INAAP installation groundwater site 90 report Nov 2003

Description:	The final report for installation groundwater site 90 at Indiana Army Ammunition Plant of Phase II RCRA facility investigation prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in November 2003.The United States federal government began acquiring land in Charlestown, Indiana in 1940 to build a smokeless powder ordnance plant to supply the US military during World War II. Indiana Ordnance Works (IOW) Plant 1 and Hoosier Ordnance Plant (HOP) began production in 1941. In 1944, IOW Plant 2 construction began. On 30 Nov 1945 at the end of WWII, the three plants were combined and renamed Indiana Arsenal. Between 1 Nov 1961 and 1 Aug 1963, the plant was designated Indiana Ordnance Plant. After this time, it became Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP). Production of ordnance continued at the plant until 1992. After that time, the land and facilities were leased to private industry. A large portion of the land became Charlestown State Park. In October 2016, all the land and facilities were officially sold by the government. This item is part of a larger collection of items from INAAP that are kept at Charlestown Library. F I N A L R E P O R TINSTALLATIONGROUNDWATER – SITE 90INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANTPHASE II RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATIONPrepared forU.S. Army Corps of EngineersLouisville DistrictNovember 2003Prepared by12120 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 300Omaha, Nebraska 68154TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA iExecutive Summary ..........................................................................................................................ES-1Section 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-11.1 Operational History and Waste Characterisitics ...................................... 1-11.2 Previous Investigations ............................................................................ 1-31.3 Report Organization................................................................................. 1-3Section 2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 2-12.1 Climate..................................................................................................... 2-12.2 Geology.................................................................................................... 2-12.2.1 Uplands Deposits ......................................................................... 2-12.2.2 Terrace/Floodplain Deposits........................................................ 2-22.2.3 Bedrock........................................................................................ 2-22.3 Topography............................................................................................ 2-102.4 Surface Water Hydrology ...................................................................... 2-112.4.1 Water Balance............................................................................ 2-112.4.2 Drainage Basins ......................................................................... 2-122.5 Subsurface Hydrology ........................................................................... 2-142.5.1 Uplands Bedrock Aquifer .......................................................... 2-152.5.2 Terrace/Floodplain Aquifer ....................................................... 2-192.6 Previous Groundwater Investigations .................................................... 2-202.6.1 Site 60 – Burning Ground Area ................................................. 2-212.6.2 Site 25 – Jenny Lind Pond ......................................................... 2-212.6.3 Site 2 – New Landfill................................................................. 2-212.6.4 Other Sites.................................................................................. 2-232.7 Summary................................................................................................ 2-23Section 3 Field Activities Summary .............................................................................................. 3-13.1 Spring and Sediment Sampling................................................................ 3-13.2 Geophysical Survey ................................................................................. 3-43.3 Bedrock Coring and Stratigraphic Logging............................................. 3-43.4 Packer Testing.......................................................................................... 3-53.5 Monitoring Well Installation and Development ...................................... 3-63.5.1 Alluvial Monitoring Wells........................................................... 3-63.5.2 Bedrock Monitoring Wells .......................................................... 3-6TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA ii3.5.3 Monitoring Well Construction, Development, andSampling ...................................................................................... 3-83.5.4 Temporary Monitoring Wells ...................................................... 3-93.6 Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) Disposition..................................... 3-93.7 Location Survey....................................................................................... 3-9Section 4 Physical Investigation Results ..................................................................................... 4-14.1 Bedrock Boreholes and Monitoring Wells .............................................. 4-14.1.1 Borehole 90SB01/Monitoring Well 90MW01............................. 4-24.1.2 Borehole 90SB02/Monitoring Well 90MW02............................. 4-34.1.3 Borehole 90SB03/Monitoring Well 90MW03............................. 4-44.1.4 Borehole 90SB04/Monitoring Well 90MW04............................. 4-54.1.5 Borehole 90SB05 ......................................................................... 4-64.1.6 Borehole 90SB06-06A/Monitoring Well 90MW05 .................... 4-74.1.7 Borehole 90SB07/Monitoring Well 90MW08............................. 4-84.1.8 Borehole 90SB08/Monitoring Well 90MW06............................. 4-94.1.9 Borehole 90SB09 ....................................................................... 4-104.1.10 Borehole 90SB10/Monitoring Well 90MW07........................... 4-114.2 Alluvial Boreholes and Monitoring Wells............................................. 4-114.3 Additional Geophysical Survey ............................................................. 4-124.4 Geology.................................................................................................. 4-124.4.1 Bedrock Geology ....................................................................... 4-124.4.2 Alluvial Geology........................................................................ 4-134.5 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................ 4-13Section 5 Data Quality Review and Validation ............................................................................. 5-15.1 Phase I...................................................................................................... 5-15.2 Phase II..................................................................................................... 5-15.3 Site 90 Mercury in Water Data ................................................................ 5-1Section 6 Chemical Investigation Results .................................................................................... 6-1Section 7 Contamination Assessment.......................................................................................... 7-17.1 Spring Sampling Results.......................................................................... 7-27.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................................... 7-27.1.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds ............................................... 7-37.1.3 Organochlorine Pesticides ........................................................... 7-37.1.4 Nitroaromatics/Nitramines........................................................... 7-57.1.5 Metals........................................................................................... 7-5TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA iii7.2 Permanent Monitoring Well Sampling Results ....................................... 7-67.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................................... 7-67.2.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds ............................................... 7-87.2.3 Organochlorine Pesticides ........................................................... 7-87.2.4 Nitroaromatics/Nitramines........................................................... 7-87.2.5 Metals........................................................................................... 7-97.3 Temporary Monitoring Well Sampling Results..................................... 7-117.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................... 7-117.3.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds ............................................. 7-137.3.3 Organochlorine Pesticides ......................................................... 7-137.3.4 Nitroaromatics/Nitramines......................................................... 7-137.3.5 Metals......................................................................................... 7-147.4 Sediment Sampling Results ................................................................... 7-157.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................... 7-157.4.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds ............................................. 7-157.4.3 Organochlorine Pesticides ......................................................... 7-167.4.4 Metals......................................................................................... 7-167.5 Summary of Sampling Results............................................................... 7-187.5.1 Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................... 7-187.5.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds ............................................. 7-197.5.3 Organochlorine Pesticides ......................................................... 7-197.5.4 Nitroaromatics/Nitramines......................................................... 7-217.5.5 Metals......................................................................................... 7-217.6 Background Concentrations................................................................... 7-21Section 8 Human Health Risk Screen ........................................................................................... 8-18.1 Human Health Risk Screening................................................................. 8-18.1.1 Groundwater Samples from Springs............................................ 8-18.1.2 Groundwater Samples from Permanent Monitoring Wells ......... 8-28.1.3 Groundwater Samples from Temporary Monitoring Wells......... 8-38.1.4 Sediment Samples........................................................................ 8-48.1.5 Summary...................................................................................... 8-58.2 Ecological Risk Screening ....................................................................... 8-58.2.1 Groundwater Samples from Springs............................................ 8-68.2.2 Groundwater Samples from Permanent Monitoring Wells ......... 8-78.2.3 Groundwater Samples from Temporary Monitoring Wells......... 8-9TABLE OF CONTENTSQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA iv8.2.4 Sediment Samples...................................................................... 8-108.2.5 Summary.................................................................................... 8-10Section 9 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 9-19.1 Conclusions.............................................................................................. 9-19.2 Recommendations.................................................................................... 9-3Section 10 References.................................................................................................................... 10-1TABLE OF CONTENTS List of TablesQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA vTable 2-1 Mean Precipitation for Louisville, Kentucky for 1957-1986Table 2-2 Borehole Flow Gauging Data for Bedrock Corehole SC-7Table 2-3 Borehole Flow Gauging Data for Bedrock Corehole SC-2Table 2-4 Borehole Flow Gauging Data for Bedrock Corehole SC-4Table 2-5 Borehole Flow Gauging Data for Bedrock Corehole SC-3RTable 2-6 Local Water SuppliesTable 3-1 General Location, Associated Drainage Basin, and Stratigraphic Position ofSampled SpringsTable 3-2 Spring Descriptions and Potential Sources of ContaminationTable 3-3 Summary of Spring Samples for Chemical AnalysisTable 3-4 Summary of Field Water Quality Parameters for SpringsTable 3-5 Summary of Monitoring Well Construction and Water Level DataTable 3-6 Summary of Monitoring Well Samples for Chemical AnalysisTable 3-7 Summary of Temporary Well and Trench Groundwater Samples for ChemicalAnalysisTable 3-8 Summary of Sediment Samples for Chemical AnalysisTable 4-1 Electrical Resistivity Anomalies and Proposed Well LocationsTable 4-2 Packer Test ResultsTable 4-3 Boring and Well Numbers, Boring Depths and Screened IntervalsTable 6-1 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples Collected from SpringsTable 6-2 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples Collected from PermanentMonitoring WellsTable 6-3 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples Collected from TemporaryMonitoring WellsTable 6-4 Chemicals Detected in Sediment SamplesTable 8-1 Human Health Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in GroundwaterSamples Collected from SpringsTable 8-2 Human Health Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in GroundwaterSamples Collected from Permanent Monitoring WellsTable 8-3 Human Health Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in GroundwaterSamples Collected from Temporary WellsTable 8-4 Human Health Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in Sediment SamplesTable 8-5 Ecological Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in Groundwater SamplesCollected from SpringsTABLE OF CONTENTS List of TablesQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA viTable 8-6 Ecological Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in Groundwater SamplesCollected from Permanent Monitoring WellsTable 8-7 Ecological Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in Groundwater SamplesCollected from Temporary Monitoring WellsTable 8-8 Ecological Risk Screening for Chemicals Detected in Sediment SamplesTable 8-9 Comparison of Maximum Detected Metals Concentrations in GroundwaterTable 8-10 Comparison of Maximum Detected Metals Concentrations in Sediment withMaximum Detected Metals Concentrations for the New Albany ShaleTABLE OF CONTENTS List of FiguresQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA viiFigure 1-1 Vicinity MapFigure 1-2 Facility MapFigure 2-1 Unconsolidated DepositsFigure 2-2 Composite Stratigraphic Section for INAAP Showing Formation Names,Gross Lithologies, Thicknesses and Major Faunal TypesFigure 2-3 Geologic MapFigure 2-4 Topographic Drainage BasinsFigure 2-5 Selected Karst Features for Jenny Lind RunFigure 2-6 INAAP Area LineamentsFigure 2-7 Sitewide Karst FeaturesFigure 3-1 Locations of Sampled Springs and Monitoring WellsFigure 4-1 Locations of