6,5 32*}

CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION

RR300303

r.

cE

C O M F E D E R A L P R O G R A M S C O R P O R A T I O N

January 4, 1991

Ms. Elaine SpiewakTES VII Regional Project OfficerU. S. Environmental Protection AgencyCERCIA Enforcement Section841 Chestnut Street, 6th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19107

PROJECT: EPA Contract No: 68-W9-0004

DOCUMENT NO: TES7-C03062-EP-CBKM

.SUBJECT: Work Assignment C03062Field Trip ReportTonolli SiteTES7.-C03062-TR-CBKN

Dear Ms. Spiewak:

Please find enclosed the Field Trip Report for oversight of requestedRemedial Investigation field activities conducted between the months ofOctober through December, 1990, at the Tonolli Site in Nesquehoning,Pennsylvania as partial fulfillment of the- reporting requirements for thiswork assignment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (215) 293-0450within two weeks of the date of this letter.,

rL f cc: Donna McCartney, EPA Work Assignment Mctnager, CERCLA Region III

Jean Wright, TES VII Project Officer (letter only)! Constance V. Braun, FPC Program Manager (letter only)

992 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 919 O@ *&>& W293-0450

FIELD TRIP REPORTTONOLLI SITE

NESQUEHONING, PENNSYLVANIA

i >

L-

Prepared for

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYOffice of Waste Programs Enforcement

Washington, D.C. 20460

L

Work Assignment No.EPA RegionSite No.Contract No.COM FEDERAL PROGRAMSCORPORATION Document No.Work Assignment Project ManagerTelephone NumberPrimary ContactTelephone NumberDate Prepared

C03062III3BQ868-W9-0004

TES7-C03062-TR-CBKNChristopher Cherniak(215) 293-0450Donna McCartney(215) 597-1101January 4, 1991

L_

11300305

TABLE OF CONTENT'S

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................ 11.1 List of Inspectors................................. 11.2 PRP Representatives................................ 2

2.0 OVERSIGHT OF SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT; SAMPLING ACTIVITIES..................................... 4

2.1 Introduction....................................... 42.2 Methodology........................................ 4

2.2.1 Sample Collection Procedures................ 42.2.2 Sample Analysis and Quality

Control Samples............................. 52.3 Observations....................................... 6

3.0 OVERSIGHT OF LANDFILL LEACHATE SAMPLING ACTIVITIES...... 103.1 Introduction....................................... 103.2 Methodology........................................ 10

& 3.2.1 Sample Collection Procedure................. 103.2.2 Sample Analysis and Quality

i._ Control Samples............................. 113.3 Observations....................................... 12

m i

s 4.0 OVERSIGHT OF WELL DRILLING ACTIVITIES................... 144.1 Introduction....................................... 14

| 4.2 Observations....................................... 145.0 OVERSIGHT OF SOIL AND LANDFILL TEST PIT

|" SAMPLING ACTIVITIES..................................... 16' - 5.1 Introduction....................................... 16

5.2 Methodology........................................ 16«.. 5.2.1 Sample Collection Procedures................ 16

5.2.2 Sample Analysis and QualityControl Samples............................. 18

I *4

5.3 Observations....................................... 19ll, 6.0 OVERSIGHT OF MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT. ............... 23

6.1 Introduction....................................... 236.2 Methodology........................................ 23

• 6.3 Observations....................................... 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

7.0 OVERSIGHT OF GROUNDWATER WELL SAMPLING ACTIVITIES........ 247.1 Introduction........................................ 247.2 Methodology. ........................................ 24

7.2.1 Sample Collection Procedures................. 247.2.2 Sample Analysis and Quality

Control Sample............................... 257.3 Observations........................................ 26

8.0 OVERSIGHT OF IN-SITU PERMEABILITY TEST. .................. 298.1 Introduction........................................ 298.2 Methodology......................................... 298.3 Observations....................................... 30

Figure 1...................................................... 20

Table 1....................................................... 21

(VR.3&8307

1.0 INTRODUCTION

COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION (FPC) has been tasked by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III under Contract No.68-W9-0004, TES VII, Work Assignment C03062, to provide oversightsupport during a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)being performed at the Tonolli Site, Nesquehoning, Carbon County,Pennsylvania. The RI/FS is being completed by Paul C. Rizzo &Associates (PCR). As part of this assignment, FPC providedoversight for the following field activities:

o Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Sept. 12 & 13, 1990o Landfill Leachate Sampling Oct. 2, 1990o Well Drilling Activities Oct. 9, 15, 16,

& 17, 1990u" o Soil and Landfill Test Pit Sampling Oct. 24, 25, 26,, 31, & NOV. 1, 1990i. o Monitoring Well Development Nov. 27, 1990

o Monitoring Well Sampling Dec. 3, 4 & 5, 1990! o In situ Permeability Test Dec. 19, 1990

| This field trip report presents the observations noted by FPCpersonnel during the above noted activities. Unless otherwise

{ noted within the text, PCR followed the approved RI/FS workplan.

! 1.1 List of InspectorsL

Christopher Cherniak Sharon E. Schaeffer|__ Environmental Engineer Environmental Scientist

CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATIONI / 992 Old Eagle School Road 992 Old Eagle School Road

Suite 919 Suite 9191 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 ,— (215) 293-0450 (215) 293-0450

ft fi 3-0 0.3 8 8

Aaron Frantz Laurie WylieGeologist GeologistCOM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION992 Old Eagle School Road 992 Old Eagle School RoadSuite 919 Suite 919Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087(215) 293-0450 (215) 293-0450

Kathy Garris Dan GilroyEnvironmental Engineer Chemical EngineerCOM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION992 Old Eagle School Road 13135 Lee Jackson MemorialSuite 919 HighwayWayne, Pennsylvania 19087 Suite 200(215) 293-0450 Fairfax, VA 22033

