Final Soil Gas and Shallow GW Letter Report -...

FINAL

SOIL GAS AND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER

SAMPLING REPORT

BISHOP TUBE SITE

EAST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PADEP CONTRACT NO. ME359184 WORK REQUISITION NO. 31-116

Prepared For:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Prepared by:

MICHAEL BAKER JR., INC.

August 27, 2004

REPORT TEXT, FIGURES, TABLES & APPENDICIES

VOLUME 1 OF 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Location and Setting............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Site History and Previous Investigations .................................................................... 3 1.3 Purpose and Objective ................................................................................................ 5

2.0 SITE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Supplemental Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Investigation .............................. 6 2.2 Field Procedures ......................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Site Preparation.............................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Drilling of Soil Borings ................................................................................. 7

2.2.3 Collection of Shallow Groundwater Samples................................................ 8 2.2.4 Collection of Soil Gas Samples ..................................................................... 8

2.3 Sample Analytical Program ........................................................................................ 9 2.3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 9 2.3.2 Analysis of Shallow Groundwater Samples ................................................ 10 2.3.3 Analysis of Soil Gas Samples ...................................................................... 10

3.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS ....................................................................... 10

3.1 Site Stratigraphy ....................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Laboratory Analytical Results .................................................................................. 11 3.2.1 Groundwater Sampling Results ................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Soil Vapor Sampling Results ....................................................................... 13 3.2.3 Assessment of Potential Vapor Intrusion into Offsite Buildings................. 15 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 16

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................... 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title Page

Figure 1 Site Location Map.....................................................................(Figures Section – FS) Figure 2 Site Map ....................................................................................................................FS Figure 3 Soil Boring Location Map ........................................................................................FS

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page Table 1 Summary of Environmental Sample Analytical Program.......... (Tables Section – TS) Table 2.1 Summary of Shallow Groundwater Sampling Results, Collected from Soil Borings, TCL VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) ....................................... TS Table 2.2 Summary of Shallow Groundwater Sampling Results, Collected from Soil Borings, TCL VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) ....................................... TS Table 3.1 Summary of Soil Vapor Sampling Results, Collected from Soil Borings, VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) ................................................ TS Table 3.2 Summary of Soil Vapor Sampling Results, Trip Blank Air Sample, VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) ...................................................................... TS

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendices Title Appendix A Soil Boring Drilling Logs

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. A Unit of Michael Baker Corporation

4431 North Front Street, Second Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 (717) 221-2000 FAX (717) 234-7611 August 27, 2004 Mr. Dustin Armstrong, Project Officer Environmental Cleanup Program Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Southeastern Regional Office 2 East Main Street Norristown, PA 19401 Re: Final Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Report Bishop Tube Site East Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania

PADEP Contract No. ME359184 Work Requisition No. 31-116 Dear Mr. Armstrong: Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) is pleased to provide the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) with the “final” version of the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Letter Report. The report outlines the field procedures and analytical results for the additional investigative activities performed to evaluate the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contained in the soil vapors and shallow groundwater within the overburden materials along the eastern (i.e., downgradient) edge of the Bishop Tube site. Recommendations for further characterizing the concentrations of VOCs contained in the soil vapors and shallow groundwater along the eastern edge of the site are also provided for consideration. 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Site Location and Setting The Bishop Tube site is located along the east side of Malin Road approximately ¼ of a mile south of U.S. Route 30, in Frazer, East Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. The site can be located on the Malvern, Pennsylvania USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map at north 400 02’ 24” latitude and west 750 32’ 13” longitude (see Figure 1). The Central and Western Chester County Development Authority (CWCCDA) currently owns the site. The CWCCDA acquired the property from Christiana Metals in late 2002.

Survey mapping indicates that the current property is approximately 13.7 acres in size. The Bishop Tube site is situated in a suburban area that is mainly served by public water. Some local residents and businesses, however, still rely upon private wells for their water supply needs. According to the United States 2000 Census report for Chester County Pennsylvania, 9,333 people were listed as residing within the East Whiteland Township, Pennsylvania area (United States Census Bureau, 2000).

Mr. Dustin Armstrong PADEP Project Officer

August 27, 2004 Page 2

The Bishop Tube site is situated within a southwest-northeast trending valley locally referred to as the Chester Valley area. This valley is mainly underlain by easily eroded rocks comprised of limestone and dolomite. The northwestern edge of Chester Valley is flanked by resistant quartzites that form the North Valley Hills. The southeastern edge of the valley is bordered by a combination of resistant phyllites and schists, and is locally referred to as the South Valley Hills. The main trunk streams draining the valley are Little Valley Creek and Valley Creek. The headwaters of Little Valley Creek originate along the upper portion of the hillside immediately east of the Bishop Tube site. The Bishop Tube facility was formerly used to process precious metals and to fabricate stainless steel specialty items, namely tubing and piping products. The site includes two large out-of-service rectangular-shaped one-story concrete block buildings that cover approximately 3.2 acres of surface area. These two buildings are connected to one another and are referred to as Building #5 and Building #8. A considerable amount of cutting and filling has occurred at the site to construct the buildings and parking areas. Building #5 was constructed in 1950 and Building #8 was built in 1959. The remainder of the property primarily consists of paved and gravel-covered storage/parking areas, with a smaller amount of undeveloped grassy areas. An 8-foot high chain-link fence currently borders the northern, southern, and western edges of the property (see Figure 2). During the former plant operations, stainless steel was first cleaned prior to fabrication by passing the raw materials through several pickle tanks (i.e., acid). The former pickle tank area is located in the eastern portion of Building #8. Rinse waters from the pickling process were reportedly mixed/aerated with the sanitary wastes generated by the plant facility and discharged to an underground sanitary cesspool located between the east end of Building #5 and the concrete “acid” aboveground storage tank (AST) pad. Immediately east of Building #5 is a concrete-covered area formally used to store drums of solvents and chemicals associated with the plant operations. A raised concrete berm surrounds the eastern portion of the former drum storage area. Several rectangular-shaped concrete pads exist within the bermed enclosure. According to plant records, several aboveground storage tanks were housed in this area for the storage of nitric acid (4,000-gallon capacity), hydrofluoric acid (5,100-gallon capacity), used acids (4,000-gallon capacity), and acid rinse waters (two tanks, each 5,600-gallon capacity). These acids and waste fluids were apparently associated with the former pickling operations performed at the site. Along the northern edge of Building #8 are two 4 feet by 4 feet concrete-covered areas. According to plant records, a 4,000-gallon capacity aboveground storage tank rested on support pillars in this area for the storage of trichloroethylene (TCE). TCE was transferred from the aboveground storage tank to the vapor degreaser located within Building #8 via a 1¼-inch carbon steel underground pipe. The northern and southern edges of the Bishop Tube property are bordered by railroad tracks maintained by Norfolk Southern and Amtrak, respectively. Malin Road borders the western edge of the site. A bulk fuel oil terminal, operated by the Mobil Oil Corporation, is situated along the western side of Malin Road next to the Bishop Tube site (see Figures 1 and 2). Topography decreases from a high of approximately 500 feet above mean sea level near the Amtrak railroad tracks at the southern boundary of the Bishop Tube site to a low of 370 feet above mean sea level along Little Valley Creek situated at the northeast corner of the property. Based upon these topographical differences, surface water runoff is in a north-northeasterly direction across the site. Little Valley Creek receives surface water runoff from the parking areas situated along the east side of the manufacturing



building. A drainage channel is present immediately north of Building #8 adjacent to the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks. This drainage channel receives runoff from the rooftop and parking areas surrounding Building #8, and ultimately conveys this surface water to Little Valley Creek situated along the eastern edge of the property. 1.2 Site History and Previous Investigations Prior to the construction of the plant buildings, land use of the Bishop Tube property was primarily agricultural in nature. Manufacturing operations began at the site under the name of the “J. Bishop and Company, Platinum Works” in 1951. Little is known about the early manufacturing work performed at the site. Industrial operations are believed to have included the processing of platinum and other precious metals. In 1967, the plant was sold to Matthey Bishop and Company. At this time, the industrial operations performed at the site were changed to encompass the manufacturing of special seamless stainless steel tubing. Under these new operations, the plant was classified as a redraw mill, where stainless steel pipe was reduced to specific diameters and wall gauges by successive redraws and heat treatment. Matthey Bishop and Company sold the plant in 1969 to the Whittaker Corporation. In 1974, the Christiana Metals Corporation purchased the manufacturing plant. Christiana Metals continued to operate the stainless steel tube manufacturing business at the site until the early 1990’s, when the building and facilities were sold to the Marcegaglia Group, USA-Damascus Division. The plant operated under the name of the Damascus-Bishop Tube Company, Inc. from early 1990’s to the closure of the business in 1999. The site is currently owned by the Central and Western Chester County Development Authority and is non-operational. Manufacturing operations performed at the Bishop Tube facility included the cleaning, pointing, shaping (i.e., drawing), welding, degreasing, annealing, straightening, sandblasting, polishing, and painting of stainless steel and specialty metals into tubes (i.e., pipes) and other various metal products. The plant reportedly used a wide variety of materials, including nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, caustic materials (water treatment), motor oil (20W40), gear oils, specialty drawing lubricants, degreasing solvents (TCE), anhydrous ammonia, coolants, polishing compounds, metal alloys, and paints. The processing procedures included a cleaning/pickling operation to prepare metals for fabrication (source of acidic and caustic solutions/sludges containing heavy metals); drawing operations (introduction of lubricants); trimming operations (source of heavy metal cuttings and dusts); a degreasing/cleaning operation (source of chlorinated solvents and waste oils); an annealing/heat treatment and subsequent cooling operation (source of heavy metal scales); a trim, ream, and deburr operation (source of heavy metal cuttings and dusts); and finally a polishing operation for finished metals (source of metal dusts). A detailed overview of the previous investigations preformed at the Bishop Tube site is presented in the following Site Characterization reports: Baker (2002a), Baker (2002b), Baker (2003), and Baker (2004). The reader is referred to these reports regarding a more inclusive discussion of the investigative procedures and results for the previous environmental studies performed at the site.



