Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland › work › 03 › 2102401.pdf · 2020-06-11 ·...

SDMS DocID 2102401

SOIL TO GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland

December 2008

NEWFlELDS

Two Midtown Plaza 1349 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309

URS 335 Commerce Drive Suite 300 Fort Washington, PA 19034

AR304268

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1.0 Introduction 2.0 Approach

2.1 Objective 2.2 Background 2.3 Field Sampling Program 2

3.0 Soil Sampling and Analysis 3 3.1 Data Evaluation Procedures 3 3.2 Analytical Results and Interpretation 4 3.3 Statistical Evaluation of Selected Compounds 13 3.4 Limitations and Uncertainties 14

4.0 VLEACH Modeling Evaluation 14 4.1 VLEACH Development of Soil Screening Values 15 4.2 Results : 16

5.0 Summary and Conclusions 18 6.0 References 20

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Compounds of Interest Table 2-2 Soil Sampling Locations Table 3-1 Regression Equations Table 4-1 Chemical Properties for Compounds of Interest Table 4-2 Soil, Aquifer, and Infiltration Input for DAF Calculation Table 4-3 Initial Soil Concentrations for VLEACH Model Table 4-4 Back Calculated Results and Average Soil Results in the 1-2 ft bgs Zone Table 4-5 Soil Concentrations in the Area Shown on Figure 4-1 Table 4-6 Impact of Figure 4-1 Area on Yearly Contribution of Contaminant Mass to

Groundwater

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Sampling Locations Figure 3-1 Scatterplot for alpha-BHC Figure 3-2 Scatterplot for beta-BHC Figure 4-1 Areas of Site Creating Potential Leaching

Appendices

Appendix A Soil Boring Logs Appendix B Summary of Laboratory Analytical Results

AR304269

t t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the request ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Central Chemical Respondents Group has evaluated various approaches to the development of soil-to-groundwater Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for the Central Chemical Site on Mitchell Avenue in Hagerstown, Maryland. As part ofthe Feasibility Study (URS, February 2008) and Risk Assessment (URS, November 2007) for the site, PRGs based on human health exposure criteria were developed and were used to evaluate potential remedial alternatives. The purpose of soil-to-groundwater PRGs is to provide a basis of comparison for contaminant concentrations in soil that are anticipated to remain onsite following remediation of soils to a level estimated to achieve human health PRGs. The soils that remain onsite after human health PRGs have been achieved represent a potential source of leachate to groundwater; the soil-to-groundwater PRGs are used to evaluate whether the leachate that might be generated may act as a continuing source of groundwater degradation.

A preliminary analysis of soil-to-groundwater PRGs was performed using calculations based on the Soil Screening Level Guidance (EPA, 2002). The results of this preliminary analysis, reported to EPA in a URS submittal dated January 24, 2008, indicated that this approach may not adequately represent site-specific conditions. The basis of this conclusion was that the SSL Guidance-based analysis indicated that compounds detected in soil would leach at elevated levels but, to the contrary, site groundwater data (ten, rounds of samples collected between 2003 and 2007) have demonstrated that these compounds are not typically detected in the groundwater. Relatively few compounds detected in soils are present in the groundwater at the site, indicating that most site-specific soil contaminants have not leached to groundwater over the fifty to sixty years since these materials were originally released to the soils. In addition, the soils data indicate that concentrations of contaminants in shallow soils generally decrease with depth (with the exception ofthe former lagoon area) as a further indication that the potential for leaching may be limited at this site.

An analysis of potential leaching was also performed using the EPA-developed model VLEACH. Using default values for many ofthe VLEACH model input parameters, the analysis also indicated potential leaching concerns for a number of compounds that are not typically detected in groundwater at the site. This analysis was also presented in the January 24. 2008 report.

In order to further evaluate the potential for contaminants to leach from soil at levels of concern for groundwater at the Central Chemical Site, the respondents proposed to conduct field sampling and laboratory analysis activities to collect site specific data. These data would allow direct comparison of total concentrations in soil to leachate concentrations. In addition, site-specific data were also collected to use as input parameters for the VLEACH model. The plan for this sampling activity as well as the approach to evaluation ofthe data was described in the Scope of Work dated June 12, 2008 that was approved by EPA on June 20, 2008.

ES-1

AR304270

In accordance with the EPA-approved Scope of Work, field sampling occurted in July 2008 and the samples were analyzed for total concentrations and for leachate concentrations using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). The intent ofthe work was to establish a stafisfically valid relationship between total concentrafions and leachate concentrations. As discussed in Section 3 of this report, efforts to establish a statistical relationship were severely hampered by the significant percentage of non-detect results for both total and leachate concentrations. In addition, many analytical results were qualified by the laboratory as estimated values. As a result ofthe limited usable data pairs as well as the distribution (scatter) within the data, almost all compounds tested did not yield a stafistically significant relationship between total concentrations and leachate concentrafions.

In accordance with the EPA-approved Scope of Work, VLEACH modeling was used to estimate leachate concentrations based on site soil concentrations and site-specific values for input parameters. While the model did indicate that the majority of compounds tested would not result in leachate at concentrations that potentially would exceed groundwater criteria, the results for some compounds potentially do exceed groundwater criteria. Once again, however, the results are not consistent with site actual groundwater data. In addition, the leachate concentrations that were derived by the VLEACH model are an order of magnitude below the current groundwater quality indicating that current groundwater conditions are likely not the result of leaching from Domain 1 soils. Transport of groundwater contaminants originating from Domain 2 (the former lagoon area) is likely a factor that contributes to this difference.

In reviewing the various approaches to development of soil-to-groundwater PRGs, it is clear that each approach has limitations. The SSL calculations are generic and intentionally conservative and, as a result, are not consistent with measured groundwater quality data. The SPLP approach does not discriminate between leaching that occurs near the surface from leaching that occurs at depths closer to the water table where less attenuation is likely; furthermore, this approach did not indicate clear relationships between total concentrations and leachate values. The VLEACH model evaluation is sensitive to a variety of input parameters that vary across the site such as the thickness of the soil column, total organic carboii content, and soil type variations.

The results of this study conclude that developing site specific soil-to-groundwater PRGs is not applicable to the Central Chemical Site for the following reasons:

• The evaluation of various approaches to developing soil-to-groundwater PRGs for the Central Chemical site has not resulted in a clear and usable set of values that can be applied to soils that will remain following remediation for the human health PRGs partly because the data sets are so heavily weighted toward nondetect values,

• The potential contribution of leachate onsite from current Domain 1 soil concentrafions is significantly less than the concentrations present in groundwater already, and

ES-2

AR304271

• The curtent soil remedies discussed in the Feasibility Study (URS, 2008) already include significant mass removal for contaminants of concem in Domain 1 and control measures for Domain 2.

It is expected that the removal ofthe top 1 foot ofsoil in Domain 1 will resolve direct contact risk as well as provide assurance that the groundwater plume stabilizes and begins to attenuate. A localized portion of Domain 1 has soil concentrations above the soil to groundwater leachate values derived by VLEACH. However, the area of impact is limited such that the contribution of contamination to the groundwater from this area is de minimus compared to the inventory that is in the groundwater. Additionally, the remaining mass that might contribute to contamination in groundwater is minor compared to the relative control of contaminant mass that will occur with the planned removal and remediation activities.

The planned remedial actions will address the highest concentration materials across the site and therefore will remove the majority of contaminant mass. These actions are expected to have a measurable positive effect on groundwater quality in the long term. Since the various approaches to deriving soil-to-groundwater PRG values have yielded unclear and ambiguous results, the Respondents believe that it is appropriate to use empirical data to evaluate groundwater conditions and improvements to groundwater quality over time following implementation ofthe planned soil remedies. The groundwater downstream ofthe limited area of Domain 1 that has elevated soil concentrations can be monitored specifically to assess the effect ofthe contaminants remaining in the soil column. If the monitoring demonstrates that this localized area is negatively affecting the stability ofthe groundwater plume, additional measures such as infiltration control can be implemented.

ES-3

AR304272

1.0 Introduction

At the request of EPA, the Central Chemical Respondents Group has evaluated various approaches to the development of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) that address a soil-to-groundwater pathway. Available literature and guidance provide various approaches to evaluate the potential for constituents to leach from soil and potentially impact groundwater. Preliminary analysis using calculations based on the Soil Screening Level Guidance (EPA, 2002) submitted by URS (January 24, 2008) has indicated that this approach may not adequately represent site-specific conditions. In order to further evaluate the potential for contaminants to leach from soil at levels of concern for groundwater at the Central Chemical Site (Site), URS conducted field sampling and laboratory analysis activities in July 2008. The plan for this sampling activity as well as the approach to evaluation ofthe data was described in the Scope of Work dated June 12, 2008 that was approved by EPA on June 20, 2008. In addition, VLEACH modeling was used to estimate leachate concentrations based on site soil concentrations and site-specific values for input parameters.

2.0 Approach

2.1 Objective The overall objective of this work was to collect site-specific data to support the development of PRGs for soils that will be protective of groundwater quality. More specifically, the objective was to collect representative soils data to evaluate leaching potential through laboratory testing as well as to provide site-specific parameters to refine the VLEACH modeling that was first presented in URS' January 24, 2008 submittal.

2.2 Background Existing data from soils and groundwater at the Central Chemical site (Remedial Investigation Report, URS, December 2006) have been reviewed to support the development ofthe EPA-approved work scope. Relatively few compounds detected in soils are present in the groundwater at the site, indicating that most site-specific soil contaminants have not leached to groundwater over the fifty to sixty years since these materials were originally released to the soils. In addition, the soils data indicate that concentrations of contaminants in shallow- soils generally decrease with depth (with the exception ofthe former lagoon area) as a further indication that the potenfial for leaching may be limited at this site.

As requested by EPA, a review of soils data from the Remedial Invesfigation (RI) was performed to select compounds for evaluation. As a first step of this review, the analytical results for all soil samples collected during the RI were compared to the Region III Risk Based Concentrations (RBC) Table values for Soil Screening Levels with a Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) of 1. The percentages of samples that exceeded the SSL DAF 1 value for each compound were identified. For all compounds that exceeded

AR304273

the RBC SSL DAF 1 value in more than 5% ofthe samples, a second step was performed to determine if those compounds had been detected above the RBC Tap Water value in groundwater samples collected at the Site. Twenty-three compounds were identified that occurred above the RBC SSL DAF 1 value in more than 5% of all the soil samples and were also detected in groundwater samples above the RBC Tap Water value. Of these twenty-three compounds, seven compounds were only detected in soils in the former lagoon area of Domain 2. These seven compounds included 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. Since the proposed sampling did not include the former lagoon material, these compounds were deleted from the analyte list.

Soil analyses performed during this investigation also included additional compounds that W'-ere selected without regard to the screening process either because they were significant compounds related to site operations or at the request of EPA. These additional compounds include several pesticides and two herbicides. Table 2-1 lists the compounds that were analyzed during this investigation.

2.3 Field Sampling Program On July 9 and 10, 2008, URS installed a total of fourteen (14) soil borings using direct push technologies (Geoprobe""^ ). Soil borings were drilled by Eichelbergers, Inc. of Mechanicsburg, PA, a Maryland licensed driller, using a model 54DT Track Mounted Geoprobe Rig. All w'ork was completed under the oversight ofthe EPA contractor HydroGeologic, Inc. of Reston, VA.

Soil boring locations are summarized in Table 2-2 and were selected based on the following criteria in accordance with the EPA-approved scope of work:

• Locations where previous RI sampling indicated a vertical distribution of pesticide concentrations with depth.

• Locations that exhibit a range of concentrations for compounds detected in soil that are also detected in groundwater.

• Spatial distribution. • Anticipated adequate depth to refusal [greater than 6 feet below ground

surface (ft bgs)].

Selected drilling locations included eight (8) borings within Domain 1, two (2) within Domain 2, and four (4) within Domain 3 (Figure 2-1). At boring locations in Domain 1 and Domain 2, URS collected soil samples from depths of 0 to 1 foot below ground surface (bgs), from the interval immediately above Geoprobe''"' refusal (inferted top of bedrock), and from two (2) intervals in between in order to provide a vertical profile. At location D1015A where drilling refusal was encountered at less than 6 ft bgs, the boring was offset. A summary of collected soil sample depth intervals is provided in Table 2-2. At boring locations within Domain 3, two soil samples were collected from each boring at varying depths (Table 2-2) for total organic carbon (TOC) analysis only.

AR304274

I i I

Soil samples collected from boring locations within Domains 1 and 2 were analyzed for total concentrations and by the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) by EPA Method 1312 for the following compounds (summarized in Table 2-1):

• Arsenic, Manganese, and Thallium - total concentrations by EPA Method 6020. • Atrazine and Naphthalene - total concentrations by EPA Method 8270C. • 2,4'- and 4,4'-DDX Series, BHCs (alpha -, beta-, delta-, and gamma-), alpha- and

gamma-Chlordane, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endrin and Endrin Ketone, Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide, and Toxaphene - total concentrations by EPA Method 8051A.

• Diphenamid ^ total concentrations by EPA Method 8270SIM. • 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T - total concentrations by EPA Method 8151 A.

All soil samples, including samples collected from borings within Domain 3, were also analyzed for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) using the Walkley Black Method.

Soil sample laboratory analyses were performed by TestAmerica, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pa.

3.0 Soil Sampling and Analysis

Soil boring logs are provided in Appendix A. Overburden soils generally consist of light brown to light orange-brown clayey silt to silty clay with localized clay and sandy clay layers of varying thickness at borings D1F06A, D1L07A, D1H08A, and D1015A. Visually impacted (black stained) soils w-ere observed from 8 ft bgs to the top ofthe bedrock surface (22.2 ft bgs) at boring D1H08A. Drilling refusal was encountered in materials typically indicative ofthe top ofthe bedrock surface at depths ranging from 7.2 ft bgs (D1R12.A) to 22.2 ft bgs (D1H08A) in the eight borings within Domain 1; at 19 and 17.5 ft bgs in Domain 2 borings D2EA and D2TA, respectively; and between 4 ft bgs (D3T3) and 14.5 ft bgs (D3T2) in the four Domain 3 borings.

3.1 Data Evaluation Procedures In accordance with the EPA-approved Scope of Work, analytical data from the samples (i.e., the total concentration of each analyte in the soil sample and the concentration in its leachate (SPLPconc)) were evaluated to attempt to develop a regression relationship from which the soil concentration of a particular compound that is protective of groundwater could be derived. The EPA-approved procedure for determining the soil-to-groundwater PRG value for each compound is described as follows:

• The total concentration value for each compound will be compared to the SPLP value for the same compound. A regression analysis will be performed to develop the mathematical relationship between the values. First, a scatterplot will be generated to allow inspection ofthe data set to evaluate whether the relationship is generally linear or if there are potential issues with outlier values. Assuming that the relationship is linear, a Pearson correlation coefficient will be calculated. With the Pearson correlation, the closer the correlation is to 1, the stronger the

AR304275

relationship. There is no specific rule-of-thumb for an acceptable correlation, but it is generally considered to be reasonable that values above 0.7 would indicate a strong positive relationship.

