AR300833 - United States Environmental Protection Agency · 2019-06-24 · contents. Sand cone...

EnvironmentalResourcesManagement

855 Springdale DriveExton, Pennsylvania li^V(610)524-3500

^ <ftn« (610) 524-7335 (fax)16 September 1999 http://www.erm.comReference: N2122.00.01

Mr. Frank VavraRemedial Project Manager r 'USEPA Region fflWestern Pennsylvania Remedial Section1650 Arch Street ERMPhiladelphia, PA 19103-2029

RE: Revised Field Demonstration ReportEastern Diversified Metals (EDM) Site, Hometown, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Vavra:

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) has revised the 19 July1999 Field Demonstration Report to incorporate EPA's commentsreceived via letter dated 17 August 1999. ERM herein submits a copy ofthis revised Field Demonstration Report for the Eastern DiversifiedMetals (EDM) Site.

Please call me at (610) 524-3781 with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Douglas J. Shenk, P.E.EKM Project Manager

cjcAttachment: Revised Field Demonstration Report

cc: J. lannuzzo, PADEPV. Jurka, Lucent

AR300833

REVISED EIELD DEMONSTRATION REPORT

Lucent Technologies

Field Demonstration ReportEastern Diversified Metals Site, .Hometown, Pennsylvania

16 July 1999

Revised 15 September 1999

N2122.00.01

Environmental Resources Management. 855 Springdale DriveExtort, Pennsylvania 19341

ERM. AR30083if

REVISED FIELD DEMONSTRATION REPORT

Lucent Technologies

Field Demonstration ReportEastern Diversified Metals Site,Hometown, Pennsylvania

16 July 1999

Revised 15 September 1999

N2122.00.01

Environmental Resources Management855 Springdale Drive

Exton, Pennsylvania 19341

o

o

AR300835

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1K . . . |V ,;..p

2.0 METHODOLOGY J

2.1 Preparation 2

2.1 Slope Construction ' 2

2.3 Observations and Testing 3

2.4 Health and Safety Measures 3

3.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4

3.1 Fluff Excavation and Handling 4

3.2 Compaction 4

3.2.1 Density Testing 5

3.2.2 Degree of Compaction 5

33 SLOPE STABILITY AND SETTLEMENT 6

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 7

AR300836

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Test Locations MapFigure 2 Schematic Cross-Section of the Fluff Excavation (Cut Area)Figure 3 Schematic Cross-Section of the Fluff Backfill (Fill Area)Figure 4 Fluff Dry Density Comparison (sand cone vs. nuclear

density gauge)Figures Fluff Wet Density Comparison (sand cone vs.'nudear

density gauge)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 • Summary of Sand Cone and Nuclear Gauge Test Results

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Sand cone and nuclear gauge test resultsAttachment 2 Select field work photographs

AR300837

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A field demonstration was conducted at the Eastern Diversified Metals(EDM) site in Hometown, Pennsylvania (the Site) in early June 1999. Thisdemonstration was conducted to examine the feasibility of handling fluffmaterial in manners that would be required for subbase preparation andconstruction of a low-permeability cap at the Site. If the In-Place Closurealternative is selected as the remedial alternative for the Site, containmentof the fluff pile would be accomplished by regrading existing steep slopes,covering the pile with a low-permeability cap, and constructing additionalsurface water runoff and shallow ground water control measures.

During January through March of 1999, several engineering designparameters of the fluff material (i.e., the fluffs physical/geotechnicalcharacteristics) were examined. This effort concluded that the fluffproperties would be suitable for construction of the required in-placeclosure components, once the pile was regraded to flatten steep existingslopes. The results of this evaluation were presented in the 1 April 1999Geotechnical Investigation Report.

To supplement the results of the previous evaluations, a fielddemonstration was conducted to further evaluate the feasibility and levelof effort necessary to regrade, place, compact and build upon the fluff forthe proposed in-place closure. The scope of the field demonstrationactivities was presented in the 11 January 1999 work plan. This reportsummarizes the activities and results of the field demonstration.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The field demonstration generally consisted of evaluating theperformance of basic construction operations that would be necessary forconstructing a cap for in-place closure of the fluff pile. These operationsincluded: f.• excavation, loading and on-site relocation of fluff; •• placement and compaction of relocated fluff;

• regrading and compaction of existing slopes in the fluff pile surface;• placement and compaction of soil on the prepared fluff pile slopes in

both excavation and backfill Areas;

BUM 1 WCBNT-N212Z.OO-9/13/99

AR300838

• monitoring of slope stability and settlement after placement; and• testing of compacted material densities and moisture contents.

A pilot-test slope was built at two different locations/as shown on Figure1. A first location was selected on the pile where a full length slope couldbe shaped by excavation of the fluff, as depicted on Figure 2 (ExcavationArea). A full length slope refers to a 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V)slope with a total rise of 15 feet (the anticipated maximum verticaldistance between benches). A second area was selected a short distanceaway, to accommodate the construction of a 4H:1V slope, built by usingthe excavated fluff from the Excavation Area and backfilling against theexisting pile slope, as depicted on Figure 3 (Backfill Area).

