SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

HUNTERSTOWN ROAD SITESTRABAN TOWNSHIP

ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PROJECT No. 87-376OCTOBER 23, 1989

PAUL C. Rizzo ASSOCIATES, INC.300 OXFORD DRIVE

MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146PHONE: (412) 856-9700

TELEFAX: (412) 856-9749

AR30UI6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES iii.

LIST OF FIGURES iti

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RESULTS OF THE PHASE I INVESTIGATION 3

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 32.2 RI/FS OBJECTIVES 52.3 SUMMARY OF PHASE I 6

3.0 PHASE II RATIONALE 9

3.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLES - OPERABLE UNIT 1 103.2 CORNFIELDS 103.3 STRESSED VEGETATION AREA 103.4 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT 113.5 GROUNDWATER 113.6 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 12

3.6.1 Expedited Response Actions 133.6.2 Source Control 133.6.3 Management of Migration 143.6.4 No-Action Alternative 15

4.0 PHASE II SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 16

4.1 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT (OPERABLE UNIT 2) 16

4.1.1 Residential Well Survey 164.1.2 Monitoring Well Installation 174.1.3 Sampling and Analysis of Monitoring Wells 184.1.4 Subsurface Dike Assessment 184.1.5 Pump Test 19

4.2 SURFACE SOIL ASSESSMENT 20

4.2.1 Cornfields 204.2.2 Stressed Vegetation Area 21

4.3 SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT 214.4 SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT 224.5 SURVEY OF OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES 224.6 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE II 23

o

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

5.0 TREATABILITY STUDIES 25

6.0 NON-TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO PHASE II 26

7.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION FOR PHASE II 27

8.0 SCHEDULE 28

9.0 SUMMARY 29

TABLES

FIGURES

11

fiR30UI8

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE

SAP-1 SAMPLE AND ANALYTICAL SUMMARY, PHASE II

SAP-2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW MONITORING WELLS,PHASE II

SAP-3 QUALITY ASSURANCE, DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVESUMMARY, PHASE II

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE

2-1 SITE LOCATION MAP

2-2 SITE PLAN

4-1 MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS

4-2 PROPOSED CORNFIELD GRID SYSTEM

4-3 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SOIL AREAS

4-4 PROPOSED SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLELOCATIONS

8-1 SCHEDULE

111

AR30UI9

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

HUNTERSTOWN ROAD SITESTRABAN TOWNSHIP

ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A Work Plan for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)Investigation for the Hunterstown Road Site was prepared by Paul C.

Rizzo Associates, Inc. (Rizzo Associates) on behalf of the WestinghouseElectric Corporation (Westinghouse) in accordance with the consent order

between Westinghouse and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region III (USEPA). The date of preparation of this Work Plan isFebruary 11, 1988. The Work Plan was conditionally approved by theUSEPA in September 1988 and unconditionally approved on or about

December 1, 1988. The basis for the approved Work Plan is a consentorder between Westinghouse and USEPA Region III dated March 10, 1987

(USEPA Docket No. III-87-5-DC). The Work Plan has been prepared inaccordance with the RI/FS guidelines presented in the NationalContingency Plan published in the Federal Register (November 20, 1985)and Section 1.2.1 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA).

The Work Plan .contained provisions for a phased technical approach tothe performance of a RI/FS. The phased RI/FS process is intended tofocus the site investigation so that only data necessary to support theRI/FS and the decision making process are collected. As described inthe Work Plan, the RI portion of the project is to be a two-phasedstudy. The emphasis in Phase I is to determine the contaminants ofinterest at the site and also to the study the physical characteristicsof the area such as geology and hydrogeology. The Phase I RI has beencompleted. A comprehensive Phase I RI Report was submitted to the USEPAon August 4, 1989.

flR30U20

As described in the Work Plan, the second phase (Phase II) of the studyis to be conducted to further assess the nature and extent of

contamination and to obtain certain additional data necessary for the

proper performance of the feasibility study. The scope of Phase II iscontingent upon Phase I of the RI/FS and was therefore not defined in

the February 1988 Work Plan. As the Phase I has been recently completedit is possible to formulate the scope of Phase II. The purpose of thissubmittal is to document the performance of the Phase II and to indicatehow the results of Phase II will be incorporated into the overall RI/FS

process as described in the Work Plan. Subsequent sections of the thisPlan are:

•

• Section 2.0: Background and Results ofPhase I

• Section 3.0: Phase II Rationale

• Section 4.0: Phase II Sampling and AnalysisActivities

• Section 5.0: Treatability Studies

• Section 6.0: Preliminary Screening of RemedialAlternatives

• Section 7.0: Project Organization for Phase IIRI Activities

• Section 8.0: Schedule

• Section 9.0: Summary

In preparing this Sampling and Analysis Plan, provisions of the originalWork Plan and the Phase I Report have not been repeated; this Planshould be reviewed as an extension of those documents and not as a self-standing document. In addition, technical procedures described in theQuality Assurance Project Plan (QA Plan) and in the Site Operations Plan

are not modified by this document except where specifically notedotherwise. In particular, procedures that have been already used andadopted for Phase I sampling and analysis will be utilized inPhase II except where noted otherwise.

AR30U2I

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RESULTS OF THE PHASE I INVESTIGATION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Hunterstown Road Site is located about 1.5 miles northeast ofdowntown Gettysburg in Straban Township, Adams County, Pennsylvania. A

site location map is provided as Figure 2-1. Topography in the area isgently rolling. The site area is semirural with both farmlands andresidences.

