evaluation of site and its potential impacts on … · tlie existing unlined landfill poses a...

47
SiTE: Q^s^mLldiL,^ OThfER ^ SDMS DocID 466712 J CH2M HILL REPORT EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL LANDFILL AND FTS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE SCITUATE RESERVOIR

Upload: others

Post on 11-Oct-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

SiTE Q^s^mLldiL^

OThfER

^

SDMS DocID 466712 J

CH2M HILL REPORT EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL LANDFILL AND FTS POTENTIAL

IMPACTS ON THE SCITUATE RESERVOIR

RHODE ISLAND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Central Landfill 65 Shun Pike Johnston Rhode island 02919 401 942-1430

1

FAX 401 946-5174

JERROLD L LAVINE Chairman THOMAS E WRIGHT Executive Director

J I

cr q shy ji 1992

shy

February 3 1992

Mr Ed Summerly GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc 14 0 Broadway Providence RI 02903

Dear Mr Summerly

Per your request enclosed is a copy of Evaluation of the Central Landfill and Its Potential Impacts of the Scituate Reservoir prepared for Providence Water Supply Board

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me

Very truly yours

Julie A Jaglowski Environment Engineer

JAJeap

Enclosure

cc Dennis aRusso

100 Recycled Paper

EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL LANDFILL

AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE SCITUATE RESERVOIR

Prepared For PROVIDENCE WATER SUPPLY BOARD

Providence Rhode Island

Prepared By CH2M HILL

28 State Street Boston Massachusetts 02109

October 1988 WDC26416A0

BSR03007

Engineers Planners

j T g ^ g Economists ^ i l i i S l S Scientists

October 17 1988

WDC26416AO

Mr Domenic J Mainelli Chief EngineerGeneral Manager Providence Water Supply Board 552 Academy Avenue Providence Rhode Island 02908-2792

Subject Evaluation of the Central Landfill CH2M HILL Project No WDC26416AO

Dear Mr Mainelli

Please find enclosed ten copies of our revised report entitled Evaluation of the Central Landfill and Its Potential Impacts on the Scituate Reservoir

In direct response to your initial questions we offer the following

1 Is there seepage from the [Central] landfill

Yes Because the existing landfill is unlined seepage from the landfill doesoccur This seepage is referred to as leachate

2 What is contained in the seepage

Based on the analyses of water samples obtained from monitoring wells located in and around the landfill the landfill leachate has been found to contain a variety of contaminants including chloride nitrate and sulfate dissolved metals volatile organic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds

3 Is the seepage moving toward the reservoir

Although the existing data are inconclusive the presence of both a surface-water divide and a shallow groundwater divide suggest that movement of groundwater and hence landfill ]oachate from

CH2MHliL Boston Office 28 Stale Sfreet 18th Floor Boston Massachusetts 02109 6175232260

I I Doinenic J M a i n e l l i

4| Page 2 O c t o b e r 17 1988 WDC2 6n6AO

i

m

Pl

the landfill area is not toward either the Scituate Reservoir or the Aqueduct

4 Is the seepage moving toward any other facilities of the board

See response to Question 3

5 If there is seepage what kind of threat does it represent

a To water quality b In what time frame

It is unlikely that seepage from the Central Landshyfill poses any threat to the Scituate Reservoir The landfill does however pose an immediate threat to water quality in the vicinity of the landfill and the receiving bodies of watermdashCedar Swamp Brook Alray Reservoir and Upper Simmons Reservoir

6 If there is no seepage what further actions can be taken to monitor the situation

The existing data are now and will most likely remain inconclusive However deeper wells located between the landfill and the surface-water divide could establish the direction of groundwater movement with greater certainty It is recoirmiended that this additional information be requested of either the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation or the US EPA the latter of which is conducting the Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study (RIFS) of the Central Landfill Sources of contamination other than the landfill may be posing an even greater threat to the water quality of the Scituate Reservoir Land usage around and within the watershed should be evaluated and consideration should be given to routine groundwater monitoring at selected locations

HI

Mainelli

Page 3 October 17 1988 WDC2 6116AO

D ome n i c

What effect will the current expansion plans of the Solid Waste Management Corporation have on the current situation

The current expansion plans will keep a major portion of the existing landfill open to infiltrashytion throughout the expansion period Unless measures are taken to reduce the amount of infilshytration to the existing fill the discharge cf landfill leachate will continue unabated

Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any further assistance It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project

Very truly yours

rd W Bowers PE esident Manager

BSCG5001

SUMMARY

Significant groundwater contamination has been observed in

monitoring wells located both within the Central Landfill

area and downgradient of the existing fill Piezometric

data suggest that most if not all of the contaminated

groundwater discharges to the following areas Cedar Swamp

Brook which drains to Upper Simmons Reservoir Upper

Simmons Reservoir and Almy Reservoir The vertical and

lateral extent of groundwater contamination has not yet been

completely defined The rates and directions of groundwater

movement can only be inferred from the data that are

currently available

Fracture studies indicate a potential pathway for tlie

migration of groundwater contaminants from the Central

Landfill to Scituate Reservoir At elevation 284 the

spillway elevation of the Scituate Reservoir is well below

the piezometric level of wells located within the Central

Landfill which is at elevations 310 to 380 This

difference in head provides a potential driving mechanism

for the migration of contaminants from the Central Landfill

to Scituate Reservoir However both a surface-water divide

and a shallow groundwater divide are located between the

landfill and Scituate Reservoir Although the existing data

remain inconclusive the presence of these surface and

near-surface features suggests that even at greater depths

movement of groundwater from the landfill area is not toward

the Scituate Reservoir If the movement of groundvater is

away from the landfill it is unlikely that the Central

Landfill has any significant impact on the Scituate

Reservoir

BSR03022

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 2: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

RHODE ISLAND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Central Landfill 65 Shun Pike Johnston Rhode island 02919 401 942-1430

1

FAX 401 946-5174

JERROLD L LAVINE Chairman THOMAS E WRIGHT Executive Director

J I

cr q shy ji 1992

shy

February 3 1992

Mr Ed Summerly GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc 14 0 Broadway Providence RI 02903

Dear Mr Summerly

Per your request enclosed is a copy of Evaluation of the Central Landfill and Its Potential Impacts of the Scituate Reservoir prepared for Providence Water Supply Board

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me

Very truly yours

Julie A Jaglowski Environment Engineer

JAJeap

Enclosure

cc Dennis aRusso

100 Recycled Paper

EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL LANDFILL

AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE SCITUATE RESERVOIR

Prepared For PROVIDENCE WATER SUPPLY BOARD

Providence Rhode Island

Prepared By CH2M HILL

28 State Street Boston Massachusetts 02109

October 1988 WDC26416A0

BSR03007

Engineers Planners

j T g ^ g Economists ^ i l i i S l S Scientists

October 17 1988

WDC26416AO

Mr Domenic J Mainelli Chief EngineerGeneral Manager Providence Water Supply Board 552 Academy Avenue Providence Rhode Island 02908-2792

Subject Evaluation of the Central Landfill CH2M HILL Project No WDC26416AO

Dear Mr Mainelli

Please find enclosed ten copies of our revised report entitled Evaluation of the Central Landfill and Its Potential Impacts on the Scituate Reservoir

In direct response to your initial questions we offer the following

1 Is there seepage from the [Central] landfill

Yes Because the existing landfill is unlined seepage from the landfill doesoccur This seepage is referred to as leachate

2 What is contained in the seepage

Based on the analyses of water samples obtained from monitoring wells located in and around the landfill the landfill leachate has been found to contain a variety of contaminants including chloride nitrate and sulfate dissolved metals volatile organic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds

3 Is the seepage moving toward the reservoir

Although the existing data are inconclusive the presence of both a surface-water divide and a shallow groundwater divide suggest that movement of groundwater and hence landfill ]oachate from

CH2MHliL Boston Office 28 Stale Sfreet 18th Floor Boston Massachusetts 02109 6175232260

I I Doinenic J M a i n e l l i

4| Page 2 O c t o b e r 17 1988 WDC2 6n6AO

i

m

Pl

the landfill area is not toward either the Scituate Reservoir or the Aqueduct

4 Is the seepage moving toward any other facilities of the board

See response to Question 3

5 If there is seepage what kind of threat does it represent

a To water quality b In what time frame

It is unlikely that seepage from the Central Landshyfill poses any threat to the Scituate Reservoir The landfill does however pose an immediate threat to water quality in the vicinity of the landfill and the receiving bodies of watermdashCedar Swamp Brook Alray Reservoir and Upper Simmons Reservoir

