field investigations of uncontrolled hazardous waste … · field investigations of uncontrolled...

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS OFUNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

FIT PROJECT

TASK REPORT TO THEENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CONTRACT NO. 68-01-6056

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

253046

Groundwater Investigation of theChem-Dyne

Hazardous Materials Recycling Facilityin

Hamilton, Ohio

By:Mike McCarrin

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS OFUNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

FIT PROJECT

TASK REPORT TO THEENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CONTRACT NO. 68-01-6056

Groundwater Investigation of theChem-Dyne

Hazardous Materials Recycling Facilityin

Hamilton, Ohio

By:Mike McCarrin

June, 1982

ecology and environment, inc.International Specialists in the Environmental Sciences

063100

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

PageIntroduction

Purpose, Problem, Scope / 1Methods of Investigation 3

Auspices, Authorities, Acknowledgements 5

Site Characteristices and History

Location 7Physiography 7

Local Considerations 7

Cl imate 8History and Operational Procedures 8

Waste Type and Amount 9

Hydrogeology

Geology 11Soils and Infiltration 19

Soil Contamination and Analyses 22

Hydrology 33Groundwater Quality 46

Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations 57

Appendices 61

References 175

List of Figures

PageFigure 1. Photo of Chem-Dyne Facility 2

Figure 2. Site Location and Index Map 4

Figure 3. General Geologic Column 12

Figure 4. Map of Regional Groundwater Flow, Bedrock ValleyLimits, and Well Field Locations 16

Figure 5. Potential Contaminant Plume Boundaries

through Time 42

Figure 6. Map of Current Well Field Extent 45

Figure 7. Soil Classification Scheme 64

Figure 8. Typical Well Construction 73

ii

List of Tables

PageTable 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Amounts of Waste Recorded at Chem-Dyne

Engineering Properties of the Urban EldeanComplex

Physical and Chemical Properties of the UrbanEldean Complex

Analyses of Soil Samples (0-1.5 feet)

Analyses of Soil Samples (2.5-9 feet)

Analyses of Soil Samples (10-19 feet)

Analyses of Soil Samples (20-35 feet)

Tentatively Identified Compounds in the SoilSamples

Chemical Compounds Found in On-Site SoilSamples (Grouped by Depth with CorrectionsIntroduced. )

Water Level Elevations

Preliminary Sampling Results of Off -SiteWells

Second Preliminary Sampling - On-Site Wellsand Private Well Supplies

Chemical Concentrations in the Ground andSurface Waters

Tentatively Identified Organic Substancesin the Ground and Surface Waters

Soil Grain Size Analysis

Identification and Location of Samples byNumber

List of ICAP Metals and PriorityPollutants

Bl ank Data

—To

19

21

23

24

26

28

29

30

37-39

47

49

55

56

65-70

144-146

147-148

149-150

List of Plates

PagePlate 1. Site" Location and Topography Inside

Back Cover

Plate 2. Cross - Sections of Chem-Dyne InsideBack Cover

Plate 2A. Cross - Sections of Chem-Dyne InsideBack Cover

Plate 3. Piezometric Map InsideBack Cover

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Boring Logs and Soil Samples 61

Appendix B. Chemical Data and Sampling Procedures 138

Appendix C. Clean-up Assessment 151

INTRODUCTION

Purpose, Problem, Scope

Improper handling and inadequate processing of hazardous materials areknown to create potentially dangerous health conditions and generalnuisances to the public. The siting and operations of hazardous wastefacilities, in particular, have been subject to recent regulation,surveillance, and litigation as even small incongruities in acceptableengineering practices may prove devastating and irreparably damage theenvironment. In light of the above, the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) has initiated a number of programs, contracts, oractions to evaluate these facilities and bring them into scientificallysound and acceptable engineering practices or mitigate the environmentalharm that has already been done.

Concern for the health and safety of the general public located in and"adjacent to the Chem-Dyne facility was first raised in 1976 shortly afterthe site began its full-fledged operations. Numerous complaints from thelocal citizenry have brought to light serious questions on many of thefacility's operational procedures and the judiciousness of siting afacility which processes hazardous and toxic substances in a residentialand urbanized area.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if the subsurfaceor local aquifers are polluted or adversely affected by the facility'slocation or operational practices; and, determine the nature, extent, andorigin of such contamination. Finally, recommendations for correctivemeasures are presented along with a projected cost analysis.

Although the site consists of only approximately 20 acres, thisinvestigation encompassed a much larger area due to the geologic andhydraulic conditions found locally (See Figure 2). Additionally, thisreport covers techniques of investigation, recommendations, and projected

cost assessments of remedial actions.

CHEM-DYNE

Hamilton, Ohio,

EPA does not endorse all of the findings and conclusions included in

this study. In particular, EPA believes that the chemical analyses, while

.qualitatively correct, are likely in some instances to be incorrect in a

qualitative sense. In addition, because of the limited scope of this study's

inquiry into hydrogeology, EPA does not believe that the hydrological

interpretations are based on adequate information.

Methods of Investigation

Below is outlined the generalized work order for the investigation.

1. The project was initiated by the USEPA for the FIT contractor(Ecology and Environment, Inc.) to commence a groundwaterinvestigation at the Chem-Dyne facility (5/30/80).

2. A preliminary review of the existing data was conducted. Thisincluded reviews of the USEPA files, state and/or local healthofficials, state environmental agencies, state geologic and watersurveys, Soil Conservation Service, City of Hamilton officials,Miami Conservancy District, Hamilton County Courthouse, andinterviews with local or special interest officials, previousoperators and employees, and the local public. This phase wascompleted by September, 1980.

3. Next, voluntary permission to enter the affected properties wassolicited by letter. Permission was granted to proceed by allparties involved. A court order was issued to conduct operationson the facility itself. These actions were primarily completed byDecember, 1980; although as the investigation widened itsperiphery, additional permission was solicited and received. Atthis time, a site safety plan was also drafted within Ecology andEnvironment, Inc. (E&E) for the safe operation and practices ofall on-site work. Concurrently, the drilling subcontract was alsolet, evaluated, and accepted (See Appendix A).

4. Initial work for this investigation involved the drilling ofborings for soil characteristics and classification and theinstallation of monitoring wells for the collection of hyraulicdata and samples. The drilling occurred in three phases. First,thirteen off-site wells were drilled surrounding the site. Thesewells were screened with an Organic Vapor Analyizer (OVA) andwater levels were recorded at periodic intervals to determine thegroundwater flow and direction (completed 1/3/81). Next, sevenon-site borings were made to determine the nature and extent ofsubsurface soil contamination. Five of these borings wereinstalled with wells to monitor the groundwater levels and qualityencountered on site (completed 1/31/81). Finally, twelveadditional borings and wells were made to close any data gaps thatwere found after a preliminary evaluation of the raw data(completed 3/3/81).

5. All well locations were initially only temporarily sealed. Whenthe selection of permanent locations for monitoring wells wasmade, these locations were permanently sealed and the temporarywells were pulled and grouted to ground level (See Appendix A forspecific notes on boring and installation practices). This wasfinished by April, 1981.

9MILES

MODIFIED AFTER THEUSGS TOPOGRAPHICMAP SERIES AND THESTATE OF OHIO TRANS-PORTATION MAP.

FIG. 2. SITE LOCATION AND INDEX MAP

Methods of Investigation (con't)

6. After the wells were set, they were purged of quantities ofwater. This purging acts to clean up the wells by removingconstruction debris (soil) left in the well, unplugging thescreen, and allowing fresh volumes of water to flow from theaquifer to the well.

7. Subsequently, the wells were sampled and these samples werepreserved and shipped according to USEPA specifications (SeeAppendix B - Chemical Data and Sampling Procedures). Sampling wascompleted by April 24, 1981.

8. Additional data necessary for the completion of the report (e.g.mapping, surveying, historical records, etc.) was collected byMay, 1981.

9. Finalization of all data and results along with conclusions andrecommendations were compiled in this report.

Auspices. Authorities, Acknowledgements

This report for the Chem-Dyne site in Hamilton, Ohio, is prepared as :

specified under Modification D of TDD# F5-8007-4 of Federal Contract No. ":

68-01-6065. This contract was awarded to Ecology and Environment, Inc.

(E&E) to provide a variety of services to the USEPA as delineated underseparate Technical Directive Documents (TDD's). The specific TDD'sinvolving the investigation of the Chem-Dyne site in Hamilton, Ohio ordereda preliminary investigation under TDD# F5-8005-7. A groundwater study andfull field investigation were ordered in F5-8007-4 while subsequentmodifications A and D augmented specific deadlines and modifications B and

C provided for auxiliary sampling and interim reports.This report was prepared and the field operations were conducted by

Mike McCarrin. Operations personnel were provided by the Region V Ecologyand Environment office (and number some 13 individuals). Major

contributors to the draft, review, and revision processes of this text wereJoseph F. Petrilli, Field Investigation Team Leader; Rene Van Someren,

Assistant Field Investigation Team Leader; Boyd Possin, Group Manager;Kathy Getty, Biologist; Bill Goode, Assistant Field Investigation Team

Leader; and a variety of personnel from the Region V office. All

interpretations of this data are solely the responsibility of the author.

Auspices, Authorities, Acknowledgements (con't)

Acknowledgements are made to the following agencies, firms, orindividuals for providing data, assistance, services, or materials for the

completion of this report.

United States Environmental Protection AgencyOhio Environmental Protection AgencyOhio Geologic SurveyUnited States Department'of AgricultureMiami Conservancy DistrictCity of Hamilton, OhioChampion Paper Company

SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND HISTORY

Location

The Chem-Dyne facility consists of approximately 20 acres located inButler County, Hamilton, Ohio, along the north end of the city of Hamiltonat 500 Ford Blvd. (See Figure 2 and Plate 1). The site is in asemi-abandoned industrial park surro.unded on the south and east byresidential developments, on the north by agricultural interests, and onthe west by a conglomeration of industrial and municipal facilities,railroad operations, residential areas, and the Great Miami River.

Physiography

As the facility resides within the Great Miami River Basin and withinthe 100 year flood plain (at least prior to the flood control projects),the site's natural setting is characteristically fluvial. This includessuch features as tree and brush growth, semi-swampy conditions in backwaterjareas, low, broad, flat depositional sequences along areas immediatelyadjacent to the river, typical alluvial deposits of sediments and steepbluffs (located further east) composed of the more cohesive clays andsilts. Since the area is highly urbanized however, most of the naturalfeatures are no longer easily recognized and some are absent entirely.

Local Considerations

Today, the city of Hamilton (located approximately 20 miles north ofCincinnati and 35 miles southwest of Dayton) is a highly industrialized,residential community (populaton - 70,000) and serves as the Butler Countyseat. The city boasts a long and rich historical heritage and owes itsexistence and growth in large part to the Miami River Valley and itsdevelopment. Publications by the city itself relate much of its success

and opulence to the existence of copious quantities of good quality water.

Climate

The climate of this area may be classified as typically humidcontinental. Approximately 38.3 inches of rain and 16.9 inches of snowprovided an average- annual precipitation rate of 39.7 inches. Of thistotal, about 25 inches evapotranspires while 8 inches runs off assurface drainage. This allows approximately 6 inches of water toinfiltrate the ground. The annual average temperature is 53.9'F withmonthly averages of 31.6°F and 65.3°F for the months of January and Julyrespectively.

History and Operational Procedures

The site area has been extensively used as an industrial complexsince at least as early as 1928. At that time, the Ford Plant occupiedthe property and conducted its operations for approximately 10 years.Subsequently, Bendix Aviation owned the facility until about 1959. WardManufacturing took over the buildings from 1959 until 1970. Finally,the property was subdivided and is now held by several parties, amongwhich are Robson Real Estate (which rents various buildings foressentially industrial purposes) and Hireco (Chem-Dyne). The actualprocessing and storage areas for the Chem-Dyne facility only occupyportions of the original industrial complex roughly equivalent to 20acres. (Note: This includes adjacent property to the Hireco site whereoperations encroached on Robson's property.)

The Chem-Dyne corporation was chartered in 1974 and full-fledgedoperations were underway no later than March, 1976. Chem-Dyne wasapparently initiated to provide consulting, managing and marketingservices for industrial wastes. This ultimately involved thetransportation, storage, processing, and transmittal of large quantitiesof hazardous or toxic industrial materials. Chem-Dyne reportedly usedsuch methods as incineration, neutralization, oxidation, deep wellinjection, landfilling, bulking of small quantities of waste, mixing

compatible substances, and recycling or reclamation to accomplish itsprocessing phase. In actuality, however, it would seem that a somewhatdifferent scenario of waste processing was used according to those

History and Operational Procedures (continued)

witnessing the plant's operation. While it is probably true thatunspecific amounts of materials were properly incinerated, landfilled,or recycled, it is also evident that such practices as dumping materialon the ground, puncturing drums, draining trucks, releasing the wastesinto sewers, spillage, improper mixing and storage of wastes, andunpermitted landfill ing occurred on more than one occasion.

Complaints from the citizens in the area were recorded at least asearly as 1976 and primarily involved odor discharges. Adjacentindustries reported employee illness due to odor discharges. The Stateof Ohio reported five separate fish kills amounting to approximately 1.1million fish or other biotic life in 1976 which was attributed to theChem-Dyne facility's discharges. Additionally, a fire or chemicalreaction was noted in 1976 while another fire with explosions wasreported in August, 1979. By September, 1979, six fires and numerousother calls had been answered by the Hamilton Fire Department.

In addition to routine internal legal actions typical of anybusiness of this nature, the Chem-Dyne facility has been involved in amultitude of law suits and court actions involving local, county, state,and federal agencies throughout its history. By October, 1979, thestate had posted an inspector and guards on site. In January, 1980, atemporary restraining order was issued involving the removal of propertyor assets from Chem-Dyne. On February 4, 1980, a receiver was appointedto assure compliance with an earlier consent decree involving theclean-up of the site and payment of fines for the 1976 fish kills.Currently, the site is being cleaned-up using incineration, removal ofwaste by the generators, and landfill ing.

Waste Type and Amount

At this point in time, it is virtually impossible to assess how

much waste has entered or left the Chem-Dyne facility or exactly whatthe chemical composition of this material was; however, at least apartial list of known substances has been reconstructed by reviewingOhio EPA, USEPA, and Chem-Dyne files. This list is presented as part ofTables 13 & 14. Table 1 lists the amounts of waste estimated to be on site.

Waste Type and Amount (continued)

For all practical purposes the data in Table 1 should only be used asa reference point as it probably only denotes amounts of material stored onsite at the time of inventory, and does not reflect the total amount ofmaterial Chem-Dyne handled since its inception.

TABLE 1: AMOUNTS OF WASTE RECORDED AT CHEM-DYNE

DateRecorded

2/79

7/19/79

11/19/79

12/79

1/19/80

1/22/80

By

Unknown

Chem-Dyne

OEPA

Chem-Dyne

Court

OEPA

AMOUNTS

TotalGallons

1,650,000

1,070,000

1,685,805

1,310,000

1,650,000

1,531,860

DrumEquivalent

30,000

19,455

30,651

23,818

30,000

27,852

Note: The generalized history of events and operational procedures werecompiled from numerous sources including officials from the city, state,and federal goverments, published newspaper accounts, and interviews with

citizens in the area.

10

HYDROGEOLOGY

Geology

In general" the geology of the Hamilton area may be characterized as a

deep ancient bedrock valley carved into Ordovician shales and limestonesthat are mantled by Wisconsinan outwash sediments which form broad flat

terraces immediately adjacent to the river. The overall topography of thearea is quite dependent upon the original bedrock structure and the

subsequent modifications caused by glaciation.

Generally, the bedrock of Ohio is composed of a sequence of Paleozoic

rocks overlying a Precambrian base. Structurally, basins, domes, andarches are all represented in southwest Ohio. The sequence through thePermian was formed primarily by depositional environments indicative of

marine settings. Later geologic periods are apparently not represented in

this area as the geologic processes involved were typically structural anderosional in nature. Thus, this area was essentially terrestrial at thattime. The bedrock structure in southwest Ohio is dominated by the

Cincinnati Arch. Apparently, this arch was formed by uplift along a mainaxis (trending northeast-southwest) with subsequent basin formation and

sinking along its adjacent sides. When the top of this area was finallyplaned off (by erosion and glaciation), the remaining structure shows anelliptical shaped Ordovician core surrounded by Silurian dolomite and

followed by long parallel contact zones of Devonian, Mississippian,Pennsylvanian, and Permian rocks.

An overall knowledge of the geological history of this area is of key

importance to understanding the site specific conditions which might beexpected. As mentioned, after structural uplift (or subsidence of

adjoining areas) an overall erosion and soil building episode during theMesozoic and Cenozoic Eras occurred. This most likely happened under

terrestrial conditions and erosion acted to break down the underlying rockinto soil and carved channels and associated features onto the land

surface, thus structuring the preglacial topography. The major drainagebasin at this time was the Teays-Mohomet River. This river crossed three

states (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois) channelling most surface water to an

11

COLUMN DESCRIPTION

zccLJ

<DO

y

OQcco

LUzHIoo

U

0.

z(/)zouI/)

LIN

O

o a <5

A A

.0 •.«••.

I ' l l

0 - 2 0

1 - 10

25- 45

0 - 1 0

40

15

45

4*

MAN-MADE DEPOSITS; FILL

BROWN, FINE-GRAINED SANDW/ SHELL FRAGMENTS

BROWN SANDY GRAVEL

BLUE -GREEN SILT & CLAY;GLAUCONITIC ;

SAND & GRAVEL

FINE GRAINED SAND

SAND & GRAVEL

CONGLOMERATE

BLUE CLAY

SHALE & LIMESTONEINTERBEDDED

FIG. 3. GENERAL GEOLOGIC COLUMN

Geology (continued)

ancient preglacial Mississippi River and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico.Three secondary drainage basins drained large areas around Cincinnati andflowed in a northerly direction where they converged just south of Hamilton(it is thought that two major divides located east and west of these basinsin resistant Silurian rock bracketed this area thus delineating thebasins). From here the combined river (sometimes referred to as theHamilton or Cincinnati River) flowed north and ultimately drained into theTeays-Mohomot system. This river (Hamilton) cut a channel deep into therelatively soft Ordovician shales and limestones. (Note: At this time theOhio River was not formed, although separate parts of its valley in theform of other remnant river systems were probably present.)

The final deformation, formation, and structural variation of the areaoccurred in more recent times (Quaternary Period) and primarily involvedglaciation and more recent erosion and fluvial processes. This area isthought to have been transgressed by all four recognized glacial stages ofthe Pleistocene Epoch. All are believed to have originated and moved infrom the northeast although locally the ice vectors may have taken on amore northerly component due to diversion around resistant rock types.

The first glacier to cross the site was the Nebraskan and is generallyfelt to have caused the most variation this area would see. This glacieris attributed with destroying the Teays-Mohomet River system. As theentire area north of Cincinnati became blocked, an ice contact drainagesystem formed and after building an impounded lake cut a deep east-westchannel into the containing Silurian divides thus releasing the lake waterand forming the present day Ohio River Valley. During post Nebraskan times(Aftonian), the ice retreated and the Ohio River reverted to its oldchannel although its direction of flow was reversed (flowing southwest).Also during this time, the drift that was laid down as the glacierretreated underwent dissection, and the resultant river valleys werewidened through erosion.

The next glacial stage was Kansan. During this time, glacial iceagain moved across this area from the northeast. -Although-this glacier isconsidered to have migrated at least south of the (recent) Ohio River, itwas not as extensive as the earlier Nebraskan ice. As the ice receded,

13

Geology (continued) •-

drift was dumped in the valleys and mantled the earlier Nebraskandeposits in the uplands. Meltwater was ponded, at least temporarily,over Cincinnati until it overran drainage bypass channels located at

higher elevations. The succeeding interglacial stage (Yarmouth)contributed extensive dissection, weathering, and erosion to the drift,removing most of its surface expression. Active stream erosion and

widening was also prevalent to the extent of stream entrenchment of thebedrock valleys in places.

The third glacial stage to reach this area was the Illinoian.Again migrating from the northeast, this glacier apparently only reached

as far south as the (recent) Ohio River in southwestern Ohio and then

ran north covering approximately two-thirds of the state. This ice

sheet is thought to have invaded as two connected lobes. Only theClermont Lobe provided important contributions to the area surroundingHamilton. As this ice moved in from the northeast, it is thought to

have hit the west edge of the rock valley wall of the Hamilton (now

Great Miami) River and to have been diverted as fingers of ice down that

valley to the (recent) Ohio River where it continued down that valley

also as tongues of ice. It was also at this time that ice blocked offthe old drainage loop of the Ohio River (located north of Cincinnati and

just south of Hamilton) and carved a new channel across the present daymouths of the Great and Little Miami Rivers. The lower concourses of

these two rivers were also developed and the present day channel of theOhio River permanently established. The interglacial stage (Sangamon)

of the Illinoian glaciation stage saw little significant modification ofthe area. Weathering and dissection of the surficial deposits occurred

while stream degradation cleared valleys of glacially dumped detritus.

The last glacial stage to transgress this area was the Wisconsinan.

Ice advancing from the northeast was curbed from 10 to 50 miles north ofthe Ohio River in southwest Ohio and conforms to earlier glaciated

boundaries in eastern Ohio (apparently all of the glaciers lacked the

impetus to transgress this unglaciated area characterizing, by rock type

and age, a structural basin edge and topographic high). As the glacierretreated, it dumped debris in the valleys and mantled the uplands with

14

Geology (continued)

drift. The interglacial stage (recent times) subsequently sculpted thearea by weathering"and dissecting the uplands and providing numerousgeomorphic features" associated with ablation including terraces, streammeanders, cut and fill channels, oxbows, lacustrine deposits, streambraiding, alluvial fans, etc.

While the above narrative has served to provide an importantgeological, historical, and developmental perspective, it encompasses alarge area with Hamilton near its center of influence. The followingdescribes the more site specific conditions.

At the site location itself, the bedrock consists of unconformableOrdovician shales and limestones which structurally represent the crestof the Cincinnati Arch, although a major bedrock valley of possiblepre-glacial origin has carved a major structural variation. Apparentlythe site is located directly over this bedrock valley feature and isquite close to the apex of this remnant structure. The depth to thebedrock valley floor ranges from 118 to 210 feet in this area with theshallower depths representing the rise in the rock walls along the eastand west sides of the valley and deeper soundings found in the vicinityof the apex of the ancient valley which is located approximately belowthe existing Great Miami River. Although this bedrock valley is thoughtto have been formed originally during pre-glacial times, it hasundoubtedly undergone major significant modifications (probably severaltimes) during glacial and post glacial stages. Through advances of rockripping glaciation and subsequent rock scouring fluvial processes, thischannel may well have been widened to form the numerous embayments andlobes characteristic of the valley walls (Figure 4). This bedrockvalley is now filled with glacial drift and alluvium deposited after thelast glaciation stage.

15

BEDROCK VALLEY

PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE (REF.-MEAN SEA LEVEL)

WELL FIELD

(Modified after Bulletin 8. Groundwater Conditions in Butler and Hamilton CountiesState of Ohio. Department of Natural Resources )

FIG. 4. MAP OF REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW, BEDROCK VALLEY LIMITS,AND WELL FIELD LOCATIONS

Geology (continued)

A careful review of the previous glacial history indicates that theunconsolidated deposits comprising the valley fill were provided byretreating phases ef the Wisconsinan Stage glaciation of the PleistoceneEpoch from the Quaternary Period in the Cenozoic Era. During theglacial advance, ice from the north and northeast ripped up parts of theexisting soils, tills, and bedrock and redeposited this material inground and end moraines as drift when the ice receded. This driftmantled the upland areas forming the present river bluffs. The groundmoraines along with post glacial fluvial deposits acted as fill for theancient river valley.

A review of existing drilling logs along with 32 borings done forthe site specific evaluation provides most of the available informationregarding the local subsurface. Starting at the upper end of thesequence, filled or urban areas relating to the developments of man arepresent. In this area, these primarily take on the appearance of floodcontrol projects for bridling the vast energy of the Great Miami River.This fill is usually underlain by an interfingered brown-grey silt andbrown silty sand. The interbedded material is considered essentiallyone unit, despite its subtle grain size variations, due to a prevalentmarker, a prolific display of fragmented coiled gastropod shells.Interfingering is apparently caused by a differentiation of watervelocities within the same unit which may represent deposits ofdissected till coming from the adjacent bluffs or possibly indicate thebeginning of a soil zone. The brown silty sand grades into a coarsesandy gravel replete with silt lenses and clay pockets. This sandygravel is underlain by a dense, blue, lacustrine silt which gradesalmost imperceptibly to a green, dense, sand-silt clay. The lower unitis heavily loaded with glauconite and wood fragments. These two units(blue silt and green sand-silt-clay) represent a lacustrine depositionalenvironment. Apparently some type of damming further downstream (eitherice or an accumulation of previously deposited sediments) severelyrestricted the river channel and caused a backwater lake to form. Withthis decreased water velocity came additional silt and clay deposition.Apparently the lake was quite large as the silt-clay is found

17

Geology (continued)

extensively in scattered lenses throughout the entire Hamilton area. It

can also be presumed that the lake was deep and existed for a relativelylong time due to -the thickness of the silt material and the

blue-grey-green coloration of the material. Although the silt/clay zonemay have been extensive at its formation, it would appear that

subsequent fluvial processes have eroded this layer severely as it is

considerably th'inned in some areas and totally absent in others. Thesilt/clay is supported by another coarse sand and gravel sequence

representing an earlier, higher velocity and more active river. Thesequence grades downward into a silty brown sand. By this point, allborings in the site investigation series had terminated; however, other

borings in adjacent areas done for water supply wells indicate that the

sequence of gradational sands and gravels continues to depths of 200feet.