2.1 Preparation

Prior to any excavating and regrading, the two test locations weresurveyed and staked for regrading purposes (to obtain the desired 4H:1Vslopes), and for subsequent measurements. The Backfill Area was leveled..to form the base of the backfill test slope, and initial density and moisturecontent conditions were measured with a sand cone (ASTM D-1556) and anuclear density gauge (ASTM D-2922).

VFill material from the borrow source, tested during the previousGeotechnical Investigation and reported in the 1 April 1999 report, wasimported to the Site and stockpiled in the vicinity of the work area forsubsequent placement on the completed 4H:1V slopes.

22 Slope Construction

The field demonstration work was performed with conventional earth-moving equipment and by experienced operators. The equipmentincluded a tracked excavator, bulldozer, front end loader, smooth drum

• roller, and dump truck.

The slopes were constructed by first excavating fluff from the selectedExcavation Area. The excavated fluff was loaded into a truck andtransported to the slope construction area (Backfill Area). There, the fluffwas deposited in horizontal layers. Lifts were initially approximately 12inches .thick, although this thickness was subsequently decreased to 8 to10 inches so as to attain greater compaction with the small roller used.The bulldozer was used to distribute the; deposited fluff, and the smoothdrum roller was used to compact the distributed fluff. Typically, twopasses of the roller were used, although four passes was also tested.

EKM 2 LUCENT-N212100-9/13/99

AR300839

This sequence1 of fluff excavation and placement was generally repeateduntil the proposed (4H:1V) slopes were achieved at both the ExcavationArea and Backfill Area slopes. A settlement plate was placed on thebackfilled slope (in the center of the top bench area) before the last layer offluff was placed, to support subsequent measurements of slope settlement.Because of test size differences, the volume of fluff required to create theBackfill Area slope was greater than the volume of fluff excavated fromthe Excavation Area. Therefore, additional material was collected fromanother portion of the fluff pile (to the east of the Backfill Afrea) tofacilitate completion of the Backfill Area slope.

Following finish grading and compaction of the fluff surface, a layer ofimported soil was placed over each of the two slopes. The soil was evenlyspread with the bulldozer, and compacted with the smooth drum roller.

23 Observations and Testing

The entire field demonstration was observed by ERM personnel. Notesand observations were recorded in a field log book, and pictures weretaken to document all significant activities. In accordance with the FieldDemonstration Work Plan, nuclear gauge tests were performedperiodically, and sand cone tests were occasionally conducted inconjunction with the nuclear gauge tests for comparison purposes.Additionally, the slopes were surveyed during construction to confirmthat the desired (4H:1V) slopes were created, and the settlement plate wasalso surveyed to help assess slope movement or settlement.

2.4 Health and Safety Measures

Proper Health and Safety measures were taken during the work, asdetailed in the approved 12 August 1996 Remedial Action Work Plan.Dust control was achieved by using a water truck to spray water over thedisturbed areas. However, because the fluff was sufficiently moistbeneath the surface, dust generation was not a problem during theconstruction activities. ,

A decontamination pad was installed at the edge fluff pile, in the easternportion of the Site. High pressure spray equipment was used todecontaminate construction vehicles and equipment before re-entering thesite roadways or exiting the Site.

ERM 3 LUCBNT-N2122.00-9/13/99

AR3008liO

3.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. ' • -• --

The following subsections present a discussion of the field demonstrationresults. Test logs and calculation sheets, summary tables, figures andselected photographs are attached to this report.

3.1 Fluff Excavation and Handlingi . - •. •Excavation, loading and transportation of the fluff from the ExcavationArea to the Backfill Area proceeded smoothly with conventional earthmoving equipment. The excavated fluff was very homogeneous, andhandled like light-weight soil. The moisture content of the fluff wasfavorable for handling and the prevention of fugitive dust.

3.2 Compaction

In general, two passes of the roller sufficed in achieving compaction ofeach fluff lift, and additional passes did not seem to significantly enhancecompaction. Additional passes were performed when deemed necessary.However, it was found that decreasing the lift thickness was moreeffective in increasing compaction than increasing the number of rollerpasses. Approximately 8 to 10 inches of fluff were placed for each lift, asthis was found to be the optimal lift thickness to achieve sufficientcompaction with minimal roller passes and time expense. With two rollerpasses, an 8-10 inch lift generally compacted to a thickness ofapproximately 6 inches.

Upon completion of the desired slopes, approximately 10 to 12 inches ofsoil cover were placed over each of the two slopes and compacted. Fourroller passes were sufficient in compacting the soil bedding layer andformed a hard and stable final slope cover.

ERU * LUCENT-N2I2LOQ-9/15/99

AR3008UI

3.2.1 Density Testing

Nuclear density gauge readings were taken 'periodically throughout thefield demonstration to monitor fluff and soil densities and moisturecontents. Sand cone testing was also performed periodically during thedemonstration although at a lower frequency than the nuclear gaugetesting. The sand cone test results and corresponding nuclear gauge testresults are summarized on the attached Table 1, and the complete nucleargauge test results and backup sand cone calculation sheets are presentedin Attachment 1.

