f A Halliburton Company

D-31-9-4-5DRAFTMI-J2-RI/FS-D(3H

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

VOLUME I

MILLCREEK SITEERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

EPA WORK ASSIGNMENTNUMBER 60-3L60

CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-6699

NUS PROJECT NUMBER S778

AUGUST 1985c

NUSCXDRPORATOSI

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

VOLUME I

MILLCREEK SITEERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

EPA WORK ASSIGNMENTNUMBER 60-3L60

CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-6699

NUS PROJECT NUMBER S778

AUGUST 1985

SUBMITTED FOR NUS BY: APPROVED:

CATHERINE D. CHAMBERS DAVID E. MaclNTYREPROJECT MANAGER REGIONAL MANAGER

REGION III

Halliburton Company

Park West Two ' 'c&f (Cliff Mine Road

D-31-9-4-5DRAFTMI-J2-RI/FS-D(3)-I

DRAFT

CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-11.1 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 1-31.2 HISTORICAL SITE REMEDIATION 1-31.3 CONTENTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/ 1-4

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT (RI/FS)

2.0 SITE PHYSIOGRAPHY. DEMOGRAPHY, AND LAND 2-1AND WATER USE

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY 2-12.2 DEMOGRAPHY 2-42.3 LAND USE AND WATER SUPPLY 2-4

3.0 CLIMATOLOGY 3-1

4.0 HYDROLOGY 4-14.1 HYDROLOGIC SETTING 4-14.2 FLOOD POTENTIAL 4-44.3 SURFACE WATER INFILTRATION 4-5

5.0 SOILS 5-1

6.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 6-16.1 Rl FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 6-16.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 6-86.3 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY 6-96.4 HYDROGEOLOGY 6-18

7.0 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND PROBABLE TRANSPORT OF 7-1CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS

7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-17.2 SCOPE OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 7-37.3 OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS 7-107.3.1 AIR 7-127.3.2 DRUM SAMPLE RESULTS 7-137.3.3 SOIL 7-137.3.4 GROUNDWATER 7-437.3.5 SURFACE WATERS AND SEDIMENTS 7-657.4 MIGRATION 7-757.4.1 AIR/SOIL INTERFACE 7-837.4.2 SURFACE WATER/SOIL INTERFACE 7-84

DRAFT

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

SECTION PAGE

7.4.3 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE SOIL INTERFACE 7-857.4.4 GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER INTERFACE 7-867.4.5 SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT INTERFACE 7-897.4.6 SURFACE WATER/AIR INTERFACE 7-897.5 CONCLUSIONS 7-89

8.0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 8-18.1 INTRODUCTION 8-18.2 POTENTIAL EXPOSURES 8-38.2.1 SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION 8-38.2.2 ROUTES OF TRANSPORT 8-48.2.3 RECEPTORS 8-68.3 SELECTION OF THE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 8-88.4 POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS 8-128.4.1 VINYL CHLORIDE 8-308.4.2 TRICHLOROETHENE (TCE) 8-428.4.3 1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENE 8-458.4.4 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 8-468.4.5 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 8-478.4.6 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE ' 8-498.4.7 BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 8-508.4.8 NAPHTHALENE 8-528.4.9 BENZO(A)PYRENE 8-538.4.10 PCB-1248 8-558.4.11 LEAD 8-568.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 8-588.6 CONCLUSIONS 8-61

9.0 SITE REMEDIATION CONSIDERATIONS 9-19.1 REGULATIONS GOVERNING SITE REMEDIATION 9-19.2 REMEDIATION CONSIDERATIONS 9-3

REFERENCES R-1

iii

DRAFT

TABLES

NUMBER PAGE

ES-1 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ES-7ES-2 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL AND ES-8

PRESENT-WORTH COSTS3-1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR 1942-1981 3-2

RECORD STATION: ERIE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT3-2 PRECIPITATION, TEMPERATURE AND WIND DATA 3-3

COLLECTED DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFIELD STUDY PERIOD

4-1 WATER BALANCE AT THE MILLCREEK SITE 4-66-1 MONITORING WELL ELEVATIONS AND SCREENED INTERVALS 6-36-2 PHYSICAL TESTING RESULTS, TILL SAMPLES 6-156-3 GROUNDWATER LEVELS 6-216-4 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUES 6-267-1 SCOPE OF SAMPLING AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA 7-4

BASE, ERT INVESTIGATION7-2 SCOPE OF SAMPLING AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA 7-5

BASE, FIT INVESTIGATION7-3 SCOPE OF SAMPLING AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA 7-6

BASE, PADER INVESTIGATION7-4 SCOPE OF SAMPLING AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA 7-8

BASE, NUS INVESTIGATION7-5 FIT DRUM SAMPLE RESULTS 7-147-6 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN ONSITE 7-16

SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (27 SAMPLES OBTAINEDBY NUS 8/18/84)

7-7 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN SURFACE 7-17SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED ON AND IN THEIMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE MILLCREEK SITE(23 TOTAL SAMPLES OBTAINED BY ERT 11/82)

7-8 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN 7-19ONSITE SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (TEST PITSAND WELL BORINGS) (34 SAMPLES OBTAINED BY NUS)

7-9 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN 7-21SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES(22 SAMPLES OBTAINED BY ERT)

7-10 INORGANIC BACKGROUND LEVELS IN SOIL FROM 7-33TWO SAMPLES COLLECTED BY NUS CORPORATION INFRONTIER PARK

7-11 OFFSITE SOIL CONTAMINANTS 7-44SAMPLED BY NUS CORPORATION (8/18/84)

IV

58000005

DRAFT

TABLES (CONTINUED)

NUMBER

7-12 HSL ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SUBSTANCESIDENTIFIED IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES(12 SAMPLES COLLECTED BY ERT (12/5/82)

7-13 HSL ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SUBSTANCES 7-49IDENTIFIED IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES(SEVEN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY PADER 7/84 - 1/85

7-14 HSL ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SUBSTANCES 7-50IDENTIFIED IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES[21 SAMPLES COLLECTED BY NUS (8/14/84)]

7-15 pH VALUES FOR GROUNDWATER 7-61(MARCH 29, 1985)

7-16 YODER WELL RESULTS MADE AVAILABLE TO NUS 7-627-17 HSL ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SUBSTANCES 7-66

IDENTIFIED IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES(EIGHT SAMPLES COLLECTED BY NUS 08/17/84)

7-18 HSL ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SUBSTANCES 7-67IDENTIFIED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES(ELEVEN SAMPLES COLLECTED BY NUS 08/17/84)

7-19 INORGANIC BACKGROUND LEVELS IN SEDIMENT 7-68(UPSTREAM SAMPLE FROM MARSHALL'S RUN)

7-20 SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT 7-72ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS DETECTED BYPADER/ERT/AND FIT

7-21 MIGRATORY BEHAVIOR PARAMETERS FOR HSL 7-76ORGANIC CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED AT THEMILLCREEK SITE

8-1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN1 8-138-2a CRITICAL CONTAMINANTS - CHEMICAL TOXICITY 8-15

PARAMETERS18-2b CRITICAL CONTAMINANTS - BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY 8-18

PARAMETERS18-3a CRITICAL CONTAMINANTS - ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE 8-23

CRITERIA18-3b ESTIMATED CANCER RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INGESTION OF 8-28

SOME CONTAMINANTS AT THE CONCENTRATIONS OBSERVED8-4a CONTAMINANTS FOUND ABOVE DETECTION LIMITS IN THE 8-31

VARIOUS MEDIA DURING THE Rl8-4b CONTAMINANTS FOUND ABOVE DETECTION LIMITS IN THE 8-33

VARIOUS MEDIA DURING THE Rl8-4c CONTAMINANTS FOUND ABOVE DETECTION LIMITS IN THE 8-36

VARIOUS MEDIA DURING THE Rl8-4d CONTAMINANTS FOUND ABOVE DETECTION LIMITS IN THE 8-39

VARIOUS MEDIA DURING THE Rl

SB08QQ06

DRAFT

TABLES (CONTINUED)

NUMBER PAGE

8-5 AQUATIC TOXICITY DATA FOR CRITICAL CONTAMINANTS 8-598-6 SURFACE WATER LEAD CONCENTRATION AND AQUATIC 8-60

TOXICITY CRITERIA9-1 POTENTIAL REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES 9-49-2 POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES - 9-11

Vi

SR0000Q7

DRAFT

FIGURES

NUMBER PAGE

2-1 LOCATION MAP 2-22-2 SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES MAP 2-34-1 PLAN OF PROPERTY 4-25-1 SOILS MAP 5-26-1 MONITORING WELL AND TEST PIT LOCATIONS 6-26-2 GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN 6-106-3 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS 6-126-4 CONTOUR MAP OF NATURAL GROUND SURFACE 6-136-5 CONTOUR MAP OF TOP OF TILL 6-166-6 CONTOUR MAP OF TOP OF BEDROCK 6-176-7 CONTOUR MAP OF WATER TABLE 6-206-8 ISOCONCENTRATION MAP FOR 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 6-296-9 ISOCONCENTRATION MAP FOR ,1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 6-307-1 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, SURFACE SOIL 7-237-2 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, SURFACE SOIL 7-247-3a HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, SUBSURFACE SOIL 7-27

(TEST PIT SAMPLES)7-3b HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, SUBSURFACE SOIL 7-28

(WELL BORING SAMPLES)7-4 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, SUBSURFACE SOIL 7-297-5 TRACE ELEMENTS DETECTED ABOVE BACKGROUND, 7-34

SURFACE SOIL7-6a TRACE ELEMENTS DETECTED ABOVE BACKGROUND, 7-36

SUBSURFACE SOIL (TEST PIT SAMPLES)7-6b TRACE ELEMENTS DETECTED ABOVE BACKGROUND 7-37

SUBSURFACE SOIL (WELL BORING SAMPLES)7-7 TICs IN SURFACE SOILS 7-407-8a TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS, SUBSURFACE SOIL 7-41

(TEST PIT SAMPLES)7-8b TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS, SUBSURFACE SOIL 7-42

(WELL BORING SAMPLES)7-9 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, GROUNDWATER 7-537-10 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 7-547-11 TRACE ELEMENTS, GROUNDWATER 7-587-12 TRACE ELEMENTS, GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 7-597-13 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS, GROUNDWATER 7-64

SAMPLES7-14 HSL ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, SEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATER 7-697-15 TRACE ELEMENTS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER AND ABOVE 7-70

BACKGROUND IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES7-16 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUND CLASS, SURFACE 7-74

WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES

vii

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) report presents the results,first, of the Remedial Investigation (Rl) that was performed at the Millcreek Siteand, second, of the Feasibility Study (FS) of remedial action alternatives for thesite. The Rl, performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP),was designed to identify and characterize the source of contamination, thepathways of contaminant migration, and the potential human and environmentalreceptors of the contamination. It was also designed to evaluate the impact of thecontaminants on the receptors. The FS, using the results of the Rl, develops andpresents remedial action alternatives and their associated costs for remediation ofthe Millcreek Site.

The Site

The Millcreek Site is located in Millcreek Township in Erie County, Pennsylvania,near the Presque Isle Peninsula, southwest of the city of Erie. Foundry sand andslag were used as backfill at this 75-acre site, except for approximately 4 acresthat remain as a swamp in the southern portion of the site. The topography isrelatively flat, except for several mounds of foundry sand. Vegetation in thedumping areas is sparse. Junk cars, leveled buildings, and abandoned machinery arescattered on the surface.