The site occupies an approximate area of 22 acres, and portions ofthe site lie both east and west of Hunterstown Road, as shown onFigure 2-2. The coordinates of the site are latitude 39° 51' 6" andlongitude 77° 12' 18".

There are three unnamed tributaries of Rock Creek which flow adjacent toportions of the site. These are referred to herein as the West Stream,Middle Stream, and East Stream, as indicated on Figure 2-2. The Westand Middle Streams join just north of Shealer Road, and the East Streamjoins the other combined streams approximately 1,000 feet south of

Shealer Road.

There are seven identified areas of specific interest at the site. The

former Drum Burial Area 1 is located west of Hunterstown Road. Theothers areas are located east of the road. These are shown onFigure 2-2 and are briefly described as follows:

• Former Drum Burial Area 1This area is located just east of the WestStream, and has an approximate length of 440feet and a width averaging 90 feet.

* Former Drum Burial Area 2This area lies north of the access road andimmediately west of the Middle Stream. Theapproximate dimensions are 180 feet by 50 feet.

AR30U22

* North CornfieldA roughly triangular open field located north ofthe access road. The field is approximately 500feet wide at the base and about 800 feet inlength.

• South CornfieldA roughly square open field located south of theaccess road. The field has approximatedimensions of 400 feet by 400 feet.

• Former Lagoon AreaA sloping area with approximate dimensions of100 feet by 150 feet. The area is enclosed by achain-link fence.

• Stressed Vegetation AreaThis area is located east of the South Cornfieldand roughly southwest of the Lagoon. It hasapproximate dimensions of 50 feet by 100 feet.

• Borrow AreaThis area is located along the east bank of theeast stream. It has approximate dimensions of175 feet by 175 feet.

investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources(PADER) into the dumping on the Shealer property was initiated as aresult of a complaint from the Adams County Community EnvironmentalControl Office.

In January 1984, PADER requested assistance from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) in investigating'the disposal site. PADERalso requested aid in implementing any necessary immediate removal orremedial response measures.

On March 22, 1984, USEPA issued a CERCLA Section 106 unilateralAdministrative Order to the Westinghouse Electric Corporation(Westinghouse). Westinghouse was required to provide, within seven daysof the effective date of the Order, a sufficient temporary potable watersupply to all households where the USEPA On-Scene Coordinator deemed

AR30IU23

such remedial action was needed. The Order was supplemented onAugust 8, 1984, by a request to provide potable water to additional

homes in the site area.

From 1984 to 1989, Westinghouse and their contractors performed the

following remedial activities at the site:

• Decommissioning of the Lagoon including removalof sludges, liquids, and soil.

• Removal of waste material (asbestos) from theBorrow Area.

, • Installation of fencing around the former Lagoonand eastern portion of the South Cornfield.

• Application of lime to former Lagoon and StressVegetation Area.

• Removal of contaminated debris from the EastStream.

• Removal of waste contained in former Drum BurialAreas 1 and 2.

• Potable water was supplied to nearby residents.

2.2 RI/FS OBJECTIVES

As documented in the Work Plan, the overall objectives of the RI/FS areas follows:

• Identify potential sources of contamination.This in particular includes assessment of sourceareas which could release contaminants to theenvironment in the future.

• Identify the nature and extent of currentcontamination.

• Assess pathways of migration.

• Assess risk (endangerment assessment).

AR30U21*

• Identify remedial alternatives including the noaction alternative given that significantremediation has already occurred.

• Evaluation remediation alternatives in term oftechnical feasibility, estimated costs,effectiveness in reducing public health andenvironmental risk.

Phase I was initiated in December 1988 and culminated with the issuanceof the Phase I Report in August 1989. The goals of the Phase IInvestigation, as documented in the Work Plan, were as follow:

• Characterize bedrock fractures through afracture trace study.

• Characterize the site geology.

• Document site climatic conditions.

• Characterize the site with the nature and extentof contaminants present.

• Characterize the site hydrogeology.

• Assess vertical and lateral flow gradients atthe site.

• Study the vertical and lateral extent of soilcontamination.

• Assess whether nearby streams are currentlytransporting contaminants from the site.

• Clarify current and designated uses ofgroundwater and surface water.

These activities have been completed and documented in the Phase IReport. The following section summarizes Phase I and the findings ofthat investigation.

2.3 SUMMARY OF PHASE I

The scope of the initial portion of the RI/FS placed emphasis ondefining compounds of interest (COI) and geotechnical, geological, and

AR30U25

hydrogeological characteristics of the Hunterstown Road area. Thescope, goals, and objectives were described in the RI/FS Work Plan.Specifically, this study included a fracture trace analysis; drillingand logging of borings; installation of monitoring wells; groundwater,

soil, surface water and sediment sampling and analysis; physical and

chemical site characterization; an evaluation of contaminant fate andtransport; and identification of additional data needs.

A total of 21 borings were drilled to characterize the subsurface.Monitoring wells were installed in 20 of these borings. Monitoringwells were installed in both the shallow and deep bedrock at tenlocations.

Data from the subsurface investigation indicate that the bedrockunderlying the site is composed of hornfels with numerous igneousintrusives. The strata strike at N41°E with a dip of 26°NW.