Boreholes, Monitoring Wells and Geologic Cross-SectionsFigure 4-2 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Monitoring Well 90MW01Figure 4-2A Geophysical Survey Line, Proposed Drilling Locations, and Monitoring WellLocation 90-MW01Figure 4-3 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Monitoring Well 90MW02Figure 4-3A Geophysical Survey Line, Proposed Drilling Locations, and Monitoring WellLocation 90-MW02Figure 4-4 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Monitoring Well 90MW03Figure 4-4A Geophysical Survey Line, Proposed Drilling Locations, and Monitoring WellLocation 90-MW04Figure 4-5 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Monitoring Well 90MW04Figure 4-5A Geophysical Survey Line, Proposed Drilling Locations, and Monitoring WellLocation 90MW04Figure 4-6 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Borehole SB05Figure 4-6A Geophysical Survey Line, Proposed Drilling Locations, and BoreholeLocation 90-SB05Figure 4-7 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Monitoring Well 90MW05Figure 4-7A Geophysical Survey Line, Proposed Drilling Locations, and Monitoring WellLocation 90-MW05Figure 4-8 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Borehole 90SB09Figure 4-8A Geophysical Survey Line, Proposed Drilling Locations, and BoreholeLocation 90-SB09Figure 4-9 Electrical Resistivity Imaging Results – Location Not Drilled at the LAP AreaFigure 4-9A Geophysical Survey Line (Location Not Drilled at the LAP Area)TABLE OF CONTENTS List of FiguresQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA viiiFigure 4-10 Geologic Cross-Section A-A’Figure 4-11 Geologic Cross-Section B-B’Figure 4-12 Geologic Cross-Section C-C’Figure 4-13 Geologic Cross-Section D-D’Figure 4-14 Geologic Cross-Section E-E’Figure 4-15 Geologic Cross-Section F-F’Figure 4-16 Geologic Cross-Section G-G’Figure 4-17 Geologic Cross Section H-H’Figure 4-18 Simplified Boring Logs for Lowland Monitoring WellsFigure 4-19 Conceptual Hydrogeologic ModelFigure 7-1 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater from SpringsFigure 7-2 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater from Permanent Monitoring WellsFigure 7-3 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater from Temporary Monitoring WellsFigure 7-4 Chemicals Detected in SedimentFigure 9-1 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater from Springs and Permanent MonitoringWells and in Sediment in Concentrations Above Screening LevelsFigure 9-2 Chemicals Detected in Groundwater from Temporary Monitoring Wells inConcentrations Above Screening LevelsTABLE OF CONTENTS List of AppendicesQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA ixAppendix A Data Quality Review and ValidationAppendix B Human Health Risk - Screening ValuesAppendix C Ecological Risk – Screening ValuesAppendix D Boring Logs, Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams, Well DevelopmentLogs and Topographic Survey DataAppendix E Sample Collection Field SheetsAppendix F Summary of Analytical DataAppendix G Background Metals Concentrations for Groundwater and SedimentTABLE OF CONTENTS GlossaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA xAllogenic Formed or generated elsewhere, usually at a distant place (e.g., allogenicrecharge).Angulate Drainage A variation of the dendritic or trellis drainage system in which faults,fractures, or jointing systems have modified the classic form. Sharp,angular bends are common in the mainstream; tributaries demonstratecontrol by rock features.Autogenic Formed or generated in place (e.g., autogenic recharge).Epikarst Weathered and fractured bedrock below the soil zone. It is separated fromthe phreatic zone by a relatively inactive waterless interval that is locallybreached by vadose percolation.Fracture Trace Surface expression of vertical to near vertical natural linear joint, zone ofjoints, or faults that are less than 1,500 meters (1,640 yards) in length.(ERI 1995).Karst A type of topography that is found over limestone, dolomite, or gypsumby dissolving or solution weathering, and that is characterized by closeddepressions or sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage.Karst Drainage The karst drainage pattern is associated with the surface-subsurfacedrainage network and results from solution weathering of limestone.Karst Window A depression that reveals part of a subterranean river flowing across itsfloor, or an unroofed part of a cave.Lineaments Surface expression of vertical to near vertical natural linear joint, zone ofjoints or faults, which is greater than 1,500 meters (1,640 yards) in length.(ERI 1995).Paleokarst Inactive karst feature formed by a now inactive groundwater flow regime.Used here to describe old karst features now largely filled by precipitatedcarbonate minerals.Residuum Insoluble minerals concentrated at the ground surface by dissolution of asoluble rock, such as limestone.Rise The point of the reappearance of a stream.RQD Rock Quality Designation = Sum of the length of sound core greater than4-inches long divided by the total length of the core run times 100(expressed in percent).Sinkhole A funnel-shaped depression in the land surface generally in a limestoneregion communicating with a subterranean passage developed by solution.TABLE OF CONTENTS GlossaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA xiSolution Feature Term applied to a variety of features identified by ERI (1995) that arevisible on aerial photography and that appear to be associated with thesolution of limestone. Signatures of these features may appear as linear,circular, or irregular tonal variations, slight depressions or bedding sags.Some of the circular solution features may actually be dolines, and someof the linear solution features may be enlarged fractures. Often thesolution features identified by ERI (1995) were directly associated withfracture traces and/or sinkholes.Spring Any natural discharge of water from rock or soil on the surface of the landor into a body of surface water.Swallet Synonymous with swallow hole, but often used only for small featuresSwallow Holes A sinkhole that captures the water of a surface stream into theunderground.TABLE OF CONTENTS List of AcronymsQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA xiiAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Health AgencyAGI American Geological Institute, also Advanced Geosciences, Inc.ASI Advanced Science, Inc.ASTM American Society for Testing and MaterialsATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryBgs Below ground surfaceCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCfs Cubic feet per secondCHM Conceptual Hydrogeologic ModelDCE DichloroetheneDDT DichlorodephenyltrichloroethaneDERP Defense Environmental Restoration ProgramDOD Department of DefenseEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyERI Environmental Research, Inc.ESV Ecological Screening ValueGOCO Government Owned, Contractor OperatedGPS Global Positioning SystemHOP Hoosier Ordnance PlantHSC Hydrogeologic Site CharacterizationICI ICI Americas, Inc.IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental ManagementIDW Investigation-Derived WasteINAAP Indiana Army Ammunition PlantIOW Indiana Ordnance Works Plant 1IOWP Indiana Ordnance Works Plant 2K-V K-V Associates, Inc.LAP Load, Assemble and PackMSL Mean sea levelNADP/MDN National Atmospheric Deposition Program/Mercury Deposition NetworkNAVD North American Vertical DatumP&E Propellants and ExplosivesPC Personal ComputerPCB Polychlorinated biphenylPCE TetrachloroethylenePVC Polyvinyl ChlorideTABLE OF CONTENTS List of AcronymsQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA xiiiQC Quality ControlRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRDA Recommended Daily AllowanceRDX CyclotrimethylenetrinitramineRFI RCRA Facility InvestigationRI Remedial InvestigationRISC Risk Integrated System for ClosureRQD Rock Quality DesignationSARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSCFS Sample Collection Field SheetSOP Standard Operation ProcedureSVOC Semivolatile Organic CompoundTAL Target Analyte ListTCE TrichloroethyleneTCL Target Compound ListTOC Top Of CasingTPH Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsURS URS CorporationURSGWC URS Greiner Woodward ClydeUSACE U.S. Army Corps of EngineersUSATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials AgencyUSDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyVOC Volatile Organic CompoundW-C Woodward ClydeExecutive SummaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA ES-1The following report provides the results of the Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)completed for the Installation Groundwater (Site 90) at the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant(INAAP). The report also incorporates the Facility-wide Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model(CHM) developed for INAAP (URS 2001a) and the results of previous investigations relating tosite-specific or facility-wide spring and/or groundwater sampling completed at INAAP.INAAP currently encompasses approximately 9,790 acres in south-central Clark County,Indiana. Its southern boundary is approximately 6 miles north of Jeffersonville, Indiana and 10miles from the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area, which lies to the south across the OhioRiver. INAAP is an inactive military industrial installation. The Army intends to transfer theproperty to the Local Reuse Authority for commercial development or to the State of Indiana forinclusion in the state park system. The Installation Groundwater is one of 90 sites identified atINAAP.INAAP was originally constructed as three separate facilities: The Indiana Ordnance WorksPlant 1, the Hoosier Ordnance Plant, and the Indiana Works Plant 2. The three facilities wereconsolidated into the Indiana Arsenal in 1945. The Indiana Arsenal was redesignated as theIndiana Ordnance Plant in 1961; in August 1963, it was redesignated again as the Indiana ArmyAmmunition Plant.Topography at the INAAP can be described as middle-aged karst topography. Karst topographyis produced by the dissolution of limestone, gypsum, or other readily soluble rocks, commonlyalong joints, fractures, bedding planes, or other such features. The dissolution process results inthe formation of sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage. Numerous sinkholes and springsare found throughout much of upland surface at INAAP. Springs are present almost exclusivelyin rocks above and including the Waldron Shale.Thin soil generally covers bedrock on upland surfaces. The soil and weathered bedrock(epikarst) can store and slowly release water to underlying bedrock where it becomes part of thekarst groundwater flow system. Flow in this system may be rapid, as to springs, or slow asthrough narrow fractures.Approximately 96 percent of INAAP’s land surface drains directly into the Ohio River via sevendrainage basins. The remaining 4 percent reaches the Ohio River indirectly through the PheasantRun basin. Surface water runoff and groundwater in the karst groundwater flow system thatemerges on INAAP at springs flow through these drainages to the Ohio River. In doing so, thewater flow across alluvial sediments that form a separate lowland aquifer.Environmental investigations and remediation at INAAP are being completed under theDepartment of Defense’s (DOD’s) Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). Thelegal foundation for the DERP is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Actof 1986 (SARA). Specifically, CERCLA Section 120 applies to Federal Facilities, and SARASection 211 establishes the DERP.The objectives of DERP are to identify and investigate sites with past hazardous waste disposalor releases and to address them. These sites may have resulted from operations that were inExecutive SummaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA ES-2compliance with laws and proper procedures at the time of operation, but which may or may notpose a threat to human health or the environment.INAAP formerly had a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) foropen burning of obsolete or spent explosives and will be getting a RCRA post-closure carepermit for long-term monitoring of a landfill. Consequently, the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) is providing oversight for all future activities at INAAP inaccordance with the RCRA corrective action program.A total of 90 potential areas of concern (including RCRA and sanitary portions of the Site 2landfill) have been identified at INAAP. Site 90 includes groundwater within the INAAPboundaries and in areas adjacent to the current facility boundaries.Monitoring wells (permanent monitoring wells screened in bedrock or alluvial sediment andtemporary monitoring wells screened in soil above bedrock) and springs have been sampled atINAAP to characterize groundwater. Temporary wells were sampled to determine ifgroundwater in the local epikarst contains chemicals that can adversely impact groundwater inthe karst groundwater (or alluvial groundwater and surface water) flow system. Permanentmonitoring wells were sampled to determine if chemicals have entered the slow flow portion ofthe karst groundwater flow system of the lowland alluvial aquifer. Springs were sampled todetermine if chemicals have entered the rapid flow part of the karst groundwater flow system.Many of the on-post springs selected for sampling are located near one or more of the 90 areas ofpotential concern. Off post springs selected for sampling are located on properties adjacent tothe north, west and southern boundaries of INAAP, and they were sampled to evaluate possibleoffsite transport of chemicals.This report presents results from several investigations completed at INAAP, including:· Two rounds of on-post spring sampling completed in 1996.· Two rounds of on- and off-post spring sampling completed for this Phase II RFI.· The installation and sampling of nine permanent groundwater monitoring wells installedduring Phase II RFIs at two sites (Site 25, Jenny Lind Pond, and Site 60, Burning GroundLandfill), including two background monitoring wells.· Completion of 13 borings and the installation of 10 permanent monitoring wells as part ofthis Site 90 RFI.· Four rounds of sampling for permanent monitoring wells.· Sampling of temporary monitoring wells at two potential source areas (Site 1, Old Landfill,and Site 63, Propellants and Explosives Area).· Stratigraphic information from a previous bedrock coring investigation (ICI 1997) and fromdrilling and coring completed for this RFI.· Chemical analytical results for samples from springs, permanent monitoring wells, temporarymonitoring wells, and sediments include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatileExecutive SummaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA ES-3organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),nitroaromatic/nitramines, and target analyte list (TAL) metals.The important findings of the groundwater investigation are that:· Screening level evaluation of the sample results indicates no risk to human health in excessof that posed by naturally occurring chemicals (primarily metals) assuming a future industrialexposure scenario.· Ecological risk screening indicates no risk to the environment, the presence of metals andlow concentrations of organochlorine pesticides (detected in samples from springs) areinterpreted to be present as natural (metals) or anthropogenic (organochlorine pesticides)background. As such, they represent no additional ecological risk above backgroundconcentrations.