HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume

EPA ID No.: MDD985366756

Contact Persons

Site Investigation: Arthur O’Connell

 Chief, Brownfields/Superfund Division

 Maryland Department of the Environment

 1800 Washington Boulevard

 Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1719

 (410) 537-3493

 aoconnell@mde.state.md.us 

HRS Documentation Record: Lorie Baker

 NPL Coordinator/Site Assessment Manager 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 1650 Arch Street

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

 (215) 814-3355

 Lorie.Baker@epa.gov

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

The Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume site is being evaluated as an area of ground water contamination 

with unknown sources. Preliminary scores for the surface water migration, air migration, and soil exposure 

pathways indicated minimal contribution of these to the overall site score; therefore, these pathways have not 

been included in this HRS documentation record. The surface water migration pathway ground water to 

surface water component score was low due to the lack of hazardous substances with high bioaccumulation 

factor values. Additionally, an overland runoff pathway likely does not exist. The lack of documented 

observed contamination and resident targets limit the soil exposure pathway scores. No observed release to the 

air has been documented within a 4-mile radius of the ground water plume.

Surface Water Overland Migration Pathway

The surface water pathway was not scored. The ground water pathway was sufficient to list the site.

Soil Exposure Pathway

The soil exposure pathway was not scored. The ground water pathway was sufficient to list the site.

Air Migration Pathway

The air migration pathway was not scored. The ground water pathway was sufficient to list the site.
GEN-1 

HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume Date Prepared: October 2010

EPA Region: 3 

Street Address of Site*: The Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume site is located northeast of the 

intersection of Maryland Route 545 and Maryland Route 279 (Elkton Road) in 

Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland, as shown in Reference 3.

City, County, State, Zip Code: Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland 21921

General Location in the State: Northeast corner of Maryland 

Topographic Map: Elkton, Maryland 

Latitude: 39.612007 North Longitude: -75.844474 West (Ref. 3; Ref. 4; Ref. 5)

The latitude and longitude were measured at the northwest corner of the building shown in Reference 4. 

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record 

identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of 

the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national 

priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the 

release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been 

"deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located." Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent 

listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Accordingly, EPA 

contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as 

more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located.

Air Pathway Not scored

Scores

Ground Water Pathway 100

Soil Exposure Pathway Not scored

Surface Water Pathway Not scored

HRS SITE SCORE: 50.00

 
GEN-2 

WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

 S S2 

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) 100 10,000 

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component

(from Table 4-1, line 30)

Not Scored 

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component

(from Table 4-25, line 28)

Not Scored 

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw

Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

) Not Scored 

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss

(from Table 5-1, line 22)

) Not Scored 

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa

(from Table 6-1, line 12)

) Not Scored 

5. Total of Sgw

2 + Ssw2 + Ss2 + Sa

2 100

6. HRS Site Score 

Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root

50.00
GEN-3 

HRS Table 3-1 –Ground Water Migration Pathway Scoresheet

Factor Categories and Factors

Maximum

Value

Value

Assigned

Likelihood of Release to an Aquifer:

1. Observed Release 550 550

2. Potential to Release:

 2a. Containment 10 

 2b. Net Precipitation 10 

 2c. Depth to Aquifer 5 

 2d. Travel Time 35 

 2e. Potential to Release [lines 2a x (2b + 2c + 2d)] 500 

3. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 2e) 550 550

Waste Characteristics:

4. Toxicity/Mobility (a) 10,000

5. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 10,000 

6. Waste Characteristics 100 100

Targets:

7. Nearest Well 50 9

8. Population:

 8a. Level I Concentrations (b) 

 8b. Level II Concentrations (b) 

 8c. Potential Contamination (b) 209

 8d. Population (lines 8a + 8b + 8c) (b) 209

9. Resources 5 5

10. Wellhead Protection Area 20 5

11. Targets (lines 7 + 8d + 9 + 10) (b) 228

Ground Water Migration Score For An Aquifer:

12. Aquifer Score c [(lines 3 x 6 x 11)/82,500] 100 100

Ground Water Migration Pathway Score:

13.

 

Pathway Score (Sgw), c (highest value from line 12 for all aquifers evaluated)

100 100

a.

b.

c.

Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category.

Maximum value not applicable.

Do not round to nearest integer.
GEN-4 

REFERENCES

Ref.

No. Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA). Hazard Ranking System (HRS): Final Rule. 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 300; Federal Register, Volume 55, No. 

241. On-Line Address: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#HRS%20Rule

December 14, 1990. 138 pages. 

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. (Note: A complete copy of SCDM is available at OnLine Address: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm.) Excerpt 16 pages. 

 

3. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech). Ground Water Plume, Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. Site 

Location Map. October 22, 2009. 1 page. 

4. Tetra Tech EM Inc. Project Note for the Dwyer Property. Subject Latitude and Longitude of the 

Dwyer Property using Google Earth©

5. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS). Topographic Map for 

Elkton, Maryland. 1992. 1 sheet. 

. May 17, 2010. 1 page. 

6. EPA. Safe Drinking Water Information System for Cecil County. Accessed on January 22, 2010. 

On-Line Address: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html. 9 pages. 

7. Tetra Tech. 4-Mile Radius Map. May 18, 2010. 1 sheet. 

8. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Expanded Site Inspection for the Dwyer 

Property (MD-313), Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. January 2001. 58 pages. 

9. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation. Between Alicia Shultz, Tetra Tech, HRS 

Specialist, and Kim Kamp, Town of Elkton. November 5, 2009. 1 page. 

10. Tetra Tech. Population Served by the Town of Elkton Wells. January 22, 2010. 1 page. 

11. MDE. Application for Permit to Drill Well. Town of Elkton. 1979 and 1980. 4 pages. 

12. American Fact Finder. Population Data for Cecil County, Maryland. Accessed on January 22, 

2010. 1 page. On-Line Address: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_st

reet=&_county=cecil&_cityTown=cecil&_state=04000US24&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=

fph&pgsl=010. 

13. Tetra Tech Inc. Final Remedial Investigation Report. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study. Volume 1 of 2. Dwyer Site (MD 313), Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland (includes full 

copies of several reports as Appendices). August 2005. 510 pages. 

14. MDE. Site Investigation, Dwyer Property, MD-313, Routes 279 and 545, Elkton, Cecil County, 

Maryland. November 2002. 196 pages. 
GEN-5 

15. MDE. A Screening Site Inspection of Dwyer Property, Elkton, Maryland (MD-313), Final Report, 

December 1989. 69 pages. 

16. MDE. A Preliminary Assessment of Dwyer Property, Elkton, Maryland (MD-313). Final Report. 

March.1989. 30 pages. 

17. Little Elk Creek Reuse Committee. Area-Wide One Cleanup Program Pilot Project. May 2006. 

107 pages. 

18. Tetra Tech. Potential Sources of Contamination. March 10, 2010. 1 page. 

19. Town of Elkton. 2008 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report, Town of Elkton, Cecil County, 

Maryland. 2008. 5 pages. 

20. Forest Green Court. Water Quality Report for 2007, Forest Green Court. April 1, 2008. 2 pages. 

21. MDE. Community Supply Wells. January 22, 2010. 1 page. 

22. Tetra Tech. Record of Conversation. Between David Black, Cecil County Department of 

Planning and Zoning, Geographic Information System (GIS) Coordinator and Alicia Shultz, HRS 

Specialist. October 10, 2009. 1 page. 

23. Town and County Mobile Home Park. Annual Drinking Water Quality Report. 2009. 2 pages. 

24. Forest View Village and Sherwood Forest Mobile Home Park. Annual Drinking Water Quality 

Report. June 23, 2009. 4 pages. 

25. MDE. Wellhead Protection. Accessed on January 22, 2010. 1 page. On-Line Address: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Water_Supply/sourcewaterassessment/well

head.asp. 

26. TechLaw, Inc. Final Report, Site Operations/Ownership History, Cecil Industrial Park Site, 

Elkton, Maryland (Formerly Triumph Explosives, Inc., Site). Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Contract No. DACA45-89-D-0512. September 1, 1992. 48 pages. 

27. Chesapeake GeoSciences, Inc. (CGS). Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Well Data. 

MDE-LRP-Dwyer Property. November 17, 2009. 9 pages. 

28. Tetra Tech. Aerial Photograph of the Area Surrounding Maryland Route 279 and Route 545. 

March 2, 2010. 1 sheet. 

29. CGS. Dwyer Property and Extension, Blue Ball, Elkton and Singerly Roads, Elkton, Maryland. 

Figure 1, MIP Boring and Monitoring Well Location Map. September 2009. 1 sheet. 

30. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for 

Trichloroethylene. September 1997. Excerpt 9 pages (original page numbers referenced). 

(Document available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp19.pdf). 

31. Kueper, Bernard H. and Kathyrn L. Davies. EPA. Ground Water Issue, Assessment and 

Delineation of DNAPL Source Zones at Hazardous Waste Sites. September 2009. 20 pages. 
GEN-6 

32. Tetra Tech. Record of Conversation. Between Alicia Shultz, HRS Specialist, and Phill Anderson, 

MDE, Dwyer Property Project Manager. October 8, 2009. 1 page. 

33. Buddemeier, R.W. and J.A. Schloss. Ground Water Storage and Flow. November 21, 2000. 3 

pages. (excerpt from Schloss, J.A., Buddemeier, R.W., and Wilson, B.B., An Atlas of the Kansas 

High Plains Aquifer, Kansas Geological Survey, Educational Series No. 14, 2000, 92 pages, 

available at: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/HighPlains/atlas/apgengw.htm). 

34. Buddemeier, R.W. and J.A. Schloss. Saturated Thickness – Concepts and Measurements. 

November 9, 2000. 2 pages. (excerpt from Schloss, J.A., Buddemeier, R.W., and Wilson, B.B., 

An Atlas of the Kansas High Plains Aquifer, Kansas Geological Survey, Educational Series No. 

14, 2000, 92 pages available at http://www.kgs.ku.edu/HighPlains/atlas/apst.htm). 

35. Tetra Tech. Mean Water Column Deep Monitoring Wells. May 12, 2010. 1 page. 

36. McFarland, E. Randolph and Bruce, T. Scott. The Virginia Coast Plain Hydrogeologic 

Framework. Professional Paper 1731. 2006. Excerpt 3 pages. (document available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/2006/1731/pp1731_download.htm). 

37. American Society for Testing and Materials. Unified Soil Classification System. 1985. 1 page.

38. Tetra Tech. Mean Water Column for Shallow Ground Water. May 12, 2010. 1 page.

39. Tetra Tech. The Area of the Shallow and Deep Ground Water Plumes, Elkton, Cecil County, 

Maryland. May 11, 2010. 1 page. 

40. Michael Baker Corp., Inc. 100% Design Report for Operable Unit 3, Groundwater Interceptor 

Trench, Maryland Sand, Gravel and Stone Site, Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. December 2006. 

Excerpt 3 pages. 

41. MDE. Voluntary Cleanup/Brownfields Division. VICON PROPERTY, Route 213 and Dogwood 

Road, Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. Fact Sheet. Not dated. 2 pages. 

42. EPA. Mid-Atlantic Superfund Current Facility Information Database for Sand, Gravel, and Stone. 

Accessed on January 7, 2010. 3 pages. On-Line Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/MDD980705164.htm. 

43. Tetra Tech. Record of Conversation. Between Alicia Shultz, HRS Specialist and Phill Anderson, 

MDE, Dwyer Property Project Manager Regarding Wellhead Protection Areas. October 10, 2009. 

2 pages. 

44. Office of Cecil County, Economic Development. Agriculture. Accessed on March 1, 2010. 1 

page. On-Line Address: http://www.cecilbusiness.org/business_agriculture.cfm. 

45. CGS. Work Plans for Groundwater Gauging, Groundwater Sampling, Monitoring Well 

Installation, Surveying, Clearing, Disposal of Investigative Derived Waste, and Source 

Identification. Dated: December 8, 2006 (file CG-P06-0283 Work Plan #6); August 21, 2007 

(file CG-P07-0407 Work Plan #9); October 15, 2008 (file CG-P08-0527R Work Plan #12); 

February 5, 2009 (file CG-P09-0581 Work Plan #16); June 10, 2009 (file CG-P09-0646R Work 

Plan #18); June 24, 2009 (file CG-P09-0666 Work Plan #19). 43 pages. 
GEN-7 

46. CGS. Dwyer Property, CGS Project No. CG-06-0109. Well Gauging, Purging, and Sampling. 

April 2009. 71 pages. 

47. Maryland Geological Survey. Bulletin 34, Water Resources and Estimated Effects of Groundwater Development, Cecily County, Maryland. 1988. Bound Report. 

48. Maryland Geological Survey. Geologic Map of Cecil County, Maryland. 1986. 1 sheet. 

49. USGS. The Regional Aquifer System Underlying the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain in Parts of 

North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York – Summary. USGS 

Professional Paper 1404-A. 1992. Bound Report. 

50. Driscoll, Fletcher, G. Groundwater and Wells. Second Edition. 1986. Excerpt 5 pages. 

51. Envirosystems, Inc. Analytical Data Package for samples Received April 15, 2009, Dwyer 

Property, Report No. R0905039. April 15, 2009. 42 pages. 

52. EPA. Method 8260B, Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS). December 1996. 9 pages. On-Line Address: 

http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/8260b.pdf 

53. Envirosystems, Inc. Analytical Data Package for Samples Received April 22, 2009, MDE – LRP 

Dwyer Property, Report No. R0905047. April 22, 2009. 72 pages. 

54. Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis, Final Report, Laboratory Order ID 

09090603. December 4, 2009. 27 pages. 

55. Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis, Final Report, Laboratory Order ID 

09090472. December 4, 2009. 32 pages. 

56. Envirosystems, Inc. Analytical Data Package for Samples Received April 17, 2009, Dwyer 

Property, Report No. R0905046. April 17, 2009. 43 pages.

57. Envirosystems, Inc. Analytical Data Package for Samples Received April 28, 2009, Dwyer 

Property, Report No. R0905045. April 28, 2009. 58 pages.

58. Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis, Final Report, Laboratory Order ID 

09090045. December 4, 2009. 17 pages.

59. Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis, Final Report, Laboratory Order ID 

09090105. December 4, 2009. 24 pages. 

60. Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis, Final Report, Laboratory Order ID 

09090178. December 4, 2009. 18 pages. 

61. Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories, Inc. Certificate of Analysis, Final Report, Laboratory Order ID 

09090194. December 4, 2009. 27 pages.

62. CGS. Ground Water Contour Map – Perched Monitoring Wells. September 14, 2009. 1 sheet. 
GEN-8 

63. CGS. Ground Water Contour Map – Shallow Monitoring Wells. September 14, 2009. 1 sheet. 

 

64. CGS. Ground Water Contour Map – Deep Monitoring Wells. September 14, 2009. 1 sheet. 

65. CGS. TCE Isoconcentration Map – Perched Monitoring Wells. September 2009. 1 sheet. 

66. CGS. TCE Isoconcentration Map – Shallow Monitoring Wells. April 2009. 1 sheet. 

67. CGS. TCE Isoconcentration Map – Deep Monitoring Wells. April 2009. 1 sheet. 

68. Envirosystems, Inc. MDL Study: LOW SOM1.2, Matrix Water. August 15, 2008. 2 pages. 

69. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation Between Alicia Shultz, HRS Specialist and Emile 

Shaw, Quality Assurance Officer, Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories. February 22, 2009. 1 page. 

70. Maryland Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration. A Preliminary Assessment of 

Central Chemical Corporation Elkton, Maryland. MD-325. November 1989. 49 pages.

71. CGS. Expanded Remedial Investigation, Dwyer Property, MD-313, Routes 279 and 545, Elkton, 

Cecil County, Maryland. March 2010. Excerpt. 101 pages. 

72. Maryland Geological Survey. Hydrogeology of the Upper Chesapeake Bay Area, Maryland, with 

Emphasis on Aquifersin the Potomac Group. Report of Investigations No. 39. 1984. Bound Report.

73. MDE. Waste Management Administration. Focused Site Inspection of the National Fireworks Site 

Elkton, Maryland. (MD-386) Final Report, Volume I. September 1994. 66 pages. 

74. Baloochestani, Farshad. Estimation of Hydraulic Properties of the Shallow Aquifer System for 

Selected Basins in the Blue Ridge and the Piedmont Physiographic Provinces of the Southeastern 

U.S. Using Streamflow Recession and Baseflow Data. Georgia State University College of Art 

and Sciences Doctoral Dissertation. 2008. Excerpt 2 pages. 

75. Gonthier, Gerald J. and Gregory C. Mayer. “Slug-Test Results from a Well Completed in 

Fractured Crystalline Rock, U.S. Air Force Plant 6, Marietta, Georgia.” Proceedings of the 2003 

Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 23-24, 2003. 4 pages. 

76. MDE, Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration. A Preliminary Assessment of 

National Fireworks Site Elkton, Maryland (MD-386). January 1990. 50 pages.

77. Martel Laboratories Inc. ATK Tactical Systems Comp. LLC Final Lab Report. April 15, 2009. 

7 pages.

78. Atlantic Coast Laboratories, Inc. Report of Analysis Alliant Techsystems, Inc. April 2, 2009. 

33 pages.

79. Martel Laboratories Inc. ATK Tactical Systems Comp. LLC Final Lab Report. September 8, 2009. 

7 pages.

80. Atlantic Coast Laboratories, Inc. Report of Analysis Alliant Techsystems, Inc. September 14, 2009. 

38 pages.
GEN-9 

81. Advanced Land and Water, Inc. Groundwater Supply Exploration and Development, Municipal 

Well No. 4, Town of Elkton, Cecily County, Maryland. ALWI Project No. CE1E141. October 

23, 2009. 13 pages. 

82. Envirosystems, Inc. Analytical Data Package, For Samples Received April 24, 2009, MDE – LRP 

Dwyer Property, Report No. 0905048. April 24, 2009. 48 pages.

83. Tetra Tech. Ground Water Plume, Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. Site Layout Map. November 

6, 2009. 1 page. 

84. Columbia Technologies, LLC. Subsurface Characterization Using Membrane Interface (MIP) and 

Soil Conductivity (SC) Technologies, Dwyer Property MD-313, Elkton, Maryland. September 24, 

2009. Excerpt 53 pages. 

85. Tetra Tech. Dwyer Ground Water Plume Volume Calculations. Project Note Prepared by Jordan 

Vaughn, Geologist. May 12, 2010. 7 pages. 

86. MDE. W.L. Gore (Left Bank) Site (MDE-303), Elkton, Maryland. Undated. On-Line Address: 

http://www.mde.maryland.gov/assets/document/brownfields/WLGore.pdf. 2 pages. 

87. Maryland Geological Survey. “The Geology of Cecil County, Maryland.” Bulletin 37. 1990. 

Bound Report. 

88. USGS. “Hydrogeologic Framework of the Coastal Plain of Maryland, Delaware, and the District 

of Columbia.” USGS Professional Paper 1404-E. January 1, 1991. Bound Report. 

89. MDE. Water for Maryland’s Future: What We Must Do Today. Final Report of the Advisory 

Committee on the Management and Protection of the State’s Water Resources. Volume 2: 

Appendices. July 1, 2008. Excerpt 2 pages. (Document available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Water/wolman_fullreport.asp). 

90. MDE (MDE). Well Construction Logs, Appendices E, I, J, L, O, R, and U. 2007-2009. 274 

pages. 

91. Tetra Tech. Record of Telephone Conversation Between Alicia Shultz, HRS Specialist and Gary 

Schold, MDE, Voluntary Cleanup Program, Project Manager. Regarding Vicon Property. 

October 30, 2009. 1 page. 

92. MDE. Home Well Questionnaire for RW-1 and RW-2. Undated. 17 pages.

93. Martel Laboratories Inc. ATK Tactical Systems Comp. LLC Final Lab Report. January 11, 2010. 37 

pages.

94. Atlantic Coast Laboratories, Inc. Report of Analysis Alliant Techsystems, Inc. December 17, 2009. 

36 pages.

95. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Phase I: Task 1 Report – History of Land, TCE/Solvent, and Ground-Water 

Use On and Near the Morton Thiokol, Inc., Elkton Division Facility, Elkton, Maryland. 

August 12, 1987. 43 pages.
GEN-10

96. MDE. Waste Management Administration. Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection of New Jersey 

Fireworks. March 2001. 40 pages.

97. MDE. Waste Management Administration. Expanded Site Inspection of the Route 7 Chemical Dump 

(MD-75)/New Jersey Fireworks Site. May 2005. 47 pages.

98. Maryland Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration. A Preliminary Assessment of 

Iron Hill Road Site Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland, MD-254, Final Report. October 1998. 12 pages.

99. EPA. Approval by Edwin Erickson of a Removal Action Elkton Farm Site, Elkton, Cecil County, 

Maryland. January 15, 1992. 8 pages.

100. MDE. Waste Management Administration. Environmental Response and Restoration Program. Site 

Assessment Division. Preliminary Assessment of the Elkton Farm (MD-433). September 1993. 28 

pages. (pages 11 and 12 are missing from the original report). 

101. MDE. Waste Management Administration. Formerly Used Defense Site Inspection of the Elkton 

Farm Firehole (MD-433). November 2003. 26 pages.

102. Reference Reserved. 

103. MDE. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration. A Screening Site Inspection of 

Crouse Brothers Excavating, Elkton, Maryland (MD-314) Volume I. September 1990. 40 pages.

104. Little Creek Reuse Committee. The Little Elk Creek, Maryland, Area Wide One-Cleanup 

Program Pilot. January 12, 2004. 1 sheet. 

105. CGS. Monitoring Well Sample Collection Forms. Various Dates including September 1, 3, 4, 8, 

9, 2009, and August 31, 2009. 48 pages. 

106. CGS. Monitoring Well Sample Collection Form. Various Dates including September 21 through 

25, 2009. 29 pages.

107. Johnson, A.I. “Specific Yield – Compilation of Specific Yield for Various Materials.” USGS

Water-Supply Paper 1662-D. 1967. 2 pages. 

108. Tetra Tech. Letter Regarding Dwyer Property, Data Quality Reports with Appendices. From Josh

Cope, Chemist. To Lorie Baker, Site Assessment Manager, EPA. March 22, 2010. 197 pages. 

109. EPA Evaluating Ground Water Plumes Under the Hazard Ranking System. EPA-540/F-95/034. 

September 1998. 5 pages. 

110. Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park. Annual Drinking Water Quality Report. 2009. 2 pages. 
GEN-11

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume site is located north of the intersection of Maryland Route 545 

(Blue Ball Road) and Maryland Route 279 (Elkton Road) in Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland, as shown in 

Reference 39 and Figure 1. The ground water plume underlies a property known as the Dwyer Property. 

The location of the Dwyer Property is shown in Reference 3. The Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume is 

located in the area of a former explosive devices manufacturing facility (Ref. 3; Ref. 13, p. 9; Ref. 28; Ref. 

83; Ref. 104). The explosive facility was operated by Triumph Explosives, which manufactured products 

for the military. The explosives facility encompassed over 180 acres that included the Dwyer Property 

(Ref. 26, pp. 2c, 12). The extent of the explosives facility is illustrated in Reference 104 and Figure 1 of 

the HRS documentation record. 

Land use adjacent to the ground water plume is residential and commercial to the north and east; 

commercial, industrial, and agricultural to the south; and industrial to the west. Dogwood Run flows to the 

southwest along the western portion of the Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume facility property into 

Little Elk Creek. An apartment complex (Rudy Park Development) is located adjacent and southeast of the 

Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume (Ref. 3; Ref. 13, p. 9; Ref. 28; Ref. 39; Ref. 83). 

The site encompasses a trichloroethylene (TCE) ground water plume. A specific source of the TCE 

ground water plume has not been identified (Ref. 13, p. 46; Ref. 71, p. 48). The TCE ground water plume 

was initially identified by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) during the following 

investigations: a preliminary assessment (PA) in March 1989 (Ref. 16, pp. 1, 17); a screening site 

inspection (SSI) in February 1989 (Ref. 15, pp. 1, 19); an expanded site inspection (ESI) in April 2000 

(Ref. 8, pp. 3, 10); and a site inspection (SI) in April 2002 (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 7). To identify the source of the 

ground water plume, MDE or MDE contractors conducted a passive soil-gas investigation, test pit 

investigations, membrane interface probe (MIP) surveys, direct-push soil boring investigations, ground

water sampling, and a soil vapor investigation (Ref. 13, p. 7; Appendix B-2, p. 209; Appendix C, pp. 220, 

223; Ref. 84, pp. 1, 4). None of these investigations identified the original source of the plume (Ref. 13, 

pp. 28, 46). In response, MDE contactors conducted a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) 

in June 2004 (Ref. 13, pp. 7, 23, 46). The MDE RI/FS included a review of the earlier investigations and 

additional sampling in an attempt to delineate the plume and source of the plume (Ref. 13, pp. 1, 7, 8, 9, 

46). The RI/FS did not identify the source of the plume (Ref. 13, p. 46). MDE contractors completed an 

expanded remedial investigation (ERI) in March 2010 (Ref. 71, p.1). The ERI did not identify the source 

of the plume (Ref. 71, p. 48). Summaries of the investigations completed to identify the source of the 

ground water plume are provided later in this section. 

Historic Land Use of the Dwyer Property and Surrounding Area

In 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) environmental consultant conducted investigations 

of operations and ownership of the Cecil Industrial Park (Formerly Triumph Explosives, Inc.) in Elkton, 

Maryland, which includes the location of the Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume. The USACE report 

(Reference 26) documenting operations previously conducted at the property describes historic land uses in 

the area of the ground water plume (Ref. 26, p. 10). The Triumph Fusee and Fireworks plant 

manufactured fireworks and fusees (similar to roadside flares) on a 5-acre plot of land on the east side of 

Blue Ball Road (later identified as the Dwyer Property) from 1933 until 1935 (Ref. 26, p. 10; Ref. 7; Ref. 

18; Ref. 39). Materials used by Triumph Fusee and Fireworks in the manufacture of fireworks and fusees 

included powdered metals, perchlorate, chlorate mixes, barium nitrate, charcoal, sulfur, sulfur mixes, 

saltpeter, carbon tetrachloride, hexachlorobenzene, alcohol, picric acid, stearine, dextrine, and potassium 

perchlorate (Ref. 26, pp. 10, 11). 
... .. - - - Feet 

Deep monitoring well 

Shallow monitoring yvell 

Deep ground water plume 

CJ Shallow grolmd water plume 

Source: Modified from DigitalGlobe aerial photography, October I, 2006. Well locations from Reference 29, "Figure I, MIP Boring and Monitoring Well 

Location Map - September 2009, CGS, October 13, 2009. 

Note: Area ofthe polygon "Area between shallow wells" is 80.52 acres (3,507,424 square feet). Area ofthe polygon "Area between deep wells" is 18.80 acres 

(818,922 square feet). Areas calculated using the XTools Pro extension on ArcGIS v9.3 (Build 1850), www.A100Ispro.com. 

Some shallow and deep observed release wells are in clusters (at the same location). The shallow well identification appears first, followed by the deep welL 

Only wells that meet the observed release criteria appear on this figure. 

Approximate Site Location = • 

Maryland 

Ground Water Plume 

Elkton, Cecil COlUlty, Maryland 

Figure 1 

The Area of the Shallow and Deep Ground Water Plumes 

TDD No. E43-030-09-1O-00 1 Map created on May 11 , 2010 

EPA Contract No. EP-S3-05-02 by D. Call, Tetra Tech EM Inc. 
GEN-13

In 1935, Triumph Fusee and Fireworks entered into a contract with the U.S. Navy to produce floatlights. 

A floatlight is a device used both as a marker and a device to judge wind direction over water. All 

production was performed on the east side of Blue Ball Road. Triumph Fusee and Fireworks was a 

prototypical “backyard operation.” The workers at the plant consisted mainly of two families. The 

production area consisted of small one-room buildings (Ref. 26, p. 11). 

In 1938, Triumph Fusee and Fireworks began to perform contract work for the U.S. Army in response to 

the needs of a growing defense industry. On April 18, 1938, Triumph Fusee and Fireworks changed its 

name to Triumph Explosives. The new purpose of the company was to produce naval, military, and 

aeronautical pyrotechnics and signal devices, commercial explosives, shells, projectiles, bombs, grenades, 

fuses, and other forms of naval, military, and aeronautical munitions. A research laboratory and 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) melt-pour system was added to the operations (Ref. 26, p. 11). Triumph Explosives 

reportedly manufactured 81 millimeter (mm) mortar shells (Ref. 26, p. 11), anti-tank mines, ordnance, and 

pentolite (Ref. 26, p. 12). Pentolite contains a mixture of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (P.E.T.N.) and TNT 

(Ref. 26, p. 16). 

Triumph Explosives operated on both the east and west sides of Blue Ball Road. Documentation refers to 

the west side as the Navy side and the east side as the Army side because the west side was used to 

manufacture products for the Navy and the east side was used to manufacture products for the Army (Ref. 

26, pp. 12, 14). The Army side was also referred to as the Incendiary or the Pyrotechnics Area (Ref. 26, 

pp. 12, 13). The relationship between the two sides is not explained in site documentation. Approximately

12,000 persons operated at the two plants between approximately 1941 and 1946 (Ref. 26, pp. 12, 13, 18, 

20, 21). 

According to one of Triumph Explosives’ employees, all wastes were disposed of in an area known as the 

firehole, including wastes from the Army and Navy sides of the plant (Ref. 26, p. 17). The firehole was a 

pit several feet deep and very broad located about 2 miles from the plant, near Zeitler Road. The exact 

location of the firehole has not been identified (Ref. 26, p. 17). The waste included fireworks chemicals 

that could no longer be used, such as barium nitrate, perchlorate, chlorate mixes, and sulfur mixes. 

According to a Triumph News Topics article, there were two colors for waste disposal drums at Triumph 

Explosives. Red drums were for explosives waste, and yellow drums were for other waste. According to 

one of Triumph Explosives’ employees, the contents of the red barrels were always kept wet with ether or 

alcohol. The red barrels also had markings designating specific explosives. Some types of explosives 

were dangerous to mix and were kept separate. Workers were cautioned against overfilling the barrels 

because spilled mix could eventually dry and be dangerous. These barrels were also taken to the firehole

for disposal (Ref. 26, p. 17). 

The wet waste explosive mixes disposed of at the firehole were spread out thinly so that they did not form 

piles that would explode instead of burn, and so that they would dry quickly. The drums were rinsed with 

water at the firehole to remove explosive residues. The explosives would then be lit and allowed to burn. 

Watch houses were established to ensure that fire did not breach the confines of the firehole (Ref. 26, pp. 

17, 18). 

In 1942, Triumph Explosives was seized by the Navy allegedly due to contract padding. The plant was to 

be returned to private control when corporate officers acceptable to both the Army and the Navy could be

installed (Ref. 26, p. 20). Triumph Explosives ceased operations on the east side of Blue Ball Road at the 

end of World War II. On June 1, 1946, the property was sold to Bowers Battery and Spark Plug Company 

(Bowers). The limited available information regarding the Bowers operations indicates that it was active 

from 1946 until 1948 (Ref. 26, p. 21). On April 20, 1948, Bowers sold the property to Aerial Products, 

Inc. (Aerial) (Ref. 26, p. 22). 
GEN-14

Mr. Martin Dwyer was the Vice President and owner of Aerial, which was active on the property from 

1948 to 1958. Aerial conducted operations on both the east and west sides of Blue Ball Road. The facility 

encompassed 225 acres, occupied by numerous production buildings including seven warehouses. Aerial 

referred to plant facilities on the Army side of Blue Ball Road as Plant 1 and on the Navy side as Plant 2. 

A variety of munitions, components, signal flares, distress signals, and other items were manufactured in 

these buildings (Ref. 26, p. 25). A third plant, Plant 3 was constructed on the east side of Blue Ball road to 

produce 20-mm shells for the Navy from 1952 to 1953 (Ref. 26, p. 25). 

The exact types and amounts of hazardous materials handled during Aerial site operations are not 

documented. Solvents, metals cleaners, and metal degreasers were reportedly used in the machine shop. 

Solvents were also reportedly used to clean work areas and machinery. Aerial employees indicated that 

“carbon tet” (carbon tetrachloride) was used for cleaning certain areas. The solvents were kept in drums 

(Ref. 26, pp. 26, 32, 34). 

Mr. Martin Dwyer, former Vice President of Aerial, purchased the property in 1958 when Aerial filed for 

bankruptcy. Mr. Dwyer used the property for production of incendiary flares and grazing land for cattle 

until 1972, when all operations terminated. In 1986, the ownership of the property transferred to Mr. 

Dwyer’s heirs (Ref. 13, p. 10). 

Numerous environmental investigations have been completed between 1989 and 2010 in an attempt to 

identify the source of the ground water plume. Investigations conducted to identify the source of the 

ground water plume have focused on the Dwyer Property because the highest concentrations of TCE in 

ground water were identified from monitoring wells installed on this property. A brief summary of each 

investigation completed is provided in the sections below. The summary of each investigation presented 

below focuses on the results related to the TCE ground water plume. Other contaminants identified in 

ground water during these investigations, such as metals or perchlorates, are not discussed because the 

purpose of summarizing the investigations is to provide evidence of significant attempts to identify the 

source of the TCE ground water plume. 

Ground Water Plume Investigations

Preliminary Assessment – March 1989

In March 1989, MDE conducted a PA at the Dwyer Property (Ref. 16, pp. 1, 3, 17). The PA was 

conducted because the property had been a former munitions manufacturing plant. During the PA, the 

property was observed to be wooded with demolished buildings and evidence of dumping (Ref. 16, pp. 2, 

3, 5). According to the PA report, a consultant to Mr. Dwyer installed three monitoring wells on the 

property: Well 1 on the southern portion of the property, at 20 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs); Well 

2, north of Well 1, to 15 ft bgs; and Well 3, in the northern portion of the property, to 19 ft bgs. MDE 

obtained split samples of ground water collected from these wells. The ground water sampling results 

showed contamination of trans-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) up to 19,200 micrograms per liter (μg/L), TCE 

up to 15,800 μg/L, and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) up to 360 μg/L. MDE sampled five private wells 

located north of the Dwyer Property along Dogwood Road. The private well samples did not contain these 

contaminants or any other volatile organic compounds (VOC) (Ref. 16, pp. 2, 14, 17, 23). A 1-ft-deep 

well, possibly hand dug, located on the Dwyer Property contained contamination including TCE (43 μg/L), 

PCE (4 μg/L), and trans-1,2-DCE (31 μg/L) (Ref. 16, pp. 2, 17, 23). A source of the chlorinated organic 

carbon contamination was not identified during the PA (Ref. 16, pp. 15, 16). 
GEN-15

Screening Site Inspection – February 1989

As part of a 1989 SSI, MDE sampled the three monitoring wells on the Dwyer Property. The samples 

were split with Mr. Dwyer’s consultant. MDE also sampled five domestic wells located on Dogwood 

Road immediately north of the Dwyer Property. The monitoring well samples contained trans-1,2-DCE up 

to 19,200 μg/L, TCE up to 15,800 μg/L, and PCE up to 360 μg/L. The residential wells did not contain 

any VOCs or chlorinated organics (Ref. 15, pp. 19, 20, 21, 34, 35, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57). 

Expanded Site Inspection – April 2000

In April 2000, MDE conducted an ESI (Ref. 8, pp. 3, 4, 10). The investigation included collection of six 

ground water, five sediment, four surface water, and nine surface and subsurface soil samples. All of the 

samples were analyzed for target compound list (TCL) and target analyte list (TAL) constituents; aqueous 

samples were also analyzed for dissolved metals (Ref. 8, pp. 10, 11, 18). The ground water and surface 

water sampling locations are shown on Figure 9 (page 30) and Figure 10 (page 31), respectively, of 

Reference 8. A soil sampling location map is not provided in the ESI report, but Table 4 of that report lists

the sampling locations (Ref. 8, p. 11). No VOCs were detected in any of the 9 soil samples. Estimated 

concentrations of PCE (1 microgram per kilogram [μg/kg]) and TCE (2 μg/kg) were detected in subsurface 

soil samples 2A and 3A (Ref. 8, pp. 11, 12, 18). The subsurface soil samples were collected at depths 

from 4 to 6 ft bgs (Ref. 8, p. 19). The low concentrations of PCE and TCE in the soil samples may be 

attributable to contaminated shallow ground water impacting the overlying soil. These chlorinated VOCs 

were detected in a 1-ft-deep shallow well located on the Dwyer Property (Ref. 16, pp. 2, 17, 23). Ground 

water samples collected from the monitoring wells contained carbon tetrachloride (up to 18 μg/L), 

chloroform (up to 10 μg/L), cis-1,2-DCE (up to 1 μg/L), PCE (up to 91 μg/L), and TCE up to (78 μg/L). 

The concentrations of PCE and TCE were data qualified with a specification of “E,” indicating exceedance 

of a theoretically greater value (Ref. 8, p. 11). Three surface water samples collected downstream or 

adjacent to the Dwyer Property from Dogwood Creek (which flows along the northern boundary of the 

Dwyer Property) contained TCE at concentrations of 11, 6, and 5 μg/L (Ref. 8, pp. 11, 31). 

Site Investigation – April 2002

The April 2002 MDE SI report documented conditions of the property at the time of sampling to be 

heavily wooded with young hardwood trees; approximately 100 buildings of various sizes and conditions 

(partially standing, foundation only, collapsed); presence of 55-gallon drums; piles of shell casings; and tin 

cans. The SI report also cited the use of degreasers on the property when the property had been utilized for

manufacturing incendiary devices and munitions between the 1930s and the 1950s (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 3, 5, 23 

through 28) 

Surface soil, exploratory soil boring, ground water, and surface water samples were collected in support of 

the SI (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 6, 7, 8). The sampling locations are specified in Reference 14, pages 47, 49, and 51. 

The sampling included the collection of five surficial soil samples (4 to 6 inches below grade) for VOCs, 

semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), and priority pollutant metals analyses; and eight subsurface soil 

boring samples collected for x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. Nine ground water samples collected

from open boreholes and three surface water samples were analyzed for VOCs (Ref. 14, pp. 7, 8, 49, 63, 

65). The SI report indicates TCE was detected in one surface soil sample (S-4 [94]) and one subsurface 

soil sample (S-3A [00]) at concentrations of 0.001 and 0.002 mg/kg, respectively, and PCE was detected in 

one surface soil sample (S-1 [94]) and one subsurface soil sample (S-2A [00]) at concentrations of 0.002 

and 0.001 mg/kg, respectively (Ref. 14, pp. 9, 14). The SI does not indicate when these soil samples were 

collected and analyzed, but these events appear to have occurred during an earlier investigation (Ref. 14, 

pp. 128 through 142). This small area of soil contamination is expected to be due to historical use because 
GEN-16

the size of the area was small and the concentrations detected were low (Ref. 14, pp. 9, 14). Ground water 

samples collected during the SI contained carbon tetrachloride, cis-1,2- DCE, PCE, and TCE (Ref. 14, p. 

9). The analytical data for the ground water samples are not provided in the SI. No VOCs were detected 

in the surface water samples (Ref. 14, pp. 10, 13, 139 through 143). 

The subsurface soil investigation completed during the SI provided the following information regarding 

the underlying geology/stratigraphy: a continuous confining layer, which would act to inhibit downward 

migration of the dissolved-phase contamination, was not identified and the detection of dissolved-phase 

contamination below the overburden/saprolite interface suggests that a continuous confining layer is not 

present (Ref. 14, pp. 14, 53, 55, 57, 59, and soil borings pages 80 through 117). An interpretation of the 

analytical data included in the SI report indicated that the presence of dissolved-phase VOC contamination 

in most of the area investigated suggested that multiple sources of contamination likely contributed to the 

VOC contamination (Ref. 14, p. 14). 

Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) Direct-Push Investigations – 2003 and 2004

In 2003 and 2004, direct-push investigations utilizing MIP and soil conductivity (SC) technology, were 

conducted to characterize subsurface soil in the vadose zone of the ground water plume. The investigation 

was used to more accurately define the extent of impacted soil and ground water. A total of 42 MIP 

borings were completed in the area of the ground water plume at biased locations, including at the 

boundary of another potential source of the TCE, the adjacent Vicon property (Ref. 13, p. 18 and 

Appendix C [Figure 1, p. 227]). The Vicon property is located northeast of the Dwyer Property (Ref. 18). 

A discussion of the Vicon property is provided in the Attribution section of this HRS documentation 

record. The depths of the borings ranged from 20 to 70 ft bgs. The MIP investigation indicated two 

distinct areas of TCE contamination. One area is located near MW-2A and the other is located near the 

Vicon property boundary (Ref. 13, p. 25 and Appendix C, p. 226, Figures 1 through 7, pp. 226 through 

237). 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study – August 2005

The August 2005 MDE RI/FS included a review of existing data, a test pit investigation and associated soil 

sampling, and the collection of ground water from 15 monitoring wells. The test pit investigation was 

performed in areas where underground storage tanks (UST) or other fluid storage containers were 

suspected, near a suspected drum dump, and at areas with tin can piles and flare canisters. The direct-push

soil boring investigation and associated soil sampling occurred at a 50- by 70-ft area possibly used as a 

solvent pit. The ground water samples were collected from 15 existing monitoring wells located on the 

Dwyer Property and analyzed for VOCs, perchlorate, and explosives (Ref. 13, pp. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 299). 

 

The test pits were examined for visual signs of contamination such as soil discoloration and staining. Soil 

samples were collected from areas of visible contamination. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 3-1 

of Reference 13 (Ref. 13, pp. 7, 16, 17, 54). Seven test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 8 ft

bgs. Soil samples from the seven test pits were collected using Encore devices and were analyzed for 

VOCs (EPA analytical method SW846 5035), perchlorate (EPA 314), and explosives (EPA analytical 

method SW846 8330) (Ref. 13, p. 17). Results from the soil sample analysis are provided in Table 4-1 of 

Reference 13, p. 65. TCE was not detected in any of the soil samples. PCE was detected in one soil 

sample collected from test pit TP-4 at 18 μg/L (Ref. 13, pp. 24, 308 and Figure 3-1, p. 54). This sample 

was collected at 5 ft bgs (Ref. 13, p. 54). The low concentration of PCE detected in this sample may be 

attributable to contaminated shallow ground water. PCE was detected in a 1-ft-deep shallow well (Ref. 16, 

pp. 2, 17, 23). 
GEN-17

Five direct-push soil borings were completed to the water table in an area allegedly previously used as a 

solvent pit (see Figure 3-1, page 54, of Reference 13) (Ref. 13, pp. 7, 17). Six soil samples were collected 

from intervals with visible contamination or where VOCs had been detected via a photoionization detector 

(PID). The soil samples were analyzed for VOCs (SW846 5035), perchlorate (EPA 314), and explosives 

(SW846 8330) (Ref. 13, p. 17, 300). No VOCs were detected in the subsurface soil samples (Ref. 13, pp. 

24, 306). 

Surface soil samples were collected from locations on the Dwyer Property where historical information 

indicated possible sources of contamination. The soil samples were collected using Encore devices and 

analyzed using EPA Method 8270 (Ref. 13, p. 17). No VOCs were detected in surface soil samples (Ref. 

13, p. 24). 

The three monitoring wells installed during the RI/FS were completed in the Potomac Group Formation

(Ref. 13, p. 19). (The RI/FS identifies the sediments at the Dwyer Property as the Columbia Formation, but 

more recent and in-depth investigations have determined that the sediments are the Potomac Group [Ref. 

71, pp. 38, 39]; therefore, these sediments will be referred to as the Potomac Group.) The Potomac Group 

Formation overlies the bedrock underlying the Dwyer Property (Ref. 71, p. 39). The monitoring well 

locations were selected in order to delineate the contaminant plume and to assess ground water

contamination close to the Vicon property, identified as another possible source of the TCE ground water 

plume. Reference 13, Figure 2-1, page 53 shows the locations of the monitoring wells (Ref. 13, p. 19). 

Ten ground water samples were collected from the monitoring wells and were analyzed for VOCs (Ref. 13, 

p. 20). TCE was detected in all wells except MW-6D. The concentrations ranged from an estimated 

concentration of 0.2 μg/L detected in MW-5D to 18,000 μg/L in MW-8 (Ref. 13, pp. 27, 286, 287, 290, 

297). The RI/FS concluded that a source of the TCE ground water plume could not be identified from the 

analytical results obtained during the RI/FS or the review of data collected during previous investigations 

(Ref. 13, pp. 7, 28, 29, 46). 

