II The ERM Group

PILOT TESTING OF THEEXCAVATED PILE/FORCED AERATION METHOD

ATALLIED-BENDIX FLIGHT SYSTEMS DIVISION

SOUTH MONTROSE, PENNSYLVANIA

February 1988

Thomas D. DiStefano, P.E."Project Engineer

\( (L 1(4MarMyn A. Hewitt, P.G.Project Manager

Prepared For:

Allied-Signal CorporationBendix Flight Systems DivisionSouth Montrose, Pennsylvania

Prepared By:

Environmental Resources Management, Inc.855 Springdale Drive

Exton, Pennsylvania 19341, ' . 3

*FILE: 301-20

. BR3009U7

The ERM Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Section 1 - Introduction 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Study 1-11.2 Scope and Limits of Study 1-21.3 Scope of Report 1-2

Section 2 - Pilot Test Methods 2-1

2.1 Description 2-12.2 Pilot Test Operations 2-32.3 Monitoring 2-3

Section 3 - Results and Data Analysis 3-1

3.1 Field OVA Headspace Data 3-13.2 Laboratory Data 3-113.3 Data Analysis . 3-153.4 Air Flow Measurements . . 3-173.5 Air.Sampling Data 3-17

Section 4 - Soil Remediation Goal 4-1

Section 5 - Field Verification Method 5-1

5.1 Verification by the Calculated VolatilesMethod 5-1

5.2 Verification by the OVA Headspace Method 5-2

Section 6 - Assessment of the Excavated Pile/Forced. Aeration Method . 6-1

6.1 Achieving Proposed CR Limit • 6-1

Section 7 - Conclusions . 7-1

The ERM Group

LIST OP TABLES

Table Page

3-1 Field OVA Headspace Measurements 3-2

3-2 Laboratory Analysis 3-12

3-3 Relationships for the Natural Log of Dataand Coefficients of Determination 3-16

4-1 Proposed Maximum Contamination Levels (MCLs) 4-2

5-1 Calculated Volatiles 5-3

6-1 Pile 3 - Predicted Total Leachate 6-2

TheERM Group

LIST OF FIGURES

Pilot Study - Plan Vletf £«££.

-« -Ud, . Plan Wew __ sanpanfl ., . «.

OVA He.dsp.ce Re.dings - PUe , 2<

~" 8e.dsp.ce Re.din9s - Pile 2 too A 3'5He.dsp.ce Re.din9e - P11. 2 loc B 3'6

OVA He.dsp.ce Re.din9s . plle 3 toc A 3'7OVA He.dsp.ce Re.din9s . PUe 3 loc B0V* Be.dsp.ce Re.dinfls . PUe 3 loc c

Predicted Tot.l te.ch.bles - Pile .3 3'W6-3

II TheERMGroup

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

During 1934, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM)completed an evaluation of the extent and magnitude of groundwater, surface water, .and soil contamination at the Bendix FlightSystems Division Facility located in South Montrose, Pennsylvania.The January 1935 report, "Hydrogeologic and Soils Investigation"describes this effort. As a follow-up, ERM prepared an•Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives and Recommended RemedialActions", dated February 1935.

These reports concluded that soils in the Former DistillationSystem Area contained potentially leachable concentrations ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs). Since these volatile organicswere identified as a potential source of continuing ground watercontamination, ERM recommended remediation of the FormerDistillation Area soils via an on-site purging technique.Although this technology was undeveloped at the time, it has, inthe intervening two years, bean tasted using various methods asan innovative technology to cost-effectively eliminate sources ofon-going ground water contamination* For example, the U.S. ArmyToxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) has pilot testeda heated screw conveyor system to purge VO.Gs from soils. Inaddition, in late 1936, ERM successfully employed a vibratoryscreen method to remediate soils for a RCRA facility closure.Other methods have been tasted, but all basically use the sameprincipal, i.e. to air strip VOCs from soils by excavating,disturbing, aerating, and sometimes heating. *In the February 1935 report on remedial alternatives, ERMproposed-an "excavated pile/forced aeration" method of strippingvolatile organics as a potential soil treatment method. In thefall of 1936, a pilot-scale study was completed to examine thefeasibility o-f this method. This report describes theprocedures and conclusions from the pilot-scaXa evaluation of themethod.

1.1 Purpose of StudyThe ultimate goal of a remediation program is to eliminate anycontinuing source of contamination which will exceed anyapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) atpoints of potential public exposure. The Superfund Amendmentsand Raauthorization Act of 1936 (SARA) specifically require that

^ fl«JUU95l

The ERM Group

ARARs be addressed in site remediation. In the case of theBendix Facility, this requires that future VOC releases from thesoils not degrade the ground water in the regional bedrockaquifer above any relevant drinking water standard. Furthermore,SARA requires that remediation should be permanent, and thatinnovative technologies be stressed to provide site cleanupand/or waste volume reduction to achieve that permanentremediation.

With this as a framework, this study was undertaken to achievethe following objectives:

definition of allowable leachable VOC concentrations(CR) for the soil;

determination of an acceptable technology to achieveand

identification of a monitoring technique suitable forfield verification of CR during the remediationprocess.

1.2 Scope and Limits of Study

This effort involved a pilot-scale study of the applicability ofthe excavated pile/forced aeration method in removing volatileorganics from the soil. Since the soil used for this pilot testwas excavated from the area immediately adja-cent to the formerdistillation facilities, treatment of the most contaminated soil(i.e. "worst case") in the Former Distillation Area wasevaluated. It should be noted that much of the soil to beremediated contains lesser VOCs.

«.

This pilot-scale study was limited to two weeks duration. By thecompletion of this effort, some modifications to the treatmentsystem design were identified which may improve the performanceof the method. Again, it is noted that some of- the most highlycontaminated soils were used for this pilot-scale test tofacilitate assessment of the method under the most extremeconditions.

1.3 Scope of Report

The remainder of this report provides detailed discussion of themethods used in the pilot test, and describes the data evaluationused to:

determine the goal for remediation;

1-2 1R30G95?

IThe ERM GroupI

evaluate the effectiveness of the excavated pile/forcedaeration method for meeting that goal;

determine field methodologies for on-sita verificationthat the remedial goal is met;

To achieve this, the following sections of the report describethe pilot test methods, develop a remedial goal and itsverification method, and, finally, evaluate the excavatedpile/forced aeration method to determine its applicability undersite conditions.

1-3

I* The ERM Group

SECTION 2

PILOT TEST METHODS

2.1 Description

To complete this study, three piles of contaminated soils wereconstructed. Each pile contained approximatley 25 cubic yards ofsoil excavated from the Former Distillation System Area. Twopiles (Piles 2 and 3) were each approximately 20 feet long, 10feet wide and 4 feet high. The control pile (Pile 1) wasconstructed in a conical shape due to area limitations. Pile 1was approximately 8 feet in diameter and 4 feet high. The soilswere excavated from the land surface to approximately eight feetbelow grade. The three piles were constructed'and purged in thearea adjacent to a garage located in the northeastern corner ofthe fenced portion of the Bendix facility. The approximatelocations of the excavated area and pilot study operations areshown on Figure 2-1. ERM Drawing 1 (Appendix A) is a sectionschematic of Piles 2 and 3.

Pile 1 was constructed as a control pile. Initially, this pilewas turned hourly for the first three days by a front-end loaderto promote disaggregation. The frequency was lengthened to every2 hours for the next 3 days. Thereafter,- the pile was notturned.

Pile 2 was constructed over two 2-inch slotted PVC pipes. Theslotted lengths were connected by a pipe network to a blower.The blower was rated to deliver 800 scfm at 7 psig (see Drawing1, Appendix A). The pipes were placed in trenches below grade tofacilitate turning the pile without disturbing the piping. Thepipes were then covered with gravel to minimize plugging of theslots. Pile 2 was turned hourly for the first three days andevery 2 hours for the next three days. Thereafter, the pile wasturned every 4 hours.

Pile 3 was constructed over two slotted pipes and connected inparallel with Pile 2 to the 800 scfm blower*. The two slottedpipes were placed on grade since Pile 3 was not turned duringthis study. A third slotted pipe was placed near the center ofPile 3 to achieve a 50 percent greater air delivery compared toPile 2 (see Drawing 1, Appendix A).

Piles 2 and 3 were constructed and operated differently toexamine the effects of forced aeration and physical turning (Pile2) compared to forced aeration only (Pile 3).

I• Th« ERM Group

IPilot Study • Plan View

Figure 2-1

garage

.s/s/s/s///s/sss/s/s/sss/ssssssss

Blower

Pile 3

VPile 1

.slottedPile 2 length

Nottoscafo

II The ERM Group

2.2 Pilot Test Operations

ERM developed a Health and Safety Plan to identify the safeconduct procedures for field activities during this study. Thisplan is included as Appendix B.

The piping/blower system was constructed on 19 September 1986.The pilot study was conducted from 22 September through 3 October1966. On 3 October, piles were broken down. Soil was returnedto the excavated area and the pipe network was dismantled andstored.

Dependent on the weather, the blower was operated for 8 to 10hours per day, beginning around 8 A.M., Monday through Friday.The three piles were covered with heavy gauge plastic during theevenings and during wet weather to minimize volatilization oforganics and moisture absorption. The blower was not operatedwhile the piles were covered.

2.3 Monitoring

During the pilot test, extensive monitoring was conducted onsoils, air quality, and air flow through the system.

2.3.1 Soils

Soil samples were taken at approximately 2 hour intervals fromeach pile throughout each operating day..- The samples werecollected from the same approximate location within each pileduring each sampling event. However, the exact location wasvaried to prevent sampling of soil which had been disturbed by aprevious collection effort. Samples were collected from eachlocation at a six-inch depth ("shallow sample"),and a 1.5 to twofeet depth ("deep sample").

One location (Location A) 'was defined for sampling Pile 1. Twolocations (designated Location A and Location B) .were defined forsampling Pile 2. Three locations (A, B, and C) were defined forsampling from Pile 3. Sampling locations are shown on Figure2-2.

Samples were collected with a small shovel and spatula. Sampleswere collected in 1 liter Bell jars.. All samples were fieldanalyzed for organic vapor content in the "headspace" above thesamples using an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). Dependent on theheadspace readings, ERM selected some*samples for laboratoryanalysis. Those samples sent to the laboratory were analyzed forVOCs as received and VOCs in the leachate from the sample.Laboratory results and data interpretation are discussed inSection 3.

2-3

Ii The ERM Group

IPilot Study • Plan View and Sampling Locations

Rgure 2-2

garage

s/sssss/sss/s/s/s/s/s/sss/s/ssss

LOCC

>-^ ——— *

9wer

pL

n

~-\-~-OCA A

Pile 3

LOCA _

L _ ./«. _ _

» ^fL LOGS

_. LOCB

" V•

V. Pile 1

.slottedPile 2 langth

Not to seal*

The ERM Group

2.3.1.1 Field "Headspace" Analysis*

For headspace analysis, one quarter liter of a soil sample wascollected and placed in a one liter Bell jar. The jar wascovered with aluminum foil and the ring lid was screwed tight.The samples were placed, over a pan of boiling water for fiveminutes, to drive the VOCs into the jar headspace. Each jar wasshaken every minute to improve heat transfer to the sample andevaporation of organics. At five minutes, the samples wereremoved from the steam. The aluminum foil was pierced by theprobe of the OVA and the organic vapor concentration in theheadspace was measured and recorded. The headspace data arepresented and analyzed in Section 3 of this report. Theirrelation to laboratory measurements is also discussed.

2.3.1.2 Laboratory Soil Samples

For laboratory analysis, ERM selected samples with fieldheadspace readings ranging from "Not Detectable" to 1000+ ppm.(The OVA maximum reading was 1000 ppm.) A total of 19 sampleswas sent to the laboratory for analysis. Each sample was splitinto two portions, with one portion analyzed for total VOCs, andthe other for leachable VOCs using a 48-hour ASTM A distilledwater leaching test, with headspace minimized.

Additionally, three samples were sent to ERCO Laboratories,Cambridge, MA, for total volatile organics and analysis on aleachate prepared in a zero headspace extractor (ZHE) accordingto the draft US EPA Toxicity Characteristic-Leachate Procedure(TCLP). This measure was taken to verify correlation of resultsbetween the two analytical methods, i.e., TCLP and ASTM A. Finalresults indicate a general correlation between the two methods,demonstrating that the ASTM A or TCLP method can be used in afuture remedial program. Results of the TCLP analyses areprovided in Appendix C.

2.3.2 Air Flow Measurements

Towards the end of the study, ERM measured the air flow suppliedto Piles 2 and 3. The flow to each pile was calculated fromvelocity measurements taken by pitot tubes, placed in the feedpipes to each pile. Measurements were also taHen from the blowerdischarge trunk line. These data are presented in Section 3.

2.3.3 Air Sampling

The Bendix facility obtained an Air Discharge Permit fromPennsylvania DER to operate the pilot system. To monitor airquality during the pilot test, automatic continuous air samplerswere located at the site property lines-, in upwind and downwind

2-5

The ERM Group

directions from the pilot study area. The samples were sent tothe laboratory for analysis.

»

Air sampling data were collected throughout the duration of thePilot Study utilizing both a hand-held organic vapor analyzer(OVA) and low flow air pumps with charcoal tubes for volatileorganic collection.