The unpermitted landfill reportedly accepted from 1000 to 2000 drums containingdegreasers, oils, polyester resins, caustics, and paint sludges. The drum contentswere either dumped or the drums were buried in the fill. In addition, the site wasused for the disposal of bulk ink wastes and various demolition wastes, includingcreosote treated timbers, brick, and waste metals.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) discovered thesite in 1980 and advised the operator to cease landfill operations. In 1981, PADER

ES-1

"£

DRAFT

personnel observed the dumping of drums from a truck. In August of 1982, EPAmade a sampling trip to and performed an assessment of the site and notedapproximately 75 unsecured drums scattered across the site. In November andDecember of 1983, EPA removed the drums thought to be an immediate danger andinstalled a gate across the access road in an effort to control access to the site.

The site is bordered to the north, northeast, west, and northwest by residentialareas. Properties to the east of the site are periodically inundated with floodwaters from Marshall's Run, which separates the site from the homes.Approximately 1.2 miles downstream, Marshall's Run flows into Lake Erie. In 1981,Millcreek Township purchased 4-acres of the site, adjacent to the stream, for thedevelopment of a flood control basin. PADER refused to grant a permit forconstruction pending the results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study.Adjacent to the western border of the site, Millcreek Township developed baseballfields. Next to the baseball fields is the Erie International Airport.

A public water well field is located approximately one quarter mile south of thesite. The well field, locally known as the Yoder Wells, consists of two wells thatprovide one fourth of the water for an 8000-resident water system. The otherwater is provided from Lake Erie. Because of the proximity to the well field andthe discovery of heavy metals on the site exceeding the EP-toxicity criteria, theMillcreek Site was placed on the National Priorities List.

Access has not been controlled by the gate across the main access road. Hunters,motorcycle riders, snowmobile riders, people walking dogs, etc. have been seen onthe site. The residents in the vicinity of the site have joined together to form aconcerned citizens group. Concerned by the health effects of the sitecontamination, the citizens are anxious to see results. The property owners, aswell as other potentially responsible parties, have hired an attorney to monitor theprogress of the study. A consultant group was hired by the attorney to monitor thework of the contractor and to split samples with the contractor for datacomparison.

ES-2

DRAFT

The Remedial Investigation

One of the goals of the Rl was to provide a data base from which the remedialaction alternatives could be assessed in the FS. The work conducted at the siteincluded monitoring well installation (20 additional wells), test pit excavations(20 test pits), and environmental sampling (11 sediment samples, 8 surface watersamples, 36 groundwater samples, 13 subsurface soil samples, 38 surface soilsamples and 20 test pit samples).

The data collected during this Remedial Investigation are used, in conjunction withdata previously collected by the PADER, the EPA, and the Erie CountyDepartment of Health, in the FS to determine what, if any, action should be takento remediate the potential release of contaminants from the site.

General Conclusions of the Remedial Investigation

The main conclusions of. the Rl include

• Groundwater in the central portion of the site is recharged by rainfallpercolating through the fill. Groundwater flow is in a north-northeastdirection and is influenced by discharge to Marshall's Run. Wells on eachside of the stream are contaminated with chlorinated ethanes andethenes. The northern most offsite well was contaminated at 0.1 ppbabove the detection limit.

• The onsite fill is contaminated with PCBs, notably Aroclor 1248; PNAs,notably benzo-a-pyrene; and heavy metals, notably lead. The PCBs tendto be in easily identifiable locations, including a low area on the MillcreekTownship property, which is visibly stained and was found to be oil-saturated. The lead-contaminated area is in the south central portion ofthe site. The PNAs were identified in many of the soils taken from testpits.

ES-3

DRAFT

• Test pits excavated on site indicate that the contents of the fill arehousehold garbage; industrial waste; service station type wastes;demolition debris, including large quantities of creosote treated timbers;bricks, metal, and steel scrap waste, including a 10-foot long I-beam; andnumerous filled drums containing foundry sands, paint pigments, hardenedslag, and some empty drums.

• Surface soils sampled in residential yards and gardens were not found tobe contaminated.

• Surface water contamination consists primarily of lead in the onsite pondand swamp. Marshall's Run, in the past, was contaminated with several ofthe chlorinated hydrocarbons detected in the groundwater including 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

• Sediment samples taken from the swamp, onsite pond, and onsite drainageditches were contaminated with PCBs and lead.

• Airborne migration of contaminated particulates is a distinct possibilityand could move with the prevailing winds in the direction of theresidential areas.

• The relative insolubility of lead and the relative immobility of PCBs andPNAs. suggests that very little transport, if any, of these contaminants bysurface water or groundwater will occur. In addition, there are no nearbygroundwater receptors.

• Access to the site has not been controlled by the placement of a gate atthe access road. Children and adults have been observed on the siteengaged in recreational activities. Direct contact with the contaminantsis a possibility which should be avoided.

ES-4

DRAFT

The Feasibility Study

The results of and the conclusions from the Rl were used as the basis for choosingand screening remedial action technologies, developing remedial actionalternatives, and, eventually, evaluating those remedial action alternatives.

Screening of Remedial Action Technologies

The following technologies were evaluated for use at the Millcreek Site:

• No action (with and without monitoring).

• Containment (including capping, groundwater barriers, bulkheads, and gasbarriers).

• Pumping (including groundwater pumping, liquid removal, and dredging).

• Collection systems (including sedimentation basins, gas vents, gascollection, and French drains).

• Diversion (including grading and revegetation, surface water diversion,dikes, levees, benches, and chutes).

• Excavation (including complete and partial removal).

• Onsite and off site treatment (including incineration, solidification, landtreatment, biological treatment, and physicochemical treatment).

• In-situ treatment.

• Onsite storage (temporary).

• Onsite and off site disposal.

ES-5

DRAFT

Each technology was evaluated against technical, environmental, public health, andinstitutional criteria. Site-specific factors and cost criteria were also consideredduring the evaluation of the technologies.

Remedial Action Alternatives

The technologies that were accepted during the screening process were combinedin various combinations to become the remedial action alternatives for the site.These remedial action alternatives are presented in Table ES-1.

Each alternative was evaluated for technical feasibility, compliance withinstitutional requirements, environmental and public health impacts, and cost. Asummary of the remedial action alternatives is presented in Table ES-2.

Quantitative Exposure Assessment Modeling

Also presented in the FS is a conceptual approach to performing a quantitativehealth risk assessment for the Millcreek Site. This type of assessment will beperformed to gain a better understanding of the residual risk associated with eachof the remedial action alternatives. The actual model that will be used is currentlybeing developed and refined. Results of this quantitative exposure assessment willbe presented at a later time.

ES-6

DRAFT

TABLE ES-1

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVESMILLCREEK SITE

Alternative ____________Technologies________________

1 No Action

2 No Action with Monitoring

3 Selective Excavation, Onsite Disposal, Selective SoilCover

4 Selective Excavation, Onsite Disposal, GroundwaterExtraction and Treatment

5 Selective Excavation, Onsite Disposal in a RCRALandfill, Selective Soil Cover, Groundwater Extractionand Treatment

6 Selective Excavation, Onsite Disposal in a RCRALandfill, Cap Closure, Groundwater Extraction andTreatment

7 Selective Excavation, Off site Disposal, Cap Closure,Groundwater Extraction and Treatment

8 Cap Closure, Groundwater Extraction and Treatment

9 Selective Excavation, Onsite Disposal in a RCRALandfill, Cap Closure, Groundwater Extraction andTreatment

10 .Selective Excavation, Off site Disposal, Cap Closure,Groundwater Extraction and Treatment

11 Total Excavation, Off site Disposal in a RCRAFacility, Soil Cover, Groundwater Extraction andTreatment

12 Selective Excavation Based on Preliminary ExposureAssessment, Onsite Disposal, RCRA Cap

ES-7

asf

DRAFT

TABLE ES-2

REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVESCAPITAL AND PRESENT-WORTH COSTS

MILLCREEK SITE

Remedial Action Alternative Capital Present-Worth

1. No Action $ 0 $ 0

2. No Action with Monitoring 24,000 1,523,000

3. Selective Excavation, Onsite 2,679,000 4,388,000Disposal, Selective Soil Cover

4. Same as No. 3 with Groundwater 5,016,000 7,460,000Extraction and Treatment

5. Selective Excavation, Onsite 10,288,000 12,849,000Disposal in a RCRA Landfill,Selective Soil Cover, Ground-water Extraction and Treatment

6. Same as No. 5 with Cap Closure 20,658,000 ' 23,220,000instead of Selective Soil Cover

7, Selective Excavation, Offsite 22,667,000 25,165,000Disposal, Cap Closure, Ground-water Extraction and Treatment

8. Cap Closurea. With Groundwater Extraction 22,198,000 24,696,000

and Treatmentb. Without Groundwater 19,861,000 21,624,000

Extraction and Treatment

9. Same as No. 6 with Further 23,269,000 25,831,000Excavation and Disposal inRCRA Landfill

10. Same as No. 8 with Offsite 36,713,000 39,211,000Disposal instead of OnsiteDisposal

ES-8

DRAFT

TABLE ES-2REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVESCAPITAL AND PRESENT-WORTH COSTSMILLCREEK SITEPAGE TWO

Remedial Action Alternative Capital Present-Worth

11. Total Excavation, Offsite 186,143,000 187,203,000Disposal in a RCRA Facility,Groundwater Extraction andTreatment

12. Selective ExcavationBased on Preliminary Ex-posure Assessment, OnsiteDisposal, RCRA Capa. Best Case $9,526,000 $11,289,000b. Worst Case 14,224,000 15,987,000c. Best case with Ground- 11,863,000 14,361,000

water Remediationd. Worst case with Ground- 16,562,000 19,060,000

water Remediation

"Costs presented are rounded to nearest $1000 for comparison purposes. Detailedcost breakdown is presented in Appendix M.

ES-9

DRAFT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The 75-acre Millcreek Site is located in Millcreek Township in Erie County,Pennsylvania, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Presqua Isle Peninsula and2 miles southwest of the city of Erie. The site has been filled with foundry sandand slag, with approximately 4 acres remaining as wetland in the southern portionof the site. The topography of the site is relatively flat, except for several moundsof foundry sand. The perimeter of the site is deciduous forest, while the dumpingareas are sparsely vegetated. Several leveled buildings, junk cars, and abandonedmachinery are located on the site. The machinery includes two cement mixers thatwere used as part of a recovery operation, which separated reusable metals fromthe contaminated foundry sands, and a crane used to move the fill.

The site is bordered to the north, northeast, west, and northwest by residentialareas. The residents adjacent to the site are concerned and have joined together ina citizens group to monitor the progress of the study. They are concerned with thehealth effects of the site contamination and are anxious to see results. Access tothe site is not restricted, and the site is frequently used for motorcycle riding,hunting, and other activities.

The property owners and other potentially responsible parties have joined togetherand have hired an attorney to monitor the progress of the study. The attorneyhired IT Corporation of Pittsburgh to monitor the work of the contractor and tosplit samples with the contractor for data comparison.

Wastes were disposed at the unpermitted active landfill from 1941 to 1981 when itwas closed by the PADER. PADER first discovered the unpermitted landfill inAugust of 1980 and advised the operator to cease landfill operations. OnApril 10, 1981, personnel from the PADER observed the dumping of drums in thecentral portion of the site near what is now NUS soil sampling location SO-001.Personnel of the Riehl Property portion of the landfill have indicated that thefollowing wastes were disposed from 1977 to 1979: non-halogenated solvents,polyester resins (300 drums/year), caustics (6,600 gals/year), steel company slag

1-1

DRAFT

(180 drums/month), and paint sludges and other paint wastes (estimates3,000 drums total). On August 27, 1982, personnel from the Erie County HealthDepartment reportedly discovered approximately 300 drums on the surface of thesite while investigating a gas well fire on the Halmi property portion of the site.