The fracture traces and lineaments assessed in this study appear tomainly reflect bedding, with a trend nearly perpendicular to bedding ofunknown origin, but which could be strike-slip faulting. Although thejoint azimuths appear to be reflected in the pattern of fracture traces,most of the fracture traces or lineaments do not appear to be jointcontrolled.

Groundwater movement is controlled by fracture flow. Groundwaterappears to flow horizontally in the shallow weathered bedrock zones. Inthe vertical plane, downward hydraulic gradients combine withanisotropic hydraulic conductivities to produce groundwater movementthat appears to be primarily along the bedding, perpendicular to thestrike.

Samples obtained from soils, surface water, sediments, and groundwaterhave been analyzed for the parameters on the organics Target CompoundList (TCL) and inorganics Target Analyte List (TAL). Sampling and

AR30U26

analysis of surficial soils from some potential source areas indicateelevated levels of metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, and chlorinatedaliphatic hydrocarbons. Analytical results for sediment and surface

water samples indicate possibly elevated metals and chlorinatedaliphatics in some streams. Groundwater was found to contain possiblyelevated levels of one metal and several chlorinated aliphatichydrocarbons. Organics were not detected in monitoring wells north andeast of the site. However, the extent of organics to the south and west

was not fully assessed.

In summary, several compounds have been detected in the groundwater

beneath the site; overall groundwater flow appears to be westward towardRock Creek with a flow component along the relatively permeable beddingplanes; previous residential well sampling and analyses performed by

PADER detected VOCs in the groundwater downgradient of the site; and thesource(s) and distribution of VOCs in the groundwater has not been fullydefined. It should be noted that extensive removal and remedialactivities have been completed and that alternate water supplies havebeen provided to residents in vicinity of site.

AR30U27

3.0 PHASE II RATIONALE

Based on the data obtained during the Phase I study, the need foradditional data to fully evaluate the risk and appropriate remedial

responses for the site was assessed. Migration pathways havetentatively been identified and compounds of interest (COI) have been

determined. The following site features will be investigated furtherduring Phase II:

Cornfields,Groundwater,Surface Water,Sediment, andStressed Vegetation Area.

Based upon current information, the preliminary determination ofoperable units is as follows:

• Operable Unit 1 - Former disposal areas andstreams.

• Operable Unit 2 - Groundwater.

The rationale for this definition is based upon pathways and COI.Groundwater is a separate issue from the other site issues and will beaddressed in Phase II.

Based on preliminary screening of remedial alternatives for Drum BurialAreas 1 and 2, these areas will not require additional data to becollected. With the removal of the source and available data from post-excavation sampling programs (i.e., soil, drums) the current results are

considered to be adequate for selection of remedial alternatives.Area 1 has been excavated to bedrock and preliminary review of the

AR3QU28

10

results of Area 2 post excavation samples indicate no further correctiveaction is necessary. The two areas will be included in an endangermentassessment as appropriate.

Based on Phase I data and past investigations, sufficient data existsfrom the Lagoon and Borrow Area to perform an endangerment assessmentand determine the appropriate remedial alternative.

The following section qualitatively describes the additional dataneeded. Section 4.0 includes the Phase II sampling and analyticalprogram to provide the data.

3.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLES - OPERABLE UNIT 1

In the Phase I Report, the determination of whether a compound wasdetected above background in sediment or surface soils was made based ononly one background sample. This sample was a surface soil sample froma cornfield northeast of the site. Phase II will include collection andanalysis of additional background surface soil as well as upstreamsediment and surface water. The parameters to be analyzed will

correspond to the COI of the appropriate operable unit. The Phase IIbackground results will be used in the verification of the comparisons

made in the Phase I report.

3.2 CORNFIELDSThe North and South Cornfields (Figure 2-2) based on the Phase I study

appear to have four possibly elevated metals of concern. They arecopper, chromium, lead, and zinc. For EA and remedial alternativereview, additional sainpling and analysis will be performed in Phase II(Section 4.2.1). Phase II background samples will also be used in theevaluation of contamination in the cornfields.

3.3 STRESSED VEGETATION AREA

Phase II activities will obtain additional data on the volume of wastematerial and extent of contamination in the underlying and surroundingsoil (Section 4.2.2). Appropriate remedial alternatives are describedin Section 3.7.2.

AR30U29

11

3.4 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT

Surface water and sediments from the three streams located on the sitewill be sampled in Phase II. The surface water and sediment will be

analyzed for the COI identified in Phase I. A critical component ofthis activity is the collection of upstream samples as described inSection 4.0 in order to obtain better definition of backgroundconditions. The pond adjacent to Burial Area 1 will also be sampled.

S-V> ,• ,' • ; *•*)'" LJ '•?•* -

3.5 GROUNDWATER

During Phase I significant amounts of data have been compiled on thegeological and hydrogeological characteristics of the site. In

addition, an indication of the extent of groundwater contamination hasbeen developed.

Three distinct potential source areas can be preliminarily identifiedupon the limited data available from the Phase I RI/FS. Possible sourceareas are as follows:

• Former Drum Burial Area No. 1,• Former Drum Burial Area No. 2,• Site of the former Lagoon area.

All three of these areas have been subjected to expeditedresponse/removal actions and the waste materials that were present atthese three locations have been removed. However, residual shallowgroundwater containing COI may be present in these areas and theoccurrence of downward gradients at the Hunterstown Road site poses amechanism where by COI in shallow groundwater may in effect be apotential source of COI in deeper hydrogeologic units.