Dupont Alpha-1 air samplers were calibrated daily so thatapproximately 10 liters of air would be sampled over a 3 hourperiod (50 cc/min flow rate). These parameters are withinrecommended specifications for volatile organic collection. Two3-hour samples ware collected each day during the study. Onesample was collected for three hours during the morning; thesecond sample was collected for three hours during the afternoon.Sampling locations were established at the Bendix propertyboundaries, upwind and downwind of the Pilot Study Area.

Routine air monitoring was also performed during site activitiesto immediately measure volatile organic concentrations within thework area and at the site boundaries. Monitoring was performedusing a Century OVA 123 organic vapor analyzer calibrated withmethane.

2-6 /IR30095S

II The ERM Group

SECTION 3

RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 Field OVA Headspace Data

As previously described, organic vapor "headspace" concentrationswere measured for each sample. These data are listed as Table3-1 for Piles 1, 2, and 3. For each pile, sample locations areas follows:

Sample SamplePile Location Identification

1 A-shallow PI - ASI -deep PI - AD

2 A-shallow P2 - AS-deep P2 - ADB-shallow P2 - BS

• -deep P2 - BD3 A-shallow P3 - AS

-deep P3 - ADB-shallow P3 - BS-deep P3 - BDC-shallow P3 - CS-deep P3 - CD

Table 3-1 indicates the OVA measurements and the respective timeof each measurement. The "Time" values represent elapsed runningtime when the piles were uncovered and the blower was operating.As shown, headspace measurements were recorded from zero to atotal of 57 hours of blower operation.

•

From Table 3-1, Pile 3 was sampled most frequently since fieldmeasurements and visual observations indicated that moresignificant reductions in volatile organics and moisture content.Volatile organic headspace readings ranged from greater than 1000ppm at start-up to 27 ppm at 47 hours.

Pile 2 was sampled less frequently since OVA headspacemeasurements indicated that organic vapor reduction was occurringless rapidly than in Pile 3. This may have been due tomechanical turning of Pile 2 during the first days of operation.The subsurface of Pile 2 did not reduce in moisture content dueto wet weather. Frequent turning did not permit the interior ofPile 2 to dry under the influence o*f the air flow from the

3-1

The ERM GroupTABLE 3-1

FIELD OVA HEADSPACE «£flSUR£MENTS

PILE 1 PILE 2

LOC AS LOC AD LOC AS LOC AD LOC BS LOC BDTIKE (shallow) (deep) THE (shallow) (deep) (shallow) (deep)(hrs) (ppn) (pp») (hrs) (ppa) (ppu) (ppa) (pea)

0 1000 1000 0 1000 1000 1000 10000.75 1000 1000 15.25 750 1000 1000 10009.25 1000 1000 16.25 400 570 . 1000 100023.25 1000 1000 1S.25 600 1000 560 1000

25 420 1000 21.25 610 1000 560 10002S 260 1000 - 23.25 1000 1000 350 1000

30.5 760 1000 25 520 1000 230 87032.5 560 1000 26 140 1000 110 100033 830 1000 30.5 1000 840 750 91037 320 1000 32.5 530 650 400 49039 £30 1000 * 10vO 330 1000 100041 360 1000 37 660 »40 700 42047 205 615 39 440 360 330 83051 230 530 41 370 350 200 470 vv57 390 720 43 280 340 250 330

45.25 330 740 340 44047.25 . 180 540 205 315

50 340 350 400 46053.75 400 470 160 190

57 270 220 100 250

AR30096I

The ERM GroupTABLE 3-1 (cent)

FIELD OVA HEADSPACE MEASUREMENTS

PILE 3

LCCAS LOC AD LOCBS LOC BD LOC CS LOC CDTIKE (shallow) (deep) (shallow) (deep) (shallow) (deep)(hrs) (ppa) (ppa) <ppn) (ppa) (ppn) (ppu)

0 1000 1000 1000 100010.75 100 300 300 65012.75 370 690 26015.25 140 S10 10016.25 530 940 10016.25 210 320 13021.25 130 110 11023.25 190 720 170

25 110 230 90 100027.5 210 700 50 1000 550 100026.5 70 160 40 270 £40 22030 50 220 230 950 160 420

31.5 90 230 80 530 60 £032.5 120 210 50 390 230 77034 200 290 130 750 160 470

36.5 BO 880 170 1000 SO 100033 60 320 40 100 90 56041 390 250 120 1000 130 140

41.5 76 160 52 210 100 26042.75 190 210 310 570 42 26044.75 66 120 60 640 1000 680

47 270 390 27 115 72 9449 130 90 70 140 J70

50.5 110 170 115 240 100 17054 30 130 200 1000 170 730

56.5 70 1000 100 1000 110 240

The ERM Group

blower, thereby inhibiting organic evaporation. Measurementsranged from greater than 1000 ppm at start-up to 100 ppm at 57hours.

•

Pile 1 was sampled least frequently since it was evident thatorganic reduction was occurring more slowly. In particular, thedeep samples* headspace contained greater than 1000 ppm for thefirst 41 hours of the pilot test. Pile 1 OVA measurements rangedfrom greater than 1000 ppm at start-up to 205 ppm after 47 hours.

OVA measurements are displayed graphically versus bloweroperation time in Figures 3-1, 3-2a, 3-2b, 3-3a, 3-3b, and 3-3c.Locations A and 3 for Pile 2, and A, 3, and C for Pile 3 areshown on separate graphs, for clarity.

From the graphs, the following observations can be made:The Pile 3 shallow samples reached lower consistent OVAreadings than Piles 2 and 1. Pile 3 shallow sampleswere consistently near or below 200 ppb after 15 hoursof operation. Pile 2 shallow samples trended around400 ppb towards the end of the study. ./Pile 3 shallow samples decreased in VOC concentrationsmore rapidly than Piles 2 and 1. Pile 3 shallowsamples displayed a marked VOC reduction to less than400 ppb within 15 hours of operation.For Pile 2 and Pile 3 deep samples, after initial VOCreductions, subsequent samples varied greatly inconcentrations. This variation is likely due tosampling areas which experienced varied volatilereduction because of channeled air flow. Preferentialmovement of air through specific voids in the soil mostprobably existed in each pile. Although consecutivesamples were taken from the same approximate locations

• in each pile (i.e., Location A)r the specific areasampled differed slightly each time to avoid collectionof soil which had been disturbed by & previous samplingeffort. Based on this, similar results would likelyhave been obtained from a random sampling pattern.Apparently, VO reductions were not uniform throughoutthe piles.Approximately midway through the study, the Pile 3soils ware noticeably drier and .more disaggregated thanPiles 2 and 1. The greater air flow and static "condition of Pile 3 permitted greater loss of moisture "—'and, consequently, greater soil disaggregation. This

3'4

I^

ILU

ICO(3z5

I UJ A^ QC g

LU i

<Q.

LUT,

5O

H?

COQ

D

4

s

tr

<

8

i i i i i I I I Ic> co t to to *sf n c T" od d o ' o o ' d o ' o o

(uidd)OQA

I 'I

(spuesnom}(uidd)ooA

I

I1 ————————•I m

ooCMLU

COO5< sLU §DC =

Q.COQLU

O

"J T ua oO 1 • * Q

t T ^ ^ "i ^ ^ ~ " ^ ™ " ~ ~ ^ ~ ^ " ^ ^ ^ "r ^ " " ^ ii r i i i i "i i r

O3+

?

(spu8snom>(uidd)oOA

T* T- O> CO

(spuesnouj.)-(uidd)QOA

/IR300967

(spUBsnoqjJ-(uidd)QOA

AR300968

IIV o

ooCOLU

Q.I

CO(5

II 5

LUOQ.COQLUX

o

<

i i i i i I T ^ i ^ i r- c n c o r - o t q ^ c o o i ^

O O O O O O O O O

.oto

O3

IuT

COoo3a

o

(spuEsnoLfj.)(uidd)oOA

AR3G0969

The ERM Group

' is apparent in that Pile 3 shallow samples achieved amore consistent reduction in VOC than Pile 2 shallowsamples.

Pile 2, location B deep samples (Figure 3-2B) trendedtowards lower concentrations after 40 hours. Daapsamples from the other locations in Piles 2 and 3varied greatly in concentration throughout the study.This observation may be dua to a greater degree ofdisaggregation in this area of Pile 2, due tomechanical turning. This is consistent with ERM'sprevious experience, in which tha degree ofdisaggregation was a major factor in determining therequired duration for, and the degree of, soilrenovation. This observation can ba compared to thadeep samples from Pile 3 (Figures 3-3A, B, C) in whichconcentrations varied. From this, it appears thatmechanical turning facilitated removal of an area;ofhigh concentration whereas the static pile technique

i (Pile 3) did not remove such "hot spots'"

Pile 1 displayed VOC reductions in the shallow sampleafter 25 hours and in tha deep sample after 40 hours.

3.2 Laboratory Data

ERM selected a total of 19 specific samples for laboratoryanalysis for total and leachable VOCs. Samples wera selected toobtain laboratory analyses from a range of VOC headspaceconcentrations. Table 3-2 contains tha laboratory analysisresults for tha samples. Each detected compound is reported onan "as received* and "dry weight" basis. Also, ERM requestedthat a split of each sample ba subjected to a 48-hour distilledwater leaching test, with haadspace minimized. The resultinglaachata was analyzed for volatile organics. The laachata testprovides an estimate of the leachable VOCs for. various total VOCsin the soil.

Total Vola tiles and Total Laachablas were determined from tha sumof individual compounds detected in each sample. The TotalVoaltilas and Total Laachablas ara included in Table 3-2.Corresponding field OVA haadspace readings ara also indicated.On Table 3-2, sample P1-2AS represents a sampla from Pile 1; thasecond sampla taken from Location A at a shallow (S) depth.Other sample numbers can ba interpreted similarly.

As shown, a range of contaminated samples was analyzed. TotalVOCs (as received) ranged from 179,000 ppb (Sample P3-3AD) to1830 ppb (Sample P3-7AS). Total leachable VOCs ranged from

3-11 W30Q970

The ERM Group

THSLE 3-2LABORATORY A?*lcYblS

(Alt results Measured in ppo)

•MT «7 hT UT kT WTDESCRIPTION P1-2AS % P1-2AD * P2-3A3 S P2-38S S P3-1B3 * P3-lEi S

Percent soils As received 63.0 63.0 ce.O 65.5 64.0 .at.0

Toluene As received 430000.3 630000.4 194000.3 £23000.3 £40000.3 510000.3Dry Nt. basis 513000.3 757000.4 22900 0.3 26600 0.3 23400 0.3 5*300 0.3Leachate 123000.5 14200 0.5 2510 0.4 20100.3 17600 0.6 5500 0.5

Ethylbsr,iene As received 34000 0.3 46000 0.3 117000.2 11SOO O.I 31000 0.3 40*30 0.3Dry Nt. basis 405000.3 577000.3 13600 0.2 133000.1 3S700 0.3 455000.3Leachate 23000.1 33000.1 8600.1 5500.1 40000.1 25100.1

Tricfuc-rt'esher* As received 110000.1 i/•>••• 0.1 *:-:3 0.2 . 140/tf 0.2 2XX'0.0 15003 A.1Dry wt. basis 13000 O.J 200000.1 JiwO O.rf 160W 0.2 24000.0 170000.1Leachate 46000.2 55000.2 iflOO 0.2 15000.3 69000.2 5000 0.2

Tetracfcieroethew . As received 360000.3 510000.3 1 WOO 0.3 230000.4 24000 0.3 410000.3Dry Nt. basis 43000 0.3 olOOO 0.3 22000 0.3 34000 0.4 26000 0.2 4oOOO 0.3Leachate .31000.1 33000.1 13C"J 0.2 11000.2 0.0 £7000.1

Trari5-l,£-Dichiorosthene As received 0.0 0.0 500 0.0 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry wt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 1200 0.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 0.0 3000.0 3oO 0.0 .-350 0.1 5000.0 £000.0

1,1,1-Trschloroethar* As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 10000.0 0.0 0.0Dry Nt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 1200 0.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 4000.0 7000.0 0.0 1100.0 900 0.0 4000.0

Jtethyltr* chloride As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150000.2 60000.0Dry Nt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16000 0.2 7000 0.0Leachate 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0,0 0.0

Chloroform As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry Nt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL VOLATILES ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS 147600 214400 63700 93100 113500 177600TOTAL VOLATILES ON AN AS RECEIVED BASIS 124000 179000 60100 75500 55000 153000TOTAL LEACHABLES 23500 27000 7230 5520 2S300 20610

OVA HEAD SPACE lppo)« 1000 1000 610 560 1000 1000

flR3U0971

The ERM Group

TABLE 3-2 <cent)LABORATORY fifWLVSls

(All results asas-jred in ppb)

HT MT WT UT UT UTPARAMETER DESCRIPTION P3-2SS * P3-2S3 S P3-3ftS * P3-3AO * P3-36S % W3-36D %

Percent soil-: As received 66.6 64.5 67.0 66.0 at.0 66.0

Toluene AE received 57000.2 263000.3 114000.3 4*000.2 WO 0.1 64000.2Dry -t. basis 65300.2 217000.3 132000.3 51300.2 10500.1 74200.2Leacnate 15300.4 44300.4 3600.2 5800.2 3600.3 5700.3

