permeable reactive barrier treatment …the permeable reactive barrier will be constructed of a...

PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERTREATMENTSOUTH LANDFILLNEWPORT SUPERFUND SITENEWPORT, DELAWARE

July 7, 2000 Project No. D1NE7105

CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUPAn Alliance between

DuPont and the W-C Diamond Group

Barley Mill Plaza, Building 27Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0027

John A. WilkeTis, Ph. D. / P. Brandt Butler, Ph.D.Research Associate Senior Consulting Engineer

Corporate Process Development Group W-C Diamond GroupDuPont Central Research and Development URS Corporation

RR32U362

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................ES-1

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

1.1 Summary of New Data............................................................................. 1-11.2 South Landfill Remedy............................................................................ 1-21.3 Remedial Benefits.................................................................................... 1-31.4 Document Organization........................................................................... 1-4

Section 2 Waste Containment........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Waste Containment Conceptual Approach.............................................. 2-12.2 Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall and Permeable Reactive Barrier.................. 2-12.3 Single Barrier Cap.................................................................................... 2-2

Section 3 South Landfill Treatment............................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Permeable Reactive Barrier..................................................................... 3-13.1.1 Laboratory Evaluations................................................................ 3-13.1.2 Field Demonstration.....................................................................3-3

3.2 Wall Life Projections............................................................................... 3-43.3 Manganese Fate and Transport................................................................ 3-5

3.3.1 Manganese Levels In Soil and Groundwater at Newport............ 3-53.3.2 Manganese Solubility...................................................................3-63.3.3 Manganese and the South Landfill Remedy................................ 3-73.3.4 Additional Data............................................................................3-7

3.4 Monitoring Treatment Effectiveness ....................................................... 3-8

Section 4 Comparative Evaluation of ROD and Alternate Remedies......................................... 4-1

4.1 Achievement of Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)............................ 4-14.2 NCP Criteria Comparative Evaluation..................................................... 4-3

4.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment......... 4-34.2.2 Compliance With Arars ............................................................... 4-34.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness.............................................................4-34.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through

Treatment...................................................................................,4-34.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ............................................................ 4-44.2.6 Implementability.......................................................................... 4-44.2.7 Cost..............................................................................................4-44.2.8 State and Community Acceptance............................................... 4-5

4.3 Summary of Comparative Evaluation...................................................... 4-6

eO*FOII*H "EMiDIATION WWUP*» AfMA« BriNM!

OuftlH .M H» W-C CMMM SlMI

RR32U363 S.\DQCUMENTCREATION\7105\7105DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS_____________________Section 5 Remedial Goals and Monitoring System...................................................................... 5-1

5.1 South Landfill Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall Containment Barrier............ 5-15.1.1 Remedy Description..................................................................... 5-15.1.2 Performance Standards ................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Permeable Reactive Barrier..................................................................... 5-25.2.1 Remedy Description..................................................................... 5-25.2.2 Performance Standards ................................................................ 5-2

5.3 South Landfill Cap................................................................................... 5-25.3.1 Remedy Description..................................................................... 5-25.3.2 Performance Standards ................................................................ 5-3

5.4 Additional Performance Standards to Be Modified or Deleted............... 5-3

Section 6 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Conclusions..............................................................................................6-16.2 Recommendations....................................................................................6-1

Section/ References..................................................................................................................... 7-1

Sections Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................8-1

FIGURESFigure 1 Plan View of Proposed Slurry Wall and Permeable Reactive BarrierFigure 2 Conceptual Cap DesignFigure 3 Manganese Stability Diagram

APPENDICESAppendix A Laboratory Report - Development of Data for a Permeable Reactive BarrierAppendix B HELP Model CalculationsAppendix C South Landfill Pre-design Field InvestigationAppendix D Remedial Cost Estimates

CMPOMATE REMtWtTION ONOUPMUwnlHMd,

DuPM H* flu Iff-C OMnwM Oi* f

AR32l*36l» S:\DOCUMENT CREATIQN\7105\7105.0OC\7-JUL-00\7105\

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY______________________DuPont proposes an innovative technology for treating waste in the South Landfill at theNewport Superfund site. Permeable reactive barrier (PRB) technology and an engineered cap areproposed as a protective and cost-effective alternative to both the treatment remedy described inthe 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) and the in situ chemical treatment remedy described in the1995 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD). This proposal supports a new treatmenttechnology which has been demonstrated with both laboratory and field demonstrations.The National Contingency Plan (NCP) indicates a preference for innovative technologies thatoffer comparable or superior performance, fewer adverse impacts than other availableapproaches, or lower costs for similar levels of performance than demonstrated technologies.The DuPont Newport Superfund site ROD required treatment of the waste materials located inthe South Landfill using soil mixing. New data indicate that the cost of the ROD remedyexceeds $16MM. The ESD remedy specified in situ chemical treatment. The ESD remedy withsubsequent modifications (calcium sulfate and a single barrier cap without groundwater controlsor a slurry wall) would cost approximately $6MM.The PRB alternative treatment remedy provides greater protection of human health and theenvironment while being more cost-effective than soil mixing or in situ chemical treatment. Thisinnovative technology meets the statutory preference for treatment by immobilizing the metals ofconcern, minimizing the waste volumes, and provides protectiveness for hundreds of years.DuPont estimates that the cost of the alternative is $3MM.This document describes a permeable reactive barrier and modified cap remedy (PRB remedy)and provides laboratory and field data to support the feasibility of the proposed approach.A supplemental study is proposed to establish background manganese concentrations in the fillzone outside of the South Landfill. Local background concentrations are a more appropriateperformance standard than the currently established one for manganese.

! REMCOUTKM OHOOP

(Xftrtn TtaW-CC

M«.iiM»«»7 AR32U365 S:\OOCUMENT CREAT!ON\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ ES~1

SECTIOKONE____________________introducUon

Section 1.0 provides an overview of the proposed remedy and its appropriateness for theSouth Landfill as well as its suitability for consideration in the context of Superfund. Section 1.1describes new data collected since the 1995 ESD. Section 1.2 describes the PRB technology forthe South Landfill waste and the complete remedy now being proposed for the South Landfill,The remedial benefits of the proposed remedy are summarized in Section 1.3. The organizationof this document is described in Section 1.4.

1.1 SUMMARY OF NEW DATASince the 1995 ESD for the Newport Superfund site, considerable additional information hasbeen collected that impacts prior assessments and supports a new, innovative, cost-effectivetreatment technology:

Q Laboratory testing showed that the in situ chemical treatment remedy (ESD) requiresconsiderably more treatment agent (~10X) than realized when the ESD was proposed dueto the demand of the landfilled waste. The cost, feasibility, and waste generation due toplacing over 70 million pounds of sodium sulfate in the landfill had not been consideredin the prior proposal. Chemical costs, alone, exceeded $15MM.

Q PRB treatment has been demonstrated successfully in laboratory and field testing. Thereactive agents are calcium sulfate (gypsum) for barium immobilization and zero-valentiron for zinc immobilization. The reactive materials are placed in a trench with inert soil(Del DOT mason sand) at a soil: gypsum: iron ratio of 100:20:5 by weight. The PRBuses 97% less agent to accomplish treatment.

Q Barium, zinc, and all mobile constituents, except manganese, are immobilized by thePRB remedy to well below the treatment standards established in the ESD. A wall life ofhundreds of years is achieved with a single barrier-layer cap permeability of 10"7 cm/sec.

Q Perimeter Geoprobe® data has delineated the aerial extent of the landfill on both sides ofBasin Road and the depth to the marsh deposit, the confining unit under the SouthLandfill.

Q Groundwater samples in the South Landfill have shown that barium exceeds theperformance standard throughout and zinc is elevated in only a few areas. Lead andmanganese have isolated exceedances of the performance standard.

Q Groundwater samples on the landfill perimeter confirm the barium exceedances. Zinc iselevated in limited areas. Manganese is also elevated at the landfill perimeter. The leadstandard is not exceeded. No other exceedances are apparent.

Q Historical manganese concentrations in fill zone groundwater both inside and outside ofthe site indicate background manganese levels may exceed the treatment standard.

Q Permeable reactive barrier technologies can be implemented with conventional slurrywall construction methods.

COftPOMTE REMCDtATON OftOgPAn MUM* aifr'Mii

OlfVH IfM ft** WC OfVMffrf <34W#

S.\DOCUMENTCR6ATION\7105\7105.00C\7-JUL-00\7105\ 1-1

SECTIONONE____________________Introduction

Q The ROD and ESD remedies will require two construction seasons to implement. Mixingalone will require more than a year to complete. The PRB remedy can be implemented ina single construction season.

This new data indicate that a PRB and modified cap will provide a better remedy than either theROD or ESD remedies. That is, the PRB is more permanent, implementable, and cost-effective.The PRB remedy will not increase the waste volume and will provide equal or better protectionof human health and the environment. This technology can be applied simply and effectivelyusing proven trench excavation equipment while reducing the time required for treatment to oneyear.

1.2 SOUTH LANDFILL REMEDYThe South Landfill was previously used for the disposal of lithophone waste materials. Thesewaste materials are composed of spent ores containing residues of several heavy metals,primarily barium and zinc. The ROD- and ESD-specified remedies address the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) statutory preference fortreatment to reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of the heavy metals. The PRB alsoprovides demonstrated immobilization of metals with lower waste volumes and is supported bylong-term monitoring to ensure background levels are achieved. The modified (single-barrier)cap reduces groundwater infiltration and extends wall life.

The following are the essential elements of the proposal:Q Immobilization treatment provided by a permeable reactive barrier containing gypsum,

iron and inert soil along two of the three sides of the landfill (see Figure 1).Q Control of groundwater migration by placing a soil-bentonite slurry wall along the river

side of the landfill (see Figure 1).Q Cap consisting of a single, low permeability barrier covering the entire landfill.Q Geomembrane and stone placed along the riverbank for containment and erosion control.Q Monitoring to ensure successful treatment effectiveness, wall life, and containment.

DuPont envisions the following sequence of events:Q Grading of the Landfill Surface

The holding cell on the South Landfill containing South Wetlands and Christina sedimentswill be graded to accommodate the final cover.

Q Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall and Permeable Reactive BarrierA soil-bentonite slurry wall will be constructed along the south side of the New CastleCounty sewer line. A permeable reactive barrier will be constructed along the remaining twosides of the South Landfill, extending to the marsh deposit and connecting with the slurrywall, circumscribing the landfill material. The barriers will cross Old Airport Road twice.Figure 1 shows a plan view of the proposed alignment._

flR32U3S/ S:\OOCUHENTCREAT10N\7105\7105.0OC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 1-2

Oufa* *a n<t

SECTIONONE____________________introduction

Q TreatmentThe permeable reactive barrier will be constructed of a 100:20:5 weight ratio of inert soil,gypsum, and zero-valent iron. Section 3.0 presents a complete description of treatment bythe permeable reactive barrier.

Q Low Permeable CoverThe final cover system will be composed of a single barrier of less than 10"7 cm/secpermeability, such as a geosynthetic clay liner. Figure 2 shows the conceptual cap design.The cap will extend across the sewer line to the top of the riverbank.

Q Riverbank StabilizationThe intertidal zone along the Christina River will be stabilized with a geosyntheticmembrane, stone, and soil.

Q MonitoringGroundwater passing through the PRB will be monitored to ensure the primary metals areimmobilized. Groundwater outside of the landfill will be monitored to ensure manganese isattenuated to background levels. The riverbank will be inspected to ensure containment.

1.3 REMEDIAL BENEFITSThis remedial proposal enhances the remedy described in both the 1993 ROD and the 1995 ESDbecause it:

Q Satisfies the nine selection criteria as do the ROD and ESD.Q Meets the remedial objectives of the ROD.Q Complies with applicable and relevant or appropriate requirements (ARARs).Q Is more permanent, effective, implementable, and cost-effective.Q Complies with the preference for treatment without increasing waste volumes.Q Provides greater protection of human health and the environment.

Greater benefit is achieved by using proven installation methods and physical containment of thewaste. Containment is provided by the low-permeability cap and circumscribing vertical barriertied into a continuous confining layer. This proposal also shortens the construction schedule forthe South Landfill to one construction season.PRB treatment is an innovative approach to immobilizing metals of concern. By limitinginfiltration with a low-permeability cap, the life of the reactive wall is extended to hundreds ofyears.Other features of the remedy are its ease of implementation, extended remedy life, monitoring,and simplicity. Standard, readily available equipment will be used to install the reactive barrier.Treatment effectiveness is easily assessed by monitoring groundwater quality in the barrier.

RMfDUTION IMOUPifefWIKtMMMI

Oufiri «tf Tt>m me Ottmnrt On*

RR32U368 S:\DOCUMENTCREATIOr4\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 1-3

SECTIONONE____________________introduction

1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATIONWaste containment with a slurry wall - PRB and single barrier cap are described in more detailin Section 2. Section 3 discusses the new data developed in support of the permeable reactivebarrier in detail. Section 4 contains a comparison of the ROD, ESD and PRB Remedies.Section 5 describes the remedial goals, the elements of the proposed remedy, and proposesappropriate performance standards. Conclusions and recommendations are included inSection 6.

CORPORA!! REMiDUTION OHOOP

RR32U369 SADOCUMENTCREATlON\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUl,-QO\7105\ 1-4

SECTIOKTWO_________________Waste ContainmentSection 2 describes the waste containment aspects of the proposal that complement the proposedtreatment (see Section 3.0). The proposed waste containment system for the South Landfill willphysically separate the waste material from the environment and hydraulically controlgroundwater migration.The conceptual approach for containment of the waste is described in Section 2.1. Theplacement of the slurry wall and the PRB, including wall alignment and materials ofconstruction, are discussed in Section 2.2. The cap is presented in Section 2.3.

2.1 WASTE CONTAINMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROACHDuPont proposes a complete barrier system to physically separate the waste material from theenvironment. The barrier system will consist of a soil-bentonite slurry wall extending verticallyinto the low-permeability confining layer below the landfill. The slurry wall will be placedparallel to and on the south side of the New Castle County sewer line. In addition, a permeablereactive barrier will surround the remainder of the landfill. Both barriers will be tied into therelatively impermeable marsh deposit below the landfill (see Figure 1).In addition, the cap will extend across the sewer line to the top of the riverbank (see Figure 1).The riverbank will be stabilized with geomembrane, stone, and soil (EPA 1996). The landwardslurry wall, cap, and riverbank cover will prevent further migration through the waste materialnot contained within the circumscribing wall. The geotextile, stone, and soil will prevent furthererosion and complete containment of the waste.The low-permeability marsh deposit confining layer will form the bottom of the containmentsystem. This layer is continuous and at least 10 feet thick so that an adequate "key" can be made.The existing cover soil and the low-permeability geomembrane cap on the South Landfill willcompletely separate the waste from the environment. The geologic occurrence (continuity andthickness) and hydraulic characteristics (permeability) of the confining layer found beneath theSouth Landfill waste material has previously been described (DERS 1995).

2.2 SOIL-BENTONITE SLURRY WALL AND PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERThe South Landfill will be contained with a vertical barrier consisting of a slurry wall andpermeable reactive barrier. As shown in the ESD proposal, the South Landfill site andsubsurface conditions are ideal for a soil-bentonite slurry wall. The topography is relatively flat,and the depth to the confining layer is shallow enough (less than 30 feet) to use conventionalbackhoes for excavation. In addition, construction quality control and quality assuranceprocedures are well established for slurry walls to ensure continuity and low permeability.A soil-bentonite slurry wall is proposed along the river side of the landfill because landfillmaterials have been previously found at the riverbank. It is impossible to contain the wastewithin a reactive barrier; hence, this barrier contains the remaining waste by physical andhydraulic isolation under a low-permeability cap.

CORPORA!* HIMCOMT10N GROUP

& R 3 fc ** * ** S.\OOCUMENTCREATION\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 2-1

SECTIOKTWO________________ Waste Containment

The slurry wall and reactive barrier will contain, to the extent practical, all of the waste materialwithin the South Landfill, as shown on Figure 1. The alignment is based on EPA's agreement(EPA, 1996b) that the wall can be placed on the south side of the New Castle County sewermain, EPA approved this location because the residual risk from the untreated material coveredby a geomembrane and stone and the ecological benefit of allowing trees to remain along theriverbank was less than the risk of a catastrophic sewer line failure. The aerial extent on thenorth and east has been confirmed with recent Geoprobe® borings (see Appendix C).The soil-bentonite slurry wall will be designed to have a maximum permeability of1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The slurry wall will be a minimum 36-inch-wide wall, with a 3-foot key into theclayey silt layer. The soil-bentonite backfill will consist of clean backfill mixed with bentoniteslurry (EPA 1996a). Final design studies will be necessary to prepare the design andconstruction documents, including subsurface investigation, compatibility testing, slurry walldesign, and a construction bidding document.The permeable reactive barrier will be a minimum 36-inch-wide wall with a 3-foot key into theclayey-silt marsh deposit. The barrier will be a mixture of treatment agents and clean soil in theweight ration of 100:20:5 (soil: gypsum: iron). All groundwater originating from the wastematerial will pass through the permeable barrier. The PRB contains slightly soluble gypsum andinsoluble iron, with a wall life of hundreds of years with a single barrier layer.

2.3 SINGLE BARRIER CAPThe cap will cover all of the waste material and extend beyond the limits of the slurry wall andreactive barrier. The cap will have a maximum permeability of 1 x 10~7 cm/sec. The cap will bedesigned as shown in Figure 2. The design includes a barrier layer (such as geocomposite clayliner (gel) or clay), protective soil, and topsoil.Infiltration through the cap was estimated with the Hydrogeologic Evaluation of LandfillPerformance (HELP) model to determine cap performance (see Appendix B). A single barriercap, such as gel, reduces infiltration over 99% from current conditions. The difference betweena singe barrier of gel and the dual barrier specified in the existing performance standard (orsingle geosynthetic membrane) is not measurable (0.01995 in/yr. or 0.016 gal/min passingthrough the wall).The cap design is a change from the ESD requirement for a dual-barrier cap with a syntheticgeomembrane. Reducing groundwater to the maximum extent practical was a critical element ofthe ESD remedy because the treatment agents were extremely soluble and could be flushed fromthe waste by infiltrating rainwater.

CORPORA TC REMDUnON OROUP

\ S:\DOCUMENTCREATIOM7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 2-2

SECT10NTHREE______________South landllll Treatment

This section presents the laboratory and field data which support the conceptual design of thepermeable reactive barrier.

3.1 PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERA permeable reactive barrier is an in-ground placement of active materials in the path of flowinggroundwater. Laboratory and field tests showed aqueous contaminants will be removed asgroundwater passes through the barrier. -Metals were removed by precipitation and sorption.The barrier will be of sufficient width to provide adequate residence time and long-term capacity(hundreds of years), and deep enough to key into impermeable layers at the base of an aquifer.Once installed, the barrier will require virtually no routine maintenance, only groundwatermonitoring to ensure treatment.To evaluate PRB technology for metals treatment at the Newport South Landfill, a series ofbatch and column experiments was performed. First, screening batch tests were conducted withmaterials, which potentially could remove the metals. Two materials, gypsum (CaSC>4.2H2O)and zero-valent iron (iron), showed excellent removal properties for barium and zinc,respectively. Barium precipitates as barium sulfate; zinc is removed by adsorption.Gypsum and iron were then used in continuous-flow column tests to demonstrate theireffectiveness together and with the sand that would make up the bulk of the PRB. Wall lifeprojections were then made based on the column tests and flows through the PRB underassumptions of different landfill cap configurations.As a final technology demonstration, in situ field tests were constructed using a designpreviously used by the U.S. EPA and DuPont. A 12-inch diameter column of the PRBsand: gypsum: iron mix was placed in the ground in the presence of contaminated groundwater.A one-inch monitoring well was placed in the middle of the column prior to backfill.Performance was.determined by sampling the water that had passed through six inches ofreactive material. The results of these tests validated the laboratory projections.

3.1.1 Laboratory EvaluationsThis section describes the laboratory evaluations that were performed to develop the permeablereactive barrier treatment technology. Appendix A describes the evaluations in detail.

Batch TestsBatch tests screened potential treatment materials. Groundwater from two locationsinside the South Landfill were tested, representing areas of high barium or zincconcentration. The barium-rich water was used to evaluate gypsum effectiveness. Thezinc-rich water was used to evaluate the effectiveness of zero-valent iron, millscale, steelslag, and iron sulfide.These tests covered a broad range of concentrations for each active material.Groundwater and the reactants were put in 125 cc polypropylene bottles, the headspacepurged with nitrogen, and then agitated end-over*end for 24 hours. Samples of the liquidphase were then passed through a 0.45-micron filter and analyzed for the constituents of

S:\DOCUMENTCREATIOW7lOa7103-OOC\7-JUL-Qft710a 3-1

CORPORATl RthMMtnoH <MMJ»

SECTIOMTHREE___________South Landfill Treatmentinterest. Control samples followed the same procedures except that no reactive materialwas added.Barium concentrations were reduced from 290,000 ppb to less than 500 ppb by theaddition of 0.5 weight percent of gypsum. The resulting concentration was substantiallylower than the required 7,800 ppb standard (see Appendix A).Zinc concentrations were readily reduced from approximately 1,000 ppb to less than 10ppb (vs. a goal of 120 ppb) by several materials, including zero-valent iron (Peerless -8+50 mesh), iron sulfide, steel-process mill scale, and steel slag. The first two showedexceptional activity. Zero-valent iron (iron) was chosen for further evaluation due to itshigh activity and DuPont experience at other sites.Of the other metals of concern, cadmium, copper and lead were less than the detectionlimits of 4 ppb in both feeds and treated waters. Nickel was less than the goalin feeds and all treated waters, and was reduced in all cases except mill scale. Manganese"was generally not reduced by the materials, and in some cases manganese levelincreased as a result of treatment, although below the treatment performance standard of1,000 ppb established in the ESD.

Column TestsContinuous-flow column tests were conducted with the selected reactive agents - gypsumand iron. The column tests were performed to assess wall life (capacity), synergistic (orantagonistic) effects of combining the materials, and potential performance limitations(such as plugging). Two independent tests were run, on barium-rich and zinc-richsamples from South Landfill wells with the elevated barium and zinc concentrations.The composition of groundwater leaving the landfill at any point is not known withcertainty. Consequently, one wall composition was chosen to ensure treatment of bothbarium and zinc. Based on the batch tests and a projection of reactant needs, a mixcomposition was chosen with parts by weight of:

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

An inert material, mason sand - a standard Delaware Department of Transportationmaterial, was chosen as the base material for the PRB. Permeability tests showed that 20weight percent gypsum mixed with mason sand had a permeability of 6 x 10"4 cm/sec.Waste permeabilities ranged from 2 x 10"5 to 1 x 10"6 cm/sec (Kiber 2000). Thepermeable barrier will have a higher permeability than the landfill material, preventing a"bathtub" effect.For the laboratory experiments, two independent column tests were run concurrently, onewith barium-rich feed water and one with zinc-rich feed water. Each test consisted of areactive column filled with the above mix, and a control column filled with sand alone.Pressure drop across the columns was measured to determine the permeability of thecolumns over time.

CORW(WTf RCMOUTlON OUCH*

• Ol9ll3f^ 8:tt)OCUMENTCR6ATION\710S\7105.DOC\7-JUL-Oa710Sl 3-2

SECTIONTHREE______________South landtlll Treatment

Barium removal was readily accomplished from both the barium-rich and zinc-richgroundwaters. With the barium-rich feed, 500,000 ppb Ba was reduced to nominally1,000 ppb. With the zinc-rich feed, 70,000 ppb Ba was reduced to nominally 100 ppb.These results were consistent over the one-month test, and demonstrated barium removalto well less than the 7,800 ppb limit.

- Zinc removal was difficult to quantify due to analytical complexities (possibleinterferences, etc.), but the performance was clear. While the zinc-rich feed water variedfrom 100 tn 1 OOOjyh, zinc was consistently reduced to non-detect (25 ppb) in both theactive and ontro>c lumhs over the one-month icsl. li dppeai'i; llidl the mortar sandbackfill hassome limited attimty for metals adsorption. Thus zinc levels were wellbelow the standard of 120 ppb.Of the other metals of concern, cadmium, copper and lead were less than the detectionlevel of 4 ppb in both feeds and treated waters. Nickel was less than 30 ppb in treatedgroundwater.wftll below the goal of 73 ppb. Manganese, up to 100 ppb in feeds, wasobserved in/zinc water column effluents at 200 to 8,000 ppb. In barium-rich effluents,zinc was"fowid at 2 ppb to non-detect (10 ppb) levels.Reactive column flow and pressure drops were used to calculate the column materialpermeabilities after 45 days of flow. The hydraulic conductivity was2.2 x ID"4 and 2.6 x lO cm/sec for the zinc and barium columns, respectively, the samemagnitude as the fresh mixture (~6 x 10"4 cm/sec). No permeability decrease was thusobserved over many simulated wall lifetimes, and wall plugging should not be expectedto occur.

3.1.2 Field DemonstrationTwo test boring clusters, each consisting of a treatment well and a control boring, were placed inlocations that had shown elevated levels of barium and zinc in the Geoprobe® groundwatersampling (see Appendix C).The Geoprobe® assessment was conducted to confirm the limits of the landfill and determinegroundwater quality on the landfill perimeter. Each treatment boring consisted of a 12-inchdiameter column of treatment material with a central 1-inch PVC pipe. Each control boring wasplaced about fifteen feet (up- or side-gradient) from their respective treatment pair and weresimilarly constructed except that clean sand was used in place of treatment material(see Figure 1). The PVC pipe was screened five feet-from the bottom of each well. A standardbentonite seal was placed above the treatment material or clean sand.The field demonstration confirmed the laboratory tests. Barium, zinc, cadmium, copper, nickel,and lead were treated to below their respective performance standards. Manganese levels werebelow theiperfom^nrfP. s|anHgrH in fr* "- "h well and above the performance standard in thejariunvrtchwellA

COMKtUTt MCMOMT10N OMOUP

R R 3 Z H 0 / S.AOOCUMEMTCREATION\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUWXW10ft 3-3

SECTIONTHREE_______________South Landfill Treatment

Field Tests ProcedureWater was pumped from the wells between sampling events to simulate wall life. Amaximum pumping rate for the field tests was calculated by multiplying the laboratorycolumn test rate of 0.5 L/day by the ratio of the area of the field test to the laboratorycolumn test. The calculated maximum pumping rate was 8.125 L/hr; the average actual

/ ' ' pumping rate was 4.5 L/hr with a range of 3.0 to 6.3 L/hr. The test and control wells in» eac£c3ftefly;tuster were pumped at the same rate using a dual-head peristaltic pump.

MtereoVgroundwater samples were analyzed each day the test columns were pumped

Barium removal was demonstrated in both the barium-rich and zinc-rich locations. At thebarium-rich groundwater location, the barium concentration in the water from the controlwell ranged between 44,500 and 103,000 ppb, compared to a concentration range of 11 to58 ppb from the treatment well. At the zinc-rich groundwater location, the bariumconcentration in the water from the control well ranged from 133,000 to 230,000 ppb,whereas the barium concentration in water from the treatment well ranged from 160 to540 ppb. The results are tabulated in Tables C.2 through C.6 in Appendix C.Zinc removal was difficult to observe because of the low zinc concentrations in both

______ ^^«

locations. The zinc concentrations in the zinc-rich control well ranged from 15 ppb tonon-detect. All zinc concentrations in the water from the zinc-rich treatment boring werebelow 6 ppb and most were non-detect In water from the barium-rich control well, the 4zinc concentration was never higher than 47 ppb. Zinc concentrations in the water fromthe treatment well were never above 9 ppb and were non-detect in all samples after thesecond day of the field test.For other constituents of interest, cadmium, copper, lead, and nickel were nearly belowtheir detection limits throughout the field tests. None were above the practicalquantitation limit.ZU,OOu ppbraadoj much higher concentrations in water from the treatment wells (anaverage of 550,000 ppb)/ The higher calcium concentrations are the result of gypsum

as detected in water from the zinc-rich wells at levels belowas also below the treatment standard jp the harinm-rip.h control

treatment well was about 15,000 ppb, exceeding thetreatment standard. " " ~-—

3.2 WALL LIFE PROJECTIONSThree factors determine the wall life for the South Landfill PRB - groundwater contaminantlevels, groundwater flow from the waste material, and reactant capacity. Groundwatercontaminant levels are determined by waste characteristics. Groundwater flow can be controlledby the design of the landfill cap . mieability (and subsequent infiltration). Reactant capacity is afunction of gypsum solubility (g. sum must dissolve at a level greater than required for bariumprecipitation) and iron loading.

COVOMTl MMOHTWN OMOUP

&*M M n* we

S:M)OCUMENTCREATX>W7105\ri05.DOa7 UW)0\7105\ 3-4

SECTIONTHREE______________South landfill Treatment

The only factor that cannot be controlled is the concentration of contaminants in groundwater.Groundwater flow (cap permeability) and reactant capacity can be designed to ensure adequatewall life and long-term performance. Column test fluxes and HELP model calculations wereused to project wall life.Cap infiltration was estimated using the HELP (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance)Model. The table below shows rainwater infiltration rates to the landfill through various captypes. The corresponding wall fluxes, the field years simulated by each day of laboratorycolumn operation, and the wall life projected after 29 days of laboratory column operation. Thedetailed wall life calculations are included in Appendix B.

Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall Life Predictions from Laboratory Column Tests

Cap TypeCurrent Conditions (3 ft. soil)

Asphalt (4 in.) + Stone (8 in.)Soil (18 in.) + Drainage Layer + GCL

InfiltrationRate, in/yr.

60.10.02

Wall Flux,cm3/cm2/day1.240.02070.00413

Field Years/Lab Day0.0543.2716.4

Wall Life,Years1.5

90450

This evaluation shows that a single barrier cap, such as a geocomposite clay liner, is adequate toensure hundreds of years of capacity. These cases represent a wall only eight inches thick, thelength of the treatment column. In practice, the wall will be two or three feet thick, thus givingan additional life factor of at least three times the lifetimes given above.

3.3 MANGANESE FATE AND TRANSPORT

3.3.1 Manganese Levels in Soil and Groundwater at NewportRemedial investigation data (Woodward Clyde 1991) show manganese in site soils is100 to 500 nig/kg in areas unimpacted by historic operations. The highest manganese levelswere found in the South Landfill at levels of 4,000 mg/kg. Background levels for manganese insoil are 2 to 7,000 mg/kg (Shacklett 1984). Manganese is present in soils both on- and off-site.Manganese is a site-related constituent due to its detection during the Remedial Investigation(Woodward Clyde 1991) at levels above EPA's 1 mg/L action level in monitoring wells both on-and off-site at levels from 0.04 mg/L to 10.6 mg/L (DERS 1993). Manganese continues to bepresent in long-term groundwater monitoring wells, at levels as high as high as 7 mg/L (wellswhich are not impacted by site activities [DuPont 2000]).The presence of manganese in both on- and off-site soil and groundwater strongly suggestsources and mechanisms independent of historic site activities are primarily responsible for theobserved phenomenon. In addition, the mere presence of manganese in soil does not createelevated levels in groundwater.