Landfill personnel indicated that the contents of the drums were poured into theswamp and onto the ground in the vicinity of what is now Test Pits 4 and 5, and theempty drums were returned for reclamation and re-use. Drums containinghardened slag or those no longer available for re-use were reportedly buried at thesite.

The area directly to the west of the large slag pile, in the central portion of thesite, was described as the main drum burial area. However, drums of hardened slagwere noted in most of the test pits throughout the site and found to protrude fromthe fill in many locations. Personnel at the site also indicated that the area thatcurrently contains the wooden pallets was at one time used for the disposal of inkwastes. In 1973, the Sitter brothers purchased the Sitter Property portion of thelandfill. From 1974 through 1979, the Sitter property was filled with foundrysands. A list of nearly 20 generators and 3 transporters of wastes has beencompiled for the Millcreek Site.

The site is divided into five parcels of land owned by four property owners.Mr. Ralph R. Riehl, Jr. owns the main portion of the site (57± acres). The mainlandfill was operated by a lessee of the property. The property immediately to thewest of the Riehl property is owned by Mr. Joseph T. Halmi, as is the Tri-PennTool Company property (13.5 acres). To the west of the Halmi property is theproperty owned by Sitter Trucking Company (approximately 10 acres). (Theacreage figures represent total owned acreage. The actual site acreage isapproximated at 75 acres.) In 1981, Millcreek Township purchased a 4-acre parcelof land from Mr. Riehl for purposes of constructing a flood control structure. Apermit for the construction of the flood control structure was denied by thePADER in 1982 pending the results of the Remedial Investigation and FeasibilityStudy. In addition to the Remedial Investigation of the immediate site, wells were

1-2

"VDRAFT

installed and the groundwater monitored on property south of the swamp, east ofMarshall's Run, west of the Sitter property, and north of West 12th Street.

A public water wellfield is 1,600 to 2,000 feet south of the site. The wellfieldbelongs to a private water company that serves approximately 8,000 people in theMillcreek area. The water pumped from the wells is combined with water fromLake Erie prior to distribution.

1.1 Nature of the Problem

As a result of bulk disposal of industrial wastes and containerized waste, the soils,surface water, and groundwater at the Millcreek Site have become contaminated.

The soil/fill is contaminated with elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), and heavy met a Is.

Groundwater in the eastern portion of the site and to the east of Marshall's Run iscontaminated with volatile organics, specifically chlorinated ethanes and ethenes.

Marshall's Run has been contaminated in the past with volatiles, presumably fromgroundwater discharge. The onsite pond and lowland wet areas sediments arecontaminated with PCBs and heavy metals.

1.2 Historical Site Remediation

In 1982, when PADER refused the construction permit for the Millcreek Townshipflood control basin, the Township was requested to install five monitoring wells.The wells were installed on the Township's 4-acre parcel of land in July 1982. InAugust 1982, an EPA, Technical Assistance Team performed an assessment andsampling trip at the site and prepared a hazard ranking score for the site. Duringthe site reconnaissance, approximately 75 to 100 drums were noted to bedistributed and unsecured over the surface of the site.

1-3

DRAFT

A request by EPA Region III for Superfund Immediate Removal Funding wasrejected by EPA Headquarters in October 1982. A request for Planning RemovalFunding submitted later in October resulted in authorization for an extent-of-contamination survey and the installation of nine additional monitoring wells. As aresult of the study, the Planned Removal Funds were authorized in June 1983. Theactual planned removal occurred in November and December of 1983.

A total of 93 containers of various sizes and contents were removed during theplanned removal. Contents of the drums included waste oils, non-chlorinatedsolvents, polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated solvents, liquids, ethylene glycol,grease, and graphite. The contents of the 93 containers were repackaged in75 Department of Transportation-approved disposal drums and removed from thesite for disposal. The liquid contents of the drums were incinerated, the solidswere landfilled, and 10 drums containing greater than 190 ppm PCB were solidifiedand sent to a separate facility for incineration. Other drums containing a blue-green solid also contained PCBs but at lower concentrations. Four representativedrums containing this material has 0.7, 29.6, 34.9, and 38.0 ppm PCB. A total of600 empty drums were crushed and sold for scrap metal. Another 364 drumscontaining inert materials were staged in the northeast corner of the site onMillcreek Township property.

1.3 Contents of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report (RI/FS)

Section 2.0 of this report, describes the physiography of the site, the demographyof the area surrounding the site, and the land and water use near the site.Section 3.0 provides a description of the climate of the area and relatesprecipitation to leachate production through the fill, prevailing wind direction tothe distribution of air-borne contaminants, and the effect of climate on potentialremedial alternatives. Section 4.0 combines the climatological data fromSection 3.0 with a description of the surface water hydrology of the area andprovides a general water balance for the Millcreek Site. A description of thesurface soils at the site, as they are now and prior to landfilling, is provided inSection 5.0.

1-4

DRAFT

The actual geological field work performed by the contractor is described inSection 6.0. A description of the general geology/hydrogeology and site-specificinformation is provided. This section describes where groundwater occurs and flowdirections.

Section 7.0 provides an overview of what contaminants were identified at the siteby media. The risk involved to the receptor of the contaminants is described inSection 8.0.

Potential remedial alternatives which will be studies in the Feasibility Study areprovided in Section 9.0. Limiting factors and concerns of each of the alternativesare also described.

Sections 10.0 through 14.0 of this RI/FS report comprise the Feasibility Study ofremedial action alternatives for the Millcreek Site and can be found in anothervolume of this report.

1-5

DRAFT

2.0 SITE PHYSIOGRAPHY, DEMOGRAPHY, AND LAND AND WATER USE

2.1 Physiography

The Millcreek Site lies within the Lake Plain subdivision of the Central LowlandPhysiographic Province. The Lake Plain occupies a narrow belt ranging from 2 to8 miles wide between the cliffs along the edge of Lake Erie, to the northwest, andthe Appalachian Escarpment, an abruptly rising ridge that forms the northwestedge of the Appalachian Plateau, southeast of the Lake Plain beginning at anelevation of approximately 800 feet mean sea level (msl). The topography of theLake Plain is relatively flat, rising gradually to the southeast. Low ridges of sandand gravel, running roughly parallel to Lake Erie, break the otherwise flattopography, creating a subdued terrace effect. Close to the AppalachianEscarpment the terrain becomes somewhat more hilly, due to the presence ofWisconsinan-stage end moraines. Elevations along the Lake Plain range from700 to 800 feet msl. Elevations at the site range from 710 to 730 feet msl. Thesite location is shown in Figure 2-1.

Small, low-gradient streams drain the area around the landfill. Marshall's Runflows northwest along the northeastern edge of the site, eventually flowing intoLake Erie 1.2 miles downstream of the site. The west branch of Marshall's Runflows northward near the southern and western boundaries .of the site, eventuallyjoining with Marshall's Run northwest of the site. Several small, unnamed drainageditches cross the site and flow to the wet weather drainage ditch, which forms thenorthwest site boundary, separating the site from the residences along West13th Street. This drainage ditch flows into Marshall's Run near the northern edgeof the site. A swampy area exists along the southeast edge of the site. Localdrainage patterns are shown in Figure 2-2.

2-1

u*

LAKE- ERIEI':

ESQUE ISLE .ATE PARK „ Q v

APPROX. MEAN LAKE EL.571 '•'

• - - * riX\ -' Drive-inV » \ \.XO.'jV. Theater* \V.#A*»«Vr-j;:, ^ -sr *• \*rf^VA-* J -V**•• .•>-%.* ^ ,.' . vL.-:.v* «v x >

ERItTINTERNATIONALAIRPORT

KBASE MAP IS A PORTION OF THEU.&G.S. SWANVILLE, PA QUADRANGLE (7.5 MINUTE SERIES, 1957, PHOTOREVISED 19691975). CONTOUR INTERVAL 10'.

FIGURE 2-1

LOCATION MAPMILLCREEK SITE, MILLCREEK TWP.t PA

SQALE: l"=2OOO' 2-2NUS

CMUJor:D

u_<scuX

sifeeUJ >_;GL £O UJo: rra.

UJ

(TO

wll»•

Ul

CO

UJUJ

2-3

AR000025

enO

Oz

DRAFT

2.2 Demography

The Millcreek Site is located in an area that is mainly residential, with some lightindustrial and commercial development. Millcreek Township, with a population ofapproximately 45,000 people, lies to the southwest of the city of Erie, within shortcommuting distance of the business district of the city. The Millcreek Townshipengineer estimates that 1,400 people live within a half-mile radius of the site.Most of the nearby residents live to the north, northeast, west, and northwest ofthe site.

2.3 Land Use and Water Supply

The Millcreek Site is a previously landfilled area that is abandoned. The site wasreportedly the residence of several people who used the fill as a base for arecovery operation conducted to separate reusable metals from the contaminatedfoundry sands. The property around the site is currently zoned for light industrynorth of 17th Street and heavy industry south of 17th Street. The site and adjacentproperties are shown in Figure 2-2. The land surrounding the site is currently beingused for both residential and commercial purposes, with the residential areasadjacent to the site situated along or close to the west, northwest, north, andnortheast borders of the site. Several commercial businesses border the site to thenorth, northeast, and west-southwest Two parallel sets of railroad tracks, runningnortheast-southwest, border the site to the south and southeast. Additionalcommercial businesses are situated across the railroad tracks. Millcreek Townshiphas a small park consisting of two ballfields adjacent to the southwest corner ofthe site. Presque Isle State Park, a popular regional vacation area, and privatecampgrounds for tourists visiting the park and/or Lake Erie are locatedapproximately 1.2 miles north of the site. The main instrument-approach runwayof Erie International Airport is located 2000 feet west of the site, and the main airtraffic landing route is directly over the site.

2-4

SSS &B000026

DRAFT

All residences and businesses in the area reportedly get their water supplies frommunicipal water systems, which draw their water primarily from Lake Erie. Thetwo intakes for the City of Erie water supply are located in Lake Erie, one(Sommerheim Drive Plant) approximately 1.6 miles north and the other (ChestnutStreet Plant) about 3.5 miles north-northeast of where Marshall's Run empties intoLake Erie, about 3,200 feet southwest of Presque Isle. The predominant currentflow direction in Lake Erie is from west to east. Suburban Water Company, a smallarea water company, supplements the water supply it obtains from the lake withgroundwater pumped from the Yoder Wellfield. The wellfield, consisting of threehand-dug wells, each approximately 24 feet deep, completed in the glacial drift, islocated south of the site (upgradient), with the nearest well (Yoder Well No. 3)approximately 1200 feet from the nearest site boundary. This closest well has notbeen used for several years and is reportedly disconnected from the system. Of thetwo remaining wells, one (Yoder Well No. 1) has been used regularly and the other(Yoder Well No. 2) has been recently pumped (August 8, 1984), after being shutdown for approximately 30 days, due to calcification of the pump. Yoder WellNo. 1, located approximately 2,100 feet south of the site, is currently pumped at arate of 150,000 gallons per day (gpd). Yoder Well No. 2, located about 1,600 feetsouth of the site, is pumped at a rate of 80,000 gpd. Both wells are pumpedcontinuously, year-round. The maximum reported yields of these wells are288,000 gpd (Well No. 1) and 144,000 gpd (Well No. 2). Yoder Well No. 1 is 12 feetin diameter, and Yoder Well No. 2 is 6 feet in diameter. Water obtained fromthese wells is mixed with lake water at a ratio of 1 part well water to 3 parts lakewater to make up the company's total supply. Suburban Water Company servesapproximately 8,000 people in the area.