Previous environmental investigations conducted at the site have identified impacts to soils and groundwater related to the past manufacturing operations. Specifically, elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents (i.e., trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene) and fluoride have been detected in the soils and groundwater at the site that exceed the PADEP Statewide Health-based Standards. In addition, surface water and sediment samples collected from Little Valley Creek have also been found to contain elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents and fluoride that exceed the established regulatory standards. The findings provided by the previous environmental studies (Baker, 2002a; Baker, 2002b; Baker, 2003; and Baker, 2004) show that the soils underlying the former vapor degreaser area #1 (Building #8), the former vapor degreaser area #2 (Building #5), and the former drum storage area contain elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents (namely TCE). The concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the soils underlying these three principal areas of concern are believed to be functioning as residual sources for the TCE dissolved in the shallow groundwater underlying the site. Groundwater flow within the water table and bedrock flow systems during the period between March 2002 and February 2004 was toward the north-northeast. This finding is consistent with published information regarding groundwater flow in the area and previous studies performed at the site. Based upon a comparison of water table elevations to surface water elevations, shallow groundwater appears to be serving as a source of baseflow to Little Valley Creek along the eastern portion of the Bishop Tube property. Little Valley Creek flows south toward the center of Chester Valley where it discharges into Valley Creek. According to the water quality standards listed in Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Environmental Resources, Chapter 93 – Water Quality Standards, Little Valley Creek is designated as an “Exceptional Value” stream and is protected for the following use:

EV – A stream or watershed which constitutes an outstanding national, State or county parks or forests, or waters which are used as a source of unfiltered potable water supply, or waters of wildlife refuges or State Game Lands, or waters which have been characterized by the Fish Commission as “Wilderness Trout Streams”, and other waters of substantial recreational or ecological significance.

It should be noted that a surface water study completed by the PADEP in May 2003 (PADEP, 2003) found elevated concentrations of TCE (i.e., 55 µg/L) in the surface water of Little Valley Creek near the northeast corner of the Bishop Tube property. Groundwater samples collected from monitoring well MW08 (situated near the northeast corner of the Bishop Tube property) have been found to contain elevated concentrations of TCE ranging from 260 µg/L in March/April 2003 to 410 µg/L in October 2003. This information is consistent with the finding outlined above that shallow groundwater is serving as a source of baseflow for Little Valley Creek along the eastern portion of the Bishop Tube property. These findings collectively suggest that impacts to the water quality of Little Valley Creek (an “Exceptional Value” stream) and the indigenous fauna and flora may be greatest immediately adjacent to the Bishop Tube site where shallow groundwater originating from the three principal areas of concern at the Bishop Tube facility is discharging via baseflow. On January 24, 2004, the PADEP published their final guidance on “Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard”. This guidance was developed to provide additional screening requirements to assess the potential risks associated with vapor intrusion into



buildings originating from VOCs contained in soils and/or groundwater. The new guidance was based upon the recognition that when releases occur near buildings, VOCs can migrate from the soils and/or groundwater and impact the quality of indoor air. Per the considerations outlined in the PADEP vapor intrusion guidance document, the following two conditions must be met for the vapor intrusion pathway to be of potential concern: 1) inhabited buildings must be close to a volatile/semivolatile source; and 2) the source concentration must be greater than the threshold or screening concentration. To assess the potential risks to indoor air quality associated with the volatilization of VOCs in soils and groundwater, the new guidance document provides two separate decision matrices (one for soil and one for groundwater), as well as screening tables for soil, groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air quality concentrations. A horizontal distance of 100 feet between the source (soils or groundwater containing VOCs) and the receptor (i.e., inhabited building) is stipulated as the criterion to define when vapor intrusion should be addressed. In general, a vertical separation distance of 5 feet or more between the source (either soil or groundwater) and the receptor (i.e., inhabited building) must be met to demonstrate that the vapor intrusion pathway is incomplete. If separate-phase liquids are present in either the soils or groundwater at a site, the new guidance requires that additional sampling be performed to determine the concentrations of VOCs contained in soil gas or indoor air. The Supplemental Groundwater Investigation (Baker, 2004) performed at the Bishop Tube site indicated that elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents and potential dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) occur in the groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well MW26 (situated in the northeast corner of the Bishop Tube site). An assessment of the TCE concentrations measured in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring well MW26 show that the chlorinated solvent plume is continuing to migrate within the fractured bedrock aquifer. The local geologic structure is believed to strongly control the direction of groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifer underlying the Bishop Tube site. This information collectively suggests that chlorinated solvents (namely TCE) may exhibit an eastward component of migration within the fractured bedrock aquifer. The lateral extent of the dissolved-phase and separate-phase (i.e., DNAPL) fractions of the groundwater plume toward the east has not been determined. Based upon the information collected during the Supplemental Groundwater Investigation (Baker, 2004), elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents along with separate-phase DNAPLs are believed to exist in the fractured bedrock aquifer underlying a portion of the neighboring General Warren Village residential development and commercial properties situated immediately east and northeast of the Bishop Tube site, respectively. These concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the groundwater may pose an indoor air quality concern to some of the homes in the neighboring General Warren Village residential development and to the local businesses. To determine whether or not a vapor intrusion pathway into these homes and businesses is present, additional information regarding the concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the shallow groundwater and the depth of groundwater underlying the area east and northeast of the Bishop Tube site is needed. 1.3 Purpose and Objective To assess whether or not the chlorinated solvents contained in the shallow groundwater underlying the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube property may present an environmental concern to the residents in the nearby General Warren Village residential development, a supplemental investigation was performed to determine the following information: 1) the concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the soil vapor of the overburden materials along the downgradient edge (i.e., eastern portion of the property; 2)



the concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the shallow groundwater along the downgradient edge of the site; 3) the assessment of potential indoor air quality concerns in the nearby residential homes of General Warren Village based upon a comparison of the measured concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the soil vapor and shallow groundwater samples to the screening standards outlined in the PADEP vapor intrusion guidance document; and, 4) further information to quantify where the shallow groundwater plume containing chlorinated solvents is entering Little Valley Creek as baseflow. The additional information provided by the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation was evaluated with the environmental data collected during previous investigations to assess appropriate and feasible techniques for further investigating the potential indoor air quality concerns of selected residential homes in the vicinity of the Bishop Tube site. 2.0 SITE ASSESSMENT The scope of the field procedures performed during the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Investigation is outlined in the following sections. 2.1 Supplemental Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Investigation On March 12, 2004, the PADEP requested that Baker prepare a Work Plan and Cost Proposal (i.e., Change Order #18) for performing the following additional investigation activities at the Bishop Tube site: 1) the performance of site preparation procedures (i.e., clearing and grubbing) along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube property for mobilizing a track-mounted direct-push drilling rig; 2) the drilling of nine shallow soil borings along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube property; 3) the collection of soil vapor and shallow groundwater samples from the direct-push boreholes; and 4) the preparation of a letter report outlining the results for the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation. The Work Plan and Cost Proposal for Change Order #18 were prepared as part of the project planning task of the Work Order. Copies of the Work Plan and Cost Proposal for Change Order #18 were submitted to the PADEP Southeast Regional Office for review on March 24, 2004. At the request of the Department, a revised version of Change Order #18 was submitted to the Southeast Regional Office on April 6, 2004. The PADEP issued Notice to Proceed for Baker to begin the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation as outlined in the revised version of Change Order #18 on April 14, 2004. 2.2 Field Procedures The field procedures, operations, and methods used by Baker to complete the project task objectives outlined in the Scope of Work for the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation are presented in the following sections. 2.2.1 Site Preparation Prior to initiating the soil gas and shallow groundwater sampling event, Baker retained the services of a subcontractor (i.e., Lewis Environmental Group) to clear a 6 to 8 foot wide path through the heavily vegetated area located in the northeast corner of the Bishop Tube property. The site clearing work was necessary to provide access for Baker personnel and subcontractor drilling equipment needed to perform the field sampling activities at the site.



The subcontractor performed the site preparation work on May 3, 2004. A track-mounted backhoe was used to selectively remove small trees (less than 3-inch diameter) and low-lying vegetation (shrubs and grass) near the eastern property boundary. A representative from Baker was present to direct the subcontractor’s personnel to the appropriate site location and to supervise the site preparation activities. An estimated 2,000 square feet of trees and low-lying vegetation were cleared during this phase of the investigation. Based upon discussions with the PADEP, all the vegetation and debris that was cleared to create the access path were allowed to remain onsite. Prior to leaving the site, the backhoe was rinsed clean using a high-pressure potable water wash. 2.2.2 Drilling of Soil Borings To further characterize the subsurface conditions underlying the site, Baker retained the services of a drilling subcontractor (Eichelberger’s, Inc.) to install a total of nine soil borings in five predetermined sampling locations situated near the northeast corner of the Bishop Tube property. The drilling locations were chosen based upon the results of a field reconnaissance performed by Baker on March 17, 2004 and discussions with the PADEP Project Officer. The locations of the soil borings installed during the investigation are shown on Figure 3. The soil borings were drilled at the site on May 10, 2004, and were installed using a track-mounted hydraulic push drilling rig (Geoprobe®). The Geoprobe® was chosen to drill the soil borings at the site because: 1) it is relatively more mobile than a conventional drilling rig; 2) it generates virtually no cuttings, eliminating the need for waste disposal; 3) it operates more quickly and is typically more cost effective than a conventional drilling rig; and 4) the borehole produced by the Geoprobe® is only two inches in diameter, greatly reducing the amount of material needed for hole abandonment. Prior to mobilizing to the site, Baker contacted the PA-1-CALL system for a mark-out of potential underground utilities along the public right-of-way areas. This information was evaluated along with existing onsite survey data to identify potential underground utility lines, sewage systems, utility piping, etc. within the study area. At four of the sampling locations (SG01, SG02, SG03, and SG05) a total of two soil borings were drilled in sequence for the collection and analysis of shallow groundwater and soil gas samples. At sampling location SG04, a single soil boring was drilled for the collection and analysis of shallow groundwater samples only. The primary borings drilled during the investigation (i.e., SG01A, SG02A, SG03A, SG04A, and SG05A) were installed to: 1) determine if the target soil gas sampling depth could be attained using the hydraulic push drilling apparatus; 2) record the depth of refusal (if applicable); 3) determine the depth of the shallow water table underlying each location; and 4) collect a shallow groundwater sample for analytical testing. The secondary borings (SG01B, SG02B, SG03B, and SG05B) were drilled for the sole purpose of collecting a soil gas sample for analytical testing. Copies of the soil boring logs are presented in Appendix A. To prevent cross contamination, all non-dedicated (i.e., reusable) drilling equipment was decontaminated between each boring using an AlconoxTM soap wash and a deionized water rinse. Based upon discussions with the PADEP Project Officer, the wash fluids generated during the decontamination procedures were discharged directly onto the ground surface adjacent to each boring location. The drilling activities were conducted using Level D personal protective equipment (PPE). Conditions in the ambient atmosphere were monitored using a PID and a Combustible Gas Indicator (CGI). These instruments were used to