It seems apparent from the cross-sectional view (Plate 2 and 2A.)

that at least two river channels provide the basis of the depositionalhistory beneath the site. The major valley (represented by the abovediscussion) forms the original deposition. This channel runsnorth-south and in cross-section the trough tapers to the bedrock valley

walls and bluffs on the east and west. A second channel runs almosteast-west through the site and is now represented by the Ford Hydraulic

Canal. This relic channel (which may be indicative of an old meander oroxbow) crosses the main valley and joins the Great Miami River. The

interpretation indicates that the original channel-forming erosion cutdeeply into the gray lacustrine silt/clay, removing it entirely inareas, and redeposited sand and gravel fill in the channel to provide acontinuous sand/gravel sequence in the vicinity of B-12 and B-17 (see

Appendix A and Plate 1). These two sand/gravel zones act hydraulicallyas one unit as well. The secondary channels might also be interpreted

as cut and fill margins of the main valley.

18

Soils and Infiltration

The surficial soils in the area are typical of material weatheredfrom parent glacial deposits. These soils have been mapped andextensively clas'sified by the United States Department of AgrigultureSoil Conservation Services. This data is available from the "Soil Surveyof Butler County Ohio".

Most of the soils in and adjacent to the site area have beenclassified as some variety of the Eldean complex. This material isconsidered a relatively deep, level, well-drained loam located on streamterraces and outwash plains. The primary modification to this soil isthat of urbanization. Through this process, the soils may becomesignificantly altered by filling, building, excavating, farming, orassociated procedures. Engineering properties ascribed to this soil areshown in Table 2 taken from the Butler County Soil Survey report:

TABLE 2: Engineering Properties of The Eldean Urban Complex

Depth

0-6

6-26

26-32

32-60

USDA Text

Loam

Silty clayloam,

gravellyclay,

gravellyclay loam.

Gravellyclay loam,gravelly

loamgravellysandy loam

Stratifiedsand togravel

Classification

Unit

CL-ML

CL

CL.GC

GM,SMGP.GMSP.SM

AASHTO

A4.A6

A7.A6

A4,A6,A7

Al,A2

Frag-ments>3 in.

0

0-5

0-10

0-15

% Passing Sieve

4

80-iod75-100

55-85

25-70

id75-100

65-100

50-80

20-50

40

65-iod55-95

45-75

10-40

200

60-95

5080

40-60

5-35

LiquidLimit

20-40

35-50

30-45

—

PlasticLimit

4-14

14-25

8-20

NP

19

Soil and Infiltration (continued)

Additional data compiled in Table 3 show the physical and chemicalproperties of'this same soil (also taken from Butler county soil

report). Tire "permeability data from this table represents the

percolation rate one might expect in this soil as liquids conduct their

downward migration from the surface. (It should be noted thatpercolation tests are conducted under artificially saturated

conditions). Soil conditions as noted in the Butler County soil reportwere matched with soils taken from borings located on site (matching was

done by mechanical analysis using the Unified Classification System).Almost every sieve test conducted (32 total for 7 borings) classified

the material on site as belonging to the 32-60 inch zone of the EldeanUrban Complex. (Only one sieve test at the 12.5-14.0 foot level in B-19indicated a different zone-permeability, that from 0-6 inches.) Theapproximate thickness of soil material overlying the water table over

the site is 27 feet. Assessing the permeability rate ascribed to the36-60 inch zone of Eldean Urban soil and changing the units to more

workable dimensions, the following occurs:

1 x 6 inches x 24 hours x 1 foot = 60 feet0720" 1 hour 1 day 12 in. day

Thus it would take 0.45 days for any material spilled, dumped, or

entering the surface to reach the groundwater table. (Note: Obviously,this is a purely theoretical approach to the problem. Many assumptionsare made, among them the possibility that some constant supply ofinfiltrant is available. While this is possible due to the bulk amounts

of material stored at the site, there is no absolute indication that allor even significant amounts of this material were in fact contributed on

such a regular basis. A more realistic approach would be to assume thatwhere contaminants were contributed to the subsurface, they did so bydiscontinuous and erratic patterns and rates which were augmented by

natural rainfall. Individual spill events might have been initiallysoaked up by the soil only to continue further downward migration when

succeeding spills or rainfall episodes provided the media and impetus.)

20

Soils and Infiltration (continued)

A closer look at the site (Plate 1) shows many features which mightpreclude or slow down the rate of subsurface migration (parking lots,

building foundations, etc). Obviously, immediately below these features,contaminant seepage might be expected to be significantly reduced or

totally absent. One additional note should be added. Thesepermeability rates are based on the hydraulic and physical

characteristics of water. Where these same characteristics of thecontaminants vary from that of water, it should be expected that the

migration rates will differ. (Example: Viscosity is an important

parameter effecting the hydraulic nature of a substance. Typically,lighter fraction hydrocarbons might be expected to percolate much more

rapidly than water. It is also true that heavy fractions such as resinsand sludges might be expected to percolate at decreased rates.)

TABLE 3: Physical and Chemical Properties of the Urban Eldean Soil

Depth(in)

0-6

6-26

26-32

32-60

Permeability(in/hr)

0.6-2.0

0.2-2.0

0.6-2.0

> 6.0

Avail. Cap(in/in)

0.18-0.22

0.13-0.16

0.07-0.14

0.01-0.04

SoilReaction (pH)

5.6-7.3

5.6-7.8

6.6-8.4

6.6-8.4

Shrink-SwellPotential

low

moderate

low

low

ErosK

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.10

ionT

4

-

-

-

WindErosion

5

-

-

-

21

Soil Contamination and AnalysesIn regards to actual recorded subsurface contamination on site, some

chemical analysis of the soil samples were conducted. These are presented

in Tables 4-8'. " In the samples collected from the 0-1.5 foot interval (onsite), the following chemicals were found:

carbon tetrachloridechloroform ••toluenetrichloroethylenebis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalatedi-n-butyl phthalatehexachloroethanefluoranthenepyrenealdrin4,4-DDTheptachlor1,2-dichloropropane4,4-DDE2,4-dimethylphenolphenol3,4-benzof1uoranthenebenzo (k) fluoranthenebenzo (a) pyrenedieldrinPCB-1260

methylene chloridediethyl phthalatenaphthalenebenzo (a) anthracenecryseneethyl benzenetetrachloroethylene1,2-trans-dichloroethylene2,4 dichlorophenolendrinalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma-BHCendrin aldehyde1,2-diphenylhydrazineanthracenephenathracenebutyl benzyl phthalatefluorenedelta-BHC

If the cross-contaminants are subtracted from the above list, the following

substances can be removed:

methylene chloridedi-n-butyl phthalatediethyl phthalate

It should be noted that despite the overlying parking lot in the vicinity ofB-18 and B-19, some 14 organic substances were found in the soil immediately

below the asphalt.The next zone extends from 2.5 to 9.0 feet and represents some

compositing across individual borings. The following substances were found

on site:

22

TABLE 4. ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES ( o - i . 3 F E E T >PARAMETER /

/LOCATIONchlorobenzenechloroformcarbon tetrachloridemethylene chlor idee thy lbenzen etoluene

U22-tetrachloro ethanete t rach lo roe thv lenetnch lo roe thv lene1,1- dichloroethan e1,2- d ichloroethane1,2-dichloro propane1,1- dcch lo ro e thy l en e1,2- trans- dichioro

et hvl e n eph enol2 ,4-d ich loropheno l2 4- dim e t h v 1 oh e no 1bis (2 e t hy l hexy 1 )

phthaiated i - n - b u t v i phthaiated i -n -oc ty l phthaiateb u t v i b e n z y l phthalatd ie thy l phthaiateacenaphthen ehexachloroeth anef luoranthene1, 2-d iphenylhydrazinenaphtha lenef luoreneanthracenephenanthren ebenzo (a) anthracenechrysene3, 4- be nzof luoranthenebenzo (k) fluoranthenepy renebenzo (a) pvreneindeno (1, 2,3- c,d)

pyrene1,2-dichlorobenzeneaidnndieldr inealpha- endosulfan4, 4'- D D E4,4'-ODTendrinendnn aldehydeheptachlora- BHCb- BHCq- BHCd- BHCPCS 12.52.

B-10

1.11.952.2

.3

.1

.6

.3

ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS (ug / l )

B-14

.4,53.7

1.1

3

2.1

.2

.5

.1

.1

.1

B- 15

.8

.1

.3

.2

.3

.2

.4

.4

.3

B-16

6

6.51 1

113.5

.7

6.1

391

2.6

30.5

2.61.3

2.9.41.8.2

B -I6a67

1.9

6.8

.2

.5

B- 17

9.9•7

1100

620

M E T A L C O N C E N T R A T I O N Saluminumcalciumironz i ncpotassiummaqnespumsodiumsilverboronbariumbery IliumcadmiumcobaltchromiumcopDerli thi u mmanqanesemolybdenumnickelleadtinstront iumt i tan iumvanadiumyt t r ium

1300240076056

< 100280

<100c.30<. 836

<.10<.20<.6

1.19.9

< 123

< 11.6

< 7( 4

e4.7

<.52.5

55066000690

17< 10011000

16O< .30<. a45

<.10.481.51.6361.7260

< 11.9100

( 4B67.74.94.7

1200

670039031

250790190

< - 2 7

< 7.328

<.09(.18.84 _1.17.41.173

<.91

«. 1.48.2

< 3 - 6

205.9.8

1.9

4403600O70099130

5100580

t .27t 7.3

18<.O9

6296.5254.187

<.9115707.9355.9441.8

6902600051064130

4200140

t .27<. 7.3

2 8<.09t.1 8

1.11.77 23

110<.91< 1.4

46* 3.6

374.41.82-4

29051OOO250

16<10011000< 100< .3< B

19< .1

.67.931.5211.2160

< 1tl.5

12e. 4

572.53.12.7

B -18

.2

2.3

.1

.2

.1.1

.3

.3

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2.2

(m q8503100051037

360500

<80<.23<6.269.19

<.15.80

f.621402.6

130< .771.376

<3.1355.82.54.4

B- 19

.7

.3

.4

.1

.3

B -20

1

.3

.2

.3

9.1

.3

.913137.27.23.93.96.73.8

1.1

,3

1

1.7

B- 21

.7

.1

COM P.

.7

7

1000

3 1

~

1.2.9

1.4

.91.4.3

.337.8

/ k q )760

45000340

24< 70

72070

(.20<. 5.3

33.12.15.772.0193.1180

< .67< 1

29c. 2.7

58123.53.5

56054075012

< 7065

< 70< .21< 5.7

36.11

4 . 1

.46(.57

29i .76.2

<.711.6490

t 2.95-76.6

<. .41.6

57046000

61O44

< 90990

< 90< .27i 7.3

180.1216.8

<.73

613.3180

(.91t 1.4

67< 3-6

5643.93.8

60034900590175200

7240< 20

< .6<10

31.0

< .3.71.54.525.7

< . 2117

<. 23.212417. 619.6922.62.3

TABLE 5. ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES < 2 . 5 - 9 .o FEET>PARAMETER /

/LOCATIONchlorobenzenechloroformcarbon tetrachlondemethylene chlor ideethylbenzenetoluene1,1,22, tet rachloroethanete t rach lo roe thv lenet r ich loroethv lene1,1-dichiorethan e1^-dichloroethane1.2-dichlorcmroDane1,1-dichloroethvlene1,2- trans-dichloroe thylene1.1,1- trichloro e thaneDhenol2,4- dichloro phenol2,4 -dimethyl Dhenolbis ( 2-ethvl h e x v l ) ohthalatedi-n-butyj phthalatedi-n-octvJ Dhthalatebutyl benzyl phthalatediethyl phthalateacenaphthene

f luoran theneii2-diphenvlhydrazinenaphthalenef luoreneanthracenephenanthrenebenzo (a) anthracenechrysene3,4-benzofluoranthenebenzo (k) fluoranthenepyrenebenzo (a) pyreneindeno (1,2,3-c.d) pvrene

1% 2 — dichloro benzeneal dr indieidrinalpha endosulfan4,4'- DD E4.4'- DOTe n dri nendrin aldehydeheot achloralpha- BHCbeta - BHCgamma-BHCdelta- BHCPCB 1260

ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS ( u q / l )

B- 2

1

.2

B- 3

1

.1

.1

2

-» 2.4« 2.4» 2.1-* 2.1•» .9* .9

1.5.8

.2

.24

.14

B-16

1.9

1.7

1. 7

1.2

.1

METAL CONCENTRATIaluminumcalciumi ronzincpotassiu mm a a n esi umsodiumsi Ive rboronbariumberyll iu mcadmiumc o b a l tchromiumcopperI i thi ummanganesemolybdenumnickelleadtinstront iumvanadiumyttr iumtitanium

1100210001600

< 4150930

<. 90« . 27* 7.3

16« .09* .18

1.81.6151.5340

< .91« 1.4< 6.4< 3.6

322.72.241

1400

3100079020

3105100100

< .25<• 6.7

22<.08< . 17

1.21.916.993

< -83< 1.3

56< 3.3

332.22.88.4

43030000

31036

c 10O5900160

i .3< 840

< .10.511.51.6264. 7120

< 1.< 1. 5

53< 4

37•2J_2.3

6.6

B- 16

.2

.1

^-

B- 18

.6.5

.07

.2

.01

~>NS f ma/ka )350

72000150

< 4< 9010000

200< -27< 7.3

39t .09t.18

1.32

3.61. 2160

t.91< 1.4< 6.4< 3.6

1403

3.51.1

38063000240

t 4< 9010000

< 90<.27

< 7.344

< .09< . 1 8

.731.14.23.6150

< .91< 1.4< 6.4< 3.6

1203/44.22.3

B - 22 B - 26

.9 .9

.5

.9

9.1

.1

.1

390240001300

99< 80

3200< 80< .23< 6.2

8 1< .08

3.21.1

< .6 2190

2140

< .775.5

140< 3.1

411.31.45.3

1.5.8.1

" .2

.03

4 .2* .2* .2* .2* .2

* .2.2.3

42049000

3407

t 7071OO

4 70< .2 1< 5.7

26.11

< .14.83

1

8.22.8160

t .71< 1.1

460< 2.9

1202. 43.93.5

* Coe lu te

Soil Contamination Analyses (continued)

methylene chloride 1,1-dichloroethylenetoluene ' 1,1,1 -trichloroethanedi-n-butyl.phthalate aldrinbis (2,-ethylhexyl) phthalate alpha-endosulfandi-n-octyl phthalate chlorobenzenenaphthalene 1,2-dichloropropane1,1-dichloroethane diethyl phthalate

Of the above listed parameters, the following can be totally subtracted as

they may be contributed by other avenues or represent baseline limits:methylene chloridedi-n-butyl phthalatediethyl phthalatenaphthalene

In addition to the above, at least partial quantities of the followingsubstances can be deleted as they also appear as baseline limits:

toluene benzo (a) anthracenedi-n-octyl phthalate chrysenefluoranthene 3,4 benzofluoranthene

anthracene benzo (k) fluoranthenephenanthrene ' pyrenebenzo (a) pyreneThe next soil layer represents composite samples from 10.0-19.0 feet.

The following chemicals were found:

methylene chloride toluenedi-n-butyl phthalate bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalatediethyl phthalate di-n-octyl phthalate

butyl benzyl phthalate

25

TABLE 6. ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES 00.13 FEET)PARAMETER /

/LOCATIONchlorobenzenechloroformcarbon tetrachlor idemethy lene chlorideethy lbenzenetolu en eVj2>2- tetrachioroethanete t rach loroethy lenetr ich loroet hylene1,1- dichloro e thane1,2-dichloroethane1,2-dichloropropane1, 1-dichloroethvlene1,2- trans-dichloroethylenephenol2, 4 -dichloro phenol2, 4- dimethyl phenolbis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalatedi-n-butyl phthalatedi- n-octy l phthalatebut}H benzy l phthalatediethyl phthalateacenaphthenehexachloroethanefluoranthene1,2-diphenylhvdrazinenaphthalenefluoreneanthracenephenanthrenebenzo (a) anthracenechryseneS^-benzofluoranthenebenzo (k) fluoranthenepyrenebenzo (a) pyreneindeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene1,2- dichloro benzenealdrindieldrinalpha endosulfan4.4'- ODE4.4'- DDTendrinendrm aldehydeheptachloralpha - BHCbeta - B H Cgamma- BHCdelta - B H CPCB 1260

_ . ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS ( u g / l ) '

8- 12

.8

6.8,4

.3

.3

.5.5.5.5.3

B - 17

.3

.1

METAL CONCENTRATIONS (ma/kaaluminumcalciumironzincpotassiummagnesiumsodiumsilverboronbariumberyll iumcadmiumcobaltchromiumcopperlithiummanganesemolybdenumnickelleadtinstrontiumtitaniumvanadiumyt t r ium

140010000

800< 4

3802300

< 100< .3< 8

24< .10< .20t .6

1.29.61.267

< 1< 1.5

12< 4

176.1.82.5

25060000

210«. 3< 708000< 70< .21<- 5. 7

2 6< .07(..14

.701

2.83.178

< .71< 1.1< 5< 2.9

911.63.44

B - 19

.6

.6

.3

.1

.1

23068000

230<. 4< 9010000

< 90< .27< 7.3

23<• .09i .18< .55

1.52.63. 7130

< .91< 1.4< 6.4< 3.6

1101.73.43.8

Soil Contamination and Analyses (continued)The following substances can be subtracted from that list as they may havebeen contributed by other means:

methylene chloridedi-n-butyl phthalatediethyl phthalate

The last zone represents soil in the saturated zone (20.0-35.0 feet).

Chemicals found on site in this layer include:methylene chloride phenol

toluene butylbenzyl phthalatebis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate di-n-octyl phthalatedi-n-butyl phthalate naphthalenediethyl phthalate beta BHC

The following can be deleted due to cross contamination or baseline valuesequal' to or greater than those reported.

methylene chloridedi-n-butyl phthalate

diethyl phthalatePartial Quantities of the following should be deleted when considering thisdata as these parameters were found in the background data:

toluenebis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

27

TABLE 7. ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES < 2 o . 3 S F E E T >PARAMETER /

/ LOCATIONchiorobenzenechloroformcarbon tetrachloridemethylene chlorideethyl benzenetoluene1,1,22- tetrachloroethanetetr'achloroethylenetrichloroethylene1,1-dichioroethane1,2-dichloroethane1,2-dichloro pro pane1.1-dichloroethvlene1.2- trans- dichloroethylenephenol2,4-dichlorophenol2,4-dimethylphenolbis (2-ethyJhexyl) phthalatedi-n-butyl phthalatedi-n-octyl phthalatebutyl benzyl phthalatediethyl phthalateacenaphthenehex achloro ethanefluoranthene1.2-diphenvihydrazinenaphthalenefluoreneanthracenephenanthrenebenzo(a) anthracenechrysene3,4-benzofluoranthenebenzo (k) fluoranthanepyrenebenzo (a) pyreneindeno (1,2,3-c.d) pyrene1,2- dichlorobenzenealdrindieldrinalpha endosulfan4,4'- DD E4, 4'- 0 D Te'ndri nendrin aldehydehept achloralpha- BHCbeta- B HCgamma - BHCdelta- BHCPCB 126O

. ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS (ug/ l )

B -8

.8

.5

.1

B - 14

1.1

,1.2

.2

B - 1C

250.21 7

B - 17

.5

.1

.1.4

.1

B-17

.23.8

.1

.1

B - 19

.8

.4

.2

.1

B - 26

.7

,1.2

_

1.2j

METAL CONCENTRATIONS • (ma/ka)aluminumcalciumironzincpotassiummagnesiumsodiumsilverboronbariumberyl Humcadmiumcobaltchromiumcopperlithiummanganesemolybdenumnickelleadtinstrontiumtitaniumvanadiumyttr ium

11082000610

< 4< 10011000110

< .30< B

7.6< .10t.20.812.83.21.4200

<. 1< 1.5t 7< 4

1002.14.35.3

150120 OOO

410< 4t 100

11 000120

< . 30< 8

16< .10< .20

1.12.12.61 .62201.1

< 1.5< 7< 4

1502.14.45.2

578 9 OOO

370t 4* 90

5900110

< .27< 7.3

9.2t .09< .18< .55

21.91.1210

< .91< 1.4< 6.4< 3.6

1601.22.53.3

9874000

250< 4< 10017000110

< . 30< a

12< .10< .20< .60

2.62. 11.8120

<. 1< 1.5< 7< 4

591 .66.12.3

130100000

13007

< 1009OOO120

< .30< 8

11i .10< .20

.67<.80

5.44.3230

< 1< 1.5< 7C 4

1802.33.66.2

8462000270

< 4< 9011000

< .90<.27< 7. 3

7.1< .09< .2<• .5

1.71.93. 81 10

< .91<. 1.4< 6.4<. 3.6

531. 93. 72.7

1005 8 OOO

280< 3

< 809000

< 80< .25< 6.7

8.6< .08< .17< .50

.991.83.2130

<.83< 1.3< 5.8< 3.3

801.42.23.4

TABLE 8. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS IN THE SOIL SAMPLESLOCATION

COMPOUND /

/DEPTH

2 - but anon e3-methvl - 2-butanonei - bu tanoldiohenvlsulfidebis (1,1 dimethylethyl) phenol2-ohenoxv-1"1-biDhenol2-butoxyethylbutyl -

eslerphthalate(1-methvlethvi) benzene2-butoxyethylbutyl- ester 1,2-

benzene dicarboxylieacid

phosphoric acid, triphenyl -ester

cresol isomerethyltoluene isomertrimethvlbenzene isomertriDhenolohosDhine- oxidephosphoric acid tributyl -

estermethylpnenanthrene1.1.22- tetrachloroethanediiodomethane2,6,10,14-tetrame.thylpenta

decanetriohenvlesterohoSDhoric acid2,6-bis(i,1-dimethylethyl J -

2.5-evclohexadiene -1.4-dionev V-thiobisbenzene

4-hydroxy- 4-methyi-2-penta-none

hydrocarbon (general f i t )

B- 2

5 -

6.5

*

B- 3

2.5 -

4

•

B- a33.5-

35

•

••

B-10

O -

1.5

8-12

12.5-

1«

•

B-14

0 -

J.5

B-14

27.5-

23

•

B-15

O -

1.5

•

•

*

B -16

O -

~f

•

••

•

•

•

B-16

0 -

-f~

B-16

2.5 -

4

•

*

B-16

7.5-

9

•

B-16

33.5-

?5

•

•

B-17

O -

1.5

*

•

*••

B-"25 -

26.5.

•

•

B-17

15 -16.5

B-17

33.5-

35

•

•

8-18

O -

1,5

•—5

•

*

B-18

7.5-

9

•

*

B-19

0 -

1-5

•

•

•

B-19

1O -

11.3

B-19

20 -

21.5

B-20

0 -

1.5

•

•

8-21

O -

i-5

•

•

B- 22

2.5-

4

•

B- 26

2.5-

4

•

8-26

22.5-

-¥-

COM?

SURF.

The' compound! listed above represent the next most prevalent substances found (other than priority poMutantt) in th« soil which were identified witha SO*/.' certainty or better. No quantitative limits are inferred.

TABLE 9: Chemical Compounds in the On-Site Soil Samples(Grouped by Depths with Corrections Introduced)~~

Chemical/Zone

chlorobenzene

chloroform

carbon tetrachloride

ethyl benzene

toluene

tetrachloroethylene

trichloroethylene

1,1-dichloroethane

1,2-dichloropropane

1,1-dichloroethylene

1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

phenol

2,4-dichlorophenol

2,4-dimethylphenol

bis (2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate

di-n-octyl phthalate

butylbenzyl phthalate

hexachloroethane

fluoranthene

1,2-di phenylhydrazine

naphthalene

f luorene

0-1.5(ft.)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

2.5-9.0(ft.)

X

X

X

X

X

X

10-19(ft.)

X

X

X

X

20-35 ft.Saturated

X

X

X

X

X

X

TABLE 9: Chemical Coumpounds in the On-Site Soil Samples(Grouped by Depths with Corrections Introduced]

-continued-

Chemical /Zone

anthracene

phenathrene

benzo (a) anthrancene

chrysene

3,4 benzofluoranthene

benzo (k) fluoranthene

pyrene

benzo (a) pyrene

aldrin

dieldrin

alpha-endosulfan

4,4-DDE

4,4-DDT

endrin

endrin aldehyde

heptachlor

alpha BHC

beta BHC

gamma BHC

felta BHC

PCB 1260

0-1.5(ft.)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

2.5-9.0(ft.)

X

X

10-19(ft.)

20-35 ft.Saturated

X

Soil Contamination and Analyses (continued)By superimposing these lists over one another, eliminating all lab

inconsistencies, and subtracting baseline values, it can be seen that thesubstances listed in Table 9 are contributed to the soils from the site.Upon reviewing this table, the following conclusions are offered:

1. Most substances found in the saturated zone are also found on thesurface.

2. It appears that with increasing depth, there is a decrease in thenumber of contaminant compounds and that this might indicate thechemical sorption properties of the soils.

3. On the average, the majority of contaminants found in thesubsurface appear to be centered in the top 3.0 feet of soil,(although at site-specific locations, deeper penetrations may haveoccurred).