2-5

4ROQ0027

DRAFT

3.0 CLIMATOLOGY

The Erie International Airport is the nearest weather station to the Millcreek Site.The station is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weatherstation located in the airport terminal building, approximately 1.5 miles southwestof the center of the Millcreek Site.

The site is located within the Lake Plain Region of Erie County, which is classifiedas having a cool, humid continental climate. The Lake Plain Region occupies anarrow band between the southeast shore of Lake Erie and the interior upland areasof the county. The climate of the region is influenced by the lake, which serves tomoderate temperatures throughout the year. Precipitation is evenly distributedthroughout the year, as seen in Table 3-1, and is influenced by the proximity to thelake, with the Millcreek area receiving less precipitation and less severe stormsthan the inland areas of the county.

Table 3-1 presents the overall climatic data from 40 years of record (1942-1981).The site climate can be generally defined from the following characteristicstatistics:

Average annual precipitation 37.81 inchesMean average annual temperature 49.0°F

Maximum average annual temperature 56.3°FMinimum average annual temperature 41.6°F

Climatological data were obtained for the months of May through September, 1984,the period of Remedial Investigation field studies. Table 3-2 compares the period-specific data to the 40-year averages.

3-1

AS000028

Q

uCDQ

O CO <O

LO

«- CO co

«—fl

a UJ

CM OJ in«- CO COrx rx co

LU

CBlcn . co t- 2!

OCO CO CO«- t^ in XCO CO CM a

CO O (O

4*0O

CN

COin1-

inoCO

COin•*r

<->uO

COr*sco

8CM

in*»co

coinco

co

d=1<l

CM

« coi n c o - s r i M - o Q5 OS <

tel311

O

^o

<l co' §u. "* "~I <

«

Q)

't OJ O5*t *- COCO t CM

C0 CM «' - C WQ]co co cn 7>CN CO t- <j>

o!C) CO j=f>- CO O CCN CO CN O

cCO XCD CO C CD

i? ^

s.

COcoCDCN

I2"*CUJ

8 5 S sI ^ "H- >J u> eo <-

ca* ^ ^ S c o ^ I c o a sw Q.

C EE oo00 <

•aSCM Cca

§_ coCO _c aO 3'•P cca c•z. <

CDU

OCO

51^000029

DRAFT

TABLE 3-2

PRECIPITATION, TEMPERATURE, AND WIND DATA COLLECTED DURING THEREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FIELD STUDY PERIOD

MILLCREEK SITE

Precipitation

Total Deviation fromPrecipitation 40-year Average

May 1984 5.83* +2.49June 1984 4.49 +1.05July 1984 1.94 (-1.33)August 1984 2.09 (-1.21)September 1984 5.29 +1.67

*Values given in water equivalent inches.

Temperature

Month Deviation fromAverage 40-year Average

May 1984 53.8°F (~2.7°F)June 1984 68.6°F 2.2°FJuly 1984 69.6°F (-1.6°F)August 1984 72.0°F 2.2*FSeptember 1984 61.8°F (-2.1°F)

Wind

Average Wind Average Maximum Maximum SpeedDirection Origination Speed Speed Direction

May 1984 West-Southwest ll.Omph 30 mph West-SouthwestJune 1984 West-Southwest 10.2 mph 23 mph West-SouthwestJuly 1984 West-Southwest 8.9 mph 23 mph SouthAugust 1984 West-Southwest 8.5 mph 29 mph West-SouthwestSeptember 1984 West-Southwest 9.6 mph 23 mph North-Northwest

3-3

i030

DRAFT

The months of July and August 1984 were drier than the historical average. Augustwas also warmer than the historical average and July was slightly cooler. Thewarmer/drier period in .August had an effect on the surface water sampling ofAugust 13 through 17, 1984. There had been less than 1.2 inches of precipitationfor a 30-day period preceding the sampling trip; thus, there was no flow inMarshall's Run, the northern wet weather drainage ditch, the drainage ditchbetween the Riehl and Halmi property, the drainage ditch along West 17th Streeton the Sitter property, or the drainage ditch along Marshall Drive on the Halmiproperty. A low, unmeasured flow was noted in the west branch of Marshall's Run.These low flows limited the number of surface water samples available for analysisand may have also had an effect on infiltration recharge to the shallow aquifer andrelated discharge to Marshall's Run.

Historically, the prevailing winds at the Erie International Airport NOAA stationare from the south-southeast June through October, south-southwest November andDecember, west-southwest January, February, April, and May and from the north-northeast during the month of March. During the summer months, when the groundis driest and dust is most likely to be blown, the winds blow from south-southeastof the site and into residential areas which border the site to the north andnorthwest. During the Remedial Investigation field studies, the prevailing winddirection was from the west-southwest from the site into residential andcommercial areas to the east and northeast.

Climatological effects on potential remedial alternatives and/or additional fieldstudies include snow and hardened soil conditions from November through March.The average yearly snowfall is 89.4 inches. The following is the monthly averagesnowfall for the past 40 years of record:

November 11.8 inchesDecember 20.4 inchesJanuary 22.1 inchesFebruary 15.3 inchesMarch 10.4 inches

3-4

DRAFT

The last killing frost occurs about April 20. In the fall, the growing season isextended by the influence of the warmer waters of the lake, with the average dateof the first killing frost being November 1. These facts will be taken intoconsideration when developing remedial alternatives.

3-5

&RGQ0032

DRAFT

4.0 HYDROLOGY

This section describes the surface water drainage pathways and infiltrationcharacteristics of the Millcreek Site. This information is necessary to determinethe pathways of the potentially contaminated surface water and sediments leavingthe site. The information is used in the evaluation of receptors and potentialremedial alternatives. The hydrology assessment also addresses the effect of thesite on the flooding characteristics of Marshall's Run.

4.1 Hvdrologic Setting

The Millcreek Site is 1.2 miles south of Lake Erie and the Presque Isle Peninsula.The total site study area covers approximately 75 acres and is split intofive parcels of land owned by four property owners, as shown in Figure 4-1. Thesite was developed in a wooded marsh or swamp area. The foundry sand and slagwaste, used as fill, cover approximately 71 acres with approximately four acresremaining as wetland. Approximately 33 acres have naturally revegetated into adeciduous woodland. The central portion of the site is sparsely vegetated withshort grasses or small clumps of trees. The overall topography of the site isrelatively flat with slopes generally ranging from 0.03 to 4.0 percent. A mound inthe central portion of the Riehl property contains slopes near the angle of repose.

Precipitation falling on the site evaporates, becomes surface runoff, or percolatesinto the fill.

Surface runoff flows to one of the drainage ways shown in Figure 4-1. Duringperiods of high precipitation the surface water gathers and ponds in the lowlandareas between the Riehl and Halmi property and in the lowland area along MarshallDrive. The water in these low areas evaporates and/or percolates into the groundduring periods of low precipitation. These lowland areas were found to be dryduring the August 1984 sampling, but marshy during the April 1984 initial fieldreconnaissance and subsequent field reconnaissances during drilling operations andsurveying trips in June 1984.

4-1

AR000033

DRAFT

The swamp in the southern portion of the site remains throughout the seasons. Thewater level in this swamp varied less than an inch during the period of June throughSeptember 1984.

Water in the drainage ways in the northern portion of the site drain, at a very lowgradient, to the north wet-weather drainage ditch. This ditch routes the flowduring periods of high precipitation eastward and converges with Marshall's Runnear the rear of 1326 Harper Drive. This ditch was dry during the August 1984sampling.

During April and May 1984, water was ponded in the northwest corner of the siteon Sitter Trucking Company property near the Millcreek Township Park. Thisponded water discharges into a drainageway that routes the flow eastward, parallelto West 17th Street and into the lowland marshy area along Marshall Drive. InJuly 1984, this drainageway was dredged by a source unknown to the contractor.This drainageway was dry during the August 1984 sampling.

The west branch of Marshall's Run flows to the north, west of the MillcreekTownship Park. This tributary was found to be flowing during the August 1984sampling. The west branch flows into a culvert as it reaches West 14th Street,then runs parallel West 14th Street until it reaches Marshall Drive. Here it feedsinto another culvert that appears to be diverted parallel to Idaho Avenue.

Marshall's Run borders the site to the east. The low gradient stream flows fromunder the railroad tracks and ultimately into Lake Erie, approximately 1.5 milesdownstream. Tributaries to Marshall's Run include a stream that originates nearthe location of the now removed greenhouses along West 26th Street and a streamthat collects flow from urban drainage south of the railroad tracks. Groundwatermay also discharge to Marshall's Run (see Section 6.4).

4-3

DRAFT

4.2 Flood Potential

During periods of heavy rain and/or snow melt, Marshall's Run is subject toflooding. The flooding occurs in the backyards of homes on Harper Drive betweenWest 15th and West 12th Streets. The stream has not, however, been noted toflood over its western bank into the site, but does flood properties north of West12th Street near the cemetery. The flooding is caused by stream siltation,urbanization of upstream areas, and by downstream restrictions under Michigan andOregon Avenue and the cemetery.

In 1981, Millcreek Township purchased a 4-acre parcel of land in the southeastcorner of the site, adjacent to Marshall's Run. The area was to be used forconstruction of a stormwater retention pond to help reduce the flooding of thestream. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) laterrefused the permit for construction of the pond because of the potential for spreadof contamination from the site. The feasibility of the pond was studied byNorthwest Engineering, Inc. in April 1982. The study found five watershed areasdischarging into Marshall's Run above the Millcreek Site with a total watershedacreage of 994 acres. The total drainage area from the site is approximately75 acres.

The selected rainfall events from the Northwest Engineering study were the2-year, 10-year, and 50-year, 24-hour storms. For comparison purposes, 24-hourstorm events with frequencies of 10, 25, 50, and 100 years were used to estimatethe associated peak surface runoff from the site. The estimated peak flows fromthe 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year storm events are 37, 47, 58, and 69 cubic feet persecond (cfs), respectively. In accordance with the calculations of NorthwestEngineering, the peak urban runoff to Marshall's Run from the 10- and 50-year,24-hour storms are 1079 and 1648 cfs, respectively. The site runoff from the10- and 50-year, 24-hour storm represents 3 to 3.5 percent of the total urban peakflow discharge. In addition, the magnitude of the peak runoff resulting from the

4-4

DRAFT

landfill is much less than that of the urban runoff. Therefore, the flood potentialimposed by the landfill site on the problem area is relatively small and can beneglected unless Marshall's Run is already inundated.

The flood potential for the site is not expected to be high since past landfillingoperations have raised the elevation of the site slightly above the surroundingareas. According to flood potential maps of the area, developed for the NationalFlood Insurance Program by the U. S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, the site is within the zone designated as between the limits of the100-year and 500-year flood.

4.3 Surface Water Infiltration

The amount of contamination in the near surface groundwater is partiallyattributed to percolation of precipitation. The method developed by the EPA(Fenn, et a I., 1975) was used to estimate the long-term, average monthly, andannual amount of water percolating into the landfill. This method estimates thewater balance based on precipitation, evaporation, soil characteristics, soilmoisture storage, and surface runoff. The results of the estimation for theMillcreek Site are shown in Table 4-1.

