&EFK
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas NV 89193-3478
EPA 600/8-89/075
August 1989
Pre-lssue Copy
Research and Development
Documentation of the
EMSL-LV Contribution
to the Palmerton, PA.
Zinc Study
Palmerton
-------
EPA 600/8/89/075
August 1989
Documentation of the EMSL-LV Contribution
To the Palmerton, PA, Zinc Study
by
Kenneth W. Brown, George I . filatman, Fvan J. Englufld
EMSL-LV— -^
Shoerier
Regipn3
U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency
. », ' ' * '
Thomas R Starks, Susan L. Rohde, Marie H. Scimell
Environmental Research Center
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Nancy J. Fisher, Allen R. Sparks, Diana K. Gruber
Computer Sciences Corporation
University of Nevada-I-as Vegas
Project O
Kenneth ^
U.S. H
Exposure Assessment DivMoE
Las Vegas', Nevada- $>tfiK\ AGgN'> .•"••
'
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECJSOKf -i
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
LAS VEGAS, NV 89,11?; '"'• ' : '• &
August 1989
•f ^
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement CR 814701 to the
Environmental Research Center. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative
review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword v
Introduction 1
I. Available Data 7
A. Earlier Studies 7
B. Evaluation of Previous Data 7
II. Monitoring Design 9
A. Initial survey 9
B. Results of the Initial Survey 11
C. Final Survey 13
EQ. Methods 16
A. Soil sampling methods 16
B. Duplicates, splits, and decontamination blanks 17
1. Sample Bank 17
C. Analytical methods 17
TV. On-Site Audits 18
A. Purpose of On-site Audits 18
B. On-site Sampling Evaluation 18
C. Audit of Analytical Laboratory 19
V. The Results 21
A. Statistical Analysis 21
B. The Maps 21
VI. Isoplethic Maps from Deposition Models 26
A. Meteorological Modeling 26
B. Model Predictions 29
VII. Historical Analysis of Vegetation Damage 30
A. Vegetation Damage 30
B. Methodology 30
List of References 35
Appendices 36
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements are gratefully accorded to Leslie Gorr of the Environmental
Research Center, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, who provided proofreading and word
processing support.
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Preliminary Monitoring Design for Metal Pollution in Palmerton, Pennsylvania.
Appendix 2 Letter from John Washington, Feb. 26,1985.
Appendix 3 An Evaluation of the Applicability of Available Palmerton Soil Data to the
Estimation of Areal Distributions of Metals, EMSL-LV, 1985.
Appendix 4 Memo from Ed Shoener to Ken Brown, Aug. 3, 1984.
Appendix 5 Rationale for Sample Design in Preliminary Survey of Palmerton Site.
Appendix 6 Analysis of Initial Palmerton Soil Survey Data, April 1986.
Appendix 7 Palmerton Zinc NPL Site Investigation Soil Sampling Protocol.
Appendix 8 Palmerton Zinc NPL Site Investigation, Phase II Soil Sampling Protocol.
Appendix 9 Administrative Order by Consent.
Appendix 10 Statistical Data Analysis of Second Palmerton Soil Survey.
Appendix 11 Palmerton Zinc National Priorities List Site. Atmospheric Deposition Analysis
of Cadmium, Zinc, Lead and Copper in the Vicinity of the New Jersey Zinc
Palmerton Facility, May 1986.
Appendix 12 On-site Sampling Evaluation of the Palmerton Zinc NPL Site Investigation,
November 1985.
Appendix 13 On-site Laboratory Evaluation of the Soil and Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory, December 1985.
Appendix 14 Historical Site and Vegetation Analysis, Palmerton Zinc Pile Area, Palmerton,
PA, Volume 1,1985.
-------
FIGURES FOR PALMERTON ZINC REPORT
Page
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, PA 2
Figure 2. Palmerton Wind Rose Data, 1978-1979 10
Figure 3. Sampling pattern for initial soil sampling studies for Palmerton
Zinc National Priority List remedial investigation 12
Figure 4. Sampling pattern for initial and definitive soil sampling studies 15
Figure 5. Isopleths of lead deposition based on Soil Sampling Surveys" 23
Figure 6. Isopleths of cadmium deposition based on Soil Sampling Surveys* 24
Figure 7. Isopleths of zinc deposition based on Soil Sampling Surveys* 25
Figure 8. Isopleths of cadmium on contour map of Palmerton based on
Region 3 Modeling Study 27
Figure 9. Isopleths of zinc on contour map of Palmerton based on
Region 3 Modeling Study 27
Figure 10. Isopleths of lead on contour map of Palmerton based on
Region 3 Modeling Study 28
Figure 11. Isopleths of copper deposition on contour map of Palmerton
based on Region 3 Modeling Study 28
Figure 12. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, PA, October 1938 31
Figure 13. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, PA, May 1959 32
Figure 14. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, PA, September 1984 33
* These figures represented in text and in back pocket.
-------
FOREWORD
In recent years concerns have grown over the increasing exposure of humans to toxic
chemicals. In many instances this potential exposure can be traced to the initial contamination
of the soil. From this matrix it may follow various routes to man: domestic water via surface
and ground water, pica and dust inhalation, vegetation such as crops and forage fed to livestock,
and on up the food chain.
The U. S. Public Health Service has estimated that at least 400,000 children in the U.S.
have increased blood levels of lead and that 16,000 of these require treatment. Each year there
are 200 deaths from lead encephalopathy, 800 children sustain permanent brain damage from
lead poisoning, and 3200 suffer temporary mental impairment (Dreisbach, 1980).
While the fatal dose of absorbed lead has been estimated to be 0.5 g, accumulation and
toxicity occur if more than 0.5 mg/day is absorbed (Dreisbach, 1980).
The fatal dose by ingestion of cadmium is not known, but it is known that cadmium is
damaging to all cells of the body. The exposure limit for cadmium dusts is 0.05 mg/m.
(Dreisbach, 1980).
Where cases of possible contamination have been brought to the attention of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, that Agency has been responsible for designing and
implementing environmental monitoring programs whose results must prove defensible in a
court of law as well as in the crucible of scientific review.
Scientists from the EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas,
NV (EMSL-LV), had applied state-of-the-art geostatistical methods in a study which has served
as a bellwether for future monitoring efforts: the 1982 Dallas Lead Study (Schweitzer and
Black, 1985). Approaches to soil monitoring in these studies, which were designed by the
EMSL-LV scientists, have greatly enhanced the design of soil sampling programs and the
interpretation of monitoring data.
This report documents the contribution of EPA scientists in mapping the level, extent,
and patterns of mean concentrations of soil contamination in the vicinity of Palmerton, PA,
which scientific consensus holds is due to deposition over the past 80 years of cadmium, zinc,
copper, and lead from zinc refining plants located there (Buchaer, 1973; Jordan, 1975; Beyer,
Miller, and Cromartie, 1984).
Soil, ground water, surface water, and vegetation contamination by these metals was
documented in a 1982 U.S. EPA Region 3 Field Investigation Team Toxicological Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 1982) and in the National Enforcement Investigation Center's report entitled
"Evaluation and Discharges" (1979).
vu
-------
In 1982 the Palmerton Zinc Pile was designated a National Priority List (NPL)
Superfund Site and was investigated by EPA's Region 3 under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
To be designated a Superfund Site, an area must receive a high score in a rating
procedure which judges the site based on criteria outlined in a Hazard Ranking System (40
CFR Ch. 1, Part 300, App. A., [7-1-87 Edition]). This system evaluates the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substance facilities to cause health or safety problems or environmental
damage.
The final score is a composite of three scores reflecting the potential for harm to
humans in three ways:
1) by migration of a hazardous substance away from the facility by ground water,
surface water, or air;
2) from substances that can explode or cause fires; and
3) by direct contact with the hazardous substance.
The score for each hazard mode is arrived at through a set of weighted factors that
characterize the facility for the following features: containment features at the site; the toxicity,
persistence, and amount of the hazardous substance contained there; the route by which they
would be released; and the proximity of target populations and ecosystems.
The Hazard Ranking System does not quantify the probability of harm from a facility or
the magnitude of the potential harm; however, factors used in the ranking system have been
selected to approximate both these elements of risk (40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 300, App. A., [7-1-87
Edition]).
In 1984 Region in called on EMSL-LV for aid in planning and assisting its Remedial
Investigation by developing a sampling/monitoring program for the definitive documentation of
environmental contamination with statistical integrity. This investigation would be used to
determine the full extent of contamination for evaluating potential remedial alternatives for
clean-up and/or control of contamination from the site.
This report documents the contributions of the EMSL-LV scientists and their
contractors during the Palmerton Zinc Study.
vui
-------
INTRODUCTION
History
A brief assessment of the Palmerton, PA, site history, geology, and nature of the
contaminant problem is presented in this section. Data cited, unless otherwise noted, have
been drawn from the "NUS Work Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of
Alternatives," May 1984. The Palmerton Zinc Pile was selected as a Superfund site requiring
formal investigation in 1982.
The New Jersey Zinc Co., the nation's largest producer of zinc oxide and, until 1980, a
major producer of metallic zinc, began smelting operations just west of Palmerton in 1898. At
that time the company processed only a relatively pure zinc silicate which was mined in New
Jersey. In 1915 the firm began roasting sphalerite, a zinc sulphide ore which also contains small
amounts of cadmium and lead.
The firm's western plant is situated west of Palmerton on the northern bank of the
Lehigh River at its confluence with the Aquashicola Creek. A newer eastern plant and its
attendant slag pile lie east of Palmerton on the southern bank of the creek.
In the roasting process, sphalerite, which is approximately 30 percent zinc and 0.1 to 0.2
percent cadmium, is ground into dust and burned to remove sulfur before the ore is sintered.
The roasted dust is dropped onto a conveyor belt with coal, then heated to cause the zinc dust
to form chunks. During this operation the cadmium is oxidized and collected from the emitted
fumes as a dust at a baghouse. The fume dusts, which are about 8 percent cadmium and 40
percent zinc, are sintered and shipped to the plant cadmium operation, where cadmium is
extracted and purified.
It is estimated that since the plant's operation began, approximately 33 million tons of
process waste or slag have been deposited in a 1.5-mile, 100-foot-high slag pile on the plant
property along the Aquashicola Creek.
In addition, large volumes of metallic oxides-primarily zinc, cadmium, copper, and
lead-have been emitted as particulates from the plant facilities in exhaust gases from the
baghouse operation, where they were incompletely recovered. Before 1980, when the eastern
plant was closed, it is estimated that approximately 13,000 to 19,000 pounds of zinc and 15 to
198 pounds of cadmium were emitted daily.
Site Description
The geomorphology of the Palmerton area consists of a series of deep, narrow valleys.
This ridge and valley system is underlain by thin, nearly vertical shale, siltstone, sandstone, and
limestone beds. Palmerton lies in a valley in which Chestnut Ridge outlines the valley to the
north, Aquashicola Creek runs the length of the valley, and Blue Mountain borders the valley
on the south. The Lehigh Gap cuts through Blue Mountain just east of the west plant and south
and just west of Palmerton (Washington, 1985). (See Figure 1.)
1
-------
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, Pa.
2
-------
This intensely folded and faulted area lies on the southern limb of the Wein Mountain
Syncline, which is east-northeast trending with the axis lying approximately two miles north of
Palmerton (NUS, 1984).
Unconsolidated glacial deposits consisting of brown to yellow-brown sand, gravel, and
cobbles are present, horizontally stratified, ranging up to 60 inches thick in places. In some
areas glacial deposits are poorly sorted, stratified sandy gravels with interbedded red clay,
ranging up to 80 inches in thickness.
Naturally occurring soils belong to the Klinesville, Holly, and Leek Kill series. The
Klinesville soils are shallow, 6 to 18 inches, well-drained, reddish soils whose parent rocks are
sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Holly soils, moderately deep, poorly drained, alluvial soils are
found near streams. Located primarily near the slag pile, Leek Kill soils are moderately deep,
well-drained, acidic, brown, residual soils formed from sandstone, siltstone, and shale (NUS,
1984).
Local wind and precipitation patterns are influenced by the topography of the
surrounding area. Winds blow primarily from the northeast and southwest (Washington, 1985).
Wind trajectories from the south and west flow through the Lehigh Gap and continue in a
northeasterly direction up the Aquashicola Creek valley. These trajectory patterns are believed
to greatly influence the deposition of stack emissions.
An average yearly temperature of 53.4° F. has been reported by the New Jersey Zinc
Company's weather station in Palmerton, with a minimum reported temperature of -13° F. and
a maximum of 105° F. Annual precipitation averages approximately 43 inches per year
(Washington, 1985, and see Appendix 1, "Preliminary Monitoring Design for Metal Pollution in
Palmerton, Pennsylvania.")
Migration of Waste
In addition to air transport of dust and stack emissions to surrounding areas, the
migration of contaminants from the two plants to offsite areas may have occurred through
surface runoff and leachate from the slag pile into the groundwater and surface water systems.
Leachate may have also originated from the raw materials storage and handling areas, as well
as sludge waste storage areas. All were uncovered.
Leachate and contaminated surface runoff could have discharged to Aquashicola Creek,
while groundwater flow could have carried contaminants through bedrock joints, through
weathered bedrock, or along the bedrock where it interfaces with soils, glacial till, and
weathered bedrock.
Palmerton residents live near the plant operating facilities and the slag pile, while those
dwelling in nearby communities fall within the range of exhaust plumes. Surrounding areas
contain agricultural regions, which may be in a zone of soil contamination due to deposition of
the metals in paniculate form from the atmosphere.
It is estimated that approximately 12,000 pounds of zinc per acre and 160 pounds of
cadmium per acre were deposited on soils surrounding the two plants over the period of
operation (U.S. EPA, 1982). It was anticipated that the majority of these metals would be
found in the top six inches of soil These figures are based on a deposition rate of 1.75 to 5.15
grams per square meter per month, roughly 187 to 561 pounds per acre per year.
-------
This soil contamination could result in hazards to humans and livestock through
inhalation of particulates, direct contact with contaminated soils, or the ingestion of crops and
garden vegetables that absorb high metal concentrations from the soils. Entire areas devoid of
trees and plants can be observed in the immediate vicinity of the smelting operations and were
first recorded in aerial photos in 1950. Damage to vegetation became progressively worse and,
in 1983, ranged from minor to total destruction of vegetation in an area 27 km by 4 km (U.S.
EPA, 1985).
Groundwater
In May 1979, six of seven wells sampled by the National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC) showed elevated zinc and cadmium levels: up to 3,200 /ig/1 for zinc and 24 /ig/1
for cadmium. (Normal levels are 100 /ng/1 for zinc and 10 /ig/1 for cadmium.) The water in two
of the wells was not deemed potable because cadmium levels there exceeded the National
Interim Drinking Water Regulations value of 10 jag/1.
Elevated levels of one or both of these heavy metals in six wells showed probable
contamination from the east plant because two of the wells are located between the slag pile
and the raw materials storage area and the Aquashicola Creek (NEIC, 1979).
Air
For more than 60 years, heavy metals entered the air as paniculate matter from sources
in both the east and west plants. Before 1954, inefficient or no pollution controls were in place
to reduce heavy metal emissions. (Both plants were retrofitted for pollution control in 1950 and
1980.)
For 1970, dairy emissions were estimated at about 8 tons for zinc and 0.09 tons for
cadmium. Although zinc and cadmium levels were significantly reduced in the 1970s, the EPA
found paniculate emissions to be excessive and in violation of state regulations enforcing the
Clean Air Act in May, June, and August of 1979.
Soil
Paniculate fallout and subsequent soil contamination extend far beyond the site (U.S.
EPA, 1982). Elevated concentrations of zinc have been detected in soils and vegetation up to
10 miles west and 16 miles east of the plants. Zinc deposition rates were reported to range
from 187 to 561 pounds per acre per year in areas surrounding the two plants, while cadmium
fallout of three pounds per acre yearly was recorded.
Atmospheric emissions have had the greatest impact on the LeHigh Gap area of Blue
Mountain, which lies near the smelter (U.S. EPA, 1982). There, a 1200-acre area is either
completely barren or only sparsely vegetated. It is speculated that trees and shrubs in the area
were killed by sulfur dioxide emissions from the facility, while heavy zinc deposition in
paniculate form retarded the re-emergence of vegetation.
The high concentration of metals deposition on soils in the Palmerton area, which is
largely rural, was also believed to have had a profound adverse effect on local crops and
livestock (U.S. EPA, 1982). Several Palmerton area fanners reported it was impossible to raise
horses or cows fed locally-grown forage because the animals developed a debilitating weakness
and fragile bones.
-------
Elevated zinc and cadmium levels were found in vegetables grown in the Palmerton
area. Cadmium levels 130 to 185 times higher than normal were recorded in locally-grown
cabbage, and levels of cadmium 288 times higher than normal were detected in beets (U.S.
EPA, 1982).
Surface Water
More than 80 percent of the zinc, cadmium, and other heavy metals present in
Aquashicola Creek originated from non-specific sources in the east plant: leachate from the
slag pile and runoff from Blue Mountain and adjacent surface areas in the east plant (NEIC,
1979). The balance of the zinc and cadmium pollution is contributed by 11 effluent outfalls.
Sample analyses indicated that cadmium concentrations in the creek could exceed
drinking water standards and the water quality criteria for protecting aquatic life.
A decrease in the number and variety of benthic species has been reported in the
polluted portion of Aquashicola Creek (NEIC, 1979). Fish studies recorded a 40 percent
mortality rate for fish where zinc concentrations were 870 /ig/l a 20 percent mortality rate
when zinc levels dropped to 710 fig/1, and no mortality when levels fell to 490 /ig/L
The EPA's Proposed Response
Since information from previous studies indicated a contamination problem affecting
soil, surface, and groundwater, Region 3 of the EPA determined that a potential risk to the
public health and environment existed.
The New Jersey Zinc Co. and its parent company, Gulf & Western, was charged
(Consent Order, 1985) to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study whose prime
objectives were to perform the following:
• determine the extent, concentration, and physical/chemical properties of
hazardous substances at the Site;
• determine the character and extent of surface water/sediment contamination
caused by the Site;
• determine the character and extent of ground water contamination caused by
the Site and the potential for further contamination;
• assess the potential risks to the public health and the environment associated
with the levels of contamination resulting from the Site; and
• identify technologies for the Site and evaluate their appropriateness/
applicability for remediating Site contamination and for compliance with all
federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Further, the Remedial Investigation at the Palmerton Zinc Site would become part of
the EPA's enforcement action to supply court-worthy data to document the extent of
contamination for future recovery of the cost of site investigation and clean-up by responsible
parties.
-------
The Role of EMSL-Las Vegas
Region 3 determined that additional data on soil contamination was necessary as a
component of the Remedial Investigation. One identified need was a clear delineation of the
extent and depth of soil contamination in Palmerton and in surrounding areas based on a soil
sampling grid system.
Previous studies tailored for special concerns had drawn general conclusions regarding
the distribution of metals in Palmerton soils. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and
the National Cancer Institute had focused on exposure points for the human population. A
Pennsylvania State University study focused on the impact on agricultural lands; the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife studies investigated leaf litter and wildlife habitats. None of these studies,
however, attempted to map soil metal isopleths with known degrees of accuracy which was
required to satisfy the region's remedial investigation objectives.
For the monitoring design and sampling and sample preparation methods, Region 3
requested assistance from the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas
(EMSL-LV).
The EMSL-LV scientists were also requested to provide a data base of sufficient detail
to evaluate the need for clean-up measures, as well as to aid other studies aimed at assessing
the effect of the soil contamination on humans and wildlife in the area.
Specifically, the EMSL-LV scientists were requested to:
• design a soil sampling network, including grid size and spacing, and determine
number of samples;
• recommend soil sampling techniques, i.e., sampling equipment, quantity of
samples, etc.;
• perform geostatistical analysis of the data and provide isoplethic maps outlining
the extent and concentrations of the metals pollution; and
• perform field and laboratory audits of the contractors hired to perform the soil
sampling and chemical analysis of the samples.
In support of other investigative activities conducted at the Site, EMSL-LV was
requested to provide:
• aerial photographic evidence of historic vegetative damage; and
• isoplethic maps to accompany a meteorological modeling study which modeled
metal concentrations in the Palmerton area using meteorological and source
emissions data.
Orthophotograph base maps were also provided by EMSL-LV as a QA/QC measure to
insure accurate mapping of the isopleths.
-------
I. AVAILABLE DATA
A. Earlier Studies
Atmospheric release of zinc, cadmium, copper, and lead by the New Jersey Zinc
Company's smelter operations in Palmerton, Pennsylvania, was suspected of causing
widespread environmental contamination. Results from studies by Buchaer (1973), Jordan
(1975), and Beyer et al. (1984), and summarized for the U.S. EPA by NUS in 1984, found
elevated levels of zinc, cadmium, lead, and copper in vegetation and surface soil up to 10 miles
west and 16 miles east of the Palmerton plants.
During the early 1980s, soil samples had been collected from selected sites in the
vicinity of the smelters by a Pennsylvania State University (PSU) graduate student (Appendix
2) and by a team from the Research Triangle Institute from Research Triangle Park (RTF),
NC, for the U.S. EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERL), aJso located in RTF.
Because of these high levels of heavy metals found in Palmerton soil, plus high levels of
zinc and cadmium found in ground water, surface water, and biota collected near the smelter
(NEIC, 1979), the environmental conditions at this site met the criteria identified in the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 300, Appendix A, to be
placed on the EPA's Superfund National Priority List for remedial investigation.
In July 1984, the EMSL-LV received a request from EPA's Region 3 Office in
Philadelphia to provide technical guidance and support in a soil monitoring effort to provide
court-worthy documentation of the extent and degree of soil contamination in the Palmerton
area. This data would be used to determine which soils required remedial action and estimates
of the potential clean-up cost involved. (See Appendix 2, letter from John Washington.)
The EMSL-LV team, which was headed by Project Officer Kenneth W. Brown, included
scientists, computer specialists, statisticians, and a cartographer. Contractors included the
Computer Sciences Corporation, the Lockheed Engineering Services Corporation (LESC), and
the Environmental Research Center, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, a subcontractor to
Lockheed.
B. Evaluation of Previous Data
The first task of the EMSL-LV team was to determine if soil data from these two earlier
studies would be adequate to fulfill the requirements of the remedial investigation.
Historical information and data sets from the HERL and PSU studies were collected
and evaluated to determine if these data could provide concentration isopleths at reasonable
levels of precision without additional sampling or, if this wasn't possible, could the data provide
enough information about the dissemination of metal concentrations and the actual
concentrations of the metals in the soil (See Appendix 3, "An Evaluation of the Applicability
of Available Palmerton Soil Data to the Estimation of Area! Distributions of Metals,"
EMSL-LV, 1985.)
After a thorough evaluation of the data sets, including histograms and variograms, it
was concluded that the data were inappropriate and insufficient to estimate on a statistically
sound basis the distribution of metal pollution in the Palmerton area.
-------
Essentially, this was due to the variability of soil sampling methods employed so that the
data were not comparable for purposes of statistical inference. Also, the amount of
information concerning short-range spatial correlation was insufficient to reliably model the
mean concentrations of metals and to determine the precision of interpolations between sample
points.
Although the PSU study was used by the EMSL-LV team for preliminary planning, it
was considered inadequate for remedial action purposes. It was concluded that the data did not
identify the spatial distribution of contamination required for remedial action, and there was no
way to evaluate the quality of the data. Also, since the fields sampled in the PSU study had
been tilled, they would not be representative of a large portion of the environment in the
Palmerton vicinity.
The objective of the PSU study was to identify contaminant distribution in the soils and
ground water near the smelters. In this study, soil samples obtained within one mile from the
source contained more than 14 times the l-lb./acre available soil cadmium maximum safe
loading rate recommended by Dr. Dale Baker of PSU. This soil limit was exceeded at distances
up to 10 miles from the source (see Metallic Contamination, Vicinity of Palmerton, PA,
Appendix 4). It was also estimated that approximately 129,060 tons of zinc and 2,140 tons of
cadmium were present in soils surrounding Palmerton (Appendix 2).
The sampling sites and methods employed for this study, as reported by Washington
(1985), involved collecting 65 soil samples from cultivated fields using soil augers. The area of
the field being sampled determined the number of individual cores taken from each field, and
the core depth was determined by the depth of the Al or Ap horizon. After collection, the cores
were placed into a single container, dried, sieved, and mixed. An aliquot taken from the mixed
portion was then acid digested and analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) for total
zinc, cadmium, lead, nickel, copper, and iron. The selection of fields to be sampled was based
on the willingness of the owners to pay for the chemical analysis.
The purpose of the HERL study was to identify the relationship between heavy metal
levels in biological tissue, i.e., human blood, hair, and urine, with metal levels found in air, soils,
dust, and drinking water.
Due to the diversity of this study, soils were collected from residential play areas,
schools, and in the immediate vicinity of high volume air samplers. Only surface soils (10-15
cm) were collected, because exposure to subsurface soil contamination was considered unlikely.
As in the PSU study, most of the HERL study soils were collected within a 25 km radius
of the smelter. As described by Handy et al. (1981), the soils were dried, sieved, and mixed,
then acid digested and analyzed by AAS for arsenic, cadmium, copper, manganese, lead, and
zinc.
Concentrations of the metals in the soil decreased as distance from the smelters
increased. However, values exceeding 130,000, 1700, 2200, and 1500 ppm for zinc, cadmium,
lead, and copper respectively were found within 2 miles of the smelter.
-------
H. MONITORING DESIGN
A. Initial Survey
The purpose of the initial survey of the Palmerton area was to obtain data for use in
estimating the spatial structure (i.e., spatial correlation and degree of drift) and extent of soil
pollution by cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.
The previous PSU study of pollutant concentrations in Palmerton-area soils
(Washington, 1984) had provided some indication of the nature and extent of the metals
pollution. However, that survey failed to provide the kind of information needed to plan an
intensive survey because the individual samples had different supports, i.e., volume, geometric
configuration, and orientation of the physical sample (Barth et a/., 1989, and see Appendix 5,
"Rationale for Sample Design in Preliminary Survey of Palmerton Site.") Also, differences in
soil sampling procedures and in QA/QC procedures made it unlikely that data from the PSU
study would be comparable to data obtained from the proposed initial EPA survey.
Soil sampling design for the initial Palmerton zinc survey consisted of the following:
• determining the geographic distribution of sampling locations;
• determining the sample support (i.e., volume, geometric configuration, and
orientation of the physical sample) at each sampling location);
• determining the number of quality control samples required; and
• determining collection methods.
To arrive at their design, the EMSL-LV team combined information on prevailing wind
patterns (Figure 2), land uses, meteorology, topography, deposition behavior of the metal
contaminants, and their recent experience in a soil-lead monitoring effort in Dallas, Texas
(Brown era/., 1984).
One possibility was to collect samples equally along four compass points or transects:
N-S, E-W, NE-SW, and NW-SE. This was considered inadequate, however, because line
transects contribute information for only one direction. Another approach, a square grid,
allows each sample point to be used in estimating spatial correlations of contaminant
concentrations in all directions. Also, the grid design allows precise estimates of short-range
correlations between points.
The two approaches were combined. Thus, the design for the initial survey called for
the sampling of points on a square-shaped (400') grid that was centered on Palmerton using an
overlay on recently obtained aerial photographs. It was then rotated so that its eight radial
extensions would follow the Lehigh River Valley, which was considered a principal transport
route of air pollutants from the smelters, or be parallel to other principal windrose directions.