· There is apparently no impact to the lowland alluvial aquifer from groundwater/surface waterat INAAP.It is recommended that no additional characterization of installation water quality is necessary.Future site-specific investigation results for soil may warrant additional investigation ofgroundwater if a specific karst solution feature is found to be impacted by chemicals transportedin water in solution or suspension. Limited future groundwater monitoring may also be requiredif any remediation activities at INAAP could potentially and adversely impact groundwater.SECTIONONE IntroductionQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 1-1This report presents the findings of the Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) ofInstallation Groundwater at INAAP. The scope of the Phase II RFI included drilling and coringof bedrock, installation of new monitoring wells in bedrock and alluvium, sampling ofgroundwater at on-post monitoring wells and at on-post and off-post springs. Sediment samplescollocated with spring samples were also collected. On-post sampling locations were selectedbased on proximity to known or suspected sources of site-related chemicals. Off-post samplinglocations were selected to be representative of groundwater discharge near the INAAPboundaries at locations that might be impacted by chemicals transported from INAAP bygroundwater. The purpose of the sampling was to document if any of the areas of concern arecontributing chemicals to groundwater in concentrations that may represent risks to humanhealth or to the environment.The Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP), located in south-central Indiana, operated from1941 to 1998 (Figure 1-1). Today, it is an inactive facility with tenants leasing space, and it isscheduled for transfer to a Local Reuse Authority and the State of Indiana.INAAP currently encompasses approximately 9,790 acres in south-central Clark County,Indiana. Its southern boundary is approximately 6 miles north of Jeffersonville, Indiana and 10miles from the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area, which lies to the south across the OhioRiver. INAAP is an inactive military industrial installation. The Army intends to transfer theproperty to the Local Reuse Authority for commercial development and to the State of Indianafor inclusion in the state park system.A total of 90 potential areas of concern (including RCRA and sanitary portions of the Site 2landfill) have been identified at INAAP. Figure 1-2 shows the location of these areas at INAAP.Site 90 includes groundwater within the post boundaries and in areas adjacent to the currentfacility boundaries.INAAP is located in a region of karst terrane. The term karst refers to any area generallyunderlain by limestone or dolomite where the topography is formed primarily by the dissolutionof rock (EPA 1999). Topographic features common in such areas include sinkholes, caverns,and karst windows. Hydrologic features include basins of closed drainage, sinking streams,groundwater resurgence at springs, and often, incongruent surface water and groundwaterdivides.Groundwater at INAAP is present in the bedrock formations of the upland areas and in theterrace/floodplain sand and gravel deposits located within the Ohio River valley. Thegroundwater present in the floodplain aquifer along the Ohio River is a major water supplysource. Groundwater is not usually found in the thin soil layer covering the bedrock surface inthe upland areas. When present, shallow groundwater typically mingles with surface water byflowing in and out of karst features.1.1 OPERATIONAL HISTORY AND WASTE CHARACTERISITICSINAAP was originally constructed as three separate facilities: the Indiana Ordnance Works Plant1 (IOW), the Hoosier Ordnance Plant (HOP), and the Indiana Ordnance Works Plant 2 (IOWP).SECTIONONE IntroductionQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 1-2The three facilities were consolidated into the Indiana Arsenal in 1945. The Indiana Arsenal wasredesigned again at the Indiana Ordnance Plant in 1961. In August 1963, it was re-designatedagain as the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (ASI 1994).IOW is also known as the Propellants and Explosives (P&E) Area. It occupies the northwestpart of INAAP. The P&E Area has the following history of use:· Construction began in 1940 and was completed in 1942.· Production of “smokeless powder” (nitrocellulose) began in 1941.· The P&E Area was placed on standby status in 1945.· From 1946 to 1950, a portion of the P&E Area was operated for production of ammoniumnitrate fertilizer.· Portions of the P&E Area were reactivated in 1952 for production of “smokeless powder” forthe Korean Conflict. Production continued through January 1954.· In 1957, five of six production lines were placed on standby status.· Three production lines were reactivated in 1968 and were operated until August 1970 (duringthe Vietnam conflict).· In August 1970, the P&E Area was returned to standby status.The HOP is also known as the Load, Assemble, and Pack (LAP) Area. It encompasses thesouthern part of INAAP. The LAP has the following history of use:· Construction of the LAP Area began in 1941 and was completed in 1942.· The area includes maintenance shops located in the southwest corner on INAAP.· Production at the LAP Area began on September 2, 1941 and continued until V-J Day(September 2, 1945).· The area was placed on standby status, and “layaway” was completed in February 1946.· The Army used the LAP Area for long-term storage of powder and as a debagging line.· By 1950, activities in the LAP Area included bag manufacturing and bag loading.· Production activity increased in response to the Korean Conflict, and the LAP Area reachedpeak employment in August 1953.· Production ceased in September 1957, and the LAP Area was once again placed in standbystatus.· The area was reactivated in the fall of 1961 for production of howitzer charge bags.· Sporadic production activities occurred at the LAP Area until 1998 when all productionactivities ceased.SECTIONONE IntroductionQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 1-3IOWP was located north of the area considered for this report. It was designed as a three-lineproduction facility for double-base rocket powder. Part of IOWP was excessed in 1964, and theremainder was excessed in 1995.Construction of a Black Powder Manufacturing Plant was authorized in the late 1970s. Thisplant was constructed in the summer of 1983. A former Burning Ground Area is located on theeast side on INAAP, south of the Black Powder Manufacturing Plant and east of the P&E Area.1.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONSResults from springs and monitoring well sampling have been reported as parts of severalenvironmental investigations at INAAP. Other reports have discussed facility-wide geology andgroundwater conditions at INAAP. These reports include:· Phase I RI Report, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (W-C 1998)· Site 25 Jenny Lind Pond Phase II RFI (URS 2002a)· Site 60 Burning Ground Phase II RFI (URS 2002b)· Facility-wide Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model (URS 2001a)Unpublished investigation results have also contributed to the understanding of the geology andhydrogeology at INAAP. Several deep (200+ feet) cored boreholes were completed at INAAP in1997. The results of the coring were never summarized in a report, but the cored bedrock waspreserved and stored on the INAAP property. Some of the preserved core material wasexamined as part of this Phase II RFI (Appendix D).1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATIONThe report is organized as follows:· Section 2 – Environmental Setting: presents the geologic, geomorphic, and hydrologicfeatures of INAAP associated with the karst groundwater flow system· Section 3 – Field Activities: describes the selection of sampling locations, the installation ofmonitoring wells, and the field sampling activities completed for this report· Section 4 – Physical Investigation Results: presents the results of the subsurface geologicinvestigations· Section 5 – Chemistry Data Quality Review and Validation: summarizes the results of the100 percent quality control (QC) review and the ten percent full validation· Section 6 – Chemical Investigation Results: identifies the chemical analyses used and fieldduplicate samples collected; summarizes the sample detections by sample identificationnumber and matrix type in tabular form· Section 7 – Contamination Assessment: uses text and figures to assess chemicals present atthe site, based on matrix, sampling location (spring, permanent monitoring well, ortemporary monitoring well) and chemical groupSECTIONONE IntroductionQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 1-4· Section 8 – Risk Screening: examines the chemicals present in various matrices to determineif they pose a threat to human health or to the environment· Section 9 – Conclusions and Recommendations: includes figures that show sample locationswhere risk screening levels were exceeded· Section 10 – ReferencesFor additional information including the facility description and environmental setting, previousinvestigations, and the technical approaches used during the Phase II RFI, refer to the SitewideWork Plan (URS 2000).SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-1The following section describes the physical setting of INAAP. A glossary of terms has beenprovided following the report table of contents.2.1 CLIMATEThe regional climate for southern Indiana, including INAAP, is humid continental with warmsummers and cold winters (Rand McNally & Co. 1978). During winter, the prevailing winddirection is from the north; prevailing winds are from the south-southwest during the rest of theyear. The mean annual lake evaporation rate for the INAAP vicinity is approximately 35 inches;approximately 75 percent of the evaporation occurs between May and October (ASI 1994).Average annual precipitation for Louisville, Kentucky, approximately 10 miles from INAAP, is42.98 inches, most of which occurs as rain. Monthly average precipitation for the years 1957 to1986, listed in Table 2-1, shows that the precipitation is distributed evenly throughout the year(ICI 1988b). The average annual snowfall is 12 inches, but is highly variable from year to year,depending upon temperature and frequency of winter storms. Most of the severe storms occur inthe spring as thunderstorms, with tornadoes occurring on a statewide average annual frequencyof 11 days per year (ASI 1994).2.2 GEOLOGYAccording to published geologic information (primarily Indiana Geological Surveypublications), the geology of INAAP generally consists of unconsolidated sediments overlyingcarbonate bedrock. Two unique sequences of unconsolidated sediments are present at INAAP.The two sequences are defined as the Uplands Area, which consists of glacial and residualweathered bedrock materials, and the Terrace/Floodplain Area, consisting of fluvial silts andclays and terrace sands and gravels. A brief description of each of these two areas and thebedrock strata is presented below.A study of the geology and significant hydrogeologic features at INAAP was reported as an openfile report published by the Indiana Geological Survey (Hendricks 1995). Much of the geologicinformation presented here can be found in Hendricks (1995).2.2.1 Uplands DepositsThe majority of INAAP is located in Upland areas characterized by karst topography associatedwith shallow limestone bedrock. The ground surface is gently rolling to level, except wheresurface water drainage has eroded the unconsolidated surficial deposits and incised the limestonestrata forming steep-sided valleys. In addition, numerous sinkholes, springs, and solutioncaverns are present at the site. The ground surface elevation ranges from 680 feet above MSL inthe northeastern portion of the site to 430 feet above MSL in the southern portion of the sitealong the Ohio River (USGS 1982).Published geologic information indicates that surficial deposits, consisting of glacial till (JessupFormation) and residuum, overlie the bedrock throughout most of the upland areas at INAAPSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-2(Figure 2-1). The glacial deposits, where present, are primarily fine-grained sedimentsconsisting of clay, silt, and sand (USDA 1974). The residuum underlying the reported glacialmaterial consists of layers of varying thickness of insoluble bedrock material, primarily residualclays and chert fragments, that have remained in place after the soluble components of thebedrock have been removed by dissolution (AGI 1980). Thickness of the surficial deposits isgenerally from 0 to 15 feet (USDA 1974).2.2.2 Terrace/Floodplain DepositsThe terrace/floodplain deposits present along the eastern side of INAAP are part of the Alluvial-Valley Aquifer-Stream System (Heath 1984). The aquifer-stream system formed after glacialmelt water eroded the Ohio River Valley. During later stages of glaciation, the valley was filledwith sand and gravel deposits (i.e., the terrace deposits, 80 feet thick) (USATHAMA 1980). Asthe glaciers retreated, the sediment load in the glacial meltwater decreased, with the resultingdeposition of clay, silt, and fine sand (i.e., floodplain deposits, 16 to 30 feet thick, Rosenshein1988) on the sands and gravels. The composite thickness of the terrace/floodplain deposits is asgreat as 100 feet, and these sediments rest on carbonate bedrock.The floodplain sediments also are present in the lower segments of the INAAP drainage basinsidentified in Section 2.3. The floodplain deposits are the youngest sediments at INAAP.2.2.3 BedrockBedrock at INAAP consists of interbedded carbonates (limestones and dolomites), shales, andshaley carbonates of the Mississippian, Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician Systems.Regionally, the bedrock strata dip very gently to the west (USATHAMA 1980) at 13 to 18 feetper mile (0.14° to 0.20°). The following sections describe the bedrock formations from theyoungest to the oldest. A composite stratigraphic section (Hendricks 1995) from INAAP isshown on Figure 2-2. The uppermost or exposed bedrock units in the INAAP vicinity are shownon Figure 2-3. Bedrock coring done for the Installation Groundwater (Site 90) investigation isdescribed in Section 4. In general, the elevations of formation contacts predicted from previousmapping (Hendricks 1995) were within a few feet as seen in the rock cores.Dissolution of carbonate rocks has formed the karst features at INAAP. Limestones are highlysusceptible to dissolution by surface and groundwater under most natural conditions. In general,the more acidic the water, the more susceptible limestones are to dissolution. Dolomites andcalcium-rich shales are also prone to dissolution, but much less so than limestone (see Krauskopf1979 for a detailed discussion of carbonate solubility).Acidic wastewater was a by-product of propellant manufacture at INAAP (USATHAMA 1980).Much of this wastewater was discharged to Jenny Lind Run. The effects of acidic wastewater onexposed limestone bedrock can be seen in portions of the Jenny Lind Run stream channel,particularly below the Process Waste Settling Basin (Site 6). Here, the stream channel has beenincised several feet into the exposed limestone bedrock by acidic wastewater (see Figure 7,Hendricks 1995).SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-3Mississippian/Devonian SystemsNew Albany ShaleLate Devonian to Early Mississippian New Albany Shale is the youngest and stratigraphicallyhighest bedrock unit at INAAP. Regionally, the thickness of the shale is about 60 to 140 feet;however, erosion has removed most of the New Albany Shale from INAAP. Because thiserosional thinning, development of sinkholes into the underlying carbonate units is common(USATHAMA 1980).In Indiana, the shale is highly jointed in some areas and described as relatively impervious, darkgray to black, pyritic, and bituminous (Frazier and Schwimmer 1987). The New Albany Shale iscontinuous with the Antrim Shale to the north, the Ohio Shale to the northeast, and theChattanooga Shale to the south-southeast (Frazier and Schwimmer 1987).The Indiana Geological Survey recognizes five members within the New Albany Shale (fromyoungest to oldest): the Clegg Creek, Camp Run, Morgan Trail, Selmeir, and Blocher Members.At INAAP:· Only the lowest member, the Blocher Member, is present and is poorly exposed.