Groundwoter Management InvestigationsFor Omar and Laurel LandfillsSussex County, Delaware

April 1989

Prepared by

Roy F. Weston, Inc.One Weston Way

West Chester, PA 19380

MANAGERS X—S OESENER&CONSUUAWS

Groundwater Management Investigationsfor Omar and Laurel Landfills

Sussex County, Delaware

Abraham Thomas, P.G.Project Director

Thomas A. Drew, P.G.Project Manager

April 1989

Roy F. Weston, Inc.Weston Way

West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title page

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Background 1-11*2 Objectives 1-21.3 Scope of Worfc 1-21.4 Report Overview 1-3

2 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 2-1

2..1 Monitor Well Installation Techniques 2-1

2.1.1 Oraar Well Construction Summary 2-1"2.1.2 Laurel Well Construction Summary 2-4

2,2 Surveying 2-42.3 Water Sampling 2-42.4 Computer Modeling of the Laurel Landfill 2-8

3 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 3-1

3.1 Introduction 3-13.2 Omar Landfill __. 3-1

3.2.1 Site Stratigraphy 3-13.2.2 Hydrogeology 3-13.2.3 Analytical Results 3-8

3.2.3.1 Volatile Organics 3-8Analysis

3.2.3.2 Inorganic and Phenol 3-8Analyses

3.3 Laurel Landfill 3-15

3.3.1 Site Stratigraphy 3-153.3.2 Hydrogeology 3-153.3.3 Analytical Results 3-18

3.3.3.1 Volatile Organic 3-18Analysis

3.3.3.2 Inorganic and Phenol 3-18Analyses

3.3.4 Computer Modeling 3-23

ARIOOli28

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Title Page

4 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES 4-1

4.1 Definition 4-14.2 Omar Landfill - Groundwater Management 4-1

Zones4.3 Laurel Landfill - Groundwater Manage- 4-3

ment Zones

APPENDICES -

Appendix A - Boring Logs and Well Construction SummariesOmar Landfill

Appendix B - Boring Logs and Well Construction SummariesLaurel Landfill

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Ficrure Title Page

2-1 Existing and New Monitor Well Locations 2-2Omar Landfill

2-2 Existing and New Monitor Well Locations 2-5Laurel Landfill

3-1 Geologic Cross Section A-A' 3-2Omar Landfill

3-2 Geologic Cross Section B-B' 3-3Omar Landfill

3-3 Geologic Cross Section Lines A-A' and B-B' 3-4" Omar Landfill

3-4 Shallow Water Table Contours 3-6Omar Landfilli

3-5 Deep Groundwater Flow Contours 3-7Omar Landfill

3-6 Groundwater Contour Map - Laurel Landfill 3-17

3-7 Predicted Concentrations for 40 Years 3-24Simulation - Laurel Landfill

4-1 Groundwater Restriction Zones* 4-2Omar Landfills

4-2 Groundwater Restriction Zones 4-4Laurel Landfill

111

A R I O O I » 3 0

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title

2"! Well Construction and Water Level Data 2-3Omar Landfill

2-2 Well Construction and Water Level Data 2-6Laurel Landfill

2-3 Analytical Program Summary for the Omar 2-7and Laurel Landfills

3-1 Groundwater Analytical Data 3-9Volatile Organic CompoundsOmar Landfill - December 1988

3-2 Groundwater Analytical Data 3-12Omar Landfill - December 1988

3-3 Groundwater Analytical Data 3-19Volatile Organic CompoundsLaurel Landfill - December 1988

3-4 Groundwater Analytical Data 3-21Laurel Landfill - December 1988

iv

flRI001*3

SECTIOH 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Between the late 1960's and 1984, a total of six landfillswere operated in Sussex County, Delaware for the disposal ofmunicipal waste. These are the Bridgeville, Omar, Stockley,Laurel, Anderson Crossroads and Angola Landfills. Atpresent, the landfills do not receive refuse for disposal,but are being used as transfer stations for temporary wastestorage prior to final shipment and placement in astate-owned landfill.

Previous studies were conducted by Roy F. Weston, Inc.(WESTON) in 1980 and 1982 to describe the hydrogeologicsetting, groundwater and surface water quality,hydrogeologic controls and contaminant migration at each ofthe six landfills. In addition, following the 1982 study,a quarterly groundwater monitoring program was implemented,as required by Delaware Department of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Control (DNREC) , at each of the six landfills.

In November 1984, the Delaware DNREC requested that SussexCounty modify the .quarterly monitoring, program of ground-water quality around the landfills to further identify thelong term potential of groundwater contamination at theSussex County landfills. Based on a meeting between theDNREC and Sussex County, it was agreed that the revisedgroundwater monitoring program would include procedures todetermine the actual extent and magnitude of the contaminantzone, and provide significant data to develop a groundwatermanagement plan to control groundwater usage around theselandfills. The major conclusions of this investigation andsite recommendations, including the proposed groundwater userestriction zones, are presented in the report entitled"Ground Water Management Investigation for Six Sussex CountyLandfills", dated December 1987.

Due to the scarcity of data for the Laurel and OmarLandfills, groundwater use restriction zones at these twolandfills could not be recommended in the 1987 report.However, as stated in the report, groundwater userestriction zones would be developed at these two landfillsfollowing the evaluation of supplemental hydrogeologic andwater quality data to be obtained from the proposedadditional site investigative work.

1-1

flRIOOI*32

On 9 August 1983, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)between Sussex County and DNREC was approved. The MOUoutlines specific technical and administrative items thatwould be required to successfully implement the groundvatermanagement zone concept at the landfills. In addition, ItemNo. 7 of the MOU specifically requires Sussex County tosubmit to DNREC maps delineating groundvater managementzones for the Omar and Laurel Landfills.

This report has been prepared to present the findings of theadditional investigative work conducted by WESTON at theOmar and Laurel Landfills, and provides proposed ground-water use restriction zones for the two landfills.

1,2 OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the site investigative program are asfollows:

e Supplement existing information on the groundwaterand contaminant flow patterns and the geologicconditions at the Laurel and Omar Landfills,

e Estimate projected future extent of the groundwa-ter contaminant plume at the Laurel Landfill.

e Develop proposed groundwater use restriction zonesaround the Laurel and Omar Landfills for DNRECreview and approval.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

In order to meet the aforementioned objectives, severaltasks were performed by WESTON between November 1988 andJanuary 1989 and included the following:

e Six additional monitor wells at the LaurelLandfill and three additional monitor wells at the0»ar Landfill were installed to further definegroundwater flow patterns, site stratigraphy, andthe extent and magnitude of the groundwatercontamination.

e The newly installed monitor wells along withselected existing monitor wells and residentialsupply wells, and surface water were sampled andanalyzed to evaluate the groundwater and surfacewater quality conditions around the landfill.

1-2

• A survey was completed at the Omar and LaurelLandfills to determine the elevations andlocations of the newly installed monitor wells inreference to the existing monitoring well network.

e Water level data was collected from all themonitor wells at the Omar and Laurel Landfill todetermine groundwater level eleations andgroundwater flow patterns.

e Computer modeling was used to simulate solute(contaminant) transport and groundwater flowconditions at the Laurel Landfill. Thisinformation was used to support the development ofthe groundwater management zones at the landfill.

1.4 REPORT OVERVIEW

The following section of this report (Section 2) presentsthe activities conducted during this investigation,including the description of monitor well installations,surveying, monitor well sampling and computer modeling.Section 3 presents the results of the investigative programand includes a discussion on site-specific geology,hydrogeology, analytical results, and findings of thecomputer modeling effort. The groundwater use restrictionzones proposed for the Omar and Laurel Landfills arepresented in Section 4.

1-3

A R I Q Q U 3 U

SECTION 2

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

2.1 MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION TECHNIQUES

Mud rotary techniques were used to drill and install the newmonitoring wells at the Omar and Laurel Landfills. Duringthe well drilling, soil cutting returns were examined andlogged by a WESTON geologist. Well boring logs for the Omarand Laurel Landfills are presented in Appendices A and B,respectively.

Upon completion of the drilling phase, the well componentswere inserted into the open borehole. A sand pack wasplaced in the annular space between the well screen/casingand borehole to a height of approximately 5 feet above thetop of the well screen. The remainder of the annular spaceabove the sand pack was sealed by pumping a bentonite slurrythrough a treiaie hose to the top of the sand pack.Following emplacement of the bentonite slurry, the monitorwell was developed using a surface suction pump to removeany foreign material that may have entered the sand pack andformation during the rotary drilling operation. Developmentwas continued until the discharge was as clear as practical.

Each monitor well was constructed of 2-inch I.D. Schedule 40PVC casing and screens. The well screens were ten feet longwith 0.02 inch machine slot openings. Well casings extendedto a height of approximately 2 feet above ground surface.Specific details on the newly installed monitor wells foreach landfill are provided in the following sub-sections.

2.1.1 Omar Well Construction Summary

Three (3) additional monitor wells were installed at theOmar Landfill at the locations shown in Figure 2-1. Thesewells were designated as OS-9, OS-10 and OS-11, and extendto 52, 52, and 38 feet, respectively, below ground surface.The monitoring wells were screened below the shallow claylayer underlying the landfill and were used to furtherdefine the groundwater flow and water quality conditions inthe hydrologic unit immediately beneath the clay layer.Well construction specifications and boring logs for the newOmar monitoring wells are contained in Appendix A. Wellconstruction summaries are provided in Table 2-1.