The positioning also made it possible to avoid sampling on the smelter property, which was not
to be sampled.
-------
N
Figure 2. Palmerton Wind Rose 1969-1979 Data.
10
-------
The square grid/transect configuration, with its 77 sampling points, provided many pairs
of points along vectors in eight directions which allowed estimation of spatial structure of
concentrations of each pollutant. Sampling another 125 points along the grid's eight radial
extensions also provided data about the extent of the pollution as well as spatial structure.
Bending the radial extending west along the Lehigh River from Palmerton was an attempt to
follow air currents moving in that direction from the smelters. Three of the transects extending
from the center of the grid ran through river valleys, which are considered principal routes of
transport of air pollutants from the smelters. (See Figure 3.)
The intervals between sample points on the grid and transect radials varied from 400'
(122 m) to 1200' (366 m), depending on distance from Palmerton. Radials extended greater
distances away from the grid center in the principal wind directions and/or where they
extended into farm or residential areas and shorter in minor wind directions and/or where they
extended into forested areas. Data from the radial extensions of the grid would give good
estimates of the rate of attenuation of a pollutant. The greatest distance from the center of the
grid to the end of a radial was 5.3 miles.
It was decided to archive soil samples taken at 30 points near the ends of the longest
transects on an "every-other-one" basis, since metal concentrations were expected to diminish at
these points. These samples would be analyzed if additional information was required.
The choice of the grid size, 400', was based on information from the Dallas Lead Study
(Brown et a/., 1984) and the planned size of the entire Palmerton study. The Dallas Study
indicated that the range of influence of a sample point was about 1200' (i.e., data from one
point would provide information about the amount of a contaminant from another point up to
1200' away. See Appendix 5.)
A 400' grid would allow the estimation of spatial correlation between pairs of points
400' and 800' apart in directions parallel to the grid's central square and about 560' apart in the
directions of the diagonals, allowing estimation of correlation where there was reason to expect
correlation to exist.
A grid size much larger than 400' in the initial study would probably not be intense
enough to identify a spatial correlation pattern, which was needed to plan the second, definitive
survey and to perform the final statistical analysis of the data, which would estimate the level of
pollution between sample points.
Spacing the points closer than 400' would reduce the area covered by the initial survey
or increase the number of sampling points required. One of the constraints of the study was
that the total number of samples over both surveys would not exceed 800; therefore, a smaller
grid size in the initial survey would result in a less intensive (and/or less extensive) final survey.
B. Results of the Initial Survey
Results of the initial fact-finding sampling survey conducted in 1985 indicated that metal
concentrations were highest between and at the edges of the two smelter locations and declined
with distance from the facilities. Higher-than-normal concentrations were found on all grid
points along the radials. High concentrations were most persistent along the Aquashicola
Creek transect, with cadmium concentrations of 24 mg/kg found as far as eight kilometers
from the center of Palmerton. (See Appendix 6, "Analysis of Initial Palmerton Soil Survey
Data," April 1986.)
11
-------
SI
-H
L
O
Figure 3. Sampling pattern for initial soil sampling studies for Palmerton Zinc National Priority List remedi
12
-------
Other results from the initial survey were as follows:
• The variance of metal concentration measurements tends to increase when the
concentration increases. A logarithmic transformation was used to stabilize the
variance.
• No spatial correlation was found between measurements at sampling points 400
feet apart after accounting for the quadratic spatial drift.
• Variance between measurements on duplicate pair samples was one-fourth to
one-third of the spatial variance. This large variance between samples taken a
half meter apart could be explained by large variances between concentrations
of individual sample cores. This result indicated that considerable reductions in
variability of results could be obtained by increasing the number of cores taken
and composited at each sampling point.
• Metal concentrations dropped rapidly over the top 7.5 cm and somewhat less
rapidly from 7.5 cm to 30 cm.
In Palmerton the prevailing wind patterns and varied topography of the area meant that
pollution concentrations would fall into an asymmetric, irregular pattern. Therefore, it was
decided that a random function statistical model would be needed to analyze the data resulting
from the survey.
Once such a model is fit to data from the initial survey, it would be possible to estimate
the maximum estimation standard error in interpolating metal concentrations between points, a
geostatistical technique called point kriging, which uses weighted averages to arrive at
estimated values between sampling points. When the precision desired for the estimation of
metal concentrations could be specified, the grid size for the definitive (final) survey would be
determined. The combined data from the initial and definitive studies would then allow the
point and block kriging from which isopleths could be drawn to distinguish areas above EPA
action levels.
Based on kriging interpolations, preliminary contaminant concentration maps for all
four metals measured in the initial Palmerton soil survey were produced. The results of the
initial survey are extensively documented. (See Appendix 6, "Analysis of Initial Palmerton Soil
Survey Data," April 1986.)
C. Final Survey
Based on the results of the initial survey, it was decided to conduct a definitive survey to
cover populated areas near Palmerton that were not included in the initial study.
The purpose of the second (1986) soil survey was to determine and document the
spatial distribution of three metals-cadmium, lead, and zinc—in the region around the two
smelter facilities in Palmerton. Soil samples were taken at 218 additional sites which were
different from the sites in the initial survey. These new sites were systematically selected over
areas where concentrations of cadmium were anticipated to be at or above 10 ppm, where land
use might dictate remedial action and that lay outside the central Palmerton area sampled in
the initial survey. (See Appendix 10, "Statistical Data Analysis of Second Palmerton Soil
Survey.")
13
-------
It was decided that since higher-than-normal readings were found along the grid's
radials, it would be wise to sample farther east and west along the Lehigh River Valley, because
two small towns lay in these areas. Other areas considered to be contaminated with the metals
were the inhabited hollows on the lee side of Blue Mountain, because metals would tend to fall
out after winds carried them over the mountain, a phenomenon predicted by the Region 3 study
of deposition patterns and meteorological characteristics of the area. (See Appendix 11,
"Palmerton Zinc National Priorities Site, Atmospheric Deposition Analysis of Cadmium, Zinc,
Lead, and Copper in the Vicinity of the New Jersey Zinc Palmerton Facility," May 1986; also
Figure 4, Sampling pattern for initial and definitive soil sampling studies.)
Distance between nearest neighbor sample points in the second survey was typically
1200" to 1600'. Only lead, zinc, and cadmium concentrations were measured in the definitive
survey.
A delineation of soils with cadmium levels of 10 parts per million became the borders
sought in the definitive soil sampling effort. Copper was dropped from the definitive study at
the request of Region 3.
14
-------
Figure 4. Sampling pattern for initial and definitive soil sampling studies.
15
-------
in. METHODS
A. Soil Sampling Methods
Two soil sampling protocols designed by EMSL-LV scientists identified sample
collection, sample preparation, sampling QC procedures, depth of cores, and sampling storage,
labeling, and chain-of-custody methods. (See "Palmerton Zinc NPL Site Investigation," Soil
Sampling Protocol, Appendix 7, and "Phase II Soil Sampling Protocol," Appendix 8.)
Cores were to be collected with a noncontaminating standard soil corer with an inside
diameter of 0.75 inches capable of a vertical penetration into mineral soil 30 cm deep.
The soil sampling methods for the initial survey (October-November 1985) were
identical to those for the definitive study (July 1986) except more samples were collected at
each site-nine instead of four--to reduce short-range variability. Four cores were taken from
each sampling site in the initial sampling effort, one each from the four compass points of a
six-meter circle. In the definitive study, nine cores were taken at each sampling site: four from
the compass points of a 6-meter circle, four more from the minor compass points of a
4.25-meter circle, plus one from the center. This was accomplished with a chain extended from
the center of the circle with the markings for the two radii.
Sampling personnel were instructed to identify actual sampling sites through the use of
aerial photos overlaid by the sampling grid that was provided to the field team. Photographs
were taken of each actual sampling location by the field team.
Sample cores were composited from the four or nine points at each site, then put into
scalable polyethylene containers. Identified by a coded numbering system, these samples were
placed in closed shipping containers until delivered to the sample bank to minimize
atmospheric contamination.
To obtain representative samples, atypical surfaces were avoided in the final, definitive
study. These included such surfaces as those severely eroded, recently filled, or recently cut.
These areas do not represent their surrounding areas and, thus, would not lend themselves to
interpolation processes. If an identified location was considered unsatisfactory due to streets,
structures, and other obstructions, the sampling site could be moved to the nearest acceptable
site provided it was within a 65-meter radius of the specified sampling location.
Other sites eligible for displacement included the following:
• those less than 20 feet from painted surfaces;
• those near vehicular activity such as streets, driveways, parking or automobile
repair areas; and
• those near trees, shrubs, or other structures.
16
-------
B. Duplicates, Splits, and Decontamination Blanks
In environmental sampling, a procedure that has been used successfully involves the
collection of duplicate samples (within 0.5 m) at 5 percent of the sample points and splitting a
total of 5 percent of the other samples collected. These procedures, which help identify sources
of variability, were used in both the initial and definitive soil sampling surveys at the Palmerton
Zinc Site.
While useful in kriging to estimate values between sampling points for all parameters
measured, they also serve as quality control measures. While duplicates identify short-range
soil variation, splits are useful in determining error resulting from homogeneity of mixing
methods.
Decontamination blanks-one for every 20 soil samples collected-were also used in both
surveys to insure that soil samples were not contaminated by the soil corer. The blanks were
collected using distilled de-ionized water that had come into contact with the soil corer. These
were then double-bagged and sent to the Sample Bank.
1. Sample Bank
The Sample Bank served as the custodian for all records pertaining to the sampling,
sample preparation, and transport of environmental samples to the analytical laboratory. It was
responsible for filing, storing, and preparing all samples, including drying, mixing, and sieving
each soil sample to achieve homogeneity. Unanalyzed portions of the sample were labeled and
archived at the Sample Bank. The Sample Bank was also responsible for dispensing containers,
sampling equipment, and all custody documentation such as chain-of-custody forms and sample
collection and analytical tags (see Appendix 7).
C. Analytical Methods
Total soil metals concentrations for copper, zinc, lead, and cadmium were determined.
The metals concentrations were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) after soil
sample extraction with nitric acid. The samples were also tested for pH. For definitive
analytical procedures used, see Washington (1985) and Appendix 4.
Samples from the initial survey were analyzed for copper, lead, zinc, and cadmium. Soil
samples from the definitive survey were analyzed for the same chemicals except copper, which
Region 3 dropped after the preliminary survey.
17
-------
IV. ON-SITE AUDITS
A. Purpose of On-site Audits
Another role played by EMSL-LV was coordinating and conducting on-site sampling
and analytical audits. These audits, which consisted of visits by EMSL-LV teams, allowed the
Agency to observe and monitor the progress of the work and to document that all sampling and
analytical procedures were carried out in accordance with the soil sampling protocol as set forth
by regional and EMSL-LV scientists, and that the laboratory performing the chemical analysis
met the analytical quality assurance guidelines as approved by EPA. These audits insured the
integrity of data by documenting that all prescribed soil sampling and analytical procedures had
been and were being followed.
Analytical data from the Palmerton Zinc Site study was validated as being of acceptable
quality by Region 3's Central Regional Laboratory located in Annapolis, MD.
The Consent Order (U.S. EPA Docket No. HI-85-23-DC), implemented September
1985 (Appendix 9), instructed the New Jersey Zinc Company to specify in a Site Operations
Plan all quality assurance, quality control, and chain-of-custody procedures to be used
throughout all sample collection and analysis activities. These were developed in accordance
with U.S. EPA QA/QC requirements, the "NEIC Policies and Procedures Manual" (1978), and
the NUS Quality Assurance Project Plan.
The Consent Order also instructed New Jersey Zinc to allow EPA personnel access to
the laboratory used for sample analysis to verify laboratory capability, adherence to procedures,
and inspection of records.
These requirements were identified to assure that all activities conducted at the site
conformed to established levels of quality assurance. The requirements were site-specific and
related to sampling, field testing, surveying, chain-of-custody procedures, sample handling,
packaging, preservation and shipping, and record-keeping and documentation. Analytical
protocols were expected to meet quality assurance levels imposed on laboratories participating
in the EPA's Contract Laboratory Program.
B. On-site Sampling Evaluation
The On-site Sampling Evaluation conducted by EMSL-LV representatives in December
1985 revealed no serious deficiencies; the evaluating team was impressed with the caliber of
personnel, equipment, the sample bank facility, and the dedication and commitment of
sampling team personnel. (See Appendix 12, "On-site Sampling Evaluation of the Palmerton
Zinc NPL Site investigation," November 1985.)
The on-site audit documented the extent to which procedures identified in the sampling
protocol were complied with in the following areas:
18
-------
• chain-of-custody;
• record keeping;
• quality assurance;
• sampling procedures and techniques; and
• sample handling methods.
Both the on-site sampling effort and the sample bank facility located at Middletown,
PA, were evaluated for personnel, general facilities, equipment, and methods, as well as
chain-of-custody and security precautions.
In performing the evaluation, the EMSL-LV team:
• interviewed sampling and sample bank personnel;
• observed field instrumentation;
• inspected and observed the sample preparation equipment at the sample bank
facility;
• observed sample handling and sample preparation procedures; and
• inspected field and sample bank logs.
At the conclusion, a debriefing was held with R.E. Wright Associates and EPA Region 3
personnel to identify and review the team's findings.
Representatives of Techlaw Inc., an NEIC contractor, inspected sampling procedures
and verified that approved evidentiary and chain-of-custody procedures were being
implemented and followed.
C. Audit of Analytical Laboratory
An On-site Laboratory Evaluation of the Soil and Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, conducted December 4, 1985, by EMSL-LV
representatives, found the laboratory, its equipment, and procedures to be adequate to meet
quality assurance guidelines as approved by EPA for analysis ,of the samples from the
Palmerton Zinc Site.
Suggested procedural changes and additional quality control procedures were discussed
with the manager of the PSU laboratory. These are detailed in Appendix 13. For example, it
was noted that analytical results had not yet been reported on approximately 30 grams of a well
characterized performance evaluation sample from a Ruston, Washington, smelter site.
The audit included the following:
• assessing the chain-of-custody procedure followed by the analytical laboratory;
19
-------
• assessing the analytical methods and QA/QC procedures; and
• providing "standard" soil for QA/QC determinations.
20
-------
V. THE RESULTS
A. Statistical Analysis
As previously described, two soil sample surveys were performed to determine the
distribution of metal concentrations on the soil. The initial survey was performed in 1985 and
produced guidelines for the final survey conducted in 1986.
The EMSL-LV team performed a statistical analysis of the data and provided
concentration isopleths for cadmium, lead, and zinc based on data retrieved from both surveys.
See Appendix 10, "Statistical Data Analysis of Second Palmerton Soil Survey."
The statistical analysis included:
• estimation of spatial structure of cadmium, lead, and zinc; and
• kriging based on the data from the two studies and spatial structure estimates to
obtain isopleths of estimated concentration levels.
Isopleths were arrived at through block kriging-weighted averaging of neighboring
point values«on 209' by 209' blocks at points on a 1000' (500' for cadmium) square grid over the
sampled region.
B. The Maps
The primary products resulting from the soil sampling effort were maps which identified
areas with concentrations of the metals cadmium, lead, and zinc at or above levels considered
actionable or possibly harmful to human health by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The maps identified average concentrations of the three metals which can be depicted on
overlays keyed to a geographically correct orthophotograph and its accompanying contour map
of the Palmerton area.
The isoplethic maps consist of transparent overlays designed to register to (or fit) the
orthophotograph and contour map. There are overlays for each metal in the definitive study:
cadmium, lead, and zinc. The orthophotograph was believed to have been the most accurate
source map to use for displaying this potentially sensitive environmental data. In an
orthophotograph, the perspective image of a photograph can be altered so that the new picture
will be free of tilt and distortion. Thus, scale is constant and angles are true. The
orthophotograph served as a project basemap to the mapping effort.
Photographs of the overlays registered to a contour map of the Palmerton area are
presented as Figures 5,6, and 7. Larger scale versions are available inside the back cover.
The maps were produced by using the following sources:
1) data obtained during the soil sampling effort for concentration values of metals;
21
-------
2) aerial photographs displaying actual sampling sites; and
3) an orthophotograph used as a base for mapping.
The sampling sites were located as points on the orthophoto basemap and were
digitized into a computer file. Attributes were then attached to each point indicating metal
concentrations. The attribute values were interpolated using a geostatistical method known as
kriging to arrive at weighted averages for specific geographic locations on the map. The
geostatistical software used was BLUEPAK (Best Least Squared Estimate Package) from the
Paris School of Mines in Fontainebleau, France. The BLUEPAK files containing the kriged
data were then translated and transferred into a format usable by AutoCad, a state-of-the-art
computer-aided drafting program. With the use of AutoCad, isoplethic maps were generated to
display the concentration values for cadmium, lead, and zinc based on the data retrieved during
sampling at each sample location site.
This courtworthy documentation enables the Agency to identify areas for possible
clean-up.
22
-------
1 £ E E S
o o. a o. a,
«S O. O. O. Q.
S O O O IT)
•g o o o m
c -H fs tr> r-
•a
N
u
i
c3
00
^
o
w
c
o
c
I
CO
O
£
-o
-------
-------
O Y:- *
v_^ • . u «
I
•s
-------
VI. ISOPLETHIC MAPS FROM DEPOSITION MODELS
A. Meteorological Modeling
To aid in the design of the actual locations where soil samples should be taken, certain
quantitative and qualitative air pollution meteorological analyses were performed by Region 3's
Air Management Division using two deposition models, one for large particles and another for
small particles.
Calculations of atmospheric concentrations were made and used as a surrogate measure
of both the expected hot spots and the spatial variability of metal concentrations in the soils
resulting from small and large particle deposition. Data on wind rose patterns and
meteorological conditions in the Palmerton area also served as input to the EMSL-LV for use
in designing the soil monitoring approach.
The EMSL-LV provided eight contour maps of the Palmerton deposition models. Four
of these are presented in Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11. These maps were generated using the
SURFACE n Graphics System developed by the Kansas Geological Survey in Lawrence,
Kansas. SURFACE n employs an inverse distance squared technique to grid the data, then
estimates the contour lines by linear interpolation between grid nodes.
The contour maps, which geographically identify predicted mean concentrations of lead,
zinc, copper, and cadmium, are included in the report "Atmospheric Deposition Analyses of
Cadmium, Zinc, Lead, and Copper in the Vicinity of the New Jersey Zinc Palmerton Facility."
(See Appendix 11.)
The calculations of deposition for large particle settling were performed by Region 3
through the Industrial Source Complex model (ISCLT), which is a guassian dispersion model
designed to make predictions of either air concentrations or total deposition resulting from
multiple and varied emission sources. The model required both a meteorological and source
emissions data base for input. Because this model is incapable of predicting deposition in
complex terrain, the analysis was applicable only to the flat areas at the bottom of the valley.
For an analysis of small particle deposition, calculations of ground level air
concentrations (GLC) were performed by Region 3 through the use of the LONGZ model,
which is also a gaussian dispersion model However, it is designed to predict long-term ground
level air concentrations for multiple and varied emission sources in areas where the terrain is
mountainous.
26
-------
3
on
"c.
C3
C/3
C
o
c
_o.
4-»
'&
o
c.
-o
«•
c.
o
V)
s
Figures 8 and 9. Isopleths of lead deposition based on Soil Sampling Surveys.
27
-------
sr
".
E
o
on
o
0)
vj
,2
**
"S
o
fr
•o
S
3
O
<+*
O
!»
**
JU
"S.
s
Figures 10 and 11. Isopleths of cadmium deposition based on Soil Sampling Surveys.
28
-------
B. Model Predictions
Essentially the models predicted that the metal particles would fall out along the river
valley and on the lee side of Blue Mountain, located just south of Palmerton. This prediction
was made because air flow is up or down the valley axis 50% of the time. It was further
predicted that wind would also carry contaminants through the gap and directly over the
mountain as a result of gravity-driven drainage flow.
For those interested in comparing both real and modeled data, it is interesting to note
that the modeling effort and the actual soil sampung/geokriguig effort produced remarkably
similar results.
Key predictions of the meteorological/air deposition modeling effort are summarized
below.
• The majority of mass deposition would occur on the valley floor, not the side
walls.
• Large deposition would occur in the gap.
• High ground-level concentrations would be found on the leeside of a mountain
ridge; in particular, the areas due southeast of both plants should experience the
largest leeside effect.
• Areas to the northeast and southwest would experience the greatest average
deposition of any area in the valley.
• Low gradients of deposition would occur in areas outside the valley, with the
exception of the gap.
• Except for copper, soil concentrations would be high and fairly uniform.
• In general, greater heavy metal soil concentrations would be expected east of the
East Plant than west of the West Plant.
29
-------
VH. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF VEGETATION DAMAGE
A. Vegetation Damage
As another part of its role in preparation of the RI/FS document, the EMSL-LV
provided aerial photographic documentation of progressive damage to vegetation near the zinc
smelter plants in Palmerton from 1938, when no damage was visible, to 1984, when actual bare
spots could be easily identified in the landscape.
This support was provided by the Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) in Warrenton, Virginia, a field station of EMSL-LV. A portion of this documentation
is shown in Appendix 14 ("Historical Site and Vegetation Analysis, Palmerton Zinc Pile Area,
Palmerton, PA., Vol. 1). For the complete data assessment report, see U.S. EPA, 1985,
Volumes 1 and 2.
Vegetation damage first appeared on 1950 aerial photographs as isolated patches on the
north slope of Blue Mountain, just south of the East Plant. The photographs illustrate
progressively worsening vegetative conditions. By 1983 vegetation damage was evident over an
area 27 kilometers long and 4 kilometers wide, stretching from Ashfield west of Palmerton to
Kunkletown, a small town to the east.
Within these boundaries, damage varied from barren, eroded land near the Palmerton
slag pile to subtle signs of stress near Kunkletown visible only with infrared photography.
Vegetation damage was identified and documented in forest and croplands as well as in
suburban and urban lawns and parks.
B. Methodology
The aerial photographs used in the analysis were obtained through a search of
government and commercial sources. Analysts stereoscopically viewed photograph pairs on a
light table. By using three-dimensional stereoscopic observation at various magnifications on a
light table, the analysts were able to identify features indicative of vegetative damage and
display their interpretations delineated on transparencies which overlay the photos.
Analyzed were historical black-and-white photographs from 1938, 1950, 1952, 1959,
1969, 1970, and 1977. In addition, two color infrared photographs from 1975 and 1983 and a
true color mission from 1984 were analyzed. The photographs were keyed to U.S. Geological
Survey base maps using a scale of 1:24,000.
Prints (U.S. EPA, 1985, Volume 2) were made from coverages which showed significant
changes in the area under study. (See Figures 12,13, and 14.)
30
-------
Figure 12. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, Pennsylvania, October 1938.
31
-------
Figure 13. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, Pennsylvania, May 1959.
32
-------
LEGEND
I - Impoundments — - Study Area Boundary
SL - Standing Liquid Surface Drainage
T - Tanks -i—i- - Railroad
TR - Tank Removed III III - Revetment
Figure 14. Aerial photograph of Palmerton, PA, 1984.
33
-------
REFERENCES
Barth, D.S., B.J. Mason, T.H. Starks, and K.W. Brown. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's
Guide, Second Edition. EPA 600/8-89/046. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, NV. 1989.
Beyer, W.N., G.W. Miller, and E.J. Cromartie. Contamination of the O2 Soil Horizon by Zinc
Smelting and Its Effect on Woodlouse Survival. J. of Env. Quality, 13. 1984. pp.
247-251.
Brown, K.W., W.F. Beckert, S.C. Black, G.T. Flatman, J.W. Mullins, E.P. Richitt, and S.J.
Simon. Documentation of EMSL-LV Contribution to Dallas Lead Study. EPA
600/4-84-012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV, 1984.
Buchaer, M.J. Contamination of Soil and Vegetation Near a Zinc Smelter by Zinc, Cadmium,
Copper, and Lead. Environmental Science Technology, 7. 1973. pp. 131-135.
Dreisbach, Robert H. Handbook of Poisoning, 10th Edition, 1980.
Handy, R.W., B.S.H. Harris, T.D. Hartwell, and S.R. Williams. Epidemiologic Study
Conducted in Populations Living Around Non-Ferrous Smelters. Volume 1
RTI/1372/00 Health Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1981.
Jordan, MJ. Effects of Zinc Smelter Emissions and Fire on a Chestnut-Oak Woodland.
Ecology 56,1975. pp. 78-91.
NEIC. Evaluation of Runoff and Discharges from New Jersey Zinc Company, Palmerton,
Pennsylvania. National Enforcement Investigations Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, CO, 1979.
NEIC National Enforcement Investigation Center Policies and Procedures, EPA
330/9-78/001-R. U.S. EPA Office of Legal and Enforcement Counsel, NEIC Denver
Co., May 1978 (Revised February 1983).
N.U.S. Corporation. Work Plan - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of Alternatives -
Palmerton Zinc Site - Palmerton, Pennsylvania. EPA Work Assignment 63-3L26,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1984.
Schweitzer, G.E., S.C. Black. "Monitoring Statistics," Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 19, November 1985.
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Ch. 1, Part 300, App. A, 7/1/87 Edition.
U.S. EPA Region 3 Field Investigation Team Toxicological Assessment, 1982.
34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Historical Site and Vegetation Analysis, Palmerton
Zinc Pile Area, Palmerton, PA," Vol. 1 and 2. TS-PIC-84135, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Warrenton, VA, 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Palmerton Zinc National Priorities List Site,
Atmospheric Deposition Analysis of Cadmium, Zinc, Lead, and Copper in the Vicinity
of the New Jersey Zinc Palmerton Facility," May 1986.
Washington, J.W. Metallic Contamination Surrounding a Zinc Smelter. Published Thesis. The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1985.
35
-------
PRELIMINARY MONITORING DESIGN FOR METAL POLLUTION
IN PALMERTON, PENNSYLVANIA
By
, Thomas H. Starks
Environmental Research Center,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Kenneth W. Brown
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
USEPA, Las Vegas, Nevada
Nancy J. Fisher
Computer Sciences Corporation
Las Vegas, Nevada
-------
Dr. Starks is Senior Statistician with the Environmental Research
Center. He received his Ph.D. in Statistics from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute in 1959. Subsequently, he worked as a
statistician with E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and as a
professor in the Department of Mathematics at Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale.
Mr. Brown is a senior investigator in the Exposure Assessment
Research Division of the Environmental Protection Agency. He
received his B.S. in Botany from the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas in 1976. He has been working in the areas of sampling and
monitoring design for over ten years.
Ms. Fisher is a senior analyst/programmer for Computer Sciences
Corporation and is currently working on a contract for the
Environmental Protection Agency. She received B.A and M.A.
i
degrees from Indiana University in Mathematics and an M.S. degree
from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in statistics and
computer science. Her background includes ten years of work
experience in applied statistics and computer science
applications.
-------
ABSTRACT
Large concentrations of the metal soil pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, and zinc, have been detected in and around
Palmerton, Pennsylvania. Before a cleanup of the area can be
undertaken, it will be necessary to map the spatial distribution
of the concentrations of the pollutants over the area. Then
boundaries can be determined for the regions that are above and
below action levels. The estimation of the spatial distribution
of the metal concentrations, with a prespecified level of
precision, requires a definitive soil-sampling survey. The
intensity of sampling (i.e., distance between sample points)
needed to attain the prespecified level of precision will depend
on the nonsampling error variance and the spatial structure of
the concentration measurements. To determine the nonsampling
error variance and the spatial structure, a preliminary
i
soil-sampling study is required. This paper discusses the
planning of such a preliminary study.