' - -S:\OOCUMENTCREATION\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 3-5

COHPOfUTf RBiCDWTKM OROUP.ImUw

(Wort vrf Tin *

SECTIONTHREE______________South Landfill Treatment

As presented in Section 3.1.2, elevated manganese levels (>lmg/L) have been recently observedin South Landfill wells along the proposed perimeter of the reactive barrier.

3.3.2 Manganese SolubilityThe solubility of manganese is primarily a function of its oxidation state and solution pH. Lowredox conditions produce high levels of soluble manganese. Manganese can have two possiblevalences (+2 and +4) in solution. Only divalent manganese is soluble; the more oxidized formsform insoluble oxides. Stability diagrams (eH vs. pH) are frequently used to show thepredominant elemental forms and complexes. Under conditions at the Newport site (seeFigure 3), manganese is found in its highly soluble ionic form (Mn+2).The effect of the iron wall can be seen on Figure 3. The free oxygen and free hydrogen lines arethe upper and lower boundaries in environmental (unconfined, atmospheric pressure) systems.The elemental iron line is below the hydrogen line. Consequently, elemental iron drives the eHlow, ultimately producing hydrogen gas. (This is the effect which enhances dechlorinationmechanisms in organic zero-valent iron systems.) This phenomenon was observed in the fieldtests-the eH in both treatment wells was lower than the controls (see table below).Groundwater characteristics are shown on the table below.

.'-- ' Gro'ianxdft« J tMdfiil'Gv>?' : :-, ' • :£?• '' f( l f3tM t ^ fS?S*)k&H;. ,.-.:• >,:;;, ...fe • . - •: /.

V:;-v.i0:-:iiBC

BT

ZC

ZT

MW-23A

•:;Manfeahe$e&r-:$ ;f.ijagjS ;

1.7

13

1.6

0.5

3.8

M'eHiTJsIp• Ssfoltsip-0.11

-0.13

-0.13

-0.24

+0.28

•'nH'- Vl-W«-ilr ** If '.Sfi •*•$!t&uniji$j|.

9,8

7.9

7.3

10.7

6.4

f if § :- " .-, -' 'r;-'|uV, ;•:.UJ'S 'piocatipii •?".'£•: ; '•'• '-PRB Control Well- Old Airport RoadPRB Treatment Well- Old Airport RoadPRB Control Well- WetlandsPRB Treatment Well- Wetlands

Fill Zone Monitoring Well-Rte 141

PH and eH data were collected June 2000Manganese in all wells except MW-23A sampled May and June, 2000Manganese in MW-23A is Phase 3 RI - -1991.

These data are superimposed on Figure 3. The stability diagram shows that the soluble /manganese is the predominant species in the vicinity of the South Landfill. Only in the ZT well,where the pH is 10.7 is the groundwater manganese level below the treatment standard of1 mg/L.

S:\DOCUM6NT CREATION\710S\7105.OOC\7 UL-00\7105\ 3-6

SECTIONTHREE ________ ______ South landfill Treatment

Oxidation-reduction parameters are very difficult to measure precisely. The groundwater datashown above was gathered quickly and cannot be used to conclusively explain the observedphenomena. Its value is limited to suggesting the actual conditions impacting manganesesolubility.Since manganese is virtually ubiquitous, the mechanisms controlling manganese solubility arenot known at this time. The incremental manganese observed in the test borings could begenerated at the reactive barrier-soil interface, or be released from the zero-valent iron.

3.3.3 Manganese and the South Landfill RemedyThe stability diagram shows that the oxidation potential will be reduced as groundwater passesthrough a permeable reactive barrier containing iron. This phenomenon has been observedpreviously at other iron wall sites. At the South Landfill, the in situ treatment test boringsindicate that manganese levels increase due to the presence of iron as groundwater passesthrough the reactive material (see BT vs. BC data above). The increase was not observed in theZT:ZC pair because of the elevated pH in the ZT well.At other sites employing iron walls, the reduced oxidation potential effect has dissipated quickly(within a few feet) as groundwater migrates from the barrier into a more oxidizing environment.Similarly at the South Landfill, groundwater conditions and mineralogy outside the barrier areexpected to raise the oxidation state, creating conditions which should reverse the temporarilyelevated manganese concentrations.The RI data from MW-23A (and others, such as MW-9 and the Old Airport Road residences)provide a perspective on local background concentrations. That is, background manganeselevels in the vicinity of the South Landfill may well be in excess of the treatment standard of1 mg/L. These elevated levels are likely due to the influence of biological processes and theresulting reducing conditions associated with the wetlands which have existed for millennia,While the data are very limited, background manganese concentrations may be a moveappropriate performance standard than the treatment standard established in the ESD.Conditions outside of the landfill may not be oxidizing enough to reduce soluble manganeselevels. Manganese in soils represents an infinite source of manganese which is continuouslybeing released.

3.3.4 Additional DataA focug£d-ass£ssmj£nt is needed to understand manganese transport in the vicinity of the SouthT.arjdfi]!, Tne objective is to determine the likelihood that manganese levels can or will reach thetreatment standard of 1 mg/L and establish a reasonable background manganese concentration.Well transects will be installed to advance the understanding of the data collected to-date. Soiland groundwater will be studied to betterjjiwtetstand the relationship between manganesegroundwater characteristics. A brief sope oflocations and analytical design for aThe assessment will be complete by September 30, 2000.

S:\DOCUMEMTCREATION\7105\7105.00O7-JUL-00\7105\

SECTIONTHREE_______________South Landfill Treatment

3.4 MONITORING TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESSMonitoring wells placed inside the permeable reactive barrier will ensure treatment and providean early warning to ensure protection of human health and the environment. Approximately 10monitoring wells (on 200 ft centers) are proposed within the permeable reactive barrier. Thewells will be installed in the outside 6 to 12 inches of the barrier. In addition, four sets of 3 wellseach will be installed downgradient of the South Landfill to monitor manganese.Installation of wells in the outer third of the permeable reactive barrier will monitor treatmentconditions and metals capture. In addition, since laboratory and field tests show tens to hundredsof years wall life with 6- to 8-inch-diameter columns, placement of the wells in the outer thirdwill provide adequate early warning, in the event breakthrough is occurring at some point in thefuture.Wells outside the PRB will ensure that manganese levels return to acceptable levels asgroundwater migrates from the landfill.

cavcxurt MMUUTION onouron*** KM n» twc OBM* an*

RR32U379 S:\OOCUM6MT CR6ATIOW710S7105.DOa7-JUL-00\7105\ 3~8

SECTIONFOUR Comparative Evaluation ol BOD and Alternate Remedies

The additional field explorations and evaluations conducted since the ESD support theimplementation of permeable reactive barrier technology described in this proposal. DuPontbelieves that these modifications achieve the ROD-specified remedial action objectives (RAOs).This section describes how the PRB remedy achieves the RAOs and evaluates the ROD and ESDremedies as compared to the PRB remedy. The comparative evaluation will consider thefollowing criteria specified in the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution ContingencyPlan:

Q Overall protection of human health and the environmentQ Compliance with ARARsQ Long-term effectiveness and permanenceQ Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatmentQ Short-term effectivenessQ ImplementabilityQ CostQ State acceptanceQ Community acceptance

4.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOs)The remedial alternatives in the ROD address contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, andgroundwater at the Newport site. For the South Landfill, the objectives of the remedy are toprevent the following:

Q Continued releases of contaminants to the groundwater that discharges to the river andthe South Wetlands,

Q Unacceptable human exposure to contaminated soil from the landfill.

The South Landfill remedy selected ir(the ROD consisted of the following elements to achievethe RAOs:

Q Excavation and consolidation of contaminated soil underneath and to the east of BasinRoad onto the South Landfill.

Q In situ soil stabilization of the combined soil using deep-soil mixing technology.Q Capping of the South Landfill with a low permeability (1 x 10-s cm/sec or less) cover.

ftR32U38U S \DOCUMENT CREATIONV7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 4-1

CORPORA!* REMEDIATION OROU*

Oufaal H* Hi* I** Owwi* 0«*

8««t U* fta. *UU«« IT

SECTIONFOUR Comparative Evaluation of ROD and Alternate Remedies

The ROD remedy was selected because it provided a high degree of overall protection of humanhealth and the environment. Stabilization and capping would significantly reduce the ability ofthe contaminants in the South Landfill to migrate where they might contribute to exceededgroundwater maximum contaminariLleYels(MCUand-Siirface«vvater quality standards (SWQS).The cap would also prevent human exposiJe^RTcontaminated soil from the landfill.The ESD remedy consisted of the following elements to achieve the RAOs:

Q In situ treatment of soil with chemical techniques described in Section 3.0.Q Soil-bentonite slurry wall, tied into the natural underlying silty clay zone, that

circumscribes the waste in the South Landfill and Basin Road areas.Q An impermeable geomembrane cap over the South Landfill and Basin Road areas.Q Groundwater extraction to achieve an inward hydraulic gradient.

The ESD remedy was selected because it contained an upgraded containment system (dualbarrier cap and circumscribing wall), met the criteria for selection significantly better, and wascost-effective, among others.As an alternate to the ROD and ESD remedies, DuPont proposes a remedy that consists of thefollowing elements to achieve the RAOs:

Q A reactive barrier consisting of gypsum, zero-valent iron, and inert soil to treat andimmobilize all fill-zone groundwater migrating from the landfill.

Q A soil-bentonite slurry wall along the New Castle County sewer line, connecting with thePRB.

Q A low permeability, single-barrier cap installed over the entire South Landfill and BasinRoad areas. The caps will be tied into the roadway with an asphalt overlap.

Q Geomembrane, soil and stone placed along the riverbank for isolation, erocionand vegetative restoration-

Q Long-term monitoring to ensiireJheHftmetiy HTprotective.f Vj_____ --~~~~~ ^ •»

The proposedfPRB rpfnedy provides a higher degree of overall protection of human health andthe environmeW-tttan the alternates do. The PRB immobilizes barium and zinc, the migratingcontaminants. Additionally, the soil-bentonite slurry wall, PRB, riverbank stabilization, and capwill isolate the waste, further reducing the potential for impact to surrounding groundwater,wetlands, and the river. The low-permeability cap will prevent human exposure to contaminatedsoil from the landfill and significantly reduce the potential for leaching by rainwater infiltration.The riverbank geomembrane and stone will contain waste outside of the slurry wall and preventmigration of contaminants to the river.The proposed performance-standards (see Section 5.3.2) will enhance the remedy'sprotectiveness. In the long terra (as well as the short term), the PRB remedy is more protectiveof human health and theleiwrfonment than the ROD or ESD remedies.

CCAPCM1* MtMOUTON OKOtf

o m trt nm we

fl R 3 2 U 3 8 I S:\OOCU«EMTCREATK)«710»7105.DOCWgUL-Om710R 4-2

SECTIONFOUR Comparative Evaiuatlon of ROD and Alternate Remedies

4.2 NCP CRITERIA COMPARATIVE EVALUATION

4.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentThe ROD, ESD and PRB remedies provide a high degree of overall protection of human aealthand the environment. The ability of contaminants to migrate is significantly reduced by bothstabilization and capping or treatment and containment. Both caps are equally effective inpreventing human exposure to contaminated soil from the landfill. The low-permeability PRBcap will effectively reduce rainwater infiltration and the potential to leach contaminants from thewaste, extending reactive wall life.

4.2.2 Compliance with ARARsMost of the major ARARs for the South Landfill are related to the protection of wetlands, withthe exception of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D closurerequirements and Delaware Regulations Governing Solid Waste (see Table 12 of the ROD). Allremedies meet their respective ARARs. Care will be taken during the design and construction toprevent any adverse effects in the South Wetlands and the Christina River. Riverbankstabilization ensures long-term containment of landfill material outside of the slurry wall andsewer line. Soil placed along with the stone will encourage rapid vegetation of the intertidalzone.

4.2.3 Long-term EffectivenessThe PRB remedy has increased long-term effectiveness when compared to the ROD because itchemically immobilizes the metals of concern, rather than merely reducing percolation (asstabilization would have). Stabilization is susceptible to fracturing because of differentialsettling that will create free pathways for unimpeded contaminant migration. The PRB remedyhas better long-term effectiveness than the ESD because it is designed for long-term migration(hundreds of years) with materials that are either much less soluble (gypsum) or insoluble (iron).The ESD treatment agents were extremely soluble, hence susceptible to flushing from the wasteby infiltration.

4.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through TreatmentThe ROD remedy reduced the mobility of metals through soil stabilization with a cement-typematerial that will increase the waste volume approximately 3 percent (15,000 cubic yards) (Kiber2000). The ESD remedy reduced the mobility of metals by chemically locking (or byimmobilizing) the soluble constituents onto the landfill as insoluble precipitates by an evenlarger (5 percent) volume increase (DuPont 1999). The PRB remedy also immobilizes migratingmetals, however, no volume increase will occur. Hence, the PRB remedy is more effective thanthe ROD or ESD remedies for reducing mobility and volume.

AR32U382* S OOCUMENTCREATK)«riO»7105.DOa7-JUL-OCR7105\ 4-3

SECTIOHFOUR Comparative Evaluation of ROD and Alternate Remedies

4.2.5 Short-term EffectivenessWhile all remedies are equally effective in the short term, the PRB remedy will be faster toimplement because of its proven installation methods. The PRB remedy will not disturb theexisting soil cover until the cap is installed. The ROD and ESD remedies will require twoconstruction seasons for implementation, including over 50 weeks for the soil mixing. The PRBremedy will require one construction season to implement.

4.2.6 ImplementabilityThe PRB technology is easier to implement than either stabilization or in situ chemicaltreatment. The same conventional trenching methods will be used to install both the slurry walland PRB. DuPont has thoroughly evaluated the implementability of all three remedies and peerreviewed the methods with remedial contractors. Soil mixing is much slower and must cover theentire landfill, rather than just the circumference, even when multiple mixing units wereconsidered.The ROD remedy will also greatly restrict and possibly halt traffic along Basin Road duringsignificant periods of time. The PRB remedy would only restrict traffic in one direction (or -another) for only a few weeks. '

4.2.7 CostThe cost for the ROD, ESD and PRB remedies were investigated in detail. Additionaltreatability studies were performed to confirmjhe cost of thp rcnpjcrnedy. The ESP remedv/was re-designed with oil mixing and1nsoluble~gypsum once the high chemical demitedquantified. Thewftiste volume was confirmed to be approximately 500,000 cubic yards.The table that follows summarizes the detailed cost estimates developedforthe KUiJTESD, andPRB remedies (see Appendix C). The current cost estimate for the ROD remedy is S16MM.-The cost estimate for the re-designed ESD remedy is $6MM (soil mixing, gypsum, and a singlebarrier cap). The estimate for the PRB remedy is $3MM.

RR32U383 S:\OOCUMEHT CREATK>NV710a7105.DOC\r-JUL-00\710R 4-4


COST COMPARISONROD, ESD and PRB Remedies

Item

Site PreparationFinal Cover/CapBasin Road ExcavationStabilizationSlurry (& PRB) WallTreatmentCost SubtotalOther Direct Costs

Construction SubtotalContingency (5%)

Total

ROD Remedy(SMM)0.20.41.59.80011.93.715.60.816.4

ESD Remedy(SMM)0.21.3000.22.84.51.56.00.36.3

PRB Remedy(SMM)0.21.3000.602.10.93.00.23.2

4.2.8 State and Community AcceptanceDuPont expects that both the state and community will support the PRB remedy because of itscost-effectiveness and reduced impact on Basin Road traffic.

CORKKATt HBJE1HATTOM

Oifvt n n* we

RR32U381* SADOCUMENTCREATlON\7105\7105.0OC\7-JUL40\7105V 4-5

4.3 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONA summary of the comparative evaluation is provided in the table that follows. The PRB remedyis an innovative technology that significantly immobilizes the contaminants migrating from theSouth Landfill and ensures protection of human health and the environment. The PRB remedymeets the EPA's preference for treatment without increasing waste volume. While offering animproved level of protectiveness, significant cost savings will be realized.

. . -,;?;.. :K.'-^

Evaluation. Criteria:, - - .' -• "tt-'-Kt'iw. -•i--<":-*'3-j•;- ;v: -cS.'rs.'t

RAOsOverall Protection ofHuman Health and theEnvironment

Compliance withARARsLong-termEffectiveness

Reduction of Toxicity,Mobility, or Volumethrough TreatmentShort-termEffectiveness

Implementability

CostState and CommunityAcceptance

Via situ Stabilization^AxiMw11)-* :<-;*V';" •V>-"*<#*£?" ri**>Ar ;«*?.%:

; '.;&&' ft&HSfefatfKMeets RAOsReduces wastepermeability

Cap prevents humanexposure to waste

Meets ARARs

Significantly decreasespermeability of wasteLeaching potential willincrease with time

CTSignificantly reducespermeabilityof wasteVolume increase of 3 %

Two veaf _ _ ,implementation

Soil mixing proven

$ 1 6 millionConcerns raised during

public comments

p^In^situ Chemical ;:£'• ilKrireatnienlt and s!&£

$ (i 3 -$jS&Meets RAOs

Immobilizes metalsIsolates waste from

environmental receptorsCap prevents humanexposure to wasteMeets ARARs

Chemicallyimmobilizes metals

Groundwater extractedto prevent migration to

river or wetlandsWaste permanently

contained**xRainwater infiltration

\ minimizedImmobilizes metals

Volume increase of 5%

*S Two years to. -•- mplcment

Redesign with'soij^ mixing proven \X^ Semjitto'n \

Likely supported \

>; Permeabie-Reactiye Barrier arid

Meets RAOsImmobilizes migrating constituentsIsolates waste from environmental

receptorsCap prevents human exposure to

wasteMeets ARARs

Provides extended capacity for 100'sof years of immobilization.Waste physically contained.

Groundwater migration controlled.Rainwater infiltration minimized.

Immobilizes metalsNo volume increase

One construction season toimplement

Never completely blocks trafficProven methods.

Less surface impact.S3 million

Likely supported

S:\OOCUMENTCREATttW710R710S.OOO7-JUWXW10a 4-6

SECTIONFIVE__________Remedial Goals and Monitoring System

The PRB remedy is consistent with the criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 300, Section430(e)(9)(iii)—the National Contingency Plan—and was developed to ensure that thistechnology for the South Landfill is at least as protective of human health and the environment asthe South Landfill remedy mandated in the ROD and ESD. The proposed performance standardsare consistent with the remedy changes and eliminate standards that are no longer necessary.The performance standards for the elements of the South Landfill remedy that are not changedare not repeated in this Sfigtion.Sections 5.1 and 5.2 ptpvicfeSppropriate uormance standards for the containment system thatwill physically separate tKe waste material and hydraulically control groundwater migration.The performance standards for the proposed soil-bentonite slurry wall (see Section 5.1) are takenfrom elsewhere in the ROD (Section 2.5—North Landfill Physical Barrier Wall) and EPA's priordecisions (EPA 1996a). The performance standards for the reactive barrier are proposed inSection 5.2. The performance standards for the modified cap (see Section 5.3) are taken fromthe ESD (Section 3.3—South Landfill Cap) and modified. Section 5.4 addresses additionalperformance standards which should be modified or deleted.

5.1 SOUTH LANDFILL SOIL-BENTONITE SLURRY WALL CONTAINMENT BARRIER

5.1.1 Remedy DescriptionA soil-bentonite slurry wall will be constructed from the ground surface and keyed into theaquitard that currently separates the waste material from the Columbia Formation sand. Figure 1shows the approximate slurry wall location. The slurry wall will be installed in the locationsalong the river in the portion of the alignment within the waste and join the reactive section ateach end in order to form a continuous barrier.

5.1.2 Performance StandardsThe performance standards for the South Landfill soil-bentonite slurry wall containment barrierare as follows:

Q A soil-bentonite slurry wall will be constructed to extend from the surface to 3 feet intothe clayey silt layer below the waste. The slurry wall will be keyed into the reactivesection to create a continuous barrier. The approximate slurry wall location is shown inFigure 1.

Q The soil-bentonite slurry wall will be 3 feet wide and have a permeability ofI x 10*7 cm/sec or less.

COHMAAT1 RWDWTION <UKX»

CxffMH* Dw we Oummt OM*»

RR32U38D S:tf)OCUMENTCREATIONV7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-Oa7105\ 5-1

SECTIONFI VE Remedial Goals and Monitoring System

5.2 PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIER

5.2.1 Remedy DescriptionA permeable barrier, consisting of gypsum, zero-valent iron, and inert soil will be installed ib~immobilize all constituents of interest except manganese migrating from the site. The wall willbe installed from the current landfill surface and keyed into the underlying marsh deposit.

5.2.2 Performance StandardsThe performance standards for PRB treatment are as follows:

Q A trench will be constructed which connects with the slurry wall in the areas outside of"the landfill materials to create a circumscribing barrier which controls groundwatermigrating from the landfill. The trench will be 3 feet wide and be keyed into theunderlying marsh deposit.

Q The. trench will be filled with reactive agents and sand in a 100:20:5 weight ratio ofsand: gypsum: iron.

Q Approximately ten (10) monitoring wells will be installed in the reactive barrier on 200-foot centers. The wells will be screened across the entire reactive zone.

Q The monitoring wells will be sampled for the constituents of concern (barium, lead, zinc,cadmium, manganese, copper and nickel) and iron on a monthly frequency for one yearand quarterly thereafter Field measurements of pH, eH, and dissolved oxygen will alsobe performed.

5.3 SOUTH LANDFILL CAP

5.3.1 Remedy DescriptionA multilayer cap with a permeability of 1 x 1 0'7 cm/sec or less will be installed over the SouthLandfill. The cap will include a geomembrane, protective soil, and topso/1, as shown in Figure 2

• nOQliQA'T S:\OOCUMEMTCREATlOW7105W105.DOC\7gUL-00\710a 5-2

SEGTIOHFIVE Remedial Goals and Monitoring System

5.3.2 Performance StandardsThe performance standards for the South Landfill cap are as follows:

Q Prior to clearing and grubbing, 32 work-hours will be spent collecting and moving to anew, similar environment any wildlife that is residing in areas to be affected by theremediation.

Q A landfill cap will be installed that completely covers the portion of the South Landfillwith the exception of Basin Road. The engineering design will incorporate the road intothe cap design.

Q The landfill cap will be designed and constructed in such a way as to limit, to themaximum extent practical, any encroachment on the South Wetlands or the ChristinaRiver.

Q The landfill cap will incorporate a single barrier layer and have a maximum permeabilityof 1 x 10'7 cm/sec or less.

Q The landfill cap will be designed and constructed to function with minimummaintenance; to promote drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of the cover; and toaccommodate settling so that the cover's integrity is maintained.

Q The landfill cap will be revegetated in such a way as to provide a high-quality wildlifehabitat, to the maximum extent practical, without attracting burrowing animals that couldendanger the low-permeability layer. The types of vegetation will be identified in theremedial design.

Q A cap for the intertidal riverbank area will consist of geosynthetic membrane, stone andsoil to control erosion and isolate the river from the landfill.

5.4 ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BE MODIFIED OR DELETEDWith the selection of the PRB remedy, the following performance standards can be modifiedwhile continuing to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

3.3.8

3.3.9

3.6.1

Modify to allow cap to tie into Basin Road and not be constructedunder the road. -Modify to allow geocomposite clay liner.Modify to allow PRB section and groundwater migration. X

With the selection of the PRB remedy, the following performance standards are no longerneeded.

AR32H300 S:\DOCUMENTCREATION\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUL-00\7105\ 5-3m*l*f m. 0*»M IIMOOMF

SECTIONFI A E Remedial Goals and Monitoring system

3.8.13.8.23.8.3

3.8.4

3.8.6

3.8.73.8.83.8.93.3.103.7.1through3.7.5

Specifies sodium sulfate and sodium sulfide to treat waste material.Specifies use of a "no-till subsoiler" for application of treatment materials.Specifies a irrigation to supplement rainfall.Specifies containment of infiltration water.Specifies treatment to continue until excess treatment ions are observed inmonitoring wells.Specifies treatment extent.Specifies air monitoring for hydrogen sulfide odors.Specifies calculation of theoretical agent demand.Specifies cap to be constructed under Basin Road.Specifies groundwater pump and treat system.

In addition, other standards may need minor modification or further discussion with EPA toensure the remedy is consistent with the performance standards and vice versa.

RR32U389 S:\DOCUMENTCREATION\7105\7105.DOC\7-JUU-00\7105\ 5-4

SECTIONSIX Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 CONCLUSIONSThe PRB remedy, consisting of a permeable reactive and slurry wall, riverbank stabilization withgeomembrane, single barrier cap, and monitoring, meets all nine NCP selection criteria and is asuperior alternative to both the ROD and ESD remedies.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONSDuPont recommends conditional approval of the conceptual design presented in this report.Approval is conditional on DuPont's demonstration that manganese levels in groundwatermigrating from the wall are reduced by sub-surface conditions to background levels. Water will"reequilibrate" with natural conditions in the aquifer downgradient of the wall i.e., backgroundlevels.

S:\DOCUMENTCREATION\7105\7105.0OC\7-JUL-OQ\7105V 6-1

SECTIONSEVEN___________________ReferencesDERS. August 17, 1993. Manganese in Groundwater in Area of DuPont Newport Superfund

Site.

DuPont. February 24, 2000. November 1999 Ground Water Monitoring Report. NewportSuperfund Site.

DuPont. March 26, 1999. South Landfill Treatability Report.

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

___. August 17, 1995. South Landfill ESD.

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

___. June 28, 1996b. South Landfill.

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

Shacklette, H.T. and Homlein, J.F. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other SurficialMaterials of the Conterminous United States.

Woodward Clyde. May 17, 1991. Phase III Remedial Investigation Data Sufficiency Report.Newport Superfund Site.

CORPORATE Rf MEDIATION WOW

PIM». ««**"• IT

S:\DOCUMENTCREATIONVn05\7105.DOC\7-JUUW7105\ 7-1RR32U39I

SECTIONEIGHT________________Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their appreciation for the untiring commitment to the successof this project made by Dr. Noel C. Scrivner from DuPont Engineering Technology (DuET),Mr. William B. Bazela of the Process Development Group of DuPont Corporate Research andDevelopment, and Mr. William R. Kahl of the W-C Diamond Group.Analytical services were provided by Dr. Jane Ramsey and Mr. Mark McElwee of the DuPontCorporate Center for Analytical Services. Additional analytical services were coordinated byMr. Mike Aucoin of the W-C Diamond Group.Mr. Robert Semenak of Kiber Environmental Services lead the stabilization and permeabilityassessment work.Field support was provided by Mr. Michael Dowger of the URS Corporation and Mr. ThomasMorgan of the W-C Diamond Group.Without their teamwork and energy, this alternative solution would never have been developed.

CORPORATE REMEDIATION CROUP

OuPwtf >M flit WC OUfHM Gnu*

SADOCUMENT CREATION\7105\7105 DOC\7-JUl-00\7105\ 8-1

' . !i 5 i s ji | 5 j . si i § i 5 s i i

ir <!LJ i:> ji .n - >-i S2 y£! iii

O

inIN

£3: °5 501 «1 5 £SLJ ! J 0.J Q' r ? -"co z: J *< < 3 - ?'-i O a: i3 (E rjl O J* W * Zig 1£

4i<S ?sii!,"1 • U• j

j _i:; >,\ 'c5

i. Cri fi C•! f•

-:J

I?i i

i|

',!

' :

35 I / ft I N /— I / .• » / _ / , g

0)CD i / / i / «r ^ ; i LU r<Dc03O)C

CD

siO) oO m- - ' ' r^

ca^___________* ' *CN

coCO4—'C

<po

o>

O>T

<*>- **. <=>. -T <x>

AR32U395

ftR32l»396

APPENDIX A

HR32l»397

June 28, 2000

To: P. Brandt ButlerCRG/WCD

From: John A. WilkensCR&D

Newport South Landfill:Laboratory Development of Data for a

Permeable Reactive Wall

Permeable Reactive Wall -• Developmental Basis

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

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

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

AR32t*398

Laboratory Batch Tests •• Procedures

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

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

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

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

Analytical Procedures

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

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

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

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

Laboratory Batch Tests — Results .

Barium concentrations were reduced from 290,000 ppb to less than 500 ppb by theaddition of 0.5 weight percent of CaSO HjO, through the precipitation of BaSO4. This ;twas substantially lower than the required 7,800 ppb standard. Additional gypsum ]concentrations decreased barium levels to a minimum of approximately 150 ppb;illustrative results are shown in the following table: r|

WL3fe CaSO4.2H2O0.514929

Barium cone., ppb290,000492416224177143

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

Wt % ZVI0.51

2 and higher

Zinc cone., ppb10203839<10

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

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

AR32U399

-3

OenCDO

CO (D

= > I I §>s 2 QQS:^^ — — —•c c a i» .2 £ ,1e u • «o « a SS- 3 "8 EE « ™ §

«i o « £ 5a ^i JJ -•oC O (D01 t> OI §.ao

ozc(Q

3° in c\j o o<N co o o•CI *- CM 9 9o o 1 A " " "S H y- O Nii o CO ?~

o^< X

omXc .— •—E 5 5

n'i_a>

c3EC£oS

1

apCD

C(C"o11U

a

Si*

xS

S5

"a(0

|

KT=-

5.X

§XS

3?

g6<r

waa.

0

S

a>"5T3

o>O>i.H

O>(0

U

£a

D)

3S

O>0O)to

O

u

oo

uu

cn

X

I

OO

,-O

8<M

SinCM

8O

§O

8O

§O

-mCM

8inCM

So

sd

ooo

oooo

oo

f

*

gCM

CO

CM

COtoO

TCMtoO

8o

§o

CM

inCM

•*CM

CMO

CMIDO

Oino

ooo

ino

(Oo

§CM

to

CM

CM

inCM

"

8o

ooo

CO

inCM

$•VCM

O

2

O)

CD

OOo

ino

mo

8COCM

COO)COCM

O

CM

O>

CM

8o

8O

*CM

COO>COCM

O

CM

(OO)

OCMOO

IftO

mo

8CMCM

S

CM

CMOt

5>

*

8o

8O

in

inCM

3

CM

CM

CM

inCOCO

ooo

ino

ino

8CM

8OCM

<Oo>

8cn

8o

8O

<o

inCM

CDoCM

5IDo>

5oCOoo

ino

inoT-

8o>T-

scn

a>o>T-

cn-

8o

8O

r-

mCM

COCOo>

tri

*

O)oO)

ooo

ino

ino

8in

Sin

CMOCOCM

COOCOCM

8o

8O

CO

CM

sin

CM

oi

8COCM

r*.COCD

ooCMC)

ino

h>o

§8

9S

CM

S

COT-

toCO

8o

8O

cn

mCM

CO

oio

r-«10

iCOTf<M

OCOCOo

ino

(OoT-

88

CMto£

ID

^

SCM

8o

8O

O

mCM

1

<r>

in(D

3r-inCOCM

ooo

ot o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _CD

a>

0a 0

I iD)CM 5?j OQ * o>tt = 3= S 2 CO

g » ^£ * ~3 9 •*•

o -c *•1 §•?

c 5

4

.-«*

a

S

0)

2 E 2 ro O fc S 'Si 2 ^ B L f ^ 5 ^ * •• ia: -3 o x 5 -5 -5

5 5 > >j

AR32UUOO '!