6 If there is no seepage what further actions can be taken to monitor the situation

The existing data are now and will most likely remain inconclusive However deeper wells located between the landfill and the surface-water divide could establish the direction of groundwater movement with greater certainty It is recoirmiended that this additional information be requested of either the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation or the US EPA the latter of which is conducting the Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study (RIFS) of the Central Landfill Sources of contamination other than the landfill may be posing an even greater threat to the water quality of the Scituate Reservoir Land usage around and within the watershed should be evaluated and consideration should be given to routine groundwater monitoring at selected locations

HI

Mainelli

Page 3 October 17 1988 WDC2 6116AO

D ome n i c

What effect will the current expansion plans of the Solid Waste Management Corporation have on the current situation

The current expansion plans will keep a major portion of the existing landfill open to infiltrashytion throughout the expansion period Unless measures are taken to reduce the amount of infilshytration to the existing fill the discharge cf landfill leachate will continue unabated

Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any further assistance It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project

Very truly yours

rd W Bowers PE esident Manager

BSCG5001

SUMMARY

Significant groundwater contamination has been observed in

monitoring wells located both within the Central Landfill

area and downgradient of the existing fill Piezometric

data suggest that most if not all of the contaminated

groundwater discharges to the following areas Cedar Swamp

Brook which drains to Upper Simmons Reservoir Upper

Simmons Reservoir and Almy Reservoir The vertical and

lateral extent of groundwater contamination has not yet been

completely defined The rates and directions of groundwater

movement can only be inferred from the data that are

currently available

Fracture studies indicate a potential pathway for tlie

migration of groundwater contaminants from the Central

Landfill to Scituate Reservoir At elevation 284 the

spillway elevation of the Scituate Reservoir is well below

the piezometric level of wells located within the Central

Landfill which is at elevations 310 to 380 This

difference in head provides a potential driving mechanism

for the migration of contaminants from the Central Landfill

to Scituate Reservoir However both a surface-water divide

and a shallow groundwater divide are located between the

landfill and Scituate Reservoir Although the existing data

remain inconclusive the presence of these surface and

near-surface features suggests that even at greater depths

movement of groundwater from the landfill area is not toward

the Scituate Reservoir If the movement of groundvater is

away from the landfill it is unlikely that the Central

Landfill has any significant impact on the Scituate

Reservoir

BSR03022

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 3: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL LANDFILL

AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE SCITUATE RESERVOIR

Prepared For PROVIDENCE WATER SUPPLY BOARD

Providence Rhode Island

Prepared By CH2M HILL

28 State Street Boston Massachusetts 02109

October 1988 WDC26416A0

BSR03007

Engineers Planners

j T g ^ g Economists ^ i l i i S l S Scientists

October 17 1988

WDC26416AO

Mr Domenic J Mainelli Chief EngineerGeneral Manager Providence Water Supply Board 552 Academy Avenue Providence Rhode Island 02908-2792

Subject Evaluation of the Central Landfill CH2M HILL Project No WDC26416AO

Dear Mr Mainelli

Please find enclosed ten copies of our revised report entitled Evaluation of the Central Landfill and Its Potential Impacts on the Scituate Reservoir

In direct response to your initial questions we offer the following

1 Is there seepage from the [Central] landfill

Yes Because the existing landfill is unlined seepage from the landfill doesoccur This seepage is referred to as leachate

2 What is contained in the seepage

Based on the analyses of water samples obtained from monitoring wells located in and around the landfill the landfill leachate has been found to contain a variety of contaminants including chloride nitrate and sulfate dissolved metals volatile organic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds

3 Is the seepage moving toward the reservoir

Although the existing data are inconclusive the presence of both a surface-water divide and a shallow groundwater divide suggest that movement of groundwater and hence landfill ]oachate from

CH2MHliL Boston Office 28 Stale Sfreet 18th Floor Boston Massachusetts 02109 6175232260

I I Doinenic J M a i n e l l i

4| Page 2 O c t o b e r 17 1988 WDC2 6n6AO

i

m

Pl

the landfill area is not toward either the Scituate Reservoir or the Aqueduct

4 Is the seepage moving toward any other facilities of the board

See response to Question 3

5 If there is seepage what kind of threat does it represent

a To water quality b In what time frame

It is unlikely that seepage from the Central Landshyfill poses any threat to the Scituate Reservoir The landfill does however pose an immediate threat to water quality in the vicinity of the landfill and the receiving bodies of watermdashCedar Swamp Brook Alray Reservoir and Upper Simmons Reservoir

6 If there is no seepage what further actions can be taken to monitor the situation

The existing data are now and will most likely remain inconclusive However deeper wells located between the landfill and the surface-water divide could establish the direction of groundwater movement with greater certainty It is recoirmiended that this additional information be requested of either the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation or the US EPA the latter of which is conducting the Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study (RIFS) of the Central Landfill Sources of contamination other than the landfill may be posing an even greater threat to the water quality of the Scituate Reservoir Land usage around and within the watershed should be evaluated and consideration should be given to routine groundwater monitoring at selected locations

HI

Mainelli

Page 3 October 17 1988 WDC2 6116AO

D ome n i c

What effect will the current expansion plans of the Solid Waste Management Corporation have on the current situation

The current expansion plans will keep a major portion of the existing landfill open to infiltrashytion throughout the expansion period Unless measures are taken to reduce the amount of infilshytration to the existing fill the discharge cf landfill leachate will continue unabated

Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any further assistance It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project

Very truly yours

rd W Bowers PE esident Manager

BSCG5001

SUMMARY

Significant groundwater contamination has been observed in

monitoring wells located both within the Central Landfill

area and downgradient of the existing fill Piezometric

data suggest that most if not all of the contaminated

groundwater discharges to the following areas Cedar Swamp

Brook which drains to Upper Simmons Reservoir Upper

Simmons Reservoir and Almy Reservoir The vertical and

lateral extent of groundwater contamination has not yet been

completely defined The rates and directions of groundwater

movement can only be inferred from the data that are

currently available

Fracture studies indicate a potential pathway for tlie

migration of groundwater contaminants from the Central

Landfill to Scituate Reservoir At elevation 284 the

spillway elevation of the Scituate Reservoir is well below

the piezometric level of wells located within the Central

Landfill which is at elevations 310 to 380 This

difference in head provides a potential driving mechanism

for the migration of contaminants from the Central Landfill

to Scituate Reservoir However both a surface-water divide

and a shallow groundwater divide are located between the

landfill and Scituate Reservoir Although the existing data

remain inconclusive the presence of these surface and

near-surface features suggests that even at greater depths

movement of groundwater from the landfill area is not toward

the Scituate Reservoir If the movement of groundvater is

away from the landfill it is unlikely that the Central

Landfill has any significant impact on the Scituate

Reservoir

BSR03022

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 4: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Engineers Planners

j T g ^ g Economists ^ i l i i S l S Scientists

October 17 1988

WDC26416AO

Mr Domenic J Mainelli Chief EngineerGeneral Manager Providence Water Supply Board 552 Academy Avenue Providence Rhode Island 02908-2792

Subject Evaluation of the Central Landfill CH2M HILL Project No WDC26416AO

Dear Mr Mainelli

Please find enclosed ten copies of our revised report entitled Evaluation of the Central Landfill and Its Potential Impacts on the Scituate Reservoir

In direct response to your initial questions we offer the following

1 Is there seepage from the [Central] landfill

Yes Because the existing landfill is unlined seepage from the landfill doesoccur This seepage is referred to as leachate

2 What is contained in the seepage

Based on the analyses of water samples obtained from monitoring wells located in and around the landfill the landfill leachate has been found to contain a variety of contaminants including chloride nitrate and sulfate dissolved metals volatile organic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds

3 Is the seepage moving toward the reservoir

Although the existing data are inconclusive the presence of both a surface-water divide and a shallow groundwater divide suggest that movement of groundwater and hence landfill ]oachate from

CH2MHliL Boston Office 28 Stale Sfreet 18th Floor Boston Massachusetts 02109 6175232260