As can be seen from the results summarized on Table 1, significantvariation was observed between the sand cone and nuclear gauge testresults for the fluff (much lower variability was observed for soil). Thisvariability is suspected to be caused by the npn-soil-like properties of thecomponents of the fluff such as metal, plastic and paper, and the impact ofproperties on the nuclear density gauge readings and correlations, and themoisture content determinations for the sand cone tests. Despite thevariability between test methods, each test method produced fairlyconsistent results unto itself, and general relationships between the sandcone and nuclear gauge results can be observed as shown on Figures 4and 5. The design of any construction quality assurance testing programfor fluff compaction will need to carefully consider the variabilityobserved in these tests.

3.2.2 Degree of Compaction

Despite the use of only a small, drum roller for compaction (seephotographs in Attachment 2), the 8 to 10-inch thick loose lifts of fluffwere able to be compacted to a relatively stable and firm condition with aminimal number of passes of the roller (i.e., two). As can be seen on Table1, the use of four roller passes generally did not increase the degree of fluffcompaction as compared with the results from two passes. Compactedfluff was stable enough to support the weight of the earthmovingequipment, including a loaded dump truck (see Attachment 2).

As can be seen from Table 1, and depending on whether the sand cone orthe nuclear gauge test results are considered, the fluff was compacted tobetween 72% and 164% of the standard proctor maximum dry density.When compared to the in-place density of the fluff as measured duringprevious testing as well as at the Virgin Excavation Area (SC-2) locationpresented on Table 1, all compacted densities were generally similar to or

'

ERM LUCENT-N2122.00-9/15/99

AR3008l*2

higher than the in-place densities. Therefore, no significant volumeincrease would be expected as a result of fluff relocation.

The soil cover layer was distributed and compacted relatively easily onthe completed Excavation Area and Backfill Area slopes. Although only asmall roller was used for compaction, and no moisture control waspracticed, the borrow soil was compacted to a stable and firm condition asevidenced by equipment traffic on the soiL Testing results indicate thatdry densities of the compacted soil were up to approximately 90% of thestandard proctor maximum dry densities. This degree of compactionshould be suitable for cap construction purposes, and it is likely that thisdegree of compaction can be improved during full-scale operationthrough the use of appropriate borrow soil, larger compaction equipment,and moisture control.

33 SLOPE STABILITY AND SETTLEMENT

Based on visual observations of the entire fluff pile, the fluff materialappears to be very stable and without any signs of significant erosion orslope failures, even in the steeper areas of the pile that approach 1H:1V.As stated in the 1 April 1999 Geotechnical Investigation Results summaryreport, the fluff material is generally favorable with regards to itsengineering properties and shear strength. Calculations indicate fluffstability at slopes that are at least as steep as 3H:1V, and the existing steepslopes further support the apparent stability.

As expected, the 4H:1V slopes in both the Excavation and Backfill Areasappeared to be stable both during and after slope construction. Thestability of the slope was evidenced by its ability to support heavyequipment traffic, including a loaded dump truck on the Backfill Areaslope. . - . - : . - .

With regards to settlement, no obvious or problematic settlement wasobserved in the Excavation or Backfill Areas. Based on surveying of thesettlement plate which was placed at the completion of the Backfill Areaslope, the Backfill Area settled approximately 2.7 inches after 18 days,with only an additional 0.7 inches of settlement measured 10 days later.This settlement is believed to be a result of compression of the fluffmaterial, and/or disturbance of the settlement plate. This degree ofsettlement is relatively minor and would not impact the implementabilityor effectiveness of a cover system. Settlement issues would be consideredduring the remedial design phase.

BUM 6 LUCENT-N2in.OO-9/13/99

AR3008I+3

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. '• . -v- >•• • " •The field demonstration has proven the feasibility of the proposed in-place containment remedy, and the potential ease of implementation. Theresults of the field demonstration support the evaluation and conclusionspreviously presented in the Focused Feasibility Study (FS) andGeotechnical Investigation reports previously submitted to the EPA.*The major conclusions drawn from the results of the field demonstrationactivities are as follows:• the fluff material can be readily excavated, handled, placed, compacted

and regraded with conventional earthmoving equipment as would benecessary for in-place closure of the fluff pile;

• the natural moisture content of the fluff material helps preclude dustproblems, and is generally favorable for fluff handling andcompaction;

• despite the use of only a small roller, and the absence of any moisturecontrol or adjustment, excavated and relocated fluff was able to becompacted to dry densities that are similar to or greater than thestandard proctor maximum dry densities;

• because the compacted fluff densities are similar to the current, in-place fluff density, no significant increase or decrease in fluff volumewould be expected to result from fluff relocation;

• slopes of at least 4H:1V can be constructed with the fluff in both cutand fill areas, and such slopes are adequately stable to facilitate coverplacement and equipment traffic;

• despite the use of a small roller, no moisture adjustment, and less thanideal borrow soil, a firm and stable soil cover is able to be placed andcompacted on prepared fluff slopes to a degree necessary for capconstruction (dry density values of approximately 90% of the standardproctor maximum dry density were achieved in the fielddemonstration);

• because of the unusual properties of the fluff, any compaction andtesting criteria established for the fluff will need to be carefullyconsider the testing method(s) to be used (e.g., sand cone versusnuclear density gauge);

• post-compaction settlement of recompacted fluff is expected to berelatively minimal and easily tolerated by the proposed cover systemfor the fluff pile; and

ERM 7 LUCENT-mm.00-9/15/9?