Ethyiberzens HS received 33000.2 223000.3 38000.1 1600 O.I I5v00.1 76000.2wry wt. oasis 45000.2 271000.3 44000.1 £1100.1 17500.1 90500.2Leacnatt 4600.1 10000.1 1200.1 1&00.1 SO 0.1 1700.1

7r,cf;'.e.'oe:rr;.s As received 4300 0.2 76000. j I300C* O.j 64CO 0.3 53000.2 4300 C.i:>ry at. basis 50000.2 &000.1 1500-i 0.3 75000.3 27C«0 0.2 5700 C.1L»cnat» 13000.3 2300 0.3 7000.4 11000.4 4700.4 7*00.4

Tetrar.loreethene As received 100000.4 300000.3 140000.3 37000.4 60000.5 100000.5Dry *t. basis 120000.4 36000 0.3 16000 0.3 110000.4 70000.5 220000.5

6100.1 1400 0..1 £500.5 4200.2 2700.2 4000.2

j Trar«s-l,c-3:chioroether.e As received 200 0.0 300 0.0 600 0.0 500 0.0 200 0.0 200 0.0! Dry "t. basis 2300.0 3600.0 7000.0 5500.0 2300.0 2300.0

Leachate 1200.0 6400.1 1400.1 -1500.1 1100.1 1100.1

i,l,l-Trichlorcethane As received 5000.0 6000.0 10000.0 5000.0 2000.0 400 0.0Dry wt. basis 5BO 0.0 7100.0 12000.0 5300.0 2300.0 4600.0LeachatB 500.0 3300.0 £00.0 700.0 200.0 400.0

Methylene chloride As received 0.0 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry wt. basis 0.0 240 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chloroforn As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry Nt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Leacnate 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 . 20 0.0 10 0.0 10 0.0

TOTAL VOLATILES ON A DRY WEIGHT BASIS 26390 105310 50500 26S40 12960 44360TOTAL VOLATILES ON AN AS RECEIVED BASIS 24600 68600 43300 23300 11100 3S700TOTAL LEACHABLES 4110 10710 1630 2500 1330 2010

, OVA HEAD SPACE (ppa)t* 300 650 170 370 190 370I

The ERM Group

TABLE 3-2 (cont)LABORATORY ANALYSIS

(All results measured in pso)

UT UT UT KT UT UT *TPARAMETER DESCRIPTION P3-43S * P3-5BS % P3-5BD * P3-SfiS * P3-6K * P3-6CS * P3-7A3 S

As receivedDry Nt. basisLeachate

As receivedDry N:. basisLeachate

13002210556

1900221055

0.10.10.3

0.10.10.1

170019101B6

1090122030

0.20.20.2

0.10.10.0

11200.21330 0.2£500.5

760 0. 13250.160 0.0

630 0. 16630.1£7 0.2

3600.1416 0. 1£7 0.1

1640016766170

56005732£3

0.30.30.2

0.10.10.0

560644155

33043313

0.20.20.2

0.10.10.0

370 0.24il 0.5121 0.2

2700.13000.116 0.0

Percent solid As received 63.1 63.1 84.3 51.4 57.7 50.0 SO.l

Toluene

Ethyibenzere

7ricr)i:,"c-e:heAe As receive'.4 30oO 0.£ 1500 O.i o&O 0.5 HM 0.2 13000 0.4 6-v; 0.2 SSOv.S.Dry Ht. basis 35000.2 1700.0.2 !0w 0.£ 12040.5 194470.4 7li 0.2 10930.5Leachate 7300.4 4300.5 £300.4 2:00.5 3500.5 4200.5 3700.6

Tetrachloroethene As received 72000.5 29000.4 £6030.5 24000.5 75000.1 15000,5 0.0Dry wt. basis 64000.5 33000.4 31000.5 26560.5 77790.1 1SS7 0.5 00.0Leachate 2600.1 1000.1 5500.2 6? 0.£ *£ 0.1 -aOO.l V4 0.1

7rans-l,5-Dichloroethene As received 2000.0 1300.0 0.0 700.0 7500.0 400.0 1000.1Dry wt. basis 2300.0 1500.0 0.0 770.0 7630.0 440.0 1110.1Leachate 1100.1 630.1 500.1 510.1 31 0.1 960.1 650.1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane As received 4000.0 2400.0 700.0 1200.0 1400 0.0 600.0 1000.1Dry Nt. basis 4600.0 2700.0 S3 0.0 1310.0 14330.0 630.0 1110.1Lsachate 40 0.0 17 0.0 30 0.0 7 0.0 10 0.0 15 0.0 9 0.0

Kethylene chloride As received 510.0 510.0 0.0 200.0* 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry Nt. basis 57 0.0 57 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Leachate 15 0.0 15 0.0 £0 0.0 10 0.0 11 0.0 11 0.0 11 0.0«

Chloroforu As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IfiO 0.0 40 0.0 0.0Benzene (P3-6CS) Dry Nt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 194 0.0 44 0.0 0 0.0

Leachate 200.0 150.0 200.0 0.0 130.0 170.0 70.0

TOTAL VOLATILES ON A DRY WEI8KT EASIS 17067 6607 643d 5164 52129 3633 2031TOTAL VOLATILES ON AN AS RECEIVED BASIS 14651 7611 5450 4720. 50930 3270 1630TOTAL LEACHABLES 1826 663 1330 441 700 623 672

OVA HEAD SPACE (ppn)«* 90 40 100 100 100 100 100

!I The ERM Group

' 29,900 ppb (Sample P3-1BS) to 441 ppb (Sample P3-6AS).Interestingly, maximum and minimum Total VOCs and OVA readings do

| not necessarily correspond to greatest or least Total LeachableVOC concentrations, respectively. However, ERM has identified arelationship between the parameters, as discussed in Section 3.3.

For each sample in Table 3-2, the weight percentage (designated"WT %") of each individual organic compound is shown on asrecievad and dry weight bases, and for leachables. From theweight percentages, it is apparent that the major portion ofTotal VOCs is composed of toluene, ethylbenzene, trichloroethene,and tetrachloroethene.

3.3 Data Analysis

ERM conducted a series of simple linear regression analyses onlog-transformed Total Volatiles vs. Total Laachables. Thenatural logs of the data were used, and provided a normally

f distributed data set, which is required for such analysis.Relationships were fitted between variables using the method ofleast squares.

IThe results show that each of the relationships are statisticallysignificant. Statistical significance, for these analyses, was

• confirmed because:

slopes of the linear relationships were significantlydifferent from zero at the 95 percent level of

f confidence; and

the coefficients of determination (R2) were significantat tha 95 percent level of confidence (Tha coefficientof determination indicates the percentage of variationin the dependent variable that is explained by theindependent variable. As an example, a coefficient ofdetermination of 0.75 indicates thafr 75 percent of thevariation in the dependent variable earn be explained bytha change in the independent variable).

Table 3-3 indicates tha statistical relationships which weredeveloped from the data. As shown, the coefficient ofdetermination for the Total Leachables/Total Volatiles (dryweight) relationship is .732. This means that 73 percent of thevariation in Total Leachables is due to the variation in TotalVolatiles (dry weight). The coefficients of variation for theTotal Leachables/Total Volatiles (as received) relationship is.714. This coefficient of determination indicates that therelationship is statistically significant at the 95 percent level

3-15

II The ERM Group

VCMes

rgC 4J0> 1C

-1 g22s*u o>O f* Qj«M O ^

5COI? 'I4J (0 £

g

L. 0)23S3^ ID C? iO -^

S 3• »

J-> 4J

fi fi

-en

00 CMvo in• •i iH ii

J

33

•H —» ^ T3•rt AJ •** 0)•J £: tj >

W CO

uj>l « u Q co*J re

CO (0a> a>3

C 0)o(C

4J

8

The ERM Group

of confidence. Using these relationships. Total Leachables canbe estimated from Total Volatiles on either a dry weight or asreceived basis. The number of laboratory analyses can thus bereduced. Utilization of this technique is discussed further inSections 5 and 6, and example calculations are included.

3.4 Air Flow Measurements

From measurements, the blower delivered 480 cfm to 610 cfm duringthe study. The lower flow measurement was taken while the maintrunk line was throttled 45 degrees by a butterfly valve, toaffect an increase in the air temperature and thus increaseorganics evaporation. No appreciable increase in evaporation wasnoted during throttling, however.

Some fluctuations were noted during velocity meter readings.However, from the measurements, Pile 2 received from 90 cfm to175 cfm and Pile 3 received from 350 cfm to 440 cfm. From this,it is apparent that tha desired condition of 50 percent greaterflow to Pile 3 was exceeded. More likely, Pile 3 received two tothree times the flow delivered to Pile 2. This greaterefficiency accounts for the superior performance of the Pile 3pipe configuation in air stripping the soils.

Tha difference in air flow to Piles 2 and 3 may be explained bythe piping network in each pile and its construction. Pile 3contained three slotted lengths compared to Pile 2 whichcontained two slotted lengths. Further, the lengths in Pile 2were set in a trench below grade; air could only be dischargedfrom tha top half of the slots. In contrast, Pile 3 slottedlengths could discharge air throughout the circumference of thetop pipe and tha majority of tha pipes placed on grade. Air flowrestrictions were therefore less in Pile 3.

3.5 Air Sampling Data

As previously noted, Bendix obtained an Air Discharge Permit fromPA DER to operate tha pilot facility. A condition of this permitrequired monitoring of VOCs at tha facility property lines upwindand downwind of tha pilot operation. The permit required thattha operation be halted if the following Recommended Ambient AirQuality Guidelines ware exceeded:

Benzene 24 ppbTrichloroethene 1200 ppbPerchloroethene 1200 ppb

Monitoring was conducted using both an OVA mater and charcoaltuba sampling/analysis. Using the OVA, downwind property

3-17 4R300976

The ERM Group

boundary monitoring results did not exceed backgroundconcentrations throughout the study. Background levels weretypically between 0 and 0.2 ppm during study operations.Concentrations within the study area varied with environmentalconditions and type of activity. During initial excavation,volatile organic concentrations averaged 15 to 20 ppm at adistance of 10 feet or less from the excavation area, withfrequent peaks of 50 to 200 ppm observed. Concentrationsobserved during pile manipulation were typically between 7 to 20ppm with occasional peaks of up to 35 ppm. These concentrationswere all diminished to background levels at a distance ofapproximately 300 ft. from the study area. Weather conditionssuch as mist and drizzle reduced the dispersive ability of thevolatile organics present.

Air samples were collected at the property boundaries, usingcharcoal tubes, throughout the study* A total organic vapor scanwas performed on the samples by Lancaster Laboratories. Blankcharcoal tubes were also submitted for each sampling day toprovide quality control data. Analytical results were reportedas "none detected" for each constituent of the total organicvapor scan on all samples submitted.

3-ie 4R300977

I1 The ERM Group

SECTION 4

SOIL REMEDIATION GOAL

In order to conduct a successful soil remediation, a goal must beset for the allowable leachable residual VOC concentrations inthe soil. This concentration (C&) is defined as that which willnot cause the regional aquifer to exceed any USEPA ProposedMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL) due to continuing release fromthe soil.

As previously discussed, the Total Laachablas measurementindicates the degree of potential mobile VOCs in the soils in theFormer Distillation Area. The Total Leachables measurement istherefore an appropriate indicator parameter for remediation ofthe soil.

The objective of the soil remediation is to ensure that the soilswill not continue to have an unacceptable impact on the regionalaquifer, which is the bedrock aquifer at this site. Such impact \_Jcan be defined on the basis of standards set by regulation forindividual compounds found in the soils. Table 4-1 is a listingof USEPA Proposed Maximum Contamination Levels (MCLs) in potablewater, for site-related compounds. The listing is taken from EPAproposed regulations, 50 FR 46904, dated 13 November 1985. Theseproposed MCLs can be used as estimated working limits for VOCconcentrations in the bedrock aquifer below the site. To assessthe potential impact of the soil VOCs on the regional bedrockaquifer, a relationship can be defined. As discussed in previousreports, ERM has observed a general order of magnitude decreaseof contaminants in successively deeper ground water zones belowthe site. As an example, if 500 ppb of a contaminant existed inthe upper glacial till zone (as leached from the contaminatedsoils), approximately 50 ppb would be found in the ground waterzone at tha till-bedrock interface, and about 5 ppb would beobserved in tha ragional bedrock aquifer. This observation isattributed to tha geologic formations present which inhibitdownward migration.

Based on the above, it is appropriate to limit the concentrationof VOCs in the soil leachate to 100 times the bedrock aquiferlimit. This accommodates the two order of magnitude decrease inVOCs in successively deeper flow systems. Therefore, a TotalLeachables limit of 100 times the most stringent MCL limit isappropriate for site soil remediation. The most stringent MCL is v

4-1 AR300978

Ii The ERM Group

VTABLE 4-1

Proposed Maximum Contamination Levels (MCLs)

ProposedMCL

Contaminant (rog/1)

Benzene 0.005

Trichloroethene 0.005

1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.20

trans-l,2-dichloroethene 0.07

Ethylbenzene 0.68

Toluene 2.0

4-2 AR300979

II The ERM Group

0.005 ppm for benzene and trichloroethene (Table 4-1). The TotalLeachables remediation limit (C&) would thus be 0.5 ppm or 500ppb.