Perchlorate was detected in five monitoring wells. The highest concentration was detected in MW-2A (16 

μg/L). This well was considered to be off site, not on the Dwyer Property. Perchlorate was detected in 

areas where high concentrations of TCE were identified (Ref. 13, p. 28). 

Expanded Remedial Investigation – March 2010 

The ERI report submitted in March 2010 documents an interactive series of field investigation activities 

performed at the Dwyer Property and on nearby properties between January 2006 and January 2010. 

These activities included the installation of 44 monitoring wells, well and wellhead replacement activities, 

five groundwater sampling events, five additional MIP surveys, establishment of five stream gauge 

stations, installation of 33 soil borings, and a series of monitoring well and stream gauge station gauging 

events (Ref. 71, p. 9). The ERI did not identify a source of the ground water plume (Ref. 71, p. 48). 

Results from the ERI are discussed in detail in Section 3.0 of this HRS documentation record. 
Source No: 1 

Source Characterization

GEN-18

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

Source Number: 1 

Source Type: Ground water plume with no identified source (other)

Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site):

The Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume site consists of a plume of contaminated ground water as 

presented in Reference 39 and Figure 1. The plume includes a shallow ground water plume (shown in 

Reference 39 as blue) and a deep ground water plume (shown in Reference 39 as red). The plumes were 

delineated by using data obtained from monitoring wells for which an observed release to ground water has 

been documented (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record). Although the aquifers within and 

underlying the ground water plume are interconnected, a shallow and deep ground water plume was 

delineated for purposes of determining a volume calculation for the ground water plume (Ref. 85). As 

documented in Reference 85, the water column, the saturated thickness, and the specific yield for each well 

are needed to determine the volume of the plume. These values are significantly different for shallow and 

deep wells (Ref. 85). Therefore, volumes for each well depth (plume depth), shallow and deep, were

determined. The area of the ground water plume was completed in accordance with Reference 109, 

Evaluating Ground Water Plumes Under the HRS. 

As shown in Reference 39, the TCE ground water plume is located between Maryland State Routes 545 

and 213, and on the north and south sides of State Route 279. Numerous sampling investigations were 

conducted to identify the source of the ground water contamination; however, none of the investigations 

were able to attribute the ground water contamination to any known source, as documented in the Site 

Description section of this HRS documentation record. As stated in the HRS documentation record, the 

plume itself will be considered the source (Ref. 1, Section 1.1). 

Investigations conducted to identify the source of the ground water plume have focused on the Dwyer 

Property because the highest concentrations of TCE in ground water were identified from monitoring wells 

installed on this property. Investigations at the Dwyer Property have included collection of soil samples at 

biased locations where historical information indicated that sources of contamination may have existed 

(Ref. 13, pp. 16, 17: Ref. 8, pp. 10, 11, 12, 18; Ref. 14, pp. 7, 8, 49, 63; Ref. 71, p. 9). The soil sampling 

investigations have not identified a significant source of TCE contamination (Ref. 13, p. 24; Ref. 71, p. 

48). A small number of subsurface soil samples have contained TCE or other chlorinated compounds. 

However, these samples were collected at the same depths as shallow ground water (Ref. 8, pp. 11, 12, 19; 

Ref. 14, pp. 7, 8, 9, 14, 49, 63; Ref. 13, pp. 7, 16, 17, 24, 54, 308; Ref. 27, p. 4), leading to a conclusion 

that the probable source of the soil contamination is ground water contamination. The very low number of 

detections of TCE in soil samples indicates a source of TCE soil contamination does not currently exist on 

the Dwyer Property. 

The most recent investigations completed on the Dwyer Property in the area of the ground water plume

(summarized in the March 2010 ERI report) suggests that TCE has been present in ground water without 

significant degradation, consistent with the absence of an existing source of TCE and the presence of TCE 

in the ground water for a long period of time (Ref. 71, p. 46). The ERI investigation did not identify a 

source of TCE (Ref. 71, p. 48). The ERI investigation identified two ground water plumes and determined 

the areas of the plumes (Ref. 71, pp. 44, 47). Theses plume areas were not used to determine the volume 

of the Dwyer Property plume because the wells used to identify the area of the ground water plume in the 

ERI (Reference 71) do not meet the criteria for documenting an observed release to ground water (Ref. 1, 

Table 2-3; Ref. 109). 
Source No: 1 

Source Characterization

GEN-19

Documentation in Section 3.0 of this HRS documentation record, such as the direction of ground water 

flow and TCE isoconcentrations, supports the interpretation that a ground water plume is present with no 

identifiable source. 

MDE conducted an extensive ground water investigation at the Dwyer Property in 2009. The data 

generated from the investigation are used to identify and characterize the ground water plume shown in 

Reference 39 and Figure 1 (Ref. 27; Ref. 29; Ref. 71). Section 3.1.1 of this documentation record 

describes the plume area and discusses the field investigation, sample analysis, sampling locations, and 

observed release samples. The volume of the plume is documented in Reference 85 in accordance with 

Reference 109. 

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE 1

The site is being scored as a ground water plume with no identified source (Ref. 1, Section 1.1). The 

ground water samples collected from the plume and their respective detection limits are provided in 

Section 3.1.1. The hazardous substance associated with the ground water plume is TCE (see Section 

3.1.1). Reference 39 and Figure 1 show the location of the ground water plume and the background and 

release monitoring wells. As shown in Reference 39 and Figure 1, Source No. 1 includes a plume in 

shallow and deep ground water. Monitoring wells are completed within shallow and deep portions of the 

aquifer (Ref. 71, p. 10). To establish an observed release to ground water, shallow and deep background 

wells were identified to document background concentrations within the same relative depth of the shallow 

and deep release wells.

Table GEN1 provides a summary of the release and background wells and the concentration of TCE 

detected in each well. An observed release to both the shallow and deep monitoring wells (aquifers) has 

been documented. Shallow wells screen the upper portion of the water table aquifer or unconsolidated 

unit. Deep wells screen lower portions of the water table aquifer within the unconsolidated unit and the 

saprolite (weathered bedrock). None of the wells penetrate bedrock (Ref. 71, p. 18). The monitoring well 

locations are shown on Figure 3, Reference 71, p. 82 and Reference 29. On-site wells have a “DP” label, 

indicating wells located on the Dwyer Property. Nearby wells (wells not on the Dwyer Property) have the 

following labels: “RP” for the well installed on the Ruddy property; “EGWS” for the Elkton Ground Water

Study wells installed on the Terumo and City Pharmacy properties; and “VP” for the Vicon property wells 

(Ref. 71, p. 10). The water table aquifer is known as the Potomac aquifer, as documented in Section 3.1.1 

of this documentation record. 
Source No: 1 

Source Characterization

GEN-20

TABLE - GEN1

GROUND WATER PLUME – BACKGROUND AND RELEASE MONITORING WELLS

Monitoring Well 

Identification

Hazardous 

Substances

Date 

Sampled

Conc. 

(μg/L)

References for 

Well Depth and 

Location

Reference for 

Concentrations 

Detected

Shallow Aquifer - Background wells

DP-MW-09 Trichloroethylene 4/16/2009 5 U 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 2, 39; 56, pp. 

7, 17; 108, pp. 27-29

EGWS-MW-01 Trichloroethylene 4/16/2009 5 U 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29 

46, pp. 2, 10, 11; 56, 

pp. 7, 19; 108, pp. 27-

29

VP-MW-08 Trichloroethylene 4/16/2009 5 U 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29 

46, pp. 2, 38; 56, pp. 

7, 15; 108, pp. 27-29

Shallow Aquifer - Release Wells

DP-MW-01 Trichloroethylene 4/22/2009 210 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 1, 8, 9; 53, pp. 

7, 45; 108, pp. 30-47

DP-MW-08 Trichloroethylene 4/23/2009 4,100 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 1, 36, 37; 82, 

pp. 7, 32; 108, pp. 

48-69

DP-MW-10 Trichloroethylene 4/23/2009 1,300 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 2, 40, 41; 82, 

pp. 7, 34; 108, pp. 

48-69

DP-MW-12A Trichloroethylene 9/9/2009 252 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29 

105, pp. 7, 8; 61, pp. 

17, 26; 108, pp. 113-

139

DP-MW-14A Trichloroethylene 9/8/2009 1,060

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 32 to 37

105, pp. 13, 14; 61, 

pp. 12, 26; 108, pp. 

113-139

DP-MW-17B Trichloroethylene 4/24/2009 80

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 145 to 148

46, pp. 3, 65, 66; 82, 

pp. 7, 24; 108, pp. 

48-69

DP-MW-25A Trichloroethylene 9/1/2009 117

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 190 to 193

105, pp. 17, 18; 58, 

pp. 12, 16; 108, pp. 

81-83

DP-MW-26A Trichloroethylene 9/2/2009 112

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 201 to 204 

105, pp. 21, 22; 59, 

pp. 7, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-27A Trichloroethylene 9/3/2009 211

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 210 to 214 

105, pp. 25, 26; 59, 

pp. 12, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-28A Trichloroethylene 9/4/2009 1,350

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 221 to 225

105, pp. 29, 30; 60, 

pp. 9, 17; 108, pp. 

109-111

DP-MW-29A Trichloroethylene 9/3/2009 907

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 232 to 236

105, pp. 33, 34; 59, 

pp. 17, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-30A Trichloroethylene 9/4/2009 279

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 243 to 247 

105, pp. 37, 38; 60, 

pp. 4, 17; 108, pp. 

109-111

DP-MW-31A Trichloroethylene 9/1/2009 120

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 254 to 257

105, pp. 41, 42; 58, 

pp. 8, 16; 108, pp. 

81-83
Source No: 1 

Source Characterization

GEN-21

VP-MW-07 Trichloroethylene 4/27/2009 4,100 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29 

46, p. 2, 34, 35; 57, 

pp 7, 23; 108, pp. 70-

80

EGWSQ-MW-03 Trichloroethylene 4/17/2009 11 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 1, 21, 22; 56, 

pp. 7, 21; 108, pp. 

26-28

Deep Aquifer - Background Wells

DP-MW-03A Trichloroethylene 4/15/2009 6.9 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 1, 18, 19; 51, 

pp. 6, 31; 108, pp. 2-

25

DP-MW-15C Trichloroethylene 4/28/2009 8.6

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 135 to 140

46, p. 2; 57, pp. 6, 

35*; 108, pp. 70-80

Deep Aquifer - Release Wells

DP-MW-02A Trichloroethylene 4/17/2009 55 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29 

46, pp. 1, 14, 15; 56, 

pp. 7, 25; 108, pp. 

26-28

DP-MW-04 Trichloroethylene 4/21/2009 5,900 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 1, 24, 25; 53, 

pp. 7, 33; 108, pp. 

30-47

DP-MW-04A Trichloroethylene 4/21/2009 6,800 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 23, 24; 53, pp. 

7, 39; 108, pp. 30-47

DP-MW-07 Trichloroethylene 4/17/2009 59 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29

46, pp. 1, 32, 33; 56, 

pp. 7, 23; 108, pp. 

26-28

DP-MW-12B Trichloroethylene 9/9/2009 320

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 18 to 25

105, pp. 9, 10; 61, pp. 

19, 26; 108, pp. 113-

139

DP-MW-13A Trichloroethylene 4/21/2009 3,200

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 26 to 31

46, pp. 2, 52, 53; 53, 

pp. 7, 25; 108, pp. 

30-47

DP-MW-14B Trichloroethylene 9/8/2009 22,300

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 38 to 44

105, pp. 15, 16; 61, 

pp. 14, 26; 108, pp. 

113-139

DP-MW-17C Trichloroethylene 4/24/2009 120

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 149 to 154

46, pp. 3, 67; 82, pp. 

7, 26; 108, pp. 48-69

DP-MW-26B Trichloroethylene 9/2/2009 902

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 205 to 209

105, pp. 23, 24; 59, 

pp. 10, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-27B Trichloroethylene 9/3/2009 11,900

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 215 to 220 

105, pp. 27, 28; 59, 

pp. 12, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-28B Trichloroethylene 9/4/2009 13,200

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 226 to 231 

105, pp. 31, 32; 60, 

pp. 11, 17; 108, pp. 

110-112

DP-MW-29B Trichloroethylene 9/3/2009 15,800

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 237 to 242

105, pp. 35, 36; 59, 

pp. 19, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-30B Trichloroethylene 9/4/2009 12,200

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 248 to 253

105, pp. 39, 40; 60, 

pp. 6, 17; 108, pp. 

110-112

DP-MW-31B Trichloroethylene 9/1/2009 335

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 258 to 264 

105, pp. 43, 44; 58, 

pp. 10, 16; 108, pp. 

81-84
Source No: 1 

Source Characterization

GEN-22

DP-MW-32B Trichloroethylene 8/31/2009 46.9

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 268 to 274 

105, pp. 47, 48; 58, 

pp. 5, 16; 108, pp. 

81-84

EGWS-MW-02A Trichloroethylene 9/9/2009 17,100 27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 29 

105, pp. 1, 2; 61, pp. 

22, 26; 108, pp. 113-

139

Notes: 

* For sample DP-MW-15C, the collection form is missing and the chain of custody incorrectly identifies the sample as 

DP-MW- 15B.

μg/L = Micrograms per liter Conc. = Concentration

DP = Dwyer Property EGWS = Elkton Ground Water Study

 

MW = Monitoring well 

 

U = Analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result reported is the adjusted reporting limit for the analyte

 

L = Potential low bias due to holding time violations, value is an estimate 

 

VP = Vicon Property 

List of Hazardous Substances Associated with Source

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 

2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY

Containment Description Containment 

Factor Value

References

Gas release to air: Not Scored (NS)

Particulate release to air: NS

Release to ground water: 10 1, Table 3-2 

Release via overland migration and/or flood: NS

Notes: The Contaminant Factor Value for the ground water migration pathway was evaluated for “All 

Sources” for evidence of hazardous substance migration from the source area (“source area” includes the 

source and any associated containment structures). A containment factor value of 10 has been assigned 

based on existing analytical evidence of both hazardous substance migration (contamination detected in 

ground water samples) (see Section 3.1.1 of this HRS documentation record; Ref. 1, Table 3-2). 
Source No: 1 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

GEN-23

2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

Description

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier A source hazardous waste quantity, as required 

in Section 2.4.2.1.1 of the HRS (Ref. 1). As a result, hazardous constituent quantity is not scored and the 

evaluation of source hazardous waste quantity proceeds to Tier B, hazardous wastestream quantity (Ref. 1, 

Section 2.4.2.1.1). 

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: Not scored

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

Description

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier B source hazardous wastestream quantity, as 

required in Section 2.4.2.1.2 of the HRS (Ref. 1). As a result, hazardous wastestream quantity is not 

scored and the evaluation of source hazardous waste quantity proceeds to Tier C, volume (Ref. 1, Section 

2.4.2.1.2). 

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: Not scored

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

Description

The volume of the ground water plume is documented in Reference 85, and the area is illustrated in 

Reference 39. To determine the hazardous waste quantity assigned value, 650,733 cubic yards is divided 

by 2.5, which equals 260,293 (Ref.1, Table 2-5). References 33, 34, 35, 38, 50, 107, and 109 were used to 

assist with determining the volume of the ground water plume. 

Source Type Description

(Volume of Plume)

Units

(cubic yards 

[yd3

]/gallon [gal]) 

References

Other See References 39 and 85 650,733 39; 85

Sum (yd3

Equation for Assigning Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-5): other source type, divide by 2.5 = 260,293

): 650,733 (Ref. 85)

Volume Assigned Value: 260,293
Source No: 1 

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

GEN-24

2.4.2.1.4 Area

Description

Area, Tier D, is not available for scoring for source type “other” (Ref. 1, Table 2-5). 

Area Assigned Value: 0 

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 1 is the volume assigned value of 260,293 (Ref. 1, 

Sections 2.4.2.1.5). 

Highest assigned value assigned from Reference 1, Table 2-5: 260,293
Summary of Source Descriptions

GEN-25

SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Source 

No.

Source 

Hazardous

Waste 

Quantity

Value

Source 

Hazardous 

Constituent 

Quantity 

Complete? 

(Y/N)

Containment Factor Value by Pathway

Ground 

Water(G

W) 

(Ref. 1, 

Table 3-2)

Surface Water (SW) Air

Overland/flood

(Ref. 1, Table 

4-2)

GW to 

SW

(Ref. 1, 

Table 

3-2)

Gas

(Ref. 1, 

Table 

6-3)

Particulate

(Ref. 1, 

Table 6-9)

1 260,293 No 10 Not scored Not 

scored

Not 

scored

Not scored
GW-General

GW-1

3.0 GROUND WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY

3.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ground Water Migration Pathway Description

Regional Geology

The ground water plume is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province of Cecil County, Maryland, 

just south of the Fall Line (or Fall Zone). The Fall Line is the boundary separating the Coastal Plain and 

the Piedmont physiographic province, located to the southeast and northwest, respectively, of the ground 

water plume (Ref. 7; Ref. 47, p.10; Ref. 48; Ref. 71, p. 37). The Coastal Plain physiographic province of 

Cecil County, Maryland, consists of a wedge of unconsolidated layers of clay, silt, sand, and gravel 

increasing in thickness from less than 1 ft at the Fall Line to about 1,600 ft beneath the southeastern corner

of Cecil County (Ref. 47, p. 1). The Piedmont physiographic province consists of crystalline igneous and 

metamorphic rock (Ref. 47, p. 9). Southwest of the Fall Line the surface of the Piedmont crystalline rocks 

slopes southeastward beneath progressively thicker Coastal Plain strata (Ref. 47, pp. 9, 12). Beneath the 

Coastal Plain sediments the upper portion of the crystalline rocks has weathered to a thick mantle of 

saprolite (Ref. 47, p. 14). The location and trend of the Fall Line in Cecil County and a geologic cross 

section depicting the relationship between crystalline rocks of the Piedmont physiographic province and 

sediments of the Coastal Plain physiographic province is depicted on Figure 5 of Reference 47 and Figure 

2, Reference 36, page 3 (Ref. 47, p. 10; Ref. 36, p. 3). 

Crystalline rocks, present at depth beneath the location of the ground water plume, outcrop at the surface 

northwest of the Fall Line (Ref. 7; Ref. 48). Crystalline rocks exposed at the surface nearby include 

metavolcanics (including schistose to massive amphibolite, granofels, diamicticite, and metabasalt) of the 

James Run Formation, gneiss classified as Gneiss at Rolling Mill, and gabbro and serpentinite named 

Gabbro and Serpentinite at Grays Hill (Ref. 48).

Sediments identified as the Quaternary age Talbot Formation and Tertiary age Pensauken Formation are 

mapped at the surface in the vicinity of the ground water plume. Talbot Formation sediments are described

as coarse-grained sands and gravels to finer-grained sands and loam (coarse-grained facies) and thinbedded silts and fine sands (fine-grained facies). Pensauken Formation sediments are described as poorlysorted polymict gravels, sands, and loam (Ref. 48). Where present, Talbot and Pensauken Formation 

sediments are deposited as a thin veneer over older Coastal Plain sediments such as the Potomac Group 

(Ref. 88, p. 38).

Reference 48 is a geologic map of Cecil County. The geologic map depicts Potomac Group sediments at 

the location of the ground water plume and shows James Run Formation metavolcanics and Talbot and 

Pensauken Formation sediments northwest and southeast, respectively, of the ground water plume (Ref. 7; 

Ref. 48). The geologic map also provides a northwest-southeast oriented cross-section through Cecil 

County. The cross-section depicts deformed crystalline rocks of the Piedmont physiographic province, 

which are overlain in the southeast part of the county by a thin wedge of Potomac Group sediments that 

thickens towards the south (Ref. 48). 
GW-General

GW-2

Site-Specific Geology

The ground water plume is in Cretaceous age Potomac Group unconsolidated sediments followed by 

saprolite. The monitoring wells are completed within both the Potomac Group sediments and saprolite 

(Ref. 7; Ref. 48; Ref. 71, pp. 18, 33, 34, 39). The monitoring wells documenting an observed release to 

ground water and defining the area of the plume are summarized in Tables GW4 and GW8. These wells 

include well clusters consisting of one well screened within the unconsolidated unit immediately above the 

hard saprolite (weathered bedrock) (“A” designated wells) and one well screened within the hard saprolite 

(weathered bedrock) immediately above competent bedrock (“B” designated wells). The deeper well of 

each cluster (“B” designated wells) was installed first to the depth of auger refusal. Continuous split-spoon 

soil samples were collected from the deeper well boring to the completion depth. Split-spoon sampling 

was not performed during advancement of the shallower well boring. The shallower wells were installed 

to the depth of the base of the unconsolidated unit as determined from logging of the deeper well boring. 

Auger refusal was encountered 3 feet below the base of the unconsolidated unit in the DP-MW-13 boring. 

Because of the relative thinness of the hard saprolite/weathered bedrock in the DP-MW-13 boring, one 

well (DP-MW-13A), screened within the unconsolidated unit and the hard saprolite/weathered bedrock, 

was installed to the depth of auger refusal at this location (Ref. 71, p. 18). Reference 71, pages 98 and 99, 

provides cross-sections showing the stratigraphy of the well locations 

The unconsolidated unit (sediments) in which the monitoring wells are completed is characterized as 

interbedded sand, silt, clay, and gravel with interspersed layers of medium to coarse sand and gravel (Ref. 

47, p. 23; Ref. 71, pp. 39, 40, 41). In 2002, soil borings were completed in the area of the ground water 

plume. From 2007 through 2009, monitoring wells were also installed in the area of the ground water 

plume. Lithologic descriptions from soil borings and monitoring wells show that interbedded sands, silts, 

clays, and gravels, likely belonging to the Potomac Group, extend from ground surface to between 35 and 

107 ft bgs (Ref. 48; Ref. 13, p. 86, Figures 7 to 10, pp. 123 to 126; Ref. 90; Ref. 71, p. 33). Cross sections 

prepared from soil boring logs illustrate the limited horizontal extent of silt and clay lenses, as well as the 

southeastward sloping of the Potomac Group-saprolite contact (Ref. 13, Figures 7 to 10, pp. 123 to 126; 

Ref. 27, p. 1; Ref. 37; Ref. 71, pp. 98, 99). Soil boring and monitoring well lithologic descriptions 

indicate that saprolite was encountered below the sediments at depths between 24 and 107 ft bgs (Ref. 13, 

p. 86, pp. 133 to 170; Ref. 90; Ref. 27, p. 1; Ref. 37; Ref. 71, p. 40). No soil borings and only a few 

monitoring wells were completed through the entire thickness of the saprolite. In deeper monitoring wells 

that penetrate the entire saprolite, bedrock is encountered between 31 and 115 ft bgs (Ref. 90; Ref. 27, p. 

