ML20042G659
| ML20042G659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000054, 07000687 |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1990 |
| From: | LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. |
| To: | CINTICHEM, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042G660 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005150227 | |
| Download: ML20042G659 (62) | |
Text
. _ _
I i
I I
I PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION REPORT 1
CINTICHEM FACILITY LONG MEADOW ROAD l
TUXEDO, NEW YORK 1
l-i Prepared for Cintichen, Inc.
I April 1990 L
LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC.
l 225' Franklin Avenue Midland Park, NJ 07432 1
9003150227 900510 I
PDR ALOCK 05000054 p
eDe
I TABLES OF CONTENTS Page
SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION 2
Purpose.
2
Background
2 SITE CONDITIONS.
4 Physiography 4
Monitor Well Installation.
5 Site Geology 5
Site Hydrogeology.
7 Hydraulic conductivity Testing 8
GROUND-WATER QUALITY MONITORING 9
Ground-Water Sampling Program.
9 Laboratory Results 10 Extent of I-131 in Ground Water.
11 l
1
' SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION.
12 Pipe Trench Investigation.
12-CONCLUSIONS 13 RECOMMENDATIONS 14 I
REFERENCES 16 TABLES i
FIGURES APPENDICES I
I I
I I
LIST OF TABLES j
(at end of report)
Table 1
Water Level Elevations 2
Results of Hydraulic Conductivity Testing 3
Iodine-131 Activity in Ground-Water Samples 4
Iodine-131 Activity, Sampling Point S-4 I
LIST OF FIGURES (at end of report)
Ficure I
1 Site Location Map 2
Site Plan 3
S-4 Drainage System 4
Scherratic Diagram, Building 2 5
Monitor Well Location Map
~
6 Geologic Cross Section
[
7 Joint Orientation Histogram 8
Ground-Water Elevation Contour Map 9
Monitor Well Hydrographs 10 I-131 Activity, Monitor Wells & S-4 11 Recommended Monitor Well Locations I
l'I
~
l I
- I u'I
- EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report summarizes a
preliminary hydrogeologic I
investigation completed on behalf of Cintichem.
Inc.,
by Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. at the Cintichem facility on Long Meadow Road in Tuxedo, New York.
The investigation i
I' involved the installation and sampling of nine ground-water i
monitor wells at the site, and an analysis of data collected j
from the monitor well network.
The results of the investigation support the followingt
]
Ground water occurs in both overburden materials and bedrock underlying the site. Ground-water flow direction
- I in the overburden materials is toward the east-northeast.
A localized separation exists between the bedrock and 4
overburden ground-water bearing formations in the vicinity of Building 2.
Ground-water flow rates in the i
overburden aquifer in the vicinity of the existing i
monitor well network range from 0.02 to 12.3 ft/ day.
An I-131 plume was detected within the overburdeq aquifer and appears to travel towards the east-northeast.
The
]
existing monitor well network appears to bracket the southeastern portion of the I-131 plume.
Some I-131 has migrated into the bedrock aquifer in the vicinity of Building 2.
The lateral extent of this migration has not I
been established.
No radioactivity other than I-131 was detected in any of the monitor wells above natural background levels.
The I-131 activities observed to date have been decreasing over time.
Assuming continuation of the current rate of reduction, the activities of I-131 in I'
ground water should be below detection limits by mid-
- April, 1990.
Therefore, remedial actions are not presently warranted.
The hydrogeologic investigation should be continued to complete the determination of the-lateral, vertical and downgradient extent of the 1-131 plume.
This would
.I.
include conducting additional subsurface investigations and monitor well installations.
I LI i
l
I, 8 INTRODUCTION This is a
summary of a
preliminary hydrogeologic investigation conducted on behalf of Cintichem.
Inc.
by Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.
(LBG) at the Cintichem facility on Long Headow Road in Tuxedo, New York (figure 1).
I.
The investigation was conducted in response to the. discovery of traces of a radioactive isotope, iodine-131 (I-131), in a storm-water catch basin (designated sampling point S-4) adjacent to Building 3 at the Cintichm facility.
Cintichem j
voluntarily implemented this investigation as a follow-up to I
a letter-order from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation (NYSDEC/DHSR) dated January 12, 1990.
Puroose The purpose of this investigation was to characterize preliminarily the ground-water bearing formation (s) beneath g
the Cintichem facility and to determine the impact of I-131 on
,5-ground water in the vicinity of Buildings 2,
3, and 5 and sampling point S-4 (figure 2).
The investigation was also 1
intended to address the potential for off site migration of I-131, as well as the necessity for additional ground-water-investigations or remedial action.
.I.
Backaround The Cintichent facility was constructed between 1956 and 1960 by the Union Carbide Nuclear Company.
Although originally designed as a research reactor, the facility now produces medical radioisotopes, including molybdenum-99, xenon, and I-131. A small, 5-megawatt nuclear reactor located I'
in Building 1 at the site utilizes enriched uranium to produce various fission products.
The reactor vessel is located I
within a water-filled chamber or " pool" in Building 1.
The fission products are then transported into Building 2,
the
{
" Hot Lab", through a cement-lined, water-filled " canal" for further processing and production.
Most of the processing I
activity takes place within five " hot cells" in Building 2.
The hot cells are connected to a ventilation duct system, part of which runs beneath Building 2.
I
I
- According to the NYSDEC and Cintichem, analysis of a water sample collected from storm-water catch basin S-4 on January 2,1990 contained I-131 activity at concentrations 20 times higher than the maximum permissible concentration (3 x 4
10 microcuries per milliliter (uCi/ml)) pursuant to the New I_
York Code of Rules and Regulations Title 6, Part 380.9 (6 NYCRR Part 380.9).
As an initial response to the discovery of this contaminant, Cintichem installed a temporary ion-exchange column system to intercept and treat water entering the S-4 catch basin.
The treated water was discharged to the outlet pipe at the bottom of the S-4 catch basin.
Drainage diagrams of the Cintichem facility (figure 3) indicate that the primary drain pipe discharging into the S-4 catch beain is connected to a sub-grade tile drain along the west wall of Building 3.
A second drain pipe entering the S-4 catch basin is connected to a smaller storm-water catch basin near Building 5.
Therefore, water entering S-4 would be expected to consist of drainage water or ground water intercepted behind Building 3, as well as surface and/or ground-water leakage into the drain pipe beneath the paved parking area between Buildings 3 and 5.
Some relevant investigative work was conducted by I
Cintichem in Building 2 following the discovery of I-131 at S-4.
Water from the sump pit in the "T-1" room beneath Butiding 2 (figure 4) was sampled, and was found to contain measurable levels of I-131.
The I-131 activity in the sump water was less than that observed at S-4.
A hole was then drilled through the floor of the Building 2 Evaporator Room, which is adjacent to and slightly lower than the T-1 room, and a void containing water was discovered beneath the floor.
In response to a NYSDEC letter order dated January 12, 1990, LBG submitted a protocol for conducting a colorimetric l
ground-water tracer test through the hole in the Evaporator
! g room floor. The purpose of this test was to determine whether
'j any hydraulic connection existed between the void beneath the j
evaporator room floor and the water entering the S-4 catch i
basin.
This test was initiated on January 23, 1990, and a i
m
-r-.
) ;
l sampling and observation schedule was initiated at S-4.
On the date of the injection, the water pressure beneath the evaporator room was sufficient to force water to flow out of the floor hole when the cap was removed.
Consequently, the tracer dye had'to be forcibly injected liito the hole, and the 1
cap replaced. To date, none of the injected dye has ever been l
I observed at S-4.
A manometer has since been installed through the evaporator room floor to monitor the sub-floor water pressure.
1 Three temporary monitor wells were installed by Cintichem I
personnel on December 15, 1989 in backhoe-excavated pits between Buildings 3 and 5.
These wells were intended to provide an initial assessment of ground-water quality in the vicinity of S-4.
On January 18, 1990, Cintichem retained LBG to conduct a preliminary hydrogeologic investigation in the vicinity of the S-4 catch basin.
A work plan prepared by LBG dated February 6,
1990 was submitted to the NYSDEC by Cintichem.
The work plan was subsequently approved by the 1
NYSDEC, and monitor well installation was begun on February 8, 1990.
Cintichem voluntarily shut down the reactor in Building 1 on February 9,
1990, following discovery of I-131 in the I
" retention pond" (detention basin) east of Building 3.
The detention basin is used to manage storm-water runoff from the Cintichem site.
The reactor has remained shut down since February 9, although some processing of radioactive materials continues in Building 2.