32

Hydrology

Groundwater development is the key to the industrial prominence andprolific population of the area (and most of Ohio). Almost all localpublic and private waster supplies for human consumption and a significantportion of water for industrial processing are derived from groundwatersources. Groundwater yields in areas of the Great Miami River Valley havebeen classified as some of the most productive in the Midwest. Totalgroundwater usage in the Great Miami River Valley is estimated at 100million gallons per day (mgd) while Hamilton accounts for about 18 mgd ofthis figure. Groundwater needs are expected to double by the year 2000.

Previously derived information, on-site drilling, and water level datacollected for an area south of Hamilton generally indicate that the aquiferis composed of hydraulically connected layers of alluvium which fill thebedrock valley to depths of 150-200 feet. Work done by the State of Ohioand the United States Geological Survey (USGS) show that the regionalgroundwater flow direction is to the south-southwest (following the rivervalley and system) at an average gradient of 5-10 feet per mile, althoughlocal variations may introduce more easterly or westerly components andalter this gradient. Coefficients of transmissibility range from 300,000to 500,000 gpd/ft and storage coefficients approximate 0.2. The hydraulicconductivity has been assessed at 5000 gpd/ft^. The studies furtherindicate that the aquifer is quite extensive and conditions are favorablefor additional groundwater development.

It is obvious that the Great Miami River exerts immense control on theentire hydraulic system. The river itself flows in a south-southwestdirection with an average yearly discharge of 3200 cfs. The base flow ofthe river was approximated at 490 cfs (Spieker, 1968). This figurerepresents an overall average discharge rate from the groundwater to theriver system. Local and seasonal groundwater recharge from the river hasbeen estimated at 400,000 gpd/acre of streambed (Spieker, 1968). Inaddition to recharge from the river, groundwater recharge may occur aswater infiltrates through soil material and migrates to the groundwatertable. Within the site area itself, it is expected that major recharge is

33

Hydrology (continued)

from infiltration, although just west of the site it is obvious thatrecharge is from the river (See Plate 3). Most groundwater recharge occursduring October-November and March-April due to the relatively evendistribution of precipitation throughout the year and recharge curtailingconditions such as evapotranspiration (May-September) and frost

(December-February). Due to seasonal variation in recharge, the watertable tends to fluctuate. Average yearly deflections in the water table 'surface range from 8 to 10 feet.

Within the study area, the aquifer is represented by sand and gravelsequences which have been structured by pre-glacial stream channeling (SeeGeology and Soil Sections). It is obvious that thick sequences ofclay/silt are present locally; however, it is equally apparent that thesezones are discontinuous. The interpretation is that either small secondarystreams or cut and fill sequences from the Great Miami River severelygouged into this clay/silt layer and redeposited sand and gravel in theresultant channels. This provides for a hydraulically connected sequenceof sand and gravel zones within the alluvium. It also provides unconfinedaquifer conditions (which were documented by Spieker, 1968).

The groundwater flow direction across the site is almost due west.Seasonal variations in precipitation may cause fluctuations in infiltrationand runoff thus forcing small changes in the groundwater flow components tothe north or south. Several groundwater surface maps were prepared forthis site.* These were broken down into groundwater events as suggested bythe groundwater elevations (Table 10).

The first event occurred from 12/17/80 until 1/3/81. Thirteen borings(B 1-13) were used to plot this surface which represents a high waterstage. The overall direction of flow is to the west; however, extremelylocal components show deflections in the water surface that indicate a "V"shaped curve centered over Black Street with groundwater moving to thenorthwest and southwest off this anomaly. Gradients towards the northeasttend to be steeper (0.005) and more uniform while gradients to the

southwest range from 0.006 to 0.003.

* Only one map was reproduced for this report and is represented byPlate 3 in the inside back cover. This plate represents an averagedgroundwater surface from the beginning of the investigation to itscompletion.

34

The second event occurred from 1/8/81 until 2/1/81 and represents a lowwater stage. Twenty-five borings were used to plot this map and three tofour separate elevations were averaged at each point to depict the watersurface. This surface shows a relatively uniform direction of flow from theeast to the river on the west. No evidence of groundwater recharge from theriver is suggested and it is apparent that, during this time, thegroundwater discharges directly to the river. East of the site thegroundwater surface is represented by a uniform series of parallel linesdepicting a gradient of 0.007. As the groundwater moves across the siteitself, the flow lines become somewhat jumbled but still show a westerlytrend.* West of the site, the groundwater takes on a slightly pointed "V"appearence with the apex of the "V" centered near Black Street. This wouldindicate that the groundwater takes on a slight northwest and southwest flowcomponent although the direction is still predominently west. Gradientshere spread out, ranging from 0.003 to 0.002.

The third event takes place from 2/17/81 until 4/20/81 and representsanother high water stage. Data averaged separately from 26 points wereplotted on a base map. This map probably provides the best accumulation of _data available for comparison purposes as it has more figures in theaverages and the values were taken further away in time from the drillingand setting of the wells. The groundwater east of the site indicates aslight bi-directional flow to the southwest and northwest. This wouldindicate a "V" shaped pattern with the apex pointing northeast. Gradientshere are steep (0.063) as a result of groundwater pooling behind theartificial flood control dikes. As the groundwater flows past this barrier,the gradient becomes much less pronounced (0.001) and the contour flattenssignificantly. Over the site itself, the groundwater contour again becomesquite distorted; presumably due to fill conditions and man-made barriers.West of the site, the contour assumes a "V" shape pointing to the southwestwith the apex centered over Black Street. Here gradients tend to fluctuatewidely but are generally steeper to the northwest and somewhat more gentleto the southwest. River recharge to the groundwater is present in thenorthwest at the intersection of the Ford Hydraulic Canal and the Great

Miami River.

* This groundwater deflecting could be caused by subsurface features suchas building foundations, filled areas, or clay layers or might beintroduced by surface anomolies such as concrete and asphalt which couldnon-uniformly change the amount of water infiltrating from this area.

35

One additional groundwater surface map was prepared after the draftreport was written from data collected on 12/10-11/81. The water levelsare not represented in Table 10.

This surface also resembles a "V" shaped contour with the apexcentered near Black Street. The averaged direction over the site areais to the northwest at a gradient of 0.001 to 0.005. Groundwateranomalies previously noted near the river have flattened out and thesurface shows a unidirectional dip to the Great Miami River. This ispresumably due to the relatively high stage of the river at this time.

Averaging conditions in the study area and (Plate 3) thepotentiometric surface over a period of time, shows that the groundwatergradient beneath the site is approximately 0.0013 (1/780); however, itis obvious that some pooling occurs east of the site where artificialflood control structures have changed the hydraulic conditions. Herethe dikes and berms build up subsurface hydrostatic pressures andrelease them at a somewhat steeper gradient before assuming the gradientcontours characteristic of the site. Artificial impounding of thesurface water in the Ford Hydraulic Canal also adds to this pressure byproviding a continual (and higher) hydraulic pressure which iscontributed to the groundwater as seepage.

As mentioned, the Great Miami River provides a hydraulic controlover the groundwater within the study area. As depicted on Plate 3, thelocal groundwater discharges subsurficially to the Miami River just eastof the river bank. This boundary undoubtedly fluctuates with rises ordrops in the river stage. During seasonally high stages, this boundarywould move closer to the site while during seasonally low stages, thisboundary would stabilize closer to the river itself.

Groundwater elevations are reported in Table 10. Althoughmeasurements were only taken for a four month period, a decided seasonalbreak can be seen in late March, particularly in areas removed from theriver. It would also appear that while seasonal fluctuations are not asprominent in wells near the river, these same wells exhibit more small,short-term fluctuations in water level.

It is apparent that while the river controls the elevation ofadjacent groundwater, artificial structures control the river, thusproviding some additional variations in the groundwater movement. One

36

TABLE 10: WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS

DATE

12/17/8018192122233031

01/01/81020308

r 19202128293031

02/01/811718242526272829

03/01/81• 02

030431

04/01/8102030607080910202122

Average

B-l

564.23

563.46

563.36

563.06

562.96562.76562.06562.81

562.46563.72

563.06

562.63563.49

562.98

B-2

564.20

563.90

563.50563.30

563.20

563.05562.78

563.30

562.64

562.74

563.17

B-3

562.71

562.86

562.36

562.26

561.96

561.76562.01

562.66562.16

i

562.12

562.14

563.29

562.33

B-4

562.40561.50561.50

561.40560.90

561.10562.56

562.40561.70

561.81

561.83

563.41

561.86

B-5

559.82559.82

559.32

558.92559.72

559.22560.14

560.52558.92

559.94

559.94

561.36

559.77

B-6

557.13

560.53560.53

559.83560.13

560.58562.64

561.83560.73

561.48

560.90

B-7

564.62

564.32

564.12

564.02

564.02

563.74563.92

564.12563.92

564.02

B-8

1

563.96

563.96563.46

563.46563.21

563.16562.93

563.46

562.82

563.68

563.35

B-9

563.05

563.96563.71

563.46563.46

—

—

563.26563.32

563.76

562.98

562.92

563.43


(continued)

DATE

12/17/8018192122233031

01/01/810203

Vu- °819202128293031

02/01/811718242526272829

> 03/01/8102030431

04/01/8102030607080910202122

Average

B-10

DRY

DRYDRY

DRYDRY

DRYDRY

DRYDRY

DRY

DRY

- B-ll

563.39

563.19562.09

562.59562.69

563.09562.44

563.19562.89

562.74

562.70

563.49

562.83

B-12

563.75

563.15562.85

562.55562.55

562.35562.47

558.75562.55

562.30

562.42

563.40

562.30

B-13

588.25586.05

585.85585.65

586.05586.98

585.75586.45

586.11

B-14

563.13

563.28

562.95

562.88

562.78

563.70

563.12

B-15

563.30

562.74

562.65

564.94

563.57

563.44

B-16

562.83

563.03

562.33

563.20

563.20

562.95

563.95

563.07

B-17

1

562.36

563.06

562.82

564.17

564.24

563.57

' 563.37

B-19

—


(continued)

DATE

12/17/8018192122233031

01/01/810203

•.r 0819202128293031

02/01/811718242526272829

S 03/01/8102030431

04/01/8102030607080910202122

Average

B-20

DRY

DRY

DRY

DRY

DRY

- B-25

.

