five year review - o-field study area · pdf fileoriginal five year review for the o-field...

ORIGINAL

FIVE YEAR REVIEWFOR THE

O-FIELD STUDY AREA

FINAL DOCUMENT

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION STATKMENTAPPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE:

DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED3084-B-l

Edgewood Area - Aberdeen Proving Ground, MarylandJuly 1999

ORIGINAL

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Five-Year Review Signature Cover

1 Site Identification

Site Name: O-Field, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground

Region: 03 State: Maryland

EPA Identification : M D22 1 0020036

City/County: Harford County

Site Status

National Priorities List (NPL) Status: Final

Remediation Status: Ongoing Operation

Multiple Operable Units (OUs): [Y] N

Construction Completion Date: To-Be-Determmed

Funding Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Account Lead Agency: United States Army

Recycling, Reuse, Redevelopment Site:

.| Review Status

Who conducted the review (EPA Region, State, Federal Agency): Federal Facility

Author Name: Cindy Powels

Author Title: O-Field Project Officer

Author Affiliation: Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

Review Period: From: April 13, 1999

Date(s) of Site Inspection: May 27, 1999

Review Period: From: April 13, 1999 To: July 27, 1999

Type of Review: Statutory Number of Review: 1

Triggering Action Event: Remedial Action Start for O-Field OU1

Trigger Action Date: June 11,1992*

Due Date: June 11, 1997

Deficiencies: None identified

Recommendations and Required Actions:

O-Field OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater): Continue Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of theGroundwater Treatment Facility and Extraction System.

• O-Field OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area - Landfill): Continue O&M of the PIU. Further evaluate in-situtreatment technologies for application at Old O-Field.

• O-Field OU3 (Watson Creek Surface Water and Sediment): Continue long-term monitoring of siteconditions

• O-Field OU4 (New O-Field Source Area and Groundwater): Select remedy(ies) for New O-FieldEvaluate potential long-term O&M and monitoring needs.

General: Prepare a subsequent Five-Year Review for the O-Field study area, because waste remains on siteat OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area - Landfill), treatment is ongoing for OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater),and a decision is yet to be made for OU4 (New O-Field).

Note: June 11, 1992 is the start date in CERCLIS for remedial action at O-Field. Operation of the O-Fieldgroundwater extraction and treatment facility began in April 1995

Protectiveness Statement(s):

The remedies at OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater), OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area), and OU3 (Watson CreekSediment and Surface Water) are protective of human health and the environment.

The remedy for the New O-Field source area and groundwater (OU4) has not been selected at this time.However, it is anticipated that all remedial actions selected for New O-Field will be protective of humanhealth and the environment.

Because the remedial actions at OU1 through OU3 are protective, and the anticipated remedial action atOU4 will be protective, the remedies for the O-Field Study Area, APG - Edgewood Area, are protective ofhuman health and the environment.

Other Comments:

Technologies are being evaluated for in-situ treatment of OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area).

Signatures:

Abraham Ferdas DateDirector, Hazardous Site Clean-Up DivisionUS Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

Tim McNamara' ^ DateDirector, Directorate of Safety, Health and EnvironmentAberdeen Proving Ground, MD

ORIGINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND 2-1

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE O-FIELD OPERABLE UNITS 2-12.1.1 Old O-Field: Operable Units 1 & 2 2-12.1.2 Watson Creek: Operable Unit 3 2-32.1.3 New O-Field: Operable Unit 4 2-7

2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 2-72.2.1 Climatology 2-8

2.2.2 Site Topography 2-82.2.3 Surface Soil 2-8

2.2.4 Geology/Hydrogeology 2-82.2.5 Surface Water 2-132.2.6 Lithology of Bottom Sediment 2-14

2.3 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 2-14

2.3.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater 2-142.3.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area 2-142.3.3 OU3: Watson Creek 2-152.3.4 OU4: New O-Field 2-16

3.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY 3-1

4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS 4-14.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER 4-1

4.1.1 Remedy Selection 4-14.1.2 Remedy Implementation 4-14.1.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-44.1.4 Current Status 4-5

4.2 OU2: OLD O-FIELD SOURCE AREA 4-84.2.1 Remedy Selection 4-84.2.2 Remedy Implementation 4-84.2.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-104.2.4 Current Status 4-12

4.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK 4-134.3.1 Remedy Selection 4-134.3.2 Remedy Implementation 4-144.3.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-15

4.4 OU4: NEW O-FIELD 4-154.4.1 Remedy Selection 4-154.4.2 Remedy Implementation 4-164.4.3 Operation and Maintenance 4-16

5.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINDINGS 5-15.1 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 5-1

5.2 INTERVIEWS 5-1

5.3 SITE INSPECTION 5-2

DACA31-94-D-0064 i Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

Table of Contents(continued)

5.4 ARARS REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 5-35.4.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater ............................................................................... 5-35.4.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area ................................................................................ 5-35.4.3 OU3: Watson Creek ................................................................................................. 5-35.4.4 OU4: New O-Field .................................................................................................... 5-3

5.5 DATA REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 5-35.5.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater ............................................................................... 5-35.5.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area ................................................................................ 5-65.5.3 OU3: Watson Creek ................................................................................................. 5-65.5.4 OU4: New O-Field .................................................................................................... 5-6

6.0 ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6-16.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER ................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-16.1.2 Adequacy and Continued Need forO&M .................................................................. 6-16.1.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-16.1.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-16.1.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-16.1.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-16.1.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-1

6.2 OU2: OLD O-FIELD SOURCE AREA ................................................................................... 6-16.2.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-16.2.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M .................................................................. 6-26.2.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-26.2.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-26.2.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-26.2.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-26.2.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-2

6.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK ....................................................................................................... 6-26.3.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-26.3.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M .................................................................. 6-26.3.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-26.3.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-26.3.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-26.3.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-26.3.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-2

6.4 OU4: NEW O-FIELD ............................................................................................................. 6-26.4.1 Effectiveness of Remedy .......................................................................................... 6-26.4.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M .................................................................. 6-36.4.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure ............................................................ 6-36.4.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels .................................. 6-36.4.5 Opportunities for Optimization .................................................................................. 6-36.4.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors .................................................. 6-36.4.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site ...................... 6-3

7.0 DEFICIENCIES ................................................................................................................................ 7-1

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIRED ACTIONS ...................................................................... 8-1

DACA31-94-D-0064 ii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

Table of Contents(continued)

ORIGINAL

9.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS 9-1

10.0 NEXT REVIEW 10-1

11.0 REFERENCES 11-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

A O-Field Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Data Summary

B Photographs of the OU1 and OU2 Remedial Actions

C Interview Summary and Site Inspection Checklist

D Groundwater Monitoring Data for the WTA and UCA, Old O-Field

E Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Data

DACA31-94-D-0064 iii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

ORiGi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

2-1 Location of Aberdeen Proving Ground 2-2

2-2 Location of O-Field Disposal Sites 2-4

2-3 Aerial Photograph of Old O-Field-October 1984 2-5

2-4 Aerial Photograph of New O-Field and Watson Creek - October 1984 2-6

2-5 Cross-Section Map, Old O-Field 2-9

2-6 Old O-Field Cross Section A-A' 2-10

2-7 Old O-Field Cross Section B-B' 2-11

2-8 Old O-Field Cross Section C-C1 2-12

4-1 Groundwater Extraction and Monitoring Well Network 4-2

4-2 GWTF Process Flow Diagram 4-3

4-3 Cross Section of the Permeable Infiltration Unit 4-9

4-4 Plan View of the Permeable Infiltration Unit 4-11

B-1 Aerial View of the GWTF (OU1) B-1

B-2 GWTF Control Room B-1

B-3 View from the Mezzanine of the Entire Treatment System B-2

B-4 Lime Reaction Tanks B-2

B-5 Clarifierand Sand Filter B-3

B-6 Clarifier and Vapor Phase Carbon Units B-3

B-7 Sludge Holding Tank and Liquid Phase Carbon Units B-4

B-8 Air Stripper, UV/OX Unit, and Control Room B-4

B-9 Second Stage Neutralization Tanks B-5

B-10 Carbon Units and Filter Press Room B-5

B-11 Application of Sand during PIU Construction (OU2) B-6

B-12 View of the Completed PIU B-6

B-13 Aerial View of the GWTF (OU1) and PIU (OU2) B-7

B-14 Aerial View of the O-Field Study Area B-7

D-1 VOC Contaminant Isoconcentration Map - WTA (November 1997) D-17

D-2 CWM Degradation Product Isoconcentration Map-WTA (November 1997) D-18

D-3 VOC Contaminant Isoconcentration Map - UCA (November 1997) D-19

D-4 CWM Degradation Product Isoconcentration Map-UCA (November 1997) D-20

E-1 Old O-Field GWTF Daily Average Effluent Discharge, September 1996 to January 1998 E-1

E-2 Old O-Field GWTF September 1996 to January 1998 Effluent Discharge Data - EffluentMonitoring System Dissolved Oxygen E-2

E-3 Old O-Field GWTF September 1996 to January 1998 Effluent Discharge Data - EffluentMonitoring System pH E-3

E-4 Old O-Field GWTF September 1996 to January 1998 Effluent Discharge Data - EffluentMonitoring System -Temperature E-4

E-5 Old O-Field GWTF Total Effluent Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) E-5

DACA31-94-D-0064 iv Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

Table of Figures(Continued)

E-6 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 -Aluminum E-6

E-7 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 -Arsenic E-7

E-8 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 - Barium E-8

E-9 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998 - Copper E-9

E-10 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Iron E-10

E-11 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Lead E-11

E-12 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Nickel E-12

E-13 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Zinc E-13

E-14 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Total Suspended Solids (TSS) E-14

E-15 Old O-Field GWTF Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results) September 1996 toJanuary 1998-Turbidity E-15

DACA31-94-D-0064 v Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

LIST OF TABLES

Tables

3-1 Chronology of Site Events 3-1

4-1 Annual O&M Costs for OU1: Old O-Field GWTF 4-4

4-2 Summary of Chemical Analysis of Old O-Field Groundwater 4-6

4-3 Annual O&M Costs for OU2: Old O-Field PIU 4-12

4-4 Watson Creek Remedial Action Schedule 4-14

4-5 Annual O&M Costs for OU3: Watson Creek 4-15

5-1 O-Field GWTF - Average Monthly Effluent Discharge Flow Summary, September 1996 toMarch 1999 5-5

5-2 Old O-Field GWTF - Effluent Monitoring System Data Summary, September 1996 toMarch 1999 5-6

8-1 Recommendations and Required Actions

A-1 Comparison of Maximum Groundwater Chemical Concentrations with Water Quality ControlCriteria A-1

A-2 Summary of Chemicals Detected in Watson Creek Sediment, O-Field Area, 1993- 1996 A-2

A-3 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Groundwater- 1993 A-3

A-4 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Groundwater- December 1997 A-5

A-5 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Surface Soil, 1992-1997 A-9

A-6 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Surface Water -1997 A-12

A-7 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Sediment, 1993 -1997 A-13

A-8 Summary of Chemicals Detected in New O-Field Subsurface Soil -1997 A-16

D-1 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results, Water Table Aquifer, Old O-Field D-1

D-2 Summary of Analytical Results, Surface Water Samples, Old O-Field D-12

D-3 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results, Upper Confined Aquifer, Old O-Field D-13

DACA31-94-D-0064 vi Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

4,4-DDE 4,4-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (pesticide)

ACEM Automated Continuous Environmental Monitor

AEL Airborne Exposure Limit

APG Aberdeen Proving Ground

APG-EA Aberdeen Proving Ground - Edgewood Area

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials

AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria

bgs below ground surface

SQL Below Quantitation Limits

STAG Biological Technical Advisory Group

BZ 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (riot control agent)

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CG Phosgene (choking agent)

CN Chloroacetophenone (tear producing compound)

CMS Chloroacetophenone in Chloroform (tear producing compound)

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations

CS Ortho-chlorobenzylidenemalonitrile (tear producing compound)

CWM Chemical Warfare Material

DM Adamsite (vomiting compound)

D.O Dissolved Oxygen

DOE Department of Energy

DSHE Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment

ECN Electrochemical Noise

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FFS Focused Feasibility Study

FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic

ft feet

ft/d feet per day

ft3 cubic feet

FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared

GAG Granular Activated Carbon

GA Tabun (nerve agent)

GB Sarin (nerve agent)

GES Groundwater Extraction System

CIS Geographical Information System

gpm gallons per minute

DACA31-94-D-0064 vii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

List of Acronyms(continued) QP

<

GWTF Groundwater Treatment Facility

H, HD, HS, HT.... Mustard (blisteragent)

IAG Interagency Agreement

ICF KE ICF Kaiser Engineers

IDW Investigation Derived Waste

in/yr inches per year

IT International Technologies Corporation

L Lewisite (blister agent)

LCU Lower Confining Unit

LTM Long-Term Monitoring

MDE Maryland Department of the Environment

MES Maryland Environmental Service

ng/L micrograms per Liter

mg/L milligrams per Liter

MIC Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion

MINICAMS Miniature Continuous Air Monitoring System

msl mean sea level

NA Not Applicable

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

ND Not Detected

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

OU Operable Unit

PETN Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (explosive compound)

PIU Permeable Infiltration Unit

ppb parts per billion

RAB Restoration Advisory Board

RBC Risk-Based Concentration

RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD Record of Decision

sq. ft square feet

SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound

TAL Target Analyte List

TCL Target Compound List

TEU Technical Escort Unit

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UCA Upper Confined Aquifer

DACA31-94-0-0064 viii Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

List of Acronyms(continued)

UCU Upper Confining Unit

U.S United States

USACHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, formerly known asthe U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USAEHA)

USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center, formerly known as the U.S. Army Toxic andHazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA)

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UV/OX Ultraviolet Light Catalyzed Oxidation

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VX o-ethyl, s-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonothioate (nerve agent)

WP White Phosphorus (smoke agent)

WTA Water Table Aquifer

WWII World War II

Y2K Year 2000

DACA31-94-D-0064 ix Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

oINTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Army, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hasconducted a five-year (statutory) review of the remedial actions implemented at O-Field, Edgewood Area,Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland. This review was conducted from April 13, 1999 toJuly 27, 1999. This report documents the results of the analysis conducted by International Technologies(IT) Corporation, formerly ICF Kaiser Engineers - Environment and Facilities Management Group, underContract No. DACA31-94-D-0064, for the Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment (DSHE) at APG

The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documentedin five-year review reports. In addition, five-year review reports identify deficiencies found during thereview, if any, and recommendations to address them. The Lead Agency (US Army) must implement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).CERCLA 121(c), as amended states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less oftenthan each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health andthe environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.

The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations states:

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the leadagency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of theselected remedial action.

This is the first five-year review for the APG-Edgewood Area (APG-EA). The triggering action forthis statutory review is the initiation of remedial action for O-Field, as shown in EPA'sCERCLISS/WasteLAN database: June 11, 1992. (Note: Operation of the Old O-Field groundwaterextraction and treatment facility began in April 1995.) Specifically, this five-year review is being activatedby the continuing presence of contaminants at the site above levels that allow for unlimited andunrestricted exposure.

DACA31-94-D-0064 1 -1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND

APG is a 72,516-acre (39,882-acre land area) installation located in southern Harford County andnortheastern Baltimore County, Maryland, on the western shore of the upper Chesapeake Bay (Figure2-1). The installation is bordered to the east and south by the Chesapeake Bay; to the west byGunpowder Falls State Park, the Crane Power Plant and residential areas; and to the north by the City ofAberdeen and the towns of Edgewood, Joppatowne, Magnolia, and Perryman. APG is divided into twoareas by the Bush River: the Edgewood Area of APG lies to the west and the Aberdeen Area lies to theeast.

APG was established in 1917 as the Ordnance Proving Ground and was designated as a formalmilitary post in 1919. Equipment and ammunition testing and training school operation began at APG in1918. Between this time and the onset of World War II (WW II), activities at APG included research anddevelopment and large-scale testing of a wide variety of weapons and other equipment.

APG's primary mission continues to be the testing and development of weapons, vehicles, and awide variety of support equipment. Within APG-EA, chemical warfare research, development, and relatedactivities have occurred. Specific activities at Edgewood have included laboratory research, field testingof chemical munitions, pilot-scale manufacturing, and production-scale chemical agent manufacturing.

Many areas of the Gunpowder Neck of the APG-EA have been used as impact areas for thetesting of ordnance; as such, there is the potential for encountering unexploded ordnance (UXO) and/orintact or leaking liquid-filled rounds deposited there during testing. Disposal and testing activities havealso taken place in areas along the Gunpowder Neck. O-Field was one of the major disposal areas atAPG-EA (the disposal history of O-Field is discussed in more detail below).

O-Field is located in a restricted area of the Installation. Access to the restricted area is strictlycontrolled. Unauthorized access is prevented through the employment of a wide variety of securitymeasures; these measures include, but are not limited to, access control points, random patrols bysecurity forces, and the employment of Technical Physical security devices.

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE O-FIELD OPERABLE UNITS

Past disposal operations at the O-Field area led to contaminated soil and groundwater at, andnear, O-Field. The Army has decided to manage the environmental contamination in the different media atthe O-Field area in a phased approach. This separation of environmental media into Operable Units(OUs) allowed the Army to begin remediation prior to full assessment of the O-Field Area. According tothe NCP, an OU is defined as a discrete action, which is an incremental step toward comprehensivelymitigating site problems. The OUs for the O-Field area have been defined as follows:

OU1 - Old O-Field Groundwater;

. OU2 - Old O-Field Source Area (Landfill);

OUS - Watson Creek Sediment and Surface Water; and

. OU4 - New O-Field Source Area and Groundwater.

2.1.1 Old O-Field: Operable Units 1 & 2

Old O-Field is bordered by surface water on three sides: Watson Creek to the north and east, andthe Gunpowder River to the west (Figure 2-2). Groundwater at Old O-Field discharges to Watson Creekand indirectly, via Watson Creek, to the Gunpowder River. Periodic disposal of waste materials at the O-Field area began before WW II. The first documented use of Old O-Field occurred in May 1941 (Yon etal., 1978), although other records suggest that disposal activities occurred as early as the late 1930s.

Disposal practices at Old O-Field included the shallow burial and open-pit burning of munitions,bulk and laboratory samples of CWM, contaminated equipment, and other hazardous materials. Recordsindicate that some of the burial trenches were 100 yards long, 10 feet (ft) deep, and 10 ft wide; however,

DACA31-94-D-0064 2-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

PENNSYLVANIA

\EdgewoodI area

/ PROVING ("GROUND

39'20' -

SOURCE: USGS, 1989.

3 KILOMETERS

US ARMYENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

CONTRACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064 , RQURE 2-1IT Cororation ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDIT Corporation2113 Emmorton Park Rd.

f4X£%3%>2104° LOCATION OFPREPARED JH TASK NO. 17044)6

cr owe HO:

FIG2-1.PPT

ABERDEENPROVINGGROUND

2-2

Section 2.0Background

most known trenches were much shorter. The existence of approximately 35 trenches was documented inhistorical records (Yon et al., 1978). Inspection of survey notes and historical aerial photographs revealsthat the trenches and pits were not distinct.

During the period of 1941 to 1949, tons of chemical-filled/explosive-loaded munitions, contaminatedplant equipment, pipes, and tanks were buried or placed on the ground surface in the area of Old O-Field.Interviewed personnel stated that the area contained 55-gallon drums of mustard (HD) and lewisite (L); itemsfilled with chloroacetophenone (CN), chloroacetophenone in chloroform (CMS), and adamsite (DM);munitions containing explosive charges; and munitions filled with white phosphorus (WP) and other chemicalwarfare materiel (CWM).

Several decontamination and cleanup operations were performed at Old O-Field from 1949through the early 1970s. The most notable of these efforts was carried out in 1949 when 1,000 barrels ofdecontaminating agent were applied to the field in an attempt to detoxify mustard agent that had beenscattered over the site by several spontaneous detonations. The decontaminating agent containedapproximately 95 percent 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. Tetrachloroethane and its degradation products havebeen identified at elevated levels in the groundwater at Old O-Field. Thus, in addition to the presence ofCWM and other hazardous materials in the groundwater at Old O-Field, it appears likely that thedecontamination effort in 1949 actually resulted in additional contamination.

From the late 1960s to the early 1970s, the U.S. Army Technical Escort Unit (TEU) performedsurface sweeps of the area. A number of suspect CWM-filled rounds were recovered from Old O-Field,temporarily stored in Conex containers at Old O-Field, and then transported and stored in the storagebunkers at N-Field. In the early 1980s, the U.S. Army TEU began another surface sweep. A series ofaerial photographs taken in 1984 show that nearly all the vegetation on Old O-Field had recently beendefoliated and burned (Figure 2-3). Historical records suggest that an ignition of WP initiated the fire.

In March 1994, a survey was conducted from the perimeter of Old O-Field to identify items visibleon the surface. The survey was conducted by two UXO specialists from the bucket of a cherry pickerprovided by APG. The cherry picker was parked on the road around the perimeter of Old O-Field and theboom was raised and positioned approximately 20 to 30 ft inside the fence of Old O-Field. Due tovegetation cover over the surface of most of Old O-Field, only approximately 15 to 20 percent of thesurface was visible, making it impossible to determine whether observed items comprised the completelist of exposed materials. In addition to this visual survey, a video tape and still photographs were takenof the field from the bucket of the cherry picker by the UXO specialists. To supplement theseobservations, a remote-controlled helicopter was later used to fly over Old O-Field while videotaping andphotographing the field. Items identified during this survey included: a large steel tank, cylindricalcontainers (approximately 3 ft long x 10- to 12-in diameter), stacks of sand/dirt-filled ammunition crates,drums, and ordnance items. Most of the ordnance items that were visible were located in a trench on theeastern side of Old O-Field. The types of ordnance items included: 4.2-inch mortars, 75-mm projectiles,105-mm projectiles, 175-mm projectiles, canisters, a 750-pound bomb, and other projectiles. The contentsof the items, if any, were unknown.

As a result of disposal and decontamination activities at the site, the groundwater has becomecontaminated. This groundwater contamination poses potential environmental risks to sensitive aquaticand terrestrial ecosystems in Watson Creek, the Gunpowder River, and the surrounding wetlands. Inaddition to the groundwater contamination at Old O-Field, the presence of chemical-warfare agents andmunitions in the landfill pose a threat to human health and the environment.

2.1.2 Watson Creek: Operable Unit 3

Watson Creek is a 60-acre estuarine water body, located in the O-Field Study Area on theGunpowder Neck peninsula in APG-EA. It is bordered on the south and west by O-Field, on the north andeast by M-Field, and discharges to the northwest into the Gunpowder River. The location of Watson Creekis shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-4. Watson Creek receives surface water runoff and groundwaterdischarge from O-Field, M-Field, and other areas of the Gunpowder Neck. The Watson Creek watersheddrains into the Gunpowder River, which in turn drains into the Chesapeake Bay.


\ \

-N-

GUNPOWDERRIVER

O

LEGEND

TREEUNE

WATER600

FEET


CONTRACT NO. MCA!1-M-l>-OOt4netnui

nsposc

LOCATION OF0-F1ELD DISPOSAL

SITES

2-4

Figure 2-3. Aerial Photograph of Old O-Field - October 1984

f

Figure 2-4. Aerial Photograph of New O-Field and Watson Creek - October 1984


Surface water exchange between Watson Creek and the Gunpowder River is restricted to anarrow culvert under Watson Creek Road. This culvert restricts tidal flushing of the creek (U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Hygiene Agency [USAEHA], 1977).

Watson Creek provides an aquatic habitat for several species of freshwater and estuarine aquaticlife. However, various factors such as seasonal temperature fluctuations, restricted tidal flushing, highorganic loading, and salinity (ranging from 0.5 to 10 parts per trillion) may impact the abundance oforganisms in Watson Creek. In addition, the culvert at Watson Creek which was constructed to enlargethe water surface area for wildlife "altered the natural habitat, greatly reducing the innate ability of thecreek-estuary systems to maintain conditions favorable for a balanced and healthy ecosystem..."(USAEHA, 1977). Marshy areas surround Watson Creek on all sides and are especially prevalent in thearea immediately south of Watson Creek. Marshes within this area are characteristically dense and arelargely covered by Phragmites, a reed-like plant which produces a very dense root mat.

Old O-Field (OUs 1 & 2) has been identified as the primary source of contamination for WatsonCreek. Construction of the Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment Facility (GWTF) mitigated a significantportion of the groundwater impacts to Watson Creek. New O-Field (OU4) has also been identified as asource of sediment contamination in Watson Creek. Remedial actions for OUs 1 through 4 are discussed inSection 4.0

2.1.3 New O-Field: Operable Unit 4

New O-Field is bordered by Old O-Field to the north, Watson Creek to the northeast and east, H-Field to the south, and Watson Creek road to the west. An aerial photograph of New O-Field is providedin Figure 2-4.

Records indicate that in December 1950, the survey and layout of the second disposal area withinthe boundary of the O-Field area was accomplished. Yon and others (1978) reported that 9 pits at NewO-Field were used for disposal operations from 1950 to 1961. The disposed material is reported to haveincluded explosives; acids; research laboratory samples of o-ethyl, s-diisopropylaminoethylmethylphosphonothioate (VX), Sarin (GB), and impregnate; HD and WP-filled shells; ortho-chloro-benzylidenemalonitrile (CS), DM, and CN. The pits were 20 ft wide and ranged in length from 40 to 100 ft.The depth of the pits is not known, but is probably similar to the depth of pits at Old O-Field (maximumdepth of at least 12 ft) (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 1989). In later years, until disposal ended in thelate 1970s, the primary activity at New O-Field was the destruction of materials by burning (USGS, 1989).This most likely included the burning of wastes containing chlorinated solvents (Nemeth, 1989).

Two unintentional fires also occurred at New O-Field. An accidental ignition of one disposal pitwas reported in New O-Field in August 1961. The report describing this incident states that the pitcontained 55-gallon drums of acid on dunnage; one 300-gallon tank contaminated with HD; laboratorysamples and waste material consisting of VX, GB, phosgene (CG), and numerous bottles ofmiscellaneous laboratory chemicals; GB-contaminated pipe; and 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ)contaminated rags. The ignition of the pit was reported as being caused by an unknown laboratorychemical after a brief but heavy rain shower.

In April 1997, a brush fire occurred in the marsh and adjacent woods at New O-Field. The causeof the fire is unknown. During site walks of the burned area conducted by the TEU, DSHE, and ITpersonnel, UXO and construction debris was observed on the surface of the marsh adjacent to New O-Field. This area is typically referred to as the push-out area, because it appears to contain materials thatmay have been displaced during surface clearing of burn pits.

2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The O-Field area consists of approximately 260 acres, bordered on the north and east by WatsonCreek, on the south by H-Field, and on the west by the Gunpowder River. Watson Creek drains into theGunpowder River, which in turn drains into the Chesapeake Bay. Descriptions of the climate, sitephysiography/topography, soil types, regional geology, hydrogeology, and surface water are provided inthis section.



2.2.1 Climatology

The climate in this region is classified as humid temperate, with hot, humid summers andrelatively mild winters. The average annual precipitation at APG is 42.75 inches with maximum rainfalloccurring during the summer (Nutter, 1977). In 1990, a weather station was established at H-Field (justsouth of O-Field). Annual precipitation at H-Field ranged from 35.55 inches to 46.08 inches per year(in/yr) between 1990 and 1993, and averaged 41.08 in/yr (USGS, 1996). The Phillips Army Air Field islocated on the Aberdeen Peninsula of APG, about 5 miles northeast of the O-Field area. Minimum annualprecipitation measured at this site occurred in 1930 and was 22.32 in/yr. Maximum annual precipitationoccurred in 1996 with a value of 64.03 in/yr.

2.2.2 Site Topography

The topography of the O-Field area is generally flat, with natural land-surface elevations rangingfrom slightly above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 19 ft msl. Since construction of the PermeableInfiltration Unit (PIU), the land-surface elevations at Old O-Field range from 10 to 26 ft above sea level(APG, 1997b).

New O-Field is situated on a topographic high with a marshy low-lying area located to the northand east which is associated with Watson Creek. The natural topography at New O-Field is disturbed byprevious excavations and two open trenches.