• The acceptable groundwater standard (GWS) for the particular compound under investigation will be determined as the lower ofthe US EPA Region 3 RBC Tap Water Value or the Federal MCL value.

• The maximum allowable leachate concentration to maintain the GWS will be calculated from the equation

Max SPLPconc = GWS * DF

where DF is a site-specific dilution factor (4.727) that has been calculated using the procedures in the Soil Screening Level Guidance to represent the dilution potential ofthe aquifer (URS January 2008 submittal).

• The Max SPLPconc calculated will then be used as an input into the previously derived regression relationship ofsoil concentration vs. SPLPconc to determine the acceptable Soil-to-Groundwater PRG value for each compound.

In addition to the evaluation described above, the EPA-approved plan called for use of the VLEACH model to evaluate the compounds identified in Table 2-1 with site-specific input parameters for model variables. This additional evaluation provides an alternative result for compounds that do not exhibit a strong correlation or where an insufficient number of detected results from the analysis ofthe samples occur.

3.2 Analytical Results and Interpretation In accordance with the EPA-approved plan, the samples collected during this program were analyzed by two methods. Each sample was analyzed for total concentration for each compound of interest. Each sample was also analyzed by the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) for each compound of interest. Since the field sampling • collected 4 samples from each of 10 locations, a total of 40 samples were analyzed. Appendix B summarizes all anahtical results. A description ofthe results of those analyses for each compound of interest is provided in the following sections.

2,4-DDD

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of 2,4-DDD was below the detection limit in 26 samples (65% not detected). Two ofthe detected values were qualified' as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP concentration of 2,4-DDD was below the detection limit in 37 samples (92.5% not detected). One of the SPLP

^ "Qualified as estimated values" refers to those results where the laboratory has assigned a J or

a PG qualifier.

AR304276

detections was also qualified by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. The two unqualified SPLP results were both from the same location (D1P09A) at depths of 2 to 4 feet and 6 to 8 feet. In these intervals, 2,4-DDD was detected in the total concentration sample but at very low concentrations. The highest 2,4-DDD concentration was detected at that location (D1P09A) in the 0 to 1 foot interval.

2,4-DDE

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentrafion of 2,4-DDE was below the detection limit in 22 samples (55% not detected). Fourteen ofthe detected concentrations were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP concentration of 2,4-DDE was below the detection limit in 32 samples (80%) not detected). Four ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result of the low' frequency of detection, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. Tliree ofthe four unqualified SPLP results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet). The remaining unqualified result was at location D1R12A (3 to 5 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals were non-detect in F06 (0 to 1 foot) and detected below the reporting limit (lab qualified) for the remaining intervals.

2,4-DDT

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of 2,4-DDT was below the detection limit in 9 samples (22.5% not detected). Five ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP concentration of 2,4-DDT was below the detection limit in 25 samples (62.5% not detected). Ten ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the SPLP results, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. Two ofthe five unqualified SPLP results occurred at location D1P09A (2 to 4 feet, and 6 to 8 feet); two unqualified SPLP results occurred at location D1J13 (2 to 4 feet, and 6 to 7.7 feet); and the remaining unqualified SPLP result was at location D2TA (10 to 12 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect in D1P09.A (2 to 4 feet) to a maximum of 3.4 mg/kg in DIJ13A (6 to 7.7 feet).

4,4-DDD /

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of 4,4-DDD was below the detection limit in only 1 sample (2.5% not detected) but fourteen ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP concentration of 4,4-DDD was below the detection limit in 15 samples (37.5% not detected). Fourteen ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The frequency of detection in the results did allow statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results. The evaluation ofthe detected concentration pairs indicated an R-squared value of 0.552 which is below the acceptable level defined in the EPA-approved work plan. As

AR304277

f

a result, no further stafistical evaluation is possible. For the SPLP results, three ofthe eleven unqualified results occurted at locafion Dl P09A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 6 to 8 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 5.5 feet, and 5.7 to 7.7 feet); one unqualified result was at location D1H08A (6 to 8 feet); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D2TA (10 to 12 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals ranged from detected below the reporting limit (lab qualified) in L03 to a maximum of 590 mg/kg in D1P09A (0 to 1 foot).

4,4-DDE

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of 4,4-DDE was below the detection limit in 7 samples (17.5% not detected). Five ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP concentration of 4.4-DDE was below the detection limit in 24 samples (60% not detected). Eleven ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the SPLP results, stafistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, three ofthe five unqualified results occurred at location D2TA (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 6 feet, and 10 to 12 feet); one of the:unqualified results occurred at location Dl J13A (0 to 1 foot); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals ranged from 0.089 mg/kg in D2TA (4 to 6 feet) to a maximum of 22 mg/kg in D2TA (0 to 1 foot).

4,4-DDT

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of 4,4-DDT was above the detection limit in all samples (0% not detected). The SPLP concentration of 4,4-DDT was below the detection limit in 8 samples (20% not detected). Seven ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The frequency of detection in the results did allow statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP). The evaluation ofthe detected concentration pairs indicated an R-squared value of 0.585 which is below the acceptable level defined in the EPA-approved work plan. As a result, no further statistical evaluation is possible. For the SPLP results, four ofthe tw'enty-five unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot, 1 to 3 feet, 3 to 5 feet, and 5.2 to 7.2 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1P09A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 6 to 8 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location Dl J13A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 6 to 7.7 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D2TA (0 to I foot, 4 to 6 feet, and 10 to 12 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet, and 10 to 12 feet); two ofthe unqualified resuhs occurted at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot, and 4 to 5.5 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at locafion D1L07A (0 to 1 foot, and 4 to 5.5 feet); and the two remaining unqualified results were at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these

AR304278

I I I

intervals ranged from 0.055 mg/kg in D1J13A (6 to 7.7 feet) to a maximum of 3,800 mg/kg in D1F06A (0 to 1 foot).

Aldrin

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of aldrin was below the detection limit in 17 samples (42.5% not detected). Fourteen ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for aldrin were below the detection limit in 25 samples (62.5% not detected). Twelve ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the results, statisfical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, one ofthe three unqualified results occurred at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot); one ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot); and the remaining unqualified result w'as at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect in D1R12A (0 to 1 foot) to a maximum of 37 mg/kg in D1L03A (0 to 1 foot).

Alpha-BHC

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of alpha-BHC was belpw the detection limit in 15 samples (37.5% not detected). Ten ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for alpha-BHC were below the detection limit in 10 samples (25% not detected). Two ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The frequency of detection in the results did allow statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results. The evaluation ofthe detected concentration pairs indicated an R-squared value of 0.747 which is above the acceptable level defined in the EPA-approved work plan. For the SPLP results, four ofthe twenty-two unqualified results occurred at location D1P09A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 6 to 8 feet, and 9.1 to 11.1 feet), four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L07A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 6 to 8 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1H08A (0 to 1 foot, 6 to 8 feet, 14 to 16 feet, and 20.2 to 22.2 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 4 to 5.5 feet, and 5.7 to 7.7 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 4 to 6 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet); and the remaining four unqualified results were at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot, 1 to 3 feet, 3 to 5 feet, and 5.2 to 7.2 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect in six locations to a maximum of 430 mg/kg in DIL07A (0 to 1 foot).

Alpha-Chlordane

Ofthe 40 samples that w-ere analyzed, the total concentration of alpha-Chlordane was below the detection limit in 35 samples (87.5% not detected) and two ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for alpha-

AR304279

Chlordane were below the detection limit in 26 samples (65%) not detected) and five of the detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result of the low frequency of detection in the results, stafisfical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, two ofthe nine unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet); two of the unqualified results occurred at location D1L07A (6 to 8 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); two of the unqualified results occurred at location D1R12A (1 to 3 feet, and 3 to 5 feet); one of the unqualified results occurred at location D1015A (2 to 4 feet); one ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (2 to 4 feet); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals were all non-detect.

Beta-BHC

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of beta-BHC was below the detection limit in 12 samples (30% not detected). Twelve ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for beta-BHC were below the detection limit in 12 samples (30% not detected). The frequency of detection in the results did allow statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results. The evaluation ofthe detected concentration pairs indicated an R-squared value of 0.806 which is above the acceptable level defined in the EPA-approved work plan. For the SPLP results, four ofthe twenty-eight unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet), four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location DIH08A (0 to 1 foot, 6 to 8 feet, 14 to 16 feet, and 20.2 to 22.2 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L07A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 6 to 8 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot, 1 to 3 feet, 3 to 5 feet, and 5.2 to 7.2 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 6 to 7.7 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1P09A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 6 to 8 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); and the two remaining unqualified results were at location D2EA (10 to 12 feet, and 17 to 19 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect to a maximum of 92 mg/kg in D1L07A (0 to 1 foot).

Delta-BHC

Ofthe 40 samples that vvere analyzed, the total concentration of delta-BHC was below the detection limit in 18 samples (45% not detected). Thirteen ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP concentration of delta-BHC was below the detection limit in 8 samples (20% not detected). Ten ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as esfimated values by the laboratory. The frequency of detection in the results did allow statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results. The evaluation ofthe detected concentration pairs indicated an R-squared value of 0.447 which is below the acceptable level defined in the EPA-approved work plan. As a result, further statistical evaluation Vv'as not possible. For the SPLP results, four ofthe twenty-

AR304280

two unqualified results occurted at location D1P09A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet), four ofthe unqualified results occurted at locafion D1L07A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 6 to 8 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1H08A (0 to 1 foot, 6 to 8 feet, 14 to 16 feet, and 20.2 to 22.2 feet); three of the unqualified results occurted at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot, 1 to 3 feet, and 5.2 to 7.2 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1P09A (0 to 1 foot, and 9.1 to 11.1 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); one ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot); one ofthe unqualified results occurred at locafion D1L03A (0 to 1 foot); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet). The corresponding total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect to a maximum of 170 mg/kg in DlL07A(0to 1 foot).

Dieldrin

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of dieldrin was below the detecfion limit in 23 samples (57.5% not detected). One ofthe detected results was qualified as an estimated value by the laboratory. The SPLP results for dieldrin were below the detecfion limit in 16 samples (40% not detected). As a result ofthe low-frequency of detection in the results, stafistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, four ofthe twenty-four unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 4 to 6 feet, and 6 to 7.7 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 4 to 6 feet, and 6 to 8.7 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D2TA (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 6 feet, 10 to 12 feet, and 16 to 17.5 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 5.5 feet, and 5.7 to 7.7 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet, 10 to 12 feet, and 17 to 19 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L07A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect to a maximum of 44 mg/kg in D1L03A (0 to 1 foot).

Diphenamid

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of diphenamid was below the detection limit in 33 samples (82.5% not detected). One ofthe detected results was qualified as an estimated value by the laboratory. The SPLP results for diphenamid were below the detection limit in 35 samples (87.5%) not detected). Two ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the results, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, two ofthe three unqualified results occurred at locafion D1H08A (14 to 16 feet, and 20.2 to 22.2 feet); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D1P09A (6 to 8 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from 0.037 mg/kg in D1P09A (6 to 8 feet) to a maximum of 0.27 mg/kg in D1H08A (20.2 to 22.2 feeO.

AR304281

Endrin

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of Endrin was below the detection limit in 39 samples (97.5% not detected) and the detected result was qualified as an estimated value by the laboratory. The SPLP results for endrin were below the detection limit in 33 samples (82.5% not detected). One ofthe detected results was qualified as an estimated value by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the results, stafistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, three ofthe six unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet); one of the unqualified results occurted at location D1L07A (2 to 4 feet); one ofthe unqualified results occurted at location D1R12A (1 to 3 feet); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals were all non-detect with the exception of an estimated value detected in sample D1F06A (4 to 6 feet).

Endrin Ketone

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of endrin was below the detection limit in 32 samples (80% not detected). Seven ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for endrin were below the detection limit in 22 samples (55% not detected). Seven ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the results, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, three ofthe eleven unqualified results occurted at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet, 10 to 12 feet, and 17 to 19 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); one ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1P09A (0 to I foot); one ofthe unqualified results occun-ed at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D1015A (2 to 4 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect to a maximum of 0.084 mg/kg in D2EA (10 to 12 feet).

Gamma-BHC

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of gamma-BHC was below the detection limit in 18 samples (45% not detected). Eleven ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for gamma-BHC were below the detection limit in 6 samples (15% not detected). Ten ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The frequency of detection in the results did allow statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results. The evaluation ofthe detected concentration pairs indicated an R-squared value of 0.578 which is below the acceptable level defined in the EPA-approved work plan. As a result, further statistical evaluation was not possible. For the SPLP results, four ofthe twenty-four unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L07A (0 to 1 foot, 2

10

AR304282

to 4 feet, 6 to 8 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); four ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1P09A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, 6 to 8 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); three ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot, 3 to 5 feet, and 5.2 to 7.2 feet); three of the unqualified results occurted at locafion D1H08A (0 to 1 foot, 6 to 8 feet, and 20.2 to 22.2 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L03A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); and the remaining two unqualified results were at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from non-detect to a maximum of 640 mg/kg in D1L07A (0 to 1 foot).

Gamma-Chlordane

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of gamma-Chlordane was below' the detection limit in 10 samples (25% not detected). Thirteen ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for gamma-Chlordane were below the detection limit in 33 samples (82.5% not detected). Three ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the SPLP results, statistical analysis of the paired anah'tical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, all three unqualified results occuiTed at location D1F06A (0 to 1 foot, 4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from 0.47 mg/kg (4 to 6 feet) to a maximum of 640 mg/kg (0 to 1 foot).

Heptachlor

Ofthe 40 samples that w-ere analyzed, the total concentration of Heptachlor was below the detection limit in 24 samples (60% not detected). Ten ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for heptachlor were below- the detection limit in 34 samples (85% not detected). Four ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the results, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, one ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (6.7 to 8.7 feet), and the remaining unqualified result occurred at location D2EA (4 to 6 feet). The total concentrafions in these intervals ranged from detected below the reporting limit (lab qualified) in D2EA (4 to 6 feet) to a maximum of 0.9 mg/kg in D1F06A (6.7 to 8.7 feet)

Heptachlor Epoxide

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of Heptachlor Epoxide was below' the detection limit in 28 samples (70% not detected). Eight ofthe detected results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. The SPLP results for heptachlor epoxide were below the detection limit in 28 samples (70% not detected). Three ofthe detected SPLP results were qualified as estimated values by the laboratory. As a result of the low- frequency of detection in the results, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible. For the SPLP results, three ofthe nine

11

AR304283

unqualified results occurred at location D1L07A (2 to 4 feet, 6 to 8 feet, and 8 to 9.5 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1F06A (4 to 6 feet, and 6.7 to 8.7 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); one ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot); and the remaining unqualified result was at locafion D1015A (2 to 4 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from lion-detect to an estimated result of 0.62 mg/kg in D1L07A (2 to 4 feet).