1; Ref. 37; Ref. 71, p. 34, 35). Elsewhere in Cecil County, the median thickness of saprolite encountered 

in wells has been calculated at approximately 41 ft (Ref. 47, pp. 14, 15). The ground water plume 

monitoring well logs label crystalline rock as “bedrock” (Ref. 90, pp. 11, 24, 25, 31, 43, 44; Ref. 27, p. 1; 

Ref. 37; Ref. 71, p. 40). However, in one log, bedrock is further described as containing mica, suggesting 

that bedrock beneath the ground water plume may belong to schistose amphibolite (which is mica-rich) of 

the Frenchtown Member of the James Run Formation (Ref. 48; Ref. 90, pp. 24, 25).

The ERI report for the Dwyer Property describes the geology of the area of the ground water plume. The 

stratigraphy of the overburden layer above competent bedrock at the Dwyer Property is comprised of 

weathered bedrock, saprolite, and a fluvial unit that was formed in a highly complex river system 

depositional environment. Saprolite is a highly weathered bedrock remnant that ranges in consistency with 

respect to the degree of weathering. The lower and upper portions of the saprolite encountered at the 

Dwyer Property have been designated herein as “hard” and “soft,” respectively, according to the degree of 

weathering. Because of their similar consistency, the weathered bedrock and hard saprolite are often 

grouped together herein for the purpose of discussion. Because of their often granular consistency, the soft 
GW-General

GW-3

saprolite and the fluvial unit are frequently discussed as a single unit herein and are collectively referred to 

as the “unconsolidated unit” (Ref. 71, pp. 9, 10, 39, 40, 41). The ERI report provides an extensive 

geologic description of the Dwyer Property (Ref. 71, pp. 38 through 47). 

Hydrogeology

Hydrogeology of the ground water plume is influenced by characteristics of both the Potomac and 

Crystalline Rock aquifers. A description of the aquifers is provided here. 

Aquifer 1: Potomac Aquifer

The Potomac aquifer is the uppermost aquifer of the ground water plume (Ref. 47, p. 23; Ref. 71, pp. 40, 

41). Ground water within the Potomac aquifer occurs within the Potomac Group (Ref. 47, p. 22). 

Regionally, the Potomac aquifer can be divided in some areas into three hydrogeologic units: the upper 

Potomac aquifer; middle Potomac confining unit; and lower Potomac aquifers (Ref. 47, p. 21). (The 

names of these units are not consistent in publications. Reference 49, page A8, provides a summary of the 

different names and their relationship to each other). The upper Potomac aquifer is absent within 4 miles 

of the center of the ground water plume (Ref. 47, p. 21). Based on the surface expression and depth of the 

Potomac confining unit (middle Potomac confining unit), the Potomac confining unit is absent within 4 

miles of the center of the ground water plume and the Potomac aquifer is not confined (Ref. 88, pp. E-11, 

E-12, E-13, and E-14; Ref. 49, Plate 7; Ref. 47, p. 47; Ref. 7). Therefore, the hydrogeologic unit of the 

Potomac aquifer at the location of the ground water plume is the Lower Potomac aquifer. The Lower 

Potomac aquifer sediments outcrop at the surface at the Dwyer Property and in a northeast-southwest 

trending swath in and around the Town of Elkton (Ref. 47, pp. 21 to 24; Ref. 48; Ref. 88, pp. E-11, E-12, 

E-13, and E-14). (The Lower Potomac aquifer also is known as the Patuxent aquifer [Ref. 49, p. A8]).

Where the Potomac Group outcrops at the surface, as it does at the location of the ground water plume, the 

Lower Potomac aquifer is unconfined (Ref. 47, pp. 21 to 24; Ref. 81, pp. 4 to 5; Ref. 88, p. E11; Ref. 89, 

p. 1). To the southeast of the ground water plume, the Potomac Group is directly overlain by sediments of 

the Talbot and Pensauken Formations. The composition of these sediments indicates that the Potomac 

aquifer is unconfined at this location (Ref. 81, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 89, p. 1; Ref. 48). Unconfined areas of the 

Potomac aquifer, including the location of the ground water plume, serve as recharge areas to the confined 

Potomac aquifer in the Coastal Plain. The confined portion of the Potomac aquifer is located greater than 

4 miles from the center of the ground water plume (Ref. 81, pp. 4, 5; Ref. 88, pp. E11, E12, E13, and E14; 

Ref. 89, p. 1; Ref. 7). A general schematic depicting ground water recharge from shallow unconfined 

areas of the aquifer to deeper confined areas of the aquifer is shown on Figure 2 of Reference 49 (Ref. 49, 

p. A-13).

The sediments of the Potomac Group were deposited in a river-delta environment. The type of sediments 

constitute a transitional series from coarse channel deposits, characteristic of alluvial valleys, to thick clay, 

and fine to medium sand and silt beds characteristic of back-swamps and flood-plain deposits. These 

depositional environments shift laterally, coalescing with other migration depositional environments within 

a large river-delta system. Because of this, individual lithologic units usually have little lateral continuity 

(Ref. 72, p. 12). The many water wells drilled in the Potomac aquifer have penetrated no consistent 

correlatable succession of clay, silt, sand, or gravel (Ref. 87, p. 128). Attempts have been made to 

subdivide the Potomac Group into smaller units on the basis of stratigraphy; however, the results of studies 

showed that individual sand or clay units could not be successfully correlated over even short distances 

(Ref. 88, p. E3). The beds form a multilayer aquifer system (Ref. 88, p. E11). (The Potomac aquifer, in 
GW-General

GW-4

which the ground water plume is located, also is known as the Patuxent aquifer [Ref. 47, p. 21; Ref. 49, p. 

A8]). 

Sediments of the Potomac aquifer consist of interbedded sand, silt, clay, and gravel (Ref. 47, p. 23; Ref. 

71, pp. 40, 41). Silt and clay lenses limit vertical ground water flow locally, but silt and clay lenses are 

laterally discontinuous and do not impede vertical ground water flow within the 4 miles of the center of the 

ground water plume (Ref. 49, Figure 10, p. 126; Ref. 87, p. 124). Ground water is stored between grains 

in the sediment. Saturated sand and gravel constitute the aquifer (Ref. 47, p. 1). Depth to water in the 

Potomac aquifer at the location of the ground water plume is as shallow as 1 ft bgs (Ref. 27, p. 4). 

The thickness of the Potomac aquifer ranges from less than 1 ft at the Fall Line to nearly 1,200 ft at the 

southeastern corner of Cecil County (Ref. 47, p. 23). Hydraulic characteristic vary greatly within the 

aquifer. Transmissivity values range from 60 to 3,900 square feet per day (ft2

/d) (Ref. 47, pp. 26, 27). 

Storage coefficient values range from 0.00005 to 0.004 (Ref. 47, pp. 26, 27). Hydraulic conductivity (K) 

values range from 40 to 210 feet per day (ft/d) (Ref. 72, p. 16). Precipitation recharges the Potomac 

aquifer (Ref. 47, pp. 77, 83). Conceptual site models of the Potomac aquifer indicate that there is both 

upward and downward leakage through the middle confining unit that would both recharge and deplete 

ground water stored in the confined portions of the Lower Potomac aquifer (Ref. 47, pp. 78, 80). 

Based on the description of the monitoring wells logs and the locations of the wells documenting an 

observed release to ground water, the background and release monitoring wells have been completed in the 

Potomac aquifer or at the base of the Potomac aquifer (saprolite) beneath the ground water plume (Ref. 71, 

pp. 18, 98, 99; Ref. 90; Ref. 27, p. 4). Depth to water in these wells fluctuates seasonally and is 

encountered as shallow as 1 ft bgs (Ref. 27, p. 4). Town of Elkton wells 1 and 3, currently utilized for 

water supply to the Town, and Town of Elkton well 4, newly installed and not currently in production, are 

completed in the Potomac Aquifer (Ref. 81, p. 1). Well 1 is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of 

the ground water plume; well 3 is located 2.75 miles southeast of the ground water plume; well 4 is located 

approximately 3 miles northeast of the ground water plume (Ref. 7). 

Aquifer 2: Crystalline Rock Aquifer

The Crystalline Rock aquifer is found stratigraphically below the Potomac aquifer. The aquifer is 

comprised of fractured igneous and metamorphic crystalline rocks overlain by a mantle of weathered rock 

called saprolite (Ref. 47, pp. 1, 12). The crystalline rock itself yields little water; ground water is contained

in fractures and in the saprolite mantle, which serves as a storage reservoir to underlying fracture systems 

(Ref. 47, p. 14). 

Geologic units that make up the Crystalline Rock aquifer outcrop at the surface northwest of the Fall Line 

(Ref. 48). Southeast of the Fall Line, the surface of the Crystalline Rock aquifer dips gently beneath the 

overlying aquifers of the Coastal Plain (Ref. 47, p. 10). Beneath the ground water plume, the saprolite 

component of the Crystalline Rock aquifer is encountered between 24 and 107 ft bgs, and the crystalline 

rock component is encountered between 31 and 115 ft bgs (Ref. 13, pp. 133 to 170; Ref. 90, pp. 5, 10, 11, 

17, 24, 25, 31, 43, 44, 58, 61, 65; Ref. 71, pp. 34, 35, 40). 

Although ground water may be confined within an individual rock fracture of the Crystalline Rock aquifer, 

the network of fractures and saprolite mantle (which constitute the Crystalline Rock aquifer) are considered

a water-table, or unconfined, system (Ref. 47, p. 12). Ground water is recharged to the Crystalline Rock 

aquifer from water infiltrating through overlying sediments (Potomac Group) or through fractures and 
GW-General

GW-5

weathered rock joining the Crystalline Rock aquifer at depth with crystalline rock exposed at the surface 

(Ref. 47, pp. 10 to 14). 

In the Piedmont physiographic province of Cecil County, wells that have been completed in the Crystalline 

Rock aquifer range in depth from 11 to 575 ft bgs (Ref. 47, p. 21). Depth to water is encountered as 

shallow as 1 ft bgs and as deep as 200 ft bgs (Ref. 47, p. 17). 

Ground water flow within the crystalline rock varies greatly depending on the amount of weathering, the 

number of fractures, the size of the fracture openings, and the interconnection of the fractures (Ref. 47, p. 

12). Hydraulic conductivity for the Crystalline Rock aquifer is reported between 1.33 and 9.4 ft/d (Ref. 

74, p. 2; Ref. 75, p. 1). (Both References 74 and 75 report hydraulic conductivities for the Piedmont 

Crystalline Rock aquifer from locations outside Maryland.) Transmissivity values for the Crystalline Rock 

aquifer range from 2 to 1,400 ft2

/d (Ref. 47, p. 18). Storage coefficient values range from less than 0.1 to 

4.4 (Ref. 47, p. 17). Specific yield for the saprolite component of the crystalline rock aquifer is estimated 

at 0.08; specific yield for the upper 200 feet of the fractured rock component of the aquifer is 0.05 (Ref. 

47, p. 15). 

Monitoring wells have been completed in both the saprolite and fractured rock components of the 

crystalline rock aquifer at the ground water plume (Ref. 71, p. 40; Ref. 90; Ref. 27, pp. 1, 4). Nearby 

county and private water supply wells (private wells are located on Dogwood Lane [Ref. 7]) are completed 

in the Crystalline Rock aquifer (Ref. 47, pp. 37 to 40; Ref. 92, p. 7).

3.0.1.2.1 Aquifer Interconnectivity

Hydrologic interconnection is established within the Potomac Aquifer, within the components of the 

Crystalline Rock aquifer, and between the Potomac and Crystalline Rock aquifers. Potomac sediments at 

the ground water plume are described as interbedded sand, silt, clay, and gravel (Ref. 47, p. 23; Ref. 27, p. 

1; Ref. 71, p. 40). While clay and silt lenses present in Potomac aquifer sediments likely slow vertical 

ground water flow, cross-sections prepared for the ground water plume indicate that finer-grained materials 

are generally laterally discontinuous (Ref. 13, pp. 56 to 59, Figures 4-1 to 4-3; Ref. 13, Figures 7 to 10, pp. 

123 to 126; Ref. 71, pp. 97, 98, 99). Additionally, elevated VOC measurements (for example, 34 parts per 

million [ppm] VOCs were found at 93 feet bgs in MW-14B) were recorded at the top of bedrock during 

monitoring well drilling, indicating that VOCs had infiltrated the entire thickness of Potomac sediments to 

reach bedrock (Ref. 90, p. 43). Finally, TCE and similar chlorinated solvents including PCE, cis-1,2-DCE, 

and trans-1,2-DCE are found in ground water plume monitoring wells completed at the base of the 

Potomac aquifer (Ref. 27, pp. 1, 8; Ref. 13, p. 112, Table 11; Tables GW8 and GW9 of the HRS 

documentation record). Chlorinated solvents, specifically PCE, are also found in Town of Elkton Well 1, 

which is located southeast of the ground water plume and completed in the Potomac aquifer (Ref. 7; Ref. 

19, p. 4; Ref. 11, pp. 1, 2). These contaminants are not naturally occurring (Ref. 30, p. 185). The 

presence of TCE at the base of the Potomac aquifer beneath the ground water plume and the presence of 

PCE in the Town of Elkton well 1 is evidence of interconnection (see the chemical analysis section of this 

HRS documentation record). 

As described earlier, the Crystalline Rock aquifer is considered a water table (or unconfined) aquifer, 

meaning that in the Piedmont physiographic province and at locations where the Crystalline Rock aquifer 

is overlain by other unconfined aquifers, there is interconnectivity between the surface, overlying 

sediments of the Potomac (where present), and the Crystalline Rock aquifer (Ref. 47, p. 12). This is 

illustrated in Reference 36, page 3. Chlorinated solvents are also found in monitoring wells at the ground 
GW-General

GW-6

water plume completed in the saprolite component of the Crystalline Rock aquifer (Ref. 27, pp. 1, 8; Ref. 

13, p. 112, Table 11; Tables GW8 and GW9 of this HRS documentation record). In Piedmont crystalline 

rocks, the saprolite acts as a storage reservoir to underlying fracture systems of the Crystalline Rock aquifer 

(Ref. 47, p. 14). The presence of TCE and other chlorinated solvents in saprolite monitoring wells and the 

connection between the saprolite and underlying crystalline rocks are indications of interconnection 

between the surface, the Potomac aquifer, and the Crystalline Rock aquifer. 

3.0.1.2.2 Aquifer Discontinuities within Target Distance Limit

No aquifer discontinuities have been identified within the 4-mile radius of the ground water plume. The 

ground water plume is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of Cecil County, Maryland. 

The province consists of a wedge of unconsolidated layers of clay, silt, sand, and gravel increasing in 

thickness from less than 1 ft at the Fall Line to about 1,600 ft beneath the southeastern corner of Cecil 

County (Ref. 47, p. 1) lying on the Piedmont physiographic province consisting of crystalline igneous and 

metamorphic rock (Ref. 47, p. 9). Southwest of the Fall Line and the ground water plume, the surface of 

the Piedmont crystalline rocks slopes southeastward beneath progressively thicker Coastal Plain strata 

(Ref. 47, pp. 9, 12). Based on the stratigraphy of the sediments and bedrock, no barriers to ground water 

flow have been identified. This is illustrated in Reference 36, page 3. The surface expression of the two 

provinces is illustrated on the Geologic Map of Cecil County (Ref. 48). 

TABLE GW1

SUMMARY OF AQUIFER(S) BEING EVALUATED

Aquifer 

No. Aquifer Name

Is Aquifer 

Interconnected with 

Upper Aquifer within 

2 miles? (Yes [Y]/No 

[N]/Not Available 

[NA])

Is Aquifer 

Continuous 

within 4-mile 

Target Distance 

Limit? (Y/N)

Is Aquifer 

Karst? (Y/N)

1 Potomac NA Y N 

2 Crystalline Rock Y Y N

As documented in the Aquifer Interconnection section of this documentation record, the Potomac and 

Crystalline Rock aquifers are interconnected and are therefore evaluated as one aquifer (Ref. 1, Section 

3.0.1.1)
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-7

3.1 LIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE

3.1.1 OBSERVED RELEASE

Aquifer Being Evaluated: Surficial/Potomac/Saprolite/Crystalline 

Chemical Analysis

Establishing an observed release by chemical analysis requires analytical evidence of a hazardous 

substance in the media at a concentration significantly above the background level. If the background 

concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an observed release is established when 

the sample measurement equals or exceeds its own sample quantitation limit (SQL) and that of the 

background sample. If the SQL cannot be established, the EPA contract-required quantitation limit 

(CRQL) is used in place of the SQL for sample analyses performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory 

Program (CLP), or the detection limit for sample analyses not performed under the EPA CLP (Ref. 1, 

Section 2.3, Table 2-3). All hazardous substances listed in the ground water observed release tables were 

above the background level SQL and its SQL or were three times the background level. These substances 

met the observed release criteria. 

The ground water samples used to document an observed release to ground water were collected in April 

and September 2009 and were analyzed by Envirosystems, Inc. and Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories (Ref. 

51; Ref. 53 through 61). Envirosystems, Inc., used EPA Method 8260 to analyze the samples (Ref. 51 pp. 

1, 6; Ref. 53, p. 7; Ref. 54, p. 26; Ref. 55, p. 30; Ref. 56, p. 7; Ref. 57, p. 7; Ref. 58, p. 16; Ref. 59, p. 23; 

Ref. 60, p. 17; Ref. 61, p. 26). The data validation report is provided in Reference 108. 

The ground water sampling results used to document an observed release to ground water (aquifer being 

evaluated) are described in the ERI report, Reference 71. The ERI report documents an interactive series 

of field investigation activities at the Dwyer Property and on nearby properties between January 2006 and 

January 2010, as completed for MDE. These activities include installation of ground water monitoring 

wells, well and wellhead replacement activities, five ground water sampling events, five additional phases 

of the MIP survey (Phases 2 through 6), establishment of five stream gauge stations, a soil boring program 

involving advancement of 33 soil borings, and a series of monitoring well and stream gauge station 

gauging events (Ref. 71, p. 9). 

Information regarding the 65 Dwyer Property wells and nearby ground water monitoring wells is included 

in Table 1 of Reference 71, page 51, and Reference 27, which show ground water monitoring wells 

designated as shallow or deep. Shallow wells screen the upper portion of the water table aquifer. Deep 

wells screen lower portions of the water table aquifer. The monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 

3, page 82, Reference 71 and Reference 29. On-site wells have a “DP” label. Nearby wells (wells not on 

the Dwyer Property) have the following labels: “RP” for the well installed on the Ruddy property; 

“EGWS” for the Elkton Ground Water Study wells installed on the Terumo and City Pharmacy properties; 

and “VP” for the Vicon property wells (Ref. 71, p. 10). 

Table 1, page 51, of Reference 71, and Reference 27 present the following information for each well: well 

identifier, well designation, the respective study area and study sub-area, well installation and 

replacement/repair date, well survey and construction data, and information regarding the stratigraphy of 

the screened interval and the target well depth. Table 1 also presents the ground water monitoring well 

gauging data, the corresponding ground water elevation data, and a summary of TCE ground water
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-8

analytical data generated during the course of this investigation. The listing is sorted according to study 

area, well designation, study sub-area, and by well identifier (Ref. 71, p. 10). A release to the shallow and 

deep water-bearing zones is described in the sections below. Each zone has a different background well 

completed within the same relative water-bearing zone. 

The locations of all the monitoring wells samples are illustrated in Reference 29. 

Expanded Remedial Investigation (ERI) Field Investigations

Ground water samples collected during April 2009 and September 2009, documented in the ERI 

(Reference 71), were collected in accordance with methodologies described in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.5.1 of 

Reference 71 (Ref. 71, pp. 12, 26, 33). The monitoring wells were gauged prior to sampling and purged 

according to low-flow methodology using a variable speed, submersible pump and disposable tubing, and 

monitored using a water quality meter and flow-through cell, until field parameters stabilized. Field 

parameters (dissolved oxygen [DO], oxidation-reduction potential, conductivity, pH, turbidity, and 

temperature) were recorded in ground water sampling logs during well purging. The ground water samples

were then collected from the submersible pump discharge stream. The samples and one field blank were 

submitted to Phase Separation Science (PSS) in Baltimore, Maryland, for laboratory analysis for VOCs via 

EPA Method 8260. Well purge water was collected and placed into a 55-gallon drum that was staged at 

the Dwyer Property for temporary storage (Ref. 71, pp. 12, 14). 

The April 2009 ground water sampling event was performed as discussed in Reference 45, Work Plan #16, 

page 20. Ground water samples were collected between April 14 and 28, 2009, from the 36 monitoring

wells at the Dwyer Property and on the Terumo, City Pharmacy, Vicon, and Ruddy properties (Ref. 71, p. 

28). The September 2009 ground water sampling was completed in accordance with Reference 45, Work 

Plan #18, page 28 (Ref. 71, p. 33). 

Monitoring Well Summary

The majority of monitoring wells used to document an observed release to the shallow and deep portion of 

the aquifer were installed as part of the 2009 ERI. Monitoring well clusters were installed during the ERI 

using a hollow-stem auger (HSA), truck-mounted drilling rig. The clusters consist of one well screened 

within the unconsolidated unit immediately above the hard saprolite/weathered bedrock (“A” designated 

wells) and one well screened within the hard saprolite/weathered bedrock immediately above competent 

bedrock (“B” designated wells). The deeper well of each cluster (“B” designated wells) was installed first 

to the depth of auger refusal. Continuous split-spoon soil samples were collected from the deeper well 

boring to the completion depth. Split-spoon sampling was not performed during advancement of the 

shallower well boring. The shallower wells were installed to the depth of the base of the unconsolidated 

unit as determined from logging of the deeper well boring. Auger refusal was encountered three feet 

below the base of the unconsolidated unit in the DP-MW-13 boring. Due to the relative thinness of the 

hard saprolite/weathered bedrock in the DP-MW-13 boring, one well (DP-MW-13A), screened within the 

unconsolidated unit and the hard saprolite/weathered bedrock, was installed to the depth of auger refusal at 

this location (Ref. 71, p. 18). 

Other wells used to document an observe release to ground water include two ground water monitoring 

wells (DP-MW-01 and DP-MW-02) installed during a site inspection for MDE (Ref. 14), two ground 

water monitoring wells (VP-MW-07 and VP-MW-08) installed by environmental consultants for Vicon on 

the Vicon property north of Dwyer and three ground water monitoring wells installed as part of the Elkton 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-9

Ground Water Study (EGWS-MW-01, EGWS-MW-02A, and EGWS-MW-03). EGWS-MW-02A and 

EGWS-MW-03 were installed on the Terumo Medical Corporation (Terumo) property, which is located 

southeast of the Dwyer property, and EGWS-MW-01 (also known as MW-51) was installed on the City 

Pharmacy property, which is located east of the Dwyer property. MDE installed ten ground water 

monitoring wells (DP-MW-01A, DP-MW-02A, DP-MW-03A, DP-MW-04, DP-MW-04A, DP-MW-05, 

DP-MW-05A, DP-MW-06, DPMW-06A, and DP-MW-07) at Dwyer in April 2003. ENSAT installed 

three ground water monitoring wells (DP-MW-08, DP-MW-09, and DPMW- 10) at Dwyer in August 2004 

to better define the nature and extent of ground water contamination on the northern portion of Dwyer, 

near the adjacent Vicon property where TCE ground water contamination had been detected (Ref. 71, pp. 

7, 8). Monitoring well logs for these wells were reviewed to determine whether the wells were completed 

in the shallow or deep portions of the aquifer. 

SHALLOW GROUND WATER 

This section documents an observed release to shallow ground water. The shallow background and 

contaminated ground well construction details are provided in Tables GW2 and GW4, respectively. The 

TCE concentrations in the background and contaminated ground well (observed release) are summarized 

in Tables GW3 and GW5, respectively. The tables are provided at the end of this section. 

Shallow Background and Release Monitoring Well Construction Details and TCE Concentrations

Reference 27, Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Data, was used to identify shallow background 

wells for shallow contaminated (release) wells. The criteria used in the ERI (Reference 71) was used to 

identify shallow and deep wells because the criteria ensures that the background and release wells are 

completed (screened) within the same relative depths of the aquifer and draw ground water from similar 

depths in the aquifer. The designation of shallow wells was made based on two factors: the elevation of 

the bottom of the well and the height of the water column. Shallow wells are those wells where the water 

column is less than (<) or equal (=) to 25 ft, and where the elevation at the bottom of the well is more than 

(>) -7 ft above mean sea level (amsl) (Ref. 27, p. 9). Three background wells were identified (DP-MW09, 

EGWS-MW-01, and VP-MW-08). Construction details for the shallow background and contaminated 

wells ─ including well depths, well screen intervals, and ground water elevations ─ are summarized in 

Tables GW2 and GW4, respectively. Locations of the background and contaminated wells are shown in 

Reference 29. Ground water elevations of the background and contaminated wells are summarized in 

Reference 27, p. 6, and illustrated on Reference 63. Reference 66, Shallow Ground Water TCE 

Isoconcentrations Map, illustrates the TCE concentrations in shallow ground water. 

As Reference 63 shows, the contaminated wells are located hydrogeologically downgradient of the 

background wells. Ground water flows from the direction of the background wells towards the 

contaminated wells, primarily from the northeast to the south/southwest. Although some of the 

background well ground water elevations are lower than the contaminated well elevations, the background 

wells are upgradient of the contaminated wells because the ground water flows primarily to the south. 

The background wells are considered to be background because:

• The wells are screened at the same relative depth as the contaminated wells.

• The background and contaminated well screen lengths are similar.
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-10

• The background wells are screened within the same relative portion of the aquifer as the 

contaminated wells (see Tables GW2 and GW4).

• The wells were sampled using the same procedures as the contaminated wells (Ref. 45; Ref. 71, 

pp. 28, 33).

• The wells were sampled during the same timeframe as the contaminated wells (Ref. 51, p. 6; Ref. 

54, p. 26; Ref. 55, p. 30; Ref. 56, p. 7; Ref. 57, p. 7; Ref. 58, p. 16; Ref. 59, p. 23; Ref. 60, p. 17; 

Ref. 61, p. 26).

• The wells were analyzed using the same methods (Ref. 51, p. 6; Ref. 54, p. 26; Ref. 55, p. 30; Ref. 

56, p. 7; Ref. 57, p. 7; Ref. 58, p. 16; Ref. 59, p. 23; Ref. 60, p. 17; Ref. 61, p. 26). 

Shallow ground water is documented to flow from the northeast to the south/southwest based on ground 

water elevations presented in Reference 27, page 6, and the ground water contour maps shown in 

Reference 63 (Ref. 71, p. 41). References 29 and 39 illustrate that the three background wells are outside 

the ground water plume. The background wells (DP-MW-09, EGWS-MW-01, and VP-MW-08) document 

ground water conditions northeast, north, and east of the ground water plume (Ref. 29). 

As Tables GW3 and GW5 show, background wells were not sampled during the September 2009 sampling 

investigation. This investigation included the collection of ground water samples primarily from the 

contaminated wells (see Tables GW3 and GW5). The background and contaminated ground water 

samples were collected 5 months apart. No other background wells have been identified for the September 

2009 sampling date. Therefore, the April 2009 samples are used to document background concentrations 

for the September 2009 ground water samples. Additionally, TCE is not naturally occurring (Ref. 30, p. 

185). MDE representatives indicated TCE had never been detected in residential wells samples located on 

Dogwood Lane upgradient of the plume. The residential wells have been sampled periodically to 

determine if the TCE ground water plume extended to the north/northeast (Ref. 32; Ref. 15, pp. 21, 47, 48, 

53, 54, 56, 57; Ref. 16, pp. 2, 14, 17, 23; Ref. 92). Residential well sampling results provide evidence that 

no source of TCE is outside the ground water plume. 

The ground water sample collection forms for each sample used to document an observed release to 

ground water are provided in References 46, 105, and 106. The work plans followed for sample collection 

are provided in Reference 45. The logbook notes for the ground water investigation are extensive and 

available at EPA. 

Envirosystems, Inc., used EPA Method 8260 to analyze the ground water samples, and Air, Water, and 

Soil followed SW-846 methodology (Ref. 51 pp. 1, 6; Ref. 53, p. 7; Ref. 54, pp. 1, 26; Ref. 55, pp. 1, 30; 

Ref. 56, p. 7; Ref. 57, p. 7; Ref. 58, p. 16; Ref. 59, p. 23; Ref. 60, p. 17; Ref. 61, p. 26). Envirosystems, 

Inc., indicated that all quality control (QC) criteria were met (Ref. 51, p. 1). Envirosystems, Inc., 

laboratory data sheets provide the reporting limit when a compound is not detected (Ref. 51, p. 4). The 

reporting limit for TCE is 5 μg/L (Ref. 51, p. 17). The reporting limit corresponds to the Method 8260 

estimated quantitation limit (EQL) (Ref. 52, pp. 1, 9). The EQL is generally 5 to 10 times the method 

detection limit (MDL). The EQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified 

limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions (Ref. 52, p. 9). 

Envirosystems, Inc., laboratories provided the EPA Method 8260 MDL for TCE is 1.955 μg/L (Ref. 68, p. 

1). The reporting limits are provided as the detection limits because concentrations below the reporting 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-11

limits are identified on the laboratory data sheets as “not detected,” and represent detection limits 

achievable by Envirosystems, Inc. (Ref. 51, p. 4).

Air, Water, and Soil data sheets provide a limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the 

detection limits. The LOQ is the limit that the laboratory can quantify. LOQ is the concentration at which 

quantitative results can be reported with a high degree of confidence (Ref. 69). The LOQ is higher that the 

LOD on the analytical data sheets (Ref. 54, pp. 12, 14, 19, 22; Ref. 55, pp. 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 24, 29). 

The data validation reports for the ground water sample analysis are provided in Reference 108. 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-12

TABLE GW2

SHALLOW BACKGROUND MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION

Well ID Well 

Designation(1) Location

Well 

Diameter 

(in)

Elev. 

Top of 

Screened 

Interval 

From Log 

(ft)* 

Elev. 

Bottom 

of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)* 

Total 

Measured

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Total 

Measured

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Total 

Measured

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Elevation of 

Ground 

water (ft)* 

Elevation of 

Ground 

water (ft)* 

Elevation of 

Ground 

water (ft)* 

References

4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 

DP-MW09 Shallow Northern 2 19.97 9.97 57.30 57.40 56.69 32.34 32.69 32.5127, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29

EGWSMW-01 Shallow Northern 2 30.44 10.44 52.79 52.11 51.93 27.01 30.32 27.3327, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29

VP-MW08Shallow

Northern, 

Vicon 

Property 2 31.01 21.01 52.98 52.20 52.25 32.95 33.30 33.12

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

71, p. 7

Notes:

*Elevations are measured as above mean sea level (amsl) (Ref. 27, p. 9).

Reference 29 provides the location of the wells. 

1

 The designation of Shallow and Deep wells was made based on two factors: the elevation of the bottom of the well and the height of the water column. Shallow wells are those 

where the water column is < or = to 25 ft and where the elevation at the bottom of the well is > -7 ft amsl. Deep wells are those where the water column is > 25 ft and where the 

elevation at the bottom of the well is < -7 ft amsl. The exception is well DP-MW-15C, where the water column is > 25 ft but where the bottom of well elevation is >-7 ft amsl. For 

this well, solely the height of the water column was used to assign the well designation. These designations were made to group wells drawing from the same relative depth of the 

aquifer. 

BTOC = Below Top of Casing 

DP = Dwyer Property

EGWS = Elkton Ground Water Study

Elev. = Elevation

ft = Feet

ID = Identification

In = Inches

VP = Vicon Property
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-13

Notes:

The analytical method used to analyze the samples was EPA Method 8260 by Envirosystems, Inc. (Ref. 56 pp. 1, 7). 

The laboratory data sheets provide the reporting limit when a compound is not detected (Ref. 56, p.5). The adjusted 

reporting limit for TCE is 5 μg/L (Ref. 56, p. 19). The reporting limit corresponds to the Method 8260 estimated 

quantitation limit (EQL) (Ref. 52, pp. 1, 9). The EQL is generally 5 to 10 times the method detection limit (MDL). 

The EQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy 

during routine laboratory operating conditions (Ref. 52, p. 9).

μg/L = Micrograms per liter

Conc. = Concentration

DP = Dwyer Property

EGWS = Elkton Ground Water Study

ID = Identification

MW = Monitoring Well

NS = Not sampled

VP = Vicon Property

U = Analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The result reported is the adjusted reporting limit for the 

 analyte. 

TABLE GW3

SHALLOW BACKGROUND WELL

TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) CONCENTRATIONS

Sample ID Hazardous 

Substance

Sampling 

Date

Conc. 

(μg/L)

Reporting 

Limit (μg/L) References

DP-MW-09 Trichloroethylene 4/16/2009 5 U 5 

46, pp. 2, 39; 

56, pp. 7, 17; 

108, pp. 27-

29

EGWS-MW-01 Trichloroethylene 4/16/2009 5 U 5 

46, pp. 2, 10, 

11; 56, pp. 7, 

19; 108, pp. 

27-29

VP-MW-08 Trichloroethylene 4/16/2009 5 U 5 

46, pp. 2, 38; 

56, pp. 7, 15; 

108, pp. 27-

29
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-14

TABLE GW4

SHALLOW CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION

Well ID Well 

Designation Location

Well 

Diameter 

(in)

Elev. 

Top of 

Screened 

Interval 

From Log 

(ft) * 

Elev. 

Bottom of 

Screened 

Interval 

From Log 

(ft) * 

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Elevation 

of 

Ground 

Water (ft)

Elevation 

of 

Ground 

Water (ft)

Elevation 

of 

Ground 

Water (ft)

References

4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09

DP-MW-01 Shallow Southern 4 29.14 14.14 21.09 20.46 20.45 20.68 20.90 20.87

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29

DP-MW-08 Shallow Northern 2 22.20 12.20 45.18 44.98 44.96 30.63 30.96 30.86

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29

DP-MW-10 Shallow Northern 2 21.81 16.81 35.99 35.35 35.34 32.54 32.80 32.62

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29

DP-MW-12A Shallow Southern 2 7.00 -3.01 92.21 91.73 91.53 23.34 23.82 23.74

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29

DP-MW-14A

Shallow Southern

2 8.12 -1.88 83.72 83.04 89.90 18.72 19.16 19.18

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 32 to 

37 

DP-MW-17B

Shallow Northern

2 35.45 15.45 53.77 53.03 53.14 29.96 30.32 30.22

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 145 to 

148

DP-MW-25A

Shallow Southern

2 22.91 2.91 NA NA 51.18 NM NM 19.24

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 190 to 

193 

DP-MW-26A

Shallow Southern

2 32.51 12.51 NA 49.51 50.30 NM 19.55 19.45

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 201 to 

204
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-15

Notes:

*Elevations are above mean sea level (amsl) (Ref. 27, p. 9).

Reference 29 provides the locations of the wells. Well logs for DP-MW-01, 08, 10, 12A and VP-MW-07 and 

EGWS-MW-03 have not been located. 

BTOC = Below Top of Casing

DP = Dwyer Property

Elev. = Elevation

EGWS = Elkton Ground Water Study

TABLE GW4

SHALLOW CONTAMINATED GROUND WTER MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION

Well ID Well 

Designation Location

Well 

Diameter 

(in)

Elev. 

Top of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)*

Elev. 

Bottom 

of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)*

Total 

Measured

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Total 

Measured

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Total 

Measured

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Elevation

of 

Ground 

Water 

(ft)* 

Elevation

of 

Ground 

Water 

(ft)* 

Elevation

of 

Ground 

Water 

(ft)* 

References

4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09

DPMW27A

Shallow Southern

2 25.48 5.48 NA 66.56 67.06 NM 20.14 19.71

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29;

90, pp. 210 

to 214 

DPMW28A

Shallow Southern

2 30.74 10.74 NA NA 67.06 NM NM 19.64

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 221 

to 225

DPMW29A

Shallow Southern

2 22.70 2.70 NA 70.44 71.15 NM 21.08 20.58

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 232 

to 236 

DPMW30A

Shallow Southern

2 25.89 5.89 NA NA 69.44 NM NM 19.23

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 243 

to 247

DPMW31A

Shallow Southern

2 22.14 2.14 NA NA 54.98 NM NM 18.85

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 254 

to 257

VPMW-07 Shallow Northern 2 26.36 21.36 37.76 37.17 37.11 32.58 32.96 32.7727, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29 

EGWSMW-03 Shallow Southern 2 13.32 -6.68 31.23 30.62 30.48 11.89 12.07 12.1427, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-16

ft = Feet

ID = Identification

in = Inch

MW = Monitoring Well

NM = Not Measured

NA = Not Applicable (i.e., well had not been installed or repaired as of this date)

TOC = Top of Casing of Monitoring Well

VP = Vicon Property
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-17

Notes:

a The analytical method used to analyze the samples was EPA Method 8260 by Envirosystems, Inc. (Ref. 56 

pp. 1, 7). The laboratory data sheets provide the reporting limit when a compound is not detected (Ref. 56, p.5). The 

adjusted reporting limit for TCE is 5 μg/L (Ref. 56, p. 19). The reporting limit corresponds to the Method 8260 

estimated quantitation limit (EQL) (Ref. 52, pp. 1, 9). The EQL is generally 5 to 10 times the method detection limit 

(MDL). The EQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and 

accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions (Ref. 52, p. 9).

b Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories data sheets specify the LOD and the LOQ for the detection limits. The 

LOQ is the limit that the laboratory can quantify. LOQ is the concentration at which quantitative results can be 

reported with a high degree of confidence (Ref. 69). Because the LOQ is higher that the LOD on the analytical data 

sheets, the LOQ used as the detection limit as a conservative approach (Ref. 55, pp. 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 24, 29; Ref. 

58, pp. 10, 16; Ref. 59, pp. 59, pp. 10, 12; Ref. 60, pp. 6, 11; Ref. 61, pp. 5, 7, 10, 12, 19, 22).

μg/L = Micrograms per liter

TABLE GW5

SHALLOW CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER CONCENTRATIONS

OBSERVED RELEASE TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) CONCENTRATIONS

Sample ID Hazardous 

Substance

Sample 

Date

Conc. 

(μg/L) Reporting Limit 

(μg/L) a, b Reference

DP-MW-01 Trichloroethylene 4/22/2009 210 10 (DF 2) 46, pp. 1, 8, 9; 53, pp. 7, 

45; 108, pp. 30-47

DP-MW-08 Trichloroethylene 4/23/2009 4,100 1000 (DF 200) 46, pp. 1, 36, 37; 82, pp. 7, 

32; 108, pp. 48-69

DP-MW-10 Trichloroethylene 4/23/2009 1,300 50 (DF 10) 46, pp. 2, 40, 41; 82, pp. 7, 

34; 108, pp. 48-69

DP-MW-17B Trichloroethylene 4/24/2009 80 5 46, pp. 3, 65, 66; 82, pp. 

7, 24; 108, pp. 48-69

EGWS-MW-03 Trichloroethylene 4/17/2009 11 5 46, pp. 2, 21, 22; 56, pp. 7, 

21; 108, pp. 26-28

VP-MW-07 Trichloroethylene 4/27/2009 4,100 250 (DF 50) 46, p. 2, 34, 35; 57, pp 7, 

23; 108, pp. 70-80

DP-MW-08 Trichloroethylene 9/25/2009 2,270 20 (DF 20) 106, pp. 4, 5; 54, pp. 7, 26; 

108, pp. 172-197

DP-MW-12A Trichloroethylene 9/09/2009 252 1 105, pp. 7, 8; 61, pp. 17, 

26; 108, pp. 113-139

DP-MW-14A Trichloroethylene 9/08/2009 1,060 10 (DF 10) 105, pp. 13, 14; 61, pp. 12, 

26; 108, pp. 113-139

DP-MW-25A Trichloroethylene 9/01/2009 117 1 105, pp. 17, 18; 58, pp. 12, 

16; 108, pp. 81-83

DP-MW-26A Trichloroethylene 9/02/2009 112 1 105, pp. 21, 22; 59, pp. 7, 

23; 108, pp. 85-108

DP-MW-27A Trichloroethylene 9/03/2009 211 1 105, pp. 25, 26; 59, pp. 12, 

23; 108, pp. 85-108

DP-MW-28A Trichloroethylene 9/04/2009 1,350 20 (DF 20) 105, pp. 29, 30; 60, pp. 9, 

17; 108, pp. 109-111

DP-MW-29A Trichloroethylene 9/03/2009 907 20 (DF 20) 105, pp. 33, 34; 59, pp. 17, 

23; 108, pp. 85-108

DP-MW-30A Trichloroethylene 9/04/2009 279 1 105, pp. 37, 38; 60, pp. 4, 

17; 108, pp. 109-111

DP-MW-31A Trichloroethylene 9/01/2009 120 1 105, pp. 41, 42; 58, pp. 8, 

16; 108, pp. 81-83
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-18

Conc. = Concentration

DF = Dilution factor (the detection limit is adjusted by multiplying the detection limit [5] by the DF).

DP = Dwyer Property

EGWS = Elkton Ground Water Study

ID = Identification

MW = Monitoring Well

VP = Vicon Property 

 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-19

DEEP GROUND WATER

This section documents an observed release to deep ground water. The deep background and 

contaminated ground water well construction details are provided in Tables GW6 and GW7, respectively. 

The deep background and contaminated ground water well (observed release) TCE concentrations are 

summarized in Tables GW8 and GW9, respectively. The tables are provided at the end of this section. 

Deep Background and Release Monitoring Well Construction Details and TCE Concentrations

Reference 27, Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Data, was used to identify deep background 

wells for deep contaminated (release) wells. The criteria used in the ERI (Reference 71) was used to 

identify shallow and deep wells because the criteria ensures that the background and release wells are

completed (screened) within the same relative depths of the aquifer and draw ground water from similar 

depths in the aquifer. The designation of deep wells was made based on two factors: the elevation of the 

bottom of the well and the height of the water column. Deep wells are those where the water column is > 

25 ft and where the elevation at the bottom of the well is below -7 ft amsl. The exception is well DP-MW15C, where the water column is > 25 ft but the bottom of well elevation is >-7 ft amsl. (Ref. 27, p. 5) For 

this well, solely the height of the water column was used to assign the well designation as deep (see Table 

GW6). Three background wells were identified (DP-MW-03A, DP-MW-06A, and DP-MW-15C) (Ref. 

27, p. 1; Ref. 39). The construction details for the deep background and contaminated wells including well 

depths, well screen intervals, and ground water elevations are summarized in Tables GW6 and GW8. 

Locations of the background wells are shown in Reference 29. Ground water elevations of the background 

and contaminated wells are summarized in Reference 27, p. 6 and illustrated on Reference 64. As these 

references show, the ground water elevations in the deep contaminated wells are lower than those in the 

deep background wells. Therefore, the contaminated wells are located hydrogeologically downgradient of 

the background wells. The background wells capture the conditions of ground water hydrogeologically 

upgradient of the contaminated wells. 

The background wells are considered to be background wells because:

• The wells are screened with the same relative depth as the contaminated wells.

• The well screen lengths are similar. 

• The background wells are screened within the same relative portion of the aquifer as the 

contaminated wells (see Tables GW6 and GW8).

• The wells were sampled using the same procedures (Ref. 45; Ref. 71, pp. 28, 33). 

• The wells were sampled during the same time frame (See Tables GW7 and GW9).

• The wells were analyzed using the same methods (Ref. 51, p. 6; Ref. 53, p. 7; Ref. 55, p. 30; Ref. 

56, p. 7; Ref. 58, p. 16; Ref. 59, p. 23; Ref. 60, p. 17; Ref. 61, p. 26).

• The wells are located outside of the source, the ground water plume (Ref. 39; Ref. 67). 

Additionally, deep ground water is documented to flow from the northeast to the south-southwest based on 

ground water elevations presented in Reference 27, page 6, and the ground water contour map shown in 

Reference 64 (Ref. 71, p. 41). References 29, 39, and 67 illustrate that the three background wells are 

outside the ground water plume. Ground water elevations in the background wells are higher than the 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-20

elevations in the contaminated wells, as documented in Tables GW6 and GW8. The background wells 

indicate ground water conditions northeast, north, and southeast of the ground water plume. 

As Tables GW7 and GW9 show, background wells were not sampled during the September 2009 sampling 

investigation. This investigation included the collection of ground water samples primarily from the 

contaminated wells (see Tables GW7 and GW9). The background and contaminated ground water 

samples were collected 5 months apart. No other background wells have been identified for this sampling 

date. Therefore, the April 2009 samples are used to document background concentrations for the 

September 2009 ground water samples. Based on the physical properties of TCE, it is not likely that these 

background wells would have become contaminated between April 2009 and September 2009 (Ref. 31, p. 

1). Moreover, TCE is not naturally occurring (Ref. 30, p. 185). MDE representatives indicated TCE had 

never been detected in residential wells samples located on Dogwood Lane upgradient of the plume. The 

residential wells have been sampled periodically to determine whether the TCE ground water plume 

extended to the north/northeast (Ref. 32; Ref. 15, pp. 21, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57; Ref. 16, pp. 2, 14, 17, 23; 

Ref. 92). This provides evidence that no source of TCE is outside the ground water plume. 

The ground water sample collection forms for each ground water sample used to document an observed 

release to ground water are provided in References 46, 105, and 106. The work plans followed for sample 

collection are provided in Reference 45. The logbook notes for investigation are extensive and available at 

EPA. 

Envirosystems, Inc., used EPA Method 8260 to analyze the samples, and Air, Water, and Soil followed 

SW-846 methodology (Ref. 51 pp. 1, 6; Ref. 53, p. 7; Ref. 55, pp. 1, 30; Ref. 56, p. 7; Ref. 58, p. 16; Ref. 

59, p. 23; Ref. 60, p. 17; Ref. 61, p. 26). Envirosystems, Inc., indicated that all QC criteria were met (Ref. 

51, p. 1). Envirosystems, Inc., laboratory data sheets provide the reporting limit when a compound is not 

detected (Ref. 51, p. 4). The reporting limit for TCE is 5 μg/L (Ref. 51, p. 17). The reporting limit 

corresponds to the Method 8260 EQL (Ref. 52, pp. 1, 9). The EQL is generally 5 to 10 times the MDL. 

The EQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved with specified limits of precision and 

accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions (Ref. 52, p. 9). Envirosystems, Inc., laboratories 

presumed the EPA Method 8260 MDL for TCE is 1.955 μg/L (Ref. 68, p. 1). The reporting limits are 

provided as the detection limits because concentrations below the reporting limits are identified on the 

laboratory data sheets as not detected and represent detection limits achievable by Envirosystems, Inc. 

(Ref. 51, p. 4). Because the reporting limits are higher than the MDLs, this is a conservative approach.

Air, Water, and Soil data sheets specify the LOD and the LOQ for the detection limits. The LOQ is the 

limit that the laboratory can quantify. LOQ is the concentration at which quantitative results can be 

reported with a high degree of confidence (Ref. 69). Because the LOQ is higher that the LOD on the 

analytical data sheets, the LOQ used as the detection limit as a conservative approach (Ref. 55, pp. 3, 6, 7, 

10, 14, 17, 24, 29; Ref. 58, pp. 10, 16; Ref. 59, pp. 59, pp. 10, 12; Ref. 60, pp. 6, 11; Ref. 61, pp. 5, 7, 10, 

12, 19, 22). 

The data validation report for the ground water samples is presented in Reference 108. 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-21

TABLE GW6

DEEP BACKGROUND MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Well ID Well 

Designation Location

Well 

Diameter 

(in)

Elev.

Top of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)* 

Elev. 

Bottom 

of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)* 

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Elevation 

of Ground 

water (ft)* 

Elevation 

of Ground 

water (ft)* 

Elevation

of Ground 

water (ft)* 

References

4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09

DP-MW03A Deep Northern 2 -6.72 -16.72 63.73 63.06 63.05 29.84 29.91 29.8927, pp. 1, 2, 6; 

29

DP-MW15CDeep Northern

2 14.49 -0.51 83.35 82.84 82.73 26.69 27.13 27.05

27, pp. 1, 2, 6; 

29; 90, pp. 

135 to 140

Notes:

* Elevations are above mean sea level (amsl) (Ref. 27, p. 9). Reference 29 provides the locations of the wells. Well logs for DP-MW-03A and 06A have not been located. 

BTOC = Below Top of Casing

DP = Dwyer Property

ft = Feet

ID = Identification

in = Inch

MW = Monitoring Well
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-22

TABLE GW7

DEEP BACKGROUND GROUND WATER CONCENTRATIONS

Well ID Hazardous 

Substance

Sampling 

Date

Conc 

(μg/L)

Reporting 

Limit 

(μg/L)a 

References

DP-MW-03A Trichloroethylene 4/15/2009 6.9 5 

46, pp. 1, 18, 19; 51, 

pp. 6, 31; 108, pp. 2-

25

DP-MW-15C Trichloroethylene 4/28/2009 8.6 5 

46, p. 2, 59, 60; 57, 

pp. 7, 35 (the chain of 

custody and collection 

form incorrectly 

identifies the sample 

as DP-MW- 15B); 

108, pp. 70-80

Notes:

a The analytical method used to analyze the samples was EPA Method 8260 by Envirosystems, Inc. (Ref. 51 p. 6). 

The laboratory indicted that all quality control (QC) criteria were met (Ref. 51, p. 1). The laboratory data sheets 

provide the reporting limit when a compound is not detected (Ref. 51, p. 4). The reporting limit for 

trichloroethylene is 5 μg/L (Ref. 51, p. 17). The reporting limit corresponds to the Method 8260 estimated 

quantitation limit (Ref. 52, pp. 1, 9). The estimated quantitation limit (EQL) is generally 5 to 10 times the method 

detection limit (MDL). The EQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits 

of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions (Ref. 52, p. 9). 

μg/L = Micrograms per liter

Conc. = Concentration

DP = Dwyer Property

ID = Identification

NA = Not available

MW = Monitoring Well
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-23

- Contaminated Samples: Deep Monitoring Wells

TABLE GW8

DEEP CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Well ID Location

Well 

Diameter 

(in)

Elev. 

Top of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)* 

Elev. 

Bottom 

of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)*

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well BTOC 

(ft)

Elevation of 

Ground 

Water (ft)* 

Elevation 

of Ground 

Water (ft)* 

Elevation of 

Ground

Water (ft)* 

References

4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09

DP-MW01A Southern 2 -10.83 -20.83 58.90 58.25 58.26 17.26 17.59 17.6127, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29

DP-MW02A Northern 2 -6.94 -16.94 62.61 62.09 62.01 27.44 27.73 27.6327, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29

DP-MW-04 Southern 2 -4.62 -14.62 72.19 71.50 71.43 18.25 18.55 18.57

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29 

DP-MW04A Southern 2 -20.13 -30.13 89.80 90.44 89.43 18.21 18.38 18.5827, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29 

DP-MW-07 Northern 2 -5.87 -15.87 72.81 72.34 72.15 26.67 27.01 26.85

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29

DP-MW12B Southern

2 -19.98 -29.98 123.00 122.65 122.19 23.34 23.76 23.57

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 18 to 

25 

DP-MW13A Southern

2 -8.34 -18.34 92.76 92.11 91.80 21.76 22.17 22.02

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 26 to 

31 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-24

TABLE GW8 (Continued)

DEEP CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Well ID Location

Well 

Diameter 

(in)

Elev. 

Top of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)

Elev. 

Bottom 

of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Elevation of 

Ground 

Water (ft)

Elevation 

of Ground 

Water (ft)

Elevation of 

Ground 

Water (ft)

References

4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09

DP-MW14B Southern 

2 -10.86 -20.86 106.83 106.23 105.86 18.85 19.37 19.25

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 38 to 

44

DP-MW17C Northern

2 1.49 -13.51 83.62 82.97 82.94 30.01 30.27 30.18

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 149 to 

154 

DP-MW26B Southern

2 -1.79 -11.79 NM 72.29 73.44 NM 19.31 19.38

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 205 to 

209 

DP-MW27B Southern

2 -5.10 -15.10 NM 87.43 87.92 NM 20.14 19.75

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 215 to 

220

DP-MW28B Southern

2 -4.24 -14.24 NM NM 91.09 NM NM 20.79

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 226 to 

231

DP-MW29B Southern

2 -15.15 -25.15 NM 98.01 98.42 NM 21.47 20.90

27, pp. 1, 2, 

6; 29; 90, 

pp. 237 to 

242
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-25

TABLE GW8 (Continued)

DEEP CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

Well ID Location

Well 

Diameter 

(in)

Elev. 

Top of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)

Elev. 

Bottom 

of 

Screened 

Interval 

From 

Log (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC 

(ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Total 

Measured 

Depth of 

Well 

BTOC (ft)

Elevation 

of Ground 

Water (ft)

Elevation 

of Ground 

Water (ft)

Elevation of 

Ground 

Water (ft)

References

4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09 4/9/09 8/10/09 9/14/09

DP-MW-30B Southern

2 -8.91 -18.91 NM NM 94.44 NM NM 19.30

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 248 

to 253

DP-MW-31B Southern

2 -45.59 -55.59 NM NM 113.24 NM NM 18.84

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 258 

to 264

DP-MW-32B Southern

2 -64.11 -74.11 NM NM 114.14 NM NM 17.71

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29; 

90, pp. 268 

to 274

EGWS-MW-02A Southern 2 10.70 -9.30 45.65 44.86 44.85 16.99 17.30 17.18

27, pp. 1, 

2, 6; 29

Notes:

* Elevations are above mean sea level (amsl) (Ref. 27, p. 9). Reference 29 provides the locations of the wells. Well logs for DP-MW-01A, 02A, 04, 04A, 

and 07 have not been located.

BTOC = Below Top of Casing ft = Feet MW = Monitoring well

DP = Dwyer Property ID = Identification 

EGWS = Elkton Ground Water Study in = Inch

Elev. = Elevation NM = Not measured
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-26

TABLE GW9

DEEP CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER

TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) CONCENTRATIONS

Well ID Hazardous 

Substance

Sampling 

Date

Conc. 

(μg/L) 

Reporting 

Limit 

(μg/L)a, b

References

DP-MW-02A Trichloroethylene 4/17/2009 55 5 

46, pp. 1, 14, 15; 56, 

pp. 7, 25; 108, pp. 26-

28

DP-MW-04 Trichloroethylene 4/21/2009 5,900 250 (DF 50)

46, pp. 1, 24, 25; 53, 

pp. 7, 35; 108, pp. 30-

47

DP-MW-04A Trichloroethylene 4/21/2009 6,800 250 (DF 50) 46, pp. 1, 23; 53, pp. 

7, 39; 108, pp. 30-47

DP-MW-07 Trichloroethylene 4/17/2009 59 5 

46, pp. 1, 32, 33; 56, 

pp. 7, 23; 108, pp. 26-

28

DP-MW-13A Trichloroethylene 4/21/2009 3,200 1,00

(DF 20)

46, pp. 2, 52, 53; 53, 

pp. 7, 27; 108, pp. 30-

47

DP-MW-14B Trichloroethylene 4/22/2009 21,000 1,000

(DF 200)

46, pp. 2, 56, 57; 53, 

pp. 7, 49; 108, pp. 30-

47

DP-MW-17C Trichloroethylene 4/24/2009 120 5 46, pp. 3, 67; 82, pp. 

7, 26; 108, pp. 48-69

EGWS-MW02A Trichloroethylene 4/22/2009 16,000 500 (DF 100)

46, pp. 2, 16, 17; 53, 

pp. 7, 47; 108, pp. 30-

47

RP-MW-01A Trichloroethylene 9/22/2009 70.2 1 

106, pp. 28, 29; 55, 

pp. 22, 30; 108, pp. 

140-170

DP-MW-04 Trichloroethylene 9/08/2009 4,500 50 (DF 50)

105, pp. 3, 4; 61, pp. 

7, 26; 108, pp. 113-

139

DP-MW-04A Trichloroethylene 9/09/2009 6,000 50 (DF 50)

105, pp. 5, 6; 61, pp. 

10, 26; 108, pp. 113-

139

DP-MW-12B Trichloroethylene 9/09/2009 320 1 

105, pp. 9, 10; 61, pp. 

19, 26; 108, pp. 113-

139

DP-MW-13A Trichloroethylene 9/08/2009 2,640 20 (DF 20)

105, pp. 11, 12; 61, 

pp. 5, 26; 108, pp. 

113-139

DP-MW-14B Trichloroethylene 9/08/2009 22,300 200 (DF 200)

105, pp. 15, 16; 61, 

pp. 14, 26; 108, pp. 

113-139
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-27

Notes:

a

 The analytical method used to analyze the samples was EPA Method 8260 by Envirosystems, Inc. (Ref. 56 pp. 1, 

7). The laboratory data sheets provide the reporting limit when a compound is not detected (Ref. 56, p.5). The 

adjusted reporting limit for TCE is 5 μg/L (Ref. 56, p. 19). The reporting limit corresponds to the Method 8260 

estimated quantitation limit (EQL) (Ref. 52, pp. 1, 9). The EQL is generally 5 to 10 times the method detection limit 

(MDL). The EQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and 

accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions (Ref. 52, p. 9).

b

 Air, Water, and Soil Laboratories data sheets specify the LOD and the LOQ for the detection limits. The 

LOQ is the limit that the laboratory can quantify. LOQ is the concentration at which quantitative results can be 

reported with a high degree of confidence (Ref. 69). Because the LOQ is higher that the LOD on the analytical data 

sheets, the LOQ used as the detection limit as a conservative approach (Ref. 55, pp. 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 24, 29; Ref. 

58, pp. 10, 16; Ref. 59, pp. 59, pp. 10, 12; Ref. 60, pp. 6, 11; Ref. 61, pp. 5, 7, 10, 12, 19, 22).

The highest background well trichloroethylene concentration in Table GW7 is used to establish the background

level. This is a conservative approach.

μg/L = Micrograms per liter

Conc. = Concentration

TABLE GW9 (continued)

DEEP CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER

TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) CONCENTRATIONS

Well ID Hazardous 

Substance

Sampling 

Date

Conc. 

(μg/L) 

Reporting 

Limit 

(μg/L)a 

References

DP-MW-26B Trichloroethylene 9/02/2009 902 20 (DF 20)

105, pp. 23, 24; 59, 

pp. 10, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-27B Trichloroethylene 9/03/2009 11,900 200 (DF 200)

105, pp. 27, 28; 59, 

pp. 14, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-28B Trichloroethylene 9/04/2009 13,200 50 (DF 50)

105, pp. 31, 32; 60, 

pp. 11, 17; 108, pp. 

110-112

DP-MW-29B Trichloroethylene 9/03/2009 15,800 200 (DF 200)

105, pp. 35, 36; 59, 

pp. 19, 23; 108, pp. 

85-108

DP-MW-30B Trichloroethylene 9/04/2009 12,200 50 (DF 50)

105, pp. 39, 40; 60, 

pp. 6, 17; 108, pp. 

110-112

DP-MW-31B Trichloroethylene 9/1/2009 335 1 

105, pp. 43, 44; 58, 

pp. 10, 16; 108. pp. 

81-84

DP-MW-32B Trichloroethylene 8/31/2009 46.9 1 

105, pp. 47, 48; 58, 

pp. 5, 16; 108. pp. 81-

84

EGWS-MW02A Trichloroethylene 9/09/2009 17,100 50 (DF 50)

105, pp. 1, 2; 61, pp. 

22, 26; 108, pp. 113-

139
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-28

DF = Dilution factor (the detection limit is adjusted by multiplying the detection limit [5] by the DF).

DP = Dwyer Property

RP = Ruddy Property

EGWS = Elkton Ground Water Study

ID = Identification

NA = Not available

MW = Monitoring Well

Trichloroethylene Product in Monitoring Wells

During ground water investigations at the Dwyer Property, TCE product was measured in monitoring wells 

DP-MW-15A and DP-MW-21. DP-MW-15A had the following thicknesses of TCE product detected on 

the following dates: 2.69 feet (5/11/2009), 1.59 ft (6/10/2009), 1.63 ft (7/10/2009), 2.02 ft (8/10/2009), 

and 2.02 ft (9/14/2009) (Ref. 27, p. 5). TCE product was found in DP-MW-21 at 2.45 ft on 9/14/2009

(Ref. 27, p. 5). A review of available ground water data indicates that TCE dense, non-aqueous phase 

liquid (DNAPL) occurs in the area of DP-MW-15A and DP-MW-17A (Ref. 71, pp. 45, 47). 

Rationale for Plume:

Because the source is a contaminated ground water plume with no identifiable source of contamination, 

attribution has not been determined (Ref. 1, Section 3.1.1). This section describes the physical properties 

of TCE, the original source of which has not been identified, and describes facilities within Elkton, 

Maryland, that have been investigated as possible sources of contamination. 

Physical Properties of TCE

An observed release of TCE to ground water has been established based on sampling of monitoring wells 

in the area of the ground water plume. The physical properties of TCE are documented in the following 

paragraphs. 

Because TCE is heavier than water, TCE migrates downward from the original source to zones of low 

permeability. TCE remains in ground water for long periods of time. TCE has low solubility in water and 

a density greater than that of water. Therefore, TCE may exist in the subsurface as DNAPL and could 

migrate as a separate liquid phase to significant distances below the water table in both unconsolidated 

materials and fractured bedrock. Because of their physicochemical properties, DNAPLs can migrate 

selectively through the subsurface. Subsurface DNAPL acts as a long-term source for dissolved-phase 

contamination and determines the spatial distribution and persistence of contaminant concentrations within 

the dissolved-phase plume. The DNAPL source zone is the overall volume of the subsurface containing 

residual and pooled DNAPL. In addition to the DNAPL, significant amounts of contaminant mass may 

have diffused into low permeability zones. Back diffusion of contaminant mass from these zones may 

sustain dissolved-phase plumes for significant periods of time, even after removal of DNAPL. Flow of 

ground water past residual and pooled DNAPL will result in dissolved-phase plumes of contamination. 

Complete dissolution of most DNAPLs as a result of natural ground water flow is expected to take from 

several decades to hundreds of years (Ref. 31, pp. 1, 2, 3; Ref. 13, p. 27, 33). 

The presence of a contiguous and persistent plume extending from suspected release locations 

downgradient of the Dwyer property is evidence of a continuing source (e.g., DNAPL). If sufficient time” 

has passed since the last possible introduction of the contaminant to the subsurface and the plume has not 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-29

“detached” itself from the suspected release locations, a DNAPL source may be present. The “sufficient 

time” depends on site-specific conditions such as ground water velocity and the amount of sorption 

occurring (Ref. 31, p. 6; Ref. 13, p. 27). Abrupt reversals of ground water contaminant concentration 

levels with depth or increasing concentrations with depth can indicate the presence of DNAPL (Ref. 31, p. 

6). The Dwyer property ground water plume has these characteristics (Ref. 13, p. 27). 

TCE may slowly biodegrade under anaerobic conditions, suggesting that a slow biodegradation process 

may occur in subsurface environmental regions. In regions where volatilization is not viable, TCE may be 

relatively persistent. The biodegradation products from TCE are DCE and vinyl chloride (Ref. 30, pp. 2, 

202, 203).

TCE is commonly used in vapor degreasing of fabricated metal parts, which is a process that is closely 

associated with the automotive and metals industries. TCE is an excellent extraction solvent for greases, 

oils, fats, waxes, and tars, and is used by the textile processing industry to scour cotton, wool, and other 

fabrics. The textile industry also uses TCE as a solvent in waterless dying and finishing operations. As a 

general solvent or as a component of solvent blends, TCE is used with adhesives, lubricants, paints, 

varnishes, paint strippers, pesticides, and cold metal cleaners. Approximately 10 million pounds of TCE is 

used annually as a chain transfer agent in the production of polyvinyl chloride. Other chemical 

intermediate uses of TCE include production of pharmaceuticals, polychlorinated aliphatics, flameretardant chemicals, and insecticides. TCE is used as a refrigerant for low-temperature heat transfer and in 

the aerospace industry for flushing liquid oxygen. Various consumer products found to contain TCE 

include typewriter correction fluids, paint removers/strippers, adhesives, spot removers, and rug-cleaning 

fluids (Ref. 30, p. 188). 

TCE is a manmade chemical that is not known to occur in nature (Ref. 30, p. 185). 

Land use in the area overlying the ground water plume includes mixed industrial and commercial 

development (Refs. 3; 28; Figure 1of HRS documentation record). Locations of industrial and commercial 

facilities and operations, as well as environmental conditions in the area of the plume, are discussed below. 

 

Facilities in Elkton, Maryland

Although the source of TCE in the ground water plume has not been identified, numerous industrial 

facilities are in the area of the ground water plume, as documented below and shown in Reference 18. 

ATK Tactical Systems Comp. LLC

55 Thiokol Road

Elkton, Maryland

ATK/Thiokol (ATK) (formerly known as Morton Thiokol, Inc.) is a 467-acre industrial site used for 

manufacture of rocket fuel and systems. TCE was used as solvent for degreasing metal components from 

1959 to 1974. ATK discovered TCE contamination in production wells in 1984. This was the first time 

the wells were analyzed for VOCs and it is not know how long the wells had been contaminated. This 

prompted the testing of other wells in the vicinity of the facility. The facility also is contaminated with 

pesticides and PCE in the soil, surface water, and ground water. A pump and treat system is in use to 

address the ground water contamination, and further site investigations under the auspices of the EPA are 

ongoing (Ref. 17, p. 4; Ref. 95, pp. 3, 4).
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-30

After the discovery of TCE at the facility, other wells in the vicinity were investigated. TCE was found in 

six on-site wells and 16 off-site wells. A plume identified by MDE extends from areas on the ATK 

property across Nottingham Road and Route 40 (Ref. 95, p. 3, 4).

A historical survey generated information that indicates a number of potential sources of TCE and trace 

VOCs in the vicinity of the TCE ground water plume on and near the ATK facility. The most likely 

sources of contamination are divided into three groups: those north of Little Elk Creek and Laurel Run, 

those south of Little Elk Creek but north of Route 40, and those along Route 40. Based on aerial 

photographs and surveys of land ownership, 11 likely users of TCE or solvents have been or are north of 

Little Elk Creek, six have been or are south of Little Elk Creek, and four have been or are along Route 40. 

Many possible sources of TCE contamination have been identified on and near the ATK facility, including 

other industries that own or lease property in the area of the facility and that have handled or used 

hazardous materials and/or solvents (Ref. 95, pp. 1, 5, 10).

On September 22, 1997, the MDE renewed and modified the Permit for ATK Tactical Systems Company 

LLC, formerly Thiokol Corporation and later Thiokol Propulsion Controlled Hazardous Substances 

Storage and Treatment Facility; this action extended the corrective action permit issued to ATK on 

October 8, 1989 (overseen by EPA). The permit requires ATK to sample the ground water and/or soil to 

determine whether releases of hazardous waste/constituents have occurred or are likely to occur from solid 

waste management units (SWMU). The permit also requires ATK to conduct a Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation to characterize the subsurface conditions and nature and 

extent of any releases based on the results of the sampling investigations. The third requirement of the 

permit tasks ATK to implement minor corrective measures at three SWMUs; this stems from submittal of 

results of an initial source identification/TCE ground water investigation resulting from contamination of 

two production drinking wells detected in December 1984 (Ref. 17, p. 9).

Limited SWMU investigations have identified pesticides, volatile organics, inorganics, and other 

contamination in the soil, surface water, and ground water. A ground water plume migrating from the 

central portion of the facility towards the southeast is contaminated with TCE and its degradation products. 

In October 1998, ATK sampled on-site wells for the solvent constituents of concern and perchlorate. 

Perchlorate was detected at 500 parts per billion (ppb) in the facility production well (Ref. 17, p. 9). 

Ground water samples were collected in March, August, and December 2009. Results showed detections 

and/or exceedences of perchlorates (10,100 μg/L (Ref. 93, p. 32), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (44,100 μg/L)

(Ref. 78, p. 2), 1,1,2-trichloroethane (3.9 μg/L) (Ref. 78, p. 2), 1,1-dichloroethane (2,480 μg/L) (Ref. 78, 

p. 2), 1,1-dichloroethene (2,670 μg/L) (Ref. 94, p. 2), chlorobenzene (82.4 μg/L) (Ref. 80, p. 3), 

chloroethane (387 μg/L) (Ref. 78, p. 2), chloroform (60.5 μg/L) (Ref. 78, p. 2), methylene chloride (17.1 

μg/L) (Ref. 80, p. 3), PCE (280 μg/L) (Ref. 94, p. 6), toluene (up to 19.6 μg/L) (Ref. 80, p. 3), TCE (249

μg/L) (Ref. 78, p. 14), and vinyl chloride (87.2 μg/L) (Ref. 78, p. 7). The analytical data reports and chain 

of custody records for the ground water samples are provided in References 77 through 80 and References

93 and 94. 

ATK is located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the ground water plume (Dwyer Property) (Ref. 18; 

Ref. 62 through 64; Ref. 71, p. 41).
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-31

Central Chemical Corporation

Trinco Industrial Park

Zientler Lane

Elkton, Maryland

Central Chemical Corporation (Central Chemical) purchased the facility from the Elkton Company in 

September 1966. During the late 1960s, the facility was constructed for herbicide and pesticide blending 

and air hammer milling operations conducted for client companies (Ref. 70, p. 1, 7). Central Chemical 

ceased operations in 2003 and sold the property in 2004 to Aquafin, Inc. Aquafin, Inc., produces concrete 

sealing products (Ref. 17, p. 12).

During Central Chemical’s period of ownership, several incidents were reported of wastewater and 

lubricating oil spills from the facility into water channels connected to major streams in the State of 

Maryland, which prompted an order issued in April 1970. Under the order, Central Chemical was required 

to submit plans for implementing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal from the facility; design, 

install, and maintain wastewater collection and treatment and disposal activities for all wastewaters 

originating from the facility; provide storage facilities for empty bags and containers to prevent “wash 

down” of chemical residues from the storage area; supply a plan of improved surface drainage to control 

erosion and sediment transport resulting from rain; establish vegetative cover for berms, embankments, and 

other exposed areas; and train employees to use proper procedures when performing all wastewater 

collection, treatment, and disposal operations (Ref. 70, pp. 2, 8, 9). 

According to the 1989 preliminary assessment of the facility, Central Chemical did not generate any 

known hazardous wastes at the facility. Non-hazardous materials generated at the facility were primarily 

ashes from incineration of bags, boxes, and drums that had contained herbicide and pesticide powder (Ref. 

70, p. 18). The detected chlorinated solvent contamination was unlikely to have resulted from on-site 

activities at the facility. The contamination most likely migrated from an off-site source (Ref. 17, p. 11). 

Central Chemical is located approximately 1 mile west of the ground water plume (Dwyer Property) (Ref. 

18; Ref. 62 through 64; Ref. 71, pp. 41, 94, 95, 96). 

Crouse Brothers Excavating

415 West Pulaski Highway

Elkton, Maryland

Crouse Brothers Excavating facility is an approximately 11-acre commercial property used as a 

contractor’s yard for equipment storage and parts. It is located 1,000 feet west of the Route 40 intersection 

with Route 279. A privately owned rubble landfill extended approximately 2,000 feet towards the north 

from behind the buildings at the facility (Ref. 17, p. 12). The Crouse Brothers Excavating facility is 

located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Dwyer Property (Ref. 18). 

The Crouse Brothers Excavating facility was acquired as two separate parcels. The southern parcel was 

purchased in 1972. The buildings along Route 40 were used for several decades as a maintenance shop for 

excavation vehicles and for repair and maintenance of heating/ventilation/air conditioning units. In 1981, 

the second parcel was purchased from Gilpin Manor Development Corporation. The nature of Glipin 

Manor Development Corporation’s use of the property is unknown (Ref. 17, p. 12).

The rubble landfill was discovered in 1986 during an investigation of residential wells. Dumping is 

believed to have occurred at the landfill after 1970. Site inspections by Maryland Department of Health 

and Mental Hygiene in 1986 found numerous regulated wastes in the landfill at the Crouse Brothers 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-32

Excavating facility. The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a Site Complaint to 

cease and desist all landfilling, other than tree stumps, brush, concrete, and clean fill dirt, because the 

facility was unpermitted. Additional inspections were conducted and the facility submitted information 

requested by the Department to support a claim that the unacceptable materials found in the landfill had 

been removed. During the investigation of the ground water wells, the highest concentrations of TCE were 

found in wells downgradient of the facility (Ref. 17, pp. 12, 13).

MDE collected ground water samples from six monitoring wells and three residential wells on January 3, 

1990. A figure of the well locations was not provided in the information reviewed; therefore, it is 

unknown which wells were located near the Crouse Brothers Excavating facility. TCE was detected on

site in monitoring wells at concentrations up to 2,200 μg/L, and in residential wells at up to 3,200 μg/L 

(Ref. 103, pp. 34, 35). 

Crouse Brothers is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the ground water plume (Dwyer Property) 

(Ref. 18; Ref. 62 through 64; Ref. 71, pp. 41, 94, 95, 96). 

Elkton Farm

183 Zeitler Road

Elkton, Maryland

The Elkton Farm facility is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Dwyer Property (Ref. 18). 

The facility was purchased from Triumph Explosives in 1945 and encompasses 323 acres. The facility 

was primarily used for farming and raising livestock. Elkton Farms has a history of use for munitions 

waste disposal at the firehole, a rocket motor cleaning and recovery area; in the early 1980s, wastes from 

Galaxy Chemical plant were disposed of and/or stored at Elkton Farm (Ref. 100, p. 4, 5; Ref. 101, pp. 7, 

12).

The facility includes four areas where hazardous wastes were previously handled. Area 1 is located at 183 

Zeitler Road and includes an outbuilding with an earthen floor and a barn used to house dairy cattle. In 

1992, 17 drums of flammable paint wastes in the barn and 36 drums of various organic wastes in the 

outbuilding were removed. The drums in the barn were in fair condition. The drums in the outbuilding 

were in poor condition and contained unknown materials. Many of the drums appeared to be leaking. The 

owner’s home is located about 200 feet south of the barn (Ref. 100, pp. 4, 6, 7; Ref. 101, pp. 7, 12).

Area 2 is a Word War II-era waste ordnance combustion pit known as the firehole, which was used by 

Triumph Explosives in the 1940s. The firehole was defined as an area for the disposal of waste explosives 

materials generated by the operations at Triumph Explosives. This waste was collected in drums and kept 

wetted with alcohol or ether. The waste was then carried to a shallow pit off Zeitler Road, spread thinly, 

and burned. Plant personnel monitored the burn until the waste explosive was consumed. Total quantity 

of hazardous waste disposed of in the firehole is unknown. Observations indicated that the firehole is not 

one discrete area but a series of burn pits located across the property within approximately a 32-acre area 

(Ref. 101, pp. 7, 12).

Area 3 is located approximately along the western border of the property. It was a 1-acre plot of land 

leased by Thiokol Corporation between the 1950s and 1960s. The area was used for testing rocket fuel 

(Ref. 101, p. 12, 13). 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-33

Area 4 is located near the confluence of Little Elk Creek and Laurel Run. Evidently, it was a dumping 

ground for hazardous and non-hazardous waste in the 1970s. The most significant of these wastes, 

according to a 1979 inventory, were approximately 22 55-gallon drums of printing ink, 400 to 500 30-

gallon drums of ashes from a burning area operated by Thiokol Corporation, and an estimated 6 cubic 

yards of 40-mm projectile wastes (Ref. 100, p. 4). 

In 1991, the facility owner informed MDE that drums of unknown materials were staged at the facility. In 

the 1970s, the facility owner collected the drums from Galaxy Chemical. The facility owner transported 

the drums to a landfill; however, the landfill refused to accept them. The facility owner then tried 

returning the drums to Galaxy Chemical; however, Galaxy Chemical was no longer operating. The 

property owner then placed the drums in the shed and barn on the facility’s property (Ref. 100, p. 5). 

Between February 25 and 29, 1992, a Removal Action (RA) occurred at all areas. Drums were removed 

from the facility and transported to an approved disposal facility. The drums were tested and results 

showed that 24 drums contained flammable organic liquids, 25 RCRA inert solids, one drum of caustic, 

and one drum of halogenated organic fluid. An estimated 10 tons of contaminated soil was excavated from 

the outbuilding and stored in a roll-off box. On June 17, 1992, drums were labeled and marked for 

transportation and disposal. On June 23, 1992, the contaminated soil was disposed of off site (Ref. 100, p. 

6). 

Prior to the 1992 cleanup, a RA had occurred in 1979. Between 400 and 500 drums of ashes containing 

aluminum oxide had been disposed of in a county landfill. Approximately 975 gallons of lithographers 

printing ink was pumped from 22 55-gallon drums and incinerated (Ref. 100, p. 7).

In October 2002, MDE collected soil, surface water, and ground water samples from the area believed to 

be the firehole. Analyses of samples showed elevated concentrations of lead, mercury, arsenic, TCE, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and trinitrotoluene (TNT). A ground water sample collected 

downgradient of the soil sampling at the firehole area contained TCE at 160 μg/L (Ref. 101, p 8). 

In May 2003, additional ground water samples were collected from five wells located across the facility. 

In two of the wells, TCE was present at levels greater than three times the background, MDE Cleanup 

Standards, and EPA Risk-Based Concentrations. In addition, 1,1,2-trichloroethane was present at levels 

exceeding the EPA Risk-Based Concentration. Trace levels of cis-1,2-DCE and bis(2-ethylexyl)phthalate 

were detected in some of the samples. Pesticides, PCBs, and perchlorates were not detected in any of the 

samples (Ref. 101, p. 27).

Elkton Farm is located approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the Dwyer Property (Ref. 18; Ref. 71, pp. 

94, 95, 96). 

Iron Hill Road Facility

117 Iron Hill Road

Elkton, Maryland

The Iron Hill Road facility encompasses approximately 4 acres and is approximately 300 feet from the 

Maryland/Delaware border. The facility was the location of a chemical recycling firm and had been used 

for other unknown projects during the 1970s and early 1980s. According to land record information, the 

site is owned by B & G Associates, Inc. (Ref. 98, pp. 2, 3). During 1981, Methods Engineering, Inc., 

manufactured high-density plastic drain liners. After that, the company closed and the facility was leased. 

Since 1981, other small companies have leased the facility, including an auto body shop and Pyronics 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-34

Incorporated. The facility operated most recently under the name of Pyronics Incorporated. The following 

wastes were generated at the facility: osmium oxide, sodium azide, 2-chlorophenol, cresols, methanol, 

phenol, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (Ref. 98, pp. 3 and 4).

On February 10, 1987, MDE attempted to conduct a general inspection of the facility. The facility was 

found abandoned and surrounded by a locked fence. Drums observed inside of the fence were noted to be 

in poor and deteriorating condition and were leaking materials. On February 13, 1987, an initial 

assessment was conducted by the Maryland Waste Management Administration. Soil samples were 

collected from the areas where leaching of waste had occurred through the fence. At the time of the 

assessment, the facility consisted of four buildings with approximately 300 drums and containers. Some 

were in poor condition and leaking. Sample results revealed high concentrations of phenol and volatile 

organic solvents in surface soils near the leaking drums, as well as potential fire and explosion hazards 

(Ref. 98, pp. 3, 4).

In March 1987, approximately 300 drums and 1,100 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed from 

site, due to a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

Removal Cleanup action initiated by the EPA. Ten monitoring wells were installed to investigate shallow 

ground water contamination. Contamination found in six of the 10 wells included chlorinated 

hydrocarbons, aromatic compounds, chlorinated phenols, phthalates, and other organic compounds (Ref. 

98, pp. 4, 5). 

Additional monitoring wells were installed in February 1988. Three shallow and three deep wells were 

installed. Ground water samples were collected from all of the monitoring wells at the facility, as well as 

from 15 nearby residential wells. Ground water contamination found in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer 

consisted of chlorinated VOCs, aromatic compounds, and phenols. A plume of contamination 

approximately 400 feet long extended off site to the southeast. None of the analytes was found in the 

residential wells. No shallow wells were in the path of the plume (Ref. 98, pp. 7, 8, 9).

TCE was not detected in the ground water samples collected at the Iron Hill Road facility. Iron Hill Road 

facility is located to the northeast of the ground water plume (Dwyer Property) (Ref. 18; Ref. 62 through 

64; Ref. 98).

National Fireworks

900-1000 Block of Singerly Road (Rt. 213) 

Elkton, Maryland

National Fireworks is a former munitions and fireworks production facility that operated between the early 

1940s and 1965 (Ref. 76, p. 2). Aerial photographs show that the facility shared a road connected to the 

Vicon property, which suggests that these facilities operated as one integrated munitions production facility 

(Ref. 73, p. 5). The facility is located along the northeast boundary of the Dwyer Property ground water 

plume (Ref. 18). 

During the period between the 1940s and 1960s, munitions facilities like Victory Fireworks and Specialty 

Company and Vicon used or produced different hazardous materials. Heavy metals used to produce 

different colored fireworks included aluminum, antimony, barium, cadium, chromium, cobalt, copper, 

magnesium, nickel, sodium, and zinc. Base/neutral and acid compounds used in the production of 

chemical munitions included 2,4- and 2,6-dinitrotoluene; hexachloroethane; chloroacetophenone; 

nitrobenzene; 2,4,6-TNT; hexachlorobenzene; dinitrobenzene; diphenylamine; 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene; and 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-35

alkane hydryocarbons. Volatile solvents used to clean and degrease equipment included TCE, PCE, and 

acetone (Ref. 76, pp. 24, 25).

In 1990, the facility property owner contracted a company to conduct an environmental risk assessment of 

the facility because the land had been proposed for residential development. Three separate phases of 

sampling were conducted to characterize the waste at the property (Ref. 73, pp. 14, 15). Four soil samples 

and one composite sample were collected during the first phase of sampling. Each of the four soil samples 

was analyzed for VOCs, and the composite sample was analyzed for total metals and explosives. VOCs 

were not detected in the four samples; however, measurable quantities (in the ppm range) of nitrobenzene, 

cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX), and tetryl were detected. In addition, 2,4-dinitrobenzene was 

detected, but at levels below the reporting limit. Metals were found in the composite sample at 

concentrations above the reporting limit for ambient soil. Metals detected in the composite sample 

included arsenic, chromium, lead, zinc, cadium, copper, and nickel (Ref. 76, pp. 21, 22). 

For the second phase of sampling, the property was divided into 21 separate zones, with each zone divided 

into four quadrants. Soil samples were collected from each of the quadrants. Composite samples 

containing soil from the four quadrants in each of the zones were analyzed for explosives only. Nine of the 

21 composite samples contained levels of explosives analytes 2,4-dinitrotoluene and 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene 

(Ref. 76, p. 22).

During the third phase of sampling, the nine contaminated zones were resampled. Each of the nine zones 

was divided into four separate areas and samples were collected from each area (36 total samples). Five 

explosives analytes were detected each of the 36 samples: 1,3-dinitrobenzene; nitrobenzene; 

tetrahexamine tetranitramine (HMX); 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene; and RDX (Ref. 76, p. 23).

Because of the plans for residential development on the property, the facility was referred to the State 

Superfund program for a remediation assessment (Ref. 73, p. 15). Three separate contaminated soil 

removals were conducted during the State Superfund cleanup of the facility. Two soil removals completed 

in 1991 involved removal of 79 and 84 tons of metal-contaminated soils, respectively. In 1993, an 

estimated 900 to 1,100 tons of contaminated soil and burned waste was removed from target areas of the 

facility (Ref. 73, p. 7). Between 1991 and 1993, between 1,100 and 1,200 tons of contaminated soil was 

removed from the property (Ref. 73, p. 14).

In March 1994, soil, sediment, surface water, and ground water samples were collected from the property 

and within its vicinity. Manganese and lead were detected in two monitoring wells sampled; however, no 

organic contaminants detected in ground water samples exceeded the EPA benchmark for tap water. No 

organic analytes exceeded EPA benchmarks for tap water or residential soil in any of the sediment and 

surface water samples; however, manganese was detected at elevated levels in both sediment and surface 

water samples. No organic analytes detected in the soil samples exceeded EPA benchmarks for residential 

soil. Five inorganic compounds (arsenic, barium, beryllium, manganese, and antimony) were detected at 

elevated levels. All five inorganic compounds exceeded EPA benchmarks for residential soil, and three 

analytes (antimony, barium, and manganese) were detected at levels more than three times the 

concentration of the off-site background sample (Ref. 73, pp. 18, 19).

TCE was not identified in any samples collected on the National Fireworks facility (Ref. 73, pp. 7, 15, 18, 

24, 31, 35). 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-36

New Jersey Fireworks/Route 7 Dump

1726 Old Philadelphia Road (Route 7)

Elkton, MD

The New Jersey Fireworks, Route 7 Dump facility is located approximately 2 to 2.5 miles southwest of the 

Dwyer property (Ref. 18). In the early 1900s, the Route 7 Dump portion of the facility was utilized as a 

clay quarry that supplied a brick manufacturer. During the World War II period, by-products of nearby 

munitions production, as well as scrap rubber from the Bayshore Rubber Plant, were disposed of in the 

former clay quarry (Ref. 96, p. 3). In 1956, the New Jersey Fireworks Company purchased the property to 

manufacture “Class C” fireworks. Manufacturing occurred on the eastern portion of the facility’s property, 

and waste from the production of the fireworks was deposited in a pond formerly used as a clay quarry 

located at the western portion of the facility’s property. This was known as the Route 7 Dump (Ref. 17, 

pp. 23 and 24). In 1993, manufacturing of fireworks ended. In June 1999, the facility was transferred 

from New Jersey Fireworks to Sun and Star, LLC. Extensive cleanup of the facility was initiated after the 

transfer. Buildings, trailers, and hazardous materials were removed from the facility, and a new office 

building and warehouse were constructed. Currently, the facility’s operations consist primarily of 

repacking imported fireworks (Ref. 96, pp. 3, 4). 

In 1988, the New Jersey Fireworks facility was identified as a hazardous waste generator by the MDE. 

During an inspection in May 1999, MDE found large amounts of fireworks and black powder stored in an 

unsafe manner. Raw materials such as black powder, oxidizers, fuels, binders, and other fireworks 

components were found throughout the building. Rusted 33-gallon and 55-gallon drums contained 

potassium perchlorate. A waste disposal area found in the southwest portion of the facility included 

wooden pallets, drums, aerosol cans, oil containers, auto parts, cinders, and other debris. In April 2000, 

MDE collected ground water, surface water, sediment, and soil samples to assess potential contamination 

at the facility. Additional sampling was conducted in August 2004 (Ref. 17, pp. 19, 20; Ref. 96, pp. 6, 

7).

The April 2000 sampling event was conducted in accordance with the EPA Routine Analytic Services. 

Samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, total metals, and cyanide. Some samples were analyzed 

for perchlorates (Ref. 96, p. 10). The results were compared to Maryland Maximum Concentration Limits 

(MCL). For ground water sampling, only one sample, collected from beneath the waste pile, contained 

contamination above the MCL screening values. Arsenic (267 μg/L), beryllium (27.5 μg/L), chromium 

(1,450 μg/L), and lead (122 μg/L) were detected above MCLs. All of the inorganic analytes except copper 

were detected at levels three times greater than background. Perchlorate was not detected in the ground 

water samples; however, the holding time of the samples was exceeded (Ref. 96, p. 17). 

Soil samples were screened against EPA Risk-Based Concentration levels. Four samples were analyzed 

for perchlorates. The low levels of inorganic and organic contaminants detected in the soil samples did not 

exceed benchmark values; however, aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, 

nickel, thallium, vanadium, and zinc were detected at levels greater than three times the background levels. 

Perchlorate was not detected in the soil samples; however, the holding time of the samples was exceeded 

(Ref. 96, p. 18).

Additional sampling was conducted between 2001 and 2004 at the facility. In December 2001, soil 

samples were collected to further characterize the burn pit area and areas near the buildings and trailers 

that still contained potentially hazardous wastes. Results showed elevated levels of antimony at the 

entrances of the two buildings. Additional field screening samples were collected in March 2002, 

approximately 10 to 20 feet from the building entrances to determine if metals contamination was 

restricted to those areas. An area near the former sparkler manufacturing building was sampled, and 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-37

results showed elevated levels of barium (35,400 ppm and 39,300 ppm). In May 2003, perchlorate 

contamination was found in community wells near the facility. Sample results showed perchlorate 

contamination at 5 ppb in one of the wells and 28 ppb and 3 ppb in two additional community wells. Due 

to these levels, the MDE conducted two phases of sampling in September and November 2003, which 

included the New Jersey Fireworks facility production well. The production well had perchlorate 

contamination at 202 ppb in September 2003 and 790 ppb in November 2003 (Ref. 97, p. 16). 