(703) 968-0900

Donna McCartney PhiHip RotsteinWork Assignment Manager Hydrogeologist

I United States Environmental United States Environmentali.Protection Agency Protection Agency

| 841 Chestnut Building 841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107 Philadelphia, PA 19107

r*- 1.2 PRP Representatives

L Prime Field Contractor - Paul C. Rizzo & Associates (PCR)

Matthew Brill " Dave CaballeroField Coordinator Field TechnicianPaul C. Rizzo & Associates Paul C. Rizzo & Associates220 Continental Drive 220 Continental DriveSuite 311 Suite 311Newark, Delaware 19713 Newark Bei.aware 19713(302) 454-7902

itei

I

Bill Smith Jeff BertaProject Manager GeologistPaul C. Rizzo & Associates Paul C. Rizzo & Associates220 Continental Drive 220 Continental DriveSuite 311 Suite 311Newark, Delaware 19713 Newark, Delaware 19713(302) 454-7902 (302) 454-7902

Beth Ann Jenkins Andy TolheimerHealth and Safety Officer Environmental ScientistPaul C, Rizzo & Associates Paul C. Rizzo & Associates220 Continental Drive 220 Continental DriveSuite 311 Suite 311Newark, Delaware 19713 Newark, Delaware 19713(302) 454-7902 (302) 454-7902

Jim Ferguson Tom SayerGeologist ToxicologistPaul C. Rizzo & Associates Paul C. Rizzo & Associates220 Continental Drive 220 Continental DriveSuite 311 Suite 311Newark, Delaware 19713 Newark, Delaware 19713(302) 454-7902 (302) 454-7902

Drilling ContractorL*

Hardin-Huber Inc. (HHI)Maryland

2.0 OVERSIGHT OF SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

2.1 Introduction

Christopher Cherniak and Sharon Schaeffer, of FPC, performedoversight of the surface water and sediment sampling activitiesconducted by PCR on September 12 and 13, 1990. FPC also accepted

t split samples from selected locations along Nesquehoning Creek.In general, the weather each day was hazy with a temperature in thelow 80s (degree Fahrenheit). Representatives of PCR present at thesite for sample collection included Matt Brill and Dave Caballero.

Photographs taken during the field oversight are included inAttachment A.

L- 2.2 Methodology

i , The following sections describe the sampling methodology employedby PCR during the performance of the onsite activities, as well as

; the analytical requirements for the samples accepted by FPC. Thesampling locations were determined in conjunction with the EPA Work

j Assignment Manager prior to the initiation of onsite activities.i.

f' 2.2.1 Sample Collection ProceduresL? - PCR used the methodology described below to collect the surfacei-i water and sediment samples from Nesquehoning Creek.

L

PCR collected the surface water samples from an area in the middleof the stream at each sample location. The sample containers werefilled by holding them upstream of the sampler. The PCR and FPCcontainers for volatile organic analysis were filled first,followed by the remaining organic and inorganic sample aliquots.Each time a set of bottles was filled, the sampler walked firstdown then across the stream to drop off the samples and to obtaina new set of bottles. The sampler again walked downstream priorto heading towards the middle to resume sample collection. Thisreduced the possibility of disturbing the bottom sediment near thepoint of sampling.

For each sediment sample, PCR collected the samples from severalareas near the edge of the stream since there was very littlesediment in the middle of the stream. The area in which eachsample was collected covered approximately 100 square feet. Aswith the surface samples, the containers for volatile organicanalysis were filled first, followed by the remaining samplealiquots.

f —

i 2.2.2 Sample Analysis and Quality Control Samples

I The split samples accepted by FPC were submitted to Contracti ,. --

Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories for Target Compounds List\ (TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) analyses. The samples for^" organic analysis were shipped to ETC/Toxicon Inc. of Baton Rouge,* Louisiana. The inorganic and cyanide fractions of the samples wereLa shipped to Centech Analytical Services Inc. of Salem, Virginia.

\ •j^ In executing this task, FPC provided the laboratories with the

quality control samples described below. These samples were||: "collected" during the course of the onsite sampling activities and

were handled with the field samples in accordance with the'*• applicable EPA and CLP guidelines.

The quality control samples provided with each shipment includedthe following:

o Solid and aqueous samples to be used for matrix spiking;o An organic and inorganic equipment blank;o Solid and aqueous duplicate samples;o An organic trip blank.

Both the "samples to be used for matrix sspiking" and the duplicatesamples were split samples collected at the same time as theregular samples.

2.3 Observations

The following observations were noted during the surface water andsediment sampling activities.

o Prior to initiation of sampling, split samples were tobe accepted by FPC at station NC-6 and NC-1 or NC-2 .Since PCR was doing a full scan at station NC-5, it wasdecided that FPC would take siplit samples here insteadof station NC-6. Split samples for a full scan analysiswere also taken at NC-2.

o The location of NC-5 is 100 feet downstream of theoutfall pipe (see photo R1P15) , near the corner of thelandfill and lagoon.

o During the sampling of station NC-5, an oily film wasnoted along the sides of the sstream. Little vegetation

0 .existed at the center of the stream. A seep was notedbehind the sampling area.

i

Sampling of station NC-5 was performed on both oversightdays. Both organic and inorganic surface water sampleswere taken on September 12, 1990. The decision was madethat sediment sampling would be collected the followingday due to the length of time it took to filter theinorganic surface water samples. By the time thesesamples were collected, it was dark. PCR and FPC wereonsite the next morning to complete the sediment samplingat this station.

On September 13, 1990, equipment blanks were prepared byFPC at station NC-5 using the equipment that PCR hademployed to collect the samples. The organic andunf iltered inorganic blanks were prepared by pouring HPLCand DI water, respectively, over the sampling spoon usedin collecting sediment samples. The filtered inorganicblank was prepared by pouring DI water over the samplingspoon and into a 0.45 micron filter/funnel apparatus.All equipment (sampling spoon, filter and funnelapparatus) were decontaminated prior to collection ofthe equipment blank.