measure the relative concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and potential explosive conditions around the drilling rig. No significant concentrations of VOCs or potential explosive conditions were detected in the ambient air during the drilling and sampling operations. Disposable latex gloves were used to protect workers from direct contact with the subsurface materials during the drilling procedures. To minimize IDW, the residual soil materials generated during the drilling program were backfilled into each borehole. Prior to leaving the site, the drill rig was rinsed clean using a high-pressure potable water wash. 2.2.3 Collection of Shallow Groundwater Samples To evaluate the concentrations of organic compounds contained in the shallow groundwater underlying the area, a total of eight groundwater samples were collected from the five primary borings installed during the field investigation. For each primary boring location, a solid stainless steel drive point tip was threaded onto the end of the drilling rods in order to displace the soil down to the target sampling depth and/or refusal. The drill rods were removed from the borehole and the static water level (SWL) was measured using a graduated Solinist water tape (refer to Appendix A for the SWL measurements recorded from each of the five primary boring locations). Groundwater samples were collected from each of the primary boreholes using a battery operated peristaltic pumping system. Dedicated polyethylene tubing was used for the collection of each individual shallow groundwater sample. Groundwater was pumped directly from the discharge hose into the laboratory provided sampling containers. The sample containers were identified with a Baker provided sample label that included the sample number, sample date, and time of collection. Following the collection of the groundwater samples, the sample containers were immediately placed into coolers and stored at 4ºC until delivery to the testing laboratory. The groundwater samples were collected using Level D PPE. Disposable latex gloves were used to protect workers from direct contact with the groundwater during the sampling procedures. Following sample collection, each borehole was backfilled with bentonite hole plug. 2.2.4 Collection of Soil Gas Samples To evaluate whether or not a potential vapor intrusion pathway exists for the residential homes situated immediately east the Bishop Tube site, a total of four soil gas samples were collected from three secondary soil borings drilled during the investigation. The actual depth at which the soil gas samples were collected was dependent upon the SWL measurements recorded in each of the primary boring locations. Based upon the high groundwater levels measured in the primary soil borings, a mutual decision was made by Baker and PADEP personnel to forego the collection of soil gas samples from sampling locations SG03 and SG04. For each secondary boring location, disposable stainless steel drive points were placed at the end of the drilling rod to penetrate the soil profile. Upon reaching the target depth, the drilling rod was backed out approximately 4 to 6 inches to open a void space between the disposable drive point and the bottom of the drilling rod. A male threaded stainless steel adaptor was attached to ¼-inch polyethylene tubing and was inserted down the center of the drill rod. Dedicated polyethylene tubing was used for the collection of each individual soil gas sample. The adapter was threaded into a female receptacle located in the tip of the drill rod to form an airtight seal. The surface-end of the tubing was connected to an air pump that was



used to purge the air column inside the drill rods. The tubing was disconnected from the air pump and attached to a 6-liter capacity SUMMA canister. The valve of the SUMMA canister was opened allowing soil gas from the subsurface to enter the canister under reverse pressure. After twenty minutes, the SUMMA canister valve was closed and the container was identified with the sample number, sample date and time of collection. The SUMMA canisters were stored at ambient temperature until delivery to the testing laboratory. The collection of soil gas samples was performed using Level D PPE. Disposable rubber nitrile gloves were used to protect workers from direct contact with the subsurface materials encountered during the drilling and sampling procedures. Following sample collection, each soil gas boring was backfilled with bentonite hole plug. 2.3 Sample Analytical Program The record keeping procedures and the laboratory testing methods used to analyze the environmental samples collected during the investigation are outlined in the following paragraphs. 2.3.1 Introduction In accordance with the project objectives, samples collected during the investigation were used to characterize the concentrations of organic compounds contained in the shallow groundwater and soil gas along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site. The environmental samples collected during the investigation were submitted for analysis to Lancaster Laboratories, Inc., of Lancaster, Pennsylvania (i.e., PADEP selected state contract laboratory). The testing results for the environmental samples analyzed by Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. followed CLP Type III reporting protocols. In order to identify and accurately track the environmental samples collected during the investigation, including QA/QC samples, a unique number was given to each sample. This number was designed to provide information regarding the sample date, sampling location, and QA/QC qualifiers. The sample designation format used during the investigation is as follows: PADEP Site # - Sample Date - Medium - Station # - QA/QC designation An explanation of each of these identifiers is given below. PADEP Site # 116 (for all samples) Sample Date 051004 May 10, 2004 Medium AIR – Air GW - Groundwater Station # A unique sample number was used to identify the sample location: SG01A Primary soil boring drilled in sampling location number 1 for the collection of shallow groundwater samples SG01B Secondary soil boring drilled in sampling location number 1 for the collection of soil gas samples



QA/QC QA/QC sample designations followed the station # for groundwater and soil gas samples: TRIPBLANK = Trip Blank DUP = Duplicate Sample MS = Matrix Spike Sample MSD = Matrix Spike Duplicate Sample Using this sample designation format the sample number 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP refers to: 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP PADEP Site # for the Bishop Tube Site 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP Date collected – May 10, 2004 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP Sample Type – Groundwater 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP Sample Location – 1st Boring Drilled in Sample Location 5 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP QA/QC Designation – Duplicate Sample 2.3.2 Analysis of Shallow Groundwater Samples A total of eight groundwater samples (including one duplicate sample, one matrix spike sample, and one matrix spike duplicate sample) were collected from the primary soil borings drilled at the site during the investigation. The groundwater samples collected during the investigation were submitted to Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. for the analysis of Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs. During transit to the testing laboratory, a trip blank (water) sample accompanied the groundwater samples submitted for VOC analysis. 2.3.3 Analysis of Soil Gas Samples A total of four soil gas samples (including one duplicate sample) were collected from the secondary soil borings installed during the investigation. The soil gas samples collected during the investigation were submitted to Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. for the analysis of VOCs by the Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, Compendium Method TO-14A. During transit to the testing laboratory, a trip blank (air) sample accompanied the soil gas samples submitted for VOC analysis. 3.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS The results of the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation performed along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube property are presented in the following sections. 3.1 Site Stratigraphy The reader is referred to the Phase I Site Characterization Report (Baker, 2002a) and the Supplemental Soil Characterization Report (Baker, 2003) for detailed information regarding the soils and weathered bedrock materials underlying the Bishop Tube site. As described in Section 2.2.3, five soil borings were drilled along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site using a track-mounted Geoprobe during the investigation. For the collection of the shallow groundwater samples, each boring was drilled to either the point of refusal (i.e., to the top of bedrock) or to a depth



furnishing a sufficient yield of groundwater. The locations of the borings drilled at the site during the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation are shown on Figure 3. It should be noted that during the drilling operations, bedrock (i.e., refusal) was only encountered in borings SG01A (8.5 feet) and SG02A (8.25 feet). Bedrock was not encountered in borings SG03A, SG04A, and SG05A. Based upon the drilling information, the thickness of the overburden materials (i.e., soils and weathered bedrock/schist materials) underlying the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site was found to range from 8.25 feet below the ground surface (i.e., SG02A) to more than 13 feet (SG03A). The area along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site where the five soil borings were drilled during the investigation is believed to be relatively undisturbed. A general comparison of the depths where refusal was encountered in the borings to topographic elevations in the area suggests that overburden materials most likely underlie the stream channel of Little Valley Creek. The depth to groundwater in the soil borings (as measured from the ground surface) was found to range between zero feet (i.e., ground surface in SG04A) to 3.7 feet (SG02A). The groundwater levels measured in the soil borings, in general, matched or exceeded the elevation of the surface water contained in the stream channel of Little Valley Creek. This information suggests that shallow groundwater along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site is most likely discharging (via baseflow) to the stream channel. As will be discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the report, elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents were locally detected in the groundwater samples collected from the soil borings drilled at the northeast corner of the Bishop Tube site. Surface water samples collected from Little Valley Creek by the PADEP in 2003 and 2004 were found to contain elevated concentrations of TCE. This information collectively suggests that the source of the chlorinated solvents contained in the surface water of Little Valley Creek is related to the discharge of shallow groundwater via baseflow. 3.2 Laboratory Analytical Results The analytical results for the environmental samples collected during the investigation are discussed in the following sections. The groundwater samples collected from the soil borings drilled during the investigation were evaluated based on the PADEP Non-Residential Statewide Health-based Groundwater Standards, listed in Title 25, Pennsylvania Code Chapter 250, Administration of the Land Recycling Program, Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, dated November 24, 2001. The soil gas sampling results were evaluated based upon the Residential Medium Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for Indoor Air Criteria and Odor Thresholds listed in the Land Recycling Technical Guidance Manual – Section IV.A.4. Table 3, Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under Act 2 Statewide Health Standard, dated January 24, 2004. It should be noted that the soil gas Residential MSCs were adjusted using a "Transfer Factor" equal to 0.01 according to the following formula: MSCSG = Residential MSCIAQ/0.01. 3.2.1 Groundwater Sampling Results A total of eight groundwater samples were collected from the primary soil borings drilled at the site during the investigation. This total included the collection of one duplicate sample, one matrix spike sample, and one matrix spike duplicate sample from soil boring SG05A. The groundwater samples collected from the soil borings during the investigation were submitted to Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. for the analytical testing. The testing results for the groundwater and QA/QC samples are summarized in Table 2.