2-1

ooQ

LU

ocO

O5

IS<z

uu O

CNUJoco

2-2

TABLE 2-1

. WELL CONSTRUCTION AND WATER LEVEL DATAOKAR LANDFILL

Ground Top of Depth to WaterDepth Surface Casing Water Levelof Screened Eleva- Eleva- Jan. Eleva-Well Interval tion* tion* 1989 tion*

Location (ft) (ft)_____(ft)_____(ft)_____(ft)_____(ft)

OS-1 20 5-20 98.66 100.37 5.98 94.39

OS-2 18 3-19 97.40 98.72 3.32 95.40

OS-3 20 3-20 96.02 97.35 5.79 91.56

OS-4 15 4-15 96.43 98.09 6,81 91.28

OS-5 15 10-15 96.77 98.84 6,72 92,12

OS-6 35 30-35 96.73 98*93 10.14 88.79

OS-7 34.5 29.5- 96.40 98.12 _ 8.09 90.0334.5

OS-8 15 10-15 96.65 98.81 _. 7.79 91.02

OD-1 50 40-50 96.54 98.24 9.65 88.59

Black-WaterCreek- upstream 92.17- downstream 91.07

OS-9 52 42-52 97,23 99,09 7.28 91.81

OS-10 52 42-52 98.16 101.50 12.26 89.24

OS-11 38 28-38 100.77 102.71 11.51 91.20

* Elevation referenced to a benchmark assigned an elevation of100.00 ft.

2"3- AR I OOU'37

2.1*2 Laurel Well Construction Summary

Three (3) additional monitor well nests (couplets) wereinstalled dovngradient of the Laurel Landfill to determinethe vertical and lateral distribution of contaminants in theaquifer system and to further define local groundwater flowconditions. The location of these veils designated as LS-8through LS-13, are shown in Figure 2-2. Each well pair havedepths extending to 60 and 90 feet/ respectively, except forLS-8 and LS-9 with well depths extending to 60 and 83.5feet, respectively. Well construction specifications andboring logs for the new Laurel monitoring wells arecontained in Appendix B. Well construction summaries areprovided in Table 2-2.

2.2 SURVEYING

The newly installed monitor wells at the Laurel and OmarLandfills were surveyed by WESTON personnel with respect tothe relative elevations of the existing monitoring wells.Surveyed elevations at the new monitor wells included top ofwell casing and ground surface. Results of the Omar andLaurel Landfill survey are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2,respectively.

2.3 WATER SAMPLING

Water samples were collected from selected monitoring wells,residential supply wells and surface water bodies at theLaurel and Omar Landfills in December 1988. This samplingevent was incorporated into the semi-annual sampling programfor the six Sussex County landfills. The analytical programwas designed to determine groundwater and surface waterquality conditions in the vicinity of the landfills. Samplelocations and analytes for the specific landfills aresummarized in Table 2-3. Analytical results of the watersampling are summarized in Section 3.

Sampling activities consisted of the following procedures:

e Before purging the monitor well, depth to water inthe well casing was measured from a referencepoint on the top of the casing and recorded in thelog book.

e Prior to sample collection, each monitor well waspurged by pumping or bailing three to five volumes

_ of water standing in the well. At the residentialwells, the sampling point was allowed to dischargeat least five minutes prior to the collection ofthe water samples.

2-4

flRIOQU38

OO

ui

ocO

O

00

UJ

CMI

CMUJcc

2-5

J—

TABLE 2-2

WELL CONSTRUCTION AND WATER LEVEL DATALAUREL LANDFILL

Ground Top of Depth to WaterDepth Surface Cas ing Water Levelof Screened Eleva- Eleva- Jan. Eleva-Well Interval tion* tion* 1989 tion*

Location (ft) (ft)____'(ft)_____(ft)_____(ft)_____(ft)

LS-1 27 9.5-27 109.10 110.99 20.89 90.10

LS-2 30 10-30 101.96 104.08 15.26 88.82

LS-3 30 10-30 104.07 105.82 17.34 88.48

LS-4 30 10-30 99,91 100.42 13.61 86.81

LS-5 10 5-10 99.96 102.07 4.18 97.89

LS-6 41 36-41 99.75 101.65 15.19 86.46

LS-7 95 90-95 99,87 100.96 13.99 86.97

LD-1 50 40-50 99.54 100.80 14.06 86.74

LS-8 60 50-60 99.02 "101.07 14.79 36.28

LS-9 83.5 73.5-83.5 99.16 101.20 14.90 86.30

LS-10 60 50-60 96.52 98.71 12.67 86.04

LS-11 90 80-90 96.75 98.74 12.64 86.10

LS-12 60 50-60 95.95 97.77 11.76 86.01

LS-13 90 80-90 96.22 98.24 12.18 86.06

* Elevation referenced to a benchmark assigned an elevation of100.00 ft.

2-6

TABLE 2-3

ANALYTICAL PROGRAM SUMMARYFOR THE OMAR AND LAUREL LANDFILLS

Landfill Well Parameters

Omar OD-1, OS-2f OS-3f VOA (method 601/602)OS-4, OS-5, OS-6, Phenols, Indicators*OS-7, OS-8f OS-9,OS-10, OS-11,Hornberger residence,Blackwater Creek, (up-stream and downstream),on-site pond

Laurel LS-4, LD-i, LS-5 VOA (method 601/602)LS-6, LS-7, LS-8, Phenols, Indicators*LS-9, LS-10, LS-11,LS-12, LS-13, Gulletteand Walker residences

* Indicator parameters include TDS, Chloride,Nitrate/Nitrite, Ammonia-Nitrogen, Soluble Fef Soluble Mn,Specific Conductivity, pH.

• Water samples were obtained with the use of ateflon bailer at the monitor wells; directly fromdischarge points (i.e. outside spigot, kitchenfaucet) at the residential wells; and with a cleanplastic bottle at the surface water bodies*

e Samples were placed into appropriately labelledand preserved (if required) laboratory preparedcontainers.

e A grab sample was taken for immediate fieldmeasurement of pH and specific conductivity, andthe results were recorded in the daily log book.

e Samples for soluble metals analyses were fieldfiltered through a 0.45 micron filter and placedinto appropriately preserved sample containers.

e Purging, sampling and filtering equipment wasdecontaminated between monitor well samplinglocations.

e Sample containers were placed in a thermal chestand kept at a temperature of 4 C.

e Chain-of-custody forms were prepared for eachsampling event.

e Sample containers were secured in the thermalcoolers for transport to WESTON's laboratory.

To .insure maintenance of the WESTON QA/QC program, field andtrip blanks and duplicate samples were prepared* Fieldblank containers were filled with deionized water that hadbeen poured from the cleaned sample bailer at the samplingsite. Trip blanks, which represent samples of distilledwater prepared at WESTON's laboratory, were carried alongwith the other sample containers and processed with thesample lot. Chain-of-custody records were initiated at thetime of sample bottle preparation, and followed each bottlethrough the sequence from bottle preparation to thecompletion of chemical analyses. WESTON's laboratorypersonnel acknowledged receipt of the delivered samples andentered them into the program data management system*

2.4 COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LAUREL LANDFILL

The USGS "Computer Model of Two-Dimensional Solute Transportand Dispersion in Ground Water" developed by Konikow and

2-8

fl.RJ.OQH2

Bredehoft (1978) was chosen to simulate existing groundwaterflow conditions and to simulate and predict contaminanttransport via groundwater.

This model was previously used to simulate groundwater flowand contaminant migration, and aid in the development ofgroundwater restriction zones at the Anderson Crossroads,Bridgeville, Stockley and Angola Landfills. A detaileddiscussion of the model selection, description andassumptions is provided in WESTON's December 1987 report,"Ground Water Management Investigations for Six SussexCounty Landfills. Application of the flow model and solutetransport at the Laurel Landfill corresponded to thosepresented in WESTON's 1987 report.

2-9

SECTION 3

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The following subsections describe the geologic,hydrogeologic and water quality conditions at the Omar andLaurel Landfills based on historial information and the dataobtained during this site investigation.

3.2 OMAR LANDFILL

3.2.1 Site Stratigraphy

The Omar Landfill is underlain by sedimentary deposits ofPleistocene age. A thickness map of the Pleistocenedeposits in Sussex County (Sundstrom and Pickett, 1970)shows that the Pleistocene is approximately 85 feet thick inthe area of the landfill. The Pleistocene deposits in thisarea are underlain by sediments belonging to the Pocomokeaquifer.

Geologic data obtained from the drilling of the on-sitemonitor wells shows that the Pleistocene deposits underlyingthe site consist primarily of fine to coarse sand with somegravel. Thin lenses of silt and clay are occasionally foundin the sand deposits. A silty to sandy clay layer wasobserved at all monitor well sites at depths between 6 and13 feet below ground surface. Figure 3-1 and 3-2 presentsgeologic cross-sections (lines shown on Figure 3-3) thatillustrate the continuous clayey layer underlying the sitewith thicknesses increasing from west to east, towardsBlackwater Creek.The clay is less than a foot thick at theupgradient well OS-1 and increases to approximately 24 feetat well OS-9. At well locations OS-6 and OS-7 on theopposite side of Blackwater Creek, the silty clay layer isapproximately 18 and 15 feet thick, respectively. Underlyingthe clay unit is generally fine to coarse sand deposits todepths of at least 55 feet*

3.2*2. Hydroqeoloqy

Figure 2-1 shows the existing and new monitor well locationsat the Omar Landfill. Existing monitor wells OS-1 thru OS-4which are situated near the perimeter of the landfill, reacha maximum depth of 20 feet below ground surface and are

3-1

flRIQQUUU

u.Qz

2O

OUJ.