Keywords - metal pollutants, preliminary study, soil sampling,
spatial structure
-------
Introduction
Atmospheric release of zinc, cadmium, copper, and lead by
the New Jersey Zinc Company's Palmerton, Pennsylvania smelter was
suspected of causing widespread environmental contamination
(Buchauer, 1973). Therefore, during the early 1980's, soil
samples from selected sites in the vicinity of the smelters were
collected by teams from the Pennsylvania State University (PSU)
and from the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
Health Effects Research Laboratory (HERD in North Carolina.
To identify contaminant distribution, soils collected for
the PSU study were obtained within a 25 km (15 mi) radius of the
smelter. The sampling sites and the methods employed for this
study, as previously reported by Washington (1984), involved
collecting soil samples from cultivated fields by using soil
i
augers. The number 'of individual cores taken from each field and
the core depth was determined by the size of the field being
sampled and the depth of the Al or Ap horizon. After collection,
the cores were placed in a single container, dried, sieved, and
mixed. An aliquot was taken from the mixed portion, acid
digested, and then analyzed by atomic absorption
spectroscopy (AAS) for total zinc, cadmium, lead, nickel, copper
and iron.
The objective of the HERL study was to identify the
relationship between heavy metal levels in biological tissue,
i.e., human blood, hair, and urine, with metal levels found in
-------
air, soils, dust, and drinking water. Because of the diversity
of this study, soils were collected from residential play areas,
schools, and in the immediate vicinity of high volume air
samplers. Only surface soils (10-15 cm) (4-6") were collected as
exposure to subsurface soil contamination was considered unlikely.
Similar to the PSU study, most of the HERL study soils were
collected within a 25 km radius of the smelter in Palmerton.
After collection, as previously described by Handy et al. (1981),
the soils were dried, sieved, and mixed. The soils were acid
digested and analyzed by AAS for arsenic, cadmium, copper,
manganese, lead, and zinc.
The results of these studies, in addition to studies by
Buchauer (1973), Jordan (1975'), Beyer et al. (1984), and
summarized by the NUS Corporation in 1984, showed that elevated
concentrations of zinc, cadmium, lead, and copper were found in
vegetation and surface soils up. to 10 miles west and 16 miles
t
east of the Palmerton smelter. The soil values decreased as a
function of distance from the smelter; however, values exceeding
130,000, 1700, 2200, and 1500 ppm for zinc, cadmium, lead, and
copper respectively were found within 2 miles of the smelter.
Because of these high soil levels and levels of zinc and
cadmium found in groundwater, surface water,and biota collected
near the smelter (NEIC, 1979), the Palmerton zinc smelter site
was added to EPA's Superfund National Priority List for remedial
investigation.
In July, 1984, the EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) received a request from EPA's
-------
Region 3 office in Philadelphia to assist in the development of a
soil monitoring program.. The EMSL-LV was requested to:
o Design a soil-sampling network (i.e., grid size, spacing,
and number of samples.)
o Recommend soi1-sampling techniques (i.e., sampling
equipment, quantity of samples.)
o Use geostatistics to provide soil concentration isopleths
for cadmium, lead, zinc, and copper.
o Provide onsite sampling audits.
This report presents the rationale and methods for
development of a sampling strategy to generate court-worthy data.
Geostatistical estimation procedures (see Journel and Huijbregts,
1978) will be applied to the data to obtain metal-concentration
isopleths. The isopleths will delineate the regions needing
remedial action in the vicinity of the Palmerton zinc smelter.
The sampling methods and analytical procedures have been
previously reported ' (USEPA 1984 and USEPA 1984A).
Site Description
The Palmerton zinc complex occupies approximately 267 acres
near the city of Palmerton, Pennsylvania. This industrial
complex consisting of two separate plants is located west and
east of the city. The west plant is located on the northern bank
of the Lehigh River, at its confluence with Aquashicola Creek;
the east plant including the slag pile is located on the southern
bank of the Aquashicola Creek (NUS, 1984).
-------
Smelting operations began in 1898 at the western plant where
relatively pure zinc silicate was processed. Following the
construction of the eastern plant in 1915, zinc sulfide
containing approximately 55% zinc, 31% sulfur, 0.15% cadmium,
0.30% lead and 0.40% copper was processed. During the processing
and smelting operations, as reported by NUS (1984) the oxides of
sulfur, zinc, cadmium, and lead were incompletely recovered.
Daily metal emission were estimated to be 5,900 to 9,000 kg
(13,000 to 19,800 Ibs) per day of zinc and from 70 to 90 kg (154
to 198 Ibs) per day of cadmium. In 1950, the facility was
equipped with more efficient pollution controls and the cadmium
emissions dropped to about 23 kg (50 Ibs) per day.
The geological makeup of this area consists of a series
of deep, narrow valleys. The nearby ridges and valleys are
underlain by thin, nearly vertical shale, siltstone, sandstone,
and limestone beds. Palmerton lies in a valley in which Chestnut
i
Ridge delineates the'valley to the north, Aquashicola Creek runs
the length of the valley, and Blue Mountain borders the valley on
the south. The Lehigh Gap cuts through Blue Mountain just east
of the west plant and south of Palmerton (Washington 1984).
This intensely folded and faulted area lies on the southern
limb of the Wein Mountain Syncline. The syncline is
east-northeast trending with the axis lying approximately 3 km (2
mi) north of Palmerton (NUS, 1984).
Glacial deposits and naturally occurring soils are present.
The glacial unconsolidated deposits consist of brown to yellow
brown sand, gravel, and cobbles. These deposits are horizontally
-------
stratified, ranging up to 18 m (60') thick in places. In some
areas the glacial deposits are poorly sorted, stratified sandy
gravels with interbedded red clay, ranging up to 24 m (80') in
thickness.
The naturally occurring soils belong to the Klinesville,
Holly, and Leek Kill series. The Klinesville soils consist of
shallow, 15 to 46 cm (6-18"), well drained reddish soils formed
from sandstone, siltstone and shale. Holly soils are moderately
deep, poorly drained, alluvial soils found near streams. The
Leek Kill soils, located primarily near the slag pile, are
moderately deep, well drained, acidic, brown residual soils
formed from sandstone, siltstone, and shale (NUS, 1984).
Local wind and precipitation patterns are influenced to some
extent by the topography of the surrounding area. As shown in
Figure 1 winds occur primarily from the northeast and southwest
directions. (It should be noted that the N in Figure 1 is
magnetic north and the windrose plot must be rotated 10°
clockwise to agree with polar north.) Washington (1984) reported
that the winds from the north occur primarily during the winter
months. Winds from the south and west are believed to greatly
influence the distribution of stack emissions by flowing through
the Lehigh Gap and continuing in a northeast direction up the
Aquashicola Creek valley.
Meteorological data from the New Jersey Zinc Company's
weather station in Palmerton has reported an average yearly
temperature of 12°C (53.4°F), a minimum temperature of -25°C
-------
N
i
I
W
Figure 1. Palmerton Wind Rose 1978-1979 data
-------
(-13°F), and a maximum temperature of 40.6°C (105°F). Yearly
precipitation averages nearly 1.1 m (43") per year.
Monitoring Design
Historical information and data from recently conducted soil
/
sampling studies were collected and evaluated. This was done to
determine if concentration isopleths could be provided at
reasonable levels of precision without additional sampling, or,
if this was not possible, to determine whether the data gave
enough information about the spatial structure of the metal
concentrations to determine the density of sampling required for
a definitive survey. The results of this evaluation showed the
data, collected for other objectives, to be inappropriate and
inadequate for either of the above purposes. Therefore, a
preliminary survey had to be developed that would provide
information on the spatial structure (i.e., spatial correlation
and order of drift)' and extent of the concentrations of the metal
pollutants in the soil. The information obtained from this
preliminary study will be used in the planning and development of
a definitive monitoring study. In addition, the preliminary
survey will provide data that will be used along with the
definitive study results in mapping the distribution of the
pollutant concentrations in the Palmerton area.
One suggested procedure for sampling to determine spatial
structure was to take equally spaced samples along four transects
N-S, E-W, NE-SW, and NW-SE. However, it was determined that this
would be wasteful of sample points in that each sample point
-------
would in general contribute to the estimation of spatial
correlation in only one direction. On the other hand, if samples
were on a square grid, another common approach, each point could
be used in the estimation of spatial correlations in several
directions. However, if the grid distance is sufficiently small
to estimate short range correlations, there may be too few, if
any, pairs of points available to estimate long range
correlations and the extent of pollution. The solution was a
compromise in which both the grid and the transects were employed.
The grid portion allows precise estimation of short range
correlations and the transects permit estimation of extent and
long range correlations. The combination resulted in a plan that
required fewer sample points than would have been required by a
sampling plan using only a grid or only transects.
To determine sampling intensity (distance between points),
information from a previous soil-lead monitoring study conducted
i
in Dallas, Texas (Brown et al., 1984) was utilized. The Dallas
lead study found a 366 m (12001) range of influence for lead
measurements in the areas near the lead smelters. There are
obvious differences between Palmerton and Dallas with regard to
topography and variability of soil types. In addition, the
Palmerton study involved three additional metal pollutants.
Nevertheless, lacking a better model for spatial variability, it
was decided that the spacing should be sufficiently small to
allow estimation of spatial correlation at several distances less
than 366 m. A good estimate of the spatial correlation model,
especially for short distance, is important in that it determines
-------
the interpolation between points in the data analysis, and
estimation of standard errors of the interpolations. A grid
spacing of 122 m (4001) was selected. This spacing allows
estimation of spatial correlations for lags of 122, 244, and (on
the diagonal) 172 m (4001, 800', and 566') where spatial
correlations should be positive assuming a range of 366 m. The
use of spacings less than 122 m would reduce the areal coverage
of the preliminary survey or increase the number of points
required. Further, a constraint that the total number of sample
points in both the preliminary and definitive studies should not
exceed 800 made it extremely unlikely that sample points would be
less than 122 m apart in the definitive study. Hence, no
additional sampling of the preliminary survey area will be
required in the definitive study. On the other hand, if sample
point spacing considerably larger than 122 m were employed in the
preliminary study, the data might not be sufficient to provide
estimates of spatial correlation at lags where it is
significantly positive. Then the estimation of the spatial
structure model would become tenuous or impossible. For example,
if the true model for spatial correlation can be represented by a
spherical variogram model with range 366 m, then the correlation
between points 244 m apart is only 0.15; while at 122 m, it is
0.52.
In many geostatistical studies, the nugget effect must be
determined by extrapolating the experimental semivariogram
results of the first few lags back to the zero lag. However, in
environmental soil sampling, a procedure that has been
-------
successfully used involves the collection of duplicate samples
(within 0.5 m) at 5% of the sample points, and splitting a total
of 5% of the other samples collected. The duplicates give
information on short-range variability (true nugget effect) and
the splits give information on the combined subsampling and
analytical-error variance. In models of spatial structure, these
two variances are usually added and the total is called the
nugget effect, but in Jcriging they should be treated separately
because they effect the kriging variance in different ways.
Hence, the information from the duplicates and splits is
extremely useful in determining the model for spatial structure,
especially in the important short lag region.
After the sampling pattern was agreed upon, a positioning of
the pattern on the map of the Palmerton area was performed
(Figure 2). The placement of the pattern was based on survey
constraints and hypotheses about the pollution dispersion formed
i
from information on windroses and local topography. The pattern
was centered in Palmerton and rotated so that the transects would
follow the river valleys and run parallel with the principal
windrose directions. Also, since the large smelter property was
not to be sampled, the grid and transects were oriented so as to
miss the property as much as possible.
The purpose of the transects was to obtain information on
the areal extent of the metal pollution. The lengths of the
transects were determined by windrose data, topography, and land
use. The transects were longer in the principal wind directions
and/or where they extended into farm or residential areas. They
-------
\
« £
o o
0)
>
tm
3
w
c
o
(0
Q.
.1§
'£
'c
.2
c
a
.£
"a
(Q
3
O)
-------
were shorter in minor wind directions and/or where transects
extended into forested areas. The greatest distance from the
center of the grid to the end of a transect was 8.5 km (5.3 mi).
Information from the transects should provide good estimates of
the rates of attenuation of pollution in the transect directions.
Except near the grid, Figure 2, the spacing of sample points on
the transects is 366 m or 345 m (1131') depending on whether the
transect direction is parallel to an edge of the grid squares or
parallel to a diagonal of the squares.
Costs for chemical analysis being higher than sample
collection costs led to the decision to archive soil samples
taken at 30 points obtained on an "every-other-one" basis near
the ends of the longest transects. These samples will be
analyzed only if statistical analysis of the other data indicates
a need for additional information. Soil samples will be taken at
a total of 210 points (85 on the grid and 125 on the transects)
i
but only 180 will be submitted for chemical analysis in the
preliminary study.
The numbers of pairs of points at various lags and
directions, provided by the 180 points to be sampled and analyzed
in the preliminary study, are given in Table 1. The point
sources of the metals indicates that the model for the spatial
structures of their concentrations will include drift. The
windrose pattern and the topography of the area suggest that
the model will be anisotropic. Hence, simple semivariogram
models for spatial structure are not likely to suffice. For this
situation, an intrinsic random function model will be needed.
-------
Once such a model is fit to the data from the preliminary study,
it will be possible to predict the maximum estimation standard
error in point kriging for any particular grid size that might be
employed in the definitive study. Therefore, once the precision
desired for the estimation of metal concentrations is specified,
the grid size for the final study can be determined. The
combined data from the preliminary and definitive studies will
then allow the point and block kriging from which isopleths may
be drawn to distinguish areas above action levels from those that
are below.
-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF PAIRS IN INITIAL SURVEY DESIGN FOR ESTIMATION
OF EXPERIMENTAL SEMIVARIOGRAM
Lag*
122
244
366
488
732
975
1463
Nominal
Direction
E-W N-S
85 78
79 71
72 70
64 57
61 54
36 29
30 24
Nominal
Direction
Lag NW-SE NE-SW
173 82 82
345 74 79
517 58 58
690 59 55
1035 27 31
1379 25 21
* lags in meters
-------
REFERENCES
Beyer, W. N. , G. W. Miller and E. J. Cromartie. Contamination of
the 02 Soil Horizon by Zinc Smelting and Its Effect on Woodlouse
Survival. J. of Env. Quality, 13. 1984. pp. 247-251.
Brown, K. W., W. F. Beckert, S. C. Black, G. T. Flatman, J. W.
Mullins, E. P. Richitt, and S. J. Simon. Documentation of
EMSL-LV Contribution to Dallas Lead Study. EPA 600/4-84-012,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1984.
Buchauer, M. J. Contamination of Soil and Vegetation Near a Zinc
Smelter by Zinc, Cadmium, Copper, and Lead. Environmental
Science Technology, 7. 1973. pp. 131-135.
Handy, R. W. , B. S. H. Harris, T. D. Hartwell, and S. R. Williams.
Epidemiologic Study Conducted in Populations Living Around
Non-Ferrous Smelters. Volume 1 RTI/1372/00 Health Effects
Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1981.
Jordan, M. J. Effects of Zinc Smelter Emissions and Fire on a
Chestnut-Oak Woodland. Ecology 56, 1975. pp. 78-91.
Journel, A. G., and Ch. J. Huijbregts. Mining Geostatistics.
Academic Press, New York, NY, 1978. 600 pp.
NEIC. Evaluation of Runoff and Discharges from New Jersey Zinc
Company, Palmerton, Pennsylvania. National Enforcement
Investigations Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Denver, CO. 1979.
N.U.S. Corporation. Work Plan - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study of Alternatives - Palmerton Zinc Site - Palmerton,
Pennsylvania. EPA Work Asignment 63-3L26, Pittsburgh, PA. 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Palmerton Zinc NPL Site
Investigation Soil Sampling Protocol. Enviromental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User's Guide to the
Contract Laboratory Program. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C. 1984a.
Washington, D. Metal Concentrations in Soils and Groundwater in
the Palmerton Area. Unpublished Thesis. The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA. 1984.
-------
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
119 TYSON BUILDING
UNIVERSITY PARK. PENNSYLVANIA 16802
College of Agriculture
Dcptruneat of Agronomy
814-863-6S4I
February 26. 1985
Mr. Ed Shoener
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Shoener:
As we have discussed, I am Interested in summer employment with your
Palmerton Project group. Enclosed you will find my resume. In our discussions
I may have mislead you. I did not have the resume written for me; I only
had my written copy prepared.
I have not yet completed the FS 171 because I have had to order it
from Harrisburg but I should have it completed in the near future.
You mentioned that you are interested in seeing some of my conclusions.
Some of them are summarized below:
l)Soil loadings exceed 3 Ibs/acre total Cd or Z Ibs/acre exchangeable
Cd for an average 7.5 mile radius around the smelters.
2)Total soil Zn und Cd are concentrated preferentially to the southeas
of Palmerton. This assyme&ry appears to result largely from the effect of
prevailing winds.
3)The proportion of the total Zn or Cd loading that is in exchangeable
form in a soil is Inversely proportional to the total Fe in the soil. Further
total Fe in the A horizon of a soil is inversely proportional to the
latitude of the soil body.
4)Exchangeable soil Zn and Cd are concentrated preferentially to the
northeast of Palmerton. This assymetry appears to represent the combined
effects of the prevailing winds and the lower soil Fe in the north.
5)Elevated soil loadings of Zn and Cd may displace Cu, Fe, Ni, Al, and
Mn from the exchange complex resulting in significantly elevated soil solu-
tion activities of these metals. Such elevated activities may affect plant
growth rate.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSfTY
-------
Mr. Ed Shoeoer
Page 2
February 26, 1985
6) Soils that have been limed with Horsehead Line have signifantly
higher loadings of total Zn than soils that have not.
7) There Is approximately 129,060 tons and 2,140 tons of total
smelter-source Zn and Cd, respectively, in soils surrounding Palmer ton.
8) There is no significant relationship between groundwater Zn,Cd, or Pb
and proximity to smelter for the population of waters sampled.
9) There is a. significant inverse relationship between groundwater Zn
and Cd, and pH.
10)There is a significant positive relationship between groundwater
Cd and the depth of the veil from which it came.
11)A Cu anomaly is present in the Martinsburg bedrock of the study
region; it may be an extension of the Central Copper-Nickel Region recognized
by Keith et al. (1967) in the vicinity of Harrisburg.
If you would like to discuss these findings please contact me at the address
listed at my signature".
Sincerely,
John Washingt
236 Deike Bldg.
D. Park, PA 16802
812-863-1665
-------
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
119 TYSON BUILDING
UNIVERSITY PARK. PENNSYLVANIA 16801
College of Agriculture
Deptronent of Agronomy
SI4-863-U4!
February 26, 1985
Mr. Ed Shoener
Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Shoener:
As we have discussed, I am interested in summer employment with your
Palmerton Project group. Enclosed you will find my resume. In our discussions
I may have mislead you. I did not have the resume written for me; I only
had my written copy prepared.
I have not yet completed the FS 171 because I have had to order ic
from Harrisburg but I should have it completed in the near future.
You mentioned that you are interested in seeing some of my conclusions.
Some of them are summarized belowt
l)Soil loadings exceed 3 Iba/acr* total Cd or 2 Ibs/acre exchangeable
Cd for an average 7.5 mile radius around the smelters.
2)Total soil Zn and Cd are concentrated preferentially to the aoutheas
of Palmerton. This assymetiry appears to result largely from the effect of
prevailing winds.
3)The proportion of the total Zn or Cd loading that is in exchangeable
form in a soil is Inversely proportional to the total Fe in the soil. Further
total Fe in the A horizon of a soil is inversely proportional to the
latitude of the soil body.
A)Exchangeable soil Zn and Cd are concentrated preferentially to the
northeast of Pa liner ton. This assymetry appears to represent the combined
effects of the prevailing winds and the lower soil Fe In the north.
5)Elevated soil loadings of Zn and Cd may displace Cu, Fe, Ni, Al, and
Mn from the exchange complex resulting in significantly elevated soil solu-
tion activities of these metals. Such elevated activities may affect plant
growth rate.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY
-------
Mr. Ed Shoeoer
Page 2
February 26, 1985
6)Soils that have been limed with Horsehead Line have signlfantly
higher loadings of total Zn than soils that have not.
7)There Is approximately 129,060 tons and 2,140 tons of total
smelter-source Zn and Cd, respectively, in soils surrounding Palmer ton.
8) There is no significant relationship between ground water Zn,Cd, or Pb
and proximity to smelter for the population of waters sampled.
9) There is a. significant inverse relationship between ground water Zn
and Cd, and pH.
10)There is a significant positive relationship between ground water
Cd and the depth of the veil from which it came.
11)A Cu anomaly is present la the Martinsburg bedrock of the study
region; it may be an extension of the Central Copper-Nickel Region recognized
by Keith et al. (1967) in the vicinity of Harrisburg.
If you would like to discuss these findings please contact me at the address
listed at my signature".
Sincere!
Sincerely, ^ -
Mfr lJ*Jl*Jfe
/John Washington
236 Deike Bldg.
U. Park, PA 16802
812-863-1665
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region III - 6th & Walnut Sis
Philadelphia. Pn 19106
SUBJECT: Palmerton Zinc NPL Site-Penn State Data DATE: ni|R ,,
xT^/x*"^1 iuu t)
FROM: Ed Shoener, Remedial On-Scene Coordinator
CERCLA Enforcement Branch, Region III
Ken Brown, Exposure Assessment Division
Environmental Systems Monitoring Labratory/ORD
Enclosed is data that Dave Washington, a student at Penn State
University, has collected on metal concentrations in soil and
groundwater in the Palmerton area. Dave has not completed his
thesis, but, has given me the enclosed information:
1. Summary of scope of study and methods.
2. Analytical data and sample locations.
3. Map with total metal concentration at each sampling location.
A. Paper describing the 'Baker Test Method' referenced in the
data sheets.
Dave has developed a regression equation based on distance from
the smelter and soil metal concentration which gives him a r value
of approxiametly .80. If you would like more information on his
regression work give me a call and I'll arrange a conference
call with him.
Dick Park called and asked that I send you the 198J aerial photographs
of the site and I'll get these to you the week of 8/6/84.
I hope this data will help you in designing the soil sampling network.
Thanks again for your help.
-------
METALLIC CONTAMINATION, VICINITY OF PALMERTON, PA
John Washington
The New Jersey Zinc Company's smelting operation has been based in, and operating
from, Palmerton, PA since 1898. During this period the operation has been a major
source of income to the local economy; however, atmospheric releases of sulphur, zinc,
cadmium, and lead accompanied by the on-site wasting of tons of spoils has affected
local soil and water quality. The magnitude of the problem caused the EPA, in 1984,
to include the immediate area in the updated Superfund list of United States' most
hazardous sites. Unfortunately, the problem is not contained, "on-site". The
surrounding land, much if it zoned for commercial agriculture, as well as community
and private water supplies have been affected.
The field work for this project included collection of soil and water samples
from 65 farms and properties within a 27 mile diameter. Sample location was confined
to those properties whose owners would pay $23.00 for testing.
The soil test results have generated considerable concern. Samples one mile
from the source contained more than 14 times the 1 Ib/acre available soil cadmium
maximum safe loading rate recommended by Dr. Dale Baker (P.S.U. - soil chemistry).
This soil limit was exceeded at distances of up to 10 miles from the source. The
water test results are less foreboding. Palmerton Township water supply is well within
the recommended safe drinking water limits for all the metals tested. Only one private
water supply was found to exceed the safe drinking water limits. The source is a
marshy spring approximately 3 miles north of the source. The owner was informed of
the problem and a potential solution was volunteered. When siting a water source
near Palmerton it is recommended that:
1) Marshy springs be avoided
2) Carbonate source rocks should be tapped into
-------
Chapter 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Site
General
In 1742, the first white men, Moravian missionaries, settled
permanently in Carbon County. Initial development was slow and the
first road through the Lehigh Gap was built in 1773. During the 1800's
the pig iron, coal, and forestry industries were established in the
resource-rich ridge and valley province. In the 1880's most of the
ridges had been clear-cut by the foresters. It is on these somewhat
developed and disturbed lands that the New Jersey Zinc Company began
operations in 1898.
Today on the north slope of Blue Mountain, just east of Palmerton,
New Jersey Zinc Company's east plant (the younger of 2 at Palmerton)
sits dormant. It is easy to view; after eighty years of plume
deposition, the adjacent land lies nearly barron with unnaturally high
metal concentrations. As a result of economic, technologic, and
regulatory pressures, New Jersey Zinc no longer has active smelting
operations in Carbon County.
;»- *. L^U x*
The va11fiy tF*t Palmerton 5-1 tn In **,—1 oc-ol ly, the southern-most
member of a series of deep and narrow valleys known as the ridge and
valley province. The surrounding ridges and the valley are underlain by
thin, nearly vertical shale, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone beds.
The strati graphic strike of the beds generally runs southwest to
northeast nearly parallel to the major, local physiographic features.
Chestnut Ridge delineates the valley to the north, Aquashicola Creek
runs the length of the valley, and Blue Mountain borders it to the
-------
south. The Lehigh Gap breaks Blue Mountain just east of New Jersey
Zinc's west plant and just west of Palmerton. South of the gap the
Lehigh River meanders across the thick beds of the Martinsburg
Formation. Still further south the river finds beds of limestone where
it abruptly turns east at Allentown to follow the limestone east to the
Delaware River.
Farming is marginal in the ridge and valley province of Carbon
County because the soils are often thin and the slopes steep. Further
to the northeast, in Monroe County, these same 1 andf orms comprise the
southern-most range of the Pocono resort area. South of Carbon County,
on the wide shaly slopes of the Martinsburg, agriculture is generally
more productive. Soils derived from Martinsburg shale in Northampton
A.JSA
and Lehigh Counties -frften moisture better than most shale-derived soils.
For agricultural purposes, some might even consider this land part of
k
the ric& dairy lands of the Lehigh Valley.
Though /these lands don't show it, they all contain unusually high
/
concentrations of zinc and cadmium. All indications are that this
anomaly represents the remnant contamination of New Jersey Zinc
Company's smelting operations in Palmerton. Thus the study region
consists of parts of Carbon, Monroe, Northampton, and Lehigh counties.
Climate and Heather
The ridge and valley topography surrounding Palmerton greatly
influences local wind, temperature, and precipitation patterns.
Buchauer (19 _ ) reported predominant wind patterns occurring from the
north and west during the winter season, while Gong (19 _ ) found
predominant winds were from the southwest. Major local physiographic
-------
features run on a southwest to northeast strike and as such may be
conducive to similar wind patterns.
Since New Jersey Zinc Company opened its weather station in 1962
the average yearly temperature has been 53.4°F with a minimum of -13°F
and a maximum of 105°F. Precipitation has averaged 42.86 inches.
During this same period the relative humidity has averaged 74% and has
been dropping in recent years while the barometric pressure has averaged
29.64 inches and has been rising.