Phase II Investigation activities will address the following aspects of

groundwater contamination at the Hunterstown Road site:

Investigation of a possible intrusive dike nearthe eastern edge of the site which may influencelocal flow regimes to the point of effectivelybeing a barrier to groundwater migration.

12

• Investigation in the vicinity of the MiddleStream to assess whether the fracture traceidentified in Phase I constitutes a majorgroundwater flow path.

• A survey of residential wells includingadditional sampling of residential wells forthose wells still in use as sources of potablewater.

• Installation of additional monitoring wells toobtain more data on the nature and extent ofcontamination.

• A pumping test in a series of wells downgradientof the former lagoon area to assess the degreeto which various hydrogeologic units encounteredin Phase I are hydraulically interconnected.This pump test would also include a pilot air-stripper treatability study to assess the degreeto which .stripping can remove the COI found ingroundwater.

It is understood that there are several logistical and regulatoryconstraints to performing this pump test/treatability study as part of

Phase II and these issues must be resolved prior to initiating thisaspect of the investigation.

Sampling and analysis of groundwater for Phase II will be for COI asdefined in the Phase I Report and repeated in Section 4.1.3.

Acquisition of this data will enable performance of an endangermentassessment of baseline conditions, and an assessment of remedialalternatives.

3.6 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the preceding assessment of the Phase I data, apreliminary evaluation of remedial alternatives, which may be applicableto the Hunterstown Road Site, was performed. This evaluation wasperformed to identify data requirements. These alternatives have beenclassified into the following four categories:

AR30U3I

13

• Expedited Response Actions,• Source Control,• Migration Control, and• No Action

The following sections identify remedial alternatives potentially

applicable to the Hunterstown Road. Alternatives which are notapplicable to the site have been removed from future consideration and

are not discussed in this section.

3.6.1 Expedited Response ActionsAs described in Section 2.1, Westinghouse has already completed severalmajor expedited response actions including the removals from the twodrum burial areas, the lagoon, and borrow area. These actions were

performed from 1984 to 1989.

At present, there does not appear to be an immediate threat to humanhealth and the environment evident based upon existing information.Therefore, as defined by the National Contingency Plan (Section 300.65),it is not appropriate to initiate additional expedited response actions

at the Hunterstown Road Site.

3.6.2 Source ControlRemaining potential sources of contamination at the site are associatedwith Operable Unit 1 and includes the Stressed Vegetation Area and thecornfields. The following remedial technologies may be applicable to

these areas:

ContainmentImmobilizationExcavation and off-site disposalIn situ vitrificationSoil washingIncineration: on-site and off-site

AR30U32

14

Depending on the results of the EA and background samples, the streamsediment may also require assessment of remedial alternatives. Data

requirements for evaluation of source control alternatives are:

Identification of migration mechanisms andpathways for development of cleanup criteriaused in evaluations for relative effectivenessof various technologies.

Identification of horizontal and vertical extentof contamination in cornfield soils and stressvegetation area.

Evaluation of COI in soils, sediment, surfacewater at levels exceeding ARARs, risk basedcriteria or background concentration.

3.6.3 Management of MigrationManagement of migration alternatives have been reviewed for theHunterstown Road Site. Alternatives considered potentially feasible forthe site are as follows:

• Capping (Operable Unit 1).

• Groundwater recovery (Operable Unit 2).

• Treatment (Both Operable Units)- Activated carbon- UV/Ozone- Air-stripping- Biological- Incineration

It is anticipated that alternatives involving management of migration ofgroundwater (Operable Unit 2) would combine plume capture andtreatment. Data requirements for evaluation of migration controlalternatives for Operable Unit 2 include the requirements listed inSection 3.6.2 and the following:

AR30lfc33

15

• Assessment of the horizontal and vertical extentCOI.

• Estimation of hydraulic properties of the unitsunderlying the site for evaluation ofgroundwater extraction alternatives.

• Assessment of ground and surface waterinteraction.

3.6.4 No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative will be assessed as required by currentguidance. A true "no-action" alternative will not be assessed at thissite, as extensive remediation has already occurred and alternate water

supplies have been provided. The alternative of providing no furtherdirect remediation of either operable unit will be assessed. Thisalternative would necessarily include a degree of monitoring and

institutional controls appropriate to justify the "no-action"alternative.

AR30U3U

16

4.0 PHASE II SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Sampling and analysis will be undertaken in Phase II in order to provide

information to respond to data gaps identified previously. The specificactivities which will be performed are described in the followingsubsections. The procedures for all of these activities, except where

noted otherwise, will be consistent with those utilized in Phase I anddocumented in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and the SiteOperations Plan which have previously been submitted and approved by theagencies. Table SAP-1 summarizes the sampling and analytical program.

Phase II activities are divided into four categories based on the

environmental media to be assessed. The categories are groundwater,surface water, surface soil, and stream sediment. Another activity

which does not include sampling or analysis, but is included in thissection, is a survey of other potential sources.

4.1 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT (OPERABLE UNIT 2)The extent of groundwater contamination has not been fully bounded inprevious studies. Therefore, for purposes of both obtaining data for

the assessment of remedial alternatives related to plume containment andfor purposes of obtaining data necessary for performance of endangermentassessment, additional activities are proposed. The activities are:

Residential well survey,Installation of additional monitoring wells,Monitoring well sampling and analysis,Geophysical (magnetometer) survey andPumping test.

