The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutClosure Investigation Report I I I I I I I I I I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PART 360 CLOSURE INVESTIGATION REPORT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL I I I nvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers DECEMBER 1996 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I '1 I I * 13 l 4~GO709602.DOC(R04) PART 360 CLOSURE INVESTIGATION REPORT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PREPARED FOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK BY DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS WOODBURY, NEW YORK DECEMBER 1996 I t I I I i I I il, ! I I I i I I I I I PART 360 CLOSURE INVESTIGATION REPORT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL Section 1.0 2.0 3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ...................................................................... 1-1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 Site Location and Background ....................................................................... 2-1 Site History and Previous Investigations ....................................................... 2-6 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 3.2 General Investigation Procedures .................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Health and Safety Program ................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program ..................................... 3-2 3.1.3 Data Validation .................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.4 Air Monitoring ................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.5 Equipment Decontamination ............................................................. 3-3 Field Investigation ......................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Monitoring Well Program .................................................................. 3-4 3.2.1.1 Monitoring Well Locations and Depths .............................. 3-6 3.2.1.2 Monitoring Well Construction and Installation .................. 3-7 3.2.1.3 Well Borehole and Geophysical Logging ........................... 3-9 3.2.1.4 Monitoring Well Development ......................................... 3-11 3.2.1.5 Groundwater Level Measurements ................................... 3-11 3.2.1.6 In Situ Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ............................ 3-12 3.2.2 Groundwater Sampling .................................................................... 3-12 3.2.2.1 Sampling Procedures ........................................................ 3-12 3.2.2.2 Analysis ............................................................................. 3-14 3.2.3 Private Water Supply Sampling ....................................................... 3-14 3.2.3.1 Sampling Procedures ........................................................ 3-18 3.2.3.2 Analysis ............................................................................. 3-18 3.2.4 Explosive Gas Survey ...................................................................... 3-19 3.2.5 Surface Leachate Survey .................................................................. 3-21 3.2.6 Vector Survey .................................................................................. 3-23 3.2.7 Test Pit and Waste Delineation ........................................................ 3-24 3.2.8 Surveying ......................................................................................... 3-24 $ 1314\G0709602 DOC(R04) I ! I I ! ! I ! I l! I I I ! I I I Section 4.0 5.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Title SITE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 Background and History ................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Results of Previous Investigations ..................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Site Reconnaissance ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1.3 Literature Search ................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.4 Water Well Survey ............................................................................. 4-2 Geology .......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Local Geology .................................................................................. 4-10 4.2.3 Regional Hydrogeology ................................................................... 4-15 4.2.4 Local Hydrogeology ........................................................................ 4-17 4.2.5 Surface Water ................................................................................... 4-19 Site Setting ................................................................................................... 4-22 4.3.1 Topography ...................................................................................... 4-22 4.3.2 Soils ................................................................................................. 4-22 4.3.3 Site Geology ..................................................................................... 4-25 4.3.3.1 Geophysical Survey Results ............................................. 4-29 4.3.4 Site Hydrogeology ........................................................................... 4-30 4.3.4.1 Permeability ...................................................................... 4-30 4.3.4.2 Groundwater Flow Patterns .............................................. 4-30 4.3.5 Groundwater Monitoring Well Quality ........................................... 4-38 4.3.5.1 Organic Sampling Results ................................................. 4-39 4.3.5.2 Inorganic Sampling Results .............................................. 4-46 4.3.5.3 Leachate Parameter Sampling Results .............................. 4-53 4.3.6 Private Water Supply Well Quality ................................................. 4-57 4.3.6.1 Organic Sampling Results ................................................. 4-58 4.3.6.2 Inorganic Sampling Results .............................................. 4-63 4.3.6.3 Leachate Parameter Sampling Results .............................. 4-69 4.3.7 Test Pit Results ................................................................................ 4-69 4.3.8 Explosive Gas Survey Results ......................................................... 4-73 4.3.9 Surface Leachate Survey Results ..................................................... 4-79 4.3.10 Vector Survey Results ...................................................................... 4-82 DATA VALIDATION ............................................................................................. 5-1 . * 1314\G0709602.DOC(R04) ii ,! Section 6.0 7.0 8.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Title P_ag~ CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Groundwater Quality ..................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Explosive Gas ................................................................................................ 6-2 6.3 Surface Leachate ............................................................................................ 6-2 6.4 Vectors ........................................................................................................... 6-3 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 7-1 CONCEPTUAL CLOSURE PLAN ....................................................................... 8-1 List of Appendices Data Validation Results .......................................................................................... A Well Construction and Installation Diagrams ......................................................... B Hager-Richter August 1991 Report ........................................................................ C Test Pit Logs and Profiles ....................................................................................... D SCDHS Groundwater Quality Reports for SL-1, SL-2 and SL-3 ........................... E Historical Groundwater Quality Summary Tables .................................................. F * 1314\GO709602.DOC(R04) iii List of Tables TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 Total Depths of Monitoring Wells ........................................................... 3-8 Construction Details of Sampled Groundwater Monitoring Wells ........ 3-13 Summary of Analytical Program Groundwater Baseline Parameters.... 3-15 Sununm3* of Groundwater Sample Analytical Methods ........................ 3-16 4-1 SCDHS Well Construction Details .......................................................... 4-4 4-2 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Units in the Town of Southold ................. 4-9 4-3 Slug Test Results from the Hydrogeologic Investigation ...................... 4-31 4-4 Groundwater Elevation Measurements for June 24, 1996 ..................... 4-32 4-5 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients at Each Well Cluster ............................... 4-36 4-6 Groundwater Sampling Results - Volatile Organic Compounds ........... 4-40 4-7 Groundwater Sampling Results - Inorganic Parameters ........................ 4-47 4-8 Groundwater Sampling Results - Leachate Indicators ........................... 4-54 4-9 Private Well Sampling Results - Volatile Organic Compounds ............ 4-59 4-10 Private Well Sampling Results - Inorganic Parameters ......................... 4-64 4-11 Private Well Sampling Results - Leachate Indicators ............................ 4-70 4-12 Explosive Gas Monitoring Results ........................................................ 4-76 4-13 Surface Leachate Sample Results - Volatile Organic Compounds ........ 4-82 4-14 Leachate Sampling Results - June 1996 - Inorganic Parameters ........... 4-83 4-15 Leachate Sampling Results - July 1996 - Leachate Indicators .............. 4-84 4-16 Estimated Abundance of Animals Encountered During the Vector Survey ...................................................................... 4-86 4-17 Listing of Animals Noted by Site Area .................................................. 4-89 2-1 Site Location Map .................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Site Plan ................................................................................................... 2-3 2-3 Zoning Map .............................................................................................. 2-4 24 Landfill Operations Map .......................................................................... 2-5 3-1 Monitoring Well Locations ...................................................................... 3-5 3-2 Monitoring Well Construction Diagram ................................................ 3-10 3-3 Private Water Supply Wells and Previous Groundwater Sampling Locations .......................................... 3-17 3-4 Explosive Gas Monitoring Poim Locations ........................................... 3-20 3-5 Surface Leachate Sample Location ........................................................ 3-22 & 1314\G0709602 DOC(R04) iv ,! I i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures (continued) 4-1 Monitoring Wells Located in Vicinity of Landfill ................................... 4-3 4-2 Generalized Isometric Geological Cross Section of the Southold Peninsula ......................................................................... 4-7 4-3 Longitudinal Geologic Cross Section of the North Fork .......................... 4-8 4-4 Cross Section Locations ......................................................................... 4-11 4-5 Geologic Cross Section in Vicinity of Site ............................................ 4-12 4-6 Hydrogeologic Cross Section in Vicinity of Site ................................... 4-13 4-7 Hydrogeologic Cross Section Through the Landfill ............................... 4-14 4-8 Regional Water Table Contour Map ...................................................... 4-16 4-9 Groundwater Flow Patterns in Vicinity of Site ...................................... 4-18 4-10 Groundwater Flow Direction in Vicinity of Site .................................... 4-20 4- l 1 Special Groundwater Protection Areas in the Town of Southold .......... 4-21 4-12 Soil Map ................................................................................................. 4-23 4-13 Location of Landfill Site Cross Sections ................................................ 4-26 4-14 Geologic Cross Section A-A'. ................................................................ 4-27 4-15 Geologic Cross Section B-B'. ................................................................ 4-28 4-16 Water Table Contour Map - June 24, 1996 ............................................ 4-33 4-17 Potentiometric Surface Map - June 24, 1996 ......................................... 4-35 4-18 3-D Clay Surface Elevation Map ........................................................... 4-37 4-19 Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater Exceeding Class GA Groundwater Standards - June 1996 ................................................ 4-44 4-20 Leachate Indicators and Metals in Groundwater Exceeding Class GA Groundwater Standards/Guidelines ....................................... 4-50 4-21 Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater (Private Wells) Exceeding Class GA Groundwater Standards/Guidelines .....................4-62 4-22 Leachate Indicators and Metals in Groundwater (Private Wells) Exceeding Class GA Groundwater Standards/Guidelines .....................4-67 4-23 Limits of Waste to a Vertical Thickness of 5 feet .................................. 4-74 4-24 Extent of Explosive Soil Gas Greater than 25% LEL ............................ 4-75 4-25 Surface Leachate Survey Results Map ................................................... 4-80 4-26 Biological Vector Map ........................................................................... 4-87 8-1 Approximate Delineation of Western and Eastern Landfill Areas ........... 8-2 * 1314\GO709602.DOC(R04) V Section I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Closure Investigation Report has been prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers (D&B) for the Town of Southold (Town) in order to fulfill the requirements of Part 360 of Title 6 of the New York State Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations (6NYCRR), and the Stipulation Agreement between the Town and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) dated October 5, 1994, for closure of the Southold Landfill. Through previous site investigations performed by D&B, a significant portion of the Closure Investigation requirements were completed prior to this Closure Investigation. These previous investigations included the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation performed in July 1991, and the two supplemental sampling events conducted in July 1992 and January 1993. The purpose of this investigation is to fulfill the remaining requirements of the Part 360 Closure Investigation by further defining groundwater quality and flow direction at and downgradient of the landfill site, determining the presence or absence of explosive gases, surface leachate and vectors, and developing a conceptual closure plan for the Southold Landfill. The results of this investigation will be used to establish the baseline groundwater quality at the landfill and define the environmental monitoring system which will comprise the Post Closure Monitoring Program. The results of the previous investigations will be used as a comparison to the current baseline conditions to determine whether trends in groundwater quality exist subsequent to cessation of landfilling operations. Specific elements of this Closure Investigation included groundwater monitoting well and water supply well sampling and analysis, groundwater level measurements, surface leachate survey and sampling, explosive gas monitoring and a vector survey. The elements and results of this investigation are discussed in detail in this document. * 1314WI0815602(R02) 1-1 Section 2 / I I I I I I I I I ! I l I I I I l 2.0 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 2.1 Site Location and Background The Southold Landfill is inactive with regard to land disposal of solid waste and comprises approximately 45 acres (excluding the 17 acre area north of the landfill which was formerly used for borrow operations). The landfill site is located between Oregon Road and North Road (also known as Middle Road and County Road 48) to the north and south, respectively, and Cox Lane and Depot Lane to the east and west, respectively, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (see Figure 2-I). The landfill is owned and formerly operated by the Town of Southold. A site plan of the landfill is shown in Figure 2-2. The Southold Landfill is situated in a rural, agricultural area in Cutchogue, approximately 2.5 miles east of Mattituck and 8 miles west of the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The landfill is located in un agricultural-industrial zoned area, with the existing landfill zoned LI (Light Industrial) (see Figure 2-3). Directly adjacent to the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the landfill is LI zoned land, and LIO (Light Indus,'iai/Office Park) zoned land is located adjacent to the western boundary. Further to the north, south, east and west of the landfill is A-C (Agricultural Conservation) zoned land. The Town of Southold initiated operations at the landfill site in 1920 for the disposal of municipal solid waste, refuse, debris and scavenger (septic system) waste, and operated the landfill continuously until October 1993 when it closed. Figure 2-4 shows the location of current and former landfill operations. As shown in this figure, the landfill site includes a large excavated area (borrow area) in the northern portion of the site, which was used to obtain cover material for the past landfilling operation, and two abandoned scavenger waste lagoons along the western border of the landfill, which were combined into one larger lagoon or basin as directed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1987. The lagoons formerly accepted septic system waste from both commercial and residential sources. + 1314hM0S15603(R03) 2-1 ~~~ ~ ~_ -~ ~,_~ .., , -~, ~'' , ~ ~.2: .~ QUADRANGLE L~TION ~.~ ~. / ,~,/.-~. ~ LANDFILL ~ ~~~ ~ ..... ~ ~ .,'/ /-- ~ ~- .~ / ~ . '~~-,o '/ ~:~.~ ~ ~'_- ~ '- ~~7. o ,~ :' ~ ..-~.~ ,~ .~ ~~Z:: - · ~~-. ~... ~ ~D - ~D ~HDFILL ~ I~TI~ SITE LOCATION MAP DAT~: RDS-08/15/96 ROAD IFORMER BORROW AREA /! I I // // // // FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE I~GOONS~ STORAGE - GARAGE ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES -OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITf OIL STORAGE TANKS ~-COLLECTION CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE HOUSE " " EXISTING FENCE LINE .... PROPERS,' LINE 0 300 600 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIC;ATION )Dvirka (]nd Bartilucci SITE PLAN C~n~lting Engineem A Division of William F. Cosullch Associotes, P.C. FIGURE 2-2 LIO LI , A-_C '~ -- 8OUTHOLD A-C LEGEND AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AA RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY A RESORT/RESIDENTIAL LIMITED BUSINE88 LIGHT' INDU 8TRIALI OFFICE PARK LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 80URCE:TOWN OF 80UTHOLD ZONING MAP.188g TOWN OF $OUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION ~i~o o,~o ~o~ti,~i ZONING MAP SCALE IN FEET 800 0 800 16OO FIGURE 2-3 mm m mm mm m mm mm mm mm Im mm II LEGEND: EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF OAS VENTING TRENCH .... APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WHERE GAS VENTING TRENCH IS NOT VISIBLE DUE TO EROSION AND/OR FILLING IN MSW MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE CAD CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS Il APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF WASTE FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE II I OLD LANDILL AREA AND FORMER BURN AREA (C&D AND MSW) TIRE LOADING AREA AND FORMER AUTOMOBILE DISPOSAL AREA STORAGE- GARAGE FORMER BURN AREA AND COMPOSTING OF LAND CLEARING AND / / C~D DEBR,S C&D TRANSFER I % I DATE: RDS-08/16/96 FORMER BORROW AREA ....... . FORMER LAN DFILLING OF C&D AND MSW YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FORMER LANDFILLING MSW ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA METHANE VENTING TRENCH BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES -OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILIlh' OIL STORAGE TANKS CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE 0 500 600 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirko (3nd Bortilucci LANDFILL A Division of Williom F. Cosulich Associotes, P,C. OPERATIONS MAP FIGURE 2-4 I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I I I I I Currently, portions of the site are used for a municipal solid waste (MSW) transfer station, construction and demolition debris (C&D) transfer station, recycling drop-off station, yard waste composting and tire loading. A majority of the site, however, is unused. Since the landfill initiated operation prior to the promulgation of the Part 360 regulations, it was constructed without a liner. Also, portions of the currently required 50 foot buffer zone between the landfill and its property boundaries, as required by Part 8.6(c)(2)(vii), have been used for landfilling MSW in the past prior to the current regulatory requirements. In 1984, the Town of Southold requested a variance for an exemption from the current buffer requirements as specified in the Part 360 regulations (Section 360-1.7). The variance was requested on the basis of compatible surrounding land use, which is predominantly agricultural, vacant land, sand mining and only limited residential land, and the significant adverse economic and environmental impacts which would be associated with excavating landfilled refuse. This variance, however, was not granted by NYSDEC. 2.2 Site History and Previous Investigations As previously discussed, the Town of Southold began operation of the landfill in 1920 for the disposal of municipal solid waste, refuse, debris and scavenger waste. Subsequent to the hurricane of 1938, large quantities of construction and demolition debris, land clearing debris, as well as other materials, were landfilled in the southwestern portion of the site. This area was also used for burying old automobiles. In 1974, Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. (H2M), under contract to the Suffolk County Depmux~ent of Health Services (SCDHS), conducted a subsurface investigation at the Southold Landfill in order to determine the depth of fill material and municipal waste at the site. Three core borings were drilled at separate locations within the existing landfill are/t (approximately at the center and south-central portions, and west-central border of the current landfill). Information obtained from the borings indicated that the landfill had been excavated to depth of approximately 3 feet above the water table and subsequently landfilled with municipal waste and other fill material. · 1314LM0815603(R04) 2-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In October 1976, a methane gas survey was conducted at the landfill. Well points were driven into the ground in the northern, southeastern and southwestern portions of the landfill and measured for methane gas. The results of this survey showed low levels in comparison to the Lower Explosive Level (LEL) for methane. Between 1980 and 1984, five monitoring wells (S-76687, 71045, 69761, 68916 and 68831) were installed on the landfill site and sampled by SCDHS. In 1985, Woodward-Clyde Consultants prepared a Phase I Investigation at the landfill for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In the summer of 1986, the scavenger waste lagoons at the landfill were abandoned upon commencement of operations at the Southold Scavenger Waste Pretreatment Plant. Sludge removal from the scavenger waste lagoons was performed during the summer of 1987 at which time, the two waste lagoons were combined into one larger lagoon by excavating the divide of soil which existed between the two lagoons. In December 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted a site investigation at the landfill. A total of nine soil samples were collected and analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides and metals. The results of this investigation are presented in the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report, Southold Landfill, October 1991. In July 1991, Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers conducted a Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation. The investigation consisted of a soil gas survey, installation of 14 monitoring wells at seven well duster locations, subsurface soil sampling and logging', groundwater sample collection and water level measurement, downhole geophysical logging and permeability testing. * 1314hM0815603(RIM) 2-7 The samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) +30 parameters utilizing USEPA SW-846 Methods 601/602, 8240, 8270 and 8080 for TCL organics and NYSDEC 1989 Analytical Services Protocol (ASP) for Target Analyte List (TAL) inorganics. These parameters include volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, base neutrals, acid extractables, pesticides/PCBs, metals and cyanide. Subsequent to the July 1991 investigation, D&B conducted two groundwater sampling events (July 1992 and January 1993). During both of these sampling events, samples were collected from the 14 monitoring wells installed as part of the 1991 investigation and two monitoring wells (S-68831 and S-68916) installed by the SCDHS. In addition to the groundwater monitoring wells, three downgradient private water supply wells were sampled during the July 1992 event and five private water supply wells were sampled during the January 1993 event. As a result of the findings of these investigations, it was determined that a weak, limited plume was emanating from the Southold Landfill. This was supported by contaminants identified in the groundwater. These contaminants were 1,2-dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloroethane in low concentrations; iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium in concentrations not substantially above ambient conditions; aldicarb; the leachate parameters: ammonia, nitrate and phenols. In addition, based on soil samples obtained during the 1991 investigation and the USEPA sampling program, only a few organic contaminants in low concentrations (toluene, 4- chloroanaline, aldrin and 4,4'DDE) and some inorganic contaminants at slightly elevated levels (aluminum, barium, copper, iron and zinc) were found on-site in the former scavenger waste lagoons. However, none of the organics and relatively low concentrations of inorganics were found in the groundwater underlying and downgradient of the landfill. As a result of these findings, the Town of Southold petitioned the NYSDEC to delist th~ site from the State Registry of inactive hazardous waste sites and the landfill was removed from the list of potential (Class 2a) hazardous waste sites by DEC in October 1993. · 1314\M0815603(R04) 2 -8 I ! I ! ! ! ! ! I ! I ! ! ! I I I I In March 1995, D&B completed a test pit excavation program to gain subsurface information to aid in the delineation of MSW and C&D in and around the existing waste mass. Based on the construction of 60 test pits during this program, the following conclusions were made: In a few areas along the northern, eastern and western landfill boundaries, waste extends essentially to the property line, which does not meet the NYSDEC 6NYCRR Part 360 8.6 (c)(2)(vii) requirements for closure. The Part 360 regulations require a minimum of 50 feet between the property line and the limit of waste. 2. Except for the southeast quadrant of the combination of MSW and C&D material. essentially all MSW. landfill, buffed waste comprises a The southeast quadrant comprises 3. The area of buffed waste comprises approximately 30 acres. · 1314~M0g 15603(R04) 2-9 ~)n m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m mm m m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK 3.1 General Investigation Procedures 3.1.1 Health and Safe _ty Progr~ The Health and Safety Plan, as defined in the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan for the Southold Landfill site, was implemented during the Closure Investigation field program. Although the Health and Safety Plan was developed while the landfill was still active, this plan was still applicable and usable for this Closure Investigation. As part of Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers' corporate health and safety policy, ambient air monitoring was required during the Closure Investigation in work areas with the exception of the off-site private well sampling. Previous investigations at the Southold Landfill by D&B have not indicated elevated levels of airborne volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane generated as a result of intrusive field activities. As a result, VOCs and/or methane were not likely to occur at concentrations that would warrant the use of respiratory protection especially since soil disturbance was very limited during this closure investigation. Therefore, ambient monitoring was conducted regularly throughout the on-site portion of the Closure Investigation as a precautionary measure. Monitoring equipment included a flame ionization detector (FID) (Foxboro Century 128 OVA) with an activated carbon filter, a photoionization detector (PID) (Photovac HL-200), and combustible gas/oxygen detector (EXOTOX meter). These instruments were operated, maintained, and calibrated each work day in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and D&B's quality assurance procedures. All field work conducted during the Closure Investigation was performed utilizing Level D personal protective equipment. + 1314kM0815613(R02) 3-1 3.1.2 Ouali _ty Assurance/Ouali _ty Control Pro.am The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan, as defined in the Closure Investigation Work Plan for the Southold Landfill which was approved by the NYSDEC, was implemented during ail field investigations. The environmental samples collected as part of this field investigation were obtained in accordance with the sampling procedures outlined in the Closure Investigation Work Plan. Non- disposable sampling equipment was cleaned in accordance with the decontamination procedures described in the Work Plan and Section 3.1.5 of this report. Field management procedures included preparation of Sampling Information Record Forms, Chain of Custody Forms, Daily Field Activity Reports and maintenance of a Daily Field Log Book. The Daily Field Log Book documented ail aspects of field activities including samples collected and all other site related data collected. QA/QC procedures, including utilization of trip blanks, field blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, laboratory method blanks and spike blanks, were performed as described in the Closure Investigation Work Plan and in conformance with the NYSDEC 1991 Anaiyticai Services Protocol (ASP). The anaiyticai laboratory which was utilized for this investigation (Nytest Environmental, Inc.) is New York State Depa,hnent of Heaith (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Approvai Program (ELAP) and Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) certified to meet requirements of 1991 NYSDEC ASP. 3.1.3 Data Vaiidation Chemical anaiyticai data obtained from samples collected as part of the Closure Investigation has been validated 20 percent to ensure laboratory compliance with the 1991 ASP. In generai, the groundwater sampling results were found to be within NYSDEC requirements. A more detailed discussion of the findings of the data vaiidation process for the samples collected * 1314hM0815613(R02) 3-2 ! ! during the Closure Investigation is contained in Section 5 of this report. The data validation reports prepared for this investigation are provided in Appendix A. 3.1.4 As described in Section 3.1.1, air monitoring was conducted with an FID during the Closure Investigation for the detection of VOCs and methane. In addition, monitoring with a portable combustible gas/oxygen detector was performed during the sampling activities for the detection of methane in the working and breathing zones, especially during the explosive gas survey. 3.1.5 Equipment Decontamination All non-disposable sampling equipment, such as the Grundfos submersible pump, was decontaminated by either steam cleaning or hand washing with Alconox and water wash prior to and between use at each sampling location. Used sampling materials, such as robing used for groundwater sampling and used personal protective equipment, were contained in 55-gallon drams. Prior to sample collection, the reusable field sampling equipment was decontaminated according to NYSDEC approved protocol as described in the following sequence: 1. Washed thoroughly with nonresidual detergent (Alconox) and potable water using a brush to remove any particulate matter or surface film. 2. Rinsed thoroughly with potable water. 