Toxaphene

Toxaphene was not detected in the total analyses or in the corresponding SPLP analyses for all 40 samples.

2,4-D

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, the total concentration of 2,4-D was below the detection limit in 38 samples (95% not detected). In addition, the SPLP concentration of 2,4-D was below the detection limit in 39 samples (97.5% not detected). As a result of the low frequency of detection in the results, statisfical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible.

2,4,5-T

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, this compound was detected in one sample at 0 to 1 foot depth (DlL07A) but was not detected in the corresponding SPLP sample. Also an estimated concentration w-as detected at 1 to 3 feet (D1R12A) but was not detected in the corresponding SPLP sample. As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the resuhs, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) was not possible.

Arsenic

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, this compound was detected in all 40 samples in the total analysis but one of those results is qualified by the lab. In the corresponding SPLP analyses, this compound was detected twelve times without lab qualifiers. Three ofthe twelve unqualified results occurred at location D1J13A (0 to 1 foot, 2 to 4 feet, and 4 to 6 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location Dl F06A (2 to 4 feet, and 4 to 6 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1L03A (2 to 4 feet, and 4 to 5.5 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1015A (0 to 1 foot, and 2 to 4 feet); two ofthe unqualified results occurred at location D1R12A (0 to 1 foot, and 1 to 3 feet); and the remaining unqualified result was at location D2TA (0 to I foot). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from 4.1 mg/kg in D1F06A (4 to 6 feet) to a maximum of 407 mg/kg in D1J13A (0 to 1 foot). After eliminafion of two outlier values, there is no apparent correlation between total and SPLP analytical results.

12

AR304284

Manganese

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, this compound was detected in all 40 samples in the total analysis. In the cortesponding SPLP analyses, this compound was detected thirty-four times without lab qualifiers. The total unqualified SPLP concentrations ranged from 0.67 mg/kg in D1L07A (6 to 8 feet) to a maximum of 892 mg/kg in D1L03A (4 to 5.5 feet, and 5.7 to 7.7 feet). No cortelation is apparent between the total and SPLP analytical results.

Naphthalene

Ofthe 40 samples that w-ere analyzed, this compound was detected 8 times in the total analysis but five of those results are qualified as estimated values by the lab. In the cortesponding SPLP analyses, this compound was detected two times without lab qualifiers. Both unqualified results occurred at locafion D1H08A (14 to 16 feet, and 20.2 to 22.2 feet). The total concentrations in these intervals ranged from 0.52 mg/kg (14 to 16 feet) to a maximum of 9.7 mg/kg (20.2 to 22.2 feet). As a result ofthe low frequency of detection in the results, statistical analysis ofthe paired analytical results (total and SPLP) w-as not possible.

Thallium

Ofthe 40 samples that were analyzed, this compound was detected in all 40 samples in the total analysis but 32 of those results are qualified as estimated values by the lab. In the corresponding SPLP analyses, this compound was not reported without lab qualifiers.

Atrazine

An estimated value was detected in one sample (D1R12A), but atrazine was not detected in any ofthe SPLP samples.

3.3 Statistical Evaluation of Selected Compounds An initial review step in the statistical evaluation ofthe analytical results indicated that, for many compounds, the number of non-detect results represented a significant proportion ofthe total analytical results. In addition, many analytical results were qualified by the laboratory as "estimated" values. As a result, the numbers of detected and non-qualified data pairs to be subjected to statistical evaluation were limited.

A statistical analysis of compounds for which there w-ere at least eight detected pairs of values (both total concentration and SPLP concentration were detected values) was performed. The resulting cortelation coefficients indicated that only two compounds achieved the minimum cortelation value of 0.7 as specified in the EPA-approved Scope of Work. These compounds included alpha-BHC and beta-BHC.

13 AR304285

For the two compounds that demonstrated the minimum correlation, an equation that represented the relationship between total concentration and SPLP concentration was derived from the log-transformed data. These equations along with the R-squared value for each compound are provided in Table 3-1. The scatterplots for these compounds are provided as Figures 3-1 and 3-2.

The statistically derived equations were used to estimate total soil concentrations for each compound that would not leach at concentrations above levels that are protective of unimpacted groundwater. These values are shown in the table below.

Compound Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC

Estimated Soil Concentration PRG 0.0034 mg/kg 0.011 mg/kg

3.4 Limitations and Uncertainties While it is intuitive to assume that higher concentrations of a contaminant in soil would result in higher leachate concentrations, a review ofthe collected SPLP data does not conclusively support that assumption. The results ofthe analytical program indicate wide scatter in the data and generally do not show a clear relationship between total concentration and leachate concentrations. Even for the two compounds where an acceptable correlation coefficient was calculated, examination ofthe graphs ofthe data indicate potential bias in that there is a cluster of data points in the lower portion ofthe graph with a few- points scattered to the upper right portion ofthe graph. This type of data spread can provide a false indication of cortelation.

Due to the high degree of uncertainty that is represented in the site data, it does not appear that applying specific numeric values to soil concentrations to provide protection to groundwater is appropriate. Existing plans for remediation are expected to address a large percentage ofthe mass of contaminants in site soils. These remedial actions will undoubtedly provide a positive long term improvement for groundwater as well.

4.0 VLEACH Modeling Evaluation

VLEACH is a one-dimensional, finite-difference model for making preliminary assessments ofthe effects on groundwater from the leaching of volatile, sorbed contaminants through the vadose zone. The program models four main processes: liquid-phase advection, solid-phase sorption, vapor-phase diffusion, and three-phase equilibration."

^ http://www.epa.gov/ada/csmos/models/vleach.html

14

AR304286

http://www.epa.gov/ada/csmos/models/vleach.html

The following assumptions are made in the development of VLEACH.

• Linear isotherms describe the partitioning of the pollutant between the liquid, vapor and soil phases. Local or instantaneous equilibrium between these phases is assumed within each cell.

Q The vadose zone is in a steady state condition with respect to water movement.

• Liquid phase dispersion is neglected. Hence, the migration of the contaminant will be simulated as a plug. This assumption causes higher dissolved concentrations and lower travel time predictions than would occur in reality.

• The contaminant is not subjected to in situ degradation. This assumption produces conservative concentration values.

VLEACH employs additional site-specific data not considered in the simplistic soil-to-groundwater SSL calculation. For example, the SSL calculation assumes an infinite source with uniformly distributed contamination from the ground surface to the top ofthe aquifer. In contrast, the VLEACH leaching model accounts for varying soil concentrations in the soil profile. Soil material properties are assumed homogeneous in VLEACH calculations.

4.1 VLEACH Development of Soil Screening Values

VLEACH estimates leachate concentrations to the aquifer resulting from movement of contaminants tlirough the soil column. The site-specific Dilution Attenuation Factor (D.AF) calculated for the Site is then applied to the VLEACH leachate calculations. This calculation is described by the EPA Soil Screening Guidance - 1996, pg 7:

"...the leachate concentration from the model is divided by the dilution factor to obtain an estimated groundwater concentration at the receptor well."

The DAF accounts for the reduction ofsoil leachate concentration at the downgradient edge of a contaminated soil area as a result of mixing in an aquifer. A simple water balance equation is used to calculate a site-specific DAF to account for reduction ofsoil leachate concentration from mixing in an aquifer. The DAF is based on conservative assumptions related to the transport of contaminants in the subsurface (EPA 2002). Equations 1 and 2 are used for calculating the site-specific by which concentrations are reduced when leachate mixes with a clean aquifer. Site-specific data where available and default soil properties (EPA 2002) are used to calculate the DAF (see equations 1 and 2).

r^.r- , K i d DAF = \ + [11

IL ^ ^

15 AR304287

d = (0 .0 ] \2 -L ' f '+dJ \ -cxp[^ ^ % . , ]} [2] Kid,.

where:

K = Aquifer hydraulic conductivity (m/yr)

i = Hydraulic gradient (m/m)

Mi.xing zone depth (m). A calculated mixing zone depth D = can exceed the aquifer thickness (d^). In this case, da is

used for mixing zone depth.

I = • Inllltration rate (m/yr)

L = Source length parallel to groundwater flow (m)

dj = Aquifer thickness (m)

foe = Fraction organic carbon in soil (g/g)

6„. = Water-filled soil porosity (L ,.a,er/Lso,i)

6a = .Air-filled soil porosity(Lair/Lsoil)

Pb = Dry soil bulk densiiN-(kg/L)

N = Soil porosity (Lpore/Ljoii)

P5 = Soil particle density (kg/L).

Table 4-1 lists chemical properties for the compounds in Table 2-1 that are required by VLEACH. Soil properties, aquifer properties, and infiltration estimates used in the DAF calculation and VLEACH model are provided in Table 4-2. These parameters result in a site-specific DAF of 4.7.

In order to evaluate soil-to-groundwater PRGs. the VLEACH assessment was used to back-calculate ah average soil concentration across Domain 1 in the 1 to .2 foot depth layer that w-ould produce a groundwater concentration at the property boundary less than the drinking water standard for each ofthe compounds. The I to 2 foot depth layer was utilized because the top one foot layer will be remediated for protection against direct contact risk. For the back-calculation of acceptable soil concentrations, the water table at the site is assumed to be 20 ft below ground surface.

The objective ofthe back-calculated VLEACH screening value is to determine if the removal ofthe upper one foot interval will also provide appropriate protection of groundwater. Table 4-3 lists concentrations of compounds in the 1 to 2 foot depth range w-hich represents what would remain after the proposed removal ofthe top 1 foot. These values were compared against the back-calculated concentrations to assess what portions of Domain 1 may continue to contribute to elevated levels of groundwater contaminant concentrations.

4.2 Results

The back-calculated concentrations in the 1-2 foot depth range that would be protective ofthe groundwater following excavation ofthe surface soils are provided in Table 4-4.

16

AR304288

The table also provides the average concentrafion that will exist in the near surface soil layer (1-2 foot depth) after excavafion based on the available soil data in that layer.

As shown in Table 4-4, five ofthe compounds are present in the 1 to 2 foot depth layer at concentrations that could potentially create an exceedance of groundwater standards at the property boundary. Naphthalene, however, is eliminated from further consideration as the latest round of groundwater quality data indicates the concentrations of this contaminant are actually below performance standards and therefore there is no evidence of an ongoing leaching problem.

The remaining four compounds are the four BHC isomers. The localized area on the site where the VLEACH model indicated that there is a potential for leaching of each of these compounds is shown in Figure 4-1. Table 4-4 (last column) provides an estimate ofthe average concentrations across Domain 1 in the 1 to 2 foot depth layer if those areas shown in Figure 4-1 were removed, covered, or otherw'ise not contributing to the overall leaching calculations.

The possibility of continuing contributions to groundwater contaminant concentrations is limited to the area delineated in Figure 4-1. As seen in the last column in Table 4-4, the average concentration in the 1-2 foot depth layer for the BHC isomers across Domain 1 are below the back-calculated threshold soil concentrations and there should be no expectation of continuing elevated boundary exceedances if the area in Figure 4-1 is either not contributing (through reduction of infiltrafion), or the actual distribution is highly localized in a specific area of a past release.

To provide perspective on the hypothetical impact ofthe area targeted in Figure 4-1, an assessment ofthe leachate from this area alone was conducted with VLEACH. This assessment considered the leaching from the distribution of contamination from the surface to the water table as indicated by the borings within the area. Table 4-5 provides the average concentrations ofthe four BHC isomers in various soil layers in the area identified in Figure 4-1. The concentrations used as input for the VLEACH model are based on six individual sampling points. However, the concentrations used in the model are primarily driven by one location, boring location D1H08A. This is also the single location in which the compounds are closest to the water table. The compound concentrations at the other locations decrease significantly with depth.

Table 4-6 provides an assessment ofthe relative impact ofthe leachate from the area identified in Figure 4-1. As shown on the table, the leachate, although potentially capable of creating an exceedance of performance standards at the property boundary, actually represents a very small mass of contaminants.

It is expected that the removal ofthe top 1 foot ofsoil in Domain 1 will resolve direct contact risk as well as provide assurance that the groundwater plume stabilizes and begins to attenuate. A localized portion of Domain 1 has soil concentrations above the soil to groundwater leachate values derived by VLEACH. The groundwater in this vicinity can be monitored specifically to assess the effect ofthe contaminants remaining in the soil column. If the monitoring demonstrates that this localized area is negatively affecting the stability ofthe groundwater plume, additional measures such as infiltration control can be implemented.

17

AR304289

I

5.0 Summary and Conclusions In reviewing the various approaches to development of soil-to-groundwater PRGs, it is clear that each approach has limitations. The SSL calculafions are generic and intentionally conservative and, as would be expected, are not consistent with measured groundwater quality data. The SPLP approach does not discriminate between leaching that occurs near the surface from leaching that occurs at depths closer to the water table where less attenuation is likely; furthermore, this approach did not indicate clear relationships between total concentrations and leachate values. The VLEACH model evaluation is sensitive to a variety of input parameters that vary across the site such as the thickness ofthe soil column, total organic carbon content, and soil type variations.

The results of this study conclude that developing site-specific soil-to-groundwater PRGs is not applicable to the Central Chemical Site for the following reasons:

• The evaluation of various approaches to developing soil-to-groundwater PRGs for the Central Chemical site has not resulted in a clear and usable set of values that can be applied to soils that will remain following remediation for the human health PRGs partly because the data sets are heavily weighted toward non-detect values,

• The potential contribufion of leachate onsite from current Domain 1 soil concentrations is significantly less than the concentrations present in groundwater already, and

• The current soil remedies discussed in the Feasibility Study (URS, 2008) already include significant mass removal for contaminants of concern in Domain 1 and control measures for Domain 2.

It is expected that the removal ofthe top I foot ofsoil in Domain 1 will resolve direct contact risk as well as provide assurance that the groundwater plume stabilizes and begins to attenuate. A localized portion of Domain 1 has soil concentrations above the soil to groundwater leachate values derived by VLEACH. However, the area of impact is limited such that the contribution of contamination to the groundwater from this area is de minimus compared to the inventory that is in the groundwater. Additionally, the remaining mass that might contribute to contamination in groundwater is minor compared to the relative control of contaminant mass that will occur with the planned removal and remediation activifies.

The planned remedial actions presented in the Feasibility Study (URS, February, 2008) will address the highest concentration materials across the site and therefore will remove the majority of contaminant mass. These actions are expected to have a measurable positive effect on groundwater quality in the long term. Since various approaches to deriving soil-to-groundwater PRG values have yielded unclear and ambiguous results, the Respondents believe that it is appropriate to evaluate groundwater conditions and improvements to groundwater quality over time following implementafion ofthe planned soil remedies. The groundwater downstream ofthe limited area of Domain 1 that has elevated soil concentrations can be monitored specifically to assess the effect ofthe contaminants remaining in the soil column. If the monitoring demonstrates that this

18

AR304290

localized area is negatively affecting the stability ofthe groundwater plume, additional measures such as infiltration control can be implemented.

