To accommodate a future need for additional waste disposal facilities at the Savannah River Site, the Solid Waste Management Division (SWMD) designated nine additional plots for development (Kasraii 2007; SRS 2010); these plots are collectively known as the E Area Completion Project (ECP). Subsurface samples were collected from ECP plots 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Figure 1) for chemical and physical property analyses to support Performance Assessment (PA) and Special Analyses (SA) modeling. This document summarizes the sampling and analysis scheme and the resultant data, and provides interpretations of the data particularly in reference to existing soil property data. Analytical data in this document include: gamma log, cone penetrometer log, grain size (sieve and hydrometer), water retention, saturated hydraulic conductivity (falling head permeameter), porosity, dry bulk density, total organic carbon, x-ray diffraction, and x-ray fluorescence data. SRNL provided technical and safety oversight for the fieldwork, which included completion of eight soil borings, four geophysical logs, and the collection of 522 feet of core and 33 Shelby tubes from ECP plots 6, 7, 8, and 9. Boart Longyear provided sonic drilling and logging services. Two soil borings were completed at each location. The first set of boreholes extended into (but did not fully penetrate) the Warley Hill Formation. These boreholes were continuously cored, then geophysically (gamma ray) logged. The recovered core was split, photographed, and described; one half of the core was archived at SRS's Core Lab facilities, and the remaining half was consumed as necessary for testing at SRS and off-site labs. Core descriptions and geophysical data were used to calculate target elevations for Shelby tube samples, which were obtained from the second set of boreholes. Shelby tubes were shipped to MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Inc. (MACTEC) in Atlanta for physical property testing. SRNL deployed their Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) cone penetrometer test (CPT) truck at ECP plots 6, 7, 8 and 9 to collect inferred lithology data for the vadose zone. Results from this study are used to make recommendations for future modeling efforts involving the ECP plots. The conceptual model of the ECP hydrogeology differs from the conceptual model of the current ELLWF disposal area in that for the ECP plots, the topography (ground surface) is generally lower in elevation; The Upland and top of Tobacco Road lithostratigraphic units are missing (eroded); The water table occurs lower in elevation (i.e., it occurs in lower stratigraphic units); and the Tan Clay Confining Zone (TCCZ) often occurs within the vadose zone (rather than in the saturated zone). Due to the difference in the hydrogeology between the current ELLWF location and the ECP plots, different vadose zone properties are recommended for the ECP plots versus the properties recommended by Phifer et al. (2006) for the current disposal units. Results from this study do not invalidate or conflict with the current PA's use of the Upper and Lower Vadose Zone properties as described by Phifer et al. (2006) for the current ELLWF disposal units. The following modeling recommendations are made for future modeling of the ECP plots where vadose zone properties are required: (1) If a single vadose zone property is preferred, the properties described by Phifer et al. (2006) for the Upper Vadose Zone encompass the general physical properties of the combined sands and clays in the ECP vadose zone sediments despite the differences in hydrostratigraphic units. (2) If a dual zone system is preferred, a combination of the Lower Zone properties and the Clay properties described by Phifer et al. (2006) are appropriate for modeling the physical properties of the ECP vadose zone. The Clay properties would be assigned to the Tan Clay Confining Zone (TCCZ) and any other significant clay layers, while the Lower Zone properties would be assigned for the remainder of the vadose zone. No immediate updates or changes are recommended for the saturated zone properties for modeling of the ECP plots. The hydrogeology and saturated hydraulic conductivity values resulting from the ECP work are consistent with existing data for the area. The following recommendations are provided for consideration in future work: (1) When the database is next updated, we recommend checking/refining hydrostratigraphic interpretations (picks) in addition to revising physical property data for both the vadose zone and saturated zone. (2) Results from this work suggest that separate ECP vadose zone properties may be appropriate for the various ECP plots. Consideration should be given to the fact that the plots toward the northwest (ECP plots 6, 7 and 8) all have the TCCZ within the vadose zone whereas the TCCZ occurs within the saturated zone to the east (ECP plot 9). (3) Further data may be needed at ECP plot 7.
