ESCENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES CORPORATIONWASHINGTON HARBOUR

QQC 3050 K STREET, N.W,, SUITE 325JUN 17 POO WASHINGTON. D.C. 20007

202-333-8500

REVISED

PROPOSAL FOR

SITE CHARACTERIZATION SERVICES

AT THE

FORMER HELLERTOWN MANUFACTURING FACILITY

HELLERTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

PREPAREDBY

ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES CORPORATIONWASHINGTON HARBOUR3050 -K STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007

JUNE 16, 1986

300017

Table of Contents

Introduction 5

Site Investigation Process 3

Summary and schedule 11

Interim and Final Reports 13

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 - Old lagoon locations 5

Figure 2 - Project schedule 12

Table 1 - List of parameters for analysis 6

List of Appendices

Appendix A - Final OHM report

Appendix B - Hunter Leak Lokator brochure

Appendix C - QA/QC procedures — ETC Laboratories

300018

Introduction

Champion Spark Plug Company's Heller town site was formerly

an operation of the Hellertown Manufacturing Company. The

Hellertown plant is located southwest of the intersection of Main

and Silvex Streets in Hellertown, Pennsylvania. The property

occupies approximately eight acres.

The part of the property of interest comprises five former

disposal lagoons. The lagoons had received a variety of

constituents since their construction in the early 1930s. All

lagoons were closed as of January 1975. Two lagoons were

subsequently paved over; the remaining three were capped with

soil and seeded. Champion initiated and subsequently received an

approved closure plan from the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Resources (PADER) in 1975. In addition, the

closure plan for the facility as a whole, including the former

lagoons, was reviewed and approved by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1984.

In November 1984, Champion requested 0. H. Materials Company

(OHM) to provide a proposal to address the subsurface environment

at the unoccupied Champion plant in Hellertown, Pennsylvannia. A

field drilling and sampling program was initiated on

December 17, 1984, and completed January 5, 1985.

OEM's findings from this investigation are documented in a

report entitled "Final Report; Geohydrologic Characterization,

Hellertown Manufacturing Facility, Hellertown, Pennsylvania"

(Appendix A).

300019

Based on the OHM study, Champion and OHM proposed a work

plan for further study, documented in a letter to the PADER dated

May 14, 1985. The PADER responded on June 10, 1985, noting

several deficiencies. Another proposal was submitted to the

PADER on July 19, 1985.

Shortly after this submission, Champion made a decision to

have the groundwater, stream, and soil monitoring program

performed under the direction of Risk Science International

(RSI), a Washington, D.C.-based consultant. RSI and Champion

met with Messrs. Bruce Beitler and Philip Rotstein of the PADER

on March 4, 1986, to discuss the content of a proposal to further

define the lateral and vertical extent of possible contamination

at Hellertown. An initial proposal was submitted to PADER on

March 24, 1986. On May 1, 1986, key personnel involved in this

project from RSI established a new firm called Environmental

Strategies Corporation (ESC). Champion authorized ESC to assume

full responsibility for the work effort, following up on the

specifics of the RSI proposal.

ESC met with the PADER to gather their comments on the

proposal on May 28, 1986. In addition to Bruce Beitler, Jim

Kunkle and Sarah Ginzler of PADER were also in attendance. The

PADER comments addressed several issues:

o the need for a defined schedule with interim reports

o the need for a soil borings during first six months of

work

o the need for a well survey of surrounding area

o clarification of the surface water sampling protocol

- 2 - 300020

The following plan responds to these comments and details a

year-long .quarterly groundwater and stream monitoring program,

underground tank testing, and the installation and sampling of

soil borings "upgradient" of and within the closed lagoon

areas. Upon PADER approval of this plan, ESC will initiate the

first quarterly sampling period, make and sample soil borings,

and proceed with testing the underground tanks.

SITE INVESTIGATION PROCESS

ESC proposes to conduct a site investigation at Hellertown

that will be in accord with the technical provisions of the EPA

Remedial Investigations (RI) Guidance Document under the National

Contingency Plan. Under this protocol, all existing information

will be reviewed and the nature and extent of the problem,' if

any, defined. To a certain extent, this has been accomplished,

but certain information is lacking and is required to delineate

the presence of potential contaminants, site hydrogeology,

underground tank testing, surface water data, and soil

characteristics. In accordance with the RI guidelines, the

investigation will include a sampling plan, proper data

management, a health and safety plan, a community relations plan

(if deemed appropriate), and laboratory quality assurance and

quality control.

Specifically, ESC proposes a year-long program that will

include the collection and analysis of quarterly groundwater

samples from four existing wells, collection of soil samples from

19 new soil borings for chemical analyses, quarterly surface

water sampling and chemical analysis from three points along

300021

Saucon Creek, and underground tank testing of four underground

tanks. A decision has been made to proceed with all of the

additional soil borings before receipt of the results from

groundwater and surface water sampling. This represents a change

from the previously proposed work plan provided by RSI and by

O.H. Materials. In order to take a proactive position and at the

request of Champion, we believe that it is appropriate to proceed

with the soil borings immediately. This step is being taken to

obtain information concerning potential subsurface environmental

problems as soon as possible.

The objective of the sampling program is to obtain

representative samples of soil, surface water, and groundwater,

which, when analyzed, will further determine the geology of the

area and the nature and extent of any possible contamination at

the site. Periodic water level readings in the groundwater

monitoring wells will ensure a proper determination of the

direction of groundwater movement at the site.

Soil borings and samples will be located as noted on Figure

1; however, ESC may adjust the number of borings and the proposed

locations during and following field investigation.

When soil borings are made, split spoon samples will be

taken at five-foot intervals in each boring to refusal

(bedrock). Selected samples will be chemically analyzed for the

contaminants outlined in Table 1.

If, during the process of boring, conditions warrant the

collection of samples at shorter intervals or on a continuous_j*

basis, then field modification in the sampling program will be

300022• - --- - - - 4 - . . . ...

Table 1

List of Parameters for AnalysisChampion Spark Plug

Former Hellertown Manufacturing Facility

Groundwater and Surface Water Samples

SulfatesSodiumChromiumTotal dissolved solidsFlouridesZincNickelCopperBariumCyanidesTotal phenols __________________________________NitratesHalogenated aliphatics from priority pollutant list

Proposed Soil Samples (as necessary)

SulfatesSodiumChromiumFlouridesHalogenated aliphatics from priority pollutant listZincNickelCopperBariumCyanidesPolycyclic aromatics from priority pollutant listEP toxicity for metals

300024

made to incorporate such representative sampling. Conditions

warranting such action would include noticeable changes in the

physical appearance of the fill material; i.e., color, texture,

consistency, or smell. Should aromatic hydrocarbons be detected

in any of the soil samples, at least one quarterly round of

groundwater monitoring in a new, appropriately located adjacent

well will be conducted. Results will determine if additional or

continual monitoring is required.

Underground tank testing will be performed using the Hunter

Leak Lokator method, which is consistent with the National Fire

Protection (NFPA) Pamphlet 329 regarding Underground Leakage of

Flammable and Combustible Liquids. Details of this methodology

are included as Appendix B. Should any of the tanks be found to

be leaking, further subsurface investigation will be proposed for

review and approval by PADER.

Sampling Techniques and Equipment

The procedures detailed herein are based on or incorporate

standardized methods defined in several USEPA publications and

are part of a sampling method inventory that ESC has successfully

used on similar projects.

Boring Installation and Groundwater Sampling . .

Soil borings will be installed and logged by an ESC

geologist. Borings will be done using and eight-inch hollow-stem

auger. Borings will be backfilled with a mixture of drill

cuttings and cement grout. Soil samples from the borings will be

obtained using a split spoon sampler and return materials. All

drilling and sampling equipment will be steam cleaned between

300025

each boring. The split spoon samplers will undergo the following

process between collection of samples:

1. soap and tap water wash

2. tap water rinse

3. distilled/deionized water rinse

4 10 percent acidic solution rinse

5. distilled/deionized water rinse

7. total air dry

8. distilled/deionized water rinse

Groundwater samples from the existing wells will be

collected using dedicated bailers^ Tire—bailei a—wi-ii-—be—t-cflgn-^——

lined with ball valve attachments. Different and clean bailers

will be used for each well sample. This will eliminate the need

for bailer decontamination and laboratory screening of rinsewater

blanks. A minimum of five casing volumes of groundwater will be

removed before sampling. Water levels will be measured to the

nearest 0.01 foot with a steel tape.

All water and soils from well development and drilling

activities will be disposed of on-site and will not be tested

prior to discharge or disposal.

Surface Water Samples

Surface water samples will be collected in appropriately

prepared containers from three locations along Saucon Creek. At

the time of each sampling, stream stages will be recorded at each

location. Flow rates will be estimated at the time of each

sampling utilizing channel dimensions and velocity

measurements. An efJfort will be made, subject to the dates, of

sample collection, to obtain samples during several different

stream stages.

Sample Container Use and Preparation

Groundwater, surface water, and soil samples will be

collected for analysis of volatile and non-volatile constituents

(Table 1). The following sample containers will be used:

Soil Samples wide-mouth glass

Groundwater and surface 40-milliliter glass vialwater (volatile) with teflon septum

Groundwater and surface 1-liter wide-mouth glasswater (non-volatile)

Containers will be cleaned and prepared as specified in "Test

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - Physical/Chemical Methods-

SW-846, 1982."

Field Quality and Chain of Custody

Samples from each location will be sent to a primary

laboratory for analysis.

Duplicate samples will generally be collected from one or

two of the monitoring wells and from 20 percent of the soil

sampling locations and sent to a second laboratory for

analysis. Any discrepancy in results between the laboratories

will be reconciled by reanalysis or resampling. To ensure the

integrity of samples during collection and shipment, all samples

will be maintained in iced coolers until they are received by

each laboratory. Strict chain-of-custody protocol will be

followed using labeling, a data logbook, and chain-of-custody

sheets.

- 9 - 300027

Sampling safety, as necessary, will be addressed in order to

protect the health and well being of all sampling field

personnel. A photoionization detector will be used to scan split

spoon samples to determine the protection levels required for

field personnel. As necessary, these personnel will be protected

from general contact with possibly contaminated soils and water

by wearing tyvek overalls, boots, and rubber gloves during well

installation and sampling.

Laboratories and Analytical Methodology

The soil, groundwater, and surface water samples will be

analyzed in accordance^—with—method-ology—specif i-a —i-R——Tes fe

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - Physical/Chemical Methods -

SW-846, 1982" and "Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of

Municipal .and Industrial Wastewater, 1982, Method 624."

The laboratories to be used in this project will be ETC

Laboratory of Edison, New Jersey, and Lancaster Laboratories of

Lancaster, Pennsylvannia. Data quality requirements and reported

detection limits for the analyses will be discussed with each

laboratory before sampling. An example of ETC's Laboratory

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan is included as

Appendix C. Full QA/QC procedures will be reported to the PADER

with the laboratory results.