SITE CONDITIONS Physioaraohv The cintichem facility is located in the Indian Hollow /Warwick Brook Valley, about 1.5 miles west of the Ramapo River Valley (figure 1).
The western side of the site was constructed along the steep eastern slope of Hogback I
Mountain, while the eastern side of the site occupies a narrow valley which parallels Long Meadow Road.
This valley slopes l
north towards the Indian Kill Reservoir. Surface water runof f
drains toward the north and east following the surface topography.
Monitor Weil Installation Nine ground-water monitor wells were installed at the l;
site between February 8 and March 1, 1990.
The wells were 1
L installed in accordance with the LBG work plan dated February 6, 1990 at the locations indicated in figure 5.
Although eight wells were originally proposed for installation during this investigation, a ninth well (MW-2s) was added when g
m parate ground-water bearing formations were encountered at E
M.e location of monitor well MW-2(d).
Seven of the monitor wells were constructed with pVC casing, and were screened within saturated unconsolidated materials. The two remaining wells were completed using steel casing which was grouted into competent bedrock, with an open o
borehole intake zone extending below the steel casing.
Well completion logs describing the subsurface materials-encountered during well installation Land completed well construction specifications are presented as Appendix A of 3
this report.
Geologic cross-sections based on monitor well installation logs and pre-construction boring data are presented in figure 6.
A backfilled rock rubble zone was encountered at each of the monitor well locations in the first 5 to 15 feet below ground surface.
Within the rubble zone, split-spoon sampling of soil matorials was not possible.
Therefore, the examination of drill cuttings was used to determine subsurface lithology. All drill cuttings were containerized in 55-gallon drums for subsequent classification and disposal by Cintichem.
Site Geoloav The cite is underlain by unconsolidated glacial deposits
~
and pre-Cambrian crystalline bedrock.
The original site
. topography was altered during construction of the facility.
'g-B Large areas of crystalline bedrock along the east slope of Hogback Mountain were blasted and removed to construct the foundations of Buildings 1 and 2.
The lower parts of the site l
yJ I1 x
. were backfilled with the rock rubble derived from the blasted bedrock.- Buildings 3 and 5, and the paved parking' area around r
l the S-4 catch basin were constructed within the rock-backfilled area.
During the. monitor all installation program, thicknesses of up to 15 feet of rock rubble were encountered across the site.
Unlike most naturally-deposited materials, the boulder fill-contains many large interstitial I
voids, and presented substantial drilling difficulties.
The native unconsolidated material consists predominantly g
of silty sand and gravel with boulders, and is likely to have L3" been derived from past glacial or glaciofluvial processes.
l This material was encountered below the rock rubble, and l
appears to thicken toward the east (figure 6).
Based on pre-construction borings, this unit attains a thickness of about L
35 to 40 feet beneath the eastern part of the site.
~
Competent bedrock occurs at depths ranging from surface nposure to more than 40 feet below ground surface.
Bedrock outcrops behind Buildings 1 and 2, and the bedrock surface slopes-toward the east.
The bedrock geology'in the vicinity of the site was studied by Hotz (1952) and further discussed by offield (1967).
The bedrock is comprised of pre-Cambrian crystalline rocks,-
including amphibolite and hornblende-feldspar gneiss.
The structural relationship of these units is not well understood, although the site appears to occupy the western flank of a folded bedrock structure (syncline) whose axis trends to the north-northeast.
Ninety-five bedrock fracture surfaces were identified and measured by LBG along the exposed bedrock outcrop behind Buildings 1 and 2.
A list of observed fracture orientations
=
is presented in Appendix B, and represented graphically in
~
figure 7.
The predominant fracture set strikes 0 to 20 degrees azimuth, with a secondary set striking 120 to 140 degrees azimuth. These orientations are in general conformance with regional j o' int patterns, as reported by Isachsen and McKendree (1977).
l I
A P l Site Hydroaeoloov l~
Ground water occurs in both the unconsolidated rock rubble and native soil materials (i.e. overburden), and in the L
crystalline bedrock. Ground water in the overburden occurs at depths ranging from 4.5 to 13 feet below ground surface, and i
g in the bedrock at depths between 32 and 60 feet below ground 5-surface.
Ground-water elevation data collected from the p
monitor well network are presented in table 1.
A comparison of ground-water elevations measured at monitor wells completed' in the overburden and the bedrock.suggest a
localized Jg separation between the unconsolidated and bedrock ground-water l; g bearing formations (aquifers).
Monitor well pair MW-2s and-MW-2d, completed to depths of 28 and 68 feet below ground surface, respectively, indicate a vertical separation of more i
than 30 feet.
This separation suggests the ' presence. of localized " perched" aquifer in the overburden above the l
bedrock aquifer in the vicinity of Building 2.
6 Ground water in the overburden (surficial) aquifer appears to exist under unconfined or " water-table" conditions.
i
~
A ground-water elevation map representing water levels in the 3
surficial aquifer as measured on March 19, 1990 is presented in figure 8.
Based on the ground-water elevation contours, the direction of ground-water movement in the surficial aquifer is toward the east-northeast, in genera.' conformity with the surface topography.
The hydraulic. gradient in the surficial aquifer ranges between 0.05 at monitor wells MW-6, MW-7, rnd MW-8, to 0.19 at monitor well MW-2s.
Assuming a separation with the surficial aquifer, ground-water flow direction in the bedrock aquifer cannot be
- g determined based on the use of only two monitor wells (MW-1
's and MW-2d). However, based on the regional hydrogeologic framework, it is considered likely that flow in the bedrock aquifer roughly parallels the flow direction observed in the surficial aquifer.
The 35-foot disparity in water elevations observed between MW-1 and MW-2d over a 125-foot horizontal distance suggests that these wells may intercept essentially unconnected fracture systems in the crystalline bedrock.
Additional data points would be required to determine the
n j
j, i
j
~B-nature of the relationship-between the ' water elevations l'
observed in these wells.
~
Hydrographs of ground-water levels observed in the Cintichem monitor well network are presented in figure 9.
Precipitation events recorded using an on-site rain gauge are indicated on figure 9.
In general, precipitation events appear to have only a minor effect on ground-water elevations, and localized ground-water flow directioni appear to remain
~
consistent.
Hydraulic Conductivity Testino Short-term tests were conducted in each of the completed
[
monitor wells on February 20 and March 5, 1990 to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer materials in-the immediate vicinity of each well.
In the overburden wells (MW-2s, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8), the testing was
+
completed using the " slug-test" method of Bouwer and Rice
- g (1976).
With this method, the hydraulic conductivity of en-5 aquifer is determined by analyzing the rate of change of water L
level induced in the well by displacing a known volume, or
" slug,". of water. The relationship of the change in water level to hydraulic conductivity is. governed by the Thiem equation:
O = 2 n KL Y
ji in l
r vi i
l where:
3 Q=
flow into the well; R
K=
hydraulic conductivity of aquifer L=
height of screened portion of well y=
water level in well above water table
'I; R,=
effective radius of influence of y r,=
borehole radius.
I
- \\
)I l
{
The results of.the slug-test analyses expressed in feet-per-day units are presented in table 2.
Semi-log-time-drawdown plots of the slug-test data are presented in
. Appendix C.
J Hydraulic conductivities in the bedrock wells were l
- BL calculated by conducting short-term drawdown tests.
Early-time data from monitor well MW-2d were analyzing using the' Jacob straight-line. method. Data from monitor well MW-1 were analyzed using the Bouwer-and Rice (1976) method.
- Calculations of hydraulic conductivity in bedrock assume uniform fracture size. and density throughout the saturated section of the borehole.
If most of the ground-water flow 1
occurs through a localized fracture or fracture system, hydraulic conductivity values would be higher than those calculated.
I Ground-water flow rates within the overburden aquifer may be estimated based on Darcy's Law using the. hydraulic conductivity data derived from the slug-test
- program, measurements of the localized hydraulic gradient, and an estimation of the effective porosity of the aquifer materials.
The equation governing this relationship is expressed as:
Velocity = Hydraulic Conductivity x Gradient.
Effective Porosity.
Calculated ground-water flow rates in the surficial
-aquifer range from 0.02 to 12.2 ft/ day.
Calculations of flow 3
rates from data collected at each monitor well are detailed in table 2.
Ground-water flow rates in the bedrock aquifer could not be calculated, because the localized hydraulic gradient is unknown.