· The thickest observed section is no more than 10 feet thick (Hendricks 1995) and is oflimited areal extent.· It lies unconformably over the Beechwood Member of the North Vernon Limestone.· The Blocher Member consists of black and dolomitic black shale, dolomites, and mudstone(Hendricks 1995).Clay minerals are principal components of shale, with aluminum, potassium, and sodiumcommon constituents of clay minerals. Shale typically contains a variety of trace elements.Metals that are typically present in shale at concentrations of 100 mg/kg or greater include:barium, iron, manganese, rubidium, strontium, vanadium, and zirconium. Metals that aretypically present in shale at concentrations of 45 to 100 mg/kg include: chromium, copper,lithium, nickel, and zinc (Drever 1982).The New Albany Shale has been chemically investigated in southeastern Indiana (Shaffer,Leininger, and Gilstrap 1983). Several rock cores analyzed by these authors were from Clarkand Floyd Counties. Anomalously high concentrations of iron (up to 7 percent by weight) zinc(up to 3,500 mg/kg), copper (up to 210 mg/kg), chromium (up to 160 mg/kg), vanadium (up to1,200 mg/kg), nickel (up to 1,200 mg/kg), molybdenum (up to 900 mg/kg), and phosphorous (upto 0.23 percent by weight) were associated with very organic-rich beds in the New Albany Shale.In addition, aluminum content was as great as 14 percent by weight. Weathered shale may bethe source of many of the metals detected in groundwater at INAAP, particularly in thetemporary wells installed in residual soils.Information published by the Indiana Geological Survey (Becker 1974; Gray 1972) indicates thattwo carbonate units deposited during the Middle Devonian Period are present beneath the NewSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-4Albany Shale in the vicinity of INAAP. The two successively older carbonate units are theNorth Vernon Limestone and the Jeffersonville Limestone. The North Vernon Limestone isreported as equivalent to the Sellersburg Limestone of Kentucky (Becker 1974).North Vernon LimestoneIn outcrop, the North Vernon Limestone has been divided into three members, including theBeechwood Limestone, which lies above the intertonguing Silver Creek and Speed Members(Becker 1974). The Silver Creek and Speed Members reportedly are not differentiated in thesubsurface except in cores due to the subtlety and thinness of contacts. Becker (1974) reportedthat the North Vernon Limestone varies in thickness from 1 to 25 feet in the areas of Indianawhere it crops out. The North Vernon Limestone thickens toward the west in the subsurface,reaching a maximum thickness of 125 feet in the southwest corner of the state (Becker 1974).The North Vernon Limestone unconformably overlies the Jeffersonville Limestone (Shaver andothers 1986).The Beechwood Limestone, the uppermost (and therefore, youngest) member of the NorthVernon Limestone is described as a hard, massive, coarsely, crystalline, crinoidal limestone withan approximate thickness of 3 feet (USATHAMA 1980).At INAAP:· The Beechwood Member unconformably overlies the Silver Creek Member, where present,or the Speed Member.· It consists of both fossiliferous limestone and unfossiliferous dolomites (Hendricks 1995).· Due to thinness, poor exposure, or complete dissolution over time, no sinkholes, caves, orsprings were observed during mapping by the Indiana Geological Survey (Hendricks 1995).Beneath the Beechwood Limestone in the vicinity of INAAP is the Silver Creek Limestone(USATHAMA 1980), which has been described as a fine-grained, thin-bedded clayey limestonewith an average thickness of 16 feet, giving the North Vernon Limestone an approximatethickness of 20 feet.The Silver Creek Member lies conformably over the Speed Member and consists of an uppermassive, bioturbated, argillaceous dolomite and a similar lower unit containing chert stringersand nodules.At INAAP:· The Silver Creek has an estimated thickness of 18 to 23 feet (Hendricks 1995).· Much of the INAAP site is reportedly covered with clay soils developed on weathered bedsof the Silver Creek Member (Hendricks 1995).The Speed Member lies unconformably over the Jeffersonville Limestone at INAAP and consistsof argillaceous, medium-gray limestone (Hendricks 1995).SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-5At INAAP:· The Speed Member is approximately 5 feet thick (Hendricks 1995).· Has a distinctive reddish-weathering brachiopod fossil, useful for identifying and mapping.· Has few springs associated with it since it is located in topographically high areas of INAAP.Springs associated with the Speed Member generally occur at the bedding plane between itand underlying Jeffersonville Limestone.Jeffersonville LimestoneThe Jeffersonville Limestone, which lies beneath the North Vernon Limestone, consists of anupper shaley, fossiliferous limestone unit and a lower hard, massive limestone unit. It isdescribed as having a variable carbonate content (Becker 1974). Reported thicknesses for theJeffersonville range from 9 feet in total thickness (USATHAMA 1980) to 25 to 45 feet reportedin areas where it crops out (Becker 1974). The maximum reported thickness found for theJeffersonville Limestone was approximately 200 feet in the subsurface in the southwest corner ofthe State (Becker 1974). It unconformably overlies the Louisville Limestone (Shaver and others1986).At INAAP:· The Jeffersonville Limestone has an estimated thickness of 35 to 40 feet (Hendricks 1995).· Because of its limestone composition, the Jeffersonville Limestone is highly susceptible todissolution and formation of karst features by groundwater and acid wastewater.The Jeffersonville Limestone is of significant environmental concern at the INAAP because:· 23 of 32 caves mapped at INAAP (Hendricks 1995) were located in the JeffersonvilleLimestone, indicating susceptibility to formation of karst features.· 99 of 163 sinkholes and swallets mapped at INAAP were associated with the JeffersonvilleLimestone (Hendricks 1995).· 32 of 121 major bedrock springs identified were associated with the Jeffersonville Limestone(Hendricks 1995).· It is easily dissolved by groundwater and acidic wastewater.Vertical joints are well developed in the Jeffersonville Limestone. Rose-diagram plots of jointorientations prepared from field notes (Hendricks 1995) for the Jeffersonville generally showtwo sets of joints, one approximately north-south, and another east-west or northwest-southeast,depending on the location of the outcrop that was analyzed.Silurian SystemExposures of Silurian rocks in the vicinity of the INAAP are generally found along the OhioRiver and its tributaries. Four Silurian formations crop out at INAAP. These formations are,SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-6from youngest to oldest, the Louisville Limestone, Waldron Shale, the Salamonie Dolomite, andthe Brassfield Limestone. These formations are briefly described in the following paragraphs.Louisville LimestoneThe Louisville Limestone is the uppermost Silurian formation and is described as a whitelimestone to brown argillaceous and dolomitic limestone with an average thickness of 45 feet insouthern Indiana (Becker 1974). It has a transitional contact with the underlying Waldron Shale(Becker 1974, Shaver and others1986).At INAAP:· The Louisville Limestone varies in thickness from 30 to 70 feet thick (Hendricks 1995). Thethickest sections are exposed in the Jenny Lind Run.· It has a variable lithology, ranging from bioclastic limestone to silty carbonates and thinshale beds.· Because of its limestone composition, the Louisville Limestone is highly susceptible todissolution and formation of karst features by groundwater and acid wastewater.The Louisville Limestone is of significant environmental concern at the INAAP because:· 5 of 32 mapped caves were located in the Louisville Limestone (Hendricks 1995). One ofthese caves is reportedly as much as 3,000 feet long (Hendricks 1995), although it has notbeen mapped. This cave follows Jenny Lind Run. It is believed to extend approximatelynorth to south, from the cave where process wastewater was disposed of (northeast ofBuilding 235-6) prior to construction of the P&E Flume, to the end of the flume, upstream ofthe Process Waste Settling Basin (Site 6), based on previous descriptions of waste disposaland stream disappearance in Jenny Lind Run (Wickwire 1947).· 52 of 163 sinkholes and swallets mapped at the INAAP were associated with the LouisvilleLimestone (Hendricks 1995).· 41 of 121 major bedrock springs mapped at the INAAP were associated with the LouisvilleLimestone (Hendricks 1995).· It is easily dissolved by groundwater and acidic wastewater.Vertical joints are also common in the Louisville Limestone. Rose-diagram plots of jointorientations prepared from field notes (Hendricks 1995) for the Louisville generally show twosets of joints, one approximately north-south, and another east-west or northwest-southeast,depending on the location of the outcrop that was analyzed.Waldron ShaleThe Waldron Shale is described as a medium to greenish-gray, calcareous silty shale in thesouthern part of Indiana (Becker 1974). The thickness of the Waldron Shale generally rangesfrom 3 to 9 feet with an average thickness of 5 feet in southern Indiana (Becker 1974, Shaver andothers 1986).SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-7At INAAP:· The Waldron Shale consists of medium-gray to olive-gray clay shale, dolomitic clay shale,and minor argillaceous dolomite.· It ranges in thickness from 10 to 15 feet.· The Waldron Shale lies conformably over the Laurel Member of the Salamonie Dolomite.The Waldron Shale is of significant environmental concern at the Plant because:· 43 of 121 major springs mapped at the Plant were located within the stratigraphic interval ofthe Waldron Shale; usually either at the top or at the base of the unit (Hendricks 1995).· Although the presence of springs at the top of the Waldron may indicate some resistance tochemical/mechanical erosion, springs at the base indicate it is not impervious.Salamonie DolomiteThe Salamonie Dolomite consists of two members: the Laurel Member and the Osgood Member.The Laurel Member varies from white to bluish-white, and pinkish limestones to yellowish tomedium gray dolomitic limestone, to dolomite in southern Indiana (Becker 1974). It commonlycontains chert and ranges from 30 to 40 feet thick in southern Indiana. The Laurel Member isunderlain conformably by the Osgood Member (Becker 1974; Shaver and others 1986).At INAAP:· The Laurel Member is highly variable in thickness and lithology. Overall thickness rangesfrom 26 to 50 feet in the vicinity of the INAAP (Hendricks 1995).· It consists of two lower vuggy dolomite facies and an upper finely crystalline, even-bedded,largely unfossiliferous dolomite (Hendricks 1995). The two vuggy facies have beenmeasured at approximately 30 feet in thickness, while the upper crystalline dolomite has beenmeasured at about 10 feet in thickness.The Laurel Member is of limited environmental concern at the INAAP because:· Only 4 of 163 sinkholes and swallets mapped at the INAAP were associated with the Laurel(Hendricks 1995).· Only 1 of 121 bedrock springs mapped at the INAAP was associated with the Laurel. Nobedrock springs exceeding the estimated flow rate of 1 gpm were observed in Laurel bedrock(Hendricks 1995).· Karst features in the Laurel at exposure JL-25 (Hendricks 1995) located in the north branchof Jenny Lind Run about 1,400 feet northwest of the former Jenny Lind Pond were describedas paleokarst, mostly filled with aragonite flowstone.· The effects of acidic wastewater discharge downstream of the Process Waste Settling Basinresulted in vertical down-cutting of bedrock, but no karst features were created (Hendricks1995).SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-8The Laurel Member has well-developed vertical joints. Rose-diagram plots of joint orientationsprepared from field notes for the Laurel Member (Hendricks 1995) generally show only one setof well-developed joints, oriented approximately north to south.The Osgood Member consists of interbedded yellowish to greenish-gray, fine to medium-grainedshaley limestone or dolomitic limestone and small thin beds of greenish-gray calcareous shale(Becker 1974). The Osgood Member ranges in thickness from 15 to 25 feet in Clark County,giving the Salamonie Dolomite an average thickness of about 50 to 60 feet in southern Indiana.This average thickness increases to the west as the Laurel Member thickens in the subsurfacetoward the west. The Osgood Member unconformably overlies either the Brassfield Limestone(where present) or older Ordovician age rocks (Shaver and others 1986).At INAAP:· The Osgood Member consists of a lower carbonate, lower shale, upper carbonate and uppershale in ascending order (Hendricks 1995).· The carbonate units consist of argillaceous, unfossiliferous dolomite, while the shale unitsconsist primarily of dolomitic shale.· The total combined thickness of the four units is approximately 16 to 30 feet.The Osgood Member is not of significant environmental concern at the INAAP because:· None of the 163 sinkholes or swallets mapped at INAAP were associated with the OsgoodMember (Hendricks 1995).· Only 2 of the 121 bedrock springs mapped at INAAP were associated with the Osgood, bothof which were located at the top of the unit (Hendricks 1995).· The dolomitic composition of the Osgood Member indicates it is less likely to be affected bykarst development than overlying limestone.Brassfield LimestoneThe Brassfield Limestone is separated from the overlying Osgood Member and the underlyingOrdovician strata by unconformities. The Brassfield is a coarsely crystalline, mottled pinkishlimestone with an average thickness of 5 feet in Clark County (Becker 1974). It has also beendescribed as fossiliferous (Shaver and others 1986).At INAAP:· No typical Brassfield Limestone outcrops were observed (Hendricks 1995).· Approximately 3 feet of brecciated material was observed in a quarry near INAAP at theequivalent stratigraphic interval for the Brassfield Limestone (Hendricks 1995).· The Brassfield Limestone is probably highly susceptible to dissolution, but is unlikely todevelop significant karst features due to its thinness.SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-9Ordovician SystemLate Ordovician strata are reported to be the oldest rocks that crop out in the vicinity of INAAP.They consist of dolomites, limestones, and shales of the Whitewater, Dillsboro and KopeFormations. These strata are believed to crop out only in the northern part of INAAP, along thelower reaches of Fourteen Mile Creek. The Whitewater, Dillsboro, and Kope Formations have acombined, undifferentiated thickness of 650 to 850 feet (Gray 1972). Only the WhitewaterFormation has been identified in the outcrop at INAAP, in Jenny Lind Run (Hendricks 1995). Athin olive black shale unit about 0.8 feet thick separates upper and lower portions of the SaludaMember and may serve as a good marker bed when coring (Hendricks 1995).At INAAP:· The Whitewater Formation is only partially exposed (Hendricks 1995), with only the SaludaMember visible in outcrop.