Annual average precipitation in this area is 37.8 inches. The estimated surfacerunoff is approximately 1.3 inches, and the calculated actual evapotranspirationfrom the site is 22.5 inches. Considering the moisture storage capacity of the soilfill and the effect of the frozen ground during February, the coldest month, theestimated percolation into the ground is 11.2 inches or approximately 30 percent ofthe total precipitation. Most of the percolation occurs between March and Mayand also November to January. The total annual amount of water percolated intothe fill is estimated to be 70 acre-feet.

4-5

t< CDi -«

« -• r- to iri CM ^ CD in en• 00 oo CM in <- o> MJ -• <oir) r>- rvi i t-co<- i CM CN «- enCNICOCO eo «- CM t- «o

<P CO CP OP CO COco oo oo oo o oo ooOCNCMOOCMCNCNOOCNir**

it)

§00 co co co cn oin m in in co oCMCOCOOOOO'-OOCMOO

ir>«nooco--ot-c|5oo1

rx^ommrvooor*.m x * c o e s < M c o c N < - t f l

CO

onco

CO«-«M

«- oo en en eo «- oo incorsco rocaca coc»i>.OCM--O. Ot-«-eMOO«-«O

it OOCMOOOOOCNOOOO

to co co co o

5 i- i_£ ®I- a. iro if uj £ ouJ a. < o es _ J. w o < a. > « z4-6

ARODG037

DRAFT

5.0 SOILS

The Millcreek Site was developed in an existing marshy area. The fill materialapparently displaced the water and acted as a dam, confining the swamp to thesouthern portion of the site. The fill covered the soils that existed in the areaprior to the landfilling operation. The site area had been mapped by the SoilConservation Service prior to placement of the fill. Figure 5-1 illustrates the soilsthat existed in the area prior to landfilling.

The surface of the site is currently covered with foundry sands and slags from localferrous and non-ferrous foundries. An examination of historical EnvironmentalPhotographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) photographs indicates that the fill wasplaced from the north to the south in a fan-shaped pattern. This foundry sand is abrown-to-biack granular material, with a high aluminum and iron content. The fillappears to be well drained, with rapid permeability. The runoff and percolationcharacteristics of the fill were described in Section 4.3, Surface Water Infiltration.

<*Results of drilling indicate the average depth of fill to be approximately 7 feet.Test pits used to observe the contents of the fill comprise primarily foundry sandsmixed with scrap iron and construction demolition debris.

The fill appears to > contain sufficient nutrients to support some plant growth.Nearly half of the fill has naturally or otherwise been revegetated into a deciduouswoodland. Other areas remain barren or contain sparse grasses or small clumps oftrees. One pile, in the central portion of the site, is completely barren ofvegetation. Samples of this pile and soils from barren and vegetated areas weretaken and sent for analysis, and the results are described in Section 7.0.

The fill at the Millcreek Site is important because it in part controls surfaceinfiltration and percolation of precipitation, surface water runoff, the amount andcharacter of the sediments transported on and off site, and the geochemistry ofinfiltrating water that enters the shallow groundwater table. Each of these factorsis important for assessing the current hydrologic and hydrogeologic conditions atthe site, and for the technical design of potential remedial alternatives that may

5-1

r>

CO

8

5

m11K

DRAFT

alter site drainage characteristics, alter sediment production and transport, requirefill excavation, require construction using onsite materials, or require revegetationof areas disturbed by site activities.

The natural soils that existed prior to landfilling are also important because theyrepresent an interface between the waste and native subsoils and shallowgroundwater. Their properties of permeability, chemistry, and attenuation directlyeffect the shallow groundwater flow and chemical quality characteristics. Thesoils beneath the site or adjacent to the site may play a role in the remediation ofthe site. Therefore, a brief description of the soils beneath and adjacent to thesite is warranted.

Natural soils beneath the fill and adjacent to the site belong to the Halsey, Fredon,and Conotton Series. The Fredon Series is no longer mapped under the updated soil

i classification system and has been replaced with the Rexford Series. The followingis a description of each series as they exist in Erie County.

The Halsey Series are generally coarse and loamy-textured in the surface with asandy subsoil. They are generally deep (>120 inches), poorly drained soils formed onbeach ridges and upland terraces. The parent material consists mainly of stratifiedsand, silt, and gravel derived from acid shale bedrock and sediments of sandstoneand granite of glacial origin. The series is generally slowly-to-moderatelypermeable due to a silty clay loam layer that commonly occurs at depths of 10 to15 inches. The Haisey Series is classified as a Mollic Haplaquept. The soil reactionis, therefore, slightly acid basic (pH 5.8 to 7.0), saturated for long periodsthroughout the year, and the surface soils are dark due to high concentrations oforganic material. High concentrations of organic material are advantageous to theattenuation of chemicals percolating through the fill. The high pH of the soilreduces the solubility of metals in the soil, and the soil will not be corrosive to

5-3

"VDRAFT

steel or cement The low permeability, 0.2 to 6.3 inches per hour,will constrict downward flow beneath the fill and should aid in confiningcontamination to the base of the fill.

Fredon/Rexford

The Fredon/Rexford Series are generally coarse and loamy-tsxtured in the surfacewith a sandy subsoil. They are generally deep (>72 inches), somewhat poorlydrained soils formed in depressions in the beach ridges and on upland terraces. Theparent material is the same as for the Halsey Series. These soils are moderatelypermeable to a depth of approximately 20 inches. Below this depth a silt loamlayer exists that restricts downward flow. This series differs from the Halsey bythis layer in the Fredon/Rexford Series being a fragipan. This layer causes the soilto be classified as either an Aerie Haplaquept, indicating a shorter seasonal periodof saturation than the Halsey or a zone of saturation that is deeper than theHalsey, or an Aerie Fragiaquepts if a true fragipan can be identified. As with theHalsey, the soil reaction is only slightly acidic (pH 5.8 to 6.2). Therefore, the soilshould not be corrosive to either cement or steel, metals solubility should be low,and the low permeability layer (<0.2 to 6.3 inches per hour) should confinecontamination to the base of the fill.

Conotton

The Conotton Series variant identified beneath the fill was the Conotton gravellysandy loam. The soil is generally a deep, moderately well-drained soil formed bywave action in the troughs that lie between or at the base of the beach ridges. Aswith the other series of the area, the parent material is made up of alternatelayers of sand and gravel mixed with sand and clay derived from acid shalebedrock, and sandstone and granite of glacial origin. At a depth of somewherebetween 12 and 30 inches, the soils contain a firm, compact layer that ismoderately permeable to air and water. Permeability ranges from 2 to 20 inchesper hour. The series is classified as a Typic Hapludalfs. As such, the soil tends tohave a pH of about 5.6 to 6.0. The water table ranges from 12 to 72 inches below

5-4

DRAFT

the ground. Compared to the other soils of the area, this soil tends to be morefreely drained. The pH tends to be slightly lower; therefore, in combination withthe drainage, metals would be more mobile in this soil. However, the ConottonSeries covered only a very small portion of the site prior to landfilling.

Much of the area around the Millcreek Site has been filled with foundry wastes.Those areas to the west of the site that have not been filled are inundated withwater. A borrow area for soils near the site will be difficult to locate, shouldadditional soils be required as part of the remediation process.

5-5

DRAFT

6.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

6.1 Rl Field Investigations

The geologic and hydrogeologic field investigations for the Millcreek RemedialInvestigation (Rl) were conducted from June through September, 1984. The fieldinvestigations consisted of drilling test borings at 11 locations on site, theinstallation of one or more monitoring wells at each of these locations, and theperformance of a variety of field hydraulic conductivity tests, both in openboreholes and in monitoring wells. Laboratory hydraulic conductivity and grainsize analyses were also performed on selected soil samples, representative of theformations encountered, that were obtained while drilling. From one to threemonitoring wells were installed at various depths at each location. The number ofwells and the screened intervals of the wells at each location were "determinedfrom evaluation of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test boring drilledat each location. A total of 20 wells were installed during the Rl at the locationsshown in Figure 6-1. A summary of well elevations, depths, and screened intervalsis provided in Table 6-1.

Test borings were drilled using several techniques, depending on the subsurfaceconditions encountered. The predominant drilling method used was auger drilling.Ten-inch and 8-inch-diameter hollow stem augers with 6-1/4 inch and 3-3/4 inchinside diameters (ID), respectively, were used, along with 6-inch-diameter solidstem augers in some cases where drilling conditions permitted their use. Inbedrock, and in several instances within the till deposits above bedrock, boringswere advanced by diamond bit rotary coring (NX size).

During drilling operations in unconsolidated materials, Standard Penetration Tests(American Society of Testing Materials Designation No. D1586-67) were performedand 1-3/8 inch diameter split-barrel soil samples were taken, at intervals rangingfrom continuous sampling to 5-foot intervals, with 3 feet being the most commoninterval used for sampling. The soils were classified in the field by a geologist,using the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS). Soil samples were placed in

6-1

G)3=

CO

•^i_5P

CO

C*£«fr_,---,..as '

DRAFT

TABLE 6-1

MONITORING WELL ELEVATIONS & SCREENED INTERVALSMILLCREEK SITE

(ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL)

WELLS EXISTING PRIOR TO REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

Top ofGround Well Casing Screened Intervals

Well No. Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Below Ground Surface (ft)

1 716.58 718.56 *2 714.96. 716.78 *3 713.00 714.90 *4 713.94 716.15 *5 716.32 718.41 *6 713.52 714.89 6.0-16.07 710.64 712.25 6.0-16.08 720.09 721.49 5.5-15.59 713.41 714.81 6.0-16.010 713.45 714.75 7.0-17.011 713.42 714.79 7.0-17.012 712.59 714.32 6.0-16.013 713.05 714.83 5.0-15.014 715.96 717.53 5.0-15.0

* Wells 1 through 5 were installed in July 1982 for Millcreek Township. Detailedscreening data were not provided.

6-3

* ftROQQQUS

DRAFT

TABLE 6-1MONITORING WELL ELEVATIONS & SCREENED INTERVALSMILLCREEK SITE(ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL)PAGE TWO

NUS WELLS

Top OfGround Well Casing Screened Intervals

Well No. Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Below Ground Surface (ft)

15A 725.59 727.78 9.0'-19.0'16A 717.55 719.18 43.0'-48.0'16B 717.66 719.42 18.0'-28.0'17A 719.90 721.65 24.0'-34.0'17B 719.88 720.61 9.0'-14.0'18A 717.14 718.87 31.0'-36.0'18B 717.17 718.43 8.0'-18.0'19A 715.76 717.45 23.25'-28.2'20A 719.13 720.86 23.25'-28.0'20B 718.99 720.18 9.0'-15.0'21A 716.98 718.57 21.05'-26.3'21B 717.02 718.67 11.25'-15.5'22A 716.98 718.86 39.0'-44.0'22B 716.85 718.78 27.0'-32.0'22C 716.85 718.69 5.0'-15.0'23A 714.02 716.44 41.05'-46.0'23B 713.57 715.20 11.T-21.0'24A 720.40 722.14 18.85'-23.8'25A 714.49 716.15 56.0'-61.0'25B 714.53 716.34 9.75'-19.75'

Staff Gauges Elevation, Top of Gauge#1 (swamp) 719.30#2 (Marshall's Run) 714.00

6-4

DRAFT

jars and stored for future reference. Selected soil samples were sent for chemicaland geotechnical analysis. The split-barrel samplers were decontaminated, using asoapy water wash and deionized (Dl) water rinse, prior to taking soil samples forchemical analysis. The results of the chemical analyses are presented inSection 7.3.2. At two locations (borings B-23B and B-24A), Denison tube sampleswere taken of the till deposits and sent to a laboratory for physical soil testing.Denison tubes (thick wall "samplers) were used to obtain undisturbed till sampleinstead of Sheiby tubes (thin wall samplers) because the till was judged to be toodense for Sheiby tube sampling. Tests performed on the Denison tube samplesincluded hydraulic conductivity (under triaxial conditions), grain size analysis,Atterberg Limits, and natural soil moisture content Split-spoon samples of thetill, from two separate depth intervals in boring B-23A, were sent for grain sizeanalysis. The results obtained are provided in Appendix A and discussed inSections 6.3 and 6.4.