- 10 - 30002V- • , r

SUMMARY AND SCHEDULE

ESC will inform the PADER at least ten days in advance of

the date that work will begin at the site. Status reports will

be provided to the PADER and EPA during the quarterly sampling

periods. An interim report discussing the initial groundwater

quality sampling results and the soil analyses will be prepared

within 16 weeks of the date that field work begins. If it proves

necessary during these activities to meet with the PADER to

discuss conditions at the site, ESC will immediately contact the

agency. Information on wells, elevations, and sampling locations

will be reported to the PADER. Initial laboratory results will

be reported to the PADER as soon as they are received and

reviewed by ESC, Champion and legal counsel (if necessary). The

work will be carried out over a period of a year. As the data

accumulate, ESC will begin analyzing them and preparing the final

report.

The complete schedule for the project is presented in Figure

2.

- 11 - 300029

01\n

O

CD

O

oc

*

<

? -w *r

0 t- -1

CO oi_ 01

^ E /o i-ro

ro300030

INTERIM AND FINAL REPORTS

Following sampling, laboratory analysis, and reconciliation

of data (as necessary), ESC will work with Champion to submit an

interim report to the PADER presenting and interpreting the

results. This evaluation will include an analysis of the nature

and extent of any possible contamination of the site. This

report will be submitted within 16 weeks of the date that field

work begins. Quarterly reports will be prepared and submitted at

interim points during the year of groundwater sampling. """.-

The interim repo^fe—wi-11—also—compile—infonrtaLiua' cuaceinl'ng -------

wastes possibly disposed of at the site and detection of related

compounds in the sampling program. A detailed and accurate

survey of information concerning neighboring activities and land

use, and potential impairment of groundwater surrounding the site

from other sources will be developed and made part of this

interim report. Included in the interim report will be a

complete water well survey of the area surrounding the Hellertown

facility.

The interim and final reports will be key elements in the

determination of future regulatory action at the site. As such,

all data must be carefully interpreted. The presentations will

be flexible enough to alLow for the presentation of possible

remedial actions at the site. A key part of the documentation of

the investigation will be the sensitive nature of the position

that Champion occupies in the community and the potential sale of

the property. A position that combines corporate community.

concern and a realistic approach toward technical and cost-

300031

effective remediation of any possible contamination at the site

will -be developed.

We believe ESC's strength lies in looking at the broad

perspective involved in this type of investigation and applying

an appropriate strategy that addresses all possible technical

options and alternatives.

.

———7

Appendix A - Final OHM report

3000*3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................ ii

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ 1-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................... 2-1

3.0 BACKGROUND SITE INFORMATION ...................... 3-1

3.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .................... 3-13.2 EXISTING SITE DATA .......................... 3-13.3 AREA HYDROGEOLOGY ........................... 3-23.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ..................... 3-33.5 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ............ 3-5

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................. 4-1

4.1 OVERVIEW .................................... 4-14.2 DRILLING' PROGRAM ............................ '4-14.3 OBSERVATION WELLS ........................... 4-24.4 GEOLOGY ..................................... 4-34.5 GEOHYDROLOGY ................................ 4-44.6 SITE SURVEY ................................. 4-64 .7 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS ...................... 4-6

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 5-1TABLES AND FIGURESAPPENDIX' A - ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS, GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC..APPENDIX B - OHM ANALYTICAL STUDIESAPPENDIX C - BORING LOGS AND WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

30003 HM

11

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE

1 Water Level Data

2 Well Elevations

3 Field Sampling Data

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. FIGURE

I Old Lagoon Locations

2 Generalized Topographic Relief

3 Well Protection Details—————

4 Phreatic Surface Contour Map

5 East - West Cross Section

6 North - South Cross Section

7 Fence Diacram

M

1-11.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

'in November 1984, Champion Spark Plug Company (CHAMPION)requested O.H. Materials Co. (OHM) to provide a proposal toaddress the subsurface environment at an unoccupied CHAMPIONplant in Hellertown, Pennsylvania. A course of action wasdeveloped by OHM consistent with Resource Conservation andRecovery Acr (RCRA) ground-water monitoring programs. Afield drilling and sampling program was initiated onDecember 11, 1984, and completed January 5, 1985.

Five former seepage lagoons are located on the site.The lagoons have received a variety of constituents sincetheir construction in the early 1930s. All lagoons wereclosed as of January" 1975. Two lagoons were subsequentlypaved over; the remaining three were capped with soil andseeded. CHAMPION initiated and subsequently received anapproved closure plan from the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources (PADER) in 1975. In addition, theclosure plan for the facility as a whole—including theformer lagoons— was reviewed and approved bv the USEPA in1984.

Four 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ob-.servation wells were installed on the site in an effort tocharacterize the disposition of saturated flow movingthrough the vicinity of these lagoons.

One well (CSP-1) was placed in a postulated upgradientlocation adjacent to the guard house. The remaining threewells (CSP-2,3,4) were placed approximately equidistantalong the western edge of the property. All wells werescreened the final 10 feet; well CSP-1 was completed to 33.5feet, well CSP-2 was finished 41 feet below land surface,wells CSP-3 and -4 were completed to depths of 43.5 feet and46.0 feet, respectively.

Observation wells were purged and water samples care-fully extracted from each well. 'A suite of chemical analys-es was performed. At a later date, a second round of sam-pling was performed in tandem with'PADER personnel. Se-lected analytical tests aimed at confirming PADER resultswere performed.

The results of OHM's chemical analysis conclude that ofthe many constituents tested the following are above currentRCRA standards:

o Barium (Ba) concentrations ranges from11.0 parts per million (ppm) to 13.0 ppm in allwells. The RCRA standard is 10.0 ppm.

-300031OHM

1-2

o Iron (Fe) concentration is 1.13 ppm in CSP-4.The RCRA standard is 0.3.

o Manganese (Mn) concentrations are 0.204 ppm inCSP-2, 0.232 ppm in CSP-3, and 0.086 ppm inCSP-4. Well CSP-1 (background well) is belowthe current RCRA standard of 0.05 ppm having aconcentration of 0.008 ppm.

o In the first sampling analysis phenolic com-pounds were detected in Well CSP-3 having aconcentration of 37.5 ppm. However, the secondset of samples did not detect any phenols.

o Two organic compounds were found to exist atconcentrations above 50 ppb from the secondsampling analysis. These are 1,2.dichloro-ethane and trichlorethylene.

o Nitrate levels were round—uu be—s-livdrinking water standards in all wells, includ-ing the background well.

All other compounds tested were below current RCRAstandards for drinking water quality. It can be theorizedfrom the analyses to date that although there does exist afew constituents above Secondary Drinking Water qualitystandards (in light of the seepage system utilized) onlymarginal contamination is evident. Further, it appearslateral migration of contaminants downgradient is minimalbased on the premise that the wells are very close to theabandoned lagoons and the time for contaminants to reachthese wells spans a period of over 50 years since the pitswere constructed.

OHM's contention of limited water-quality degradationpotential is supported by a 1975 study performed by GilbertAssociates (GILBERT).

• .-i

. __:V~. ~ 300037

2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

On December 14, 1984, OHM initiated a hydrogeologicstudv to define site conditions and subsurface water qualityat the formerly-utilized CHAMPION plant in Hellertown, Penn-sylvania. The objective of the study was to establish sub-surface conditions and ascertain the impact on theenvironment from five abandoned seepage pits.

The study was performed in three primary stages asfollows:

o A site reconnaissance survey was performed andcollection of pertinent historical data was ac-complished. This information was reviewed andprovided a base-for which the field study wasdesigned.

o A field hydrogeologic study was then executed;this stage was completed _J_arvuary 5, 1985.

o The third stage of the project involved theanalysis of water samples for parameters indi-cated by RCRA standards for initial survey ofwater quality at a disposal site (40 CFR 265) .A supplemental water sampling was performed onFebruary 14, 1985, at the request of the PADER.

This report presents our findings relative to the con-ditions disclosed by our program of study.

300038OHM

3-1

3.0 EXISTING SITE DATA

The Hellertown facility produced a variety of wasteproducts while operated by CHAMPION. Waste materials weredisposed into a series of five seepage lagoons ranging insize from 21,600 cubic feet (ft ) to 186,000 ft located inthe west central area of the property (Figure 1). The la-goons are of earthen construction .with a pervious bottom al-lowing infiltration of waste products into the underlyingsoils. The lagoons were in service from the early 1930s toearly 1975. Products known to have been deposited withinthe lagoons include:

o Sillment powdero Spark plug insulatorso Rejected park plug assemblies and spark plugso Residues from cement operationso Cinder and concrete blockso Broken brickso Plastero Asphaltic materialso Metal plating residues

During 1976/1977, .-the lagoons were filled with60,000 cubic yards (yd ) of native backfill and in partcompacted for parking lot space. Two of the five lagoonslie- beneath the asphaltic parking lot with the remainingthree lagoons having been seeded with grasses.

The solids remaining within each lagoon are highlyvariable. The lagoons were cleaned out periodically overtime, but the final waste solids volume is unknown. It isestimated that the greatest quantity of waste sludge will befound in lagoon number one, as it carried the bulk of thesettleable solids. The flow rate of liquid industrialwastes into the lagoon system at the time operations ceasedwas estimated at 60,000 gallons per day, 5 days a week, withno influent 2 days per week.

H 3000?*OHM

3.0 BACKGROUND SITE INFORMATION

3.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The. Hellertown plant is located southwest of the inter-section of Main and Silvex Streets in Hellertown, Pennsyl-vania. The property (Figure 1) occupies approximately8 acres. The manufacturing buildings occupy the easternhalf of the site; a parking lot and open field occupy thewestern half. The east property line (on Main Street) liesabout half way up the slope of a north-trending ridge. Thewestern edge of the property lies directly downslope towardSaucon Creek. The creek lies about 1,000 feet from the westfence of the property. The total distance down the slopefrom east to west across the property is 17.5 feet, and theapproximate surface gradient is 2.3 percent. The surfacegradient has been reduced from the natural contours by fill-ing the open area of the west part of the site.

The manufacturing plant was operated until 1983 by theHellertown Manufacturing Co., a division of CHAMPION.

