The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CORK U 1)ve¢ PIGrx*j A1"i4ro-SL"gTIv4S - thgSLc.� ZeyoS E u ,__.r%EIVE® 1 AUG 14 2007 CITY OF SALEM 1 BOARD OF HEALTH 1 City of Salem, Massachusetts 1 Corrective Action Alternatives Analysis 1 Salem Landfill 1 12 Swampscott Road Salem, Massachusetts 1 March 2005 i 1 Prepared for: Northside Carting, Inc. 1 141 Rear Lynnfield Street Peabody, MA 01960 1 City of Salem Department of Public Works 120 Washington Street 1 Salem, MA 01970 1 Prepared by: 1 1 BETA Group, Inc. Engineers•Scientists•Planners 315 Nonwoe Palk South,Nmwood,MA 02062 781.255.1982 fax 781.255.1974 6 Blackstone Valley Place,Lincoln,RI 02865 401.333.2382 fax 401.333.9225 1 email:BETA@BETAe gxcm 1 1 ' Corrective Action Alternatives Analysis ' Salem Landfill ' 12 Swampscott Road Salem, MA ' Prepared for: Northside Carting, Inc. 141 Rear Lynnfield Street ' Peabody, MA 01960 City of Salem Department of Public Works ' 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 1 Prepared by: BETA Group, Inc. 315 Norwood Park South ' Norwood, MA 02062 ' Project Scientist: ' James M. Smith ' Associate: Alan D. Hanscom, P.E., LSP Licensed Site Professional No. 2152 ' March 29, 2005 1 ' L:\2037\ConespondmcrTut\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc ] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................3 1.1 CLOSURE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................3 1.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CAPPING ALTERNATIVES.......................................4 ' 2.0 SALEM LANDFILL ISA AND CSA RESULTS............................................5 2.1 INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT SUMMARY..................................................5 2.2 COMPREHENSIVE SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT SUMMARY...................................6 ' 2.3 ADDITIONAL TESTING......................................................................................8 2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................9 ' 3.0 HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS....................................11 4.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES-OPTIONS ............................13 4.1 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES:................................... 14 4.2 LEACHATE CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES:........................................... 14 4.3 AIR(LANDFILL GAS)CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES: ........................... 15 ' 4.4 Som CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES: .................................................... 15 4.5 SURFACE WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES:................................. 16 5.0 SELECTION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVE....................17 TABLES ' TABLE 1 -GROUNDWATER SAMPLING ANALYTICAL DATA TABLE 2-SURFACE WATER SAMPLING ANALYTICAL DATA TABLE 3-SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL DATA TABLE 4-LANDFILL SOIL GAS TESTING DATA ' FIGURES FIGURE 1 -SITE PLAN WITH SAMPLING LOCATIONS FIGURE 2-CONCEPTUAL CLOSURE DESIGN PLAN FIGURE 3-BIN WALL DETAIL SOIL BORING/TEST PIT LOGS ' SET 1 -SOIL BORINGS MARCH 15, 2002 SET 2-Sou,BORING/MONITORING WELLS JULY 24-26,2002 SET 3-SOIL BORINGS NOVEMBER 29,2004 ' SET 4-TEST PIT LOGS JUNE 25,2002 1 L:\2037\Correspondence-Text\CAAA\CAAA Repmtdm 2 1.0 Introduction The Corrective Action Alternatives Analysis (CAAA) is used as a step in the landfill site assessment process to evaluate varying landfill closure alternatives and possible contamination treatment options. The CAAA is required by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, per 310 CMR 19.140(3), prior to final closure of a landfill. ' The CAAA is the third stage in the site assessment process, following the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) and the Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA). The ISA was submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Northeast Regional Office, Division of Solid Waste Management in April 2002, and DEP issued a Conditional ' Approval of the ISA on June 19, 2002. The CSA was submitted to DEP in September 2003, and DEP issued a Conditional Approval of the CSA on March 2, 2004. The CAAA can be used in a number of ways. First, it can be used to determine if an alternative landfill closure program is viable and/or recommended for a site. Second, it can be used in determining if a remedial action is required at a site; and finally, it can be used ' as an aid in the selection process of possible remedial options, if warranted. This CAAA Report will assist the City of Salem (City), Northside Carting, Inc. (NCI), ' DEP, and BETA Group, Inc. (BETA) in selecting an appropriate landfill closure alternative for the Salem Landfill. When Alternative Landfill Closure is Appropriate Alternative landfill corrective actions are typically used when the following conditions exist: ' • When standard landfill closure methods will not provide necessary protection from ' confirmed contamination identified during the ISA and CSA, and pathways of exposure to contamination exist for either public health and/or the environment. • When standard landfill closure alternatives are not cost effective or deemed ' necessary due to minimal environmental contamination identified during the ISA and CSA. ' 1.1 Closure Alternatives Four closure alternatives involving corrective actions have been evaluated for the Salem ' Landfill, plus a "no action" alternative. Each of these has a different set of closure tasks, or corrective action packages. For the selected alternative, a preferred set of closure actions will be identified for implementation during landfill closure. Additionally, a landfill ' closure plan is attached which details the preferred closure alternative, recommended actions, proposed grades, drainage and cover materials. The four alternatives which were evaluated are as follows: ' L:\2037\Core pondence T"t\CAAA\CAAA ReporCdoc 3 ' Option # 1: More Stringent Closure Actions Less stringent landfill closures are appropriate when impacts to the public health and environmental risks cannot be fully addressed by traditional methods of landfill closure. ' For example, more stringent closures are required when, among other impacts: • Private or public drinking water supplies are contaminated; ' • High levels of landfill gas emissions are present which present a danger of explosion or human exposure; • Wetlands or shellfish beds are contaminated. Option #2: Less Stringent Closure Actions Alternative landfill closures are also appropriate when the impacts of a landfill to the ' public health and environment are minnnal, and traditional methods of landfill closure are overly costly or protective. Option #2 includes a landfill closure and capping plan with minimal environmental controls. ' Option #3: Standard Closure Actions Standard landfill closures are implemented when a landfill shows "typical' impacts to ' public health and the environment. The closure requirements and corrective. actions are defined in 310 CMR 19.112 (Landfill Final Cover Systems) and the Landfill Technical ' Guidance Manual, published by DEP. Option #3 includes, among other actions, the placement of 18 inches of impervious cover and/or a flexible membrane liner (FML), subgrade and vegetative support layers, and a landfill gas venting system. ' Option #4: Modified Standard Closure Actions with Building and Site Modifications Modified standard landfill closures are implemented when a landfill shows "typical' ' impacts to public health and the environment, but the design of the landfill cap vanes from that of a typical cap. Option #4 consists of a modified standard landfill capping n yp p p pp g sce ano as detailed in 310 CMR 19.113 and in the Landfill Technical Guidance Manual published by the DEP, with some modifications and additional measures taken to improve the operation of the transfer station currently operating at the Site. ' Option #5: No Corrective Actions Option #5 includes no corrective actions to a landfill. This alternative may be warranted ' on older, inactive landfills which exhibit minimal environmental impacts, or landfills which were closed in accordance with former landfill regulations. ' 1.2 Evaluation Criteria for Capping Alternatives ' Section 2 discusses the results of the ISA and CSA reports, and the conclusions and recommendations which were made as a part of those studies. In particular, emphasis is placed upon the environmental monitoring results, the risk assessment, and closure and ' post-closure issues. Section 3 discusses additional testing and monitoring performed at the tL:\2037\Correspondenco-Tmt\CAAA\CAAA ReportAm 4 1 ' request of DEP, as part of the Conditional Approval issued for the CSA. Section 4 ' addresses human and environmental receptors at the landfill. Sections 5 and 6 detail the proposed Corrective Action Alternative. 2.0 Salem Landfill ISA and CSA Results ' BETA completed an ISA Report and a CSA Scope of Work (SOW) for the Salem Landfill in April 2002. The DEP issued a Conditional Approval for the ISA/CSA SOW on June 19, 2002. BETA began conducting CSA tasks in July 2002, and completed the CSA ' report in September 2003. The DEP issued a Conditional Approval for the CSA on March 2, 2004. Each report is summarized briefly below: 2.1 Initial Site Assessment Report Summary The ISA involved a review of available information on the landfill, including reports and ' records on file with the Salem Engineering Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Assessing Department, Board of Health, Public Library, the Essex County Registry of Deeds, and the DEP. ' Based upon the review of available information and site investigations performed during the ISA, the following conclusions were made regarding the Salem Landfill: ' The landfilVincinerator/transfer station was operated by the City of Salem from opening in 1963 through September 1994, and the landfill/transfer station has been ' operated by NCI since September 1994. The incinerator building, located on the northeastern portion of the site, was originally constructed in 1963. A portion of the incinerator building was converted to the current transfer station in 1975. The landfill ' portion of the Site is located on the eastern portion of the property. A yard waste composting area was located on the southwestern portion of the property, and was separated from the landfill/transfer station portion of the property by the Forest River. ' The Forest River bisects the site. A roadway was built over a portion of the Forest River by the City of Salem to connect the two portions of the property in 1969 or 1970. ' • Historically, wastes disposed of at the incinerator have included municipal solid waste ' (MSW) and construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Wastes accepted at the transfer station since NCI began operation in 1994 have been almost exclusively construction and demolition debris, with minimal MSW. Since 1975, all waste ' disposed of at the transfer station has been hauled off site for disposal. • Based on local topography and a survey conducted for the property, the direction of ' groundwater flow is inferred to be towards the southwest, in the general direction of the Forest River. Groundwater flow on the western side of the Forest River appears to be toward the southeast, also towards the river. The river ultimately ends up feeding ' L:\2037\Correspondence-Te ACAAA\CAAA Reportdm 5 ' Thompson's Meadow, a wetland located approximately one-half mile to the southeast ' of the landfill. • Evidence of areas of landfill leachate was witnessed along the eastern bank of the ' Forest River. The leachate breakouts were of an orange/rust color, indicating an elevated content of iron. t • There are no public surface water or groundwater supply areas within '/� mile of the landfill. The closest surface water supply, Spring Pond, is located approximately one mile west of the landfill. There is a public surface water supply protection area, also ' known as a Zone A (associated with Spring Pond) located approximately '/< mile to the west of the subject property. There are no Potentially Productive Aquifers, EPA Sole Source, Aquifers, DEP approved Wellhead Protection Areas, or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern located within one mile of the landfill. There are two properties located approximately ''/2 mile northeast of the landfill that use private water wells. These wells are located in an inferred upgradient direction from the landfill. 2.2 Comprehensive Site Assessment Report Summary ' BETA completed the four quarterly sampling and analysis tasks for the CSA in June 2003. The results of the CSA tasks indicate that the groundwater beneath the landfill is contributing concentrations of metals to the surface water and sediments of the Forest ' River. Only trace concentrations of organic compounds were detected in groundwater, and are likely not impacting the river water or sediments. ' Based upon the field investigation results, including surveys, soil borings, test pits, monitoring well installations, landfill gas probe installations and screenings, and groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling and analyses, the following ' conclusions were reached: Water Quality and Sediment Testing and Sampling Results The results of the CSA investigations indicate that groundwater quality beneath the landfill met Massachusetts Maximum Contaminant Levels (MMCLs) and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and ten of thirteen dissolved metals analyzed. Two of the three metals, iron and manganese, exceeded SMCLs. These two metals have been associated with regional groundwater quality attributed to the regional geology. ' Since SMCLs are established for aesthetic purposes, the exceedances of the SMCLs pose no significant risk to public health and the environment. In addition, detected concentrations of lead exceeded the MMOL. The lead exceedance of the MMCL may be ' attributable to the ash within the landfill. The lead concentrations in groundwater should decrease with an impermeable cap installed over the landfill. ' Groundwater has been confirmed to flow to the southwest. The most direct hydraulic gradient between the landfill and the Forest River has been determined to be approximately 0.075 feet per foot. The groundwater beneath the landfill flows directly ' into the eastern side of the Forest River. ' L:\2037\Correspondence-Tmt\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc 1 ' As with groundwater, iron and manganese were also detected in surface water samples ' above SMCLs in all four sampling rounds. Again, these concentrations are attributable to regional groundwater quality conditions. In sediment samples, concentrations of total metals were detected in all five sediment ' sampling locations, with the lower concentrations detected in Sed-3. Concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc were above DEP Threshold Effect Concentrations (TEC's- the DEP recognized standards for determining sediment contamination) in most rounds for all samples. Each of these metal concentrations is expected to decrease over time with the installation of an impermeable landfill cap. In addition, iron and manganese were detected ' at relatively high concentrations in all sampling locations. Elevated levels of SVOCs were detected in samples collected from Sed-2 and Sed-5. ' Concentrations of pyrene were particularly high in these two locations. Sed-2 is located downstream of the earthen "land bridge" that crosses the Forest