AR300980

II The ERM Group

SECTION 5

FIELD VERIFICATION METHOD

When conducting a soil remediation program, it is necessary tomake field decisions regarding:

the extent (lateral and vertical) of soil to beremediated; and

when a given volume of soil has been sufficientlyremediated, i.e. when CR has been reached.

5.1 Verification by the Calculated Volatiles Method

To facilitate field data analysis, ERM has developed a method forcalculating estimated Total VOC concentrations in the soil, basedon field OVA data. This method was successfully used at anothersite where a soil remediation of VOCs was conducted, and was alsoused at the Bendix site. It should be noted that the VOCconcentrations present in the other site soils were one to twoorders of magnitude lower than those at the Bendix Aerospacefacility.The Calculated Volatiles were determined as follows:

A one liter jar was used for headspace analysis. Onequarter liter of soil was placed In the jar. Theaverage soil weight was defined as 0.3 kg per quarterliter.

The samples were heated over a boiling water bath, todrive as much of the VOC into the headspace aspossible, and the headspace concentrations weremeasured with the OVA meter.

*

The following conversion factor was used to convertfrom ppm on the OVA meter, to mg/m3 in the sample jarheadspace (OSHA regulations, Chapter XVII $1910.1000):

ppm * molecular compound weight mg/m^ (1)" " " 2 4 . 4 5

For use in equation 1, a composite molecular weight wascalculated for each sample, using the weightedaveraging method.

5-1A-R30098I

II The ERM Group

The headspace concentration in mg/m3 was used toestimate the soil concentration (Cs) in mg/kg (ppb) bycalculation as follows:

Cs(ppm) = ppm OVA x mol. wt. x 1m3 x .75 L haadspace24.45 1000 L .3 kg soil

The calculation for sample P2-3AS is shown as an example:

Cs(ppm) = 610 x 123 x 1 x .7524.45 1000 73"

Cs =7.7 ppm = 7700 ppb

The Calculated Volatiles and composite molecular weights areshown on Table 5-1.

Since the Total Volatiles (as received) for sample P2-3AS weremeasured at 60,000 ppb, it is obvious that this estimation didnot account for migration of all volatiles from the soil to theheadspace. ERM believas that this is bacause of the high VOCconcentrations in the tasted soils. As previously noted, this ^method was successfully used to estimate VOC concentrations at a •site with soil VOC concentrations ona to two orders of magnitudelower.

5.2 Verification by the OVA Headspace Method

Ideally, for field verification of soil VOC concentrations, anapproximate one-to-one relationship would exist between TotalVolatiles and Calculated Volatiles. Although a one-to-onerelationship does not exist at this site between field calculatedand laboratory analyzed VOCs, a statistically supportablerelationship does exist between the Total Leachables and theOVA headspace readings. ERM determined that -this relationshipcan ba useful for field varification of soil remediation at theBendix site.

ERM completed a statistical analysis (as described in Section3.3) for Total Leachables and OVA headspace readings. A simplelinear regression was completed on log-transformed field OVAreadings versus Total Leachables. A relationship was fittedbetween the variables using the method .of least squares. Forreasons discussed in Section 3.3, the relationship isstatistically significant. The relationship is as follows:

in (Tot. Leach.) = 2.612 + .933 {ln(OVA)J

5-2 flR300982

IIV

The ERM Group

TABLE 5-1CALCULATED VOLATILES

(All results measured in ppb)

hOL. h'T WT UT UT WT UTPARAMETER ' «T. DESCRIPTION P1-£AS X P1-2AD * P2-3AS t P2-3BS * P3-16S % P3-lBi) >

Percent solid As received 63.00 63.00 66.00 65.50 64.00 66.00

Toluene 92 As received 43000 0.3 63000 0.4 19400 0.3 22900 0.3 24000 0.3 51000 0.3Dry wt. basis 51300 0.3 75700 0.4 22300 0.3 26800 0.3 £3400 0.3 53300 0.3Leacnate 12300 0.5 14200 0.5 2310 0.4 2010 0.3 17600 0.6 9600 0.5

Ethylbenzene 106 As received 340000.3 480000.3 117000.2 119000.1 310000.3 400000.3Dry Nt. basis 405000.3 577000.3 138000.2 139000.1 367000.3 465000.3Leachate 23000.1 33000.1 8600.1 8500.1 40000.1 £5100.1

>icr,iur>ther* l;0 As . reived 110000.1 i' O xU 9:»0 fi.2 1400C 0.3 20W S.C 150000.1Dry Mt. basis 130000.1 200W 0.1 110000.2 1600C. 0.2 S400 0.0 i/000 0.;Leachate 48000.2 52000. £ 1500 0.2 15w 0.3 65000.2 50000.2

Tetrachioroethene 164 As received 360000.3 510000.3 190000.3 290000.4 240000.3 410000.3Dry Nt. basis 430000.3 610000.3 220000.3 340000.4 280000.2 460000.3Leachate 31000.1 33000.1 13000.2 11000.2 0.0 £7000.1

Trans-l,2-Dichloroether« 96 As received 0.0 0.0 500 0.0 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry Mt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 12000.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 0.0 3000.0 3600.0 3500.1 500 0.0 £000.0

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 132 As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 10000.0 0.0 0.0Dry wt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 12000.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 400 0.0 700 0.0 0.0 110 0.0 900 0.0 400 0.0

fethylere chloride 84 As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 15000 0.2 6000 0.0Dry Nt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18000 0.2 7000 0.0Leachate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

•

Chlorofom 118 As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry Nt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

COMPOSITE MOLECULAR WEIGHT 120 120 123 127 114 118TOTAL VOLATILES OK A DRY WEIGHT BASIS 147800 214400 69700 93100 113500 177800TOTAL VOLATILES ON AN AS RECEIVED BASIS 124000 173000 60100 79800 96000 153000TOTAL LEACHABLES 23500 27000 7230 5920 29900 20610

OVA HEAD SPACE (ppo)« 1000 1000 610 560 1000 1000CALCULATED TOTAL VOLATILES 12283 12249 7703 7300 11638 12108

AR300983

I

I The ERM Group

TABLE 5-1 icont)CALCULATED VOLATILE

(All results iseasureo in ppb)

WT WT WT MT HT WTPARAMETER DESCRIPTION P3-£B3 '* P3-25D % P3-3AS % P3-3AD % P3-3ES % W-isD *

Percent solid As received 87.00 65.00 67.00 66.00 &.00 oi.w

Toluene 32 As received 57000.2 £53000.3 114000.3 44000.2 9000.1 &4-JO 0.2Dry Mt. basis 65300.2 317000.3 132000.3 51500.2 10500.1 74£0 0.2

. Leachate 15300.4 i430 0.4 3600.2 5600.2 3800.3 5700.3

Ethylbenzene 106 As received 3300 0.£ £2300 0.3 38000.1 15000.1 15000.1 7800 0.2Dry Mt. basis 45000.2 271000.3 44000.1 21100.1 17500.1 30500.2Leacnate 460 0. 1 1000 0. 1 120 0. 1 160 0. 1 30 0. 1 170 0. 1

Trichioroethere 130 ."is received 4300 0.£ .'iv; 0.1 13000 0.3 S4oO 0.3 £3vO t.2 4?# 0.1Dry wt. basis 5000 0.2 ScOOO.1 150000.3 75000.3 27W 0.2 37000.1Leachate 13000.3 £3000.3 7000.4 11000.4 4700.4 7lO 0.4

Tetrachloroethene 164 As received 100000.4 300000.3 140000.3 97000.4 50000.5 13000 0.5Dry v»t. basis 120000.4 360000.3 160000.3 110000.4 7000 0.5 ££000 0.5Leachate 5100.1 14000.1 £»00.2 420 0.£ £/0 0.2 400 0.£

Trans-l,2-Dichloroethene 36 As received 2000.0 3000.0 6000.0 5000.0 £000.0 i* 0.0Dry Mt. basis £30 0.0 360 0.0 700 0.0 530 0.0 230 0.0 £30 0.0Leachate 1200.0 6400.1 1400.1 .1500.1 2100.1 HO 0.1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 132 As received 5000.0 5000.0 10000.0 5000.0 2000.0 4000.0Dry Mt. basis 530 0.0 710 0.0 1£00 0.0 530 0.0 230 0.0 460 0.0Leachate 300.0 3SO 0.0 200.0 700.0 20 0.0 400.0

Methylene chloride 84 As received 0.0 200 0.0 0.0 0*0 0.0 0.0Dry wt. basis 0.0 £40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Leachatc 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chlorofora IB As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry Mt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Leachate 0.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 100.0 100.0

COWOSITE MOLECULAR HEIGHT 131 124 128 134 141 135TOTAL VOLATILES ON fl DRY HEIGHT BASIS 23390 105310 50500 2S940 12960 44860TOTAL VOLATILES ON AN AS RECEIVED BASIS 24600 38600 43300 23300 11100 38700TOTAL LEACHABLES 4110 10710 1630 2500 1330 2010

OVA HEAD SPACE (ppa)» 300 850 170 370 190 370CALCULATED TOTAL VOLATILES 4034 10750 2231 5071 2743 5122

flR30098t4

The ERM Group

TABLE 5-1 (cor.t)CALCULfifii} VOLATILES

(All results iteasured in pab)

Ul UT UT WT KT bT *TPAfiAMETEF DESCRIPTION P3-4ES * P3-5S3 X P3-55D S P3-6AS * P3-6BS * P3-6CS * P3-7A3 i

Percent solid As recsived 83.1 63.1 64.3 91.4 97.7 SO.O VO.l

Toluene 32 As received 13000.1 17000.2 11£0 0.£ 6300.1 164000.3 5300.2 370 0.£Dry Mt. basis ££100.1 13100.2 12300.2 6e9 0.1 167660.3 6440.2 4il 0.£Leachate 5560.3 leS 0.2 £500.2 670.2 1700.2 1550.2 1210.2

EthyitsMene 106 As received 19000.1 10300.1 7600.1 3600.1 56000.1 3300.1 2700.1Dry Mt. basis 22100.1. 1££00.1 9250.1 4160.1 57320.1 4330.1 3000.1Leachate 35 0.1 "'30 0.0 600.0 £70.1 £30.0 190.0 180.0

150 As received 30W C.c JV.00.2 £r> 0.2 11000.2 iSOOO v.4 6400.2 %U ft.SDry «t. oasis 35000.2 17000.2 10000.2 12040.2 19*470.4 7ll 0.2 10390.5Leachate 7300.4 4300.5 580 0.4 2100.5 3500.5 4300.5 3700.6

Tetrachloroetnene 164 As received 72000.5 £3(00.4 26000.5 24000.5 76000.1 15000.5 0.0Dry wt. basis 64000.5 33000.4 3100 0.5 £626 0.5 77790.1 16570.5 00.0Leachate 2600.1 1000.1 .260.0.2 630.2 420.1 600.1 740.1

Trans-l,£-Dicr.loroethene 95 As received £000.0 1300.0 0.0 700.0 750 0.0 400.0 1000.1Dry Mt. basis 2200.0 1500.0 0.0 770.0 7680.0 440.0 1110.1Leacnate 1100.1 660.1 900.1 51-0.1 810.1 960.1 620.1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 132 As received 4000.0 2400.0 700.0 1200.0 14000.0 £00.0 1000.1Dry wi. basis 4600.0 2700.0 830.0 1310.0 14330.0 630.0 1110.1Leachate 400.0 170.0 300.0 70.0 100.0 150.0 90.0

Hethylene chloride 84 As received 51 0.0 51 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0Dry Nt. basis 57 0.0 57 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Leachate 15 0.0 15 0.0 20 0.0 10.0.0 11 0.0 11 0.0 11 0.0

Chloroforu 118 As received 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1800.0 400.0 0.0Benzene (P3-6CS) 76 Dry wt. basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 184 0.0 44 0.0 0 0.0

Leachate 200.0 150.0 200.0 .0.0 130.0 170.0 70.0

COMPOSITE MOLECULAR WEIGHT 138 130 135 140 ' 120 135 117TOTAL VOLATILES ON A DRY HEIGHT BASIS 17067 8607 6433 5164 52129 3533 2031TOTAL VOLATILES ON AN AS RECEIVED BASIS 14651 7611 5450 4720 50930 3270 1830TOTAL LEACHABLES 1625 683 1330 441 700 623 672

OVA HEAD SPACE (ppi»>»» 30 40 100 100 100 100 100CALCULATED TOTAL VOLATILES 1271 533 1361 1428 1224 1380 1137

AR300985

The ERM Group

' The coefficient of determination (R2) for this relationship is.762. This means that 76 percent of the variation in the

• predicted Total Leachables values can be explained by the changein the field OVA readings.

It has been determined that the Total Leachables measurement isthe critical indicator of this soil's continuing potential forcontribution to aquifer contamination. Reliable estimation ofthe Total Leachables via field OVA measurements is more timelyand less expensive than laboratory analysis to determine when CRhas been reached in the field. This method is used in Section 6to facilitate field determination of the necessary degree of soiltreatment during full-scale remediation.