An ESI conducted at the New Jersey Fireworks facility on August 3-5, 2004, evaluated potential impacts 

on soil, ground water, surface water, and sediments on and off site from operations at the former disposal 

area (Route 7 Dump) and the sparkler building area. Samples were collected and submitted for analysis in 

accordance with the CLP Routine Analytic Services. Samples were analyzed for TAL inorganics and TCL

SVOCs and pesticides. Soil samples were additionally sampled for VOCs. Monitoring wells were 

installed to assess potential contamination (Ref. 97, pp.16, 17). 

Ground water sample results showed inorganic contamination in the ground water samples. Elevated 

levels of metals were detected at the shallow well (unfiltered sample) on the Route 7 Dump facility, and 

elevated levels of barium (43,700 μg/L) were detected in the water near the sparkler building (unfiltered 

sample). Filtering reduced the concentrations; however, barium was still present at levels above the MDE 

August 2001 Cleanup Standards. Only traces of three SVOC analytes were detected in the ground water 

samples (bis [2-ethylhexyl] phthalate, phenol, and chrysene). Perchlorates were detected in the samples 

collected near the sparkler building and screened against the EPA Drinking Water Equivalent Level 

(DWEL). Only one sample, near the sparkler building, exceeded the DWEL at 385 μg/L. Perchlorates 

were detected in four other samples at levels ranging from 4.79 to 22.6 μg/L (Ref. 97, pp.21, 22, 23).

Surface water sampling was also conducted in August 2004. These samples were collected from Mill 

Creek, including north and south branches at the Route 7 Dump facility, and an unnamed tributary near the 

New Jersey Fireworks sparkler building. Low levels of inorganic analytes were detected. Barium was 

detected at levels greater than three times the background (33.8 to 2,590 μg/L). Thallium was detected 

(8.5 μg/L) at levels above Maryland’s Toxic Substance Criteria for Ambient Surface Water. One organic 

compound was detected (di-n-butylphthalate) below the contract-required detection limit of 10 μg/L. 

Perchlorate was detected in the samples from the unnamed tributary of Mill Creek, near the sparkler 

building. Perchlorate concentrations were detected at greater than three times background (7.52, 7.65, and

8.51 μg/L) (Ref. 97, pp.23, 24, 25).

Sediment samples showed levels of barium, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc significantly above those in 

the background sample collected at the Route 7 Dump facility. Barium was the only metal detected near 

the sparkler building at levels greater than three times the background. Arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, 

and zinc were detected in the sparkler building background sample at levels that exceeded the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Threshold Effects Limit (TEL) for freshwater 

sediments and/or Effects Range Median values. Only five organic compounds were detected at levels 

exceeding NOAA TELs: (benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene, and pyrene. 

Perchlorate was detected in the sediment closest to the sparkler building at 103 micrograms per kilogram 

(μg/kg), which exceeded three times the background level (Ref. 97, pp.25, 26, 27).

Metals contamination was detected throughout the soil samples (surface and subsurface). Most were 

detected at levels greater than three times their background samples. Arsenic, barium, and mercury were 

detected in the surface soil at levels exceeding MDE and/or EPA benchmark standards. Arsenic exceeded 

benchmark levels in subsurface samples. Higher levels of inorganic compounds were detected, especially 

barium, near the sparkler building area. A total of 14 organic compounds were detected in the soil 

samples. Only bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and 4.4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (DDE) were detected 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-38

at levels above their contract-required quantitation limits (CRQL) and at levels three times greater than 

background samples. Perchlorates were detected in soil samples collected from both the Route 7 Dump 

facility and the sparkler building area. The concentrations of perchlorates (between 6 and 2090 μg/kg) 

exceeded three times that in the background sample (Ref. 97, pp.27, 28, 29, 30, 31).

Sampling conducted at the facility did not show TCE. New Jersey Fireworks is located southwest of the 

ground water plume (Dwyer Property) (Ref. 18; Ref. 62 through 64). 

Sand, Gravel, and Stone

Route 40

Elkton, Maryland 

The Sand, Gravel, and Stone property is an inactive, approximately 200-acre sand and gravel quarry 

located approximately 3 miles west of Elkton, Maryland, on U.S. Route 40 (Ref. 40, p. 2). The property is 

located approximately 2.5 miles east/southeast of the ground water plume (Ref. 7; Ref. 18).

The Maryland Sand, Gravel, and Stone Company has owned the property and associated facility since 

1962 (Ref. 40, p. 3). Sand and gravel quarrying operations were reportedly conducted in two main areas of 

the facility, including the western excavated area (WEA) and the eastern excavated area (EEA) (Ref. 40, p. 

2). The facility disposed of industrial waste and accepted distillation wastes from a local solvent recycler 

from the late 1960s to the mid 1970s (Ref. 42, p. 1). A portion of the EEA was reportedly used for the 

disposal of both liquid and solid wastes including process wastewaters, sludge, still bottoms, and 

approximately 1,300 drums containing solid and semi-solid wastes during the period of 1969 to 1974. 

Three pits were used as surface impoundments for approximately 700,000 gallons of wastewater. Soil, 

sediment, and ground water at the property have been contaminated as a result of former disposal activities 

(Ref. 40, p. 3). The property was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8, 1983 (; Ref. 

42, p. 2). Approximately 200,000 gallons of liquid waste was removed from the facility in 1974; 

remaining drums and sludge were buried in excavated pits on the property (Ref. 42, p. 1). 

Ground water in the vicinity of the property is contaminated with several VOCs including benzene; 

chlorobenzene; 1,4-dioxane; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; and vinyl chloride. High concentrations of VOCs are 

reportedly present within the shallow ground water, and contaminants have migrated into the underlying 

aquifer, which is a source of water for local residents. Soil and wastes are contaminated with VOCs, 

SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and heavy metals (Ref. 42, p. 2). 

The EPA signed three Records of Decision (ROD) for the facility. The RODs mandated the removal of 

approximately 1,200 drums; installation of a ground water collection and treatment system, which operated 

for 13 years and treated approximately 145 million gallons of water; excavation of contaminated soil; onsite remediation of soil; expansion of the recovery and treatment system for shallow ground water; 

continued operation of the ground water recovery and treatment system; and addition of safe substances to 

the soil and ground water in an effort to break down hazardous substances via soil microbes. Effective in 

June 2005, EPA and 40 potentially responsible parties (PRP) entered a new consent decree to implement 

the final cleanup plan for the property. Since June 2005, the PRPs have installed an additional shallow 

ground water collection trench that began operating in 2008. In addition, in 2008 EPA approved the 

PRPs’ design plans for soil remediation, scheduled to be carried out in spring 2009 (Ref. 42, pp. 2, 3). 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-39

W.L. Gore

Trinco Industrial Park

Route 279 and 545 

Elkton, Maryland

The W.L. Gore property is located within the Trinco Industrial Park in Elkton, Maryland, and consists of 

approximately 7 acres of land occupied by a warehouse, a paved parking area, lawn areas, and a wooded 

area. The wooded area on the north bank of Little Elk Creek, also referred to as the “left bank,” is the 

location of the former industrial dumpsite that encompasses approximately 2 acres of land within the W.L. 

Gore property boundaries (Ref. 17, p. 26; Ref. 86, p. 1). The W.L. Gore property is located 0.25 to 0.5 

mile west of the Dwyer Property ground water plume (Ref. 7).

Since the 1940s, the Trinco Industrial Park has been used for industrial purposes. The property was used, 

owned, and operated by Triumph Explosives for manufacture of military ordnance through 1947. 

Following the end of World War II, the old munitions plant was demolished, and the demolition debris 

from the plant was used as fill in the area along the Little Elk Creek. The property was purchased by the 

Elkton Company, later known as the Trinco Industrial Park, in 1947 and used for light industry and 

warehousing. Historical records indicate that waste from Galaxy Chemical was disposed of at the property 

in 1968 and 1969, and other waste and construction debris were disposed of in the area of Little Elk Creek. 

The General Tire and Rubber Company acquired the property in 1972, and W.L. Gore purchased the 

property in 1983 (Ref. 17, p. 27; Ref. 86, p. 1).

W.L. Gore conducted a preliminary assessment (PA) of the dumpsite in 1988. Dark-stained soils and tar 

materials were identified as trenches were dug near the waste disposal area, and laboratory analysis of the 

stained soils indicated elevated levels of VOCs (the VOCs are not listed in reference documentation). 

Additional investigations were conducted at the dumpsite in 1989 and 1990 by MDE. MDE concluded 

that the dumpsite was a source of ground water contamination in the area (Ref. 17, p. 27; Ref. 86, p. 1). 

Workers uncovered seven 55-gallon drums during the removal of scrap tires from the property in October 

1991. As a result, MDE conducted a limited RA of the drums located on the surface. MDE identified 

solid and liquid substances emitting solvent odors in the soils beneath the drums. Laboratory analysis of 

the soil samples collected from this area indicated high concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons (specific 

concentrations not listed in reference documentation). In 1997, a RA of the source material was completed 

at the property. MDE conducted a Brownfields investigation at the property in November 2003. Surface 

soil, subsurface soil, and ground water samples were collected as part of the Brownfields investigation. 

VOCs were detected in both soil and ground water, including 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, PCE, TCE, and 

1,2-DCE (concentrations not provided in reference documentation). Chromium, manganese, and nickel 

were also detected in ground water. Perchlorate was detected at low levels in the ground water. MDE 

recommended that the property be investigated further and that any potential buyer enter the State 

Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) prior to acquiring the property (Ref. 17, p. 27; Ref. 98, pp. 1, 2). 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-40

Vicon Property

Route 213 and Dogwood Road

Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland

The inactive Vicon property consists of approximately 60 acres of land currently zoned for commercial and 

industrial purposes (Ref. 17, p. 25). The Vicon property is located 0.25 to 0.5 mile east of the ground 

water plume (Ref. 18).

Victory Sparkler & Specialty Company purchased the Vicon property in 1919. Victory Sparkler & 

Specialty Company manufactured fireworks and small ordnance products under a U.S. government 

contract until 1946. In 1953, the property was purchased by Michael Pastuszek under the corporate title of 

the Sheppard Company. The Sheppard Company manufactured explosives under a U.S. Army contract 

between 1953 and 1980; however, the manufacture of military high explosives, incendiary devices, and 

military blasting caps ceased in 1955. In the early 1960s, the manufacture of fireworks ended. The estate 

of Michael Pastuszek acquired the property in 1980 and sold the property to the Vicon Corporation in 

1981. The property has been inactive since 1980. On-site structures were reportedly demolished in 1983. 

Elkton Village Limited Partnership assumed ownership of the property for a brief period and then sold the 

property to Michael Davitt and Baldvin & Associates, Inc., in 1987. In 1993, Windsor Pointe acquired the 

property (Ref. 17, p. 25).

An explosives investigation conducted at the property in 1978 concluded that no explosive hazard was 

associated with property soils. MDE conducted a PA of the property in 1990. MDE completed a Focused 

Site Inspection (FSI) in September 1994, which identified contamination in surface water, sediments, and 

soil in the settling ponds and in the adjacent Dogwood Run surface water body. Windsor Pointe, Inc., 

submitted a VCP application seeking a No Further Requirements Determination as an inculpable person in 

March 2002. MDE requested additional sampling to further characterize the property. The additional 

investigation involved installation of eight new ground water monitoring wells, excavation of 53 test pits, 

collection of surface and/or subsurface soil samples from each pit, and collection of ground water samples 

from 21 new and pre-existing monitoring wells (Ref. 17, p. 25). The soil and ground water samples 

collected were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, priority pollutant metals, explosives, PCBs, total petroleum 

hydrocarbons gasoline range organics (TPH-GRO), TPH diesel-range organics (TPH-DRO), and 

perchlorate. Several organic and metal contaminants exceeded the MDE’s ground water cleanup 

standards, including TCE, PCE, naphthalene, antimony, chromium, nickel, and lead. Arsenic, mercury, 

and lead were detected in surface soil samples at concentrations above the MDE’s non-residential cleanup 

standards. No contaminants were detected in sediment or surface water samples at levels above MDE 

cleanup standards (Ref. 17, p. 26).

In June 2003, Windsor Pointe, Inc.’s VCP application was approved by MDE. MDE informed Windsor 

Pointe, Inc., that a response action plan (RAP) needed to be developed and implemented in an effort to 

address the environmental conditions at the property prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion by 

MDE. In March 2004, a proposed RA was submitted to MDE. The plan included capping of localized 

areas of surface soil, long-term ground water monitoring, a ground water use prohibition on the property, 

and additional institutional controls. In November 2004, additional site-wide ground water sampling was 

completed in an effort to support finalization of the RAP for the property. A revised RAP was to be issued 

to the MDE by March 2006 (Ref. 17, p. 26; Ref. 41, p. 2). 

The presence of DNAPL on the Dwyer Property ground water plume indicates that Vicon may not be the 

source of the larger TCE plume (Ref. 71, pp.94, 95, 96; Ref. 91). 
GW-Likelihood of Release

GW-41

Summary

Several potential source and facilities, both historically and present, are in the vicinity of the TCE plume at 

the Dwyer Property. While some facilities are eligible as possible sources of contamination to the TCE 

plume, further investigation will be necessary to determine the actual sources of TCE contamination at the 

Dwyer Property Ground Water site (Ref. 18; Refs. 62-67). 

Hazardous Substances Released

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Ground Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550
Waste Characteristics

GW-42

3.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

3.2.1 TOXICITY/MOBILITY

The toxicity and mobility values for TCE are presented in Table GW10.

TABLE GW10

TOXICITY AND MOBILITY

Hazardous 

Substance

Source No.

(and/or

Observed 

Release)

Toxicity 

Factor

Value

Mobility 

Factor

Value

Does Hazardous

Substance Meet 

Observed Release 

by chemical 

analysis? (Y/N)

Toxicity/

Mobility

(Ref. 1,

Table 3-9)

References

Trichloroethylene Observed 

release

10,000 1 Yes 10,000 2, p. 16

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000
Waste Characteristics

GW-43

3.2.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY

Source No. Source Type Source Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 Other 260,293

Sum of Values: 260,293

Pathway Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000

(Ref. 1, Table 2-6) 

3.2.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FACTOR CATEGORY VALUE

The waste characteristics factor category value is obtained from Reference 1, Table 2-7,

using the product of the toxicity, mobility, and hazardous waste quantity values. 

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value: 10,000

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000

Toxicity/Mobility Factor Value × Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1 x 108 (subject to a max of 

1 x 108

) 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 100

Ref. 1, Table 2-7 
GW Targets

GW-44

3.3 TARGETS

The ground water targets evaluated for the ground water migration pathway are summarized below.

3.3.1 NEAREST WELL

The nearest known drinking water wells are located on Dogwood Road (Ref. 15, pp. 21, 47, 48, 54, 56, 59, 

60, 61; Ref. 7; Ref. 39). The wells are within the 0.5 to 1-mile distance category from the ground water 

plume, measured from the center of the plume, and are assigned a value of 9 for the nearest well factor 

value (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.1, Table 3-11; Ref. 7; Ref. 39). 

Nearest Well Factor Value: 9

(Ref. 1, Table 3-11)

3.3.2 POPULATION

3.3.2.1 Level of Contamination

No Level I or II concentrations have been documented in drinking water wells. Potential contamination to 

drinking water supply wells has been evaluated. The aquifers underlying the ground water plume are 

considered one aquifer, as documented in Section 3.0.1 of this documentation record. All drinking water 

wells are within the same aquifer, as documented in Section 3.0.1.

3.3.2.2 Level I Concentrations

No Level I concentrations have been identified. 

Sum of Population Served by Level I Wells: 0

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.2)

3.3.2.3 Level II Concentrations

No Level II concentrations have been identified.

Sum of Population Served by Level II Wells: 0

Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2.3)

3.3.2.4 Potential Contamination

The targets identified within the ground water migration pathway include populations served by the Town 

of Elkton water supply system, several community water supply systems, and residential wells. The Town 

of Elkton serves the population within the town limits of Elkton and some outlying areas. Cecil County 

GIS was used to identify the areas served by the Town of Elkton. The known areas that are provided 

public water by the Town of Elkton are shown on the 4-Mile Radius Map, Reference 7, and correspond to 

fire hydrant locations. The presence of fire hydrants indicates that public water distribution lines are 

available in that area, along the road (Ref. 22). Areas served by public water are shaded in Reference 7.
GW Targets

GW-45

Community systems were identified by the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (Ref. 6). The 

populations and current use were confirmed by the MDE Public Water Supply Division (Ref. 21). The 

locations of the community system wells are shown on Reference 7. The populations served by the 

community system wells are summarized in Table GW11. 

Areas served by the Town of Elkton and community systems are highlighted on Reference 7. All areas not 

served by the Town of Elkton or community systems are served by domestic wells (Ref. 22). A summary 

of the number of domestic wells within 4 miles of the ground water plume is in Table GW11. The 

approximate number of domestic wells within each target distance category was determined by counting 

homes not served by public or community water on Reference 7. The population served by each home is 

the average number of persons per household for Cecil County (2.73 persons) (Ref. 12).

As shown in Reference 7, no drinking water wells are located within the 0 to 0.5-mile radius of the center 

of the ground water plume. The 0.5 to 1-mile radius includes residential wells (homes) along Dogwood 

Road and roads extending north and south from the center of Dogwood Road, and residential wells along 

State Route 545, north of the most northern located fire hydrant (Ref. 7). 

The Town of Elkton has a complex water supply system that includes (1) a surface water intake supplying 

237,600,000 gallons of water per year to the system; (2) Well 1 supplying 64,632,000 gallons per year; and 

(3) Well 3 supplying 286,344,000 gallons per year. In addition, Elkton purchases 1,500,000 gallons per 

month (18,000,000 gallons per year) from Artesian Water, a public water supply company. Artesian Water 

obtains water from wells located in Delaware (Ref. 9; Ref. 10). Wells 1 and 3 are permitted to withdraw 

650,000 gallons per day or 237,250,000 gallons per year (Ref. 81, p. 7). The population served by the 

Town of Elkton is 15,000 persons. The Town of Elkton wells are completed in the Potomac Aquifer (Ref. 

9; Ref. 19, p. 1; Ref. 11). Well logs for the Town of Elkton Wells 1 and 3 are provided in Reference 11. 

PCE has been detected in ground water samples collected from Well 1 (Ref. 19, p. 3). 

To assign a population to each of the Town of Elkton’s water sources (wells and other sources), the annual 

amount of water supplied by each source in gallons per year is divided by the total amount of water 

supplied to the system (sum of all the water supplied by each source). The result of this equation gives the 

percent of water supplied by each source. To determine the number of persons served by each source, the 

percent of water supplied by each source is multiplied by the total population served by the Town of 

Elkton (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.2). Reference 10 provides a summary of this calculation. The population 

served by the Town of Elkton is summarized in Table GW11. 
GW Targets

GW-46

TABLE GW11

DRINKING WATER WELLS WITHIN 4 MILES

Radial Distance 

from Site 

(miles)

Residential 

Well 

Population 

(Number of 

Residential 

Wells)

Population Served 

by Public Water 

(Supplier)

Total 

Population 

Served by

Ground 

Water 

Sources

DilutionWeighted Value 

(Ref. 2, Table 3-

12)

References

0.00 to 0.25 0 0 0 0 

0.25 to 0.50 0 0 0 0 

0.50 to 1.0 163 (60) 0 163 52 7

1.0 to 2.0

1,056 (387) 1,598 (Elkton Well 1)

60 (Marantha School)

350 (Elkton Christian 

School)

188 (Forest View 

Trailer Park also 

known as Sherwood 

Forest)

3,252 939 6, pp. 2, 3, 4; 

7; 10; 21; 24

2.0 to 3.0

1,092 (400) 7,081 (Elkton Well 3) 

212 (Forest Green 

Court Park)

310 (Mt. Aviat 

Academy)

8,695 678 6, pp. 2, 4; 7; 

10; 20; 21

3.0 to 4.0

2,525 (925) 440 (Leeds School)

964 (Kenmore 

School)

450 (Town and 

Country Trailer Park)

325 (Whispering 

Pines Mobile Home 

Park)

4,704 417 6, pp. 2, 3, 4; 

7; 10; 21; 23; 

110

TOTAL 2,086

Note:

 

Residential well population is equal to the number of wells multiplied by the average number of persons 

per household (2.73) for Cecil County (Ref. 12). The potential population value is the sum of the distanceweighed population divided by 10 or 208.6. 

Calculations:

Sum of Distance-Weighed Population Values: 2,086

Sum of Distance-Weighted Population Values/10: 208.6

Potential Contamination factor Value: 209 (208.6 is rounded to 209, per HRS Section 3.3.2.4)
GW-47 GW-Targets

3.3.3 RESOURCES

Farms located outside the public water distribution systems use ground water to irrigate crops on areas 

greater than 5 acres (Ref. 7; Ref. 28). An aerial photograph of the location of the ground water plume 

shows numerous crops within 4 miles of the center of the plume (Ref. 28). Reference 7 shows that the 

location of the crops is not serviced by public water. Therefore, wells used for irrigating crops are located 

within 4 miles of the center of the ground water plume. According to data published by the Maryland 

Department of Agriculture's Statistics Service for the year 2000, Cecil County encompasses 222,824 acres. 

About 37.7% (84,000 acres) is farmland. Much of the agricultural land is devoted to cash grain and dairy 

farms. Principal crops are corn, soybeans and wheat. Secondary crops include hay, barley, tree fruits 

(apples, peaches, pears), vegetables, and berries (Ref. 44).

Resources Factor Value: 5 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.3)

3.3.4 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS

The ground water plume does not lie within a wellhead protection area; however, a wellhead protection 

area is within the target distance limit. The wellhead protection areas are shown in Reference 7. The 

Maryland wellhead protection program was approved by EPA in 1991 (Ref. 25; Ref. 43). A wellhead 

protection area factor value of 5 is therefore assigned (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.4, p. 51604). 

Wellhead Protection Area Factor Value: 5 (Ref. 1, Section 3.3.4)