River to the composting area. Sed-5 is located south and downstream from the landfill, adjacent to the abutting property, currently used as a self-storage facility and fitness center. ' Landfill Gas Testing The results of the CSA landfill gas testing indicates that levels of VOCs at the landfill are generally non-detect. Percent oxygen has been generally recorded to be around 20%. ' Percent LEL has generally been recorded at low or non-detect levels, with few exceptions. ' Risk Assessment The qualitative risk assessment indicates that the most significant risk at the Site is with ' respect to water quality of the Forest River. A combination of steep side slopes and debris along the banks and in the river itself present a threat to the environmental conditions and ecosystems within the river. The CAAA will address this issue for the landfill cap. ' Risks associated with the use of the Forest River for recreational purposes are minimal, since accessibility of this portion of the river is extremely limited, and aesthetic attraction ' of this portion of the river for recreation is considered to be low. Sediments located in the Forest River, adjacent to the landfill, contain elevated concentrations of several metals, and in some cases elevated SVOCs. With the capping of ' the landfill, the future concentrations of most of these metals and SVOCs should be reduced. However, some of the metals, most notably iron and manganese, occur naturally ' in the soils and sediments in the region, and are unlikely to be reduced in concentration by capping the landfill. There are no residential properties located adjacent to the landfill, so exposure to local ' residents is considered minimal. Since the nature of the landfill material is incinerated ash, landfill gas generation and ' migration are considered minimal. ' L:\2037\Cor pondencaTmt\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc 7 ' 2.3 Additional Testing As part of the Conditional Approval of the CSA, the DEP requested that some additional testing and analyses be performed at the landfill, based on sediment sampling results and ' the loss of landfill gas sampling probes. The additional tasks performed included the following: . Installation and testing of three additional soil gas probes, installed in locations selected by the DEP, to replace three probes that were destroyed during routine transfer station operations. ' . Collection of two additional sediment samples from locations selected by the DEP. . Continued semi-annual environmental monitoring and quarterly landfill gas testing. Soil Gas Probe Installation and Testing BETA installed three (3) additional soil gas probes on March 16, 2004 at the request of the DEP, identified as LG-101, LG-102, and LG-103, in locations selected by the DEP. The locations of the additional soil gas probes are illustrated on Figure 1-Site Plan with Sampling Locations. The probes were installed to depths ranging between three and five feet. The probes were tested for total VOCs, percent methane, percent of lower explosive tlimit (LEL), percent carbon dioxide, percent oxygen, and percent hydrogen sulfide. During the testing, which was also conducted on March 16, 2004, a percentage level of ' methane was detected at 5.4%, equating to a lower explosive limit (LEL) of 108%, at one location, SG-101, which is located along the property boundary of the landfill property with Swampscott Road. According to the DEP Solid Waste Regulations 310 CMR 19.132(4)(h), any time the concentration of explosive gases exceeds 25% LEL at a property boundary (not including gas venting systems) the DEP shall be notified of the ' findings. BETA verbally notified John Morey of the DEP-Division of Solid Waste Management of the exceedance on April 1, 2004. Several soil gas sampling locations were retested on April 2, 2004, as well as several catch ' basins and manholes located along Swampscott Road. The catch basins and manholes were added to the list of gas testing locations out of concern for the safety of utility ' workers who may be exposed to the insides of the structures located along Swampscott Road. ' During the retesting, soil gas probe SG-101 exhibited a percentage of methane gas at 11.4%, equating to an LEL of 228%, above the DEP LEL limit of 25%. Methane and LEL percentages were zero at all other soil gas sampling locations, including the three ' additional soil gas probes, a reading inside the weigh station office, five catch basins, and four drain manholes. ' These results indicate that a potential threat to utility worker safety does not exist along Swampscott Road with regard to manholes and catch basins located on the road. However, they also demonstrate that there is a continued high percentage of methane gas ' L:t2037\Cmmpondmn Tent\CAAA\CAAA ReportAm 8 ' in the vicinity of soil gas probe SG-101. This area of the landfill will continue to be ' closely monitored during the landfill closure and post closure process. Additional Sediment Sampling ' Additional sediment sampling requested by DEP included two (2) locations, identified as Sed-6 and Sed-7. Sed-6 is located along the northern property boundary, at the most upstream portion of the river located on the site, and receives storm water runoff from Highland Avenue. Sed-7 is located at a "finger" of the Forest River located at the southern border of the landfill, and receives storm water drainage from Swampscott Road. ' The sample collected from Sed-6 exhibited concentrations of six (6) SVOC parameters and total SVOCs above applicable TEC's. In addition to the SVOCs, copper and lead were detected at concentrations above the applicable TEC's. The sample collected from Sed-7 indicated a concentration of one (1) SVOC (fluoranthene) above applicable TECs, as well as lead. ' Information gained from the additional sediment testing indicates that elevated levels of metals and SVOCs are present in sediments located upstream from the landfill, and are likely attributable to storm water runoff from Highland Avenue. ' Environmental Monitoring and Landfill Gas Testing in March, July, and November 2004 Since completion of the four quarterly rounds of landfill testing associated with the CSA, additional landfill monitoring was conducted during three (3) additional events in March, ' July, and November 2004. Groundwater, surface water, and soil gas were tested each time. Sediment was tested in March and July only, based on direction from DEP that regular sediment sampling would no longer be necessary. Results from recent rounds of sampling indicate similar concentrations of most parameters, with no noticeable trend. This is to be expected, as site conditions have not ' changed, and are not expected to change until closure of the landfill commences. Based on direction from DEP, continued monitoring of groundwater and surface water ' will take place on a semi-annual basis, and monitoring of landfill gas will continue on a quarterly basis. ' 2.4 Recommendations Based on results from the ISA and CSA activities, along with the additional testing performed after the CSA, BETA has made the following recommendations: Landfill Closure ' Substantial completion for the landfill closure is targeted for the end of the 2005 construction season. ' L:\2037\Cort pondmn Text\CAAA\CAAA Report.dm 9 ' Measures associated with the landfill closure will result in improved groundwater quality, ' more control of storm water runoff from the landfill, and improved venting of the landfill gases. Proposed Sampling Program 1 Post-closure monitoring, including groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling, should be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Solid Waste Regulations ' (3 10 CMR 19.000) and the Administrative Consent Order(ACO). Post-closure landfill gas monitoring should be implemented until gas concentrations are ' considered negligible to public health and the environment. 1 ' L:\2037\Correspondence-Text\CAAA\CAAA Reportdm 10 3.0 Human and Environmental Receptors During the CSA investigation, BETA documented four categories of environmental and human receptors in the vicinity of the landfill, as follows: • Residents and contractors using the transfer station and workers at the facility. ' • Residents using the compost area at the facility. • Residents using the Forest River for recreation, including boating and fishing. • Environmental/ecosystem impacts to the Forest River ecology. Transfer Station Exposure Risks ' The residents and contractors using the transfer station are identified in the CSA as human receptors, due to the possible inhalation of landfill dust and gases, or the possible dermal (skin) adsorption of contaminants from dust and gases. Airborne dust particles originating ' from the landfill become airborne due to either the wind and/or vehicle traffic. The airborne dust particles can be inhaled or can become lodged on the skin of humans. ' Access to the site is restricted by a fence and a locked gate. The gate is locked in a closed position when the transfer station is not in operation. This policy allows for adequate supervision of the site. Also, the restricted access reduces the risk of potential contaminant ' exposure by limiting the number of residents using/trespassing the facility, in an unsupervised manner. The closing and capping of the Salem Landfill will effectively eliminate the risk of dermal absorption. The placement of an impervious barrier over the landfilled ash material will deter contaminants from becoming airborne and reaching dermal exposure pathways. The ' placement of the impervious cap will also significantly reduce the risk of chemical contaminant inhalation. Passive vents installed within the landfill cap will allow landfill ' gases to escape, although in a more controlled manner than at present. Implementation of vents along the perimeter of the landfill will reduce the risks of landfill ' gas migration off of the site. Landfill gases will decrease over time. Yard Waste Drop Off Area Exposure Risks ' Residents and contractors using the yard waste drop off area are identified in the CSA as human receptors. Exposure risks are similar to those of people using the transfer station. ' Residents Using the Forest River The residents utilizing the Forest River are identified in the CSA as human receptors, due to the possible inhalation of landfill dust and gases, or the possible dermal (skin) ' adsorption of contaminates from dust, gases, surface water and sediment. With the installation of landfill gas vents and the closure of the landfill, a significant decrease in associated risks to public health and the environment will occur. ' L:\2037\Correspondence-Text\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc ]] ' The CSA revealed that the risk for residents using the Forest River for fishing and boating ' is already minimal, since access to this portion of the river is extremely limited and it is aesthetically unattractive. Closure of the landfill will further minimize the risk for human receptors in this portion of the river. Environmental/Ecosystem Impacts to the Forest River Impacts from the landfill upon the ecosystem along both banks of the Forest River are the ' most notable and visible exposure pathway. The impacted area appears to be limited to a relatively narrow area along the landfill. Vertebrates, invertebrates and vegetation near the landfill are also identified as receptors in the CSA. All are potentially impacted by the ' landfill. Capping the landfill facility will improve water quality, but will do little for sediment ' quality in the immediate future. Eventually, sediment will become cleaner through natural attenuation and stream flushing action. 1 L:\2037\Cor pondence-Tent\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc 12 4.0 Corrective Action Alternatives-Options ' This section reviews potential closure alternatives for the Salem Landfill. The closure ' alternative options which are presented are based upon the impacted media at the landfill as determined during the initial and comprehensive site assessments. Environmental and public health media which were considered included the following: ' • Groundwater • Leachate ' • Air • Soil • Surface water • Sediment • Human receptors ' The closure alternative options which were developed by BETA were based on DEP guidelines, and included a three-step process: • Listing of appropriate technologies • Screening of technologies ' • Development of closure option packages Applicable closure technologies and documentation are listed below. This included a ' screening of the technology, and if applicable, an integration of that technology into alternative closure designs. The screening of technologies is necessary to determine if the technology is warranted or is appropriate for the environmental contamination and media. Specifically, technologies were screened with respect to the following: • Will the technology address the existing level and extent of contamination in the relevant media? ' • Can the technology be combined effectively with other appropriate ' technologies without adverse effects? The following closure actions are based on the results the CSA investigation for the Salem Landfill, and the contamination encountered. ' L:\2037\Correspondence-Tex[\CAAA\CAAA Repomdm 13 ' 4.1 Groundwater Corrective Action Alternatives ' Barriers to Migration, Slurry Wall Slurry wall construction to restrict the flow of contaminated groundwater is not ' technically or economically feasible at the Salem Landfill. Slurry walls are normally secured to either bedrock or begin/end in cohesive soils (ie. Boston Blue Clay). This allows the walls to restrict the flow of potentially contaminated groundwater. The depths at which bedrock exists below grade deter the installation of slurry walls. Bedrock is located at depths greater than 30 feet below grade (see boring logs). The ' costs to install the walls would therefore be excessive. Alternative Water Supply ' Discussion of alternative water supplies is not applicable. There are no drinking water (groundwater or surface water) supplies which have been impacted by the landfill. ' Wellhead Treatment There are no municipal or private wellheads which have been impacted by the landfill. ' Current groundwater analysis results meet the majority of NPDWR standards. Groundwater Recovery, Pump and Treat ' A pump-and-treat system for this landfill is not warranted for several reasons: • There are no drinking water wells in use which have been impacted • Groundwater quality is expected to improve with the capping of the landfill ' • Organic compounds in groundwater are minimal, based upon the CSA Contaminant concentration levels are not sufficient to warrant pollution control equipment. Normally, pump-and-treat systems are effective for organic compound contaminants, and incorporate carbon adsorption units which are costly to maintain and replace. Organic compounds have been detected in only trace quantities in ' groundwater monitoring wells. ' 4.2 Leachate Corrective Action Alternatives Leachate Collection Systems Leachate collection systems are an effective means to intercept and treat contaminated groundwater and surface water prior to it impacting the environment. They can also be used to lower the groundwater table to reduce contact with landfill refuse. Typical leachate collection methods include subsurface drains and vertical extraction wells. Vertical Leachate Extraction Wells and Treatment Systems Vertical leachate extraction wells and leachate treatment systems (biological, physical and chemical) are costly to maintain and are typically not utilized in older landfills which have been inactive for many years unless excessive contamination is ' encountered. The