Geology and Soils
The local geologic formations are comprised mostly of sedimentary,
folded beds. Deposition occurred during the Ordivicien, Silurian, and
i
Devonian periods of the early Paleozoic era. Two periods of orogenic
uplifting with a period of deposition during the interim has resulted in
a bedding profi19 that appears almost random. During the late or upper
Ordivician period the Martinsburg Formation was deposited, and today it
consists mainly of slate, siltstone, and quartzose. The Taconic Orogeny
occurred during the Ordivian-Si1urian periods and the resulting
colluvial sediments in lower areas eventually comprised the Shawangunk
and Bloomsburg Formations of the early Silurian period, consisting of
conglomeritic shales, quartz, sandstones, and limestone. The late
Silurian through early Devonian periods saw a series of sea level
changes. The formations resulting from this series of oceanic
migrations included the rest of the Silurian period's formations and all
those of the Devonian period. The Appalachian Orogeny occurred at the
end of the Devonian period and resulted in extensive folding and
faulting along a generally east-northeast axis. The rest of the
Paleozoic Era (Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian periods), the
-------
Mesozoic, and Cenozoic Eras have weathered and eroded these formations
to their present-day state.
The most significant erosional periods have occurred during the
Pleistocene and Holocene epochs when a series of glaciers covered much
of the region. The old potential evidence of glacial activity in the
area is in northwest Carbon County where some claim very patchy remnants
of Nebraskan or Kansan end or recessional morain exist. More generally
agreed upon is the Muncy ti 1 1 of the II 1 i noi an stage that, in some of
the low-lying areas of Carbon, Northampton, and Lehigh counties, may
cover up to 10% of the land area. In Monroe and parts of Northampton,
the Muncy is buried or truncated by Wisconsinap tills. The first
i
Wisconsinan substage, the Altonian, brought the Warrensville till to
much of Monroe County and the lower land in eastern Carbon and
Northampton counties. In places where the Warrensville has not been
covered it may cover between 10 and 25 percent of the land. Much of the
Warrensville till has, however, been buried or truncated in turn by the
Olean till of the Woodfordian substage. Olean till reaches through most
of Monroe and parts of Carbon and Northampton counties. It covers
between 25 and 50 percent of the land area within its borders.
To the west, the Central Susquehanna Valley has had a glacial
history very similar to that of Palmerton and the surrounding area.
Ciolkosz et al. (19 ) have studied the Susquehanna region and
associated specific soil series with the above described glacial events.
As soil ages and weathering increases it becomes increasingly difficult
to assign history to a soil body with certainty. It is generally
believed that Allenwood and Washington series are derived from pre-
Wisconsinan ti 1 1 and fluvial deposits. The Leek Ki 11 series has a we! 1-
developed argil lie horizon, and a thick solum with distinct horizons but
-------
there is only slight oxidation apparent in the Bt. These factors and
others have led to the general consensus that Leek Kill is derived from
Altonian-age till. The Bath series, with no argillic horizon is said to
be derived from Woodfordian-age till.
Emission/Deposition Estimate - £<.-<• h<-<•."-•-
Emission and deposition estimates were made by J. F. Smith of the
New Jersey Zinc Company, J. McGrogan of the Air Pollution Control
Division of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, and M. Buchauer of
Rutgers University. In 1962, the Pennsylvania Department of Health
estimated total stack S02 emissions at 3300 pounds per hour whi le the
'i
New Jersey Zinc Company estimated emissions at 3600 pounds per hour.
These estimates are regarded as higher than the average plant emission
rate, however, because the "East Chicago Roast" coal being used was
exceptionally high in S02. In 1970, the Pennsylvania Department of
Health estimated $03 emissions at 1400 to 1500 pounds per hour. Metal
emission rates for 1970 were estimated at 7 to 10 tons of zinc per day
and 0.08 to 0.1 tons of cadmium per day. The east plant probably
emitted 60 percent of the zinc and 72 percent of the total cadmium.
Data on the efficiency of pollution control equipment prior to 1960 is
meager, therefore the researchers estimate a potential error in their
work of almost 50 percent. Using dustfall data, the Pennsylvania
Department of Health estimated an average total of 17,000 pounds per
acre of zinc and 200 pounds per acre of cadmium were deposited in
Palmerton between 1898 and 1970. Analysis of the top 6 inches of soil
resulted in 10,600 pounds per acre of zinc and 155 pounds per acre of
cadmium total loadings in the town. Analysis of the solum resulted in
12,000 pounds per acre of zinc and 163 pounds per acre of cadmium total
-------
loadings in Palmerton. In her testing, Buchauer found significantly
high levels of zinc and cadmium up to 12 miles from the east plant.
Establishing Necessary Lateral Extent of Sampling
^__j___
There are a number of studies of environmental metal concentrations
from around Palmerton. Unf ortunat ley, complications from predominant
wind patterns, local wind eddies, topography, vegetative cover, soil
chemistry, and sample analysis variability make all these studies
insufficient parameters on which to base an estimate of necessary
lateral extent of sampling.
Dr. Hans Panofsky (Professor Emeritus, P.S.U. Meteorology) was
consulted regarding how one might best approximate atmospheric
dispersion of ?tack effluent of extended time periods. Dr. Panofsky
recommended using the model for "Estimation of Seasonal or Annual
Average Concentrations at a Receptor From a Single Source," as given in
"The Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates" ( ,
19 ). The model follows:
where:
(X, ) = concentration of distance X and angle
Q = emission rate of stack
f( ,S,N) » frequency that the wind is f rom di rection , and Pasqui 11
stability class S, and wind speed class N
2 5 = vertical dispersion parameter at distanc*e X for Pasqui 11
stability class S
UN = representative wind speed for class N
Hu = effective height of smoke release for wind speed UN
-------
Since only a rough estimate of dispersion is necessary , .,
summation over S and N were dropped and f( ,S,N) was changed to f( )
with S approximated and N averaged for every . Stability and the
vertical dispersion variable were approximated using tables provided in
the text. Since the summation over N was dropped the UN term was
replaced by N. Finally Hu was approximated using the Holland equation:
where:
Vs = gas exit velocity
d = stack diameter
u = wind speed
= atmospheric pressure
TS = gas temperature
Ta = air temperature
Mr. Denis Lohman, of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, provided information on the gas exit velocity, stack diameter
and height, and the exiting gas velocity Mr. Mauris Silvestris and
Mr. W. R. Bechdolt of New Jersey Zinc Company provided daily weather
records for the period of May 1981 to May 1983. From these the daily
average wind speed for each direction of an eight-point wind rose was
compiled and averaged for the period as were the monthly averages for
atmospheric pressure, air temperature, and incoming solar radiation.
The value HU = H + (stack height). As a result of the
modifications the altered equation appears as follows:
-------
The units of dre in mass of gaseous and particulate
effluent/volume atmosphere; however, the desired units are mass of
adsorbed and settled effluent/land area. To correctly approximate the
desired units from the derived units one would have to apply an active
uptake model for gaseous phase and a settling velocity model for
particulate phase exhaust. Both of these models require extensive data
on the physical nature of the stack exhaust and considerable effort.
For the purposes of a rough approximation it was assumed that soil metal
concentration is approximately equal to average atmospheric
concentration times a constant plus a background value, i.e., [Mesoii] a
CMeatmospherel ' c * £Mebackground3- Buchauer (1971) provides zinc and
cadmium data for soils at various distances from the Palmerton smelter.
i
Some cadmium is more of a health risk concern than zinc. The cadmium
values to a six-inch depth for* two samples, taken from approximately the
same distance from the smelter, were averaged and the parts per million
units converted to total pounds cadmium/acre furrow slice. This
averaged value approximated 800 Ibs Cdtot/afs and is represented by the
inner-most contour on the Reference Map in the pocket. The next two
contours on the map represent 80 Ibs Cdtot/afs, respectively, as
predicted in the above-described manner. This outer-most contour is of
the same order of magnitude as typical background values cited in the
literature (Rose et al., 1979). In order to check the model's validity
contour values were compared to local stream sediment values documented
in the literature (Gong, 1975). It was assumed that stream sediments
would contain approximately the same concentration of metals as the
surrounding soils of the watershed. The model and 1iterature values
compared well.
8
-------
Considering the above predictive model it was decided that the
lateral extent of sampling should include the area encircled by the
outer-most contour plus an arbitrary distance to ensure that the
background metal levels were represented in the sample population.
Field Methods
Sample Icoations were restricted to those sites having owners that
were willing to fund the la boratory costs total ing $23.00/sample. A
meeting was arranged with the U.S.D.A.'s Agricultural Extension Service
agents for Carbon, Monroe, Northampton, and Lehigh counties. A summary
of the project objecti ves and conditi ons were presented to the agents
and they were asked to provide a list of potentially interested farm
owners in their respective counties. The owners on the resulting lists
were then canvassed by letter and then by phone to first determine
interest and then to schedule a sampling date.
Before starting the field work, sample randomization was performed
by numbering the water sample bottles, placing them in a large box,
mixing, withdrawing, and then placing them in a travel container in a
random manner. In the field the bottles were removed from the travel
container in a random manner once more. Soil andplantsampleswere
assigned the same number as the corresponding water sample followed byan
S and P, respectively. Once on-site, the land owner was asked to fill
in the lines preceded by an asterisk on a field information form (see
Figure ). The rest of the information was completed by the
researcher. The data filled in by the land owner, especially the well
data, is often only approximate.
The soi 1 was sampled to the depth of the Al or Ap horizon, which
was often delineated from lower horizons by a plow pan, with a stainless
-------
steel hoi low-stem auger. On average, 12 to 20 cores were taken in an
equal increment pattern over the field. The number of cores taken
depended on the field size, sampling depth, and percent coarse
fragments. The cores were placed directly into a plastic Nalgene -2 mm
sieve/sampler where the soil clods and aggregates were broken by hand
and then sieved. After mixing, a subsample of this composite was placed
in the plastic bag of a standard Merkle Soi1 Testing Laboratory soil
sampler. (Merkle is a Penn State sponsored/owned commercial lab that
specializes in testing soils for properties pertinent in maximizing
agricultural yields.) The sample was then air-dried in the open sampler
and stored for lab testing. The site was then located on a field map
and field parameters were estimated to facilitate future re-siting of
sample locations. '
Water samples were collected and stored in new Nalgene 150 ml
sample bottles with 7 ml of 1 N_ HNC»3 in each to maintain a final sample
pH of 2 to 3.5 depending on the alkalinity. The sample location, within
the water system, was always as close to the source as practically
possible. When it was impossible to sample before the storage tank, the
tank was evacuated if the owner would allow and it was noted on the
field form if the owner would not allow evacuation. Further, all
instances of below-tank sampling were noted and the tank described in
the field form.
When sampling the bottle was filled under a stream of water to the
bottom of the neck. The cap was then filled and poured Into the bottle
until the meniscus just passed the top of the lip. In this manner a
constant acid to sample ratio was maintained for all the samples. When
a spring source was available the capped bottle was immersed to a depth
fo approximately 6 inches and the cap unscrewed enough to allow the
10
-------
bottle to fill slowly. The sample was topped off in the manner
described above. In this manner floating and settling debris were
avoided. In rare, noted instances it was necessary to sample from a 5
gallon plastic Nalgene bucket. When this was necessary the bucket was
rinsed 2 to 4 times and the sampl e filled in the same manner as in the
spring sources.
The water was submitted to pH, temperature, electrical
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and buffering capacity in the. field.
The pH, electrical conductivity, and buffering capacity tests were
performed on a still pool of water in a 5 gallon plastic Nalgene bucket
when the source was not directly available. The temperature and
dissolved oxygen were performed in a laminar flow pool in the same
bucket when the source was not available. The pH was performed with a
pH 4, pH 7 standardization on a pH meter. The electrical conductivity
was performed with an electrical conductivity meter. The temperature
and dissolved oxygen were performed on a Y.S.I. Co., model 54 ARC D.O.
meter with a probe model 5739. Buffering was done with a titrating kit.
Laboratory Procedures
The soil samples were tested at Merkle Soil Testing Laboratory for
P - K
soi 1 pH, buffer pH, phosphorus, exchangeable potassium,
magnesium, exchangeable calcium, cation exchange capacity, and percent
saturation of the C.E.C. by K,, Mg, .and Ca. The soil pH is that pH
a/;/ $< ** ' »'-•* - h'
resul ting\f rom reaction of the sen 1 with a buffer .solution. ..The buffer
-tit 1*(j $<3>- J/K/3 &^/^ txZJ&J "J^J- *•
-------
The soil samples were then transferred to the Soil and
Environmental Chemistry Laboratory where the researcher and lab staff
cooperated in performing the lab's standard tests for Baker pH, K, Mg,
Ca, cation balance, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Na, AT, Pb, Ni, and Cd. Baker pH is
the pH resulting from soil equilibration with a weak buffer. It serves
as the pH for which the metal activities are reported. Both the labile
pool and intensity of each element is tested. The standard methods of
the Soil and Environmental Chemistry Lab are described by Baker and
Amacher (1981).
Finally, the soils were tested for total Zn, Cd, Pb, Ni, Cu, and Fe
d^l^W'/t-a^. #L> E/3/?-. . , _
content by the following method^
1) Air dry and sieve sample (#10 mesh).
2) Weigh 5.00 g into a 150 ml beaker l^_ O.OOS g-).'
3) Add 1C ml oncentrated HN03.
4) Heat slowly until dry without baking the sample.
5) Remove sample and allow to cool.
6) Add 20 ml 3 M HC1. Cover with watchglass and return to a slightly
increased heat.
7) Reflux for 2 hours (volume should decrease approximately 50%).
8) Remove from heat and cool.
9) Filter through 11.0 cm #40 Whatman paper.
10) Dilute sample to 50 ml with 1 M HN03«
11) Transfer sample to storage bottle.
12) Dilute samples in 5% HCl-5% HN03 if necessary to run by atomic
absorption spectrophotometer.
Water samples were tested for Zn, Cd, and Pb. The exchangeable
soi 1 metal s, total soi 1 metal s, and water Zn and Pb were run by open
12
-------
""REFERENCE MAP
11 S
«j' Q0' ff
CARMJON
MONROE
• Stroudibuif
£..ji.»>
J !»>!.'
" Ti,».«t. *r»
,» 5
• •,101
»fna*
^..i«Ji^
*
If «1,»JJ,JI.«
NO RHAMPTON
•4-
E.7
-------
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
Environmental Pollution Control Program
Metallic Contamination Surrounding a Zinc Smelter
A Thesis in
Environmental Pollution Control
by
John William Washington
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
August 1985
I grant The Pennsylvania State University the nonexclusive right to
use this work for the University's own purposes and to make single
copies of the work available to the public on a not-for-profit oasis if
copies are not otherwise available.
/ John William Washington
-------
i n
ABSTRACT
Since 1848, zinc smelting plants in Palmerton, PA, have been a
major source of income to the local economy, but atmospheric releases of
sulfur, zinc, cadmium, and lead, accompanied by the on-site disposal of
thousands of tons of spoils, have affected local soil and perhaps water
quality. The magnitude of the problem caused the Environmental
Protection Agency, in 1984, to include the immediate area in the updated
Superfund list of United States' most hazardous waste sites.
Unfortunately, the problem is not contained "on-site." The surrounding
land, much of it zoned for commercial agricultural use, has been
affected by fallout from tne smelter.
The field work for this project included collection of soil and
water samples from 65 farms and properties within an approximate 30-mile
diameter.
It is estimated that there is more than 3 Ibs/acre of smelter-
source Cd within an average 7.5 mile radius, and more than 10 Ibs/acre
of smelter-source Cd within an average 3.7 mile radius around the
smelters. Further, it is estimated that there is more than 150 Ibs/acre
of smelter-source Zn within an average 10.8 mile radius, and more than
500 Ibs/acre of smelter-source Zn within an average 4.3 mile radius
surrounding the smelters. These listed loading rates are considered to
be maximum safe loading rates for lands in general use in northeast
United States (Baker et al., 1985). The recommended loading rate tnat
yields the largest land area affected (150 Ibs Zn/acre) is exceeded for
approximately 360 square miles.
The water test results are less severe. Palmerton Township water
supply is well witnin tne mandatory drinking water limits *"or all the
-------
IV
metals tested. Only one private water supply was found to exceed the
safe drinking water standards for In, Cd, or Pt>. This water, from a
marshy spring approximately three miles north of the smelter, exceeded
the standard for Cd.
An equation that describes the distribution of smelter-source
metals was derived in part from atmospheric transport theory and in part
by nonlinear regression. The distribution of total Zn, Cd, and Pb in
soil, and plant-availaole Zn, and Cd in soil are described by the equa-
tion at a P = 0.01 statistical significance level. The distribution of
Pb available to plants, and Zn and Cd in groundwater are not described
by the equation at a significant statistical level.
Zn and Cd availability in soil are inversely related to total soil
Fe. Further, total soil Fe is found to decrease in a trend proceeding
northward.
Heavy loadings of Zn near the smelter are correlated with elevated
chemical activities of Ni, Al, and Mn in the soil solution.
Still other anomalous patterns of some trace elements in the soils
are related to the bedrock parent material. Patterns of elevated soil
pH and the ratio of exchangeable Ca to Mg are related to carbonate vs.
non-carbonate parent materials. Patterns in total soil Cu and
extractable soil Cu appear to be related to Cu-enriched bedrock in the
Martinsburg Formation.
Cd in groundwater is significantly related, in an inverse manner,
to both pH and well depth.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................... ix
LIST OF PLATES .................... . ..... xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................... xii
Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ................. 1
Project Goals ....................... 6
Thesis Objectives ..................... 6
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS .................... 7
Study Site ........................ 7
General ..................... ... 7
Climate and Weather .................. 8
Geology and Soils ................... 10
Emission/Deposition Estimates ............. 15
Establishing Necessary Lateral Extent of Sampling ..... 17
Field Methods ....................... 20
3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 29
General .......................... 29
Review of Contaminant Research Surrounding
Palmerton and Other Smelters ............... 34
Chemistry of Zn, Cd, and Pb ................ 36
Adsorption and Precipitation ............... 52
General ........................ 52
Adsorption on Clays .................. 53
Adsorption on Amorphous Oxides ............. 56
Adsorption on and Chelation by
Organic Soil Compounds ................. 60
Interaction with Carbonates .............. 61
Considerations in Lab Analysis ............. 65
4 MODELING SOIL CONTAMINATION VARIABILITY
FROM ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT ................. 67
Initial Assumptions .................... 57
Coordinate System: Variable and Constant
Designations ....................... 69
-------
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page
Relating Plume Parcel Volume to Distance
from Source 70
Concentration Change Resulting from Volume Change 71
Concentration Change Resulting from Fallout 72
Concentration Change Resulting from Volume •
Change and Fallout 72
Empirical Application and Correction
for Symmetry 74
Final Equation Form 77
Considerations in Applying the Regression 77
Estimating tne Total Mass of Metals Distributed 79
5 ANALYSIS OF EQUATIONS AND PREDICTIONS REGARDING
METAL DISTRIBUTION 83
Model Regression and Graphics Development 83
Regression Derived Equations 84
Inferring Equation Integrity '84
Relating Equation Coefficients to Phenomena
Represented by the Variables. 86
Estimating Total Metal Mass in the Soil 88
Estimating Integration Limits 88
Mass Estimates for the Derived Limits 89
Visual Inspection of the Plots for
Each Equation 90
Statistical, Coefficient Inspection, and
Mass Estimates of Equation Validity 91
Estimates of the Area Contaminated at
Critical Loading Rates 92
Soil Contaminant Loading and Horsenead
Lime Applications 94
6 STATISTICAL EXAMINATION OF THE DATA-
FACTOR ANALYSIS 96
General Review 96
Synthetic Compound Variables ..... 97
Soils Factor Analysis 99
Factor Analysis of Water Data 152
SOT! and Water Factor Analysis 163
7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 164
8 CONCLUSIONS 168
BIBLIOGRAPHY 171
APPENDIX A: Sample Locations 133
APPENDIX B: Water Properties 135
-------
vi i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page
APPENDIX C: Total Metals in Soil (ppm) 188
APPENDIX D: Soil Properties 190
APPENDIX E: Available Soil Metals (Ibs/Acre) 193
APPENDIX F: Soil Solution Metals (-log activity) 196
APPENDIX G: Site Data 199
APPENDIX H: Regression Equation Statistics 232
APPENDIX I: Aerial view of the West Plant over roughly
a 40-year period, in roughly 10-year
increments 235
APPENDIX J: Aerial view of the East Plant in 1959 240
APPENDIX K: Factor Analysis 242
-------
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Atmospheric data 9
2.2 Stratigraphy of eastern study region n
2.3 Stratigraphy of western study region 13
3.1 Basic physical and chemical properties
of Zn, Cd, and Pb 37
3.2 Log of complexation constants for various
ligands and metals 62
5.1 Regression coefficients for predictive
equations 85
5.2 Estimated areas of contamination covered
Dy recommended maximum loading rates 93
5.3 Horsehead Lime and soil Zn 95
6.1 Rotated factor pattern (varimax)—
soil data 100
6.2 A mass balance relating extractable Al
to leaching rate 129
6.3 Rotated factor pattern (varimax)—
water data (factor values are multiplied
by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer) 153
-------
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
^•"•^™« — _
1.1 Aerial photos of New Jersey Zinc Company 3
2.1 Sample field form 23
3.1 Schematic presentation of contaminant cycling 31
3.2 Solubility diagram for Zn 40
3.3 Speciation diagram for Zn 42
3.4 Stability diagram for Zn 44
3.5 Solubility diagram for Cd (in equilibrium
with CdC03 - otavite) 47
3.6 Speciation diagram for Cd 49
3.7 Stability diagram for Cd 51
4.1 Graph of Kg (Sin (9 - ,<1Q)) 76
4.2 Schematic presentation of the mass
(volume) of metals 81
6.1 Total Zn vs. radius 105
6.2 Total Cd vs. radius 107
6.3 Total Pb vs. radius 109
6.4 Extractable Zn vs. radius Ill
6.5 Extractable Cd vs. radius 113
6.6 Extractable ?b vs. radius 115
6.7 N1 activity (-log aNi) vs. total Zn (ppm) 117
6.8 Al activity (-log aA1) vs. total Zn (ppm) 119
6.9 Mn activity (-log aMn) vs. total Zn (ppm) 121
6.10 Extractable Ni (Ibs/AFS) vs. total Zn (ppm) 124
6.11 Extractable Al (Ibs/AFS) vs. total In (ppm) 126
6.12 Extractable Mn (Ibs/AFS) vs. total Zn (ppm) 123
6.13 Total Fe (i) vs. Y (miles) 136
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
F i gu re Page
6.14 (Extractable Zn)/(estimated extractable Zn)
vs. total Fe (%) 141
6.15 (Extractable Cd)/(estimated extractable Cd)
vs. total Fe (i) 143
6.16 (Extractable Zn)/(estimated extractable Zn)
vs. total Mn (Ibs/AFS) 145
6.17 (Extractable Cd)/(estimated extractable Cd)
vs. total Mn (Ibs/AFS) 147
6.18 Extractable Pb (Ibs/AFS) vs. total Mg (ppm) 151
6.19 Water Zn (ppb) vs. pH (-log aH) 156
6.20 Water Cd (ppb) vs. pH (-log aH) 158
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
In 1848 the New Jersey Zinc Company began smelting ores in a plant
just west of Palmerton in Carbon County, Pennsylvania (Palmerton, 1923).
Palmerton was an ideal site; it was close to a company-owned mine that
produced high grade ore, the land was cheap, there were abundant
supplies of coal and water, a large local work force, and large nearby
markets for the product (New Jersey Zinc Company, 1948). Business was
good and in 1911 the company expanded operations with a new smelter just
east of Palmerton. By mid-century New Jersey Zinc had developed into a
world leader in Zn production and research. In 1961 the company had the
largest mine output and the second largest slab Zn output in the United
States (Bureau of Mines, 1965). Further, the research division was
responsible for developments such as the continuous distillation
process, the rectification column, and various die casting alloys
(Bureau of Mines, 1965).
For the most part, the older west plant processed only a zinc
silicate ore having a low sulfur concentration; however, the newer east
plant began smelting zinc sulfide ore in 1915. Some of the smelting by-
products, including compounds of sulfur, zinc, cadmium, lead, and
copper, were released into the atmosphere while the less volatile wastes
were deposited on-site as spoil banks (see Figure 1.1).
Today activity at the smelters has been greatly reduced over what
it has been in the past. The smelters are easy to view; after more than
120 years of plume deposition, much of the adjacent land lies barren,
completely devegetated, and severely eroded (see Appendices I and J).
Research has shown much of the denudation is a result of severe metal
-------
Figure 1.1. Aerial photos of New Jersey Zinc Company.
A. lehigh Gap as viewed from the northwest.
8. Spoil Pile at the base of the northern slope
of Blue Mountain. Note the exotic grasses
planted as part of a revegetation project.
C. Blue Mountain in a less severely affected
area.
0. Close-up view of the devegetated slope.
-------
5
contamination (Buchauer, 1971; T. Nash, 1971; £. Nash, 1973), and the
Environmental Protection Agency includes "Palmerton Zinc Pile" in th«
1984 Superfund list of hazardous sites. Though these factors serve as
generally accessible and menacing reminders of an important
environmental problem, it is the unseen, subtle consequences of
atmospheric metal deposition that may disturb the regional ecosysteit
most drastically. While the spoil banks and devegetated areas have
discrete borders, the airborne contamination grades slowly towards
background concentrations over a lateral distance of tens of miles and
may extend to a depth of hundreds of feet. Much of the contaminated
land is in present use as commercial crops and dairy farms while the
underlying aquifers serve as the major source of rural water supplies
for the area.
For several years now local fanners and other concerned citizens
have expressed a desire for information regarding possible adverse
agricultural and health effects from this contamination. A letter from
one fanner to Samuel Smith, Dean of the College of Agriculture at Penn
State (April 25, 1983), expressed this concern very well:
The federal government—mainly USOA and EPA—have left
us in a quandary. Their few studies have indicated
excessively high levels of zinc and cadmium, but their
follow-ups are tardy. To make matters worse, the
release of the last study--about two years ago--was
accompanied by a warning that maybe it would be better
for some residents, particularly those near Palmerton,
not to grow or consume leafy vegetables, (p. 1)
Thus, this investigation was initiated primarily to provide
concerned farmers with soil tests and recommendations on an individual
basis and secondly to integrate tnis data into a cohesive overview of
the regional extent of contamination and its effects.
-------
The first goal was accomplished in 1983 when 65 soil and water
samples were collected, analyzed, and recommendations made on an
individual basis. This manuscript documents the techniques and findings
related to the second goal.
Project Goals
1) Inform concerned local farmers of the contaminant loadings on their
land and recommend possible treatments for the lands that may need
amendments.
2) Use the data compiled in the project to document, in thesis form,
some effects of the contaminants on the environment.
Thesis Objectives
1) Compare soil metal loading rates to those recommended by the
Technical Committee of the Northeastern Regional Research Group for
land application of sludges.
2) Compare degree of contamination of domestic water supplies to
Environmental Protection Agency mandatory limits.
3) Develop a model that will allow estimates of the concentration and
intensity of metal contamination in the soil and the intensity of
metal contamination in subsurface water at any location surrounding
the source.
4) Apply the above model to yield estimates of the total loading of
smelter-source metals currently on the land.
5) Attempt to identify effects of geology, soil type, soil mineralogy
and chemistry, and groundwater chemistry on the distribution of Zn,
Cd, and Pb.
-------
Chapter 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Site
General
In 1742, the first white men, Moravian missionaries, settled
permanently in Carbon County. Initial development was slow and the
first road through the Lehigh Gap was built in 1773. During the 1800's
the pig iron, coal, and forestry industries were established in the
resource-rich Ridge and Valley Province. It is on these somewhat
developed and disturbed lands that the New Jersey Zinc Company began
zinc smelting operations in 1848 under the name "Lehigh Zinc and Iron
Company" (Palmerton, 1923).