I I Doinenic J M a i n e l l i

4| Page 2 O c t o b e r 17 1988 WDC2 6n6AO

i

m

Pl

the landfill area is not toward either the Scituate Reservoir or the Aqueduct

4 Is the seepage moving toward any other facilities of the board

See response to Question 3

5 If there is seepage what kind of threat does it represent

a To water quality b In what time frame

It is unlikely that seepage from the Central Landshyfill poses any threat to the Scituate Reservoir The landfill does however pose an immediate threat to water quality in the vicinity of the landfill and the receiving bodies of watermdashCedar Swamp Brook Alray Reservoir and Upper Simmons Reservoir

6 If there is no seepage what further actions can be taken to monitor the situation

The existing data are now and will most likely remain inconclusive However deeper wells located between the landfill and the surface-water divide could establish the direction of groundwater movement with greater certainty It is recoirmiended that this additional information be requested of either the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation or the US EPA the latter of which is conducting the Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study (RIFS) of the Central Landfill Sources of contamination other than the landfill may be posing an even greater threat to the water quality of the Scituate Reservoir Land usage around and within the watershed should be evaluated and consideration should be given to routine groundwater monitoring at selected locations

HI

Mainelli

Page 3 October 17 1988 WDC2 6116AO

D ome n i c

What effect will the current expansion plans of the Solid Waste Management Corporation have on the current situation

The current expansion plans will keep a major portion of the existing landfill open to infiltrashytion throughout the expansion period Unless measures are taken to reduce the amount of infilshytration to the existing fill the discharge cf landfill leachate will continue unabated

Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any further assistance It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project

Very truly yours

rd W Bowers PE esident Manager

BSCG5001

SUMMARY

Significant groundwater contamination has been observed in

monitoring wells located both within the Central Landfill

area and downgradient of the existing fill Piezometric

data suggest that most if not all of the contaminated

groundwater discharges to the following areas Cedar Swamp

Brook which drains to Upper Simmons Reservoir Upper

Simmons Reservoir and Almy Reservoir The vertical and

lateral extent of groundwater contamination has not yet been

completely defined The rates and directions of groundwater

movement can only be inferred from the data that are

currently available

Fracture studies indicate a potential pathway for tlie

migration of groundwater contaminants from the Central

Landfill to Scituate Reservoir At elevation 284 the

spillway elevation of the Scituate Reservoir is well below

the piezometric level of wells located within the Central

Landfill which is at elevations 310 to 380 This

difference in head provides a potential driving mechanism

for the migration of contaminants from the Central Landfill

to Scituate Reservoir However both a surface-water divide

and a shallow groundwater divide are located between the

landfill and Scituate Reservoir Although the existing data

remain inconclusive the presence of these surface and

near-surface features suggests that even at greater depths

movement of groundwater from the landfill area is not toward

the Scituate Reservoir If the movement of groundvater is

away from the landfill it is unlikely that the Central

Landfill has any significant impact on the Scituate

Reservoir

BSR03022

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 5: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

I I Doinenic J M a i n e l l i

4| Page 2 O c t o b e r 17 1988 WDC2 6n6AO

i

m

Pl

the landfill area is not toward either the Scituate Reservoir or the Aqueduct

4 Is the seepage moving toward any other facilities of the board

See response to Question 3

5 If there is seepage what kind of threat does it represent

a To water quality b In what time frame

It is unlikely that seepage from the Central Landshyfill poses any threat to the Scituate Reservoir The landfill does however pose an immediate threat to water quality in the vicinity of the landfill and the receiving bodies of watermdashCedar Swamp Brook Alray Reservoir and Upper Simmons Reservoir

6 If there is no seepage what further actions can be taken to monitor the situation

The existing data are now and will most likely remain inconclusive However deeper wells located between the landfill and the surface-water divide could establish the direction of groundwater movement with greater certainty It is recoirmiended that this additional information be requested of either the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation or the US EPA the latter of which is conducting the Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study (RIFS) of the Central Landfill Sources of contamination other than the landfill may be posing an even greater threat to the water quality of the Scituate Reservoir Land usage around and within the watershed should be evaluated and consideration should be given to routine groundwater monitoring at selected locations

HI

Mainelli

Page 3 October 17 1988 WDC2 6116AO

D ome n i c

What effect will the current expansion plans of the Solid Waste Management Corporation have on the current situation

The current expansion plans will keep a major portion of the existing landfill open to infiltrashytion throughout the expansion period Unless measures are taken to reduce the amount of infilshytration to the existing fill the discharge cf landfill leachate will continue unabated

Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any further assistance It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project

Very truly yours

rd W Bowers PE esident Manager

BSCG5001

SUMMARY

Significant groundwater contamination has been observed in

monitoring wells located both within the Central Landfill

area and downgradient of the existing fill Piezometric

data suggest that most if not all of the contaminated

groundwater discharges to the following areas Cedar Swamp

Brook which drains to Upper Simmons Reservoir Upper

Simmons Reservoir and Almy Reservoir The vertical and

lateral extent of groundwater contamination has not yet been

completely defined The rates and directions of groundwater

movement can only be inferred from the data that are

currently available

Fracture studies indicate a potential pathway for tlie

migration of groundwater contaminants from the Central

Landfill to Scituate Reservoir At elevation 284 the

spillway elevation of the Scituate Reservoir is well below

the piezometric level of wells located within the Central

Landfill which is at elevations 310 to 380 This

difference in head provides a potential driving mechanism

for the migration of contaminants from the Central Landfill

to Scituate Reservoir However both a surface-water divide

and a shallow groundwater divide are located between the

landfill and Scituate Reservoir Although the existing data

remain inconclusive the presence of these surface and

near-surface features suggests that even at greater depths

movement of groundwater from the landfill area is not toward

the Scituate Reservoir If the movement of groundvater is

away from the landfill it is unlikely that the Central

Landfill has any significant impact on the Scituate

Reservoir

BSR03022

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 6: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Mainelli

Page 3 October 17 1988 WDC2 6116AO

D ome n i c

What effect will the current expansion plans of the Solid Waste Management Corporation have on the current situation

The current expansion plans will keep a major portion of the existing landfill open to infiltrashytion throughout the expansion period Unless measures are taken to reduce the amount of infilshytration to the existing fill the discharge cf landfill leachate will continue unabated

Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be of any further assistance It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project

Very truly yours

rd W Bowers PE esident Manager

BSCG5001

SUMMARY

Significant groundwater contamination has been observed in

monitoring wells located both within the Central Landfill

area and downgradient of the existing fill Piezometric

data suggest that most if not all of the contaminated

groundwater discharges to the following areas Cedar Swamp

Brook which drains to Upper Simmons Reservoir Upper

Simmons Reservoir and Almy Reservoir The vertical and

lateral extent of groundwater contamination has not yet been

completely defined The rates and directions of groundwater

movement can only be inferred from the data that are

currently available

Fracture studies indicate a potential pathway for tlie

migration of groundwater contaminants from the Central

Landfill to Scituate Reservoir At elevation 284 the

spillway elevation of the Scituate Reservoir is well below

the piezometric level of wells located within the Central

Landfill which is at elevations 310 to 380 This

difference in head provides a potential driving mechanism

for the migration of contaminants from the Central Landfill

to Scituate Reservoir However both a surface-water divide

and a shallow groundwater divide are located between the

landfill and Scituate Reservoir Although the existing data

remain inconclusive the presence of these surface and

near-surface features suggests that even at greater depths

movement of groundwater from the landfill area is not toward

the Scituate Reservoir If the movement of groundvater is

away from the landfill it is unlikely that the Central

Landfill has any significant impact on the Scituate

Reservoir

BSR03022

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 7: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

SUMMARY

Significant groundwater contamination has been observed in

monitoring wells located both within the Central Landfill

area and downgradient of the existing fill Piezometric

data suggest that most if not all of the contaminated

groundwater discharges to the following areas Cedar Swamp

Brook which drains to Upper Simmons Reservoir Upper

Simmons Reservoir and Almy Reservoir The vertical and

lateral extent of groundwater contamination has not yet been

completely defined The rates and directions of groundwater

movement can only be inferred from the data that are

currently available

Fracture studies indicate a potential pathway for tlie

migration of groundwater contaminants from the Central

Landfill to Scituate Reservoir At elevation 284 the

spillway elevation of the Scituate Reservoir is well below

the piezometric level of wells located within the Central

Landfill which is at elevations 310 to 380 This

difference in head provides a potential driving mechanism

for the migration of contaminants from the Central Landfill

to Scituate Reservoir However both a surface-water divide

and a shallow groundwater divide are located between the

landfill and Scituate Reservoir Although the existing data

remain inconclusive the presence of these surface and

near-surface features suggests that even at greater depths

movement of groundwater from the landfill area is not toward

the Scituate Reservoir If the movement of groundvater is

away from the landfill it is unlikely that the Central

Landfill has any significant impact on the Scituate

Reservoir

BSR03022

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 8: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundvater

quality at the landfill site The proposed landfill

expansion would delay the installation of a final cover over

the entire area By leaving a major portion of the existing

fill uncovered the landfill would generate uncontrolled

leachate throughout the projected expansion

periodmdashapproximately 20 years Other design flaws have

been identified Certain aspects of the expansion plans

require further clarification

Groundwater contamination also has been identified in areas

unrelated to the Central Landfill Contamination probably

also occurs in other areas yet to be identified

Considering the variety of land uses within the watershed

the Providence Water Supply Boards current program of

surface water monitoring should be reevaluated for the

possible inclusion of groundwater monitoring

BSR03022 ii

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 9: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