CSA revealed that groundwater beneath the landfill meets the ' L:\2037\Cort pondmn -Tut\CAAA\CAAA Report.dm 14 ' majority of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) standards, with ' the exception of lead. Additionally, groundwater beneath the landfill will improve with the capping of the landfill. Subsurface Drains Given the Forest River impacts, the impacts to groundwater and the groundwater/surface water exchange which occurs during seasonal water table ' variation, the effectiveness of subsurface drains would be minimal. Groundwater/surface water exchange at the groundwater interface has been occurring since before the landfill was opened in 1963. Lowering the groundwater table would ' therefore provide minimal positive environmental impacts. Given the minimal extent of contamination which was encountered during the CSA, subsurface drains and vertical extraction wells are not feasible. The installation of subsurface drains is not economically feasible based on the specific groundwater contamination(metals) and the associated concentrations. ' 4.3 Air (Landfill Gas) Corrective Action Alternatives: ' To address the issue of landfill gas at the site, various alternatives were reviewed. The issue of landfill gas is complicated by the fact that composting historically occurred on ' the site, and likely contributed significant quantities of methane in sub-soils. Active Systems: Collection Wells with Flaring and/or Energy Recovery ' An active landfill gas collection system is not warranted, based on landfill gas samples obtained at the subject site, and the following factors: • Age of the refuse(ash) ' • Size (acreage) of the landfill Refuse (ash) buried in the landfill is more than thirty years old. Ash was landfilled since 1963 through the 1970s. Additionally, a majority of the refuse materials in the landfill are ash residuals from the incinerator, which are inert with respect to gas production. ' Passive Systems: Venting Pipes, Perimeter Trench Given the results of the CSA, a passive landfill gas venting system is the proposed ' corrective action alternative for the site. The need for a landfill gas perimeter trench(es) is not warranted at this time, given the results of soil gas sampling and the lack of areas where landfill gas could accumulate. ' 4.4 Soil Corrective Action Alternatives: ' Hot Spot Excavation and Treatment: There were no "hot-spots" of contamination identified during the ISA or CSA. However, the western slope of the landfill has impacted the sediment of the Forest ' River. ' L:t2037\ConmpondencaText\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc 15 1 ' In order to properly cap the landfill, the slope along the river must be regraded. Currently, slopes are nearly vertical along the River. The maximum slope for a landfill is 3:1 (3 horizontal to one vertical). While this regrading will require considerable ' effort, and will also necessitate removal of existing vegetation along the slope, the regrading is needed in order to cap the landfill in accordance with the regulations and to ensure slope stability. ' The re-grading of impacted areas along the eastern slope of the landfill is the selected corrective action for soils at the site. ' Vapor Extraction: Organic vapors were analyzed with a Photo-ionization detector in soils and within on- site structures during the CSA, and were determined to be minimal. Therefore, the need for vapor extraction is not deemed warranted. 4.5 Surface Water Corrective Action Alternatives Air Stripping, Neutralization, Metals Precipitation and/or Biological Treatment There are no surface water bodies on the landfill site, other than the adjacent Forest River. Impacts of the site upon the Forest River are limited by the flushing which has ' occurred continually since landfilling commenced in the 1960's. Samples of groundwater beneath the landfill discharging to the Forest River revealed no volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds. Levels of metals in the samples were not excessive ' enough to warrant treatment. 1 1 ' L:\2037\Correspondence-Text\CAAA\CAAA Reportdx 16 5.0 Selection of Corrective Action Alternative ' Option # 1 : More Stringent Closure Actions Groundwater contamination from the landfill currently does not have a significant impact ' on adjacent properties. Capping the landfill utilizing a standard capping scenario will further reduce impacts to surface water and groundwater. As discussed in the CSA, ' groundwater contaminants and their associated concentration levels meet the majority of NPDWR standards. An improvement in groundwater quality is expected after the landfill is capped. ' Landfill gases from the landfill are not cause for a more stringent alternative closure program The CSA documented no historical records of landfill gas problems in the landfill's vicinity. While landfill gas has been identified near the landfill's property line ' along the eastern portion of the landfill, closure and vents for the facility will improve the venting of landfill gasses. Due to the applicable data presented in the CSA, Option #1 for ' closure is not recommended as the proposed closure alternative. Option # 2: Less Stringent Closure Actions ' Alternative closures are sometimes appropriate when a traditional closure is overly protective and costly to implement. Specifically, an alternative closure should be considered when: ' • The comprehensive site assessment (CSA) indicates that minimal contamination is emanating from the landfill; and • No public health receptors or environmental receptors exist which may be ' effected by the landfill. The CSA investigation revealed typical contamination emanating from the Salem Landfill. However, the landfill does impact metals concentrations of the surface water and sediments of the Forest River. ' Additionally, erosion into the Forest River is occurring along the western slope of the landfill sloping to the river. Re-grading and capping of the slope will likely decrease sedimentation and scouring. Given the proximity of the landfill to the Forest River, Option ' #2 is not recommended as the proposed corrective action. Option #3: Standard Closure Actions ' Option #3 consists of a standard landfill capping scenario as detailed in 310 CMR 19.112, and in the Landfill Technical Guidance Manual published by the DEP. The standard capping scenario, as detailed in the attached plan, includes an impervious flexible membrane liner (FML), at a maximum of a 3:1 slope along the Forest River. In order to store excess material generated from re-grading operations, a retaining wall would be constructed along the Forest River. ' U2037\Cort pon&=n TWCAAACAAA Report.do 17 ' While capping with clay requires a cover depth of 54 inches, 12 inches of vegetated eP ( g cover, 6 inches of drainage layer, 30 inches of clay, and 6 inches of gas venting layer) a ' cap with FML requires a depth of only 24 inches. Along the 350 linear feet of slope, this will reduce impacts by over 10,000 square feet. ' The final cover system components include the following: • A subgrade layer(intermediate or daily cover). ' • A landfill gas venting layer(minimum 6 inch depth). • A low permeability layer(a flexible membrane liner, or FML). • A retaining wall along the Forest River. ' • FML along Forest River slope at 3:1 slope. • FML over entire landfilled area at a minimum slope of 5%. • A drainage layer (minimum 6 inch depth). ' • A vegetative support layer (minimum 12 inch depth). • Vegetative cover(hydro-seed, geo-jute fabric or grass layer) entire landfill area. ' Storm water controls shall consist of the following: • Storm water controls to minimize erosion of the landfill cover materials with a ' maximum of 3:1 side-slopes and minimum 5% grades to reduce standing water on the landfill surface and minimize leachate generation. ' Air quality protection will consist of the following, at a minimum: • Passive gas vents to minimize the generation and buildup of landfill gas beneath the low permeability cap, as indicated on the plans. ' • Minimize the migration of landfill gas off of the site through perimeter vents. t Groundwater and surface water monitoring programs shall include the following: • Repair of damaged monitoring wells, replacement of destroyed monitoring wells, and extension of existing monitoring wells, where appropriate. ' • Monitoring existing groundwater monitoring wells, and the Forest River water and sediment, and for parameters listed in the CSA Scope of Work on a semi- annual basis. ' Remediation within the Forest River • Excavation of material will be conducted along the landfill slope to allow placement of capping material without filling the Forest River. A depth of three feet along the entire eastern landfill slope (350 linear feet) will need to be excavated. ' • There will be less potential impact to the Forest River during construction of the landfill cap with a proposed 3:1 slope along the eastern side of the Landfill. Currently, this slope varies from approximately 1:1 to 2:1. • Impacts to the vegetation along the slope will be unavoidable, given that the area must be cleared in order to be capped. Existing trees and shrubs will need to be removed. Additionally, vegetation will be limited to grass and herbaceous ' L:\2037\ConeWndence Tex[\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc 18 ' vegetation for the 30 year post-closure monitoring period to minimize root ' impacts to the landfill cap. Option #4: Modified Standard Closure Actions with Building and Site Modifications ' Option #4 consists of a modified standard landfill capping scenario as detailed in 310 CMR 19.113 and in the Landfill Technical Guidance Manual published by the DEP, with ' some modifications and additional measures taken to improve the operation of the transfer station currently operating at the Site. t The standard capping scenario, as detailed in the attached plan, would still include a FML at a 3:1 slope along the Forest River. This excavation would result in approximately 7,000 cubic yards of surplus soil and ash material. However, the shape and layout of the Site ' would be different than in Option#3. ' Under Option #4, the current incinerator building/transfer station would be demolished. Following demolition of the"building, an area of approximately 19,000 square feet (including the footprint of the incinerator/transfer station building, smoke stack, and an ' area to the north) will be filled using excess (7,000 +/- cubic yards) material generated from the landfill grading operations (as well as some asphalt, brick, and concrete building ' materials collected from the building demolition deemed suitable for reuse as backfill in accordance with 310 CMR 19.00 and the Landfill Technical Guidance Manual). A concrete bin retaining wall would be constructed, and the excess material would be filled ' behind the wall. The transfer station would be rebuilt within the existing footprint, and would consist of a metal frame building on the filled, graded area. The remainder of the filled area would be paved and used for transfer station operations, upon achieving a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) for the excess soil and ash. The primary transfer station loading/unloading operations would take place to the north and west of the rebuilt transfer station, largely out of sight from Swampscott Road and further removed from the street than current operations. ' The retaining wall proposed along the river in Option #3 would.be eliminated, and a 3:1 slope would begin at the river bank. A shorter stretch (approximately 160 feet) of ' concrete bin retaining wall is proposed to the west of the future transfer station building and trailer loading area. This shorter retaining wall is approximately 60 feet from the Forest River at its closest point. The retaining wall will provide structural stability for the ' planned paved area. A Proposed Grading Plan and a bin-wall style retaining wall detail are attached. ' One additional anticipated modification to the landfill is the construction of a 90-foot by 120-foot salt shed, to be located on the western portion of the property, across the Forest ' River from the landfill area. This salt shed will be constructed in the area adjacent to L:\2037\Correspondence-Text\CAAA\CAAA Report.doc 19 ' current compost pile area. The addition of the salt shed is not likely to impact the closure design of the landfill. Technical specifications for the landfill cover are very similar to those resented in tion P OP ' #3, with the elimination of the retaining wall along the Forest River. Option #4 would have significantly fewer environmental impacts to the Forest River than ' Option#3. The omission of a retaining wall along the landfill/river boundary will eliminate the need for extensive excavation, sheet pile driving, and retaining wall construction at river's edge. The omission of a retaining wall along the landfill/river boundary will also ' greatly reduce long term maintenance of the wall. The sediments at the base of the landfill are questionable from a geotechnical standpoint, and elimination of the wall will result in a reduction of the risk of a possible wall failure given the lack of stability of these sediments. 1 Option #5 : No Corrective Action Due to the current condition of the landfill, the proximity to the Forest River, confirmed ' impacts of the landfill upon the Forest River and the applicable landfill closure regulations of 310 CMR 19.00, Option #5, the no-action alternative, is not recommended as the proposed option. 1 ' L:\2037\Cort pondmcce T"ACAAA\CAAA ReportAm 20 a� .� cc1 H 2 LIp p N3 �G � N , m 23r 1p�cmm�� lav: Ila 6,3l3jy ,wz� +G4, GmIo m- OmdIG Z.�CIpY v ISo' o x c „ n! 44 o'Q o 4 0 2 c z 3 Ra 2 dNA O q O p uN (n 1_1� wZ2 Z Z ZZZZw2zz Z2 mN�+ZZZzqm— mmmmmmgmmmoa"' � Nrr Zm Nm' Io qZ 2Z ZG2Z G!ZZZ�22 Z-ZZZZ ZZ LZZ22 ZI2 ZZ aO a0 0� !dp,D 'a PO OP 00000000000 DDD�n D➢IDh3Z 0 3 C J -IIFF-- j �z 1 v. 2Z Z2Z0-'ZZZZwz Z22ZL ZZ ZZZZ ZZZZYZZ ZUZN Z Z°' N 0 N u a :y OO oo Ow Oolp 00 m0 Olq op O0o co00000OOg0 �Oo ZZZ2Z�Z LZ2ZgZ ZZZZZZ z ZZZ ZZ2ZZ ZZ2 ,. Z�m Zm hu oPjOIP_O�OOODP�b OpP00000o0g000 ZQ GD m� Ia,3�.wo a� z2Z22�22z ZI2 wz zZ zz Zzz Z2ZZZZ2 ZZZZ - E -. Zhu Im-'Z°' r u o0O00 N00000 m"O OGOD'gOOOD O-DODCO.00{0 aOO< 03m -_� T - - ,- -- --�ql 22 Z Zzw22 zzZ02 NZZZ1 ZZ Z Z Z z ZZ ZZ C. zZ-� ZUzz PpooGl�D�o`olo mjD NDP oloo Pa000vovP'Dao vin alG� Dm�j^o' _ 22zzz�z z zz zzz zz z z zzzz zzz z zz zzw �z� i i f t I > ers-o -oa=000000COo=o Oloa ��o�'o8 m v.Q' o zZ-ZZ 2 Z02g2 zz.zzZZ z Z 2Zzz Zz ZZ2 12ZZ 1TZ�c 00o 00�D OmO�D 00 og0o 000q OOrJo000 o gO000 oho 2z Zz Z.z;q zzwz 22UbLZ �Z�ZN !L zz ZDZin ZG' OOpOIOmpaIo DOI',�o pq�'m Oq mgNm O"ti G1'uo q�Olq mjm�� or TZZZZ�Z wj2 (Z..ZO$ Z2 wZ wgZZ p�c �f'ZZ w'2z' ool OOOOO 00' '��0' Co D 000 �0� 0OO OC pON 00 OZo0 o-I-yP > OOwo Ooo00 aw OOIOIg „3� ? zzz z zwz zo ZNz zm -'z ILLLz zs,'mmz z'zz '-"'zz _ z-m IIB w Oq ODOa Ow,wq OOP m'a0 og00 vOP➢b a'3 n j (iii (a YCJ z pI w w Oj0 6 ZZ2 2 ZIZ 2 z 2 z L 2 2 Z"I2 llQI w p w P NO u¢ n ODOOOgPt^OCO-- -00 010 e C - Ic" z .,2 n v � G f {qI � Z N 2Z 222w Z ZZZ2-- Y ZZZZ Z2-ZZ2ZZZZ cz Z�2Z � v{r ZG>Nm Og6D��00 P00'd0 oC100q 00g04D0D4000Pm oU'O wOgo pulp 3, o o � I T I — PI rl � w3 zzzzzwzzz zzwz zzzzz'zzzzz zzz';zzzz q�z I Z� <E N opoq q�ppoovmP Pp000 oo po GpCu ,oGPoo moNlo ojG'I o m w 0 m 3 v gjz�zz z w oI zzz_ z z z zzz z zz z zlz z z zjz z z 3 j z z; I z O w r ° vpov owGvv P3 Ppvo pDovogpoP� ovpPo qoD. � �a u m i T Z;GZ2 GZ2zzzzZ2 2ZZZ{.ZZ 2R Z.ZZZ ZZ 22 �" ZIZZ2 ZT (2Z2 pj Jt.N.4 JtI{)I GiN(frNU;h((Y(fr V3NUIN(f�4JI"1GY(IINI/1w v,.