Sediment sampling collection occurred in an approximatearea of 100 square feet at both sampling stations due tothe nature of the stream bottom, which was quite rockywith little sediment available for collection.

o On September 14, 1990, PCR contacted both the EPA and FPCregarding their surface water sampling procedures. PCRused an incorrect filter size when obtaining thenecessary filtered surface water samples. A 1.5 micronfilter was used instead of the required 0.45 micronfilter. As a result, PCR took a portion of theunfiltered inorganic sample and filtered that through a0.45 micron filter. In addition, the 1.5 micronfiltered samples were discarded. FPC contacted EPACentral Regional Laboratory (CRL) to inquire if a similarprocedure could be performed on FPC's samples. Thiscould not be done. Therefore, EPA's filtered resultswill reflect the surface water which was filtered througha 1.5 micron filter.

o The sampling sites, the approximate location and theselected split sampling points were as follows:

Station Approx. Location Split Sample

NC-10 Downstream of Dennison —Creek/Nesquehoning Creekconfluence

NC-9 Upstream of above —confluence

NC-8 Bear Creek, near north-west corner of the site

NC-7 thru As outlined in PCR's NC-5,NC-1 ' Workplan NC-2

Sampling began at station NC-10 and proceeded upstreamto station NC-1.

L

L

I

Oversight of PCR sampling activities at stations NC-1 andNC-8 was not performed by FPC due to strict timeconstraints on sample shipping (FPC had to ship thecollected samples by the close of business on Thursday,September 13, 1990).

Monitoring of ambient air quality with the Hnu photoanalyzer revealed no detectable concentrations of organicvapors.

A seep near station NC-7 was sampled with a pH stick andregistered a reading of approximately 5.0.

3.0 OVERSIGHT OF LANDFILL LEACHATE SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

3.1 Introduction

Christopher Cherniak, of FPC, performed oversight of the landfillleachate sampling activities conducted by PCR on October 2, 1990.FPC accepted split samples from one location, station L-2. Theweather was clear and breezy, with a temperature in the low 50's(degree Fahrenheit). Representatives of PCR present at the siteincluded Matt Brill and Dave Caballero.

Photographs taken during the field oversight are included inAttachment B.

3.2 Methodology

t The following sections describe the sampling methodology employedi , by PCR during the performance of the onsite activities, as well as

the analytical requirements for the samples accepted by FPC. Thelocation at which FPC accepted split samples and the analyticalrequirements were determined with concurrence from the EPA Work

j Assignment Manager prior to the initiation of onsite activities.i

| 3.2.1 Sample Collection Procedure

t PCR used the methodology described below to collect the leachatei- samples from the manholes located within the landfill. The manhole( sampled is one of two within the landfill, which serves as accessI and collection points for a leachate collection system located

beneath the landfill. PCR collected samples using a thin-walled,|; collapsible, teflon bailer. The PCR and FPC containers for

volatile organic analysis were sampled first, followed by theremaining sample aliquots. The samples were bagged and then placedinto paint cans filled with vermiculite. The cans were then sealed

; with lids and placed into coolers filled with vermiculite.

*" 10

L ftR3-Q83!7

3.2.2 Sample Analysis and Quality Control Samples

The split samples accepted by FPC were scheduled to be submittedto a CLP laboratory for TCL and TAL analyses under the SpecialAnalytical Services (SAS) program. The split samples weredesignated high concentration samples since they were leachate.

In executing this task, FPC was to provide the laboratory with thequality control samples described below. These samples were"collected" during the course of onsite sampling activities andwere handled with the field samples in accordance with theapplicable EPA and CLP guidelines. The quality control samplesscheduled to be provided with the shipment included the following:

o duplicate samples which were split samples collected atthe same time as the regular samples.

Since the samples were not "pure" leachate (they appeared to be low,. concentration samples), FPC was unsure if they were to be sent toI a high concentration laboratory. On October 2, 1990, FPC notified

- CRL of this problem; CRL decided to accept the samples for analysisii at their laboratory. Since there was not adequate volume for lowi ,

concentration analysis, CRL advised FPC to combine original andI duplicate samples, cancel the pesticide and PCB analysis (since

this is not a concern at the site), and submit for analysis as one' ' sample. FPC submitted the samples on October 3, 1990, per CRLL • recommendations.t

[^ On October 4, 1990; CRL notified FPC that their laboratory wasrejecting the leachate samples since there was not enough volume

|;l to perform a low concentration analysis, the samples were notpreserved, and blanks were not sent.

11

On October 5, 1990, CRL notified FPC of their decision to screenthe VOA fraction of the leachate sample in an attempt to see if re-sampling was necessary. CRL reported that no compounds weredetected. CRL stated that it was not pos.sible to analyze for othercompounds (BNA or metals) because of the small volume available,no preservatives were used, nor any qua.lity control samples werecollected.

3.3 Observations

' The following observations were noted during the leachate samplingactivities.

o FPC received split samples at station L-2. PCR collected•; samples for a full-scan analysis at this station.t.

r • o PCR samples required no field filtering for metals.I. Samples were drawn from their containers at their,, laboratory and filtered there., It was decided prior to[ this time that FPC would not be collecting filtered

samples.

o A silt and mud layer was encountered approximately 2.0f" to 2.5 feet beneath the manhole water surface.L

o Ponded water was noted in the landfill. The water wasvery clear while the objects located at the center andsides were rusty-looking (see photo R2P5). Uponinspection, the landfill liner was noted as "Carlisle"brand. Many deer tracks were rioted in the mud and on theliner. The landfill contained mostly bakelite chips andother battery casing materials;.

12

I

L_

Conversation with PCR representatives revealed that dustin small green building (see photo R2P8) had arsenicreadings of 15% (150,000 ppm) and lead readings of 17%(170,000 ppm).