The Hellertown facility produced a variety of wasteproducts in connection with CHAMPION. Waste materials weredisposed into a series of five seepage lagoons ranging insize from 21,600 cubic feet (ft ) to 186,000 ft located inwest central area of the property (Figure 1) . The lagoonsare of earthen construction with a pervious bottom allowinginfiltration of waste products into the underlying soils. iThe lagoons were in service from the early 1930s to early |1975. Products known to have been deposited within the la- tgoons include:

o Sillment powdero Spark plug insulatorso Reject spark plug assemblies and spark plugso Residues from cement operationso Cinder and concrete blockso Broken brickso Plastero Asphaltic materialso Metal plating residues

- During 1976/1977, the lagoons were filled with 60,000ft of native backfill and in. part compacted for parking lotspace. Two of the five lagoons lie beneath the asphaltic -~parking lot with the remaining three lagoons having beenseeded with grasses.

Remaining solids within each lagoon is highly variable.The lagoons were cleaned out periodically over time, but -the•final solids volume is unknown. It is estimated that the

300040

greatest quantity of waste sludge is found in lagocn r.umberone as it'carried the bulk of the settieable solids. Flowrates of liquid industrial wastes into the lagoon system atthe time operations ceased was estimated at 60,000 gallonsper day, 5 days a week with no influent 2 days per week.

3.3 AREA KYDROGEOLOGY

Hellertown lies in the transitional zone between threemajor physiographic provinces, The Blue Ridge, Piedmont, andAtlantic Coastal Plain. For the greater part, the basementcomplex is comprised of Triassic granites, migmatites, andorthogniess. The basement rocks are overlain with profoundunconformity by the next succeeding strata. In general, thestrata are the Lower Cambrian elastics above which liechiefly mafic to felsic lavas. In the site area, a moder-ately thin layer cf nonvolcanic sedimentary rocks separatethese layers. It can be assumed that this sedimentary layeris the tapering edge of much thicker units in the Piedmont.The uppermost consolidated formations consist of mostly ur.-differentiated limestones, siltstones, and sandstones, allof which are locally water bearing.

The regional surface terrain is comprised of flat-lyingintermixed beds of clay, silt, sand, and gravel till ofperiglacial origin overlying shale and carbonate bedrock atvarying depths. The unconsolidated overburden was placed ina largely random fashion by the action of glacial outwashwaters in the valley. The bedrock association has a complexstructural overlay.

There exists several natural streams in vicinity.These, however, do not flow except during precipitationevents. The streams are kept artificially dry by virtue cfexternal hydrodynamic influences lowering the piezometricsurface. Two probable sources cf this induced drawdown can behypothesized as causing this phenomenon. First, the area hasbeen extensively mined for zinc ores. Depths of mining haveexceeded 2,600 feet. Drainage from these operations is ex-tensive. Secondly, several industrial pumping wells arelocated approximately 1.5 miles north of the CHAMPION site.The deep well field pumps up to 15,000 gpm per well fromthe lower Tertiary limestone/sandstone complex. There mayexist potential for hydraulic connection to the upperlimestones.

The closest flowing stream to the site is Saucon Creek.It is located some 1,000 feet west of the CHAMPION property.In the area of the site, Saucon Creek flows generally north-ward at an average velocity of 4 feet/second. To date therehave been two reported fish kills in Saucon Creek? however,investigations conducted have concluded that none of thetoxic loadings are attributable to the CHAMPION site. t

3-3

3.3.1 Topography

The majority of the site is occupied by the plant, of-""" " ":'fices, and parking lot, with a total area of about 4.6 acres(57 percent). The open area of the fill is 1.9 acres whichconstitutes about 24 percent of the land area. The balanceof the site, 1.5 acres (19 percent) contains outdoor storageand stone-filled areas.

The present slope across the site is 2.3 percent. Theoriginal slope of the west parking area and the filled area,as noted on existing drawings, was about 7.0 percent. Themaximum depth of fill over the west area is about 23 feetabove grade. ~ ', ,. - - -

The open filled area is bordered on the south, west,and north by berm less than 15 feet high which descends tothe fence at the site boundary. .. _.-

There was no open water, areas of long-term ponding, or"flowing seeps observed during the field investigation. Atopographic map of the site is presented in Figure 2.

3.3.2 Precipitation/Infiltration Potentials

The significant climatic feature of the site is the ~ -amount of precipitation which is available for recharge tothe ground water through infiltration. The average yearlyrainfall near Hellertown is about 43 inches per year. Theusual value for evapotranspiration in this area is about0.50. Of the remaining water, some 60 percent moves fromthe site as surface run off. This figure considers the vec- ,tored drainage of the paved areas. This leaves 8 inchesavailable for infiltration to the water table through thesoils and fill of the site.

Site recharge moves vertically through the overburden ~Tuntil it reaches the water table. It then joins the region- """al flow across and off the site.- The site recharge and ."iinterflow would be the transport medium for moving any po- . .ttential contaminate downgradient. -' '-^

The recharge, percolating downward through unsaturated v_"Jsoils containing industrial waste, will also flow to the wa- 'ifter table for transport off site or laterally through the "3fvadose zone to a seepage face downgradient of the site.

3.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Based on data and reports available to OHM, there havebeen at least three investigations involving the waste la-goons since 1970. These investigations are:

300P/I2

3-4

o Lagoon inventory conducted for the SanitaryWater Board, Pennsylvania Department of Health,August 1970

o Leachate tests performed by GILBERT, May 1975

o Bearing load testing program by Smeltzer andFaherty Drilling Company (SFD), August 1977

The 1970 lagoon inventory provided chemical data from adowngradient well. The results showed no significant waterquality problems.

In the GILBERT study, supernatant and sludge sampleswere collected from each lagoon, sludge drying bed, and fromwells at a private residence on Ravena Street and theSheesley Concrete Company. Results of the GILBERT studyshowed:

o None of the lagoons showed abnormally high con-centrations cf toxic materials.

o Leachate tests on sludges met then currentdrinking water quality standards.

o The only known water well .in the. immediatedowngradient direction from the lagoons metdrinking water quality standards.

Excerpts from the analytical report have been repro-duced and are presented in tabular form in Appendix A.

In August 1977, SFD was retained by Hellertown Manufac-turing Co. to investigate the viability of placing an as-phalt parking lot over two lagoons. Relevant conclusionsaffecting ground-water flow offered by SFD were:

o The upper strata of the lagoon material isdense and well consolidated.

o The soils defined by their field crew were de-fined as impervious to water infiltration.

o No ground-water activity was noted.

These conclusions suggest that the potential for verti-cal movement of subsurface water is limited, thereby alsolimiting the partial pressure gradient available to trans-port soluble elements vertically to the ground-water table.

300043CTHTM

3-D

3.5 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE . .

CHAMPION has conducted two programs in compliance withregulatory actions concerning the Hellertown plant. Thefirst was a consent decree with the PADER; the second, ap-proval of an RCRA, Part A, application and closure of thesite's waste.management facility under 40 CFR 265, adminis-tered -by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). The consent decree was satisfied, and approval ofthe program conducted was made by PADER on September 22,1975. The interim status under RCRA, Part A, was generatedby USEPA on July 23, 1981. CHAMPION'S closure plan for thewaste management facility received relevant regulatory ap-provals on March 16, 1984.

The program conducted by OHM for this project is com-pletely compatible with the stated requirements for monitor-ing the subsurface under 40 CFR 265.92" of RCRA. Thesubsurface has been investigated for lithologic compositionand monitor wells have been installed which permit analysisof the ground-water environment for flow and quality. Theanalytical program implemented describes the conditions offlow and discharge of ground water across and from the site.

The program of chemical analyses evaluates the parame-ters listed in the three major RCRA series: ParametersCharacterizing Suitability as a Drinking Water Supply; Pa-rameters Establishing Ground-Water Quality; and ParametersIndicating Ground-Water Contamination (Statistical Series).These parameters appear in Appendix B, OHM AnalyticalStudies.

The program conducted satisfies the RCRA requirementsthrough the first quarter of the preliminary analytical pe-riod of 1 year under 40 CFR 265. However, CHAMPION has beenrelieved of this program by having a USEPA-approved closureplan for the site. The current program has been conductedsolely for the information of CHAMPION and does not reflectany form of current or anticipated regulatory action con-cerning the site.

300044

4-1

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

4.1 OVERVIEW

The field activities conducted by OHM included an ini-tial site survey, construction of four monitoring wells,land surveying of well locations, and ground water sampling.The location of each observation well .is shown on Figure 1.All wells were installed within the CHAMPION propertyboundaries.

OHM technical personnel who appeared at the Hellertcwnplant were: Messrs. John Barone, Mark Erickscn, RobertBeckwith, and Lowell Metzger.

The schedule of activities at the site investigationwere executed as expeditiously as conditions would permit.Owing primarily to inclement weather and the holiday season,the field program v^nars—executed in 'two discreet corp.p^^o^^-g ...Weather conditions also required a minor modification to thedrilling program, wherein the Standard Penetration Tests(SPT) described in the proposal were not run on one boringand were limited on another. However, OHM is confident theabsence of these tests has no adverse effect on the projectin general. All other activities were performed very closeto the original schedule.

The drilling contractor utilized for this project wasJ. E. Fritts and Associates, Inc., Kirkwood, New Jersey.

4.2 DRILLING PROGRAM

The drilling program constituted the advancement offour borings on the CHAMPION property. The borings werethen completed as observation wells.

The first boring (CSP-1) was located in the parking lotnear the guard shack in the east-central area of the proper-ty. This well was intended to serve as the background moni-toring point for the study. CSP-1 was drilled byhollow-stem auger to a depth of 23 feet. The hole was com-pleted to 73 feet by tricone roller bit. The borehcle wascleaned out and backfilled with clean sand to a depth of33.5 feet. A 2-inch diameter observation well was installedto 33.5 feet.

The second baring (CSP-2) was sited in the southwestcorner of the site at the top of the berm. During the firstattempt, the boring was drilled through 14 feet of overbur-den until it encountered refusal. As a result, this boringwas abandoned. A "Second boring was attempted about 5 feet'west of the first.. The boring at this location was advanced ..

300045(5"H~M

4-2

through 25 feet of overburden to the top of rock. In theoverburden, a lithology change was noted.at 14 feet belowthe land surface. This probably indicated the contact be-tween the original ground surface and the overlying back-fill. CSP-2 was continued 20 feet into rock, for a totalboring depth of 45 feet below land surface. The monitorwell emplaced as CSP-2 has a depth at the bottom of the10-foot screen of 41 feet below land surface.

CSP-3 was sited about halfway along the berm on thewest side of the backfilled area. It was augered to a totaldepth of 45 feet below land surface encountering rock atabout 40 feet. The monitor well was emplaced in the boringwith a depth to the bottom of the 10-foot screen of43.5 feet below land.

CSP-4 was sited in the northwest corner of the proper-ty. The borehole was augered to a depth of approximately35 feet where auger refusal was encountered. A change inlithology was determined and an additional 9 feet wasdrilled with a tricone bit to a depth.of 4.6.feet... The holewas cleaned and an observation well,installed to a depth of46 feet.