GROUND-WATER QUALITY MONITORING Ground-Water Samplina Procram 1
Six rounds of ground-water samples were collected from
~
each of installed monitor wells between March 3 and March 19, 1990.
Ground-water samples were collected by LBG on March 3,
]
5, and 9,1990 in accordance with the work plan; the remaining
mm--
--m imiii iiiim---m
===i
V i
gI.
t I sampling rounds on March 14, 16 and 19,1990 were conducted by Cintichem environmental sampling personnel under the direction of LBG.
Samples were collected from the overburden monitor wells (MW-2s, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8) using._
dedicated PVC ballers.
Dedicated stainless-steel submersible-pumps were used to collect samples from the bedrock monitor i
wells (MW-1, MW-2d),
I Prior to sampling, water levels were recorded from each well, and the standing water in each well was purged by removing three to five well-volumes of water, or by pumping the well until dry.
Wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7 and MW-8 were purged using a hand-operated surface suction pump
- g and dedicated polyethylene tubing.
Wells MW-1 and MW-2d were
.E purged using installed dedicated stainless steel pumps.
Well MW-2s was purged using a bailer.
All purge water was containerized in 55-gallon drums for subsequent classification-u l
and disposal by Cintichem.
After purging, one-gallon samples were collected from each of the monitor wells, and submitted to Cintichem IL environmental personnel for handling and analysis.
One liter of each collected sample was analyzed by Cintichem personnel 1
using a high parity germanium-lithium detection system.
One liter of each sample was submitted to NYSDEC. A 500-ml sample from the remainder was submitted to an outside analytical laboratory for confirmatory analysis.
Laboratory Results The-results of I-131 analyses of ground-water samples L
collected during the first six sampling-rounds are presented
'g in table 3. The I-131 activity of water samples collected from
-g, S-4 for the same period are presented in table 4.
A time-series plot of these data is presented as figure 10.
The maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of I-131 in Class GA j
ground water is 3 x 10'7 uCi/ml, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 380.9.
The lower limit of detection (LLD) for I-131 is 3 x 10'8 uCi/ml at the Cintichem environmental counting laboratory.
1' 1
~
I '
Detectable levels of I-131 were measured in five of the nine monitor wells (MW-2s, MW-2d, MW-3, MW-4, and MW-5) during the first six sampling rounds, only samples from one monitor l
well (MW-2s) exceeded the MPC for I-131 during the sampling i
program.
MqQes from MW-2s exceeded the MPC during the first I
three sampling rounds, but measured below the MPC'during the
)
subsequent three sampling rounds.
Analysis of a ground-water sample from monitor well MW-8 initially appeared to contain detectable levels of I-131.
However, problcms with the detection system used for the analysis of this sample have subsequently been reported by the laboratory, and this result is now considered questionable.
l 1
The analytical results indicate that the highest I-131 i
activities were measured in the surficial aquifer downgradient 1
of Building 2 (i.e., Well MW-2s).
The second highest activity was measured at sampling point S-4, whose intake pipe is
'g.
located directly downgradient from monitor well MW-2s.
E A review of the time-series plot (table 4) indicates a j
consistent decrease in I-131 activity over time.
The rate of l
e decline is roughly equivalent to the radioactive decay rate of I-131' (8.04 day half-life).
Samples collected at all the l
.g
-g monitor wells and S-4 during the last three sampling rounds exhibited I-131 activity levels below the MPC.
No radioactivity other than I-131 was detected above l
1 percent of MPC in any of the ground-water samples collected at the site.
Extent of I-131 in Ground Water I
The. results of the sampling program indicate the l
existence of a " plume" of I-131 in the surficial aquifer beneath the Cintichem facility.
Based on the available data, l
the plume appears to originate in the vicinity-of Building 2, and is migrating through the surficial aquifer in the direction of ground-water flow (towards the east-northeast).
The plume is partially intercepted by the tile drain which I
J extends from behind Building 3 and is routed into the S-4 i
catch basin.
1 Within the surficial aquifer, I-131 activity consistently.
below the LLD was observed only in wells MW-6 and MW-7.
The l
I occurrence of " clean" water in these' wells defines the southeastern extent of the I-131 plume.
Based-on the distribution of I-131 detected in the remaining wells (MW-2s, l
MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5, and possibly MW-8),
the ~ northern, southern,. and eastern (downgradient) extent of - the plume within the surficial aquifer has not been defined. Additional nI wells would be required to define the extent of the plume in these directions.
Some migration of I-131 into the bedrock aquifer has been detected-at monitor well MW-2d.
However, the lateral extent l
of I-131 in the bedrock aquifer has not been determined. Based on the degree of separation in ground-water elevations I
observed in the two bedrock monitor wells, the contributing fracture system (s) may be locally isolated.
Additional bedrock wells would be required to establish the lateral extent of I-131 in the bedrock aquifer.
L Based on the rate of decline in I-131 activity observed.
I during the sampling of the monitor well network, which'is-nearly identical to the radioactive decay rate of-I-131, the I
I-131 activity is anticipated to be below the detectable limit (3 x 10*8 uCi/ml) ~ by mid-April, 1990.
Therefore, the I-131 plume will have essentially disappeared.
Unless a new source of I-131 is released or an old source becomes reactivated, any ground-water contamination that existed in the vicinity of the S-4 catch basin will be depleted.
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION Pine Trench Investiaation In conjunction with the implementation of the hydrogeologic investigation work plan, a secondary route of potential contaminant transport was also examined.
l I
=
Schematic diagrams of the Cintichem facility indicated the presence of both foundation and process drain lines boneath the driveway immediately east of Buildings 1 and 2.
These drain lines were installed in a trench excavated 5 to 7
=
feet beneath the level of the driveway during construction of rg the plant.
This trench also contains a 10-inch diameter water-3 main which delivers potable water to. Buildings 1, 2 and 3.
Because of the relative impermeability of the bedrock material beneath Building 2 and the configurationLof the pipe trench, it was considered possible that excess runoff might
-preferentially drain through the pipe trench rather than
- I_
infiltrate the surrounding soil, t
To investigate this possibility, two test pits were excavated along the pipe trench outside Building 2.
Monitoring standpipes constructed of screened, 2-inch-diameter PVC pipe' (designated S-15 and S-16) were installed.in each pit -
(Figure 2).
The pits were then backfilled with the original soil and the surface pavement around each standpipe was
'I repaired.
The soil surrounding the sub-surface piping consisted of a dry, uniform coarse-grained sand.
A poorly-sorted silty 4
sand and gravel, possibly glacial till, was encountered below the sub-surface piping. The standpipes have been inspected on several occasions after installation, including following a precipitation event on March 16, 1990, but have remained dry.
CONCLUSIONS 1.
Ground water occurs in both overburden materials and g
bedrock underlying the site. Ground-water flow direction
.g in the overburden materials is toward the east-northeast.
2.
A comparison between ground-water elevations measured in the bedrock and overburden monitor wells suggests a localized separation between the respective ground-water l
bearing formations in the vicinity of Building E.
_ g
, ~ ~ - -
l
' 3.
Ground-water flow rates in the overburden aquifer in-the vicinity of the existing monitor well network range from I--
0.02.to 12.2 ft/ day.
Ground-water flow in the bedrock aquifer cannot be estimated due to the absence of'an established hydraulic gradient.
4.-
The radioisotope I-131 has b4en detected at measurable concentrations in ground-water samples collected from monitor wells completed in both the unconsolidated and bedrock ground-water bearing formations (i.e.,
MW-2s,.
f
_ MW-2d, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, and possibly MW-8).
The I-131 activities observed to date have been decreasing over time.
Assuming continuation of the current rate of i
reduction, the activities of I-131 in ground water should be below detection limits by mid-April, 1990.
5.
The I-131 plume in the overburden aquifer appears to travel in the direction of ground-water flow (towards the east-northeast).
The existing monitor well network appears to bracket the southeastern portion of the I-131 plume.
_I 6.
Some portion of the I-131 plume has migrated into the bedrock aquifer in the vh,inity of Building 2.
The B.
lateral extent of this migration has nnt been established.
7.
No radioactivity other than I-131 was detected above 1 percent of MPC in any of the ground-water Eamples I
collected at the site.
- I.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
The hydrogeologic investigation should be continued to complete the determination of the lateral, vertical.and downgradient extent of the I-131 plume.
This would include conducting additional subsurface investigations and monitor well installation at the locations presented in Figure 11 of this report.
Upon completion of the
umum
---i..-===mm=
=
=
3
)-
l proposed monitor wells, three successive sampl3ng rounds should be collected.