Conversation with RMC representative (company performingecological survey) revealed that they had collected troutin Bear, Dennison, and Nesquehoning Creeks using theshocking method. Trout were three to five inches long.They also commented that deer could be crawlingunderneath the fence to gain access to the site.

PCR representatives stated that the XRF (X-rayflorescence) had encountered calibration problems. Therange of concentrations onsite had varied greatly (lessthan 10 ppm to over 10,000 ppm lead) that the unit'srange had difficulty covering the site's range.

The two manholes do not have covers, and therefore, areexposed to storm events. At the time of sampling, thestanding water within the manhole sump was probablydiluted due to a recent storm event. Therefore, thesesamples were not considered a "pure" leachate in thesense that a leachate sample is typically not directlyexposed to rainfall.

13

RR380320

4.0 OVERSIGHT OF WELL DRILLING ACTIVITIES

4.1 Introduction

Aaron Frantz, of FPC, performed oversight of well drillingactivities conducted by PCR on October 9, 15, 16 and 17, 1990. Ingeneral, the weather was warm, with the temperature ranging fromthe mid 50s to the mid 70s (degree Fahrenheit) . The PCR

< representatives on site were Bill Smith, Matt Brill, Dave; . Caballero, Jeff Berta and Beth Ann Jenkins. Also present onsite

were the drilling operators and technicians of HHI.

Photographs taken during the field oversight are included inAttachment C.

1 4.2 Observations

,-- Two drilling methods were utilized during the four day observationL period. The hollow stem auger was the first method. Drilling with

two rigs commenced at MW-10D and MW-18D, simultaneously. A split[ spoon soil sample was collected every two feet and scanned with a

PID ( photo ionization detector) for organic vapors and an XRF forj metals. Decontamination of the drill rig and auger tools consisted» ,

of a steam spray. The split spoons were decontaminated with a[• seven step process: Alconox wash, potable water rinse, deionized

water rinse, 10% nitric acid wash, deionized water rinse, methanolr wash and deionized water rinse.L

After several attempts at both monitoring well locations to advance\^ the bore hole to the' required depth, the method was abandoned. The

unconsolidated material at the site consisted of many cobbles andig boulders which impeded the drilling of the hollow stem auger. At

MW-10D, the lead auger's cutting teeth were broken off by thef stones and at MW-18D, the head auger was snapped off the. auger^ series among boulders at a depth of twenty feet and could not beT retrieved.

14

I

After EPA's consent, air rotary was the second drilling methodused. At MW-10, bedrock was interpreted to be encountered at 68feet. No bedrock cuttings were emitted from the boring, however,a red, silty sand was encountered that did not change in appearancefrom the depth to the bottom of the boring (99 feet) . The bedrockwas interpreted to be 68 feet since there was a constant rig airpressure from that depth and below, no lithology changes wereobserved, and the depth is compatible with logs of nearby wells.

Summary of Well Construction at MW-10AMW-10A: 2 inch PVC casing with protective steel casing.Grout: 63.5 ft. - 0 ft.Bentonite; 63.5 ft. - 66 ft.Sand: 80 ft. - 66 ft. (Screen 68 ft - 78 ft.)Bentonite: 85 ft. - 80 ft.MW-18D had not been completed as of FPC's site departure date.

Air Rotary methods were not sufficient to install MW-19 because theborehole collapsed during drilling activity. As a result, wellcasing was lost and the borehole was subsequently abandoned. The

| drilling rig was then equipped with an ODEX system casing advancer.This system advanced the casing simultaneously with the drill. A

[ new borehole was successfully drilled at this location. Followingthis incident , the ODEX system was employed at the. remainingdrilling locations.I:

j- During the drilling of MW-19, drilling fluids and cuttings wereL noted flowing down the entrance way over the Nesquehoning Creek

Bridge and into a ditch along the active railroad bed. Eventually|a this flow discharged into Nesquehoning Creek via a discharge pipe

a few hundred feet downstream (see photo R4P14). The resultingL: discharge turned the entire stream silty. The one discharge event

noted and photographed by Chris Cherniak lasted approximately 30r minutes. Matt Brill was notified of this and later that .day a

large trench 3 to 4 feet deep was excavated along the entrance wayfor the drilling fluids to collect and percolate through the soil.

15

Afi300322

After EPA's consent, air rotary was the second drilling methodused. At MW-10, bedrock was interpreted to be 68 feet below ground

' level. This interpretation was made from the followinginformation: there was a constant rig air pressure from that depthand below, no lithology changes were observed, and the depth wascompatible with logs of nearby wells. No bedrock cuttings wereemitted from the boring, however, a red, silty sand was encounteredthat did not change in appearance from the depth to the bottom of

r the boring (99 feet).i .

Summary of Well Construction at MW-10Aj MW-10A: 2 inch PVC casing with protective steel casing.

Grout: 63.5 ft. - 0 ft.Bentonite: 63.5 ft. - 66 ft.Sand: 80 ft. - 66 ft. (Screen 58 ft - 78 ft.)Bentonite: 85 ft. - 80 ft.

i^ MW-18D had not been completed as of FPC's site departure date.F 'i Air Rotary methods were not sufficient to install MW-19 because the

borehole collapsed during drilling activity. As a result, wellI casing was lost and the borehole was subsequently abandoned. The

drilling rig was then equipped with an ODEX casing advancer, whichI advanced the casing and drill simultaneously. A new borehole was

successfully drilled at this location. Following this incident,the ODEX system was employed at the remaining drilling locations.L:

f- During the drilling of MW-19, drilling fluids and cuttings wereL noted flowing down the entrance way over the Nesquehoning Creek, Bridge and into a ditch along the active railroad bed. Eventuallyi this flow discharged into Nesquehoning Creek via a discharge pipe

a few hundred feet downstream (see photo R4P14). The resultingI 'i discharge turned the entire stream silty. The one discharge event

noted and photographed by Chris Cherniak lasted approximately 30? minutes. Matt Brill was notified of this and later that .day a~ large trench 3 to 4 feet deep was excavated along the entrance wayI, for the drilling fluids to collect and percolate through the soil.