Bedrock was cored at all locations except monitoring well location 25. Atlocation 25, auger and sampler refusal was interpreted as bedrock. The boring wasdiscontinued because it was located in a resident's yard and the decision was madenot to core bedrock to keep the location as clean as possible. All rock cores werelogged by a geologist and stored in wooden core boxes for future reference.

From one to three monitoring wells were installed at each location. Separateborings were drilled for each well to be installed. Where more than one well wasinstalled at a location, the first boring drilled at the location was sampled, thensubsequent borings at that location were drilled without sampling, unless otherwisedirected by the site geologist. In borings where the well installed was screened ata depth higher than the total depth of the boring, the borehole was backfilled tothe selected depth of the wellscreen, using a combination of bentonite pellets andsand/bentonite backfill mix. Monitoring wells were installed into borings at least8 inches in diameter. Wells were either installed through the 10-inch outsidediameter (OD) augers (6-1/4 inch ID), or through 8-inch-diameter casing that wasset into the borehole. Wells were constructed of 4-inch-diameter (3-3/4 inch ID),

6-5

ftROGQQIt?

DRAFT

PVC Schedule 80, threaded, flush-joint pipe with slotted PVC well screens. Anexception to this occurred at location 22A, where 6-inch-diameter casing was usedfor well installation, as 2-inch-diameter (1-3/4 inch ID), PVC Schedule 80 pipe andwell screen was installed because of installation problems encountered with"running sands." Well screens ranged from 4-1/4 feet to 10 feet in length and slotsize was either .010 or .020 inches, depending on site conditions and screenavailability. After each well was set into its respective boring, a sand pack wasplaced around the well screen, a bentonite seal placed above the screen, and theremainder of the annulus of the borehole backfilled, using bentonite to seal theboring through any confining layers present. The remainder of the boring wasbackfilled with a cement/bentonite slurry. Steel casings with locking caps wereplaced around each well for protection and security. The day after installation,wells were developed by pumping. Monitoring well boring logs are presented inAppendix B. Well construction and installation details are provided in the wellconstruction logs presented in Appendix C.

Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed in both borings and monitoring wells.Pressure tests, using inflatable packers, were conducted in selected borings asdrilling progressed, to determine hydraulic conductivity values within the tilldeposits and in the bedrock. The pressure tests were performed by advancing thetest boring into the zone to be tested by coring, setting, and inflating a singlepacker at the top of the zone to be tested, and measuring the rate of water flowinto the formation under different pressures. Several different pressures were usedfor each test interval, ranging up to approximately double the calculatedhydrostatic pressure on the formation, under natural conditions. Pressure testresults are presented in Appendix D and discussed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4.

Either rising or falling head in-situ hydraulic conductivity tests were performed inthe monitoring wells after development

Rising head tests consisted of measuring the rate of recovery of the monitoringwells at the completion of well development. The wells were pumped down as faras possible, then the rate of rise in water level was measured using a water level

6-6

-'v,

DRAFT

indicator ("popper") and a watch. Falling head tests consisted of raising the waterlevel in the well, either by using a vacuum pump or by adding clean water to thewell, then measuring the rate that water fell in the well, with either a stopwatchand a "popper," or by using a pressure transducer. Tests were run on each welluntil the water level in the well stabilized, or, with slow recovering wells, until asufficient amount of time had passed to provide adequate data to calculate thehydraulic conductivities. Calculations were performed using a method developedby Bouwer and Rice, for unconfined conditions, or a formula developed byHvorslov, for confined conditions.

The results of the hydraulic conductivity tests are given and discussed inSection 6.4. Example calculations for evaluating test data are given inAppendix D.

Staff gauges were installed in Marshall's Run and in the swampy area in thesoutheastern portion of the site. Readings obtained from these gauges werecompared with .groundwater levels obtained from monitoring wells to define therelationship between ground and surface waters in the site area.

A total of 21 test pits were excavated by a track-mounted backhoe at theMillcreek Site to obtain subsurface soil samples from suspected waste disposalareas, to check for the presence of buried drums containing bulk wastes, and todetermine the thickness of the fill in the site area. Test pit logs are provided inAppendix E and sampling results are presented in Section 7.3.2. Test pit locationsare shown in Figure 6-1.

The geologic and hydrogeologic field investigations were supplemented withgroundwater levels taken from EPA and Millcreek Township monitoring wells,available site information, and published geologic/hydrogeologic data from theU.S.G.S. and Pennsylvania State Geologic Survey.

6-7

DRAFT

6.2 Regional Geology

The geology of northern Erie County consists of glacial deposits overlying UpperDevonian age shales, siltstones, and thinly bedded sandstones. The area wasinvaded by several ice sheets during Pleistocene times, which left behind depositsof glacial drift, in places as much as 200 feet thick. Ice advances during thePre-lllinoian, Illinoian, and Wisconsinan glacial stages moved from the Erie Basin ina general southeastward direction, with each successive ice advance stopping shortof the previous advance. Upon the retreat of each ice sheet, end moraines,recessional moraines, and ground moraines were deposited by the glaciers, formingthe till deposits throughout the region. In some places, notably some presentstream valleys, the till was covered with or replaced by outwash deposits.

The till deposits in northern Erie County include, from oldest to youngest, theLavery, Hiram, and Ashtabula Tills. These tills are primarily fine grained (silty toclayey) tills deposited during successive ice advances and retreats throughout thelate Wisconsinan glacial stage. Lenses of sand and/or gravel, up to 20 feet thick,are sometimes found within or between the till sheets. The till deposits commonlyrange from 20 to 80 feet thick. Along the lake plain, the till deposits have beenmapped as both the Lavery and the Ashtabula Tills.

Close to Lake Erie, along the lake plain, the till deposits are overlain byglaciolactustrine deposits and beach ridge deposits, laid down by proglacial lakeswhich were formed during different periods of ice advances and retreats. Theselakes, the forerunners to present-day Lake Erie, existed at a higher level than LakeErie, and their extent can be traced by the existence of beach ridge deposits—long,low ridges of sand and gravel that were formed by wave and current action as thelakes receded. These deposits are the notable topographic features on theotherwise almost level lake plain. Most of the lake plain, between the beachridges, is composed of fine-grained sediments, including fine sands, silts, and clays,overlying the till deposits. These fine-grained deposits are probably glacial lake

6-8

DRAFT

bottom sediments, derived from the underlying till deposits and laid down in lowenergy environments (offshore) during Pleistocene times. Minor amounts of flatcobbles and pebbles are occasionally found within the fine-grained deposits.

Alluvial deposits, consisting of sands and gravels derived from glacial drift andbedrock, occupy the floors of modern valleys and fill abandoned stream valleys.

Bedrock that subcrops beneath the glacial deposits of the area consists of theshales, siltstones, and thin-bedded sandstones of the Conneaut Group, and theunderlying shales, with thin layers of sandstone interbedded, of the CanadawayFormation, both of which are Upper Devonian Age. The Conneaut Group has beendivided into the the Girard Formation (Lower Member of the Conneaut Group) andthe Upper Conneaut Formation. The contact between these two within theConneaut Group formations is an impure limestone layer. Both formations arecomposed predominantly of shale. The lake plain is reportedly underlain for themost part by the Girard Formation. The upper member of the CanadawayFormation, known as the Northeast Shale, is reported to underlie a thin band of thelake plain, along the lake. The rock strata is nearly horizontal, dipping slightly tothe south at a rate of 15 to 20 feet per mile. A generalized stratigraphic column ispresented in Figure 6-2.

Descriptions of the bedrock formations below the Canadaway Formation are notincluded in this study because deeper formations are not affected by near-surfacecontamination. The bedrock in the site area is not used for domestic orcommercial water supplies, since it typically has a low yield and the water foundwithin the bedrock is likely to be saline (except at shallow depths), and thus is notsignificant to the site investigation.

6.3 Site-Specific Geology

The geology of the Millcreek Site is typical of areas within the Lake Plain.Surficial and near-surface natural deposits consist of alternating layers of finesands and silts, with occasional clayey or gravelly zones. These are

6-9

DESCRIPTION

SAND, SILT, GRAVEL, AND CLAY

SILT, WITH SAND, CLAY, AND GRAVEL

SHALE, SILTSTONE, AND SANDSTONE

SHALE, SILTSTONE, AND SANDSTONE

SHALE WITH THIN SANDSTONE BEDS

FIGURE 6-2GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMNMILLCREEK SITE. MiLLCREEK TWR. PA

FIGURE 6-2 .

IMUS?NOT TO SCALE 6_1Q . I__|_| CORPOFIATiaN

lliburton Company

r-

oI(O8

DRAFT

glaciolacustrine deposits, deposited by the glacial lakes that were forerunners topresent-day Lake Erie. The sediments were probably derived from the underlyingtill deposits and from reworked beach ridges. The sandy deposits were visuallyclassified during drilling operations as poorly graded sands (SW or SP soils). Siltydeposits were classified as silt or sandy silt (ML or SM soils), using the Unified SoilClassification System. The thickness of these deposits on site ranges from 15 feet(692.5' to 707.5' msl) at Boring 23A, to 28 feet (684' to 712' msl) at Boring 17A.Offsite borings B-22A and B-25A show a greater thickness and depth of lakedeposits than exists on site (B-22A, thickness 40', 674' to 714' msl; B-25A,thickness 53', 653-706' msl). Geologic cross sections A-A', B-B', C-C', and A-B'(located in Figure 6-1 and shown on Figure 6-3) show that the sediments beneaththe site generally dip from east to west. The surface of the glaciolacustrinesediments, beneath the fill, slopes to the north as shown in Figure 6-4 and ingeologic cross sections B-B' and C-C' (Figure 6-3).

The site is located between the beach ridges of ancient glacial Lake Warren(3500' NW of the site) and ancient glacial Lake Whittlesey (2000' SE of the site).These ridges are low, gravelly ridges that were formed by two of the glacial lakesthat formed in the area during the period of ice advances and retreats duringPleistocene times.

A continuous layer of till deposits underlies the glaciolacustrine deposits in the sitearea, ranging in thickness from 12 feet (B-17A, 672-684' msl) to 43 feet (B-23A,650'-693' msl) across the site. These till deposits lie directly on top of bedrockbeneath the site. The till is a very dense, fine-grained soil consistingpredominantly of silt, with minor amounts of sand and gravel. The percent, byweight, of sediments in the till, as determined in laboratory tests of four samples,averaged 65 percent silt and clay; 25 percent sand; and 10 percent gravel. Thegravel generally was angular to sub-angular, with no apparent orientation, andindividual particles were usually less than 2 inches in diameter. Directly abovebedrock, cobbles up to 6 inches in diameter were occasionally found. The naturalwater content of the till samples averaged 17.6 percent The composition of thetill deposits characteristically changed with increasing depth, becoming more sandy

6-11

8ffl

8

mS35"to

JO

Z

®

rms-1

V6*DRAFT

and gravelly. Till samples were visually classified, for the most part, as ML or SMsoils, according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The location,composition, and visual descriptions of the till deposits most closely fit writtendescriptions of till deposits associated with the Ashtabula morainic system, so thetill is presumed to be the Ashtabula till. A summary of the physical testing resultsof the till samples is provided in Table 6-2, and the laboratory data sheets areprovided in Appendix A. c

Sand and gravel lenses, from 1 to 10 feet thick, were occasionally found within thetill deposits. These deposits are not expected to be areally extensive, that is, theyare isolated pockets rather than large lenses, based on the findings of the drillingprogram and previous studies done by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey.