CONTENTS

Page

Summary i

1 Introduction 1-1

2 Physiography and Drainage 2-1

3 Geology 3-1

4 Geophysical Investigations 4-1 41 Gravity 4-1 42 Electrical Resistivity 4-3 43 Seismic Refraction 4-4 44 Downhole Geophysical Logging

and Vertical Seismic Profiling 4-5

5 Groundwater 5-1 51 Groundwater Occurrence and 5-1

Movement 52 Water Quality 5-3

6 Proposed Landfill Expansion 6-1 61 General Comments on

Overall Design 6-1 62 Specific Comments on Design

Report and Drawings 6-3

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7-1 71 Hydrogeology 7-1 72 Geophysics 7-4 73 Landfill Design 7-5 74 Groundwater Quality 7-5

A p p e n d i x L i s t of Documents Reviewed

FIGURES

1 Location of Project Within the State of 1-2 Rhode Island

2 Site Map of the Central Landfill 1-3

3 Generalized Cross-Section Along 7-3 NE-SW Trending Lineament 1

BSR03003 iii

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 10: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

INTRODUCTION

The Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) currently

operates the Central Landfill in Johnston Rhode Island

located approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate

Reservoir The location of the landfill is shown in the map

presented in Figure 1 The Scituate Reservoir serves as a

water supply for over 60 percent of the population of Rhode

Island The Central Landfill is an unlined municipal

landfill that in the past has received industrial wastes

A permit application for construction of an expansion of the

existing landfill has been submitted to the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Discharge

of contaminants to groundwater immediately surrounding the

landfill has been documented However the extent of

offsite migration of contaminants is not known

Studies have been conducted to identify the existing and

potsntial impacts of seepage from the landfill on surface

water and groundwater in the vicinity Concern has been

expressed that seepage from the landfill may be endangering

the Scituate Reservoir There is further concern that

expansion of the landfill also may have an impact on the

water supply A site map of the Central Landfill showing

the approximate limit of existing fill and the locations of

all previously installed monitoring wells is presented in

Figure 2

BSR03008 1-1

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 11: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

0 10 M l bull raquo I t I I

Approxiniale Scale

Central Landf i l l

Alrny Reservoir

Simmons Reservoir

Scituate Reservoir

1 Location oT Proiect r^ifiMUIII n Figure I AVlthlnThe State of RhodiJlslana v^fJiVJnU

1-9

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 12: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Figure 2 Aoproximattt Scale

Slta-Miip 3t i - Cjnt-al Lancrflil cyihL

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 13: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Ill Tlie Providence Water Supply Board has contracted with CH2M

HILL to perform an evaluation of the data pertaining to the

Central LancJfill The objectives of this study are

Provide an independent review of reports data

drawings and other available information

concerning existing or potential impacts of the

landfill on surface water and groundwater in Using existing data assess whether there is

indeed seepage from the existing landfill and if

so what its impact is on water in the vicinity of

the landfill 111 Assess whether the proposed landfill expansion

will have further impact on surface water and

groundwater

Determine whether seepage from the landfill could m have an impact on Scituate Reservoir

11

mi

m m BSR03008 1-4

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 14: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

li

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Surface topography in the North Scituate Quadrangle is

characterized by northwest-southeast trending uplands and

in intervening valleys The orientation of these surface

features reflects the direction of glacial advance and

concomitant erosion of preglacial soils The orientations

of Oak Swamp Almy and Simmons Reservoirs and portions of

i] Scituate Reservoir are examples of this general

northwest-southeast valley orientation

The active portion of the Central Landfill is located

approximately 2-12 miles east of the Scituate Reservoir

The Central Landfill also occupies an elongate valley The

area has been modified by extensive borrowing and filling

Surface drainage is primarily from the northwest and

southwest The area drains to the east and southeast A

topographic divide which defines the limit of the

watershed lies between the active landfill and the

reservoir A small yet inactive portion of the landfill

property lies within the watershed of the Scituate

Reservoir The active landfill is approximately 5100 feet

from the portion of the watershed boundary that crosses

landfill property

BSR03009 2-1

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 15: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

GEOLOGY

Bedrock in the vicinity of the Central Landfill consists of

granite and granite gneiss and is referenced in the

literature as the Scituate granite Soils overlying the

Scituate granite predominantly consist of glacial till and

glacial outwash The till is an unsorted ground moraine

composed of fine-grained to boulder-sized particles The

outwash varies from poorly sorted materials to well-sorted

ice-contact sands and gravels The soils vary in thickness

from 0 feet in areas that have been excavated to over

60 feet southvest of Cedar Swamp Brook Within the existing

landfill refuse ranges in thickness from 50 feet at Well E

to 135 feet at Well WE87-3 Refuse is in direct contact

with the bedrock over the northern portion of tlie landfill

and is within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Bedrock topography at the landfill is defined by subsurface

investigations associated with the landfill design and the

ongoing remedial investigationfeasibility study (RIFS)

Bedrock topography has been mapped regionally by the

US Geological Survey (USGS) The Central Landfill lies on

the north slope of a bedrock valley with a northwest to

southeast general trend The Upper reach of the bedrock

valley is two prongedmdashnorthwest to southeast and north to

southeast The active landfill overlies most of the latter

Rock quarrying has modified the area along the western slope

of the landfill and in the vicinity of the portion of the

landfill (near Well J) that received industrial wastes

The degree of weathering and Rock Quality Designations

(RQDs) observed in rock core were evaluated with respect to

depth below the top of rock and proximity to fracture

traces The RQD is a measure of the degree to which rock is

BSR03010 3-1

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 16: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

fractured as reflected in the lengths of rock core

reioveries A highly fractured rock will exhibit a low RQD

In general the RQD increased with depth--57 percent for

0 to 10 feet below the top of rock and 77 percent for

10 to 30 feet below the top of rock At boreholes located

in fracture traces however the RQDs were 40 percent and

62 percent respectively indicating a correlation between

the fracture traces observed on both aerial photographs and

satellite imagery and the degree to which the bedrock is

friictured Similarly the degree of weathering was found to

be a function of both depth and proximity to fracture

tl ces Severe veathering was noted throughout

B(U-ehole WE87-13 and to a depth of 45 feet in

Borehole WE85-6 both of which lie along northeast-southwest

trending features It should be noted that observations of

rock weathering and RQDs apply only to boreholes from vhich

rock core was available These boreholes tended to be

relatively shallow extending approximately 30 feet below

the top of rock

Deeper explorations (124 to 247 feet below the top of rock)

were performed in the multilevel wellsmdashWE87-ML1 through

WE87-ML5 The Fracture Trace Analysis (FTA) was used to

position the multilevel wells Each multilevel well was

pllt3ced on or proximal to an observed fracture trace The

degree of fracturing and the orientation of fractures were

evaluated by borehole televiewer The ability of the

observed fractures to transmit water was evaluated by packer

tests

The May 198 8 Interim Remedial Investigation Report by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc (GZA) (Appendix