**" 15I &R300323

5.0 OVERSIGHT OF SOIL AND LANDFILL TEST PIT SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

5.1 Introduction

Christopher Cherniak and Laurie Wylie (October 24, 1990 only), ofFPC, performed oversight of the soil and landfill test pit samplingactivities conducted by PCR on October 24, 25, 26, 31, and December1, 1990. FPC also accepted split samples from selected locationsonsite. Representatives of PCR onsite were Matt Brill, DaveCaballero, and Andy Tolheimer. A HHI representative was presentduring all sampling activities, operating the backhoe equipment.

Photographs taken during the filed oversight are included inAttachment D.

5.2 Methodology

The following sections describe the sampling methodology employedby PCR during the performance of onsite activities, as well as the

: - analytical requirements for the samples accepted by FPC. The— sampling locations were detearmined in conjunction with the EPA Work

Assignment Manager prior to the initiation of onsite activities.Dave Caballero was responsible for operating the in situ lead

; analysis unit, or XRF. Andy Tolheimer was responsible foroverseeing the excavation activities and assisting Dave incollecting soil samples.

5.2.1 Sample Collection ProceduresI „

PCR used the methodology described below to collect the soil and! j landfill test pit samples from the site.

16

PCR used backhoe equipment at all sampling locations. Soil sampleswere collected at the following intervals: 0 to 6 inches, 1.5 feet,3.0 feet, 5.0 feet and 10.0 feet depths. Each sample was screenedwith the XRF and PID for lead and volatile organic chemicals(VOCs) , respectively. Excavation continued until XRF readings were"zero" (i.e. less than the device's standard deviation of 175 ppm) .Once excavation was halted, two intesrvals were selected forsampling. This typically included the interval with the highestXRF reading and the deepest interval. FPC accepted a single splitsample from each test pit location. For sample screeningactivities of the three foot depth or less, Dave Caballero wouldenter the trench and record measurements in situ from the trench'ssidewall. At depths greater than three feet ( 5 and 10 footintervals), XRF readings were acquired by testing a pile ofrepresentative soil collected by the backhoe. VOC readings werealso measured at each interval. No VOC concentrations abovebackground were ever detected.

PCR collected all soil samples with a stainless-steel spoon. Thesample from each depth was placed separately into stainless- steelmixing bowls. Samples collected from trenches less than three feetin depth were collected directly from the side-wall, while trenchesgreater in depth were sampled via segregated soil piles.

Sample bottles for volatile organic analysis were filled as soonas possible after removing soil from the trench and packed tightlyin the appropriate containers with as little air space betweengrains and cap. The remaining soil was mixed thoroughly in thesteel bowl and placed into the appropriate containers. Uponcompletion, the trench was backfilled and compacted with thebackhoe.

AH30G32S

Landfill test pit sampling followed similar procedures, however thewater table was approximately 6 inches below land surface. Thisin combination with the material type (battery chips) resulted inthe XRF not being able to record lead levels (XRF does not operatein moist soil environments). Because the material excavatedappeared consistent in type, size and makeup, only one sampleinterval was collected.

5.2.2 Sample Analysis and Quality Control Samples

The landfill test pit split samples accepted by FPC were submittedto a CLP laboratory for TCL parameter analysis only, under the SASprogram. The samples were shipped to Silver Valley Labs ofKellogg, Idaho.

FPC provided the laboratory with the quality control samplesdescribed below: \

o a duplicate sampleo a sample to be used for matrix spiking

All soil split samples accepted by FPC were submitted to CLPlaboratories for TAL and cyanide analysis. Only two split sampleswere submitted for TCL analysis. The samples for organic analysiswere shipped to PEI Associates INc. of Cincinnati, Ohio. Theinorganic and cyanide fractions of the samples were shipped toAssociated Laboratories of Orange, California.

FPC provided the laboratories with the quality control samplesdescribed below:

o an organic trip blanko organic and inorganic duplicate sampleso samples to be used for matrix spiking

18

ftS-30 0-326

Both the "samples to be used for matrix spiking" and the duplicatesamples were split samples collected at the same time as theregular samples.

Figure 1 presents the test pit locations while Table 1 presents theconcentrations of lead detected at each sampled interval using theXRF.

5.3 Observations

o Due to the conditions of the site from the previous daysrain, soil sampling conducted on October 24, 1990, didnot commence until the mid-afternoon, when the soil wasmuch drier.

*- o Soil sample station S-19 was located in a paved area;• •. therefore, the initial soil sample was not collected• , until approximately one foot in depth was reached.

r -

I o The XRF operated with a standard deviation of 175 ppm.XRF measurements that are recorded are the average of

| five readings using 30 second measuring intervals. A"zero" reading was considered a concentration less than

f" 175 ppm.L.

» • o At soil sample station S-15, water was flowing into theL trench approximately six feet: from top of ground. FPC

accepted split sample and duplicate at this location, at[^ the 9.0 foot depth interval. The soil was wet, thus, no

XRF readings were taken.

19

M3GQ327

Both the "samples to be used for matrix spiking" and the duplicatesamples were split samples collected at the same time as theregular samples.

Figure 1 presents the test pit locations while Table 1 presents theconcentrations of lead detected at each sampled interval using theXRF.

5.3 Observations

o Due to the conditions of the site from the previous daysrain, soil sampling conducted on October 24, 1990, didnot commence until the mid-afternoon, when the soil wasmuch drier.

o Soil sample station S-19 was located in a paved area;therefore, the initial soil sample was not collecteduntil approximately one foot in depth was reached. PCR'sresult will show that at this location the 0 to 6 inchr •

I interval is "zero" for lead.

i o The XRF operated with a standard deviation of 175 ppm.XRF measurements that are recorded are the average of

| five readings using 30 second measuring intervals. A*•• "zero" reading was considered a concentration less thanr 175 ppm.

o At soil sample station S-15, water was flowing into the[ trench approximately six feet from top of ground. FPC

accepted split sample and duplicate at this location, atf • the 9.0 foot depth interval. The soil was wet, thus, no

XRF readings were taken.