^c(/ci

c5c£Qaaa

tl *Ui I

CNCO««O!LU

0)O)(0Q.

V.

EDZ•*

0)oz

oo

s~

«jTOQC.0a3

TRO

CaSO4

N>-XcVcoaou

oooCM

£*~

aoa.Va.A(0

0i£0cn"3(00tr

xiouosaCO

.0aa(0

.O

2«->0UOooc

cDC"5•oc111«XQ

IR

6z

0*•10

aoCL

£?z

V"w

z

0Sou.

ou075CO

w

aa.

S"5£

c7xI

OCM

8CM

OOin

oom

ooo

oooco"

oooCM"

oo

d

ginCM

Sd

-

SCO

g

in

ooo

ooo

8oCOCO

oo

T

omood

8ooo

CM

CM

OOm

ooin

ooo

8oco"

ooo•<*(Min

mo

COd

oo5d

o8oo

to

IOCO

ooin

ooin

og

oooCO"

ooooCMin

ino

COd

o

d

|o

»

mCO

oom

m

ooo

ooo

§OJCOin

ino

ind

oSd

|o

in

in

oom

ooin

ooo

ooo

oooom

mo

ind

o>a.h-od

oo

CO

T-

8m

0in

§

oooiri

oo0cn3ino

ind

o8d

ooooo

r-

CMs

gin

m

ooo

oooCD*

8oCOin

ino

md

CMooCMd

|o

CO

•

$

sOsooo

8osoooCOCO

ino

r-d

o

d

ooooo

cn

<D

8in

0in

§

ooodCM

Og

OCD

mo

COd

S

d

ooooo

o

1«BOIeoO2—0

a.CO

(BZ

z

c£

o£

a.

0u.

3U

aO

•oo

55

cN

aa

d

oCOCM00

OO•<*•CM

O

O

mCOCO

oT—

oCO<£>

O

mCM

oooO)CM

-

OCOr-co

oo

5

_

o

CDCM

COCOoCM"

oooCOCO

o

inCM

CMO)

CM

oo>oo>

oocnCM

^

o

COCM

CM"

§£

o

mCM

CO5

CO

oCOmO)

oo

5CO

o

CM

CO

ogoCD

O

mCM

CO

»

oo

-ooCO

5

CO

o

CM

mO)

ooomCO

o

inCM

CM(M

in

ginCO

gCOoCD

^

O

oO)

CMCDCO

OOO

£

o

inCM

*

CO

ooo^

ooCOCMCD

^

O

f-m

CO

ogoaCO

o

mCM

r--

-

oom

ooCOCO00

CO

o

o>

oCOr*.

goN.CO

o

inCM

m

CO

ooCOCM

O8O)CM

OCM

O

OlCO

S00

ooooN-

o

inCM

CO

a

ooCMCMCO

8oCOTf

OCM

O

O

O)CM

OOOCOCOCD

O

inCM

CO

o

TEa

CaC 55 x JK £ ? 8 2 S g g > 8 8 8 M e m i n i n m i n i n m i n i n i n S£

Q CD

UJOin+COCO

fl

E

flj

x

ccc11

"3Fi2

c3CC•5•oUJ

o

Ii

sX

s

§i

O)

I1-

5>X2

2

58?

56£5

inQ.

00£

O)

1<

cn&i.

O)

1tJ

O»

1O)

S

D)

1

6

8

uu

8

at

_x

I

2

o

oh-

ginCM

8inCM

8d

io

8O

8O

-CM

8inCM

8d

8d

8d

8oo

or*.

<*•

8CM

O>

CM

inCMtoo

inCMtoo

8O

8O

CM

inCM

o>Z

8d

3d

oind

m8o

or--

tnr-

o00

CM

CMCO

CM

5CM^

00CM

"8O

8O

CO

CM

8!•*CM

eoc>

inCM

O>O>d

ooo

or-

^

S3

5CM

iCM

CO3CM

8O

So

-CM

3CM

8d

o>CM

8

OCMOO

inr*-

COh-

OCO

3

CM

3

SCD

*

CMfe*

8O

§O

in

atCM

1

d

r-o>

mCOCO

oSo

o00

inCO

otoS3

O)inc3

e>So>

io>

8O

So

to

If)CM

o>U)mCM

5

oi

5oCOoo

o00

m00

oCMCOCM

CM

CN

K$9CM

COCM

8O

8O

-mCM

CMCO

CD

3CM

Oioo>

8o

OCO

O)00

sCM

S

CM

iCM

CO

S8O

So

CO

CM*

CM

CO

CO

CM

(OCO

8CMO

OCO

T-

O)

oooo>

COo>

tomO)inCO

COO)CO

8O

8O

o>

inCM

COo>

COCDin

3S

CO

CM

§O

oCO

•o>

oCM00

CM00

S^a*8O

8O

O

if)CM

CMto

(O

CO

§

inCOCM

1O

incoc4CMT~COaUJ

ffi Q Q>

§§^° e C Q. iE § O t *OJ e = n* mnH p JS S

a, 3 -O cE S Q C

^^ 1 2i. O IB ^I o 8 *i §•D JQ

i ii

in Q o oCM O O Oj q o

o W3 JL II II II

w 8, £o ?r ,^« xa

<5

3 £« O tI O. £1 Q w >•3 ^ T ^60.O -O » Q. 3 Q.

! 11 ill

« S « 0 « 3 a a

1a:*e£ § *

3 5 O x f3 £ S 73 -5 -I

* ^ £ 1 I 11 :1CC Q

C 55o

' x x x x 18 x? 2 2 2 2 5 2

S n ii ii ii ii it ii

3 •')CDNCOCD

X K -S ^2 t 2 fe mn 5 O fc ^ f6 :=

t r - g O x S - s - s - g ^

Iucu

00J~aaa

aaci

3*fl =ita

Ca

Cc/tc.

mmrM^00OILL

0)O)(0Q.iik.U).a3ZJCOoJQOOZ

oooCMr-T—

O**«Qc_o(D3aCDO

•o**cnUJoin+00

mto£ia.NX*-0)coa.oO

ooCD

5

o**(CQa£o!.OCB

w

a*•0Hk.0Cat<0"30)0CC

£X*••

nOUaO5

aCO

Aaa«

oncentratit

Ococ<

c3CC"o13cUJ+*IB

O

b.p.a.

t_ffiLL

6Z

Phosphate

0w

z

0**f**z

Fluoride

02™o£O

0**(D

3(/>

SnQ.

k05£

CM

ioCM

i

ooin

ooom

Sin

ooin

oooh-co

oom

r

r*-

ooinCM

ooo

-

ooin

oooin

ooin

ooin

oSeo'CO

OOin

(

t -

om

d

o8od

CM

OOin

oooin

oom

oom

oooh-"CO

ooo

r

CO

oood

od

CO

8m

8o*t

oom

oom

oooCOCO

ooo

r*-

r-

ooCMOd

o8od

•«)•

ooin

o8n-

oom

oom

oooco"CO

ooo

CO

CO

CDO>COOd

Sood

m

ooin

oooCO

oom

oom

o8d0)

ooo

CO

0>

COod

od

CO

Sin

oooCM

8in

oom

ooodo>

ooo

CO

o>

ood

ooood

r

oom

oSCM

OOm

ooin

oSCM"O)

ooo

CO

<»

SoCMd

sood

CO

ooin

o8r-

8in

Sin

o8CO"O)

8o

CO

0>

8d

|d

at

in

oooCO

ooin

ooin

oooN."O)

§CO

cn

Sd

od

o

DQQ(0C<o*p*S**c0uouTo%£

aCO

aZ

*

Z

c£

o£

JSa.

0U.

3U

aU

•ou

<

N

ACD

d

ooCMCOm

ooinm

inCM

t -CO•*

O0OICO

•<)•

CO<J>

•<*

oomCMCO

•f

oCO

oCMO_

Ooo>COCO

-

oooCO

ooco"m

CM00

oomm

oor-cnCO

ooCM£

o

SS

8CO

S

CM

OOomin

ooCOs

O)g

sCOr*-

ooCOdTf

SCOo>r

o

a>CO

§ao

CO

S00a.m

SO)m

CO01CO

sCOo>

8CO

oRCO

o

o

§oCO

•«*•

8CM

8

oCOo<o

CMcS

sf-CO

oCMcnCO"

ooO)CO00

o

o

oor-.<oh-

m

§0>IO

s•fl-ee

oTf

sr*.

SCO

ooinS

o

o

§5

CO

oor*..o>in

oCOCO

5

SCOin

r-.S

§o•*

o

o

8COmm

h-

Sa>O)m

oCMOCO

COCM

£

CO•«-

5

8CMinCM

O

o

8COCO

CO

X

X

XX

XX

XXX

XX

XX

3X

XX

XxX

XX

XX

XX

8•*r-

o>

ooCOCOin

o00CMo>

o

9.t"

•*

o

•*

8CMOCM

t

O

O

8a>f-CM

O

OOoCM^CM

a>ITCOatQ

raoamm5COcoJ£

3<~3

RR32UU03

Laboratory Column Tests - Procedures J

Continuous-flow column tests were then run to determine the performance over time of a '• "fproposed reactive wall mix on the South Landfill groundwater. Two independent tests Iwere run, on barium-rich and zinc-rich waters. These waters were taken from thehighest-concentration wells for barium and zinc in the current field sampling, and ' 1differed from the sources (no longer available) used for the batch tests. i

A standard Delaware Department of Transportation material, mason sand, was chosen as 1the base material for the PRW. From permeability data (developed by Kiber 2 iEnvironmental), it was determined that 20 weight percent gypsum could be mixed withthe mason sand and maintain a permeability (6 x 10"4 cm/sec). This is greater than that of "! fthe landfill material, and thus will permit flow of groundwater out of the landfill. The *composition of groundwater leaving the landfill at any point is not known with certainty,so that it is not possible to delineate zinc-removal and barium-removal portions of thePRW. Consequently, one wall composition was chosen to accommodate both the worst-case barium and zinc levels. Based on the batch tests and a projection of reactant needs,a mix composition was chosen with parts by weight of:

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

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

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

Laboratory Column Tests -- Apparatus

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

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

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

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

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

AR32H06

OutletFlow

Newport South Landfill Column Test

Column Pressure Drop Measurements

outlet

Pressure drop across column= Plnlet " Poutlet

inlet

Inlet Flow

NOTES:

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

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

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

end of reactive sections

AR32H07

Laboratory Column Tests - Results

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

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

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

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

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

AR32M408

Newport South LandfillBarium and Zinc Removal Column Tests

Date

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

RunDay

234567891011121415182022252629

Zinc WatFeed

Ba ppb 1 Zn ppb70,500 nr68,50072,50070,00074.60074,60068.00072.50071,50074,60071,80072,40079,30055,20054,00049.40054.40056.80070,500

nrnrnr

168158827

1,710950368195926966

1,0505406735816357

pr Columns /from weCor

Bappb4,83029.30053.50059,00061,80064,00094,70070,00066,40062.10056,10056,10062,20073,00053,00044,60055,00052,40052,700

trolZn ppb

nrnrnrnrndndndndndndndndndndndndndndnd

1 RDW'Dpea

Ba ppb640480453nr

114nr

183109113871731739196801336648

<100

ptiveZnppb

nrnrnrnrndndndndndndndndndndndndndndnd

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

AR32UI409

Newport South LandfillBarium and Zinc Removal Column Tests ]

Date

3-183-19 j3-203-213-223-233-243-253-263-273-283-303-314-34-54-74-104-124-14

RunDay

234567891011121415182022252629

Barium VjFeed

Bappb 1 Znppb496.000 1 nd518.000551,000601,000600.000417,000293,000421,000430,000441,000402,000426.000513,000617.000587,000392,000348,000372,000420.000

ndndndndndndndndndndndndndndndndndnd

ater Columns /from weControl

Ba ppb I Zn ppb214.000! nd473,000509.000464,000564.000475.000281.000418.000377,000416.000363.000439.000546.000381,000549.000448.000348.000395,000

nr


1 RDW-21Reactive

Ba ppb 1 Zn ppb1.11o| nd1.100800

1.000328344446609617661

1,0001,1601.1901,000863692824824nr


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

Newport South Landfill laboratory Column TestFull Metals Analysis, ppb

NaMqAtKCaMnFeNiCuCdPb

NaMqAlKCaMnFeNiCuCdPb

Run Day 9

Zinc WaterFeed54.34518.393<10

4.87569,008

114<1012<415<4

Control83.37930.026

196,36365,235

<10408<457<4<4

Reactive83,34927,821

176,480

606,986583

3,64622<4<4<4

Barium WaterFeed

8.218118<10

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

Control10,526

<10<10

33,4568,726<10<10<4<4<4<4

Reactive11,300

<1020

33.863592.178

<103.381

19<4<4<4

Run Day 20

Zinc WaterFeed41,45015,252

<104,09452,190

6237511<4<4<4

Control | Reactive66,20722,040

155.45951.919

<10299<4<4<4<4

67,42023,177

<105,627

599,024209

3,61319<4<4<4

Barium WaterFeed I Control7.699153<10

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

11,193<10<10

40,1168,304<10<10<4<4<4<4

Reactive11,984

<1032

40,084581,750

<103,436

19<4<4<4

AR32HII

Wall Life Projections ?

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

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

Cap Case

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

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

InfiltrationRate,

in. H2O/yr6

0.10.02

Wall Flux,cm3/cm2/day

1.24

.0207.00413

Field Years/Lab Day

.054

3.2716.4

Wall Life,Years

1.5

90450

Field Well-Column Test

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

JAR32HI2 !

Acknowledgements

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

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

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

RR32UU13

APPENDIX B

II£• £ to CN CN-t, >• p co CD

*:c jo t- i- g, o co mc o h- -g i? CN t- CD5 TJ <° .o CN p— o ™ 2 *~ <£>O mO "- £^ w H* o h- r-^ QJ II co O> LO COo ? (/) ^ o -^t CT> h-c ro K £, P °> OT£ ™ £ £ S CN rr0 O ^ -O Q. -r-

,n o CO P ° > °9 "* I*-J£ S >» " O IE ^ S^ <° «>0 « r o ^ - g ^ b - g o co o+-• J» -o o °- — " o o o01 £ 7 5 - < - - a r o 2 ? > ' <^ o oo: 58 j s s a ^ o o Q_ -^ o co5 ° ° rSO . ;. 10 °— LU >, tf) tf) o)0 3 S - g x > , > > > ,

I « ii ii § S K S_ * 5 ^ C E i1*- p CN co0) .9 'w ft -Si '•*- " o co co•O " - O - y c O - D q •<-O o E E £<i«— Q. O O JD __

"^ ^^ ? 8^ ss |°UJ E E °CN-T- *- O OX W COCNC ^_. -* p co0 a5 8 ^S?" S m S - K - ^ « » ro< D O J O « ( / ) -u -a -oJg CO Jq .5.0) n n 11 11 n £j ^ ^/ S o ) C M O c . r o £ 5 < $ >>E >,£ >.ECD .:=:' W P - D ^ O T - X ; coo coo roo05 03 CO - § C5= ^ | S,lco »5 co «5coCr"S - S ° - ¥^ « t E ™EE ™£E^rQJ u>o 5 n -ooo -coo TJ O Ow CD O•r^ > Q=X C M C O O O O C 3 5 h - C O ^ r - < tm ^ n ^ J C N C O ^ C M C D O C O T - O_i« C " LL - < - C N l C O p C M ( D p p^ ~ ~ T t - ^ ^ o P ^ O OO "^ O^ f7O} ro ii -il ii n .11 n n JL nO ™ — ® * — v — ® • *§ r a > 3 r o > 5 - c o > DX o 5 . 5 = 5 5 = 5 5 ==J -Q c c crr co — — —LL a> a> o)

S E E E0) O -,53 •*= :c5*C **~ 0) 0) (I)1 - > 0 0 0m 5 c c c.;:; o <D 'w -22 £ 2 -=r

CO O O CO

a>- ai *" «01 m T>

_ " M* »j* fit *** —, ^ ^

/ *•* 1— _ * ^ > t. > c

** .*; 111 ifj CQ (Q ^ - ( ^ LO t • lO CN LO

£ ™ " 11 i *ro ? X m

gl ff-§ < 5 11 S .. Q iic co <5 -S *£ n S H 51 ii "ro n ^ ii IT- ii B iiIj ^ -S O *-> _. UJ _ IS __ r- _ «» *_ -*~*» _ *S _Jj: -t—" _ __ > w (0 [** i -*~ CO ™ fe fl) "* S

I. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis is lo estimate the average annual infiltration for the capping systemsconsidered for the South Landfill facility. The caps are as follows:

Case 1: 6" of topsoil

Case 2: 6" of topsoil Case 2-1: 6" of topsoil12" of barrier soil 12*' of fill

12" of barrier soil

Case 3: 6" topsoil Case 3-1: 6" topsoilben'tonite mat 12" of fill

bentonite mat

Case 3a: 6" topsoil Case 3a-l: 6" topsoildrainage net 12" of fillbentonite mat drainage net

bentonite mat

Case 4: 4" asphalt Case 4-1: 4" asphalt8" stone 8" stonesynthetic liner 24" of wastebentonite mat

Case 4a: 4" asphalt Case 4a-l: 4" asphalt8" stone 8" stonedrainage net drainage netsynthetic liner 24" of wastebentonite mat

Case 5: 6" of topsoil12" of fillsynthetic liner12" of barrier soil

Case 5a: 6" of topsoil12" of filldrainage netsynthetic liner12" of barrier soil

Case 6: Existing cover of 5* of silty/clayey soil

Note that the only difference between cases 3, 4, 5 and 3a, 4a, 5a is the presence of the drainage net.Cases 2-1. 3-1 and 3a-1 are introduced to investigate the effect of an additional 12" layer of fill onCases 2. 3 and 3a. Cases 4-1 and 4a-1 differ from Cases 4 and 4a in that they lack the synthetic linerand the bentonite mat. The layer of waste in Cases 4-! and 4a-l is introduced because a lateraldrainage layer, such as stone or drainage net, can not be the lower-most layer in HELP.

•'URS_BUFF2\SYS\EXCHANGE\EXCHANGE\Wokasien.John\DuPont_southlandfill_infiltrl.doc07'05/00 7:42 AM

RR32UM&

2. DESIGN DATA

Climatological data

Climatological data was selected from the HELP data base for the location of Wilmington. DE. Thedaily precipitation, temperature and solar radiation input was generated synthetically for the period of100 years.

Evapotranspiration data

Evapotranspiration parameters pertaining to the Climatological data are obtained from the HELP database for the location of Wilmington. DE.

In typical topsoils vegetated with grass, the evapotranspiration zone depth in relatively moist climates,such as in Delaware, is likely to be approximately 21 inches. Value of 21 inches was used in thiscalculation. However, the thickness of the zone available for the root growth is less than that for allcases considered in this analysis, except for Cases 2-1 and 6. For the remaining cases either the entirethickness of the cap is less than 21 inches or the thickness available for root growth is limited by thepresence of the bentonite mat or a synthetic liner. Therefore, the actual depths of theevapotranspiration zone are:

Case I: d = 6 inchesCase 2: d = 18 inchesCase 2-1: d = 21 inchesCase 3: d = 6 inchesCase 3-1: d = 18 inchesCase 3a: d = 6 inchesCase 3a-1: d = 18 inchesCase 5: d = 18 inchesCase 5a: d = 18 inchesCase 6: d = 21 inches

Note that the details of the cap construction are not yet specified. If till is placed to create a uniformlygraded subgrade. the evapotranspiration zone may extend deeper into the fill. Also, depending on thenature of the waste, the root growth may occur within the waste itself. For this analysis, it was assumedthat there is no grading fill, and that the roots will not grow into the waste.

The cap configuration in Cases 4,4-1, 4a and 4a-1 is different from the remaining cases because thesurface is covered with asphalt. This, for all practical purposes, eliminates the evapotranspiration.Therefore, only a nominal evapotranspiration zone was assumed (d = O.I inches).

The maximum leaf area index was selected to be 2.0, based on the typical value for the poor to fairstand of grass.

LAI -2.0

For the asphalt cap, the maximum LAI is zero (no vegetation).

Q:vEXCH ANGE\Wokasien.John\DuPont_southlandfill_infiltrl.doc07/05/00 7:38 AM

flR32l»M7

Runoff parameters

It was assumed that the typical slopes of the landfill surface will be 4 percent, and that surface watercollection swales will be located every 200 feet. The surface type for the calculation of the CN curvenumber was based on a poor stand of grass.

S - 4 %L = 200 feetPoor grass

For the asphalt cap. the CN number was user-specified at the value of 95. This was assumed based onthe TR55 guidance for asphalt parking lots.

Soil data

Soil and material types were selected from the HELP data base. Properties are listed in Table 4 of theHELP manual. Short descriptions are provided below:

Existing soil: HELP soil type #12, silty clayTopsoil: HELP soil type #6, sandy loamFill: HELP soil type #4, loamy sandBarrier soil: HELP soil type #16, barrier soil (clay), hydraulic conductivity = I *IO"7 cm/sStone: HELP soil type #21, gravelBentonite mat: HELP material type # 11Synthetic liner: HELP material type #36, LDPE, 40 mil, good quality installationDrainage net: HELP material type #20

Asphalt was modeled by assuming that its properties are similar to those of a barrier soil layer (HELPsoil £16). This is probably a good assumption regarding hydraulic conductivity (on the order of 10"cm/sec). Remaining soil properties, such as wilting point and field capacity, are probably not relevantto asphalt.

The waste was modeled as a clayey soil with the hydraulic conductivity of 1.7*10"? cm/s (HELP soil-15).

Q: EXCHANGE\Wokasien, John\DuPont_southlandfill_infiltrl.doc07'05/DO 7:38 AM

AR32HI8

************************************************************ **** **** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.05 (30 MARCH 1996) **** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY *** * *** * **************************************************************************************************************************************************************

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\predupl.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\temdupl.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\SOrdupl.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\evadupl.DllSOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\capdup3a.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\outdup3a.OUT

TIME: 14:32 DATE: 3/20/2000

********************************************* **jfcj>- * * * * > • *'*A* * ** * ***************

TITLE: DuPont S. Landfill Case 3a-ff - 6" topsoil, 12" fill, )&rainage net,bentonite mat, veoetated

******************************************* * * * * ** * * * * *-* * **********************

NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERECOMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.

LAYER

TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 6

THICKNESS = 6.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.4530 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.1900 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0850 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.1877 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.720000011000E-03 CM/SEC

NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.

LAYER



LAYER

TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 20

THICKNESS = 0.20 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.8500 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0100 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0050 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.1107 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 10.0000000000 CM/SECSLOPE = 4.00 PERCENTDRAINAGE LENGTH - 200.0 FEET

LAYER

TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINER• MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 17

THICKNESS = 0 . 3 0 INCHES \POROSITY = 0.7500 VOL/VOL *FIELD CAPACITY = 0.7470 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.4000 VOL/VOL '!INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.7500 VOL/VOL IEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.300000003000E-08 CM/SEC

GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA

NOTE : SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULTSOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 6 WITH APOOR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 4 . %AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 200. FEET.

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 80.60FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTRR32UU20

AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = .18.2 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 3.357 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 8.132 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 1.075 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 3.582 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 3.582 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA

NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROMWILMINGTON DELAWARE

STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 18.2 INCHESAVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %

NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWARE

NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)

JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54

NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWARE

31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50

NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USINGCOEFFICIENTS FOR WILMINGTON DELAWAREAND STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREES

RR324U2I

*******************************************************************************"!

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

JAN/JUL

3.283.88

1.671.87

0.6630.078

0.9230.215

0.8193.378

0.2781.287

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

1.24550.1429

1.36710.3116

FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

2.983.97

1.452.39

1.1730.107

1.2140.226

0.7853.161

0.4181.204

LAYER 3

0.92020.4367

1.15130.9148

4.083.47

1.882.16

0.6090.130

1.0100.245

2.3162.589

0.4240.967

2.39920.7339

1.62611.0661

3.392.85

1.461.84

0.0180.070

0.0500.192

3.1382.068

0.7630.797

0.73720.6082

0.83900.9960

3.393.12

1.631.64

0.0210.046

0.0560.112

3.3311.245

1.1390.232

0.32311.0277

0.52101,2879

3.463.35

1.831.72

0.0490.167

0.1210.433

3.7320.931

1.3010.177

0.28151.6761

0.54001.4233

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

AVERAGES

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON

0.00240.0003

0.00160.0005

OF MONTHLY

0.00150.0008

0.00150.0012

AVERAGED

0.00360.0014

0.00110.0015

0.00270.0012

0.00100.0014

0.00180.0021

0.00120.0016

0.00070.0033

0.00090.0014

DAILY HEADS (INCHES)

TOP OF LAYER 4. _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ • n n o I. i. *•» o

AVERAGES 0.0533 0.0440 0.1037 0.0328 0.0139 0.01260.0062 0.0188 0.0327 0.0262 0.0458 0.0723

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0585 0.0551 0.0703 0.0374 0.0225 0.02410.0134 0.0394 0.0475 0.0429 0.0574 0.0614

********************************************************************************

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100

INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT

PRECIPITATION 41.20 ( 6.096) 149568.3 100.00

RUNOFF 3.133 ( 2.1088} 11371.43 7.603

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 27.494 ( 3.4881) 99803.07 66.727

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 10.53222 ( 3.61431) 38231.949 25.56152FROM LAYER 3

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH ( 0.02197 ( OX?0518) 79.747 0.05332LAYER 4

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0.039 ( 0.013)OF LAYER 4

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.000 ( 1.0649) 0.02 0.000

*******************************************************************************

AR32t*l»23

******************************************************************************

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

PRECIPITATION 5.26 19093.801

RUNOFF 3.034 11012.0889

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 3 1.63809 5946.27100

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 4 0.000858 3.11324

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 2.263

MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 4 3.926

LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 3(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 20.4 FEET

SNOW WATER 6.60 23975.8555

MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.3173

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.0591

*** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. ***

Reference: Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Linerby Bruce M. McEnroe, University of KansasASCE Journal of Environmental EngineeringVol. 119, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 262-270.

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 100

LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)

1 1.1240 0.1873

2 2.2118 0.1843

3 0.0223 0.1113

4 0.2250 0.7500

SNOW WATER 0.000

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

****************************************************************************** !"1

****************************************************************************** : I

** **

* * * * t ,

** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE ** .|** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.05 (30 MARCH 1996) ** J** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION ** ';** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** I

*************** *.* ***************************************************************************************************************************

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\predupl.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\temdupl.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\sordupl.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\evadupl.DllSOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\capdup6.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\outdup6.OUT

TIME: 11:52 DATE: 2/21/2000

*********************************** * * * * * ** n-* ******** *TT*-**A***** ****

TITLE: DuPont S. Landfill Case &.- Existing conditions (5 >ft of soil)*****************************************************************


LAYER



NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 3.00FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.

AR32UU26


NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULTSOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE #12 WITH APOOR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 4.%AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 200. FEET.

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 91.80FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 21.0 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 7.588 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 9.891 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 4.410 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 23.566 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 23.566 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR



STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX * 2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH * 21.0 INCHESAVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %



JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC Q-;

3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54


NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)


31.20 33.20 41.80 52.4.0 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50


*******************************************************************************I

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100 J

!JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.28 2.98 4.08 3.39 3.39 3.463.88 3.97 3.47 2.85 3.12 3.35

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.67 1.45 1.88 1.46 1.63 1.831.87 2.39 2.16 1.84 1.64 1.72

RUNOFF

TOTALS 0.966 1.445 1.175 0.290 0.301 0.4360.536 0.651 0.696 0.454 0.398 0.580

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.993 1.314 1.206 0.346 0.368 0.5130.595 0.833 0.797 0.640 0.524 0.704

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 0.788 0.769 2.271 3.296 3.382 4.0333.156 2.874 2.524 2.137 1.119 0.844

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.258 0.402 0.432 0.678 1.159 1.2011.176 1.220 0.962 0.775 0.250 0.181

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 1

TOTALS 1.0200 0.8288 1.2119 1.2588 0.5936 0.17760.0423 0.0120 0.0510 0.1316 0.1603 0.5828

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.8319 0.6953 0.8669 0.6683 0.3455 0.24710.1459 0.0588 0.2484 0.2907 0.3251 0.9457 ,

J****************** ***************************************

AR32H28 '!

*******************************************************************************

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100

INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT

PRECIPITATION 41.20 ( 6.096) 149568.3 100.00

RUNOFF 7.928 ( 2.8538} 28778.75 19.241

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 27J.9? (_3.4179) 98709.46 65.996

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUQH 6.07057 ( 2.24309) 22036.182 14.73319LAYER 1

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.011 ( 1.8144) -38.19 -0.026

AR32UU29


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)


RUNOFF 3.387 12293.9980


SNOW WATER 6.60 23975.8555



******************************************************************************

AR32H30 . j

******************************************************************************

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 100_ _ _ _ _ _ . ^ ^ . _ _ _ * _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ . » _ _ - _ _ _ _ — ___ — _^ — — ,. — .— — — — — _ _ _ — _ . « - _ _ _ v * _ _ _ v _ _ _ — -^.k_ — ^ _ _ ™ . ^ . _ ^ _ * _

LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)

1 22.5144 0.3752

SNOW WATER 0.000

************************************************************************************************************************************************************

AR32Ul»3l

•= ************************************************************************************************************************************************************* * 1* * * * .. j** **** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE ** "]** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.05 (30 MARCH 1996) ** .•** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION ** >** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY ** I** **** . * ******************************************************************************* I****************************************************************************** ,j

PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\predupl.D4TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\temdupl.D7SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\sordupl.D13EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\HELP3\evadup3.DllSOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\HELP3\capdup4.D10OUTPUT DATA FILE: C : \HELP3 \OUtdup 1 . OUT

TIME: 14:38 DATE: 3/20/2000

******************************************

TITLE: DuPont S. Landfill Case

******************************************* * *"*ir*"* <n ******* *•* * * fr-mr* * ************


LAYER 1



LAYER RR32UU32

TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 21

THICKNESS = 8.00 INCHESPOROSITY = 0.3970 VOL/VOLFIELD CAPACITY = 0.0320 VOL/VOLWILTING POINT = 0.0130 VOL/VOLINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0321 VOL/VOLEFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.300000012000 CM/SECSLOPE = 4.00 PERCENTDRAINAGE LENGTH = 200.0 FEET

LAYER

TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINERMATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 15



NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS USER-SPECIFIED.