I I I

19

AR304291

6.0 References

U.S. EPA, Soil Screening Guidance; Fact Sheet. Publication 9355.4-14FSA; EPA/540/F-95/041; PB96-963501. July 1996.

U.S. EPA, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, EPA/540/R-95/128, May 1996.

U.S. EPA, Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER 9355.4-24, December 2002.

URS Corporation, Feasibility Study Report, Central Chemical Site, Hagerstown, Maryland, February 2008.

URS Corporation, Human Health Risk Assessment, Central Chemical Site, Hagerstown, Maryland, (Appendix W of the Remedial Investigation Report), November 2007.

URS Corporation, Letter Report to U.S. EPA on Soil to Groundwater Preliminary Remediation Goals, January 24, 2008.

20

AR304292

Table 2-1

Compounds of Interest

2,4-DDD, DDE, and DDT 4,4-DDD, DDE, and DDT

2,4-D 2,4,5-T Aldrin

Alpha BHC Alpha chlordane

Arsenic Atrazine

Beta BHC Delta BHC

Dieldrin Diphenamid

Endrin Endrin Ketone Gamma BHC

Gamma chlordane Heptachlor

Heptachlor Epoxide Manganese

Naphthalene Thallium

Toxaphene

AR304293

Table 2-2 SPLP Soil Sampling Summary - July 2008


l i ^ / ' ' ?-••'•

Location

D1L03A

D1F06A

D1L07A

D1H08A

D1P09A

D1R12A

D1J13A

D1015A

Total and SPLP Analysls ' - i66mai i i ^ J ' ?? ;,

Sample Depth Interval (ft bgs)

0.0-1.0

2.0-4.0

4.0-5.5

5.7-7.7

0.0-1.0

2.0-4.0

4.0-6.0

6.7-8.7

0.0-1.0

2.0-4.0

6.0-8.0

8.0-9.5

0.0-1.0

6.0-8.0

14.0-16.0

20.2-22.2

0.0-1.0

2.0-4.0

6.0-8.0

9.1-11.1

0.0-1.0

1.0-3.0

3.0-5.0

5.2-7.2

0.0-1.0

2.0-4.0

4.0-6.0

6.0-7.7

0.0-1.0

2.0-4.0

8.0-10.0

14.5-16.5

Sample ID

SOD1LO3A-0010

SOD1LO3A-2040

SOD1LO3A-4055

SOD1L03A-5777

SOD1FO6A-0010

SOD1FO6A-2040

SOD1FO6A-4060

SOD1F06A-6787

SOD1LO7A-0010

SOD1LO7A-2040

SOD1LO7A-6080

SOD1LO7A-8095

SOD1HO8A-0010

SOD1HO8A-6080

SOD1H08A-1416

SOD1HO8A-202222

SOD1PO9A-0010

SOD1PO9A-2040

SOD1PO9A-6080

SOD1P09A-91111

SOD1R12A-0010

SOD1R12A-1030

SOD1R12A-3050

SOD1R12A-5272

SOD1J13A-0010

SOD1J13A-2040

SOD1J13A-4060

SOD1J13A-6077

SOD1O15A-0010

SOD1O15A-2040

SOD1O15A-8010

SOD1015A-145165

J:\Gentral ChemicalVFeasibilty Study\PRGs\SGW\Table 2-2 Page 1 of 2 AR304294

Table 2-2 SPLP Soil Sampling Summary - July 2008


: 4vP-. Total anjdjSPL^ Analysis-"bqm^^^ , ~7; •

D2EA

D2TA

0.0-1.0

4.0-6.0

10.0-12.0

17.0-19.0

0.0-1.0

4.0-6.0

10.0-12.0

16.0-17.5

SOD2EA-0010

SOD2EA-4060

SOD2EA-1012

SOD2EA-1719

SOD2TA-0010

SOD2TA-4060

SOD2TA-1012

SOD2TA-16175

TOC Analysis - Domain 3 I !,

D3T1

D3T2

D3T3

D3T4

1.0-2.0

6.0-8.0

8.0-10.0

12.5-14.5

1.0-2.0

2.5-3.5

0.0-1.0

4.0-6.0

SOD3T1-1020

SOD3T1-6080

SOD3T2-8010

SOD3T2-125145

SOD3T3-1020

SOD3T3-205305

SOD3T4-0010

SOD3T4-4060

JACentral ChemicalVFeasibilty Study\PRGs\SGW\Table 2-2 Page 2 of 2 AR304295

Table 3-1

Regression Equations

Compound

Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC

Regression Equation

Total = exp(4.3180 + 1.0449 x in(SPLP)) Total = exp{4.4565 + 1.1644 x !n(SPLP))

R-squared value

0.747 0.806

AR304296

0)

•a c 3 o Q

. E

o o

(0 0

) I-

Q.

O

re u E

0

)

O

s c a>

3:

1

5" CO

^

Q E

"55

"1

-'

!

T5

C

3 o a. E

o O

CM

"

in

CO

9 uJ in C

O

CN

J

CM

O

+

UJ

CO

r~-c\i

CM

O

m

CN

CM

o +

LU

CD

in

CD

1

CO

en

h-in

CM

"

(D

o m

o

s -I-LU

o 0

0

CD

CM

C

D

UJ

m

CM

5 +

LU

CM

<

D

in

en

Q

4 CM

"

u>

§ uJ C

O

CO

o LJJ o C

M

O

III

in o .+

LU

C\l

CM

O

CO

in

Q

Q

9 4 CM

"

•<r"

oo"

§ LU

oo C

O

r-:

o UJ

o CM

9 UJ

5 in o + m

in in

9 CM

C

O

1

CM

UJ

Q

9 CM

"

•*

"

oo"

9 UJ

csi

9 uJ o 0C

3

CM

C

D

UJ

00

in o +

U

J in in

9 CM

o d> C

O

H

D

9 •4 C

M"

CD

CD

CM

O

UJ

o o CT

>

CM

C

D

UJ

CD

9 +

U

J o q C

O

1

•<l-

in C

vl

Q

Q

Q 1

CD

CD

UJ

T—

CD

00

O

UJ

o C

M

1

LU

CD

o +

U

J

•*

.

4

CD

in in

CM

UJ

Q

Q 1

•4

CD

s LU

CM

C

O

CO

9 m

o m

csi

CM

cp LU

00

+

UJ

CO

9 CM

00

6, C

M

CD

in

H

D

Q 1

•>*•"

CD

CO

9 LU

Oi

CD

O 1

UJ

o 0

0

Cvl

O

ai

CM

C

O

CD

O

+

LU

in

CM

CS

J

6 o 1

CD

O

C

O

c

<

CO

eg

o Ul

CM

in C

O

CM

9 UJ

o C

D

in

CM

o UJ

in o +

U

J o C

M

05 1

?^ CO

o in

c ni •E

o

•5 (D

.C

Q

.

<

CD

s UJ

m

01

4

o o +

UJ

o o CM

9 UJ

3 CO

o +

U

J C

O

CM

9 4 oo

CD

CO

o I CD

1

TO

.c a

. C

D

I o X TO

sz a

. C

O

CD

CD

C

M

CM

00

CO

6 o 'E

(U

03

<

o"

o UJ

CD

T

—

o +

m

o o

CM

o UJ

CM

CM

O

+

UJ

CD

(D

CM

5 Hi

c N

<

CO

in C

D

m

in o C

O

o UJ

o •<1-

r\i

OvI

CD

UJ

CM

CO

O

+

UJ

CD

C

vl

in op C

D

T—

C

O

o X

CD

B m

r^

CO

9 UJ

CM

9 UJ

o C

D

iri

3 UJ

m

o +

UJ

o CM

CO

CN

J

c •5

<U

C

(D

•E

o

O

CD

"

O

•<t"

in C

D

uJ C

D

CM

O

O +

UJ

o o 0

0

9 uJ

g CN

J

00

o -1-U

J o C

D

00

CO

op C

D

CO

o X

CD

C

D

i:

03

D

CD

s UJ

CD

CD

CD

UJ

in C

D

CM

C

D

UJ

in C

M

s +

UJ

CM

in ci C

D

C

•o 0

)

b

CM

co"

§ UJ

CD

CM

O

-t-U

J

o C

D

CM

9 uJ

CM

+

UJ

s CM

in C

D

E

C

(U

x: b

CD

s UJ

CO

o C

O

o UJ

o in

CM

s LU

m

CM

s +

LU

00

CN

j

cp C

D

CM

CM

c C

UJ

in

o"

CD"

s 1

UJ

CD

0

0

4

9 UJ

o C

O

9 UJ

o -t

in o +

U

J o C

O

in

in

o i m

c o

it:

c •

d •o c

UJ

1^

2 LL C

M

00

in

9 UJ

o C

D

iri

9 uJ 0

0

in o +

U

J

o CM

1

IS: C

O

o in c ni "E

o s: o C

O

E

E

(D

O

CD

o UJ

4 o UJ

o 0

0

CM

O

UJ

CM

CD

O

+

UJ

5 00

4 CD

O

X

CD

9 UI

o en 0

0

o Ul

o q CM

q UJ

CM

0

0

o +

UJ

OvJ

CO

0

0

op

in

o •D

X

O

D-

03

O

•5 en

•Q.

cu X

00

q Ul

in C

X3

00

in C

D

in

CD

C

D

CD

0

0

CD

C

O

0)

c CO

en

c CO

5

CD

CM

q uJ C

O

q o -1-U

J

o —

CO

CM

9 UJ

o in

00

o +

UJ

o o CM

00

CD

C

M

t

CD

0)

CD

CD

CO

z

CO

N^

O 1

00

o 15

E

•Jo

H

CD

s UJ

CD

'«• C

M

q UJ

o 9 Ul

CD

in o +

U

J r^ l

O

CM

uS 0

0 1

o o C

O

CD

c CD

JZ

C

L CO

X

o

1-AR

304297

c o 43

g 'c CD

C

D

C

o o CD

II

s E

c o

-a

(D

CO

O

^ 0} o !c cu o o c o

c o it <D

8 c

c o •s 2 •y

p. ~

ii Ir-

CD

Q

CD

O

<

U.

CO

Q

II II

II II

II

ii

?i

jQ

C/

5X

T-

cM

CO

Tj

-i

nc

DI

~-

00

CD

CM

CO

TT

in

CO

AR

304298

Table 4-2: Soi l , Aquifer, and Infi l tration Input for DAF Calculation and VLEACH Model

Parameter Value Comments

K 316 m/yr Maximum of range of pump test analysis reported in RI

i 0.02 Minimum of range of groundwater gradient

Maryland Geological Survey lists a weighted average of 9.6 I 0 24 m/ inches/year subsurface runoff for 39.6 inches per year annual

" precipitation. The term "subsurface runoff' means baseflow computed from stream hydrographs and they use this to represent "infiltration".

Estimated source length (600 ft) parallel to groundwater flow

Approximate aquifer thickness (250 ft)

Average based on site-specific data

EPA recommended default





L

da

foe

6w

Oa

Pb

n

Ps

183 m

76 m

0.004

0.3

0.13

1.5 kg/L

0.43

2.65 kg/L

AR304299

Table 4-3 Initial Soil Concentrations for VLEACH Model

COG

4,4-DDT

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

2,4-DDD

2,4-DDE

2,4-DDT

4,4-DDD

4,4-DDE

Aldrin

alpha Chlordane

alpha-HCH (alpha-BHC)

Arsenic

Atrazine

beta BHC

delta BHC

Dieldrin

Diphenamid

Endrin

Endrin Ketone

gamma-BHC

gamma Chlordane

Heptachlor

Heptachlor epoxide

Manganese

Napthalene

Thallium

Toxaphene .

Groundwater Protection standard

(ug/L)

0.2 370

70

0.28

0.2

0.2

0.28

0.2 0.004

2 0.011

10

3

0.037

0.011

0.0042

- QQ

2 2

0.2

2 0.4

0.2

880 0.14

2

3

Screening Criteria^

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

MCL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

MCL

Universal RSL

MCL MCL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

MCL

MCL MCL

MCL

MCL MCL

Universal RSL

Universal RSL

MCL

MCL

Mean Cone. 1-2 ft bgs

(rtig/kg)

191.57

0.012

0.02'8

2.87

2.41

39.56

4.79

5.46

24.09

1.33

1.44

0.023

0.257

2.08

1.11

6.10

0.019

1.81

1.81

1.24

1.58

1.11

1.05

0.334

0.237

0.0011

90.03

USEPA Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites, July 7, 2008

AR304300

Table 4-4

Back Calculated Results and

Average Soil Results in the 1-2 ft bgs Zone

coc

4,4-DDT 2,4,5-T 2,4-D

2,4-DDD 2,4-DDE 2,4-DDT

4,4-DDD 4,4-DDE Aldrin

alpha Chlordane alpha-BHC Arsenic Atrazine beta BHC delta BHC Dieldrin

Diphenamid Endrin

Endrin Ketone gamma-BHC gamma Chlordane

Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Manganese

Napthalene Thallium Toxaphene

Back calculated Values

0-2ft bgs (mg/kg)

> 1,000,000 22.50 0.408

>1,000,000

>1,000,000 > 1,000,000

>1,000,000 >1,000,000

>1,000,000

>1,000,000 0.007 12,555 0.340

0.026 0.041

268.90 44.25

19,138 >1,000,000

0.078

>1,000,000 >1,000,000

590,886 > 1,000,000

0.045 69,130

>1,000,000

Mean Cone. 1-2 ft bgs'

(mg/kg)

191.57 0.012 0.028 2.87

2.41

39.56

4.79 5.46 24.09

1.33 1.44

0.023

0.26 2.08 1.11

6.10 0.019

1.81 1.81 1.24

1.58 1.11 1.05

0.033

0.237 0.001

9ao3'

1-2ftbgsw/o Isolated

exceedances^ (mg/kg)

0.0052

0.0236 0.0379

0.0777

Not calculated

^ Average concentration of the 1 to 2 foot layer represents soils that would remain after the

planned remedial action removed the 0 to 1 foot depth layer.

"Without isolated exceedences" reflects average concentrations for the 1 to 2 foot depth later

without including values within the areas identified in Figure 4-1.