4.1.1 Residential Well SurveyThe first task to be performed related to groundwater assessment will beto gather data on the residential wells in the vicinity of the site.Residents and owners will be surveyed to determine well characteristicsincluding well depth, screened zone and well construction.

AR30U35

17

4.1.2 Monitoring Well InstallationAfter completion of the residential well survey, eleven new monitoring

wells will be installed at the seven locations shown on Figure 4-1. Inorder to describe the placement of these wells, a redefinition of theflow zones described in the Phase I Remedial Investigation report is

necessary. In that report, two flow zones were described: the shallowzone (A-series wells) and the deep zone (B-series wells). Because twoC-series Phase II wells are proposed, to be installed at depths greaterthan the deepest wells in Phase I, the deep zone as described in thePhase I RI report and monitored by the B-series wells, will be renamed

as the intermediate zone. Table SAP-2 summarizes the objectives of each

monitoring well.

Five new wells are proposed,for installation in the shallow zone:HMW-11A, HMW-13A, HMW-14A, 'HMW-15A, and HMW-16A. The purpose of thesewells is to obtain additional information on the extent of contaminationin the shallow regime. ^/This is considered important because it appearsthat the shallow regime may constitute the source of contamination forthe intermediate and deep regimes. Because the deeper zones are highly

anisotropic, the location at which contamination enters these zones fromthe shallow zone appear to have a large influence on its laterdistribution.

Four new wells are proposed for installation in the intermediate zone:HMW-12B, HMW-13B, HMW-14B, and HMW-16B. These wells are designedprimarily to assess the extent of contamination in the intermediatezone, based on the directions of flow described in the Phase I RIreport. In addition, their placement has been designed to coordinatewith data requirements for the pumping test and to evaluate potentialeffects on ground water flow due to the fracture trace.

Two wells are proposed for the deep zone: HMW-10C and HMW-12C. Theseare expected to intercept the plumes from the Lagoon area and, if one

exists, from Drum Burial Area 1. In addition, their placement has been

HR30U36

18

designed to coordinate with data requirements for the pumping test andto evaluate potential effects on ground water flow due to the fracturetrace.

4.1.3 Sampling and Analysis of Monitoring Wells

Both the wells installed during the previous phase of the RI and theeleven new wells proposed for installation during Phase II of theinvestigation will be sampled and analyzed for the groundwater COI forthis project. The COI for groundwater are:

• Chromium, • Vinyl Chloride,• Chloroethane, • 1,1-DCE,• 1,1-DCA, • TCE, and• TCA, • PCE.

The analytical procedures which will be utilized will be those indicatedin the QAPP for the respective COI except vinyl chloride, 1,1-DCE, TCE,and PCE will be analyzed by USEPA method 524.1 to obtain detectionlimits adequate for comparison to possible ARARs. Analysis of chromiumwill be for the dissolved fraction. In addition, water levels will berecorded as described in the QAPP at all of the wells.

4.1.4 Subsurface Dike AssessmentIn the Phase I report, it was speculated that a subsurface dike mayexist in the vicinity of the East Stream. In order to verify thepresence of an igneous dike in the area between Monitoring Wells HMW-3Band HMW-4B, a magnetometer survey will be performed on a North-Southoriented grid.

Although several types of magnetometers are available, the one mostcommonly used is a proton precession magnetometer which measures thetotal magnetic field. The proton precession magnetometer utilizes theprecession of spinning protons, or nuclei of the hydrogen atom, in avolume of hydrocarbon fluid to measure the total magnetic intensity.

11*37

19

The spinning protons in a sample of decane (or kerosene, alcohol, etc.)behave as small, spinning magnetic dipoles. These small magnets aretemporarily aligned when a current is applied to the sensor. When thecurrent is removed from the sensor, the spinning nature of the protons

causes them to precess about the direction of the earth's magnetic field

in the manner of a spinning top which precesses about the gravitationalfield. The processing protons then generate a small signal in the

sensor coil, whose frequency is precisely proportional to the totalmagnetic field intensity.

The total magnetic field intensity as measured by a proton precessionmagnetometer is the magnitude of the earth's field independent of itsdirection. A total field magnetometer provides a significant advantage-

over other instruments in measuring asymmetric anomalies and in theinterpretation of anomalies. Furthermore, the quantity that is measured

is somewhat independent of the orientation of the sensor and allows themagnetometer to be operated without attention to precise leveling.

The presence of an igneous dike in the vicinity of the proposed surveyarea is likely to produce an anomalous response in the magnetic fieldintensity due to the type of minerals likely to be present within thedike. The orientation and general location of the dike will then beable to be assessed based on magnetic intensity readings.

4.1.5 Pumping TestAfter the installation of the proposed monitoring wells, a pumping testis proposed. Existing Monitoring Well HMW-2B will be used as the

pumping well. HMW-2B was identified as the pumping well on the basis ofobserved recharge rate during Phase I sampling, its location relative toother wells and observed occurrence of COI groundwater. Section 5.0provides an additional discussion of the pumping test.

SR30U38

20

4.2 SURFACE SOIL ASSESSMENTThree areas related to surface soil contamination require more

information to perform-the feasibility study. The areas are the

cornfields, stressed vegetation area and lagoon/borrow area.