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 95.00FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENTAREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRESEVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 0.1 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE - 0.037 INCHESUPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.043 INCHESLOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.037 INCHESINITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHESINITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 13.324 INCHESTOTAL INITIAL WATER = 13.324 INCHESTOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR



STATION LATITUDE = 39.80 DEGREESMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEKp O 0 U Ii 3 3 = °-°°

START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 107END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 298EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 0.1 INCHESAVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 9.20 MPHAVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.00 %AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY - 67.00 %AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 71.00 %




3.11 2.99 3.87 3.39 3.23 3.513.90 4.03 3.59 2.89 3.33 3.54


NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)


31.20 33.20 41.80 52.40 62.20 71.2076.00 74.80 67.80 56.30 45.60 35.50


*******************************************************************************

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100— — — ^ — — — — — — _ — — -__ — _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ „ _ _ -_ _ ^ _ , - _ _ — - _ _ _ . ^ _ _ _ _ _ * _ _ _ _ . f c _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _» — _ _ _ _ _


PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 3.28 2.98 4.08 3.39 3.39 3.463.88 3.97 3.47 2.85 3.12 3.35

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.67 1.45 1.88 1.46 1.63 1.831.87 2.39 2.16 1.84 1.64 1.72

RUNOFFI

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

2.5383.353

1.6581.649

0.5180.521

0.1640.368

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

2.6293.400

12

00

00

.478

.122

.434

.563

.157

.347

3.3.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

693106

848950

683364

276272

2.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

682549

172693

707296

383217

2.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

732690

350514

649393

374174

2.2.

1.1 .

0.0.

0.0.

960725

587530

498396

347144

LAYER 2

00

00

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

AVERAGES OF

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP

AVERAGES

STD. DEVIATIONS

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS

0.02290.0032

0.01160.0026

MONTHLY

00

00

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

3

.0139

.0042

.0122

.0035

AVERAGED

OF LAYER

0.00030.0000

0.00010.0000

*******

*******

& ( STD .

00

3

.0002

.0000

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

01240037

00940034

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

DAILY HEADS

0.0.

0.0001 0.0.0000 0.

*************

*************

DEVIATIONS)

INCHES

00010000

0.0.

0001 0.0000 0.

*********

*********

FOR YEARS

00000000

00000000

00940035

00700032

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

00540067

00380046

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

00350123

00330083

(INCHES)

00010000

00010000

******

******

1

0.0.00010001

0.00000.0001

********

********

THROUGH

CU . FEET

0.0.

0.0.

r * * * *

: * * * *

100

00000001

00000001

*****

*****

PERCENT

PRECIPITATION 41.20 ( 6.096} 149568.3 100.00

RUNOFF 35.059 ( 5.4547) 127263.97 85.088

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION _^,., «C6.021 ( 1.0588) 21856.10 14.613AR32UU5

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.00004 ( 0.00002) 0.139 0.00009FROM LAYER 2 ']

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH^" 0.10114 ( 0. 110) 367.131 0.24546LAYER 3 "^

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOPOF LAYER 3

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.000 ( 0.6678) -1.12 -0.001

******************************************************************************.

AR32M»36

******************************************************************************


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)


RUNOFF 5.214 18925.9961

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 0.00000 0.01687


AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0.001

MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 0.011

LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 2(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 0.0 FEET

SNOW WATER 6.60 23975.8555



*** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. ***

Reference: Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Linerby Bruce M. McEnroe, University of KansasASCE Journal of Environmental EngineeringVol. 119, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 262-270.

******************************************************************************

RR32UU37

******************************************************************************

"1FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 100 -\

LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) "1

1 1.6371 0.4093

2 0.2560 0.0320 ?

3 11.4000 0.4750

SNOW WATER 0.000 i

****************************************************************************** • -»****************************************************************************** >

RR32UU38

• I•J

APPENDIX C

AR32l»l»39

Appendix C - Field InvestigationsTable of Contents

Appendix C.1 - Geoprobe Investigation

Figure C.1 Field Test LocationsFigure C.2 Cross-section A-A'Figure C.3 Cross-section B-B'

Geoprobe Field Logs

Appendix C.2 - Permeable Reactive Barrier Insitu Test Boring Results

Figure C.4 Permeable Reactive Barrier Test Boring

Table C.1 Simulated Wall Life CalculationsTable C.2 Zinc-rich Test Wells - Dissolved MetalsTable C.3 Barium-rich Test Wells - Dissolved MetalsTable C.4 Zinc-rich and Barium-rich Test Wells - Total MetalsTable C.5 Barium-rich Test Wells, Zinc-rich Test Wells, and Select

Monitoring Wells - Expanded Analytes - Total andDissolved Metals

Appendix C.3 - Redox Investigation

Table C.6 Test Boring - Field Parameters

AR32UHO

APPENDIX C.1

GEOPROBE INVESTIGATION

AR32i»i*l»l

II1 lsff! ?i?

*riM.

* •„

81 f o ^?•! o ? I (/) _ ti o* f -

10mao8K^:; oz

^ I I? IP p§ § p|8 F |K f| HjS ^nC - Sl- B -^ ":P B: i >8 S

n

SF

W gmoHOZ

r I

5C/)

vi'V \iyii''\\i\v\\Av \Vi 'y>vVi1!' v1'1 ^ B ~" ' =?™~n ?-\\V\'>'.'''.\''.'''.',''.'A'iVA!. !>'.'i'.'f.'i'Ai'.'.i'.'S!B!&~m-..i-.£;I I !i S

flR32UUl*3

^ i1 > u A4 v i j" * ' 7--'" j" rr,r, ,..y ."T" --

II

HI

o

f\l 0-

IP1 f\ tNN I-

* H IIi < § -

The W-C Diamond Group4MM.rfutfc.pM*. He I A A

LOG OF BORING NO.

UJu. 1°VI1

-52$?al«so 2

a*3 [3cnouucr

E

COORDJNATESCD

N ________£SURFACE EL——

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

20"

( _ « _ ..

i J/if" wood£{" o*l, **«J*Vi« r

n" iwi

**1

-21-

28-

—JiHKcn«£

PROJECT NO.: myj^P/fiyg j^_ GWUDEPTHDATE BEGAN:—2DATE COMPLETED:FIELD GEOLOGIST:-CHECKED BY: ——

NOTES:

F-iaa

:lThe W-C Diamond GroupA DHOW of UftS Corporation ~ \m I I Ir / €. «. u o< ~\j

<

LOG OF BORING NO.

. in>• - . -k.T_ ^ — tt in _J s- -i IM wZZ-707. "Z-UJ2 n.« _i i..** *-, u. « REMARKS

tt

03 Zcnou

UJcr

COORDINATES

DESCRIPTION

—„-, » — -

-5-

SILT

h-H v,£>B--lf. arccM'oK arm*- ^ V»wM Slut

PROJECT NO.: " T oLr———— QWL; DER7H _|__ QATE/T1MEDATE BEGAN:DATE COMPLETED: ,"/°°——— DRILLING METHOD: frtoprefce* u/H PfFIELDCHECKED BY:

NOTES:

Env*-J

F—188 pnoiwr MA

The W-C Diamond GroupA DWWM of UHS Corporation

LOG OF BORING NO. S-Z.j1• "I

uu.

PRO,DATEDATEFIELECHEC

i-

— —

QUJZi

3LOWS PER

6-INCH

fJCREMENTS

! SAMPLE

'RECOVERY (IN.)

PROFILE

COORDINATESKJ r

[ ?€- d L OA£

Z/

DESCRIPTION(?/«4**ijK C f»*) > 51 1^ C- P STV-MtiV -V*i C-V* ».r* ,iC -J1

An' hA l A A ^ 4 * ^iJ f ** * ^ T ^ " ^ » -

ECT NO.: ————————————— cwi-nFP-m _ ni-nr/nurflPRAN! _ — _ — CVW-nPPTH nATF/TlUF

COMPI FTFO: .. , , _.. nun i iwr* ur-mnn-GEOLOGIST-KED BY:

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

•"••»JJ--3-_lfCMCOcc:

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupJOUm of UV Coloration T^X „ M I _ ."*mua" [> €-1 d L <Ki

LOG OF BORING NO. J?•=> " "5 •/_ -1i

J. wi.

Ou

9:0

SxS"•53$?aLO 6 CR_j^y MO

O Z «

COORDINATES

EL-

.OESCRIPTION

REMARKS

. -F.

-1- v^'

h- k—I 3tC f 5-v-^vSlLT

-= — _ ___.PROJECT NO.: ^MpK-i- SLF——— QWuDEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——z^/°.°—————— GV DEPTH.DATE COMPLETED: —If**/™ DRILLINGFIELD EOlC"?f5T- - * y .____ Grun>rebtr *"/CHECKED BY: —3L

NOTES:EnV

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group4 OnMwr of UR5 Corporation "Cd. I I JHeld Lo

LOG OF BORING NO. t*3 --> /zJ o'u

iiZ3

CD Z

COORDINATES ^CDa

EL-

DESCRIPTION

U)

uREMARKS

Zf"

7.5"LS

PROJECT NO.:——————————————— CW_-DEPTHDATE BEGAN:——————————\———— GWL DEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ———————————— DRILLING METHOD: _______FIELDCHECKED BY:

NOTES:

F-188 BORING NO.

1The W-C Diamond GroupA OMm» of UHS Corporation ^.. I I In «. I d L o«=i ^

v i

LOG OF BORING NO. (_? >'H /"Z.

SiIi

'm z

5<>Z

35MOUUJ

COORDINATES

EEL*

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

1H

OL

- C.

HI

CJhU

J -PROJECT NO.: SLF

DATE BEGAN: */ °°,_——— GWUDEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: VW™——— DRIIJUNG METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST:—CHECKED BY: _HL

BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA 0mu» at UftS Corporatim

LOG OF BORING NO. k

aiis<

~ « ^ COORDINATESaPI

INCH

EMEN

3«5CD Z

SAMPL

OVERY N ________E

SURFACE a: ___

DESCRIPTION

ffl

REMARKS

-8

-?-

o-F

PROJECT NO.:_______________DATE BEGAN:——————————\———— GWL: DEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ———————————— DRILLING METHOD: _______HELD GEOLOGIST:————————————— ___________________CHECKED BY: _______________

NOTES:

onoiwr

The W-C Diamond GroupA Division ot MS Carpanoofi f^w .11 I __

I i €-|d L- 0A

LOG OF BORING NO. 'r /Z-

5iZ<

WS PER

INCH

EMEN TS

LO 6 CR

03

<>MOOUJa

COORDINATES

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

— 3 —

-1-

-5-

T-PROJECT NO.: payi^UF———— GWL: DEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:DATE COMPLETED: -V^/oO———— DRIUJNG ETHOD;FIELD GEOLOGIST- K- 1< k _____ &ty»{ T t] ft-.CHECKED BY: _T r—" '

NOTES:

vj

F-188 BORING NO.

77)e W-C Diamond Group4 OnuMflo/UR? Corporation "p"". ,11 I

I / €-Id L- OA

LOG OF BORING NO. ^ /2-j"

> 3

UJu.

PROJDATEDATEFIELDCHEC

?P

— |0 —

— \< -

r12-"

Oujft.

CL QBLOWS PER

6-INCH

N CREMEN TS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(IN.)

V

PROFIL£

COORDINATES

N .. F

DESCRIPTION0 r >l\*/c v)iv%va 5; l-Wi •*•* - -T . ->Hwt*

_^_ c S *-**. -5 T^ -*j '"itA -l / e M\

' i C- -* )

VJ »; A*-w - — \ . *l W^ * T •* * .

O 3>'~H~ C? < *1 / 1 *-l" ^ /-V ftt i> v^ / &P^ i i Vt

ECT NO.: ————————————— nw-nFP-m nATr/nucrBEGAN: ——— . —— .. . . , , . f^ . o PTH 0 ATF/nuFCOMPLETED: ——————————— DRILIING METHOO:GFOI nnisT- - ,

KED BY:

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:.

COinj*j*CMCOOC.

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group

LOG OF BORING NO. -

11Erfsfoj,03

INCREM

2>tlMOo

Ulcc

COORDINATES12*334.3 F

SURFACE EL-

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

/ ••

— 2-

-3-

ro

cn -6- HC'

PROJECT NO.: N rr our————— GWb DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: " "". "" ____ _ip_______ __ ________DATE COMPLETED: '/''a/o0 "_.""w "' ——-/•••— o

FIELDCHECKED BY:

NOTES: ,f

F-188 SORING NO.

i//tr nr-<> uiamona uroupA Division of UflS Corpotttion ^\t ,^ I I |

LOG OF BORING NO. '^ ALj"


I^ **#

-•V vtf

— u —

— (0 —

— u-

— —

Z(L

II9LOWS PER

6-INCH

N CREMEN TS

<

z

SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(1

,

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N _ F

SIJRFACF n-

OESCRIPT10N

lie*'

r*. 1 1^mrWVt O ' ~£ • JrT-WU '•» -tP-v**- i- *' /

— Vl~ •4-t,ri.riv-O t ¥ tA"*M

FCT NO.: fJWItOFPTH ,.,,.,. OATF/nuFflFRAW- _ CVllT-nFPTW OATF/TIUF

COMPI F.TFD: ,., ... ., nRti t iwn UFTwnn-GEOLOGI

KED BY:CT-

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

iX5

J-J3-COCO

F-188 BORING NO.

i uc vv-b uiamona uroupA CmtMffl oi UKS Conanoon ~<* I I In €. i <i L 0

LOG OF BORING NO. C/b' I /.z.-J - iu g

K 11P

*53s?a3«5CQ Z

*£38MO

CJU(£

COORDINATES

to 2. Sf 7.SURFACE

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

, c-P

0'c.

~^-

-Vr-. c .

Svu-r

PROJECT NO.: . ^ .———— GWL: DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: ———aWp<> ———— GWU DEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ——*/.?.°g———— ORILJUNGFIELD GEOLOGIST:—SiCHECKED BY:

NOTES:

O

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA ftraKM Of URS Corpofition "Ww I I II / «.|d U o

LOG OF BORING NO. _^s" 1j1

_j .UJu.


I!

-il-

-11-

zfe_j

BLOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

3t"

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F .SURFACF Fl r

V/z~

OESCRIPT10N

5ft fir

~~ ~u ~T; VH "" $k**fy

£>r^VA ' os fxg -WfTvj t j --Fi*-*H5( L-T" < 4-r. -•5f2***- , c.S'V>vj f fr\ L\

ECT NO.: ————————————— cw-nrp-m .HATF/TIUFRFflAN- ——— —— (MM . nppTU n ATF /TlUf

COMPLETED: —————————— pen | IM<? MFTHOP:GTOLOniST-

KED BY: -

USCS SYMBOL

1

REMARKS

NOTES:

flR32i4i+57

F-188 BORING NO.

1The W-C Diamond GroupA DAufcn at MS Carpontian f'v. Ill «~vr,*u Lo^

LOG OF BORING NO. t*5'6j

>' wOu

(/I

VIZ57Z 2wotog

CD Z

COORDINATSUW.oJ.7

DESCRIPTIONo

REMARKS

**•- *^vv^

/£?

5" 4r-.-F '

-4-

.pua -t>

3-PROJECT NO.: SLF

DATE BEGAN: ———^4/ap ;———— GWUDEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: - *>W W——— DRILLING METHOD:FIELDCHECKED BY:

• ***' Gr yrcHae T ^ Pf..steetfe&

NOTES:

I

F-iaa BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA Drmkm of (JUS Corporation CI

LOG OF BORING NO. _

11 BLOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY

COORDINATES

E

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

b'

14M

-13-gooc

PROJECT NO.:——————————————— GW-: DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATEDATE COMPLETED: ——————————— DRILLING METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST:————————————— ___________CHECKED BY: _______________

NOTCS:

F-188 SORING NO.

The W-C Diamond Group **"*- i i iA Maw at UB Carporetnri >•- i* ,. I I I _ _I / 4S.Id U 0A

LOG OF BORING NO.

R TSEWS P

INCH

EMEN

LO 6 CR

N.)

EP?> a&

K0.S

RECO

COORDINATES

EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

SVL-T

E»ro

PROJECT NO.:-—————————————— GW_: DEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: ————_—___- CW-DFPTM _ PATF/TIMFDATE COMPLETED: ——————————— DRILLINGFIELDCHECKED BY:

F-188 BORING NO.

i tic wr~tt uiaiimiiu tifOUpA DMsion of URS Cotpontion "&\* I Ie IA rtl£

LOG OF BORING NO.

. U)

1!£*Z"•oujVIZ.3STyR6 C

CD Z• DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE

COVERY (

COORDINATES <_CD

ucn3

T£

REMARKS

,<>*~4t

—-7.™

--3

_ i^ _

-?-

"7ZS'— (P-

-PROJECT NO.:-DATE BEGAN:———^^/DC ———— GWUDEPTH.DATE COMPLETED: .. AV°°———— DRILLING METWOOFIELDCHECKED BY: —H

NOTES:Anile/: KoTclM e V.

F-188 BORING NO.

i nc rr-u uiaillUIIU UfOUfl4 BMW! tf UR? Corporation ^i. I I II 143-Id L

LOG OF BORINGJ

V1Z3JTUJ

CD Z

SAMPLE

OVERY

UI —————————————————————————————————————————"

COORDINATES'CD

DESCRIPTION

V)REMARKS

-8-

L-^-l c-

\~lo

SH-T*

\i

PROJECT NO.:————————————— GWL: DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——————————:———— GW_: DEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ——————————— DRILLINGFIELD GEOLOGIST:____________.CHECKED BY: _______________

NOTES:

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA Division of UXS Corporation ^ I ID'elA UCK\

LOG OF BORING NO. _ /j. ui&a ii 5T ui

*5m ~2_

W ' ' DESCRIPTION

-3 uV) Oo

COORDINAT

EL: REMARKS

/

ccf 6 ft

co

CNJCOoc

PROJECT NO.: IN - 'lf ur'————— CWUDEPTH ___DATE/TIME0DATE BEGAN: ^J™^———— GWUDEPTH____DATE/TIME

DATE COMPLETED: •-, f/' 1/00———— DRILLINGFIELD GEOLOGIST:_JLJSAk!_____ Gtcpfob */ Hfr S\eeueS,CHECKED BY: —IT- fn-^AUAl

NOTEgLErtV

F~18a BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA Dtouian of URS Carponaon " i. I I

I / €• I d U O^

LOG OF BORING NO.COORDINATES Q

> w

is03

3

"8 DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-f- S ~ t c\**f/

4**-*- 3

-4

— b

It

•3-PROJECT N0.:- p! __itf———— GWL: DEPTH ___ DATE/HME _DATE BEGAN:——H^/°° ———— GWUDEPTH____ DATE/TIME „DATE COMPLETED: V^/OP———— DRILLING METHOD: ________FIELD GEOLOGIST:-—N-K^M———— Gt»tt»t.a, ^/Mft- 5iea;fc&CHECKED BY: '

NOTES:HA^Jo F-rt I/

, 1

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupAOMionafUftSCorponoon

LOG OF BORING NO. '\° %.j"

~* r-UJ

PROJDATEDATE

CHEC

I!- —

-0-

-\\-_

-13-

O UJ

11V) BL

OWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

(RECOVERY

(IN.)

[ PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F

StJBFArF FT-

DESCRIPTION

5"f\(\~

_ %L0 r> Vrnr»t v< --r or*JMU —

t i~uw>l "fe -K~ S'" "f*"

i 2,0"

zr _, ^ \ xi ^ i CT" • T. t-.S1** "? 5 *"* ** /

C ^ — /

'•n"

ECT NO.: ——————————————— CW.nFPTW nATFAiuF

COMPLFTFn: .. . . nmt t iwrc UFTwnn-GEOLOGI,

KED BY: -~T-

L

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

-

NOTES:

flR32l|t»6SF—i

7770 W-C Diamond Group>"€.

tf

LOG OF BORING NO.

BV)

WS PER

INCH

EMENTS

BLO 6

INCR

N.)

LE YPS

RECO

COORDINATES

EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

U"

-H

-b- V

JPROJECTDATE BEGAN: ——^ "^. > ———— GWUDEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ——a/H/PO——— DRIUJNGnELD GEOLOGIST- J*'***•*,,——— (re Telje y *jCHECKED' 8Y: ——^ ' '

F-188

NOTES:»(|»r-. KA LU E/W

The W-C Diamond GroupA 0***x*iotUKS Carport W ^^ I \«. i A

LOG OF BORING NO. __>S>' U

.O'u

*%<<

12

at z

£>2 uJwooy DESCRIPTION

COORDINATES

NSURFACE REMARKS

-10-

*+

5/VA

5i<-T

V, ;

FIELD8Y:

PROJECT NO.:——————————————— OWL: DEPTH ___DATE BEGAN:———————————\———— GWUDEPTH————DATE/HMEDATE COMPLETED: ———————————— ORIUJNG METHOD: _______

NOTES:

RR32UU67

F—188

Tfte W-C Diamond GroupAOHOienofUltSCaipcneea

LOG OF BORING NO. 6S-1j"

w£UJu.


I

H

11in BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

|

SAMPLE

[RECOVERY

(IN.)

.- -- — •

|

PROFILE COORDINATES

M F

3/I /3

DESCRIPTION

-P . S'frH'O

IBon

________ ——— ————— ; —

ECT NO.: ————————————— GWL-DFPTH _ _nA7P/nuFBEGAN: —————— ., — , — . r.w-nFPiw nATF/nurCOMPLETED: —————————— nn.i i IMP. UFTwnn:GEOLOGIST- . — L' ,' . . . . . .

KED BY: -

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

NOTES:

»3>».<F-188

The W-C Diamond GroupI

»*

LOG OF BORING NO. .65- IZ

.wi

§2 §eUS»^U

Ii5

CD Z

^z

a>3 uJcogW DESCRIPTION

COORDINATE

Eb REMARKS

5 ii_

B4-r Ste <T -VM, _S'a*~*l f <M )•n. ^ /

o"t>|U

PROJECT NO.:Ji ±_§tf————— GWL-DEPTH ___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——V^/00 —\———— GWjDEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ——W/°°———— DRILLING METHOD:HELD GEOLOGIST:—P-K».Kj ————— G- jftpCHECKED BY: _ir"~~u-h r

NOTES:

F_1 ftfl OOOIfclf"

Tfte IV-C Diamond Group

LOG OF BORING NO. ''j"

UJu.§

i_-

iiin BLOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

|

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F

SlIRFAPF Ft-

z/

DESCRIPTION

#*& ?J 0 £>-r iA- r ~'' ( Q

PROJECT NO.: ——————————— , _. rw-nrPTW niiTr-niiFDATEDATEHELDCHEC

COMPLETED: —————————— ran \ \ rr UFTunrvGEOLOGIST- 'KED 3Y:

SCS SYMBOL

U

REMARKS

NOTES:.

•i

10il'T; I

' t.

t

.1

:i

•]F-iaa

The W-C Diamond Groupfteli Loci

LOG OF BORING NO. 1 3

S* 32:0

OulS £| £| | COORDINATE!?- - • - - • / r Le^o^\.'a^ ||

uiV)

Z 3

«OuUlce

EL-

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

147

z?

-frx

PROJECTING.: N f ————— GWL: DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: __ -/"•'««DATE COMPLETED: fi^l»v———— DRILLING MC1H.OO:FIELD GEOLOGIST:— "CHECKED BY: —IL

F-188

NOTES:

77.6 W-C Diamond Groupf7e(A

LOG OF BORING NO. ~*~3j1

UJu.

PROJDATEDATEHELDCHEC

I!

-1-

-10-

-l/-

" 14"

i BLOWS PER

6-tNCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

[RECOVERY (IN.)

~-~ —

^

Vi"

|

PROFILE COORDINATES

M F

V/z-

DESCRIPTION

"m

l?Jf1 '*

J 1 , ,.. —————————————ECT NO.: —————————————————— CW_: DEPTH ———— HATF/TIUFBF'tlAN? —————— ... „„.. _ CWI'DFPTW DATF/T1IJFCOMPLETED: ——————————— ORn i iNfi UFTwnn.GEOLOGi:

KED BY: -5T' , -.,',,- .,

•

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

Mo Sdw-p Ttt«*i

Sr-io ft

NOTES:

».m»

LOG OF BORING NO. - /

• T?!HU"j"-.t..,t~' r -*l <3 1 A /..«,/! ffl

UJ

5S

m zPLE

S O

COORDINATES

EL-

DESCRIPTION

gREMARKS

-3

™ J *"~"

-y-

^

5'I Hij H")__I

si^-r

, <

PROJECT NO.:——————————————— GWUDEPTH___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——————————\____ GV«_: DEPTH____OATI/T1MEDATE COMPLETED: ———————————— DRILUNG METHOD: _______

C™,BY: flR32UU73

NOTES:

LOG OF BORING NO. 5- 1^j"

. in

PROJDATEDATEFIEU3CHEC

S!

1(0-1

-\\-

11cn BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

[RECOVERY (IN.)

[ PROFILE

COORDINATES

N FSIIPFAPF FT.

i z

DESCRIPTION

S'A D 4*" c.s~>*- cl y (7*0

ECT NO.: ————————————— ew.nep-m nATF/nuFRFftAN? —————— —— _ . mu •< nFPTU flATF /TlUf

COMPLETED: ——————————— Qpfi [ iparj UETHOH: .,GEOLOGIST- ————— -. ..... . . .._• aKED BY: - H

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

3 o 2 u t| 7 1^F-iaa

The W-C Diamond GroupAOb*ionottmSConmot*t

LOG OF BORING NO. 65 - f S^ /zj"

"l


I!

- (1

— — *""*—-

-r-

Ii BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

|

SAMPLE

[RECOVERY (IN.)

„ //

ZH"

[ PROFILE

COORDINATESw frZimi r fe 0/770. 2-SURFACE n-

DESCRIPTION

£ x :"icrO A AA - I 6 V H- f ^ 1 -"1 tl

-fT" v*-v - -f . VV- *\ / /^\ L-\

_3 1?

vV*«avv o<*i v** t. ct> *T *vT i 0 "M iJ J v /

X"StM**- C\BtJ / L. j n L- )

a

— —— ———— 5 ————————————————————————————————— 1ECT'NO.; Mpf SL-P ———— RW, .nFPTH nATP/nuFRF^AN- i/W/oO • cvJL<nc>pTH nATF/nuFCOMP! FTFO: M .I° <>.., nan i twr. uminn-GEOLOGI,KED BY: .

5Tt ^ • ** ' (;rt**W' *y 4 fV &Utyc£>. Cojf\jpVxA\

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

f

NOTES:

' ty': 3 <f^'

RR32UU7SF-iaa

5-t


J1. vi§i°sUJu.*— '


IIUNM*

1^_I

isUj5

Q-o35V)

LOG OF BORING NO. &>' /BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS z

1 SAMPLE

[RECOVERY (

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F

SURFArF Ff-

DESCRIPTION

^flflYt"

£^D cF /vlf t-E g '

i

ECT NO.: ————————————— CW-nFPTH . nATF/nuPBEGAN; ————————— —— _ CWL-nFPTU nATF/THJF

COMPl FTFD: — ————— , — , nnn i rwn UFTwnn.GEOLOGI.

KED BY: -ST. ——— : — ^

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

NOTES:

R32H76 ;iF-iaa

The W-C Diamond GroupAttorn a/UBCfrporaeiM -CT,f *

LOG OF BORING NO. _

> UJ a

Ou

1Z3

0) Znou

UJCE

COORDINATES

EL:

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-\ -lil

-z- U

ZH"__ _7i"

iPROJECT NO.: " prr our————— c«U DEPTH ___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——VLV<"? —— GWUDEPTH__DATE COMPLETED: ^/LVot?———— DRIUJNG ME7HOD:

CHECKED BY: ——L

NOTES:

F-188 BORING NO.curc-r rsr

The W-C Diamond Groupf7eU Loct

LOG OF BORING NO. J 5" '

• "?

UJU.1

MM* H

Zo.BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY

(IN.)

|

PROFILE COORDINATES

N F

. 1 -7

v? *•/

•DESCRIPTION

^

PROJECT NO..- ——————— ,^_ ._., , riM-nrpTH naTT/ruic-DATE BEGAN: —————————— r-^--— . r«« -nroru n*TF XTititDATE COMPLETED: ———————————— nort i iNft UFrwnn-FIELD GEOLOGi:CHECKED BY: .

5T-

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

1.321,1,78F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupA OntMHi of UKS Corponoon

LOG OF BORING NO. f/j"•

UJu.

PROJDATEDATEREU:CHEC

§

^ ^™

" p™ 1 "

— •—

™^™* / ^

f*HIBV V "J ff

•

IIs< BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

,

32"

PROFIU

COORDINATES

SURFACE Fl- .

i i

DESCRIPTION

gy-nsriv O ^— ' ___ J_ _ _ »

P)->*-Vl, ' * t fti V' vTru> \ Gv£y2«

> i L-TT"" y . s 'v* 7c'S

Li,tl

1 1

Co*-)F<~T wn • Mtujp&f-t- SLP CVVL, prpTH OA"'/""C>BEGAN- 2,/2flyoO fWI-DFPTll OATF/TlLlF

COMPLETED: —— VWf?° ———— ppti | ||j<T MFTHQO'•7EO(,OGI5T- R'-Kllwl, , f pr p **/ ff- f , .KED 8Y: 1. C(MWatU/l

F-iaa

f

f

c

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

urilLef: Ko/ciM e V.

AR32UI479BORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond GroupA OMMM of UK Corfondau ^M „ I I 1I d L.

1LOG OF BORING NO. t5 ' ' "7 _, i %.

J *1

UJU.


I

^ ^H

^ ^

^ ^"

V ^

h4B *———

Ii BLOWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMEN TS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

|

PROFILE

COORDINATES

M F

SURFACE Fl-

DESCRIPTION

^ * *-• MC> s - f c -- 3

ECT NO.: ————————————— (?w . FPTH n Tf/nuFBEGAN* ——————— _. __ _ *«.* -nFPTU n*TF/^luFCOMPl HID: - ————— _... . nan i imr urrunn.GEOLOGI

KED BY: -CT.

&

F-iaa

1 USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTtS:

U2H80BORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond GroupA Onnmri of UK Corporator) ^^u I I I

i e|d L.

LOG OF BORING NO. 'ft. i» *. COORDINATES^ UJ ft r" ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ — ,.•

... • Z n MJ . I.,*—' . . / 1 I fl #—i /-- / . . i, . t ft W

>' -UJ

§03

wouuo: DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

0 /

4PROJECT NO.: Nwgfffi- *l?————— CWUDEPTH____DATE/TIME ^K*DATE BEGAN:——2ini££—————— GWUDEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: *W»°————— DRILLING METHOD: __ JFIELD GEOLOGtST -fl_E±!l:._____ G'c.ypf g\ie. w/ M VCHECKED BY: T. Co^pbe-tl_____

BORING NO.SHFFT OF

The W-C Diamond Group4 Orvnx* of URS CorpOTMM f* 1 i 1i > eld u o<-*\ ,.-V 1\J * f——— I

LOG OF BORING NO. &>". 1 i- 4-S i

:9:

i§z< BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

IRECOVERY (IN.)