(ANVlO41 Vl U1NblN(t Ulm(A(nNOr N Zz 22Izzzzz ZZ22 ZZZTZ ZZj22 Zzz ZI22Z2 = ZZ222Zzzzlzlzi 4` lA 0fnN W.WWn00.. mV)min Ul(n In Nln Vl N In m U'..NN Nl/lmml/1 Ul Nl fnl[/I V1m � N w wzw�q _a „ompzlzzzzzzzzzlzzzzzzzz wlz�wjm I 6 .000 �PPPOogoovPDgP Noc2o - �"N _ I w n 000� o0000 0aoc^ooc moo-000oyo0-0 �o�'ogp o�3'o m U�ZZZ20 2zZZOZ ZZ ZZ2z Z'L ZZZZZZ ZZz2 bb-Z r^'�Z� OOO� gOD�eIO OV OIo000pPOp0`OGOOOO dmOd m!p!3IA o$ zzzzgz ZZZ L z zz ZZZZ ZZZZ zzzz zzzz U2IZz ! wzlL'"° mm m0004aOq OO GAP POOOz zzzzzz00;Ojzzz z;2z zzaz ZzLo2 Z�2ZZZI�Zt2 ZZZZ 22222 LZ OQ2ZZI!-!N-j D00 DOmO OD.O�O, Pq o PD 0,0.O OOGOg00'OP ZZzz zo2IZZwZ ZZ{2z 2,2z2zz2zjZZzz22 Zz{z 2" H 4 0 OIG u{DIa Op'12 ND CCU P Oq O q0 C O OIC G O O C O _o wOl➢ Z "p pop Z z 2ZZZ 222,22222 ZZZZ "oz wS0'Ua mip�� Uw P OPODOOOO oq ODOjP D�PO OOp D$OaggO _ �- - IL'1 _. ozzzzwz; zzzwZ zZzozz zzzzzzzzzz zz zm°'�-`zp I00P0�0 aIODOnO pp�POpP-G p D�OIpObo0�00 pGi'�,ioOaloop;Q TYz2=1TTlzT =ZTTzzz2zz z Oq Ooc-,OZ,o o-I0u,0 OO90 GPo0000000000�0 wm�OU upa 3v^ 000On�iUi000N0 000o�oo D O OOQ000000 rpNU m zm 22ZZZu 2w Zzz z ZZ Z2Z 22 T zz222z ZZ2 mo O�v YPj `o1 �IO;�Iu �m 000- `�COQ..c 00 Cogvool000q o Po zjzzzz�m zazz zzz zz zz2zzzzzzzzz 2zzz ;�zla.o ODooO wD,p,O owe P 000 OP gPOU 00 0,0 PO1 r'-�Ia I i 11 I I _zz 2 ZIz z zIZ Z Z LIZ Z �ZI2 Z tGlpi NZ10. N �w p rr N pPPq 000PO00 CCU 00 p 22 2Z-`ZVZZZw2DZ Zz Z2 Z1ZZ Z Z-Z22f._z z z 00 Oq,CNOpq NO OO OIO DZo�oOOOOq O 000 plCo U _ zjz Z ZZI'L�"jZ z zzz zz zz22ZzjzZ zzjzzZ z zz w OI,^2I0ZU OOP 00_nlo ma POND oO 0000000 o00POCJOOC OmoyO " ¢�� -I-I- ----- -i--- -j -- -i- Zziz-ZzwZpZzzwz 2z Zzz�Zz ZzZzz Zz ZZ 22 v2ZZOr'�'j,2" Op Oo pmo�000p0 000 O000p Oo00PP OOgo �GPga°iO3o I- T - �--- --- T ZZZzzmzQ z2 Zjo2 zz�zz2zzZ zzl Z22z Lz2 z 'oo�wm zjz_2�y rrI?mZ! opo❑pmOo�O�q� 0 000 o0o0D 000 00000 OP__ qI zZ2Z ZZz2 zZ L1II11IIZ Z Zzz Zzzzzzzl2 Zz Wo Zz zz2zzzzlz zz NImImNNNNKI NINNIV)N mVi NVl( VIN(/141 UIm N(/1 flo. Ul( ww.ww V)ool 1 ' Table 2 Salem Landfill ' Surface Water Sampling Analysis General Chemistry Parameters, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Metals Massachusetts Contaminant Surface Water Identification - Parameter Level, Maximum(MMCL)or SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 ' Secondary(SMCL) 08/02/02111/14/02103/18/03106/26/03103/16/04107/29/04; 11/22/04108/02/02111/14/02103118/03106/26/03103/16/04'07/29/04111/22/04 08/02/021 11/14/02 03/18/03 06/26/03 03/16/04 j 07/29/04 1 11/22/04 General Chemistry Parameters(mg/1 unless otherwise noted) pH 6.5-8.5(SMCL) _ 8.03 1 6.90 1 NA j 7.28 1 7.29 ! 7.43 j 7.53 7.23 i 6.70 ! NA 7.05 1 7.04 6.93 1 7.08 7.00 1 6.50 NA j 6.94 6.88 6.52 j 7.11 ' Temperature(°C) NE 28.5 NM NM NM NM NM NM 19.7 NM NM NM NM I NM 1' NM 24.3 1 NM 1 NM 1 NM NM I NM NM Alkalinity NE 250 86 3 17 03 90 j 140 .194 290 j 60 40 62 70 175 108 90 44 30 95 40 I 34 70 Chemical Oxygen Demand NE 380 - 29 45 32 I 100 27 37 190 23 20 22 17 1 322 j 22 25 30 21 19 �42 35 29 ' Chloride 250 (SMCL) 290 120 96 161 1 244 181 313 290 I 100 '� 120 223 1 246 1 117 130 84 90 1 171 150 1 100 j 96 Conductivity(umhos/cm) NE 1500 650 NA 1 797 1020 902 1330 1600 San 1 NA 7 92 50 52, 8 11,,E 779 680 1 460. 1 NA 1 768 629 464 482 Cyanide 0.2 NO I NO NO NO NO NO NA NO NO ND NO 1 1 D 1 ND j Dissolved Oxygen NE 242.2 5.4 NA 6 10.9 NO NO NA NND NO NO 6.98 9.09 35 7.1 I NA 7 I 9.16 1 1 7.26 66.7 8.3 NA 5 11.2 7 D 9 2 ' Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 10 0.096 0.58 0.96 0.32 0.36 1 0.32 1 0.12 _ 0.15 0.49 0.92 1 0.14 0.32 2.47 I 0.14 0.13 0.45 0.89 0.41 0.28 0.07 0.08 Sulfate 250 (SMCL) 60 66 27 34 1 34 35 33 44 I 49 1 36 _ 25 j 34 40 30 _ 12 1 52 29 I 21 29 38 26 Total Dissolved Solids 500 (SMCL) 960 420 280 438 590 432 714 920 320 280 318 540 1 604 432 440 270 I 238 1 396 1 368 1 274 262 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs-ug/1) t Benzene 5 NO NO ND NO NO NO NO NO Toluene 1,000 NO NO ND NO NO NO ND ND NO NO ND NO ND ND NO NO Ethylbenzene 700 ND NO NO _ NO ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND NO NO ND ND NO 1 ND NO ND NO 1 ND I NO ND 1 NO 1 ND NO j NO ND ND NO NNO 1 NO j ND ND ' tert-Butylbenzene NE NO NO 1 NO NO NO j NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO ND ND ND O NO ND NO ND Total Xylenes 10,000 NO NO NO I NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO ND ND TotaIBTEX NE NO NO ND NO NO ND ND ND ND ND NO 1 ND ND ND NO NO NO ND ND 1 ND ND NO NO I ND NO NO I NO NO NO NO I NO 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NE ND NO NO 1 NO ND ND NO NO j NO j ND ND ND ND ND NO ND NO NO ND ND ND ' n-Propylbenzene NE NO NO NO ND NO NO NO _ NO ND ND 1 ND NO NO 1 NO NO ND NO NO NO NO I ND Chloroform NE ND ND ND ND ND I NO I NO ND I ND I ND J NO NO NO 1 ND ND I ND NO I NO ND NO 1 NO Total Metals (mg/I) Arsenic 0.05 NO NO ND l NO NO NO NO NO I NO NO j NO ND NO ND NO ND ND NO NO I NO NO Barium _ 2 0.78 0.087 0.08 0.15 0.325 0.2 0.255 0.71 1 NO NO I NO 0.086 0.376 0.088 0.06 i NO NO 0.09 0.053 50 NO Cadmium 0.005 0.012 NO NO NO ND NO 1 ND 0.0092 ! ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND NO I NO NO ND I NO Chromium 0.1 0.048 ND_ ND 1 ND NO NO ND 0.034 ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND _ ND IN ND ND ND Copper 1.3 0.16 NO j 0.04 NO 0.05 ND i ND 0.11 1 ND ND NO NO 0.084 ND 0.012 NO ND ND _� NO NO ND Iron 0.3(SMCL) 54 1.8 3.46 3.5 23.6 1.71 _ 2.18 37 0.82 0.63 1.54 3.23 18.3 1.57 9.9 0.57 0.38 _,-in. 8 7.31 9.1 2.81 Lead 0.015 _ 0.36 0.0052 0.067 _ 0.01 0.074 0.258 ND 0.25 NO ND -I ND ND 0.247 ND 0.016 ND I NO ND 0.0072 0.0273 NO t Manganese - - 0.05 (SMCL) 0 - -I 0 19 j 0 22 0.27 �1 36 ND 0.388- 1.1 0.14 0_17 0.26 0.383 0.701 0.176 0.98 0.12 _ 0.14 0.29 0.397 0.26 1_0.06_2__ Mercury 0.002 0000731 ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND NO _ND NO NO j ND I ND ND _ ND_ �ND�j NDND_� ND _ NO Nickel NE 0 053 NO j NO _ ND ND NO ND 0.038 ! ND NO NO ND NA I ND _ NO ID _ ! ND_ ND NO J NA NO-- Selenium 0.05 NO NO ND ND NO 1 ND ND NC ND ND ND D ND NO ND__ ND ND ND ND ND ND_ NO Zinc 0.1 51(SMCL) 1.D3 I 0 OD72 0.8 0.1D2 1 0 632 0.78 0.065 11 0 9 0.07 1 ND OND39 0 8D38 0.1D3 0.08 j 0 OD28 ND�-I--O 1D4 0 OD75 - ND ND (SMCL) - ___ _ _ ND __ ND ND ND_ ND �-1 NO _ _ _ NO - 0 092 ND Notes: ' Yellow shaded areas represent concentrations above applicable MMCL standards. 1 Green shaded areas represent concentrations above applicable SMCL standards. pH, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen measured in situ at the time of sampling. ' ND-not detected above minimum laboratory reporting limit. NE-standard not established for the given parameter. NA-not analyzed for the given parameter. NM-not measured for the given parameter. 1 1 ' Table 3 Salem Landfill ' Sediment Sampling Analysis Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Metals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), Dioxins and Furans ' DEP Threshold Sediment Sampling Location Analyte Effect Sed-1Sed-2 Sed-3 Sed-4 Sed-5 Sed-6 Sed-7 Concentrations 11 08/02/02 1 11/14/02 1 03/18/03106/26/03103/16/04 1 07/29/04 1 08/02/02 111/14/02103/18/03'. 06/26/03'03/16/04 07/29/04 08/02/02 11/14!021 3/18/03 1 6/26/20031 3/16/2004 7/29/2004 1 6/26/2003 6/26/2003 3/16/2004 1 3/16/2004 '. - Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds SVOCsj(ug/Kg) - Total PAHs 1610 1250 ND I NO 1 2560 1657 ND ND _ _ j _5980 j ND 70493 I NO I _N D ND NEED L 3162 19318 1 1603 1 Anthracene 57.2 ND ! NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND D 78D ND ND ND ND 5310 44700 5984 501 Fluorene 77.4 ND ND NO ND ND ND _ ND NO ND - ND ND ND j ND j ND _ND ND ND ND ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND NU j ND ND ND ND ND Naphthalene 176 ND j ND ND ND 1 ND NO ND jND D ND _' NO NO ND ! ND ND ND ND ND _ ND _ ND ND ND Phenanthrene 204 340 ND NO NO 1 503_j ND ND ! 780 623 j 4760 ND 1080 ND 960 527 I 1310 1. N"D ! 1010 ND ND 834 ND Benzo(a)anthracene 108 ND NO ND ND I ND ND - ND Benzo(a)pyrene 150 ND j ND ND ND ND 480 ''1 ND 1 2680 I ND ND ND_1 400 ND 685 ND 538_ ND _N D 467_ ND ' Benzo(b)fluoranthene NE ND ND ND ND ND 521 ND 620 ND 3570 ND 1420 ND 420 ND 783 ND ! 907 ND 3220 540 ND Benzo(k)fluoranthene NE ND ND ND ND 1 ND I ND ND 530 ND 4630 ND ! 78C PJD 64"u ND 818 ND 1 723 NO ND 565 ND Benzo(g,h,i)perylene NE ND j ND NO ND ND NO ND ND NO 1 1470 1 ND 750 ND ND ND ND D ND 503 ND ND ND ND Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NE NO NO ND ND 1 NO NO NO 350 ND 1 11100 ND ND ND 400 f ND 7950 ND ND 1260 6260 NO NO Butylbenzylphthalate NE ND ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND ND 910 ND ! ND ND I ND 1 ND ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND Carbazole_ NE NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND j 866 ND ND ND NO ND ND NO ! NO NO ND NO ND Chrysene 166 NO ! ND NO ND ND ND ND 510 ND ! 5130 ND ! 995 ND 550 429 1 1050 ND 768 NO 3220 622 ND Di-n-octylphthalate NE ND ND NO j NO ND ND ND 1 ND ND 1 3000 ,' ND ND NO ND j NO 1 NO NDI ND ND NO ND ND ' Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 33 ND ND ND I ND 1 NO NO NO 1 ND I NO I ND ND ND NO I NO I ND ND l ND NO ND ND ND NO Flucranthene 423 390 ND ND ND 638 427 ND 1 1100 ! 1090 ; 7370 1 ND 1 1760 ND 1 1200 1060 1690 j 894 1650 ND 5700 1410 501 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NE ND ND NO NO ND ND ND ND ND 1 1320 NO ND ND I ND j ND ND ND 479 ND ND ND ND P rene195 520 ND ND i 2560 516 ND ND j 1200 843 1 19800 ND 1 1780 ND 1 1400 1 721 4330 709 1690 4050 26300 1060 NO - Metals mg/Kg Arsenic 9.79 NO j 6.2 ND 1 97.8 1 11.9 1 ND NO 1 NO ND ND 1 ND I ND ND I NO I NO I ND ND ND ND NO NO ND Barium NE 400 74 103 j 52.3 i 97.3 j 73.1 33 150 114 1 40.5 j 79.8 284 27 1 14 33.2 1 82.5 1 26.6 1 22.6 98.4 218- _24._1 1913 Cadmium 0.99 15 2 1^ 1.25 ND j ND ! 1.12 1.6 1.6 ND ND ! NO 1.43 0 97 ND ND j 1.58 ND NO ND- ND NO NO ' Chromium 43.4 95 14 ! 20.4 11.1 20 13.2 5.3_1 18 634 Il� 22.2 1 24.5 1 29.3 16 18 17 1 24.8 15.8 1 13.9 16.4 __d4 7 36.3 17.6 Copper 31.6 440 40 j 254 49.3 64.8 70.4 20 33 46.8 44.3 1 59.2 111 26 1 14 1 43.4 1 77.8 24.5 21.4 44.5 123 54.8 28.6 Iron NE 130000 41000 31400 _1 18900 j 23600 12400 37000 24000 20400 ._14500 ! 24900 ''� 13100 _ 16000 11000 j 12500 19900 14200 1 14100 29900 91200 28800 18900 Lead 35.8 1500 95 298 53.7 j 382 113 74 110 160 103 246 j 407 63 30 111 250 149 46,9 195 301 48.9 80 Manganese NE _ 660 1 300 1 231 1 249 223 1 93.5_ 220 j 140 144 _ 119 364 207 87 1 72 ! 77 279 1U7 _ 116 141 301 206 104 Mercury 0.18 1.1 31D P655 0.094 j 0.129 0.25 NO ND ND NO I 0.114 1 0.634_ _ ND ND 0.092 j 0.168 �ND ND 0.298 0.472 ND 0.052 Nickel 22.7 81 16.9 j NA 1 NO 11 15 15.1 10.5 1 NA ND 9.1 _ 6.3 10 18.2 NA NA 14.6 53.4 NA NA Selenium NE NO 1 NO I ND NO ND j ND ND 1 ND ! ND ND j ND ND ND ND 1 ND ND ND i ND ND ND ND NO ' Silver NE _ ND ND NO ND 1 1.17 ND ND ND NO _ ND NO-I ND ND ND ND ND 1 ND ND ND _ ND ND _ND Zinc 121 2000 1 170 1210 511 309 j 292 290 200 164 152 265 446 100 1 72 152 370 1;C 91.5 201 968 106 94 Cyanide NE NA ^_!^ I _ ND ND I ND NA NA ND N1 ND NA NA ND I ND 1 ND- I ND NA ND ND 21.2 ND __ TPH m !K NE _ _ 450___ _ NA_ NA Polyc NA nated-Biphenyls (PCBs),Total Petroleum AHydrocarbonsI (TPH) 2 3 7 8-TCDD-Dioxins 57.2 ND NA NA_1 NA NA _j NA_ ND NA NA NA NA NA ND ! NA _ NANANA NA I_ NA NA _ NA �A _N ( 9 g) i- NA NA - _ ._-_-_ _C ._ __- 50 NA _ __ 490 _ NA__.;_ NA �A j NA, NA____ NA_ NA 2378TCDD (u /K 00ND NA NA N NANDNANA NA NA NA ND NA NANA NA NA ' Notes: All concentrations compared to DEP Threshold Effect Concentrations (TEC)except Dioxins, compared to MMCL drinking water standards. Shaded areas represent concentrations above DEP Threshold Effect Concentrations(TEC). ND-not detected above minimum laboratory reporting limit. NE-standard not established for the given parameter. NA-not analyzed for the given parameter. Sed-6 and Sed-7 were sampled on 3/16/04, and were mistakenly refered to as Sed-4 and Sed-5 in laboratory data. 1 1 1 ' Table 4 Salem Landfill ' Landfill Sell Gas Sampling Analysis Total VDIatlle Organic Compounds(VOCs),Percent Lower Explosive Limit(LEL) Percent Mariana,Percent Oxygen,Percent Carbon Dioxide,and Percent Hydrogen Sulfide Sampling S ,r ilr Date Metlla c b L°L% Ox en% CO% Mrs% VOCs ' LocaOon 9 Y9 l".) m- 8/212092 41 �20 2020 O5 NM _ND 1002 0 0 _ 20.70_ _ 0,_ NM -_-_ N_ -._ O _,__ 03_ _ 0 0 20.90 0 SG.1 ._ ..3118120602612003 0 ...-_ _0_ 2090 -0 ...__......NM NNM - NO 3/161 O0E _ 0 0 _2p.'u00 0 ND 12912004 _ NM Not NM _ NM__NM __NM C nma. 111222904 M _NNot NM NM - M NNM m aeswrao ane ai:wread nyd,:mvswa. S,ZrCt _ 01 _ 2.0 20.6 0 __NM _ NO 11114/21)02 _ NM NM NM NM NM NM 3128/20(73 0 0 T 20.3 0 NM NO _ SG.2 ---p, �. ' 622'1003 ....... NM _ ,AM _N_d� NM___ ......N �NM _3/16/2pg4 NM _ NM NM NM NM _ NM 729!'2004 NM NM NM NM �NM 11122)2004 NM NM NM NM NM NM Area ib mvmmetl. 9)22002 0.10 200 11,30 10.30 Not NO ___ _ 202412602 0.00 -3 36 18.10 __O.QO NM NO ' 3118120113 0.00 - 0,00 17,40 0.00_- NM NO 2003 NM NM SG-8 61261NM NM Net NM 31,64200.4 0 0 19.1 1.3 ... 0 N9 729/2004 0 0 16,6 2.5 0 No Covered by eumvalor. 11222004 NM NIA NM NM NM Net r-111aamroyee. 8220122 0.1 2.0 _ 4,40 11.1_ NM Nb ' 111142002 0 0 _V7 1 0 J NM Np� 311 812 0 9 3 NM NM Net NMNM NM SG-4 61262003 0 _ 0 -1b i 2.0 NM ND 311612004 0 _ p -7 B 3.0_ 0 Nb 712912004 Not NM NM NM NM NM Cenrd lh,a. ' 1 112212064 NM -NM NM NM NM _ NM Ale-aag by-c,ammmee. 82,'2OU2 0.1 2.0 10A 10.7 NM Np 111142602 4 30 i'.8 0 NM NO 31182003 _ NM NM NM _ NM NM NM L 62612003 NM NM NM NM- NM NM 3!262004 NM NM NM _ NM NM NM ' 712 912 0 0 4 NM NM NM _ NM NM NM Caoom rma, 11/2212004 NM Nel NM NM NM NM mea nesbaa,.Caw+bea ay euur movamanL 8122002 a c 1ss 1.2 NM No -T1114/2002 _0 2.0 20.1 0 NM NSD 3118)2003 _ D 0 20.9 0 _NM NO 626/2003 0.2 0 19.0 2.0 NM ND ' 31162004 0 0 29.8 0.1 0 ND 7J2J2004 0 0 20.8 OD 0 ND X10212004 0 0 209 0.0 0 NO _a1212002 0 0 17.8 _ 2.9 Net ND 2111412002 0 17,0 5.3 0 NM ND ' _31162003 0 0 20.9 O` NM NO SG-7 612612603 0.3 J 0 13,6 0 NM NO 3/162004 02 4.0` 5.6 0 NO M2I2094 0.0 _ OA 20,7 -it).0NM NO 712912004 0.0 00 10,3 0.0 0 NO 11222004 Do 0.0 20.9 40 0 ND ' 012,'2002 NM - NM NM NM- Net NO 11114/2002 NM NM NM NM Net NO Weigh 3118)204; NM NM NM NMrN ot ND station _ 626120113 NM NM NM NMM Nb T -- _ O(ficx 31,262004 _ p_ 6 208 0 ND 412/2004_ 0 0 20.3 0 _ Net 20 712912094 M NM NM NM NMM _ NO NM NM NM NMM NM 620-04 5.40 109' 124 1.6 0 NO 2004 1140 22800 0.1 47 NM NO 004 620 _124 00_ 20.7 00 _ C 1.8 2212004 225 45.00 20.9 0.0 0 NO 62004 0.2 4.p' 18.3 45 0 12 SG-102iMay 0 0 20,3 0.1 No NO 912004 0 0 20.4 )c 0 NO --71-2212004 J 0 q 20-1 0 -^p NO 612904 0.1 2.0 20.3 03_ 0 ND9/2004 00 00 13.8 00 212 0 0 4 O Q O D 59.2 D O 0 ND .SFatletl alaa.raF!eaenl wncenPalionz above eEP slanCar{{!:, NO-ml dnec(ed NAnor analymtl lel the given F�rometer. S.nol 102, tlial lbegiven paramelrtr. ' :i%rEr ala f-163rwis"IfeYd f-16149. '9eLEL J:rla Irom y16169 is inlerletl rrom 9e methane concenValions. Figure 1 Site Plan with Sampling Locations ■ / \ a LEGEND / \ SMC TRAVERSE STATION D SB STONE BOUND / \ o CB CONCRETE BOUND IP IRON PIPE 0 • PK. REBAR, NAIL SPIKE_ BEANPOLE O HT HUB & TACK EP/LP ESCUTCHEON PINHEAD PLUG FIND FOUND Ne NOW OR PROPERTY LINE / --- SIDELINE STONE WALL LINE C/ / • TREE (DIA & TYPE) o BOULDER \ (TYPE) RETAINING WALL BIT CONIC BITUMINOUS CONCRETE — GRAN — GRANITE EDGE OF WATER LIMIT OF WETLANDS \ - _ 200 FT. RIVER FRONT AREA / • • GP GUARD POST (BOLLARD) \ ■ CONIC POST F GUY WIRE / -a UPq UTILITY POLE -tr UP/LP UTILITY POLE/UGHT POLE _ OHW OVERHEAD WIRE Compost / - Q DMH DRAIN MANHOLE \ Area \ MAP 7 PARCEL 42 ❑ CB CATCH BASIN 2.43 ACRES \ R RIM I INVERT CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE \ \ _ •_-- RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE \ '� • • CIC CAST IRON PIPE PVC CHLORIDE GASPOLYVINYL Q GG CAS GATETE • Q TMH TELEPHONE MANHOLE —� _ Q EMH ELECTRIC MANHOLE 2 • . -- • - • — Q — SEWER MANHOLE 200 Ft. River Front Area WC _ _ _ Q wG WATER GATE " RANT � —'Q` HYD. WATER LINE —S— — SEWER UNE —T— — TELEPHONE LINE . . • . �� . . _ . / -" _____ - \ — —E— — ELECTRIC LINE —D— — DRAIN LINE —G— GAS UNE CITY 0 SALEM / ,"- _ ___? - x ELEV SPOT GRADE O� \ MAP 7 PARCEL 68 \ - --- \ ----------- INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR . 920 ACRES / _- \ —200— \ � / . ; i --`==. - INDEX CONTOUR SMC STA #6 ','i■l' i '� ` \ PK SET. ____ WX20 N .8 5 E 99012.78 0"-92.20 FEET Location Legend: ______ WF qtsWIF #22 ' O \ - ; ,\ _x q - Soil Boring �`� _____________________ ____ _-`\ `\\\ � ,i',��, �r, • . WF 23 WATER -� - • -------------------- - "�`�\`I \`'`, s�` WF q24 $dl-3 $W-3 �''�WF q18 '�- -- - MW-1 ---------- --- ------- '-' _ ;,,, \ - Soil Boring / Monitoring Well REBAR ` -------------- -_ 1=== R��- wF qn END-W/BP WITNESS wFgzs - Surface Water Sampling -wF; '1 T,` :\ \\ ` \ 1 i `WF q14 .-.h- i'<.W?pi 6 LA' MAP 7 PARCEL 66 6 - ,` ';_, -- WA FR-pow ----- ,'' -°/ ® - Sediment Sampling 10.2 ACRES \ ;` _ \ _ , � �`� ` \ -_____ -- _.NO PAPE VISLBtE ______ - - ,-'' ' ' , WF q13--- _ -� '-"]` $�..) QwF q10 ,� 1\r` \�\ 1\ \� CONG./ GRAN PILE \ ` `__ �K-- _ ,' l // Air Sampling ' , ! I \ -_ 1 3}t•� DRAII,\�AGE /'' STRUCTURE 1 `I `` r-FOREST RIVER =;� . ' r MW-5 ----------` -' - - GSA r5 Y� ss' - Groundwater Contour Line ` - ' I / E 9215.157 r ' \ ', r ' ,'i' N/F ' - 1 ' ELEV=87.50 FEET \ ' \ ', 1 r , r r r / , ` SM STA #g' _ __ , \ i r , r , i , r , , ROYAL ORDER OF MOOSE _ \ 1 ' 1 1 1 r + i r 1 r 1 r , MAP PARCEL �i,��- , N 19726418 _``�- � •` \ ' I \ 1 r 1 r ,, VAT ,' -b(W-3 E'99391.11 BIT CONC ' , II , + I , p r r ,r r r 4 SMC STA /4 I qs ,'' ___. ELEV-66.50 FEET / / I r PK SET ,- ,,',',' - Q ___________________ _`_ ____-- __ _ _ BIT CONC N 10108&9 „ , ,' r _ rl 1 E 99467.9 S �' I ,'' -c--- ' �_ ” ' '10 --- -70---_- _ 1, 1 ' r \ , ELEV=60.48 - I lII Iii i i ,' fjV � K r , t ,, / r , i sTAc ,\ f 200 Ft. River Fronl Area \ \+{ I 11 1 I 1 1 1 , �♦ q 4 \I I, \\\\ \;\ 1 1\ 1 ,i' / ' \\II - I 'll I I 1 I r l ,'' `.,'i0 \^\\ \\1\ 1 'I'I 11j1 /!\ I 1 / "'/ '\,l, \1\I \III il'\ FORMER I \ \ I\ „ ,' ,' I r 1 r I_ 1 wl ' 0 SMC STA /1 „ ¢ \__ ml +\\` INCINERATOR \. \ ,, , , , > PK SET \ y`\ N\I III\ .` 'r,'�. Y� �I N 101929.15 - - S} \\\\\ \I CURRENT \``,J �I E 99283.86 1 1 I$ TRANSFER ELEV=100.00 FEET '�% 1 `\ IIpII f ,�,I I`I \1 \ I `--'\ , STA1710" x IIII IIIA ,' , r1 i WI -,I I1 II I I , 1________ , ��- ,NAS TIO r I 1 ! \ 1 I \ '______- , • B-2 `\ \\ �.\ PROCCFSSING / al W 111'1' .WF #2 i'l III 1 I 1 I' 1 ' `\ ------ -�--'^ • B 3 1 - ;. -- 'F/ €yr'P -' ,' / i j t \ • SB/v/v FNDOVER.. 'C .. I I i illi ' i \\ i \/ , —��`• BIT CONIC ,, B=4 ' ' ` • B-& \` .'_,/,, WG r' ,bEBR15' I -� •\ 1 IIII ••� //I '1 I I I ✓ `\ -r�. GRAN FC SIDEWALK 3"+ STEEL' PIP ???k I \ ii 1,II ll_ \\ BIT CONIC J I BLDG' /1 I `. `` . _C- I1II 1, `\ T 1 7 8" DRAIN GR�TE `\ �� ` —•�-f- YD. x f#307_x L® `` CONC PAD SCALE _ r �` �-X s B -T _x�--�-x I \ a=ea.oe 1 Elf, CONC CURB \` IMW-2 ` r LPB x \ OWNER _ , s I \ PET WALL -_ ^_ 1 I _ Se _- ' uPq — —= =—— 84311 �IF4 \ \\\\\ BOOK PARCEL 1 NET+T 7 -L-'R— - ce 6.3CIP SILTED I , MM q =72.60 I-]J.32 +,B-3 _ _ UP LP I-69.]4', -89.]8 1 PK SET A MH ?\\\ % - _ NETECO 7 s PIPE NSIBLE _ -� N 101194.041 _ELEV-6465 FEET E 99650.94r •4312 �EBARCB-�- - �— SMC STA #2 \ FND CB-1 - - - —W2 - -- SET NK101734.19 E 99514.61 \ ELEV■10288 FEET MAP 7 PARCEL 69 5.59 ACRES DRAWN BY: 315 Norwood Park South SCALE: t- L'1 e� Station } } /1 1 �i ' /� Norwood,MA 02062 Transfer sfeI SLa io 1 JOB O2D37 MJZ ; .1.7. �i,�l Group, INCE 78L255.1982 fax:781.255.1974 DEPT. CHECK: Engineers - Scientists . Planners Boston, MA-Lincoln.RI-New London,CT FILE NO. ExSitePlan*.DWG email: BETA@BETA-inc.com JMS 1 =50 Site Planwith Sampling Locations PLOT DATE March 7, 2005 PROJ. CHECK: NUMBER DATE MADE BY CHECKED BY DESCRIPTION SMSFi Q{y� SHEET ure 1 REVISIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR CHANGED BY REPRODUCTION SalemI, MA Figure 2 Conceptual Closure Design Plan 1 1 -- - - - - -- - ---- - -- - - - - - -- - -- --------- -- - - -- r `� ,--- - --- --- - - -- -- -- ------ ---- ZX"CAVA70N/ L gATION WF-24 WF-18 ` - - - - -- -- - -- - - -- ---- --- - --- --- -- - - -- -- -- -- - -- - /'^\� -.---- - -- - - - - - --- -."- - -- -- - - ----- - - --- --- - - -- - - ----- - -- - - - \ -•tea-f-a -a--_rar - - ' ' ' " r, WF-17 �------- END ' W/BP WITNESS -- - -- -- - `'^' �� ---= _ / -____- _ / -' / _ - ir it lWF-12 _ \ ` \-- �� - - -1 - - -- NO PIf -VISIT \ �-- / - WF-1o. , , \\ CANE GRAN PILE \� - - --r -- - - - - --- BR CI��__ -- - ^�� J / __ , 13 - - - -_ Sed-2 SW-2 ,� / � 1 \\ / • - = DRAII/AGE ` - - , it ' wF-s N-1 MW-5 STRUCTURE I J \', `\'� -- - -- '�"� _ _ - � ' i� EOP / REfAININGcWAL -� _--- - -- -- - -- -- - - t .-.r-- FOREST RIVER _ -- -- - - --- - - - - - - . - - - - - --�/ ,� \ , ( M 4S ♦`♦ ' �� TRAILER- 0.0 RAILER _ ' - 1 , TRAILED , 1 % % % % (CSed- 4# '/ \N ,` LANDFILL CAP LIMITS �- BIT CONC — ' ♦♦ 182 �i f WF-5. -3 / ♦ 1 X f _ _ I =' — __ _ _— — �_ � .._. — � �� TRAILER ', � 1 I , 1 BIT CONIC , ,!' � � /'+ � /' �, ��► _fes ___--�- - - �\ -__..- _7QQ -- -- _ - - _ _ _ -�- � '� \\�♦ I ) /! ' % \\\ � J , {) j O F-4 1 X i' r FILA' A D PAVE0. _0 0 o IAI ,� _ --- _ \�� ` \ IST. ' COMP D '�'I `\\�7�180 60 a r r X / / 1 1 / / I , ' '/' $6.° w�/ , A A A \ i5 � s > :^ ` a 1,r•' � t rm, £ , , / 1 1 1 _ / , ,r %10, - VAva� -1 r I I % AS 0 \ \ �\ \ \, r 1 I i 90.0 J Fz� 0 p ��, X 1,yyOC ^, ( I r o 0) v ', (, (, A\ I I �I �, /' /� w �w � AV 'V� � \\\\�\\A ♦ -- - - -- --- - - - �0 ' B / 1 it J_ ../�/ �. /T _ _ I ` / I / 0 B- I I 1 1 A If • / 1 a k vs' Fc x - � a '' 1 a{ � .. 3�.°' 1>,.. � X ---"x / / / / l ' 1 k OVERH � - 103 // BR I I o \ I� ..�.� SIDE LK r / 4'� �•+� /i i7 ---- - t STEL_ I ???', — It ' TE — --e=5_ HYD c-1 x— — AQIx_CJ�-R_x LPB £ ; I ❑O I —� -- _ --_- _ - ---- _-- _ _ \ *_' x° R=94.06 CB BIT, CONC CUR\ 1 t , , MW-2 \ i _ K ' �� , \ \ t9 \ 1 2R \ W€- r — _ ---- LPB o OD , F i - X x--- , As N UP /LP 001 RET WALL x _ —x-- ES ENTRANCE - - - # -�--x X—_ -- B 431 ACCESS --x—x 7� i R-_- - -��_ ..-X` x —6' CIP SILTED •.{ - - - � ` \ - '� --=X R=72.60 I 1= 3.32 ' - - N E ® EOP UP/LP 1=69.74 /SUMP 1=69.78 ; OT { ®A - ' �� OSMH NET+ T No PIPE vlsleLE MI P - Z - Svv o , 4312 - - PROP. DRAINAGE _ - c ACCESS ENTRANCE _ �— - ACCESS ENT., SCALE, o CULVERT �_ _ - - BLDG. TO BE DEMO,D o y i 0 o DRAWN BY: SCALE: v US Norwood Park South m {, JOB 2037 JPS ® {4; Norwood,MA 02062 Salem Massachusetts A t r ` 781255.1982 fax:781.255.1974 7 � Group, Inc. Boston,MA-Lincoln,RI-New London,CT working-dwg.dwg C DEPT. CHECK: Engineers Scientists.Planners TrAnsfer Station Closure FILE NO. PRELIMINARY email BETAOBEfAinacom 1 = 20 (Approximate) March 2005 n PRoJ. CHECK: PP Conceptual Closure Design Plan PLOT DATE o NUMBER DATE MADE BY CHECKED BY DESCRIPTION - h 3 N SHEET J REVISIONS t UNLESS oTHERMSE NOTED OR CHANGED BY REPRODUCTION A Figure 3 Bin Wall Detail BIN WALL PARAPET DRAINAGE BOARD ' PROPOSED FINAL GRADE ' 40 MIL HDPE BIN WALL UNIT FILLED MEMBRANE WITH SAND, GRAVEL, ' OR CRUSHED STONE GEOFOAM FILLER ' HDPE MEMBRANE TERMINATES AT APPROXIMATE ELEV. 50 d. d d ' MIN. 6" CRUSHED STONE WRAPPED IN ' NON—WOVEN FILTER FABRIC ' CAST—IN—PLACE CONCRETE FOOTING ' NOTE: DETAIL PROVIDED BY GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL,INC. E 1 Group,Inc. Figure No. 3 Engineers-Scientists -Planners Transfer Station Closure 6Hlapkstone Valley Place Salem, Massachusetts BIN WALL ph:4 13 .2382 DETAIL p�:4g1.333.23H2 fax:401.333.9225 emaN:BECAQBETAinacwn SET 1 ' SOIL BORINGS MARCH 15, 2002 BETA GROUP,INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJECT Salem Landfill ISA BORING NO. B-1 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road.Salem.MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Carr-Dee Corp DATE STARTED: 3/15/2002 EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stam Auger DATE FINISHED: 3/15/2002 DRILLED BY: Joe Centrella-Carr-Dee SURFACE ELEVATION INSPECTED BY: James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL GROUNDW A'I'ER NCP eNCOUNTERED TYPE: Split Spoon SIZE ID: 2" HAMMER WT: 740 lbs. HAMMER FALL: 30" SAMPLE DATA DEPTH SAMPLING HAMM@I2 BLOWS ON STRATA LITHOL.,DGI' SAMPLE PI2N/ HNU (b DEPTH SAMPLP,R(incLes} CHANGE (Description of materials) ID R7iLbV (ppm) FROM 0-6 b-f2 12-IS IS44 (A) (in./in.j Lemp 10.2 eV_ GroundSurface 0-2' 30 SAND: fine to medium edim grained,some gravel _S_-1 24/12 1 ppm 32 J and cobbles,dark brown,dry,no odor 16 ---- 17 5.0 5'-7' 3 SAND:fine to coarse grained,some gravel,!'race S-2 24/12 _1 Porn ' 3 cobbles,brown,dry,no odor S_ 8 Auger refusal at 7'.End of boring. 0.0 15.0 J _ 20.0 - - - GENERAL REMARKS: i ' BETA GROUP,INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill ISA BORING NO. B-2 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road_Salem, MA PAGE 1 OF 2 DRILLING COP Carr-Dee Com DATE STARTED: 3/15/2002 EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem Auer DATE FINISHED; 3/15/2002 DRILLED BY: Joe Centrella-Carr-Dee SURFACE ELEVATION INSPECTED BY: James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL GROUNDWATER Nor ENCOUKIERED TYPE: Split Spoon SIZE ID: 2" HAMMER WT: 140 lb, HAMMER FALL: 30" ' SAMPLE DATA DEPTH SAMPLING H4Mlv1ER BL6WS ON 5"CRAI'A Ll'PHOLOGY SAMPLE PEN/ HNU (fq DEPTIi $AMPLER(inohes) C ANCE (Description of materials) ID RF;COV (ppm) FROM-TO 0-U Gt7 tbi8 t$-24 in) (in./inJ Lamp 10,9 eV. Ground Surface 0-2' 7 FILL:Sand mixed with ash;metal deposits,slag, S-1 24/12 _0 ppm _ 16 plastic,glass. Fine to medium grained sand,fine 10 grained ash,dark brown/black,color,rust color — 18 associated with metals,dry,no odor — 5.0 5'-71 3 FILL:Sand mixed with ash, metal deposits,slag, _S-2 24/15 1 Pons- 3 _ — glass. Fine to medium grained sand,fine grained — 5 ash,trace organics,dark brown/black color,dry, 8 no odor 10.0 -- 10'-12' FILL:Sand mixed with ash,metal deposits,slag S-3 24/12 0 ppm M 2 glass,trace possible AC . Fine to medium grained 2 sand,fine grained ash,trace organics,black in — 3 color,dry,no odor _ _......—.......- 15.0 15'-I T I - FILL: Sand mixed with ash,metal deposits,slag, S-4 10 9.8 PRI glass. Furse to medium grained sand,fine grained 2 ash,trace organics,black in color,dry,no odor 20,0 GENERAL REMARKS: Submitted Sample S-4 for laboratory analysis of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) and RCRA 8 metals. BETA GROUP,INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill ISA F30RING NO. B-3 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road. Salem,MA PAGE I OF i DRILLING CO: Can-Dee Corp DATESTARTED: 3/15/2002 EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem Auger DATE FINISHED: 3/15/2002 i DRILLED BY: Joe Centrella-Carr-Dee SURFACE ELEVATION INSPECTED BY: James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL GROUNDWAI Ell NOT ENCOUNI RED TYPE: Split Specn SIZE 1D: 2" HAMMER WT: 740 Ids HAMMER FALL: 30" SAMPLE DATA - DEPTH sAMrcti,c HA (EI2 B(.OwS OM STItAT.n LITHOLOGY SAMPLE VENY HNU (to DEPTH SAMPLEri(inches) CHANGE (Description of materials) ID RECOV (pilin) FROM-TO 46 6-12 1 I2-I8 1 18.14 (ittI I (ilii in) Linq,M2eV. -- Ground Surface 0-2` 31 SAND:fine to medium grained,some gravel and S-1 2418 0 ppm_— _ 40 cobbles,rock fragments,light brown,dry,no odor 61 — — --- 28 5.0 FILL:Sand mixed with ash,glass,metal deposits, S-2 2417 0 ppm slag. Fine to medium grained sand,fine grained _ _ 2 ash,trace organics,dark brown/black color,Dust _ I color to metals,dry,no odor 10.0 — 10'-12' 7 ___ FILL:Sand mixed with ash,glass,metal deposits, S-3 24/10 0 ppm_ _ 5 slag. Fine to medium grained sand,fine grained _ 3 ash,trace organics,dark brown/black color,rust 6 color to,metals,dr;,,no odor, — End of boring at 12'. t20H - GENERAL REMARKS: Submitted Sample S-3 for laboratory analysis of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) and RCRA 8 metals. BETA GROUP, INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill ISA BORING NO. B-4 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem.MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Carr-Dee Corp DATE STARTED: 3/15/2002 EQUIPMENT: Hollow Sten,Auger DATE FINISHED: 3/15/2002 DRILLED BY: Joe Centrella-Carr-Dee SURFACE ELEVATION INSPECTED BY: James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL GRBUNDWA'iER NOT ENCOUNTERED TYPE:, SEhl Spoon SIZE ID: 2" HAMMER WT: 140 lbs, HAMMER FALL: 30" SAMPLE DATA DEP'CH SAMPWNG 16AMM!,-RBLOWS0N 9TI'ATA LITHOLOGY SAI LE P'Nf HNU (flj DI?I'l'ls SAMPLER Qnchcs7 CHANC7E (Description of materials) ID RIzCOV (ppm) FROM-7b Q-L+ G72 13-f8 IR-24 (e) finln.} Lump 14,2 eV. Ground Surface 0-2' 6 FILL_Sand mixed with ash,glass,mend deposits, S-1 24/15 0 Pont 8 slag,plastic. Fine to medium grained sand,fine ? grained ash,black color,rust color to metals,dry, 6 no odor FILL: Sand mixed with ash:glass,metal deposits, S-2 24/7 0 ppm 2� slag, Fine to medium grained sand,some gravel _ 2 and cobbles,fine grained ash,black color,rust _ 7 calor to metals,dry,no odor 10'-12' 7 No recovery. 24/0 _ Il 15 —....- 16 12'-14' 13 TILL:Fine to rnedium grained sand,some gl'avel, S-3 24/4 0 ppm large chunk of granite at head of spoon,dry, _ — IS no odor 25 15.0 20.0_._ GENERAL REMARKS: Submitted Sample S-3 for laboratory analysis of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) and RCRA$metals. i - - BETA GROUP, INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill ISA BORING NO. B-5 LOCATION: 12 Swampscod Road,Salem.MA PAGE 1 OF I DRILLING CO: Carr-Dee Corp DATE STARTED: 3/15i2002 EQUIPMENT: Hollow Slam Auger DATE FINISHED: 3/15/2002 DRILLED BY: Joe Centrella-Carr-Dee ,SURFACE ELEVATION INSPECTED BY: James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL GROUN'DWA rER NOT ENCOUN111RED TYPE: Split Spoon SIZE ID: 2" HAMMER WT: —740 lbs HAMMER FALL: 30" SAM PL.,E DATA DEPTH SAMPLING HAMMERBLOA'SON SiRA'I'A LITHOLOGY SAMPLE PEN? IINU (fl) DOMI SAMPLEIZ(inches) Ch'ANGE (Description of inaterials) 11) -Cov (ppm) PROM-TO o-6 1 6I2 "d$ &.'& (Rf tinlia} Lamp 10..1.ev. (Around Surface SAND: Fine to medium grained,some gravel and _ cobbles,trace fill materials,large chunk of granite S-1 13/7 0 ppm _= 3 — rock,brown,dry,no odor 6 SAND: Fine to coarse grained,very well soiled, —STA12/7 0 pprn 6 dark brown color,dry,no odor 5.0 ' — 1'-6' 4 -- SAND:Fine to coarse grained,very well sorted, S-2 — 12/7 0 ppnr 9 dark brown color,dry,no odor 6'-6'3" 100/3 COBBLES:chunks of broken cobble,trace sand, —S--2A 3/3 —Tpp,, _ dark gray color,dry,no odor _ _ Aurger refusal at 65". End of boring. 10.0 — .— — 15.0 -- -- - 20,0 GENERAL REMARKS: ' BETA GROUP, INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill ISA BORING NO. B-6 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road-Salem,MA PAGE I OF I ' DRILLING CO: Car,Gee Corn DATE STARTED: 3/1 512 002 EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem Auger DATE FINISHED: 3/15/2002 DRILLED BY: Joe Centrella-Carr-Dee SURFACE ELEVATION INSPECTED BY: James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL 1 GROUNDWATER NGT ENCOUNTERED TYPE: Split Spoon SIZE ID: 2" HAMMER WT: 140 lb, HAMMER FALL: 30" SAM PL,E DATA DEPTH SAMPLING 11AMME" BLOWSON STRATA LITHOLOGY SAMPLE PEN,r HNU !h) DEPTH $AMPLER(inches) CHANGE (Description of material, ID RHCOV (ppm) FROM 0-6 - G-7. I2-i$ IS-?4 tft} lmAa.j L.vrp10.2eV- C)rowld Surface 0-2' I6_ SAND:Fine to medium grained,sonic gravel and _S-1 2418 __0 ppm_ 11 cobbles,sand dark brown,cobbles gray,light gray, — 9 and rust colored,dry,no odor 7 — 5-0 _ 5'-6'6" 3 SAND, FILL:fine to coarse grained sand,some S-2 1915 0 ppm_ 3 gravel„sonic glass,brown,dry,no odor _ 3 SAND,FILL:fine to coarse grained sand,some S-2A 6/6 0 ppm 6'6"-7' _10 gravel,some glass,brown,dry,no odor _ Aurger refusal at 76". End of boring. 