remedial phaing activiit- ^ selected - semspub.epa.gov · this document has been prepared for the...

Environmental." -;Protection Agency

™ :;- Remedial PHAing A c t i v i i t -*• '-' ~ij -•** —*-*7*«i Jt»L* --*-3',i - -^' "*-4S * 3 -4_* ^ . -' . . .* _^ _ - . —c1 .--- ~t"

^ Selected; IJnconfrplled , /i t^ HazardousAAfaste Sites in ' ; :--: y'';:f jiRegion 1H:. c/J, v C -,.

Contract No.'

RR'303522

CKMHIIL

RAYMARK SITE RI/FSFINAL GROUND WATER

INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUMOPERABLE UNITS NO. 2 AND 3

WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 90-10-3178CONTRACT NO. 68-W8-Q090

June 1991

Prepared for:

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION HI

841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyunder Contract No. 68-W8-0090. The material contained herein is confidential and isnot to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person or persons forany reason without the prior express approval of a responsible official of the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.

NJR65/054AR65.S1

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction - ^

Site Background _ 1

Ground Water Investigation 2Well Drilling 2Well Construction 3Well Development 3Coring 3Borehole Geophysics 3Ground Water Sampling 4Off-Site Production Well Sampling 4Packer Tests 4

Area Well Survey 4

Hydrogeologic Characteristics of Study Area 5Site Geology 5Site Lithology and Ground Water _ 6Hydraulic Heads 7Background Water Levels 8Packer Pumping Tests 9

Observation Well Drawdown 9Pumping Well Drawdown 11

Results of Area Well Survey 12

Contaminant Distribution and Fate 13Contaminant Distribution 13

On-Site Wells 13Off-Site Wells 14

Contaminant Fate 14

Projected Effects of Pumping on Contaminant Migration 15

Conclusions _ 17

Bibliography

NJR62/012R62.51

APPENDICES

Appendix A Soil and Rock LogsAppendix B Packer Test MemorandumAppendix C Pump Test Curves 'Appendix D Transmissivity Discussion

TABLES

Table 1 Ground Water Elevations RaymarkTable 2 Aquifer Characteristics RaymarkTable 3 Recorded Water Wells Within 1-Mile of RaymarkTable 4 Ground Water Analytical Results Well Clusters Volatile

Organic Compounds RaymarkTable 5 Ground Water Analytical Results Well PF-1S RaymarkTable 6 Ground Water Analytical Results Packer Testing Volatile

Organic Compounds RaymarkTable 7 Ground Water Analytical Results Hatboro Wells Volatile

Organic Compounds Raymark

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Map RaymarkFigure 2 Geologic Cross-Section RaymarkFigure 3 Water Level Data Collected August 29 and 30, 1990 RaymarkFigure 4 Water Level Data Collected September 27, 1990 RaymarkFigure 5 Deep Piezometric Surface August 29 and 30, 1990 RaymarkFigure 6 Deep Piezometric Surface September 27, 1990 RaymarkFigure 7 Location of Water Wells Within 1-Mile Radius Based on the

Area Well SurveyFigure 8 Volatile Organics in Site Wells RaymarkFigure 9 TCE in Site Wells RaymarkFigure 10 Volatile Organics in Sampled Hatboro Wells Raymark

NJR62/OI2R6251

II?3Q3525

CHMHI&TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM _____________________

TO: - - - Mike Towle/USEPA

FROM: Joe Cleary/NJG

PREPARED Cliff Bell/NJOBY: JimBurd/NJO

DATE: May 31, 1991 -- - - - - - - -

SUBJECT: Ground Water Investigation

PROJECT: NJO63109.RI.R1 -

INTRODUCTIONThe objective of this technical memorandum is to summarize the results of theground water investigation for the Raymark NPL Site in Hatboro, Pennsylvania. Theground water investigation was performed in response to work assignment (WA)number 90-10-3L78 under EPA Contract Number 6S-W8-0090 and a work assignmentamendment dated November 29, 1989.

This technical memorandum describes:

* The methods used in investigating ground water at the Site

• The subsurface geology at the Site

• The ground water flow characteristics as they relate to subsurfacegeology at the Site

• The extent of ground water contamination at the Site by TCE and otherVOCs

SITE BACKGROUNDPrior to this investigation, the Raymark Site was identified as a source of TCEcontamination in the aquifer that the Borough of Hatboro uses for its water supply.The Raymark Site was used to manufacture rivets and fasteners by several companiesfrom 1948 to 198L According to the Milford Rivet and Machine Company, Inc., in1979, approximately 30 to 40 gallons per day of Perm-a-chlor, a solvent containingTCE, were used to degrease noil-porous ferrous and non-ferrous pans from the

NJR60/022R60.51 " _ . _ _5830352S

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 2June 7, 1991NJO63109.RI.R1

manufacturing of the rivets and fasteners. Former plant personnel stated that TCEwas stored in above-ground tanks outside the building (Figure 1). A degreaser placedabove a concrete pit in the building was used for the degreasing operation. TCEusage apparently ceased in 1980. . .:....'... ~ . . _.

Aerial photos of the Site taken in 1950 and 1965 showed four lagoons behind themanufacturing plant. A possible fifth lagoon was noted on photographs from 1970,Untreated wastewater from electroplating and degreasing operations and treatedwastewater from the on-site treatment system were reportedly discarded in thelagoons from 1948 to 1972. In 1972, these lagoons were taken out of operation byexcavating and backfilling with clean fill.

The Raymark Site is underlain by sandstones, siltstones and shales belonging to theMiddle Arkose Member of the Stockton Formation.

GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION

WELL DRILLING

A total of 11 wells were installed and one existing well modified during this phase ofthe study. Three clusters of 3 monitoring wells each (MW-1, 2, and 3) were drilled.Locations of these wells are shown on Figure 1. Each cluster included one shallowwell screened across the top of the water table aquifer (MW-nS), one intermediatewell screened in the first significant water-bearing zone below the water table (MW-nl), and a deep well screened in the best potential water bearing zone at about thedepth of 200 feet (MW-nD). A single water recovery well (RW-1) was drilled nearthe suspected source of TCE contamination and a shallow well (PF-iS) was installedadjacent to the existing PF-1 well. Geologic logs and well construction diagrams areincluded in Appendix A.

A Schramm T-64 air rotary drill rig with a down-hole hammer was used. .Formationwater and rock cuttings produced during drilling were diverted to a collection tank.Cuttings were later transferred to 55-gallon drums. Samples were taken from thedrilling returns and described. A stratigraphic profile for each deep boring was drawnfrom the sample descriptions.

All holes were started by drilling a 10-inch-diameter hole at least 5 feet into bedrock.Bentonite pellets were placed in the borehole and an 8-inch temporary casinginstalled. After the pellets swelled to create a seal, a 7 7/8-inclfbit was used to drillto total depth.

18303527

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 3May 31, 1991 :NJO63109.RLR1

WELL CONSTRUCTION

The monitoring wells were constructed with 4-inch Schedule 40 PVC riser andvariable lengths of 020 slot screen. RW-1 was constructed with 6-inch diameter PVCriser and 20 feet of 050 slot screen in a 7.5-inch diameter borehole.

An existing well on the Site, PF-1, was modified as part of the well constructionphase. Prior to modification, PF-1 consisted_of_a 6-inch diameter PVC surface casingfrom the surface to 26 feet and open borehole of nearly the same diameter to 148feet This well was modified by installing 4-inch Schedule 40 PVC 020 slot screenfrom 138 ft to 148 feet and riser pipe to grade. :

WELL DEVELOPMENT

Following installation, all wells were developed by pumping and surging until waterwas sand-free and pH, conductivity, and temperature were considered stable by theSite hydrogeologist.

CORING

A continuous rock core was obtained from the borehole at the MW-3D location. Theborehole was drilled by coring to total depth using a conventional NW-size single-tubesolid core barrel and Christenson diamond core bit. Information recorded includedthe core run, length, recovery, rock quality and description of discontinuities. Thecore samples were stored in wooden core boxes. After coring was completed theborehole was reamed to a nominal 8-inch diameter.

BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICS

Following the drilling of all deep holes at the cluster locations and the borehole forthe recovery well, the USGS conducted a geophysical survey of these boreholes. Thegeophysical methods included: caliper, fluid resistivity, spontaneous potential, gammaray and brine tracing logs.

A8303528

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 4May 31, 1991NJO63109.RI.R1

GROUND WATER SAMPLING

Ground water samples were collected from monitoring wells at least 2 weeks afterwell development. The sampling techniques and protocols used are outlined in SOP15, Ground Water Sampling-Monitor Well of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (CH2MHILL, 1990). Prior to sampling, each monitoring well was purged of at least 3 wellvolumes using a Gmndfos Environmental submersible pump. Purge water wasmonitored for pH, conductivity, and temperature. Samples were not collected untilthese parameters had stabilized, as determined by the Site hydrogeologist Allsamples were collected with a stainless steel bailer.

Samples collected from each of the wells were analyzed for TCL VOCs low detectionlimit method. In addition, PF-1S was tested for TCL non-VOC organics (BNAEs,pesticides and PCBs), TAL metals (total and dissolved), total cyanide, and totalsuspended solids.

OFF-SITE PRODUCTION WELL SAMPLING

Several production wells within the Hatboro wellfield were sampled. These wellsinclude H2, H7, H10, H12, H14, H15, H16, H17 and H19. Wells H2 and H10 are noton-line and were sampled simply by lowering a bailer to the water surface to obtainthe sample. Wells H12, H14, H15 and H17 were sample from the raw water tapclosest to the wellhead. Well 16 is also off-line but was turned on approximately onehour before sampling. These wells were analyzed for TCL VOCs using low detectionlimit method.

PACKER TEST

A packer test was conducted in RW-1. The test is described in detail in the letterreport dated October 18, 1990 (Appendix B).

AREA WELL SURVEY

Under this task, a list of all registered water wells within a 1-mile radius of the sitewas compiled. The wells were identified by contacting the Bureau of Topographicand Geologic Survey in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources(PADER). Wells not registered with PADER were not identified by this search.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 5 "" " " ~May 31, 1991NJO63109.RI.R1

HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY AREA

SITE GEOLOGY

Core and borehole cutting data in conjunction with geophysical logs indicate thepresence of a highly variable Site geology. This observation is not surprising becausethe literature is replete with discussions pertaining to the chaotic interbedding andintergrading of clastic deposits in the Stockton formation (Hall, 1934; Greenman,1955; Barksdale, 1958; Rima~ 1962). Bedding observed across any limited interval atthe Site exhibits no particular pattern or order. The lack of stratigraphic order isconsistent with descriptions of the Middle Arkose Member, which focus on alluvialfan and braided stream depositional environments. Depositional features formed inthese environments include low energy structures such as point bars, bifurcating riversand oxbow lakes to name a few. Alluvial fans cause coarse-grained material to bedeposited in stream channels that constitute the apex of each fan. The interveningareas between adjacent fans are filled with successively finer material. These dynamicsin both stream and alluvial fan environments account for lenticular and erraticbedding that cause complicated lateral changes in geology, both down dip and alongstrike. _ ._

Despite the factors controlling variability of lithology in the Middle Arkose Memberand the Stockton in general, inspection of the core and borehole cutting logs takenduring the RI at the Raymark Site reveal a similarity in the sequence of ""packages" ofbeds in the wells MW-1, RW-1 and MW-3 which are generally along strike. Strike isobserved to be roughly N62 degrees E to N68 degrees E in the Hatboro area.Although the orientation of the section that connects MW-3 and MW-1 is nearly dueEast, it is assumed that this section roughly approximates strike and that MW-2 andPF-1 can be thought of as being down dip and up dip, respectively.

Each of borings MW-1, RW-1 and MW-3 exhibits a shallow package of redinterbedded siltstones and shales and fine to medium sandstones ranging in thicknessfrom 20 to 47 feet, which is in turn underlain by a light grey medium sandstoneranging in thickness from 30 to 60 feet. The interbedded siltstones, shales, and finesandstones range from 12 to 71 feet below grade and the medium sandstones from 30to 107 feet below grade in the wells along strike. Beneath the medium sandstones arealternating mauve fine sandstones and.red siltstones ranging from 55 feet to 70 feetthick and ranging from 85 to 170 feet below grade. RW-1 was terminated at 145 feetbut MW-1 and MW-3 contain 35 and 30 feet, respectively, of white medium to coarsesandstone from the bottom of the red siltstone at 165 and 170 feet, respectively, tothe bottom of the hole. A schematic representation of lithology between wells MW-1and MW-3 is presented in Tigure 2.


Each package or group of beds represents a section of the boring that contains adominant fades or rock type. Any given group assigned a particular facies name thusfar does not exclude the presence of other rock types in the package. Theassignments were made because of the likelihood that each group has substantialcontrol over Site hydrogeology. Assignments were made based on a compositeanalysis of the core log, cuttings samples, and geophysical logs.

A similar pattern to that observed along strike is observed in PF-1 but the drillcuttings and geophysical data from MW-2 were ambiguous. It was not possible todraw a relationship between the pattern observed in the other wells and the lithologyin MW-2D.

In light of these depositional factors, it cannot be concluded that the beddingpackages are laterally continuous in all directions across the Site.

SITE LITHOLOGY AND GROUND WATER

Ground water is known to occur in primary and secondary porosity within thedifferent rock types of the Middle Arkose Member (Rima, 1962). The medium tocoarse arkose sandstones contain both primary and secondary porosity. The primaryporosity is domiriant in the well-sorted and weakly cemented sandstone. Secondaryporosity in the form of fractures is more important in the more cemented sandstones.These sandstones tend to be harder and more brittle, increasing the likelihood offracturing and jointing. Secondary porosity also occurs as the result of dissolution ofthe intergranular cement. - - - -

The shales and siltstones are important water bearing beds only when they are highlyfractured. Even this form of porosity is inhibited by the weathering products of theshales, which tend to fill the rock voids and reduce the capacity of the bed to transmitand store the water. This is observed within the shallow sandstone and shale inMW-3S. These beds, found from 30 to 75 feet in the core log at MW-3, exhibited asmany as 6 fractures per foot and were generally very weathered. The fractures,however, were low aperture and contained gouge and weathering products. MW-3Swill yield only 4 gpm despite 23 feet of standing head above the bottom of the casing.

Upon inspecting the core sample at MW-3, it is apparent that the medium to coarsesandstone from 75 to 107 feet was very competent (unfractured) and not porous. Thesame subgroup is seen at MW-1 and RW-1 beginning at 48 and 30 feet, respectively.The packer testing, which is discussed in a later section, demonstrated little hydraulicconnection between shallow screened wells and the intermediate screened wells.Based on this evidence, the medium sandstone may act as a laterally continuous

18303531

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 7May 31, 1991 -NJ063109.RI.R1

aquitard even though this type of rock is commonly thought to store and transmitwater. This samelithology is screened by shallow wells at MW-1S and PF-1S andyields even less than the shallow wells at MW-3S, discussed above, which is screeneddominantly in siitstones and shales.

According to Greenman (1955), artesian conditions in the Stockton are a function ofboth shale bedding and the vertical changes in permeability. The latter factor isgreatly dependent on the degree of solution of intergrahular cement and gradation oftexture and is thought to be more important to creating artesian conditions. Asdiscussed above, the shallow and intermediate medium sandstones did not exhibit ahigh degree of solution of intergranular cement. These beds probably act as confiningbeds and account for artesian or confined conditions at the Site because of theirapparent low permeability.