The groundwater samples collected from the soil borings during the investigation were found to contain the following VOCs: 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), and trichloroethene (TCE). The analytical results show that the measured concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, MTBE, and TCE detected in the groundwater samples collected from soil boring SG01A exceeded the PADEP Statewide Health-based Groundwater Standards established for these parameters (see Table 2). The groundwater samples collected from soil boring SG02A and SG03A contained concentrations of TCE that also exceeded the PADEP Statewide Health-based Groundwater Standard. The highest concentration of TCE (700 µg/L) was detected in the groundwater sample collected from soil boring SG02A. A relatively similar concentration of TCE was detected in the groundwater sample collected from soil boring SG01A (670 µg/L). The highest concentration of cis-1,2-DCE (130 µg/L) was detected in the groundwater sample collected from soil boring SG01A. Soil borings SG01A and SG02A were drilled near the northeast corner of the Bishop Tube site. The source of the elevated concentrations of TCE measured in the shallow groundwater samples collected from these borings is attributed to releases of chlorinated solvents from the former vapor degreaser area #1 (Building #8), the former vapor degreaser area #2 (Building #5), and/or the former drum storage area. The presence of elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the groundwater underlying the eastern area of the site suggests that the groundwater plume is continuing to migrate in an east-northeasterly direction. This supposition is consistent with the findings of the Supplemental Groundwater Investigation (Baker, 2004). The highest concentration of MTBE (160 µg/L) was detected in the groundwater sample collected from soil boring SG01A. It should be noted that relatively high concentrations of MTBE were consistently detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW08, MW09, and MW20 during the Supplemental Groundwater Investigation (Baker, 2004). MTBE is a petroleum additive that was not used in the industrial processes performed at the Bishop Tube site. The source of the elevated levels of MTBE in the groundwater underlying the Bishop Tube property is currently unknown, but may be related to a release of refined petroleum hydrocarbon compounds (i.e., gasoline) at the Mobil bulk oil terminal situated immediately west of the site. The concentrations of the chlorinated solvents (including MTBE) measured in the groundwater samples collected from the soil borings were found to increase along a line from south to north (i.e., upslope/upgradient to downslope/downgradient). These concentration trends are displayed graphically on Figure 3. This finding is consistent with the direction of groundwater flow determined during previous investigations (Baker, 2002b; and Baker, 2004), and suggests that the plume of chlorinated solvents contained in the groundwater is entering Little Valley Creek at the northeast corner of the site. It should be noted that soil borings SG01A, SG02A, and SG03A were all drilled along the eastern bank of Little Valley Creek. The presence of elevated concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, MTBE, and TCE, detected in the groundwater samples collected from these soil borings suggests that 1) Little Valley Creek is not functioning as a perfect groundwater divide; and 2) a portion of the groundwater plume is continuing to migrate in a east-northeasterly direction toward the residential properties in General Warren Village and the businesses along U.S. Route 30. Chlorinated solvents exist in a formally oxidized state due to highly electronegative halogen substitutes on the molecules. Accordingly, the parent compounds are generally more susceptible to reduction than to



oxidation reactions (Sims et al., 1991). With increasing halogenation, reduction becomes much more likely than oxidation (Vogel et al., 1987). According to the summary by Kollig and others (1990) and McCarty (1991), the primary and secondary anaerobic and abiotic transformation pathways for the types of chlorinated solvents present in the groundwater at the Bishop Tube site would be:

PCE TCE 1,1,1-TCA

trans-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-DCE 1,1-DCE 1,2-DCA 1,1-DCA vinyl chloride

chloroethane According to Chapelle and others (2003), cis-1,2-DCE is typically a by-product produced from the reductive dechlorination of TCE (see diagram presented above). These researchers suggest, as a general rule-of-thumb, that if the measured concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE comprise more than 80% of the total DCE levels (i.e., cis-1,2-DCE concentrations + trans-1,2-DCE concentrations) in a sample, the DCE is most likely of biogenic origin. It should be noted that only trace concentrations of trans-1,2-DCE (i.e., less than 1.6 µg/L) were measured in the groundwater samples collected from the soil borings during the investigation. Using the above referenced rule-of-thumb as a guideline, this information collectively suggests that the cis-1,2-DCE contained in the shallow groundwater underlying the site may be related to the breakdown of TCE. The groundwater samples collected from the soil borings during the investigation were also found to contain low concentrations of 1,1-DCA. The low concentrations of 1,1-DCA detected in the shallow groundwater samples collected from the soil borings are attributed to the breakdown of either 1,1-DCE or 1,1,1-TCA. Importantly, these findings suggest that some natural microbial dechlorination is occurring within the shallow groundwater along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site. 3.2.2 Soil Vapor Sampling Results A total of four soil gas samples were collected from the secondary soil borings drilled along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site during the investigation. This total included the collection of one duplicate



sample from soil boring SG05B. The soil gas samples collected from the soil borings during the investigation were submitted to Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. for the analytical testing. The testing results for the soil gas and QA/QC samples are summarized in Table 3. The analytical results show that the following volatile organic compounds were measured in the soil gas sample collected from soil boring SG05B: acetone, acrolein, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone), ethylbenzene, 4-ethyltoluene, 2-hexanone (methyl n-butyl ketone), octane, propene, PCE, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, m/p xylene, and o-xylene. The concentrations of these compounds measured in the soil gas sample, however, were below the adjusted PADEP Act 2 MSCs for Indoor Air Quality (see Table 3). Acrolein and 2-butanone are both compounds that are released into the environment via vehicular exhaust. Based on this information, the source for the elevated concentrations of acrolein and 2-butanone detected in the air sample collected from SG05B may possibly be related to interference from the existing atmospheric conditions in the vicinity of the site and/or exhaust generated from the drilling equipment used during the field investigation activities. Acetone is a common laboratory solvent that is used during the preparation of environmental samples. The analytical results show that acetone was also detected in the trip blank (air) sample analyzed by the testing laboratory. This information collectively suggests that the low concentrations of acetone detected in air sample collected from soil boring SG05B may be related to the indoor air quality conditions in the testing laboratory rather than a constituent of concern at the Bishop Tube site. Ethylbenzene, toluene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene are aromatic constituents commonly found in gasoline products. The source of these VOCs detected in the soil gas sample collected from SG05 is currently unknown, but may be related to a release of refined petroleum hydrocarbon compounds (i.e., gasoline) at the Mobil bulk oil terminal situated immediately west of the site. 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene occurs naturally in coal tar and in many petroleum products. The primary sources for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene include petroleum refining facilities, nonferrous foundries (castings) and manufacturers of miscellaneous plastics products. The source of the 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene detected in the air sample collected from SG05B is unknown, but may be related to a release of petroleum products at the Mobil bulk oil terminal situated immediately west of the site. The source of the 4-ethyltoluene, 2-hexanone, octane, propene, and PCE are unknown. Due to the relatively low concentrations of these compounds detected in the air sample collected from soil boring SB05B, these compounds are not believed to be an environmental concern at the site. It should be noted that the testing laboratory (i.e., Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) reported that there was no difference between the pre-shipment and the post-sampling vacuum pressures measured in the SUMMA canisters used to collect the air samples from soil borings SB01B and SB02B. The similar vacuum pressures measured in these SUMMA canisters (pre and post sampling) suggests that during the sample collection procedures, no soil vapors were withdrawn from the boreholes of soil borings SB01B and SB02B. The reason for this lack of sample collection from soil borings SB01B and SB02B is unknown. The same sample collection procedures were used in the field for soil borings SB01B and SB02B as those used to successfully collect the air sample from soil boring SB05B. Moreover, during the collection of the air sample from soil boring SB05B, Baker also attempted to collect a duplicate air sample from this same



boring. The testing laboratory reported that there was no difference between the pre-shipment and the post-sampling vacuum pressures measured in the SUMMA canister used to collect the duplicate air sample from soil boring SB05B. Prior to the sampling event, Baker contacted Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. to discuss the set up of the SUMMA canisters. For the collection of the soil gas samples from the direct-push boreholes, Lancaster Laboratories recommended retrofitting the SUMMA canisters with a “capillary set up” to restrict/control the volume of air flow from the direct push boreholes, rather than using standard flow controller valves (typically used for the collection of indoor air samples for a longer sampling period). The capillary set up consisted of a 2-inch long, ¼-inch diameter stainless steel tube connected vertically to the top of the brass on/off control valve. As their name implies, the internal diameter of the capillary tubes was very narrow. Based upon Baker’s discussions with Richard Entz (Principal Specialist at Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.), the narrow internal diameter of the capillary tubes would restrict airflow into the SUMMA canisters, allowing a soil vapor sample to be collected from the borings at the Bishop Tube site over a twenty-minute period of time. Upon receipt of the SUMMA canisters by Lancaster Laboratories, Inc., Baker was informed that no air samples were collected from borings SB01B, SB02B, SB05B (duplicate). The client coordinator (Ms. Kathy Kleinfelter) at Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. informed Baker that similar problems have been reported from other projects where an attempt was made to collect air samples in SUMMA canisters retrofitted with capillary set ups. On June 30, 2004, Baker met with Richard Entz (Principal Specialist at Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) in the Harrisburg office. During this meeting Mr. Entz informed Baker that capillary set ups were originally designed only to collect “clean” air samples. Due to the narrow internal diameter of the capillary tubes, Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. found that dirt, water, and/or condensation can often clog the orifice of the capillary set ups restricting and often times preventing the collection of air samples in SUMMA canisters. These problems have been observed on several projects where clients attempted to use SUMMA canisters retrofitted with capillary set ups for collecting soil vapor samples. Mr. Entz stated that due to these problems Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. is no longer using capillary set ups for the collection of air samples in SUMMA canisters. This information collectively suggests that the reason why no air samples were collected from borings SB01B, SB02B, SB05B (duplicate) is most likely related to the poor design and malfunction of the SUMMA canister sampling apparatus, rather than the sampling procedures/protocol used by the Baker field personnel at the site. 3.2.3 Assessment of Potential Vapor Intrusion into Offsite Buildings On January 24, 2004, the PADEP published their final guidance on “Vapor Intrusion into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard”. This guidance was developed to provide additional screening requirements to assess the potential risks associated with vapor intrusion into buildings originating from VOCs contained in soils and/or groundwater. The new guidance was based upon the recognition that when releases occur near buildings, VOCs can migrate from the soils and/or groundwater and impact the quality of indoor air. Per the considerations outlined in the PADEP vapor intrusion guidance document, the following two conditions must be met for the vapor intrusion pathway to be of potential concern: 1) inhabited buildings must be close to a volatile/semivolatile source; and 2) the source concentration must be greater than the threshold or screening concentration. To assess the potential risks to indoor air quality associated with the volatilization of VOCs in soils and groundwater, the new guidance document provides two separate