Using the relationship defined between OVA readings and TotalLeachables, it can be calculated:

In (500 ppb) = 2.612 x .933 (In (OVA)] and:

OVA =47.5 ppm

Thus, a reading of 47.5 ppm on the OVA meter approximates 500 ppbof leachable volatiles in the soils. Since the relationship isstatistically derived, and since field measurement accuracy isless than laboratory accuracy, ERM proposes that for actual fieldverification of remediation, a 50 percent "safety factor" should

i be employed. Thus, an actual OVA reading of 25 ppm is proposed1 for verification of soil remediation at the Bendix facility.

This method will ensure that the remediated soil will not cause! degradation of the ground water in the regional aquifer above any> MCL, and thus provides permanent remediation, and achieves

applicable standards in the .bedrock aquifer exposure pathway.

5-6

The ERM Group

SECTION 6

ASSESSMENT OF THE EXCAVATEDPILE/FORCED AERATION METHOD

6.1 Achieving Proposed CR Limit

To assess the applicability of the the excavated pile/forcedaeration method for full-scale remediation of these soils, theTotal Leachables are compared to the proposed CR limit of 500 ppb.Since Total Leachable laboratory analyses were not conducted onall samples, the Total Leachables were predicted from OVAmeasurements from the relationship discussed in Section 5.

Since Pile 3 achieved the most consistent decrease in OVAreadings, the OVA data from Pile 3 were used to predict the TotalLeachables. From Table 3-1, average OVA readings were calculatedfrom each location at every time interval. The average OVAreadings from each sampling interval were used to predict thecorresponding Total Leachables. As described in Section 3.2, thecomposite molecular weight is used in converting the fieldheadspace reading for each sample. Since the composite molecularweight is unknown, ERM used both the minimum and the maximumcomposite molecular weight from Table 3-2. From Table 3-2, theminimum composite molecular weight is 114 and the maximum is 141.These values result in a lower and upper predicted range of TotalLeachables for each sample.

The average OVA readings and predicted Total Leachables are shownon Table 6-1. These predicted values are shown graphicallyversus time on Figure 6-1. The proposed 5QO ppb limit isincluded for comparison.

From Figure 6-1, it is clear that the predicted Total Leachablesdid decrease markedly during the study. Air stripping istherefore a viable technology in removing volatile organics fromthese soils.

However, Figure 6-1 also shows that the excavated pile/forcedaeration method was unsuccessful in completely achieving thedegree of treatment required for these highly contaminated soils.Review of the data indicates that some areas of the piles didexperience more VOC reduction than others. However, "hot spot"areas of high concentrations remained throughout the course ofthe study. Apparently, preferential air flow pathways becameestablished in the pile; thus, some areas experienced little VOCreduction while others reduced greatly. -

6-1 AR300987

The ERM Group

TABLES-1PILE 3 - PREDICTED TOTAL LEACHATE

OVA PREDICTEDTIME AVERAGE LEACHABLES(hrs) <ppi) (ppb)

0 1000 857310.75 583 522212.75 440 338815.25 333 350615.25 523 468818.25 220 208921.25 117 115623.25 350 3307

25 358 323527.5 585 5202£8.5 167 161230 342 3149

31.5 178 171732.5 295 274534 333 3073

35.5 535 473539 195 166641 338 3121

41.5 143 139742.75 254 247344.75 431 3914

47 161 155449 132 1297

50.5 151 146954 377 3449

55.5 420 3813

AR30.0988

COLU

LUCO

O*V

K-OQLU

QLUQCQ.

O>

vLU

(spuBsnoiii)(qdd)-HOV3TIO1 *a3Ud

AR300989

The ERM Group

reduction while others reduced greatly. Considering this, theextracted pile method seems more appropriate for remediation ofsoils containing VOC concentrations at least an order ofmagnitude lower than the soils tested at the Bendix site.

6.2 Other Potential Remediation Methods

For the soil in the Former Distillation Area, it is apparent thatareas of high VOC concentration are present which are notremediable by the pilot test method. A more appropriatetreatment method would be a technique which disturbs thestructure of the soil. Preferential air flow movement would thusbe eliminated. Since ERM proposed the pile method in 1984, othermethods have been developed which would be more appropriate forthe highly contaminated soils at the Bendix Aerospace site. Twoalternative methods have been successfully used at other sites.At the same time that this pilot test was conducted, ERM hassuccessfully pilot tested and completed remediation of VOCcontaminated soils using a, vibratory screen mechanism typicallyfound in highway construction applications. Contaminated soil isloaded on a conveyor which moves the soil to the top of thescreen mechanism. The soil is discharged to the mechanism andtravels through a series of vibrating screens. The soilstructure is thoroughly altered in this method, and the resultantdisaggregation allows the efficient stripping of VOCs. In thiscase, the contaminated soils contained VOC concentrationsapproximately one order of magnitude lower than at the Bendixsite. However, this method can be expected to perform for higherconcentration soils as well, given the physical disaggregationprocess.

Another method which has proved successful on a pilot scale hasbeen developed by the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous MaterialsAgency (USATHAMA). This method employs a heated screw conveyorsystem to promote evaporation and soil disaggregation. Soil isloaded into a hopper which transports the soil to the screenprocessor trough. One or multiple helical -screws are used tomove and disaggregate the soil along a trough. -The screen (s) andtrough contain heated oil to improve evaporation of volatilesfrom the soil. The trough is enclosed and vapors from theprocessor trough area are sometimes collected .and combusted in anafterburner. Although this method is more energy Intensive (dueto the need for heated oil and an afterburner) than the vibratoryscreen, the screw conveyor method has demonstrated a capabilityto achieve nearly 100 percent volatile organic removal.

6.3 Cost Comparison

Although cost details are not yet available for the vibratoryscreen method, the approximate cost has been estimated at about

6-4. AR300990

fl-tf

The ERM Group

$50 per cubic yard. Because of the energy intensive nature ofthe heated screw conveyor method, cost estimates provided byUSATHAMA range from approximately $100 to $225 per cubic yard.Since the excavated pile method is not applicable to the highlycontaminated soils at the Bendix site, no detailed cost estimateshave been projected. However, the length of time required toachieve remediation by this method would likely result in costsin excess of $50 per cubic yard.

flR3G099i

The ERM Group

SECTION 7

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the pilot test, CRM has reached thefollowing conclusions:

1. Based on the pilot test and on experience at othersites, air stripping is a viable method for remedi. .ionof the site in the Former Distillation System Area.

2. A remedial goal of 500 ppb total residual leachableorganics will prevent further degradation of theregional bedrock aquifer above any applicable MCLs.

3. The excavated pile/forced aeration method is notsuitable for remediation of the highly contaminatedsoils in the Former Distillation System Area to theremedial goal. It might, however, be suitable forremediation in the lower concentration soils peripheralto this area.

4. No VOC concentrations in excess of Pennsylvania DERstandards were present at the property boundariesdownward of.the pilot test are during the air strippingoperations.

5. The relationship of Total Leachable VOCs to OVAheadspace readings can be used in the field duringremediation to verify that the 500 ppb Leachable VOChas been met.

7-1

AR300992

The ERM Group

APPENDIX A

DRAWING 1 - SCHEMATIC PLAN

AR.300993

The ERM Group

APPENDIX B

HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN

II The ERM Group

HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN -t

PILOT AIR STRIPPING STUDYFOR SOILS

Prepared For

Allied Bendix AerospaceSouth Montrose, PA

Robert DeistHealth and Safety Supervisor

MarirynA. Hewitt, P.G.Project Manager

Prepared By

Environmental Resources Management, Inc.999 West Chester Pike

West Chester, Pennsylvania 19382

AR300995

The ERM Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Section 1 - Introduction 1-1

1.1 Objectives 1-11.2 Background 1-2

Section 2 - Project Organization and Responsibilities 2-1

Section 3 - Medical Monitoring and Training 3-1

3.1 Medical Monitoring 3-13.2 Training 3-3

Section 4 - Personal Protection and Safety Practices 4-1

4.1 Protective Equipment 4-14.2 Criteria for Selection of Protective

Equipment 4-24.3 Site Safety Practices 4-44.4 General Safety Practices 4-44.5 Decontamination 4-6

Section 5 - Emergency Procedures 5-1

5.1 Responsibilities ' 5-15.2 Accidents 5-1

AR300996

The ERM Group

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

This Health and Safety Plan has been developed for the PilotStudy for Soil Aeration at the Allied-Bendix Flight SystemsDivision, Montrose Plant, South Montrose, Pennsylvania. Thisplan is intended to provide a framework for the safe conduct ofthe field activities throughout the study. As such, this Planprovides procedures for use by Environmental Resources Management(ERM) Inc. to prevent accidents due to physical hazards and toreduce the potential for exposure of its employees to chemicalcontaminants which may be present in the air, water, and soil.

The project objectives, background, and scope of work are givenin detail in the Study Work Plan, dated August, 1986. .They aresummarized here to allow for review and understanding of thehealth and safety protocols. In addition, this Plan alsoaddresses the potential for off-site air quality impacts incompliance with the Pennsylvania DER air permit concerns.

1.1 Objectives

.The overall goal of the Pilot Study is to determine thefeasibility of the on-site remediation of contaminated soilsthrough experimental air purging systems and techniques. Theobjectives of this study are: - •

- determine effectiveness of the various systems andtechniques utilized; - •

determine a residual VOC concentration at which thesoil could be replaced with minimal future impact onground water quality; and

determine that the soil characteristics will permitremediation by the experimental system and techniquesstudied.

The methods used for the above determinations are discussed indetail in the Work Plan. .Soil excavations, purge systemconstruction, and subsequent soil manipulation will be conductedby Bendix subcontractor personnel, under the observation of ERMpersonnel. During the conduct of these tasks, it is requiredthat all ERM employees adhere to the health and safety protocolsas specified in this Plan. Additionally, they are to maintain ahigh level of safety consciousness so that immediate corrective

1-1

TheERM Group

actions can be taken to solve or avoid potentially threateningconditions or practices. It is recommended that all otherpersonnel associated with the project's activities review andunderstand the following protocols to enhance the level of healthand safety during site activities.

1.2 Background

Allied-Bendix Flight Systems Divisions' Montrose plant is locatedin Bridgewater Township, Susquehanna County, adjacent to theVillage of South Montrose, Pennsylvania. The site has been usedto manufacture aerospace components. In this process, organicsolvents have been used historically and were disposed of on siteyears ago. In 1982 and 1983, the Chester Engineers conductedhydrogeological investigations which provided data indicatingthat chlorinated organic solvents were present in the glacialtill ground water flow system at the site. Possible sources ofthe contamination were defined to include: the trichloroethylene(TCE) storage tank area, a former solvent distillation area, twoformer drum storage areas, and an old landfill and pit trenchdisposal area.

The study will utilize the soils from the former solventdistillation area as the media for pilot testing. Table 1-1provides a list of the known contaminants in this area and theThreshold Limit Values established for each component. TheThreshold Limit Value is defined as the airborne concentra-tion of a substance with specific conditions under which it isbelieved most workers can be exposed day after day withoutadverse effects. The Threshold Limit Value of each substancewill be used in the determination of appropriate respiratoryprotection. Action levels will be developed to enhance respira-tory protection in conditions of elevated concentrations in theair, such that the Threshold Limit Value of exposure is notreached or exceeded.

1-2

The ERM Group

Table 1-1

Persistent Contaminants found in ground water and soil at theAllied-Bendix Flight Systems Division—Montrose Plant for whichThreshold Limit Values have been established:

Compound TLV

Benzene 1 ppm

trans-1,2 Dichloroethylene 200 ppm

Tetrachloroethylene 50 ppm

Toluene 100 ppm

Trichloroethylene 50 ppm

Source for TLV's - Threshold Limit Values and Biological ExposureIndicesfor1985-86, American Conference of GovernmentalIndustrial Hygienists, 1985, 114 pages.

SR300999

The ERM Group

SECTION 2

PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

For this investigation, the following organization and responsi-bilities have been established:

Project Manager: Person duly appointed by ERM to actin a supervisory capacity in all matters relating tothe completion of this study. The Project Manager forthis investigation will be Ms. Marilyn A. Hewitt.

Field Engineer: Person duly appointed by ERM to ensurethat engineering specifications for the project are metin the field. The Field Engineer for thisinvestigation will be Mr. Thomas DiStefano.

- Field Operation Manager: Person duly appointed by ERMto act in a supervisory capacity relating to theimplementation of the Work Plan, including observingall subcontractor work and all day-to-day field-relatedactivities. The Field Operations Manager will alsoperform as the Sample Custodian. The Field OperationsManager for this investigation will be Mr. Robert P.Deist.

ERM Health and Safety Coordina.tor ; Person dulyappointed by ERM and having:

a safe, sound working knowledge of state andfederal occupational safety and h e a l t hregulations;

formal training and work experience insafety-related work at hazardous waste sites;

- r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for o v e r s e e i n g theimplementation of ERM's Health and Safety Program;and

responsibility for ensuring that all ERMpersonnel, and other personnel if requested,, areaware of the guidelines set forth in this Healthand Safety Plan, including the inherent risks ofchemical exposure associated with a study of thisnature, and are properly trained in the use ofadvanced safety equipment and protective clothingdesigned to protect agajnst chemical exposure.The ERM Health and Safety Coordinator is Mr.Robert P. Deist.

2-1 flR30IOOO

The ERM Group

Site Safety Officer: Person duly appointed by the ERMHealth and Safety Coordinator and having:

responsibility for the field implementation,evaluation, and any necessary field modificationsof this Health and Safety Plan; and

authority to suspend work at the Pilot Study Sitedue to non-conformance to, or problems with, theHealth and Safety Plan. The site Safety Officerfor this investigation will be Mr. Robert P. Deist.