4.2.1 CornfieldsBased on the Phase I results, the north and south cornfields areconsidered as one area for this investigation. Boring logs from borings

and monitoring wells installed in the cornfields indicate that the top

of bedrock varies from 12 to 30 feet below existing grade. The top twoto three feet consistently appear to be geological different from

underlying material. This pattern correlates with past agriculturalpractices. Phase I results indicate that this surface soil contains awhite-grayish material containing elevated concentrations of several

metals.

Samples were collected and analyzed from 8 to 12 inches in Phase I.

Additional samples will be collected in one-foot intervals from 12 to 48inches to determine if elevated concentrations of metals are present indeeper horizons. A hand auger will be used to collect the samples.Eight grids (four per cornfield) will be randomly selected forcollection of Phase II samples (Figure 4-2). Within each selected grid,two locations will be sampled in one-foot intervals from 12 to 48inches. The grids will be divided into five-foot sections and the twolocations in the grid will be randomly determined from the points wherethe sections intersect.

In addition, samples will be collected from 0 to 12 inches from areaswhich abut the cornfields* These areas are transition zones in whichthe past cornfield agricultural activities may have been extendedsli-ghtly past the boundaries of the cornfields. Treelines and other

topographic features (streams, steep slopes) which bounded pastagriculture activities will also be used to define lateral extent of theinvestigations. Figure 4-3 displays the areas to be sampled. Twenty-

AR30ltf39

21

foot grids will be established in the field. Samples will be collectedat the intersection .of the grids. Grids will be extended until

encountering an existing feature, up to a maximum of 40 feet. Sixbackground or reference samples will be collected from similaragricultural areas north of the Hunterstown Road Site.

4.2.2 Stressed Vegetation AreaThe Stressed Vegetation Area (SVA) will be hand augered to determine thevolume of waste material. Plan dimension will be determined by visualmethods. Once the depth of visible waste is determined, five locationsof the underlying soil will be sampled in one-foot intervals for an

additional two feet. Sixteen surface soil samples (zero through onefoot in depth) surrounding the SVA will also be collected. Theseperimeter samples will be collected one and two feet from the SVA with atotal of four samples collected per side. The location will divide thelength dimension of the SVA into three equal lengths. All samples willbe analyzed for copper, chromium, lead, zinc, 1,1-DCA, TCA, 1,2-DCE, TCE

and PCE.

A composite samples of the waste material will be collected and analyzedfor disposal characteristics. Disposal characteristics include BTUvalues and ash content.

4.3 SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENTThere is no data on the water quality of the three site streams from

locations upstream of probable site influence. Background surface watersamples will be collected on each stream upstream from the site. As thestreams are intermittent drainage courses, the schedule may be affectedas described in Section 8.0. Including the background samples, surfacewater will be collected from 14 locations (Figure 4-4). The followingthree locations not on Figure 4 will also be sampled:

• West/Middle Stream 25 feet upstream ofconfluence with East Stream.

AR30UW

22

• 25 feet downstream from confluence of all threestreams.

• East Stream 25 feet upstream of confluence withWest/Middle Stream.

A total of 17 surface water samples will be collected in Phase II.

Surface water samples will be analyzed for the COI (lead, zinc, 1,1-DCA,TCA, 1,2-DCE, and TCE) and hardness. Hardness will be determined toassist in the calculation of Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Zinc andlead will be total concentrations (unfiltered).•

4.4 SEDIMENT ASSESSMENTSediment samples will be collected from the three streams. Figure 4-4shows sample locations. Sediment samples are concentrated in the EastStream below the lagoon due to reports indicating the presence of wastematerial. In addition to the 18 locations shown on Figure 4-4, threeadditional locations as described in Section 4.3 around the confluenceof the Middle/West Stream and East Stream will be sampled. A backgroundsediment sample will also be collected from each stream. Sedimentsamples will be analyzed for chromium, copper, lead, zinc, 1,2-DCE andTCE. Sampling procedures will be the same as described in the QA Planand Site Operations Plan.

4.5 SURVEY OF OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES

Based upon the results of the Phase I study, there is a phenomenon ofsignificance that has been noted as regards to the apparent distributionof contaminants of interest as disclosed by that study and the apparentdistribution of volatile organic solvents as disclosed by previoussampling of residential wells by the PADER and USEPA. In order toattempt to reconcile this apparent difference, a survey will beconducted for sources other than the former disposal areas of theHunterstown Road Site for the possible presence of COI in the vicinityof the site. These potential sources include septic tanks which

AR30IHI

23

possibly had utilized chlorinated solvents as degreasers and cleaning

agents, and other possible users of volatile organic solvents of acommercial nature. Possible effects of other source areas will beassessed.

The rationale for this assessment is to confirm that the appropriatenessof a source control measure related to possible sources on the

Hunterstown Road Site as regards to mitigating the occurrence ofvolatile organic compounds in the hydrogeologic regime.

4.6 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE II

ffased on the review of existing data (Section 2.0), the RI/FS objectives

established for the site, the preliminary scoping of remedial

alternatives, and evaluation of potential ARARs, it is possible toestablish data requirements to complete the RI/FS process. In this

section Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), for the Phase II investigationare identified.

DQOs are qualitative and quantitative goals, in terms of precision,accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness (PARCC)which are specified for each data set. The PARCC goals for Phase II

remain the same as described in the QAPP. DQOs are based on the conceptthat different data uses require data of different quality. Data

quality is the degree of uncertainty acceptable for the decisions or

conclusions which are derived from interpretation of the data. Thedecisions or conclusions derived from the data or data-uses can includesite contaminant characterization in support of the EndangermentAssessment and remedial alternative evaluation and selection decisions.

