Draft Report Remedial Investigation - United States Environmental ... · 11 88-033-E6 Augujf ^6,...

11251

Draft ReportRemedial Investigation

CanonieEnvironmenialBR303393

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGELIST OF TABLES iLIST OF FIGURES iiLIST OF APPENDICES . iii1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose of Report 1

1.2 Site Background 21.2.1 Site Description and History 2

1.2.2 Previous Investigations 31.3 Report Organization ^, ^ 7

2.0 STUDY AREA INVESTIGATION , ' V - 82.1 Surface Features 92.2 Contaminant Source Investigation V 10

2.3 Meteorological Investigation 12"fS, -:---r ' :"T ::- -- -

2.4 Surface Water and Sedimeifrtnvestigation 132.5 Geology 14a>wfc ' . .... -— — - --

<!. - -— - - - ----- •-2.6 Soil Investf|a"tion 152.6.1 Surface Soil Sampling 15

*C"N : ;\2y6.2 In-situ Permeability Tests 16X ---=:- ^ - -2.7 Ground Water Investigation 17

2,7,1 Monitoring Well Installation 172.7.2 Residential Well Inventory ' 182.7.3 Water Level Measurements 18

2.7.4 Ground Water Sampling 192.7.4.1 Monitoring Well Sampling Procedures 192.7.4.2 Residential Well Sampling Procedures 19

CanonieEnvironmentalAR3033-9U

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

: PAGE2.7.5 Aquifer Testing 20

2.8 Demography and Land Use 212.9 Ecological Investigation _ _ ... 212.10 Documentation of Variations from Work Plan 22

3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA 25

3.1 Surface Features 253.2 Regional Climate 263.3 Surface Water Hydrology ^ 26

----- .!- L • <!;. .

3.4 Geology ' •*" 28

3.5 Soils u^v-- -an*%. -.' -

3.6 Hydrogeology . . . \- . -. 31

• 3.6.1 Aquifer Testing -f^ 1:. -- _ _ 33|,V" -"•—-;--;.-i .--. ..- -r -, .

3.7 Demography and Land Use £* \ 34

3.7.1 Popugtipn and Population Densjty 343.7.2 Community Profile 35

^ 7.3 Surrounding Land Use 35

• :.7.4 Local Ground Water Use 363.8 Ecology 36

3.8.1 Wetlands Investigation 363.8.1.1 Western WetUnd 373.8.1.2 Eastern Wetland , 38

3.8.2 Surface Water and Sediment Data Review 383.8.2.1 West Flow and Wetlands 393.8.2.2 Little Juniata River 41

CanonleEnvironmental..: . ' flR303395

_ TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

PAGE3.8.2.3 East Flow and Sandy Run 45

3.8.2.4 Data Review Summary 474.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION ; 49

4.1 Potential Sources 494.1.1 Adjacent Facilities 50

4.1.2 Landfill Extent and Contents 514.2 Surface Soils Investigation Results 514.3 Ground Water Investigation Results f\ 52

% f-~ ~4.3.1 Monitoring Well Analytical Results "* 534.3.2 Residential Well Analytical Exults 53

fjv4.4 Surface Water and Sediments &* ' - — 54

4.4.1 Surface Water Ansff^ical Results _ _ . .544.4.2 Sediment Analytic!! Results 54

4.5 Air <1 . - ":;. . - : 56VT V4.6 Data Limitations 57

5 . 0 GRQta WATER MODEL ING 59:•._ ^ _ _ L - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ -

5, Inflow Model 595.1.1 Flow Model Description 605.1.2 Flow Model Calibration 635.1.3 Flow Model Sensitivity Analysis 65

5.2 Chemical Transport Model 675.2.1 Chemical Transport Model Development 685.2.2 Chemical Transport Model Calibration 73

CanonieEnvironmentdlfiR303396

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

- " - PAGE5.2.3 Chemical Transport Model Sensitivity Analysis 75

5.3 Ground Water Modeling.Conclusions 776.0 HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION 79

6.1 Introduction 79

6.2 Purpose • - : 796.3 Methodology - i Q0

6.4 Site Characterization ,. 826.5 Exposure Analysis " \ 83

6.6 Toxicity and Risk Characterization , . 847.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS *t> 88'•£••„'

7.1 Potential Sources 887.2 Surface Water and Sedime|l;::|&npacts 897.3 Surface Soil Impacts 90

-tf** ":..; " ; . • . . . : = ; ':;.'.; .,".".1 ". 'l .. - - ' '- ....

7.4 Ground WateyrfTtepacts /."......'.I 907.5 Air Impacts , __ 91

.•,•&,•*•. > - •'- " " •"' ' • . - i "''." .^T-.- i : - [•- f -~ -- - - ... - ^A

7.6\gih)und Water Modeling Conclusions 91<•"•" ~ ' . _ • :

7.7 Human Health Evaluation Conclusions 93

7.8 Comparison of RI/FS and pre-RI/FS Ground Water Data 947.9 Data Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work 957.10 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives 96

REFERENCES • : . :

TABLES ;FIGURES . . . . . , . - , .

APPENDICES

CanonieEtw .

LIST OF TABLES

TABLENUMBER TITLE

1 Chain of Ownership2 Summary of Pre-RI/FS Ground Water Analytical Data3 Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations Rationale4 Surface Soil Sample Location Rationale5 Summary of New Monitoring Well Location Rationale

6 Monitoring Well Construction Detail7 Residential Wells Inventoried and Sampled 'During the

Remedial Investigation,4#b .... .; -". _

8 Water Level Elevations *\> -9 Maximum Water Quality Criteria for Maintenance of

Aquatic Life -f^ in -™- - j- ~: ^r = -10 Surface Soil Oilgahic Analysis Data Summary11 Sg iface Soil Inorganic Analysis Data Summary12 Ground Water Monitoring Well Organic Analysis Data

Summary13 V I ----- Ground Water Monitoring Well Inorganic Analysis Data

yj Summary14 Residential Wells Organic Analysis Data Summary15 ~ Residential Wells Inorganic Analysis Data Summary16 Surface Water Organic Analysis Data Summary17 Surface Water Inorganic Analysis Data Summary

CanonleEnvironmentdlftR30-3398

1819

20

24

25

26

27

LIST OF TABLES(Continued)

Sediment Organic Analysis Data SummarySediment Inorganic Analysis Data Summary

Correlation of Flow Model Predictions with MeasuredElevations .. ' . •

21 Summary of MODFLOW Sensitivity Analysis22 Summary of AT123D Sensitivity Analysis

23 Summary of Hazard Indices and Cancer RisJ^stimatesfor the Ingestion of Compounds of Concer^ri\in GroundWater by Future Residents >

Summary of Hazard Indices and Cancer Risk Estimatesfor the Inhalation of Vapo^Phase Chemicals Via DailyShowering for Future Users':$f the Contaminated GroundWater ••&

Summary of the^gmbined Cancer Risks and HazardIndices for Fu f Users of Contaminated GroundWater **' -- ; •" ~!

C^figarlson of Pre-RI/FS Volatile Organic Analysesarfi£TU/FS Analytical Results

CanonleEny irLJ < i I s *v "n o u o o

11LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE DRAWINGNUMBER NUMBER TITLE

1 88-033-A7 Site Map

2 88-033-E3 Well Locations

3 88-033-E4 Soil and Landfill Cap Sampling Locations

4 88-033-E5 Aquatic, Terrestrial Life, and WetlandsStudy

5 88-033-E8 Site Property Map

6 88-033-E10 Geologic Formations7 88-033-E11 Soil Profile - W-W'

8 88-033-E12 Soil Profile - X-X'

9 88-033-E13 Soil Profile - V^

10 88-033-E14 Soil Profile - Z-Z'

11 88-033-E6 Augujf 6, 1990Ground Water Elevation Contours

12 88-033-E3O Model Grid SystemYv ^ - • -!^: •"13 88-033-E20-:'y' Ground Water Elevation Contours from MODFLOW

14 ^ \88-03l-A18 Final Hydraulic Conductivities for MODFLOW

15 ^88-033-A21 VOC Concentrations Over Time, Well M2-Area IV16 88-033-E9 Total 5 Major VOCs Concentration (ppb) in

Ground Water August 1989

17 88-033-E16 Total 5 Major VOCs Concentration (ppb) inGround Water from AT123D

18 88-033-E19 1,1 DCA Concentration (ppb) in Ground WaterAugust 1989

19 88-033-E15 1,1 DCA Concentration (ppb) in Ground Waterfrom AT123D

20 88-033-E32 January 18, 1990Ground Water Elevation Contours

CanonieEnvironmeiial

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE "

A Pre-Remedial Investigation Analytical DataB Estimated Landfill Waste Depth and Volume CalculationsC Target Compound List and^Target Analyte ListD Monitoring Well Boring Log and Geophysical Logs£ Residential Well Inventory Forms

F Surface Soil, Monitoring Well, Residential Well,Surface Water, and Sediment Sample Analj^cal Results

G Meteorological Data VH Surface Water Flow CalculationsI Vertical Permeability Calculations and Test Pit LogsJ Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations

• f . ''%, " - . _ . ;

K Input and OutpupiFiles for Calibrated Flow andTransport Model

CanonleEnvironmental

REFERENCES

Bowen, N.J.M., Environmental Chemistry of the Elements. Academic Press, NewYork, 1979.

Fail!, R.T., Glover, A.D., and Way, J.H., Geology and Mineral Resources ofthe Blanburo. Tipton. Altoona* and Bellwood Quadrangles. Blair, Cambria.Clearfield. and Centre Counties, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania GeologicalSurvey, 4th Ser_, Atlas 86, 1981.Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey."Geochemistry of Some Rocks, Soil, Plant and Vegetables in the ConterminousUnited States", Geological Survey Professional Paper, page p4. F 1975.Geyer, A.R., and WiTshusen, J.P., Engineering Characteristics -%f the Rockof Pennsylvania Environmental Geology Supplement to the State Geologic Map.Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 2nd ed., 1982. ....

•*C\V •-- -Lancy, 1990, "Phase II Review of Surface Water%id" Sediment Sampling Data,"Lancy Environmental Services Company, February i'990.Lancy, 1989, "Wetland Delineation fj^rt,11 Lancy Environmental ServicesCompany, October 16, 19§9. J; "-- -"'-"•" ;;;""Lisk, B.J., "Trace Me.tals in Soils, Plants, and Animals", Adv. Aaron. 24267-311, 1972. %

MacDonald and Harbaugh, 1984. "A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-.Differenp^Ground Water Flow Model." USGS Open File Report 83-875.Martin a?td**r.artin, Inc., 1987, "Closure Plan, Delta Quarries andDisposal/Stotler Landfill, Logan Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania,"prepared for U.S. EPA, Region III.Meiser and Earl, 1986, "Delta Altoona Landfill, "Old Stotler Site",Hydrologic Investigation, Antis and Logan Townships, Blair County".Meiser and Earl, Inc., August 1988, "Remedial Investigation Site OperationsPlan, Delta Quarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill, Antis and LoganTownships, Blair County, Pennsylvania," prepared for U.S. EPA, Region III.Meiser and Earl, Inc., May 1988, "Work Plan, Remedial Investigation andFeasibility Study, Delta Quarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill, Antis andLoaan Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania," prepared for U.S. EPA, Regioniii*

CanonieEnvironmenial

REFERENCES(Continued)

Meiser and Earl, 1988, "Quality Assurance Project Plan - Delta Quarries andDisposal, Inc./Stotler Landfill RI/FS," Meiser and Earl, Inc., revisedAugust 29, 1988.

Parr, J.F., Karsh, P.B., Kla, J.M., Land Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,Agricultural Environmental Quality Institutes, Agricultural ResearchServices, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland, Royes Data Corporation, Park Ridge,New Jersey, 1983.

Phoenix, 1988, "Health and Safety Plan for the Delta Quarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill," Antis and Logan Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania,Phoenix Safety Associates, Ltd., Revised August 29, 1988. ..-i,

-;• ,

Ragaini, R.C., et al, "Environmental Trace Contamination in KeWog, IdahoNear Land Smelting Couples." Envir Sci and Technol 11 773-790 1977.

Symms, K.G., April 1990, Draft Human Health Evaluation of the DeltaQuarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill in Altoo^. Pennsylvania, preparedfor U.S. EPA, Region III.

U.S. EPA, 1988, "Interim Final-Guidlnge for Conducting RemedialInvestigations and Feasibility Stud|f?:::>Under CERCLA," October.,&'- - - - - '-~--' [ -— - - - - ~U.S. EPA, 1989, "Interji Final-Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,Human Health Evaluatid|,l^anual, Vol. 1, Part A," December.Ure, A.M., et al, "Elemtntal Constituents of Soils", EnvironmentalChemistry, .Vol. 2, pages 94-204 ed. N.J.M. Bowen, Royal Society ofChemistr/^'"6^rlinghouse, London, ILK._,_ 1.983.„„_,.,„.(r,,,....f.w... - ... .........

*•;...,*/ ; -. | !'• '- 't-r:1. : ' .-. --- - • • • - -

Yeh, 6T, 1981. "AT123D: Analytical Transient One-, Two-, and Three-Dimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System", Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, ORNL-5602, PublicationNo. 1439.

CanonleEnvi

FINAL DRAFT REPORTREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

DELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL SITE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Report

This report describes the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) con-ducted at the Delta Quarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill Site located inBlair County, Pennsylvania. The site was a municipal landfill operatedfrom 1964 to 1985 by various owners. Sampling conducted byrfe Pennsyl-•' %.vania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) from 1982 |o 1987indicated that several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and lead aboveregulatory limits were present in ground watettffhd surface_water adjacent"fe**1* " "f ' - "to the site. In 1986, the Delta Site was proposed for the NationalPriority List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites, and in October^1987, theUnited States Environmental Protedy&p. Agency (U.S. EPA) and Delta Quarriesand Disposal, Inc. (Delta Quarries%nd Disposal) entered into a ConsentOrder to conduct a Rejnefiial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the

"V**fcsite. *

In Septefibe.^ 1988, Delta Quarries and Disposal retained Meiser & Earl, Inc.•% * - - -(M&E) to ££rform the RI/FS tasks as specified in the Consent Order.Canonie Environmental Services Corp. (Canonie) replaced M&E as the RI/FScontractor in July 1989.

The RI objective is to determine the nature and extent of any threat tohuman health or the environment caused by any release or threatened releaseof hazardous substances from the site. The purpose is not to remove alluncertainties, but rather to gather information sufficient to support aninformed decision regarding which remedy, if any, appears to be the mostappropriate for the site. The FS evaluates technologies and remedialalternatives, and provides a comparative analysis to aid in obtaining thepreferred alternative.

CanonieEnvironmentalRR303UOU

Final Draft ReportNovember 14, 1990Page: 2

All RI tasks were performed in accordance with the approved Work Plan (May1988), Remedial Investigation Site Operation Plan (RISOP) (August 1988),Site Health and Safety Plan (HASP) (August 1988), and Quality AssuranceProject Plan (QAPP) (August 1988).

1.2 Site Background :

1.2.1 Site Description and History T

The site includes a landfill approximately 57 acres in size located inAntis and Logan Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania (Figur^l). The areato the north and south of the site is wooded and residential', \nd to the

-_ ; . .J&*

east is residential and open field. To the west of the landfill areseveral junkyards, the Little Juniata River, |pd the City of Altoona Waste-water Treatment Plant. '

A natural depression originally eSf ed on-site prior to the onset of.landfilling operations. In 1964, Iwoy adjacent municipal waste landfillingoperations, the Stotlj^and the Parshall/Kruise, commenced. These twooperations merged in'1 7J5 to form the Stotler landfill. Delta .Quarries and

'$!..• - - - • • ; • . " " " " . " :"•"'""" •"--"" "

Disposal purchased thex'Stotler landfill in 1978 and operated the facilityuntil ij nsjosure in 1985. The site chain of .ownership is outlined in .Table' l.\/ • - ' 1 • "^ : ---•----' -"•; '"-: 'J'L" '--- ;:vr ~ :•-----:T. ----- ------

Reports from previous landfill operators and U.S. EPA and PADER file infor-mation suggest that the majority of wastes (approximately 99.8 percent)contained in the landfill are municipal wastes. Both the U.S. EPA andPADER files indicate that industrial wastes ,were accepted by the Stotlerlandfill and by Delta Quarries and Disposal. No records were found thatindicated that industrial wastes were accepted by the Parshall/Kruiselandfill. . :

CanomeEnvironmental-: ':r\. [\R3Q3UQ5


PADER and Delta Quarries and Disposal signed a Consent Order on November 1,1984 requiring Delta Quarries and Disposal to develop a closure plan forthe landfill. The Delta Quarries landfill ceased operations on February28, 1985. In the summer of 1987, a four-foot cap of soil materials bor-rowed from an area southeast of the site was placed over the landfill aspart of the site closure activities. The cap was vegetated to provideerosion control. Sedimentation control was provided by utilizing intercep-tor berms, rock-lined channels, and sedimentation basins.

1.2.2 Previous Investigations

vs?yInvestigations of the ground water quality adjacent to the sit'S have beenconducted since 1979 by both Delta Quarries and^Disposal and PADER. DeltaQuarries and Disposal retained M&E to conduct"%mited ground water andsurface water investigations at the site from Jilne 1979 through March 1985.Sampling locations included: .i. -- -•--?-

?•"%-. • • • ~ - - " - . - . %E f r 5 " " ~ ~" "~~ "^•" ^ ——_-- - _. . g f|-~" ^_^

o Four existing site monitoring wells (Wells 2, 4-79, Mi-Lined, andM2-Area IV) ;*Ov _;

•^ v* -- - ....... . . .__ ---.-•*-

o X&S residential wells (Judy Stotler and Bertha George); and

o Tne FAM Spring which emerges west of the site adjacent to a wet-land.

Sampling locations are indicated on Figure 2." Ground water samples werecollected and analyzed four times a year from June 1979 through March 1985.Samples were analyzed once per year for the PADER list of annual landfillparameters and three times per year for the PADER quarterly list. A sum-mary of both PADER lists is given in Appendix A. PADER obtained splitsamples during various M&E sampling events from 1979 through 1985, as wellas samples from residential wells not included in the Delta Quarries andDisposal monitoring network.

CanomeEnvironmentalflR303l*Q6-

Ffna? Draft ReportNovember 14, 1990Page: 4

M&E conducted ground water investigations at_the site from 1985 through1988. As part of the requirements of the 1984 Consent Order, a revisedmonitoring network was established which included:

o Additional monitoring wells installed in 1985 (Wells 6-85, 7-85,and 8-85);

o Two previously existing monitoring wells (Wells Mi-Lined and M2-Area IV); [

o Two residential wells (Judy Stotler and Bertha Georg$|Y

o The FAM Spring discharge.

•• - • ifV- • - . - - -The revised monitoring network was sampled semi|.-annually from September1985 through September 1988. The JJst of analytical parameters for thesemi-annual sampling is contained f.n;::$ppendix A.

Table 2 summarizes tM'lanalytical results produced during the sampling''•W-"**-.'. r • " ' !'-:•' •• • ™,*.:•--'=~K..:--iC ;-?,- -r $ " <f-f ; ""• *•:";" •? , r j

events of 1979 throug%4t>88. A compilation of all pre-RI/FS data is pre-sented i n Appendix A . . . .

VOCs were?::'detected in two of the four monitoring wells during 1979 through1985 sampling events. Wells Mi-Lined and M2-Area IV contained VOCs atconcentrations ranging from 2 to 180 parts per billion (ppb). No VOCs weredetected in wells 2 and 4-79. PADER detected a low level of 1,1-dichloro-ethane in a split sample obtained from the Judy Stotler well (6 ppb). NoVOCs were detected in the Judy Stotler well sample analyzed by M&E. Amaximum contaminant level (MCL) has not been established for 1,1-dichloro-ethane. VOC concentrations of 1 to 300 ppb were detected in samples of theFAM Spring. The compounds 1,2-trans-dichloroethene, trichloroethene,tetrachloroethene, and vinyl chloride were detected in several of the FAMSpring samples. • -- •

CanonleEnvironmentdlv


PADER detected elevated concentrations of lead in the samples obtained frommonitoring wells Mi-Lined and 4-79 [0.145 parts per million (ppm) and 70.5ppm, respectively]. The corresponding split sample for well Mi-Linedanalyzed by M&E showed less than 0.03 ppm of lead. Another sample fromwell 4-79 showed less than 0.01 ppm of lead. Elevated concentrations ofchromium, copper, and nickel (10, 30, and 10 ppm, respectively) were alsodetected in the sample from well 4-79 analyzed by PADER, It should benoted that the pre-RI/FS data did not undergo formal quality control vali-dation procedures; therefore, the validity of these data cannot be con-firmed. As samples obtained by M&E for wells Ml-Lined and 4^3 did not"£ %•contain elevated levels of inorganic compounds, the validity 8^. the PADERanalysis, in particular for well 4-79, is questionable.

vS^ Z

Analytical results from 1985 through 1988 (sumrl|rized in"Appendix A) indi-cate low levels of VOCs in monitoring wells Mi-Lined, M2-Area IV, 5-79, 6-85, 7-85, and 8-85 (5 to 150 ppb)llSjhe compounds 1,2-dichloroethene,f.-*'"%* -- ^— - --trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene>: and methylene chloride were detected inwells M2-Area IV and 8-.S5. Vinyl chloride was also detected in well 8-85

-.-*, K ' •- ~ ' ""

at concentrations of %4' and 32 ppb in 1988. The compounds 1,1-dichloro-"c •'

ethene and 1,1-dichlor'oethane were also detected in Well M2-Area IV. From1983 tp i9§8, the following VOCs were detected in Well Mi-Lined: Chloro-ethane; !^!-dichToroethene; 1,1-dichloroethane; 1,1,1-trichloroethane;trichloroethene; tetrachloroethene; methylene chloride; and benzene.

A low concentration (8 ppb) of methylene chloride was detected in Well 5-79during one sampling event in 1988. Low levels (6 to 150 ppb) of chloro-ethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, and ethyl benzene wereidentified in Well 7-85 from 1985 through 1988. Low levels (6 to 42 ppb)of the following compounds were detected in Well 6-85 from 1985 through1988: 1,1-dichloroethane; 1,2-dichloroethene; 1,1,1-trichloroethane;trichloroethene; methylene chloride; d-ichlorofluoromethane; ethyl benzene;and phenol.

CanonieEnvirpninentalAR3031;


Methylene chloride was the only VOC detected in residential wells (JudyStotler, George, and Conner wells) from 1985 through 1987. The presence ofmethylene chloride is likely attributed to laboratory contamination. As nodata validation was performed on the pre-RI/FS data, the validity of themethylene chloride detections cannot be determined.

In the 1985 through 1988 sampling events, six VOCs were detected in FAMSpring (1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene. 1,1,1-trichloroethane,trichloroethene, tetraQhloroethene, and methylene chloride) in concentra-tions ranging from 7 ppb to 165 ppb. In the same period, five VOCs weredetected at the western wetland outlet culvert (1,2-dichlorc^hane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and methylene chlo-ride) in concentrations ranging from 8 ppb to 32 ppb. Five compounds werecollected at the West Flow (l,l-dichloroethan.e|f^l,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and tetrachlo^oethene) in concentrationsranging from 12 ppb to 32 ppb. In.,addition, five VOCs were detected insamples taken from six seeps (1,1-p^loroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene,1,1,1-trichloroethane. trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene) in con-centrations ranging J:r n 5.3 ppb to 650 ppb. The si_x_seeps sampled priorto the RI/FS did not %?-5t during the RI/FS sampling due to the effect ofthe clay cap placed on the landfijl. Prior to 1985, benzene was detectedin FAM :S|rl:fig at 95 ppb, but has not >eeri detected since that time.

& ?'" • ' ' - • , : . . . . - - . ~ . - . - • • - • • - - • i - ^ _ -~ „,. " ,^' " -_,.-_- : =, - ••• - . . . - - . - • • * ' . * - - - •

In general, the same chemical compounds were consistently detected overtime in wells Mi-Lined, M2-Area IV, and in the FAM Spring. Concentrationsof the detected VOCs in wells Mi-Lined and M2-Area IV were plotted versustime, and are presented in Appendix A. Overall the concentrations ofindividual volatile compounds have decreased with time in both wells.Trends regarding wells 6-85, 7-85, and 8-85 cannot be determined from theprevious investigation results as they were sampled only once prior to theRI.

CanomeEnvironmental.:- AR303U09


1.3 Report Organization

This section describes the organization of the remainder of the RI Report.

A general description of the site investigation activities is described inSection 2. This section describes how the data on the physical charac-teristics of the site were collected.

Physical characteristics of the study area are described in Section 3.Meteorology, surface water hydrology, geology, and the hydrogeology of thesite are described, f^

The nature and extent of contamination in study area media as determined bylaboratory analysis is presented in Section 4- The presence of chemicalcompounds and their physical extent in site med'S-a are discussed.

Ground water flow and transport mo|et.i-ng exercise was conducted and ispresented in Section 5. Model calibration to ground water elevations andmeasured concentrati^/fj^are presented. The results of sensitivity analysesare presented along wf$if"a discussion of model uncertainty. Conclusionsare drawnjregarding the transport of potential contaminants from the land-fill

A summary of the baseline risk assessment for potential impacts to bothhuman health and the environment is presented in Section 6.

A summary of the investigation results and report conclusions, includingdata limitations, recommendations for future work, and recommended remedialaction objectives is presented in Section 7.

Canonie


2.0 STUDY AREA INVESTIGATION

The purpose of the RI is to provide available information and technicaldata with respect to potential chemical compounds within the study areanecessary to define appropriate remedial actions, if any, for the site.This section describes the investigative activities and methods conductedduring the RI. All activities were performed according to the proceduresspecified in the approved Work Plan (May 1988), RISOP (August 1988), HASP(August 1988), and QAPP (August 1988), and were coordinated with U.S. EPAoversight personnel.

..-**%The study area investigated during the RI encompassed the Del &Quarriesand Disposal landfill, adjacent residential dwellings and wetland areas,and portions of the Little Juniata River, as jcified in the approved WorkPlan. ;i*. ' .

For the purposes of this report, fb-^rmation collected with respect to thestudy area has been categorized as*'follows:

o Surface featu' el"; "" "'""'""

o*%ofearninant spurces; _.>•>" : - .

o Meteorology; -_- ;

o Surface water hydrology;

o Geology; •

o Soils;

o Hydrogeology;

Canonie E


o Demography and land use; and

o Ecology.

RI activities performed and the methods used to collect the informationspecified in the Work Plan are detailed in the following subsections.

2.1 Surface Features

The surface features of the study area were defined by performing thefollowing tasks: f\

%!*

o Review of topographic maps of the area from 1963 and 1972 andhistorical aerial photographs of the £|ea from 1962, 1972, and1977; V "^ '

o Site reconnaissance to idelt'Wy site features andjsurroundingfacility operations;

o Field survey otf property boundaries and RI sampling locations;

*£*% — -o delineation and study of the wetland areas.

The resulting surface feature information is presented in Section 3.1.

The review of aerial photographs and topographic maps was performed toidentify information pertaining to general site location and historicalsurface features. The site reconnaissance provided more detailed informa-tion pertaining to site features (ie, site drainage features) as well assurrounding land use.

CanonleEnvironmentalfiR3Q3lil2


Byers and Runyan Inc., Pennsylvania State licensed surveyors, surveyed theDelta Site in November 1988 and September 1989 to establish property owner-ship and boundaries. All sampling locations used during the RI were alsosurveyed and subsequently located on the site base map as specified in theWork Plan. Temporary bench marks were established and tied into existingUnited States Geological Survey (USGS) datum for elevation determinations.The site topographic base map was prepared by TaHamay. Van Kuren, Gertisand Associates (TVG&A), using the September 1985 aerial photograph. Thebase map was prepared with a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet and 5-foot contourintervals.

Wetland areas to the southwest and northeast of the landfill %re deline-ated by Lancy Environmental Services Co. (Lancy) as described in Section2.9. . .

"V-..<•' *2.2 Contaminant Source Investigation

"''•!• ":;.,'~ :

To identify and help quantify the potential sources in the study area, thefollowing tasks were ..performed: _ .

o Identified adjacent operations that could be potential sources ofsubstances; ....... ,-. -

o Reviewed U.S. EPA and PADER files concerning the types and quan-tities of materials disposed at the site;

o Reviewed historic topographic maps;

o Discussed previous landfilling operations with present and formersite owners and nearby residents;

o Performed a geophysical survey on-site.

CanomeEnvironmentalflR3Q3U3


Performance of the above tasks provided information pertaining to potentiallocal sources of contaminants and the types and quantity of wastes land-filled on-site. The results of these investigations are contained inSection 4.1.