Document 38) indicates that the orientations of fractures

indicated on televiewer logs were compiled into a ccmposite

plotted on a stereonet and contoured The contouring

BSR03010 3-2

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 17: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

yielded four preferred fracture orientations thiat -bullere in

agreement with the orientations of lineaments identified jn

the FTA The dominant group had a strike and dip of

N20deg-40degE 60deg-80degNW The lesser groups were at nearly

horizontal N10deg-20degW 50deg-60degSW and N80deg-85degE 65deg-70NW

Because the stereonet plots were not included in the GZA

May 1988 report (Doc 38) CH2M HILL plotted the fracture

orientations provided on the boring log for Borehole

KE87-ML3 This borehole lies near the intersection of

Lineainents 1 and 2 with Lineament 24 Borehole WE87-ML3 is

of particular significance because Lineaments 1 and 2

represent potential pathways for the migration of

containinants to the Scituate Reservoir The orieiitations of

fractures in Borehole WE87-ML3 correspond reasonably vell

with the trends of Lineaments 1 2 and 24

Barbed on televiewer data the average fracture frequency

reported for the five multilevel wells was 072 fractures

per foot Only a very slight decrease in fracture frequency

was noted with depth--08 fractures per foot for the top

30 feet of bedrock 07 fractures per foot for the tpp

100 feet of bedrock and 06 fractures per foot for depths

greater than 100 feet below the top of rock An exception

to this trend that was noted in the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) was Borehole WE87-ML1 in which fracture frequency

increased with depth Equally significant are above-average

fracture frequencies and significant flow measurements over

deep rock intervals (more than 100 feet in each borehole

extending deeper than 100 feet and more than 200 feet in

each borehole extending deeper than 200 feet) The data

suggest that rock fractures and associated water-bearing

zones extend to some unknown distance below the depth

reached by the five multilevel wells

BSR03010 3-3

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 18: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geophysical investigations are described in both the

August 1987 report prepared by Geotech Enterprises Inc

(Appendix Document 35) and GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Thiree geophysical survey methods were used by Geotech to

investigate the vicinity of the Central Landfill The

objectives of the investigations were to locate areas of

rock fracturing and to recommend locations for three

multilevel wells The survey methods investigated gravity

e]ectrical resi^tivity and seismic refraction Each method

vas targeted at a different physical property of the rock

any of which could indicate fracturing

GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38) summarizes the results of

the geophysical surveys discussed in the Geotech report

(Doc 35) In addition GZAs May 1988 report describes the

results of downhole geophysical logging performed by the

USGS and vertical seismic profiling performed by Weston

Geophysical Corporation

41 GRAVITY

The gravity investigation method measures minute differences

in the Earths gravitational field resulting from rock

density differences Fracturing can result in lover

densities which can often be identified as gravity lovs

Different rock types with different densities also can

result in gravity lows

Regional data indicate a gravity low in the vicinity of the

landfill but it is uncertain whether the low results from a

fracture zone or from the presence of different rock types

BSR03011 4-1

III

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 19: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

of higher donsity on either side of the landfill

Additional gravity measurements obtained in tho vicinity of

the landfill confirm the gravity low and suggest a

northeast-southwest trend to the low that corresponds with

Lincainent 1

The gravity data are dominated by the regional effects of

the denser metamorphic sediments to the east and the buried

pluton to the west In order to minimize the gravity

effects of these features and to emphasize the ]oca]ized

effects of fracture zones CH2M JIILL removed a fourth-order

surface from the data The residual values reflect the

smaller (shorter wavelength) features that are likely to

include fracture zones The resulting residual data were

tlien plotted on a map

Tlie central part of the residual data map showed a gravity

hiyli with sides oriented northeast-southwest The southeast

side of this feature is coincident with Lineament 1 on the

fracture trace map in GZAs May 1988 report (Doc 38)

Central Landfill is located on this feature The residual

gravity high is breached in the vicinity of the landfill

The breach may be associated with other fracture traces

The results of the residual gravity evaluation suggest that

Lineament 1 may be related to a geologic contact

Alternatively Lineament 1 may be at the contact between

fractured rock to the southeast (the gravity low) and

unfractured rock to the northwest The data support the

fracture trace interpretation in the vicinity of the

landfill

BSR0 3011 4-2

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 20: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

42 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

Electrical soundings are used to estimate subsurface

resistivities Fracture zones can affect the resistivities

by increasing hydraulic conductivity In most cases rock

resistivity is controlled by pore fluid conductivity and

porosity

The soundings in the vicinity of the landfill indicated

areas of resistive bedrock (indicating competent rock) and

areas of less resistive bedrock (possibly fractured rock)

For i he most part the more resistive areas are northwest of

Lineltiment 1 and the less resistive bedrock is southeast of

the lineament

The interpreted bedrock resistivities were used with

groundwater specific conductance to calculate a formation

factor A high formation factor suggests competent rock

The variability of groundwater conductivity over short

distances in general and some uncertainty in the estimated

bedrock conductivity in the vicinity of the landfill may

make use of these formation factors questionable

There are no comments in either the GZA May 1988 report

(Doc 38) or the Geotech report (Doc 35) about cultural

conductors such as fences and power lines that may have

affected the data Either there are no cultural conductors

in the area or this potential problem was overlooked

Soundings 4 and 9 may have been affected by nearby cultural

conductors

The observed bedrock resistivities appear lower on the

southeast side of Lineament 1 and higher on the nort)ivest

side This is consistent with Lineament 1 being a geologic

BSR03011 4-3

I

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 21: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

contact or with the fracture density being higher on the

southeast side

43 SEISMIC REFRACTION

Seismic refraction surveys were performed to measure bedrock

velocities in the vicinity of the landfill Bedrock

veJricities may be reduced in areas of fracturing compared

witli the velocities in unfractured areas Refraction

surveys generally were run in the same areas as those in

which the electrical soundings were run Low velocity

bidrock wliich may be related to rock fracturing vas

idntified by the refraction surveys

Because seismic data are very noisy the first arrivals were

not identified properly in some instances Estimated

bedrock velocities are correspondingly uncertain The

bedrock velocity calculated by CH2M HILL for Line S-4

(12100 fps) is approximately 15 percent higher than the

velocity given in the Geotech and GZA reports (10380 fps)

(Doc 35 38) The data for Line S-4 are relatively good

an uncertainty of 15 percent or worse might be typical for

data of this quality

Some of the seismic spreads did not include a shot at each

end of a spread Without data from shots at both ends it

is impossible to determine true bedrock velocities where

dipping beds are present Although seismic refraction is a

valid metliod for identifying fracture zones better-quality

data than those presented in the Geotech and GZA reports

(Doc 35 38) are required

BSR03011 4-4

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 22: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

44 DOWNHOLE GEOPHYSICAL LOGGINC

AND VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILING

The downhole geophysical logging was performed by the USGS

Division of Water Resources The logging methods and their

associated functions are listed below

Acoustic Borehole Televiewer

Formation Resistivity

Borehole Caliper

Neutron-Gamma

Natural Gamma

Spontaneous Potential

Maps rock fractures using

sonar transmissions

Maps areas of lower

resistivity lhat may be

the result of fracturing

Measures borehole

diameter

Measures formation

porosity but readings are

affected by clay

Measures formation

natural radioactive

emmissions can be

used to identify clay and

was used with the

neutron-gamma data

Used to identify different

strata such as clay and

shale

BSR03011 4-5

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 23: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Spinning Flow Meter Measures fluid flow

velocities in boreholes

will indicate zones

releasing water irito

boreholes

The vertical seismic profiling is used to identify

fluid-filled fractures in a borehole A series of seismic

sensors (hydrophones) is lowered into the borehole A

seismic source such as a weight drop generates

corapressional waves which are detected by the hydrophones

Fractures are indicated by a distinct pattern in tho seismic

record

The downhole geophysical logging methods can indicate

fractures at each borehole but they cannot indic-ite whetiier

the fractures have any extent or are part of an extensive

fracture zone Whether a borehole is within a fracture zone

can only be inferred by the fracture density The same is

true of the vertical seismic profiling The information

provided by the logging methods however is important in

determining which portion of a well should be screened vhen

constructing the well

BSR03011 4-6

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 24: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

I GROUNDWATER

51 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE AND MOVEMENT

Groundwater within the North Scituate Quadrangle has been

mapped by the USGS using data obtained in 1958 These data

have been incorporated into Drawing 5 of the GZ May 1988

report (Doc 38) Tlie mapping of well data indicates a

groundwater divide between the Central Landfill and the

Situate Reservoir that is coincident with the topographic

divide

Drawing 4 of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) is a

groundwater content map depicting the lateral movement of

groundwater within the overburden and shallow rot k The map

combines data from both overburden (Water table) wells and

rock wells Some of the rock wells also monitor water table

conditions at some locations the water table occurs within

the top of rock At other locations the potentiometric

level is well above the top of rock and groundwater

probably occurs within the overburden The potentiometric

level recorded by rock Well WE87-13 is approximately 50 feet

above the top of rock

Preparation of the groundwater content map was based on the

assumption that there is little or no change in head over

possibly 50 feet of saturated soils Other liberties taken

in preparation of the map included the use of deep open

boreholes before completion of the multilevel wells and

adjustments to the recorded water levels from several wells

as a correction for the rise in water levels that occurred

since the time of measurement Given the scale of the map

(1 inch = 300 feet) and the 10-foot groundwater contour

interval (neither of which is inappropriate for an area of

DSR03012 5-1

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 25: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

It this size) the map probably provides a reasonable

i

in

representation of both the water table and groundweter

occurrence within the shallow bedrock Drawing 4 shows

shallow groundwater flow coming onto the site from the

northwest vest and south Through the area of existing

fill shallow groundwater movement is south toward Cedar

Swamp Brook southwest toward Simmons Upper Reservoir and

east and northeast toward Almy Reservoir

Vertical head distributions in the fractured bedrock aro

less straightforward Water levels taken in each of the

five multilevel wells during April 1988 are shown in Table 5

of the GZA May 1988 report (Doc 38) The water levels

taken in January and February 1988 the latter of wliich were

included in Drawing 4 were taken in deep open boreholes

arni they appear to most closely represent the elevation of

the water table At well couplets and each multilevel well

except Well WE87-ML3 the vertical component of flow is

shown to be either upward or downward as indicated by a

small arrow on Drawing 4 With the exception of Wells

WEB7-ML4 and WE85-6 (and WE87-ML3 for which there is no

arrow) downward components of flow are shown for each vell

pair and multilevel installation

An upward component of flow at Well WE85-6 as indicated by

a higher potentiometric level in the rock well (3481) than

that reported in the overburden well (3477) is not

consistent with the water level measuirements in nearby

multilevel Well WE87-ML1 and therefore it may be erroneous

Unlike Well WE87-ML4 which is adjacent to a m-ajor discharge

point this well pair would not be expected to have as large

a head diffexonce as is indicated between the two v bullells In

GZAs Geohydrologic Study Final Report of October 1986

(Appendix Document 33) both Well WE85-6a and Well WE85-6b

were shown at elevation 3433

PSR03012 5-2

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 26: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Multilevel Well WE87-ML3 was interpreted by GZA as

exhibiting a higher head at both the top and bottom

locations than at the central portion of the well However

the water levels provided in Table 5 of the GIA May 1988

report (Doc 38) indicate a drop in head from elevation

4153 at Zone A to 4151 feet at Zone C to 4137 feet at

Zone E It is true that the head at Zone B is one-tenth of

a foot lower than that at Zone C and the head at Zone D is

one-tenth of a foot lower than that at Zone E However

these minor head differences may not be significant when

comparing two zones along the vertical dimension in a

fractured rock that exhibits no vertical fractures Because n the various sampling zones are not along the same flow path

minor head differences may be more a reflection of lateral

changes in head than a true representation of the vertical

component of groundwater movement

52 WATER QUALITY

The water quality data reviewed include residential well

data from 1983 through 1987 monitoring well data from 1985

and 1986 (contained in GZAs October 1986 final report

Doc 33) monitoring well data from 1987 (split samples

analyzed by WaterTest Corporation Appendix Documents 11 and

18) and monitoring well data contained in GZAs Remedial

Investigation Data Report of August 1988 (Appendix Document

39) The water quality data indicate that the existing

landfill has had an impact on groundwater quality with

respect to selected water quality parameters metals [ | | volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic

compounds

Monitoring wells located downgradient of the landfill tend

to exceed upgradient monitoring wells with respect to each

BSR03012 5-3

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 27: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

parameter group In certain downgradient well including

Well J located near the industrial waste area this

contamination is quite severe On the other hand the

presence of VOCs in upgradient Monitoring Well VJE85-12

suggests that sources of groundwater contamination other

than the landfill also are present Although the precise

locations of many of the domestic wells tested are not clear

from the data reviewed there appears to be a large number

of domestic wells that are not downgradient of the landfill

and yet are contaminated with VOCs This also suggests the

presence of other unrelated sources of groundvater

contamination

Significant grc^undwater contamination has been observed in

rronitoring wells located within the landfill proper in

downgradient wells along the toe of slope and southeast

prcperty line and in one upgradient well southwest of ihe

landfill Wells J 87-2A and B consistently have contained

VOCs in excess of 1000 parts per billion (ppb) or 1 part

per million (ppm) All three wells are located within the

landfill area Well J is located near the former industrial

waste area Well J was found to contain 103 ppm VOCs with

chlorobenzene toluene and total xylenes each at

concentrations of more than 1 ppm

Top of rock Well C located at the toe of slope along the

southeast portion of the property line has ranged from more

than 100 ppb VOCs to more than 1000 ppb VOCs Wells B and

B-l and Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B 4 and 12 have contained VOCs

at concentrations of more than 100 ppb VJells D and B-l

(top of rock and overburden respectively) are located along

the southeast portion of the property line just south of

the existing fill Wells WE87-1B 3A 3B and 4 are all

located within the existing fill All but VJell 3A are

screened within the top of rock

mt

ESR03012 5-4

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 28: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Upgradir-nt Well WE87-1B located southwest of Lhe landfill

and souMiwest of Cedar Swamp Brook has contai tied more than

100 ppb VOCs predominantly trichloroethylene (TCE) Top of

rock Well N located in the landfill approximately 380 feet

downgradient of Well J has ranged from more than 10 ppb

VOCs to more than 100 ppb VOCs Downgradient Well B7-ML2

and Wells 87-15 and 19 both located at the toe of slope

have indicated VOCs concentrations of more than 10 ppb

Ill BSR03012 5-5

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 29: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

PROPOSED LANDFILL EXPANSION

6_J GENERAL COMMENTS ON OVERALL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill designated as Phase I in the

Fngineerincj Design Report of July 1987 (Appendix Document

34) poses a threat to groundwater quality at the landfill

site Groundwater quality data indicate that the fill is

leaking and a plume is spreading One way to reduce ihe

quantity of the leachate generated would be to install a

low-permeability cap over the area This would

significantly reduce the leaching of pollutants from the

portion of the fill above the water table As described

below the proposed expansion would delay the installation

of a final cover over the entire area for 20 years

Percolation during this time would continue to leach

pollutants to the groundwater as well as provide the

potential for leachate seeps to emerge from the side slopes

of the fill Leachate contaminants could emanate not only

from the municipal waste but also from the industrial wastes

that were disposed of in the facility

A significant deficiency of the expansion plan is that it

would leave a major portion of the existing fill uncovered

allowing it to generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the

projected expansion period (completion in year 2009) In

Stage 1 additional waste would be disposed of in Phase I

for 3 years during this time infiltration into the fill

would remain at current levels In Stage 2 portions of the

existing fill woi-ld be capped but the entire vestern half

would receive only 1 foot of soil cover having a

permeability of 1 x 10 centimeters per second before being

overlaid with additional waste materials (as shown on

Drawings 5 and 7) This area approximately 60 acres would

BSR03013 6-1

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 30: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

1 be open to percolation of leachate from the overlying fill

Thu a largo portion of the existing unlined fill vould not

reccive final cover for 20 years

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) makes several

misleading statements that do not recognize the issue

discussed above

A composite primary baseliner leachate collection

systnm and secondary collection system will be

installed on the entire area of Phase II and

Phase III prior to the placement of waste in those

areas (page 9)

Stage 2 landfilling includes filling over the

baseliner constructed in the Phase II and

Phase III area (page 60)

These statements ignore the fact that most of the filling in

Phase II would be done vertically above the unlined Phase I

area The design does not include the extension of the

liner system up this side slope which actually would

constitute the majority of the Phase II fill footprint

Percolation through this area would impinge on the western

bullfloiie of Phase I and a significant amount of leachate could

infiltrate the unlined Phase I fill

The potential for percolation through the western slope area

could be increased by the buildup of landfill gas pressure

under the intermediate cover layer No provision for

nvlieving this pressure is considered in the July 1987

ciesign report (Doc 34) The potential exists for the

opening of fissures in the layer with a resultant increase

in leachate percolation

BSR03013 6-2

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 31: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

The July 1987 design report (Doc 34) does not mention

consideration of or calculations concerning slope stability

for the proposed fill contours Throughout the report

31 slopc=5 are used for final contours for the existing and

expanf^ion fills Guidelines for municipal refuse developed

from actua1 practice dictate the use of 41 slopes as a

conservative measure to ensure stable slopes but 31 slopes

have been employed successfully Because of the extensive

height of the proposed final fillmdashover 250 feet higher than

existing grade in places--slope stability should be

evaluited carefully Shallow surface failures through the

fill as well as deep failures through underlying geologic

strata should be considered

62 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON DESIGN REPORT AND DRAWINGS