2-2

The ERM Group

SECTION 3

MEDICAL MONITORING AND TRAINING

3.1 Medical Monitoring

ERM has established a medical monitoring program to identify,monitor, and prevent health risks for employees potentiallyexposed to hazardous materials. All employees are required toparticipate in this program. This program has two essentialcomponents, routine health care and emergency medical care, asdescribed below:

1. Pre-employment medical examinations to establish theindividual's state of health, baseline physiologicaldata, and ability to wear personal protectiveequipment.

2. Annual physicals for field personnel.

3. Whenever a situation occurs at a site which may pose asignificantly increased health risk to any personnel,or personnel exhibit currently job-related physicalconditions, the Health and Safety Coordinator mayrecommend that such individuals consult with theexamining physician for examination and treatment inaccordance with good medical practice.

The baseline medical examinations should include, but not belimited to, the following:

1. Complete medical and occupational/environmental historyand a physical medical examination .

2. Pulmonary function tests, defined as FEV1 and FVC

3. An EKG — 12-lead

4. A chest X-ray (PA) with interpretation byNIOSH-certified "B" reader

5. A urinalysis — routine and microscopic

3R3010023—1 • » • "

The ERM Group

6. Chemzyme analysis (E/G ratio), SGIP, SCOT, alumalbumin,alkaline phosphatases, bilirubin (total), BUN,creatinime ratio, calcium, CO2 content, cholesterol,chlorites, creatinine, globulin, glucose, LDH,phosphorous (inorganic), potassium, protein (total),sodium, triglycerides, uric acid, complete blood countwith differential and platelet count

7. Audiometric testing

8. Visual acuity (to be performed as part of the physicalexamination)

9. Other special tests

The need for special testing (i.e., PCB levels, serumcholesterol, etc.) will be determined by the examining physicianand after consultation with ERM's Health and Safety Officer.

Annual physical examinations need not include EKG or chest X-rayunless either is recommended by the examining physician. Suchexaminations shall include an update rather than a completemedical history of the individual.

Following the completion of each previously described medicalexamination, the following shall be conducted:

The examining physician or appropriate representativewill discuss with each individual the results of theirmedical examination. In these discussions, any medicalcondition which warrants further evaluation ortreatment, and any possible medical condition whichcould hinder the employee from safely and efficientlycompleting his/her work with relationship to wearingpersonal protective clothing will be discussed.

The examining physician or appropriate representativewill notify ERM's Health and Safety Coordinator inwriting that the individual has undergone a completemedical examination. In addition, ERM's Health andSafety Officer shall be advised as to any medicalcondition that the physician feel.s would adverselyaffect the individual's ability to work underconditions requiring the use of personal protectiveclothing. ERM's Health and Safety Officer will thentake appropriate action, if needed.

3-2 /IR30I003

II The ERM Group

!3.2 Training

Training is performed to ensure that personnel are:

aware of the hazardous aspects of work;

aware of the regulations and rules of conduct specificto on-site activities;

knowledgeable and comfortable with the safe operatingprocedures, work practices, and emergency actionestablished at each site; and

- , confident regarding what actions to take to handleemergencies in a safe, effective manner.

Therefore, the training program is a "preventive" measure, ifimplemented and enforced, will help to reduce employee injury,illness, and accidents, thus decreasing the likelihood of workercompensation claims, suits, and other legal actions.

An introductory training course is provided to all ERM employeesaccording to the duties and area of need under the directsupervision of ERM's Health and Safety Coordinator. Thefollowing subjects are covered during introductory training:

a. Overview of pertinent federal lawsb. Safety and health principlesc. Introduction to hazardous materials'd. Toxicologye. Dermal protectionf. Respiratory protection principlesg. Risk assessment and site safetyh. Site operationsi. Monitoring instrumentsj. Decontamination principles

In addition, on-site field refresher training is provided by orunder the instruction of the Health and Safety Coordinator.

Prior to the start of field activities, all subcontract personnelwill be informed of the hazards and potential exposures relatedto the planned activities and of the Health and Safety proceduresto be followed by ERM.

3-3

The ERM Group

SECTION 4

PERSONAL PROTECTION ANDSAFETY PRACTICES

4.1 Protective Equipment

All ERM personnel shall be provided appropriate personal safetyequipment and protective clothing. Each individual shall beproperly trained in the use of this safety equipment before thestart of field activities. Safety equipment and protectiveclothing shall be used as directed by the Site Safety Officer.All such equipment and clothing shall be cleaned and shall bemaintained in proper condition by project personnel. Levels ofpersonal protection and the selection of criteria pertinent tofield activities during the Pilot Study are detailed below.

Protective eyewear, footwear, and clothing, will be worn at alltimes during this investigation. Types of protective clothingand equipment to be used are given on the following pages.

Personal protective equipment required for operating in each zoneand area is in conformance with EPA criteria for Level B, C, andD protection. All respiratory protective equipment used will beapproved by NIOSH/MSHA. The types of equipment and clothing tobe worn as part of the various levels of protection are givenbelow:

Level B Protection

a. Pressure demand cascade air system or other suitableself-contained, pressure demand breathing apparatus(all personnel requiring respiratory protection are fittested with the respirator to be used in the field)

b. Chemical-resistant clothing (Poly-coated Tyvek), longsleeves, one piece, requirement for hood to bedetermined (hood will be available).

c. Outer and inner gloves (both chemical resistant)

d. Leather boots with rubber overboots

e. Options as required:

1. Coveralls ' '- •2. Disposable outer boots •3. Face shield

AR30IOD5

The ERM Group

4. Escape mask as appropriate5. Hard hat

Level C Protection

a. Full-face/half-face air purifying respirator equippedwith appropriate canisters or cartridge (all personnelrequiring respiratory protection are fit tested withthe respirator to be used in the field)

b. Chemical-resistant clothing (Poly-coated Tyvek), longsleeves, one piece, requirement for hoods to bedetermined (hoods will be available)

c. Outer and inner gloves (both chemical-resistant)

d. Leather boots with rubber overboots

e. Options as required:

1. Coveralls2. Disposable outer boots3. Escape mask4. Hard hat ^5. Face shield

Level D Protection

a. Full-face/half-face air-purifying respirator equippedwith appropriate cansisters or cartridge must beavailable for use

b. Tyvek coveralls».

c. Leather boots with rubber overboots

d. Chemical-resistant gloves

e. Options as required:

1. Gloves2. Disposable outer boots3. Safety glasses or chemical splash goggles4. Hard hat

4.2 Criteria for Selection of Protective Equipment

The level of personal protection equipment required for anyparticular investigative tasks will depe.nd upon the results of acomprehensive air monitoring program. * The scope and adequacy ofa comprehensive air monitoring program is the most important

AR30I0064-2

TheERMGroup

ielement in the overall Health and Safety Plan. The two interests

I to be addressed are the health and safety of the projectpersonnel and the monitoring at site boundaries for DER airpermit compliance. Constant monitoring will be conducted using:

a. Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA), Century Model 128 withFlame lonization Detector (FID)

b. MSA Explosimeter Model 260 which measures both LEL% and02%,

This monitoring will serve to:

1. grossly characterize the concentrations of volatilechemical contaminants encountered during fieldactivities and

2. provide a basis for downgrading or upgrading the levelof personal protection. Background readings will bedetermined at the upwind perimeter of the Study area.The air monitoring equipment will be maintained andcalibrated by the Site Safety Officer.

V_y Action levels have been established for this investigation byERM's Health and Safety Coordinator. Action levels are those

( concentrations at which an upgrade in protective clothing orequipment is required. These levels are determined in the field.by use of an OVA, with readings being taken in the breathingspace occupied by the field personnel. Action levels for thisinvestigation are based on an organic vapor concentration of.5 ppm. This is based on one-half the 1 ppm threshold limitvalue of the most sensitive contaminant found at this site,specifically benzene.

: " . ; » -

Work in areas where the organic vapor concentrations are below .5ppm will not require the use of respiratory protection. Underthese conditions, Level D measures will be employed. Organicvapor concentrations between .5 ppm and 5 ppm- will require theuse of a half-face respirator and Level C clothing.Concentrations above 5 ppm but below 25 ppm will require the useof full-face respirators and Level C clothing. Self-containedbreathing apparatus (SCBA) will be required when organicconcentrations in the breathing space exceed 25 ppm, unless thesevapors can be vented prior to the start of work. The use ofSCBA's will require the use of Level B protective clothing. Theuse of half- and full-face respirators is based upon qualitativeprotection factors for respirators o f t e n and fifty,respectively.

I At a minimum, upwind and downwind perimeter monitoring will be< performed twice during daily activities. Additional perimeter

! flR30!0074-3 --. . • '

The ERM Group

monitoring will be performed at any time a reading of 1 ppm ormore persists within the breathing space of the study area. Ifan OVA reading above .5 ppm over background persists at theproperty perimeter downwind of the study area, activities will bestopped and corrective actions taken to ensure that the DERpermit requirements will be met.

4.3 Site Safety Practices

4.3.1 General Site Access and Security

The Allied-Bendix Flight Systems Division— Montrose Plant isan operating facility which maintains an active securitydepartment on site. Access to the site will take placethrough the entry location designated by the SecurityDepartment after proper registration of personnel andvehicles.

4.3.2 Site Access Safety

Access to the Pilot Study area will be limited to authorizedpersonnel only. No one will be allowed to enter the StudyArea without first donning the required level of protectiveclothing. Prior to the start of daily activities, the SiteSafety Officer will survey the area and establish theinitial level of protection required. Perimeter monitoringwill also be done prior to daily activities as previouslydiscussed in Section 4.2.

The nature of the Pilot Study activities requires that thelevel of protective equipment be established on a dailybasis rather than on a pre-established task basis. However,to avoid potential exposure during initial activities, aminimum Level D protection has been established.

To ensure the health and safety of all site personnel, theSite Safety Officer will maintain sufficient protectiveequipment and clothing to upgrade or downgrade the level ofprotection as required by site conditions.

4.4 General Safety Practices

The following are important safety precautions which will beenforced during this investigation:

1. Eating, drinking, chewing gum or tobacco, smoking, orany practice that increases that probability ofhand-to-mouth transfer and .ingestion of material isprohibited in any area designated as contaminated.

flR3010084-4

The ERM Group

2. Hands and face must be thoroughly washed upon leavingthe work area and before eating , drinking, or anyother activity.

3. Whenever decontamination procedures for outer garmentsare in effect, the entire body should be thoroughlywashed as soon as possible after the protective garmentis removed.

4. No excessive facial hair, which interferes with thesatisfactory fit of a mask-to-face seal, is allowed onpersonnel required to wear respiratory protectionequipment.

5. Contact with contaminated surfaces or with surfacessuspected of being contaminated should be avoided.whenever possible, one should not walk through puddles,mud, or other discolored surfaces; kneel on ground;lean, sit, or place equipment on drums, containers,vehicles, or the ground.

6. Medicine and alcohol can potentiate the effect fromexposure to toxic chemicals. Prescribed drugs andalcoholic beverages should not be consumed by personnelinvolved in the site investigation.

7. Personnel and equipment in the contaminated areasshould be minimized, consistent with effective siteoperations.

8. Work areas for various operational activities shouldbe established.

9. Procedures for leaving the contaminated area must beplanned and implemented prior to going to the site.Work areas and decontamination procedures must beestablished on the basis of prevailing site conditions.

10. Respirators will be issued for the exclusive use of oneworker and will be cleaned and disinfected after eachuse.

11. Safety gloves and boots shall be taped to thedisposable, chemical-protective suits.

12. All unsafe equipment left unattended will be identifiedby a "DANGER, DO NOT OPERATE" tag.

13. Noise mufflers or ear plugs may be required for all ERMpersonnel working around heavy equipment. Thisrequirement will be at the discretion of the Site

' .. AR30I0094-5

The ERM Group

Safety Officer. Disposable, form-fitting plugs arepreferred.

14. Cartridges for air-purifying respirators will bechanged daily at a minimum.

15. Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) andair-purifying respirators will be inspected daily bythe Site Safety Officer.

. t

4.5 Decontamination

Personnel working on this investigation may become contaminatedin a number of ways:

1. Contacting vapors, gases, mists, or particulates in theair

2. Being splashed by materials while sampling

3. Walking through puddles of liquids or on contaminatedsoils .

4. Using contaminated instruments or equipment

Protective clothing and respirators protect the wearer frombecoming contaminated or inhaling contaminants, while good workpractices help reduce the contamination of-protective clothing,instruments, and equipment.

Even with these safeguards, contamination may occur.Contaminants may be transferred into clean areas, exposingunprotected personnel. In removing contaminated clothing,personnel may come into contact with and/or inhale thecontaminants. To prevent such occurrences, decontaminationprocedures must be developed and implemented. Such proceduresmust be in place before anyone enters the site and must continue(modified as necessary) throughout the period of the siteoperations. Decon- tamination involves physically removingcontaminants and/or converting them into innocuous substances.How extensive decontamination must be depends upon a number offactors, the most important being the types of contaminantsinvolved. Combining decontamination, the correct doffing ofequipment, a n d t h e zoning of site work area minimizescross-contamination from protective clothing to wearer, equipmentto personnel, one area to another.