The valley that Palmerton sits in is, locally, the southernmost
member of a series of deep and narrow valleys within the Ridge and
Valley geologic province (Plate II and VI in pocket). The surrounding
ridges and the valley are underlain by thin, deeply dipping shale,
siltstone, sandstone, and limestone beds. The stratigraphic strike of
the beds generally runs southwest to northeast nearly parallel to the
major, local physiographic features (Plate II in pocket). Chestnut
Ridge delineates the valley to the north, Aquashicola Creek runs the
length of the val ley, and Blue Mountain borders it to the south. The
Lehigh Gap breaks Blue Mountain just east of New Jersey Zinc's west
plant and just west of Palmerton. South of the gap the Lehigh River
meanders across the softer beds of the Martinsburg Formation. Still
further south the river finds beds of limestone where it abruptly turns
east at Allentown to follow the limestone east to the Delaware River.
-------
8
Farming is only marginally economic in the Ridge and Valley
Province of Carbon County because the soils are often thin and the
slopes steep. Further to the northeast, in Monroe County, these same
landforms comprise the southernmost range of the Pocono resort area.
South of Carbon County, on the wide shaly slopes of the Martinsburg,
agriculture is generally more productive. Soils derived from
Martinsburg shale in Northampton and Lehigh Counties often hold moisture
better than most shale-derived soils. For agricultural purposes, some
might even consider this land part of the rich dairy lands of the Lehigh
Yal ley (Plate V in pocket).
Climate and Weather
The ridge and valley topography surrounding Palmerton greatly
influences local wind, temperature, and precipitation patterns.
Buchauer (1971) reported predominant wind from the north and west during
the winter season, while Gong (1975) found predominant winds were from
the southwest. Major local physiographic features run on a southwest to
northeast strike and as such may be conducive to similar wind patterns
locally.
Since New Jersey Zinc Company opened its weather station in 1962
the average yearly temperature has been 53.4°F with a minimum of -13°F
and a maximum of 105°F (New Jersey Zinc Company, personal communica-
tion). Annual precipitation has averaged 42.86 inches. During this
same period the relative humidity has averaged 74i and the barometric
pressure has averaged 29.64 inches. Wind directions, activity, and
average velocities are given in Table 2.1.
-------
Table 2.1. Atmospheric data.
Wind
Direction
N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
I Time
Active
8.74
27.72
0.75
1.75
10.72
21.40
17.45
11.65
Ave. V.
(meter/sec)
2.09
1.72
2.43
1.86
1.95
1.92
2.34
2.39
Stability
Category*
C
8
C
3
8
8
C
C
Average annual pressure ~ 1011 mb
Average annual temperature ~ 284.9*K
*Stabi1ity Category - as given for each windspeed and incoming solar
radiation value in Turner (1969). Windspeeds listed above were used
and slight to moderate (
-------
10
Geology and Soils
The local geologic formations are comprised mostly of folded sedi-
mentary beds (Plate VI and Tables 2.2 and 2.3). Deposition occurred
during the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian Periods of the Early
Paleozoic Era. During the Late or Upper Ordovician Period the
Martinsburg Formation was deposited, and today it consists mainly of
slate, siltstone, and quartzose sandstone. The Taconic Orogeny occurred
during the Ordovician-Si 1 urian Periods and the resulting sediments
eventually comprised the Shawangunk and Bloomsburg Formations of the
Early Silurian Period, consisting of conglomeratic quartz sandstones,
shales, and limestone. During the Late Silurian through Early Devonian
Periods a series of sea level changes occurred. The formations
resulting from this series of oceanic migrations included the rest of
the formations of the Silurian Period and all those of the Devonian
Period. The Appalachian Orogeny occurred at the end of the
Pennsyl vanian and Permian Periods and resulted in extensive folding and
faulting along a generally east-northeast axis. During the Mesozoic and
Cenozoic Eras, weathering and erosion have developed the topography to
the present-day state.
A very significant erosional period occurred during the Pleistocene
and Holocene Epochs when a series of glaciers covered much of the
region. The oldest evidence of glacial activity in the area exists in
northwest Carbon County where some workers claim that very patchy rem-
nants of Nebraskan or Kansan end or recessional moraine exist. More
generally agreed upon is the Muncy till of the Illinoian stage that, in
some of the low-lying areas of Carbon, Northampton, and Lehigh counties,
may cover up to 10* of the land area (Socolow, no date; Pennsylvania
Topographic and Geologic Survey). In Monroe and parts of Northampton
-------
11
Table 2.2. Stratigraphy of eastern study region.
Devonian System
Mahantanqo Formation, 2000': medium-dark-gray siltstone and silty shale
Marcellus Shale, 800': dark-gray silty shale with interbedded
calcareous silty shale, silty shale, and slightly calcareous shale
at the base
Buttermilk falls Limestone of Willard (1938), 270': limestone, calca-
reous argi11ite, argillaceous limestone
Schoharie Formation, 100': massive argillaceous calcareous siltstone
Esopus Formation, 180': silty shale and shaly to finely arenaceous
siltstone
Oriskany Group
Ridgeley Sandstone, 14-16': calcareous sandstone and quartz pebble
conglomerate with minor beds and lenses of siltstone, arenaceous
Is. and dark-gray chert
Shrjyer Chert, 54-85': siliceous, calcareous shale and siltstone
and beds, pods and lenses of dark-gray chert
Helderberg Group
Port Ewen Shale, 150'; calcareous siltstone and shale
Minisink Limestone, 14'; argillaceous limestone
New Scotland Formation
Maskenozha Member, 43-48': calcareous shale
Flatbrookville Member, 20-33': silty and calcareous shale
Coeymans Formation
Stormville Member, 2-26': biogenic and arenaceous limestone,
calcareous limonitic sandstone and quartz pebble conglom.
Shawnee Island Member, 35-60': argillaceous and arenaceous,
slightly limonitic limestone
Peters Valley Member, 3-9': arenaceous limestone
Depue Limestone Member, 13-17': arenaceous and argillaceous
limestone
-------
12
Table 2.2 (Cont.)
Upper Silurian and Lower Devonian
Rondout Formation
Mashipacong Member, 8-11': shale, calcareous shale, and
argillaceous limestone
Whiteport Dolomite Member, 5-9': dolomite
Outtonsville Member, 12-17': calcareous shale and argillaceous
limestone
Silurian System
Decker Formation, 84': quartz-pebble conglomerate, calcareous sandstone
and siltstone, argillaceous and arenaceous limestone and dolomite
Bossardville Limestone, 100': argillaceous limestone
Poxono Island Formation of White (1882], about 700': calcareous and
dolomitic shale, dolomite, sandstone, and siltstone
Bloomsburg Red Beds, about 1500': red, green, and gray conglomeratic
sandstone, siltstone and shale
Shawanqunk Conglomerate
Upper quartzite--conglomerate member, 816': limonitic, pyritic
conglomeratic quartzite
Middle quartzite—argillite member, 273': quartzose sandstone
Lower quartzite--cong1omerate member, 300': quartzite,
conglomeratic quartzite and quartz-, chert-, and shale-pebble
conglomerate
Ordovician System
Martinsburg Formation
Pen Argyl Member, 3000-6000': claystone slate, quartzose slate,
subgraywacke, and carbonaceous slate
Ramseyburg Member, about 2800': claystone slate, graywacke, and
graywacke siltstone
Bushkill Member, about 4000': claystone slate with thin interbeds
of quartzose and graywacke siltstone and carbonaceous slate
After Epstein and Epstein, 1969, and Gong, 1975
-------
13
Table 2.3. Stratigraphy of western study region.
Devonian System
Marcellus Sha'le, about 600': carbonaceous, silty shale
Buttermilk Falls Limestone of Willard (1938). 40-80': argillaceous
Fimes tone
Palmerton Sandstone of Swartz (1939), 0 to about 100': massive, partly
conglomeratic sandstone
Schoharie and Esopus Formations, undivided, 48 to about 110': cherty
siltstone and fine grained sandstone
Oriskany Group
Ridgeley Sandstone, 25-45': quartz-pebble conglomerate and
conglomeratic sandstone
Shriver Chert, 25-45': chert, sandstone and conglomerate
Helderfaurg Group
New Scotland Formation, 0 to 55': chert and shale
Coeymans Formation, 0-45': sandstone with arenaceous shale
interbeds
Silurian-Devonian System
Andreas Red Beds of Swartz and Swartz (1941), 0 to about 50': red,
green, and gray partly pebbly sandstone, siltstone, and shale
Silurian System
Decker Formation, 84': shale, siltstone, and sandstone
Bossardvllle Limestone, 100': argillaceous limestone
Poxono Island Formation of White (1882), about 700'; calcareous and
dolomitic shale, dolomite, sandstone, and siltstone
Bloomsburg Redbeds, about 1500': coarse sandstone with scattered clay
galls, siltstone, silty shale, and shale
Shawangunk Conglomerate
Quartzite-argillite Member, about 1225': mainly quartzite
Lower quartzite-conglomerate Member, 200-300': conglomeratic
quartzite
Conglomerate Member, 0-225': quartz-, chert-, quartzite-,
argillite-pebble conglomerate
-------
14
Table 2.3 (Cont.)
Ordovlcian System
Martinsburq Formation
Pen Argyl Member, 3000-6000': claystone slate, quartzose slate,
subgraywacke, and carbonaceous slate
Ramseyburg Member, about 2800': claystone slate, graywacke, and
graywacke si Us tone
Bushkill Member, about 4000': claystone slate with thin interbeds
of quartzose and graywacke siltstone and carbonaceous slate
After Epstein and Epstein, 1969, and Gong, 1975
-------
15
counties, the Muncy till is buried or truncated by Wisconsinan tills.
The first Wisconsinan substage, the Altonian, brought the Warrensville
till to much of Monroe County and the lower land in eastern Carbon and
Northampton counties. In places where the Warrensvi1 le has not been
covered by younger deposits, it may cover between 10 and 251 of the land
(Socol ow, no date). Much of the Warrens v i 1 1 e ti 11 has, however, been
buried or truncated in turn by the Olean till of the Woodfordian
substage. Olean till reaches through most of Monroe and part of Carbon
and Northampton counties. It covers between 25 and 50i of the land area
within its borders (Plate IV in pocket) (Socolow, no date).
To the west, the Central Susquehanna Valley has had a glacial
history very similar to that of Palmertoh and the surrounding area.
Marchand et al. (1978) have studied the Susquehanna region and asso-
ciated specific soil series with the above described glacial events. As
soil ages and degree' of weathering increases it becomes more difficult
to assign history to a soil body with certainty, but it is generally
bel ieved that Al 1 enwood and Washington seri es are deri ved from pre-
Wisconsinan till and fluvial deposits. The Leek Kill series has a well-
developed argil lie horizon, and a thick sol urn with distinct horizons but
there is only slight oxidation apparent in the Bt horizon. These
factors and others have led to the general consensus that Leek Kill is
derived from Altonian-age till. The Bath series, with no argil lie
horizon, is said to be derived from Woodfordian-age till.
Emission/Deposition Estimates
Estimates of the mass of pollutants emitted and deposited as a
result of smelting were made by J. F. Smith of the New Jersey Zinc
Company, F. McGrogan of the Air Pollution Control Division of the
-------
16
Pennsylvania Department of Health, and M. Buchauer of Rutgers
University. The following data and estimates (in Emission/Deposition
Estimates section) are all reported in Buchauer (1971).
In 1962, the Pennsylvania Department of Health estimated total
stack S02 emissions at 3300 pounds per hour while the New Jersey Zinc
Company estimated emissions at 3600 pounds per hour. These estimates
are regarded as higher than the average plant emission rate, however,
because the "East Chicago Roast" coal being used was exceptionally high
in SOg. I" 1970, the Pennsylvania Department of Health estimated SO3
emissions at 1400 to 1500 pounds per hour. Metal emission rates for
1970 were estimated at 583 to 833 pounds of Zn per hour and 6.7 to 8.3
pounds of Cd per hour. All sulfur and metal rate estimates are for a 24
hour emission-day. These emission rates yield an average ZnrCd emission
ratio of approximately 95:1. Total emission estimates for 1900 to 1970
are approximately 183,400 tons Zn and 2356 tons Cd. This yields an
average Zn:Cd emission ratio of approximately 78:1 for the period. Data
on the efficiency of pollution control equipment prior to 1960 are
meager, therefore the researchers estimate a potential error in their
work of almost 50 percent. Using dustfall data, the Pennsylvania
Department of Health estimated an average total of 17,000 pounds per
acre of Zn and 200 pounds per acre of Cd were deposited in Palmerton
between 1898 and 1970. Analysis of the top 6 inches of soil resulted in
total loadings of 10,600 pounds per acre of Zn and 155 pounds per acre
of Cd in the town. Analysis of the solum resulted in 12,000 pounds per
acre of Zn and 163 pounds per acre of Cd total loadings in Palmerton.
-------
17
Establishing Necessary Lateral Extent of Sampling
There are a number of studies of environmental metal concentrations
from the Palmerton area (Suchauer, 1971; T. Nash, 1971; £. Nash, 1973;
Lappin, 1972). Unfortunately, complications from predominant wind
patterns, local wind eddies, topography, vegetative cover, soil
chemistry, and sample analysis variability make all these studies insuf-
ficient for estimating the necessary lateral extent of sampling.
Or. Hans Panofslcy (Professor Emeritus, P.S.U. Department of
Meteorology) was consulted regarding how one might best approximate
atmospheric dispersion of stack effluent over extended time periods.
Dr. Panofsky recommended using the model for "Estimation of Seasonal or
Annual Average Concentrations at a Receptor From a Single Source," as
given in Turner (1969). The model follows:
t t a>f(«.s.N)
**
where:
X(X,9) • concentration at distance X and angle 9
Q a emission rate of stack
f(8,S,N) a frequency that the wind is from directions, and Pasquill
stability class S, and wind speed class N
°zs » vertical dispersion parameter at distance X for Pasquill
stability class S
Uty * representative wind speed for class N
HU « effective height of smoke release for wind speed u^
Since only a rough estimate of dispersion is necessary the
summations over S and N were dropped and f(9,S,N) was changed to f(9)
with S approximated and N averaged for every 9. Stability and the
-------
18
vertical dispersion variable were approximated using tables provided in
Turner (1969). Since the summation over N was dropped the UN term was
replaced by N. Finally, HU was approximated using the Holland equation:
He--J-n.5 + 12.68 x 1
-------
19
2Qf(e)
\*'yi /7rraz
The units of x are in mass of gaseous and particulate
eff1uent/vo 1 ume atmosphere; however, the desired units are mass of
adsorbed and settled effluent/land area. To correctly approximate the
desired units from the derived units one would have to apply an active
uptake model for gaseous phase and a settling velocity model for
particulate phase exhaust. Both of these models require extensive data
on the physical nature of the stack exhaust and considerable effort.
For an approximation it was assumed that soil metal concentration is
approximately equal to average atmospheric concentration times a
constant plus a background value (i.e., [Mesoil] = CMeatmosphePe] ' c *
CMebackground^" Buchauer (1971) provides Cd data for soils at various
distances from the Palmerton smelter. The Cd values to a six-inch depth
for two samples, taken approximately 1 kilometer west of the east
smelter, were averaged (440 ppm) and converted to total pounds Cd/acre
furrow slice. This value and location were then incorporated into the
transport model as a benchmark and used to derive the contours on Plate
I (in pocket). The outermost contour approaches the range of magnitude
typical of background values cited in the literature (Rose et al., 1979;
Baker et al., 1985). In order to check the model's validity contour
values were compared to local stream sediment values documented in the
literature (Gong, 1975) (Plate III in pocket). It was assumed that the
sediments of first-order streams would contain approximately the same
concentration of metals as the surrounding soils of the watershed. The
model and literature values compared well (Plates I and III).
-------
20
Considering the above predictive model it was decided that the
lateral extent of sampling should include the area encircled by the
outermost contour plus an arbitrary distance to ensure that the
background metal levels were represented in the sample population.
Field Methods
There are numerous approaches to sample site selection; in this
survey, an attempt was made to select potentially contaminated
agricultural lands so that most geographic directions and distances are
represented. These sites were selected from a list of landowners that
had expressed a desire to cooperate with the survey by contributing
S23.00 towards the cost of analysis. In order to identify and contact
the potentially interested participants, a meeting was arranged with the
U.S.O.A.'s Agricultural Extension Service agents for Carbon, Monroe,
Northampton, and Lehigh counties. A summary of the project objectives
and conditions was presented to the agents and they were asked to
provide a list of potentially interested farm owners in their respective
counties. Since the target sample population is agricultural land that
may be contaminated by smelter fumes, and since the samples were
purposely chosen so that most geographic directions and distances are
well represented, it is assumed that the sample population truly
represents the regional agricultural soil loading.
Before starting the field work, sample randomization was performed
by numbering the water* sample bottles, placing them in a large box,
mixing, withdrawing, and then placing them in a travel container in a
random manner. In the field the bottles were removed from the travel
container in a random manner once more. Soil and plant samples were
assigned the same number as the corresponding water sample followed by
-------
21
an S and P, respectively. Once on-site, the land owner was asked to
fill in the 1 ines preceded by an as ten' sk on a field information form
(Figure 2.1). The rest of the information was completed by the
researcher. The data filled in by the land owner, especially the well
data, are often only approximate.
The land owner usually chose the area of his property that he
wished to have sampled and the soil was sampled to the depth of the Al
or Ap horizon with a stainless steel hoi low-stem auger. The surface
horizon was delineated from lower horizons by the increased penetration
resistance of a plow pan or a color change in the withdrawn core. On
average, 12 to 20 cores were taken in an equal increment pattern over
the field. The number of cores taken depended on the field size,
sampling depth, and percent coarse fragments. The cores were placed
directly into a plastic Nalgene -2 mm sieve/sampler where the soil clods
and aggregates were broken by hand and then sieved. After mixing, a
subsample of this composite was placed in the plastic bag of a standard
Merkle Soil Testing Laboratory soil kit. (Merkle Lab is a Pennsylvania
State University sponsored/owned lab that specializes in testing soils
for properties pertinent in maximizing agricultural yields.) The sample
was air-dried in the open bag and stored for lab testing. The location
of the site was recorded on a field map and field parameters (slope,
soil texture, etc.) were estimated to facilitate future resampling (see
Appendix G).
Water samples were collected and stored in new Nalgene 150 ml
sample bottles with 7 ml of 1 N_ HN03 in each to (Tiaintain a fin^1 sample
pH of 2 to 3.5 depending on the alkalinity. The sampling location,
within the water system, was always as close to the source as
practically possible. When it was impossible to sample before the
-------
Figure 2.1. Sample field form.
-------
23
(P.S.U. Agronomy
AriEA DETAILED SURVEY
sampled by J. W. Wasnington)
Genera): Date
Kecent weatner
Property:
Soil:
•Owner name
•Address
County
•Pnone
Sample code Time sampled
Oeptn (at bottom of A norizon)
•Average moisture: boggy
moderately drained_
Texture (oy feel met nod]
Slope class
poorly drained_
ll drained
dry
Surrounding terrain & land use
•Crop rotation
•Residue: remains
removed
•Tillage: yes no till
*Have you applied Horsehead Lime, sludge, anisnal ^asce or any
unusual amendments to your field?
Miscel laneous
Water:
Sample code
Time sampled
•Owner use
•Oepth to Dedrocx
•Oeptn of well
•Oeptn of casiny
•Water level
•Aquifer roc* type
Surruunoiny terrain s land use
Temperature
?H
Conductivity
i). 0. content
•Hardware
Mi see Ilaneous
aquifer A sample location
Sa-nole code
Species
Parts sampled
-------
24
storage tank, the tank was evacuated if the owner would allow; if he did
not allow tank evacuation it was noted on the field form. Further, all
instances of below-tank sampling were noted and the tank described in
the field form (see Appendix G).
When sampling, the acidified sample bottle was filled under a
stream of water to the bottom of the neck. The cap was then filled and
poured into the bottle until the meniscus just passed the top of the
lip. In this manner a constant acid to sample ratio was maintained for
all the samples. When a spring source was available the capped bottle
was immersed to a depth of approximately 6 inches and the cap unscrewed
enough to allow the bottle to fill slowly. The sample was topped off as
described above. In this manner floating and settling debris were
avoided. In rare, noted instances it was necessary to sample from a 5-
gallon plastic Nalgene bucket (see Appendix G). When this was necessary
the bucket was rinsed two to four times and the sample fil led in the
same manner as in the spring sources.
In the field the water was analyzed for pH, electrical
conductivity, alkalinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (D.O.). The
pH, electrical conductivity, and alkalinity tests were performed on a
still pool of water in a 5-gallon plastic Nalgene bucket when the source
was not directly available. The temperature and dissolved oxygen wera
measured in a laminar-flow pool in the same bucket when the source was
not available. The pH meter was standardized with pH 4 and pH 7 buffers
and the readings are accurate to jM3.1 units in the range of 4 to 7.
When readings greater than 8 registered, they were recorded .is ">3."
The electrical conductivity was measured with a YSI Model 33S-C-T
conductivity meter having an accuracy with +_3.0i. The temoerat'-ire and
-------
25
dissolved oxygen were measured on a Y.S.I. Company model 54 ARC 0.0
meter using probe model 5739. The estimated accuracy is +_.7°C and _*li
full scale, respectively.
Plant samples were collected in the field from which the soil
samples were collected. The species collected were most often corn or
alfalfa. No formal analysis of the plant samples was planned but
selected samples were analyzed for metals just to establish the degree
to which some crops had been contaminated (Appendix G). The samples
were stored in porous brown paper bags.
The soil samples were tested at Merkle Soil Testing Laboratory for
soil pH, buffer pH, Bray 1 phosphorus, exchangeable potassium,
exchangeable magnesium, exchangeable calcium, cation exchange capacity
(CEC), and percent saturation of the CEC by K, Mg, and Ca (Hinish et
al., 1967). The soil pH is that pH resulting from the equilibration of
one part soil by volume with one part water by volume. The buffer pH is
used to determine the exchangeable acidity by the SMP buffer method
(Page, 1982). Phosphorus is measured by the Bray 1 method (Page, 1932)
and exchangeable K, Mg, and Ca are measured by exchange with NH^* from 1
N NH4OAc.
The soil samples were then transferred to the Soil and
Environmental Chemistry Laboratory where the researcher and lab staff
cooperated in performing the soil test of 3aker and Amacher (1981). The
soil test is designed to estimate the quantity of Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Na,
Al, Pb, Ni, and Cd available (labile pool) and the resultant intensity
in the soil solution. The estimate is performed by equilibration of the
soil with a test solution containing 1Q-3.6 M KC1, 10"3 M MgCl2, 10"2'3
M CaCl2i 10"3*4 M DPTA (diethy1enetriaminepentaacetic acid), and TEA
(triethano1amine) a weak buffer. An analysis of this equilibrated
-------
26
solution yields an estimate of the quantity of labile metals in the
soil. The value obtained for the total solution concentration for each
metal is then used along with the ion-OTPA formation constants, and test
solution pH (Baker pH) to estimate the activity of the "free,"
uncomplexed ions in the solution. This estimate serves as an estimate
of the intensity of each species in the soil.
Final ly, the soi 1 s were tested for total In, Cd, Pb, Cu, Mg, Ca,
Fe content Oy the following method:
1} Air dry and sieve sample (-2 mm). .
2) Weigh 5.00 g into a 150 ml beaker (+0.005 g).
3) Add 10 ml concentrated HNC^.
4) Heat slowly until dry without baking the sample.
5) Remove sample and allow to cool.
6) Add 20 ml 3 M HC1. Cover with watchglass and return to a
slightly increased heat.
7) Reflux for 2 hours (volume should decrease approximately 50%).
8) Remove from heat and cool.
9) Filter through 11.0 cm *40 Whatman paper and rinse the residue
with 1 molar HNOj.
10) Dilute sample to 50 ml with 1 M HN03.
11) Transfer sample to storage bottle.
12) Dilute samples in 5* HC1-5S HNO^ if necessary to run by atomic
absorption spectrophotometer.
The groundwater samples ana selected plant samples were also
analyzed for potential contamination. Water samples were analyzed for
Zn, Cd, and Pa and the selected plant samples were oven-dried and
analyzed for Zn and Cd. The soil OTPA-extractaole metals, soil solution
-------
27
metals, total soil metals, water Zn and Pb, and plant In and Cd were run
by open flame A.A. (atomic absorption) using an I.L. Model 751
spectrophotometer with background correction. Water Cd was determined
by flameless A.A.
In summary, the chemical and physical parameters that are
considered in this analysis include:
soil pH, buffer pH, Bray 1 P, C.E.C., and Base Saturation
exchangeable soil Ca, Mg, and K
soil DTPA-extractable or labile Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Na, Al , Pb, Ni, and
Cd
total soil Zn, Cd, Pb, Cu, Mg, Ca, and Fe
water pH, electrical conductivity, alkalinity, temperature, and
dissolved oxygen
water Zn, Cd, and Pb
The results of these analyses are provided in Appendices A-F.
The values for OTPA-extractable metals are reported in pounds per
acre furrow slice (Ibs/afs or Ibs/acre) because this is the form that is
most commonly used in agriculture, the field in which OTPA-extractable
metals is most commonly used (remember DTPA-extractable metals are
approximately equivalent to labile pool or plant available metals). The
soil solution metals are reported as pMe (3 -log ame where a is the
activity of the cation). The values for total metals in soils are
reported in parts per million (ppm). The values for groundwater metals
are reported in parts per billion (ppb) and the oven-dried plant values
are reported in ppm. Note that for soil values 1 ppm -2 Ib/afs;
derived by assuming bulk density ( 2b) - 1.33 g/cm3, afs ~ 1 acre x 5.67
inches, then:
-------
28
1 «»' W)<4^)
-------
168
Chapter 8
CONCLUSIONS
1. The New Jersey Zinc Company smelters, near Palmerton, Pennsylvania,
are a major source of of Zn, Cd, and, to a lesser extent, Pb
contamination in a large portion of Carbon, Monroe, Northampton,
and lehigh counties according the statistical tests performed on a
population of soil samples taken from the area.
2. According to a model that was derived partially on a physical basis
and partially on a statistical basis, the following soil loading
rates are exceeded over the following average radii and areas:
soil loadings of Zn exceed 150 Ibs/acre for 10.81 miles (367
miles2) or 500 Ibs/acre for 4.87 miles (74 miles2); and soil
loadings of Cd exceed 3 Ibs/acre for 7.55 miles (179 miles2) or 10
Ibs/acre for 3.79 miles (45 miles2).
3. The proportion of the total Zn or Cd loading that is in
extractable form in a soil is inversely proportional to the total
Fe in the soil. Further, total Fe in the A horizon of a soil is
inversely proportional to the latitude of the soil body.
4. On the basis of the statistical test used and for the sample
popul at ion tested the fol 1 owing may be stated: soils that have
been limed with Horsehead Lime have significantly higher loadings
of total Zn than soils that have not; and there is no significant
relationship between Cd loading and Horsehead Lime applications.
5. Elevated loadings of Zn and Cd may displace Cu, Fe, Ni, Al, and Mn
from the exchange complex resulting in significantly elevated soil
solution activities of these metals as shown by the soil test of
Baker and Amacher (1981).