— —

|

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N FQI IDff rF fl -

DESCRIPTION

(iCt(

fVrt ^ S v-i4c On.lA/3 S/-K

HI to

^ C' /"V\P j JTv'S** ' ^ / T Xi

'\

PROJECT NO,' _,..„.,. run - ncniu n«fr^n»ieDATE BEGAN- __ ——————— _ ._.,,, rwi - DFPTVI HATF/TtUP

DATE COMPIFTF.D: ————— ,., —— .., , non nun urmnrvFIELD GEOLOGICHECKED BY: .

F-iaa

I USCS SYMBOL

*•

REMARKS

NOTES:

flR32l»U82SORING NO.SHEET OF

"]

i

'i

i

•.

The W-C Diamond GroupLo^

LOG OF BORING NO. S'Z W //9uj (a!s?a

wouuce

COORDINATE?u

SURFACE EL-

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

, 51L.-T

ft

h3-^

^PROJECT NO.: He* * SuF————— GWL. D£pTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN: */2*/0pDATE COMPLETED: ^ Vf fr°———— DRILLING METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST^—CHECKED BY: ——Ik.

F-iaa

NOTES:

oAR32l»l483

77)0 SV-C1 Diamond Group4 O*WM o/LIB Corporate*

LOG OF BORING NO. ' Zo

11 SAMPLE

OY

Cy DESCRIPTION

COORDINATSF 60J38P- 7N ._

SURFACE "• W REMARKS

-4r

1H-

;J

PROJECT NO.: *«wfw4 SL-g———— CWL:DEPTH ___DATE/TIME: ———^Sw •)——— GWU DEPTH___ DATE/HMEETEDt ————*J t-"/Q^_____ __ nail I iny* tifTLJAn.

DATE BEGANDATE COMPLETED: */w/ou———— DRIUINCFIELDCHECKED BY:

F-iaa

NOTES:

Environ

RR32UU8U

Tfte W-C Diamond Group

LOG OF BORING NO.

w

Ou

ilin

WS PER

INCH

EMENTS

6 CR SAMPLE

RECOVERY

COORDINATES

N 62 *3:J r fcPl3Pf-7

SURFACE EL- ___________

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

PROJECT NO.: i prr *ir————— GWj DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——^fo/PP——!———— GWUDEPTH___DATE COMPLETED: -a^USH————— DR|UJNG METn0o: U

CHECKED BY: _L

F-^Taa

NOTES:JWier. iW M Ei\v

The W-C Diamond GroupfeU

LOG OF BORING NO.

. cn2

QUJ UJ

CDwou

UJCE

COORDINATES

SURFACE

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

aPROJECT NO.: "«"?*•* ?U-_____ GWL:DEPTHDATE RFftAM. 2./M/0°_______DATE COMPLETED: tftVog————— DRIUJNG METHODFIELD GEOLOGIST:——K. faKI_____ GfcoffQ "/ ftCHECKED PV- T CftMplaJl_____

(kiUtf: IWcU Em.

BORING NO.SHEET nr

The W-C Diamond Groupi j i

eld L

LOG OF BORING NO. S-Z^fL- %.j1. in

§*=*SUJU.

£PCL^&Os r

r^i

isy^l«3S< BL

OWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS Z

1 SAMPLE

IRECOVERY (

\_ PROFILE

COORDINATESN F

^lIBFArF Ft-

DESCRIPTION

. ____________ ItjZtK> f$wi.e& s '

PROJECT Nn_; CYrtj DTU n*TT /TlUF

HATE fiFRAM? PUA DFTITVI HATF /TlUF

DATE COMPLETED: ———————————— np« i lur? UFTHO":Finn GEOLOGIST- ,CHECKED BY: -

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

ftR32l»l»87F"iaa SORING NO.


LOG OF BORING NO.

>Ul

CDvi O(Jy DESCRIPTION

COORDINATE

ESURFACE EL- ____________ "

uwD

REMARKS

-3-

3.1/Mn . McAOpx't -5LFPROJECT/ NO.: N^T otr————— QWj DEpTH ___ DATE/T1ME

DATE BEGAN: ———1± M.——:——— GWU DEPTH___ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: V"/?0————— ORIUJNG METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST-—J&J d f_____ Qr»pi>fefc, 'f HCf Mea^CHECKED BY: —H

NOTES:

do'lltf

BR32H88


LOG OF BORING NO. _&$-Zj"

uu.

PRO*DATEDATEF1EL£CHEC

1!

— —

QUJ5

BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N __ F

SURFACE F!,- ....

i ' K

DESCRIPTION

1 IT 1 | "|^

f fit

ECT NO.: ——————————————— ^w-nrpTH PATF/TUJFRFflAN- —— riM - HFPTW nATF/TIUF

COMPI FTEn; —— . - . nmt i nir ticrrurwGEOLOG1KED BY:

ST-

F-isa

I USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

•

NOTCS:

HR32UU8*BORING NO.SHEET Or

The W-C Diamond Groupr /£• 1 «. I— oc\3-

LOG OF BORING NO. 65- Z-'x-sJ. uj

WS

PROJDATEDATEHELDCHEC

II

-7-

-3-

-4-

— —

IIin

Q; W

§53SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

|

PROFILE COORDINATES

<HiRFArF n.

2- 3

DESCRIPTION

I [/} * \ 1

r| » f C^ *"• j _ o * **v ^C * *J •

j^ ^ 1 / . . ,\**• rBiA i / A/1 U- 1t_j * § • • • j

ECT NO.:J S!± kf ——— cwirnFPTH ...nATE/nuFBEGAN: —— z/zy °° — i ——— w.rOfTP™ ,. . n ATE/HUPCOMPLETED: Z-ftf/W ———— nm, , twft uFTwnn-P OLO IST- *• ':5L!r' Of*rr f 7 'ifrsk* '-*

KED BY: - 1, Cw bc^ ——— . ————————————————————— .

R

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

NOTES:cVilltr. Mw^ EAV".

F-iaa

LOG OF BORING NO. 'z -7

LJU.


I

-6-

-\\-

-R-

lw-1 ——————————————

Ii BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

IRECOVERY (IN.)

|

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F

SURFACE Ft-

/3

DESCRIPTION

/ **

5'frft

6> rv-i , tV^c^-i M *- * —-T< *~<l j -C. Mrw*A , •Vc. '***

» f—

/ C L, /;*1*.| C 1-^ / PcVi-bU 4-f6»_«. CT

5flQ- *y +r. > '4c Or<lUi-vk/

ECT NO.: ————————————— r.wi-nFPTH_ nATF/nurREfJAW- —————— — _ . rVVL-OFPTU nATF/TtUF

COMPLETED: —————————— nPii i iwr. urrwnn;GEOLOGIST- . . . . . .

KED BY: -

/

)USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

UR32l»li9lF-iaa

The W-C Diamond Group,<\

LOG OF BORING NO. (pS'2-j"• "i

PROdDATEDATEHELDCHEC

II

— Me-

*HB M ^

kin BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

PROFILE

COORDINATES

N ,., .. , .F

7 */t- <3

DESCRIPTION

HZ"

•

ECT NO.: —————————————————— CWL- DEPTH ———— HATE/TIUF

COMPLFTfTD: ———— . —— . _.. . rmn i iwn uFTwnn-GEOLOG1!

KED BY: -3T- ... ..

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

H3IU9*

'" *

i

:i

' !I

"1

. f

ii

i

i

\

\J

The W-C Diamond GroupCV

LOG OF BORING NO. >'' /z.J

. vi SKJ

IIin

fisS"•ou£33? i y3*i

PLE Y

coouuo:

COORDINATES

DESCRIPTION

03

REMARKS

t-/,-K-.

iPROJECT NO.:7DATE BEGAN: *f **!«> ———— GWL: DEPTH____ DATE/HMEDATE COMPLETED: */«/*>———— DRILUNG METHOD:FIELD GEOLOGIST- fi- t 1 _____ G-copfobfc- */ f PLst«£A/eSCHECKED BY: T r——u-11

F-lflfl

NOTES:

The W-C Diamond Group +** i i i4 ffivaw/i ol UftS Corporation >— <* _. I I Ii / €.|<d U oci

LOG OF BORING NO. -

UJ *s.(D

R TS

WS P

INCH

EMEN

LO 6 CRPLE

S O

COORDINATES

EL

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-h-, -f -

IZ

fPROJECT NO.:——————————————— GWU DEPTH ___DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:——————————\———— GWj DEPTH____DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: ——————————— DRILLING METHOD: _______FIELD GEOLOGIST:————————————— ___________________CHECKED BY: ————L-l————————

NOTESl

U

nij

F-188 BORING NO.

The W-C Diamond GroupCw I I 1 C\

LOG OF BORING NO.

in

UJu.|is<

ffl B

tn z

Y

(nouUJ(C

COORDINATES'CDV)V)o(/)DDESCRIPTION

REMARKS

-z-->

-3 -

-5"-

-73

PROJECT NO.: l f*1 3UP———— CWL:DEPTH___DATE/TIME NOTES:•-' r--~j———~——————————— VWUUWin——;———UAIt/HMt ————————————— ' "•

DATE BEGAN:DATE COMPLETED: *I**/DO———— DRILLING METHOD:HELD GEOLOGIST:—R- "^—————— O frp e 7^ q

F-188 BORING NO.5HEFT DF

The W-C Diamond GroupIL.

LOG OF BORING NO. 6S-2ZJ& /3j"

.in

UJ »- I!

-8 :• *—

-17,-

~.iO,"

§U1

iiin BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

^ SAMPLE

ECOVERY (IN.)

THJOHd |

COORDINATES

N FSURFACE Fl.,;

DESCRIPTION

-, ~ u,««

X^ ^ -J! "^ ————— ' ——— 'a'' —————

JK ft ^ f t MJ PCl Jlfffl rtc T?3 r

£) d- f- Ct •>*! • lOvfck'*-* ^il^Tl tM'T1- -JMNlJ

^ t3*riLX_, ~f~- ffe" "t-T* C-. S'N *v

v> V cjf da i'.svi c]~fz*1 1 C-*" ^ Si --T"y uv t <— x , "V^

PROJFCT MO.: , _ fUA-nreiu n»tv /nurrQATE HEGAKIr —————— — ,_. ,, CVM-nrPTTI HATE /TtkJF

DATE COMPLETED: —————————— nmi j iwft UFTwnrvnnn GFOIOGIST- , ,CHECKED BY: .

F-18B

-/

*

| USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

AR32H96BORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond Groupf-* ** „ I I II / €-|d L-

j". in

UJu.

PRO*.DATEDATEFIELCCHEC

I!•^ —

— \ —

iltn 3LOWS PER

6-INCH

HCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

[ PROFIL£

LOG OF BORING NO. Jr& * \COORDINATES

U F

SURFACE Ft- .. . . , .,

DESCRIPTION

) \1^7

•

ECT NO.: ——————————————— GWU DEPTH DATE/TIMEBF/GAN- ——————— _., _ . ,.. riM-nrOTH OATT /TluFCOMPLE1GEOLOQ

XED BY:

^ ' , ____ ni?it i IMP iiFTunn-ST- .,.„ .. .

^

SCS SYMBOL

3

* :' 3/3

REMARKS

NOTES:

flR32«4i*97F-188 BORING NO.

or

The W-C Diamond Group• - - 1* rf ^ t t 1jfewMrfuu M, n*e|A Loc\ ,.,

LOG OF BORING NO. <2.S " 2j*

uu.II

— \ -

:4:

- c, -

1

{IBLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

|

PROFILE COORDINATES

SURFACE R- ,

^ : Xs

DESCRIPTION

^ CG^J 1

V A - O'**/! CV Ho*|

UN/ 4>(- /• - -f - S *a - ( - f- *|'wl

H9"

•

PROJFCT^Nn.-. Meu^wfSLP^ ny-nnmi n.-rr^ni.rDATEDATEFIELDCHEC

SFPAN* / 2-9/DO ' _^~

COMPLETED: —— 23, 28 00 . nM , T(JR urTlinn.GEOLOGI!

KEn BY-?T- . K. .MWf . , (V pr* l^'*/f^5icirtJs~T C»*wobetl —— ——— — T- ———————————————— — —— — — — —————————— -

F-188

SCS SYMBOL

3

REMARKS

NOTES:

AR324I+98BORING NO.<;WFFT rtr

ns.*

J

1t

' fi

?i

i

' T

j

t

i!

j

k-J

The W-C Diamond GroupAQnitionotatSCorpomon

s• "I

UJu.

LOG OF BORING NO. £?$ ' 2-

I!

PROJECDATE BDATE CFIELD GCHECKS

0-

r\~

\ L-i

is2< BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

SAMPLE

RECOVERY (IN.)

PROFILE

COORDINATES

u F

^^ ! y3

DESCRIPTION

\ ~~

M

T NO.: ————————————— rwi.nFPTM _nATF/nuFFGAM- —— pyyl -nrpTH RATF /TIIJFOMPLETED: ———————————— nott i iwft UFTwnrv.FOinGIST-D 8Y: .

F-iaa

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

!R32l»U99BORING NO.SHFFT OF

The W-C Diamond GroupA Cfcwcn of MS Corporator ~>» _ II I -

L- O<\

LOG OF BORING NO.Q_S"2zj*- "i

UJu.if

>;

ZQ.

||BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

[RECOVERY (IN.)

! PROFILE

COORDINATES

N F

c ; %

DESCRIPTION

ni'

•

PROJECT NO.:,. ... . rMw-nFDTu n»-rr frnieD*TE BEGAN: _. — _ ._.. __ . run-riFPTVi nATT/nuFDATE COMPLETED: ——————————— non \ \ r. uerwoo*Finn GEOLOGIST- . .....CHECKED BY: .

F-iaa

! USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

HR32UOOSORING NO.SHFET AF

The W-C Diamond GroupA Dnmn ot UAS Cotponoon I /eld u o<\

LOG OF BORING NO. <£ >' 2-^j

. in§i"t

UJu.*-g£

- I -

- 7_-

-5-

: :

-^r-

-^:

-7

ou^3fcis2< BL

OWS PER

6-INCH

NCREMENTS

1 SAMPLE

[RECOVERY (IN.)

"iu.oo:0.

COORDINATESw frill 35.1 r ôiiWJ

ÎJPFArF F|-

-.& ; . DESCRIPTION

8lu*;iW gr ( 5-.l-Uy-F.GW.*^c--P 6 x /- -x/i CC?^ )^ ^ i2

. . ... - ———— "~ ——

B NO -(=>m\ , c\* 5li rtio ^ cs ,A

(ci-f/itjbt

M&"

5 ^ ;c*c*di*'5 " V<^--P- S - \

PROJECT7 NO.;_£k"tf*rirS(-F . cut-nrp-m OATE/TIUFDATE RFÂN- 2/ 2.S/OO nFPTW DATF/T1UF

DATE COMPLETED: I'M** ———— pm , ?Mft urmnrvFIELD GEOLOGICHECKED BY: .

5T. P- Ka-Ul &t*pr»V */ H ft-, frlewe-feT. Ov^brll v

F-188

L

k

•

USCS SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

JU-ilUr: Hft^dM^n^.O

RR32li50lBORING NO.SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond Group >AOMHDHo/UtSCorportoon

LOG OF BORING NO.

UJ *l35*s:5SS?33«gm z

SiS O

COORDINATESm

N —————————E

SURFACE EU

DESCRIPTION

REMARKS

L1:

PROJECT NO.:——————————————— OWL DEPTH ___ DATE/TIMEDATE BEGAN:—————————_—.——— CWL: DEPTH____ DATE/TIMEDATE COMPLETED: —————————— DRILLING METHOD: ______FIELD GEOLOGIST:—————————————CHECKED BY:

NOTES:

AR32l*502F-iaa BORING NO.

SHEET OF

The W-C Diamond GroupI /eld UOA

•d

LOG OF BORING NO. (2$'

-i j_Ulu.I

^ ^H

it BLOWS PER

6-INCH

INCREMENTS Z

1 SAMPLE

RECOVERY (

H

Q.

COORDINATES

N F

SURFACE Fl-

'-P ' \

DESCRIPTION

-lil\-

PBOJFPT wn.- ————— _. rurt-nrpTV4 n«Tr/nupDATE BEGAN- ———— 11t .rk DTu niTr rnurDATE COMPLETED: ———————————— PRflUNC UPTwnfVRF1 0 CrFO! OfflST:CHECKED BY: .

F-188

! uses

SYMBOL

REMARKS

NOTES:

UR32U503BORING NO.SHEET OF

APPENDIX C.2

PERMEABLE REACTIVE RARRIERIN SITU TEST BORING RESULTS

flR32l»50l»

; . '.-. •

'•>:-'•.'

"h-\

'.'. •_

••'''•'

^ ———— 1 " CAP

GRADE

—————— MORTAR SAND

1 JUMLUULL 4U BLANK rvl> 1 II LFIELD LENGTH ADJUSTED

MINIMUM OF 1.5' OF BENTONITE SEAL

FLUSH THREADED COUPLING

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

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

5' LENGTH SLOTTED SCREEN

END CAP WITH SUMP/SEDIMENT TRAP

I- ,- -JDIAMETER

RR32l»505

Corporate Remediation GroupAn AUianct bttwttn

DvPvnt and Th» W-C Diamond Crouj)

Barley Mill Plozo, Building 27Wilmington. Delaware 19880-0027

PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERTEST BORING

DuPont Newport FacilityNewport South Landfill

Newport, Delawareton

aai6/37/00

MMHCD

C4CHCDWOK

OWNDR.

t&H&fUt

CAD tu m.7103*001

new*C.4

Table C.1Simulated Wall Life Calculations

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field TestsNewport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware

; A vZiflCurrent Conditions (3* of soil)

Asphalt {4") and Stone {8")

Soil (18") and Bentomat

Topsoil (6") and Clay (12")

Topsoil (6"), Fill (12"), Drainage Layer,and Synthetic Layer

374

374

374

374

374

1.24

0.0207

0.00413

0.000413

0.0000103

0.052 (19 days)

3.1

16

157

6293

Barium TreatnierilWGiantrol ••:••.Current Conditions (3' of soil)

Asphalt (4") and Stone (8")

Soil (18"} and Bentomat

Topsoil (6") and Clay (12")

Topsoil (6"), Fill (12"), Drainage Layer,and Synthetic Layer

Simulated wall life is calculated using tr

wall life

where F, is the cumulative field test flowcase wall flux for five different cap mate

The test flux area is a cylinder with a leradius at the mid-point between the wecylinder are assumed to be impermeabthe area is

where R, is the midpoint between the wscreened length of the well in cm. For t

A, = 27r(\6

297

297

297

297

297

1.24

0.0207

0.00413

0.000413

0.0000103

e following equation:

(1000F/4)

0.042 (15 days)

2.5

12

125

4997

• J VxUl -*

(CWFJ365/ in liters, A, is the test flux area in cm2, and CWF is the»rials in cm3/cm2/day.

ngth equal to the screened length of the well and aI screen and the bore hole radius. The ends of thele and therefore not to contribute to the flux area. Thus

A, =2xR,Lell screen and the bore hole in cm and L is thehe simulated wall life calculations, the test flux area is

5cm)(\ 52.4cw) -15800cm2

RR32I+506

CDW 54-^ £

\— "o5T3 Q

oQSt-<D 0) 0) :t±S = > CO™ > O -D•— S co c

"co rr; td> o>I- .0) Q.^r -Q ^o CD CO

-c^ § -- o> 9-

00^00100-

^ g z z z P z z

E E E E E E E E

(D

i g l l i l i .CD .E OJ CD O ™ .y (DC D N O O O S Z - J

S D Q S Q Q Q Q^ Z Z L S Z Z Z Zo

s— - CD

(J) UJ OI U) UJ OJE E E E E E

TO .£ (D CO O0 3 N O O O

ffi

c .o

TO ^•rr ^

a>

CTO ,_*- TO

c co int3 o(5 o"° T- O

3 (D _ OC P O j.

^ 2? 5> (D-O TO (D £•c ^ _- .2

o a)• ^

D CO < -> 1- OZ Z Z N Nl

AR32U507

n: S

0)

S « «CD Jli J> <£ J2^ (- 0)-D x: QS.fi tfo §.S fe §•1= "C 0)co Q »- -3-

CD -^ i m 0.<D == 0) *±S .g .> cow > o -o1— -j- CD C

£ <L> 3,2 a: t^ ^ <»_C <1> 0.0 -Q 3•C CD CO

E 1 S•i I |CO Q_ >CD 0)

.

F

$*'

••*4

f

f

OCD

s*B^•niK€iiiim5*•&<:,'£L

•>SP«

r1:i

1IOS

1rtMS

Mrtn

o>S

!•»

S

<0

S

IO

ft

rtC3

a£n5

^ Q D ^ Q ^ O QJzz^z^zz

-5$ S Q £ Q 3 QS g z £ z zO

-s^ S Q m Q g D Qi 8 ® 2 T - z Z Z00 O »~ *•o

sSi^i^iiO T Q ^ - T - ^ - T - ^ - ^ -

3 S a ^ i s s g a og g Z ^ g ^ z zd d-i

g S D ^ Q ^ Q Q2 o z " z « > z zo T^ oo~)

..--to _^ o o D ^ Q - W Q Og g z ^ z - z zd

< 3 a a £ a £ o aC N - y - ^ C O - T ' C O - T ' - Ta>^^'-^c;'iz

->^ . t o T r Q f i Q Q^ g z ^ ^ ^ z zd~s ~s -»

ffi O _ (M Is- cn 10• J O ) Q x " T - ° o QS o z ^ ^ - ^ z<Oo*-'-o'-o^-d d o

^ Q Q ^ O ^ Q Qi^zz^z^zz

-sr*. _ cs*

O) in Q • Q <g O O<0°Z^Z°*ZZR OO

t-- ,_1 t S S Q < Q M O o«|zzzgzz

—i«*• o co^ ( D O < Q « Q C lr«IO!7'7'tyl!o^-yt D o ^ - ^ ^ o ^ 2d—>

* £ o a ^ a , _ o aVl-'-^CD-T''^-^-^^ o "^ »- ^ -^ Zd

_ j _ j _ i _ i _ i _ i _ i _ iOia)OlDlD)D)O)D>E E E E E E E E

0)E SE •! ! s S _

LllSlplC D N O O O S Z ^

,:,<:

X',;

HCD

*.

«

S

1fi*i*ip*M

1J9|

titiiM's

i%isMto1,.,\

• !;•-

1H

CO

gN

3

:.ro>5

»*•':3

ID'S

•vjS\

Sc3

1n5

->" o Q g Q ^ D Dg z z g z ^ z zd—3

« Q O ° a ^ c i c igzzSz°zzd—>t ^ Q Q O > Q T : Q Qg z z l g z ^ z zd

——3

^ Q D S Q n Q Dgzz?z-zzd

~>

g i i s i ^ i id-i

M O Q g Q ^ Q Dg z z g z ^ z zd-iS a a p j a ^ a ag z z g z ^ z zd—»S Q Q ^ O ^ O QgzzSz^zzd

-3S Q Q ° Q < D D Qg z z S z - z zd-3

f e o Q j S Q ^ Q QgzzSz^zzd

—tf 2 Q Q j ^ Q ° j Q Og z z g z ^ z zd—>c o a a g a ^ a ag z z g z ^ z zd—t? a a < a ; ^ c i og z z z z ^ z zd

^ S o < o S a °5gzzz?zzd d—i —>S S O ^ Q ^ D Qg g z S z ^ z zd d_ j _ j _ i _ i _ i _ i _ i _ iQ)D)O)D)D)D)O)D)E E E E E E E E

0)

1 ^ i1 «!B l|l?S^<33(Si25

£O)

"<13S>.— .a

.i .9c 2•S c2 £I -2IECT 3•s; «.8 &"o °*(D O

0-T30) CJZ CO*- (0•D >-c roTO t— oE E— in.2 °"o oQ> O

"° TO 0E 01 oi 1 ? s S,|o n> -as

^ E | » .1=£ -i P I «= « § 5 ra03 J3 -= 3C jo

J -- "^

^^-g^ |Z ^^- S ^ S w f ^ -oS*O C L > , C S C > T-,-0

.. ,2 E « ? £ * ^ -gw O n j c - = E o > = ®S - O W T O D - ^ ^ ™ - g^ o ^ ^ ^ f f g g 5ZZZZCTf-O Q-oQ (O < -» 1- Oz z z mm

HR32U508

1

coCDo £2 t/j 5

•*~* 52 £ roO I— Q)i- -o a» .2 tf= u_ o<D ,_ 0.

^ ' CD

CD _ <D ±±3 -g .> CO— A CO C

C CD =3.2 a: t*- Q)CO <D Q.CO S =J•o ™ COf™" QJ . .ro i o-c a> 9-P QL 5V ®o .cisi

&"!

t Wells

•?oft

f

fc

3™-

oN

---

n2*

Iiii»c

iO)

s

inui

o>ft

ftC3

^ in **

d d

d

s i i l i f i i

d

co °°

° d

_ l _ J _ l _ l _ J _ l _ J _ l

E E E E E E E Ea>

E ®1 0 1 1 i | » co .9 ca "CD o ^ .y a)

S i i S i ^ i i~3

Z O ~7 C\f " • ~F TO J Q ^ - ^ i — •£- £-

O

S i i 2 i 2 i i

"°Z2]Z^;ZZd

— jt - C N f ^ g

d

_ * _ i _ i _ J _ J _ i _ i — i

E E P E E c f E E E

a)E ^-§ E •- TO

,.;f.

1

>st We

lls

o

Barlum-i

1

m

K.

om

...

^

ii31iit.cp.

f-

i

?.V

1',.(! /

1

B

n1I!*'-

-rf'/,-.

d

—3

d

d

• ^ - r T ^ - r l r i r r - r£ * - f - I T ) £ - T - * - £ -

d

— j

g Z Z i o Z ^ Z Zd

- J _ J _ J _ I _ J - J J _ )O)O)D)O)O)CJ)D>O)E E E E E E E E

<D£ CU

tO .— TO tO Q TO .jg q

§ 8 i ? i ? i i

l i i S i ^ g i

SO Q Q O QZ Z 2 Z <g Z Z

m O D ^ - Q c ^ O Q

— >

d

_ i - j _ i _ j _ » _ i _ j _ i|>|)|)|>0)|)|)ra

0)

I E - iw .£ co "TO p co .0 _.C D N O O O 2 Z - J

O) cn'CD o5 S-O .0.2 .2"TO "roc ce 2o oE E(A (OQ- TO OL

TO °> TO CO£ S ^ o 2— "O O '.— 3-g c ;= V c -c•c ro " E CD -x• W -C 3 W T

.E CD *r f CD 1N ~C O -D t -cC O .S C O TO— E N ~ E "°"® in •— ** in -—*j O "S * O "mC (N 5 C CN j

E o 2 £ o £CO ~ "p TO T~ "P£ o £ oI- OH 0H OH ON N 00 CO

ooo

c"TO

(DTOTO

Ec ^

I'llE o o.i I i•| "H §C CD CD

C CO s?Q) OQ> "-S rJS ° •0 j_ 5

S ^J S » Q) -OO r * i . (13 i -.,,

S E ca * ~ a)M 0) CO C — "O S=ffl T) W CD 3 C S** *- +-• +-> v> CD Sto o o o a) 2:z z z z a: a.Q CO < ->z z z

flR32>*509

COroXTcnCD

Sj>a = iStrf§!|ff!g§g s||§«g|l5 * * & 9. E' 3 S E- 3. w, ~~ c ° I "" 3 1'§ * 3 3 3 § 3 $ 32- 3 *CD

H H H H H H H H - H H H - I - H H H H H H H M H - I H Ho o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o£ l ) ( D ( l ) f l > ( D Q > f l > E U C U ( U W E U f l > Q ) Q > Q ) £ U W Q > Q ) E U W Q ) C U

o o P0oooo ooooooo0•^r-iP — P o o P P S x b b b b b b b b x b b x^ . o c j l u i 0 w o r o o 2 o o o o o o o o g o o g

*• cn g ro -j -•• o> PO yÂcn-si^cnm0^

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3rsr=r-rir::r-r!i-r-r:i-r-r:r!r:r- i-tî-i-i-i-r-r-

og p P

ZZ'Ob^cnZCoZ^'S^tn^ZS 7£ " '—\ 7- - " "!£ ~*OOcjco'-oroObO'OcD-'PO.uOio O O c o O ^ - O O c o

e_ C- (_

O O O•U 0) PO PO PO Q X — *• CC

ZZ"ô^ôZ^Z~^Z'~if.ifjZQ ^?>Q.^_.z^rPoOOioy-^foOosO— *O~^j4OtnO-^J OOtoO-tÔOio

c_ e_ c_

pb c-*.

w * £ -" o -* S ~ * u i §

c_ c_ e_ c_

p pWZZrn'OZZ—kZfjiZcU'-vJZZji ZZ~*ZfoZZ(rb O O o w O O - ^ O c D O ^ w O O O ) O O ^ O - O O w

p§ 0 0 0

- _» _ ej P - - 8 ro P b b _ bOiZ-^^f^roZ-^ZoS^coSzS ZZ(nZ(oZ§!^03 O os 03 * ~*J O ro O cj"i tn — * G) O J^ O O \Q O ^ O Ô 03

£_ C_ C_ C.

O 0

*iotoa)COO)Oc»O-'OJxcoîOcS OO-c».O<oOOuc_ c_

0 O^ - A _ ^ ^ b P b P

zzp^co^z^JZNz^chZzz zz2z2zzÔO— ' O - t ^ r o O — ' O t n O — 'PoOOO O O c o O c n O O — *

c_

p

OOcDobDCoO-tÔ'Ô— 'toOOm O O o O u i O O P Je_ c_

O 0b b p p _^ p

ciOcnOio-'ObiO*'Opoaia>O->i -jO-ÔcoOtoroc_

O

§ p po o - - b i £ o S o p o p o ^ " w o c o oalo-oolS

(-. e.

<<PC/)</)-022 —

c' ^ " s to3 3 3 i

3

O O O O O O O Ow t f > w c n c / > ( / » v > «

0 P o 0b o P P P g g bO) ^ -J

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3r-Pr-rirsr'Pr-

p§ pM S*.«•.-«.«• 1 '_*. J

O w c j i O u i t o m - » Jc_ t_

pQ

ZUioZ'~^Zc5— 'O PO -^ O *^J O ™*

<—

p

C5 -t cn i j co * * co

— cn -y O) cn 7 / y 3o w w o w o w ^

o-J- M °

Z-4,^Z-'-Zfji(nacj*.oôiv>*'c_

p

^ * on r^ ^j CDO tri O O o^ *^c_

o8 P

- -£zN>°,p£<_ t_

oS P P

- « - S § 2zmwzr-corisoOuiWOCO-'Ol-tx

e_ e_ e*

Ob

ZcfeîzwSpoÔ '-^ PO O ^ ui io co

c-

p

oa>8o-o22

OO> r-Z2OOONO)

I w 3<D

ooo oo a o o o o aW W W W W W W W W W W

p o p p p p p o p p o

-'OPO coScn^JôO)01

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3[QtOCO <O tQ (Q fQ [Q fQ (Q tQ

>>^ >>>>>> r1 r-

o p pr*o ~~ m i4 » O) ™ !*•* ^ 5 *tO J CO IJ 1,1 h i_J Oi ij CO ***•c_ t_ c_

p p•JjZy Z^'t»^cjj?yKPOO-^ OOOiOÔObsc. e_

p p

zz§ zzozgzzgt_ e_

0 0S - ,- 9zz zz-^z^zz

OOtn O O O i O c o O O Uc_ c_

p p ,-.S o p_tZ^ zzfez^zz?;(DOoo OO-*OÔO-'

c_

oo S PtnOcjt O O w O - E O O t nC- <—

oo P

ZZZ ZZ^Z^ZZy.OOO O O r o O r o O O ^ J

ob P P

OOO) OOoiOoOoS<L-

p p^zS zzhaZ^zzSO-1 O O ^ J O c o O O f ot- t_

oP b P ^

wOcn D O w O t o O O uc,

5 5 K NO HO H C-§. "° O HO H j]

If ilfilffi^S ^3= 5' g = 3 3>z» cr i — N X _. o j• ? ii3^'^3"'!nX- c'BST.Si^-fii.î!P S5 fl)oQ.S°o>S'D's8 S§» 18 ||ir JS ft* W _ 3§ c w g 3 Q.3 3 =• cn

s °* S| 1 |S S. 3'5" o'o- £^ t! i.1 s

r-I

c(A

S

su

§

Su

ff(O

SU

§

s

si>pACO

sCO

zDZ

I

D(ft

I5'3

00u3.C3o3

|

mD)

c'3H5&A3F*

NOOo3_

2.

N

OH(ft«

(ftE

33

i•*J

S1

>

03013.C3i3.OIT

m ~H_ x ®

f -oil-O CD Q- (D3. § a. 5TWg >NC rr rj =•13 s. D) 3O CD O§ 3» S g-

^ 2- H r< S.co 31 o co D;o' ® w ®" °3 m" < P2 ?J S (D CJIi 3-o-g=•o-O"Q __ -^- Di

-=*E8 S.a Q. < coCO. _{ CD CD.£13 (D Q- CD

| f ECD S" o

w 2.o2.

(O

fw"

APPENDIX C.3

REDOX INVESTIGATION

RR32U5II

Table C.6Test Borings - Field Parameters

Permeable Reactive Barrier Field TestsNewport Superfund Site, Newport, Delaware

Boring ID

BC

BT

Temp.(C)

17.5

17.6

PH

9.8

7.9

Redox(mV)-108.85

-128.35

DO(mg/L)

0.00

0.00

ZC

ZT

17.1

16.0

7.3

10.7

-130.70

-235.85

0.68

0.00

MW-23A 14.5 6.4 277.4 0

See Figure C.1 for locations.

RR32U5U

APPENDIX D

AR32U5I3

SOUTH LANDFILL TREATMENT AND MONITORING SYSTEMSCOST ESTIMATES

NEWPORT SUPERFUND SITENEWPORT, DELAWARE

Prepared for:

DuPONT CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUPWILMINGTON, DELAWARE

Prepared by:

URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE GROUP CONSULTANTS, INC.282 DELAWARE ANVENUEBUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202

APRIL 2000

AR32i*5|l»

PERMEABLE DEACTIVE WAIL ESTIMATE

AR32U5I5

UJHMHC/5 *Jgsit, tJ S^ 5 UJt g

g * S£ J

S^3™ fe *

NEWPORT

SOUTH LAN!

PERMEABLE

i_li/)oU

oH

oU•*••*s

_"e

£'•*•>c«3o-

c_o*•>c.*uucnOQ

O O O O O O O O t O ' O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O - ^ t Oo ooo'no«nif) r N i r - o o o o o o o o o o o o o v o -3- r- o o o r-oo O *sf "" oo oo in i/ r r (N oo oo o O r o ^fô o> — • oo m <o - mô o> hô <o - — ' rs • — • »M oo C1 c> oo oo vo '•o CN ô oo o> r*~i < — < oo >/~> r~~- • — 'O*1 c^l r^J "*4" "^" I"-- <O O ' — ' r*^ O> ^j" ^f rn < — > • — > • — • i/~i o • — ' "^ rsi cî 10i —— i ' — ' < —— i " f- ^f i —— i . —— • ••« (~sj • — i . —— i (-->J , —— i f~vj , —— , ^5 . —— i

" r^r r\

- „.„.„.. ...._„.„„„ „..„„„.o o c N O o o . r - v-> m o m i n i ^ o ^ oooooo ^j-

^ 00^^^^ ^ ^^W ^ô^^V5 &0€^^ &

1 - - _, 1 -O J r - r - i r - " r^t G ^ f c J^ t f/^ ITt ;T^ r? T/^ t^C- u- i— ^ T i— ( r T r-r-. ~ ^H ri r-r . \ • [-i rj j^* U QJ uJ ^^J QJu o o ^ o ^ ™^ £0^ ^ ^ G ^ o ^ t i f c i H ^ H<^ • t [ [ ^_ PJ ^^^ P O QJ QJ p QJ

3 Q-, D- CL, -3 CU

^ O g o g O g 0 _ ^ v «£—) —\ - - h ^ m f ^ ^ , «. /-"-* ^ C> r ^ . cr*VD 5E '•— * i — , O , — ) * ' "-— ' ,-j ^> *— ' ,-. i i=C ?~% r^ o ".X CD p^ "— ; , » / - , - ™* cnr-05-;. *~ ' .Z O ^ O Sr^'.^.r^S *°r--i •- f- *. [- — •• , — , •- rn <— > i - CU

cO ^ cO cOO O O O<-> -1— 1 ••— ' J— »_D Q _D _D=1 D D DC/} CO _ GO CA)

5 tn00 O0* ^

<+-. tjo w\o 5'oI-lQJ

OO

O

fN i ""cd <-i

«- o g u

~ cd rt ~" 1^ 2

^ oo oo "S c •- « •=» fiw c c S9< ^ 2 '3.£ «n 0 "o 'o c "-g T-J g S

Jg oj — S — <=*> " r t ' c i o o c j - ^ ^ S ot^ -S G

If g lli:i till s||i i§. 11 I1 1 i o a eg is |ûS Ills Ill'tl 1

ir>L00["^

ro

te

J<HOH

flR32«*5l6

1—1

CJ

§c o ~ai | S gO ^- CJ -

3 O •1_ O T3 r-(L) ii O « OO O

.±; o — . -a <u^"i v> (r, o ^ C vi 13*^' a> %-; -n u u -c (N u

§1| « O .gl&r; !gS -S s ^ y l-£* >^ S g J = | i ' 2 S t i «- p ^ - § c Z ^3^^ S

o .-w°-°?i3

00 r-i G , . Ii O _W nl V» U <*H O •--: >, 2 K "^ - a ° u S c . ! = : -s5— <"u'^^7 a ^ ^ a - o ^ t ^ ^o >.^ "? > o a cd ^ « — ^ S 3^; S^^=>^ -o ^ - a ^ c c ; : ^ i--£ j--^

• y J ^ t - C o W O i- rT S <"'«-> C (^ ^S 2 o-Tca-Sp,, a> ^ - ^ - C ^ - t U D C;5 ^V>

'slid! $1i*l&.8t It/i -iJ i . n, • ^ ,—, :.> U U ••—•

^ ^ c ^ ^ ^ o c r^ 8 l ° ^ | S ^ 5 i ^ g^;O. O -S (N •*> O « - ^. • -S -

O .

rI s ^ -i a. 4 ^ -- - 1 s

.El^ iPEl^nS l ^ g ^ ^ o Q - A « « 5Q J — .2 iu 13 H >, || cn> ao 3

^ ll^i?

&

AR32I+5I7

I 1

Jz jr J=o o = = ? = =O vo *^ p O i n ^ ^uS 6 °° *- IN <N P- o

o ^ r ^ o d ^ !

o o r-. K ~ ~ ~ ^ =w> -<3- o 5?- o o o ~r^ - - " o

.Tj- ^ f-a v> *?* r <N00 -C &eV5

ii »M vi in M

Q " — — ^ ™ — — _^ ^ .,. .,. .,. -I- I -I- -I- -1- -l-= =« 5? £ £ 3S S o o | o d d 63 r •**> u-> u-> u~> ? c = ~ 5 ^ P P P Po ^ ( - i m m r - t ^ s s s :: -c - ? - ? - ?C J ^ - ^.Ji^o ^ > o o o o• I S S I 1 S S R gs l I a a w i s s s "U Qi < ^^ - , , 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0

U S I

S f f i t s . ! * * ! l i i l lsi £ b f i s S ! I j s I SM"* L* •— C3 •> *2 1— i"V i— >^ ^ -^ —. ?o» o o t - - g * o p - w 05 > % > > 3 : j = g

u i ^ 3 5 - ^ i all s ^ ^ § 1 I^ S 5 I • |i« £• "3 .£• g-r^ u 5 a a T

w flR3Zi45!8 2S

O wUm 'c -S, =QJ T3 T! "»

J S - o

"3 = ^CU — D. r a i _ *

-

-o—

. --= nK - D O .e.

;]:1

o •= "Io 1= "<"

— oj oc .— 5n — O u nE 2 — u .2u - "£ o— o o ^o ~ ^2 °° ~-N — = 2- O — ^ ^ | O O V O ( N•= •> m « - ^ ^ ^ S ^ ^ °°- °> - ^ - u r- ON o ^ ^ a 'O £ - r i -i r ^ & e r N V S ^ 6 ^ ;- ^ i i ^ H - a b O & % ^ '

rn P -5 oo r K ^ = ' II d II li It n n _o1 S °° ^ £ B5 -S -2 S S o

2 o u - ^ a > 5 « o o o o o o oE \O C_— -=^ ffl ^ O O O V O ^ ^ O O O X O• — O s — — *- i ^^ v ^ ( N w - i O O > v - > ( N » v - iS VO ^ "E 50 — V)£ ^ -° « -= </r ^CL ^ _• -i f i- ng- ii 53 g. | I</> O "5 J* =2 M•— 1- !_ -" O 0> "O.s ! s = s §• s u |i ^ ' ^ - ^ W ^ r ^ ( U E

« - - > -« a I ? -

s "S

o o ^r ov~> oo NO oo

<_> uC3 C3 r,

o ^r —OO ON O— O NO

X X XV) V) V)U OJ 0>L. l_ tlt-> CJ CJG3 C3 CONO NO NO

o o o o••*-. O wi O O5: (N rj NO —J; o o cs —^ rf - oo f•< o o o o

i- rg rvi rg— ' O O Oc

Q. _QIE E E £U O CD aj

•-O

0*D.

ON(N

uC3NO

(N| vo OON o^ W° <-I£: ^v* 6«

DO £35 o°- E-

RR32U520

-C

If"3 1

~•— "O 5>r- = >oo -" o• - QO -DS = wu =T3 _° a>

CL cao oo00

= y xo = ~

52 ~ o

& C ^I 1 =

I "| 'iC- D cai: a>-a — L-

j« . o» I K I I— « o - -3

^ o x^ = ' E ^ ^ g > ^ SS § ^ > 1 g I -

= s S I s 5 £ w *^ b ? ^ : - ^ - -S ^ ^--= t ^ b o - D — ^ .t; j>| -I 8 | | £ 2L I § I | | | | f |5: « -g s g. o | -« « J -= « '-5 - > •§

M

.•= « c 3 o

g. 3 E^ £ "< a. o_

ftR32i»52l

3<r ^U,

O_oO

. — . cai/j p'o 531 -2

ca "--n <ul_l |_

t- O(D _oc- ca

oo >, _*:" -g £

~

*- CL—

o Z g

> , Q.'*- <r>p ^ vi

CB

- •UJ £ ^ • CM

OOO -^ «- f/5 t/* (Cl (U y -O^ Ed ~~~V) _ „ >

o « W v —u « u u II II II H II II II II S« , * - ; = OT3 = ^ >^ i «« ca pr cc -r£ - ? "^ p" w

— p ^ K o" x x x x x x x x

_ _ O O O O O O O OK ~ _ L ? ? c a - ^ • • ^ - • ^ r o o ^ r r N o oo = — § r s i c N ^ ( N o o' ca a> o "T

tn £ QJ — —

'E "

S 8 . 13

« — CM fi ,< «-

RR32U522

t/:5Q,

NO&eA

oo

O O fN O — W-io rN r- NO o >nO m oo u-t —f-

i 1 1 I 1

L.a*a.

AR32l»523

I §<-•> °.

o -N £I 1.*: =Vi (D

oO

o

S- S"=* ^ "u °2 ^ I 5a -o -o ^00 *>

o2 wO w 4> _ -=o "~ S •" ^^ >« "2 ^ ^ cî

u "*' « OF) >: -SO N^ « V) m °O •>• u JJ 2 CO

S ! 3 S § O .:» 2 - = °- E y^0 = 0 • o w ^-^ >. ^ S £, ^ X-1 ^^ o " ^ ^ § rf 1| Sr - o n r ^ w ** o '£ ttsi io , - r ^ > „ n3 i? % * z ooo o 7 «H = = M. r s ,on o II — o

,o„* Mr-i —T

z- -s -? ; ° s | -- I id '* i s | a 7 s H 0 - ^< e ^ r , g ^ 4"" ^«M--*• ' _ ^ ro vi 0s iJ O ^- iJ lj•i *- ro _ __: •—' o v n v i r ^ v i v j „," " ^ S 2 x 1 C ) v ° ^ ° ° Ou: ^ - ^ ^ ^ J - : : ô ûu u> ^ o ^ " 2 - 2 015 0 - 5 ^ «F I S B S S % M| g S | t 'iU — ( ^ r o m r - - ^ S ^ J 2 c r - « a > « w %< i ( - J r o r o ^ n ' ^ KT vi" 2 § vf S Q "7^ tLJ 3 -3 _ & « ^2i O* = o & .2 1td « CO

«

ueD.

_O

J2"«

1 1 i~ o 2P 2i. to • = --« » 3 2« — -o v)u. (— W **"»1> ,~ E "N ^Z -3 "Or"i 4- ca•S 'i = -a - CO J

~ « K .2? ^ o -u ^ ~ ^ r, *n —^ 3 « 4J ^ •* ^" x — ^ rvT w• ° " ^ o S g > §X "5 " "= "_ 5 ° ° -• s - E S « 3 i l l « ^I 5 I | 1 I b & D —• *•" <"• <— -_- •—<-> t*- ~ = r., 3 t ^ r tC O O E o J C — — a >

2- ^ * E I s I I5|o H ^ T : = ^ - - _ E A i 5~ = 3 = = H ~ O i l ^ . B ° i 5 > H ± ^ « . «S E E 5 ^ 5 < 2 T3 te -o ^£ ^ T I o J S x . o ^ ° « QE t u S u - ^ { u " ^ r ^ ^ H

3- . I I 1 I f s | * 7 I" a•- F . E ^ -— £ **- **- <*_ - i- . 2 ^ 0 ( U — K - ^ l ^ 1 ' 1 ^ w '^ r e S u " . - ^ 15- ff C S o 0 Q. II— ,% LJ r- >rz T3 " i S i w - i r ^ ; **- -^.= S * - = * 5 - g ' « ^ o.^,-^ » >-« = y ° s = « S p * s g. A -a - «- § s

uo

u -J / •=• •*• "• —J= B« *-« — ^ 5 x « *•> -j o ca n> i4_

-I L< I

80-

AR321+525

§

a.

Q.

VI • ——o -o

a.o

,G i_

>> 'i_ 0)C5 T3 "--o ,r o^ ^> -ou-> .* ctf

O

- c. rj~ O =n, ' ca a>

D.^ ^ .-^ r .„ ^ _ ,„ ^ ~ ' NO

OO

OO

a.« s.= o

I * « u " w" - o =-1 o pa ^7^ II II II II Ii II

i> 3^> E = ^ 0- -O ^ L J i I f c J u i J i J i J u ^ L : ^

— V) , ' i— , iy-i r*-! r-~ QO t—i i/-, r«-\ rr\ ao ("5 T* O

U ._ _- -Q OOo n o o ' ' ^ T s ' f w i X ' ' o / T \

t/? —— "" —— 5 Ur a J . C , ^ o " X X X X X X X X X X X

^- ^ 2 i^ - — i _ r a - j . . . . . . . . . . . .T ^ i r _ ^ a J ^ * ^ e / ) w j w i v ) V ) V ) v 5 V ) V i v ) V )

•O " _ w _ ^.^ ^_ ^. v. ,

1-1 ^' 0>o — ro TT — ro — —

7 ^ £ - i ^ - ^ - g E E -= . i ^ " ^ ' " ^ ^ - 1 -| u. o w i-o 5 Io — « ^ « S O L i _ | n o o u _ j - H ,^- S1 • . . w ^ ^ ^ S i J u . t a L . ^ o . 3 3 -j E - * - - - - • a K f e _ g _ g - d S 5 _ g j E > I

S

c cu s

c/: RR324526

oo

o - ^ r ^ t ^ —' wo oo —NO o NO r^ no rN ooO 'no

b*> fee e oo fee00 00

L.

C.r- os- ^oofee

ii II

« ^ ^*flfl CO j

oo D T r » " i ci_

X X X X X X X X X

ri r-i r-^ O o -Dro ro rO r>l fN =

— — C/)

(-

8. -?•

RR32U527

,

c/:

o«-•<nNO

C NOO II

C/3 OO= o^

ca oo0 ^D NO

OO

oO

•I- <n -ovi ^ U-C x cao ^ ^o u o• n o E0~ CJ = wS ^1 O P

1 x I 7 I 1 - 5I ^ 1 "5 1 1 ^ E ? ^^- .^§ ^o| >> Sg^

f 7 If 1 ? S I g 7 - Bul sr -° - = " 4> — ^ > U^~ t*— * -_J —— -^ fl 0s- ~ ***P_ ^<= -i S >" c a X o ^ * . .

-- - £

•^ + -o o ^ «OS = S > " •=

« — rN - m N O s' L ' S O^- = ca» o C** »- —es c S— « o

RR32U528

oo r- NO r- IDoo r- ^ -— IDr- ON r O_ <-*ifj1 v? *rT oo" r-'

1. OJJ 13

OU

CL o*- Q-vi p0 Ou 3

U

fN^^O r o u n - ^ r r ^ ro -^ r-r o O N » N ro OO ON — " r o - ^ r r -O O O ^ O O O O O N O N O O ^ O O r o —r O 0 N r O r o u n ^ O N ro • — <D

— r-» O J ~ ^ rNrS

O O O O OU U U U U

___•- O

v j - ; v i r - v i , - u ^ ^

t.Sf I* | 2.Sg f J 1: r j f N s S3 r C N S = 5 1>NO — — \O-D O — -O N O - D - D

«R321i529

— Tf ro O o\*~o ON ^ r^ t—iU •— «*f r- "*" fT o"' ^ — —• -H *—i i—M O

*- reS ou •-

,__ r O ' J O C O - ^ - O C X 3 O N I ~ - ^ t O O O O O v r O O OO ON OO r— Tj- \O O O O N O O C O O Offt r o o o i / ^ - ^ - M rj — r-- f vo CM — roae CN — >n t^- *sf fl CN — m r o r O

. Q ro */ ro - " i/ 'n in <* O in ro NO •—* OO < > 1 0 ro *n NOn r - j r - . i r i r - roro — rNO roro —^OO r o r o r - J ' — r-l»N ro ro Ol — O

O O O OU D U U

_re r™

« u «*- E - * ^ •*-•o ^ z o o

«

« ^ reLJ f i Cj «U ^ U

Ots;

i. O

I SO ~

OfS

o inON ro

ri m r- ON r o m o o r ^ - ^ r t ^ro oo r-- ON oe ro oo in t~- ON *3"00 ON — O1 ON O O O N Q N — O^ONro v-T NO' ON" I/T ro m" ro' NO" ON" oCrN — — NO rjrsi — — OC

OLJ

_ ^= — o- - O L .O ' - * v ) r ^VI ' .__

: rj rNO — SU — NO — T350 —

u nKu

AR32U53IJ

o _ oo — oro

S 1 -V OU- CO 0) OD- —] TO ro1'£ •= ^ T3i. 0> 0>"5 o re «= -i P -a

S II°

-j^1-' J<r — i—i r~j i^*- ^- ^^ « :?£ -«! > > * = o^E &= - P, ^^ - ^ 2 ^ - ' n l 3 £ w Q ^ ^r e T 3 = ^ — X O £0 oa > a » ( u o NO .y ^- ND c i - : ^ ^I _. a s- -' s J « 5 .s g 8 S

- .00 ro Sij D_ -r og -2 ri - - § •*.

-

ra =CD

CQ

o°

i 5 25 Ir i is r 3*** «N *-

£ -, I 2>: ? " -3

.§ 8

§ i I 11 |B"o 3 ° I ° I

flR32«*533

pw

oo

T3CLJ

VIu rN— X >! >>c: — > >"O "o ON m— vj O fN

5 _gZ so

viIIu

C - u'-— s — O,— f> ra ro

"ell s— re s -Q Tf

RR32U531+

reo>LO u'f r~

. 2 S °^ o „' ~-

< *? H e° 2

£ r.•w"S^ ^*5 o &e oo orN —o o

O O .tS ^ *—' roO OO ^ O* "^ '_ _ 3 ^ o

ro rorN rso o

^'S O i W

15 i * i5. o£ Q " °- 2-5 I 5 -•• x~r; _ . — . x• ^ « £ ts t; >: >, - 5 ^ t t ; t o v2 ~ - g ~ o o u " c - o o > - > ,

-- C S '— = ^SS01^0 — O O O U o00 ^ 2 — '- f i j O O O ^ ^ o o N O O N O r - ^ . - .oo oo -= «» o r .-oo

— r-j*. z > ^x oe "^ o M ^

1 ^ | „ " " " - * 1 " " " - j"-" ~ t_, - ' f <-~i _ ZZ "O Z — S5 s •-• P« — ^ _. ?_, -^* i) ca ca DO .±i « • ^ *B 5

S -I | § "" w > J

< ^ •- 3 - I**. tx JLJ

I 1U

oo— o« ino r-

O>O

ONOO

1> rN O 1).H — f- C.-T ~~ ir>Q. ^.tr 06s w

OOO

Ou

roX

o -j

RR32U536

O O O O T T ^ - r o O N N O r o N O O roo o o o o o N O ^ r ^ m o o O N O NO .ro CN fN — ro r-" ON" O ON CO O "^ SNO N£) • — ro in OO — NO T — O <n w— — r^ rN — rN ON NO r- ro ^n oo ^-

**»" ^ Jo

fee

(N

V? >> v5 NO

>, ^ O 3 £

- -^oo '^ o o r — (Nor--"roro-3: — "^ ^-*

^ NO ^> T r^ ——u — o II ON || O O O O O r o O O O Oirj II **- u til >, t—, — r N O f N O O O O N O O

"T vi L"~ 5 cs **" o i i i i i i i i r i yr^t ^ >f( w <N O O O O O O O O O O S

V J - ^ ^ O N O O N y , N O N O O O O O O O O O g

C L - ^ - j X , . 1 * - ; ^ u - i m » n O O O O O O O ^

^ O ^ i n 0 ^ ^ O O O O O O O O O O

x f s §1 5 !> ^ ^K" r™ "^ . *"J f^ ^ ta J m, ^ W_> i> r- ^rr - flj r \- ** 'j* tr * J r* " f vj _. - \ ****

f- Qj r- VI U> (L/ tj QJ

uQ

flR32ti537

<

O O O O O O m r N T T O O

i n O r - O N r o r s i r N C N O o — ooCN" rN Tt oo" rN" rN 3-' in' oo"

te

3on

•— O O O O «j-» -*. e-, c'

u 6 ™ rN rN - rN

,>-i " Q t^ ON ro Tf CN o — > r ^ - ^ o r ^ - T j -

2 s~. -i Q. O — •— ro

• o >i 'Eo1" ^ —3 (^&e&e&«t*^&e€A t^»

QS rvi O ~~~- 11 °. §'--.-.rN g_ O > > % O O r o O O O O O O O O"^ ^ || « J= oo" ,-) O O O N O — — ( n O O O OO'^ON rN^ ° § - ^ - N O O O O O O r N — -rTro°°-oi; ^oo"0-^ CN o o o o o o o o o o oo * c o ^ N r N ^ - ^ o V * o o o o > n o o o o o - ^ -

II oo O u " - o ° O i g i n c Z 5 O O s O O O O O i n O

— O J ~ 2 ^ 'vi X JC1 N O O O O O O O O O O O— "O II 2 ^ ^ 1 - ^ r o C L tx ' > a > _ ^ "~ •— •= ^ 3

x i i -t e =s 1 e e e

^ c — C oo

X 5 r>

flR32i4538

o o

oo

o —p ooON ooTJ- so

oo

= | « o5 on

wl

<

O CN

— roro

§

S2 TO n3 U U.2 rN CN

re — ~ 3 r- -TQ< £ oo oo

LL. ro" r-'NO

w o o fee &ey 'no' i- O c— i tn tnC. ro — O C- U U

5 __ £< ^ -K

O vi

Q U

AR32l*539

- , -Q. r >»re u _S-o ° 5

g

'j_; ca— Q.OOm

O IICL -^ ^ O > > p N O O O N O N O - ^ - C N O N ^ O O N O ' r r o O ' 3 -

ra i; <*i ° O — 'd' — — ON ro O ON in ro — r- —i_ ,-j ^- ' o O O m N O O O r N T T - O N O O N r N — rN— ' _ >i u o r-J in ON O in — — — oo NO rsi rN rN— r-~ re u • •• ' " ' ^ . ; ^' -= rN S J 2 ~ v , ~ _ _ _ r N -- -ra r- >> Q- @) -3"S - ^ ^^ J"3 O a> re Oca o — ' "O ^ 'n

ri1re i_ o .o o CL _

r e -

&e

p O N O O — - O ^ N O — O> — °°.ON — r-_ —O C N b O N r o N O r j - ' r o N O r o O N r N O O N O o d

- ^ - r N r o ^ r o r o - r f r o r N i n r o rO

P -o o "re

_"S x ja fc

oJDJS ~O CO— — C 3 ^ U « ^ ^ i ^ l _ * _ _ ^ U * ^ ^ l - * , L * trN £ T3 u - = - = - = j = - c . = j=-=.= j= : _ = - = _ r*-• ra— os O i n r N r N r N r N r N r N r o r o r o r N r N C N r Nr a 1 - ' — r N r o r o r o r O r o r o r o r o r o r oE =>J O£ ; « - * = ?,o y oo -

« ra r a r a ~ " S . o S ^ w S f e ^ ^ ra^ > X)— « . _ r e ^ i - c o « - ' - c a ' - ^ C Q ^ C L

^t S r r t ^ \ i_ t— O*^ f_i

-— r. TO a> ir ™ ^ ir ™ •" BJ i-w - 'ra -^Ctt:00 _ i 2 ! n > o s r O o j - - o y . ' t ; r : ^ -o p^r^-tr-o — y . i ^ j U ^ j ^ y - O . — > > • — £ : x u — — •£ O - 9 - i r « 5 " « * J P ' r t J b 0 - - o ^ sUJ -^^^ r - O O - J O - J - J O - J Q - X U XCN — — ON

ss =§ ^ Ea;

ocf-2:

U

rN

O-'Dfr

*>e

rNooinori

fee

-3-ONT"roNO

CN

V*

•npromooro

te

ONONr-oorj-NO"

te

NONO

NO

6ft

S S S g-§ K -W (A CO ~

= o ^

r-, ro•— ro *—'C ~s =

_Jo

U

AR32U5M

ra-o

_ ,

z = -g I « t I

oo NO oo CN \o •—*ft —' ij-l <~T r""T VO

O m m oE m <"> £^ v v ,2,^, X X C/J

<r o r N o o o o —

v i v i v i v i v j v i X X

o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o

? O O O O O > N O O O^j I I I I I I I I^ • O r o r o r o r o r N r o r o

rN — ro NO— ^ in

^

= « - o -a « ^ -o .a gt l I o 1 © 1 s sl ^ a

LJ t! \T -= ^ n " •— **j .Si» — r N r o - 3 - m N o r - - o g - _ ^ o u ? a > i >• < ( ? £ 00 £ £ "C Q. "51

uo ro O O ro O(N O O O O Oin o o oo o -3-

rN

(N O2" °r- ooo X"

ro rN

re oo ™ ,J a o <-D ,/,

o

S- 5 ^ * o x£> g 2- ca o re-g g E o oo us i J S S S

o o o o oo o *n m orN — ^ — TT CNT 9 5 T ? °o rN O ^ O roo oo i r- T oro O O fN O OOi i u i i iro O CT ri O ro— — ^ rN — —O O O O O

= O

c/i ra~

8 >.^ I S

RR32H5U3

DuPoat Advanced Fibers Systems

John C. WolcasierContraction Mane gerURS Qreirer Wcx dwaid Clyde282 Delaware Av< nucBuffalo, NY 142(12-1805

Dear John,

DuPwt Advmctd fibers System*Spruince fteriP.O. BOX 27001ffchoumd,VA2»8l

CCrJohnWilkewLeslie Crocket - ISG Corp.

DuPont Kevtei t agrees to provide the Newport South T-andfill up to 200 tons ofGypsum at no cha rge F.OB, our James River plant in Richmond, Virginia. Freightwill be billed to y< >ur project at -520-22/ton.

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

Very truly your*,

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

WLG/jwa jISGWokuaion tawrjdoc

is a DuPont registered trademark

&R32I45H2-1872 Bo*.

DuPofii Advincetl fibatt Syiram*Sprunnce f borxP.O.B6X27UU1filchfllcnd.VA 23261

DuPont Advanced Fibers Systems

COVER

LOCATION:

PHONE

DATE: <£-

FAX : 804 - 383-

FROM:\

IF TfcANSMTTTAI

rftL o &*'»<•»".FAXNO. 'yJl*- P5~ 26""-K;

-//- 3327

CHAJOJE SIMMONS (804) 3S3-4086

S , LACY GRAY (804)383-4459r^

JANE AREHAZT fS04) 383-2562

ES nNcmmNO COVKR wwm- ^LHAS NOT RfflRM COMPLETED, CALL 804-383-2562

NOTES:

The documents ac&confidential and/orentity named oo thiiny dUcloaire*, cojinfonnatiop is stridregard, if you have ;irrvnge for the rctui

•••"•CONMDBNTIALrry NOt$ •******•**»**

nnpanyiog this telecopy tranimission contain mftmnarion from DuPont which i>ftgilly privileged, TheinfbmwikniiiuiruUedouly for thcuwoffiwindmduiJ

ytag, (UxributiaD or the ukiiig of »a tctkm mn&uiceoathceoatcntaof&uteleoopiady protubited and Thflf die documents thniM be returned to DuPow immediately. In this•eceivod this telecupy iu ciiut, {deuc notify m by telephone immediately so that we eonn of Ac original document to us at no cost to you.

'!

' (' t

*.-i1-1873 fifiv 7W7

CorporateRemediationFACSIMILE Group

TRANSMITTAL Newport SuoerfundSHEET

A DuPont and URS Alliance

To:JohnWokasien From: JohnH. WoifeCompany: URS Corp. Phone: 302-993-0490Phone: 716-856-5636 FAX: 302-994-3481FAX: 716-856-2545Total # of sheets faxed: 9

Urgent f ) For review ( ) Reply f information Requested ( X ")

Message:

JohnAttached are the rate sheets you requested.

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

WOLFIE

RR32U5U6

Labor* »* Lee* I No. 199

Management Unit Allied Di»ieion, DC*Jurisdiction Hew Caetle County, DelawareT«C» of Agreement 7 June 99 tnru 3O April 20O2Hage* 6 Contribution*(hourly) 6/7/99 5/1/200° 5/1/2001aehedule A <,-> 115.84 $.80 $-75•ehedule B iS- It. 09 Total TotalSchedule C 16*34 Bcononic IconomicSchedule 0 16.84 Xncreaee incro«»»Sehvdul* I 17.09•etwdul* F 19.09HMlth ft W«Lf«r« 3.70P«n»ion 2.65Train in? • vdue* rund .40Annuity 2*00industry Adv«nc»ra«nt 0.8*"

Ttii* pajrconttgt IB «uJttpli«d by th»tot«l of w«9*« and fcing* contribution*

entire day at highMt rat* worfc«dduring day.Union du*a - 6.34 pmr hour worked.Effect! TV 5/i/9J - U orer* Politics* 1X,Mgua - $.09 p«r boor worked.

Premium Pay If working on Brack*, Biloe, towera, etc.over BO feet pay $.3* Over baae w»9» foreach additional 25 feet.

Foremen 1 if 8 thru 19 employee* on job, then ifor every 19 employee*. Pay 51.00 perhour over highest paid viRployeeaupftrrieed. Mon-worteing.

General Foreman Pay Sl.OO per hour ov»r highest paidemployee tupttrvieed.

no H day* New veer**. Memorial Day, July 4, LaborDay, Thankagiving, Chrivtnaa/ GeneralElection Day if declared by Building Cconstruction Trade e Council. Holiday* onSaturday or Sunday celebrate Friday andMonday, reepectively ,

Overtime t Holiday Pay Tne firBt two hour* of overtime workedMonday thru Friday *Ad the firet tenhoure worked on ftaturdiy will be paid at1 l/2x waoe*, Ix contribution* and Ixdvea. All Sunday e, holiday* and over tvnhour* will be paid at ZK wa e*. In con-tribution* and Ix due*. General electionDay, if vorkedr at Straight time rataa.

straight Time Hour* a hour* between BfOO a.m. and 4r30 p.m.,Monday thru Friday.

Shift* t Differential If 2 ihift* of over 8 hour* ea.ah - equal

CBA8199 ft/99

MRR32U5U7

iv-W? iAJiJJCLHWHrXt UJNiKHUIURS ftSN FflX:3Q2-994-8185

and duration. Otherwise* lit -midnight to 7:30 a.m. for 8 hours pay,2nd - straight time hour* and pay, 3rd -4*30 p.m. to nidnight for 8 hour* pay.

Pay 6 Pay Pay By check no later then quitting tie*Prid*y. Withhold 5 days. Make arrangementsa* to how and -where checks to be cashed*

Reporting Time No ebow up time if work not started dueto weather. If work starts and is •topped,pay greater of 2 hour* or actual tine.unleaa stopped due to weather* then payactual time only* If work* 4 hours pay forB haure. If call for men in **n. of dayworked, pay 8 hours. If call for men towork in p.m. pay 4 hours.

Metl Periods I/a hour (unpaid) each ehift. on continu-ous overtimet 1/3 hour (paid) after 2hour* work end after each 4 hour* workedthereafter, provided work continue* aftermee.1 period, on non-scheduled overtime•How reasonable arrangement to get food*

coffee Break 15 minute* between 9;30 a-m. and 31)00a.m. at work station.

Transportation Ho payment* provided job in Local'sjurisdiction.

Lty off/DlBcharge if employed for more than 3 days on job,pay and allow 1/2 hour to pack tools.

Work Clarifications By Schedule

Bchadule A Laborer*, general and constructionPumpmenFire watchmenFlagmenSalamandersTruck Spotters

Schedule B Caulker*; operators of pneumatic andelectric tools; vibrating machine*; con-crete eawe and pumps (which ehall includethe hoofemp of ho»w and/or pipe); pottenderer *nd sower pipe layer*Demolition (where wall* are required tobe ridden down by hand tools)Driller (except core, Diamond, orMultiple wagon)Fork Lift LaborerGunite material and rebound workersMason end plaster tenders, end cementworker*Mobile buggy operatorsOperators of power saw* (portable)

CBAS199 6/99

v» vw

CBAS199 6/99

Power end Sewing Machine*Scaffold buildersshoringSignal men and hookup men, including whanworking with digging and grading equip.Stripping of flat arch *nd form work, andcleaning and oiling thereofTool room attendant

Schedule c Burners and WeldersCaisson Workers, top men (when excavationsfor eaieeoAB are dug eight feet or morebelow tb» natural grade l*v*l adjacentto the starting point of the caissonhole, the rsts shall apply at the groundlevel)concrete specialistDriller (Core, Diamond, or Multiple Wagon)Gunite industrial furnm stack/ noccle, androd worker*Sandblaeter (nozcleman)TunnellingUnderpinning Excavation (when an under-pinning excavation is dug eight f*«t ormore below the natural grade, or when anexcavation for a pier hole of five feetsquare or lees and eight feet or moredeep ie dug, the rat* ehall apply onlywhen a depth of sight feet is reached)working under compressed air

Schedule D Caievon worker*, bottom men (•*« qualifi-oatione for top men in Schedule C above)

schedui* v BlastersLaborers engaged in unloading, placing,and assisting in th» installation of wellpoint eyetem* or deep well *ytema as longas needed on the job for such work

Schedule F Aebeeto* and/or Toxic or Hacardou* WaateMWkcre (taake related to aebeeto* and/or toxic waace removal - certified andliceneed worker* only)Lead Abatement Worker

; J

AR32l»5l»9

'00 10=59 IDiDELflWPRE CONTKPCTORS ASN FAXl 302-994-3185i •**> I IV

Operating Engineer* Local No. 543Mot* i All information for state of Delaware Building * Heavy vrorK

Only.

Manaanment Unit: Allied Division, OCAJurisdiction state of DelawareTvrm or Agreement i May 99 thru 30 April 3003Hourly »o*io wage* 5/1/99 5/1/00 S/l/01Wage Onntp X*Hourly Baec wage 522.45 $22.69 $22.94Health & Welfare 4.29 4.. 53 4.67

Surcharge .70 .90 l.ooiteneion 2.36 2. 38 2.41Apprcnt ice .22 .23 .33SU¥ .45 .4& .4«Annuity 3 . 50 4.00 4.25 *f/

/lVwage «rouj> XX • 7Hourly »a*« Wage $23.35 $22.36 $22. S2 > yO ''Health ft Welfare 4.24 4,4B 4.62 J" -/

Surcharge .70 .90 1.00 jy ,xPonaion 3.33 7.35 2.38Apprentica .22 .22 .22SOB .44 .45 .4S /\Annuity 3.30 4.00 4.25 °

Apprentice

Waa>a Group ZXZiHourly Baae Wage $30.19 $20.39 $20. »6Kealuh 4 welfare 1.93 4.1S 4.29

Surcharge .70 .90 1.00Pen* ion 2.12 2.14 2.16Apprention .20 .21 ,218DB ,40 .40 .41Annuity 3.50 4.00 4.25

Wage Ocovp IV tHourly Baee Wage J19.8ff $19.99 f20.20Health, a Welfare ).«7 4.10 4.33

Surcharge .-/O .90 1.00pension 2. OS* 2.10 2.13Apprentice .20 .30 .20

.40 .40 .403.40 4.00 4.25

Wage flraup ViHourly Base Wagn $16.01 S38.32 J38.2*Health & wo 1 faro 5. SB 3.40 3.9.1

Burchargo .70 .9D 3. 1 00

.3 .30 .3€Annuity 3.55 4.00 4.25

CBAS542 9/99 1

flR32l»550

CuNTKRU-TORS MJC * • •»••*»«& -w^ v»w• • ••— - f-.

i

Wage Oreup VI iHourly Bane Wage $37.49 $37.57 $17.72Health fi Welfare 3.59 1.71 3.84 J

Surcharge .70 .30 1.00r»on*Jon 3 .94 1.B4 1.8* iAppr*nUc« .17 .19 -1* ,SUU .35 .35 -3b fAnnuity 3.no 4.00 4.2b

Toxic/Kaxardoutf Waete Removal Mt*:20% added to all claociiicationa j

Machines with booms, jib*, maote, aod Lead«i ico teet and over - ,$.50 per hour Additional will b* paid for each increment of i25 feet over 10C teet. '

Apprentice *ete* ;Probation to a*1* 6 months 50% j2'* aix (C) roonUie 95%31* six («} month* «0*41' aix (C) monUu> 68%5U six (6) month* 70%6U aix {6} month* 75%7" aix (i!> monthu 80%fl'v eix (O montha 85%

T)eduetioaa onion duev - 3.7% of wiga*. PoliticalAcHon Fund - 0.2% of wa£«s,

b«ed ttnginorr X Cor 7 or more engineer'. Rate - $1.50per hour over rat* uci weekly baaie ofhighest paid engineer on sane job. -

Aas'L Lund Engineer i for over 29 ftaployefte and for each \multiple ot 2». nave -5.90 per notirabove rate on weekly bade o£ highaetpaid engineer on same job. '

Hoiidaye (Pain) Hew Year'0, MomorJaJ Day, July 4, Labor '-Day. Thanksgiving, Davy after ThankagivingCnrieune* or day eo oalebrated except whan Call* ]on Sunday and provided employee worke ncheduledwork day before and after the holiday.

Overtime ft HolJd*y Pay The first two houro of daily overtime,Monday thru Friday and the flreL eiyht 1hour* on Saturday chall ba paid at 1 l/3x !wage* plus contribution and deductionpercentages noted above. Sundays* bo]jdays :and hour* in exo««* of ton are to be paid ;at 2x wago* plus contribution anddeduction percencages ao noted above.

itraignt Time kour» B hour between f:00 a.m. and 4ilO p.m.,Monday thru Friday. Employer may varystarting time by i hour.

0hifu» £ Differential Tinte of starting 1st shift at employer**option, NO ohiCt in excess of 5 houro

CBA8542 9/99 2

flR32li55l 0

w Ai-wv iUiici-HWHKt UUNTRftCTORS ASN FpX:3pe-994-81S5

work. niacuBO state, duration with Local.pay atraight time co *hlft cloaaeu tostraight time houro ana atraight time plus9% to othar ahifta.

Pay I Pay n*y Dy caab or cheek, at Local'0 option, byquitting time cn regular pay day.Withhold 3 days pay.

w«akly Guarantee If employ*rfe job continue* Cor over sdays, guarantee 40 hours per week at.weekly rate for the day* the job laats.

xepartltig Time It on waaKly guarantee see above. On dallybaaia, i.e. Ivw* than 5 dayv on jobt4 hours «how-up and if started to work,pay 8 hours, da Sunday* and hoiJdayft6 hour* ahow-up, 8 hours if start work,pay e overtime rat a. If not started fcowork within l hour, dismieo for the day.

Mnal Periods 1/2 hour, unpaid. On eingle shift work,At noon. On multiple Pbift work between3rd and 5th hour*.

lay Of f /Discharge pay in full upon termination.

Work Classification* sy Qroup

Wage Group I HandJ ing eteel and atone in connectionwith erection

Cranea doing hook workAny machines handling machineryCoble spinning machineHelicoptersConcrete Purflp*Machines similar to the «bov« including

remote control equipmonr.

wagn oroup II All typefl of crone*All typee of backhoeeCableway*Conveyor LoaderDreg UnesKeystonesAl] type* of ohovaleDerrick*Trench shovel*Trenching machineoPippin type bockhoecnoiat with two tower*All Pavere (ConcretO and Blacktop)All types overhead oreneo)Building Hoist* - double drum

(unleaa used oe single drum)Milling MachineMucking machines in tunnoJ

CBAB542 9/99 «

RR32U552

wu AiiW lU^UtLMWHKt UJNIKHULK*. HSN FflX:

OradalloFront-end loadersBoat CaptainTandem ScrapereTower type crane apar&f.ion, omening,

dismantling, jumping, or JerkingDrills self-contained (DrilJmiiater type}Chipper with BoonTree SpadeConcrete breaking machines (Guillotine

type and remote typefork Uft (20 feet and over)Motor PaUruls (Fine Grade)Batch Plant with mixerScraper* ft TournapulleRoller* (High Grade Finishing) • \Mechanic Welder jSpreadersBundle Vullec ExtractorHydro Axle ]Side Boom •Bob Car. Type (All attachmento)vormoer SawDirectional Boring MachineBulldocerv 4 TractoraMachines oimilar to tb* above

wage Group III Conveyor* (Xxeept Building Conveyors)millding Hoiaes (Single Drum)Asphalt Moat engineerKJgh or low preamira bolJeruwell Driller*Fork Lift truck* of al.3 tyyevPitch witch type trencherMotor PatrolCOoocete. Breaking machine*Roller*Fine Grade Machine*Elevator operator (new consCruotioo)Stump grinderMachine* similar to the above

waga tJroup rv Seaman pulverising mixerTi reman on Vower EquipmentMaintenance Bngjneer (PoverPerm TractonaForm I.ina flradarwRoad Finishing NachineaPower BoomSeed SpreadecGrease TruckMachine* similar to the above

CBASS42 9/99 A

AR32i*553

CBA6S42 9/99

Wage Group V Conveyors (Building)Welding machinesHeater*Wallpoint*CoopreseoraPumpflMiscellaneous Equipment OperatorKlevmtor Operators (renrwar.lon*)Kouee CarMachine* *imilar to the above

Wage Group VI FiremanOilorc and Deck Hando (PersonnelMoat*)Qroaaa Truck Helper

wage Group VIZ (A) (see wage oroup X)Taxie/ttasardouaMenr.c

Wage Group VII (B) (See wage Oroop IX)Toxic /Hazardouswaste Removal

flR32l»55l*

"Nancy J Griskowitz" <[email protected]> on 02/03/200012:30:08 PM

To: "Brandt Butler" <[email protected]>, John Wokasien/Buffalo@URSGreinercc:

Subject: Re: SLF Drawing

The area bounded by the limits of waste is approximately 15.9 acres ascalculated by AutoCAD.

flR32i*555

"Brandt Butler" <[email protected]> on 02/08/2000 04:33:35 PM

To: "Jim L Aker" <[email protected]>, "Edward M Andrechak"<[email protected]>, "Craig L Bartlett" <[email protected]>,"Matthew P Brill" <[email protected]>. "Brandt Butler" <[email protected]>,"Nancy J Griskowitz" <[email protected]>, "John L Guglielmetti"<[email protected]>, "Richard H Jensen" <[email protected]>,"William R Kahl" <[email protected]>, "Richard C Landis"<[email protected]>, "Edward J Lutz" <[email protected]>. TomNowocien/Buffalo@URSGreiner, "William B Pew" <[email protected]>, "Noel C Scrivner"<[email protected]>, "Stephen H Shoemaker"<[email protected]>, "Marjorie E Vetter"<[email protected]>, "John E Vidumsky" <[email protected]>, "JohnA Wilkens" <[email protected]>, "John H Wolfe" <[email protected]>,John Wokasien/Buffalo@URSGreiner, [email protected], [email protected]

cc:

Subject: South Landfill Team Update - Current Tasks and Notes from February 2nd Meeting

Team,

Please note our new meeting schedule.

Upcoming Meet ings 8:30am - 10:30am

February 14 27-2374 - Team - Review Kiber, Xsta Results, Finalizecost estimate assumptions, set date for CRG Peer Review(302)709-8000 + 2653#AGENDA For February 14

XSta TestingKiber TestingCost EstimatesEPA FeedbackSchedule and scope for Peer ReviewSchedule and scope for EPA MeetingLoose ends not coveredPath Forward & Schedule

February ?? CRG Peer ReviewEarly March EPA-DuPont meeting to discuss path forwardMarch 8 Review status. Chose technology and design path. Scope

next phase.

[Attached (in Adobe Reader) is a copy of the current project schedule -r, lease review it, especially your dates - before our next meeting - I plan

to use it to monitor progress.

! (See attached file: npt309.pdf) ]

Current TasksWiIkens

Gathering analytical data, proposing permeable wall compositionScope lab scale flow-through-test with target wall compositionIssue note with non-delivery months for James River gypsum

RR32U556

Kiber ;Issue draft report • :Complete gypsum/fill permeability tests and issue draft results

Kahl/Griskowitz !Scope geo-probe type testing for groundwater outside of southlandfill - develop requisite plansScope in-situ treatability testing for PRWCalculate waste volume and wall depths based on topo maps

ButlerSend out gw data package to teamDraft EPA submittal for presentation of new data and path „forward, emphasize low zinc release ;

WokasienFinalize cost-estimates with proposed wall composition

NowocienDevelop shipping cost for lime from Montague, Michigan :

Meeting Notes - 2/2/2000 ]Field Activities ',

Issued drawings with new dataDeveloping more info on geo-probe testing

field scope - determine depth to marsh, gw composition !pifPSA/HASP/WMPsurveyschedule

Develop scope while preparing for EPA presentationKiber

Completed verification testing - portland (3%), lime (3%), orgypsum (5%) are effective - now its a matter of costSet up permeability tests w/gypsum and common fill - expectresults 2/9/2000Draft report to issue 2/11/2000

WiIkensTests complete for screening dosages - awaiting analyticalresultsPropose wall composition for -100 year wall life (ifpractical)Next phase - use proposed wall composition/ratio and retreatgroundwater(Following the meeting, J. Aker requested a flow through testfor next phase, rather than the shaker tests)GW flow analysis shows 0.8 ppm zinc at 200 ml/min - >86 gm/day'.a handful of Cold-Ease tablets)Likely some synergistic reaction with Ba-rich and Zn-richwater - future study emphasis should shift to gw outside thewal 1Suggest review of results with EPA and present geoprobe-typesampling plan (w/decision tree} to see if low zinc outside thelandfill would eliminate need for treatment..Discussed need for sampling groundwater outside of landfill -Kahl will develop a scope for geo-probe-type testing - dataneeded - depth to top of marsh deposit and gw sample (-20locations outside landfill on east and south sides

Wokasien - Cost - EstimatesUpgraded cost-estimates were presentedLooking at cost comparison of various barium agents (Portland . !Cement - 3%, Hydrated Lime - 3%, and Gypsum - 5%) - will putlowest cost in estimate I

t

flR32i*557

Must confirm shipping costsRecalculating volume and depth of wall based on topo maps ofground surface and top-of-march surface

-npt309.pdf

RR32U558

General Requirements HROII Overhead & Miscellaneous DataR01100-050 General Contractor's OveriieadThe t2blc bdow shows a contractor's ovcrticad as a pULenugc of direct the owner supplied the materials or if a contract b for labor only. Notecost ill two ways. The figures on the right are for the overhead, maricup Some of these markups are included in the labor ntes shown oo Referencebased on both material and labor. The figures on the left are based on Table R0110&070.the entire overhead applied only to the labor. This figure would be used if

Items of General Contactor's indirect CostsField SupervisionMain Office Expense (see details betow)Toots and Wnor EquipmentWorkers' Compensation & Employers' Lability. See R01100060Field Office, Sheds, Photos, Etc.Performance and Payment Bond, 0.7% to 1.51 See R01 100080Unemployment Tax See RO 11 00- 100 (Combined Federal and State)Social Security and Medicare, See ROllOO-100 -Sates Tax — add if applicable 42/80 x % as markup of total direct

costs including both material and tabor. See RQ 11 00090Sub Total

'Bidder's Risk Insurance ranges from .141% to .586;,. See ROilOCKWQ'Public Liabilty InsuranceGrand Total

%of Direct ComAsattarfa*of Labor Only

6.0%1&21.0iai1.52.37.07.7

59.8%0.63.263.6%

AsiltofcupofBothMKBrWndLjbor

2.9%7.70.58.60.71.1333.7

28.5%031.530.3%

jujO"ii_j

3Je

'Paid by Owner or Contractor

Main Office ExpenseA General Contractor's main office expense consists of many items not of total volume. This equals about 7.7% of direct costs. The following aredetailed in the front portion of the book. The percentage of main office approximate percentages of total overhead for different items usuallyexpense declines with increased annual volume of the contractor. Typical included in a General Contnctor's main office overhead. With differentmain office expense ranges from 2% to 20% with die median about 7.2% accounting procedures, these percentages may vary.

Item ! Typical RangeManagers', clerical and estimators' salariesProfit sharing, pension and bonus plansInsuranceEstimating and project management [not including salaries)Legal, accounting and data processingAutomobile and light truck expenseDepreciation of overhead capital expendituresMaintenance of office equipmentOffice rentalUtilities including phone and fightMiscellaneous

Tott

40% to 55X2 to 205 to 85 to 9

0.5 to 52 to 82 to 6

0.1 to 1.53 to 51 to 35 to 15

Average48%12673541428

100%

It'1t

AR32U559351

URSGreiner282 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, New York 14202(716)856-5636

MEMO OF TELECOMJOB NO.: 0 000 3 57 z y *>£> DATEJOB TITLE Dt" • RLE UNDER:PERSON CALUNG: QIL k T?**/'•&»*• PERSON CALLED: /»?, /yREPRESENTING: _________________ REPRESENTING:TELEPHONE #: _____;___________SUBJECT:

SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION:

c e> "

cc: AR32U560

Buffalo. New York 14202(716)856-5636

MEMO OF TELECONJOB NO.: O ooo 3S"? Z* °° DATE: > />.<>JOB TITLE uwt FILE UNDER:PERSON CALLING: TP* fc. D*un*g*3 PERSON CALLED: &>AREPRESENTING: £l.g.S. G u/, d REPRESENTING: G~<

TELEPHONE*: I - g 13 - £2.1 -Q7S/SUBJECT: »,> '<= 7f ,~ c.


/ *" /£ t? »4* //'

^ 1 q ^g. <-7^^ f/ u/> 'rV >^ "TV

-y> -f-

cc: AR32i»56l

Buffalo, New York 14202(716)856-5636

MEMO OF TELECONNO.: <rr -. 3 c-72*?*>o DATE ///<? /QQ

JOB TITLE > o T- RLE UNDER:PERSON CALLING: "BcJc, >. PERSON CALLED: /*REPRESENTING: U..£. <£._________ REPRESENTING:TELEPHONE*: j-HIt'

SUBJECT: <?£<**** #/*// - Jf * ** * A-4 t*-


To &!,. /J s*'* SW>« /%'£> $/s.v P* * s*^ru

o * r

/f J + " 2- x>» /X.

7 7/5 /5 > /P^cxw^-ft fucratvf. Shtr. *,m ts

71*

AR32l*562

lent By: PEERLESS METAL PWDR; 1313B410240; Apr-IC-OQ 9:24; Page 2/2

ESSTM

April 7, 2000

John Woktticn FAX: 716-856*2545URS Consultants282 DelawareBuftlo.NY 14202

Dear John:

Thank you for the opportunity to quote on your requirements for Cast Iron Aggregate at theDuPont - Newport, DE site.

Cart Iron Aggregate Sire 8/50 — -- ————— ---— S33Q/NT

Plus packaging in 3000* bulk bags, palletized — -S 14/NT ($2 I/per bag)

Prices arc FOB Detroit, MI. Terms - Net 30 Days.

T found the following freight rate Detroit, MI to Newport, DE:

Flatbed Truck ————————— -— -~~ ——— $| \2S - S50/NT (based on 22.5 tons)

Should you require us to prepay and add the freight, please add 15% to the above freight price.

We appreciate the opportunity to give you this quote. As you are aware the cost of producing andtransporting iron is market driven and therefore can change over tine; please contact us for a finalquote at the time the irun is required fur the prujca,

Very truly yours.

Paul W. Touslcy f ( jtorcch P. WPresident & CEO ' Cust Iron Sales

PWT'npw

Pnwdars A Abrasive 124 Soulh Military • Detroit, Michtflan 48209rowoers & Aorasive ^ 313) W1.5400 Fax <313)

•nt By: PEERLESS METAL PWDfl; 1313841024C; Apr-10-00 9:23; Page 1/2

ESS TM

Peerless Metal Powders & Abrasive

124 South Military Detroit, Michigan 48209313841-5400 Fax 313841-0240

FAX TRANSMITTAL

We are transmitting a total of /-yC pagcc including this cover sheet. Please contact sender ifyou do not receive the entire transmission.

PLEASE DELIVER THE.FOLLOWING PAGES TO:

COMPAN

F A X M g - ? - PHONE

______________________DATE

MESSAGE:

Powders & Abrasive 124 S00* MUite;yrowoers a Morasive ao-woo F« (313)d4i-oa4o

03-27 '00 00:46 ID:DUPONT-EMV:ROWtNTAL FAX:302-802-7643 PACE

\o:Location

GW-8GVV-9GW-10GW-11GW-12GW-13GW-14GW-15GW-16GW-17GW-19GW-20CGW-21GW-22AGW-22BGW-22C

Depth to Marsh deposit

155559555525106616158

Pott-It* Fax NOW 7671

T

m* >. ,

flR32l*565

03,'27 '00 00 = 47 IDrDUPONT-ENVIRONTlENTftL FAX:302-802-7(543 PAGE

I2 g

I< °F *F f?

c^

o» »

fl J?! u?E»« s?; ?|"- ^f8 *

tn-1 c/t -* oi-*** i «o :') to Xj u>>(D > ID > (DZtO Z CD 2 -J

S f^l _A i_• —i wf~ O P" Df~^fe Wfe "fe

C 3fl rn^ png gS o•D TmX

i! [**S^ v *s i P4>

[

i «11 il^' A * •

3 S2 :

l I *7H l JHr '\. %'r

c% o,1' pi"1?

U 3 ^1i w flR32U566

URSGrelner Woodward Clyde Page _ ofjob CX>?oo-r - Spo-r \,A P \LX- _____ Project No. o5cxxj35*7lS'-Oo Sheet _ L of _JDescription £gwvgi7 ^STVmftrr^ ______ Computed bv T"Ao _______ Date 3 J25 |oo

_____________ Checked bv ~£P _______ DateReference

^ \eT\xj\r VO/XLC V

oooVOL_vrrv\£

— O'

t /

11321,567

h. i

'1U

To: John WokasienFrom: Marek OstrowskiRef: DuPont South Landfill

Infiltration estimates

As you requested, I performed infiltration estimates for the types of cap considered for the DuPont SouthLandfill facility. The caps are:

Case 1: 6" of topsoil, vegetated

Case 2: 6" of topsoil, 12" of barrier soil, vegetated

Case 2-1: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, 12" of barrier soil, vegetated

Case 3: 6" of topsoil, bentonite mat, vegetated

Case 3-1: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, bentonite mat, vegetated

Case 3a: 6" of topsoil, drainage net, bentonite mat, vegetated

Case 3a-l: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, drainage net, bentonite mat, vegetated

Case 4: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone, synthetic liner, bentonite mat

Case 4-1: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone

Case 4a: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone, drainage netf synthetic liner, bentonite ma?

Case 4a-l: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone, drainage net

Case 5: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, synthetic liner, 12" of barrier soil, vegetated

Case 5a: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, drainage net, synthetic liner, 12" of barrier soil,vegetated

Case 6: Existing conditions

The description of the procedure, as well as the summary of results, are outlined below. Printouts of HELPoutput files are attached.

\\URS_BUFF2\VOL 1 \USERS\OSTROW_M\Miscal\DuPont southlandfill_infiltrl .doc03/21/00 8:58AM AR32i*568

1. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis is to estimate the average annual infiltration for the capping systemsconsidered for the South Landfill facility. The caps are as follows:

Case 1: 6" of topsoil

Case 2: 6" of topsoil Case 2-1: 6" of topsoil12" of barrier soil 12" of fill

12" of barrier soil

Case 3: 6" topsoil Case 3-1: 6" topsoilbentonite mat 12" of fill

bentonite mat

Case3a: 6" topsoil Case3a-l: 6" topsoildrainage net 12" of fillbentonite mat drainage net

bentonite mat

Case 4: 4" asphalt Case 4-1: 4" asphalt8" stone 8" stonesynthetic liner 24" of wastebentonite mat

Case 4a: 4" asphalt Case 4a-l: 4" asphalt8" stone 8" stonedrainage r.et drainage netsynthetic liner 24" of wastebentonite mat

Case 5: 6" of topsoil12" of fillsynthetic liner12" of barrier soil

Case 5a: 6" of topsoil12" of filldrainage netsynthetic liner12" of barrier soil

Case 6: Existing cover of 3' of silty/clayey soil

Note that the only difference between cases 3, 4, 5 and 3a, 4a, 5a is the presence of the drainage net.Cases 2-1, 3-1 and3a-l are introduced to investigate the effect of an additional 12" layer of fill onCases 2, 3 and 3a. Cases 4-1 and 4a-l differ from Cases 4 and 4a in that they lack the synthetic linerand the bentonite mat. The layer of waste in Cases 4-1 and 4a-l is introduced because a lateraldrainage layer, such as stone or drainage net, can not be the lower-most layer in HELP.

\\URS_BUFF2\VOLl\USERS\OSTROW_M\MiscaI\DuPonl_southlandfiILinfiltrl .doc

03/21/"°°.: ' 8:58AM . AR32U569

2. DESIGN DATA

Climatological data

Climatological data was selected from the HELP data base for the location of Wilmington, DE. Thedaily precipitation, temperature and solar radiation input was generated synthetically for the period of100 years.

Evapotranspiration data

Evapotranspiration parameters pertaining to the Climatological data are obtained from the HELP database for the location of Wilmington, DE.

In typical topsoils vegetated with grass, the evapotranspiration zone depth in relatively moist climates,such as in Delaware, is likely to be approximately 21 inches. Value of 21 inches was used in thiscalculation. However, the thickness of the zone available for the root growth is less than that for allcases considered in this analysis, except for Cases 2-1 and 6. For the remaining cases either the entirethickness of the cap is less than 21 inches or the thickness available for root growth is limited by thepresence of the bentonite mat or a synthetic liner. Therefore, the actual depths of theevapotranspiration zone are:

Case 1: d = 6 inchesCase 2: d = 18 inchesCase 2-1: d = 21 inchesCase 3: d = 6inchesCase 3-1: d= 18 inchesCase 3a: d - 6 inchesCase 3a-l: d = 18 inchesCase 5: d = 18 inchesCase 5a: d= 18 inchesCase 6: d = 21 inches

Note that the details of the cap construction are not yet specified. If fill is placed to create a uniformlygraded subgrade, the evapotranspiration zone may extend deeper into the fill. Also, depending on thenature of the waste, the root growth may occur within the waste itself. For this analysis, it was assumedthat there is no grading fill, and that the roots will not grow into the waste.