3. Allowed to air diy. * 1314~10815613(R02) 3-3 I I I I Prior to use, submersible pumps used to develop and purge the monitoring wells were decontaminated. The external surface of the submersible pump was washed and the pump was put in a clean plastic bucket. A minimum of 5 gallons of a solution of potable water and Alconox was pumped through the unit, including all appurtenances. The pump was then placed in a bucket of clean water and a minimum of 5 gallons of potable water was pumped through the unit. The cable was wiped down with deionized water and paper towels. Disposable polyethylene bailers, each individually wrapped and certified clean by the manufacturer, were used for the collection of groundwater samples and discarded after sample collection at each well. 3.2 Field Investigation As previously discussed, several required and optional elements of the Part 360 Closure Investigation criteria have been completed prior to this Closure Investigation and recognized by NYSDEC. These elements include the installation of monitoring wells, a literature search, surficial geologic mapping, water well survey, soil gas survey, geophysical survey, geologic sampling and in-situ conductivity testing. These elements are contained in the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report and briefly summarized together with the current Closure Investigation activities below. 3.2.1 Monitoring Well Pro.am A total of 14 monitoring wells were installed at seven locations (see Figure 3-1) during the 1991 Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation to establish current/background soil and groundwater conditions to assist in determining whether a contaminant release had occurred at the site; to identify in greater detail the geology and hydrogeology of the site; to support a closure plan and landfill constxucfion permit application; and to fulfill the requirements of a Phase II Investigation. · 1314~v[0815613(R02) 3-4 SL-1 Mw-4s/4o EXISTING FENCE LINE .... PROPERLY LINE S-69761 MW-1S/1D LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF EXISTING SCDHS GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF MONITORING WELL (SiSHALLOW, D=DEEP) FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE MW-SS/6D STORAGE GARAGE I II II FORMER BORROW AREA Mw-ss/sc ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA MW-3S/3D MW-7S/7D :OMMERCIAL BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES RHEAD ELECTRIC LINES HOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILIT~ OIL STORAGE TANKS Il O WEIGHING STATION (SCALE I' DIRECTORY: 1514 FILE NAME: 1514-05 DATE: RDS-08/19/96 0 300 600 I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirko ond Bortilucci MONITORING Co~l~ulting Engineem A Division of Williom F. Cosulich Associotes, P.C. WELL LOCATIONS FIGURE 3-1 '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition to the 14 wells installed during the investigation, four SCDHS wells previously existed on-site and three SCDHS wells were recently installed (late 1995) off-site and 900 feet downgradient of the Southold Landfill. Therefore, a total of 21 monitoring wells currently exist in the general vicinity of the landfill and were utilized for the Closure Investigation. The number and placement of the wells comprising the monitoring well network at the Southold Landfill should more than meet the NYSDEC 6NYCRR Part 360 requirements for closure of the landfill. 3.2.1.1 - Monitoring Well Locations and Depths The rationale for the well cluster locations was based on the Part 360 requirements for a hydrogeologic investigation in preparation of a landfill permit application; requirements for a Phase II Investigation; and data obtained from prior investigations. The specific rationale for the placement of each well cluster, based on site features and areas of concern, is summarized in Section 3.2.3.1 of the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report. The locations of the monitoring wells are presented in Figure 3-1. The four SCDHS on-site monitoring wells are at two locations, wells S-71045 and S- 69761 are located on the southwestern portion of the landfill, and wells S-68831 and S-68916 are located on the northwest-central portion of the landfill. Three monitoring wells (SL-1, SL-2, and SL-3) at one cluster location were recently installed by the SCDHS downgradient of the Southold Landfill and are located on the north side of Oregon Road. Each monitoring well cluster consists of two individual monitoring wells screened at different depths at the same location. The purpose of the monitoring well clusters in this investigation is to define the three-dimensional flow system within the water-bearing unit of the critical stratigraphic section, which in the area of the Southold Landfill is the upper glacial + 1314~M0815613(R02) 3-6 il I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I aquifer (above the North Fork glacial clay layer), as well as the quality of groundwater in this formation in the immediate area of the landfill. The shallow/water table wells were installed at each cluster location at an average depth of approximately 55 feet below ground surface in the surfieial glacial deposits. The water table at the site lies an average of appreximately 40-45 feet below ground surface. The deep glacial aquifer wells were installed at each cluster location at an average depth of approximately 130 feet below ground surface in the Pleistocene glacial deposits, and were placed at the lithologie interface with the underlying clay layer in the area of the landfill. These borings were advanced to the North Fork glacial clay to demonstrate the continuity of the clay. Presence of the clay was established upon initial contact with one additional split spoon sample advanced into the clay. Table 3-1 presents the monitoring well network at the Southold Landfill, including off-site SCDHS wells with their corresponding total depths. 3.2.1.2 - Monitoring Well Construction and Installation Six of the seven shallow wells were coustmcted using the hollow stem auger method. Six of the seven deep wells were constructed using the cable tool method. These deep boreholes were advanced to the clay layer. Monitoring well cluster MW-6 was constructed using the mud rotary method. The change in drilling method was required because of excessive levels of methane gas encountered during the drilling of soil borings MW-6SA, MW-6SB and MW-6SC. The levels of methane exceeded 100 percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) at these well borehole locations. Because of these explosive levels, mud was used to suppress the methane to safe levels. Well construction consisted of a 2-inch diameter stainless steel screen and threaded, flush joint PVC casing. Ten feet of stainless steel wire wrapped screens with 0.02-inch openings were installed in each deep borehole and 20-foot screens were installed in each shallow borehole * 1314~M0815613(R02) 3-7 1 I Table 3-1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION TOTAL DEPTHS OF MONITORING WELLS Well No. MW-1S MW-1D MW-2S MW-2D MW-3S MW-3D MW-4S MW-4D MW-5S MW-5D MW-6S MW-6D MW-7S MW-7D S-66831 S-68916 S-69761 S-71045 SL-1 SL-2 SL-3 Shallow (glacial) Deep (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Deep (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Deep (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Deep (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Deep (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Deep (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Deep (glacial) Deep Clay (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Shallow (glacial) Deep Clay Interface (glacial) Deep Clay (glacial) *Approximate depth below ground surface. Total Depth 52 152 27 85 55 125 73 150 77 136 56 145 5O 125 190 103 99 63 75 166 210 * 1314~M0815613(R02) 3-8 I I (5 feet above the water table and 15 feet below), except for MW-6S, which, in order to mitigate methane from entering the screen zone; the screen length was modified to 15 feet, most of which was installed in the saturated zone, in order to minimize the mount of screen exposed to the vadose zone. A 2-inch diameter PVC riser extends from the top of the screen to 2-1/2 feet above ground surface and is contained in a steel protective casing with a locking cover, except for MW- 1S and MW-ID, which were installed with flush mount protective casings. The annulus of the borehole in the area of the screen was sand-packed to a height of 2 feet above the screened interval with clan silica sand in conformance with Part 360 requirements. A finer grained sand pack material (100 pement passing the No. 30 sieve and less than two percent passing the No. 200 sieve), 6 inches in thickness was placed on top of the sand pack between the sand and the bentonite seal. A 3-foot seal of thick PUREGOLD bentonite slurry was placed immediately above the filter material using a tremie pipe. The remaining annulus was grouted to the surface with a PUREGOLD bentonite sluny. PUREGOLD bentonite is tested and warranteed to be free of organic and inorganic contaminants. A 4-inch diameter protective outer steel surface casing with locking cover and a surface cement pad was installed around each well casing/riser pipe. Figure 3-2 provides an illustration of well construction. More detailed well construction and installation diagrams are contained in Appendix B. 3.2.1.3 - Well Borehole and Geophysical Loggine All monitoring well boreholes were logged and documented by a geologist. Notes were kept in both bound field books and on Boring Logs. · 1314\M0815613(R02) 3 -9 I I ~-~ ~ I I . ~ ~-- ~ ~ ~llL~ ! I ~ T~ ~ S~LD - S~D ~N~ILL ~ I ~ M~ITORING WELL I~ Ov~k= ~= ~=~il~c=i C~STR~TION DIAGR~ I In addition, a geophysical survey was performed on all deep monitoring wells after their installation during the 1991 investigation. The logging was performed by Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. with oversight by D&B field personnel. Natural gamma ray and conductivity (EM39) logs were obtained for each well and incorporated into a report. The results of the geophysical survey are discussed in Section 4.3.3.15 of this report. The Hager-Richter August 1991 Report is included in Appendix C. 3.2.1.4 - Monitoring Well Development All monitoring wells were developed using a 2-inch diameter Grundfos Redi-flo 2 submersible pump. Surging of the wells was performed periodically by lowering and raising the pump rapidly similar to a surge block. Monitoring wells were pumped at a rate of approximately five gallons per minute (gpm). All wells were developed until a turbidity of 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) was attained. Well development was supplemented by measurement of temperature, pH and specific conductance, and continued until stabilization of these parameters within 10 percent was achieved. Extensive development occurred at MW-6S and MW-6D to ensure that all excess mud was removed from the screen interval. In March 1995, MW-6S was redeveloped after well casing riser was damaged during the test pit program. This well was subsequently redeveloped using a hand bailer since the poor recharge conditions of this well would not allow pumping. 3.2.1.5 - Groundwater Level Measurements Stabilized groundwater level measurements were obtained from each of the 21 wells in the vicinity of the landfill on June 24, 1996. The static water levels were taken from a presurveyed reference point on the top of the PVC casing and measured to the nearest one- hundredth (0.01) foot using an electronic water level indicator. Measurements from these wells *I314\M0515613(R02) 3-11 ! ! I were obtained prior to well purging and sample collection. Groundwater level data were used to construct groundwater contour maps which are discussed in Section 4.3.4.2 3.2.1.6 - In Sim Hydraulic Conductivity_ Testing Slug tests were conducted at eight monitoring wells consisting of shallow and deep wells located at clusters MW-l, MW-2, MW-5 and MW-7 during the 1991 investigation. Slug tests were performed using a submersible 10 psi pressure transducer and Hermit 1000C data logger. The results of the slug tests are detailed in Section 4.3.4.1 of this report. 3.2.2 Groundwater samples were collected from 19 of the 21 monitoring wells comprising the Southold Landfill monitoring well network (discussed previously in Section 3.2.1). The two remaining monitoring wells, Suffolk County SL-2 and SL-3, (as well as SL-1) were sampled by the SCDHS prior to this Closure Investigation. Table 3-2 summarizes construction details of the monitoring wells to illustrate the groundwater sampling point (well screen interval and corresponding geologic material comprising the well screen). Sampling procedures for groundwater were implemented according to the Closure Investigation Work Plan. Dedicated equipment was used whenever possible (i.e. bailers, pump tubing, etc.). However, in instances when this was not possible (i.e. pump, equipment for measurement of field parameters and water level indicator), field decontamination procedures were followed in order to reduce cross-contamination between sampling locations. Prior to sampling, a minimum of three well volumes were removed or until pH, specific conductance and temperature stabilized within 10 percent. Wells were sampled only when the turbidity was less than 50 NTUs for inorganics. Sampling procedures for groundwater were * 1314\M0815613(R02) 3-12 I i I Table 3-2 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF SAMPLED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS Diameter Total Well No. ~ Aquifer Depth MW- 1S 2 Shallow (glacial) 52 MW- 1D 2 Deep (glacial) 152 MW-2S 2 Shallow (glacial) 27 MW-2D 2 Deep (glacial) 85 MW-3S 2 Shallow (glacial) 55 MW-3D 2 Deep (glacial) 125 MW-4S 2 Shallow (glacial) 73 MW-4D 2 Deep (glacial) 150 MW-SS 2 Shallow (glacial) 77 MW-5D 2 Deep (glacial) 136 MW-6S 2 Shallow (glacial) 56 MW-6D 2 Deep (glacial) 145 MW-TS 2 Shallow (glacial) 50 MW-7D 2 Deep (glacial) 125 S68831 4 Deep Clay Interface (glacial) 194 S-68916 4 Deep (glacial) 103 S-69761 4 Mid (glacial) 99 S-71045 2 Shallow (glacial) 63 SL- 1 2 Shallow (glacial) 75 SL-2 2 Deep Clay Interface (glacial) 166 SL-3 2 Deep Clay (glacial) 210 *Approximate depth below ground surface. * 1314~M0815613(R02) 3-13 Top 32 147 7 75 35 115 53 140 57 126 41 135 30 115 184 98 94 61 65 146 200 52 152 27 85 55 125 73 150 77 136 56 145 50 125 194 103 99 63 75 166 210 I I I I I I I implemented according to Section 4.3 of the Work Plan QA/QC procedures. Disposable polyethylene bailers and nylon cord were used for each well sampled. Chain of Custody Forms and Sample Information Records were prepared for each sample. 3.2.2.2 - Analysis Groundwater samples collected from the 19 wells discussed in Section 3.2.2 as part of the Closure Investigation were analyzed for NYSDEC Part 360 Baseline Parameters as specified in the Work Plan. Since there is no suspected hazardous waste disposal at the landfill, no samples were analyzed for dioxin or furans. Similarly, since no pesticides/PCBs were detected in groundwater samples during the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation, these parameters were not subsequently analyzed in the supplemental groundwater sampling, including the Closure Investigation. Table 3-3 contains the specific sample analyses. All appropriate QA/QC samples were collected in accordance with the QA/QC program outlined in Section 3. 1.2. These parameters were analyzed by the methodologies outlined in Table 3-4. Groundwater sampling results are described in Section 4.3.5. 3.2.3 Private Water Supply Sampling Groundwater samples were collected from 14 private supply wells (see Figure 3-4) during the Closure Investigation. Four of the wells sampled are upgradient, and ten of the wells are downgradient of the Southold Landfill. These private well sampling locations are shown on Figure 3-3. The private wells presented on this figure represent the current status of active water supply wells in the immediate vicinity of the landfill which will be used to determine background and downgradient groundwater quality conditions. A private water well survey was initially conducted during the 1991 investigation within one mile downgradient and 1/4 mile upgmdient of the landfill (see Figure 4-3 in the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report). In addition, Suffolk County Department of Health *I314\M0815613(R02) 3-14 I I I Table 3-3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PROGRAM GROUNDWATER BASELINE PARAMETERS FIELD PARAMETERS Static water (in wells and sumps) Specific Conductance Temperature Floaters or Sinkers pH Eh Dissolved Oxygen Field Observations Turbidity LEACHATE INDICATORS Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia Nitrate Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Sulfate Alkalinity Phenols Chloride Total hardness as CaCO3 Bromide Color Boron Potassium Sodium Iron Manganese Magnesium Lead Calcium Cobalt Vanadium Toxic metals~ and cyanide ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Volatile organics as listed in 6NYCRR Subpart 360 - 2.11 (d)6 * 1314~V10815613{R02) 3-15 Table 3-4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL METHODS Volatile Organic Compounds Inorganics (metals) Cyanide Leachate Parameters Amrnonia Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Chloride Total Kjedahl Nitrogen Nitrate BOD (5-day) COD Sulfate Chromium (hexavalent) Color Hardness (total) Turbidity Phenol Boron SW-846, Method 8240 SW-846, Method 6010 Part 360 Mercury - SW-846, Method 7470 Selenium - SW-846, Method 7740 Thallium - SW-846, Method 7841 Lead - SW-846, Method 7421 Arsenic - SW-846, Method 7060 SW-846, Method 9010 40 CFR, Method 350.3 40 CFR, Method 415.1 40 CFR, Method 160.1 40 CFR, Method 310.1 40 CFR, Method 325.3 40 CFR, Method 351.3 40 CFR, Method 352.1 40 CFR, Method 405.1 40 CFR, Method 410.1 40 CFR, Method 375.4 40 CFR, Method 218.5 40 CFR, Method 110.2 40 CFR, Method 130.2 40 CFR, Method 180.1 40 CFR, Method 420.1 40 CFR, Method 212.3 * 1314~10815613(R02) 3-16 WS. 12 WELL NO.5 · · WS-13 WS-lO WS-14 WS-15 WELL NO.2 -- WS-11 GW-6* WELL NO.4 WS-16A WELL NO. 1 · GW-7 WS-17 WS-18 (PLANNFD~) HOWEVER NOT LOCATED) WS- WS-16 (PLANNED HOWEVER NOT SAMPLED) GW-~ WS-24(~) WS-20 WS-21* WS-22 'SOUTHOLD" ...................... ................ :LANDFILL DIRECTORY: 1314 FILE NAME: 1314-06 DATE: RDS-09/09/96 WS-; GW-l* WS-SA' PW-O05) ....... ~" ~ ...... ( s) WELL NO.1 · WS- 1 · GW- 1 0 4OO SCALE IN FEET PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL AND SAMPLING LOCATION FOR THE CLOSURE INVESTIGATION PRIVATE WELL DESIGNATION FROM PREVIOUS SAMPUNG STUDIES GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL AND SAMPLING LOCATION FROM pREVIOUS STUDIES WATER SUPPLY WELL AND SAMPUNG LOCATION FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES APPROXIMATE USEPA AND D&B GROUNDWATER PREVIOUS ~AMPLING LOCATIONS PREVIOUSLY SAMPLED BY D&B dDvi~'ka an(=. . Bartlluccl TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL AND PREVIOUS GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS FIGURE 5-3 Services (SCDHS) monitoring wells were also identified and mapped (see Figure 4-4 in the 1991 investigation report). Private water supply wells were also previously sampled during the two supplemental groundwater investigations. Three downgradient private wells were sampled during the July 1992 event (see D&B December 1992 Report) and five private wells (two upgradient wells and three downgradient wells) were sampled during the January 1993 event (see D&B March 1993 Report). A discussion of the analytical results of the private water well samples for this Closure Investigation is presented in Section 4.3.6 of this report and a comparison is made with the previous sampling events. The results of all the private water wells are compared with NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards and guidelines, and New York State Department of Health (NYSDEC) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water. All samples collected from private wells were sampled from either outdoor hose connections (if the residence had no treatment system) or indoor tap locations prior to any in-line treatment systems. Each of the 14 residents were contacted for information regarding their use of treatment systems and knowledge of well specifications (i.e. well depths and installation dates). All sample collection locations and other pertinent field sample data was recorded on Sample Information Records, Water Supply Well Forms and Chain of Custody Forms. 3.2.3.2-~m1.~.~ All private water supply well samples were analyzed for NYSDEC Baseline Parameters previously discussed in Section 3.2.2.2. All appropriate QA/QC samples were collected in accordance with the QAJQC Program outlined in Section 3.1.2. · 1314~v10815613(R02) 3-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.2.4 A total of 120 grid node/survey points in the interior portions of the known landfilled areas were sampled during the 1991 Investigation to delineate methane levels at the landfill. Total organic vapors were field recorded using an FID, PID and a methane meter. The soil gas points were based on a 100-foot grid network, except where a 50-foot grid was used downgradient of the scavenger waste lagoons, waste oil storage tanks and old automobile storage areas. Explosive soil gas and total organic vapor monitoring results are presented in Section 4.2.3.1 of the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report (locations and readings are depicted on Figure No. 1 and 2 in Appendix C). More recently, 63 new temporary combustible gas monitoring points were installed around the perimeter of the landfill on-site as part of.this Closure Investigation in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Work Plan. Fourteen permanent gas monitoring points existed prior to the installation of the temporary points at approximately 300 foot intervals along the perimeter of the landfill with the exception of the northern boundary of the landfilled portion of the site (where they were absent), and the southwestern comer where two of the points are within 100 feet of each other (see Figure 3-4). The construction of the permanent well points is described in Section 3.2.4 of the Work Plan. The temporary monitoring points were placed between the existing methane gas venting trench (where present) and the fence along the property boundary. If the trench was absent, the point was placed close to the fence (property boundary). Each temporary monitoring point was installed every 100 feet or less, except where permanent points already exist. Each point was constructed 3 feet below grade and consisted ora 3-1/2 foot long x 1/4-inch OD diameter section of tubing. Each point was capped and marked for subsequent monitoring. Between June 10 and 21, 1996, two complete rounds of explosive gas monitoring were performed in all the on-site permanent and temporary points at the landfill in accordance with 6NYCRR Part 360-2.15(a)(2). Each round also included monitoring six permanent points and * 1314WI0815613(R02) 3-19 LEGEND: EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GAS VENTING TRENCH APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WHERE GAS VENTING TRENCH IS NOT VISIBLE DUE TO EROSION AND/OR FILLING IN PERMANENT EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING POINT LOCATION AND DESIGNATION TEMPORARY EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING POINT LOCATION AMBIENT AIR MONITORING POINT LOCATION 43 45 44 11B 11C 11~ FORMER SCAVENGER -- WASTE 1 O0 /APPR( LIMITS OF 7A Jl 8A I STORAGE- GARAGE ila I 7B I FORMER BORROW AREA ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA ! 14C METHANE VENTING TRENCH 51 RCIAL BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES ELECTRIC LINES 20 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY OIL STORAGE TANKS CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE HOUSE DIRECTORY: 1314- FILE NAME: 1314-11 DATE: RDS-09/09/96 0 300 600 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION ~c~Ovirka and BartJluccJ EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING POINT LOCATIONS A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates. P.C. FIGURE 3-4 two general ambient locations inside the collection center, and one ambient monitoring point inside both the storage garage and the scalehouse. An FID meter equipped with an activated carbon filter, and a combustible gas meter were used to measure explosive gas at each sampling location. The gas monitoring was conducted during low pressure atmospheric and low wind conditions, and when the ground surface was wet. The results of the on-site combustible soil gas monitoring are discussed in Section 4.3.8 of this report. Based on elevated combustible soil gas monitoring results (over 100 % of the LEL) from the first two rounds of on-site combustible soil gas, 16 temporary off-site soil gas monitoring points were installed (approximately 25 feet radially outward from the landfill opposite from each monitoring point measured with 100 % LEL) in an attempt to delineate off-site gas migration (as required by the NYSDEC 6NYCRR Part 360-2.15 [a][2]). On July 15, 1996, one round of explosive gas monitoring was performed in all the off-site temporary points to delineate the migration of off-site combustible gas. The results of the off-site combustible soil gas monitoring are discussed in Section 4.3.8 of this report. 3.2.5 Surface Leachate Survey A surface leachate survey was conducted at the Southold Landfill site to identify the presence or absence of leachate seeps, standing pools of leachate or stained soil. The leachate survey was concentrated around the perimeter of the elevated landfill area toe of slopes where leachate may breach the ground surface and pool. Only one pooled leachate sample was collected from the toe of slope of the northern existing waste mass based on limited pooled leachate identified during the Closure Investigation. Figure 3-5 shows the sample location. No other standing pools of leachate were observed during the this investigation. In addition, no leachate seeps or stained soil was observed, therefore no samples were collected. The pooled leachate sample was analyzed for NYSDEC Baseline * 1314\M0815613(R02) 3-21 II " " EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE · POOLED LEACHATE WATER SAMPLE FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE LAGOONS~ I FORMER BORROW AREA DIRECTORY: 1314 FILE NAME: 1314,-13 DA~: RDS-09/09/96 // // // // II I I I I ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES ELECTRIC LINES 'USEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACI LI~r' STORAGE GARAGE OIL STORAGE TANKS ILLECTION CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE 0 .300 600 TOWN OF $OUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirko ond Bortilucci SURFACE LEACHATE SAMPLE C~neulting Engineers A Division of Williom F, Cosulich Associotes, P,C, LOCATION FIGURE .3-5 Parameters. The results of the pooled leachate sample are presented in Section 4.3.8 of this report. 3.2.6 Vector Survey In conformance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requirements, as part of the Closure Investigation, a vector survey of the entire 62 acre Southold Landfill site (including the former borrow area) was conducted over a two (2) day period from June 19 o 20, 1996. The survey was performed during daytime, dusk, night, and early morning (prior to sunrise and morning/mid-morning) periods in accordance with State requirements identified at Part 360-2.15 et seq. The ~entire facility, including the collection center (with the municipal solid waste transfer station), recycling drop-off area, wood chipping and appurtenant areas of the site, were visually surveyed since these areas may harbor, or provide nesting or forage for diseased vectors. A number of areas referred in this report as potential vector areas were identified during the site reconnaissance. Prior to the start of the survey on June 19, 1996, the entire site was traversed by vehicle or on foot. Twelve site areas were chosen based upon features which would attract vectors, including the potential for food, habitat, presence of water or vegetation, and included quiescent areas of the site away from day-to-day operations. These vector areas include: 1. Collection Center with municipal solid waste transfer station. 2. Former borrow area. 3. Most recent former landfill area/wood chipping and composting areas. 4. Used tire stockpile area. 5. Bagged leal'waste stockpile area. 6. Construction and demolition debris transfer station. 7. Runoff/drainage areas. * 1314~V10815613(R02) 3-23 8. Methane trench area. 9. Site roadways (both paved and unpaved). 10. Cleared open fields. 1 I. Forested areas of the site. 12. On-site vacant buildings (storage garage). Each of the above 12 areas were surveyed by vehicle or on foot at very frequent intervals over the course of the 2-day survey. The results of the biological vector survey are presented in Section 4.3.10 of this report. 3.2.7 Test Pit and Waste Delineation In March 1995, a test pit excavation program was performed to gain subsurface information to aid in the delineation of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris in and around the existing waste mass. Sixty test pits ranging from 5 to 14 feet in depth, and from eight to over 100 feet in length were constructed with a John Deere 710R Backhoe with a bucket reach of 20 feet. Field observations and notes were taken and recorded in a bound field logbook and on Test Pit Logs and Profiles (which are contained in Appendix D). The results and conclusions drawn from this test pit program are summarized in Section 4.3.3.2 of this report. For a more detailed discussion, refer to the D&B Test Pit and Waste Delineation Report dated April 1995. 3.2.8 At the completion of the Closure Investigation field activities, monitoring wells S-71045, MW-6S (which was repaired), SL-1, SL-2 and SL-3 were surveyed for vertical control by Van Tyle Surveyors, P.C. of Greenport, NY. These wells were tied into the existing Southold Landfill well network data base in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. · 1314\M0815613(R02) 3-24 Groundwater elevations of monitoring wells MW-6S and SLol were utilized in the development of the shallow water table contour map (described in Section 4.3.4.2). *I314\M0815613(R02) 3-25 Section 4 m m m ,m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 4.0 SITE ASSESSMENT 4.1 Background and History 4.1.1 Results of Previous Investigations As part of the literature search task which is discussed further in Section 4.1.3, a review of the previous investigations was conducted in order to determine the impacts of the Southold Landfill on downgradient groundwater and define the measures to assess these impacts. The results of these investigations have been presented in Section 2.0 of this report. 4.1.2 Site visits and reconnaissance were conducted to collect information regarding past and present operations at the landfill, observe the existing conditions at the landfill and to verify background information and accessibility to the site for the purpose of conducting this investigation. Activities included locating existing monitoring wells and planned sampling points, and locating past landfilling operations. In addition, other information was obtained from the Town of Southold, including tax maps, zoning maps, site maps, as well as aerial photographs and other pertinent information. 4.1.3 A comprehensive search was made for pertinent and reliable existing information concerning regional and site-specific hydrogeologic and water quality conditions. The literature search included, available records, reports and maps of the Suffolk County Department of Health. Services (SCDHS), U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Town of Southold and reports prepared by several engineering consultants. In addition, aerial photographs of the landfill site and surrounding area were obtained at scales of 1 inch equals 100 feet and 1 inch equals 200 *I314\M0814603(R04) 4-1 feet, and are enclosed in Appendix H of the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report. Well completion/construction logs and boring logs of wells formerly constructed in the vicinity of the landfill are included in Appendices I and J, respectively, of the 1991 investigation report. 4.1.4 Water Well Survey An initial survey of monitoring wells, and public and private water supply wells within 1 mile downgradient and I/4 mile upgradient of the landfill site was conducted. The locations of the SCDHS monitoring wells in the general vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 4-1. Table 4- 1 lists the available well construction data for these wells. Although there are no NYSDEC- designated (numbered) wells shown within this area, there exists several private water supply wells located within this area, as well as several private wells located upgradient within 1/4 mile and adjacent to the site as described in Section 3.2.3 of this report. Available water quality records for these wells are contained in Appendix G of the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report. 4.2 Geology 4.2.1 This section describes the general geologic conditions on Long Island as it relates to the regional geology of the North Fork in Suffolk County, and the Town of Southold and the vicinity of the Southold Landfill. Long Island is composed of consolidated tilted basement rocks overlain by, unconsolidated sediments that dip in a southeasterly direction. The consolidated rocks, known as bedrock, are dense crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks of Precambrian age. Overlying the bedrock is a series of unconsolidated deposits that form Long Island's principal aquifers and confining units. · 1314~M08 ! 4603 (R04) 4-2 /) 8-71286 8-71284, !