Borir.g logs obtained by OHM' s field investigative teamis presented in Appendix C.

4.3 OBSERVATION WELLS ..

Observation wells were installed in such a manner thatone was located upgradient from the former lagoon area^and_three were located downgradient. The primary objectives ofthe observation wells are:

o To provide access to ground water

o To determine whether pollutants are present andtheir concentrations

o To determine the areal distribution ofpollutants

The observation wells consist of 2-inch ID flush-jointed Schedule 40 PVC pipe with 10 feet of No. 20 PVCscreen. Well screens were located so that the upper sectionwould intersect the water table. The upper annulus of eachwell was grouted with a bentonite/cement mixture. Protec-tive collars were installed over the wells and cemented inplace. All of the protective collars were provided with •• -lockable caps to prevent unauthorized entry. Well installa-tion details are included in Appendix C. Figure 3 illus-trates the above-ground completion format.

30004- L

4-3

All cf the wells were developed after installation tcremove fines and to ensure they were operational. The de-xrelopment process is best accomplished for monitoring wellsby causing the natural formation water inside the wellscreen to agitate between the screen and the formation tomove the fines into the screen. " The method utilized by OHMfor this purpose was surging by Pitcher pump. A Pitcherpump was placed down the well and alternately started andstopped as to pull the water into the screen and thenbackflush. Periodically, water was pumped to waste to allowa visual inspection cf the fines reduction in the well.Static water levels were measured periodically before andafter development. The emplacement of observation wellswill provide conditions for satisfying all of the prelimi-nary monitoring conditions of the RCRA program.

4.4 GEOLOGY

The geologic terrain of the site has been described assandy till from perioglacial deposition underlain byCambrian limestone and dolomite with some sandstone andshale.

The subsurface conditions disclosed by the borings in-dicate approximately 15 feet, of brownish-yellow silt withvery fine sane and some gravel at well number CSP-1. To-wards the west at well numbers CSP-2, -3, and -4, the bor-ings indicate approximately 40 feet of overburden on thebedrock. The overburden consists of approximately 20 feetof fill and 20 feet of sandy till. The fill materialincludes brownish-grey silts and clays with some sand andgravel. Also, spark plug components, concrete blocks, andbricks were encountered. The sandy till consists of claysilt with some -sand and gravel grading down to a micaceoussilt on the limestone bedrock. This indicates a wide dis-tribution of grain sizes, with poor to moderate sorting.

The general tendency of poorly-sorted, fine- to medium-grained material is to have a relatively low permeabilityand hydraulic conductivity .

* . iiThe drilling operation penetrated the uppermost consol- I

idated formation of bedrock in each of the four borings. • . _Preliminary indication from outwash returns are that thebedrock of the site is a light brown to light grey limeyshale. As evidenced by color changes in CSF-1, there proba-bly exists two undif ferentiated types of bedrock, both beinglimey shale. Both systems appear moderately weatheredthroughout the zone identified ( 73 feet) . A graphic rep-resentation of the subsurface environment at the site is 'presented in Figures 5 and 6 .

300047OHM

4.5 GEOHYDROLOGY

4.5.1 Saturated Environment

The monitor wells installed at the Hellertown plantgive access to the saturated subsurface environment. Thewells provide points for measuring the relative elevationsof the water table, and for extracting representative sam-ples of the ground water for chemical analysis.

Table 1 presents the relative elevations of the watertable in monitor wells CSP-1 through -4. OHM has developedthis data into a representative map of the water table whichappears as Figure 4. This figure indicates that ground wa-ter generally flows from the location of wells CSP-1 in theeastern portion of the property to the west, where wellsCSP-2 through -4 form an interception line.

Comparison of Figures 3 and 4 (a generalized topo-graphic map and—phreatic surface map)—indicates that theflow of ground water, generally follows the direction of thetopographic surface gradient.

The hydraulic gradient at the site can be approximatedfrom the ground-water levels in the monitor wells. The gra-dient has been determined to be 0.069 (6.9 percent) slopingdownward to the west.

The phreatic ground-water gradient is much greater thanthe slope of the present topography. The slope or gradientof the water table is moderate to high. However, consider-ations cf the probably low permeability and hydraulic con-ductivity of the overburden may show that actual dischargefrom the site is minor.

The permeability of the sandy till deposit_and silty ""limestone is estimated^ to be in the range of 10~ to 10~centimeters per second (cm/s). This range is consistent vwith published values for these deposits. A permeability of10~ cm/s has been selected as a representative value forthe unconfined aquifer material'at this site. It is OHM's -,-belief that this represents a conservative estimate for flow _J-calculations. —_«*e

. -The rate of ground-water flow is dependent on the mate-

rial permeability (hydraulic conductivity), hydraulic.gradi-ent, and porosity. The average linear velocity (v) of theground-water flow in the unconfined aquifer was calculatedusing Darcy's (1848) equation for unconfined saturated flow:

30004

4-5

KIv = —n

where "K = hydraulic conductivityI = hydraulic gradientn = porosity (assumed as 25 percent)

Horizontal velocity can be calculated to be approximately3 x 10 cm/s.

4.5.2 Ur.saturated Environment

OHM believes, based on our investigative efforts andthe conclusions of previous investigations, that the poten-tial for vertical recharge through the vadose zone to thewater table is minimal. Vertical permeability values in theunsaturated zone are7estimated to be in the range of 5 x1C~D cm/s to 1 x 10~ cm/s.

Reactive elements must pass through the unsaturatedzone beneath the lay OCRS—Lcr reach—the—water -table .——Over—— •decades of activity the soil voids have been filled withvarious materials, thereby reducing infiltration potential.The transport of saturated soils is an important process incontamination of underground water. Major parameters fordescribing solute transport through soils include soil watervelocity, solute retention characteristics of soil parti-cles, chemical reactions, and microbial degradation andtransformations.

Under steady state flow conditions, solute transport insoils is governed by the convective-dispersive equation,which may be written in the form:

2__T • e 2_S d2C v dC -21 2T ox7 2x

where C is the concentration of the solute in the soilsolution ( -jg/cm )

is the soil water content (cm /cm )

D_. is the hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient5 (cnT/h)

V is the Darcy water velocity (cm/h)

S is the amount of solute adsorbed per unit volumeof soil" '( u g/cm )

Q is the rate of loss or3supply of solute per uni'fe?tl0049volume of soil ( u g/cm /h) __. _

OHM

4-6

T is time (hours), and

X is the length of the soil column (cm)

The term Q is a source or a sink representing irreversiblesolute production .(Q negative) or solute removal (Q posi-tive) from the soil solution. The adsorption or exchangeprocess represented by 2S/2T is assumed to be reversible.

It was assumed, for purposes of this report, that sincethe lagoons are no longer continuously fed migration of sol-utes would follow a piston movement (plug flow) pattern fromprecipitation. Thereby, the initial and boundary conditionsat the lagoon bottom would be:

C = C . O < x < L T = 0

dC/2x = 0 X = L T>0

V0 s ZX ~ O O X x- i

vo C~Ds ~ = 0 x = 0 T>T.£. A "— 1

where C,. is the initial solute concentration throughout thesoil column. Rough calculations for breakthrough curves as-suming metals as solute corresponding to pure water veloci-ties of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 cm/h were made. In all .cases, itwas estimated that the average rate of potential solutetransport vertically through the vadose zone would not ex-ceed 3 inches (.007 m) per year. Past disposal practicesand the subsequent consolidation from surcharge of the la-goons may have immobilized the contained elements.

4.6 SITE SURVEY

The site survey was performed to determine the relativeelevations of the surface of the water table. OHM surveyedthe tops of the casings using a transit and rod. The depthto the water table was measured using a calibrated line.From these levels, OHM derived the slope of the water tableto indicate the direction and probable velocity of theground-water movement. Results are summarized in Table 2.

4.7 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

4.7.1 Introduction

Upon completion of the observation wells, each well wasdeveloped as previously discussed in Section 4.3. The pri-mary reason for taking such care in well development is toassure the water sampling program obtains "representative"samples. The term "representative" means that the sample-resembles the population of all possible samples in someway. To achieve representativeness for data comparabilit'and consistency, it is necessary to minimize, or least stan-dardize, sampling bias as it relates to sample collection,

4-7

sampling devices, aquifer conditions, and sample handling.Irrespective of scrutiny and quality control applied inperforming laboratory analyses, reported data are no betterthan the confidence that can be placed in the representa-tiveness of the sampling.

OHM followed the sampling procedures outlined in "Pro-cedures Manual for Ground-Water Monitoring at Solid WasteDisposal Facilities," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,EPA/530/SW-611, August 1977.

All four wells were purged by removing a minimum of10 volumes of water. A Teflon-lined baler with ball valveattachment was used to collect the sample. Samples werethen transferred to 32-ounce glass jars with Teflon-linedcaps. Sample jars were then preserved according to the re-cuirements of the parameter to be tested. Jars were packedin ice and returned to OHM's corporate laboratory inFindlay, Ohio.

4.7.2 Sampling Program

OHM initially obtained one set of samples of the groundwater at the Hellertown plant for chemical analysis. theparameters analyzed and the results are presented inAppendix B.

The parameters chosen for this single sequence of ana-lyses correspond to the three main categories of analyses -for RCRA-type programs. The three nain categories, as indi-cated in the Appendix, are:

o Parameters characterizing suitability as adrinking water supply

o Parameters establishing ground-water quality

o Parameters indicating ground-water contamina-tion (statistical series.)*• ,

Three field parameters were also established at thetime of sampling; these appear -in Table 3 and include pH,specific conductance, a-nd temperature.

A second sampling set was obtained in mid February 1985.A similar set of parameters tested to the first sample serieswere performed again. In addition, the following were con-stituents tested for:

o Total cyanide, nickel, zinc

. o USEPA Test Methods 601/602 screen for voltile/semivoltile oraanics

300051V-... r OHM

- • - - • 4 - 8

4.7.3 Results

The full suite of parameters analyzed also includes themajor groups of process chemicals formerly used at the plant-particularly nitrate, sulphate, fluoride, chloride, TOC, andTOX. Interpretation of the sampling results reveals thatthere is currently a marginal degree of elevated crganicswithin the immediate vicinity of the lagoons.

The results of..Appendix B show that only barium and ni-trate are consistently above .the limit of the Primary Drink-ing Water Standards of RCRA. However, the level is con-sistent across the site to include the upgradient well.Consistency of this nature leads to the postulation thatbarium and nitrate may naturally be occurring at these lev-els or an external point source upgradient of the site maybe present.

Two other parameters exceed the Secondary Drinking Wa-ter Standard in the downgradient wells: iron and manganese.Although these values are higher 'than the1 starrcnrrtr;—-ctiey arenot uncommonly high for water in contact with overburden andbedrock of the type found at the site.

