oo T CN o m o m r oo vo CN CN O O OO o^v^^—, o o m .»oo ON O "" *-H CD r~~ oo 5 CD oo CD ON fi CD t" f CD t~~- ~ j* */~i xo —" c** (N * > f " r~l (*i *o f 3 c> fi vi f vi vi r i tn oo CDg N n -—• m Os

eH

O CN O O O O W"» vi O ON O t** O O "—* •—• ~-" viCD CN f*l o CD f*l fN VO CN CD f"i C) CD f*"i fi c* <

O D ^ '—' *+.' ir r-Z '""' _'. — --' D .—" O O O . OO OO OO Ofl - - ON V) O •—• TJ- „ vi " r-T r-T u T*-" •«•' ° u-T

i—i Z m fi m oo

CCCiCr,,, CSnfL 2J Li, -orncn orjSSS&O fcoooo^^ °F^fe 3 n ^11 &PPP&, yHHHH00^ HU« ^ J i2 JJ g f e f e f e g S3 CM CU ttn 3 O-i

±: og . '—r- •—' "—r i—" «

S

TO Rt O (S W• * - * * - * M •*-> •*-•0 O *^ 0 0*J *j r 4-» -*-jX> J3 VO 1 -O3 3 . 3 3(/> V3 W W t/3

O 4-CO (0i_ 0» U

8 «

« ^•tn 00to 'TJ

_. O Pfi2 t? TJ Q, PH5 S: £2 H ^n*-C cx S g g>£ £ £ «=! S .9 C OQ-tt a X O g ^ ID t*tj .;3*.c cd .c .M (U 2* "-1S 4>^)aH*s^ S oo « S PI gs-s^-asf

g Q fe ••g!38^^ss^^-gCB tO Q, rt U, ., H-l• •.1-* C <U U r"^§42 g &«•§

« MJ° • S g ^^£ |2 :§<§ 1|

u aa y c v C SP S

AL

RR32U882

rirl

a* *i™ -c !I si O -5^ s o e1 ^ 1 s § i

o _ _

•s s 1^ I §I ^ § s i v** " N c "S « -a 8o 33 -1= — P B T? r£o S £ w £ w o u^ I i siftf j

•a K r, «§^ aM (U

-b a1 Q 5 a.^ oI d ô 1I1§| |

O <4_•J3 OS

"

8 r S S ? o . * - S i a S 3 « g a ? 1

ill! I J^•êcN ^ o S T ^ a B S t J ^ o S 1 ^ S>;

*JiJt fE MiSliaSfJIlSilMH* IIhi Ifgig gr J tf rf« i/s: s-S<S Jl-S « § b^ &. '§I SBg d S « - o - V ^ S a > « ^ S 2 S " I i 3 < D y g r 3 S " P ' o - « - = -SgES -S o ** T 4>E-i^^xl*S°%â)«ea"e(a:2âS|l aJltl = ???llltmi1iliHJO J ft? e s^ H s^ & §S o 3z w ft.

AR32li883

O Q00

"£ £ £ £4 -^ c< m od S r-:- * £ ~ ~ •£ £ 2 £ D; £1 II H « i. |, „ .1 II „"i • 2o • • ,_: °

Mil M I i i £

5* >- O O „-, ~ O "^ ""> _ O

<§ * S S i £ S S " § 5^ r - o o ^ ^ * S 5 "* f S S 5 S Si V£) —— . O ^ O O Vi II

* ^ « * rf " It II " " " " " "1 3 r * l r - i - T C N - - • ' •

. .°*ss i l ta t - H ( - , r ^ r ^ r - i -O -t -^ 5s - C O O O O O

•

W ., oo oo \o O CDi g « « f-. — v£ -S «-» -»r TT oi rjz " = s a a a a o o g | § s s § 5

- tZi *- 1—' v—' -*r Sr - r i -j ^ < j» « § 2 S 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ i e =t j ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ 3 5 5 5 o , A-i. > O O *-* >£>• & -_r* S- >- i»b« L. u on ' ~On 2 s s •» oW ^ e ^x ±j « ,_ i •*-< - C B . - ' o i l < - > - S o f j r w 1 ^2 J i tfs s * * * - ^ - i s & s^ w» E u> « H s S 13 ° o C ) S «r i 'E ° e A S £HH s 3^0.^5:td = ti. h •- " ff w 1 ^ ^ w ^ = r - ^ eJ 3 _ K « ^ r= S 2 - c 3 OS r ^ S - ^ - ^ - S

= AR32l»88li

w oh o>y .*

"—O 1/1

0>

S S "•v — 'E S3 C

!2 -o o.<. c «n o« j= y1> w XIb p w« & J=

„ oo *° c'u -E g* £8 * | oI s. i £ g3 « o B &to 00 — 'p JD15 -S o> g J2

| o J "a "S S ^ ! .8 Si^ 'C "- £ 3 C•g I -s° -si« r S « £•a w u — v— h u M .£ o« « 52 K -°E _ O J S W n j

^ « j: K Tw S j: S o ™N _ - - C - to• — ™ fe i~G 4J *-- Hi 5 UJ .£5 01 a S 5 wO "- u "3 £P ^ n H li li n n ii „

O *- H •— w ca>, O « M 13 «

I S -S 1 6 I |5 H il 1 :- ^ ^ 4 ^ ^ ^ ^ MC O M r T w O U - i u - i O r n - ^ r - O O- j*- s= •- Ere r ^ c N v o o N o o ^ —

w *S C;- o d f n ' o " \ b c x 3 - * r oo < - < y y • ^ • m m T t f N r ^ r - i00^ "^ S" f a O W & O & O & e b e b e^ E ^ ^ x x x x x x x"T^H —. yi w yi vi ui vi u->W to t 1-, t- !_, l_ I- »_. t- t_.

•= « g^ g. - C ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i- r , - O J = r\« e? O O O O O O O« o O w — l i o ^ O O O O T T V O O O ^ OE ^ > | E -C •£ T u u - » ( N w i o o v i * N i n1 s g - 's .r:- sa. S S -3 g^ g II» i o IS If &. « £ * - t : . o o w ; o c

(1 ^- m . tt D. tT^ •—

. ^i i 5 « IB 1 1 Z S I 1 i 1 IQ. . c x " 8^ -S ,? ^ Q j £ n £ ^ ^ s£ i g s .si I s Q ^ H O H ^ ^W N I - O O E W - = ™ O N ow ^ w . - o - O o o " 5,-S j= NO « »c S - - o* 2c/j P — UJ f— E &o o s

ftR32l»885 O- v

IS} C J" ^r- oo ON orN_ —^ o_ vori 01 m (N

X X X Xtft Ift V) t—•t* u u —u u u i?iO 'O VO "

O O O Oto O u-i O OC (S r^ O —a o o o —&i i i i iV. Tt Tf 00 -fl-•< O O O O

fN (N CNJ rMo o o o

>H n

flJa

~ -i- a.o - 01 S; SOO \D ON OO )Jo v> rl r- °

o"

o or-~ vSo(N

*ra oo

S « = £§ « LO I ^ 1 1* Q. S3 E S* c j -td ** ^ 3 -5 "J cs" t— OO a

2 « .& •§ 1 I -<! :£ .c c c £: 5fad t/3 U O CQ PJ "*•1^- K X

§ 1*

g AR32I4886 ij

§ * S f -8

TJC_2£

w "3• O

-SQD "£

Su w c-= j* «•s s -ow ^ ^n w u cD. K 5 -SP

J 1 1 I I *>- w £ g ra r-£ f V

JS -^ c '.c 'z: ^- = ™ — •i I ^ ! §« g s g

1 8 & »— c o •- u ^ - p ~ ~? ^ « rt r- S "•>

g •= c: n ju is « rC ^ 5-- J - S H c ' ^ 3 - w C J ^ ^™ •—' ffl S *- (0 3•J -2 K .g g I w< w ^ > > ^ E O *J^ - -S i -s S. 8 "^>§ I I & | J I IF 8 J ! ! 3 S I . «

TO

J s ^2 -- "«•< .*= >UJ I- !>

I AR324887*j

"-

coor-4&oI 5• oo

C* o<N O Cc - SS - s£3 — ' w>> ~~ oo* -o —

go —

I I 1 I i•£• ?: u <2 wo ^ « P II

S ? "O D -*f S I fa •§ 41* 2£ -3 S -So

S ° « « >^ *i wO LH w K rt 3 X

-- g g -S o « -S|| £ K £ >-, T3 >0

>^ o c &H ra « ** x = l -s J a |-° o f ^ _ ^ E *-= ^K «=> £* ^ c" I -cf ^ o « p i o r ^ - o.|. oo W w < ^ C —^ — - £ S c So° x g ° ° £ o To S1 3 « S % rN iS ^ ^ ^ E >, Q -. fcS ^ 2- I *2 2^ g t; « S ^

S o c * ' -

1 7 I ? § § I f S MIH ^J^s ,. § ;ia^ ii s H< « I S p | § is 2 is « § 1* ! x - - T 3 K 5 K 3 5 g 6 3W U ^ ^ x g ' s g -3 o - s £ r 0 - S & 1> s 8 o o S "S a i "5 g i .§ v o i .§h s 5 - - g s a S I g 8- | S 5 8- -3 Sw ^ R - - «" 2 E ^ s I ^ S Q g m 2 Q« S ? g I Sf* 2 I £ o s& 2^ *CH **

«

O

O eg

1« g•° Kt- OS -0O, n

• >00 >, U... ca oc ^ -2E ^ «3 v> ~

w" C- e

- ^ os S J

TJ t." = &

s | i 15 §- "S

8.

g « 3-s-

o

ii ii ii ii ii ti li

* > « » j: £ £ £ £ £ £ < *C h »n m oo o r^ oo ftcj X w j-. o _. rs) \O — ON

X X X X X X X

g « AR32U889 z

**" a

" « £ „- > W W W W W ' t£ g W fc -5 , S

o £ .£ ^\fi _D 3 "- ?o « S -O _i

"

5- S S -JO u- a> O L. £TS P X Ui h Q £

-S t-1t. 3PN y

§ £ £ § g S S S S S F : ^-. *. -. ,. O O N u - > w i i / " i O s - - O Nm o r - t _" Kj" ' _r _r fee _r to

u-

u

a.

O O O P - O N O O O O O

x x x x

O O O O O O O f N O I O J f N o JO ^ T f N ^ J - O O ( N m r ^ i ( - " > m m^ - (N Tt V£> \O

D,vo

Oo

O Q-, O

o <H M

RR32U890

Memorandum

Date: December 14, 2000

To: File 05-00035849.00 '

From: Michael Azzarella

Subject: DuPont South Landfill - Cost Estimate

I have discussed the South Landfill project with Al Meyer who is the chief estimator at the URSDenver office. He has estimated many of these permeable reactive wall projects. We discussedthe specifics of this project and he provided me with the following costs:

1. Continuous trench excavation and placement of wall. An 18-inch wall will require one pass ata cost of approximately S160.00/LF. Need to add approximately S10/LF (for a total ofS170/LF) for any required benching operations and backfill over top of wall to existing grade.

2. Performance monitoring wells. Assume at each monitoring location along the wall thefollowing sets of wells to be installed: one 3-well cluster inside and outside the wall plus onewell into the wall. Well sets are typically installed every 150 to 200 feet along the length ofwall. Cost for each set equals approximately $10,000.

. t

JAR32U891 I

3,

"u "Ss s*" D.W _•5 5o ' I =5r- 15 £> 2 bc •— t_

crt •— —— ly Jj5- — = » — > ( / >f .2? -o £ »e s i •=T3 -o — 0> —01 w •£ •= 5J= -= 3 00 "*U — o 2r =— — t/5 -— "~0> u „ vi Oi ^ w 3 iio> « •£ -o "J= . «- = « «*— o> -= = Ô) N .= '= *K o — 2 ^~ "CJ > = —

^ ra « ''« '— ™ _= <o E a>s S •? s ^ ^^ B " -o *; —o = -5 -s .2 >* ~E o y 2 1H w >•E "i- s .«> ^ g .ri> « u W J» TT U_-- X -= "° f M" "^ I i 1 j 5 If I I "e a ¥ f 7= ** •> 5 Ji « >, > , ( —- 5 S i - £ " 5 Q - S p o ow — C •- E ^" = r - c jX C D ^ O J £ — _ _ ( Dg ^ S - 8 ! ^ « T a— - = T 3 — — K - g E ^ ^= ? > ' « = T 3 ~ ^ ; A «.2 i: t; = 3 w r= oil S

- c£o _ -^ u- v - I ^ O w î >• > i f l _ _ Q. II

i i ! -i « ! i * i f s J » § ^ s-^ " " n u - ^ f - ^ 1 - °> ." — u-T S "ô ; = x 3 . ^ = b t O t A ^ ^ ^ O 55^ = r e o > i = c K » - 3 , J u_ II — .^ "1 w- i ^ ^ o - ^ w — S « - = A A — Or ' ^ - Q - Z ^ > £ o o ^ T o " n ' o- S f c ' g S J ^ ' S - S . a S g . S P ^ c f c «s^ ^ i ^ - ^ u - o " ^ _- .£ w ^m ° -g -5J « CB >s .5 » § ^ ; -5 x x ~ x .$ +. D W c g C J - i - l ^ ^ - ^ U - C W X l — > ( —

- « -*r .= • • • • • •• " > J > — (N Q.•T -" s >• _~c ^ TJ wi -* o C OD^

-JC/-J

RR32U892

D.

a.

TJ

...D. " INO —

1CL -* »o y ?<* ^ ,im —u. uK «O > (3 -T f

._""1 1_ QJcc -n i_•O " O"> ^ -Ot/> ^ ct)

O -^ &e b fe^_C m « o^ - £ >, S_ O « 5 O. II II II II II II II |J || || ||

S S I b I£ 5 ^ ^ ^ S f c S s f c f e f c f c f c ^ ^ i - : —I s s ^ «• 5 c 5 5 5 * g i l l | l |

re _ r^1 « ?r- t « 2 ?•g t* = b * ^.^ £ w» N O. w

_ « _•o w) o E; o> w? . f 111 jl 1 I I I -«. • B m i >« i f M • O ** OJ y= 5 S ? ~ - S ~ M & ~ -I h £ ^ « teo 2 jS S. "O .rt T3 > S ^ f c O O L J _ j - h - >d I " • ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1^ J- M rn . ^ Q O - i ^ a O O J j J j Q Q £> ^ GU S

C U 1 IC

, - ' " ^ 8*f * ^ r^

AR32U893

oooo

G O o ^ D r""-- i/~iO O O — ON

— •— — r*ifj~l fr\ jy fj*

r- or~- vooo oo— oob*» V)

"^ 2 Q_ too Xi —

x x x x x x x x x

-°3CO

-

CSvJ-J AR32U891*

(o.

>

5 iiJ s iS $ £O w o<_ GG - G-^ £ rNcc oo •!'° ^ XJa> so £H£ n G2 = 2

S -P "" ^ E**~ ~~ n °• 0 0 " G** S >* ^-= <=> -£ CNO (N t ^

-D -I u-iC ,« ^ I?K £ X «V o >* "°£ o u owi i_ *" o c:« H o £ = 5o ra fi - o ^o > — rN <; —_ • ' . , „ « - > . ucc r " " *-> in0> "> •£ 7= O VJ >

s C J != =S -a „ ?i 1 * -? 7 i1 1.113 = (— = ''' ~ ~ 4_;

S ^ o ' s t : ^ ^ ^ I? ss *o P -^ o o 5 o >> X J S ^so ° — 5 «N .= - *- -o S P ^ y^ ^CN o »o T J ^ m r ^^-^•3 T3 M ^vo ^^^ C N O « ^ < N < NI * ". a II S ii "" = o " ~E t —c: •°- .= " u — >p :>. ~

^ £ gp S^> ^^ «5> ^ x g < ^,-* "C •= *— — S-,1*1 O*''^, CX« — C f l t n^ - • - -- ~ ^ > . ux w r - c « M p — J o= = ^ ^ ^ 5 - .^ * ^ J ^ ^ f I"^ l ^ - o ^ ^ 5 = a l S ^ - g-3 0* S -2£ $ .S ^- p 2 £ -£ = g S sj — r- -T - -^— w ^ i ^ > *.= ^ T J - CB i< .5 H -* - 2r^ | » * | j > M- 2 £? 5 £ = I

K C S £^" •"** ^ O *^ ^ CD O S

C 'AR32U895 || j

17.

oo r- so r- v>oo r- —i — vir-~ &• M o «Nv v * ce f-"m r- m r--

o oU

oo o^ — •< m ^r r- <— i o o ^ r \ o mu~i-^-O N Q N O O OOP^^H OO O s r - ~ i » - OOO^r*^v - i O N C ^ m • — VI r^iv^ — »- r— ir— i— '(N — ^ fN«N (NfNV) rs|(N

<t. uQJ =C. O

ELec

tn w) en enO O O Ocj u u O

G_ O ^H •— O ^^ ^ ^^ .«— f *i,™ in "^ o 5 *^ ~ O ™ *-

un ~ ~ .— ^ nj -— ^ 1> ^ ^ 4) r "~ (L>

Q f f ? I .M f I III f f I

<ut/> 0)ca wr . CB

ua

u os. u- "«"3 to 2U — -

C. G

»*»^*S

rq rs — f - r r « <N — r^oo (N — *nr--^-r* CNSD — ^ C > v o * ^ « N G " - i r ^ i v o — OO G < i— l >^ V— (NO mm — CO mi— ICM — <N<N r^r^rj — O

O O O OU U U U

" 5 S S 5 S 5_ 0 : ^ 0 e ~ o'5*.«H u e a h - H - o « H «." ' J i E "— £ Ji'-^E w

£&I 1 g I -I 1 » I 1 s a I I 1 g -a IS§o f S & 5 g - o S ° 2 >• 5 S - o S s= "5 = « » S S Wt/)i, " ^ ' c B O f f rt "' 'a =r N i _ w = = u u E S ^ = = ! : : a > ( o s s £ . ^ r— TJ-O ^ DO 00 JO T T O O C N ^ r o O T J O D J S " * O O T 3 f N

c/:

AR32k89f

O O\ CO(N r* VO

h. O

m w i r - ^ - O N m »n oo r- (— m u-> oo r-- m m »n oo r--m o o r - O N O O m o o u - i f - O v ^ 1 m o o w i h - m rî o o i n r -OO ON — O-- Ov OO O\ O\ — ON O^ OOÔÔy— ON O O O ^ O ^ —

EdSCM-Sg

O-1U

U.Q

WO rN — — Ô (NtN — — OO fS fN — • \O (N fN — (N ONy «< C. «*& Cw oO. d.*- Ei« go o« wu

O C O OU U U U

- - >-e c_ ;= - H _ ^ - H _

"5 £ S '5 — B S "5 *jJ— t- — k. — u- — , u,

O i! 'o i* -S 'C 'n J> u -5 "C '5 u w -S 'K u u •$ -2s^° 1 1 1 1 Isfl-l lift ! i f Vir/-, o'-'m-^ O ^ E W - ^ " £ « O ^ E W - —5" — = O = — = 'S O = " s n O * - = - = O CH s f N U t N : ( N i Z U f N = f N k - U s t N i Z U Uy) \ O - O O — \o — T3 OO — O — TJ OO XD — T 3 O O _ DO

w M O T i ( wfcB ro caP5 eaCCU U U B- U W

O

ftR32i*898

G _ OG — Om E t m

-S TJ1>

T)

-o 42 o=(> O = O — --JS ^ IZ^^^O - C O G G

- - ors ^ **>

-1 i § s = oJ= — O O.C n. .2 S ~" - jc« 0.0. g - x « a i* - s :; £ £ ^ s £P .* ?! *» g ^ o ~ xi

•o t)'I '5 J 5 .2 "5. S r—I C/3 5 > a—' w w ^ _' -o w u

o> —• *> "5— t .-= _2u; « S CD o g-w y £- = <

U*•*2y;*~\>—»•t-Oi f^

U

O => GG O G

U

«

mT5 U

re

= = w = *C w « <*- « l_ u- « L _ - ^ .T) "> --!! OT -C "O 4? - TJ ^

J § S iR§ JRS J 2T l o - e ; < = > » ^ ° ^ ^ S• = t e — «A •« • = « * » - * -c »o ^ = °i B 3 5 S•7 « « — 2 * 2•^ fn t ; * N ^ — z ; * Ê fcfl 2 « e w = 1 1£ » s " £ ' » £ s_ P > 0 « = W 3 UQ Sô Q u D 45

C O , — , O « — ^ * ^ > i£ & u en & c « =oo w) *i c: w> O u - O T O u - ,(± G S 5 0 it « O it —- v o S s ^ 3 ^ . = ^ 0 ^ . v o= «n g- ^ S - "I 5 -Jtf * * > S U < ^ -« .ii "*> -^vc a T 3 - ° W - q - c o — r r a Xi: ôc ** w *-u x o = x w j = x w > ô H l - 2 i , £ 1 - S t i u . S o•= g ^ ^ 5 ^ 4? S ' C ^ ^ "£^CL— ( N ^ u m != CL Efl |-~ — O. G— <« oo «•?; "^ - = « O m O— ^• E 0 0 o g § o - J ' E a ) d ^ - E Ô w w S a * e . y Z > « f e D wo -c >

O

RR32U900

GO

rsT3

"5 o _— tn O (N o

J | 2 = 5 ^ -° I/)

^ ~ !-, wD <n o u= o> >>£ E u'—eo — O,- in C3 (*iu — 'C (N

•S S 6 B" § "i I= ra jD -o

* •

O

CN

AR32U90I

o<U00TJi_-O"iuOJ —

& c "3 SL- ^ •*K o o oI 1 H gre c fee^ Pu ^7- 13 «.>* * -c ^

.5°Q.