One or more short-term ~ pumping tests (i.e.,
less than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> duration) should. be l
conducted to evaluate hydraulic connections between the overburden and bedrock ground-water bearing formations at the site.
A work plan should be prepared prior to implementing. the continued inyt.stigation for cintichem review and consideration.
2.
As long as the facility remains in its current curtailed g-state of operation and the current rends in I-131 t
5 activity concentration are observed, a weekly sampling frequency should be utilized for the next three months
'II (April, May, June, 1990),
independent of the above-recommended work.
3.
When production is resumed in the reactor facility, the sampling program should be modified according to the following schedule:
implement a three-day sampling interval for a period a.
of two weeks following start-up; b.
resume weekly sampling if all wells indicate I-131-I activity below detection limits or if a trend evaluation of analytical results for collected samples indicate a continued reduction in I-131 concentration over time.
4.
The results of the weekly monitoring should be reviewed at the end of three months to determine adequate long-term ground-water monitoring requirements.
I g
I l
.l i
J
k l
Very truly yours, LEGGETTE, DRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC.
- g; zu David B. Terry M
Hydr ologist W'
.', d,
~; a
/
w F
'3" y)ih
[ Frank Getchel.y.
f "b-Assoc ate
.../,,
g%RJ CD l
\\.
. Reviewed:
C
- I:
R.G. Sldyback,-CPG President' DBT:cct rptl.rpt I
- g I
g; lg:
I I
d i REFERENCES Isachsen, Y.W., and W.G. McKendree, 1977, " Generalized Map of Recorded Joint Systems in New York", New State Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart Series No. 31F.
1
- Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice, 1876, "A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers with Completely -
'or Partially Penetrating Wells, Water Resources Research Vol.
12, No.
3,
- p. 423-428.
McWhorter, D.B.,
and D.K.
- Sunada, 1977,
" Ground-Water Hydrology and Hydraulics", Water Resources Publications, Ft.
Collins, Co.,
290 p.
Hotz, P.E.,1952, " Magnetite Deposits of the Sterling Lake, NY ~
- Ringwood, NJ Area", U.S.
Geologic Survey, Bulletin 982-F,
~
153 p.
- Offield, T.W.,
- 1967,
" Bedrock Geology of the Goshen Greenwood Lake Area, NY," New York State Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart Series No.
9, 28 p.
I I
g 3
---_-__-_____.__________.-.-.m____.._..___-.m__
_u___
m
a 4m 9,.,-.4
...waa.,
.a,u
+4 a a
- 2_.m_m._.
44,4 g
.amaa a ma.m
,,,.i.e,.
m.2.w,.e u,,,
,c,----
T s.
A l'
.Ii 4
I' f
-l
.l l
r-1 r
TABLES
, I:
. l 1
.i 1
I
+
I
- I i
I l-1 l:
t
f
~,
TABLE 1 Water Level Elevations Cintichem Facility, Tuxedo, New York l
MW 1 MW 2s W 2d - W3 MW 4 MW 5 MW 6 MW 7 MW 8 Top of Wetl 806.04 804.45 805.38 771.12 769.49-768.48 766.73 766.13 763.99 Ground surface 803.94 802.63 802.84 768.21 766.86 766.22-766.78-763.78 762.29
- Casing Length 70.44 29.96 71.02-18.54 18.47 14.13 19.92 19.64 19.90
. Bottom of Well 735.60
' 774.49 734.36 752.53 751.02 754.35 746.81 746.49 744.09 Well Depth 68.34.
28.14 68.48 15.63 15.84 11.87 19.97 17.29 18.2
^
13 Feb 90 762.46
'.I 14 Feb 90 762.35 15 Feb 90 762.16 751.19 749.20 16 Feb 90 761.91 760.35 751.35 749.39 e
19 Feb 90 761.97 762.74 760.15 751.15 749.16 20 Feb 90 761.74 762.46 759.86 751.22 749.10 21 Feb 90-761.66 762.35 759.34 755.83 751.18 749.16 22 Feb 90 743.49 761.63 762.37 759.21-755.76 751.19 749.16 l
f23Feb90 743.82 761.70 762.57 759.77 755.80 751.22 749.22
'W 26 Feb 90 743.23 761.92 762.76 761.02 755.87 749.18
~
27 Feb 90 743.85 762.01 762.74 760.40 755.93 '751.22 749.21 28 Feb 90 771.58 743.98-761.82 762.56 759.97 755.89 751.35 749.18
- 01. Mar +90 771.41 744.12. 761.75 762.47 759.74 755.82 751.14 749.17 02 Mar 90 771.65' 778.90 744.32 761.68 762.43 759.60 755.79 751.10 749.15 05 Mar *90' 771.221 778.56 743.77 761.65 762.21 759.10 755.54 750. % 749.08 07 Mar 90 771.16 778.39 743.57 761.12 762.01 758.87 755.41 750.86 749.02 09 Mar 90 766.85 (2) 778.42~ 744.09 761.12 762.06' 758.85 755.46 750.92 749.04
.l 13 Mar 90 763.23 (2)- 778.55 744.30 761.21 762.37 758.89 755367 751.01 749.14 4
14 Mar 90.(1) 767.09 (2) 780.5 743.9 761.0
.762.2 759.4 755.5 750.9 749.0 16 Mar 90-(1) 771.09 780.5-743.4 760.9 762.0 758.7 755.5 750.9 749.0 19 Mar 90 765.75 (2) 778.13 742.40 760.86 761.78 758.01 755.56~ 751.02 749.08 21 Mar 90 771.26
- 778.53 742.58 762.34 763.55 762.57 756.17 751.52 749.34 c
Notes:
. (1) Measured to Nearest Tenth of Foot Only (2) Recorded Prior to Installation of Vent Hole (Pressure Bulldup) l u
I LI' I
i' TABLE 2 Results of Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Cintichem Facility, Tuxedo, New York Hydraulic Localized Calculated Monitor Conductivity Hydraulic Effective Flow Rate m
Well (ft/ day)
Gradient Porosity Range (ft/ day)
- g.'
MW-2s 0.66 0.19 0.01 -
0.40 0.30 - 12.16 MW-3 0.52 0.10 0.01 -
0.40 0.13 -
5.22 MW-4 0.35 0.12 0.01 -
0.40 0.10 -
4.19 MW-5 0.20 0.10 0.01 -
0.40 0.05 -
2.04 MW-6 1.07 0.05 0.01 -
0.40 0.13 -
5.35 MW-7 0.78 0.05 0.01 -
0.40 0.10 -
3.89 MW-8 0.18 0.05 0.01 -
0.40 0.02-
- 0.92 MW-1 0.06 NA MW-2d 13.17 NA
. Note:
NA - Insufficient Data Available Effective Porosity Values from McWhorter and Sunada (1977)
I
- I
I I
TABLE 3 Iodine-131 Activity in Ground Water Samples Cintichem Facility, Tuxedo, New York Sampling Date i
Monitor
_l Well 03/05/90 03/07/90 03/09/90 03/14/90 03/16/90 03/19/90 MW 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND j
MW-25 5.80E-07 5.60E-07 4.41E 07 2.61E 07 2.58E-07 1.48E-07.
MW 2D 8.53E-08 6.66E-08 5.27E-08 5.66E-08 2.41E-08 1.98E 08-MW-3 2.80E 07 1.90E 07 1.70E 07 1.10E 07 9.00E 08-7.66E-08 MW-4 2.01E-07 1.78E-07
.1.70E-07 1.11E-07
'1.00E-07 8.76E 08 MW-5 1.57E 07 1.23E-07 1.30E 07 6.27E-08 4.61E 08 3.95E-08 i
MW-6 ND ND ND ND ND ND
-MW 7 ND ND ND ND ND ND MW-8 4.15E-08
- ND ND ND ND ND I
Notes:
All values reported in microCuries per ml (uCi/ml)
ND
.below detection limit of 3.00E-08 uCi/ml l
- - Problems were experienced with the detection system lIj utilized for analysis of this sample.
Sample activity now considered likely to be ND by laboratory, i
I I
I
- n TABLE 4
.l Iodine-131 Activity, Sampling Point S-4
,/
Cintichem Facility, Tuxedo, New York u
Sampling I-131 Sampling I-131 Date uCi/ml Date uCi/ml 02/28/90 7.82E-07 03/09/90 3.50E-07 rg 2
g 03/01/90 6.65E-07 03/09/90 3.83E-07 03/01/90 6.15E-07 03/10/90 3.07E-07.