Iron exists in soils mainly as insoluble ferric oxide,iron sulfide, and ferrous carbonate. Ferrous carbonat^ mav

2be dissolved by the reaction: FeCC., + CO,, + H00 Fe2KC03.

In the Kellertown case, reducing (anaerobic) conditionsexist due to the many years of waste dumping into the sub-surface. Ferric iron is reduced to ferrous iron and solu-tion occurs without difficulty.

Manganese exists in the soil principally as manganesedioxide. It is insoluble in an aerobic conditions. Howev-er, under the anaerobic conditions beneath the lagoons man-ganese is reduced from a valent state of IV to II andsolution occurs. It, therefore, can be .expected that ironand manganese levels would increase in concentration in thevicinity of the areally anomalous.anaerobic soil near thelagoons. '

Two organic compounds were found in levels above 50 ppbin CSP-3 and -4. These are 1,2 dichloroethane andtrichloroethylene.

In assessing the safety of an organic substance it isnecessary to have both a quantifiable method of measuringand a precise means of expressing the toxicity. There are agreat variety of criteria or end points of toxicity that can

T~ 5*flHI

300052l|

l-Q

be used. The ideal criterion would be one closely assoc-iated, with the molecular events resulting from exposure tothe constituent. Such an ideal is usually unapproachable.Data to date is very limited on the long-term effects ofthose elements on the environment. In summation, it cannotbe conclusively determined whether the organic constituentsfound have a significant impact on the environment.

300053tr

5-1

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study completed by OHM indicates that ground watergenerally flows across the site from east to west. Thisplaces the monitor well CSP-1 in the farthest possible loca-tion on site in the upgradient direction. The three remain-ing wells form a line across the farthest possible locationon site in the downgradient direction. Thus, the systememplaced by OHM lies in the best available location withinthe property of CHAMPION for monitoring the flow and qualityof ground water. " . " .

The data from the analyses for water quality do notpresently indicate a problem of significant magnitude or im-mediacy resulting from former operations at the plant.

From the above considerations of flow and quality atthe site, there is no current indication of appreciable con-tamination of the ground-water system to the limits of thesurvey conducted. As previously mentioned, elevated levelsof iron and manganese can be expected when creating ananaerobic environment such as is done with the use of seep-age lagoons, pits, and septic drain fields.

As far as it is known, humans suffer no harmful effectsfrom drinking waters containing moderate concentrations ofiron and manganese. Such waters when exposed to air canbecome turbid and consequently unacceptable from an aestheticstandpoint.

The levels cf acceptance by USEPA, United States PublicHealth Service (USPHS), and others are set solely for thereason that iron and manganese can cause staining of laundryand plumbing fixtures and cause difficulties in distributionsystems by supporting growths of iron bacteria.

Barium was postulated to be either occurring naturallyor emanating from an off-site point source, neither of whichcan be attributed to the formerly utilized lagoons.

OHM performed a preliminary well canvas survey that re-vealed there is currently no domestic or commercial waterwells in use downgradient of the facility for at least 1mile.

At the request of the PADER, OHM provided support for asecond round of sampling at the Hellertown plant performedFebruary 14, 1985. The basis for this sampling lies in the.,PADER letter to CHAMPION of February 1, 1985. OHM providedthe support request, but also took a second set of samplesfor analysis at CHAMPION'S request.

3000541

5-2

On the basis of the survey described in this report,OHM would recommend only that monitoring be continued at thesite for -the list of parameters represented in the analysesof Appendix B on a quarterly basis for a period of not lessthan 1 year. After that period of time, the program couldbe pared back to semiannually, then to an annual basis, andfinally discontinued if the _water quality does not appear tobe degrading or migrating off-site.

300053<THM

TABLES AND FIGURES

300056O~H"M

TABLE 1

WATER LEVEL DATA

Surface Ground-WaterWell No. Da te Eleva rion Elevation

CSP-1 1-4-85 104.50 79.95CSP-2 1-4-85 87.80 55.18CSP-3 1-4-85 87.45 52.43CSP-4 1-5-35 36.94 53.35

ir30Q051OHM

LU

Q>33-JO

*~ * F~ V /•*!r , ,- Jfc JL_r' ** * 6

STATION

B.M.-ACSP-1

-TOP OF RISER-TOP OF PROTECTIVE

COLLAR-GROUND AROUND WELL

(A)

(B)(C)

—— ————— - - -- TP-1 - ——————————CSP-2

-TOP OF RISER-TOP OF PROTECTIVE

COLLAR-GROUND AROUND WELL

(A)(B)(C)

CSP-3ioP OF RISER-TOP OF PROTECTIVE

COLLAR•GKOUND AROUND WELL

(A)

(B)(C)

CSP-4-iOP OF RISER-TOP OF PROTECTIVE

COLLAR-GROUND AROUND WELL

(A)(B)(C)

B.S.C+)

.81

" - * i 1 * O . . - - . . - - - - _ -

H.I.

106.06'

96.95

F.S.H

0.69

0.26

1.57

1.53

1.57

9.92

7.767.39

9.249.11y . i o

7.95

7.60

9.509.599.39

8.227.89

10.159.989.89

ELEVATIO

100.00'

105.37105.80

104.49104.53

104.49

96.14

89.1989.56

87.7187.8487.85

89.0089.35

3i

87.45,

87.3|87. 5j

mggjf"ifJPsS863J

UJ

BENCHMARK - A : ASSUMED ELEVATION 100.0"

n , TABLE 2

300058

TABLE 3

Field Sampling Data

wellParameter CSP-1 C5P-2 CSP-3 C5P-4

pH 6.65 6.45 6.55 6.55

Specific Conductance 500 600 800 1,000(umhos/cm)

Temperature (°C) . 11 11 11 11

OHM

t>»-» "2. i- •- *• 'f"f ' ; "*' •.'¥'•'.•*• r i~ T ULNFJ1"1" C1 t*'ll SJfe -vf- gfi gSS\ - 7 •:.-••'---•.-•.- -.: ^ a gxx/ v-f,H-. \-':>. •:-?sirf j tsfei \ •.-^•^.-..i- •,'•>•••..•••-•',.•-*T««*.*»*«

6 H M

DUJ

O

>l«

UJk—<Q

TYPICAL WELL

TOP OF RISER -v D\

DF PROTECTIVE

\ / C°LLARn N

r CAPGROUND -\,

GROUND

(B)CONCRETE D (C)

D

VGROUND AROUND WELL (A ,B .C ) ... Q 5

SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW

FIGURE 3

WELL PROTECTION DETAILS

PREPARED FOR:

CHAMPION SPARK

HELLERTOWN. . ,PA

300062.,

\ ••• '•••• : V* ,*V &*vi •• : &®m•'•••• :.;-Av3f.%.M\ :-:!mm

300063P HM

LU

»:.t

H

§

5 3 |LU a. c« j^ W

in « CC £LCO <

LU O CLS- c co

u.

•rs'< eLU i

'. ~ft

10 UJo:

<• i; x'^ sr sgV" O, M. «

X

O

1 =cro

O u1sCEO

I;PS

UJ

"300065

CTHM

I Im < — .I- I s s

£ 5 |Z 2 * 0 * ! 3 -S * U V O S > - «

•- OB

ua '. •'. .mi,; i_|

O"u01 CO

UJ "3

JCCa

0 i=> sr^ ^ =2 c

= 1°"S 2_ 5 CO

S ° 2

IIo

APPENDIX A

ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS

GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.

30006707HM

.Gilbert Associates, Inc;^ '"' "•"••""* ••tut 'i

', Laborstory Services x K*. *«* «,«* ~-.m

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

=;-:•• -rrv ",/'•; /"»"2S5297-300 -.— •-. ./.J, i-

, . r ..«*--TCC_'"Hellertc-.-n ^an_facturing Co. - -w ^ , - / _ - - -•... ..w « • ' i* * •

Superr.a-ar.c S uperr.st a'

£--per-c:art SurtrraLagoon vl Lagoon '"2 Lagcor. »3

Laboratory No. 2"297 25529S 2c5259

Chloride =g/l C1'6 136

Ch-or.iua. bexavaient ng/1 Cr" 0.02O.ror-iur.f ratal -5/1 Cr O.S3 O.C86 C.%6

Copper r.g/1 Cu O.C97.c'e, arer-able -g/1 CN~ 0.60chlcrine

-.-Sl -s/i CK" ::eo o.6i o.:s

Nickel =g/l Ni 0.07

Nitrate =g/l ™3~ &*?H 9.6 9.3 9.1

C6K5°H Q''SSrlids. dissolved »g/l 5C4 =20 i:50

(ISO C)

Sulfate =5/1 S04"" Z52Zinc =S/1 Zn 15-9 2.4 2.7

QNS - Quantity of saryle not sufficient for analyses

Respectfully submitted, -----

V.-.Kcc: C. R. Kertell OHM

£

%f* gubert Assocjsucs, inc.'.-; '--** t~"s-'--> ____*»* TC- p c s;; 55 E.,..,, =

3C Nsbii S::er, Seai.n;. Pi '.3511 ?««. 7?

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS W

U3:5AT3Jff'N& 285301-304 RECEIVED 3/13/75 =-=:^7£2: 3/31/75

....... Keliertown Manufacturing Co. - WO C7-733S-ODCV k '«, ''» I «

Sludge* Sludge* Sludge* S'iucg.Lagoon vl Lagoon ->'2 'Lagoon i/3 Lagoon

Laboratory No. 285301 2S5302 2S5303 . 2S330-

Chloride ng/1 Cl" 154•*-6Chrosiua, hexavaient rrg/1 Cr < 0.01

Chro-iua, tcral =»g/l Cr_______115________7._7_______63.1 _. 15.4

Copper ag/1 Cu 13.7Cvanice, a-^er.sble -g/1 CN~ 1.28* *

to chlorine

Cyarife, total -g/1 CK~ I.IS 22.6 73.2

Lead ag/1 Pb' 5.1 1.3 6.0Kickel ag/1 Ni 7.1

1,'itrate ag/1 N03" 2.SpH 5.9 9.2 9.0 9.3

?:.e-ols ug/1 C,H.OE 191D J .

Solids, dissolved =»g/l 1120 1156 . - 1170 1280 —(150°C) --V

Solvent extra ctables tng/1 7775 fj

Culfate mg/1 S04" 139. r.Zinc ag/1 Zn— 1594 426 3142 676 .

-i>*

S£4-^Special sarrple prepa"ratioc required for setal analyses. ,4

:-_ !i

Respectfully'submitted, • '

. K. Kieffer.^u^ervisorr.c: C. R. Ktrtell ^ .Laboratory Serv-icesrtx-nfsnl

O U U U VJ

GnbartAsso£ates12nc.:r!2r———————~~~ ~"! ~ 30 Nobtt Sirer. Reid** ?* 19W ' :SXLaboratory Services

CERTIFICATE CF ANALYSISRECer/tTv 3/13/75 P£---E& 3/31/75

285307-308 RtU''"~Manufacturing Co. - VO 07-7388-300

-s/1 NO.- 3

Veil "A" Other WellsKniha Sheesley285307 2S5308

Laboratory No.