decision matrices (one for soil and one for groundwater), as well as screening tables for soil, groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air quality concentrations. A horizontal distance of 100 feet between the source (soils or groundwater containing VOCs) and the receptor (i.e., inhabited building) is stipulated as the criterion to define when vapor intrusion should be addressed. In general, a vertical separation distance of 5 feet or more between the source (either soil or groundwater) and the receptor (i.e., inhabited building) must be met to demonstrate that the vapor intrusion pathway is incomplete. If separate-phase liquids are present in either the soils or groundwater at a site, the new guidance requires that additional sampling be performed to determine the concentrations of VOCs contained in soil gas or indoor air. The analytical results for the shallow groundwater samples collected from soil borings SG01A (670 µg/L), SG02A (700 µg/L), and SG03A (27 µg/L) during investigation show that the concentration of TCE exceeded the PADEP Non-Residential Statewide Health-based Groundwater Standard (see Figure 3). It is important to note that soil borings SG01A, SG02A, and SG03A were all drilled along the eastern side of Little Valley Creek. This information combined with the sampling data indicates that: 1) Little Valley Creek is not functioning as a perfect groundwater divide; 2) a portion of the groundwater plume is continuing to migrate in a east-northeasterly direction toward the residential properties in General Warren Village and the businesses along U.S. Route 30; and 3) it is probable that elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents may exist in the shallow groundwater underlying a portion of the neighboring General Warren Village residential development and commercial properties situated immediately east and northeast of the Bishop Tube site, respectively. During site visits to the project area, Baker observed that many of the residential homes in General Warren Village bordering the eastern property boundary of the Bishop Tube site have basements. Groundwater levels measured in the soil borings drilled along the eastern boundary of the Bishop Tube property during the investigation were found to range between zero feet (i.e., ground surface in SG04A) and 3.7 feet (SG02A). This information collectively suggests that shallow groundwater containing elevated concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, MTBE, and TCE may underlie the basements of selected residential homes in General Warren Village at a depth less than 5 feet. Accordingly, the elevated concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, MTBE, and TCE contained in the shallow groundwater may present an indoor air quality concern in these residential homes. Additional sampling of either the indoor air quality, soil vapors, or shallow groundwater within or near these residential homes and businesses situated east and northeast of the Bishop Tube site is needed to determine whether or not a vapor intrusion pathway for these receptors exists. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the review of available information and the results of the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation, the following conclusions have been developed.

• The geologic horizons underlying the eastern section of the Bishop Tube property can be segregated into three categories: 1) a shallow soil/overburden interval; 2) a weathered bedrock interval; and 3) a deeper unweathered bedrock interval. Based upon the information collected during the drilling of the soil borings, the top of bedrock in this area was found to lie at depths greater than 8.25 feet below the ground surface. A general comparison of the depths where refusal was encountered in the borings to topographic elevations in the area



suggests that overburden materials most likely underlie the stream channel of Little Valley Creek.

• The depth to groundwater in the soil borings (as measured from the ground surface) was

found to range between zero feet (i.e., ground surface in SG04A) and 3.7 feet (SG02A). The groundwater levels measured in the soil borings, in general, matched or exceeded the elevation of the surface water contained in the stream channel of Little Valley Creek. This information suggests that shallow groundwater along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube site is most likely discharging (via baseflow) to the stream channel. Based upon this finding, the source of the chlorinated solvents contained in the surface water of Little Valley Creek is believed to be related to the discharge of shallow groundwater via baseflow.

• The analytical results show that the measured concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, MTBE, and

TCE detected in the groundwater samples collected from soil boring SG01A exceeded the PADEP Statewide Health-based Groundwater Standards established for these parameters. The groundwater samples collected from soil boring SG02A and SG03A contained concentrations of TCE that also exceeded the PADEP Statewide Health-based Groundwater Standard.

• The source of the elevated concentrations of TCE measured in the shallow groundwater

samples collected from borings SG01A, SG02A, and SG03A is attributed to releases of chlorinated solvents from the former vapor degreaser area #1 (Building #8), the former vapor degreaser area #2 (Building #5), and/or the former drum storage area. The presence of elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the groundwater underlying the eastern area of the site suggests that the groundwater plume is continuing to migrate in an east-northeasterly direction. This supposition is consistent with the findings of previous investigations conducted at the Bishop Tube site.

• The concentrations of the chlorinated solvents (including MTBE) measured in the

groundwater samples collected from the soil borings were found to increase in a downgradient direction within the study area. This finding is consistent with the direction of groundwater flow determined during previous investigations, and suggests that the plume of chlorinated solvents contained in the groundwater is entering Little Valley Creek at the northeast corner of the site. It should be noted that soil borings SG01A, SG02A, SG03A were all drilled along the eastern bank of Little Valley Creek. The presence of elevated concentrations of TCE, detected in the groundwater samples collected from these soil borings suggests that: 1) Little Valley Creek is not functioning as a perfect groundwater divide; and 2) a portion of the groundwater plume is continuing to migrate in a east-northeasterly direction toward the residential properties in General Warren Village and the businesses along U.S. Route 30.

• The analytical results show that the following volatile organic compounds were measured in

the soil gas sample collected from soil boring SG05B: acetone, acrolein, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone), ethylbenzene, 4-ethyltoluene, 2-hexanone (methyl n-butyl ketone), octane, propene, PCE, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-



xylene. The concentrations of these compounds measured in the soil gas sample, however, were below the adjusted PADEP Act 2 MSCs for Indoor Air Quality.

• Based upon a malfunction of the sampling apparatus (i.e., capillary tube installed on the

SUMMA canisters), soil gas samples were not collected from soil borings SB01B, SB02B, SB05B (duplicate). Discussions with Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. determined that the reason why no air samples were collected from borings SB01B, SB02B, SB05B (duplicate) is most likely related to the poor design and malfunction of the SUMMA canister sampling apparatus, rather than the sampling procedures/protocol used by the Baker field personnel at the site.

• Many of the residential homes in General Warren Village bordering the eastern property

boundary of the Bishop Tube site have basements. Based upon the groundwater levels measured in the soil borings during the investigation, shallow groundwater containing elevated concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, MTBE, and TCE may underlie the basements of selected residential homes in General Warren Village at a depth less than 5 feet. Accordingly, the elevated concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, MTBE, and TCE contained in the shallow groundwater may present an indoor air quality concern in these residential homes. Additional sampling of either the indoor air quality, soil vapors, or shallow groundwater within or near these residential homes and businesses situated east and northeast of the Bishop Tube site is needed to determine whether or not a vapor intrusion pathway for these potential receptors exists.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The primary objectives of the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation performed at the Bishop Tube site were to determine the following information: 1) the concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the soil vapor of the overburden materials along the downgradient edge (i.e., eastern portion) of the property; 2) the concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the shallow groundwater along the downgradient edge of the site; 3) the assessment of potential indoor air quality concerns in the nearby residential homes of General Warren Village based upon a comparison of the measured concentrations of chlorinated solvents contained in the soil vapor and shallow groundwater samples to the screening standards outlined in the PADEP vapor intrusion guidance document; and, 4) further information to quantify where the shallow groundwater plume containing chlorinated solvents is entering Little Valley Creek as baseflow. The recommendations outlined below stem from the conclusions presented in Section 4.0.

1. To further evaluate whether or not the elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents are

functioning as a potential indoor air quality concern, Baker recommends that the Department consider collecting indoor air samples from the residential home situated immediately north of Village Way (see Figure 3). This residential home is adjacent to the area where elevated concentrations of chlorinated solvents were detected in the shallow groundwater samples collected from soil borings SG01A and SG02A. The indoor air samples within this residential home should be collected within the basement/detached garage area over a 24-hour sampling period using a SUMMA canister. This sampling procedure will also make the coordination with the homeowner easier, since the drop off and collection of the SUMMA canisters can be performed during the same time period each day. The air sample should be analyzed for VOCs as



listed in the Compendium Method TO-14A issued by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency effective January 1999.

2. Based upon the findings of the Soil Gas and Shallow Groundwater Sampling Investigation, Baker

recommends that the Department perform an ecological assessment of the existing conditions in Little Valley Creek both adjacent to and downgradient of the Bishop Tube site. The information provided by the ecological assessment will be used to evaluate impacts of the chlorinated solvents and other inorganic constituents of environmental concern (i.e., fluoride, nitrate, and heavy metals) on the indigenous flora and fauna in Little Valley Creek (classified as an “Exceptional Value” stream).

3. Based upon a comparison of water table elevations to surface water elevations, shallow

groundwater appears to be serving as a source of baseflow to Little Valley Creek along the eastern portion of the Bishop Tube property. Based upon this finding, Baker recommends that the Department consider performing an investigation to define the lateral limits of where the shallow groundwater plume containing chlorinated solvents is discharging (via baseflow) to Little Valley Creek along the eastern edge of the Bishop Tube property. This information will be used to evaluate remedial options for mitigating the discharge of chlorinated solvents to this “Exceptional Value” stream. The pathlines generated by the groundwater flow model developed previously by Baker (2004) show that the groundwater contained in the deeper portion of the bedrock aquifer is being discharged via baseflow to Little Valley Creek 2,100 to 5,500 feet northeast of the Bishop Tube site. The analytical results for the surface water samples collected by the PADEP in the spring of 2003 indicate that the concentrations of TCE increase in Little Valley Creek within the predicted groundwater discharge area. Based upon this finding, remediation of the DNAPLs contained in the deeper portion of the fractured bedrock aquifer underlying the Bishop Tube site may be necessary to reduce the discharge of chlorinated solvents to Little Valley Creek via baseflow from the deep groundwater flow system.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (717)-221-2019, or Mr. Raymond Wattras, our GTAC Program Manager, at (412) 269-2016. Sincerely, MICHAEL BAKER JR., INC.