AR304301

Figure 4-5

Soil Concentrations in the Area Shown on Figure 4-1

Average Compound concentration in Soil (PPM) in Areas shown on Figure 4-1

Depth

1-2 ft

2-4 ft

4-10 ft

Alpha BHC

5.2

0.68

4.6

Beta BHC

8.5

0.12

0.76

Delta BHC

1.87

0.13

0.58

Gamma BHC

3.2

0.2

0.88

AR304302

Table 4-6

Hypothetical Impact of Figure 4-1 Area on Yearly Contribution of

Contaminant Mass to Groundwater

Contaminant

Alpha BHC

Gamma BHC

Delta BHC

Beta BHC

Weighted Leachate

Concentration from Figure 4-1

Area

(ppb)

56

9.8

1.8

1.7

Total Area

(ft2)

17000

17000

17000

17000

Inches of Infiltration

per year

(Inches of infiltration)

9

9

9

9

Gallons of infiltration per yr from

Area

(gallons)

96135

96135

96135

96135

Mass of BHC contribution to GW/year

(pounds)

0.04490

0.00786

0.00144

0.00136

AR304303

/ [ .' '>• / ' i / l h •-- ''

I / — - I ' I ^ " l

^ .

I ' - . / i •ma / ' \ \ \ \

DT2A

S .

v-W.',.' " \ i V V ? ^ - . D1L03A ,

^ ^ > ^ - ^ ^ : ;

\ C ; \ . D1F06A \ W '":y %^

> ^ \ 1-1' •.•'• ' v^ ,' '. / " ^ W V ^ * \ ^. •-....• ' / " I ' W "

••••"•• i y c ^ ^ ' ^ , . . . / I

f ' ' - ' •»?»>r y > > ^ ^ ' 1 ' ..^••^ ' " y / ' • ^ • ^ ! ' ' / , ' . ' ^ W ' ^ -

c

\ A A nN:WtA\^A\ ,-^-' /•/ / >x^.

^\ \A ~v;^\u V •

^ ^

. MJ«A

•^ '^ '^"•y - ' D1015A • • A. V J W A - ; : ^ : : ^ ' ' • v ' T * > . \s r'f-^, \ ; 4- " A %'//••'K- -' ^ ^ J^ "

\ • ' • Av \

- \ \ . '' A% ' X •

iL lA\'~Ak-

, » i \

"kvx \ / i

^ LEGEND:

D1F06A TOTAL, SPLP, AND TOC ^ ANALYSIS SAMPLING LOCATION

D3T1 TOC ANALYSIS ONLY SAMPLING LOCATION \

Jt \.<

I <i' • •••• y . \ V ' ' - ' w • ' ^ j

Job: 19989359.00270

Prepared by: TFP

Checked by: GMR

Date: 11/25/2008

SPLP SAMPLING LOCATION MAP

CENTRAL CHEMICAL SITE HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND

FIGURE 2 - 1 AR304304

Figure 3-1 - Scatterplot for Alpha-BHC

4.5E5

4E5

3.5E5

f 3E5 3

g

I I 2E5 o c ^ 1.5E5 CD

o \-

1E5

50000

0 h

alpha-BHC Scatterplot of Total against SPLP

Total = exp(4.3180+1.0449*Log(x))

o

100 200 300 400

SPLP Concentration (ug/L)

500 600

AR304305

Figure 3-2 - Scatterplot for Beta-BHC

1E5

80000

§ 60000 c g

I 8 40000 c o

O "TO

o •" 20000

beta-BHC Scatterplot of Total against SPLP

Total = exp(4.4565+1.1644*Log(x))

I , , : : : o

i : : i' ; o

20 40 60 80 100

SPLP Concentration (ug/L)

120 140 160

AR304306

3

I

•B

8 c a •p; n "S

(A

CO

£ ^

^

o 0) a

. E

<o W

o W

3 CO

o c 0) 1? LLI

1 ^ In

°

(0

c E

o Q

o> _c "5.

^ E

.g

„ —

CO

(0

^ S

(O

E

o (0 CO

10 c»

E

o Q

1

Q

I—I

•o c

I c

E .2 w

o S i

CO

12

0) 0)

O

D)

re

c a>

Ic

' CO

?

CD

^ H

- .E

(1)

=» J8 S' "w

<

s o Q

.

AR

304307

APPENDIX A

SOIL BORING LOGS

AR304308

Project: Central Chemical Project Location: Hagerstown, Md Project Number: 19989359

Log Of D1L03A

S h e e t 1 o f 1

g ritre'd ' 7/9/08

MethJxJ Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore

Typ'e' ' 54DT track mounted geoprobe

Le°e l (s r " ' Not Applicable

Location Domain 1

Logged By Gary Riehle

SizLr'ipe Geoprobe-Macrocore

C & o r Eichelbergers

Me^cliti) 1-3/Wn. Macrocore

Checked By Gary Riehle

» K 7-7 feet

i S n 626.03 feet

' ^ ^ ^ . ^ n ^ ' ' " ' Not Applicable

cSmpteton Geoprobe-Macrocore |

> .— §•0 Q.2

SAMPLES

S Analytical S Sample ID

9; u>

O

Q . TO

o

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FIELD NOTES

620

625 1

-C? SOD1L03A-0010

42/48

3-(> SOD1L03A-2040

4 -

SOD1L03A-4055

6-1

10-

40/44

SOD1L03A-5777

Loose; Dry; Light brown f. sandy SILT with root fragments.

Loose to soft; Dry; Light brown becoming light grey SILT with trace clay.

Loose to soft; Dry; Light brown and orange-brown with light grey SILT with few very small weathered limestone fragments.

Stiff; Dry; Dark orange-brown SILT with little clay and black carboniferous decayed organics.

v.-^- Dry; Light grey silt particle size decomposed limestone with few small grey to \ light grey limestone fragments. | /"

Refusal at 7.8 ft bgs

URS AR304309

I Project: Central Chemical Project Location: Hagerstown, Md Project Number: 19989359

Log Of D1F06A

Sheet 1 of 1

ffi' 7/9/08

Methcxi Geoprobe 1-3/8 in. Macrocore


Pevel(s'r'" Not Applicable

Location Domain 1


Size^'ipe Geoprobe-Macrocore

Con.?lctor Eichelbergers

Mem?Ii(f) 1-3/Wn. Macrocore


' J ^ e f ^ e 8-7 feet

i r S , 618.86 feet

l ^ v a ^ o r ' Not Applicable

cSmp eUon Geoprobe - Macrocore

c o

> *-OJ 03 11.2

615

610

§"0

SAMPLES

Analytical Sample ID

S- SODIFO6A-OOIO

I 3-?>

5 -

SOD1F06A-2040

SOD1F06A-4060

1 7 -

»

10-

SOD1F06A-6787

42/48

42/48

O

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Loose; Dry; Dark grey to black silty f-c SAND with little f-m gravel vinth little orange-brown f. sandy silt throughout.

Medium stiff; Dry; Light grey to grey clayey SILT vn\h trace c. sand and f. gravel interspersed throughout.

Medium stiff; Dry; Light yellowish brovwi and light grey to grey clayey f. sandy SILT

Medium stiff; Dry; Light yellowish brovm f. sandy CLAY.

Medium stiff; Dry; Grey to light grey clayey SILT to f. sandy silty CLAY. Sampler drive head exhibits light grey pulverized limestone vifith few very small weathered limestone fragments.


FIELD NOTES

URS AR304310


Log Of D1L07A

Sheet 1 of 1

gate(s) 7/9/08

M e S Geoprobe 1 -3/8 In. Macrocore

J ^ ' ^ MDT track mounted geoprobe

S ^ ^ l ^ r ' " Not Applicable

Location Domain 1


S i z ^ ' U Geoprobe - Macrocore

cSSctor Eichelbergers

Mef f i ( i ) 1-3/8^"-Macrocore


J f ° ^ ^ r 9-5 feet

irevlti'on 629.18 feet

Be'va°«o'if""' Not Applicable

C°ompreton Geoprobe - Macrocore |

c o

'4=1 m > * j

01 (S>

625

620

§"03 Q.2

SAMPLES


& SOD1L07A-0010

] s-J SOD1L07A-2040

6 -

8 -

9 -

10-

SOD1L07A-6080

SOD1L07A-8095

0) «

48/48

44/48

18/18

O

Q . CD


stiff; Dry; Dark orange-brown CLAY vAth little to trace silt grading to trace silt Virith black carboniferous decayed organics.

stiff; Dry; Dark orange-brown with light yeilovinsh brovm clayey SILT with black carboniferous decayed organics.

Stiff; Dry; Dark orange-brown CLAY with little silt with black carboniferous decayed organics and few small highly weathered limestone fragments. Bottom 1/2-in. of sample recovery grey.


FIELD NOTES

z-m. concrete siaD

URS AR304311


Log Of D1H08A

Sheet 1 of 1

Drilfed^ 7/9 to 7/10/08

MethJS Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore

Twie'^'^ 54DT track mounted geoprobe

PeveKsT'"' Not Applicable

Location Domain 1


S i z e ^ ^ Geoprobe-Macrocore

cSn'Ictor Eichelbergers

& ^ ( i ) 1-3/8-in. Macrocore


J , ° ^ f f i 22.2 feet

irevl^on 616.65 feet

K o ^ n ^ ^ ' " ^ NO. Applicable

ComprJtion Geoprobe-Macrocore

c o

• . a CD > *-

615

610

605

600

595

§"0)

S A M P L E S

a Analytical S Sample ID m o O

f } SOD1H08A-0010

^ SOD1H08A-6080

10-

1 5 - & SOD1H08A-1416

20-

-&

25-

SOD1H08A-: •20222^^

36/48

48/48

36/48

44/48

24/48

6/26

O


Medium stiff; Dry; Dari^ orange-brovm clayey SILT with trace f. gravel and black carboniferous decayed organics.

Medium stiff; Dry; Light orange-brovm SILT vflth little clay and trace f. sand.

Medium stiff; Dry; Light brovm to light yellowrish brown SILT with trace clay and f. sand.

Medium stiff; Dry; Light brown mottled light orange-brown clayey SILT with trace f. sand interspersed throughout.

Vertical sinuous dark grey to black staining exhibiting petroleum-like odor.

Medium stiff; Dry; Dark grey to black product stained clayey SILT virtth trace f. sand. Strong petroleum-like odor.

Medium stiff; Moist; Dark grey to black product stained silty CLAY/clayey SILT. Strong petroleum-like odor.

Thin wet seam with trace m-c gravel.

Soft; Very moist to wet; Dark grey to black product stained wnth little light brown, highly plastic CLAY. Strong petroleum-like odor.

Refusal at 22.2 ft' bgs

FIELD NOTES

2-in. concrete slab underlain by 6-in. gravel subbase

URS AR304312


Log of D1P09A

Sheet 1 of 1

gate(s) 7/9/08

Methcxi Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore

lipe'^'^ 54DT track mounted geoprobe

Pevel(sr" ' Not Applicable

Location Domain 1


S ^ n l p e Geoprobe-Macrocore

BSn^fctor Eichelbergers

MeZdi l ) 1-3/8-in. Macrocore

Chec ked By Gary Riehle

J f °^ rK 11-1 *eet

i levlfon 615.82 feet

K o ' ^ n ^ ^ ' " ^ Not Applicable

BomprJdon Geoprobe-Macrocore |

c o CD > ..-\L3

615

SAMPLES


-C' SOD1P09A-0010

SOD1P09A-2040

610

SOD1P09A-6080

605

12

14-

SOD1P09A-9111|t

0) «

o J I

• 2 ^

48/48

46/48

37/37

O _ I o Q . CD

CD

/ /

/ /

^ /

' A

' A <A

/ /

1* k/-

/ / •

/ /

K/

A


Loose; Dry; Dark brown f-m sandy SILT with thin zones of trace f-m gravel and small pie(;«s of asphaltic debris, root fragments.

Dry; Light brown to light yellowish-brown SILT grading to include trace to little clay.

Medium dense; Dry; Orange brovm and light yellowish-brown f. sandy SILT grading to f-m sandy SILT with 1/2 to 1-in. seams silt with trace clay.

Stiff; Dry; Orange brown to dari< orange brown with light yellovflsh-brovm clayey SILT with trace to little f-m sand throughout; few small grey to light grey limestone fragments.

Stiff; Dry; Orange brown with thin greyish-white to cream colored interseamed clayey SILT with trace f-m sand and few thin 1/2-in. silt seams; few small quartzite and small grey limestone fragments at bottom of sample.


FIELD NOTES

URS AR304313


Log of D1R12A

Sheet 1 of 1

ffi> 7/10/08


DnII Rig 54QY j ^ j j j mounted geoprobe lype Groundwater ^ot Applicable

Location Domain 1


Size^ 'U Geoprobe-Macrocore

cSn;?fctor Eichelbergers

M e S ) 1-3/8Mn. Macrocore


Total Depth -, , <,^, of Borehole ' " ^ eet

i S n 604.69 feet

M o ' i f ^ " ^ Not Applicable

cSmp°J'on Geoprobe-Macrocore

c o CD > *-fl) 0)

LU.S

600

595

S"o3 Q . 2

0 SOD1R12A-0010

SAMPLES


SOD1R12A-1030

SOD1R12A-3050

6 -&

10-

SOD1R12A-5272

32/48

38/38


Brovm topsoil. Stiff; Dry; Orange brovm SILT vwth trace clay.

^

Greyish brown SILT with little to trace f. sand.

Coal and asphaltic debris seam.

Light brovm SILT w th trac:e clay with few small glass and asphaltic fragments.

Stiff; Dry; Orange brovm CLAY vflth trace silt. Loose; Dry; Orange brown SILT with little coal and ashen debris.

Stiff; Dry; Orange brown silty CLAY grading to orange brown mottled light yellow/ish-brown clayey SILT wfith few small black carboniferous decayed organic^.

Refusal at 7.2 ft bgs.

FIELD NOTES

URS AR304314


Log Of D1J13A

Sheet 1 of 1

g ,fe(s) „ ,o,o8

MethwJ Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore


G roundwater ^ot Applicable

Location Domain 1


Size^'Jpe Geoprobe-Macrocore


Mirc! i( i ) 1-3/8-in. Macrocore


' J ' ^ F e ^ 7-7 feet

i S n 614.62 feet

Be^laion'""' Not Applicable

ComprJdon Geoprobe-Macrocore

CD > *-0) 0)

\u3

610

605

CiS

SAMPLES


SOD1J13A-0010

1 3 - &

6 -

10-

SOD1J13A-2040

SOD1J13A-4060

SOD1J13A-6077

44/48

40/44

CD


Loose to medium dense; Dry; Brovm becximing light brown silty SAND to sandy SILTwrith trace f. gravel.

Medium stiff; Dry; Light orange brovm silty CLAY vinth trace to little sand and trace f. gravel.

Thin silty f-c sand seam.

Medium stiff; Dry; Orange brown SILT with trace clay.

Stiff; Dry; Orange brown to light orange-brovm silty CLAY to clayey SILT.

Orange brown to yellowish-brovm f. sandy CLAY.

Loose; Dry; Light grey f-m SAND. Sampler drive shoe exhibits granular \ fragments vi/ith resemblence of gravel or limestone.