OflCOOOOOtu

uiOC

3"2

§ 3 S 2 8 ' 8I i i____i____I____i

i T r r^ i i8 8 § S 88

oc

oCD00

OoUJCOCOCOoQCoo5ooUlaCM

UJac

3-3

COCOQZ

COLLJZ

ZootilCOCfl

<->0oz

s£ui ZooCOCOLLJcca

3-4

screened above th* clay layer; deep well OD-1, also alongthe perimeter of the landfill, is screened below th* claylayer at a depth from 40 to 50 feet below ground surface.Four additional existing wall* OS-5 through OS-8 are locatedon th« opposite sits of Blackwater Creek from th* landfill.These wells are constructed in pairs; one well in each pairis screened below the clay layer and a second shallower wellis screened within the clay zone. The three newly installedmonitor wells OS-9 through OS-11 are screened below the claylayer and are situated near the southern and westernperimeter of the landfill. Hell construction details alongwith well elevation details and water level data aresummarized on Table 2-1.

Water level readings from the monitoring wells in January1989 show that the depth to water ranges from 3.32 to 12.26feet below ground surface* A groundwater surface map(Figure 3-4) was developed from the January 1989 water leveldata for the shallow monitor wells* As shown in Figure 3*4,groundwater flow in the unconsolidated deposits above theclay unit is from the landfill to the east and southeasttowards Blackwater Creek and the on-site pond. Thecorresponding stream elevations near OS-8 and OS-3 indicatesthat the stream acts as a discharge for groundwater fromthis shallow water-bearing zone.

Groundwater flow in the monitor wells screened below theclay layer (OD-1, OS-6, OS-7, and OS-9 through OS-11) is tothe east as depicted in Figure 3-5* These deep wells havewater elevations that are approximately 3 feet lower thanthose in the shallow wells. The lower water levelelevations found in the deeper monitor wells indicate thepresence of a downward hydraulic gradient and the potentialfor groundwater flow migration from the shallow to thedeeper water-bearing units. Also, the survey data indicatedthat the stream elevation adjacent to OS-10 is approximately3 feet higher than the groundwater elevation in OS-10, andthat the stream elevation adjacent to OS-7 is approximately1 foot higher than the groundwater elevation in OS-7. Thisimplies that Blackwater Creek is not a discharge zone forgroundwater in the hydrologic zone below the clay. Thesehydrologic data suggests that the water-bearing zone beneaththe clay layer appears to function as a separate hydrologicunit from the near-surface water-bearing zones.

The groundwater hydraulic gradient in the water-bearing unitbeneath the clay, as calculated from Figure 3-5, are on theorder of 0.0045 ft/ft. Based upon estimated values for thegeneral area around the Omar Landfill, an averagetransmissivity of 90,000 gpd/ft was assigned to the deepaquifer. Using a saturated thickness of 80 feet, thehydraulic conductivity is equal to approximately 1,125

3-5

ARIQOH8

r

QC

O

OUJ

CQ

HCCUJ

(T<

UlQC3OtZ

-S

3-6

ocOzOO

O

OCUJ

°-<ui2U2QO

COUJoc

3-7

I—I

I—

gpd/ft or 150 ft/day. Assuming an effective porosity of0.20 for the unconsolidated deposits, the appropriatesubstitution can be made into the groundwater seepagevelocity aquation. In this way, the rate of groundwaterflow at the site can be approximated to be 3.4 ft/day or1,240 ft/yr.3.2.3 Analytical Results

Existing monitoring wells OD-1 and OS-2 through OS-8 and newwells OS-9 through OS-11 along with the Hornbergerresidential supply well the Omar pond and Blackwater Creek(upstream and downstream) were sampled for volatileorganics, phenols, and indicator parameter analyses inDecember 1988. The analytical results are summarized inTables 3-1 and 3-2.

3.2.3.1 Volatile Organic Analysis

Several volatile organic compounds which were previouslyidentified in past sampling rounds were detected in OS-2 andOS-3. These wells are screened above the base of the claylayer and located immediately adjacent to the landfill. Noother volatile organics were detected in any othergroundwater sample with the exception of l,1,1-Trichloro-ethane which was detected in OS-11 at a concentration of 1.9ug/1. This compound (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) was notdetected in any other sample from Omar Landfill. Methylenechloride was detected in the downstream surface watersample. However, this compound is considered to be a commonlaboratory contaminant and was not detected in any otherwater sample.

3.2.3.2 Inorganic and Phenol Analyses

Shallow monitor wells OS-2 and OS-3 generally showed higherinorganic and phenol concentrations than the other monitorwells. Total dissolved solids (TDS) at OS-3 were 956 mg/1,and 403 sg/1 in OS-2. The remaining monitor wells showedTDS concentrations ranging from 91 to 328 mg/1. Chlorideconcentrations at OS-3 were 159 mg/1 whereas the nexthighest chloride level was found in OS-11 at 31 mg/1.Ammonia was 31.2 mg/1 in OS-2 and 28.7 mg/1 in OS-3. Therange of ammonia concentrations in the other wells was fromnondetectable to 0.23 mg/1. Soluble iron and manganeselevels were elevated at wells OS-2 and OS-3. Soluble ironwas detected at levels of approximately 15 mg/1 at OS-2 andOS-3. The other monitor wells showed soluble ironconcentrations from nondetectable at OS-5 to 5.58 mg/1 at

3-8

A R I O O U 5 1

n8

8

S

8

8~ -- CM

IM * (Ml

*4*

8W

-8

££>;3-9

r ^

i 3 ;

g

3

.. «SS3ui x luui i— ui O a

3 Is

8

8

i '.3~l~i-I£.24A«i-St S-S * e n . nni, crQ; ufi-i-:;**£fi-:-:>-sxi55s • f l R i U U H D o3-10

: a.:: 5 !

9 9 m *•* I * * ^ 9j-siti Jii I tti!« »31181 S"15If i|5 5 Si"** £ i-* I 4 1 3 1 * 51: S. 3 !T« • -^ 3 9 t t ^ ^ & < *^355- ji 3 - » ff- « v • 3 « cSct-ri I «*ill« 115*5.5 &^ * -* aaHi = S « •v 3 ££ -• f 3 — • ?T— v ^ * 9 « S £ 5 I*r 1 9 *•*Jt 0 C ** *• £ **<r-£lfe-€£5§fe 13 _»•«•>*_? S2* -g — a • »^ » o« p 0,0 1-^fio * l44-Hy*f%:9k *2*w«.e3oo*w 3 .^ 2 C o«- f .e • u •cooOb>.Vvo w» C v C « 3 - £ u Q ujcuS^ai^B^ w C*??ir3^3e3 •£|5l_-^53Tp5-S^^5A*-r^«_« »a33S-;*:Cl- -5S~ «* £13 _ •

-SK* 0 Q i-r « I- «««*€ I—>o

3-11

5

8

-O

s

mS3

*'m

s

8

eni—

Ul

ji

o e £ o o PI • • i

gg^ o

o o So o R « • i

O"- _ — 0Ki -* O •) •

O O S O* O S • • •

* o «- o.o pn « * >

™°* ** « 3 S *^

Co ^ o-.•*"- J —• t/* » « -O v» O irtin *tn ® JC " C '

4 o-» 0 O <M «• »n » " S fi

mo*-« o*-« *-i«

5

J fff 1

3 s 1I S 5 ^ f ^

• - a 5 3 * 1** 1 -3 2x5-"»l S s*1152 * ^2^• — u **"•**• • -5 * «o — o—o

SS'Za'e-.'o— * **"33— *" 8^ 2*5 •••SSSa'^f^S. * -5 3.12 A RIOQU55

1Ul

>*?§ *« *j«"f21 o« S3—'1

m o ca *- o Si «

««•»** IM *

o s§* «8 ~

§«« o*eO • *- "

* s i i• "5 « * * *•?_! I s|1 1

3-13 flRioo^se

1=1ui x Jg

«. 233

• « «« . 5

08*11. Four of the deeper monitor wells, includingupgradient well OS-9, had soluble iron levels greater than 2mg/1. The concentration* of nitrate-nitrate was less than 1mg/1 in all monitor walls, except for shallow wall OS-4which showed a level of 28.1 mg/1. Phenols were onlydetected at monitor walls OS-2 and OS-3*

Groundwater samples from the Hornberger residential wellshowed chloride and TDS concentrations on the order of 16mg/1 and 210 mg/1 respectively. All other parameters werenot detected, except for iron which was found at 0.106 mg/1in one of the two samples collected from the supply well.

Surface water samples from Blackwater Creek showed nosignificant difference in parameter concentrations betweenthe upstream and downstream location. Analytical data fromthe on-site pond sample were comparable to the streamsamples, except for nitrate-nitrate and soluble iron whichwere found at significantly lower concentrations in the pondsample.

3.3 LAUREL LANDFILL

3.3.1 Site Stratigraphy

The Laurel Landfill is underlain by sedimentary deposits ofPleistocene age. A saturated thickness map of thePleistocene deposits in Sussex County (Sundstrom andPickett, 1970) indicate that the Pleistocene isapproximately 110 feet thick in the area of the landfill.The Pleistocene deposits in this area are underlain bysediments belonging to the Manokin aquifer.