/8- " 8-68831 /~? ~ ~-~8~'~s / 1328 80UTHOLD LANDFILL 8-66606 '~. ~ 8-76687~ · '~t :**~, ~ ~ INFE DIRECTION OF -~ UND _WATER FLOW SOURCE: USGS. MATTITUCK HILLS & SOUTHOLD QUADRANGLES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLO lANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION I B~ MONITORING WELLS LOCATED IN I Dv rko and Bart tuccl lll~o~ c,,,,.,~,,, r~.,. VICINITY OF LANDFILL FIGURE4-1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I [I I I I I I I Table 4-1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION SCDHS WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ~ ]}.alr,_C_.O_llli~J~ ~th_~g_~** Sgrcened Interval (feet)** S-76687' 5/1/84 38 23-33 S-75113' ...... S-71289 8/14/81 99 94-99 S-71287 9/1/81 80 75-80 S-71286 8/31/81 24 20-24 S-71285 9/4/81 23 19-23 S-71284 9/11/81 95 90-95 S-71283 9/10/81 23 19-23 S-71282 8/25/81 11 7-11 S-71281 8/21/81 91 86-91 S-71280 8/19/81 14 12-14 S-71279 (test boring) 8/14/81 330 -- S-71278 7/30/81 11 9-11 S-71277 7/29/81 52 48-52 S-71276 7/27/81 11 7-11 S-71275 7/20/81 19 15-19 S-71274 7/22/81 25 15 -25 S-71191 7/16/81 114 109-114 S-71171 7/13/81 30 28-30 S-71170 (test boring) 7/8/81 285 -- S-71045 * 6/24/81 22 20-22 S-71044 (test boring) 9/23/81 310 -- S-69761 * 9/10/80 60 52-57 S-68916' 4/24/80 102 97-102 S-68831' 4/17/80 51 38-48 S-65606 ...... S-65605 ...... S-53327 ...... S-53326 ...... S-53324 ...... S-32390 -- 260 -- S-10390 ...... S-6542 ...... SL-1 11/95 15 5-15 SL-2 12/95 106 86-106 SL-3 12/95 150 140-150 · Wells located at landfill. · * Feet Below MSL. · 1314kM0814603(R04) 4-4 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I During the Cretaceous period, unconsolidated sediments including sands, silts, gravels and clays were deposited on the bedrock platform. Cretaceous deposits are a terrestrial origin and were probably deposited by prograding shores and coalescing deltas. These Cretaceous sediments are divided into two formations, the Raritan formation and the Magothy formation - Matawan group, undifferentiated. The Raritan formation is probably a continental coastal plain deposit and is composed of the Lloyd sand member and an overlying unnamed clay member (Raritan confining unit) commonly referred to as the Raritan clay. Above the Raritan formation lies the Magothy formation - Matawan group, undifferentiated which is composed of continental and shallow marine or deltaic deposits. After the Cretaceous period, a long period of nondeposition or deposition followed by erosion occurred. Geologic activity by streams flowing across Long Island cut deep valleys into the Cretaceous sediments of the Magothy. These valleys were filled with glacial sediments during Pleistocene glaciation almost completely coveting the older Cretaceous (Magothy formation) deposits. The Cretaceous deposits are overlain by glacial outwash and morainal deposits of Pleistocene age, as well as Holocene deposits. The Pleistocene formations consist of several glacial, periglacial and interglacial units, including a marine clay known as the Gardiners clay. The Pleistocene or glacial deposits are believed to have been deposited during the Wisconsin stage of glaciation. This was the last stage of the glacial advance to reach Long Island. Prior to the southward movement/advance of the Pleistocene ice sheets to Long Island, an extensive clay unit (Gardiners clay) was deposited in shallow marine and brackish waters along the shores of what is now Suffolk County. This unit overlays the Magothy group and acts as a confining layer 100 to 300 feet thick. The northern portions of the Gardiners clay were subsequently eroded by advancing ice and glacial meltwaters, and Gardiners clay beds are now found only in the south shore area. *I314W10814603(R04) 4-5 I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I The Pleistocene glaciation created the hilly Ronkonkoma moraine and the Harbor Hill moraine. The Ronkonkoma moraine forms the "spine" of Suffolk County and the South Fork. The Harbor Hill moraine encompasses the north shore and forms the North Fork of Long Island. As the glaciers began to melt and retreat, these deposits (sand, gravel and boulders) were eroded and carried by the melt water, creating extensive outwash plains of sand and gravel in the intermorainal areas and south to the Atlantic Ocean. These highly permeable deposits comprise the Upper Glacial aquifer and represent the majority of Suffolk's surficial sediments which average 100 to 200 feet thick. In general, the surficial geologic units in the study area consist of Pleistocene outwash and recent or Holocene deposits. Holocene deposits include soil zone, shore, beach and salt-marsh sediments. A generalized isometric geological cross section of the Southold Peninsula is shown on Figure 4-2. The geologic and hydrogeologic units on the North Fork in the Town of Southold are summarized in Table 4-2. The sequence of stratigraphic units on the North Fork is similar to that found on the main body of Long Island. The stmtigraphic sequence from youngest to oldest rocks and deposits, and water-bearing properties of deposits underlying the Southold Landfill and vicinity are described in Table 4-2. A longitudinal cross section of the North Fork is depicted on Figure 4-3. As shown on Figure 4-3, the contact between Upper Glacial aquifer and Magothy aquifer deposits varies in depth from about -200 to -430 feet mean sea level (MSL). A thick clay layer is found at varying depths and thicknesses, but it is not certain whether the clays encountered are all part of a continuous layer that underlies the entire North Fork, or whether they occur as isolated lenses. Fresh groundwater under the North Fork is believed to exist as a series of four separate, irregularly shaped lenses as shown on Figure 4-3. The position of the freshwater-saltwater interface, however, has only been measured in a few places and appears to be located at approximately -250 to -300 feet MSL in the vicinity of the Southold Landfill. · 1314\M0814603 (R04) 4-6 I I I I I ! 1 1 I ! I I I I il UNCONFORMITY -- 300 UNCONFORMITY - 500 SOURCE: USGS. W.8.P. 1619-QQ,1963 TOWN OF SOU'THOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLO~URE INVESTIGATION GENERALIZED ISOMETRIC GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION OF THE SOUTHOLD PENINSULA '+40 ,SEA LEVEL ,APPROX. // 8ALT WATER ~oo FRESH WATER INTERFACE · --200 FIGURE 4-2 m m m m m m m m m mm m imm ~m~ mm mm 80URCE: 8GDHS, 1982 TOWN Of $OUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION LONGITUDINAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION DvJrka ond Bortilucci OF THE NORTH FORK FIGURE 4-3 Hydrogeologic Unit Upper Glacial aquifer Gardiners clay Magothy aquifer Raritan clay Lloyd aquifer Bedrock Table 4-2 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Holocene and upper Pleistocene deposits Gardiners clay Matawan group and Magothy formation, undifferentiated Unnamed clay member of the Raritan formation Lloyd sand member of the Radtan formation Undifferentiated c~ystalline rocks Description and Water-Bearing Character Mainly brown and gray sand and gravel of moderate to nigh hydraulic conductivity; also includes deposits of clayey glacial till and lacustrine clay of low hydraulic conductivity. A major aquifer. Green and gray clay, silt, clayey and silty sand, and some interbedded clayey and silty gravel; low hydraulic conductivity. Unit tends to confine water in underlying aquifer. Gray and wnite fine to coarse sand of moderate hydraulic conductivity. Generally contains sand and gravel beds of low to high hydraulic conductivity in basal 100 to 200 feet. Contains much interstitial clay and silt, and beds and lenses of clay and low hydraulic conductivity. Not a nighly developed aquifer in the study area. Gray, black and multicolored clay and some silt and fine sand. Unit has low hydraulic conductivity and tends to confine water in underlying aquifer. White and gray frae-to-coarse sand and gravel of moderate hydraulic conductivity and some clayey beds of low hydraulic conductivity. Not developed as a source of water in the study area. Mainly metamorphic rocks of low hydraulic conductivity; surface generally weathered; considered to be the bottom of the groundwater reservoir. Not a source of water. Source: USGS W-RI Report 84-4271, 1986 +I314\M0814603(R04) 4-9 I i I I i I I I I I i ! I I i I I I I 4.2.2 The Town of Southold is located on the northeast protrusion of Suffolk County known as the North Fork. As discussed previously, this region of Long Island is an extension of the Harbor Hill moraine (along the north shore) which was produced during the advance of the last period of continental glaciation. The Southold Landfill is situated on an outwash plain, south of the Harbor Hill moraine. The topographic features of the site area are described as that of rolling moraines and level to gently sloping outwash plains. The landfill site lies on unconsolidated deposits of Pleistocene age associated with glacial outwash from the Wisconsin glaciation, as well as Holocene or recent deposits. These deposits overlie the Magothy formation. The Pleistocene deposits constitute the Upper Glacial aquifer and consist primarily of stratified sand and gravel containing little clay or silt, except for a clay layer sometimes referred to as the North Fork glacial clay. The Holocene or recent deposits include soil zone, stream bed, shore, beach and salt-marsh sediments, as well as fill material. A series of geologic cross sections were constructed based on previously obtained information. The location of each cross section is shown on Figure 4-4. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 are geologic and hydrogeologic cross sections, respectively, in the vicinity of the landfill. A geologic cross section through the landfill based on available information, is shown on Figure 4-7. The thickness of Pleistocene deposits and the Upper Glacial aquifer below the landfill is approximately 250 to 300 feet. The North Fork glacial clay layer appears to lie approximately 150 feet below the surface of the landfill and is estimated to be approximately 40 feet thick below the site. Groundwater in the Upper Glacial aquifer (overlying the North Fork glacial clay) is under unconfined (water table) conditions. The water table lies approximately 40-45 feet below the surface of the site. The Upper Glacial aquifer constitutes the most important source of water for numerous small domestic private wells in the area. · 1314WI0814603(R04) 4-10 '1 I I I 1 I I t I I i i t I I THOLD,/ /*NDFI/~ - 8'-69781 ' SCALE IN FEET I o ~oo~ 2000 i 80URCE: USGS, MATTITUCK HILL~I & 80UTHOLD QUADRANGLES ~ I TOWN OF $OUTHOLD - $OUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION I I~1~ Dvir~o owe Bo~i,ucci CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS I I~ _0~ c~.,,~,~ E~g~,.. FIGURE 4-4 I ~;~f I~] ~-~,~, ~-,. ~. I I ~"~ t..;..:*~':~ ' ' I I s~::-<t~e := ~'~ ~ ." ." -" - 1 / .E -,,- ., . . I '"-, -c~ .~L~. ~,~.~,~ ' ' 1/ TOWN ~ S~LD - S~LD ~N~ILL / ~U~ ~STI~T~ / GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION / IN VICINITY OF SITE ~u~4-5 / ~ LOCATION ~' OF LANDFILL 7~ · . II i'_.-.------..~ c- ~ 11 ~'¢ ~ ~ '~ t I ~.:~ ~.______ r,.~-----.. ·.~, II ~ ~':] ~';~ ,' I ', ~:~ .... ~.fl _ _ .~'~. ~.'--: ......... 4 I ~ ~ ~ ............ / /I D~_._ ," ~E~ ~ ......... - ~::~ EE~ / / I E~ ~ ..... E:~ / II ~ ~::~ ......... E:~ II E~ ~ ,~ ~_. I/ 1982 TO~ ~ S~HOLD - S~LD ~NDFILL ,o~i,.==~YDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION / ~...~.-- ~IO~IT~ OF ~ITE F~u~i~ / I I I I ": "°'"" '= J TOWN E 8~LD - 8~D ~N~ILL J I I ~URE I~STI~T~ I J~ Dvirka nd - ~Jlucci HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION I I~ ~ ~..~.~_ ~,~ THROUGH THE LANDFILL F~u~ 4-7 J I i t I I I I i I I I I ! I I I I I Well S-32390, situated approximately in the middle of the North Fork, approximately 3,500 feet southwest of the landfill (see Figure 4-4), penetrates the Magothy aquifer at a depth of 356 feet. Well S-33775, located 4.5 miles northeast of well S-32390, penetrates the Magothy at a depth of 205 feet according to a report prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Little detailed data are available at the present time on the vertical extent and water quality of the Magothy aquifer on the North Fork in the vicinity of the site. There are no production wells tapping the Magothy on the North Fork near the landfill; however, groundwater is believed to be salty in a large portion of this aquifer. The exact position and thickness of the zone of diffusion and the movement of the saltwater in the vicinity of the landfill site is not known. As shown on Figure 4-6, the freshwater-saltwater interface appears to occur at approximately -280 to -300 feet MSL below the landfill. Cores from well S-32390 located southwest of the site showed the interface to be at about -290 feet MSL. Thus, there may be some fresh water below the North Fork glacial clay layer (below -228 feet MSL) just south of the landfill at well S-7! !70, but the quantities would be extremely limited (if any) and any attempts to pump this water and use this portion of the glacial aquifer as a source of water supply would probably cause upconing of salt water from below. 4.2.3 The primary groundwater aquifer on the North Fork is the Upper Glacial or water table aquifer. The saturated thickness of this aquifer ranges from approximately 50 to 200 feet. Most wells drawing freshwater from these permeable deposits are between 10 and 100 feet deep, and extend about 10 to 35 feet below MSL. Upper Glacial regional groundwater flow in the Town of Southold in the vicinity of the Southold Landfill is shown on Figure 4-8. Groundwater elevations are highest near the center of~ the North Fork and lowest near the shoreline. The horizontal component to groundwater flow is shown in the regional water table contour map. As this map indicates, regional horizontal flow is toward the north-northwest in the vicinity of the landfill. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-15 m I " ~SL^NO SOUN · .~ LoNG GREAT PECONIC BAY (~ I LEGEND m ~ APPROXIMATE DIREOTION OF 8ROUN~ WAT[R FLOW I I ! i I i I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I As shown on Figure 4-8, regional groundwater flow is separated into north and south groundwater flow regimes by the groundwater divide that runs generally northeast to southwest across generally the center of the North Fork. Flow moves outward from the central groundwater divide toward either shoreline (northward toward Long Island Sound and southward toward Great Peconic Bay and Little Peconic Bay). Near the center of the divide, downward, nearly vertical flow and recharge of groundwater occurs (with velocities of approximately 0.1 fl./day). Moving north or south away from the divide, shallow groundwater flow becomes increasingly horizontal (with velocities of 0.2 to 0.4 ft./day) until groundwater discharge occurs near the shorelines. Within approximately 1/4 mile of the shoreline, the vertical component of flow is upward as groundwater is influenced by the boundary effects of the saltwater interface and is discharged via seepage and underflow to surface waters. 4.2.4 Based upon previous information, groundwater flow within the Upper Glacial aquifer, in the area of the landfill site, is generally in a north-northwesterly direction. This flow continues in this direction until it reaches the Long Island Sound. Direction of groundwater flow may be influenced by local well withdrawals and proximity to the North Fork groundwater divide. The average hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Glacial aquifer is approximately 1,950 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf) and transmissivity is approximately 300,000 gpd/ft. As previously discussed in Section 4.2.1, within the Upper Glacial aquifer is an extensive clay layer referred to as the North Fork glacial clay (the upper surface of which varies from 100 to 150 feet below sea level), and separating the Magothy from the underlying Lloyd aquifer is a semipermeable layer of Raritan clay which somewhat inhibits the vertical flow of water from the Magothy to the Lloyd aquifer. Figure 4-9 shows the groundwater flow patterns beneath the landfill and surrounding area. The Magothy (in general) and Lloyd aquifers in this area are not usable for potable water purposes because of saline conditions. *I314\M0814603(R04) 4-17 29 Z · · il \ / I SOURCE: $CDHS, 1982 % l'· / / / / / / (2.i) I I I ' .l i I I / / / / I I I I J~ Ovirko and Bortilucc[ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - $OUTHOLD lANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUND WATER FLOW PATTERNS IN VICINITY OF SITE FIGURE 4-9 I I I I I il I I I I I I I I I Groundwater elevation data was obtained from the SCDHS for on-site well S-69761 and two nearby off-site wells (S-53326 and S-65606). The locations of these monitoring wells are shown on Figure 4-10. This data reflects water table elevations of June 1988 which indicates that groundwater flow in the Upper Glacial aquifer is in a north-northwest flow direction, as illustrated in the figure, which is consistent with the regionally defined groundwater flow direction. This groundwater elevation data was used for the purposes of selection of monitoring well locations for the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation. The Southold Landfill is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV, as defined in the Long Island Waste Treatment ('208') Management Plan. Zone IV is characterized by generally shallow, horizontal groundwater flow and groundwater discharge near the shorelines. Zone IV was described in the '208' study as an area that has local water quality problems caused by agricultural practices, but has potential for groundwater development. Figure 4-11 shows the landfill site to be located outside of the Special Groundwater Protection Area (primarily deep flow recharge area) defmed for the Town of Southold. Thus, any contaminant releases from the existing landfill wastemass would not have a significant impact on the water supply of the Town. 4.2.5 Surface Water Long Island Sound is the closest surface water body, and is located approximately 3,500 feet north of the Southold Landfill. The closest freshwater body, East Creek, lies approximately 1.3 miles to the southeast of the landfill site. No surface water bodies are located within or immediately adjacent to the landfill. Since groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill flows north- northwesterly, and there are no other surface water bodies located between the landfill and Long Island Sound, no surface water bodies should be impacted by the landfill. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-19 . s-833~e(3.18') 7-'~ ~' 4.81') 'HOLD."' "~ ANDFILL * ~, S-ee7e -INFERRED DIRECTIO~ OF .,GROUND WATER FL( ~-f B~32. NOTE: WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS OBTAINED IN JUNE, 1988 SOURCE: H2M. 1988 TOWN OF soLrrHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION D~i~o onu Bo.ti,ucci IN VICINITY OF SITE SCALEIN FEET 0 ~000 2000 FIGURE 4-10 SOUTHOLD LITTLE PECONIC BAY GREAT PECONIC BAY SPECIAL GROUND WATER PROTECTION AREA SOURCE: LIRPB,1990 ,0 8000 SCALE IN FEET TOWN OF SOUTHCg-D - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL i~ Ovirka and Bartiluccl I~J TI-II: SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 16000 FIGURE 4-11 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I 4.3 Site Setting 4.3.1 In general, the natural topography of the Southold Landfill site slopes gently upward in a northward direction, from a low of approximately 45 feet (MSL) near County Road 48 to a high of approximately 66 feet (MSL) along the northern boundary of the site near monitoring well cluster MW-5. This natural gradual slope has been interrupted by both the landfill in the center of the site and the area north of the landfill which has been excavated to an elevation of approximately 10 feet (MSL). 4.3.2 Soils The central part of the North Fork is covered with soils classified as Haven-Riverhead Association, and described as deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained, medium textured and moderately coarse textured soils on outwash plains. Soils of the Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead Association are found on the northern shore of the North Fork and on the middle part of the south shore. These soils are deep, rolling, excessively drained and well-drained, coarse textured and moderately coarse textured soils on moraines. In general, the North Fork soils are highly permeable and allow relatively rapid groundwater recharge. This condition is beneficial in terms of groundwater replenishment; however, it also provides fairly direct access of surface pollutants to the aquifer. A soil map of the landfill site and vicinity is shown on Figure 4-12. The map shows that there are seven specific types of soils that exist on the site, namely, HaA-Haven Loam (0 to 2 percent slopes), HaB-Haven Loam (2 to 6 percent slopes), Ma-Made Land, PIA-Plymouth' Loamy Sand (0 to 3 percent slopes), PIB-Plymouth Loamy Sand (3 to 8 percent slopes), PIC- Plymouth Loamy Sand (8 to 15 pement slopes and Rd C-Riverhead Sandy Loam (8 to 15 pement slopes). Descriptions of each of these soils are as follows: · 1314\M0S 14603(R04) 4-22 OREGON ROAD HilA 8OUTHOLD LANDFILL-- PlA ~G.R. ROAI NoRTV 80URCE: SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE LEGEND TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CI..O~URE INVESTIGATION Dvirko ond Bortilucci SOIL MAP FIGURE 4-12 HaA-Haven Loam (0 to 2% slopes). These soils are deep, well drained and medium textured, and are mostly nearly level generally found on outwash plains. They were formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. The available moisture capacity in this soil is high to moderate. Natural fertility is low. Internal drainage is good, while permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. The ha?.rd of erosion is slight. HaB-Haven Loam (2 to 6% slopes). These soils are deep, well drained and medium textured and is found on outwash plains and moraines, commonly along shallow, intermittent drainage channels. Slopes are short. They were formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. The baTard of erosion is moderate to slight. ~. Made land includes areas that are mostly covered with pieces of concrete, bricks, trash, wire, metal and other nonsoil material. Some areas are on the surface of the original soil, others are in large holes dug for disposal purposes, and still others are in old gravel pits converted to this use. Included with this trait in mapping are sanitary landfills that have been excavated and subsequently filled with trash and garbage. After these areas are filled, they are covered with several feet of soil material. PIA-Plymouth Loamy Sand (0 to 3% slopes). These soils are deep, excessively drained and coarse textured. They formed in a mantle of loamy sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level soils are found on broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains. The available moisture content is low to very low. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is rapid. The hazard of erosion is slight. PIB-Plymouth Loamy Sand (3 to 8% slopes). These soils are deep, excessively drained and coarse textured. They are found on moraines and outwash plains. Slopes are undulating, or they are single along the sides of intermittent drainage ways. The ha?srd of erosion is slight. (See PIA soils for other soil properties.) PIC-Plymouth Loamy Sand (8 to 15% slopes]. These soils are deep, excessively drained and coarse textured. They are moderately sloping and found on moraines and outwash plains. The ha?~rd of erosion is moderate to severe because of slope and the sandy texture of this soil. (See PIA soils for other soil properties.) RdC-Riverhead Loamy Sand (8 to 15% slopes). These soils are deep, well drained and moderately coarse textured. They formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. These soils occur in narrow bands on outwash plains along the side slopes of deep intermittent drainage ways. Slopes are short. These soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity, internal · 1314~M0814603(R04) 4-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I drainage is good, and permeability is moderately rapid. The hazard of erosion is moderately severe. 4.3.3 Stratigraphic logs were developed from information collected as part of the earlier Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation monitoring well drilling program in order to specifically define subsurface geology of the Southold Landfill site. These boring logs can be found in Appendix F of the 1991 investigation report. Two cross sections were constructed for the site based on data obtained during this previous investigation. The location of the cross sections are shown on Figure 4-13. Cross section A-A' incorporates monitoring well clusters MW-l, MW-7, MW-3 and MW-5 and is shown on Figure 4-14. Cross section B-B' runs perpendicular to cross section A-A' and includes monitoring well clusters MW-6, MW-2 and MW-3. Cross section B-B' is illustrated on Figure 4-15. The lowest geologic unit of the site consists of gray-brown silty clay and was encountered at an average depth of approximately 130 feet below ground surface at all locations drilled. Overlying the clay is a unit composed of medium to coarse sand and gravel with an average thickness of approximately 15 feet, except for cluster locations MW-I and MW-4 (not shown in the cross sections), where the clay was overlain by a roughly 10-foot thick transitional zone consisting of fine sand with thin intermittent layers of clays and silts. At monitoring well cluster locations MW-6 and MW-7, the clay was overlain by the next most prevalent stratigraphic unit composed of medium to fine sand with traces of gravel and mica. At the MW-1 cluster, this unit was not vertically continuous, but was interrupted by a layer of medium to coarse sand and gravel. This same condition occurred at the MW-6 cluster location. This medium to fine sand. unit is approximately 50 to 60 feet in thickness. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-2 5 STORAGE ,/ MW-~4D FORMER MINING j,) AREA DEBRIS AND AUTOMOBILE I DISPOSAL AREA I_ / I OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LIHES --COLLECTION ~- WASTE OIL CENTER STORAGE WEIGHING STATION g II LEGEND DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION · MONITORING WELL LOCAT1ON MW-4D DIRECTORY: C:~1027 FILE NAME: LOCSEC DA~: SEPT 1991 SCALE: 1~1 DESIGNER: L.V.G. 0 400 800 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SCXJTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirko ond BortiIucci LOCATION OF LANDFILL SITE CROSS SECTIONS I co.,.m.g [r~i.,.~, FIGURE 4-13 A Dlvtiion of W9~iam F. Cosutich AsIociatea, P.C. I I II I < 100 PROPERTY D HOUSE -7 75 50 25 0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 0 200 4-00 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 SW DISTANCE IN FEET 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 NE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLDLANDRLL CLOSURE INVES~GA~ON LEGEND MED-COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL MED-FiNE SAND TR. GRAVEL AND MICA BROWN SILTY FINE SAND BROWN GREY CLAY -0- --~---0- - FINE SAND WITH CLAY STREAKS FINE SAND Dvirkoond Bartilucci GEOLOGIC CROSS--SECTION A -- A' C~,uiti.~ r~,. FIGURE 4-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6O ¢0 2O -2O -40 -60 -8O - 1 O0 - 120 MW-6D i 0 100 200 300 ~0 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 14~ 1500 SW NE DISTANCE IN FEET LEGEND MED-COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL MED-RNE SAND TR. GRAVEL AND MICA MED-COARSE GRAVEL BROWN GREY CLAY MED-COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL WITH BLACK SILT MED-F~NE SAND TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Overlying this unit and extending to the surface is medium to coarse sand and gravel, similar to that found overlying the clay. Some isolated lenses of brown silty fine sand were encountered within this layer at well cluster MW-1. Silty sands were also encountered within this unit in isolated lenses at cluster MW-6. Throughout drilling operations, isolated pockets of reddish brown to orange-brown (iron-stained) sand were encountered indicating a high natural concentration of iron bearing minerals. 4.3.3.1 - Geophysical Survey Results The results of the downhole geophysical survey conducted during the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation indicates that, based on the natural gamma ray logs, bedding dips gently from north to south. This slope corresponds closely with the general dip of the clay surface underlying the landfill. The results of the geophysical investigation also indicate that the conductivity measured for the groundwater in the two wells located upgradient of the landfill (MW-1 and MW-7) and the wells located downgradient of the former scavenger waste lagoons (MW-6), was distinctly different from the four wells located downgradient of the landfill (MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5). The conductivity in monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-3 was elevated starting at the water table, whereas the conductivity of wells MW-4 and MW-5 located further north was elevated starting at a depth of 40 feet below the water table. In all cases, these anomalies seem to extend down to the deep well screening zone, just above the clay surface. This data infers that a conductive fluid with a density greater than water is emanating from the landfill. The data also indicates that leachate present in this plume should be detected in the deep monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill. The geophysical report is included in Appendix C of this report. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-29 I I I I I il I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.3.4 As previously discussed, the principal aquifer of interest in the study area is the Upper Glacial aquifer. Intersecting the Upper Glacial aquifer is the North Fork glacial clay which represents a laterally continuous flow boundary underlying the Southold Landfill. Therefore, the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation was focused primarily on that portion of the Upper Glacial aquifer overlying the North Fork glacial clay, which for our purposes in the Closure Investigation, comprises the critical stratigraphic section. 4.3.4.1 - Permeabili _fy Slug tests were performed at eight monitoring wells consisting of shallow and deep wells located at clusters MW-I, MW-2, MW-5 and MW-7. The results of the slug test analysis are shown in Table 4-3. Hydraulic conductivities within the water table wells were relatively high and ranged in value from 2.2 x 104 to 8.6 x 10.2 cmJsec. The average hydraulic conductivities at the deep wells were higher and generally more uniform, and ranged from 1.8 x 10.3 to 3.1 x 10.2 cm/sec. The lower hydraulic conductivity values found in both MW-1S and MW-1D are probably due to the presence of silty sands found within the screen zones. Appendix K of the 1991 investigation report contains graphs and calculations used to derive hydraulic conductivities for each slug test conducted. 4.3.4.2 - 'Groundwater Flow Patterns Shallow Water Table Measurements of groundwater elevations in all monitoring wells were obtained on. June 24, 1996, and are presented in Table 4-4. Based on these data, a water table groundwater contour map was prepared and is illustrated on Figure 4-16. · 1314bM0814603(R04) 4-3 0 Shallow Wellst: MW-1S MW-2S MW-5S MW-7S Deep Wells: MW-ID MW-2D MW-5D MW-7D Table 4-3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION SLUG TEST RESULTS FROM THE HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Rising Head Test Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Falling Head Test Hydraulic Conductivity (K) 2.2 x 10.4 3.8 x 10.2 2.6 x 104 8.6 x 10'2 2.5 x 10'3 4.8 x 10'2 1.1 x 104 3.4 x 10.2 1.I x 10'3 1.3 x 10.2 1.3 x 10'2 1.2 x 10'2 Average Hydraulic Conductivity (K) 2.2 x 10-4 3.8 x 10'2 2.6 x 10-4 8.6 x 10-2 1.8 x 10-3 3.1 x 10'2 1.2 x 10'2 2.3 x 10'2 · 1314W10814603(R04) 4-3 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4-4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MEASUREMENTS FOR JUNE 24, 1996 Measuring Point Groundwater Elevation Depth to Groundwater Elevation ~ ~1 (from measuring point~ (MSL~ MW-1S 44.38 36.68 7.70 MW-1D 44.39 36.55 7.84 MW-2S 18.15 10.97 7.18 MW-2D 17.23 10.06 7.17 MW-3S 48.50 41.23 7.27 MW-3D 48.63 41.35 7.28 MW-4S 63.60 56.96 6.64 MW-4D 63.76 56.84 6.92 MW-5S 68.44 61.62 6.82 MW-5D 67.89 61.20 6.69 MW-6S 52.942 45.38 7.56 MW-6D 52.59 45.07 7.52 MW-7S 48.07 40.62 7.45 MW-7D 47.03 39.61 7.42 S-697614 45.69 35.06 10.63 $-71045 45.99 35.30 10.69 S-68916s 53.23 45.91 7.32 S-68831 53.28 46.21 7.07 SL-13 60.00 53.75 6.25 SL-23 60.09 53.82 6.27 SL.33,6 59.847 53.03 6.81 Vertical elevations tied into the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. The riser of this well was required -in 1995 and the measuring point (top of riser) was resurveyed by Van Tyle Surveyors, P.C. in August 1996. These wells were surveyed in August 1996 by Van Tyle Surveyors, P.C. Corresponds to a shallow water table well. Corresponds to a deep clay interface well. Corresponds to a deep clay well. The measuring point was estimated due to well riser cap which could not be removed at the time of survey (August 1996). · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4- 3 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ,/ .EGEND: S-69761 MW-IS (6.70) EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF EXISTING SCDHS GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF SHALLOW MONITORING WELL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CO~'~R I (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) '~ I GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION \ % FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE I I STORAGE GARAGE MW-1S F¢ ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA /MW-2S (7.18) (6 \ \ % 1(7.27) '\ BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES ~VERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES iUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY OIL STORAGE TANKS CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE HOUSE DIRECTORY: 1514 RLE NAME: 1314-18 DATE: RDS-09/09/96 NOTE: CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 0.10 FEET 0 500 600 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirka and Barti)ucci WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP C~n~ultlng Engineers JUNE 24, 1996 A Division of William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. FIGURE 4-16 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I The water table contour map indicates a general north to northwesterly flow of groundwater through the site confirming previous regional and local findings. The horizontal hydraulic groundwater gradient across the site was calculated to be 3.65 x 104 feet of head loss per foot of horizontal distance. The gradient becomes steeper north of MW-2S. The more gentle sloping hydraulic gradient in the southem portion of the landfill site is expected since this area is located relatively close to a hydraulic divide believed to exist south of the Southold Landfill (refer to Figure 4-8). Deep Groundwater Based on the water level measurements obtained from the deep monitoring wells on Jtme 24, 1996, a potentiometric surface map was constructed and is presented as Figure 4-17. Based on this data, it appears that groundwater along the clay interface flows in the same direction (north to northwesterly) and under approximately the same hydraulic gradient (4.20 x 10.4 foot of head loss per foot of horizontal distance) as the shallow groundwater at the site. The difference in hydraulic head between each shallow and deep well at well clusters MW-1 through MW-7 were calculated in order to determine the vertical gradient at each location, the results of which are presented in Table 4-5. This data indicate that a very slight upward gradient exists at the northern (MW-4 cluster) and southern (MW-1 cluster) portions of the site. The data indicate that a very slight downward gradient exists in the interior portions of the site (at MW-5 through MW-7 well clusters). Vertical gradients calculated historically (1991, 1992 and 1993 studies) show inconsistent results which indicate that the gradients calculated are very low which may reflect temporary effects. The very slight downward gradient may be a temporary result from significant precipitation which may be acting to recharge groundwater above the clay interface. These recent and historical slight and alternating vertical gradients indicate that the Southold Landfill is situated in an area of predominately horizontal groundwater flow. A three-dimensional representation of the clay surface was created based on data obtained during the drilling program and is presented on Figure 4-18. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-3 4 ~7,~ GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IN FEET,~.. ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL /O, I GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION 6D ~'/ BORROW AREA MW-2D ~-(7.17) % % FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE II // I I AREA (7.28) OMMERCIAL BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF FOR RECYCLABLES -OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY OIL STORAGE TANKS ,.N,ER STORAGE ,I WEIGHING STATION GARAGE Il 0 HOUSE DIRECTORY: 1314 FILE NAME: 1314-12 DATE: ROS-09/09/96 MW-1D NOTE: CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 0.10 FEEl' 0 L_--._--._I 300 600 I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirko ond BortiIucci POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP c~...,.~ E.~,.... JUNE 24, 1996 A Division of Williom F. Cosulich Associote$, P.C. FIGURE 4-17 I I i I I I I I ! I I l I I I i I I Table 4-5 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS AT EACH WELL CLUSTER Difference Between Vertical Hydraulic Shallow and Deep Well Gradient] Direction of Vertical ~ ~ (Feet) ~ MW-IS/MW-ID 0.14 0.0012 Upward MW-2S/MW-2D 0.01 * Negligible Gradient* --- MW-3S/MW-3D 0.01' Negligible Gradient* --- MW-4S/MW-4D 0.28 0.0032 Upward MW-5 S/MW-5D 0.13 0.0019 Downward MW-6S/MW-6D 0.04 0.0004 Downward MW-7S/MW-7D 0.03 0.0004 Downward Calculated by dividing the head difference by the distance from the water table to the midpoint of the deep well screened interval. * Gradient direction cannot be determined since the head difference was equal to 0.01 feet which is the limit of accuracy for vertical control surveys, and water level measurements. · 1314~M0814603(R04) 4-36 ! I I I DIRECTION MW-2D ! ~ ~ - · ~w-.*D ~ ~ / UW--~D _~05.0° I ~ / . TOWN OF SOU~OLD - SOU~O~ ~D~ /~ Dwrke CLOSURE ~ ~i~uooi 3-D C~Y SURFACE ELEVATION ~AP ~ ~_~ :1 4.3.5 Groundwater Monitoring Well Ouali _ty The 18 monitoring wells at the Southold Landfill and one of the three downgradient SCDHS wells (SL-1) were sampled in June 1996 to assess groundwater quality and to establish a baseline for subsequent Post-Closure Monitoring of the landfill. The remaining two downgradient SCDHS off-site wells (SL-2 and SL-3) were not sampled during this Closure Investigation, however, they were sampled by the SCDHS in February 1996. The groundwater results from these two wells are utilized for discussion of groundwater quality in this section. The 19 monitoring wells sampled during this investigation (and the two SCDHS deep downgradient wells) represents the landfill's groundwater monitoring system. Figure 3-1 depicts the well locations. All groundwater samples were analyzed for NYSDEC Baseline Parameters, except for the SCDHS wells which were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, inorganics and pesticides (including organohalide pesticides). The SVOC constituents and pesticides as part of the SCDHS analytical methods were not analyzed during this Closure Investigation and, therefore, cannot be compared. The VOCs were analyzed by EPA Method 524.2 and the inorganics by EPA Method 200.7. No detections of SVOCs or pesticides were reported in the SCDHS analyses. The results of the SCDHS sampling are contained in Appendix E. Analytical data summary tables have been prepared on a well by well basis with a comparison of each sample to NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards/guidance values. The parameters which exceed the standards/guidance values are highlighted on the tables and are discussed below. The results from this Closure Investigation are compared with historical groundwater sampling results (historical sampling rounds include all wells described above except S-69761, S-71045, SL-1, SL-2 and SL-3). The previous sampling rounds were performed in 1980 (limited wells were sampled) 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, and tables containing these historical results are presented in Appendix F. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-3 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.3.5.1 - Organic Sampling Results The VOCs detected in the groundwater monitoring well samples during the Closure Investigation are presented in Table 4-6. The VOCs exceeding the NYSDEC groundwater standards/guidance values are shown on Figure 4-19. Methylene chloride was detected in the groundwater samples, as well as in the method blanks and, therefore, will not be discussed further in this section due to their occurrence as laboratory contaminants. Detections of VOCs, which were in exceedance of the NYSDEC standards, included benzene, chlorobenzene, vinyl chloride, 1,2-dichloroethene (total), 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1- dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane and xylene (total). All of these compounds have been previously detected above the standards in earlier rounds of sampling (except xylene). Benzene was detected in downgradient well MW-5D at a concentration of 1 ug/1 slightly above the groundwater standard (0.7 ug/1) during this round of sampling. Benzene was previously detected in this well above the standard in the 1992 round of sampling (at 1.5 ug/l) and in 1993 (at 1.2 ug/1). Benzene was also previously detected above the standard in 1993 in upgradient well MW-ID (1.6 ug/l) and in 1992 in downgradiem wells MW-2S (1.2 ug/1) and MW-3S (1.1 ug/1). Benzene was not detected above the standard in groundwater during the 1991 round of sampling. Chlorobenzene was detected in downgradient well S-68916 (11 ug/l) slightly above the standard (5 ug/1) during this sampling round and detected in off-site downgradient SCDHS well SL-2 (I 1 ug/1) above the standard in the February 1996 SCDHS sampling evem. Chlorobenzene was previously detected in downgradient well S-68916 in an earlier round of sampling in 1990 (at 24 ug/1) above the standard. · 1314~v10814603(R04) 4-39 TABLE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INV'~STIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS u] u U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U u u uI uI u u 3 J u u u U U i 4 JB D u U U u U U U U U oi u u U ~Jj u U[ ui 4 J8 4 J U U U U U U U U u 2 J U U U U U ui ui u ui ;! uI ui ul Not Established ui Ul uI 4 OBi ui U 3 J U U u u u[ u u u[ u u u ui Ul u u u u u u u ui u U 4 JB TABLE 4-6 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Ui 2 d Ui u! ui ul ui ui uI ui ui ui ul ui U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U u~ u ui ui u; u ul ul ui u[ u u 10 j 4 7 S'(*' Not Established TABLE 4-6 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS SAMPLE ID U U U U u; U U U U 5 JB U U U U U U 3 JB U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ug~ ugyl u~ tO U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U lO U U U U 10 U U I0 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 U U 10 INSTRUMENT DETECTION LIMIT GA GROUNDWATER 8TANDARE~UIDEUNE 5 ST 5 ST 2ST 5ST 5ST 5O GV 5O GV 5 ST 5 ST 5ST 7ST 5ST 5ST 5ST 50GV 5 ST 5 ST 5 ST 50GV 5 ST 07ST 5 ST 5ST 5 ST 50 GV 5 ST 5ST 5ST 5 ST 5ST 5ST 5 ST' 5ST 5ST 5ST 5ST 5ST 5ST 5ST 5ST 5ST 4 7 ST** m m ,~ m --,, mm mm m m m m m m, m m m m mm m~ COMPOUND CONC. 1,1 -DCA 1,1 - [~CHLOROETHANE 1,2-BCE ('r) 1,2-DICHLORC~"FHENE (TOTN.) 1,2 -DCA I ,Z -DICHLGROETHANE 1,2-DCP 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE VC VINYL CHLORIDE BENZENE BENZENE CB CHLOROBENZENE X'tq..ENE XYLENE LEGEND: S-69761 MW-.{~./1D ND NA NOTE: ALL UNITS IN EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF EXISTING SCDHS GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF MONITORING WELL (S=SHALLOW, D=DEEP) NOT DETECTED PRESENT ABOVE STANDARDS NOT ANALYZED COMPOUND ti NO EXCEEDANCES II MW-5 CONCENTRATION COMPOUND BENZENE MW-4S/4D i NO EXCEEDANCE$ FORMER BORROW AREA ~W-6S/6D MW-6 COMPOUND 3RMER WASTE LAGOONS CONCENTRATDN COMPOUND STORAGE GARAGE CONCENTRA~ON COMPOUND NO EXCEED/,NCES ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA bi'IV--3 CONCENTRATION COMPOUND NO EXCEEDANCES aW-3S/3D g MW-7 CONCENTRATION'''~ C COMPOUND NO EXCEEDANCES IW-7S/7D B~-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES ELECTRIC LINES HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILI'TY MW- 1 CONCENTRATrON COMPOUND XYLENE o j JO WEIGHING STATION ~ (SCALE 'OUSE OIL STORAGE TANKS DIRECTORY: 1314 FILE NAME: 1314-15 {)ATE: ROS-09/06/95 0 300 600 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUNDWATER (MONITORING Dviri~o ond Bor[)hJccJ EXCEEDING CLASS GA GROUNDWATER STANDARDS WELLS) FIGURE 4-19 Vinyl chloride was detected in downgradient well MW-5D (4 ug/1) slightly above the standard (2 ug/l), however, lower than previously detected in this well in 1992 (17 ug/1) and in 1993 (4.6 ug/1). Historically, vinyl chloride has not been detected above the standard in any of the other Southold Landfill monitoring wells sampled and described in this section. 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) was detected in downgradient monitoring well MW-5D (6 ug/l) slightly exceeding the standard (5 ug/l) during this round of sampling. 1,2-Dichloroethene (trans) was previously detected in 1992 in MW-6D (28 ug/1) above the standard (5 ug/l). 1,2- Dichloroethene (trans) is one of the two parameters in the total compound reported (1,2- dichloroethene [cis] is the other). 1,2-Dichloroethane was detected in downgradient monitoring well MW-6D (19 ug/1) slightly above the standard (5 ug/1) during this round of sampling, however, it was previously detected above the standard in MW-6D in 1991 (12 ug/1), and in 1993 (16 ug/1). 1,1-Dichloroethane was detected in downgradient off-site SCDHS well SL-2 (20 ug/l) slightly above the standard (5 ug/1) in the February 1996 SCDHS sampling event. 1,1- Dichloroethane has not been previously detected above the standard in the earlier rounds of sampling in any of the wells described in this section of the report. 1,2-Dichloropropane was detected in downgradient monitoring well MW-6D (15 ug/1) slightly above the standard (5 ug/1) in this sampling round. 1,2-Dichloropropane was previously detected in this well in 1991 (11 ug/1) and in 1990 in well S-68916 (15 ug/1). Total xylenes were detected in upgradient well MW-ID (21 ug/l) slightly above the standard (5 ug/l) during this sampling round. Total xylenes have not been previously detected above the standard in any of the monitoring wells sampled during the rounds described in this section. * 1314~V[0814603(R04) 4-45 I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I I I I I I i 4.3.5.2 - Inorganic Sampling Results The inorganics detected in the groundwater monitoring well samples during the Closure Investigation are presented in Table 4-7. The inorganic constituents exceeding the NYSDEC groundwater standards/guidance values are presented in Figure 4-20. Antimony was detected slightly above the groundwater guidance value (3 ug/1) at downgradient wells MW-2S, MW-3S, MW-4S and S-68916 during this sampling round. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 4.4 ug/1 at MW-4S to 6.8 ug/1 at MW-3S. No exceedances of antimony were detected in the historical analyses discussed in this section of the report. Beryllium was detected slightly above the groundwater guidance value (3 ug/1) at downgradient well S-68916 at a concentration of 5.8 ug/1 during this sampling round. No exceedances of beryllium were detected in the historical analyses discussed in this section of the report. Cadmium was detected slightly above the groundwater standard (10 ug/1) at upgradient well S-71045 at a concentration of 19.4 ug/1 during this sampling round. No exceedances of cadmium were detected in the historical analyses discussed in this section of the report. Iron was detected above the groundwater standard (300 ug/l) in all of the wells sampled during this round except MW-SS, MW-SD and S-68831. Iron concentrations in exceedance of the standard ranged from 461 ug/1 in MW-2D to 37,400 ug/1 in MW-3S. Exceedance of iron were detected historically in all of the wells and sampling rounds discussed in this section of the report except concentrations detected below the standard in MW-2D, MW-4S, MW-5S and S-68831. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 303 ug/l at upgradient well MW-ID to 25,600 ug/l at downgradient well MW-6D. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-46 TABLE 4-7 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING * JUNE 1996 INORGANIC PARAMETERS Aluminum/7429*90-5 Anfimony/7440-36-0 Arsenic/7440-38-2 Badum/744~-39-3 [oron/7440-42-8 Calcium/?440-70-2 ;hromium/7440-47-3 Cobalt/7440-48-4 Copper/7440-50-8 Iron/7439-89-6 Lead/7439-92-1 Magnesium/7439-95-4 Manganese/7439~9~-5 i Mercury/7439-97-6 I Nickel/7440-02-0 Potassium/7440-09-7 Selenium/7782-49-2 Silver/7440-22-4 Sodium/7440-23-5 Thallium/7440-28-0 Vanadium/7440-62-2 Zinc/7440~,6-6 cyan!d~/5955-7o-Q 816 u 419 770 B U U U 1460O 227 22S 2,3 B 9930 023 276 B 2710 B U 0,92 B U 30 B 200 ~ U 369 U U U U 13 B 22700 14 13 B 4,0 B 689 20 B 167 B U 280 U 56000 36 B 859 2,2 B U U 28 B 246 U 942 U 101000 30 B 132 B 112 B I 390 49 B 339 020 B 485 U 200OO 101 2169 4.6 B U U 19 B 253 U 562 O7O B 127000 66 B 252 B 4] B 341 U 146 B 013 B 490 B U 7260 23B 14B U 258 1650 B U 106 B 1450 B U 13B 14900 4.0 B 34 B 686 U 118 B 42100 U U 339 62 B U 706 122000 56 1,1 B U 104 B 60500 11 B 35 B 470 61 B U 17.8 B 90200 47 B 16 B U 243 U 1 5 B 1260 9 53 U 3260 B 239 269 U 41 0 36 0 U 490 22 9 39 16 52 OtO 200 0 40 0 80 15 139 020 572 32 0 7O tO 21 100 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 1000 ST 10ST 50 ST 200 ST 300 ST' 25 ST 35000 GV 300 ST' 2 ST 10 ST 50 ST 20000 ST 4GV 300 ST 100ST Qualifiers: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration is above IDL but below CRDL GV : Guidance Value ST : Standard ST" : Standard for the sum of iron and manganese is 500 ug/I .... : Not established i~i';i ~!, Va ue exceeds standard/guideline MET9606 WK4/mh/kb Page 1 of 3 09/11/96 imm M TABLE 4-7 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING -JUNE 1996 INORGANIC PARAMETERS ISAMPLE ID MW~4D · MW-SS MW-5D MW-6S MW-6D MW-7S MW-TD I INSTRUMENT NYSDEC CLASS GA ~]:~OTCOL~ECTION Z 06~'4/~ 06~3/96 [ ~!~ [ 06]i2)~ ] ~i7~~ [06/17~ 'DETECTION] GROUNDWATER [6~1~ ~5~ / - ~ '~ ~ I ~ 1 1 1 ~8~'~ ~ LIMIT [STANDARD/GUIDELINE ~AMETER/~A~ ~ u94 ugfl i u~ ~g ug/I u~fi [- u9/-~ [ u9/I u911 lAluminum~4~-90-5 242 112 B U 266 U ~8 132 B 229 .... Antimony/7440-36-0 U Arsenic/7440-38*2 U J Barium/7440-39-3 164 B i Boron/7440-42-8 677 ', Cadmium/7440-43-9 0,66 B Calcium17440*70-2 151000 Chromium/7440-47-3 4.2 B { Cobalt/7440~48-4 156 B i Copper/7440-50-8 14.4 B on/7439-89-6 ! Leed/7439-92-1 Magnesium/7439-95-4 Manganese/7439-96*5 ] Mercury/7439-97-6 U Nickel/7440-02-0 49.2 Potassium/7440~9~7 91400 Selenium/7782-49-2 U i Silved7440-22-4 U ! Sodium/7440-23~5 ' Thallium/7440-28-0 i Vanadium/7440-62-2 U Zinc/7440-66-6 23.9 i Cyanide/5955-70-0 U u 30 B 306 B U 368B U 3090 B 37 B 13 B U 2O2 21 B 4000 B 27 2 U 24B 1050B U 24 B 16700 U 22B 156B U 809 0.93 B 167000 6.4 B 151 B 24.3 B U 463 141000 99 15 B U 24 B 129 B U 275 U 72500 22 B 122 B 3.5 B 15000 U 76 B 39600 41 B 1,0 8 U 51 B 751 B U 451 U 95500 52 B 116 B U U 20,2 8 44200 4,4 B 2.3 B U U U 298 74 3 B 669 B U U 417 B 115 U 096 B 4800 97500 31 B 48 B 10B 18B U 6,9 B U 48 B 3190 B U U 133OO 23 B i U i 1 7 B 1 0 B 36B i 165B I 181B 25B g J ~ i u . u 27B 55B U 19 8 17OOO U 120 8 8460 U 18 8 U 14 B 103 U 39 16 52 010 20 0 0 40 0 80 139 020 572 32 070 21 100 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 1000 ST 10 ST 50 ST 200 ST 300 ST' 25 ST 35000 GV 300 ST' 2ST 10 ST 50 ST 20000 ST 4 GV 300 ST 100 ST Quafiflers: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration is above tDL but below CRDL GV : Guidance Value ST : Standard ST* : Standard for the sum of iron and manganese is 500 ug/I .... : Not established MET9606.WK4/mh/kb Page 2 of 3 09/11/96 TABLE 4-7 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GRQUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 199(i INORGANIC PARAMETERS A~f~OF ~ELLEC~i~ [ 6118196 ~ I ~6 ~19~ } 8~')0/96 ~)~F96 I 6/18~ ' ' DETECTION GROUNDWATER ~blL UTiE~TE~ -{ ..... ]- 1 q 7 T ~-- ~ ~ ~ LIMIT STANDARD/GUIDELINE Aluminum~429-~5 170 B U 31~5 B ~30 2 -*-- A.~imo.y~-3~0 U U ,~ U U ] U 3~ ~ ~v iArsenic/7440-38-2 , Barium/7440-39-3 Boron/7440-42-8 Cedmium/7440-43-9 i Calcium/7440-70-2 !ChromiucN7440-47~3 Copper/7440-50-8 'lron/7439-89-6 Lead/7439~92-1 Magnesium/7439-95-4 ! Manganese/7439-96-5 i Mercury/7439*97-6 i Nickel/7440~02-0 i Po ass um/7440-09~7 ! Selenium/7782-49-2 I Silver/7440-22~4 ] Sedium/7440-23-5 ] Thallium/7440-28-0 I Vanedium/7440-62-2 Z nc/7440-66-6 ~¥~nide/5~:~O~ 67 S 240 B U 270 B 043 B 28900 25 B 18B U 2.7 B 11200 0 28 31 B 4120 B 83 13 B 18700 U 21 B 118 B NA 21 B 176 B U 809 B U 18200 14 B U u 1680 B U U 1210 B U 0.94 B U 238 U 95 B 117 B 893 58 85~00 88 B U 169 B 113000 96 5.2 B U 588 B U 78.5 B 231OO 100 50 B 14.2 B U 48 B 4940 B U U U 22B 28B 950 B U U U 368 B U U U 17600 378 B 17B 16B 16B U U U 384 B U 22 B 5050 U 511 15 B u u 24 B 14 B 16600 U U U 20B 17 B 9280 598 B 24 B j 61 B I 86 B i 24 B 13 $ ! 81 s 11 B u u '. ................ u _ u i 16 52 010 20 0 04O 080 18 139 020 572 32 0 70 10 21 100 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 1000 ST 10 ST 50 ST 200 ST 300 ST' 25 ST 35000 GV 300 ST* 2 ST lO ST 50 ST 20000 ST 4 GV 300 ST 100 ST Qualifiers: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration is above IDL but below CRDL GV : Guidance Value ST : Standard ST' : Standard for the sum of iron and manganese is 500 ug/I ---- Not established ~4 Va ue exceeds s andardJguidefine MET9608 WK4/mh/kb Page 3 of 3 09/11/96 ,/ LEGEND: " " EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE S-69761 LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF ~ EXISTING SCDHS GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL MW-1.S/1D LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF ~ MONITORING WELL (S=SHALLOW, D=DEEP) ND NOT DETECTED * PRESENT ABOVE STANDARDS CONSTITUENT BELOW INDIVIDUAL STANDARD OF 300 ug/I, HOWEVER, EXCEEDS COMBINED IRON AND MANGANESE STANDARD OF 500 ND NOT DETECTED NOTE: ALL UNI~P5 IN ug/I EXCEPT CHLORIDE. AMMONIA. PHENOL, AHD SULFATE (mg/I). Mw-6 IdW-6S/6D ]RMER NGER WASTE LAGOONS CONCENTRATION IRON MAGNESIUM MANGANESE SODIUM THALUUM AMMONIA PHENOL ANTIMONY BERYLUUM IRON SODIUM THALUUM CONCENTRATION CONSTITUENI 71045 69761 C~DMIUM 19.4, 0.43 IRON 35.000* 5,090* LEAD 47.2* 2.7 MANGAHESE 797* 445* SCOIUM 31.000* 16,700 ZINC 65,800* 11.8 PHENOL 0.047* ND SULFATE 331 * 206 STORAGE GARAGE CONCENTRATION PHENOL MANGANESE SODIUM PHENOL SULFATE MW-4 CONCENTRATION CONSTITUENT SHALLOW DEEP ANTIMONY 4.4* ND IRON 1,550. 720* MAGNESIUM 1.650 59,300. MANGANESE 145.* 4,900. SO01UM 3,260 195,000. THALLIUM 6.2* 15.7. CHLORIDE 56.7 513. AMMONIA ND 10.7. PHENOL 0.051. 0,051. MW-S CONCENTRATION CONSTITUENT ~HALLO~ DEEP IRON 202 229** MAGNESIUM 4,090 74,400* MANGANESE 27.2 12,4OO* $O01UM 16.700 210,000* CHLORIDE 44 377* AMMONIA ND 9.7* PHENOL 0.006. 0.051. IdW-4S/4D II II FORMER BORROW AREA ~ ~ '-'~MW-2S/2D ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA MW-5S/5D MW-2 CONCENTRATION CONSTITUENT SHALLOW DEEP IRON 9,690* 461. MAGNESIUM 16,000 68,400. MANGANESE 1,040. 2,020, MW-5 CONCENTRATION CONSTITUENT ~IANGANESE 5ODIUM MW-3S/3D MW-7 CONCENTRATION CONSTITUENT I IRON MANGANESE SODIUM THALUUM BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES -OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY OIL STORAGE TANKS CENTER NEIGHING STATION (SCALE HOUSE DIRECTORY: 1314 FILE NAME: 1314-17 DATE: RDS-09/11/96 0 300 600 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION LEACHATE INDICATORS AND METALS IN GROUNDWATER (MONITORING ~i~o o.d Bo~,u¢¢~ EXCEEDING CLASS GA GROUNDWATER STANDARDS WELLS) FIGURE 4-20 Manganese was detected above the standard (300 ug/l) in downgradient wells MW-2S, MW-2D, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, MW-6S and MW-6D, and upgradient wells S- 69761 and S-71045 during this sampling round. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 445 ug/l at upgradient well S-69761 to 20,400 ug/l at downgradient well MW-3S. Manganese was detected above the standard in downgradient off-site SCDHS wells SL-2 (1,300 ug/1) and SL-3 (700 ug/1) in the February 1996 SCDHS sampling event. Exceedances of manganese were detected above the standard in all previous sampling rounds discussed in upgradient well MW- 1S and downgradient wells MW-2S, MW-2D, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW4D, MW-5D (on one occasion in 1991) MW-6S, MW-6D, and S-68916 at concentrations ranging from 327 ug/1 at upgradient well MW-IS to 64,300 at downgradient well MW-3D. Iron and manganese concentrations were detected above the combined standard of 500 ug/1 in all the wells sampled and described in this section except for downgradient wells MW-5S, S-68831 and SL-1. Although iron was not analyzed in SL-2 in the SCDHS sampling of February 1996; based on the manganese concentration at SL-2 (1,300 ug/l), the combined iron and manganese would exceed the standard (500 ug/l). Lead was detected above the groundwater standard (25 ug/1) at upgradient well S-71045 at a concentration of 47.2 ug/l during this sampling round. No exceedances of lead were detected in the historical analyses, except in downgradient well S-68916 (64 ug/l) in the 1990 round of sampling. Magnesium was detected above the guidance value (35,000 ug/1) in downgradiem wells MW-2D, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D and MW-6D during this sampling round. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 36,700 ug/l at MW-3S to 74,400 ug/1 at MW-5D. Magnesium was detected above the standard in downgradient off-site SCDHS wells SL-2 (90,000 ug/1) and SL-3 (57,000 ug/1) in the February 1996 SCDHS sampling event. Exceedances of magnesium were detected in all previous sampling rounds discussed in downgradient wells MW-2D, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D MW-6D, and S-68916 at concentrations ranging from 38,000 ug/1 at downgradient well MW-6D to 72,400 at downgradient well MW-2D. · 1314\M0814603(R0n) 4-5 1 Mercury was not detected above the standard (3 ug/1) in any of the wells sampled during this round, however, was detected slightly above the standard in the 1990 round of sampling in downgradiem well S-68916 (3 ug/l). Selenium was detected above the groundwater standard (10 ug/1) at downgradient well MW-3S at a concentration of 20.2 ug/1 during this sampling round. No exceedances of selenium were detected in of any wells described in this section historically. Sodium was detected above the standard (20,000 ug/1) in upgradient well MW-IS and downgradient wells MW-2S, MW-2D, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-6D, MW-7D, S-68831 and S-68916, and in upgradient well S-71045 during this sampling round. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 26,500 ug/1 at downgradient well S-68831 to 210,000 ug/1 at downgradient well MW-5D. Sodium was detected above the standard in downgradient off-site SCDHS wells SL-2 (190,000 ug/1) and SL-3 (270,000 ug/1) in the February 1996 SCDHS sampling event. Exceedances of sodium were detected in all previous sampling rounds discussed in upgradient well MW-IS (except the 1993 sampling round) and downgradient wells MW-2S, MW-2D, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5S (only once during 1991 sampling round), MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-6D, MW-7D, S-68916 and S-68831 at concentrations ranging from 22,900 ug/1 at upgradient well MW-IS to 219,000 at downgradient well MW-2D. Thallium was detected above the guidance value (4 ug/1) in all of the wells sampled during this round except upgradient wells MW-IS, S-69761 and S-71045, and downgradient well MW-7D during this sampling round. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 4.3 ug/1 at downgradient well MW-7S to 55 ug/l at downgradient well MW-3S. No detections of thallium were reported in the 1991 and 1992 sampling rounds (thallium was not analyzed for in the 1993 round of sampling. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-52 Zinc was detected above the standard (300 ug/1) at upgradient well S-71045 at a concentration of 65,800 ug/1 during this sampling round. Zinc was not previously detected above the standard, historically in this well, or any of the wells sampled and described in this section. 4.3.5.3 - Leachate Parameter Sampling Results The leachate parameters detected in the groundwater monitoring well samples during the Closure Investigation are presented in Table 4-8. The leachate parameters exceeding the NYSDEC groundwater standards/guidance values are also included on Figure 4-20. Chloride was detected above the NYSDEC standard of 250 mg/1 in downgradient wells MW-2D (322 mg/1), MW-4D (313 mg/1), and MW-5D (377 rog/l), respectively, during this sampling round. Chloride was detected above the standard in downgradient off-site SCDHS wells SL-2 (286 mg/l) and SL-3 (1,015 mg/1) in the February 1996 SCDHS sampling event. Chloride has been historically detected above the standard in downgradient wells MW-2D, MW- 3S, MW-3D, MW-4D and MW-5D at concentrations ranging from 265 mg/1 in MW-5D to 376 mg/l in MW-2D. Ammonia was detected above the NYSDEC standard of 2 mg/l in downgradient wells MW-2S, MW-2D, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-6D and S-68916. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 9.7 mg/1 in downgradiem well MW-5D to 81.5 mg/l at downgradient well MW-2D. Ammonia has been historically detected above the standard in downgradient wells listed above (except MW-5D) at concentrations ranging from 3.45 rog/1 in MW-4D to 92.8 mg/1 in MW-2S. Phenol was detected above the NYSDEC standard of 0.001 mg/1 in all the wells sampled as part of this sampling round except downgradient wells MW-3S, MW-7S and MW-7D. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 0.006 mg/1 in downgradient well MW-5S to 2.48 mg/l at downgradient well SL-1. Phenol has been historically detected above the standard in · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-53 TABLE 4~ SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 LEACHATE INDICATORS Color, PtTCo liochemical Oxygen Demand Iromide Chloride Chemical Oxygen Demand Hardness Chromium, Hexavalent Ammonia, Nitrogen Nitrate Phenol Sulfate Tutal Dissolved Sofids Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Carbon QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected 06/18/96 ! 06/14/9~ ~ 06 14~6 V 06/17/96 06/14t96~ 06/13~6 DETECTION GROUNDWATER 06/18/98 .... ~ .... T I ~ I' ~ 1~ ~ LIMIT I STANDARD/GUIDELINE 806 80 977 11.1 U 605 15 U 123 77 0 206 U 200 5 4O U 4.6 U 1 51 0.255 1,06 685 16.2 567 U U 94.9 U 75.8 848 533 24.9 U U U U U U U 2.27 2.22 0.19 0.07 1.09 627 886 115 339 U U 142 149 922 661 450 486 U U U U 167 894 79.2 28.74 80,1 1300 98.7 35.38 49 987 233 2048 43.4 198 154 153 670 0434 0.163 51 5 U U 34.46 226 232 0.340 U 10 20 01 30 005 005 004 00035 30 10 005 2 GV 250 ST 005 ST 20 ST 10 ST 0001 ST 250 ST NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance Value .... : Not Established ~ 'Value exceeds standard/guideline LEA9606.WK4/kb Page 1 of 3 09/11/00 TABLE 4~8 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING -JUNE 1996 LEACHATE INDICATORS SAMPLE DAT CO CT ON -- Color, Pt/Co Biochemical Oxygen Demand 3romide Chloride Chemical Oxygen Demand Hardness Chromium, Hexavalent Ammonia, Nitrogen Nitrate Phenol Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen [Tgtal Organic Ca[~b? 776 U U 775 621 U 0.11 150 9 953 12.1 5.7 0955 U 440 U 127 245 724 U U U 0.14 0.tl 200 226 U 0 880 427 77 2 243 U f50 363 273 U 170 41 9 437 U 0.06 0.11 173 171 118 157 190 1600 94 1780 502 1180 68 9 0 145 66 1 25 5 24.9 106 U 0 474 41 8 U 490 U U 2 45 U 131 98 0383 20 160 U 0.290 114 90 313 U U 663 U 244 705 0608 tO 20 0t 30 10 005 005 004 0 0035 30 10 005 34.02 L:l.i' 32. ~0~ 12 48 719 U U ~ 0 2 GV 250 ST 0 05 ST 20 ST 10 ST 060t ST 250 ST QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance Value .... : Not Established !i i~ Value exceeds standard gu de ne LEA9606.WK4/kb Page 2 of 3 09;11/96 TABLE 4--8 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 LEACHATE INDICATORS IDATE OF COLLECT ON 06t18196 · 6/19/96 6t19/96 T 6 19/96 6/19/96 06/18/96 DETECTION GROUNDWATER i~!LUT!~N- FAC~O-R J ~ ' ~ t ! . i 1 ~!~1T STA N..D~A~/_G__U~!~ LIN E Color, Pt/Co 60 20 80 150 1000 30 f 0 .... Results in mil/l: i Biochemical Oxygen Demand 11 7 Bromide U iChloride 267 iChemical Oxygen Demand 286 Hardness 122 Chromium, Hexavalent U Ammonia, Nitrogen 083 Nitrate 3 74 Phenol U I Sulfate 206 ITotal Dissolved Solids 158 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2 10 LTgtal Or~anic Carb~ U 940 620 500 U 47.6 U O274 U 0167 85 1460 25 4 U 834 73.9 52.4 297 871 I U U U U 0105 0.08 2.97 1.92 67 101 115 774 O287 102 U 24.74 76 131 U 0.286 167 U 64.8 U U 5,37 989 145 0.239 U 2 U U U U 13 U U U U U 0135 U 10 20 30 005 0 05 004 0 0035 30 10 005 2 GV 250 ST 0 05 ST 20ST 10 ST 0001 ST 250 ST QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance Value .... : Not Established i!iii~ :Value exceeds standard]guideline LEA9606.WK4/kb Page 3 of 3 09/11/96 all the wells sampled and described in this section (except downgradient well S-68831) at concentrations ranging from 0.01 rog/1 to 0.03 mg/l. Sulfate was detected above the NYSDEC standard of 250 mg/1 in upgradient wells MWo 1S (405 mg/1) and S-71045 (331 mg/l) during this sampling round. Sulfate has not been detected above the standard, historically, in all the wells sampled and described in this section. The only detections of hexavalent chromium, historically, above the standard of 0.05 rog/1 have been in downgradient wells MW-7S (0.06 mg/1), and S-68831 (0.09 rog/l) in the 1992 round of sampling. 4.3.6 Private Water Supply Well Quality_ Fourteen private water supply wells (four upgradient and ten downgradient) were sampled and analyzed for NYSDEC Baseline Parameters during this Closure Investigation. Of these 14 wells, four wells (PW-001, PW-002, PW-005, and PW-006)-were previously sampled as part of the earlier sampling rounds described in Section 4.3.5 of this report, including two additional downgradient private supply wells (PW-003 and PW-004) not sampled during this Closure Investigation. These wells were sampled and analyzed to assess trends in upgradient and downgradient groundwater quality off-site to aid in establishing a baseline for subsequent Post- Closure Monitoring of the landfill. Analytical data summary tables have been prepared on a well by well basis with a comparison of the results to NYSDEC Class GA standards/guidance values and New York State Department of Health maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The parameters which exceed the standards/guidance values and/or MCLs are highlighted on the tables and are discussed below. The results from this Closure Investigation are compared with the previous historical rounds described in Section 4.3.5. Tables comaining these historical results are presented in Appendix F. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4- 5 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I 4.3.6.1 - Organic Sampling Results The VOCs detected in the private well samples during the Closure Investigation are presented in Table 4-9. The VOCs exceeding the NYSDEC groundwater standards/guidance values and/or NYSDOH MCLs are included on Figure 4-21. 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) was detected slightly above the NYSDEC Class GA standard and NYSDOH MCL of 5 ug/1 in downgradient private well WS-22 (8 ug/1) during this investigation. 1,2-Dichloroethene (trans), which was typically analyzed historically (not 1,2- dichloroethene, total) has not been detected above the standard or MCL, historically, in the private wells sampled and described in this section. 1,2-Dichloropropane was detected slightly above the standard and MCL of 5 ug/l in downgradient private well WS-22 (8 ug/1) during this investigation. 1,2-Dichloropropane was previously detected above the standard and MCL in upgradient private wells WS-4 (PWo005) in 1989 (11 ug/1) and WS- 6 (PW-006) in 1980 (27 ug/1) and in downgradient private well WS-11 (PW-004) in 1980 (9 ug/1). Benzene was detected above the standard (0.7 ug/1) and MCL (5 ug/l) in upgradient well WS-5 (8 ug/1) during this investigation. Benzene was detected slightly above the standard, but below the MCL (5 ug/l) in downgradient well GW-8 (PW-001 in previous rounds) at a concentration of 1 uWl. Benzene was not previously detected above the standard and MCL in private well GW-8 in the 1990, 1992 and 1993 sampling rounds. Well WS-5 was not previously sampled. Tetrachloroethene was detected above the standard and MCL of 5 ug/1 in upgradiem private well WS-4 (PW-005) at a concentration of 16 ug/1 during this sampling round. Tetrachloroethene has not been previously detected above the standard in the private wells sampled during the historical rounds described in this section. * 1314\M0814603(RIM) 4-58 TABLE SOUTHOLD LANDF~LL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE lg96 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS LIMIT STANDARD/GUIDELINE STANDARDS ~0 5 ST TABLE 4-9 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INV ESTIG ATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ui ui u u u ul u ui u u u u u ul u u u u u ui u ul u u u u U U U u u u u[ m u u ~co u ! u ' ~o u u' m i G U 0 4 7 ST" TABLE 4-9 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDF~LL CLOSURE INVESTIGAT}ON ~ ui d] ~o ui u u u ui u u u ui ul ui u u u I ui u u{ u u[ U U u u U U u u u u ui ul DETECTION GA GROLINDWA~ER DRINKING WA ?E R L~MIT STANDARD/GUiDELINE STANDARDS GW_5*'~ OREGON COMPOUND NO E'XCEEDANCES COMPOUND NO EXCEEDANCES GW-6** PW-O02) (PW--O04) WS-20 COMPOUND NO ~XCEEDANCEB COMPOUND NO EXCEEDANCES W$-16A COMPOUND NO EXCEEO~&~CES WS- 16~ WS-17 --COMPOUND NO EXCEED~ICES COMPOUND GW- WS-21'* ) WS-22 WS-24 NO EXCEEDANCES j WS-22 COMPOUND 2-DCP W5-24 NO EXCEEDANCES COMPOUND BENZENE WS-SA COMPOUND NO EXCE£DANCES CONC* BENZENE BENZENE TETRACHLOROETHENE NOTE: ALL UNITS IN ug/I. WS-4 COMPOUND Pw-oo6): WS-4 '.'. .......... LEGEND WS-4 (PW-O05) · PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL AND SAMPLING LOCATION FOR THE CLOSURE INVESTIGATION PRIVATE WELL DESIGNATION FROM pREVIOUS SAMPUNG STUDIES APPROXIMATE USEPA AND D&B GROUNDWATER PREVIOUS SAMPLING LOCATIONS PREVIOUSLY SAMPLED BY PRESENT ABOVE STANDARDS DOES NOT EXCEED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS/MCLS 0 400 SCALE IN FEET TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION ~ VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUNDWATER (PRIVATE WELLS) Dvirko and Bartilucci EXCEEDING CLASS GA GROUNDWATER STANDARDS consuming Enginser= ANI3/~3R MAXIMUM --J ---A =v.~ o,.,,~ .. _~_-_.,~ .~o.,...c...--. ................ CONTAMINANT LEVELS FIGURE 4-21 4.3.6.2 - Inorganic Sampling Results The inorganics detected in the private well samples during the Closure Investigation are presented in Table 4-10. The inorganic constituents exceeding the NYSDEC groundwater standards/guidance values and/or NYSDOH MCLs are included on Figure 4-22. Copper was detected above the standard (200 ug/1) in upgradient private wells WS-4 (previously sampled as PW-005) and WS-8A (GW-1), and downgradient private wells WS-15, WS-17, WS-20, WS-24 and GW-6 (PW-002) during this sampling round. Concentrations of exceedances ranged fi.om 259 ug/1 at downgradient well GW-6 to 1,010 ug/1 at upgradient well WS-8A. Of these wells, only upgradient well WS-8A was detected above the MCL of 1,000 ug/1. Exceedances of copper were previously detected above the standard in downgradient well WS-11 (758 ug/l) in 1993, and in downgradient well GW-6 at concentrations ranging fi.om 241 ug/1 in 1993 to 284 ug/1 in 1990. Iron was detected above the standard and MCL of 300 ug/1 in upgradient private wells WS-4 (PW-005) and WS-6 (PW-006), and downgradient private wells WS-16A, WS-17, WSo21 (GW-8), WS-22 and WS-24 during this sampling round. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 512 ug/1 at downgradient well WS-16A to 107,000 ug/1 at downgradient well WS-17. Exceedances of iron were previously detected above the standard and MCL in upgradient private wells WS-4 and WS-6, and in downgmdient well WS-21 (GW-8). Concentrations of exceedances ranged fi.om 320 uW1 at upgradient private well WS-6 in 1980 to 8,210 ug/1 at downgradient well GW-8 in 1992. Manganese was detected above the standard and MCL of 300 ug/1 in upgradient private well WS-SA (405 ug/1) and downgradient private well WS-17 (946 ug/1) during this sampling round. Manganese has not been previously detected above the standard and MCL in the private wells sampled during the historical rounds described in this section. · 1314\M0814603 (R04) 4-63 mmm m m m m m m m m mm m m m TABLE 4-10 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 INORGANIC PARAMETERS ~,~,,~P~ ~ ~ WS~21 WS-20 WS- 9 WS-16A m WS-23 INSTRUMENT I ~,D~C ~[A~ ~,A I ~[~0~ ~3~"~ ~-F~0LLE~d~ '- ~ ~ ~-~(~ 6 [ DETECTION ~ GROUNDWATER ~ DRINKING WATER I~iLUT 6~-~6k-0~ ~' -'"~ ~ t ) 1 1 ] 1 LIMIT STANDARD/GUIDELINE STANDARDS PARAMETE ~ ~__ ~ , Antimony/7440-36-0 ~,rsenic/74~0-38-2 8adum/7440-39-3 BoronF/4A0~42-8 , Cadmium/7440-43-9 ! Calcium/7440-70-2 yanide/5955~7o-o U U 31 3 B U 42.0 B U 7970 U U 56,6 3.3 5970 U U 2170 B U U 8090 U U 284 U 7650 926 B 37 607O 30 B U U 786 8 U U 5440 U U 275 _740 U U U U B 110 B U U U 724 B U U 25800 U U U U 196 B 214 U 104OO 361 U U 383O B U U U U 7O 1 U U U 327 B U 394 B 0.67 B 24300 U U 80.7 3.8 7180 U 86 B 793O U U 6540 U U 26.2 U U 39 U 16 136 B 52 U 010 77 1 B 200 U 040 24700 U U 080 21 6 B 1 3 584 B 33 1 5 1340O 139 585 U 020 U 4400 B 572 U 3.2 U 070 U 21 U 10 296 21 U _ , ~°.0 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 1000 ST 10ST 50 ST 200 ST 300 ST' 25 ST 35000 GV 300 ST* 2 ST 10 ST 5O ST 20000 ST 4 GV 300 ST 1000 300' 15 3O0' 2 10 50 500O 00 ST 200 Qualifiers: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration is above IDL but below CRDL GV : Guidance Value ST : Standard ST* : Standard for the sum ol~iron and manganese is 500 ug/f --- : Not established ~: Value exceeds standard/guideline M9606PR WK4/mh~b Page 1 of 3 og/1 t/96 mmmm mmmm! m mm mm TABLE 4~10 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 INORGANIC PARAMETERS wa-4 tAPLi5 WS-24 PW~05 WS-15 WS-22 WS-17 INSTRUMENT NYSDE~ ~t_,&~ i ~YSDOH DAY-C: -O~F C O~ ~ "'-' r ~5/~ '----~ I ~J26~9~ I 6/27/~6 DETECTION GROUNDWATER DRINKING WATER [~[~TION-~A~ ~ .... 1 ~ i ~ ~ ...... ~- ~ LIMIT STANDARD/GUIDELINE i STANDARDS Aluminum]7429-90-5 U ! Antimony/74AO-36-o U I Arsenic/7440-38-2 U I Barium/7440-39-3 402 B Boron/7440-42-8 701 B Cadmium17440~3-9 U I Calcium/7440-70-2 4170 B Chromium/744C~47-3 U Cobalt/7440-48~, U Copper/7440-50-8 Iran/7439~89-6 Lead/7439-92-1 5,5 Magnesium/7439-95-4 4670 B Manganese/7439-96-5 Mercury/7439-97-6 U Nickel/7440-02~) 166 B Potassiumf744G09-7 1340 B i Selenium/7782-49-2 U I Silver/7440-22-4 U Sodium/7440-23-5 I Thallium/7440-28~0 10200 U I VanadiumJ~440~2-2 U IZinc/7440-66-6 260 Lc yani?/5955-~o-_ o~ U U 148 B U U u I u 66,1 B i 398 B U U 771 B 526 B U 052 B 21200 [ 39300 U U U U 9.6 19400 U 13.6 B 3190 B U U 19OOO U U 336 2O5 44 8870 140 B U 43B 3O00 B U U U U 659 B U U U 28900 U U 1%2 B U 18100 12.0 B U U 1920 B U 155 B U U 184 B U 155 U 68500 U U 0.34 102 6240 U U 229 39 16 52 0.10 200 040 O8O 15 139 572 32 070 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 1000 ST 10 ST 50 ST 200 ST 300 ST' 25 ST 35000 GV 300 ST" 2 ST 10 ST 5OST 20000 ST 4 GV 50 tOO0 5 lO0 IOO0 3O0' 15 300* 2 10 5O 300 ST 5000 1 ~ STi 200 Qualifiers: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration is above IDL but below CRDL GV : Guidance Value ST : Standard ST* : Standard for the sum of iron and manganese is 500 ug/I .... : Not established ~: Value exceeds standard/guideline M9606PR WK4/mh/kb Page 2 of 3 09/11/96 TABLE 4-10 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 INORGANIC PARAMETERS GW-1 WS-6 GW-6 ~Af~'~ IEJ WS-8A PW~06 WS-5 PW-002 FB-1 [ I Aluminum/7429~90-5 Antimony/7440-36~0 Arsenic/7440-38-2 Barium/7440-39-3 Boron/7440-42-8 Cedmium/7440-43-9 Calcium/7440-70-2 Chromium/7440-47-3 Cobalt/7440-48-4 Copper/7440-50-8 Iron/7439-89-6 I Leed/7439-92-1 Magnesium/7439-95-4 Manganese/7439-96-5 Mercury/7439-97-6 Nickel/7440-02-0 Potassium/7440-09-7 Selenium/7782-49-2 Silver/7440-22-4 SodiumJ7440- 23-5 ]Thallium/7440-26~O i~ ayanide(Sg55TT0-0 U 187 B U U U U 844 B 103 B U U 981 B U U U 13100 29500 I U U U U 71.3 16.4 5770 21600 U ~ U U U U U U 954 B U 771 B U 3340O U U 50.6 153 30 B 215O0 770 U 58 B 2440 B U U DETECTION ] GROUNDWATER I DR NK NG WATER LIMIT [ STANDARD/GUIDELINE 'I STANDARDS U U U U U 237 i 647 · U [ U U U u u u u 28 B 303 B U U U 368 B U u i u 45300 378 B U 16 B U U '~ ~ { u 124 384 B 31 22 B 9400 U 124 B 1.5 B U U U 14 B 4220 B U U U U 17 B 9030 598 B U 24 B U 13 B 529 U ~u u 22 9 .... 39 52 010 2O0 040 080 15 139 572 32 0.70 21 10.0 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 1000 ST t0 ST 50 ST 2O0 ST 300 ST' 25 ST 3S000 GV 300 ST* 2 ST 10 ST 50 ST 20000 ST 4 GV 300 ST 100 ST 1000 300' 15 2 5O 5OOO 2OO Qualifiers: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Concentration is above IDL but below CRDL Notes: GV : Guidance Value ST : Standard ST' : Standard for the sum of iron and manganese is 500 ug/I .... : Not established ii~i~ {i Va ue exceeds s andard/gu del ne. M9606PR.WK4tmh/kb Page 3 of 3 09/1 t/96 GW-5** OREGON CONSTITUENT ROAD OW-6 WS-11 OW-6 PW-O02) (my-oD4) WS-20 CONSTffUENT CONSTITUENT CONC. IRON 107,000. CONSTITUENT WS-16A WS-17 CONSTITUENT WS-23 CONSTn~IENT OW-( WS-21 WS-22 WS-24 WS-5 CONSTITUENT CONSTITUENT .................. LA============================================================ WS-8A ¢ONSTmJENT COPPER MANGANESE NOR~ NOTE: ALL UNITS IN ug/r. EXCEPT PHENOL (mg/O. WS-4 CONSTITUENT IRON MANGANESE PW-O06) .' WS-4 ............ WS-4 (PW-O05) ND PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELL AND SAMPLING LOCATION FOR THE CLOSURE INVESTIGATION PRIVATE WELL DESIGNATION FROM PREVIOUS SAMPLING STUDIES APPROXIMATE USEPA AND D&B GROUNDWATER PREVIOUS SAMPLING LOCATIONS NOT DETECTED PRESENT ABOVE SIANDARDS CONSTITUENT BELOW INDMDUAL STANDARD OF 300 ug/I, HOWEVER, EXCEEDS COMBINED IRON AND MANGANESE STANDARD OF 500 ug/l. 0 400 DOES NOT EXCEED DRINKING WATER ~ STANDARDS/MCLS SCALE IN FEET TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION d~aD~ka LF_J~CJ-JA'FE INDICATORS AND METALS IN GROUNDWATER (PRIVATE WELLS) EXCEEDING CLASS GA GROUNDWATER STANDARDS/GUIDELINES 1~8FIIlUCCI oo.suL.~ E~,N~E.S AND/OR MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS FIGURE 4-22 Iron and manganese concentrations (combined) were detected above the standard and MCL of 500 ug/1 in upgradient private wells WS-4 and WS-6, and downgradient private wells WS-16A, WS-2I, WS-22 and WS-24. Sodium was detected above the standard (20,000 ug/1) in upgradiem private wells WS-5, WS-6 and WS-SA, and downgradient wells WS-17, WS-19 and WS-23. The MCL for sodium has yet to be established. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 25,100 ug/l at downgradient private well WS-19 to 92,200 ug/1 at downgradient private well WS-17. Concentrations of exceedances ranged from 20,300 ug/1 at upgradient private well WS-4 in 1993 to 27,600 ug/l at upgradient well WS-6 in 1993. Lead was detected above the standard of 25 ug/1 and MCL of 15 ug/1 in upgradient private well WS-6 (33.4 ug/1) and downgradient well WS-17 (44.8 ug/l) during this sampling round. Lead has not been previously detected in the private wells sampled during the historical rounds described in this section. Zinc was detected above the standard of 300 ug/1 in upgradient private well WS-5 (3,390 ug/l) and downgradient well WS-15 (323 ug/1) during this sampling round. However, these concentrations are below the MCL of 5,000 ug/1. Zinc has not been previously detected in the private wells sampled during the historical rounds described in this section with the exception of upgradient well WS-5 with 405 ug/1 detected in 1990. Thallium was detected slightly above the guidance value (4 ug/l) in WS-5 (8.7 ug/1) during this sampling round. The MCL for thallium has not yet been established. Thallium has not been previously detected in the private wells sampled during the historical rounds described in this section. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-68 4.3.6.3 - Leachate Parameter Sampling Results The leachate parameters detected in the private well samples during the Closure Investigation are presented in Table 4-11. The leachate parameters exceeding the NYSDEC groundwater standards/guidance values and/or NYSDOH MCLs are also included on Figure 4- 22. Phenol was detected above the NYSDEC standard of 0.001 mg/1 in all the wells sampled as part of this sampling round and concentrations of exceedances ranged from 0.007 mg/l in downgradieut wells WS-16A, WS-17 and WS-20 to 0.117 mg/1 in downgradient wells GW-6 and WS-15. Phenol has not been previously detected above the standard in the private wells sampled during the historical rounds described in this section with the exception of GW-8 (0.1 mg/1) in 1993. 4.3.7 Test Pit Results Between March 23 and 31, 1995, 60 test pits were constructed to obtain subsurface information to aid in the delineation of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris (C&D) in and around the existing waste mass (excluding the elevated portion of the landfill which is primarily landfilled with MSW including C&D outlining the MSW). The test pits which were constructed near the perimeter of the landfill revealed that the methane venting trench are shallow in many areas and contain varying thicknesses of C&D and have eroded and filled in with soil and vegetation and most likely are not performing as a venting mechanism as originally planned. · 1314~v10814603(R04) 4-69 m m m m mm m mm m m m mm m mm mmm mm TABLE 4-11 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING- JUNE 1996 LEACHATE INDICATORS GW-8 ...... PW-001 )I~ATE 0-~oL~_~Jl'i0~ j -6~'"] 0/27/~ ~)';~/~ ~D7/~ oD5t~6 DETECTION ) GROUNDWATER [ DRINKING WATER / ~Co(or PUCo U U U U U 10 .... I Biochemical Oxygen Demand Bromide Chloride Chemical Oxygen Demand I Hardness Chromium, Hexavalent Ammonia, Nitrogen Nitrate Phenol Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Tot~! ~agjF;~Ca[~on 9.9 U 0.380 27.0 U 44.4 U 4.37 128 173 0.367 300 U 0.331 15,0 U 448 U U 222 51 0,285 22.5 U 0599 586 U 107 U U 48.5 261 0385 20,0 U 0.339 20,7 U 90,1 U U 172 0901 257 1 0 U 20 0725 U 01 665 1,0 U 30 117 t0 U 0,05 U 0.05 0,04 0.0035 3,0 301 I 0 0389 0.05 2 GV 250 ST 0 05 ST 20 ST 10 ST 0001 ST 250 ST 250 QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance Value ---: Not Established ~p~J :Va ue exceeds s andard/guldehne L9606PR.WK4/kb Page 1 of 3 09/11/96 TABLE 4-11 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING -JUNE 1996 LEACHATE INDICATORS Alkalinity Biochemical Oxygen Demand Bromide Chloride Chemical Oxygen Demand Hardness Chromium, Hexavalent Ammonia, Nitrogen Nitrate Phenol Sulfate Sol~ds 21.1 U U 10.8 U 29.6 U 0,230 0.88 204 67 0.854 U 19.3 U 0.392 489 U 132 U U 6.25 89 6.0 U U 0.315 0.656 440 39.7 U U 135 146 U U U U 6.70 0.58 72.7 92.6 64A 3O4 311 221 0317 0327 0.368 U U U 21 0 342 1 25 1971 81.0 90.1 U 0.415 U 66.2 650 33.8 10 20 3.0 1.0 0.05 005 0.04 0,0035 3.0 0o5 2 GV 250 ST 0.05 ST 20 ST 10 ST 0001 ST 250 ST 250 10 250 QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance Value .... : Not Established ~ii~ :Value exceeds standard/guideline L9606PR.WK4/kb Page 2 of 3 09/11/96 TABLE 4-11 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - JUNE 1996 LEACHATE INDICATORS GW-1 WS-6 GW~ DATE OF COLLECTION 6/25/9~ 6/2~/96 6/25/96 6/26/96 06/18/96 DETeCTiON GROUNDWATER DRINKING WATER DIL ~J'~l-ION F~C~ R 1 ~ - '~'---~--- , I i- T '"- 1 LIMIT d STANDARD/GUIDELINE STANDARDS Color, Pt~Co Biochemical O~gen Demand lromide Chloride Chemical Oxygen Demand Hardness Chromium, Hexavalent Ammonia, Nitrogen Nitrate Phenol I Total Dissolved Solids 204 [ 436 /Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0 382 ] O.436 Total O~r~an c CaFbo~n U L t~ u 4o 150 20.0 U U 0278 0514 531 62.8 U U 564 162 U U U U u U to 15 U 172 U U 9.35 399 10.4 0,343 33.0 152 6.60 74.8 192 2 U U 1.3 U U 10 20 10 30 10 005 005 004 00035 30 10 0.379 0.270 0135 005 U U U 10 20 ST 2 GV 250 ST 005 ST 10 ST 0001 ST 250 ST 250 10 250 QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected Due to insuffient sample volume anlysis could not be performed NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance Value .... : Not Established iiil]li~ :Value exceeds standardtg.ideline L9606PR.WK4/kb Page 3 of 3 09/11/96 The following conclusion are based from the results of the test pit program: In a few areas along the northern, eastern and western landfill boundaries, waste extends essentially to the property line, which does not meet the NYSDEC 6NYCRR Part 360 8.6 (c)(2)(vii) requirements for closure. Part 360 the regulations require a minimum of 50 feet between the property line and the limit of waste. Except for the southeast quadrant of the landfill, buffed waste comprises a combination of MSW and C&D material. The southeast quadrant comprises essentially all MSW. 3. The area of buried waste comprises approximately 30 acres. A map illustrating the limits of waste, together with a delineation of waste with a maximum thickness of 5 feet to better determine the feasibility for consolidation of waste at the Southold Landfill is provided in Figure 4-23. 4.3.8 Explosive Gas Survey Results Three complete rounds of on-site explosive soil gas monitoring were performed around the perimeter of the landfill in June 1996 during the Closure Investigation. Based on the first two rounds of monitoring, four main areas were identified on-site where percentage of the lower explosive level (% LEL) of explosive gas exceeded 25%. The area on the southern portion of the site encompassed temporary monitoring points 2A and 3. The area on the northwestern portion of the site encompassed points 11E, 11 F, 1113 and 12A. The area on the eastern portion of the site encompassed point 15D and the area to the south (still on the eastern portion) encompassed points 15G, 16 and 17. These areas are depicted on Figure 4-24. Table 4-12 presents the explosive soil gas readings measured during this investigation. During the second round of soil gas monitoring, readings of combustible gas as high as 61% of the LEL (peak reading) were measured in the scalehouse adjacent to a conduit on the floor near the south end of the scalehouse. A steady reading of 41% of the LEL was measured at this time, from this point. The reading in the breathing zone at this time was less than one percent · 1314~vl0814603 (R04) 4-73 m m m m ,I m m m m m m m m ) // (12'~'~) iS// (8' Nsw) I SLOPED SURFACE INACCESSIBLE TO BACKHOE Ii ELEVATED (>9..sw~ LANDFILL I (>7' AREA L._. (>10' MSW)I 40 (>7' 1, SITE DRTA TAKEN FROM SUR~Lrf CONDUCTED JULY 7, 1989 BY ROOF. RICK VAN TUYL, P,C., GREENPORT, N,Y. ~ LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF TEST MUNICIPAL SOUO WASTE UMIT OF MUNICIPAL SOILD WASTE AT A THICKNESS OF 5 FEET (DASHED WHERE IN°ERRED) / SC~L) E~'C11~C (>5' BURNI~) DUE TO ASPI"~LT ~ 26 (6' ' _'.-- ~ If II I~ ED Ii ~ Ii ~ ,, ,, ~,~2:,,72~2~:~%, LIMITS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ~7~ ~.,~ o,~,,,.~ ~. co,.,~, ..~.,-. ,.c. (TO A VERTICAL THICKNESS OF FIVE FEET) FIGURE 4-23 EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE APPROX,U*TE LOCAT,O. OF GAS VENTING TRENCH APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WHERE GAS VENTING TRENCH IS NOT VISIBLE II DUE TO EROSION AND/OR FILLING IN PER NENT EXPLOS,VE II MONITORING POINT LOCATION AND DESIGNATION TEMPORARY EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING POINT LOCATION AMBIENT NR MONITORING POINT LOCATION GRaTeR THAN 25~ LOWER EXPLOSI~ LIMIT (LEL) AREA OF POTENTIAL EXCEEDANCE OF 25~ LEL BASED ON ONE ROUND OF OVA READINGS >1000 ppm (DASHED WHERE INFERRED) 11E 1E 11~ 11C SCAVENGER WASTE 100 FT. f//APPRO) LIMITS OF 7A APPROXIMATELY ,300 FT. DIRECTORY: 1314, FILE NAM[: 1314,-03 DA~: ROS-09/09/96 STORAGE GARAGE I 7B I FORMER BORROW AREA ELEVATED LANDFILL METHANE VENTING TRENCH d46 :OMMERCIAL BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES ELECTRIC LINES 20 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY' OIL STORAGE TANKS CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE HOUSE 0 500 600 I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirke end Bertilucci EXTENT OF SOIL GAS GREATER THAN 25% OF THE A Divi,ion of Wiiliom F. Cosulich Aasocietes. P.C. LOWER EXPLOSIVE LIMIT FIGURE 4-24 TABLE 4-12 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING RESULTS JUNE AND JULY 1996 SLCI WK4 Page 1 of 3 09112196 m m m mm m, m mm mm m m m m mm m ,,m m m m m TABLE 4-12 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING RESULTS JUNE AND JULY 1996 SLCI WK4 Page 2 of 3 09112/96 m =m .m mm =m ,m. m .m m m mm m mmm m mm m ,m m m TABLE 4712 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION EXPLOSIVE GAS MONITORING RESULTS JUNE AND JULY 1996 SLCI WK4 Page 3 of 3 09/12/~6 of the LEL. This point was measured again on two different occasions and no readings above NYSDEC action level of 25% LEL (Part 360-2.15[a][2]) were recorded. During the third complete round of explosive soil gas monitoring (including the off-site points) no reading into the LEL range (greater than 1%) were measured at the on-site points which previously indicated greater than 25% of the LEL in the first two rounds, however, all of the off-site points indicated measurements greater than 0.1% LEL. 4.3.9 Surface Leachate Survey Results The surface leachate survey consisted of a visual inspection primarily involving the area surrounding the elevated portion of the landfill. Based on visual inspection of the soils on-site and limited standing water, only one pooled water sample (PLW-I) was collected fxom the toe of slope of the northern side of the elevated landfill area and analyzed for NYSDEC Baseline Parameters. This sample represents the standing pooled water on the north, west, and east sides of the northern portion of the elevated landfill (see Figure 4-25 for sample location and delineation of typical areas of pooled water on-site). No other standing pools of potentially leachate impacted water were observed during the this investigation. In addition, no leachate seeps or stained soil was observed, therefore no samples were collected. Since no specific standards of guidance values exist for leachate, the pooled water sample results are compared to the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards. No VOCs were detected in pooled water sample PLW-1. Table 4-13 presents the VOC results. · 1314~10814603(R04) 4-79 ~ " EXISTING FENCE LINE .... PROPERLY( LINE · POOLED LEACHATE WATER SAMPLE FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE LAGOONS~ LIMITS OF I FORMER BORROW AREA I PLW-1 PONDED LEACHATE :) ELEVATED LANDFILL AREA STORAGE' GARAGE ROA OMMERCIAL BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES RHEAD ELECTRIC LINES iHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILll~' OIL STORAGE TANKS ;OLLECTION CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE DIRECTORY: FILE NAIVE: DATE: 1314 1314-10 RDS-08/16/96 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirko ond BortiIucci SURFACE Consulting Enginsem A Oiviaion of Williom F. Cosulich A~sociotes, LEACHATE SURVEY MAP 3OO 600 I FIGURE 4-25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I il I I I I Six inorganic constituents were detected above the groundwater standards in the LPW-1 sample. Arsenic was detected above the groundwater standard (25 ug/1) at a concentration of 42.0 ug/l. Boron was detected at above the standard (1,000 ug/l) at a concentration of 1,690 ug/1. Iron was detected above the groundwater standard (300 ug/l) at a concentration of 3,330 ug/1. Magnesium was detected at above the guidance value (35,000 ug/1) at a concentration of 46,500 ug/1. Manganese was detected above the guidance value (300 ug/1) at a concentration of 335 ug/1. Sodium was detected above the standard (20,000 ug/l) at a concentration of 262,000 ug/1. In addition, the iron and manganese concentrations were detected above the combined standard of 500 ug/1 in LPW-1. Table 4-14 presents the inorganic constituent results. Phenol was detected in pooled water sample LPW-1 at 0.047 mg/l, which is above the groundwater standard of 0.001 mg/l. Chloride was also detected above the groundwater standard of 250 mg/1 at a concentration of 331 mg/1. Table 4-15 presents the leachate parameter results. 4.3.10 ~ As of the June 19-20, 1996 survey, the site, overall, was adequately maintained. Some litter debris was present along the edges of the elevated landfill area, as well as in and around the drop off area for recyclables. During the survey period, some moderate putrescible odors were noted in and around the site. Also, some alcohol vapors were present in the wood chipping area from decaying materials, the side edges of the elevated landfill area (north and western edges) were scoured from precipitation and contained small amounts of exposed solid wastes from prior landfill operations. · 1314XM08146030*,04) 4-82 TABLE 4-14 SOUTROLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION LEACHATE SAMPLING- JULY 1996 INORGANIC PARAMETERS MPLE ID 1 ---FL~ I ~FN-S~ ~4~SDEC 6~ T~-~OLLECTION [ ~ ~ ) DETECTION GROUNDWATER ]~i~'U~~ ' [ 1~ ~ LIMIT STANDARD/GUIDELINE ~Aluminumff4~5 1170 22 9 --- ~Aotimony~ U 39 3 GV ~r~nicff~-2 ~;;~j 1.6 25 ST Barium/7440-39-3 Beryllium/7440-41-7 8oron/7440~2~8 Cadmium/744(~43-9 ! Calcium/7440-70~2 Chromium/7440~47-3 Cobalt/7~4 Copper/7440-50-8 IroW7439-89-6 Lead/7439-92-1 Magnesiumf7439-95-4 Manganesef7439-96-5 I Mercury/7439-97-6 Nickel/7440-02-0 Potassium/7440~09-7 Se)enium/7782~,9*2 Silver/7440-22-4 Sedium17440-23~5 ThaUium/7440-28-0 ~ Vanadium/7440-62-2 Zinc/7440~66-6 .~:y~n. Me/5955-70-0 567 B U U 5800O U ~3.7 U 31 0 B 263000 U U U 52 1 000 ST 010 3 GV 200 1000 ST 040 10 ST 50 ST 080 .... 1 3 200 ST 300 ST' t 5 25 ST 139 35000 GV 300 ST* 020 2 ST 572 .... 32 10ST 0 70 5O ST 20000 ST 21 4GV 'if) -- 457 21 300 ST Qualifiers: U: Analyzed for but not detected, B: Concentration is above IDL but below CRDL GV: Guidance Value ST: Standard ST': Standard for the sum of iron and manganese is 500 ug/I .... : Not established ii~t~ii~$~i: Value exceeds standafd/guidotJne M9606LE WK4/mh/kb Page 1 of 1 09/11/g6 TABLE 4-15 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION LEACHATE SAMPLING - JULY 1996 LEACHATE iNDICATORS I~ ID --~L~:i--~IJMENT NYSDEC CLASS GA m-------- -I~-O~OLLECTION 7/~ DETECTION GROUNDWATER _STAN DAR D/~! D~LJN E I Color P~Co ~ 10 .... esults in ~/1: ~Bi~mi~l O~gen Demand 1~ 20 Brom~e U 0 1 Ch~e 1 0 Hard~s 1,0 Chr~ium. Hexavalent U Ammon~, N~r~en 0,193 N~rate U 0~ P~I 0~35 Sulfate ~.8 ~ 3.0 Total Dis~v~ Solids 15~ [ 1 0 Totat ~eldahl NJtr~en 11,6 ~ 0.05 2 GV 250 ST 0.05 ST 2.0 ST 10 ST 0.001 ST 250 ST QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance Value ---: Not Established i~!~ ~ 'Value exceeds standard/guldel ne L9606LE WK4/kb Page I of 1 09/11/96 I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Humid and damp conditions existed throughout the survey. Very little ponded water was found on the site (with the exception of the methane trench area). Survey Resets Table 4-16 presents a list of major animal associations encountered during the course of the vector survey, their estimated abundance, and their approximate locations within the Southold Landfill site. Table 4-16 presents a listing of the more common animals noted in site area. A site map depicting the approximate location of the major biological vector areas within the site is presented on Figure 4-26. From the standpoint of biological vectors, the site supports suitable areas to attract herring gulls, and to a lesser extent, rodents and mosquitoes. Feeding areas for birds and mammals exist in the collection building and at the dirt roadway, northwest of the elevated landfill area. During the survey, whelk shells were noted in this area. Breakage of these shells by vehicles, which releases morsels of food inside these shells, actively promotes feeding in this area by a number of birds. Rodent burrows exist along the north and western side slopes of the elevated landfill area at an approximate density of 10 burrows per 100 feet. The majority of these burrows were found in slope areas along the landfill where precipitation removed the landfill cover material and exposed the mixed refuse below. Few burrows were found in other, more sandy, areas of the site. Table 4-17 presents the survey results for afternoon, dusk, night, early morning and late morning periods. The relative abundance for each potential vector area is noted based upon observation of signs, or visual occurrences. · 1314\M0814603(R04) 4-85 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4-16 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION ESTIMATED ABUNDANCE* OF ANIMALS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE VECTOR SURVEY Species White Tailed Deer Ferile Cats Herring Gulls Estimated Low Low - Moderate Abundant Sparrows Low - Moderate Red Wing Blackbird Low Robin Moderate Kill Deer Low Cowbirds Low Barn Swallows Mourning Doves Norway Rats In forested areas at the northern comer of the site. Moderate Low Low - Moderate Mice Low Mosquito Moderate In forested areas along the southern border of the site and in the collection cemer building. During day and dusk periods, at the top of the landfill, feeding by gulls occurred at the collection center and along the dirt road northwest of the landfill at the shellpile. Utilized similar areas to Hemng Gull. Associated with open fields. Associated with open fields. Associated with open roadways. Within edges of forested areas along the facility fenceline. Flies Low Roosting within the collection center building. Along dirt roadways of the site. Along northwestern and northeastern slopes of the recent landfill. Under scattered debris on-site. Larvae found inside used tire pile and large tire near storage garage. Sporadically encountered in ponded water areas at the methane trench. Around the collection center tipping floor and at wood chipping area. *Based upon site survey of June 19-20, 1996 ,1314~M0814603(R04) 4-86 ,/ © AR AF RN MN FN FF RF FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE LAGOONS~ EXISTING FENCE LINE PROPERTY LINE WHITE TAILED DEER NOTED BY II SIGN OR VISUAL EVIDENCE MOSQUITO LARVAE NOTED AVIAN ROOSTING AREA AVIAN FORAGING AREA RAT NESTING SIGN OR VISUAL EVIDENCE MOUSE NESTING SIGN OR VISUAL EVIDENCE FELINE NESTING AREA FELINE FORAGING AREA RAT FORAGING AREA MOUSE NESTING SIGN OR VISUAL EVIDENCE // RN II LIMITS OF AREA :LEVATED LANDFILL AREA BI-LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCLABLES ELECTRIC LINES HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILII'f STORAGE - GARAGE OIL STORAGE TANKS ILLECTION CENTER WEIGHING STATION (SCALE 300 600 DIRECTORY: 1514. FILE NAME: 1514-08 DAI~: RDS-08/19/96 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION Dvirko and Bortilucci A Division of Williom F. Cosulich A~sociote$, P.C. BIOLOGICAL VECTOR MAP FIGURE 4-26 Table 4-17 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION LISTING OF ANIMALS NOTED BY SITE AREA Vector Area Period of Animal Occurrence I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Remarks Ferile Cats L p p P Potential den in storage garage Gulls A A P Barn Swallows Afternoon L L Sparrows M M P L Mice ...... Mosquito M L Mosquito M L Norway Rats L P Ferile Cats Dusk M L P P Gulls M L P Barn Swallows M Flying around collection center Sparrows L L L Associated with gulls in area 1 * 1314/M0814603,DOC(R03) 4-88 Table 4-17 (continued) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION LISTING OF ANIMALS NOTED BY SITE AREA Vector Area Period of Animal Occurrence 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Remarks Ferile Cats M L L P P Extensive foraging in area Rats Night L ..... L - As evidenced by burrows, five individuals found during survey Gulls Deer _ L Ferile Cats Early L L P Morning Norway Rats L P M One individual found among the tipped debris Barn Swallows L L Gulls Morning L L M Associated with gulls Robin L L M Absent P Present L Low Abundance M Moderate Abundance A Abundant E Extremely Abundant Note: Hawks, bats and dogs were not noted on-site during the survey ~. 