563.88

563.78563.78

563.15

563.57

B-26

566.98

564.28564.28

564.28

B-27

563.91

563.81

563.60

563.56

563.66

B-28

563.14

563.24563.04

563.14

B-29

590.68

590.58

589.34

589.69

590.07

B-30

564.05563.50562.88

563.24

562.82564.74564.14

563.55

B-31

563.05562.35561.60

562.01

562.06561.89563.65563.41

562.42

B-32

1

~~~:

563.67563.73563.53

563.63

such control and variation is the Ford Hydraulic Canal. This structurewas formed by damming the Miami River further north and diverting aportion of the river through what appears to be a remnant channel of anancient Miami River. The diversion flows along the north end of thesite through a- small dam used by the city power plant. This second dampools water in the hydraulic canal causing seepage. Another dam acrossthe Great Miami River north and west of the site, but south of the firstdam mentioned, controls water entering from Two Mile Creek. Groundwaterrecharge in this area due to river sources is minimal; however, belowthe dam (parallel to the site and the hydraulic canal) rapid recharge ofthe groundwater from the river is probable. This is due in part to theexcavation work of the river control projects and in part to the largelyscouring nature of the river below the dam. (Above the dam silt/clay isapparently being deposited as the dam causes a drop in the river watervelocity and subsequent stream dumping of suspended sediments.)Groundwater in the vicinity of B-l (old city well field) seems to becontrolled by the river since fluctuations in river stage show up onwater level recordings in this area, albeit at a lower rate and less _distinct magnitude than wells closer to the river.

In order to determine some quantitative information about theaquifer, Darcy's equation will approximate existing conditions ifcertain assumptions are made. First the aquifer is considered toexhibit laminar flow characteristics. Additionally, only that portionof the aquifer which is saturated will be evaluated. Based on the aboveassumption, Darcy's equation is:

Q= K x dH x AT

WhereQ= discharge rateK= hydraulic conductivitydH"3T = hydraulic gradientA= cross sectional area through which water flows perpendicularly

across the site.

By filling in the assigned values:

Q= XK= 667 ft/day (Personal communication with Miami Conservancy District)

40


d^= 1dL 7SO~ (Plate 3, calculated)

A= 162 ft-x 1500 ft (taken from Plate 2 and 2A and borings logsfrom Beckett Paper and city water supplies)

Q= 667 ft x 1 ft x 243,000 ft2 = 1.62 x 108

day TBOfT 7.80 x 102

Q= 2.077 x 105 = 207700 ft3 x 7.5 gal =day TTt3

Q= 1,557,750 gpd = 1,560,000 gpd

Likewise, the velocity may be approximated using:

V= K x W x 1dL NE

Where:

V= velocityK= hydraulic conductivitydH = hydraulic gradientdLNE= effective porosity

By filling in assigned values:

V= XK= 667 ft/daydH = 1 or 0.00131C 780NE= 30% (derived by approximating the order of magnitude of the

permeability in cm/sec and referencing Walton, 1970)

V= 667 ft x 1 ft x 1day TWt 0.30

= 667 = 2.8 ft?3T Hay

It should be noted that both Q and V are approximations using the

best available data. In addition to the above, a transmissibility

value of 520,000 gpd/ft and permeability value of 5000 gpd/ft2 have

been reported for this aquifer (personal communication - Miami

Conservancy District, 1981).

41

Heavy dated lines indicate the position the pollution front might beexpected to assume by April, 1981 if the downward migration of contami-nants had reached the water table by the indicated year. (All datesare referenced from the month of April of each year and through themonth of April in 1981. The approximate site area is depicted bythe hatchured pattern. (Base map modified after Hamilton City Mapby Hagstrom.1979.)

FIG. 5. POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT PLUME BOUNDARIES THROUGH TIME


By conducting some data manipulations, a generalized approximationof contaminant migration can be made. Based on the percolation datapresented in the "Soil and Infiltration" section, it is reasonable toexpect that contaminants contributed to the surface could easily havereached the groundwater table as early as April, 1976. This date wasprojected by starting with the time Chem-Dyne was well into itsoperations (March, 1976), assuming some spill had occurred, and using a60 foot/day percolation rate. Downward contaminant migrationencountering the water table could be expected in 0.45 days. If thiswere the case, contamination reaching the groundwater would then movelaterally (west) at a rate of 2.8 feet per day. This would indicatethat by the end of 1976 the contamination would have traveled 767 feetor approximately to Third Street in Hamiliton. Based on the above, itwould have taken an additional 9 months to reach the river. Thus,contamination could have been contributed to the Great Miami River byas early as September, 1977. As mentioned in the "Soil andInfiltration" section, these calculations are highly theoretical andbased on some assumptions and derived mathematical systems. Nature maynot act accordingly. Therefore, a series of calculations were done toillustrate where the edge of the contaminant plume might be expected byApril, 1981 given the characteristics of the aquifer and subjectivearrival dates of contaminants to the groundwater surface (Figure 5.)It is obvious from the preceding discussion and from the drillingphases of the investigation that off-site contamination of thegroundwater is possible even if the migration began as late as January,1981 (Appendix A & B).

The hydrology discussion thus far has centered on aquiferconditions and characteristics as they exist. As was noted earlier,man has significantly altered the surface water regime of this area.It is intuitively obvious that significant alteration of thegroundwater regime has occurred due to man's dependence upon thegroundwater in this area for a potable water supply. Numerous studiesand investigations have been conducted on the Great Miami River Basinand its aquifers. These reports depict existing conditions, assess thepotential for further development of the groundwater in the area, and

43


try to predict and resolve potential problems for future consideration.The reports provide at least two good diagrams of how the groundwater inthe area has been modified. The first (modified in Figure 4) generallyshows pumpage centers within the valley as noted by 1944 data. Majorpumpage centers are indicated around the old city well field, ChampionPaper, and Beckett Paper (the nearest fields to the site.) The old citywell field shows a decided influence over the site, ostensibly, so doesthe Champion Paper well field. Apparently the Beckett field is too farremoved from the site to modify the groundwater flow direction orgradient by pumpage. Contribution of contaminants to the old city wellfield or alteration of the contaminant plume due to pumpage probably didnot occur as the field was abandoned in 1935, 46 years prior toChem-Dyne's inception. Today only an observation well is still intact.Contamination of the Beckett field is likely as it lies directlydowngradient of the site and within the 1979/1980 plume lines.Modification of the groundwater flow direction and gradient andcontamination of wells is probable due to pumpage by the Champion PaperCompany. Also, a more recent classification of the pumpage centers inthe Great Miami River Basin (Spieker, 1968) indicates a somewhatdifferent pumpage patter.

Figure 6 depicts this difference. Apparently, smaller fields werenot assessed in this later study. (Personal communication with theMiami Conservancy District indicates that pumpage characteristics areprobably not significantly different today from these studies.)According to a well location index map provided by the Ohio GeologicalSurvey, development of the groundwater aquifers as a source of potablewater by small scale operations has been so extensive as to preclude anyreliable assessment of drawdown configurations or possible contributionsto groundwater flow direction or gradient modifications. In most cases,these are small operators and private individuals which do notsignificantly contribute to aquifer modification. On a regional basis,

these users might slightly move a piezometric contour line but it is notfelt that any change of the groundwater regime in the site area occurs.

44

PIEZOMETRICSURFACE

Piezometric surface referenced to mean sea level. (Modified afterSpieker, 1966.)

FIG. 6. MAP OF CURRENT WELL FIELD EXTENT

Groundwater Quality

After the borings were drilled and the wells installed, samples ofthe groundwater were collected and screened with an OVA. Based on thesedata, the first preliminary sampling was conducted in January, 1981.Four upgradient (B-1,8,9,13) and four downgradient (B-5,6,11,17) wellswere sampled. Results are reported in Table 11. Well B-13 showed nocontaminants (All samples were analyzed for priority pollutants in thevolatile and base/neutral fractions - Table 17). Well B-l showedquantities of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. As yet, no explanation forthis material being present has been formulated. Wells B-8 and 9 showedquantities of chloroform and dichloroethylene. As these wells areconsidered upgradient, some explanation must account for these highconcentrations. Several hypotheses (not mutually exclusive) are offeredbelow:

1) Although the groundwater does flow west, there is a rechargeboundary west of the site and east of the river where thegroundwater discharge meets river water recharge. This zonefluctuates (east and west) as the subsurface conditions fluctuatewith seasonal variations (See Hydrology section). If the riverdischarge was high enough, it could move to the site area, backingup the groundwater discharge.

2) As shown on Plate 1, waste was stacked on the parking lot just northof the field and east of the site at least for some period of time.Leakage from here could have seeped and/or flowed to wells B-8 and9.

3) Seepage and migration in the unsaturated zone may have allowedcontaminants to migrate east until such time as the groundwatertable was reached when pollutants would have moved west. This wouldbe especially true of B-8 as it is right on the eastern border ofthe fence; however, it is not as likely for B-9 which occupies aposition somewhat removed from the site.

46

TABLE 11: Preliminary Sampling Results of Off-Site Wells

January, 1981

Compound

Dichloroethylene

Chloroform

1,2-Dichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethylene

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Concentration (ug/1)Upgradient Wells

B-l B-8 B-9 B-13

45

3279

89

Downgradient WellsB-5 B-6 B-ll B-12

2117

609

1958

3929

324

Groundwater Quality (continued)

4) Sampling error - Small amounts of substances (especially acetone)might be contributed from lab procedures, collection bottles, orother sampling equipment.

Samples from wells B-5, 6, and 12 also seemed to lack anysignificant contaminant concentrations. This is due either to the factthat migration of pollutants has not reached these wells (probably thecase in B-5 and 6) or that dilution or attenuation of the contaminants isso great that by the time they reach these wells, contaminants are notdetectable. Well B-ll showed significant amounts and types ofcontaminants (Table 11). This well occupies a position that makes it theclosest downgradient well to the site. Numerous peaks indicative ofnon-priority pollutant organic substances were reported in B-9; however,these were not qualified nor quantified. (USEPA specified in their workproposal that only ICAP metals plus arsenic, mercury, and prioritypollutants be quantitatively reported. Qualitative analysis of the next20 most significant organic substances were also reported.)

A second preliminary sampling occurred in February, 1981. At thistime, three on-site wells and two private off-site wells were tested.Results are listed in Table 14 (Appendix 8). Table 14 shows that allthree on-site wells contained significant amounts of carbon tetrachlorideand chloroform. In addition, B-14 and B-15 showed many chemicals atconcentrations below 10 ppb, while B-17 is the most contaminated well.

Slight amounts :of phenol and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were foundin the private water supplies located downgradient. Only the water fromChampion Paper Company is considered to be within the sphere of influenceof the site. In this round of sampling, metals were also analyzed.These are listed in the lower half of Table 14. Due to the analyticalprocedures involved with testing metals, it is felt that these datacontain both concentrations of metals in the ground water andconcentrations of metals broken out of the soil minerals. This becomesapparent if one considers that the amount of soil found in the local wellsupplies is greatly reduced due to continuous pumping of water throughthe gravel pack around the well and equivalent concentrations of metalsdo not appear in these samples. Similar pumping was not conducted at the

on-site wells.

48

TABLE 12: Second Preliminary Sampling-On-Site Wells

And Private Well Supplies

February. 1981

Compound

PhenolNaphthaleneBis(2-ethylexyl)phthalateButyl benzyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateAnthracenePhenanthrenePyreneBenzene1,1-DichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideChloroform1,1 DichlorethyleneMethylene ChlorideDichlorobromomethane1,2-DichlorobenzeneBis(2-chloroethyl )ether1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2-Trans-DichloroethyleneEthyl benzeneTetrachloroethyleneTolueneTrichloroethyleneAluminumChromiumBariumBerylliumCadmiumCobaltCopperIronNickelManganeseZincBoronVanadiumCalciumMagnesiumSodiumArsenicMercuryThallium

Concentrations

On-Site WellsB-14

***********1,7001,000***

Ib/.UUU330

1,42065

120280

260,000360

3,3602,060339130

916,000262,0008,400

801

B-15***

*

*

150150

*

*

blfa.UUU570

3,50018

3601,220

1,420,000920

11,8007,40090040

1,680,000662,00013,000

1.33

B-17

1,000**

1,300350

1,1004,000200

1,000140

*130

12,0004,000900

17,00014,000

28080

1,8004,500/y/,uuu990

10,1002810510

2,3102,070,000

1,38024,3009,540670140

8,020,0001,930,000124,000

1.0210

(uq/1)City orHamiltonSupply*

*

110

340

280

86,20025,30013,000

LhampionPapersWell

*

*

-

-

130

160

190

98,30028,40026,100

* Concentrations less than 10 ug/1.


Even though it is expected that metal concentrations would behigher in on-site and downgradient wells (when compared to background

locations) there is no way to differentiate this value from the totalvalues reported. (Note: Organic analyses are not similarly

affected.) One additional note should be made. Blank samples are runalong with regular samples. These provide a quality control on lab

and sampling techniques. Trace amounts of the'following constitutents

were found in these blanks at concentrations below 10 ppb which isusually considered to be the lowest detectable limit.

phenolbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

di-n-butyl phthalate

benzene

chloroform

methylene chloridetoluene

Most metals found in the blank also assumed concentrationsconsidered at or below detectable limits. The following are noted

above that level:

iron (40 ppb)zinc (20 ppb)calcium (300 ppb)sodium (400 ppb)

The last sampling (April, 1981) of the groundwater provides the

basis for determining the contamination associated with the site. Atthis point in time, all wells that were to be permanent were in place.

All temporary wells had been removed and their boring holes sealed

with grout. In addition, the well sampling locations were developedand sealed to prevent any tampering (See Appendix B). Results of these

analyses are reproduced in Table 13.

50


Wells B-l, B-27, and B-29 are considered to be in an upgradientposition from the site .and adequately located to assess backgroundconditions. All of the wells show reportable concentrations of methylenechloride and B-l and B-27 additionally show bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.

Concentrations below 10 ppb are noted in the table but will be deletedfrom this text. As can be seen, these data represent existing

groundwater quality upgradient of the site. (As will be explained later,

low concentrations of some organics may be contributed by sampling andlab techniques. Undoubtedly the organics found in B-l, 27 and 29represent these values.)

As noted earlier, B-8 and 9 are located on a fringe area and as such,may represent contaminated areas. In any case, the groundwater in thesewells show significant amounts and types of contaminants above the

background levels. The following substances are noted:

methylene chloride ethylbenzene

chloroform 2,4-dinitrophenolcarbon tetrachloride chloroethane

1,1,1-trichloroethane 1,1-dichloroethane

tetrachloroethylene 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

Small increases in the concentrations of the following metals were also

noted:zinc calciumaluminum barium

These changes probably represent the effects that the percolatingchemicals have on the soil.

51


Five permanent wells were installed on-site. B-20 has remainedessentially dry throughout the investigation. As mentioned earlier, B-17

contains the most contaminants both in quality and quantity. The other

on-site wells (B-14, 15, and 16) also show concentrations of contaminants

in the groundwater above background levels. These contaminants represent

the materials being contributed from the site to the groundwater and

provide an idea of what to look for in off-site wells. The followingsubstances were noted:

methylene chloride vinyl chloride

chloroform 1,2-transdichloroethylene

carbon tetrachloride 1,1,1-trichloroethane

1,2-dichloroethane 1,1,2-trichloroethaneethyl benzene 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane1,1-d i ch1oroethylene tri ch1oroethylene

1,2-dichloroethane 1,1-dichloroethanebenzene toluene

Eleven wells were installed off site and in downgradient positions.

These are generally grouped by their distance from the site. Well B-2 isimmediately outside and south of the site about 50 feet. No significant

amounts of organic contaminants and only moderately elevatedconcentrations of calcium, magnesium, boron, and iron were detected.

These substances might be accounted for by the thick lacustrine silt/clayzone found in this boring. Essentially, this well is uncontaminated thusindicating that most lateral migration of the groundwater at this point is

due west. (This might be expected as the clay may act as a barrier tosouthward migration.)

The next downgradient zone consists of wells B-12, 11, 10, and 25.

These wells range from 100-200 feet west of the site. Well B-10 has alsoremained essentially dry throughout this investigation. Concentrations of

chemicals in B-12 remain less than background levels (except zinc andmagnesium) thus indicating either no pollution has reached this well or isso dilute so as to remain undetectable. Well B-ll has proved to be the

most contaminated downgradient well. It also occupies the closest

position to the site. The following contaminants were noted:

52


chloroform 1,1-dichloroethylene

carbon tetrachloride 1,2-dichloroethane

vinyl-chloride 1,1,1-trichloroethane

1,2 trans-dichloroethylene 1,1,2-trichloroethane

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane zinc

barium iron

manganese calcium

magnesium

Most of the metal contamination noted probably represents an active

breakdown or reaction of the contaminants with the soils. Under such

conditions, metals found in the mineral structure of the soil are removed

and placed in solution in the water while another chemical replaces that

metal ion in the soil.

Well B-3 is located approximately 650 feet downgradient from the

site. Concentrations of di-n-butyl phthalate, vinyl chloride, aluminum,

iron, manganese, calcium, and magnesium were found elevated above back-

ground levels.

The next downgradient zone of wells consists of B-5, B-4, and B-6.

These wells are located approximately 1000 to 1200 feet from the site.

Concentrations of the following are noted above background levels:

di-n-butyl phthalate

methylene chloride

2,4-dinitrophenol

Two wells (B-30, B-31) were placed approximately 1200 feet away from

the site and next to the river. As such, these wells probably reflect

the quality of the river water. No significant concentrations of

contaminants were noted.

Other sampling in the area at this time involved the surface water

and local well supplies. Three points on the Great Miami River were

sampled. Only butyl benzyl phthalate, aluminum, and iron were found in

significant amounts above background levels. Of these, aluminum and iron

can probably be subtracted as they may have been contributed from the

breakdown of soil material being transported by the river. No

53

Groundwater Quality (continued)significant concentrations of organics were found in the three hydrauliccanal samples collected and only aluminum and iron were higher than

background (aga-in probably contributed from solids in .the water).Sampling of three local well supplies also showed no significant

contamination by either organic or inorganic priority pollutants.It should be reemphasized that only priority pollutants were quanti-

fied in this sampling. Samples taken from on-site and off-sitedowngradient wells all included many substances that were not mentioned

in the above analyses. It is felt that, while quantifiable amounts ofpriority pollutants may not have been found in wells located further from

the source, had quantification of the more prevalent non-prioritypollutants been performed, pollution may very well have been confirmed at

these locations. For example, visual observations of B-17, while it wasbeing installed, noted gross pollution of soil and groundwater, which, it

is felt, was not subsequently quantified by groundwater analysis.Qualification of non-priority pollutants listed 18 out of 20 parameters

with an identification certainty of 90% or better (Table 14).In summary, it appears that while groundwater contamination has

occurred, gross contamination is presently limited to the site and zones

three hundred feet east of the site and two hundred feet west of thesite. Contamination at B-3 (650 feet west of the site) is probable.Past these areas (particularly further to the west), either contamination

has not yet migrated, or dilution and dispersion of the contaminants isso rapid that little or no detectable contamination is observed. It

also appears that contamination of the surface water and local well

supplies has not yet occurred.

54

TABLE 13._tAMPLt LOCAIION

EQUfQUMO

JMiiAllLtl llllKtlJ

31sill PI'T

1 in4ii|ii>t<nfell Jy flHfltttmflt flhlttJUtr

j,t «'•*• d,iHloro.ll.,i.Bt

Iv'*..//''''""""""1""

MlliM.1

if It1!

(nrom.-m

S":.. - - :" - "

;T

T

!

TT

»T

r• ~ -_

CHEMICALUPOJIADlltlf W»Llt

» 1

430

40

naoo•7 MB

• 40• 1Q

4,0

4iO~

IO.4

41,4

i JO

• hi

Jtb

4*5i»6IJ100014000

'?

•30

I4O

I 49

*

iP

to0

2810

Ho1400

79Q

1

aoJ6

'0 _

CON<

n »

I

t

H300

«I4O

•40O

0 "two

o1630

IOJ4OOO5100

3

,\4020IO10SOto

-EN

*'*::•

dr

,3Q-

400

(40

10"400

100

144000

• IOVf

< IO,40

130• «J

.iff

TRATON-TfiBTf-Wt-1--W-

f

1940

2JJOO

"»

<30

HO•Yo190

43O

iio "

ioiooQwaooo

,*40

(2O

ifo

(10

• U_

2)0

30

"l4p—

34O€'l(T

*»«J64 IO10X100lojqoo

, 3

.40

>2O

<10

i IN THE

• -U.

H.T

j»a

)*.»

r

no- ~

iio" ~• 20

11UXJ14100

410

'*

(30 "140

• 20,iO

{-

Jlfe"stfi —

3140

~SW

430

i9^_-

1 "

Jgoj

11LQQQMtOO

• 10

!?

,4O

430

:??

: GROUND AND«- . ..• . . .._-..•_. pg

: ;

•20

no

too

1*20

CIO

400.

itCQQ

• 10

• 20

• ?d

;Hr-

' .

_

44.,

,10.10

.10

• 40

•O4 IO

114QOO

• MV5 —

itri 30

J,fF

* -

U.I

Tt.4

111cu1190

( 10

1 1.10700<3OISOIO

MO

.10

1110C

• J

. 107TC

;?#—

—

SURF

"~3

-r

•ACE WATERS <"«-(*T — »i u» r

"* -

"i

no—

M8--wo

- 10140 _J10

.10

« a

.JO

•1C

r£--

n:;

TJO -

4 2Ono —

ISO

;~RJ

izasQCJJOOO,1,0-6

( IO

ih

• 10

V-43

*

114

•; 10

rio —4BO

*g4 IO

110000if too27200

4 10

440

420

4 10

JJF

,*-44-1

( 20

.•1--,Sr-

140

JTOOO

,40

iio-

^

no —«,Q

•to

10*000

fiib^

.-J

il

• -

J

-• —

1— • —

, ao

.10

TO

fill• IO

• 26410

•IT:

1. 1

ff -

1

in

57 I

ne —no-no''iboo

•75—

• 4*00

ioooo14*00• 10

• 40• 30• 10

•30 "00

MJUlfll

720

710

1 10"iao40

1430

7O

294OO

430 "

• 30410

«»_--_

t»l

*

4 30

l!£)0014IOOffaoo

J f720-• 40

4 IO

:?S"--

~Ct1

"2T.T

40O4OOO3KOO

1*100

If

• 46• 30

MO

*p

11. >

rra —

.M)

« i?1140

to44)00TO 100

it,40

; 30,10

iiT

a.n,

K'

-

ao'90

HO9OO

.*•

.30

•10

1

?f! M.r_p.

3*,. 6

MMO

»

7500

to; 2

4030

> 10

10

*LL VUI UI»

*

3010

• 40

4 2O

!*!«h;-f---

•20

410

•10

«,._

20

• IO

30Q

. 10i 2O

-3s-SSSrlbWO_. IO

. »> 10.«0

Hr—

. 10

V*»Tlt AT L^AiT IWOWN I

COHCIMTRATiONt 111-, TM,

COltCtNIHAItON'. l| ... IH

TABLE 14 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED DRGANICS IN THE GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS

LOCATIONS

CO

MP

OU

ND

S

Known WastesUP

GRADIENT

ON

SITE

DOWN

GRADIENT

RIVER

CANAL

PRIVATE

B-1B - 2 7

B- 29B-14

B- lS

B-1C

B- 2OB - 8

B- 9

B- 2S-12

B -11

B- 1O8 - 2 5

B- 3

B- 5B- 4

B- 6B - 3 1

B -3O

S -102

S -2O 2S-302

S- 1O1S-2O1S -301

HAMILTONCHAMPION

FAIRFIELO

1.1

d

ime

thyl

cycio

pe

nta

ne

ars

ine

TI* •

«

i

(< <

iI •

*

12-m

eth

vi 2

h-t

etr

az

ole

1

1.3

d

ich

ioro

b

uta

ne

|

•

••

1

•

•

5-c

yclo

ne

xylm

eth

yl

I2

-Dvrn

lid

ino

ne

1

*•

••

•

•

c

£

>C

t

6n<n

•

3-c

hlo

ro

2m

eth

vl

1-p

roo

en

e

I

•

• •

• •<

•

11,4

d

ion

e

2.5

c

vclo

he

xa

die

ne

tetr

afi

uo

ro

me

tha

ne

T

•

•

• •

•

r4 -

me

thyl

2-

pe

nta

no

ne

(me

thyl

Iis

ob

utv

l ke

ton

e >

I

T

3,3

d

ich

ioro

1

-pro

pe

ne

|

I2. 3

. 5

tnm

etn

yl

- 6

-(3

me

thyl-

I2

-bu

ten

yl)

2

,5-c

yclo

ne

xa

die

ne

1|4

dio

ne

I

2h

-1O

la

-(e

po

xy

me

tho

ne

)o

xir

en

o

4,5

cyclo

de

ca

1,2

bif

ura

n-

1.2

-on

«

trif

luo

ro

bo

ran

e

|

•

2 h

-cyclo

pro

p /

a/

na

ph

tha

len

e -2 -o

ne

,1,

1a4,

5,6

,7,

7a

,7b

o

cth

yd

ro1.1

. 7.

7a

•

•

1,1,

2

tric

hlo

ro

1,1

,2

triflu

oro

1

eth

an

e

1

V

•4

-flu

nro

1

,1'b

ioh

en

yl

I

•

•

•

4

"..'I*

*"*-."

* J

L.\l,T

^

•1

3-c

hlo

ro

1.2

.4

tna

zo

le

•

n(2

.6

dim

etn

yip

he

nyl)

i- m

eth

yl

2-

oip

eri

din

e

ca

rbo

xim

ide

3-m

eth

vl

1 h

-pv

raz

ole

• »

•

•

•

••

4.5

. C

. 7

tetr

a

1 h

-1

. 3

-dia

reo

ine

3.3

, 3

- tr

ich

loro

1

-Dro

oe

ne

>•

•

2-m

eth

vl,

5

-eth

vl

he

pta

ne

oxe

tha

ne

V

•

•

ure

ab

is-d

ihy

dro

, 2

.2

(1-m

eth

yl 1

,2-

eth

an

ed

iyi

ide

ne

)h

yd

raz

ine

ca

rbo

xim

ida

mm

e7

. m

eth

yl

no

na

no

ic

acid

me

thvl

este

r4

-me

thv

l p

he

no

l

L

i

1 I

hi1 c E

f

- ni -' tIj.'jU C O c >. C f C

S i S SU M 1S S% E

* T3 ^ ~ °

U • , '(1 CM ^ ft m

eth

vl (

me

thvls

ulf in

vl)

b

en

ze

ne

7-h

-ov

raz

olo

(4

. 3-d

) o

vri

mid

m-7

1«5

dih

yd

ro

4h

- p

yra

zo

lo3

.4

dio

vri

mid

in -

4-o

ne

3-m

eth

vl

pe

nta

ne

F

9

• \4

I

2-

ch

loro

2

-me

thy

t p

rop

an

e1

,2

be

nz

en

e

dic

arb

oxy

he

Jc i

d(o

hth

aiic

acid

)1.3

.5

tna

zm

e1

.3

dic

hio

ro -

1 -

Pro

oe

ne

2 m

eth

yl-

2

, 3

» d

ich

ioro

p

rop

an

ol

» • • •i 9

w

trim

tro

m

eth

an

e2

- »

rop

vn -

i -

ol

2i3

-d

ich

ioro

- 2

-m

eth

vl

oro

Da

no

l4

- m

eth

yl

- 5

• n

yd

roxy

* 6

-he

pte

n•

T -

one

••

•

*•

2 •

imid

azo

idm

on

e

i -

me

thvl

-5 -

me

tho

xv

- i

-oro

i me

• • V

•

tetr

a m

e th

y 1

Q

vn

da

j i n

1 ,1

d

ich

ioro

2

-eth

y i

cyclo

pro

pa

ne

(2-h

yd

roxyp

he

nyl)

ph

en

yl

me

tha

no

ne

ch

ioro

ace

tic

aci

d b

ut vi

es

ter