AR3008l*U

coordinatibn and sequencing of the fluff regrading and relocationactivities will be important for efficient project implementation.

ERM 8 LUCENT- N21U.OO- 9/13/9*

flR3008l+5

" ' . K ' : ' v V V . * / \ * ' ' .'-; .;;;.': ....•.:v' ;:-.::r ; :';-v,rr:-;-/: ''.••

00O

OQOCO0)O

I- eoO8O

cO**••MM

jITcco

O 'C* OS

•U.O

COcCDQ

O O O O Q Q Ooo r to 35 ** co CM(e«/sq|) A suaa AJQ suoo pues

RR300850

yf-'Hv

cO

cLO (00) "C. CO

CL

oO

coQ

I

(cW/sqi) Aiisuaa ISM euoo pues

AR30085I

, '"• • , - *- '•"'•y. "***'-_ -.'-vi' J^K.V*+ •Wvi.w'.yjL'v,;.'-/ - /-"7." . ~"L" •' '* ?''*'* • •- , -'j-i' ""/~-f v.-r. - -t" t' .'!•-&•£ V '''V •"- 'k£..'.l- ''- fvr "* '•? " '-.- • 71' '•/ , '•. ~v -' ' . - '. .-:y " v - -ivi- '• v \^" -.' * '-—H: v ''- *" -i^ ^" -T1 i. '^ .'^ > ,'V 'r -, •--; *,"• T'AT* TV HII L ". , * • „- • - • ],. , u j,? ,,i,I "DC. -• % *" ' • --- • i. • - n * ~

-^ r vt-C~* f'iJ*i.',' V "t'T» ""*. T ii ^ j -T1,1 - ^ ' r'. fc*' :L?» *. V' ^ **«-*/' • lil "*'' u. •.'"-. , /»d -',' ' ' j'' y ?T'-J"- [-V -i.' - ' J\ '" "^ .' ***-!'. L!A' - T"*" . ' - '''"'•> ;' 'f " " * . • j • -n * _;

i " ..'.->;;ir-i':;''-"-A--' V--- >-• -- v . i"-,;*?;?*A" ' "-V:-.;;;, : Y'i-<---,k'-J~T -/-"• .H*'.,.•>:.v-;r-' 'i 'j.~-1ir-I{'i;;'"1-;*"1;Vi,-.'1;-' ::,;.' -;" -...- -•-,;.-.-, '•'* '•--:,'.-• •&••;•** -:- --vs>*«r. '--..• ..\, •. v,v - ]'-'/ ^•-••"_i. »:- V •*;•-"•'• '<r-- - -•'. '.v.-r..* ' ".--t-x' : -, .. v . ;' ,' r-'.'. '-- '•-' -'-- -' '" * •'

r :- ..-•• '•..' ».-.-«; •-.'i^ .- .s,- ':* ",:s|l '-.'•'„•''";-• ,...'-:.• :p,*1"".'':•'• •• '-^"-T- ,,VU •-''>">" -4~-- *."??--.'*" "''.-. .- ' '-•-' -.:,;„"/._ ' :,..J;,>:>--. .';-Li- '<--'',';; .••;,..'i'V*; ,•-..:-•.,:*- :.'.-y-i;._\; &?*,»'-'- y**-\\'' -£-'i\iS\;ivVv'-7;:*.'':'!".': -V1';' "• •'"• ••'.•.V1 ,''-"''' •'"' ••••'••••'',

s' "V"'.'.""""'j" .V1'1 '"''T1*••*'•";;"""' '•'.'."?•'-.L"'. "'--•-T>''"'*'•'•- '""..'.''''''•"'',''V V-r"'-!'--'.'1-V-' '" '-"'".l t>.:' '•-'•:'--",'";'./'•''v' ' '-"''•• "'•""'-••i1' -:V" --. "•-. - "

:vv .;•,,'(•;-:'!,;• ^-.i -v? :i ':~" ' --•-'•-'•f ' iV;%7i"V ^ I'V "'"1'.-".-1'-"" -"• "•' •'•' "'>''"" ".".

,-- • l-;'-\-.-- -A- '(i;-; '•'..'•;• ,-." i('-+;-'?','. J ••!'-- '"•'/'".• ."''••' ,.':i"-.f,. -"'A. '•••': •' "1" "."''••'•"••"''-i"-"1'":""'"'-.. !;£-'• ':'4" -- • " '• '.•~'"-' /

''""-•'

>r-y"

«S|I"

g

a:

CO

CO

S3(0CO

„ K » « C K

o

<P

CJ

COr>

OCO

CM

5

AR300853

p

Attachment!Sand Cone

' Test Result

;::;S ,-:f!"l

Sand Cone Density TestsField Demonstration :

Eastern Diversified MetalsHometown, Pennsylvania

Project: EDM- Field DemoDate: 6/9/99

Sand Cone Calibration .