1314/M08 I4603.DOC(R03) 4-89 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I From the standpoint of biological vectors, the main sources at the Town of Southold Landfill include a large number of herring gulls at the collection center and at the top of the elevated landfill area (current wood chipping area). At the collection center, these gulls, (and to a lesser extent, feral cats), were actively feeding on recently tipped municipal solid waste awaiting transport off-site for proper disposal. Rodents, such as the Norway rat and mice were found at low levels. Discussions with the Solid Waste Coordinator tend to suggest that the existing program for vector control has kept these animals in check. This program includes bi-monthly pest control and the daily set out of poison baits. Herring gulls were notable during daylight and dusk at the elevated landfill area and collection center and appeared unperturbed by heavy equipment. The maximum numbers found during the survey averaged approximately 400 individuals. Feral cats were somewhat more numerous in periods of dust and darkness. Approximately five individuals were noted and are breeding based upon a litter of eight young kittens encountered in the forested area at the southwest comer of the site. Adult cats actively foraged on refuse in the collection building during nighttime periods. Clearly, these cats are helping to control the rodent population. * 1314?M0814603.DOC(R03) 4-90 I I I I ! ! ! I I I I I i I I I I Notes: LEGEND Symbol Description D White Tailed Deer Noted by Signor Visual Evidence MOS Mosquito Larvae Noted AR Avian Roosting Area AF Avian Foraging Area RN Rat Nesting, Sign or Visual Evidence MN Mouse Nesting, Sign or Visual Evidence FN Feline Nesting FF Approximate Extent of Nesting or Foraging Area Areas presented are approximate locations identified during the vector survey conducted on June 19-20, 1996 by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers. 2. Areas noted are approximate. · 1314/M0814603.DOC(R03 ) 4-91 Section 5 mmm m mm m m m m ,--, m ~, m~ ---- m --- m m --- m mm I I I 5.0 DATA VALIDATION Thirty-three groundwater samples (19 monitoring wells and 14 private wells) and one leachate/pooled water sample were collected during the June 1996 field investigation at the Southold Landfill. The samples were analyzed for Baseline Parameters in accordance with the NYCRR Part 360 dated October 9, 1993. The analyses were performed by Nytest Environmental Inc., a subcontractor to the Town of Southold. The analyses were performed in accordance with the USEPA SW-846 methodologies as stipulated in Part 360. Nytest is ELAP (Environmental Laboratory Approved Program) certified by the New York State Department of Health and approved by NYSDEC. The data packages were validated in accordance with NYSDEC Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements. All standard and QC sample results, as well as 20% of the environmental sample data, were reviewed yielding a "20% Validation." The findings of the validation process are described below. Total organic carbon (TOC) was analyzed three days outside of the 28-day holding time for samples MW1S and MW1D and two days out of holding time for samples S71045, S68916, SL1 and S68831. Since TOC was not detected in the samples with the exception of S68916, the data is deemed usable for environmental assessment. The result for S68916 has been qualified as estimated due to holding time exceedance. The bromide results reported for MW4S, MW6S and MW1S did not take into account the dilution factor of two used during analysis. The results should be 1.06, 0.880 and 1.510 mg/1, respectively. The data tables have been revised to reflect the above concentrations. Phenol was reported at a concentration of 0.0035 for sample S69761, however, the qualifier U, indicating a nondetect, was not included. The actual result is nondetect and the data tables have been modified. * 1314%H0827601(R01) 5-1 il I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Total organic carbon results were incorrectly reported for samples MW2S, MW3D, MW3S, MW7D, MW7S and S68916. The tree values are 34.46 mg/l, 20.48 mg/1, 28.74 mg/1, < 1 mg/l, < 1 mg/1 and 24.74 mg/l, respectively. Table 4-8 has been revised to include the above results. Sulfate was reported as 303 mg/l and 589 mg/l for samples S68916 and WS-23, respectively. However, the actual results are 101 mg/1 and 58.9. Table 4-8 has been modified to include these results. The laboratory has been contacted regarding the above items and is preparing a resubmission of the necessary corrected pages. The items above do not affect the validity or usability of the sample results. Due to insufficient sample volume, alkalinity and sulfate analyses were not performed on the sample obtained from WS-5. The volatile organic analysis for samples WS-16A, WS-17 and WS-20 was performed one day outside of the NYSDEC ASP 7-day holding time, but within the SW-846 method holding time of 14 days. Therefore, the results are not qualified and deemed usable. Based upon a 20% validation, the results have been deemed valid and usable for environmental assessment as qualified above. · 1314~H0927601 (R01 ) 5 -2 I I I I I I il I i I I I I I I I I I 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Groundwater Quality A general comparison of the water quality results from the monitoring wells and private water supply wells sampled during the Closure Investigation to the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards and guidelines and NYSDOH maximum concentration levels (MCLs) for drinking water indicates that the water quality of the Upper Glacial aquifer at the Southold Landfill, which is the critical stratigraphic unit, has been slightly impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs), inorganic constituents and leachate parameters. The minor exceedances of groundwater standards/guidelines on-site and no significant impact to private water supply wells off-site indicates that a weak plume is emanating from the Southold Landfill. Only low levels of VOCs have been detected in monitoring wells on-site (maximum concentration of 19 ug/l [1,2-dichloroethane]) and off-site (maximum concentration of 20 ug/l [1,1-dichloroethane]). None of the private water supply wells sampled downgradient of the landfill exceeded MCLs except for one well with low levels of 1,2-dichloroethane (8 ug/1 estimated) and 1,2-dichloropropane (8 ug/l estimated). However, these exceedances may be attributable to off-site sources since tetrachloroethene, which is a parent compound of 1,2- dichloroethene, was detected at 16 ug/1 in an upgradient well and 1,2-dichloropropane is used in insecticidal fumigant mixtures. With regard to inorganic constituents and leachate parameters, copper was found to exceed the MCL in an upgradient of private water supply well, which is likely the result of copper leaching from household plumbing, since copper did not exceed the standard in the on- site monitoring wells. Iron and manganese were detected above the MCLs in a number of downgradient water supply wells, but they were also detected in the upgradient wells in about the same range of concentrations. Lead exceeded the MCL in one downgradient, as well as one upgradient water supply well, but did not exceed groundwater standards in any of the on-site monitoring wells. This is likely the result of lead leaching from household water supply +1314~A0905601.DOC(R04) 6-1 plumbing. It should be noted that chloride, magnesium and thallium, which exceeded the standards/MCLs in almost every on-site monitoring well, did not exceed the standards/MCLs in the downgradient private water supply wells. With regard to changes in water quality, the groundwater quality beneath and downgradient of the landfill site basically shows no significant change with respect to VOCs, inorganic constituents and leachate parameters, based on a comparison to historical results. These conclusions are based on the comparative analysis of on and off-site groundwater data obtained during the Closure Investigation with the various historical groundwater studies dating back to 1980, in particular to the sampling events conducted in 1991, 1992 and early 1993. 6.2 Explosive Gas Based on the explosive soil gas monitoring conducted as part of the Closure Investigation, two areas exist on the landfill site where off-site migration of explosive gas is possible. One of the two areas is on the northwestern portion of the property and the second area is on the eastern portion of the site (see Figure 4-24 for the location of these two areas). Organic vapor readings were measured over 1,000 ppm (<0.1% LEL) on all the off-site points in these two areas indicating the possibility of off-site explosive gas migration. 6.3 Surface Leachate Areas of pooled water, likely impacted by leachate as indicated by the chemical analysis of this water, were found along the northern perimeter of the elevated portion of the landfill. However, surface leachate is not migrating off-site and is limited to this area of the landfill. 6.4 Vectors Based on the vector survey performed as part of this investigation, the landfill has been found to attract herring gulls, and to a lesser extent, rodents and mosquitoes. Feeding areas for · 1314~A0905601 .DOC(R04) 6-2 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I birds and mammals exist in and around the collection center building and at the dirt roadway to the north of the elevated landfill area. The presence of whelk shells in this area actively promotes feeding in this area by a number of birds. $1314~_0905601.DOC(R04) 6-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The current monitoring well network, consisting of 18 on-site monitoring wells (including upgradient MW-1 cluster wells), the three off-site downgradient SCDHS monitoring wells (on Oregon Road) and select off-site private water supply wells provides more than sufficient coverage of the Southold Landfill for the purpose of Post Closure Monitoring. Based on this and the Part 360 closure requirements, and the historical and current groundwater quality at the landfill, a modification to reduce ~he monitoring well network, sampling frequency and analytical parameters for the Post Closure Monitoring Program is recommended. The Post Closure Monitoring well network at the Southold Landfill will include well clusters MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, MW-6, and wells S-68916 and S-68831 (refer to Figure 3-1). The locations of these 10 monitoring wells satisfies Part 360 requirements (2.11 [b][2][i][b]) coverage of monitoring wells, that is, one upgradient well or cluster and at least three downgradient wells or clusters at 500-foot intervals. These wells will be monitored as part of the Post Closure Monitoring Program on a semiannual basis (spring and fall). This recommendation is based on historical groundwater quality which indicates negligible seasonal variation in groundwater quality. Additionally, since the historical and current groundwater quality of off-site private wells indicates no, or at most minor, impacts from the Southold Landfill, future monitoring of these private water supply wells is not recommended. The Post Closure Monitoring Program monitoring well network will be sampled semiannually and analyzed for Modified Baseline and Modified Routine Parameters on an alternating basis. Based on the limited exceedances of VOCs historically, VOC analyses will be performed annually with the Modified Baseline Parameters only. In addition, based on the limited number of leachate constituents detected in the groundwater beneath the Southold Landfill, only ammonia, antimony, iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium and thallium, will be analyzed to provide sufficient monitoring of the groundwater quality for leachate indicators. · 1314x~A0905602.DOC(R04) 7-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Monitoring for these parameters will be conducted on a semiannual basis as part of both the Modified Baseline and Modified Routine Parameters. Table 7-1 lists parameters for the recommended Post Closure Monitoring Program. Water level measurements from the 10 wells discussed above will be taken on a semiannual basis concurrent with the groundwater sampling events. Groundwater elevation data will be utilized to construct water table and potentiometric surface contour maps. Reporting Annual Post Closure Monitoring Reports will be prepared summarizing the year's groundwater sampling events. The report will include a discussion of the sampling and water level measurement methods, results of data validation (20%) and presentation of the results in summary tables in comparison to groundwater standards and guidelines, together with the laboratory analytical reports for the groundwater quality data. In addition, water level measurement data, together with the water table and potentiomelxic surface contour maps, will be provided in the annual report. The annual report will also include the results of the quarterly explosive gas monitoring program and any observations of surface leachate and vectors, together with corrective actions. The report will also provide conclusions based on the monitoring results and recommendations for modification to the Post Closure Monitoring Program, if warranted. Landfill gas in the lower explosive limit (LEL) range was not found to be migrating off- site during the Closure Investigation. However, explosive gas in exceedance of 25 percent of the LEL is of potential concern in two areas. The first area is along the northwestern portion of the site in the area of off-site temporary monitoring points 38 through 45. The second area is along the eastern portion of the site in the area of points 47 through 51 (see Figure 4-24). · 1314~A0905602.DOC(R04) 7-2 I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I Table 7-1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE INVESTIGATION SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED POST CLOSURE MONITORING PROGRAM FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLING Parameters to be Static Water Level Specific Conductance Temperature Floaters or Sinkers pH Field Observations LEACHATE INDICATORS Ammonia Antimony Iron Manganese Magnesium Sodium Thallium Modified (°Subject to change based on future sampling results. (2)~, unce per year (Spring). uncc per year (Fall). · 1314~A0905602.DOC(R04) 7-3 Modified Routine(s) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As a result of the potential for off-site gas migration, additional explosive gas monitoring should be performed in these two areas prior to determining the need for modification of the existing landfill gas perimeter control and monitoring systems in these areas. Post Closure Monitoring of explosive gas is required (Part 360-2.15[k][4]) on a quarterly basis. However, a variance can be requested to reduce this frequency after it has been demonstrated that off-site landfill gas migration is not a concern. Since it is anticipated that closure/covering of the landfill will mitigate surface leachate, and the existing leachate impacted pooled water is not migrating off-site, no recommendations are provided to address current leachate generation other than covering the areas with pooled water at the northern perimeter of the elevated landfill area with soil as a temporary mitigation measure. Vectors It appears that the existing vector controls utilized at the landfill have been reasonably effective to control vectors, however, the following recommendations would enhance the control of vectors at the facility. The side slopes of the elevated landfill area should be regraded with clean fill or compost to cover exposed solid waste and debris, and discourage burrowing by rodents; The entire site should be policed to remove surficial litter; and Consideration should be given to nightly closure of the collection center tipping area, since the presence of solid waste at the collection center attracts animals. Alternatively, the placement of poly netting over the tipping area entrance would tend to reduce foraging by birds in the area. · 1314~A~905602.DOC(R04) 7-4 Although few animals signs were noted in and around the wood debris stockpile areas, these materials would provide a habitat for rodents. These areas should be managed to limit the long term storage of these materials at the facility. Some putresible materials and discarded foods were noted in and around the drop offarea and the receiving depot, probably the result of improper disposal during recyclable drop off. Signs prohibiting this practice should be placed in this area. Placement of discarded shells within site roadways should be avoided. Alternatively, these materials should be. crashed and mixed with construction and demolition materials prior to placement on site roadways; and Used tire piles should be periodically inspected for the presence of mosquito larvae and sprayed periodically with an insecticide, as necessary. · 1314~A0905602.DOC(R04) 7-5 Section 8 / -- m m ~, m mm m m mm ~ mm m m, m m m m m I i I I [ I [ I I 1 I I 1 I I 8.0 CONCEPTUAL CLOSURE PLAN The objective of closure of the Southold Landfill is to close the landfill in a manner that will mitigate the generation of leachate and impacts on groundwater, while providing beneficial reuse of the land and minimizing financial burden to the Town of Southold and its residents. To address closure, the landfill is divided into two areas: the Western Area and the Eastern Area. Approximate delineation of these areas is provided in Figure 8-1. Final delineation will be predicated based on any waste consolidation which can be accomplished as part of closure. A description of closure for each area is provided below. This closure plan is based on discussion with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at a meeting on August 20, 1997, regarding NYSDEC's comments on the draft Closure Investigation Report and Conceptual Closure Plan dated December 1996. Western Area This area is relatively flat and is currently used by the Town of Southold for yard waste composting, a solid waste transfer station and storage of equipment, materials and supplies. Reportedly, waste was last disposed in this area in 1980. Waste disposal in the Western Area included municipal solid waste, ash from burning waste, and construction and demolition debris (C&D). This area also includes the former scavenger waste lagoons. As a result of the age of the waste and the surcharging of waste in this area as a result of activities described above, it is not anticipated that there will be substantial settlement in the Western Area. In order to utilize this area for productive purposes and support the Town's successful solid waste management program, it is proposed to cover all or a portion of the Western Area with an asphalt surface. The subgrade for this area would be prepared with a granular material to achieve a 2% slope to promote runoff. The asphalt surface would overlie a geomembrane liner. This liner would likely comprise 60-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE). · 1314~A0923707.doc( R01 ) 8-1 ~ Illl ~ FORMER BORROW AREA , Il / I JULY 7m 1~8~ aY RODERICK VAN ~YL, PlC., I ~ ~ ~; M~W~ / 37 I m/,~ ~ x I ~ D~HED WHERE INFERRED) I ~)l // ; EL~ATED .~E I J -~ -~--, ~PROXIMATE LIMIT OF MUN~IPAL SOLID W~j~ , n. I ,)' ~sw) >7' cO~POSQ (>:4'M~) = (>6' ~SW) I ANnFILL ~E~9 ~ m i ~H A 5 FEET ~ICKNESS (AR~ CONTOURED WITH --~ ~ ~DvJrka and Badilucc' APPROXIMATE DELIN~TION OF WESTERN , m,,o. o, w,,,,o~ ~. ~o.u,,~ moc,m,. ,.~. AND ~STERN ~NDFILL AREAS FIGURE 8-1 This asphalt surface and subgrade material would replace the standard Part 360 vegetative cover and barrier protection layer comprising 6 inches of a vegetative growth medium and 12 to 24 inches of soil. The thickness of the asphalt surface would be 6 inches and the thickness of the subgrade material would be 12 inches. The technical feasibility and design parameters for constructing this asphalt surface over a geomembrane liner will be addressed in an Engineering Design Report to be prepared as part of the landfill closure design. In addition, a Variance Request will be prepared for use of the asphalt cover in place of the standard Part 360 vegetative and soil barrier protection layer. The asphalt paved area will contain vents to vent methane gas. These vents will be protected by the placement of concrete rings or stanchions around the vents. The gas venting system will comprise either a standard Part 360 gas venting layer and one vent per acre or four vents per acre without a gas venting layer. This variance previously has been approved by NYSDEC. Surface runoff from the paved surfaces will be diverted to drainage swells, which will discharge to a recharge basin to be constructed in the former borrow area in the northeast comer of the landfill property or equally suitable location. The paved area will enhance and allow expansion of the Town's yard waste composting operation. The asphalt surface will preclude contamination of compost material with gravel and stones, and allow for the production of high quality compost which will be more desirable and marketable for use. This approach to beneficial reuse of land is consistent with NYSDEC's current program to develop productive uses for sites impacted by waste disposal. Eastern Area This area received waste until 1993 and is at an elevation of about 20 feet above grade. Waste disposal in this area included municipal solid waste, yard waste and C&D material. · 1314\A0923707.doc(R01 ) 8 -3 I I I I I ! I I I t I I ,I I 1 I Closure of the eastern portion of the landfill will comprise a geomembrane liner (likely 60-mil HDPE) with 6 inches of a vegetation growth medium and 12 inches of barrier protection material. Similar to the Western Area, the gas venting system will comprise either a gas venting layer with one vent per acre or replacement of the gas venting layer with four vents per acre. Variances for replacement of top soil with a vegetative growth medium and reduction of the barrier protection layer from 24 to 12 inches, as well as replacement of the gas venting layer with four vents per acre as described above, previously have been granted to the Town of Southold for closure of the landfill. Since the top/plateau of the Eastern Area is relatively flat, it would be graded to a minimum 4% slope to promote runoff. Runoff from the Eastern Area would be diverted to drainage swales and discharged to a recharge basin in the northeast comer of the landfill property or equally suitable location. Grading material for use under the geomembrane liner would comprise different types of material, including recycled soil, dredged sediment, and reduced construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Processed glass residue would also be used for contour grading material, as well as for the gas venting layer and barrier protection/drainage layer. The use of glass residue also would be used for gas venting layer material on the Western Area. · 1314La,0923707.doc(R01) 8-4 I I ! i I i I I I I I ! I I I I I I I ~. 1314\G0709602.DOC(R04) APPENDIX A DATA VALIDATION RESULTS I i t I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS $1te Hame: atory Hame: Revie,er: ~--_~-~~(~ Date of Review: :. Oata Deliverable Requirements A. Legtble 8. Paginated C. Arranged tn order O. Consistent dates E. Case Narrative F. Chatn-of-Custoay Recora G. $~ple Data Complete H. Standard Date Comlete I. Raw CX: Oata Comlete Yes NO Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Ho Yes Ho Yes No Yes No Yes No ~ DATA VALIDATION-ORGANIC~ Rev1 ever:/~-~~ O&te Of Revte~: II. Holding Hmes O&te R~c~ved ~, I/ur~ ~ O&te Holding Time Exceeded ? I I I I i I I I I I I I t I I I I I I il I I I I ! I I i I I t I I I I III. Tune SuI~try ~omments Tune File I.D. Number 4. 7. 1~. DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS / Laboratory Name: Date of Review: Fraction: IV. Initial Calibration Summary (GCYMS) A. StanUard Data Files St~nd~rd 5 ID: co.c: I0 co.c: 2-0 Conc: Conc: CONe: '. 1. A'I SPCC met Criteria 2. Calculate a SPCC average RRF Comments: I I I I I ! m ! i m m ! I Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I i I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: tboratory Name: Fraction: D&te ofCa, ibration: (~!'~'~Iq~ IV. Initial Calibration Summary (continued) Calculate a C~ I RSO Co 1 o Nas the tune for the tnttt~ caltbi~tion acceptable ? No 2. Nas the calibration conducte/9-11~n 12 hours of the tune No Comments: Overall assessmlnt of the initial calibration: (list the associated samples) DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: _ Laboratory Name: Oate of Review: VI. Continuing Calibration Summ.~ry (GC/HS) Oate of Initial Calibration: ~-Pl'~-~([~(.l~ A. 1 All SPCC met cri · teria ? Calculate a SPCC RRF File I0: Comments: z. all ccc met N ~~ ' o Calculate a CCC lC 0 ~, ~ ~0 B. Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (list associates samples) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ~action.' VOlq Laboratory Name: Date of Reviev: VIII. Internal StanUard Area Summary (GC/MS) were all internal standarU peak areas within the contract limits ? If No, please note below. Internal Standard Amount Above Contract Reeuirement DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Laboratory Name: ! m m I IX. Blank Summary Date/Time of Analysis: File ID: m ~ornoound v~u<nt~J ~ _< CROL Comment) m I m this method blank. ! l m m I I I I I I I I I 1 I ! I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name aboratory Name: Reviewer: ~ ~---Y~-'~ Date of Review: Fraction: X. Surrogate Recovery Summary Were all surrogate recoveries within the contract limits ? If ~o, ~lease note below. Surrogate Compound Outside Recovery Limits Amount Above Contract Reauirement DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Fraction: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: XI. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary Sample ID: /~L~-~/) Matrix: Otd the MS/MSO recovery data meet the contract recommended requirements (~ ~, I- b~ckloroCU4,~c- t m I m m m m I m t ! I I m I I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site .ame:~~~)~///LaboratorY Name: S~mmie I.D. Holding times Date Date Date Receivea Dtqested Anal yzed Holding Time ExceeOed? DATA VALIDATION - METALS Assoc i atecl Samol_es: Laboratory Name: Oate of Review: II. Initial Calibration ~.? ~ere all~l Co~inents: instrument calibrations performea? No Were the initial calibration verification standarUs analyzeq at the contra~fieq frequency? No Co~l~ents: 3. Were the initial calibration resu)ts within the control below? For ti~cury:.80-120% of the true value For~¥f~ otller m~als. 90-110% of the true value If "~o~,~lytes NO limits )isteU m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS m m AssociateU ~am~l~s: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: I III. Continuing Calibration m Were the continuing calibration verification s:anUarUs ana)yzeo at the contr~fieU frequency~ NO Co~m~ents:~ ! ! il m m m m ! 2. Were the continuing calibration results within the control limits listea below) For tin a~4r, r,~ry: 80-120% of the true value For all~ther metes: 90-110% of the true value / ! If "~o~tes NO DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: IV. 31ank Summary A. MethoO Blanks I. Was a method blank prepared and analyzed at the contract specified freque~ NO 2. Were all the analytes below the CRDL in the method blank? Co~ents: 8. Calibration 81anks I. Were a)l initial and continuing calibration blanks analyzed at the contract specified frequency? 2. Were a/J.l_J~analytes below the CRDL in all the calibration blanks? Cormnents: I mi I I m ! m m m m ! ! m m m, m ! I m DATA VALIDATION - METALS Re v i ewer .taborator7 Name: Date of Review: Duolicate Analysis Was a duplicate preoared and analyzed at the contract specified frequency) Yes NO 2. Were control limits for the relative percent differences (RPO) met for each analyte! Comments: For s~le values >5 times the CROL, the RPO control limit is ~0%. For samDle values <5 times the CROL, the RPD control limit is ±CRDL. If samDle results were outside of the control limits, all data associated with that duDlicate sa~le should have been flagged) with a "*'. DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Reviewer: Laboratory Name: Oateo, Review: Vi. Matrix Spike Analysis frequ~ Comments~ ~ Was a matrix spike prepared and analyzed at the contract NO specified "No", note analytes Data should have been flagged with "N' for analytes out of control limitS. If the samDle concentration exceeds the spike concentration by a factor of four or more, no flag is required. mi I ! m ! m ! ! I m I I m I i Ii I m) m m m ! m ~1i. ! DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: ~~ Reviewer: ~.~(-~4~_~ ~ Laboratory N~ne: Date of Review: ICP Interference Check Sample Sugary Was the ICP serial dilution analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Comments~ No 2. Were the serial dilution differences within limits of ~ N~ Con~nents the contract specified m m m 3. Was the ICI: CROL ct~eck standard analyzecl at the contract specified fre~ analytesNorequired) m m m 'm DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Na~e: Oate of Review: VII. ICP Interference Check Sa~ie Summary (continued): 4. Was the ICP interference check samole analyzed at the contract s~ecifted freq~ No Comlents:'~ 5. Were the ICP interference check sample results within the control of +~-~tO~the mean value? If "~, note analytes limit m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS m I Site Name: Laboratory Name: Reviewer:~t~ ~/~ Date of Review: m VIII. Laboratory Control Sa~kole Analysis m i. was a laboratory control sample analyzeU at the contract reouired freq~ m Con~nent~ No m I I I 2. Were the perecent recoveries within the control limits of 80-120% (excel)t for Ag and Sb) for each analyte? ~ "° Coments :m m m m im I. 03t~ ~eltverable Requirementsl- A. Legible E. C~se Narrative ~ NO F. Chain-of-Custody Record G, S~ie Data Co~lete No H. St~nd~rd D~te Co~iete No ~. R~v ~ O~t~ Co~lete No I I l I DATA. VALIDATION-ORGANZCS $tte Name: II. Holding Times I o,t, _ DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS III. Tune Summ~r¥ Tune File I.O? Number Accemtable ? Comments m ! m ! ! m ! m m m ! ! m ! m ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Si te Nam.: ~l~.4~ .~?~~Y Name: Reviewer: ~~~ Date of Review: Fraction: ~//~ IV. Initial Calibration Summary (GC/MS Oate of Calibration: A. Standard Data Flles Standard I ID: ~ All SPCC met Criteria ? 2. Calculate a SPCC average RRF Comments: conc: IF> Conc:O~O conc:~ Conc:~/~ No m m m m DATA VAL[DAT[ON-OR~NIC$ m ~ac,ion: ~ Date o~ ~al,bration: IV. Intttal Calibration Su~ry (continued) I 2. All C~ met Criteria ? m Calculate a CCC ~ RSD m I C.I. Was the tune for the initial calibration acceptable ? 2. ~as the calibration condu 12 hours of the tune ? m Coments:. mm D. Overall assessment of the initial calibration. (llst the associated sample m m I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: ory Name: Reviewer: m~J~//(~ Date of Review: m VI. Continuing Calibration Sumary (GC/MS) Date of Contin~Jtng Calibratton:'(~ls~(~-~ ~{~ -)/! File ID: A. 1. All SPCC met criteria ? m m m Comments: m m m 2. All CCC met criteria ?._w.~\ Calculate a CCC ~ D No m Comments: m m m Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (11st associ~s.samples) m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Reviewer:~~_~ Date of Review: Fraction: VIII. Internal Standard Area Su~ry (GCYMS) Nero all internal standard peak ar.~n the contract limits ? No If No. please note below. Internal Standard Amount Above Contract Reauirement m m m I m m I m I m I m m m m ! m m m I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m IX. Blank Summary m Date/Time of Analysis: File ID: Co~ents m m m m m m List the samples associated with this method blank. m ~~ . DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Reviewer: ~~/~(~ Date of Review: Fraction: X. Surrogate Recovery Summary Were all surrogate recoveries within the contract limits ? If No, please note below. Surrogate Compound Outside Recovery Limits Amount Above Contract Reouirement Comment) ! I ! m ! ! ! ! m I ! ! I, i I I m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m xI. Matrix S~tkm/Matrix Spike Duplicate Su~ y m Sample ID: ~/~ Matrix: m MS/MSD da~t reco~ended requirements Did the recovery No m if No, please note below. m m m m m m m m m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: %o~[~ ~6~ Laboratory Name: Reviewer:~'~)~ Date of Review: Holding times Date Receivea Date Date O icjestecl Aha 1 ,vzea Holding Time Exceeaed? m l m l m I l l m l l l l m l; i m~ m m m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS ~m S,te .,.e:%~ Lo..~F-cll Associated Samol_es: m ii. initial Calibration Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m !. Were all initial m Coments: instrt~nent calibrations NO perfo~em? m m m 2. Were the initial calibration verification stanUarU$ analyzed contract specified frequency? ~o Co~ents: at the m m m m 3. Were the initial calibration results within the control limits belowl For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value For all other metals: 90-110% of the true value If "N~analyte$ m ~m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS Associatea £amoles: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: III. Continuing Calibration Were the continuing calibration verification stanaarUs analyzea at the contract s~ecifiea frequency~ ~ NO Coments: 2. Were the continuing calibration results within the control belowI For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value For all other metals: 90-110% of the true value ~o If "No", note analytes limits listea m m m m m m m m m m ! m m m m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS $i:e Name-~o~LoL ~l~.