1 -

h-i

, 2.4

. -t

na

zo

l -3

-a

m-r

e2

, 3. -

dic

hio

ro -

2-m

^tf

tyi

•*

* 4

rf

»

• •

•• » •

i t

- t^i to -^

E " £ a

•6 ^ ti

t

•

••

• •

A Substances which at a minimum are known to have been transported to the site.

• Substances which have been identified with a 9O*/« certainty or better. No quantification is inferred.

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

This investigation was conducted to determine the hydrogeological

setting and assess the potential effects of a hazardous waste processing

facility in Hamilton, Ohio. The Hamilton/Chem-Dyne facility consists ofapproximately 20 acres located on the north side of Hamilton in ButlerCounty, Ohio. This facility was operating as a hazardous wasteprocessing plant by 1976. Observers of the operation allege such

questionable practices as spillage of chemical contaminants on the

ground, discharge of chemicals to sewers, storage of leaking drums on thesite and adjacent property, and improper storing and handling of

potentially toxic materials. Several fires and the release of noxiousodors and gases have been reported along with discharges of pollutants tothe ground and surface water.

Thirty two borings were made on site and in the surrounding areas tocollect soil and water samples, measure physical and chemical conditionscontrolling the subsurface and hydrogeology, and assess parameters todetermine the effect and extent of contamination. In addition, samplesfrom surrounding surface waters and local well supplies were collected

and analyzed. A review of all available information was also conductedand the following conclusions were formulated.

The site lies within the Great Miami River Valley. The geology inthe area is locally controlled by deposits from past glaciations andcurrent modifications by the Great Miami River. Erosion and ancientriver systems sculpted a valley deep into the Ordovician shales prior toglaciation. Four subsequent glacial advances are thought to have crossedthis area although only the last two (Illinoian and Wisconsinan) areresponsible for the thick alluvial deposits now filling the valley. Theboring logs indicate approximately 200 feet of outwash or alluvialmaterials. Within the site area, the top material is fill of a sandygravel nature. This is underlain by a fine brown sand which grades to abrown sandy gravel. Below this is sometimes found thick grey lacustrinesilt-clay lenses which appear to be discontinuous. Deeper sequences

infer a continual sand-gravel complex indicative of typical alluvial

deposits.

57

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations (continued)

Due to the discontinuous nature of the intervening silt/clay, the two

aquifers act as one hydraulic unit. This aquifer unit is unconfined and,

in the vicinity of the site, is covered by approximately 20-30 feet ofunsaturated material overlying the water table. The groundwater

regionally follows the south-southwest flow of the river although localvariation over the site area is due west. The Great Miami River with its

artificial modifications and controls often recharges portions of thegroundwater system and thus alters the adjacent groundwater regime.

Groundwater discharge rates of 490 cfs have been assigned to theaquifer while local and seasonal river recharge of the groundwater is

approximated at 400,000 gpd/acre of streambed. Site specific groundwatergradients average 0.0013. Reported hydraulic conductivity of the sand

and gravel aquifer is 5000 gpd/ft^ while the transmissibility rangesbetween 300,000 and 500,000 gpd/ft2. A percolation rate of 60 feet perday has been calculated using data collected by the Butler County SoilConservation Service. The flow rate and velocity of the groundwater havebeen calculated at 1,560,000 gpd and 2.8 ft/day respectively. A specificyield coefficient of 0.2 has been assigned to the aquifer.

Since it is virtually impossible to ascertain the first spillage onsite and the time that the pollutants encountered groundwater, only an

approximation of projected contaminant plume fronts in the aquifer couldbe made. These are depicted in Figure 5. Subsequent sampling has shownthat the groundwater is significantly contaminated from approximately 300feet east of the site to a point 200 feet west of the site.Contamination at 650 feet west of the site is probable; however, dilutionand dispersion of contaminants further away from the site may be so rapid

that pollutants are not detectable. The alternate concept would be thatmigration has not yet inundated these locations which might suggest later

arrival dates of contaminants to the groundwater table.Soil contamination on site from spillage or dumping was documented

throughout the drilling phase of the investigation. Subsequent analysisof soil samples generally indicate that the widest variety and highest

concentrations of pollutants occurred within the top 1.5 feet of soil.(It was also noted that the asphalt parking lot may not provide an

effective seal as some 18 organic priority pollutants were found in the

first 6 inches below it.) The second most prevalent variety and

58

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations (continued)

concentration of contaminants found were between 2.5 and 4.0 feet.Deeper samples did contain smaller amounts of pollutants but not tothe extent of the shallower zones. Evidence would indicate that thecontaminated soil still acts as a reservoir for spilled contaminantsand that these contaminants are continually released to the aquifer.

While acknowledging the limits of this investigation and utilizing

the data presented, the following recommendations are offered alongtwo major areas of concern. The first set of recommendations dealswith areas in which further study is needed. The second area deals

with methods needed to mitigate conditions that exist at Chem-Dyne(Some cost estimates are presented in Appendix C).

Study Requirements

1) Additional on-site boring and analytical work to better define theexact extent of contamination in the unsaturated zone.

2) More extensive analytical testing of the groundwater might indicatecontamination further from the contaminant source.

3) Additional borings will better define the geology while moreextensive testing of the aquifer (particulary pump tests) willprovide more inclusive quantitative data and enable more definitive

conclusions about the hydrogeology.

59

Recommended Actions

1) Remove all wastes from the site.

2) Remove and properly dispose of all contaminated equipment,

structures, and service apparatus. (This includes sewers, watermains, electric lines, abandoned wells, buildings, etc.)

3) Remove the top 3 feet of soil from the site. Test the remainingmaterial and remove as much as necessary. (It is expected that atleast around B-17 more than three feet of soil may have to beremoved.)

4) Refill the excavated portions with clean fill and contour the

grading to provide adequate surface drainage. (Some type ofseeding will be necessary to stabilize the soil.)

5) Design a pumping system to remove as much contaminated groundwateras possible (at this time this work can be confined to a 1000 footzone centered over the site). This water could then be dischargedto the storm sewer and released to the river after analitical testing

(See Appendix C). Although total removal of contaminants isimpossible, a system could be designed that would remove a significant

portion of contaminants and still be reasonably cost effective.

60

APPENDIX A

Boring Logs, Soil Classification and

Sampling Techniques

61

This section deals with the actual mechanisms used to collect data andconduct this investigation, technical considerations in the data

manipulation, and presentation of raw data involving the subsurface,primarily the geology and soils.

After the background data were collected and assessed, certainlocations were picked where additional data were needed. Next, permissionto enter these premises and conduct our operations was solicited andvoluntarily received. Drilling began in December of 1980 and subsequent

field work was completed by April, 1981. Drilling was done with a CME-55

rig mounted on a truck. Hollow stem augers were used to penetrate the soiland standard split tube sampling devices were used to collect soil samples.Prior to commencing operations, the rig and all tools were steam cleaned.

Only Molycote 33 grease was allowed to be used after the decontaminationand then only where absolutely necessary. In between each sampling, thesplit spoon was washed with water, rinsed with acetone, and allowed to dry.In between borings, the augers were pressure washed and rinsed withacetone. Sampling was done by advancing the auger to the top of the depth

to be sampled. At this time, the plug and rod were removed from the hollowstem and the plugging tool was switched for a split spoon. This samplingtool was inserted into the hollow stem and an undisturbed sample was

collected ahead of the auger by driving the split spoon with a 140 pounddrive hammer. Samples were collected and preserved by the author and/or

the head driller under the direction of the author. Duplicate samples ofthe soil zones were periodically collected for chemical analysis and storedin clean glass bottles with tin foil or Teflon liners under the caps. Soilsamples were collected every 2.5 feet unless otherwise directed by theauthor. An 18 inch sample was retained using the standard penetration test(ASTM methods D1452-65, D1586-67, D1586-24). Thin walled sampling devices

were used to collect undisturbed samples for permeability tests. Sampleswere periodically taken of the wash water supply and construction materials

used for installing the wells. At the completion of the boring, temporarywells were installed in the holes. The pipe and well screen were washed

and rinsed with acetone, assembled, and fitted into the hole to the desiredmonitoring depth. At this point, the auger was retracted to some distance

above the well screen and a gravel pack using 3/8ths inch washed peagravel

was installed.

62

A minimum 2 foot bentonite seal was then placed at the top of the screen.

After complete retraction of the augers, a plywood board was inserted overthe 2 inch well casing and into a previously excavated 2 foot deep holearound the surface of the well. This hole was subsequently filled withgranular or "powdered bentonite and sealed by watering. Locking caps were

installed on all wells. Water level, depth of well, and stick-up readingswere recorded at periodic intervals.

In order to eliminate the possibility of cross contamination of thewells or inadvertently cause contamination of the groundwater, 'a phased-boring sequence was conducted in addition to the above-mentioned quality

control measures. Phase One consisted of 13 wells drilled off site andsurrounding the site. An attempt was made to proceed from the leastcontaminated to most contaminated locations whenever possible. At theconclusion of this phase, well water samples were screened using an OVA.

From this data and the previously collected water elevations, subsequentdrilling phases were planned. Phase Two consisted of drilling 7 borings onsite. Five of these were completed as wells. The final phase entaileddrilling an additional 12 borings off site to fill in data blanks andprovide better control on the groundwater flow system. Reevaluation of thedata determined which wells would be kept as permanent monitoring points.Those locations not chosen were grouted to ground surface after the wellswere pulled. Those wells picked for monitoring were permanently set byremoving the temporary seal at the ground surface and grouting the annul us

to ground level. Then a mound of bentonite and fill was installed aroundthe well to provide for runoff of precipitation. All above ground joints

and caps were permanently sealed by brazing.Subsequent analysis of the soils provided a variety of information

regarding their physical and engineering properties. As mentioned, somesoils were analyzed for chemical parameters (See Appendix B). Others wereanalyzed for grain size and permeability. (It should be noted that this

author maintained custody of the samples until such time as they were to beanalyzed. Then they were delivered to the H.C. Nutting Company whoconducted the analysis. H.C. Nutting Company was also the driller.) Grain

size analyses were conducted using ASTM methods D421-28 and D422-63.

63

SAND

SILT^-GRAVEL

-^CLAYGRAVEL

SILT SAND

G — Gravel

S - SandSi - Silt

C - Clay

CLAY

( M o d i f i e d af ter Shepard, 1954)

FIG. 7. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

TABLE 15: SOIL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

BoringNo. No. Gravel Sand Silt Clay Class.

B-lSGG

23% CSi15% SiS19% SiS22% S-Si-C

SGG

B-2SG

55% SiC41% CSi25% CSi

SGGS

SampleNo.

16789101113

158121317

345

1116

168161718242627

15

17

Gravel

40%90%_ -__

—_-65%82%

51%

——__

60%45%

_-64%66%64%

61%2%67%

—15%61%63%17%8%

13%66%70%

Sand

60%10%16%48%48%43%35%18%

49%2%1%20%40%55%

51%100%36%34%36%

39%29%33%5%20%39%37%30%92%

87%34%30%

Silt

--61%37%33%35%

—~ ™

43%58%55%

—~ —

10%--

—--~ "•

35%

—61%32%----20%™ ™

----

B-339% CS

SSGSGSG

B-4SG

34% S-Si-CSG

34% CSi33% S-Si-C

SGSG

33% S-Si-CS

B-5S

SGSG

TABLE 15: SOIL GRAIN SITE ANALYSIS


B-6 1 66% 34% -- -- SG12% SiS18% S-Si-C14% S-SI-C16% SiS

SG59% SiC

SG

B-7SG

22% S-Si-C13% SiS

SSGSG

(continued)

SampleNo.

178910121418

1356713

156715

169

2789101112131415

Gravel

66%13%4%

, 20%--66%--64%

69%--

—2%63%60%

42%

——58%20%

14%0%67%

22%33%

—1%__

--__

--12%22%

Sand

34%58%35%42%64%34%11%36%

31%42%68%98%37%40%

58%27%79%42%80%

61%2%33%

48%27%14%22%1%1%13%1%30%25%

Silt

- .

17%43%24%20%--30%"" ••

36%19%--

—-» ->

44%8%

.._

_ «.

7%62%™ —

20%20%60%48%48%40%60%20%30%26%

B-8GSi

29% S-SI-C13% S

SiCS

B-918% SiS-CS36% CSi

SG

B-1010% S-Si-C20% S-Si-C26% CSi29% S-Si-C51% SiC59% SiC27% CSi79% C28% S-Si-C27% S-Si-C


BoringNo.

B-ll

B-12

B-13

B-14

B-15

(continued)

Samp! eNo.

1789101315

17813141518

12589111618

24813

257811

Gravel

58%5%86%

—72%69%— ~

54%

—68%59%19%19%64%

24%

—46%65%2%67%69%66%

38%

—67%59%

44%11%--70%56%

Sand

42%12%14%9%28%31%2%

46%34%32%41%35%30%36%

34%61%54%35%15%33%31%34%

35%78%33%41%

38%15%6%30%44%

Silt

37%--52%

—--35%

42%----20%21%™ ™

26%23%----54%

—--™ —

15%11%--™ —

11%32%60%----

Clay

46%

39%

63%

24%

26%30%

16%16%

29%

12%11%

7%42%34%

Class.

SiGSiC

GCSiSiGSiGSiC

SGS-Si-C

SGSG

S-Si-CS-Si-C

SG

S-Si-CSiSGSSG

CSiSGSGSG

SGS

SGSG

SGSiCCSiSGSG



B-16GS

23% C-S-SiS

SGSGSG

B-17SG

34% CSiS

SGGS

(continued)

SampleNo.

24681415

25681214

1347

1468

191013

247

Gravel

39%----59%62%56%

73%--2%69%75%12%

16%--1%73%

39%

—__

63%

33%71%

—7%

73%2%66%

Sand

61%24%100%38%38%46%

23%13%98%27%19%83%

84%44%99%24%

45%67%45%33%

67%18%2%13%

27%98%34%

Silt

53%--3%

~ —

4%53%--4%6%5%

36%

—3%

9%17%34%4%

5%53%27%

----

B-18S

20% C-S1-SS

SG

B-197% GS

16% SiS21% C-Si-S

SG

B-20GS

6% SG45% CSi53% SiC

B-21SGSSG


BoringNo. ~ No. Gravel Sand Silt Clay Class.

B-22SG

41% CSiSG

B-25SGSG

21% S-C-Si-G20% CSi19% CSi26% CSi

SSG

7% SGS

14% SG

( con t inued )

SampleNo.

3567

126789

101111A1213

13567

12

125679

11

149

101213

Gravel

73%

—11%79%

68%66%31%

——--13%69%58%

2%17%

57%36%_-

4%69%63%

31%60%_ _

—68%66%54%

65%1%2%

17%7%

55%

Sand

27%7%

89%21%

32%34%20%12%11%10%87%31%30%98%14%

26%64%17%96%31%37%

24%40%

7%9%

32%34%46%

35%7%

22%43%93%45%

Silt

52%_ _

•• "

—28%68%70%64%_ ___

5%-_55%

10%

—59%-__ _

— —

28%-_48%61%-_--— ••

49%43%23%--

—

B-267% SG

GS24% CSi

SSGSG

B-2717% S-Si-C

SG45% CSi30% CSi

SGSGSG

B-28SG

43% CSi33% S-Si-C17% S-Si-C

SSG



B-2910* SG22% S-Si-C32% S-SI-C

B-30G

SG

(continued)

SampleNo.

14

,6

12

13

1234578

Gravel

56%6%5%

75%65%

1%67%

--47%__

69%67%56%

Sand

27%52%22%

25%35%

63%33%

3%14%53%76%31%33%44%

Silt

7%20%41%

— —

20%— —

46%49%--13%

—----

B-3116% SiS

SG

B-3251% SiC37% CSi

GS11% S

SGSGSG

Permeability tests were conducted by constant head methods (ASTM,

D2434-68) (see Plate 2 and 2a). From the above data were calculated thepercent of gravel, sand, silt, and clay using particle size breaks of 2mm,

.053mm, and .0039mm respectively. This information was then plotted on atriangular classification sheet using Shepard's (1954) classification

scheme (Figure 7). These classifications are used in the published boringlogs and the strata horizons were developed from them.

Throughout this investigation, boring logs were kept by the drillerand geologist (author). The.logs published in this section represent a

composite of these logs plus the mechanical soil analyses and otherassociated data. The published logs obviously differ from individualsources. Most of the logs are self explanatory; however, several

clarifications may be necessary. The "Misc." column represents the soilclassification data depicted in Table 15. As these borings are presentedon a form, some data cannot be adequately presented. The traditional

township, section and range designations were not used due to thedifficulty in ascertaining exact boundaries (See Explanation below).Therefore, more local designations were noted to the right of the locationbox for identifying placements. A more definitive location is provided onPlate 1.

Explanation:The original surveying system used in the United States wasmetes and bounds. In 1785 an ordinance was passed providingfor a rectangular coordinate surveying system for newlyaquired lands of the western territories. This surveying wasunder the jurisdiction of the Geographer of the UnitedStates. The system divided a section of land into 36 squaremiles and numbered them sequentially from south to north.Parts of Ohio, including Hamilton, south and east of theGreat Miami River were done this way. By 1796, a SurveyorGeneral had been appponted and a new system was deviseddividing a section into 36 square miles and numbering themsequentially east to west. This system was implemented forlands north-west of the Ohio River and above the mouth of theKentucky River. This system was used north and west of theGreat Miami River in Hamilton. To confuse matters more, twotownship and range separations meet in the vicinity of thesite in northern Hamilton and south and east of the GreatMiami River.

71

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1785-1796

6

7

18

19

30

31

5

8

17

20

29

32

4

9

16

21

28

33

3

10

15

22

27

34

2

11

14

23

26

35

1

12

13

24

25

36

1796 to Present

(Example of a township with section designations.)

72

TEMPORARY

wooden board

void space

locking caps

2 inch galvanized pi pagrout

bentonite

urfaee grade

PERMANENT

bentonite seal

'.•.'.. ' '.' i .— galvanized pipe couplings

gravel

stainless steelwell screen

well bottom

penetratration of finalsplit spoon sample

end of borin

1 1

FIG. 8. TYPICAL WELL CONSTRUCTION

DRILLING LOG of 2

State Ohio No. F5-8007-4 Ground El. 592.22

Site Hamilton/Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-l

Start Date 12/17/80

Completion Date 12/17/80

Township

Range

Section

Groundwater El.at completion 564.23after 6 days 563'.36

after 35 days562.81

Total Depth of Boring 36.5'

Meridian

Geologist Mike McCarrin

Driller H.C. Nutting

Located in oldcity well fieldnorth ofhydraulic canaland east of theMiami River.

TotalDepth

Form.Thick Description

SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.

Ground Surface 592 .22

S-l SG 9/12/1]Sand and Gravel ( f i l l )black and brown,w/cinders, slag, organicsand debris 5-

S-2

S-3

S-4

15/30/40//

I5/3/3

3/5/4

14.5 10-S-5 5/5/5

S-6 6/10/2:

14.5

(see below) 15S-7 4/5/7

/AAA

X

577.72

74

State

Site

TotalDepth

24.5

36.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Ham il ton/ Ch em-Dyne

Form.Thick

10

12

Description

Silty Sand —

or*in2£ 3nd brown 20fine grained, —coiled gastropod shells - —some iron staining —

?^_

Sandy Gravel —

brown and grey —

30

35. ,

40

E.O.B. —

Bottom 10' of boring —was screened and 45gravelled. Then a —2' plug of bentonite —was installed and the —annulus was grouted —to ground surface. 50

Boring No .

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

Misc

SiS

SiS

SSiC

SG

G

B-l

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount.

3/2/3

3/2/4

2/2/2

12/17/3C

35/70

19/25/35

23/35/47

18/30/27

WellConst

^

^Isas

Oa

x•v.t

»0°

1

•> <

--

~-_

IKjx

*•

• 1

»

•*•

4*

0 a" •' a oo0 y 0 <J' ?ao.

Elev.

567.72

555.72

75

DRILLING LOG of 2



Boring No. B-2

Start Date 12/18/80


Township

Range

Section

Groundwater El.at completion 564.20after 5 days 563.90

after 33 days563.20

Total Depth of Boring 39'

Meridian



Located south ofthe southproperty fenceand approximately20' north ofFord Blvd.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev,

Ground Surface 596.03

S-l SG 5/12/9Sand and Gravel (f i l l)

brown with blackorganics, damp

S-2&3 1/4/4

S-4 4/15/758S.03

S-5 SiC 17171Clayey Silt

dark, grey, moist10-

15

S-6

S-7

S-8 CSi

1/1/1

1/1/2

1/1/1

76

State

Site

TotalDepth

24.5

27

TO

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hatnilton/Chera-Dvne

Form.Thick.

17.5

2.5

12

Description

Clayey Silt —

dark crey moist 20

Clayey Silt 75green, glauconitic, shells —

Sandy Gravel 30

brown, medium to —coarse grained —

•*•;

40

E.O.B . —

Bottom 10' of boring —was screened and 45gravelled. Then a —2' bentonite plug was —installed and the annulus —was backfilled with —grout. 50

Boring No .

SampleNo.

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

S-16

S-17

Misc

CSi

SG

GS

B-2

PR. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

1/1/1

1/2/2

1/2/2

3/4/5

13/62/56

38/48/57

19/22/38

18/18/2C

25/29/32

WellConst

'/'/.

I1.X XXX* >*x-CO

4>°V0 0<l11o°o*0

%l°°o°o0 O

°°0&

m

?

1////,Xx"XK •»X >

C O

0 0

°°0

0Qo

0°

<£0 °o"o00

OC300a<f»0000°^0

f*°<ft o

Elev.

571.53

569.03

-557 03-

77

DRILLING LOG Pg. of 2


Site HamiIton/Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-3

Start Date 12/19/80


Township

Range

Sect ion

Groundwater El.at completion 562.71a f t e r 4 days 562.86

af te r 31 days561.96

Total Depth of B o r i n g 3 9 "

Meridian



Located east of3rd and BlackStreets.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


4.5

Sand and Gravel ( f i l l )

brown and black

S-l 20/30/19 /A

S-2 5/5 /5

4.5 589.71

Silty Sand S-3 CS 5/7/7

red-brown, fine grained — S-4 4/5/5

9.5 584.71

10-Sandy Gravel S-5 SG

brown, course grained, —

silty in areas15 _

S-6 33/48/32

S-7

19/30/48J/

/

/

/

/

/11/24/24

78

State

Site

TotalDepth

3°

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilton Chem-Dvne

Form.Thick

29.5

Description

Sandy Gravel —

brown coarse grained —

2*

30- ...-

3^

40E.O.B . —

Bottom 10" of boring —was screened and —gravelled. A 2' 45bentonite plug was —then installed and —the annulus was —grouted. —

50

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

S-16

Misc.

SG

SG

B-3

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

16/16/14

10/14/25

10/24/36

19/27/30

70

28/48/58

50/65/55

44/43/30

10/24/19

WellConst .

/~/

//

///

/

$• a

00

q« oo,°"0°ocCO°Q00

'•o:•:9

O*

»»6°0

V°

~-

\-

--

I*00

///////X*. A

* •»»*8•*°0 »0000"» «

i«• te0 C00<s«

•o

^0 Q

•I•o o0 .?o O

Elev.

c; s s 71

79

DRILLING LOG of 4

Sta te Ohio No. F5-8007-4


Boring No. B-4

Start Date 12/20/80


Township

Range

Section

Meridian



Ground El. 591.55

Groundwater El.at completionafter 3 days 561.50

after 42 days 561.10

Total Depth of Boring 1()1.5

Located offBlack Street andSecond Street:.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Kiev.


S-l SGSand and Gravel (fill)

black and orange,cinders, rubble, etc.

5/13/7/ //

S-2 3/2/2

11 S-3 4/8/5

S-4 3/2/2

11 10-S-5 3/4/4

Silty Sand

brown, fine grainedcoiled gastropod shells 15

S-6 SSiC 3/3/4

////

//

580.55

S-7 2/3/6

80

State

Site

TotalDepth

17

425

525

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamil ton/ Ch em-Dyne

Form.Thick

25.5

10

Description

(see above)

Sandy Gravel ' —

brown, roarge gTa inpH ?fl__

^*^

25 -

•«

30

35-

40 ,

Clayey Silt —

medium grey, dense —(til l) 45

yellow mottled, dense —

50

Sandy Gravel —

yellow-brown —55

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

S-16

S-17

S-18

Misc .

SG

CSi

SSiC

SG

B-4

Pg. 2 of 4

BlowCount .

12/34/30

5S/ .25

75/.50

21/24/18

17/28/18

16/16/17

6/11/13

25/44/38

8/12/16

85/70-. 2

20/22/27

WellConst .

y

//

d

oc0°00

°c

VCO.

OCo0°c

oc

c <0°

occo

oo

0

c toc t0

-~-

: a

•> °cc

^ c

0

j 00 =

> «c

__z

00

cQ

Q

Oc000

oO Qoo

0°0

c,c0

V1 9

^ c

t

oo

°c

c

*y*+ t ^r>

* * '/^°o c 0,

°c oc0 CG c

c o

0 o Oc 1 c

ci oa & 0

o c <=

O c o

Elev.

574.55

549.05

539.05

81

State

Site

TotalDepth

93

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilt on/ Ch em-Dyne

Form.Thick

40.5

i

Description

Sandy Gravel (cont . ) —

70.

75 . .,

80

85 ,_

—

Silty Sand —

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-19

S-20

S-21

S-22

S-23

S-24

S-25

S-26

Misc.

SG

SSiC

B-4

Pg. 3 of 4

BlowCount.

7/9/12

10/16/21

16/23/3C

28/34/27

15/22/21

38/22/32

35/32/3C

28/38/84

WellConst .

0 0 0 °o

0 0 c

o oo c.

0 r Co

0Vo°°

c c °

co oOc ° ,

°°e°0t

0 c° 0

oc °G o 0

oc cc0 O Cc c

& c cC

0 o0 ° °

c, o0 f 00

° 0 ° Co

0 00 0 0

cc & °

oc° o cc o o

0° C °O o c

c »., c o«• o •

0 o 0°o c c c.

Elev.

498.55

82

State Ohio No. F5-8007-4 Boring No. B-4

Site Hamilton/Chem-Dyne Pg. 4 of 4

TotalDepth

101.5

Form.Thick

8.5+

_"Description

Silty Sand (cont . ) —

—100

E.O.B. —

Augar was pulled to 45" 105and gravelled. A 2' —plug of bentonite was —installed and then the —augar was pulled to 35" —and gravelled. A 10' 110screen was installed —and the annulus was —gravelled to 2' above —the top of the screen. —Then a 2" bentonite 115seal was installed and —the annulus filled with —grout to ground —surface. —

120

130

13*Z

SampleNo.

S-27

Misc.

S

BlowCount .

3/5/5

WellConst .

cc. c- c o

*cc ° Ic oc & c

C o °°0°<3 o 0 0 rc f o°° c °

"V^cVo0

Elev.

490.05

7-

83

DRILLING LOG Pg. 1 of 2


Site HamiltonAChem-Dvne Groundwater El.at completion 559.82

Boring No. B-5

Start Date 12/22/80


Township

Range

Section




Meridian



Off Vine and3rd Streets onChampion Paper

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.


Sand and Gravel ( f i l l ) —

black and grey,cinders and debris

S-l 10/6/4/

S-2 2/1/1

9.5S-3 3/1/2

2/2/19.5

10-

///

//

/

//

535.59

Sandy Gravel

brown, coarse grained,clay and silt lensesin places

S-5 SG 10/11/2C

23/25/3;

15S-7 15/18/2C

84

State

Site

TotalDepth

41.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilton/Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick

32

Description

Sandy Gravel ( con ' t ) —

brown coarse trainedclay and silt lenses 20—in places. —

9S

—

30

3S,

4Q-,

E.O.B . —

Bottom 10" waa screened —and the bottom 25' —gravelled. Then a 2' —bentonite plug was —installed and the 50annulus was grouted. —

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

S-16

S-17

Misc.

SG

B-5

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

13/14/12

9/15/4

22/26/32

20/26/23

27/45/35

13/17/13

11/17/20

10/11/11

25/45

62/31/42

WellConst.

ac

6

.On

0*

S

C*CO

„<»

0

c

e>

o

eO

e. a

^ a

co

0 0

to

.-"

«00 0

OcCOc

0*

0

&•

c •

» c,Q

oa

a

0°

o

0°

a

o

0

ec

0

ca

oo•c

c-

Elev .

553.59

85


State Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Site Hamilton^Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-6

Start Date 12/23/80


Township

Range

Section

Meridian



Ground El. 597.06

Groundwater El.at completion 557.13af ter 11 davs 560.53

af ter 29 days 560.13

Total Depth 'o f Boring 41.5'

Off the MiamiRiver and SecondStreet in thec i ty pa rk.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


Sand, Silt, and Clay

(fill)

black and brown

S-l SG 6/10/10

S-2 11/11/7

S-3 7/7/9

S-4 11/8/15

14.5 10-S-5 6/8/10

S-6 9/13/1314.5

15Silty Sand S-7 SiS 6/7/10

///////////,

582.56

86

State

Site

TotalDepth

27

32

34.5

41.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hami It on/ Ch em-Dyne

Form.Thick

12.5

5

2.5

7

Description

Silty Sand ( c o n ' t ) —

dark brown- brownfine grained 20

2*

Sandy Gravel —

brown, coarse grainpd 30

Silty Clay ( t i l l ) _yellow 1 GT1S6 s

TVSandy Gravel —

—brown, corase grained —

/,o

E.O.B. —

Bottom 10' was 45screened and gravelled. —Then a 2" bentonite plug —was installed and the —annulus was grouted —to ground level. 50

i

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14&15

S-16

S-17

S-18

Misc.

S-Si-C

S-Si-(

SiS

SG

SiC

SG

B-6

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

22/7/6

3/4/5

3/3/5

3/3/4

25/30/3:

12/33

21/.5

32/44/55

12/14/16

14/21/28

WellConst .

//

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

^'-* *

V» •»0°OcQ°"aoq»

°D00"

Ota /

°s«0O

«<5ao

60*

'°0

'.0

"-.

fo"^^0

/////////*':-*X>0°

ae

$o"c«

««C°c•

OQ

0Coa

• c«

Q

eOo0

«ol°

Elev.

570.06

535.06

562.56

555.56

87

DRILLING LOG Pg- of 2


Site Hamiltoa/Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-7

Start Date 12/29/80


Township

Range

Section

Groundwater El.at completion 564.62after 9 days 564,12


Total Depth of Boring 31,5 '

Meridian



North edge of siteby hydraulic canal,

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. F,lev.


Sand and Gravel ( f i l l ) — S-l SG 10/10/64.5

black S-2 3/3/54.5 585.41

10

Silty Sand

brown, fine grained,coiled gastropod shells

S-3 S-Si-C 2/3/3

10-S-5

14.5Sandy Gravel 15

S-7

SiS

S

SG

2/2/3

4/4/5575.41

17/21/23

88

State

Site

TotalDepth

31.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilt on/ Ch em-Dyne

Form.Thick

17 +

Descript ion


brown coarse grained20

25

30—

E.O.B . —

Well was temporality 35sealed and later pulled —and grouted to ground —level. —

40

Boring No. B-7

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

Misc .

SG

BlowCount .

17/26/35

19/21/15

21/45/40

22/24/31

32/43/30

22/40/5e

WellConst .

^-A/-£A * X ' *

••J/\~1 *• f /•*^[/.f-L\°*6fc:- &<0 C, X * 0• 1 -I0 0

.-' y\\f./.l*-6\\(j\'-:•*•/ i°- W.:: :\f i> ,=::w1 ^ « e »V,Vo °%

Elev.

5'58.41

89

DRILLING T,Or, Pp. ] nf 2


Site Hamiltoa/Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-8

Start Date 12/30/80


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian

Geologist Mike McCarrin_


Ground El. 590.90

Groundwater El .at completion 563.96a f t e r 9 days 563.46


Total Depth of Boring 35 ' '

Located o f f - s i t ealong access roadeast of fac i l i ty .

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst lilev.


Sand and Gravel ( f i l l ) S-l GSi 10/6/8 XS-2 9/10/1:

S-3&4 5/5/4

12

Silty Sand

dark brown, fine grained, 10-coiled gastropod shells

S-5

S-6

Sandy Gravel

brown, coarse grained 15

S-7

S-Si-C

S

SiG

4/6/5

2/2 /3/

7/10/12

S-8 7/12/15

583.90

578.90

90

State

Site

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilton/Ch em-Dyne

TotalDepth

35

Form.Thick

23

Description


brown coarse grained, 20clay lenses and pockets —

05 _

30

•*=;

E . O . B . _

Bottom 10' was screened —and gravelled. Then a 40—2' plug of bentonite was —installed and the annulus —grouted to ground level. —

45

50

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

Misc .

S

B-8

Pg- 2 of 2

BlowCount .

20 /22 /23

32/60-. 5

35/40/23

15/26/18

17/27/19

19/19/20

16/25/30

WellConst .

/ ,

'/

'/JL* ***4 *

4

• o00a

°.a•cO.

°t

o

;}««So

600cii

-~

.Co0 0

,°°<

//////f *f«

*•*'..°o

• »a9»

»o

»aao

»Q\k %«0

to0

Vs• •=.o

tk»-.«.

Elev.

.555.90-

91




Boring No. B-9

Start Date 12/31/80


Township

Range




Sect ion

Meridian



Located in fieldeast of site.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.

Ground Surface n 589.65

S-l CS

12

Clayey Sand (fill)

black - brownorganics and cinders

5/5/3

S-2 5/5/5

S-3 3/3/3//

3/2/2

10-12 S-5 2/2/2

577.65

S-6 CSiClayey Siltgrey, lacustrine

2/1/2

15S-7 3/5/6

92

State

Site

TotalDepth

18

31.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4


Form.Thick

13.5

Description

••

Sandy Oravel 20-

brown, coarse grained —

o<;

TfY

E.O.B. _

35

Bottom 10" was screened —

and gravelled to 18'. —

Then a 2' bentonite plug —

was installed and the —annulus was filled with 40

grout to ground level. _^

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8&9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

•

Misc

SG

B-9

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

7/ 1 7/7

19/21/2

12/17/2

20/27/3

10/12/1

10/17/20

WellConst

iif>*-»***4-

o °,°:v.«•.•«^ •

..e

t *r-"c»• c• tC V

0 9

"'.•-%r• Co•

c a0

• 0

-

•**i.">

e-o0

• Ace

e-0 t• cc»00

0 c•o

(. •c»»

c.0

«*•

C

."

o a

Elev.

571.65

558.15

93

DRILLING LOG of 2


Site Hamilton/Chem-Dvne

Boring No. B-10

Start Date 12/31/80


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 590.44

Groundwater El.at completion DRYafter days

after days

Total Depth of Boring 41.5

Located off rail-road tracks at:north edge ofRansohoff property.

TotalDepth

Form.Thick Descript ion

SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.


S-l S-Si-CSand, Silt, Clay (fill) —

10/6/5

S-2 5/8/5black - grey, chemicalodor

19.5

10-

15

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7 S-Si-C

1/1/2

1/1/1

1/1/1.S/.3/.3

1/3/2

//////V

94

State

Site

TotalDepth

19.5

23

33

41.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilton/Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick

3.5

10

8.5

Descript ion

Sand, Silt, Clay (fill) —

°0Silty Sand —1 £ • rt-IrtrtJ rt rt -1 1 xl

Sandy Gravel / 25brown / —

Clayey Silt —

i •

Sandy Clayey Silt 35

grey - green, glaucontic, —bryozoan shells, wood —

fragments —/.a

E.O.B. —A one ft. bentonite plug —was installed at the 45bottom of the boring. —The boring was then —gravelled to 23" and a —1/2 ft. bentonite plug —was installed. Next a 50gravel pad was laid down —and a 10' screen wasinstalled. Gravel was add —ed to the top of the — -screen and a 2' bentonite55seal was installed. Theannulus was grouted to

ground level.

Boring No. B-10

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

Misc.

CSi

S-Si-C

SiC

SiC

CSi

C

S-Si-C

S-Si-C

BlowCount .

1/1/1

7/5/5

12/7/8

10/11/14

6/10/12

5/7/8

8/15/18

16/20/27

WellConst

0 0 _~ 0°

|o.-"0

o« .-

CÔ - Oo

° ° - " art°°o • °o<?° •" S°<?"o OÔo^

IVi V*. t *se °c o o

cc & acc 0 c

ODOO c &Oc. Q C o

OO OcO -.QO ° Q

cV= °

_ OC"

c, O o O

*8°° 00OQCO OQ

Qâ o o

t ir

Elev.

f.70.94

567.44

557.44

548.94

95




Boring No. B-ll


Start Date 1/1/81

Completion Date '1/1/81

Township

Range


Total Depth of Boring 3V

Section

Meridian



Located west ofthe facility alongthe back drive toRansohoff.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-l SiG 9/8/10Silty Gravel (fill)

black and browncinders, bricks, ashpalt, 5-concrete, etc.

S-2 5/3/3

S-3 2/2/2

14.5 S-4 1/3/5

10-S-5 12/31/14

S-6 2/2/2

14.515

Clayey Silt S-7 SiC 6/9/9576.96

96


Site

TotalDepth

19.5

31

34

Hamilton/ Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick

5

11.5

3

Descript ion

Clayey Silt ( con ' t . ) -~brown, —coiled gastropod shells

20Sandy Gravel —

brown, silty in areas, —

OI5

30

Clayey Silt -—

blue grey, / 35dense, / --

E.O.B. —Bottom 10" of boring was 40screened and gravel was —brought up to 20 ' . Then —a 2' bentonite plug was —installed and the annulus —was grouted to ground 45level. —

50

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13&14

S-15

Misc.

G

CSi

SiG

SiG

SiC

B-ll

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

5/2/5

10/17/22

34/60

29/30/30

21/33/40

16/32/18

5/6/10

WellConst.

/

« AA *

. \

00c0°«°,QCOoc°«»

c

'1»c",0*

Q

°°0«c

«»Joc %

-~

s «•0 Tt

//

f >„•>X

X

i 0»» 0

•°.««:\•o•c>'It «

HOr.-;I•;<!o

»cC

C.C.

Elev.

571.96

550.46

.557 46-

97



Site HamiIton7Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-12

Start Date 1/1/81


Township

Range


,' after 29 days 562.35


Section

Meridian


Driller H.C. Nutt ing

Located in thesouth lawn ofRansohoff .

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Kiev.


S-l SGSand and Gravel (fill) —

4/5/9

10/12/1:

14blackcinders and debris

S-3 5/4/5

S-4 4/4/2

10-S-5 1/1/1

14

16

Silty Sandbrown, finegrained, coiledgastropod shells

S-6/

1/1/1

15S-7&8 S-Si-C 1/5/6

581.28

579.28

98

State

Site

TotalDepth

28.5

32

41.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilton/Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick

12.5

3.5

9.5

Description

Sandy Gravel —

95

—

n avpv Siltv 'Sand 30

lense / —

/ 35/

Sandy Gravel —

E.O.B. —

Screen set from 27.5 to 4537.5 feet and gravel —packed to 25.5' . A 2' —foot bentonite seal was —then installed and -—grouted to ground level. 50

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13&14

S-15

S-16

S-17

S-18

Misc.

SG

SGS Q i" C

S-Si-C

SG

B-12

Pg. 2

BlowCount .

9/7/7

2/2/4

10/16/13

20/27/40

32/18/12

7/11/15

12/20/22

27/20/25

70/.5

of

WellConst.

//

/

•••** •*OfJO0«

= 0

0*0°

oao

o

f:oc»€

«

°°<QO

Qc«

q 0<oc

"-_

-

"-

^t

0°

oO

Q0

0

-o° o0 0 C

>o°Tc0 °,C

»00Q

3 <5°°

2

Elev.

566.78

563.28

553.78

99




Boring No. B-13

Start Date 1/2/81


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 596.29




Located north ofthe hydraulic canalapproximately evenwith the park eastof the site.

TotalDepth


S amp 1 eNo. Misc . Elev.


S-lGravelly Silty Sand (fill) —

brownS-2

19.510-

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

GS

100

State

Site

TotalDepth

' 19.5

22

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hatnilton/Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick

2.5

39.5

Descript ion

Gravelly Silty Sand (fill) —(con't.)

Clayey Silt 20dark grey, organics, —

shells / —

/ 05

Sandy Gravel -—

brown, cobbles —30

35

/,o

l\ 5

SO

ss

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

S-16

S-17

Misc .

SG

CSi

SG

SG

B-13

Pg. 2 of 3

BlowCount .

3/3/2

3/4/4

1/52/35

22/25/35

60/.16

65/.S

35/60

60/.5

32/40/70

28/35/55

WellConst .

""I/'-0

\ifo°°i/h0 & <f

c-C c- _ "

C

0 => 0o C(7C 00 C

0 * o0 c.C 0o » •>c**«•c o

0 ° C

0°°

oc °a c*0 C.

°o oo c

°0°0 °

» 0 C0o

0 G

a a

C? 0

a0"

0 * °

°0°

*o-°

* 0 *

°C°C? °

c;° c,

°o°«

c*° c

o "

Elev.

576.79

574.29

101



TotalDepth

61.5

FormThick

_-

Descript ion

Sandy Gravel (con't.) —,•

E.O.B. -_,

Boring was collapsed to 65

5' and a 10" well screen —

was pushed to 20' . A 2' —

bentonite plug was —

installed. This well was —

temporarily set and 70

later pulled. The —

annulus was grouted to —

ground level. —

80

"I

90

SampleNo.

S-18

Misc

SG

BlowCount.

35/32/38

WellConst

O r~ O

jo O 00 C

0

Elev.

534.79

~

102

DRILLING LOG of 2


Site Hamiltori/Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-14

Start Date 1/28/81


Township J^_____________

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 590.81

Groundwater El.at completion 563.13after 30 days 56.3.28

after days


Located on-sii:e inthe southeastcorner along .sidethe fence.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.


S-l 5/9/14Sand and Gravel (fill) —

S-2 SG 50/.25brown

S-3 3/3/4

Silty Sand S-4 2/3/3

brown, fine grained, 10-coiled gastropod shells S-5 2/2/2

12Sandy Gravel

brown, coarsed grained 15

S-6 7/15/20

S-7 12/10/6

583.81

578.81

103

State

Site

TotalDepth

31.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hand It on/ Ch em-Dyne

Form.Thick

19.5

Descript ion

Sandy Gravel (con''t.) -~

20

°5

30

E.O.B. —

Bottom 10' was screened 35and the bottom 16' was —gravelled. Then a 2' —bentonite seal was —installed and the —annulus was grouted to 40ground level. —

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

Misc.

SG

SG

B-14

Pg- 2 of 2

BlowCount .

13/15/16

13/17/22

20/35

15/20/23

20/22/22

26/28/20

WellConst .

,«'Oo •

•o°0 Q" 0

•°.oe

c

.cO

o Co >oa

°:Ooo0°..e

o •0tcoc0c00oc°c

°c'oc<>coco0o

c0

cct

» '

«c

oc> o

Kiev.

559.31

104




Boring No. B-15

Start Date 1/29/81


Township __________^__

Range

Section

Meridian



Ground El. 592.22


after days

Total Depth of Boring 35*

Located on-sil:e inthe southwestcorner.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-lSandy and Gravel (fill) —

3/4/7

S-2 SG 10/12/8

9.5black and red,silty and sandy

S-3 3/6/6

S-4 3/4759.5

7.5

Clayey Silt

greenish-brown to grey

S-5 SiC 1/2/2

15

S-6

S-7 CSi

10/5/5

4/4/5

/////////////X

582.72

105


Site

TotalDepth

17

35

Hamilton/Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick

18

Descript ion

Clayey Silt (con't. .

^inrlv flrnvr-l ?fl,


°5

30

3^

E.O.B. -—

Bottom 10' screened and —gravelled. Then a 2' 40plug of bentonite was —installed and the —annulus was grouted to —-ground level. —

50

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

Misc.

SG

SG

B-15

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

15/17/22

15/27/20

65 BS

18/25/26

53/.4

18/22/23

13/16/16

WellConst

/

//

«*ie•0

%

04

°0

oft

c

o

coe

0 0O

-**

"-_

0 «•o

o t

////•<*:ife

°-oOoeO"

*•oi

o"o

c1

o

#

orf00

> *

Kiev.

575.22

557. 22

106




Boring No. B-16

Start Date 1/29/81


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 590.00




Located on-sit:e inthe northeastcorner.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


4.54.5

10

Sand and Gravel (fill)

black

S-1&2 GS 7/10/8

S-3 3/4/6

Silty Sand

brown, fine grained,coiled gastropod shells

S-4 C-S-Si 2/2/2

2/2/T

10-S-6 1/2/3

14.5 S-7 273/3

Sandy Gravel 15S-8 SG 7/7/10

585.50

/

/

/

/

/

//

/

575.50

107

State

Site

TotalDepth

35

Ohio No. F5-8007-4


Form.Thick

20.5

Descript ion

Sandy Gravel (con't) _^-

°0-•

•

25

30

O C

E.O.B. —_•—

Bottom 10' was screened — -and gravelled. Then a 402' plug of bentonite _r-was installed and the — •annulus was grouted to — -ground level. —

45

50

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

Misc.

SG

SG

B-16

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

11/12/12

20/23/28

14/18/17

12/13/17

9/15/16

15/19/17

12/16/20

WellConst .

/

/

/_*< /•<«•» >•o

0

a c•c

.«i0

f°c.

eo

to

6 C

*«,

l°<

"_-

0 0

or •

/

/

/

/_Z

4-

*• +"MO9

«,**»c

0 0p0

,*11

«*9

o<y^

*9

0*

0

°0oa

Elev.

555

108




Boring No. B-17

Groundwater El.at completion

Start Date 1/30/81


Township

Range

after 1 days 562.36


Total Depth of Boring 35'

Sect ion

Meridian



Located on-site onthe west side ofthe site approxi-mately mid site.

TotalDepth


S amp1eNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-l 4/6/7Sand and Gravel (fill)

black and brownS-2 SG 6/8/7

9.5S-3 4/6/6

35/409.5

12

2.5Clayey Siltbrown and grey,shell fragments

10-S-5 CSi

S

4/6/7

2/2/2

Silty Sand

brown, fine grained15

S-7 2/3/2

y/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

^

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

//

579.76

577.26

109

State

Site

TotalDepth

17

Ohio No. F5-8007-4


Form.Thick

18

Descript ion

Silty Sand (ccn ' t ) ^^^^^^ —

Sandy Gravel 20


25

30

E . O . B . —

Bottom 8' was screened — -and the bottom 13' was 40gravelled. Then a 2' _—bentonite plug was —installed and the —annulus was grouted to —ground level. 45

50

Boring No.

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

S-14

Misc.

SG

G

S

B-17

Pg. 2 of 2

BlowCount .

••7/12/16

18/35

20/21/25

13/27/30

13/15/18

12/17/20

17/22/25

WellConst .

/ .//

•>*<**

C O

0°00

00

oooc°000co

o0

*oo

oc

Co

0°t»0

-_-

- '_a T

X'

//

*5

&(>0

ec"ooc°co

Qo00

0

0

5'0«

»cCO

^0

Elev.

572.26

SS4 9fi

110



Site Hamiltoo/Chem-Dvne

Boring No. B-18

Start Date 1/30/81


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 589.78

Groundwater El.at completionafter days

after days


Located on-site inthe center of thesite the northboring.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


Sand and Gravel (fill) -~- S-l 10/5/64.5

Black and brown S-2 2/4/54.5

7.5

Silty Sand

Brown, fine grained

S-3&4 SiSS

2/2/3

3/3/3

10-S-6 2/3/6

12

585.28

577.78S-7 SG 9/10/10

4.5 Sandy Gravel

brown, coarse grained15

S-8 12/15/16

ill

State

Site

TotalDepth

1 6 5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamil ton/ Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick Descr ipt ion

Sandy Gravel S^ —(con ' t ) ^S —

20E . O . B . —

This well was not cased. —A bentonite plug was —installed in the bottom 253' through the augar. —The augar was then —pulled and the annul us —was grouted to ground —level. 30

40

^

Boring No. B-18

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo. Misc .

BlowCount .

Wel lConst .

»A- + -^ L *

Kiev .

' 5 73. 28"

=

112

DRILLING LOG Pg-


Site Hamilton/ Chem-Dvne

Boring No. B-19

Start Date 1/30/81


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 590.76


after days


Located on-site inthe center of thefacility - thesouth boring.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-l GS 8/9/6Sand and Gravel (fill)

blackS-2 5/15/10

S-3 8/2/2583.76

S-4 SiS 2/2/2

10

Silty Sand

brown, fine grained10-

S-5

SiS

15S-7

2/2/2

2/3/3

2/2/3

113

State

Site

TotalDepth

17

21.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4


Form.Thick

4.5

Description

.

*s

^s —Sandy Gravel 20

brown, coarse / —

grained >^ —

25

E.O.B —

A bentonite plug was —

installed through the —

augars in the bottom 3" 30

of the boring. Then the —

augars were pulled and — •-

the annulus was grouted — •-

to ground level. —

Boring No. B-19

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

Misc.

SG

BlowCount .

7/13/20

16/22/22

WellConst .

'///

* >/>

Elev.

573.76

569.26

114

DRILLING LOG Pg- of. 2



Boring No. B-20

Start Date 1/31/81


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 589.81

Groundwater El.at completion DRYafter days

after days


Located on-site inthe northwestcorner.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.


S-l GSSand and Gravel (fill)

black cinders

2/3/3

1910-

15

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

3/4/10

3/4/5

2/4/5

3/4/4

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

//

,3/.3/.3

1/2/5

115

State

Site

TotalDepth

19

22

31.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Kami It on/ Ch em-Dyne

Form.Thick

3

9.5

Description

Sand and Gravel (fill) —

(con't) ' —

. „„

grained ./^ —

25

Clayey Silt —

grey —

in ..

E.O.B. —

A bentonite plug was 35

installed from 25' to —

30', then gravel was —placed to 20' . A 10' —

screen was installed —

from 10' to 20' and 40

gravelled. A 2" —

bentonite seal was —

installed and the —

annulus was grouted to —ground level. 45

50

Boring No. B-20

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

Misc.

SG

CSi

SiC

BlowCount .

2/2/4

9/13/20

8/11/14

9/12/13

5/7/10

9/11/14

WellConst.

*C 0

• * ~.c

9 -_ »

0 C 0 « °o o

tt

t o o

B^CO" 0

0 0 o° »o o r c

* '* » »

*»V.

* ; ; j

* •»

Elev.

570.81

567.81

558.31

116

DRILLING LOG Pg- or


Site Hami1ton/Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-21

Start Date 2/25/81


after days


Township ^^_________

Range


Sect ion

Meridian



Located in theparking lot e.ast ofthe site and southof the blue ware-house building.

TotalDepth


S amp1eNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.


S-l 5/4/7Sand and Gravel (fill) —

S-2 SG 4/8/10black

S-3 7/11/6582.57

S^ilty Sand

brown, fine grained 10-coiled gastropod shells

S-4 2/2/3

S-5 2/2/212 577.57

4.5Sandy Gravel

brown, coarsed grained 15

S-6 7/6/7

S-7 SG 11/15/2C

117

State

Site

TotalDepth

Ohio No. F5-8007-4



Sandy Gravel / —( c o n ' t . ) / —

20E . O . B . —

Casing was pulled and —the boring grouted to —ground level. 25

30

40

50

Boring No. B-21

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount .

Wel lConst.

/ X / /

Kiev .

573.07

118

DRILLING LOG Pg. of



Boring No. B-22


Start Date 2/25/81 after --- days


Township

Range


Sect ion

Meridian

Geologist Mike MeCarrin


Located in theparking lot east ofthe site and southof the blue ware-house building andeast of B-21.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


9.5

Sand and Gravel

black and brown

S-l

S-2 2/2/5

9.5 S-3 6/4/5

Clayey Silt

grey, with organics 10-

S-4 SG 5/5/6

S-5 1/2/413.5

14.5Silty Sandgrey, fine grained

S-6 CSiS

2/4/5

15Sandy Gravel S-7 15/11/23

580.12

576.12

575.12

119

State

Site

TotalDepth

18.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Harailton/Chera-Dyne

Form.Thick

4

Descript ion

Sandy Gravel (con't) —

20

E.O.B. — •

No casing set. Dry —

concrete was added to —

14'. A bentonite plug 25was installed from 14' —

to 9.5' and the annulus —

was grouted to ground — •-

level. —

40

Boring No. B-22

Pg. 2 of 2

S amp 1 eNo.

S-8

Misc.BlowCount .

55/70

WellConst.

^

Elev.

571.12

120




Boring No. B-23

Groundwater El.at complet ionafter days

Start Date 2/26/81 after days


Township

Range

Total Depth of Boring

Sect ion

Meridian



Located immediatelyadjacent to 3-2

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.

Ground Surface

A shelby tube was takenfrom 0-1" of the fillmaterial. Then the augarswere drilled to 10" andanother shelby tube wastaken of the grey silt.Finally a shelby tubesample was collected of thegreen silt at 25'-26'. A2' plug of bentonite wasinstalled in the bottom ofthe boring and the annuluswas grouted to groundlevel.

121



Site HamiIton/Chem-Dyne

Boring No. B-24

Groundwater El.at completion

Start Date 2/26/81


Township

Range

after days

after days

Total Depth of Boring

Section

Meridian



Located next toB-8.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.

Ground Surface

This boring was augareddown to 7' where a shelbytube sample was collectedof the brown, fine grained, —silty sand material.Then a 4' bentonite plugwas installed in the bottom —of the boring and theannulus was grouted toground level.

122




Boring No. B-25

Start Date 2/26/81


Township

Range

Section

Meridian



Ground El. 592.31

Groundwater El.at completion553.88after 6 days 563.78



Located off-sitein the far north-west corner of thefacility even withthe upright tanks.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-lSand and Gravel (fill)

black and brownS-2

SG

SG

1/1/2

12/6/6

12S-3 6/5/6

4/374

10-S-5

12

9.5

Clayey Silt

brown

S-6

15S-7

S-Si-C

CSi

CSi

7/4/3

4/6/6

4/5/5

/

//

/

/

/

/

/

/

/////

/

/

// 580.31

123

State

Site

TotalDepth

21.5

31.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilton/Chem-Dyne

Form.Thick

10

Descript ion

Clayey Silt (con't) —

with shell fragments

Silty Sand —

30

E.O.B. —

The bottom 10' was 35screened and gravelled. —Then a 4' bentonite plug —

was installed and the —annulus was grouted to — -ground level. 40

Boring No. B-25

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10&11

S-12

S-13

S-14

Misc.

CSi

S

SG

S

Si

BlowCount .

2/4/5

3/4/5

5/13/25

13/20/24

12/15/20

4/26/26

WellConst .

* ^ r-

t * «»

* * I .•* 1 1'» <•*a ~ •

c .'- "•. •_ oot ~_ o

c -- o,,

°" --:-.:°o "- '°

"--.":•o " flC

'o ."- o••---••:•o - «.

0° ° " 1

Elev.

570.81

-=,

560.81

124




Boring No. B-26

Groundwater El.at completion 566.98after 4 days 564 .W

Start Date 2/28/81

Completion Date 3/1/81 ,

Township

Range


Total Depth of Boring 31.5*

Sect ion

Meridian



Located in the citypark east of thesite just south ofthe hydrauliccanal.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-l SG

9.5Sand and Gravel (fill)

brown - grey

4/8/6

4/4/3

S-3 GS 2/2/39.5

12

14.5

2.5 Clayey Silt

grey

S-4 1/1/2

10-S-5

2.5Silty Sandbrown, shell fragments —

Sandy Gravel 15 —S-7

CSi

S

SG

2/2/3

4/4/5

580.08

577.58

575.08

3/5/7

125



TotalDepth

31.5

Form.Thick

i 7

!

Description

Sandy Gravel ( con ' t ) -—

coarse grained _-J•

_•-

25

— •-

• -

30 .

E.O.B. —

The bottom 10' was 35screened and the bottom —15' was gravelled. Then —a 2' bentonite plug was —installed and the well —was temporarily sealed. 40Later, this well was —pulled and the annulus —was grouted to ground —level. —

^

S amp 1 eNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

Misc.

SG

BlowCount .

23/38/38

16/32/38

11/18/21

11/25/25

18/17/18

12/18/35

WellConst.

• IX/I c°»K/Io° / /

^ id

•:&«°0 / iC°

faaC-O I.* o

0 I^T^O

\c\/y\°lrj)t

Q O f

\ 0 * * *

Elev.

i-

358.08

126

DRILLING LOG of 2


Site H ami Iton/Ch em-Dyne

Boring No. B-27

Start Date 3/1/81


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian



Ground El. 590.45

Groundwater El.at completion 563.91after 2 days 563.8T



Located in the citypark east of thesite in line withthe center of thesite.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.


S-1&2Sand and Gravel (fill) -—

S-Si-CSG

2/5/7

S-3 4/4/3brown

12S-4 3/4/4

S-5 CSi 2/3/2

10-12 S-6 3/4/3

Clayey Silt

grey, with shellfragments

S-7 SG 3/3/6 578.45

15S-8 4/6/9

127



TotalDepth

17

31.5

Form.Thick

14.5

Description

Clayey Silt (con't) — |

*~ — "

on.-

Sandy Gravel — •-


•"5

—

—m~

30ji>

—

E.O.B. —

The bottom 10" was 35screened and gravelled. —Then a 2' bentonite plug —was installed and the —annulus was grouted to —ground level. 40

50

S amp 1 eNo.

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

Misc.

SG

SG

BlowCount.

16/25/34

14/39/28

28/30/25

20/21/22

75/.311

WellConst .

"7"/T t

. oo

C«

°C

0Dc

oc

0c0

_

—

-~

I-~~

-

-'_-- _

y4 +

O

O

'o

r,°

t o

0

oa°c%0*00»

Elev.

573 45

558.95

128




Boring No. B-28


Start Date 3/2/81

Completion Date 3/2/8.1

Township

Range



Sect ion

Meridian



Located in thacity park east ofthe site off FordBlvd.

TotalDepth


S amp1eNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-l SG 3/4/7 I/I

Sand and Gravel (fill) —S-2 10/12/13

black and brown

S-3 5/4/5587.12

S-4 CSi 5/6/7

10.5

Clayey Silt

grey with some brown10-

15

S-5

S-6

S-7

2/3/4

2/1/3

1/2/3

129

State

Site

TotalDepth

17.5

23.5

27

36.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4


Form.Thick

6

3.5

9.5

Descript ion

Clayey Silt —

(con't) *s^ — •

°0Sandy Clayey Silt -^grey-green, glancontic, —

shell fragments —.s

s^ oc

Silty Sand —

fragments, / —

Sandy Gravel —grey, becoming brown at — •deeper intervals, coarse —

E.O.B. —

Temporarily sealed and 40

later this well was pulled —and grouted to ground — *-

surface. — -

Boring No. B-28

Pg. 2 of 2

SampleNo.

S-8

S-9

S-10

S-ll

S-12

S-13

Misc.

S-Si-C

S

SG

BlowCount .

1/3/4

2/6/12

12/60

15/27/34

10/17/28

12/25/37

WellConst .

'A/yw\$&•r \A\*:SSv*••&:i4;• u*/i °• lyXl*

'i i X "' Xi'•'/.'VA.-

':&•:£<•o &0 o a*' «• <•• a ** a• - c ,. •

Elev.

576.62

570.62

567.12

557.62

130

DRILLING LOG Pg- oi:



Boring No. B-29

Groundwater El.at completion590.68after 2 days 590.58"

Start Date 3/2/81 after 39 davs 589.69


Township

Range


Section

Meridian



Located east ofthe site by FordBlvd. and Lynn St,

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-l SG 7/9/13Sand and Gravel (fill)

brownS-2 9/6/7

S-3 5/6/4594.99

Silty Sand

12brown, fine grained, 10-coiled gastropod shells S-4 S-Si-C 2/2/4

S-5 5/6/6Sandy Gravel

brown, coarse grained15

S-6 S-Si-C 15/6/6

589.99

131


Site Hamilton/Chem-Dyne Pg . 2 of 2

TotalDepth

17

19

Form.Thick

2

Descr ipt ion

Sandy Gravel (con't) —

Clayey Silt ,

grey / —/ —

E.O.B. _25

Bottom 10' screened and —gravelled. Then a 2' —bentonite plug was —installed and the —annulus was grouted to 30

ground level. — •-

50

SampleNo.

S-7

Misc.BlowCount .

4/4/6

WellConst .

v°|-"-l°°

c- *• & » *

Kiev.

584 9958? 99

132

DRILLING LOG Pg- of



Boring No. B-30

Groundwater El.at completion 563.42after 28 days 562.g

Start Date 3/3/81


Township

Range

after days


Sect ion

Meridian



Located west of thesite alongside theMiami River northof the Black Streetbridge.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst. Elev.


S-lSand and Gravel

brown, coarse grained,silty in places 5-

S-2

G

SG

3/3/4

5/16/10

S-3 6/10/15

16+

10-

oa oooe> eOo

OGo

S-4 30/32/16

15S-5 30/42/28

0 -9 I

"<»ooc> c

133

State

Site

TotalDepth

16

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Hamilton/Chem-Dvne


Sandy Gravel / —(con't) / —

/ 20/ _

E.O.B. —

Bottom 10' screened and 25gravelled to 3'. Then a —2" bentonite plug was —installed and the —annulus was grouted to -=-ground level. 30

40

50

Boring No.

S amp 1 eNo. Misc.

••

B-30

Pg-

BlowCount .

2 of 2

WellConst .

o a v o & •*

Elev.

581.02

134

DRILLING LOG Pg-



Boring No. B-31


Start Date 3/3/81 after days


Township

Range


Sect ion

Meridian



Located west ofthe site alcng theMiami River southof the Black St.Bridge.

TotalDepth


SampleNo. Misc.

BlowCount

WellConst Elev.


Silty Sand

brown, fine grained

S-l Si S 1/1/1

5/7/6566.55

Sandy Gravel9.5 S-3 SG 13/16/20

brown, coarse grained10-

11.5 S-5 21/23/15Oc

0 O 557.05E.O.B.

Bottom 5' screened andgravelled. Then a 2'plug of bentonite wasinstalled and theannulus was grouted toground level

15

135

DRILLING LOG



Boring No. B-32

Start Date 3/3/81


Township

Range

Sect ion

Meridian


Dri l ler H.C. Nutting

Pg. 1 of 2

Ground El. 577.67

Groundwater El .at completion 563.67a f t e r 28

af ter

days 563.53

days

Total Depth of Boring 21.5 '

Located north ofthe site and northof the hydrauliccanal on theBonham farm.

TotalDepth

0

4.5

9.5

Form.Thick

4.5

5

12

Description

Ground Surface

Silty Clay —

brown —

Silty Sand 5

brown, med-fine grained — •

Sandy Gravel 10 ,

brown, coarse grained -*-

15 - •

SampleNo.

S-l

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

Misc.

SiC

CSi

GS

S

SG

SG

BlowCount

2/2/3

4/6/8

4/6/5

2/1/2

7/14/18

35/60

18/32/32

WellConst .

/'/'//I/I///]//i/Vy //,/!///y/vvw$»»+/|'M

°° /l'°o° '-y*'o-h/j.t

"&A0 -A*'0° /- .'0 * ^t 0°

°l*-)'c0 °l Xl «0 \/-/t •

Elev.

577.67

573.17

568.17

136

State

Site

TotalDepth

21.5

Ohio No. F5-8007-4

Kami It on/ Ch em-Dyne


Sandy Gravel ( c o n ' t ) —' —

-

E . O . B . —

Bottom 10' screened and 25gravelled. Then a 2' —bentonite plug was —installed. This well —was later pulled and — *-grouted to ground level. 30

f-

35

^

Boring -No.

SampleNo.

S-8

Misc.

SG

B-32

Pg.

BlowCount .

13/20/21

2 of 2

WellConst

C° l*^|£ *O ^^r *

ift

Elev.

556.17

137

APPENDIX B

Chemical Analyses, Sampling Techniques,

and Operational Procedures

138

This appendix delineates sampling protocol, analytical

requirements, and laboratory inconsistencies; documents procedures;

offers opinions, and presents the raw data accumulated for theChem-Dyne site.

Soil sampling techniques have been outlined in Appendix A. At

such time that a final decision and concensus had been reached as to

which and how many soil samples would be analyzed for chemical

parameters, the samples (which had been in E&E's custody while on site

and locked in an E&E storage area after being brought back to Chicago)

were split out of their cases and repacked for shipment to the

designated laboratories. Shipping was conducted via the Federal

Express Company. The resultant soils not picked for chemical analysis

were recased and transported by E&E van to H.C. Nutting in Cincinnati

for grain size and permeability analysis. These remain in H.C.

Nutting's custody and are still available for review.

A composite soil sample was also collected over the surface of the

site at 50 foot grid intervals. Samples were collected using a

stainless steel spatula that had been washed and rinsed with acetone

and allowed to air dry. Samples were retained in clean glass wide

mouth jars prepared by the E&E laboratory. Upon completion of this

sampling, all sample jars were emptied into a stainless steel bucket

which had been previously washed and rinsed with acetone and allowed to

dry. This material was thoroughly mixed using a decontaminated

stainless steel spatula. A representative sample was then collected

from the top, middle, and bottom of this mixture and stored in a clean

glass bottle (also prepared by E&E labs). A Teflon liner was inserted

under the cap and USEPA chain-of-custody procedures were followed for

storage, shipment, and analysis.

All soil samples sent for chemical analyses were extracted and the

metal fraction was analyzed. Although these inorganic results are

reported in the concentration tables (Table 4-8), it is felt that any

reliable evaluation of this data is limited due to the extraction

process. These anaylses may represent the worst possible contaminent

case and thus provide an outside limit of potential contamination.Sampling of the groundwater occurred at three different times.

139

January, 1981-

Eight water samples were collected from wells representing fourupgradient and four downgradient positions. Prior to sampling, thesewells were not developed; however, two volumes* were removed and thethird volume was sampled. No inorganic samples were collected. Thepurpose of this sampling was to provide the USEPA with a quick firstapproximation of what might be expected and time constraints were suchthat complicated preparation of the samples was not possible. Uponcollecting, the samples were processed according to USEPA policies andtransported via Federal Express to the designated laboratories.Sampling was conducted using a stainless steel bailer which had beenwashed and rinsed with acetone and allowed to dry. Bottles wereprepared by the E & E laboratory and Teflon liners were used under thecaps.

February, 1981-

Five water samples were collected representing three on-site wells andtwo off-site, downgradient, local well supplies. These on-site wellswere not developed or purged although two volumes of water wereremoved thus allowing water indicative of the aquifer conditions to besampled. (Sampling was done with stainless steel bailers that had beenpreviously washed and rinsed with acetone.) The third volume wassampled and samples retained in bottles provided by the E & Elaboratory. Teflon cap liners were used in the bottles. No filteringof the metal fraction occurred. Thus it is reasonable to expect thathigher concentrations of some metallic ions were reported thanactually exist naturally in the groundwater. Organic parametersshould be indicative of the aquifer. The Champion Paper sample wascollected from a chlorinating holding tank where composite well wateris stored prior to usage. (This tank empties and fills every 15minutes.) No individual well sampling from the well heads could beobtained since the entire system is closed plumbed. This sample wascollected from a sampling port in the floor of the building using astainless steel bailer. The last sample collected was from the Cityof Hamilton's south water plant. This sample was also a compositesample from the well field taken prior to injection into the aerators(and subsequent treatment). It is felt that this sample isrepresentative of the aquifer conditions at that location.

IA volume is the amount of water in the well. This is measured on aperiodic basis and when the well is sampled, this measurement is subtractedfrom the total depth of the well to give the height of the water column.By using the formula^TTR^H to find the volume of the well, two volumesmay then be calculated and removed. A nomograph previously calculated mayalso be used. Be removing two volumes of water from the well, any"stagnant" water is discharged and fresh water representative of conditionsfound in the aquifer is then available for sampling.

140

April, 1981-

At this time, the sampling that was to be used to assess thecontamination to the aquifer was conducted. As mentioned, allpermanent wells had been set and sealed and temporary wells pulled andgrouted. Sampling began by purging the wells of as much water andconstruction debris as possible in order to clean the wells. This wasdone during the two weeks preceding sampling. Copper bailers ofvarious sizes and designs, an air-driven pump, and peristaltic pumpwere used. During the week of sampling, two volumes of water wereremoved from each well prior to collecting the sample. This allowedfor "fresh" water indicative of the aquifer to be sampled. Samplingcommenced with the upgradient wells, moved to the downgradient wells,and finally the on-site wells. (This allowed for sampling from theleast contaminated to the most contaminated.) All samples werecollected with a stainless steel bailer that had been washed withwater, rinsed with acetone and allowed to air dry. Samples wereretained in jars provided by the E & E laboratory. Teflon liners wereinstalled under the caps of all bottles. Samples to be analyzed forthe metal fraction were run through a 0.45 micron filter paper andthen preserved with nitric acid. USEPA chain-of-custody and samplingprocedures were followed. The samples were shipped via FederalExpress to the designated labs. A total of 30 points were sampledincluding 3 upgradient, 2 fringe, 5 on-site, 11 downgradient, 3 river,3 hydraulic canal, and 3 local well supplies. Samples for 21 E & Ewells were collected as described above (two wells were dry). Surfacewater samples were collected from a boat using a peristaltic pump anddepth-integrating the samples. The three points in each surface bodyrepresented upstream, mid-site and downstream points. The ChampionPaper supply was sampled as noted in the February, 1981 samplingexcept Champion Paper was notified ahead of schedule and they by-passed their chlorination treatment. This continued for the entiremorning prior to our sampling. The Hamilton water supply was sampledin the same manner as noted for February, 1981. The FairfieldConcrete well was allowed to run for a minimum of 10 minutes prior tosampling. Samples were collected from a spigot located on the westside of the tower.

It is felt that all of these samples are indicative of groundwater

conditions in the aquifer.

141

Part of the sampling procedure required by USEPA involves collectingduplicate samples and submitting blank samples for each day of sampling.Duplicate analyses are not listed in this report. Blank samples aregenerated both in the field and in the laboratory as controls. These

concentrations should be considered when reviewing the data. For the mostpart, these concentrations are probably found in the background samples aswell as in the other samples since all samples are collected and analyzed

by identical methods. Therefore, by simply comparing the sample data to be

evaluated with a representative background sample, any inconsistencies

brought about by sampling techniques or laboratory analytical proceduresare automatically cancelled. It should also be cautioned to observe

reasonable flucuations in the data reporting. Exact repetitiveconcentrations are not possible. Small deviations or ranges should beexpected. Detection limits and analytical variations should be considered

when reviewing these results.A variety of discrepancies and problems occurred during this

investigation. Reports detailing these problems are on file with theUSEPA. One area which heretofore has not been adequately addressed

involves the blank samples collected on the third and fourth days ofsampling in April, 1981. Uncharacteristically high concentrations of

toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and carbontetrachloride were reported. Similar concentrations of these chemicals

were not found in blank samples collected on days 1 and 2. After reviewingthe USEPA laboratory procedures, no satisfactory explanation could befound. A review of sampling techniques showed the stock water used for theblanks was prepared two different ways. Upon contacting the private

laboratory involved, it was found that these chemical substances arefrequently used in the laboratory and could be expected in blank water

prepared for use on days 3 and 4. Identical water was not used on days 1and 2. In lieu of the above, blanks analyzed on days 3 and 4 should betotally disregarded. It is felt that given the average of concentrationsfound on day 1 and 2, similar concentrations were available on day 3 and 4.As a further note, only methylene chloride was found in the blanks on day 1and 2. It is felt that the concentrations exhibited probably represent

residuals from the bottle washing and decontamination process. The Januaryand February samplings seem to verify this as do the sampling results from

background locations, local well supplies, surface samples, and

construction water samples.

142

General Comments

All samples were analyzed quantitatively for priority pollutants,ICAP metals, arsenic, and mercury and qualitatively for the next 20most prevalent organic substances as directed by the USEPA.

All concentrations referred to in this text and tables are reportedin ug/1 (ppb) except where otherwise noted.

Blank spaces in the soil analyses table indicate either no analysiswas conducted or no detectable quantities were reported.

Blank spaces in the water samples indicate no detectablequantities.

Specific analytical and testing methods are available in the NEIC"Enforcement Condsiderations for Evaluations of UncontrolledHazardous Waste Disposal Sites by Contractors", 1980; "NEICRegulated Laboratory Sample Preparation Request and HandlingProcedures", 1980; and the Federal Register.

Since the base/neutral organic fraction of the soils was analyzedusing two separate recovery methods, these values were added whenreported in the concentration tables.

Pesticide results of the soil samples were not confirmed by GC/MSexcept for PCB 1260.

Individual data sheets for each sample are available from theUSEPA.

143

Table 16: Identification and Location of Samples by Number

Water Samples

B-l

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-ll

B-12

B-13

B-14

B-15

B-16

B-17

B-18

B-19

B-20

B-21

B-22

B-23

B-24

B-25

B-26

B-27

B-28

B-29

B-30

B-31

81MB05801 (1/21/81); 81MM03S41 (4/20/81)

81MM03S42 (4/22/81)

81MM03S43 (4/22/81)

81MM03S44 (4/21/81)

81MB05S07 (1/21/81); 81MM03S45 (4/22/81)

81MB05S06 (1/21/81); 81MM03S46 (4/22/81)

81MB05S05 (1/21/81); 81MM03S47 (4/23/81)

81MB05S03 (1/21/81); 81MB05D01 (2/21/81); 81MM03S48 (4/22/81)

81MB05S08 (1/21/81); 81MM03S50 (4/22/81); 81MM03D50 (4/22/81)

81MB05S04 (1/21/81); 81MM03S51 (4/22/81)

81MB05S02 (1/21/81)

81MM03S52 (4/23/81); 81MM01S52 (2/18/81); 81MM01D52 (2/18/81)

81MM03S52 (4/23/81)

81MM03S53 (4/23/81); 81MM01S54 (2/18/81)

81MM03S54 (4/23/81)

81MM03S55 (4/23/81); 81MM03055 (4/23/81); 81MM01S53 (2/18/81)

81MM03S57 (4/24/81)

81MM03S58 (4/20/81)

81MM03S59 (4/20/81); 81MM03D59 (4/20/81)

81MM03S60 (4/21/81)

81MM03S61 (4/21/81); 81MM03D61 (4/21/81)

Table 16: Identification of Location of Samples by NumberWater Samples (continued)

Blank

Champion Paper

Hamilton S. Plant

81MB05R0181MM01R0481MM03R06

81MM03R04

81MM03R0581MM03R03

(1/21/81)

(2/18/81)

(4/23/81)

(4/21/81)

(4/22/81)

(4/20/81)

81MM01S51 (2/18/81); 81MM03S72 (4/22/81)

81MM01S55 (2/18/81); 81MM03S71 (4/20/81)

Composite Soil 81MM03S73 (4/24/81)

F a i r f i e l d Concrete We l l 81MM03S70 (4/23/81)

Canal

S101S201S301

81MM03S65 (4/21/81)

81MM03S66 (4/21/81)

81MM03S67 (4/21/81}

River

S202S102S302

81MM03S63 (4/21/81)

81MM03S62 (4/21/81)

81MM03S64 (4/21/81)

Construction Material

Hydrant (1)

Hydrant (2)AcetonePipeGravelBentoniteConcrete

81MM03S68

81MM03S6981MM03S7881MM03S74

81MM03S7581MM03S76

81MM03S77

Table 16: Identification and Location of Samples by Number

SOIL SAMPLES

Sample Number Well Number Depth of Sample

81MM03S03

81MM03S16

81MM03S17

81MM03S18

81MM03S19

81MM03S2081MM03S21

81MM03S22

81MM03S23

81MM03S24

81MM03S25

81MM03S2681MM03S27

81MM03S28

81MM03S29

81MM03S30

81MM03S31

81MM03S32

81MM03S33

81MM03S34

81MM03S35

81MM03S36

81MM03S37

81MM03S38

81MM03S39

81MM03S40

81MM04S36Q1MNTC3C7-3

B-2

B-3

B-8

B-10

B-12

B-14

B-14

B-15

B-16

B-16

B-16

B-16

B-16

B-17

B-17

B-17

B-17

B-18 .

B-18

B-19

B-19

B-19

B-20

B-21

B-22

B-26

B-26

51- 6.5'

2.5'- 4.01

33.5'-35.0'O1- 1.5'

12.5'

0'- 1.5'

27.5'-29.0'

0'- 1.5'

Surface

8"- l.O1

2.5'- 4.0'

7.5'- 9.0'

33.5'-35.0'0'- 1.51

25.0'-26.5'

15.0'-16.5'

33.5'-35.0'

O1- 1.5'

7.5'- 9.0'

O1- 1.5'

10.0'-11.5'20.0'-21.5'

0'- 1.5'

O1- 1.51

2.5'- 4.0'

2.51- 4.0'

22.5'-24.0'

TABLE 17. LIST OF ICAP METALS AND PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

ICAP METALS

AluminumChromiumBariumBe ryl1i urnCadmi urnCobaltIron

ArsenicAntimonySeleniumTh al 1 i urnMercuryTinLead

NickelManganeseZincBoronV a n a d i u mCalciumSod i urn

AcroleinCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzene1,1-DichloroethaneChloroethaneChloroformMethylene chlorideTrichlorofluoromethaneDichlorodif1uoromethane1,2-trans-dichloroethylenebis (Chloromethyl) ether

1,2-DichlorobenzeneHexachlorethane1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene2-Chloronaphthalene2,4-Dinitrotoluene4-Bromophenyl phenyl etherbis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalatePhenanthreneBenzo(a)AnthraceneIndeno (l,2,3-c,d) pyrene4-Chlorophenyl phenyl etherbis (2-Chloroethyl) etherHexachloroyclopentadieneN-Ni trosod imethylamineButyl benzyl phthalate

PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

AcryonitrileEthyl benzene1,2-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichl oroethylene2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether1,2-DichloropropaneMethyl chlorideDichlorobromomethaneChiorod i bromometh aneVinyl chloride

1,3-DiChlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadienebis (2-Chloroethoxy) methaneIsophorone2,6-DinitrotolueneDimethyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateChryseneAnthraceneBenzo(b)FluorantheneDibenzo (a,h) anthracene3,3-Dichlorobenzidine1,2-DiphenylhydrazineN-NitrosodiphenylamineN-Nitrosodi-n-propylaminebis (2-Chloroisopropyl) ether

BenzeneToluene1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1,2,2-Trichloroethane1,3-DichloropropeneMethyl bromideBromoformTetrachloroethyleneTr ichloroethylene

1,4-DiChlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzeneNaphthaleneNitrobenzeneFluoreneDiethyl phthalateFluoranthenePyreneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo)g,h,i) peryleneBenzidineAcenaphthyleneAcenaphthene

TABLE 17. LIST OF ICAP METALS AND PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (con't)

Phenol2,4-Dinitrophenolp-Chloro-m-cresol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

AntimonyCadmiumLeadSeleniumZinc

A-EndosulfanA-BHCR-BHC4,4-DDEHeptachlorToxapheneAroclor 1232Aroclor 1254

2-Nitrophenol4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol2-Chlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol

ArsenicChromi urnMercurySilverCyanide

B-EndosulfanB-BHCAldrin4,4-DDDHeptachlor epoxideAroclor 1016Aroclor 1242Aroclor 1260

4-NitrophenolPentachlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol

Beryl 1 iumCopperNickelTh al 1 i urnAsbestos

Endosulfan sulfateG-BHCDieldrin4,4-DDTChlordaneAroclor 1221Aroclor 1248

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

TABLE 18. BLANK SAMPLE DATA

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ^X2.4.6-tr.chtoroohenoio- chioro_-m - cresol2-cnioroohcnoi2-4'dicMoroDhenol2-4-dimCthvlBhenol2-mtroDhenoi

2.4-dinitroDhcnoi4.6-dinilroBhenoi

ohenolaccnaphthcncbf nzidnne

hcxachloroc thanehi«(2chlorn*thvl> ether2-chloronaohtnalcnc1B2-dichlorobcnzene1.3-dicnlorobcrucne1.4- drchiQTo benzene3.3-drchforqhenridine2,4-dmitro toluene

.. ?.VdinitrotQlucng _

ftuoranthene4-ehlorODhcnvl Dhenvl ether4- bromoohenvl ohcnvl *th«rbj« f 2-chloroicooroavl) ether

h<»a,lorol>ut>l,ci.c

i«nnnnren*

— napnthalcnr

p-nitrosodimcthvlamine

fi-nitro_SQ-n -erooviammcbis (2-ethyihexvl) phthaiatc

dt-n.butvl ohthaiatc

Hi* thw 1 ahthaiatc

bcazo (a)ovpene

bcnzo ( k) ftuoranthenecnryseneaccnaphthyicncanthracenebcnzo (qhi) pcrylcncf luorenc

pyrcne2. 3. 7. B- tetraehlorodibfnz.o -o-doxihacrolcm

benzenecarbon t (.trichloride

12-d.chlorc.ethane11.1-tnchlorocthanc1.1-dichloro ethane1 U-trichlaroethanc1.1. 2.2-tctraehlorocthanechlorocthanebis Lcbloromcthvl) _cthcr

r h t ft ret form

mcthvKne chloridemethvl chloridemethyl bromidebromoform^l^hlorobrnmomcthan etnchkirof luoromcthan*dichtordxtluoromethan*chlorodibromo methane

toluenetriehlorocthvlencfinyl cfllOfietf

aid 1-1 ndieldrinchlordane4 4'- DDT4_ 4[- DD E44'- ODDa - endotulfanh - endOkulfan

!"dr.nU'tan """" 'cndrin aldchvdc

a-BHCh.HHCd - BHCQ-8HC

"CB

|

-

1

»

•1 g

1

•

•

S

•

•

1

-*

25.3

B

tM

•

1S1

— 57SO

•

28.7

101

^5s

65O

39

•

:22

88-7

All concentrations arc reported in PPB. Blank ioaccs indicate no detectable concentrations.• Less than 10 PPB. • Less than 5 PPB.

TABLE 18. BLANK SAMPLE DATA

^V I/)

\. w

\ *N. Q

INORGANIC COMPOUNDS*

aluminumchromiumbariumberylliumcadmiumcobaltCODDer

ironleadnickelmanganesezincboronvanadiumcalciummaanesiumsodiumarsenicantimonvseleniumthalliummercurvtinsilver

1s(

N

NL

!

A I

AAk'

^

oo\

s< 50< 10< 10< 2< 5< 10< 2040

<40< 20< 10

20< 10< 103OO

000400

< 10< 20< 10< 10< 1< 20420

is

< 50< 10< 10< 2< 5< 10< 20< 20

< 40< 20< 1C)< 10< 1C)< 10<100* 100<100< 1C)< 20' 10< 10< 1« 20< 20

1OJ

<f\

«- 50< 10* 10< 2< 5< 10< 20< 20< 40< 20< 10< 10< 10< 10

GOO200

< 100< 10< 20• 10< 10< 1< 20< 20

\OJ\

\v\

< 50< 1 0< 10< 2

< 5< 10< 20< 20* 40< 20« 10< 10< 10< 10< 100« 100400

< 10< 20< 10< 10< 1< 20<- 2O

^5PT\CM\

t 50<- 10« 10* 2< 5

< 10< 20< 2 0<40< 20<10< 10< 10« 10<100<100<100< 10< 20< 10<• 10< 1i 20< 20

All concentrat ions are reported in PPB. NA means not analyzed.< Less than concentrations probably indicate detection limits.

APPENDIX C

Cost Assessment

151

A preliminary cost assessment was conducted in an earlier phase ofthis investigation. This report is reproduced at the end of this Appendixand is referenced here. The cost estimate was broken down into severalbasic areas and a variety of options were presented. Now that some

analytical data is available and a better understanding of the actual siteconditions are known, the following is offered to augment that report.

The initial part of the cost estimate dealt with removing thecontaminant source (i.e. drums, tanks, ponds, etc.). Since no changesregarding the limits of this phase have been suggested, it is assumed thatwithin the confines of the proposed scope of work, the original proposal isaccurate. Therefore, approximately $6,768,000 w i l l be required to removeand safely dispose of waste stored in drums, tank, ponds, or as bulk.

Upon reviewing the "surface and subsurface structures and soilremoval" section, it is recommended that removal of the gas and watermains, sewer and railroad lines, fences, electric lines, telephone cables,and parking lots be carried out as specified. Demolition or decontam-

ination of the building structures is still indeterminate at this time.After analyzing the soil samples collected on site, it is felt that removal

of three feet of soil over the site will probably be sufficient to containa majority of the contaminants. It should be noted that in site specificareas deeper excavations may be required (these deeper excavations are notevaluated and would have to be further delineated with additional on siteborings or after removal of the top three feet of soil). Total estimated

cost is $7,950,000.The last section of the clean-up estimate dealt with the amelioration

of the contaminated ground water. Present data indicate that groundwater

contamination generally seems to be limited to a 1000 foot zone centeredover the site. Based on the above (and the preceding report) it is felt

that some sort of groundwater cleansing could be feasible and costeffective although it should be realized that total removal of contaminantsfrom an aquifer is impossible, prohibitively expensive, and impractical. Asomewhat scaled down version of the proposed cost estimate is suggested.

152

The pump testing outlined in the cost estimate w i l l s t i l l have to be

done. This cost was approximated at $5,150. In addition, the"Construction and Installation of Extraction System" section is probablyvalid as it was designed to handle a plume 2000 ft. x 750 ft. x 35 ft.which closely approximates conditions at Chem-Dyne. This cost came to

$230,400. A major variation in the proposal would come by way of thelength of time required for treatment. As total clean-up of the aquifer is

impractical and probably impossible, a variation on the total clean-up

theme is desireable. Adequate removal of the contaminants could bereasonably limited to removal of volumes of water until such time as the

remaining contaminant concentrations leveled off at non-harmful amounts.Based on well pumping and purging techniques and theories, this wouldprobably be realized sometime after 5 volumes were removed. Assuming a1500 ft x 1000 ft x 40 ft volume, the total aquifer volume would come to60,000,000 cu ft . The water volume is derived by multiplying the aquifervolume by the effective porosity of the aquifer (Walton, 1970). Thisfigure is then converted to gallons and by introducing the recovery system

pumpage rate, a rough estimate of time needed to purge the aquifer is

obtained.

1) 1500 ft x 1000 ft x 40 ft = 60,000,000 cu ft

2) 60,000,000 cu ft x .30 = 18,000,000 cu ft

3) 18,000,000 cu ft x 7.5 gal/cu ft = 135,000,000 gal/vol

4) 135,000,000 x 5 vol = 675,000,000 galnfo\

5) 675,000,000 gal x 1 day = 2250 daysITOJOO gal

6) 2250 days x 1 year = 6.16 years365

153

Therefore, approximately 6 years w i l l be required to remove 5 volumesof water from the aquifer.

According to city officials, the existing sewer lines cannot handle

this load. Projected costs for moving and discharging the water is

$172,400. In view of the concentration of some priority pollutants found

in the groundwater and the effluent limitations set in the Federal Register

for these pollutants, it is anticipated that some pretreatment of the

groundwater prior to discharge will be needed. These costs are fairly well

represented in the cost estimate and amount to $1,455,000-- $1,910,000.

The yearly operating cost is also representative; however, based on

treating the water for only six years, the total operating costs are

reduced to $1,410,000. It is expected that the cost estimates formonitoring are valid and will probably be consistant with assumptions and

needs delineated in the original estimate. These costs are $237,600.

A total itemization is listed below:

Waste Removal and Disposal $ 6,768,000Soil and Structure Removal $ 7,950,000Groundwater Treatment $ 3,510,550

Total $18,228,550

rp

154

DATE: March 27, 1981

TO: File

FROM: Mike McCarrin

SUBJECT: Interim Report of Projected Clean-up CostsFor The Chem-Dyne S i te in Hamilton.

The fo l low ing cost breakdown is an initial est imate for the clean-up

of a hazardous waste fac i l i ty in Ohio. The Chem-Dyne plant in Hamilton,

Ohio has functioned s ince 1976 as a recycler of hazardous waste mater ials,

particularly low f lash substances, into a product called Chen-Fuel which

could be used to cut v iscous fuel oi ls or might be used as the fueling

mechanism for burners. Questionable operational practices lead to a

multitude of health related problems and potential harmful environmental

effects. Subsequent legal actions with varying degrees of success have

essential ly restricted the site operations and the major act iv i t ies at this

time are all keyed to the final site clean-up.

This document is f i led under condit ion 2 of F5-8007-4C which is a

Technical Direct ive Document (TDD) supplied under a contract awarded to

Ecology and Environment, Inc. by the United States Environmental Protec-

tion Agency ( U S E P A ) . For the purpose of completing this cost estimate,

several assumptions had to be entertained as the site is still operating,

although under receivership, and actual projection of the ultimate clean-

up requirements are purely conjecture at this point in time. Not

withstanding, the cost estimate is necessary to begin planning for the

ult imate disposi ton of this faci l i ty. Upon conferring with USEPA in the

above matter, it was decided to proceed wi th the fol lowing assumptions

which were based on information obtained from the court appointed

receiver.

1) The current method of liquidating stockpi led drums of material is to

have the original generators retr ieve their material from the site. It

is anticipated that when this has been taken as far as is applicable,

there wi l l remain 8,000 drums on site which will contain totally

unidentified substances.

155

2) It is assumed that all structures on site are contaminated.3) Some amount of soil will be contaminated and w i l l have to be removed.

4) If the groundwater is contaminated, some provisions w i l l have to be

made to restore the aquifer to its original condition.

The following cost estimate is provided based on the above conditions.

It should be noted that these are not the only methods that may be used to

mitigate conditions around the facility. This s;tudy is not intended to be

a cost-effective, controlled, finalized plan taking into account all

alternatives. Nor is it to be filed as a feasibility study or implement-

ation plan. Its purpose is to merely give a rough first approximation of

what one might expect a project of this magnitude to cost. Figures are

based on Means', "Building Construction Cost Data" book, 1981. Major

portions of this estimate have been compiled and written by Clarence Bieze,

Rod Bloese, Fred Bauer and this author. Final edit is by this author and

Joe Petrilli. (All personnel have been employed by Ecology and Environment,

Inc. and worked out of the Region V office in Chicago.)

In order to eliminate contamination in the subsurface and ground

water, it is first necessary to remove the contaminant source. The first

step is realizing this goal is to remove all tanks, drums, pits, and

contaminated structures. Secondly, all contaminated soil must be removed.

Only after this is done is it then feasible to begin work on the aquifer

itself. Lastly, a monitoring system w i l l have to be implemented to verify

the success of the overall project.

156

DRUMS, TANKS, P O N D S , BULK

INTRODUCTION

The analysis, removal, and disposal of wastes remaining on the site

after the generator has removed all identifiable wastes will constitute a

significant portion of the total hazard mitigation cost. These wastes

are contained in approximately 8,000 fifty-five gallon drums, twenty bulk

storage tanks (of varying size and holding up to 240,000 gallons of

liquid waste), and two (2) surface impoundments with a combined capacity

of approximately 50,000 gallons. It is assumed that all waste containers

and the impoundments are at capacity and all wastes are unidentified.

ANALYSIS

To facilitate waste analysis, a fully equipped mobile laboratory

will be required at the site. All waste leaving the property must be

analyzed to a degree that assures safe disposal. Based on a quote from a

firm dealing in hazardous waste disposal, total cost for analytical work

is estimate at $6,245,000.00. This figure assumes a "worst case"

scenario, where all samples must undergo a complete GC/MS scan. The

breakdown on the estimated cost is shown below; with a 12 hour working

day and maximum prices for analyses assumed.

Mobile Lab $250/day; plus an unknown mobilization fee

Personnel $ 80/hour

Chemist $ 45/hour

Technician $ 35/hour

GC/MS $500-7007 sample

Sampling 15-20 samples/day; total 8,000 samples

7 day work week

12 hours/day

157

Obviously, alteration of the basic work schedule assumptions will

correspondingly alter the total cost of this element. In addition, it

must again be stressed that the above assumes complete analysis for all

waste containers. It is not anticipated that this will prove true, but

the possibility exists and must be recognized.

>

BULK WASTE REMOVAL

The initial step in this clean-up phase should address the removal

of wastes contained in the bulk storage tanks and surface impoundments.

Elimination of this material will forestall further soil contamination

(through leakage) and also provide on-site bulking capacity for remaining

wastes if such an option is later deemed acceptable. Stratification of

wastes must be assumed, due to phase separation, thereby necessitating

stratified sampling (i.e., multiple samples per tank). Assume three (3)

samples per tank to aid in estimating analytical costs and time.

Two methods of disposal for bulk wastes are feasible; incineration

and secure landfilling. Although the exact composition of the wastes

will be unknown until analyzed, it can be assumed that a substantial

percentage of the material will be comprised of organics, thereby facili-

tating disposal via incineration. This method could be the most cost

efficient disposal option available, limited only by the quality and

types of material deemed acceptable by the incineration facility. This

estimate must omit any "trade-off" (i.e., acceptance of Chem-Dyne waste

as incineration fuel, thereby lowering or negating the incineration

charge) interaction with the incineration facility as a concession to

"worst case" modeling theory. It is entirely possible, however, that

such an agreement could be negotiated, reducing the calculated disposal

cost for the waste.

The obvious focal point for the incineration option is the Ohio MSD

facility in Cincinnati. This operation accepts all organic materials,

charging 1.2 cents to 4.8 cents a pound (12<f-48"|/gallon, assuming 10

Ibs./gallon). The higher prices apply to halogenated hydrocarbons and

low BTU value materials. Assuming the upper limit of 48^/gallon for

destruction of 95% (276,000 gallons) of the estimated 290,000 gallons

held in the tanks and impoundments, a figure of $132,500 is calculated

158

for disposal. Transportation of the wastes by private hauler to the

incinerator assuming no discount for the large volume is estimated at

$20,000, for a total estimated removal and disposal cost of $152,500 (for

95Z of the bulk waste).

The remaining 14,000 gallons in bulk storage is assumed to contain

wastes unacceptable to the MSD incinerator for whatever reason (high

solid percentage, extreme hazard, "exotic" compounds, etc). The alter-

native disposal site for these wastes is assumed to be the Chemical Waste

Management, Inc. secure landfill/incinerator at Emelle, Alabama. (Note,

that while a secure landfill is operated by CECOS International in

Williarasburg, Ohio, restrictions on the types of wastes acceptable to the

landfill hinders consideration of this site as a disposal point. If

further investigation and analyses reveal that the wastes are compatible

to CECOS1 rules, disposal costs can be revised sharply downward due to

the local proximity of the landfill). Bulk disposal prices at the

Alabama facility also vary depending on waste stream characteristics, but

a figure of $12,000 will be utilized for removal and disposal of the

remaining bulk waste. The above figure assumes three (3) tanker loads

from Hamilton, Ohio to Emelle, Alabama at $4000 per trip.

Total estimated cost for removal and disposal of all bulk wastes

therefore amounts to $164,500.

DRUMMED WASTE REMOVAL

Disposal of drummed materials will constitute the final segment of

on-site waste removal. To achieve optimal cost efficiency, bulking of

drummed waste must be maximized. It is anticipated that the waste in 95Z

of the 8000 drums can be safely bulked, transported to the MSD facility,

and incinerated. "Worst case" cost of incineration of 418,000 gallons

(7600 drums) is projected to reach $200,000, with an additional $30,000

estimated for pumping and transportation of the waste.

The. remaining 400 drums must be assumed to contain materials that

can not, for a variety of reasons, be bulk disposed. These wastes

present special handling and analytical problems which inhibit cost

efficiency in the disposal process. Repackaging, limited disposal site

options, and premium disposal rates account for increased clean-up costs

where such wastes are encountered. This estimate assumes overpacking and

159

special h a n d l i n g ( i n c l u d i n g labor) of the r e m a i n i n g drums at $100 /d rura ,

or $40,000 for the lot. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and d i sposa l at E m e l l e , A l a b a m a

wi l l add approximate ly $25,000, d i sposa l be ing based on ra t iona le

presen ted in the bulk was te disposal sect ion above. Costs for

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and disposal are based on $5,000/ load, 80 d r u m s / l o a d , and

five (5) loads . Again , costs will vary if a d i f f e r e n t d isposa l si te is

ut i l ized.

Total estimated cost for removal and disposal of all drummed waste

amounts to $295,000.

STORAGE TANK AND DRUM REMOVAL

The final components of the s u r f a c e waste removal phase involve the

disposi t ion of empt ied drums and bulk storage tanks.

Assuming maximum bulking as presented above, it is an t ic ipa ted that

7600 empty drums will have to be disposed via secure landfi l l ing. 'The

drums will be compacted on-site and transported to the CECOS f ac i l i t y for

disposal . Total cost for drum disposal is $31,500. Elements for this

cost follow:

Compactor $ 8,500

Transpor ta t ion of Drums $13,500($150/load, 85 drums/load,90 loads)

Disposal Fees $ 9,500($100/ton, 95 tons)

$31,500

Note that options such as drum reclamation or scrap value were not

addressed. Cost efficiency of these options would probably be low due to

the number of damaged and deteriorated drums on-site.

Disposal of the emptied bulk storage tanks, also at the secure land-

fill, is anticipated. As with the drums, reclamation or salvaging of

these vessels will not be addressed in this estimate, but the idea of

regaining some value from the tanks could be valid. It is assumed that

the empty storage tanks will be broken up (by cutting with torches),

crushed, and transported to CECOS for landfilling. Total cost for this

element is anticipated to be $31,750. Breakdown of this cost is as

follows:160

Tank Dismemberment $8,700( inc ludes equ ipmen t , labor , t ime)

Transpor t a t ion of Tanks $2,250($150/ load, 15 loads , 6 tons / load)

Disposal Fees $20,800($100/ ton , 208 tons)

Total $31,750

SUMMARY

Combining the above elements of waste analysis, bulk and drummed

waste, and emptied waste container removal and disposal, the total cost

for disposing of the on-site waste is estimated at $6,768,000.

161

SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES

AND SOIL REMOVAL

INTRODUCTION

Potent ia l s t ructures on-site inc lude con tamina ted bui ld ings , sewer

lines, wa te r ma ins , electric l ines, te lephone cables , gas ma ins , ra i l road

tracks, parking lots, and fences . These s t ruc tu res are assumed to be

con tamina ted thus demanding their removal and l a n d f i l l i n g (at CECOS).

GAS MAINS

No mains are found on site; however, it is assumed that a feeder

line runs to the boiler room.

1200 ft. of 4" steel pipe removed $ 4,512

1200 ft. of earth removal (400 cy.) 1,260

Hauling 3,733

Disposal 29.400 - 42,000

$51,505

WATER MAINS

At least 3 water mains of various sizes plus several fire hydrant

lines exist on site.

900 ft. of 10" steel pipe removed $ 6,795

1520 ft. of 6" steel pipe removed 7,539




3940 ft. of earth removed (1313 cy.) 4,137

Disposal 96,505 - 137,900

Hauling 12,255

$178,335.00

162

SEWER LINES

Thirty six (36) manholes or catch bas ins plus a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3400

feet of 18" pipe and 370 feet of 15" pipe are listed on site.

36 m a n h o l e s or catch bas in removed $ 5,400.00

3400 ft. of concre te 18" pipe removed 14,756.00

370 ft. of concrete 15" pipe removed 1,484.00

3770 f t . of ear th removed (1256 cy.) 3,958.00

Disposal 92,330 - 131,900.00

Hauling 11.723.00

$169,221.00

RAILROAD LINES "

Approximate 2100 linear feet of abandoned railroad tracks exist on

site.

2100 ft. of railroad track removed $19,950.00

Ballast removal (777 cy.) 1,625.00

Disposal 57,120 - 81,600.00

Hauling 7.252.00

$110,427.00

FENCES

The entire site is surrounded by a 10 foot high cyclone fence topped

with 3 strands of barbed wire. At least for the time being, this fence

will be left in place to control access to the contaminated areas. This

may be removed at a later time if the fence interferes with the exca-

vation work.

ELECTRIC LINES AND TELEPHONE CABLES

All electric lines and telephone cables are run overhead on poles.

At this point in time, it is anticipated that these will not have to be

moved. If, at a later time, it is found to be necessary to move these

lines or if underground cables are located, additional cost analysis wil l

have to be performed.

163

PARKING LOTS

Parking structures occupy extensive areas around the facility.

These will be stripped out with the top 3' of earth to be removed at a

later date.

B U I L D I N G S

Three (3) bu i ld ings exist on-site that were used as processing

fac i l i t i e s . These bui ldings will have to be removed or d e c o n t a m i n a t e d .

Decontaminat ion was not specified at this t ime due to lack of i n fo rma t ion

and apparent in feas ib i l i ty of the process. The below f igures represent

demoli t ion and burial at an approved landf i l l .

Foundation Demolition (355 cy.) . $ 26,980

Wall Demolition (1503 cy.) 81,704

Slab Demolit ion (780 cy.) 44,370

Disposal (3429 tons) (2638 cy.) 240,030 - 342,900

Hauling (176 loads) 24,640

$520,594

SURFACE REMOVAL

A major part of the contamination source reduction relies upon

removal of the top 3 feet of surface material .

Removal of 56,517 cy. of earth $ 46,344

Hauling * 527,492

Disposal 4,153,940 - 5,651.700

$6,225,536.00

(* Hauling was figured at 4 hours / 15 yard load.)

If the next 3 feet (3'-6') of soil is also required to be removed,

the same cost would be required again.

164

At the comple t ion of the soil remova l , c lean f i l l m a t e r i a l w i l l have

to be brought in and graded .

Mater ia l 56,517 cy. of ear th $ 237,371

Spread ing and Grading 9 7 7 , 7 7 4

$1,215,145

If an additional 3 feet (3'-6') of earth is removed, a like amount of

fill will have to be returned to the site.

SUMMARY

The total cost for removing, hauling, and landfilling the surface

and subsurface structures and contaminated soil is $8,470,763.00

(assuming a worse case event).

165

GROUNDWATER CLEAN-UP

INTRODUCTION

The number, location, design, and depth of extraction wells will

need to be determined by utilizing aquifer pump test data. Therefore, it

will be necessary to estimate engineering-design costs as well as

construction, maintenance, and monitoring of the extraction system and

disposal costs in this element of the cost analysis.

PUMP TESTING

A properly conducted purap test will provide data that can be

analyzed to indicate the hydraulic characteristics of the shallow

aquifer. From these characteristics an efficient groundwater extraction

system can be designed. For the purpose of this cost estimate, the

following assumptions were made:

1) One (1) forty foot deep well will be constructed.

2) The placement of existing groundwater monitoring wells is

adequate for use as pump test observation wells.

3) The duration of the pump test will be 24 hours.

4) A four (4) inch submersible pump will be used for the pump test.

5) Pump water will be of such quality that it can be discharged

directly into a nearby canal at no additional cost.

1. Well construction and installation

a) Drilling (auger) with sampling (40* @ $20/foot)

b) Six (6) inch PVC casing (30' @ $7/foot)

c) Six (6) inch PVC screen (10* @ $14/foot)

Subtotal $1,150

166

2. Direct pump test costs

a) Four (4) inch submersible electric pump (560 GPM)

1) Rental (2 days @ $41/day) $ 82

2) Operating (24 hours @ $1.34/hour) 32

b) Personnel

1) Pump installation and dismantling

(8 hours @ $20/hour) 160

2) Pump operator (1 day @ $370/day) 370

3) Hydrogeological (3 people @ $70/hour for 48 hrs. 3,360^

(.approx. subtota l ) $4,000

Total $5,150

CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF EXTRACTION SYSTEM

- Subsequent to analysis of the aquifer pump test data , a groundwater

extract ion system will be designed. Therefore, for this cost est imate,

numerous assumptions as to the type and specifics of an extract ion system

were made:

1) Seven (7) extraction wells will be installed in the shallow aquifer .

The pump test well will be used as one (1) of the seven (7) wells.

2) The diameter of the extraction wells will be six (6) inches based on

the premise that the diameter of the well casing should be at least

two sizes larger than the nominal diameter of the pump.

3) A four (4) inch submersible pump will be used for extraction volumes

of less than 100 GPM in each well.

4) The depth of all wells is 40 feet.

5) A network of eight (8) inch diameter steel pipes will transport

pumped water from the extract ion system to the sewer system.

1. Installation and construction of six (6) additional wells

a) Drilling (auger) with sampling (2401 @ $20/foot) $4,800

b) Six (6) inch PVC casing (180' @ $7/foot) 1,260

c) Six (6) inch PVC screen (601 @ $14/foot) 1,840

167

2. Materials and installation of four (4) inchsubmersible pumps (5 H.P., 1302 to 1494 GPH)(7 pumps at $2,500/purap) $ 17,500

3. Eight (8)-inch steel casing (4000' @ $46/linear foot) $184,000

Subtotal $209,400

4. Engineering - design (10Z of subtotal) $ 21,000

Total $230,400

DISPOSAL OF EXTRACTED WATER

Water pumped from the groundwater extraction wells may be discharged

directly into the local sanitary sewer system or, if necessary, treated

prior to discharge into the local sanitary sewer system or the Great

Miami River.

Direct discharge of pumped water to the local sanitary sewer system

is based on the assumptions that the quality and quantity of water dis-

charge can be properly handled by the sewer treatment system. It is

anticipated that the maximum water discharge per day will be approxi-

mately 40,000 cubic feet. The rate quoted by the local sewer authority

is $0.46 per 100 cubic feet of water. Therefore, the estimated disposal

cost is $184 per day. Based upon an assumed thirty (30) years of dis-

charge, the total disposal costs without monitoring will be $2,014,800.

The extracted water may require treatment prior to discharge into

the local sanitary sewer system because of excessive contaminant levels.

After treatment of the water, it may be discharged to either the local

sanitary sewer system or the Great Miami River.

As developed above, the maximum flow that will be produced from the

groundwater extraction wells will be 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD).

Available data concerning the pollutant characteristics and concentra-

tions in the groundwater is minimal; however, samples taken from monitor-

ing wells, which were recently installed and analyzed for the volatile

organic fraction of the priority pollutants, identified the following

organic compounds as being present in the groundwater:

Dichloroethylene

Chloroform

1,2 Dichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Tetrachloroethylene

168

Further sampling is presently being performed but the results are not

available as of this writing. Realizing the limited amount of data

available and the requirements that a conceptual design be developed, the

assumptions listed below were made for purposes of producing an order of

magnitude cost estimate only.

Every option must be developed and evaluated before any type of

plant is even conceptually designed. The costs to develop design para-

meters for only the wastewater treatment plant would probably run approx-

imately $100,000. The salient assumptions are as follows:

- Any groundwater treatment facility will be built on or adjacent to

the existing site.

- The maximum flow from the extraction walls will be 0.3 MGD.

- The average amount of organics to be removed will be 100 tng/1 with a

maximum of 200 mg/1.

- Treatment for inorganic pollutant removal will not be required.

- Separation facilities, either settling or filtration, will be

required to remove the silt/sediment from the extracted water.

- One day equalization equivalent to the maximum day flow will be

sufficient to homogenize the waste to eliminate any surges or

overloads.

- Air mixing of the equalization basin will also reduce the concentra-

tion of volatile organics significantly. This potential pollutant

source will not have to be collected for treatment.

- No additional separation will be required before carbon absorption.

- Activated carbon treatment will be able to reduce, at a rate of 0.1

Ibs./lbs. of carbon, all pollutants to an acceptable level for dis-

charge to a natural waterway or city sewer.

- The sludge created by the treatment process and exhausted carbon

will not require special handling.

- The discharge of the flow to the city or river will not cause an

overload, producing additional complications.

A brief description of the treatment train, which should theoreti-

cally be able to handle the projected wastewater problem, is described

below.

169

The waetewater will be extracted from the wells and discharged to

separation facilities which will remove the silt/sediment from the water.

The solids will be disposed of as required and the wastewater will flow

by gravity to the equalization facilities where the flow and load will be

homogenized using air mixing. The air mixing will reduce the organic

loading by oxidiziang a number of the volatile organics. The remaining

organic pollutants will be removed by activated carbon to levels which

are acceptable for discharge to the Great Miami River or city sewer.

Before its discharge, a monitoring station will collect the required

samples and the proper outfall structure will be constructed.

As previously stated, studies are required before any decisions are

made concerning the feasibility of a treatment train. The costs of such

studies are included in the capital cost estimate.

The order of magnitude conceptual capital cost estimate for the

treatment facilities in 1st quarter 1981 dollars is as follows:

Treatment Facilities 1st Quarter 1981 $

Separation 110,000

Equalization 100,000

Activated carbon 650,000

Effluent handling 90,000

Sludge handling 50,000

Subtotal 1,000,000

Range of Auxiliary Costs 1st Quarter 1981 $

Piping 80,000 - 150,000

Electrical 50,000 - 120,000

Instrumentation 30,000 - 100,000

Site Preparation 10,000 - 100,000

Subtotal 1,170,000 - 1,470,000

Engineering & Construction

Supervision 175,000 - 220,000

Contingencies 110,000 - 220,000

Range of Total Capital Cost 1,455,000 - 1,910,000

170

The order of magnitude summary of conceptual operation and main-

tenance coat estimate in 1st quarter 1981 dollars for treatment of the

extraction wells wastewater for the first year and a total of 30 years

operation is as follows:

1st Quarter 1981 $

Item Yearly 30 Year Total

Power 30,000 900,000

Labor 40,000 1,200,000

Material 35,000 1,050,000

Chemicals 110,000 3,300,000

Industrial Cost Recovery &User Charge^!)

Sludge & MiscellaneousMaterial Disposal 5,000 150,000

Taxes & Insurance 15,000 450,000

Total 0 & M Costs 235,000 7,050,000

Covered in another section of this report, it is dependent upon

the waste being discharged to the city system.

In summary, these costs were derived from various sources, but all

costs have been escalated to 1st quarter 1981 dollars using the Engineer-

ing News Record Construction Index of 3400. The order of magnitude

capital cost estimate totaled to a range of 1.445 to 1.910 million and

the operating and maintenance (O&M) was $235,000 for one year and accumu-

lated to 7.05 million (this does not consider inflation) for 30 years.

The estimate does not allow for unusual site preparation, either

physically or legally.

The total 30 year 1981 dollar cost for treatment and disposal of the

extracted water to the muncipal sewer system is projected as:

Sewer Fee 2,014,800

Capital 1,910,000

Operation & Maintenance 7,050,000

Total Maximum 10,974,800

171

It ia feasible that after a certain time the extracted water could

be discharged directly to the muncipal system without treatment or

treated and discharged directly to the Great Miami River. A combination

of either of these options could greatly reduce the 30 year cost by

upwards of 50Z.

MONITORING OF EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM

To evaluate the effectiveness of the extraction well system, the

groundwater monitoring wells must be sampled. Samples taken from

groundwater monitoring wells will need to be analyzed for chemical

parameters associated with the subject site as part of the aforementioned

evaluation.

In order to~accomplish the goals of a sound well field management

program, it was assumed that groundwater monitoring would be necessary

for thirty (30) years. During the initial year of the program, ten (10)

of the presently installed groundwater monitoring wells will be sampled

and analyzed four (4) times. After the initial year of sampling, there

will be two (2) sampling per year for the subsequent nine (9) years and

one (1) sampling per year for the remaining twenty (20) years of the

program. Analysis of one (1) significant fraction of the sample on

several (approximately ten (10)) specific chemical parameters, along with

gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) analyses may accomplish the

goals of a sound program. Analysis by GC only will significantly reduce

the cost over the GC/MS.

By adapting the following assumptions, sampling, chemical analysis,

and data analysis were derived.

1. Groundwater sampling will take two (2) people one (1) hour per

well at a cost of fifty (50) dollars per hour for the sampling

team.

2. Over the 30 year sampling period, six (6) sample sets will be

analyzed by GC/MS and the remaining 36 sample sets will be

analyzed by GC methods.

3. Data interpretation will take one (1) person one (1) hour per

well at a cost of thirty (30) dollars per hour.

172

SUMMARY

The following section by section listing represents a summation of

the report and a bottom line cost.

Waste Analysis 6,245,000

Bulk Waste Removal 164,500

Drum Waste Removal 295,000

Storage Tank & Drum Removal 63,250

Gas Mains 51,505

Water Mains 178,335

Sewer Lines 169,221

Railroad Tracks 110,427

Buildings 520,594

Soil 744,068

Pump Testing 5,150

Extraction System 230,400

Disposal of Extract 10,974,800

Monitoring 237,600

Total $19,989,850

As mentioned, this report is only considered a rough, quick, and

dirty estimate for projected clean-up costs at the Chem-Dyne facility.

It should not be considered a definitive implementation plan.

MM/df

174

REFERENCES(cont inued)

Watkins, J.S. and Spieker, A . M . , 1971, Seismic Refrac t ion Survey ofPleistocene Drainage Channels in the Lower Great Miami River Va l l ey ,'Ohio, Geological Survey Profess ional Paper 605 B, U .S . GovernmentPrinting Office.

In addi t ion , all news art icles per ta in ing to Chem-Dyne were appropria tedfrom the fo l lowing news agencies.

The Cincinnati EnquirerHamilton Journal - NewsSun Newspaper

176

CROSS-SECTIONS OF CHEM-DYNE

i

cr,!.,ea*.:.Ti-.i-.-/".-.-:-.'...-. .---~.^,;.,.-. ^-,..: .-j .---'- -•^•:'v:- ;.... ;>;i:-;s> --W^'-^^J^v;/.^- '••••" '' '-••-••. ••li'^V&feV- ^Vii^V-'"-:-: ;' "':v'(--^.. ...v--' -'-"" --^':--:-'

-^"•îîîv^^r'-/.^;----^

CROSS- SECT lUNb ut- V.PIC.IVI-UMM

"^i^^Jlija ' ^ '"•'•"•• iiV'.iv.'"'""'''•""'•""'' -tt^'"TfVv^'Vill:*-^:*--;--"

CROSS - SECTONS OF CHEM-OYV

0^0 I F5-B007-< _

AI^ LTON / CHEM-PTNE

PEZOMETRIC MAP OF OEM-DYNE

I

SITE LOCATION & TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF OHO-HAMILTON/CHEM-CVNE