[A] Determination of Bulk Density of Sand

Volume o f Density Apparatus. V « : - ' • • ' - '

(1) Weight of Apparatus & Water Required to Fill Apparatus (g) 4,780(2) Weight of Apparatus (g) . .- 749(3) Weight of Water Required to Fill Apparatus (g) 4,031(4) Temperature of Water (from Table 13-2) 1.00131(5) Volume of Density Apparatus (ml) V, 4036.3

-•.-'.; • ' *'Bulk Density of Sand. W<:

' ' . " . * . , "(6) Weight of Apparatus & Sand Required to Fill Apparatus (g) . 6,610(7) Weight of Apparatus (g) . 749(8) Weight of Sand Required to Fill Apparatus (g) W2 5,861(9) Bulk Density of Sand (Ib/ft3) Wt«W2/Vi 90.65

[B] Determination of Weight of Sand Required to Fill Funnel & Base Plate, Wa

(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand Required to Fill Apparatus (g) 6,629(2) Weight of Apparatus & Remaining Sand (after filling funnel & base plate) (g) 5,061(3) Weight of Sand Required to Fill Funnel and Base Plate (g) WB 1,568

AR300855

Sand Cone Density TestsField Demonstration


Project: EDM • Reld DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/9/99Test ID: SC-1Test Location: Center Sub-Base - Fill AreaMaterial Type: Soil/Fluff

Determination of Density of Soil in Place

[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w): ,(1) Container No. M-2(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 67.9(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) . 64.2(4) Weight of Container (g) . 37.4(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample, (g) W3 30.5(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 26.8(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 13.8

[Bl In-Plac» Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,402(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 4,265(3) Weight of Sand Used in Test (g) W7 2,137(4) Weight of Sand to Filf Funnel & Base Plate (g) Wa 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 569(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3) W, 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holefft3) V 0.0138(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 717(9) Weight of Pan (g) 150(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) Ws 567(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w 13.8(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) W« 1.099(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 79.39

Wet Density Dry Density(1+ Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) 90.58

AR300856


Eastern Diversified MetalsHometown) Pennsylvania

Project: EDM - Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/9/99Test ID: SC-2Test Location: Virgin Cut AreaMaterial Type: Fluff


[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w): . ' . . ' •(1) Container No. M-4(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 49.4(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 46(4) Weight of Container (g) 31.7(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W3 17.7(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 14.3(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 23.8

[B] In-Place Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,610(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 4,270(3) Weight of Sand Used hi Test (g) W7 2,340(4) Weight of Sand to Rll Funnel & Base Plate (g) W8 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 772(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3). W! 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holefft3) - V 0.0188(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 509(9) Weight of Pan (g) 150(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) W5 359(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w . 23.8(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) . W6 0.640(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 34.06

Wet Density- Dry Density(1+ Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) 42.10

flR300857



Project: EDM - Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/10/99Test ID: SC-3Test Location: Center-Fill Area (1st lift; 2 passes)Material Type: Ruff


[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w):(1) Container No. . SC-3(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 208.8(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 197.5(4) Weight of Container (g) 180.3(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W3 28.5(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 17.2(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 65.7

[B] In-Place Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,880(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 4,242(3) Weight of Sand Used in Test (g) W7 2,638(4) Weight of Sand to Fill Funnel & Base Plate (g) Wa 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 1,070(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3) W* 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holetft3) V 0.0260(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 948(9) Weight of Pan (g) 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) W, 793(11) Moisture Content In Soil from Test Hole (%) w 65.7(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g> Wfl 1.055(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 40.55

Wet Density-Dry Density(1+Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) 67.27

AR300858

Sand Cone Density TestsField Demonstration ;,


Project: EDM • Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/10/99Test ID: SC-4Test Location: Center-Fill Area (2nd lift; 2 passes)Material Type: Fluff


[A] Moisture Content of Material from test Hole (w):(1) Container No. M-1(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 48.7(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 42(4) Weight of Container (g) 31(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W3 17.7(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 11(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 60.9

[B] In-Place Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,544

. (2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 3,703(3) • Weight of Sand Used in Test (g) W7 2,841

• (4) Weight of Sand to Fill Funnel & Base Plate (g) Wa 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 1,273(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3) W, 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holefft3) V 0.0310(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 953(9) Weight of Pan (g) ; 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) W5 798(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w 60.9(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) We 1.094(13) Dry Density of Soil to Place (Ib/ft3) W 35.32

Wet Density Dry Density(1+ Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) 56.83

AR300859



Project: EDM - Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/10/99Test ID: SC-5Test Location: Center-Fill Area (2nd lift; 4 passes)Material Type: Ruff

Determination of Density of Soil In Place • •.-

[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w):(1) Container No. -M-3(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 45.4(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 39.8(4) Weight of Container (g) 31,2(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W3 14.2(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 8.6(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 65.1

[B] In-PIace Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,510(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 3,589(3) Weight of Sand Used In Test (g) W7 2,921(4) Weight of Sand to Fill Funnel & Base Plate (g) W0 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 1,353(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3). W! 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holefft3) V 0.0329(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 1,026(9) Weight of Pan (g) 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) . W8 871(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w 65.1(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) ' W8 1.163(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 35.35

Wet Density* Dry Density(1+ Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) 58.37

flR300860



Project: EDM * Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/10/99Test ID: SC-6Test Location: Center-Fill Area (4th lift; 2 passes)Material Type: Fluff


[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w): ' .(1) Container No. M-2(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 45.1(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 39.6(4) Weight of Container (g) 31.4(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W3 13.7(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 8.4(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 63.1

[B]ln-Place Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,511(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 3,414(3) Weight of Sand Used in Test (g) W7 3,097(4) Weight of Sand to Fill Funnel & Base Plate (g) Wa 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 1,529(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3) W, 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holefft3) V 0.0372(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 1,025(9) Weight of Pan (g) 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) W6 870(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w 63.1(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) W« 1.176(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 31.63


AR30086I



Project: EDM • Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/11/99Test ID: SC-7Test Location: Center-Fill Area (5th lift; 2 passes)Material Type: Fluff


[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w):(1) Container No. M-1(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 49.7(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 43.6(4) Weight of Container (g) 31(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) . W3 18.7(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 12.6(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 48.4

[B]ln-P!ac» Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,423(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 3,444(3) Weight of Sand Used in Test (g) W7 2,979(4) Weight of Sand to Fill Funnel & Base Plate (g) We 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 1,411(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3) w 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holefft3) V 0.0343(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 1,071(9) Weight of Pan (g) 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) W8 916(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w 48.4

, (12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) W6 1.361(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 39.66

Wet Density- Dry Denstty(1+ Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) 58.91

AR300862


Eastern Diversified MetalsHometown. Pennsylvania

Project: EDM • Field Demo •Tested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/14/99Test ID: SC-8Test Location: Center-Fill Area (29th lift; 2 passes)Material Type: Fluff


[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w):(1) Container No. M-2(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 63.4(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 54.8(4) Weight of Container (g) 31.4(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) . W3 . 32(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 23.4(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 36.8

[B] In-Place Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,600(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) - 3,442(3) Weight of Sand Used in Test (g) W7 3,158(4) Weight of Sand to Rll Funnel & Base Plate (g) W8 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Jest Hole (g) 1,590(6) Density of Sand (ib/ft3) W, 90.65(7) Volume of Test Holefft3) .V 0.0387(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 1,477(9) Weight of Pan (g) 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) Ws 1322(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w 36.8(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) ' We 2.132(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 55.12

Wet Density- Dry Densfty(1+ Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) . 75.38

AR300863

Sand Cone Density TestsReld Demonstration


Project: EDM - Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/14/99Test ID: SC-9Test Location: Center-Fill Area (31 st lift»1 st soil lift; 4 passes)Material Type: Soil


[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w):(1) Container No. M-3(2) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) ' 60.8(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 57.4(4) Weight of Container (g) 31.2(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W3 ' 29.6(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 26.2(7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 13.0

[B] In-Place Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,457(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 3,592(3) Weight of Sand Used in Test (g) W7 2,865(4) Weight of Sand to Fill Funnel & Base Plate (g) W8 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used in Test Hole (g) 1,297(6) Density of Sand (Ib/ft3) Wt 90.65(7) Volume of Test Ho ft3) V 0.0315(8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 1,887(9) Weight of Pan (g) 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) W5 1732(11) Moisture Content in Soil from Test Hole (%) w 13.0(12) Dry Weight of Soil from Test Hole (g) We 3.380(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 107.17


AR30086it

p- ttfillfell

Q. CM

f §5

I

gH ™

* w

*! aS ^ 0) ^1 i• * 41 Ots» £ft .. H

S c3 5 cB

iy

e

I

Ul

St

UJ

V.

I

COo

(O

s

o

CMin

UJ

CO

inM

s

£

to

CO

o>£

CO

O

CO

Io

CM

c

O

o

ino

O

in

CO

S

CM

O

0

SCM

O

(O

CM

o

AR300865

CM"5

CO

CM OO

u> CO

<o3

CO

10in

o>

s

CM

in

oo

I*"

in

<o

CM*

u>

CM

CMV

AR300866.

-.£ J3 •»en

"8 ».

o 5: c %a jfi *> c to

CM ® CM

COa

| fillsllQUJ

£

S

CO

CM

in

O

8

CM

CO

CO

CO

b

O)

in

U)

O

at

m

CO

CO

O

COCO

S

o>

CS

CM

i

6

M

D

o>

0 0 0 0 0II S2 2

CO

en

oi

AR300867

IQ_

ttachrrientl ; ;:Wbrfc Photographs

-s.' ..-.rr

i': "-• •-- f'?-£ r ;f'-;'r V

fe -iW

Photograph 1: Grading of the fluff in the Cut Area, to achieve a (4H:1V)slope. •

Photograph!: Troxler Nuclear Density Gauge Testing of the compacted.fluff in the Cut Area.

ERM 1 LUCENT-N2U100.01-07/U/W

AR300869

Photographs: Compaction of soil on the Cut Area slope.

Photograph 4: Completed soil layer on the Cut Area (4H:1V) slbpe.

2 tucn*r-»amaojn-€y/tt/9t

AR300870

Photograph 5: Placement of the second lift of fluff over the firstcompacted fluff layer, in the Fill Area.

Photograph 6: Sand cone testing of compacted fluff in Fill Area. '

. 3

ftR30087t

Photograph 7: Excavated fluff from the Cut Area being placed at the FillArea (note stability of loaded truck on compacted slope).