2.2.3 Surface Soil

In the O-Field area, the uppermost soils are about 3 ft thick and are composed of dark brown,clayey to sandy silt (USGS, 1989). Information obtained during the Remedial Investigation shows that thetop soil in the Old O-Field area ranges in thickness from 0.2 to 0.9 ft, and consists of dark, gray-brownsandy silt with varying amounts of clay and organic matter (APG, 1999d). Cohesiveness of the soil varieswidely depending on the content of clay and organic matter. Surface soil samples collected from theperimeter of Old O-Field were found to be primarily silty sand. Soils at New O-Field consist of mixtures ofsilt, silty sand, and silty clay.

2.2.4 Geology/Hydrogeology

O-Field is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Coastal Plainsediments at Old O-Field that extend to a depth of approximately 80 ft below ground surface (bgs), aresubdivided into the following hydrostratigraphic units (from top to bottom): water table aquifer (WTA);upper confining unit (UCU); upper confined aquifer (UCA); and lower confining unit (LCU) (USGS, 1989).At least the upper 30 ft of sediments are estuarine, overbank and channel deposits derived fromglacial/interglacial period activity and present day Susquehanna River drainage. At New O-Field, thewater-bearing units and confining units are not hydraulically distinct. A detailed description of theconnection between the water-bearing units is presented in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study(RI/FS) Report for the O-Field Area (APG, 1999d). The following sections describe each generalhydrogeologic unit. Detailed cross-sections are provided in Figures 2-5 through 2-8.

2.2.4.1 Water Table Aquifer

The sequence of sediments that include the WTA ranges in thickness from approximately 13 to23 ft. The water table has been encountered within 4 to 8 ft bgs, but averages about 10 ft bgs. Typicalgroundwater elevations range from 2 to 4 ft msl. The WTA sediments contain considerably more silt inthe northern and central portion of the site, relative to the southern portion. The upper part of the WTAconsists of a sandy silt that overlies a fine- to medium-grained quartz sand with interbeds of silt andcoarse sand. The unit generally consists of fines down to the clay unit located in the UCU, as well as athin organic silt layer occurring at the base of the WTA in some locations.

The WTA is recharged primarily by vertical infiltration of precipitation on the Gunpowder Neck.While rainfall and snowmelt are transported as runoff to the Gunpowder River and Watson Creek, mostprecipitation is evaporated or transpired by vegetation. The remainder of the precipitation infiltrates


-N-

MW6-3AMW6-2A

+ WPS

+WP3

100H5SCALE

100 2OO2

FEET

LEGENDMONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

EX1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

CWP3 CREEK WELL POINT

LINE OF CROSS SECTION

US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

CONTRACT NO. OACA31-M-D-OOM

MM/MM »»« avmIMC

7-27-»» GWCR-SIT

FIGURE 2-5AKKOdN PDOVIN6 SKOUM)

CROSS SECTIONOLD O-FIELD

APG, MD

2-9

ORIGINAL

SILT AND CUTWITH TRACE SANO

MW02 MW2-2(ABANDONED)

PM3B

NORTHWEST

A

SAND

SAND WITHTRACE GRAVEL

SILT + CLAY

CLAY + SILT

PM2A WELL IDENTIFICATIONNUMBER

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 24X

SCREENED INTERVALNOT TO SCALE

DEPTH OF BORING

LITHOLOGY CHANGE

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITCONTACT

CONTACT INFERRED

NOTE:DATA BASED ON PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTSEXCEPT FOR OF WELLS.

AN INTERPRETATIVE LOG WAS USED FOR0-FIELD WELLS.


CONTRACT NO. DACA31 -94-0-0064

/group2IIJ Emmorton Porti RoodEdoMood, Utxyond 21040(410) 812-8350A M«mb«r of TM IT Group

PKCPAKED MM/DWM

CHECKED JC

DATE 7_27-99

170409

ICF DWO NO:

GWCRO-AA

FIGURE: 2-6ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

OLD 0-FIELDCROSS SECTION

A-A"APG, MD

2-10

ORIGINAL

-10-

SILT AND CLAYWITH TRACE SAND

-20-

SANDY SILTWITH UTTUCLAY

-SILTAN6"CLAY- — — 1 0 UCU30MC-SANO- ^vw

SANDY SJLT I WITHLITTLE I CLAY

SUAVELY SAND"WIW TRACESILT - .

ORAVtL AND SAfID WITH TRACE SJLT

_————————

SAND WITH TRACE SILT

SILT AND CLAY

SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND ORAVEL

SILT AND CLAYWITH TRACE SAND

SAND


SILT + CLAY

CLAY + SILT

PM2A WELL IDENTIFICATIONNUMBER


SCREENED INTERVAL

-DEPTH OF BORING

LITHOLOGY CHANGE


CONTACT INFERRED

NOT TO SCALE

NOTE:

DATA BASED ON PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTSEXCEPT FOR OF WELLS.

AN INTERPRETATIVE LOG WAS USED FOR0-FIELD WELLS.


CONTRACT NO. DACA31 -94-D-0064

'ffvufiITGoipoMHB2113 Emmorton Port RoodEdqSKOOd. Maryland 21040(410) 612-6360A MsmtMf of The IF Croup

PREPARED MM/DWM

CHECKED JC

DATE 7-27-99

87040S

DWG NO:

GWCRO-BB


OLD 0-FIELDCROSS SECTION

B-B"APG, MD

2-1 1

ORIGINAL

SAND


SILT + CLAY

CLAY -I- SILT

CREEK

— 10— — WLT -ANB- CtAY =

•UTlUt SAND- — —

SAND WITH TRACESILT AND GRAVEL

SILT AND CLAY WITH TRACE SAND

CRAVE! AND SANDWITH TRACE SILT

SAND WITH TRACEGRAtfEL AND SILT

-10-

-20-

-30-

PM5 WELL IDENTIFICATIONNUMBER


•SCREENED INTERVAL

DEPTH OF BORING

LITHOLOGY CHANGE


CONTACT INFERRED

NOT TO SCALE

NOTE:

DATA BASED ON PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTSEXCEPT FOR OF WELLS.

AN INTERPRETATIVE LOG WAS USED FORO-FIELD WELLS.


CONTRACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064JTCapoaOaa2113 Emmorton Port RoodEdqewod, Uorykmd 21040(410) 612-6350

. A Monlw of fh« IT Group

PREPARED MM/DWM

CHECKED JC

DATE 7-27-99

870405

ICF DWO NO:

GWCRO-CC


OLD O-FIELDCROSS SECTION

C-CX

APG, MD

2-12


through the vadose zone and recharges the water table. Groundwater elevations in the WTA on thenorthern and eastern side of Old 0-Field near Watson Creek fluctuate in the range of one to four feetabove msl. Groundwater levels in the WTA tend to be highest in late winter and early spring, declinethrough the summer, and reach annual lows in September or October. A silty layer above the WTA mayalso slightly impact water levels measured in wells located beneath this silty layer.

Step drawdown tests performed at Old O-Field (APG, 1993) and aquifer tests performed at NewO-Field (APG, 1999d), showed an average horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 30 ft/d for the water tableaquifer.

2.2.4.2 Upper Confining Unit

The UCU consists of a silt and clay layer, which is gray, micaceous, and contains varyingamounts of very fine sand. This unit appears to grade from high clay content at Old O-Field to high siltcontent at New O-Field (USGS, 1996). Thickness ranges from approximately 4 feet at Old O-Field to 0.5feet or less at New O-Field. The UCU has encountered at approximately 25 ft below Old O-Field and 11 ftbelow New O-Field (USGS, 1989). The top of the UCU undulates and slopes down and eastward towardWatson Creek. The variation in elevation may be due to erosion by streams, uneven deposition and theexistence of natural paleochannels in the area.

Due to the variability of thickness and clay content, this unit is believed to be leaky and/ordiscontinuous beneath Old and New O-Fields. Aquifer testing performed at New O-Field in 1993,confirmed that the upper water-bearing unit is leaky (APG, 1999d). The vertical hydraulic conductivity ofthe UCU and its thickness are significant factors that govern the flow of groundwater and contaminantsbetween the WTA and the UCA. A vertical hydraulic conductivity of 0.02 ft/d was calculated (APG.1999d) for New O-Field, and estimated at 0.01 ft/d for Old O-Field.

2.2.4.3 Upper Confined Aquifer

The UCA is beneath the UCU and is comprised of saturated sands and gravels interbedded withclay layers, and ranges in thickness from 2 to 13 ft. The UCA is bounded by less permeable silt and claylayers above, and by a thick clay layer below. The dark to reddish gray or grayish brown sediments of theUCA typically coarsen downward from a sand and silt to a gravel near the base of the unit. At mostlocations the sand fines downward immediately below the gravel layer, but at some locations (MW2-1,MW2-2, EX2, MW4-2A, MW4-1B, MW6-2B, and MW6-3B) the gravel layer lies directly over the LCU.

At Old O-Field, typical UCA groundwater elevations range from 1 to 2 ft msl. During periods ofhigh recharge, confined aquifer response to water table loading has resulted in water levels in the UCArising over 3 ft msl (APG, 1999f). The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the UCA ranges from 20 to 30ft/d and averages 22 ffd based on drawdown and recovery tests at New O-Field (APG, 1999d).

2.2.4.4 Lower Confining Unit

The LCU is a dark gray to black clay, probably deposited in a marginal marine or estuarineenvironment. This unit has been encountered at depths of 20 to 39 ft bgs at Old O-Field (USGS, 1989).Laboratory analysis of six cores taken from two sites at Old O-Field resulted in a range of verticalhydraulic conductivities from 4.7 x 10"6 to 4.7 x ID/* ft/d with a median of 1.6 x 10'5 ft/d (USGS, 1989).These values are quite low, an indication that the LCU is a relatively impermeable aquitard. The unitaverages about 50 ft thick beneath Old O-Field. The lateral extent of the clay is not well known; however,a clay of slightly different lithology is present at a similar depth to the south at H-Field. This indicates thatthe lower clay unit may be continuous between O-Field and H-Field (USGS, 1989).

2.2.5 Surface Water

The O-Field area is bordered on three sides by water: Watson Creek to the north and east andthe Gunpowder River to the west. Watson Creek has an approximate 850-acre watershed anddischarges to the Gunpowder River. The culvert constructed at the mouth of the creek restricts tidalflushing, enlarges the surface water body for wildlife habitat, and causes high organic loading in the creek(USAEHA, 1977).


Section 2.0Background 0"

The stage in Watson Creek is primarily due to wind direction. Consequently, the tides in thecreek frequently do not show a diurnal response. Watson Creek surface water elevations average 1.2 ftmsl (APG, 1997a). The stage in the Gunpowder River varies between one and three feet over the diurnalcycle.

When the tide in the Gunpowder River is higher or lower than that in Watson Creek, water flows intoor out of the creek through the culvert and continues to do so until the incoming tide in the Gunpowder Riveris equal to that in the creek. If the tide in the Gunpowder River does not reach the height of the culvertconnecting Watson Creek to the river during high tide, or if the tide in the river does not drop below theculvert during low tide, water continues to flow out of or into the creek, respectively. In addition, unless awind driven tide reverses the flow, Watson Creek preferentially discharges to the Gunpowder River(USGS, 1996).

Weekly groundwater and surface water elevation measurements are collected from WatsonCreek well points CWP6, CWP1A, and CWP2A located adjacent to Old 0-Field. CWP6 is located inWatson Creek approximately 50 ft from the nearest extraction well (PM2). Comparison of groundwaterand surface water data measured at CWP6 suggest that Watson Creek is a losing stream in this area.This implies that groundwater is flowing from Watson Creek towards the extraction well field which is inagreement with groundwater flow potential shown in groundwater elevation maps constructed for the site(APG, 1998a,b). CWP1A and CWP2A are located approximately 150 ft and 250 ft from the nearestextraction wells (EX8A and EX4A), respectively. Most surface water elevation measurements are lowerthan groundwater elevation measurements at these well points suggesting that groundwater flow potentialis toward the well field.

2.2.6 Lithology of Bottom Sediment

The lithology of the bottom sediment within Watson Creek is distributed by current-velocityeffects. Coarse-grained materials are found in the areas where current velocities are insufficient totransport them and yet sufficient to transport the fine-grained materials. Organic-rich, fine-grainedmaterial settles out of suspension in more quiescent areas of the creek. Tidal currents in the GunpowderRiver are such that its bottom sediments are composed of sand which is coarser along the shoreline dueto wave action. At the culvert of Watson Creek, where the current is high, the sediment is entirelymedium- to coarse-grained sand and gravel. Within Watson Creek, the sediment within the inlet thatreceives incoming tidal currents is predominantly composed of sand to organic-rich sand where current isreduced. Bottom sediment within the creek tributaries and along the western edge of the main creek bodyconsists of a layer of organic detritus, approximately 6 inches thick (USAEHA, 1977). The western edgeof the creek inlet also contains fine-grained material as bottom sediments.

2.3 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

2.3.1 OU1: Old 0-Field Groundwater

The groundwater at Old O-Field contains both inorganic and organic contaminants. Inorganiccontaminants include aluminum, antimony, arsenic, boron, copper, iron, manganese, sodium chloride, andzinc. Dominant organic compounds include chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic andnitroaromatic compounds, and chemical warfare agent degradation products. Contaminantconcentrations are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1. The primary areas of contamination arenortheast and east of Old O-Field. Groundwater sampling conducted as part of site investigations prior toinstallation and startup of the extraction well field determined that contaminants were present in both theWTA and the UCA. Although there are no human exposure pathways for groundwater at Old O-Field;groundwater acts as a transport medium for contamination from OU1 to OU3.

2.3.2 OU2: Old 0-Field Source Area

Historical activities at Old O-Field included the demilitarization, burning, and disposal ofmunitions, bulk and laboratory samples of CWM, contaminated equipment, and other hazardousmaterials. The practice of trench construction at Old O-Field consisted of digging down to the water-table(or to a depth of 8-10 ft), disposing the items, and then backfilling the trench. Because of the seasonal


fluctuation of the water-table level, it is possible that items at the bottom of the trenches are periodicallybeneath the water-table. The items placed in the unsaturated zone could periodically be exposed to waterafter storm events, when percolation of surface water occurs. It is possible that the items havedeteriorated and are presently releasing their contents.

The approximate area of the field is 400 ft by 600 ft, or 240,000 square ft (sq ft). Based on areview of available aerial photographs, maps, statements, testimony, opinions, and other historical data,the dimensions of trenches and pits at Old O-Field were estimated as follows:

. The percent of surface area excavated for pits ranges from 50 to 70 percent, or 120,000 to168,000 sq ft;

. Average trench depths range from 5 to 8 ft; therefore, the total trench/pit volume is estimatedto be 600,000 to 1,344,000 cubic ft (ft3);

• The percentage of the volume containing ordnance, explosives, reactive material, or agent-containing objects is estimated to be 20 to 30 percent, or 120,000 to 403,000 ft3 (Tarno,1994).

The CWM that are known to have been disposed of at Old O-Field include L, mustard (H, HD, HS,and HT), GB, Tabun (GA), and VX. Assorted types of other agents (i.e., choking, blood, riot control,vomiting, and possible incapacitating) were also disposed in this area. Breakdown products of mustard,including 1,4-dithiane, 1,4-oxathiane, and thiodiglycol, have been detected in the groundwater at Old 0-Field. Records also indicate that a number of other chemicals and items were disposed at this site.These include the chemicals used in the manufacture of CWM and agents, laboratory wastes, andmiscellaneous items. The site also contains significant quantities of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, theprimary constituent of a decontaminating agent, which was applied in large quantity (1,000 barrels) to OldO-Field in 1949.

Based on historical information, it has been estimated that more than 70% of the CWM-filledordnance items and bulk containers at Old O-Field may contain HD. It has also been estimated thatapproximately 5% of the remaining ordnance items and bulk containers contain CG, and the remainderare filled with L and other materials, including high explosive and incendiary substances (Yon, 1994). Aconservative percentage for nerve agent-Filled ordnance has been estimated at approximately 0.3% of thetotal number of ordnance items (Yon, 1994). In addition to the above, it is believed that WP exists at Old O-Field both in ordnance and other containers. Because WP spontaneously ignites and burns when exposedto air, the presence of WP leads to an elevated risk of spontaneous fire at Old O-Field, which may result indetonation or other types of release.

Due to the presence of CWM, UXO, and WP at Old O-Field, the principal risk to human health andthe environment at OU2 is an air release of CWM resulting from fire, accidental detonation of ordnance, orevaporative release. This threat has been reduced significantly through the construction of the PIU on thesurface of Old O-Field (Section 4.2).

2.3.3 OU3: Watson Creek

As mentioned previously, Old O-Field and New O-Field were both identified as potential sourcesof contamination at Watson Creek. Therefore, sampling events were conducted at Watson Creek inSeptember 1993 (Phase I), March 1995 (Phase II), and June 1996 (Phase III). Results from all threephases of sampling are discussed in the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for Watson Creek (APG,1997a). A summary of the chemicals detected in the Watson Creek sediment is presented inAppendix A, Table A-2

The risk assessment concluded that Watson Creek surface water does not pose a threat tohuman health, terrestrial species, or aquatic species; therefore, remediation of surface water is notneeded. The results of the sediment sampling indicate that there may be a small threat posed to sensitivesediment-dwelling organisms by the metals detected in the sediment; however, the overall health of thesediment-dwelling community does not appear to be threatened based on toxicity testing.

DACA31-94-0-0064 2-15 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

Section 2.0

Background ", ID; < :> • v


The principal contaminant migration pathways from Old O-Field to Watson Creek have beenpartially mitigated by the OU1 action (interception of contaminated groundwater, treatment, and dischargeinto the Gunpowder River) and the OU2 action (the PIU on the Old O-Field source area). Furthermore,gradual redistribution of the fine-grained sediment particles is expected to occur naturally over timethroughout the creek bed (due to changes in water elevation, movement of fish and other organisms, etc.).In addition, other chemical and physical processes, such as reduction, complexation, and ion exchange,may naturally lower the bioavailable metals concentrations in the sediment. It is therefore reasonable toexpect that the concentrations of metals within Watson Creek sediment will decrease over time, even inthe absence of active remediation.

2.3.4 OU4: New O-Field

The results of site investigations confirmed the existence of well-defined underground disposaltrenches at New O-Field. In addition, areas containing construction debris, UXO, burn pit push-out, andpotential CWM were identified along the perimeter of the New O-Field disposal area after the range firewhich occurred in April 1997. During the Remedial Investigation (Rl), organic and inorganic compounds,including solvents, explosives, and CWM degradation products were identified in groundwater andsoil/sediment at New O-Field. The chemicals detected in groundwater, surface soil, surface water,sediment, and subsurface soil are summarized in Appendix A, Tables A-3 through A-8.

Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted in 1994/1995 (to evaluate the1993 to 1995 data) and 1998 (to evaluate data obtained since the fire in April 1997). Based upontraditional risk assessment guidelines, there is no current human health risk and only limited ecologicalrisk associated with surface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater. However, there is potentialfor human health risk due to potential UXO/CWM on the surface of the marsh/woods and buried in thetrenches. As a result, three principal areas of concern were identified for alternative development in theFS: marsh and woods (including UXO, potential CWM, solid waste, and contaminated sediment/soil);disposal trenches (including materials buried in both the open and covered trenches); and groundwater(APG, 1999c).


3.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY

A chronology of events for the O-Field Study Area is provided in Table 3-1. Environmentalinvestigation at O-Field began in the late 1970s. In 1990, APG-EA was placed on the National PrioritiesList (NPL), which is a list, generated by the EPA, of uncontrolled hazardous substance releases in theUnited States that are priorities for long-term remedial evaluation and response. At that time, the U.S.Army and EPA signed an Interagency Agreement (IAG) to: 1) address the environmental impacts of pastand present activities at APG; and 2) oversee the development, implementation, and monitoring ofappropriate response actions at the site in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations.

TABLE 3-1. CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS

EVEN DATE

Initial Discovery January 25, 1980*

Pre-NPL Activities: j

TEU Surface Sweeps** Late 1970s/Early 1980s

Environmental Survey 1977-1978 (USATHAMA, 1983)

Surface Water Quality and Biological Study i 1977 (USAEHA)

Hydrogeologic Assessment of O-Field 1984 - 1987 (USGS, 1989)

Preliminary Assessment November 11, 1980*

Site Inspection December 31, 1984*

NPL Listing February 21,1990*

Federal Interagency Agreement March 27, 1990*

Record of Decision (ROD) Signature September 27, 1991 (OU1)*October 11, 1994(OU2)*September 23, 1997 (OU3)*

Remedial Design Start November 4, 1991 (OU1)*November 15, 1994 (OU2)*

Remedial Design Complete September 28, 1995 (OU1)*June 1997 (OU2 - with the exception of thesprinkler system water storage tank)

Construction Dates (Start/Finish) 1993 - 1995 (OU1);1996-1998 (OU2)

Remedial Action Start :1992(OU1)*; 1998 (OU2); 1999 (OU3)

ROD Amendments or Explanation of Significant 1999 (OU1)Differences (ESDs)

RI/FS Complete 1999 (OUs 1-4)

First Five-Year Review Report July 1999

Notes:

USATHAMA = U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency* Source: CERCLIS Site Information, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites, June 1999.** Includes Unwanted Chemical Surety Material cleanup

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999

3-1 Five Year Review for theO-Field Study Area

Final Document

Section 3,0Site Chronology r>-

'

In 1991, the ROD for OU1 specified the construction of a groundwater extraction and treatmentsystem. In 1992, the RI/FS for the remainder of the O-Field Study Area was initiated. Based on thefindings of the RI/FS, remedial alternatives were developed and evaluated for OU2 through OU4.Selected remedies were outlined in RODs for OU2 and OU3 in 1994 and 1997, respectively. Theremedial actions selected for OU1 through OU3, and proposed alternatives for OU4, are described inSection 4.0.


4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS |

4.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER

4.1.1 Remedy Selection

In September 1991, the ROD for OU1 specified extraction and treatment of the contaminatedgroundwater plume at Old O-Field to prevent further discharge of contaminants into Watson Creek andsubsequent environmental impacts. The selected remedy included downgradient extraction of thegroundwater; treatment using chemical precipitation for metals removal followed by ultraviolet lightcatalyzed oxidation (UV-OX) for organics removal; and discharge to the Gunpowder River (APG, 1991).

Specifically, the ROD required that extraction wells be located in areas of highest groundwatercontamination downgradient of the source, and that the overall system be designed to capturecontamination emanating from the landfill to the maximum extent possible. Monitoring wells were to beinstalled to determine horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradients and contaminant distributions in thegroundwater. Because contamination was identified in both the WTA and UCA, this implied thatextraction wells would be installed in both aquifers.

4.1.2 Remedy Implementation

Construction of the Groundwater Extraction System (GES) began in 1993. The GES interceptsgroundwater emanating from Old O-Field and flowing toward Watson Creek. The system currently utilizes14 extraction wells installed in the WTA (Figure 4-1). Twelve extraction wells (MW4-3A. EX1, EX2A,EX3A, EX4A, EX5, EX6A, EX7, EX8A, EX9, PM2, and PM3A) became operational in 1995; and twoadditional extraction wells (EX10 and PM5) were commissioned in December 1997.

Three extraction wells (EX3B, EX8B, and PM3B) were installed in the UCA (1993-1994), but werenever commissioned. This was due to the concern that pumping from wells screened in the UCA coulddraw down additional contamination into the UCA from the more contaminated WTA. Aquifer testsconducted at the time of the system design indicated there is a hydraulic connection between the WTAand the UCA in the Old O-Field area. Pumping from the UCA would, therefore, have the potential tocreate a downward gradient from the WTA transporting contaminants into the less contaminated UCA.Pumping from the WTA would likewise create a potential upward gradient. Also, there has been anobserved natural upward gradient between the WTA and UCA, which was further incentive not to pumpfrom the UCA. Constant-rate pump tests scheduled for August 1999 may provide more insight intowhether or not to pump the UCA.

Each of the active extraction wells is housed by a Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) box-likestructure called a well house. The well house contains an air pressure system, a flowmeter, a capsuhelicgauge, and a heater to prevent water in the hoses from freezing in winter. The air intake, air exhaust,water discharge, and capsuhelic hoses are connected to the pump. In Fall 1998, the original bottom-loading auto-pumps inside the extraction wells were replaced with surface mounted double-diaphragmpumps to improve performance and reduce iron fouling. Each pump is rated for a maximum flow of 10gallons per minute (gpm) and delivers an average of 2 gpm. Groundwater pumped from the extractionwells is transported through 1 inch insulated piping to the Extraction System Collection Tank (T-18). TankT-18 has a conical bottom and drain connection to allow heavier-than-water free product to be collectedand removed from the system. A transfer pump delivers the groundwater from T-18 through 3 inchinsulated piping to the GWTF. A vapor control system, which consists of two 175-pound granularactivated carbon (GAC) units arranged in series, is used to capture fugitive volatile organic compounds(VOCs) from T-18 generated as a result of the normal filling and emptying process.

The GWTF treats contaminated groundwater extracted by the GES. The GWTF process flowdiagram is presented in Figure 4-2. Photographs of the interior of the GWTF are provided in AppendixB. The GWTF utilizes chemical precipitation for metals removal, air stripping for VOCs removal, UV-OXfor the destruction of VOCs and CWM degradation products, and GAC units for final polishing. The


WP7

-N-

W

wf - ' 0 100 200

SCALE IN FEET

400

i

^EX10 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPINGnn,Ru

O WP3

EXTRACTION WELL (UPPER CONFINED AQUIFER)

MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPINGEXTRACTION WELL (WATER TABLE AQUIFER)

WELL POINTS AND CREEK WELL POINTS

WATER

US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERCONTRACT NO. DACA31 -94-D-0064

ITCarpcntiaa211:3 Emmorton Pork RoodEdge«ood, Morylond 210+0(410)612-6350

PREPARED BY: DWM

CHECKED: CF

DATE: 7-27-99

TASK NO: 870405

ICF DWG NO:

FIG4-01

FIGURE 4-1ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

GROUNDWATEREXTRACTION AND

MONITORING WELLNETWORK

4-2T)JU

Jt.'

Dry Lime

Groundwaterfrom

Extraction

1X

MixTank

LimeSlurryFeed

GWEqual.

Tankfls1,2,

108,11

LimeReact.Tank

4ITo

Atmosphere

VaporPhaseCarbon

Solids

InclinedPlate

Settler

i

^

Neutr.Tank#1

Sludge

r

H'O'Feed N .OH Feed

AirStripper

Cartridgi

FilterSystem Carbon #2

Backwash

HoldingTank

k

Ige

i

Filtrate

1I

Solids

TreatedEFF.

StorageTankfts13&14

*- Bio.Bldg.

Press Discharge to Gunpowder RiverI1

Disposal

To Tank #s1&2

Figure 4-2. Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment Facility: Process Flow DiagramJ.0

Section 40Remedial Actions

GWTF was designed to operate at an influent flow rate of 30-gpm, but has been modified to operate at acurrent rate of 36-gpm (Appendix C).

Groundwater is pumped from the extraction wells to T-18, and then into one of four EqualizationTanks (T-1, T-2, T-10, and T-11) through a 3-inch conveyance line. These tanks allow the extractionsystem to operate continuously, independent from the treatment system schedule.

Lime slurry (calcium hydroxide) is added and mixed with the influent groundwater in the limereaction tank. This raises the pH and causes heavy metals to precipitate. These conditions also formcalcium carbonate, which precipitates and removes hardness and alkalinity from the groundwater. Solidsgenerated as a result of this reaction settle in an inclined plate clarifier. Solids removed by the clarifier aretransferred to a sludge holding tank. Solids from the sludge holding tank are dewatered by means of aplate and frame filter press. The filter cake generated from this process is stored for off-site disposal.The clarified effluent is neutralized with sulfuric acid in the first stage neutralization tank. Neutralizationalso provides a more optimum pH for precipitation of aluminum. A continuous backwash upflow sand filterremoves residual solids present after acid addition to the clarifier effluent. Backwash from the sand filteris transferred to the sludge holding tank. Effluent from the sand filter is sent to the air stripper.

The air stripper removes VOCs present in the groundwater through a countercurrent exchangewith air. The gaseous emissions from the air stripper pass through a vapor-phase GAC system, whichadsorbs the VOCs stripped from the groundwater. Liquid effluent from the air stripper passes through twocartridge filters arranged in parallel to remove solids that may be present before the effluent is sent to theUV-OX system.