I 03/02/90 6.25E-07 03/10/90 3.06E-07 03/02/90 6.56E-07 03/11/90 2.96E-07 03/03/90 5.62E-07 03/11/90 2.83E-07 03/03/90 6.13E-07 03/12/90 2.51E-07 03/04/90 6.08E-07 03/12/90 2.27E-07 03/04/90 5.23E-07 03/13/90 1.86E-07 03/05/90 4.43E-07 03/13f)0 1.97E-07 03/05/90 4.89E-07 03/14/90 1.91E-07 03/05/90 5.35E-07 03/14/90 2.03E-07 03/06/90 4.24E-07 03/15/90.2.00E-07 03/07/90 4.51E-07 03/15/90 2.26E-07 03/07/90 4.10E-07 03/16/90 2.12E-07
~
1 1
03/08/90 3.89E-07 03/17/90 1.55E-07 l
03/08/90 3.90E-07 03/18/90 1.49E-07 All values reported in microcuries per al (uci/ml)
=
T
u
-e id 3dM,aln-4 Man 4-d,m-.
IKdE'A d
-,Aa.-44e.mm 4
AW s-wa#F.JU
-wM*4 5
Au-.
e,.a
--4aw4
-j++N-
.e4mM-.Mgm aeseu
,'q_.,F iL-'
j
?
-l I
l 5
l i
i I4 i.
1 1
l'..,.
4 e
I
(
$ 's
\\
I t
i
' d.
t t
l-nounss 4
h L
i i
Y
LI:
1 u
u A
l
_y+'4v.y' 73 QW
, l'
.o y
3 wooo.
of:$
9$
f '"
.n ar-
)QQj;?-.[.p' y n y l ki ll " k lp\\ .~./ .i,_
- f
} b ,o, o ', ~ l flll[ fl' }" h R~ gg j l g],"*;* sf " ~ * * ,p{ p ,o. g_ j{ 4 l ~ f, f+0L}ly, 3 !DJ q=1 N bf y I h CINTICHEM, INC. TUXEDO, NEW YORK SITE LOCATION MAP DATE REVISED PREPARED BY: LEGGL'ITE, BRASHEARS & k P a cmultams N roteuimalET!3"n . SOURCE: U.S.G.S. SLOATSBURG 7.5 MINUTE ..g QUADRANGLE DATE: l AGURE 1
M M M M. M M . -M M i ~p-y D / / / ,/ , gF' : ^ 100O l
- f
/ / e'f E / / / l Ao-N / '?y \\ @P. i y \\kt. / )pe s ]4 ja-j p j /s / / gi O* d .\\. 'N x --w 950 /. x .d-o 1 / '9 6 / e c$,@ d h *s;<; 900 - / y /e# &*~f. . g<- f -se / g l r' . qy$ 4.?"4 s-s' s l 960 J. ~ h "_
.,,69
J e.", - r t \\ f SCALE: SITE PLAN O SAMPLING POINT DATE REWSED ME RED BW 0 120 240 FEET I. GGETTE. BRASilEARS & j '^ s GRAllAM.1NC. I. 3%ressmaat Gesnewseer C-225 Fvnakha Avesume \\ Madbund Part.N2 07432 20:452-ano DATE: 3/15/96 l FsGURE 2 i !, g. 5jp g t O) i [l lh { g ;ll J w-g g a b itfb) ! [l- ) i \\ ~ s sg r, g ,s. g r-s ( 5@w z E y -m. t g
- 190 tug a e f
30 g o9 a g g i \\. \\ ( a o s 9 i / 1 =g m\\ {, i 5 i i I-lo{ I O s {k 51 E-O, i i a v ~,,'-g.......-M------pa, l \\ }. -[j N., i O y l _l 0/ / g f E / \\ I s t g 1 l \\ .5 I
- (\\
I i g i / T. Y I g w>mo. f e e li.yh l4 \\ s34 l d,' B l ( -3 w a (P fu _ N J .y.l Jg' l i s 1 l s l s, h: =m F_ 8 i as e g ", c i i \\ Ti i 4 4 .I , M. E t 7 l l? k l a. g lllg j [O f I ~ i I. i o s y a i 5 g 4 o 5g!, i 1 5 1 'l
- J -
= . ~ ' ~*
- 1
_g
- t..t..M 8
i b'- { b .l _g g 3 4 ^ I II E E I l
- s
- g
- - - - - - - - q- ; g E: 3
r---
g g .B! e l w T%g g g
- i. _. -
i
- l i
g
E 0 9 O E x T I 2 T 3 N L C Es 5 WA I L Om O FE E P OS W W It 4 C 2 G 8 ^s ee E 9 N R OG I E r R O ^rdm l ^ I S I U L T TO G P AL 8 A S N CO P A O OE A K M S M LG s R c. r E R& O N r 0 g 0 u 9 s
- D g Y
1 = f 5 = ~ f e 1 W A o p O R 1 C c. A u 1 P E E O M tE w HN L E 88O C T L q O L ( A I I T D T N p D E N E W ^ r ET y I =- CX R E E U O R ~ T T IN O oc M 3, f g I 1 E w y. \\ e I n 1 \\ ~ P 5 5 M m E 4 T,_ A - 7 A s A- ,S W e 2 s S r. m W u o f
- r E
x 4_ j ,2 d e w i T e c u s E a, W E E r R M 3_ s U E g h . r-o G A w s I i F M N E O S E _ s U o S m. N oO O m 2 N H I ) T a. 1 r B oR E C m G A N 1,W t E L o E E I L L i M uf A s S D T s0 C L O 8 S C I I U H G B O S L O E E G M. o ) 1 E R V O T CA ER E 7 S E E. 4 G IN 3 4 D L IU O E g B E
,+. ,a. BUILDING 2 y 880 -- 80- [ .N,'J oW,3..' 7. 400 - 'Y i, 7, go ..I' s J. 7to - ,s 3 770 - e,'-' 6 'b, 't*5 i ..f.. ts ' I' l*,g-1,', C. 1' '760 - DETENTION 'i G.#1 's'<G' "f'.'l,,,, 4 3rR' POND _ -- 750 - i .h' ', <',.,' ', 'b':, i,,{'}is, ~ "{(.p, - 730 - ,7 i OE *fYNi'E,hElie.x,m BOOED g i i t t D P i 5 Ik-T kY'.h:W*NNk &A?% * *N F* 900 'A ' 5.- .o6 et 7en 5 ._0@.4y'.
- c.., :.
' M. , ' ' - p, i ? &,'w'r,2', no-i'h'hi lif',3Ti,5;Yfr'S,"T R s ~; z 1',"',0-E i,y,',73, t2.?,1
- 5T.I"5 c
",7 s ! "O E .,g 780 >= u g C I MW3 MW4 MW5 g s [ - 780 - ~ p7 .e J ,g (,,,, s,e,,, .. t,,. A,hy/ i , ' * * ~ ' ~' ' ' 0I,,1Q-W 730 - s f 720 - a D [ MW7 MW8 .&.,.... _ _... ) \\ \\ E t.L Q':f{ j.;., 1** : .6%. ^ &. a 750 - ..i...- w 740 - o'. e. ~ f.'I? o'F,'.,c.s,. ' '0.$ ' 4 ~ rse - - +; 3, ' ,c. m 729 - - ';.,- ep c.,,d- *e S,A O' R~.. .! j. s s' ' ' ' ' ' 5 9-710 - 700 r-("' gg .L< l-e i...... c 10 0 5,,,Ad IN FEET VERTICAL EXAGGERATION EQUALS 2X j.i ' & -~..
(l y LEGEND - eio - BACKFILL 2700- . SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL }7ro~ -?so M WEATHERED BEDROCK -y4o' 'i' "730 2 20 BEDROCK 7 2 710 \\ PRESENT TOPOGRAPHIC SURFACE B' ,800 ~ LITHOLOGIC CONTACT ( APPROXIMATE) gwg -7so.
- yya MONITOR WELL CREENED OR OPEN BOREHOLE INTERVAL
-760-PRE-CONSTRUCTION BORING -740 g -730-8I S4 STORM WATER CATCH B ASIN APERTURE c. .Y_ WATER LEVEL IN MONITOR WELL CARL) -700 (MEASURED 3/19I90) ~ -7so ' f770' Also Avaltable On -Teo Aperture Cani 5 750 2 40. 7 ~ c(f3515022M -730 ina D' SECTION LOCATIONS AS INDICATED ON FIGURE 5 -7so CINTICHEM -740 TUXEDO, NEW YORK
- ,3, 720
- 71o GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
- 700 DATE REVISED PREPARED BY: ,c ". LEGGETTE,BR ASilEARS & E i GRAll AM,1NC.