DQOs for the Phase II investigation for the Hunterstown Road Site werebased on the following:

Comparison of detection limits for availableanalytical methods to applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements (ARARs), risk basedcriteria, and data needs for risk assessment orengineering purposes.

AR30UU2

24

• Selection of analytical methods that allowquantification of the analytes at levelssufficiently below the ARARs to minimize thenumber of critical data points.

• Evaluation of the maximum allowable variabilityin the data based on the ARARs comparison.

• Development of site-specific acceptablevariability based on the intended data use andmethod-specific precision and accuracyinformation.

Table SAP-3 presents a summary of the QA Program and DQO for theHunterstown Road Site. In general, all sampling and analysis will beDQO Level IV, with the exception of the waste characteristics analysis,which may be DQO Level II.

AR30Ul»3

25

5.0 TREATABILITY STUDIES

A preliminary evaluation of various remedial alternatives has beenperformed. One operable unit, groundwater, may have an alternative

which includes on-site treatment. In Phase II a pumping test andtreatability study of the groundwater will be initiated. Due to the

probable non-technical constraints involved in conducting a pumping testand treatability study, that program will be handled separately from thesampling phase of the RI/FS for schedule purposes.

It is currently envisioned that a step-drawdown test will.be conductedon Well HMW-2B to assess that well's specific capacity. Based upon the

results of the step-drawdown test, a formal pump test may be definedwhich would include design flow rates, specified duration(s) andprovisions for a groundwater treatability study using air-strippingtechnology.

Effluent discharge criteria and controls will be established prior toinitiating the test. It is currently proposed that MCLs or streambackground concentrations (whichever are higher) be used as dischargecriteria. Discharging to a POTW is another option requiring assessment.

It is presently proposed that a separate Pump Test and TreatabilityStudy Work Plan be prepared within 60 days of approval to initiate PhaseII of the RI/FS. The schedule for the Pump Test and Treatability Studywould be included in that Work Plan.

AR30UM

26

6.0 NON-TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO PHASE II

Some monitoring wells proposed for installation in Phase II are forlocations that are outside of the control of Westinghouse. The

expediency with which the project can be completed will be partiallydependent upon the ease with which access agreements to assess thosewell locations may be obtained. It is possible that relocation of someproposed well locations may be required due to access problems.Proposed well locations have been based solely upon technicalconsiderations and were not influenced by possible ease or difficultywith respect to property access.

Because the three streams at,the site are intermittent, streams samplesmay be obtained only while runoff is occurring. This may result indelays associated with the inability to collect surface waste andsediment samples.

Possible delays associated with these events and other yet unseen eventswill be reported in the appropriate monthly progress reports asnecessary and/or appropriate. Delays due to the inability ofWestinghouse to obtain access will also be handled in accordance withthe Consent Order.

AR30IH5

27

7.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION FOR PHASE II

The project organization for Phase II activities will be, from anorganizational standpoint, identical to the project organizationutilized for Phase I activities. Principal participants are as follows:

• Over responsibility for the RI/FS - WestinghouseElectric Corporation.

• Technical coordinator for performance of theRI/FS and principal science and engineeringconsultant - Paul C. Rizzo Associates.

• Drilling and well installation services -Eichelberger, Inc., Pennsylvania Drilling.

• Laboratory Analysis - Lancaster Laboratories,Inc.

Individual personnel assignments for the Phase II sampling and analysisactivities are identical to those described in the approved SiteOperations Plan, except that Mr. K.J. Bird has replaced Dr. J.T. Onstottas the Rizzo Associates Project Manager.

AR30UU6

28

8.0 SCHEDULE

The initial schedule for the RI/FS was included as Figure SAP 8-1 of the

Work Plan. Based upon the scope of the Phase II RI, the schedule hasbeen revised. The revised schedule (Figure 8-1) provides for thesubmittal of the draft RI Report covering both Phase I and Phase II and

the Endangerment Assessment Report 10.5 months from the authorization toproceed with Phase II of the RI. The schedule also provides forsubmittal of Draft Feasibility Study Report within six months ofreceiving USEPA approval of the RI and Endangerment Assessment Reports.

We believe the revised schedule is realistic given the scope of thePhase II RI and the required scope of the Endangerment Assessment andFeasibility Studies. The current schedule, assuming very prompt USEPA

review and turnaround of submittals, is for the preparation andsubmittal of the Draft Feasibility Study Report 18 months after receiptof approval from the agencies to initiate Phase II.

29

9.0 SUMMARY

A Sampling and Analysis Plan for Phase II of the RI/FS has been preparedfor the Hunterstown Road Site, Stratum Township, Adams County,

Pennsylvania. This plan was prepared in order to outline the frameworkfor the performance of Phase II. The schedule includes submittal of adraft Feasibility Study Report within 18 months of USEPA approval forthe initiation of Phase II.

We believe this Plan is responsive to the provisions of the Work Plan£or this project and the Consent Agreement under which the project isbeing performed. It should be noted that certain key considerations

related to the schedule are beyond the control of Westinghouse. Theseaspects are:

Obtaining access to off-site locations forperformance of sampling, analysis, and drillingactivities.

Obtaining the required discharge units toperform a pump test and treatability study.