-------
169
6. Elevated loadings of In and Cd are associated with a depleted
labile pool of Al and Mn as estimated by the test of Baker and
Amacher (1981). Much of this effect is the result of the testing
method.
7. Total soil Zn and Cd are concentrated preferentially to the
southeast and east of Palmerton. This asymetry appears to result
largely from the effect of prevailing winds,
8. Extractable soil Zn and Cd are concentrated preferentially to the
northeast of Palmerton. Apparently this results from the total
soil Zn and Cd deposition pattern in conjunction with the effect of
the total soil Fe trend from north to south.
9. There is approximately 147,000 tons and 2,400 tons of total,
smelter-source Zn and Cd, respectively, in soils surrounding
Palmerton as estimated by a model that describes the regional Zn
and Cd distribution.
10. There is no significant relationship between groundwater Zn, Cd, or
Pb and proximity to smelter for the population of waters sampled.
11. There is a significant inverse relationship between groundwater Cd
and pH, but no convincing relationship between Zn and pH for the
sample population tested. A relationship between Zn and pH may
have been obscured by variability in sample proximity to smelter,
the variability of source aquifers, or the effects of galvanized
plumbing in some pump systems.
12. There is a significant inverse relationship between groundwater Cd
and the depth of the well from which the sample came, but no
relationship between groundwater Zn and well depth for the sample
-------
170
population tested. Some potential effects listed in conclusion 11
may be active here.
13. Calcite parent material 1s best contrasted with non-calcite parent
material in the ratio of exchangeable soil Ca to Mg.
14. A Cu anomaly is present in the Martinsburg bedrock of the study
region; it may be an extension of the Central Copper-Nickel Region
recognized by Keith et al. (1967) in the vicinity of Harrisburg.
15. For atmospherically-transported contaminants, soil contaminant
levels and total soil contaminant mass may be predicted by an
equation that contains a term for plume dispersion, a term for
fallout, and a terra that corrects for asymmetrical distribution.
Before application, coefficients for the equation must be obtained
by nonlinearly regressing the equation against a set of sample data
from the region.
-------
APPENDIX A: Sample Locations
183
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
Coordinates
(miles± .01 mile)
Longitude
75 '40 '40"
75e28'20"
75°20'05"
75°19'35"
75°18'35"
75°23'10"
75 "41 '00"
75°20'50"
75°33'25"
75° 34 '45"
75°34'05"
75°35'50"
75°34'30"
75a42'40"
75°24'00"
75 '26' 50"
75°33'00"
75'19'25"
75°16'05"
75°22'25"
75°26<40"
75a35'55"
75 '32 '20"
75*13 '40"
75 '22 '35"
75° 31 '40"
75 "42 '25"
75°24'50"
75 '38 '45"
75 "42 '55"
75039 -00"
75°28'40"
75°33'55"
75 '43 '05"
75°44'10"
75°n'55"
75*37 '33"
75a25'15"
75 '43 '45"
75°22'40"
75°44'15"
75'27'15"
75°29'10"
75021'30"
75°27'35"
75°36'20"
Latitude
40°41'05"
40 '48 '05"
40°52'55H
40'45'45"
40°44'30"
40°43'55"
40*43 '00"
40 '38 '45"
40 '35' 50 "
40°39'05"
40°39'05"
40'48'35"
40038'30"
40'36'05"
40'52(15"
40°43'55"
40*47*05"
40°41'35"
40°54'45li
40°42'45"
40042'551'
40°48145"
40a48'35"
40a42'10"
40 '42 '15"
40a37'00"
40°36'50"
40°40'40"
40e47'20"
40 '00 '05"
40°40'00"
40a43'05"
40041'45"
40°38'15"
40°47'15"
40°49'20"
40°40'05"
40°38'40"
40°46'15"
40842'25"
40'42'55"
40'45'50"
40'54'55"
40°52'15-
40 '40 '00"
40 '47 '20"
X
-5.91
4.45
11.64
12.23
13.10
9.07
-6.23
11.32
0.39
-0.82
-0.27
-3.27
-0.63
-7.49
8.16
5.84
-2.17
12.46
15.07
9.74
5.99
-2.05
1.02
17.52
9.62
1.81
-7.33
7.73
-4.45
-7.89
-4.45
4.18
-0.23
-8.01
-9.07
18.82
-2.80
7.33
-8.64
9.54
-9.07
4.85
3.51
10.41
5.28
-2.40
y
-6.15
1.65
7.06
-1.10
-2.60
-3.11
-4.02
-8.99
-12.23
-8.48
-8.48
2.21
-9.11
-11.83
6.31
-3.15
0.55
-5.84
9.19
-4.53
-4.34
2.48
2.28
-5.16
-5.01
-10.85
-11,04
-6.78
0.90
-1.69
-7.41
-4.06
-5.44
-9.31
U.78
2.95
-7.30
-9.15
-0.35
-4.53
-4.10
-0.98
9.47
6.39
-7.49
0.32
-------
184
APPENDIX A (Cont.)
Sample
Number
50
52
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
71
72
Coordinates
(miles* .01 mile)
Longitude
75022130"
75 "44 '20"
75°31'55"
75 "23 ' 30"
75°37'35"
75°39'10"
75°30'55"
75°35'05"
75°26'05tt
75°35'2011
75834'55"
75°14'30"
75°27'30"
75°35'45"
75°43'05"
75825'25"
75°34'20"
75°14'25"
75°26'00"
Latitude
40°50'25"
40°46'45"
40°40'50"
40°53'45"
40°49'25"
40848'35"
40 049 '25 «
40°51'45H
40°52'20"
40°47155"
40°46'45"
40°46'30"
40°51'051'
40°46'45"
40°34'55"
40056(20"
40°40'15"
40°49'50"
40°55'50"
X
9.74
-9.23
1.49
8.48
-3.47
-4.77
2.17
-1.42
6.31
-1.57
-1.42
16.69
4.49
-1.93
-7.81
6.82
-0.55
16.65
6.31
y
-7.10
0.23
-6.55
8.12
3.19
2.60
3.15
5.91
6.51
1.49
0.78
-0.31
5.05
0.19
-13.14
11.04
-7.18
3.59
10.45
-------
188
APPENDIX C: Total Metals in Soil (ppm)
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mg
2860
782
3360
7270
6160
4520
2730
3210
3550
6860
6790
1540
4030
2850
1580
7650
998
3100
2090
5940
5130
1810
1440
2120
6130
2450
4350
6060
1690
1570
5220
6050
7630
4070
1900
3960
4360
2330
1790
7320
7850
4850
1750
Ca
1630
1140
2010
2810
2610
1590
1780
2460
2340
5800
5390
4410
5970
979
929
3450
3340
8450
1750
3200
1430
1490
1390
1840
3570
10900
1900
8580
1800
1180
2000
1560
2590
4280
2860
1250
1670
2100
2690
2940
1240
1950
186U
Cu
93.4
10.0
16.9
78.9
41.8
91.2
55.9
19.1
32.5
130.4
154.6
24.3
47.9
37.6
37.3
33.0
37.7
37.6
9.6
149.6
90.6
22.1
24.8
17.1
46.7
22.9
82.8
115.8
23.6
25.7
73.9
26.5
39.9
50.5
20.0
14.8
57.7
16,9
58.7
128.8
12.4
53.2
55.3
Zn
123
670
170
170
119
160
98
240
150
170
170
200
230
93
105
210
1300
118
83
180
150
510
760
87
100
130
114
150
330
290
150
130
410
112
220
67
140
115
220
180
190
200
99
Cd
0.48
11.28
1.10
0.55
0.42
0.77
0.33
0.52
0.53
0.64
0.67
1.93
1.55
0.21
0.63
1.05
26.10
0,42
0.39
0.66
0.87
9.39
16.80
0.36
0.36
0.73
0.33
0.46
3.36
2.08
(J.56
0.63
2.73
0.33
1.39
0.20
0.45
0.62
1.42
0.61
1.76
1.55
0.63
Pb
49,3
80.1
36.5
68.6
38.5
36.4
32.5
38.7
45.4
39.0
39.7
42.5
54.2
31.8
23.9
33.8
354.0
32.4
23.3
49.7
39.5
58.1
114.5
28.8
33.2
37.2
33.6
37.7
51.8
26.6
30.7
29.5
49.6
35.6
43.9
22.4
35.5
37.3
26.0
38.2
28.7
40.1
26.6
Fe %
3.2
0.5
2.7
3.5
3.6
3.1
2.9
2.8
5.2
3.7
3.8
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.0
3.6
2.0
2.2
1.5
3.6
3.5
2.4
2.0
2.7
3.3
3.7
3.5
3.8
2.3
2.4
2.9
3.4
4.0
3.7
1.8
2.3
3.8
1.9
2.4
3.3
1.1
3.2
2.1
-------
189
APPENDIX C (Cont.)
Sample
Numoer
46
47
49
50
52
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
71
72
Mg
1780
5550
1510
4510
1760
7720
3380
1014
2100
2270
1440
5660
1510
2230
2660
1690
2870
6610
1770
5240
6850
1150
Ca
900
1460
910
7760
2100
9710
1420
990
1110
1990
920
6630
8290
1450
1450
520
1380
1900
1460
5810
4090
1140
Cu
29.7
47.5
27.1
29.1
26.3
48.7
14.3
13.5
20.6
22.8
43.3
20.3
20.1
36.4
34.4
19.9
25.5
35.9
26.8
134.9
27.6
13.7
In
73
180
460
130
111
460
119
121
210
330
150
130
280
1800
87
160
1070
113
87
160
130
36
Cd
0.45
0.85
6.75
0.50
0.65
4.01
0.58
1.26
1.55
4.39
1.14
1.17
3.91
34.50
0.25
1.68
13.50
0.26
0.47
0.60
0.39
0.58
Pb
17.1
45.2
62.4
42.0
24.0
60.8
31.9
27.5
35.2
41.1
41.5
30.9
33.5
124.3
34.8
35.9
83.9
31.4
26.1
37.7
35.5
25.8
Fe I
2.1
3.5
2.2
3.5
2.2
3.3
2.5
2.2
3.0
2.4
2.2
• 2.6
2.6
2.9
3.7
2.6
4.1
3.4
2.5
3.4
3.6
2.0
-------
RATIONALE FOR SAMPLE DESIGN
IN PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF PALMERTON SITE
The basic purpose of the preliminary survey of the Palmerton area
is to obtain data for use in estimation of spatial structure and
extent of soil pollution by cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. The
sampling pattern was selected on the basis of the above purpose
and considerations of wind and precipitation patterns, local
topography, and the desire to obtain early information about
pollution levels in population centers.
The sampling pattern consists of a 400' square grid over a
diamond shaped area centered in Palmerton plus a system of
radials extending out from the center of the grid system for
distances of from two to five miles. The square grid provides,
in an efficient manner, many pairs of points along vectors in
eight directions which allow estimation of spatial structure
(i.e., spatial correlation and trends) of levels of each
pollutant. The radials provide information about thp extent of
the pollution problem as well as additional information a~bout
spatial structure. The bending of the radial that extends west
southwest from Palmerton was an attempt to follow air currents
moving in that direction from the smelters.
The choice of the grid size, 400', was based on information from
the Dallas Lead Study (see Brown, K., et al., EPA Report #
600/4-84-012) and the planned size of the entire Palmerton Study.
The Dallas Lead Study indicated that the range of influence of a
sample point (in giving information about the amount of lead at
another point) was about 1200'. The choice of a 400' grid allows
estimation of spatial correlations between pairs of points 400'
and 800' apart in directions parallel to the grid and about 560*
apart in the directions of the diagonals, thus allowing
estimation of correlation where we have reason to expect
correlation to exist. A grid size substantially larger than 400'
in the initial study probably would not be sufficiently intense
to identify the spatial correlation pattern. Knowledge of the
spatial correlation is needed to plan the second survey and, in
the final analysis of the data, to estimate the level of
pollution between sample points. On the other hand, it is
difficult to justify a smaller grid size since it would either
require more sample points or coverage of a smaller region. One
of the constraints of this study is that the total number of
sample points over both surveys should be about 800, and
therefore smaller grid size in the preliminary survey would
result in a less intensive (and/or less extensive) final survey.
-------
A previous survey of pollutant concentrations in the Palmerton
area by D. Washington of the Pennsylvania State University gave
some indications of the nature and extent of the problem.
However, that survey fails to provide the kind of information
needed to plan an intensive survey in that the sample points were
widely (usually more than a mile) and irregularly spaced. Hence,
from that data, estimation of spatial structure on the scale
required is impossible. In addition, differences in soil
sampling procedures and in -QA/QC procedures make it unlikely that
data from that survey would be comparable with data obtained from
the proposed EPA survey.
-------
-------
-------
ANALYSIS OF INITIAL PALMERTON SOIL SURVEY DATA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas , Nevada 89114
Technical Contacts
Thomas H. Starks Environmental Research Center
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Allen R. Sparks Computer Sciences Corporation
Las Vegas, Nevada
Kenneth W. Brown U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
APRIL 1986
-------
ABSTRACT
Soil sampling was performed, in October and November of
1985, to obtain information on the level, extent, and spatial
structure of metal pollution in the soil in and around
Palmerton, Pennsylvania, a CERCLA (Superfund) site. This was
an initial study to obtain information for use in planning a
final definitive study which in turn will provide a basis for
decisions about need, and locations, for remedial actions.
Concentrations of cadmium, lead, copper, and zinc in the soil
samples were measured. Measurements of 24 mg/kg of cadmium
were obtained as far as 8 km to the east of the center of
Palmerton and measurements as high as 160 mg/kg of cadmium were
obtained in Palmerton. To stabilize variance, logarithmic
transformations of the data were performed. The generalized
covariance functions for log-transformed concentrations were
estimated for each metal and in each case found to be white-
noise model functions (for distances of 122 m [400 ft.] or
more). The order of the intrinsic random function was
estimated to be 2 for each metal. Isopleths of estimated metal
concentrations over the central part of the City of Palmerton
are obtained.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
Introduction 1
Conclusions 3
Recommendations 4
Methods of Data Analysis 5
Results and Discussion 5
Reference 25
Append i ces
A. Listing of Metal Concentrations 3.0
B. Listing of 69 Sample Points Used in Estimating
Spatial Structure 35
C. Coordinates of Sample Points 36
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Designated sample point locations 2
2 Square grid for soil cores H
3 Cadmium concentrations (mg/kg) near center of sample
design 6
4 Cadmium concentrations (mg/kg) along transects. ... 7
5 Lead concentrations (mg/kg) near center of sample
design 8
6 Lead concentrations (mg/kg) along transects 9
7 Copper concentrations (mg/kg) near center of sample
design 10
8 Copper concentrations (mg/kg) along transects .... 11
9 Zinc concentrations (mg/kg) near center of sample
design 12
10 Zinc concentrations (mg/kg) along transects 13
i
11 Block kriging results for log-transformed
concentrations of cadmium in grid area (block size:
200'x200') 26
12 Standard errors for block kriging estimates of log-
transformed cadmium concentrations 27
13 Block kriging results for log-transformed
concentrations of lead in grid area (block size:
200'x200') 28
11 Standard errors for block kriging estimates of log-
transformed lead concentrations 29
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Results from Duplicate Samples 15
2 Descriptive Statistics for Entire Data Set (N-177). . 16
3 Descriptive Statistics for Grid Data (N-100) 17
U Descriptive Statistics for Reduced Grid Data (N-69) . 18
5 Correlations Between Log-Transformed Metal
Concentrations 19
6 Results from Splits 2.0
7 Results from Individual Cores 21
8 Results from 2.5 cm Segments to a Depth of 30 cm. . . 22
9 Results from 30 cm Cores Divided into 15 cm Segments. 24
-------
INTRODUCTION
Soil samples were obtained to gather information about the
level, extent, and spatial structure of concentrations of
cadmium, lead, copper, and zinc in the soil in and around the
Palmerton, Pennsylvania, CERCLA (Superfund) site. The purpose
of this soil survey was to obtain information for use in
planning a definitive survey of the metal concentrations in the
soil near Palmerton to be used in planning remedial actions.
The sample was performed in October and November of 1985, by
the firm of R. E. Wright Associates, Inc. This firm also
ground, mixed, and sieved the samples and split out subsamples
sent for laboratory analysis. These subsamples were analyzed
using analytical method EPA-600-4-7-9-520, Metals by Atomic
Absorption Methods, by the Soil and Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory of The Pennsylvania State University.
The samples were collected at 88 points on a square grid
over a diamond shaped area at the center of Palmerton and at
119 points along eight transects emanating out from the center
of the grid to locations as far as 9.5 km from the center of
the grid (see Figure 1). The designated distance between
sample points on the square grid was 122 m (400 ft). On the
transects, the distances between sample points varied from 122
m up to 366 m (except where no samples were taken when a
transect crossed shelter property). The original sampling plan
called for sampling at 211 points, and only four of those
points were not sampled. Failure to sample was either due to
inability to get authorization from a land owner or to nature
of terrain. The soil samples from 30 sample points on the
transects were archived without measurement. Hence,
measurements of metal concentrations were obtained at 177
points .
At each sample point, a core was taken from each of the
four major compass points on a 6 m diameter circle centered at
the designated sample point. The depth of the core was 15 cm
at all but 19 points where cores of 30 cm were obtained. The
core diameter in each case was 1.9 cm (0.75 in). For all but
ten sample points, the four cores were composited. At ten
sample points where 30 cm cores were taken, each core was cut
into twelve 2.5 cm segments and segments from the same depth at
a sample point were composited so that there were 12 samples to
be analyzed from each of these ten sample points to provide
information on how metal concentrations change with depth. For
-------
0)
c
o
•H
4J
fl
O
O
4J
C
•H
0
QJ
iH
a
-------
the other nine sample points where 30 cm cores were obtained,
each core was cut into two 15 cm segments and segments from the
same depth were composited to give two samples from each of
the sample points for further investigation of depth effect.
At ten sample points with 15 cm cores, the cores were not
composited, but analyzed separately, so as to obtain the needed
information to estimate how much of the variation between
sample point concentrations is due to variation between cores
at individual sample points.
For quality assurance purposes, duplicate pairs were
obtained at ten sample points. This was done by first taking
the usual sample of four 15 cm depth cores, and then taking
another sample of four additional 15 cm depth cores at
locations within 0.5 m of the cores in the first sample.
Analyses are performed on both samples, and the differences in
the results are due to short range spatial variation of the
metal concentrations in the soil and also due to variation in
sample taking, handling, subsample, and analytical techniques.
Two sabsamples (called splits) were taken, after grinding
and sieving, from ten samples and sent separately to the
laboratory for analyses. The results from splits give
information on the amount of variation in the results due to
subsampling and analytical errors. Splits and duplicates were
from different sample points. '-
CONCLUSIONS
Metal concentrations are highest between and at the edges
of the two smelter locations. While above background levels of
the metals are found out all transects, high concentrations are
most persistent along the Aquashicola Creek (east-northeast)
transect with 24 mg/kg measurements of cadmium found as far as
8 km from the center of Palmerton.
Variance of metal concentrations between cores at sample
points makes a large contribution to the variance found between
sample points. After making a logarithmic transformation of
metal concentration measurements to stabilize variances, sample
variance between cores is about 0.35, whereas variance between
sample points after accounting for drift is about 0.2 (Note
measurements at sample points come from the composite of four
cores.)
The spatial structure of the metal concentration
measurements after logarithmic transformations, was estimated
to be white noise with a nugget effect (or sill) of about 0.2
-------
for cadmium, copper, and zinc, and 0.36 for lead. The reason
for the difference between the nugget effect for lead and that
for the other metals is unknown, but -night be due to additional
sources for the lead. For all four metals, the order of the
intrinsic random function was estimated to be 2 .
RECOMMENDATIONS
The number of cores taken and composited at each sample
point should be increased so as to reduce that part of the
variance between sample points that is actually due to
variation between cores. It is suggested that 16 cores be
taken on a square grid with a 2 m distance between grid points
so that the outer perimeter of the grid forms a 6 m square as
shown in Figure 2.
6 m
e • •
6m—$|
Figure '.2. Square grid for soil cores
Additional information is needed on the spatial
correlations in the 12 m to 122 m (MOO1) range. To obtain this
information, sample points spaced 24 m apart should be taken
along at least three transects for distances of 120 m. This
would allow estimation of the short range spatial structure and
thereby improve the precision of interpolations between sample
points.
It is very important that the crews taking the samples
avoid sampling on atypical sample locations such as severely
eroded surfaces, recently filled surfaces or recently cut
surfaces. While measurements at such points may well represent
those points, they do not represent the surrounding area and
thereby do not lend themselves to interpolation processes.
-------
METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS
The first step in the data analysis consisted of plotting
the measurements at the locations on the map from which they
came to visually inspect for trends, anomalies, and range of
values. Quality assurance data from duplicates were inspected
to determine an appropriate transformation to stabilize the
variance (i.e., to obtain data where the variance is not
dependent on the mean concentration). Due to the small number
of duplicates available, this was done by inspection rather
than by any formal statistical technique. After
transformation, the variance of duplicates was calculated, to
determine the contribution of short range spatial variation and
variation in sample handling, subsampling, and analytical
techniques to total variation between samples. Also after
transformation, variance between splits was obtained to
determine the contribution of subsampling and analytical errors
to total variance of the data.
The spatial structures of the concentrations of the four
metals were obtained using a method consisting of
cross-validation and response surface analysis (see Starks,
1986). This procedure uses the fact that if the spatial
structure model is correct, point kriging estimates are
unbiased and, in addition, unbiased estimates of the sampling
variance of the estimators are obtained. The cross validation
involves point kriging at sample points using the measurements
at nearby neighbors and comparing the resulting standardized
residuals with results that would be expected in sampling from
a standard normal distribution. By the use of response surface
analysis, one can compare many models and find a model that
gives the best crqss-validation results. This procedure was
applied to the log-transformed metal concentrations.
Block kriging on 200'x200' blocks with the obtained models
for spatial structure using the BLUPACK software package,
yields plots and isopleths of the average metal concentrations
over the blocks with the region covered by the square grid of
sampling points within the City of Palmerton.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figures 3-10 give "post plots" showing metal
concentrations (in mg/kg) measured at the various sample points
for the top 15 cm. (In some cases, these measurements are
averages from several analyses.) These plots make evident the
-------
Ul 0
ir/4 **
tn ...-ill
ID
O
4
O
01
a . ?
in
ru
ru
— Ml
M) IP
(rt ry M)
0 01 05 CD 01
MI oj cn
M) ru 10
o *•
cr> ru
U>
17
in
*•
Ml
0 . -J
4
cn
ai
5
"\fl 0
(C 10
I/)
ru
en
cn
¥
t
Ul
+ Ul —
444
**• M> yj •— (p (\J
* 10 Ml •- t- *
M
— o o un in CD
* — >o in in 01
CO ^ CD •"• 01 flj 0^
* iu in — 01 — (B
01 01
O M) CO O O O «O
tM) * CO "1 " "
4 * T » 4 4
O
01 r~ o cn o o ui
M) -t in CO 01 - CO
ui MI ^- pv. m P*
MI ru cn 01 * *
o o 01
+ «> (O & «j T - . ij
S,
,
•
0
10
T - =
10
ru
Ml
m
CO
0
in
o
, , ,1 — 1_ 7 in
Q t/1
V) *
•H
to
a;
t3
o
r-1
a,
n3
cn
0)
4J
C
OJ
o
a>
c
i
cn
c
o
•H
4J
C
CU
o
o
o
(Q
(U
M
3
tP
•H
-------
o
CKTl
in
03
o
1C
in
Ou
in
CD
01
o
ru
in
o
in
m
in
CD
o
CD
to
o
cc
U)
o
in
8
S
CO
4->
O
0)
(0
c
c
o
I
tn
O
flj
C
0)
o
c
o
o
3
id
•
<>•
0)
3
•H
o in
CO CO
o
CO
-------
U) O
-
CO
o
co
It
, 4
CO
ru
s- ?
Wl
0)
*
«1
U5 C
- nj
l» W)
«n wi —
"• <• ru U) CO
C! O fv X U3 UI Wl
** nj *•*
— ru ru
01
"o CO
2
c
"5
*
0
0 . ?
C
4
UI
2
"\/l 0
CD U3
y,
CD
4
W)
ru
CO
ru
in
y
U) u) O
O >0 W)
wi 10 *•
444
O - — rv o m
OT ^ OT IX* *O 00
— nj ru * oa -
44444 4
ru en en ^ ru *-
1C ifi >r> rv nj *
i" u> "- o o (y
^ ru ui — o * »t
— - ru » in 10 1C
CO LO ") CD IO O O
u> nj wi o 10 ru ru
rv rv * o O f- *
«1 fU UI UJ (O o
i*> CO UJ — U? ^
i~- CO Ml CO - —
— (M * O f~ * 1/1
O O O U) iv 03 (XJ
CO ^" ^
» Ul f- — O IO
ru - «i »o ^ •*•
ru ru o * 01
^* u5 co o nj 1/1
ru — u) * ff) *
* en «•
* g «•
(y ^ (y
CO
U)
>o
CD
ry
UI
U)
<= ui
10 . *^
t
r" i i i i > i^,
.
O
UI
0
•o
o
IO
UI
T .0
U)
o
ru
*
& re o o
~ ^ *i *i us
o
O
10
I/I
- .
o
in
?
o
UI
o
* -
Wl
Q
CD
CD
5 u.
0 U,"0
I/I t
-------
3
CD
a
(J>
o
in
o
ru
01
(C
Ul
o
in
o
o
o
s
CO
Kl
10
in
(C
o
o
in
01
g
o
01
U!
O
-------
LO e
uitf> U>
^
i/)
4
O)
nj
4
1C
U3 UI
° - t T1
in
OH (« (ft
*V W) *
* •*• ui
>0 * IP
4 4 7
e en co -
fO Nl W1 >fl
? 7 ? T t
* ) ^ O nj eg *~ V) ^ Wl
LpT) (M OJ ^ fO «* "O ^ ^*
<7J
^ fi| y) O
Wl V ^ »—
S 2 =; 5
* U) O
•o o *
»^ *• W)
01 O
5- t t
cc
• 4
CD
cu
4
UI
OJ
.