During the site reconnaissance, operating facilities adjacent to the sitewhich could potentially act as sources of contaminants were identified.The nature of these adjacent operations is discussed in Section 4.1.

The U.S. EPA and PADER files were reviewed in attempt to quantify the typesof materials disposed at the site. Landfilling operations were also dis-cussed with previous owners and operators as well as nearby-^sidents.

'%-••

The areal and vertical extent of landfilling activities on-site was es-timated based on the results of several tasks-iC^The topographic map of thesite was used to originally approximate the areVl extent"of the landfill.Reports from neighboring residential so aided in .approximating the landfillboundary. The geophysical survey %aVPerf°rnied to confirm the landfillboundary in the areas where it had'^been well defined, and to delineate theboundary in the areasf' here the edge of the landfill was still uncertain."%r'V - ^- :

>v'A geophysical survey was conducted October 3 through 5, 1988. A Geonics

.•e s*EM-34XLx as|used to conduct the electromagnetic induction survey traverses.The initi-tf survey was conducted at the northwest corner of the landfill inan area where the approximate lateral extent of waste was known. Thisinitial survey acted as a background profile and was used as a controldevice. Additional conductivity traverses were conducted at the southwestcorner of the landfill in an area where the limit of waste was uncertain.Due to the probable interference by power lines, fence posts, and vehiclesparked in Judy Stotler's side yard, the EM-34XL could not be used to definethe questionable area of waste disposal at the southeast side of the land-fill. The limit of waste in this area was closely approximated based onthe review of historical data and discussions with Judy Stotler. Traverselines are indicated on Figure 3.

Canonie


The vertical extent of waste disposal throughout the Delta Landfill wasapproximated by comparing original topographic contours of the site from1963 (ie, prior to the beginning of landfill) with the most recent topo-graphic map (1985). These two sets of contours were overlaid, and thethickness of waste was calculated (Appendix B).

Using both the lateral and vertical extent of waste calculations, an es-timate of the total volume of waste was derived (Appendix B). Calculationsof waste thickness and total volume are necessary when evaluating remedialalternatives in the FS.

2.3 Meteorological Investigation . . . . . . .... „ ., ...... , * \,

To investigate the regional climate and site a.M quality, available meteor-ological information was reviewed, and a soil ||s survey was performed at69 locations on-site. A determination of the nature and relative con-centration of gases emanating frortftbe landfill, their extent of migration,^ * V - • - i - - . -and potential migration pathway wa^tnus made. Information pertaining toregional climate is contained in Section. 3.2. Results of the soil gassurvey are presented'^f^ection 4.5. _:, . _, ¥ . .

The soi -g i survey w|s conducted on October 5, 6, and 11 through 15, 1988.Two off-Ill!-! locations, were initially sampled to obtain representativebackground levels. The soil gas survey was performed along both a transectemanating from the approximate center of the landfill as well as along thecircumference of the landfill. The initial transect was located through anarea where a site air characterization in February 1988 indicated percent-age levels of methane. The spacing along the transect was at 200 footintervals from the approximate center. of the landfill along the transectline, to within 100 feet of the landfill cover limit. At this point, thesurvey points were spaced at 50 foot intervals to 100 feet beyond thelandfill cover limit. Forty-nine soil gas survey points were located atabout 200 foot spacings along the landfill circumference at an estimated100 feet beyond the limit of waste. All sampling locations are indicatedon Figure 3.

Canonie


A slam bar/organic vapor analyzer (OVA) technique was used to conduct thesoil gas survey. The slam bar was driven into the soil at each monitoringlocation to a depth of about two to three feet or to maximum penetration.When the slam bar was withdrawn, the free-end of a Teflon sampling tube wasinserted in the resultant hole. The soil gas flowed freely to a FoxboroOVA Flame lonization Detector (FID) equipped with a gas chromatography (GC)column (OVA with GC) which can detect and identify VOCs. A Mine SafetyAppliance (MSA) Gastector was used to evaluate the percent Lower ExplosiveLimit (LEL) and percent oxygen.

The duration of each sample collection was approximately three to fiveminutes with a minimum soil gas flow rate of 1 mL/min. All tidings were\recorded in the field log book. Each OVA reading at each slam-ftar locationwas depicted on a hard copy GC strip chart. When sampling was complete,the sample tubes were removed from the locatiotQind cleaned of any debris,and the unit was purged with ambient air. V -

• "

Surface water and sedfm'lnt samples were obtained from the study area to"%•••%. -----evaluate the potential rifpacts of chemical compound migration via surfacewater andjfche potential effects of such compounds on off-site receptors.Thirteerf%unface water and 15 sediment samples were obtained from 15 loca-. - ~ - •tions in trie study area in November 1988. All samples were analyzed forthe full organics Target Compound List (TCL) and inorganics Target AnalyteList (TAL). A complete listing of compounds included on the TCL and TALare included in Appendix C, Surface water and sediment analytical resultsare presented in Section 4.4.

All surface water and sediment sampling locations are indicated on Figure4. Table 3 lists the rationale for all sampling locations. Both a surfacewater and sediment sample were collected from each location when possible.There were three locations (SW/SED 9, 10, and 11) where surface water didnot exist at the time of sampling; therefore, only sediment samples weretaken at these locations. Surface water sample SW-16 was collected fromthe same location as SW-15, as a duplicate.

CanonieEnvircnmentalftR3Q3l*!6

Fina? Draft ReportNovember 14, 1990Page: 14

Each surface water and sediment sample was collected using a decontaminatedstainless steel cup, an aluminum foil pan, and when necessary, a stainlesssteel spoon. The composite core sample from the eastern wetlands wascomprised of depth intervals of 0 to 6, 6 to 12, and 12 to 18 inches begin-ning below any recent cover sediment.

In the field, all surface water samples were analyzed for pH, Eh, specificconductance, dissolved oxygen, and temperature (Appendix F). In thelaboratory, surface water samples were also analyzed for hardness andalkalinity, BOD, COD, total solids, dissolved solids, ammonia nitrogen, andnitrate nitrogen. Sediment samples were analyzed for grain $fle, percentmoisture, total organic carbon, Eh, and pH. $*

2.5 Geology - - - *C?>>*

To define the geology at the site,...the following activities were performed:|..3y • ... ••:;*: ==-:==-V-- '

o Consulted published literature on the regional geology;

o Collected and\eBorded site boring logs;

o : e forrned dowqhole geophysics on four selected wells;\-Jf?' • - i : :L >r " ; """f-'

o Produced geological cross-section maps for the site; and

o Performed pump and slug tests on site monitoring wells.

Results of the above investigation are presented in Section 3.4.

Regional geologic information obtained from the Pennsylvania GeologicalSurvey (PAGS) was reviewed and compared with the site geological .informa-tion contained on the boring logs.

CanomeEnvironmentalL RR303UI7


Objectives of the borehole geophysical logging were to compare the geo-physical logs against the boring logs produced during drilling to determineand confirm correlations between lithologic changes, water-bearing zones,and drilling conditions. Zones of ground water movement and thus potentialzones of ground water contamination were assessed.

In August 1989, the downhole geophysical logging of borings 11-88, 15A-88,13-88, and 19-88 was performed. The following geophysical logs were run:gamma-ray, caliper. density, neutron, and resistivity. The temperature logmalfunctioned in the field and was thus dropped from the

A scintillometer, a device containing a sodium iodide detector, was used toperform the natural gamma ray logging. The doctor counts _pulses as-sociated with the natural radioactivity of rocfe and can thus aid in dif-ferentiating lithologies. The cajjper logging device was used to measurethe physical diameter and the com i cy of the borehole. The caliper canidentify zones in which borehole ctving has occurred. The resistivity toolwas used to determiae^he top of water elevation in a borehole. The den-•%$•*%.sity and neutron logs'^etect material density changes and moisture proper-ties which can be used to calculate porosity.

-' "2.6 SolFlnvestigation

2.6,1 Surface Soil Sampling

Seven surface soil samples were obtained from the study area in October1988. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the presence andextent of chemical compounds related to the landfill. In January 1990, anadditional soil sample was collected from beneath the site decontaminationpad to determine the impact of field investigation decontaminationactivities on the subsoils. All samples were analyzed for the full TCL andTAL, and results are presented in Section 4.2.

CanomeEnvironmental


Surface soil sample locations are indicated on Figure 3. Table 4 presentsthe rationale behind the sample locations. Samples were obtained fromformer seepage areas and from drainage swales at the site. One sample ofthe landfill cover soil was collected (SS-2) even though this soil origi-nated from the borrow area southeast of the landfill and was not consideredto be affected by the landfill. As a control device, a background soilsample (SS-1) was collected from an undisturbed area adjacent to a borrowpit on the southeast side of the landfill., Sample SS-7, taken from thesouthwest corner of the landfill where a seep exists, was added to theoriginal scope of work during the field investigation with t|Hf:'Verbalapproval of the U.S. EPA oversight contractor. V

Each sample was collected by hand-augering to^depth of 18 inches, wherepossible. HNu photoionization meter readings tffse taken from each augerhole to detect the presence of volatile organics.

|<V :v: - f- ; ' ; •" - . '2.6.2 In-situ Permeability Tests & """ r

In-situ permeability lf?ts were conducted at 12 locations on the landfillcover from October 24,"1988 to November 2, 1988. The purpose of the per-meabilit$^fe|sts was to determine the cap integrity. The permeability testlocations'l e indicated on Figure 3. Test results are discussed in Section3.5.

At each test location, the upper six inches of soil and vegetation wereremoved using a post-hole digger, A three-inch ID Shelby tube was driveninto the soil cover at each location to a depth of 6 to 12 inches. TheShelby tube and surrounding soil was filled and saturated with water, Afive-foot tube with a one-inch ID was connected to the Shelby tube andbraced. The calibrated tube was filled with water and the drop in thewater level was measured for 30 to 60 minutes using the transducer and datalogger. Cap permeability could thus be derived from the transducer output.Permeability tests were attempted from the southern portion of the site;however, the test methods caused the disturbance of course fragments at theselected test locations. and each attempt failed.

CanonieEnvir 9


2.7 Ground Water Investigation

The following activities were performed as part of the ground water inves-tigation at the site:

o Installed 14 additional monitoring wells in the study area;

o Conducted an inventory of all residential wells in the vicinity ofthe Delta Site;

o Obtained ground water samples from 19 monitoring wel-f^and 16residential wells; &*

o Obtained four rounds of water level measurements from site, monitor-i n g wells. V . - . _ . .

«$k - - --..-- - ^r '- -'- ----- -•-- -The objectives of the ground water|l%estigation at the Delta Site were to:

o Define the gpjrtftid water flow conditions at the site, which includes~ *\ - - - :the rates and 'f.-ifections of ground water flow; and

„&&%%. '"' --.- :

o *%f|ne the ground water quality as it may relate to the Delta Site.•sg. .f •-" " ... ' - -. -&*

Site hydrogeologic conditions are discussed in Section 3.6. The nature andextent of chemical compounds in site ground water is discussed in Section4.3.

2.7.1 Monitoring Well Installation

A total of 14 additional monitoring wells were installed in the study areaduring the RI. All wells installed during the RI are labelled with theextension "-88", as specified in the Work Plan. Well locations are indi-cated on Figure 2. The rationale for the new monitoring well locations issummarized in Table 5.

CanomeEnvironmental6R303U20


Table 6 summarizes the well construction details for each of the monitoringwells sampled during the RI, which included 5 pre-existing monitoring wells(Mi-Lined, M2-Area IV, 6-85, 7-85, and 8-85) and the 14 newly installedmonitoring wells. Drilling logs from the five pre-Rl/FS monitoring wellsand from the newly-installed monitoring wells are contained in Appendix D.Long screen/open borehole intervals were required for the site, due to theassumed low yielding aquifer conditions. All site monitoring wells wereinstalled with screen/open borehole intervals in accordance with theapproved Work Plan.

Existing monitoring wells 6-85 and 8-85 were retrofitted. AJ.#o-inchstainless steel casing was inserted in well 6-T85 with a slottl^ screen from105 feet to 175 feet. Monitoring well 6-85 was gravel-packed to 102 feet.The remainder of the boring was sealed with a £g/r,ent-bentonite grout.

%r-2.7.2 Residential Well Inventory

*f\. ^ - -"-::"~ r": f '--.- - ' '

All residential wells in the vicinft/'bf the Delta Site were inventoriedduring the RI. The purpose of the well inventory was to obtain backgroundinformation pertinen^l&^the hydrogeologic investigation, such as welldepth, construction, aftd usage. A list of wells included in the inventoryis pres|.n-Hd in Table., 7,__and the wells are located on Figure 2. Wellinventor^jSrms were completed for each well and are included in AppendixE. Note that the Gilbert well is now referred to as the Ulrich well due toa change in ownership.

2.7.3 Water Level Measurements . . :

Four rounds of water level measurements in site monitoring wells and selec-ted residential wells were obtained during the RI. The purpose of obtain-ing the water level measurements was to determine the water table con-figuration and the direction of ground water flow. The data was used tocharacterize the seasonal variations in ground water discharge from theDelta Site. Results of the water level measurement task are discussed inSection 3.6.



Water levels were measured and recorded during August 21, August 26, andSeptember 17, 1989, and January 18, 1990 using an electric water levelindicator. The discharge from the FAM Spring, West Flow and wetlandsculvert outlet were also measured. Weirs were established at each of thesethree locations by M&E in November 1988. Pool elevations above the weirnotch were recorded at the time of water level monitoring.

2.7.4 Ground Water Sampling

In August and September 1989, ground water samples from 19 monitoring wellsand 16 residential wells were collected. The sampling objective was toassess the quality of the ground water in the study area and dltermine ifdetected chemical compounds could be related to the landfill operations.All samples were sent to the Canonie Laborato^j'in Stockton, California andanalyzed using Contract Laboratory Program (CLI%:- protocols for the TCL andTAL. Sampling results are presenj:|d in Section 4.3.% *%•„ . ^_ " . -

°jv- - — - - -^-

2,7.4.1 Monitoring Well Sampling Procedures

As specified in the R^iOP, a minimum of three well volumes were purged fromeach monitoring well before the samples were collected. The six-inch wellsg**3* , - iwith depths| greater than 100 feet were purged with a dedicated four-inchstainlessPsteel Grundfos submersible pump. Dedicated Watterra samp'lingpumps located within the newly installed wells were used to sample thewells. During purging, field measurements for specific conductance, tem-perature, pH, and Eh were taken (data is provided in Appendix F). Samplesfrom each monitoring well were collected for TCL and TAL analysis. One TALsample was filtered using a 0.45 micron disposal Nalgene filter beforepreservation.

2.7.4.2 Residential Well Sampling Procedures

The residential well sampling point was selected such that the sample wascollected prior to passing through any water treatment process, if pos-sible. If the residential well was- accessible, the total well depth,

CanomeEnvironmental


static water level, and casing diameter were measured and noted in thefield log book. Prior to residential well sample collection, the valve wasopened and the system purged for at least five minutes before the samplewas collected. Residential well water samples were field analyzed for pH,temperature, specific conductance, and Eh (data is provided in Appendix F).Samples from each residential well were collected for TCL and TAL analysis.Two samples were collected from each resident for TAL analysis. One samplewas filtered through a 0.45 micron disposal Nalgene filter prior to preser-vation, and the second sample was unfiltered yet preserved.

2.7.5 Aquifer Testing : ..,<. - - - - • : - . . < \ -

To better define the site hydrogeology, pump tests were performed on fivemonitoring wells and slug tests were performed.^' 18 monitoring wells. Thepurpose of these tests was to estimate the aqu' er transmissivity andporosity. The hydrogeologic assessment of the site is presented in Section3.6.

In September of 1989,^slug tests were performed on 18 of the site monitor-ing wells. The slug esjs involved either adding.or._r<?moving a slug cylin-der with a known volurm-T into the well, causing an instantaneous rise ordrop in^-h^ well water level. Some, difficulty was encountered in. achievingrises or^jpops in the water table when using the slug test method outlinedin the RISOP. The RISOP called for the use of a data logger and trans-ducers both during injection and withdrawal of the slug cylinder. Themethod was modified to bailing which produced a greater drawdown of waterin the monitoring wells. Results of the slug tests, which are discussed inSection 3.6, were obtained using bailing techniques only.

Pump tests were performed on monitoring wells 11-88, 13-88, Mi-Lined, 19-88, and 8-85. The wells were pumped with dedicated submersible pumps at arate of approximately two to nine gallons per minute (gpm). The wells werepumped for approximately 60 minutes each. This pump test procedure hadbeen used on six of the existing wells previously by M&E. Results of thepump test are discussed in Section 3.6.

Canoni


2.8 Demography and Land Use

As part of the demographics and land use investigation, the following taskswere performed:

o Performed a site reconnaissance;

o Reviewed the "City of Altoona - Blair County Community Profile andStatistical Data Report".

The purpose of this investigation was to identify, enumerattf^and charac-terize the human population potentially exposed to any site-reVated chemi-cal compounds. Results of the investigation are presented in Section 3.7.

.rf* "7- "\# -

2.9 Ecological Investigation V - -

The site ecological investigation |sk 16,~Aquatic and Terrestrial LifeStudies and Wetlands Investigation) consisted of the following tasks:

,•.&•*& ~ 5T ~~f - \ j - . _ _ , _ .%••%, •--- - -li -

o Delineated th4-Boundaries of the wetlands east and west of thelandfill (Phase I);

" ~ " - T=- "

o Identified plant and animal life in the wetland areas and iden-tified any stress on this life which might be due to site-relatedchemical compounds (Phase I);

o Collected and preserved benthic organisms for possible futureprocessing and evaluation; and

o Reviewed surface water and sediment data collected for impact onaquatic and terrestrial life forms (Phase II).

CanonieEnvironmentalAR3031.21.

Final Draft ReportNovember 14, 1990Page: 22 .

The objectives of Phases I and II of the aquatic and terrestrial life studywere to delineate the wetland areas adjacent to the site and to determinethe potential impacts that the landfill might have on aquatic and ter-restrial life forms. The Phase I and II tasks were performed in October,1988 and August 1989, and the results are presented in Section 3.8.

Benthic organism samples, currently in the custody of Lancy, were collectedout of the sequence outlined in the Work Plan. Since the weir installationactivities described in Section 2.7.2 would destroy the only suitablehabitat available for benthic organisms, the samples were coveted out ofphase and preserved in the event that analysis is required in ijjje future.The need for future aquatic and terrestrial life studies will be determinedby the U.S. EPA based on the results of the Ph|.s« I and II studies.

2.10 Documentation of Variations from Work Plan

During the monitoring well installation, various drilling problems as-sociated with flowing .:s|nd conditions were en_CQuntered. Therefore, acombination of air rofe| &.drill ing and hollow-stem augers was used wheninstalling wells 9-88, iO-88, and 22-88. The main drilling method used wasair rota#y?%.as specified in the RISOP. Hollow-stem augers were used to"% ^ i " ~ """ ""; -i.--" "drill to '|h:e:' bedrock interface only. This procedure is consistent withstandard drilling practices as well as the objective of the RISOP. Monito-ring well 19-88 was installed using air rotary drilling only.

Monitoring wells were sealed using a cement-bentonite mixture approximatelytwo to three percent bentonite by weight, and were developed by air surg-ing. Centralizers were not used as specified in the RISOP with the two-inch well casings because of inherent problems with bridging of sand packmaterials and the bentonite seal. A.n equivalent result was achieved bykeeping the casing centered using the drill rig to support the two-inchcasing in the boring from resting under its own weight. The casing wasmaintained in the center of the boring during placement of the sand packand bentonite seal.

CanoiueEnyirQomental2b


Procedures for handling drill cuttings, decontamination water, and waterfrom the monitoring wells were modified in the field based on a combinationof equipment difficulties and actual conditions monitored by air qualityinstruments. The truck provided to collect water from the drilling opera-tions was found to have several leaks which could not be readily repaired.At the same time, readings of air quality in the well borings did notindicate the presence of volatile organics or deviations in oxygen/lowerexplosive limit levels. Based on these field conditions, the materialsfrom the well borings were not transported back to the decontamination pad.

Canonie was unable to obtain field measurements of temperature^ pH, andspecific conductance during the installation of well 19-88 duetto a lack ofwater flowing into the boring. The field geologist did not obtain fieldmeasurements during drilling for the temperature', pH, and specific conduc-'.$$?' — — — — - - -tance for wells 9-88, 20-88, and 22-88. Field leadings of these parameterswere taken during subsequent ground water purging, sampling, and monitoring

•=!%. -j . :.events. \- ?.- - ~ .—.-.. . - .-.-• ;*. ~-.**"

The U.S. EPA noted i^ttieir field audit of August 1989 that monitoringV*%wells were left unsecured overnight. Canonie is not aware of such an

instance. The standard field procedure was to lock the well caps whenfield adC.iv|ties were completed at that location or at the end of the dayif the loeftion was to be revisited. At no time during the August fieldactivities did Canonie observe any tampering with the well caps and,therefore, would not anticipate any problem had this condition temporarilyoccurred.

Also during the field audit, it was noted that disposable sampling equip-ment was not being handled as required by the RISOP. RISOP proceduresspecify that all disposable sampling equipment was to be double-bagged andleft on-site. The used sampling equipment generated at each well consistedof a 6-mil sheet of plastic (approximately 3 feet by 5 feet), three pairsof latex surgical gloves, and a disposable Nalgene water sample filter.

Canonie.EAvirnnmental(303U26


The used sampling equipment from 22 of the 35 wells sampled were placed insmall plastic trash bags, transported off-site by the ground water samplingsubcontractor, and placed in a sanitary waste dumpster in State College,Pennsylvania. Immediately after being notified of the deficiency by thefield auditor, this practice was discontinued. The materials from theremaining 13 wells were double-bagged and left on-site as required by theRISOP.

While the off-site disposal of the used sampling equipment did not complywith the RISOP, the potential impacts from this mishandling are minimal.The combined volume of the 22 small plastic trash bags contaig-^ng usedsampling materials is extremely small. Furthermore, the onlji'potentialcontamination on used sampling materials would be due to exposure to siteground water. The analytical results of ground.,, ter samples shows that noPCS, pesticide, or semi-volatile compounds werlf'fencountered, and only lowconcentrations (<160 ppb) of some VOCs were found in three of the wellswhere used sampling equipment was':fi.|posed of off-site. In the unlikelyevent that VOCs would have been refaiffed on the used sampling materials,they would most likel^Jiave volatilized at ambient temperatures. There-fore, it is extremely ft|jkely that any negative impacts resulted fromdisposal of these materials off-site.

Canoni


3.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA

3.1 Surface Features

The Delta Quarries and Disposal Site comprises an approximately 137 acreparcel of property located about 2 miles north of Altoona, Pennsylvania and1 mile south of Pinecroft, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The landfill itselfcomprises approximately 57 acres of the property. The landfill is borderedto the west by Sixth Avenue and to the east by Sandy Bank Road (Figure 2).Property boundaries were established during the field survey of the siteand are indicated on Figure 5. The area is rural in nature .jtffth someresidential dwellings within 35 feet of the landfill boundary.\,,Theseresidences are trailer homes that are sporadically located in the studyarea. No parks, recreation areas, wildlife rouges, historic and/or'%->* - -archeological sites, or wild and scenic rivers %£e located on or adjacentto the site.

.The Little Ouniata River, which fldVrs northeasterly, lies approximatelyone-quarter mile west.,.0_f the site. The Little Juniata watershed extends

*% j£ " : - - - - : .=over 343 square mileslf^he City of Altoona Sewage Treatment Plant and a&*privately owned solid waste transfer station are located approximately 750feet wes|T&f the southern portion of the site. Three junkyard operations% ?are also sfeated to the west of the site.

Sandy Run originates in the northeast corner of the City of Altoona. SandyRun flows parallel to the Little Juniata River, creating a drainage divideoff the northeast edge of the landfill. Approximately 50 percent of thelandfill surface area drains toward Sandy Run. Sandy Run flows for 4.6miles before joining the Little Juniata River approximately 1 mile down-stream of the landfill. The Sandy Run watershed is 8.64 square miles.

The Delta Quarries and Disposal landfill is situated on a hillside sur-rounded by areas of relatively high relief. Prior to initiation of land-fill activities the property was characterized as a natural depression.The landfill elevations presently range from a low of 1,175 feet in the



northeast section to a high of 1,290 feet in the center. To the east, thetopography drops off to the Sandy Run before rising rapidly to the BrushMountain Range with elevations over 2,000 feet. The topography undergoes asteep transition at the western edge of the landfill, dropping off to SixthAvenue before reaching the Little Juniata River floodplain elevation ofapproximately 1,080 feet.

Wetland areas exist to the southwest and northeast of the landfill. Theseareas were delineated as described in Section 2.9, and are indicated onFigure 4. ' :

.-•sf*

During the site closure activities in the summer of 1987, a folr-foot capof soil borrowed from an area southeast of the landfill was placed over thelandfill. The cap was revegetated, erosion cogtVols were implemented, andsedimentation basins were established. These closure activities werecompleted in accordance with the P^DER-approved Closure Plan dated March

3.2 Regional Climate.-^ ; "•- ••- - /"r:

The regional climate in the vicinity of the Delta Quarries Site is charac-ter ized^ylgi Id winters, moderate temperature range, and moderate precipi-tation. Itfe average annual precipitation, including rain and snow, isapproximately 36.2 inches, as water. The average annual evaporation rateis approximately 16 inches, as water. The average annual snow fall inPittsburgh, located 70 miles to the west, is 43.8 inches, as snow. Prevailing winds are from the west southwest during the summer, shifting to thenorthwest during the winter. A wind rose for the Pittsburgh area and asummary of climatic data for the area is presented in Appendix G.

3.3 Surface Water Hydrology .

The Delta Site lies entirely in the Little Juniata River watershed whichdrains ultimately into the Susquehanna River basin. The Little JuniataRiver headwaters begin in the northwest corner of Altoona and flow in anortheasterly direction 'along the eastern edge of the Conrail railroad

ental


tracks. The Little Juniata River bends to the southeast along the Blair -Huntingdon County line and eventually joins with the main Juniata River.The mean annual discharge of the Little Juniata River is measured at 372cubic feet per second (cfs) at the nearest USGS gauging station in SpruceCreek, Pennsylvania. The Little Juniata watershed is approximately 343square miles.

All site runoff except that in the northeast section flows directly towardthe Little Juniata River. Runoff from the northeast quadrant of the land-fill flows northeast to Gilbert Pond, which feeds an intermittent unnamedtributary and ultimately to Sandy Run. Sandy Run originates in the north-east area of Altoona and flows northeasterly for 4.6 miles t fbre joiningthe Little Juniata River at the Borough of Pinecroft. Sandy Rim has anestimated mean annual flow of 15 cfs, and a watershed of 8,64 square miles.

There are three surface discharges from ground'^ater in the immediate sitevicinity; FAM Spring, West Flow, and East Flow. FAM Spring is a limestone

»>$%*. - — _ - - " -

spring which emerges to the southw|!-:t of the landfill near 6th Avenue. FAMSpring flows northwest toward a wetland area adjacent to the Altoona SewageTreatment Plan. A w&ft&was installed to measure this discharge flow rate;

%.£*% . --"calculations are incited in Appendix H. Flows ranging from 0.4 to 70 gpmwere measured with the majority of flows from 10 to 45 gpm.

The West Mow emerges at the toe of the Delta Quarries ancf Disposal land-fill and flows through a culvert under 6th Avenue. The West Flow continuesin a westerly direction until it reaches the wetland area adjacent to thecity of Altoona Sewage Treatment Plant. Flows ranging from 0.8 to 24 gpmwere measured using a weir, with most flows in the range of 1 to 13 gpm(Appendix H).

The East Flow originates in a sedimentation basin at the northeast cornerof the landfill, and flows eastward to the wetland area culvert under SandBank Road, feeding a small, unnamed tributary to Sandy Run. This tributarydrains into Gilbert Pond and eventually flows into Sandy Run. Flows rang-ing from 0 to 63 gpm were recorded (Appendix H). Flows are highlydependent on surface water runoff from heavy rains and snow melt.

CanonieEnvirqimeniRlAR303U3LT


The Delta Quarries and Disposal landfill underwent significant changes inthe fall of 1987 when a PADER-approved site closure plan was implemented.The plan incorporated the regrading and capping of the landfill area withborrow material, as well as a series of diversion ditches, drainage chan-nels, and sedimentation basins. This plan apparently had the most impacton the East Flow, essentially limiting it to only high precipitation eventsonly.