J =5/1 Cl~ 8'° .Chloride ^ <0>01chrc,tumf h.x.v.l.nt »g^Cr

' •» <• — _____________________ <- U . . V A _____________________

Chro=i«, total ^———ag/1 Cu °'C

co??er -,-/-. en" <o-c2'Cyanide, a~er,£' to chlcrire i .- <O.C2. . - . - -o -.=tal "S/* ^ ' „,i i « . , - • - - - » - n %i <£• -"*

?b,, 0.01

titrate . ?^ 7>3

. Q.. 415Solids, dissolved"(1&0°C) . . 6

Solvent extractables ™g/l ''en "" • i7 . Z

0.32Zinc

tfull sub-.r.izt cd,

J. K.Laboratory Services

cc: C. R. Kertell -- ' '

300070

CfHM

Gilbert Associates, inc. w.: ang ;=.-Sj.

Laboratory Services 3: .'.':i!t Sirwt Rjifn; =i :=sn r,s.r

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

U33W70HTN& 285305-306 & 30° RE::iVEa 3/13/75 =E=:=.!£i 3/31/75

_,,EWT. Hellertown Manufacturing Co. - VO C7-73SS-000

Leachate LeachateDrying Bed*

Lagoon PI I?rying 'Bed SludgeSludge Sludge As is

Laboratory No. 2S5305 2S5309 2S5306

Chloride og/1 Cl" 2.0 20.0 3400-f-6

Chrcriu::, hexavalent mg/1 Cr <0.01 < 0.01

Chrcnii-j=, total =g/l Cr <0.01 0.019

Copper ag/1 Cu 0.014 0.014Cyanide, a-er.able -g/1 CN <C.C2

to chlorine

Cyanide, total ag/1 CN~ <O.C2 0.24

Lead _ =g/l ?b <O.C4 <0.04

Nickel -g/1 Ni 0.01 0.01

Kitrate ng/l' O." 2.5 5.5

?H 7.0 S.9

Phenols Pg/1 C.H.OH <1.C 1.04Solids, dissolved ng/I — 10 111

(180 C)

Solvent exrractables sg/1 . 14.£ 2D.8

Sulfate wg/1 SO "" <lf0 12.8

Zinc eg/1 Zn 0.04 O.OS

*Special'sample preparation required for r.etal ar.slyses..

Respectfully submitted,

. K. Kieffer-7 spervisorcc: C. R. Kartell r Lsbsrstcry Se--ic^sf|

APPENDIX B

OHM ANALYTICAL STUDIES

300072OH~M

THE ENVWONMEKTAJ. SERVICES COMPANY QH VA^•6-C-: v.' SPC 5?> £

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CLIENT: Champion Spark Plug

ATTN:

OHM PROJECT #: 2332 SAMPLE TYPE: Waters

OHM PROJ. MGR: John -mr^__________________________

ANALYSIS PERFORMED:Semi-quantitative Volatile Screen; Cadmium:Chromium; Nickel; Zinc; Lead; Total CyanideTotal Phenols; pH; Total Dissolved SolidsjTotal Suspended Solids; Chloride; Fluor|Nitrate; and Sulfate.

DATE COMPLETED: 3-14-85 DATE RECEIVED: 2-18-85

This report is "PROPRIETARY AfD OOKHDENTUL" and delivered to, and intended forthe exclusive use oft, the above named client only. O.E. Materials Co. assumesno responsibility or liability for the reliance hereon or use hereof by anyoneother than the above named client.

All of the analyses and data interpretation that form the basis of this reportwere prepared -under the direct supervision and control of the undersigned vhois solely responsible for the contents and conclusions therein.

Reviewed andApproved by: _____

Thomas E. Gran, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager /Date

Division o' The KBI Corp _. OHM

•rage i

PROJECT 2332

SUMMARY REPORT OF ANALYTICAL SERVICES

I. INTRODUCTION

O.fi. Materials Co.'s (OHM) Corporate Laboratory received sixwater samples from Champion Spark Plug's facility in Hellertown,Pennsylvania. The samples were acquired by OHM's technical per-sonnel and transferred to the laboratory complete with a chain-of-custody record/ a copy of which is attached for reference.The samples were analyzed for a semi-quantitative volatilescreen; the following metals: cadmium, chromium/ nickel, zinc/and lead; total cyanide; total phenols; pH; total dissolvedsolids (TDS); total suspended solids (TSS): chloride/ fluoride;nitrate; and sulfate.

II. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

A. Semi-quantitative Volatile Screen\

The water samples were prepared and analyzed according toUSEPA Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipaland Industrial Kastewater, July 1952: Method 6O1 / PurgeableBalocarbons/ and Method 602, Purgeable Aromatics.

B. Hetals

The water samples were prepared and analyzed according toUSEPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, "Physical/Chemical Methods, SW 646,2nd edition, July 1982. Samples were prepared by Method 3010, Acid Digestion Pro-cedure for Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for the fol-~lowing metals: cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel/ and zinc.Sample analyses for these metals were performed by Section 7_jInorganic Analytical Methods for Direct Aspiration Methods.

C. Total Cyanide

The water samples were prepared and analyzed according toUSEPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes^ "Method 335.2/ Cyanide/ Total/ Titrimetric/ Spectro-photometrie.

D. Total Phenols

The water samples were prepared and analyzed according to,,USEPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water andMethod 420.I/ Phenolics, Total Recoverable, Spectro-photometric, Manual 4-AAP with Distillation.

30007421

4-01-E5Page 2

PROJECT 2332

SUMMARY REPORT'OF ANALYTICAL SERVICES

E. £H

The water samples were tested for pR according to Methods forChemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EMSL, March 1979;Method 150.1, pH, Electrometrie.

F. Total Dissolved Solids

The water samples were analyzed for total dissolved solids(TDS) according to Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater, 15th edition, I960; Method 209 B, TotalFilterable Residue Dried at 103-105°C.

G. Total Suspended Solids

The water samples were analyzed for total suspended solids(TSS) according to Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and "Wastewater / 15th edition, 1980; Method 209 B, TotalNonfilterable Residue Dried at 103-105 C.

H. Chloride

The water samples were analyzed for chloride according to"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,15th edition, 1980; Method 407 C, Chloride, Potentiometrie,Ion Selective Electrode Method.

I. Fluoride

The water samples were analyzed for fluoride according toMethods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EMSL,March 1979; Method 340.2, Fluoride, Potentiometrie/ IonSelective Electrode Method.

J. Nitrate

The water samples were analyzed for nitrate according toMethods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes/ EMSL/March 1979; Method 352.1, Kitrate/ Colorimetric, Brucine.

K. Sulfate

The water samples were analyzed for sulfate according toMethods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EMSL,March 1979; Method 375.3/ Sulfate, Gravimetric.

300075OHM

•- w j. — ODPage 3

PROJECT 2332

SUMMARY "REPORT OF ANALYTICAL' SERVICES

III. ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Table I details the conventional parameter results. Table II de-tails the metal results, and Table III details the volatilescreen results. The volatile screen results are expressed serai-quantitatively in three ranges based on external standard re-sponse or non-detectable (ND):

Low = <5.0 ug/1Medium = 5.0 - 50.0 ug/1

High = >50 ug/1

3000

Page 4

PROJECT 2332

TABLE'I -'CONVENTIONAL PARAMETER 'RESULTS

2332-07 2332-08 2332-09 2332-10 Limit ofPARAMETER CSP-1 CSP-2 CSP-3 CSP-4 Detection

Total Cyanide (mg/1) BDL 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.05

Total Phenol (mg/1) BDL BDL BDL BDL 50.0

PH 7.33 7.39 7.38 7.10

Total DissolvedSolids (TDS) (mg/1) 416 484 810 1,018 5.0

Total SuspendedSolids (TSS) (mg/1) 655 106 654 621 5.0

Chloride (mg/1) 42 33 68 57 10.0

Fluoride (rag/1) 0.20 0.50 3.50 1.40 0.10

Nitrates (mg/1) 42 22 20 29 , 10.0

Sulfates (mg/1) 66.0 97.6 211 333 50.0

ng/1 = ppm (parts-per-million)BDL = Below Detection Limit

300077CTHM

Page 5

PROJECT 2332

TABLE 'II - METALS "RESULTS(All concentrations arereported in ug/1)

2332-07 2332-08 2332-09 2332-10 Limit ofMETAL CSP-1 CSP-2 CSP-3 CSP-4 Detection

Cadmium BDL 2.45 BDL BDL 1.25

Chromium BDL 5.36 BDL BDL 5.00

Lead BDL BDL BDL BDL 5.00

Nickel 20.3 40.0 2B.3 13.9 5.00

Zinc 442. BDL 74.0 51.0 20.0

ug/1 = ppb (parts-per-billion)BDL = Below Detection Limit

30007$)-

- w — o J

Page 6

PROJECT 2332

TABLE-'III"-•'VOLATILE 'SCREEN'-RESULTS

2332-11 2332-122332-07 2332-08 2332-09 2332-10 Travel Field

COMPOUND CSP-1 CSP-2 CSP-3 CSP-4 Blank Blank

Dichloromethane Low Low Low Low Low Low

1,1-Dichloroethylene ND ND ND Low ND ND

1,1-Dichloroe thane '• • ND ND ND ND ND ND

Trans-1,2-DichloroethyleneChloroform ND ND High High ND ND

1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND

1/1/1-Trichloroethane ND Low Medium ND ND ND

Carbon Tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bromodichloroethane ND ND Medium ND ND ND

1,2-DichloropropaneTrans-1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND

Trichloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND ND

BromochloromethaneCi»-l,3-Dichloropropane1/1/2-Dichloroethane ND Medium High High ND ND

Bromoform ND ND ND ND ND ND

Tetrachloroethylene1/1/2,2-tetrachloroethane ND ND Low Medium ND ND

Benzene ND ND ND ND ND ND

Toluene ND ND ND ND ND ND

Ethylbenzene ND - ND ND ND ND ND,•***

Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND

1i2-Dichlorobenzene1»3-Dichlorobenzene1/4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND m Nonde tec tableRANGE: Low « <5.0 ppb

Medium * 5.0 - 50.0 ppbHigh « >50.0 ppb OHM

*.-

xjr

3 - ' °

«?e»

_!

S ,

\ \ \ \

V?oQ cQ _^h h ^ oQ

\A

IIa uis

£

^ w

-ss.