A R 3 0 I O I O4-6** ** •

Hw ERM Group

4.5.1 Personnel

In general, decontamination involves scrubbing with anAlconox/water solution followed by clean water rinses. Alldisposable items shall be disposed of in a dry waste drum.Certain parts of contaminated respirators, such as harnessassemblies and leather or clothing components, are difficult todecontaminate. If grossly contaminated, they may have to bediscarded. Rubber components can be soaked in soap and water andscrubbed with a brush. In addition to being decontaminated, allrespirators, non-disposable protective clothing, and otherpersonal articles must be sanitized before they can be used againif they become soiled from exhalation, body oils, andperspiration. The manufacurer's instructions should be followedin sanitizing the respirator masks. The Site Safety Officer willbe responsible for the proper maintenance, decontamination, andsanitizing of all respirator equipment. If practical, protectiveclothing should be machine-washed after a thorough decontam-ination; otherwise, it should be cleaned by hand.

The decontamination zone layout and procedures should match theprescribed levels of personal protection. A detailed discussionfor the establishment of the decontamination zone and theprocedures required for the various levels of personal protection \Jfollows.

The standard decontamination layout is divided into three zones:

Exclusive Zone (EZ). The site of activity, it is consideredto be contaminated. All personnel must be properly dressedin prescribed clothing and equipment. This zone is normallyseparated from the contaminant reduction zone by a hotline.

Contaminant Reduction Zone (CRZ). It is within this zonethat the decontamination process is undertaken. Personneland their equipment must be thoroughly decontaminated beforeleaving this zone for the support zone.. Personnel workingin tha contaminant reduction zone must be wearing anappropriate level of protection.

Support Zone (SZ). The support zone .is considered to beuncontaminated ; as such, protective clothing and equipmentare not required but should be available for use inemergencies. All equipment and materials are stored andmaintained within this zone. Protective clothing andequipment is put on in the support zone before entering thecontaminant reduction zone.

The previously described decontamination zones will beestablished and maintained throughout si-te field activities. At '^— the Study Area, a decontamination area will be set up around each

4-7 4R30IOII

The ERM Group

area or group of areas where investigatory activities areoccurring. Each decontamination area will be designed to improvethe efficiency and enhance the safety of site operations. Thelocation and final field arrangement of each decontamination areawill be factors in determining the amount of decontaminationnecessary and, hence, the final arrangement of a decontaminationzone:

a. Level of Personal Protection (B, C, or D):Determines, on a preliminary level, the management ofthe decontamination zone.

b. Site Duties: 'The duties performed by each individualdetermine the potential for contact with and, hence,potential for contamination. The CRZ at the site willbe designed for those individuals requiring maximumdecontamination. The Site Safety Officer will,however, be able to modify the decontaminationprocedure for those individuals he feels have not beenin contact with hazards (observers, etc.).

c. Type of Contaminant: The more toxic a substance, themore thorough a decontamination process required.

d. Amount of Contamination: The appearance of visualcontamination on a person, a person's protectiveclothing would require the most thorough decontam-ination. The Site Safety Officer, as well as theindividual, should note the occurrence of obviouscontamination and discuss possible methods of avoidingthis contamination in the future.

e. Reason for Leaving the Site: If a person is leavingthe EZ in order to pick up or drop off tools orinstruments, there is decreased need for the individualto complete the entire decontamination process.Therefore, depending on the reason for leaving the EZ,the degree of necessary decontamination can be modifiedby the Site Safety Officer. Whenever an individual isleaving the EZ for a break, lunch or departing the siteat the end of the day, he/she must undergo the entiredecontamination procedure.

Level D - Personal Protection Decontamination Procedure

At a Level D personal protection, respiratory protection is notutilized. Therefore, the decontamination procedure is greatlysimplified. The following Level D stations will be incorporatedat the Bendix-Montrose Plant during the "Pilot Study:

AR30IOI24-8 • ••*

Trra ERM Group

Station 1 — Segregated Equipment Drop

Deposit equipment (tools, sampling devices, notes,monitoring instruments, radios, etc.) used on the site ontoplastic drop cloths.

Station 2 — Boot Wash

Wash boots with a solution of detergent and water.

Needed Equipment: Container (thirty gallons),decontamination solution (detergent/water), long-handled,soft-bristled scrub brushes.

Station 3 — Boot Rinse

Rinse off outside of boots.

Needed Equipment: Container (thirty gallons), high-pressurespray unit, and water.

Station 4 — Glove Wash

Wash gloves off with a detergent/water solution.

Needed Equipment: Container (thirty gallons) andwater/detergent solution.

Station 5 — Glove Rinse«.

Rinse gloves off with water.

Needed Equipment: Container (thirty gallons), high-pressurespray unit, and water.

Station 6 — Remove GlovesRemove gloves and deposit in a plastic-lined container.

Needed Equipment: Container (twenty gallons) and plasticliners.

A R 3 0 I O I 34-9 ' '. - • '

Ii The ERM Group

Station 7 — Coverall Removal

Remove coverall and place in a plastic-lined container.

Needed Equipment: Container ( thirty .gallons) and plasticliners.

Station 8 — Field Wash

Wash hands and face.

Needed Equipment: Water, soap, tables, and buckets.

Level B - Personal Protection Decontamination Procedure

It is anticipated that Level B will not be necessary during thePilot Study. Decontamination procedures for Level B are providedhere as a precautionary measure should a situation warrant itsimplementation.

Station 1 — Segregated Equipment Drop

Deposit equipment (tools, sampling devices, notes,monitoring instruments, radios, etc. ) used on the site ontoplastic drop cloths.

Station 2 — Boot Covers and Glove Wash •

Outer boot covers and outer gloves should be scrubbed with adecontamination solution of detergent and water.

%.

Station 3 — Rinse Off Boot Covers and Gloves

Decontamination solution should be rinsed off boot coversand gloves using generous amounts of water* Repeat as manytimes as necessary.

Station 4 — Tape Removal .

Remove tape from around boots and gloves and place intocontainer with plastic liner.

Station 5 — Boot Cover Removal

Remove disposable boot covers and place into container withplastic liner.

4-10

II The ERM Group

Station 6 — Outer Glove Removal

Remove outer gloves and deposit in .container with plasticliner. .

Station 7 — Suit/Safety Boot Wash

Completely wash splash suit, SCBA, gloves, and safety boots.Care should be exercised that no water is allowed into theSCBA regulator. It is suggested that the SCBA regulator bewrapped in plastic.

iI Station 8 — Suit/Safety Boot Wash/Rinse

Thoroughly rinse off all decontamination solution from- protective clothing.

Station 9 — Tank Changes ,

This is the last step in the decontamination procedure forthose workers wishing to change air tanks and return to theexclusion zone. The worker's air tank is exchanged, newouter glove and boot covers are donned, and joints taped.

Station 10 — Removal of Safety Boots

Remove safety boots and deposit in container with a plasticliner.

Station 11 — SCBA Backpack Removal

Without removing face piece, the SCBA backpack should beremoved and placed on a table. The face piece should thenbe disconnected from the remaining'SCBA unit and thenproceed to the next station.

Station 12 — Splash Suit Removal

With care, remove splash suit. The exterior of the splashsuit should not come in contact with any inner layers ofclothing. . vy

AR30IOI54-11

The ERM Group

Station 13 — Inner Glove Wash

The inner gloves should be washed with a milddecontamination solution (detergent/water).

Station 14 — Inner Glove Rinse

Generously rinse inner gloves with water.

Station 15 — Face Piece Removal

Without touching face with gloves, remove face piece. Facepiece should be deposited into a container which has aplastic liner.

Station 16 — Inner Glove Removal

Remove inner glove and deposit in container with plasticliner.

Station 17 — Field Wash

Wash hands and face. If highly toxic, skin corrosive, orinabsorbent materials are known or suspected to be present,a shower should be taken.

Level C - Personal Protection Decontamination Procedure

This decontamination procedure will be the same as Level Bpersonal protection except for:

Station 9 — Canister or Mask Change

If a worker leaves the exclusion zone to change canisters orMasks, this is the last step the individual must go through.

Station 11 is removed from the decontamination procedurebecause no SCBA is warranted at this level of protection.

4.5.2 Sampling Equipment and Sample ContainerDecontamination

All non-disposable sampling equipment will be decontaminated withan Alconox/water solution followed by a clean water rinse. As anadded precaution against cross-contamination, all non-disposablesampling equipment will be rinsed with distilled, deionized water.

4-12 AR30IOI6

UN ERM Group

All disposable sampling equipment will be properly disposed of indry waste drums.

Before leaving the site, all sample containers will be thoroughlydecontaminated using an Alconox/water solution followed by aclean water rinse. The decontamination procedure should includea complete scrubbing of the container's surface to* removepossible contamination. Care must be exercised to prevent damageto sample container identification labels.

All sampling equipment and sample containers will be allowed toair dry on a clean sheet of plastic.

4-13 flR30IOI7

The ERM Group

SECTION 5

EMERGENCY PROCEDURES

5*1 Responsibilities

The Site Safety Officer will be responsible for responding to anyemergencies. The Site Safety Officer will:

1. Notify appropriate individuals and/or health carefacilities. Table 6-1 is a list of importanttelephone numbers which will be posted within the fieldoffice or any other visible location.

2. Insure that the following safety equipment is availableat the site: eyewash station, and first aid supplies.

3. Have working knowledge of all safety equipmentavailable at the site.

4. Ensure that a map which details the most direct routeto the nearest hopital shall be prominently posted atthe field office facilities.

5.2 Accidents

In the event of a safety or health emergency at the site,appropriate emergency measures must immediately be taken toassist those who have been injured or exposed and to protectother from hazards. The Site Safety Officer will be immediatelynotified and will respond, depending on the seriousness of theinjury, in the following manner:

•

1. Render first aid:

Chemical Exposure First Aid

a. Injuries from contaminant inhalation can only betreated by qualified physicians.

b. If the contaminant is on the skin or in the eyes,immediate measures must be taken to counteract itseffect. First aid treatment usually involvesflooding the infected area with water.

2. Notify ambulance and hospital as soon as possible

. " A R 3 0 I O I 85-1 :* . . -

The ERM Group

3. Immediately remove injured or exposed persons fromdanger

4. Decontaminate: If soiled garments cannot be removedbecause of injury, the injured person should be wrappedin plastic and transported to a hospital. The hospitalshould be notified that the individual may be wearingcontaminated clothing. If prompt life-saving first aidand/or medical treatment is required, decontaminationprocedures will be omitted.

5. All other personnel on site should be evacuated fromthe work area until the Site Safety Officer hasdetermined that it is safe to return.

The following emergency and first aid equipment will be readilyaccessible during all field activities:

a. Emergency eyewash unit (portable)b. A portable sprayer unit (filled with potable water)c. A first aid kitd. A multi-purpose fire extinguisher

iI 5-2 /IR30IOI9

II The ERM Group

APPENDIX C

TCLP RESULTS

AR30I020

CLIENT: Environmental ResourcesManaqement, Inc.

CLIENT ID: W2-4BSERCO ID: 38053

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/09/86

RESULTS IN: nq/q foob) dry wt.

Compound

45V Chloromethane46V Bromomethane88V Vinyl chloride16V Chloroethane44V Methyl ene chloride29V 1,1-Dlchloroethylene13V 1,1-01 Chloroethane30V l,2-trans-D1chloroethy1ene —————— •23V Chloroform10V 1,2-Dlchloroethane11V 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane ———————— •6V Carbon tetrachlorlde48V Broinodl Chloromethane32V 1,2-01 chloropropane33V trans-1, 3-01 chloropropyl ene87Y Trlchloroethylene ——————————— •51V Dlbromochlorome thane33V c1s-l,3-D1chloropropylene14V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane47V Bromoform15V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane85V Tetrachloroethylene ——————————7V Chlorobenzene19V 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Multiply minimum reporting limit by dilution factortrue minimum limit.Dilution factor: 130

. ND » Not detected above the minimum reporting limit.

VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS8Y

Result

NDNDNDNDNDNDND

- 2,400NDND

- 1,100NDNDNDND

• 19,000NDNDNDNDND

39,000NOND

to obtain

EPA METHOD 601

Data Report -

Minimumreporting

limit

552551111111 \ JI221122521510

Reported by: ——Checked by: V/VTL-*

;

AR30I021

CLIENT:

CLIENT ID:| ERCO ID:

SAMPLE RECEIVED:\ y ANALYSIS COMPLETED:

RESULTS IN:

Compound

Benzene — —— — —Toluene - — —— —Ethyl benzene ———p-Xylene — - ————Chlorobenzenem-Xylene ———— '• —o-Xylene —— — ——Styrenen-Propyl benzeneo-ChlorotolueneT^4fnAt*Ktfl t\0n9AnA _

Envlronmental Resources VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISManaqement, Inc. BY EPA METHOD 602W2-4BS38053 •., -.?.;:10/01/8610/08/86nq/q fopb) dry wt. - Data Report -

Result

——————— 3,500—————— 31,000—————— 31,000—————— 30 000

NO—————— 110,000——————— 68,000

NDNDND

t onnp-DI Chlorobenzene NDm-DI Chlorobenzene NDo-D1 Chlorobenzene . ND

V_x 1,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene ND

ND « Not detected above the minimum reporting limit of 630 ppb. Reported by: ——Checked by:vA/\'lu

AR30I0221

1

i

CLIENT: Environmental ResourcesManaqement. Inc.