· The Saluda Member has an approximate thickness of 55 feet at INAAP.The Saluda Member consists of interbedded dolomites, argillaceous dolomites and dolomiticshales, which are overlain by an upper unnamed member consisting of shale and limestone(Hendricks 1995).The Saluda Member may represent a significant confining layer due to its:· Dolomitic composition, making it resistant to dissolution· Its thicknessCored Borehole InvestigationDuring 1997, 9 cored bedrock boreholes were completed on INAAP by ICI Americas, Inc. tocharacterize the subsurface stratigraphy. The cored boreholes were reportedly logged, butdetailed boring logs were unavailable for review. As part of the field investigation for this PhaseII RFI, preserved cores were logged (Appendix D) to provided comparison to new bedrock coresand to verify formation contact depths that were available for the older cores. This informationis presented in Section 4.Structural GeologyThree sets of regional joints were identified in bedrock in the vicinity of INAAP during geologicmapping (Hendricks 1995) and aerial photogeologic studies (ERI 1995) done at the Plant. Thesesets trend roughly as follows: north to N10E, N75W to N90W, and N45W. A fourth set oflocalized joints believed to trend N70E has been identified (Hendricks 1995). Hendricks (1995)suggests that this fourth set is probably related to local expression of regional basement faulting.Joint orientations seem to be specific to formations and to outcrop locations. Joints provideavenues for surface water infiltration, carbonate dissolution, and formation of karst solutionfeatures.SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-10Faults, folds, and breccia layers have been described on or near INAAP (Hendricks 1995).Compressional deformation (thrust faults, reverse faults and folds with westward displacement)is present along Fourteen Mile Creek on INAAP and near Harmony Landing in Oldham County,Kentucky. According to Hendricks (1995), the most severely deformed strata are present in thevalley of Lick Branch in tract 97 of the Clark Military Grant immediately north of INAAP.Numerous small folds that trend N80W were observed in the Osgood Member of the SalamonieDolomite in the unnamed tributaries that flow into Jenny Lind Run from the north on INAAP(Hendricks 1995).Extensional deformation (normal faults and small grabens) was observed at the Mulzer CrushedStone Company Quarry northeast of Charlestown (Hendricks 1995). All deformation isrestricted to stratigraphic units below the Waldron Shale. Deformation is interpreted to haveoccurred before and during the deposition of the Laurel Member of the Salamonie Dolomite, andit is probably the result of sediment slumping on a westward-dipping paleoslope (Hendricks1995). The slumping may have been triggered by paleoseismic activity. INAAP probably liesalong a normal fault zone in the crystalline basement that is downthrown to the north. This faultzone forms the northern margin of a large mafic basement complex called the LouisvilleAccommodation Structure (Hendricks 1995).2.3 TOPOGRAPHYThe INAAP is situated within the Muscatatuck Regional Slope unit of the Interior LowlandsPhysiographic Province (USGS 1956). Topography at the INAAP can be described as well-developedkarst topography. Figure 2-4 shows the locations of surface water drainage basins.Figure 2-5 shows selected karst features for Jenny Lind Run. Figure 2-6 shows INAAP arealineaments identified on aerial photographs (ERI 1995) on a topgraphic base map. Figure 2-7shows site-wide karst features identified on aerial photographs (ERI 1995).Ground surface elevations vary from approximately 680 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in thenorthern portion of the Plant to approximately 430 feet above MSL along the Ohio River (USGS1993a, 1993b and Figure 2-7). The western margin of INAAP approximately coincides with atopographic divide between surface water drainage east to the Ohio River or west to PleasantRun Creek.Topographic maps of the INAAP vicinity show that the ground surface drops sharply along theeastern edge of the Plant near the Ohio River; the ground surface slopes less sharply from thecentral part of the Plant to the southern part of the Plant. The eastern edge of the facility is arelatively flat area that represents fluvial terraces and the current floodplain of the Ohio River.Areas outside the floodplain and terraces are referred to as upland areas throughout this report.INAAP is shown on the Jeffersonville and Charlestown USGS topographic quadrangles (USGS1993b, 1993a, respectively and Figure 2-6).An angulate drainage pattern is present in the upland areas of the Plant. Angulate drainagepatterns typically result from the development of streams controlled by vertical joints or faultsthat join each other at acute obtuse angles. Most of the streams located on the INAAP dischargedirectly into the Ohio River. They have relatively steep gradients. For example, the bed ofSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-11Jenny Lind Run has a gradient of about 80 feet per mile (0.86°). The larger streams, such asJenny Lind Run, Fourteen Mile Creek, and Battle Creek are incised though the bedrockformations of greatest significance for groundwater contaminant-transport (JeffersonvilleLimestone and Louisville Limestone). Segments of surface streams, such as Jenny Lind Run,have developed along linear solution features. Caves trending along and under the stream courseform sinking stream segments.Analysis of 1937 pre-development aerial photography by ERI (1995) identified 473 fracture (lessthan 1,500 m) or lineament (greater than 1,500 m) traces. A rose diagram of the traces (ERI1995) identified two primary orientations, one nearly east to west and one nearly north to south,and one secondary orientation, approximately northwest to southwest. Most of the streamvalleys in the INAAP area probably developed along major solution channels that followfractures such as those documented by Hendricks (1995, Section 2.1).2.4 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGYSurface waters at INAAP include Battle Creek, Little Battle Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek, JennyLind Run, Lentzier Creek, and Lick Creek; the Ohio River; and numerous springs. Heavy rainsduring the early spring of 1997 caused a catastrophic dam failure and subsequent draining ofJenny Lind Pond (ICI 1997).Approximately 96 percent of INAAPs surface area drains directly into the Ohio River via 6major drainage basins, which are discussed below, with the remaining 4 percent reaching theOhio River indirectly through the Pleasant Run basin (ASI 1994). The relative proportion ofsurface water runoff versus infiltration has not been measured. However, the percent ofinfiltration is assumed to be relatively high due to the number of sinkholes present at the INAAPand the relatively shallow depth to bedrock.2.4.1 Water BalanceA water balance estimate was made for the southern part of INAAP (Ogden 1995). Estimates forsurface runoff, infiltration, evaporation, base flow, evapotranspiration, and recharge were madeusing standard methods (Soil Conservation Service equations and the Penman Equation). For thearea considered, infiltration was estimated at greater than 98% of annual precipitation. Estimatesof annual water budget components (Ogden 1995) were:· Precipitation, 42.60 inches (Louisville climate records)· Surface Runoff, 0.42 inches· Evaporation, 0.07 inches· Base flow 15 inches· Evapotranspiration, 17.36 inches· Recharge, 9.75 inchesSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-12The infiltration estimate made by Ogden (1995) is reasonable given the well developed nature ofthe karst topography at INAAP. The Ogden study (1995) did not differentiate between rapid andslow karst discharge to springs and streams, and both base flow and recharge are probably overestimated by the standard methods used by Ogden. Evaluation of karst groundwater basins inKentucky (Quinlan and Ray 1995, EPA 1997) has shown that normalized base-flow discharge(units of cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage basin) is generally in the range of 0.1to 0.4. Converted to inches per year for comparison to the Ogden study this is 1.4 to 5.4 inches,much less than 15 inches.For the 5.7 square miles of INAAP evaluated by Ogden, the Kentucky normalized base flowvalues suggest that base flow should be in the range of 0.57 to 2.3 cfs/mi2. Converted to gallonsper minute (gpm) per square mile, this is about 250 to 1,000 gpm. Accordingly, base flow fromthe entire 5.7 square miles would be in the range of 1,.500 gpm to 5,700 gpm. The actual valueis likely to be nearer 1,500 because inflow to the INAAP karst system is autogenic (locallyderived) and soil cover is thin (Quinlan and Ray 1995).Large springs at INAAP were estimated to have discharges in the range of a few tens to a fewhundreds of gpm (Hendricks 1995). This range appears compatible with the lower estimate ofbase flow of 1,450 gpm based on the normalized base flow concept. Rapid flow to streams viaconduits in the karst aquifer at INAAP probably accounts for much of the water allocated byOgden to base flow, and it may account for all water allocated to recharge. In the long term,aquifer recharge must be balanced by aquifer discharge, and there is little evidence of large-scaledeep circulation of groundwater away from the INAAP site (Section 2.4).2.4.2 Drainage BasinsSeven separate drainage basins have been identified on INAAP (USATHAMA 1980). Thesedrainage basins are shown in Figure 2-4 and are described below.Lentzier CreekThe Lentzier Creek System, located along the southern boundary of the INAAP, drains 27percent of INAAP (USATHAMA 1980), but also drains an area south of INAAP that isapproximately equal in size to the area within INAAP. Three branches of Lentzier Creek, theWest, Central and East Branches, originate within the Plant boundaries. The upper part of theWest Branch originates near the South Gate (Gate 2). Several springs originate furtherdownstream, along the South Boundary/Administration Patrol Road. Flow from these springsjoins the upper West Branch and flow across the Plant boundary. The West Branch receivesrunoff from Container Renovation (Site 78), the 1500 Area Shops (Site 80), Building 1503 (Site37), the Drum Storage Areas (Site 84), and the Spill Area (Site 86).The Central Branch of Lentzier Creek originates in a spring north of the intersection of 5th Streetand Salem Road. A second ephemeral spring located along Salem Road, near the 5th Street andSalem Road intersection on the west side of the New Landfill Area (Site 2), also drains into theCentral Branch. The Central Branch flows past the LAP Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 13).Downstream of the sewage plant, several more springs join the branch before it crosses the PlantSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-13boundary. The Central Branch receives runoff from part of the LAP Area (Site 75) and theBurial Pits (Site 82).The East Branch of Lentzier Creek originates within the Igloo Area (Site 76) and is fed byseveral springs, many of which appear to be ephemeral. The Igloo Area is the only area of thePlant drained by the east branch.An ephemeral spring located east of the New Landfill (Site 2) flows southward into LentzierCreek south of the Plant boundary via an unnamed drainage valley. This spring was not flowingin early January 1995, but was observed flowing after approximately 2 days of rainy weather oneweek later.Battle CreekThe Battle Creek basin drains approximately 11 percent of INAAP (USATHAMA 1980). Twolarge tributaries are included in this basin. These are the main branch of Battle Creek and asecond branch to the north that is parallel to Waterline Road. Creeks in both branches are fed bysprings that originate near the heads of their respective draws. Part of the Igloo Area (Site 76) iswithin the Battle Creek drainage basin.Little Battle CreekThe Little Battle Creek basin, located to the north of the Battle Creek basin, drainsapproximately 7 percent of INAAP (USATHAMA 1980). The head of Little Battle Creek islocated east of the intersection of 8th Street and the Truck Shiphouse Patrol Road. Severalflowing springs were observed in January 1995, in a draw that drains to Little Battle Creek. Thisdraw runs on the west side of the north end of the River Ridge Housing Area. Some of thesesprings appear to be ephemeral. The Little Battle Creek basin receives runoff from the PowderPreparation Area, the northern half of the River Ridge Housing Area, and the southern half of theeastern area of the Truck Shiphouse Area (Site 77).Jenny Lind RunThe Jenny Lind Run basin covers over 27 percent of INAAP and lies entirely within the Plantsboundaries (USATHAMA 1980). Contained within the Jenny Lind Run basin is the ProcessWaste Settling Basin (Site 6), the P&E Flume (Site 54), and the Jenny Lind Pond (Site 25),which is located near the Ohio River at the end of Jenny Lind Run. Jenny Lind Pond (nowempty) covers approximately 20 acres and streams running through it discharge to the OhioRiver about 2,000 feet downstream. The Jenny Lind Run and its tributaries drain much of theP&E Area (Site 63), the Rail Shiphouse Area (Site 65), and the northern and western sections ofsome of the Truck Shiphouse Area (Site 77). Numerous small ephemeral springs drain into theJenny Lind Run and its tributaries.Karst features mapped by Hendricks (1995) in Jenny Lind Run are shown on Figure 2-5.Inspection of the figure shows that the upper reaches of Jenny Lind Run, south of the P & E Areacontain a number of caves and large springs (all with estimated flows of 50 gpm or greater). TheSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-14lower reaches of the drainage also contain large springs, but they are all located well up the sidesof the valleys within the more porous zones of the Jefferson Limestone or Louisville Limestone.The linear reaches of Jenny Lind Run probably developed through the process of solution alongfractures, enlargement to elongate caves, and roof collapse.Fourteen Mile Creek SystemThe lower reaches of the Fourteen Mile Creek System, which drains approximately 24 percent ofINAAP (USATHAMA 1980), is located along the northern boundary and includes land withinand outside of the Plant. It drains mostly woodland areas, but includes the Old Landfill (Site 1),the North Ash Settling Basin (Site 3), the northern part of the P&E Area (Site 63), the RailroadTie Disposal Area (Site 64), and the Black Powder Plant (Site 74), and Charlestown State Park.The majority of the Fourteen Mile Creek System is off plant. Fourteen Mile Creek roughlyparallels the northern boundary of the Plant and serves as a backwater area where it empties intothe Ohio River.Pleasant Run BasinThe Pleasant Run Basin drains approximately 4 percent of the Plant, which reportedly accountsfor only a small percentage of the total area drained by this basin (USATHAMA 1980). Flowdirection within the Plant boundary is generally to the northwest across Route 62 via man-madeditches and culverts. The Pleasant Run drainage basin empties into the Ohio River via SilverCreek.Ohio RiverThe remainder (approximately 3 percent) of the Plant is located along the Ohio River and drainsdirectly to it via ephemeral streams or sheet runoff (USATHAMA 1980). The Firing Range(Site 79) is the only site on INAAP that drains directly to the Ohio River.2.5 SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGYGroundwater at INAAP is present in the bedrock formations of the Upland areas and in thePleistocene terrace/floodplain sand and gravel deposits located within the Ohio River valley.Groundwater is usually not found in the thin soil layer covering the bedrock surface at INAAP.Locally, where sinkholes have been naturally or artificially filled with soil, groundwater may bepresent. Sampling at several of the areas at INAAP (e.g., Site 6, Process Waste Settling Basin)has recovered groundwater from soil or sediment, and chemicals related to site manufacturinghave been detected in this epikarst groundwater.Significant storage and transport of water may occur in the weathered bedrock zone (epikarst)that begins immediately below the soil mantle. A number of the smaller springs at INAAPidentified by Hendricks (1995) were characterized as epikarst springs.SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-152.5.1 Uplands Bedrock AquiferThe Uplands bedrock aquifer consists of limestones interbedded with shale, shaley limestones,and dolomites. These rocks form a karst aquifer characterized by triple porosity (matrix,fracture, and conduit). Groundwater flow occurs primarily along bedding planes, joints andfractures, and in caverns that have developed by the dissolution of limestone by groundwater.Conduit flow within the large openings is generally turbulent. Darcy’s Law, used to describelaminar flow in porous media, is not applicable to rapid flow in karst aquifers.Bedrock aquifers in karst areas are recharged by direct infiltration through soils (particularlymacropores), bedrock fracture zones at the ground surface, and sinkholes/swallets receivingeither direct precipitation or intercepting surface water runoff and/or stream flow. Fourteen MileCreek is the only stream on INAAP that originates off-site. All other streams begin on-site.Surface runoff, overflow spring discharge (epikarst and vadose springs) and underflow springs(perennial groundwater springs) are locally derived. Groundwater basins at INAAP cantherefore be described as local autogenic basins (Ray 2001). Bedrock units that are mostimportant in storing water and transmitting it to springs include the Jeffersonville Limestone, theLouisville Limestone, and to a lesser extent, the Waldron Shale (Section 2.2.3).Aquifer ConduitsGroundwater flow paths in karst areas are influenced by the configuration of the weatheredbedrock surface and vertical and horizontal solution features within the bedrock. Therefore,groundwater flow paths at INAAP are likely complex and variable. The USACE (1992) mappedtwo caves at INAAP that are probably characteristic of the types of conduits that account forrapid karst groundwater flow.One cave, C.C. Dryer Cave, is located in the P&E area. It is a dry (vadose) cave that is generallyrectangular in cross section. It is between 2 and 5 feet high and about 20 feet wide. The caveentrance is at a sinkhole in the P&E Area, and the cave apparently follows northeast-southwestand northwest-southeast trending joints or fractures. The roof of the cave is at about the sameelevation throughout, and cavern development occurred along bedding within the JeffersonvilleLimestone. Total length of the C.C. Dryer Cave system was measured at 1,470 feet. Flowdirection is to the north, approximately along bedding strike. Cave features include deposits offlood debris and mud banks.Less information was presented for the RDX Cave (USACE 1992). The cave was measured at120 feet in length, and it is oriented north-northwest to south-southeast. It is about 3 feet highand 4 feet wide. There are sinkhole entrances 12 and 20 feet deep, respectively, at each end ofthe cave. Flow is generally to the north, but is diverted to lower levels by sinks near the northend of the cave.Conduit flow parallel to bedrock strike is common in karst regions (Thornbury 1969). AtINAAP, conduit flow parallel to strike (approximately north or south) provides the shortest flowpath to the incised east flowing surface streams. The shortest flow path would be the preferredpathway for groundwater from an energy gradient perspective. The water would reach energySECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-16base-level with the least resistance to flow. Long-distance conduit flow parallel to strike iscommon in carbonate rocks with dipping bedding. This sort of groundwater flow requires bedsthat dip at least 2° to 5° (ASTM 1995b), which is equivalent to 185 to 460 feet per mile. This ismuch greater than the westward dip of 13 to 18 feet per mile that characterizes bedrock atINAAP.The general east-west orientation of streams at INAAP and of tributaries to Pleasant Run west ofINAAP suggest that major tributary conduits to these streams would be oriented north-south.Groundwater DischargeGroundwater within karst bedrock aquifers commonly discharges to surface streams via springs.Water entering the bedrock aquifer through sinkholes or solution conduits may have widelyvariable retention times as it flows through subsurface features, discharging to surface waterswithin several hours or several days. Groundwater may travel large distances in short periods, orbe attenuated for some time in fracture, bedding plane, or cavern storage. During the sitereconnaissance, several springs at INAAP were observed to have intermittent flow apparentlyrelated to precipitation events. Large perennial springs provide base flow to streams such asJenny Lind Run.Groundwater Availability and UseThe bedrock aquifer is not considered a significant water supply source in the Clark County area(USATHAMA 1980). Bedrock wells in this region generally extend to depths of 100 to 200 feet,into the Silurian dolomite or the alternating limestone and shales of the Ordovician rocks. Yieldsfrom the bedrock wells are much lower than yields from the more permeable terrace/floodplainsands and gravels within the Ohio River Valley. Woodfield and Fenelon (1994) indicate that thecarbonate aquifer in Clark County provides well yields of between 0 to 20 gpm.Based on annual reporting, Arvin and Spaeth (1999) indicate that between 1986 and 1997, therewere no reported groundwater withdrawals for energy production, agriculture, rural, ormiscellaneous use. Only well owners with capacity to pump 70 gpm or greater are required toreport, so owners of individual domestic wells are not required to report. Groundwater dischargefrom the bedrock aquifer at springs is mainly a source for livestock watering. Deep groundwateris unlikely to be usable in the vicinity of INAAP. Woodfield and Fenelon (1994) report thatsaltwater is encountered at depths less than 300 feet in the bedrock aquifers of southern Indiana.Hasenmueller (pers. comm. 2001) indicated that brine was pumped from bedrock just to the westof the INAAP site for commercial salt production.Any individual domestic wells located outside the INAAP boundaries are unlikely to be affectedby possible groundwater contamination from INAAP. These wells are most likely fracture-flowwells (see the following subsection). Ray (2000) reported that more than 50 dye-trace studies onfracture-flow wells (sustained flow less than 25 gpm) in Mississippian-age limestone inKentucky indicate that recharge is from local epikarst. No positive dye-trace results from asource more than 800 feet from a well was detected.SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-17During groundwater sampling of on-post cored boreholes (Woolpert 1999), high total dissolvedsolids measured in the field resulted in cored borehole SC-3R not being sampled. Coredboreholes SC-2 and SC-4 produced groundwater with sodium concentrations of 1,200 and 670mg/L, respectively. Woolpert (1999) did not report chloride (or other common anion)concentrations, but assuming that sodium was in equilibrium with dissolved chloride on amilliequivalent per milliequivalent basis, then chloride concentrations would have beenapproximately 1,850 mg/L and 1,030 mg/L in SC-2 and SC-4. Such water would be consideredbrackish, and it would have limited use as a resource (Walton 1991). Well registration recordsfrom the IDNR for off-site wells (URS 2001a) indicate that salt water has been encountered inbedrock at depths of 80-100 feet below ground surface (bgs) immediately west of INAAP.Borehole Flowmeter StudyK-V Associates (K-V 1997) used a borehole flowmeters to make horizontal (K-V Model 40Borehole Flowmeter) and vertical (K-V Model 90 Borehole Flowmeter) groundwater flowvelocity measurements in four of the nine pre-Phase II RFI cored boreholes, including SC-2through SC-4 and SC-7 (locations are shown on Figure 4-1). All four tested boreholes werelocated along the western edge of the facility. The depth to groundwater, general stratigraphy,depths tested, and horizontal and vertical flow directions and velocities are presented in Tables2-1 through 2-4. For the following discussion, cardinal directions are defined as follows: 0 to 90degrees is equivalent to northeast, 90 to 180 degrees is equivalent to southeast, 180 to 270degrees is equivalent to southwest, and 270 to 360 degrees is equivalent to the northwest.Borehole SC-7At SC-7, the static water level measured before flow gauging (K-V Associates 1997) was 8.4feet below top of casing (TOC) and within the North Vernon Limestone. The horizontal flowdirection ranged from 22 degrees to 49 degrees at depths from 10 to 90 feet bgs, indicating flowtoward the northeast. The average flow direction for the Jeffersonville Limestone was about32.5 degrees, while the average for the upper portion of the Louisville Limestone wasapproximately 45 degrees.These flow directions suggest groundwater flow is along a large lineament that trendsapproximately 30 degrees identified by the aerial photogeologic analysis of INAAP (ERI 1995).The lineament was drawn along a branch of Lick Creek, a tributary to Fourteen Mile Creek.This indicates that groundwater flow is along or towards a conduit system that coincides with thelineament and the stream valley.The general direction of horizontal flow lower in the Louisville Limestone ranged from 2 to 32degrees, except that the direction of flow at 110 feet bgs was toward the southwest. However,the measured flow velocity to the southwest was only 0.06 ft/day, much lower than the measuredhorizontal velocities measured at shallower depth intervals (see Table 2-2).The horizontal flow velocities from 10 to 90 feet ranged from 0.17 to 0.30 ft/day, with theexception of the reading taken at 110 feet bgs (Table 2-2) with an average of 0.06 ft/day. Theflow rate at 110 feet bgs was an order of magnitude lower than the readings at the other intervals.SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-18Vertical flow was not detected in SC-7, with all readings being below the detection limit of theequipment.The minimum flow velocity considered characteristic of rapid flow in karst conduits is 0.001 m/s(EPA 1997) or about 280 ft/day. Clearly, the borehole flow velocities measured by K-VAssociates are much less than 280 ft/day. The velocities measured for SC-7 are morecharacteristic of laminar (Darcy) flow in narrow fissures. Nevertheless, this slow flowgroundwater is probably tributary to conduit flow as indicated by the flow direction coincidentwith a nearby lineament and stream valley.Purging of SC-7 for groundwater sampling resulted in lowering the water level in the boreholefrom 8.4 feet bgs to 131.85 feet bgs. The water level in the borehole was again measured at131.85 feet bgs after allowing 12 hours for the water level to recover (Woolpert 1999). Nosamples were collected due to low recovery of the water level. This also suggests that SC-7intersected only narrow fissures where slow flow conditions are present.Borehole SC-2At SC-2, the static water level measured before flow gauging (K-V Associates 1997) was 12.50feet below TOC and within the North Vernon Limestone. The horizontal flow direction in eightof ten measurements made ranged from 217 degrees to 227 degrees at depths from 15 feet bgs to95 feet bgs, indicating flow toward the southwest. Readings taken at 85 and 105 feet bgs were253 and 256 degrees, indicating flow to the southwest but at a more westerly trend than the othereight readings.The average flow direction, approximately 227 degrees, was similar between the North Vernon,Jeffersonville, and the upper Louisville Limestones. The aerial photogeologic analysis ofINAAP (ERI 1995) identified several different lineaments in the vicinity of SC-2 that trend fromnearly east to west, from roughly northwest to southeast, and from southwest to northeast. Theaverage measured horizontal flow velocity was about 0.24 ft/day. As at SC-7, the horizontalflow velocities indicate the corehole intersected narrow fissures, and not conduits.Vertical flow measurements indicated downward flow from the static water level to about 55 feetbgs, but the velocity was below the detection limit of the equipment (Table 2-3). No verticalflow was detected below 55 feet bgs.Borehole SC-4At SC-4, the static water measured before flow gauging (K-V Associates 1997) was 46.50 feetbelow TOC and within the Jeffersonville Limestone. The horizontal flow direction in theJeffersonville Limestone and upper Louisville Limestone was toward the south-southwest (Table2-3), ranging from 184 to 236 degrees. Two readings from the lower portion of the LouisvilleLimestone (98 and 99 degrees) indicated flow toward the east. Two lineaments were identifiednear the location of SC-4 in the aerial photogeologic analysis of INAAP (ERI 1995). One of thelineaments trends south-southwest (about 184 degrees) the other lineament trends to the east-southeast(roughly 98 degrees). Measured horizontal flow rates typically were higher in theJeffersonville Limestone than in the Louisville Limestone. The measured borehole flowSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-19velocities suggest that SC-4 encountered only narrow fissures. Flow in these fissures is probablytributary to conduit flow, but conduits at different depths apparently conduct water in differentdirections. From 35 to 50 feet below TOC, flow is to the southwest, perhaps toward a streamtributary to Pleasant Run. From 60 to 100 feet below TOC, flow is generally south, probablytoward a tributary of Jenny Lind Run. From 100 to 120 feet below TOC, flow is to the easttoward another tributary of Jenny Lind Run.Vertical flow measurements indicated downward flow at eight of nine tested depth intervals,with the bottom interval being below the detect limit of the equipment (see Table 2-4).Measured flow rates were greater in the Louisville Limestone than in the Jeffersonville.Borehole SC-3RAt SC-3R, the water level measured before flow gauging (K-V Associates 1997) was 15.5 feetbelow TOC and within the North Vernon Limestone. The horizontal flow direction in the NorthVernon Limestone and Jeffersonville Limestone was toward the southwest (Table 2-4), rangingfrom 205 to 227 degrees. The reading at 65 feet bgs at the base of the Jeffersonville Limestonewas toward the south-southeast, but had a very low horizontal velocity compared to the othervelocities measured (Table 2-4). All five readings collected at 75 feet bgs or lower indicatedflow toward the north-northeast to east-northeast.Two lineament features were identified to the north of SC-3R in the aerial photogeologicanalysis of INAAP (ERI 1995). One smaller feature trended to the southwest, while a longerfeature trended to the southeast, in line with the West Branch of Lentzier Creek.Downward vertical flow was detected at the first four depth intervals. No vertical flow wasdetected below 75 feet bgs (see Table 2-5).The horizontal groundwater velocities measured at