The cap configuration in Cases 4, 4-1, 4a and 4a-l is different from the remaining cases because thesurface is covered with asphalt. This, for all practical purposes, eliminates the evapotranspiration.Therefore, only a nominal evapotranspiration zone was assumed (d = 0.1 inches).

The maximum leaf area index was selected to be 2,0, based on the typical value for the poor to fairstand of grass.

LAI = 2.0

For the asphalt cap, the maximum LAI is zero (no vegetation).

\\URS_BUFF2\VOL 1 \USERS\OSTROW_M\Miscal\DuPont_southlandfill_infiltrl doc03/21/00 8:58 AM RR32l»57Q

Runoff parameters

It was assumed that the typical slopes of the landfill surface will be 4 percent, and that surface watercollection swales will be located every 200 feet. The surface type for the calculation of the CN curvenumber was based on a poor stand of grass.

S = 4 %L = 200 feetPoor grass

For the asphalt cap, the CN number was user-specified at the value of 95. This was assumed based onthe TR55 guidance for asphalt parking lots.

Soil data

Soil and material types were selected from the HELP data base. Properties are listed in Table 4 of theHELP manual. Short descriptions are provided below:

Existing soil: HELP soil type #12, silty clayTopsoil: HELP soil type #6, sandy loamFill: HELP soil type #4, loamy sandBarrier soil: HELP soil type #16, barrier soil (clay), hydraulic conductivity = 1*10"7 cm/sStone: HELP soil type #21, gravelBentonite mat: HELP material type #17Synthetic liner: HELP material type #36, LDPE, 40 mil, good quality installationDrainage net: HELP material type #20

Asphalt was modeled by assuming that ils properties are similar to those of a barrier soil layer (HELPsoil #16). This is probably a good assumption regarding hydraulic conductivity (on the order of IO"1cm/sec). Remaining soil properties, such as wilting point and field capacity, are probably not relevantto asphalt.

The waste was modeled as a clayey soil with the hydraulic conductivity of 1.7*IO'5 cm/s (HELP soil#15).

\\URS_BUFF2\VOLl\USERS\OSTROW_M\Miscal\DuPonl_soulhlandfillinfiltrI.doc _ - ,03/21/00 8:58 AM ~ A R 3 2 5 7 I

3. RESULTS

Average annual infiltration values are presented below:

Case Description Average Annual Infiltration______________________________________fin/vrl______ .

Case 1: 6" of topsoil, vegetated /M>(ty - c note below

Case 2: 6" of topsoil, 12" of barrier soil,vegetated

Case 2-1: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, 12" ofbarrier soil, vegetated

Case 3: 6" of topsoil, bentonite mat, vegetated

Case 3-1: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, bentonite mat, 1.1vegetated

Case 3a: 6" of topsoil, drainage net, bentonite mat, 0.02vegetated

Case 3a-l: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, drainage net, 0.02bentonite mat, vegetated

Case 4: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone, synthetic liner, zerobentonite mat

Case 4-1: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone, waste 0.1

Case 4a: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone, drainage net, zerosynthetic liner, bentonite mat

Case4a-l: 4" of asphalt cap, 8" of stone, drainage net, O.Iwaste

Case 5: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, synthetic liner, 0.00812" of barrier soil, vegetated

Case 5a: 6" of topsoil, 12" of fill, drainage net, 0.00005synthetic liner, 12" of barrier soil, vegetated

Case 6: Existing conditions 6

Note: In cases 1 and 2, there is a possibility that the roots can extend below the cap into the waste. Forcase 2 the difference in the depth of the evapotranspiration zone would be insignificant (from 18 to 21inches), and the resulting infiltration would be practically the same as reported above. However, thedifference would be significant for case 1, where the depth would increase from 6 to 21 inches.Assuming that, the infiltration decreased from 16 to 9 inches.

\\URS_BUFF2\VOLl\USERS\OSTROW_M\Miscal\DuPont_southlandfill_infiltrl.doc03/21/00 - ' 8:58 AM ~ flR32l»572

4. SUMMARY

Results can be summarized as follows:

• Under existing conditions or a soil cap, the average infiltration would be on the order of 10inches per year (Cases 1 and 6).

• For the low perm soil cap the infiltration should be negligible (Case 2,1 = 0.002 in/yr obtained).However, the 6" topsoil would not create a sufficient barrier for frost penetration. The lowpermeability barrier soil would be likely to crack and/or heave, causing an increase in infiltrationwhose magnitude is impossible to predict. The frost damage can be controlled by an addition ofa frost protection layer. However, the frost protection layer itself creates a reservoir by trappingwater above the low permeability barrier and thus increasing the head acting on the barrier. As aresult, the infiltration is on the order of 1 inch per year (Case 2-1). The same is true if bentonitemat is used instead of the low permeability barrier soil (Case 3 and 3-1). The addition of a lateraldrainage layer above the low permeability barrier or bentonite mat would decrease theinfiltration to a negligible level (Cases 3a and 3a-l, I = 0.02 in/yr).

• The asphalt cap with the liner and bentonite mat will practically eliminate all infiltration (Cases4 and 4a, I = 0). If the liner and bentonite are not used and the cap is constructed directly abovethe waste, the infiltration would still be •very low (Cases 4-1 and 4a-l, I = 0.1 in/yr). In allcases, the presence of the drainage net has no effect on the performance of the asphalt cap. Thisis because the 8-inch stone layer has sufficient lateral flow capacity to convey the insignificantamount of water infiltrating through asphalt at negligible heads.

• The RCRA cap without the drainage net will allow only negligible infiltration (Case 5,1 = 0.008in/yr). The addition of a drainage net would practically eliminate all the infiltration (Case 5a, I =0.00005 in/yr, essentially zero).

\\URS_BUFF2WOL1\USERS\OSTROW MAMiscaI\DuPonl_southlandfill_infiltrl.doc03/21/00 * 8:58AM ' ft R 3 2 U 5 7 3

ROD REMEDY ESTIMATE

UJL—™

^ .••••

~-j ~

LL. ^££ ÛJ ,£- ^

^ § i? - §UJ ^ §Z "A =*

OU

"oH

oCJ•*•«*5

"5

Quan

tity

'f

•s.~~

O OOO CD O O O O OO O 0s O P-- ONO OOO O O O O O O - J t ^ O O O O O OOOO OOO O O 0s t^ O TJ- (N r*i O t^- OOO OOO rn O O (N O r ' O O 'O r~-' OcTo^ o in >n ô <"*~i ' — ' ô ' ô • — • oo ro c-j r-- i --

OO • — • O^ • — • • — ' — ' 'O

o o in — • o ^t o>o>o oo*;. D ft ,. OO f ,. ,- ^r-i ^— • — ' Ln . oj oj CN . t^

D oo oo oo u >n

be oew w o e ^ e êbe^. ^

£ Z3 r- r" "^ C

H >->- ; > - H > * c o s G S 1 ^ S

§ CL, CL Q_ § CU

0 ° o «O O X O v» vo0 00 § ^ 0 g t-_ o — o o fC — '-i. o r- — CDo o fC r~i — ! —'n in

cd cd cd-— i j— • <— io 2 2.S Jo JoZ J 3 D

OU

Q

=Jj'x

^ — S" _2 o! *"-? c« 3 s> CQ — cO "° T3 D —• — — c: ra •— > —5> 2 -2 2 J ^ ° 5

ÔD;^ o tJ ooj.,'^C O - T D - " « ^ - ^ - oO ' ^ CZ "T"t Cu r ' ™ i ^ '—' i— i'- C3 5 3 ^ 2 T ^ O c ^ CT^ N ?: — Cu S ^ t* fcA r?. - -^ •— • f . .^ O CJ r^ OJj ^_ • — * Û r- ^ >> r i , !-j *-* (— « C^

1" | .^ | & | -g o | | g^ _ o : U _ _ g g.g'-g-gjg g£ & in w 5 O S f X t u S U

S1^

TOTAL

flR32t*57S

iZ

coCJ6<uO

(U

ccd-a

O 03e u '-5"4- b r-r- ^ Srd -~- cd ^ 2 ° 2 d=* « § -^ S S>. — r i O C „^D O ^ > '.a w

^ „„ c3 O C7*r-* ^ 1- |

5 S ^ c >^x ra P- or:1

c3 ^- 3 (i O *-*•« w w^ U £ X r t t - r = i ' - ^ ^ 3 35-^D^^o^; ^"g

H " ? "'Tt^n^'-r- ^ D .— ^ iH Qi ~ -S1-^-

y X M ^ ^ 3 t/5Q ^ ~ 'P " « g ^ .. "007— ^ - ^ " ^ m ' o ^ -^-

Lurr= — ^— " o J o . t ^ 3 ^ ? ? ,

J s •? i 2 a 8 -

i

HR324576 i

O *n u-» • — i/~i O-3 Ov <""! oi* O fl T

s 1 § I g S so- S 2 K ^ £ "•>^ « *»

-fe + + + + + +f- , , _ o

51 S £ -n «n O oo

a

,J= -J .,. •'• -I- -I- 'I' -I- •!•

e ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^- , " i n w - i u - i i n w i u i u ^O r - . f i r - i r - i f - i r ' i r n r i

6 S S S K S S S I 1 I- -

« -£ o o o o4» ( u u a > r _ Q ^ L -J S i i i i i j i £ u -5 § u« .= .= .= .= *- g, o > m ^j g a p ^ o p a p ^ « 2 ^ . 5 53^ |M P U J L L J U J U J « _ 3-o H 2 5 P w r ^.5 g M a p o p ^ - g 2 S g o S ^ - B Z« ^ b • = - = - = - = Q g m -" Q & < = S »S n o 2 £ 2 2 - ^ Q - ^ ^ ^ U ^ S ^ ™£ E ^ f c S w w " * o o x « ^ ^ ^ - ^

> 2- « « 5 - ° - 5 - P - 2 C ^ ^ o - - o - ^ ^ . B^ - - J - J O O O O h - * l _ ± S ^ Q^ ^^ _js s Ii = 1

II

^ e o ?=C p *o </-)< 'X

- oo00

- ' ^

= O Ot (N

^ I I I I I I I IS •> •£ d £ £ £t __^* *•* ^ r* *"* ^

\\ <s- tf> ^ ^5 \O o

cE - -o " <cr o o— o o

g o iacc ^ ^ <5 ^>

^ 5 5

oo

*•g . 1eB5"2 ' 15 =5 ; 18K B JO rjr- O

AR32i»578 2S 1

O C3r-i E

< £-Q

S «00 r= U

CL«00

•o g

a>-O

a.

O o_..-^ —ii o

'5 "1 S E_, "7 ~ ocd -O ~ t s^5 -D u-« oo -2 o"S "2 - -2* « s —— " 3 >-. ,»T

u a.to Wl

D.nj

"° u r- (N \o a; oo-

C. JJ «o- a- u - u o Sra v£> op p -g — o"~ " •- "3 w o"

O

§

CLO

bel

O T Ooo \o oo

o <•*•) oo -3-— — — bebe be be

o -i ~- ~-i ,~- r*

4,

«oc>-4)C.oo

sobe —be

22 a.

o --a- ?5 , =DO c^ S </> o

be be be

=> ou-t iiSO -O^

o o o oO vi O OfN fN SO —O O O —I I I I-3- rj- OO TJ-o o o o

c•2 o~ *—& 1/3 ——i- a. =:« f c an O

g w 00ul2UJ

CO13

o

o-T3ra

"2 J w5 CL i> — -gE ^00'— ro soj_, _D G"-

oo ra £Z L_ I—

<5 C o" o f~"< — r-- o so — oo& - q j " p r _ 2 ^ r . ^ ^ , , , ,— JL* O ' ' * O> * D C O ^ ( 1

>•-, jj .i> o ^ _'_• be be be be be bera c^_ E1 —• ^ be be be"§ = ^ I- 2— _| i ^ S n n n n n n ii n "2__* ^ ~~ o 1* 1oo — ' i : : o ^ ^ I I 2 ' < O "§

^ ^ «* CL ~« O " O O I - ' . . . .

.go §•ro — _E .= ™ — _^ o o o o - r r - r rfe ^ — C^ ^2 .~ .*; s O s o s D v j Dw ' ^ T^ - S o-" o' o o

.-= < u r o S S — x o " - 2 x r a ~ ^ " y H o

^UJ»*••iUJ

UR32U58I

be

O sDO r*iO r->rN r-i•3- sorN -3-be be

so CNso o——— ON

ON ONSO V~>r*l Obe __-

be

TT r-o r~~•*f som fNm —— sqrvT >o"be be

oooo'oin•!•

ooOSOTr--fr-"be

L.Vaso

o oo ooSO T TJ-< ~i so SOa-' o' o"

S ooo w

r- ™ OD Xso •--s g Ibe be be *" a.

c 8.0o O Li-

UJSUJU

(W

flR32l»582

Oi-.0.

oo

c/I—o0.

<uzo

"TD=

5 2g S cf^, be 5^ A 2 ^ -2" A •* " &5 § E « &< ~- ,_ c. vi

Or- C C > fNJ

« I , l i l t ? S i•f ! . E HIM ^!•

i Q i > t il i % L f- o a l f ' o .r o ea a* *" o t_^ C J ^ ^ °^ P^^ S . ^ ^ ^•'• Z- g M M •= *=? 2 ^ Q - 5 « 5 "« ^ • -i- ~ 9- ^ ° j* £ -^£ 5 § J 2 I - H g 1 o §o = ^ n £ « ~ O K F , t. i 2 *-O O J , _ i = SP W °, «-°^^i O ^. g -3 5. fe CN g.S^o « o ^ ^, 1. O C L . , . ^' «S u 3 - i ^ ~ " y n - F - o o - c N-> ^ 3 > 9 ^ > r N £ r o - p : = ^ r M O _

II ^ _' C J, o - £ ft = 3 A .,. oo• t* r__ >1 O II —— -~- TZ ra I! ^Hf"? r^ f— ^5 o " « -O w J= !i CL rN CL

I1| § 1 -" I J 1 * I r V 1— o 2 Q := n ^ ^ - ^ P W - ^ ^ ^ K- § t s ^ ^ ^ o s ^ | ^ § t t tf N ^ . - H f S U a - a m — « P ^ r r N 2 J = y

» _a s = 0 " = , 0 0 " ^ U o O i C L x ^ - g

< - § . § § § g ^ § § s | I « 1 § x S 1§ 5 S- H I § =. I 1 - g o *. « «. I• - J u - , — h - < r N _ J o o b e r N b e 5

= (IR32I4583

=

OO

be be be

oo

OO

CJ_raCL

00OOO = f^ C.ra D

Cr-i cb >ri 2 soxO ON SO w —

O o>

ra oo^

O

T3

00

S « a odd '« x c«C OO 5* •r- *- TT „3g rNO 2. <> 2. i / ) v o _ -

>j-lO ^t ?t ir i U o ^ O4 ~ t . r - o o o > C > G SL . s o r - o o > o • > « n > ^c f~^r- r-i r- ON i: = ~~— ' __rF- II oo" — •" so" ^ o .— rN— — — be - - D O O

II

^± §S £ S ;; ~ gf | gw — (*_ « i i i _e: £p t" ii.S II II « ^ 00 00 00 ,_ ^ -o 5 £ O*- Q r-, 5 S 2 «> ^ W T3 ~ ——

* s 13 3 2 1 2 2 .81 £ S= o I " o S 5 | | _ | | | £ > >g = = S - I | S s S 2 g-5 ox v - ° a x K -o -o &*? §a t 5 i 5 . i * II Ii s P•2 ^ ® ^ - S ^ o - ^ ^ ^ ^ S - c ,

«-.N => =

tu O •^3 ——1 IO O r -i> P v"" od 0*« ^ «^n i B

w r° wII II S? '5 .M ' ?o !« r= i

S JS 1t3 Ji 3oo __ -S »

S S S I f f+ ? ? s § ffZ, + + a) y .g§00 i= g >3 2 ^ ^ o ss s s 1^1

^ - D OII II II < o —o^ ^ E« -^ "§ ^

aO 9 ?AR32l»58l» S£ J

UJ

raT3

a•* be u~i so — — "3- —ON be — be be bebe be

sor~~oooo

ra O u II II II II II II II II II II || II 15§ -° "2 2n H a -°z a_ » % $ a— c CL «j ,j~,j j -p o feb 2-

,S i i ^ o .—™ — — ^» *"* fx*^ O « ™ q_

0<5 1^ U "D ->i ^ X^ i ra ^~. _— U- " 3 - i O Oo '£ ^ — ^ --;'•=K T= 2 '5 LT ., ^ y -

= ^ - i ^ § s s|||^||^^^^|2 ^ - - o " 2 - S _ g X o ^ S ^ ^ ^ o o o o o o ^ ^LT ~S ^ P ™ — ra o ^ o o p s u - j v o — — — r - O ;• ^ = o S ° ° _ L - 7 ^ x o C o S ^ s d o o ^ f r n r - i r K o d s o"^ ir h o — „ £ : _ o s T j - m r ^ r ^ m m ^ r ^ :_ *^ u -Q *- w „ s o o , / . b e 4 ^ { ^ & e & e b e b e b e t « e^ " - O ^ c ^ o 1 - — —n 5 ra - ra ^ ra 2- v £ = ^ § 2 x x x ^ ^ x x x x x x xI ^(D'l^^g- S ^ ^ ^ J ^ ^ ^ S ^ S J

€ ^ .s '2 i_- "s ^ S H ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J - O O ^ ^ S ;S Q i - o o ^ w 1 - — o o o u - i o o ^ o o o o s o - r j - o o o oH O ofi - & Ji fe O^m — f ^ ~ m m t ^ — m^

g— £ " ? « 2 E S o - o o5 g | ? 2 | | | ||= . |

^3 n _g .. ., -^ -^ -^ £ O L U u5s I ? i i t _ I s g * s ! £o . T . o o ^ ^ 1 " ^ l - p - = ° ' S " ,

°- O o « *±- CL^: ca r o J S a o CL- t : O U C Q O O O - J - i u . _ l Q O

sqOO

OO

-Tr—r-jbe

o• r•r--'I-"]be

soormfNbe

r-isoOfV)be

TTrrNbe

or-

be

rNoounbe

r"N row-t Os(~N| W-l

rN —be be

ONOOOOOOT

be

msoroooor4——^

be

^ ru-isor-f)-_

be

uL.WC.o\&«

ro oij ra2 O. r°

•§ WC^ o

•ao

O O O i n O m O Ot • — r^ Os O" ™

M"—

•3C

? i --I I I § j I i . 6 I | !> i 3 1 i^s i «_ J i

fi.

r^ OO O

ON 00SO T3-

O

rT r'l O SO ONU. W C/5 — so

a."V")r-mo'rNbe

O O Oo o o s §so J-

,-v be rN i. .ON be beONON

. . . o£ 51 o1 -«3 o o §r p «

o o3 § §sJ - '« - -

>" £; u 5° o a C2 so .E p _(/i ir~i ' ~ "~•^ i so P Og 5 x * S.O _ (^_ t/) oU X oo (U —

U „,CL ra

ra ..-' -t± O-

6R32U587

^ f £. £. «>> = ra ra >>ra ra -2 .2 ra-o -a ~ ^ -D•JO SO OsT ro

(N

00

ooso

o. .2« *-

ro ON f Tun" ro' —" —• rN —

-, — SOS ON r-.T * r^ 1 ^^fN ni ~_' r —_ — fN

^ be be

ONrorNSOfNbe

It 1! II "TOO

x« N= 3ov s -j

O ro ro

^ X X* A« > >. •

P p O O t x ' ^ '^ -^ E E i^i : ^'/^ '/"><: -C £ ro r-j— m oo ut _' u _•

"X X X X X X X X

,*, r« ,-t/1 C/] t/i fJ

^ o o o o o o og O ' T f s O r N O ^ s O OS^ — — — — r J - f N f NJ y O O O O O S O O O

O O O O O O O O

.H S g o . - - ^ -2 a,— , - 0 0 ^ 0 « a > - r C L = _E = «r * J i j 3 r a _ T , - a p , i - = J - = c r ^ w ^f - = o ^ - 5 3 o g ( - o ^ j c o u J ^ - ? : ^5 - g s u ^ ^ s a S ^ ^ y y ? ' i y2 - 5 _ _ _ _ S - S ' S b S S l ^ ' o 1O « — r N r o ^ - C ^ s o ' O f - J O O O - C / 3 f l IU B

_] .2L5 c?*S ua-

l/~lr~J'n<nbe

OOOo'u-ibe

ONfNr~~QOUObe

oooo'nobe

oooo1be

OrNt~~oo>JObe

rofNrorobe

OO

»/N,

ONrbe

ONrorNSOfNbe

rv/OroSOmr~~be

ooGcTsor-fx»

oo x Kso ^ CL

V° N.0x C* ^ °^ ri —o» -a '" ^ " -2i-' - o ra o -? o

~ £ 5 S £ % 1^ £ P g P 2 § Sx x - oo^ = ^ oo x2? if) OO '-i OO X '

x o = — -f- rt — i be — 'SOO

0 ooo

'i § ? § 1 $ ? §^ r o Q o O ^ 2 ^ 1

S O O 000be

CLZiSC/l i

2 T3 -S

S i g « gK C '„ iz -.c o ra u ora T: N r^i —

JS

S h- K g a> g 5v P « -5 g Q -i

—•UJ

AR32U589

URSBrelner Woodward ClydeJob c/ 0o**+~ _________________ PrpjectNo. ____________ Sheet / ofDescription T c -'fe <g «fUg - Co4- Computed bv £0 _______ Date &//*</**____________________________ Checkedbv XS^ ______ Date

I h /S

«

pc»* £

AR32«i590

CLuorroO a>M hw sII L.CJ 4>ra c.

>>uoo

< UW) SS>, -c" fo t>ON 4>

_^ONON

OOOri>r\be

ooorrrrorNbe

oO 0ooo"-3-

oso'rsirobe be

- o o-•- ~ = be *"^ r- j] x x x

i <5 •£ £ fr £o o ^ = o o ^~ so (—) C 5 O (j^ x> g U P P «

so O Ox * g** S o^ .yu

xo .a 01 S ~ 8

-^ O ON— « soo so c-t/3 — so

s

AR32U59I

so w~> — O •— so r-4O N ^ T s e r N C N r — —-q- .T r-i r-i rN — o— — r-i — T' —' —'

— — rN wo

o *f>— ro

VDo

— ro OO in IJ Vr o r j o o o o , - , - . .

r r r r f~~ f*" OO OO fN

**O CF)

"O IIno t* O O O O O O O x°

•I- § ""» — — — — ^ r-4 fN 2

gs"° S ^ T ^ rs,

.50

•I- «j 4« es »fli E"O U '=00 5 M*o £ 2 £

= N ^ , Q _ _ C « — — — V B

(/; .2 ^ £ . = sj^ 2 w5 — o3 '^ "S

^ J J - c r a _ - O P , ' - E - J - = a ' " o Wf " = o j w - 5 3 o c H o ^ t - o u j - ^ - sa>

se- -

RR32U592 1 1

Ooo

(-..OO O O r o o s t ^X oo o o oo rN *o L«X " - i O OO W) ro ON "^Or. , r , t^_~ TJ- o r- -<r ro r- p>

S p § E 2 g 5x 5 °, = *^* P x01 CO SO C/D X soE? S- 5 g- « Z I•° = o i « o ^o - — -i oo — ^fN —J be —' r- be —

0 000X vi m o__ - —— TT 01

° ° u 3 S ?V S3 6 ^ ? Sg o S ^ P °?'-" e> O fN O ro^ __ fN ~ •—•,-, ooo

"O • —

! J I Io w <u o'S £ Q «-S ^ H 2._ OS O

"o 2 2 . £

-J<

flR32k593

I IRQ 1TELEPHONE BID 2SE52 „______———————————————————————————————————————il

Name and Address of Firm Submitting BW:

Vendor's Representative: Vendor's Phone No.:

Terms:

Descriptkxi of Project Being Bid On:

Delivery Data: FOB:

Colt*:tSubject to inspection

Quantity Description Unit Price Total

/I $ 000

firs

.** y7*

Freight Cost*

SFfwgn com v* MM

Sales/Use Tax

$

Q Tax Exempt

TottlCoet«or Labor

S

Total Cost for Material

S

Grand Tottl

S

AN Wbrtt and Material as per Ptaa vri Specifications Q Yee G No

Bid Inclusions: BUExduskma

J

']J

Date This Bid Phoned In: Time This Bid Phoned In:

am pm

Stgntture o* RepresenWtve Accepting Thrt BW:

X

Buffalo. New York 14202(716)855-5636

MEMO OF TELECONJOB NO.: n*vfctt*S &.*5£> DATE o' / /JOB TITLE -V- FILEUNDEFtPERSON CALLING: A- PERSON CALLED: **, £trREPRESENTING: LL • J^-S _______ REPRESENTING:TELEPHONE #: j 'SUBJECT:


~ 3

- z.

» *

^ orr-

Ho^ fd- TV

O-t

/</

HR32I4595cc:

ESD REMEDY ESTIMATE

RR32U596

uH3oQ i;5 Sg§I.* Q XH"™* ** "

. QQ- < UJO -1 a- i uj£ H *r QS 0 SZ Y) Uj

44

O

U

o

*joU**'n

44

'cJ

44

"c«3o*

e_o.e.£3

O " O V i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^ O m O O r - ÔO f N t - - O O O O a O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O f N O O S ^ ^ s O O f N OOOO f N r n r N O O O O f N O f N O O O O 0s O ^ ^ O O ^ O ^ r ^ O r - - fN^D OO O O OO OO OO O OO OO ^-O f \O ^ fN ^D 0s CD t^ • — ' O if) i/~t Q\CTs • — i r*~i C> "^ ^f *O C> *sD T^T CO r*~) r*"i • — ' • — • • — • i/~} TJ- i/~j . — i fxj oO Ov• — ' • — ' • — > — -> r*"i rO \O r~^ r1^ • — • fN > — ' 'O ("^ r'l ^* r^ Os rN

o "ovio rôo fNO 'n w^ o vo oooooo r--CZi r-ifNÔ OO^tO fNO vi -^ O ON fNfNfN fN

,. ' —— ' ^^ Ô ^D w r r OO *^ ^f „ ^^ r ^

^ U-i IT| tT| OS

- - t •* vT

S - ^ S3 i— . 'S i— i 3 "t-

<L> c--^ '^ c ( U s - j C " s _ l - ^ a j Q j a j ^ (5o O ^*_Oc5^ Ora S ^" y C L < - > O O o . CJ<! ^-U^ ^J/O ~Q <C ^ c3 ^ C a i a j a j C JLJ

3 Q- CU CL, § CUJ _)

0 S 0 S 0 -? s?vr^ '^ CD ;— ' fÔ 2 <N vn CZ? ^^ ^r^r-i ^5 rn r^ «„ -o-2 J - °^ M S § ~ " §

^' CN g^ m ^ - -

o o o o oS .£ S _n JD3 3 3 3 3

V]o'o ^0 °ex mO t-r 3

o os «3 â. >>* oGO U

"ttT fN T3 t

r2 {§ ~L 9 CX fliic — — cd o, H— -5 3 2 7^ 3 y^ c^ ^ S ti c/o ra^ C E w d, ej SS 3 -"3 . b ' O u t i^D — T: ^ c -r1 ^ '^? cc ^ 5 - ^ 2 o ^ ^ ^ S ' r a' " c 2 U c " 5 2 g ^

.2 uu °- ^ ~ o g> o '-§ O ra "g

1 1 1 1 g* S S U ^ | | o | - g f ga f i E x | | g l o ^ - g o ^ S g>cu r"1 w o ^ S> S> i±i t- -rj H u c t i 2 - ' ^ - '&^J^CDL;^ SiJ S w G > ^ g, ^ ' r a o 2 P o §C/3C/D h ^ O h ^ O i— J C ^ C ^ l O O 2 c u U - j 2 O

L .

oft00

JHOH

AR32l*597

o

oo

-oratJ

rN jy

£ Jl* z•s H ^^ §mi IIS ^t o — u jira fj ra > 3 •*—

« S? P J - |"2Ii •< S =<) T3 c:_^ rt^ x I = jj assCJ5 :> t «

_ '-^Qlllli!?8?Ilp

i iP P Jflllti!^ - ^ l l — "

flR32»*598

"Nancy J Griskowitz" <Nancy [email protected]> on 01/27/200002:27:38 PM

To: John Wokasien/Buffalo@URSGreinercc: "Brandt Butler" <[email protected]>

Subject: SLF Cost Estimate Information

John,

The attached file contains two spreadsheets. The information on thesesheets replaces the groundwater pumping and chemical treatment sections ofthe ESD estimate.

In addition, the Engineering and Project Support percentage of 10% that weinclude with our estimates includes but is not limited to treatabilitystudies, pilot studies, implementation design, contract administration,health and safety compliance and field supervision.

(See attached file: Cost Estimates 1-27.xls)

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thanks,Nancy

- Cost Estimates 1-27.xls

fiR32i*599

(D

I3COE3T3OCO

21 S OD °° *~l9o cq £ T- cv,!I o - CN r-'ln

««l£

LU

COoo

OQ_

UJ

•51 £§Q ' l§Z<

at

g I ll, -„I/)

T3CUJ3o_ii <uo> ra™ *P ro•= OJw O

0=

TO O)

"SzIoj *± .D;tr co co

oooo"oinr-'CD

rg(D

Oco T3CN

O

£ " trJ5 tn O= S §:iCO 2 §"P <-> CO

o_ _W 01 I .-= _c ^L LL- - °

CO ±i ro TDu>**- gtT) t

>

CN < .C

5 o «f. W n)c

i •- ° S ?CO CO LiJ

T3(U =IS OCO u)P *_~ O

0)Q.•«•Ococvra

c o.O .Q

m oo

ro xi*r n-i o g 2 .x o E fs | lo ^— £ c

JS < COH OO _ _, .

AR32l*600

cOocN

COLUHCOoO

cLU3o

i QJ

<D CO

5 n.E Q)tn QS tf

emediation Cos

ite: N

ewport

ize: 3

.3 Acres

Dcation: N

ewpo

EC. W CO _J

E

"woo7J"o

*•*(0ou'£

tn'E

•

"cre3o

c,0'•C.au(0a>O

CO O CO f .CO O CD tDro ro CO w>

0 o

O frf

tnK >•-Q to

T3

OO nr- g 5?o ,— *-*CN ^CD

^ ^CO(N

z

1 *f !2 "uo 51a) co ^

(J)

0) 3 c& f ro< f, _i cnco c < .E

= H 0 m §>CO CO LU

inn-**>

h-O

otn

-Qin —CU t-o mCO "fO Wfj (ro roin ^r- "oC -Qo ~~.E §5N 030 0<*ffl -SS1%5^= c^Q) S a>I °I o

.. ra .i_- co •?«« 2 o 2 o2 H coi- oo , . . _Z •*- CM ro TT

AR32l»60l

permeable reactive barrier treatment …the permeable reactive barrier will be constructed of a...

Documents