19

W300328

NOT TO SCALE

1J.GEND• SOIL SAMPLE

(0 TO 10 FEET BELOWGRADE; UP TO TWOSAMPLES PER LOCATION)

• LANDFILL TEST PFTSAMPLE

• S-4PLASTIC SCRAPS STORAGE

• LTP-1LANDFILL

LTP-2

•S-37

COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION

SOIL AND TEST PIT SAMPLING LOCATIONSTONOLLI SITE

NESQUEHONING. PENNSYLVANIA

FIGURE NO.

ISea

L &R3Q0329

TABLE 1

FIELD SOIL SAMPLE STATION

LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)

Depth Station No.

S-19 S-16 S-10 S-15 S-8 S-4

0-6 inches a 2,133 6,417b a 7,812b 5,867

1.5 ft. 6,850 l,123b <175 12,900 444 3,247b

3 ft. 312b'c <175b'c <175b'c <175b 344 463

5 ft. <175b NT NT 3,122 <175b'c <175b'c

10 ft. NT NT NT b,C,d NT NT

Depth Station No.

S-33 S-30 S-40 S-6 S-37

0-6 inches 2,525 <175 7,980 9,969 <175b'c

1.5 ft. 8,125b 636 17,580 <175b <175

3 ft. 829 876 973 <175 <175

5 ft. 373 272 6473 NT NT

10 ft. b'c'e <175b'c 438b'c NT NT

All concentrations are based on an average of five separatereadings recorded using 30 second measuring intervals per reading.The XRF's standard deviation was 175 ppm. Therefore, any valueobtained which was less than the standard deviation is reported asless than 175 ppm.

a. Asphalt/concrete cover. No readings recorded.b. Samples collected by PCR for lab analysis.c. Sample split by FPC for lab analysis.d. Soil too moist to measure with XRF. Sample collected at nine

feet.e. Soil too moist to measure with XRF. Sample collected at eight

feet.NT - Not tested.

21

o Station S-4 was trenched into a section of the chip pileon its northwest side. The backhoe pushed aside aportion of the chip pile prior to excavation. FPCaccepted split samples at station S-4 at 5.0 depth.

o Landfill test pit #2 consisted of battery chips with awhitish sludge periodically mixed in. Because this wasthe only landfill station which exhibited this sludge,the samples collected from this location consisted onlyof this sludge. Therefore, analytical results for thisstation reflect chemical characteristics of the sludgeand not the battery chips.

o FPC typically selected the deeper of the two soil samplesper test pit as the "split" sample. This was done to

L" support or verify the XRF's low range detectionr capability and verify the vertical extent of lead

contamination.

22

ft«38033l

6.0 OVERSIGHT OF MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT

6.1 Introduction

On November 27, 1990, FPC conducted oversight of the developmentof four monitoring wells. In general, the weather was cool andcloudy with the temperature in the mid-forties (degree Fahrenheit) .The FPC representative present onsite was Kathy Garris. Alsopresent were Matt Brill of PCR and Ben Fuller and Don Saint Meyerof HHI.

6.2 Methodology

The monitoring wells developed on this date included MW-11S, MW-14S, MW-15S and MW-18S. FPC did not observe the final developmentof wells MW-11S and MW-18S due to the lateness in the day that thefinal development occurred. All wells were developed via a suctionpump and surge block. The specific conductance, pH, andtemperature were recorded prior to and during development of each

[ well. Water was purged until all parameters were stabilized. Thepurge water from each well was drummed and then disposed of in thedrain of the decontamination pad located onsite.

\l 6.3 ObservationsL

L HHI drilled "weep" holes in the sides of the well casingsso that water would not build up around the casing and

•*possibly freeze there.

A suction pump was used to purge the wells instead of asubmersible or bladder pump specified in the responsibleparty's workplan. MW-18S was initially purged by suctionpumps but due to the low recharge rate, purging wascontinued by bailer.

23

i

7.0 OVERSIGHT OF GROUNDWATER WELL SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

7.1 Introduction

On December 3, 4, and 5, 1990, Chris Cherniak and Dan Gilroy(December 3, 1990 only) of FPC conducted oversight of thegroundwater sampling activities conducted by PCR. FPC alsoaccepted split samples from selected locations around the site.The weather over the three days ranged from rainy and snowy toclear, cold and windy with the temperature in the mid-thirties(degree Fahrenheit) the first day, in the low-forties the secondday, and down to the upper twenties the last day. The PCRpersonnel onsite were Matt Brill, Dave Caballero, Andy Tolheimerand Tom Sayer.

7.2 Methodology

The following sections describe the sampling methodology employedby PCR during the performance of the onsite activities, as well asthe analytical requirements for the samples accepted by FPC. Thesampling locations were determined in conjunction with the EPA WorkAssignment Manager prior to the initiation of the onsiteactivities. Samples were split from a background well (MW-10), a

! down-gradient well (MW-15), and a well suspected of containingl" organics (MW-16).

lj 7.2.1 Sample Collection Proceduresv

I „ PCR used the methodology described below to collect the groundwatersamples from monitoring wells located onsite.

t **

24

ftR300333

The water level and total depth were determined and one well volumewas calculated. From three to five well volumes were then purgedfrom the well using a surface centrifugal pump with a dedicatedblack, 2 inch, PVC tubing. A stainless-steel bailer with adedicated polypropylene rope was used for bailing when the pumpcould not purge the well properly. Purged water was collected ina lined trash can (plastic trash can lined with a plastic garbagebag). The purge water was then transported to and disposed of inthe onsite treatment plant.