The following specific comments pertain to the Engineering

Design Report and Drawings of July 1987 (Doc 34)

Page 15 362 Final CovermdashControl of final cover slopes to

enhance runoff and to minimize erosion should be addressed

The geomembrare option would have no impervious soil backup

beneath the liner A material more impervious than is sandy

soil should be used

Page 16 Drawing 12mdashFinal cover Alternative 1 vould not

provide a drainage layer overlying the low-permeability

layer A drainage layer should be included to limit the

buildup of head on the cover liner and increased

infiltration potential

BSR03013 6-3

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 32: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

There is no mention in the design report concerning

potential freeze-thaw effects on the cover system Final

cover Alternative 1 would provide only 2 feet of soil cover

over the clay layer Frost penetration into the clay layer

could result in its loss of effectiveness as a barrier to

infiltration

Final cover Mternative 2 should include a geotextile

between the topsoil and sand as a filter to prevent clogging

of the drainage layer In addition EPA guidance recommends

that c minimum 2-foot-thick top layer be provided to sustain

vegetative growth Alternative 2 would provide only

12 inches

Table 3-1 and page 18 mdash The maximum area open to pc r cc l a i ion

for Phase II is assumed to be 242 acres This ignores any

contribution from the approximately 60 acres of Phase II

overlying Phase I The leachate collectionstorage system

may be undersized as a result

Page 18 365 Baseliner DesignmdashIt is unclear whether the

groundvater control layer should provide a 5-foot separation

between the groundvater and the top of the primary liner or

between the groundwater and the bottom of the secondary

liner

Page 19--It is not current practice to use a 1-foot-thick

sand bedding for a geomembrane A low-permeability clayey

soil provides suitable bedding and an impervious backup

beneath the geomembrane

Page 20--The groundwater control layer three feet minimum

thickness does not agree with page18 paragraph 365

(see page 18 reference above)

BSR03013 6-4

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 33: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Tlie riopinn l)nsis for the choice of materials for and

til ilt-M ness of tlie groundwater control layer as vell as igtipe

sizes and spacing is not discussed It is unclear how it

was determined that this system would function as intended

to maintain a 5-foot separation between waste and

groundwater

Page 21--The purpose of the additional 30-mil PVC membrane

overlying the HDPE gecnet is not clear The repc^rt states

that its purpose would be to protect the geonet from fines

intmsion a function for which geotextiles are produced

The PVC membrane would prevent leakage from reacliing the

geonet therefore nullifying its traditional function as a

detection medium for any leaks in the primary liner

Page 26--It is not clear how contaminated groundwater from

the Phase I area would be kept from infiltrating the

proposed Phase II groundwater control layer Details of the

proposed control system should be reviewed carefully before

the construction of Phase II Contamination of the control

layer would result in the direct discharge of pollutant

loadings into Cedar Swamp Brook

Page 31--Development plans for the borrow area to the

southwest of the landfill should be evaluated carefully with

regard to potential impacts on surface water and groundwater

quality Dewatering of the area could cause a gradient for

groundwater flow toward the pit necessitating the pumping

of contaminated water

Page 36 43 Secondary Collection System--The 6-inch

depression in the sand bedding (or impervious soil) must

provide for leachate pipe support Lateral pipe supports to

support vertical loads have not been addressed

BSR03013 6-5

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 34: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Page 37--nirect contact of the stone bedding and the HOPE

membrane could result in puncture

Page 42 Drawing ll--The constructability of the separation

berm l^etween Phases II and III as proposed is questionable

Most soils vill not stand on vertical side slopes as

indicated in the plans Extending the geomembrane

vertically would be difficult

Page 44 Drawings 7 8 9--Side slope diversion swales fr

managing final cover runoff should be provided every 20-foot

drop in elevation as opposed to the 30-foot drop indicated

Page 48 Drawing 11mdashThe proposed construction method for

tho placement of the leachate laterals could damage the

liner if extreme care were not taken Better construction

methods are available

Page 48 Drawing 7--No final cover is indicated to be

installed over the eastern portion of Phase I this area

would be left open to infiltration and continued leachate

generation after final closure

Page 48 Drawing 10 Detail of Pumping Station--The primary

liner thickness is not called out (all other liner

thicknesses are called out) It is unclear what supports

the 4-inch slotted pipe The 2-inch rounded gravel bedltHnq

cannot and the geogrid cannot The 1 foot of compacted

roil beltlding is shown under the pump station The

transition to tho soil under the horizontal liner is not

defined

BSR03013 6-6

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 35: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

IlJDPK Liner Penetration Detail

1 It is unclear how pipe boot would be fused to pipe

beneath or at the bottom of the pipe Equipment would

not fit under the pipe

2 Mechanical clamps should be provided to support and

seal the boot to the pipe

3 A concrete pad should be provided to support the pipe

through ihe sand (or impervious soil if the desifin were

modified)

Page 4 8 Drawing 12--A sand layer overlying a siriooth IDPE

membrane on a 31 slope would not be stable and could result

in the sliding of Ihe cover soil and exposure of the liner

it appears that this problem has been addressed in the

May 1988 Preliminary Final Cover Specifications (Appendix

Document 37) by the inclusion of a textured HDPE membrane

BSR03013 6-7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 36: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

71 HYDROGEOLOGY

Within the study area soils consisting of glacial till and

glacial outwash overly a granitic bedrock Partly because

of earlier quarrying refuse is in direct contact with the

bedrock over the northern portion of the landfill and

within 5 feet of bedrock over its southern part

Based on features observed on aerial photography and

satellite imagery northwest-southeast trending lineaments

and northeast-southwest trending lineaments were identified

in the vicinity of the landfill A set of lineaments

belonging in the latter group runs from the Central Landfill

to the Scituate Reservoir

The degree of bedrock weathering in shallow core was found

to be a function of depth and proximity to fracture traces

The orientations of fractures observed in boreholes located

near the fracture traces correspond with the trends of the

major lineaments In multilevel wells located near the

fracture trices only a very slight decrease in fracture

frequency was noted with depth During packer testing

significant flow measurements were recorded in the deeper

portions of each multilevel well These data indicate that

the vater-bearing zone within the bedrock extends to some

depth beyond the limit of investigation

Within the overburden and shallow bedrock groundwater has

been shown to move onto the landfill site from the

northwest west and south Groundwater discharges from the

landfill to the drainage areas of Simmons Upper Reservoir

and Almy Reservoir A surface-water divide and shallov

BSR03014 7-1

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 37: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

qroumlwater divide occur between tho Scituate Res^rvoi r and

the Central Landf i11 Although the deeper flov regime is

not vell dfjfined it is unlikely that groundwater from

either the existing or proposed areas of fill drains to tlie

Scituate Reservoir The extreme northwest portion of the

landfill property however does lie within the reservoirs

watershed Figure 3 presents a generalized cross-section

showing water table conditions along northeast-southwest

trending Lineament 1

Deeper multilevel wells located between the Central landfill

and Scituate Reservoir could provide more conclusive

evid^Mice on the directions of groundwater movement and the

potential for significant impact of the landfill on

groundwater If either a reversal in vertical gradient

(from a downward component of flow to an upward component of

flow) or significantly reduced bedrock permeability occurs

at depth such deeper multilevel wells would provide useful

data

Water quality data from deeper multilevel wells between the

landfill and reservoir would be unlikely to provide

conclusive evidence Beneath the existing fill however

both water quality and piezometric data from deeper wells

would be useful One aspect of the uncertainty concerning

the impact of the Central Landfill is that the pathways of

contaminant migration from areas of high-level contamination

have not been defined By more thoroughly definingthe

directions of groundwater movement beneath the landfill and

by determining the fate of contaminants released from areas

of high-level contamination the potential impacts of the

landfill on surrounding areas can be determined more

accurately

BSR0 3014 7-2

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 38: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

sw 500rshy

450 shy

o Dlt

400

350

300hshy

Sc i tuate Reservoir

r

o o

CQ

c0)

gt -

J t

o o ffl

gtlaquo bull

offl

raquo

2 5 0 -

Marsh

Irferred Vatflf

l-ilprSl jar

TaHe (Tlevaiion at Surface -Vater Location

rn^iij ltvgtilion at Monitcnrg veil iocaiion

1 Mile

_(

Figure 3

G e n e r a l i z e d Cros i -Sect ion AiuTTti ^^ltjr ri^iri - SjuiiWtJST T r e n d i n q L i n e a m e n t 1

i i i j

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 39: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