T1 ? ?CL ' CL CL

-

+ 1 ^4^< > ^r <« I ' . i t ' /

10

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CLIENT: Champion Spark Plug

ATTN:

OHM PROJECT #: 2332 SAMPLE TYPE: Waters

OHM PROJ. MGR: John Barone

ANALYSIS PERFORMED:RCRA Series Chemical Analyses I, II, and I

DATE COMPLETED: 1-28-85 DATE RECEIVED: 1-05-85

This report is "PROPRIETARY Af£> CDZnpEIEIJZ " and delivered tc, and intended forthe exclusive use of, the above named client only. D.E. Materials Co. assumesno responsibility or liability for the reliance hereon or use hereof by anyoneother than the above named client.

of the analyses and data, -interpretation that form the basis of this reportvere prepared under the direct supervision and control of the undersigned uhois solely responsible for the contents and conclusions therein.

Reviewed and --"'72?'"" s /Approved by: _ /^ ZJ - ——

Thomas E. Gran, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager / .Date

300081OHM

Paa,

PROJECT 2322

SUMMARY REPORT OF ANALYTICAL SERVICES

I. INTRODUCTION

O.H. Materials Co.'s (OHM) Corporate Laboratory received fourwater, samples from Champion Spark Plug's facility in Hellertown/Pennsylvania. These samples were acquired by OHtt's technicalpersonnel and transferred to the laboratory complete with achain-of-custody record, a copy of which is attached for ref-erence. The samples were analyzed for RCRA Series ChemicalAnalyses I, RCRA Series Chemical Analyses II, and RCRA Series ^Chemical Anlayses III. A portion of this analytical work wasperformed on a priority basis. r'

II. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

TheII.

1.

2.

3.

4.

analytical metnoas— emu rThese references are

Methods for ChemicalMarch 1979.

Standard Methods for15th Edition, 1960.

Test Methods for OroaIndustrial Wastewater

Test Methods for Eval

de

Ana

the

nic

e let enc'e-&tailed be

Ivsis of

Examina

Cheraica

are-low:

a 1 y 1 1

Water and

tion

1 Ana

of Wa

1 VS1S, EPA-600/4-S2-057 , J

ua tina Soli d Wastes ,

k-C k-l

Wa

ter

ofuly

J. ii A

s tes ,

and

Muni1962

Physical

ibles

EMSL

I a he""T

4-s£"§

Wastewater!

cioal.

and«.

¥

/ChemicaJ^Metnods, 2nd Edition/ July 1982.

3000,

I

PROJECT 2332

TABLE I

PARAMETER REFERENCE METHOD * METHOD

As Arsenic " 1 206.3 AA, Hydnae

Ba Barium 1 208.2 AA, Furnace

Cd Cadmium 1 213.2 AA, Furnace

Cr Chromiutr, 1 218.2 AA, Furnace

pb Lead '• 1 239.2 AA, Furnace

Hg Mercury 1 245.1 Cold Vapor, Manual

Se Selenium 1 270.3 AA, Hydride

Ag Silver 1 272.2 AA, Furnace

F Fluoride ——1___________?4Or 7______Potentiome trie , IonSelective

N Nitrate 1 352.1 Colorimetrie, BrucineElectrode

Ra Radium 2 705 Radium in Water ByPrecipitation

Gross Alpha 2 703 Gross Alpha and GrossBeta Radioactivity

Gross Beta 2 703 (Same as above)

EndrinLindane 3 608 Chlorinated Pesticide,Methoxychlor and PCBsToxaphene

2,4-D 2 509.B Chlorinated PhenoxyAcid

2,4,5-TP Silvex Herbicides

ik.3000

OH^Vl

*

-paae 3

PROJECT 2332

TABLE II

PARAMETER REFERENCE METHOD * METHOD

Cl Chloride 2 407.C Potentiometrie, IonSelective Electride

Fe Iron 1 236.2 AA, Furnace

Mn Manganese 1 243.2 AA, Furnace

Na Sodium 1 273.1 AA, Direct Aspiration

SO, 1 375.3 Gravimetric

phenolic Compounds 1 420.1 Spectrophotometrie,(Total Recoverable) Manual 4-AAP with

Distillation

pH (Laboratory) 1 150.1 Electrometric

SC Specific Conductane 1 120.1 Specific Conductance(Labora tory)

TOC Total Organic 1 415.1 CombustionCarbon

TOX Total Organic 4 9020 Total Organic HalidesHalogen

"its

300084

PROJECT 2332

SUMMARY REPORT OF ANALYTICAL SERVICES

III. ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The RCRA Series Chemical Analyses I are outlined in Table III,and RCRA Series Chemical Analyses II and III are outlined inTable IV.

I 300085I OH M*• - »-.

PROJECT 25.:-.. . . _ . . . . „

TABLE III - RCRA SERIES DRINKING WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS——~————["£31concentrations are reported in ug/1;

Primary01 02 03 04 Drinkinc

PARAMETERS CSP-1 CSP-2 CSP-3 C5P-4 LOP RCRA Limit

AS Arsenic ' BDL BDL BDL BDL 5.0 50

Ba Barium 11,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 750 1,000

Cd Cadmium BDL BDL BDL BDL 2.0 - • 10"

Cr Chromium BDL BDL BDL BDL 20 50

pb Lead BDL BDL BDL BDL 10 50

Hg Mercury BDL BDL BDL BDL 1.0 2.0

Se Selenium BDL BDL BDL BDL 5.0 10

Ag Silver BDL BDL BDL BDL 5.0 50

F Fluoride BDL BDL 1.96 BDL 1.0 1.2-2.4*

N Nitrate 8,800 4,900 BDL 4,300 2,200 10,000

Ra Radium BDL BDL BDL BDL 3.0 pCi/1

Gross Alpha BDL 7.0 9.0 8.0 5.0 pCi/1 ^

Gross Beta BDL 15.0 14.0 BDL 6.0 pCi/1 "Z

End-in BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.2 0.2"Lindane BDL BDL BDL BDL 20 4.0-Methoxychlor BDL BDL BDL BDL 50 10Q,Toxaphene BBE BDL BDL BDL 3.0 5.0

**«2,4-D BDL BDL BDL BDL 50 1002r4/5-TP Silvex BDL BDL . BDL BDL 5.0 V^

--1ug/1 «= ppb (parts-per-billion) ^BDL = Below Detection Limit .LOD * Limit of Detection•Dependent of Temperature

300086

PROJECT 2332

TAELE IV - RCRA SERIES GROUKDWATEP I 4 II ANALYTICAL RESULTS' TAT! concen tra tions are reported in tag/1 } " ~

Secondary ;01 02 03 04 Drinking

PARAMETER C5P-1 CSP-2 CSP-3 CSP-4 LOP Standard'

Groundwater Quality

Cl Chloride 37.9 21.2 45.1 52.3 0.1 250

Fe Iron BDL BDL BDL 1.18 0.1 0.3

Mn Manganese 0.005 0.204 0.232 0.086 0.005 0.05

Na Sod urn 74.0 120 93.0 135 0.10

S04 Su. ate 106 114 203 50 0.1 250

Total -rnols BDL BDL 37.5 BDL

Groundw.ter Contamination

pH 8.25 7.90 7.96 7.97 ' 6.5-8.5

SC Specific 630 690 1050 1230Conductance(umhos/cm)

TOC Total Organic BDL 4.0 27 150 2.0Carbon

TOX Total Organic Halides

OrganicChlorides BDL 0.01 0.21 0.08 0.01

OrganicBromides BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.01

OrganicIodine 0.02 .0.03 0.07 0.07 0.02

ng/1 = ppm (parts-per-million)BDL = Below Detection LimitLOD * Limit of Detection

30CTO87OHM

fv'

\ *JX i

c

(:-

fe.

S?o o v^ ^ .* \ *

C inB

>

J

-i. *O 0

I- N

r'

TV - - • ' - - • ^* i i rS c. n i

i

E -6 _ „I -i 1I i j-

*<, NC^ H

^J ' i^ ^ ^ >v -^ 'V ^ ,- *fc ^t > » » **> +*> >I *' <j S. N ,1

Ir*X+r>

c_ __ j

i1 i" » * s .••

5n

I

f

«•

C

APPENDIX C

BORING LOGS ANDWELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

i4

I.i

300089OHM I

BORING LOG

N/A

ii!iii

1iiGTc

; !»t

i"il9s ;

T

IT~

T"

c

"T"

JL1

PRESSURE-BCTS

. *3J8: liI' III

* i

«t^vATM»«ICZ

i.s:•5 -

•-

10 J•-

-5 ;-.

20 ~

23 :25 '.

••

30 -

«

35 -•

38 -m

«•

50 -

m

4

•

*••< «

M • ••••tPVtMB *•• Ct_AM*»t«ATt«M

(Fill) Cr-ushed stone .

Stiff brown/yellow silt with V.Fsand, some clay, gravel - damp (SI

Very stiff yellow/grey and brownsilt with V,F. sand, some gravel,

• •r«t •«>

o*ii_t.m« IT«.

)

ta.\c , damp (SM) 1Hard It. grey talc, v.low moisture(CM)?!arc whitish-grey talc,highly fissible, v.dry- (CM)

Refusal - 50/2 - Reg 50Rich loss

Tricone roller, no granular return due tolow return drilling water - tancolloidal returns

caving inrock

ii1

Chanoe to light-arey brown coarser=uttlnas " 1 Outwash

Dutwash sample 'is light brownsilty fine sand - limy shale

sampj.es

Hich lossDutwash sample is light grey brown to cavingsilty medium to fine sand - probablyilso lime shale

3000-9COHM

BORING LOG Champion Spark Plug Co

Hellertown, PA. , mmi .**

Z/20/8B 1430 J.E. Fritts, Inc.

NY A

,i i : ! •; ! ! !:<: . i : > i'' : i !I I I !

iiii!

i

«

i ii *j

•VA'TS*PRESSURE7F<r-«

. i3 5 *ia * o

i

Vc

«2 i**

\

~> 1*>. e

i J i" ~i

i

i

ftt_«VAf I»M

i

i

1

I

C••

o ;•--

iol

f0^ •1 1V

120w11-!^

-30-

-

•

«

40 -•42 :

«

•

«

•«•i

} •>*VCi «M,

*«*«»> V**« AM* Cl.A«»l»***T<*n , — - -- - ~ ———

( Fill ) Topsoil f cobbles , boulders

Brown medium-sized sand - verymoist

Dark grey sandy silty - clay

*«na •VTV»BCM *» ACTf • *^e*»iu*.»»* arc.

Physicaldescriptionby cuttingreturns only

Brown silty day - moist i ~_~fe.^_mri1

~1 •

Lt. brown limestone fragments

i1 -£

1 ~Z

with some brown silt (CM) - -_-;(Bottom of boring)

-

\ --'*

I i1 ~r•-*j*i .*.--! 1.