The volatile organic samples were collected first by dropping thebailer to the bottom of the well. The remaining samples were thenobtained by lowering the bailer just below the water surface andobtaining water from the upper quarter of the wetted portion of thewell..

7.2.2 Sample Analysis and Quality Control Samples

t. The split samples accepted by FPC were submitted to Contract! Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratories for Target Compound Lists

(TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) analyses. During the samplingt

; event, the samples for organic analysis were shipped to Southwests .Research Institute (SWRI), San Antonio, Texas. The inorganic

|' samples were shipped to Keystone Environmental Resources (KEYPA),Monroeville, Pennsylvania.

• . In executing this task, FPC provided the laboratories with the, . quality control samples described below. These samples were; "collected" during the course of the onsite sampling activities and

were handed with the field samples in accordance with the\ '• applicable EPA and CLP guidelines. The quality control samplestLu

included in the following:

25

Ao a duplicate sample ^o an organic trip blank for each shipment of organicso a sample to be used from matrix spikingo an organic and inorganic equipment blank

7.3 Observations

The following observations were noted during the onsite groundwaterwell sampling activities.

o FPC provided oversight and split sample acceptance at thefollowing monitoring wells: MW-16S, MW-20S (duplicate ofMW-16S), MW-16D,MW-10D, MW-10S, MW-15S, and MW-15D.

o Due to the slow filtering time and the weatherconditions, the samples to be filtered were collected ateach monitoring well and then sent inside to the fieldoffice lab to be filtered. Samples were initiallyscreened through a 1.5 micron fiberglass pre-filterfollowed by a 0.45 micron filter.

o The equipment blanks were collected by the followingprocedures. Organic blanks were collected with HPLCwater. The HPLC water was poured through thedecontaminated bailer and then into their respectivecontainers. The bailer was rinsed once with DI water,then refilled for the collection of the inorganicfractions. Filtered metal blanks were poured into glassjars and "then through 0.45 micron filter into theirrespective containers. PCR collected their blanks byrunning their own "blank" water through the same bailer.PCR's equipment blanks were: collected following thecompletion of FPC's blank collection.

o Groundwater conditions at all the wells FPC collectedsplit samples from were typically silty and rust-colored.

o Deviations from applicable EPA and CLP guidelines onFPC's split sampling paper work were as follows (seeAttachment E for ):

- The organic sample containers shipped on December3, 1990 (including stations MW-16S, MW-20S(duplicate of MW-16S) and MW-16D) were mislabeled.Separate organic traffic report numbers were givento the VOA and BNA fractions when, in fact, allorganic samples should have been labeled with thesame number. Also, the Pesticide and PCB column onthe chain of custody was not marked.

EPA CRL notified FPC the following day and suggestedthat CLP sample numbers CEP49, 50 and 54 (used tolabel BNA fraction) be terminated and relabeledCEP51, 52 and 53, respectively (used to label VOA

i fraction). A memo to file was written and sent toi

the appropriate offices along with the originalf organic traffic report labels. Also noted in the1" memo was the correction to the chain of custody int respect to notifying the laboratory performing theL analysis to analyze for pesticide and PCB.

27

11300336

L

- Several of the inorganic sample containersshipped on December 6, 1990, (including stations MW-10D, MW-10S, MW-15S, MW-15D and Equipment Blank)were mislabeled. The same inorganic traffic reportnumbers were given to both filtered and unfilteredmetal fractions when, in fact, they should have beenlabeled separate numbers,, EPA CRL notified FPC thefollowing Monday (December 10, 1990) and suggestedthat separate CLP sample numbers be given to thefiltered fractions. A memo to file was written andsent to the appropriate offices along withadditional inorganic traffic report labels.

28

5B30Q337

8.0 OVERSIGHT OF IN-SITU PERMEABILITY TEST

8.1 Introduction

On December 12, 1990, Christopher Cherniak, of FPC, conductedoversight of the in-situ permeability (slug) tests performed by PCRon the monitoring wells at the site. The weather was cloudy, windyand cold with temperatures in the low 40's. Onsite forPCR was Matt Brill and Jim Ferguson. The objective of thisactivity was to oversee the PCR's performance of the slug test. Aslug test measures the permeability of the geology in the vicinityof the monitoring well screen.

Photographs taken during the field oversight are included inAttachment E.

8.2 Methodology

The testing procedures were performed as follows:

1. Static water levels were measured using an "M-scope"(water level recorder).

2. A transducer was lowered down the well close to theF ' bottom of the well. The transducer cord was then securedL- with duct tape to prevent vertical movement of ther • transducer.L_ 3. The data logger (Hermit Model SE1000B) was prepared and

readied for testing.^ 4. A "slug" of solid PVC tubing 8 feet in length (volume

unknown) was the lowered via polypropylene rope into theI well and temporarily secured at a point just above the

static water level.

29

fiR300338

5. Once the data logger was ready and a timer set, the PVCslug was lowered into the well as quickly and quietly aspossible (i.e. limiting water disturbance). Thiscommenced the falling head test. Data entry continuedwith readings taken on a logarithmic frequency. Readingscontinued for 10 minutes or until the static headreadings recorded by the data logger stabilized (i.e.value remained constant). The falling head test was thencompleted.

6. The data logger was then reset and readied for the risinghead test.

7. The rising head test was then performed by removing thePVC tube from the wetted portion of the well. Readingswere taken in a similar manner as the falling head tests.

8. Once completed, the slug and transducer were removed fromthe well. The slug was decontaminated with deionizedwater prior to insertion into the next well.

8.3 Observations

The following observations were noted:

o Slug testing was observed by FPC at MW-19S, MW-13S andMW-l4s. No deviations were noted with respect to eithertest methodology or health and safety requirements.

30

ATTACHMENT A

o

R1P10 - Looking south towards the confluence of Dennison Creekand Nesquehoning Creek.