Ul 1 i i i i .111
*\^ o
to ui
in o j1
ui ui •«
01
ID -
W OJ
* IS
*r> CD
4
>o
nj
t 7
CO 00
Ul — -
44 4
- IB
O 03 to *
— co - in
tui in i->
4*4
CO o
ru CD e> nj o
U? CD (D *• W
* m
^ T" 7 7 7 ?
inuJotnuiiciO'-oj
^ujcoco^iDiDcr*-
o CO
uj ui co 10 ff) tn
ru f» in >n ro —
ru
(VJ
cn o in o
ID in « —
ru
0 CO "• —
»- ^ >O ffl
0 01 CO
ff5 tP ^
f*. Q
S S
*
ru
«
ru
4
CD ">
CP , , , , , . . i—- -i £
in o L
ui in '
ui
C
•H
to
T3
«
in i— t
CU
6
(0
en
•4-1
O
QJ
jj
£
o
w
0)
c
Ul
^ ^-^
5*
^JC
>v-
e
o
•H
2
^j
c
0)
0
o 0
* O
M
0)
o
CJ
r~
QJ
V>4
3
•H
t,
1/1
n10
t
10
-------
1/1 o
I/I I/I
o
-| 01
CD
Ul
o
Ul
o
o
o
ut
01
U)
tvi
Wl
10
nj
o
o
U)
01
8
•8
o
CO
01
co
co
CO
0)
V
U5
fU
O
CO
(ft
^J
o
0)
Ul
m
o
Ul
Ut
Ul
Q
Ul
Ul
*
Ul
UJ
Ul
01
0
rq ru <* o
o
Ul
¥
Ul
nj
w
o
•<-*
4J
C
(U
o
c
o
U
(U
cu
ut
01
10
(fi
O (J)
GO
0)
M
3
m
in
CD
c
CD
in o
CO LO
IP C
Ul Ul
inc
01 ru
11
-------
u
«I°
%A
o
1/1
'.
c
r
u*'
^
Ul
-"u
u
1 0
3 U5
o
01
ru
• 4
in
10
T
o
(C
y
in
7)
CO
—
0
^
en
ru
o
en
ru
y
o
o *
CO >0
10 ru
44
0 O
o o o
CO - *»
f t <¥
> o o o o o
> ru o xs o o —
11 CD *5 ^ ru *1 CO
— ^ — < in *-
0 0
— 0 0
!•» CD ••»
- cp ry
0 O
0 0
in o
t
4
O
O
o
in
4
0
o
in
4
O
O
ru
in
4
in
in
o
o o
(U O
•O in
- »0
10 o
10 O
i~ ru
t 7
O O B>
O O 03
^ ffl QD
C'l ffl O
O
000
O O IB
0 "0 -
in co —
o o o
o o o
iu in en
J) OD (£.
4 * *
o o o
* 0 0
^~ CD QD
(U T "0
444
o o >n
0 0 r^
(U ID *
in g o o
i^ O
»o »c
>o nj
4 4
O O
o c
(D C
(n ^^
* *
O u-
in t
o
in
en
o
o
"1
4
o
o
ru
f
o
0
10
in
"
.
"
o
o
in
>->
a
o o o o
o o o *
co •* en ru
fU f^ XI *-
o * * *
o
^
GO
ft
1
o
o
to
a
e
&
o
4
* _
o
0
0
CO
ru
4
O
O
IB
c
o
X
O L
Ul '
tn
un
o
Ul
^
o
^
I/)
nw
t
C
en
•H
U)
1)
1)
rH
CU
(0
CO
0)
4J
c
•H
12
-------
001
o
t\J
o
ru
o
o
ID
OD
in
o
o
o
in
CO
o
IP
o
in
'CD
ru
«
o
o
10
IP
o
O
ru
o
o
o
ID
>O
ru
IB
in
o
o
o °
*— *
•o
o
10
in
cinoinoinoinoinc
0)
Ul
3
CP
•H
Cm
13
-------
high concentrations between and near the two smelter locations
and the steady decline in concentrations as distance from the
smelters increases.
Table 1 gives the results from the measured metal
concentrations of the ten duplicate pairs of samples as well as
the pair differences of the original measurements in mg/kg and
of the pair differences of the logarithms of the measurements.
Note that the sample variance of a sample of two observations
is 32=D2/2, where D is the absolute differences between the two
observations. Hence, changes in D, indicate how sample
variance is changing from pair to pair. In Table 1 , it is
obvious that for each metal D increases as the average of the
pair increases. However, the absolute difference L between the
logarithms of the two observations in a pair, does not appear
to be related to the average value of the pair. Therefore, the
logarithmic transformation, ln(metal concentration), does
appear to stabilize the variance. It is interesting to note
that the estimated variance between log-transformed
observations within duplicate pairs, s2=^Li2/20, is essentially
the same for all four metals. This is what! it should be once
the effect of the size of the measurements is removed by the
transformation since all four metal measurements are subject to
the same kinds of variation in deposition and errors in sample
handling and analysis. Investigation of the transformation,
ln(metal concentration - m), whe_re m was a positive number
slightly smaller than the minimum observed concentration, was
performed and it was found that the subtraction of m tended to
over-correct the data.
Descriptive statistics were calculated for the metal
concentration measurements (for the top 15 cm) and for their
log-trans forms. (For sample points with splits, duplicates, or
2.5 cm subdivisions, the average of the measurements from the
point is employed.) Table 2 gives the descriptive statistics
for the entire set of 177 points from which information was
obtained. Table 3 gives the descriptive statistics for the 100
sample points consisting of the 34 points on the square grid
and 2 points closest to the square grid from each of the 8
transects. Table 4 gives the statistics for the 69 points
remaining from the 100 used in Table 3 after 31 points were
removed because their site description forms indicated that
they represented measurements on recent fill, severely eroded
soil, or cuts, and thereby did not give an accurate indication
of the metal concentrations in the soil in their immediate
vicinities. A list of the 69 points used in Table 4 is given
in the Append i x B.
14
-------
TABLE 1. RESULTS FROM DUPLICATE SAMPLES
POINT
AK26
A030
BP30
BQ33
BQ34
BT32
BT46
BY29
DL78
DP34
Median
s2
CADMIUM
8.85
22.30
86.30
58.20
100.4
39.50
172.0
43.70
2.76
68.10
:
-[1^2/20-0.
7.35
8.46
63.10
40.30
77.10
37.90
144.0
34.20
2.71
61 .70
0691
D
1.50
13-84
23.20
17.90
23-30
2.40
28.0
9.50
0.05
6.40
11 .67
L
0.186
.970
.313
.368
.264
.041
.178
.245
.018
.098
.216
LEAD
208
128
478
221
400
275
960
410
33.
201
COPPER
AK26
A030
BP30
BQ33
BQ34
BT32
BT46
BY29
DL78
DP34
68.0
39.0
75.0
38.9
72.0
46.0
393.0
58.0
16.8
33.2
65.0
18.0
70.0
21 .9
66.0
40.4
352.0
33.7
15.0
30.9
3.0
21.0
5.0
17.0
6.0
5.6
41 .0
24.3
1.8
2.3
.045
.773
.069
.574
.087
.130
.110
.543
.113
.072
1110
2700
4200
5100
7800
3100
27000
2030
270
3000
180
104
382
87
318
199
780
,246
3' 33.0
161
32=0
Z
950
860
3000
3100
5700
2800
18800
1760
242
2700
D
28
24
56
134
72
76
180
164
0.3
40
64
.0751
INC
260
1840
1200
2000
2100
300
8200
270
28
300
L
0.145
.207
.224
.932
.229
.323
.208
.510
.104
.222
.215
.156
1.144
.336
.498
.31 4
.102
.362
.143
.109
.105
Median: 5.8
S2-IL12/20-1.2831 6/20-.0642
,112
750 .235
32-1.97737/20-.0989
15
-------
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ENTIRE DATA SET (N-177)
ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS
Statistic
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurt os is
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kortosis
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurt os is
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewnesa
Kurtosis
For reference, note that
are 0 and 3, respectively
(mg/kg)
CADMIUM
Value
2.14
364
54.55
65.32
57.70
88.33
4.02
41 .21
LEAD
24.2
1730
242
299.3
247.0
82.52
4.45
10. 17
COPPER
5.10
590.0
50.6
67.93
65.46
96.37
16.28
27.37
ZINC
236.0
40000
4100
5450.6
5484.0
100.6
6.58
12.98
LOG-TRANSFORMS
Value
0.76
5.90
4.00
3.75
1 .05
28.03
.55
2.72
3.19
7.46
5.49
5.38
0.85
15.89
0.16
2.72
1.63
6.38
3.92
3.94
0.73
18.54
0.03
3.^3
5.46
10.60
8.32
8.12
1 .08
13.3
0.23
2.63
the skewness and kurtosis of a normal distribution
•
16
-------
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR GRID DATA (N-100)
ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS (mg/kg) LOG-TRANSFORMS
Statistic
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurtosis
CADMIUM
Value
2.14
177.0
60.3
66.67
37.21
55.81
0.57
3.10
LEAD
32.5
850.0
256.0
31 1 .1
180.7
58.07
1.20
3.79
COPPER
17.17
590.0
53.55
69.50
62.17
89.^6
35.3
49.3
ZINC
410.0
23000
4850
5833.3
4293.8
73.61
3.44
7.13
Value
0.76
5.18
4.10
4.01
0.69
17.2
1.89
7.09
3-48
6.75
5.55
5.57
0.61
11 .0
0.24
3.62
2.84
6.38
3.98
4.06
0.56
13.87
0.34
4.57
6.01
10.04
8.49
8.43
0.74
8.81
0.33
4.12
17
-------
TABLE 4. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR REDUCED GRID DATA (N=69)
ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS
Statistic
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurt os is
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurt os is
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Std. Deviation
Coef. of Variation
Skewness
Kurtosis
(mg/kg)
Value
6.18
167.0
58.7
66. 44
36.47
54.88
0.54
2.84
49.9
850.0
272.0
306.2
176.4
57.62
1.48
4.18
18.8
166.0
52.0
63.75
32.57
51 .09
1.02
3.40
430
20600
4300
5341.7
3637.0
68.09
2.45
6.34
LOG-TRANSFORMS
CADMIUM
Value
1.82
5.12
4.07
4.03
0.62
15.36
0.51
3-97
LEAD
3.91
6.75
5.61
5.57
0.58
10.33
0.05
3.01
COPPER
2.93
5.11
3.95
4.03
0.49
12.25
0.01
2.30
ZINC
6.06
9.93
8.37
8.36
0.70
8.42
0.26
3.70
18
-------
The product moment sample correlations between the
log-transformed metal measurements are given in Table 5 for the
entire data set (N-177) and for the reduced set of grid points
(N»6 9) . As would be expected, these correlations are highly
positive. The correlations between the log transforms of
cadmium, copper, and zinc are virtually the same in the reduced
data set as in the full data set, while the correlations with
the log-transformed lead concentrations change. The reason for
this can be seen by looking at the plots of metal
concentrations, Figures 1-8, which show a definite decreasing
trend in cadmium, copper, and zinc concentrations from south to
north on the Palmerton grid, but no such trend for lead
concentrations. However, over the transects one observes the
same basic trends in concentrations for all metals. This
anomaly is commented upon again in a later paragraph on spatial
struct ure.
TABLE 5. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN
LOG-TRANSFORMED METAL CONCENTRATIONS
in
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Cd
Pb
Cu
Zn
Cd
Pb
Cu
Zn
ln( Cd)
) 1 . 000
)
)
)
ln( Cd)
) 1 .000
)
)
)
(N
In
0.
1 .
(N
In
0.
1 .
= 1
77)
(Pb)
88
00
-6
9
0
9)
ln(Cu)
0.
0.
1 .
(Pb) In
70
6
000
0.
0.
1 .
766
883
000
( Cu)
789
791
000
In
0.
0.
0.
1 .
In
0.
0.
0.
1 .
(Zn)
901
840
797
000
(Zn)
921
656
795
000
The results from the splits (i.e., subsamples taken from a
sample after grinding and sieving) for cadmium and lead are
given in Table 6. The results for copper and zinc are similar.
They indicate that very little of the variation observed
between duplicates was due to subsampling and analytical errors.
The variance of 1og-transformed measurements in the pairs of
splits is only about one-twentieth that observed between
log-transformed measurements in the duplicate pairs (Table 1).
19
-------
TABLE 6. RESULTS FROM SPLITS
SITE
DD70
BV35
CB34
BT70
AY34
BT35
DP82
CB42
BR34
CD24
CADMIUM
4.17
116
73.8
7.34
88.0
95.1
2.50
280
68.7
9.1
4.13
106
63.1
7.32
81 .9
83.1
2.U3
279
63.3
8.99
D
0.04
10.0
10.7
0.02
6.1
12.0
0.07
1 .0
5.4
0.11
L
0.010
.090
.157
.003
.072
.135
.028
.004
.082
.012
LEAD
33.
430
244
72
275
474
33.
1360
313
67
4 32.1
389
221
60
233
446
5 32.7
1340
294
67
D
1.3
41.3
23.0
12.0
42
28.0
0.8
20.0
19.0
0
L
0.040
.100
.099
.182
.166
.061
.024
.015
.063
0.000
32-0.0045
The results of measurements of cadmium an. d lead in
individual cores coming from ten of the sample points are given
in Table 7. Large variation between cores is evident. This
large variation between cores is certainly the major source of
the variation between duplicate pairs observed in Table 1.
Therefore to reduce the variation between duplicate pairs and
the short range variability of measurements one must take, and
composite, more cores at each sample point. (The usual formula
for variance of a mean and the effect of increasing sample size
does not apply here since the logarithm of an average
(composite) does not equal the average of the logarithms of
individual core concentrations.)
As stated earlier, at ten sites 30 cm cores were sliced
into 2.5 cm segments and segments from the same depth were
composited, while at another nine sample points 30 cm cores
were sliced into 15 cm segments and segments from the same
depth composited. At some of the sites the soil consisted of
fill, and thereby did not give an accurate picture of metal
transport downward in undistrubed soils. Tables 8 and 9 give
the results for those depth measurements not taken on fill for
cadmium and lead concentrations. The tables indicate that
concentration drops rapidly over the top 7.5 cm and less
rapidly over the remainder of the 30 cm.
20
-------
TABLE 7. RESULTS FROM INDIVIDUAL CORES
CADMIUM
POINT
8029
BR33
BR38
BS33
BU33
BU38
BX30
CF46
CI34
CJ50
s
30.7
56.7
104.0
42.9
29.4
64.0
56.3
51.5
112.0
0.75
W
5.0
66.8
147.0
21 .2
24.1
33.1
35.9
97.1
167.0
47.4
N
66.3
25.8
124.0
30.5
31.0
82.3
46.2
46.7
158.0
115.0
E
29.0
104.3
100.6
45.5
48.6
127.0
111.0
79.0
196.0
52.0
RANGE
61.3
78.5
46.4
24.3
24.5
93.9
75.1
50.4
84.0
114.25
V*
1 .195
0.339
0.031
0.124
0.877
0.316
0.234
0.121
0.055
5.159
*Sample variances of ln(Cd) over 4 cores at each site.
Extreme core values at each sample point are underlined.
Pooled sample variance based on first nine sample points: 0.3659.
Pooled sample variance based on all ten sample points: 0.8453-
LEAD
SITE
B029
3R33
BR38
BS33
BU33
BU38
BX30
CF46
CI34
CJ50
s
218
134
274
1930
201
393
397
132
1000
10.90
W
220
197
500
105
235
308
334
385
880
201
N
238
99
513
306
284
730
241
197
750
52"
E
528
377
413
531
183
930
1000
377
830
176
RANGE
310
278
239
1875
101
622
759
253
250
516.1
V*
0.183
0.333
0.084
1.493
0.037
0.265
0.372
0.273
0.01 4
2.785
*Sample variances of ln(Pb) over four cores.
Pooled sample variance over first nine samples: 0.339.
Pooled sample variance over all ten samples: 0.584.
21
-------
TABLE 8. RESULTS FROM 2.5 CM SEGMENTS TO A DEPTH OF 30 CM
POINT: BN34
LAND USE: Undeveloped
SOIL: Laidig sandy clay loam. 15-25? slope, severely eroded.
DEPTH CADMIUM
0-2.5 106.40
2.5-5.0 15.10
5-7.5 3.90
7.5-10 1.03
10-12.5 1.33
12.5 1.51
POINT: BQ32
LAND USE: Forested area
SOIL: Laidig stony silty
DEPTH CADMIUM
0-2.5 138.00
2.5-5 123.00
5-7.5 83.80
7.5-10 19.90
10-12.5 6.81
12.5-15 4.20
POINT: BW32
LAND USE: Residential
SOIL: Laidig silt loam.
DEPTH CADMIUM
0-2.5 106.00
2.5-5 21.85
5-7.5 21.13
7.5-10 18.20
10-12.5 33.50
12.5-15 44.70
POINT: CA27
LAND USE: School
LEAD
422.00
25.40
15.40
14.40
11.20
15.70
clay loam
LEAD
710.00
500.00
156.00
38.00
30.40
26.20
12$ slope
LEAD
408.00
70.50
62.30
92.00
138.00
202.00
SOIL: Hartleton shaly silt loam.
DEPTH CADMIUM
0-2.5 31.50
2.5-5 9.44
5-7.5 8.45
7.5-10 4.20
10-12.5 4.00
12.5-15 2.87
LEAD
95.00
43.00
42.70
40.10
38.70
33-40
DEPTH
15-17.5
17.5-20
20-22.5
22.5-25
25-27.5
27.5-30
CADMIUM
2.10
1.19
0.77
1.13
2.34
1.65
8-1 5% slope, stony, eroded
DEPTH
15-17.5
17.5-20
20-22.5
22.5-25
25-27.5
27.5-30
, shaly to extremely
DEPTH
15-17.5
17.5-20
20-22.5
22.5-25
25-27.5
27.5-30
0-3% slope.
DEPTH
15-17.5
17.5-20
20-22.5 '
22.5-25
25-27.5
27.5-30
CADMIUM
2.88
3.49
1.84
0.98
1.13
1.45
shale.
CADMIUM
19.10
23-90
33-10
30.60
24.50
37.10
CADMIUM
1.55
1.07
0.64
0.66
0.93
1.50
LEAD
20.00
17.90
15.20
16.10
25.90
19.00
surface .
LEAD
23.60
22.70
20.40
18.00
17.90
18.40
LEAD
85.00
101 .00
183.00
207.00
181 .00
217.00
LEAD
30.00
27.70
24.90
23.70
24.00
27.40
22
(continued)
-------
TABLE 8. Continued
POINT: CF34
LAND USE: Residential
SOIL: Middlebury silt loam.
DEPTH
CADMIUM
LEAD
DEPTH
CADMIUM
0-2.5
2.5-5
5-7.5
7.5-10
10-12.5
12.5-15
260.00
136.00
100.20
29.40
21 .40
12.50
1430.00
660.00
337.00
183-00
167.00
136.00
LEAD
15-17.5
17.5-20
20-22.5
22.5-25
25-27.5
27.5-30
10.90
3.47
2.98
4.74
1.13
0.91
120.00
82.00
41 .50
60.00
19.20
19.90
23
-------
TABLE 9. RESULTS FROM 30 CM CORES DIVIDED INTO 15 CM SEGMENTS
(mg/kg)
POINT: AH23
LAND USE: Wooded
SOIL: Montevallo shaly silt loam
25-35$ slope.
POINT: AS34
LAND USE: Woodland
SOIL: Laidig stony loam.
Ash-like accumulations,
Severely eroded.
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
17.80
1.83
LEAD
180.00
17. MO
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
38.60
4.83
LEAD
212.00
30.00
POINT: BF48
LAND USE: Forest
SOIL: 0-15 cm dark grayish browm
silt loam, 15-30 cm brown gravelly
silt loam. Extremely stoney land
POINT: BJ24
LAND USE: Golf course
SOIL: Montevallo silt loam.
8-19% slope.
Recent lime-ligh gray.
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
111.50
4.88
LEAD
394.00
32.00
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
22.40
1 .46
LEAD
94.00
23.10
POINT: BT19
LAND USE: Developed field
SOIL: Montevallo very shaly silt
loam. 8-15% slope.
POINT: CN54
LAND USE: Prior agriculture
SOIL: Bedington silt loam.
3-8% slope.
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
6.89
2.19
LEAD
37.80
19.70
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
23.40
0.94
LEAD
85.00
13.60
POINT: CZ66
LAND USE: Residential
SOIL: Andover loam. 0-3% slope.
POINT: DJ34
LAND USE: Industrial
SOIL: Tioga fine sandy loam.
0-3% slope.
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
15.50
6.92
LEAD
131.00
77.00
DEPTH
0-15
15-30
CADMIUM
97.00
16.80
LEAD
331.00
50.10
24
-------
The analysis of spatial structure involves the estimation
of a generalized covariance function and an order k for the
intrinsic random function representing each 1 og-transformed
metal concentration in the soil. The estimation was based on
data from the 69 data points listed in Appendix B. The
coordinates assigned to all 177 sample points from which
measurements were obtained are given in Appendix C.
White-noise and spherical models for the generalized covariance
function were tried. The estimation procedures (Starks, 1986)
found white-noise models and k-2, for each of the four metals.
The sill (or nugget) of the white-noise generalized covariance
functions were 0.23 for cadmium, 0.36 for lead, 0.19 for
copper, and 0.22 for zinc. One might have expected the sills
to all have been the same (except for some experimental error
variation), as those for cadmium, copper and zinc seem to be,
since they have all been deposited by the same process.
However, the sill for lead is much larger than for the other
three metals, and, in addition, there was little evidence of
drift over the grid sample points (i.e., the white-noise model
with k»0 gives very nearly as good a fit of the ln(Pb) data as
it does with k = 2 ) . While the reason for this difference
between lead and the other metals is unknown, one possibility
is that lead was deposited from other sources (e.g., car
exhausts) as well as from the smelters.
The white-noise model indicates no spatial correlation
between the sample points (which were approximately 122 m
apart). Since points were not taken at shorter spacings than
122 m, it is impossible to determine whether spatial
correlations exist at shorter spacings. However, if such
spatial correlations do exist at shorter spacings, it should be
worthwhile to determine the range of that spatial correlation
as it would allow more precise kriging interpolations between
data points than can be obtained with the white noise model.
The results of block kriging (block size: 61 m square
[i.e., 200' x 200']) to estimate log-transformed concentrations
of cadmium and lead with the white-noise model and drift of
degree 2, are given in Figure 11 and 13. Corresponding
standard error contours for these block kriging estimates are
given in terms of the log-transformed data in Figures 12 and
1 4.
REFERENCE
Starks, T. H. On the Estimation of the Generalized Covariance
Function. Technical Report, Environmental Research
Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.
(Submitted for publication in Mathematical Geology.) 30
pp. 1986.
25
-------
m
(D
LA Ol U) PI U)
r^ nj ni
LEGEND
< 3.2
< 3.9
< 4.6
< 6.0
Cant (PPM)
24 *S
4* 40
• • 4»
14* 40
LO« Cone
3.2
3 •
4 •
8.0
Map Unit* - 400 ft«t
Figure 11.
Block kriging results for log-transformed
concentrations of cadmium in grid area (block size;
200'x200' ).
26
-------
LEGEND
< 0.2
< 0.3
< 0.4
< 0.6
V.
Map Unit* - 400 feet
Figure 12.
Standard errors for block kriging estimates of log-
transformed cadmium concentrations.
27
-------
i e.e
i «.«
Cone <»»»•>
200 3
403 4
T3» 1
It? 3
log Cone
6 3
• 0
« •
• •
Map Units - 400 (««t
V.
Figure 13
Block kriging results for log-transformed
concentrations of lead in grid area (block size
200'x200').
28
-------
LEGEND
< 0.2
< 0.3
< 0.4
< 0.6
M*p Unit* - 400 f*«1
V.
Figure 14.
Standard errors for block kriging estimates of log-
transformed lead concentrations.
29
-------
Appendix A
Listing of Metal Concentrations
(Top 15 cm)
30
-------
Type
a a
u u E
(9 3 *
- *» U)
C - *
- o -
*: w a - —
N
c
J
N S
(.1
a -X
O W
a.
c
9>
tj *
J (
C
<* «
u •»
«• o
(A ""
*
X
£*»**£-
j-» *• a
a • • a I
*******
9 « * -9 U)
u u
6 -- fit*
(J — — W -
a a -
ID 3 3 ID a
- a ca -« <> * 10 * -* " OM ON -O •> * -0 n -0 » — O *1 N -< '^ 4 * * •<> * 0 » -O " * i> M IX
— 00*-«ON»'BOiJ)'3flO'B*1JI>*-»'Dr-h--"iBi>r»-"N*O'0»"'fl4 — ^ON^CWNON'BCO1*
n N i" oo rt c^ -T (INN* i^" ci 01 N n oo <•> •••> fo o (n (v) M n 01 o--. 00 o « » « « » oi v"» * ^ V rt 05 o^ * I1* 01 n n
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh-OOOOOOOOOOOOOC30>OOO3OOOOOOOO
IO IO O — on .j) .3 !0 * — -3 N O O N O O N OOOOOOO^OOOOQN'XO OO3OOOOOOOOOO
IO S > i11) '3 ^ -^ '43 T N JT5 <) i>4 * '3D IO 0 i"^ * 'X4 t1^ ^ *T OB N 0^ **> (> 09 O
M >\) — -•-•'*> K - — » •« N a) — -o o -o ~ f- 'B 10 — n •» - * o - N o - oo - 10 o - o
- N * - 'M . -
O 00 OJ * .1 W
'J
* -
•» 'S 0 N N « 0 *
o»»»«»'»a>-»
O N -• 1-4 O 00 OB »
INWOO»00(>N»N01— •BBUMi>O»(S|"-30^» ''J •?> * ^
• o * 1-4 oo •* •» » o » w 10 •» •• o on -• 'J> '3 K> \> * o '0 01 o •> o ID n
i f- t^ oj '-4 •> -n o * ID a> « N io N "4 A a o > N •> * a n o •» in » n
O O 3 O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O •» O O -3 v O O O O O -O O O
O N 0 O i"» O O •> » O O O O O O 10 >• O » T O O - O JO '0 O O -3 « V — »
•* 10
i1! -0 •
o o •» •" (0 •• - o ill * » •» f- en ^ 'B .
4 0 "4 * O -4 - (0 -« -• <3 N N 00 01 O -0 0 — 00 4 — (M 00
* - oo •» N ID '
> 'M » -3 — — O
o ri •» n o
i> 0 >?. r- * '
O N
—• N O O -0 00
OOOOOOO'3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOvOOO33(MOO'3OOOO3O3OOOO
OOOOOOOO--O3-OOOOOOIDOOOOOOOOOO3OOOOOOOOOOOO33OOO
' M N
fl — O1) » -• <0 il 01 * O H ('4 * - 01 •
><'>l-«'"N-«*N'"N-"-«'-N'<-'««^
31
-------
£
*>
i •
3
— *»
- •
O -
C >.
TJ „
4 91
• *
9>
tj 9)
01
U -
(A
C C
• •
• J< JC
Sii
a,
• ••
•0 « «
*«
«uu
U - -
--
iDaa
•33
NOO
5
a,
«
U
iO
«
M
.* *
-
« a
• •
£4
3W
k.-
3-
oa
u. o)
l.
3
o
u.
a
3
a
aa
• fi
TJ 4
n-
-a
M c/i
a.
3
a
**
grt »• > 00 >>J <*» — IO 0 \"» C » O N i1) 0 -• - N IO O — O W O i^l rt •> CO O *> 10 « •» " O - » O * '> 0> N >> ^ O O »
- N > PJ o n o o 10. 01 oo o i- j i- o •> i.~o - o » n >B co o •> h- » ^ w o <*> «3 o>j >ij oo K •> .» * o u n » o o > 3 o
o •<} a» >o 10 n >o -1 w 10 o - •> ••» * N » * N N •» n o 10 N -o -o -o >a o N o - o N ci * T 10 >a * * .D •» «n c o <•» >
01
ci
N n
ci » n <•> » N ft u M n'n M
•» 0 IO '
•:• £> O 0-4 0 '%1 i
01 * '--4 C1 >'0 f
OJ
N 4) * N
> 0 •> —
N ^ 0 O *
i J O •« 1^ ••
'I) '.D
— N >•"> i">
«> t-.i n 01
''I »1 •> '» * i> -T •> O
•> OB O l^ K 01 Cvj N 9.