SC-3 ranged from 0.08 ft /day to 0.38 ft/daywith an average of 0.17 ft/day. The range in horizontal velocities is characteristic of flow innarrow fissures. Shallow flow appears to be toward a tributary of Lick Creek, but all deeperflow seems to be toward tributaries of Lentzier Creek. Downward velocities ranged from 5.8 to6.6 mL/min, with an average of 6.3 mL/min.2.5.2 Terrace/Floodplain AquiferThe terrace/floodplain aquifer primarily consists of sand and gravel deposits within the OhioRiver Valley. These deposits are a major water supply source for communities along the OhioRiver Valley. INAAP receives all of its water supplies from these deposits. The thickness of thesand and gravel deposits ranges from 80 to 100 feet. The sand and gravel deposits are capped byapproximately 20 feet of silt and clay. The silt and clay have low permeability that impedes thedownward seepage of water into the more permeable sand and gravel deposits (Bell 1966).The Ohio River and the terrace/floodplain aquifer are in hydraulic connection, and water levelsin the aquifer respond to changes in river stage as well as other factors, such as changes inbarometric pressure and precipitation (Rosenshein 1988). The sand and gravel also receive somerecharge from upland areas as shallow groundwater flows toward the Ohio River. However, thisSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-20amount is very small compared to the amount of recharge from the Ohio River. A hydrologicstudy of the collector wells that supplied INAAP with water concluded nearly all of the waterfrom these wells infiltrated the aquifer from the Ohio River (Kazmann 1947).Municipal water demands at and around INAAP are supplied by wells installed in the glacialoutwash sand and gravel deposits along the Ohio River. INAAPs water supplies have comefrom seven Ranney-type collector wells and two conventional water supply wells located onPlant property along the Ohio River. Four conventional vertical municipal wells serving the cityof Charlestown are also located along the Ohio River, withdrawing groundwater from the sandand gravel deposits beneath Plant property. The locations of water supply wells on INAAPproperty are shown in Figure 2-4. At the time this report was prepared, only one collector well(Number 4) and the two cased wells at the southern end of the Plant were being used to supplythe Plant.The Ranney wells were constructed by installing a 13-foot-diameter hollow caisson set at thesand and gravel-bedrock interface, which is approximately 100 feet below ground surface (bgs).Each well has 1,000 to 2,000 feet of horizontal perforated 8-inch-diameter slotted lateral pipeextending into the sand and gravel near the base of the caisson. Each well contains two pumpsrated at 3,500 gallons-per-minute (gpm) each, giving the Ranney wells a total capacity of 49,000gpm (USATHAMA 1980). According to ICI personnel, the conventional wells (Nos. 6001 and6002) are 10 and 12 inches in diameter, respectively. Well Nos. 6001 and 6002 have beendetermined to be capable of producing 700 and 500 gpm, respectively (ICI 1995).According to a previous study (ASI 1994), rural and residential water is provided by wells in theOhio River sand-and-gravel aquifer. The Charlestown wells serve the communities ofCharlestown, Marysville, Otisco, and Nabb (ASI 1994). The Washington Township WaterCorporation serves areas to the north and northeast of INAAP. A well field just west of Utica,south of INAAP, operated by the Watson Rural Water Company, supplies the towns of Watson,Utica, and Longview Beach (ASI 1994). A well field operated by the Sellersburg WaterCompany (serves the town of Sellersburg) is located south of Utica. The Riverside Water Co.operates a well field approximately 10 miles west of INAAP to serve the towns of Riverside andOak Park. Water suppliers, communities served, and well field capacities are summarized inTable 2-6.2.6 PREVIOUS GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONSSeveral groundwater studies have been done at several sites at INAAP. Different companies orgovernment agencies completed these studies. These investigations and the organizations thatcompleted them are as follows:Site No. Site Name Author60 Burning Ground Area1) AEHA (1990)2) URS (2002b)--- Site-wide Spring Survey (URS 1998)2 New Landfill Ogden Environmental (1995)SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-21Site No. Site Name Author3 North Ash Settling Basin URS (2002c)4 South Ash Settling Basin URS (2002d)5 Aniline Pond URS (2002e)6 Process Waste Settling Basin URS (2002f)25 Jenny Lind Pond URS (2002a)2.6.1 Site 60 – Burning Ground AreaThree groundwater monitoring wells were installed within the Burning Ground Area as part of acontamination assessment of the former Site 17 Burning Ground [US Army EnvironmentalHealth Agency (AEHA) 1990]. These wells were sampled in 1990 (AEHA 1990) and 1996(URS 1998). Two rounds of water levels measured in 1990 and 1996 indicate groundwater flowwas to the southwest toward a drainage that empties into Jenny Lind Pond.Five additional monitoring wells were installed as part of a Phase II RFI of the Burning GroundArea (URS 2002b). All five wells were installed in the active floodplain of the Ohio River.Well locations are shown on Figure 4-1.Three of the wells were installed at depths between approximately 32 to 50 feet bgs (BKMW01,60MW01 and 60MW02). One round of sampling was completed in December 2000, and theresults are included in this report with the sampling results for this Phase II RFI. Chemicalanalysis results indicated that water from the Burning Ground area was not impacting thefloodplain area to the east of the Burning Ground. Water level elevations for the two shallowwells (BKMW02 and 60MW03) indicate flow to the south. Results from these five wells arediscussed in Section 7.0.2.6.2 Site 25 – Jenny Lind PondFour monitoring wells were installed at Site 25 (Jenny Lind Pond, URS 2002a) Both wells of atwo-well cluster (25MW01 and 25MW02) were installed downstream from the dam, along theJenny Lind Run near where it empties into the Ohio River. These have similar water levelelevations to the three deeper Background and Burning Ground Area (Site 60) wells.One monitoring well (25MW03) was installed immediately downstream from the dam, and onemonitoring well (25MW04) was installed upstream from the dam. One round of sampling atthese wells was completed in December 2000, and the results are included in this report with thesampling results for this Phase II RFI. Results from the 4 Site 25 wells are discussed in Section7.0.2.6.3 Site 2 – New LandfillThis site is located in the Lentzier Creek drainage basin. The site is near the crest of a drainagedivide. It is approximately 50 acres in size, and it was evaluated in a Hydrogeologic SiteCharacterization (HSC) report (Ogden 1995). In addition to other work done at the site, aSECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-22detailed dye-trace investigation was completed. The dye-trace study included two samplingrounds for evaluation of background dye concentrations in springs and streams in the LentzierCreek and neighboring Battle Creek drainage basins.Fluorescein was detected in spring and stream dye monitoring locations in both the LentzierCreek and Battle Creek drainage basins north, east, south, and west of the landfill. RhodamineWT was detected in springs in the Lentzier Creek drainage basin, generally south of the landfill.Optical Brightener was detected in two monitoring wells near the landfill and at one stream dyemonitoring location directly west of the landfill. Direct Yellow 96 had no background detects.Eosine and Sulphorhodamine were detected only in monitoring wells near the landfill.The HSC concluded that the fluorescein and Rhodamine WT were likely remnants of dyeinjection at the site that was done by another contractor in 1985. Fuller, Mossberger, Scott &May injected 8 pounds of Rhodamine WT and 1.1 pounds of fluorescein into borings near thelandfill in 1985. Background dye concentrations were within manageable levels, i.e., they didnot interfere with dye tracing results.Of particular importance is the fact that compounds that can be detected in small concentrations,such as the dye-tracers used in 1985, can be detected in groundwater and surface water 10 yearsafter injection. This indicates that persistent contaminants dissolved in groundwater in the slowflow portion of the karst aquifer at INAAP would also be detectable at springs for many yearsafter they entered the groundwater flow system.The Odgen (1995) dye-trace study consisted of insertion of six different dyes (Sulphorhodamine,Eosine, Fluorescein, Solophenol 500, Phor-wite (Optical Brightener), and Rhodamine WT) ateach of six trenches arranged in a horseshoe pattern west, north, and east of the landfill. Thesedyes were selected based on their relatively low cost, known low toxicity, and ease of detection.The first four dyes were inserted on April 7, 1995, and the last two dyes were inserted on May 9,1995. For the April test, dye was monitored (water samples, cotton detectors, and charcoaldetectors) at 24 springs, 25 stream locations, and 4 monitoring wells. For the May test, dye wasmonitored at 16 springs, 11 stream locations, and the same 4 monitoring wells. The Aprilinsertions were monitored with sampling (generally 7 events) between April 7 and April 28,1995. The May insertion was monitored with sampling (generally 5 events) between May 11and June 15, 1995.Dye-tracers were detected in springs as far as several thousand feet from the insertion trenches,and at stream monitoring locations more than one mile away. Indicated groundwater flowdirections were generally west and southwest or south, and they suggested radial flow away froma groundwater divide that coincided with the topographic divide on which the landfill waslocated. Flow velocities (e.g., transport of Solophenol 500 to a spring 4800 feet south of theinsertion trench in 4 days) were characteristic of conduit flow (rapid flow) in a karst aquifer. Thefractures beneath the insertion trenches were well connected to conduits that served to draingroundwater rapidly to springs.SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-232.6.4 Other SitesDirect push groundwater samples were collected from Sites 3, 4, 5, 6 and 25. Those results havenot been included in the discussion of groundwater quality in this report. These results may beimportant to very local groundwater investigations since the water sampled potentially representslocal epikarst water. Results for these samples have been discussed in the Phase II RFI Reportsfor the respective sites (URS 2002c, 2002d, 2002e, 2002f, and 2002a)2.7 SUMMARYAvailable regional and site-specific information suggests the following conclusions aboutgroundwater at INAAP. These conclusions describe the conceptual hydrogeologic model forINAAP.· Infiltration probably accounts for a large part of precipitation (much of the availableprecipitation infiltrates).· The local soil mantle does not represent a significant storage and release mechanism forgroundwater, but it may be a locally important source of chemicals via leaching andinfiltration.· Recharge is mostly autogenic (local). It is in part focused at sinkholes and in part diffusethrough fractures.· The Jeffersonville Limestone and Louisville Limestone contain the most significant solutionfeatures, and therefore they contain the most significant conduit (rapid) flow components ofkarst groundwater transport.· Preferential solution and enlargement of joints and fractures along bedding planes has formedthe most significant horizontal conduits. Many of these features are probably about parallelto strike of the bedrock (north and south).· Fracture (slow) flow is well connected to conduit flow.· Persistent dissolved contaminants that might hypothetically enter the fracture flowcomponent of the karst groundwater system at INAAP could be present and detectable inspring and stream samples for many years after they entered the aquifer.· In the epikarst (soil and weathered bedrock zone), where sinkholes deliver water to vadosecaves, soil could be mobilized and transported as sediment that becomes deposited in cavesor transported through the conduit system during periods of very high flow.· Groundwater in formations much deeper than the Louisville Limestone or Laurel Member ofthe Salamonie Dolomite is likely to be saline. This suggests that fresh (non-saline)groundwater does not circulate deeply. Flow must be primarily horizontal to local springsand streams.· Most of the groundwater at INAAP is likely discharged at springs on the INAAP property.This is especially true for groundwater on the eastern half of the site.SECTIONTWO Environmental SettingQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 2-24· Borehole flowmeter measurements suggest that boreholes or monitoring wells are most likelyto intersect fracture (slow) flow. Measurements at different depths in individual boreholesindicate that flow directions may diverge by as much as 180° between shallow and deepgroundwater.· Both borehole flowmeter measurements and dye-trace studies indicate that groundwatermovement near topographic (and inferred groundwater) divides is complex. Conduit flowdirects water along solution-enlarged pathways, but given the bi-directional nature of thesepathways, energy gradients are likely to determine which direction is preferred. The energygradient is likely to be determined by the base level of nearby streams and tributaries, withthe more highly incised streams providing the lowest discharge points for springs.TABLE 2-1MEAN PRECIPITATION FOR LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY FOR 1957-1986SITE 90 - INSTALLATION GROUNDWATERMonthPrecipitation(Inches)January 3.78February 3.30March 4.52April 3.95May 3.96June 3.83July 3.83August 3.30September 2.82October 2.62November 3.54December 3.56ANNUAL 42.98Source: Installation Natural Resources Management Plan for Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (ICI 1996)Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Draft Final\Site90tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 1 10/29/03TABLE 2-2BOREHOLE FLOW GAUGING DATA FOR BEDROCK COREHOLE SC-7SITE 90 - INSTALLATION GROUNDWATERDirection(degrees)Velocity(ft/day)DirectionVelocity(mL/min.)0-6.8 Overburden/North Vernon --- --- --- --- ---8.4 6.8-28.6 North Vernon Limestone 10 23 0.17 NA BDL28.6-64.1 Jeffersonville Limestone 20 23 0.22 NA BDL 30 23 0.26 NA BDL 40 46 0.25 NA BDL 50 22 0.26 NA BDL 60 47 0.25 NA BDL64.1-139 Louisville Limestone 70 41 0.23 NA BDL 80 45 0.26 NA BDL 90 49 0.30 NA BDL 100 2 0.26 NA BDL 110 323 0.06 NA BDL 120 12 0.21 NA BDL 130 32 0.22 NA BDLAbbreviations:BDL = Below Detection Limitbgs = below ground surfaceft = feetmin. = minutemL = milliliterNA = Not applicablebTOC = Below Top of CasingSource: K-V, 1997Water Horizontal Flow Vertical FlowLevel(ft bTOC)GeologicContacts(ft bgs)StratigraphicUnitDepthTested(ft bgs)Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Draft Final\Site90tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 1 10/29/03TABLE 2-3BOREHOLE FLOW GAUGING DATA FOR BEDROCK COREHOLE SC-2SITE 90 - INSTALLATION GROUNDWATERDirection(degrees)Velocity(ft/day)DirectionVelocity(mL/min.)0-7.5 Overburden --- --- --- --- ---7.5-12.4 New Albany Shale --- --- --- --- ---12.5 12.4-33.3 North Vernon Limestone 15 212 0.19 Down BDL 25 217 0.32 NA BDL33.3-65.5 Jeffersonville Limestone 35 224 0.24 Down BDL 45 220 0.26 Down BDL 55 221 0.23 Down BDL65.5-146.5 Louisville Limestone 65 217 0.26 NA BDL 75 220 0.20 NA BDL 85 253 0.25 NA BDL 95 227 0.24 NA BDL 105 256 0.16 NA BDLAbbreviations:BDL = Below Detection