R1P12 - Overview of seep area located along the north bank ofNesquehoning Creek near culm piles.

R1P13 - Looking northwest at close-up of seep located alongthe north bank of Nesquehoning Creek.

R1P16 - Streamwater sampling (VOAs) by RP staff at stationNC-5 along Nesquehoning Creek.

R1P14 - Streamwater sampling by RPs at station NC-7 alongNesquehoning Creek.

R1P15 - Looking west at outfall pipe located on the north bankof Nesquehoning Creek, 100 ft. upstream of station

R1P17 - Streamwater sampling (Ambers) by RP staff at stationNC-2 along Nesquehoning Creek. Includes in situmeasurements (temperature, specific conductance, pH,and oxygen potential).

6R30631*6

R1P19 - Reference photo of station NC-2 in relation tosurroundings.

ATTACHMENT B

RR3003H8

R2P2 - Facing west, looking at leachate sampling set-up atmanhole L-2 on landfill.

R2P3 - Bailer equipment used in the leachate samplingof manhole L-2 in landfill.

R2P4 - Sampling of manhole L-2 using bailer equipment.

AR3GG35I

R2P5 - Looking southwest at ponded water within the landfill,Water is very clear while the objects to center andsides of pond are rusty-looking.

R2P6 - Overview of landfill, looking southwest.

60^00352

R2P7 - Looking south at overview of landfill. Notemanhole L-2 near the center of the photo.

R2P8 - Overview of Tonolli site, looking southeast, takenfrom upper northeast corner of the site.

R2P9 - Overview of Tonolli site, looking south, from uppernortheast corner of the site.

30035U

ATTACHMENT C

ftB300355

R3P1 - Drill rig with water and cuttings collection system atMW-18. View west*

R3P2 - Drill rig with water and cuttings collection system atMW-18. View is southwest.

HR300356

R3P3 - Drill rig with water and cuttings collection system atMW-18. View northeast.

R3P4 - Drill rig at MW-18. View northeast.

RR300357

R3P5 - View east at Mobile B-80 setup at MW-10.

R3P6 - View northwest at decontamination pad at MW-18.

ATTACHMENT D

,359

'"•2r'••''"' ''•t-%:--.'V"':->:v'';'"-..";.'.'''"..'. '""-'-•"'-v:-' ^ .-;•?: v->";>-••'•.^ ^ ^ p .y./V't-45'j:-''? "•"'"'••'-" C";/%'/ O'i ''.'/"'•••' '•.•'•.•'.•••-•• •;.;, '"••'.•'• 'V*'-' "'! '."_Jr.."">- "•"•'J*" f.-" ** -" *' - " ' "•' ^" .* *' - • '. , " • . ' — • * " • • * ? ' * *~ r>"*- 'V .'1£T ' _ •''_ •" • * -^r ~ " - ^ . . . * " • * * " " ' -** .'• ' * . . - > ^ '

R4P1 - Looking north at soil sample station S-19 withsmelting building in background.

j ^ i fee. --;.. -v ;•';•••' .\.-'-\-''--: j- :m ssm^ j i mm: -; - ' • . . :•-: :.f ^ • ^ ,?a??:R4P2 - Looking southeast at soil sample station S-19

Commencement of excavation.

R4P3 - RP staff taking PID measurements on excavated pileat soil sample station S-19.

R4P4 - RP staff taking XRF readings at the 1.5 ft. soildepth at soil sample station S-19.

R4P5 - Rock and soil taken from the 3.0 ft. soil depthat soil sample station S-19.

R4P6 - Looking in 5.5 ft. deep trench at soil samplelocation S-19.

R4P7 - Photo of soil collected at 3.0 ft. (foreground) and5.5 ft. depths at soil sample station S-19.

R4P8 - Looking northeast at start of excavation of soilsample station S-16.

RB3Q0363

R4P9 - Photo of RP staff collecting measurements with the XRFat the 3.0 ft. depth for soil sample station S-10.

R4P10 - Looking southwest at overview of excavation at soilsample location S-15.

.R300365

R4P11 - Looking in 9.0 ft. deep trench, soil sample locationS-15.

R4P12 - Looking southeast at overview of excavation at soilsample station S-8.

R4P13 - Looking south at overview of excavation at soilsample location S-4.

R4P14 - Large volume of silty water exiting drainage pipe onthe south side of Nesquehoning Creek, across fromsouthwest corner of the lagoon. Silty runoff due towell installation operation at southwest corner wall.

_ SjfirV' i SS' iW-,-'"1"*- ' •v.l'i—•«•• "i—_ -»—• •• =5»

R4P15 - Looking southwest at excavation of soil samplingstation S-33.

R4P16 - Soil from sample location S-33 excavation, 5.0 ft.depth. Mostly river rock.

R4P17 - Looking northwest at excavation of soil sample stationS-30.

i\ •K

4-'r W

R4P18 - Soil excavated near 7.0' depth from soil samplestation S-30.

R4P19 - RP staff sampling with XRF equipment at a depth of3.0 ft. at soil sample station S-40.

R4P20 - Looking northeast at overview of excavation activityat soil sample location S-40.

• :>° <i**i>' ~*-\L----: WV.-ST' .5""""~ '5*s#&~

R4P21 - Excavation activity at landfill test pit TP-2.

ftR30037l

R4P22 - Pile of landfill material removed from landfill testpit TP-2 at a depth of 5.0 feet. Note whitish sludgematerial.

R4P23 - Looking northeast at overview of landfill test pitTP-1 excavation.

R4P24 - Looking southwest at overview of soil sample stationS-37 excavation.

*$,.Jii'.; ^"*£ --&S3m*%' •«•£? ->* i • -*»«wft, 'ty f fS "

R4P25 - Looking south at excavation of landfill test pitTP-3.

ATTACHMENT E

R5P2 - Photo of PVC slug and monitoring equipment.

R5P4 - Calibrating Hermit Model SE1000B.

1