~ .Laboratory Name: Reviewer: (~ i _Date of Review: ~uolicate Analysis ~.. Was a duplicate oreoared and analyzed frequency? Comments: at the contract specified Were control limits for tl~e relative percent differences {RPO) met for emch analyte? Comments: For samgte values >5 times the CRDL, the RPO control limit is t20%. For sample values <S times the CRDL, the RPO controt limit is ~CROL. If samole results were outside of the control limits, all data associated with that duoiicate sanqale should have been flaggea with a m DATA VALIDATION - METALS Reviewer: ~)~~ U Date of Review: Vi. Matrix Spike Analysis 1. Was a matrix spike prepared and analyzed at the contract frequency? specified m m m m m m m m m m 2. Were the matrix spike recovereis within the contract specified control If "~o", note anaiytes ~ -I~. %) (P~ (~,(~ ~ ~L ~1. ~ · ~~ ~ ~_ ' Data s,ould have be~ flagge, with "N' for anmlytes out of control limits.~~m If the s~le concentration exce~s the spike concentration by a factor of four or more, no flag is required. m ! m m m I I m DATA VALIDATION - METALS m vii. icP Interference Check S~ie Sumary 1. Was ~e ICP serial dilution analyzed at the contract specified frequency) No Co~l~en t s: 2. Were the serial dilution differences within the contract specified limits of Was the ICP CRDL check standard analyzed at the contract s~ecified frequency for the analytes required) No Comseflts DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site ..e:~Lo~~~ Reviewer: Laboratory Na~e: Oate of Review: q~ VII. ICP Interference Check Sample S~ary (continued): 4. Was the ICP interference check sample analyzed at the contract specified frequency) Were the ICP interference check sample results within the control of +~w-ZO% of the mean value? limit If "No", note analytes m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: IV. 8lank Summary A. Methoa 81anks t. Was a methoq blank prepared and analyzeO at the contract specified frequency? 2. Were all the analyte$ below the CROL in the method blank? Co~ents: ~. C~libration 81anks 1. Were all initial aha continuing calibration blanks ana)yzeq at the contract specified frequency? 2. Were all the analytes below the CRDL in all the calibration blanks? m DATA VALIDATION - METALS m ~ m m Reviewer~~ r~ ~-- Date of Review: m m m viii. Laboratory Control Sa~koie Analysis i. Was a laboratory control s~nDle analyzed at the contract required frequency? Co~ents: 2. Were the perecent recoveries within the control for Ag and Sb) for each analyte? (~ No ¢oments limits of 80-1g0% (exceDt m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m, m m m m m m I I I I I I I il APPENDIX B WELL CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION DIAGRAMS * 1314\G0709602.DOC(R04) I WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG SITE Southold Landfill JOB NO. 1027 WELL NO. HW-l~ m TOTAL DEPTH ~4~ SURFACE ELEV. 44.9' MSL TOP RISER ELEV. 44.38' M~L m WATER LEVELS (OEPTH, DATE, TIME) 38.84. 7/22/91 DATE INSTALLED 5/1/gl RISER DIA 2" MATERIAL PV~ LENGTH 36.5' SCREEN OIA ~" HATERIAL steinless steel LENGTH 20.0' SLOT SIZE 0.020 I PROT CSG DIA ~" HATERIAL steel LENGTH ll.Q" SCHEMATIC I m Surface Seal Type Tvoe I Portland Cement Ground Surface 44.38 Riser Elevation 3.B Bottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold ~rQv~ i m m Seal Type Bentonite Pellets 29.5 Top Seal 31.5 Top Of Fine Sand 32.0 Top Send Pack 34.0 Top Screen I ! Sand Pack Type Morie Size #2 Cements 54,0 Bottom Screen 54.5 Total Depth of Boring Driller Bob Noud Geologist Pete Conde NYS DEC Inspector G. Oesei ~ mm Sl182G/1 WELL CONSTRUCTION SITE Southold Landfill JOB NO. TOTAL DEPTH 1~' SURFACE ELD/. 44.9' MSL WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) 38.68. 7/22/gl RISER DIA 2" MATERIAL PV~ LENGTH 142.0' SCREEN DIA ~_ MATERIAL stainless steel LENGTH 10.0' PROT CSG DIA ~" MATERIAL steel LENGTH SCHEMATIC 1027 WELL NO. I~-ID TOP RISER ELD/. 44.39' MSL DATE INSTALLED 6/18/91 SLOT SIZE 0.020 Surface Seal Type Tvoe I Portland Cement Ground Surface __Riser Elevation . . Bottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold Grqg~ Seal Type Pure Gold Grout 137.5 Top Seal 139.5 Top of Fine Sand 140.0 Top Sand Pack 142.0 Top Screen Sand Pack Type Morie Size #2 152.0 Bottom Screen 152.5 Total Depth of Boring Comments Driller Bqb Noud Geologist Pete Conde Sl182G/2 NYS DEC Inspector G. Oesai I I ! I I ! I I ! ! i ! I I I I ! WELL CONSTRUCTION lOG SITE Southold Landfill JOB NO. TOTAm DEPTH ~' SURFACE ELEV. 15.B' MSL WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) 11.85. ?/22/gl RISER DIA ~" ~ATERIAL pv(~ SCREEN DIA ~" MATERIAL stainless steel PROT CSG DIA 4" MATERIAL steel 1027 WELL NO. MW-2D TOP RISER ELEV. 19.07' FfSJ, DATE INSTALLED 6/25/gi LENGTH 78.4' LENGTH 10.O' LENGTH 5.0' SCHEMATIC SLOT SIZE 0.020 3.44 Prot. Csg Stlckup 3.43 Riser StJckup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Se&l Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Typo Pure Gold Grout 70.5 Top Seal 72.5 Top of Fine Sand 73.0 Top Sand Pack 75.0 Top Screen Sand Pack Type/Size Morte~ 85.0 Bottom Screen 85.5 Total Depth of Boring Oriller N. Hartman Geologist P. ~gndg NYS OEC Inspector G. Oesat Sl194G/2 SITE Southold Landfill TOTAL DEPTH 55' SURFACE ELEV. WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) RISER DIA ~" SCREEN DIA ~" PROT CSG OIA 4" WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG JOB NO. 1027 WELL NO. M~-)~ 4S.6' MSL TOP RISER ELEV. 48.50' 43.05. 7/22/91 DATE INSTALLED 4/26/91 MATERZAL PV; LENGTH 37.5' MATERIAL stainless stgtl LENGTH 20.0' MATERIAL steel LENGTH SCHEMATIC SLOT SIZE 0.020 ),O Prof. Csg Stlckup 2.9 Riser Stlckup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Ground Surface 3.S Bottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Bentonite Pellets 30.5 Top See1 32.5 Top of Fine Sand 33.0 Top Sand Pack 35.0 Top Screen Sand Pack Type/Size Morie #2 55.0 Bottom Screen 55.5 Total Depth of Boring Comments Driller ~, NgU~ Geologist P. Conde NYS DEC Inspector G. Oesal Sllg4G/3 i I I t I i I I I I I / I I 1 I i I WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG SITE Southold Landfill JOB NO. 1027 WELL NO. TOP RISER ELEV. 48.63' MSL DATE INSTALLED 6/6/91 LENGTH 117.5' LENGTH 10.0' SLOT SIZE LENGTH ~.g' SCHEMATIC TOTAL DEPTH 125' SURFACE ELEV. 45.6* MSL WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) 43.16. 7/22/91 RISER DIA ~" HATERIAL PV~ SCREEN DIA 2" MATERIAL stainless steel PROT CSG DIA 4" MATERIAL steel 0.020 3.0 Prot. Csg Stlckup 3.0 Riser Stickup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Pure Gold Grout 110.5 Top Seal 112.5 Top of Fine Sand 113.0 Top Sand Pack 115.0 Top Screen Sand Pack Type/Size Morte ~ 125.0 Bottom Screen 125.5 Total Depth of Boring Comments Driller B. Noud Geologist P. ~9nd~ NYS DEC Inspector G. Oesai Sllg4G/4 WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG SITE Southold Landfill JOB NO. 1027 WELL NO. FM-4~ TOTAL DEPTH 71' SURFACE ELEV. 6I.O'M~L TOP RISER ELEV. 63.66' MSL WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIHE) 58.81. 7/22/91 DATE INSTALLED 5/7/91 RISER OIA ~" MATERIAL PV~ SCREEN DIA ~" MATERIAL stainless stqtl PROT CSG OIA 4" MATERIAL steel LENGTH 53.5' LENGTH 20.0' LENGTH ~.0' SLOT SIZE 0.020 SCHEMATIC 3.0 Prot. Csg Stickup 2.7 Riser Stickup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cemqn~ Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Bentonite Pellets Sand Pack Type/Size Horie ~2 46.5 Top Se&l 48.5 Top of Fine Sand 49.0 Top Sand Pack 51.0 Top Screen 71.Q Bottom Screen 71,§ Total Oepth of Boring Comments Driller B. Noud Geologist Pm ~gndt Sllg4G/B NYS DEC Inspector G. Desai i I I I I I m I ! I ! I m I I I I I SITE Southold Landfill TOTAL DEPTH WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) RISER DIA ~" SCREEN DIA ~" PROT CSG DIA 4" HATERIAL PV~ HATERIAL stainless steel HATERIAL steel WELL CONSTRUCTION LOt JOB NO. 10~7 WELL NO. SURFACE ELEV. 61.0' MSL TOP RISER ELEV. 63.76' M~L 58.57. 7/22/gl DATE INSTALLED 5/30/91 LENGTH 142.5' LENGTH 10.0' SLOT SIZE LENGTH ~.0' SCHEMATIC 0.020 3.0 Prot. Csg Stickup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Pure Gold Grout Sand Pack Type/Size HQri~ #g 2.7§ Riser Stlckup Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Seal 135.5 Top Seal 137.S Top of Fine Sand 138.0 Top Sand Pack 140.0 Top Screen 1SO.O Bottom Screen 1SO.S Total Depth of Boring Driller ~, NQU~ Geologist P. Cond9 NYS DEC Inspector G. Desai SITE Southold Landfill TOTAL DEPTH 7§' WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) RISER OIk ~" SCREEN DIA ~" PROT CSG DIA 4" WELL CONSTRUCT)ON LOG JOB NO. 1027 WELL NO. Fid-SS SURFACE ELEV. 65.6' MSL TOP RISER ELEV. 68.44' MSL 63.41. 7/22/91 DATE INSTALLED 5/3/91 MATERIAL PV~ LENGTH 58,5' MATERIAL stainless steel LENGTH 20.0' MATERIAL steel LENGTH S.O' SCHEMATIC SLOT SIZE 0.020 3.0 Prot. Csg Stlckup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cemtn~ Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Bentonite Pellets Sand Pack Type/Size Morie #2 2.8 Riser Stickup Ground Surface 9,0 Bott~ Surface Seal 51.S Top Seal 53.5 Top of Ftne Sand 54.0 Top Sand Pack 56.0 Top Screen 76.0 Bottom Screen 76.S Total Depth of Boring Con~nents Driller B. Noud Geologist P. Conde NYS DEC Inspector G. Oesai Sl194G/7 i I lJ I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I SITE Southold Landfill TOTAL DEPTH t)Q' WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIHE) RISER DIA 3" SCREEN DIA 3" PROT CSG OIA 4" WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG JOB NO. SURFACE EL~V. 65.6' MS~ 62.81. 7/22/gl MATERIAL PV~ MATERIAL stainless steel MATERIAL steel 1027 WELL NO. FIw-~ TOP RISER ELEV. 67.89' MSL DATE INSTALLED 5/22/gl LENGTH 128.S' LENGTH 10.0' SLOT SIZE 0.020 LENGTH S.O' SCHEMATIC 3.0 Prot. Csg Stickup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cemen~ Grout Type Pure Ggld ~rou~ Seal Type Pure Gold Grout Sand Pack Type/Size Morte#~ 2.3 Riser St(ckup Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Seal 121.5 Top Seal 123.5 Top of Fine Sand 124.0 Top Sand Pack 126.0 Top Screen 136.0 Bottom Screen 136.5 Total Depth of Boring Coemnents Driller N. Hartman Geologist P. Conde FlYS DEC Inspector ~. Oesal Sllg4G/8 WELL CONSTRUCTJON Lgq SITE Southold Landfill JOB NO. TOTAL DEPTH ~' SURFACE ELEV. 50.1' H~L WATER LEVELS {DEPTH, DATE, TIME) 47.01. 7/22/~1 RISER DIA ~" MATERIAL PV~ LENGTH 4),4' SCREEN DIA ~" MATERIAL stainless steel LENGTH 15.0' PROT CSG OIA 4" MATERIAL steel LENGTH S.O' SCHEMATIC 1027 WELL NO. ~-~ TOP RISER EL~V. 52.47' M~L DATE INSTALLED 7/15/91 SLOT SIZE 0.020 3.0 Prot. Csg Stlckup ~.4 Riser Stickup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Pure Gold Groq~ 36.0 Top Seal 38.0 Top Sand Pack 41,Q Top Screen Sand Pack Type/Size Horie #2 56.0 Bottom Screen 60.0 Total Depth of Boring Conlnents Driller T. Zackman Geologist P. Cond9 NYS DEC Inspector Sllg4G/g i I I I I I I I I ! I m I I I I i i Ii SITE Southold Landfill TOTAL DEPTH 142' WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) RISER DIA 2" SCREEN DIA ~" PROT CSG DIA 4" WELL CONSTRUCTION JOB NO. SURFACE ELEV. SO.l' 47.16, 7/22/91 MATERIAL PV~ MATERIAL stainless steel MATERIAL steel 1027 WELL NO. MW-(iD TOP RISER ELEV. 52.59' MSL DATE INSTALLED 7/12/91 LENGTH 137.5' LENGTH 10.0' SLOT SIZE 0.020 LENGTH 5.0' Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Pure Gold Grout Sand Pack Type/Size MorSe#2 SCHEMATIC 3,0 Prot. Csg Stickup 2.5 Riser Stlckup Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Seal 131,0 Top Seal 132.0 Top Sand Pack 135.0 Top Screen 145.0 Bottom Screen 145.5 Tot&l Oepth of Boring Comments Oriller T. Zackman Geologlst P. Cond~ Sllg4G/IO FlYS OEC Inspector WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG SITE Southold Landfill JOB NO. 1027 WELL NO. ~-7~ TOTAL DEPTH ~' SURFACE ELEV. 45.6' N~ TOP RISER ELEV. WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TINE) 42.57. 7/22/91 DATE INSTALLED RISER DIA g" SCREEN DIA ~" PROT CSG DIA 4" I~TERIAL PV~ MATERIAL stainless steel MATERIAL steel LENGTH 37.5' LENGTH 20.0' LENGTH 5.0' SCHEMATIC 48.07' HSL 4/24/91 SLOT SIZE 0.020 3.0 Prot. Csg Stickup 2.5 Riser Stickup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Ground Surface 3.~ 8ottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Bentonite Pellets 30.5 Top Seal 32.B Top of Fine Sand 33.0 Top Sand Pack 35.0 Top Screen Sand Pack Type/Size MorJe //2 55.0 Bottom Screen 55.5 Total Depth of Boring Comments Driller P. Zackman Geologist P. Conde NYS DEC Inspector G. Desai Sllg4G/ll I I I l I I l I I I I Ii i I I I I I WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG SITE Southold L~ndf(ll JOB NO. TOTAL DEPTH 1~' SURFACE [LEV. 45.6~ MSL WATER LEVELS (DEPTH, DATE, TIME) 41.48. 7/22/91 RISER DIA ~" MATER[AL PV~ SCREEN DIA ~" MATERIAL stainless steel PROT CSG DIA 4" MATERIAL steel 1027 WELL NO. H~-TD TOP RISER ELEV. 47.03' MSL DATE INSTALLED 6/27/gl LENGTH 126.5' LENGTH 10.O' SLOT SIZE 0.020 LENGTH 5.0' SCHEMATIC ~,Q Prot. Csg Stickup 1.~ Riser Stickup Surface Seal Type Tvoe I - Portland Cement Ground Surface 3.0 Bottom Surface Seal Grout Type Pure Gold Grout Seal Type Pure Gold Grout 110.5 Top Seal 112.5 Top of Fine Sand 113.0 Top Sand Pack 115.0 Top Screen Sand Pack Type/Size Morte //2 125.0 Bottom Screen 125.5 Total Depth of Boring Comments Oriller B. Noud Geologist F. Tooher NYS DEC Inspector G. Oesai Sllg4G/12 Appendix C ~I314\G0709602.DOC(R04) APPENDIX C HAGER-RICHTER AUGUST 1991 REPORT BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY SOUTHOLD LANDFILL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared for: Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers 6800 Jericho Turnpike Syosset, New York 11791 Prepared by: Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. 8 Industrial Way - D10 Salem, New Hampshire 03079 File 91G19 August, 1991 HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE. INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auaust. 1991 HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, INC O. EXECUTIVE SUi~iARY Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. was retained by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers to log seven monitoring wells a~ the Southold Landfill, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York in August, 1991. The objective of the borehole logging program was to determine formation and ground-water characteristics at the Site as part of a New York State Department of Conservation Part 360 Hydrologic Investigation. Natural gamma ray and conduc- tivity (EM39) logs were obtained for each well. The seven wells are distributed around the present landfill and in the vicinity of an area for proposed expansion of the landfill. The results of the survey may be summarized as follows: General correlations based on the natural gamma ray logs in- dicate that bedding in the sediments dips gently from the north toward the south. The conductivity measured for the ground water in the three wells located upgradient and adjacent to the landfill is dis- tinctly different from the conductivity measured in the four wells located downgradient from the landfill. The conduc- tivity of the ground water is elevated in the two wells lo- cated immediately north (downgradient) of the present dis- posal area on the landfill. Two wells located farther north contain a zone of elevated conductivity beginning about 40 feet below the water table. We infer that conductive fluid with a density greater than water is flowing from the landfill. Since ground water flows from south to north across the ap- parent dip of the beds correlated on the basis of the natural gamma ray logs, we infer that the units are perme- able. - i - Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 August, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction Equipment, Procedures, Principles of Interpretation 2.1 General 2.2 Natural Gamma Ray Logs 2.3 Conductivity Logs Results and Discussion 3.1 General 3.2 Natural Gamma Ray Logs 3.3 Conductivity Logs 3.3.1 Highly Anomalous Zones 3.3.2 General Conductivity Values 3.4 Integrated Interpretation Conclusions Figures Appendix - ii - HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE. iNC i 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 1991 HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCiENCE, INC Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. LIST OF FI~URES General location of the $outhold Landfill Site Site Plan Principle of the induction log Correlation based upon Natural Gamma Ray logs Schematic representation of bedding relations Comparison of conductivity logs for MW1D, recorded one week apart. Conductivity logs superimposed on Site Plan Schematic representation of conductivity interpretation Borehole Logs APPENDIX - in pocket - iii - il I I I I ! I I II I I I I I i I I I I Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust. 1991 HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, iNC 1. INTRODUCTION Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. was retained by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers of Syosset, New York to log seven monitoring wells located at the Southold Landfill, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The Site is a municipal solid waste landfill that reportedly has been in operation since 1920. The town plans to close the present landfill and construct a new landfill in a sand borrow pit located immediately north of the current landfill. The Site is located in a rural, agricul- tural area at the northeastern end of Long Island. The general location of the Site is shown in Figure !. The subject monitoring wells are the deeper wells in each of seven couplets (shallow/deep) distributed around the existing landfill property. One couplet (MW1) is located south of the landfill (up gradient), two couplets (MW2 and MW3) are located immediately north (down gradient) of the present landfill, two couplets (MW4 and MW§) are located farther down gradient in the vicinity of the proposed area of landfill expansion, and one couplet each is located east (MWT) and west (MW6) of the present landfill. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The objective of the borehole logging program was to help determine formation and ground-water characteristics at the Site as part of the New York State Department of Environmental Conser- vation Part 360 Hydrologic Investigation required for landfill closure and construction. Jeffrey Mann of Hager-Richter conducted the fieldwork be- tween August 6 and August 14, 1991. The fieldwork was coor- dinated and observed in part by Mr. Peter Conde and Ms. Fran Tooher of D&B. Ail fieldwork was conducted under modified Level D personal protection. Data analysis and interpretation were com- pleted at the Hager-Richter offices. Original data and field notes reside in the Hager-Richter files and will be retained for a minimum of three years. - 1 - Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auaust. 1991 HAGER-RJCHTER GEOSCIENCE. tNC. EQUIPMENT, PROCEDURES, PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 2.1 General Ail data were obtained with a Geonics EM39G logging system. This compact, portable system has a generator powered, motor driven winch with a maximum depth capability of 100 meters. The electronics are battery powered. Two separate probes were used to collect the data. All data were recorded at intervals of .025 meters (approximately 1 inch) while the tool was being pulled out of the monitoring well at a rate of about 3 to 4 feet per minute. Repeat sections of at least 30 feet were run for all logs in or- der to insure reproducibility of the data. Several logs were run more than once. The data were recorded in digital form with a data logger, transferred to a portable computer in the field, processed in the office using proprietary software, and then plotted using commercially available software. As each log was being run, the equipment was decontaminated by washing the downhole portion of the cable and the tool with Alconox soap and rinsing with distilled water. After completing the logging at each well, the wash and rinse water was disposed of at the decontamination pad. In the accompanying logs, depths are measured in feet below the ground surface. 2.2 Natural Gamma Ray Loas The variations in the natural radioactivity of rocks and sediments makes the natural gamma ray log an excellent indicator of changes in stratigraphy. Radioactive minerals tend to accumu- late in clays with the result that clay layers and clay-rich layers are commonly expressed as highs in the natural gamma ray log. Clean sands, which are normally low in radioactivity, produce lows in this log. The radioactivity of the formation in- creases as the amount of fine material increases. Silts generally have natural radioactivity between that of sands and clays. The natural gamma ray probe used for this survey is a slim hole tool designed for use at depths less than 600 feet. The scintillation crystal is thallium-activated sodium iodide measur- ing about I inch by 2 1/2 inches. - 2 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I ! I HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, INC. Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 August, 1991 A significant advantage of the natural gamma ray log is that it can be run in a PVC-cased well and even in a steel cased well. The tool does not need to be immersed in a liquid (water or drill- ing mud) to produce accurate data. The natural gamma ray data are presented in unsmoothed form, as obtained during the logging, and in smoothed form using a ten- point smoothing program. 2.3 Conductivity Logs The principle of the conductivity log, sometimes referred to as the electromagnetic induction log, is illustrated in Figure 3. An electric current, called an eddy current, is induced in the formation by an electric current in the transmitter coil (Tx), also called a primary coil, located near the top of the probe. The induced current produces a secondary electromagnetic field and a voltage in the receiver coil (Rx), also called a secondary or measuring coil, located near the bottom of the probe. The design of the system, including the geometry and coil characteris- tics, is such that the voltage in the receiver coil is propor- tional to the formation conductivity. In addition, the system is so designed and calibrated that the output, after processing, is the conductivity of the formation in units of millimhos per meter, mmhos/m. The maximum distance outward from the tool to which the con- ductivity of the borehole material is measured is about 2 feet. The tool does not need to be immersed in water to obtain accurate data, but it cannot be used in a steel-cased hole. - 3 - Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 AuGust. 1991 HAGER-RiCHTER GEOSCIENCE INC. 3.1 but units 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION General A copy of each log is located in the Appendix (in pocket is not described in detail in the text. Ail depths are in of feet and referenced to depth below the ground surface. 3.2 Natural Gamma Ray LoGs The cement/bentonite slurry used to grout the monitoring well is assumed to produce a slightly elevated, but uniform "background" radioactivity level in each well. Changes in the gamma ray log above the "background" are attributed to changes the natural radioactivity of the sediment. in The average values measured in the natural gamma ray logs range from a high of about 70 to 80 counts per second (cps) near the surface to a low of about 25 cps near the maximum depth logged. Generally the decrease in radioactivity from top to bot- tom occurs in "steps" of about 20 to 40 cps and might represent general changes in the stratigraphy. An example is MW3D, in which there appear to be stratigraphic changes at depths of 88 feet and 109 feet. Although the average radioactivity values of these layers are similar from well to well, the depth intervals at which they occur are not consistent. Numerous peaks on the natural gamma ray logs, possibly repre- senting relatively silt or clay enriched layers, can be corre- lated across much of the Site. Figure 4 shows a possible correla- tion between monitoring wells based upon the natural gamma ray logs. The 10gs are arranged along two northerly trending lines, roughly parallel to the inferred ground water flow direction. The correlations indicate a gentle southward dip of the inferred stratigraphic units. Such a dip is consistent with outwash originating from a glacier located toward the north. Figure 5 is a schematic representation of the stratigraphic correlations. The boring logs provided by D&B for the seven wells do not contain descriptions of relatively silty or clay-rich horizons at the depths of the local gamma ray peaks used for the above cor- relation. However, the natural gamma ray tool is sensitive to subtle variations in composition that might not be readily ap- - 4 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HAGEFt-R]CHTER GEOSCiENCE, lNG Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auaust. 1991 parent in standard split spoon samples. We infer, then, that the layers correlated on the basis of the natural gamma ray logs are either relatively thin or not prominent in the soil samples. 3.3 Conductivity Loqs 3.3.1 Hiahlv ADoma~ous Zones. The conductivity logs for the seven monitoring wells at the Southold Landfill all contain zones of highly anomalous and widely varying conductivity values. Absolute values of conductivity of up to 4000 mmhos/m were measured for significant intervals (over 40 feet) in MW1D and MW7D and over more limited zones in the other wells. Each well exhibits a different pattern of anomalous zones. Such extreme values of apparent conductivity can be caused by either or both of two conditions: (1) metal casing and/or objects in the vicinity of the well; and (2) malfunctioning of the equipment. The D&B site representatives indicated that there is no metal casing or other metal known to have been left in the borings during well construction. To test the second possibility, we logged conductivity in four wells a number of times -- on different days and with changes in equipment components suggested by the equipment manufacturer. The other three wells were logged completely once and re-logged at least once for a minimum of 30 feet. The anomalous readings are reproduced in each successive log for each well. An example is shown in Figure 6. If the anomalous read- ings were solely due to malfunctioning equipment, one would not expect reproducibility, especially in seven wells, each with a different pattern of anomalous readings. We had logged a well near our office in New Hampshire that we use as a local "standard" immediately prior to beginning this project and obtained "normal" (a few mmhos/m) results. We also re-logged the "standard" well on a weekend in the midst of the field effort for this project, and again obtained "normal" results that reproduced the previous conductivity logs for the well. Thus, the anomalous values were obtained only in the Southold wells. In addition, we returned the logging equipment to the manufacturer for a complete systems check. The manufacturer (Geonics) reported that the equipment was in normal operating dition. con- - 5 HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE. INC Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 1991 Thus, although we have not definitely identified the source of the highly anomalous apparent conductivity values for the Southold wells, we suspect that metallic interference is likely present in the wells. Since such highly anomalous conductivity values are not within the normal range for ground water or sedi- ments, we ignore them for the objectives of this project. 3.3.2 General Conductivity Values. The conductivity measured for the wells outside the intervals of highly anomalous values varies from about 0 mmho/m to 80 mmhos/m in distinct zones related to the location of the wells on the Site. In Figure 7, the conductivity logs are superimposed on a plan of the Southold Site to show the relationship of well location to the character of the conductivity measured. The downgradient wells exhibit con- ductivities significantly elevated over those in the wells lo- cated adjacent to and upgradient from the landfill. Generally, the conductivity of the unsaturated zone for each of the monitoring wells is at or near 0 mmho/m. The conductivity of natural, fresh ground water is generally a few mmhos/m. The conductivity measured in MWlD, located upgradient from the landfill, but downgradient from a sod farm (former potato farm), is less than about 5 mmhos/m from the surface to the bot- tom of the well. The conductivity measured in MW6D, located west of the disposal area is near 0 mmho/m from the surface to a depth of about 70 feet; beyond that depth, the conductivity increases to about 10 mmhos/m, implying little migration of conductive leachate toward the west of the disposal area. The conductivity for MW7D, located east of the existing disposal area, is slightly elevated (15 mmhos/m), indicating that little conductive leachate is migrating toward the east. MW2D and MW3D, both immediately downgradient of the existing disposal area, exhibit elevated conductivities (80 mmhos/m and 40 mmhos/m, respectively), with the increase occurring just above the static water level. The conductivities remain uniformly elevated to the total depth logged. The source of the relatively elevated conductivity cannot be determined from the conductivity data alone. However, the proximity of the wells to the landfill implies that the elevated conductivities are due to conductive leachate from the landfill. A similar increase in conductivity (maximum of 80 mmhos/m) occurs in MW4D; however, the depth at which the increase occurs is at about 95 feet, well below the static water level. A smaller increase in conductivity (maximum of 40 mmhos/m) occurs - 6 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HAGER-RiCHTER GEOSCiENCE. tNC Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 1991 in MW5D at a depth of about 100 feet. The elevated conductivity at depth in these wells suggests that conductive fluid with a den- sity greater than that of fresh water is migrating downward and toward the north. The northward direction of ground-water flow is consistent with that inferred by D&B based on previous drill- ing in and near the Site. Figure 8 is a schematic representation of our interpretation of the conductivity data for the Southold Landfill. Superimposed on the conductivity logs are small peaks, some of which can be correlated between monitoring wells, and which correlate to peaks in the natural gamma ray logs. Such peaks may represent minor stratigraphic boundaries along which conductive fluids migrate. 3.4 Intearated Intermretation The general northward direction of ground-water flow plus the inferred downward component of conductive leachate flow is oriented across the inferred-southward dipping stratigraphic horizons. Such apparent free flow across bedding indicates that the sediments are permeable. Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 1991 HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, iNC 4. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the borehole geophysical logs obtained at the Southold Landfill, we conclude the following: General correlations based on the natural gamma ray logs in- dicate that bedding in the sediments gently dips from the north toward the south. The conductivity of the ground water measured in the three wells located upgradient and adjacent to the landfill is dis- tinctly different from the conductivity measured in the four wells located downgradient from the landfill. The conduc- tivity of the ground water is elevated in the two wells lo- cated immediately north (downgradient) of the present dis- posal area on the landfill. Two wells located farther to the north contain a zone of elevated conductivity about 40 feet below the water table. We infer that conductive fluid with a density greater than water is migrating from the landfill. Since ground water flows from south to north, across the southward dipping bedding based on the natural gamma ray logs, we infer that the sediments are permeable. - 8 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 1991 HAGEn-RiCHTER GEOSCIENCE. ~NC "'" Block : Figure ~. General location of the Southold Landfill site. MW-4 MW-5 }/ E'~ISTING '~k~tNING AREA / I MW-2 8-6883 MW-3 \ \ STORAGE GARAGE' . ,,i, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Plan provided by SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CTION STATION ./ OVERHEAD ELECTRIC I WASTE OIL STORAGE LEGEND EXISTING BUILDING ON LANDFILL 81TE ..... ,-- EXISTING FENCE LINE 8_6g?e1~s EXISTING GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL ) GROUND WATER M W- 11 MONITORING WELL CLUSTER HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, lNG. ld[(~~ ~'igure 2. Site Plan. I I ~'ddy current flow Figure 3. Principle of the induction log. by Geonics. HAGE~-RiCHTE~ GEOSCIENCE, ~NC Sketch provided Z Borehole Geophysical survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 1991 SOUTH I MW4D NORTH I 5O MWID MW6D MW?.D Fibre 4. Correlation based upon Natural Gamma Ray logs. SOUTH I MWlD MWTD MWSD HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE. INC. MW5D NORTH -- 50 Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 August. 1991 S GROUNDWATER LAN FILL J FLOW MW2D HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE. iNC. N MW4D Fibre 5. Schematic representation ferred from natural gamma ray logs. of bedding relations in- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HAGER-R!CHTER GEOSCiENCE. iNC Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 199l Figure 6. Comparison of conductivity logs for MW1D, re- corded one week apart. Slight shifts in the data are due to recording at different scales and adjustments of zero. However, the depths and shapes of peaks, including zones of highly anomalous values, are nearly perfectly reproduced. S-8883 It / , '~ XISTINQ~ININQ AREA --:--F . c · ' -2 MW- MW-3 MW-7 WAIT[ OIL ~ ~, ITORAaE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LECTION CENTER #EIG~NG aROUND WATER Plan provided by Figure 7. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTHOLD LANDFILL ConductLvity logs superimposed on Site Plan. HAGER-RICHTER GEOSCIENCE, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I Borehole Geophysical Survey Southold Landfill Suffolk County, New York File 91G19 Auqust, 1991 ~J S MWID Figure S. pretation. GROUNDWATER FLOW LANDFILL / BOUNDARIES UNCERTAIN Schematic representation of MW2D conductivity inter- HAGER-RICHTER GEOSC:ENCE. INC. N MW4D I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I *I314\G0709602.DOC(R04) APPENDIX D TEST PIT LOGS AND PROFILES '1 I i i ! ! I I I i I I 1 I AND I r~ prr NO. TP-I ' Pr'~OJECT NO,/NAM~ I 3iH ~ l S0 o-rl,,o(~{ TEST PIT LO0 LOCATION INg:~,CTOr~/OFRCE D- 0 k r~lovick ~Am'/RNI~I DAI~ CONOf11C~ OF RT DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~o~-V~,o lc~ 1-o..-<} R l~ Sample(s) Interval(s) N Ih Project Number Test Pit Number I I i I TP-I E Remarks ,I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 I I DVIRI~ AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT NO. I PI~OJECT NO./NAIVlE TEST PIT LOG LOCATION STARr/I:tNI~*I DAT~ $/~ CONDmON OF PIT No,',/.. SAMPLE ~ OVA DI/Pl~ INTEr6/AL SCI"~E~ DESCA~I~ION ~ ~ 3 ~ { od0 4 6 7 9 lO ~2 ~4 DVIRKA TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~ o ~.~LK, o ~,~ L~J~ t~ Proiect Number ~ '~, q '~' Sample(s) Inte~al(s) ~ ~/~ ~~ Test Pit Number T~-~ Remarks I I I I I I I I / I I 1 I I ! I I I I I ! I I I i I i I i I I I DVIRI[~ AND B~TI~UCC"i TEST PIT L~ PI'~OJECT NO./NAN~ I~H ~ /Sou+kot~J L INSlaC-CTOR/OIWq¢~ LOCA110N b'rART/RNI~I DAT~ C~~ 5~blc DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~ o ,., Jr J-,O !,c,J, Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I i I TP-[~ Rema~s 1 ! I i 1 I I i ! I I I I I I I I ! I DVmF, A AND Pf"~JECT NO,/NA~dE TEST PIT LOG I Lo. AnON INS:~-~TOR/OFHC:E m 9 10 ~2 14 N. II~PT'PL OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number I I TP-Ic Remarks I I 1 I I I ! I i I I I 11 I i I I I DVIRI[A AND BARI'ELUCCI IT NO. I )-2-. PP~C)JECT NO,/NAME II',I~I~-CTOI~/OI:t~ P. 0 h r~.jovicl-, I TEST PIT LOG I LOCAIION Z.u hos SAMITE OVA D~IZ,.I INH~/AL ~ ~ C~ lV~iIr.~IAI,~ m 7 8 11 DVIRKA AND 8ARTILUCCI Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number Remarks i i i 'l AND BA~TILUCC'~ I PI'~OJECT NO./N,~J~tE TEST PIT LOG II',d~i~tCTOR/C)R~C~ TE~T I~ LOCA'II~ SKETCH MAP DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE ~.~_~d ~ L[ Project Number Test Pit Number T¢-z.~, I I 1 I I t I 1 i 1 I I I I I I I i l I I I I Dt,'IRIEA AND B,4~TILIJCC~ I:~OJECT NO.INAIV~ 13~H ..~ I~oo+kotcJ EX C A V A T OR J~,~,.rJ:IIg~d~ I OF~I'~A TOR II',c:~i~-~TOR/OFJ:K~ TEST PiT LOG JLOC:A110N TEST ~ LCX~AlIC~ ~K~rcH ~ ,~ TP-).-.B x DVIRKA AND BART1LUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Project Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number TP- ~-5 __/ I ! I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I ! I I I I I I I dDVmKA BARTILUCCI I NO./NAME TEST PIT LO0 LOCATION D-0 b r~.ct, ouick I'E~T I~' LO~ATIC~ ~(E'rCH NL, N~ -r~, -'3 J ~"A~I'/FINffiH DATE ~/z.~ .~ CONI::~11ON OF RT .OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~¢~-+'ko [c[ Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I ! I I Rema~s T?-3 t I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I DVIRIf~ AND BAITILUCCI TEST PIT LOG Pr'~oJECT NO./NAM~ u~ STAJ~'JFII,,~M DATE COM3flN~4 OF Pff ,DVIRKA ANO BARTILUCC! Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number 1 I ! I I TP-q Remarks I I I I AND BA.RTILUCCI PR;OJECT TEST PIT LOG LOCA~ON ]). 0 I~ r~tCi~vic-k LOCATION ~KETCH MAP N. JT3~q~ DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I i ! \ ..- ¢0~ car) (. ~,os~t~t, c~.-¢~L ~ ~,-,.~. ~s) Rema~s ! ! DVm~ AND BA~TILUC~ ~ST PtT NO. TE~T PIT LOG PK~JEC? NO./NAIV~ LOCATION '~T ~ LOCA~IC~ SKETCH MAP N 1 N~DI~TL DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project '~ ~ ,,..,+'k,O [c[ Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number ! ! ! il 3 -[ Remarks AND BART~LU~CI TEST Prr LOG LOCATION 1~T P~T LOCATION ~KETCH MAla ~'x~ '[ DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~,+-k,o ~.c[ ]_a.~J~ I.i Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I Rema~s ! ! ! I 1 I I I i I '1 DVIRKA AND BAi~TILUCC~ TEST PIT LOG LOCA'IION ~ OVA DEP/H INfo. VA/. ~ ~ <:~ MA11t~ ~ ~ 7t lO It 12 t4 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~ o ,..,+'[',,o [c[ Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number -F¢ -'7 I I I I I I Remarks ! ! D,~rll]c& I8AIITILUCCI TEST PIT LOG PfiOJECT NO.INAM~ LOCAllON COHCX11C~ OF PIT OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Project Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I I Rema~s ! I AND BARTILUCCI Pf"~)J ECT NO./NAM~ ID(CAVArOI~C~PM~Nr/oI~I~IO~ TEST Prr LOG IL~AnON T~S7 I~r LOCA11C~ SI(ETCH NJD~Pll~ DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~o~,+'[-,o Ici Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I ! I I I I Remarks ! ! '1 DVlllIC~ AND BARTILUCCI I TEST PIT NO. EXCAVA ~). TEST PIT L~ OVIRKA AND RARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~,~,. +'~,0 ~ Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number 'TP-~o N Remarks I I I I I I I I I JJ I I I I I I I I I DVI~IL~ AND BAi~TILUCCI TEST PIT LOG 1~T ~ LO,AltON ~KE'rCH ~ ISTART/FIi~q~I DATE CONDIIlON OF I~' DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~9,~+Kolc[ [..~cJ~l[ Project Number [~.u~ ~' Sample(s) Interval(s) Test Pit Number -~-~- ~G ~ I I I I I I Remarks L D Vml~A AND BAilTILUCCI TEST PIT LOG DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCl Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I Rema~s I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I AND BAilTILUCC~ PD'<OJECT NO./NAM~ TEST PIT LOG IN~I~-CTC~/~ D- 0 b r~ouick TE~i' I:~ LOCARC~ SI(E"rCH MAP COI~Ot:RT DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number I ! I I I Remarks I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .DVIIMKA AND BARTILUCCI PI"<OJECT NO./NAIv~ I$~ ~ / ~oo+kotcJ TEST PIT LOG LOCATION INSPECTOR/~ p. 0 h r~dovicl-. ~5'"1' ~ L~ATIC~4 ~<ErCH MAI= DVIRKA AND 8ARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~o,,+~,o {.c[ [-~J~ Li Project Number Test Pit Number Sample(s) Interval(s) I I I I I I Remarks I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I dDVn~KA A.ND BAi~T~,UCC3 PI"O~J~:::T NO./NAM~ 13~H ~ [Soo+kotJ TEST PIT LOG LOCA~ON SAIdI~E OVA 3 [0~ >l~O to ef~ '- 13 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I I Te-~Ur s 0 Rema~s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I dL D Vllt I~A AND BAltTILUCCI PF'~OJECT NO./NAIV~ II'~{~cCTO~I~ D- 0 ~ r~o~i~-k (FT. ABOV~ ~ - TEST PIT LOG LOCAllON ~ST PfT LC~A11C¢~ S~(ETCH MAP ST. ad~f/l~d~H DAI"~ CONDI~:DNOFI~T ~ OVA 4 6 7 m B m iO il m i4 m DVIRKA AND BARTI/UCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project (~o,.,J¢l.,,O I. cl, i..4.t.~cl R (i Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I I (?.,.¢ T¢- tS Remarks I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AND BA~TILUCC3 PROJEC? NO./NAME TEST PIT LOG INSi~CTOR/OFtqC~ LOCAlION b"TAJ~q'/FINI~I DAI~ C~ C~ I:~T SAk41~EOVA - / -- 6 7 10 11 13 14 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI Project ~.+'ko l.cI, Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE 1-.a.~J ~ L~ Project Number ~'Stu( '~' Test Pit Number '~"@-L~, I I I I I Remarks I I I I I I I ~L~ AND TEST PIT LOG LOCAlION DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I O Rema~s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .DVIRICA AND BARTILUCCI NO./NAM[ TEST PIT LOG LOCAllON u~ -t to tk ~.- INSi~-CTO~/OI:t:tC~ [:). 0 ~ r~.4Lovick. 5"rA.qI"/FtNI~I DAT~ CONDIllC~Of:Pff DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I I Remarks I ! DVlRKA AND ~ARTILUCCI TEST PIT NO. Pr~OJECT ]). 0 ~ r~tclovic.k TEST PIT LOG ~to~ LOCATION DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I I Rema~s I I I I I I I I CDVIRIr~. AND BAi~ PF'aOJECT NO./NAM~ 13~H ~ /~oo+kotJ TEST PIT LOG INS~-CTO~/OIq:K~ LOCAtiON ~ P~T LOCAnC~4 SKETCH MAla N I I I I I I' I I I I I I I OVA -50% CCD (~,~ ,~,'~ DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~ o ~+'~,o Sample(s) interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I Tp-z-o I I Rema~s I I AND BA~TILUCC~ ~ST PIT NO. NO./NAM[ EXCAVATOR/E~JF~IW~/~I'OR 0 E r~c~ovic.k TEST PIT LOG '~rAm'/HNmN OA~ CO~ION O~ ~T '1 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I I 0 ~0~ Rema~s I I ~ BAJ~TI3,UCC'] ~ ~ , I I ¥ ~---- ~o~) ' ----..~--.~ ~J~./~ ~ L~A~ON' I~ ,~.~ ~ ~CAVAT~~/~T~ . , . , I I I I I I I I I I DVIRKA AND BAR'I1LUCCI Project ~ j,.,-Fko [c~ Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE {.i Project Number Test Pit Number TP-zz. I I I I I I ! Tp-)_~_ Remarks I I i BAilTILUCCI I I I I TEST PIT LOG I I I I I I I I I I I i~,C~ ~KETCH ~ DATE CONDITION C~ Pti" s~ SAl~q,j OVA ! / 7 9 10 ~2 14 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number TP'~.3 I I I I I TP- ?-5 Remarks I I I I I I I I DvmlLA AND BA~T~,UCCI TEST PIT LC)(3 PROJ~T NO./~ 13~H ~ / Sou+kolo~ LOCA]ION -t lO lk ~S'l' IWT LOC..AI1~N 8I(~CH MA~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Project Number Sample(s) Interval(s) Test Pit Number Rema~s I I I I I I I I OVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~.+'~o [cj, I._~.~,~JR Li Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number dDVml[~ AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. PI'r4~JECT NO./NAME EXCAVArOr~,~QU~X4ENI' LOCATION v~ i B SAMITE OVA I I I I I I i I I I I I ! I i I I I AND BARTILUCC~ TEST PIT LOCi JLOC:AIION 1'~ST PfT LOCAllCN SKETCH MAP N. IDi~q'I% DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Project Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number i I I I I T?-'z ~ C Rema~s I I c~D~ AND BAIITILUCC~ I~H Z] / Sou+kotc, I Lc~,,d 'A'tl T~ST PIT LOG LOCAllON D. DVIRKA AND 8ARTILUCCl Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number I I ! i I Rema~s ! I I I I I I I I I I I DVIBKA AND BABTILUCCI TEST PIT LOG rr LOCATION SKETCH MAP DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number ! I I ! I Rema~s ! I I I I I t ! I i I I I i I I I I I I .DVmK~ AND BA~,TILUCCZ TEST PIT LOG LOCARON SKETCH ~ OVA 7 9 ~0 12 14 OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~ ~ ~,+1~,o [c.,[ Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I t Rema~s . D VIRIC& ,~ND TEST PIT LOG ~JECT NO./NAME I 3~H J~ / go~+kol~l ~NSI~TOt~/O~IaC~ D- 0 ~ r~,~lovick LOCAnON vC rEST N CONI:XllO~ C~ Pff OVA N~!iq"PL DVIRKA AND BARTI/UCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Project ,~ ~ ~J~,o Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I T?-zSA, .7.- LO Remarks ! I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I DVIRIC& AND BAI~TII,UCCI TEST PIT LO(] ILOCATION ~s"r ~ LOCAnON SKETCH SAMITE OVA DEPg. I it,,fl~. ~ ~ 01: MAi~.~ - 7 9 10 11 12 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~.-~-ko Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number i I I I I 0 ~. iq., Rema~s I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I '1 BA~.TIL UCC'Z TEST PIT LOG LCX:ARON 'l~i' I:~ L(DCA'IICN ~ETCH S"I'A~T~I~.I DATE CONOl~l OF PIT SAMITE OVA 6 7 9 12 13 14 O¥1RK~ AND RART1LUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project (jo,~+ko Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number i I I I I Remarks BARTII. UCCI TEST PIT NO. -i' ?- z-& I:~OJECT NO,/NAIv~ EXCA ¥ A~OI~IF.~UlPMENT IOPERAfOI~ INSPEC?O~/OFRC~ ~). 0 I~ r~clo~ic-k ELEVAllON O~ ~ SURFACE/~OITOM OF PIT TEST PIT LCX3 /~ST r~' LOCAllON SKETCH MAP N ~/;~o, DVIRKA AND BART1LUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project (~ o ~,+'~,o I. cJ, L.~-,(.J R LI Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I TI2- z-~ I -t- P-Lg S Rema~s ~ I I DVfRK~ AND BARTI~UCCI P~OJECT I 3i~ ~ / Sou+ko~l ltO~ TEST PIT LOG LOCA'nON N I T~,'- ~. 7 OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project (~ o ,...+'k,O Ici Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number Ii I I I I Romans I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DVlRKA AND BAITILUCCI TEST PIT LOG PIT NO.~ Pf'<OJEC? NO./NAIvf F. XCA VATOI~./E~L.BJ:~V~NT/OF~r~TOR INSI~-C?OR/OFP, C~ ~5'7 Pft LO~AI]CN S~(ETCH MAP N LOCAtiON ISTARI'/RNI~'I DAI~ CONDfflON OF IWf DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~+ko tcl, Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I TP- :z_~' Remarks I I I I I I I ! I i I I I I I I I ! AND BA~T~UCC"I TEST PIT LOG TEST PIT NO. PROJEOT NO./NAME LOCATION 'rE~T ~ LOCA11C~ SRET(:H MA~ ' Sl'Am'/lqM~ DATE COt, i~moNo~PIT DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~J ~ ~-'~0 [c Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I RemaH(s AND BAP. TII, UCCI TEST PIT LO(] LOCATION ~I'ART/IqNI~I DA'f~ OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~ ~ ~-~,,o I.c[ Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I i Remarks DVIRICa. AND BARTILUCCI I TEST PIT LOG I prr~oJECT NO./NAM~ !..OCA~ION IN~I~-CTOI~/OR:~ 5TARI'/I~ DAi'~ CONDfllON OF PIT SAMPLE OVA INI~I~'VAJ,. ~ ~ OF MA'~AI-q OVIRKA AND 8ARTILUCCI Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I Remarks I ! DVIRKA AND BAi~TILUCCI lliSr Pti' NO. / / PK4OJECT NO.INAM~ I 3~H ~ / ~oo+ko{J TEST PIT LO0 LOCAI1ON 'rEEl' ~ LOCATIO~ SI(ETCH MAP START/RI~.~H DAI~ CONDIllON OF SAMFq. E OVA 5 /0 -3LO DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project (j~.JM-,O Ici ~,cl~ ti Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I Rema~s I I .DVIRKA BA.RTI/,UCC~ IE 5'1' PIT NO. I I R'"'<OJECT NO./NAI~ (3i~ ~ /<Joo+kotJ T~ST PIT LOG LOCAl]ON rgs"t i~' LOCAnc~ ~CH Ma, a I Sl'A/~'/l~l~id DAT~ COVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I E Rema~s I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I DVTRKA AIND BAI~TILIJCCZ Pf'~2JECT NO./NAM~ EXCA V A TOR/EQUg~/~.NT /OPIg~ATOR TEST PIT LOG LOCAllON DVIRKA AND 8ARTILUCCl TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I (0 Rema~s DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PrF LOG law LOCATiCN ~EfCH M~ I STA~T/FN~DAI~ I co~nc~c~ 0VIRKA AND BARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project (jo~.+-ko Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I Rema~s I I I I I I I !1 I I I I I I I I I I I ! AND BART~UCCI TEST PIT NO. TEST PIT LOG PP<OJECT NO./NAIv~ LOCAflON IN~I~-C?OR/~ _DVIRKA ! AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~;~+-k,o LoJ, L.a.~.J~ I.t Project Number Sample(s) Interval(s) Test Pit Number I I I I Remarks I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AND BAIIT~.UCC~ lEST PIT NO, m PP<OJECT NO./NA/~ I3~H Z: /So~+ko~J L~tiC,~I. EXCAVArOR/EQI~NT/OPG~TOI~ P. TEST PIT LOG LOC~,RON DAm OF MT OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I Tf-3ar 0 Rema~s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DVmI~ AND TEST PIT LOG JLOCAI'ION T~b'T P~' LOCATI(:~ ~<ETCH MAi= NIDll~rl~L DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~o~+~,o Ici [-~J ~ [[ Project Number Sample(s) Interval(s) Test Pit Number I I I I Rema~s I I I I I i I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I DVll~Ig~ AND BARTILUCCI T~ST PIT NO. I P~DJECT NO./NAM~ 13iH ~ TEST PFF LOG LOCA~ON u~ Sl'ART/RNISI-I DA'r~ N. fD~ITL DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ~o~'Fk,o I.c[ L.a.~xr.J ~ tlr Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I I I I I C) Rema~s il I I i I I I I I I I i I I il I dL D vmKA AND BA~lr~ucC"z TEST PIT LO~ Pf'~JECT NO./NAM~ LOCAllON L 0 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCC! Project Sample(s) Interval(s) TEST PIT PROFILE Project Number Test Pit Number i I I I I Remarks 1 Iz i I I I I I I I I i I I i ! I I / I AND T~S1' PIT T~ST p~r' LC~ PI'~OJECT NO./NAN~ ~ST ~ LOCAI1CIq SKETCH )ATE DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number I i I I Remarks ! I I I I I I I i I ! I i ! I i I i I I I DV~RKA AND BARTILUCCZ TEST PIT LO(3 Pf"~DJECT NO.INAJVI~ LOCAllON u~ T~ST I:~ LOCA'IlC~ SK~CH CONi:~IONOFI~T DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number N $ 0 ~ {o" Remands I I I I I ! I I ii ! I ! ! ! I I ! DVTRK~ AND BARTILUCCI P~O.JECT N~./;~E TEST PIT LOG INSI~-CTOI~/OI:t:K~ ~"ART/FINI~H DATE DVIRKA AND eARllLUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number TP-qo Rema~s I i I i I i I ! I I i I , ! ! l ! i ! I t I t t i i l 1 i i ! 1 I I I I i I DV~KA AND BART~UCC'I TEST PIT LOG PF~OJECT NO./NAME LOCATION u~ ~r t~T L(~ATiCN SKETCH N, It)~]~IIIL OVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE I Project Project Number Sample(s) Interval(s) Test Pit Number Rema~s 1 ! i i i I I I I i I !1 i I ! i I I I i 1 I I i I I i DVIRI~ A~D B~TILUCC~ TEST PIT LOG PI'COJEC:T NO./NAIV~ LOCAlION b'rARl'/lqm'k~H DAI~ DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI TEST PIT PROFILE Project ,~ ~ ~.+-ko I.c[ L.~,~cl & (.~ Sample(s) IntervaJ(s) Project Number Test Pit Number > to Rema~s I i I I I I I I i ! t I I 1 I I I i ! I i I I I I ! I I I I I I I t DVII~ltA AND BAi~TILUCCI TEST PIT LOG P?~DJ~T NO./NAME LOCk'ON I I~i:1~-.~1'0~,10t:I:K~ ]). 0 6 r~J. ovic.k 'I~1' P~ LOCA'I1CI~ SKL~CH M,,~a L )ArE CONDITION OF ~T ~,~6~ DVIRKA AND 8ARTILUCC! TEST PIT PROFILE Sample(s) Interval(s) Project Number Test Pit Number T~-~3 Rema~s I ! I I i I I I I l I 1 I I I I I t Appendix E ii I I I I I I I I I I * 1314\G0709602.DOC(R04) APPENDIX E SCDHS GROUNDWATER QUALITY REPORTS FOR SL-I, SL-2 AND SL-3 ~ ~ 0.~5 I~P exc~ w~re no~i Field parameters 11.5 C Tamp, ~Fleld pH 5,14 ND* N~ NO ND ND Result L~b) ND lCD ND ND ND ND ND NOS No~e: ND = No Dete~on Water Quality Analy$ii Inorganic Chemistry <02} gadmium <0.~ ~m ~.~ <0.~ mn Volatile Ortlanic Chemicals Analysis · ee~a i Parameter Parameter (1~) ! Re~JIt e~l~r~e~ ND ~W~ ND ~ne ND ~xy~ne NO t~l ~ ND ~m~ (pJ ND ~y~rze~ ND 1.2.4.5 ~ene ND 1 ,Z4 ~m~ ND I ~1~ (~) ND ~l~e~ ND ~~ ND ~ (~) NO n-~W~ene ND 2~ ~E~ N~ Oetct~n kJmi~ is 0.05 I0~ excel~ whe~e ~te~. Semi-Volatile Or~anic~ Parameter Rer,~t (I;~) Resell Parameter {'pr~) eut~n~;' ND bis (2 eth3,1 hexy{) aa~e ND+ ~ (2 e~ hex~) ~la~ N~ ~xa~cio~d~ ND Nexa~e~ ND Limit = 02 pCfa ex~-,l~ a= n~ted N D+ -- ~lt~3~ lilllit of 0.5 ~ ND~ = _de~L?_ £_,~1. r~mit of 2 3pb Field Parameters pH 5.24 [Fiekl C~nd. , 2179 umr.~cm Pesticide Analysts ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,2 dil~arnoethar~ OI31anohalide Pesticide ~N~ R~lt (pgb) i Parameter NO i 4,4 DDE ND [ 4,4 DDD N~ NO ~ 4,4 DOT NO ; E~ ND ~ ~ e~ NO ND ~ ~r ND ND ~ ~x~r ND ND ~ Ef~n II ND ND% = D~e~Y~on Um~ at 0.Spp~ Note: ND = No Detection TOTRL P.04 I 3arameter Result i Parameter :hlodee 1015! '-~ <0.~ ~fl~.N 0.~ N~t ~.~ ~ ~*~i S~o~ 5.4 ~ ~.~ ~m 270 ~um ~ ~m 0,~ Volatile Ocqanic Chemicals Analysis Rl~ult ~ ~ --"'er arameter (~ ~ [,1 Z d~t~loroethe'ne 2 c~,~hlomefl~ne I bmme 2 Z I~mo 3 ~h~pmpa~e NQ ND ND NO NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO NO ND ND ~arameter R-'~-at (P~} Atrazif~e ND Me~,n ND Parameter Butachh3~ b~ (2 emy~ hex/i) 13m (2 ethyl hexyl) i;f~halab~ Hexach~m~e~e ~ Umit = O 2 ~ excel~ as note~ Field Parameters kl pH 7.3~i PesticiAle Analy~i~. ~arameter Re~u~ (ppe) Omanohalide Pesticide ND ND* NO ND ND Parameter 4.4 hOE ND 4.4 DDO ND 4.~ DOT NO ~ldHn NO Chlordane N~ A~chlor ND% MethoxyC~tor ND% Ende~ala n II ND 1.20i~"no 3-d~oropropane ND" ND mee'~Ptetlfary -m~,t-e[~e r ND 2~none (Mi[K') ND te~at~Jmfu~n ~ e~ce;~ where ND ND* ND* 1.2 clit~'~-'Aoe~ane ND* Dete<~:~ Umit -- 02 ppo e~ce~ ~ ~ote ND% = Delac~en Umit of O.,Sf~ ND* = Oet~mn L~lt of 0.02 ppb ND& = Detect~n Note: ND = NO Detection TOTAL P. 02 Appendix F / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~. 1314\G0709602.DOC(R04) APPENDIX F HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY SUMMARY TABLES TABLE 32 SOU1 HOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds MW1S 7125191 (us/I) MW1S 7/22/92 (us/I) MW1S MW1D 1/26/93 7125/91 (ustC} (us/I) QUALIFIERS: U Analyzed for but not detected B Compound found in blank as well as sample MW1D MWID 7/22/92 1/26t93 (ugll) (us/l) NOTES: ST: Standard GV Guidance value .... Not established ST*: Applies to each isomer individually ~:~:~%~!~! t~!~ Exceeds s andards/gu de nes NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUtDELINES (us/I) VOASUMM WK4/kb Page I of 12 08/23/96 TABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds MW4S 7/26/91 (ugfl) MW4S 7/27/92 (ug/I) MW4S 1/28/93 (ug/I) U U QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected B Compound found in blank as well as sampJe MW4D 7/26/91 (ug/b MW4D MW4D 7/27/92 1/28/93 (ug/I) (Ug/I) NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ugfl) 5 SI 50GV NOTES: ST Standard GV Guidance va~ue .... : Not established ST*: Applies to each isomer individually 1ABLE 3-2 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds MW3S (ug/t) MW3S 7/23/92 (uglt) 75 MW3S (u¢) QUALIFIERS: U Analyzed for but not detected B: Compound found in blank as welt as sample MW3D (ug/I) t t u t t u [J U tJ MW3D MW3D 7~28~92 i 1/27/93 (ug/I) NOTES: ST Standard GV Guidance value .... : Not established ST': Applies to each isomer individually ;~;~?~ Exceeds standards/gu~dehnes NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES VOASUMM WK4/kb Page 3 of 12 08123/96 'fABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds MW6S MW6S 7124191 7/23/92 (ug/0 (ug/I) QUALIFIERS: MW6S 1127193 (ug/0 B [J U MW6D MW6D 7/25/91 7124192 (ugll) (ug/I) U [I MW6D (ug/i) NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/l) U 5 SI U 5 SI NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance value .... : Not established ST': Applies to each isomer individually ~2~ ;~ ~: Exceeds standards/guidelines VOASUMM WK4/kb TABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPt. INO RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds MW5S (ug/I) MW5S 7/27192 (ug/I) 45 MW5S (ug/t) 27 QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but noJ detecJed B: Compound found in blank as well as sample MWSD (ug/l) MW5D MW5D 7~27~92 1128193 (ug/I) (u9/I) NOTES ST Standard GV: Guidance value .... Not established ST*: Applies to each isomer individually ~¢~}~ :Exceeds standards/guidelines NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/I) 251 $ SI 7SI VOASUMM WK4/kb Page 5 of 12 08123196 TABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds 1214190 (ug/I) PW001 (GW-8) 7124192 u U U u U U PW-001 (GW 8) 211193 (ug/I) u u u QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Compound found in blank as well as sample GW-6 PW-002 (GW~6) 7~24~92 PW-002 (GW-6) 211193 (ug/I) NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/I) 5s] NOTES: ST; Standard GV: Guidance value .... : Not established ST*: Applies to each isomer individually ~ :Exceeds standards/guidelines m m mm mm mm mm mmm m mmm mm mm m m mm TAE~LE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds MW7S 7/25/91 (ug/I) MW7S 7/22/92 U MW7S (ug/I) U u U [J u U QUALIFIERS: U Analyzed for but not detected B: Compound found in blank as well as sample MW7D (ug/I) MWTD 7/22/92 (ug/I) MW7D (ug/I) NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/I) NOTES: ST Standard GV: Guidance value .... : Not established ST*: Applies to each isomer individually ~ :Exceeds standards/guidelines VOASUMM WK41kb Page 7 of 12 08/23/95 TABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds S-68916 1214190 S-68916 7/29/92 (ug/I) S-68916 (u¢) u U QUALIFIERS: U Anatyzed for but not detected B Compound found in blank as well as sample S~68831 7/25/89 (ug/I) S 68831 S-68831 (ug/I) (ug/I) NOTES: ST: Standard 6V Guidance value .... : Not established ST*; Applies to each isomer individually ~;~!~¢~¢~ Exceeds standards/guidelines NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (u§/I) 2 Sl $ $1 m mm mmm mm {m m mm m m mm m mmm m mm ~mm mm mm mm mmm TABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNOWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds PW-003 GW-5 (GW-5) WS-11 12/4/90 7/24/92 8/80 (ug/t) (ug/I) {ug/I) LJ NA QUALIFIERS: PW-004 (WS- 11 ) 2/1/93 (ug/q (WS-4) 9112189 (ug/I) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N^ NA NA NA NA NA U U NA U NA [J NA U NA U NA [3 NA PW-005 (ws-4) (ugh) PW 006 WS-6 (WS-6) 8/80 2/1/93 {u9/I) (ug/I) NA NA NA NA NA U NA NOTES: SI Standard .... Not cslabtished NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/q VOASUMM WK4/kb Page 9 of 12 08/23/96 Volatile Compounds TABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS FB01 (ug/~) FB 7/24 7/24/92 (u¢) u u u u u (ug/I) NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/I) QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detected B: Compound found in blank as well as sample NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance value .... : Not established ST*: Applies to eacl~ isomer individually ~/¢~(;: Exceeds standards/guidelines 08/23/96 TABLE 3-2 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANICS Volatile Compounds TB 7/25 TB 7/28 7/25/91 7/28/92 (ug/I) (u9/I) QUALIFIERS: u A~a~yzed lo~ but no{ d~tected TB 1/28 (ug/I) u U TB 1/29 1 ~29~93 (ug/I) [J U U 2/1/93 (ug/I) NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES 7S1 5 ST 5SI NOTES: VOASUMM WK4/kb Page 11 of 12 08/23/96 TABLE 3-3 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS INQRGANICS Conslitucnts Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt MW3S MW3S 410 348 U U U U 282 210 U U U U 118000 121000 U 85B U 32800 27100 U 04 U 239B 72500 47700 U U U U U U U MW3S MW3D MW3D (ug/I) (u9/I) (ug/I) NR 196 B 269 NR U U NR U U NR 133 B 125 S NR U U NR U U NR 125000 140000 NR U U NR 77 845 7.30 U U 18700 NR U 075 NR 36 B 322 B NR 840OO 86600 NR , U U NE U U U NR U U NR U U 144B NR 19B 587 30 U U 40 MW3D 1/27/93 (ug/I) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U MW4S (ug/I) U U U U U U 9080 U U U 79 B U 1950 B 40 U U 3330 B U U 2400 B U U U U (ug/I) 253 U U MW4S 1/28/93 (ug/I) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U 54B NR 359O B 105 NR NR U NR 538O0 NR U NR U 7020 t ~/:~'~ NR U NR U NR U U U MW4D MW4D MW4D 7/26/91 7/28/92 1128/93 (ag/i) (ug/I) (ug/I) 3~0 170 NR U U NR U U NR 155 B 133 B NR U U NR U U NR 133000 136C00 NR U U NR U U NR U U 5 [ U I NR 088 NR 31 6 B NR 44300 NR U NR U NR U NR U NR 469 NR 30 U NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance value ---: Not e$tabJished '~i Exceeds standard/guidelines NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/I] 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 10 ST 50 ST 20O ST 300 ST 25 ST 35000 GV 3OO ST 2 ST 10 ST 50 ST 20000 ST 4 GV 300 ST 100 ST METSUMM WK4/kb Page 2 of 6 08/23/96 TABLE 3-3 SOUTNOLD LANDF~LL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING INORGANICS Aluminum A~imony Barium MW1S 501 U U 68 B U U 11500 U U U U 7740 U U U 334 E 2380 B 1960 U U U U 178 NR NR NR NR NR 19600 NR NR NR U 243 U U 2090 B U U 1630 U U 36 U QUALIFIERS: U: Analyzed for but not detecled MWlD 7122192 (ugg) 822 U U 301 B U 15900 U U MWID (ug/I) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 919 MW2S MW2S (ug/J) (ugS) 1490 173 U U U U 198 B 180 B U U U U 7620 153000 U 8 59 U 1369 21 B 1368 MW2S (ug/J) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U MW2D (ug/I) U 32 B U MW2D MW2D 7/28/92 1127193 (u¢) (ugg) 92 7 NR U ' NR U NR 219 NR U NR U NR 6910 224 0 25 U U U U U U 353 U NR 5580 127 NR NR NR NR NR 1580O NR NR NR 4 U NR 10500 NR U U NR 17 B 14 99 NR U 79 130O00 U U U 244 33 NR U U U 0 34 NR 92 2 NR 118000 NR U NR U NR U NR U NR 997 NR NOTES: ST: Staedard GV: Guidance value -~-: Not established NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 10 ST 50 ST 200 ST 300 ST 25 ST 35000 GV 300 ST 2 ST 10ST 50ST 20000 ST 4 GV 300 ST 100 ST METSUMM WK4/kb Page 1 of 6 08123196 TABLE 3-3 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDF~LL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS INORGAN~CS Barium Beryllium Cadmium Copper Magnesium Manganese Cyanide MWTS MW7S MWTS 7/25/91 7/23/92 1/26/93 (ug/I) (ugB) (ug/I) 664 238 NR U U NR U U NR 72 B 51 9 B NR U U NR U U NR 15660 14300 NR U U NR U U NR U U U NR 3490 B 3090 B 3860 B ~36 U U NR U U NR 5310 2800 NR U U NR U U NR MW7D 7/26/9t (ugS) 8860 U U U U 1090O U 22 B 6270 U MW7D MW7D 7/22/92 1/26/93 (ug6) (ug/I) 258 NR U NR U NB 38 3 B NR U NR 63 NR 9320 NR U NR U NR U U D NR 4680 B 4040 B 341 195 034 NR U NR U NR U NR U NR GW-8 12/4/90 (u9/I) N/A N/A U U NIA U U U N/A U U U U U 6 U U N/A U 8670 N/A N/A 221 N/A PW601 PWO01 {GW-8) (GW-8) 7/24/92 2J1/93 (ug/I) 63 NR U NR U NR 205B NR U NR U NR 5270 NR U NR U NR 107 621 U NR 5320 3730 B 203 77 8 039 NR U NR 4080 B NR U NR U NR 9870 9510 U NR 10 1 B NR 35 3 NR U U NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES (ug/~) 3 GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 10 ST 50 ST 200 ST 3O0 ST 25 ST 35000 GV 3OO ST 2 ST 10 ST 5O ST 2OOOO ST 4 GV 300 ST 100 ST NOTES: ST: Standard GV: GuidanCe value --: Not establishad standar6/guidelines METSUMM WK4/kb Page 4 of 6 0§/23/96 m mm mm mm mm ,,m m m "" m mm mmm mm ,m mm m mm TABLE 3-3 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS (NORGANICS MW5S 7125191 (ug/I) 460 U U U U U U U U 2160 B 110 U U U U U U U U U MW5S 7/28/92 (uglD 537 u u U 149O B U U 220O B 122 U 185 B U U U 8720 U U 121 B U MW5S MWSD (ug/I) (ug/I) NR 319 NR U NR U NR 58 S NR U NR U NR 51100 NR U NR U U U NR 8 NR NR MW5D 7/27/92 198 U U 160 B U U 83600 U U MW5D 1/28/93 (ug/I) NR NR NC{ NR NR NR NR NR NR MW6S (ug/I) 754 U U U U 42300 U U MW6S 7124/92 (u9/I) 255 U U 123 B U U 61200 142 14B MW6S (ugll) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR MW6D 7/24/91 U U U 134 B U U 80400 U U MW6D MW6D 7/24192 1127/93 (ug/I) (ug/I) 569 NR U NR U NR 101 B NR U NR U NR 78{)0{) NR 76B NR 13 6B NR 222B llB U lOB U U U U 632 876 030 NR U 069 NR NR 24 8 U U 51 32 9B NR 44800 38100 NR U U NR U U NR U U NR U U NR 14 B 23 6 NR U 10 U NOTES: ST: Standard GV: Guidance value ---: Not established ~: Exceeds standard/guidelines NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES 3 GV 25 ST 50ST 300 ST METSUMM WK4/kD Page 3 of 6 0§/23/96 TABLE 3~3 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS INORGANICS Constituents Aluminum Coppe~ Zinc S68916 S68916 U U U N/A U U U 20 288 N/A 40 S68916 S68831 (u9/I) (ug/I) NR NIA NR NIA NR NIA NR NIA NR NIA NR NIA NR 15000 NR NIA NR N/A 7,3 S N/A 30 6O NR N/A NR NIA NR 2500 NR NIA NR N/A NR NIA NR N/A U NIA S68831 7129192 (uglY) 994 U U 214B U 6 17800 U U U 67 2050 B 835 U U U U U S68831 1/29/93 (ug/I) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U 170 NR 1630 B 42 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U FB0724 7/24/92 32 6 U U 314B U U U 87B U U U U U U NYSDEC CLASS DWi1 GA STANDARDS/ 1128193 GUIDELINES (ug/I) (ugJl) METSUMM WK4/kb Page 6 o16 08/23/96 TABLE 3-3 (CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESUL~'S INORGANICS GW-6 N/A N/A U U N/A U 36500 U NIA U 9140 U 07 U U N/A U 8730 N/A NtA 38 N/A PW002 (GW-6) 7/24192 U U 437B U U 589OO U U U 15100 7B 036 17B 746O U U 11900 U 502 U PW002 (GW-6) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR U PW003 GW-5 (GW-5) (ug/I) (ug/I) N/A 326 N/A U U U U 519B N/A U U 5 56600 37000 U U NIA U 156 832 290 U U U 12400 11300 U 72B 08 024 U U U 4320 N/A U U U 8/80 (ugfl) N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA 170 270 N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A U NIA PW004 (wsd 1) (ug/I) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 120 NR 26600 162 NR NR NR NR NR 13900 NR NR NR U PW005 WS-4 (WS-4) (ug/I} (ug/I) N/A NR N/A NR N/A NR NIA NR NIA NR N/A NR N/A NR N/A NR N/A NR 110 25.0 N/A NR NIA 21300 U 26 PWO06 WS-6 (WS-6) 5180 2/1/93 {ug/I) (ug/I) N/A NR · NtA NR U NR U NR NIA NR U NR N/A NR U NR N/A NR U 658 U NR N/A 19100 U 22 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A U N/A NR NR NR NR NR NR U NOTES: ST Standard GV: Guida~me value ---: Not established ~ Exceeds standard/guidelines NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES 3GV 25 ST 1000 ST 3 GV 10 ST 50 ST 200 ST 300 ST 25 ST 350O0 GV 300 ST 2 ST 10 ST 50 ST 20000 ST 4 GV 300 ST 100 ST METSUMM WK4/kb Page 5 of 6 08/23/96 MW3S 75 1820 682 170 530 N/A 089 56 N/A 461 233 0614 MW3S MW3$ MW3D 7/23/92 1/27193 7/25J91 40 NR 50 1050 288 75 ~ NE 707 6 239 193 NR i, 92 i 452 NR 640 U <001 N/A 067 <004 U <0 01 28 NR 78 1~35 .R ~^ MW3D 7128192 20 624 74 684 U 1 48 88 1205 274 O696 TABLE 3 4 {CONT'D) SOUTHOLD LANDF~LL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LEACHATE PARAMETERS MW3D NR 27 i NR NR NR <0 01 193 NR NR NR NR 0 536 MW4S MW4S 7/2Er'D2 <10 620 MW4S NR 594 MW4D MW4D MW4D 125 20 NR 24 32 23 6 16 NR U <0 05 U U 104 51 NR 32 64 NR N/A U <0 01 546 i 522 NR NR U 7 NR 135 1 3 0677 u 193 NR NR <0 01 0 87 <0 01 NR 0 151 NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIDELINES 250 ST 005ST 10 ST 0 001 ST 250 ST 1 ST I 3t9 NR 74 U U 0 O2 2 04 U 216 0 058 MW2D NR 52 NR <0 05 NR NR <0 01 NR NR NR U 689 NOTES: 932 NR 192 0 10 <0 04 U 0 797 0 157 790 NR 40 NR t29 NR 720 NR U <00~ 2 12 <0 01 71 63 NR NIA 1514 NR g0 60 2 NR 253 40 4 NR 2 ST 250 ST 005Sf 10 ST 0 001 ST 250 ST MWTS MWTS MW7S 7/25/91 7/23/92 1/26/93 15 40 NR 154 620 740 46 33 NR 015 025 011 U 7 NR MWTD 250 38 U U 80 20 80 0 01 9 80 U 29 358 952 1 73 004 NR <0 05 NR 49 NR NR <0 01 <0 01 NR NR NR U TABLE 34 (CONI D} SOU1 HOLD LANDFILL GROUNDWATER SAMPLtNG [ EACHATE PARAMETERS (GW~) (G~8) PW002 (GW~) 7/24192 <10 027 PW002 NR 001 0 59 220 U .... NO[ estab~she(~ NR 0 16 NR NR 10 NR U <0 05 U NR 48 45 24 NR 264 NR U <0 01 U <001 92 NR 477 NR 8 30 NR U NR 0104 U {GW-5) 7/24/92 0 3O 006 U 140 U U 75 337 7 73 U 0 163 NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/ GUIOELINES 12 NR U <0 05 2 ST 33 52 250 ST N/A NR . NIA (001 0001 ST 114 NR 250S~ N]A NR N/A U 1 ST m ~ mm ~ m ~m ~ mm ~ ~ ~ m ~m ~m mmm ~m m~mm ~ m MWSS 7J25191 495 U U 24 N/A 22 MW5S 20 210 MWSD MWSD 40 NR U <0 05 U NR 28 NR U <0 01 12 NR 82 NR 0534 U QUALIFIERS 230 426 NR U U <O 05 353 U NR 492 65 NR 290 586 NR NIA U <001 0 21 U <0 04 MW6S 35 MW6S MW6S 40 NR MW6D MW6D 50 10 3 8 280 U 42 160 N/A 013 NIA O 159 NOTES 267 320 Not esEat4ished NYSDEC Ct ASS MWOD GA SIANDARDS/ t/27/g3 GUIOEHNES 189 2 ST NR 161 250 ST 004 005Sf <001 0001 S1 NR 250 ST