The upper surface of the till deposits is irregular, with slopes to the northwest andsouthwest, as can be seen in geologic cross sections A-A', A-B', and B-B' and inFigure 6-3. The high point of the till deposits occurs in the northeastern part ofthe site, in the area of boring locations 15 and 23, as shown in Figure 6-5.

Bedrock in the site area consists of Upper Devonian Age marine shales, with minoramounts of siltstone and sandstone interbedded. The top several feet of bedrock isweathered, with many horizontal and near-horizontal partings (bedding planejoints). Pressure testing of the bedrock showed the fractures to be very tight,since they would not take any water. Pressure testing results are given inAppendix D. The shales are believed to belong to the Girard Formation, part of theConneaut Group (Upper Devonian Age), or possibly the underlying Northeast Shale,part of the Canadaway Formation (Upper Devonian Age).

The depth to bedrock across the site ranges from 48 feet, at boring 17A (672' msl),to 64 feet, at boring 23A (650' msl). Offsite drilling locations show bedrock to behigher to the southeast (B-24A; 38' deep, 682' msl) and lower to the northwest(B-25A; 87' deep, 627' msl). The bedrock surface slopes to the northwest, towardLake Erie, at a fairly uniform rate of about 60 feet per mile, as can be seen inFigure 6-6.

6-14

CO

_ -a8 =s:

r* rx i ii i

tx -•

_ -S i 2

(O fl) CO .•-• -1 e\i '

g ix K. toel to oi ix=1 - - -

dM-_! If « «? » j«5« ba si 5 a s zto 3 _; a I

'|iis

Is §«

00 IS. (N

<M —• »• in

111 *a I MrH -incvi

^ ? sN CN -:d. i ",

£ S

o

2 S W SS T3

e c «j ». z z 55 55 5i i i i i

_i-i o. 5Z Z 2 S eo

6-15

o

mSI3

sii«Jii» //Till

IHIII ITI]i l l l i l l l l l l l

*/SROOOOSB.

So,R PI§8

3*

>

DRAFT

The fill in the site area consists primarily of foundry sands, with scrap iron andconstruction and demolition debris mixed in. The depth of fill across the siteranges from 0 feet, along some of the drainage ditches that cross the site, to about20 feet, on top of the large pile of foundry wastes located near the center of thesite. The average thickness of fill material encountered while drilling on site wasapproximately 7 feet. Outside of the landfill area, the fill material is native fillconsisting of sand, silt, and gravel. The fill material is very loose and is used to fillthe lowland area for development activities.

Detailed lithologic descriptions of the formations encountered during the drillingand well installation phase of the Rl are provided in the NUS boring logs, inAppendix B, for additional reference. The findings of the subsurface investigationwere supplemented by published reports of both of the United States andPennsylvania Geologic Surveys, which were used to aid in interpretation of theconditions encountered, and to define regional geologic and hydrogeoiogicconditions.

6.4 Hvdrogeology

General Conditions

Groundwater occurs in significant quantities within the glaciolacustrine deposits inthe site area, as is the case throughout the Lake Plain area. Recharge to thisaquifer is principally through infiltration of precipitation, especially along beachridges, where gravel deposits of relatively high hydraulic conductivity lie at or nearthe ground surface. The regional direction of groundwater flow is to the north-northwest towards Lake Erie, with local variations in groundwater flow directionsdue to the influences of topography, pumping, and nearby streams. The tilldeposits that underlie the glaciolacustrine deposits act as a confining layer toretard downward migration of groundwater.

6-18

DRAFT

Occurrence of Groundwater at the Site

Groundwater at the Millcreek Site occurs within the glaciolacustrine depositswhich make up the most shallow natural deposits in the site area. Groundwater inthis zone occurs under both water table (unconfined) and semiconfined conditions.During the summer and fall of 1984, the water table was found at or near (withinapproximately 2 feet) the top of natural ground beneath the site, with the watertable slightly higher into the fill in the southeastern part of the site, and slightlylower than the top of natural ground in the northwestern part of the site. In thespring of 1985, the water table throughout the site was found to be up into the fill.Figure 6-7 depicts the water table contour map for the site. Water levels taken inthe spring of 1985 were about one and a half to two feet higher than those takenduring the summer and fall of 1984 (see Table 6-3).

. - — . . . „Within the glaciolacustrine deposits, layers of fine sands and occasional sand andgravel deposits contain recoverable quantities of groundwater. Silty layers withinthe glaciolacustrine deposits act as local, confining layers to groundwater flow.This was demonstrated during the monitoring well installation phase of the Rl.During well development, pumping of the deep monitoring well at a location wouldnot affect the water level in the nearby shallow well, when the screened intervalswere separated by a silt layer. Even when wells were not separated by a confininglayer, little drawdown was noted between adjacent wells during development,indicating relatively low hydraulic conductivities of the formations encounteredand correspondingly low well yields. The silt layers encountered are believed to belocal confining layers of limited areal extent for the most part, and do not separatethe lake deposits into separate aquifers.

From comparisons of groundwater levels in shallow and deep wells installed at thesame location, it has been determined that the central area of the site is arecharge area for groundwater, while the streams that flow near the northeasternand southwestern borders of the site (Marshall's Run and the west branch ofMarshall's Run, respectively) are discharge points for some of the groundwatermigrating from the site. Comparisons of water levels taken on September 10, 1984

6-19

£800006!

m

5-

IH

ifflCD

-«s / / /'

DRAFT

TABLE 6-3

GROUNDWATER LEVELSMILLCREEK SITE

(ELEVATIONS GIVEN IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL)

_______________Date_____________________Well No. 8/9/84 9/10/84 9/17/84 3/29/85

1 708.73 708.76 708.94 711.392 708.44 708.44 708.51 709.853 708.95 708.85 708.96 NA4 709.78 709.82 709.90 711.385 708.48 708.49 709.66 711.106 708.07 708.08 708.22 709.367 706.57 706.61 706.75 708.418 717.06 716.99 717.41 718.769 707.98 708.02 708.17 710.1210 706.79 706.85 707.00 709.2711 705.06 705.03 705.08 707.4212 706.03 705.75 705.95 709.2613 711.50 711.93 712.44 713.0114 713.11 713.46 713.57 714.39ISA 712.74 712.78 713.00 714.1916A 708.60 708.81 709.04 710.8216B 710.42 710.74 711.10 712.1717A 713.82 713.95 714.12 715.13178 714.32 714.52 714.76 715.81ISA 711.50 711.70 711.95 713.2118B 712.74 713.13 713.47 715.0119A 709.78 709.92 710.20 711.8320A 711.40 711.53 711.73 713.3420B 711.85 711.99 712.22 713.92

6-21

ftBOO

DRAFT

TABLE 6-3GROUNDWATER LEVELSMILLCREEK SITE(ELEVATIONS GIVEN IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL)PAGE TWO

Date

Well No. 8/9/84 9/10/84 9/17/84 3/29/85

21A 709.56 709.60 709.74 711.3021B 709.47 709.52 709.63 710.8322A 713.76 714.01 714.13 715.33228 713.49 713.70 713.98 715.1922C 713.34 713.50 713.77 714.4123A 707.24 707.24 707.44 710.0523B 706.49 706.51 706.69 709.9924A 717.13 717.11 717.49 718.7725A 701.84 702.04 702.11 704.3725B 701.99 701.47 701.73 704.26

Staff Gauge #1 714.24 714.17 714.78 714.60(swamp)Staff Gauge #2 — 709.04 709.62 709.40(Marshall's Run)

6-22

DRAFT

in shallow and deep monitoring wells, installed at locations 16, 17, 18, and 20,(Table 6-3) located in the interior portions of the site away from the streams, showa downward vertical component of groundwater flow, with an average downwardgradient of 0.057 ft/ft (recharge to the lower aquifer). Comparisons of the waterlevels in shallow and deep wells installed at locations 21, 22, 23, and 25 (Table 6-3),which are located near the streams that flow by the site, show an upward verticalcomponent of groundwater flow, with an average upward gradient of 0.12 ft/ft,indicating some discharge to nearby streams. The groundwater contour map of thesite (Figure 6-7) also shows groundwater discharge to Marshalls Run. Theinfluences of the streams are, however, not great enough to act as natural barriersto groundwater flow. Significant quantities of groundwater from the site bypassfocal streams and continue north in the direction of predominant groundwater flow.

The till deposits that underlie the glaciolacustrine sediments function as anaquitard beneath the site. Laboratory tests of Denison tube samples obtained fromthe till deposits at boring locations 23 and 24 yielded hydraulic conductivity valuesof 7.7 x 10~7 cm/sec, and 4.6 X 10"" cm/sec, respectively. The results of in-situpressure tests performed on the till deposits at boring locations 22, 23, and 24 usinginflatable packers, showed that the till deposits would not take any water eventhough each test was run at water pressures up to approximately twice thecalculated hydrostatic pressure on the formation under natural conditions. Sincethe till would not take any water, a hydraulic conductivity value cannot bedetermined for the formation from the tests, other than to assume a hydraulicconductivity of less than 10~7 cm/sec. The pressure test results are given inAppendix D.

The sand lenses occasionally found within the till deposits did contain recoverablequantities of groundwater. However, because these sand lenses are believed to beisolated pockets, the quantity of groundwater within the deposits is not consideredsignificant The groundwater found in the sand lenses (wells 16A and 23A) wasfound to be under confined conditions, with the static water level in well 16Aslightly lower than in the corresponding shallow well (16B), whereas the staticwater level in 23A was slightly higher than the static water level in the

6-23

Of.

DRAFT

corresponding shallow well (23B). Comparison of these water levels (Table 6-3)indicates that there is some degree of indirect hydraulic connection between thewater table aquifer and the sand lenses within the till. The sand lenses may berecharged by infiltration of groundwater through the till. The rate of recharge ofgroundwater to the sand lenses through the till would be very slow given the lowhydraulic conductivity of the till deposits.

The till deposits lie directly on top of bedrock. The bedrock encountered did notcontain recoverable quantities of groundwater. No monitoring wells were installedinto the bedrock; however, the bedrock was pressure tested using inflatablepackers. The results, given in Appendix D, were similar to those tests performedon the till deposits. The bedrock would not take water, even under pressures up totwo times the estimated hydrostatic pressure in the bedrock under naturalconditions. The zones tested were the zones of weathered rock near the top ofbedrock. Since the bedrock would not take any water, the hydraulic conductivitywas estimated at less than 10~7 cm/sec.

Groundwater Flow Directions and Rates

Groundwater levels in all site monitoring wells were measured on four differentdates as shown in Table 6-3. Little change in water levels was observed from oneset of water level measurements to another, a fact which indicated very littlechange in groundwater flow conditions over the period of time that water levelswere collected. Groundwater elevations from the set of water-level measurementstaken on September 10, 1984 were plotted on a site map, and a water table contourmap was developed (Figure 6-7). At locations where more than one well wasinstalled, the water table data only were used to develop the map. As can be seenin Figure 6-7, groundwater flow across the site is generally to the north, towardmonitoring wells 25A and B, and also toward Lake Erie, near the base of PresqueIsle, as the ultimate discharge point In the eastern part of the site, groundwaterflow is locally to the northeast because of groundwater discharge into Marshall'sRun. This northeast component of groundwater flow is due to the presence of thestream and is not expected to continue beyond Marshall's Run. A comparison of

6-24

AB000066

DRAFT

the water table contour map (Figure 6-7) and the contour map showing the naturaltopography underlying the fill at the site (Figure 6-4) shows that the groundwaterflow direction closely parallels the original slope of the ground surface. Wells 8and 24A are upgradient of the site, as can be seen in Figure 6-7, and providegroundwater samples for background water quality data.