3.4 Geology I

The Delta Quarries and Disposal landfill is situated on the Intern edge ofthe Appalachian Mountain Province. The Appalachians are a series ofthrust-faulted sedimentary wedges originating lathe Carboniferous age. A' ,•?$' * • • • - ^PAGS study of the Altoona area has provided reffonal subsurface geologicalmapping. Detailed lithologic logs for the site monitoring wells (AppendixD) were used in conjunction with.tfe,.. PAGS data^to construct several geolo-gic cross-sections through the landfill. ... \

. .As shown on Figure 6 i'%t=h| landfill is situated along a central anticlinerunning north and soutftT" the core of"this"Tntic1ine is comprised of theTonolowa^-fgrmation, a Silurian age formation qomposed of medium gray,thinly bl ld to massive limestone. It is believed that the Tpnolowaylimestone underlies the entire Delta Site to great depths.

The Tonoloway is bounded on either side by synclinal structures composed ofthe Keyser and Old Port formations. The Keyser is a Silurian-Devonianformation composed of limestone. The upper section is interbedded withshale, and the basal section contains nodular and cherty limestone. TheOld Port formation is composed of an upper member, Ridgeley sandstone, anda lower member, Shriver shale. The Ridgeley sandstone is a fine-grainedsandstone with silty siltstone. The Shriver shale is a massive calcareousdark gray shale.

CanomeEnvironmental: flR303U3l


The profiles (Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10), drawn perpendicular to the piezo-metric surface, denote almost vertical bedding planes in the vicinity ofthe landfill. The top of competent rock is generally 20 to 30 feet belowthe ground surface, but is very shallow along the northwestern edge of thelandfill (wells 6-85, 7-85, and Mi-Lined). Additionally, some wells lo-cated in the Old Port formation indicate that soft or weathered materialsexist to depths of 75 feet or more at wells 14-88 and 22-88, and correspondto reported difficulties in completing these wells due to "flowing sand/silt" conditions. Well 7-85 was found to be plugged at a depth of 101 feetin August 1989, possibly as a result of these conditions.

f*?To supplement the lithological logs, geophysical logging was performed onfour wells; 11-88, 13-88, 15A-88, and 19-88, as described in Section 2.5.Wells 13-88 and 19-88 are located in the centr||-anticline (Tonolowaylimestone), well 11-88 is in the western synclirfe (Old Port formation), andwell 15A-88 is in the eastern syncope (Old Port formation). The followinggeophysical well logs were used: l ffeTa ray, caliper, density, neutron, andresistivity.

.The geophysical log fo^'boring 11-88 confirms the reported lithologic log.Of interej 1s the_interval from 64-72 feet, which has a gamma ray profile

¥ ^ f " ^ - : - , - - -

indicative 0f shale. The caliper log shows several small fracture zones\ff ----.which may "be associated with highly fractured rock. These are also con-firmed by the density log. Those intervals with fractures are 32, 34, 43,54, 68, 70, 72, and 75-77 feet. Depth of water is 54 feet.

Boring 13-88 is entirely within the Tonoloway limestone. The caliper logshows major fracture zones at 46-51, 70-73, 137-142, 155-157, and 158-162feet. The density log confirms that these zones are in fractured rock.The log could not be dropped to a depth lower than 170 feet, even thoughthe well was supposed to have been drilled to 190 feet. Water level was at125 feet.

CanomeEnvironmental.AR3031.32


The geophysical log for boring 15A-88 can be used to resolve an apparentproblem with the lithologic log. The lithologic log suggests that theShriver shale lies unconformably over the Tonploway limestone. The gammaray log indicates that limestone is present, but does not show evidence fordifferentiating the Tonoloway from the Keyser formations. However, thedensity log shows a decrease in the average density below 67 feet whichsuggests that the interval from 23-67 feet could be correlated with theKeyser formation, and that the interval from 67-127 feet is equivalent tothe Tonoloway limestone. The caliper log shows extensive fractures inthree intervals in the Tonoloway limestone: 72-73, 77-81, and 112-117feet. Both the density and neutron logs confirm that thesefl^mes arehighly fractured. The logs identify the top of water at 54

Boring 19-88 is entirely in the Tonoloway lim ||one. The gamma ray logshows the top of competent rock at 24 feet. TRte caliper, density, andneutron logs suggest highly fractured rock may be found in. the followinglog intervals: 23-32, 32-37, 42- .54-57, 65-68, 83-85, 90-93, and 118-123 feet. Water is found at 75 feet in this well.

*""&- 1=! ' " ' ' , . , .-..m .-l- *,. , JL ,• ... n.'. I . --- -' "' L ' ,_ .1 -I I,. .

3.5 Soils S/^ .,:" -' ... ."•:.. 1 •..-'•' "

Prior tit. t|fi RI/FS, 10 test pits were dug in the soil cap in 1987. Soilsamples vfe're taken to verify depth and suitability of the cap. Additionalpermeability testing was performed on the landfill cap during the RI asdescribed in Section 2.6. Vertical permeability values were derived usingthe field information as shown in Appendix I. Permeability values ranged

-3 -5from 1.3 x 10 centimeters/second (cm/sec) to 5.8 x 10 cm/sec, discount-ing sample locations where possible leaking around the Shelby tube base wasnoted. These permeability values are suspect based on visual observationsof the cap material .

There were some problems with the test apparatus _that could have influencedthe permeability calculations. First, and most critical, was the lack of agood seal between the Shelby tube and the sample. Any problems in the sealof the driven Shelby tube would cause the calculated permeabilities to be

" ' CanonieEnvirpomeritalAR3Q


higher than the true values. The second problem in the testing procedurewas the use of a sledge hammer to drive the Shelby tube into the cap. Thisprocedure could compact the surrounding soils. This method could have asignificant impact on the integrity of the soil sample and thus influencethe calculated vertical permeabilities either up or down. Canonie does notbelieve that these vertical permeabilities are representative of the in-situ soil cap characteristics.

3.6 Hvdroqeoloqy

The site is located in an area of significant topographical pe^ief, withsmall isolated ponds and wetland areas. Precipitation is the "|.£imarysource of ground water recharge in the region and the topography indicatesthat the landfill could be a major potential g|0:und water recharge area.••>;p*- • •_The soil cap installed in 1987 would however li%|.t this recharge. Thepresence of the wetland area west of the site is a potential ground waterdischarge, as is the Little Juniatl'^jver.j..,'. j.., „. _. . _ .... —_^ _....

&'• - - " .:~"-r .:

The site subsurface .-.-.generally composed of a minimum four-foot-thick clayloam over a natural sifi%.-loam to loam material ranging from several feet>:to 20-feet-thick. Beneath the loam lies fractured rock including lime-stone, 5tffT>:e. sandstone, and siltstone. While the rock types generallyhave low fosity, the extensive joints and bidding planes can increasesecondary porosities to greater than 20 percent.

The depth to static water level ranges from several feet in the northeastto over 100 feet in the majority of the landfill area. Thus, the groundwater flow is predominantly in the bedrock. Piezometric and pump test dataindicate that the aquifer behaves as a single unconfined unit.

Historical water level data from 1980 are provided in Table 9. Note thatthe wells are either open borehole or are screened over the entire satu-rated zone. The data indicate that the ground water table can fluctuatesignificantly with seasonal rainfall. A longer record of water levelresdjng is required to definitively establish the seasonal fluctuations,however, spatial variation can be inferred from the existing data. Wells

CanomeEnvironmental


located in topographic highs indicate water level fluctuation on the orderof 10 to 20 feet, while those wells in the low lying western syncline showfluctuations of only a few feet. The larger fluctuations are in areaswhere the ground water table is approximately 100 feet below the surface.

Ground water elevation contours are plotted for measurements taken onAugust 26, 1989 and interpreted to be representative high ground waterelevations (Figure 11). Figure 11 shows that the piezometric surfacegenerally follows the topography sloping northwesterly toward the LittleJuniata River. Note that there is a substantial change in the ground watergradient corresponding to the abrupt topographic transition from steephillsides to a floodplain just west of the site. Using Augur'26,1989data, the gradient changes from an average of 0.057 under the landfill to0.020 west of the site. This is due to differing geologic materials inthese areas as shown in the geologic cross-see^ons shown in Figures 7, 8,9, and 10. V .

There is a slight ground water div|3%,.located off the northeast section ofthe landfill, near wells 17-88 and '18-88. corresponding to a sloping topo-graphical transition,^: the east. Both surface and shallow ground waterflow in this area dra%.Northeast to Sandy Run,. While the location of thisdivide changes with ground water fluctuations^ it does_.not appear that any

,•;.«%-. • ; 1 " -- r "" " " : - - - - - " • ••'-"*: ;••-' I- — ' -;- • • - • "

infiltri|iff|is from the landfill .would.. flgw^eastward. Given that the groundwater eleVStions in this area are near the surface, this ground watermovement is considered a local flow phenomena.

Ground water elevation contours are also plotted for measurements taken onJanuary 18, 1990 (Figure 20). Because of some problems encountered in well13-88, these contours are not as complete as the. August 1989 contour map.In general, the ground waterflow patterns are the same, with slightly lowerground water elevations in most .areas.

The multi-level well locations at wells 15-88 and 15A-88 provide informa-tion on potential vertical ground water conditions at depths of 76 and 130feet, respectively. Wells 15-88 and 15A-88 have approximately the sameground water elevation and indicating no significant vertical gradient.

CanonieEnvironmentdl_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .&R3Q3U35


3.6.1 Aquifer Testing

To determine the aquifer characteristics, slug tests were performed on 18wells and pump tests were performed on 5 wells as described in Section2.7.5. The Theis solution was utilized to reduce the slug test time versuswater level data yielding an estimate of hydraulic conductivity. Slugtests indicated hydraulic conductivities range from 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6cm/sec. Calculations are presented in Appendix J.

The pump tests were performed as described in Section 2.7.5. Jhe Jacobsstraight-line method was used to analyze the pump test data^\Pump testhydraulic conductivities range from 1 x 10"3 to 7 x 10"5 cm/se' as pre-sented in Appendix J. The pump tests were all jingle weVl tests except forwell 15-88 which was monitored as an observation well during the pump teston well I5A-88. ^

Based on the results of the slug/p 'tests, the average hydraulic conduc-tivities of the identified geologic formations are:

o Limestone - 1 > 10 cm/sec;

o tjmistone/shale - 7 x 10 cm/sec;

o Sandstone - 2 x 10 cm/sec.

Note that all five pump tests were single well tests of short duration.Without any directional observation of wells during pumping, no data suchas hydraulic connection cross-gradient or storativity can be deduced.Furthermore, the short test period of one hour is insufficient to stressthe aquifer to equilibrium conditions. As a result, the calculated hydrau-lic conductivities represent localized values, and not a regional average.

CanomeEnvironmentalHR303U36


In wells where both a slug and pump tests were performed, the data alsoindicate a one to two order of magnitude difference in calculated hydraulicconductivity. There is no apparent statistic trend in the variations.However, because the pump tests resulted in larger drawdowns, errors inmeasurement would have less effect on the pump test results. As the pumptest data also resulted in better "curve matching" than the slug test data,a higher level of confidence is placed on the pump test-derived values ofconductivity than on the slug test results.

Ground water table gradients range from 0.057 to 0.020 feet per feet. Theeffective porosities were estimated to be on the order of Of2B from similarmaterials (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). $*

3.7 Demography and Land Use .. #^. ~. ,V

A review of the Blair County community profile and a site reconnaissancewere performed to gather information demography and adjacent land use.

3.7.1 Population and^ppulatlon Density

The Delta Quarries Site is located in the eastern region of Blair County,..jrf-K.. " ' " : . - _ - . . . . . : •_ | •

in Ant1\a)|d Logan Townships, approximately one mile northeast of Altoona,Pennsylvania. Both townships are situated within Blair County. The popu-lation of Antis is estimated to be 6524 according to the 1980 Census andits area is approximately 58.0 square miles. This yields an average popu-lation density of 112 people per square mile. The 1980 Census estimatedthe population of Logan to be 12,183 with an area of 46.3 square miles.The average population density for this township is 263 people per squaremile. The entire population of Blair County, as estimated by the 1980Census, is 136,621, with a total area of 530 square miles, yielding apopulation density of approximately 253 people per square mile. Thisdensity ranks 23rd out of 67 counties in Pennsylvania. The land area ranksBlair County 43rd out of 67 counties in size.

Canonfe


3.7.2 Community Profile

Blair County evolved 150 years ago into a leading area for the manufactureof railroad cars and equipment. The city of Altoona, once a railroad andcoal mining town, has experienced a shift in its economic base due to thedecline of both of these industries. The three largest sources of employ-ment and revenue are transportation, the manufacture of non-durable goods,and health services. .Transportation includes the remaining railroad workand trucking. The most important non-durable good in Altoona is paper.Health services compose such a large share of the economic b$$e because of"i- V-three hospitals and many private offices employing specialists\Jhat servenot only Blair, but also the surrounding counties. In addition to theseindustries, Pittsburgh Plate Glass is a large ..employer of svte communityresidents. Growth that has occurred in Blair C|.ynty has not brought withit any large industry.

Residents and officials of the sit&:community describe their lifestyle asslow, quiet, and plea^t. Unemployment in Blair County is two or three

j.%" J. - - - . - . : _ :

percent higher than W'&ational average, but lower than the average for%*the state. The area has one of the lowest rates of turnover in the nation,accordipf^ public officials, and many family groups have remained in thearea for our or five generations. The only visible population shifts area slight growth in the county population and a movement from Altoona to thesurrounding townships and boroughs.

3.7.3 Surrounding Land Use

Land use immediately to the north, south, and east of the site is primarilyresidential. The area to the north and south of the site is wooded and tothe east is open field. Residences are sparsely located in the vicinity ofthe site.

CanomeEnvironmentalflR303.l*38


Three junkyard operations exist to the west of the landfill. The municipalwastewater treatment plant and a privately-owned solid waste transferstation are located approximately 750 feet west of the site. The LittleJuniata River, which flows northeasterly, lies approximately one-quartermile west of the site.

3.7.4 Local Ground Water Use

Approximately 260 homes within a 3 mile radius of the site rely on privatewells from the Tonoloway formation for drinking water. Of these wells,only approximately 5 are located within 800 feet downgradien^rom thesite. A list of the private wells sampled during the RI is prlsented inTable 7. Residential well inventory forms are included in Appendix E. Adetailed discussion of the ground water investigation of the private wellsadjacent to the site is found in Section 2.7. \-

3.8 Ecology , l^V ^- -i —- - -

The ecological investigation of the site consisted of $ wetlands delinea-tion and an aquatic ar?|:>:%rrestrial life study, performed as described inSection 2.9. A summary of the investigation results are presented below.The comp ef'l. investigation reports for both th§ wetlands delineation andthe aquatlcf and terrestrial life study were submitted under separate coverin March 1990.

3.8.1 Wetlands Investigation

Two wetland areas adjacent to the site were delineated as shown in Figure4. The wetlands surveyed encompassed a total of 8.7 acres of which 8 acresis situated on the southwestern edge of the landfill and .7 acre is situ-ated on the northeastern edge of the landfill (Figure 4). The surveyincluded a determination of the transition lines between wetland and uplandvegetation with emphasis on that portion of the wetlands vegetation domi-nated by emergent aquatic vegetation. •

CanomeEnvironmentalI ' flR303i*39


3.8.1.1 Western Wetland

The western wetland is large and sharply defined. Except for a narrowstrip of upland area along the eastern edge adjacent to Sixth Avenue, it isentirely surrounded by disturbed and altered acreage. These areas containfacilities of the City of Altoona Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant and aprivately-owned solid waste transfer station. The unaltered and disturbedarea comprises a total of 9.02 acres of which .29 acres are of water, 7.71acres are supporting wetland vegetation, and 1.02 acres are supportingupland vegetation. ^ - - -

••:•"' &.v '<>;;.

$F

The small percentage of shrubs and trees noted in the wetlands area re-flects the encroachment of developed areas ha\y-n.g few fringe areas fortheir growth and support. A total of nine bio'tefc communities were repre-sented in the western wetland. About 80 percent of the total wetland areais dominated by three wetland comrt0n..ities: cut grass, cat-tail, and touch-V* ":•-=-* "- •--me -not. %* ' -: i -^~ ^ ^ - - -

Most of the water sup^iy^in the wetland emanates from the FAM Spring lo-cated at the southern tnost point of the wetland. This is supplemented byrunoff j rofn the West Flow draining the wooded area on the eastern side ofSixth Avenue which, during period of heavy precipitation, contain leachatefrom the landfill. The entire wetland is completely saturated with waterto an unknown depth. Numerous attempts to wade across the wetland atvarious points proved to be impossible. In addition to deep water, in mostplaces sediments were deep and when agitated, methane gas in considerablequantities was released. This was especially apparent in the areas ad-jacent to the wastewater treatment plant lagoons.

A stream flows from the ponds in the southern portion of the wetland,meanders through the aquatic vegetation, and exits the wetland through aconduit at the northern corner. Flow continues through a man-made ditchand enters the Little Juniata River downstream of the wastewater treatmentplant effluent point.

CanomeEnvironmentalAR303HQ

Fina7 Draft ReportNovember 14, 1990Page: 38

3v8.1.2 Eastern Wetland

The closure activities at the landfill in the summer of 1987 included theinstallation of sediment control structures with stand pipes at the north-eastern corner of the landfill. During the September 1988 field evalua-tion, both of the sedimentation basins were dry and few aquatic plants werepresent. The only dominant vegetation in both basins was cat-tail. Peren-nial rye grass was planted on surrounding slopes to stabilize soil andprevent erosion. Much .of the rye grass has encroached into the sedimenta-tion basins.

The area between the sedimentation basins and Sand Bank Road supports treesand shrubs. At the time of the field evaluation, the depressions betweenthe high wall of the sedimentation basins and.-:|fie treed areas were wet.

Xw*Among the stand of trees between the two sedimediation basins, a number ofdead trees were noted. These dead .trees were located in standing water,which suggests that the area was n|| riginally a wetland and only becameone after the area was disturbed by^the construction of the sedimentationbasins. ,-.**% r . • • • ; - - r ~r\».-' ^ - «"-'•••l''. r?r''~~ - •••"••--

The acreage supporting wetland vegetation in each.of the basins is lessthan 0.1: ""%res. The wetland areas formed at the end of each of the standpipe draiWranged between 0.21 and 0.24 acres.

The eastern wetlands are very small and lacking in diversity in contrast tothe western wetlands. The area has been recently disturbed and the vegeta-tion is in a transitory stage of re-adapting to the altered environment.

3.8.2 Surface Water and Sediment Data Review

Surface water quality and sediment analytical results of samples collectedfrom streams, wetlands, and drainages at 15 locations in the vicinity ofthe Delta Site were reviewed and evaluated (Figure 4). The water bodiesobserved and sampled were the Little Juniata River, Sandy Run, the western

CanonieEnvironmentdlflR303l»l*l


wetland, the West Flow drainage to the wetland, and an east flow drainageto Sandy Run. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the poten-tial impacts of the landfill on the suitability of the surface waters andsediments for the maintenance of aquatic life.

A complete set of surface water and sediment analytical data is containedin Appendix F. The data obtained was compared with the existing federalmaximum water quality criteria for the maintenance of freshwater aquaticlife presented in Table 9. Evaluation focused on those chemical parameterspresent in excess of the criteria. Since there are no state and federalsediment quality criteria that have been established for the jupport ofaquatic life, sediment data was evaluated by comparing with fisting data'%*reported in the scientific literature to the extent possible arid practical.

References for this comparison are provided in^the Review of Surface Waterand Sediment Sampling Data Report, submitted unlfer separate'cover. Asummary of the review report find-ifi^s is presented below.

3,8,2.1 West Flow and Wetlands

Five surface water and*sediment samples were collected from the West Flowand wetLaa^ areas (SW-4, SW-5, SW-6, SW-7, and SW-8, Figure 4). At thetime of \h/ field study, there was no flow occurring in the West Flow (SW-8). There was some moisture in the soils at the origin of the West Flow atthe base of the landfill, however, at the point of entry into the wetland,the soils were completely dry.

The FAM Spring (SW-7) was flowing steadily. In the immediate vicinity ofthe spring, a population of crustacean, possibly amphipods commonly foundin springs, was present in great abundance. The probability of many otherbenthic organisms being present was slight due to the highly restrictedhabitat.

Canonie;


Outflow from the wetland (SW-4) appeared to be equivalent to the inflowfrom the FAM Spring. Physical habitat in the stream formed by the outflowwas very restricted. However, during benthic sampling, several taxa ofmacroinvertebrates were observed. Habitat in the area sampled was affectedby soil erosion from road banks of the wastewater treatment plant settlingponds.

Of the five surface water samples collected, only SW-8 from the West Flowcontained concentrations in excess of the water quality criteria for main-tenance of aquatic life. The chemical parameters that were^und to be inexcess.are iron, magnesium, manganese, silver, sodium, and amnfenia. Thevarious chemical parameters generally decrease in concentration as waterflow passes through the wetland.

T-K;"._.__ (.__

.£•$'

Ammonia was present in high concentration (76 ppm) in the West Flow sample(SW-8) and nitrate nitrogen concenlp^ions were high (6.2, 3.1 ppm) in thewetland samples (SW-6, SW-5). Howi'ver, concentrations of both ammonia andnitrate were greatly^rsduced in the outflow from the wetland (SW-4). Theseparameters provide a l|),u¥ce of nutrient enrichment to the aquatic environ-ment. From present understanding, wetlands appear to be net importers ofnitrogef aH$| phosphorous during the spring. During late spring and summer,nutrientsNfre absorbed in plant biomass. After the aquatic plants die inthe fall, a net export of nutrients takes place associated with the decom-position rate.

The sediment quality analysis data for wetland sediment samples SED-4, SED-5, SED-6, SED-7, and SED-8 were examined. Of the various organic compoundsdetected in the samples, those with the lowest concentrations were in thesample taken from the FAM Spring (SED-7). Those with the highest con-centration were in the sample taken at the discharge from the wetland (SED-4). Inorganic components were present' in low concentrations in the FAMSpring sediment sample and in high concentrations in the sediment sample atthe outlet from the wetland. The general trend was one of increasingconcentration among the majority of the parameters from the sediments ofthe FAM Spring and West Flow to the sediment, at the wetland outlet..: As

CanomeEnvironmental. . . ...... - < - ; ~ ' &R3Q3UU3


previously stated, the various chemical parameters in the surface watersamples taken in the wetland generally decreased as water flow passedthrough the wetland. Appendix F shows the comparison of inorganicparameters in surface water and sediment samples at each location in thewetland. This comparison clearly demonstrates that the wetland ecosystemis protecting the stream ecosystem.

Future wetland conditions will continue to be governed by the quality ofwater entering the wetland from the FAM Spring and the West Flow. Existingorganic concentrations should continue to be taken up by aquatic vegetationand recycled in the decomposition process to form a more orga^c sedimentbed. Some of the organic load should be flushed out and also^to somedegree, removed by consumer organisms. Existing concentrations of certainheavy metals will probably continue to be boui y:up in the sediments ortaken up by aquatic vegetation. \.. :.~" ,

3.8.2.2 Little Juniata River

Surface water and se .ii nt samples were obtained from four locations in theLittle Juniata River"V|%/SED-1, SW/SED-2, SW/SED-3, and SW/SED-15, asindicated on Figure 4). The upstream control sample (SW-3) was located ata point^a^enough away from the landfill that there is little probabilityof any intact from the landfill affecting that point. At the time ofsampling it was observed that the stream bottom was supporting numerouslarge patches of the filamentous algae Cladophora which is well known to bea responder to nutrient substances. The Cladoohora was providing habitatfor a variety of benthic organics, several of which are known to occur innutrient enriched waters. The substrate contained a high percentage ofcinder-like material blended with silt. A pipe along the left (west)shoreline was discharging a turbid flow from under the railroad yard.

Sampling point SW-15 was located immediately downstream of the wastewatertreatment plant discharge point and upstream of the wetland discharge. Thestream at this location was literally sterile except for a very sparse

Canonie ental


growth of a single celled algae. The stream bottom was scoured cleangiving the rocks in the stream the appearance of having been scrubbed.With the exception of the algae, there was a complete absence of any formof aquatic life. Evidence of nutrient enrichment readily observed upstreamat SW-3 was gone. The change in appearance was visibly abrupt and theaffect from the wastewater treatment plant discharge could be sharplydelineated. The wastewater treatment plant discharge was very clear andalmost odorless.

Sampling point SW-2 was located immediately downstream of the wetlanddischarge. The stream at this point was showing a slight degree of re-covery from the effects of the wastewater treatment plant di'f charge. Noapparent distinction could be noted in the stream bottom upstrlam or down-stream of the wetland discharge. Benthic organisms were not observed inthis section of stream despite the presence oftvery good physical habitatfor their support. During sampling, a deer was 'seen crossing the stream inthe vicinity of the wastewater tre^ment plant discharge and a muskrat wasobserved swimming along the shorelf^'eHipstream of the wetland discharge.

Sampling point SW-1 Wlpjocated about 0.8 miles downstream of the wetlanddischarge at the village of Pinecroft upstream of the confluence of SandyRun. A cjiitinct septic odor was detected at this location. A slightmilky-grliv last was evident in the water color. The source of impacts

*:..;,•£•' . - f . . : . . . . - . i-j ..- = ;-_^ _ - - --• '••--;-.- -J •- - "-; - - - - - - - - • -

could not':'be determined. Physical habitat for the support of benthicorganisms was good, however, macroinvertebrate organism diversity appearedto be poor. There was an abnormally large number of leeches and bloodwormspresent in the samples collected at this location. This indicates that ahigh organic load and degraded water quality has persisted at this locationfor an extended period of time. During periods of high stream flows, localcitizens of Pinecroft have noted raw sewage in the stream in this sectionof the Little Juniata River as evidenced by paper and solids depositedalong the river bank. This is possibly due to storm water bypass from theAltoona wastewater treatment plant since there is no other wastewatertreatment plant upstream on the Little Juniata River.

:CanonieEnvironmental- ."-&R303UU5


Examination of the surface water quality data from the Little Juniata Riversamples revealed that the concentrations of organic and inorganic compoundsat sampling locations SW-3, the upstream control, and SW-2 downstream ofthe outflow from the wetland, were below the concentrations that would havea detrimental affect on aquatic life. However, at sampling location SW-15immediately downstream of the outfall from the wastewater treatment plant,the 7.1 ppb of lead was in excess of the chronic criteria concentration of5.79 ppb for the protection of aquatic life. Also, the 397,000 ppb ofsodium is far in excess of the 85,000 ppb maximum concentration found in 95percent of United States waters supporting aquatic life and is 30 times theconcentration found at the control station SW-3 just 0.6 mile upstream. Itappears, therefore, that the excess concentrations of these t*(0 parameters•f\'in addition to the probable effects of chlorination from th£ ftgstewatertreatment plant outfall are responsible for the observed sterile conditionof the Little Juniata River. There was no obs.e-£vable negative impact from.<s£jthe wetland outflow on the surface water quali^ of the Little Juniata

*&£' :' " _.. .

River. If any impacts were present, they were "probably masked by theeffects of the wastewater treatmetfWplant discharge.

VV ^ Tg..c . ._ _.__—

At sampling location JJW-1 at Pinecroft upstream of the mouth of Sandy Run,the 140 ppb of zinc'itef^jn excess of the 133.9 ppb chronic criteria for theprotection of aquatic'life. The total organic carbon concentration of2,200 Rpb^t this sampling location is very high for a stream water sample*"% ^ ... __.. _ _ __.. -and refTto$s the influx of a heavy organic load into the stream from somesource other than the wetland or the wastewater treatment plant effluent.The total organic carbon at the upstream location (SW-2) is only 4.6 ppb.The source of a heavy organic input between stations SW-2 and SW-1 couldnot be identified and 1s unknown. Potential sources include a junkyard,sources west of the Little Juniata River, and domestic on-site disposalsystems.

As might be expected, sampling locations SW-1, SW-2, and SW-15, all locateddownstream of the wastewater treatment'pi ant outfall, contain high con-centrations of nitrate nitrogen. The highest concentration was foundimmediately downstream of the wastewater treatment plant outfall and de-creased downstream.

CanomeEnvironmental


Evaluation of the sediment analytical data revealed that for the majorityof the analytes detected, the lowest concentrations occurred in the up-stream control (SED-3) and the sample Immediately downstream of the was-tewater treatment plant effluent (SED-15). The highest concentrationsoccurred in the furthest downstream sediment sample near Pinecroft (SED-1).

The wastewater treatment plant effluent apparently exerts a major adverseimpact on the sediment quality of the Little Juniata River. A majority ofthe inorganic components of the sediment sample decrease downstream of thewastewater treatment plant effluent. In contrast, a majority,of the semi-volatile components in the sediments increased downstream o tjfie wastewatertreatment plant effluent. The presence of a large number of slmi-volatileparameters in the sediments immediately downstream of the wastewater treat-ment plant effluent in relatively high concentrations as compared to theupstream control and the sample downstream of tfife wetland dischargestrongly suggests that the wastewat;|r treatment plant is receiving thesemi-volatile wastes from some sou|p within the environs of Altoona.

The weight of the evlfjgjce in the data indicates that the West Flow and theFAM Spring are not adversely affecting the water nor the sediment qualityin the Lj.J4"le Juniata_R1yer and that the wetland is primarily responsiblefor prot\ct|ng the stream ecosystem from any potential effects fromleachate rrom the landfill. The wastewater treatment plant effluent, onthe other hand, is adversely effecting both the sediment and water qualityof the Little Juniata River.

A comparison of the sediment chemistry with ranges in the literature fromstreams supporting aquatic life indicate that lead, silver, and magnesiumconcentrations in the sediment samples downstream of the wastewater treat-ment plant occur in concentrations well beyond the upper ranges in con-centration with which aquatic life was found to occur in abundance.Specific sediment analytical results are presented in Tables 18 and 19.

CanomeEnvironmental


3,8.2,3 East Flow and Sandy Run

Two surface water and sediment samples were obtained along Sandy Run(SW/SED-13 and SW/SED-14, Figure 4). The upstream control sample (SW-13)was located at the end of Linwood Road 0.9 mile upstream of the entry ofthe East Flow into Sandy Run. At this location benthic organism physicalhabitat was excellent and a very diverse and abundant community of macroin-vertebrates was present, many taxa of which were those sensitive to poorwater quality. Sampling point SW-14 on Sandy Run was located about 50 feetdownstream of the entry of the East Flow. At this location the physicalhabitat for benthic macroinvertebrates was very good. Orgat^tn diversityand abundance appeared to be very good. There was no evidence|.of anyimpact that might have resulted from poor water quality entering the streamfrom the East Flow in the recent past. ^

^r* ±i - ..__!_"_'_£,* :

At the time of the aquatic field study, the East Flow had no distinct•£%;. " ' -1--I- .•:,--outflow. A distinct channel was o||ved through an overgrown pasture

indicating past flows. Seeps were^observed in several locations, however,no surface flow from -t pond reached Sandy Run. East Flow surface waterand sediment samples f*>%SED-12) was collected downstream of a pond located& - - -on private land situated northeast of the landfill.

\ *Evaluatio>^bf the surface water quality data revealed that the upstreamSandy Run sample (SW-13) contained a cadmium concentration of 11 ppb whichexceeds the 0.027 ppb chronic criteria and the 3.3 ppb maximum criteria forthe protection of aquatic life. The 32 ppb of copper at this locationexceeds the 5.6 ppb chronic criteria and the'24.2 maximum criteria. Thenickel concentration of 190 ppb at this location exceeds the 102.76 ppbchronic criteria. In view of the diverse community of benthic organismsobserved at this location, the presence of high concentrations of theseheavy metals is unusual and cannot be accounted for from the data.

CanomeEnvironmentalAR3Q3UU8


The East Flow sample (SW-12) contained two chemical parameters in excess ofcriteria for the protection of aquatic life. The aluminum concentration of2,230 ppb in this sample is far in excess of the chronic criteria of 146ppb and also the acute criteria concentration of 1,894 ppb. The ironconcentration of 2,470 ppb is in excess of the 1500 ppb not-to-exceedcriteria. The total organic carbon concentration of 8,400 ppb in the EastFlow sample is high and reflects the influx of a heavy organic load oforganic input into the stream. The East Flow had no distinct outflow.Seeps were observed in several locations; however, surface flow from thepond reached Sandy Run.

Sample SW-13, the Sandy Run control sample located upgradient &f the land-fill, contained higher inorganic compound concentrations than sample SW-14,located downstream of the entry of the East Ff:|$ to .the stream (AppendixF). S

•*&*. " - -\~-\ -*~ - - ::v • -•'The concentrations of aluminum and|4%>n, in downgradient sample SW-14, (thetwo chemical parameters which were"in excess of the ambient water qualitycriteria in the East^fow sample) were less than in the upgradient controlsample. No water quaf$1# criteria were exceeded in downgradient sample SW-14.

Evaluatioffof the East Flow and Sandy Run sediment sample data revealedthat the concentrations of the various chemical parameters detected weregenerally much lower than those found in the sediments from the LittleJuniata River. The majority of the analytes in the sample from the EastFlow occurred in higher concentrations .than those taken from Sandy Run.This was particularly true for the inorganic components.

No general trend in the concentrations of the various organic and inorganiccompounds in the sediments from Sandy Run was observed. There is no strongindication in the data that Sandy Run has been affected by any chemicalcomponents emanating from the landfill by way of the East Flow.

CanonleEnvirnmenial


3.8.2.4 Data Review Summary

Field observations of streams, wetlands, and drainages in the vicinity ofthe site revealed the presence of aquatic life in all sampling locationsexcept the West Flow, East Flow, and the section of the Little JuniataRiver between the wastewater treatment plant discharge and the outflow fromthe western wetland. Where present, the types of aquatic life in theLittle Juniata River were indicative of a stressed environment unrelated toImpacts from the landfill. In contrast, the aquatic life in Sandy Run wasindicative of a healthy environment.

The results of water quality analyses were compared with the existingfederal maximum water quality criteria for the maintenance of aquatic life.Concentrations of various chemical parameters^ft; all sampling locations didnot exceed the chronic and maximum allowable co|centrations except insamples taken from the West Flow, the Little Juniata River downstream of*?%. . - ~~. •- ^ -the wastewater treatment plant dis|f&|;ge, the Little Juniata River upstreamof the mouth of Sandy Run, the Easf'Flow, and the control sample on SandyRun. Concentrations^^various chemical parameters generally decreased intheir passage throughcfjh% wetland.

A segmerff o| the Little Juniata River between the wastewater treatmentplant disMarge point and the wetland outflow point was observed to be in asterile condition. This condition was probably the result of high con-centrations of lead and sodium in the wastewater treatment plant effluentand the probable effects of chlorination. There was no observable negativeimpact from the wetland outflow on the surface water quality and aquaticlife in the Little Juniata River.

The upstream surface water sample from Sandy Run contained concentrationsof cadmium, copper, and nickel in excess of criteria. Benthic organismdiversity, however, was very good. The contradiction cannot be accountedfor from the data. No chemical compounds were present in excess of waterquality criteria in the downgradient Sandy Run sample. High concentrations

Canonie


of aluminum and iron in excess of criteria were present in the East Flowsample. However, the East Flow at the point of confluence with Sandy Runwas dry and no impact from the landfill was apparent in the data. Nogeneral trend In the concentrations of the various parameters in the sedi-ments from Sandy Run was observed. There _is no strong indication in thedata that Sandy Run has been affected by any chemical components emanatingfrom the landfill by way of the East Flow.

Evaluation of the sediment data from the wetland revealed that the wetlandecosystem is protecting the stream ecosystem. Inorganic results in thewestern wetlands water and sediment samples are compared in Appendix F.The lowest concentrations of chemical parameters in the sedffte^ts occurred*% •in the upstream control and downstream of the wastewater treatment plant inthe Little Juniata River. The highest concentrations occurred in thefurthest downstream sediment sample above the Influence with Sandy Runnear Pinecroft. The presence of a large number^6f serni-volatile parametersin the sediments immediately downsl^eam of the wastewater treatment planteffluent in relatively high concen|fa&ions as compared to the upstreamcontrol and the sample downstream of the wetland discharge stronglysuggests that the wa^^ater treatment plant is receiving the semi-volatile

^: ''-fyi --"" - - - " • '"""-- ' . . . _ . -wastes from some soured within the environs of Altoona.

X^ = " ' : • " -- - - -..:..-- "t"'"-"-" - - - ---- -The weig% $f the evidence in the data indicates that the West Flow and the•.V.?P ' •,..-, ,- . •• • --- ••• , i. ,, - ,-FAM Sprinf are not adversely affecting the water nor the sediment qualityin the Little Juniata River and that the wetland is primarily responsiblefor protecting the stream ecosystem from any potential effects from thelandfill. The wastewater treatment plant effluent, however, is adverselyeffecting both the sediment and water quality.

Potential sources of impacts on surface waters include the wastewatertreatment plant discharge, and runoff from urban areas, railroad yards andthree adjacent junkyards. The landfill appears to have no observablenegative impact on surface water quality.


4.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

This section presents an evaluation of the field investigation resultsrelating to the nature and extent of chemical compounds in the study area.The evaluation is presented using the following categories:

o Potential sources;

o Surface soils;

o Ground water;

o Surface water and sediment;

o Air.

Samples collected during the RI wer*i analyzed using the U.S. EPA CLP proto-cols, as specified Ift e QAPP. These protocols involve the use of exten-sive quality assurance%ah'd quality control procedures. The data werevalidated by Environmental Standards, Inc. to assure that all CLP require-ments wgfeTfeet and to determine the validity of the data.\ f . _ - . - . .

Complete analytical results for all surface soil, ground water, surfacewater, and sediment samples obtained during the RI are contained inAppendix F. Summary tables listing only the detected analytes are providedin the following subsections.

4.1 Potential Sources

During the RI, potential sources of chemical compounds in the study areawere investigated. The objective of this task was to:

o Identify potential sources adjacent to the study area; *CanonieEnvironmsia


o Define the aerial extent of the landfill, Its depth, and thus thetotal volume of wastes contained therein;

o Identify and attempt to quantify the industrial wastes disposed inthe landfill.

4.1.1 Ad.iacent Facilities

The city of Altoona Sewage Treatment Plant and a privately-owned solidwaste transfer facility are located approximately 750 feet west of thesouthern half of the site (Figure 2). The treatment plant charges'$•'%treated municipal wastewater Into settling lagoons located directly ad-jacent to the western wetlands. Treated effluent is then discharged to theLittle Juniata River. The results of the ecoj^glcal study conducted duringthe RI indicate that the treatment plant has hi|:, a detrimental impact onthe water quality of the Little Juniata River (Section 3.8). Permissionwas not granted by the city of Allf ja to investigate the water qualitybeneath the sewage treatment plant^tJuring the RI; therefore, a conclusionas to the nature of j.0|ential sources from thettreatment plant could not bederived. PADER is cu lntly performing an investigation to identify theextent of hazardous substances at the treatment plant property.

Three jufij&/ards are located on the west side of the landfill, two within500 feet and one within 800 feet of the site. During field activities, 55-gallons drums were noted on two of the junkyard properties. However, as nosamples were obtained from these properties, the nature of potentialsources could not be evaluated.

A municipal trash transfer station operated west of the southern half ofthe landfill (ie, downgradient). The transfer station is located immedi-ately adjacent to the western wetland. No samples were taken from theground water downgradient of the trash-transfer station, therefore, noconclusions can be drawn regarding contamination from this potentialsource.

Canonie inyironmental


4.1.2 Landfill Extent and Contents

The aerial extent of the landfill was defined using topographic mapping,reports from neighboring residents, and the results of the geophysicalsurvey, as described in Section 2.2. The resulting landfill boundary isdelineated in Figure 3. The estimated volume of landfilled wastes is72,546,000 cubic feet (Appendix B).

U.S. EPA files were reviewed to estimate the types and quantities of in-dustrial wastes disposed at the site. The Hazard Ranking Syl|em (HRS)report generated for the site attempted to quantify the industrial wastedisposed during the site's operating history. According to the HRS report,approximately 24,600 drums of industrial wast 'ere disposed at the site.

' * > • . -<&yUsing the estimated volume of industrial wastes disposed and the calculated

'"V'%. -------landfill volume, it was calculatedi^t approximately 0.25 percent of the

&•: -total volume of wastes in the landfill may be industrial wastes (AppendixR D) •'

4.2 Surface Soils Investigation Results

JEight surrace soil samples were collected from the site as shown on Figure3. All samples were analyzed for the full TCL and TAL. A summary of theorganic and inorganic analytical results for the surface soil samples arepresented in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. A complete listing of allanalytical data 1s contained in Appendix F.

Low levels of organic compounds were detected in two of the eight surfacesoil samples and 1n the trip blank. No pesticides or PCBs were detected inany of the surface soil samples.

EnvironmentalOHDH


Sample SS-7, located at the southwest corner of the landfill near an inter-mittent seep, contained detectable levels of 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-di-chloroethene (total), and 1,2-dichloroethane (45, 42, and 30 ppb, respec-tively). Toluene was also detected 1n SS-7 at an estimated concentrationof 5J ppb. The "J" qualifier indicates that the compound was detected butthe listed concentration is only approximate.

Sample SS-3 is located on the east side of the landfill in a formerleachate seep area. Trichloroethene was detected in SS-3 and in a repli-cate run of SS-3 at 7 and 6 ppb, respectively. Seven semi-volatile com-pounds were detected in SS-3 at estimated concentrations frojf06 to 200ppm. No other semi-volatile compounds were detected In any ofSthe othersurface soil samples.

Inorganic analytical results are presented 1n f|ble 11. Concentrations ofinorganics found in site surface sg.ils were compared with the typicalconcentration range of these compo|n%. in United States soils (also shownon Table 11). An elevated concentration of copper (361 ppm) in sample SS-2, taken from the la ff|H cover, was noted (typical range: 2-250 ppm).Remaining inorganic pl|alfeters for all samples were within the typicalconcentration ranges cited. ... : ; , . .. -

4.3 GrouM Water Investigation Results :

Nineteen monitoring wells and 16 residential wells were sampled as part ofthe RI. Locations of these wells are indicatedjn Figure 2. All groundwater samples were analyzed for the full TCL and TAL. A summary of theanalytical results for monitoring wells is presented in Tables 12 and 13,and for the residential wells In Tables 14 and J5. A complete list of allanalytical results is contained in Appendix F.

Canonie


4.3.1 Monitoring Well Analytical Results

VOCs were detected 1n 7 of the 19 sampled monitoring wells, with individualcompound concentrations ranging from 6 to 160 ppb (Table 12). One pes-ticide compound was detected at low levels (0.1 to 1.5 ppb) in 3 of the 19monitoring wells. No semi-volatile compounds or PCBs were detected in anyof the monitoring well samples.

The most commonly detected VOCs in site monitoring wells were 1,1-dichloro-ethane, 1,2-dichloroethene (total), 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloro-ethene. Concentrations of the above VOCs ranged from 9.6 to 150 ppb. TheMCL of 5 ppb for trichloroethene was exceeded in monitoring . fiIs M2-AreaIV, 9-88, and 10A-88 (13 to 65 ppb). The 70 ppb MCL for cis-l|2-dichloro-ethene was exceeded in monitoring wells MW-Area IV (150 ppb). Concentra-tions of 1,1,1-trichloroethane detected in fouf^onitoring wells did not

K;.,-- - „ -

exceed the MCL of 200 ppb. \ =-':

Vinyl chloride was detected in monpfcpng well 10A-88 at 35 ppb, whichexceeds the MCL of 2 ppb. 1,2-DicfHoroethane was detected in monitoringwell 9-88 at 13 ppb,v,whi.ich exceeds the MCL of 5 ppb.

' %A,\t ** • • - : - - , - . - — - -&>

Low levels of beta-BHC, a pesticide, were detected in monitoring wells 6-85, M2-£rel|IV, and"22-88 (1.5, 0.74, and 0.1 ppb, respectively). No MCLexists foj^this compound. No other pesticide compounds were detected inany of the site monitoring wells.

Inorganic analytical results for the site monitoring wells are presented inTable 13. None of the tested parameters exceeded their respective MCLs,

4.3.2 Residential Well Analytical Results

Organic and inorganic analytical results for the residential wells sampledare presented in Tables' 14 and 15, respectively. Only one VOC, methylenechloride, was detected in 4 of the 16 residential wells sampled. Thepresence of methylene chloride was attributed to laboratory contaminationdue to its presence in the trip blank sample at a similar concentration.

Canonie


No semi-volatile compounds, pesticides, or PCBs were detected 1n any of theresidential wells sampled.

Residential well inorganic analytical results are presented in Table 15.None of the Inorganic parameters exceeded their respective MCLs.

4.4 Surface Water and Sediments

4.4.1 Surface Water Analytical Results

.y'Thirteen surface water samples were obtained from 12 locatidri\ during theRI (Figure 3). All samples were analyzed for the full TCL ancf'TAL. Asummary of the organic and inorganic analytical^results is presented inTables 16 and 17, respectively. A complete ll -t of all analytical resultsis contained in Appendix F. .^"

- ,'Vi _ i

VOCs were detected in 4 of the 13 'plples. No semi-volatile, pesticide, orPCB compounds were detected in any of the surface water samples.

VOCs were detected in Samples SW-3, SW-5, SW-6, and SW-7. Concentrationsof trich.jQroethene detected in samples SW-5, SW-6, and SW-7 were 25, 73,.

9 % > : , - : - - - _ - — - — " " - . - - . .

and 54 p&b/ respectively. Concentrations of tetrachloroethene detected in3jx> • I

samples $W-3, SW-5, SW-6, and SW-7 ranged from 7 to 20 ppb.

Surface water Inorganic analytical results are presented in Table 17. Noneof the inorganic parameters exceed their respective MCLs.

4.4.2 Sediment Analytical Results

Sediment samples were taken from 15 locations in the study area (Figure 3)and analyzed for the full TCL and TAL* A summary of the organic and inor-ganic analytical results 1s presented in Tables 18 and 19, respectively. Acomplete list of all analytical results is contained in Appendix F.

C nonleEnviromientalAR303457


VOCs were detected in 5 of the 15 sediment samples. Semi-volatile com-pounds were detected in all but two of the sediment samples. Two pesticidecompounds were detected in one of the 15 samples. No PCBs were detected inany of the sediment samples.

VOCs were detected in samples SED-2, SED-5, SED-6, and SED-7. 1,1-dichlo-roethane and 1,2-dichloroethene (total) were detected in sediment samplesSED-5, SED-6, and "SED-7 at concentrations ranging from 12 to 48 ppb.Trichloroethene was detected in samples SED-6 and SED-7 at concentrationsof 12 and 14 ppb, respectively. Tetrachloroethene was detected in samplesSED-2, and SED-6 at 13 ppb and 6J ppb, respectively. ,,,<%%. '*

Thirteen of the 15 sediment samples collected contained detectable levelsof semi-volatile compounds although only 2 sa Tes (SED-2 and SED-15)showed quantifiable levels of semi-volatile confounds (Table 18). Onlyfloranthene and pyrene were detected in SED-2 and SED-15. Concentrationsof floranthene ranged from 710 pp6'Q&v880 ppb. Concentrations of pyreneranged from 580 ppb to 620 ppb. Both samples were collected from theLittle Juniata River,, 0 other samples showed semi-volatile compounds on

*% .£.sediments in quantifilSTie levels.g*

Two pesMcl^e compounds, 4-4', DDE and 4-4', ODD were detected in sampleSED-11 aw/J and 24J ppb, respectively. No other pesticide compounds andno PCS compounds were detected in any of the sediment samples.

Sediment sample inorganic results are presented in Table 19. Concentra-tions of inorganic compounds detected in the sediment samples were comparedwith the typical concentration ranges of these compounds in United Statessoils. All inorganic parameters were within the typical concentrationranges cited.

CanomeEnvironmentalflR3Q3l*58


4.5 Air

A soil gas survey was performed on-site at 69 locations in October 1988 toevaluate the nature, relative concentration, and extent of gases emanatingfrom the landfill.

The results of the soil gas survey presented in Appendix G Indicate thathydrocarbons are present, mostly in the form of methane. Soil gas surveyresults were not compound-specific. The concentrations of hydrocarbonsrange from non-detectable to greater than 1000 ppm at the locationsindicated in Figure 3. The soil gas results identified thr&e£kreas ofelevated concentration listed below: 3l-:

o Along the initial transect across the-^fandfill (locations SG-Cthrough SG-H, Figure 3); V

o Emanating from the southwe l*$.nd of the landfill (locations SG-36through SG-36C, Figure 3};**

,rf**| - -: ,,.-_... _:.-!.... -->%*J%^= • " *"-"i.- -, : ".•;~".7L"-rj-,4 >•""- •= • --.-•: .- •-

o Along the cen j pf the western portion of the landfill (locationsSG-41 through SG-44, Figure 3).

The resul-li indicate that off-site subsurface migration of gas is occur-ring, although a consistently lower level or a diminishing concentrationeffect was observed when moving away from the landfill (see SG-8 throughSG-8B and SG-30 through SG-30B, Appendix G). The results also indicateconsistent levels of hydrocarbons, mostly in the form of methane, on thelandfill (SG-C through SG-H) at concentrations greater than 1000 ppm. Theonly exception 1s location SG-I, located in the center of the landfill,where total hydrocarbon levels fell to 20 ppm. This low reading may bedue, in part, to the clay content of the capping material. Reduced oxygenlevels of 19.6 percent were measured, but due to inconsistencies in the

t • : • "field notes, no quantitative or qualitative conclusions could be drawn fromthese data.

CanomeEnvironmental


4.6 Data Limitations

Several qualifiers were assigned to the analytical results during the datavalidation process. Results which are qualified with the letter "B" denotethat the compound was detected in a trip blank or field blank sample atsimilar concentrations. Therefore, their presence may not be attributed tocontamination at the site. Results which are qualified with the letter "J"denote that the quantitation performed was only approximate, ie, the speci-fic compound was detected but the concentration listed is only approximate.The qualifier "R" indicates that the compound was detected, byt the analy-

•!<%*• '"*'

tical results are unreliable and should not be used for evaW^tion pur-poses. Data qualified with a "B", "J", or "R" are included ori""'the datasummary tables (Tables 10 through 19) presented., in this section.

<sf"*;%* * .%.There are analytical results for which a compound was not detected, butproblems with laboratory methods undated the use of data_qualifiers.These qualifiers are as follows:

•«**$o UL - Compouna^$Q.t detected, but detection limit is probablyhigher thWn reported;

. I- -^ . . . . .o W.J- Compound not detected, but the results are unreliable..yr

These non-detected but qualified results are not presented in the datasummary tables presented in this section, but are included in Appendix F.

Only unqualified data were used in the risk assessment, ground watermodeling, and other analyses of data from the Delta Quarries Site. In therisk assessment, one half of the detection limit was used for samples wherequalified or non-detected results were reported. These procedures are inaccordance with established guidelines and do not affect the validity ofthe conclusions drawn in this RI Report.

CanomeEnvironmental


During the RI no samples of the actual landfill wastes were obtained. Asthe acceptance of other than municipal wastes was reportedly sporadic andin small quantities, it is unlikely that the random sampling of the land-fill constituents themselves would have revealed the presence of potentialcontaminant sources.

C nomebuYironjnentaift H iUJ4bT


5.0 GROUND WATER MODELING

The objective of the ground water modeling exercise is to develop a quan-titative understanding of ground water flow direction and flow rate at theDelta Site. The ground water flow model is calibrated to match themeasured ground water elevations. Flow rates calculated from the cali-brated flow model are used as input to a chemical transport model. Thetransport model is used to analyze the movement of any compounds in theground water at the Delta Site.

The chemical transport model is calibrated by matching measufi^ concentra-tions of specific compounds found in the site monitoring wells^' Thus, theground water modeling exercise requires the stepwise application of a flowmodel and a chemical transport model. The foT$jg$nng sections describe thedevelopment and calibration of the ground waterlmodels.

5.1 Flow Model |^* - r .„ -^ i r -i_ -.g^. . . .._________ ____ . . . .. . ____________ .

The Modular Three-Dis^^ional Finite Difference Ground Water Flow Model,MODFLOW, (McDonald and^Htrbaugh, 1984} was used to simulate two-dimensionalsteady-state ground water flow at the Delta Site. Ground water elevationsmeasuretf^on|August 25 and 26, 1989 were used as the basis for modelcalibration. A contour plot of measured ground water elevations is shownin Figure 11*

The objectives of the flow modeling exercise are:

o To develop a quantitative understanding of the hydraulic para-meters ;

o To provide steady-state velocities for the chemical transportmodel;

o To better understand ground water flow at the Delta Quarries andDisposal Site.

CanomeEnvironmentalRR303i»62


The MODFLOW model was selected because of its ability to meet the statedobjectives.

5.1.1 Flow Model Description

The MODFLOW program is capable of performing steady-state and transientflow calculations for porous media. The program is applicable to a widevariety of aquifer conditions. The program solves the differential equa-tion for transient Darcy flow in a heterogeneous and anisotropic aquifersystem. MODFLOW has been widely used for ground water investigations andits suitability as a ground water flow model is well establffljd. Themodel uses block centered finite difference cells. Vertical flow intoaquifers via steambed seepage, areal recharge, evapotransparition, and.-.*%•wells can be accounted-for by the model. The1|pclel is organized in amodular format. Modules are available for welll? evapotransparition, arealrecharge, rivers, and other opt lory;.;.. Any combination of modules can beused to fit a particular problem. |^V '_•;:"!"[.J--

Mathematical Basis J... ;;_ . . , - - , 'J~~'] ~-} - -•--' .-•: --- . , -- :

The genera.] governing equation for transient^ three-dirnenEslpnal flow ofground ifeef (of a constant density) through a saturated, porous, anisotro-%;-<& . ' • - - • . " . - ' - •pic mediuCis:

« <Kxx «) + fe My fj) + fe (Kzz f|) - W - Ss fj (Eq. 1)

where: x, y, and z * are the longitudinal, transverse, and vertical axes,respectively.

Kxx, Kyy, Kzz - Hydraulic conductivity tensors along the x, y, and zaxes, respectivelyh * is the potentiometric headW - is the volumetric flux per unit volumeSs * is the specific storage of the porous mediumt - time

CanomeEnvironmenial


Since the conceptual model of the site assumes a two-dimensional problemwith isotropic material properties, Equation 1 can be simplified to:

K1- + K5"? - W - Ss ($) (Eq. 2)ax* ay* ot

Additional information about the MODFLOW program can be found in the user'smanual (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1984).

AssumptionsfC " 7

The following assumptions were made in the application of the I&DFLOWprogram:

d$T"* -'-"V "--= -1. Darcy's law is valid and hydraulic heaijj, gradients are the only

mechanism driving the flujd flow.

, , • - -2. Porosity of the aquifer medium is homogenous and isotropic, (ie,

it does not wy spatially or directionally). Hydraulic conduc-tivity was al iftned to be isotropic but was allowed to vary fromnode to node to reflect differing materials across the study area.

3. -Wfiere are no gradients of fluid density, viscosity, or temperatureto affect the velocity distribution.

4. No chemical reactions occur that affect either the fluid proper-ties or the porous media properties.

5. The aquifer system is at steady state.

A vertically layered model was not required for this application becausethe subsurface stratigraphy indicates that unconsolidated material whichlies over the fractured rock is not part of the aquifer flow even duringhigh ground water elevation. In addition, even though the site is under-lain by fractured rock, there is no indication of ground water flow

CanomeEnvironmental


through large fracture systems. Large fractures would be indicated byabrupt changes in the water surface elevation. The smooth water tablesurface shown in Figure 11 indicates a relatively uniform porosity in thebedrock aquifer. Thus, a single-layered single-porosity model was chosen.

MODFLOW Input Requirements

MODFLOW input requirements can be classified as program control parameters,problem definition, and aquifer hydraulic properties.

Program control parameters include the specification of moduj s to be usedand whether the simulation is to be transient j>r steady state^ For thisflow modeling exercise, a steady-state simulation was used.

The problem definition consists of specificatiS|:.of the finite differencegrid and boundary conditions. A rectilinear grid was developed for thefinite difference model based uporf^pund water_elevations, hydrogeologi-cal, and geological characteristic!-of the area. The resulting model gridis 9 rows by 13 colurp^ as shown in Figure 12, A basic node size of 500

>"%•< £: - -• ._=. _• •.".'. - --i - - -- , - • " . - • • -feet by 500 feet was %|ld. Narrower spacing was used where material pro-perties changed or where hydraulic gradients were steep. A minimum nodesize of: 3'0'%feet was used. The bottom of the aquifer was specified as 9-50feet aboV^-ftean sea level at all nodes. Boundary conditions were deter-mined by the site conditions and examination of the measured ground watertable elevations from August 25 and 26, 1989. The ground water flow direc-tion at the Delta Quarries Landfill site is in a northwesterly direction,nearly perpendicular to the Little Juniata River as shown on Figure li.Specified-head nodes (ie, dirichlet boundary conditions) were establishedwhere elevation contours were parallel to the grid boundary. Similarly,no-flow boundaries were specified where elevation contours were perpen-dicular to the model grid. Water surface elevations were used as the basisfor specified-head nodes representing the Little Juniata River.

CanomeEnvironmentalflR303l*65


The MODFLOW model required hydraulic properties to be specified for eachnode. These properties include porosity and saturated hydraulic conduc-tivity. A porosity of 0.20 was specified for all nodes. Based upon thepump/slug test data and geological information, initial hydraulic conduc-tivities were assigned to each node.

After specification of the appropriate boundary and initial conditions, theMODFLOW program solves Equation 2 in finite-difference form to predicthydraulic head under steady-state conditions.

Conceptual Model Development

Flow of ground water in the aquifer is controlj-fd by two factors:*"'Q _^ " .

1. The gradient or slope of the water surface, and;•\. '-:•'''• -r""; j - : ;1,*%., ...... . . . . . . . . . ±

2. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer.

*<f*% -At the Delta Quarrie&ft^ndfill Site, regional ground water flow is towardthe Little Juniata Ritfer. There are some minor local variations in theregion§j^f3ow patterns near Sandy Run where ground water supplies baseflowto Sandyjjiln. This causes a slight drainage divide to the northeast of thelandfill. This is a localized effect outside of the modeling grid system.All ground water beneath the landfill flows toward the Little Juniata Riverin a northwesterly direction.

5.1,2 Flow Model Calibration

The MODFLOW model was calibrated by adjusting model input parameters untilthe steady-state water table elevations matched the measured water tableelevations on August 25 and 26, 1989. - The key input parameter used tocalibrate the model was saturated hydraulic conductivity. Based upon thegeological and pumping test data, it was known that there were three zones

CanonieEny;ircj]mentd]AR30


of differing hydraulic conductivity in the study area. The three zones ofhydraulic conductivity are upgradient of the landfill, under the landfill,and downgradient of the landfill corresponding to the eastern syncline,central anticline, and western syncline, respectively. These zones areshown in Figure 6.

Calibration of the model was accomplished by adjusting the hydraulic con-ductivity of each node in the grid until the steady-state hydraulic head ineach node predicted by the model matched the measured water table eleva-tions.

-.f%*The "goodness-of-fit" between the model predictions and the fae^sured watertable elevations was calculated for each model run. The following para-meters were used to estimate the degree of calibration of the model:

*C .>2 £•*o r - Correlation coefficient;

o £e - Sum of the error termf<a'£ the control points (ie, wells);

9 •'tf'''f'"'£' ''o se - Sum of^hfe^squares of the error terms."%?" . - -- --- • i

2A perfecW% calibrated model would have a correlation coefficient, r ,*\ '% : 2equal to jS and error terms, £e and se , equal to 0. The model was con-•$*" • 2sidered well-calibrated when the correlation coefficient, r , was greater

than 0.95. Adjustments were made to the model input parameters so that theo

error terms, se and se , were as close to zero as possible. The correla-tion coefficient of the calibrated flow model was 0.97. Thus, the flowmodel is well calibrated.

A comparison of predicted and measured elevations at the control points isshown in Table 21. A contour map of the calibrated water table elevationsi s shown i n Figure 1 3 . . . ; . . .

CanomeEnvironmentalflR303i;-67


The final conductivities used in the model calibration are provided inFigure 14. The values agree fairly well with those obtained from pump testdata. The resulting pattern of hydraulic conductivities is consistent withthe three known geologic formations in the study area.

Darcy flow velocities predicted by the calibrated model range from 30 feetper year across the southern end of the landfill to 14 feet per year acrossthe northern end of the landfill.

5.1.3 Flow Model Sensitivity Analysis ___ -i*C*'

A sensitivity analysis is used to determine the effect of potential errorsin the estimate of individual model input parameters on the model predic-tions. This is done by varying individual moc l input parameters by aknown amount and observing the resulting effects"bn the model predictions.In this way, the effect of paramet&£ estimation errors can be quantifiedand sensitive input parameters can|!)6Hdentified. This information isuseful for the identification of the need for additional field investiga-

jg-S8$$

tions and in the pla%%<j of such investigations.Vv " -

The folloMQ'ng parameters were investigated for the sensitivity analysis:<c \ __\y& . ".. "..

o Aquifer bottom elevation;

o Infiltration rate;

o Hydraulic conductivity.

During model calibration, the aquifer depth parameter was controlled byentering a constant of 950 feet (MSL) for the aquifer's bottom elevation.This implies that the aquifer thickness varies as the topography varieswhich is consistent with regional geological information. However, as thetrue aquifer depth and variability are not known, this value was changed±50 feet for the sensitivity analysis. This represents a ±30 percent.change in the average saturated depth of the aquifer.

CanonieEnvirpQixientaLflR

FfnaT Draft ReportNovember 14, 1990Page: 66

A 50-foot increase in aquifer thickness resulted in a decrease in groundwater elevations of several feet (about 2 percent), while the gradientsdecreased 5 to 10 percent. A 50-foot decrease in aquifer thickness causedwater elevations to increase them 5 to 10 feet (3 to^6 percent), andgradients increased by approximately 10 percent.

In a similar manner, the hydraulic conductivities determined in the cali-brated flow model were individually adjusted by a factor of 2 uniformlyacross the model grid.- The increased hydraulic conductivities caused aground water elevation decrease of 3 to 7 feet (2 to 4 percent.) and showedlittle influence on gradients. Decreased hydraulic conductivities causewater level increases ranging from 5 feet downgradient (4 percint) to over15 feet upgradient (7 percent) and yielded a 15.to 40 percent increase inhydraulic gradients. The flow model calibrat%* independently confirmedhydraulic conductivities of the geologic formation at the Delta QuarriesSite- : -f^ -, i ->!". :.

|?V ":;-=:| '." ; "Finally, the uniform infiltration or ground water recharge rate was ad-justed by ±50 percen^^The increased recharge rate resulted in an increasein both water levels alrd'gradients. The decreased recharge rate showed afairly uj orm water Jevel decrease and a 5. tPr 10 percent reduction ingradient!.. J ; . ;

Table 22 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis.

The model is insensitive to grid spacing. This is because the model com-putes the hydraulic head (i.e., elevation) at a mode centered within eachgrid cell. For a given uniform hydraulic gradient, the change in elevationacross the grid cell is directly proportional to the cell width. Thehydraulic gradient, however, is not affected by the selected cell width.Coarse grid spacing can cause errors when there are abrupt changes in thehydraulic gradient, such as in the vicinity of pumping wells. At the DeltaQuarries Site, there are no abrupt changes in hydraulic gradient. Themodel results for the Delta Quarries Site are insensitive to grid spacing.

CanonieEnvironmenial&R303U69


5.2 Chemical Transport Model

The chemical transport model chosen is AT123D (Yeh 1981). The model pro-vides the ability to simulate three types of wastes (heat, chemical, andradioactive), several different source configurations, and several sourcerelease modes. The hydraulic conductivities and hydraulic gradients fromthe calibrated flow model were utilized as the convective framework in atransport model.

The model assumes a uniform one-dimensional flow field and is capable ofsimulating three-dimensional transport. Specifically, AT12 Bj;has thecapabilities to describe contaminants undergoing advection andl-hydrodynamicdispersion. The AT123D model was chosen for the chemical transport modelbecause of its flexibility and simplicity.

The goals of using the transport model are to:

o Estimate source strengths ajfeT'release patterns consistent withmeasured contamination patterns;

.***%*V%V •" -- • =- = :o Predict plume concentrations and movement in the future;

o If&drpss the effects of capping the landfill;

o Better understand the movement of compounds in ground water at thesite.

Ultimately, the results of the transport model will be used to determinerelative effectiveness of various remedial action alternatives in thefeasibility study.

CanonieEnviroimentalR303U70


5.2.1 Chemical Transport Model Development

Mathematical Model

Chemical compounds entering the ground water are transported and trans-formed via a number of physical mechanisms, making the governing equationsquite complex. Neglecting any effects of chemical and biological degrada-tion, radioactive decay, and ion exchange or sorption, the general equationis (Yeh 1981): ;

• 3>

where: nrt * effective porosity -C."e -3 %C = concentrations of solute (ML ) %*t - time ,X£. I.:...,.—...-:--..-.;-::....,-.,--- -« "*•:,%. ----- ; ----- - - 2-1u s hydraulic dispersion Efficient tensor (L T )

|i;.v :

V = Laplace differential operatorq* = Darcy verity (LT"1)

'C"%- -3 ~-lM « source release rate (ML T )

The lefC'ljiafd side of .the equation describes the time rate of change of theconcentration of solute. The right-hand side has terms for the combinedeffects of hydraulic dispersion and molecular diffusion, the effect ofadvective transport, and the contribution of waste source.

Initial conditions are assumed to be zero concentration at all locations.Boundary conditions are specified by the user and the appropriate equationsare chosen by the model based upon source and aquifer geometry.

The AT123D program solves the appropriate analytical equations for con-centration at user-specified time intervals. Additional information aboutthe AT123D program is available in the User's Manual (Yeh 1981).

CanomeEnvironmentalflfl303i*7l


Assumptions

Although the AT123D program is flexible in the transformation processesconsidered, a conservative, worst-case scenario was used by assuming thatno first-order decay or sorption occurs. It was assumed that contaminantmovement occurs by advection and hydrodynamic dispersion only. From thecalibrated flow model 1t was determined that the interstitial velocity isapproximately 60 feet per year. Longitudinal and transverse dispersivitieswere assumed to be 10 meters and 1 meter, respectively. Since the monitor-ing wells are screened over a large depth interval, a two-dimensional model•.f**'''in the horizontal plane was assumed to apply. This is approbate sincewater from the wells represents average water quality over the'êntirescreened depth. A two-dimensional model assume^.complete mixing in the<£p*" ~~ .- .vertical direction. ^f

J*. . . . ..- i..,.. .

Pump and slug tests indicate the rîonal aquifer to be unconfined with& ,- t - . - . . . . ^ . , - „ ' - - •unconsolidated material lying over l/efthered rock. Additional data indie-ate that the landfill materials (source) are located above the water table.

,$a£

For purposes of the tft^port model, the source was assumed to be situated% *>••entirely in the saturated zone, and comprised the entire thickness of thesaturate4<4gne. This is an extremely conservative approach which allowsthe assumfetitm of complete mixing in the vertical direction and transportôf the source solute in two dimensions: longitudinal (along flow lines) andtransverse (perpendicular to flow lines).

A further assumption is that the source strength is uniform throughout theentire areal extent of the assumed source area.

The results of the flow model calibration show that the assumption of auniform flow field is valid in the region between the Delta Quarries Land-fill and the Little Juniata River. In addition, the level of detail avail-able on chemical compounds in the ground water is limited, particularlyregarding source locations, strengths, and release patterns over the

C nonieEmjrnnmental


last 25 years. Therefore, the use of a simpler analytical model moreappropriate than a complex numerical model. The AT123D program is used toestimate source strengths and release patterns consistent with the observedcontamination distribution in the aquifer.

Historical Trends

Historical measurements of VOC concentrations are available for well M2-Area IV and FAM Spring. Although the concentrations of chemical compoundsat Well M2-Area IV are unrelated to landfill activities, the relativelylarge database of information that exists for this well was yMlized forthe purpose of tracking historical trends. Both M2-Area IV ar^FAM Springshow a.decreasing trend in the concentrations of VOCs from September 1982through August 1989. Figure 15 shows the histc^ical concentration oftrichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and tetra§|loroethene from well M2-Area IV. ' "" '*'

A mathematical regression analysisjwas performed to determine equationsthat would describe tip, decreasing trend in the concentrations of trichlo-roethene, l,l-dichlor'b^%ane, and tetrachloroethene. The following equa-tions describe the historical concentrations of trichloroethene, 1,1-di-chloroe.fctr&'te§? and tetrachloroethene, respectively:

'\ | . •- - . \ - ~ ' -•:•-•• ;—i -|X ; . . . - - - - -,- - .

C (trichloroethene) - -62.7196 (log T) + 86.33935 (Eq. 4)r2 = 0.779

C (1,1-dichloroethane) * -19.5072 .(log T) + 29.20429 (Eq. 5)r2 = 0.815

C (tetrachloroethene) - -12.4480 (log T) +16.32136 (Eq. 6)r2 = 0.725

where:

C (trichloroethene) « concentration of trichloroethene at time T,(ppb);

. CanonieEnvircnmental'AR3Q3U3


T - Time in years from first measurement (September 21, 1982);r « correlation coefficient.

Well M2-Area IV results show steadily decreasing concentrations over timefor all three compounds. This trend can be described by the mathematicalregression equations with a high degree of certainty as indicated by thelarge correlation coefficients (r }.

When extrapolated into the future, equations 4, 5, and 6 predict that ifthe current declining trend continues, that the concentrations of trichlo-roethene, 1,1 dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethene will go to.,.zero in 17,24, and 14 years, respectively. %\

Equations 4, 5, and 6 suggest that natural attenuation of the source ofcontamination will result in reduced VOC concentrations over time, makingthe "no action with continued monitoring" a feafible remedial alternative.Also implied is the conclusion that^if other remedial measures m_ay berequired, such as interceptor well|Jwfth treatment, these auctions wouldonly need to be in place for a finite duration,$&&- - -- -

\\Conceptual Model ^

** &*C 1Based upoglhe measured ground water elevations, potential compounds from*the Delta Quarries Landfill would migrate in a northwesterly directionnearly perpendicular to the Little Juniata River. Two possible scenariosexist if it is assumed that the landfill acts as a potential source.

For a source that has been active for some time (ie, more than 10 years),the concentrations of chemicals would be expected to be greatest at thesource and would decrease toward the Little Juniata River due to hydrodyna-mic dispersion and natural dilution with clean ground water.

For a source that is no longer active, the pattern of chemical concentra-tions would show a higher concentration located at some distance from thesource due to the concentrations migrating with the ground water. The

CanomeEnvironmentalAR303U7U

Ffna7 Draft ReportNovember 14, 1990Page: 72

concentrations would migrate with the ground water and eventually dischargeat the Little Juniata River.

VOCs were detected in six monitoring wells at the site (Mi-Lined, M2-AreaIV, 6-85, 8-85, 9-88, and 10A-88). Two distinct source release patternscan be inferred from measured VOC concentrations of the ground water sam-ples. ;

In well 18-88 the compound 2-butanone was detected at 100 ppb. This wasnot considered to be a valid measurement because 1) this compound was notmeasured in any other well, including well 17-88 which is very close towell 18-88 and is screened in the same interval, 2) the com£3ynd has neverbeen detected in any upgradient wells (the George, Rodkey, or %1 rich wells)or nearby wells (wells 2 and 4-79), and 3) 2-butanone is known to be alaboratory contaminant. ^Q

'"''?•.>'

The pattern of total VOC concentrations, as shown in Figure 16, suggeststhat a source at the landfill is n|?%3ng_er active. The total VOC con-centrations increase with distancerrom the landfill. However, examinationof the individual coiHJ'Sjunds, which are added to obtain a total VOC con-

' VVV " ' ! ' "" " " r 'centration, indicates htt different compounds were measured in each well.For example, acetone was measures in well 9-88 at 160 ppb, but was notdetectedCin'lany other wells. The compounds found in Individual wells and

*?*; - ^ i . . : - ' •their relit'ive concentrations are not consistent with a single uniformsource even considering degradation products.

It appears that there may be multiple isolated sources at the landfillsite. This fact makes the task of complete model calibration more dif-ficult. The task becomes one of predicting source release profiles formultiple compounds from multiple sources whose locations are not known. Aunique solution to this problem does not exist because there are manycombinations of source locations, source concentration, and release ratethat would explain the observed concentrations. For the purpose of thisevaluation, a worst-ca?e scenario was assumed which treated the entirelandfill area as a source. The scope of the chemical transport modelingexercise was to quantify possible source conditions at the site.

CanomeEnvironmental'


The AT123D model was used to examine two basic scenarios:

1. The concentrations resulting from an active source;

2. The concentrations resulting from an inactive (former) source.

The time to reach equilibrium was determined for the first scenario and thesystem migration time was determined for the second scenario.

5.2,2 Chemical Transport Model Calibration ^?*.<x .

The objective of calibrating a transport model is to match mea'sured chemi-cal concentrations within the study area monitoring wells. To achievethis, some knowledge of source strength and ti' s variation needs to beknown. As limited data on the Delta Landfill history exists, the sourceinformation was inferred from hisfejfeical sampling data.

W ; ":---*••"*

As described in Section 5.2.1, two distinct source release profiles can berf**linferred from the gri%«i., water sampling data. These are: 1) a currently

%-. . •"*" • • - - -T —— --

active source and 2) a^source that was once" active but is now inactive.The compounds found in each well and their relative concentrations indicate* <.. .that thersM&ay be multiple independent sources that could be currentlyactive, although concentrations appear to be decreasing significantly overtime. In order to bracket the problem, two source release profiles weresimulated with AT123D: an inactive source and an active source.

Inactive Source Simulation

A contour plot of the sum of the five most common VOCs detected is shown inFigure 16. The resulting contours show concentrations of 5 VOCs that arelowest at the edge of the landfill (45-50 ppb) and gradually increase withdistance downgradient from the landfill (150 ppb at 600 feet). Figure 16displays a concentration pattern that is consistent with a source that isno longer active, as the highest concentrations are 600 feet away from thelandfill,

CanomeEnvironmental&R3Q3U6


The concentrations profiles in Figure 16 were matched by trial -and-erroradjustment of source strength and release history. Assuming that landfillsource became active in 1985 (year 0), the August 1989 sampling correspondsto year 24.7. A source with a release rate of 0.0014 kg/hr (27 Ibs/year)was assumed to be active from year 0 to year 10 (1965 to 1975). The sourcewas assumed to be inactive (ie, no release of chemicals) from year 10 toyear 24.7 (1975 to 1989). The resulting concentration pattern matches theconcentrations shown in Figure 16. A contour plot of the AT123D modeloutput at year 24.7 (ie, August 1989) is shown in Figure 17. The modelpredicted that if the entire landfill acted as the source, all VOCs wouldnaturally attenuate from the ground water system after aboutr::|bo years.The model also predicted that total VOC concentrations would cfcop below 5ppb after 40 years (ie, year 2005).

rf€l-'Active Source Simulation . . \*&~"..

«£%.. "- -.- 1 --

In contrast to the concentration p|J%Ues .observed for the five selectedVOCs, the concentration profile for" the single compound 1,1-dichloroethane,shows the highest con£'|ntrations at the landfill which decrease with dis-tance downgradient f r<% %he landfill. A concentration contour plot of 1,1-dichloroethane is shown in Figure 18. A continuous source was assumed.The sou1%;e "Release rate was adjusted by trial -and-error until the 1,1- •

% .** i' " " - >

dichloroefcfiane concentrations at year 24.7 (ie, August 1989) matched theobserved concentrations. A source release rate of 0.00025 kg/hr (1Ib/year) produced the best match of concentrations. A contour plot ofsimulated 1,1-dichloroethane concentrations at jear 24.7 is shown in Figure19. The model reached a steady-state concentration of approximately 45 ppb(ie, they did not change over time) after about 44 years. Printouts of theinput and output files for the AT123D model runs are presented in Appendix

CanonleErivirximental


5,2.3 Chemical Transport Model Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed on the following parameters: aquiferthickness, hydraulicconductivity, longitudinal and transverse disper-sivity, effective porosity, hydraulic gradient, source release rate, andduration of chemical release.

Aquifer Depth

In calibrating the transport model, the aquifer depth was entered as 15meters (50 feet), and the source was completely distributed'^ the verticaldirection. This value was increased to 30 meters and 45 meter's for thesensitivity study, and the maximum concentrations predicted by AT123D after25 years reduced from 133 ppb to 61 ppb and 40 ppb, respectively. Thistrend of lower concentration with increasing aqlifer thickness, is expectedas the source strength was not altered, Thu$, the same net source wasdistributed over a larger volume a f-, smaller concentration resulted.

.•:

Hydraulic Conductivity*^.———— ——.—————— ————————.—————————,,_.-——_-pj£ £

YV'&* ASimilarly, the hydraulic conductivity of 2 x 10 cm/sec used in model

calibratk>1¥&was varied fay a factor of 2.5. The increased hydraulic con-x 1ductivityResulted in the maximum concentration of 100 ppb occurring ear-lier in time, and reduces the concentrations to zero at time t ^ 25 years.The decreased hydraulic conductivity yielded a maximum concentration of 154ppb. This is the result of decreased regional flow available for dilutionwhen the hydraulic conductivity is decreased.

plspersivitv

The longitudinal and transverse dispersivities used in calibration were10.0 m and 1.0 m, respectively. These were altered by ± one order ofmagnitude {ie, a factor of 10) in the sensitivity run. The increaseddispersivities resulted in lower maximum concentrations in the longitudinal

CanomeEnvironmentalftR303.U78


direction, and increased concentrations in the transverse direction from 12ppb to 44 ppb at a distance of 17.5 meters from the landfill. The lowereddispersivities yielded an increased maximum concentration of 159 ppb 1n thelongitudinal direction, and decreased the concentration to 0 ppb at the17.5 meter distance.

Effective Porosity

The effective porosity of 0,20 was varied by ±50 percent for the sensiti-vity study. The increased porosity, 0.30, reduced maximum concentrationsto 96 ppb at 25 years. The decreased porosity, 0.10, resulted in a muchlarger maximum concentration of 231 ppb at an earlier time; .years in-stead of 25 years. *\.

Hydraulic Gradient

The hydraulic gradient used in model calibration was 0.057, an averagevalue for the southwestern part office landfill (from August 1989 waterlevel measurements). A lower valuator 0.020 was measured northwest of thelandfill. This gradient had little influence on the maximum concentration(reduced from 133 ppJ!h|'&y27 ppb) but the location of the center of plumecontamination shifted from 100 meters downgradient of the source to theedge of^tife^source. This is consistent with the observed concentrations tothe north^lt of the landfill where only well 6-85 at the-edge of thelandfill has shown any contamination.

Source Release Rate and Duration

The final sensitivity study involves the two source parameters, wasterelease rate, and duration of release. The rate of release was varied by afactor of 2 and indicated an almost linear relationship between wasterelease rate and maximum concentrations. Similarly, the duration of wasterelease was varied by a factor of 2. The longer duration resulted in amaximum concentration at 223 ppb at a time of 25 years, while the reducedwaste release period yielded a smaller maximum concentration at an earliertime. . _.. ...

CanomeEnvironmentalAR303U79


A summary of the transport model results is presented in Table 23. Thesensitivity study showed that several combinations of hydraulic parameterscould be used to represent current conditions. Further monitoring is anessential requirement to providing an additional time history of concentra-tion measurements. The additional data would result in a more precisemodel calibration.

5>3 Ground Water Modeling Conclusions

The flow model was calibrated by adjusting the value of hydraulic conduc-tivity in each node. The correlation between measured and predicted groundwater elevations was 97 percent. The ground water flow model^s con-sidered to be well calibrated. The final hydraulic conductivities arrivedat by the calibrated flow model matched the patterns of known geologicformations at the Delta Quarries and Disposal $£te, _ _ _ _.*'*

Measured concentrations of VOCs afff^round water flow directions wereanalyzed to determine potential so&rce locations. Due to the variations incompounds measured irv4.he ground water samples collected, it was concluded

* % ":-r . . .that there are multip^e^sources of VOCs. Based upon the ground water flow^direction, some of these sources are potentially within the landfill andothers cl

Since a well defined source could not be identified, the ground watertransport model (AT123D) was used to estimate the source release rateneeded to create VOC concentrations in ground water similar to thosemeasured in August 1989. Two source release scenarios were investigated;an active source and an inactive source. Although the measured groundwater VOC concentrations were not entirely consistent with either of thesescenarios, it was interesting to find that very small quantities of VOCs(as little as one pound per year spread over the entire landfill volume)could cause ground water concentrations on the order of 45 ppb.

CanonleKnvTrpnmental


Limited historical data since 1982 shows a steadily decreasing trend Inground water VOC concentrations. Continued monitoring of ground water VOCconcentrations might allow a better definition of the apparent trend ofdecreasing VOC concentrations in the vicinity of the Delta Quarries andDisposal Landfill Site.

The results of the inactive source scenario indicate that concentrations oftotal VOCs will drop below 5 ppb 40 years after source began (ie, year2005). The time required for all chemical compounds to migrate to theLittle Juniata River is 100 years (ie, year 2065).

CanomeEnvironmental' flR3Q3l»8l


6.0 HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION

6.1 Introduction

The human health evaluation process is a formal and integral part of theSuperfund remedial investigation. The process of collecting and assessinghuman health risk information is adapted from well-established chemicalrisk assessment principles and procedures. Risk assessment is a continu-ally evolving discipline which incorporates information gained from pastexperience at Superfund sites and ongoing scientific research. Refinementin risk assessment policy is reflected in the recent development and publi-cation by U.S. EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial ResponsS^pf revisedguidelines for conducting Superfund risk assessments (viz the Human HealthEvaluation Manual, U.S. EPA, 1989). The methodologies utilized in theevaluation of the Delta Quarries Superfund Sit'l are consistent with U.S.EPA's interim final risk assessment guidelines (December 1989).

"!fV ' ^ ' "-•' • ^The formal human health evaluationl-of the Delta Quarries Site is preparedas an independent document. The discussion presented below is intended to•&; fprovide a brief summaElgf^pf the risk assessment process and the human healthhazards associated with chemical compounds detected at the site. Thereader s^ricouraged to review the human health evaluation report, sub-mitted u e'f separate cover, in conjunction with the remedial investigationreport.

6.2 Purpose

The primary objective of the human health evaluation is to provide areasonable estimation of the extent and likelihood of actual or possible(current or future) harm to public health caused by hazardous substancereleases from the site in the absence of any actions to control or mitigatethose releases (ie, under an assumption of no action). The baseline risk

CanomeEnvironmentalflR303U82


assessment contributes to the site characterization and subsequent develop-ment, evaluation, and selection of appropriate response alternatives. Theresults of the baseline risk assessment are used:

o To help determine whether additional response action is necessaryat the site;

o To modify preliminary remediation goals;

o To support selection of the "no-action" remedial alternative, whereappropriate.

•ft;. .

6.3 Methodology : **"

The baseline risk assessment process involves 'fgur basic steps: dataanalysis, exposure assessment, toxlcity assessment, and risk characteriza-tion. The analysis of data involve a detailed consideration of the detec-'& Vf<"- -i- "tions, concentrations, and extent c^lfeazardous^ substances in all relevant

.-X ' - - - -

environmental media (eg, ground water, soil, sediments, etc), and theidentification of the^pfmical substai.:es present at the site that repre-sent the focus of the.ylisk assessment process. Justification for eliminat-ing from J.ty~ risk analysis chemicals that are detected at naturally occur-ring levies j&nd which^do not pose health hazards is provided in this

'$%••*' "- - i " - - " • - i- - - - - - -initial step.

An exposure assessment is conducted to estimate the magnitude of actual andpotential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures,and the pathways by which humans are possibly exposed. In the exposureassessment, reasonable maximum estimates of exposures to chemicals aredeveloped for both current and future land-use assumptions. This processinvolves analyzing contaminant releases (ie, fate and transport), identify-ing exposed populations, identifying all potential pathways of exposure,

CanonieEnvironmental1 ftR3Q3U83


estimating the upper limits of exposure point concentrations for eachpathway of concern, and estimating the reasonable maximum contaminantintakes for specific pathways.

The toxicity assessment component of the baseline risk assessment considersthe types of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, therelationship between magnitude of exposure and adverse effects, and relateduncertainties such as the weight of evidence of a particular chemical'spotential carcinogenicity in humans.

Dose-response information is essential to characterizing health hazards.One fundamental principle of toxicology that cannot be overemphasized isthat exposure to a toxic substance does not necessarily resdl\in a toxiceffect. One primary purpose of the toxicity assessment is to Documentexposure levels which are not anticipated to result in any adverse effects*#***in any susceptible population. *V _ - .

Risk characterization summarizes a^; combines outputs of the exposure andtoxicity assessments to characteri|f"%pper limits of risk. This step of

j-ythe evaluation also compares predicted exposure concentrations (or the

sjg&fy - "

measured and predictigJqoncentrations in specific environmental media) withapplicable or relevantHnd appropriate rsaulatory requirements (eg, federaldrinki natter standards for certain che...;cals in ground water). The

wji —— "^ - - • -

output d"£tMs analysis provides both quantitative and qualitative expres-sions of risk. To characterize potential non-cancer effects, comparisonsare made between projected intakes of chemical contaminants and toxicityvalues or guidelines developed by U.S. EPA. To characterize the upperlimit of potential carcinogenic effects, probabilities that an individualcould develop cancer over a lifetime of exposure are estimated from pro-jected reasonable-maximum exposures and chemical -specific upper-boundcancer potency estimates developed by U.S. EPA's Carcinogen AssessmentGroup. Major assumptions, scientific judgments, and estimates of uncer-tainties embodied In the human health .evaluation are documented in thecompanion human health evaluation report for the Delta Quarries site.

CanomeEnvironmental


6.4 Site Characterization

The nature and extent of chemical contamination within the Delta Quarriesstudy area was characterized through extensive sampling of surface soils,monitoring wells, residential wells, surface water, and sediments. Sampleswere analyzed for U.S. EPA's TCL and TAL constituents. For the organic.analyses this also included searches for non-target compounds (up to 30extraneous peaks). The data have undergone a rigorous quality assurancereview to insure compliance, validity, and usability of the results(Appendix F).

''£'\No point sources or "hot spots" of contamination were identified as aresult of the remedial investigation and previous sampling surveys.Contamination at levels of potential human heaj&to concern appears to belimited to the occurrence of volatile organic c%micals in ground water asreflected by samples collected from monitoring wells situated around theboundary of the former fill area, ':fjfe|. results of the remedial investiga-tion survey of all residential welll: in proximity to the former landfillindicated that no orgj.n|c compounds were reliably detected in any residen-tial well samples. \\ "-.-""-i-

All anal t'Hal data obtained in the course of the remedial investigationwere comp^^d, sorted by environmental medium, evaluated with respect toanalytical qualifiers (including sample-specific minimum quantitationlimits), analyzed statistically to generate upper 95 percent confidencelimits of the average concentrations for each chemical in each medium; andexamined in comparison to naturally occurring background levels in accord-ance with U.S. EPA's recently revised guidelines. Environmental mediaevaluated individually include surface water, sediments, surface soils, andground water. Ground water represented by downgradient monitoring wellsamples was evaluated separately from ground water at downgradientresidential wells. Air samples were not collected (this medium is notregarded as a significant pathway of exposure at the site in view of the


absence of significant volatile organics or other contaminants found insurface soils, and because the former landfill has been capped with a soilcover four feet in depth). Tables 10 through 19 present summaries of theanalytical results for each medium.

6,5 Exposure Analysis

Exposure pathways considered for the purpose of quantitative analysisinclude incidental ingestion and dermal absorption from direct contact withcontaminated surface soils, surface waters, and sediments, consumption ofcontaminated ground water which may be utilized as a potable supply andinhalation of vapor phase chemicals from daily showering wit^otentiallycontaminated household water. Other potential pathways of exposure such as•£•'' ~inhalation of dusts and uptake of contaminants into garden vegetables werejudged to be insignificant relative to exposur.fs: resulting from directcontact with contaminated soils. Assuming the Cattle Juniata River is usedfor swimming and other recreational purposes, the estimated health hazards

jt£ _ _ _' __

associated with exposures via thist&ss were insignificant.%«5''" *•%•.-. ....— .i* * " •." ^ •The next step in the exposure assessment process involved quantification ofs?%. ^the magnitude, frequert^JV- and duration for the populations and exposurepathways selected for quantitative evaluation. Generally, exposure pointconcentrates of~chemicals were based not upon the arithmetic averageconcentra$*6ns of chemicals in a particular medium, but rather upon the 95percent upper confidence limit of the average, so as to produce an estimateof the reasonable maximum exposure. Intake factors (eg, amount of soilingestion, contact rate, exposure frequency, and duration, etc) weresimilarly selected so that the combination of all variables conservativelyresults in the maximum exposure that can reasonably be expected to occur ata site. Exposure coefficients and related variables recommended in variousU.S. EPA guidance documents were generally utilized, where available, inthis assessment.

CanomeEnvironmental


6_.6 Toxlcitv and Risk Characterization

Projected intakes for each risk'and each chemical were then compared toacceptable intake levels [risk reference doses (RfDs)] for noncarcinogeniceffect. RfDs have been developed by the U.S. EPA for chronic (eg, life-time) and/or subchronic exposure to chemicals based on the most sensitivenon-carcinogenic effects. The chronic RfD for a chemical is an estimate ofa lifetime daily exposure level for the human population, including sensi-tive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk ofdeleterious effects. The potential for non-cancer health effects is evalu-ated by comparing an exposure level over a specified time pey f&d with theRfD derived by the U.S. EPA for a similar exposure period. Th s ratio ofexposure to toxicity is called the hazard quotient.

The non-cancer hazard quotient assumes that theie is a threshold level of• • .->"exposure (ie, RfD) below which it is unlikely for even the most sensitivepopulations to experience adverse'||.:a;J.th_tffec s. If the exposure levelexceeds the threshold (ie, the haza¥d quotient exceeds a value greater than1.0) there may be corjeep for potential non-cancer effects (viz, thegreater the value of t^e^hazard quotient or hazard index above unity thegreater the level of concern for potential health impacts).

To assess1.t:ne overall potential for non-cancer effects posed by multiplechemicals, a hazard index (HI) is derived by summing the individual hazardquotients. This approach assumes additivity of critical effects of mul-tiple chemicals. This is appropriate only for compounds that induce thesame effect by the same mechanism of action. 'Thus, this conservativeapproach may significantly overestimate the potential for adverse healthimpacts. (This aspect of the hazard assessment as it relates to the DeltaQuarries human health evaluation, is discussed in greater detail in thecompanion report).

nvironmental87


For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of anindividual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to apotential human carcinogen. The U.S. EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group hasdeveloped carcinogen potency factors (CPFs) for suspected and known humancarcinogens which are used to convert daily intakes averaged over a life-time of exposure directly to incremental risk. The CPF is generally ex-pressed in units of risk per milligram chemical per kilogram body weightper day of exposure (ie, risk units per mg/kg/day). The CPF or slopefactor is the upper 95th percentile confidence limit of the extrapolation(slope) from high-dosed animal data to very much lower doses in humans.The use of the upper limit produces a risk estimate that has $, 95 percent

..$•"$£ '*probability of exceeding the actual risk, which may actually^&§ zero. Forexposures to multiple carcinogens the upper limits of cancer rfsk aresummed to derive a total cancer risk. It may b^ noted that additivity ofcancer risk is recommended by U.S. EPA; howevel^' it is not appropriate tosum upper limits of the risk to produce a realiflic total probability.

Tables 23 and 24 present a summarypr the hazard indices a_nd upper-boundlifetime cancer risks resulting from exposure to the chemicals of potentialconcern in ground wa£%*\yia ingestion and inhalation, respectively. When"%all chemicals in all media (except those inorganics occurring at backgroundconcentr£-i4pn) were carried through the analysis described above, more than99 percert jlf the total cancer risk was attributable to the chlorinatedhydrocarbons (viz, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane,. chloroform, trichlo-roethene, tetrachloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethane) in ground water,assuming that the affected ground water would be utilized in the future asa potable and household supply. About 80 percent of the total hazard indexscore summed for all chemicals across all exposure pathways was attribu-table to the assumed ingestion and inhalation by the maximally exposedfuture resident of the volatile'organic chemicals in ground water. Thetotal combined hazard index is estimated to be about 0.4 based on plausibleexposure to chemicals found at the site. When the hazard index signifi-cantly exceeds the value of 1.0 (ie, unity), there may be concerns forpotential non-cancer health effects. In this case however, the combinedhazard index is less than unity, indicating that no chemical hazards, otherthan the potential for a small oncogenic risk, are identified at this site.

CanonleEnyironmental


Accordingly, the potentially carcinogenic chemicals found in ground waterrepresent the compounds of potential concern, and the future use of theaffected ground water poses the only theoretical risk of interest at thissite. ;

As noted earlier, no existing residential wells have evidenced any indica-"tion of site-related contamination. Indeed, all but a few of the homewells situated around ,the site are upgradient of the entire former fillarea. Current estimates of risk to nearby residents, based upon analysisof home well samples and potential exposures of these populations to sitesoils and sediments, are insignificant (less than 10 ). The estimates ofrisk presented in Tables 23 and 24 are based on the assumptiS'n^hat futureresidents may someday be located directly downgradient of the fill area atthe site boundary. In this exercise exposure p^nt concentrations weredetermined, in accordance with U.S. EPA's recerl^fHuman Health Evaluationguidelines (U.S. EPA, 1989), by calculating the'15th percentile confidencelimit on the current average concerf^ations in monitoring wells and conser-vatively assuming steady-state condftfons. the upper 95 percent confidenceinterval represents a 9.5 percent probability that the average concentra-tions are less than t*RJ| y>per limit calculated. Where chemicals detectedat least once in grouncfwater were not detected in specific samples, aconcentration equivalent to one-half the method detection limit was assumedfor the cfyprfical in that sample, in accordance with the U.S. EPA HumanHealth Evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1989) guidelines.

Alternately, transport modeling was used to predict contaminant concentra-tions downgradient of specific monitoring wells within the study area whichrevealed the greatest contamination. Monitoring Well 10A-88 is the onlywell sampled which revealed detectable levels of vinyl chloride, and alsoexhibits the greatest presence of the compounds of concern. However,immediately downgradient of this area is contoured steep terrain, and thelikelihood of a residential development at this point is very low as thearea is contained within a flood plain (see Figure 2). Nevertheless,exposure point concentrations at the landfill boundary have been modeledand the health hazards evaluated.

CanonleEnviron:


Based on the ground water gradient and transport model, the only wells thatcould potentially exhibit elevated concentration of VOCs in ground waterare the existing Jones, Blckle, and Lehman residences downgradient ofMonitoring Well 6-85, which revealed 1,1-dichloroethene at 15 microgramsper liter (ppb) and chloroform at 39 ppb. The total upper-bound cancerrisk for household use of this water is estimated to be about 1 x 10,assuming concentrations of these suspected human carcinogens remain con-stant in water used as a household supply over several decades. However,according to the U.S. EPA guidelines, even though no vinyl chloride wasdetected in this monitoring well sample, at least one-half the samplemethod detection limit of 1.3 ppb must be assumed as present. Under anassumption of steady-state conditions (ie, the concentration^'mainsconstant over time and the center plume eventually migrates to"Jhe receptorpoint), and further assuming a concentration of 0.65 ppb of vinyl chloridewas present in household water, the theoreticalf&pper limU of risk wouldcorrespond to 1 in 100,000 risk of cancer. It J|,puld be emphasized againhowever, the assumption of the presence of vinyl chloride in householdwater at one-half its quantitationT^lt (5 ppb) is arbitrary and vinyl'§"' &*' - - -chloride was not detected directly ^gradient of any residences. It shouldalso be emphasized thjt yinyl chloride was detected in only 1 of the 38ground water samples effected and in no other medium sampled. Thetheoretical risk from the assumed presence of vinyl chloride in any of themonitori^^ells in the study area predominates the concerns raised in thehuman heat&tf* evaluation. The actual risk to any future users of groundwater is likely to be substantially less and may even be zero.

Table 25 presents a summary of the combined upper bound cancer risks andhazard indices utilizing the upper 95 percentile confidence limits of themean concentrations in all downgradient wells of the compounds of concernto future residents downgradient of the former landfill. Also included inthis table are the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements(ARARs), where available, for these compounds of concern in ground water.MCLs are enforceable standards promulgated under the Safe Drinking WaterAct and are designed for the protection of public health. MCLs representchemical-specific ARARs and provide the basis for defining preliminaryremediation goals. The upper 95th percentile concentrations of some of thecompounds of concern exceed the MCL, but in no case by more than a factor

CanonieEnyir;ft


7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of the RI is to determine the nature and extent of any threatto human health or the environment caused by any release or threatenedrelease of hazardous substances from the site. To achieve this objective,data were gathered relating to the potential sources of chemical compoundsin the study area, and the nature and extent of chemical compounds in studyarea surface water, sediments, surface soils, monitoring wells, residentialwells, and air.

7,1 Potential Sources ^^

The Delta Quarries and Disposal Landfill was in operation from 1964 through1985 under various ownerships. Site files ind|£;tte that the majority ofywastes disposed on-site (99.8 percent) were municipal wastes, and onlyapproximately 0.25 percent of the accepted wastes were solid and liquidindustrial wastes. |&y * 1

During the RI several-^her potential sources of chemical compounds werenoted within the study' i a. The City of Altoona Wastewater TreatmentPlant is located approximately 750 feet west of^the southern half of thesite. T% %-eatment plant discharges treated municipal wastewater intosettling 1%'goons located directly adjacent to the western wetland. Treatedeffluent is then discharged to the Little Juniata River. The results ofthe ecological study conducted during the RI indicate that the treatmentplant has had a detrimental impact on the water quality of the LittleJuniata River (Section 3.8). Permission was not granted by the City ofAltoona to investigate the water quality beneath the sewage treatment plantduring the RI; therefore, a conclusion as to the nature of potentialsources from the treatment plant could not be derived. PADER is currentlyengaged in an Investigation to determine the extent of hazardous substancescontamination at the treatment plant property, and has stated their inten-tion of removing approximately 6,000 cy of soil from two waste pits on the

CanomeEnvironmentalflR303l»9l


site. The soils are reportedly contaminated with various organic chemi-cals, Including trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, benzene, PCBs, andphenols.

A municipal trash transfer station operated west of the southern half ofthe landfill (ie, downgradient). The transfer station is located immedi-ately adjacent to the western wetland. No samples were taken from theground water downgradient of the trash transfer station so no conclusionscan be drawn regarding contamination from this potential source.

Three junkyards are located on the west side of the landfill, two down-gradient within 500 feet and one upgradient within 800 feet §f;Hhe site.During field activities, 55-gallon drums were noted on two of |jt*e junkyardproperties. However, as no samples were obtained from these properties,the nature of potential sources could not be evaluated. In one case,%•* ~~acetone was discovered in well 9-88 near one of JUie junkyards and was notdiscovered in any upgradient well. ....This suggests that the junkyard may bethe source of the acetone. Uv - -^ - -~-- -

I," >-- "7.2 Surface Water anc^edlment Impacts

The surface water and sediment data review concluded that there was no.«*t.observabte Negative impact from the western wetland outflow on the Little%>. ^Juniata RiVir (Section 3.8). However, any negative impact from the land-fill on the surface water quality of the Little Juniata River would havebeen masked by the influence of the wastewater treatment plant. There wasno strong Indication that Sandy Run has been affected by any chemicalcompounds emanating from the landfill via the East Flow.

The findings of the ecological study also indicate that there may be poten-tial sources of contamination upgradient from the City of Altoona Waste-water Treatment Plant, as several VOCs were detected in an upstream controlpoint sample. At the surface water sampling point located the

C nonieFrc/ironmerial


furthest downstream from the site (SW-1), a significant concentration oftotal.organic carbon not present 1n upstream samples indicate that a heavyorganic input may be entering the Little Juniata River from the junkyardlocated along Sixth Avenue north of the wastewater treatment plant and thewestern wetland.

7.3 Surface Soil Impacts

Analytical results from eight surface soil samples obtained in the studyarea revealed that there is low level VOC contamination in two of thesampled areas (SS-3 and SS-7). Several semi-volatile compounds were alsodetected in sample SS-7. Copper was detected at 361 ppm in f^lple SS-2(landfill cap material), which exceeds the typical range of copper in soils(2 to 250 ppm). The remaining inorganic parameters for all surface soilsamples were within the typical concentration -fajiges cited (Table 11).

$•&-7.4 Ground Water Impacts• T V - - . - _ - • - - f - * - - - •

: |fv •'--"? - '- '"- :; -• " -Nineteen monitoring wells which completely encircle the Delta Quarries andDisposal landfill and|T|adjacent residential wells were sampled during theRI and analyzed for th%,-ftL and TAL. Of the 16 residential wells, 5 aredowngradient from the landfill and 11 are upgradient. The 11 upgradientresidenf1;|l1wens are at a higher ground water elevation than the landfilland would^ffot be affected by potential impacts from the landfill.

Analytical results indicate that low levels of VOCs are present In monitor-ing wells to the west of the landfill with the exception of well 18-88,located northeast of the landfill. VOCs were not detected in any of theresidential wells sampled. Since the ground water direction is westerly,the compounds detected in the monitoring wells may have originated from thelandfill and may be migrating towards the Little Juniata River. Chemicalcompounds have not migrated to the residential wells to the northwest ofthe site. Wells M2-Area IV and 18-88, however, are not located within theflow paths emanating from the landfill. Based on the ground water flowpattern, compounds detected in these wells would not have originated at thelandfill.

CanomeEnvironmental;_ 6R303U93


7,5 Air Impacts

Results of the soil gas survey performed during the RI indicate that hydro-carbon concentrations decrease with distance away from the landfill(Section 4.5). The results also indicate consistently high levels ofhydrocarbons, mostly in the form of methane, on the landfill at concentra-tions greater than 1000 ppm. Soil gas survey readings taken in the middleof the landfill cap produced a large drop off in the concentrations ofhydrocarbons (20 ppm). These low readings may be due, 1n part, to the claycontent of the capping material.

In general, the level of hydrocarbons appeared to be random C*terms ofv %concentration and location. No consistent pattern of either parametercould be developed. These results are typical of municipal landfill opera-tions. <""? - - ~- -•$£*• -

Although soil gas survey results do^not directly reflect ambient airquality conditions on-site, certai if/if aeral correlations can be made.%* - - - - - :Regional meteorological data indicates that the prevailing wind directionis from the west-sout |st during the summer, shifting to the northwest inthe winter. It is thull/T'ikely that any airborne off-site migration ofhydrocarbons from the site would be transported to the east/ northeast****% - - -during tng pjmmer, shifting to the southeast in the winter. As the con-centration of hydrocarbons detected diminished with an increase indistance from the site, it is not likely that there would be significantoff-site exposure to hydrocarbons. Neither the air characterization surveynor preliminary monitoring of the study area during the soil gas surveyindicated elevated levels of hydrocarbons at a distance from the site.

7.6 Ground Water Modeling Conclusions

The ground water flow and transport models were used to simulate hydro-geologic characteristics of the aquifer beneath the site. In all caseswhere assumptions were required for model input, a conservative approach

CanomeEnvircnmenialAR303U9U


was maintained. In addition, a detailed sensitivity analysis was conducts *to ascertain the range of expected results based upon.the degree of uncer-tainty in model parameters. The following conclusions are made:

1. MODFLOW was calibrated to steady-state conditions. The aquifer isunconfined and behaves as a uniform porous medium.

2. MODFLOW estimated hydraulic conductivities in the study area thatconfirmed the geological formations in the study area.

3. Steady-state Darcy ground water velocities range from 14 to 30feet per year.

4. Flow directions and hydraulic gradients indicate that the com-pounds found in well M2-Area IV wouldfnbt be from a landfillsource, %*

5. The observed pattern of m|a% red VOC concentrations suggested thepresence of several independent sources. The precise location ofsources and^fOjjrce release rates could not be determined from

^•"'""•fe. - r ' - - " .T • - • j

measured concentrations of VOCs. Some sources could be locatedwithin the landfill and others are probably not located within the

^yaf|dfill. For example, the isolated occurrence of acetone in well" V • / ' ; - • ; ' • - - - - - - -9:-88, could be from sources not associated with the landfill suchas a junkyard.

6. There are two distinct source conditions that describe measuredcontaminant concentrations - one active and one an inactive sourcescenario. However, concentrations measured since 1982 show steadydecreases over time for most contaminants detected.

\o Using the inactive source, the concentration plume .is ex-

pected to move to the Little Juniata River over the next 100years.

CanonieEiv*r\


o Using the active source, a steady-state concentration of 44ppb for 1,1 dichloroethane will be achieved in approximately44 years.

o The active decreasing source scenario is more consistent withobserved concentrations in ground water.

7. Further monitoring is required in order that transport model canbe calibrated over a larger period of time. This will increasethe ability to assess the effects (if any) of the landfill cap.

7.7 Human Health Evaluation Conclusions ^ \~.*

No significant risk of adverse health affects under current baseline condi-•* _-.•!•'•;•

tions are apparent. During the human health equation it was found thatabout 80 percent of the total hazard index score*'summed for all chemicalsacross all exposure pathways was attributable to the assumed ingestion andinhalation by future residents of t|e?VOCs in ground water downgradient ofinfluence from the landfill. The total combined hazard index was less than

„$***% • -unity (ie, HI=Q,4) in^i&^ting that there are no health concerns associatedwith anticipated exposures at this site other than a small risk of cancer.Accordinj.J&, these VOCs represent compounds of potential concern and thefuture us% pf the affected ground water poses the only risk of interest atthis site." The actual risk to any future users of ground water is likelyto be substantially less than estimated and may even be zero.

No existing residential wells have evidenced any indication of site-relatedcontaminants during the RI. Indeed, 11 out of 16 of the residential wellssituated around the site are upgradient of the entire former landfill area.Even if it were assumed that vinyl chloride is currently present in down-gradient residential wells at a level of one-half the method detectionlimit (ie, 0.65 ppb), the levels would still be notably below the applic-able MCL for vinyl chloride of 2 ppb in public water supplies.

CanonieEnvironmentdl


Current estimates of risk to nearby residents based upon analysis of resi-dential well samples and potential exposures of these populations to sitesoils and sediments are insignificant.

Of the five residential wells located downgradient of the site, the B.Jones and Bickle wells are located hydraulically downgradient of wells 6-85and 20-88. No VOCs were detected in well 20-88 or.the Jones and Bicklewells during the RI, which suggests that VOCs present 1n well 6-85 have notmigrated to that extent. Well 20-88 could serve in the future as a conser-vative upgradient monitoring point for these two residential wells. Poten-tial migration of VOCs to the remaining three residential wells (Lehman,Caracciolo, and Nale) could be monitored using a network of vyef'ls whichwould include Mi-Lined, 6-85, 7-85, 20-88, and 21-88. Well 7-|&os cur-rently collapsed and would need to be rehabilitated prior to the formationof a monitoring network. ^

It should be noted that numerous sources of uncertainty exist in the riskassessment process, and therefore, |l§J).ly conservative assumptions wereutilized in this analysis to derived reasonable maximum exposure scenario.For example, it was a stped that the concentrations of contaminants willremain constant in gro'S|.av-water for at least 30;years (the 90th percentilefor residing at one location). Considering that the landfill has beencapped a iei l|at the chlorinated solvents undergo abiotic hydrolytic decom-position aMJ biodegradation over time, it is likely that the 30-yearaverage concentrations would be substantially lower than assumed in thisexercise. It should be noted that vinyl chloride is not one of the degra-dation products of the compounds found in well 6-85. Other sources ofuncertainty and assumptions utilized will tend to result in an overestimateof the risks posed to future residents. These are discussed in greaterdetail in the companion human health evaluation report for the DeltaQuarries Superfund site.

7.8 Comparison of RI/FS and pre-RI/FS Ground Water Data

Levels of VOCs detected in selected site monitoring and residential wellsand surface waters were compared with the levels of contaminants previously

; CanomeEnvironmental; RR303U97


detected during pre-RI/FS sampling events from 1979 through 1988. Theseresults are compared in Table 26. Analyses of the pre-RI/FS samples werenot performed using the U.S. EPA CLP protocols; however, the results wereused for general comparative purposes. Overall, for site monitoring wells,the same constituents detected in RI samples appeared in the correspondingpre-RI/FS samples. The RI samples show somewhat lower concentrations.Toluene (well M2-Area IV, 6J ppb) and chloroform (well 6-85, 39 ppb) werethe only compounds detected during the RI that were not detected in any ofthe pre-RI/FS samples. Many of the compounds detected in the wells duringpre-RI/FS rounds were not detected during the RI (Table 26).

No VOCs were detected in any of the residential wells sampled earing theRI. Pre-RI/FS VOC detections in the Judy Stotler, George, and Connorswells were not repeated in the RI sampling evei^p Methylene chloride,detected in the above residential wells during .e-RI/FS sampling events,is a common laboratory contaminant. . In addition, the ground water flows •from the J. Stotler and George welUs'Xpward the landfill and the Connors

f $•-' -— -- -7

well is about 1,000 feet away from the northernmost flow path potentiallyaffected by the landfiH- This increases the likelihood that any con-^Sj ytamination found in thsjlv-wells in the pre-RI/FS activities was due tolaboratory contamination or sources other than the landfill.

Concentrations of VOCs detected in pre-RI/FS samples from the FAM Springhave decreased or were not detected in the case of benzene, possibly due tothe landfill cap placed in 1987. No VOCs were detected in the westernwetlands discharge sample (SW-4) or the West Flow (SW-8) during the RI.

Concentrations measured over time in well M2-Area IV and in FAM Spring bothshow a steady decrease since the earliest measurements taken in September1982. Concentrations of total VOCs in wells close to the landfill arelower than in wells farther away from the landfill, indicating a decreasingsource of chemical compounds at the landfill. Additionally, the pattern ofVOC contamination found in ground water indicates that the source orsources are located at the southern end of the landfill.

CanonieEnvironmenhal


7.9 Data Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work

During the RI, no samples of the landfill wastes .were obtained. Since itis reported that the major component was municipal wastes, it is unlikelythat the random and sampling of the landfill constituents themselves wouldhave revealed the presence of contaminant sources. Therefore, the quan-titation and qualification of landfill waste was approximated using theinformation in the agency files.

Although historical ground water sampling data exists for the site from1979 to the present, only the data obtained during the RI was subject toquality control data validation procedures. The quality of t^: historical'% '"§•-data cannot be confirmed. Additional ground water monitoring information

•$?•"

from site monitoring wells and adjacent residential wells would be usefulin developing trends in the analytical data, agsKconfirming the modelingresults that indicated decreasing concentrationtjTpver time. Ground watermonitoring should be performed for VOCs.

>V •>-- :1As well 7-85 was found collapsed atMOO feet during the August 1989 sam-pling event, no analyt,i al data could be attained from this point. Thiswell, in conjunction wlfftv.wells Mi-Lined, 6-85, 20-88, and 22-88, would• > • - - - - - - -serve as upgradient points to monitor for potential migration of VOCstowards 4'tfSVive downgradient residential wells. Rehabilitation of 7-85

\ £ '- ~ L - - . - - . - _ - - - , - ,

would be i|f-e!essary if an adequate ground water monitoring program is im-posed at the site.

Sampling of the soil from the cap material borrow area would help determinethe potential source of the elevated copper concentration found in the capmaterial sample.

7.10 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives

Preliminary remedial action objectives are initial, site-specific cleanupgoals established on the basis of the nature and extent of contamination,the resources that are currently and potentially threatened, and the poten-tial for human and environmental exposure. Table 27 presents a list of

CanomeEnvironmental1 AR3Q3U99


potential remedial action objectives and corresponding general responseactions, remedial technology types, and process options. The potentialapplicability of listed process options is also listed in the table. Itshould be noted that the remedial action objectives and associated informa-tion listed in Table 27 are preliminary; further refinement to this infor-mation will be performed during the FS. The specification of remedialaction objectives Is not normally part of an RI report. It is includedhere because it was specified in the Work Plan.

The human health evaluation concluded that the future use of site groundwater as a drinking water supply posed a potential risk to future recep-tors. General response actions which would address these com^pns includethe imposition of use restrictions and long-term monitoring. * Containmentactions (ie, capping of the landfill) have already been performed. Collec-tion and treatment options are also potentially.^able.*% . •

S . :The ecological investigation indicated that the Little Juniata River andSandy Run were not adversely impactf;d^by the landfill. Therefore, remedialaction objectives were not developed for the Little Juniata River or SandyRun surface waters and^sediments. Preliminary remedial action objectives>3f"ifor the FAM Spring, We' t' low, East Flow, and wetland areas are presentedin Table 27. *

The generS^-fon of response actions to address site air is difficult as therisks associated with this medium are not currently defined. Risks as-sociated with potential releases of VOCs to the air could be mitigated viaaccess restrictions or a landfill gas collection system.

Several potential process options are listed for solid and liquid wastes,but their applicability 1s difficult to determine as the characterizationof these wastes was not determined as part of the RL

Canonic

flR3Q35ni

REFERENCES

Bowen, N.J.M., Environmental Chemistry of the Elements. Academic Press, NewYork, 1979.Faill, R.T., Glover, A.D., and Way, J.H., Geology and Mineral Resources ofthe Blanburq, Tipton. Altoona, and Bellwood Quadrangles. Blair, Cambria,Clearfield, and Centre Counties, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania GeologicalSurvey, 4th Ser., Atlas 86, 1981.

Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater. Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey. , '."Geochemistry of Some Rocks, Soil, Plant and Vegetables in thg/*£onterminousUnited States", Geological Survey Professional Paper, page 57&\f 1975.

Geyer, A.R., and Wilshusen, J.P., Engineering Characteristics of the Rockof Pennsylvania Environmental Geology Supplement to the State Geologic Map.Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 2nd ed. , 1982.,Lancy, 1990, "Phase ITReview of Surface Water a8 Sediment Sampling Data,"Lancy Environmental Services Company, February 1990.

Lancy, 1989, "Wetland Delineation R||53H," Lancy Environmental ServicesCompany, October 16, 1989. •*"'' ' ; "

Lisk, B.J., "Trace Mentis in Soils, Plants, and Animals", Adv. Aqron. 24267-311, 1972. \> : - t

MacDonald.&nd Harbaugh, 1984. "A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-DifferemSf '§|ound .Watet; Flow Model." , USGS Open File Report 83-875. .Martin and^Martin, Inc., 1987, "Closure Plan, Delta Quarries andDisposal/Stotler Landfill, Logan Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania,"prepared for U.S. EPA, :Region III.Meiser and Earl, 1986, "Delta Altoona Landfill, "Old Stotler Site",Hydrologic Investigation, Antis and Logan Townships, Blair County".Meiser and Earl, Inc., "August 1988, "Remedial Investigation Site OperationsPlan, Delta Quarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill, Antis and LoganTownships, Blair County, Pennsylvania," prepared for U.S. EPA, Region III.Meiser and Earl, Inc., May 1988, "Work Plan, Remedial Investigation andFeasibility Study, Delta Quarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill, Antis andLogan Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania," prepared for U.S. EPA, Region

CanonieEnvircnmental" = ' &R303502

REFERENCES(Continued)

Meiser and Earl, 1988, "Quality Assurance Project Plan - Delta Quarries andDisposal, Inc./Stotler Landfill RI/FS," Meiser and Earl, Inc., revisedAugust 29, 1988.Parr, J.F., Karsh, P.B., Kla, J.M., Land Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,Agricultural Environmental Quality Institutes, Agricultural ResearchServices, USDA, Beltsyille, Maryland, Royes Data Corporation, Park Ridge,New Jersey, 1983.

Phoenix, 1988, "Health and Safety Plan for the Delta Quarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill," Antis and Logan Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania,Phoenix Safety Associates, Ltd., Revised August 29, 1988. <\

..£•*Ragaini, R.C., et al, "Environmental Trace Contamination in Kellog, IdahoNear Land Smelting Couples." Envir Sci and Technql 11 773-790 1977.r?Symms, K.G., April 1990, Draft Human Health Evaluation of the DeltaQuarries and Disposal/Stotler Landfill in Altoon'cu Pennsylvania, preparedfor U.S. EPA, Region III. ;< : ,-_.....

I ''€%:• " -. sJU.S. EPA, 1988, "Interim Final-Guid|n"ll for Conducting RemedialInvestigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA," October.

U.S. EPA, 1989, "Inte%|4,,Final-Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,Human Health Evaluatior|,Minual, Vol. 1, Part A," December.Ure, A.M.rfw^t al, "Elemental Constituents of Soils", EnvironmentalChemist^ "V|)l. 2, pages 94-204 e.d. N.J.M. Bowen, Royal Society ofChemistry'|;:.-6urlinghouse, London, U.K., 1983.Yeh, GT, 1981. "AT123D: Analytical Transient One-, Two-, and Three-Dimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System", Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, ORNL-5602, PublicationNo. 1439. !

Canonie

m

AR30350I*

>CDp.m

TABLE 1

CHAIN OF OWNERSHIPDELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL

1964 STOTLER LANDFILL PARSHALL LANDFILL

Stotler landfill opens. '., Parshall landfill opens.iOwner: Lester Stotler Owner: Wilbur Parshall

Shirley Stotler Betty ParshallOperator: Lester Stotler Operator: Wilbur Parshall

1971 Owner: Lester Stotler Betty Parshall .p£tains soleShirley Stotler ownership. <%

Operator: Lester Stotler , VI Owner: Betty Parshall'. Operator: Betty Parshall

1973 Owner: Lester Stotler iCftRSHALL/KRUISE LANDFILLShirley Stotler >

Operator: Lester Stotler Robert J. Kruise, Inc. buyslandfill.

=0wner: Robert J. Kruise, Inc.Operator: Robert J. Kruise, Inc.

1976 JER AND PARSHALL/KRUISE LANDFILL

Lester Stotl'er leases the Parshall/Kruise landfill facility,also operates as the Stotler landfill.

\ptfner: Lester Stotler Owner: Robert J. Kruise, Inc.Shirley Stotler

Operator: Lester Stotler1977 Glenn Stotler manages landfill after Lester Stotler's death.

Owner: Shirley Stotler Owner: Robert J. Kruise, Inc.Operator: Glenn Stotler

1978 : DELTA QUARRIES LANDFILL

Delta Quarries and Disposal, Inc. obtains landfill.Owner: Delta Quarries and Disposal, Inc.Operator: Delta Quarries and Disposal, Inc.

CanonieEnvircnmentalBR303505

>• *

! 8I I. ,)O

! ,.? !•a;

5 m

S RSS- O

I40 JC r- ,_ 3— *> •* »ft •«

•* in

«M IM

.3=: »

fc $ «"S — -2

. — — "^ •* .-.-.•. y „ s -HS-* ^ x £••"-: .%. £ I;•: *>;•;>•% . !*? a*-'S

« « ^ ?H

!si£

•O w. **e c — -a— S *; I

flR303506

II

.fQ8 f

I f; 8 §«•

8

:B

5*oi«

o _& 5

g;_S

9C'

3§l ^ !MA B

™ Jfi fi UlKM *> ^'.If «A iS ••

a

8 §* R'

I

?M!*

* o •:•- o •I- tu —Iifii

£ s S

s^lil^sli;

j iilliis iiljiI *! illflil1! , »"s

i

01g S £

if 1- a fss* *-!- *• is *

1 *!5 *'

i= s- 3 |ses ^

i« i* Nu - X « «_p =r 8*

5

5 §«-•S R"S »

. W X. I-S S!S »'

1 » g" «u .. *

§5 I . IJ

.-*isIIsi

•» 5 —i» j. f:«5- « .......# „ -. * -H

i:

,.y.K:»i £ § C

• 1:!l 11

•*•

AR3.0350.8

• T

i

ss a *- «*

S UJ H •"II I:

if 1=B $ K

J-S >.

* i S

I'". * • **

5 §

l>i'=f*• > B.£ at« B ** ~*„ *• « 1 oa «-fi- s«-;**»=5 r -° ?g e± *» S— o - t S

*- • *•* ..g is

f i - - . » r 5 S £ g ? f "o--*.^*. ££>£«£ g

ISC.- ;- rss 5

§ §:Ul ^ «

S§ i« 2s '

AR303509

las

R.*

e-*>""ai>S

.4u *

•J

5 —«i

=iK —

_J

ii«j

I§

-j

*

^w*»

5sft K.p u

§•

§£

ft*

5-ft*

S*ft*1-ft*§wKJ"£-S Ul

§J

ifft —ft*

h£ ••Is

|I

s?

_ _ tA2S o °fi *~

.-::".*!•"**'?'•* -

^ ~-

S?

O>"*

s V;'?§o

o9

SQ

in

o

5?

Cfc**tw '"'wwfc£s'

ewS^^^'llToZSe* e *" o o e "" o*

1» S! * iiiIlslliiliiii

Ios-,

flR3035IO

•-* «•

IS

s *ff *? * P tw :J

ft1I*

9

•- j «t ui«* 5 itS3 -o •*»•• r _ S9

o o.-. V *

99

fs II

ft *

*

n

W **-If s:

= - - ; s sft ^£ o v~

8

43

1e

s a.• rf i 5~* B 53*~ " £ »» V "• "

•" ^ ** ••»

O|«S*T^ SS^o'^S ? * S il *

^ • W .. r X * -

I Si , I184*H «. ^ _ r u » u < ^ « >

flR3035ll

TABLE 3

SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS RATIONALEDELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL

Sample No. Location — Rationale

SW/SED 1 Little Juniata River, downstream of Evaluate potential impacts of landfillthe landfill. on river.

SW/SED 2 Little Juniata River, downstream of Evaluate potential impacts of wetlandthe confluence with western wetland discharge to river.outflow,

SW/SED 3 Little Juniata River, upstream of Evaluate site t a&jcground conditions.landfill. -*"

SW/SED 4 Culvert outflow from the western Evaluate natural biological treatmentwetland. effects of wetland at exit point.w . -

SW/SED 5 Western wetland downgradient of Evlluate wetland conditions after theFAM Spring, below the confluence combined flow from FAM Spring andof the West Flow and FAM Sprffg^ Flow. _ .._ ,. .„- _- -into the wetland. Ii _: l l- -

SW/SED 6 Along the eastern bank of the Evaluate wetland conditions downgradienwestern wetland-3iJ.|.| point where of SW/SED 5.subsurface flow iHj&'-tne wetlandis observed.

SW/SED 7 FAM- ffftjng. Evaluate ground water discharge from\J - spring which flows into western** wetland.

SW/SED 8 West Flow. Evaluate any discharge downgradientfrom landfill which flows into westernwetland.

SW/SED 9 Eastern wetland at the discharge Evaluate surface water runoff down-pipe from Sedimentation Basin No. gradient from landfill to eastern1A. wetland.

SW/SED 10 Eastern wetland at the outlet pipe Evaluate natural biological treatmentfrom the wetland. effects of wetland at exit point.

CanomeEnvironmentalflR3035I2

TABLE 3

SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS RATIONALEDELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL

(Continued)

Sample No. Location Rationale

SW/SED 11 Tributary to Sandy Run west of Sand Evaluate impact to tributary.Bank Road. : .

SW/SED 12 Shawley (formerly Gilbert) Pond Evaluate surface water conditions.east of the site.

SW/SED 13 Sandy Run upstream of the site. Evaluate site ba^ground conditions.SW/SED 14 Sandy Run downstream of tributary Evaluate impact of" tributary to Sandy

from Gilbert Pond. Run.

SW/SED 15 Little Juniata River, just down- E%luate impact of city Sewage Treat-stream of the city Sewage Treat- melt Plant discharge to river.ment Plant.

!*'> ' "'"'

ions are indicated on Figure 4.

£*- .- . ...

•- _ - : ;;

- -^

:

\ CanonieEnvironmentalftR303513

TABLE 4

SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION RATIONALEDELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL

Soil Sample Sampling Rationale

SS-1 Background sample - Adjacent to borrow pit in undisturbedsoils to the southeast of the site.

SS-2 Landfill cover near center of site. ^' •.•?''•:• "*"

SS-3 East side of landfill at former leachate seep"'•>>, —-• -•t$f' '• -.=--= - -

SS-4 Shallow depression northeast 8£ landfill that occasionallycontains water. S-*

SS-5 Shallow depressio^-fterth of landfill that contains somerecently deposite<fxsediment.

,SS-6 Old jffle or drainage channel west of site, no evidence ofrecent" water flow through area.

SS-7 \J Southwest corner of the landfill where a seep exists.

SS-8 Under decontamination pad after RI field activities havebeen completed for the site.

Note: Sample locations are indicated on Figure 3.

CanomeEnvironmental6R3Q351U

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF NEW MONITORING WELL LOCATION RATIONALEDELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL

Well No. . Location Rationale

9-88 Downgradient of site and junkyard disposal ajrea.10-88 Downgradient of oldest part of site, " \>11-88 Upgradient from site along 6th Avenue and near

previously impacted well M2-£r-ea IV-"V

12-88 Upgradient from site and near Southern residential wells,13-88 Upgradient from $ji£e and near the south end of the

landfill. | . - ;::, f--. '-. •••'••"-*

14-88 Upgradient from the site to the east.15-88 Upg»*i$f1$nt from the site to the east.16-88 Upgradient from site and near the northeast end of the

landfill. ... ;17-88 -^ -At ground water divide and near the landfill.

18-88 Deep flow system on the east side of the landfill.19-88 Downgradient from the north end of the landfill.20-88 Downgradient from the north end of the landfill.21-88 Downgradient from the mid-portion of the landfill.22-88 Upgradient from site and between wells 11-88 and M2-Area

IV.

Note: Monitoring well locations are indicated on Figure 2.

COm^Hto^htoin«a-o*focO'd-^-cnr*.oincoincrt«qhco csi r * CT» - in t- . i.. 10 r-. o i-- co in f— « .—i • «<d- in cr»

CXJ CSJ CM CM

co-um

ct- cu -—O f— 4J

UJ H-o. —o enJ— c:•r-

re

cu•*•> C«J O..- £± 4-> +JX 3 rao o > •*-s- s- cuCLC3 r—Q. UJ

_J>- -J QJ QJ

3E: o m m ^f HSri "\,.o • o ^- o co us CTIJ^JZ QJ^ z: r— r** r-". CM - •—« Q.-uvW mincoôr— in in *—i in r*. co — -. -.=» «c -a roto _j oj c >-P OJ S-

_J Qi 4J Q) CUi—i LU O t- -|J< _j i— y c

%> --- - CM*oocococoocNjco«-Hinvo^-co^'^-co*-«LncMcr»crvrôtoto^-cy*o^^-*—«»-<f-*ioior*.rji^-iO'f—*i—Ii—«i™Hi-Hf—If—li-HCXJCNJCSJCSJi—It—I i—I i—lO«-Hi—i

I-H oo r**. i—i in 3- ,-H r^-1—i p*- •—»*—i o s- i-. ^ n»*, »—t o oi CvJ I I i ( t i i I t CO I i III .Q.Q

v»-* ^ i S-coooco'înincyicor*. mm mm ajcc

to t— coo o o —•ujr a. j= o—J Q; GO 4_) S.CO I— »-< O.T3 —<C CO Q CU OJ

o: tCD ee CD coz < ^ Q *- O)_ -(J CU CU ••-^ o-O 3 -o "o c:

h- < ___ S- _ _ '-i—i >—Z —J S- -HC) ''' C71 CU WE O C 4-i QJ

•r- CU J=

....... ,— ,— C/l QJ CU CUi—i r— r~n r-t ::f:'"''" '*\ CU CU J3 -M -M S-

C_3tJ O O O OOfcJ (_>..;::. CU CU O CU QJ t*

CD•*->

CU CU*T3 OO H

S-cn oji

S- 3o z:Cr—Q 0>

minmcft cocococococooococo crtey>coc^cncn occcooococo cococococooocococo cocooocor^r-^r - H - - * - i i i f - * c i r iCO CM O CM ".-4 CMOCMOCMi— >•— iCM -"t— i CM»-HCMCM

CM CO

ininincococococococococococooQOQcyicoco cu_rti_cococococococodococococococococooococo c QJI I t I I 1 I I I I i I I I I

O CO • CO•—< i__jQO CTt L—ICO O CO i—>«4* in CM CO L—if—i £ Q. Q_

LU O " iO i—i CM CO CM CM i—i i—i QJ O O J=

C/j ..:x:> " - - O. CU QJ O.3E "^ ::-::, . : -j.— ". — -CU Z -C CU

C <4- r- CMin in -t- o o oJi . CM *^ Ô C3 • GJCM QJ C C =3 r—

CU -f- ••- CD O(— ZC O COO Q Q- CLU_ Q)

5 . - O (— •— C 6—J .w..?' ,. .' ~ = - . JeM r— r - O JDr"u. .,_,_ . o o.v?* - -~~—- -•-> u u ~o c:oinoincDOCOt:^^-*'d-inomcoio & cu cu

4j +j ro o

CU_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , t/j to t/5 CU Q- Q- t/I 3

nsro_ _ __O O O CU

•*-> +J naS- S- rt U

-O CU CU <J -r-c > > o *acu QJ i— c:

r^r^co i— icoocriOOi— «i— 1«-« COCOT-ICOÔJ cococncuo o o *-HO*-Ô«*-I'-HI-H^H»— i o o «— i o o •--< moococsfoCO I I -r- O S-i O CO S- CJ 02

iCMir-Hr-Hi—Ii—lini-Hi-Hi—-I«-HCMCMCM -. —in M-

-i OJ

CU QJ CU O O O* 3 3 21 2= ro

i i

1 CSJ CO 1- . r—i O

BR3035I6

TABLE 7

RESIDENTIAL WELLS INVENTORIED AND SAMPLEDDURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

DELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL

Judy StotlerGlenn StotlerW. KlingJ. Kling

James Stiffler :J. LingafeltGeorge Nale

Charles CaraccioloMyron LehmanBrian JonesBarbara Bickle

v |James Connors VW:

James HollingsheadBef$|iajGeorge

Morris RodkeyR. Ulrich

Herbert Jones*Philip Dracup*

* Inventoried but not sampled

Note: Residential well locations are indicated on Figure 2.

CanomeEnvironmental; - flR3035i7

«ae3

S

ftltMM

«1a1f-i*i

1£t"!i1i

M/II/M

1!?ii

I

1

I

1It

3di

<iM

'I

i

is

i1

?

ie

£

i

iC

ii

<•*i1c£

S••

I

|

§

4

I

i*«Jvi§i-•

Jl

a^

fi

3*i•*i•tii•iI

1

s•

f

!

i

••S*!*!

•

A

|A

ft

J

2

a

i

1I

i

1I

\

-

$sc

KiT

Mg

3

=

.fe-

«W

J

V

9

9

3

s

g

t

a

1

s

|

3

S

M

f»m

i

^

«

m

3

min

2

A

3

ft

1

i

J

*

£

i

"I

^

*g

vi

m

3-

-

S

£g

1

a»

c

g

c

.,.,

W

fts

i

i

S

i•e

1

.J

9

a8i

s

1

S

i

iE

iii

i<«i§ii

ii•>.'

»

<A

igISg4I

i

i

1«

4

S

s

g

•e

T

I5

§

I<i§i§

s

>m

2

E

iO

RR303518

TABLE 9

i MAXIMUM WATER QUALITY CRITERIAFOR MAINTENANCE OF AQUATIC LIFE


Aluminum (pH - 6.5 to 9.0)Chronic * 0.147 mg/1Maximum. = 0.947 mg/1

Cadmium Chronic = .(1.05 [In(Hardness)] - 8.53)Maximum = |(1.05 [In(Hardness)] - 3.73)

Copper Chronic = .(0.8545[In(HardnessM:>:::- 1.465)Maximum * |(0.9422[In(Hardness)}(: 1.464)

Chromium Chronic * 0.44 mg/lf\. -.•-_-••••Maximum = e(1.08[In|tfi**dness)] +3.48

Lead Chronic.. fl(1.273 [In(Hardness)] - 4.705)Maximti|3|J( 1.273 [In(Hardness)] - 1.460)

Nickel Chronic = 0(0.76 [In(Hardness)] + 1.06)^ Maximum - (0.76 [In(Hardness)] + 4.02)

line Chronic = 0(0.8195 [In(Hardness)] + 0.6881)Maximum - |{0.8195 [In(Hardness)] + 0.7871)

Silver Chronic = 0.00012 mg/1Maximum * e(1.72 [In (Hardness)] - 6.52)

CanomeEnvironmentalI &R3035I9

:A

eIHI

5-ii

ii•

w•*

•*«1

1

g

^

••

S

¥S

m

<M

S

£

~**

^ 3 X S <-- * •= * 8u * >. r£ S ¥ « c• a — vS •- * 13 S

.r i- - k k « cjl i t §§!-. §£ 's'' u

-II |B

rdiS-H

flR303520

?i= •

" -MA SMUT

El LJUOflU

Mt SOU 1MMCMIC ANAtrSIS &

A OtUMIES AND OISMKM/SIOTLI

SAWUD OCIOBEH, 19M

MHTtE LOCAUON

55

: 5.S si "

i2

*.

iftZ

R

nS

rw

M

«

"S £ 8 9 **3

o ft S S -1

i

2 J *, ,-v- •- ~-S'••; • •"•--' - - - "5 S m

d s - *' *"I "3 223S8:.*i 2

ii-».fc f r - . . *liiiiliJllfilliiiiiJIll

• un

3 ? T -s; .* 5 *•

-* IV Wl

&R303521

S.

Q

I -

1B =

S K 5 !5 5 "i **i £

5

£

o e o o e df"'b o a ©

I? I? | J J s

!J jc^& § 9 T!.3 ill

is tIn?s-| S

* 1s s *

flR303522

o5-H

1J

J3fi

>cc<

W

z*< £°i52<2 «>: ec «< 32Msy|IS °> SLS O l*J

1*2:ss3 Q gUJ Z 3i «

NITOWNG

QUARRIES

SAMPLED

OISIU UJ1°aioffi(9

. '

, -

'Zcp<c

iiCBC

c

'

;

f2

amN

00«

ee<<

1itoce

A»

•

U)•

•

1Cev

>

M2-AtM

13i

ac mr* —« »

e af*' tO0 K

S 2n

n N

a ap» «» e

m *•• •=:».? yrT

55

0 B« P^0 £

a a5 to2

a „« Wr* »-

2?

= ^

•»«s<r

S*. 1 h8 ">cc e p -[3 8 I ^ Jo a O

'g:S5 I ? Ot

n 0000]= M™? * ^S°?S «8

o .S s

e-s 3t 2 sis..#;-. >

sIs

I-"am o ai g o^ Q 2 »« * o 2 "

fO *

D o .§ m

=! J J J< 5 i t i

io2

R303523

S8 8 8 « 8-8

UJ

<I-

>*1

h2|2 5>: ec S~j IU A

2 3 H

fELL 1WORGA

MO D

JGPOS/

^UGUST-SEPl

s •»• *••» t/i a2 = H

t- <I a «

/ATER MO

D'ELTA

»O2

£

1

z

1

(CorvtJnutd)

ING WELL

cgZOs

zoPtiiQ

QZ3

COMPO

2

H

Z

,1

li£

»M B*nk

12-80

i.

V

e•

I

•*

*

^

5

m|

•4N

N « ^ * ^» » £ 0 o

^ ec« 5 « o ui

^ 0

a a 5 3 SS 810 jo •* " ° ••

"g * ^s* S « o'2r £2«r e ^

• • , , > ! •'C %y^ • ---"• " " ; '

« ""- § . : ^2 = 2-2 1» N S P ^ < ; K C ; « 9 ) ^ £

a S ~* co o ^ o« ?; g n * " S 2 «*r* K ::: ® ° M -

«IO S' A C9 O ~i _ ^«_ g o S-.eB» . u* Q2 -"« § " w-'1*'1* S *"* S

* J N n o " S r t N

&*f':kS 1 1 S S||Ts.2 °s

O r>

a aJ -> m »5 a _ _ a o 0 -» oa o5 S-.».3 ^"S'.SlS;; 2|5 S N *• h. - - .- w - 0 « -«

_ __ ai if *f-'' .§• ffiflc * a S^Bw "*•-• *:'»-i3 S | | £«|^5 g\5 2Tj

*" " ° >• *-

• S a o g^

o»*o**p00iOO*oo5oo«o8*00*00*«*««OWNb**°^-

p f| i l|r ifiiilllllihiillliSil<<<a3ouuuu^-«SS3z(Lww(o

. - -'.

T

1

nn

9>

._ :. s

-

*m

;-i- =

g

»• * o u»0 0 « 0

lli!

>offi<Sit ?

2!G :Ela 3Mo 5i!11

i

AR30352U

i&IB

3.

[i 11 si »-i * • . z £* = "! A .. - -. f |

S £ * ...I •" .•:=:" " ... » *= 11

J|

i ir =i 3 If.

*e g gI g g^

I

X-H

I

I«

AR303525

s " a I ssft B 1 3$

£ =M

13

« *,R e** •- S

^ * 1

••- -• •- tt S j 1! | 1i^-ra^-^g^0:^^*^*^ C&-GI ~ s.i - •* e <ri S. "

xe | i S £ r

AR303526

. v) « £ — E • O"±9- t * S **. 9-1e I s d *

f

f&

J

.ii

§.S j

\i

K '

f!

f

• *~

t;

Fitt|,_

H

Jh3

II— *•™ cS"

*£

;

1j

<

^ iils 3! 21 J g

»

Ua 1-j •

*i

hg t

c r > - t5 Si=ift - z z

- - 11 1 2H J ; ,!• a t •• — ™" s*

l?iiii= 21 "S* -e i. 4. ,.w * S = C I

2 Ir f "a 3S « < I e I

O!

AR303527

I

A £•g# *

ifjhtill ii§|i iii i23B £

£

1iiJ-

f

a »]

iH:

is» j

1

1.

1= -

^ ;i fcu^ *;

i

CVKCUI

H PI

u'S

Vi

!i

M

3

S

"1M5

• • 1•t "«« -a

« •

^~-

&A~*

1 i

fi-

i Hi:

3|

e •* * e •""* e d ' c

§ll]i54iJJ

'%-S' '"';AI 5 — •.'§— « S * S

- ^ .Jiliflimnlii ii iiii

*• II.£-

21 s !|!|

- f I! *

fOis•1—IgwI«R O•«~ sm

P

•

AR303528

£ K- *2 3S*!!I!ig

•-S- *"'- S- k sK C"*1 -" He *»- CJ

« ,.£ -s

*l •«• '£

s = §I B?" s

£ «

al; -I *l R§sa* iis essjc-

»i -*•:;;,..J *__..=,,.., . . . . . ^. ^

. £ 3 S ?.... . r 5 * a. «o ° o o o o o o\.;-:" i . ? * J * * -

Kll* I =|II||

I S

* I J f - k^ J J i 8 « &g s5s-*l s ""\e t t t -e *• 5 i» .;••*• Xo e o c « ^ u £•*•»,;•st^?«is? ; ^ J^"•jssss-sl s ¥•fs^^^-'it X *l«4.* -.-.-tj i I

i !J Isr -"- £ $

SR303529

i

8*

a

. . . . ss ka s

~ e.« s

- t"it * *i

I If j^is S i 3 ?H-

«££li!3i3f2j|fis£5siifll S

*

S :l 23 O

fiR303530

af *

S ' "**'s i V£ S*• «

! I!i s igga- != * £ *2-1

s!SS

8iiE"

»^

4

* ..

m

at

A,.'.-

pn

a

"M ;a

j

i•&«o »a•

: °:S g

»2 e » g § oe» * « 5 | a(

e SoS -2

•° ™

vg #....?& p

];=s

H v ~ -— vg 3 - - *

55 I I J

isS-H

flR30353

SB

SS$

s « gII

O Q O p

e> o s 9 s 9 •SS 2S2S:

£§3 C£

B 71

If J!< 3 I o

* £ 2 E !!g s S J l f e * cs - p - =— -.•»'•'•:•._; ±£^T. w * — —i.fl iiitii

,i i.15 15

&R303532

sg

§ I?25» i?^i

-. -.•>' •^^9'^^9^cI<:?^''.-^e?S0. ? "?: S *: •* °. «0oo'*eo'iv^fti'«©«\;ft*e'«* o'V — & o rv e

(fiiiiaj^ If?-*15 if %I« !• a - -« * s * *

1

• >

fiR303533

noi;*i Ss^lsie ;E s ?5 S

S-H

!53 I' Oe

-

ill'

TABLE 20CORRELATION OF FLOW MODEL PREDICTIONS WITH MEASURED ELEVATIONS


CONTROLPOINT(WELL ID)

6-857-858-859-8810A-8811-8812-8813-8814-8815-8815A-8816-8817-8818-8819-8820-8821-8822-88

M1 -LINEDM2-AREA4

MEASUREDELEV., Xi

(FEET, MSL)

1078.21084.51089.01081.61137.21088.91157.61164.91186.11157.61155.01164.31 159.01158.01102.21075.71081.6*$8 glOjB3:l1102.3

PREDICTEDELEV.. Yi

(FEET. MSL)

1078.21087.81089.81086.41119.21085.61141.11162.51180.41159.51160.01158.11157.11157.410 3,1077& **1079.21092.41086.81111.7

XiYi

1.16E+061.18E + 061.19E+061.18E+061.27E+061.18E+061.32E+061.35E+061.40E+061.34E+061.34E+061.35E+<5|\.

<• >'-""'<S.v

1.34E+Of..; *"1.34E+061.21E+061.16E+061.17E+061.18E+061.18E + 061.23E+06

POT2

1.16E+061.18E+061.19E+061.17E+061.29E+061.19E+061.34E + 061.36E + 061.41E + OS1.34E + 061.33E+061.36E + 061.34E + 061.34E + 061.21E + 061.16E + 061.17E+061.17E + 061.17E+061.22E+06

(Yi) 2

1.16E+061.18E+061.19E4-061.18E + 061.25E + 061.18E + 061.30E+061.35E + 06

{ 1.39E + 06\3.34E + 06

1.35E + 061.34E+061.34g+061.34E + 061.21E+061.16E+061.16E+061.19E + 061.18E + 061.24E + 06

ERROR

0.0-3.3-0.8-4.8!.|4"&.16.52.45.7-1.9-5.06.21.90.62.9-1.42.4-10.9-3.6-9.4

ERRORe~2-(Xi-Yi)A2

0.0010.890.6423.04324.0010.89

" 272.255.7632.493.61~25.0038.443.610.368.411.965.76118.8112.9688.36

SUM 22388.4 22369.6 2.51E + 07 2.51E+07 2.50E + 07 18.8 987.24

CORR r= 0.985

CORRr"2= 0.969

CanomeEnvironmentalfiR30353U

TABLE 21SUMMARY OF MODFLOW SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS


SIMULATION

BASE RUN

INCREASE AQUIFERTHICKNESS BY

50 FEETDECREASE AQUIFERTHICKNESS BY

50 FEETUNIFORMLY INCREASE

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIESBY A FACTOR OF 2

UNIFORMLY DECREASEHYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES

BY A FACTOR OF 2

INCREASE GROU^ WATERRECHARGE:jRA|£BYSOPERcltiT

DECREASE GROUND WATERRECHARGE RATEBY 50 PERCENT

MODFLOW GROUNDWATER ELEVATION

R1C9

1079.6

•1077.5

1084.1

1076.9

1p§4.2

*V\•>

1082.3

1076.8

R2C11

1104.9

1100.7

1112.7

1097.9

1119.2

1110.6

1099

R6C6

1083.7

1081.4

1088.5

1080.4

I>V&*

1090.0

1086.9

1080.4

R7C8

1132.4

1127.2

1141.1

1125.8

1144.8

1138.7

1125.8

HYDRAULICGRADIENT

N END

0.025

0.023

0.028.%•.

%:••"'•0 21

0.035

0.028

0.022

S END

0.051

0.048

0.055

0.048

0.058

0.054

0.048

DISCUSSION

Calibrated to 8-26-89ground watermeasurements

Small, uniform waterlevel drop; gradients

... lowered 10%Wiyter levels increased

5-10 feet; 10%increase in gradientsWater levels decreased

3-7 feet; 5-15%decrease in gradientsWater levels increased5-1 5 feet: gradientsincreased 15-40%

* Largest influenceSmall uniform water

level increase; gradientsincreased 5-10%

Water levels decreased3-7 feet, gradientsdecreased 5-10%

NOTE: (1) Nodes R1C9 (Row 1, Column 9) and R2C11 were chosen to represent average gradients in theNorth end; R6C6 and R7C8 are representative of average gradients in South end of the landfill.

CanonleEmironmental

TABLE 22SUMMARY OF AT123D SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS


SIMULATION

BASE RUN

INCREASE AQUIFERTHICKNESS TO

98 FEET (30 METERS)INCREASE AQUIFERTHICKNESS TO

147 FEET (45 METERS)

INCREASE HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

BY A FACTOR OF 2.5

DECREASE HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

BY A FACTOR OF 2.5INCREASE LONGITUDINAL

DISPERSIVITY $*T\FACTOR OF %/

DECREASE LONGITUDINALDISPERSIVITY BY AFACTOR OF 10

INCREASE TRANSVERSEDISPERSIVITY BY AFACTOR OF 10

DECREASE TRANSVERSEDISPERSIVITY BY AFACTOR OF 10

Predicted Concen.(ppb)at landfill edge

at model year 25

34

8

5

0

*&*&"V54X *"

40

0

8

8

Predicted Concen.(ppb)700' down gradient oflandfill edge (year 25)

133

61

40

0:''C"%-.. • ~ ~

28

58

146

4(1)

0(1)

DISCUSSION

Model calibrated to 1989 sampling.Max concen. is down gradient oflandfill indicating source has been

reduced or cutoff.Increase aquifer thicknessallows increased dilution

ylelding.-Jpwer concentrationsFurmSrJncreasing aquifer

thickness yielded stilllower concentrations

Increased hydraulic conductivityyields increased interstitial velocities

allowing complete flushingof the concentrations 1

Decreased hydraulic conductivit^Byields reduced Interstitial velocities &inhibited migration; concen. is higherat landfill edge than down gradientIncreased longitudinal dispersivity

increases spreading of plume in flowdirection, but at tower concentrationsDecreased longitudinal dispersivitydecreases spreading of plump,

yields higher overall concentrationsIncreased transverse dispersivity

increases spreading of plume in trans.direction, but at lower concentrationsDecreased transverse dispersivity

decreases spreading of plume, edgeof plume has not migrated 60' in

the transverse direction

NOTE: (1) Concentration at a point 60 feet from landfill in transverse direction.

Canoniel • - - - • - - • • ) 3 5

; TABLE 22 (continued)SUMMARY OF AT123D SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS


SIMULATION

INCREASE POROSITYBY 50 PERCENT

DECREASE POROSITYBY 50 PERCENTINCREASE WASTERELEASE TIME BYA FACTOR OF 2DECREASE WASTERELEASE TIME BYA FACTOR OF 2

I INCREASE WASTERELEASE RATE BYA FACTOR OF 2DECREASE WASTERELEASE RATE BYA FACTOR OF£f %

USE AVERAGE GRAI^TREPRESENTATIVE OF

NORTH END OF LANDFILL

Predicted Concen. (ppb)at landfill edge

at model year 25

57

0

134

3

32,.*tt:!5

*'*:•." S

8

127

Predicted Concen.(ppb)700* down gradient oflandfill edge (year 25)

79/

6

209._.;;<;•

•'ff,

51

243

61

0

DISCUSSION

Increased porosity lowers interstitialvelocities, slower migration yieldslower maximum concentrationsDecreased porosity yields higher

interstitial y.eipcities, allowing flushingoftfie concentrations

Longer wiste release durationincreases net waste released tosystem, therefore higher concen.Shorter waste release durationdecreases net waste released tosystem, therefore lower concen.Higher rate ot waste release

increases net waste released tosystem, therefore higher concen.

Lower rate ot waste releasedecreases net waste released tosystem, therefore lower concen.

Lower gradient decreasesinterstitial velocities, thus slowingplume migration away from landfill

NOTE: (1) Concentration at a point 60 feet from landfill in transverse direction.

CanomeEnvironmentalRR303537

TABLE 23

niasnii or •amm INDICES AHD f»«n»» BISK ismansFOK 9DI 39EBSXXGBT OF CQBOKXMDS OF COBODO IBBfnTHIT *TB PB

FOR FUXUU KBSXCnXS MS TOM

DISKWAL/STOUBt IABDFTU IV ALTOOHA, PA

Upper Reasonable 'Reasonable95 Percent HBTlmnm Maximum Upper-Bound

Concentration Chronic Average Cancer Riskin Daily Chronic Oral Upper-Bound Lifetime Adjusted for

Chemical Groundwater Intake Rfd Hazard Oral CPF Daily Intake 30-yearf Cgpeero ______ im/D ____ fag/icq/davl (ng/kg/davt Quotient fag/teg/davi-^ fmg/lcq/davi ____ Exposure

Vinyl Chloride 0.009 1.91-04 1.38-03 0.146 2.3B+0 7.7E-05 1.82-04

1 , 1-Dichloroethane 0.013 2 . 81-04 1 . 01-01 0 . 003 9 . 11-02 1 . IB-04 1 . OS-0 S1,2-Dicbloroethene 0.036 7.71-04 2.01-02 0.039 HA HA

Chloroform 0 . 008 1 .72-04 1 . OS-02 0.017 6 . IB-03 6 . 9B-05 4 . 2B-07

1 , 2-Dichloroethane 0. 004 8 .61-05 7 . 4B-03 0. 012 9 . IB-02 tf;:-:.3. 4B-05 3 . IE-06%*': v

Trichloroethene 0.018 3.91-05 7.41-03 0.053 1.11-02 v \1. 51-04 1.71-06

TBtrachloroethene 0 . 005 1 . IB-05 1 . OB-02 0 . 01 1 5 . IB-02 %4 . 3B-OS 2 . 2E-06

Hanganese 0.970 2. IB-02 2. OB-01 0.104 ,. HA KA

Total 0.4 A\B* 23-04

Canonie

23

asonableMaxiatuaChronic

Opper9S Percent

Concentration caronic Maxim Dpper-loondOroggwat JSSL_ Chron^oral ^ **W*™? SS *§5SSito?

Vinyl Cnlerid* « «A*I T^ i, '"'infiniTr vH¥¥ita¥ flM^rrr/da»i fMl/kq/day} lacpoauraM.HwwJ 3._3 * 1 fl "* ^ 4^ •* _ _ _ _ —^,

,1-Dichloroethane

1 * 2-DiehloroetheneChloroform1f 2-OienloroethaneTrichloroetheneSetrachloroetheaeNanganeee

CanonieEnvirmmental

24

TBMiiiBicsi ov VBXBI FBBJB CBBBDCAU TZA DAXLX

DBXZA QffiBiTiB AM> DiBtosAL/sTorm LUDTILL IB

Upper95 Fercent Reesonaflle

Confidence Limit Marl THTTTI Reasonableof the Mean Daily maximum Upper-BoundConeentratioa inhalation Chronic Upper-Bound Average Cancer Risk

in Dose Tia Inhalation * Inhalation Lifatiae forChemical Graandwater Showering afd laiard OF , Daily Dose 30-ysar,ef Cwicsrn feo/Ll fma/kg/d«v> f em/kg /davl index faeyka/davl <mo/kg/davv .

Tiayl Cnloride 0.00(3 2.2 at 10"7 41-03 b 5.5 x 10"S 2.951-01 (i) t.4 x 10"* 2.5 x 10"*1,1-Dicaloroethane 0.0133 4.6 x 10"7 1.01-01 (i) 4*f x 10"* 9.11*02 (o) 9.1 x 10** 8.3 x 10"9l,2»Dianloroetne&e 0.0388 1.4 x 10"* 2.01*02 (o) 7.0 X 10"S BA _,,:. BAChloroform 0.0077 1.9 X 10"7 1. OB-02 (o) 1.9 X 10"3 8.11-02 ( 1.1 x 10-7 8.9 X 10"9

1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0040 1 x 10"7 7.41-03 (oje 1.4 X 10"s 9.11-02 (of 2.7 x 10~* 2.5 x iO"9tricaloroethene 0.0187 3.2 X 10"7 7.41-03 (o)d 4.3 X 10"8 1.71-02 (i)* 2.C x 10"7 4.4 z 10"*SetrachloroetJiene 0.0039 6.7 x 10~* 1. OB-02 (0) -«|7 x 10"* 3.31-03 (i) 5*4 x 10"* 1.8 x 10"10Kaoganese 1.454 0 » -... Q KA HA

Total 21*04 5 X 10~*. ..

Vhere the chronic inhalation *fD or inhalation c*T was based on oral adainistration (garage) in animaliabsorption factor of 0.5 was utilised to adjust the daily doses. This is indicated next to the RfD or . ....value by an •(!)• to indicate that the toxicity value vas based on inhalation studies (i.e., an absorptionfactor of 1.0 with no ad}a»taent necessary), or •<o)" to indicate that the inhalation C7F or RfD wax basedon oral daea/ and an ad tajtat of the daily dose (AF -0.5) was performed, this SMUMS that the absorptionfrom oral irtal ntst-ation'-ffe'ifeg. , in drinking water) is 100 percent. While this is inappropriate for aostinorganics and seaiivolati$f compounds, the gastro-intestlnal absorption of volatile organic* is essentiallyeescueta.An RfD for vinyl chloride is not listed in BtA's IRIS or BBAST. A provisional value of 0.004 ag/fcg/dty uan ao4ejptAB£e daily intake is listed here based on a provisional AADX developed by BPA for nonearcinogeciocffectBlof ifinyl chloride in drinking water {see 0,3. BPA, 1984). the provisional value is included foreeeple tAn RfD for 1,2-d.enlaroathAce i» not listed in IFA's IRIS or BEAST. A provisional value of 0.0074 ag/fcg/dayis utilised (see KFA'a lifetime Bealth Advisory and TT.S. BfA, 1984).An RfD for triehaprpachone is not listed in BFA's IRIS or HAST. A provisional value of 0.0074 ng/fcg/dayis utilised fox completeness baaed on IFA's Drinking Water louivalent Level (DWJL) and provisional AADI (U.S.BFAr 1J84).

the inhalation cancer potency factor <CFV) for trichloroethene has been withdrawn from IRIS pending re-evalnation using pfaarmaooJcioetic paraaeters (the value aay decrease aoaewhat) . The CFF utilised is from themoat reoant RFA listing.

CanomeEnvironmental

2S

•0 BCTfnBiTi/BTOCjn LABDPXXi ZH AIOOOBA, VA

appar95 Percent

Confidence Limit Applicableof the Mean DrinkingConcentration Water Criteria Combined

in Puhlic qpperuppliee Halt of

fng/L* tfftff_______Cana*j KlakVinyl Chloride ..3 2 ». 1.2.10"* ,A, 0.1001,1-Diohloroethane 13.3 -. „ 1.0 x 10"s (B2j 0.0031,2-Diohloro.th.n. 38.8 70*100 Iropos«i MO. BA 0,042

• ^«» * AW ;._ .(e*j u.ulv

4'° 5 UCL 3.1 X ID"* %

1*'7 S MCL 1 8 x 10"* „.„_„

0.0008?

SQtel 1.4 X 10"4 0.3

Bational Interim Frimary Drinking Water Regulalfons.ibis aay not qualify ae an ABAR for chloroform present in rawpresent in raw groundwaters.

CanonieEnvircnmental

TABLE 26

COMPARISON OF PRE-RI/FS VOLATILE ORGANICANALYSES AND RI/FS ANALYTICAL RESULTS


Number ofDetections per

Pre-RI/FS Number ofSample Results* Sampling RI ResultsLocation Compound (ppbl Events fppb)

Mi-Lined 2-Butanone 150 1/10 ND1-1, Dichloroethane 130 10/10 361,1,1 Trichloroethane 92 10/10 ... 37Chloroethane 42 3/10 *\ " NDMethylene Chloride 13 2/10 > - ND

M2-Area IV 1,2 Dichloroethene 180 <J : 2/*T " 150Trichloroethene 130 %, 7/8 651,1,1 Trichloroethane 100 '"" " 8/8 86 J1,1 Dichloroethane ^ 43 ._ . 7/8 19Tetrachloroethene VV~ 25 7/8 14Methylene Chloride ¥,? ,.:14 1/8 NDToluene ."" . ND 0/8 6 J

-«*"%: . " ~fr ;V .6-85 1,1 DichlorMhane 42 7/7 15

Chloroform ND 0/7 39,1 Trichloroethane 12 3/7 ND

|,2 Dichloroethene 9 2/7 NDi chl oroethene 6 2/7 ND

Methylene Chloride 8 1/7 ND

8-85 Methylene Chloride 10 1/7 ND1,2 Dichloroethene 150 4/7 44Trichloroethene . 15 2/7 NDTetrachloroethene 9 2/7 NDVinyl Chloride 32 2/7 ND

J. Stotler Methylene Chloride 19 2/14 ND1,1 Dichloroethane 6 1/14 ND

George Methyl Chloride 11 1/10 ND

CanomeEnvironmental

TABLE 26

COMPARISON OF PRE-RI/FS VOLATILE ORGANICANALYSES AND RI/FS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

DELTA QUARRIES AND DISPOSAL/STOTLER LANDFILL: (Continued)

Number of; *•" Detections per

Pre-RI/FS Number ofSample Results* Sampling RI ResultsLocation Compound fppb) Events fppb)Conner Methylene Chloride 8 1/6 ND

FAM Spring Benzene 95 1/16 ..,*, ND(SW-7) 1,2 Dichloroethene 300 14/16^-V 100

1,1 Dichloroethane 200 14/16 V 33Trichloroethene 200 15/16 54Tetrachloroethene 87 15/16 91,1,1 Trichloroethane 117 4^ 16/16 50

C:*x*"Culvert 1,2 Dichloroethene , 16 1/9 NDOutlet Tetrachloroethene IV. 14 1/9 ND(SW-4) Trichloroethene r'> 8VS 1/9 ND

1,1,1 Trichloroethane *" 8 1/9 NDMethylene j loride 32 :L 1/9 ND

"%\i '- -:j.ld -r ':"-':":.' ..'West Flow 1,2 Dichloroethene 32 -1/1 ND(SW-8) ,.,,,1,1,1 Trichloroethane 17 1/1 ND

«%" "t,l Dichloroethane 16 1/1 M)'Wfrichl oroethene 12 1/1 ND

Qualifier Key: ;

J - Quantitation is only approximate.Note: Pre-RI/FS samples were not analyzed using CLP protocol. Results presented

in this table are ,the highest concentrations of VOCs detected over allpre-RI/FS sampling rounds. Complete pre-RI/FS results are presented inAppendix A.

* Reference: "Delta Altoona Landfill Old Stotler Site", HydrogeologicInvestigation, Antis and Logan Townships, Blair County,M&E, February 1986.

Canoiaiefeinonrnentdl: An3uo5

HR3035UU

..I•T ai£

I il'S- I 1 i-?5 §5= £ £« Hiti I I |§: Hhi IiCr 1 i 5 Oi ! ! i «i g* • » • * » W t. »— "^— *» * * e u

| jg» ? ° **e «- <• —Ktf «* u £ «*•- 5 ^ir-IS** w « *•- o•/»«- 3 - >, <* c53 * g-J»«

S - „ww» ^

fcO^.Lrt2wufi;»eSa5§S5 fai£s§ i|. u* j _»*n§zig 51

gi fy .-s i* i- „=5 I I It If II I:!s£ : =inill! lifiiiif!! l!l!-i <*-5 i

~ |!II " • * . «s j ia « .«K a= in miglgg | v»*- f----" --

jll r f* u illfl iw> '•

s*si .. fgw 3 M ^s. i

= 1 ffH1" -3UJ UJ L.Js« a

s

•" « 2 "e *II I f I *•» *•* 2 * "V

"5^ . *« ? * IS— MM 4>3 2^w £ «^ ** M

*s§* £. 5 -5300*55

^ «*E

"IS? I o^1•s^^ssl "*o u«». 5~ g i.*• _°-KS •*«g* — * w* H ——5uSS^«S IK w ** o-—;-|5|£« !;f|fc|.-S5 H_e* ** 5 e L •*«««•fc s a* §! j g j

RR3035L|5

ss s. ,v v rv vi M «t ^ oil*, w »<*. x >> •— * i— — —

S* e ^ £ ^ £ — — <•« w* m - t-^ *J ^— o^^i— aj*j™. v£ >,v v — u —>«Be^» y u C o u t - e * wi.x)*t*> wa><«t — »» o —1.0— i-oait. e«- e e c >SMWe — 3 11— 3 e U 3 «9C«3) Vi>£** C I. Q. U O. U WW W&O^M M|w3 O 3 O B.UMS.UIA3* O S> — Q O P O -••wowo <o-^<o—we a.ee<M&.a. £« *

g. • . O* - <= M SL, •—• e » s * ^™•4 * — o M H 13.£» S. • •—— U *j^ •' W O.*J tl « CU c5

•Sffi e- c -3-If £ 5 I i •?!UJ MJ ;'-V ^ ~ g

^' T SS

S

--o ••• o£ c u v>M fi* 5 (•» w — — v* —i < « u_ ^- . CtrttS^pxi-vi • vt « e O « i- 4J OJ

l« 3 * t. W MQ — fOU•>L.£«rV u>^ ** C C =^- *j x pb.f*-<-a>->-'*« "C «* £ l « 0 ^ - U*.*!*— J( «4- Ol V O—— — *•»^ 3 O f l i

.C3H1-« > > e e o> £ -5 4) > Q,* c *j §U «* O1*- 5

. Ii *' i i ii •{ .-§••^ ^ a . S T t " ' " " " * L_

-=1 .= I if I Ife a* feiy i- 1 s i- !k iI

-PC;rgOV

8S S. |t i= 23 ?o £ O.JE •- — M ,± a ?- -S S**- - tir _f-s P

fl

O f — C U - M f * - — — — _ - t e _ _H -«!•"•' >.o c — •»- u e-vsoi t . — So * * £ **— Sue:«—wi. we > ** « e — e * -> HI »* 9«0 ** M •— C * •** — cat11S * * £ * "2 9« —"3 •* 2> c• T •— * o e- • s?* *•»" * u w £ —• ~ » *;, sL^M ** s— eU <• . >, M (J

s - _,£2 iU4 Q- U.

V) Xrt w

• — b h. -w -.-. .*•'••* L. 3 e o £ wX4 ** *- • ** - B ->:-:« ** w •* •• e *» «<• K — 3 e « —5 •:. w 3 •— u wi a i.*~«3p-— 3 O t «3«3 C « C uueelc^ô v>o 3iM2u — u>wwi

^SS« JrrsdrrH *

)«*!(/»</•» ii

^ *-.•CO

?M fwe 'o

1. M —— ,

U

•— yi « * gte e Ba kw— o It 91 *>c W k a t — I I *•S Ti^? 95 * *

Lja o ^ js w «»e •* u E 2.*- ^ e > « M *-. •>;.-•M *-—•:• t,*•— •— wSiis 5 Jig 3! SsK-s s5 : i•«SFP ? !-£ — 3 — 2 u £ u u?2 «•:p" * l!a tr ssili ll I 1

apxaf-î^

eGk2^QC

S

<*<«£ t U »w9^9X So * —« «>Mi* «e axk<«f ^ — £ pJ«j e u »x • uj o *i a. use N- (/>y o S *•

Sg « >5s « * iiii s I_w • 5. «»^«*^ C M •

>- —• 1.g£| a ^îll a..$ £s3 e « «^M» > Q

* =2g SJlo S§" ^5** ——U !*)<

? M*j— »y > 3 ve« * o >^^s^-ss1O M « «rf•> €P JJ u O X

>-e So o oW* *J

flR'3035l*7

8-

—— —i«UJI— Q h- -J<J« &•>—UJX S O3 w >—BUJ in vtSh-a>•> z-jtj<M B«?5IS

— PolEiE!at z_,t2s s*5£Otn uj 28Sg~UJ M £ uj

«*-_""-

P, - - ~-»« — « • « « .a M £- 2 fc Ml. 3 t. «J J3— * * — £ £ > — B V B*> • o» •« -— ~^ e ja iw-o X! E*J C *•» C*>* C *- ^jsis o ti e ou .o u o u ou <*o— «j — • o t. <*.<* «^»» «<« *»-•» — i~> > p>o e< e u x c: k, xctt- >» e t. x > o.

t. C«J •^•MA)'W-«i*«*Jw(««*J-»««<U<*rfxoa.x * 4> £ e -^- _ £ e — fcv ^ c — x *— u* .— — jt ^ •£«•='- «ut: — j-«j — — j=u — *- — - ,•*- ii x— a u w o**<*t»p*j«»<»e*rfa»f»iS-to'4ii»— fl«j k .a *j *''o • £i«i4-»ucvi*fuei/i4-»ucv>4-»U'WCe -^ e v «if€i-«*wa*— ai(*9J— a»i»a»— c«»a.e:« »-3 *» »-o«- *T»— *-a— »-o— a« —A*:®t-o ** v »fl *j a.* Q.—> Q.*J a,*- ,•:« « -^ o Co o o c o a. o e o o.s coo.ocoo.oo-

* 4-> V T> — —!— «» e ••- *>» 3S W~ XXU 9 U O — Wy Q. c o —e t — -—» ^*— > see o

u -• •— -^, c — — ct•"" *" * .:* "• e - es ** **t 'V- *.;.x —* ee'~*<« -** %•:?• s.52 — o *• u N e

.b b, _ 3 t. — T) W•s i-v -Ml 01 o *J •*- -wS sc — 1 **<*—3-« — —> 3 t.a v»-j CDS

S - —iUJ (A _|SUJ —— ..

°- **• M<•?- 5 Si t3^• OOtt — | c o i- — — Q-.:;-;..g;; :.L ^ s & _ «

2> 1* "— •¥ c wO J- vt im .-*•- w di a;r- M it a* > .•:••» c\ c B —9 If T ~ fivi .•*.'* 9i ** HIe w t- en S %;:• i— • • • 19 5 IB wij= — ^. S S • o *J *j at — f> ou L - S f ^ t e * * w oo oca.

^ " Fa w 3!

*J ** — *.» 'My *• <v e »* ****.«» Q

EG u**- - x e w _^5*"~£ ^ u '« *E^levS *_8u. SIS^JSw1" * ° oa-o .3132^*i S? g.8"1 °^£S3^- ills 511 si^oo s^*i€x *ls =i-s^'*ua-*-. * -S- 2& ^u

O> Or- — x y— W 3 -J CB yt * — *— Ctf U u

*•> if t. -J t.C U COMV •— tj W «> • — u f» a>4t « 3 C _1 U>-C 6 O W Xo. u S w £ ai

oc3DmCO

DELTA QUARRIESLANDFILL

APPROXIMATE SCALErrrrmriirn;-7.S' USCS TOPOORAPHC QUADRANGLE OFBQ1WOOO, PDMSYLVANM. OATHh 1872. 2,000 0 __ 2,000 FEET

/ AGENCY REVIEW

3-15-90

AGENCY REVIEW

CLIENT REVIEW

AGEMCY REVIEW

CLIENT REVIEW

WLH

JMR

s.s.

s.s.

NOVM1990DRAFTSITE MAP


BLAIR COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA»LH W OK PREPARED ""

DELTA QUARRES

CanonieEnyircnmenialNo. DATE ISSUE / REVISION DATE: 1-3-89

SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE I DRAWING NUMBER88-OJJ-A7

flR3.03550

• . -' ,- • »-7 > f ' • •- \ >'i r • '•" • ••*', ii ' - ' /4s ! •* *rjy /A-;-, i 'i-j,-» .-r:i^,'\M- - . v . ///' \. •ic--, ;îA - ..'' •"- - ;; •

S 1 Q1S

?-'^fÂ-r

. •,' -•- - * * viKXjr- v*\v • • . ' . ' • » . - * .\\v.; _ , ^ %'. --——\*4* VI '|;:r 2|SI«S^v\H$i §i

^g'S ' 3i *•* ?

*M^Kf/i(iI S?:. l&.A-.-r :'.»OC /»- -i-'f!' O ^ ;';' J. - /•-•: ! .*Sfe .•> '•'•-' /'•'--/.-/(s

it-O"- fe ;: ":""j/ ' \ /-."iA. t

r, V/p-=^<*i --2V •-. ^————'"'VrfV- -rv^"-—" I, >" - \ ":S v''-V.-»\;>f--;. A :%\--iî %'.:&». Br1 Sffil

G5

CVtoLO

^ SM ^ AV Vx A W ll ^

CO

§ DELTA QUARRIES MODEL GRID^ NORTHP 1 7268 1 7768 1 8268 1 8768 1 9268 1 9768 20268 20768 21 268

C1t+r*e 4

R1

6151 -

R2

5651 •

R3

5151 *

R4

c/) 4651

R5

^ 4151 -

R6

R7

R83151 •

R9

2651

10

10

10

10

10

10

10 .

10/J f

dr£lO

C2

10

10

10

10

10

1V/y

i 5

5

C3

10

10

10

10

10

/

//2

5

5

C4

10

10

10

10•J//

1

2

5

5

C5

10

10

•10;//•

/10/5

0.5

1

10

5

C6

10

——— —————

C7//•,,o/P.46

/10

5

0.5

1

10

0.1

10

10

5

0.1

1

10

0.1

C8

10

10

10

10

A0.11 1 \,5

0.1

C9

10

5

//J5/t

J

/ 5

1

0.5

-1

0.1

C10

5X-1

1

,//V

0.5

j

1

0.1

C11

0.5

0.1

/

o.i.(

0.5j0.1

>0.5

1

1

0.1

C12

0,05\

)p.05

0.05

0.05

0.5

0.5

1

1

0.05

C13

mod

inod

inod

mod

md

d

-

,-

mod

WoJ 1

R1

• 6151

R2

- 5651

R3

- 5151

R4

R5

• 4151

R6

7CC t• ooolR7 "

R8- 3151

R9

9fi*i

UJ

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C1317268 17768 18268 18768 19268 19768 20268 20768 -21268

I SOUTH ! NOVJ47990lEGEtlQi | ; DRAFT

R1 ROW ' . . , RNAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTTVmES„ rnniuK! ™R MODROWce COLUMN ; DELTA QUARR|ES MD DISPOSAL/

STOTLER LANDFILLBLAIR COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA

1. UNITS ARE FEET/DAY, MULTIPLY BY FIGURE 143.5 X 10 TO GET CM/SEC.

i CanonieEnviroimenfalAR303563

rotooI0000

il

2 4TIME (YEARS FROM SEPT. 1982) f'

LEGEND'A MEASURED TCE

— — — TCE FROM EQUATION 4

D MEASURED I, I-DCA

—————— 1,1 ~ DCA FROM EQUATION 5

NQV1/.1S90PCE FROM EQUATION 6 -i. ~ -----P-*. tr v /> F"""DRAr^f 9 \ f » B

AGENCY REVIEW

VOCs CONCENTRATIONS OVER TIMEWELL M2 AREA IV


BLAiR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAPREPARED FOR

WL" "/fl DELTA QUARRIESSs.

I1L CanomeEnvircnmentalNo. DATE ISSUE / REVISION

tam, WOOD enrAPT) er DATE: 4-6-90

SCALE: AS SHOWN FIGURE 15 DRAWING NUMBER88-033-A21

AR303561*

•o"O

oX

AR303570

i APPENDIX A

PRE-REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ANALYTICAL DATA

CanomeEnvironmentalftR30357\

Draft Report Remedial Investigation - United States Environmental ... · 11 88-033-E6 Augujf ^6,...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Report Remedial Investigation - United States Environmental ... · 11 88-033-E6 Augujf ^6,...