Refusal at 7.7 ft bgs.

FIELD NOTES

URS AR304315


Log of D1015A

Sheet 1 of 1

ffi' 7/10/08


T^pe' ' 54DT track mounted geoprobe

Pevel(sr ' " Not Applicable

Location Domain 1



S L o r Eichelbergers

a ? ! i l i ) 1^8-in. Macrocore


J f g l , X 16.5 feet

ilevlti'on 612.00 fee.

M o n " " ' Not Applicable

cSmpteton Geoprobe-Macrocore

c o CD > *-

610

595

SAMPLES

S Analytical .£ Sample ID

& SOD1O15A-0010

SOD1O15A-2040

4 - H

605

10-

600 12-

SOD1O15A-8010

14-

CJ. SOD1015A-1451

l e

ts

20

36/48

24/48

40/48

48/48

o


Loose; Dry; Brovm becoming light brovm f-m sandy SILT grading to light brown silt.

Brovm sandy SILT to silty SAND wnth trace gravel and thin seams light brovm silt.

-jreyi£h^lack_staining^includingjiitllecoal^-_ncM)dors. Loose; Dryj^LjgW t3rown_SlLT.

, Pinkish red silty sand with small asphaltic fragments. Soft; Moist; Brovm becoming light brown CLAY with trace to little silt.

Soft; Moist; Brovm clayey SILT virith trace sand.

Medium stiff; Moist; Light orange brovm becoming mottled light yellowish-brown highly plastic CLAY with trace silt and f. gravel throughout.

_ Few small limestone fragments with depth.

Medium stiff; Moist; Orange brovm mottled yellov«sh-brovm silty CLAY.

Thin 1-in. seam with quartzitic fragments.

Orange brovm mottled yellownsh-brovm SILT with some to little clay and Wack_carboniferous^djcayed^rganics. _ j Moist to wet; Light orange brovm to greyish-brovm clayey SILT. ^


FIELD NOTES

Location offset 25 ft northwest after refusal encountered @ 5 ft l}gs at initial location.

URS AR304316


Log of D2EA

Sheet 1 of 1

Date(s) 7/0/08 Drilled ' ™ ' " ' '



Pe^°e"l(sr"' Not Applicable

Lixation Domain 2



cSnt?fctor Eichelbergers

Merdi l i ) 1-3/8-in. Macrocore


o'ftcirX 19-0 ^ t


M o n ' " " ^ Not Applicable

Comp°eton Geoprobe - Macrocore

c o CD > *-01 CU

630

625

620

615

SAMPLES

fe Analytical S Sample ID

& SOD2EA-0010

6n

G- SOD2EA-4060

1 0 - "

-c- SOD2EA-1012

12-

14-

16-

18-

20

SOD2EA-1719

30/48

18/48

44/48

36/48

32/36

tj> O

_ ] o !c Q . CD

o

^


Loose; Dry; Dark brovm to dark greyish brovm f. sandy SILT, little c-m gravel, few very small asphaltic/slag fragments, root fragments.

Soft to loose; Dry; Light brown clayey SILT with little to trace c. gravel.

Coarse gravel.

Light yellovflsh brovm SILT - pcxjr recxivery.

Stiff; Dry; Dark orange-brovm SILT with trace grading to trace to Itlle clay, few black carboniferous decayed organics.

Hard to stiff; Dry; Light yellowish and light orange-brovm clayey SILT, few small very highly weathered limestone fragments.

^ Very light grey silt particle size highly weathered limestone. Refusal® 19.0 ft bgs.

FIELD NOTES

URS AR304317


Log of D2TA

Sheet 1 of 1

g^frJd^' 7/9/08

MethcxJ Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore

Type' ' 54DT track mounted geoprobe

G roundwater ^ot Applicable

Location Domain 2


Size^ipe Geoprobe-Macrocore

cSn.?ic.or Eichelbergers

a ? ! i " ( i ) 1-3/8-in. Macrocore


J f ° ^ r X " - 5 feet

i S n 626.41 feet

^ ^ l ^ , ^ r ' Not Applicable

Comp°e«on Geoprobe - Macrocore

c o

:{= CD > . 1 -0) 03

625

SAMPLES

S Analytical S Sample ID a

O) o

a. CD

O

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FIELD NOTES

620

-615

610

^ SOD2TA-0010

48/48

• ^ SOD2TA-4060

10

12-

14 -

16-

48/48

42/48

SOD2TA-1012

32/48

18-

20-

SOD2TA-16175 18/18

Loose; Dry; Orange-brovm becoming light brovm f-m sandy SILT wnth root fragments and trace concrete fragments.

Medium dense; Dry; Light yellowish brovm mottled light orange-brovm SILT.

Hard; Dry; Orange-brovm SILT with some to little clay.

few small highly decomposed limestone fragments

Hard; Dry; Orange-brown SILT with little clay and few black carboniferous decomposed organic fragments.

Hard; Dry; Orange-brovm to dark orange-brovm SILT vinth little to trace clay and f-m sand.

few weathered limestone fragments

r//>-M-^

Light yellowish and light orange-brovm SILT.

^ White pulverized limestone. Refusal® 17.5 ft bgs.

URS AR304318


Log of D3T1

Sheet 1 of 1

ffi^ 7/10/08 M e S Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore

Type' ' 54DT track mounted geoprobe

S s r ' " Not Applicable

Location Domain 3


S i z ^ U Geoprobe-Macrocore

cSn^fctor Eichelbergers

M e S ) 1-3/8-in. Macrocore


Jf°glrS 8.5 feet i S n 617.13 feet

K o ' l f ^ ' " ^ Not Applicable

Bomp°J«on Geoprobe-Macrocore

c o CD > — \ u 3

615

610

Q.2

SAMPLES


J SOD3T1-1020

3-

'Oi SOD3T1-6080

10-

46/48

44/48

o


Soft; Dry; Brown SILT - topsoil. Stiff to very stiff; Dry; Orange brovm becoming brovm with depth CLAY particle size with trace silt, black cartsoniferous decayed organics to approximately 3 ft bgs.

Very stiff; Dry; Brovm CLAY wfith trace to little silt.

- includes pulverized and angular limestone fragments


FIELD NOTES

URS AR304319

Project: Central Chemical

Project Location: Hagerstown, Md

Project Number: 19989359

Log of D3T2

Sheet 1 of 1

ffi' 7/10/08

Melho) Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore

J ^ ' ^ 54DT track mounted geoprobe

G roundwater Not Applicable

Location Domain 3


S i z ^ ' U Geoprobe-Macrocore

BSn^lctor Eichelbergers

Me7c!i(i) 1-3/BHn. Macrocore


l^^^J.^e 1 -6 feet

i^evlton 615.84 feet

K o " ; " " ' Not Applicable

cSmprJ'on Geoprobe-Macrocore |

c o CD > ...-

615

610

605

£ _ §•0) 0.2

SAMPLES


0-

8-"

10-

& SOD3T2-8010

12-

?> SOD3T2-125145

14-

c r : = .

40/48

40/48

36/48

26/31

en o

d . CD

O

•Mi


Loose; Dry; Brown sandy SILT w/ith root fragments - topsoil.

Medium stiff to stiff; Dry; Light brovm to light orange-brovm CLAY particle size with trace silt.

Loose; Dry; Light yellovwsh-brown to tan SILT.

Dry; Broken up limestone fragments

Medium stiff; Dry to moist; Light orange-brovm to orange brovm SILT.

\ - includes limestone fragments Refusal at 14.6 ft bgs

FIELD NOTES

URS AR304320


Log of D3T3

Sheet 1 of 1

Date(s) 7/10/OH Drilled 7/10/08

M S Geoprobe 1 -3/8 in. Macrocore

j ^ ^ ' ^ 54DT track mounted geoprobe

S s T ' " ' Not Applicable

Location Domain 3


Size^ipe Geoprobe-Macrocore

cSn^'ctor Eichelbergers

M ^ ^ % 1-3/8-in. Macrocore


Jf°lirK -Ofeet


K o ^ n ^ ^ ' " ^ Not Applicable

BSmptetion Geoprobe-Macrocore |

c o

• 4 =

CO > ..-

615

D . 2

SAMPLES

S Analytical i Sample ID

?> SOD3T3-1020

1 SOD3T3-2535

J

S I ? "

36/48

o


Very stiff to hard; Dry; Dartc orange brovm CLAY particle size vA\h few small limestone chips and trace black cartjoniferous decayed organics (black speckles).

Dry; Broken up limestone fragments.

Refusal at 4 ft bgs

FIELD NOTES

Refusal at initial surveyed Icx^tion at 4 ft bgs utilized for analytical sannple collection as refusals also encountered at offsets of 25 ft and 12 ft east, and 15 ft west of intial location al depths Of 2 ft bgs, 1 ft bgs, and 3 ft t)gs, respectively.

URS AR304321


Log of D3T4

Sheet 1 of 1

K > 7/10/08


Drin^Rig ; ^ ^ j ^ ^ ^^ mounted geoprobe

PeveKsT'^^ Not Applicable

Location Domain 3


Size^'Jpe Geoprobe-Macrocore


M e S ) 1-3/8-in. Macrocore


Total Depth « , i;,^, of Borehole " -^ 'eet

i S n 615.92 feet

K o " ; " " ^ Not Applicable

cSmptetion Geoprobe-Macrocore |

o :^ CD > »-(U CU

Llj.2

615

610

£

Q.2

SAMPLES


0 SOD3T4-0010

5 - & SOD3T4-4060

6 -

9 -

10-

0) «

^ £

36/48

42/48

x : Q . CD

o

•Mh.


Loose; Dry; Light greyish brovm SILT with root fragments.

Stiff to very stiff; Dry; Light orange brovm SILT to CLAY particle size, very few small limestone fragments.

- includes black cartxsniferous decayed organics (black speckles), trace f-c quartzitic and small limestone fragments

Stiff to very stiff; Dry; Daric orange brovm CLAY particle size, absence of black speckles.

• includes limestone fragments Hard; Dry; White pulverized limestone vflth grey limestone fragments.


FIELD NOTES

URS AR304322

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

AR304323

Appendix B Total and SPLP Soil Sample Analytical Results Central Ctiemical Site - Hagerstown, Maryland

Location ID Sample Date

Sample ID Start Depth End Depth

Chemical Name

D1L03A 7/9/2008

SOD1L03A-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

SOD1L03A

D1L03A 7/9/2008

SOD1L03A-2040 2 4

Total SPLP (ug/L)

D1L03A 7/9/2008

SOD1L03A-40550010 4

5.5 Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1L03A 7/9/2008

SOD1L03A-5777 5.7 7.7

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L) METALS in mq/kg I Arsenic Manganese Thallium

13.7 221

0.18 J

0.18 B 2.8

0.023 B J

4.9 234

0.16 J

5.3 448

0.029 B J

7 131

0.23 J

7 892

0.53 B J

17.9 251

0 31 J

0.42 B 892

0.039 B J PESTICIDES in ug/kg I Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT ALDRIN alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC^"' delta-BHC Dieldriri^ ~^ Endrin Endrin Ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor H?Pi?5!?.'°r_Epoxide Toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i Atrazine Naphthalene

23 < 4000 < 1400 J 66000 62000 40000 520000 37000 1700 J 4000 < 1300 J 460 J 44000" 4000 < ' 2100 J 1300 J 10000 1600 J 4000 <

160000<

0.20 < 0.25 < 0.51 P 0.25 <

2 4 0.25 <

2.2 2.2 9

0.25 < ' 7.1 1.8 " 14

6.25"< " 4.9 7.6

0.25 < " 6.'25<

0.25 < ' l 6 " <

1 ug/kg 1100< 230 < "

10< 2 <

8 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 <

48 19 120

2.2 P 28

2.1 < 1.3J

' 1 J 2.1 < 2.V< 2.1 < 5.5

' 4 " 2 . K 2.2

82 < "

400 < 81 <

0 1 9 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.022 J 0 05< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.55

" 6.05 < " ' " 6:06"9

6:6T8J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.27

0.05 < 0.65"<' 0.05 <

2 < " ~"

8 < 20 < 7.2 J 20 < 160 240

2200 10J 8 J

26 < 5.7 J 20 < ' 140 '" ' 20< "~ 3.3 J 5.6 J

25 "26<

20 < 800 <

0.19 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.047 J 0.082

0.028 J 0.082 0.05 <

0.1 " 6 . 0 5 < " "

0.05 < 0.614 j "

0.58 "0.05"<" 0.022 J 0.05 P 0.05 < 0.65 <" 0.05 <

2 <

9.6 < i "9 "<" ""

390 < 80 <

9.7 < i"9 i

8.3 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 0.74 J 0.49 J 0.6 J 5.3

2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 2.r<" 2.1 <

' 2.1 < ' 2 1 <

2.1 < 2.1 < "

" 2 . ^ < 2.1 < 8 3 ;

0.19 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.013 J 0.074

0.012 J 0.036 J 0.05 < 0.06

0.05 < 0.65 <

" 0 . 0 1 3 J 0.17

6.05 < a o 5 <

0.044 J 0.05 <^ 0.05 < 0.05 <

2 <

1 410 <

' 8 3 < 9.7 < 1:9 i

HERBICIDES in ug/kg I 2,4-D 2,4,5-T

94 < 23 <

4 < T<

97 < 24 <

4 < 96 < 24'<

4 < ' 1 < " "

99 < 25''< '

4 <

f< ' TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg I

6010 1 N/A 15800 N/A 1 2340 1 N/A 1280 1 N/A !