Geologic data obtained from the drilling of the existing andnew monitor wells shows that the Pleistocene depositsunderlying the site consist primarily of fine to coarse sandwith some gravel. Thin lenses of silt and clay areoccasionally found in the sand deposits within approximately15 feet of the surface. In the area of monitoring wellsLS-5 through LS-13 located north of the landfill (see Figure2-2), a 3 to 16 foot thick layer of silty clay occursapproximately 7 to 15 feet below ground surface. Claylenses are found near LS-2 and LS-4 at slightly shallowerdepths. Below the clay lenses, grain-size increases,becoming predominantly medium to coarse sand and gravel todepths of at least 95 feet.

3.3.2 Hydrogeology

All of the groundwater monitoring wells at the LaurelLandfill are screened in the water table aquifer

3-15

AR "IQQfcSB

e

(Pleistocene deposits). Locations of these monitoring wellsare shown in Figure 2-2. Three of the existing wells (LS-1,LS-2 and LS-3) are situated within the landfill. Well LD-1and LS-4 are located on the northern perimeter of thelandfill. Monitor wells LS-5 through LS-13 are locatedbetween 300 to 600 feet from the northern edge of thelandfill. Details on well construction along with wellelevation and water level data from the Laurel monitoringwells are summarized on Table 2-2.

Water level readings from the monitor wells (excluding LS-5)in January 1989 show that the depth to water ranges between11 and 21 feet below ground surface. At monitor wells LS-5,the depth to water was 4.18 feet below ground level,approximately 9 feet higher than water levels in adjacentwells LS-6 and LS-7. Monitor well LS-5 is screened above asix foot layer of silty clay which occurs approximately 9 to15 feet below ground surface; monitor wells LS-6 and LS-7are screened below the clay at depths of 41 and 95 feet,respectively. The significantly higher water level observedin LS-5 suggest that the downward seepage of groundwater inthis area is restricted by the presence of the lowerpermeable clay layer. This results in the buildup orperching of groundwater on the clay unit. Clay lenses arealso present at approximately the same depth at wells LS-2and LS-4* However, the water levels in these wells do notappear to reflect perched groundwater conditions since thewells are screened partially below the clay lenses* Waterlevels in the remaining deep and shallow couplet wells areapproximately th'e' same indicating they are screened insimilar hydraulic zones.

A groundwater surface map for the water table aquifer wasdeveloped from water level data collected from the monitorwells (excluding LS-5) in January 1989 (Figure 3-6), Asshown in Figure 3-6, groundwater flow in the vicinity of theLaurel Landfill is to the north-northeast towards BroadCreek located approximately 1.5 miles north of the site.

The groundwater hydraulic gradient for the water tableaquifer, as calculated from Figure 3-6, is on the order of0.0015. Based on the results of the computer flow modelcalibration, an average transmissivity of 85,000 gpd/ft wasassigned to the water table aquifer. Using a saturatedaquifer thickness of 100 feet, the hydraulic conductivity isequal to approximately 850 gpd/ft or 114 ft/day. Assumingan effective porosity of 0.20 for the unconsolidated

3-16

MIQQU59

r '•M

cc3OidIS

COUlOCDO

3-17

flRIOO^GO

deposits, the appropriate substitutions can be mad* into thegroundwat«r seepage velocity equation. In this way, therate of groundwater flow at the site can be approximated tobe 1.49 ft/day or 646 ft/year."

3.3.3 Analytical Results

Existing monitoring wells LD-1, LS-4 through LS-7 and newlyinstalled wells LS-8 through LS-13 along with the Gulletteand Walker residential supply wells were sampled in December1988 for volatile organics, phenols and indicatorparameters analyses. The analytical results are summarizedin Tables 3-3 and 3-4.

3.3.3.1 Volatile Organic Analysis

Volatile organic analyses were performed on the watersamples collected in December 1988. As with previousgroundwater samples, several volatile organic compounds weredetected in LD-1 (see Table 3-3). No volatile organics weredetected in LS-4 through LS-6 in this sampling round. Lowconcentrations of 1,1-dichloroethane (1.9 ug/1) weredetected in LS-7, the deepest well in the nest of LS-5, LS-6and LS-7. This compound was detected in LD-1 atconcentrations of 2.8 ug/1.

No volatile organic compounds were detected in the newmonitor wells LS-8, LS-9, LS-12, and LS-13 installeddowngradient of the landfill. Toluene was detected in LS-10and LS-11 (3.0 ug/1 and 1.90 ug/1, respectively) atconcentrations similar to those levels found in LD-1. Novolatiles were detected in the off-site domestic supplywells (Gullette and Walker).

3.3.3.2 Inorganic and Phenol Analyses

Groundwater samples collected in December 1988 for indicatorparameter and phenol analyses generally show higherparameter concentrations in deep well LD-1 (50 feet deep)than in the adjacent shallow well LS-4 (30 feet deep). Theonly exception is the concentration of nitrate-nitrite thatwas near the detection limit in LD-1 and 1.2 mg/1 in LS-4.These two monitor wells (LS-4 and LD-1) are locatedimmediately downgradient of the Laurel Landfill andgenerally have much higher analyte concentrations comparedto the other monitor wells. The only exception isnitrate-nitrate that is found at slightly higherconcentrations in other monitor wells. However, higher

3-18

L

1— ' * »»*- U.*- _i

„ >- U OM ^— 5 «

Ul K ,_i m 5 i« a*

v»»—i

* « * ui « * * «* * * « * • tf» * * « * « • *

• at.*«f v ^ ^ s x c o C i . y•

3-19

ui>-i—UI

< Ms§w ^m? ^i-a -g 5gi§ ^S *-..**•— a

8 IUu, u— in £ uiS ^ ui 3 o

<^^

M

M

|85|

ififllilpllll

3-20'

r~

0ta

o.a

i*

N.

-0

in

2

M_J

*•»

3

w

I

w

3©o * _o • « g e« © *» - * « * u\

.523.J..5

Cf w iw °

^ oeowt • rg« o » « € • • -o

>eS".« °' o• • *r • o •

N. —MM m o•O O **• -* * tft*-^ O «9 O * O> < \ •*»

<M O 3 *~ FO «9 * id

3!s!3l3 . 25

t1*•

-8 x 1, I | 4 * "9 U ** • C*c *• J ,3 y ** >•1 — > s • Jt-*g * t. x- c ** x §

"" • ——— O *.*•«*

JS*22^a_Z 3*5

4S6s-!^£^% « t 33-21

n

5

uiUf

liS U I .

N-j m

O >» Q•— -* m mr i*iKl -1 S

« Ul U-* 5 3 »

1 ii*

(A

01

i

i

oo, 2S5« S. 2

*S o•^ 0 • • ^ Ift

O • • O> m

«M O

.!».>..:

O O *•*•**»« ••*

5

liiiiifi .**

! * =i» -M 7 ^ fe^• ^ u ** * 5>

i •'3 § * ?

• ••§ • *2 — **3**33Z«'c — "o5 SiZ3SSfixJiSfa'i ^ .3

3-22

nitrate levels in groundwater in th* site vicinity has beenshown to b* attributed to local agricultural practices ands*ptic systems. -. - .

Groundwater samples from monitor walls located downgradientof LS-4 and LD-1 show a significant decline in analyteconcentrations. For example, chloride was found at aconcentration of 170 mg/1 at LD-1, however, the existing andnewly installed monitor wells downgradient of LD-1 showchloride levels ranging from 7.1 to 21*6 mg/1. Additionallytotal dissolved solids concentrations at LD-1 were 874 mg/1compared to a range of 59 to 105 mg/1 in monitor wells LS-5through LS-13. Phenols and ammonia were only detected atwells LS-4 and LD-1. Soluble iron concentrations were 24.4mg/1 and 163 mg/1 at wells LS-4 and LD-1, respectively.Soluble iron concentrations were below 0.2 mg/1 in all othermonitor wells, except for LS-5 and LS-6 which detected 1.63mg/1 and 4.6 mg/1 of soluble iron, respectively. These twomonitor wells have historically reported higher ironconcentrations. Groundwater samples from the Gullette andWalker residential wells show no significant impact on waterquality.

3.3.4 Computer Modeling

The established flow model for the Laurel Landfill wasinitially checked to verify its calibration to existing siteconditions. Solute transport simulations were thenconducted in an attempt to match the predicted contaminantdistribution to analyte concentrations observed in theexisting and new monitoring wells. Contaminant source termscould be adjusted to closely match observed sourceconcentrations within the landfill. However, the predictedcontaminant distribution downgradient of the landfill couldnot be matched to observed analyte concentrations withoutusing unreasonable and technically nonsupportive values forsome input parameters.

In light of the results obtained from this modeling effort,the initial modeling simulations presented in WESTON's 1987report were used as a basis to develop groundwaterrestriction zones at the Laurel Landfill. Specifically/ therestriction zones were developed from the 40-year simulation(Figure 3-7) that provides a prediction of solutedistribution 40 years from the approximate start ofoperations at the Laurel Landfill. Review of thegroundwater analytical data from the Laurel Landfill shows

3-23

JR! 001*66

Seal* InS-5=

1,000 0 1,000

L*g«nd— 85 — Concentration Contours

FIGURE 3-7 PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR40 YEAR SIMULATION - LAUREL LANDFILL

3~24

that the downgradient concentration* predicted by the40-year simulation are higher than those observed at themonitor veils. This indicates that the simulatedcontaminant plume shown in Figure 3-7 is a conservativeestimate. Therefore the use of the 40-year simulationresults as a basis to develop restriction zones isconsidered to be a conservative approach. This conservativeestimate assures that the restriction zones are appropriateto address the goal of protecting human health from threatsof potential groundwater contamination.