15.0 -- 20.0 GENERAL REMARKS: 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 SET 2 1 SOIL BORING/MONITORING WELLS JULY 24-26, 2002 1 1 1 i i i i i 1 i 1 i 1 BETA GROUP, INC. SOIL BORING/MONITONING WELL REPORT ' PROJEC9': Salem Landfill BOKINGMELL NO. B-11MW-1 LOCATION: Salem.MA, PAGE i Of I DRII..LING CO'. Soil Exploretion DATE STARTED'. 7/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: llollow Stem Auger.1.liamond bit coiinq DATE LINiSBi3D: 7/262000 DRILLED BY; For Brian SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTED BY:James Smith "Lilevation based on assumed datum. AUGER CORE WETI- GROBNIIWA'1'GROBSBRVA'TIONS CASING SAMl'U'll BARREL, CASINO DEr7t SrAallrzATiGY.'TIME TYPE: BSA Snlii-Barrel Diamond PyC SIZE ID: 4-3/8" 1-3/8" 3" 2" HAMMER W1, N/A 17016 _ N/A NLA I IAMMBR FALLNIA 30" NIA N/A SAMPLING HAMMER BLOWS ON SOIL (foot PER/RL'1: 11EADSPACE LRPIOLOGY{Daseri - urn.emiiWs) MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION r`«vt DEii'II (tato.; SAMPLCR vo'hes) Puoii (rmm.m) 0-6 1 bl'.. 13-I6Ib-'d tnn�+U - — Auger to 5'. e. Construction)„Kev -- 0 -- E:j Well Casing WellScreen 5 T 7' 24/8 6 0 FILL:line to medium grained,tract,asphalt,brownfgray r;F,1 Native Fill color,my 5 � go Bemmrute 5 Man Sand _ Auger refusal at 8'. Switched to rock coring equipment at Re in attempt to reach Regroundwater, Water Table C Cored frm 8'oto 23'. coveredccred total of 14'core sample. 10 $'-)TBEDROCK Solid bedrock core recovered, ' — --— Coarse grained igneous bedrock. Peppered appearance. _ Light gray and dark gray/green groins with Home glassy Status interlocked. Appears to consist of granite,quartz, diorite,and gabbro. Some fractures appear naturally _ mearinu,and some fiactwes appear to have been created — ' during the toting process. Very slow groundwater recharge,if any at all. 15 —^ ?5 -- Notes: Anger refusal at 8'. Cored 8'to 23'. End ofbotingai 23`. MIA1-1 installed io 22'depth. 22'to 7'using 2"PVC screen /'to 0 using 2"PVC riser. 22'rn U sand. 6 m 5'bentonite. T to 0 native fill. - 1 BETA GROUP, INC. SOIL BORING/M0NIT0NING WELL REPORT ' PROJECT: Salem l...andfli _J B0RING/WELL NO. L;21MW-2 LOCATION'. Salem_MA PAGE I OF I DR ILL ING CO: Soil ESIloration DATE 3FAR"I"ED'. 7/25/2002 ' EQUIPMENT: Holl(,,Siem Angc, DATE FINISHED: 7!25/2002 DRILLED BY: Eric.@tos SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTEI)BY:James Smith -Elevation based on assumed datum. AUGER CORE WELL GROUNDWATER 011SERVA'I'ONS CASING SAMPLER BARREL CASING ❑FVTil 4TAMUZ.ANOrcnM[- TYPE. HSA Spiit-8a�e1 _ 1/A PVC 17feeiYZEID: _4-3/8" 1-3/S" N/A 2" HAMMER WI: N/A To lb �NtA � NIA HAMMER FALL'. N/A 30" N/A N/A SAMPLING HAMMERBLOWSON SOIL DEI'TIi j. On.hfSAR1pLGR ti�ia2} HE.ADSP.ACL LITHOLOGY ilNuspion ofma� MNITWL' rals) OORING LL CONSTRUCTION (Lea) oEP'B (i;.ii (lroa,-,ol Ofi 1 6-12 1,isIs'41 (,na - Augcr to 5'. r Cao i ua+on Kev Well Casing ® Well Screen 5 T-7' 24/10 1 0 FILL:fine to coarse sand,sone ash,nate brick an(] � F"� Native Fill 2 Cobbles,dark brrnvNhiacklattt color,dry 0' I � � Benromte i Q Sand 4 7�— Water Table 10 I V-12' 18/8 5 _—— 366 FILL:tine to Coarse sand,some ash,trace gravel,chunks 7 of tubber,dark browrWlack/rust color,dry 100/0 ME--- L5 — ' 15'-17' 24/S_ 3 427 FILL:ash;sonic glass and Plastic,some sand and gravel, _ i black,renst,oda V _ 20 -- 20'-Z` 18/18 25 268 SANDY FILL.fine to Boars grained,nee gravel and 37 rock ftagmtenLs,black,wet,slight odor _ —� I{FOtfi — ' Notes: Auger refusal at 23'. End Uboring at Z3 MIAN-2 installed to 23'depth- 23'to 13'using 2"PVC screen. 13'to 0 using 2"PVC itser. 23'to 12'sand, 12'to 11'bentonite. I P to 0 native fill. BETA GROUP, INC. SOIL BORING/MONITONING WELL REPORT PROJECT: &nlem Landfill 60RING/WCLL NO. B3/MU'. LOCATION: Salem.MA PAGE I OF I _ DILILLING CO: Soil Explornism _ DATE STARTED. 7L24/2001 ' EQUIPMENT: (follow Slam Auu, DATE FINISHED: 7/24/2002 DRILLED BY: Eric Mike SURFACE ELEVATION_ INSPECTED BY:James timith.Hric Olgon 'Elevadun based on assumed dalom. ' AUGER CORE WELL GROUNDWATER OlISFIMATTON,g CASING SAMII_IFR BARREL CASING, DF,'ITH LSTABILIZA'I'IONTIMp TYPE' HSA SPI i!Baal N/A IVC 17 feet SIZE Ill: 4-3/8" _ I , 3M _ WA v" HAMMER wL NIA i4E51h NrA �N1.4 I AMMER FALL: N/A 30" N/A N/A SAMPLING NAMMERBLOWMON' SOIL DCP"Ifl pEN/[t 12C DLPT9i a<S.Af 1'LFR(b,dmg} NEAMONI1)I21NG WBLL CONS'CIiUCFION tf n coin-{ (Rpm-ml u{ GI] t2-16 I&p-0 (PP'"1 AugPA'lO Sr _ � CD25fNC{IQn}ieV -- l _ $ � Well Casing Well Screen 5 TT 24/6 2 2.1 FILL:fine to warse sand,sonne ash and slag material '.` Native Fill 2traceglass:dark browmblacklrust color,dry r — 1 d 3: Bentonite � 4 P Sand P ...._ ...�— —.� s -- — Water Table 10 — ' _ IO'-12' 2418— 2 2.8 FILL rine to coarse sand,some ash and slag metenal, — 4 trace glass,dark brown/black/rust color,dry } 19 15'-17' 24/6 1 _ 3.5 FILL:medium to coarse sand,trace slag and glass,dark — 3 brotrdt!ack cgkr's ttacc fiat and;xd ea!ot,rosf _ 2 A — 0 20'-22' "-'415 1 2.1 SANDY F3LL:medium to coarse saneL nmec class,dark 3 hrotvn,wet _ 3 -- 3 — 25 °5'-27' 2/10 1002 10.6 FILL(slough)line to medium sand,some gill.Ions of wood,trace glass and plastic,dark brownAnack eoloi, -- -- Wel Notes: End ofbaing at 242'. MW-3 installed to 25'depth. 25'to 10'using 2"PVC screen, l0'to 1'l using 2"PVC user, 25'io W sand. V to 8'hentonite. S'to 0 nslivc fill. BETA GROUP,INC. SOIL BORING/MONITONING WELL REPORT I PROJECT: Salem Landfill BORING/WELL NO. B-4S/MW4S LOCATION: Sale.),MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Soil L'.xploralion DATE STARTED: 7/24/2001 _ DRILLED BY: laic.Mike SURFACE ELEVATION 24/2001 EQUIPMENT'. Hollow Stem Auger Di L FINISHED' 7/ INSPECTED B\':Janes Smilh,Eric Olson -Clevation based on assumed damn. _ AUGER CORE WELL G ROUND'1VATLR 0BSL111VATIONS CASINGS SAMPLER BARREL. CASING' Drawn STABILiZATmNTIME TYPE: HSA SD6t-Buln-1 NIA PVC 11 ha SIZE ID.. 43/8" 1-3/H" N/A 2" 1 HAMMER WT N/A _ 14 Ill NLA NLA HAMMER PALL: N/A 30" N/A N/A SAMPLING HAMNIMBLOWSt ON S)QS (in.fin_) SAAIFtJER(ine6efl ❑FPTII PPN'/RCC H ADSYACG LITHOIAGY(f)emriprion ofnratenuL) MOMFC)R)NG WELL CON5'rRUC'I'Kne (ieeti DF,-I'TH fa'Vnn-lel 0.ff GI: 12-1F 18-'in. (ppm) Auger to 5'. - -- -- I ConsLrucron Kev Well Casing } ® Well Screen 5'-T 2419 6 __ 2.1 FILL:fine to coarse sand,some slap,trace ash,glass, g _ t Native Fill and plastic,dark brownirust color,dry 9 4 Benlomte Sand x ' — Water Table 10 78 4 0 FILL:fine to coarse sand,some ash,slag glass,and 4 trash,broe-n/black/rust color,dry ' 9 0.7 FILL:medium to coarse bnained,some ash fill and glass, 15'.17- 24/12_ — G d-ak bromr$Iackimst color,umt 4 — 20 20'-22' 24/12_ 2 0 FILL:mednnn to coarse sand,some glass,mace lonck, _ I dark brown.wel 1 Y5 25'-27' 1 24/11 5 1.4 SANDY FILL;medium to uoalse and.settle some plass 4and apparent ash material,greasy looking,dark blown/ _—� _0 black color.wet Notes: End ofborinl,;at 27'. MW-4S installed to 25'depth. 2Y u 10'usti PVC screen, 10'to 0 using 2"PVCriser'. 25'O'19'sand, V to$bentonite. 8r to 0 native lilt. BETA GROUP, INC. SOIL BORING/MONITONINC WELL REPORT ' PROJECT'. Salem Landfill BOIUNG/WELL NO, 13-4D/MW-4D LOCA CION: Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DI?I LLING CO'. Soil Ex111oa1inn DATE START"RIA: 7/25/2002. _ 1 FQlJIPMEN"l Tolloe Siem Am ei �i DATE FINISHED. 7/25!2002 DRILLED BY: Gid.Brine SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTED BY flames Smith 'Elevation based on assumed datum. AUGER CORE WELL CROUNDNC4'fEll OBSI'AWA'I"IONS CASING SAMPLER BARtEI. CASING DEMH STAIMUZATIONT1NiP 'i`PPE: HSA Split-Banes N/A _ PVC IS fea SIZE ID' 4-3/8" 1-3/8" N/A 2" FI.AMMER W I': WA 14U Ih _ N/A N/A HAMMER FALL. N/A 30" N/A N/A SAMPLING HAMMER 131,01 ON SOIL DEPTH YLTJIiiI?f Iasi DMTH cAMYI1[R tmdus} IiEADSP,SCF LI'CHQLOGI'(Dcacdnumuifmnieliulst MON110RINE WELL CONSTRU0l90n (fmirvro) L-(r 6-12 1 11-16 IL-24 IPPmJ _ -- Auger to 23, qq S Sampled at five loot intervals from soil boring . B-4S/KIa'-4S,located approzimatelz five feet from Canstmction Kev B-4D/MW-417. _ a Well Easing � ® Well Screen 10 5 a Native Fill _--_ d Bentonite '1... ', O Sand 'A Water Table S 20 g ¢ y: r 25'-27' 24/6 3 2 __ 0 SAND:fine to medium grained,[race silt and gravel,dark r . 2 3 brov,wddack,wet sttj 30 30'-32' 24/24 3 3 11 PCAT'silry clay with oreanic matter,brown,slightly i hpu gy,n5usdi 35'3T 24/18 1 2 0 SILTY CLAY',very tine graded,grayPorown colon_.dry ..... - 4 4 40 .47'44' 34/24 7 13 b SAND:line to coarse stained,Lace gravel,top 12"gray. —._— — 13 U bottom 12"brown,wet MM Notes: �- End of horing at 44', M W AD insrel led 10 44'depth. 44'10 35'using 2"PVC sci een. 35'to 0 using 2"PVC riser. 44'to 34'sand. 34'to 32'bemmnne 32'to 0 native fill. i BETA GROUP, INC. SOIL BORING/MONITONING WELL REPORT PROJECT: Kalem Landfill BORING/WFL,LNO. 13-5/MW-5 LOCATION: Sulem-NiA PACE I OF 1 DRILLINGCO: Soil ExTIconion DATE STARTED: 7/24/2002 EQUIPMENT: Hollow Stem AuuerDATE FINISHED: 7/24/2003 DRiL,LED BY: 64c.Mike SURFACE ELFT<ATION INSPECTED BY:lames Smith.Eric Olson *Eleeauon based nn assumed daumt. ' AUGER CORE WELL GROUNDWATER OBSIERVATIONS CASING SAS4PI-FR BARREL. CASING DEt're 11AIIII 71710N'1TYPE YPE HSA _ Spf t Ba,tc NIA PVC w tCCr SIZE ID; 4 3/S' e/6' _ N/A n - HAMMIER W 1': NIA _ i40 it, NIA NIA PIAMM6R PALL: N/A 30" N/A N/A SAMPLWG HAMMER GLOWS ON SOIL UEI'll9 I'f;NBf" ificr) DEFTit fitinl SAMYLktirwiust IIEAD$VACE LLTHOLOGY{6esedpdnn o(nwerialsl MfjNi'COItiNG WELL fDNST1ID('NON Ifonirol e(� 61^ I2-Ifi IS-2-0 1VIrn'n — AuCCI'to 5'. �. n g COnSiNCtIOn Ket' --_ — _ a � Well Casing p ® Well Screen 5 i 1 5' 7' 24/10 24 0 FILL:line to medium sand,brick lens,trace wood and b �' Native Fill gavel brown/gray color.dry IS y, T" BenRmtle 12 -- D Sand _ a Water Table 10 10 Ln' 24/4 13 - 0 SAND;fine to coarse grained,sonic gravel and cobbles, — 5 brown,dry 10 - 15 — ' 15'-17' 24/6 4 11.3 ROCKY SAND:fractured tock with gravel,some medmm '— _ 5 to coarse said.ince metal dark hroamr'b15CL cola,wzl 4 _ J 10 20'27 24/12 2 0 SILTY SAND:eery line gmincd,dark bro,m wei 5 - - 9 — 13 ,5 2T 17' 24/24 3 __ 0 SIL TY SAND/PEA]`veryiinc�n'ained sand and silt. _ 4 Anne clay and tsganic mann brznvn,moist Notes: F,nd of-boting at 27'. MN',5 installed m 25'depth 25'm 10'using 2"PVC sm'ecn. 10'm 0 using 2"PVC riser. 25'to 9'sand, V to F bentonite. P to 0 naltve rill. BETA CROUP,INC. SOIL BORING/MONI'TONING WELL REPORT PROJECT Salem landfill BORING/WELL NO. B-6 LOCATION: Salem,MA PAGE t OF I DRILLI NG CO. So31 Ep01orsdon DATE STARTED: 7/7-4/2002 _ EOUIPMENT: Hollow Slam AaQer DATF FINISHED: 7/242002 — DRILLED BY: Eric,Miko _ SURFACE ELEVA'LION:_ (NSPE.CTED Hl':,lames Smith.Erie Olsmt `Elevsnon hascrl on assumed datum. ' AUGER CORP. WELL GROUNDWATER 013SGRVATIONS CASING SAMPLER BARREL CASING DEPTH 9TABILIZAI ONTIM Ii TYPE: HSA Split Barrel NIA _PVC 1d feet SIZE ID: 4-3/8" 1-3/8" N/A 2" IiAMNA6R WT: NIA 14016 N/A _ N/A I JAMMER FALL: N/A 30"W N/A —..N/A SAMVLING HAh1MEN BLOW,y ON SOIL OFI'11{ PENftEC (feep DHI'TA (nJm.t SAMnt.Stt i�teites) HEADSPAC£ LITH4IiiGY(Dcsa5Ei5nn oEaare,ials} 4iDM1l C1EttNG WELL CA)N$TRUCTfOK (from-to) 77 6-12 1 12-16 IS'4 lPPaO — -- AtlgartU5. 1 5— 5'-P 24/6 1 0 PILL:fine to coarse sand,trace glass,dark bro va/mat — --t-- color,dry 2 7 10'-12' 24/0 4----- N/A No recovery 4 _.... 4 Water table. 15 �_— IT-IT 24/14 4 2:29 GRAVELLY SAND:Top 4"gravel and coarse grained 5 Sand Bottom IE"fine o arced sand. u'rag fret.odor 4 20 25 Notes: End of hot ng m IT, L. BETA GROUP, INC. SOIL BORING/MONITONINC WELL REPORT PROJECT'. Salem Landfill 1'3ORIN0/WEI...L NO. 11.7 LOCATION: Salem.MA PAGE i OP t DRILLING CO. _Sail E.eplotalian DATE STARTED: 7/24!2002 ' EQUIPMEN-1: hlollmv Slem Auvei DATE FINISHED: 7/24/2002 _ DRILLEDBY: Eric.Mike SURFACE HLEVAHON: _ INSITCPI.D 13Y;James timid'.Eric Olaon -Elovanon based on assumed dant.. AUGER CORE WELL GROUNDWATER OBSI:RVA'!"IONS CASING SAMPLER BARREL CASING UI;:PTkI ' STApILI/ATIONI Mf. TYPE: HSA SS.bp I-EnuTYI MA PVC Ia(tet SIZE ID: 4-3/8" 1-3/8" N/A _2" I IAMMR W'I'` NIA _ I407In N/A _ N/A I AMMER PALL N/A 30" NLA N/A REFI.. SAs11'LINC PEb'fRP,(7 HAMMER BLOWS ON SAIL If p RHYri3 (in lm_I S.M1M1iPi.IIIt(i iiesl HEAUSPAC@ IITHOLOUI filtrccripdoeofimtedais} MONITORING WELL CONS'CRIICI'tON IRomiol 06 6-I: 1]-I8 I1 11 (PPPu _ Auger to 5'. 1 - - 5'-7' ?4/8 3 __ _ 0 SAND:fine to mace sand,brown/cost colo;dry > > 4 14 ' 10'-II' 1_4/10_ 3 -- 89.2 FILE:fine to coarse send,trace glass,brownigray%ntsd 1 red calor,most,odor 1 �._ Water table. 15 15--17 24/12 3 _ 63.6 GRAVELLY SILTY SAND'fine to coarse sand,some 12 __ Lnavei,brown/gmy/.shred coke,moist'odor, 14 bottom 2"crushed ruck 20 Notes: End of bonne at 1 T. ' 1 1 t t t SET 3 1 SOIL BORINGS NOVEMBER 29, 2004 1 1 1 i i i i i 1 i 1 1 1 BETA GROUP,INC. TESTBORING REPORT PROJECT: Salem Lendrill Closure _ BORING NO. B-201 LOCATION: Southeast corner near street PAGE I OF 1 DRILLING CO: Technical Drilling Services DATE STARTED: 11/29/2004 EQUIPMENT DATE FINISHED: 11/29/2004 DRILLED BY: SURFACE ELEVATION:_ INSPECTED BY: LAO GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL NOT EN(tOUNTBRED: TYPE: HAS Sptil-Barrel N/A DEPTH STAaILIZ.A"FIONTIME SIZE ID: 4-3/8"ID 1-3/8" HAMMER WT: 14016 - HAMMER FALL: 30" SAMPLE DA'PA DEPTH SAMPLING HAMMER BLOWS ON STRATA LITHOLOGY SAMPLE PEN/ HNU oh DEPTH SAMPLER(mdm) CHANGE (Description Of materials) in RECOV (pp.) FROM-TO 0-6 6-12 12.IA 1824 ne finh.v) Lamp 10,2 Ae Surface: Disturbed surface of sand,rocks and*misc.debris. 5.0 5-T 2 2 3 3 FILL: Medium-coarse Sand, some Stones, B-201 (5-7'j_ 4/24 IN _ some**Slag,glass,plastic,black/brown/ _ orange, dry,***SPLO. —.—..- 10-12' —4 --3 _ 4 4 FILL:Slag,wood debris, glass,some Silty B-_201 (10 I2) 1ll24 322 Sand,black,moist,SPLO. 15.0 ----- — ' 15-17' 4 3 _ 3— 4 FILL: Silty Sand,fine-medium sand,slag, _B-201(15-17T 2124 — 530_ misc.debris,black/tan,moist,SPLO. — _ 185-16-T 120(2") FILL;Silt,slag,black,wet,SPLO. 13-201 (18-2C)'1 1(24 388 -- 20.0 Notes: `Misc.Debris-Miscellaneous debris consisting of any one or more of the following: metal,plastic,glass or wood. "*Slag-Dross and scoria,which is the refuse created from the incineration of metal. Pieces are hard,rough,and have miscellaneous shapes. The size ranges from that of a pebble to that of a stone. ""SPLO-Strong Petroleurn-like Odor. BETA. GROUP,INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill Closme BORING N0. B-202 ' LOCATION: S:nnhwesi corner PAGE I OF 2 DRILLING CO: Technical Dulling,Sen-mes DATE STARTED: 11/29/2004 EQUIPMENT: DATE FINISHED: 11/29/2004 DRILLED BY: SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTED BY: EAG GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARREL Nur EN,OUNTERED. TYPE: HAS Splii-Barrel N/A DEPTH S'1'ABILIz.rcnowi Mr, SIZE ID: 4-3/8"ID 1-318" Nano HANIMFR WT: 1461b HAMMER FALL: 30" SAMPLE DATA DEPTH SAMPLING HAMMER 81.0"S ON S1'iUPT3 LITHOLOGY SAMPLE PCN/ LOU (fl) DEPTH SAMPI_ER(fxh.) 1 CHANGE (Description of materials) to R'cCOV (pp.,) FROM-TO 0-6 1 6-I2 1 12-18 IS-24 (ft) ('u'Jm.) Lump 10,2 eV. Surface:Disturbed surface of sand,rocks and*mise.debris. 5-T 17 17 3 2 FILL: Silt,fine-coarse Sand,*'Slag, mist. 8-202(5-T) 9/24 _ 0.00 _-„ debris,dark brown,dry. o.o -- — —10-12' -9 4 4 S No Recovery. 0I24 ^- 15-17' 4 5 �3 4 FILL: Slag, mise.debris, some coarse Sand, B-202(15-17') 2/24 _ 0.00— ....—^— �� _ black,moist. v 20.0 - - -- Notes: `Misc.Debris-Misce(ianeous debris consisting of any one or more of(fie following:metal,plastic,glass or wood. `*Slag-Dross and scoria,which is the refuse created from the incineration of metal. Pieces are hard,rough,and have miscellaneous shapes. The size ranges from that of a pebble to that of a stone. i BETA GROUP,INC. TEST BORING REPORT ' PROJECT: Salem Landfill Closure BORING N0. 