The medium to coarse sandstone from 170 to total depth of MW-3D was alsocompetent but was considerably more porous. Although only 10 feet of this well isscreened, yield was nearly 8 gpm with only 20 feet of drawdown. The dominant factordictating the flow of water in this section is matrix or intergranular porosity. The samesubgroup was identified in MW-3D at 165 feet to the bottom of the boring.

In summary, the conditions affecting the transmission and storage of water at theRaymark Site seem to be the fracturing in the shales and siltstones and theintergranular porosity of the medium to coarse sandstone. Examination of the coresample and geologic logs and consideration of yield from wells and response duringpacker testing indicate a confining sandstone ranging from 30 to 107 feet and arelatively high yielding coarse sandstone ranging from 165 to hole bottom along strike.Fine sandstones, siltstones, and shales exist above the shallow sandstone and betweenthe medium sandstone and coarse sandstone.

HYDRAULIC HEADS

Depth-to-water measurements were taken on two separate occasions. The first set ofmeasurements was compiled during the sampling phase and are values obtained overa 5 day period beginning the week of August 27, 1990. The second set was takenSeptember 27, 1990.!Both sets are presented in Table 1. The water levels are alsoplotted on a cross-section in Figures 3 and 4. The measurements in each clusterindicate a uniform downward vertical flow component. Differences in head are asmuch as 17 feet in the PF-1 cluster and 15 feet in the MW-2D cluster.

&8303S32

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPageSMay 31, 1991NJO63109.RI.R1

The potentiometric head values in the shallow wells are observed to be significantlythe previous section, this relationship may be explained by the relatively unfractured,nonporous medium sandstone layer between the shallow and intermediate zones.

The wide range in head values among the shallow wells can be attributed to wellconstruction and natural conditions. All shallow wells are 60 feet deep, except MW-1S, which is 70 feet deep. All shallow wells have 30 feet of screen, except PF-1S,which has 20 feet of screen. More importantly, the unconsolidated sediments andbedrock are significantly different at each of the locations. Factors such as the depthto bedrock, type of bedrock and degree of weathering are variable across the Site andare different at each well location.

Another significant observation is the similarity in head values among deep wellsMW-1D, MW-2D, MW-3D, and intermediate wells MW-1I and PF-1. All of these arewithin .5 feet of each other. The limited range in values among the deep wellssuggests that these wells are screened in a common aquifer. On the other hand, thewide range of head values among the shallow wells in each cluster (MW-1S, MW-2S,MW-3S and PF-1S) and also between intermediate wells MW-3I and MW-2I indicatesthat a common shallow aquifer does not exist.

BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS

Automatic water level recorders were installed in the six monitoring wells at MW-2and MW-3 for nearly 3 days prior to conducting the packer tests. The time versusdrawdown curves for water levels are presented in Appendix C. The purpose of thebackground recordings was to determine the impacts of the operation of municipalwells on local water levels. Water levels in the shallow wells do not seem to respondto pumping of the municipal wells. However, water levels in the intermediate anddeep wells during this period seem to be recovering from drawdown which wasprobably induced by pumping.

The recovery curves indicate that the amount of drawdown is dependent on depth atboth locations. Both intermediate wells experienced about .5 feet of drawdown andboth deep wells experienced about 1.0 feet of drawdown.

Recovery was occurring simultaneously in all wells. All intermediate and deep wellcurves indicate a temporary resumption of pumping at about the same time which isabout 770 minutes after the start of data recording. The timing of the response tothe resumption of pumping suggests that drawdown is not delayed at either locationor depth. The water level data was collected every 30 minutes. The length of thecollection interval may mask drawdown delays.

JJ3Q3533


PACKER PUMPING TESTS

Evaluations of relative drawdown well was first reviewed to develop assumptionsregarding the sitewide hydrogeological framework. Analysis of time-drawdown datawas then conducted. This approach allowed for:

1. Characterization of Site conditions while accounting for independenceof water bearing zones

2. Approximations of sitewide aquifer coefficients

The drawdown responses are discussed for the observation wells first, followed by thepumping well drawdown.

Observation Well Drawdown

Drawdown data were plotted for all monitored wells that experienced significantdrawdown for both pumping intervals. Field curves were then matched to the Theis-type curve as presented in Lohman (1972). These values are presented in Table 2.Match points were then selected and transmissivity and storativity coefficients werecomputed for each well. The curves, match points, and computations are included inAppendix C. A discussion that addresses the assumptions used for this analysis isincluded in Appendix D.

Several interpretations of the Site hydrogeology can be made based on monitor welldrawdown, the nature of the drawdown curves, and the aquifer coefficients derived.One of the important observations to be made from the pumping test is the lack ofresponse in each of the shallow wells monitored. MW-2S did not respond to pumpingfrom either the shallow or deep packer setting. MW-1S drawdown reached 0.1 and0 15 feet, respectively, from pumping the shallow and deep packer settings. Thisrelatively low response, compared to the intermediate zones, underscores the lack ofhydraulic continuity with depth in the top 150 feet of rock at the Site.

Both MW-3D and MW-1I have drawdown curves that very closely match the trueTheis-type curve (Lohman 1972). The shape of the curve suggests that the system isconfined and that leakage is not a major factor. The resulting transmissivity valuesaverage 6,563 gpd/ft and are consistent with literature estimates. Towle (1986), foundvalues between 4,000 to 20,000 gpd/ft. According to Barksdale (1958), transmissivity inthe Stockton ranges from 1,000 to 35,000 gpd/ft, more commonly around 5000 gpd/ft.The transmissivities for MW-3D and MW-1I are higher than those for theintermediate screened wells at MW-2 and MW-3. Drawdown curves for MW-2D are

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 10May 31, ,1991NJO631Q9.RLR1

not presented because there was no drawdown observed in MW-2D during pumpingof the shallow interval and the drawdown data from the deeper interval was lost dueto wiring problems.

Deep wells MW-1D, MW-2D, MW-3D, MW-1,1 and PF-1 are probably screened inan aquifer that is confined and laterally continuous throughout the Site. Thisconclusion is based on the fact that these wells have similar head values and the twodrawdown curves for the deep wells are distinct from those of the intermediate wells.Furthermore, the transmissivity values derived from the deep wells are considerablyhigher than those derived from the intermediate wells. Also, both the transmissivitiesand storativities are consistent with estimates in the literature on regionalhydrogeology and for truly confined artesian conditions in general. The aquiferscreened by the deep wells probably constitutes or is closely connected to the regionalaquifer tapped by the Hatboro weltfield supply wells.

The pre-pumping monitoring of the MW-2 and MW-3 clusters provide furtherevidence that the deep wells in these clusters are independent from the intermediatewells and connected to a regional system. The recovery observed in the deep wells ofeach cluster Is approximately 1 foot while that of the intermediate wells is .5 feet ineach cluster.

Potentiometric maps were drawn based on the two dates when water levels werecollected. The maps were drawn by including head data from only the deep wells, forthe reasons previously discussed. These maps are presented in Figures 5 and 6. Thedirection of ground water flow when considering these wells part of the same aquiferis East to West, commensurate with regional ground water flow direction.

The early time data for MW-3I do not match well with the Theis curve. This may bethe result of borehole storage effects which tend to obscure early time aquiferresponse. The rest of the curve matched well, however, and the resultingtransmissivities and storativities are much lower than those for the other zones. Thereis no indication that the intermediate well curves resemble an unconfined aquifer,underscoring their confinement from the upper zone.

It is not readily apparent that the intermediate wells at MW-2 and MW-3 areconnected to a common aquifer. The heads are within 1 foot of each other but,because of the irregular bedding patterns at MW-2, it is unlikely that the two wellsare screened in a common hydro-stratigraphic zone. The wells are undoubtedly inhydraulic communication through indirect fracture interconnectivity, but it is unlikelythat they are screened in the same continuous bed throughout the Site. The low

$8303535

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 11 - ----- --- -May 31, 1991NJO63109.RI.R1

transmissivities also suggest aquifers of limited lateral extent. All of the deep wells, onthe other hand, are screened in a medium to coarse sandstone which underliesconsiderable fine sandstone, siltstone, and shale bedding.

On local and regional hydrogeology, there is ample evidence in the literature on thedirectional nature of transmissivity in fractured rock (Towle 1985, Vecchioli 1969).This condition is called anisotropy and is manifest as an elliptical shaped cone ofdepression. In the Stockton formation, this cone tends to align itself along strike(Vecchioli 1969; Towle 1985"). There is not a sufficient population of transmissivityvalues from the investigation to say with confidence that there is directionaltransmissivity at the Site. The transmissivity value of the MW-2I is, however,significantly higher than that for MW-3I when pumping the shallow packer interval.This value may be falsely high as per observations made by Vecchioli (1967) thatpumping causes more interference along strike than down dip. (Less interferencewould imply less drawdown, less drawdown would result in a high calculatedtransmissivity.) Vecchioli reported that transmissivity values computed in all caseswere least in the direction of strike. Vecchioli assumes that direct interferenceindicates two wells tap the same fracture and that small drawdown indicates poorhydraulic connection between wells. The direction of smallest transmissivity shouldthus be construed as the preferred direction of ground water flow. In short, thepreferred direction of flow at Raymark seems to be along strike.

Evaluation of the storativity values at MW-2I indicates that these values may also beartificially inflated. Close examination of the drawdown curves reveals that drawdownat MW-2D and MW-2I starts and progresses'significantly slower than drawdown atthe wells along strike. This is reflected in the relatively high storativity for MW-2I.

In summary, the shallow wells generally did not respond to pumping as did theintermediate and deep wells. The deep wells, including MW-1I and PF-1 whichbehaved as deep wells, have higher transmissivities and generally act as part of anaquifer that is continuous throughout the Site and possibly throughout the region.The intermediate wells exhibit lower transmissivities and storativities suggestingrelatively limited sitewide importance to ground water flow. Values of transmissivityand storativity at MW-2I may be falsely high and suggest aquifer anisotropy.

Pumping Well Drawdown

Setting the packer at interval "A" demonstrated the complex stratified and discretizednature of flow underneath the Raymark Site. Once the bladders were inflated, thehead read by the transducer in the zone above the eventual pumping zone adjusted toapproximately .5 feet higher than -the head in the pumping zone. The head read by


the transducer in the pumping zone was in turn 1.1 feet higher than the head beingread by the transducer in the zone below the pumped interval. This condition isthought to reflect Site conditions in that it is consistent with hydraulic headmeasurements read under static conditions in each of the well clusters. Thisunderscores the confinement and independence of water bearing strata at positions inthe aquifer as presented earlier.

The head relationship in the pumped interval and the interval immediately belowreversed soon after the pumping began. Before pumping was terminated, the head inthe pumping zone was 8 feet less than the zone below it.

RESULTS OF AREA WELL SURVEY

The Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey's well records were searched tolocated water wells within a 1-mile radius of the Site. The bureau's records do notinclude water wells drilled before 1966. While drillers have been required by law tofile well records with the bureau for all water wells drilled since 1966, no enforcementmechanism exists to insure driller compliance. The information submitted with somewell records may not be sufficient to adequately determine well location.

Five water wells within a 1-mile radius of the Site were discovered by the well recordsearch. Table 3 provides ownership, depth, yield, and installation dates for thosewells and Figure 7 shows their approximate locations. Two wells, owned by Fisher &Porter, are located about 3,000 feet north of the Site; one well, owned by theHatfaoro Borough Authority, is located about 1,000 feet east of the Site; and twowells, owned by D. Larosa, are located about 4,000 feet south of the Site. Thedeepest of the wells is the Hatboro Borough Authority well at 360 feet This wellalso has the highest yield of 30 gallons per minute. All wells have a diameter of 6inches. The use reported for the Fisher & Porter wells is industrial, the use reportedfor the Larosa wells is domestic water supply, and Hatboro Borough Authority well isreported as unused which may mean that the well was abandoned because of lowyield.

All of these wells are located upgradient of the Site based on the northwest groundwater flow direction and therefore, are not expected to be affected by contaminantsmigrating from the Site.

Records obtained by the EPA and/or the U.S. Geological Survey indicate theexistence of several additional water wells within a 1-mile radius of the Site. At least12 public supply wells currently pump within a 1-mtle radius of the Site. In addition,

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 13June 7, 1991 .NJO63109.RI.R1 .

at least six other public supply wells are either unused or abandoned within 1-mile ofthe Site and severalabandoned industrial supply wells have been located within 1-mile of the Site.

CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION

On-Site Wells

Tables 4, 5, and 6 present the analytical results from sampling of on-site wells.Figures 8 and 9 show contaminant levels on a Site map and cross section. Severalvolatile organics were measured in on-site wells. TCE was measured in all wells. Thelowest TCE concentration, 140 ug/1, was measured in well MW-2D. Well MW-3Dcontained the highest TCE concentration, 11,000 ug/1. In general, the TCE levelswere higher in areas; of known TCE sources. Samples from well RW-1 taken duringpacker testing contained up to 10,000 ug/1 of TCE; well RW-1 is located in the areaof the former TCE storage tanks. TCE at 2,200 ug/1 was measured in well PF-1S;well PF-1S is a shallow well in the area of the former lagoons. TCE-levels in wells inclusters 1 and 2 were lower. Both clusters are in the general upgradient directionfrom past source areas. "The TCE levels in cluster 3 were significantly higher thanthose in clusters 1 and 2. MW-3S contained 2,700 _ug/l, MW-3I contained 4,700 ug/1,and MW-3D contained ll,0001=ug/I. Well cluster 3 is located in the generaldowngradient direction from the TCE source areas at the Site.

TCE levels measured were higher in shallow wells except for cluster 3. The fact thathigher TCE levels are measured in the deeper wells in cluster 3 is consistent with thehydrologic conditions at the Site as described earlier in this memo.

The analytical results for samples collected during packer testing of well RW-1 areshown in Table 6.' Packer testing was "done on two zones of this well. TCE levelswere higher for the shallower zone, zone A. For both zones, the TCE levels werehighest in the first 10. minutes: TCE at 10,OQO and 5,500 ug/1 was measured for zonesA and B, respectively, 10 minutes after start of the "test. The TCE concentrations inzone A samples decreased to 8,500 ug/1 after 8 hours. TCE concentrations in zone Bdecreased from 5,500 ug/1 to 2,300 ug/1 from beginning to end of zone testing.

In addition to TCE, the following volatile organics were measured in on-site wells:1,1 DCE, 1,1 DCA, traris and cis 1,2 DCE, bromochloromethane, benzene, toluene,acetone, chloroform, 1,1,2 TCA, and PCE,. 1,1,1 TCA was not detected substantially

M303538


above the level reported in the laboratory blank. No pattern of occurrence of thesecompounds could be derived from the data. Cis 1,2 DCE, a degradation product ofTCE, was measured in all wells in cluster 1, well MW-3D, wells PF-1S and PF-1, andwell RW-1. Trans 1,2 DCE, also a degradation product of TCE, was measured inone sample collected during packer testing of well RW-1. Vinyl chloride was notmeasured in any on-site wells. In well RW-1, more organics were detected in samplesfrom zone A than zone B.

Well PF-1S was also sampled for BNAEs, pesticides, PCBs, and inorganics. Theresults are included in Table 5. No BNAEs, pesticides, or PCBs were measured inthis well. Several inorganics were measured.

Off-Site Wells

The analytical results for off-site well sampling are summarized in Table 7 and shownin Figure 10. The highest level of TCE was measured in well H-14 at 510 ug/1. TCEconcentrations in wells H-2 and H-17 were also high at 110 and 230 ug/1, respectively.Cis 1,2 DCE, a degradation product of TCE, was measured in wells H-12, H-14, H-15, and H-17. Trans 1,2 DCE and vinyl chloride, also degradation products of TCE,were not detected in the off-site wells. Other volatile organics measured includechloroform, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, 1,1,1 TCA, PCE, and 1,1. DCE.

CONTAMINANT FATE

Although the vertical conductivity is probably orders-of-magnitude less than thehorizontal conductivity, the vertical head gradient is also orders-of-magnitude greaterthan the horizontal gradient. Because of this relationship, migration of TCE may justas well be dominated by vertical components of flow as lateral components of flowbecause velocity is a product of permeability multiplied by gradient. It is conceivablethat lateral flow components may not be important in the shallow zone characterizedby discontinuous shale bedding and nonporous sandstone. Lateral flow componentsmay not be effective above the deeper medium to coarse sandstone where thepermeability is higher and there is a significant lateral gradient. This could account forthe increased contamination with depth at MW-3.

Alternatively, contaminant migration may be better characterized by a systematicstair-stepped pattern resulting from intermittent pumping west of the Site within theHatboro wellfield. The pumping would increase the hydraulic gradient across the Siteand increase contaminant travel laterally along strike.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 15May 31, 1991 ..", .:. :„NJO63109.RLR1 ::/

Another factor controlling TCE migration is its specific gravity. Since TCE is heavierthan water, gravity may cause contamination to move against the hydraulic gradient, ifimpermeable .bedding dips away from the direction of flow. The density of TCEwould cause the contaminant to sink as long as free phase DNAPL exists. Thismechanism may explain contaminant concentrations in the lagoon area. DNAPLwould tend to migrate downward through more permeable media and then laterally ina stair-stepped pattern. The hydraulic gradient would probably play a larger role inDNAPL migration in more permeable media. Topography and orientation of thegeologic contacts may be more important in less permeable media. Contamination inthe lagoon wells could be the result of a TCE spill in the lagoon area. Contaminantmigration is probably the result of both this process and the processes discussedpreviously.

The relatively high values of TCE in H-14 are understood since the orientation of theline that connects the Raymark Site with H-14 is nearly 65 degrees East of North, orthe direction of regional strike. Towle (1986)" has demonstrated that the pumping ofH-14 interferes with water levels at the Raymark Site (PF-1). H-12 also lies alongstrike but is opposite the Raymark Site. Consequently, H-14 probably blockscontamination from reaching H-12. ...

Contamination at H-17 is not easily explained. Its orientation is perpendicular tostrike and ground water flow. Its proximity to the Raymark Site, however, mayovercome these factors and result in some ground water flow from the Site to H-17when H-17 is pumped. This condition is greatly dependent on the pumping schedulefor the Hatboro wells. Also, contamination at H-17 is considerably greater than atMW-2. Therefore, contamination at H-17 may not be due entirely to the RaymarkSite unless there is deep contamination leaving the Site that is not intercepted byMW-2.

PROJECTED EFFECTS OF PUMPING ONCONTAMINANT MIGRATION

Ideal pumping remediation would limit the amount of water recovered while stillproviding sitewide contaminant capture. This condition would be achieved if thevertical head gradient can be reversed such that flow occurs from the deep zone tothe intermediate zone. This would preclude the necessity of pumping from a wellinstalled directly into the deep zone. The following discussion addresses thispossibility. -^

ft&3Q35itQ


The packer test results already indicated that pumping can cause reversal of verticalhead conditions in the pumping center. This reversal did not occur at thedowngradient MW-3 well cluster. Reversal in static conditions occurs within a certainradii from the pumping center for any given flow rate. The capture area is defined asthe zone inside the pumping radius where the head in the pumping interval is lessthan the head in the deeper aquifer. This may result in upward flow. Resolving fullythe limit of the capture area would require use of numerical modeling techniques forlayered aquifer systems.

It has already been presented that the transmissivity of the intermediate confinedaquifers is less than that of the aquifer screened by the deep wells. According to themodified nonequflibrium well equation developed by Cooper and Jacob (1946):

s 264Q/T * log .3Tt/r2Swhere s=drawdown

Q— pumping rateT=transmissivityt timer— radiusS=storativity

Transmissivity can be derived from the slope of the time-drawdown graph by usingthe following relationship:

"delta s"

This relationship is true at the Site when t is sufficiently large.

The relationship states that the rate of drawdown for two otherwise equivalentaquifers (i.e. same storativity) is greater in the aquifer with the least transmissivity.The significance at Raymark is that drawdown in the intermediate zone may outpacedrawdown in the deeper zone enough to lower the hydraulic head to less than that ofthe deeper zone.

In other words, reversal of the static head relationship between successively deeperzones is a function of both radius and pumping rate. The starting head in theintermediate zone at the MW-3 cluster, for instance, is nearly 4 feet higher than thatof the zone below it. Drawdown in the intermediate zone due to pumping must beenough to diminish this differential to less than 0 (i.e. reverse gradient).

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 17May 31, 1991 :: •'".:"'"NJO63109.RI.R1

To test this hypothesis, Wellsim, a computer wellfield simulation program, was usedto estimate projected drawdown in both the intermediate and deep zones afterextensive pumping. It was assumed for this test that1 RW-1 is pumped for 100 days at24 gpm and that 1/2 the water is drawn from the deep zone and 1/2 from theintermediate zone. Transmissivities used for each zone were derived using the sameassumption previously in the report. Both zones were run separately and treated asindependent, nonleaky nonsteady-state Theis aquifers. After 100 days of pumping at24 gpm from RW-1, drawdown was more than 10 feet at MW-3L Drawdown at MW-3D was less than 3 feet.

Because of the complex layer-cake aquifer conditions, it is difficult to quantifytransmissivities at different depths and simulate true Site conditions. If theassumptions used for the aquifer simulation are appropriate, the gradient shouldswitch to upward instead of downward at MW-3 after pumping RW-1. The actualpump test data support this in that drawdown was less in the deeper zone than in theintermediate zone at MW-3 when the packer was pumped from zone "B". Also, therewas no drawdown in MW-2D but, moderate drawdown in MW-2I when the packerwas pumped from zone "A". The conclusion from the simulation and the actualpump test data is that pumping from RW-1 should result in reversing the verticalhead gradient from the deep zone to the shallow zone.

CONCLUSIONS

Much information has been generated during the ground water investigation at theRaymark Site. Each body of data was closely evaluated and then compiled tocharacterize the hydrogeology of the Raymark Site. The characterization is meant toprovide a framework for understanding ground water flow patterns as they relate toSite geology and the nature and extent of ground water contamination. The followingconclusions resulted:

1. Site geology is highly variable and complex. Many sections of thegeological logs feature interbedding and extensive jointing. Lateralcontinuity of bedding is uncertain.

2. Despite the variable geology, borings along strike revealed groups orpackages of beds with relative homogeneous lithology.


3. Examination of the cores and geologic logs and consideration of wellyield and response during packer testing indicate a confining mediumsandstone ranging from 30 to 107 feet and a relatively high yieldingsandstone ranging from 165 feet to hole bottom along strike. Finesandstones, siltstones, and shales exist above the shallow sandstone andbetween the medium sandstone and coarse sandstone.

4. The conditions affecting the transmission and storage of water at theRaymark Site seem to be the fracturing in the shales and siltstones andthe intergranular porosity of the medium-coarse sandstone.

5. The relatively impermeable medium sandstone may account for thesignificantly higher potentiometric head values in the shallow wells overthe intermediate wells within each cluster.

6. The range in heads among the shallow wells can be attributed tovariability in well construction and natural conditions.

7. In the shallow wells, the relatively low response to pumping underscoresthe lack of hydraulic continuity between the shallow well zones and theintermediate depths,

8. Only the late time of the drawdown curve matched the Theis curve inMW-3L The early time data is probably skewed by borehole storageeffects. The resulting transmissivities knd storativities for both MW-2Iand MW-3I suggest that the hydrostratigraphic beds at this depth arelimited and not necessarily continuous across the Site.

9. The deep screened wells and two of the intermediate screened wellshave similar potentiometric head values and are probably screened inthe same aquifer. Ground water flow direction using these values isgenerally westward, consistent with regional ground water flow direction.The two time-drawdown curves from these wells closely fit the Theiscurve with little to no leakage. Transmissivity in the deep zone is shownto be higher than that of the intermediate zone but consistent withestimates in the literature on regional hydrogeology.

10. Further consideration of transmissivity values and review of theliterature strongly suggest a "layercake" aquifer sequence and conditionsof anisotropy.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPage 19 _ _ _ _ . .May 31, 1991 . . . . . .NJO63109.RI.R1

11. Packer testing confirmed the vertical downward flow gradient, thetendency for stratified flow, and the capacity to reverse the downwardflow direction.

12. Contamination is highest at MW-3 where TCE concentrations increasewith depth to 11,000 ug/1 in MW-3D. Contamination at the otherclusters decreases with depth. TCE contamination was generally highestin known source areas. TCE concentration in the shallow packerinterval (85 to 115 feet) were generally higher than in the deep packerinterval. Clusters MW-2 and MW-1 are generally cross-gradient andupgradient and contained lesser concentrations of TCE.

13. The most significant off-site contamination was found at H-14 at 510 ..ug/1. Wells H-2 and H-17 had 110 and 230 ug/1, respectively. Theconcentrations at H-14 and H-2 are explained by their location alongstrike with the Raymark Site. The concentration at H-17 is probably theresult of its proximity to the Site.

14. Contaminant migration occurs by downward leakage as a result of headgradient and density factors to the deeper aquifer, where it assumeslateral mobility. Migration may also occur in a stair-step pattern as aresult of intermittent pumping within the Hatboro wellfield.

15. If the deep zone is assumed to have a transmissivity nearly 10 times thatof the intermediate zone, pumping RW-1 for 100 days may result inreversal of the vertical downward gradient to upward.

TABLE 1GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

RAYMARK

WELLSMW1SMW1IMW1DMW2SMW2IMW2DMW3SMW3IMW3DPF-1PF-1SRW-1**

ELEVATIONTOP OFSTEEL

266.11266.23266.56263.1268.04263.09263.98264.13264.21265.23265.48264.44

ELEVATIONTOP OFPVC265.79265.9266.15N/A*267.55267.72263.64263.85263.87264.6265.17264.21

AUGUST 29-30, 1990Depth to Water

water42,1549-3550.737.447.354.1232.6544.4350.148.930.8

elevation223.64216.55215.45

N/A220.25213.6230.99219.42213.77215.7234.37

SEPTEMBER 27, 1990Depth to Water

water44.651.3651.6538.5449.1653.937.6946.1649.8950.2333.247.7

elevation221.19214.54214.5N/A

218.39213.82225.95217.69213.98214.37231.97216.7

NOTES: _._.,. ...... ...... . . . . . . . .* Elevation of top of PVC is not available.** Depth to water measurements on well RW-1 were taken on September 24,1990between packer tests on that well. The datum available on that date was ground level.Elevations are based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and arereferenced to NGS, Monument "S-106 1935" Elev. 205.974.

TABLE 2AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS

RAYMARK

WELL

Shallow ZoneMW2!MW3!MW3I

Deep ZoneMW1IMW3D

ZONE

AAB

BB

TRANSMiSSlVITY(gpd/ft)

1719405982

62506875

STORATIVITY

0.00040.0000015O.OOOOC2

0.0000150.00007

NOTES:A Packer setting 85' to 115'B Packer setting 120' to 145'

Table 3Recorded Water Wells Within 1-Mile of Raymark

Well Number

2057 _._ _.

2058

2059 = -

5345N

5346N

Owner

Hatboro Authority

D-Larosa

D. Larosa

Fisher & Porter

Fisher & Porter

Depth(ft)

360

135

135 .

90

300

Yield(gpm)

30

15

20

3

10

InstallationDale

...

...

October 1980

October 1980

NJR70/018R70.51

3035 7

eLU

CD u*rt ^ -•* —* ^ . ••"* -^ ^. w

3 - - - P D)*" Cgg

5 51 51 §CD

^

CO

i!

*

cccnccorcccc-jaicca:o a

333333 333aLft

a

(Mi-C3i-T-COQI^-r- Q^ ' " d o Z

33 3 3 3 _l -> 3 3T- T- CO *— T-T— ON-^-O

" aj 5 5Ss o W

33 333 333

Sr33 333

•jf CJ ™~ SS'tSTO'11^ IJ!^ """ C

23Z

oQ.

f « I

- -^ J5 ><P 1 t "S.£ g w 58> <o .:S^ ® O 8a 5 £ H

- o •| S|a |f

1 S^^2 |g£ -a ir tr >• w <jjto a? o § aj <D .-•o •=" .& g- c 'a.'S§ = IE "* S «

51M ffl Q-^g ®S2 c ( p ® . £ 5 - O m T 3

O3Lv=J co-J Q<0 Zu3 §5 o-J Q.

~ < CO «5;» 0 DC 1C t" y O o >• fc cco -J CO o <^ 2 _l Z Sa<^ssm g d a cc^ UJ uj oH <* 5 uj

^* iQ r~

3 32 oo >a:CD

. w o1 CD O> _5 LJ ;= £?a 3 S -I^ o s *""'

CM oCL CD oi 3 s"a21 > ££ 3

1 CD S ,-,

CJJ o

* <=.Q. £ 2 £•

E § =O o

-fc ^ ni — fclipo s

^ §isaf?H S2 ^

T- O— CQ 3i **s 1— S S.F 3 a 3-

CJ §

1 5f5 g

3 if§^^

3 ifS ?? """'°

SAMPLE LOCATION

SAMPLE NUMBER

SAMPLE DATE

CC CC

3 3

3 3

CC CC

_l _t3 3

3 3

3 3

CC CC

cc cc

_i CCCOci

1-Dichloroethene

,1-Dichlofoethane

T- T—

CC CC CC

333

333

CC CC X

333

333

333

_i CC CCCO

CC CC CC

_I _1 CCCO COCO CM

s-1 ,

,2-Dichldrbethene

romochloromelhane

enzene

o co m

cc cc cc

333

333

CC CC CC

-J _J -J3 3 3.

333

333

CC CCoof-cy"

CC _J CC

S,j

CC _l.CC

T—

hloroform

richloroethene

oluene :

0 t- H

CC CC

3 3^- o

33"T- O

CC CC

3 3••- o

3 3T- O

3 3T- O

tr cc

cc cc

cc cc

,1,2-Trichtoroethane

cetone

T- <

a

oz

o

DZ

DZ

Cz

az

az

Q- z

az

UMBER OF

TICs

STIMATED TOTAL

TICs

Z UJ

*;

sajaS.aCO0}

~

CDCDa.1CDCDCO

1

IT32

313£j

OTES:

1 Only those compounds

z w-

</>3Oa.IT3

ICs -

Tentatively i

dentlf

ie

(~

cBO)

<D•OSSya.£_w

CD J3

i *— 730 <<D2 *3 5O "5

- S2o) cO— -QO CDC J3>. 5Kaj njE Eo oCO CO> >^ CD Wc t:

- Analyte p

resent. Repo

- Analyte p

resent. Repo

-3 _J

3COCD

E"Eooo

COCO

(Jc

ro"O_coQ.§•CO

"o.EUJ

t-

cw£CDJOO

>

!—

O

E<DR

- Unreliable

resul

t. Ana

D- Not

detected,;

cc z

ioCD0)

E1'cSCD£V)CD3CO

•oS

1^

Ii wft ®|SO Q= Cfl

3 O^ O.O ca

iiN •=I 1« co

- Not detected. Sample

1 - Not detected, q

uantit

3 3

503035k9

TABLE 5GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

WELLPF1SRAYMARK

SAMPLE LOCATIONSAMPLE DATE

VOCs1,1-DichIoroethene1,1-Dlchloroethanecis-1 ,2-DichIoroetheneBenzeneChloroformTrichloroetheneTolueneAcetone

NUMBER OF TICSESTIMATED TOTAL TICs

BN/AEs

PESryPCSs

INORGANICSAluminumBariumBerylliumCalciumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodtumZincCyanideTSS(mg/0

PF1S08/30/90(ug/0

25 U25 U3225 U25 U

2,20025 U250 U

ND

ND

ND

DISSOLVED12,600 108 81135.0 B1 39.3 B3.9 81 B 5.7 B

21 ,700 21 ,20015.1 B1 14 U21 U 928

14,700 42216.2 B 16.9 B5.900 4,900 B1115.0 J 76.2 J3S.O B1 27 U1,300 B1J 920 U43,000 44,30078.6 56410 U412

DUPEPF1S08/30/90(ug/l)

————————————

—

ND

ND

DISSOLVED6,040 376 B127 B1 47.13.3 B1 2.00 U

23,300 20,80014 U 14 U2V U 545

10,000 4,32043.2 8.9 B5,830 4,990 B1100 J 77.9 J72.6 27 U1,300 B1 920 U45,300 44,400

143 B 286 B10 U402

EQUIP BLANK08/30/90(ug/1)

1 UL1 UL1 UL1 UL1 UL1 UL1 UL10 UL

ND

ND

ND

DISSOLVED173 B1B 143 B29 U 29 U5.1 2 U370 U 370 U14 U 14 U21 U 21 U319 B 960 B6.4 7.4 B770 U .. 770 U12 U 53.4 B27 U 27 U920 U 920 U

3,060 U 3,060 U62.3 J 75.7 B10 U5

1) Only those compounds that were detected have been presented in the above table.BN/AEs - Base Nsutral/Acid Extractable CompoundsTICs - Tentatively identified compoundsVOCs - Volatile Organic CompoundsBl - Analyte present. As values approach the IDL the quanititation limit may not

be accurate.B - Not detected substantially above the level reported in laboratory or field blanks.J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.ND - Not detected.U - Not detected. Sample analyzed for but not detected.

Associated value Is the minimum detection limit.— - Parameter not analyzed for.

W303550

«UJ 13o _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ co

UJQ< J—

i

CD

Q.3 COO LUUJ

i COT _ h-

Q. CMo: 21- r-

D_ T-tr £1- *-

sCOm

CM

m

<

^

CO

CM

T-

tfPLE LOCATION

MPLE NUMBER

< <w w

ogi3r§

Oenet1

oSojffiooCMeno

Oen

"1oO

§1ffi33

1SJgj5

i

i

is13iS

SAMPLE DATE

•g>3

f3

-•a•3-

a3-

jfc

I

f

1

!^t

1

f

S

1

D D<M T-

ZJ Z)CM r-

3 3-cy T-

Z> 3

3 3O OO 0

•r- -

D 3O 0ss*-•3 3o of <35

_- .

3 3o o0 O

3 3O 0ss3 3o oo oo o

-3

d *3 -OJ "

ZJ3 "o ,_•*-

CDc

5 T-

O V~

3-D

3 3

3 3

3 Z>

3 03 " 3"0 O

--,

3 3O 0o o

3 ZJ

0 2.o o,,_

3 39 oO 0

3 3

S Ro oo 5

3 30 O8^^

C5

•

S Si

3

" S3 -

*~ S

s-i,2-Didhloroethen

1,2-Dtchloroethene

" ffl COi= -o

3 Zl

3 3

3 3

3 13

3 m-go

3 m2 °O

3 mo o0 OLO D

^ pQ

o oO T-

3 mO 0o cy

3 mO 0o oo m

m« S

m

52 I

.03

^ §

Droform

1-Trlchloroethane

H T-O"'T-"

3 3-

3 3

-3 **>

o o

3 3

_J 3o -oO 0

cy

_i 3O 0o o04

_i D9 QO c?<M"

_1 3o oO O

3O 0? *ui c5

3o o^i

i^e»

3

ooo"f

§ o"T—

o cr— CD

~ "3K I-

3. 3

3 3

3'3

*"

30

D 3O'O0 0

330 00 O

ZJ Z30 00 g

3 30 00 0

3 3Q OO S0 0

3 30 00 00 O

5 "

S 2

ri

2-Tric

htoroe

thane

achloroethene

;

** cuT [~

3 3T- OJ

3 3T- OJ

__, -,

O r-^

3 .3

3 Do-oo _S

•

3=3Q ~^3• 5 3

V

3 3O OO O

"*3 3O 0o o

3 3O 0O 0o o

3 3o oo oo o

3-3T- OJ

3 3

r w

3 3O ^55 C

*-

(jjQ? ~M ®

i= 06uj e

Z)' Z5

3 3

_, _,

Ol OS3~ "C!~

Z) Z>

3 3

§ 8

Z) Z)o o3 3

3-3o oo o

3 3o oo o

3 30 Oo o0 O

3 3o o0 Oo o

3 3-

T- '-

3 3T-

3-3-

0 ~

ylene

I5-Trimethylbenzene

X P '-"

"3 •"

3

-3 . '. -

CDd

Z)

D •o~i£>

^

O10

3 -- - -~o - —o

3Ooin '

3ooo

3Ooo

3"7-..._.

3'-

-Z)

"

4-Trimethylbenzenei i

OJ^T-

-•

az

a

i. ..„ =:." a

a•z.

QZ

Q

— QZ

J

Q• -z

Q

- QZ

. QZ

QZ

- az

___ ...CO

UBEROFTICs

riMATED TOTAL TIC

£5oJ&w

I |CO « ~

o ^

f I<D I

'c'i

• 1 8 5a.XCD

COS T30)

«

! Ill I= c £ ^^ " U* ^ 3^ .• \ "* S ffi w<D ® 3.0 — CD

I SSl |f(0 CD CD CO t> >,

•g | o "S = §1 - -j = IS CO 5 m OJ Q.S ? S. S 6 o «2 § I 5 § ^ fCD a J TO S|5 E -« > > ^- ~S ° *. -o -0 « oJ3 cj 55 35 c .2= -a co e tr ra ToCO CD CO) CD '-C O P CD ±±Tl C GL CX *"~c ~ S S 21= S 8-S- g- =§ s co cc cn >= roo CD S "• CO =Q.?? 3 *J . CO CTP •*. » C c T3 T?

sfsillslffll8a.&|8|S = e5S2-acDwS.cD-a^.S-s'0-^

o * J2 z o2 < < 7 z ,I i i Q ' _l1-5 -J Z Z> ZJ

s=J co

i 15 J< °3 SO ~*tN. E y 8 Is* >• 3f &"^ S J^ <

a S § 3£ O cu <IIS"1<XLU

* 52: 5S o8 >G

. ,- w

^ OJ- CD S y— V

3i la.O o

CO Q— CO 35 -? *7 s = > S 3K > CS •^-G S

U3 o> 03 OT >«^gSil*~ § © *-*O o

OS S S-

i Ii®

Si S oI II3Z § o

CD 15 C-T S|

a «2 g"

= 5 e_

* S ?T ||

CJ ^ gt> ^t S» 3 ST•p 3e0

O S *"*H * ? S

I s J?S ^o

Sc1 ^ E-*' So

3 O

S«? Ifx g

gss^

SAMIPLE LOCATW

SAMPLE NUMB

SAMPLE

DA

- - -

33333333,-,-,-r-i-,-T-i- Q

Z

33ZJ33333T _ _ T _ _ ^ - T _ ^ Y _ _ T _ ^ . Q

Z

33333333_ _ _ _ T - 1 _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ Q

Z

3333-I33DT-T-T-1-mt-1-lP- Q

z

_i_i_f_i«jrJ_iZ3T - p C O C M Q i - m i - Qw K d « « ^ z

3_i_i_i_j3-J3T - ^ - W C D C M r - O J r - QW d d *~ CD z

-33-3 3333 -3

lOi-U)Kr-T-T-i- r-lfld d uj

3«t3_i_]3u3 -sT-^T-COOr-WT- OJO" d E d

3_r_i3_i33«jT-UJCD-r-T-T-T--* Qd d N: i-J z

3333 333lAincniocotniAin oOdCJeviowr^oJoioj z

33-133-133i-i-tfli-T-COr-T- Q

*" d z

3333 333T-^^r-Or-t-r- Q

^ Z

COep (5 9i g § t

If I f i ^^|l lc.il S£ls£illls -&a19 I*S|5 I £b|cH|t7°l€l SIQ T 3 --•§ § s | 5 p*•-««'-. -S £ ® S 3coT-oO^H-tfiHOl ZUJ

•

IcS£ . ^S ^ ^cB £ ^^H.E •o ^ B

5s S ^J= " 3- - 5 i :

* -g £•§ 2 £* - IO 3> Cfl.Q Q, ——C$ X CP0 ° .3-= .<2 S5c" <D £'-!• • - ^

—— CO S <D•O (Ji flj .S . o > -^c 35 "S; ^k S: co aS Q. «5*9 *•• • enCD v. O 2is ° <c ^°- <DS 2 | s<P 55 s 2•° 4 -a- <B raftl O >K * "> C8 g ® Es ® « « >»S - -° i 1^ I s f S- = -0 30CD >• 21 -Q « « eu <8 7* Q.^ S S ^ S2dj 3 CD CD TJ SSs o 3 a $ ci tsl a| _ . .. :ffi S 13 "S ? 02 o CD ca c s— -0 1± C "" caat <o © o S =^ s & 8- g-11 igcc I |

I III I •l'SfS5«2

ffit^ljiliF- O " < < ' Z '5 o , i Q i _iZPP-0-1Z3Z)

AR3G355?

• r'- ' •Mpit'r' MlWVtVt •'-'•'''''-*'''" ~= . w i-'

*!:> -:,i::'•"•':.'•::!'"v:-'r--";-i-/.-':;;',:.! S

T| 5 Si:: ; Pj= ; Ssli! fr&&ffi j': r>?: : v ^ ^

m

H£ nnrJrsss^_____ —r is

cc

in

" CC O S&£ "i < =3 S*~~ "mania = t i-o >-

S3

toto

s

J5I__td___ffffln s &2 Q -J : IIo ui < T- !

LuE S EC „> < in U •= oH dj £? " "?—• **t o s tfl <3cm co _ coS5 S s-~————.„- ^ — O KkuiiuriQI 55 -S «

o >

wT-

u.

<. 3L 3

<n C 5g5 C5G^r c >

CM C "

5o S3s«E~' ^ & °->-

I...1 E^QWEE

o»T-

§

S

_H^L§u1

±1_—_jnno S bz ° J -" IiO 11J < ^ ;"

UJ CC „Ui ui £ *,

C uj CO — J2 o5UJ — (3 -=51 e s

r »— «« ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ p . ^ .jILtlLLUHJJI - i* *• -c q>O >X

o>CO CO

'TIJD

UJo2CC

Is"

Q.= uiWill£ a <tt

S-u g

UJ

I L?=J L 5

o° Ci— o>E'" oSfc c:

UJ Q.

CC

IU

SCALE 1:24000

PENNSYLVANIA lfl°° .. ° _____ IQM jt 3C)C» <XXO SOCM 6000 __ TOO f£CT

1 KILOMETER

QUADRANGLE LOCATION . ~ ...... CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET' ' "7 ' 'r.KO-8CJHoo,C _ _ _ "'_ _ NATIONAL QEOCETO VERTICAL DATUM Of 1929' /'

Figure 7LOCATION OF WATER WELLS

HATBORO QUADRANGLE WITHIN 1 MILE RADIUS OF SITEPENNSYLVANIA BASED ON THE AREA WELL SURVEY

7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)___________RAYMARK___________________

£8393559

>*cIT.

CC

:--f-, , - - • - - = X" "-^ .--.«-

^ ' > , ' ' "

BIpLlOGRAPHY ^

- . ; _^r

-(±".*/r= •'.-

.-V -V.,.

, " _ " "• A"- ""•- -"' .'.*r--—-': f """--'-•""-"", J;"~* 4.- - •" • -X.', T - *f-"'1 " , - " ' ' - '^ t , ' " . _ '•'''•• J .' „

\ ../ ^ "j: '-"' 'v'r f \-:-' - ~y-- ', \fy^- -^\*-\~\^-\ ?.~(\-.- / -,. . , - . . - . . . ... :>r. v.> . ,?

• • - '^_ , ,"\ •?*"•"' , ^ <^7.-J?V' ,> ." " ,^CV ' '»- .. r-. -' v

' ' ' ', .,-...- • • - • - . , - - ^

' ' " ' ''"

^ ~'> •

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barksdale, H.C, P.H. Jones, 1953, Groundwater Resources in the Tri-state RegionAdjacent to the Lower Delaware River: N.J. Dept. of Conservation, Division of WaterPolicy and Supply, Spec, Rept. 13.

Cooper, H. H., Jr. and Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized graphical method forevaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history. Transactions,American Geophysical Union, Vol. 27, No. 4.

CH2M HILL, 1990, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Raymark Site RemedialInvestigation and Remedial Study, Prepared for the U.S.E.P.A.

Driscoil, Fletcher G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells, Johnson Division, St. Paul,Minnesota.

Gordon, Matthew, 1986, Dependence of Effective Porosity on Fracture Continuity inFractured Media, Groundeater, Vol. 24, No. 4.

Greenman, D.W., 1955, Groundwater Resources of Bucks County, Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania Gelogical Survey Fourth Series Bulletin Wll.

Hall, G.M., 1934, Groundwater in Southeastern Pennsylvania: Pa. Topog. and Geol.Surv., Bull. WZ

Lohman, S.W., 1972, Groundwater Hydraulics, Geological Survey Professional Paper708.

Rima, Donald R., Harold Meisler, Stanley Longwill, 1962, Geology and Hydrology ofthe Stockton Formation In Southeastern Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania GeologicalSurvey Bulletin W14.

Towle, Michael, 1987, A Uthostratigraphic / Hydrogeologic Analysis of the StocktonFormation Near Hatboro, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Vecchioli, J. 1967, Directional Behavior of a Fractured-shale Aquifer in New Jersey,From the Proceedings of the Dubrovnik Symposium, Hydrology of Fractured Rocks,v. 1. Internat. Assoc, Sci Hydrology Pub. no. 73, pp. 318-326.

Vecchioli, J., L.D. Carswell, and H.F. Kasabach 1969, Occurence and Movement ofGround Water in the Brunswick Shale at a site near Trenton, New Jersey, U.S. Geol.Survey Prof. Paper 65Q-B.

Welsim, 1988, A Well Field Simulation Program, J. Randall, CH2M HILL. .

itA3035*i»

- •r-fr,. %

/' .

- - - J~~i.,

, ~~~. ' ~ . ^^

; APPENDIX-A 7.' K./', . ^ "'• -.,, •< ~: ." . • . - • " - ' . . - - .

.. .f:. . _.-..4.,,-^-"> ' ' • •' • " ' , . '

. . -, ._:; __ v.-.7- V ^-,;^ - ,->f -. -- - - - -^- -- - A < - - - .. '_.. • ; .. ;

•• ,- .^-.*f *v \' -\; ^^- "••-•- r'-^ ,'j;-- >••'•-.**-; : ' • ' "• • ••' 1 % - - -

, "• v^i"?^-- -N - "f~^ .'.. ^ , • "~ . , V-, y ' '. - " , -^ ,; . ' »i .' - " - • ' ' " • , ' -" , " ' j ^i ^ " " "- ---, *-•'"- ~~ ',< _-. ^^ ^^- .. .-- Jf .-.-;. *.___^__..^ - A -,. --'- -

-- • ' • • ' ' * • - • r>- -- -: .— : — - - - - ._- - - .- ... -1 - - ' . - /

, v.-

^ ') ,»- , ' - . ' . s

, NJRc 012R62.51 \ ':'-- '-'"'\: ' - J ">1/

«R303§6§

MTOJeCT NOMHEIt •OHING IHJMBCT

X op

ROCK CORE LOG

fLEVATION ______ _____ —- DRILLING CONTRACTOR

DRILLING METHOD AND ©

WATER LIVgL ANO DAT!

H IELQW

CKIFIl , AMD

fK)

CORE

UNO

MiECQ

otscoNTmumcsOSSCHIFTION

OS?TH.. INPILUNQ MATI^IAU AMD

THICXN65S. SURFACE STAINING. ANO•HGKTNCSS

UTMCLOGY

ROCK TYPS.COLOH.MINCBALOGY. TSCTUflE.WEATM1RING. MASONESS.AND flOCX MASSCHAAACTERISnCS

COMMENTSSIZE ANO DEPTH OFCASING. FUJIO LOSS.CORING HATS ANOSMOOTHNESS. CAVINGBOO DROPS. TSSTRESULTS. €TC.

8 - - *

*-/z - u

VO

\ £1 \\c*n

S *• ? '"'**"»" *****"*f-y SL 2 J J20 A

INvj« °

O . . . . . . . .2*. ~7- f

2? -

ZS -

c 6 '•** sZ&S-OT*ft.tf3ff3566

of&

AUC 63 /Of.8OHING NUMifCR

SHEET / OF

ROCK CORE LOG

PROJECT sM4*#X S*£^ - SS ______________________. LOCATIOM

SLEVATtON _^________________________ DRILLING niuTa*rrrnH

DRILLING METHOD ANQ POUIPUPMT

WATER LEVEL ANO DATE —————————._________________ STAHT fc™</ 70 RNISH

LOW

(ft)

OEPTH

•unrA

NO ('AJ

. AH. ER

CORE

RLE

NQf

RECOV

oracQHTtNurnsa

< ct

DESCRIPTIONOEPTH. TYPeOfllENTATION. ROUGHNESS.PLANARITY. INFILLING MATERIAL ANOTMtCKNESS. SURFACE STAINING. ANOTIGHTNESS

UTHOLOGT

ROCK TYP€. COLOR.MINERALOGY. TEXTTJRS.WEATHERING. HARONESS.ANO ROCK MASSCHARACTERISTICS

SIZE AND DEPTH OPCASING. FUJIO LOSS.CORING RATE ANOSMOOTHNESS. CAVtNGROD CROPS. TESTRESULTS. ETC.

717

3 -

/-Z. -I

20 -

zxa

23 -

*«,it

If^

vfl

^ £W A^5 C °

O

- a

/•7. 7 -/?.•? ' dofafa /A -

&»xii>' 76

2S-.6,-

^

£s/£&t&7$a &£}-'*

sev

PftOJECT NUMBCH aOHINQ MUMSEH

SHEET 2. OF 7

ROCK CORE LOG

-SSS

SUVATION _______________________________ _ DRILLING CnNTHACTnfl

LOCATION

WATER LSVEL AND OATt __________________________ STAflT fc / 7» FINISH

QW tl)

EOEMH1

MMfACC

Ii

woo

owcoHTiNurnesOgSCRIPTION

OiPTH. TYPCORIENTATION. ROUGHNESS.PLANARITY. INFILLING MATERIALANQTHICKNESS. SURFACE STAINING. ANOTIGHTNESS

LrmataarROCX TYPSCOLOfl.MtNgRALOGY, TEXTURE.WEATHERING. HARONESS.ANO ROCK MASSCHARACTERISTICS

COMMKKT3

SIZE ANO DEPTH OFCASING. FLUID LOSS.CORING HATE ANDSMOOTHNESS, CAVINGROD DROPS. TESTRSSULTS, ETC.

38 -

0.

1

^ a

Jy\ wx** ./•*<.*> "wnr .tar | u*e* **jr.

¥

aO

W

sa -!se&jt

-s **ft*

«303567

PROJECT NUMBCff

/VJQaoniNa NUMBCII

SHEET 3 OF

ROCK CORE LOG

ELEVATION _________________________________ DRILLING gQNTBJieTQfl

DRILLING MgTHOa ANO **, ..P CMT

WATER LEVEL ANO DATE __________ - _________ START &/'*/1» PtNlSH , rtffifigo

LOW

(FT)

DEPTH B

SURFAC

CORE RUN.

LENGTH.

ANO

RECO

VERY

1*1 otscoNTmumEs

FRAC

THER FO

OSSCR1PTTONOEPTH. TYPE.ORIENTATTON. ROUGHNESS.PLANARtTY. INFIUJNG MATERIAL ANOTHICKNESS. SURFACE STAINING. ANOTIGHTNESS

UTHOLOGY COMMENTS

RGCX TYPt COLOR.MINERALOGY. TEXTURE.WEATHERING. MAR ON £53.ANO ROCX MASSCHARACTERISTICS

SIZE ANO DEPTH OFCASING. FLUID LOSS.CORING RATE ANOSMOOTHNESS. CAVINGROD DROPS. TESTRESULTS. ETC.

68 '

72. -

76 -

'SO

38 .

7?'

03 °

sy 4 fcv ru

-

Xl l '

"* o

A ft

&*rj//a#//C*

RSV7/86 FORM D2T13A

PWCJCCT NUMBER 1ORINQ NUMHCII

SHEET "^ OF 7

ROCK CORE LOG

iLSVATlQN ________________________________ DRILLING CONTRACTOR

OSILLING M6THOO ANO r»na^m^r

WATER LIVE* ANO DAT! _________________________ START 6/SX/f* FINISH &/*£'/?& , nr.f-.B9

l£|sMlka.SLU39«»

1*< <sts B»

DESCRIPTIONDEPTH. TYPCORIENTATICN. ROUGHNESS,PLANARCTY. INFILLING MATERIAL ANOTHICKNESS. SURFACE STAINING. ANOTIGHTNESS

COMMCNTS

90•&#-

f8 -

\ ~ °\ - o

\09

o

* 2/

"C

o

cc

* tVrfa; S-7j»49a

Mta

33

•7.T

* • t a

7-3 * CeAs'/e zoo fa/ fat,*»c.O/VflH

r/ai FORM 02113/

PROJECT NUMBEH

63/09.BORINO NUMBEft

SHEET 3~ OF 7"

ROCK CORE LOG

PHQJt=CT

DRILLING METHOD ANO gntNB^c^T

WATER LEVEL ANO DATE—. __________ - ________ START f RNISH rnrtrtPO

OEPTH BELOW

tUHFACE (FT)

N, AHO

Y (*1

COHEHU

LENQTH,

RECOVER

DISCONTINUITIES

O

SOo t.< tr;<C Ullu. a. i

DESCRIPTIONOEPTH. TYPeORIENTATTON. ROUGHNESS.PLANAAITY, INFILLING MATERIAL ANOTHICKNESS. SURFACE STAINING. ANOTIGHTNESS

UTHOLOOY COMMENTS

ROCK TYPE. COLOR.MINERALOGY. TEXTURE.WEATHERING. HARDNESS.AND ROCK MASSCHARACTERISTICS

SIZE ANO DEPTH OFCASING. FLUID LOSS.CORING RATE ANOSMOOTHNESS. CAVINGROD DROPS. TESTRESULTS. STC.

/3V-

I/£

V, _ / fifcX? « J */l i&J -

0

X76 -

nt

O,O

\jO

/33-/3X

t*

V\f*- "• y,v - GON.

00(

\6S

3*o ^~~ ' ""

o

85

SStaaM 76 SVUQ'A

coaftaj to SfaQ ^ S*

'39________v/

•vj . j TT j-vir>i jff= ^ .y j,efiffL •—" wCSS?'- *?«\ ,# &*'/*

f| - '

^

/3Z ~/33 '

S39-SV* •'

SEV7/86 PQBMQ21T3A

USPROJECT NUMBER lOHINa NUMBER

AfJO £3/°9. -Z*- 'fi="4s ^ c/-3 SHEET 6 OF X^

ROCK CORE LOG W

gLIVATION ———————————————————————————— DRILLING MMTaA/rrna

DRILLING METHOD ANO

LOCATION

WATER LEVgL ANO OATS ——————— _ ________ STAUT 6//*/?ff FINISH &/*£'/ ? , nrsrigq

NO %}

RUN

fH,

co LE

OWCONTWUmtS

|5ff aptt-

DESCRIPTIONDEPTH. TYPtORIfiNTATION. ROUGHNESS.PLANAHtTY. INFILLING MATERIAL ANOTHICKNESS, SURFACE STAINING. ANDTIGHTNESS

LTTHOLOaY

ROCK TYP€. COLOR.MINERALOGY. TEXTUREWEATHERING. HARDNESS.ANO ROCK MASSCHARACTERISTICS

COMMENTS

SIZE ANO DEPTH QFCASING. RJJIO LOSS,CORING RATf ANQSMOOTHNESS. CAVINGROD DROPS. TESTRESULTS. ETC.

^suas/f sevr/se FORM 021:3.

PROJECT MUMBen SOfWNO MUMBEff

SHEET 7- OF

ROCK CORE LOG

ELEVATION _______________________________ _ OH H LING CQN TRACTOR

DRILLING METHOD ANO g^i»g^gMT

WATER LEVEL AND OATg __________________________ STAHT 6/'*/1» FINISH

LOW

(FT)

O l

UN.

. AN

O|%)

. R

CORE H

LEHdTH

RECOVE

OtSCaNTtMUITIES

SEOT

< ECC uiu. a.

OESCmPTIONOEPTH. TYPeORIENTATION. ROUGHNESS.PLANAHITY. INFILLING MATERIAL ANOTHICKNESS. SURFACE STAINING. ANOTIGHTNESS

UTHOLOOY

ROCK TYPeCOLOB.MINERALOGY. TEXTURE.WEATHERING. HARDNESS,ANO ROCX MASSCHARACTERISTICS

COMMENTSSIZE ANO DEPTH OFCASING. FLUID LOSS.CORING RATE ANOSMOOTHNESS. CAVINGROD DROPS. TESTRESULTS. ETC.

/ao

\1\^ '/as H

Zoo

• I Qft) '

o0

c

**

76

x#5 -

. ism*PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBER

SHEET / OF

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT rSstys***** x%T.«? XT'______________.LOCATION.ELEVATION ________'____ DRILLING CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT xgXT /£3 VX?X at/A> c#AA#fM 7=*Af __WATER LEVELS ______________________ START -Z#3/90 FINISH -?//3/?G LOGGER

iE EPTH Bi

RFAC

SAMPLE

ALE

R PED

RECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION^ TESTRESULTS

r-r-e*

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL. COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE.MINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

/o

>a r-%. } co/c tzd&aa & oftsfy

36.•

X'

*^& Xx?

Crx?

[8.301 tR303573 REV 11/89FORM DlS8€

•r•

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERxy>fx— /s snesr S OF 2*

SOIL BORING LOG

'PROJECT rtstys**** s*f-Ae?«5 pr~______________ LOCATIONELEVATION _____________________ 9FfLL!-ING CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT d-z V /%37 X?X uu+

LEVELS __________________• - STAR*

OEPTH BELOW

SURFACE (FT)

O

*.:—

i .:

INTERVAL

SAMPLE

UJera.UJ>-031—2a= 2 RE

COVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

(N)

-

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL. COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTURE.MINERALOGY

< _

Z f**' .-.-'

2.7* Sos*& \ -

/QC&St fS**

fg* Sf-*S#-su0£7~Q**& &y Sawi&r* _

————————————— i DQfXQ-i:

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILLING RATE.DRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

—

£2£ S /# '.S, o- 5 JO . 5 ~

&&. ——————————— ., ————————————— I/fl-»m " " P*K»-*'W'V ^ /, *t REV 11/89 FORM DT 586(B.Ju)

IvWJSIH*

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERSHEET OF

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT SbMf<+*s< yxfer-jr TTT-_________ELEVATION ________________._____ DRILLING CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENTWATER LEVELS

D'EPTH BELOW

SURFACE

CFT)

70-

SAMPLE

INTERVAL

NUMBER

ANO TYPE

BECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

F-6--6"(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

~ j y

\ —

J " ' (8.30) " **«*

COMMENTS

OEPTH OF CASING. DRILLING RATE.DRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

/- 3 J^^

&) ~?& . &.& . _

—

035/5 REV ' 1 '39 FORM Q 1 536

mmmm•r

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERsWt/ — /- SHEET X OF,?

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /ts*yst*#X yxfe-.-g 777-_____________ LOCATIONELEVATION _____________________ DRILLING CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT

STAR/ •7/b//<M HMISH S///9CWATER LEVELS ——————————————————————— STAR •7/<M HMISH /C LOGGER

W T)CE (F

OEPTH

SURFA

SAMPLE

ERVA

UJCO.mi—

RECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL. COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOH CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE,MINERALOGY

COMMENTS

OEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

/O —

UQ-

30 —

37" x ~'sv°-\

yi-'

•J

sS7'i~-3~?.

REV 11/89 FORM D1S36

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERSHEET Z_ . . .JOF >

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT X7 ff> y xf>r xjfc 77?-______________ LOCATIONDRILLING CONTRACTOR

DRILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT x* /7V/TX aWATER LEVELS _____________________ STAR-K 7/2//W

y-K 7 RNISH

FT)

DEPTH BEL

SURFACE (

SAMPLE

ERVA ER

YRIE

C(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESUCT3

r-r-r

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILUNG RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS,TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

foO

70 —

«- '>*<S x/too

-xxe

7. 8'/^ e x

(3.30)

•Vw•V

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBER/*?& -S-T -- SHEET 2 OF 3~

SOIL BORING LOG

"PROJECT /5*>g«a**»>r >?#£*: TTT-__________ LOCATIONELEVATION ___________ DRILUNGCpNTRACTOR

DRILLING METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT xr y>7>^yaa^ XMX x ._.7*XWATER LEVELS _____________:_________ STAR/ -?/&/& FINISH 3///fc LOGGER

J— U.o.iSocn

SAMPLE

orat

IUera. CEUJ

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

6--S--6-(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILUNG RATEDRILUNG FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

m*

<>

XZ 2-

/2 y

IA-3P1.,

PROJECT NUMBER SORING NUMBERSHEET x OF

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT rSstoe*f*»*j< 9x&r«f TTT-______________ LOCATIONELEVATION _____________________. DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT AzA_WATER LEVELS ______________________ S T A R T g x x g FINJSH 6& ?° LOGGER

L (FT)

DEPTH BE

SURFAC

SAMPLE

ALV

MBER

D TYPE

RIECOV

E(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING, DRILUNG RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

sj^au xu£&*y« x-

ST. a -

2.0 —

?5*- *7.a 's _,_._

*X*$QT'~&' yvfautsj faxwj

18 JO) 579 REV Tl/39 FORM D1586

PROJECT NUMBER63/09

BORING NUMBERSHEET £- OF

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT &f&*AAS< sS)£** 777* ______________ LOCATION

ELEVATION !__ftf.M-^G CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT xr /i7»?X a»y CtfAAMM 7r**f ° &• <Q<3i*A'WATER LEVELS _______________________ •—.. START t y/& _.._ FINISH &//?/& LOfifigR 77

1— U.Q.CCtursQOT

SAMPLE

TERVA

LJJCO.UJ>03 j-

RECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TEST "RESULTS

6--6--S"(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE,MINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILLING RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

. a -

70

60 -

Q3.Q

//o

(8;3Q) « < -.» *.-.. - » «- -% « REV n/89 FORM 01586

*:*'. MIIIPROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBER

SHEET OF '

SOIL BORING LOG

ELEVATION DRILLING CONTRACTORLOCATION

DRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT Wzyr /&7»?X Jb/ XJ T rff .W gWATER LEVELS ————————————————————————— STARf RNISH _ J . _ _ . LOGGER

111=]

SAMPLE

IUl

CO.ty>-

trSi

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

r-r-r(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTURE,MINERALOGY

COMMENTS


-".

x_ro

xfi J. ,0 -xs Jt o

-xTT_r'.

(3.20, ; S.R30358I REVt1.89FORMDt5fi


SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /£/>?*f. xa/< yx?/**? r777^___________ LOCATIONELEVATION _____ ____________ DRILLING CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT x* ttA? ta&a c#A4/*S4 7 6f a^ g ^_«w x ag-gWATER LEVELS ______________________ ,STMG—6jfa/fa FINISH £s£s/&4 LOGGER x^

IfCLKUJ3QCO/8Q

~-.

.

SAMPLE _:._::

INTERVAL

NUMBER

AND TYPE

RECOVERY

(FT>

:

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

6"-6--6"(N)

•

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

\

—

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS,TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

-

S7&-3.GO 0 XJ£* 7*

—

(8.30) . 5 82 REV 11;89 FQFqw D15ae

ELEVATIONDRILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENTWATER LEVELS

FT)

EF

S

SAMPLE

BER

TYPE

DN A RECOVERY

(FT)

, STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

6--6--S"

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILUNG RATE.DRILUNG FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

/o -

,

3. 2 - 23

30 —

33'

3$'S>f*

60 Xs"- .***«-»? ,ff ' x"x: /,g 30j ---.,— -», v ^ .,W, 11/89 FORM D1586

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERSHEET X. OP 2-

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /TX -J-xfrx? x*yx?x;.<r 777"______________.LOCATIONELEVATION ______________________DRILLING CONTRACTORORILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT

STAflV ?x Jx FINISH 7A3/9QWATER LEVELS ______________________ . STAfl ?xJx FINISH 73Q LOGGER

5p

OEPTH BEU

SURFACE (F

60

70 —

. ,:

SAMPLE

INTERVAL

LUera.031-Sd55 RE

COVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

6--6--S"(N)

-

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

__

.

\ —

- —————— . ———————— - .„,..„ ,...-, ,,j..j»ii*fcii*».<

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DfllLUNG RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS,TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

vs-' + y."'-

—

—

{a 30, f R£V 11'89 FonM DI-536

PROJECT NUMBEH BORING NUMBERSHEET X OF

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /Txifr xfr/ft*' ¥x%r.-7 777-_____________ LOCATIONELEVATION ________ DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT xr ttAr_tnai» dVAA/M 7=- ^ dae g /ten**WATEH LEVELS ______________________ START » FINISH -Z/&A<* LOGGER

OEPTH BE

SURFACE

SAMPLE

3 MBER

O TYPE ERY

T)RE (F

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTSgSULTS

(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION


COMMENTS

OEPTH OF CASING. OR1LUNG RATS.ORILUNG FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

t/ xe/*-* •

/O —

ZQ —

xr

x/<7xe/

[8_30, • i-. ** -. _ _ REV 11/29 FORM Oi5£6

51303585

•rmm

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERx4«Sfc'_»_Zr SHEET z_ OF '

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /?xW« x?x< x x3£-.«T 777-______________ LOCATIONELEVATION ______ ___________ DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILL1NG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT xfer /%37>x?X any 3C/fA4*IM 7=-A9S a*J S" > xj.»i»*WATER LEVELS ______________________ START T/JMfa FINISH ~7/3*/?* LOGGER

1— U.o.rr

SAMPLE

ccUI

UJCO.UJ5-031-

CCLU

O

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

5--S--S-(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTURE.MINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILLING RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

9

X -> „_—7XX

f , • * -*!__.. T.I ' a f i -X73. x - taarx*-xv_r-

—& **as-

others* f t- f

XXX-XX2.

'£%%'&-/S7'

'/3 ' . . * > . . * ; x-//<? -

1130358i REV n/39 FORM 01 536

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERSHEET 3 OF 3

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT

DRILLING METHOD ANO EQUIPMENTWATER LEVELS

DEPTH BE

SURFACE

SAMPLE

AE

NUMBER

ANO TYPE

COVERY

)FT

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

r-r-r(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE,MINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILUNG RATE.DRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

&*»

" -2- /zr

/l&.S" ' f-

J

iX {a3Q, ft |t 3 4J O 3 0 / REV T t/S9 FORM D1586

•••r

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERMJO &3/SJ9 x=£Z: yC* <p /W- -? £? SHEET / OF</

SOIL BORING LOG

ROJECT /Tx*>gVx«vpxy x /9x-,5- xTT"______________ LOCATIONELEVATION _____________________ DRILLING CONTRACTOR x xV*fcK2T eEv g-g-g-S /* xxy--\3'._s x?<±yDRILLING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT x zrxT / 3 >x?X aoay •JfTx/X x y 7 -xy ,!«/ £? > x a-«f v fWATER LEVELS _______- ----- --

X<H-U.Q-CCIJJZ?QCO

SAMPLE

§cUJ

UJ>fflh-SQ

a:Ui

O

Kit

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

6"(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

COMMENTS


/fao

i*- . -L/**

30 -

V. ^pfs- s**t*rtt£ xX- -st-

#0 —

•IB3435,g30j *-p*- * n»* i* «* «* REV :i/89 FORM D1.5Q6 .

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERxWJ?-£> SHEET 2- OF x-

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /fstWtstoWt x y.T Trs____________—.LOCATIONELEVATION _____________________ DRILLING CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT x rxy /5b7xXX?XWATER LEVELS ______________________ STAR- xxV ^ FINISH Tx fey i.oaagR

•DEPTH BE

SURFACE

SAMPLE

NTERVA

NU'MIB'ER

AND TYPE

RECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULT'S

(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE,MINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILLING RATEDRILUNG FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

-76 —' **

<*s

&£>-

X-1— /

fa -

«r r

'

,8.30! •• ft.R 3'0 3589 R£v"«FOflM D:5as

IL!-IWG CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT xfeWATER LEVELS

.


SOIL BORING LOG

PHO.IFCT XxX>^xfr9xr x M<- x7?~ ______________ .LOCATIONELEVATION DRILLING CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT x rxT /xb yx?X a y S&f£4MS4 7 64' &*/ g ^ _gtf»^ x»fe-gWATER LEVELS ______________________ START V 3 JFJNJ^H - ^ LOGGER

H B

ACE (FT)

EDE SU

SAMPLE

ERVAL

NUMBER

ANO TYPE

RECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE.MINERALOGY

COMMENTS


x1

U-f

(- zca

51303591[8i30> f-.m *ii J-, (i » REV n/89 FORM D15S6

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERSHEET ^ OF

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /5x> x*-x?>fELEVATIONDRILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENTWATER LEVELS ————————————

OW T)

DEPTH

SURFA

SAMPLE

ERVA

tilera.SOh-

RECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

er-sr-er(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILLING RATE.DRILUNG FLUID LOSS.TESTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

/O — /o -xi '

30 —I

SasfG

fa —

.„-,,. -- - R£V 11/89 FORM D: 526.lo-Jw) _ , . . - . - . - .

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERSHEET / OF 3

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT XTx|t> yx x?xy x ---? •?7;r"______________ LOCATIONELEVATION _________:___________ DRILLING CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD ANO S3UIPMENTWATER LEVELS .______——«. ______________ START T//9/9Q RNISH "7X 0/ LOGGEfl

DEPTH BELOW

SURFACE (FT)

O

/O -

-

ZO —

-~

*>:

*,:

fo —

-

&o

SAMPLE

INTERVAL

NUMBER

ANO TYPE

•

RECOVERY

(FT)

• .

^STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESLRJS

sr-r*r(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOILNAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

—

i _

,'f' x jS* -

1 —

38' /Gr-Sw&$7'<ssv& xW - *

-r '-———— :.+ « :* 7 ^ r J*1 T*jd jtss\ "v suLfs E 5-X*_> J ^ *^ X ^ jfe ygAa Qrr S * *-*r

.

(3.30) *

COMMENTS

OEPTH OF CASING. DRILUNG RATEDRILUNG FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

<S/&7'i*5*i»> <?xX- »*• ?-/&& r*S/v

~

^ ~ :B •*"*

-

^

—

~ '*'~

—

* :RSO^^OO REV n;89 FORM 0153S

PROJECT NUMBER BORING NUMBERSHEST 2- OF 3

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECT /TxW*fxfv9xy »xfey? 777-________________ LOCATION

ELEVATION _____________________. D?!M-NG CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT x4?->? /%37x/x?XWATER LEVELS ' ____________ STAff Ty/ _ HiMISH -y/c/O LOGGER

DEPTH BELOW

SURFACE (FT)

70 -

90 —.

90-

/OQ—

//O —

.,:

SAMPLE "

INTERVAL

NUMBER

AND TYPE

-

RECOVERY

(FT)

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

6"-6"-S"(N)

SOIL DESCRIPTION


-

-7$-7d ' /*-Sl Jxf/v- TTiax -? x ?x<7-S

^ _

X —

-

——

——

«fnfn

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. ORILUNG RATEDRILLING FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

.

XV 7

** " Sy f '*"<* .

-

-

.

—

If'*0 5****,*

Eftf,

*l

(g30) . REV 11/89 FORM 0:536

re*T.

PROJECT NUMBEH BORING NUMBERSHEET 5 OF -3

SOIL BORING LOG

PROJECTELEVATIONDRILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENTWATER LEVELS

Sir

D'EPTH BEL

SURFACE |

X30—

"

XV&-

—

SAMPLE

INTERVAL UIera.

^

CC

i

•

STANDARDPENETRATION

TESTRESULTS

(N)

-

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SOIL NAME. USCS GROUP SYMBOL COLOR.MOISTURE CONTENT. RELATIVE DENSITYOR CONSISTENCY. SOIL STRUCTUREMINERALOGY

:...

—

COMMENTS

DEPTH OF CASING. DRILLING RATEDRILUNG FLUID LOSS.TESTS ANO INSTRUMENTATION

*v-/if' &*&*• *V">/&

^

**T*'~ _ t

,/34~ ' ess /w y ~",3t' ***&

/*}£ JS~—/JJ -'-2'xae'XSffje x>? ^/**/ st/sjy/efrfy . m ~~~

—

18303595 1U89 FORM 0153S

PROJECT NUMBER 4O0 S.3/W Z <? WELL NUMBER x=»x*-/

SHEET OF

WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMROJECT MA4X xfcs" _ST LOCATIONaj=VATlON __________________ DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILUNG MHTHOO ANO EQUIPMENT xVWATER LEVELS _____ START ^' RNISH LQGGgH

PROJECT NUMBER xfej» tf5/<5 x=2T. x*<p WEU_ NUMBER x -xCS"

SHEET 2. OF 2.

WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMPROJECT / f»HWT/r x g -ST _____ LOCATIONELEVATION _________________ DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD AND EQUlPMENTx/JZx?WATER LEVELS _____________ START 7V ^ FINISH x"./xgx#y LOGGER

DEPTH BELOW

SURFACE (FT)

30 —

j-Q -

70

so —

XOO -

//o _

/JO -

X70 —

X*? -

zoo —

32.

ftB303597

PROJECT NUMBER x » 63/&? s=z: x2^ WELL NUMBER xW-/S

SHEET 3 OF 3WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM

OJECT x?xftg«** r x#qg.s -2r ... LOCATIONELEVATION __________________ DRJLUNG CONTRACTORORILUNG METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT xtefWATER LEVELS ____________ START g// RNISH 3/>/*J ____ LOGGER ^ xf x x_

U, Ml<o o52O.EOJ 3O CO

X_J

20

£~Q -

;O —

//O —

XJO -

X70 —

5 '

PROJECT NUMBER x» -?*W x zr. x s> WELL NUMBER xW-x-C

SHEET f OF WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM

_flPROJECT x?xfj»***x?x7 x? g.? -^"_____LOCATION _____ELEVATION __________________DRILUNG CONTRACTORORILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENTxtorWATER LEVELS _____________ START -?/3//?o " FINISH a/3/g3 LOGGER

^ ' ^/O FT)

i^u-|go-crU4 3Q CO

xo —

20 -

20 —

fO

60

70

SO

/JtO -

XJO -

x_ro_

XTO —

xgo -

XXV

/3Z'

IE303599

PROJECT NUMBER Wo 63/&? *x. x=<? WELL NUMBER / -/£>SHEET cT OF 5"

WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMOJECT x?x»>g*»*x?xr x g -2T :_ LOCATION

ELEVATION ________________ ___DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILLING METHOD ANO EQUIPMENT xtorWATER LEVELS _____________ START /vX " FINISH 7Xxy?tf LOGGgR