! - '!I -'Jfei _«300091

oam

~"1 R!NG LOG^_ -"idklertown, PA

.••F""""—— *««• j •••W «

/2JY8J 1200 IJ.E. Fritts,

»w««rrChamsion Spzurk Plug

: ~- , ....... ,...'2232 1 l »'\ .ICSP-3

Inc.

! 1 2

M/A

i : i 1 ! •:: : ! : !!!;•!:''.!:: i i 1 . ! «^ i 'n :«i ,

i|

i t; j

i! 1| ———

ii

ti— s-;

1

PRESSURE 1-errs !

- iq r •••3 o

.c331"'

I S i 1

1 ! 1 1^L ! im > !^ : ! I: • • ii ; i i< i

!

tl ',?,i<SJ

|?

1<nI«•«8iI.

i*

•iis--

I

•i

. ?i t j• " i

1 »•<*. •*•« ••• i»**a4.

' Auoer

1 37.45

I/A

»u* V ATt*«

0

9

i 1 S| IB

. - ii|

i 27

36

45

xC.

._•™

-~

™

-

-

w

-

-

-•

—

«*

-—-•«

.

••

•••

t0,•i?«i••hi•

•

an !

2" 1 ' '44.5'

52.43

M.

»MBI**I

Erikson

'•Tit •*

«•* »•• t.cv«l»A•• »«• CtA..,»«C»T1». ( ».*•«• ,«TV.«.

!

(Fill) Topsoil, Large Cobbles,Boulders

Brown Silt with sand, some claywith trace of gravel - slightlyplastic - very moist (SM/ML)

Brown-Grey silt with sand, some

0»il_t,.« tTC.

clay, with trace f. gravel, poorlygraded - slightly plastic, verymoist (SM/ML)

Brown silt with clay and sand,trace of gravel - plastic, verydamp (SC/SM)Brown clayey silt and sand (SM)

Brown clayey silt with sand,(SM) grading finer

Lt. brown LS fragments withsome silt (CM)(Bottom of boring) 1

1

1

1

i

1

300C92OHM

BORING LOG_________Champion Spark Plug———•———

- -:ellertown, PA

I -'26/84'-

t *

•

Ml1

• T• *1 -

a "5j

!

S

1M

33

3

— — ' — ' —

wmmmmm

iM> ~«

N/ffmmi

t(

1 1i

•MM-M ™

1 \»--\

S-•••«•s

"T"

"T"

^ MiM.

-,

1630.. -

«• ».— —

Awmmmmmmmmmm

• 11 10 1 |

!'i• •(BlowsIFt.

15

22

14

6

17

12

5

100+

LOO+

•"

•«•

tmm

••

J.E. Fritts, Inc. i Auger 2" ' ! 44't

8•+ i

PRESSURE

it »:~ a

•••

c

\ i•— »Wfm»»mmmmm**tt*****—***

i 36.94 53.35 '

V/A H. Beckwith

M.««.tci

0 ~

5 -

^ n

c. •

25 '

30 -

35 1

*•40 :

•

«

m

(Fill) Topsoil, cobbles, bouldens

[Fill) Stiff brown clayey silt,some sand - damp (ML)

„,.,,,„ • u 1 ___ • 1 J

with some sand - damp (GM)

:: Fill) Compact brown sand andgravel, some silt - damp (GP)

(Fill) Loose brownish grey claye;silt with some sand - damp (SM-:

Compact brownish grey clayey sirwith some sand and gravel, moist(SM-SC)

Compact brown clayey silt withsome sand - moist (SM)

Firm grey to brown micaceoussilt - damp (MK)

Hard limestone fragments with soiIt. brown silt - wet (CM)

Hard limestone fragments with solight brown silt - wet (CM)(Bottom of boring)

, 4-

i

!lie '

•

r

1Ii!

« :3|31

30009|HoHim

ww

MHV

•M

ita.

—.OJi0

[

t

PFFD/

SI

OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY_ .,.„,. Champion Spark Plug Co. , WF! ! Kin CSP - LJOJe-UI — ———————————— ———————— UJrt MAIthOALtt l-U.IE —— ——————— t- ————————— — ^"\ il l\ «inrrp(NATp- \J O ill AQU1FPP

\TL CUMrut I cu , ESRVIC£S 3.^JPERVISED BY .-?., Sarone ————————— ——————————

GROUNDELEVATION 104.50'Xl

f ^F

Gene

rali

sed

Stra

tigr

aphy ^P

|

//<X< xfe;<5 >i<?< v\*'.1.5' (Fill) [•*

5' (SM) K

10' (SM) I.4

15' (CM)

(Not to scale)

I

sss5tWOOoSMMpMtrVrSYjnQccSO!r?99SrTiJi*rWS

!

& •V WHP' . [*&+

•A

'••frj[

• —— i

Eitvation of rtfertnct oolnt 10b.3""

Height of reference point aboveground surface O.S""

Depth of surface seal . ... l^'

T , rf rr,«-,t ,fn|. rnn^o^-

1. D. of surface cosing V3/^

n »h * « • V/A

1. D. of riser pipe- 2"Typ. Of ric.r p.p.. .2" ?VC

Schedule 4G

Diam»t*r of hnrehnl* °"

Typ« of fillflf Bentonite— Cement

f Ifufltinn / d*pth of top of s*a! , , a Q r - 'Typt of sffll; _ por.t-.onira . , , ,, . . _.. ,

_ . . Uniform SandTyp« of (jravaf pnekElev./dtpth of top of grnvel pock ,,.,?.,?«r.,' ,,..,

Elevation / depth of top of screen —— Z2 — CU ——p^feription of screen ScheduleiiJJC___ii>n 090 T5VP Cln*-*-o^ Cr-aon

1. D. of screen section —— 22 ———PUundnn / rf*p»h of hottnm nf «rre»n -1.0

7 0 5 *Elev. /depth of bottom of gravel pock ——— I ———Elev./ depth of bottom of plugged 70 -, 'blank section ——— — ———

Type of filler below pluaged. Native Soil OArk

Elevation of bottom of borehole • -v Ani —O H Mi

OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMAR

PROJECTHellerrovm, PACOORDINATESDATE COMPLETEDSUPERVISED BY '• *«one

GROUNDFLEVAT10NZSK<?V4* x

„„ , WELL NO.OH MATERIALS CO.

AQUIFEROIHSERVICES CCU> AW

P --2

. 0 O 1 O 'Elevation of reference point ———:_:—

Elev. /depth of top of grovel pack

Elevation / depth of top of screenDescription .of screen Schedule 40

I. D. of screen sectionElevation/dtpth of bottom of screen

Elev /death of bottom of gravel packEltv./depth of bottom of pluggedblank section

Type of filler below pluggedsection Native soi.3—————-Elevation of bottom of borehole

Height of reference point aboveground surface l.-°

1.5*Depth of surface seal . ____

Type of surface seal: Concrete

I. D. of surface casing "<AType of surface casing- N/R—————

Depth of surface casing

l.D. of riser pipe- n • ———Type of riser pipe: 2" pvc—————

Schedule 40

Diameter of borehole ——1!!—

Type of filler: Bentonite-Cement

Elevation / depth of top of seal 84.3'Type of seal: ^^"^nr-:"°———————

Type of grovel pack Uniform Sand

' -OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY

m Champion Spark Pluc.Hellertown, PA

COORDINATESDATE 6S=rvX£S CCWPAWY

BY_iL

0_i MATERIALS CO.

HMWELL NO CS?-->

AQUIFER

o-

GROUNDELEVATION 87 .45 >^

f ^B

Ge

nera

lize

d St

rati

grap

hy

^^

1

(SM/ML) L

9 * y

( SM/ML)I ———— •—— 'F181

(SC/SM)

27' (SM)

36' (SM)

45' (CM)

(Mot tc Scale)

r

L

'$?&I TfT T Z

$$|yfjrJiT

5553fVAVxxccUZ2QC

fV•A

?''"

1

1 ————

I.

Eltvation of r«fer«nc« point Q Q ^ >

Height of reference point aboveground »urfaCi 1.5-'

Depth of turfHct stal . ..M.,?-:,51

Type Of surfnre «nl: Concrete

\' 'A1. D. of surface easing

Depth of surface casing N/A

I.D. of riser pipe- — 21 —————T i • 2" PVCTyp« of n«*r pip»? , _,... , „ , „

Schedule 40

Diameter of borehole ,.,,*!'....,„Tvn* nf flii.r. Bentonite-Cement

Elftvction / d^pth of 'op o^ ?*Qi Ql , 45 TType nf ^nl- Ber.tonite

T«n« nf nrfls/i»l nork Uniform SandElev. /depth of top of gravel pack -3. --

Elevation / depth of top of screen 53. 9S'DtSC'ipt'O" of *er»*n Schedule 40n.020 PVC Slotted S,cref?i

1. D. of screen section 2"n»unHnn / rt»p»h of hnttnm nf «rr»»n &1.°z'

Elev. /depth of bottom of gravel pack Jldll ———Elev./ depth of bottom of plugged ^ 45,blank section —— : —————

Type of filler below plugged •ntrtion Native Soil

Eltvation of bottom of borehole " tffJ'O Q f*

OBSERVATION WtLL CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY j

Chamnior. Spark PlugHellertown, PAPROJECT

SITECOORDINATES J2DATE COMPLETEDSUPERVISED BY

Corner ofSite12/26/34

R. Beckwith

OJiMATE«ALS_CO.

HMSERVICES CO-*3 ANY

WELL NO.

AQUIFER

GROUNDw w i * u/£VATION _86:94'^1'' ™ J (-'>-'>v vsp*c.£ A & 4

Q.O

oweu<u

(GM)

10'

5'I. D. of surface casing

35

"2 I 40(CM)

30'Type of seal:

t'MH)

f CM)45'

•*»*•»*••«

Elevation of reference point

Height of reference point aboveground surface

Depth of surface sealType of surface seal: Concrete

Type of surface cosing: N/A

———' Depth of surface casing

I.D. of riser pipe- ^Type of riser pipe: Schedule40

Diameter of boreholeType Of filter: Bentonite-Cemenr

Elevation/depth of to_p_ of sealBentonite

iforir. Sand

Limestone

KB,

Z2S

Type of grovel packElev./depth of top of grovel pack

Elevation / depth of top of screeniOtion nf «rrg»n Schedule 40

PVC Slotted Screen________

J. D. of screen sectionElevation/depth of bottom of screen

Elev./depth of bottom of gravel pack£lev./dept». *».* bottom of pluggedblank section

| I I section

(Not to scale) —— ——^—

Type of filler below plugged.. N/Astction ••-———————————•

Elevation of bottom of borehole

a -t <

1.5'