Photograph 8: Placement and grading of the soil cover layer over theFill Area (approximately 4H.-1V) slope.

HRM ; ^ LUCHNM«UMa01-07/13/«i

AR30087Z

Photograph 9: View of the Settlement Plate rod, placed under the lastfluff lift and soil bedding layer, at the top of the Fill Areaslope.

Photograph 10: View of the completed Fill Area (4H:1 V)

" V ' 1 " - . 5 ' UICBNT-N2122.00.0147/U/99

AR300873

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III

165° Arch street BuildingPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

August 17, 1999

Mr. Valdis Jurka, P.E.Lucent Technologies, Inc.Room 2S002475 South StreetMorristownNJ 07962-1276

RE: Comments on EDM Site - Field Demonstration Report

Dear Mr. Jurka:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has submitted comments to EPA on theField Demonstration Report for the EDM Site, PA, July 19,1999. EPA is relying on the USAGEfor specialized knowledge of the fluff stability tests. These are the only comments that you willreceive from EPA. EPA gives conditional approval of the report assuming that the commentsbelow are addressed and that the final report with those changes is resubmitted to EPA. Thecomments from the USAGE follow:

1. Reference, Field Demonstration Report for the EDM Site, PA, 19 July1999.

2. The referenced report was reviewed. The report accurately describes theconstruction actives that was observed during my site visit.

3. We concur with the report's conclusions that the field demonstration hasshown that in-place containment is a feasible option for remediation of thissite.

4. In reviewing the report some minor discrepancies were found and arelisted below:

a. For sand cone SC-6, the calculation sheet in Attachment 1indicates the location of the sand cone test on the 4th lift; however, Table1 and the tables at the end of Attachment 1 indicate the location of thetest on lift #6.

b. For sand cone SG-7, the calculation sheet in Attachment Iindicates the location of the sand cone test on the 5th lift; however, Table

&R30087UCelebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress

1 and the tables at the end of Attachment 1 indicate the location of thetest within the 40' cut area.

c. For sand cone SC-8, the calculation sheet in Attachment 1indicates the location of the sand cone test on lift #26; however, Table 1and the tables at the end of Attachment 1 indicate the location of the teston lift #29.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (215) 814-3221.

Sincerely,

•rank VavraRemedial Project Manager

cc. Jim Kunkle, PADEPJoseph lannuzzo, PADEPGregg Crystall, EPA

Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental ProgressAR30087S

" eUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III\ 1650 Arch Street Building* Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

May 21, 1999

Mr. Valdis Jurka, P.E.Lucent Technologies, Inc.Room 2S002475 South StreetMorristown NJ 07962-1976

RE: Field Demonstration Work Plan For In-Place ClosureEastern Diversified Metals Site

Dear Mr. Yurka:

EPA has reviewed the revised Field Demonstration Work Plan for In-Place Closure at theEastern Diversified Metals Site. The EPA and the USAGE have minimal comments on the Planwhich follow:

Page 1, paragraph "Execution"'- If the lift thickness is changed, additional field density testingshould be performed.

Page 2, The area of the bedding layer demonstration pad should be of sufficient size to ensurethat the normal operating speed of the smooth roller, which will be used in the construction ofthe final cap, can be achieved during the demonstration. If this is a problem, the pad may need tobe lengthened.

Page 2, Nuclear and sand cone density tests should be performed at the same locations tocorrelate results.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (215) 814-3221.

Sincerely,

Frank VavraRemedial Project Manager

cc. Gary B. Emmanuel, ERMMimi Boxwell, USAGEJim Kunkle, PADEPJoseph lannuzzo, PADEPGregg Crystall, EPA

Celebrating 25 Yean of Environmental Progress _ mAR30087&

of 1

From: Douglas Shenk <[email protected]>To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;

[email protected] <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Gary Emmanuel

<[email protected]>Date: Wednesday, September 01,199910:39 PMSubject: EDM Field Demo Report

Frank,Attached is a response letter (with corrected attachments) to your 17 August1999 letter regarding the EDM Field Demonstration Report. Please let me know ifthe letter format with attachments meets with your approval. Otherwise, I canhave the complete document reissued.

(See attached file: Response Letter Attachments.xls)(See attached file: Responsecover letter.doc)

9/7/99

• AR300877

31 August 1999Reference: N2122.00.01

Mr. Frank VavraRemedial Project ManagerUSEPA Region HIWestern Pennsylvania Remedial Section1650 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Vavra:

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) herein submits this letterand the attached revisions to the 19 July 1999 Field DemonstrationReport for the Eastern Diversified Metals (EDM) Site, based oncomments received via letter dated 17 August 1999 from Frank Vavra ofthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Overall, several minordiscrepancies in sand cone and nuclear density gauge test locations werecorrected, as well as the corresponding figures. This submittal respondsto each of the comments.

This letter is formatted with each comment in underlined italicized textfollowed by the response in plain text Attachments are provided asnecessary.

L For sand cone SC-6, the calculation sheet in Attachment 1 indicates thelocation of the sand cone test on the 4* lift; however. Table 1 and fhe tablesat the end of Attachment 1 indicate the location of the test on lift #6.

Sand cone test SC-6 was performed on the 4th lift Table 1 and thetables at the end of Attachment 1 were corrected accordingly.