PROJECT NUMBER Wo 63S&? >=2r. x <? WELL NUMBER /WS-2S

SHEET :? OF 3WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM

PROJECT x?xf.»wx*x< /foes 3ZF_____LOCATION _____ELEVATION __________________DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENTXorWATEH LEVELS ____________

fguy

Pu-tt, a:IlCDa co

xo

20

30

70 -

/GO -

X-TO

XAO

200 _

rf*

PROJECT NUMBER, /-;? 63/&? S=3= <*» WELL NUMBER /W--2ZSHEET ^ OF

WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMROJECT xxf^*»fxy^- x?$ r -2T .: , LOCATIONELEVATION __________________ QR1LUNG CONTRACTORDRILUNG METTHOD ANDWATER LEVELS __________ START -7 /!<//** FINISH g X/x i? LOGGER

FaSX <0.0:Q CO

20

30 .—I

70 —

//O _

X-TO-

X*60 —

/70 —

XSO —

/Xff'

XJtf

**"

PROJECT NUMBER <<Vo

WELL

63/Q9 x jcr, x=•<? WELL NUMBER xw--=-oSHEET -T OF 5"

CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM— _ —— __ —————————————————— _flhlPROJECT x5x»jgwxfrr x g.s -2Z" _____ LOCATIONELEVATION _____________ . _____ OHIUJNG CONTRACTORORILUNG METHOD ANDWATER LEVO5 _____________ START tf/gxW FINISH -* /ft/to LOGGER

!£03a.ceIU ZJa co

A;20

30

5-D _

70 —

Xoa

xxa

Xlo —

X70 —

Zoo

K S' •

/o «5x£/d

PROJECT NUMBER Wo GS/WZ;'** WELL NUMBER SfW-32SHEET -2. OF

WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMIOJECT /7xW* xf/y x g 3ZT_____^LOCATION

ELEVATION __________________DRILUNG CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENTX-x?WATER LEVELS____________START 7//7/tto' RNISH

DEPTH BELOW

SURFACE (R)

XO —

20 -

30 - —

go —

/xo —

S30 -

x o

/TO

xaa

if

•5 "

&S 30 3601*

PROJECT NUMBER <<Wo 63/&? *x. <? WELL NUMBER /W- 3-Z"

SHEET x*" OF V

WELLCONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM—————————————— _ ——————————— _M

LOCATIONDRILUNG CONTRACTOR

DRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT XPTWATER LEVELS

31 <£cc01 13O CO

XO —

20 -

30 -

3-0 -

70 -

90 —

XOO —

XJO -

£00 —

PROJECT NUMBER fo 63/&? z=- WELL NUMBER / -SHEET OF

WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMOJECT x5xy *»>f/?x< x <r -2 LQCAT1QN

ELEVATION __________________ DRILLING. CONTRACTORDRILUNG METHOD AND EQUIPMENT xto?WATER LEVELS _____________ START ______ " FINISH ; __________ LOGGER

DEPTH BE

SURFACE

xo

20

30

•VO

tro

30 -

/OQ —

//O _

/JO -

X6O —

/SO' X tf a/ X - v f

7 of Scse*''}

ft 38 36 Q 6

" ~~ '*. ~\. ~ ""-' «*^ "" - J^" "-»* " " "" T1" ^~——— ————"-—————— T-^ ——— : -- ——— "-T ' '•= ' ~ - - ———— f~, - V / JJ-«---. - , - -= ,.r.-,_ ~A- =. m _— u.J _-v_ ...,.7iaai —-ji ^ .^. -^. £- J- •**_-.* _,- .-..:.-. —^

fA-*-- l -nfc......A ; ^ .. -... ,. ^—. „ .... • y. -VI—._. ___*-? . _..;_v:.*t __-_y-_ii ,.* _. j£-^ _.*%/.1.. - _ .1 _ - ... Ji- r-,.- - .-i.r-.- -,-4-=r;--T"- '•;-_•• £—«5-V- - - -J -. .:.=-=---.--

L .i..'*" -' - -; - '/ '-, ' ' ' •' .T" ——'. -- -::, '- .. --j-- t ---.- - - -- , ' .. =i=_-/--• • ' " ' I • •-' ^J , - - - I, , \ :

• • • - i . J ' ' - " - "

^ _ _ ^

• • - ' . • / ; . ' ^ ; . f "r - - , ."

VL-r " -< ' .Vi- v-

' - - / . - , -*_fl. L S. ' - ,- ' . 1 ' . , , ***

.- ,• . ^ _._.

••> • --~-

.- -V.- -• - , ^.. - ^ ' _ *_

; - - J ' ""'- -' ,H '' „" 7 .'^/-^ ' X r ?' /.?"' .VJ j-/_V.< -. '"J 1-'.>V./.- '\' ;•-.;. ^X^T" ' " ' • " ' - ,

:; -. ^-v -^ ,-, ;-:..-, f :- ;-/> .^^^J^- . .--x- W -, . %.iy >^owV-^v , .- ^. ;,. ., ,7--;-, ' L - _ ^ ' \ _ - H ' ' " ' r r ^ f l - 1 . ' . ^ - h " ' . V f * _ - . - ' > - ' . ^ - f - - ' . ' ' P *.- •"-. ^ - ••• '-- •• -• --? .: ^ ^ .,-.- r,.r:

• -- -^ - - -' . ^ S- : -• .<"-. --•' " .';.4?-- '.\- -^- ,^-v ^ ''- 0-- '- .. , v ^- ---" , • ^ '- '•~'"3':/\'-"1-. -'---'•:^'.: •'-•-"- ^:/ - Vs\-:-v T- - - . :'- :-:T --.v\* - ^-- - -•:'• :

, ^ , :- -r'- -x- -'^ ;:-t' ": -; -": .-^-'- X-,-- - --, - *-">r*-v5 -: *4.>"-x'.'r':_!*. i " J-f :^_ "

EngineersPlannersEconomistsScientists

October 18, 1990

NJO63109.FT.FQ

Michael TowleU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III: " ./ :.:""" _." -—— - _ _ _ . . _ _ .6tfa Floor, 3HW21841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Dear Mr. Towle:

Subject: Packer Test Results, Raymark Site

As part of the remedial investigation conducted by CH2M HILL at the Raymark site,two packer tests were conducted to determine the best zone for capture ofcontaminated groundwater. The packer tests were conducted in the well identified asRW-1. (Figure 1). RW-1 was drilled to a total depth of 145 feet.

Two water-bearing zones were encountered during drilling. The first zone wasencountered at 90 feet to 115 feet, and the flow was estimated at 30 gallons perminute. The second zone was encountered from 136 feet to the total depth of thewell at 145 feet, with an estimated flow of 50 gallons per minute.

The USGS conducted geophysical logging of the well to aid in correlation with othermonitoring wells on the site. Gamma ray, resistivity, arid flow logs were used todetermine packer intervals. The gamma ray log indicates the amount of naturalradiation in the rock, which is generally associated with clay minerals in shale. Inbedrock of this area, the shales are usually very hard and tend to be fractured,whereas the sandstones may be softer and less fractured.

The resistivity log measures the resistivity of the formation. Resistivity is greatlyaffected by water in fractures. The log indicated that there may be fractures in theintervals in which flow was noted during drilling. Low resistivity, indicating thepresence of water, is present at the same depths in which the gamma ray log detectedthe presence of shale,CH2M HILL North Atlantic Regional C/ffca 99 Cherry Hill Read, Suite 3C* 2Q 1.316.9300

Parsippcny. New Jersey Q7G54-1K ~3-1

Michael TowiePage!October 18, 1990NJO63109JF1.FQ

The lithology of the water-bearing zone from 90 to 115 feet is highly silicified siltstoneor shale that may be highly fractured. Interbedded within the siitstone and shale arelayers of Sne-grained sandstone. Rocks have a purple color in this interval.Groundwater flow was first noted at 90 feet when the first siltstone was encountered.The rate of flow was continuous throughout this zone. The Uthology below 115 feetbecomes coarser grained and slightly more porous. The lithology of the water-bearingzone from 136 feet to the total depth of the well is similar to that of the zone from 90to 115 feet.

It should be noted that the rocks above 89 feet were dry. Water rose to within about48 feet of the surface after being encountered at 89 feet. The rock immediatelyabove 89 feet is a medium grained soft sandstone. The- competence of the sandstonedeclines with depth. The pores of the sandstone were plugged with soft materialwhich is doubtfully clay because of the low gamma ray log response for this interval.The rocks above 89 feet obviously confine the hard siltstone and shale aquifer below.

Packer intervals were selected based on flow rate and similar lithology. The first zonetested was 86 to 119 feet. This zone included all of the potentially water- producinglayers noted on lie resistivity log. This zone was associated with the highly sflicified (rocks from 90 to' 115 feet

The upper packer seat was selected at 84 to 86 feet because of the relatively non-porous, competent, medium-grained sandstone noted during drilling at that depth.The lower packer seat was selected at 119 to 121 feet because of the non-porous,hard, fine-grained sandstone noted during drilling at that depth.

Packers were set with approximately 150 psi of compressed nitrogen and the intervalwas pumped at 12 gallons per minute for 5-5 hours. Minimal drawdown was noted inthe intervals above and below the packers, which indicates that they created aneffective seal in the borehole and that the fractures do not have an extensive verticaldevelopment.

The lower zone tested included the potentially water- producing layers noted on theresistivity log near the bottom of the well. Because these layers were ail at thebottom of the well, no lower packer was installed because it might have overlappedproducing fractures. The upper packer was installed from 120 to 122 feet and theinterval below 122 feet was pumped at 24 gallons per minute for 5 hours. Minimaldrawdown was noted above the packer.

Water levels were monitored in the pumping well in the intervals above the packer, inthe packer (pumped) interval, and below the packers in the first test only. Water (levels were monitored in all three wells of each well cluster along Jacksonville Road(downgradient from the pumping well) and in the intermediate depth well of theupgradient cluster.

Michael TowlePage 3October 18, 1990NJO63109.F1.FQ

During the packer testing of each of the two zones, water level elevations wererecorded using data loggers at both the pumping well and seven monitoring wellsincluding MW-31, which was used in the capture analysis.

PACKER TEST RESULTS ANALYSIS

Pumping the first zone. 86 feet to 119 feet, at a rate of 12 gallons per minute (gpm)resulted in a drawdown in that interval at RW-1 of 13 feet. This yields a specificcapacity of 0.92 gpm per foot of drawdown. Pumping the deepest zone at 24 gpmresulted in a drawdown of that interval at RW-1 of 48 feet. Thus, the specificcapacity of the zone is 0.5 gpm per foot of drawdown.

During each of the two tests, drawdown and recovery data were recorded inmonitoring well MW-3I after pumping had ceased. The recovery curves from the twotests were matched to type curves for leaky aquifers and values for the transmissivity,storage coefficient, hydraulic conductivity and leackance between the two zones wereestimated (Table 1).

Table 1

ShallowZone

DeepZone

TransmissivityCspm/ft)

482

393

StorageCoefficient

0.054

0.054

SpecificCapacity(gpm/ftj0.92

.50

SaturatedThickness(feet)

33

23

HydraulicConductivity

(ft/day)14,6

17.0

Leackance

0.005/day

0.0007/day

The drawdown observed at monitoring well MW-3I that resulted from pumping anyof the two zones was about the same and was approximately 1 foot.

CAPTURE ZONE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the capture zone analysis is to determine the zone that, whenpumped, will best reduce offsite contamination migration. The capture zone createdfrom pumping either of the two zones alone was estimated using a mathematicalsolution (Bear, 1979). This approach required values for aquifer permeability,hydraulic gradients, and maximum sustained pumping rates. These values areestimated from the packer testing results with the exception of the regional hydraulic

•«-••'- ^ 11303610

Michael TowlePage 4October 18,1990NJO63109.F1.FQ

gradient. Values for the regional hydraulic gradient listed in another source(Luborsky, 1986) were used. Although those values are not site specific, they aresuitable for comparing capture zones produced by pumping either of the two zones,

Hydraulic conductivity and pumping rate are important as a ratio defined in theThiem (1906) equation:

Q - H2 -haK 1055logR/r

where:Q = pumping rateK = permeability ;H » saturated thicknessh saturated thickness in well while pumpingR = radius of cone of depression (effective radius of influence)3r » radius of well

* The radius of the cone of the depression is presumed to, be large in this calculation because the approximation is

not sensitive to radius changes.

The maximum sustained pumping rate from each zone was estimated using thespecific capacity of the zone and the maximum available drawdown. Their values are33 gpm and 34-5 gpm for the shallow and deep zones, respectively. The hydraulicconductivity of the two zones was estimated using the transmissivity of the zoneobtained from the packer test results and the saturated thickness of the zone.

CALCULATIONS

The mathematical solution used in the capture zone analysis is based on Bear's (1979)equation for steady flow:

- JQicK

SR3036II


The derivative of h with respect to n

dh= Q -dr . -.. •-. .. ..".-

Wwhere: . .

r * radius of the capture zone

dh - hydraulic gradientdr * "-" " ""-"

RESULTS

Pumping groundwater creates a cone of depression (drawdown) around the point ofwithdrawal; hence, groundwater will flow toward the" pumping point. The analysisindicated that pumping the lower zone at the maximum sustained rate of 34.5 gpmwill result, in a capture zone of 348 feet, while pumping the shallow zone at themaximum sustained rate of 33 gpm wfll result in a capture zone of only 253 feet.Pumping the two zones together at a rate of 67.5 gpm wfll result in a capture zone onthe order of 250 feet (Figure 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Screens were set from 120 to 144 feet in RW-1 based on the following factors:

• The preliminary calculations based on the stated assumptions indicatethat the capture zone created by pumping: the lower zone extends to theproperty boundary and the capture zone created by pumping theshallow zone or the two zones together does not

• The free phase TCE, which may exist at the site, is denser than water,and may tend to migrate downward.

• The vertical hydraulic gradient observed at the site has a downwarddirection across the site, indicating downward flow of water and possibledownward contaminant migration

2

Michael TowlePage 6October 18. 1990NJ0631Q9.F1.FQ

The packer test results indicate that the leackance from the shallow tothe deep zone when the deep zone is pumped is three times higher thanthe leackance from the deep to the shallow zone when the shallow zoneis pumped.

* More drawdown is available in the deep zone than in the shallow zone

RW-1 may be used as a recovery well with a potential capacity to contain thecontaminant plume within the property boundary. The capacity of this well should beabout 35 gpm with a drawdown of 70 feet. However, the actual maximum sustainedpumping rate may be different than 35 gpm because the specific capacity "of the wellfor a 70- foot drawdown may be different from the specific capacity measured duringthe packer test. The leackance from the shallow zone to the deep zone is likely toincrease as the downward gradient between the shallow zone and the deep zoneincreases with increased drawdown in the pumped deep zone.

Three cases were examined in this analysis: 1) RW-1 screened in the shallow zone;2) RW-1 screened in the deep zone; and 3) RW-1 screened in both zones. The Aanalysis indicated that RW-1 screened in the deep zone will produce the largest *containment radius. The drawdown in the deep zone will increase the hydraulicgradient between the shallow zone and the pumped zone, thus increasing thedownward vertical flow. This will be reflected in a cone of depression in the shallowzone that win reduce offsite contaminant migration in that zone.

The analysis is limited by the fact that the capture radius created in the shallow zonefrom pumping the deep zone was not evaluated. Such an evaluation would requirethe use of a numerical model. RW-t's ability to prevent offsite contaminantmigration in both zones should be tested. As indicated by the analysis, if RW-1 isscreened in the shallow zone, it may not be able to reduce offsite contaminantmigration in the shallow zone. RW-1 screened in the deep zone will contain thecontaminant plume in that zone. The increased downward gradient between theshallow and deep zones induced fay pumping the deep zone will capture at least someshallow zone contamination.