Mark B. Ioos, P.G. Baker Project Manager/Senior Geologist MBI:df Attachments cc: Mr. Doug Cordelli – PADEP GTAC 3 Contract Manager

REFERENCES

REFERENCES Baker, 2002a, Phase I – Site Characterization Report, Soils, Sediment, Surface Water, and Shallow

Groundwater, Bishop Tube Site, East Whiteland Township, Chester County Pennsylvania, Contract Number ME359184, Work Requisition Number 31-116, prepared for the HSCA Program, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 122 pages.

Baker, 2002b, Phase II – Groundwater Investigation Report, Bishop Tube Site, East Whiteland Township,

Chester County Pennsylvania, Contract Number ME359184, Work Requisition Number 31-116, prepared for the HSCA Program, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 128 pages.

Baker, 2003, Phase III Supplemental Soil Characterization Report, Bishop Tube Site, East Whiteland

Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Contract Number ME359184, Work Requisition Number 31-116, prepared for the HSCA Program, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 53 pages.

Baker, 2004, Phase III Supplemental Groundwater Characterization Report, Bishop Tube Site, East

Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Contract Number ME359184, Work Requisition Number 31-116, prepared for the HSCA Program, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 100 pages.

Chapelle, F.H., M.A. Widdowson, J.S. Brauner, E. Mendez III, and C.C. Casey, 2003, Methodology for

Estimating Times of Remediation Associated with Monitored Natural Attenuation, United States Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigation Report, 03-4057, 51 pages.

Kollig, H.P., J.J. Ellington, E.J. Weber, and N.L. Wolfe, 1990, Pathway Analysis of Chemical Hydrolysis

for 14 RCRA Chemicals, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Lab, Athens, Georgia, EPA/600/M-89/009.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, June 2002, Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling

Program Technical Guidance Manual, Revision 0. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Southeast Regional Office, Bishop Tube Site,

Little Valley Creek Surface Water and Spring Monitoring, Sampling Event Report, dated August 27, 2003, 11 pages.

McCarty, P.L., 1991, Bioengineering Issues Related to In-situ Remediation of Contaminated Soils and

Groundwater, in Environmental Biotechnology, editor Omenn, Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, pages 143-162.

Sims, J.L., J.M., Suflita, and H.H. Russell, 1991, Reductive Dehalogenation of Organic Contaminants in

Soils and Groundwater, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab, Ada Oklahoma, EPA/540/4-90/054.

United States Census Bureau, 2000 Census Data for East Whiteland Township, Chester County,

Pennsylvania, source: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/. Vogel, T.M., C.S., Criddle, and P.L. McCarty, 1987, Transformations of Halogenated Aliphatic

Compounds, Environmental Science Technology, Volume 21, Number 8, pages 722-736.

CERTIFICATION OF REPORT PREPARER

CERTIFICATION OF REPORT PREPARER Mark B. Ioos - Senior Geologist - 13 years experience EDUCATION: B.S., Geology, 1981, Indiana University of Pennsylvania M.S., Geology, 1988, University of Missouri PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION: Professional Geologist, 1994, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, License #PG-0001471-G RELEVANT TRAINING: Interstate Technology Regulatory Council: Phytotechnologies Workshop National Groundwater Association: Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology -The Princeton Course National Groundwater Association: IBM PC Applications in Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology National Groundwater Association: Analysis and Design of Aquifer Tests National Groundwater Association: Visual MODFLOW Groundwater Modeling National Groundwater Association: Assessment and Management of MTBE Impacted Sites National Groundwater Association: MTBE in Groundwater-Assessment and Remediation Technologies OSHA 40-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response OSHA 8-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Supervisor/Incident Command OSHA 8-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Refresher Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists: A Review of Geology for the Practicing Geologist U.S. EPA: Risk Assessment, Communication and Management U.S. EPA: Soil Vapor Survey Boot Camp U.S. EPA: Treatment Technologies for Superfund

Mark B. Ioos, P.G. Signed and sealed this day, August 27, 2004

"By affixing my seal to this report, I am certifying that the information is true and correct. I further certify I am licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that it is within my professional expertise to verify the correctness of the information."

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Soil Boring Location Map

SITE LOCATION MAPBISHOP TUBE SITE

FIGURE 1

TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Environmental Sample Analytical Program Table 2.1 Summary of Shallow Groundwater Sampling Results, Collected from Soil Borings, TCL VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) Table 2.2 Summary of Shallow Groundwater Sampling Results, Collected from Soil Borings, TCL VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) Table 3.1 Summary of Soil Vapor Sampling Results, Collected from Soil Borings, VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.) Table 3.2 Summary of Soil Vapor Sampling Results, Trip Blank Air Sample, VOCs, (Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.)

SAMPLE SAMPLE BAKER SAMPLE TCL VOCs TCL VOCsSOURCE AND TYPE LOCATION NUMBER 8260B TO-14A

Contract ContractLab Lab

(Water) (Air)

SG01A 116-051004-GW-SG01A 1

SG02A 116-051004-GW-SG02A 1

Shallow Groundwater Samples SG03A 116-051004-GW-SG03A 1

SG04A 116-051004-GW-SG04A 1

SG05A 116-051004-GW-SG05A 1

SG01B 116-051004-AIR-SG01B 1

Soil Gas Samples SG02B 116-051004-AIR-SG02B 1

SG05B 116-051004-AIR-SG05B 1

SG05A 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP 1

SG05B 116-051004-AIR-SG05B-DUP 1

Matrix Spike Sample SG05A 116-051004-GW-SG05A-MS 1

Matrix Spike Duplicate Sample SG05A 116-051004-GW-SG05A-MSD 1

Trip Blank - Water 116-051004-TRIP BLANK 1

Trip Blank - Air 116-051004-AIR-TRIP BLANK 1

TOTAL SAMPLES 9 5

Job No. RB24300116 Task 101128.0800 (24300-116)

Duplicate Samples

Trip Blank Sample

BISHOP TUBE SITETABLE 1

SOIL GAS AND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL PROGRAM

COLLECTED FROM SOIL BORINGS

Sample No.Sample Type PADEP Act 2Sample Date MSC's for

Location Organics inGroundwater (NR)a

Compound Result DQ Result DQ Result DQ Result DQAcetone 15 U 30 U 3.0 U 3.0 U 10,000 ug/lBenzene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lBromodichloromethane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lBromoform - (Tribromomethane) 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lBromomethane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 10 ug/l2-Butanone - (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 5.0 U 10 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 5,800 ug/lCarbon Disulfide 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.5 J 4,100 ug/lCarbon Tetrachloride 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lChlorobenzene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lChloroethane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 900 ug/lChloroform 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lChloromethane - (Methyl Chloride) 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 3 ug/lDibromochloromethane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/l1,1-Dichloroethane - (1,1-DCA) 6.1 1.1 J 1.4 0.1 U 110 ug/l1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/l1,1-Dichloroethene - (1,1-DCE) 4.5 1.0 U 0.6 0.1 U 7 ug/lcis-1,2-Dichloroethene - (cis-1,2-DCE) 130 57 40 0.1 U 70 ug/ltrans-1,2-Dichloroethene - (trans-1,2-DCE) 1.6 J 1.0 U 0.3 J 0.1 U 100 ug/l1,2-Dichloropropane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lcis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 26b ug/ltrans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 26b ug/lEthylbenzene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 700 ug/l2-Hexanone 5.0 U 10 U 1.0 U 1.0 U --- ug/lMethylene Chloride - (Dichloromethane) 1.0 U 2.0 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 5 ug/l4-Methyl-2-pentanone - (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) 5.0 U 10 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 410 ug/lMethyl-Tertiary-Butyl Ether - (MTBE) 160 16 1.6 0.1 U 20 ug/lStyrene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/l1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.3 ug/lTetrachloroethene - (PCE) 2.3 J 4.8 J 0.6 0.1 U 5 ug/lToluene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.4 J 1,000 ug/l1,1,1-Trichloroethane - (1,1,1-TCA) 70 19 18 0.1 U 200 ug/l1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lTrichloroethene - (TCE) 670 700 27 0.8 5 ug/lVinyl Chloride 2.4 J 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2 ug/lo-Xylene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 10,000 ug/lm+p-Xylene 0.5 U 1.0 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 10,000 ug/l

Shaded areas indicate that the measured level of the parameter exceeded the established regulatory standard(s).Results in bold italic type indicate that the instrument detection limit exceeded the PADEP Act 2 MSC established for the parameter.U - Indicates compound analyzed but not detected.J - Indicates that the compound was detected below the quantitation limit (estimated value).a - Non-Residential (NR) Medium Specific Concentrations (MSC) for Organic Regulated Substances in Groundwater, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) listed in Title 25, PA Code, Chapter 250, "Administration of the Land Recyling Program" regulations, Appendix A, Table 1, dated November 24, 2001.b - Value represents the MSC for 1,3-Dichloropropene

Job No. RB24300116 Task 101128.0800 (24300-116)

Units

Groundwater Groundwater

TABLE 2.1

BISHOP TUBE SITE

SUMMARY OF SHALLOW GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS

TCL VOCs

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

(Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.)


SG02A5/10/2004

SG04A5/10/20045/10/2004

SG03ASG01A5/10/2004

116-051004-GW-SG01A 116-051004-GW-SG02A 116-051004-GW-SG03A 116-051004-GW-SG04A

COLLECTED FROM SOIL BORINGS

Sample No.Sample Type PADEP Act 2Sample Date MSC's for

Location Organics inGroundwater (NR)a

Compound Result DQ Result DQ Result DQAcetone 3.0 U 3.0 U 3.0 U 10,000 ug/lBenzene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lBromodichloromethane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lBromoform - (Tribromomethane) 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lBromomethane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 10 ug/l2-Butanone - (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 5,800 ug/lCarbon Disulfide 0.2 J 0.1 U 0.1 U 4,100 ug/lCarbon Tetrachloride 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lChlorobenzene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lChloroethane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 900 ug/lChloroform 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/lChloromethane - (Methyl Chloride) 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 3 ug/lDibromochloromethane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/l1,1-Dichloroethane - (1,1-DCA) 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 110 ug/l1,2-Dichloroethane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/l1,1-Dichloroethene - (1,1-DCE) 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 7 ug/lcis-1,2-Dichloroethene - (cis-1,2-DCE) 0.1 U 0.1 J 0.1 U 70 ug/ltrans-1,2-Dichloroethene - (trans-1,2-DCE) 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/l1,2-Dichloropropane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lcis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 26b ug/ltrans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 26b ug/lEthylbenzene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 700 ug/l2-Hexanone 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U --- ug/lMethylene Chloride - (Dichloromethane) 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 5 ug/l4-Methyl-2-pentanone - (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 410 ug/lMethyl-Tertiary-Butyl Ether - (MTBE) 0.1 J 0.1 J 0.1 U 20 ug/lStyrene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 100 ug/l1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.3 ug/lTetrachloroethene - (PCE) 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lToluene 0.1 U 0.1 J 0.1 U 1,000 ug/l1,1,1-Trichloroethane - (1,1,1-TCA) 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 200 ug/l1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 5 ug/lTrichloroethene - (TCE) 0.8 0.9 0.1 U 5 ug/lVinyl Chloride 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 2 ug/lo-Xylene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 10,000 ug/lm+p-Xylene 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 10,000 ug/l

U - Indicates compound analyzed but not detected.J - Indicates that the compound was detected below the quantitation limit (estimated value).a - Non-Residential (NR) Medium Specific Concentrations (MSC) for Organic Regulated Substances in Groundwater, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) listed in Title 25, PA Code, Chapter 250, "Administration of the Land Recyling Program" regulations, Appendix A, Table 1, dated November 24, 2001.b - Value represents the MSC for 1,3-Dichloropropene

Job No. RB24300116 Task 101128.0800 (24300-116)

116-051004-GW-SG05A 116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP 116-051004-GW-TRIP BLANK

SG05A5/10/20045/10/2004

TRIP BLANKSG05A5/10/2004 Units


TABLE 2.2

BISHOP TUBE SITE

SUMMARY OF SHALLOW GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS

TCL VOCs

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

(Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.)

Water

Sample No. Sample No.Sample Type Sample TypeSample Date Sample Date

Location LocationCompound Result DQ Compound Result DQ

Acetone 427.7 D 4,300,000 ug/m3 Ethyl Acrylate 0.2 U 150 ug/m3

Acetonitrile 0.8 U 8,300 ug/m3 Ethyl Methacrylate 0.2 U 44,000 ug/m3

Acrolein 2.3 2.8 ug/m3 Ethylbenzene 2 1,900 ug/m3

Acrylonitrile 1.1 U 31 ug/m3 4-Ethyltoluene 4 --- ug/m3

Alpha Methyl Styrene 1 U 4,900 ug/m3 Freon 113 - (Trichlorotrifluoromethane) 0.5 U 4,200,000 ug/m3

Benzene 0.6 J 270 ug/m3 Freon 114 - (Dichlorotetrafluoroethane) 0.2 U --- ug/m3

Bromobenzene 1.3 U --- ug/m3 Heptane 0.5 J --- ug/m3

Bromodichloromethane 1.3 U 57 ug/m3 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 U --- ug/m3

Bromoform - (Tribromomethane) 2.1 U 1,900 ug/m3 Hexachloroethane 0.2 U --- ug/m3

Bromomethane 0.8 U 680 ug/m3 Hexane 0.3 J 28,000 ug/m3

1,3-Butadiene 2.2 U 67 ug/m3 2-Hexanone - (Methyl n-Butyl Ketone) 2 --- ug/m3

2-Butanone - (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 32.4 140,000 ug/m3 Isooctane 0.2 U --- ug/m3

Carbon Disulfide 2.5 J 97,000 ug/m3 Methyl Acrylate 0.2 U 15,000 ug/m3

Carbon Tetrachloride 1.3 U 140 ug/m3 Methyl Iodide 0.2 U --- ug/m3

Chlorobenzene 0.9 U 2,400 ug/m3 Methyl Methacrylate 0.2 U 97,000 ug/m3

Chlorodifluoromethane 3.5 U 6,800,000 ug/m3 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether - (MTBE) 0.2 U 8,100 ug/m3

Chloroethane 0.5 U 2,500 ug/m3 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone - (MIBK) 0.5 J 9,700 ug/m3

Chloroform 1 U 44 ug/m3 Methylene Chloride - (Dichloromethane) 0.5 U 4,400 ug/m3

Chloromethane - (Methyl Chloride) 0.4 U 1,200 ug/m3 Octane 2 --- ug/m3

3-Chloropropene - (Allyl Chloride) 1.6 U 140 ug/m3 Pentane 0.6 J --- ug/m3

Cumene - (Isopropyl Benzene) 2.5 J 54,000 ug/m3 Propene 9 --- ug/m3

Dibromochloromethane - (Chlorodibromomethane) 1.7 U 78 ug/m3 Styrene 0.5 J 140,000 ug/m3

1,2-Dibromoethane - (Ethylene Dibromide) 1.5 U 9.5 ug/m3 Tertiary Butyl Alcohol - (TBA) 0.2 U --- ug/m3

Dibromomethane 1.4 U 4,900 ug/m3 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.2 U 280 ug/m3

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3 U 19,000 ug/m3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.2 U 36 ug/m3

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 3 U --- ug/m3 Tetrachloroethene - (PCE) 1 3,600 ug/m3

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 3 U 330 ug/m3 Toluene 3 56,000 ug/m3

Dichlorodifluoromethane - (Freon 12) 2.5 J 24,000 ug/m3 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1 U 2,000 ug/m3

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.8 U 1,300 ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane - (1,1,1-TCA) 0.2 U 290,000 ug/m3

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.8 U 81 ug/m3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.2 U 130 ug/m3

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.8 U 28,000 ug/m3 Trichloroethene - (TCE) 0.2 U 1,200 ug/m3

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.8 U 4,900 ug/m3 Trichlorofluoromethane - (Freon 11) 0.3 J 97,000 ug/m3

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.8 U 9,700 ug/m3 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.2 U 1 ug/m3

Dichlorofluoromethane 0.8 U --- ug/m3 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene - (1,3,4-Trimethylbenzene) 11 830 ug/m3

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.9 U 200 ug/m3 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3 830 ug/m3

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.9 U 520b ug/m3 Vinyl Acetate 0.2 U 28,000 ug/m3

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.9 U 520b ug/m3 Vinyl Chloride - (Chloroethene) 0.2 U 240 ug/m3

1,4-Dioxane 0.7 U 270 ug/m3 m/p-Xylene 8 14,000c ug/m3

Ethyl Acetate 0.7 U 440,000 ug/m3 o-Xylene 3 14,000c ug/m3

U - Compound was not detected in the sample.J - Compound was detected below the quantification limit (estimate).D - Compound was detected in an analysis at a secondary dilution factor.a - Residential Medium Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for Soil Gas, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) listed in "Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual - Section IV.A.4 - Vapor Intrusion into into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard", Table 9, dated January 4, 2004. Standards adjusted using Residential Indoor Air Quality MSCs divided by a "Transfer Factor" = 0.01 according to the following formula: MSCSG = Residential MSCIAQ/0.01.

Job No. RB24300116 Task 101128.0800 (24300-116)

b - Value represents the MSC for 1,3-Dichloropropene. c - Value represents the MSC for Xylenes (total).

TABLE 3.1PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BISHOP TUBE SITE

SUMMARY OF SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING RESULTSCOLLECTED FROM SOIL BORINGS

VOCs(Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.)

UnitsSG05B

PADEP Act 2MSC's forIndoor AirQualitya


Units

116-051004-AIR-SG05BSoil Vapor5/10/2004

116-051004-AIR-SG05BSoil Vapor5/10/2004

SG05B

Sample No. Sample No.Sample Type Sample TypeSample Date Sample Date

Location LocationCompound Result DQ Compound Result DQ

Acetone 4.8 J 4,300,000 ug/m3 Ethyl Acrylate 0.8 U 150 ug/m3

Acetonitrile 0.8 U 8,300 ug/m3 Ethyl Methacrylate 0.9 U 44,000 ug/m3

Acrolein 1.1 U 2.8 ug/m3 Ethylbenzene 0.9 U 1,900 ug/m3

Acrylonitrile 1.1 U 31 ug/m3 4-Ethyltoluene 1 U --- ug/m3

Alpha Methyl Styrene 1 U 4,900 ug/m3 Freon 113 - (Trichlorotrifluoromethane) 3.8 U 4,200,000 ug/m3

Benzene 0.6 U 270 ug/m3 Freon 114 - (Dichlorotetrafluoroethane) 1.4 U --- ug/m3

Bromobenzene 1.3 U --- ug/m3 Heptane 0.8 U --- ug/m3

Bromodichloromethane 1.3 U 57 ug/m3 Hexachlorobutadiene 5.3 U --- ug/m3

Bromoform - (Tribromomethane) 2.1 U 1,900 ug/m3 Hexachloroethane 1.9 U --- ug/m3

Bromomethane 0.8 U 680 ug/m3 Hexane 0.8 U 28,000 ug/m3

1,3-Butadiene 2.2 U 67 ug/m3 2-Hexanone - (Methyl n-Butyl Ketone) 2 U --- ug/m3

2-Butanone - (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 1.5 U 140,000 ug/m3 Isooctane 0.9 U --- ug/m3

Carbon Disulfide 1.6 U 97,000 ug/m3 Methyl Acrylate 0.7 U 15,000 ug/m3

Carbon Tetrachloride 1.3 U 140 ug/m3 Methyl Iodide 1.2 U --- ug/m3

Chlorobenzene 0.9 U 2,400 ug/m3 Methyl Methacrylate 0.8 U 97,000 ug/m3

Chlorodifluoromethane 3.5 U 6,800,000 ug/m3 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether - (MTBE) 0.7 U 8,100 ug/m3

Chloroethane 0.5 U 2,500 ug/m3 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone - (MIBK) 2 U 9,700 ug/m3

Chloroform 1 U 44 ug/m3 Methylene Chloride - (Dichloromethane) 1.7 U 4,400 ug/m3

Chloromethane - (Methyl Chloride) 0.4 U 1,200 ug/m3 Octane 0.9 U --- ug/m3

3-Chloropropene - (Allyl Chloride) 1.6 U 140 ug/m3 Pentane 0.6 U --- ug/m3

Cumene - (Isopropyl Benzene) 1 U 54,000 ug/m3 Propene 0.3 U --- ug/m3

Dibromochloromethane - (Chlorodibromomethane) 1.7 U 78 ug/m3 Styrene 0.9 U 140,000 ug/m3

1,2-Dibromoethane - (Ethylene Dibromide) 1.5 U 9.5 ug/m3 Tertiary Butyl Alcohol - (TBA) 0.6 U --- ug/m3

Dibromomethane 1.4 U 4,900 ug/m3 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.4 U 280 ug/m3

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3 U 19,000 ug/m3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.4 U 36 ug/m3

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 3 U --- ug/m3 Tetrachloroethene - (PCE) 1.4 U 3,600 ug/m3

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 3 U 330 ug/m3 Toluene 0.8 U 56,000 ug/m3

Dichlorodifluoromethane - (Freon 12) 1 U 24,000 ug/m3 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 7.4 U 2,000 ug/m3

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.8 U 1,300 ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane - (1,1,1-TCA) 1.1 U 290,000 ug/m3

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.8 U 81 ug/m3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.1 U 130 ug/m3

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.8 U 28,000 ug/m3 Trichloroethene - (TCE) 1.1 U 1,200 ug/m3

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.8 U 4,900 ug/m3 Trichlorofluoromethane - (Freon 11) 1.1 U 97,000 ug/m3

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.8 U 9,700 ug/m3 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1.2 U 1 ug/m3

Dichlorofluoromethane 0.8 U --- ug/m3 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene - (1,3,4-Trimethylbenzene) 1 U 830 ug/m3

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.9 U 200 ug/m3 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1 U 830 ug/m3

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.9 U 520b ug/m3 Vinyl Acetate 0.7 U 28,000 ug/m3

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.9 U 520b ug/m3 Vinyl Chloride - (Chloroethene) 0.5 U 240 ug/m3

1,4-Dioxane 0.7 U 270 ug/m3 m/p-Xylene 0.9 U 14,000c ug/m3

Ethyl Acetate 0.7 U 440,000 ug/m3 o-Xylene 0.9 U 14,000c ug/m3

Results in bold italic type indicate that the instrument detection limit exceeded the PADEP Act 2 MSC established for the parameter.U - Compound was not detected in the sample.J - Compound was detected below the quantification limit (estimate).a - Residential Medium Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for Soil Gas, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) listed in "Land Recycling Program Technical Guidance Manual - Section IV.A.4 - Vapor Intrusion into into Buildings from Groundwater and Soil under the Act 2 Statewide Health Standard", Table 9, dated January 4, 2004. Standards adjusted using Residential Indoor Air Quality MSCs divided by a "Transfer Factor" = 0.01 according to the following formula: MSCSG = Residential MSCIAQ/0.01.

Job No. RB24300116 Task 101128.0800 (24300-116)

116-051004-AIR-TRIP BLANKTrip Blank5/10/2004Trip Blank Trip Blank



Units

116-051004-AIR-TRIP BLANK Trip Blank5/10/2004

b - Value represents the MSC for 1,3-Dichloropropene. c - Value represents the MSC for Xylenes (total).

TABLE 3.2PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BISHOP TUBE SITE

SUMMARY OF SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING RESULTSTRIP BLANK AIR SAMPLE

VOCs(Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.)

Units

APPENDIX A

SOIL BORING DRILLING LOGS

Baker DIRECT PUSH SOIL BORING LOGBaker Environmental

PROJECT: Bishop Tube Site BORING NO.: SG01ASO NO.: RB24300116 SHEET NO.: 1 1TASK NO.: B24300116.0001.03003 ELEVATION:

Drill Rig: Geoprobe® Track-mounted Drilling Rig Weather:Orientation: Vertical Date Started: May 10, 2004Sampler Size: 2-inch ID Date Completed: May 10, 2004Sampler Length: 4-feet Water Level 0 Hr.: 3.2'Direct Push Sampling: 0 to 8.75' Water Level 24 Hrs.: NASolid Flight Auger Drilling: NA to NA

Remarks: of 8.75 feet for collection of a shallow groundwater sample. Shallow groundwater sample was submitted to Lancaster Laboratories for the analysis of TCL VOCs.

Amount BottomRun Sample Depth of

(Feet) No. Recovery Sample(Ft.,%) (Feet)

1

2

3

4

55' to 9' Shallow groundwater sample collected using

6 peristaltic pump and dedicated polyethylene tubing.

7

8

9 9'

10

DRILLING CO.: Eichelberger's, Inc. BAKER REP.: David FeketeDRILLER: Randy BORING NO.: SG01A SHEET 1 OF 1

Depth

116-051004-GW-SG01A

of

DRILLING INFORMATION

SAMPLE INFORMATIONSample No. Sample Depth

Soil boring drilled in the northeastern corner of the Bishop Tube property approximately 25 feet east of Little Valley Creek. Soil boring drilled to a total depth

Testing Parameters

Laboratory

REFUSAL @ 8.75 FEET

0 Units

5' to 9' TCL VOCs

Static Water Level at 3.2 feet.

Graphic

116-051004-GW-SG01A

Log

PIDIN-SITU

Sample No.meter unitsTESTING

Visual Description


PROJECT: Bishop Tube Site BORING NO.: SG01BSO NO.: RB24300116 SHEET NO.: 1 1TASK NO.: B24300116.0001.03003 ELEVATION:


Remarks: was submitted to Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. for the analysis of TCL VOCs.



1

22' to 2.75' Discrete air sample collected above water

3 2.75' table using air pump and SUMMA canister.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

DRILLING CO.: Eichelberger's, Inc. BAKER REP.: David FeketeDRILLER: Randy BORING NO.: SG01B SHEET 1 OF 1

meter unitsLog

PIDIN-SITU

Sample No.Depth

116-051004-AIR-SG01B

TESTINGVisual Description LaboratoryGraphic

2' to 2.75' TCL VOCs

of


BORING TERMINATED @ 2.75 FEET

0 Units

116-051004-AIR-SG01B


Boring drilled adjacent to SG01A for the collection of a discrete soil gas sample. The boring was terminated above the water table. Air sample

Testing Parameters




Remarks: of a shallow groundwater sample. Shallow groundwater sample was submitted to Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. for analysis of TCL VOCs.



0' to 8' Shallow groundwater sample collected using 1 peristaltic pump and dedicated polyethylene tubing.

2

3

5

6

7

88.25'

9

10


Sample No.meter units

4 Static Water Level at 3.7 feet.

TESTING

116-051004-GW-SG02B

REFUSAL @ 8.25 FEET

LogIN-SITU Graphic

0 Units

0' to 8' TCL VOCs

Depth

116-051004-GW-SG02A

PIDLaboratoryVisual Description

of



Soil boring located approximately 55 feet east of Little Valley Creek, 70 feet south of soil boring SG01. Boring drilled to a total depth of 8.25 feet for collection

Testing Parameters



Drill Rig: Geoprobe® Track-mounted Drilling Rig Weather:Orientation: Vertical Date Started: May 10, 2004Sampler Size: 2-inch ID Date Completed: May 10, 2004Sampler Length: 4-feet Water Level 0 Hr.: 4.0'Direct Push Sampling: 0 to 4' Water Level 24 Hrs.: NASolid Flight Auger Drilling: NA to NA




1

2

33.5' to 4' Discrete air sample collected above water

4 4' table using air pump and SUMMA canister.

5

6

7

8

9

10


of




Testing Parameters

3.5' to 4' TCL VOCs

Depth

116-051004-AIR-SG02B


BORING TERMINATED @ 4 FEET

LogIN-SITU Graphic

Sample No.meter units

0 Units

TESTING

116-051004-GW-SG02B








2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10



of



Soil boring located approximately 110 feet east of Little Valley Creek, 65 feet south of soil boring SG02. Boring drilled to a total depth of 13 feet for collection

Testing Parameters

0' to 13' TCL VOCs

Depth

116-051004-GW-SG03A

PIDLaboratoryVisual DescriptionIN-SITU Graphic

116-051004-GW-SG03Ameter units

0 Units

Match to Sheet 2

Sample No.TESTING Log





11

12

13 13'

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


of

meter units

PID

LogDepth GraphicIN-SITU Visual Description


0 Units

TESTINGLaboratorySample No.

Continued from Sheet 1




Remarks: Based upon the shallow depth of the water table at this location, no air sample was collected for laboratory analysis..



0 Units1

2 Top of water table encountered at 2.5' below the ground surface. NO SAMPLE COLLECTED

3 2.5'

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Sample No.meter unitsTESTING LogIN-SITU Graphic

BORING TERMINATED @ 2.5 FEET

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Depth

None


of



Boring drilled adjacent to SG03A for the collection of a discrete soil gas sample. The boring was terminated upon hitting the water table.

Testing Parameters









3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 10'


Sample No.

0' to 10' TCL VOCs


meter unitsTESTING

116-051004-GW-SG04A

0 Units

LogDepth

116-051004-GW-SB04A

PIDLaboratoryVisual DescriptionIN-SITU Graphic

of




Testing Parameters








2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 9'

10


of




Testing Parameters

0' to 9' TCL VOCs

Depth

116-051004-GW-SG05A


TESTING

116-051004-GW-SG05A

TCL VOCs

LogIN-SITU Graphic

Sample No.


116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP 0' to 9' TCL VOCs

116-051004-GW-SG05A-MS 0' to 9' TCL VOCs

116-051004-GW-SG05A-MSD 0' to 9'

meter units

116-051004-GW-SG05A-DUP116-051004-GW-SG05A-MS

116-051004-GW-SG05A-MSD

0 Units

Static Water Level at 3.4 feet.







1

22.5' to 3' Discrete air sample collected above water

3 3' table using air pump and SUMMA canister.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Sample No.meter unitsTESTING

116-051004-AIR-SG05B


LogIN-SITU Graphic

0 Units

2.5' to 3' TCL VOCs

Depth

116-051004-AIR-SG05B

PIDLaboratory

116-051004-AIR-SG05B-DUP

Visual Description

116-051004-AIR-SG05B-DUP

2.5' to 3' TCL VOCs

of




Testing Parameters

Date post:	19-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamnhan
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

Final Soil Gas and Shallow GW Letter Report -...

Documents