202 LOCATION: Sothwest Corner PAGE 2 OF 2 ' SAMPLE DATA DEPTH SAMPLING HAMMER BLOWS ON STRATA LITHOLOGY SAMPLE PEN/ HNT (fl) DEPTH SAMPLER finches} CHANGE (Description of materials) ID RECOV {Prim) FROM-ID 0-6 1 6.12 1 12-18 11-24 (fl) ('rJn.) Lamp 10.2 eV. ' 2422' 4 —5 4 -4 - FILL:"Slag,"'mise.debris,some Sand, B-202(2020-22') -_8124 ---0 black,wet. ' 22-24' 4 6 5 6 FILL:Same as above. B-202(22-24') 6!24 0 24-26 9 6 5 7 FILL:Slag,Silty Sand(very fine-fine),misc. B-202 122-24') 10/24 UV_ - — 25.0 debris, black,wet. 26-28' 13 13 120(� FILL:Slag, misc,debris,little organic material, B-2D?. 26-28' 8124_ 0 black,wet. 28-30' Augured Through 30-32' f[121 4' FILL:Slag, misc.debris,little organic material, B-202(30-32' 1124 0 - A black,wet - 32-34' Au Bred Throu In, —N-3-6' 30 25 35 30 Top 6`-FILL:misc.debris,little organic 8-202(34-36} 24124 —b- 35.0 material,black,wet. Next 6"-SILT:Tightly packed Silt w;some fine Sand,dark gray,wet. Strata change is i 36-38'^ 18 25 24 32_ very defined. B-202 36-38' 24/24 0 _ Bottom 12"-SAND:Fine-coarse Sand with some Silt,gray,wet. Strata change is very _ defined. 36-38'-SAND:Fine-coarse Sand,some _ Silt,gray,wet. Ended drilling @ 38'. _ 40.0 ;_77=fl�7_411 Notes: '(Augered through)this layer because we were getting spoon refusal just above this depth. Slag-Dross and scoria,which Is the refuse created from the incineration of metal. They are hard,rough,and have miscellaneous shapes. The size ranges from that of a pebble to that o`a stone. "'Misc,Debris-Miscellaneous debris consisting of any one or more of the following:metal,plastic,glass or wood. ' BETA GROUP, INC. TEST BORING REPORT PROJKT: Salcm Landfill Closene BORING N0. B-203 LOCATION: Westside next to dirt load PAGE IOF 2 DRILLING CO; Technical Drilling Services DATE STARTED: 11/2912004 EQUIPMENT: DATE FINISHED: 11/29/2004 ' DRILLED BY: SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTED BY: EAO GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS CORE CASING SAMPLER BARILEL NpT ENCOUNTFRED- TYPE: HAS SDlii-Barnet N/A DEPTe STABILIZATION rlwe_ SIZE ID: 4-3/8"1D 1-3/8" Nm, HAMMER WT: _ 140 lb HAMMER FALL: 30" SAMPLE DATA DEPTH SAMPLING IjAMMEA BLOWS ON STRA"IA LITHOLOGY SAMPLE PEN/ JIM) (h) DEPTH SAMPLER(inches) CHANGE (Description of materials) 1D RECOV (ppm) FROM-TO 0-6 1 6-1X 1 12-18 19 24 (it) Surface: Disturbed surface of sand,rocks (in.lin} Lmnp lD._2 e1_ _ and'misc.debris. _ 5.0 --- —.....-- 5-T 4 - 2 1 4 Fitt: Medium-coarse Sand, *"slag,brown/black/ B-203(5-P) 6/240.00 white,dry. 10.0 10-12' - 5 3 3 Fill: Slag,fine-medium Sand,some Silt, mist. B-203(10-121 4124_ 0.00 _ debris,black,dry. 15.8 - --- _.—......- 1)-_17 1 2 _ 2_ 3 Fill: Slag, mise. debris,fine-medium Sand, 13-203575-1T} 8124__ 0.00 some Silt,black,dry. — ' 20.0 Notes: *Misc.Debris-Miscellaneous debris consisting of any one or more of the fallowing:metal,plastic,glass or wood. **Slag-Dross and scoria,which is the refuse created from the incineration of metal. They are hard,rough, and have miscellaneous shapes. The size ranges from that of a pebble to that of a stone. i BETA GROUP,INC. TEST BORING REPORT ' PROJFCT: Salem Landfill Closure BORING NO. 203 I OCATI ON. West side next to dirt road PAGE 2 OF 2 SAMPLE DATA ' DEPTH SAMPLING HAMMER B (H) LOWS ON STRATA LITHOLOGY SAMPLE PEN/ HNU DEPTH SAMPLER(inches) CHANGE (Des0rotron of materials) ID RECOV fPGn') FROM-TO 0-6 1 6-12 1 12.18 16-24 in (I,hu.) LemP 10.2 eV 20 10 31 36 33 FILL:"Slag,"'misc.debris,some Sand. _B-203(20 22'J _ 1124 _ p _ black,wet. 22-24— 6 10 7 13 FILL:Same as above. B-203(22-24') 1124 0 24-26' 12 24 10 9 FILL:Slag,Silty Sand(very tine-fine),misc. 0124 25.0 debris,black,wei. 26-28' 5 7 8 10 FILL:Slag,misc debris,little organic material, B-203(26-28' 4124 0 J*Auqered 59 120(U' No Recovery. 0124 120(0') No Recovery. Auger seems to be pushing 0124a piece of unknown material down in frontth it,which is preventing any recovery fromthe split spoon sampler. Throu h. _ Depth of fill could not be precisely placed ' because of no recovery from the sipit steam Fill is estimated to end at a depth of-31 _ 34-36' 73 12 03 436'10 _8 SAND:Silty Sand(very fine-fine),traces of B-2 3 24124 0 35.0 Clay,tightly packed,wet. 1 - 36-38' 2 3 5 5 SAND:Same as above. 8-203 36-38' 24124 0 Ended boring @ 38'. 40.0 Notes: '(Angered through)this layer because we were getting spoon refusal just above this depth. Slag-Dross and scoria,which is the refuse created from the incineration of metal. They are hard,rough,and have miscellaneous_shapes, The size ranges from that of a pebble to that o`--a stone- "'Misc.Debris-Miscellaneous debris consisting of any one or more of the following.metal, plastic,glass or wood. t 1 1 1 ' SET 4 1 TEST PIT LOGS JUNE 25, 2002 t t i 1 i t 1 t II 1 - . Salem Landfill-Test Pit Log June 25, 2002 Test Pit Ip Total Depth _Depth to Ash Comments 1 2' y 2 2• EENo 4 3' NA ash. 5 3' NA ash. 6 2 6" 7 3, 8 3' 6" 9 5' NA No ash. 10 5' 181' Broke 6"conduit,former drainage conduit. Black rens soil 11 7' 24" Found electrical service to scale house. No damn e. 12 5' 30" 13 3'— '12" is 5' NA No ash. 15 4' 3' 16 4' 24" 17 4' Is" 18 8' 4' —_� 19 7' 3.5' 21 _ 4' 18" Within compost drop-off area. 22 8' 3.5' Thick queen dint-smellin rd material at 7' 23 T 3' 24 3' —6" 25 T 5 Traces of solid waste. zs s za° 27 4' 24" 28 8' NA Fill-not ash. 29 3' 12" 30 _ 8' NA Rail ties,metal,wood,brick-no ash. 31 4' 24" 32 2' 6" 33 3' NA Rip-rap fill. 34 5' NA No ash, 35 4' NA Southwestern com ostin ortion. No ash, 36 3' NA Southwestern com ostin ortion.No ash. NA-No ash material observed. E DAR/BP -WITNESS _ - J & f' £S.S £`t `•`i%x 1'-' �� - TER' W�______ FSEFLQVISIBLE WF #10 CONC-! GRAN PILE WF #13--" _ - _ - ' ,+r _ —BRIG DRA AGE U1 QTUR FOREST.-_RIVER _._ _._. -- "- - _--SN�r- 9 , , _ r =SMc'StA \ / 9 WF-'YB= ,. -/ .�T RK �ET N 14175.9.42. / E\99215.ii7 ROYAL ORE �WCODCHIP PILE .." v LEV=67.55 FEET MAP SMC STA #Bl/- / fPE J SET / rr N m. 101-289.18 E'99391.11 BIT CON ' WF P5 e.. ELEV=66.50 FEETl _____ ___ ____ _ - - __ -- _// / . . - -•1 I I I I I 1 1 BIT CONIC qI+I /�' 1 � f: / 90 _7D _ `�� :S/_r r r r •, I > I , / � \ , r ` ' El SB/DH �WF r#4 STAGK zz ,,,/ vvy, vw,1 r SMC ETA FORMER ` + ./ 111_ w PK SET t - I I I I r / / / \ \ 1•\ INCINERATOR ,' N 99283. 6 NT E 99283.86 ELEV=100.00 FE �1#13 i�I I I , �O trv1 Oot P1l^ / i i _ sfs \\,\\�: i TRANSFER 11 ' O / + I o!I b I r y s' fS ,` `•\\, 7 S?AT15N - VENr _� 1 1\ � , / , 1 .wr 2 II 111 f5 1 Ilk I I Iri1. j' \ I / , r , - _ - —NC I i I 1 + - I / WG ,bCBR!SI 1 SIDEWAI R ," ' 3 1� \` �_//, : I / 3"-) STEEL PiPEa??\ _I — 1 1 I I 1 I I IR r/ GRAN FLS 1 I Q I BIT CONC BLDG -&—i I I d I I R �8../IDP.AIN R'A E 11 i - a I I t ' 111 f 'I 'I 11 _PB v 1 PAD E< SCAIF. 11� I BIS CONC CURB D n CONC _ _� _T may,_x 1 •\ r �'9c ' `. LPBo u = ' - —_� 1 TRAILER UP/ _ ',? .fS #431'1 ,h ca e'tclP vL'rEo 1 0 _ \ N. +T #7 '4T` _ - �—r--� R=v2.60 1 rsz ` _ _ _ DP/LPI es =6916 SCOTT ROAD — — l so a SWAMP — OSMH 3 \ NET+T , _ / No PIPE NIBBLE 4312- SMC o / 431" Q SMC STA #2PK SET IN 101 34.19 —� E 99514.61 ELEV=102.88 FEET �' C�2c(,t1 -0 1 MAP 7 PARCEL 69 5.59 ACRES DRAWN BY: BETA WGroup Inc. SCALE: MJZ i_ Engineers- Scientists-Planners 1420 Providence Hwy.(Rio 1) Nclwood,MA 02062 781 255.1982 fax 781 255 1974 DEPT. CHECK: 613lacWone Valley Place Lincoln,RI 02865 401333.2382 fax 401.333.9225 email:beta@beta-ine mm 1 "=50' PROJ. CHECK: 13E'I'A GROUP, INC. TEST PIT REPORT' 13 ETA GROUP,INC. PES"I' PIT REPORT PROJECT`_ Salem Landfill TEST PITNO. TP-1 PROJECT: Salcm Landfill TEST I'LL NO. LOCATION: 12 Swam sscou Road,Salcm,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salcm.MA PACE I OF 1 DRILLING CO: Nonhside Carting DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Canine DATE STAR 1-1-1) 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT. Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DA9-E FINISHED: 6/15/2002 DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE I=1-EVA9 ION: INSPECTED 13Y Tames Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY James Smith-BETA GROUNUWATE6 013SEI2YK191ONS GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GROUND\vAEERNOT ENCOUNTERED GROUNDN'A"I'ER NOT ENCOUNTERED 546iPLr;E DATA _ SA4\1PTs$UKLA DI PI Fi SAMPLING STRATA " SAMPLING 1 SAMPL[ 1'ID PID D[I`I'll Sni ATA Occ) DEPTH CHANGD LITI-1O1.OGY(de9cnptiOn OC maleri0l) SAMPLC ID READING (feet) DEPTH GIiANGElD't' LITHOLOGS'(descrlpoon of material) ID READING PROM-TO (fec0 1 m) FROM TO f mil Ground Surface Ground Surface Top 0" Fill sail. - _ 0 -- Top 6"Fill soil. - 6"to 2'Ash till material. 0 6"to 2'Ash fill material. --� 0 _- -- — -- 5.0 5 0 10.0 —_._-- _— 10.0 _- GENIAZAL REMARKS. GENERAI.REMARKS: BETA CROUP, INC. P11' REPOI2I TI:ST PIT REPORP BETA GROUP, INC. TES"C PROJECT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-3 PROJFCT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. 'IPA I,OCATION'. 12 Swam Ascott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Sham pscou Road,Salem,MA PAGE. I OF I DRILLING CO: Northside Cartin, DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Caning DATE STARTED: 6/2S/2001_ EQUIPMEN1: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 DIULLEDBY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVA'I-IONi INSPFCI ED BY James Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY:James Smitlt-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER 013SERNIAI IONS GROUND"ATF_R NO] I-NCOUNTERED GROUNDWATLit NOT ENCOUNI ER PD $A1111'4G 11A'1'A _ _ _ SA\I1?L D: r,,L _ SAMPLNC STRATA SAMPLING SAMPLE PID Dl?Ill PID DLPw sTRnrn LITHOLOGI'(descri\lion of nmteuap (CeG) DLPIIi (HANG[ LITHOL,OGV(dCSC[IpDOn Of lnalenal) SAMPLE ID READING ((wl) DPPI11 UTANGE(feell I ID Rlv\DING PROM-"r0 (fem) f m) FROM-TO ( p,I - Ground Surface Ground Sudece --__ 0 _ Top 6"Fill soil. 0-3'Fill material. No ash Fill mmeriol ohserved. 0__ _ 6"to T Ash Fill muteriaF 0 --' - 5.0 — _.. 5.0 10.0 109 GENERAL REMARKS GENERAI.REMARKS: BILA GRQIII;.I C, ThST I'I I R FQI2`P BF,7 A CRQIdF,ISG- TI ST FIT REI'I)E2T PRO)ECT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NQ TP-5 PROJECT Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO 1 I'-6 LOCATION: 12 Smarr scotl Road Salem,MA PAGE I OF 1 _ LOCATION: 12 Swu rn� pscolt Rozd,Salerxr,A1A PAGE I OF 1 DRILLING CO: Northside Carti. nR DATE STAR-EDr 6052602, _ DRIL.LINCCO: Northside Canine DATC STAR TED: 6/2572002 EQUIPMENT` Backhoe DATE PINISRED, 6125200? L'QUIPMEN I': Backhoe. DATE FINISHED: 6252042 DRII,.1_ED 11Y: fillly Jr. SURFACE FLEVAjl0l,L DRILLED BY: Billy Ir. SURFACE FL.EVATION: iNSPFCTED BY lames Smith-BFTA INSPECTED BY:James Smith-BE-1'A CROUNIMA'fER OBSERVATIONS CROUNDWA9'ER OBSERVATIONS C-[tOt1NDR':1'tER NOr}NCGONI'Fit IED ,.^.RG(INU1V,hT[iP NGT L@COOxr'FFCD SAhlf7=G DATA 3p\lF!LN:DATA snnml.tyC srxAr.A nLVTH PID DiirT'it SAAi^61NG Sl'RA'fA rl �� orrru ceANCC' LITHOLOGY(descrilvlon of trtateriol) snnlrt.e na aeAnwc DCITe LfFHOLOU}'(dnscripuon of matntap SaMro1 ru> FRom ATO (fcei) (feeq C.NANGE Ifca] lU RI_ADin'Ci m} FNOMTO _ Ground Surfacet nI Ground Surface 0-3'fil malcdaL No ash EIl material ot�served. 0 Toi Eill loti, -- _ 6"to?'Ash All material. g GFNERAI.REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS, BETA GROUP;RNC. 3TFST PLT REPORL i3ETA GROiJI', LNC. TEST PLT REPORT' PROJECT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. 1 P-7 PROJECT: Salem Landfill 'PEST I`IT NO. '111-8 LOCA FION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem,MA PAGE 1 OF I LOCATION: 12 S,nm scout Road,SalemMA PAGE 1 OP 1 DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STARTI_17. 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DAIS FINISHED: 6/25/2002 DRILLED M: Billy Ir. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILI..rD BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELLVATION: INSPF-CI ED BY James Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY:James Smith-BEI A GROUNDWA PER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDAATEIA n'0IENCOUNTERED GROUND%YA'I OR NOT ENCOUNTERED snAI��G DATA SAnI31 .k Urilh SAN111;IN ECRAI'A PID IJEI'TH SAN'IPLING STRATA SAMPLE PID DI P1'tI clinuce LITHOLOGY(description oflTntenal SAMPLE[1D DEP'nt LITHOLOGI` descri tion of maleriap QeeU DLP I11 P ) READING (feeQ CHANGE(F111 I ID R�A'INC, PROM-'f0 (CeeO (\ Int RRGM-TO ( mq Ground Sgdace Ground Surfacc _ Top 6"FIII sail" 0 Top 6"Fill soil. 0 6"to T Ash fill material. 0 _ 6"to 3'Ash Fill material. 0 5.0 5.0 10.0 TOA GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: r r r� r r r r r rr r r r r r r r r rs rr a BETA GROIIl' INC. TEST' PIT,REPURT BETA C ROUi', INC. TEST PV REP©RT . . PROJECT Salcm Landfill TEST PIT NO. T11-9 PROJECT Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP_10 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Northside Curtin• DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT''. Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Bill Ir. SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTED BY Jnrres Smitlr-BETA INSPECTED BY:.lonres Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER OBSERVAT30NS GROUNDWA I ERNOILNCOUNTERED GROUNDN'ATERNOr ENCOUMERED sAurh llArA s hlr x DA'I n SAMPLING 1,us,1A SAMPLING SolIPLE rIU DirIH rDI DErTH s'ranrn L1TI[OLOG V Idescri tion of inner fol (hep DEI'l II CItnNOE EITHDLOGY(description Of material) SAMI'LEID READING (reeq OF,P'rH CHANGE(teen D tD It E.ADING FROM-'r0 (fret) 1 ml FROM-TO fo nq Ground Surface Ground Surtaee 0-5'Fill material. No ash fill material observed 0 Top I S"Fill soil. _ _ 0 -- _ 18"to 5'Ash EII material,some slag. 0 Dark,greasy soil from inside conduit, No odor _ 5.0 10.0 - 10.0 Buckhoe broke 6"conduit.formerly used to drain drivewav near scnle GENERAL REMARKS. GENERA.REMARKS: house. Was blocked when Swampscott Road was repaved. No longer used. $ETA GROUP,INC. TEST:PITI REPORT I3ECA GROUP,INC_ LEST PIT RF.PORI' PR01EC �CT. Salem Landfill "GEST YPC NO. TP-1I PROJECT Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. l'I'-I2 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem.MA PAGE 1 OF I LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road.Salem.MA PAGE I OF I DR ILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STARTED: 6/25/20(12 DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STAR'FFD: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISI-[ED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DA CF FINISHED: 6/25/2002 DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVA'PION: DRILLED BY: Billv Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION'. INSPECTED BY Ra,es Smith-BE'I A INSPECTED BY Janes Smith-BE'PA GROUNDWATER OBSERVAFIONS GROUNDNA"PER ORSERVATIONS GROUNDWAI GR NOT GUCOUNTLRED CROUN'UWATLR NOT ENCOUNTERED SASIPDE DATA _ $ANI LEDXLA S,WN G STRATA PID DE1I'11 SAMPLING STRATA _ SAMPLE PID DEP fII (.41ANGE LI'I HOLOGY description oC material) SAMPLL IIJ DEPTH LITHGI_OG}'(de5Cri1JIi01101 uID121'IoI) II, RLA VINO fFeeq DFPI11 ( P READING (feel) CHANGE((ceU 19LOM-"I'O (@cp ( nq PROM-'Pp I int Ground Surface Ground Surface _- — Top 24"Fill soil. _ 0 _ _ Top 30"Fdl soil. �— _ _0 24"to T Some ash BII material,mixed .vith fill soil. 0 _ 30"to S'Ash Fill mderial,some Man. _. _ 0 5.0 5.0 10.0- 0.0 - -- 10.0 Punctured dead electrical line(no longer used). Formerly used to service GENERAL REMARKS: light pole which has been removed. Also uncovered electrical service to GENERA.REMARKS: scale house. Did not damage live service. BETA CROUP,INC. 3 EST P1'l REPORT BETA GROUP, INC. TE57' YIT KEP0127 PROJECT, Snlem landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-13 PROTECT Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-14 LOCA CION: 12 Swampscott Read,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Sworn pscou Road,Salem.MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Nmhsidc Carting DATE STARTED- 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Canine, DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMEN I: Backhoe DACE FINISI-IED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DA-II?FINISHED: 6/25/300 DRILLED Rl': Bill,Jr. SURFACE ULEVAI[ON: DRILLED BY: Bill' I, SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTED BV lames Snrilh-BETA INSPECTED BY: tomes Smith-BETA GROUND\VAl-ER ORSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER OBSERV.AHONS GIIOUNDR'A"1'ERN0IENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATERNOT ENCOUNTERED SAi\tPF�DATA 5.inl£L',1;n,\7.1 SMIPLINC STRATI\ PID DEPI'VI SAMPLING STRATA SAbiYLE PID DLPllI uIANGE ED HOLOGY(description ofneterial SAMPLE ID Dl rns LI'f110LOGY(description oC maleriaD ID REnDINc Meet) DPP rII ( { ) RHADINC (feeQ CI1ANCr_(reeQ EROM1I-Tlt Ifectl ( nq 1'ItOAI-1'O 1 n0 Ground Surface Ground Surface Top 12"Pill soil. 0-5'FII maleria0 l. No a<h till material observed 12"to 3'Ash Fill material,some slag. 0 --- 5.0 —�_— —_ — 5.0 10.0 _ — IOD GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: BETA GROi3I',,, INC. TILST PIT REPORT BETA gR011I; INC. TEST PIT REPORJ PROILCT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-15 PROJECT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-16 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem,MA PAGE J OF 1 LOCATION: 12 Swam Ascott Road,Salem.MA PAGE 1 OP 1 DRILLING CO: Northside Cartin g DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Canine DA'IE STARTED: 6/25/2_002 EQUIPMEN"I: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATC FINISHED, 6/25/?00� DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVA'IION: INSPECTED BY James Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY:James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GHOUNDNNIA'FER OBSERVATIONS G ItOIIND%v ANI ER NOT ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWA"1'6R NOT ENCOUNI FRED SAM1lrls`E Dye INA $ANIP.E DATA Sr\h1I'hIM SIRn IA SAMP6ING $AMPLE PID Dont rID DErni sncnPA LII'HOLOGY descri Dcrrn CHANGE LITHOLGGY(descriplionof malarial) SAMPLE 11 READING IJEJ it ( Inion aC mnler(n1) ID READING Ilccp (leap I I Qccl] CHANGE ffeep FROM-TO 1 ROM TO I I (a) Ground Surface Ground Surtzcc _ Top 3'Pill soil. 0 _ _ Top 24"Fill soil. Y Io 4'Ash fill material,some glass. 