- Professiona1 Ground Water Consu!tants
,a/ i 225 Frankhn Avenue Midland Park,NJ 0702 ~ 201 6524 270 ~ DATE: 3/23/90 FIG'JRE 6
o i nI CINTl CHEM Joint O-lentet ion Histogram 30%
- - i..
L,> 20% ,t m t 8 in l g .105 H.EEH iso-Iso o-20 20-40 40-so so-so 80-100 100-1201:o-140 140-160 aoint Azimuth, De7ees 1 l': i L i CINTICHEM, INC. I: TUXEDO, NEW YORK JOINT ORIENTATION HISTOGRAM DATE REvlSED PREPARED BY: A LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & ' Professwnal aw casuhann b [1532 M'i M 20 43N270 DATE: 3/21/90 l FOURE 7 l .I b --*--u-t 'v-
i i!:l 4 lt! it. i I, lli { 3&# M 23 Cc,w 7=00 _ 8 . e4 N,,. 7 I. AN4 1 2 .P M w m.2 4 t .A lA.u a5 E lA =P4 M R <N 1 hd0 U e R c,5 n2 G R s e G a,2 W t 2e U F / O9 K T l 1 / ~ R N 3 g 0 n O O p 9 1 C Y 1 Y R S D NE .f,'. 2 1 S MW OF D ' 3 E q I 6 E E T U R f / i HN AQ A P E V A E T C E R A O LL P O IT D EA N I E RC IC X EI JU F U T 3 T A R U G W S D N D E I N S D e-I U V L O E 0 I R R 1 B G / t r 1 s E S'm T w 7_ A t D 0 M6 s 2 7 yw~ w 1 u R .1 d U 2 O u T L_ w-N I m O 3 C n@Mi[ s w_ F O N w O F w N T T O A IT w V T D C O E E E L L E '7 R F E F 4 ID R R 0 f E E 2 G 2 1 } E T T N }
- g 1
T A A G I A w w D _w N M L . 'M W I D D I I D X U O N N L U B R u I O O U P B ~ D P R R
- E N
A G G L 0 E A 8 G C E S L 067 N h O s NN
h I 1 i I l Monitor Well Hydrographs 785.0 I - MW-1 - MW-2s - MW-2D r* l I ++++ MW-3 775.0 - ++++4 MW-4 l
- : : :: MW-5 l~
- MW-6 ~ c - MW-7 o W ++++4 MW-8 o > 765.0 - a) g w-
- Re
- -4 5
~ y ."$ 755.0 5 ~ ~ '
- 2 ;
- I u
r# q) er 2: : : : i y ~ er 3:: 745.0 j "HER* 5 E N 735.0 w iiii i .e -l Measurement Date,1990 accmr. susurms & cuna l: t LI L t CINTICHEM l, TUXEDO, NEW YORK MONITOR WELL HYDROGRAPHS DATE REVISED PREPARED BY; e"C.> LEOGETTE. BR ASHE AR$ & (I GR AH AM. INC. h ' Prdenswne 0 mund % awr Canishanis C 223 hanklei Avenue i Mdaruf Pat NJ 07432 d' 201 452 4270 DATE: 3/21/90 l FOURE 9 .I = g-r e
o 1 ,l lll 10 -' - Mw-2s i t
- eWW-20
~ I
- u* MW-3 H+M MW-4 l
- MW-5
- u* MW-3 H+M MW-4 l
+++++ MW-8
- ++++ S - 4 10 -'-
e-4 ~ ^ MPC E x ~ h-h O: _N o- . N- -N I v 10 ~7-a ~<~ ~ 5 N l _._ _ _ __ _ _._._ _ _ K_ _ _ __- 4 ro tto s- '"' "*-'>' o...,,,,, , O _, _- I b k b O O O R R R S 5 5 5 10 _, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, m,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , l Sample Collection Date ~ LECCETTE, BMSHEARS & GMHAM l ClNTICHEM TUXEDO, NEW YORK l-131 ACTIVITY, MONITOR WELLS & S-4 l '. DATE REVISED PREPARED BY: LEOGETTE.BRASHEAR$ & E%) OR AH AM. INC. % i "c"*&21"c5"""" i -l uJ "22 T* DATE: siistto Iro;nr 10 ,s w-we e + g-w e--s asw-iy-py'%,,,-g9--w-w N9 P -ar**4**-v' g
_+,y sas,s,a. a, a man un_ - - a g n -u-4o s 4 -wa,A-4 64+emA-aan A +a 1. ass o E a I E E g a a$ 5 h g "2 g$ a; I l gl l E l i.t ja l lb ; ~ . u,. e Illl
- s
y g f sw y y' a n s y f' h n e h E g I r I i f i ', l I .I y l I + I) "1.'}+l /3 '+t s g b ; .q, c I:g r ig 13 S E li !? s, r t,, (g = E' i l C J l I( l ll f) vi y / ) e/ i l I
y .n.. s.. .+ - nn .-as-. ,.+,-ea.- -nusa. -r w - e -~s-ea-a>.a.-+..+ua-m--s-----wma,s s. e-s a a.a swa.am -a ssurew .ns--_ a a u -.+-. mass.--. I 1 s I I . I I I r J 4. APPENDIX A Monitor Well Contruction Logs \\ ,e b h 1 1 r1' e 4 )
- i N
i b I I s2 --- m m ..m-. m.+. .--w-,,-. ~ ,,_.-,...wm_ ..y .y,-,. ,_g. e,, ..m.. -._,3,..,w_.# ,r.yr. , w
1 i ADOVE GRADE t PEET OF PROTECTIVE CASWG INSTALLAYlON -r WITH LOCXWG CAP I ~ l m_ _ _=_- i _~~- CEMENT SURFACE SEAL j _-- a_7 CEMENT /SENTONITE OROUT m. e' 2 -INCH DIAMETER h h SCHEDULE 40 FLUSH JOMT PVC RISER i z SENTONITE SEAL ( .V.-i;
- l L
I I .:.47. 4:. il i 12 WCH DIAMETER Y:::.I{, i = n iL i DOREHOLE .l .. :0. 7.:.:..' .d... a. WCH DIAMETER 0; :: :9. !u i 020 SLOT SCHEDULE 40 1 I
- 7 ::
i i FLUSH JOINT PVC SCREEN }
- e
- o
- +
- ;. i\\
\\ v:::.:::::
- )
l:.: ::.::.' M ORlE GRADE 2 SAND PACK l
- 7:7-li'j: j ll.
.,i I
- 7. ::::
i - ~.. J I 1 i 1 ClNTlCHEM L TUXEDO, NEW YORK TYPICAL OVERBURDEN MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DATE REVISED PREPARED BY: ML LLOGETTE. BR ASIIE.ARS & k.) GR All AM,INC. Profemona1Cmad Water Cannuttants i C */ 225 Ftankle Avenue r Mdand Pan.NJ 07432 201452 4270 DATE: 3115190 l m unt A.1
I I ~ A90VE GRADE
- g. INCH DI AMETER INSTALLATION STEEL CAslNG I'
WITH LOCKING CAP -:_2:-M-NC _-E ' _ _-e 2~
h N _: _ _:_ _-
- E-E-M N :: --
CEMENT SURFACE SEAL \\ N
- Ik OVERBURDEN CEMENT /8ENTONITE GROUT I-I** \\
.. * ' \\ S 50 '\\ \\ 8-INCH DIAMETER \\ STEEL CASING BEDROCK SURFACE BENTONITE SEAL I I ~ 6-INCH DIAMETER OPEN BOREHOLE l l I g I CINTICHEM TUXEDO, NEW YORK TYPICAL BEDROCK MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DATE RE VISE D PREPARED BY: 110GITil.. BRA 511LAR$ A ^e GL All AM. INC hvenws' s er Canakm %..i ' "'*;il.b'yls"" Datt 3115'90 j mn A-2
CECLOGIC LOO OWNERt Cintich00 LEGGETTE, BRASHE ARS AND GR AHAM, INC. WELL NO. t MW-1 MIDLAND PARK, NEW JEMSEY PAGE 1 0F 1 PAGES I LOCATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPEt None Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 6" Slot NO. N/A 4 DATE COMPLETED: 2/27/90 SETTING N/A DRILLING SAND PACK N/A COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling CASING 6" Steel DRILLING METHOD: Air Rotary / Air Hammer SETTING 34' SAMPLING DEVELOPMENT Submersible Pump METHOD: Observed Cuttings OBSERVER: D. Terry DURATION 100 gallons REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL POINT (RP): TOSC ELEVATION OF RP 806.04 YIELD 0.25 gpm REMARKS: 2.25' Steel Casing Stick-Up DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 12' BOULDER BACKFILL; matrix comprised of silty fine to medium SAND, some coarse sand, trace gravel, trace clay. 12 29' silty fine to medium SAND, some coarse sand and gravel, occasional boulders, trace clay. 29 68.5' Competant GNEISS bedrock.