3-25

8R!QQi*68

SECTION 4

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES

4.1 DEFINITION

Groundwater management zones (GMZ's) consist of threeconcentric areas around the landfills, where groundwaterwithdrawal rates and well designs are regulated. The GMZ'sare defined as follows:

e "No well zone": all wells restricted in theunconfined aquifer.

e "GMZ Aw: wells screened in the unconfined aquiferto be pumped at a rate of less than 10 gpm.

e "GMZ B": wells screened in the unconfined aquiferto be pumped at a rate of less than 100 gpm.

4.2 OMAR LANDFILL - GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES

The proposed groundwater management zones for the OmarLandfill are presented in Figure 4-1. As previouslymentioned, the stratigraphic data from the Omar Landfillshows that the site is underlain by a clay layer that willact to limit the downward migration of contaminants todeeper water-bearing zones. In addition, monitor wells havebeen installed irt 'the water-bearing strata beneath the claylayer to assess water quality conditions. These two aspectsof the Omar Landfill, the clay layer combined with thedeeper water quality monitoring network, were used as abasis for the development of the GMZ's at the Omar Landfill.

Cross-gradient and upgradient of the landfill, the perimeterof the "no well" zone has been established at a distance of300 feet from the edge of the landfill. A 600 footextension of the "no well" zone was then established in thedowngradient direction from the landfill. This "no well"zone is depicted in Figure 4-1. The additional extension ofthe "no well* zone downgradient of the landfill wasestablished based on a conservative estimate that acontaminant introduced into the deeper water-bearing zone(i.e. below the clay) would travel approximately 600 feetbetween semi-annual sampling rounds. This is considered tobe a worse case scenario since contaminant concentrationswould tend to decline with distance due to factors such asdilution and attenuation.

4-1 • '

flRiOOU69

3 JOG *» WO 300

UgtodNo W«W Zon*

I Wtils IMS Than10 GPM AHow«dWt s L«i Than100 GPM Alfowtd

FIGURE 4-1 GROUNDWATER RESTRICTION ZONE SOMAR LANDFILL

flRIOOU70

The remaining two restriction zones (GMZ A and GHZ B) havebeen layered on the "no well" zone to address the increasingimpacts of larger capacity veils (see Figure 4*1). inconcurrence with the GMZ's already established at four ofthe landfills, the second zone (GHZ A) will extendapproximately 200 feet from the "no well1* zone. GHZ B willextend an additional €00 feet from the "GMZ A" zone.

Of course semi-annual sampling and analysis of groundwaterfrom the deep monitor wells will be an essential componentto the successful implementation of this groundwatermanagement zone concept at the Omar Landfill. These wellswill act as an early warning system to identify contaminantmigration through the clay layer. If the analytical dataindicates the migration of contaminants through the claylayer, a reevaluation of the established GMZ's at the OmarLandfill would be performed. It should be noted that therestriction zones have been established in a conservativemanner so that future modifications of the GMZ' s is lesslikely to occur,

4.3 LAUREL LANDFILL - GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES

The proposed groundwater management zones for the LaurelLandfill are presented in Figure 4-2. The predicted zeroconcentration line from the 40-year solute transport modelwas used to develop the "no well11 zone in the cross-gradientand upgradient direction from the landfill. As shown inFigure 4-2, the simulated plume extends a considerabledistance downgradient due to the high transmissivity valuesused in the simulation and the large distance between thesource and the nearest discharge area (located approximately2 miles away). In order to develop a realistic approach tothe GMZs at the Laurel Landfill, the downgradient extent ofthe "no well" zone was established at a distance of 600 feetfrom the furthest downgradient monitor wells (i.e. from LS-5through LS-11). The 600-foot extension represents thedistance that groundwater would travel in one year, assuminga rate of movement approximating groundwater flow velocities(estimated to be approximately 600 ft/year). A moreconservative 1-year travel distance was used at the LaurelLandfill compared to the 0.5 year travel distance at theOmar Landfill since a continuous clay layer to restrictcontaminant migration is not present at the Laurel Landfill.

Sampling and analyses of groundwater from the downgradientmonitor wells would continue to provide data on groundwaterquality conditions. If the analytical data from the monitorwells indicates the presence of contamination at thesemonitoring points, a reevaluation of the established GMZ'sat the Laurel Landfill would be performed. As previouslydiscussed for the Omar Landfill, the conservative approachto the establishment of GMZ's at the Laurel Landfill createsa lower probability that future modifications will be madeto the proposed restriction zones.

Ugtntf— ** — Concentration Contours

Seal* In Ft«l

1.000 0 1,000

Monitor Wttl LocatkxisNo Well ZoneWells< 10 gpm AllowedWells < 100 gpm Allowed

FIGURE 4-2 GROUNDWATER RESTRICTION ZONESLAUREL LANDFILL

4"4

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARIESOMAR LANDFILL

OMAA LANDFILL

————— 1Client:

Boring No. :Logged By:Date Logged:DrillersComments:

Depth2' - 8'S' - 10'10' - 21'21' - 23'

23' - 25'

25' - 29'

29' - 32'32' - 35'35' - 55'

c

.-...--.-.-•-....----.•.....-....-.-....•.-..•......ISussex County Delaware03*9Valdasue SteeleIf KOV «9Bill Burns Jr.

Soil Boring DescriptionMedium to coarse sand.Gray clay.Very shelly gray clay.Dark reddish brown bark layer*Gray clay, few shell fragments.Gray clay with some sand.Gray clay.Medium to coarse sand.Coarse sand.

Client;Boring No. iLogged BVJ

Data logged:Driller:Comments;

Depth0' - 5'5' - 12'12' - 19'19' - 21'21' - 23.5'23.5 - 25.525.5 - 30.530.5 - 31.531.5' - 44'44' - 50'

50' - 52'

E Sussex County DelawareE OS- 10E Valdasue St««l«If NOV §SBill Burns Jr.

Soil Boring DescriptionTopsoil and root*.ModiuB sand and trac* clay.Gray clay.Gray clay with some medium sand.Gray clay.Organic material, bark layer.Clay is a little more silty and browner in color.Increased organic material.Medium sand with trace clay.Coarse sand.Coarse sand with some fine sand.

pn OMAR LANDFILL

r-1_._—— — —— 1

Client:Boring Mo. 3Logged By:Date Logged 3DrillersComments:

Depth2' - 10'10' - 11'11' - 12'12' - 15'15' - 17'17' - 26'26' - 30'30' - 41.5'

Sussex County DelawareOS-1117 MOV a«Bill Burns Jr.

Soil Boring DescriptionMedium sand.Sand and clay.Organic layer of bark.Gray clay.Gray clay with some sand.Medium sand with some clay.Medium to coarse sand.Orange sand, with occassional clay stringer.

*e

ePmiArt

Sussex

County

Inrjttinn

Omar.

Delaware

PflnmnnAi

Valdasue S

teele

1 _Su

"s

10

15

20

25

3032

.35

AO42

45

52

.

ri

't/

.

--*

*

fact

ss= J:T

=JS-

— —

S==i

===£

S*»

4

-

-'"

V

Well Constru

Drilling Summery:* . . M _^_ CO'Total Dtp**1 3*£ii8nr»ho% 0*1'"**' °

rviUftr Bill Burns Jr.Allied Water ServicesLewes, DE 19958

pi/, Mud-RotaryBttft)

Drilling Fluid Water and BentoniteMixture

Surface CasingWell Design:Basis: Geotogic Log X Geophysical LogCasing Strings): C=Casmg S=ScreenC2 - +2 2C2 - 2 12C2 - 12 22C2 - 22 32C2 - 32 42S - 42 52

_ _. «.

rjs«mn- n Protective CAsina

ro 44 f of 2" PVC

Semen- «1 1QI of 2" PVCF 20-»ioi-;42-52'

CO

CtrtraJiTftr* Placed at the bottomand top of screen, and in themiddle of the casing.

Fittar Mal?"a< Sand-medium grade #236. 5-52 f

Cement

n«Kiw Bentonite (unhydrated)32-36.5'

Other: Bentonite Slurry (hydrated)Surface - 32'

etion SurClevetion: Ortwrx

Topol

Conetruction

TaskDrtNing:

Geopnys. Logging:Casing:

Filter Placement:Cementing:Envelopment:OtherBentonite SeaBentonite

i OS-9 t

nmaryil^Mlr iftg

Time 1Sl

0«to

11/16

11/16

.1/16

.11/1611/16

Log:•rtTim*

IJlLli

12:5^

1310

15:28

13:5!14:5<

FN

Oat*

ll/ifi:

11/16

11/16

u/n

11/1611/16

itsh

Time

1:55

13:05

13:53

16:11\

U:00 !15:00

Well Development :Development done using a suctionpump at the surface. '

Comments:

V IKTrfRXAlAJ^lLroLK

e/

<0Mefl(dr-H0>O

U.