.1 [?

c

5 § ^ ^gr- o-i<=> <=>,r- •: ° fee tel

Ofee-n o n

U w -x « °-7^ K « 3 mJ i -g O1 II H<r e >o CL u

M .&. E - f g s ^i s s S r s iiill is * » ill 1U - *- S « O C ^ ' f H ^ 8

U S ^ - ^ «. S S. = M g 2 IW U O G + O o o m • 5 ^ - e T . * *t ^ ^ § G ' " = 0 ^ ^ iO a £ 2 g o „ „ „ 3 g « « 5 JB 1 ! i w I s S B 3• t - C ' ^ j r ^ P ~ -I 1 e f t 1 I S 8 ;= | & J S 2 ^ S ^ ]2- »W |> I(V

<*-enw»*nofee

oG'oofee

• romT"fee

oooTT"&e

mDOooCorNfee

s s- « £ ><7 * c <•*- ^ O 1/3C in \3O « ^ O O v-" M M £ I I « —9 r— i so "*- o oZ o o x , w t ! o o

.__ "1 VI "-- ftO = v o r N * ^ > - ^ Tg .. -g £H ^ M fc g I 5u j] » .s r •£ ntd ^ -S j u- ^ v-g 1 1 « - o 5 o§ 5 -S 1 H S -S "-S I " ° I » 1 S

X S E X 3Q w - ) - - O oo w - ) - - o o r o * . t*-*^ rt 2 " I^ Q b S '!2 O < 5 J

ftR32l»903

— — r- (N » — - r N r - m i n r-l- f o e * e f e e b e f e < 5 f e e f e e f e e & e ^o «

>> E >, ->, •>, -Si

>> ON p _ — ON ON ~ m — — — ||CB

W & (N

>> ^ 4J m"

O\ G - .;; r j O

1/5 II g — O O O G O m O O 2-^

°cu''/!>i ^ C " O O m O m - - m o H D*• ^ *^ t i i i i i i i C— II G G G O G G G G c aM ^ ^ \O O C> f C> ^ < ^ I>r - ^ T—i ^ f . fsj PSJ f%j fsj <•**) p**} **

-S ^ .r S < N C N r s i ( N f N r ^ r M f si ^ - r - ^ ^ f l j . * O O O O O O O O

(S) S ° £ S §g ^ 1 O ^ 'S „ ^ S J;

• B ^ ^ ^ . f N a g ^Ug "C J "S

' I I » 1 I f I l l l ' s g S !t ± C B l « W 5 , _ H ) C B ^ X _ U . _ _ ,

CB X .—C UJ U-

Q

o oDC H

AR32U90U f 8

URS Memorandum

Date: December 14, 2000

To: File 05-00035849.00



I have discussed the South Landfill project with Al Meyer who is the chief estimator at the URSDenver office. He has estimated many of these permeable reactive wall projects. We discussedthe specifics of this project and he provided me with the following costs:

1. Continuous trench excavation and placement of wall. An 18-inch wall will require one pass ata cost of approximately S160.00/LF. Need to add approximately S10/LF (for a total ofS170/LF) for any required benching operations and backfill over top of wall to existing grade.

2. Performance monitoring wells. Assume at each monitoring location along the wall thefollowing sets of wells to be installed: one 3-well cluster inside and outside the wall plus onewell into the wall. Well sets are typically installed every 150 to 200 feet along the length ofwall. Cost for each set equals approximately $10,000.

J&R32U905

DUPONT NEWPORT SOUTH LANDFILLSOUTH JAMES ETREET TIE-IN ALTERNATIVES

COST ESTIMATE

ALTERNATIVE 3INCORPORATE EXISTING ROAD AS A CAP COMPONENT

REPLACE SHOULDER

DESCRITION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTALCOST COST

Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $3,500 $3,500

Shoulder Repair- shoulder sawcutting LF 2,000 $1.16 $2,320- remove shoulder, 8'width SY 900 $0.60 $540- install bedding stone, 8' width CY 30 $118 $3,540- install asphalt pavement, 2" shoulder SY 900 $3.57 $3,213

Saw Cut Pavement for Barrier Wall LF 268 $5.96 $1,597

Pavement and Base Course Removal CY 25 $65 $1,620

Stone Base Course Installation CY 15 $99 $1,481

Asphalt Pavement - 5" Total Depth SY 60 $20.94 $1,256

Liner Installation Under Shoulder SY 1,000 $6.30 $6,300

Surveying DAY 7 $1,125 $7,875

Traffic Control LS 1 $18,200 $18,200

Subtotal $51,443Contingencies -10% $5,144Total $56,587Say $57,000

Note: For shoulder replacement, sawcut, remove and replace approximately 8' (41 each side)of shoulder.

AR32l*906

iy-1 O O

( N O O O O O X D O C r g O\rt oo r*- O G fN 3" "*

"*? ^ .2

£ m m _2I?i ~~ — 3

oo . o wv> ff E o o c:-^ -c -? ^ s -c: *W *n io <r - m ,-*J — m oo vt m ™? r*^ fN oo oo ~

(*l X X X X X X

v w o o u o o ^t S E E E E E ^(/) OO OO OO OO OO OO f"l>>M-D> >-f-

o o o o o o o o

^ o o o o o o o o

- -5

F "5 " ^ • § : S 2 r T : 5 2 «« „«_o .. 5 s j. -S .S s

W LJ o Si

df "®* £ " u ^ 3 £ £ ^ 2 ' £ 1

u:

w-i m O C m O(N O O O O Ow> O O 00 O ^T

«•*»

r-oo'TfN fN]

_ w — >CB OO ™ \j

C/D O*>

S I B 1 o i M2 1 5 " I =^ g 5- d o «•O S E « oo wrt -r ^ 00 TT OS S -J r- *rt o

o o o o oO O w-) n^ OTN — ^ — T (N— 95 T 9 9\o rN LJ -<3- O mo oo • r- TT om O O tN O oo. i <U i i tm O Q <N O mO O O O O

=: or

O

RR32U908

nam:Scruance FJ>onP.O. B6I 27UU1ftichmemlVAJ32i1

DuPont Advanced Fibers Systems

FACSIMILE TrSMTTTAL COVER. SHEET

minCATON:

PHONE

FAX : 804 . 383-

FROM:

>

NUMBER. OF PAC

3F TRANSMTITAI

\_-/jflr»9 ' , £&//)% <^ yV*y»

BiWfA *" S / / ** 5 *v ' f - "" " V~U~'C'

i327

CHARLIE SMMONS (804) 383-4086

v£ LACY GRAY f80*i383-4459r

JANE AREHAKT f804) 383-2562

Bfi (DJCLUnTNfi (ViVKR SHWm- (1 r

HAS WOT RKRW nnMPLETED, CALL 804-383-2562

NOTES:

The docomenb *ca mpuiyjag this telecopy tannmsfiian conammfonntnon from DuPoot which »y»yt/<ir Bffully ptlvflpBcd, The fai*T»**"«*fc»i jy iiMirmtetf i y **** tf mr gfflir indr riir* f*r

mtity piffl" T tin tnoscai.

3o

1

distribuiianurtbe bikiiiKbf ao*ctkxoinrpltmc CBtta-* *p?rtaofifautclooopiod :ffrirt y piohftrfrrt tnd that tfiff dffcgmrnr* « -"M *« «temed ta n»Pnttr fatm«P!rfi»t»iy In this '

regard, i/you have; ecervcd ttm tdccupy lit cuvt, picuc oodfy iu by trkyhoDc immcdi*tcjy «o that we cani

J

AR324909 i

Si.

DuPont Advtnced fibers Systam»Spruince fibersr.Q. toot zxniKchmonLVA 23201

DuPont Advanced Fibers Systems

CC: John WHkexuLeslie Croeker - 1SG Corp.

John C. WokasierContructioQ Mow jerURS Qittiner Wot dward Clyde282 Delaware Av< nueBuSalo>NY 14262-1805

Dear John,

DuPont Kevtei t> agrees to provide Ac Newport South Landfill up to 200 tons ofGypsum atnocha ye F.O.B. our James River plant in Richmond, Virginia. Freightwill be billed to y< >ur project at ~$20-22/ton.

Please provide 30 days lead time when ordering. I understand from John Wakensthat the material vill not be needed until 2001.

Very truly yours,

William Lacy Gray, Jr.Contracted Mtnufecturing ManagerAdvanced Fibers Systems(804)383-4459

WLG/jwaISGWbkaaiim l*nw:dooKevlar® is a DuPont registered trademark

AR32U9IO

JOHN WOLFfc NEWPORT 302yy,>U4yu u i / £4 uu ii.os- mj.<

CorporateRemediation

FACSIMILE GroupTRANSMTTTAL Newport SuoeafundSHEET

A DuPont and URS Alliance

TorJohnWokasien From: JohnRWoifeCompany: URS Corp. Phone: 302-993-0490Phone: 716-856-5636 FAX: 302-994-3481FAX: 716-856-2545Total # of sheets faxed: 9

Urgent f ) For review ( 1 Reply f Information Requested ( X1

Message:

JohnAttached are the rate sheets you requested.

The price for Common Fill from Contractors Materials LLC is:$6.80 per Ton delivered, @ 1.5 ton per Cubic Yard.

fl-Lj 1.6S7/V .-. §2 /. IS . //

WOLFffi

JAR32li9ll

'00 10:58 " !D-'2ELflWflRE"COWWCTDRS ASK

Laborei» Loo*l No. 19*

Mantgeaient Onlt Allied Pirieion*Jurisdiction Mow caatla county, DelawareTora -of Agreement 7 Just* 99 tnru JO April 20O2Nag** 6 Contribution*(hourly) 6/7/99 5/1/20OO 5/1/2001flohadul* A <n £16.64 $.80 $.7B•ehedul* B l5" 16.09 Total TotalSchedule C 16.34 Bcononic leonomlcfiehedul* D 16.64 inoroaea inoreaae3ch«lul» I 17.09*eiwdui* r 19.09Ho«lth £ W*2.far* 3.70P«nf ion S»65Training • «due. Fund .46Annuity 2*00industry Adv*ncwwnt O.8»"

'mi» porc*nt»9« ii »ultipli»d by th«total of w*9*« and fringa contribution*paid.'Pay antir* day at hipheat rat* workatfduring day.

Datfuetiona Onion dua* - $-34 par hour workatf.Bffactiw 5/1/91 - Laborara »01itl«ail«aaua - 9.09 par bavr Merkad.

pramiint Pay If working on •tack*, allot, towarc, ateovar BO faat pay $.3§ ovar baaa w**a foraaeh additional 25 faat.1 if ft thru 19 avployaoa oa job, than lfor avary 19 omployaaa. Pay $1.00 parhour O»ar hlohaat paid anployaa•uparriaad. Non-working.

Poraman Pay 51, oo par hour ovar highaat paidavployae anparriaad.

Holiday* Naw Ya«r-«/ Manorial Day, July «, z«aborDay, Thankagiving, Chriatmao, GeneralBlaction Day if tfaclirad by Building ftConstruction Tradaa Council. Holiday* on6aturday or Sunday eaiabrata Friday andMonday, rafpvctivaly»

Ovartiwa 6 Holiday Pay Tiia firvt two hour* of ovartim* workadMonday tbrv Friday tnd tho firvt tonhour* workad on Batvrd»y will ba paid at1 l/2x waoaa, IK contribution* *nd Ixduoa. nil Sundaya, holiony* and owr twnhour* will bo paid *t ZK waga*, 1* con-tribution* and Ix du«». Oonoral Cl*ctl»r>Day, if workod, at Straight tima ratoa.

straight Tima Hour* - 8 hour* batwaen BiOO a.r». and 4:30 p.m..Monday thru Friday.

Shift* t Differential If 2 ihift* of ovar 6 hour* o&oh - equal

CBAS199 6/99

HR32U9I2

flSN

pay and duration. Othorwiaai let -midnight to 7«3D *,*m. for B hour* pay,2nd - etraight time hour* and pay, 3rd -4:30 p.m. to midnight for 6 hour* pay.

Pav fi Pay Per "I «»•** **> ***** th** V1***** "*•P"y ' Friday. Withhold » deye. Make arrangement*a* to how and where Cheek* to ba cashed.

HoDorting Ti»e Mo ahow up time if work hot started duoHoporting xu*e ^ .thajr. If work atarta and lv .topped,

pay greater of 2 houra or actual tine.unlaea atoppod due to waathwr, than payactual tin* only- If T*" * h*u« P«T6 hour*. If call for men in a.m. of dayworked, pay 0 hour*. If call for o*n to«iork in p.». P«y * hour«.

Maal Par i odo 1/3 hour (unpaid} oach ehift. On continu-ll**1 oua ovmrtimei 1/3 hour (p»id) after 2

hour* work and after eeeh 4 hour* workedthereafter r provided work continue* afteroaal period, on non-*ohedulod overtimeallow raaaonabl* arrangement to get food.

ceffoe Break « mlmita* between »iSO a.m. and lliOOa.m. at work at at ion-

Tranapcrtation Mo paymont* prorided >eb in Local ••jurisdiction.

tay off/oiachargA If employ** for more ti»*» 3 day* on job,. pay end allow 1/2 boor to pmek tool*.

Work claaeif icatiOA* By Beboaula

Behedul* * I»abora«*f general end construction

rire watchmenylagmanBalamartderBTmek Bpottor*

schedule B Caulkeray operator* of pneumatic and

CBAS199 6/99

electric tool*; vibrating machine*> con- \crate aawa and JUIBP* (which ehall includethe hoofcwp of homo and/or pipe); pottendera; and aewer pipe layer*Demolition (where wall* Bra required tobe ridden down by band toole)Driller (except Core/ Diamond, or •Multiple Wagon)Fork Lift Laborerfiunite material and rebound worker* •Neeen end plaater tender*? end cement !workera . IMobile buggy operator*Operator* of power saw* (portable)

'1

J

~ ^'00 10:58 ID:CELfiWflRE CDtfTKRcfDRS

t__ll. Wit I -• Vfc.

Power end sewing Machine*Scaffold buildorashoringSignal man and hookup men, including whanwonting with digging and grading equip.Stripping of flat arch and form work, andcleaning and oiling thereofTool room attendant

Schedule C Burner* and Welder*Caisson Worker*, top men (when excavation*for calaaon* are dug eight feet or mor*below fch* natural grade l*v*i adjacentto the etartlng point of the caiaaonhole, the ret* *h*ll epply *t th* groundlevel)Concrete specialietDriller (Core* Diamond, of Multiple Wagon)Gunite industrial fume •tack, noctle, androd worker*Bandblaeter (nozzlemvn)TunnellingUnderpinnine Excavation <when an under-pinning eircavetion i* dug eight r*et ormore below the natural grade, or when anexcavation for a pier hole of five footaquare or lea* and eight feet or moredeep ia dug, the rat* ahall apply onlywhen a depth of eight feet is reached)Working under compressed air

Cchedul* D oalevon workere, bottom men <ee« qualifi-cation* for top men in Schedule C above)

schedule % BlastersLaborers angagad in unloading* placing,and aaeisting in tho installation of wallpoint myatan* or deep wall •ytama a* longas naeood on the job for auen work

Schedule P A*be*to* and/or Toxic or Wacardoue HaataWorker* (taaka related to aeboetoa and/or tonic M*BC* removal - certified andlicenced worker* only)bead Abatement Worker

CBAC199 6 99

RR32U9I1*

ut;£«t ow . ..j., ,»w., ,, w^ ^01*24 '00 10=59 ID:DELAWPRE CONTRACTORS PSN F6X: 302-994-3185

operating ttngiaecra X*ooal Mo. 542Motei A] 3 information for fit ate of Delaware Building t Heavy norK

Only.

. Managwnant Unit: Allied Division.Jurisdiction state of DelawareTvrn or Agreement l May 99 thru 30 April 3002Hourly Maaa wagon 5/1/99 5/1/OO 5/1/01Wa0e Ocoup I»Hourly Base Wage S22.45 $22.69 $22.94Health 6. welfare «.29 4.53 4.61

Surcharge .70 .90 1.OOitenslon 3.36 2.38 2.41Apprentice .22 .33 .23•II* .4S .*& •*«Annuity 3.SO *.OD 4.25 -v,

/&waa/e Ovoup !!• 7Hourly »**« Wage $22.35 (22.36 $32.62 > # 'Health 6 welfare 4.24 4.48 4.62 .u ~'

Surcharge .70 .90 i.OO jr xPonaion 3.33 2.35 2.3BApprentiee .22 .22 .22SOB .44 .45 .45 /X **Annuity 3.50 4.00 4.25

Group JtliHourly Baae Hage $30.19 £20.35 $20. »6KMLlth 4 walCara i.»3 4. IB 4.29

Surchaxga ,70 .90 1.00Pension 2.12 2.14 2.16Apprentice ,20 .21 .23SUB .40 .40 .41Annuity 3,50 4.00 4.25

Wage Group ZViHourly fiavc wage $19. •« 519.9* F20.2OJl«*lth. ft WclftAre 9 ,a7 4.10 4.3»

Surcharge .70 .90 i . ooponaioa 2,p$ 3.10 2.13Appreativ* .JO .30 .20

.40 .40 ,«Q3-40 4.00 4. 25

Wage Orenp ViHourly Base wagn StS.Ol 018.32 93*. 2V

t Molfarn 3.99 3. SO 3.93surcharge ,70 .50 1.00

l.vp i.»0 3.»»Apprentice . IS . ie . m

.36 .2C .3€3,50 4.00 4. 25

COAS542 9/99 ^

flR32i*9!5 .,>

37^»i. Vl\ I -»W*_7 ?-*W-r 7U W i / it W t i .-.»> .»^..., „_, w*

'00 10=59 ID:DELAWflRE CONTRfiCTDRS

Wage Oroup VI iHourly Ba«* Wage $17.49 537.5? $17.72Health fc He L tare 3.59 1.71 3.84

Surcharge .70 .90 1.00Pension 3 .B4 1.94 1-86Apprentice .17 .19 .IBSUB .35 *95 -3bAnnuity 3. SO 4.00 4.2b

Toxic /Hazardous Waste Removal K«t*;20% added to all claceitications

Machine* with booms. 3iba, masts, mod leadfl: ICO teet and over -$.50 pftr hour additional will ba paid for each increment of25 feet over 10C teat.

Apprentice B*fce*Probation to 2"- 6 mem t ha 50%2"* aix (C) monbhe 35%3** six (6) month* 60%4" aix (C) month* CB%5" cix (fr) month* 70V6U six (6) month* 75%'701 six (*) months 80VB'*1 aix («) montha B5%

union due* - 3.7% of wagoa. PoliticalAction Fund * 0.2% o± wagaa,

Kngtnorr " 1 for 7 or norc engineers. lUte - fl.sopox hour ovor rat* on weekly beaia ofhighest paid engineer on same job.

Rngineer 1 for over 2b aoBJloyaes and for ea.cnBUltipla ot 23. Rate - $.90 per hourabove rate oa weakly basis or hlghcotpaid engineer on sen* job.

airt) Now Year'a, Momorial Pay, July 4. LAborXkay, «WDk»siving, Day after ThanksgivingOuriaUMM or day ao eoleferabed except wben E«aa*on Sunday and provided enpleyee works achedulvdwork day beCore and after the holiday .

Ovartlnw t Holiday Pay The first two houra of d&ily overtime,Monday thaw Fridagr «ad efee ffirau viylatbourB on Baturday enall ba paid at 1 l/2xwiagee plus contribution and deductionpexcantagcs Doted above. Sundays, holidaysond bour* in •Hooav of ton ore to be paidat 2x wage* plua contribution anddeduction percentages as noted above.

Time Hour* fl hour* between *:00 a.m. and 4tiQ p.m.,Monday CATU Friday. Bafrfoyer ma,y varystarting tine by l hour.

t Piffaroritial Tiite of starting let ohift at cinployor'Boption. No shift, in exceao of a houro

CBAC542 9/99 2

AR32U9I6

ou-cx) i i a A w P C T R S PSN

work. niseuBD shift. dturarion with Local.Pay straight tijee co shift closest, toour sight Cine hours ana straight time plus5% to other ahifr.a,

Pay b Poy l>*y Dy caah or Check, at local's option, byquitting tine on regular pay day.Withhold 3 day* pay.

weekly Ouarantae If enployer'a1 job continue:* for over sflays, guarantee 40 tours per week atweakly rate for the days the job last*.

Reporting rive It oo wocxiy guarantee Bee above. Oo dallybaaia, i.«. Ivwv than 1 daye CD jobi4 hour* ehow-up and if started to work,pey $ hours, da Sundays and holJdayti6 hour* *bow-up, 0 nOurs if start work,pay e ovartiaw rato. Xf not started towork within 1 hour, disniea for the day.

Mo*] rerJode 1/2 hour, unpaid. On single shift work,at noon. On. sultipl* Phi ft work between3rd «nd 5th hour a.

lay Off /Discharge Pay in full upon termination.

Work Claeaifieatloaa By oroop

Wage Croup I Hand J ing steel and stone in connectionwith erection

Cranea doing hook workAny machine* handling machineryCable spinning machineHelicoptersConcrat* PunpsM«ehines similar to the above* including

remote control equipment;

wage oroup It All typea or crane*Ail types of backhoeeCablewaya

DregKoyBtone* ,All type* of ahovalvDarrickaTrench Bbovel*Trenching macninooPippin type backhoeenoiat with two towersAll Fivers; (ConcretO and Blacktop)All types overhead craneaBuilding; Hoiat* - double drum

(unless used aa • ingle drum)Milling Machinenucking machines in tunnoj

COAS&42 9/99 3

AR32U9I7

01/24 '00 11:00 ID:DELPWflRE CONTRfiCTORS fiSN FflX:302-9W~8185

OradalloFront. -«nd loader a9 oat CaptainTandaat scrapers-Tower type crane opcrar.lon. nraesing,

dismantling, jumping. or jerkingDrills eelf-conteined (DrUlma»t«r type)Chipper with BoonTroa SpadeConerAt* breaking machines (Guillotine

type and remote typerork Mft, UO feet and over)Motor PuLrole (Fine Grade)Batch Plant with mixerftcraper* t Tournapull*KOllor* (High Craaa Pinl thing)Mechanic WelderSpreadersBundle Pallor ExtractorHydro Axleside Boombob Cat Type (All attachmento)voini»*r SawDirectional Boring MachineBulldosar* & TractornNaohinea oinxlar to tbe above

Croup III Conveyor* (Sxcept Building Conveyors)Building HoisCB (Single Drum)Aaphalt Want engineerXJgb or low prea0ur« boiaexiiMall DrilleraFork Uft truck* of a.1.3 type*Ditch witch type trencherMotor PatrolConcrete , Breaking machine*Hollar*Fine Grade Machine*Xlwator Operator (new construction)Stump grinderNachiaes siooMar to tho

Group rv Bo«awB pulwriBliig nixcrTi reman on Power EquipmentMaintenance Bnglnater (Power Moot)Farm Tractor*Porn I*fna OradarwItoad Finiohing NachineaPower BOOBSeed BpreadecGrease TruckMachines similar to the above

CBAC542 9/99 4

ftR32U9!8

U 1 X'UU 11 W l

'

Mage Group V Conveyor* (Building)Welding machines 'Heater* jWallpoint*ConpreaBors .Punpe JKieoallanecnia Equipment operator 'ttevmtor Operator* (ranmr«r.inn*)Kouao Car JMachine* eimilar to the above j

Wage Group vi Piraman . ,Dlloz-0 and Deck Slanda (Pcraonnal ]Moats) 'oraaaa Truck Malpor

' Iwage Group VII (A) (Bee wage group I)xoxi C/HAS ardouswan CD Monova)

Group VII (B) (Bee Wage Oroep XX)Toxic /HazardousNaate Removal

CBA6&42 »/99 5 LJ

AR32i»9l9

4i

"Nancy J Griskowitz" <[email protected]> on 02/03/200012:30:06 PM

To: "Brand! Butler" <[email protected]>. John Wokasien/Buffalo@URSGreinercc:

Subject: Re: SLF Drawing

The area bounded by the limits of waste is approximately 15.9 acres ascalculated by AutoCAD.

"Brandt Butler" <[email protected]> on 02/08/2000 04:33:35 PM

To "Jim L Aker" <Jim. [email protected]>. "Edward M Andrechak" ]<[email protected]>. "Craig L Bartlett" <[email protected]>."Matthew P Brill" <[email protected]>. "Brandt Butler <[email protected]>,"Nancy J Griskowrtz'' <[email protected]>, "John L Guglielmetti" |<[email protected]>, "Richard H Jensen" <[email protected]>. i"William R Kahl" <[email protected]>, "Richard C Landis"<[email protected]>, "Edward J Lutz" <[email protected]. corns-, Tom INowocten/Buffalo@URSGreiner, "William B Pew" <[email protected]>, "Noel C Scrivner" I<[email protected]>, "Stephen H Shoemaker" '<[email protected]>, "Marjorie E Vetter"<Marjorie.E. [email protected]>, "John E Vidumsky" <[email protected]>, "John " jA Wilkens" <[email protected]>, "John H WoHe" <[email protected]>. jJohn Wokasien/Buffalo@URSGreiner, [email protected]. [email protected]

cc:

Subject: South Landfill Team Update - Current Tasks and Notes from February 2nd Meeting $

Team,

Please note our new meeting schedule. £

Upcoming Meetings B:30am - 10:30am J

February 14 2-7-2374 - Team - Review Kiber, Xsta Results, Finalizecost estimate assumptions, set date for CRG Peer Review(302)709-8000 + 2653*AGENDA For February 14

XSta TestingKiber TestingCost EstimatesEPA Feedback ,Schedule and scope for Peer ReviewSchedule and scope for EPA MeetingLoose ends not coveredPath Forward & Schedule l

February ?? CRG Peer ReviewEarly March EPA-DuPont meeting to discuss path forwardMarch B Review status. Chose technology and design path. Scope

next phase.

(Attached (in Adobe Reader) is a copy of the current project schedule -please review it, especially your dates - before our next meeting - I plan I

to use it to monitor progress. ;]

[ (See attached file: npt309.pdf) ] ...

;-Current Tasks iJWilkens

Gathering analytical data, proposing permeable wall composition flScope lab scale flow-through-test with target wall composition |JIssue note with non-delivery months for James River gypsum

AR32U92I H

43.

KiberIssue draft reportComplete gypsum/fill permeability tests and issue draft results

Kahl/GriskowitzScope geo-probe type testing for groundwater outside of southlandfill - develop requisite plansScope in-situ treatability testing for PRWCalculate waste volume and wall depths based on topo maps

ButlerSend out gw data package to teamDraft EPA submittal for presentation of new data and pathforward, emphasize low zinc release

WokasienFinalize cost-estimates with proposed wall composition

NowocienDevelop shipping cost for lime from Montague, Michigan

Meeting Notes - 2/2/2000Field Activities

Issued drawings with new dataDeveloping more info on geo-probe testing

field scope - determine depth to marsh, gw compositionpifPSA/HASP/WMPsurveyschedule

Develop scope while preparing for EPA presentationKiber

Completed verification testing - portland (3%), lime (3%), orgypsum (5*) are effective - now its a matter of costSet up permeability tests w/gypsum and common fill - expectresults 2/9/2000Draft report to issue 2/11/2000

WilkexisTests complete for screening dosages - awaiting analyticalresultsPropose wall composition for -100 year wall life (ifpractical)Next phase - use proposed wall composition/ratio and retreatgroundwater(Following the meeting, J. Aker requested a flow through testfor next phase, rather than the shaker tests)GW flow analysis shows 0.8 ppm zinc at 200 ml/min ->&6 gm/day(a handful of Cold-Ease tablets)Likely some synergistic reaction with Ba-rich and Zn-richwater - future study emphasis should shift to gw outside thewallSuggest review of results with EPA and present geoprobe-typesampling plan (w/decision tree) to see if low zinc outside thelandfill would eliminate need for treatment..Discussed need for sampling groundwater outside of landfill -Kahl will develop a scope for geo-probe-type testing - dataneeded - depth to top of marsh deposit and gw sample (-20locations outside landfill on east and south sides

Wokasien - Cost-EstimatesUpgraded cost-estimates were presentedLooking at cost comparison of various barium agents (PortlandCement - 3%. Hydrated Lime - 3%. and Gypsum - 5%1 - will putlowest cost in estimate

AR32»*922

Must confirm shipping costsRecalculating volume and depth of wall based on topo maps ofground surface and top-of-march surface

-npt309.pdf

il»R32li923 n

, General Requirements • ROII Overhead ft Miscellaneous DataR01100-050 General Contractor's OverheadThe table below shows a comnoor's overhead as a percentage of direct the owner supplied the materials or If a contract is for labor only. Note:•ust in two ways. The figures on the right arc for the overhead, markup Some of these markups arc included in the labor rates shown on Reference

on both mania] and labor. The figures on the left are based on Table R01100070.entire overhead applied only to the labor. This figure would be used if

Items of General Contractors Indirect Costsr field Supervisor)Main Office Expense (see details below)Tools and Mnor EquipmentWorkers' Compensation & Employers' Liability. See RO 11 00060Retd Office, Sheds, Photos, Etc.Performance and Payment Bond, 0.7% to 1.5V See R01100080Unemployment Tax See RO 11 00- 100 (Combined federal and State)Social Security and Medicare, See R01 100-100 •Sales Tax — add if applicable 42/80 x % as markup of total direct

costs inducing both material and labor. See R01 100090t Sub Total'Builder's Risk Insurance ranges from .141% to .586;i. Sse RGilOWHO'Public Liability InsuranceGrand Total

% of Direct CostsAs a Markupof Labor Onry

6.0%1621.018.11.52.37.07.7

59.8X0.6U63.6%

As i Maria? ofBoth Material «nd Labor

2.9%7.70.58.60.71.1333.7

28.5%031.5303%

GENERAL RIQUIRIMINT*

'Paid by Owner or Contractor

Main Office Expense\ General Contractor's main office expense consists of many items not of total volume. This equals about 7.7% of direct costs. The following arcIrtailcd in the front portion of the book. The percentage of main office approximate percentages of total overhead for different items usually•xpense declines with increased annual volume of the contractor. Typical included in a General Contractor's main office overhead. With differentnain office expense ranges from 2% to 20% with the median about 7.2X accounting procedures, these percentages may vary.

Item t Typical RangeManagers', clerical and estimators' salariesProfit sharing, pension and bonus plansInsuranceEstimating and project management (not including salaries)Legal, accounting and data processingAutomobile and igtit truck expenseDepreciation of overhead capital expendituresMaintenance of office equipmentOffice rentalUtilities including phone and lightMiscellaneous

Total

40% to 55%2 to 205 to B5 to 9

0.5 to 52 to 82 to 6

0.1 to 1.53 to 51 to 35 to 15

Average48%12673541428

100%

I

'C

RR32U92U

262 Delaware Avenue []Buffalo, New York 14202

(716)656-5636 -i

MEMO OF TELECOM {JOB NO.: 0<E>00£> 3 *T2.*>QO DATC: U*-0/JOB TITLE: ^ Cfa r ___ RLE UNDER: _______PERSON CALLING: p,, k TV *.**•«- PERSONCALLED:_REPRESENTING: _________________ REPRESENTING: _

TELEPHONE*:

,/«, x»

'

SUBJECT: __________________________________;______________ ' 1iJ

'———————————————————————————————————SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION: ____ ________________ *•*

/ 7 2. r>0-i&?<- — i- P" L. & s

& - * ~ / " 1^ ^ff O S^ f— "T"T. . . . * ji ^" —— * / t I

AR32U925 ' y

URSGreiner282 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, New York 14202(716)856-5636

MEMO OF TELECOMJOB NO.: DATE:

JOB TITLE: QD poorY__ ._____ PILE UNDER:PERSON CALLING: tP4- fc, DAU,^*? PERSON CALLED:REPRESENTING: R.g.S. 6 UA C REPRESENTING:

TELEPHONE #: I - S 13 -SUBJECT: Per*. *rerAs4 l<= f?** ts,~ C U; A If

SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION:

-rue 4- //'^H

>l.cA g cf ,^ft^feH ^^ Alloy* 4

URSGreiner282 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, New York 14202(716)856-5636 j

MEMO OF TELECOMJOB NO.: g-C^o^ 3C~72.<? &<=> DATE: '/JOB TITLE: Q/ pe^f RLE UNDERPERSON CALLING: T>.fr k•_£> A u. e- .y____ PERSON CALLED: /*/REPRESENTING: tu.g- ^-_________ REPRESENTING: ^-^ ^^_______ ]TELEPHONE #: ^- V/Z - y<.- 77<*? __________________SUBJECT. C^^x^gy £t/#f/- fle* *n *-4 '•'• 7?< " '£/c bts*U' H


'T

/>? / PC E^» /^ - <S*yf> - f A // ^O ____________________^

J

*>*

X&________________ • I

. i

J

By: PEERLESS METAL PWDR; 1313941024C; Apr-10-00 9:23; Page 1/2

ESS TM

Peerless Metal Powders & Abrasive

124 South Military Detroit, Michigan 48209313 841-5400 Fax 313 841-0240

FAX TRANSMITTAL

\Ve are transmitting M loi*l of /^< pages including this cover sheet. Please contact sender ifyou do not receive the entire transmission.

PLEASE DELIVER THE.FOLLOWINC PAGES TO:r^N .

NAME.

COMPAN

FAX * ' /Lf• if> <J> <* W!s"~ PHONE

DATE Q'/O OC)

MESSAGE:

00CM

-=rCMCOCC

Metal Powders & Abrasive iS!*'*?**°"2i!:

So, •3y: PEERLESS METAL PWDn; 13138410240; Apr-10-00 9:24; Page 2/2

April 7, 2000

John Wokasien FAX. 716-856-2545URS Consultants212 DelawareBul&lo,NY 14202

Dear John:

Thank you for the opportunity to quoie on your requirements for Cast Iron Aggregate at theDuPont - Newport, D£ site.

Ca* Iron Aggregate Size 8/50———————————S33Q/NT

Plus packaging in 30004 bulk bags, palletized—-3» 14/NT (521/per bag)

Prices ate FOB Detroit, MI. Terms - Net 30 Days.

T found tbe following freight rate Detroit. Ml to Newport, D£:

FlatbedTnick————•————————-————$i 125 - S5GVNT (based on 22.5 tons)

Should you require us to prepay and add the freight, please add 15% to the above freight price.

We appreciate the opportunity to give you this quote. As you are aware the cost of producing andtransporting iron is market driven and therefore can change over time; please contact us for a finalquote at The lime the irun u required fur the project

Very truly yours.

Paul W. Tousley ' ( Jtforccfi P. Warr&iyPresident & CEO ' Cast Iron Sales

PAVX'npw

nU

UAR32U929

MM A I Pnwriars & Ahraftivf* 124 South Military • DetroPi, Michtoan 48209

URS Telecon Memorandum

Date: November 21, 2000

To: Files: 05-00035849.00


Subject: Newport South Landfill - Telephone Conversation with Brandt Butler

Today, I spoke with Brandt Butler and Michele Thompson of the Wilmington office about theNewport South Landfill project. Based on our conversations, the following issue was discussed:

1. Brandt and Michele want us to revisit the ROD and PRB cost estimates to finalize them fortheir assessment report. We need to consider the following:

a.) We need to evaluate different installation alternatives. We also need to consider theinstallation method so that material separation does not take place during wall

_^^ placement.b.V) We need to add magnesium carbonate to the PRB estimate. The material costs $1.55

per pound plus shipping from the Port of Newark in northern New Jersey.

The new mix of the wall will be:

100 parts per weight sand20 parts per weight gypsum5 parts per weight iron5 parts per weight magnesium carbonate

flR32i*930

03--27 *OC' 00=46 I D : DUTX3MT-ENV I RCNTlBfrAL FAX: 302-892-7643 PACE

Location

GW-8GW-9GW-10GW-11GW-12GW-13GW-14GW-15CW-16GW-17GW-19GW-20CGW-21GW-22AGW-22BGW-22C

Depth to Marsh deposit

1555-5955552c106616158

Pott-ir Fax Note 7671

co.ll > u

JAR32493I

URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Page _ orJob CXi?oo-r - SDOT V^QPiLU- ______ Project No. O5 CW%5*7 3 S-Os Sheet _ L of

&=Yrn?.7y ESTxmft^r^ ______ Computed bv TAP _______ Date 3 J2^|OOChecked by __ _______ Date

Reference

PT x2"K>FT"

(\-7fT xiSOfT)-t r-rxi3S"FT) ^ /

0y

ESD REMEDY ESTIMATE

C:\WIN I xnv&Dcsfciop\SLI Cosls l2nOWGSTIMATF; COVER docllm«/l9«»7:5K AM

bdHNM

1 «

NEWPORT SUPERFU

SOUTH LANDFILL REMI

ESD REMEDY

enOU13oH

tnOU•J3£3

"3

"-**cat9O1

a'•3*C

P

r-TToo">CN

W

O•oCN"

w

V

ON* '

Site Pr

eparation

Slurry Wall

i n m O O O O O O O O *nC N t - ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O \OC N C O C N O O C N O C N O O O O000000000000^0^0 ooF"-* C*"l ^ f O ^ C* OO OO O *™

—i i i f f \ ^ OQ f "j f | C1**)

O — CN CN•— ' •— '

W W W W W W W & 9 W W w

m m o oo oo oor*~i CN *O TJ- o CNO *«O

*~~* 5" ^ r* ^™*v **— ' r*"i f> l~-ro*~"

WWW W W W W W

— - W — IW OJ

£G« 35 && $

£8| Ig §s ~~<^"^ g*"" s"^ "

ra K) cjo o o<^ <Tfr _Q3 3 3CO CO CO

'ooij£

Q-o «u « O r="« - C * 3 n OUH 4> cxig s 5 Ig^ s E -i s^ 5 S E o00 --B .3 2 <*-(

C ^ "O SO

a'S <2 -3 |-2?r S -S -« **tL| ** _-*J -*J |

*W c- c6i '> 'S «*-> « °O !> f CL,

'§ 1 f a s 0*i 2 .a « u _.H s S S S S-? c3H U E- O n3

oinCNON"oCN

W

ool/">»n. — i

V)

S

o

.— «

Riverbank Protection

oooo"ONr*"i

W

Oooooo"ONmw

CO

*_,u£3CO

<D§

Remove and

Replace South h

oo°\r— rC*")fl1 — 1

wOOOoONC*Tfim

w

CO

1S-.COco

'*-»

Chemical De

livery an

d Extrac

<N OON Or- o*o ooo m. CNt ~

•— '

w w

ooooCN

W

|COo.s3

3oJ33CO«O

su.S

General Conditions

ONr— lfl

\oVOin

CNONr-Tj-in<*\t~*

w

S

0.

3J

^

r

|Main Office Overhead

ON tn Ot"- m o\o oo oOO Tf Of •"" ' J"i in j1

i — « i — i

w w

(N CN OON ON Or- r- oVO -<fr Ooo »n • >T m Tfr- r-" — <"T—— •

W W W

G E§ to to

^33H-J J

si-r-"

tio

Profit

Engineering and Project Supp

Monitoring and Ma

intenance

m «— 'CN CO

\o oo o°. "1CN ""CN

wwinCN\OvC>"OO,CNCN

W

1PH

"3••-*3CO

Contingency

**

k ^

*

O^».frs

w

U•<J

O-H

AR32l*935

' 1J11

H<g f If a:s 1*2 o - ^.ocgts | A S g £3-3O ^ J e d o o g-, 3 C3.2j3O U O ' O O , -v CO C!0.^! 1 s £ -g 11 11J3 t o t t J f n 0 ^ 0 3 5"*^Q- ^ o •—• i* ^ i " S w 0^ S 3 ^ n ^> &^ ^«S0 8 * i ^s IB "Oi 11Hu > « .5 +i

.f 5 i a a i s | | . » | t n r tlHo.u>P:c'c!cjeS S ^ o S - ^ J c S- . i i

"Nancy J Griskowitz" <[email protected]> on 01/27/200002:27:38 PM

To John Wokasien/Buffalo@URSGreinercc "Brandt Butler" <[email protected]>

Subject: SLF Cost Estimate Information

Jonn,

The attached file contains two spreadsheets. The information on these Isheets replaces the groundwater pumping and chemical treatment sections ofthe ESD estimate. - ,

In addition, the Engineering and Project Support percentage of 10% that we ' 'include with our estimates includes but is not limited to treatabilitystudies, pilot studies, implementation design, contract administration, "Ihealth and safety compliance and field supervision. ;i

(See attached file: Cost Estimates 1-27.xls)

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thanks, pNancy

- Cost Estimates 1-27.xls

s

co a:iu oH- aco >8l

• -

3}

O_Ji <Ui raI ^: 0)v> Q* tf« oO Q.O "> *c 5 *0 0- £ 2•S * <.2 D m cS z *~ -s| a s iK CO CO _i 1

Sv»woo"5oh-

**10Ou'ED

OT*C3

_>.

"cn3a

c£**a.h_uin0)D

O ,n UD CO0 g CO r-03 g T-. (NO ^_" (N-r-~" j / * €w w trt

co g°-^

——— 1inK >*J3 ro— -o

ooS « ss*— /r ll*.o 2 oin ^r--"to

~ ^ inO 5rCO »<M W

™ r\iZ to^ -<r5 .1 r:•2 « g.•5 S &CO £ 3£ ° w3> f tS^o .91o £ c7

« " * QlCO ?= S* -DS * "° Su c ^ _i en< ? S < .9m £ — h- jr.T- —— ' > /*"! **J™ s y a): a> j t— c•i * ° 3 'i1CO CO UJ

tnoT_ri*«

-J<5

•D

S ora (/>a> -_i= o0) J3xi —O 0)— Q.

S o'^ COo J?1ray> -rJD ^c o.O XI £I ggn oo*? - w>~ .2 »-i-m ro c?a) ^ cora S — tS'E o£2S °I o

s ^^s5 < cotoo _ — ,_._."Z. i— tN (D TT

<u£i

"5CO£

OCO

OCJcKj

COuj

OO 7

-

3j5o-j

) ro2 *

Remediation Cost

Estirr

Site:

Newport

Size:

3 3 Acres

Location.

Newport,

Del.

—•

*LOuc"(.H

uC

E

E

>,

Quan

ti

jLtU))Q

co o co r-CD O CD CDro m to tA

0

S rt

tn_S ^

O°. o 5?o 2 2O)

cora*

0) ^~ o

f 1.2 "u-D 0)o '5*

0) 5 mU —< £ ^ E1S £ * S "S; S S 2 £s K 6 § "5>CO CO UJ

inro

_i

i

'o"o

0) <_u *™ ^

5- °c .Qo ~o J^

"H P 35 °^« .28s%2«c gc5Q) O Q) *-

I °I o. . ro ^_; ra "S» £ o £ o£ 1- COI- Uo , . ^2 T- (N fO TT

ftR32l»939

DUPONT NEWPORT SOUTH LANDFILLSOUTH JAMES STREET TIE-IN ALTERNATIVES

COST ESTIMATE

ALTERNATIVE 1REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT NEW ROAD

LINER UNDER ROAD

DESCRITION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTALCOST COST

Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $14,744 $14,744

Temporary Road (Install & Remove) SY 3,200 $13.44 $43,008

Excavation & Disposal of Existing Road CY 6,000 $8.26 $49,560(Disposal of Materials Onsite)

Subbase Fill and Compaction CY 4,000 $15.13 $60,520

Asphaltic Pavement___________- Base Course - Shoulders SY 1,950 $5.27 $10,277

- Base Course - Lane SY 3,100 $9.07 $28,117

- Binder Course - Shoulder SY 2,300 $3.57 $8,211

- Binder Course - Lane SY 2,750 $8.38 $23,045

Surveying DAY 10 $1,125 $11,250

Striping LF 3,000 $0.24 $720

Traffic Control LS 1 $37,955 $37,955

Additional Cap Installation* AC 1 $77.255 $77,255

Subtotal $364,662Contingencies - 5% $18,233Total $382,895Say $390,000

" From DuPont North Landfill Cap Cost Estimate

RR32U9UO

URS Memorandum

Date: December 15,2000

To: File 05-00035849.00



I discussed the updated costs with Brandt Butler today. I indicated that URS has never preparedcost estimates for the ESD alternative to include a pump and treat extraction system. Brandtindicated that URS Diamond had prepared a draft cost estimate in the amount of $1,337,900. URSwill place this cost in the ESD estimate and reference this cost per URS Diamond.

U

ROD REMEDY ESTIMATE

C:\WINDOWS\Dw.kiop\SLF Cos(i I2I700\£ST1MATE COVER.doe

WHNHW

7-f-, MS^^ctV. ft,3 Wn w• E

£H*~"*\ rMv ^

£«£:N iz d

NEWPOR

SOUTH LA

RODREME

&o^"a3oH

"SaOU

2

'5

£*rfB«3a

a2+*

'§*o

O OOO O O O O O O ON vi Tf o t"~ TJ-o o o o o o o v> v> o o o vi o t*» ^ooo ooo o o o cs o owivi—'Or^ ON\O CJ C> O ro 3 "lO ON v> ^ 3 TJ~ <<3- \f) ON \Oo> ov>*/~> >o ON ro o TJ- vov^ro'oooro cs^- ot~-t^- Tf ro ro cs ro t ^ O N r ^ o o r o v i oo

oo >~H ON •— i C^l ' — * \Qr— < -H

W6ew fee fee fee fee fee w w w w fee w ^e

O O O O N O O O O O O t ^< ) 3 \f~) <— < 3 5 5 v vi v f~»**\ NO ro B ^ v~> ° ° v **T01 ^~* ^5 • — ' vi . vi i/"i 10 . ON' — •" ON Ol """" O Tf Tj" Tf (J f*-)ro w ro ro ro l> in

^ Csf Of (Sf X \£)"

2 + - > • £ + - > § **H >, >* > H O T £ f e M l i l w §4j GG G ^ 4j S |*g g g f §

*« C d C Q-.i *i CNj J

00 ._.o o X o ^P ^pxo °.. °,. o ^ ^ 1 ^ or^°r--o in— O" O" r-T " " ^ O t '"' Oo o p — i — — i

co rt co-+-> 4-> 4->o S 2.O -D o3 3 3

"wOO

£v*S

tsW) PC ^3X ^' rn

<U m3 ro Mw S ^ & «3 *$ •& §* c

.i ill i J 1 il f|( X w 5 ' o « U o O - f e !s^-»-S.ti -^1 iw i l i l Jilt! 1

_bMvoov

t*-*

w

M]3HOH

coU6s.C

0>y=i'

"iI* so S

o ^ 22O ^ £ T3-~. O *-<^? _ 3 C-- rS "5 «"-- t ^^ 2 wM C^ o c -°g x| ^| J g.r *s -g *- s * s8 P i §S"s s*

w-3 S

-*

|.felfSte85 ;|.g

s ^hiS!^ i&K I s££«| Ieg 5 I 1 S I -a ti 1 §|1 5^^^-'^g§05 2w J&rf n __ _ „^^^ ' ^ ^^ r^ f\•~i Q >» « a .2^ KT o . JS *3£efeb stf 52 §O^fg -BinTj-rt^oetc.gs^ E§wg§C^ D>J * ^ l ^ w 3 * ! - H l ^ ^ H i - t J j * ^ lzg« ^^^«!s^Srt0,<^ AR32i*9t»U

O ""> *Ors| rN r-O f*"> oo

5! 1 I S Si £» w *« ** w &e

•^ -*- + + + + 4-+ta O «y^ — O£ ^ ^ ;c xi ° °°P r-i —: f^ fN • •n —~ r~j OO

« 5 "" fc — — _ H: ^£ -^ i '"' -i- -i- •(• -i- -i-

? I i i I I I Ii* " " • v O v e > N p s O s e > - * = ' x O =>-, fe O ° O ^ 1£?C c ^ o ^ o ^ o ^ o ^ o ^ o ^ ^ •?: S Jn ro o n? ^g " W ) i / - > W > < / 1 W i » / - > U - i * X S , : ^ \ r 5 * ' l — - —Q h - r n r o r o r o r o r o r o t - - u-T ' r~" o"

(—1

I I I I 1 1 |^ - _ l r i - l A ^ °"^ 2 S ? S 2 : S m CD

re

2 - a " J »g g g 5m _i Q O

_> * 5 5 O O O O• — — ' — l LJ <— > <— ' >— 'LJ a>

'\^ j

— ^8 5 5

O

S o O r^£ p vq »/•>

v-i \O oo-O oo ro rN

£

O O o«0 (N V,r i CT'" r-'

irt t/) in

S - , - - -i-- I o 6.,. -.- -i- £ E E ^

_~v Wl Wi S

•« °J O6 . ^ ^ o= J _a^ Q O ro r—^ > > § b*» be feeo ->" -- "Ov O O— o o

I)•g

o -± S op -3^ T £ 1 e -3CD o £ c/5 rv* O Q

RR32U9U6

"25

« Ibo E= K15 XL- O

«•= §.E «- o-o — —3 t— JB

00 w

C onO 3

.= 

^ 00

= ^^ c« «c tso -1•— u •=

00 = ^

cj <y

rN

rNo

v) <« J= e" § 3 II II II II II II II "ren E o> •* Xw i jo y SJD w _ ? J3

Of L ***'-S 2 o3 « O

.^3 •

-t: eo o o> — o .1. L_ ^") i — £ OO --~ CJC

« « I? 2 f * § ^ « -I -g S -g 5 5 f iii- -J 5 -S W-2 O K« = K = - ^ - ^ EK ^ O . t i Y o> 5^^ O- t. n co vg. ^J "•- (^r-J NO Q _ J p - O p - _ ) - J ^

^ to (^ • > i^ QJ C3 (y QJ •£ i~*.•= -= VO -= Si ?> 'b

CLO

ro&rN

be}II

O O T O\n oo NO ooso o w~> <•*•>IN

be

NO

"I II — w __« 00 (Bo ra *-

i s i " J— o - >rN ro" £4 Ebe be f>* X f ^^

£•£

^ O O O O.-• O v~t O Or- rN r^i NO —^j O O O —"^ I « I I*i TJ- TT oo TT^ , 0 0 0 0S — — — CN< t rN rN rN (N

O O O O

« - - .in U O co u3

©£2O15

o

o

"= 8_WQ._« «

^ oo

-o_____

'5

ro "^> — r ^ o v o — ooo ^ o - — oo vt — rNO— —"

cj

r~-NO_rNND

>>0 o O —rt J ..p, xOTj -01

"> M Q.o "^ o i-r N o o J = B X X X X X - X X X

X i2 II ^ £ £ w w w t n ^ i n t n u S^ ^ ^ " o o g - - = - = ^ ^ - = ^ ± ^•* w 2 o * ' = ~ - o o o o e o g o o o o~ — =? -S =— O O O O r j - T r ° ° T j - o O O•^ - ^ £ ^ '- NO^ \0 NO NO ^R- vo O roII _ m -o 3 O os O o' ° o' o" C?C

^ p - o ' " — — _ _

I 1 S 5 x S.2 -J 5 .2 J >> -I- « f

• x " rN ^ n

S

70 3

n ^— o — ^ o s o t> f - ^ £ - ^ ^ ; 1o ' — ' -a

< ^ £ ! i M ss §os i nm = o o ? = S i . Z 2 t - 3 2 — *<o .? — \o" ^ 5_ «— « Ji o « ii o 1• - — —- *•* • • ^ ^^ «• r^ « ^1 t

ai

7

O o O rNO ro vo OO ro — O"v

rN T ro obe fae be __'

oooo"o

ooo

ro fNl

CN v~t\ r-be feel be

o « o•v U. I__-n _ r—

C.NO

O CM r- ™ c/3vi r \£> .rN fo TT £be be be *

ot/5 wi *St_ i_ 3

O OO OONO T ^fro NO *Oo' o o

— J «-•= 2 -w" HI l-= 0.0

1 B- ° So^f E w -g -SUv 3 ^ CO Sg 0- ^ -J -Juu

g flR32U950

o

QJ

.oo

EX>f0>2o

5 3OO « _be — gA 2 ^ - 2n u ET L.o ~ >- *o E B._

= ?3"~ oo ^- s: o*" S , .- ™^:g J a £ »

2; " rC 2^ ^^„ O , fc °, -l 2P - ^ o^c S i ^ 0 - ^ -5. S 5 2 I

, D. nto -=• "fee ^ A

- ">,>- o°o< § s £ s

- I w -' -i S^ - .1- — °- 5£§ i 3 '£ (2= v > £ r t - D =„ i i2 £ 3 ^ i ^ J s , ! » ^ » j s

w " " i 3 > I » rsT 5 S -= := ~ 3 O ~E § " * S C * § 7 £ * i§ 3 ; + 38 +3 ° u 55 ? t -° ° ^ S "° 2 - " 9- rN .o. f? ^ ^ £ = g ^ - 5 1 J i i K ^ I 4 1 ? - I ' i

rl ' >> H ~ P S - O = II l ^ P a » - i 5 > " S 1^ - ° ^ ^ ^ ^ < T 3 ^ f e ^ O ^ 0 0 - ^ ^ I£ = £ "I S S H ^ r o S ^ ^ ^ = = S ^ 2 - S SH - p x ^ ^ x ^ | x ~ E - « f e £ e = - = *^ c ^ ^ g - ^ £ ^ > , x o g g ° - x - s . r ii - ^ t r g o j ^ o ^ S ^ f g s ^ ^ ^ |< - § § § g g ^ g g e i i a E g ^ § i • l£ S g 5 ;S S H K i; 5 1 I S 8 S 5 ^ § I Ug ^ ^ _ r - _ - r f D v , - ( - < r N D S b « j ? 5 w | ;

s I AR32495I Is M

4>(J_«c. ___^ r-.= \oflj O_o —

faO? II5 §" oo cy^ &e w

.E _E ^ & • .2ooo S 5 &•rj- oo CT; • Cro oo '/-i ec S *~"o o '-o ^ ns-— be be *tr> r O&e o o> *»

u ."2 a*-.0 " S

n n n fe =

in inO O

OC u - > r N« oo wo

r - . S r oro O

*

< s ^ s s

o

ts o x x

a r a ^ a : ^ - T - ^ w ^ ^E ^ e ^ ~ « i £ ^ ^ ^ p 2 ^ 5<< - s m O > C Q ( - U^ (- OR o ELO U a.

g X»

m r- = w O^ ^ - « ^ro rs» = > an&e be 7: « 2F+ + S y .Eoo - "" i"~> <N (U O Svd & E T *-NO ro =; rf Mfee be m -if O« -O ejII II < -g O

I i! i! i! - ~ HS °o 6 ^ 0 6 « x enC £ S o ^ ^ ^ S > J N O "_, i- v ' O O O > O 0s

^ || oo" — NO" ^ O .— rN.— -^-i. - T T * ^ ; / o> — "^ °°<

- uC O r N N t n U • - - -rN o ^ ^ N O t n U u •- -r -S? x

CQ ^^ e . J! •- "i = .i 2 ! ! fE — ON

/3

g RR32U952 ||

TO rN rN f- oob e v > o — — 22°

"w n n il n n u n ii n ,| u „ —- 1 a

5 g ra > .S

~r j « o H_ • c >^ *- 4^in S *O >v "tn X^ i K3 "" ^CU O 00 T3 O => t.- TT i O O<- ^s — ^ x *-__ C3 •— • •- C-> ri^ " - O 1 - - ' r N B

- 1 S I

» « o 5 o— Cu BJ • • - - — -

I II s I IiOu

:i

6-

AR32l»953 H '!•" £ < If. S *-*

r-NO

Ooo

orrTTr-"rofee

II

NOOroVIrNbe

il

roNOOTJ-"VIbe

II

rrr—(Nff\*rj

n

or—

be

II

rNooVI

be

II

m ro»n osCN V>rN —fee fee

\\ II

OooooooT

be

li

VIvOr-ooCOIN_

fee

uDO

TVINOr—ro•T

fee

"co

wL.CUC.ON

fee

>-tf!

***• ^ .£— - - '>*\ wu i_

o

O x x x x x x x x *

% j n j n < / i C ^ £ ^ 2 j

ecCQ

Q 1_

S 5UJ U

AR32U951*

UO.VIr-roo'CNbe

es

o o o o oo o o o o°. °- °,. °.. orf •**•' o" NO *vi i—) T IN __be rN be ro J2

u]a

>. >-» T3U W £r- o _O O uO O _4>(N ro1 '5

*~ Q-

tf_ ,.

o" o *" I o8 8

S^ NO O-u ii m 3

O = v C£ NO .= P —— W U.£ ^ xA. 5 '5 « T£ 5 x * S. S IS x ^ S £ = g» Si- e S i g S. -g I

^ U u O s ^ ^ O u I^ — ra SO* . - S D - r - O D "^( • ^ 0 x 0 0 = 2W 00 — \D ID 5c

'5 |cn 1

AR32U955

"77.

v> vi \o V) — oVi 0s O T NO fNro O^ T T fN rsjv> r~{ —" —- fN —*be be be be be —be

O> r—r-j —

— rNbe be

NOrNbe

^6 £

o

— ro oo vi ^_J a> _" __*i—i rN oo oo ,_ ,_. ,* .—f e e b e f e e f e e * " ^ * " * "

s o S ^ j i j i f f p " * ' " '„ = E = = - - o o o o1 1 r - r ^ r ^ ^ r - P - S O N O

O O O O OOO

co ee-O T3

Tf roCN

DO

VI-3-

C8•o —. C fo ro ro ro (N ro ro

d v i O O O O N O O Or\i ^^ ^— **- w-~ _ _ _ _o o o o o o o o

OO-O f>-* o- .2 ", —= rtr — o o « * - Ji =

. o O = _ c ( _ ) 5 2 w w

_N = 5 « Si 15^

- "

u « D - ? sz - 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ e - S ^ E E S g - ' E 1Q C f l — r N r o - ^ r v i N O O r - - J O O a . L O C _

I AR32l*956 is

CN

O

VI

be

V)rNV»

vTfee

ooo.o"v>fee

CT<(Nr-oo'VIfee

oooo"VIfee

oooor-"be

OCNr-oo"VIfee

rorNroro"be

oo

vTON•tbe

o>rori\D(Nbe

r-VlroNO"VIr-te

ooooNOrwe

Si « »**S- £ $

a> v, wj o> ro •£OO v wND ^ Q,X >» £ £ d -« vi vt = cdC 5 o CB O ^ O

= 5 jf s « § IB Bx x 5 °°, = be oo ^5? tn C/D vi OO X "s > r- - e, . •* O

r -S f D I" 3 ^- E^ O = — = oo — r-« rN. — J be — J r - b e —NOprNTTfeeH 0 oooS ^ r ^ ^ l c - So - = 0 o - 0 0

NO

LO-o

-r o >^ 0> E *M 1^- = O rt w

1 5 1 i °g V -^ £ —o_5

_.OU

S AR32li957

URS Grefner Woodward ClydeJob Duf>cxs't~ ___________ __ ProjectNo. ____________ Sheet_/_ of

C</c. Computed by _£_£ _______ DateChecked bv MSf _______ Date

/ ht*

or

Reference

^ 2

.— '!? " "

R 3 2 U 9 5 8

— O

II II II II II II II

0

oo oo

-g -gv, o

t - i - ^ - ^ r r s s s— _ — — ^

rN rNO O

O v i o O O O N O O O O Oo o o o o o o o f e e

« ! 2 § 4 u g ? B I ^ a, 1 1 ijT' K « _•_•• M i _ •> *i » ^ H> CC ^ SQ . S s - w E ^ X ) : = S ° - - = = " S i g i "

H " 3 " o ^ : 5 . - = " ° C l ~ J < ^ t / 5 U J " 7 = — ? 1 i

< 2c.

— r N P O * T V > \ o W r— — l U W a - G T I Q - ^ j? .»

i JI ": AR324959 h r,

<&b:Zi

O O O O roOO O o OO fNvi O oo V> ro

g * o r- „*r: vi vt v>

OOo

§ Kbe be be **» fee be

CC VI VI

- o b

fee -: o P X o bex E °, 5 be =>„ x„> en NO tfl x ^> •& S- 5 2- « S I« o £

oo — ^r- be "~

_ oooo § _ ^ $ °,»N - — = — S S___ —— h. O " ^ J

i <5 1 ^ § sro O o 0> " ° °?- 5 O O rs O ro— — ooo

Q.

W

«-— •> o.5 .> E

o "a "w O- -H O —re -— , tf>

w "o§ ?

— (J

URSTELEPHONE BID SSS2X

Narrw and Addrau of Rm Subrrtlling BW:

Vendor's Rspnwantativ*: Vvndor's Phorw No.

Twins;

Description of Piofsct Bwng Bid On:

Daftvary Data: FOB:

Subjsct to Inspacbon

Quantity DMCrtptton Unrtf»hc» ToW

.1.»* y

X5 y4* A *-' > ^ iHft Q

PrvightCosti

S

SrtscAJMTn

S

Q TnEnmpt

TotsJ Cost tar LM»r

S

Total Cost tor MMwiH

S

OnwdTofeM

S

AlWotttandUMSfWwpvPtsmsndSfwcMcttons Q YM Q No

Bid Inclusions:

JDat* This Bid Phonsd In: Tvna This Bid Phomd in:

am pm

URSGreinerDelaware Avenue

Buffalo. New York 14202(716)655-5636

MEMO OF TELECONJOB NO.; / 'JOB TITLE: PuPQuV FILE UNDER: _PERSON CALLING: D.,. l, n A L>V c o+J PERSON CALLED:REPRESENTING: UU.£.$ REPRESENTING:

TELEPHONE fc J-tf/'Z- flS&~7?*

SUBJECT: A . o-


o *

' d>

O T g" O 4- g / T g, X<J /<^ PA** £)*, //

AR32U962

•omoxo

APPENDIX D

HELP CALCULATIONS

Cap and Barrier Flux Calculations Based on HELP Model Infiltration Rates

Cap Composite Infiltration Rate - Current Proposed Cap DesignHELP % Total Fraction

Surface Area Recharge Area Rchg Wall Flux Wall Life(ft2) (in/yr) (in/yr) (cm3/cm2/day) (yrs) x4

Asphalt Road 41064 0.04700 0.062 0.002907% Grade Cap 436323 0.00017 0.656 0.000111-3% Grade Cap 187864 0.00036 0.282 0.00010Totals 665251 0.00311

0.00064 2890 11559

HELP Model Wall Flux and Life CalculationsAssumes that we cannot s eg rag ate flow from above and in the waste, so just look at infiltration rates.

wall length = 2200 ftwall depth = 10 nwall thickness = 1.5 ftporosity= 0.3Flow = Area * infiltration rate

Designed Cap:Area = 15 acres residence time in wall = 21,313 dayslnfrate= 0.00311 in/year vel= 0.0021 cm/dayFlow= 0.0024 gpm flux= 0.00064 cm3/cm2/day

Current Conditions:Area = 15 acres residence time in wall = 11 daysInf rate= 6.0 in/year vet= 4.13 cm/dayFlow = 4.65 gpm flux = 1.24 cm3/cm2/day

Prepared by: M.M. Thomson1/19/01 &R32U965

Client: w ** - >» Project Name:

Project/Calculation Number:

Title:

Total number of pages (including cover sheet): ^

Total number of computer runs:

Prepared by: ^ ^ s4f#*w<57W Date:

Checked by: fai lg U^itOi^fa \ " Date:

Description and Purpose:

fife

Design bases/references/assumptions:

Remarks/conclusions:

Calculation Approved by:

f*tEXHIBIT 5.3-1 _-.URSGreiner C/C '

CALCULATION COVER SHEET

anager/Date ?Revision No.: Description of Revision: Approved by:

Abb£*Av*i -i-

/ /T /'Vi \

Project Manager/Date

ftR32i»966OAM 5.3- 10/01/97

URSG PROJECT: Dupont South LandfillURSG PROJ. No.: 05_35849.00

TITLE: HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE (HELP)

Prepared by: Kevin Farrington 12/18/00Checked by: Marek Ostrowski 12/18/00

1. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis is to estimate the average annual infiltration for the proposed capping system and for theexisting asphalt road at he South Landfill facility.

2. DESIGN BASES

The proposed cap is described below:

Case 1: 6" of topsoil12" of barrier protection soil40 mil Geomembrane Liner12" of grading fillSLOPE=3%

Case 2: same as Case 1 except;SLOPE=7%

Case 3: 6" of topsoil12" of barrier protection soil0.5 cm lateral drainage layer40 mil geomembrane liner12" of grading fillSLOPE=3%

Case 4: same as Case 3 except;SLOPE=7%

The existing roadway is described below:

Case 1: 4" of asphalt2" of gravel12" of grading fill

Climatological Data

Climatological data was synthetically generated from the HELP database for the location of Wilmington, Delawarefor a time period of 50 years.

The evapotranspiration zone depth is the maximum depth from which water may be removed by evapotranspiration.Where surface vegetation is present, such as at the South Landfill, the evaporative zone depth should at least equal theexpected average depth of root penetration. In humid areas, such as Wilmington, DE, grasses may have rooting depthof 6 to 24 inches. The evaporative zone depth should be somewhat greater than the rooting depth, but may not exceedihc depth to the top of the topmost barrier soil layer or in this case the lop of the geomembrane. The evaporative zonedepth is, therefore, set al 15 inches for the proposed cover system and 0.2 inches for asphalt.

The maximum leaf area index (LAJ) is defined as the dimcnsionless ratio of the leaf area of actively transpiringvegetation to ihc nominal surface area of the land on which the vegetation is growing. The maximum LA1 wasselected to be 2.0, based on the typical value for a fair stand of grass. For the asphalt road, the maximum LA1 is 0.

RR32U967


TITLE: HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE (HELP)

Runoff Parameters

According the proposed grading plan, landfill slopes will vary from 3% to 7%. Surface water collection swells willtypically be constructed even- 200 feet, with a longest flow length equal to 350 feet. The surface type for thecalculation of the CN curve number was based on a poor stand of grass.

For the asphalt cap, the CN number was user-specified at the value of 90 (Reference 1, Erie and Niagara CountiesSiorm Drainage Design Manual).

Soil Data

Soil and material types were selected from the HELP database. The following soil types were used:Topsoil: #9, Silty LoamBarrier Soil: #22, Compacted SiltGrading Fill: #22, Compacted SiltDrainage Net: #20Geomembrane: #35, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)Asphalt: #16, Barrier SoilGravel. #2, Sand

Asphall was modeled as a barrier protection layer with a lateral drainage layer above it. This model best simulates thedrainage from a road surface, which is primarily in the lateral direction.

3. RESULTS

Detailed results are contained the attached Worksheet Data Files as follows:

CASE_________________________ NAME OF RESULTS FILECase I (Proposed cap @ 3% slope): A_3%Case 2 (Proposed cap @ 7% slope): B_7%Case 3 (Proposed cap plus lateral drainage layer, 3% slope); D_3%Case 4 (Proposed cap plus lateral drainage layer, 7% slope): E_7%Case 5 (Road): ROAD]

4. CONCLUSIONS

The average annual percolation through the proposed cover system is:

CASE____________________________ AVG. ANNUAL PERCOLATION RATECase 1 (Proposed cap @ 3% slope): 0.389 in/yrCase 2 (Proposed cap @ 7% slope): 0.389 in/yrCase 3 (Proposed cap plus lateral drainage layer, 3% slope): 0.00036 in/yrCase 4 (Proposed cap plus lateral drainage layer, 7% slope): 0.00017 in/yrCase 5 (Road): 0.047 in/yr

AR324968) (KnWoid'jifaft'.HKl.P-iiiriltwtHiH (Huh-sh ilocJ Vim*>.OWWoid\d»fnHEU1-mfilU»lji>n uialysis d.x:

,1'J

TITLE: HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE (HELP)ADDENDUM #1

Prepared by: Kevin Farrington 1/11/01Checked by: Marek Ostrowski /////C?/ fr.G>.

1. OBJECTIVEThe objective of this addendum is to provide a comparative analysis between the average annual infiltration for theproposed capping system, including drainage layer, (previously calculated) and the same capping system when aGeosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL), such as bentonite mat, is placed directly beneath the geomembrane liner. This casewill be run for both the 3% and 7% slopes

2. DESIGN BASESThe proposed cap is described below:

ADD. Case 1:6" of topsoil12" of barrier protection soil0.2" drainage layer40 mil Geomembrane Liner0.6 cm Bentonite Mat12" of grading fillSLOPE=3%

ADD. Case 2:same as Case 1 except;SLOPE=7%

Climatological Data / Runoff ParametersSame as in original calculation

Soil Data

Additional Soil and material types selected from the HELP database:Geosynlheuc Clay Liner (GCL): #17, Benlonite Mat

3. RESULTS ^Detailed results are containedthe attached Worksheet Data Files as follows:

A

CASE_________________________ NAME OF RESULTS FILEADD. Case 1 (Proposed cap w/ GCL @ 3% slope) A_3%_GCLADD. Gise 2 (Proposed cap w/ GCL @ 7% slope) B_7%_GCL

CONCLUSIONS Tvs»e < < ° vcol "c .J4 pThe average annual percolation through the proposed cover system was previously calculated (see originalcalculation) as;

CASE____________________________ AVG. ANNUAL PERCOLATION RATECase 1 (Proposed cap @ 3% slope) 0.00036 in/yrCase 2 (Proposed cap @ 7% slope) 0.00017 in/yr

By comparison, the average annual percolation through the cap with the addition of a GCL is:

CASE__________. ••_______________ AVG. ANNUAL PERCOLATION RATEADD. Case 1 (Proposed cap w/ GCL @ 3% slope) 0.0000 in/yrADD Case 2 (Proposed cap w/ GCL @ 7% slope) 0.0000 injjrQ 3 ? U 9 6 9'-mfilWiilii'ii aiiJysB ADDENDUM 1 docJ \35K*> 00\Wor(!\dii»fl\HI-:Ll>-i]irilUi.lioii analysis ADDENDUM t due H M W C. "T J W <f

*tO

O

J

AR32l*970 J

A 3%

** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY * *** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** * * ** •* * ****+*********+********+*+**********+*******+*********************

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA4.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA7.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA13.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\DATA11.D11SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA10A.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\a 3%.OUT

TIME: 14:44 DATE: 12/14/2000

*+++**********+***+**+*****++*++*+****+**++**+****+++*********++**+++**+****+*

TITLE: Dupont South Landfill

*******+**+*****++*********+***********+****************+**+^

NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERECOMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.

LAYER 1

TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER

Page 1

_MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9

THICKNESS = 6,00 INCHES 1POROSITY - 0.5010 VOL/VOL **FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2840 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOL jINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.4569 VOL/VOL iEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC

NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00 -]FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE. !

LAYER

TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 22

THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.4190 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.3070 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1800 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.4231 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.189999992000E-04 CM/SEC

LAYER

TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35

THICKNESS - 0.04 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. - 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SECFML PINHOLE DENSITY = 1.00 HOLES/ACREFML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 4.00 HOLES/ACREFML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 3 - GOOD

LAYER

Page 2

A_3%

TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 22

THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHESPOROSITY - 0.4190 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY - 0.3070 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1800 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.4190 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.189999992000E-04 CM/SEC

GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA

NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULTSOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 9 WITH AFAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 3.%AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 350. FEET.

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 81.70FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF - 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE - 6.562 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 6.777 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE - 2.430 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 12.847 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER - 12.847 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA

NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROMWILMINGTON DELAWARE

STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHES

Page 3

A_3%AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HTJMIDITY - 67.00 §AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY - 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71 . 00 %

NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWARE

NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)

JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54

NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWARE

NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)


31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50

NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWAREAND STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREES

r****** + **** + ** + + ****** + * + *** + ** + ***** + * + + ***** + ****** + ** + + * + **** + **-Jr**

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50 *»___„_________„„________„


''}Page 4 jj

AR32i»97i»

A_3%PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.18 2.59 4.31 3.26 3.47 3.693.71 4.02 3.55 2.64 3.06 3.26

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.58 1.22 1.75 1.15 1.56 1.881.82 2.13 2.16 1.40 1.63 1.79

RUNOFF

TOTALS 2.070 1.690 2.600 0.471 0.216 0.2440.125 0.127 0.298 0.356 0.834 1.612

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.545 1.106 1.975 0.579 0.428 0.5690.441 0.261 0.724 0.885 1.417 1.701

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 0.825 0.831 2.310 3.438 3.521 5.1883.928 3.810 2.295 1.415 1.232 0.907

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.294 0.444 0.495 0.655 1.103 0.9871.560 1.550 0.968 0.326 0.196 0.191

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4

TOTALS 0.0379 0.0265 0.0482 0.0469 0.0427 0.03050.0140 0.0135 0.0162 0.0261 0.0385 0.0484

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0174 0.0163 0.0098 0.0038 0.0039 0.00670.0055 0.0071 0.0106 0.0175 0.0169 0.0149

AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES)

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER

AVERAGES 11.0511 8.4076 14.1346 14.2626 12.5566 9.17673.9200 3.7521 4.7483 7.5303 11.6233 14.2109

STD. DEVIATIONS 5.2008 5.3479 2.9290 1.1640 1.1586 2.06221.6624 2.1372 3.2827 5.2429 5.2351 4.4518

Page 5

AR32I4975

A 3 %

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50

INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT

PRECIPITATION 40.74 ( 5.925) 147883.3 100.00

RUNOFF 10.642 ( 4.1098) . 38630.28 26.122

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29.699 ( 3.5446) 107807.45 72.900v

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.38939 ( 0.05598) 1413.503 0.9558^'jLAYER 4

iAVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 9.615 ( 1.425)

OF LAYER 3

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.009 ( 0.8691) 32.06 0.022

****+ + ***********+*****+****+Tt+**+*****+* + ***^

D*+****+************+**************++***+**********^

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

PRECIPITATION 5.26 19093.801

RUNOFF 3.630 13178.4365

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.001974 7.16719

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 18.000

SNOW WATER 4.03 14622.6279

MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4518

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.1620

Page 6 -j

AR32I4976 ]

A 3 %

D***************************+*++*+**********^

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 50

LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)

1 2.8967 0.4828

2 5.0771 0.4231

3 0.0000 0.0000

4 5.0280 0.4190

SNOW WATER 0.287

*****+*****+**************+**************+*********+*********++++++****++****+*****+********+***++******+***++**+*****+****************

Page 7

RR32U977

n+ ***** + ***+*******************+*******+*•*:*****•********•*•***** j

At************************************************************

** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **'** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **,** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** •*• * *>+ * * *-~t*+++++++*++*********++**+*****++***+**+++**++*+**+********+**+*++**++***+++*+++**+***+*+****+*+************+****+********+**********^

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA4.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA7.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA13.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\DATA11.D11SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA10B.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\b 7%.OUT

TIME: 14:46 DATE: 12/14/2000



, iLAYER 1

,1TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER

Page 1

AR32U978

B_7%MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9

THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.5010 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.2840 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT - 0.4569 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC

NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.

LAYER



LAYER


THICKNESS = 0.04 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = .0.0000 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. ~ 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SECFML PINHOLE DENSITY = 1.00 HOLES/ACREFML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 4.00 HOLES/ACREFML PLACEMENT QUALITY - 3 - GOOD

LAYER 4

Page 2

AR32l*979

13;


THICKNESS - 12.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.4190 VOL/VOL "1FIELD CAPACITY = 0.3070 VOL/VOL -IWILTING POINT = 0.1800 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.4190 VOL/VOL *]EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.189999992000E-04 CM/SEC , j


NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULTSOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 9 WITH AFAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 7 . %AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 350. FEET.

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 82.10FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH - 15.0 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 6.562 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE - 6.777 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 2.430 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 12.847 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 12.847 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR



STATION LATITUDE • = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX - 2.00START OF GROWING SEASON {JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH - 15.0 INCHES

Page 3

AR32I4980

B_7%AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %




3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54


NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)*


31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50


*********************************************************************

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50


Page 4

AR324981

B_7PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.183.71

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.581.82

RUNOFF

TOTALS 2.0690.131


EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 0.8253.920


PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER

TOTALS 0.03790.0140


2.594.02

1.222.13

1.6890.136

1.1050.272

0.8303.804

0.4441.547

4

0.02650.0134

0.01630.0070

AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER

AVERAGES 11.05923.9109


************************************

3

8.40833.7330

5.34672.1016

********

4.313.55

1.752.16

2.6030.303

1.9740.724

2.3092.292

0.4950.970

0.04820.0161

0.00980.0105

3.262.64

1.151.40

0.4720.355

0.5780.880

3.4391.415

0.6530.326

0.04690.0259

0.00380.0175

3.473.06

1.561.63

0.2190.832

0.4261.412

3.5141.231

1.1020.195

0.04270.0384

0.00390.0170

3.693.26

1 .881.79

0.2511.609 i

0.578 ;1.700 !

E

5.187 ''0.906 ;

0.9920.189

0.03040.0484

0.00670.0149

DAILY HEADS (INCHES)

14.13264.7102

2.92843.2494

********

14.25537.4921

1.16545.2336

**********

12.543511.5894

1.14825.2380

++++++++

9.154914.2021 (

l2.0836 '4.4463

******** j

Page 5

AR32l*982

* *

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50- — — — — — — _-___«_ — —. — — — — *— — — — — w__^__ _ _ _ _ _ * _ _ _ — __ — __ — — — — — — — _^ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ____ — — ___^___ — — — — — _______._.__


PRECIPITATION 40.74 ( 5.925) 147883.3 100.00

RUNOFF 10.668 ( 4.1129) 38726.55 26.187

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 29.673 ( 3.5313) 107713.36 72.837

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.38879 ( 0.05608) 1411.323 0.95435LAYER 4

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 9.599 ( 1.428)OF LAYER 3


D**********************************************************+*+************+****


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

PRECIPITATION 5.26 • 19093.801

RUNOFF 3.630 13176.5449



SNOWWATER 4.03 14622.6279



Page 6

AR32U983

©B_7%

**+***************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 50 i..]

LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL}

1 2.8966 0.4828

2 5.0771 0.4231

3 0.0000 0.0000

4 5.0280 0.4190

SNOW WATER 0.287

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

jPage 7

RR32U981* ny

->D_3%

C************************************************************************************************************************************************************* * * ** * * *** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION * *** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** * * ** * * *************************************************************************************************************************************************************

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA4.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA7.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA13.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\DATA11.D11SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA10d.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\d 3%.OUT

TIME: 14:50 DATE: 12/14/2000

******************************************************************************


******************************************************************************


LAYER 1


Page 1

AR324985

D_3%MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9

THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.5010 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.2840 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOL '"jINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.2687 VOL/VOL *EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC

NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00 '}FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE. . }

'', *

LAYER 2

TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER —MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 22 If

THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES *"POROSITY = 0.4190 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.3070 VOL/VOL f!WILTING POINT = 0.1800 VOL/VOL **INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3443 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0 . 189999992000E-04 CM/SEC '?

. k

LAYER

TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 20

THICKNESS = 0.20 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.8500 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT - 0.0993 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 10.0000000000 CM/SECSLOPE = 3.00 PERCENTDRAINAGE LENGTH = 350.0 FEET

LAYER 4

Page 2

AR32k986

D_3%TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35

THICKNESS - 0.04 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SECFML PINHOLE DENSITY = 1.00 HOLES/ACREFML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 4.00 HOLES/ACREFML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 3 - GOOD

LAYER





SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 81.70FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH - 15.0 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 4.641 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 6.777 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 2.430 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 10.791 INCHES

Page 3

AR32l»987

D_3%TOTAL INITIAL WATER - 10.791 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR


NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROMWILMINGTON DELAWARE "]i

STATION LATITUDE - 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2 . 0 0 r]START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107 -\END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHES *•*AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 % '(AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 % '




3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3 513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54



JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC—————— ______ J

31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71 2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35 50 1

Page 4 i[LJ

AR32i»988

D_3%


****************************************************************+**************

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YE7ARS 1 THROUGH 50


PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.18 2.59 4.31 3.26 3.47 3.693.71 4.02 3.55 2.64 3.06 3.26

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.58 1.22 1.75 1.15 1.56 1.881.82 2.13 2.16 1.40 1.63 1.79

RUNOFF

TOTALS 0.753 0.934 0.747 0.023 0.022 0.0660.111 0.123 0.181 0.104 0.068 0.237

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.906 0.900 1.198 0.059 0.046 0.1520.363 0.245 0.403 0.274 0.131 0.658

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 0.825 0.833 2.312 3.459 3.515 3.8313.331 3.684 2.316 1.525 1.265 0.914

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.296 0.448 0.497 0.654 1.101 1.4611.322 1.468 0.998 0.404 0.218 0.200

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3

TOTALS 1.2857 0.7105 2.2601 0.6044 0.1898 0.23150.0840 0.1872 0.4144 0.7145 1.2391 1.6360

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.2664 0.9489 1.5039 0.5799 0.3525 0.52260.1958 0.4511 0.8766 1.1647 1.4371 1.4178

Page 5

AR32l*989

D 3 %

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

AVERAGES OF

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP

AVERAGES

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

MONTHLY

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

AVERAGED

0.0001 00.0000 0

0.0001 0.0.0000 0,

DAILY HEADS

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0001

(INCHES)

i0.00000.0001 ' j

i0.00000.0000 - i

1!i

OF LAYER 4 :'

0.00850.0006

0.00840.0013

0.00520.0012

0.00690.0030

0.0150 0.0.0028 0.

0.0100 0.0.0060 0.

0041 0.00130047 0.0085

0040 0.00230077 0.0099

0.0016 -0.0109 i

0.0036 "T0.0094 .

- 1

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD.

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED

40.

3.

27.

9.

DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS

INCHES

74 (

369 (

811 (

55710 (

1 THROUGH

CU. FEET

5.925)

2.1914)

3.4662)

3.60619)

50

PERCENT

147883.3 100.00 !

12228.96 8.269

100953.67 68.266

34692.281 23.45923

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.00036 ( 0.00013) 1.301 0.00088LAYER 5


Page 6 jj

AR32U990 II

D_3%CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.002 ( 0.7305) 7.08 0.005

****************** + ****************************************************** + **

D*****************************************************************************-,),.


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)


RUNOFF 2.410 8749.3164

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 0.64627 2345.95239



MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.263

LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 3(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 3.5 FEET

SNOW WATER 4.03 14622.6279



*** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. ***

Reference: Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Linerby Bruce M. McEnroe, University of KansasASCE Journal of Environmental EngineeringVol. 119, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 262-270.

******************************************************************************

Page 7

AR32499I

.,- -*-

D_3%

D**************************** + ****i* + + ******* + + + + i + i^^^ + A + ii + + ^^ + itititjr^^^^^^^



1 1.7220 0.2870

2 3.8457 0.3205

3 0.0062 0.0311

4 0.0000 0.0000

5 5.0280 0.4190

SNOW WATER 0.287

************************************************************************

Page 8 \ \;;-J

E-7%n*********************************************************************************************************************************************************.**** * * ** * * *** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ***+ USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** * * ** * * *************************************************************************************************************************************************************

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA4.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA7.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA13.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\DATA11.D11SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA10e.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\e-7%.OUT

TIME: 14:58 DATE: 12/14/2000

******************************************************************************


******************************************************************************


LAYER 1


Page 1AR32U993

E-7%MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9


NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE. ']

LAYER

TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 22 [

THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES - *POROSITY = 0.4190 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.3070 VOL/VOL ?WILTING POINT = 0.1800 VOL/VOL ;INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3460 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.189999992000E-04 CM/SEC '*

LAYER


THICKNESS = 0.50 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.8500 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0259 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 10.0000000000 CM/SECSLOPE = 7.00 PERCENT jDRAINAGE LENGTH = 350.0 FEET *•*

LAYER

Page 2 &R32U99U

E-7%TYPE 4 - FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 35

THICKNESS = 0.04 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0000 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0000 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.199999996000E-12 CM/SECFML PINHOLE DENSITY = 1.00 HOLES/ACREFML INSTALLATION DEFECTS = 4.00 HOLES/ACREFML PLACEMENT QUALITY = 3 - GOOD

LAYER





SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 82.10FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 4.672 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 6.777 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE - 2.430 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER - 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 10.821 INCHES

Page 3

AR32l*995

(£9)1

E-7%TOTAL INITIAL WATER - 10.821 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW - 0.00 INCHES/YEAR



STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2 . 0 0START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHESAVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %

NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETIC/ALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWARE



3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54




31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50

Page 4 y

AR32U996

E-7%


*******************************************************************************



PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.18 2.59 4.31 3.26 3.47 3.693.71 4.02 3.55 2.64 3.06 3.26

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.58 1.22 1.75 1.15 1.56 1.881.82 2.13 2.16 1.40 1.63 1.79

RUNOFF

TOTALS 0.760 0.937 0.757 0.025 0.026 0.0720.118 0.133 0.192 0.109 0.075 0.246

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.907 0.900 1.201 0.062 0.051 0.1610.371 0.259 0.412 0.280 0.142 0.659

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 0.826 0.834 2.312 3.462 3.516 3.8363.335 3.688 2.311 1.521 1.266 0.915

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.296 0.449 0.497 0.656 1.100 1.4641.320 1.473 1.000 0.406 0.217 0.200


TOTALS 1.2806 0.7061 2.2463 0.6016 0.1874 0.22210.0760 0.1747 0.4056 0.7063 1.2278 1.6310

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.2508 0.9409 1.4944 0.5742 0.3476 0.50960.1845 0.4273 0.8517 1.1499 1.4305 1.4095

Page 5

AR32U997

'1E-7%

PERCOLATION/ LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5

TOTALS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED' DAILY HEADS (INCHES)

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4

AVERAGES 0.0037 0.0022 0.0065 0.0018 0.0005 0.0007 f0.0002 0.0005 0.0012 0.0020 0.0037 0.0047'*

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0036 0.0030 0.0044 0.0017 0.0010 0.0015'0.0005 0.0012 0.0025 0.0033 0.0043 0.0041 '

***********************************************************+******************. •

******************************************************************************



PRECIPITATION 40.74 ( 5.925) 147883.3 100.00

RUNOFF 3.451 ( 2.2060) 12525.81 8.470

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 27.821 ( 3.4735) 100991.76 68.292

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 9.46547 ( 3.56873) 34359.664 23.23431FROM LAYER 3

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.00017 ( 0.00006) 0.602 0.00041 !LAYER. 5 i

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0.002 ( 0.001) JOF LAYER 4 • j

Page 6

AR324998

E-7%CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.002 ( 0.7344) 5.46 0.004

******************************************************************************

D******************************************************************************


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)


RUNOFF 2.442 8863.3369





LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 3(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 3.6 FEET

SNOW WATER 4.03 14622.6279





******************************************************************************

Page 7

AR32«»999

E-7% ''

D******************************************************************************


LAYER (INCHES)

1 1

2 3

3 0

4 0

5 5

SNOW WATER 0

**************************************************************+*********•

.7296

.8451

.0069

.0000

.0280

.287

********************

(VOL/VOL)

0.2883

0.3204

0.0139

0.0000

0.4190

'********************************

********************************

. J

Page 8

AR325000

Roadlu****•*******-*-**********-*•**********************************************************************************************************************************.**** * * ** * * *** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY *** + USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** * + ** * * *************************************************************************************************************************************************************

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA4RD.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA7RD.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA13RD.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\DATA11RD.D11SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\ROAD1.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\ROAD1.0UT

TIME: 8:53 DATE: 12/15/2000

******************************************************************************


******************************************************************************


LAYER 1

TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER

Page 1

AR32500I

RoadlMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 20

THICKNESS = 0.20 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.8500 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0058 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 10.0000000000 CM/SECSLOPE = 2.00 PERCENTDRAINAGE LENGTH = 30.0 FEET

LAYER



LAYER 3



GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . i

JNOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM A USER-

Page 2 . li-J

n

RoadlSPECIFIED CURVE NUMBER OF 90.0, A SURFACE SLOPEOF 2.% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 30. FEET.

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 91.20FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 0.2 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 0.001 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.170 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.001 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 1.870 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 1.870 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR



STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX • = 0.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 0.2 INCHESAVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %




3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54

Page 3

AR325003

Roadl




31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50


*******************************************************************************1

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50 .i


PRECIPITATION ,

TOTALS 3.18 2.59 4.31 3.26 3.47 3.693.71 4.02 3.55 2.64 3.06 3.26

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.58 1.22 1.75 1.15 1.56 1.881.82 2.13 2.16 1.40 1.63 1.79

RUNOFF

TOTALS 1.327 1.410 1.414 0.313 0.389 0.5680.642 0.771 0.723 0.412 0.426 0.625

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.330 1.089 1.383 0.324 0.427 0.5770.747 0.794 0.841 0.504 0.530 0.834

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 0.506 0.451 0.786 0.806 0.779 0.610

Page 4

AR32500U

Roadl0.556 0.622 0.445 0.337 0.432 0.415

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.185 0.161 0.278 0.362 0.394 0.3640.358 0.319 0.289 0.219 0.190 0.148


TOTALS 1.2330 0.6940 2.4677 2.1307 2.3078 2.50532.5025 2.6251 2.3837 1.8950 2.1509 2.0259

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.0807 0.8398 1.2210 0.7378 0.9308 1.18121.0328 1.3168 1.2243 0.8923 1.1075 1.0815


TOTALS 0.0049 0.0028 0.0051 0.0041 0.0045 0.00380.0034 0.0035 0.0028 0.0027 0.0038 0.0059

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0029 0.0018 0.0024 0.0017 0.0014 0.00180.0015 0.0015 0.0012 0.0015 0.0016 0.0029


TOTALS 0.0041 0.0040 0.0037 0.0041 0.0042 0.00430.0043 0.0041 0.0040 0.0039 0.0033 0.0033

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0012 0.0010 0.0009 0.0011 0.0010 0.00090.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007


DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2

AVERAGES 0.0069 0.0045 0.0123 0.0113 0.0113 0.01160.0114 0.0112 0.0102 0.0082 0.0107 0.0099

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0049 0.0047 0.0052 0.0037 0.0042 0.00520.0042 0.0045 0.0046 0.0032 0.0050 0.0046

*******************************************************************************

*******************************************************************************

Page 5

AR325005

Roadl


INCHES

PRECIPITATION 40.74 (

RUNOFF 9.019 (

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 6.745 (

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 24.92171 (FROM LAYER 1

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.04729 (LAYER 2

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0.010 (OF LAYER 2

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.04729 (LAYER 3

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.006 (

G

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 1

PERCOLATION/ LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2

' AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2

MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2

CU. FEET PERCENT.,

5.925) 147883.3 100.00

3.2335} 32738.21 22.138 ""

1.0502) 24484.69 16.557

3.80153) 90465.828 61.17379

t •0.00654) 171.645 0.1160"

0.001) -.t

0.00610) 171.653 0.1160: ]i

0.5005) 22.93 0.016 ;i***********************************iiii

********************************** i

1 THROUGH 50 i—— — j

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

5.26 19093.801 i

3.338 12118.7061

1.86382 6765.67236

0.002999 10.88669

0.104

0.094 ,1

Page 6 ,-1i.-*

AR325006 Uy

RoadlLOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 1

(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 1.4 FEET


SNOW WATER 4.03 14622.6279





******************************************************************************

0******************************************************************************



1 0.0305 0.1523

2 1.7080 0.4270

3 0.1605 0.0803

SNOW WATER 0.287

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Page 7

AR325007

******************************************************************* *"*"*" **************************************************************************************'

*** ,.,*"* --- HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE * *:* HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) *** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY *** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION " __. *** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY --*-*j.* **j.* *** * * * * * * ********************************************************************************* * * ****************************************************************

RECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA4.D4EMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA7.D7OLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\DATA13 .Dl3VAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\DATA11.D11OIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\A_3%_GCL.D10UTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\A 3% GCL.OUT

IME: 11:42 DATE: 1/11/2001

***************************************************l(r*.lt*;ilr *


********************************************************* ******************** t *


LAYER 1_______ j

; ITYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER

MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 9 '' |THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES' JPOROSITY - 0.5010 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.2840 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT - 0.2687 VOL/VOL

page i AR325008 y

A_3%_gcl 'EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. - 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC


LAYER



LAYER


THICKNESS = 0.20 INCHESPOROSITY - 0.8500 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0993 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 10.0000000000 CM/SECSLOPE = 3.00 PERCENTDRAINAGE LENGTH = 350.0 FEET

LAYER



Page 2 AR325009

A_3%_gcl

LAYER 5


THICKNESS = 0.24 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.7500 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.7470 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.4000 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT - 0.7470 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.300000003000E-08 CM/SEC

LAYER


THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0,4190 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.3070 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.1800 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.4190 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.189999992000E-04 CM/SEC



SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 81.70FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 4.641 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE - 6.777 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 2.430 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 10.970 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 10.970 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR

Page 3 AR3250IO

A 3% gel



STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHESAVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QU7ARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %




L/ ' '

3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54




31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50


Page 4 AR3250I I

A_3%_gcl /

******************************************************************************



PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.18 2.59 4.31 3.26 3.47 3.693.71 4.02 3.55 2.64 3.06 3.26

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.58 1.22 1.75 1.15 1.56 1.881.82 2.13 2.16 1.40 1.63 1.79

RUNOFF

TOTALS 0.753 0.934 0.747 0.023 0.022 0.0660.111 0.123 0.181 0.104 0.068 0.237 ^i

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.906 0.900 1.198 0.059 0.046 0.152 "0.363 0.245 0.403 0.274 0.131 0.658 -,

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION '*

TOTALS 0.825 0.833 2.312 3.459 3.515 3.831 V|3.331 3.684 2.316 1.525 1.265 0.914 '! *

. STD. DEVIATIONS 0.296 0.448 0.497 0.654 1.101 1.461 j1.322 1.468 0.998 0.404 0.218 0.200 • '

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 \

TOTALS 1.2858 0.7105 2.2602 0.6044 0.1898 0.23150.0840 0.1872 0.4144 0.7145 1.2391 1.6361

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.2665 0.9489 1.5040 0.5799 0.3525 0.52260.1958 0.4511 0.8767 1.1647 1.4371 1.4179


TOTALS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 \0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 '

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000:10.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 ];]

TOTALS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 £1

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5 AR3250I2 1

_ _0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



AVERAGES 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00


AVERAGES 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00

****************************

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS &

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTEDFROM LAYER 3

PERCOLATION/ LEAKAGE THROUGHLAYER 4

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOPOF LAYER 4

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGHLAYER 6


OF LAYER 4

.0085 0.0052

.0006 0.0012

.0084 0.0069

.0013 0.0030

OF LAYER 6

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

*****************

(STD. DEVIATIONS

INCHES

40.74 {

3.369 ( 2

27.811 ( 3

9.55746 ( 3

0.00000 ( 0

0.005 ( 0

0.00000 ( 0

0.000 ( 0

Page 6

0.0150 0.0041 0.00130.0028 0.0047 0.0085

0.0100 0.0040 0.00230.0060 0.0077 0.0099

0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000

*************************

) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH

CU. FEET

5.925) 147883.3 1

.1914) 12228.96

.4662) 100953.67

.60632} 34693.570 2

.00000) 0.006

.002)

.00000) 0.006

.000)

&R3250I3

0.00160.0109

0.00360.0094

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

*********

50

PERCENT

00.00

8.269

68.266

3.46010

0.00000

0.00000

A_3%_gcl


*****************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)


RUNOFF 2.410 8749.3164





LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 3(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 3,9 FEET



SNOW WATER 4.03 14622.6279 - i

'1MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4480 J

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.1620 ji



i******-*************************************************************.**********.i

Page 7 AR3250U

A_3%_gcl

******************************************************************************



1 1.7220 0.2870

2 3.8457 0.3205

3 0.0062 0.0311

4 0.0000 0.0000

5 0.1793 0.7470

6 5.0280 0.4190

SNOW WATER 0.287

**************************************************************************+**-*******************************************************************************

AR3250I5

****************************************************************************

** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY * i** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION *-*** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** * * |* * * 1***********************************************************************************************************************************************************'!i

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA4.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA7.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\DATA13.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\DATA11.D11SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C: \HELP3\B_7%_GCL.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\B 7% GCL . OUT

TIME: 11:44 DATE: 1/11/2001

******************************************************************************


******************************************************************************


LAYER 1


THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHES :iPOROSITY = 0.5010 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.2840 VOL/VOL jWILTING POINT = 0.1350 VOL/VOL UINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.2719 VOL/VOL

page i AR3250I6 J

B_7%_gclEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.190000006000E-03 CM/SEC


LAYER



LAYER


THICKNESS = 0.20 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.8500 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0528 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 10.0000000000 CM/SECSLOPE = 7.00 PERCENTDRAINAGE LENGTH = 350.0 FEET

LAYER



Page 2 AR325017

B 7% gel

LAYER



LAYER




NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULTSOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 9 WITH AFAIR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 7.%AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 350. FEET. '

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 82.10FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHES ;INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 4.703 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 6.777 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 2.430 INCHES "iINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES ^INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 11.037 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 11.037 INCHES ']TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR i-J

Page 3 AR3250I8 H*J

B 7% gel



STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 15.0 INCHESAVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %




3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54




31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50


AR325019Page 4

B 7% gel

**********************•*******************************************************;;

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50 f I

JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC,,

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.18 2.59 4.31 3.26 3.47 3.693.71 4.02 3.55 2.64 3.06 3.26

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.58 1.22 1.75 1.15 1.56 1.881.82 2.13 2.16 1.40 1.63 1.79

RUNOFF :iTOTALS 0.767 0.939 0.763 0.027 0.027 0.074

0.120 0.134 0.197 0.114 0.078 0.254'J

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.910 0.901 1.203 0.064 0.052 0.1640.368 0.261 0.423 0.288 0.146 0.675

; (.'

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION '*

TOTALS 0.825 0.834 2.312 3.464 3.509 3.849;3.332 3.693 2.308 1.518 1.265 0.914 ''

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.296 0.449 0.497 0.655 1.100 1.464 'I1.319 1.472 0.997 0.405 0.217 0.200

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 1

TOTALS 1.2741 0.7077 2.2290 0.6103 0.1895 0.21950.0731 0.1708 0.3979 0.7042 1.2230 1.6226 j

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.2368 0.9423 1.4823 0.5823 0.3459 0.50650.1776 0.4223 0.8381 1.1509 1.4253 1.400?!it


TOTALS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOC0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.OOOC j0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 •

TOTALS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000:' !

uSTD. DEVIATIONS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Page 5 AR325020 0

B_7%_gcl f' /0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



AVERAGES 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00


AVERAGES 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS &

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTEDFROM LAYER 3

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGHLAYER 4


PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH

OF LAYER 4

.0036 0.0022

.0002 0.0005

.0035 0.0029

.0005 0.0012

OF LAYER 6

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

.0000 0.0000

(STD. DEVIATIONS

INCHES

40.74 (

3.493 ( 2

27.823 ( 3

9.42189 ( 3

0.00000 ( 0

0.002 ( 0

0.00000 ( 0

0.00640.0012

0.00420.0025

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

0.0018 0.00050.0020 0.0036

0.0017 0.00100.0033 0.0042

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0. 00000.0000 0.0000

) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH

5.925)

.2182)

.4711)

.55429)

.00000)

.001)

.00000)

CU. FEET

147883.3 1

12679.29

100999.26

0.00060.0046

0.00150.0040

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

50

PERCENT

00.00

8.574

68.297

34201.457 23.12733

0.004

0.004

0.00000

0.00000


Page 6 AR32502I

B_7%_gcl

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.001 ( 0.7333) 3.29 0.002 Hil

****************************•*******************»•*********•*******•**************,

D ' "I***********************************************+*****************************,!

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 50 r]

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

PRECIPITATION 5.26 19093.801 n

RUNOFF . 2.392 8683.6396 T1


PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000000 0.00009 i]

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.057 ,?

MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 0.117 :i

LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 3 "\(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 0.0 FEET -l

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0.000000 0.00009 f

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 0.000• 1

SNOW WATER 4.03 14622.6279 i

MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4488 [\

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.1620 - "t

*** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. *** .

Reference: Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Linerby Bruce M. McEnroe, University of KansasASCE Journal of Environmental EngineeringVol. 119, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 262-270. J

********************************************************. i

************+*********t]

AR325022

B_7%_gclD******************************************************************************

LAYER

1

2

3

4

5

6

SNOW WATER

**************************

(INCHES)

1.

3.

0.

0.

-0.

5.

0.

t ******

7391

8457

0040

0000

1793

0280

287

***********

(VOL/VOL)

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

2899

3205

0199

0000

7470

4190

**************************

Page 8 AR325023

>-J

X

mAR32502I4

APPENDIX E

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

AR32502S

APPENDIX E

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS to the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The PRB remedy is consistent with the criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 300, Section430(e)(9)(iii)—the National Contingency Plan—and was developed to ensure that thistechnology for the South Landfill is at least as protective of human health and theenvironment as the South Landfill remedy mandated in the 1993 ROD and 1995 ESD.The proposed performance standards are consistent with the proposed PRB remedychanges and would either add to or replace/delete (as indicated) the standards containedin Section 3 of the 1993 ROD and in the 1995 ESD.

3.2. In-Situ Stabilization —(Delete, including Performance Standards 3.2.1. to3.2.4.)

3.3. South Landfill Cap

DESCRIPTION: (Replaces existing Description) Once the groundwater barrier andpermeable reactive barriers are installed, the entire South Landfill shall be capped. Thecap shall include a synthetic geomembrane. South James Street/Basin Road will be leftin place, and the cap will be sufficiently tied into the existing road structure so as toeliminate, to the extent practicable, infiltration of precipitation along the roadway.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:3.3.12. (Replaces 3.3.8.) A landfill cap shall be installed that completely covers (to themaximum extent practicable) the South Landfill, including the portion owned by DuPontand the portion owned by the State of Delaware. The cap, at a minimum, shall extend tothe vertical barrier wall/permeable reactive barrier wall system and shall be constructedin such a way as to prevent infiltration of water between the edges of the cap and thebarrier/permeable walls.

3.3.13. (Replaces 3.3.10.) South James Street/Basin Road will be left in place. The capwill be tied into the existing road structure in such a way as to eliminate, to the extentpracticable, infiltration of water between the edges of the cap and the roadway.

3.3.14. The cap for the intertidal riverbank area will consist of a geosynthetic membraneand armor stone to control erosion and isolate the river from the landfill materials.

3.3.15. An inspection and maintenance plan for South James Street/Basin Road will beprepared to ensure infiltration is minimized. The plan will provide for an annualinspection and repair of potholes and cracks. In addition, the annual inspection willinclude an assessment of roadway integrity and specifically address the need for moreextensive repairs, such as resurfacing.

01/18/01 Page 1 S:\Newport\Nov 2000 Feasibility Rept\7105APPENDIX E.doc

AR325026

n3.5. South Landfill Institutional Controls

DESCRIPTION: (Replaces existing Description) Institutional controls shall be placed onthe DuPont property south of the Christina River and on the State of Delaware'scontaminated property to restrict future land use, to notify the public of past land use,and/or to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. A health and safety shall be developedto protect future maintenance workers who may be required to come into contact withlandfill waste (such as sewer main workers or highway workers).

3.5.8. (Replaces 3.5.7.) A health and safety plan shall be developed to protect futuremaintenance workers who may be required to come into contact with landfill waste (suchas sewer main workers or highway workers).

3.6. Ground-water Barrier Wall

DESCRIPTION: (Replaces existing Description) A vertical barrier wall shall be installedfrom the ground surface to a low-permeable clay layer that lies below the waste materialin the South Landfill. The wall shall be constructed parallel to the riverbank and belocated along the south side of the New Castle County sewer main. The slurry wall willjoin the permeable reactive wall section at each end in order to form a continuous barrier.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

3.6.6. (Replaces 3.6.1.) A vertical groundwater barrier wall designed to limit, to themaximum extent practicable, the migration of groundwater from the Christina River intothe landfill (or vice-versa) shall be installed. The permeability of the wall shall at least beequivalent to the permeability of a 3-foot-thick, IO7 cm/s barrier.

3.6.7. (Replaces 3.6.3.) The wall shall be placed parallel to the riverbank along the southside of the New Castle County sewer main. The impermeable barrier wall will be keyedinto the permeable reactive barrier wall sections to create a continuous barriercircumscribing the South Landfill wastes.

3.6.8. (Replaces 3.6.5.) The wall shall be installed prior to the capping and riverbankstabilization activities.

3.7. Ground-water Pump & Treat System - (Delete, including PerformanceStandards 3.7.1 to 3.7.5.)

3.8. Sulfate/Sulfide Treatment - (Delete, including Performance Standards 3.8.1 to3.8.10.)

a01/18/01 Page 2 S:\Newport\Nov 2000 Feasibility Rept\7105APfIjJJQlX4.docl Rept\7105APPENDIXjB.iAR325l)27

3.9. Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall

DESCRIPTION: A vertical, permeable reactive barrier (PRB) wall, consisting ofgypsum, zero-valent iron, magnesite, and sand will be installed to immobilize allconstituents of interest migrating from the site. The PRB wall shall be installed from theground surface to a low-permeable clay layer that lies below the waste material in theSouth Landfill. The wall shall be placed along the remainder of the landfill perimeter notbounded by the vertical ground-water barrier wall. The PRB wall will by keyed into thevertical groundwater barrier wall at each end in order to form a continuous barriercircumscribing the South Landfill.

3.9.1. A vertical PRB wall designed to immobilize all constituents of interest migratingfrom the site to levels below the treatment standards established in 3.8.5 shall beinstalled. The wall shall be 18-inches thick and shall be placed along the remainder ofthe landfill perimeter not bounded by the vertical groundwater barrier wall.

3.9.2. The PRB shall extend from the ground surface to an intermediate clay lens in theColumbia aquifer that is below the waste material. The PRB wall should extend threefeet into the clay lens.

3.9.3. The PRB wall will be keyed into the impermeable barrier wall section at each endto create a continuous barrier circumscribing the South Landfill wastes.

3.9.4. The PRB will be composed of reactive agents and sand in a 100:20:5:5 weight ratioof soil: gypsum: iron: magnesite (as Mg5(CO3)4(OH2)'4H2O).

3.9.5. Approximately ten monitoring wells will be installed, on 200-foot centers, in theouter 6 to 12 inches of the reactive barrier. The wells will be screened across the entirereactive zone.

3.9.6. Monitoring wells will be installed downgradient of the PRB. The wells will bescreened across the entire reactive zone.

3.9.7. The monitoring wells (both within the PRB and outside the landfill) will besampled for the constituents of concern (barium, lead, zinc, cadmium, manganese, copperand nickel) and iron on a quarterly frequency for one year and on a semi-annualfrequency thereafter upon approval by EPA. Field measurements of pH, eH, anddissolved oxygen will also be performed.

3.9.8. The PRB wall shall be installed prior to the landfill and riverbank cappingactivities.

01/18/01 Page 3 S:\Newport\Nov 2000 Feasibility Rept\71

-zfg |X |•n \

AR325029

APPENDIX r

SOUTH LANDHLI EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANTDIFFERENCES

AR325030

APPENDIX FSOUTH LANDFILL

EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCESE.I. DuPONT, NEWPORT SUPERFUND SITE

NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE

EPA ANNOUNCES A REMEDY CHANGEThis Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) describes EPA's revised remedy to addresscontamination in the South Landfill area of the E.I. DuPont, Newport Superfund Site which islocated in Newport, New Castle County, Delaware. Also known as the DuPont-Newport Site, itis referred to throughout this document as the "Site."

On August 26, 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Record of Decision(ROD) for this Site formally outlining how EPA will address the Site contamination. The RODdiscussed seven areas of the Site: a ballpark, the north landfill and wetlands, the south landfill,the south wetlands, the Christina River, the Ciba-Geigy and DuPont Holly Run chemical plants,and the ground water.

In October 1993, new information was presented to EPA regarding the volume of waste in thesouth landfill. At that time, EPA was presented with several new alternatives that addressed therisks from the contamination in the south landfill. On August 17, 1995 EPA issued an ESDrevising the original remedy from in-situ soil mixing to in-situ chemical stabilization withhydraulic containment of the waste materials.

Subsequent to the issuance of the 1995 ESD, new information was presented to the EPAregarding the required volume of treatment materials and corresponding increase in net wastevolume generated by 1995 ESD remedy. EPA was later presented with new alternatives thataddressed the risks from the contamination in the south landfill.

Based on its review, EPA believes that changes are warranted in the way the south landfill willbe cleaned up. The current clean-up plan for the south landfill was outlined in the August 17,1995 ESD. This January 2001 ESD describes a new revised remedy for the south landfill andexplains why EPA is changing the remedy. The changes do not fundamentally alter thepreviously selected remedy for the south landfill with respect to scope or performance..Therefore, a ROD amendment is not required.

01/19/01 Pagel ^ _. _ n • 7105Appendix FAR325031

The Administrative Record file, which contains the information upon which EPA based thisremedy change, is available at the following information repositories: I

U.S. EPA Region III, Docket RoomMrs. Anna Butch (3HW14) j841 Chestnut Building, 9th floor *Philadelphia, PA 19107(215)597-3037

The Kirkwood Library -»6000 Kirkwood Highway < jWilmington, DE 19808(302) 995-7663 n

Town Hall of Newport15 N. Augustine St. rsNewport, DE 19804 j(302) 994-6403

SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND j

The DuPont-Newport Superfund Site occupies approximately 120 acres on the banks of the |Christina River at James and Water Streets in Newport, Delaware. It is near the 1-95,1-495, and |Delaware State 141 interchange (see Figure 1). The Site includes land currently occupied by apaint pigment production facility (the Ciba-Geigy plant), a former chromium dioxide production jfacility (the DuPont Holly Run plant), two industrial landfills separated by the Christina River I(known locally by some as the Christiana River), and a baseball diamond (owned by DuPont andreferred to as the ballpark) located just northwest of the Ciba-Geigy plant across the Amtrak jrailroad (see Figure 2). Part of the Site is in the town of Newport and part of the Site is in !unincorporated New Castle County.

Originally built during the period from 1900 to 1902, the pigment plant was owned and operated Jby Henrik J. Krebs. The plant produced Lithopone, a white inorganic paint pigment. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company (DuPont) purchased the plant in 1929 and continued to produceLithopone, but slowly changed and added processes to produce other organic and inorganicpigments. DuPont sold the pigment manufacturing operations to Ciba-Geigy Corporation in1984.

As part of the Ciba-Geigy pigment plant operations (although prior to Ciba-Geigy's ownership),waste and off-specification products were disposed of in the north and south landfills. The southlandfill, which operated from approximately 1902 to 1953, was used for the disposal of largequantities of Lithopone wastes. Waste sludges from the purification of zinc and barium oreswere pumped from the plant and discharged into the south wetlands, creating a landfill. Thewaste sludges contained numerous heavy metal contaminants. In the 1970's, the south landfillwas covered with soils from excavations for the construction of the Delaware Highway 141Christina River bridge.

01/19/01 " Page 2 ~~ 7105Appendix F7105AppendixF ' ?1

AR325032 0

Results of ground water samples collected in the late 1970's and early 1980's, indicated elevatedlevels of heavy metals (especially barium, cadmium, and zinc) and volatile organic compounds(mainly tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene) in the ground water. The Site was proposed to beincluded on the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987. It was added to the NPL inFebruary 1990.

On August 22, 1988, DuPont entered into an Administrative Order by Consent with EPA. Thismeant that DuPont agreed to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) forthe Site, which led to the August 26, 1993 ROD.

Attached are Figures 3, 4, and 5 from the ROD. Figure 3 contains data from soil samples fromacross the Site including sample TP-6, located in the south landfill, which shows high levels ofcontamination. Figures 4 and 5 show that the landfill extends to the east of where JamesStreet/Basin Road is located today. James Street/Basin Road, which once formed the border ofthe landfill, was relocated to accommodate construction of the Delaware State Highway 141bridge.

In 1993, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) collected a number of soilsamples from the portion of the south landfill owned by the State of Delaware (currentlyunderneath and to the east of James Street/Basin Road). DelDOT did this to more accuratelydetermine the amount and extent of soil contamination. Data collected by DelDOT indicatedthat 85,000 cubic yards (instead of the 37,000 cubic yards estimated in the ROD) would requireexcavation, because the contamination was deeper than originally anticipated, representing a230% increase in cost.

In 1994 DelDOT and DuPont independently submitted alternate remedy proposals to the EPA inan effort to address the contamination in a less costly manner. In 1995, EPA selected analternate remedy for the south landfill and issued an Explanation of Significant Differences(1995 ESD) to modify the 1993 ROD. The revised remedy changed the treatment technologyfrom in-situ stabilization to chemical precipitation with sodium sulfide and sodium sulfate. The1995 ESD also upgraded the containment system from a soil cover to a low permeability cap, acircumscribing groundwater barrier wall, and a groundwater pump and treat system.Subsequent to the issuance of the 1995 ESD, new information was presented to the EPAregarding the required volume of treatment materials and corresponding increase in net wastevolume generated by 1995 ESD remedy. EPA was later presented with new alternatives thataddressed the risks from the contamination in the south landfill.

REMEDY CHANGE

The 1995 ESD remedy called for the in-situ stabilization of the south landfill wastes byprecipitation with sodium sulfate and sodium sulfide treatment agents. EPA originally estimatedthat the amount of reagents required for treatment was 82 tons. Data collected by DuPontindicates that 34,000 tons of reagents are actually necessary and would incur a 5 percent increasein the total volume of waste materials. EPA originally estimated the cost of the south landfillportion of the selected 1995 ESD remedy to be $11,600,000. Based on the new estimate of the

01/19/01 Page 3 7105AppendixF

ftR325033

materials required for treatment, EPA's revised cost estimate for the south landfill portion of theselected remedy is $23,110,000.In January 2001, DuPont presented an alternative remedy to address the south landfill in a lesscostly manner. This alternative would involve installing an impermeable groundwater barrierwall along the south bank of the Christina River coupled with a permeable reactive barrier (PRB)wall along the east and west sides of the south landfill and along the portion of the landfill ownedby the state. The treatment matrix in the PRB would immobilize contaminants present in thegroundwater migrating from the landfill. An engineered cap would be placed over the entirelandfill area, preventing rainwater from contacting the waste material. This technology is apassive treatment system and would not require operation of a groundwater extraction andtreatment system.

After careful review by EPA and Delaware Department of Natural Resources of EnvironmentalControl (DNREC), EPA is selecting this new proposal as the remedy at the south landfill. Therevised remedy involves changing the treatment technology from chemical precipitation withsodium sulfate and sodium sulfide to the PRB treatment technology and eliminating the pump-and-treat containment requirement.

DESCRIPTION OF REVISED REMEDYThe revised remedy for the south landfill includes a complete barrier system to physicallyseparate the waste material from the environment. The barrier system will consist of a low-permeability (IxlO"7 cm/s or less) slurry wall coupled with a permeable reactive barrier wall, asshown in Figure 10. The slurry wall will be placed parallel to the Christina River along the southside of the New Castle County sewer main, and the PRB wall will surround the remainder of thelandfill. Both barriers will be tied into the relatively impermeable marsh deposit below thelandfill (see Figures 11 and 12). The slurry wall and reactive barrier will contain, to the extentpractical, all of the waste material within the south landfill, including the portion on the State'sproperty, as shown in Figure 10.The riverbank will be capped by clearing existing vegetation, extending the synthetic cap to thelow mean tide (-1.6 ft MSL) elevation, and covering the riverbank with armor stone. Thelandward slurry wall, engineered cap, and riverbank cap will prevent further migration throughthe waste material not contained within the circumscribing slurry/reactive wall structures. Theriverbank stabilization measures will prevent further erosion and complete the containment of thewaste.The slurry wall will be 36-inches wide with a 3-foot key into the clayey-silt marsh deposit. Thepermeable reactive barrier (18-inches wide) will be a mixture of treatment agents and clean sandin the weight ratio of 100:20:5:5 (DelDOT mortar sand: gypsum: iron: magnesite). The gypsum(CaSO4'2H2O) and magnesite (Mg5(CO3)4(OH)2'4H2O) reactive materials are slightly soluble,and the (zero-valent, metallic) iron is insoluble in comparison to the highly soluble reactivematerials used in the 1995 ESD remedy. Therefore, these materials will not be readily flushedfrom the wall should infiltration rates increase. Results from field and laboratory investigationscalculate the PRB wall life to be hundreds of years.

01/19/01 Page4 • nOOCnOl. 7l05Appendix F :}

ii.iAR32503U

All groundwater originating in the waste material will pass through the permeable barrier fortreatment. The PRB is designed to reduce soluble metals concentrations to below the followinglevels.

Barium 7,800 ppb*Cadmium 4 ppbCopper 18 ppbLead 15 ppbManganese 1,000 ppbNickel 730 ppbZinc 120 ppbppb = parts per billion

Within the reactive wall, the iron will immobilize soluble zinc via surface adsorption reactions.The gypsum and magnesite will immobilize soluble barium and manganese as barium sulfate andmanganese carbonate precipitates, respectively. The treatment will not specifically targetcadmium, copper, lead, and nickel; however, the concentrations for these metals already meet theabove criteria.

Two additional contaminants of concern, arsenic and chromium, are also not expected to beimpacted by the PRB treatment. Chromium concentrations are already below levels consideredprotective and do not warrant further treatment. Recent sampling results indicated that arsenic isalso below levels considered protective of the environment and human health.Monitoring wells placed inside the permeable reactive barrier (see Figure 12) will confirmground-water treatment and provide an early warning against premature wall breakthrough toensure protection of human health and the environment. Approximately 10 monitoring wells (on200 foot centers) will be installed in the outside six inches of the barrier. In addition,downgradient wells will be installed to observe metals attenuation.A single-layer engineered cap will cover all of the waste material and extend beyond the limits ofthe slurry wall and reactive barrier to the riverbank and wetlands areas, respectively. The capwill have a maximum permeability of 10'7 cm/sec and will be designed as shown in Figure 11.The design includes a single barrier synthetic geomembrane layer, a drainage layer, protectivesoil, and topsoil. The cap design is a change from the 1995 ESD requirement for a dual-barriercap containing at least a synthetic geomembrane liner. The dual layer cap in the 1995 ESDremedy was essential for reducing ground-water to the maximum extent practical because thetreatment agents were extremely soluble and could be flushed from the waste by infiltratingrainwater. Maximum reduction of infiltration is not as critical to the current proposed PRBremedy because the treatment agents are either sparingly soluble or insoluble and also becauseany infiltrated water will be treated as it flows through the PRB.As in the 1995 ESD remedy, additional fencing and a vegetative barrier will be installed (asneeded) around the entire South Landfill area to control trespassing. The institutional controlshave already been established, including a notification attached to the deed regarding past landuse, restrictions on future land use, and health and safety requirements for maintenance workersof the sewer main that runs through the South Landfill. These steps will protect maintenanceworkers during future subsurface work.

01/19/01 Page5 R R 7 S 11 S 7105Appendix F

The present worth cost of this remedy is $5,050,000, adjusting the overall cost of the remedy inthe 1993 ROD from $47,700,000 to $38,450,000 (see Table 16B [replaces Table 16A in the 1995ESD]), For a complete listing of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements(ARARs) for the new remedy, see the attached Table 12A. Also attached are the modifiedPerformance Standards that, by this ESD are incorporated into the ROD. jRATIONALE FOR SELECTIONThe above alternative was evaluated in detail and compared to the previously selected 1993 ROD ]and 1995 ESD remedies in order to determine which would be the most effective in achievingthe goals of CERCLA and in achieving the remedial action objectives for the Site. EPA usesnine criteria, which are summarized in Table 1, to guide remedy selection. The first two criteria(overall protection of human health and the environment; compliance with applicable or relevantappropriate requirements [ARARs]) are threshold criteria and must be met by the chosen site .,remedy (except when an ARAR waiver is invoked). The next five criteria (long-term jeffectiveness and performance; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost) are the primary balancing criteria. Theremaining two criteria (state acceptance and community acceptance) are referred to as modifyingcriteria.

jBelow is a comparison of the revised remedy for the South Landfill to the previously selected .remedy using the nine EPA criteria.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 1. t

The ROD stated: j

In summary, based on the potential impacts to human health and the environment, EPAhas determined that the following areas of the Site warrant remediation: i

iSouth landfill: This area continually releases contaminants to the ground water in the fillzone and/or Columbia aquifers which affects shallow ground water in the direction ofmigration and ground water discharge areas. The two discharge points are the river and ;the south wetlands which have AWQC (ambient water quality criteria) or SWQS (Statewater quality standards) exceedances and some sediments which exhibit unacceptable |environmental impacts. Future subsurface maintenance or construction activities wouldresult in unacceptable risks to humans.

This newly revised remedy offers a greater degree of overall protection to human health and theenvironment than either the original 1993 ROD remedy or the 1995 ESD remedy. In the originalROD remedy, the stabilized waste would continue to leach small amounts of contaminants to the !river and wetlands because the waste would not be isolated from the surrounding environment.Both the 1995 ESD remedy and this revised include complete containment systems that will |isolate the waste materials from the surrounding environment. The difference between these two L Jcontainment systems is that the PRB remedy incorporates a reactive barrier as part of thecircumscribing wall. Contaminated water from inside the landfill will be treated as it flows -: ]through the reactive barrier component of the wall. In the unlikely event that the soil cover and U

01/19/01 Page 6 ~ 7105Appendix F7105Appendix F f l

AR325036 [1

cap fail, the PRB would continue to treat fluids exiting the landfill, safeguarding against releasesto the surrounding environment. Furthermore, the revised remedy is a passive treatment system,relying upon the natural flow of groundwater and in-situ processes to treat the landfill fluids.Unlike the 1995 ESD remedy, the revised remedy is not dependent upon the continuousoperation of a mechanical extraction and treatment system for optimal performance.Sewer line workers and highway workers will continue to be protected by special health andsafety measures. Institutional controls preventing new utilities in the landfill will protect otherutility workers.

Compliance with ARARSBoth the 1995 ESD and the revised remedies meet all ARARs associated with the South Landfill.Most of the major ARARs for the South Landfill are related to the protection of wetlands, withthe exception of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D closurerequirements and Delaware Regulations Governing Solid Waste (see Table 12A). Care will betaken during the design and construction of the revised remedy to prevent any adverse effects inthe South Wetlands and the Christina River. The riverbank cap ensures long-term containmentof landfill material outside of the slurry wall and sewer line. Any wetlands that will be destroyedduring the remedial action will be replaced on a one-to-one basis.

Long-term Effectiveness and PerformanceThe revised remedy offers a greater degree of long-term effectiveness when compared to the1995 ESD remedy. The revised remedy is designed for long-term (hundreds of years)immobilization of metals by treatment materials that are either sparingly soluble (gypsum andmagnesite) or insoluble (iron). The 1995 ESD treatment agents are extremely soluble, hencesusceptible to flushing from the waste by infiltration. Due to the differences in solubility of thereactive materials in the two remedies, the revised remedy performance is not as dependent uponthe cap integrity as the 1995 ESD remedy. Should the revised remedy cap fail, infiltrated waterwould merely flow through the reactive barrier and be treated. Placing monitoring wells withinthe barrier provides decades of advance warning to ensure contaminants are treated andcontained. Conversely, cap failure for the 1995 ESD remedy could result in flushing of thereactive agents and potential releases of waste materials to the surrounding environment.The 1995 ESD remedy also requires the continuous operation and maintenance of a ground-water extraction and treatment system to ensure waste containment and remedy success. Anydowntime experienced by this pump-and-treat system could impact the performance andeffectiveness of the 1995 ESD remedy. The effectiveness of the revised remedy is not dependentupon external mechanical systems.

01/22/01 Page 7 7105Appendix F.doc

AR325037

nReduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through TreatmentBoth the revised remedy and the 1995 ESD remedy would significantly reduce the mobility ofthe metals through treatment. The 1995 ESD remedy is estimated to increase the total wastevolume by five percent (DuPont, 1999). The revised remedy will immobilize migrating metals ? 1via precipitation and adsorption reactions within the treatment matrix, with no net increase in ; *waste volume. This will aid the design and construction of the treatment remedy and willminimize any decrease in floodplain volume. Another disadvantage of the 1995 ESD remedy is flthat the ground-water treatment system will generate additional waste materials that would *'require off-site disposal. The revised remedy will not generate any additional waste materials.

Short-term Effectiveness nThe revised remedy ranks better than the original remedy in short-term effectiveness. The •revised remedy is expected to take less than one year to construct rather than the two to threeyears for the 1995 ESD and 1993 ROD remedies. The revised remedy will not disturb the niexisting soil cover until the cap is installed, reducing potential risks for environmental releases jand exposure to the waste materials. Impacts to traffic along South James Street/Basin Roadwould be reduced under the revised remedy. jThe ESD required installation of a dual-barrier cap under South James Street. This would have !required an extended road closure (~ one month), diversion of traffic, and relocation ofequipment by businesses requiring access to Route 141. The revised remedy will allow :uninterrupted travel, except during a few hours when the vertical barrier crossings are made.

iI mplemen tabilityBoth the revised remedy and the 1995 ESD remedy are implementable with the revised remedy .being easier to implement due to its shorter construction period, use of proven construction !methods, and inherent protection of the sewer line by less-intrusive equipment. Both the 1993ROD soil mixing and the 1995 ESD remedies must cover the entire landfill area, ensuring that all iwaste volume is treated in place. Conversely, the revised remedy will be emplaced along thecircumference of the landfill, and will treat only the volume of waste material leaching from thelandfill. Furthermore, the revised remedy is a passive treatment remedy. Treatment success is inot contingent upon continuous operation and maintenance of a containment and treatment •system.

CostThe revised remedy is less expensive than the 1995 ESD remedy. Utilizing the current estimates jof the volume of contaminated soil, the revised remedy has a present worth cost of $5,050,000compared to $17,370,000 for the original 1993 ROD remedy and $23,110,000 for the 1995 ESDremedy, (estimated to be $33,500,000 and $11,600,000 respectively in the August 17, 1995ESD).

01/19/01 Page 8 - m _. o r A - o 7105Appendix F

State AcceptanceIt is expected that the state will support the PRB remedy because it is cost-effective and reducesimpact on the Basin Road traffic.

Community AcceptanceAlthough no public comment period has been held (because no fundamental changes to the RODare being made), community acceptance of this remedy change is judged to be high. Some of themain concerns previously expressed by the public include the high cost of the remedy and theimpacts to traffic along South James Street/Basin Road. The revised remedy is less costly andwill incur fewer impacts to local traffic.

SUMMARYIn summary, EPA is changing the remedy for the South Landfill component of the August 17,1995 ESD and August 23, 1993 ROD. The revised remedy includes a circumscribingbarrier/PRB wall system and single barrier cap that would isolate the waste materials from thesurrounding environment. The revised remedy changes the waste treatment from sodiumsulfide/sulfate injection to the in-situ permeable reactive barrier treatment technology using zero-valent iron, gypsum, and magnesite. The net present worth cost of the revised remedy for theSouth Landfill is $5,050,000.It is believed that this revised remedy ranks significantly better than the original 1993 ROD and1995 ESD remedies with respect to the nine criteria used to evaluate remedies. It is also believedthat this revised remedy would protect human health and the environment, would comply withARARs, would be cost-effective, and would utilize permanent solutions and alternativetreatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The revised remedy will satisfy thepreference for treatment as a principal element.

01/19/01 Page 9 7105AppendixF

RR325039

TABLE 1

EPA CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

Threshold Criteria

• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: Describes how the alternativeachieves and maintains protection of human health and the environment, and how risks posedthrough each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineeringcontrols, or institutional controls.

• Compliance with ARARs: Addresses whether an alternative will meet all of the applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of Federal and State environmental laws and/orjustifies invoking a waiver.

Primary Balancing Criteria

• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence: Considers the ability of the remedy to maintainreliable protection of human health and the environment over time once clean-up goals havebeen met.

• Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment: Describes the anticipatedperformance of the treatment technologies that may be employed in an alternative.

• Short-Term Effectiveness: Examines the effectiveness of an alternative in protecting humanhealth and the environment during the construction and implementation of the remedy, until theclean-up levels are achieved.

• Implementability: Evaluates the technical and administrative feasibility of an alternative andthe availability of required materials and services.

• Cost: Considers the capital, as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of thealternatives.

Modifying Criteria

• State Acceptance: Indicates whether the state agency, based on its review of the proposedremedy change, concurs with, opposes, or has no comment regarding the new remedy.

• Community Acceptance: A measure of the community's general acceptance of the newremedy.

01/19/01 . ., Page 10 • n O O C H I. fi 7l05Appendix FftR3250l»0

TABLE 16B

REMEDIAL COSTS FOR THE SOUTH LANDFILL

Direct CostsCap/Pavement/Riverbank $ 1,968,000Site Preparation $ 248,000Treatment $ 977,000Slurry Wall $ 152,000Total Direct Costs $ 3,345,000

Indirect CostsGeneral Condition, Profit,Overhead, Engineering, Support

$ 1,076,000

O&M (30yrs, 5%)(Monitoring, Maintenance) $ 385,000Total Cost $ 4,806,000

Contingency (5%) $ 240,000

Total Present Worth Costs $ 5,046,000

y01/19/01 ~ P a g e 11 ft R ? S fl U I 7 l 0 5 A P P e n d i * F f J

at

Ih]

RR3250U2

Q

1

Ji i jltl 5i«i «Ki it!!! ! i?15 UI

0

Ihil2 »

rApplicability to

Selected Reined]

L1 -S,0£

Requlnmeiit

:

1*5 u

a55U1J3

ue2O1

-

1

»H

?W)U2M"*

S•1

VH

as"rJQKJZO <%

"o8 o

ei33S 2

d appropriate for potei

e and radionudeides r<

r treatment.

c "9 w-'- Si!illg(£•?«>

Si ^£ S111E S *2 s efc» V ^

a "^ £•i-S1 !-a

Standards promulgated for air

categories.

Not applicable but

appropriate for emissions from

sites.

u- -aI 8-i« &.ill

»-i•o10-OStu09

3.2

a. National Emis

Standards for

Hazardous Aii

Pollutants

-i3*ooo.£ "3||« ou h-•3 i-g|S °*I— k>« 0

a-"*3 i-.£ gt> f

ale 1** Hi

S a6. gO *-"

Applicable

fground wate

actions.

-lT3C2at

Establishes ambient air quality

oA1n.*

«

LJ ***

ElI-2« 3 rto IPS** D& *r-" r S• o oV * •—Pali_3= -.«•§.a a

2. Delaware Ami

QuaUty

Stand;

M^

I

:- ::-:

: '•IB'-

I*

|tJ;

*

!uS a

o 5 8. Sa e - - i™ B H a -bI1- 1? q-* S - S* * a K -•gs i| Ja c t. o e<• o « 13 *a*•* '— — ^ "•il*I«-ISiH1|S||— B °! 3 «i i|i|E s s 5e k- *5 o H2 S -a •= 21 5 Q fi B13 | 11| I •§ I .aK a. o. a -o

io a *"£ s 1 51'«i*hJiill-llsllcS-Q 9 «•»«!•.|4l!lHi« * * « * * •* W 2i-H-si'3!-rlfr*1.ilsC ^ •* !> O ^ ** »-i S - -s 1 » :g 2oo^a-spaa

These standards are designed

icaused by Nuclear Regulatory

The general requirement is thi

maintain ra

diation exposures "

achievable" be made. This reg

radiation dose

limit

s for th

e pi

memebers

of the public, radia

effluents, precautionary pr

ocec

requirements.

«>s -S1 f•S — a.2s*

or-4

SCh*oicCOo*H

g

"51 s£.g• 1^2•3 iS '33 a>w <*-«

«XJ&Z CJ

= §ca 3,3 -a^ •*=•a —J a-c SS3K &> '

licabl

e for w

ork at the

water pump

and

trea

t i

May be app

the ground

'

*s*

acilit

ies,

lice

f requiremei

—• C"

o-3c »•2 sfe-B.B 8

Establishes regulations for reg

of ma

terials, st

andards of pr

otand notification requirements.

-3•31R-*u"

§ox.2"3Q«,-•o m

P?

B 3

ii

2. Delaware Rac

Control Regu

t:&:;::

;•;••«*•:;••;• '::;sa--:: ;-••;,

-iO;!:;•::;5;££.

jss

J(/;Z

J!o

1=cKS

1•3'"6u

1 On-site rem

3ica

Ob

U"SI8'CVa•a

I|r1CA

_*;

|

"c^§TH«o•*TH

C

W

D•orH

1•

1T*

o^SSy.as18

*s«'5 w s«* E *I a -3 *> e- S ca e-s&.£.£

o Ihe maximum

eitent

coastal zone managemi

Delaware

of it

s dctern

consistent,

tDelaware's

<must

notifv

•o _.1 - e oS u

, conduct or

consistent

iic manaxem'

S-a 8Sl^3 r |8 S «j

activi

ties dir

ectly af

fecting the

support those act

ivitie

s in a m

the approved

appropriate Sta

t

1ISCK^

isa.aiOin1-1

H-lO

5 S< <

1 Management

1972;

rnaclal 7Ane

u8B3

'aeu

2V-aUI

i

actions are

'practicable.

iuw _"g.ss;iiO-MJ5 -EII

program.

(See Delaware's Co

Routine Program Implementa

1-1g*

1 Reauthorizati

Amendments

inCMCOcc.•ac

CO

o*"

Area

of ||

Concern

IIApplicability lo

SelectMl Remedy

a

_1

I

otf •*

01

.3

ARAR

or TBC

£Z 5i U

antive requirements sha

ll be met since the

on involves dredging of the Christina River.

no pe

rmit

shall

be ob

tained.

_Ta Bi^ |•3 ssc

M

9

IatO

Q.5.a

ctivit

ies th

at af

fect pub

e State be permitted.

'1-3Si

Tf

fT

a1o

7. Delawue

Regulations

Governing the Use of

Subaqueous Lands,

amended September 2,

1992

oo

nsidered for we

tland remediation and

n.

i2S

w

1M

oa1|COV

.i'c'io£*

I .e -3V uU S

"2V

08 1O w

8. Delaware Executive

Order 56 on

Freshwater Wetlands

(1988)

t/i

nsidered for wetland remediation and

in.If(2 2

^

o

iuS

Jlky to

minimize the a

a. .•g -3V oO 5

•5o

cS 'gisa

9. Governor's Roundtable

Report on Freshwater

Wetlands (1969)

O

aquifer cla

ssific

ation

will be taken into

tion du

ring design and implementalion of

nent remedy.

<22

s'i «(S 85

M3

5 achieved durio

laract

eristi

cs an

£ TS

round water quality tc

ctions

based on aq

uife

il•qSw

u !5•O S3

[25

§siSoJ

10. Ground Water

Protectioa

Strategy of

1984

1 ^ !•-

:;33;i;/

:;.?;': £

&? 1

11 ;::'.-:ff '-:'•

I

1

11

££&

I'

||

3

nal c

ontrols s

hall b

e added to Ih

e north and

dfill properties to make sure they remain

abitat

.

o g -e

1*11 1-?*? * *u £* .O *•" 1 i

u, co

nsistent wi

ad enhance

Ihe

r minimize any

he human

envir

se of

all practicable m

ats of NEPA to restor

environment and avo

'ects upon the quality

3 « S '3ge ra vg s «

till

al*

G*

aOa

1. Council on

Environmental Quality

Oon

4 for ground water using the

"greater harm

health and the environment" waiver.

'Hi-5|<-

« 2 <4

o IS «o_

ardous waste

sit

ropriate are fo

rof 1;

or natura

8 g-S

illo. E <D? •" fli &=-I'llS _ Su3'5 ?

si*

Ot

_o1t/i

2. Delawue

Regulations

Governing Hazardous

Substance Qeanup, 1/93

Iht Pnrin Poid

cortion of thi

cnii

thDeleted with ESD in August 1995.)

apply in determining lo

cation of

water barrier wall at

South Landfill.

' . S*1

HH i

5eoJ3

TJa1fA

COoc

la*3QCOIN>01CD

•3 E2 sU

11||

J9121a11I

uli

U|«l Clutioa

ARAR

or TBC

;;£s.

ofJO o! *JZ U CJ >3

n IS op £

Discharge Umits sha

ll be met for all on-site

discharges to surface water including treated gi

water and wastewater from dewatering dredge

material.

Only

substantive requirements

shall

and no pennit

shall be obtained.

u

"oeo1o3n1-a"J5•31-3 .M M

3 3u Bo —e '5u] D

j>i

a.

ctftu09

Qean

Water Act

(CWA);

National

Pollutant Dbcharge

Elimination System

Requirements

^

-Jrf-J P (-z 0 u

,1M *£

Applicable should the extracted ground water,

ground

water, or wastewaler from

dredge mate

discharged to a POTW.

i2a.o

«•§.3-oL.

£

iCO

1a.

ictiOS

General Pretreatmenl

Regulations

w

g

>

The riv

er dredging

will c

omply to an

y substant

requirements, but no pe

rmit

will be obtained.

ea.5f•5«•*3oVeg'183*O

10.

j>

o.

§3Ssoii3§

u

Section 10 of

the Riv

and Harbors Act

***

Bf

Z S 8 O

•oc v£^ 6

Installation of any monitoring and recovery we

the abandonment of wells shall meet

all substa

requirements.

c

Itf"| §•.Ss* ^ ^8 -3 a•a g.'S.tf H E5 3•s «£ a.g.2-g8 (3

** *3 "0jl §

Ej- "3B CO O ra5 .5 "•S) 2 —

C 'lA —

i tf^*5 3

§"tf 1

illo.s -9

1a.*

oT

V

V O

«P

State of De

laware

Regulations Governin

the ConslructkMl of

Water Wells,

January 20, 1987

*

^

Z CJ CO

IS;

Applicable should the ground-water treatment

involve discharge to su

rface water.

u

=o "So £••° "C*" ««S SJ.S3 u§*5o .S

° •§& S.3 2

||Ip g

« 5v 5a?| 5

w.a s"

11r M

Sections 3-6, 8-10,11.1

1U. 113,

11.4, 11.6, 1

\f*

Delaware Water

Quality Standards, as

amended.

February 21

1993

«n

0!

Z O 3

"o « IS*•i i- ?

Applicable

if re

medial action involves di

schargi

> 50,000 gallons/day average over any month o

withdrawal of

ground water of 100,000

gallon

s/more

average over any month.

•uo.83iVQ,•o9510 "*•3 .1

** 8$ 11*ii11Dp A« S

11

.5

DRBC

Ground Water

Protected Area

Regulation, No. 4, 6(f)

9, 10; Water Code of t

Basin. Se

ctions 2.20.4,

2302

Delaware

River Ba

sin

Commissioo (DRBC)

Water Quality

10

J Q ?ZOO

£•

May be ap

pticable for the ground-water recove

system or the public wa

ter supply

line.

No pe

nnit re

quired.

a18.Q.21"3u3*2

•5 6

1*a .b.2 S— JS* **6 jQ|.s11o a

11

'i9

Delaware

Regulation

Governing the

Alloca

tion of Wa

ter

March 1.1987

p"

O

I•o

1

fi

I!ji(21

jeV

1

I*;iiQ

a•M

I"£OM

1C

Sute of

Delaware

Groundwater

eo

Management

riaa

November 1, 1987

nun

• I

J

CD10CMCOCd•d

COro01o

s

Vc1}

1*%1*1si

eil

^^ ".** *3 «J 3&J«

1o1**i1I

—1 d

Legal Citation

U

5

CO

_j•aJ•ss™•ifJ"»>.38-te|V

Si§ *|.| 875 & S

Establishes regulations to implement

an improved i

management pr

ogram, specifically relating to ei

control, water management,

and post cl

osu

o- 11- f- -3 &£ 5 <

•o

ua a|l

if- iri

^

co m

|

COaCO

st1 *0, J

Delaware

Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste

define "hazardous waste".' The regulations

liste

d be

to th

e handling of s

uch hazardous waste.

5u 3UJ BJM CQ

SEE BELOW

FJ, F.7, F.9, F.ll, F.1

3F.1

5, F.

17

3 3!|ifIIIm

^UJ 3(A CD

|

aaaCO

-Ites el3 8 *sN

Regulates the management

of hazardous waste, to i

safe di

sposal of w

astes, and to provide for resource

from the environment by

contr

olling

hazardous wa

scradle to grave."

qSi CO

s_! •£ —

So' -3 fef 3 §

SHs ?«l«l*3 «T 2 -a o -S I - as .s .iiJJi3SS igS\3lla•3 *- 3;

iff iiiljlIilil""

06

Z O

c

3 1 dsi a3 g *g | 1!3 .. T3

^ -g i— . g gFS -e * •8,3 g

3 1 E-i« 1IIII1

Establishes standards for generators of hazardous v

including waste determination manifests and pre-tn

requirements.

•S

J1

Delaware

Regulations

Governing Hazardous

Waste,

Part 262.10-58

«>

kl11 8•S "S1 s-s"*

06

z 8 Oa

Sw

3s.ilf% O <AS K a— oo 59 « "H* ~ a•s -£*•?*o "S 5-y S 8FJ-a -aS.3 g2 i |^ — c

?• S S--3 e< o. a

sii^

Establishes standards for g

enerators of ha

zardous v

including waste determination manifests and pre-tn

requirements.

•SiiOO

EPA Regulations,

40 CF.R Part 262.10-5

JB

1*8 s

j||

to S B»

a

Z U CO

M

uIcu1o^9 ifrSP M

8 38 •?u I

]lg J

11

V

•s

Regulations for owners and operators of TSDFs wt

acceptable management of hazardous wastes.

-|J1

Delaware

Regulations

Governing Hazardous

Waste,

Part 264

(40 CF.R

Part 264)

ff

ijt Illjijlfillilil^

oir>CDir><Nora

t -

enCDcn

« »rCO

*«

CO

Q.

£8•s sJ3 £3>S«i °?otu;

^ is |

"V "Z coa. JCO CO 3

"8

I

cocu J03 to S

o

Q.

FIGURE 1Site Location Map

E.I. DuPont, Newport Superfund Site

BANNING PARKA

CampgroundsA

Newport

SITEL *?_ " -•»-

Approximate distance to nearest public water^ rr-s. n|i|irujuiiidic uiMdiiuo lu ncaic^i |iuunc wdicif A \ supply well is 1.5 miles southeast of the Site( Iff ) i Ap|irox-Seila i

RR325052

|f §§s§§§§!§§§§;

FIGURE 4Relocated South James Street/Basin Road

Through Newport

Philadelphia Baltimore Railroad

CIBA-GEIGYNEWPORT PLANT

SOUTHDISPOSAL

SITE

<• SOUTH WETLANDS>

^ Extended Areaof Original Landfill

Original Location', ; of South James Street/

Basin Road

REFERENCE MAP: DelDOTContract No. 71-02-007Sheet No. 150 of 198Page 500047f of The Administrative Record. *.NOTE: Boring locations are approximate. RR 3 2 5 0 5 k*

DATUM

. o£ «NI

^r u- o-= j»*» » ™* r(Sgstji _ t. g -y „•V*, '§-?'£ § -f ? "g- -9 ? -f~ S-V . S 6 ? ? -- c s g ^ c s x r ^£ < 6 •C II H II II II II IIO < N r - (N — n CO OCfl — CM — M

u-> *O K>^ CN" co

II If II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II

D

o

C «fe O)O c

**- O ** J«*.O * "jii - V^r iD I -» 1 X NN£?l oiKo> §

II II II II II It II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II It H II II II II II II II II II II II II II II •• II

wruva

Area to be CappedRfverbank Sectionto be StabizedGroundwaterBarrier Wal \ ^ s Original Location

of South JamesEL DuPont \S\ \ m ^ / ^ "Street/Bash Road

Newport Site

Riverbank ^ . . ..... ,,.....,. ., . H. .f.,.M""""''•" " Permeable

Reactive| Barrier WalSouth Disposal Site

South Wetlands•

VegetatedBoundary

Current Locationof South JamesStreet/Basin Road

LegendMonitoring WelPortion Owned byState of Delaware

James Street *.*.*.* Wetlands

Uplands

PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER REMEDY_______________________AR325056 Figure 10

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnonnnonnnnnn

<D

RR325057

SOUTH NORTH20

10

UJ

-10

-20

-301-

-i 20WB-7

G.S.=12.2

WB-9G.S.=7. 10

-10

I—UJUJU,

oI—5LU-JLJ

•20

LEGEND

COVER SOIL. TYPICALLY GRAY TO BROWN, r———i SAND, COLUMBIA FORMATION, TYPICALLY ORANGESILT TO SILTY CLAY I * ' I T0 ORANGE BROWN, FINE TO COURSE SAND.

'' " ' SOME GRAVELvT| FILL MATERIAL T7~™\ CLAYEY SILT, MARSH DEPOSIT, TYPICALLY CO

inPRB WALL

COcc:

Detail of PRB WallFigure 12

Barley Mill Plaza. Building?? . , an~,ao, D, „ „ .. .———————————' 6 P'ke&Route 141 ' Wilminglon. DE 1980S

uu

feasibility study and proposalfeasibility assessment and proposal permeable reactive barrier remedy...

Documents