Limitbgs = below ground surfaceft = feetmin. = minutemL = milliliterNA = Not applicable--- = not testedbTOC = Below Top of CasingSource: K-V, 1997Depth Vertical FlowTested(ft bgs)WaterLevel(ft TOC)GeologicContacts(ft bgs)StratigraphicUnitHorizontal FlowQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Draft Final\Site90tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 1 10/29/03TABLE 2-4BOREHOLE FLOW GAUGING DATA FOR BEDROCK COREHOLE SC-4SITE 90 - INSTALLATION GROUNDWATERDirection(degrees)Velocity(ft/day)DirectionVelocity(mL/min.)0-8.3 Overburden --- --- --- --- ---8.3-26.1 North Vernon Limestone --- --- --- --- ---46.5 26.1-64.9 Jeffersonville Limestone 50 236 0.30 Down 8.3 60 195 0.35 Down 1764.9-135.5 Louisville Limestone 70 223 0.10 Down 8 80 184 0.03 Down 1.9 90 185 0.14 Down 42 100 NR NR Down 29 110 99 0.22 Down 35 120 98 0.14 Down 38 130 --- --- NA BDLAbbreviations:BDL = Below Detection Limitbgs = below ground surfaceft = feetmin. = minutemL = milliliterNA = Not applicableNR = Not reliable--- = not testedbTOC = Below Top of CasingSource: K-V, 1997Water Horizontal Flow Vertical FlowLevel(ft bTOC)GeologicContacts(ft bgs)StratigraphicUnitDepthTested(ft bgs)Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Draft Final\Site90tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 1 10/29/03TABLE 2-5BOREHOLE FLOW GAUGING DATA FOR BEDROCK COREHOLE SC-3RSITE 90 - INSTALLATION GROUNDWATERDirection(degrees)Velocity(ft/day)DirectionVelocity(mL/min.)0-7.5 Overburden --- --- --- --- ---7.5-11.3 New Albany Shale --- --- --- --- ---15.5 11.3-35.5 North Vernon Limestone 35 227 0.23 --- ---35.5-66.1 Jeffersonville Limestone 45 223 0.03 Down 5.8 55 205 0.21 Down 6.7 65 164 0.08 Down 5.966.1-131.5 Louisville Limestone 75 84 0.17 Down 6.8 85 39 0.38 NA BDL 95 37 0.17 NA BDL --- --- --- NA BDL 115 78 0.15 NA BDL --- --- --- NA BDL131.5-144.3 Waldron Shale 135 68 0.08 NA BDLAbbreviations:BDL = Below Detection Limitbgs = below ground surfaceft = feetmin. = minutemL = milliliterNA = Not applicable--- = not testedbTOC = Below Top of CasingSource: K-V, 1997Water Horizontal Flow Vertical FlowLevel(ft bTOC)GeologicContacts(ft bgs)StratigraphicUnitDepthTested(ft bgs)Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Draft Final\Site90tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 1 10/29/03TABLE 2-6LOCAL WATER SUPPLIESSITE 90 - INSTALLATION GROUNDWATERWater Supplier Communities ServedWell FieldCapacityServiceConnections SourceCharlestown Charlestown, Otisco,Nabb, Marysville1.0 mgd 2,200 4 wellsINAAP INAAP 70+ mgd 7 Ranney wells and2 conventional wellsRiverside Water Co. Riverside andOak Park800 gpm 750 2, 75-foot deep wellsSellersburg Water Co. Sellersburg Well 1 = 800 gpmWell 2 = 350 gpmWell 3 = out of serviceWell 4 = 600 gpmWell 5 = 850 gpm3,300 5 wellsWashington TownshipWater CorporationNew WashingtonHibernia, andRolling Hills0.4 mgd 2,900a 6 wellsWatson Rural Water Co. Watson, Utica,Longview Beach23 million gallonsper month2,237 5 wellsSources: Preliminary Site Inspection for Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, Charlestown, Indiana (ASI 1994), updated by questionnaire(Appendix C of this report).Abbreviations:mgd = million gallons per daygpm = gallons per minuteNote:a Number listed reflects population served, not service connections.Q:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Draft Final\Site90tables_rev1.xls Page 1 of 1 10/29/03INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANTINAAP AREALINEAMENTSPROJ # REVISION:DRN BY: DATE:45FL99010P.00JJZ 05/10/01FIG. NO:2-6N0 0.5 1Miles0.5Sources: ERI (1995) Aerial Photogeologic AnalysisInterpreted LineamentLegendz:\inaapgis\45fl99010p.aprU.S. Geological Survey, Charlestown, Ind-Ky andJeffersonville, Ind-Ky 7-1/2 Minute SeriesTopographic QuadrangleSITEWIDEKARST FEATURESINDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANTREVISION:45FL99010P.00Nz:\inaapgis\45fl99010p.aprLegendSolution Feature (karstfeature other than sinkhole) Source: ERI (1995), Aerial Photogeologic Analysis0.5 0 0.5 1 MilesDRN BY: DATE:PROJ #JJZ 05/11/01SinkholeFIG NO:2-7SECTIONTHREE Field Activities SummaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 3-1Field activities for the Phase II RFI included spring sampling, geophysical surveying, additionalbedrock drilling and coring, packer testing, and monitoring well installation, development andsampling. Field activities completed as part of other remedial investigations at INAAP,including spring sampling, well installation development and sampling, and temporarymonitoring well installation and sampling are also presented and discussed. The locations of thesampling points, including springs, permanent and temporary monitoring wells, and sedimentsampling locations, are provided on Figure 3-1. All field activities were completed inaccordance with applicable Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (W-C 1998, URSGWC 2000,URS 2001b). Any deviations from the SOPs are noted on the Sample Collection Field Sheets(SCFSs) provided in Appendix E.3.1 SPRING AND SEDIMENT SAMPLINGA survey of areas to the north, west and south of the plant was completed to identify potentialoff-post springs for sampling. The survey was completed from October 15 through October 24,2001. Topographic maps, aerial photographs, and “windshield surveys” were used to locate theoff-post springs. Plat maps, telephone calls, and “door-knock surveys” were used to identifyproperty owners. On-post springs had been previously identified.Water samples were collected at twelve on-post springs with two collocated sediments andeighteen off-post springs with eight collocated sediments (Figure 3-1) as part of the Phase II(Site 90) RFI. More off-post spring and sediment samples were completed to provide data onpotential off-post impacts of chemical transport by groundwater. In addition, results for anadditional nineteen on-post springs sampled previously are discussed in this report.For the on-post springs, the criteria for selecting which springs were sampled included:· Adequate flow for sampling· Proximity to potential sources of contamination· Even distribution of springs across INAAP· Proximity to INAAP boundariesFor the off-post springs, the criteria for selecting which springs were sampled included:· Adequate flow for sampling· Proximity to INAAP boundariesCriteria for selection of sediments for sampling were:· Proximity to a sampled spring· Adequate sediment thickness for samplingTable 3-1 lists the general location, drainage basin, likely or known stratigraphic position, andsurvey coordinates for of each sampled spring. Off-post springs were assigned numbersfollowing the consecutive numbers already assigned to on-post springs. More detailedSECTIONTHREE Field Activities SummaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 3-2descriptions and locations of the sampled springs are provided on Table 3-2, along withidentified potential sources of contamination for the on-post springs. Analytical parameterstested for these samples are listed on Table 3-3.The timing of spring sampling events was selected based on seasonal variations of surface waterrun-off. Most karst regions show an annual cycle of rising and falling stream discharge that isdirectly related to annual patterns of precipitation, infiltration, and groundwater discharge tosupply stream base-flow.Seasonal variations in surface discharge are shown in the chart below, which shows the meanmonthly and mean annual discharge rates at the Silver Creek gauging station at Sellersburg,Indiana, which is located approximately five miles west of the south end of INAAP.The mean monthly discharge is highest is in early spring when rainfall amounts are highest andevapotranspiration rates are low. The stream discharge rates are lowest in the summer and fall.The soil moisture and shallow groundwater may be depleted by late summer and early fall.Spring samples collected in December or January represent the “first annual flush” ofgroundwater from the karst aquifer system, and they have potential to contain both easilytransported chemicals or chemicals that reside in fractures and conduits within the local karstaquifer. Spring samples collected in May of June represent the “last annual flush” ofgroundwater from the karst aquifer system, and they have the potential to contain less easilymobilized chemicals or higher concentrations of chemicals that reside within the local karstMean Monthly Discharge (cfs) Compared with Mean Annual Discharge (cfs),Silver Creek at Sellersburg, Indiana0100200300400500600JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberMean MonthlyDischargeMean AnnualDischargeSECTIONTHREE Field Activities SummaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 3-3aquifer (because the groundwater is now moving slower and contact time with chemicals in theaquifer is longer).Two sampling events were completed as part of the Phase I RI at INAAP (W-C 1998). The firstround of sampling was completed from January 18 through January 20, 1996, with the exceptionof SP40, which was sampled on March 2, 1996. The second round of sampling was completedfrom May 7 through May 10, 1996. Sampling was completed following precipitation events toensure adequate flow for sampling. These springs are listed in Table 3-1 and their locations areshown on Figure 3-1. More detailed information about these sampling rounds can be found inthe Phase I RI (W-C 1998).Phase I RI spring samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, TCLsemivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), TCL pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs)compounds, nitroaromatic/nitramines, TPH, Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, cyanide andnitrate/nitrite. Sample identification, date sampled, matrix, and chemical analysis are presentedin Table 3-3. Field water quality parameters were recorded at the time of sampling for the firsttwo rounds of on-post sampling, and for the two rounds of the Phase II RFI (Site 90) springsampling and are included on Table 3-4 and on SCFS in Appendix E.Springs sampled as part of site-specific Phase II RFIs included 04SP, 10SP, 17SP, 25SP, 30SP,34SP, 35SP, and 41SP. Field water quality parameters were not measured for this sampling,which occurred during November 2000 through January 2001. The sampling period for thesesprings coincided with the completion of the overall investigations at the specific sites they werepart of and were not necessarily timed for highest flow rates.Because these site-specific Phase II RFI spring samples were collected as part of investigationsat specific sites, the analytes for the spring samples varied according to what parameters werebeing analyzed at those particular sites. Springs 10SP, 24SP, 25SP, and 30SP were sampled aspart of Site 25 Jenny Lind Pond. Springs 04SP, 34SP, 35SP, and 41SP were sampled as part ofSite 54 P & E Area Flume and Spring 17SP was sampled as part of Site 75 Load, Assemble andPack Area. Sample identification, depth, matrix, and chemical analysis are presented in Table3-3.For the Phase II RFI (Site 90), two rounds of sampling of the 18 off-post springs and 12 on-postsprings were completed in December 2001 and May 2002. The samples were analyzed for TCLVOCs, TCL SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, nitroaromatics/nitramines and TAL metals. Sampleidentification, date sampled, matrix, and chemical analysis are presented in Table 3-3. Fieldwater quality parameters were recorded at the time of sampling for these two rounds of springsampling.Sediment samples were collected for the Phase II RI (Site 90) during the December 2001sampling event. Samples were collected from 2 on-post and 8 off-post locations. Sampleidentification, depth, matrix, and chemical analysis are presented in Table 3-3.SECTIONTHREE Field Activities SummaryQ:\4599\fl010d00\Site 90\Final\Site 90 InstallGdwtr_rev2.doc\28-Oct-03 /OMA 3-43.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYGeophysical surveys using electrical resistivity methods were completed at eight sites proposedfor drilling and installation of groundwater monitoring wells in the Field Sampling Plan,Supplemental Phase II RFI (URS, 2001b). The results from the surveys were used to helpidentify potential subsurface features that might be targeted for installation of bedrockgroundwater monitoring wells. The surveys were completed from June 25-29, 2001, and resultsare presented in Section 4.0.The electrical resistivity imaging was completed using a multi-electrode resistivity systemmanufactured by Advanced Geosciences, Inc. (AGI). The system consisted of an AGI Sting R1âresistivity meter, an AGI Swiftâ automated switch box, a series of electrode strings with a totalof 48 electrodes, and a 12-volt deep cycle battery for extended power capability. The electrodeswere placed along a line at uniform 10-foot spacing. Once the electrodes had been placed in theground at each survey line, they were connected to one another and to the switch box.Diagnostics were run to ensure proper configuration and operation of the instrumentcomponents. The instrument was then programmed with the proper data collection parameters,and automated data collection was initiated.A dipole-dipole electrode-array was used for this investigation. In this arrangement, thepotential electrodes and the current electrodes function independently, and they are placed atopposite ends of the array. By incrementally increasing the spacing between each pair ofelectrodes, greater subsurface penetration of current is achieved as current flows through theearth in an elliptical path.One two-dimensional electrical resistivity profile was measured at each of the 8 proposeddrilling locations. The ends of each survey line were marked in the field using wooden surveystakes and survey paint. A differential global positioning system (GPS) was used to determinethe locations of the survey-line end points.Upon completion of data collection, the automatically stored data file was transferred from theresistivity meter to a personal computer (PC) through a data link using the AGI Administratorâcomputer software program. This software allowed for conversion of the acquired data into aformat compatible with standard geophysical modeling software. Data modeling was done usingAGI RES2DINVâ version 3.43 computer software. The program uses an inversion process tomodel apparent resistivities at designated dipole spacing and locations to produce modeled “true”resistivities at speci
Origin:	2002-09-25
Source:	http://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15078coll17/id/33760
Collection:	Clark County Collections
Rights:	http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/
Copyright:	Charlestown-Clark County Public Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes and makes no warranty with regard to their use for other purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners and/or holders of other rights such as publicity and/or privacy rights is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. There may be content that is protected as works for hire copyright held by the party that commissioned the original work and/or under the copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item.
Geography:	Charlestown, Clark County, Indiana 38.4357546,-85.6577676
Subjects:	Maps Indiana Ordnance Works (U.S.) Hoosier Ordnance Plant Indiana Arsenal Indiana Army Ammunition Plant Explosives Industry--Indiana Gunpowder, Smokeless Ordnance manufacture Black powder manufacture Facility One ICI Americas Inc Clark County (Ind.) Charlestown (Ind.) United States. Army Ordnance and Ordnance Stores INAAP

Further information on this record can be found at its source.