CLIENT ID: W2-4BDERCO ID: 38054

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/09/86

RESULTS IN: nq/q (oob) dry wt.

Compound

45V Chloromethane46V Bromomethane83V Vinyl chloride16V Chloroethane44V Methyl ene chloride29V 1,1-Dlchloroethylene13V 1,1-01 Chloroethane30V 1,2-trans-Dlchloroethylene —————— •

10V 1,2-01 Chloroethane11V 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane ———————— •6V Carbon tetrachlorlde48V Bromodl Chloromethane32V 1,2-01 chloropropane33V trans-l,3-D1chloropropylene87V Trlchloroethylene ——————————— -51V Dlbromochloromethane33V c1s-l,3-D1chloropropylene14V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane47V Bromoform15V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane85V Tetrachloroethylene ————————7V Chlorobenzene19V 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Multiply minimum reporting limit by dilution factortrue minimum limit.Dilution factor: 110ND » Not detected above the minimum reporting limit.

VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISBY

Result

NDNDNDNDNDNDND

- 1,700. — 340

ND- 1,500

NDNDNDND

• 19.000NDNDNDNDND

50,000NBND.

to obtain

• '

EPA METHOD 601

Data Report -

Minimumreporting

limit

552551.11111

1 w1 ^221122521510

Reported by: — -Checked bv;>AA^- -

-J

AR30I023

11

*

I

CLIENT:

CLIENT ID:ERCO ID:

SAMPLE RECEIVED:ANALYSIS COMPLETED:

RESULTS IN:

Compound

Benzene — —— — —Toluene ——— — ——Ethyl benzene — — —p-Xylene ——————Chlorobenzenem-Xylene — —— ——o-Xylene —— — —Styrenen-Propyl benzeneo-ChlorotolueneT f* A in A hwl fr\Af)9 An A

Environmental Resources VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISManaqement. Inc. BY EPA METHOD 602W2-4BD38054 ; ^10/01/8610/08/86nq/q fopb) dry wt. - Data Report -

Result

——————— 3,300—————— 38,000—————— 38,000—————— 46,000

ND—————— 140,000——————— 81,000

NDNDND

c 9nn •p-Dlchlorobenzene NDm-DI Chlorobenzene ND

j o-D1 Chlorobenzene ND1, 2, 4-Trl Chlorobenzene ND

- " . %.

»

> ' ' ' •

'JK-ND « Not detected above the minimum reporting limit of 570 ppb. Reported by: ——Checked by: i3-

c_ • ' " - -J

•.•AR30l02li

11

'

i•

CLIENT: Environmental ResourcesManagement, Inc.

CLIENT ID: W3-4ASERCO ID: 38055

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/10/86

RESULTS IN: nq/q foob) dry wt.

Compound

45V Chloromethane46V Bromomethane88V Vinyl chloride16V Chloroethane44V Methyl ene chloride29V 1,1-Dlchloroethylene13V 1,1-01 Chloroethane30V 1,2-trans-Dlchloroethylene —————— •23V Chloroform10V 1.2-D1 Chloroethane11V 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane ———————— •6V Carbon tetrachlorlde48V Bromodl Chloromethane32V 1,2-01 chloropropane33V trans-1, 3-01 chloropropyl ene87V Trlchloroethylene ——————————— •51V 01 bromochlorome thane33V c 1s- 1,3-01 chloropropyl ene14V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane47V Bromoform15V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

7V Chlorobenzene19V 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Multiply minimum reporting limit by dilution factortrue minimum limit.Dilution factor: 130ND * Not detected above the minimum reporting limit.

VOLATILE ORGANICS ANAI YSTS

Result

NDNDNDNDNDNDND

- 1,100NOND

- 1,700NDNDNDND

• 16,000NONDNDNDND

• 21,000NDND '

to obtain

BY EPA METHOD 601

r^

- Data Report -

Minimumreporting

limit

55255111111

! w1 ^— _T"

221122521510

• Reported by: —Checked by: N/W*~

j

CLIENT: Environmental Resources____ VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISManagement. Inc. _______ BY EPA METHOD 602

CLIENT ID: W3-4AS_______________ERCO ID: 38055_______________£^;

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/08/86

RESULTS IN: nq/q fppb) dry wt._______ - Data Report -

Compound Result

Benzene —————————————— 1,700Toluene ————————————— 14,000Ethyl benzene -————————— 9,700p-Xylene ————————————— 12,000Chlorobenzene NDm-Xylene ————————————— 22,000o-Xylene ————————————— 23,000Styrene NDn-Propylbenzene NDo-Chlorotoluene NDTMmethyl benzene ———————— 1,600P-D1Chlorobenzene NDm-DIChlorobenzene . NDo-DIChlorobenzene ND1,2,4-TM Chlorobenzene ND

ND - Not detected above the minimum reporting limit of 67 ppb. Reported by:Checked by:

^301026

1

1

CLIENT: Environmental ResourcesManagement, Inc.

CLIENT ID: W2-4BS ExtractERCO ID: 38056

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/10/86

RESULTS IN: UQ/1 (DDb)

Compound

45V Chloromethane46V Bromomethane83V Vinyl chloride16V Chloroethane44V Methyl ene chloride29V 1,1-Dlchloroethylene13V 1,1-01 Chloroethane30V l,2-trans-D1ch1oroethy!ene23V Chloroform10V 1,2-01 Chloroethane11V 1,1.1-Trl Chloroethane ———————— •6V Carbon tetrachlorlde48V Bromodl Chloromethane32V 1,2-Dlchloropropane33V trans-l,3-D1 chloropropyl ene87V Trlchloroethylene —— — —— ——— —51V Dlbromochlorome thane33V el $-1,3-01 chloropropyl ene14V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane47V Bromoform15V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane85V Tetrachloroethylene ———————7V Chlorobenzene19V 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Multiply minimum reporting Unit by dilution factortrue minimum limit.Dilution factor: 25ND » Not detected above the minimum reporting limit.

VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISBY EPA METHOD 601

- Data Report -

Result

NONDNDNDNDNONDND

. NDND

. —— 41NDNDNDND

— 430NDNDNDNDND

— 590ND .ND

to obtain

Minimumreporting

limit

55255111111

1221122521510

Reported by: * ?$—Checked by: ->

J

A-R30I027

CLIENT:1

CLIENT ID:ERCO ID:

A SAMPLE RECEIVED:- ANALYSIS COMPLETED:

RESULTS IN:

Compound

BenzeneToluene — — — —Ethyl benzene — ——p-Xylene — — ——Chlorobenzenem-Xy 1 ene ——————0_Y«/1ene ___________

Styrenen-Propyl benzeneo-ChlorotolueneTrlmethyl benzenep-DI Chlorobenzenem-DI Chlorobenzeneo-D1 Chlorobenzene

Environmental Resources VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISManaqement. Inc. BY EPA METHOD 602W2-4BS Extract38056 x :••./..;.-10/01/8610/10/86uq/1 (DPb) - Data Reoort -

Result

NDo/in

————————— 470————————— 510

ND——————— 1,900——————— 1,100

NDNDNONDNDNDND

^-' 1, 2, 4-Tr1 Chlorobenzene ND .

*.

. . - • - • .

* .

ND • Not detected above the minimum reporting limit of 50 ppb. Reported by: —Checked by: __LS

J

ln

CLIENT: Environmental ResourcesManagement. Inc.

CLIENT ID: W2-4BD ExtractERCO ID: 38057

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/10/86

RESULTS IN: uq/1 (DDb)

Compound

45V Chloromethane46V Bromomethane83V Vinyl chloride16V Chloroethane44V Methyl ene chloride29V 1,1-Dlchloroethylene13V 1,1-Dlchloroethane30V l,2-trans-D1chloroethylene —— —— —23V Chloroform10V 1,2-01 Chloroethane11V 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane ———————— -6V Carbon tetrachlorlde48V Bromodl Chloromethane32V 1,2-Dlchloropropane33V trans-l,3-D1 chloropropyl ene87V Trlchloroethylene —————————51V Dlbromochlorome thane33V c1s-l,3-D1chloropropy1ene14V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane47V Bromoform15V 1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneWw w I W VV W VII • VI W vll J fl wll w

7V Chlorobenzene19V 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Multiply minimum reporting limit by dilution factortrue minimum limit.Dilution factor: 25ND « Not detected above the minimum reporting limit.

VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS

Result

NDNDNDNDNDNDND"9t

ND1C

NDNDNDND

— 470NDNDNDNDND

— 900NDND

to obtain

BY EPA METHOD 601

^

- Data Report -

MinimumreportingHm1t

5525511111

. i ^i221122L521510

Reported by: 2 -Checked by: NA

AR30I029

CLIENT:

CLIENT ID:ERCO ID:

SAMPLE RECEIVED:ANALYSIS COMPLETED:

RESULTS IN:

Compound

Benzene ———— • —Toluene — — — —Ethyl benzene —— —p-Xylene —— ———Chlorobenzene

o-Xylene ——— — —Styrenen-Propyl benzeneo-ChlorotolueneT i fnu frK \/ 1 HonvAnA __..

Environmental ResourcesManaqement, Inc.W2-4BD Extract3805710/01/8610/10/86uq/1 fDPb)

Result

—— ——— ——— ——— AS

— —————— 1,200__ _ _ _ ._ __ eyn_____________ 070

ND——————— 3,100——————— 1,800

NDNDNDti

VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISBY EPA METHOD 602

-it . •'' •

- Data Report -

p-DI Chlorobenzene ND> iD-DI Chlorobenzene ND

o-D1 Chlorobenzene ND1,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene ND

«.

. —

•

•

ND - Not detected above the minimum reporting limit of 25 ppb. Reported by: - ~~Checked by: ./__§

ii

CLIENT: Environmental ResourcesManagement. Inc.

CLIENT ID: W3-4AS ExtractERCO ID: 38053

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/10/85

RESULTS IN: uq/1 foob)

Compound

45V Chloromethane46V Bromomethane83V Vinyl chloride16V Chloroethane44V Methyl ene chloride29V 1,1-Dlchloroethylene13V 1,1-01 Chloroethane30V l,2-trans-01chloroethylene —— ——— •23V Chloroform ——————————————— •10V 1,2-01 Chloroethane11V 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane6V Carbon tetrachlorlde

43V Bromodl Chloromethane32V 1,2-01 chloropropane33V trans-l,3-D1 chloropropyl ene87V Trlchloroethylene ——————————— -51V Dlbromochlorome thane33V c1s-l,3-D1chloropropy1ene14V 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane47V Bromoform15V 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane85Y Tetrachloroethylene ———————7V Chlorobenzene19V 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Multiply minimum reporting limit by dilution factortrue minimum limit.Dilution factor: 10ND • Hot detected above the minimum reporting limit.

VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS

Result

NDNDNDNDNDNDND

. —— 17

. —— 10NDNDNDNDNDND

. — 240NDNDNDND •ND

— 240NDND

to obtain

BY EPA METHOD 601

- Data Report -

Minimumreporting

limit

552551111111 ^1221122521510

Reported by:vafl ""Checked by: ___=_•

3R30I03I

CLIENT; Environmental Resources : VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSISManagement. Inc.________ BY EPA METHOD 602

CLIENT ID; W3-4AS Extract__________ERCO ID: 38058_____________

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86ANALYSIS COMPLETED: 10/10/86

RESULTS IN: uq/1 fppb)____________ - Data Report -

Compound Result

Benzene ——————————————— 17Toluene ——————————————— 210Ethyl benzene ———————————— 91p-Xylene —————————————— 110Chlorobenzene NDm-Xylene —————————————— 200o-Xylene —————————————— 250Styrene NDn-Propylbenzene NDo-Chlorotoluene NDTrlmethyl benzene NDp-DIChlorobenzene NDm-Dlchlorobenzene NDo-DIChlorobenzene ND1,2,4-TrlChlorobenzene ND

ND • Not detected above the minimum reporting limit of 5.0 ppb. Reported by:Checked by;

( C L I E N T : Environmental Resources VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYST!?Management

CLIENT ID: TCLP Blank| ERCO ID: 38166

SAMPLE RECEIVED: 10/01/86( A N A L Y S I S COMPLETED: 10/13/86

RESULTS IN: uq/1 foob)

Compound

f BenzeneToluene ————————————— •

1 Ethyl benzenep-XyleneChlorobenzenem-Xyleneo-XyleneStyrene

1 n-Propyl benzeneo-Chlorotoluene

j Trlmethyl benzene' p-DI Chlorobenzene

m-DI Chlorobenzeneo-DI Chlorobenzene1 ,2 ,4-Trl chl orobenzene

1j

. Inc. BY EPA METHOD 602

^

- Data Report -

Result

ND- — 21

NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDN D v ,ND

- '

ND « Not detected above the minimum reporting limit of 1 ppb. Reported by:>C£i2?Checked by: MS

flR3uiu33

t'-' '• 1" •?••'>; : Ivxi..- :';;ffi?ifw Bi ^ Ws

'f i: h<ll ii'.1, ' ' !*il i 't J?'s5i- r«?!' »V t« k

; is

s 5!n,!l i 3.1li IPL/"-1"-rC_