Contaminant containment in the shallow zone by pumping the deep zone iscontingent on the leackance from the shallow zone to the deep zone. As discussedearlier, existing data hint that this is the case. However, it is likely that pumping thedeep zone alone may not be sufficient to contain offsite migration in the shallowzone. In that case, one or more wells screened in the shallow zone may be needed inaddition to well RW-1. A

\3


REFERENCES

Bear 1979. Bear, J. Hydraulics of Ground Wafer. McGraw-Hffl, New York. 569 p.

Luborski, PA., A Hydrogeologic Study of Parr of the Stockton Formation,Montgomery and Bucks Counties, Pennsylvania. University of Pennsylvania,Department of Geology, 1986.

Thiem 1906. Thiem, G. Hydrologische Methoden. Leipzig: Gebhardt p. 56.

Theis 1935. Theis, G.V., The relation between the lowering of the piezometricsurface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage.Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, V. 16. p. 519-524.If you have any questions please call.

Sincerely,

CH2MHHJL

JoseplG. Cleary, P.E.Site Manager

cc: Steve Romanow/WDCNJC8/036C8.51

EngineersPlanners

fggjjjjfff Economists

January 9, 1991s

NJO63109.RLR1

Mr. Michael TowleU-3. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion HI6th Floor, 3HW21841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Dear Mr. Towle:

Subject:' Errata in Packer Test Results Letter Report

The letter submitted to you on October 18, 1990 which described the results of thepacker test conducted at the Raymark site contained two errors which werediscovered during the preparation of the Technical Memorandum for GroundwaterInvestigation dated January 9, 1991. Table 1 incorrectly reported the transmissivitiesin gpm/ft. The correct units are ft /day. The formula on page 5 which describes 'thevalue of dh/dr is incorrect. The correct formula can be found on page E-8 of thefocused feasibility study which was submitted in September 1990 and which isattached for reference. The correct formula was used to calculate the radius ofcapture in the packer test results memo so no change in the reported values isrequired.

The hydraulic gradient which was used in the packer test results memo was derivedfrom the previous work by Luborsky. The hydraulic gradient of 0.001 has since beencalculated from measurements taken on September 29, 1990, This value is similar tothat used to determine the packer test results.

Sincerely,

CH2MHELL

learySite Manager

NJCS/I4SCS.51

CH2M HILL North AHcntlc Segfonc/ Office 99 Cherry Hill Read. Suite 3Q4 201.316.9300Parstppany, New Jersey QT

CO

o<oo

1U

IiU.S

o0°T—_l

t111 ——— JtttI

- —

f"1 R&sli loo

asa

I5 s

o

§§a<<oX •» 2

uj OPBOH ' fi

-**' i »ii

EngineersPlannersEconomistsScientists

January 9, 1991

KFO631Q9.RLR1

Mr. Michael TowleU.S, Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III6th Floor, 3HW21841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Dear Mr. Towle:

Subject: Errata in Packer Test Results Letter Report

The letter submitted to you on October 18, 1990 which described the results of thepacker test conducted at the Raymark site contained two errors which werediscovered during the preparation of the Technical Memorandum for GroundwaterInvestigation dated January 9, 1991. Table 1 incorrectly reported the transmissivitiesin gpm/rt. The correct units are ft2/day. The formula on page 5 which describes thevalue of dh/dr is incorrect. The correct formula can be found on page E-8 of thefocused feasibility study which was submitted in September 1990 and which isattached for reference. The correct formula was used to calculate the radius ofcapture in the packer test results memo so no change in the reported values isrequired.

The hydraulic gradient which was used in the packer test results memo was derivedfrom the previous work by Luborsky. The hydraulic gradient of 0.001 has since beencalculated from measurements taken on September 29, 1990, This value is similar tothat used to determine the packer test results.

Sincerely,

CH2MHELL

Joe UearySite Manager "

NJC8/148C8.51

CH2M HILL North Atlantic Regional Office 99 Cherry Hill Road. Suite 3QA .. 201.316.9300Parsippany, New Jersey Q7Q54-1102

~ifi303617

Michael TowlePage 3 _____..... .. --October 18, 1990NJO63109.F1.FQ

During the packer testing of each of the two zones, water level elevations wererecorded using <£ata loggers at both the pumping well and seven monitoring wellsincluding MW-3I, which was used in the capture analysis.

PACKER TEST RESULTS ANALYSIS

Pumping the Srst zone, 86 feet to 119 feet, at a rate of 12 gallons per minute (gpm)resulted in a drawdown in that interval at RW-1 of 13 feet. This yields a specificcapacity of 0.92 gpm per foot of drawdown. Pumping the deepest zone at 24 gpmresulted in a drawdown of that interval at RW-1 of 48 feet. Thus, the specificcapacity of the zone is 0.5 gpm per foot of drawdown.

During each of the two tests, drawdown and recovery data were recorded inmonitoring well MW-3I after pumping had ceased. The recovery curves from the twotests were matched to type curves for leaky aquifers and values for the transmissivity,storage coefficient, hydraulic conductivity and leackance between the two zones wereestimated (Table 1).

Table 1

ShallowZoneDeepZone

Transmissiviry(gpra/ft)

4S2

393

StorageCoefficient

0.054

0.054

SpecificCapacity(gpm/ft)

0.92 _

-50

SaturatedThickness(feet)33

23

HydraulicConductivity

(ft/day)146

17.0

Leackance

0.005/day

0.0007/day

The drawdown observed at monitoring well MW-31 that resulted from pumping sayof the two zones was about the same and was approximately 1 foot.

CAPTURE ZONE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the capture zone analysis is to determine the zone that, whenpumped, will best reduce offsite contamination migration. The capture zone createdfrom pumping either of the two zones alone was estimated using a mathematicalsolution (Bear, 1979). This approach required values for aquifer permeability,hydraulic gradients, and maximum sustained pumping rates. These values areestimated from the packer testins_ results with the exception of the regional hydraulic

" '" -8

I

iii

CALCULATIONS

Mathematical Solution

To get an estimate of the radius where the gradient caused by the pumped well isequal to the regional gradient, the mathematical solution based on Bear's equation(1979) for steady Sow was used:

h- H^-JJln Rr

The derivative of h with respect to n

m ZwrKU* - (Q/icK)ln (R/r)

where:M r » Radius of the capture zone

dh/dr = hydraulic gradient

™ The mathematical solution allows the capture zone of a single well to be estimatedfor given geohydrologic parameters under a certain hydraulic gradient. For the i

• Raymark site, the mathematical analysis indicated that a single well in the lower zone™ may create a hydraulic barrier to isolate the site. The analysis also indicated that aI single well screened in the Zone 1 wfll not be able to create the needed hydraulic• barrier. The analysis also indicated the sensitivity of the capture zone radius to the™ values of the hydraulic parameters. For instance, doubling the transmissivity value' will result in a 50 percent reduction of the capture zone radius.

9 NJRaa^i E-8 t«3036l9

A -r-'T ^ •r - : -,n/./. ;•• .•.? 't;^ '-;4$.,.ry7•-• /x...\-\ - ••--- ,••^- "-..- ^-',-.,,„.-..-.../• :.;. L,-: r.'. -.. ,-< j .=. .-, > -: --•>£•• r--'\---_,.:-."'- - --r --. -\ .-

i1 ' - ' " , - . . * ,- .^. . \-^ -~ - -' -'^7 . y - - •-.. . '...•=__ ...___. -^ ______ ... _ -. . . _ _ _ _ _ - • _ -_.1X-. '- _ - _ - - . ..!_^._ . -"V ,

7 „ ' ' " , - . v ' ^ - • "". -~ ••', ''

- *- x " ( - -' " ^ ' -" .' "-'" l'~-l.~ "t J, ._ •*•

X

-. -

-/-' ^ r '

- -v .;v -;v v—-^--;- ^-. r-r-- - • -'-. - '>,- ._ . • „•-_.' _...,.__._.._^_:- „_, r. _...K f--.-.---. >.-.. v --- ".. ,'. • .-.,<

..

. — , - - ' -•• ' ' t•• '• '.- __ '.*""-!, r> ' \ ~. K

• • • w *\ \ ^* , - -C -""'- "-' -•- "" '*"• ^ —' - - \ ' -> "7 ' '-"" ' '"•,"— -- — - ,» .'—'- - •- -' T-.*- ' Sl - i - ,' ' \ ---- - ,- . ' .l--=J-f. ---^ :=•(!.— v.- _^= i^-- -L-=-;r--- - : " - ! ~. -K- ...--...-. -- i -t I i-' - .';-"—— "-.| T.- . _ .-"--. f- I.-'-- — - T-. ' - . - - ' -*^ - -_ , '

. 1"- -. ' NJR62/012R62.51

RflTMflRK BACKGROUND DfiTfiQBSERVRTIQN WELL MW-2 CLUSTER

ruo

O2! o.

-z_ *

ED

03

act05 t. I T i 1 I 10. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350.

MINUTES ^IQ1

MH-2S

RRTMflRK BflCKGRdUND DRTROBSERVATION WELL .MH-2 CLUSTER

O. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350.MINUTES aL

MW-2S

RRTMRRK BflCKGRQUND QRTRQBSERVRTIGN WELL MW-2 CLUSTER

o

oo

LL.

CO

o5

orccQ

CO

r i i i i i i0. - 50. ._.._. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350.

MINUTES aid1

MH-2I

RRYMRRK BRCKGRGUNO DRTR

GBSERVRTIQN WELL MW-2 CLUSTER

CD

<£_

O i t r i i i t0. 93. 100. ' ISO. 200. 250. 300. 350.

MINUTES SKIQ1.

MH-2D

RRYMRRK BRCKGROUND DflTfiOB5ERVRTIQN WELL MW-3 CLUSTER

o1—«0. 50. 100. 150. 200.

MINUTES ss

M .W-3S

RRYMRRK BRCKGROUND DRTR "

OBSERVflTIQN WELL MW-3 CLUSTER

MINUTES aid1

MW-3I

ftR303626

RflYMflRK BflCKGROUND DRTRQBSERVflTION WELL MW-3 CLUSTER

0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350.MINUTES sLQ1 .

MW-3D

o

aSSora—!._ ., -v_ • UJLLJ ^ ... -

or

inonED

(JJJ HMQQMHUa

SR3Q3628

COCD

LU_Jl — 4

_•• ,

Oa'~ycc..CCa_iLU

Oi— jt—a:ccLUCOCQ

- - --

crUJo. rn . . _i— •exF— "UJenccLIJVCJCCQ_

0OI

\ ,\ <? Q 1\ N. N. \ °*\ ^ U « '< U

\ t * i X/ ^ X (O ".! .^

\ . <Jy\_v

\x.-" - ^

^ ^

-

OJO

-

~

tnLU5i— i

•r-tO

r_j ^~"

__

-

Oo.-*

1 f i 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 1

(Id) NMDQMbUQ

COI

AS 30 36 23

S mcc UJ

—I

o tu2 tn£ o=i£ LULL. < ^] | ] i——t

CD °-O

\ \ '

? xc ^> « U II I.

| |

t i l l I I l \ I i I 1 i i i i i0OI j-OI1

CJJJ NMDQMUyQ

LU

Oo

^ CDS LUa =?

o

-^ ' LU

TOT

, Q V «J\ (\j ; ffi"

NMQQHbya

o

en-i UJo .[—-- ID

OO

]oi I 1 t I I 1 1 TT Pi ] T^^ ^ i T * I * I I I \ 1TT ri ] r^^ ^ i T * ' ' i ' i ^ ' Joor !-or s-or

<-ffo

Oa CQ

£ g oa M

i F

sy E2 £^ UJ•- ^ V-*"01 bW CTOT k-CD u—O

QO

cc ( v \i i Q

OJo

tnti QLT co

——J i l i i l t i f njt-OT £^u

C1=D NMQQMbUQ

S8303632

LU

CC3O22UJx

-Ti m . ——.r» — ' "T - "^- "- ^_- ' - - - J=:-— *—— ------FTS—3:-**,*:-' --- -' ~ ' ~ - -?- -——-^;- _v-^— ———_-- ^^ —^- f t - _ -- __.$?

• 7 " - , . " •

APPENDIX

' - - . . ^ - • . : . ^ , - . . . .

1 -v .;- -•• -v.> -.-^ a / . r- ^.^. • .^. . - - -^>- -,' ' • , - • - • , - - • - " - -? - > -. - , '"- '••-•-,-. • - -- "• , ----- -. I' C -, , >.,------!'-•--•, ,.-•--. .-' • •>-,-, - . - , - - > _ . -

, •• i. . • ' • . ^ -N -^ —— i -->• • ' * — - > - > - - - - • - -•* •--"- . •/ . - - , . . -• . .

• ' ' ' ''

-, :- - ;— i-- " • "---- -: - -" "' -- - ' '

L

Appendix DASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ANALYSIS

Based on our knowledge of site and regional geology, we can assume that the aquiferunderneath Raymark is most closely modeled by nonsteady flow to an homogeneous,infinite anisotropic aquifer. The field curves were matched to type curves whichemulate the same conditions in an isotropic aquifer. Although it is not alwaysappropriate to treat pump test data in fractured rock using the Theis solution forradial flow in a homogeneous, isotropic infinite system, fractured media are typicallyassumed to behave as equivalent porous-media continua. This assumptions isvalidated when fracture apertures are perceived as constant rather than distributedand fracture orientation distributed rather than constant (Gordon 1986). In otherwords, when these physical conditions exist, a site can be modeled using equationstypically used to model homogeneous isotropic porous media systems. Theseconditions are roughly satisfied at the site. MW-3D core inspection revealedrelatively constant fracture spacing of less than 2 inches. Fracture and jointing angleswere recorded as variable. Furthermore, the deep well curves very closelyapproximated the Theis curve verifying response as modeled by the Theis solutionalong with it's stringent assumptions.

ASSUMPTIONS ON SCREEN PENETRATION OF RW-1 PACKER INTERVALS

We cannot be certain about the proportion of water drawn between the intermediatezone and deep zone when pumping the packered intervals at RW-1. Since statichead in the intermediate wells at MW-2 and MW-3 are significantly higher than theheads in the respective deep wells, we know the two zones are confined or semi-confined from each other. Pumping the lower interval at RW-1, however, causeddrawdown in both the intermediate and deep zones at MW-2 and MW-3. Wespeculate that the packered interval at RW-1 may access at least two distinct fracturezones, relatively independent of each other. Each of these fracture zones ishydraulically connected to the intermediate and deep zones at MW-2 and MW-3.

Transmissivity'calculated for a given match point is directly proportional to the Qassumed to be pumped from that zone. For this analysis, we assume that the pumprate from each zone is 1/2 the total flow rate from the packered interval. Thetransmissivity values computed with this assumption are presented in Table 3.Doubling any transmissivity value in this table is equivalent to assuming all the waterpumped during the test is coming from that respective zone. This would representthe high end of the estimated transmissivity range.

NJR70/026R70.51 D-l

remedial phaing activiit- ^ selected - semspub.epa.gov · this document has been prepared for the...

Documents