1

•

>>ue3ooXato003

. en

i

•

- -_

,-_- —————— __ ———

„ —————————————————————————

————————————— —

—————————— — '

•" ——— —•

" —

iParauwwftl

Valdasue

Steele

1

1 i S

5

10i

15

20

25

3052

35

40

52

45

3.2•

u

IV.r

J

7

r

rfac

•—..•.i==£g_==^.—ii ••g========

•

1

••UMt bs-io

Well Constru

Drilling Summary:Total Otpm 52' ...........Borenort Ditmettf 6"

HrilUf Bill Burns Jr.Allied Water ServicesLewes, DE 19958

Pin Mud-Rotary

Drilling Fluid Water and bentonitemixture.

Surface CasingWell Design:Basis: Geologic Log XCasing Strmg<s): C=CaC2 - +2 2C2 - 2 12C2 - 12 22C2 - 22 32C2 - 32 42S - 42 52

_•

rasing: n Protect

ro 441 fo

1AT rtfC/*ffft£fi- 1 -Lv Ot42-~52 *

CO

in _ _, jGftntraiiT t ,,. riacea

Geophysical Lng im_sing S = Screen

——-—-

——— " ——— ———

.ive casing.

2" PVC

2" PVC; 20-slot;

at the bottoa andtop of screen, and in themiddle of the

Fitt6f MatofN|i 5an ~casing..nmHillin oraAo **>

35.5-53'Cemert .... , ...

Otho1' Bentonite Cunhvdrated")32-35.5'

Other: Bentonite Slurrv (hvdrated")surface-321

ctlon SuiBMtfton: doura

TopofConstruction

TaskOriHing:

Geophys. Logging:Casing:

Filter Placement:Cementing:Development:Other:Bentonite SeaBentoniteslurry

nmary <4 t-At l

Cftfting

Timelst

LUlfi

11/18

11/18

11/1811/18

Log:•rtTime

1Q-.45

13:15

1109

14:0515:10

FKDate

11/18

11/18

HAS

n/ifi11/1811/18———

tonTime

12:3Q

'-

13:25————

14:02

14:0915:13

Well Development:Development done using a suctionpump at the surface.

Comments:

wvrgn^o I & K.AR!OOl*78

1 1

•]J

- -'

Pm*eici

Sussex

County

" Locaitmm

Omar,

Delaware

<uf—01<tJ4-1oq<udareT:r-«>

H

§§a

=- - -

Su

5

10

15

20

23

25

28

30

35•

38

40

rfac*

_- _

s— ———— -=u_=

§S

IvI'S

;"V;

?

f

s

*.

w*n -os-iiWell Constru

Lflearirwi «r ftwri*-

Drilling Summary:T iruf** 38 fRnr hnl* Hiam«t«r 6"

nntar Bill Burns Jr,Allied Water ServicesLewes, DE 19958

Ri/j Mud-RotaryBit(s)

nnidnn Pimri Water and BentoniteMixture

Surface CasingWell Design:Basis: Geologic Log X Geophysical Log_Casing Stnng<s): C= Casing S= ScreenC2 - +2 8C2 - 8 18C2 - 18 28S - 28 38

*™_ __ _— * —

rasing: 0' Protective Casinz

r? 30 ! of 2" PVC

c «-«. *•• 10' of 2" PVC; 20-slot;28-38'

?

r«n#iaii7er5 Placed at the bottom andtop of screen, and in the middleof the casing.

PiHar Materai Sand-medium #223. 5-40 '

Om*nt,

Qttx*- Bentonite (unhydrated)15-23. 51

Other: Bentnnit« Slurrv ChyHrAf-pri^Surface - 15 f

iction SurEtovttbn: Qroux

Top of

Construction

TaskDrilling:

Geophys. Logging;Casing:

Filter Placement:Cementing:Development:Other:Bentonite SeaBentoniteSlurry

nrmJl*v«fdtino

iiy

Timest

Data

11/17

11/17

11/17

11/17

L I1/.111/17

Log:artTime

Il:2i

13:4:

13:5!

16:1!

7 14:;15:0(

Fii

Date

11/17

11/L

11/1;

11/1;

3 a/:11/1:

ti»h

Time

12:25

13:53

14:20

16:54

7 14:215:40

mWell Development :Development done using a suctionpump at the surface.

Comments:

f

mr————— w-VVVji>i^a55!N

nn

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS AND WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARIESLAUREL LANDFILL

flRIQQi*80

LAUREL LANDFILL

1 -™— „- _ ._-

ClientBoring Ho._ Logged ByDate LoggedDrillerComments

Depth0' - 6'6' - 9.5'

9.5' - 17'

17' - 20'

20' - 23'

23' - 36'

36' - 38'38' - 41'41' - 65'

: Sussex County Delaware: LS-8: Tom Drew: 21 MOV sit Bill Burns Jr.••

Soil Boring DescriptionFine light brown sand with trace clay.Fine sandy gray clay. Intermittent stringers offin* to coars* sand.Blu«-gray and gray clay. Trac* v*ry fin* to fin*sand.Fin* to coars* gray sand with trac* fin* grav*l.Fin* to medium gray clayey sand.Medium to coarse tan sand, iron staining.Some fine gravel.Fine to medium gray sand with trac* coarse sand.Medium to coarse red brown sand, considerable ironstaining.

n( LAUREL LANDFILL

ClientsBoring No. :Logged ByDate Logged:Driller!Comments;

Depth2' - 7'7' - 12'

12' - 20'

20' - 23'

23' - 24'

24' - 26'

26' - 34'

34' - 41'

41' - 64.5'

64.5'- 65'

65' - 95.5'

t Sussex County Delawarej LS-9: Valdasue Steele: 22 NOV ti. Bill Burns Jr.

Soil Boring DescriptionMedium sand.Light blue-gray clay with trace sand.Light blue-gray clay with stringers of fine orcoarse sand.Dark gray clay with trace sand.Coarse sand with trace clay.Coarse orange sand (iron rich) and trace clay.Coarse and medium sand, some fine sand.Coarse orange sand.Medium to coarse orange sand ( iron rich) .Difficult drilling, apparently in gravelly materialbut no gravel came our in cuttings.Medium to coarse orange sand.

'flRIOOW

LAUREL LANDFILL

i *;***;~*jclients

Boring Ho,;Logged By:Date Logged;Driller:Comments:

Depth2' - 4'4' - 5'5' - 5.5'5.5' - 10'10' - 11.5'11.5 - 15.515.5' - 18'

18' * 21.5'

21.5'-23.2523.25'- 24'

24' - 27'

27' - 29.5'

29.5 - 41.541.5 - 45.5

45.5' - 48'

48' - 52'

52' - 62'62' - 63'63' - 65'

Sussex County Delaware jL3-10Sherrerd Steele

I 30 HOV 18Bill Burns Jr.

Soil Boring DescriptionMediua sand.Light gray clay.Medium orange sand.All light gray clay, very sticky.Darker gray clay.Orange clay and coarse to mediua sand.Much less clay, more coarse to mediua sand.Large increase in light gray clayey material.Drop in clay content, back in mediua sand.Very coarse orange sand.Mediua lighter orange sand.Coarse sand with trace clay.Mediua and coarse orange and brown sand.Coarse and medium light brown or tan sand.Coarse orange sand and some mediua sand.Mediua and coarse light brown sand.Mediua to coarse brown sand.Slight pickup in dark gray clay.Mediua sand with some finer sand.

SR100U83

LAUREL LANDFILL

Client: Sussex County DelawareBoring No.: LS-11Logged By: Valdaeue SteeleDate Logged: 29 MOV »SDriller: Bill Borne Jr.Comments:

Depth2'4'

5'

5.10'11.15.

18'

21.

23.24'

27'

29.

41.

45.

48'52'62?63'66'68.70.94'

- 4'

- 5'- 5.5'5' - 10'- 11.5'

5 - 15.5

5' - 18'

- 21.5'

5'-23.25

25'- 24'

- 27'

- 29.5'

5 - 41.5

5-45.5

5' - 48'

- 52'

- 62'

- 63'

- 66'

- 68.5'

5 - 70.5

5' - 94'- 96'

Soil Boring DescriptionMedium sand.Light gray clay.Medium orange sand.All light gray clay, very sticky.Darker gray clay.Orange clay and coarse to medium sand.Much less clay, more coarse to medium sand.Large increase in light gray clayey material.Drop in clay content, back in medium sand.Very coarse orange sand.Medium lighter orange sand.Coarse sand with trace clay.Medium and coarse orange and brown sand.Coarse and medium light brown or tan sand.Coarse orange sand and some medium sand.Medium and coarse light brown sand.Medium to coarse brown sand.Slight pickup in dark gray clay.Medium sand with some finer sand.Medium to coarse sand.Medium to coarse sand with some fine sand.Medium and coarse sand, about equal fraction.Medium and coarse sand with some fine sand.

flR I 00l*8«t

LAUREL LANDFILL

I

Client:Boring No.:Logged By:Date Logged:Driller:

Comments:m*rmm. mmmmmmmm

Depth2' - 4'4' - 5'

5' - 6'6' - S'S' - 12'

12' - 20'

20' - 24'26' - 30'

30' - 34'

36' - 40'

40' - 46'

46' - SO'

50' - 51'

51' - 52'

52' - 53'53' - 62'

62' - 65'

Sussex County DelawareLS-12Sherrerd Steele02 DEC i*Bill Burns Jr.