0 ?4"l0 4'Ash fill mslerinl.some glass. 0 _ 10.0 .-. _- _— 10.0 — GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: BETA CROUP; INC. TEST PI'S';REPORT BETA GROUP, INC. PEST PIT REPORT PROJEC-1 Salem Landfill TEST PFI'NO. TP-17 PROJECT Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-1 8 LOCATION: 12 Swam Ascott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Swam scop Road,Salem.MA PAGE 1 OI' I DRILLING CO: Northside Cartnw DA FE STARTED: 625/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Catlin DATE STARTED: 6252002 EQUIPMEN-I''. Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/252002 DRILLED BY: Billv.lr, SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPEC1'E1)BY lames Smhh-BF"LA INSPEC'PED BY:James Smith-BETA GROUNDNVATER OBSERVAI IONS GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS (IROUNDVPATER N01 LNCOUNTF.RED CiROUNO\\'P.'FER N01 ENCOLINTEREU 5AttpI:E DATA sAptp1,k DATA SANT FLING STRATA SAMrt INC SAN1I'LE r11J nr.rnl ADT or,') STRATA IJTIIOIAG\ peep uF_r111 CHANGE LI"FHOLOGY(description oCma(erial) SAMPLEMI RGADING (@cQ DLPIH CHANGE(fccU '(description of material) ID READING FRONS-TO fCccQ ( ml PROM-TO It ml Ground Surface Ground Surface Top 18" Fill soil. 0_ __ 011'Fill Sail. 0 18"m 4'Ash fill material. 0 — - - 4'-R'Ash till material,eluSs. 0 5.0 5.10.0 - 10.0 GENERAL REMARKS G ENERAL R F_NI ARKS: BET C,ROLYINC_ PEST P1TREPOR"C: BETA GROt f, INC. CES'P P1T REPC)RI' PROJECT: Sole,Landfill TEST PITNO. TP-19 PROJECT: Salcm Landfill TEST PIT NO, 1-11-20 LOCA PION: 12 Swam rscoil Road,Salem,MA PAGE 1 OF I LOCATION: 12 Swam Iscoll Road.Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DRILI..ING CO: Northside Carling DATE STARTED: 6/25/2003 DRILLING CO: Northside Carlin• DAI STARTED: 6/25/2003 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/200', DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Ji. SURFACE ELENA TION: INSPECTED 13Y James Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY:James Sntith-13FFA GROI NDWAFEll OBSERVATIONS CROUNDWA I ER OBSERV'AT'IONS GROUND\%A I EIt NOT ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER NOLENCOUNTERED S 1A11'GG DA'1•A _ SAIF1PLE WVI'A SMIPLIN<, CrRn"rA SAMPLING SAMI'Lg PID UI I'ril 1'ID DEI'I'ry ST 24 ",PI ll CIIANCIi LLTFIGLOGY(de5ertphOn OC material) SAMPLE ID READING (rem) DEPTIi CHANCi[(liA feet) LI hHGLOGY(de[cnpllOn Of nIDterifl) tD ItGADING (Peep IIROM-TU (feel) ("'ti') FROM-'f0 Ground Surface Ground Surface EO 0 _ _ Top 6"Fill soil. Tightly compacted. _ 0 6"to 3'Ash fill malerml. 0 05.0 Ip.O _ - - GENERAL RRMARKS GEN ERALREMARKS: L3E'f i GROUP, INC. TEST P17'iREPOR7' 13E`L`A GROUP, INC. PEST PIT REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO_ TP-21 PRO.IF_CT: Salem Landfill TEST PI I NO, TP-'_3 LOCATION: 12 Swam Ascott Read,Salem.MA PAGE 1 OI' 1 LOCATION: 12 Swam Scott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Northside CarlinG DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO'. Northside Carling DATE STAR I BD: 6/15/200= EQUIPAIEN'f: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/1002 DRILLED BY: Bill y Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE_1-1.11VA1 ION: NSPECI'ED BY Janes Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY:Janes Smith-131SIA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONSGROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS GROUN D0'A I ER NOT ENCOUNTERED GROUND\4 A]Ek NO IENCOUNTERED _ SAniPL DATA 8,\hdPGE DATA DLP rH SAMPLING S'(RATA $AMPI.ING _ $AMI'LH PIU CHANGE LITFIOLOGY descri Ilon O(nlaferiaB SAMPLE ID PID DEPTH DEPrIi Sr] 'fA LITHDLOGI (descri tion o(nlfllCnal) (Gem) 1 P READING tr"') CHANGE Ifwll I IU R6�DING FROM- Iflo) I m) PROM-'rp ( nnl Ground Surface Ground Surface IS"Fill soil. 0 _ "Pop 3.5'Gravel and fill soil. Tightly compacted. 0 I S"to 4'Ash fill material. Homogenious ash _ — molerial(within landfill basin) 3.5'to S'Ash,slag,metal,vvires,glass,and fill soil- 23 —_ - Green colored pain-smelling material. 5.0 — __ 5.0 10.0 —.. _— 10.0 GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: BETA CROUP,INC. 11 ST P1T REPORT. BETA GROU3', INC. TEST PtT,REPORT PROIECr: Salm,Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-23 PROJECT: Salem Landfill 'I'ES'I PIT NO. '11'-24 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road.Salem,MA PAGE I OF 1 LOCATION: 12 Swam scott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO Northside Carting DATE STAR"IED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Carling DA-IF S'I"ARI ED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENI': Backhoe DA"rF FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002. DRILLEDBY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY Bill,31. SURFACE ELEVATION: INSI'ECI ED BY James Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY: James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUN IERED CROUNDWAIIiR N'OT ENCOUM'LIO D snn>r aDATk sANIPI[ D.tiE� SAMPLING SIRAfA SAMPLMC SAMIgE 1`IU DI PrII PID DCPTH SIRATA L11"HOLGGY(desttl tlOn Of malerla f FCe1) DEPT I CHANGE LITI'IOLOGY(description of material) SAMPLE 11 READING UNcI) DEPTIi CHANGE(@cp ID tEAU N'C FROM-'I'O I feep f n0 FROM-TO nn1 Ground Surface Ground Surface _ Top 3'Fill soil. - 0 _ Top 6"Fill soil, — 6"to 3'Ash fill material,some slag. _ _ Y to 6'Fill soil and some ash rill malenal. 0 --- - -— 6'to P Ash fill material. — 0- — — - — —'-"-- 10.0 �—- 10.0 GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: BETA GROUP; INC.,. LEST PITREPORT BET 1 GROUP,INC. TEST PIT REPORT PROJECT: Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-25 PROJECT: Salem landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-26 LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Swam>scott Bead,Solent,MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATF:S"FARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Canine DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENI': Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLEDBY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: INSPECTED B)'James Smith-BETA INSPECTED Bl':James Smith-BETA GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION'S GROUNDSVKFLit ORSERVA'I'IONS GROUND\\A I Ell NOT ENCWN i FRED GROUNDWATER1,01 ENCOUNTERED SAAINX DATA SAR1rI N UXI'A Sr\NP6IN(' STRAL\ PID SAMPLING S:\A1PUi I'Ila Dtrnl c,Ilnn'G> LFFHOLOGY descri on of material SAMPLE DEPTH DEPTI 5'rliAl'n I11 HOLOGI'(descnption ofnwteriall IImO DEI'1II ( I ) READING [CeeO CItANGE(fcmt lU RaApINC FROM-Tp lfec0 ( FROM nnl Ground Surface Ground Surlace Top 2'Fill soil. 0 — "Cop 24"Pill soil,some solid waste Qnetal,iebar, 0--_ --- brick). Yto 5'Fill soil with some solid waste(glass.plastic, 0 _ 24"to 5'Ash fill material. _ 0 brick,while colored material) — - 5.0 5O 5'w T Soil and ash f II material.Some slag. 0 _ — - --- 10.0 - — � 10.0 GENERAI.REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: I3F,TA GROUP; INC_ E5T PIT€REPORT RET 1 GROUP,INC. TEST PIT REPORT' PROJECT Salcm ___ _. �Landlill "FEST T I'IT NO. TP-27 PROJECT: Salem Landfill TRS'E PIT NO. TP-2S LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Swam Scott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT': Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE:FINISIIED6/'_9200'_ DRILLED BY' Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE EI_EVA'I'ION: INSPECTED BYJamcs Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY:Junes Smith-BETA GROUND}VA I EIt OBSERVATIONS GROUND}VATER OBSERVATIONS G'ROUNIMW A ER NO] EN000N'rER[ GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED $nik[Pl G DA DA SANt1'I['i8 DAYA DEPI II CAi 1PLING S'I'ItA L\ SAMPLING SAMI'IE PID PID DEPTH $PRATA CHANGE LITIiOLOGY(description oC malfrlal) SAMPLE ID READING Dlil'TIi LITHDI,OG}'(descripllOn Ot material) ID READING (feep r)I_PI❑ (�etl CHANGE(fmp FROA1-'I'O beep (pp"') PROM-'[O 1 ml Ground So,face Ground Surface Tap 24"Fill soil,some debris(brick,wood). 0 Top 24"Fill soil,some debris(a,00d,brick,concrete) .0 Trace ash material. — -- 24"to 4'Ash 1-111 material,some slag. _ 0 _ ?4"to 8'Fill material,debris(conerele blocks,metal, 0 - bricks). No ash fill material obscn'ed. 5.0 - 10.0 GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: BE'T'A GROLP ]NC. TE57' PIT REPORT BETA CROUP, INC. TEST PIT REPORT PRO)ECI': Salcm Landfill IEST PIT NO, TP-29 PROJECT: Salem Landfill TEST PII NO. TP-30 LOCATION: 12 Sovu\Ascott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCA"ZION: 12 S\\mm scall Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING CO: Northside Curtin. DATE STARTED: 6/252002 DRILLING CO: Northside Canine DATE STAR IT D'. 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DA'T2 FINISHED: 6252002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 625/2002 DRILLED BY: Biil ,lr. SURFACE EI.,FVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Ji. SURFACE ELEVATION: I NSPECIED BY James Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY: lames Smith-BF'I'A GROUNDNVA I ER OBSERVA PIONS GROUND\VA9"Elt OBSERVATIONS GROl1N0\V,4'1 EIL NO"r ENCOUNTERED (1,1 OUND W ATF R NOT ENCOUNTERED SnturUG nAra SA�tP[E un�l.� 6AfvINJNG STRAIA _ SAMPLING Flll DEPrII ND DIST, STRATA SA�1) Ueeq OCPIII LIIANOE LIPHGLOGY(de$Cnph0n 0f maleflall SAMPLE ID READING QeeO DEPTFI CHANCE(leml LITFIOLCIG) (de5arlptipn Of matcrinD ID READING PROM-TO ll'ccp Will) FRONv IQ 1 m» Ground Surface Cn'ound Surface "fop 12"Fill soil. 0 _ Top 4"Fill material,railroad lies near surface. 12"to T Ash fill material. 0 -- 4'f(,S'Fill material,debris(glass,wood,plastic,trace _ q _0 5.0 -- 5.0 �- mclal,tire at 6'). No ash fill material obseraed. _ 10.0 10.0 GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: III Til GROUP; INC_ TEST P1T REPORT 13ETA GROUP, INC. GEST PITT REPORT PROJLC I Salon Landfill TEST PIT NO. TP-31 PROJECT: Salem Landfill TEST N I NO, TP-l" LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road,Salem.MA PAGE 1 OI 1 DRILLING CO: Northside Curtin DATE STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Curtina DATE STARTED: 6/25/3002 EQUIPMENT': Backhoe DATE NNIS][ED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 DRILLED BY: Billy Jr, SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Ir, SURFACE ELEVATION': INSPECTED BY lames Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY:James Smith-BETA GROUNDWAI Ell OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWAI Ell OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER NO IENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER NO'T ENCOUNTERED SANIPhE DATA _ _ SANIPLIN DA'C5 Ili Vfll SAMPLING STRATA SAMPLING SAMPLE PID PID DEPni STRn I LITHOLOGT(description of material) Qeeq DEPIII CIiANGE LITHOLOGY(deSCnpt1011 OP malcdal) SAMPLE ID READING (I'ce0 DEPTH CHANGE tfeep F IU RIiAIJINC FRUJ1-10 lfcc0 PROM-'TO l nJ Ground Surface Ground Surface _ "fop 24"Fill sail. _ 0 Top 6"Fill soil. 6"to 2'Ash(ill material. 14"to 4'Ash fill material. 0 -- --- 100 GENERAL REMARKS. GENERAL REMARKS: I3ET GROUP,INC_ I ST P1T REPORT BETA GROU(', INC. TEST PIT REPORT PROIEC F Salem Landfill "1 EST PIT NO. FP-33 PRO,IFCT: Salem landfill TEST PI F NO. 1 P-34 LOCATION- 12 Swam scop Road,Salem.MA PAGE I OF I LOCA"TION: 12 Swampscott Road.Salem,MA PAGE I OF I DRILLING(0: Northside Carling DA'Z'E STARTED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Canine DATE STA RTE D: 6/25/2002 ' EQU IPMFN'1: Backhoe DATE FINISHED'. 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DA TE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 DRILLED 13Y hill .Ir. SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLED BY: Billy Jr. SURFACE ELEVA'I ION: INSPECTED M James Smith-BETA INSPECTED B}': James Smith-BETA GROUNDSYAPER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWA'IM NOT CNCOUN'I'ERCD GRUW)NATERNO'r HNCOUNI'CRED Sz?WPM t1A'I:� _ S"o'llP 141I)XrA _ SAMPI;INC' STRATA SAMPLING , SANIPLE PID DI,PTH PID Dcrt3i STRIA LITItOl_OGY(descrrrtmn of material (leep Mill ❑ CHAUCG LITHGLOGY(description of material) SAMPLEID READING Ueel) DEPTH CHANGE(F-10 ID RItADING FROM-TO QCR) Ilam) FROM t .... Ground Surface Ground Surface 0 to 3'Fill material. Rip rap,brick,asphalt,sail. 0 _ 0 to 5'Fill material.same brick,metal,wood, No ash till material observed. _ concrete. No ash fill material abscrved. _ 10.0 10.0 GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: BETA GROL3P, INC_ lI S'L PLT REPORT BETA GROUT', INC. TEST PLT REPOW PROJLCI Salcm Landfill TEST PI'PNO. TP-35 PROJECT. Salem Landfill TEST PIT NO. 1 P-36 LOCATION: 12 Swam pscolt Road.Salem,MA PAGE I OF I LOCATION: 12 Swam tscon Road.Salem,MA PAGE. I OF I DRILLING CO: Northside Cartin• DATE START ED: 6/25/2002 DRILLING CO: Northside Carting DATE STARTED: 6/'_5/2002 EQUIPMENT': Backhoe DATE FINISHED: 6/25/2002 EQUIPMENT: Backhoe DATE FINISHED'. 6/25/2002 DRILLED BY Billv.lr. SURFACE ELEVATION; DRILLED BY: Billy Jr, SURFACE PLEVA ITON: INSPECT ED BY Jancs Smith-BETA INSPECTED BY James Smith-BETA GROUNIM %rI'ER OBSERVATIONS GROUNDWATEll OBSERVATIONS GROUNDp'At ER NO"I'ENCOUN I BRED GKOUNDN'A I IR 1,101 EN(OUNIERPD DATAsantrl;l=Da'r Y SAMPLING cl'RATA ( R SAMPLING T SAMPLE PID DI PI II CIIANOE LITHOLOGY(description pion of Material SAMPLE ID PID DEPTfI DEPTII STRATA LII HOLOGY(dcacrlptiOn Of material) ID READING 111j DEPTH ( I READING (fccp CIIANGE(feeo FROM-Tp (Peep ( ml FROM t 'p1I Ground Surface Ground Surface 0 to 4'Native material. Soil,gravel,roots. _ _ 0 __.._ 0 to 3'Fill material,soil,some rip rap,ledge. No landfill or ash fill material observed. No Inadfill or ash fill material observed. 5.0 5.0 .. _ . 10.0 10.0 GENERAL REMARKS GENERAL REMARKS: