SS^SS^^ffll^^^^ · 2019-12-13 · I I I I •V I ORIGINAL (Red) OSBORNE SITE Remedial Investigation...

SS SS ffll ^ ^•"••;k;vi:''-'-':-N;- -;v-.'v •.••'-.'< r.;v :;:; --:- ::Vj Vvv ; ;y?O ^fe.<r,.;/ri •-'- -••:,:- ' \' ••—•, "' - '-,.•• -:-. :;yV:?: K::;:£

v; fj > .; i!Vp: ^ ;r:|::;;^^':£^ £;

: t i %

;4»»l % .: ;":;-;"•'• i --':: • .;&*:&^ •;:ji$ 2&w£.&;:S\- ''.+J&qjti4ig.it-'-y #; ^

i

Cooper IndustriesJw^-&&:: ^&M. . -":-< *V .- ^. Houston, Texas 7210 -v-^ — ------ •••^-.-^••^fll;

• ,;;-;v;- --V-;-,-; > :V' :? ''.:<Y-* -;V-7;;-: :;':''s0t j;;--S r-r- -..:;-:':\i:,v , i;,,:.r-..-.,,... - fRED C. HART

* , , 530 Fifth*;:&&$&#f '-?";"-;--V'';'-':v -- •.. ; ^ew York, New York 10036 ' " 'v' ':;J! '•'-.••'.'v---'-•:: v /:

*|IS;|:;||^;: {',";-|. , . ;;>: ,/;.'>• : .- -:-x-fr.v:r ^ i<£j £ frfe ,-r,-;.|-1' }< ^ ? ,]vii-iii- .

IIII

•VI

ORIGINAL(Red)

OSBORNE SITERemedial Investigation

Report

I Prepared For:

1. Cooper IndustriesI First City Tower• Suite 4000

Houston, Texas 7210

IPrepared By:I

FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC.I 530 Fifth Ave.I " New York, New York 10036

June 1984

300144

IORIGINAL

f (Red)

O TABLE OF CONTENTS •r-iIII1I

I

I

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1B. Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3C. Initial Site Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6D. Site Security Program. . ................ 1-7E. Content of. the Report. ................. 1-8

II. SUMMARY OF FIELD INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES .......... II-lA. Proton" Magnetometry Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2B. Electrical Resistivity Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5C. Test Drilling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8D. OVA Field Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13E. Geophysical Borehole Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-18F. Downhole Television Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-19

I G . Aquifer Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-20H. Pumping Test of Well CPW-1 ............... 11-26I. Monitoring Well Installation . ............. 11-25J. Survey Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-28

;- K. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-29

• III. WASTE TYPES AND QUANTITIES. .................. III-l

A. Waste Disposal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-lf B. Characterization of Surface Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . III-2I C. Characterization of Subsurface Wastes. . . . . . . . . . III-61 D. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-10

IV. SURFACE WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

( A . Regional Drainage Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1B. .Site Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5C. Potential Surface Water Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9D. Surface Water Users. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

I E. Surface Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9V. GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-l

A. Regional Geology and Hydrogeology. . . . . . . . . . . . V-lB. Site Geology and Hydrogeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6C. Potential Groundwater Pathways and Users . . . . . . . . V-16D. Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-25

i| 300145

ORIGINAL(Red)

^ TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

PageVI. RISK ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

| VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIM

VIII.REFERENCES ....................... VIII-1

I11I•-Giiiiii

300146

ORIGINAL(fteo>J

„ LIST OF FIGURESO

1IIIII

11IlI

r x

•\J

i

1-1 Site Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-41-2 Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

II-l Site Reference Grid. . . . . .............. II-3II-2 Magnetic Surface Interferce Map. . ........... II-4II-3 High.Magnetic Field Gradient Map . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6I1-4 Map of Potential Areas of,Buried Metal .........' I1-7II-5 Electrical Resistivity Profile Location Map. ...... II-9II-6 Electrical Resistivity Profile Measurement Map . .... 11-10II-7 Test Boring and Well Location Map. . . ......... 11-11II-8 Borehole CMW-1 Television Log Results. . . . . . . . . . 11-20II-9 Pump Test Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2411-10 1973 Topographic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2911-11 1983 Topographic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3011-12 Surface Water Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32

III-l Surface Feature Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3III-2 Drum Cluster Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

IV-1 Designated Watersheds in The Grove City Area . . . . . . IV-2IV-2 Regional Drainage Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3IV-3 Soil Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4IV-4 Annual Rainfall and Evapotranspiration . . . . . . . . . . IV-6IV-5 Site Drainage Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7IV-6 The Effect of Strip Mining Operations on Drainage

Pattern Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8IV-7 Surface Water Sampling Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

I V-l Generalized Stratigraphic Column . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2V-2 Hydrologic Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

| V-3 Geologic Cross-Section Across the Osborne Site . . . . . V-7

300147

IIIIII

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

V-4 Comparison of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9V-5 Hydrologic Island Margins. ............... V-10V-6 Water Table at Osborne Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12V-7 Potentiometric Surface in the Homwood Formation. .... V-14V-8 Potentiometric Surface in the Burgoon Formation. .... V-15V-9 Hydrograph of Wells at the Osborne Site. ........ V-17V-10 Water Table Pathway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-18V-ll Clarion Groundwater Pathway ............... V-20V-12 Homewood Groundwater Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-22V-13 Burgoon Groundwater Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-24V-14 Test Boring and Well Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . V-26

300148

ORIGINAL(Red)

^ LIST OF TABLESoi

Paae

II-l Permeability Test Results ............... 11-23I II-2 Water Level Measurements. ............... 11-34* II-3 Well Evacuation Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-35

I III-l Chemical Analyses of Representative Drums at theOsborne Site. . .................... III-5

[ III-2 Summary of ACES Drum Inventory. ............ III-7III-3 Summary of Drum Analyses. ............... HI-8

I HI-4 Summary of Priority Pollutant Composites. ....... HI-9

f IV-1 PADER and EPA Surface Water Sample Analytical Results . IV-121 IV-2 EPA and Hart Surface Water Sample Analytical Results. . IV-13i _ IV-3 Inorganic Compounds Detected in Surface Water At The»W Osborne Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

IV-4 Organic Compounds Detected in Surface Water At theI Osborne Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

| V-l Geology and Hydrogeology of the Grove City, PA Area . . V-3V-2 Comparison of PADER and Hart Groundwater Sampling

I Results (December 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-30' V-3 Comparison of First, Second and Third Sampling. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-32( V-4 Organics Detected in Groundwater at the Osborne Site. . V-34

V-5 Inorganics Detected in Groundwater at the OsborneI Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-35

300149

pI

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Boring LogsB OVA LogsC Geophysical LogsD Aquifer Permeability TestsE Well Construction DiagramsF Analytical Summary ReportsG Waste Volume Calculation MethodologyH Groundwater Modeling

1C

300150

1-1ORIGINAL

p CHAPTER I

4 INTRODUCTION

fIIIII

III

I

A. Background

Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. (Hart), an engineering and environmentalconsultant specializing in hazardous waste management, has been retained byCooper Industries, Inc. (Cooper), to conduct a Remedial Investigation at theOsborne Disposal Site pursuant to a Consent Order and Agreement betweenCooper and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources (DER). Cooper was identified by DER as one of several responsibleparties.

Pursuant to the Consent Order and Agreement, a Remedial InvestigationWork Plan was negotiated with DER. It was included with the Consent Orderand Agreement as "Exhibit A". The work plan was designed to provide thefollowing information necessary for the completion of.the Remedial Investi-gation:

0 Types and quantities of waste disposed at the site0 Geologic conditions and soil types present at the site0 Extent of soil contamination at the site0 Groundwater flow direction and gradient0 Groundwater quality0 Surface water quality

I In order to accomplish these objectives, the work plan detailed fivedistinct tasks:

Task 1.0 Indirect Geophysical Investigation.Task 2.0 Drilling of Initial Test Borings and Wells.

I Task 3.0 Sampling Program.* Task 4.0 Analytical Program.^-> Task 5.0 Data Evaluation and Report Preparation.

300151

1 1-2 ORIGINAL(Red)

f

*^\ Meetings were held between Cooper and the DER at the beginning and endof each task to insure that, on-site operations adhered to the Consent Order

I and Agreement Work Plan. On-site well positions were agreed to by Cooperand DER prior to the start of Task 2.0. DER also made periodic inspections

[ of the work plan performance. No variations to the work plan were allowedwithout DER approval and subsequent revisions to the Consent Order and

| Agreement.

IIII

IIIIII

Several revisions to the work plan were agreed to between Cooper andDER. Drilling operations at Station N-2, 4+00 encountered potential voidspaces; a revision to Task 2.0 with respect to well construction specifi-cations was necessary to insure no cross-contamination between aquifers;Task 6.0, Void Investigation, was initiated to confirm the presence orabsence of mine shafts on the hypothesis that the shafts could act as path-ways for contaminant migration. As a requirement of Task 6.0, a report wassubmitted to and accepted by DER.

Variability in chemical data also prompted a second round of samplingin the bedrock wells, and the revision of the Work Plan to include a seventhtask. Task 7.0 was implemented to further investigate the Burgoon aquifersystem.

Pursuant to the Consent Order and Agreement, this report presents theresults of the Osborne Disposal Site Remedial Investigation together withrequisite interpretations, conclusions, and an assessment of risk posed bythe site to public health and the environment. The remainder of this ini-tial chapter provides introductory material with regard to:

0 Site Description0 Initial Site Characterization0 Site Security Program, and0 Contents of this Report

300152

o!IIII1

IIII

!"3 ORIGINAL(Red)

B. Site Description

The Osborne site is located in Pine Township, Mercer County, Pennsyl-vania, in an abandoned coal strip mine about 15 acres in size. From the1950s until 1963, Mr. Samuel Mooney operated the site as a disposal area.The operation continued under the ownership of Mr. James Osborne from 1963until 1978 when the site was closed by the DER.

The Osborne site is situated immediately north of Pine Street Exten-sion, one-half mile east of Grove City, Mercer County, Pennsylvania as shownin Figure 1-1. The site received industrial and allegedly potentiallyhazardous wastes during the 1960s and 1970s. From time to time, the sitewas used for the disposal of small quantities of miscellaneous debris aswell.

Figure 1-2 provides a sketch of the site. In the early 1900s, when thesite operated as a coal strip mine, a 1500 foot long pit was excavated in asoutheast to northwest direction beginning near Pine Street. Early topo-graphic maps show an elongated pond in the pit between the north and southwalls of the stripped area. As a result of subsequent disposal activities,which apparently commenced in the southeast section near Pine Street, onlythe northwesternmost third of the pond remains. In addition, two smallerponds are present southeast of the original pond along the base of thehighwall to the north. A small intermittent stream enters the north pondfrom the north. There is no apparent surface drainage out of the pit area.A wetland area and a small stream are located immediately south of the minespoils pile, and a roadside ditch runs along Pine Street near the siteaccess gate. .

I Disposed material extends from near Pine Street through the pit to a 5to 10 foot high cliff of trash and debris adjacent to the large pond. The

I majority of the material in the pit appears to be dark, coarse foundry sand.Quantities of slag, scrap metal, wood, paper, and plastic matter are found

I scattered around the entire site.

300153

ORIGINAL(Red)

^r ^* - ^a \ *'''•—' *" 3^ ""V •-_ 0 •»._ -B i tfOuae •/•"• » ^ '>ao«j««c ./ ' -*(*l\ _ .*x. *' >

^ -:-'-" <f™ * * - ^ -**^ "^*" ....

- -, [r— >.' -

SCALE' l"«24,000FT FIGURE 1-1SITE LOCATION MAP

OSBORNE SITE300154 " FRED C. HART A880CIATE8. INC.

I ORIGINAL4 / r\ _i\

SWAMP

MINESPOILS

100' 0 1 0 0 '

SCALE IN FEET 300155

FIGURE 1-2SITE MAP

OSBORNE SITEFRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC.

1 1-6 ORIGINAL(Red)

I''',-», Prior to initial remedial measures, approximately eighty 55-gallon>-^ drums containing unknown materials were scattered about the site. Many ofli the drums were crushed, rusted or bulged. Approximately 500 empty drums

were also present. Additionally, the site contained areas of soil appar-| ently contaminated from leaking drums.

I The land immediately surrounding the landfill is agricultural in na-ture. Effects of the past mining operations are evident near the site.Adjacent to the top of the highwall on the north is a large field owned andfanned by Mr. Ed McOougal, present owner of the Osborne site. The area to

r the east is mostly wooded. New homes have recently been built to the north,( along Enterprise Road. Several older rural homes also exist to the east.

South and east of the landfill are low-lying brush and wetlands on bothI sides of Pine Street.

i C. Initial Site CharacterizationI^ DER brought the site to the attention of the United States Environ-O mental Protection Agency (EPA) for inclusion under the "Superfund" program

following some preliminary sampling by PER and the EPA Region III Technical] . Assistance Team. EPA subsequently ranked the site using the Mitre Hazard

Ranking System. NUS, an EPA contractor, developed a Remedial Action Master| Plan (RAMP) for the site. Cooper independently retained Hart to character-

ize the site.i1 Hart designed and carried out a preliminary inventory program to ident-I i f y the types of waste at the site, estimate the quantity of potentially

hazardous surface waste, and characterize the degree of hazard. Prior toany on-site activities, a safety plan was developed. Clusters of drums were

I located and referenced to a grid. Four hundred and thirty three drums wereoriginally identified. Each drum was assigned an identification number and

I inventoried for volume of material, condition, and possible contents. About20% of the 74 full, sealed drums were selected for sampling based on drum

| location, accessibility and condition. Hart fabricated and utilized av remote drum opener in accordance with the site safety plan. The drums were\^i sampled for EP toxicity and disposal parameters and analyzed by Environ-J mental Testing and Certification Laboratories (ETC) in Edison, New Jersey.

! 300156

I

(

1-7 ORIGINAL(Red)

Several soil samples were also analyzed. Although the site appeared to poseno danger to on-site personnel, Cooper opted to install a security fence torestrict access by unauthorized personnel. In addition, Cooper wanted toremove surface waste to mitigate any environmental threat posed by thesewastes and to facilitate on-site remedial investigatory activities. Hartand Cooper worked closely with EPA and DER to develop the Site Security Pro-gram for this purpose.

D. Site Security Program .

Cooper, in coordination with EPA and DER, voluntarily started theimplementation of Initial Remedial Measures (IRM's) contained in the SiteSecurity Program. This program was conducted during the summer of 1983. A

I chain link security fence with warning signs was installed by North AmericanFencing Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania around the perimeter of the

| site. The IRM's also provided for the removal of drums, containers, and* soils of a potentially hazardous nature to insure the safety of persons_^ undertaking future activities at the site.;O

Surface waste removal contractors invited to bid on the cleanup wereJ ' provided with the results of Hart's initial waste characterization sampling

efforts. Associated Chemical* and Environmental Services, Inc., (ACES) of| Oregon, Ohio was selectee! as the waste removal contractor. The ACES team

included Fondessy Enterprises, Inc., of Oregon, Ohio as the disposal facil-I ity; Alert Laboratories, Inc., of Canton, Ohio as the chemical laboratory;• Delaware Container company of Coatesville and Keystone Cement Company of• Bath, Pennsylvania, as fuels blending facilities; Delaware Container as theI treatment facility; and Delaware Container and NY-TREX, Inc., of Richfield,

Ohio, as transporters. During the summer of 1983, all visible drums andI soil contaminated by leaking drums were removed from the surface of the

site.

Following the implementation of the initial IRM's, Cooper and DERI entered into a Consent Order and Agreement which provided for the Remedial

Investigation of the Osborne Site previously discussed. Hart then conducted=0 tne Remedial Investigation (conducted during the period late 1983 to earlyI! 300157

/ 1-8 ORIGINALI ,,..,.,1

1984) which included performing various tasks identified in the ConsentOrder and Agreement Work Plan to gather information necessary for the sel-ection, design, and implementation of remedial actions at the Osborne Siteif appropriate.I

IIl

I

IIIIII

A security fence now surrounds the site and the surface of the site isvoid of potentially hazardous materials. The site also contains a networkof groundwater monitoring wells and access roads.

E. Content of the Report

Chapter II of this report summarizes the field investigation activitiesconducted by Hart. For each activity, the chapter presents the purpose ofthe task and the methodology used to complete the task. Data gathered undereach task are reported as findings; in some cases, extensive raw data anddata reduction methods are found in appendices.

. Chapter III describes waste types and quantities found at the Osbornesite. The chapter presents a. waste disposal history at the site, character-izes surface and subsurface wastes and presents conclusions.

Chapter IV addresses environmental impacts posed by surface water. Re-gional and site drainage patterns and surface water quality are discussed.Surface water users and potential contaminant migration pathways are identi-fied.

Chapter V describes the environmental impacts posed by groundwater.Regional and site hydrogeologic information is reported. Groundwater usersand potential groundwater contaminant migration pathways are identified.Groundwater quality is discussed.

Chapter VI synthesizes all the data gathered and examines the risksposed by the Osborne site to public health and the environment in a riskassessment.I

(7v Chapter Mil summarizes the conclusions reached in the report.

300158

II-1 ORIGINAL(Red)

Q CHAPTER II4

I SUMMARY OF FIELD INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

1I

II

I1IIII!

The Consent Order and Agreement Work Plan for the Remedial Investiga-tion at the Osborne site was designed to provide adequate information todetermine the appropriate remedial actions to be undertaken at the site.The specific objectives at the Remedial Investigation and the tasks neces-sary to complete these objectives are discussed in Chapter I of this report.This chapter provides a summary of field investigation activities designatedby these tasks, which were conducted at the Osborne site. The purpose,methodology, findings, and conclusions are presented for the followinginvestigative activities:

A. Proton Magnetometry SurveyB. Electrical Resistivity SurveyC. Test Drill ingD. OVA Field AnalysisE. Geophysical Borehole LoggingF. Downhole Television InspectionG. Aquifer Testing (Pressure Testing)H. Pumping Test of Well CPW-1I. Monitoring Well InstallationJ. Survey WorkK. Sampling

The above investigative activities were carried out in accordance withthe Consent Order and Agreement Work Plan. DER approvals were obtainedprior to the commencement and at the conclusion of each task. All work wascompleted in accordance with the safety plan drafted for the site prior tothe commencement of on-site investigative activities. All drilling activi-ties followed the safety plan. All on-site personnel were trained in theuse of respiratory protection, including the cartridge respirator and theSelf Contained Breathing Apparatus. An Organic Vapor Analyzer and an Explo-simeter were used to monitor conditions around the drill rigs during allon-site operations.

300159

I H-2 ORIGINAL(Red)

f-> A. Proton Magnetometry Surveyv /^

i 1. Purpose

I Hart conducted a standard proton magnetometry survey at the Osbornesite to indicate the number, locations, and types of buried metal objects at

I the site.

fIII

!IIII

2. Methodology

An EG&G Geometries model G846 portable proton precession magnetometerwas utilized to conduct a magnetic search. General calibration of the unitto the earth's magnetic field was accomplished by consulting a map of thetotal intensity of the earth's magnetic field. A reference point known tobe free of possible sources of magnetic interference was chosen.

The point was located in the field to the east of the main gate (SeeFigure II-l). Each 100 foot square block on the onsite grid was surveyed ona sub-grid using a grid spacing of 20 feet. The reference point was re-turned to after each section of the landfill was surveyed so that diurnalchanges in magnetic field could be recorded. At each grid point a measure-ment was taken. High magnetic gradients resulting in an unstable magneticfield were indicated automatically by the magnetometer. In addition,magnetic surface interference maps were constructed (See Figure II-2).

Repeatability of the measurements was checked before, during and afterthe survey and found to be in the range of ± 2 gammas. Correction fordiurnal magnetic field changes was not necessary due to the lack of magneticfield variation at the reference point over the course of the survey.

3. Findings

Magnetic modeling normally used to identify the sizes, depths, andtypes of objects causing magnetic anomalies was not possible. Under normalconditions, the occurence of a buried metal object will produce a particularmagnetic moment and signature that can be used to determine the size, shape

300160

DPPCfl'M

(Red)iz+oo -r^' ' ' STREAM

114-00

10400

•4oo

•400

N-2 It-9 H-4 X «-6• 4 C-6 6-2

FIGURE 11-1SITE GRID MAP

6R,DSPAC,N6.,OOFT. OSBORNE SITE

FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.

300161

ORIGINAL(Red)

S-4 S-S S-2 SH A »H N-2 N-5 »*-4 \ N-5

KEY. FIGURE 11-2FERRO MAGNET.C SURFACE MATERIALS MAGNETIC SURFACE

S OVERHEAD POWER UNES INTERFERENCE MAP.____ OSBORNE SITE

GRID SPACING* 100FT. " FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.

300162

I II-5

C\ and depth of the object. At the site, large masses of metal caused regions, of high magnetic gradients which resulted in unstable magnetic fields. Thist degraded the signals recorded by the magnetometer, preventing accurate. interpretations. Interpretation was still possible, however, by mapping| regions of high magnetic gradients (see Figure II-3). An estimation of the

possible locations of large amounts of buried ferromagnetic materials was] made by subtraction of regions with sufficient ferromagnetic or electrical

surface interference from the regions of high magnetic gradients (see FigureI II-4).

iI

4. Conclusions

The magnetometry survey suggested that buried ferromagnetic materialswere present throughout the entire central area of the disposal site.Modeling could not determine the sources of the anomalies recorded in thearea. Due to the large amount of metallic materials disposed of at the site(i.e. scrap metal, foundry sand, etc.) it was not possible to determine thetypes of objects buried at the site.

B. Electrical Resistivity Survey

1. Purpose

Hart performed an electrical resistivity survey as a prescreening toolto indicate subsurface geologic conditions around the perimeter of the site.Electrical Resistivity is commonly used to check for the presence of shallowgroundwater contamination plumes and geologic features such as soil typesand thicknesses.

2. Methods

The instrument used to perform the survey was a Bison Earth ResistivityMeter (Model 2350 B). Two parallel survey lines separated by approximately100 feet were run around the perimeter of the site as shown in Figure II-5.

w-\I 300163

I

I

i

I

I

- - - - - • UKIUINAL12+00

11+00

10+00

8+00

FIGURE 11-3HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD

SPAC.NGMOOFT. GRADIENT MAPOSBORNE SITE


12+00——|———|———,———,———,———,———,———,———,———, ORIGINAL(Red)

Pv11+00

lo+oo

8+00

6+00

7+00

6+00

6+00

4+00

8+00

2+00

I+OO

0-1-00

E+00

8-4 S-5 S-2 SH A »H N-2 N-3 N-4 \ N-5

GRID SPACING* 100 FT.

300165

FIGURE 11-4MAP OF POTENTIAL AREAS

OF BURIED METALOSBORNE SITE


1 n_8 ORIGINAL< II8 (Red)f .-,~^ A constant "A" spacing, or separation of 100' between the current andj. potential electrodes, was maintained throughout the survey. Dial readingsI were recorded and multiplied by the electrode spacing to obtain an apparent

resistivity value at each station.

3. Findingsf

Figure II-6 shows apparent resistivity profiles for the two parallel/ lines around the site. Readings taken near the pond or swamp areas tend to1 show a lower resistivity due to the proximity of water.I ' •. 4. Conclusions

I| The consistency of the values indicated that there were no anomalies

(i.e. unusually high or low measurements) in the immediate vicinity of thesite. These results suggest that soil types and thicknesses are uniform inthe area immediately surrounding the site. In addition, the results alsosuggest the absence of shallow mine shafts (less than 50 feet deep) and

' indicate the absence of obvious plumes of shallow groundwater contamination.

C. Test Drilling

1. Purpose

III

Hart completed the drilling of a total of 19 test borings and wells atthe locations shown in Figure II-7 to determine the geologic conditions andsoil types present at the site. The specific purpose for each series ofborings and wells is stated in the Consent Order and Agreement Work Plan andtheir precise locations, depths, and constructions were approved by DER.

2. Methods

Hart hydrogeologists directed, supervised and inspected the drilling ofI 19 test borings and wells at the site. Hart personnel made observations and^.^ measurements of all sampling activities and materials,, and kept records inw_y daily log books and on log forms.

/ 300166

ORIGINAL(Red)

* • • *>^ i 1 r fcw15+00

N-l N-2 N-5 N-4 N-5

GRID SPACING'100 FT.

30016 f-

FIGURE 11-5ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITYPROFILE LOCATION MAP


825.2 413.0

OilifiiKAL(Red)

B+OO

S-5 S-4 S-5 S-2 S-l A N-l N-2 N-S N-4 N-!

GRID SPACING'100 FT.

300168

FIGURE 11-6ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITYPROFILE MEASUREMENT


ISTREAMLET

* JOO' 0 100'1 __L^— -Jcszz MBiBnc:

SCALE IN FEET

200* .=

30016

FIGURE 11-7TEST BORING AND

WELL LOCATION MAPOSBORNE SITE

^ FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.

I

iI

I!

I

11-12 (Red)

;-:-~v Split spoon samples were taken continuously to bedrock in accordance^ with ASTM Standard D2113-70. In addition, each split spoon was screened| with an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) to identify any potential zones of con-

tamination. The OVA sample screening technique is discussed in more detailf later in this chapter. All rock coring was accomplished in accordance with

ASTM Standard D2113-70. A monitoring well was installed in each hole,I except CPW-1, immediately following test drilling activities. Monitoring

well installation specifications are discussed in detail later in this. report.

All test holes were drilled by Lininger Drilling and Pumps of Green-{ ville, PA. A Cyclone Combination Drill Rig was utilized to drill the SW and

LW series test borings. The rig advanced 3-3/8 inch hollow stem augers tobedrock, with continuous split spoon sampling. In some cases, due to prob-lems encountered with running sands, the drilling method was changed to thecable tool drilling technique. A CME Model 55 Hollow Stem Auger rig wasutilized for all rock coring operations. The rig advanced hollow stemaugers to bedrock. The rig then switched to NX rock coring to sample bed-rock at depth. A Bucyrus Erie 22W cable tool drilling rig was utilized toinstall bedrock monitoring wells not requiring specific testing or loggingoperations.

3. Findings

f Appendix A contains boring logs for all drilling activities at theI Osborne Site. Boring logs were used to reconstruct subsurface conditions.

Split spoon samples were stored in ASTM standard jars and rock cores wereI stored in core boxes for future reference. Boreholes were utilized for

geophysical testing, borehole television inspections, and in-situ testingI for hydraulic properties. The results of these logs are discussed in Chap-

ter V of this report.

4. Conclusions

I Although background information indictated a larger disposal area,boring logs indicate that only two LW series wells, LW-1 and LW-3, areactually screened in disposal materials. At well location LW-2, only the

300170

I

I

IIi

. 11-13

;^ top few feet of drilling encountered disposed materials. Well LW-2 is4 actually screened in mine spoils material. Well LW-4 is screened in mine

spoils and glacial deposits. These borings indicate that the actual volume- of disposed material was much smaller than originally thought.

Wells SW-3 and SW-4 are screened in mine spoils. Well SW-1 and SW-2I are screened in glacial deposits, However, they are not in direct hydraulic

connection due to the separation of the glacial materials at the site.

The UMW series wells monitor the Homewood formation. Well MMW-1 moni-t tors the Upper Connoquennessing formation. The DMW series wells monitor theI Burgoon formation.

I Well CMW-1 was installed in the Clarion formation to monitor the rockand possible void zones. Well CPW-1 was installed as a large capacity

j pumping well to characterize the void zone in a pumping test. Well CPW-1was not designed as a groundwater monitoring well and was not used for that

-x purpose.;i ^ s

( A total o f 1 9 wells w a s installed, including 1 8 monitoring wells a n done pumping well.

/

I D. OVA Field Analyses

\ I. Purpose

Hart used an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) to aid in the identificationof potential zones of volatile organic contamination encountered during thedrilling of the test borings. Hart utilized this data to estimate moreaccurately the areal extent and depth of contamination in the disposal area.The Hart on-site hydrogeologist also considered this data in the selectionof the optimum depth for the screen setting of the monitoring well.

300171

(

II[[III

I

n'14 ORIGINAL(Red)

2. Methods*!;

I The OVA is a highly sensitive instrument designed to detect volatileorganic contamination in a range of 1 to 1000 parts per million (ppm). It is

| a portable hydrogen flame ionization detector similar to those utilized inlaboratory gas chromatographs (GC) and has similar analytical capabilities.

The OVA can be operated in two modes, the survey mode and the GC mode.When used in the survey mode, the OVA is an efficient and accurate indicatorof total volatile organic concentrations on a continuous sampling basis witha response time of one to two seconds. The OVA can also perform in the GCmode of operation when a sample is injected directly onto the GC column.This causes the specific gas components in the sample to separate as contactis made with the material in the column. Each component of the sample gasmixture elutes from the column at a different time, thus separately enteringthe flame ionization detector chamber, and providing its own measurableresponse. Under controlled laboratory conditions the OVA can be used toqualify and quantify specific compounds in the GC mode.

For the purposes of this study, samples were collected in 40 ml VOAvials. The samples were taken from the split spoon samples obtained fromthe LW and SW series test borings. Split spoon samples were taken con-tinuously from ground surface to bedrock at each well or well nest location.

f All samples were prescreened by injecting a 200 micro liter aliquot of* the headspace from each sample. This prescreening technique allowed for the{ d i r e c t injection of the sample to the flame ionization chamber, bypassing

the GC column. Each sample was checked with this technique for the presenceof volatile organic compounds. Any sample which showed a response required

{ further GC analysis.

f GC analyses of samples was used to separate methane from other volatileorganic hydrocarbon constituents which may not have been naturally occur-

\ ring. Methane is a common gas, naturally generated from decay of organic(e. g., vegetative) matter and coal formations, as well as disposal mat-

O erials. Although the GC option can sometimes allow the qualitative and

300172

3. Results

II

II

1

I

II

n"15 ORIGINAL(fod)

quantitative analysis of specific components, that degree of analysis was*beyond the scope of work for this study. The presence, qualification and

quantification of any priority pollutant components present in these wellswere accomplished via additional sampling and laboratory analyses.

Sample logs with the results of the OVA analyses performed on samplesobtained from the SW and LW series test borings are shown in Appendix B.The OVA was used as a screening tool only. Identification of particularcompounds was beyond the scope of the OVA surveys. Subsequently, quali-fication and quantification of priority pollutant compounds in the leachatewas confirmed by laboratory analyses of well samples. A determination thata sample was "clean" indicates the absence of volatile organic compoundsdetectable with the OVA. A discussion of the results from each test boringis included below:

SW-1 - Except for split spoon sample no. S-19, SW-1 was clean. Theprescreen from sample No. S-19 resulted in a reading of 10-15 ppm*in the interval 27 to 28.5 ft. A peak exhibiting the characteris-tics of methane was noted during the GC analysis. The negativeresults from the other samples in SW-1, the absence of fill mat-erial at this location and the characteristics of sample No. S-19all suggest that this compound is naturally occurring methane. Noother compounds were noted.

SW-2 - All samples taken from SW-2 were clean.

SW-3 - All samples taken from SW-3 were clean.

SW-4 - Except for split spoon samples nos. S-10 and S-ll, SW-4 was clean.I The prescreen from sample nos. S-10 and S-ll resulted in readings

of 30-40 ppm* in the interval 13 to 16 ft. The only peak noted int both samples showed up at approximately 18 min. of the GC cycle.

Note: * Value in ppm "indicates total measurable volatile organics, i.e.,it may include methane as well as other compounds if present.

300173

I

I

I

I

11

Subsequent sampling and laboratory analysis showed that no prior-ity pollutant compounds were present in the well, indicating thatthis compound was not a priority pollutant. Since this well islocated in a coal mine spoils pile, there is a strong possibilitythat this compound is a derivative of coal.

LW-1 Based on the prescreen, all samples collected from LW1 showed thepresence of volatile organic compounds. Concentrations rangedfrom 10 to 100 ppm* in the interval from 0 to 31.5 ft., and were1000 ppm or higher in the interval from 31.5 to 37.5 ft. In allcases the GC analyses of these samples showed peaks exhibiting thecharacteristics of methane at concentrations generally correl-1ating with the concentrations noted in the prescreen. Sample No.S-6 showed a low level of volatile organic contamination apartfrom the methane peak. Based on the characteristics of the splitspoon samples, it appears that the methane is being generated fromthe decomposition of fill material. This is especially true forthe interval from 31.5 to 37.5 ft. which had large amounts of rootmaterial and wood.

LW-2 - The prescreen results of samples taken from LW-2 generally showedconcentrations in the 10 to 70 .ppm* range in the interval from0-22.5 ft, and, except for sample no. S-20, were clean in theinterval from 22.5 to 30 ft. In all cases where GC analyses wereconducted, the analysis resulted in a small peak exhibiting thecharacteristics of methane. Sample No. S-9 showed a low level ofvolatile organic compound apart from the methane peak. As inLW-1, it appears that the methane in this boring is being gen-erated from the decomposition of the fill and/or spoil material.Methane concentrations in this boring are generally lower thanthose noted in LW-1. This is probably due to the decreased amountof organic matter observed in this boring.

LW-3 - Prescreen results from sample nos. S-l through S-10 taken in theinterval from 0 to 15 ft were clean. Prescreen results fromsample nos. S-ll, S-12 and S-13, in the interval from 15 to 19 ft

300174

I 11-17 ORIGINAL(Red)

f*T showed volatile compound concentrations in the 20 to 80 ppm****-/ range. GC analyses on these samples resulted in a small peakI exhibiting the characteristics of methane. No other peaks were

noted. However, field observations of sample nos. S-ll, S-12, andI ~ S-13 indicated that these samples were contaminated with an oil-

like substance and exhibited an oily odor. It is possible, based| on this observation, that the compound noted was not methane, but* rather some other light compound or combination of compounds as-J s o c i a t e d with non-chlorinated hydrocarbon products. Water in well

LW-3 was subsequently sampled and analyzed for volatile organicI priority pollutants. Only benzene, an aromatic hydrocarbon,-wasI found at part-per-billion levels, indicating that the remainder of

this combination is probably due to non-chlorinated alphaticI hydrocarbons. Note that non-chlorinated alphatic hydrocarbons are

generally not considered to be priority pollutants.II

I

Ii_i

I

I*

LW-4 - All samples taken from LW-4 were clean.

4. Conclusions

The OVA was useful in the determination of the zones of subsurface soilcontamination and the proceedures required in setting the proper depth ofthe well screen. OVA logs are provided in Appendix B. The OVA field screen-ing supports the boring log information on the extent of the disposed mat-erial. The OVA logs indicate that volatile organic concentrations weregenerally digest below the water table. Disposed materials above the watertable checked with the OVA appeared to be relatively clean, suggesting thatthere is relatively little subsurface soil contamination. LW-1 and LW-3reflect the chemical composition of the leachate in the fill. The majororganic component identified by the OVA appeared to be methane. Analyses ofthese leachate samples with the OVA was only a prescreening technique usedto indicate possible zones of contamination. Subsequent laboratory analysesconfirms that any non-methane organic compounds found in the leachate aregenerally non-priority pollutant compounds.

300175

I

(I(

IIifIi

n'18 ORIGINAL(Ret!)

E. Geophysical Borehole Logging

1.

Hart performed the geophysical borehole logging of well DMW-1 and holesDMW-2 and DMW-3 to confirm the depths of formations and geologic contacts.Geophysical borehole logging was utilized in boreholes DMW-2 and DMW-3 toprovide geologic control data in lieu of rock cores in these locations.DMW-1 was logged for comparison with the geologic log of the continuous rockcore at that location. Geologic control in these holes aided in the inter-pretation the lithology in and between the holes so that zones could beidentified for subsequent permeability testing.

2. Methods

Hart directed Applachian Coal Surveys (ACS) of Pittsburgh, PA in thegeophysical logging tasks at the Osborne Site. Several logging suites wererun. DMW-2 and DMW-3 were logged using full standard lithologic and ground-water logging suites.

These open hole suites consisted of spontaneous potential and resis-tivity electric logging, natural and gamma ray logging, density logging,caliper logging, and temperature and fluid conductivity logging. DMW-1, asa cased hole, was logged using only natural gamma and density logs. Thepresence of the well casing prevents quantification of the density log,although the log may be used for qualitative interpretation. ACS providedthe complete geophysical logging system from Well Data Reconnaissance ofDallas, Texas mounted in a light truck. Each probe was calibrated at eachwell before the run. Logging speed was held at about 30 feet per minute.Logging results were simultaneously recorded on stripchart paper.

3. Findings

Appendix C includes the results of the various logging suites forthe three holes. The elevations of the formations and format!onal contactswere carefully derived from the geophysical logs, recovered rock cores, and

300176

I

n'19 ORIGINAL(Red)

drillers records. This information was utilized to delineate zones forlater permeability testing.

4. Conclusions

This technique permitted utilization of an additional lithologicalinterpretative technique to compare geophysical borehole logs with recoveredrock cores. Geophysical logging aided in the correlation of geologic for-mations (i.e., aquifers and aquicludes) across the site at locations anddepths at which rock coring data was not available. The geophysical logswere also used to compare the site to other areas offsite for which logswere available (e.g., Poth, 1963).

F. Downhole Television Inspection

1. Purpose

Hart conducted an inspection of borehole CMW-1 utilizing a downholetelevision camera for the purpose of characterizing potential void areasencountered during drilling.

2. Method

Geoprobe Inc., of Pittsburgh, PA was . subcontracted to perform thedownhole TV inspection. A camera specifically designated for this type ofwork was coupled with one of two types of lens attachments. First, the holewas logged with the side looking attachment. Then, the hole was logged fora second time with a down looking attachment. A video tape was made of theentire process for data review and evaluation.

3. Findings

At a depth of 68.5 ft below ground level, what appeared to be theceiling of a mine was viewed. Further advancement of the camera could notbe accomplished due to collapse and in-filling of material in the borehole.

300177

I n-20 ORIGINAL(Red)

-— Sediment clouding the water prevented an estimation of the extent of the^ void. However, Figure II-8 shows various zones of broken up rock character-II istic of roof collapse or subsidence.

f 4. Conclusions

| The borings and subsequent inspection suggest the possibility that at' least one mine shaft exists on the northeast side of the site. However, it. is likely that, as the mine roof subsided, small void areas were opened in', the collapsing rock above, and these small voids were filled with collapsed,

broken and loose rock material creating the zones noticed on the videoj monitor.

K G. Aquifer Testing

I 1. Purpose

-. _ Hart conducted pneumatic packer testing of each of the lithologic units'iO1 open in drill holes DMW-2 and DMW-3 to determine the permeabilities of these

units. Pneumatic Packer Testing is the most appropriate method of measuringI the in-situ permeability o.f a rock at depth. Permeability, the capacity for

a material to transmit fluid, is the single most important factor control-| ling groundwater movement. Aquifers whether in rock or soil typically

exhibit high permeabilities and can serve as pathways for contaminant migra-tion. Confining layers, or aquicludes, exhibit low permeability and may actto slow or stop contaminant migration through groundwater. Through permea-bility testing, the ability of each zone of rock to act as a barrier orpathway to transmit contaminants through groundwater to receptors can beevaluated.

i2. Methods

IHart directed Lininger to perform packer testing of the various aqui-

• fers and confining layers opened in drill holes DMW-2 and DMW-3. Depth ofzones to be tested was determined utilizing core logs,geophysical logs and

^ drillers logs. At least one zone representative of each sand or shale| lithologic unit was chosen for testing.

i 300178

I ORIGINAL(Port

1^

i 86

60OF VOID-SPACE

Oe

£o•iuB

IUu

BEDROCK SURFACE40

DARKENED AREAS INDICATEBROKEN ROCK AND VOID SPACE

___ OR ZONES THAT DRILL RODS46 ——— DROPPED THROUGH

DARKENENED AREAS AMOUNTEDTO A TOTAL THICKNESS OFAPPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET

60

70FIGURElf-8

BOREHOLE CMW-1TELEVISION LOG RESULTS______OSBORNE SITE_____FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.

300179

I 11-22 " ORIGIKV,(Red)

II" The packer assembly was lowered to the proper zone. The packers wereI inflated to the proper pressure with compressed air utilizing tanks fromI self contained breathing apparatus units. This isolated the five foot zone

of bedrock between the two packer units. Water was then pumped into thezone at a low and constant pressure, creating a constant artificial head.Operating pressures were stabilized with the use of a gate valve until theyremained constant. Pressures were then checked with a pressure gauge andrecorded for later use in permeability calculations.

III Each zone was tested for a period of five minutes, and the amount of

water received by the zone was recorded with the use of a standard watermeter. Nine zones representative of the major hydrogeologic units of in-terest were tested in each drill hole using this technique.

3. Findings

* Operating pressure and water volumes were used to calculate the permea-t( bilities for each of the zones tested. Adjustments were made for pipe loss|O' where necessary. Raw data and calculations can be found in Appendix D.

Table II-l shows the permeability measured for each zone tested.

4. Conclusions

As expected, higher permeabilities were found in the sandstone units.I Shale zones separating these units, however, were measured to have a per-

meability of essentially zero, indicating very low to no potential for. vertical migration of contaminants to underlying aquifers.I

H. Pumping Test of Well CPW-1I

1. Purpose

In order to determine whether the void at location CPW-1 might serve asI a pathway for contaminant migration Hart conducted a large capacity pumping*

test to effect a water level drawdown to evaluate the volume of the void.

300130

H-23 ORIGf?

^ TABLE II-l• PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS

i Test ZoneDepth Elev. Hole K(in ft.KMSL) DMWtf Cm/sec Lithology Formation

I 1249-1254 3 1.74 x 10~5 Sandstone Homewood1235-1240 2 LT 10"8 - Sandy Shale Homewood

i 1209-1210 3 1.86 x 10 c Sandstone HomewoodI 1205-1210 2 2.68 x 10 X Sandstone Homewood

1179-1184 3 1.71 x 10 * Sandstone Homewood1175-1184 2 LT 10"8 Shale Mercer

_0.1154-1159 3 GT 2.07 x 10 Sandstone Upper Connoquennessing

I 1150-1155 2 8.84 x 10 _3 Sandstone Upper Connoquennessing1144-1149 3 GT 1.65 x 10 Sandstone Upper Connoquennessing

| 1140-1145 3 LT 10"8 Shale Middle Connoquennessingf _ 1115-1120 2 2.71 x 10l5 Sandstone Lower Connoquennessing•'• i ^ 1104-1109 3 4.88x10? Sandstone Lower Connoquennessing1 -^ 1089-1104 3 2.90x10 Sndstone Lower ConnoquennessingI 1185-1090 2 LT 10"8 Shale Burgoon Shale Unit

1059-1064 3 3.02 x 10~4 _, Sandstone BurgoonTrtCftlACC ** ^T C 1O »- ft T r»KlJ.^*.K«. D.«MM«k«k>.1050-1055 2 GT 5.18 x 10 Sandstone Burgoon

"8i' 1039-1044 3 LT 10 _, Sandstone Burgoon

1025-1030 2 9.45 x 10 5 Sandstone Burgoon

I LT Less Thanj GT Greater Than

30018.1

TT 9* °RIGINALn 24 (Red)

I1II

2. Methods

Lininger Drilling and Pumps set a large capacity submersible pump intowell CPW-1. Pump discharge was measured continuously with an orifice meas-urement device constructed by Lininger. The pump test was conducted for aperiod of three hours. Water levels in well CMW-1 and the small pond weremeasured and recorded throughout the test to monitor the drawdown in theformation voids or possible hydraulically connected areas.

3. Findings

Figure I1-9 shows the orifice method of measurement and the calculationof pumping rate (after Johnson, 1973). Figure I1-9 also shows the pumpingrate as a function of time and reports the total volume of water removedduring the pumping test. Although approximately 50,000 gallons of water waspumped out over a period of three hours, no significant drawdown was noticedin either the pond or the CMW-1 well. A noticable drawdown would have beeneffected for the reported range of permeabilities of the formation if thewater was removed from the intersticial pore spaces or bedding planes frac-tures, within the formation.

4. Conclusions

The lack of a noticeable water level drawdown indicates the possibilitythat water was entering the well from a rather extensive void area. Thedifference between water levels in the fill and the void area, however,indicate that although the disposal area and the void may be in hydraulicconnection, flow may be restricted through this boundary. In addition, thelack of water level drawdown in the Homewood formation at that locationduring the test also indicated the lack of a significant hydraulic connec-tion in this instance as well.

300132

ORfGWAL

oI— (O

13ID <

IU

o S

u. tu

O

HZIK

111

0>gHI HI

2 HO

CL

3* 0.

oe«uK<O

eCD

oUIetL,

COuO H

S' i

— OCP

_ OCO

BIV« ONidwnd 300183

i!

11-26ORIGINAL(Red)

I. Monitoring Well Installation

1. Purpose

Hart installed 18 monitoring wells and one large capacity pumping wellat the locations shown in Figure II-7 in order to monitor the different

j aquifers for chemical and hydrogeologic parameters.

2. Methods

Hart directed" Lininger to install several types of wells at variousI depths based on geologic data and the results of the OVA analyses. For

example, two- inch PVC monitoring wells were installed in each of the threej NX cored bedrock holes (DMW-1, MWW-1 and CMW-1). Four-inch PVC was used in* the installation of the SW and LW series wells. The SW-series wells wereI screened in glacial overburden or mine spoil water bearing zones. Two of

the four LW series wells were screened in zones reflecting actual leachateconditions. Only the top few feet at locations LW-2 and LW-4 consisted of

. disposal material, since the limits of the disposal site did not extend asfar as was thought. LW-2 and LW-4 were screened in mine spoil material.

A Bucyrus-Erie 22-W Cable tool drilling rig was utilized to drill thej UMW series wells, as well as wells DMW-2, DMW-3 and CPW-1. These five UMW' series wells were constructed of welded steel casing driven into the bedrock• surface to prevent leakage from higher water bearing zones. These holest were finished as open holes in the Homewood Sandstone bedrock aquifer.

. Wells DMW-2 and DMW-3 were drilled into the Burgoon sandstone as 6 inchopen holes. A 4" PVC screen and casing was inserted following geophysical

f logging and aquifer permeability testing.

As noted, one well (CPW-1) was finished in the Clarion formation for• the purpose of performing a pump test to examine of the potential extent of, void areas encountered during previous drilling.i

C300134

1 H"27 ORIGWAL(Red)

\ In addition, wells MMW-1, DMW-2, and UMW-2, which were installed^_y through possible mine void zones, were double cased to prevent water fromI the mine voids from entering lower zones.

I During the latter stages of the field Investigation, spring meltwaters• and heavy rains caused flooding in several areas of the site. The worst( f l o o d i n g occurred in the area of wells DMW-1, SW-4, UMW-5. Water was within

4 inches of the top of the wells at this location. These well casings wereextended approximately two feet to insure that floodwaters did not enter the.

I wells. The land surface immediately surrounding these wells was raisedaccordingly to prevent excess standing water.

III

I

I

i

3. Findings

Appendix E presents well construction diagrams for all the wells at theOsborne Site. All major water bearing zones of consequence were included inthe Osborne groundwater monitoring system.

f/" The water table aquifer at the site, which could act as a surficialgroundwater pathway, is monitored by the LW and SW series wells. Wells LW-1and 3 are screened in landfill material. Wells LW-2 and 4 are screened inmine spoils. Wells SW-3 and 4 are also screened in mine spoils. Well SW-2

I appears to be screened in glacial /alley till material. Well SW-1 isscreened in the glacial deposits overlying the cornfield. Well CMW-1 moni-tors the Clarion formation and the possible void zone. Wells UMW-1 through5 monitor the Homewood formation. One well, MMW-1, monitors the UpperConnoquennessing formation for groundwater quality. Because very little ofthe Upper or Lower Connoquennessing groundwater is used, no other wells wereinstalled in this formation. Wells DMW-1 through DMW-3 monitor the Burgoonformation, a major source of groundwater supply in the area.

4. Conclusions

All well construction, installation and development procedures wereconducted in accordance with the Consent Order and Agreement Work Plan. DERapproved well designs and locations prior to any drilling activities at the

300185

I I I - 2 8ORIGINAL(Red)

i -^ site. DER approved all completed wells following their installation. Each^—' well is currently functioning as its design indicated, except for well SW-1.i

i Due to the nature of the deposits at location SW-1, well SW-1 had to be setin low permeability glacial materials. These materials prevent adequate

I recharge of the well. Sampling and analyses of these wells are discussed* later in this report.

IIIII

IIII

I

J. Survey Work

1. Purpose

Hart surveyed well casing elevations and spatial locations in order todetermine groundwater flow characteristics at the site. Hart also performeda detailed topographic survey of the site for use in surface drainage map-ping and engineering calculations of disposed materials.

2. Methods

Hart performed an elevation survey at the site using an automaticlevel. Distances were measured by a stadia and were checked with a mea-suring tape. Relative elevations were accurate to i 0.01 feet. A permanentbenchmark at the site was located at the base of the stationary terminalfence post at entry gate to the site. This benchmark was tied to a USGSBenchmark located from the Grove City quadrangle map at the corner ofDiamond and Enterprise roads, accurate to ± 0.5 feet absolute elevation.

Prior to the remedial investigation, Hart directed Norman Straub, P.E.,L.S., of Grove City in the performance of the emplacement of an initial gridsystem over the surface of the site. The work was performed with and tiedinto a property boundary survey conducted as part of the Site SecurityProgram. Well casing elevations and locations, as well as both a map madeby Straub in 1973 and Hart's 1983 map, were all referenced to the same gridto which all other site activities were also referenced. A new topographicmap was prepared which more accurately reflects the landfilled surface atthe time of this investigation.

300136

I 11-29 ORIGINAL(Red)

i —N Hart also performed a monitor well casing elevation survey following^ the completion of the wells. Wells DMW-1, SW-4, and UMW-5 required re-

I surveying following the casing extension program previously discussed.

I 3. Findings

• Well casing elevations are reported later in this chapter in the sec-* tion on sampling. Straub1 s 1973 topographic map, as referenced to the site

III

grid, is included as Figure 11-10. Hart's 1983 topographic map is includedas Figure 11-11. Further analyses of these maps may be found in ChapterIII, Waste Types and Quantities. •

4. Conclusions

All on-site activities were referenced to the grid on-site. In addi-( t i o n , the reference grid was also tied into a property boundary survey.

Hart tied elevations (+ 0.01ft) on the site to a USGS benchmark (+ 0.5 feet. above mean sea level) located at intersection of Diamond and Enterprisei W Roads. A new topographic map of the site was constructed. The site appears

to have accepted a layer about ten feet thick of disposed material between1 1973 and 1978 in the central part of the disposal area. Well casing ele-

vations and locations were used to determine groundwater surface elevation] and calculate flow direction and gradient, presented later in this report.

j K. Samplingi

». 1. Purposei

The purpose of the sampling program at the Osborne site was to assessI the quality of the groundwater, surface water, and leachate. Hart collected

samples at the site on three separate occasions: December 5th through 9th,j 1983; January 18th through 20th, 1984; and April 2nd through April 4th,

1984.f

On the first sampling trip, Hart collected six surface water samples at\ _ the locations shown in Figure 11-12 and twelve groundwater samples from the

| groundwater monitoring wells shown in Figure II-7. In addition, Hart col-

i 300187

• 300189'

II

Ii

H"32 ORIGINAL(Red)

lected four seperate leachate samples (for volatile organic analysis only)and one composite leachate' sample from the four leachate wells (LW1 throughLW4 as shown on Figure II-7).

I On the second sampling trip, nine groundwater samples were collected:* five from the uppermost aquifer monitoring wells (UMW1 through UMW5), one( f r o m the middle aquifer monitoring well (MMW-1), two from the deep aquifer

monitoring well (DMW-1) (one sample was filtered and analyzed for metalsonly) and one from the Clarion formation monitoring well (CMW-1).

On the third sampling trip, three groundwater samples were collectedI from the deep aquifer monitoring wells (DMW-1 through DMW-3).

2. Methods

Before sampling the groundwater and leachate wells, water level mea-surements were taken with a steel tape to a precision of ± 0.01 foot andrecorded for the determination of hydraulic gradients and groundwater flow

r~, directions. Water level measurements are presented in Table II-2. Exceptas noted, a minimum of three well volumes was then evacuated to insure arepresentative sample. The amount of water evacuated from each well, duringsampling is presented in Table I1-3.

Following well evacuation, a bailer was lowered into the well to col-lect the sample. On the first sampling trip, teflon coated copper bailers

I were used. The bailers were field washed with acetone and methyl ene chlo-ride prior to use in each well. On the second and third sampling trips,

I bottom loading stainless steel bailers with teflon check valves were used.Methyl ene chloride was replaced by methanol due to the detection of methy-

I lene chloride in some of the the initial samples. A new piece of nylon cordat least 10 feet in length was also used to lower the bailer into the well.

J T h e firs.t 3 bails of water were wasted from each well before retaininggroundwater samples to assure that the bailers were thoroughly rinsed ofcleaning agents prior to sample collection. Samples were then poured di-

• rectly from the bailer into sample bottles and stored on ice in shuttles fordelivery to the laboratory.

300190

I

^STREAMLETt* Ktf

KEY:A8-1 - SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION

FIGURE H-12SURFACE WATER

SAMPLING LOCATIONSCALE .KFEET 3 0131 OSBORNE SITE


1

I

"-34 ORIGINAL(Red)

TABLE I1-2WATER LEVEL MEASUREMEKTS

Water Surface Elevation (MSL1) by DateCasing

Well Elevation 12/6-9/83 1/18/84 1/20/84 3/1/84 3/7/84 3/15/84(MSL ft)I

[[1I

LW-1LW-2LW-3LW-4

SW-1SW-2SW-3SW-4*

UMW-1UMW- 2UMW- 3UMW-4UMW-5*

DMW-1*

MlMW-1

1,302.811,306.111,304.901,292.62

1,328.711,289.591,322.101,300.70

1,307.101,328.451,293.701,322.391,300.76

1,301.12

1,329.24

1,294.321,292.921,291.051,287.84

1,300.061,288.181,290.661,295.15

1,280.471,281.751,278.281,280.481,293.74

1,250.48

1,265.44

1,295.181,293.621,291.831,297.78

1,301.141,287.791,289.651,294.96

1,280.461,281.891,278.391,280.521,294.22

1,250.24

1,255.61

1,295.001,293.371,291.641,287.66

1,301.161,287.691,289.551,294.78

1,280.341,281.671,278.241,280.411,294.14

1,250.19

1,255.59

1,297.881,296.361,294.451,288.93

1,301.371,288.841,290.541,297.58

1,280.821,282.221,278.841,281.181,296.63

1,250.24

1,256.06

1,297.561,296.291,294.011,288.47

1,301.431,288.471,291.001,297.22

1,280.771,282.001,277.171,280.901,296.24

1,250.34

1,257.11

1,297.061,295.161,293.341,280.39

1,301.481,285.031,289.521,296.54

1,279.021,279.251,261.741,277.211,295.51

1,255.15

1,259.15

i

CMW-1 1,328.84 1,284.35 1,294.02 1,284.67 1,285.19 1,285.50 1,285.19

'* Due to potential flooding problems, casings on these wells were extended on 4/2/84.At that time, two deep (DMW series) wells were installed and surveyed. The new casingelevations are:

SW-4 1,303.51UMW-5 1,303.68DMW-1 1,303.84

The current casing elevations and water levels taken on 4/4/84 in the DMW wells are,respectively:

DMW-1 1,303.84 1,248.46DMW-2 1,326.30 1,248.43DMW-3 1,294.54 1,249.49

300192

ilIII

11-35ORIGINAL(Red)

TABLE II-3

WELL EVACUATION DATA

Volume Removed Prior to Sampling (gals)____Well 12/83 " " 1 / 8 4 4/84

LW-1 250LW-2 20**LW-3 80 -LW-4 -25*

SW-1 1.5* - -SW-2 85 - -SW-3 164SW-4 150

UMW-1 350 350UMW-2 330 330UMW-3 360 360UMW-4 430 430UMW-5 1680 1680

CMW-1 12 6.25MMW-1 60 60

DMW-1 150 150 150DMW-2 - - 11,250DMW-3 - - 25,920

Note:

A minimum of 3 well casing volumes of water were evacuated from the wellto assure a representative sample of the formation except wherenoted.

* 1 volume only** 2 volumes only

300193

I

IIf1Ii

11-36 ORIGINAL(Red)

Chain-of-custody procedures were followed throughout the sampling,, program in accordance with standard EPA protocols as set forth in EPA Docu-§ ment #600/2-80-018. On the first sampling trip, the samples were shipped

via Federal Express to Environmental Testing Corporation (ETC) for priorityI pollutant analysis. On the second and third sampling trips, the samples

were hand-delivered to ETC.

3. Analytical Program

All of the samples collected were analyzed for priority pollutants byEnvironmental Testing and Certification (ETC) of Edison, New Jersey. ETCsupplied all bottles, preservatives, ice packs, shipping containers, ana-lysis request forms, and chain-of-custody forms in accordance with thestandard EPA protocols set forth in EPA Document #60012-80-018.

After receiving the samples, ETC prepared and analyzed the samples forpriority pollutants using EPA method Nos. 624, 625, and 200.1 through 200.98as set forth in the Federal Register, 3 December 1979, pages 69532 and65940, and "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste," EPA Document#600/4-79-020, respectively.

4. Findings

For each sample, a report was provided with analytical results, method-I o l o g y , quality control/quality assurance information and chain-of-custody

forms. ETC has also provided a Data Management System Summary Report which• lists, for each sample location and date, the compounds detected above the| EPA method Detection Limit. This Report is provided in Appendix F. The

reduced chemical data and a discussion are provided in the Surface Water andI Groundwater Quality Sections (Chapters IV and V).

| 5. Conclusions

* Compounds which were detected were present in the low parts per billionV-v range. Low levels of volatile organic compounds were detected in some of^ the leachate and in some of the Homewood wells. Some low levels of organic

I

300194

f1

IIII

I

III1I

11-37 ORIGINAL(Red)

compounds were also detected in the Burgoon Formation. In general, theanalytical data suggested that any contamination present at the site ispresent only in very low concentrations.

300195

I m-i ORIGINAL(Red)

f CHAPTER III

£•

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

i

WASTE TYPES AND QUANTITIES

This chapter presents information on the types and quantities of wastesdisposed at the Osborne Site. This information was developed from data andanalysis obtained from aerial photos, on-site observations, the initial sitecharacterization, the waste removal operation during the Site SecurityProgram, test boring magnetometry data, OVA logs and leachate well chemicalanalysis. It is organized -into four sections:

A. Waste Disposal HistoryB. Characterization of Surface WastesC. Characterization of Subsurface WastesD. Conclusion

A. Waste Disposal History

The site was operated as a disposal area by Mr. Sam Mooney from the1950's until 1963. The operation continued under the ownership of Mr. JamesOsborne from 1963 until 1978. The site was closed by the DER in 1978.

Materials disposed over the life of the Osborne site included indus-trial waste, with lesser amounts of municipal refuse and allegedly hazardouswastes. All disposal activities were conducted within the 15 acre topo-graphic valley created by past coal strip mining operations. The primarymaterial disposed was foundry sand.

Hart inventoried, analyzed, and arranged for the removal and off-sitedisposal of drums and contaminated soil on the surface of the site as partof the Initial Remedial Measures. Data generated both from the InitialRemedial Measures and the subsequent Remedial Investigation contributed tothe understanding of the waste types and quantities buried at the site.

300196

t IH-2 ORIGINAL(Red)

fFigure III-l shows the current surface features at the site including

^ the pond locations, and the extent of the spoils piles and the disposalI area. The determination of spoils piles and disposal area boundaries was

based on aerial photo interpretations and field observations during theI remedial investigation activities. The foundry sand was apparently disposed

from southeast to northwest into the strip mine area. Infilling of the pond( e v e n t u a l l y raised portions of the land above water. Infilling continued up

to the locations of the ponds currently on-site.

I The clay underlying the Brookville coal became exposed upon, the removalof the coal. The clay, which appears to be continuous under the site, forms

I the bottom of the disposal area.

iI

I

IIII

B. Characterization of Surface Wastes

Extensive information on the surface wastes at the site was developedduring the removal of all surface drums and contaminated soil as an InitialRemedial Measure.

As part of the IRM, Hart designed and carried out an inventory programto characterize the degree of hazard at the site and determine the wastetypes and quantities at the site. As a part of this effort, clusters ofdrums were located and designated as shown on Figure II1-2. Four hundredand thirty-three drums, of which 74 were full and sealed, were originallyidentified. About 20% of the drums were selected for sampling based on drumlocation, accessibility, and condition. Each drum was assigned an ID numberand inventoried for volume, apparent types of materials, and drum condition.Representative samples from the drums were collected for chemical analysisto provide prospective bidders with an indication of the types of waste tobe disposed. Laboratory results are provided in Table III-l.

I Associated Chemical and Environmental Services, Inc., (ACES) of Oregon,- Ohio was selected as the surface waste removal contractor. The ACES team- included Fondessy Enterprises, Inc., of Oregon, Ohio, as the disposal faci-1 lity; Alert Laboratories, Inc., of Canton, Ohio, as the chemical laboratory;s' ~

\^j Delaware Container Company of Coatesville and Keystone Cement Company of

i\ 300197

ORIGfNflf(Red)STREAM

S-3 S-2 S-l A N-l N-2 N-3 \ N^ N-5\ STREAMLET

FIGURE HI-1SURFACE FEATURE

GRID SPACING* IOO

300198IFRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC.

tt+oo-i—-——i———i———i———i———i——_U*MH;BS. i———i———i (Red)STREAM

11*00

I0<+00

•4oo

CURVET KTOCNCE POINT

KEY:111 DRUM CLUSTER BOUNDARY 3001 CC

GRID SPACING* IOO FT

FIGURE HI-2DRUM CLUSTERLOCATION MAPOSBORNE SITE

FRED C. -HART A86OCIATE8. INC.

I

iI II

f vt

( iI

5 2tu*"

•/>" ."•

iSs

Ig£

>

•*, ~i *j^_i —^j-j x^^x _i «i^^ ^

I

I

1

= i?I ^I § c

u-5 =

CM Cg CMoooooeeoooeoooooo o2 222

eddoedcddededeeeeo ddd*J«*oW**«***arf«ftJ«krf«M«M4«ft*rtrf*rf**«fc*«M**l *J«*rf«'

SSe»ppe?ppcsc?e>peeppooo eoo *j

• «— >» ©2222SSSS

in

CM CM ic «r CM CM mo eoo

coeoeo22222"2"222222°22 222

e e<•n in in

CM CM CM (M cw CM (M (M CM CM CM rg CM CM (M in mtntn222*2222*2222'2222'2 2*22

_ 'ooeoeeeeoee o«tM(M««S**SZ<SI!«>SSS?« i l l i•*•»«-!— »-P-» .- ^ ^ I l l I

* * ss- -- -- —01

1°

JS«-

— — _ re in eveoov> «u £^~.Sfe.ui f» csj ie BM e csj i>. mm>o-<O«sjr.. m m Sc<

ORIGINAL(Red)

300200

HI'6 Orjf...Uiuv'.

, Bath, Pennsylvania, as fuels blending facilities; Delaware Container as thetreatment facility; and Delaware Container and NY-TREX, Inc., of Richfield,

4 Ohio, as transporters.

I Table III-2 provides a summary of the ACES drum inventory. Of the 603drums restaged, 460 were empty. In addition, 45 cubic yards of contaminated

j soil was staged, removed, and disposed. A total of 83 drums were sampled.Data are summarized in Table I I 1-3.

1(((

Drums were categorized into groups of organic liquids, organic liquidswith high halogen content, sludges, aqueous liquids, drummed solids, andsoil solids. A composite of all samples in each group was made by mixing anequal aliquot of each sample. These composites were each analyzed for EPA'sPriority Pollutant List. A summary of the data is provided in Table III-4.

The composite samples from the 83 drums which were full and sealedidentified 2 organic and 8 inorganic priority pollutants out of the total of129. The maximum concentration of any organic priority pollutant in thesefilled and sealed drums was 0.5 percent. The concentration of inorganicpriority pollutants was in the low parts-per-million with the exception ofone measurement of 4,400 ppm of lead in one sample.

C. Characterization of Subsurface Wastes

The horizontal extent of the disposal area was determined utilizingaerial photos and topographic maps, evaluating locations of the spoils pilesand strip mine walls and by making suitable assumptions for the side slopes.Cross sections were developed from test boring data. Cross-sectional areaswere calculated with the use of a planimeter. These cross-sectional areaswere used to calculate the volume of the disposal area using the standardengineering method of "End Averaging." The estimated volume of the disposal

i area is approximately 233,000 cu. yds. A complete explanation of the meth-odology used in these volume calculations may be found in Appendix G.

t

Test borings within the area of waste disposal at the site were subse-, quently used to indicate the types and depths of buried waste at the site.I

• 300201

I

1

i

f

I

III-7ORiGi,

TABLE HI-2

| Summary of ACES Drum Inventory

J Cluster Drum Count

i A 48B 102

. C 126D • 12

1 E 14F 33

f G 55I H 49

I 50J J 114

SITE TOTAL 603

Drum Breakdown by Contents-r

: Liquids 83I Solids 60* Empty 460

I11

300202

i.i

'• ' *~,Ui

!i1If

'*> "**"

•Vs—

1!lil

1I

<i_ _~.^ /*i

TablSummary

•MO

MMlM3j1-1

MKMKMBMMMM

HIHIHIH*HI

MlMlMtMIMlMMIHMlMlM7MiMlUMC4MMHIt-mMBtonatMMMMWPgMK

HIMlMJIVBM7MfVfll• aMlMJMi1-14MlMlM!MlfrdMMI-W!•*MlMlI'di-a1*1HttJ-4MIJ-WJ<«BJ-lj-eMBJ S

lintUl.Ulutinininin •IAIAininininIAininIAIAUlIAinIAinuiinIAenininIAininininUfBIAinintutinmUl

ininininininininmaUKininIAinUlinUMIIAinininIAinininininIAinUKinIAinininUlin

e HI-3of Drum Anal yses ORIGINAL

<OM «ZM «O WPBBLi MUODi * __ CWOI _ "** OMTULt BO*r. M

•

H

41Ba

u

a

uB

Ma9n8

aBaaawMB

IS

ISaaaIS

ittit. tiwvuHniiwwmtuttm •ttmVi/aK1B4tm

m

»t91

tmww

ftw*ft

wDiiw»itmttmttttmtmfttIK

t

IKtmIN1t1t

n.B.B.

an.LOA

f*

B.Ul11IAft*B,Ul1Ul1B.1UlB,B.B,UlB.B.1B.1

HA11

111

1

f1

B.HAB,

UtLB.B.UlB.11B.1tB.

1&A1a.a.a.n.

•A•AI1

•mii•A•A

1•At

1-A

*

-A

I

•

•A1I

I11

I

11V-

•A

-A

•A

II

11

1•/•1

i

u-u-

fcii/*

tt- -V1u-w-lu-111w-t11

I/-

.

— —

*

•A

I/*1

If*111I/*1

1

L

U-

1111

•A•A11

-A(1«A•A

*

1•AIt

1•A

•A

|

'

•A(1

111

It

— —

n •• —«v~•a

•A

*

•fl

11

11

1•/T1

B

Wl

I

•A1

1

•A

.

1

• - —

.I *I•f-

•A

•A

1

1

-/• '

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaadaaaaaaa •aa *' J*"ataaa0|010a01aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

OMB:ManeMan:MMXCHMICBM£BBMtC/MUEOSMaiC/UJQUE<U!UfosaagancCMOCMMtCAUDUSUQJcBCUm^uA NBnuAAitnil1

BMttC•WUCABUQUcBCUil n fiiii iii rnii

PMtC(BXU

OIMtCOtWittct cUBXMMCflUOSManeMMCMBUACLII)OMUC

UKUK•MKflUOS«BU

S OWMnrOIL CWAJ1(BBUnosUK•uasHMICIMHtCMMR

MWICIMUCMMK001x0UKUK•XO3BCOtS

ISSI5*'""IW*/ittOCC9EWICUKBMJtC/KZ&UOMICMMCKMICMPmc/mDs•mettEU•UEX8MWICmcnicness/a.::MWICUSEnutsMBItfUSSMUCOUSMMtCNMICnwi*

a HMX

Source: ACES, 1983 300203

lit « _ _ *o o ID o o• - J e n ' d et<r r» n

«si o o» • •e o o

B 8 £ 8 «• • t • •o o e o e

i-t f« M JS S f-io d

I d w e e1 *fl S' 8 S * R R

i iII1

i la «» ep iu

s

I

•e w o •>« e e• • • • • •

8*4 ^5 ^3 Vc** ^SS> «n *5

« e o £ s ^e e co* e e e

m o *

e e o o• • • •o 1-1 e «si

1 1 1 e «

1 • Iflsj • • s • • st £ £jj| (si (si in inI IOT o- . - c? e' ' ' d

t ^I «

b in

§ £ * * e » • w < e«n o— in— ti c•- — — * S w w «J«||=?|2^2g.C u«" «— er

ORIGINAL(Red)

300204

ORIGINALI11'10

Test borings indicated that foundry sand is the major component of thev-"' disposed material. Traces of wood waste were also found. No drums were

I encountered during test boring operations.

t Magnetometry was unable to determine if magnetic anomalies were actual-ly drums or other metallic materials.

I1II!

The field screening of test boring samples with the OVA suggests thatthere is relatively little subsurface organic contamination, particularlyabove the water table. The major organic component identified by the OVAappeared to be methane.

The leachate wells identified a limited number of priority pollutantsat low and isolated concentrations. Generally low concentrations of benzene(109 ug/1), nickel (87 ug/1) and chromium (60 ug/1) were detected. Lead(260 ug/1), mercury (4.2 ug/1) and arsenic (33 ug/1) were also detected.However, PADER1 s filtered samples showed lead levels at less than 10 ug/1,mercury levels at less than 1 ug/1, and arsenic levels at less than 10 ug/1.These differences in concentration levels suggest that most of the lead,mercury, and arsenic in the leachate is due to suspended solids. Metalstend to adsorb onto suspended solids, and therefore do not travel in ground-water as readily as they would if in solution.

0. Conclusion

Data developed during the course of the remedial investigation suggestthere are at present limited and isolated source

( nation at the Osborne site. The major points are that:, that there are at present limited and isolated sources of low level contami-

Most of the waste by volume is foundry sand.Filled and empty drums and contaminated soil once occupying thesurface of the site have been removed.Chemical analysis of the wastes present in the full and sealeddrums showed low concentrations of a limited number of prioritypollutants.

300205

iII

iTT-n ORIGINAL111 n (Red)

Chemical analysis of the leachate wells identified a limitednumber of priority pollutants at low concentrations.The OVA field screening of test boring samples within the limitsof the disposal area indicated very little contamination above thewater table.The OVA indicated low levels of organics in the leachate. Subse-quent laboratory analyses of the leachate showed that most werenon-priority pollutant compounds, although low concentrations of alimited number of priority pollutants were detected.

300206

IV-1 ORIGINAL(Red)

CHAPTER IV

SURFACE WATER<

I This chapter describes the regional drainage patterns and the specificI. drainage pattern at the Osborne disposal site. A description of the poten-

tial surface water pathways which might lead to contaminant migration is[ presented, and the potential surface water users are identified. Surface

water quality data based on the sampling conducted by DER, EPA and Hart are.1 tabulated. A brief discussion on the type and levels of organic and inor-

ganic contamination detected at the site is also presented.

III

i!

A. Regional Drainage Patterns

The Osborne site is located in the Wolf Creek watershed of the BeaverRiver Basin. Figure IV-1 shows the location of the site on a map of desig-nated watersheds in the area. No formal studies or plans have been producedfor the area of the site, and state mandated stormwater management planning

v has not yet been implemented in the Grove City Area (MCRCP, 1983).

Figure IV-2 shows an area drainage map prepared from the topographic• map of the Grove City Quadrangle (USGS, 1943). This map indicates that

surface runoff in the region will eventually drain into Wolf Creek. The' topographical high area on which the site lies is known as a "hydrologic

island," a concept treated by Poth (1963) in his description of the geologyand hydrogeology of the area. The topographic lows which drain this hydro-logic island are fed by runoff and also by components of groundwater dis-charge.

Figure IV-3 illustrates the site soils relationships and the concept ofthe hydrologic island as it relates to soils. The soils in the area of thesite consist generally of gravelly or silty loams of the Chenango or Brace-ville Series. These soils are well-drained to very poorly drained, gentlysloping to moderately steep, are underlain by sandy and gravelly deposits,and can be found on moraines and stream terraces near the Osborne site.

300207

FIGURE IV-1DESIGNATED WATERSHEDS. IN THE GROVE CITY AREA

OSBORNE SITEFRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, .INC.

300208

.JU11 ip'-K. . .... .«*| i—.- «.c»-. *...

300209

ORIGICO0. coto

« CO t c g

• ar » w

g s

oCO

OoccIU

u.ou

oCOeu

ouoo

300210

1

IV-5 ORIGINAL(Red)

Runoff into these streams flows to the north into the unnamed creekor south into Swamp Run, both ultimately draining into Wolf Creek. Somesmaller component of runoff flows west, directly into Wolf Creek, whichflows to the south past Grove City.

Figure IV-4 shows annual rainfall and evapotranspiration in north-western Pennsylvania. The map indicates an annual rainfall of approximately40.2 inches for the Osborne site. Annual evapotranspi ration at that locationis approximately 24.5 inches, leaving approximately 15.7 inches.availablefor infiltration and runoff.

B. Site Drainage

Hart prepared a topographic map of the site (Appendix F). From thismap, Hart prepared the site drainage map presented in Figure IV-5.

I The present drainage patterns of the site are different than the nat-ural drainage conditions. They have been altered due to the strip mining

^_} operations at the site. Figure IV-6 shows the evolution of the naturaldrainage conditions into the existing drainage patterns on the site. Inter-

| pretation of stereographic aerial photographs indicates that the creek* flowing into the pond from the north was probably flowing through the areaJof the present day spoils piles. The stream was displaced due to the re-

placement of excavated mine spoils in or adjacent to the stream bed. As at result, an artificial drainage divide was created across the stream bed, resulting in the swamp area to the west of the site. Continued alteration

of the terrain deflected the runoff from the stream into the pond on theI site.*

I The area covered by the pond was excavated to a depth of approximately* 30 to 35 feet below the present water levels while the mine was still in

operation. The pond, fed by surface water runoff from the area north andI northwest of the site and most of the property on-site, has no apparent

outlet. Since the pond water has no apparent outlet and is in direct hy-I draulic connection with the water in the fill area, the entire disposal area

^ of the site acts as a reservoir for collected surface water. Water levelsin the pond and disposal area fluctuate due to seasonal runoff. For thisreason, water levels tend to be higher in the spring and summer months.

(' . 300211

ORIGINAL

12+00

0400

E-rOO-

S-4 S-3 S-2 S-l A N-l N-2 N-5 N-4 N-5

6RIO SPACING* 100 FT.

FIGURE IV-5

DRAINAGE MAP

OSBORNE SITEFRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.

300213

a> x \/

I I

FIGURE'THE EFFECT OF STRIP MININGOPERATIONS ON DRAINAGEPATTERN DEVELOPMENT


00214

t I V - 9ORIGINAL

(Red)f C. Potential Surface Water Pathways

- With the exception of one small area on the southern boundary of the** site, the site drainage patterns prevent surface runoff generated on the( s i t e from leaving the site. Most surface runoff generated on the site or

flowing onto the site ends up in the ponds and recharges the groundwatersystem.

The only exception is a small area to the south of the gate. Surfacewater drains from this area into the stream which crosses the road. Basedon the chemical analysis of surface water draining this area, there is no

j* evidence of any contamination leaving the site through this pathway.X

Consequently, there are no apparent potential surface water pathways) that could serve as pathways for contaminant migration.

I D. Surface Water Users

j Swamp Run, approximately one mile south of the site, receives watersfrom intermittent streams near the Osborne Site and drains into Wolf Creek.

i Both Swamp Run and Wolf Creek are used locally as fishing areas. The local( swamp is used by wildlife and migratory waterfowl. Outside of recreational

uses, no other uses of local surface waters for water supply or industryI have been reported.

!E. Surface Water Quality

No background data apparently exists on surface water in the area ofthe site. However, surface water samples were taken at the site by DER in1977 and 1980, and EPA in 1981 and 1982. Hart has collected surface watersamples in December, 1983 at the locations shown in Figure IV-7.

The results of the 1977 and 1980 DER sampling and the 1981 EPA samplingare shown in Table IV-1. Iron, a characteristic of acid mine drainage, wasdetected in both the on-site lagoons (260 to 6020 ug/1) and site drainages

300215

ORIGINAL/ r- IKf "STREAM

\X\ too' o loo* zoo*

SCALE IN FEET

AS-1 - SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION

FIGURE IV-7SURFACE WATER

SAMPLING LOCATION MAPOSBORNE SITE


30021&

I IV-ll ** ORIGIN*?I r

I

I,\

(19,650 ug/1) on the DER sampling trip. Insignificant concentrations of•

iron and manganese were found in the northern lagoon in the 1981 EPA sam-pi ing survey.

( T h e results from the November, 1982 EPA sampling survey and the Dec-ember, 1983 Hart sampling survey are shown in Table IV-2. On the EPA sam-pling trip, low levels of metals were detected in the northern lagoon.

I Samples taken from the swamp contained zinc at 4,809 ug/1 and lead at 96ug/1. Hart's .samples showed low levels of copper (5.0 - 68.0 ug/1), nickel

{, (11 - 15 ug/1), and zinc (66.0 - 140.0 ug/1) in the surface water. Iron,zinc, nickel and copper are also common constituents of acid mine drainage

| (Gang, 1974).

Low levels of organic compounds were also detected in the on-sitelagoons and the adjacent swamp in the 1982 EPA samples. The source of thiscontamination is likely due to the drums which were found floating in thepond. The lagoon contained chloroethane (7.1 ug/1), 1,1-dichloroethane (6.3ug/1), 1,1,1 trichloroethane (1.4 ug/1) and trichloroethylene (0.6 ug/1).The swamp contained phenol (12 ug/1) and di-n-butyl phthalate (3.57 ug/1).After the drums were removed, no organics were detected above the methoddetection limit in Hart's samples. It is important to note that the con-centrations listed by DER that are less than 10 ug/1 are also below the EPAMethod Detection Limit and should have been reported as such.

Of importance, use of the Drinking Water Standards and/or Ambient Water1 Quality Criteria is only useful for comparing relative levels of contami-

nants since neither the Standards or Criteria apply to contaminated waterj not used for drinking purposes. Nor should a comparison of measured data* against these standards serve as the basis for a risk assessment of anyj particular site, since the actual risks posed by any site are at the pointJ at which receptors are located and use the potentially contaminated water., In the proper context, however, these data may be useful at the OsborneI site, since the comparison puts into perspective how low the measured levels

of contaminants actually are prior to any dilution and dispersion that wouldoccur if the contaminants were migrating from the site.

300217

11 .,

iIJj*

i ' a(9

h § 1B I

1' *. J7 51 =

' M tu u c••J O C JJSCO S 3,_ CS *

} ^ U i

11

it

1

•oIBu e

•BBC

S *§«

•* V</> £

7/6/81

Stream near

ulanio

nfJ Read

EPA

3<££

•.— « it)

». i bo.V. t- 1 1

0 fex> tee»j CV «UJ5£€Sl/r a.

o

ijiei a <e«c

||S|•4 k IDA.

~ e.See• — c.

ke j

ORIGINAL(Red)

uv 10 e

1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 • 1 O +* 1 1 1 If*. CM CM 1

UX

eg <o S

t

•' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 W 1 1 1 1 1^* c^ . CM .

O com cs CM CD in* i i i i i i CDOVC i i i t i • i *p i • m CM inr» ir> £ CM OCM et..vH

i i i i i H . ' N O i c e a m o v t i i e i i i t i i^ f-l • »ir>CMCM K

oi i i i i ^»CMSooo© i t i o i i « i i i

—(O mp el ( l i t ^ *^ O f** O I#> N O 1 I 1 O I I I I I I_rf»-»* •f CM 'N E

rtO ©O _0 _1 I 1 1 1 «»4OU9VOOl£ t l l O l l l l l l C

•>«lIf

r»© o itf> OlfttPC** CM O OO CM. (0f«» CM CO • •— rf CM »f** f*» C» in m «J

TN

i•21 "

^ -1 fec:>r S^r c - -tl;g'3>r5»c-'>,rci>c- -u >»^ X 5 •—• B>— p— — 6^ w x t nc»>—' it^- s .v £ "v. . >—-"x. •** s e «J EO « —-V.TI Ewpiwis^OB) p «) — £ E <0 e— -> c 51 i E§ i a> 9saiCui'^<e u E — s e.2-to u— £in 5— k<^ €—<•">»••>><£>—»< t- u * S « f—icoi ID e •«• oj — a»- e> s e01 *0 u<^ts> e c.—» w u c— o> u 11c u < o c —«:«•— fc .— &-o —

300218

* " ORIGINALee eee ee g ge (Red)

i i i * § i i i e ge

e g e e g e e e e g e

g g e e g e e g e i e

e e e e g e e e e g e

e g e e g g e e e g em•»

i *f^ J? e * e e e e e e e e £

-I?^ lllS i * 3 3 t t 3 3 i t ^Z£f

e i £ Sii i i e $ i

s 2 s 2 i te e^^ .

e e e e e e e e e e e

e e e e e e e e e e e« ,

I * k ^ •. k "I. «ll J. i fill,H If j !| I H| 1 y jli 3 is

('

I«*•»<•«£

t I"1*h,14

(: lit

5 $B &

••••Ml

•a

s

e g * ORIGINAL£ S 8 fi 5 2 s 2 5 5 e e (r-n

e e e e g e

*!58fiS3'i i £ i i t

e e e e e S e 5* s £ .e e

e ^ e e e ^ e e s e e e

e e e .. e 3 e i s e e e

o I e 3 f.* ; g g s5 5 s s 2 s iS 2 s-!: i •?. c § 11-5A *>i (A « (M C ?. 8

I l i i i F i i i l 30022°

I || ORIGINALttl 3 <Re(f>

/

m1 1

*; MKES1 _ d I ' ft

I!

.11!

I!

8 • «si- s

ill

300221

I IV~16 ORIGINAL

• In summary, sampling conducted to date at the site indicates elevated-~ levels of metals in surface waters. Table IV-3 summarizes metals de-

. tected in the surface water at the Osborne Site during various samplingi programs. Cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel iron, and manganese were detected

at levels above EPA Interim Drinking Water Standards. It is quite likelyI that these elevated levels are related to former mining activities at the

site. The nickel, zinc, iron, and manganese may be due to acid mine drainage| (Gang, 1974). The lead levels may be high because the area is rich in

bituminous coal (Gang, 1974).

i Table IV-4 summarizes organic compounds detected in the surface waterat the Osborne Site. All of the identified organic compounds were detected

I at levels below Ambient Water Quality Criteria.

300222

I.oro0)'tl

•T!

iI1I1I•i

# ^

11111

ti

So*UJ1— 1COUJ

oGOCOoUJIMM

g0=UJiUJ

CO U-

> =3•— < CO

UJ Z_l t— «eo<c oK- UJ

r-UJ

UJocog!

g

ooI— 11 ^^5Q£

*«"4

PCJs ^c c;S s^C (.T ^JfJt. *J T3

g^-Sc_ cUJ 1C

CO

.

io «a- oo <o- o oO O O O O f H O Oin IH m fH m . in co

*c ooE E R ^^

CJ^- S'en <( ^ Q)c c o<• 1^1•*- c'ro4J S UIA O Ocu.o

ofH O O• O O O O O O

CO CM fH . O in *IH rH «tf r>- in • •> oi r*. «*• fHi i i i I H mic o o i n c o i t• * » • • ^3O O f H O C M « B - f H O

*

o3 ^O *^^ COu*J CF-

•€ o o(jQ S

Q) (A ^050ro *Joe. re

Oo ino * co«sr co co «• co oTCM CO O CO fH

CM 11 O 1 1 CO 1in *— i . i oCO CS CO * * CO

r— • r— • • p— fH O CO_ J C M — J i n i n — i i - t i - i o j

oin

ooofHCOCM10

oCOCO

10

ORIGINALI (Red)

CM UOO *J• o eg- o oo o • o o>^ ' O O O O C O O &o i—t m i—i m i—i in i i w>e;

(A

OI1C

I > IAI 0) 1Cl»— UO r— IAro cjro ro c IA<A o o>

CS "-JCo 4 ^•i- .t- Cj tt) 3 G?•CTJT3 »-t- c ro ro*J I. fl» ** ••-O J=r— O5**»— 31C (A «A* .c-^^o2?o>-o *> ««• •#»J2 t--O UE c> a>1C O.**Droit- t- eoO OJ — r-l«t_ «J 4->>-re (Are 3t OJ o

e&

o

o or»- t. t. roO> U O t. Ci-i *j *j o

r— CM C«C O= «*- Uo-o

op.

OJc - - o> cn t- cj= o c— J O) O ** 1C*j« - e j=C ^ O.O1C fe^S- t- ««cj S MO) IA «A Is) U O)C (DC C -J1C -C O •/> 1C

L>'<- UU £ S >, O)•f- • 5 t- t- i- •— c roc • •*- E ei so ro

30022S

I1

II

ORIGINAL(Red)

I TABLE IV-4O

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IK SURFACE WATER AT| THE OSBORNE SITE•

( R a n g edetected at Ambient Water

Compound ___ Osborne Site (ug/1) Quality Criteria (ug/1)Chloroethane 7.11,1-dichloroethane 6.31,1,1-trichloroethane 1.4 18.400Trichloroethylene 0.6 - LT 10 0 (2.7)di-n-butyl phthalate 3.57 -LT 10 . 34,000Phenol LT 1 - 12 3500

a These Water Quality Criteria for ambient water concentrations are basedI on consumption of .2 liters of water and 18.7 grams fish and shell fish| products per day. The recommended "safe level" for all known or sus-

pect carcinogens is zero; the concentration estimated to result in oneadditional case of cancer in one million people (10 risk) is given in

\ parentheses.i

LT - Less ThanIi

300224

I

iII

v-i .(r,ff CHAPTER V

GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

This chapter synthesizes the geologic and hydrogeologic data collectedduring the Remedial Investigation. It responds to the directives of theConsent Order and Agreement Work Plan to address the geologic conditions atthe site, groundwater flow direction and gradient, and groundwater quality.

' This chapter first describes the regional geologic conditions in the. area of the site, including hydrogeology and groundwater usage. Site spec-( if ic geologic and hydrogeologic data are presented in terms of potential for

hydrogeologic units to act as pathways for contaminant migration.- Testdrilling data, geophysical logs and permeability testing data are coupledwith information from the void investigation report to analyze these path-

( ways. Groundwater users in the area are identified, and chemical data ispresented to serve as the baseline for completion of the subsequent risk

I -•• assessment. In addition, mathematical models were utilized to evaluateI various conservative or worst-case contaminant migration scenarios.

j A. Regional Geology and .Hydrogeology

] The Osborne site is located on the glaciated Allegheny plateau. Bed-rock geology in the Grove City area consists of nearly flat lying sedi-

J mentary rocks of late Paleozoic age. The site sits on the western flank of* the Pittsburgh-Huntington Basin. Generally, bedrock formations exhibit aI southward regional dip of about 14 feet per mile. Major fractures occuri along bedding planes. Although the area is not a technically active zone

which could have caused faulting, some joints may occur in the area. These| joints, which are nearly vertical, typically are oriented N35°E and N40°W

*

(Poth, 1963). Figure V-l shows a generalized stratigraphic column for the| Grove City area. Table V-l lists the geology and hydrogeology of -the litho-

logic units in the area.

300225

iD

Z505

i

0.CL03CQ

09i

Wl

(Red)

I

KENT(86 FT.)

CLARION • . . - . - . .1 SANDY SHALE» CHANNELSANDSTONE BROOKVILLE

HOMEWOOD(66FT.)

CONNOQUENESSIN6

HYDROGEOLOGICSIGNIFICANCE

SANDY. SILTY TILL - SHALLOWWATER TABLE AQUIFER (VARIABLE)

(SOFT.) U11IU!!1!I!II!II!I!UUIIU!II1II!I !I!!IIH!!!!II!II!II!IV AQUICLUDE

BURQOON"<110FT.)

HEMPFIELD

MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINEDSANDSTONE, SHALY NEAR TOP-LOCAL AQUIFER

MERCERC10-16FT.) SHALE-AQUICLUDE

UPPERMEMBER: SANDSTONE -AQUIFER

MIDDLE MEMBER: SHALE-

LOWER MEMBER: SANDSTONE-AQUIFER

SHALE — AQUITARD

SANDSTONE ~ MUNICIPAL WELLAQUIFER

SHALE — AQUICLUDE

FIGURE V-1GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPH1C

COLUMN

300226 OSBORNE SIT(EFRED C. HART A66OCIATE6. INC.

iIlI

i

ORIGINAL(Red)

i £2 |5 •?

I | «* € ~ t|> |E § Iy £" £>u2>U

b to o o *"v = S'vS'2!•O* E~ E JD JS C J2 Ev> ^ i_ •* 5 u <o 10 O « C

D tff «Q |(| E V 4L> V

T *«E IT I ET I?g. ----

. s iI uI cT =

8 = w o In

va S o s fM •» *• E- S ^ j»« .6

I

~ I 1

= e - •> »• v> ei•» e « b .. . b*.

I t

£ §Euu.

i >en vi91 *J

^ «

>, .2'e > > S 5

ay S " " "j? 5"01 i. c c c e<rl 2 c e c c

S b c i n o i n o i n o oto s «o N m .-» « I PH

> ' r *«^° " e1 I * gf u* jt v» ** J9 b «•* s ^ .^ *• vI uj o e c en v> «~ .-ic ^ b •> cI —i f *— 10 it v b v *>je •! * c> e «o« « ^ ^J — m> <o.e «i 5 in •; C V> B C JB" •>

<c e CLJtf e io 1C .. v> b ..in E •* «"jsu bo o * t; b TI •> bv be•» u vio^ UE^ «J £ J3 e> c «>a>«-~" * " ~ IO *^ J3 10

W 1C E b

?- «•— > n ) i e o e ^ * * » •> EX« 9t*t<~ o- 5 «j ei jjj *".£•" k *" *"

<c iS en IACOV'VI*' E*-w vo sens —i en :&_< e

? j ° | I? .- .«' S ?• c u e u. . •> n

b er o

i

300227

I v , ORIGINAL1 V~* (Red)

fIn brief, deposition of sediments in the Mississippian and Pennsyl-

i v a n i a n periods of the late Paleozoic era was cyclic, and gradational se-quences of rock types found in this area are continually repeated in thestratigraphic record. As a result, lithologies vary with depth, and any

I formation may contain coal, limestone, sandstone, shale, clay, or any com-bination of these. Although the formations themselves may be regionally

I extensive, particular beds may interfinger with other beds or may disappearcompletely.

i1 Glacial deposits make up the majority of the overburden soils in thet Grove City area.- Historically, glacial erosion created an undulating bed-I rock surface which resulted in topographic hills and valleys. The sub-

sequent deposition of glacial material in the valleys left "islands" ofI bedrock (Poth, 1963). These islands control regional groundwater and sur-

face water flow throughout the area. Poth (1963) coined the concept of the! "hydrologic island" to explain groundwater flow patterns in the area.

Figure V-2 presents the concept of the hydrologic island and resulting? groundwater movement. This concept is necessary to the understanding of the4 regional flow patterns in the area.

I As shown on the Figure V-2, rain recharges the top bedrock aquifers atthe topographic highs. Groundwater then -moves downward and/or radially,

I away from the island centers, depending on the permeability of the underly-ing formation. Throughout the area, sandstone units act as aquifers or

} groundwater reservoirs, and shale units act as aquicludes or zones which do1 not allow groundwater flow. When groundwater reaches the point at which theI aquifer has been eroded away, the groundwater either discharges to the^ surface or is transmitted into the unconsolidated glacial deposits in the, valleys. Groundwater then moves downgradient through the glacial deposits.i Where the water table in these glacial deposits is higher than the ground

surface, groundwater discharge areas (in areas where groundwater discharges} . into surface water) occur. It is at these points that streams, ponds, and

swamps are found.

300228

ORIGINAL

\l

II

Ii

v.c ORIGINAL(Red)

Different aquifers are used for groundwater supply, depending on loc-ation. Glacial deposits are sometimes utilized as a shallow source ofgroundwater supply in the region. This practice is utilized for domesticwells requiring small amounts of water, and occasionally for larger wells indeep river valley deposits. In some instances, when glacial deposits do notsupply sufficient water for domestic use, these deposits are sealed or casedoff, and the uppermost bedrock aquifer beneath the unconsolidated depositsis tapped. Two bedrock aquifers are utilized in this way in the area of thesite. On the tops of the hydrologic islands, the Upper Clarion sandstone issometimes tapped as a groundwater supply. According to local well drillers,water supply wells are never drilled into the lower Clarion Formation be-cause the coal seams provide poor quality water. Further out toward thevalleys at the sides of the hydrologic islands, the Homewood sandstone isthe uppermost bedrock aquifer and is sometimes utilized as a groundwatersupply. The groundwater quality of the Homewood aquifer is protected by theunderclay and the shaly zones that separate the Homewood from the overlyingClarion formation.

The upper and lower Connoquennessing formation and the Burgoon for-mation are capped by low permeability shale layers. These shale layers actas confining layers which isolate the deeper aquifers from the near surfaceaquifers in the vicinity of the site. Only in areas north of Grove City,where glacial erosion has cut through the confining shale layers, do theseformations exhibit the hydrologic island concept shown in Figure V-2.

B. Site Geology and Hydrogeology

Appendix A contains geologic and drillers logs for test holes drilledat the Osborne Site. Figure V-3 is a geologic cross-section through thesite constructed from these logs. Geologic conditions found at the site areconsistent with the regional geology outlined previously. Rock coringoperations at the site revealed, however, the absence of the Vanport lime-stone formation and the upper coal unit or "scrubgrass" coal of the Clarionformation. Poth, (1963) by extrapolation, indicated the presence of these

•—- formations in the area of the site on the bedrock geology map of MercerCounty. However, no local subsurface data for this area was available priorto the Osborne Site Remedial Investigation.

300230

ORIGINAL

I ORIGINAL• V-8 (Red)

|11 The Clarion formation, consisting of shale, sandstone, and coal, isI present under the cornfield to the east of the highwall. However, the three• to four foot thick Brookville coal seam has been mined out at rock coring. location CMW-1 (Hart, 1984). This was evidenced by three to four feet of| void space encountered during drilling. Downhole television inspections and

pump testing also indicated the possibility of deep mine shafts under theI cornfield adjoining the site.

IIIi

Beneath the Brookville coal lies an underclay commonly called "fireclay". This layer of clay forms a lining underneath the Brookville coalthoroughout the region. Since the clay layer was found in every boring, itappears to be continuous under the site.

Underlying the Brookville coal and its underclay is a cyclic repetitionof lithologic units consisting of sandstone and shale. The sandstone unitsact as aquifers, while the shale units act to retard or prevent groundwaterflow. At the base of the Homewood sandstone, the sand grains become very

£ coarse. Underlying this very coarse sandstone is a very thin layer of coal.* This unit defines the base of the Homewood sandstone.

I The subsurface interpretation of the Osborne site is complex for tworeasons. First, the site is located at the edge of a hydrogeologic island.

I Second, the site has been disturbed by deep mining, followed by strip miningand associated spoil disposal. Figure V-4 is a cross-section that compares

f the site before and after mining activities. As the glaciers eroded bedrockto form the "hydrogeologic islands," coal was exposed at the glacier-bedrock

f interface near the 1,300 foot elevation datum. Figure V-5 shows the margins* of the hydrogeologic island. To permit removal of the coal, the overburdent was removed, or "stripped." Stripping started at the glacial-bedrock "hy-> drogeologic island" margin and moved into the hill. Glacial and bedrock

overburden, removed to uncover the coal, was deposited behind the mining| operation. This material, known as "mine spoils," created large piles of

high relief along the extent of the stripped area. The strip mine continued; to operate until it reached the area where coal had already been removed by^-N deep mining operations on the northeast side of the site. At that point—

300232

ORIGINAL(Red)

SOUTH . NORTHWEST

PRE-MINING CONDITIONS

MARGIN OF•HYDROGEOLOGIC ISLAND*

. ' . . HOMEWOOD

• UPPER CONNOQUENE88INQ .

'. : • .'• '. '•'•;.• '. : • LOWER' CONHOQUENES'SIN'C.' :' •' •. *•. •.'.' '• .• .'• .*

BURGOON

SOUTH________________ _____ NORTHWEST

PRESENT CONDITION

UPPER CONNOQUENE88ING .

LOWER CONNOQUENE88INQ•

BURQOON

JSEL r--, FIGURE V-4TILL ' • •' SANDSTONE

MINE SPOILS fllMUm SHALE OR CLAY

FILL MATERIAL

COAL OR VOID SPACE(NOT TO 8CALE)

COMPARISON OF CONDITIONSOSBORNE SITE

FRED C. HART A88OCIATE8. INC.

300233

ORIGINAL

HYDROLOGICISLAND MARGIN

FIGURE V-5HYDROLOGIC ISLAND

MARGINSOSBORNE SITE300234

FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC

1

I1

I

V-ll

the location of the present highwall—the strip mine operations ceased.Runoff accumulated in the mine pit and formed a pond. Sometime afterward,the pond was used as a disposal area. The filled material created an arti-ficial land surface above the water table. Infilling was not completed, andseveral ponds still exist on-site.

As described in Chapter IV, the stream entering the site from the northpresently drains into the large pond. Surface water runoff from the sitealso drains into the pond. There is no outlet from the pond. During per-iods of high rainfall, water levels in the pond are raised by surface water-inflow. Since the natural water table is somewhat lower, the introductionof large amounts of surface water creates a mounding effect.

I This mound of water will dissipate via the path of least resistance(i.e., along the route of greatest permeability). The investigation indi-

I cates that this path may lie to the south into the glacial materials or tothe east into the void zones. Downward flow of groundwater is prevented by

|.J. the firm, tight, underclay which lines the base of the disposal area. Thetill soils and mine spoils which surround the site contain large amounts of

• fine sand and silt which tend to retard but not prevent groundwater flow.* Figure V-6 is a map of the water table surface at the Osborne site. This

figure suggests that groundwater under water table conditions flows to theI southeast through the disposal area. Groundwater in this zone, however, may

not flow exclusively to the southeast. Based on information gathered andf reviewed for the Osborne site void investigation report (Hart 1983), there

is reason to believe that the site is in limited hydraulic connection withf the groundwater in the void zone near well CMW-1. Water levels in the ponds*• and shallow wells (i.e., LW-2) are at least seven to eight feet higher in, elevation than the water levels in wells open to the mine void zone (CMW 1),I indicating limited hydraulic connection. An attempt to effect a water level

drawdown in the ponds at the disposal site was unsuccessful, indicating thatf this connection may not allow unrestricted groundwater flow. In addition,

the absence of a change in water level in the underlying Homewood formation; during the same test is an indication of the impermeability of the underclay^ layer.

300235

r ORIGINA(ked)

/ UMW-4{1290.66') «sw-»

CUW-IHWW-I* •^ • •CPW-I

8W-I

(SCALE IN FT.)MEASUREMENTS TAKEN DECEMBER 6THROUGH 6, 1863 300236

FIGURE V-6

WATER TABLE ATOSBORNE SITE

FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC.

I

III1iI

via ORIGINALv 13 (Red)

Figure V-7 shows the potentiometric surface in the Homewood formation.This information suggests that groundwater is flowing to the south. Thelocation of the disposal site and strip mine is at the margin of the "hydro-logic island". Therefore the coal seam and underclay have been eroded awayto the southest beyond the site. Under some conditions, in these marginareas, surface water recharging the glacial deposits in the valley may raisethe water levels in underlying bedrock formations. This condition is foundin the Homewood formation in the area of well UMW-5, which is demonstratedby the unusually high water level in that location.

Based on the pressure testing, the upper and lower Connoquennessingsandstones were found to be relatively permeable. As no wells were in-stalled or open to these formations, the flow directions and gradients werenot determined. The upper and lower Connoquennessing sandstones are cappedby the Mercer shale formation and middle shale member of the Connoquennes-sing formation, both of which were measured to be impermeable.

v Underlying the Connoquennessing formation is the Burgoon formation.' The Burgoon formation is composed of two units, a sandstone unit and a shaler unit. The shale unit is approximately 10 feet thick and caps the sandstone

unit. The shale unit, similar to the other overlying shale units, wastested and determined to be essentially impermeable. The lower sand unit isrelatively permeable.

Figure V-8 shows the potentiometric surface map of the Burgoon aquifer.Groundwater in this aquifer is flowing to the northeast. Under the "hydro-

: logic island" concept, the discharge area for the Burgoon aquifer is located1 well beyond the area of the site, several miles up Wolf Creek to the north.*

Groundwater level measurements from well nests support the regionalhydrogeologic picture. Most of the site appears to be in a groundwater

! recharge area, receiving infiltration from rainfall and surface water in-flow. Under normal conditions, the groundwater would generally continue to

' move downward if it were not for the confining effects of the underclay and^ shale zones. As noted, the aquifer permeability tests performed on these

shale zones indicated that these shale zones are essentially impermeable.i

i 300237

ORIGfKgt

FIGURE V-7(SCALE IN FT.) POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN

CONTOUR LINES ABOVE 1281' ARE NOT SHOWN ^ HOMEWQOD FORMATIONDUE TO 12' DIFFERENCE IN HEAD OSBORNE SITEMEASUREMENTS TAKEN DECEMBERJBTHROUGH 6. 1063 300238 FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.

ORIGINAL

8W-I• OMW-Z (I24&4S1)

•UMW-B0246.49') OMW-B*

200 100 0 100 200

(SCALE IN FT.) 300239MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON APRIL 2, 1664

FIGURE V-8POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE INTHE BURGOON FORMATION


I • „ ORIGINAL1 v'16 (Red)

f^ The shale zones prevent groundwater from moving downward and divert the

i groundwater to flow more horizontally to the sides of the "hydrologic is-1 land" as shown on Figures V-2 and V-5.

I Figure V-9 is a hydrograph showing water levels measured in each moni-toring well during the course of this investigation. The difference in

I water levels in different aquifers suggests that there may be some potentialfor downward vertical migration of groundwater. Appendix H presents a

1 series of hypothetical groundwater models developed to indicate the po-tential migration of contaminants from the site through the groundwater

( s y s t e m . The models, assumptions, calculations and results are found inAppendix H. Utilizing a leakage model from Bear (1979), an estimation ofthe groundwater leakage through the clay layer underlying the site into the

§ - Homewood formation was made. The model accounts for the water leakingthrough the clay layer, and the flow through volume of the Homewood System

I under the site. The model shows a 77 percent reduction in contaminantlevels in the Homewood due to simple mixing and flow through dilution.

IC. Potential Groundwater Pathways and Users

Four potential pathways for contaminant migration off-site throughgroundwater have been identified based on the regional and" site hydrogeo-logy. These potential pathways include the water table groundwater pathwayand the Clarion, Homewood and Burgoon aquifer pathways. This section des-cribes the potential for contaminant transport through each pathway in termsof groundwater flow, aquifer and confining layer permeabilities, and proxi-mity of users downgradient of the site.

Water Table Groundwater. Figure V-10 is a schematic diagram showingthe water table groundwater pathway. The pathway includes the groundwaterin the foundry sand, mine spoils and glacial desposits. Water level mea-surements show that water table groundwater flows to the southeast of thesite. Water from the site may remain as groundwater or may emrege and dis-charge to surface water, as far away as Swamp Run.

300240

I ORIGINAL

1906

1900 —

13M —

mo-

tSU«B

> 1270Uu

s it to

1*M -

MCSIMIR * MMUAMT mMUAKT HAKCM

300241

FIGURE V-9HYDROGRAPH OF WELLSAT THE OSBORNE SITE


I

III\[[I;v

(

(Red)

\ NEARBY\ RESIDENTIAL \

t m _______________________________________________. - . - • ' • . ' • • • ' UPPER CONNOOUENEftSlNa ' . ' • .'•'."•.*.•••.'.•1 . . . • • • . • . • . • . ' ... ._•..__.._•__•_....•_• ..»._._•• ._•_!

i________ . ; • .. • • / • . LOWER CpHNOOUEHE88ING. . ; . • . \. . . •.•.•.'•.'

^

iBURQOON

JSEli ,--, FIGURE V-10TILL L_J SANDSTONE

^MINE SPOILS liil. SHALE OR CLAY

FILL MATERIAL felg PATHWAY

COAL OR VOID SPACE APPROX. 1'«2.000FT.

WATER TABLEPATHWAY


300242

I V-19 ORIGINAL(Red)

Available information indicates that there are five domestic wells. which draw water from the water table groundwater pathways. These wells areI located to the north and east of the site. Figure V-10 indicates that these

iII1If

wells draw water from zones located at higher topographic levels than thesite and located upgradient from the site. Accordingly, the flow from thesite cannot intercept these wells.

Clarion Groundwater Pathway. Figure V-ll is a schematic diagram show-ing the Clarion Pathway. The Clarion bedrock formation extends to thenortheast of the dispoal area. It consists of sandstone, shale, coal and/orvoid space and the underlying clay layer which acts as an impermeable liningat the base of the formation and the disposal site.

It is likely that there is a limited connection between the groundwaterin the disposal site and the Clarion formation. The water level in WellCMW-1 is lower than the water level within the disposal area. This indi-cates potential for some fraction of groundwater to flow from the disposalsite northeast into the Clarion formation. The direction of the flow in theClarion has not been established. Based on the regional hydrogeology, it isexpected that groundwater flows away from the site to the south.

Use of groundwater from wells open to the Clarion formation is restric-ted to the sandstone units which lie above the Brookville Coal. Below thislevel, groundwater is of poor quality due to the existence of coal seams.Based upon regional geology, the Clarion sandstone outcrops are restrictedto higher elevations upgradient of the site. Contaminants which could leavethe site via the coal mine shaft system would not affect Clarion well usersbecause usable Clarion groundwater zones are located above the mine shaftsystems.

A model was developed to analyze the disperions of any contaminationthat might migrate from the site. The model, presented in Appendix H, is atransport model for radial geometric spreading. The model assumes a contin-uous source of contamination. The model indicates that at a distance of 400feet from the waste boundary, contaminant concentrations would drop about 50percent due to mixing and dilution. At a distance of one-quarter mile,contaminant concentrations would drop over 80 percent.

300243

ORIGIN/LI

RECEPTOR AREA

NEARBYRESIDENTIALWELL6PROBABLE REGIONAL

GROUNDWATER FLOWDIRECTION SITE >

RECEPTORS

HOMEWOOD .

UPPER CONNOQUENE68ING. .

LOWER CONNOOUENE88WG • '

• BURGOON ' .

JSECL FIGURE V-11TILL ' • •' SANDSTONE

MINE SPOILS ill SHALE OR CLAY

FILL MATERIAL • PATHWAY 3002<!

rrwu no vr«n «PArc APPROX. 1*«2.000FT.

CLARION GROUNDWATERPATHWAY

i.iI1

ORIGINALV-21 (Red)

Homewood Groundwater Pathway. Figure V-12 is a schematic diagramshowing the Homewood Groundwater Pathway. The Homewood formation is theuppermost aquifer underlying the site. This aquifer is separated from thedisposal materials by the underclay, a layer of low permeability clay.Based on its inherent density and tightness, this clay layer is expected tobe an effective natural barrier, thus isolating the Homewood aquifer frompossible contaminants in the overlying disposal materials. At locations asclose as the Enterprise Mine, the clay reportedly had been excavated forcommercial uses. Data gathered during the mine void investigation (Hart,1983) indicated the clay was never removed here and is continuous beneaththe site.

Groundwater flow in the Homewood is to the south, towards the Swamp Runvalley area. The Homewood is uppermost bedrock aquifer in that valley.Data available at this time indicates that there are two wells downgradientof the site in the Homewood aquifer at distances of 1/4 and one mile.However, it is likely that any contamination entering the Homewood would

, discharge into near surface groundwater flow systems shortly after leavingthe site. Calculations of groundwater velocity in the Homewood Formations

i are found in Appendix H. If any contamination does not discharge in thisi fashion, it could move downgradient at an extended maximum rate of up to

90 ft/yr.I

In the event that contaminants could enter the Homewood and migrateI off-site, a contaminant dispersion model was utilized to determine the

dilution of contaminants for a steady- state contaminant input from the\ source. The model chosen was a transport model for vertical and horizontal1 spreading for Domenicas and Palciauskas (1982). The model indicates thatI contaminants potentially migrating out of the disposal area could undergo upf to a 50 percent reduction in concentration before reaching the downgradient

boundary of the site, Well UMW-3. At a receptor well located approximatelyI one-quarter mi.le downgradrent of the site, the contaminant concentration

would reach about 0 to 50 percent of any potential initial concentrationfound in the Homewood directly under the site.

300245

ORIGINAL(Red)

NRECEPTOR AREA

UPPER CONNOQUENE88ING

LOWER CONNOQUENE88ING

BURGOON

APPROX. 1"«2,OOOFT.

TILL ''•'•'» SANDSTONE

MINE SPOILS mm SHALE OR CLAY

FILL MATERIAL PATHWAYoCOAL OR VOID SPACE ^J RECEPTOR WELLS

FIGURE V-12

HOMEWOOD GROUNDWATERPATHWAY


I

1i1

I

ORIGINALV-22 (Red)

Burgoon Groundwater Pathway. Figure V-13 is a schematic diagram show-ing the Burgoon groundwater pathway. The Burgoon aquifer is the lowermostaquifer underlying the site. It is laterally extensive. The Grove Citymunicipal wells tap the Burgoon formation and may also be open to and may bedrawing water from the upper and lower Connoquennessing formations, althoughthese formations generally supply much less water the Burgoon. The direc-tion of flow in the Burgoon is to the northeast, toward its outcrop dis-charge area. The direction of flow in the Connoquennessing units has notbeen measured but regional flow patterns suggest the flow to be toward theoutcrop discharge areas in the same direction as the Burgoon.

The Burgoon sandstone and each of the two overlying sandstone units arecapped by low permeability shale units. The permeability of these shaleunits has been measured at the site. Each of these shale units exhibited

_overy low permeability (i.e., lower than 10 cps), and would preclude ground-

I water circulation and contaminant migration between aquifers below theHomewood. Vertical fractures which might permit downward groundwater cir-culation and contaminant migration were completely absent in any of the rock

• cores taken below the Clarion formation of the site, thus confirming theI pressure test permeability measurements. Additionally, dispersion andI dilution by the intervening aquifers would reduce concentrations to below

measurable detection limits. Calculations show groundwater flow velocity in| the Eurgoon could reach as high as 2,000 feet per year. The Burgoon aquifer

is used extensively for high yield applications such as municipal or indus-f trial supply wells. The groundwater flow direction in this aquifer in the

area of the site places the Grove City area municipal and industrial supplyI wells upgradient of the site. No Burgoon aquifer receptor wells are knownft to be located downgradient of the site.

I Although any contamination migrating from the site would be diverted byother pathways or precluded from entering the Burgoon by the low perme-

| ability shale zones, a hypothetical model was utilized to indicate thedispersion of any contamination potentially reaching the Burgoon. TheDominicus and Palciauskas (1982) vertical and horizontal spreading transport

— model was used. Any contaminants potentially entering the Burgoon would• undergo an at least a 50 percent reduction in concentration before reaching

300247

GROVE CITYMUNICIPAL WELL FIELD

RECEPTORAREA

RECEPTORS

UPPER CONNOOUENE88ING

••.•.•...*. LOWER CONNOOUENE88INQ •.•..-..•••..••:••* . . • • * . * . V . .••«•• » . - • . - . * • • * .•..»..*...

FIGURE V-13

PATHWAY

COAL OR VOID SPACE APPROX. 1.*«2,OOOFT.

SANDSTONEj BURGOON GROUNDWATER

SHALE OR CLAY r ^ PATHWAY


II

ORIGINALV-24 (Red)

the site boundary assuming a constant contaminant input rate. At a distanceof one-quarter mile away from the site, the concentration would be reducedto 10 to 30 percent of the input concentration.

D. Groundwater Quality

Hart sampled groundwater wells and wells installed in the disposedmaterials at the Osborne site to assess the groundwater quality in December1983, January 1984 and April 1984. The location of the monitoring wells isprovided in Figure V-14.

DER split samples with Hart on the December 1983 sampling survey. TheDER samples were analyzed for volatile organics and metals. Table V-2compares Hart's analytical data with DER's analytical data. DER's sampleswere field-filtered, while Hart's samples for metals analysis were not. No

| quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) data was included with the DERanalytical results.

:; Methylene chloride was detected in some samples at relatively high• concentrations in Hart's first sampling survey when the bailers were field| cleaned with methylene chloride. However, no methylene chloride was de-

tected in the second sampling survey when the bailers were field cleaned| with methanol. Concurrently, when the DER lab was running the DER samples,

the gas chromatography/mass spectroscope (GC/MS) became contaminated with\ methylene chloride. For this reason, some of the reported quantities of

methylene chloride on the PADER analyses reporting forms were estimated« values. Consequently, methylene chloride appears to be an artifact of thei field sampling or analytical procedures associated with the December 1983

sampling survey.

Table V-3 compares the results the of the first, second and thirdI sampling surveys. In general, only very low levels of contaminants exist at

the Osborne site. Table V-4 presents the organics detected at the site and- ambient water quality criteria. Table V-5 compares the inorganics detected-^ at the site with EPA Drinking Water Standards and/or Ambient Water Quality

iI 300249

I V-26 ORIGINAL(Red)

, s Criteria. Methylene Chloride is not included on the organic list because it,- appears to be an artificial field contaminant, not a groundwateri contaminant.

J Of importance, the Drinking Water Standards and/or Ambient Water Qual-ity Criteria are only useful for comparing relative levels of contaminants;

i neither the Standards or Criteria apply to contaminated groundwater not usedfor drinking purposes. Nor should a comparison of measured data against

S these standards serve as the basis for a risk assessment of any particulari site, since the actual risks posed by any site occur at the point at which{ r e c e p t o r s are located which may use potentially contaminated water. In the

proper context, however, these data may be useful at the Osborne site sincethe comparison puts into perspective how low the measured levels of contam-

I inants actually are prior to its dilution or dispersion that would occur ifcontaminants were migrating off-site.

Considering the above, the shallow wells which draw from the glacialdeposits and mine spoils contained low concentrations of lead (60 ug/1) andnickel (31 ug/1) slightly above EPA Drinking Water Standards and Ambient

. Water Quality Criteria respectively. The filtered PADER metal samples* confirmed the nickel levels, but showed lead levels at less than 10 ug/1.

The difference in lead concentrations between the filtered and unfilteredI samples suggests that some of the lead was in participate matter which would

not be indicative of groundwater quality.

In the leachate wells, generally low concentrations of benzene (109» ug/1), nickel (87 ug/1) and chromium (60 ug/1) were detected. Lead (260* ug/1), mercury (4.2 ug/1) and arsenic (33 ug/1) were also detected. How-

ever, PADER's filtered samples showed lead levels at less than 10 ug/1,?* mercury levels at less than 1, and arsenic levels at less than 10 ug/1.

These differences in concentration levels suggest that most of the lead,\ mercury, and arsenic in the leachate is present in a suspended state. Thus,

these contaminants will not be likely to migrate.

- The groundwater in the Clarion formation (Well CMW-1) also contained^ very low levels of pentachlorophenol (36 ug/1) on the first sampling trip.

300250

I V-27 ORIGINAL1 (Red)

^ However, pentachlorophenol was not detected in Well CMW-1 on the secondsampling trip. These results suggest that sampling or analytical error may

} have resulted in discrepancies or that the groundwater quality may be fluc-tuating over time.

The upper monitoring wells in the Homewood formation detected very low| levels of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (24.0 ug/1), ethylbenzene (19.0 ug/1),

toluene (12.0 ug/1) and chromium (13.0 ug/1) on the first sampling trip. InI addition, cadmium was detected in low concentrations at the EPA Drinking

Water Standard of 10 ug/1 and nickel was detected above the Ambient Water. Quality Standard of 13.4 ug/1. The PADER results confirm the presence of[ cadmium and nickel in the groundwater on the first sampling survey. How-

ever, on the second sampling survey, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and cadmiumI were not detected, and ethylbenzene, toluene, and chromium were detected

below 10 ug/1. Again, the variability of the data suggests that the ground-1 water may be fluctuating over time or that sampling or laboratory inter-* ference are responsible for minor changes in concentrations of these low

(ppb) levels. Slight variability in trace levels of contaminants is to be.j expected.

\ On the first sampling survey, the following inorganics were detected inthe Upper Connequennessing formation above standards or criteria: cadmium,

j chromium, lead, nickel and zinc. However, except for nickel, the abovemetals were detected in the PADER filtered samples at concentrations below

J EPA Drinking Water Standards. Thus, these metals are most likely in ai suspended state. On the second sampling survey, zinc was the only metal* detected above 10 ug/1, but it was detected well below EPA Drinking Wateri Standards.

| As a result of the first sampling survey of Well DMW-1, the Burgoonaquifer appears to be contaminated with very low levels of bis(2-ethyl-

i hexyl)pthalate and pentachlorophenol. The second sampling survey showed thepresence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)pthalate but pentachlorophenol was absent. The

• third sampling survey showed no bis(2-ethylhexyl)pthalate, however, penta-chlorophenol was again detected in well DMW-1 and DMW-2. Similarly, ground-

300251

ORIGINALv-28 (Red)

water quality in this well appears to be fluctuating over time. In allcases, the concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)pthalate and pentacholophenolwas below EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria.

After inorganics were detected in DMW-1, a subsequent set of samples(1/20/84) indicated that after filtering, these compounds dropped well belowEPA Drinking Water Standards. Subsequently, all DMW samples were filteredprior to analysis, and no inorganic compounds were found to exceed EPAdrinking water standards.

300252

(Red)STREAM

\STREAMLET

300253«

FIGURE V-14TEST BORING AND

WELL LOCATION MAPOSBORNE SITE

FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC. !

g o _ooS.SSsbSSl, ,i ORIGINAL_J | I-l «• f, M 1 _l _J | |

-err

(Red)_oomj o • «e—' —i —i o

I OOOpEp Epppm p £OO SSo £Eo £ pcsjI EEEEeE IsEEEo Eea£<-*Mr>>coB&E&E<rin

e o c ?____e?? _ "î p- i oepif»—4f>*- i i ic «o, -• , roC-H-.--. i . «• e

<n

gggig Igggg ggg^S^glîggg IJ i t—i -j « - > _ i . oo~"~'WO—<o •I jfcEl S E £ cvi . .ooS .S e •»• £

. o o «io <n «•* •fj »•« ** «4p ^ I I

I gggg Iggsi g g g l s g g g §meeI S i"5 e e' opoo~:e:p:

gggggg

Ig

o £S! .1

ogppo^-p eeee^- • •-: *»—i—o>-ô^- i i e£EE«jfc EESSEtu < - i i e

•- s. 3«. —. _=. -~ A. * 1 »J5— N S e » e*TS £t!6 S » *S»6N 0 I J% a^ W W V ~

£Sp"i£'o*u*u ^

5 E^- e E

£ «>«? »>•- Jc»_< a: s <^> ko i—ivi

gggggg ggggS J S ! 55S55S.3 ! ! 8

III gggSSg Igggfi giglidlgigggi I

- - o - o I• • o • o ^sg oS°.0.°.S e Tgggggg ggggs s 5 s ssssst:: 5 s fe

-/ -» _io0. -i o -».-«0. îll gggggg Igggs gigisi

E «-£ *•tsi _ __ _ O •*

ill

£ 5 II S * • ' . 1 i l l

300254

ggggggggggs

ggggggliggs. o .o .o o -ooo -oo o

ggggggggggS :5;sss5555:ss

I• i ^11 gggggglggg^

I

&£ gggggggggg^ !5!SBSSSRS!5g

I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I • I I I I t I I I I

« s » s* ' 5 y«

fj ill£

i

. .g a .US • «BB BBBBBB^'~«n ' ' i~; -p r*-O i i I'D 6EEEEEEEE-* J*^ i -J i «*_«*5^_i«r i i i K «

Ml§ • •

.000000 - I

. .! 5 ! S8R5SSS 55 S J

VI

i""JJ e .»«_«e«

g o ^ooo^oe e= ____ ___________________;*? I mt \ •«-l<-4_f_<M_J J i S

4

« »O . B O >OOO «OO O(*>«4ie .«BP^ *eo •-" v4 • .?«•* .S .i ^> i oop»p-o>— • i oi _i i -i-«S;_i«)SS i ! «e00 O. . J .fW

ee>u««ieef^w«>e*~£ e«>» u i •—

_w

1C

_

p«ifi£l O OOOOOO Ow v^Cfl *O .OOfW. O O p—^c £o E a: EEEsfpsrK yEemcoeKS .r^pEpS. e «•-«•^d cs E B EE toB&fc B^< 5SK">SEio^try vcoEEEin o **-s

£ t « 5n e « o>J= Cl TO O

ttl F y C)

c w e.»*>•- M •• f «££^£lz

?

1,5 —ill § g ggilg!i is

II s;i

> Veg

—s£

i/> eni>.1-4

[5

§ §

••* CM to «•> CM

§§i § g iglilis |««

_ i KJ wo o ea «a D o

eo &'en f*» b

o o £ 5

CM£ IH I: oMB r* to E in

I

n

| | |Jr$>£ — .c ]S co «^ L Ew S * iff.!;^ e c a *• r«- E3^-^JJ ^CM « JS'c .'Eg 1

o*>wo <e<^ ut>^ -• - • -^ •• jt jpo. o. c.o. c. a.

ORIGINAL(Red)

I

I 300256

i'1 • 9

l£i S §

i 3iiii P **J

CO

t

o

CO

«n>v.

cf

VI V1 !

§ s

«-l O*D<

• ^*

** - - „ gI»J ^

gii i g gggigig

OCMOCneoi-imE CM eo «• S CM co

5IB

=6 IS „!

|S5 -sl If<_> 0! b X O bM 4J *» f CU O01 e c a *> ft- m^ o> a) ft> wui e« o E 5— £— e EI u u »— 5~-

*'^Xk> >«CM ID •— C-~ C1C Xf 3 Vo^ V *f m t] F S~~ »}•— VIWI -^ C

E «~- w

ill g i iegggge II*» u

I*— •••o e

gRg 1 S ISiSlIJS iffg

llllo S: € o o ooe^--- *JO«IB

s g gsisils i§,«

ORIGINAL

30025?

V-33 ORIGINAL

IIl

TABLE V-4ORGANICS DETECTED IN THE GROUNDWATER

A1 1Mb OSbORNt

December 1983 Sampling Trip

Range Detected at the'Compound Osborne Site (ug/1)

Benzene LT10-109Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate LT10-43

Ethyl benzene LT10-19Toluene LT10-12Pentachlorophenol LT24-404

January 1984 Sampling TripBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate LT10-383

April 1984 Sampling TripPentachlorophenol 36-112

Silt

Ambient WaterQuality Criteria3 (ug/1)

0(.66)

15,0001,40014,3001,010

*

15,000

1,010

SNARLS5(ug/1)

340 (longterm)

~

"--

These water quality criteria for ambient water concentration are based* on consumption of 2 liters of water daily only. The recommended "safe< level" for all known or suspect carcinogens is zero; the concentration

that is £|timated to result in one additional case of cancer in one mil-l lion (10 risk) is given in parentheses.

SNARLS - suggested no adverse response levels—are given in ppb for, various exposure times as indicated.

300258i

ORIGINALv-34

w. TABLE V-5

' : =' INORGANICS DETECTED IN THE GROUNDWATER*• AT THE OSBORNE SITE

December 1983 Sampling Trip

CompoundArsenicCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelZinc

January 1984ChromiumCopperZinc

Range detected at theOsborne Site (ug/1)LT5-33LT5-10LT10-16040-490LT50-260LT.3-4.2LT10-87LT5-8.300

Sampling TripLT10-11

— LT5-7014-940

EPA DrinkingWater Standard (ug/1)5010501,0005025,000

501,0005,000

Ambient WaterQuality Criteria (ug/1)

0(.002)• 10170,0001,00050.14413.45,000

170,0001,0005,000

April 1984 Sampling TripArsenicCadmi urnChromiumCopper ..Nickel 'Zinc

964258-2509-12250-3,100

5010501,000--5,000

" 0 (.002)1017,0001,00013.45,000

1a National Interim Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards.

Quality Criteria for ambient water concentrations are based onconsumption of 2 liters of water and 18.7 grams fish and shellfish productsper day. The recommended "safe level" for all known or suspect carcinogensis zero; the concentration estwiated to result in one additional case ofcancer in one million people (10 risk) is given in parentheses.

300259

ORIGINAL(Red)

II1

CHAPTER VI

RISK ASSESSMENT

The objective of this chapter is to assess the risks posed by theOsborne site to public health and the environment. The methodology employedis a traditional source-pathway-receptor analysis. The characterization ofthe source of contamination — waste types and quantities ~ was presented

I in Chapter 3. That chapter showed that the principal waste at the site isfoundry sand and that data from sampling the drums removed from the site andthe leachate wells shows low concentrations of a limited number of prioritypollutants. Consistent with the Initial Remedial measures taken at thesite, there is no current danger of fires, explosion or direct contactexposure routes at the site. The ambient air has also been characterized assafe, precluding risks by that route. The identification of pathways thro-ugh which contaminants can leave the site was accomplished in Chapters 4 and5 of this report. This risk assessment evaluates each pathway to arrive atpathway specific assessments of risk to public health and the environment.

The risk assessment procedure first examines the inorganic and organiccompounds present at the source of contamination for each pathway. Thisinformation is obtained from surface water and groundwater data qualityreported in earlier chapters. This step in the risk assessment proceduretypically identifies what contaminants are present at the source which couldmigrate off-site if a pathway were available, and, if appropriate, which ofthese contaminants are of environmental or public health concern.

! The procedure then examines each potential pathway for flow hydraulicsincluding flow directions, gradients, rates, and hydraulic input from other

I pathways. This step in the risk assessment procedure serves to evaluatewhether a potential pathway could transmit contaminants off-site. Whereappropriate, estimates of the expected concentrations of potential contam-

' inants at various points along or within each pathway can be made to assistin determining the potential extent of impacts on available receptors.

300260

j VI-2 ORIGINAL(Red)

, The procedure then examines information on potential receptors within\ s ———'———the region to determine whether any existing or planned resource users could

i utilize surface water or groundwater from a potentially contaminated path-way. Specific information typically includes relative elevation and dir-

J ection from the source and the distance from the source to each receptor.Groundwater receptors have been identified from USGS and the Commonwealth of

| Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey computerized data based, in-cluding data entry sheets for new wells as recent as summer, 1983. No wells

I a r e known to have been installed since that time. Several older wells nearthe Osborne site, not contained in this data base, were sampled by the DERwho obtained data on well specifics during sampling. These wells were plot-

I ted on a map of the area and corrected for elevation. The aquifers supply-ing water to these wells were identified based on site specific and regional

| hydrogeologic data.

| The Sourcei

A major finding of the risk assessment is that all available evidencei on the source indicates that the amount and degree of contamination is ex-

tremely low. At the time that the site was originally identified, the num-| ber of drums on the surface suggested that the source of contamination might

be severe. The information developed during the remedial investigation has[ shown that not to be the case.

. The chemical analysis of the wastes present in drums and subsequentlyi removed from the site identified low concentrations of 2 organic and 8

inorganic priority pollutants. The maximum concentration of any organic| priority pollutant in these filled and sealed drums was 0.5 percent. The

concentration of inorganic priority pollutants was in the low parts-per-I million with the exception of one measurement of lead. Hence the waste

itself as represented in drums at the site was not highly toxic.

' The chemical analysis of leachate found at the site indicated a lowrisk. The leachate wells contained a limited number of priority pollutants

! at low parts-per-billion and in isolated concentrations.

300261

I

1

I

I

I

1

VI-3 ORIGINAL(Red)

The Pathways

Six pathways have been identified:

0 Disposal Area Surface Water Pathway0 The Southwest Corner Surface Water Pathway0 The Water Table Groundwater Pathway0 The Clarion Groundwater Pathway0 The Homewood Groundwater Pathway0 The Burgoon Groundwater Pathway.

Disposal Area Surface Water Pathway

Surface water runon from the areas to the north and east of the dis-posal area presently flows into the two ponds on site. There is no surfacewater runoff from those ponds; therefore, there is no Disposal Area SurfaceWater Pathway.

^ The surface water runon which does collect in the pond recharges thei

groundwater table in the disposal area and will be discussed in a subsequentf section. While evidence of surface contamination is not particularly appli-

cable in this case, it is of note that only very low levels of contaminantsI were actually identified in the on-site surface water samples. That contam-I i nation which was detected probably resulted from the drums which had been

disposed of in the ponds and have since been removed.

Southwest Corner Surface Water Pathwayf

Hart collected samples in the stream on both sides of Pine Street.? Those samples showed no contamination. Therefore, there is no evidence of

contamination in the Southwest Corner Surface Water Pathway.

i Surface water in the area of Swamp Run, approximately one mile away,may be used for recreational purposes. The absence of contamination, how-

1 ever, precludes the possibility of this pathway posing a risk to public'"" health or the environment.

300262

Vi-4 ORIGINAL(Red)

Water Table Groundwater Pathway

The Water Table Pathway includes the groundwater in all unconsolidatedmaterials, including the foundry sand, the mine spoils, and the glacialdeposits. Water level measurements in the SW and LW series wells show thatthe flow in the Water Table pathway is to the southeast. The water tablegroundwater either remains as groundwater or eventually emerges as surfacewater towards Swamp Run to the south of the site.

The LW series wells screened in the disposal area showed relatively lowconcentrations of benzene (109 ug/1), nickel (87 ug/1), chromium (60 ug/1),lead (260 ug/1), mercury (4.2 ug/1), and arsenic (33 ug/1). Well SW-2screened in glacial deposits and mine spoils is the furthest downgradientfrom the disposal area. This well showed only lead (60 ug/1) above EPADrinking Water Standards, and nickel (31 ug/1) above Ambient Water QualityCriteria.

No receptors are affected by the Water Table Groundwater Pathway.A, Wells in this aquifer are limited to the area north and east of the site,it

and these wells draw water from zones at a higher topographic level andI upgradient from the site. There are no receptor wells within this pathway* downgradient of the site. Based on this anaysis, there is minimal to no» risk to public health posed by the water table pathway.

Clarion Groundwater Pathway

tThe Clarion Groundwater Pathway consists of the sandstone of the Clar-

! ion formation and any possible void spaces contained in the shaft systemsdue to past coal mining operations in the Brookville Coal. The site is

| located at the base of the Clarion formation, as evidenced by the strip' mining operations which are typical along the formation margins. The Clar-

ion formation extends laterally from the site to the northeast and is lined{ by an extensive basal underclay layer. Based on the regional geology, it is

expected that the flow moves away from the site to the south.

300263

ORIGINAL

J

]

{

I

, A connection between the Water Table Pathway and the Clarion Ground-water Pathway is likely at the mining highwall at the northern edge of thedisposal area. If this connection exists, contaminants could migrate fromthe disposal site into the Clarion formation. Well CMW-1 (screened in theClarion Formation) showed relatively low levels of pentachlorophenol (36ug/1) on the first sampling trip. Neither pentachlorophenol nor othercontaminants were detected on the subsequent sampling trip. Consequently,the site does not appear to be acting as a source of contamination of theClarion formation via discharge through the water table pathway into themine void zone. This is not particularly surprising given the relativelylow levels of contamination as measured in the leachate directly beneath thedisposal area.

Transport modeling for radial geometric spreading of contaminants fromthe site into the possible void zones indicates that 400 feet from the wasteboundary (highwall), contamination would undergo a 50 percent dilution dueto mixing. One quarter mile from this waste boundary contaminants would bereduced to approximately 20 percent of the contaminant concentration at thesite.

The analysis of potential receptors shows that five wells are locatedin the Clarion formation. All wells are currently using water from thesandstone layer above the coal. This is to be expected, as groundwater nearcoal seams is typically of poor quality because it is high in heavy metalsand can be very acidic.

Consequently, the receptor wells appear to be located in a stratumI above the mine void zone and are upgradient of the site, thus indicating no

risk to public health. The existence of a coal seam and its associated| naturally poor water quality also indicates a low impact situation posed by

the site to this patway in the future. Even if a direct hydraulic connec-tion were to be established, it is unlikely that any new wells would be

' drilled into the zone within the Clarion which potentially could be impacted, by any contaminants from the site.

300264

ORIGINALVI-6

\\1

v^ Homewood Groundwater Pathway

• The Homewood formation is the uppermost bedrock aquifer beneath theunderclay layer lining the base of the site. This aquifer extends laterally

] in all directions from the site. Groundwater flow at the site in the Home-wood Groundwater Pathway is to the southeast.

Five wells in the Homewood, UMW-1 through 5, were sampled on two occa-sions. Relatively low levels of bis(2-ethylhexyl)pthalate (24 ug/1) werepresent in several wells. Ethylbenzene (19 ug/1) and toluene (12 ug/1) werealso detected in one well at levels below Ambient Water Quality Criteria.Chromium (13 ug/1) was also detected in one well. Cadmium was detected inone well at the EPA Drinking Water Standard of 10 ug/1. Nickel was found

J above the Ambient Water Quality Criteria at 13 ug/1 in another well.

1 The chemical data collected exhibited no apparent lateral or temporal' patterns of contamination. Ethyl benzene and toluene are common volatile

organic components of coal (Winans and others, 1976). Chromium, cadmium and4 nickel are typical constituents of coal and acid mine drainage. Since the

Homewood formation contained several thin coal seams, levels of these organ-J ic and inorganic compounds may reflect the background conditions for the

area. In any case, the low levels of ethylbenzene (19 ppb) and toluene (12i ppb) were only detected in well UMW-4, which is considered an upgradient

well, reflecting background levels.1i Potential receptor wells are located at various points in the Homewood

formation. Only two receptor wells lie in a downgradient direction south-| east of the site. One well is approximately one-quarter mile from the site,

the second is approximately one mile from the site.r

The worst-case contamination scenario would occur if contaminants mig-, rated from the site into the Homewood Groundwater Pathway and then moved

southeast to the two receptor wells. The groundwater modeling in Appendix H, indicates that this scenario would result in contaminant concentrations at

or below measurable detection limits in these wells.

300265

ORIGINAL1 vi-8 (Red)

Samples were taken from well DMW-1 three times during the course of the: study. Very low levels of pentachlorophenol were present in the first andI third rounds at concentrations of 404 ug/1 and 112 ug/1, respectively.

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)pthalate was also detected during the first and secondI surveys at 46 ug/1 and 383 ug/1 , respectively. The two other DMW wells were

sampled for the first time along with the third round of sampling in DMW-1.J Well DMW-2 showed pentachlorophenol at a concentration of 36 ug/1. Well

DMW-3 was clean and these organic compounds occur below EPA ambient water( c r i t e r i a . Because well DMW-1 is essentially an upgradient well, the fluct-

uating levels of compounds found in the well may not be attributed to thesite. This is also supported by the much lower level of pentachlorophenol

[ found in downgradient well. These facts, in conjunction with the imperme-ability of the three confining layers overlying the Burgoon indicate that

| the site is not acting as a source for these compounds.

I1!

Although contaminant migration into the Burgoon is extremely unlikely,contaminant migration and dispersion through the Burgoon were modeled. TheVertical and Horizontal Spreading transport model (Domenicus and Palci-auskas, 1982) reported in Appendix H indicates that contaminants moving offiste through the Burgoon would undergo a 50 percent reduction in contami-nation concentration upon reaching the site boundary. Upon reaching adistance of one-quarter mile, contaminant concentration will drop to below20 percent of the original on site concentration.

With respect to receptors, all existing water supply wells in theBurgoon Groundwater Pathway are all located upgradient of the site, and nowells utilize this aquifer downgradient of the site. Consequently, the

icoupled with the absence of downgradient wells indicates no risk to publicoccurrence of organic compounds below the EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria

health.

300266

1 ORIGIIMl

CHAPTER VII/ —————« ^ ^ I •!•

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS1 . ———————————————

( T h i s chapter briefly summarizes the main findings and conclusions ofthe remedial investigation:

] The Source

I ° Most of the material disposed at the site consisted of foundrysand. Minor amounts of slag, municipal refuse and wood waste were

( a l s o disposed, along with some industrial waste which could havebeen hazardous.

{ ° As an Initial Remedial Measure, the site was surrounded by asecurity fence, and 83 filled drums, 460 empty drums, and 45 cubic

I yards of contaminated soil were removed from the site.

v^ ° Chemical analysis of the wastes present in the full and sealed' drums showed low concentrations of a limited number of priorityi pollutants.

0 Chemical analysis of the leachate wells identified a limited! number of priority pollutants at low concentrations.

| The Pathways

' ° The geology and hydrogeology of the site is complex as the result* of the regional geology, previous deep and strip mining activities\ and filling operations.1

0 The drainage patterns are determined and have been altered by theI transformation of the site during mining and filling operations.

I ° Six potential pathways - two surface water pathways and four"~ groundwater pathways - were identified:

300267

VII-2

the Disposal Area Surface Water Pathway does not exist be-\_s cause runon to the two ponds on the site does not run off the

site but instead recharges the groundwater table in thedisposal area.

I( - the Southwest Corner Surface Water Pathway flows to the

southeast toward Swamp Run. No contamination was detected..

f . - the Water Table Pathway flows to the southeast and either| remains as groundwater or eventually emerges as surface

water. The leachate wells showed relative low concentrationsof benzene, nickel, cromium, lead, mercury and arsenic.

*

I!

] a pathway.

the Clarion Groundwater Pathway may possibly be connected tothe water table pathway. The flow direction is suspected tobe towards the south. One low level measurement of pentach-lorophenol was detected in the Clarion formation; it was notdetected in the second sample.

the Homewood Groundwater Pathway extends laterally under thesite. Groundwater flow is to the southeast. Low levels oftwo organic and three inorganic contaminants commonly assoc-

i i a t e d with coal a n d acid mine drainage were identified T h epresence of a clay layer under the site and the flow hydrau-lics for the site likely prevent the Homewood from serving as

the Burgoon Groundwater Pathway is the lowermost aquiferunderlying the site. It flows to the northeast. The pre-sence of a clay layer and three impermeable shale unitslikely prevent the Burgoon from serving as a pathway. Penta-chlorophenol and bis(2-ethylhexyl)pthalate were detected atlow, intermittent and fluctuating levels.

In summary, of the six potential pathways:

300268

vn-3 ORIGINAL1 (Red)

Three (the Disposal Area Surface Water Pathway, the Homewood^ Groundwater Pathway and the Burgoon Groundwater Pathway) are

unlikely to exist.

I - one (the Southwest Corner Surface Water Pathway) showed no* contaminationi| - one (the Clarion Groundwater Pathway) may exist.

I - one (the Water Table Pathway) does exist.

1 The Receptors

i ° There are no available receptors for five of the six pathways.

0 The single pathway in which receptors are located downgradient of| the site is the Homewood Groundwater Pathway in which two wells

are located one quarter and one mile from the site.

0 The Homewood Pathway may not exist because of a clay layer of twoI to three feet overlying it separating it from the site.

I ° Based on the groundwater modeling in Appendix H, any contaminationf reaching the Homewood would be dispersed and diluted before the

receptor wells are reached. .

iConclusion

The analysis of the source, pathways and receptors at the Osborne sitej suggests that the risks to public health and the environment are extremely

low.

300269

ORIGINAL(Red)

VIII. REFERENCES

Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGrawHill.

j Bowie, Raymond, 1976. "The History of Coal Mining in the Mercer County.Pennsylvania Area", presentation given to the Grove City Rotary Club.

<

Boyle, P., May 11, 1978. Notice of Violation. Pennsylvania Department ofi Eavironmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

. Bryant, G., July 16, 1981. Trip Report - Dump Site Investigation. Environ-1 mental Protection Agency, III, Western Regional Laboratory and Environmental

Center, Wheeling, West Virginia.

! *Bryant, G., November 17, 1981. Site Inspection Report. Environmental Pro-

| tection Agency. Ill, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Bursic, Mike, 1983. Personal Communication. U.S. Bureau of Mines.•

Charles, R.S., Aquifer Testing Report for Borough of Grove City. Pennsyl-| vania. Investigation and analysis performed for the borough of Grove City,

PA, December, 1969.s

Domenico, P.A. and Palciauska, V.V. 1982. Alternative Boundaries in Solid\ Waste Management. Groundwater Vol 20, No. 3.(, Johnson Division UOP Inc., 1975. Groundwater and Wells. St. Paul,I Minnesota.!

i Leggette, R.M., 1957. "Groundwater in North Western Pennsylvania."

I Mamczak, N.J., August 18, 1973. Report of TV Surveillance of Grove CityMunicipal Water Supply Wells. Layne-New York Company, Inc., Pittsburgh,

' Pennsylvania.

300870

ORIGINALV"I-2 (Red)

McDougal, Keith, 1983. Hart Interview on Mining in the Grove City Area.Local Mine Historian.

i

Osborne, J. , November 5, 1964. Application for Waste Disposal Permit.I Slipper Rock, Pennsylvania.

1 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, June 22, 1977 to Apil18, 1980. Water or Waste Quality Report. PADER, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

f Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1980-1981. Osborne. Site Chronology.' Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Department of Health, November 21, 1964 to March 30, 1971.I Sanitation Inspection Form. Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania.!' Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries, 1965 to 1970 Waste

Disposal Permit Renewals. Pennsylvania Department Mines, Harrisburg,i -' Pennsylvania.

I PADER Bureau of Bituminous Deep Mine Safety Mine Maps. Uniontown, PA.

I Poth, C.W. , 1963. "Geology and Hydrology of the Mercer Quadrangle. Mercer.Lawrence, Butler Counties. Pennsylvania. Bulletin W16, Pennsylvania Topo-

i graphic and Geologic Survey Bulletin, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.t• Rozakis, J., August 19, 1981. Potential Hazardous Waste site Identificationt and Preliminary Assessment. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-

sources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.f •

Shoener, E. , no date, circa 1981. Mitre Model Worksheet. Environmentali Protection Agency, III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

j Shoener, E. , July 2, 1982. Site Inspection Report. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

300271

! viII-3 ORIGINAL(RcJ)

Straub, N.P., May 17, 1972. Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Site Ap-plication Module. Phase I, N.P. Straub, Consulting Civil Engineer, Grove

i City, Pennsylvania.

I Straub, N. 1973 "Feasibility Study for the Cooper Bessemer Landfill" Reportto Cooper.

»Streetsova, T.D., Hydrodynamics of Groundwater Flow in a Fractured For-

I mation. Water Resources Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, June, 1976.

. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mine Location and Shaft Maps. Pittsburgh, PA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Novemer 4, 1982. Osborne Sample Re-J suits. EPA Central Regional Laboratory, Annapolis, Maryland.

I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1979. Water-Related Environ-mental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants. Office of Water Planning and Stan-dards, Washington, D.C.

V >U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Parameters and Variables Appearing in

! Respository Siting Models, by J.W. Mercer, S.D. Thomas and B. Ross,NUREG/CR-3066, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.,

jj December, 1982.

| USDA Soils Conservation and Agricultural Stabilization Service, 1967 and^ 1981. Aerial Photographs.Ii USDA Soils Conservation Service, Mercer County Soil Survey.<I U.S. Geological Survey, Computer Data Base on Pine Township wells; obtained

the DER Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Surveys, Harrisburg, PA.

U.S. Geological Suvey, photorevised 1970. Grove City, Pennsylvania, Quad-rangle, 7.5 Minute Series.

300272

VIII-4 ORI5WAL

Urey, Merle, 1983. Hart Interview on Mining in the Grove City Area. StateMine Inspector 1945-1980.

IWilders, Gerald R., 1983. Personal Communication. Mining Engineering, DER

! Bureau of Bituminous Deep Mine Safety, Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

j WPA Work Project 4483, 1933. Map Showing Aerial Extent of Known Deep CoalMines in the Mercer County Area. PADER Bureau of Bituminous Deep MineSafety.

300273

REM 111 PROGRAM

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCESDISPOSAL SITES,.,.....,,,- ,.._,,,-.„ ,,,, ,.-.,,.„.,... ,-,,,,.,.,,,....,.»„- ,„«.-. ,,»,,„..„...........,. rfK, , .... . «..,,.,.,._. .,:., ...., —'...,.r ~"., .*.*,*,-;.-».i»->.

;;j £ i£ii& 'Vtti*fc&---

III

FINAL EVALUATION REPORTREVIEW OF

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

OSBORNE LANDFILL SITEi MERCER COUNTY,I PENNSYLVANIA

APRIL 17, 1987S W. A. NO. 25-3438.01

300275

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED________________________ EB690OOne Oxford Valley, Suite 414, 2300 Lincoln Highway - East, Langhorne, PA 19047. (215) 752-0212

April 17, 1987RM/3/87-0065Response Required

Ms. Patricia TanCERCLA Enforcement Section

i D.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III

1 841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

I Subject: REM III Program - EPA Contract Mo. 68-01-7250Work Assignment No. 25-3438

I Osborne Landfill Site - Final Evaluation ReportEvaluation of the Responsible Party'sRemedial Investigation Report

I Dear Ms. Tan:

The REM III Team is pleased to present this final report, whichI v . documents the review and evaluation of the responsible party's3 Remedial Investigation (RI) Report. This evaluation report is a

product of technical reviews that were conducted by the REM III! staff experienced in hydrogeology, civil engineering, biology,

toxicology and chemistry. The review and evaluation of thesedocuments specify if sufficient information has been collected

. to satisfy the requirements of the Superfund Amendments andj Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and the National Contingency1 Plan (NCP).

| The Osborne Landfill Site RI Report contains major data gapsi with respect to defining the extent of groundwater contamination

and the direction of groundwater flow. In addition, the risksI to the public health and environment are not quantitativelyI defined. In order for the responsible party to conduct a

feasibility study (FS) that would comply with SARA and allow EPA, to select an adequate remedial alternative, the data gaps should

be resolved and a quantitative risk assessment performed. Thisevaluation report discusses these deficiencies and their effecton conducting the upcoming feasibility study.

300276

I1I

Ms. Patricia TanU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyApril 17, 1987 - Page TwoRM/3/87-0065

Please feel free to call me at 215-752-0212, or our SiteManager, Mr. Raymond P. Wattras, at 412-788-1080 to discuss ourevaluation of the responsible party's RI Report.

Very truly yours,$

Richard C. Evans, P.E.Regional Manager, Region III

RCE/RPW/drp

cc: Mr. E. Shoener - EPA Region IIIMr. W. Graham - EPA Region IIIDr. M. K. Yates - ZPMODr. M. Amdurer - ZPMOMr. A. Bomberger - NUSMr. R. Wattras - NUS

300277

[

APRIL 17, 1987

FINAL EVALUATION REPORTREVIEW OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

OSBORNE LANDFILL SITEMERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 25-3438.01UNDER

CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-7250

PREPARED BY:NUS CORPORATION

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

APPROVED BY:EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

| LANGEORNE, PENNSYLVANIAI

fJ

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

RAYMOND P. WATTRAS ilCHARD C. EVANS,, P. E.SITE MANAGER REGIONAL MANAGER, REGION IIINUS CORPORATION EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

300278

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 BACKGROUND 1

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1

2.2 SITE STATUS 2

3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION EVALUATION MATRIX 3

4.0 EVALUATION MATRIX SUMMARY 11

5.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS ON 18THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

H 300E79

I.I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The REM III Team, under the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) REM III Contract No. 68-01-7250, hasreviewed and evaluated the Remedial Investigation (RI) Reportdated, June 1984 for the Osborne Landfill Site in Grove City,Mercer County, Pennsylvania. This review and evaluation wasconducted in accordance with Task 4 of the Work AssignmentAmendment No. 1 to the Final Work Flan, dated August 5, 1986.The RI Report was reviewed to assess if the criteria for aremedial investigation (RI), as established by the NationalContingency Plan (NCF) and the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, were. satisfied by thefindings of the study that was undertaken by Fred C. HartAssociates, Inc., for Cooper Industries, the responsible party(RP). Additionally, the RI Report was reviewed to determine ifsufficient information has been collected to properly evaluateremedial alternatives that would meet the requirements of SARA.Section 2 of this report provides a brief description of thehistory of the Osborne Landfill Site. An evaluation matrix isincluded in Section 3. The evaluation matrix provides amechanism for determining the completeness of the RI Report withrespect to meeting the requirements identified in the NCP(40 CFR 300.68). This matrix was developed by using the EPAGuidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA and the NCP.A summary of the evaluation matrix is included in Section 4 ofthis report. This summary corresponds to the matrix and detailsthe completeness and content of the applicable section(s) in theRI Report. Section 4 also identifies areas requiringclarification and/or further information in order to satisfyboth the NCP criteria and EPA guidance. Technical commentspertaining to the RI Report and appendices are provided inSection 5.

2.0 BACKGROUND

, 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Osborne Landfill Site is located in Pine Township, MercerCounty, Pennsylvania, approximately one-half mile east of Grove

j City. The site area encompasses approximately 15 of 80 acres of• an abandoned coal strip mine. This tract of land is currently

owned by Mr. Edward McDougal. From the 1950s until 1963, theI site was operated as a dump by Mr. Samuel Mooney. This] operation continued under the ownership of Mr. James Osborne

from 1963 until 1978, when the landfill was closed by thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER)(Hart, 1984). A fence with a locking gate surrounds the site

^ perimeter to restrict site access.

300280

The site is bordered to the north by a wooded area, to the southby Pine Street Extension, to the east by a cornfield, and to thewest by mine spoils, which are overgrown with small trees andvegetation. A wetland area of approximately 15 acres in size islocated south of the mine spoil pile and borders the southwestportion of the site. A small intermittent stream emerges fromthis wetland area and flows under the Pine Street Extension in asoutheast direction.In the early 1900's, a 1500-foot long pit was excavated in asoutheast to northwest direction beginning near Pine Street(Hart, 1984). The strip mine highwall is located near theeastern border of the site. A cornfield is adjacent to the topof this highwall. The mine spoils are located along the westernportion of the site. Three small ponds are situated at the baseof the highwall. The largest pond (Pond No. 3) is located atthe northeast corner of the site and encompasses roughly 1 acre.It was reported to be roughly 30-35 feet deep (Hart, 1984). Asmall intermittent stream enters this pond from the north. Thesecond pond (Pond No. 2) is located south of the large pond andis estimated to be one-half acre in size. The smallest pond(Pond No. 1) is situated about 100 feet south of the second

I* pond. The ponds receive surface water runoff but there is noI surface water discharge from them. Rather, the ponds' water1 levels were reported to fluctuate with the water table (i.e.,

the ponds recharge the groundwater).Nineteen test borings and monitoring wells were constructed todetermine the geologic conditions at the site. These wellsmonitor the water table aquifer, the Clarion Formation, theHomewood Formation, the Upper Connoquennessing Formation, andthe Burgoon Formation. No monitoring wells are constructedoutside of the site boundary. Domestic wells are constructed inthe upper portion of the Clarion Formation. The Grove Citymunicipal well is constructed in the Homewood Formation.

| 2.2 SITE STATUSi

Cooper Industries is the primary generator of wastes at the siteI and signed a consent order with PADER in October, 1983 to' conduct an RI/FS and to clean up the site. Approximately

600 drums and 45 cubic yards of contaminated surface soils wereremoved in the summer of 1983 by Cooper Industries (USEPA,

• 1984). A remedial investigation was conducted by Fred C. Hart• Associates, Inc., a consultant to Cooper Industries. The RI

report was submitted to PADER in June 1984.I The remedial investigation focused on the extent and nature of

groundwater and surface water contamination at the site. The, shallow wells indicated the presence of lead (60 ug/1) and

nickel (31 ug/1), which exceed EPA Drinking Water Standards^ (Hart, 1984). Wells monitoring the leachate exhibited benzene^ (109 ug/1), nickel (87 ug/1), chromium (60 ug/1), lead

(260 ug/1), mercury (4.2 ug/1) and arsenic (33 yg/1).

I -2- 300281

Pentachlorophenol was detected in the Clarion Formation and the^ Burgoon Formation. The Burgoon Formation also indicated the

presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. The following priority) pollutants including, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (24 yg/1),

ethylbenzene (19 yg/1), toluene (12 yg/1), chromium (13 yg/1),. cadmium (10 yg/1), and nickel (13.4 yg/1) were detected in theJ Homewood Formation.

Surface water samples were collected from the two intermittentstreams, the swamp area, and Ponds 2 and 3. High concentrationof iron (260 to 6020 yg/1) were detected in both ponds and theintermittent stream which emerges from the wetland area

I (19,500 yg/1). Samples taken from the swamp area revealed zinc(66-4809 yg/1), lead (96 yg/1), copper (5-68 yg/1), and nickel(11-15 yg/1). The swamp area also exhibited phenol (12 yg/1)and di-n-butyl phthalate (3.57 yg/1). Priority pollutant

[ organics including chloroethane (7.1 yg/1), 1,1-dichloroethaneI (6.3 yg/1), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1.4 yg/1), and trichloro-

ethylene (0.6 yg/1) were present in the onsite ponds (Hart,I 1984).

Organic analysis of waste samples obtained from drums detected, the presence of ethylbenzene, ortho xylene, ethyl methyli benzene, and assorted hydrocarbons. These pollutants were1 reported as a percentage of the total waste content rather than

ppm or ppb. The percentages of these compounds, detected in thef ~' drums, were reported as follows:

I• ethylbenzene (less than 0.1 - less than 100%)• ortho xylene (0.2 - 0.5%)• ethyl methyl benzene (0.5 - 1.0%)• assorted hydrocarbons (0.5 - 3.0%)

}A Feasibility Study Work Plan was submitted to FADER by CooperIndustries in October 1986. This work plan has not beenapproved by EPA as of March 1987.

j 3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION EVALUATION MATRIX

, The Evaluation Matrix is provided in the following pages of thisI report to provide the user with a checklist by which a' comparison can be made between the information in the RI Report,

and the requirements of the NCF and EPA Guidance on Remedial! Investigations Under CERCLA. The matrix has five column' headings which show

1) NCP criteria reference' 2) If existing information has satisfied applicable NCP

criteria, 3) If the information is presented or addressed, but not! considered complete with respect to meeting the NCP

criteria

_3_ 300282

C

I

1

\\I

ct! c

«{}OS

Ita |5<

£ -"5Jl E(4 £} Q

1*TS *2

eote

ft< (5 ***

o

Criteria

j

-

S2

bile Health Welfare and

vironmental Concerns Associated

th Existing Site Conditions

s c -r•

Potential receptors at ri

ska. H

umans

b. Animals

c. Plant

d. Threatened, endangered, or

rare species

e. G

roundwater

(1) Residential, municipal,

industrial wells

(2) Potential groundwater

use

f. Surface Water

•

s£1CO

K

8<£•

Likely pathways of exposure at

site

a. t

ngestlon

b. Direct Contact

c. I

nhalation

c5

-4- 300283

I

1

I

I

1

«tcces

"o «pC ' J_ ' 5JB i j

Criteria

Addressed, but

Incomplete

i*n COo

.SoB* fe "O ** e£Z"E b«00

Criteria

S1^M >

l>

K

T

jj>

?

** CJ8 _£

e E = 5 ? hC "w f Mk ^ £1 •« « E ^ K v o m v ^

III 1 ll !!=O ? W *** O f\

ills «•""<

sg«-•1

X

2C4

2

^

4. Likelihood of future releases

hazardous substances remain

onslte

s ssg ggO C CV O t)CO CO CIS

K

K K

= =1?

C? C?

2 22

Hazardous Substances Present

1. Extent to which source was

adequately

Identified and

characterized

2. S

ubstance types

3. Substance containment

CD

-5- 300284

Ii

»

K5 COF" w<dSo«S*ObE°< eR*J z|363 ft,2{HpSta^ea

JC3C

>RNE LANDFIL

BDIAL1NVBSTK

ONAL CONTIN

Three of Se

ven

£!££iu< IPOtfz£

t?

RIReport

Referenc

3?c e>0 g

o**5

JS •5'tS5; C "S.

SP

ll

CO•

CU jj "O y cS2 £* bdOoo

e1**5

• iiCO

;

K

-

f-fC-ea2

"| o

g 11 ^

"2 psw^jjj^*-1-."!™ y .ft «•« "m e3CQ "78 e; OJsJS/'sS'g? P^J P CL

gl Eve j£ c -d o^: tcjc-rS -*- *•CD

| Section III

K

e?Se*2

^i

. Quantities pr

in

>•t

I

K

~

5Jca2

c*••

1'

c So

f ll .* S »~ *"S c A c S^ og g <OcQcom5? *j

O §L oSzS c-6 t><D

300285—6—

I ORIKIKAL(Red)

!

I\c\I

allf "*

&

**G v

|1

£ «-jijS? *> "ex

Satisfied

Criteria

COto5g

C at '"O «g c560

• o

Criteria

K

•

' Se??

^c

* ! gs8^^ ^2 *5»e *• cs r -s JB c ,.* 2 l|=l

o i i «5 £<o<

g "c w i; e^s «3«5S +z t-d

il1>*

K

^

J5s2

«gj0I I Ii§ • ? ^

s E| 1

n 5 O fcS fe* ^ X3 () C)to o 5 g c e e

§£ g£ Bcoco<Sg g we oa c3 -o oJCOSft* «d

c•£i

K

^

£•e?2

sB BO Ots • —CO "S

^ e 'gen eIM*iii»iliii .—• p S V- *-. *-«-> XJ p •- *- OC CD oCCQ 02 E

u e j£ o-d «)el

-7- 30028G

II1

i

Sall— -a «««4BS "*"-***" —

OS

ge

•s.|III

1 !«* A)•S **

eo<D

ftl fc ***O £CS•S «- faoo

t<pf

t iiii £I

II

fe . _e

- * g fe cB« SS^« S£ ^ S,?

^l^SSi |c»8|s

El *4

I

0 c £ c -c

-8- 300287

IIIi

!I

ft)

RIReport

Referenc

a E11gi**

** Sn E

og gS"

wc t— £

eoO3

C «it *O *; e£26o

o

et4ft)**

•E0

g

1CO

K

XC4

2

•c _:

¥ Js?— 7 B

|| ||

1 1 B.'R

I IflliIS S*M*^ g co e /3S^ r»Q

g

i

K

S2

1 1S 1fc S' |t «5 BE ES -2*st g Ib< GI«O g *; "c1 1 « £ £ 1

co«j£c5'ow*.ta<«'

Section IV

X

c?£J

2

ate

recipltatlon

C *^

O *H

H

Section IV

K

**

E«

el

] Section

IV

K

g

1'oe

IIStn

.9. 300288

I

i

i

I

I

-

kHIC£ eoS* CD

jg eZ «*oEEu<0<zB|Z ft*

OSBORNB LANDFILL SITE

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIO

NATIONAL CONTINGBNC

Page Seven of Seven

** *>t* B«*" X. Cc ft)

f ^«s

J 1

isJB .

41 3 e***" ^ So.sj

* * OTV

CO<D

C 0Oj "*• WO *• tf^600v

Criteria

Ml

g— >llco e

K

£•"Jc5SX.

1 co cE • «F fer

F. C

ompliance with Covet

Requirements

1. Applicability of fe

drequirements, critei

advisories

K

«

^ !_.

2. Applicability of sta

requirements,

crltei

advisories

•M

E•S >-c? *ov £co e

K

V

Z *e cj *c

3. Existing an

d potentl

exceedence

of appll

requirements,

critei

advisories

.10. 300289

i

!

(Red)

4) If the information is not provided to satisfy the NCPcriteria

5) The section of the RI report which addresses the NCPcriteria

The matrix is supplemented with a separate text section(Section 4.0) which contains an expanded evaluation of the RIReport as it pertains to meeting the requirements of the NCP.The evaluation matrix should be reviewed concurrently with thissection of the report.Most of the criteria for undertaking and completing a remedialinvestigation were not adequately met by the RP. Datalimitations for characterizing the extent of contamination andpublic health risks were noted throughout the report.Additionally, potential groundwater migration pathways may haveto be re-evaluated by the RP, based on our evaluation. TheRI Report fails to generate sufficient data with respect to

f evaluating and selecting potential remedial alternatives.4.0 EVALUATION MATRIX SUMMARY

i A general discussion for each subheading of the Evaluation1 Matrix is provided in this section. Each summary is referenced,

by heading and number, to the corresponding section of the|. matrix. The summaries provide information pertaining to theI v—' degree that a specific NCP criterion has been addressed by the

findings of the RI Report.

A. Public Health, Welfare, and Environmental ConcernsAssociated with Existing Site Conditions.

1. Potential Receptors at Risk

Section VI, Risk Assessment, of the RI Report qualitatively| characterizes the public health risks posed by the sitei contaminants. The risk characterization provides a "traditional

source-pathway-receptor analysis". Six pathways were identifiedi and discussed in this section of the report. The followingi additional pathways should be addressed:

dermal exposure to soilsingestion of soil by chi]inhalation of particulates

{ • ingestion of soil by childreni - -

. Qualitative risks to the public health were reported to beI minimal to none, based on groundwater flow direction and

theoretical groundwater contaminant dispersion modeling. This, is unacceptable. Domestic well samples should be obtained inI order to establish the present health risk. Additionally,

groundwater flow directions were based on one set of water level^ measurement from a limited number of wells. Section 5.0 of this

I report provides additional comments regarding this issue.

i -u. 300230

(Red)

W Based on the data presented in Table V-l, preliminarycalculations indicate that the cone of depression for the

| Grove City municipal well could extend beneath the site. Thispotential receptor should be addressed in the report.

1 The risk characterization also did not include an evaluation ofthe site's impact on the wetland area that is adjacent to thesite. These criteria need to be evaluated in order to establish

j adequate remedial alternatives*

The following recommendations apply to meeting the NCP criteriafor public health, welfare, and environmental concerns:

• Undertake a wetlands study to determine the site'simpact on this sensitive area.

I • Obtain additional sets of water level data to confirmgroundwater flow direction.

j • Sample domestic wells to support theoretical modelingstudy. The Grove City municipal well should also be

. sampled.' • Conduct a quantitative risk assessment. Include dermal

exposure of surface waters and soils, inhalation of" particulates, ingestion of soils by children, and

i ingestion and dermal contact of groundwater.

• 2. Likely Pathways of Exposure at Site

Sections V and VI of the RI Report discuss various contaminantand exposure pathways that are associated with the site. As

( m e n t i o n e d previously, direct contact with onsite soils need tobe assessed, based on the potential accessibility to the site bychildren. Additionally, ingestion and inhalation of soils

j should be evaluated and assessed.Based on a limited amount of collected data, four groundwater

. pathways were identified and assessed by the RP. These pathwaysI may need to be re-evaluated, based on our review of the RI' report and appendices. This is discussed further in Section 5.0

of this report.i! 3. Contribution of Contaminants

Sections III, IV, and V of the RI report characterize thei surface and subsurface wastes, surface water quality, and

groundwater quality, respectively. A discussion on the impactof the site contaminants, if any, on air quality was not

' provided. Justification for not undertaking an analytical-> evaluation of the ambient air is necessary. Also, an evaluation

^_/ or discussion regarding the contribution of site contamination. to the food chain is warranted. This is especially true for the

300291

(Red)

swamp and wetland areas that are adjacent to the western and/ southern portions of the site.

4. Likelihood of Future Releases

Based on the RI report, all surface drums and 45-cubic yards ofcontaminated soils were removed from the site as part of anInitial Remedial Measure (IRM). Based on the magnetometrysurvey, buried ferromagnetic materials were present through theentire central area of the disposal area. However, no test pitswere excavated to confirm whether the buried metal objects wererefuse or drums. In addition, only a limited number of test

. borings were drilled in the area that exhibited highmagnetometer readings. Therefore, it cannot be concluded thatother drums (sources) do not exist throughout the formerdisposal area.

Although only 45-cubic yards of contaminated soils wereexcavated, the estimated volume of the disposal area wasreported to be approximately 233,000 cubic yards. Since onlyfour test borings were drilled through the former disposal area,it can not be stated that the only major component of this areais foundry sand. Additionally, the soil samples obtained fromthese boreholes were not analyzed for any priority pollutants.Only field screening with an OVA was performed on the subsurfacesoil samples. Based on the limited amount of analytical data

| from the test boring program, there is a potential forW additional releases to the groundwater from either existing

buried drums or highly contaminated subsurface soils.

In order to fully determine whether there is a potential forfuture contaminant releases to the environment, the followingstudies may be appropriate:

• Excavate a series of test pits through the formerdisposal area to confirm the assumption that high

{ magnetometer readings were due to refuse.• Obtain soil samples for full Hazardous Substance List

(HSL) pollutants in order to characterize subsurface! soils. These samples can be collected from the test' pits and/or from additional test borings.| B. Hazardous Substances Present

1. Source Identification and Characterization

i Section III of the RI Report characterizes the surface andsubsurface wastes at the site. The surface wastes wereidentified as the 603 drums that were removed from the site and

) disposed in 1983. Additionally, 45-cubic yards of contaminatedsoil were removed and disposed; however, the degree and nature

i of the contaminated soil was not provided in the report. Also,

-13- 300292

ORIGINAi(Ked)

subsurface wastes were not characterized, as mentionedO previously in this report.( 2. Substance Types

The contents of the onsite drums were adequately defined withrespect to their physical and chemical types.

3. Substance Containment

Section IIIB of the RI Report, Characterization of SurfaceWastes, adequately discusses this NCP criterion.4. Hazardous Properties of Chemical Substances

Samples obtained from selected drums were analyzed for prioritypollutant organics, RCRA metals, polychorinated biphenyls, pH,flammability, ignitability, BTU content, compatibility, andcorrosivity. The following contaminant properties were notdiscussed in the report:

PersistenceToxicityDensitySolubilityVolatilityReactivity

These parameters would influence the migration of contaminantsthrough the various pathways. Based on the fact thatcontaminated surface soils were identified and removed, theseproperties should be discussed for each contaminant in order todetermine their potential to migrate into the air, subsurfacesoil, or groundwater.

No analytical parameters were reported for onsite surface orsubsurface soils. The hazardous properties of contaminants inthese media were not discussed.5. Quantities Present

* In order to evaluate potential remedial alternatives, thequantities of various wastes in each media needs to be

| addressed. The RP has estimated that the former disposal area' is comprised of 233,000 cubic yards of soil. It was concluded

in the report that the majority of this waste is foundry sand.This was based on four borings through the disposal area. It is

i recommended that soils analyses through either test pits and/oradditional soil borings be obtained to delineate for formerdisposal area. These activities would generate sufficient data

j to quantify the amount of contaminated subsurface soils, if any,at the site.

_14_ 300293

I6. Concentration and Distribution Present^ ————————————————————————————The distribution of contaminants, including contaminant type and

| concentrations, were not characterized for the soils (surfaceand subsurface), sediments, surface water (wetland area only),

. and biota (fish or macroinvertebrates). Additional studiesj should be undertaken to obtain sufficient data in order to1 quantitatively characterize public health and environmental

risks, and to evaluate potential remedial technologies.I 7. Environmental Fate and Transport

Contaminants detected in the RI Report should be characterizedwith respect to the following properties:

• bioaccumulationj • physical-chemical degradationI • adsorption

I These properties need to be addressed in order to characterizehealth and/or environmental risks. It should be noted thatadsorption applies mostly to the potential for contaminants to

. migrate through the soils; however, no analytical data for soilsi (surface or subsurface) were presented in the report. Also, the1 risk assessment (Section VI) does not include an evaluation of

these properties.f . .i C. Hazardous Substance Migration Potential

• 1. Extent of Current Migration

The extent of migration in the surface soils, subsurface soils,sediments, air, and the wetland area has not been adequately

I defined. Surface and subsurface soil data should be obtained to• identify the current migration of contaminants. Although

groundwater data have been collected, they do not characterizef offsite migration. Groundwater data exists only for onsitej locations. Additional monitoring points should be established

for critical offsite locations (i.e. domestic wells). The. groundwater modeling study for estimating contaminanti concentrations at potential receptors is not adequate when1 "actual" data can be obtained via sampling.I 2. Extent of Potential Migration

The extent of potential migration of contaminants is undertakenI in a risk assessment to characterize public health orI environmental risks for a "no action" alternative. The RI

Report (Section VI, Risk Assessment) addresses the potential for. contaminants to migrate via surface water runoff, surface waterj transport, and various groundwater pathways. Migration of

subsurface and surface soil contaminants into the groundwater<_> should be addressed. To do this, analytical data for these

i media would have to be collected. Modeling of soil contaminant

I -15. 300294

concentrations into the groundwater pathway would then beappropriate to define the extent for potential migration of soilcontaminants.Potential migration of contaminants to the air and biota werenot addressed. A discussion regarding this possibility iswarranted to meet the NCP criteria.

D. Hydrogeologic Factors1. Geologic Characterization

The criterion for identifying the geologic characteristics ofthe study area are addressed in the RI Report; however, theREM III Team does not agree with many of the findings. Thefollowing two issues apply:

1) Shales generally have very low permeabilities whenunfractured. However, the presence of fractures canincrease the permeability by orders of magnitude. Assome degree of fracturing can be expected in each of therock units present beneath the site, the shaleformations should not be considered as having nocapacity to transmit water, although their permeabilityis low in comparison to typical sandstones.

i - 2) Additional site-specific geologic cross sections areI -> needed to present an adequate picture beneath the study

area. Well locations and screened intervals should be• shown in the cross sections. The cross sections should] be integrated more closely with the boring logs to show

local variations in stratigraphy, formation thicknesses,dips, etc.i 2. Groundwater Characterization

! Section V of the RI Report outlines the regional and siteI geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. This section does not

provide sufficient information to meet the NCP criteria forcharacterizing groundwater based on the following REM III Team

! findings:

1) Transmissivity is only presented for the Burgoon| Formation.

2) There does not appear to be an adequate resolution ofgroundwater flow direction in the Homewood Formation,

j based on the data presented. It appears that there maybe some component of groundwater flow to the north aswell as the south. Also, there is a lack of groundwater

| monitoring points for this formation downgradient of theformer disposal area (between monitoring wells DMW-3 andUMW-4).

-16- 300295

II

ORIGINAL(Red)

3) Groundwater flow direction in the Burgoon Formation is^ not well defined, based on the data presented. As

mentioned in the text and shown in Figure V-fi,i groundwater within the Burgoon Formation appears to be

flowing northeast in the immediate site area (based onlimited data). The text also indicates that the

( ultimate discharge point is several miles north of thei site along Wolf Creek. This discharge point would be

near Interstate 80 at an elevation of 1250 feet. The( potentiometric surface of the Burgoon Formation at theI site is 1249 feet, with a gradient of approximately

0.002. Based on this gradient, the potentiometricsurface of the formation at the groundwater dischargepoint would be about 1220 feet, which is well below thelevel of Wolf Creek. Therefore, the Burgoon Formationis not discharging to Wolf Creek at this point, contrary

I to the text.4) Flow rates have little or no supporting data.

J 3. Soil Characterization

A limited amount of engineering properties data were obtainedS through Standard Penetration Tests. No information was obtained• or provided for adsorption coefficient properties. This^ information is helpful in determining the migration potential

|," £°r contaminants in subsurface soils.4. Surface Water Characterization

Section IV, Surface Water, satisfies the NCP criteria foridentifying drainage patterns, water quality, and uses. Data onthe stream sizes, flow rates and stream classification arenecessary to fully characterize the study area surface waters.E. Climate

1. Precipitation

Average annual rainfall and evapotranspiration is provided in! Section IV for the site. This NCP criterion has been satisfied.

2. Temperature

' No information regarding monthly average temperatures wasprovided in the report.

f 3. Wind Speed and Direction

( Data pertaining to average wind speed and direction were not( included in the RI Report. These data are necessary to evaluate

-v the potential health effects of remedial technologies of\^s alternatives such as excavation or air stripping.

-17- 300296

ORIGINAL(Red)

F. Compliance with Governmental Requirements

1. Federal Requirements

All federal requirements, including those for wetland areas,should be identified. Only EPA's Interim Drinking Water

j Standards and Ambient Water Quality Criteria have been• identified for comparison of site contaminants.j 2. State Requirements

State requirements for groundwater quality, surface water• quality, and wetland areas were not identified.

3. Existing and Potential Exceedance of Applicable Requirements

I Groundwater and surface water contaminant levels were comparedwith EPA Interim Drinking Water Standards and Ambient WaterQuality Criteria. These data should also be compared with

1 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Acceptable Daily Intake(ADI) values where applicable.5.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE REMEDIAL

INVESTIGATION REPORT

The following comments were generated by the REM III Team, whichconsisted of a hydrogeologist, a toxicologist, an environmentalengineer, and a biologist.

Section-Pg. No. _____________Comments_____________

11-12 Split-spoon sampling is not done inaccordance with ASTM Standard D2113-70 asnoted in the text. ASTM Standard D-1586applies to split-spoon sampling.

11-13 Low levels of contamination, which are lessthan 1 ppm, would not be detected with anOVA. Priority pollutant analysis shouldhave been performed on a portion of thesamples to confirm OVA results. It has beenour experience that OVA results do notcorrelate well with laboratory analyticalresults.

I

IIi1f

11-20 Packer testing was performed at intermittentI elevations in two borings, DMW-2 and -3.f These tests were designed to measure in-situ

permeability in "representative" zones ofrock. For hydrogeologic purposes, it is

f equally important to measure permeability atlithologic contacts where horizontal bedding

\^ plane fracturing might be present. TheI resultant permeabilities for the rock zones

300297

I ORIGINAL(Red)

•ISection-Pg. No. _____________Comments_____________

should not be used to represent horizontal| flow in the bedrock aquifers. If used,

caution should be noted.

| 11-20 The statement regarding little or no1 potential for vertical migration of

contaminants to underlining aquifers should[ be changed to reflect higher potentials due1 to the existence of fractures. (Contami-

nants were detected in the shallow, middle,I and deep aquifers).

11-24 The statement is made that a lack ofdrawdown in the Homewood formation during he

( pumping test indicates that there is a lackI of significant hydraulic connection between

the Clarion and Homewood Formations.( A c c o r d i n g to the text, water levels were

monitored in CMW-1 and the pond during thetest, neither of which is set in the

. Eomewood Formation. If no significanti drawdown was observed in the pumped1 formation (Clarion), no significant drawdown

would be expected from an underlying; formation. Was the Eomewood Formationi monitored? -

11-24 and 25 Why did the pumping rate stabilize at 250gallons permit (gpm) at 20 minutes? Was a250 gpm pump used?

11-27 A statement is made that only 1 well wasinstalled in the Upper Connoquenessingformation; however, on page V-l3, a

| statement is made that no wells were4 installed or open to this formation. This

needs to be clarified.] 11-27 A statement is made that very little of the1 Upper and Lower Connoquennessing groundwater

is used for water supply; however,! Figure V-2 indicates that the Grove City

municipal water supply is screened in theLower Connoquennessing. This needs to be

; clarified. Additionally, Figure V-13 showsf that the Grove City municipal wells are

screened in both the Upper and LowerConnoquennessing Formation and in the

f Burgoon Formation. The Upper and LowerConnoquenessing Formations are not

V^> adequately monitored to determine potential* risks to the public.

I -19- 300298

ORiGINAi(Red)

Section-Pg. No. _______________ Comments_________________11-34 The Burgoon monitoring wells (DMW-1,2,3)

have only one set of water levelmeasurements. A minimum of threemeasurements is expected to provide a validassessment of water levels. The Homewoodmonitoring wells have inconsistent waterlevels on March 15, specifically wells UMW-3and -4. Please clarify. Strip mine pondelevations should be taken to correlate withmonitoring well water levels.

11-36 General terms such as "low concentrations"are used without justification. Forexample, a "low" benzene level of 109 ug/1corresponds to a risk of 3.2 x 10-* ifingested over a long period of time. Thisrisk level exceeds EPA standards.

HI-5 Waste samples were analyzed for PCBs andRCRA metals. These samples should have been

r analyzed for HSL. Also, the detection limiti for PCB analysis was extremely high• (10 mg/kg).

1

1I1i

HI-6 Types and depths of buried wastes at thesite could not be properly assessed sinceonly four borings penetrated this area,which is approximately 15 acres.

HI-10 Concentrations of benzene, which wereconsidered to be "low" by the RP, are aboveRMCL standards. Additionally, chromium,mercury, and lead were greater than IPDWS,but considered to be "low" in the report.

HI-10 Conclusions drawn by the RP have indicatedthat the analysis of waste present in thedrums showed low concentrations of a limitednumber of priority pollutants. The RIReport listed the concentration as"percentages". It should be noted that3 percent of assorted hydrocarbons is equalto 30,000 ppm. With this in mind, ethylbenzene was reported as "less than100" percent. This is not a lowconcentration as stated in the text.

-20- 300299

I

ORIGINAL(Red)

Section-Pg. No. _____________Comments_________________

IV-9 Seasonal flooding of the site may be aI mechanism for surface water (and

contaminant) migration from the site. Aflooding episode is described on page 11-27.No mention of offsite migration offloodwaters is included in the description.

IV-11 Laboratory detection limits are not relatedto acceptable health risks. For manycontaminants, the 10-6 risk may originatefrom levels much lower than these detectionlimits. In addition, there is noinformation regarding field and reagentblanks, duplicates, surrogate recoveries andother QA/QC information. The laboratoryQA/QC practices given in Appendix F are notcompletely applicable to the analysesperformed at this site.

IV-11 The fact that receptors might not be presentat certain areas near the site does notreduce the need for assessments in these.areas. Both present and future potentialrisks, using hypothetical receptors, arerequired to be assessed.

II1

V-4 It is incorrect to describe shale units asaquicludes or zones which do not allowgroundwater flow. Although shales generallyhave a much lower primary porosity thansandstones, secondary porosity (fractures)provides pathways for vertical groundwatermigration. As a result, shales may beconsidered aquitards but should not beconsidered aquicludes.

V-ll As stated previously, no drawdown would beexpected in the Homewood Formation or the

1 onsite ponds as a result of the pumping• tests if the water level in the pumped

formation (Clarion) was not itself drawnJ d o w n b y t h e pumping, a s apparently t h e case

at the site. The statement that the pondand mine would have a poor hydraulicconnection and that the underclay separating

I the Homewood Formation from overlayingaquifers acts as an impermeable layer arenot conclusions that can be drawn from the

} pumping test results.

-21- 300300

ISection-Pq. No. _____________Comments________________

V-ll Downward flow of groundwater is probablyimpeded by the coal underclay beneath thesite; however, based on the presence of lowlevels of contaminants in the underlyingaquifers, vertical groundwater migration isnot prevented completely.

V-12 Based on Figure V-6 and the water tablecontours, there does not appear to be enoughmonitoring wells along the downgradient edgeof the site to provide sufficient waterquality data regarding shallow groundwaterfrom leaving the site. Large data gapsexist between well location SW-2 and SW-3,and to the east of LW-4.

V-12 Water level in SW-1 was not included on thecontour map. What explanation is there forthe anomalous high level in SW-1(1300.6 feet).

V-l 3 There does not appear to be adequateresolution of groundwater flow direction inthe Homewood Formation, based on the datapresented. It appears that there may besome component of groundwater flow to thenorth as well as the south, based on thedata. Also, there is a lack of groundwatermonitoring points for the Homewood Formationdowngradient of the disposal area (betweenMWs UMW-3 and -4) as shown in Figure V-7.

V-l3 Groundwater flow directions in the BurgoonFormation are not well defined, based on thedata presented. As mentioned in the textand shown in Figure V-8, groundwater withinthe Burgoon Formation appears to be flowingto the northeast in the immediate site area(based on the limited data).

V-l3 The RI Report states that recharge raiseswater levels in the Homewood Formation atwell UMW-5 as an explanation for the highwater levels. There is no documentation tosupport this statement. Actually, the sitedata indicates that recharge is probably nota significant factor. The boring log forUMW-5 shows that the underclay is presentand not eroded as suggested in the text.The reason for the higher water level inUMW-5 needs to be explained.

300301

I

I

Section-Pq. No. ____________Comments__________________V-l 9 With respect to the water table aquifer,

five domestic wells have been identified inthe report. Well logs should be included inthe report.

V-l9 Groundwater flow in the Clarion Aquifer isprobably governed by the deep mine systemand is structurally controlled. Structurecontour maps need to be prepared (deep minemaps are needed). If flow direction isexpected to be south, an explanation anddocumentation is needed since only one well(CMW-1) was constructed in this formation.(i.e., How can flow direction be determinedusing one well?) Were deep minedischarge/seep points determined andsampled?

V-21 Flow direction in the Homewood pathway wasstated to be south. This is not defendablebased on site data. A flow component to thenortheast can be projected in addition tothe south using the present data.

f J V-22 The data from the limited number of core'borings (3) cannot be confirmatory evidenceof the absence of fractures in bedrockformations beneath the site.

V-27 The fact that some contaminants were notpresent above the EPA recommended detectionlimit, but were present at other times,should not be dismissed as sampling orlaboratory errors. It is very unlikely thatlaboratory errors would occur for suchcontaminants as pentachlorophenal.

VI-3 Pathways do not address soil exposure orparticulate inhalation.

VI-3 Risks for groundwater ingestion are notdefined (quantified). The report uses termssuch as "low" or "very low" to describerisks. In actuality, the concentration forbenzene equates to a health risk above EPA'srecommended limit of 10-<.

iI1

300302

I fiT-f *»*'

Section-Pq. No. ____________ Comments_____________

Appendix H With respect to hydraulic gradients, howI were the gradients calculated? The Burgoon1 value is incorrect.I Gradient (i) is approximately:

1 foot «= 0.002 (N-NE)I 500 feet

I\

With respect to vertical migration, thepermeability (3 x 10-9 ft/sec) for theunderclay is based on an NRC reference.This is not applicable to the site-specificconditions. Either field or laboratorypermeability tests on the clay areacceptable.

300303-24-

SS^SS^^ffll^^^^ · 2019-12-13 · I I I I •V I ORIGINAL (Red) OSBORNE SITE Remedial Investigation...

Documents

Transcript of SS^SS^^ffll^^^^ · 2019-12-13 · I I I I •V I ORIGINAL (Red) OSBORNE SITE Remedial Investigation...