Soil Boring DescriptionMedium to coarse sand with intermittent clay.Fine to medium yellow brown sand with light grayclay.Light gray clay with some fine sand*All clay*Clay with traces of lenses of very fine yellowbrown sand*Medium to fin© yellow brown sand with increasingcoarse fraction toward 20 feet.Coarse sand with occassional fines.All sizes yellow brown to brown sand: fine, medium,and coarse with variable traces of clay.Vary coarse sand.Medium to coarse sand, some grains cementedtogether.Medium to coarse sand some cementing and some grayclay.Medium to coarse sand, no cementing or clay.Medium to coarse sand with some clay intermixed.Medium to coarse sand, no clay.Coarse sand, some clay.Medium to coarse sand, traces of clay intermixedand decreasing amount with depth*Medium to coarse sand, no clay*

flRIOOi»85

LAUREL LANDFILL

Client: Sussex county DelawareBoring Ho.: 15-13Logged By: Sherrerd SteeleDate Logged: 01 DEC 88

Driller: Bill Burns Jr.Comments:

Depth2' -4' -

5' -6' -8' -

12' -

20' -26' -

30' -36' -

40' -

46' -

50' -51' -52' -53' -

62' -66' -87.5'90' -94' *

4'5'

6'

8'12'

20'

24'

30'

34'

40'

46'

50'

51'

52'53'62'

66'87.5'

- 89'94'100'

Soil Boring DescriptionMedium to coarse sand with intermittent clay.Fins to medium yellow brown sand with light grayclay.Light gray clay with some fine sand.All clay.Clay with traces of lenses of very fine yellowbrown sand.Medium to fine yellow brown sand with increasingcoarse fraction toward 20 feet.Coarse sand with occassional fines.All sizes yellow brown to brown sand: fine, medium,and coarse with variable traces of clay.Very coarse sand.Medium to coarse sand, some grains cementedtogether .Medium to coarse sand some cementing and some grayclay.Medium to coarse sand, no cementing or clay.Medium to coarse sand with some clay intermixed.Medium to coarse sand, no clay.Coarse sand, some clay.Medium to coarse sand, traces of clay intermixedand decreasing amount with depth.Medium to coarse sand, no clay.Fine to medium sand with some coarse fraction.Difficult drilling.Coarse sand, some medium and fine.Fine, medium and coarse yelllow brown sand.

1 "' 3

- . i

- — *-

*j -

fhMAM

Sussex

Cotintv

Irtrfftfnn

Laurel.

Delaware

I*M

SH

4

Sui

10m

20

30

40

42

_45

50

-60

rface

£55=E§5

===—

Wall Constru

Drilling Summary:

B(v*hfl(* niun*ter *_

OriNef Bill Burns Jr.

L«v«s, DE 19958Rig Mu^-Hptarvftt(*\

HnHinQ PititH Water and BentoniteMixture

Surface CasingWell Design:Basts: Geotogic tog X . Geophysical Log __Casing Stmg(s): C -Casing S=ScreenC2 - +2 0C2 . 0 10C2 - _10 20 _C2 - 20 30

C2 - 4Q SO ____ - ____ ___£ __ - 50 6f) ____ - ____ ___

f>«mn- ri Protective Casinz

r? 5?1 fif ?" Pur

ScfMfl- <;, 10' of 2" PVC: 20-slot-50-60 '

Cantrafrf* Placed at too of screenand in the middle of the casinsz.

Pia r ktef*rttl Sand-mediua grade 1245-60'

r m rt

ry r Bentonite (unhydrated)42-45'

~0f**r- H*nfn«^*-- QT.t y ^^ydrattd)surfact-42'

ctkmSurBawttton: Qnurx

TopofConstruction

TaakDhNing:

Geopnys. Logging:Casing:

Fitter Placement:Cementing:Development:Other:Bentonite SeaBentoniteSlurry

-- uF r ^nmary1 i AW rf

Catfno ———————— ^Tlmel

SI

11/21

11/21

U/ll

n/?311/2111/21

———

Log:artTim*

12:10

15:35

liitf

16:1017:20

FK

Date

11/21

11121

11/21

" -

Tuna

15:45

16;IQ

11 -Ag

16:2517:25

——•-Well Development:Development done usina a suctionpump at the surface.

Comments:

ifc~

..... ras ^N

41v.«3«p-1G1

1-ub3CQ«

1

>wC3ouX41OHw3va

iI

Parsnnrual

Valdasue Steele

3U1

10

2(r•

30

.40

-?o

L60

70

80

90

jod

-i«c«

===

-

=^

''/'/

**W

•_*,/*

r^-

p W0II Construction SummaryLaatiBAorGoardr BAUMIM- Ox*** LAW*

Drilling Summary:•fetetrwpth 8J.3*RnrAhnl* D*m*ter 6"

rviiiM- Bill Burns Jr.Allied Water ServicesLewes, DE 19958

pin Mud-Rotarvntg ——— ' " "" '•••T.iTTT' f. ,„„, i___...,__,,,,,,,, , n „._

Pttfl)

Drilling P'" Water and bentonitemixture.

Surface CasingWell Design:Basts: Geologic Log -X Geophysical Log __Casing Strings) : C = Casing S = ScreenC2 . +2 _ 3.5 S - 73.5 83.5C2 - 3.5 13.5C2 -13.5 23.5C2 - 23,5 33.5C2 - 33,5 43.5C2 - 43,5 53.? ____ - ____ ___C2 - 53,5 63.5 ____ - ____ ___C2 - 63,5 73.5Oa«mg- rri P^ot^ctlve rasing

r-> 75. 5 f of 2" PVC

c «*«. QI 101 of 2" PVC: 20-alot:73*5-83.5'

C9

CfffUraS/iK* Placed at top of screenand in the middle of the casing.

Frflftf Mftitntf SaD4-ffe(iium f rade #268-83. 5 f

Cenwot

Oth0T BfiPtnn^tp> ^unhvHrated)61-68'

Other: Bentonite Slurry (hydrated)Surface - 61 '

Top Of

Construction

TaskOn King:

Geopnys. Logging:Casing:

Filter Placement:Cementing:Development:Other:Bentonite SeaBentoniteSlurry

Cftftjny

TllMlSt

Ott*

11/2?

11/22

11/22

11/23

11/2211/22

——— .

Log:141

Time

10;4j

19:4!

20:0(

I2;lc

20:21:3!

Fir

Cfcte

11/2:

11/2;

11/22

Ll/2:

11/2;11/2;

whT«iw

19:08

19:58

20:38

12:55

_2HL5522:14

1Well Development:

Development done usine a suctionpump at the surface.

Comments:

yyittmx1001*88

1i lava re

a*-tou3

H

ciota333W

t!1

Parsrv

urtfni Sherrerd

Steele

Su

1C

_2C

30

40

>0

50

•65

rftct

s=.. >.s=*=>

rg

"..~_:i——?*v-

^

* *T»It.

>"«

W VI

Well Construction SumnuLftc ion or Owte! —————— _m ——— — ™ Pta**«ft«- AMIAH i ^i

Drilling Summary:£rt f

Arv*hrti* Diam«fAr _6"

nriH«f Bill Burtxa Jr.Allied Water ServicesLewes, DE 19958

Rig Hud-Rotar_vBft(s)

rvuiinn Rtiid Water and Bentonitemixture

Surface CasingWell Design:Basis: Geotogic Log A Geophysical LogCasing Slring(s): C=Casing S = ScreenC2 - +2 0C2 . 0 10C2 - 10 20C2 - 20 30C2 _ - 30 40C2 - 40 50S - 50 60

• •

racing: n Protective Casing

r-> 52 f of 2" PVC

Scre . «;i 10T of 2" PVC: 20 slot:50-60 f

Cflftff*ifr*r<f Placed at top of screenand in the uiddle of the casing.

PHtff Malarial Sand-medium grade #2

r^m««t

r h/M- Bentonite Cunhyd rated)40-45 '

Other: Bentonite Slurry (hvdrated)Surface - 40 '

Topo*Construction

TaskDrilling:

Geophys.Logging:Casing:

Filter Placement:Cementing:Devebpment:Other: _ _Bentonite SeaBentoniteSlurry

i i-a-iu

iry

Cm*irw

Time ISt

Otf«

11/30

11133

11/30

U/30

1113$11/30

Log:artTime

lOtlQ

13:40

13:46

16:00

14:0014:50

Ffc

Date

11/30

11/30

11/30

11/30

11/3011/30

*;litii

12:35

13:45

13:59

16:45

14:2015:10

0;Well Development:Development done using a suctionpump at the surface.

-

Comments:

J fc~""••' ' •• ^

VV/fiidBByn n i n n it Q QHit I U U *T O .?

•

^fc

^^ '1 I1

^B

- ;

^B «.*_"

-i-

J '

W

^r

PiriAri

Sussex

County

Locatnn

Laurel.

Delaware

. "

' Ptomnnoi

Valdasue

Steele

1

Stti

10.

20k

30

40

60

70

30

90

r£*c«

s- -—^ —=™=—

m

- Wftfl LS-11

Well Construction SummaryLocation or CaoRfa: £I*«iirui- AM*** i __t

Drilling Summary:TotiiO h 90f _ . ....Borthote D*m«ttf

rviH»r Bill Burn*

6"

Jr,Allied Water ServicesLewes , DE 19958

Rig Mud-Rotaryn»/f)

Orjltify} Rturi Water and BentoniteMixture

Surface CasingWell Design:Basis: Geologic LogCasing SUtngfs): C^Ca

C2 - 0 10C2 - 10 20C2 - 20 30C2 - 30 40C2 - 40 50C2 - 50 60C2 - 60 70

Geophysical Logismg S = Screen

C2 - 70 80S - 80 90

—-.