N/A - Not Applicable J - Detected concentration estimated PG - percent difference between columns greater than 40%

J:\Central ChemicalVFeasibilly Stu<)y\PRG5\SGV/\Appendi)( B-f<na\y1ica\ Resulls Page 1 of 10 12/3/2008 953 AM

AR304324




Chemical Name METALS in mg/kg Arsenic Manganese Thallium PESTICIDES in ug/kg Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT ALDRIN alpha-BHC alptia-Chlordane beta-BHC

delta-BHC " ' ' .~.1.J~ ...~. ._ Dieldrin Endrin Endrin Ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor EpoxitJe Toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i Atrazine Naphthalene HERBICIDES in ug/kg 2,4-D 2","4,5-T " ^ " ~~" " ' " ' TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg

SOD1F06A

D1F06A 7/9/2008

SOD1F06A-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1F06A 7/9/2008

SOD1F06A-2040 2 4

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1F06A 7/9/2008

SOD1F06A-4060 4 6

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1F06A 7/9/2008

SOD1F06A-6787 6.7 8.7

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

1 6.4 34.6 0 13

1 < 1.6

6 l 3 B "

5.4 24.4

" 6.22

2.1 97.2

0.14 B ' "

4.1 12.5 0.29

1.3 54.1

6.27'B '

6.7 45.5 0.36

1 < 88.3

0.10 B

1 34 <

85000 43000 < 660000 220000 160000

3800000 43066 < 16000 J 4 3 0 6 6 < "

" "" 836o6" ' ' l i ooo j 43000 < 43000 < 43606 <" " 10006 J 49006 83000

" 43060< 1700000 <

0.20 < 2.5 <

29 2.5 < 3.5

2.5 < 3.3

1.1 J 24

2.5 < ' 1 4 6

" " 1 5

3 9

"" 7.8 "" "3.6

2.5 < 2^5 <

" "100 <

8.5 < 11 < 11 <

" 1 4 6 44 39

980 1.4 J 120

3 6""j 31"

I O I 23

11 < " 1 l ' < " '

26 16 18

11 < 420 <"^

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 6 05< "

0.015 J 0.05 < 0.064

0.015 J 2.9

0.05 "<" 6.78 6:56'" "" 0 1 " '

0.05 < " 6 . 0 2 8 /

0.73" 0.05 < 0.05 < 6.65 i" "'

2 <

8.3 < 210 < 42 J

210 < 1400 1300

32000 210 < 240

210 < " 896

110 J 210 < 44 J

210 < lOO'j " 470 860

210 < 8400 <""

0.19 < 0.25 < 0.58

0.25 < 0.7

0.083 J 1.2

0.25 < 3.5

6.26 "l'4"

"i.r "3.6 0.46 0.52 0."92 0.78"

0.25 < 0.33 io"<"

8.6 < 550 < 140 J 8000 2300 2600

48000 550 < 550 < 550 <' 200 J 550 < 1200 550 < 550 < 550 < 1000 900

550 < 22000 <

0.19 < 0.25 < 0.76

0.25 < 0.91

0.24 J 1.3

0.056 J 2

0.46 2.7

0.47 8.6 1.1

0.87 0.53 1.4 1.7

0.58 10<

1 1700 < 190 J

9.8 < 420 < 85 <"

9.8 < 2 <

410 < 84 <

9.7 < 1.9 i

430 < 86 <

9.6 < 1.9 <

1 100 < 25'<

4 < 100 < 25 <

4 < 1 <

100 < 25 <

4 < 1" <

100 < 26 <

4 < 1 <

1 10900 1 N/A' 5070 1 N/A 1 4090 | N/A 1180 1 N/A 1

N/A - Not Applicable J - Detected concentration estimated PG - percent difference between columns gre

J:\Cenlral Chemical\Feasibilty Sludy\PRGs\SGW\AppencJix B-/\nalytical Resulls Page 2 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53/1*1

AR304325

Appendix B Total and SPLP Soil Sample Analytical Results Central Chemical Site - Hagerstown, Maryland



Chemical Name METALS in mg/kg Arsenic Manganese Thallium PESTICIDES in ug/kg Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT ALDRIN alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC " delta-BHC Dieldrin Endrin Encirir^Ketone gamma-BHC (Lincjane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor j-ieptachior^poxide toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i Atrazine Naphthalene HERBICIDES in ug/kg 2,4-D 2,4,5-T TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg

SOD1L07A

D1L07A 7/9/2008

SOD1L07A-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1L07A 7/9/2008

SOD1L07A-2040 2 4

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1L07A 7/9/2008

SOD1L07A-6080 6 8

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1L07A 7/9/2008

SOD1L07A-8095 8


1 10.2 88.7

0.27 J

0.88 B 3 1 1 <

12.1 118

0.33 J

1 < 1.7 1 <

9.1 261

0.29 J

1 < 0.67 1 <

10.4 243

0.28 J

1 < 1.6 1 <

1 80 <

10000< 10000< 10000<

270000 P 10000< 1400000 220000 430000 10000 < 92000 170000 360000 10000< 98000 P 640000 10000< 130000 83000 P 460006 < "

0.19 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 570 25 < 140 550 25 < 25 <

" 2 5 < " " ^ 9 8 0 "

25 < 25 < 25 "< "

"i"ooo<

8.5 < 220 < 220 < 3000

2000 P 220 < 9500 590 P 1000 2500

" 4'30 640 1900 220 < 2~20'<

"" " 1 1 0 6 " ' 220""< 1100

620 P 8500 <

0.19< 0.25 < 0.25 < 0.25 < 0.25 < 0.25 <

3 0.25 <

5.6 0.25 < " '2 .7"

6.2 1

1.4 0.25 i " " 6 . 1 " "

'0.'25"< ' 0.25 < 6:44 ^ 10<

8.3 < 11 < 11 < 11 < 59 P 11 < 500 44 19

11 <

14 86

11 < " i 2 P

29 " " " i K

21 " i '7P^ "

420 <

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.18 P 0.05 < 0.92 P 0.23 P 0.55 0.37 0.24 0.49 0.93

0.05 < 0.05 < 0.79

0.05 < " 0.13 0.24 2 < "

8.6 < 54 < 54 < 54 <

290 P 54 < 2700 200 170 54 < ' 5 1 " 91

420 54 < 63 P 220 54 < 110 .

55 P 2100 <

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

1.1 0.23 P 0.69 0.27 0.24 0.47 1.1

0.05 < 0 .05<" " 0.92

""0.05<^ 0097 6.22 2 <

1 4000 < 1800

9.6 < 1.5 J

420 < "86 <

9.7 < T.'9<"

410 < 84<"""'

9.8 < 2 <

420 < " '86"<

9.8 < '" 2 <

1 36 J 55

4 < 1 < . "

100 < 26 <

4 < __ ..

100 < 25 <

4 < " " ""1 < '

100 < "26 <

4 <

1 3580 1 N/A 1240 1 N/A 1 1380 | N/A 2440 1 N/A 1


J:\Central Chemic:al\Feasibilly Sludy\PRGs\SGW\/kppencJix B-/knalytic:al Resulls Page 3 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304326

Appendix B Total and SPLP Soil Sample Analytical Results Central Chiemical Site - Hagerstov*/n, Maryland



Chemical Name

SOD1H08A

01 HOB A 7/9/2008

SOD1H08A-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1H08A 7/9/2008

SOD1H08A-6080 6 8

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1H08A 7/9/2008

SOD1H08A-1416 14 16

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1H08A 7/10/2008

SOD1H08A-202222 20.2 22.2

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L) METALS in mq/kq Arsenic Manganese Thallium

8 8 98.2 0.3

1 < 093 1 <

9 64.3 0 31

0 49B 92.7

0 056 B

6.4 207 0.35

0.49 B 566

0.024 B

8.5 1620

0 30 J

0.50 B 2

1 < PESTICIDES in ug/kg Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT ALDRIN alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC Dieldrin Endrin Endrin Ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Toxaphene

8.5 < 31

2.2 < 6.9 82

3.6 P 34 3.2 11

2.2 < 13 4.5

2.2 < 2.2"<" " 2.2 < 4.7 " 8.4

2.2 < 2.2 < 85 <

0.19 < 1 2 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.2 <

13 1.2 < 7.2 35

1.2< :, 2 <

1.2 < 27

1.2 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 50 <

8.6 < 20000 1100 < 41000 76000 5100

130000 3700 18000 1100 < 1800 2200

1100 < "1100< 1100 < 3"460 6400 860 J 1700

44000 <

0.19 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 4.7

2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 120

2.5 < 22 50

2.5 < 2."5"< ""' 2.5 < "21 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 100 <

110 28000 2200 <

. 15000 110000 5900

47000 3700

58000 2200 < 7600

22000 2200 < 2260 < 2200 < 766 "j 13000 2200 < 4600

86000 <

0.77 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 <

0.73 J 5 < 5 < 270 5 < 41 120-5 < 5 < 5 <

2.6 J 1.1J 5 < 5 <

200 <

270 2900 220 < 2500 11000 1100 6700 440

11000 220 < 1400 3100 220 < 226 < 220 < 170 J 1700 220 < 680

8800 <

1.2 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 <

2.8 J 5 < 420 5 < 51 120 5 < 5 < 5 < 6.6 5 < 5 < 5 <

200 < SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ii Atrazine Naphthalene

420 < 85 <

9.7 < 1.9<

430 < 86 <

9.6 < 1.9 <

420 < 520

9.8 < 3.3

880 < 9700

9.7 < 35

HERBICIDES in uq/kg 2,4-D 2,4,5-T

100 < 25 <

4 < 1 <

100 < 26 <

4 < • 1 <

100 < 26 <

4 < 1 <

110< 27 <

4 < 1 <

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg 1320 1 N/A 5360 1 N/A 1 11400 | N/A 7090 1 N/A


J:\Cenlral ChemicalVFeasibilty Sludy\PRGs\SGW\Appendlx B-Analytical Resulls Page 4 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304327




Chemical Name METALS in mq/kq Arsenic Manganese Thallium PESTICIDES in ug/kg Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2.4'-DDE 2",4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'"-"DDE

4.4'-DbT " ALDRIN" ' " alplia-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC " ' " delta-BHC " " Dieldrin Endrin Endrin Ketone „ _ ._ gammj-BHCj l indanej gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor ijept^ctilor Epoxicje Toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 1 Atrazine Naphthalene HERBICIDES in ug/kg 2,4-D 2,4.5-T TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg

SOD1P09A

D1P09A 7/9/2008

SOD1P09A-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1P09A . 7/9/2008

SOD1P09A-2040 2 4

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1P09A 7/9/2008

SOD1P09A-6080 6 8

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1P09A 7/9/2008

SOD1P09A-91111 9.1 11.1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

1 11.7 142

6.22 J"

0.98 B 2.2 1 <

6.3 203

o.sfj

1 < 38.4 1 <

10.1 243 "

" "6.43 J "

1 < i.2

"1 <

8 258 """ "

6.36

1 < 6.20 B

" T"<""" '^ 1

51 220000 7700 J 100000 590000 9 1 0 6 0 "

1166606 " 2600 J " 3666 J^

iiooo 6200 J

" 7466 j " "10600 < 10660< 16000 <• 2 IO6J 21000

i 0000<" " iooo6<"

46oo66"'<

0.024 J 0.25 < 0.25 < 0'25 <

9.6 6 25<

13 0.25 <

2.6 0.25 < " 1 3 " ""

1.6 0.25 < 0.25 "< ^

l"i" ' '1.2""

" 6."2"5 < "6.25 < 6.25 <

16 <

11 146 1 6 ^

11" <

396 116" 570"

3.2 J 53

11 < 120 "

7.0" j " " 11 <

11 < 11 <" " 16 14 "

" 11 < 11 <

420 <

0.20 < "0.93 0.05 < 6.075

1.2 0.042 J

0.16 6.65 <

" 1 6.05 <

" ' 1.6 6. I I P 0"."05<"

"0.65 <" ' "6.05 <

0.29 " 6.018 J

0.05 <" 0".6"5<'" '

2 <

37 ""550"

'17"J "" 55 <

1406 " 240

'"246'6" 55 <" 83 ^

55 < " "" 23 J 22 J • " 55 < 55 < 55 < 29 J ""

" 41 J 55 < 55 <

2200 <

0.39 1.8

0.05 < 0.22 2.1

6.13 P 6.4"6 "

6.623 J 2.1"

6.651 P • " 6.18

" 0.4P " 0.05 < 0^05 < 6:017 J

0^7 " ' 6.059

0."05< " ~0 .05<

" 2 <

25 3

2.2 < 1.1 J 9.3

iT3J ,2

2.2 < 89

2"2 < 1.6J

18 """" " 2.2 < 2 2 <

2.2 < 34

2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < "88 <

0.18 J 0.05 <

0.036 J 0.05 < 07 l9P 6;65< " 0.05 < 6.05 "<""

2 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.55

0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.76

6.05 < 6:621 J 0.05 <

2 <

1 1600 < 186 J

9.8 < 2 <

420 < " 84 <

9.9 < ' 2 <

430 < 87 <

10< 2 < "

430 < "" 88<""

9.7 < 1.9 <

1 95 <

"'24 < 4 < 1 <

100 < "25 <

4 < • • 1 " <

100 < " 2 6 <

4 < """" "i"<

100 < 2 g ;

4 < 1 <

1 22300 1 N/A 464 1 N/A 1 1080 | N/A 659 1 N/A 1


J:\Cenlral Cii6mical\Fea5ibilty Stucly\PRGs\SGW\AppencJix B-Analylical Results Page 5 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304328


Chemical Name



METALS in mq/kg Arsenic Manganese Thallium PESTICIDES in ug/kg Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT ALDRIN

alpha-"BH"C _ M M aipha-Chlordane beta-BHC" " "^

delta-BHCM. Dieldrin Endrin Endrin Ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i Atrazine Naphthalene HERBICIDES in ug/kg 2,4-D 2,4,5-T TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg

S0D1R12A

D1R12A 7/10/2008

SOD1R12A-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1R12A 7/10/2008

SOD1R12A-1030 1 3

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1R12A 7/10/2008

SOD1R12A-3050 3 5

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1R12A 7/10/2008

SOD1R12A-5272 5.2 7.2

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

1 18.1 309

0.36 J

2.8 3.5

0.058 B

41 591

0.40 J

18.5 5.4

0.065 B

26.3 202

0.36 J

1 < 15.8

0.38 B

6.1 216

0.27 J

1 < 10.5 1 <

1 2.3 J 110

46 J 680 260 1400 4900 100 < 100< 100 < 100 < ' " i6'o< " 100 < io6< 100 < " i o6<"

" 1 2 6 100 < • 100 <

4160 <

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.62 P 0.26 P 0.53 P

1.9 0.16 2.3 "

0.05 < '"" ' 1.5 'i.6 1.4"'

0.65 < " 0.39 P 0.085 0.05'< 0.05 < 0.68 2 ^ - -

34 < 14000 J 4400 J 190000 27000 P 76000

1400000 22000 < 22006< 226o6"< 22000 < 22000"< """" 2"2"6o6"< 226o6< " " 22060 < "" 22000 < 20000 J 22000 < 22000 < 866060'< "

0.19 < 0.5 < 1.2 P 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 6.4

0.5 < 0.58 2.2 " 46

0.99 0.5 "<"

0.25' j

. . . ^ ^__ 6.25 J 65< 0.5 < 6.5 <" '20 "<

17 < 11000 < 10000 J 160000 27000 P 33000 P 850000 6200 J

' i i66o< " " 11600 <"' 21000 P "5866 J

' "i'io6'o< ' " "11600 <

230'0'J ' " i"ioo6<

"286066 210000 iiooo <"

446006 < "'

0.19 < 0.5 < 3.5

0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 4.1

0.5 < 3^1" 5.1 44

0.36 J o!5<" 0.5 < 0.5.<

1.1 '6:'5< 0.5 < 6 5 < 20 <

8 < 9.1 PG

2 < 27 11 2 < 58 4.8 12 2 < " 67

" ""2.4 P " 2 < ' ~2< 2 <

T 2 j ' . 19 2 < 2 <

80 <

0.20 < 0.24 P 0.05 < 0.11 P 0.4 P

0.057 P 0.22

0.057 P 5.2

"" 0.05"<"" 3.1

" ""2.5" 6."65<~" 0.05 <

0.011 J " 0.65

0.05 < 0.05 < 6.05 <

2 <

1 400 < 8 l ' <

10< -2<

200 J """""9i""j

9.4 < ' 1.9 < "