To determine the rate of groundwater movement, field tests were performed onthe NUS monitoring wells to develop estimates of the hydraulic conductivities ofmaterials opposite the screens. Rising or falling-head hydraulic conductivity testswere performed in each well, as described in Section 6.1. The data weresubsequently interpreted, using a method developed by Bouwer and Rice (1976) forwells installed into materials under water table conditions and using theappropriate formula developed by Hvorslev (1951) for wells installed into materialsunder confined or semi-confined conditions. The data used in developing theestimates of hydraulic conductivities is provided in Appendix D. Values ofhydraulic conductivity in the screened intervals ranged from 10~3 cm/sec to10~5 cm/sec. The values calculated for each well are provided in Table 6-4, alongwith a summarized description of the materials that each well is screened.

The rate of groundwater movement in the site area was calculated using theKlformula v * — , where v « velocity, K'« hydraulic conductivity, I * groundwater

gradient, and n - effective porosity. The groundwater gradient across the site, asdetermined from the groundwater contour map (Figure 6-5), ranged from .004 ft/ftto .006 ft/ft, with an average value of .0053 ft/ft. Two values of hydraulicconductivity were used in groundwater velocity calculations. One value,3.9 x 10~4 cm/sec, was obtained by averaging the 10 lowest calculated hydraulicconductivities in Table 6-4, and was the low value used in velocity calculations.The other value, 2.9 x 10~3 cm/sec, was obtained by averaging the 10 highesthydraulic conductivities in Table 6-4, and was the high value used in velocitycalculations. The effective porosity was estimated at 15 percent for altcalculations. Using the low value for hydraulic conductivity (3.9x10~4 cm/sec) andthe low value for the hydraulic gradient (0.004 ft/ft), the groundwater velocity iscalculated to be 10.8 ft/yr. Using the high value for hydraulic conductivity

6-25

DRAFT

TABLE 6-4

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUESMILLCREEK SITE

HydraulicWell No. Conductivity (cm/sec) Screened Formation

15A 2.7 x 10"4 Sand, w/silt16A 1.1 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt and gravel16B 6.2 x 10~3 Sand and silt17A 4.0 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt17B 3.7 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt18A 2.7 x 10~3 Sand, silt and gravel18B 3.1 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt19A 7.0 x 10~5 Sand, w/silt and gravel20A 1.6 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt and gravel20B 1.5 x 10~4 Sand, w/silt21A 5.4 x 10~4 Sand, w/gravel and silt21B 3.9 x 10~4 Gravel, w/sand22A 3.3 x 10'3 Sand, w/silt22B 4.3 x 10~"4 Sand, w/gravel and silt22C 6.9 x 10~4 Sand, w/gravel and silt23A 1.3 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt23B 7.0 x 10~5 Sand, w/silt and gravel24A 1.5 x 10~4 Sand, w/silt25A 1.1 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt25B 2.1 x 10~3 Sand, w/silt and gravel

Denison Tube HydraulicSamples (Till) Conductivity (cm/sec) Material Classification

DT-1, B-23B 7.7x10-7 Silt, w/sandDT-3, B-24A . 4.6 x 10'7 Silt to silt-lean clay

6-26

000068

DRAFT

(2.9x10~3 cm/sec) and the high value for the hydraulic gradient (0.006 ft/ft), thegroundwater velocity is calculated to be 120 ft/yr. The actual groundwatervelocity is probably somewhere between these two values.

Interaction Between Groundwater and Surface Waters

Staff gauges were installed in the swamp along the southeast border of the site andin Marshall's Run, along the northeast border of the site, to try to establish theinteraction between surface waters and groundwater in the site area. Staff gaugeelevations are provided in Table 6-1. Water levels in the swamp southeast of thesite were measured to be higher than the nearby groundwater levels on site (StaffGauge No. 1 and Well No. 15A, Table 6-3); thus the swamp is apparently not adischarge area from the site but rather a recharge area to the site (upgradient ofthe site). The swamp appears to be an artificial condition created or enhanced bythe landfilling operations at the site. Any contamination found in the swamp wouldlikely be from a pathway other than groundwater flow to the swamp.

A comparison of the static water levels of deep and shallow monitoring wellsadjacent to streams near the site (locations 21, 22, 23, and 25) shows an upwardcomponent of groundwater flow and indicates that some groundwater from the sitedischarges to the nearby streams. During long dry spells in the summer and fall,groundwater levels may fall to the point that the streams recharge the aquifer.This may have been the case in July and August of 1984, when the precipitationwas 2.5 inches less than the 40-year average and Marshall's Run eventually ran dry.

Extent of Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater contamination was found primarily in the northeastern part of theMillcreek Site during the Rl. The major contaminants detected in the study werevolatile organics, of which 1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and1,1,1-trichloroethane were the main compounds detected (see Section 7.0). Thezone of highest contamination was found in shallow wells in the northern corner ofthe site. Wells MW-23B, MW-10, and MW-7 had the highest levels of contamination

6-27

DRAFT

found at the site. An isoconcentration map showing the approximate extent of1,2-dichloroethene contamination in the groundwater is provided in Figure 6-8.1,2-Dichloroethene was selected to delineate the extent of groundwatercontamination because it was the most widespread contaminant detected and wasfound in the highest concentrations. Through evaluation of the hydrogeologic andgeochemical data gathered in the Rl, it is apparent that contaminated groundwateris moving slowly northward from the northern edge of the site, in the direction of12th Street. At the time of the Rl the groundwater contaminant plume wasprojected to extend as far as West 12th Street (to the north), Harper Drive (to theeast and northeast), and Oregon Avenue (to the west). The presence of one othercompound detected in groundwater samples, 1,1-dichloroethane, was also mapped.Figure 6-9 shows the extent of this contaminant in the groundwater. The highestconcentrations were detected in wells MW-9 and MW-2, southeast of the area ofhighest 1,2-dichioroethene concentrations. During the Rl, groundwatercontamination by 1,1-dichloroethane was detected only in a limited area in thenortheast part of the site. No evidence of offsite migration was found at thattime, although eventual spread beyond the site boundaries is expected to occurunder existing conditions at the site.

Groundwater Receptors

As discussed in Section 2.3, Land Use and Water Supply, the Yoder wellfield is theclosest public water supply. The nearest pumping well wellfield is approximately1600 feet upgradient or south of the landfill. The water from these wells isperiodically sampled and analyzed by the Erie County Department of Health asdiscussed in Section 7.3.3. According to a representative of Suburban WaterCompany, which operates the Yoder wellfield, approximately 99 to 100 percent ofthe residences within the service area surrounding the Millcreek Site are on thepublic water source. Exceptions noted were either south of 38th Street or severalmiles west of the site.

6-28

A800QQ70

Wf --~--fVj'V.-S?./ l =ff.fr,-t r'" 'nn"n"a7 / H P Tl?D nfll^o I

SR000072

DRAFT

An attempt was made to determine how long it would take for the cone ofinfluence of the Yoder Wells to reach the landfill if the wells were pumpedcontinuously at maximum rates and there was no recharge to the aquifer (severedrought conditions). Using the known information about the well depths,diameters, and maximum yields, and the estimated distances from the wells to theedge of the landfill (presented in Section 2.3), a projection was made, using thefollowing assumptions:

• The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic.• The aquifer is of infinite areal extent.• The well penetrates the entire aquifer.• Water removed from storage is discharged instantly with a corresponding

change in head.• The wells are of infinitesimal diameter.

In reality, these conditions are not met, and illustrate the limitations of the datapresented.

Using the Theis nonequilibrium formula, the time for a cone of depression to reachthe edge of the site from Yoder Well No. 1, pumped continually at the maximumpumping rate with no recharge to the aquifer, was calculated to take slightly lessthan 2 months. The cone of depression of Yoder Well No. 2, pumping continuouslyat maximum capacity with no recharge to the aquifer, would take about 2 monthsto reach the landfill.

Under normal pumping and recharge conditions, the cone of depression of YoderWell No. 1 may extend as far as 1,600 feet from the well. The cone of depressionof Yoder Well No. 2 may extend as far as 1,200 feet from the well. Using thesefigures, the cones of influence of the Yoder Wells do not reach the landfill undernormal pumping conditions.

The calculations performed did not take into account the presence of relativelyhighly permeable beach ridge deposits about 1,000 feet upgradient of the wellfield.

6-31

ftR800073

DRAFT

Recharge to the wells from these deposits would be expected to decrease the coneof influence of the pumping wells to some degree.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Topographicand Geologic Survey Water Well Data System was consulted to identify anyabandoned wells or wells used in conjunction with the public water supply in thevicinity of the site. Wells were identified south of 38th Street and west of the Erieairport. The closest well to the site was located at the corner of West 15th Streetand Peninsula Drive. An effort to identify this well in the field was unsuccessful.

The Erie County Department of Health was also contacted for information in theirrecords concerning wells in the vicinity of the site. Six wells were locatedimmediately downgradient of the site. Information provided by residents in thearea indicate that many of the residents in the vicinity had wells that were pluggedand covered when the public water supply was added. The wells are in thefollowing locations:

No. of Wells ___Location___ ___________Use______________

,1 3133 W. 13th Street Garden and Lawn Irrigation1 3259 W. 14th Street None3 3269 W. 14th Street None1 1407 Harper Drive None

No boring logs or information concerning well depths and diameters were availablefor these wells. Except for the well at 3133 W. 13th Street, none of the wellsidentified is currently in use. A sample from a garden located at at 3133 W.13th Street was taken for analysis. The well at 3259 W. 14th Street remains openbut is under the house in a crawl space. Two of the wells at 3269 W. 14th Streetare in the yard, the other is under the house in the crawl space.

The last well identified during the Rl was on site approximately 500 feet southeastof the last home on W. 14th Street The well appeared to be a hand-dug well,

6-32

'/X

DRAFT

finished with an 18-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe. The EPA Region IIIProject Officer noted that this well will be sampled and plugged in the near future.

Nearby surface waters, notably Marshall's Run, and ultimately Lake Erie, receivegroundwater discharge from the site. There are no known surface water users ofMarshall's Run; however, local residents and wildlife may routinely come in directcontact with the stream because of its proximity to nearby residential areas.

The ultimate discharge point for groundwater from the site is Lake Erie. If thereis any contamination emanating from the site it has not reached the lake, based ongroundwater velocity calculations and groundwater quality data from MonitoringWell No. 25. Eventual discharge to the lake would not be expected to have ameasurable effect on the lake or its users due to the amount of dilution and mixingthat the groundwater would undergo by the time it reached the lake.

Summary and Conclusions

Groundwater at the site occurs in significant quantities in the glaciolacustrinedeposits that lie directly beneath the fill that covers the site. The till deposits andbedrock that underlie the glaciolacustrine deposits act as confining layers toretard downward migration of groundwater. No significant supplies ofgroundwater have been found within these deposits. The overall direction ofgroundwater flow in the site vicinity is to the north, following the naturaltopography of the land. Local variations in the overall flow direction are createdmainly by surface water streams or topographic irregularities.

6-33