The review and approval time required by USEPAfor interim submittals is included in theschedule. These submittals include the Phase IRI Report, this Sampling and Analysis Plan,revised Work Plan, the final RI and EndangermentReport, and the Feasibility Study Report.

Westinghouse and the members of its project team are committed toexpeditious performance of a high quality RI/FS consistent with therequirements and agreements under which this project is being performed.

AR30

TABLES

AR30UU9

TABLE SAP-1

SAMPLE AND ANALYTICAL SUMMARYPHASE II

SAMPLESMEDIA AREA LOCATIONS COLLECTED PARAMETER^a) METHODS

Soil Cornfields 16 48 COI CLP

Cornfield-Edge (b) (b) COI CLP

Stress Vegetation 21 26 COI CLPArea

Background 6 18 COI CLP

Waste Stress Vegetation 5 1 Disposal USEPAArea

Surface Streams 17 17 COI CLP/USEPAWater

Sediment Streams 21 21 COI CLP

Groundwater — 31 31 COI CLP/USEPA

a. Refer to Section 4.0 for appropriate COI.b. To be determined in the field.

AR301U50

TABLE SAP-2

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW MONITORING WELLSPHASE II

NEW WELL PURPOSE

HMW-10C - Delineate deep groundwater characteristics- Evaluate bedrock hydrogeologic anisotropy- Evaluate fracture trace

HMW-11A - Characterization of shallow groundwater

HMW-12B - Characterization of intermediate groundwater- Evaluate bedrock hydrogeologic anisotropy- Evaluate fracture trace

HMW-12C - Characterization of deep groundwater- Evaluate bedrock hydrogeologic anisotropy- Evaluate fracture trace

HMW-13A - Characterization of shallow groundwater- Evaluate fracture trace

HMW-13B - Evaluate fracture trace- Characterization of intermediate groundwater

HMW-14A - Characterization of shallow groundwater- Evaluate fracture trace

HMW-14B - Characterization of intermediate groundwater- Evaluate bedrock hydrogeologic anisotropy- Evaluate fracture trace

HMW-15A - Characterization of shallow groundwater

HMW-16A - Characterization of shallow groundwater

HMW-16B - Characterization of intermediate groundwater

oAR30U5I

TABLE SAP-3

QUALITY ASSURANCEDATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE SUMMARY

PHASE II

FIELD EQUIPMENT TRIP DQOMEDIA AREA DUPLICATES BLANKS BLANKS LEVEL

Soil Cornfields 5 5 0 IVCornfields-Edge 2 1 0 IVStressed Vegetation 3 1 1 IVBackground 1 1 0 IV

Waste ' Stressed Vegetation 0 0 0 II

Surface Streams 2 1 1 IVWater

Sediment Streams 2 2 1 IV

Groundwater — 3 3 IV

AR30U52

FIGURES

AR30IU53

1-

x 9- l /J-i°<6aj

!$/!ra£ w,'J .'if'•" *• t'f**

*:*• ;** . ,-m 4, fi>iM , , ,. /• '/'"/" tf ' T i'/f' .' ...

?liBI S9j i\ -ASJV*" ': 1V'""^ i K I

% ;v^\x ......... ..... ......V>^> fi"f ir —--.i.-.i'\n> \l 'i>C-, 'Jv\ IX" / •v) 1 9W Vv r ('a Sfi sm TS str

S C A L E FIGURE 2-1

sooT "1 ) 500? FEET SITE LOCATION MAPHUNTERSTOWN ROAD SITE RI/FS

STRABAN TOWNSHIP, ADAMS COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIAPREPARED FOR

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATIONREFERENCE: PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIAU.S.G.S TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS OF GETTYSBURG. PA r - wl- , ,-, ^ -AND BIGLERVILLE, PA, BOTH PHOTOREV1SED IN IJf **/ Paul K^21973, SCALE: 1" = 2000'. l»Jta _ CONSULTANTS

~- ,

(1) INITATION OF SCHEDULE IS CONTINGENT UPON RECEIPT OF ACCESS AGREEMENTS TO OFFAND OBTAINING DOCUMENTED UNCONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIWORK PLAN.

(2) DOES NOT INCLUDE PREFORMANCE OF PUMP TEST/TREATABILITY STUDY.

„ ..... ————————

: ——————————————————————————— M?4

f> C/)

- ?Fli ^ >

^§i2°™z:*>otO O3%

IV d i1) ~°z *J. =1?A KB — | J- O Zx j wo I £^ gg ifif JSiSs i .Sg8l!Si?2! go gps i

£> 0 - 2

1 is Pf >? ir |

DRAWNBY

DWD10-18-8

CHECKED BY9 APPROVED BY

<<Rkt> AJ/J-?/** DRAWINGto/JoSS? NUMBER o/— o /b— D/D

PREPARE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

\

PREPARE FINAL FS REPORT

\

EPA REVIEW & APPROVAL

i

PREPARE DRAFT FS REPORT

i

PERFORM FS

PREPARE FINAL RI k EA REPORTS

i

EPA REVIEW & APPROVAL

t

PREPARE DRAFT RI & EA REPORTS

PERFORM ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT

EVALUATE PHASE I DATA

LABORATORY ANALYSIS

PHASE E FIELD INVESTIGATION (2)

DESCRIPTION

_*(O

OJ

A

01

en

~4

00

to

o

»*•A

«*N>

OJ

•A

4>>

01

»ken

J

.00

CO

too

NJ

PROJECT MONTH (1)

PROJECT SCHEDULE