4 i OWNER: Cintichon CECLCGlC LCO WELL NO.t MW-2D LE00ETTE, SMASHE ARS AND ORAHAM, INC. MIDL AND PARK, NEW JER$EY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES I 14 CATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPE None Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 6" SI4T NO. N/A i DATE COMPLETED: 2/21/90 SETTING N/A DRILLING SAND PACK N/A ] COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling ) CASING: 6" Steel DRILLING METilOD: Air Rotary / Air Hammer SETTING 35' BGS SAMPLING DEVELOPMEN : Submersible Pump METHOD: Observed Cuttings OBSERVER: D. Terry DURATION 100 Gallons REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 59.04' 2/21/90 POINT (RP) TOSC ELEVATION OF RPt 805.38 YIELD 4 GPM REMARKSt 2.85' Steel Casing Stick-Up DEPTH (FEET) DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 14' BOULDER BACKFILL; matrix comprised of silty SAND, some gravel; traco clay. 14 27' silty SAND, some gravel (and boulders) trace clay, becoming moist at 25'. 27 71' Competant GNEISS bedrock. I
CEGLOGIC LGO OWNER: Cintich O LEGGETTE, BRASHE ARS AND GR AHAM, INC. WELL NO.: MW-2S MIDLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES _a LOCATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPE: PVC Tuxedo, New York 4 l DIAM. 4" SLOT No. 020 DATE COMPLETED: 3/1/90 SETTING 20.0' - 30.0' BGS DRILLING SAND PACK Morie il COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling CASING: 4" PVC DRILLING METHOD: Air Rotary / Air Hammer SETTING SAMPLING DEVELOPMENT: Suction Pump METHOD: Examined Cuttings OBSERVER: D. Terry DURATION 2 Gallons REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 23.29' 3/2/90 POINT (RP): TOSC ELEVATION OF RP: 804.45 YIELD < 0.5 gpm REMARKS: -0.08 PVC Stick-Up DEPTH (FEET) DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 14' BOULDER BACKFILL; matrix comprised of silty I SAND, some gravel, trace clay. 14 27' silty SAND, some gravel (and boulders), trace clay, becoming moist at 25'. 27 30' competant GNEISS bedrock ~ I
I OWNER: Cintich2 C E O L.0 GIC L O O LEGGETTE, BRASHEAR8 AND ORAHAM, INC. WELL NO.t MW-3 MIDLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES I4 CATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPE PVC Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 2" SI4T No. 020 DATE COMPLETED: 2/8/90 SETTING 5.5' - 15.5' BGS DRILLING SAND PACK Morie #1 COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling CASING: 2" PVC DRILLING METHOD: Air Rotary / Air Hammer SETTING SAMPLING DEVELOPMENT Suction Pump METHOD: Examined Cuttings OBSERVER: D. Terry DURATION 150 Gallons REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 8.66' 2/13/90 POINT (RP) : TOPVC ELEVATION OF RPt 771.12' YIELD 2 GPM REMARKS: 3.04' PVC Stick-Up DEPTH (FEET) DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 12' BOULDER BACKFILL; matrix comprised of silty SAND, some gravel, trace clay. 12 13.5' Weathered GNEISS bedrock 13.5 16' Competant GNEISS bedrock I
OWNER: CintichOn GEOLOGIC LCG LE00ETTE, BRASHE ARS AND GR AHAM, l>H:. WELL NO.t MW-4 MIDLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES -LOCATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPE: PVC Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 2" SLOT NO. 020 DATE COMPLETED: 2/15/90 SETTING 5.6' - 15.6' BGS DRILLING SAND PACK Morie #1 COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling CASING: 2" PVC I DRILLING METHOD: Air Rotary SETTING q SAMPLING DEVELOPMENT: Suction Pump METHOD: Examined Cuttings OBSERVER: B. Prehoda DURATION 150 Gallons 1 REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 6.75' 2/19/90 POINT (RP): TOPVC ELEVATION OF RP: 769.49' YIELD 2 GPM REMARKS: 2.90' PVC Stick-Up DEPTH (FEET) I DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 16' BOULDER BACKFILL; matrix comprised of silty SAND, some gravel, trace clay. I ~ I
OWNER: Cintichca CECLCClC.CG LE00ETTE, ORASHEARS AND GRAHAM, INC. WELL No. MW-5 MIDLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES i LOCATION: Citichem Facility SCREEN TYPE: PVC Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 2" SLOT NO. 020 l DATE COMPLETED: 2/15/90 SETTING 4.6' - 11.6' BGS ] i DRILLING Environmental SAND PACK Morie #1 I I COMPANY: Drilling, Inc. CASING: 2" PVC DRILLING I METHOD: Air Rotary / Mud Rotary SETTING SAMPLING DEVELOPMENT: Suction Pump METHOD: Examined Cuttings OBSERVER: H. Prehoda/D. Terry DURATION 75 Gallons REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 8.13 2/16/90 POINT (RP): TOPVC ELEVATION OF RP: 768.48' YIELD < 1 GPM REMARKS: 2.53 PVC Stick-Up DEPTH (FEET) DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 12' DOULDER BACKFILL, matrix comprised of silty SAND, some gravel, trace clay. me. e+-m--~m.m.-.......%M u.. m, ,,a
I CECLColC LOG OWNER: Cintich03 LE00ETTE, SRASHEARS AND ORAHAM, INC. WELL NO. : MW-6 MIDLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES LOCATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPE: PVC Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 2" SLOT NO. 020 DATE COMPLETED: 2/16/90 SETTING 10' -20' BGS I. DRILLING SAND PACK Morie #1 COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling CASING: 2" PVC DRILLING 14ETHOD: Air Rotary SETTING @AMPLING DEVELOPMENT: Suction Pump METHOD: Examined Cuttings l OBSERVER: D. Terry DURATION 150 Gallons REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 9.19' 2/19/90 POINT (RP) : TOPVC ELEVATION OF RP: 766.73 YIELD 2.5 GPM REMARKS: - 0.06 PVC Stick-Up DEPTH (FEET) I DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 12' BOULDER BACKFILL; matrix comprised of silty SAND, some gravel, trace clay. 12 20' fine to medium SAND, some gravel, traco silt; [ fully saturated. l I Lg g
I. CESL@GIC L@G OWNER: CintichOn LEOGETTE, BRASHE ARS AND GR AHAM, INC. WELL NO.t MW-7 MIDLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES LOCATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPE: PVC Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 2" SLOT No. 020 DATE COMPLETED: 2/12/90 SETTING 7' - 17' BGS I DRILLING SAND PACK Motie #1 COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling CASING: 2" PVC I DRILLING METHOD: Air Rotary SETTING SAMPLING DEVELOPMENT: Suction Pump I METHOD: Examined Cuttings OBSERVER: D. Terry /B. Prehoda DURATION 30 Gallons I REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 10.43' 2/13/90 POINT (RP): TOPVC I ELEVATION OF RP: 766.13 YIELD < 1 GPM REMARKS: 2.61' PVC Stick Up DEPTH (FEET) DESCRIPTION i FROM TO l 0 17' BOULDER BACKFILL; matric comprised of silty SAND, some gravel; encountered several interstitial voids. I I. I -+ m%wa ns,$- w my e s +.e-w
I GEOLOGIC LO@ OWNER: Cintichem LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS AND GR AHAM, INC. WELL NO.: MW-8 MIDLAND PARK, NEW JERSEY PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES LOCATION: Cintichem Facility SCREEN TYPE: PVC Tuxedo, New York DIAM. 2" SLOT No. 020 DATE COMPLETED: 2/15/90 SETTING 7.9' - 17.9' BGS l DRILLING SAND PACK Morie #1 COMPANY: Rinbrand Well Drilling CASING: 2" PVC I DRILLING METHOD: Air Rotary SETTING SAMPLING DEVELOPMENT: Suction Pump I METHOD: Examined Cuttings i OBSERVER: D. Terry /B. Prehoda DURATION 100 Gallons REFERENCE STATIC WATER LEVEL 14.79' 2/15/90 POINT (RP): TOPVC ELEVATION OF RP: 763.99 YIELD 2 GPM REMARKS: I 1.98' PVC Stick-Up DEPTH (FEET) I DESCRIPTION FROM TO O 14' BOULDER BACKFILL; natrix comprised of silty SAND, some gravel; encountered several interstitial voids. 14 18' silty fine to medium SAND, some coarse sand and gravel, trace clay; saturated. I I I g I
l y i i 1 l I l i 1 d ~ 1 1 b l s 1 APPENDIX B Fracture Orientation Measurements ( I '. + . I 1 1li L I? s l-2 l- \\- t I m e 4 4 + -, -,., .'~,,,,--.ar-~ , - ~,, -..,,, - -. -.., - - -.
I APPENDIX B Fracture Orientation Measurements Cintichem Facility, Tuxedo, New York N 18 E N 83 E N 149 W I_ N 28 E N 165 W N 42 E N 122 W N 80 E N 37 E N 175 W N 128 W H 57 E N 5E N 3E N 16 E -I N 19 E N 32 E N 45 E N 11 E N 33 E N 121 W N 121 W H 43 E N 20 E 'I N 134 W N 127 W N 22 E N 115 W N 131 W N 104 W N 130 W N 138 W N 172 W 3 N 17 E N 104 W N 16 E 3 N 13 E N 12 E N 105 W N 177 W N 13 E N 3E N 15 E N 25 E N 175 W I N 121 W N 6E N 78 E N 116 W N 80 E N 157 W N 118 W N 55 E N 20 E I'. N 8E N 19 E N 87 E N 12 E N 55 E N 16 E N 32 E N 149 W N 18 E N 180 W N 118 W N 178 W I N 1E N 148 W N 100 W N 6E N 122 W N 18 E N 178 W N 140 W N 177 W I N 39 E N 37 E N 7E N 172 W N 90 W N 6E N 12 E N 38 E N 176 W I' N 10 E N 148 W N 170 W N 42 E N 73 E N 92 W N 122 W N 10 E N 97 W N 149 W N 166 W I_ I I I g I
- _ _._ __._ _......~-... _ _ _ _ - -... _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _. _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _... _. 1 ' I I l l 1 l ) .c- >b T i t b APPENDIX C Slug Testing Plots and Calculations I L I. ~ g t U LI I g c o 4.-.
E E E ~. ~W-M M-- M.W CINTICHEM TUXEDO. NEW YORK PUMP TEST - MW-1 100 e-s 7 WELL MW-1 s D= 35 feet H= 35 feet L=- 35 feet + rc = .5 feet rw = .5 feet { re = 12.54203 feet g yo = 31.53 feet v s yt = 30.42 feet p t= 600 seconds K= 6.873931E-07 feet /sec K= .4442429 gal / day /ft2 l K= 5.939076E-02 feet / day K= 2.095174E-05 cm/sec 10 e i.. . iii iie i O.O 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 TIME (MINUTES) p -m y m 4 m p -.n omw wew"r
- ms
-*-"^we ,__a--. a --.w-'w-- -- w-a- --
sA"%'Mws-
g g g _ g M W-M M-E E: E E CINTICHEM TUXEDO, NEW YORK SLUG TEST - MW-2S 1 e a 7 e a k 4 -- WELL MW-2s D= 4 feet to 3 H= 4 feet L= 10 feet ,"OT, rc = .166 feet rw = .5 feet o re = 2.548612 feet yo = .54 feet { yt = .36 feet w6 0.1 t= 120 seconds O K= 7.582255E-06 feet /sec K= 4.900199 gal / day /ft2 K= .6551068 feet / day ~ K= 2.311071E-04 cm/sec a 4 3 I I 2 0.01 ii.. i i O.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 TIME (MINUTES) 4 +- e +,
4 CINTICHEM TUXEDO. NEW YORK PUMP TEST MW-2D 10 i t e 7 e 5 4 3 2 g O d 1 f v f v 5 4 3 { l l l O.1 .iii ii l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 j TIME (MINUTES) 1
g g g. g- . 3 M M M ~. . M'E M M CINTICHEM TUXEDO. NEW YORK SLUG TEST - MW-3 1 e 7 a 4 WELL MW-3 3 D= 9 feet H= 9 feet L= 10 feet rc = .083 feet rw = .5 feet' { b8 f et yo d 0'1 yt = .03 feet 's e t= 120 seconds y K= 6.047115E-06 feet /sec 1 K= 3.908094 gal / day /ft2 ] K= .5224725 feet / day K= 1.843167E-04 cm/sec 4 3 6 2
- OOO O
O.01 7 7i.. 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 TIME (MINUTES) er w .g. p py -9gy e" ,e e r - ggea p-+-. a eaeg+ me g ng apw s mA. . n. -m a mm..
- m..m sa 2
m
M M N gg~ .g
- g-EER
CINTICHEM TUXEDO, NEW YORK SLUG itdt - WW-4 0.1 i a 7 e s 4 k. WELL MW-4 ~ \\ D= 15 feet H= 11 feet c L= 10 feet rc = .083 feet rw = .5 feet es re = 3.738513 feet D \\ yo = .04 feet d 0.01 ~ V yt = .02 feet [ t= 120 seconds K= 4.002789E-06 feet /sec K= 2.58689 gal / day /ft2 K= .3458409 feet / day K= 1.22005E-04 cm/sec 4 3 3 0.001 ....c.... 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 S.O 6.0 TIME (MINtJTES) -y, s e-n .wn,,p, 4+4 y .g _,__3
CINTICHEM TUXEDO, NEW YORK SLUG TEST - WW-5 1 e s 7 WELL MW-5 D= 10 feet 3 H= 7 feet L= 7 feet rc = .083 feet O rw = .166 feet re = 2.204532 feet ^D yo = .4 feet o yt = .32 feet t= 120 seconds 7 'o h O K= 2.366504E-06 feet /sec oo K= 1.529405 gal / day /ft2 " O oo K= .2044659 feet / day 0" K= 7.213102E-05 cm/sec i l l 1 l 0.1 - i i... ...i l 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 TIME (MINUTES) l lu
.~ i CINilCHEM TUXEDO. NEW YORK SLUG it.di - MW-6 1 I s 4 3 WELL MW-6 D= 25 feet H= 9 feet 0.1 L= 10 feet I rc = .083 feet 'x rw = .5 feet \\ re = 3.158089 feet m [; 4 yo = .174 feet M \\.. yt = .03 feet y t= 90 seconds v K= 1.239994E-05 feet /sec y: 3 K= 8.013735 gal / day /ft2 K= 1.071355 feet /dav O.01 N K= 3.779502E-04 cm/sec 's N l 4 3 l l 2 0.001 iiii iii. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 TIME (MINUTES)
E E ~_' E . E.. E - E E E CINTICHEM TUXEDO, NEW YORK SLUG TEST - MW-8 1 o I 7 ^ e a a WELL MW-8 D= 25 feet H= 5 feet L= 10 feet i rc = .083 feet i rw = .5 feet re = 2.367713 feet ^5 yo = .66 feet yt = .41 feet $O.1 t= 120 seconds '~ l e K= 2.125092E-06 feet /sec F 7 K= 1.37?388 gal / day /ft2 e e K= .187608 feet / day l K= 6.477281E-05 cm/sec l i 1 %v I i a 3 [ 0.01 e i i e iiii ie i i e i i i O.0 ' 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 TIME (MINUTES) M g r -w -*~ 4- '-9'. m w'd' c __________,,_____w_______.___,___.___.w_ x t v ___x,,_ame._.,nm
W M 'M: ~ M M M M M CINTICHEM TUXEDO, NEW YORK SLUG ltsi - MW-7 3 3 a 1l I 6 WELL MW-7 \\ 7 D= 25 feet g H= 5 feet ( L= 10 feet 4 rc = .083 feet rw = .5 feet -j re = 1.982097 feet b yo = 2.34 feet g yt = 1.1 feet ss t= 120 seconds K= 2.984212E-06 feet /sec o 0.1 K= 1.928612 gal / day /ft2 K= .2578359 feet / day 8 K= 9.0958776-05 cm/sec 1 O s 4 0 3 l 2 l t O.01 iai. .ie. .7::.... 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 -10.0 12.5 TIME (MINUTES) . -}}