———— * ———— ———

CflS'OQ' 01 Protective Casino-

r? ?2 ' of 2" PVC

80-90 '2" PVC- 70-fllni-.

r *

f niTM P1. » ,and in viddle of

• r i-nri r»f O T-O**»caainff.

P;»AT Uatuml Sand-medium gi-ad* #2

Cement _

Othef .BgTitonite ^unhydrated)72.5 - 75'

Other: Ben ton It *surface -

.slurry fhydrat^rf^72.5

TopdConstruction

TaskDrifting:

Geophys. Logging;Casing:

Fitter Placement:Cementing:Development:Other:Bentonite SeaBentoniteSlurry

TlmelSI

11/29

11/29

11/29

l/2*i

L 11/211/29

Log:ift

Time

13:45

14:05

16:50

)15:OC15:55

FM

11/25

11/29

11/2S

11/29

11/2S.11/2.9

US*

Time

14:03

14:55

17:40

1510

Aii25

Well Development:Development done usina a suctionpump at the surface.

Comments:

!lh

IT-rii ,f —

V-1r"

Q

4]J-ia

uC

Pffw*

t .

SutsexJk

ierr*rd

Sttele

-u

(£

*

Suim

10

20

30

39

43 ,

_50

60

-65

•face

— =&-— -~s=r:

- ——S

5i?f.

-Wall tl-12

Well Constru

Drilling Summary:YUA J ** - - Art1

&yfh9lf Or"* *"

Otti+r Bill Burns Jr.Allied Water ServicesLewes, DE

Bin Mud-Rotary19958

Dfiffing Ptn*rf WaterMixutre

Surface CasingWell Design:Basis: Geologic Log_J<Casing Stnog(s): C=Cs

C2 -0 10C2 -10 20C2 -20 30Q2_-3J2 __ JtfL.C2 - 40 __ 50S -50 60

—

and Bentonite

__ Geophysical Log __ising S = Screen

. ... . ..__ _—-

——— " ——— ———

_Ca«JirM3' Cl PrQt§Ctive Ca^inff

r* 52f of

*Vni«n- i 101 of50-60 '

2" PVC

2" PVC; ^n-alrtfj

CwMra Ttff Placed at too of screenand in the middle of' thecasing.

Fifter Material Sand-m tijii grade £243.5-65'

r.*m*rt*

< Mf Beptonite Ctinhvdrated^39. 5-43. 5 '

Oth«r: Bentonite Slurry (hydrated)Surface - 39. 5 f

ctionSurSection: Gaum

Top of

Construction

TaskOriftng:

Geophys. Logging:Casing:

Fitter Placement:Cementing:Development:Other:Bentonite SealentoniteSlurry

nmary11 *^kir-» vi ^

Time!St

Otte

12/2

12/2———

12/2

12/2

L 12/:12/2

Log:art

Time

12:2(

12:40

17:27

13:0714:15

Rf

Date

12/2

12/2

12/2

12/2

12/212/2

**h

11:45

12:30

13:05

18:05

13:1515:45

eWell Development :Development done using a suctionpump at the surface.

Comments:

vvi&nsss&yn , . U-AA atK

•• e •

• • e'^

Pmiart

Sussex

County

Lucatnn

Laurel,

Delaware

Par*™*!

Sherrerd S

teele

I

Sui•

1<

2(

30

40

50

60

7071

75

80

90

10(

rface

= —:—;••=——— £

==

•* »iT"' *i~

« • •*"

*_** *" 1r " •/-

B-JPJI»»Bjfl

Well Constru

Drilling Summary:ToUOaplh -241 ——— „*nBnr*hnl* OfeMter O

rviter Bill Burn*. Jr_^_Allied Water ServicesLeves. DE 19958

QM Hud-Rotary8«<s)

DriHinQ Plutd Water and BentoniteMixture

Surface Casing ,._,...Well Design:Basis: Geotogic Log _ < — Geophysical LogCasing Strings): C= Casing S=Screen_£2_ - ±2 _ -JL- -£2— - -Ifl _ . O_C2 - 0 10 S - 80 90C2 - 10 20 -C2 - 20 30C2 - 30 40C2 - 40 50 ____ - ____ ___C2 - 50 60C2 - 60 70CaS'"0' C1 Protective Casing

ro 82' of 2" PVC

e~— «• ci 10f of 2" PVC: 20-alot:flfi_on*Ov™5v

s?

ContraiTIW* Placed at the rr»j» of th«screen and in the middle of thecasing.

Ftttflf Matftrifl1 M.SfllV*-™*' 1"11 g-r-a^* *'

Cemeot ———————————————————

Otrw Bentonite (unhvdratedl71-76'

Other: Bentonite Slurrv (hvdratedVSurface - 71 '

_

ctionSurBeaten: Q«un<

Top ofConstruction

TaskOnling:

Gaophys.U»ggtf>g:Casing:

Fitter Placement:Cementing:Development:Otner:tentontie SealBentoniteSlurry

v-VV% j, T Jt— 1 1i

nmaryilMttl

Casing ____ , _______

Time)SI

0**

12/1

LiZL

i?/i

12/2

12/112/2

Log:irtTmt

10:50

Uiifi

14:4

IlH

15:3(14:1!

Fir

Data

12/1

\2LL-

l?/T .

uZE12/112/2

>rth

Tima

13:20

14:4

1S;7S

15:4515:45

Well Development :Development done usinz a suctionpump at the surface.

Comments:

vrgflFt%_jV_*l_ ^ v iU iHxftRiOOi*92

ATTACHMENT "A"

HELL REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE FOR EXISTING

WELLS IN "NO WELL" ZONE

flRIQQl*93

WELL REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE

The submitted schedule allows for all existing wells in the "NoWell" zone and located in the unconfined aquifer to be replacedwithin five years of the State of Delaware Department of NaturalResources and Environmental Control's (DNREC) approval of thissubmittal. It is anticipated that central water systems will beimplemented for the Bridgeville, Laurel, Anderson Crossroads andAngola Groundwater Management Zones (GMZs) to serve as therequired alternative water supply source. There are no existingwells located in the Stockley "No Well" zone, so an alternativesource is not currently required. Also, the well inventory forthe Laurel and Omar GMZs may now be surveyed with the completionof the GMZs contained in Attachment "C*. Preliminary review ofthese GMZs indicate that there may be no existing wells in theOmar."No Well" zone, while it is likely that an alternative watersupply source will be required for Laurel, as noted above*

The time frame referenced in the replacement schedule allows foran evaluation period to determine the best alternative watersupply source. For example, even though central water isanticipated for the Bridgeville GMZ, items such as well location,franchise rights, method of connection to existing well owners,expansion possibilities, etc. will all have to be addressed. Byway of this writing, Sussex County pledges to coordinate theseactivities with the DNREC*

1001*95

ATTACHMENT "B"

NOTICE OF GROUNDWATER

MANAGEMENT ZONE

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONE NOTICE

Sussex County will record the attached document for each parcellocated in a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). When a propertitle search is performed, potential buyers will be informed ofthe well restrictions which may apply to the particular parcel.The County also intends to mail a similar notice to currentproperty owners. Additional consideration is being given to amethod of educating local realtors.

NOTICE OF GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE

TO BE INDEXED AS GRANTOR

SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL, Sussex County Courthouse, . Georgetown,Delaware, ,\.v,

TO BE INDEXED AS GRANTEE

PROPERTY:

WHEREAS, Grantor is the record title holder .of theabove described property; and

WHEREAS, on August 9, 1988, Grantee and the State ofDelaware Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalControl entered into a document entitled, "Memorandum ofUnderstanding between Sussex County and the State of DelawareDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control", saiddocument being of record in Deed Book ____, Page ____, in theOffice of the Recorder of-Deeds, Sussex County, Delaware; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to said Memorandum of Understanding,certain areas in Sussex County have been delineated as groundwater management zones, based on their proximity to solid wastelandfill sites j and

WHEREAS, the above described property is located insuch a ground water management zone; and

WHEREAS, the said Memorandum of Understanding placescertain regulations on ground water withdrawal rates and welldesigns for properties located within a ground water managementzone; and

WHEREAS, the Sussex County Engineering Department maybe contacted for information pertaining to said regulations onground water withdrawal rates and well designs for propertieslocated within a ground water management zone;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantee hereto, by and through theundersigned does hereby cause this notice of ground watermanagement zone to be put of record to confirm to all the worldof the existence of -the August 9, 1988, Memorandum ofUnderstanding, between Sussex County and the State of DelawareDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and ofthe ground water withdrawal rate regulations and well designregulations that are contained therein.

William D. Stevenson, Sr.President, Sussex County Council

STATE OF DELAWARE :: SS,

COUNTY OF SUSSEX :

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this _________________ day of

____________________, A.D. 198.9, personally came before

me , the Subscriber, a Notary Public for the State and County

aforesaid, William D. Stevenson, Sr. , President, Sussex County

Council, party to this indenture, known to me personally to be

such, and does acknowledge the foregoing facts to be true and

correct .

GIVEN under my Hand and Seal of office the day and year

aforesaid.

Notary Public

flRiOOU99

ATTACHMENT "C-

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ZONES FORLAUREL AND OMAR LANDFILL SITES

f l R i O O S O O