72 GEOPHYSICS

The geophysical investigations have been used successfully

to plan monitoring well locations and to determine the

depths at which to screen the wells The work jDorformed by

Geotech Enterprises Inc (Doc 35) defined areas of

probable fracturing in the vicinity of the landfill The

subsequent downhole investigations determined where in each

hole the fractures were intercepted

The preferred locations of future monitoring wells

presumably would be within fracture zones or fault traces

Geophysical urvey methods and the Fracture Trace Analysis

should be incorporated into the well-placement planning to

establish fracture zone locations Existing data may be

sufficient to determine approximate locations for additional

wells located at the landfill Boreholegeophysical logging

should be used for locating appropriate zones for the well

screens

Additional work may be required to locate fracture traces

more precisely This work would be performed in the

vicinity of the planned wells to ensure that the best

locations for them are selected Recommended methods of

obtaining data include electrical resistivity and seismic

refraction surveys

An induced polarization (IP) survey (a specialized

resistivity survey) may be able to locate fractures from

their resistivity values and from the IP values associated

with clays in zones of weathering IP surveys usually are

performed using a dipole-dipole electrode configuration

which provides both depth and lateral information

BSR03014 7-4

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 40: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys also can be

used lo map fracture zones At the frequencies used for

this type of survey the equipment is sensitive (o

relatively shallow resistivity variations such cis

fractures This method may be appropriate if the bedrock is

not deeply buried The depth of penetration by this method

depen(3s on the conductivity of the ground

A seiijmic refraction survey also can be used to identify

fracture zones by their associated low bedrock velocities

Seismic refraction surveys would be designed specifically to

determine bedrock velocities and may not be particularly

useful to determine depths

73 LANDFILL DESIGN

The existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundwater

quality at the landfill site A significant deficiency of

the proposal expansion plan is that it would leave a major

portion of the existing fill uncovered allowing it to

generate uncontrolled leachate throughout the projected

expansion period Other potential problems with the

proposed expansion design include slope stability drainage

frost penetration of the final cover sizing of the leachate

collection system isolation of the Phase II groundwater

control layer from contaminated groundwater generated by the

unlined Phase I area and the constructability of the

propc^ed design

74 GROUNDWATER QUALITY

The groundwater monitoring data indicate that the Central

Landfill has had an adverse impact on water quality in the

BSR03014 7-5

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 41: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

vicinity ot tho landfill However the full vertical ond

lateral extent of contamination has not yet been defned

The most severe contamination has been observed in

relatively shallow wells located within the landfill proper

Deeper wells have not yet been installed in the areas

exhibiting the highest levels of contamination

Water quality data also indicate the presence of additional

sources of groundwater contamination other than tlie Central

Landfill Areas of unrelated groundwater contamination

occur within the vicinity of the Central Landfill and at

locations avay from the landfill Still unidentified

sources of contamination may pose an even greater threat to

the quality of water in the Scituate Reservoir than does the

leachate emanating from the Central Landfill

It may be prudent to evaluate land use within the vatershed

identify areas that pose the greatest threat to both surface

water and groundwater and then determine whether the

current program of surface water monitoring provides

adequate protection of the water supply

BSP03014 7-6

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 42: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

APPENDIX

List of Documents Reviewed

BSR03015

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 43: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

Coir(Ppon(liric(2

Dates

From

I To

Subject

CorrnGpDndiince Date From

11 To Subject

I

Analytical Data Dates of Sampling Laboratory Source

Consent Agrrjement

Date

Correspondence

Date From

I To Subject

Correspondence Date From To Subject

Chain of Custody Dates Lal^oratory

Correspoundiondence Date From To Subject

Corresponr^ence Date From To Subject

February 11 1983 and Janunr- IHI Rhode Island Department of Heoltb Owners of Domestic Wells Results of chemical analyses

August 28 1984 US Department of Interior Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Direction of groundwater movement Central Landfill

783 883 1283 285 and 5P5 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

David DelSesto et al vs Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 10 1986

February 18 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER Summary of Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Incs report

May 21 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation WATER

Notification of sampling event

May 1987 and June 1987 WaterTest Corporation

May 10 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Im Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Refiort 1

June 14 1987 Goldberg-Zoino R Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progresr Report 2

BSR03016 A-1

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 44: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

JO AnoJytical Data Date of Sampling raboratory

I Souice

11 Ajialyt ical Data Date of Sampling Laboratory Source

12 Memorandum Undated By Subject

li ]3 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

14 Correspondence

li Date- From To Subject

15 Correspondence Date From

M To Subject

II 16 Correspondence

Date From To Subject

17 Correspondence Date From To Subject

TR Ajialytical Data Dates of Sampling La bora (ory Source

June 1987 WaterTest Corporation Domestic wells

June 9 1987 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

WATER Results of private well samples

August 11 1987 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Cc)r])oration David DelSesto Analytical resuJls of the May sampling

August 13 1987 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Repoit 3

September 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 4

October 15 1987 Goldberg-Zoino S Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Wast^ Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 5

October 26 1987 RI Analytical Laboratories Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag(Mnent Corporation Analytical parameters and methods

October 14-16 1987 and Octoler 27 1907 WaterTest Corporation Central Landfill

BSR03016 A-2

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 45: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

1 9 Corresprjnd(MiC( D a t o Frdm To S u b j e c t

20 Correspondence Date From To Subject

21 Correspondence Date From To Subject

22 Correspcjidence Date From

To Subject

Corre-^pondence Date From To Subject

24 Corre- piindence Date From To Subject

25 Correspondence Date From To Subject

26 Correspondence Date From To Subject

November 13 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates I n c Rhode Island Solid Waste Manacemerit igtr[)rrat ion Central Landfill RIFS Progreis Rij-gtrL 6

December 21 1907 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpcjration Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 7

January 22 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste ManageTient Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 8

February 8 1908 Rhode Island Department of Eir-i ronmr^ntal Management Providence Water Supply Board Well Location Map Central Landfill

February 9 1988 Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation Central Landfill RIFS Progress Report 9

February 24 1988

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenent Corporation Hydrogeologic Information for Central Landfill Interim Area 2

March 10 1988 Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Providence Water Supply Board Status of geohydrological studies at the Central Landfill

March 15 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corpojation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Report 10

BSR03016 A-3

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 46: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

li^l 2 1 Correspondeiice Date From To Subject

28 Corresponrience Date From To Subject

29 Correspondence Date From To Subject

30 Map

31 Map

32 Newspaper articles Newspaper Dates

33 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

34 Design Docinnent Prepared by Prepared for Date

35 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

36 Sampling Plan Prepared by Prepared for Date

March 25 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management C rporation Providence Water Supply Board Transmittal of DEM Decision and Order

April 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation US EPA Central Landfill RIFS Progress Reigtort 11

May 19 1988 Rhode Island Solid Waste Managenont Corporation US EPA Transmittal of GZA Progress Peport 3 2

Rhode Island 1987

Scituate Reservoir showing selected -SMrfice water sampling points and the eastern bull ige of the watershed limit in relation to the active landfill

Providence Journal-Bulletin March 1 March 22 and May~4 1988

Final Report Geohydrologic Study Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation October 1986

Engineering Design Report Wehran Engineering Corporation Rhode Island Solid Waste Manageniciit Corporation July 1987

Fracture TraceGeophysical Investigatioji Geotech Enterprises Inc Goldberg-Zoino s Associates Inc August 1987

Air Monitoring Program Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation September 2 1987

BSR03016 A-4

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5

Page 47: EVALUATION OF SITE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON … · Tlie existing unlined landfill poses a threat to groundv/ater quality at the landfill site. The proposed landfill expansion

III Ill 37 Tesign Document

P r e p a r e d lgty Preparr- f o r P a t e

18 Report Prepared by Prepared for Date

39 Report Prepared by Prepared ftjr Date

Preliminary Final Cover Speci f i catit Wehran Engineiering Corpora tior Rhode Island Solid Waste Mana L-TmiMil Cnrporation May 1988

Interim Remedial Investigatio Repoit Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Manag^^menl Cojporat ion May 1988

Remedial Investigation Data Report Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation August 1988

bulln BSRO3016 A-5