Hydrogen peroxide is added downstream of the cartridge filters prior to treatment of the effluent inthe UV-OX system. When exposed to ultraviolet light, hydrogen peroxide forms highly reactive hydroxylradicals that break the structural bonds of organic molecules to produce chloride ions, smaller organicmolecules, carbon dioxide, and water. Effluent from the UV-OX system passes through two GAC filtersarranged in series, which remove residual organics that may still be present in the groundwater. Effluentfrom the GAC filters is neutralized, if necessary, in the second-stage neutralization tank and then stored inthe effluent tanks (T-13 and T-14), prior to discharge to the Gunpowder River.

An in-line biomonitoring system monitors the final effluent for any signs of toxicity that might resultfrom inadequately treated groundwater. In the event that the organisms held in the biomonitoring systemexhibit stress, the effluent water, which is stored in T-13 or T-14, may be treated again, if needed.

4.1.3 Operation and Maintenance

As mentioned previously, the GWTF has been in operation since April 1995. The system isoperated three shifts per day, five days a week. Annual costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) aresummarized in Table 4-1.

TABLE 4-1.ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR OU1: OLD O-FIELD GWTF*

DATES

FROM

April 1995

October 1995

October 1996

October 1997

October 1998

TO

September 1995

September 1996

September 1997

September 1998

September 1999

TOTAL COST(ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1,000)

approximately $1,300,000

$2,696,000

$2,125,000

$2,154,000

$1,759,000

O&M costs include operators, oversight, base support, biomonitoring, equipment, and materials.

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999


Final Document

Section 4.0Remedial Actions

Operating conditions at the GWTF are dictated by the results of post-ROD treatability studies andguidance from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Treatment goals include MarylandFreshwater Acute/Chronic Aquatic Life Criteria and a limitation of 100 parts per billion (ppb) total VOCs.Consequently, the following National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Limitswere established by MDE for the GWTF:

• Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.): > 5.0 milligrams per Liter (mg/L);

pH Range: 6.5 to 8.5 units;

• Total Volatile Target Compounds: < 100 ppb;

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS): 10,000 microgram per liter (ng/L) (30-day average limit) and15,000 |ag/L (maximum daily limit); and

Metals: See Table 4-2.

The GWTF discharge also complies with certain specific water quality parameters including:

Temperature: < 90 °F (32 °C) outside mixing zone; and

• Turbidity: < 150 units at any time.

Effluent water quality parameters (D.O., pH, and temperature) are continuously monitored at the GWTFand analytical parameters (VOCs, metals, and TSS) are monitored on a monthly basis, to ensurecompliance with these limits. A comparison of influent and effluent data to discharge limits is provided inTable 4-2

4.1.4 Current Status

An ESD from the Interim Action ROD for OU1 was finalized in 1999 (APG, 1998c). Thisdocument describes the following changes that have been made to the design and O&M of the GWTFsince the ROD was signed in September 1991:

• Non-pumping of the UCA;

• Addition of air stripper to the VOC removal process (as needed) to provide greater flexibilityand reliability;

Addition of the liquid phase GAC adsorption units to polish the treated water;

• Addition of vapor phase GAC adsorption units for the air stripper;

Changes in the effluent monitoring program (reduced sampling and analysis frequency toonce per month and eliminated quarterly acute biomonitoring toxicity testing); and

Batch treatment of investigation derived water (IDW) from other IRP sites.

In recent years, several optimization activities have been conducted to evaluate and subsequentlyimprove performance of the GES/GWTF system. These activities are described below.

• Well Field Modification - The objective of the well field modification was to optimize captureof the contaminated groundwater beneath the Old O-Field landfill (APG, 1998a). Theextraction system was modified in August 1997, to include 25 additional monitoring wells, 1new extraction well, 1 converted extraction well (originally a monitoring well), and nine wellpoints, all installed in the WTA. Twelve additional monitoring wells were installed in the WTAin March 1999.

Treatment Capacity Evaluation - In 1997, the treatment capacity evaluation was initiated todetermine whether upgrades to the existing system would be necessary to sustain an influentflow rate of 40 gpm. The original design capacity of the GWTF was 30 gpm. Increases in theinfluent flow rate may become necessary to accommodate flow from the extraction systemduring periods of high recharge and also from an increase in the number of extraction wells in



TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS - OLD O-FIELD GWTF"

PARAMETER

InorganicsAluminum, TotalArsenic, Total

Barium, Total

Copper, Total

ron, TotalLead, TotalNickel, TotalZinc, Total

INFLUENTAVERAGE b

fog/L)

1,447

452

50

190

11,8354.3

15929

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Chloromethane

Vinyl Chloride

ChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfide1,2-Dichloroethene

Chloroform1,2-Dichloroethane

2-ButanoneCarbon Tetrachloride

1,1,2-Trichloroethane4-Methyl-2-PentanoneTetrachloroethene

1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneEthylbenzeneStyrene

Total Xylenes1,1-Dichloroethene

Trichloroethene

BenzeneTolueneChlorobenzene

Total VOCs

ND27.2

1.00

10222.4

59.0

251434

236

10.0

107

36.2137

2813,571

10.11.34

4.23

1.53

596

95.6

7.48

47.7

6,038

EFFLUENTAVERAGE b

(H9/L)

137

193

23.7

12.3

123

2.61

2.08

25.2

1.67

ND

ND

5.518.34

2.00ND

1.00

ND

ND

ND

ND

NDND

2.60

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.05

ND

ND

ND

22.16

DISCHARGE LIMITS30-DAY

AVERAGE(MJ/L)

1,200

550

NA

490

510

80

290

310

NA

NA

NA

NANA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

ONE DAYMAXIMUM

(H9/L)

3,030

1.390NA

1,280

1,230100

550

1,020

NA

NA

NA

NANA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NANA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100

CWM Degradation Products

Thiodiglycol

1,4-Dithiane1,4-Oxathiane

624

85189.7

ND

ND

ND

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

• Data collected from June 5, 1996 to June 18, 1997.6 Compounds listed as ND are not included in the calculation of the average.

NA = Not AvailableND = Not Detected

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999


Final Document


the system. Hydraulic capacity tests were conducted in two phases during Spring 1997 andFall 1998. During the first phase, tests indicated that the GWTF could sustain a flow rate of36 gpm, without significant modification to the existing system (APG, 1999b). However, theperformance of centrifugal pumps at the GWTF was identified as a potential limiting factor foran increase to 40 gpm. Therefore, the second phase began with a re-evaluation of thecentrifugal pumps. Upon conclusion that the pumps were capable of sustaining a flow rate of40 gpm, another hydraulic capacity test was conducted on October 7, 1998. During this test,the GWTF sustained a flow of 40 gpm for 6.5 hours without complication. Also, analyticaltesting indicated that performance of the GWTF would not be impaired by the additional flow.Based on this evaluation, regulatory approval was granted in Spring 1999 to increase theinfluent flowrate in 2 gpm increments from 32 gpm to 40 gpm. Currently the plant is operatingat an influent flow of 36 gpm.

Needs Assessment/Efficiency Study - A draft efficiency study, Needs Assessment for theGroundwater Containment and Treatment System of the O-Field Landfill at Aberdeen ProvingGround, was submitted in January 1999. The objective of this study was to evaluate potentialopportunities which could improve performance, while providing cost savings. Based onbackground information, operational records, and other information obtained on site, thefollowing program elements were identified for evaluation (APG, 1999a):

=> Well field management; => Biomonitoring water conditioning system;

=> Groundwater extraction system pump => Well field control and operationsperformance and system fouling; management;

=> Tank T-18 GAC usage; => GWTF control and operations monitoring;

==> Lime feed system performance; => Biomonitoring system control and operation;

=> Sand filter performance; => Control system Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance;

=> Emergency power system => Well field environmental monitoring program;DsrformsncG'K ' => GWTF environmental monitoring program;

=> Air stripper performance; and

=> Sludge management; => Data management and reporting.

Detailed recommendations are available in the 1999 draft report. However, several of the keyrecommendations are listed below:

=> Use a variable speed pump at T-18 to prevent agitation of the groundwater in the tank,thereby reducing VOC releases and subsequent carbon usage.

=> Conduct an experimental run by-passing the air stripper to evaluate the performance ofthe remaining unit operations, as well as compliance aspects of the treated groundwater.

=> Add a third carbon unit in series (liquid and vapor phase) to extend the life of the carbonunits.

:o Evaluate the use of sodium and/or magnesium hydroxide for metals precipitation, therebyreducing the sludge disposal costs.

=> Re-design the compressor to start-up automatically after a power failure, therebyreducing labor hours for manual startup.

=> Evaluate surface mounted double-diaphragm pumps for use in the well field.

=> Evaluate potential replacement of the sand filter.

=> Consider automation of the well field flow monitoring system and biomonitoring system.


Section 4.0Remedial Actions Q *i •

— v ' "^•

=? Evaluate the air monitoring program from a regulatory perspective to re-define the currentair monitoring program.

• Modification of the Biomonitoring System - Potential upgrades to the biomonitoringsystem are currently under consideration, to compensate for problems encountered due tohigh specific conductance (i.e., salinity) of the groundwater. A side-by-side evaluation of theexisting equipment and salt water equipment has been conducted. In early August 1999, theexisting fresh water system will be replaced with a new salt water system.

Y2K Compliance - A Y2K evaluation was initiated in May 1999 to identify components of theGWTF and well field which required modification for Y2K compliance. All equipment excepttwo personal computers and four recorders in the control panel were identified as Y2Kcompliant. The two personal computers required a flash BIOS upgrade which was availablefrom the manufacturer's website. Effort is underway to have the four recorders in the controlpanel upgraded by Retro Electric, the construction contractor, as early as August 1999.

4.2 OU2: OLD 0-FIELD SOURCE AREA


In September 1994, the ROD for OU2 dictated the construction of the PIU on the surface of OldO-Field to greatly decrease the likelihood, and potential impact, of a potential explosive event byabsorbing shock waves, filling any voids, and reducing the flow of CWM vapor (APG. 1994).


Construction of the PIU was initiated in Summer 1996 and completed in Fall 1997 (with theexception of the water storage tank which was completed in 1998). The PIU consists of an initial 2-ft layerof sand (minimum), geotextile support material (geogrid); subsurface trickling system; subsurface airmonitoring system; final 3-ft layer of sand; erosion control mat; 6-inch gravel erosion control layer; and asprinkler system. As a result of the installation of the PIU, the land-surface elevations now range from 10to 26 ft above sea level at Old O-Field (APG, 1997b). A cross-section of the PIU is presented in Figure4-3. Aerial photographs of the PIU are provided in Appendix B.

Placement of the initial sand layer was accomplished using low-ground-pressure teleoperatedequipment. Cameras mounted on the equipment allowed workers to operate the machinery fromapproximately 1.5 miles away, further reducing potential risks due to explosion or CWM vapor release.The initial sand layer ranged from 2- to 14-ft thick depending on the original surface elevation of OldO-Field; the final sand layer was 3 ft thick. The 5-ft minimum thickness of sand was selected based onthe containment of a blast from detonation of up to 5 Ibs. of explosives. According to historical disposaland recovery records, 99.6% of ordnance items believed to be within the site contain a mass of explosiveless than this amount (APG, 1995).

The sand cover, designated as "Number 2 Blended Concrete Sand" is a blend of a gravelly soiland a medium to fine sandy soil. The measured permeability of the sand using a constant head testprocedure (American Society of Testing and Materials [ASTM] D-2434) varied from 1.7 x 10'2 to 6.4 x 10"4

cm/sec. A poorly graded sand was selected to better absorb and dissipate the energy from a potentialordnance explosion. The advantages of using a permeable sand cover include the following:

• Reduces the hazards associated with the explosion of a round within Old O-Field by reducingthe explosive force and the release of shrapnel and contaminants.

• Provides a self-healing cover as the sand flows into voids in the event of an explosion orduring settling.

Restricts the migration of CWM vapor and reduces the possibility of CWM vapor's release tothe atmosphere in the event that an agent filled munition explodes.


Sprinkler System

Figure 4-3. Old O-Field Permeable Infiltration Unit, Typical Cross-Section

Section 4.0 Or?:'f-} jfyii,Remedial Actions

. Restricts airflow to the subsurface, thereby, significantly reducing the risk of WP ignition andsubsequent explosion.

Absorbs shock applied to the top of the PIU (such as the impact of falling trees) and pressureexerted due to movement of vehicles. These shock and pressure hazards could potentiallydetonate fuses, busters, initiating devices, and other shock sensitive materials.

Prevents exposure of munitions and reduces the potential for human and animal contact withexposed ordnance.

• Allows infiltration of rainwater and future application of appropriate solutions to achieve in-situtreatment of the buried materials.

A geogrid was installed beneath the subsurface trickling and air monitoring systems to providesupport and to allow flow through of sand from the top layer to the bottom layer in the event of anexplosion or during settlement. The geogrid material contains large open spaces, or apertures, whichallow the sand to pass through. In addition, the geogrid will provide temporary support for the subsurfacetrickling and air monitoring systems in the event of potential large-scale settlement.

The subsurface trickling and a subsurface air monitoring systems were installed between the twosand layers The subsurface trickling system is designed to allow application of appropriate solutions forin-situ treatment of buried materials. A plan view of the PIU trickling system is presented in Figure 4-4This system consists of six independent grid systems of piping with 4-inch headers running east west and3/i-inch pipes placed on 20-foot centers north to south. A main header has been installed to feed eachsystem with a shut-off valve located on the perimeter road of Old O-Field. The piping is a perforated high-density, extra-high molecular weight polyethylene pipe capped at each end. Each system was designedto deliver a maximum of 200 gpm.

The subsurface air monitoring system is designed for early detection of any CWM vapor before itis released to the atmosphere. The air monitoring system consists of 12-inch wide filter fabric-wrappedsynthetic drainage strips. The strips are first placed on 50-foot centers along the longitudinal axis of thesite and then on 50-foot centers perpendicular to that axis. A strip is also placed around the perimeter ofthe field into which all grid strips are tied.

The final 3-foot sand layer was applied after installation of the subsurface air monitoring systemThis sand layer was then covered with a permeable erosion control mat and a 6-inch gravel erosioncontrol layer Following the completion of the erosion-control layer, the sprinkler system was installedThe intent of the water was to reinforce the vapor barrier properties of the sand and reduce the migrationof CWM, while also enhancing the hydrolysis of CWM. The sprinkler system has 14 sprinkler heads, eachcapable of distributing 50 gpm of water over a 100-foot radius across the site The system also includes a1,000-gpm pump system and a piping system to convey water from a 200,000 gallon dedicated waterstorage tank (40 ft diameter and 24 ft cylinder height).


O&M of the PIU involves routine maintenance of the surface sprinkler system (including the waterdelivery system), subsurface trickling system, and subsurface air monitoring system The subsurfacetrickling system and subsurface air monitoring system have not yet been utilized; however, they requireperiodic inspection for system integrity. Visual inspections of the PIU surface for low points or areas ofsubsidence and sprinkler heads for signs of damage or debris (i.e., bees' nests) will be conducted weeklyby the operators of the GWTF. In addition, topographic surveys will be conducted annually to documentany areas of subsidence. Periodic testing and maintenance of the diesel engine, pumps, andinstrumentation will be conducted as per manufacturers' specifications Annual O&M costs aresummarized in Table 4-3.


SU8SURFACF TRICKliKG/- ' J NSYSIS.M FH • '(70NF I)

/ 3 \ S U U A C F TRICKMKG/' .3V ' ; SYSItM FILL LINt VT 7V

• ' J ' Vl//

>WW~ ~^. ,17- ~ ' .r—._.—.- "^

]'••• j ,-. .! IN HOPP P^RFJRATFI j i i N LAILRAL (EDR n il ry3.

i 1"'' vL-' j i I \ 'A \ \v

-i J\

AJH MONilORINC fSTATION I'

Note: 1 = Zone Number

Base Map: USAGE, 1998


CONTRACT NO. DACA31-94-D-0064IT Corporation2113EmmortonP«rtiRd.Edgmnxxl, MD21040(410)»U-«350

JH f TASK NO. J70405

o7iM. i FIG4-4 PPT

FIGURE 4-4ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

PLAN VIEW OF THESUBSURFACE

TRICKLINGSYSTEM


TABLE 4-3.ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR OU2: OLD O-FIELD PIU*

§ DAH

FROM

October 1997

October 1998

FES - -': :..:":TO :

September 1998

September 1 999

J TOTAL COST(ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1 ,000)

3241,000

$179,000

* O&M costs include oversight, base support, equipment, and materials.

4.2.4 Current Status

In addition to the PIU, the ROD for OU2 required long-term air monitoring for CWM vapors and anevaluation of technologies for in-place treatment of the landfill. These two issues are discussed in detailbelow:

Air Monitoring Evaluation - In 1994, prior to construction of the PIU, five AutomatedContinuous Environmental Monitors (ACEMs) were installed along the perimeter of Old O-Field to monitor possible releases of low level toxic chemicals including CWM. This systemwas designed to provide continuous real-time measurements which would trigger an audiblealarm when concentrations exceeded specified Airborne Exposure Limits (AELs). Thesubsurface air monitoring system installed in the PIU was designed to be compatible with theACEM system; however, it was not commissioned due to concerns regarding moisture in thesubsurface.

In December 1997, a draft report was prepared which re-evaluated air monitoring alternativesfor Old O-Field. The report stated that a release of CWM vapor to the surface of the PIU washighly unlikely under a non-explosive scenario based on: i) no detections of CWM vaporduring four years of continuous real-time monitoring; ii) the physical properties of CWM (i.e.,low vapor pressure and volatility and high vapor density); and, iii) the physical characteristicsof the PIU (i.e., greater than five feet of sand with considerable water storage capability)(APG, 1997c). This was confirmed by flux chamber sampling conducted on the surface of thePIU by the EPA in December 1998 (EPA, 1999).

The 1997 air monitoring report also provided an evaluation of the following site monitoringtechniques: ACEM System, Miniature Continuous Air Monitoring System (MINICAMS), OpenPath Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR), Extractive FTIR, Passive Soil Gas MonitoringSystem, Moisture Level Measurement, and Seismic Monitoring. A description, expectedperformance, cost estimate, and initial screening of each technique was provided in thereport. The applicability of each technique for above ground monitoring, subsurface activemonitoring, and subsurface passive monitoring was also discussed.

In 1999, explosive scenarios were modeled using equations developed by the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE, 1992) and the Army's D2PC Air Dispersion model. Three typesof munitions were selected for the simulations: a 155 mm projectile (filled with 11.7 Ib of HD),a 100 Ib M47A2 bomb (filled with 73 Ib of HD), and a 1000-lb bomb AN-M79 (filled with 417 Ibof CG). These munitions were selected based on estimated abundance at Old O-Field,quantity of explosive, and quantity of agent. Based on the worst-case scenario, it wasdetermined that an explosion could result in a lethal release of CWM to the atmosphere.However, construction of the PIU has significantly reduced the likelihood of an explosiveevent at Old O-Field. While it is understood that an explosion-induced release can only bedetected using traditional vapor detection devices after the explosion has occurred,monitoring for the occurrence of the explosion itself and development of an after-explosion

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999


Final Document


response action plan are practical and beneficial solutions. Therefore, the followingmonitoring techniques are currently under consideration:

=> Seismic monitoring instruments capable of detecting underground disturbances;

=> Moisture level sensors to ensure that the PIU subsurface is kept perpetually wet; and

=> Post-explosion verification-sampling similar to emergency response actions todetermine if a release has actually occurred.

In-Place Treatment of the Landfill - Since completion of the PIU, activities have beeninitiated to evaluate integration and optimization of the two interim remedial actions at Old O-Field: the PIU and GWTF systems. As a result of a brainstorming meeting in 1996 andsubsequent evaluation, enhanced corrosion was selected for further study. The objective ofenhanced corrosion at Old O-Field was to degrade the metallic casings of the munitionsburied in the landfill, in an attempt to further reduce the risk of explosion. Two types ofenhanced corrosion were studied, biocorrosion (also referred to as microbiologicallyinfluenced corrosion [MIC]) and chemically enhanced corrosion.

The biocorrosion studies were completed in three stages: i) surface soil analyses todetermine if microorganisms capable of promoting MIC were present in the soil; ii) bench-scale tests to evaluate various amendments for increasing microbial activity; and, iii) fieldmonitoring tests using Electrochemical Noise (ECN) technique to evaluate baseline corrosionactivity at Old O-Field.

Laboratory studies on the chemical corrosion of munition casings were also conducted toevaluate in-situ chemical corrosion at Old O-Field. The chemical corrosion studies wereconducted in two stages: i) immersion tests were performed to evaluate varyingconcentrations and combinations of candidate solutions; and, ii) the four preferred solutionsfrom the immersion tests were tested in soil columns to simulate field conditions at Old O-Field.

The results of both the biocorrosion and chemical corrosion studies were evaluated forpotential application at Old O-Field. Both studies were successful, and showed that thedegradation of the metal contents of the landfill can be achieved biologically or chemically.However, chemical corrosion was selected as the preferred technique for the followingreasons:

=> Enhanced chemical corrosion is a proven technique;

=> Performance consistency and corrosion rates are more predictable;

=> Pits already developed by microorganisms can be enlarged faster by chemicalmeans;

=> Corrosion enhancement is possible in oxygen deficient environments;

=> Synergistic effects of chemicals can be realized;

=> No adverse effect on existing remedial systems (PIU and GWTF); and

=> Relatively short implementation time, therefore less expensive than MIC.

Detailed results of these two studies are provided in Biocorrosion Potential at Old O-Field(March 1999) and Chem/ca//y Enhanced Corrosion Potential at Old O-Field (June 1999).

4.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK


The ROD for OU3, signed in September 1997, specified Limited Action as the most appropriateremedy for the Watson Creek sediment (APG, 1997d). The selected remedy involved implementation of



the following actions at Watson Creek: institutional controls, physical security measures, public educationprograms, long-term monitoring (LTM) of site conditions; and five-year reviews.

Institutional controls such as access restrictions and land-use restrictions are currently in place atOU3. Watson Creek is located in a restricted area of APG; therefore, access to this area is strictlycontrolled by APG security. The restricted area is also subject to random patrols by armed securitypersonnel. Additional access restrictions may be required at Watson Creek in the future if securitypractices are downgraded, however this is not anticipated considering the current activities at APG.

Land-use restrictions include: 1) the posting of signs prohibiting unauthorized entry into WatsonCreek; 2) the prohibition of activities at Watson Creek other than future monitoring; 3) inputting theserestrictions into APG's Geographical Information System (CIS), which is utilized in the development ofAPG's Real Property Master Plan; and 4) incorporation of these restrictions/prohibitions into any realproperty documents necessary for transferring ownership from the Army, in the unlikely event that theArmy sells the property. The real property documents would also include a discussion of the NPL statusof the site, as well as a description of the contamination at this site. The Army will certify to the EPA on anannual basis that there have been no violations of these prohibitions. If a violation has occurred, adescription of the violation and corrective actions to be taken will be provided.

In conjunction with institutional controls, existing physical security measures shall be maintainedand additional security measures will be implemented, as needed. Physical security measures includethe posting of signs and maintenance of fences within the restricted area.

A public education program is being developed to inform workers and local residents of thepotential hazards due to the presence of UXO in the sediment, and potential impacts to the aquaticenvironment caused by the disturbance of contaminated sediment in Watson Creek.


A Project Plan for Remedial Actions at Watson Creek was finalized in March 1999, which outlinesthe long-term monitoring objectives for OU3 regarding contaminant distribution in relation to major stormevents, changes in ecological risks, and bioaccumulation of contaminants in the ecosystem. This planalso outlines the following activities which will be conducted as part of the public education program:preparation of a fact sheet, periodic newsletter updates, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetingupdates, APG Boaters Guide updates (including internet information and news releases), distribution ofinformation at public meetings and community events, and worker education (APG, 1999e). Remedialactions at Watson Creek will be accomplished according to the following schedule (Table 4-4).

TABLE 4-4.WATSON CREEK REMEDIAL ACTION SCHEDULE

ity Frequency Start Date

Public Education

Bathymetry and SedimentCharacterization

Continuous

One-time field survey

Storm Event Hydrology Continuous tidalmonitoring

Winter 1998/1999

Summer 1999

Winter 1998/1999

Sediment Chemistry andBioassay

At least annuallyfollowing a major stormevent

Initially after a major storm event. Ifthere are no substantial stormevents prior to August 1999,sampling will be conducted at thattime.

Tissue Sampling and Analysis(Bioaccumulation Investigation)

One-time investigation August - October 1999

Source: APG, 1999e.

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999


Final Document



Sediment samples will be collected for both chemical analysis and bioassays. Tidal monitoringdata will also be measured on a continuous basis. These results will be evaluated in subsequent five-year reviews to ensure that there are no changes which would raise the human health or ecological risksassociated with Watson Creek. Annual O&M costs are outlined in Table 4-5.

TABLE 4-5.ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR OU3: WATSON CREEK*

DAIFROM

October 1997

October 1 998

F E S • • , ' ' • ' ^ • • ' . : " ' • •

:£•-• , : :' : "to". •:•••September 1998

September 1999

TXJTALCOST(ROUNDED TO NEAREST $1,000)

$259,000"

$34,000

O&M costs include oversight, base support, equipment, and materials.

** Includes costs for the five-year LTM contract.

4.4 OU4: NEWO-FIELD


Remedial alternatives are being evaluated for OU4, but remedy selection has not occurred as ofJuly 1999. Due to the complicated nature of this OU, alternatives have been developed separately foreach area of concern (marsh and woods, disposal trenches, and groundwater) and may or may not beaddressed under one ROD.

Alternatives for the Marsh and Woods (UXO Impacted Area)

« No Action;

« Limited Action;

. Sand Cover;

Surface Clearance of UXO and Off-Site Disposal,

Surface Clearance of UXO, "Hot Spot" Removal, and Off-Site Disposal; and

Surface Clearance of UXO, "Hot Spot" and Surface Debris Removal, and Off-Site Disposal.

Alternatives for the Disposal Trenches

. No Action;

Limited Action;

Soil Cover Over the Two Open Trenches and Repair of the Covered Trenches;

Excavation, On-Site Treatment, and Off-Site Disposal; and

Excavation and Off-Site Disposal.

Alternatives for the Groundwater

« No Action;

Limited Action/Monitored Natural Attenuation; and

. In-Situ Biodegradation.


Section 40Remedial Actions ' - J '-:A.j.

More than one ROD may be necessary to address all of the areas of concern. Therefore, caremust be taken to select remedial actions that are compatible with each other. For example, if a sandcover is chosen for the UXO impacted area, natural attenuation in groundwater may effectively halt in theshort term. Also, if the disposal trenches are left unaddressed, in-situ biodegradation may be necessaryto address a potential increase in groundwater contamination. In contrast, if the disposal trenches areremoved, monitored natural attenuation could be a preferred alternative for groundwater. The first RODfor OU4 is anticipated in late 1999.


Implementation of the selected remedy(ies) for New 0-Field is scheduled to begin in 2000/2001.


O&M will be determined at a later date based on the remedy(ies) selected for OU4.


5.0 1 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINDINGS

5.1 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

The five-year review was led by Cindy Powels, O-Field Project Officer, DSHE, APG. Thefollowing team members assisted in the analysis and/or review:

Gerald Garcia, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) - DSHE;

. Paul Harvey, ORISE - DSHE ;

Steven Hirsh, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region III;

Kathy Davies, Hydrogeologist, EPA Region III;

• Curtis DeTore, Remedial Project Manager, MDE;

• Victor Cohut, O-Field Project Manager, IT Corporation,

Timothy Longe, O-Field Technical Manager, IT Corporation; and

Jennifer Harris, O-Field Project Engineer, IT Corporation.

The following tasks were conducted as part of the five-year review process: document review,interviews, site inspection, ARARs review, and data review. There were no significant changes in theARARs or site contaminants; therefore, site risks were not recalculated. The community was informed ofthe five-year review through the RAB meeting in April 1999.

5.2 INTERVIEWS

Interviews were conducted with the following Maryland Environmental Service (MES) personnel(GWTF O&M contractor) on May 27, 1999:

Robert Shewell, Plant Superintendent;

Joseph Ambrozewicz, Public Health Engineer IV; and

Edward Ramos, Environmental Systems Operator III.

A summary of the interview is provided in Appendix C. The following modifications to the GES andGWTF have been performed by MES since January 1998:

• Well Field:

==> Replaced all down-hole Clean Environment Pumps (air-pressured bottom-loading auto-pumps) with surface mounted double-diaphragm pumps in the well field to reduce ironfouling,

=> Replaced the elapsed time indicators with flow meters to provide a more accuratemeasurement;

:=> Replaced the pump and installation of a level controller in T-18 to improve performance,provide a steadier flow to the GWTF, and reduce organic vapors in the tank;

=> Replaced the conveyance lines running from the extraction wells to T-18 (planned forsummer 1999) to improve performance; and

=> Connected the emergency generator to the air compressors to provide electricity to thewell field in the event of a power outage.

. GWTF:

=> Installed air operated clean-outs for the sand filter to improve performance;


Section 5.0Five-Year Findings

=> Upgraded all pumps in the plant from 30 gpm to 45 gpm to allow for an increased influentflowrate;

=> Removed the previously disconnected sodium metabisulfite tank and lines to providebetter access to the active tanks and lines in this area;

=> Replaced all of the 55-gal vapor phase carbon units with new more efficient units; and

=> Relocated the T-6 acid feed from directly into the tank to the line leading to the tank toimprove performance.

During the interview the O&M contractor listed the following additional modifications that wereunder consideration: replacing the air stripper with two additional liquid phase carbon units, modifying thebiomonitoring system, adding a second cleanout access port on the clarifier, and replacing the sand filter.

The contractor also mentioned that the effluent has remained within compliance limits since 1998and the only major O&M concerns have been related to leaks and conductivity problems associated withthe biomonitoring facility. Regular maintenance includes checking the extraction system every shift,blowing out the conveyance lines weekly, and servicing the plant equipment as per manufacturers'specifications. Overall, according to the O&M contractor the plant runs well. Currently, the GWTF isoperating at 36 gpm and upon approval from MDE and DSHE, the influent flow rate will be increased to40 gpm.

5.3 SITE INSPECTION

A site inspection was conducted by IT Corporation personnel on May 27, 1999. During the siteinspection, personnel visited the GWTF, well field, PIU, Watson Creek, and New O-Field. As mentionedpreviously, O-Field is located in a restricted area of the installation; however, fences are located aroundthe perimeter of the O-Field landfill and extraction system well field. A few sections of the fence aroundthe well field have been temporarily relocated, but will be reinstalled once field activities have beencompleted. The gravel roads surrounding the landfill and asphalt road leading to New O-Field (WatsonCreek Road) do not appear to be damaged. The PIU on the surface of the landfill appears to be in goodcondition, with no signs of settlement, cracks, erosion, or holes. The gravel surface is also free ofvegetation, to minimize the risk of fire. There are no signs of erosion or instability on the slopes of thelandfill. All of the monitoring wells and extraction wells are functioning properly and have locking caps.

During the site visit, the elevation in Watson Creek was higher than that in Gunpowder River.Waterfowl were seen in the area. Signs posted near the culvert between Watson Creek and theGunpowder River state:

WARNING:WATSON CREEK IS CLOSED

For Information/Authorization on Access to Watson Creek, Contact:USAGAPG Directorate of Safety, Health and Environment

Environmental Conservation and Restoration DivisionBuilding E4430(410)436-3320.

The fence at New O-Field was locked properly and in good condition. Signs posted at the edgeof the cleared area state the following:

DANGER - NO TRESPASSINGUNEXPLODED ORDNANCEUS ARMY PROPERTY

KEEP OUT.

The once regularly mowed area was overgrown with tall grass and the disposal area continued to showvisible signs of settlement. Monitoring wells at the site were properly secured.


Section 50Five-Year Findings .• -•'. ^! f\Ja |

5.4 ARARS REVIEW

As required by the NCR, selected remedies must be in compliance with all "applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements" (ARARs). ARARs are the cleanup standards, standards of control, andother substantive environmental requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or Statelaw that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, orother circumstance of a Superfund site. The ARARs for the site are reviewed in this section by OU.

5.4.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater

The GWTF effluent is required to comply with the discharge requirements discussed in Section4.1.3, including: Maryland Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria and NPDES discharge limits. No changes inthe ARARs have been identified which affect the cleanup levels and/or the protectiveness of the remedyfor OU1.

5.4.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area

The following ARARs are applicable to air monitoring at OU2: National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS); Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), Title 26, Subtitle 11; AR 385-61 (TheArmy Chemical Agent Safety Program); and DA RAM 385-61 (Toxic Chemical Safety Standards). Thereare no changes in the aforementioned ARARs which would affect the cleanup levels and/or theprotectiveness of the remedy for OU2.


State surface water quality standards and Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) wereapplied to surface water at Watson Creek. Location-specific ARARs included Federal and Stateregulations protecting endangered or threatened species; migratory birds; and bald and golden eagles. Nochanges to these ARARs have been identified which would affect current plans for long-term monitoring atWatson Creek.


The following chemical-specific ARARs are applicable to OU4: Risk-Based Concentrations(RBCs) for tap water and soil; and EPA Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)Screening Levels for flora and fauna. RBC values were obtained from the EPA Region III RBC table, April1998. Although there have been changes to the RBC table since April 1998, none significantly impactthe original results of the human health risk assessment. There have been no significant changes to theBTAG Screening Levels since the risk assessment was completed in 1998; therefore, ecological riskshave not been reevaluated.

5.5 DATA REVIEW

A summary of the data reviewed for the five-year review is provided in this section. Data hasbeen provided through the end of the 1st quarter of this year (March 1999).

5.5.1 OU1: Old O-Field Groundwater

5.5.1.1 Well Field Data

As of June 1999, there were 14 extraction wells in the WTA, 58 monitoring wells in the WTA, 17well points and creek well points, and 19 monitoring wells in the UCA (including the three non-commissioned extraction wells in the UCA). The location of monitoring wells, extraction wells, and wellpoints at Old O-Field are presented on Figure 4-1.

For the first two years of GWTF operation (1995 to 1997), groundwater sampling was conductedquarterly at 25 WTA wells (including 12 extraction well locations), seven UCA wells, and two surfacewater locations. Since 1997, 37 new monitoring wells have been installed in the WTA (Section 4.1.4).Modifications have been made to the long-term monitoring program to replace the extraction wellssampled with corresponding monitoring wells. Currently, groundwater samples are collected quarterlyfrom approximately 30 wells and analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, CWM (mustard)


Section 5.0 _Five-Year Findings f)T?i (•> r r\; ~i

degradation products, and wet chemistry parameters. Select groundwater samples are also analyzedannually for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, radionuclides, nerve agent degradation products, andexplosives compounds. Historical analytical data for the sampled wells are presented in Appendix D.

Based on the groundwater monitoring data, contour maps are drawn representing total VOCconcentrations and total CWM (mustard) degradation products found in the WTA and in the UCA. Sampleisoconcentration maps for November 1997 are provided in Appendix D. Additional isoconcentrationmaps for VOCs and CWM (mustard) degradation products in the WTA and UCA are available in thequarterly sampling reports for Old O-Field.

In the WTA, contamination from VOC and CWM (mustard) degradation products is highest in thecentral part of the well field. There is an area of especially high concentration near wells EX3A, PM3Aand EX8A. This is consistent with a zone of high hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer. Concentrations inthe northern edge of the well field where wells MW02, PM1 and EX1 are located, and the southern edgeof the well field where MW01 and new wells OF61, OF62, and OF63 are located, tend to taper off.Estimated non-detect lines are located just beyond the last sampled monitoring well locations. In general,contaminant concentrations in the WTA demonstrate seasonal fluctuation, with VOCs generallydecreasing and CWM (mustard) degradation products remaining relatively constant.

In the UCA, the areas of highest concentration tend to mimic those in the WTA. For example,maximum VOC concentrations are found in wells EX3B, PM3B, and EX8B. In these wells, VOCconcentrations appear to be increasing over time; whereas, CWM (mustard) degradation products haveremained rather consistent. However, there is only limited groundwater monitoring data for this aquifer.

In addition to the chemical data, weekly water measurements and daily extraction pump rates areused to evaluate capture at Old O-Field. Since startup in 1995, total extraction rates for the well field havevaried from 10 gpm to as high as 30 gpm. In addition to localized influences from the extraction system,variations in water levels in the WTA are significantly impacted by seasonal fluctuations (i.e., rainfall).Potentiometric maps are constructed weekly and provided in the quarterly sampling reports for Old O-Field. Sample potentiometric maps are provided in Appendix D.

5.5.1.2 Surface Water

Two surface water samples (SW1 and SW2) are collected near well points CWP2A and CWP6during each quarterly sampling event. Since the GWTF has been in operation, total VOCs have rangedfrom below quantitation limits to 207 ug/L (February 1997) in SW1 and 44.48 ug/L (January 1996) in SW2.During this same time frame, total CWM (mustard) degradation products have ranged from belowquantitation limits to 398.6 ug/L (February 1997) in SW1 and 48.9 ug/L (May 1997). Contaminantconcentrations demonstrate season variation, but appear to be decreasing over time. Historical analyticaldata for the two surface water sample locations are presented in Appendix D.

5.5.1.3 GWTF Effluent Data

The GWTF discharged over 23 million gallons to the Gunpowder River from September 1996 toMarch 1999. The average daily discharge rate (based on monthly averages of daily discharge) during thisperiod was 32,556 gallons. A summary of average daily discharge quantities is provided in Table 5-1 andFigure E-1 in Appendix E.

The GWTF effluent discharge data are monitored in comparison with compliance limitsestablished by MDE (Section 4.1.3). The following effluent discharge parameters are evaluated: waterquality (D.O., pH and temperature), metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, copper, iron, lead, nickel andzinc), TSS and turbidity, and total VOCs. Three CWM degradation products (thiodiglycol, 1,4-dithiane and1,4-oxathiane) are also monitored; however, these chemicals do not have effluent discharge limits.Water quality parameters are monitored hourly, while the remaining parameters are analyzed monthly(currently twice a month, but changed in the ESD to once a month). As mentioned in Section 4.1.2, theeffluent is also continuously monitored by the biomonitoring system. A detailed discussion of the effluentmonitoring program is provided in the O&M Manual (APG, 1996c).


Section 5.0Five-Year Findings

TABLE 5-1.OLD O-FIELD GWTF

AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FLOW SUMMARYSEPTEMBER 1996 TO MARCH 1999

Month

Sep-1996Oct-1996

Nov-1996

Dec-1996Jan-1997Feb-1997Mar-1997

Apr-1997

May-1997Jun-1997

Jul-1997Aug-1997

Sep-1997Oct-1997

Nov-1997Dec-1997

Jan-1998Feb-1998

Mar-1998Apr-1998May-1998Jun-1998

Jul-1998

Aug-1998Sep-1998Oct-1998

Nov-1998Dec-1998

Jan-1999Feb-1999

Mar-1999

Average

Maximum

Minimum

Total

Monthly AverageDaily Discharge(gallons per day)

27,905

28,181

28,399

32,35336,80733,855

35,845

32,01930,752

30,33532,14130,44028,18228,267

29,380

31,14932,634

37,083

35,22936,27035,241

36,466

33,473

34,40427,91727,854

31,82635,300

34,66636,136

38,717

32,55638,717

27,854N/A

Number ofDischarge

Days

30

30

25 I

25

2324

25

20

22222221

20

2021

252320

252222

23

24

2324

25

2322

2119

23

23

30

19714

TotalGallons

Discharged

837,141845,441

709,971

808,823846,551812,520896,123

640,383

676,549667,364707,094

639,232563,649

565,330616,980

778,715750,583

741,650880,725797,935775,311838,729803,357

791,301670,007696,362

731,988776,598727,980

686,588

890,485

747,467

896,123

563,649

23,171,465

N/A Not Applicable

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999


Final Document

Section 50Five-Year Findings

?•-»-;,, .•Jt-i V

Water quality parameters (D.O., pH, and temperature) are monitored on an hourly basis usingcalibrated meters located on the effluent line. A summary of the data collected from September 1996 toMarch 1999 is provided in Table 5-2. Figures E-2 through E-4 demonstrate that discharge occurredwithin the set regulatory limits of the aforementioned parameters for the GWTF; hence, no dischargeviolations occurred.

TABLE 5-2.OLD O-FIELD GWTF

EFFLUENT MONITORING SYSTEM DATA SUMMARYSEPTEMBER 1996 TO MARCH 1999

Parameter

Limits

AVERAGEMAXIMUMMINIMUM

# of Data Points

D.O.(mg/L)

>5.0

8.1716.245.01

12,884

PH(std units)

6.5 - 8.5

N/A8.256.87

12,882

Temperature(°C)

< 32.2°

22.431.010.3

12,884

Samples are collected from the influent and effluent lines, and various unit processes along thetreatment train. Summaries of the results of influent and performance monitoring are provided in theOperations Summary Report for the Old O-Field GWTF, September 1996 - January 1998 (APG, 1998b),and subsequent quarterly reports. Effluent characteristics monitored for compliance (VOCs, total metals,TSS, and turbidity) are plotted versus effluent discharge limits on Figures E-5 through E-15. Graphs arenot provided for CWM (mustard) degradation products since they were not detected in the effluentsamples. Figures E-5 through E-15 show that discharge occurred within the compliance limits of theaforementioned parameters for the GWTF; hence, no discharge violations occurred.

5.5.2 OU2: Old O-Field Source Area

Data from more than four years of continuous real-time monitoring using the ACEM and MINICAMsystems have never been positive, even prior to construction of the PIU when the munitions were at least5.5 feet closer to the ground surface. In 1998, EPA conducted flux chamber sampling on the surface ofthe PIU and identified no detectable levels of chemical agents (EPA, 1999).


Monitoring data is not yet available for OU3. The Project Plan for Watson Creek was finalized inMarch 1999, and initial sampling is scheduled for late summer/early fall 1999. Sampling and analysisdata will be evaluated in subsequent five-year reviews.


The ROD(s) for OU4 has not yet been finalized. It is highly likely that LTM will be a component ofthe selected remedy(ies) for this OU; therefore, sampling and analysis data will be evaluated '~subsequent five-year reviews.

in

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999


Final Document

16.0 ASSESSMENT

The remedies selected for O-Field OUs 1 through 3 remain protective of human health and theenvironment. This determination is supported by the conclusions presented in this section.

6.1 OU1: OLD O-FIELD GROUNDWATER

6.1.1 Effectiveness of Remedy

The GES and GWTF are effective in meeting the remedial action objectives for OU1, which are toprevent migration of contaminated groundwater to Watson Creek and to adequately treat extractedgroundwater before discharge to the Gunpowder River. The GES is providing continuous capture ofcontaminated groundwater from Old O-Field by maintaining an inward gradient toward the extractionwells. The GWTF is also treating the extracted groundwater to within or below compliance limits prior todischarge.

6.1.2 Adequacy and Continued Need for O&M

The O&M requirements for OU1 are adequate and properly implemented. Maintenance activitiesin both the well field and plant help to optimize performance of the GES and GWTF systems. Long-termO&M of the GES and GWTF may be necessary, because the source remains in place at OU2.

6.1.3 Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure

No early indicators of remedy failure have been identified.

6.1.4 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives/Cleanup Levels

The remedy for OU1 continues to achieve the remedial action objectives, paraphrased in Section6.1.1, as contaminated groundwater is intercepted and extracted before it can discharge to any surfacewater body or migrate off site. There are no cleanup levels for groundwater because the remedy is acontainment measure, the source of contamination is still in place, and groundwater is not a source ofdrinking water. However, performance and monitoring data show that groundwater is adequately treatedto within or below compliance limits prior before discharge.

6.1.5 Opportunities for Optimization

Several optimization studies have been performed for the GES and GWTF. Upgrades have beenmade to the existing pumps in the well field and additional extraction wells have been installed.Modifications have also been made to the GWTF to increase the influent flow rate near 40 gpm. Asmentioned in Section 4.1.4, future opportunities for optimization include implementing therecommendations of the efficiency study, replacing the freshwater biomonitoring system, and upgradingthe recorders in the control panel which were identified for Y2K corrective action.

6.1.6 Changes in ARARs or Other Risk-Related Factors

There have been no changes in ARARs or risk-related factors associated with OU1.

6.1.7 Changes in Known Contaminants, Sources, or Pathways at the Site

There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources, or pathways at OU1. However,the UCA will be re-evaluated once the results of the August 1999 pump test are obtained.

6.2 OU2: OLD O-FIELD SOURCE AREA


The PIU provides an effective cover for the Old O-Field source area, by eliminating the risk of afire and decreasing the likelihood and impact of a potential explosive event. CWM vapors have not beendetected over the four years of continuous air monitoring. Long-term O&M is required to ensure that thePIU provides adequate blast and vapor protection.

DACA31-94-0-0064 6-1 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

Section 6.0 r

Assessment J r> I


The O&M requirements specified for OU2 are adequate and properly implemented. ContinuedO&M may be required for an extended period of time, unless the source can be remediated in a shortertime frame.


There are no early indicators of potential remedy failure for OU2.


The PIU currently meets the remedial action objectives set for OU2.


As discussed in Section 4.2.4, the following opportunities for optimization are being consideredfor OU2: i) modification of the existing air monitoring system; and, ii) integration studies to evaluate in-situ remediation.




There have been no changes in known contaminants, sources, or pathways at OU2.

6.3 OU3: WATSON CREEK


Limited action was selected as the remedy for OU3. The data collection activities on site arescheduled to begin in Summer 1999. Therefore, effectiveness of the remedy will be evaluated at a laterdate.


The plans for LTM at OU3 seem adequate, but will be re-evaluated if monitoring resultsdemonstrate the need for additional action.


There are no early indicators of potential remedy failure for OU3.


The institutional controls, public education program, and LTM program planned for OU3 meet theremedial action objectives for the site.


There are currently no opportunities for optimization for OU3.





6.4 OU4: NEWO-FIELD


As of June 1999, the remedy for OU4 has not been selected.


Section 6.0Assessment


Not applicable.


Not applicable.


Not applicable.


Not applicable.






7.0 DEFICIENCIES

There have been no deficiencies identified as a result of this five-year review.


8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIRED ACTIONS

Although there were no identified deficiencies, the following recommendations have beendeveloped as a result of the five-year review:

OU1: O&M and groundwater monitoring should continue for OU1, to maintain protection ofhuman health and the environment. In addition, one data gap has been identified regarding pumping ofthe UCA. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, it was determined during the design of the extraction systemthat pumping the UCA could actually drawdown additional contamination from the more heavilycontaminated WTA; therefore, the UCA extraction wells were never commissioned. A recent evaluation ofthe trends in the UCA wells has shown a potential increase in contaminant concentrations. As a result, aUCA pump test has been scheduled for August 1999. Based on the results of this test and recentchemical sampling in the UCA, a determination should be made whether or not to begin pumping theUCA.

OU2: O&M should continue for OU2, to maintain the integrity of the cover and ensure that thesprinkler system will operate properly in the event of an emergency. In addition, further evaluation of in-situ treatment technologies to potentially integrate and optimize the performance of the PIU and GWTFsystems is recommended.

OU3: Implementation of the long-term monitoring program should continue as outlined in theROD for Watson Creek.

OU4: The priority for OU4 is selection of appropriate remedial actions for the three areas ofconcern (marsh and woods, disposal trenches, and groundwater). Once remedies are determined andimplemented, long-term monitoring and O&M needs should be evaluated.

Table 8-1.Recommendations and Required Actions

feommendation7quired Action

Continuing O&M/Monitoring at OU1 and OU2

Long-Term Monitoring for OU3

UCA Pump Test

Pumping of the UCA (TBD)

Technology Evaluation forIn-Situ Remediation of theSource Area (OU2)

Remedy Selection for OU4

LeadAgency

Army

Army

Army

Army

Army

Army

MilestoneDate

Ongoing

Ongoing

1999

TBD

1999-2001

1999-2001

OversightAgency

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

i ... .. .,EPA

Does the ActionCurrently AffectProtectiveness?

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

N/A

DACA31-94-D-0064ESPS15-09July 1999


Final Document

9.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

The remedies at OU1 (Old O-Field Groundwater), OU2 (Old O-Field Source Area), and OU3(Watson Creek) are protective of human health and the environment. The remedy at OU4 (New O-FieldSource Area and Groundwater) has not been selected.

OU1: The GES/GWTF provides adequate containment of the contaminated groundwateremanating from the Old O-Field landfill. Weekly groundwater contour maps confirm that capture ismaintained between the landfill and Watson Creek. The system is operating as designed and noadditional threats to human health or the environment have been identified since the system wasimplemented in 1995.

OU2: Placement of the PIU on the surface of the Old O-Field landfill protects human health andthe environment by eliminating exposure to surface munitions/containers, reducing the risk offire/explosion, and providing blast protection in the unlikely event of an explosion. The sand cover alsominimizes the transport of CWM vapor from the buried containers to the surface. Studies have beenconducted recently which identified enhanced in-situ treatment as a means to further reduce the potentialfor an explosion at Old O-Field. Overall, the remedy for OU2 is functioning as designed and no additionalthreats to human health or the environment have been identified since the system was completed in 1998.

OU3: Although the levels of contamination in the Watson Creek sediment were not identified asa threat to human health, the potential for encountering UXO was identified as a risk during the RI/FS.Localized areas were also identified that might adversely affect benthic communities. Due to the potentialshort-term risks from buried UXO, Limited Action was selected for OU3. By limiting disturbance of thesediment through institutional controls, potential adverse effects to both humans and benthic communitieshave been minimized. LTM activities will be conducted to ensure that the remedy provides an adequateprotection of human health and the environment.

OU4: The remedy for the New O-Field source area and groundwater has not been selected atthis time. However, it is anticipated that all remedial actions selected for New O-Field will be protective ofhuman health and the environment.


[10.0 NEXT REVIEW |

This is a statutory site that requires ongoing five-year reviews. Based on the initial trigger date ofJune 11, 1992, the Army will conduct the next five-year review for O-Field and the Edgewood Area byJune 11, 2002.


111.0 REFERENCES

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1991. Interim Action Record of Decision Old O-FieldSite. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Final Report. September 1991.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1993. Containment and Treatment of ContaminatedGroundwater at Old O-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared by Roy F. Westonand the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August 1993.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1994. Interim Remedial Action - Aberdeen Proving GroundOld O-Field Source Area, Record of Decision. Final Document. Prepared by ICF KaiserEngineers. September 1994.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1995. Design Report for the Old O-Field Source Area,Aberdeen Proving Ground. Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers. January 1995.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1996a. Old O-Field Source Area Subsurface TricklingSystem Plan & Details. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. May 1996.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1996b. Old O-Field Source Area Permeable InfiltrationUnit, Substitution of Geogrid for Hydraulic Compaction. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers.June 1996.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1996c. Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment FacilityOperations and Maintenance Manual. Draft Document. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. andU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 1996.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1997a. Focused Feasibility Study for Watson Creek.Aberdeen Proving Ground. Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers. June 1997.

APG, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1997b. "Top of Stone Survey Compared to Final Sand Survey'.O-Field, Aberdeen, Maryland. Prepared by Roy F. Weston and the US Army Corps of Engineers.July 26, 1997.

APG, US. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1997c. Evaluation of Air Monitoring Alternatives, Old O-Field. Draft Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.September 1997.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1997d. Record of Decision - Remedial Action, WatsonCreek Sediment (O-Field Operable Unit 3). Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers.September 1997.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1998a. Modification of Well Field at Old O-Field.Phase I Technical Report. Draft Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers. March 1998.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1998b. Operations Summary Report for the Old 0-Field Groundwater Treatment Facility, September 1996 - January 1999. Prepared by ICF KaiserEngineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. March 1998.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1998c. Explanation of Significant Differences from theInterim Action Record of Decision. Aberdeen Proving Ground. Final Document. Prepared byICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November 1998.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999a. Needs Assessment for the GroundwaterContainment and Treatment System of the O-Field Landfill at Aberdeen Proving Ground.Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation. January 1999.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999b. Old O-Field Groundwater Treatment FacilityTreatment Capacity Evaluation. Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. January 1999.


Section 11.0References J > -.'

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999c. Feasibility Study for New O-Field (O-FieldOperable Unit 4), Draft Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers. February 1999.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. 1999d. Remedial Investigation Report for the O-Field Area -Phase I. Aberdeen Proving Ground. Revised Draft Final Document. Prepared by ICF KaiserEngineers. March 1999.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999e. Project Plan for Remedial Actions - WatsonCreek (O-Field Operable Unit 3). Prepared by General Physics Corporation. March 1999.

APG, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 1999f. Groundwater Flow Model for the O-Field Area.Final Document. Prepared by ICF Kaiser Engineers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May1999.

DOE, Department of Energy, 1992. A Manual for the Prediction of Blast and Fragment Loadings onStructures, February 1992.

EPA. 1999. Trip Report for Flux Chamber Sampling at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Edgewood, MD. FromDavid B. Mickunas, Chemist, EPA Environmental Response Team Center, To Cindy Powels,Environmental Engineer, DSHE, APG. January, 1999.

Nemeth, G. 1989. RCRA Facility Assessment Report, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground,Maryland. U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Tarno, Robert L 1994. An Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risk at Old O-Field: An Overview of theExplosive Element, Draft Document. Prepared for ICF KE by Denver Research Institute, Denver,CO.

U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1977. An Assessment of Surface Waters, Aberdeen ProvingGround- Edgewood Area, Maryland. Water Quality Biological Survey No. 24-0043-78.

USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1989. Ground-Water, Surface-Water,and Bottom-Sediment Contamination in the O-Field Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,and the Possible Effects of Selected Remedial Actions on Ground-Water. Open-File Report 89-399.

USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior (USGS). 1996. Hydrogeologic Setting,Hydraulic Properties, and Groundwater Flow at the O-Field Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground,Maryland. Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4248.

Yon, R.L., D.J. Wenz, and C. Brenner. 1978. Information Relevant to Disposal of Hazardous Material atO-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Record Evaluation Report 1978-1, ChemicalSystems Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Yon, Roy. 1994. Various written and personal communications including Memorandum ConcerningRational Percentages of CWM and Other Materials in O-Field. SciTech Services, Inc.,May5, 1994.

DACA31-94-D-0064 11 -2 Five Year Review for theESPS15-09 O-Field Study AreaJuly 1999 Final Document

-A'.jL

Appendix AO-Field Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Data Summary

Table A-1.Comparison of Maximum Groundwater Chemical

Concentrations Detected with Water Quality Criteria*

fPARAMETER

Antimony

Arsenic

Boron

Calcium

Iron

Magnesium

Manganese

Potassium

Sodium

Zinc

Benzene

Carbon Tetrachloride

Chlorobenzene

Chloroform

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene

Ethylbenzene

Methylene Chloride

1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Tetrachloroethylene

Toluene

1 ,2-Dichioroethylene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

Vinyl Chloride

1,4-Dithiane

Thiodiglycol

MAX. CONC.

DETECTED

(PPb)

100

2,243

11,000

134,000

245,000

108,000

17,400

30,700

859,000

7,890

6,040

750

430

15,000

2,420

14

295

2,430

18,600

6,407

360

2,586

219

3,860

2,200

5,154

1,000,000

CWA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

'FRESHWATER

ACUTE,

•^••fiipibK-88

360

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

120

5,300

35,200

250

28,900

118,000

11,600

32,000

-

-

5,280

17,500

11,600

18,000

45,000

CHRONIC(Ppb)

30

190

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

110

1,240

20,000

:2,400

840

-

--

9,400

21,000

MARINE

ACUTE(PPb)

1,500

69

-

-

-

-

-

-

95

5,100

50,000

160

113,000

220,400

430

9,020

10,200

6,300

224,000

-

2,000

CHRONIC(PPb)

500

36

-

-

-

-

-

-

86

-

129

450

5,000

-

—

--

* Source: OU1 ROD (APG, 1991).

A-1

Table A-2.Summary of Chemicals Detected in Watson Creek

Sediment, O-Field Area, 1993 -1996">

Chemical

Inorganics (mg/kg):

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

Frequency ofDetection

85/85

85/85

85/85

33/85

29/85

85/85

85/85

84/85

80/85

85/85

85/85

85/85

~85/85

72/85

85/85

85/85

42/85

13/85

85/85

85/85

80/85

Range of DetectedOn-Site Concentrations"3'

281 -22,000

0.467-82.5

1.05-111

0.451 -3.35

1.36-4.62

179-4,510

1.22-132

4.3-31.3

0.737-305

771 -41,200

1.05-109

1 32 - 5,970

10.3-637

0.23-5.91

1.49-42.7

79-2,190

0.97-3.66

0.14-7.34

573-11,110

0.906-43.5

16.2-1,130

Organics (^g/kg):

Acetone

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

2-Butanone

Diethyl phthalate

Methylene chloride

4,4-DDE

5/27

5/18

3/27

5/27

2/27

4/18

140-1,500

770-4,100

17-57

71-180

3V-100

20.7-^34.5

10,100-16,300

4.8-7.1

50.8-74.3

2.4

ND

1,590-3,070

29.2-35.2

21.8-28.4

67.8-80.2

28, OOO"- 327666 '"

59.8-91.4

3,780-5,480

231 -367

ND

42.3-49.1

1,730-2,230

1 2 -3.2

ND "

4,210-8,190

41.7-588

283-410

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

CWM Degradation Products (mg/kg):

1,4-Dithiane 1/17 21,000 ND

Notes:ND = Not Detected(a) Chemicals not detected substantially above the levels reported in laboratory or field

blanks (validated as "B") were exduded from this summary.(b) Summary of all three sediment sampling events at Watson Creek: Phase I - September 1993;

Phase II - March 1995; and Phase III - June 1996.(c) Background samples were collected from Dundee Creek and Saltpeter Creek in October 1992.

A-2

TABLE A-3SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER

1993

MHBt- .1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1,1-Dichtoroethene

1 ,2-Dichtoroethene (total)

Acetone

Benzene

Methylene chloride

Tetrachloroethene

Toluene

Trichloroethene

Vinyl chloride

SVOCaJBg/l) -rt; /• :,;• :>-;\M;;,J&V,,

1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 ,2-Dichtorobenzene

1 ,3-Dichtorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol


2,4-Dichlorophenol

4-Chloroaniline

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Diethylphthalate

Phenol

DEG pmoN pRODuetSi(ug/ij a1 ,4-Dithiane

1 ,4-Oxathiane

Diisopropylmethylphosphonate

sopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA)

Methyl phosphonic acid

METALf (ug/l)

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

CopperIron

S fe&F V'tfU'Jf-sS^Vi ^14' "^rftrm *§lBt i**h- Ahvr •

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

• ' . - . . - . . : . . . ' ' ;?•:-. 'I..

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

.-* • "''•<':$'• "'''•' ' ' ' • - :

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

50.5-879

2 -11.1

5.4 -132

0.2 -1.1

698-21,000

ND

10.3-18.9

5.2 -24115.6 -29,700

K§2noeisE tcte<&^wIKMMHS.jg j g»|pg ;

SCfSA-*C^SW»-Js'.'*«>" -rsv "vS^SS i /S^&s.-St .-. '

7.3 -48

ND

6.9-11

10-3,000

15

5

ND

5.3 -1,000

0.91

6.9 -47

15 -1,700i.".^;.-^.;.:.,. -'

1.6 -140

1.1 -3.9

7.8 -13

1.1 -14

3.0

5.8

5.3 -5 .5

3.11 -6.6

3.8 -27

1.4 -5.6

ND' '•*';:•?•.• ;"''f." .v..- -'; • -

1.52-2

2.73 -2.97

17.7 -18.6

114 -356

139 -3,120

450 -81,400

2.6 -42.3

14.5 -369

4.0 -9.0

2,150 -36,800

9.5 -879

19.2 -42.5

3.8 -52429 -99,400

va'RanneiDetected'iD^E'

-i Mln ^KSMaxS

29 -31

6.6

ND

10-2,300

ND

9.1 -25

5.6

5.8 -750

ND

6.9 -390

78 -1,500

6.1

ND

ND

ND

ND

4.0

3.6

2.09-3.47

2.2 -27

1.3-3.8

3.4-15

1.85 -2.47

2.77

38.2 -44.6

302 - 490

143 -1,920

285 -18,700

2.9 -15.6

429 -322

4.2 -5 .2

3,850 -23,600

18.6 -25.8

12.3 -15.6

3.8 - 2 5 7

293 -40,400

A-3

TABLE A-3 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER

1993

METALS (upr *«~ -" .'?#.* 5.eadMagnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

Aluminum (Filtered)

Arsenic (Filtered)

Barium (Filtered)

Calcium (Filtered)

Cobalt (Filtered)

ron (Filtered)

Lead (Filtered)

Magnesium (Filtered)

Manganese (Filtered)

Nickel (Filtered)

Potassium (Filtered)

Sodium (Filtered)

Vanadium (Filtered)

Zinc (Filtered)RADIONUCLIDES (pCi/l)

Gross AlphaGross Beta

^ ^ HI K|EmjEBa8 HTO «|

.* r-i $$w~%*4i1.5 -436

336 -10,750

3.2 -866

0.1

15.4 -24.6

628 - 12,200

1,670 -52,600

ND

5.9 - 74

50.5 - 879

2 -11.1

5.4-132

698 -21,000

10.3 -18.9

15.6 -29,700

1.5 -436

336 -10,750

3.2 -866

15.4 -24.6

628-12,200

1,670 -52,600

ND

5.9 -74

1.0 -11.0

3.6 -17.3

^ BSfJJHHBiPSjBS^ sPii l K;-;-~ ' :- ' • .„*•?. <Cf , ';**• 1« :--:^ fcr;:1

1.50 -56

3,040 -85,800

75.3 -990

1.10

11.10 -85.4

1,060 -18,400

4,690 -37,800

6.20 - 126

20.7 -3,240

97.8 -1,620

5.7 -47.6

10.5 -154

2,190 -35,500

5.8 -31.6

13.3 -19,900

2.3

1,850 -82,400

9.1 -885

10.4 -28

648 -18,400

4,760 -34,800

11.40 -13.7

6.8 -3,200. . ' ' , - - " ! > -

1.70 -10.4

5.5 -16.7

Bmg 8l5iM^K»ji ^B^&J! !l*"|CTT

2.0 -13.3

2,420 -50,800

97.7 -840

ND

14.1 -30.6

540 -13,600

7,300 -31,900

8.2 -26.8

74 -608

46.1 -2,850

7.4 -8.9

30.8 -161

3,940 -24,500

176

59.8 -23,800

1.9

2,430 -56,100

98.7 -786

17

821 -13,900

7,260 -31,900

8.5

9.0 -554

.I," ::'.:;/.,.:••%*$!$. ,.".:.

1.0 -4.1

3.3 -6.8

ND - Not Detected NE - Not Evaluated

A-4

TABLE A-4SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD GROUNDWATER

DECEMBER 1997

li C i P'' W' ii*1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1 ,2-Dichloroethane

1 ,2-DichloropropaneAcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneBromoform

BromomethaneCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChloroethaneChloroformcis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

-,-1 ,3-DichloropropenemJibromochloromethane

EthylbenzeneMethylene chlorideStyreneTetrachloroetheneToluenetrans-1 ,2-Dichloroethenetrans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene

TrichloroetheneVinyl chlorideXylene (total)

SVOCs (ug/l)IB1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene


2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol

2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

• • • ; . . .

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

ND

1 -24

1 -3

ND

5 -6

2

ND

ND

1 -3

ND

ND

ND

ND

2 -3

ND

ND

5 -1,500

ND

ND

1

3 - 12

ND

3 -730

6

1 -12

ND

2 -23

2 -1,400

2 -7

ND

3

4

2 -12

ND

7

ND

27

ffll fflmiMfSffs^m imwwl

2

4 - 12

1 -4

3

4 -7

1 -5

3

10 -16

4 -20

2

1

2

2

2 -5

2

3

4 -790

1

1 -2

3 -4

6 -11

2 -120

2 -980

3 -29

9 -20

1 -2

1 -470

4 -1,000

7 -290

2

ND

20

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1 -2

ND

ND

3 -30

3 -23

ND

17

2 -35

ND

ND

ND

ND

3 -9

ND

ND

47 -790

ND

ND

ND

4 - 12

ND

2 -280

2 -5

5 -54

ND

8 -550

28 -610

4

ND

ND

ND

ND

20

ND

1

ND

A-5


DECEMBER 1997

| | ^^^ tttt ^Mytefiftj&&t&tt£ttS^^ : ^b^3tt$ittA&& J BI iffl9iMIMIii BttB JB3fElff JPE^ ! ^Si

^KSi3§i08 ^ ' ^w-" .2-Chloronaphthalene

2-Chlorophenol

2-Methylnaphthalene

2-Methylphenol

2-Nitroaniline

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol

4-Chloroaniline

4-Methylphenol

4-Nitroaniline

Acenaphthene

Benzo[a]anthracene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Benzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

Benzothiazole

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether


Butylbenzylphthalate

Carbazole

>Chlorophenylmethylsulfone

Chrysene

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene

Dimethylphthalate

di-n-Butylphthalate

Fluoranthene

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene

Phenol

Pyrene

NE

NE

NE

~NE

NE

NE' NE~"

""NE"NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

"NENE

NE

ND

ND

38

ND

ND

4 -5

2

2

ND

2

ND

2

ND

ND

2

ND

4

ND

ND

2 -5

ND

ND

1

ND

ND

ND

2 -190

ND

3

ND

ND

1

DEGRADATION PRODUCTS (ug/l) ;

1,4-Dithiane

1 ,4-Oxathiane


Methyl phosphonic acid

NE

NE

NE

NE

0.1 -1

1.4

9.2 -30.5958 -2,290

iRanqgJR cjgai tfatea

SJMKK ***yjrirtgFftjliiy*j IjLbJ&w

fTE^aa' "{S^i? jr •.'.." * SPR? •**"•" -.,"f"i' 'r-fNjS^^- .••.-, !?*••' •,-, ••• • . -:< '• ';-- •-'•*,' >'•• •>!"*:• '.'•*•.

2 - 3

3

ND

5

ND

ND

ND

3

2 - 14

2 -3

6

ND

ND

1

ND

ND

ND

ND

3

2

2.1

ND

ND

2

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

2

ND

0.7 -1.8

0.2 -1.3

7.8 -20.6836 -942

; ' j ^ ; / :ND

ND

ND

ND

14

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.9 -1.9

ND

3 _ .

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

2

9 - 12

ND

ND

7 -20

ND

ND

ND

2

i- :.'K; " ' •'- •

0.6 -2

1.7 -2

8.8 -44.91 4 1 - 3 4 2

A-6


DECEMBER 1997

| gHj |m^ ^Hg

^^^SHH^w^wlPESTICIDE^BS (us/If -]•;4,4-DDD

4,4-DDE

4,4'-DDT

alpha-Chlordane

Dieldrin

Endrin ketone

gamma-Chlordanef t JJEn?A f |»C y . / f t f« f lHP* • < - ;:/^°;:~*ME: I AUo (VtQfjf! • ' :

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

3arium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

jpper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Thallium

Vanadium

Zinc

Aluminum (Filtered)

Antimony (Filtered)

Arsenic (Filtered)

Barium (Filtered)

Beryllium (Filtered)

Cadmium (Filtered)Calcium (Filtered)

[B^BSBS gl sJMK

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NEj*JBlt&~ :>ji'" •»•«>%"• 'tV'VrP^l V •-•" : - ^!*>J*i*

50.5 - 879

ND

2 - 11.1

5.4 - 132

0.2 - 1.1

31.8

698 - 21,000

ND

10.3 - 18.9

5.2 - 241

1 5~6 - 29,700

1.5 - 436

'336 '-' 10,750

3.2 - 866

0.1

15.4 - 24.6

628 - 12,200ND

ND

1,670-^52,600

ND

""'ND5.9 - 74

50.5 - 879

ND

2 - 11.1

5.4 - 132

0.2 - 1.1

31.8

698 - 21,000

pBMl|fe'i *? sSP*'M33cP*5l

2.6 - 10

3.6 - 14

3.4 - 12

ND

2.4

19

ND" • - • • , • :'• .. •; ••••<?,;•.. .'• . • . '" • " ' - -.

30.2 -946

ND

3.2 -44.6

33.7 -204

0.1 -0.21

4.1

5,040 -26,400

ND

0.7 -11.8

1.8 -30

320 -19,600

2.3 -61.1

3,590 -99,400

45.2 -1,110

ND

2.1 -19.4

524 - 14,800

ND

ND

5,270 -25,900

2.5 -3 .8

1.5 -23.6

6.8 - 3,020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3.3 - 16

3.9 - 14

1 - 30

2.8

7.6

ND

2.7. i •• . . .. . . , . . , .

26.6 - 106

ND

3.1 -41.5

30.2 - 322

0.15 -0.33

ND

5,870 - 19,600

ND

2.4 -17.4

1.8 -5 .3

257 -41,000

1.2 -13.7

3,960 -56,300

51.3 -1,240

ND

3 -8.5

1,020 -9,300

ND

ND

6,670 -25,200

2.5 -3.6

1.5 -3.2

3.2 -2,150

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

i:«M^ *pi8.9 - 28

3.8 - 13

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND>- .' •

68.5 -1,460

2.9

44 -8.8

16.2 -272

0.11 -1.2

0.3 -0.85

2,480 -105,000

051 -7.1

0.69 -26.6

1.2 -15.4

15.7 -129,000

1.1 -18.3

3,430 -155,000

131 -2,630

0.1 -0.17

1.2 -257

517 -28,900

ND

ND

9,900 -1,000,000

ND

2.5 -12

26 -741

20 -855

ND

3.3 -6.6

15.2 -308

0.1 -1.1

0.31 -2.12.490 -131,000

A-7


DECEMBER 1997

hromium (Filtered)

CobaltjFiltered)

Copper (Filtered)

Iron (Filtered)

Lead (Filtered)

Magnesium (Filtered)

ManganeseJ F Ntej^ed)

Nickel (Filtered)

Potassium (Filtered)

Sodium (Filtered)

Vanadium (Filtered)

Zinc (Filtered)

ND

10.3 - 18.95.2 - 241

15.6 - 29,700

T.5 - 436336 - 10,750

3.2 - 86615.4 - 24.6

628 - 12,200

1,670 - 52,600

ND

5.9 - 74

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA,

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.59 -6.5

1 - 26.3

1.1 -9.3

22.4 -99,300

3,41 0 - 1 5 8 , 0 0 0

1.8 -267 __531-29 ,600

9,320 -1,010,000

1.1 -1 .32.5 -645

RADIONUCUDES (pCi/l)

Gross AjphaGross Beta

1.0 - 11.03.6 - 17.3

0.64 -0.790.93 - 1.14

6.611.18

5.6411.8


A-8

TABLE A-5SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE SOIL

1

IllB IIlETALSsp? ) '"•• " Ufeg

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Thallium

otal Cyanide

Vanadium

Zinc

u&vRang« Detected1*

HI Sp>K38HMWMi¥NiS&

2,630 - 16,900

NE

1.09 - 3.74

9.83 - 90.2

0.624 - 1.09

1.4

71.4 - 2,170

5.29 - 70.8

1.5 - 25.6

3 - 27.5

3,190 - 23,500

5.49 - 117

63 - 3,920

4.95 - 1,140

0.07

2.67 - 24.3

95.9 - 1,700

0.442 - 0.497

NE

366 - 658

NE

NE

10.5 - 59.2

4.89 - 242

5,800 - 26,800

ND

3.4 - 316

53.4 - 159

0.546 - 1.18

0.911 - 6.98

415 - 27,900

16.5 - 1,900

3.62 - 7.42

37.7 - 22,800

9,680 - 15,600

41.4 - 350

1,060 - 8,820

102 - 1,740

0.144 - 0.992

7.99 - 23.5

218 - 630

0.444 - 0.612

1.26 - 416

214 - 801

0.361 - 0.474

0.2 - 0.3

11 - 46.7

123 - 8,810

1,810 - 14,800

ND

0.831 - 8.15

14 - 291

0.8 - 1.14

0.68 - 14.6

651 - 45,600

10.7 - 111

1.39 - 4.58

7 - 524

3,710 - 16,200

10.8 - 324

667 - 12,800

110 - 1,930

0.07 - 1.53

4.04 - 35.2

211 - 1,060

ND

0.67 - 4.3

327 - 1180

ND

ND

8.53 - 40.2

36.1 - 1,100

VOCsdigflJ^R. , • > : • • • : • • : • - :. ^ ' • •1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

2-Butanone

4-Methyl-2-pentanone

Acetone

Carbon disulfide

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene

Ethylbenzene

Vlethylene chloride

Styrene

Tetrachloroethene

Toluene

Trichloroethene

Xylene

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

SVOCs (ng/kgj1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene


2-Methylnaphthalene

cenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

6.4

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

15.0

ND

ND

ND

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

3920 - 35,000

0.73 - 37.6

2.3 - 31.5

13.3 - 714

0.03 - 0.4

0.11 - 15.5

144 - 12,600

5.6 - 709

0.84 - 12.7

7.5 - 4230

4,160 - 140,000

14.7 - 916

310 - 5,280

13 - 1320

0.05 - 2.7

2.2 - 77.7

310 - 1,310

0.58 - 1.9

1.4 - 33.4

42.3 - 9,830

ND

0.33 - 1.1

8.3 - 41.6

15.2 - 2,520

ND

2

ND

ND

8 - 1,400

22 - 54

18 - 21

2

1 - 570

2 - 12

2 - 24

2 - 42

2 - 16

13

870

ND

ND

ND

ND

NE

NE

NE

NE

110 - 160

ND

190 - 500

50 - 430

138 - 223

ND

A-9

TABLE A-5 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE SOIL

i ^H^ tiillliiiliHp !SVOCl ig/Sg^ li lP^ "1"Anthracene

3enzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

3enzo(ghi)perylene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene


Burylbenzylphthalate

Carbazole

p-Chlorophenylmethyl sulfoxide

Chrysene

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Dibenzofuran

'\ ,2-Dichlorobenzene

'\ ,3-Dichlorobenzene

^\ ,4-Dichlorobenzene

1,2-Dichloroethane (total)

Diethyl phthalate

di-n-Butylphthalate

Fluoranthene

-luorene

Mexachlorobenzene

Hexachloroethane

ndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine

Naphthalene

Pentachlorophenol

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

EXPLOSIVES (ug/kg)

Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)

CWM DEG. PRODUCTS (ug/kg)


Thiodiglycol

PESTICIDES/PCBS (ug/kg)4,4'-DDD4,4'-DDE4,4'-DDTAldrinalpha-ChlordaneHeptachlor epoxidegamma-ChlordaneHeptachlorEndrin ketoneEndosulfan IEndosulfan sulfateEndrin

M^ lB^?^ ^ S

NE

56 - 230

60 - 440

35 - 350

200

36 - 140

NE

NE

NE

NE

71 - 380

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

51 - 72

NE

33 - 320

NE

NE

NE

40 - 210

NE

NE

NE

27 - 170

38 - 620

NE

NE

NE

2.84.1 - 3922.6 - 143

NE

NE

NE

NE

NENE

NE

NE

NE

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

140 - 930

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

260

320

540

ND

ND

130

ND

ND

110 - 7,800

2,600 - 3,500

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

24,200

'.•

ND

ND

17.4 - 59.521.7 - 11954.5 - 1799.89 - 18.2

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

38 - 50.424.5 - 25.6

flE!HHn!y^M * " > *'T 45"*iBRiSRK

150 - 160

340 - 900

460 - 1,100

820 - 2,100

300 - 490

240 - 570

NE

NE

NE

NE

480 - 1,100

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

440 - 1,300

NE

NE

NE

420 - 660

NE

NE

NE

130 - 420

470 - 1,300

• . - - • >.?':n-: -. -

NE

NE

NE

4.96 - 24.45.26 - 39.84.56 - 111

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

mpmnpspBBBBff"

14.1 - 186

0.835 - 330

5.54 - 240

47 - 970

25.5 - 620

22.3 - 1,270

64 - 490

72 - 89

ND

ND

0.27 - 430

26.3 - 303

62

60

120

130

ND

230

45 - 590

57 - 6,820

217

56 - 2,100

240

94.7 - 430

ND

57 - 224

63 - 370

6.36 - 320

0.244 - 530

• '• " ' . • : • . • . . ,- ^ • - '•".'':"•

33,600

1.5 - 82.3

18,000

2.3 - 7.30.85 - 23

2.4 - 195 - 7.8

13

ND

0.31ND

ND

ND

ND ,.ND ||

A-10

TABLE A-5 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE SOIL

In4 -j PSflalllB8 "'i -l iilIre •v-.'?%iHl9i ^B j.p-?.;r'ftJ*u*:SM

£GTf /tljiMSIJi ^ bfef f . rff/t«yPI*iliii^i

Endrin aldehydeAroclor-1260alpha-BHCdelta-BHCDieldrin

DIOXlNS^UQiNs (ppb) ifs1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF1, 2,3,6, 7,8-HxCDD1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDFT ,2~3',7~8,9-"HxCD"D1,2,3,7,8~9-HxCDF1,2,3,7,8-PeCDb1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF2~3,7,8~-Tcbb2,3,7,8-TCDFTotal HpCbb'otal HpCDFotal HxCDD

Total HxCDFTotalPeCbDTotal PeCDFTotal TCDD"Total ITCDF"RADIONUCUlES (PCi/g)Gross AlphaGross BetaCesium-137Lead-210Lead-212"Lead-214Radium-226Potassium-40

W^^WSfe?^^^NENENENENE

Bats -iti AasjBy.i--' • ... A"* .•.St.,SB8w.ti',.-«*3(w?.*(!. : >- • -.t&NENENENENENENENENENE

NENENENENENENENENENENENENENENE

" • # * • « • „

2 - 9.10.6 - 5.8

NENENENENENE

NDND

9.55 - 24.217.6 - 58.7

ND-•'••:• ;";i.'' ' • ,.' .aJ'T'-^.-xV'^'.~-». '.;; \ ' *> •:* *fM^*-Si- -, ^ •••* •>•'

6.30.9

0.260.930.11ND

0.25I ND

0.079NDNDND " 'ND"

0.064NDWoND

0.521.2ND1.3ND ""

0.45"ND"0.43

NENENENENENENENE

ND100NDNDND

' ' ^';-' " -' * ' ".-'•' . -' ••*"• - / "

0.68 - 6.00.63 - 2.20.26 - 0.710.66 - 4.7

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

_. ^JQ^-

ND0.45 - 1.30.66 - 4.7

0.50.25 - 6.4

ND2.7

0.18"6^21

NENENENENENENE

~NE

;Range;Detectetl•/ •rSgin;1997- ..--^piiPiwia - j.' itoaaft

&&mt#&X''-^NDNDNDND

3.4 - 25

0.9110 - 11.0000.0127 - 006840.0275 - 0.21000.0091 - 0.20000.0014 - 0.02180.0011 - 0.00610.0028 - 0.02770.0014 - 0.01290.0014 - 0.03360.0015 - 0.01570.0013 - 0.00710.0014-0.00270^0011 - 0.01110.0018 - 0.02350.0011 - 0.00520.0003 - 0.00050.0023 - 0.00710.0565 - 0.41900.0151 - 0.2850O.OT56 - 0.25800^0274 - 1.71000.0017 - 0.04510.0209 - 0.79400.0043 - 0.04210.0193 - 0.1920

12.1 - 24.412.7 - 18.3

0.418 - 1.012.13 - 3.12

0.441 - 0.7080.455 - 0.613

1.92 - 2.321"03 - 4.84


A-11

TABLE A-6

SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SURFACE WATER

• « a| |||«|||»MB|™JM»

V OCS (uQ/IjF S >t»rSi|s3ifi« ^KSfKmi'i Vrs

1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

vlethylene chloride

Trichloroethene

3enzo[a]anthracene

Benzo[a]pyrene

3enzo[b]fluoranthene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene


Chrysene

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene

di-n-Butylphthalaterluoranthene

lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene

Pyrene

DEGRADATION PRODUCTS (ug/l)

1,4-Dithiane

1 ,4-Oxathiane

Metals (ng/L) "Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Nickel

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

JJ8SMHBBB98SBsMBiBHKmB:

Htm^Hlrf r TTn^ TfffffJfffBHBr

3B8B^^sw^Sr^ssTwM!-*ffltii«™^RNE

NE

NE

vrfetJ?# ~ i i f^WfiNE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE:>?;*":- . • > . . . '.^ - ! ;••, :-. ;-

NE

NE, \ ' - • : • • • ' ; • • " • . ; ; . • ' :-::

148 - 3,120

ND

2.1

9.4 - 65.2

ND

ND

9,850 - 78,800

6.7 - 9.7

5.1 - 5.8

62 - 7.3

178 - 3,900

2.2 - 4.4

5,720 - 226,000

37.8 - 247

ND

ND

2,280 - 72,100

ND

0.4 - 0.5

12,200 - 1,920,000

7 - 22.96.2 - 26.4

HByiff'-Ti TfBBtT iiBwBnT' 'i "PBBfJLgaBSm5iiimiillillMrlimjfflBB.il

i|r T: ;> ;:'':i 4y-l*.'-. >'Hw'>??SR flHE$^k»v ^fttt

14 - 8

22

r£. ' ;|r*:-WiS^-;:-;lfl2

3

4

2

1

2

1

9 - 17

2

2

2

. r-' \-. ^••i' - : . '-.. : •-• -:-0.8 - 2

1.7

162 - 17.300

2.8

20.1 - 32.4

32.4 - 396

1.1 - 1.2

2 - 6.9

17,300 - 36,300

1 - 24.6

9.9 - 23.6

4.9 - 118

271 - 30,300

2.2 - 89

12,400 - 22,000

57.4 - 1,010

0.42 - 0.53

8.4 - 28.5

1,380 - 2,720

2.9

1.2

15,300 - 31,900

3.5 - 6048.1 - 1,470


A-12

TABLE A-7SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SEDIMENT

MFT/ll'*! ffiifSfSIHr-' * *** *fMIwlC- 1/%L«O IJAUffi ^Br 3jjM!l|pi

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickel""PotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumr^»al Cyanide

.adium£ihcVOCs (ng/kg)^ *1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1 ,2-Dichloroethene2-Butanone4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon disulfideChlorobenzeneChloroformDibromochloromethaneEthyibenzeneMethylene chlorideStyreneTetrachioroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneXyleneSVOCs(ng/kg)^2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene

naphthene

MttMtt tt HIPPsTO^ * "!HPl»P "Wi«jlll miy j• fflfflHHmr™^^^^^^^BM8BM *lSSffl9-' UJNUHIflPMIIIAIHIIIIIVUI A*- i "" !3>

759 - 22,2001.8

2.61 - 7.366.28 - 99.5

0.132 - 2.590.252 - 2.07

96 - 2,8605.45 - 50.71.41 - 35.12.88 - 74.3

3,350 - 41,5003.56 - 91.1198 - 4,800232 - 1,040

0.339 - 0.3981.89" - 56.8126""-" 2,220

0.714 - 1.54ND

704 -"5,340NDND

7.22 - 72.89.83 - 284

3~;^?*$^ •:;•>:£>:'••

NENENENENENENENENENENENENENENENENE

NDNDND

ND

JHui BlHnn938s •JEVSSJi BBKBBHHBEMHEBBiK BHyTr WHSpWWa'iJ,". V3 ^B?!W*!I* tt • "•""WSfcWWf,

l e ^PHS i l2,520 - 35,700

7.6 - 593 - 35.4

21.6 - 3960.6 - 1.50.5 - 71.8

613 - 11,6009.7 - 2,8301.2 - 10.6

40.1 - 16,2004,820 - 42,300

29.7 - 707362 - 3,680

31.8 - 5550.14 - 0.5

3.7 - 184157-1,100

ND1.1 - 137

~""i32""-"~1,3800.29 - 0^6

6.66.9 -27 .5153 - 2,480

ND15NDNDND8

4 - 66 - 9

ND

ND "4

NDND"1110

6 - 1 54

470ND

"NDND

f Mfflrtectejteg

titmf in <i 'mi >iiiiniinr<mi aiy MHHKM I'm <

2,860 - 13,3006.75 - 181.04 - 44.621.6 - 3380.73 - 12.31.13 - 16.7932 - 6,94018.3 - 3162.39 - 16.539.8 - 2,150

9,040 - 141,00018.3 - 1,600580 - 4,090

44.4 - 9030.1 - 2.85

7.47 - 467229 - 1,160

0.71

0.9 - 16.9118 "- 5,06004 - 0.43

ND15.3^-61.739.7 - 3,380

"• - .!'-.". -• . ' ' -'

NENENENENENENENENE""NENENENENENENENE

NENENEND

^ tt|MH^ K! £ ^Fn ^HH^ ^H^I| ®*WUII |IIB ^ 5; -

srfy»w6i :. t i3M®i-i *si;(filBFWPIw! !* %-«?SP|1R BS»5p fop

4,410 - 23,0000.95 - 1.9

1.5 - 17.930.9 - 5900.04 - 2.30.32 - 4.9333 - 10,2004.8 - 1511.1 - 24.4

11.1 - 2093,100 - 38,800

16.2 - 605309 - 6,28015.3 - 4180.07 - 0.782.4 - 33.6

231-2 ,6300.73 - 2.50.68 - 1.876.3 r -"16,900

ND1""1 - 4 ^ 9 "9.6 - 44.7

30.8 - 1,280: '- • - , • • , , " . ; - •

11 - 14ND "~

24 - 334.0 - 8.010 - 740

ND1.0 - 31

ND2.6

" NDND

2.0 - 1,2002.0"NDND

2.0 - 510ND

551,300

6513.5 - 4,250

A-13

TABLE A-7 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SEDIMENT

$££&£?*•• - CS- ^plf ^^P?!

ifexL ..,.; •.•*:• w •i.-'-'-^A'i Nvva^k^LLHJ VlLiiiL: /'.-jLi.,i' jesKiTSafei'laiiffiiid

'' Bgf M^gl fljfej

plH^^ fflffi ^3wg£

Iti3& Ri&fiCittDttifi£ftB( tt£Sliltt Sttitti BMBKte? ' *"'*

BTOM^MiiStBiBBB^H^H^ ^ ^ ^ ^ KSS^^gS' fflKffl BfflB^ lBB^BfflBfrntf'mx7arffIIUlIA3*RIHaK^ BMP^ ^ ^BIimi aBBm^V

flKCHMHIBrafe'a^-* * K?*-«»BSgiMilt£8'ftMi ^AcenaphthyleneAnthracene3enzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo[g,h,i]peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateCarbazoleChryseneDibenz[a,h]anthraceneDiethylphthalatedi-n-ButylphthalateFluorantheneFluoreneHexachlorobenzenelndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene2-Methylnaphthalene4-MethylphenolNaphthalene3henanthrenePyrene

ND52 - 17081 - 280

140 - 250130 - 370

ND130 - 140"5400"

~ND100 - 330"

NDNDND

98 - 600140NDND

90 - 30061

98 - 470160 - 600100 - 480

66 - 9577- 10083 - 1,40091 - 2,10076 - 2,90063 - 1 ,20050 - 380

ND""~34~-~46

69 - 1 ,800130ND100

72-160021

930 "85 "-2,400

ND" ND

ND36 - 1 ,000

1TO - 1 ,600

1301,000

340 - 3,300470 - 5,900210 - 6,200440 - 2,600300 - 1,500

NE"ND

560 - 4,4001,000NENE

170 - 4,800NDNE

520 - 2,600NENE"ND

130 - 2,800150-6,800

110190

1.79"- 1,8003.96 - 1,900

71 - 2,70036.6 - 1,900170 - 1,300

2",000"""ND

0.909 - 2,20016.7 - 610

55067

i"TooNDND

1,600NDNDND

3.16 - 2000.403 -"1,200 '

CWM-DEG. PRODUCTS (ug/kg) s* -^lDiisopropylmethylphosphonate NE ND NE 3.5EXI$CJSM { /Kg)* ^ ' ^^»^'^:,--^..^- -\ ^.- ' t- >*--r ' •",• '. •^.^•^¥*^-.^t^\: ^^S^f^. •'y***-Pentaerythritol tetranitrate ND 7,910-26,600 7,280-9,380 9,380PESTICIDES/PCBs (jig/kg) rt- '«4,4-DDD4,4-DDE"4,4'^DDTAldrinaTpha-BHC '"""alpha-ChlordaneAroclor-1248Aroclor-1260DieldrinEndosulfan IEndrin aldehydeEndrin ketonegamma-BHCgamma-ChlordaneHeptachlorHeptachlor Epoxide

5.1 - 5.34.8 - 11

NDNDND5

NDNDNDNDNDND3.14ND3.14"ND

5.7 - 274 - 40

4.7 - 98ND

~"4.1 "-7.22.4

1,100470

7"5"-"203 . 8 - 1 120 - 360

6.3ND

4 - 4.58.1 - 134.1 - 22

6.6 - 91.811.3 - 1,"9707.25 - 59.2

NDNDNDNDND

8.46NDNDNDNDND

22.1ND

2.6 - 283.6 - 141 . 0 - 3 0

ND^ND2.8NDND

2 . 4 - 7 . 6"ND "ND "19ND2.7NDND

DIOXINS/FURANS (ug/kg) n /1,2, 3,4,6,7, 8, 9-OCDD1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF12,3,4,6,7, 8-HpCDD

0.77 - 1.4NDND

0.77 - 5.42171.1687 - 7.75

"0.9157 - 1.83

0.69 - 4.4ND

0.86 - 0.9

3.3300 - 9.990000236 - 0.2270 "" I0.1030 - 0.538v |

A-14

TABLE A-7 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SEDIMENT

pSMfclillDIOXINS/FUH«(mg/kg> fe'1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD1,2,3,4, 7, 8-HxCDF1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD1, 2,3,6,7, 8-HxCDF1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF2,3,4,6, 7, 8-HxCDF2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF2,3,7,8-TCDD2,3,7,8-TCDFTotal HpCDDTotal HpCDFTotal HxCDDTotal HxCDF~~Total PeCDDTotal PeCDFTotalTCDD

alTCDFJIONUCUDjp (pCi/g)

Gross AlphaGross BetaCesium- 137Lead-210Lead-212Lead-214Radium-226Potassium-40rhorium-234

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

1.5 - 12.40.4 - 7.9

NENENENENENENE

^^^ tKWiiijXsii&^r!

MKM^a^Ma^ Ss

1.4458 - 10.28NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND

0.24 - 3.660.13 - 11.41

0.6867 - 1.351.6867 - 11.69"

0.22891.0843 - 7.04

ND0.4337 - 5.77

NENE

" NENE

"NENENENENE

1.8 - 1.90.28 - 0.29

ND2.8ND

0.36 - 0.4NDNDND

0.24NDNDNDND

1.4 - 1.52.4 - 2.62.5 - 2.74.8 - 22

0.95 - 1.411

0.29 - 0.520.68 - 2.7

NENENENENENENENENE

£^91®8~|8?SSi•• iWr ^Ma^^P^'••'•"WSffW-* ™'"™*" 'l"""*~"* • "& As

0.0331 - 0.38800.0037 - 0.03410.0023 - 0.01580.0092 - 0.10200.0057 - 0.02980.0054 - 0.05410.0061 - 0.04600.0015 - 0.01480.0016 - 0.00990.0041 - 0.02710.0063 - 0.06870.0026 - 0.03400.0002 - 0.00190.0045 - 0.04880.2310 - 1.51000.0537 - 0.55100.0721 - 0.5120OV1320 - 1.52000.0108 - 0.09460.1030 - 0.9690

^0. 0170 - 0.06190.0736 - 0.4540

. -18.8 - 19.321.7 - 33.21.06 - 1.64.49 - 7.21

0.392 - 1.150.8223.589.643.62


A-15

TABLE A-8SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW O-FIELD SUBSURFACE SOIL

ISiBMMMiMMMM PH ff^H8B3G9I HH^B^ E^ H^ H^HS^ BBnBBflllHK^w 9 BKM^ yMHt*gSHBH BH|B|H IH^ IB ^ I ^H^H^ I ^ H^HQB B§B| ^ aMK

WPSPlfeS^aSS^S^ it-S^S:.-:; ' *-'AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumTotal CyanideVanadiumZincVOCs(ug/kg)1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane4-Methyl-2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzeneCarbon disulfideCarbon tetrachloridecis-1 ,2-DichloroetheneMethylene chlorideTetrachloroetheneToluenetrans-1 ,2-DichloroetheneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideSVOCs (ug/kg)1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

?Swi ^Si BIB^8li

2,670 - 17,300ND

1.04 - 5.2912.1 - 125

0.735 - 1.42ND

71.4 - 7406.64 -41.52.01 - 15.63.35 - 23.1

4,160 - 23,0005.88 - 31.4126 - 3,700

8.37 - 472ND

2.78 - 17.9120 - 1,580

0.33 - 0.407ND

334 - 496NDND

12.4 - 41.64.89 - 120

NENENENENENENENENENENENENENE

NENE

jgi&lj&i&HtegsssSiSiH9Hl Bi8HH8HBBHHBSHHI

2000 - 19,3000.75 - 4.40.77 - 37.1

9.9 - 1280.03 - 0.810.09 - 2.583.2 - 9,470

2.6 - 52.30.94 - 9.7

2.7 - 2062,410 - 30,200

2.5 - 276288 - 3,840

25.4 - 4800.01 - 0.29

2.2 - 31.6237 - 11100.58 - 1.20.52 - 2933.9 - 318

ND0.27 - 0.33

3 - 48 99.8 - 3750

' •:=;•• " : • • •

1.0 - 2.02.0 - 4.0

1.06.0 - 95

ND1.0ND

3.0 - 921.0 - 1401.0 - 1001.0 - 4.01.0 - 5.01.0 - 83

ND

77220

A-16

TABLE A-8 (CONTINUED)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN NEW 0-FIELD SUBSURFACE SOIL

2-MethylnaphthaleneAoenaphtheneAnthraceneBenzo[a]anthraceneBenzo[a]pyreneBenzo[b]fluorantheneBenzo[g,h,i]peryleneBenzo[k]fluoranthenebis[2-EthylhexyljphthaTate"ChryseneDibenz[a, hjanthraceneDiethylphthalateFluoranthenejFluoreneNexachlorobenzene|lndeno[1,2,3-cdjpyreneNaphthalenePentachlorophenolPhenanthrenePyrene

NENE

NENENENENE"NENENENENENENENENENENENE

50 - 60227? - 4,940

9 - 10300.234_- 168"f.41 -"132"""

21.8"- 1,10010~9 - 340

""15.1 - T,9004 3 - 7 4 0

0.128 - 3769279-856

44 - 55100 - 31,200

"""41.1140 - 320

"29.2"- 140105"- 372

1900.853 - 5380~089 - 320

PEG. PRODUCTS (ug/kg)DiisopropylmethylphosphonateIsopropylmethylphosphonic acid

NENE

1.1 - 17.5"1.58

LOSIVES (ug/kg)Pentaerythritol tetranitrate NE 23,500

TICIDES/PCBS (ug/kg)4,4'-DDD4.4'-DDE4,4'-DDT

_clor-1016TUclor-1254

DieldrinEjidrin ketoneHeptachlor epoxide

NENENENENENENENE

5.2 - 7.00.34-17"8 .7 -25

230" 160

5.76.6

0.27IONUCLIDES (pCi/g)

Gross BetaLead-210Lead-212Lead-214Radium-226Potassium-40

NENENENENENE

6.09 - 7.031.23

0.335-0.5560.322.37

4.0"- 5.87


A-17

Appendix BPhotographs of the OU1

and OU2 Remedial Actions

Figure B-1. Aerial View of the GWTF (OU1)

Figure B-2. GWTF Control Room

B-1

Figure B-3. View from the Mezzanine of the Entire Treatment System

Figure B-4. Lime Reaction Tanks

B-2

Figure B-5. Clarifier and Sand Filter

Figure B-6. Clarifier and Vapor Phase Carbon Units

B-3

Figure B-7. Sludge Holding Tank and Liquid Phase Carbon Units

Figure B-8. Air Stripper, UV/OX Unit, and Control Room

B-4

Figure B-9. Second Stage Neutralization Tanks

Figure B-10. Carbon Units and Filter Press Room

B-5

Figure B-11. Application of Sand during PIU Construction (OU2)

Figure B-12. View of Completed PIU

B-6

Figure B-13. Aerial View of GWTF (OU1) and PIU (OU2)

Figure B-14. Aerial View of the O-Field Study Area

B-7

Appendix CInterview Summary

and Site Inspection Checklists

INTERVIEW SUMMARY

Personnel Interviewed: Robert Shewell (RS), Plant Superintendent, MESJoseph Ambrozewicz (JA), Public Health Engineer IV, MESEdward Ramos (ER), Environmental Systems Operator III, MES

Jennifer Harris, Staff Engineer, IT Corporation

Location: Q|d o.FJe|d GWTF Contro| Room

D*te: May 27, 1999, 8:30am

1. When did MES begin operation of the GWTF?

January 26, 1998 (RS)

2. What changes have been made to the GWTF/well field since that time?

GWTF:

=> Relocated the T-6 acid feed from directly into the tank to the pipe leading to the tank.(ER)

=> Determined that the air stripper was only designed for 12gpm, plan to resize for 55 gpm.(JA)

=> Installed a double-diaphragm pump for the clarifier. (RS)

=> Installed air operated clean-outs for the sandfilter. (RS)

=> Upgraded all pumps in the plant from 30 gpm to 45 gpm.

=> Removed the sodium metabisulfite tank and lines (not in service for quite awhile). (RS)

=> Changed all 55-gal vapor phase carbon units (in plant and T-18) to new type with the inletat the bottom and outlet at the top (rather than both inlet and outlet at the top of the drum)- increased life of drum by 50%. (JA)

Well Field:

=> Replaced all Clean Environment pumps with double diaphragm pumps (installed in thewell house, versus inside the well). (RS)

=> Replaced the "clickers" (elapsed time indicators) with flowmeters (measure gallons). (RS)

=> Upgraded the capacity of the pump at T-18. (JA)

=> Planning to replace all lines from the extraction wells to T-18 (in late summer). Alsoadding 4 more inspection points. (RS, JA)

=> Connected emergency generator to power the air compressors. (ER)

=> Installed level controller in T-18 to maintain constant flow into the plant. (RS)

C-1

3. What recommendations would you make to improve the treatment process, if any?Opportunities for optimization?

=> Remove air stripper and add two more carbon units (liquid phase). (RS)

=> Modify the biomonitoring system (new tanks and lines) to reduce leakage problems andimprove performance. (RS)

=> Upgrade the clarifier - add a second cleanout access port. (JA)

=> Upgrade the sandfilter. (RS, ER)

4. Monthly or bi-monthly sampling? Any change in parameters or locations sampledsince early 1998?

=> No changes to the GWTF performance sampling - still twice a month with the sameparameters. (JA)

5. Have all monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports been in compliance with the NPDESpermit? (i.e., dissolved oxygen > 5.0 mg/L; temp. < 90 °F; pH between 6.5 to 8.5;turbidity < 150 units; and total VOCs < 100 ppb). Any areas of concern?

=• None. (RS)

6. Any problems with the biomonitoring system?

=> Leaks in the lines. (RS)

=> Conductivity problems. (RS)

=> Currently evaluating salt-water technology. (RS)

7. What recommendations would you make to improve the extraction system, if any?

=> None, once the conveyance lines have been replaced (scheduled for late July 1999)(RS)

=> The pumps are all new, so no upgrade is needed. (RS)

=> The upgrade to the T-18 structure may not be needed because the new carbon units aremuch more efficient. (RS)

8. What's the normal maintenance schedule for the process equipment and extractionwell pumps?

=> Well field checked every shift (vs. once a day). They keep a running total of re-starts andchangeouts, and are modifying the pumps to match the characteristics. (RS, JA)

=> Plant equipment is maintained as per manufacturers specifications. (RS)

=> Weekly blowout of the lines to T-18. (ER)

9. Have there been many ACEM false alarms lately?

=> Approximately 3 per day. (RS)

C-2

; vrlt

10. What types of activities are required for O&M of the PIU?

=> Maintenance of the PIU is still the responsibility of the USAGE.

=> Once MES is responsible for maintenance, they will:

- Walk the cap weekly to inspect for low areas or holes. (RS)

- Check the sprinkler nozzles (for bees nests, etc.). (RS)

- Lubricate equipment as needed. (RS)

- Run the pumps as per manufacturers specifications. (RS)

11. Any other comments?

=> Plant runs well. (RS)

=> Problems finding replacement switches (no longer manufactured). (RS)

=> Controls are all working well. (RS)

=> Currently running at 36 gpm. After 2 NPDES permit cycles, and with DSHE's approval,they will upgrade to 40 gpm. (RS)

C-3

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR OLD O-FIELD (OU1 AND OU2)

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name: Old O-Field

Location and Region: Maryland, Region 111

Lead Agency: Army

Date of Inspection:

EPA ID:

Weather/Temperature:

May 27, 1999

MD221 0020036

70's, Partly Cloudy

Personnel Conducting Inspection: T. Longe and J. Harris, IT Corporation

Remedy Includes: _/_ Landfill

Groundwater Pump & Treatment

Surface Water Collection & Treatment

Other

II. INTERVIEWS

1. O&M Site Manager:

Interviewed:

2. O&M Staff:

Interviewed:

3. O&M Staff:

Interviewed:

Robert Shewel Plant Superintendent

(Name) (Title)

/ at site _ at office

Joseph Ambrozewicz Public Health Enqr. IV

(Name) (Title)

•/ at site _ at office

Edward Ramos Envir. Svs Operator III

(Name) (Title)

_/ at site _ at office

Mav27. 1999

(Date)

_ by phone

Mav27, 1999

(Date)

_ by phone

Mav27, 1999

(Date)

_ by phone

III. ONS1TE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED

1. O&M Manual

2. Maintenance Logs

3. Health & Safety Plan

4. OSHA Records

5. MSDS File

6. Discharge Records

7. Daily Access Log

^_ Readily Available Up to Date

_^_ Readily Available Up to Date

^f_ Readily Available Up to Date

_^_ Readily Available Up to Date

j/L Readily Available Up to Date

_,/, Readily Available Up to Date

_/. Readily Available _ Up to Date

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization:

2. O&M Cost Records:

Armv Contractor: Marvland Environmental Service

Available from DSHE

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period: None

V. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Fencing:

B. Site Access:

C Perimeter Roads:

/ Gates Secured Not Applicable

/ Access Restrictions / Signs

Roads Damaged / Roads Adequate

•/ Downranqe Security

D. General

1. Vandalism

2. Trespassing

3. Land-Use Change:

_^L Not Applicable

_£ None

_/_ None

C-4

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR OLD O-FIELD (OU1 AND OU2) - CONTINUED

VI. LANDFILL COVER

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement: •/ Settlement not evident Not Applicable

2. Cracks: •/ Cracking not evident Not Applicable

3. Erosion: </ No signs of erosion Not Applicable

4. Holes: •/ Holes not evident Not Applicable

B. General

1. Vegetative Cover: No signs of stress / Not Applicable

2. Alternative Cover: •/ Aggregate Not Applicable

3. Wet Areas: •/ No wet areas Not Applicable

4. Slope Instability: •/ No signs of instability Not Applicable

5. Retaining Walls: / Deformation notevident

Not Applicable

JL VII. GROUNDWATER REMEDY

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines Not Applicable

1. Pumps and Electrical: / Good Condition Needs O&M Not Applicable

2. Lines and Valves: Good Condition / Needs O&M Not Applicable

Note: Scheduled maintenance in July - replacement of all lines leading to T-18.

B. Treatment System Not Applicable

1. Treatment Train: Metals precipitation, air stripping, cartridge filters, UV/OX system, carbon units(liquid and vapor phase)

Note: System in good condition. Maintenance log up to date Treats approx. 30,000 gal per day.

2. Electrical Enclosures & Panels: •/ Good Condition Not Applicable

3. Tanks and Storage Vessels: _/_ Good Condition Not Applicable

4. Discharge Structure: •/ Good Condition Not Applicable

5. Treatment Building: Good Condition Not Applicable

6. Monitoring Wells: •/ Functioning & Good Condition

•/ Routinely Sampled

Not Applicable i

•/ Equipped w/Locks j

VIII. NOTES

Please refer to the interview questionnaire for additional information

C-5

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR WATSON CREEK (OU3)

or?;

•1. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name:

Location and Region:

Lead Agency:

Watson Creek

Maryland, Region III

Army

Date of Inspection:

EPA ID:

Weather/Temperature:

May 27, 1999

MD2210020036

70's, Partly Cloudy


Remedy Includes: Landfill



</ Other Limited Action (institutional controls, public education, LTM)

II. INTERVIEWS (NOTAPPUCABLE)

1. O&M Site Manager:

Interviewed:

1. O&M Manual

2. Maintenance Logs

3. Health & Safety Plan

4. OSHA Records

5. MSDS File

6. Discharge Records

7 Daily Access Log

(Name)

at site

III. ONSITE DOCUMENTS

Readily Available

Readily Available

Readily Available

Readily Available

Readily Available

Readily Available

Readily Available

(Title)

_ at office

(Date)

_ by phone

AND RECORDS VERIFIED

_ Up to Date

_ Up to Date

_ Up to Date

_ Up to Date

_ Up to Date

_ Up to Date

_ Up to Date

•/ Not Applicable

V Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization:

2. O&M Cost Records:

Army Contractor: General Physics

Available from DSHE

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period: None


A. Fencing:

B. Site Access:

C. Perimeter Roads:

Gates Secured

•/ Access Restrictions

Roads Damaged

S Not Applicable

</ Signs

/ Roads Adequate

•/ Downrange Security

D. General

1. Vandalism / Not Applicable

2. Trespassing / None

3. Land-Use Change: •/ None

VI. LANDFILL COVER (NOT APPLICABLE)

A. Landfill Surface

1 . Settlement:

2. Cracks:

3. Erosion:

4. Holes:

Settlement not evident /

Cracking not evident •/

No signs of erosion /

Holes not evident •/

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

C-6

• A ?"A ;.V

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR WATSON CREEK (OU3) - CONTINUED

B. General

1 . Vegetative Cover:

2. Alternative Cover:

3. Wet Areas:

4. Slope Instability:

5. Retaining Walls:

No signs of stress

Aggregate

No wet areas

No signs of instability

Deformation notevident

/ Not Applicable

_/_ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

/ Not Applicable

_/. Not Applicable

H VII. GROUNDWATER REMEDY (NOT APPLICABLE)

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines _s£_ Not Applicable

1 . Pumps and Electrical: Good

2. Lines and Valves: Good

B. Treatment System

1. Treatment Train:

2. Electrical Enclosures & Panels:

3. Tanks and Storage Vessels:

4. Discharge Structure:

5. Treatment Building:

6. Monitoring Wells:

1

Condition Needs O&M

Condition Needs O&M

/ None

Good Condition

Good Condition

Good Condition

Good Condition

Functioning & Good Condition

Routinely Sampled

VIII. NOTES

The elevation in Watson Creek was higher than that in the Gunpowder River

- Signs are posted around the edge of the creek stating that it is closed.

- Waterfowl were seen in the area.

/ Not Applicable

/ Not Applicable

Not Applicable

/ Not Applicable

/ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

/ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

Equipped w/Locks

during the site visit.

C-7

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR NEW O-FIELD (OU4)

1. SITE INFORMATION t

Site Name: New O-Field Date of Inspection:

Location and Region: Maryland, Region III EPA ID:

Lead Agency: Army Weather/Temperature:

May 27, 1999

MD2210020036

70's, Partly Cloudy j


Remedy Includes: Landfill



•/ Other Remedy not selected at this time.

II. INTERVIEWS (NOT APPLICABLE)

1 . O&M Site Manager.

(Name) (Title)

Interviewed: at site _ at office

(Date)

_ by phone

III. ONSITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED

1. O&M Manual _ Readily Available _ Up to Date

2. Maintenance Logs Readily Available Up to Date

•/ Not Applicable

•/ Not Applicable

3. Health & Safety Plan _ Readily Available _ Up to Date j/_ Not Applicable

4.

5.

6.

7.

1.

2.

3.

A.

B.

C.

D.

A.

OSHA Records

MSDS File _

Discharge Records

Daily Access Log

O&M Organization:

O&M Cost Records:

Unanticipated or Unusually

Fencing: •/_

Site Access: /

Perimeter Roads:

General

1. Vandalism _,/

2. Trespassing >/

3. Land-Use Change: y

\

Landfill Surface

1. Settlement:

2. Erosion:

3 Open Areas:

Readily Available Up to Date •/ Not Applicable

Readily Available Up to Date •/_ Not Applicable

Readily Available Up to Date •/ Not Applicable

Readily Available Up to Date _</_ Not Applicable

IV. O&M COSTS (NOT APPLICABLE)

High O&M Costs During Review Period: None


Gates Secured Not Applicable

Access Restrictions / Signs _/__ Downrange Security

Roads Damaged / Roads Adequate

Not Applicable

None

None

/I. LANDFILL COVER (NOT APPLICABLE)

Settlement not evident /_ Not Applicable ;

Erosion evident / Not Applicable

Holes not evident •/ Not Applicable

C-8

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTFOR NEW O-FIELD (OU4) - CONTINUED

B. General

1 . Vegetative Cover: No signs of stress / Not Applicable

2. Alternative Cover: Aggregate / Not Applicable

3. Wet Areas: No wet areas •/ Not Applicable

4. Slope Instability: No signs of instability _/_ Not Applicable

5. Retaining Walls: Deformation notevident

/ Not Applicable

VII. GROUNDWATER REMEDY (NOT APPLICABLE)

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines / Not Applicable

1. Pumps and Electrical: Good Condition Needs O&M Not Applicable

2. Lines and Valves: Good Condition Needs O&M Not Applicable

B. Treatment System Not Applicable

1. Treatment Train: •/ None

2. Electrical Enclosures & Panels: Good Condition / Not Applicable

3. Tanks and Storage Vessels: Good Condition / Not Applicable

4. Discharge Structure: Good Condition / Not Applicable

5. Treatment Building: Good Condition / Not Applicable

C. Monitoring Wells / Functioning & Good Condition

Routinely Sampled

Not Applicable

•/ Equipped w/Locks

VIII. NOTES

- Signs posted at the edge of the cleared area state the following:

DANGER - NO TRESPASSINGUNEXPLODED ORDNANCEUS ARMY PROPERTY

KEEP OUT.

- The once regularly mowed area was overgrown with tall grass.

- The disposal area showed visible signs of settlement.

C-9

Appendix DGroundwater Monitoring Data forthe WTA and UCA, Old O-Field

Table D-1.Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results

Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old 0-Field

'.MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01 (Dup)

MW01

MW01 (Dup)

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MW01

MWOlfff^MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02~

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

MW02

" MW02(biip)

MW02

MWOT

MW02 ~

MW02

MW02

MW02.EMW4-2A

MW4-2A" """

MW4-2A~

MW4-2A

MW4-2A

20-May-93

22-Feb-94

23-Jun-94

22-Sep-94

18-Jul-95

17-Oct-95

18-Jan-96

18-Jan-96

24-Apr-96

24-Apr-96

25-Aug-96

19-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

20-May-97

28-Aug-97

10-Nov-97

T2-Feb-98

20-May-98

25-Aug-98

17-Nov-98

•.•.••;*&fceilfe&

4-May-93

20-May-93

26-Aug-93

2-Mar-94

29-Jun-94

28-Sep-94

24-JUI-95

23-Oct-95

24-Jan-96

26^Apr^96

26-Aug-96

20-Nov-96

11-Feb-97

21-May-97

2-Sep-97

2-Sep-97~

10-NOV-97

~13^Feb-98

5-May-98

26-Aug-98

9-Nov-98

"94-eb-99 -, ;15-Jun-93

~25-Feb-94

~ 22-Jun-94

26-Sep-94

20-Jul-95

BQL

14.40

BQL

BQL

BQL

802.10

338.10

328.00

BQL

BQL

46.00

17.00

BQL

2.00

16.00

342.00

6.00

23.00

3.40

23.70

261.60

BQL

87.19

111.72

55.29

"""TgT.do35.26

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

7.00

7.00

1.00

BQL

25.00

g7do2.00

7.00

4.00

6.20

4.30

'5.20

321.10

1,388.74

1~421.00

1,494.00

1 053.94

arCvmDecompositicmpRxluctOig )-!Thfodlgfycol

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

31.60

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

" BQL

8.70

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

2.70

BQL

BQL

BQL"BQL

BQL

"BQLBQL

2oT~.0(f

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL "

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

9.60

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

1800

BQL

91.6

39.3

127.00

apKNi&iiBQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

8.27

4.00

4.00

3.00

BQL

BQL

0^40 "

BQL

BQL

0.30"~~2AO

"~BQL

0 .40

BQL

BQL

;A 8.50

17

592

574

708

1680

6 8 7 "

337^00

131.00

91.00

54.00

"70.00

37.20

8".30~

"10.20~

" 12.70

13.20

7.60

59.00

6.00

0.60

6^20

48.30

600

247

1140

220

" 1 ,240.00

^OxathianeicBQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

3.97

3.00

2.00

2.00

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

0.90

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

": BQL

42

90.9

~121

164

297

150"

65.90

88.40

18.00

11.00

14.00

4.80

0.30

0.90

2.30

1.90

1.50

3.50

BQL

~ BQL

6.10

8.50

300

112

451

133

499.00

wta-figs3 D - 1


Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old O-Field

LSampfcgipcatgaiil

sSspair.'V- iL1^^* '**.* •- i -•£

MW4-2AMW4-2A

MW4-2A

MW4-2A

MW4-2AMW4-2A

MW4-2A

MW4-2AMW4-2AMW4-2AMW4-2A

MW4-2A(DUP)

MW4-2A

": b-fM\S!4iSMii!MVW^DUlf*

MW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3A

MW4-3A

MW4-3A

MW4-3AMW4-3AMW4-3A

MW4-3AMW4-3A

MW4-3A

MW4-3A

MW62Ax»/PMW62ADUF*

OF6A(R)OF6A(R)OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

OF6A(R)

^Cfikfciiiifiitlftwttififttll

•2";^ <^?M:^19-Oct-95

19-Jan-96

25-Apr-96

25-Aug-96

19-Nov-9613-Feb-97

21-May-97

4-Sep-97

12-Nov-9717-Feb-9815-May-9815-May-98

2-Dec-98

lo^eB fdau"•"*10-R»bt9SPI

8-Sep-9324-Feb-9422-Jun-9423-Sep-94

25-Jul-9524-Oct-9525-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

27-Aug-96

21-Nov-9613-Feb-9721-May-973-Sep-97

11-Nov-97

19-Feb-98

4-May-98

. if 12-Feb-99Jfftv

rsj~12-Feb-99£.<''

20-May-9325-Feb-94

27-Jun-9423-Sep-94

20-Jul-95

19-Oct-95

19-Jan-96

25-Apr-96

26-Aug-96

20-Nov-9612-Feb-97

21-May-97

4-Sep-97

11-Nov-97

20-Feb-98

1,023.20768.73

1,740.40

918.00

649.001,628.00

1,336.00657.00

343.00295.00255.00267.00

359.80l!fiilS£20«WX'!f*4p:40:^

10,389.005,161.803,271.904,035.203,098.104,598.00598.58

4,896.00

1,105.00

1,592.003,051.002,162.001,668.00535.00

894.00

373.00

* yZ29.00

287.10

5,452.507,774.304,917.00

1,464.802,852.84

254.81

3,182.00

7,009.90

1,865.00

820.00

4,707.00

6,958.00

937.00

423.00

1,869.00

SfiftWiitDccorj-Jlikxifglycoip

BQL

52.00

BQL

BQL

168.00217.00

8.60BQL

17.0012.10BQL

BQL

BQL

Hi®BQt?,F^

;: "?4i:BQL '».;:••842016500162004120722.00

9,950.00162.00

13,200.00

85.00

BQL

10,200.003,990.005,160.00

870.00880.00

1,020.00

••;-j%-BQL ••• 'BQL

980010600

1770014700

49,800.00

8,530.00

88,600.00

548.00

19,600.00

218.0023,200.00

4,870.00

3,010.00

1,200.00

12,700.00

n .rtpj-1

520.00259.00

652.00

248.00

319.00

586.00326.00

234.00170.00114.00383.00358.00

92.30

«|£74£JOi%J:1^83C80|S

BQL

1610264033705590

3,050.001,040.00

1,110.00

2,550.00

1,990.001,640.002,410.001,100.002,020.00

1,700.00

762.00

- 218,40181

242.50P?;

6990214014800

2830

531.00

2,080.00

2,880.00

2,780.00

4,370.00

13,500.00

2,950.00

1,650.00

2,080.00

616.00

10,300.00

m&mtimifflflffc | |rfj||wi iS£V-''

:

294.00

153.00

215.00

59.00

89.00

204.0032.40270.0015.6028.00110.00109.00

26.60

^24.00^

• '25.00 "r-257

364

977

761

2030861.00354.00

392.00

427.00

180.00259.00187.00166.00

71.10190.00

50.60

.4-r 43.801- 49.90

1040406

1560872

152.00

425.00726.00

661.00

336.00

112.00

186.00

81.10

151.00

62.00

1,250.00

wta-figs3 D - 2



OF6A(R)OF6A(R)

• ; . : . . 004033:$OF13B

OF13BOF13B

OF13B

OF13B

OF13BOF13B

" "OF13B"OF13BOF13BOF13BOF13B

OF13B~DUPOF13B"""OF13B

OF13BOF14B

OF14B""OF14BOF14B

OF14B

OF14B~"OF14BOF14B

OF14B "OF14BOF14BOF14BOF14B

OF14B (DUP)

OF14B

OF17AOF17AOF17A~OF17A

OF17A"

OF17A

OF17AOF17AOF17AOF17AOF17A

OF17A

iD&c&tfiictKfc•BC.HKSllHnilC W5kTU""J3J|! '

JWJyJBffip lHiliiiiMaCTi :

19-May-98

1-Dec-98

1-Mar-9428-Jun-9428-Sep-94

21-Jul-95

20-Oct-9523-Jan-9626-Apr-96

28"-Aug"-"96""'19-Nov-9612-Feb-9722-May-9731-Mar-9831-Mar-986-May-98

H-Dec-98 "

: ;*9j£<»l£99,*:- ••'

1-Mar-94"27-Jun-9427-Sep-9420-Jul-95

Ts-Oct-QS""""

23-Jan-96

25-Apr-9626-Aug-9619-NOV-961 1-Feb-9721-May-972-Sep-9711-Nov-97

13-Feb-98

^6^May^9824-Feb-9422-Jun-9426-Sep-94

~'"'l9-Jul-9518-Oct-95

19-Jan-96

25-Apr-9625-Aug-96

19-NOV-9611-Feb-9722-May-97

3-Sep-97

mnlMnliFwlMn H nT

IHralWHSBIrf2,053.00

257.90

Bi!:'iS3f6ilffi!?:j::

111.90367.60122.74

114.70

60.3679.16

117.30

108.00135.00236.00127.00

""" 137700""225700

114/10

63.20

89.00411.0056.5077.30

113760

315.10351.7061.0092.003'15^00"156.00665.00

3,845.00"""2,429766""

2,204.00

2,226.004,413.602,762.005,255103,370.25

7,220.00

7,108.30

1,657.60890.00886.00

1,863.00822.00

2,634.00

f eWWDecbi

liEIHlilsKLC I2,248.00982.20

;•;.• 2i| 3,po; £BQL

78.1

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

"BQL "5.00

BQL

34.10BQL

BQLBQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL ""

BQL

BQL

BQL

" " "BQL "44.00BQL

BQL

22.40" ""4.0019.00BQLBQL "" ""

BQL

BQL ;

82901350

21100

5380

28,50000

46,000.00

si'a^oo"913.00

2,080.001,620.00

57.70

8,180.00

QposflforttRrft CUfttf lsni H^

4,952.00576.30

1i751.00«27303710

5840

211

562.00

734.00418.00783.00""626.00

1,700.001,540.002,440.002,500.001,158.00"309.70

: 266.60 ;;,

12401580

1460

1,230.00838.00

1,210.00567.00940.00 ~492.00

1,490^00720.00

1 ,250.002,260.00350.00 '"

320.00

2,750.00274043607580

4,220.00

5,890.00

5,750.00

1,470.002,080.001, 360.00"1,290.00962.00

8,220.00

oduct(jig/L)slr§,OJtatttaie's

490.00

38.20

^S/*57^7!Efcw,1010

12902100

94.6

252.00300.00205.00

" "236 00186.00397.00368.00

" 436.00" 2 4 6 . 0 0

54.20"

f 125.30538

382704

658.00

45476b

"523.00284.00280.00219.00212.00240.00402.00364.00

""""neToo120.00

s 743.00

481

399

1500""1,280.00

1,170.00

1,080.00

243.00101.00111.00162.00

32.70

363.00

wta-figs3 D - 3



OF17AOF17AOF17AOF17A

-%.OFt7A- -•£OF20AOF20A

OF20A

OF20A

OF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20AOF20A

OF20A

OF20A (DUP)OF20AOF20A

OF21

OF22AOF22AOF22AOF22AOF22AOF22A

OF22A

OF22A

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1 (Dup)

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1

PM1(Dup)PM1

^0ftts~,Coltecte<if

12-Nov-9717-Feb-9815-May-98

28-Aug-98

•IO-Feb-99 . . , -24-Feb-9427-Jun-94

26-Sep-94

19-Jul-95

18-Oct-9519-Jan-9625-Apr-9625-Aug-9619-Nov-9611-Feb-9722-May-973-Sep-9712-Nov-97

20-Feb-98

20-Feb-9815-May-981-Sep-98

10-Feb-9926-Aug-9619-Nov-9622-May-972-Sep-9719-Nov-97

16-Feb-98

7-May-98

14-Aug-98

2-Mar-94

28-Jun-94

29-Sep-94

24-Jul-9524-Jul-95

20-Oct-95

24-Jan-96

26-Apr-9626-Aug-9620-Nov-9613-Feb-9720-May-9729-Aug-9729-Aug-97

IO-Nov-97

jj ^o /ilv^p1

3,214.00377.00476.00

1,057.80

i 283.307,447.624,484.60

5,677.80

2,228.14

184.401,197.302,235.403,331.003,453.001,579.001,197.00438.00128.00

401.00426.00

1,921.00363.70

393.10

949.00809.00963.00380.00498.00710.00

NO SAMPLE

718.90

BQL

37.00

8.06BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

6.31

9.00

31.00

2.00

2.00

1.001.00

BQL

.iThkxHglycofe9,010.00

36.70120.00

1,275.00

,;•;:,' 3*40C'*BQL178

341

39.4

BQL

37.40BQL

47.0054.2042.6034.5028.30BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

19.10

BQLBQL

51.80

146.009.00BQL

18.00

BQL

109.30

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

#Dithlan$t3,340.003,050.003,470.00

2,998.40

260.20*!

58606440

3970

2650

133.00359.00573.00

1,220.001,840.001,500.00618.00743.0041.20

350.00320.00

1,180.0081.20

169.30

736.00235.00540.00370.00208.00914.00

225.00

575.60 V31.7

282

910

380.00383.00

266.00

10.00

40.0070.0016.00

11.70

22.80105.0093.00

206.00

vsmmimSfiQjtathtape^

394.0086.00

257.00

227.00

' ;::59i40 r>

863

1040

664

512

226.0069.00

253.00179.00236.00148.0082.1028.409.40

116.00

120.00154.00

23.00

; 42.70. .248.0091.90

242.0071.7015.00

88.30

24.80

-81.90

7.06

56.6

171

73.4075.80

56.20

3.00

9.0010.00

3.20

2.00

2.8011.90

10.20

16.90

wta-figs3 D - 4


Water Table Aquifer (WTA), Old 0-Field

PM1

PM1

*:• :PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2(Dup) """

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

PM2

:PM3A

PM3A

PM3A

PM3A

PM3A

PM3A~"

PM3A

PM3A

PM3A ~~"

PM3A

PM3A~

PM3A

PM3A

PM3A

pm^m-'PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

PM4

IO-Nov-97

13-Feb-98

i&i«*y!il]©S8yte'28-Feb-9421-Jun-9427-Sep-9421-Jul-9519-Oct-95

19^Oct-95

23-Jan-96

" 26-Apr-96"

28-Aug-96

21-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

21-May-97

2-Sep-97

11-Nov-97

12-Feb-98

*immmm28-Feb-94

~~ 21-Jun-94"

26-Sep-94

20-Jul-95

"l9-6ct"-95

22^Jan-96

25-Apr-96

27-Aug-96

21-NOV-96

13-Feb-97

22-Ma7-97

29-Aug-97

11-Nov-97

12-Feb-98

4-May-9825-Feb-94

""22-Jun-94

26-Sep-94

20-Jul-95^

T9-6ct-95"

19-Jan-96

23-Apr-96

25-Aug-96

19-NOV-96

11-Feb-97

22-May-97

4-Sep-97

11-NOV-97

19-Feb-98

BQL

2.00

jl S-OO - ;,.

647.00

1,373.80

1,482.30

1,052.80

1,174.21

"Tl797lO~

1,203.40

T,oW.7b935.00

922.00

3,597.00

3,421.00

3^952700

4,331.00

6,409.00

'MSWKwtv10,745.10

8,057>~2"

7,713.50

1764160

5,37abb

553730

3,878.70

1309700

2,298.00

5,750.00

4,193.00

4,875.00

5,025.00

'"2,60230

728.00

225.92

^487.50

932.90

509.81

952^25

519.20

2,044.20

1,819^00

"1 ",437. 00~

1,224.00

637.00

571.00

~ 968. 00

1,039.00

,, CWMD«6f

*nifcp»rf i n hirf ni:

BQL

BQL

^^BQl :BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL '"

BQL

BQL

1 12".00 "

133.00

538.00

608.00

1,160.00

774.00

1,800.00

.2,480.00 '

1130

1060

1490

341.00 ~

2,750.00

99.60

127.00

BQL

225.00

1,080.00

2,120^00

1 ,3oaoo41.30

525.00

211.00

BQL23i~"~

32.1

BQL

3,340^00

192.00

BQL

BQL

776.00* ~BQL ~" ""

3.10

BQL

481.00

2,000.00

nlWi'l|fen;i.Pr>

206.00

15.00

•:*mwam915

1360

1730

672

596.00

' 679.00 ""

939.00

419.00

659700

997.00

1,160.00

1,230.00

3,280.00

8,920.00

1,470.00

3,360.00 :

1820

2390

1860

~1690"

"2,330.00

988 "00

904.00

587.00

462.00

'l7l 90.00

1400.00 "

17051.00

3,580.00

2,500.00

1,400.00

193

824

264

""5747o6"

"934.00

7^13.00

" 446700

~ 964.00

240.00

"1, 680.00

2,440.00

291.00

1,590.00

5,460.00

oductOtg/L^

16.90

2.50

aisstaflfc.-.:-.208

353

463

132.00

130.00

153"ob"

184.00

102.00

"~ "107^00

238.00

220.00"~~"l"87.bb

292.00

1,210.00

188.00

^395.00

486

418

538

769

523.00

"" 448.00

300.00

198.00

125.00

140.00

142.00

~ 138.00

208.00

164.00

249.00

108

278

131

348.00

364.00

258.00

299.00

236.00

98.90

475.00

496.00

79.50

273. 00 "

410.00

wta-figs3 D - 5



^MiMM^M^ ^Ai m l Mfif i '- -MPM4

PM4 (DUP)

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

PM5

mr-ms^mPM6

PM6

PM6

PM6

PM6

PM6

PM6

PM6

PM6 (DUP)PM6

PM6

PM6 (DUP)PM6

PM6 (DUP)

PM6

PM6 (DUP)

PM6

PM6 (DUP)

PM6

PM6

PM6

PM6

PM6

EX1

EX1

EX1

EX1

EX1

EX1

18-May-98

18-May-98

W:MO^Feb-9a^«24-Feb-9423-Jun-9423-Sep-9419-Jul-9518-Oct-9519-Jan-9623-Apr-9625-Aug-96

19-Nov-96

12-Feb-97

21-May-973-Sep-97

11-Nov-9720-Feb-98

23-Feb-94

23-Jun-94

23-Sep-9419-Jul-9517-Oct-9518-Jan-9623-Apr-9625-Aug-9625-Aug-9619-Nov-9612-Feb-9712-Feb-9721-May-9721-May-9728-Aug-97

28-Aug-97

11-Nov-97

11-Nov-97

20-Feb-98

18-May-98

4-Sep-98

9-Dec-98

10-Feb-9924-Aug-932-Mar-9428-Jun-9429-Sep-9424-Jul-95

23-Oct-95

54.00

119.00

&M4M$2,768.607,393.407,543.702,214.533,384.801,955.49

2,205.101,006.00

2,263.00

3,944.006,747.001 ,985.002,561.00

97.00

2,589.60

913.60

1,388.704,822.603,944.801,140.20106.10510.00669.00

5,927.00212.00199.0071.0076.00

3,111.00

3,042.00

2,194.00

2,632.00

732.00

1,801.00

6,935.10

4,307.00

2,321.1079.16

BQL

23.16

14.180.005.41

aTfiro<flglycotBQL

BQL

msataOim5480

255001170038400

15,200.0011,300.007,440.001,420.00

5,080.00

14,900.00

9,670.0010,300.007,480.001,500.00

» ,90|aHM».BQL

BQL

BQL

391.00174.00125.00BQL

BQL

BQL

875.0014.1013.90

13.9014.40

2,320.00

12,900.00

BQL

120.00

350.00

41.20

13,280.00

10,700.00

706.00

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

4.50

29.40

^834S:t(l1840793034204280

2,460.002,880.001,470.002,170.002,220.00

2,120.002,100.002,480.002,320.003,050.00

;330.00J1170

691

33205330

2,750.003,170.00

90.00724.00

1,290.005,210.00187.00164.00245.00213.00

2,980.00

2,880.00

5,550.00

6,020.00

6,989.00

3,491.00

2,083.10

6,518.20

5,296.60

380

42

64.2

1130221

484.00

fOxaWlane-0.90

7.00

UPU73.20 :»r384.00

2,350.00824.00

1.450.00664.00729.00576.00138.00

190.00

272.00

139.00362.00122.00

206.00

r38%40;70, •• ,

276

181

1330828.00365.00614.0036.00

243.00402.00418.0015.7015.70

18.80

1770

216.00224.00

329.00

320.00

705.00213.00

41630

557.20

520.80

101

9.44

11.6314

66.30

684.00

wta-figs3 D - 6



' ffliSffiEX1

EX1

EX1

EX1

EX1

EX1

EX1

EXT

EX1

•:•>. •- EXjfeK^,EXKpHPJiv

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A

EX2A ;

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A

EX3A (DUP)

EX3A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

^ *7"r"[> ? I r*? !"»: "rj,».' «t,«n' (- -4V!fl'? "*i; i't jA •••&"• '.'i-?i' _ ;»»i *-43

24-Jan-96

29-Apr-96

28-Aug-96

21-Nov-96

13-R;tv9~7" "

20-May-97

2-Sep-97

To-Nov-97" "

13-Feb-98

^s:**mmm.t m&imi

15-Sep-931-Mar-94

28-Jun-9422-Sep-9425-Jul-95

24-Oct-95

25-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

28-Aug-96

20-NOV-96

"l3-Feb-97~

20-May-97

2-Sep-97"

12-Nov-97

12-Feb-98

4-May-989-Sep-93

28-Feb-94

22-Jun-94

27-Sep-94

25-JuU95 ~

24-Oct-95

25-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

28-Aug-96

21-NOV-96

~13-Feb-97

21-May-97

2-Sep-97

12-NOV-97" ""

H-Feb-98"

11-Feb-98

4-May-9815-Apr-93

25-Feb-94

27-Jun-94

35.87

BQL

57.00

18.00

(Too12.00

3.00

8^66

3.00

#-*g»PO;-' ' -;

r-^oo- -^331.70

245.93

266.00

103.80

747\50

643.40

525739

512.70

"483700~

273.00

"""" 366.00

248.00

474.00

434.00

636TOO

561.00

5,735.70

6.93

259.40

2,408.80

75.90

22,520.90"""

13,133.44

241.00

3,391 .00

1,193.00

"10,796!00

1,1 62XDO

3,728.00

27715.00

1,~4"l9.00"

1,753.00

728.00

2,763.00

359.41

772.40

Kt CWftHQd<xxnp08(tfo»Product(ng )fThfodfoivCol

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQ"LBQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

.: -.BQI i/'

*•• .BQEfj-;:22930010829.1

BQL

53.80

80.00"

83.00

BQL

15.60

1 Y.50

42.30"52.b6"'~

BQL

BQL

200.00

4320

BQL

BQL

540

BQL

7,520.00

217.00

10lTo6

906.00

490.00

3,590.00

212.00

2,390^00

1,340700

1,500.00

920.00

656.00

27000

BQL

301

-iDfthtaneiS78.00

52.00

87.00

26.60

T13.00

144.00

179.00

91 740

17.00

- 16100 J,

"-15.00 -

2021

1910

3770

2550

1 ,040.00

"2,140.00

266.00

923.00

1,510.00

2,220.00

2,000.00

2,570.00

1,37000

27580.00

4,400.00

3,900.00

1269

1.91

BQL

1440

1610

1,430.00

529.00

50"00

912.00

131.00

990.00

"99.80

1,800.00

" 596.00 "

860.00

780.00

534.00

1990

626

3150

^Oxathfahe

24.00

19.00

22.00

5.70

29.20

29.40

17.00

17.00

2.80

' 2M

iio756

750

1410

1070

385.00

729.00

125.00

337.00

28600

440.00

370.00

200.00

477.00

305.00

796.00

1,100.00

189

1.08

8.02

249

228

194.00

82.00

10.00

96.00

16.10

101.00

8.00

148.00

57.40

38.00

36.00

25.70

690

200

1500

wta-figs3 D - 7



Sampte.LocatiMM*v. » ^f^&^y> jjfs••<•'.•', fij££vX~.>'' ..1 :!$$?;&

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A

EX4A (DUP)

•'-,EX4A-«^W

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX 5

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX5 (DUP)

EX5

EX5 (DUP)

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX5

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A (DUP)

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A

EX6A(DUP)

iDtoC^ectedd

EiS^ js^^^S^S^W™BJT': ,.; .WIPIPI r^f?

23-Sep-94

25-Jul-95

24-Oct-9525-Jan-9630-Apr-9628-Aug-96

21-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

21-May-974-Sep-9712-Nov-9716-Feb-98

16-Feb-98' "" ~~ '' A ft^ iif ^ft; fc •'•'

, • • ': " IllOjf *9O

13-Sep-93

24-Feb-94

23-Jun-94

23-Sep-94

25-Jul-95

24-Oct-95

25-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

26-Aug-96

21-Nov-96

21-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

13-Feb-97

21-May-97

21-May-97

28-Aug-97

12-Nov-97

20-Feb-98

4-May-98

2-Jun-93

27-Jun-94

23-Sep-94

25-Jul-95

25-Jul-95

24-Oct-95

25-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

26-Aug-96

21-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

20-May-97

28-Aug-97

28-Aug-97

rp?AEiyOG8|

899.00

875.16

3,077.00

1 ,932.00

3,455.20

1 ,084.00

701.00

4,559.00

1,101.00

|_ 1 ,448.00

2.00

656.00

658.00

287.00

11,359.00

7.114.50

837.90

11,084.50

6,750.00

6,220.00

1,865.00

3,072.00

7,820.00

5,259.00

5,021.00

5,620.00

5,623.00

7,916.00

8,801.00

5,859.00

1,276.00

260.00

653.00

2,874.70

2,332.20

432.70

538.46

513.33

0.00

1,257.10

5,790.00

149.00

486.00

1,439.00

1,588.00

748.00

765.00

i fSwMffKKiQfPsMilpwIflIJtPvw

113

BQL

887.00

125.00

474.00

BQL

16.80

1,490.00

350.00

674.00

357.00

634.00

659.00

uttoo •$•;24000

7000

577

39400

4350

22,200.00

6,230.00

23,800.00

13,000.00

11,000.00

12,800.00

7,850.00

7,670.00

9,060.00

12,500.00

8,880.00

2,970.00

4,530.00

221.00

BQL

44.1

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

25.50

BQL

BQL

13.90

55.20

16.20

14.00

13.70

PriHhlSnSiiiminuimp1480

110

923.00

513.00

343.00

264.00

311.00

868.00

409.00

329.00

952.00

1,170.00

1,260.00

•? -.. 628.0<**.

5243

2650

666

12900

5440

3,990.00

1,700.00

1,600.00

4,100.00

3,480.00

2,870.00

2,250.00

2,910.00

3,050.00

3,280.00

2,380.00

5,110.00

7,290.00

1,710.00

50

426

236

126

110

197.00

64.00

33.00

21.00

25.70

46.20

41.10

464.00

24.00

bOfieftfiioA^tMiJW*J*»*ir *? •'**?: • •*

3>^ M* HMMMW*»^

656

56.00

395.00

295.00

181.00

33.00

85.90

220.00

85.80

58.90

102.00

142.00

150.00

•W-ISSIOO'--561

501

209

2660

1430

1,320.00

433.00

363.00

366.00

211.00

194.00

340.00

365.00

295.00

320.00

333.00

338.00

378.00

111.00

15.1

125

54.4

49.3

39.4

63.70

21.00

12.00

5.00

6.10

9.50

880

117.00

5.80

wta-figs3 D - 8



^Sample Location^wislllP': '• -isViltillfptkitai i

EX6A

EX6A (DUP)

EX6A

-^'•"'-EXSA^Sf?

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7

EX7~

EX7

EX7(DUP)""

EX7

EX7(DUP)"

EX7

EX7,. -^-ir;EX8A

EX8A

EX8A

EX8A

EX8A

EX8A

EXSA"EX8A("Dup)"

EX8A

EX8A (Duipy ~"

EX8A

EX8A

EX8A

EX8A

EX8A

EX8

EX8A

EX8A

EX8A-'v:»->

EX9

EX9

EX9

EX9

EX9

EX9

11-NOV-97

11-Nov-97

23-Feb-98

g^MttJWT.*:14-Sep-93

1-Mar-94

28-Jun-94

23-Sep-94

25-Jul-95

24-Oct-95

25-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

28-Aug-96

21-Nov-96

1 3-Feb-97'~'~21-May~97~""

29-Aug-97

29-Aug^97

IO-Nov-97

IO-Nov-97

13-Feb-98

••:^MH«feB8.f .3-Sep-93

22-Nov-93

28-Feb-94

22-Jun-94

26-Sep-94

25-Juf-95

24-Oct-95

24-Oct-95

25-Jan-96

"25-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

~27-Aug^96"

"21-NOV-96

13-Feb-97

""27-May-97"

2-Sep-97

12-Nov-97

13-Feb-98

5 4-May-9830-Aug-93

23-Feb-94

23-Jun-94

"22-Sep-94"

25-Jul-95

24-Oct-95

3,224.00

4,856.00

794.00

5::~*O»:00-;=/v

27.19

63.20

0.00

8.83

3,615.60

10.30

43.96

67.30

79.00

64.00

218.00

3^00

38.00

52.00

36.00

~33X>0

40.00

fl 63.00

102,067.00

138,190.10

31,306.40

51,669.00

27,934.00

13,237.63

20,391.40

3,557.60

15,787.70

23,368.85

11,793.00

7,274.00

14^662.00

48,290.00

"407374.00

11,471.00

4,733.00

17,411.00

9,803.00

2,541.30

213.34

136.00

"T, 11 3.60

4,828.80

3,195.00

••» CWM>EfettamnriaHfe fcPir>riiict 1 uaffifc&

giniodigiyco!*979.00

1,390.00

220.00

It^Off -

660

70.8

493

185

43.4

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

122.00

~"~ 2.60

BQL"' "BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL5775

2170

B'QL"1730

2670

90.9

677.00

1,080.00

747.00

768.00

153.00

BQL

127.00

457.00

327.00

415.00

BQL

253.00

83.00

1550

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

1,450.00

tf i i iSjfyss^ te^nti *nJKt£&* &$

3,930.00 I 309.00

2,020.00

755.00i:f*525.00?ii

342

362

99.6

141

461.00

320.00

281.00

98.00

105.00

230.00

287.00

"T63.00~

261 W"

417.00 ~~

"~652.00~

59ZOO

750.00

1,300.001111

2300 ""

2300"

1600

1540

1050

1,340.00

1,460.00

900.00

915.00

271.00

620.00

308.00

474.00"

669.00

1,460.00

554.00

753.00

200.00

1683

400

"280

2120

2,1 moo4,150.00

164.00

89.30

^363flfe!1*

232

' 184

34.7

83.9

279.00

185.00

102.00

50.00"

28.00

89.20

115.00

118".00

89.00"

""100.00

177^00""

" 144.00

170.00

; - -300.0045.7

16~9~0"

""sVs""965

1010

475

503.00

598.00

303.00

284.00

165.00

244.00

118.00

194.00

160.00

156.0"0

73.90

167.00

x 8&00

775

81.7

62.6""950""

513.00

852.00

wta-figs3 D - 9



ÔxaOiIane

EX9EX9EX 9EX9EX9EX9EX9EX9EX 9

25-Jan-9630-Apr-9626-Aug-96

~21^Nov^96

2,294.003,806~.00929^00525.00

172.00BOLTBQL

~65Tf6~

1,510.00" 389.00^"^626.06"1>93!00

13-Feb-9720-May-97

12-Nov-97

23-Feb-98~

159.00^4 96.004,647301,867^00

1,888.00

57.40^

~r.Q<[9,240.00'

2^00.00"

215.00156700

3,430.00~8,440.0CT

3,150.00

335.00

126^00134.00""59760""45.5024^50

_235.00^"318."db~

235.00

862.00*^ 4^43.60ÔF40

OF40(DUP)OF40

OF40

11-Feb-985-May-98"

BQL

9-NOV-98

BQL

BQL

NO SAMPLEBQL "EiQLBQL

NO SAMPLE!~BQLBQL

BQL

NO SAMPLEBQL

XQL 1 _BQL

OF40.DUP** BQL-OF42OF42

11-Feb-985-May-98

1.00BQL

BQLBQL

2.000.50

BQL

BQL

2-402.9CKOF48

OF48~(DUP)OF48

11-Feb-98

6^Ma7-986-May-98

1,546.00iT2Too108.00

19.00

BQL

UO.OO"SÔO"

3.20

13.00"0~60"

0.90

38140 1,083.20, r 256.40OF49OF49OF49

16-Feb-987-May-98

9-Dec-98

3,333.00835.00

1,441.50

33.90BQL

5.40

761.00143.00461.10

96.80121.00

37.60OF49 5,071.30 9;30 367.90 65.90OF50

OF50

OF50

13-Feb-98

7-May-98

9-Dec-98

15,255.00

956^00

2,730.00

BQL

8,792.50 849.60

3,420.00226 00

880.70

248.00

41.00

104.10

OF50 12-Feb-99 13,919.50 2,172.00 1,041.20 1151.20

OF51 12-Feb-98 19,487.00 4,990.00 5,100.00 398.00

.OF51: 8-May-«8 5,791.00 440.00 3,000.00 ; 350.00OF52 13-Feb-98 611.00 BQL 41.00 21.80

OF52 342.00 BQL 1,157.00 118.00

OF53 10-Dec-98 1,193.00 928.00 1 ,043.00 161.90

OF53 1,344.90 494.50 855.10 94.60OF54 17-Feb-98 2,220.00 2,260.00 5,000.00 237.00

»;?f-95.00\

OF55 8-Feb-99 1,933.70 738.50 333.50 .91,90

OF56 12-Feb-98 5,224.00 1 ,090.00 2,950.00 202.00

OF56 8-May-98 2,849.00 63.00 2,600.00 380.00OF57OF57

OF57

19-Feb-9818-May-98

IO-Dec-98

4,663.00819^00

2,666.00

690.0090.10

691.20

12,200.005,054.00

1,143.90

1,250.00113.00

237.00

wta-figs3 D- 10



Samplft Locitionj

OF57 DUP

t • • • • ; • •OF61

OF61

OF61(Dup)

OF61

OF61

OF61 (DUP)

"OF61> - - -:f\COA *»R*<;°4 --•.VWiyfe^-s;

OF62

OF62

OF62

OF62 (DUP)

OF62 i:5|P*:

OF63

OF63

OF63

OF63 (DUP)

OF63

OF63

OF63- •?>»:,-•OF64

oj-64.;,;,, .EX10

EX10

EX10(DUP)

ExiO'--;.-;-;WP10

WP10

WP10

WP10 -WP7

wpfWP7

WF?7St:'*jWP11

WP11

WP11

wpn ^ ;WP14

WP14

WP14

WP14

{Dattfe&lttcfedf|f

10-Dec-98

(g*.iPFaw&28-Aug-97

11-Nov-97

11-Nov-97

23-Feb-98

20-May-98

20-May-98

30-Nov-98

££.ig-ft£M$$28-Aug-97

11-Nov-97

23-Feb-98

23-Feb-98

20-May-9828-Aug-97

11-Nov-97

24-Feb-98

24-Feb-98

20-May-98

17-Nov-98iv- 10-Feb^99g>.

20-Feb-98

i8-Mavy|8i*12-Nov-97

13-Feb-98

1 3-Feb-98

4-May-983-Sep-97

11-Nov-97

~~ 1~6-Feb^98

15-May-984-Sep-97

11-Nov-97

11-Feb-98

5-May^R

3-Sep-97

11-Nov-97

24-Feb-98

18-May-984-Sep-9711-Nov-97~""11-Feb-986-May-98

KOiEMiVOCSt

2,716.00

P»:1i944;80«*5,933.00

7,533.00

7,409.00

677.00

321.00

~272lJb~~

432.40

>®l;658^0

1,266.00

1,252.00

789.00

932.00

:'trt*2o;oo. • . .92.00

131.00

"Hiso^oo"177.00

31.00

302.50

115.00

15,464.00

1 10,434.00

1,239.00

245.00

216.00

*•* 238.00

593.00

1,860.00

773"!00""

311.00

31.00

55.00

2.00

t 5.00

778.00

791.00

8.00

14.00

9.00

2.00

BQL

23.00

,- CWiyt0)SC«npositioi Pn*duct(ufl/t>-aThiodiglycol:

630.20

*•*., r45;50 ; ^BQL

BQL

BQL

6.00

BQL

BQL

BQL

'•- 'i'SOL*4'''''"1

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL ;

BQL

BQL

BQL"BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

33,000.00

16,600.00

BQL

BQL

BQL

•> 2;00

2,740.00

1,410.00

134.00

250.00 i

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQLBQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

.Dithlam tHOxathfane3,133.00 284.50

•.y2;245iS0:813.30

62.80

4,960.00

3.30

2.10""~1720~~

1.50

'?,?:. *4JSO?3

0.90

3.30

1.70

1.80

0.30

0.20

BQL

0.20

0.20

0.40

BQL

0.40

10,100.00

6,392.00:;

346.00

452.00

749.00

14.00

721.00

6,190.00

2,i7o.oo650.00

60.50

38.60 ""

33.00

91.00

125.00

935.00

7.10

12.40

BQL

BQL

BQL

0.40

• >2,52ir.6Q

13.30

26.30

352.00

1.80

0.70 ~"

0.70 '"

0.30

?f;*si3.6a;«5.00

11.30

3.00

3.20

/fir BQL -0.50

cT.eo0.60

0.60

BQL

0.40

f ;--:>1.00":.-

7,400.00

^ ;383.op?36.30

36.70

70".40

'7 .70

173.00

173.00

"~ 169.00

^25.50

5.10

s.ib"'"2.10

i 3.00

72.70

86.40

1.30

2.10

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

wta-figs3 D - 1 1

Table 0-2.

Summary of Analytical Results

Surface Water Samples, Old O-Field

S^pJe'I catlcfti^^ jSgsiAife^^S B^B?«^«53!<-*w3w8«^^w

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SW1

SWI ;SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2

SW2 , -

CWP2A ,

CWP5A

f gagca refct&e

2-Mar-94

24-Jun-9428-Sep-94

24-Jul-95

23-Oct-9524-Jan-9629-Apr-9627-Aug-9619-Nov-9611-Feb-9721-May-973-Sep-9710-Nov-9724-Feb-987-May-9829-Aug-989-NOV-98

i08-Feb-992-Mar-9424-Jun-94

28-Sep-94

24-Jul-95

23-Oct-9524-Jan-9629-Apr-9627-Aug-9619-Nov-9611-Feb-9721-May-973-Sep-9710-Nov-9724-Feb-988-May-9828-Aug-98

9-Nov-98

OB-Feb-99

''08-Feb-99

08-Feb^99

W^M^^S'iliiiPJIili lMmroiElIali

652.21ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

3.00

ND

207.0047.002.00ND

ND

3.00ND

ND

:''i3;pND,*v> •131.32

ND

ND

ND

ND

44.4816206.00ND

1.0032.003.00ND

ND

8.00ND

ND

-.6.30

40.00

1,433.40

IrffCWlfldTifrfS

916

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

114.004.90ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

:%-;f«ND^>f|

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

29.902.30ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND ...

BQLA *BQL

uposiflSB Jf:

£vUllllMlUl$»

2220

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.00

1.50262.0041.40

ND

ND

0.502.50ND

ND

0.20 ?62.5

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

5.00

ND

0.30

0.0141.50

ND

1.50ND

0.50

ND

ND

ND S

32.40695.60

Dd8g£(|ig7E)

SI MMiUiHlIMM-422

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.20

22.604.60ND

ND

ND

0.90ND

ND

tfiv^ND-" 'V

18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

2.00ND

ND

ND

5.10ND

0.40ND

ND

ND

ND

>«*-?,.:. N D - •

•f ^i6.60

•t; 157.00

D-12

Table D-3.Summary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsUpper Confined Aquifer (UCA), Old O-Field

i Hnple Location*

j Si??i$i|fiPM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B (Dup)

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

PM3B

• - PM3B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B

EX2B (Dup)

EX2B

EX2B (Dup)

H EX2B

WS&5BPnf33&SO: m7-Oct-93

22-Nov-93

28-Feb-94

27-Jun-94

27-Sep-94

21-Jul-95

20-Oct-95

23-Jan-96

23-Jan-96

29-Apr-96

27-Aug-96

20-Nov-96

12-Feb-97

22-May-97

29-Aug-97

12-Nov-97

16-Feb-98

6-May-98

14-Sep-98

•^p-Dec^*-

30-NOV-93

22-Feb-94

24-Jun-94

28-Sep-94

18-Jul-95

18-Oct-95

24-Jan-96

25-Apr-96

27-Aug-96

19-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

20-May-97

4-Sep-97

IO-Nov-97

13-Feb-98

7-May-98

7-May-98

24-Aug-98

24-Aug-98

10-Nov-98

8,001.00

7,344.00

7,648.00

6,248.00

6,182.00

5,526.00

7,473.00

7,104.00

5,633.00

9,626.00

7,861.00

6,178.00

11,999.00

9,371.00

10,540.00

9,059.00

11,904.00

10,546.00

1 1 ,200.00

11,479.00 f

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

14.40

BQL

6.00

3.00

77.00

BQL

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

5.50

5.90

1.90

jg j'GWjjPiiSBCt

424

336

726

316

287

BQL

174.00

87.80

93.30

41.60

BQL

3.90

BQL

15.90

14.10

BQL

37.90

5.50

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

9.30

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

njfXMitujnjij o

39.6

178

29.9

42

41.9

19.3

15.6 J

14.00

14.00

16.00

19.00

10.70

11.60

30.40

24.90

174.00

48.00

16.10

34.40

22.00

66.5

36.2

48.4

128

144

295.00

138.00

106.00

207.00

154.00

130.00

215.00

268.00

376.00

874.00

419.00

486.00

259.90

234.40

181.90

OUBftfoflBLjtfjM

4.95

133

5.36 J

8.58 J

8.39 J

6.57 J

5.77 J

4 J

5 J

5J

5.00

3.90

3.20

5.60

4.20

13.90

5.30

1.20

6.70

5.10

42.5

37.7

44.5

85.3

115

185.00

99.00

80.00

113.00

78.90

96.40

75.90

73.70

127.00

157.00

167.00

187.00

115.40

94.20

78.50

uca-figs3 D-13

Table D-3.Summary of Groundwater Analytical ResultsUpper Confined Aquifer (UCA), Old 0-Field

•: tnnl»-l nMtHAti l

: : ' : •TB^^^^^^^^w^Pq

:. EX2ft{i«i «l

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B (dup)

EX3B

EX3B (Dup)

EX3B

EX3B (Dup)

EX3B

EX3B (Dup)

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B

EX3B DUP

EX3B

EX3B DUP

EX3B

'- EX3B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

EX4B

tfTiifn' CV iltnr tBtB 1•BHMKMnKHBBMJ1B1MHB8H1BJ3PBS*BS^ ® *S?**"*™ * 1

29-Jun-94

27-Sep-94

21-Jul-95

20-Oct-95

23-Jan-96

25-Apr-96

27-Aug-96

27-Aug-96

20-Nov-96

20-Nov-96

12-Feb-97

12-Feb-97

21-May-97

21-May-97

2-Sep-97

12-Nov-97

12-Feb-98

12-Feb-98

8-May-98

8-May-98

14-Sep-98

*-:-2ifie£98'v;-''-

23-Apr-93

30-Nov-93

22-Feb-94

24-Jun-94

22-Sep-94

18-Jul-95

17-Oct-95

22-Jan-96

30-Apr-96

28-Aug-96

20-Nov-96

11-Feb-97

22-May-97

4-Sep-97

12-Nov-97

19-Feb-98

14-May-98

gTOTAtVOCa!

6,390.00

6,149.00

5,566.00

8,353.00

5,887.00

6,410.10

5,519.00

6,115.00

4,910.00

5,549.00

9,552.00

12,450.00

11,226.00

12,765.00

12,023.00

11,998.00

11,415.00

11,409.00

10,920.00

13,130.00

10,900.00

12,931.70

30.00

BQL

17.00

28.00

22.00

20.00

13.70

28.90

37.80

54.00

225.00

42.00

48.00

10.00

BQL

76.00

95.00

;trfito<Hglycd£

; BQt3£3(f34.5

77.4

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

147.00

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

2.40

BQL

173.00

30.90

BQL

R*Dttftten<Jt

S&SjBatell11 j13.6

14.6

13.30

11 J

13.00

16.00

16.00

12.70

12.20

11.30

14.10

19.70

21.70

96.00

15.80

16.00

17.00

39.00

37.00

29.60

16.10 ;2 J

3.59

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

3 J

3 J

1.00

1.50

1.30

1.60

2.20

1.70

1.90

2.50

s^dSt ssfc' erwgjs

3.53 J

4.12 J

4.76 J

4.48 J

3 J

4 J

4.00

4.00

4.20

4.00

4.00

3.90

3.70

3.70

3.40

3.90

3.80

3.60

6.70

6.40

6.00

4.70

3 J

4.35

BQL

2.46 J

2.66 J

2.17 J

1.84 J

3 J

4 J

3.00

2.80

2.70

2.50

3.80

3.00

3.10

4.00

uca-f\gs3 D-14


N^ple Locati fcypate tocted?

[ EX4B | 26-Aug-98

r ••••EX4B^;i|s^^*iijfc^8^r4EX6B | 7-Jun-93

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B (Dup)

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B

EX6B (Dup)

'* y-^exsBjg^M

EX6B(Dupy e<

EX8B

EX8B

EX8B

EX8B

EX8B

EX8B

EX8B (Dup)

EX8B

EX8B

EX8B (Dup)

EX8B

EX8B (Dup)

EX8B

EX8B (Dup)

EX8B

EX8B

29-Nov-93

22-Feb-94

24-Jun-94

22-Sep-94

18-Jul-95

17-Oct-95

18-Jan-96

29-Apr-96

29-Apr-96

25-Aug-96

19-Nov-96

11-Feb-97

20-May-97

28-Aug-97

12-Nov-97

23-Feb-98

19-May-98

1 7-Aug-98

17-Aug-98

ff*30|j(|p8?P; 3q-Nqyg98 :

29-Jun-94

26-Sep-94

20-Jul-95

19-Oct-95

22-Jan-96

25-Apr-96

25-Apr-96

27-Aug-96

20-Nov-96

20-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

13-Feb-97

22-May-97

22-May-97

3-Sep-97

12-Nov-97

9.60

fivjm^riBQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

19.60

BQL

BQL

18.00

21.00

BQL

BQL

BQL

1.00

BQL

1.00

111.00

4.10

6.20

i ?«6:50^-;-

1.50

30,753.00

29,712.00

13,661.00

29,566.00

17,484.00

25,855.30

25,461.40

12,644.00

25,162.00

25,622.00

39,370.00

39,800.00

30,898.00

28,989.00

39,880.00

31,424.00

T: CWM Decomposition Product (jig/L)

'm**mmBQL

^.••'BpL?;^

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

-,-.- BQL'-- •'•>;'•

BQL

384

306

32.3

BQL

200.00

112.00

154.00

106.00

56.30

57.40

84.30

87.80

4.30

114.00

102.00

112.00

&&&&&&2.70

; 2:60 '••'*BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

23.50

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

1.20

BQL

BQLv- 'rBQLi ';

BQL

11.9J

11.2 J

16.1

7.92 J

7 J

15.00

7J

7.00

4.70

4.70

3.90

4.10

6.20

5.50

5.80

2.50

388®B8S*i!r-3.60

W-afrP". £BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

3.10

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

5.22 J

BQL

9.98 J

1.01 J

8 J

10J

8J

6.00

4.40

4.50

BQL

BQL

4.30

3.30

4.30

4.30

uca-figs3 D-15


EX8B

EX8B

EX8B

£' -BJ9B?ft: .v.?OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12B

OF12BOF12B (Dup)

OF12BOF12B

OF12B (Dup)

OF12B

Kll iSS^^ZWfftfr---* .i: ^ Sw^ ii W<^§j|i4^ ,DttfIa'r* li,

16-Feb-98

8-May-98

15-Sep-98

^••.*pfc£&<<f?

23-Feb-94

24-Jun-94

22-Sep-94

19-Jul-95

18-Oct-95

18-Jan-96

23-Apr-96

26-Aug-96

20-Nov-96

13-Feb-97

21-May-97

3-Sep-97

12-Nov-97

20-Feb-9820-Feb-9819-May-9831-Aug-98

31-Aug-98

18-Nov-98

32,848.00

36,430.00

29,080.00

J^34|iS2StoO^

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

7.00

23.00

17.00

3.00

7.00

9.00

7.006.0080.003.20

5.10

5*0

67.30

52.00

14.30

;v,:; /:BQlSc,>

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

39.30

3.50

8.00

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

7.10

9.30

7.00

P^ 6.10 3 "

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

7J

11 J

BQL

BQL

BQL

0.1J

--

BQL

BQL

BQL

8.50

BQL

BQL

.V.-,iBQL- ••>>•

7.70

9.10

8.80

'•".£»•- 7.7 WS'-y't

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

2 J

3 J

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

--

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

BQL

ecu.

uca-figs3 D-16

•ND-

100e=SCALE

too 200

FEET

LEGEND^ Of 1

NO—— 5OO1.OOO5,000

10,000

MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

NON DETECT

INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L





CONTRACT NO. MAA13-t1-D-0014

RZ/DWM

JC

7-26-M

MKMi 0430C

FIGO-1 .dwg

FNUHE 0-1lUJOPOJI

OLD O-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD

VOC CONTAMINANT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - WTAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

FOR NOVEMBER 1997

D-17

100HSCALE

100 200a

FEET

LEGEND^ Of I

0 CXI

-- MO —- soo --- 1 ,000 -

— s.ooo —

MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPtNC EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

NON DETECTINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/LINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/LINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L

10,000— INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L


CONDUCT NO. OAAA1S-11-O-OOU

RZ/DWMJC

07-2«-99

*•» 043OC

nOO-2.dwg

noo«;


CWM MUSTARD DEGRAD. PRODUCT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - WTAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

FOR NOVEMBER 1997

D-18

LEGEND

tooeSCALE

10O 20O

FEET

i on

-NO—-500-

! ,000

5,000

MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

-NON DETECT-INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/LINFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L

-INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L

10,000 INFERRED ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L

US ARMY

ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERCONTRACT NO. DAAA15-91-D-0014

ffC2113 Dnmortwi Park RoodCdff«m>4. «gr)*»xl 71040(410) 61Z-USOA Htirinf of T)N n Croup

RZ/DWM

JC

07-M-99 FIGD-3.dwg

HGURE D-3ABCROCEN PROVIHC CttOUNO


VOC CONTAMINANT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - UCAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

FOR NOVEMBER 1997

D-19

..-,: 1 - lii.» ATrL

-N-

LEGEND

100eSCALE

100 20O

FEET

OF1

-ND —

-300

MONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

-NON DETECT

-ISOCONCENTRATION ug/L


CONTRACT NO. DAAA1S-91-D-0014

HZ/DWM

JC

07-M-M

TASK MO, 04IM

FIGD-4.dwg

FIGURE D-4ABCROCEN PROVINC 6KOUNO


CWM MUSTARD DEGRAD. PRODUCT ISOCONCENTRATION MAP - UCAOLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

FOR NOVEMBER 1997

D-20

TIDAL GAUGE ELEVATION1.20

OF460.30

OF560.92

CWP1ANA

OF22A0.79 CWP2A

1.31EX100.79

OLD0-FIELD

MW4-2A0.79^ JDF21

^0.88

E-X1521OF6A(R)0.70

DF59-0.37

MW6-1AA-0.16

EX6A0MW6-3A-2.20

100 100 200

SCALE FEET

LEGEND_.., MONITORING WELL OR NON-OF1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLEX1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

CWP5 CREEK WELL POINT—0.1' GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

-0.1' INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION '

CONCENTRIC CONTOUR

5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETABOVE MEANSEA LEVEL)

-5.00 WATER LEVELELEVATION (FEETBELOW MEANSEA LEVEL)

NA NOT AVAILABLE

BALTIMORE DISTRICT

US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-D-0083

2113 EMMORTON PARK ROM)• IGF KAISERa«WOOO. Horytand 21040

(410) 612-6350

RZ

ocean x

MTC 8-10-98

TASK NO: M7B>

CT CM NOt

GWMAP-65

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

OLD 0-FIELDWELLFIELDAPG, MD

OLD 0-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 17 SEPTEMBER 1997

a33'0


OF 400.83 F47

-0.45

OF48 ^

OLD0-FIELD

OF530.64 OF55

0.79 MW4-3A0.22

OF17A0.91

CWP51.38

E-X0579OF6A(R)0.68 PM6

0.54

MW6-3A-0.27

MW6-2A-0.13

100 100

SCALE

200

FEET

-riOF1

LEGENDMONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

CWP5 CREEK WELL POINTor GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

O.r INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

CONCENTRIC CONTOUR



NA NOT AVAILABLE

BALTIMORE DISTRICT

US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-0-0083

1CF

2113 EMUOKTON PARK ROADEDGQWOO. Itoytand 21MO(+10) 612-6350

RZ

CHCCKCO JC

DA1C B-10-98

TASK NO: 6C70S

CF DM NO:

GWMAP-66



OLD 0-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 22 OCTOBER 1997

o3.J


WPS0.06

F14B-0.340EX1

-6.58DF40nso

OF460>65

OF560.74PM3A

0.76

CWP1A.82

0.82OF22A

0.77 CWP2A.16

MW4-10.81

OLD

0-FIELD5.32

&OF54MW4-2A0.90$ JDF21

^0.83OF53°-78 CiF5S^MW4-3A

0.72 ^ o 68 OF17A0.86

OF570.83

OF640.84

OF6A(R)OJ96

OF59-0.23

100 100

SCALE

2OO

FEET

LEGENDMONITORING WtLL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELLPUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

CREEK WELL POINT

GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR


CONCENTRIC CONTOUR



NA NOT AVAILABLE

BALTIMORE DISTRICT

US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-0-0083

2113 EMMORTDN PMK MW>

^ ICF KAISEREWEHOOO. ***** 21040(410) B12-43SO

RZ

CMBCKD

•*« 8-10-9*

TASK NO: MTU

GWMAP-67



OLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP 3 DECEMBER 1997 o

23


PM2^i;^

EXSAtif 0.51

OF45-4.46

CWP1A1.89

OF22A0.79 CWP2AEX10

-0.83 WP100.97MW4-1

0.83OLD

0-FIELDMW4-2A0.964>

JOF21^0.82

OF531.02 OF55

0.64

EX5-1.46 OF58

0.58OF6A(R)1.05

F59-0^20

MW6-1A0.22

MW6-2A

1.04AOF62^0.90

SCALE FEET

LEGENDMONITORING WELL OR NON-PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

[> EX1 PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL

> CWP5 CREEK WELL POINT0.1' GROUNDWATER CONTOUR

— O.T INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONTOUR


CONCENTRIC CONTOUR



NA NOT AVAILABLE

BALTIMORE DISTRICT

US Army Corps of EngineersCONTRACT NO. DACA31-95-D-0083

2113 EMUORTON P/WK ROM)ICF KAISERcDCewOOO Morytand 21040

(410) 612-KSSO

RZ

CHECKED

MTC 8-10-98

TMX Nft M703

CF ONC NO:

GWMAP-68



OLD O-FIELD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLANDGROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP DECEMBER 19 1997

50o2

Appendix EOld O-Field GWTF

Effluent Data

40,000

38,000

T3

w 36,000

Figure E-1. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge

September 1996 to March 1999

26,000

Date

E-1O

17.00

16.00

15.00

14.00

13.00

o> 12.00E

11.00xO

10.00

9.00

Figure E-2. Old O-Field GWTFEffluent Monitoring System

September 1996 to March 1999Dissolved Oxygen

Number of Observations - 12.884

' c£i of ^-S/* vO°f ^

Date

£'E3

n•ocn

Ia

950

900

8.50

8.00

7.50

7.00

6.50

6.00

5.50

Figure E-3. 'v O-Field GWTFEffluent Monitoring System

September 1996 to March 1999pH

Number of Observations - 12.882

•4' <#»

Ti>ulwi|2 - Inlal 1 111 pi I Chan

Date

E-3

Figure E-4. Old O-Field GWTFEffluent Monitoring System

September 1996 to March 1999Temperature

Number of Observations -12,884

Maximum Allowable Temperature 32.2 C

,i I 111 letup Tlid

Date

O)3

Oc0O

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure E-5. Old O-Field GWTFEffluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)

September 1996 to March 1999Total Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Monthly Average

Total VOC Effluent Discharge Limit -100 ug/L

Total Efl VOCs - Total VOCi Charl

A o> /A A y oo x*y w^ K'O' v^ rtyk J ^*" ^*^ *O

Sample Date

E-5

Figure E-6. Old O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)

September 1996 to March 1999Aluminum

O)3

CO

c0)OC0O

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Effluent Discharge Limit - 1200 ug/L

Overall Melals>3 - Aluminum Chan

Sample Date

E-6

O)

o

600

550

500

450

400

350

300c0)oo 250O

200

150

100

50

0


September 1996 to March 1999Arsenic


*>-4'

Oveiall MelalsS - Arsenic Chan

Sample Date

E-7

a3J


September 1996 to March 1999Barium

200

o>

co

c01oc0o


c£> <#» $>

Sample Date

Overall T 1 - barium Chart

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50


September 1996 to March 1999Copper

ra

C0

CVu0o


-*——»

-* _,9"c

Overall Metals3 - Copper Chart

Sample Date

E-9

D

O)3

CO

CVOCOO

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


September 1996 to March 1999Iron


-cX vdo •$• K*'

OvefallM- ' 's3 Iron Chail

Sample Date

F-10

J

90

80


September 1996 to March 1999Lead

70

60

D)

f 50O'c ;1 40ocoo

30

20

10


Overall Melals3 • Lead Chart

^' c/'

-* • • • * • • • • 4 • *

.&V c& J^J 'b V

Sample Date

E-11

-i' /\' <'

3 ^ ^

ojjo

O)3

C0

CffiuC0O

300

250

200

150

100

50

Ovorall M«la!s3 - Nickel Chart


September 1996 to March 1999Nickel

v>N


-•—»—•—»—»- •+—+

-1'

Sample Date

E-12

-•—«—•—*—•—•—•—*-

rx%

sP4''

O

Ol3

C0)oC0o

400

350

300

250

200


September 1996 to March 1999Zinc


<*>

Overall Meldls3 - Zinc Chan

Sample Date

E-13

o

20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

- 12.0


September 1996 to March 1999Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

One-Day Maximum Effluent Discharge Limit - 15 mg/L

co

c0)oc0o

10.0

8.0

6.0

Overall Metals3 - TSS Chan

Sample Date

E-14

60

Figure E-1 . ^Id O-Field GWTFMonthly Average Effluent Discharge Data (Analytical Results)

September 1996 to March 1999Turbidity

50

Ijo153

O

40

« 30Eo

Q.0>z

HZ

20

10

Maximum Effluent Discharge Limit - 50 NTU

Overall Melals3 - Turbidity Chart

Sample Date

E-15 O

five year review - o-field study area · pdf fileoriginal five year review for the o-field...

Documents