860 < '98 J

9.7 < i : 9 < ' " '

390 < 80 <

9.8 < " 2 <

1 97 <

• 24 < 4 <

' " "v< 28 J "12 J ' "

4 < 1 < "

110< " 27 < " "

4 < 1 <

96 < " 24<

4 < 1 <

1 4910 1 . N/A 19600 1 N/A 1 3500 | N/A 921 1 N/A 1


J:\Cenlral Chemi(al\Feasibilty Sludy\PRGs\SGW\/\ppendix B-Analytical Resulls Page 6 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304329

Appendix B

Total and SPLP Soil Sample Analytical Results

Central Chemical Site - Hagerstown, Maryland



Chemical Name METALS in mg/kg Arsenic Manganese Thallium PESTICIDES in ug/kg Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2.4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT ALDRIN alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC " Dieldrin Endrin Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i Atrazine Naphthalene HERBICIDES in ug/kg 2,4-D 2,4,5-T TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg

S0D1J13A 1 D1J13A

7/10/2008 SOD1J13A-0010

0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1J13A 7/10/2008

SOD1J13A-2040 2 4

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1J13A 7/10/2008

SOD1J13A-4060 4 6

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1J13A 7/10/2008

SOD1J13A-6077 6


1 407 208 1.2 J

164 43

0 091 B

118 70.6

0.80 J

132 86.5

0.26 B

108 59

4.1 J

1.9 86.5

0.26 B

31 7 54.4 1.1 J

1 < 6.2

0.46 B

1 32 <

2100 < 2100 < 16000 4800 6300 94000 2100 < 210'6'< "" 2100 <

'2166< ' 2100 < "" 1600 J 2160 < 2100'<" 2100 < " 980 J

2100 < 2100"< "

81000 <"

0 20< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.18P 0 15P 0.099 0.81

0.046 J 0.18

0.075 P 1.1 0.1

0.78 0.05 < 0.38 0.1

" 0.05 < 6.05 < "" 6.19

2 < """"

43 < 400 33 J 3400 1400 1200

21000 220 <

" 3'9"J 220 <

'220 < 220 < "220 <

' 220" < 220 <

" 2 0 0 J " " " l86" j

46 J 8500 <

0.19 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.068 0.13P 0 05 < 0.33

0.014 J 0.15

0.055 0.48 0.05 0.48

0.05 < 0.081

"6.06 0.65 < 0.05"< 0.19 " 2 <

8.2 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 1.0 J

0.96 J 2.1 < 4.1

2.1 < l . i j 2.1 < 2.4

2.1 <" 2.1 <

Y i <• " 2.T <

"2.1 <"" 2.1 < 2:1 < " '

"2:1 < ' 83 <

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.018 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

b.o"i"9"j 0.05 < 0:65 < "

0.018 J 0.24

0.05 < 0.05 <

" " "0 .05< 0.05"<" 0.05 "< • O.OS'i

2 <

8 1 < 2.1 < 2.1 <

12 4 7 2.5 55

2.1 < 0.59 J 2.1 < 2.0 J

""2.i< ' 2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 < '2.'l" <" 0.29 j

" " " " 2 . i ' < -2.|"< 82 <

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.062

0.021 J 0.05 < 0.058 0.05 < 6.625 J " 0.05 < 6^14

0;6i4 J 0.08

0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.014 J

0.027 J 0.05 < " ' 2 < "

•

1600 < " 320<

9.8 < 2 <

2100 < 436"< "

9.7 < " " 1 9 < ^

410< 83 <

9.8 < ' 2 <

400 < " 81 <

9.8 < 2 <

97 < 24'<

4 <

""' i < 100 < 26 < "

4 < 1 <"

100 < 25 <

4 < l"'<

98 < "" "25 <

4 < 1 <

13200 1 N/A 4150 1 N/A 1 625 | N/A 452 1 N/A N/A - Not Applicable J - Detected concentration estimated PG - percent difference between columns gre

J:\Central ChemicalVFeasibilty StucJy\PRGs\SGWy\ppendix B-/\nalytical Resulls Page 7 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304330




Chemical Name METALS in mg/kg Arsenic Manganese Thallium PESTICIDES in uq/kg Diphenamid 2.4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-bbT" 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DbT ALDRIN alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC"" Dieldrin Endrin _ Endrin Keione gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor _ _ Heptachlor Epoxide Toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i Atrazine Naphthalene HERBICIDES in ug/kq 2,4-D 2,4,5-T TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg

S0D1015A 1 D1015A

7/10/2008 SOD1O15A-0010

0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1015A 7/10/2008

SOD1O15A-2040 2 4

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1015A 7/10/2008

SOD1O15A-8010 8 10

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D1015A 7/10/2008

SOD1015A-145165 14.5 16.5

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

1 22.5 172

0.34 J

13.3 0.23B •" 0.032 B

18.1 491

0.31 J

7.1 0.19 B

1 <

5 """731

0.26 J

1 < 22.3

0.050 B

6.9 - • - ^020

0.22 J

1 < 46.2

0.072 B

1 220 < 380 < 140 J 3200 1200 3800

34000 380 < 99 J

380 < 156 j "

"380"<" 440

380 < 380 < 386 "<" 35"6 j

'3 '80<"" "380"<"" 15006"<'

0.19< "6.65 < 0.05 <

0.025 J" 0.1 P 0.063 6.12

0.022 J 3 2

0.019 J 0.64 1.5

0.12 0.05 < 0.6l3 J

" 0".063" 0.05 < ' oro5<

0.038 J " " 2"<

43 < 550 < 180 J 5800 -840 P 7700 35000 550 < 110J 550 < 1000

"550< 910

550 < " 5 5 0 < " " ~ " "550 <

640" 550 <

" " i6oJ 22000" <"

0.19 < 6.05"< 0.05 <

0.077 P "" 0.020 J 0.068 P

0.33 0.05 < 0.14

0.057 2 2

6.13 0.38

0.05< " " O i l '

' 6!658 0^05 i

'0.05""<" ' 0.087

2 <

8.1 < " ' 2 . i <

2.1 < 1.0 J

0.61 J 1.5J

' 8 . 8 2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 <

- - 2;:, <

2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 2.1 < 0.60 J 0 .37" j ' 2.1 < 8 l "< '

0.19 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

•^0 05< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

."" "6'65"< "". 0.05

0.05 < "0.05 <

' '6'65'< 6.65 <

" " "6.05 < 0."65"< 6.05 <

- -2<

8.4 < " 2.2 < "

2.2 < 1.1 j ' 2.2 < 2.2 <

" ' " 5 . 7 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 <

" 8 5 <

0.19 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.021 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.041 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.016 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.017 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

2 <

1 11000 < "2i2"66<"

9.7 < " i . 9 < "

2100 < 110J

9.7 < ""l."9'"<' '

400 < 81 <

9.7 < i . 9 <

420 < 85 <

9.7 < 1.9 <

1 90 < 22 <

4 < 1 <

100 < 26 <

4 < 1 <

97 < 24 <

4 < 1 <

100 < 25 <

4 < 1 <

1 13200 1 N/A 7410 1 N/A 1 364 | N/A 466 1 N/A 1


J:\Cenlral Chernical\Feaslbilty Sludy\PRGs\SGW\/Vppendlx B-/^alytical Results Page 8 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304331




Chemical Name METALS in mq/kg Arsenic Manganese Thallium PESTICIDES in ug/kg Diphenamid 2,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT ALDRIN alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC " ' " " " " ' " ' ' '" Dieldrin Endrin Endrin Ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide toxaphene SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i Atrazine Naphthalene HERBICIDES in ug/kg 2,4-D 2 > , 5 - f "'" ' TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg

S0D2EA

D2EA 7/9/2008

SOD2EA-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D2EA 7/9/2008

SOD2EA-4060 4 6

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D2EA 7/9/2008

SOD2EA-1012 10 12

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D2EA 7/9/2008

SOD2EA-1719 17 19

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

1 2 5

98.4 0.069 B J

0.92 B 3

0 050 B J

9.5 177

0.36 J

1 < 1.2

0.030 B J

9.8 91.4

0.43 J

0.72 B 4.1

0.043 B J

4.4 224

0.19J

1 < 0.064 B

1 <

1 350 < 89 < 89 < 89 < 150 1200 2700 24 J

' "89 <• 89 < "89 < 53 J

' 89< ' 89 <

8'9'< 550"

16J 29 J 89 <

3560 <

0.20 < 0 0 5 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0 0 5 < 0.05 <

0.020 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.017 J 0.65 <

0.036 j ' " 0.05 < 0.65 < 0.05 <" 0 5 2 P " ' 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.015 J

8 3 < 2100 < 2100 < 9000

1500 J 3200

43000 2000 J 2106 < 2100 < 2100 < 2166 "< 6166 •

' i2io6"<" ""2166 < "2100 <"

2000 J 500 J

2100 < "8300"6'<

0.20 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 4.5 3.4

0.5 < 2.5

'675 < 0.6"6 " ' 34 " 1:5'" '

' 5 ' ""'"6.5'"<"

0.5 < 0.9

0.5 < 20 <"

8.7 < 11 < 11 < 160

20 P 91

580 17P 11 < 11 <

' " 56 ' " 7.1 j

940" " 1 1 < " 8 4 3.9 J 11 < 11 < 11 <

446" <

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.014 J 0.13

0.020 J 0.65 <

0.037 J 0.18

6.05'< ' I ' . ' i

" 6.05'< 0.26

" "0.6'5"< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

2 <

8.7 < 2.2 <

11 65 9

24 270

2.4 P " " ' 1 . 6 J

26 21

i . 5 J 100

2.2 < 7.5 P 1.2 J

32 0.45 J 2.7 P

" 86<

0.19< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.032 J 0.036 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.21

"o".65"< 0.36

" ' 0".05< 0.065

a031 j ' 0.05 < 0.05 < . 0.05 <

2 <

1 18000< 3600 <

9 9 < 2 <

410< 83 <

9.9 < 2 <

430 < 87 <

10< 2 <

430 < 87 <

9.7 < 1.9<

1 85 < 21 <

4 < 1 <

99 < "" 25 < '

0.96 J 1 "<

100 < 26 <"

4 < " 1 <

100 < 26 <

4 < ' " ' l ' <

1 23700 1 N/A 699 1 N/A 905 1 N/A 1420 1 N/A 1


J:\Central Chemi(al\Feasibilty Study\PRGs\SGWVVpendix B-Analytical Results Page 9 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304332

Appendix B Total and SPLP Soil Sample Analytical Results Central Chiemical Site - Hagerstown, Maryland



Chemical Name

S0D2TA

D2TA 7/9/2008

SOD2TA-0010 0 1

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D2TA 7/9/2008

SOD2TA-4060 4 6

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D2TA 7/9/2008

SOD2TA-1012 10 12

Total 1 SPLP (ug/L)

D2TA 7/9/2008

SOD2TA-16175 16

17.5 Total J SPLP (ug/L)

METALS in mg/kg | Arsenic Manganese Thallium

5 8 576

0.15J

1.8 0.059 B"

' O^IOBJ

7.9 149'"" "

' "0"."2'6J

1 < 786

0 17 B J '

8.9 '"151 6.32 J

1 < 49:9

6.086 "B J

12 264"

0.16 J

0.25 B 0 .146

0.061 B J " PESTICIDES in ug/kg | Diphenamid 2"4'-b"bb 2,4'-bbE 2>'-pDT"" " . . _ . . . . . ! 1 4,4 ' -bbb

4,4'-"'DbE ' . ' _ . . _ _ . 4,4'-bD't

ALDRIN ' alpha-BHC _' '"_' " ' 1 _ alpha-Chlordane beta-'BHC " ' ' " _ _" delt'a-BHC _" J Dieldrin Endrm Endriji Ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide

Toxaphene

7.8 < 990 < 1600

' 13000 4700

22006 110000 960 J 990 < 990 < 990 <

" 990 < "'8300

990 < 990 <

" " 990< "700 J

' "990 •= " '996 < 39660 <

0.19< "0.25"< " 0.25 <

0.25 < 0.24 J "

' 1 I.i"

" 0.25 < " " 0 . 2 5 <

0.2"5 < '6.25 "< 0.25 <

9^9 0.672 J 0.25 <"

' . ' 0.25< 0.25 <"

" 0 . 2 5 < " 6 . 1 6 J " " 10 <

8 < "10 < " 8.9 J

27 ' ' 22

89 550 ' 177 J '

""i6< " ""2.6""J

10< " i ' o < " " " 29

i"o'< 16 < i6'<

2:0 J " " 10 '<

" i6< ' 46'6"< "

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.05 <" 0.045 J ' ""

0.0097 J "

0 1 0.17

0.05 < 0^05 < 6.05 "< 0.65 < 0.05 <"'

0.21 " 0.05 <

0.05 <' O.618 j '

" 0.65 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

2 <

7.9 < 350 230 556'

1100 M.M25OO '

4466 13J 46'< 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 140 40 < 32 J

1600 <

0.20 < 0.05 < 0.043 J 0.092

'0.658 0.32

' 0 : 2 " 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

''0"05 <

0.27 0.05 < 0.05 <

0.017 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

" ' 2 <'

7.4 < " " ' i.9<"

" l . 5 j ' " " '2.5

6.95"j '"l"2 . .. _ . . 1.9 < i:9"< 1.9 < 1.9 < 1.9 < " " " 9.6

1.9 < " 1 ; 9< -1.9 <" ' 1.9 < 1.9 < 1.9< 74<

0.20 < 0.05 < 0 05< 6.65 <

0.016 J 0.05 <

0.623 J ' 0.05 <

0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < • 0.05 < 0.12

0.05 < 0.05 <

0.025 J 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 <

2 < SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS it | Atrazine Naphthalene

390 < 78 <

9.7 < '1.9 <"

400 < 80 < ' '

10< 2 <

390 < 79 <

10 < 370 < 74 <

9.9 < - 2 <

HERBICIDES in uq/kg | 2,4-D 2,4,5-T

94 < " ' 23<

4 < l"< "

96 < ""24'"<" "

4 < " 1 <

95 < 24 <

4 < 1 <

89 < 22 <

4 < 1 <

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON in mg/kg | 11100 1 N/A 756 1 N/A 513 1 N/A 845 1 N/A 1


J:\Central Chemic:al\Feasibilly Sludy\PRGs\SGWWppendix B-Analytical Results Page 10 of 10 12/3/2008 9:53 AM

AR304333

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland › work › 03 › 2102401.pdf · 2020-06-11 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland › work › 03 › 2102401.pdf · 2020-06-11 ·...