2. For sand cone SC-7. the calculation sheet in Attachment I indicates fhelocation of the sand corit test an the 5* lift: however. Table 1 and fftg tablesat the end of Attachment 1 indicate the location of the test within the 40' cutarea.

Sand cone SC-7 was conducted on the 5th lift; therefore, Table 1 and. the tables at the end of Attachment 1 were corrected accordingly.

AR300878

Mr. Frank VavraN2122.00.0131 August 1999Page 2

3. For sand cone SC-S, the calculation sheet in Attachment 1 indicates thelocation of the sand cone test on lift: #26; however. Table I and the tables atthe end of Attachment 1 indicate the location of test on lift #29.

Sand cone test SC-8 was performed following lift #29; therefore, the 'corresponding calculation sheet was corrected.

A copy of the following revised pages are attached for inclusion into theField Demonstration Report. Table 1;• Sand cone SC-8 calculation sheet;• Troxler nuclear gauge density tests summary table for the Fill Area;• Troxler nuclear gauge density tests summary table for the Cut Area;

and .! - . , - • '

• Figures 4 and 5. "i ', .

If you should have any questions or comments regarding this letter orthe attached documents, please contact me at (610) 524-3781 at yourconvenience. •'

Sincerely,

Douglas J.Shenk,P.E.ERM Project Manager

. .enclosures: revised sand cone test calculations (for SC-8)

revised density test summary tablesrevised Figures 4 and 5

cc: J. lannuzzo, PADEP .,J. Kunkle, PADEPJ. D'Onorrio, PADEPM.Boxwell, USAGEJ. Mueller, US ACEV. Jurka, Lucent

AR300879

(O

Ol

(71

w

oo>

M

AR300880

Sand Cone Density Tests; Field DemonstrationEastern Diversified MetalsHometown, Pennsylvania

Project: EDM - Field DemoTested by: GFP/DJS/CJCDate: 6/14/99Test ID: SC-8Test Location: Center-Fill Area (29th lift; 2 passes)Material Type: Fluff

Determination of Density of Soil In Place . .

[A] Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (w):(1) ContainerNo. .'• " M-2(2) - Moist Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 63.4(3) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample & Container (g) 54.8(4) Weight of Container (g) 31.4(5) Moist Weight of Moisture Sample (g) - W3 32(6) Dry Weight of Moisture Sample (g) W4 23.4

- (7) Moisture Content of Material from Test Hole (%) w 36.8

[B] In-Place Density (W):(1) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (before use) (g) 6,600(2) Weight of Apparatus & Sand (after use) (g) 3,442(3) Weight of Sand Used In Test (g) W7 3,156(4) Weight of Sand to Fill Funnel & Base Plate (g) W8 1,568(5) Weight of Sand Used In Test Hole (g) 1,590(6) Density of Sand (Ib/n3) . w, 90.65(7) Volume of Test Hole(ft3) V 0.0387

. (8) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole & Pan (g) 1,477(9) Weight of Pan (g) 155(10) Wet Weight of Soil from Hole (g) W9 1322(11) Moisture Content In Soil from Test Hole (%) w 36.8<12): Dry Weight of Soil from fesi Hole (g) Wa 2.132(13) Dry Density of Soil in Place (Ib/ft3) W 65.12

Wet Density* Dry Dehsity(1* Moisture Content) (Ib/ft3) 76.38

AR30088I

roS,to

Ul

Q>

*•

3

* o 3 PI" !«,»».».

li

ro

W

O

iro

to

O

te3»3M

2

la*COro

OO

gliIkjnIO

boro to

O

IO

2S

33?-»l -*4 -"

!

I2-

alIff jrS

l||§f * i w_• 9

• ill!» 5Ti -I

AR300882

S

ro

r/C-

ro

r/e-#

ro

800

s

o

8-

i

g >

CD

K>

o

00

SO)

00

3J

IOm

r

m

ro

ggg

o

31

?

33

a?

sH " SI S»I IB0

55?ii£3 I £•• •• 3

§ — £ c8 15 «

S

AR300883

O

en

CO

O

CO

co

00

en

CO

ct

o

en

c?

ct

ro

CO

ro

oed)

o

CO

ro

0>

-n= = = = = S S S S S 7

S

ro

c*>

en

CO

01

CO

£&£!$

o>

>

CO

en

en

COen

a

ro

CO

OB

ro

k)

CD

en

ro

OB

*

ss?I

05 CO GO </) CO M

aa

o •* 3 <** r§ 3- G>•M IE y A»

tt

AR300881*

riloure4

NUKE SAND CONESC-2SC-3SC-4SC-5SC-6SC-7SC-8

. 62.564.164.663.464.864.172.2

34.06,. 40.55

35.3235.3531.6339.6655.12

Figure 4Dry Density Comparison (Ruff Only)

J

70 80

PagelAR300885

n•i

Figure 5

FiguresWet Density Comparison (Fluff Only)

RR300886

AR300833 - United States Environmental Protection Agency · 2019-06-24 · contents. Sand cone...

Documents

Transcript of AR300833 - United States Environmental Protection Agency · 2019-06-24 · contents. Sand cone...