» •> o* <> * * -o o o '•! "j « o •• •* •'•i N •> OB <*> o 10 » « o i j -j - 1>. o n rt a ••") o» o o o « »
iD * » O i-J N "iO • 4 - O >D t f n -« 10 i7) — N N t 0 * N (T IO 0 J) - T rt .1 h- - o * f- i J i J O C
•» o 10 o t~ • -t f to N - > .» •> o o o o •«• 'D r* 10 * - •> *i N • J >T >*> i"> a o o o o a •» •» * * o> o oo * -
IO 3 3 3 • I 3 O 33 'J 3 3 3 3 IP 3 3 3 M 3 3 3 3333-533333 3 3 :• 3 3 3 3 3 3 ; 3 3 O O 3 3 3
CO » O O * 3 0 'JJ 0 - 3 3 -3 3 ' 1 0 IO •> •» 3 O 3 '» 3 3 IO - 00 * t (n T > .-j ,;o ,-j j 3 -3 lO 3 O 3 3 3 3 3 IO 3
» O Ok O * N VI •» O rt ' J N 0 3 OB IO — » > -0 IO O * 9- 00 > N ^ •» 'T » O - 'B 3 O en ii 10 n 3 •> O 0 0 -« K iv4 i\4
^ O O lO k1*) 3 10 -^ iO 0^ ID ^ •> N 00 rt ^ •< 3 '^4 h- > i*^ <*J IO -••*-• »^4 r4 N *f x'O * t^ ^ ^ r» o '!0 00 b- 0 0 T) N ^- h-
- - 3
0 'B O N IO ^- 10 f~ CO W oJ » Ok C) 08 K O 09 ^ » 111 0} M IO O n -i N » 0 > 0 IO 3 N 3 t> 0 IO '1 >J) » N
NNNN*NNNNNNNNNNN>*NNNNN-4>«**-*«N-**4MNNN*4'-4NNNNNMCk4NNM
98888888818388888888888888228888888833388883888883
O**<»rt»OkK — -rtOK*»NN^OoKO01c>OIO'DNOBOkNt-»N«J'3K»-'*3Ol^*Ok
«UK-*O'y>O>OQ3IONi\>(kinno9v^CO 0 •" 0 » 'B rt ^ O OS » O h- 0 -0 M) T i"> N IO 0 d O-th-r
N — (*)rt — *P> NNrtOO^N^xNM^ i'1«B-«—'0 — — - N — N N N T lO * « —
i p- at 10
> N 3 O 3
0. 0> 3 *
p — — N «
' N N ••
«ooo-o-«S'B»NO>OkOkonNO
32
-------
o)
•3
••» •
- £
U U
a •*
— tt
•j -
£ 'Jl Q
44
2
N
_l
N
3
ji
•
-
a.
•
a
>
h-
•
«
a
8
*
tn
-?
s
*
e
*
— .
<• —
• ^ O1) ("> -• O ••• ** ••• ^ 'jO T t'O (*) <>
»- 0 03 ID N * <3 ••• 0* -* CO (** h- •> O 0 0 01 0
•^ v -4 •* 9*1 *J* <^ N> 0 ^ ^ ^ tO h* 0 '?* O 'B 'jQ '"1
OOOlOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
^* '^0 IO ® '?^ 00 00 *f ^* O ^" *f* '?* O O1) H? (1I3 'O ^
t >> O i1) oJ r- '.> '^ -3) — >> — -jfi 10 •>• O -* «:o •>
\^ N (O tn !D ^ •> ^1 tf) 0 W N- r^ 'D O -* •> *r IP
v- O O D O O O O O C N O C- O O O t> O O
0 O •> 0 409QCJt400f0 + OD3OO*Q
i*0 ^J *^ *•* 0^ CN 00 h* 'jO O'5^*— * ***^C*501O'^
N
Nrth-'BO)l>IOIO01IOrtOr)*'1llS'»ION(n
•
a
4
M
-•
a
01
* O * * rt
O 'B IO •» S
« w n co •••>
O O 3 O -3
•>
•3 3 '3 O •"•
0*003
'B " M >B •»
04 O * •<} 0
•
a £
e *•
<• a
« •
O 9
3
* 6
L
3 IO
O •
U. M
•
0 ••n O » 'xl
•> •>. 4 O *
•> >B <"1 C1) N
M (•» CO .^ ,1
o 10 o o) o
* •» «.( -3 '4
•?> K C>( M 0
3 U rt f -
-* •> S0 0 '»
•3 ui O -3 O
o ••» - - o
a> •>• » f 10
Ml
O ?*• tO "^ 0*}
J-
4«
a
•
TJ
s
U
ID
•
N
10 n to
O IO f-
m o o
«*pn
O O t-*^
IM n N
0 N N
3 O N
003
(-1 O -0
:
^
8
«
0
3
4
.73
0
U.
N »
10 4
CO "I
•3 O
t-J •>
l» IN
•> >
a) «
38
^ 'D
i
^
*•
ft
w
4
y
•
&
3
a
* *
r*. ,v> u ** ^ < O
» 0 » •> - « N 4
n .•«) .•o ^ * n o „,
•3 0 0 O -3 3 10 0
O N -3 •» f ( 10 .B -
0 0 O •> 01 -"1 0 -•
O 4 O •> i-l N 0 00
•3 3333 3 « 3
•o S O 3 '3 ») -3 3
0 O - 'D l) ,'•) 10 «
Nrt* O^NIOT
a
•
•^
s
IO
M
* *
•30 00 '» O "J
* '>• t N T
N 'I) N 'B O
M 0 00 N n
•3 O O O IO
0 !>• 0 4 f
10 N 10 .••)
O N N og -^
S O O f 0
3033 >-o
03 3 O .'o u">
3 •> 03 0 -•
IO 0 10 4 V
-
^
a
•o
a
n
M
*
23
h" ijk
fON
O IO
i> 'B
IA) f
O il
•
N. ^
« «
»x
m
.8888888888123 8888333833383882383838383883338388 S3 8
nonNfJN OON-M10O*» 0 OflNn-O
M OI0 O O O
OOOn-»>OTOO13OO
OOOOOOOO<»OOOOO«OOOOO
<3OO'5N'B
o -«
0
(A
aaaaaa
.O - N rt
nnnrt
>>>
aaaaaaaao
aaaiaaaAaaAaaaau
33
-------
<3
9
Ul
C
o
w
•
a
Q •
• —
A a
v. 8
3 <•
- *» Ul
bl Q - -
^ *—••••---•
C 71
-I S
C Tl
- iri
N >.
•n
C 'Jl
J
]f 9)
a N.
o S
-
a. m
• *
-I v
i)
8
e n
-I •
•3 91
« «
o ••
f O
» •••
(A
*
•
-*
t
Ul
V
•*
~w
a
Ul
•
•
—
a
01
4>
~
^
a
Ul
•
•
•
a
Ul
tt
•
•
a
Ul
»
ul —
C &
u 8
• •
•O A
3
S •
^
IO 3
• O
M U.
*
_
a
S
3
41
^
3
O
U. U
41
JC
a
•o
S
u
u
. •«
&
&
Ok
T3
8
u
K)
•*
^
r
a
•9
•
u
0
^
•
.«
a
Ul
w
•
^
a
Ul
*
£
«*
a
n
S
u
O
C
*
^
tf
•
4
u
^
a
3
0
c
JC *
4 •
V —
a
• l
* oo o — o oa * — -o * o -o * — ». OB >B o c| M n n
' N O I*) <*> N 00 N * i") 09 <") CO * CO N N N * N * N N <") N ^ N 'NJ ") M '
OOOOOOttOOOOOO SONOOOOOOOOO «O<)OOOO
O O * O 10 O - O IO O O IT) N O N ^ 0) 0 O O N O - en O « « <"» O IO 01 O
-. N • J »J — O. -0 r- !*• O — Ul *J » f 0 » « •'! T N •'•< rt !*> -0 ft '» N » S — <)
T cl O'>O OB N * 0 » M 00 N '4 O IO N -. -. -• 0 O O N (X >0
•• 1 IO i") » » N 0) * rt * 'N4 0 •> f» — O * O « O **i>IO»OO-N-«**
- ^ |>- fv « O 0 * -0 CM b- ^ i> « O O "1 O !>- O K '• 1 O >vl • 4 O « -• >v) O M O f- W 9 > O « i'i •»
O O
{N 0
« •» 10 C «« -B •« N •« VI
— >.| fj -• -•
— M .» C4 >
a)
I Or«--O—'>'-NNNK5<
> N M —
-«*4*NN'DN
-4 — •«
— — -o
-'>-00(OO-i»OK 0 CJ - « -
^-OlpNlOfONOi'»5*n<5N».C*(1>-«4'B''0 — »-Oh-
T»*--5o9'i-NrtJ)KN-'»'OiD»' » 'B n o «
N
ouoouwoououo
oo
oooaaaQ
««jn o rt
a o it) ui
34
-------
Appendix B
Listing of 69 Sample Points Used in
Estimating Spatial Structure
BP32 BP33 Bp34 BP35
BR3° BR31 BR33 BR3* BR35
3R38 BS29 BS31 BS33 BS3% BS35 B
8338 BT26 BT27 BT28 BT29 BT31 BT??
BT33 3T3^ BT36 BT37 BT38 BT lo BT
3142 BU29 BU31 BU32 BU3D BU35 BIH7
BV30 BV31 BV32 BV33 BV3% BV35 BV 6
BV37 3W31 BW32 BW33 BW3* BW35 BW 6
BW37 3X30 BX32 BX33 BX35 BX36 B?29
3Y33 BY34 BY35 BZ34 CA4
35
-------
Appendix C
Coordinates of Sample Points
36
-------
36
-------
UAllc.1 I (_'•-_,
unit
4OO
S i t f
Lumn
Row
Sitn
Column
Row
R055
RU3o
BIJ37
BU38
BU39
LW30
BV31
BV32
BV33
BV34
RV35
BVoft-,
BV37
BV38
BW3J
BW32
BW33
RW34
BW35
BI-J36
BW37
ex 30
BX32
RX33
RX34
PX35
RX3ft-
RX3:?
BY 21'
RY33
BY 34
BY 35
BY 39
BZ28
BZ34
BZ40
CA27
CA34
CA4 1
CB26
CB34
CB42
CC34
CD24
CD34
CD44
CE34
CF22
CF34
CF46
CH48
CI34
o,-,. it,
4ft, .21
46.0U
4fo . 00
4 ft.. 08
47.14
47. J 7
4ft.. 78
46.80
47.03
47. 19
4t" . 96
46.57
46.97
47.91
47.85
4 7. /I
47.97
4 ft. 02
48.05
47.83
48 . 96
49.04
49.00
4.-J.79
4 '••>'. 00
48.73
49.17
4s>.'-;>"
49 . 7'->
49. 97
50 . 1 7
49 . 93
50 . 88
51.00
50.91
52.25
51.88
52 . 00
52 . 99
53.00
53.00
54.00
55.00
54.97
55.00
56.00
57.00
57.46
57.00
59.08
59.99
5r,. 1 /
54 . 0 1
53 .00
52 . 00
50 . 88
60 . 00
58.77
57.38
57.20
55 . 68
54 . '"•>(_,
54.27
53.1:-:
52 . J 9
58 . 87
58 . 33
5ft,., -! 5
56 . 0 I
54 . 9V
54 . 44
53.25
6O ! •;
5:-;. i.7
57 . (jp
So. 13
55.0O
5"; . :•"':>
5 1 . i ..'."
1-1 .10
56 . : i 1
5 ft-,. 15
54.71.
51.04
61 .49
56 . 00
50 . 05
62.6.1
56.18
49.00
64.12
56 . 00
48.00
55 . 90
66 . 00
56.08
46.00
56 . 00
68 . 00
56 . 46
44.00
42.17
56.21
O.I5U
CN54
CR5f:
CV62
CX34
CZ6ft,
DD34
DD70
DH74
DJ34
DL7S
DP34
DP82
DT86
DV34
EC34
El 34
f-.l .00
t,5 . 00
6* . 00
73 . 00
74 . 56
77.00
81.00
31.00
84 . 54
87.11
88 . 98
93 . 00
q3 . 00
97.15
99 . 00
106.00
112.00
40.0O
3ft. . OO
32 . OO
28 . (DO
55 . 9 1
24 . OO
56 . 00
20.00
16. 19
55 . 5*
11 .88
5t. . OO
8 . 00
4 . 3O
56 . 00
56 . 00
5r, . on
37
-------
PALMERTON ZINC MPL SITE INVESTIGATION
SOIL SAMPLING PROTOCOL
September 27, 1984
-------
Section No.
Revision No.3~
Date 9/27/84""
Page 1 of n
EMSL-tV
PALMERTON ZINC NPL SITE INVESTIGATION
SOIL SAMPLING PROTOCOL
A. Location
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel from the Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory at Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) and/or personnel
from the Environmental Research Center of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas
will designate and Identify all sampling locations. The EPA's Region 3 office
will review and approve all sampling locations.
2. Samples will be obtained by compositing subsamples collected from
four (4) equally spaced locations on the arc of a six (6) meter diameter circle.
If possible, one subsample will be collected at the northernmost point on the
arc, one at the southernmost point, one at the easternmost point and one at the
westernmost point. Depending upon the sampling location, the following types
of samples will be collected:
a. Top 15 cm depth Increment, (approximate volume/subsample 80 g).
b. 15 on to 30 cm depth Increment, (approximate volume/subsample 80 g).
c. 2.5 cm depth Increments to a depth of 30 cm. (approximate
volume for each 2.5 cm depth Increment/subsample 15 g).
Sampling locations 1n which either the top 15 cm depth Increment, the 15 to
30 cm depth Increment, and/or the 2.5 cm depth Increments will be collected and
will be Identified.
3. To gain additional Information concerning soil variability, Individual
subsamples may be collected as Identified above and analyzed separately. These
subsamples will not be composited. Sampling locations for this test will be
Identified.
nenh
• Subsample
colltcting
ihts
-------
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84""
Page 2 of 13
EMSL-LV
4. The method for identifying soil sampling locations will be:
(1) A sampling grid will be used to identify sampling locations with-
in and covering the Palmerton sampling area. The exact sampling locations will
be identified on aerial photographs. Samples will be collected at or near each
grid intersection via the circular configuration previously described.
B. Frequency
1. The total number of soil sampling locations will be determined from
a preliminary soil sampling study. The sample collection methods for the
preliminary study will be identical to those identified for the definitive
study.
At five (5) percent of the sampling locations, duplicate samples will be
collected. At these prespecified locations, the duplicate subsamples will be
collected within a 0.5 meter radius of the original (initial) subsample collec-
tion location. The duplicate subsamples will be composited together and pre-
pared identically to those collected at the original subsample locations.
At an additional five (5) percent of the sampling locations, the samples
collected will be split into three homogeneous portions (see Attachment 2,
Sample Bank Procedures).
C. Pollutant Class
The soil samples will be collected for the analysis of cadmium, lead, zinc
and copper. Standard Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) analytical methods will
be used. The pH of all soil samples will also be determined.
D. Decontamination Blanks
Decontamination blanks are used to monitor sample handling procedures,
container cleanup, and to document cross contamination. Decontamination blanks
are to be prepared in the field and handled in the same manner as collected
samples. Decontamination blanks will be placed and remain in the field sample
storage container during the dally field sampling effort.
The decontamination blank will be analyzed by the CLP laboratory analyzing
the soil samples. Unless otherwise stated, the decontamination blank will be
001 (distilled delonized) water. The sampling teams as selected by sample bank
personnel or the on-scene coordinator shall transport DOI water to the sampling
locations and prepare one decontamination blank for every 20 soil samples
collected. The decontamination blank will be DOI water that has come in con-
tact with the soil corer or sample collection device. The decontamination
blank should be double bagged.
-------
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84
Page 3 of 13
EMSL-LV
E. Sampling Procedures
1. Container
The soil samples are to be contained in scalable polyethylene con-
tainers that have the capacity to hold 600 g. The samples are to be kept
in a covered container at ambient meteorological conditions until delivered to
the sample bank.
2. Container Preparation
The containers will be sterile Whirl-pak polyethylene containers. As
such, precleaning will not be required. These sample containers should be
stored and kept in a closed container to minimize atmospheric contamination.
3. Sample Collection and Handling Procedures
A noncontaminating (Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu) standard soil corer with an
inside diameter of 0.75 inches, and capable of a vertical penetration into
mineral soil 30 cm deep, shall be used to extract the four core subsamples.
The composite samples will consist of all four subsamples of corresponding
depth placed in the same sample container.
If sod layers are encountered, (90% vegetative material) such as
grass, remove the surface vegetative sod material by dissection using a scalpel.
Discard the scalpel blade and replace with a clean blade after sampling at all
four subsites. Pre-cleaned polyethylene gloves must be worn by the sampler to
avoid sample contamination during collection and/or dissection.
To determine and identify depth increments, measure the soil core
with a centimeter ruler. Using a clean scalpel blade for each depth cut and
place the measured soil core into the appropriate sample container.
Place any vegetative material in a clean polyethylene container and
attach a properly filled out vegetative collection tag to the container.
Vegetative subsamples will be composited identical to soil subsamples. Selected
vegetative samples will be submitted for Cd, Pb, Zn and Cu analysis.
The senior member of the field sampling team will be responsible for
adhering to the following sample collecting guidelines:
1. At designated grid sampling locations the sampling configuration
shall be located at the exact grid Intersection point. If this location is
unsatisfactory due to streets, structures, and/or other obstructions, the
sampling site can be moved within a 65-meter radius of the grid intersection.
If a sample cannot be obtained within the 65-meter radius the on-scene coor-
dinator or his designee should be notified.
-------
Section No.
Revision Mo. 3"
Date 9/27/84
Page 4 of 13'
EMSL-LV
2. Avoid if possible collecting samples that are less than 20 feet from
painted surfaces.
3. Locate collection sites as far as possible from vehicle activity such
as streets, driveways, parking and automobile repair areas.
4. Avoid if possible collecting samples under or immediately adjacent to
trees, shrubs, and/or structures.
5. Label the sample container with an appropriate sample collection
tag (example shown) supplied by the sample bank or on-scene coordinator.
6. Complete site description forms.
7. Thoroughly wash and rinse the soil corer in tap water and then rinse
the corer with ODI water after sampling at each location. A suitable brush or
Kimwipes may be necessary for adequate cleanings. If hot tap water is un-
available, use cold tap water with a suitable Cd, Zn, Cu and Pb-free labora-
tory detergent.
8. A number of performance and container contamination checks will be
completed before this monitoring program is initiated. (See Attachment 3.)
Project Code
Palme rton
Soil
(Source of Sample)
Grid Park School
Home PI ayground Other
Address of Site (or Location)
(Site Code)
Date
Sampler (signature)
Time
(Military)
Remarks:
Sample I.D. No.
Tag
No.
-------
Section No.
Revision
Date 9/27/84
Page
5 of 13
EMSL-LV
Sample Collection Tag
The sample collection tags have been designed for soil and vegetation
samples. They are serially numbered starting with a different block of numbers
for each media. The tags are preprinted to ensure that the required informa-
tion is provided on each tag. Each collected sample, including duplicates and
decontamination blanks, shall have a completely filled-in sample tag securely
attached to it. Duplicate depth increments and individual subsamples and de-
contamination blanks shall be identified in the "remarks" section of the tag
and by a specific sampling site identification code number. See Site I.D.
Soil Grid Sampling Sites, Attachment 1. Samples collected for splits should
be identified in the remarks section of the tag.
The person who physically collects the sample is the SAMPLER and signs the
sample tag. The SAMPLER initiates the custody record for transfer of samples to
the sample bank.
After the samples have been transferred to the CLP's Sample Bank and
documented there, they will be renumbered with a sample bank number and iden-
tified with a new sample analysis tag as shown below. This renumbering step
enables the submittal of duplicate samples and QC samples as blinds to the
analytical laboratory.
(Project Code)
Palmerton
(Sample Bank No.)
(sample Description)
Analysis
Metals
(Tag No.)
Analysis Tag
The original sample collection tag number 1s recorded in the sample bank's
master log and the tag itself 1s stored in the document file at the Sample Bank
(see Attachment 2, Sample Bank Operation). For vegetation samples only, leave
the sample collection tag on the sample container. TraceabiHty of samples
from collection location to laboratory analysis is required as such, cross
Indexing of all sample collection tag numbers, and corresponding sample bank
and analytical tag numbers must be made in the master logbook.
-------
Section No.
Revision No.3~
Date 9/27/84""
Page 6 of 13 '
EMSL-LV
The sample bank will be responsible for drying and mixing each soil sample
This drying and mixing procedure to achieve homogeneity will be accomplished by'
placing the total soil sample in a clean 500 ml glass beaker. Place the beaker
1n a drying oven at a temperature of 100°C for an 8-hour period or until the
soil sample is dry. After drying, place the soil in a nylon or a stainless
steel number 9 sieve. The unsieved portion (larger than 2 mm) must be re-
packaged and appropriately labelled for archiving at the sample bank. Place
all of the sieved portion in a stainless steel or nylon 100 mesh standard
sieve. Sieve all the soil through the sieve. Soil treatment with mortar and
pestle may be required for both sieving steps. Place the sieved soil in a Cd,
Zn, Cu, and Pb-free V-blending mixing device and blend for 200 folds. An
alternative mixing procedure is to place the sieved portion in a Cd, Zn, Cu,
and Pb-free porcelain grinding jar and mix by placing the jar on a multi-tiered
jar mill and rotate at a speed of 250 RPM for a 30-nrinute period. After the
mixing period, place 2.0 g of the dry soil in a clean polyethylene (HOPE or LPE)
vial sample container and attach a properly filled out sample analysis tag.
The remaining soil sample shall be placed in a clean polyethylene Whirl-pak
sample container and properly labelled so that it can be identified as being
part of the same sample as the analyzed portion. This remaining portion shall
be stored at the sample bank.
The vegetative samples shall be placed in a freezer at 0°C and stored at
the sample bank. Analysis of the vegetative tissue may be required at a later
date. Those soil samples Identified as splits will be dried, sieved and mixed
as described above. Three separate 2.0 g allquots will be prepared from this
mixed soil and placed in three clean polyethylene vials. One of the split
samples can be shipped to a referee analytical laboratory if utilized. The
remaining two split samples will be shipped to the same CLP analytical labora-
tory. The identification of these split samples must be documented in the
master log. Samples identified as duplicates on the sample collection tag will
also be analyzed by the same CLP analytical laboratory.
The equipment used for drying and mixing the soil must be decontaminated
after each sample. Wash and rinse each component of the drying and mixing
equipment in hot tap water and then rinse with DOI water. Use a Cd, Zn, Cu,
and Pb-free laboratory detergent and laboratory brushes or Kimwipes in the
decontamination procedure if required.
F. Site Description Form
An example of the site description form that will be used in this study
1s shown in Figure 1. The senior member of the field sampling team will be re-
sponsible for completing one site description form for each location sampled.
Documentation at each site should Include appropriate photographs showing the
area sampled. In addition, a schematic drawing showing sampling locations,
including dimensions and other pertinent Information such as structures, ground
surface characteristics, streets and driveways will be prepared. Dpcument any
changes that must be made 1n sampling configuration, i.e. 6 meter circle.
-------
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84"~
Page 7 of 13
EMSL-LV
If samples cannot be collected at the northernmost, southernmost, eastern-
most, and westernmost points on the 6 meter sampling circle, identify the exact
location on the circle where each was collected. Identify rationale for making
any changes.
The site description forms will be deposited with and stored by the on-
scene coordinator. Copies of these forms will be sent to EMSL-LV.
G. Sample Transfer Procedures/Chain-of-Custody
There will be a number of transfers of custody in this program. Samples
are to be delivered to the sample bank by the sampler. The samples will be
shipped or transported to the analytical and referee laboratories by the sample
bank. In addition, Quality Control (QC) samples will be shipped to the sample
bank for inclusion with collected soil samples. All entities that generate
samples for this study are required to initiate custody records.
Customized chain-of-custody record sheets, following the NEIC format will
be provided by the sample bank or the on-scene coordinator. Examples of these
record sheets are shown as Figures 2 through 4. Figure 2 1s used for samples
collected in the field, Figure 3 1s for shipping QC samples to the sample bank
and Figure 4 is used for shipping samples to analytical laboratories. CLP Form
may be substituted where appropriate (see USEPA "User's Guide to the Contract
Laboratory Program," July 1984).
The custody record sheets will be used for a packaged lot of samples; more
than one sample will usually be recorded on one form. More than one custody
record sheet may be used for one package, if necessary. Their purpose is to
document the transfer of a group of samples traveling together-, when the group
of samples changes, a new custody record 1s Initiated. The original of the
custody record always travels with the samples; the initiator of the record
keeps a copy. When custody of the same group of samples changes hands several
times, some people will not have a copy of the custody record. This is accept-
able as long as the original custody record shows that each person who had
received custody has properly relinquished it.
Using the Custody Record Sheet
o The originator fills 1n all requested information from the sample
tags.
o The person receiving custody checks the sample tag information against
the custody record. He also checks sample condition and notes
anything unusual under "Remarks" on the custody form.
o The orginator signs in the top left "Relinquished by" box and keeps
the copy.
-------
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84""
Page 8 of 13'
EMSL-O
e The person receiving custody signs in the adjacent "Received by" box
and keeps the original.
o The Date/Time will be the same for both signatures since custody must
be transferred to another person.
o When custody is transferred to the Sample Bank or an analytical
laboratory, blank signature spaces may be left and the customized last
"Received by" signature box used.
o In all cases, it must be readily seen that the same person receiving
custody has relinquished it to the next custodian.
* If samples are left unattended or a person refuses to sign, this must
be documented and explained on the custody record.
The sample bank will retain copies and/or original shipping papers, bill
of lading and other records dealing with the shipment of samples.
If discrepancies between sample tag numbers and custody record listings
are found, the person receiving custody should document this and properly
store the samples. The samples should not be analyzed until the problem is
resolved by contacting the on-scene coordinator or other designated
responsible authority.
The responsible person receiving custody should attempt to resolve the
problem by checking all available information (other markings on sample con-
tainer, type of sample, etc.). He should then document the situation on the
custody record in his project logbook and notify the on-scene coordinator as
soon as possible.
Changes may be written in the "Remarks" section of the Custody record and
should be initialed and dated. The copy of this record should accompany the
written notification to the on-scene coordinator.
Custody Seals
Custody seals will be required when shipping samples by commercial
carriers. The seals are narrow strips of adhesive paper used to demonstrate
that no tampering has occurred. They are Intended for use on a sample trans-
port container which 1s not secured by a padlock. They are not intended for
use on Individual sample containers.
Custody of Shipped Samples
When a group of samples with its custody form is to be shipped, the
shipper (e.g. sample bank personnel) accompanies the package to the carrier
-------
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84
Page 9 of 13
EMSL-LV
(e.g., Federal Express) so that, if requested, the number and identification
of the samples in the container can be verified. The commercial carrier is
not required to verify this.
The package is then closed with a strong, keyed padlock or strapping tape
and custody seals so that the carrier is transporting a secure container.
NEIC's recommended procedure for custody seal use on shipping boxes is as
follows:
e Place paper side of seal against box and wrap strapping tape across
the middle of the seal and at least twice around the box.
o Cut the tape so that the ends overlap at the seal.
o Fold the seal to itself over this overlap and sign the custody seal.
o Repeat this procedure as many times as necessary to seal the box for
shipment.
The person receiving custody of shipped samples must document the condi-
tion of the locked, or strapped and sealed shipping box on arrival. It must
be checked that neither the tape nor the custody seals have been cut or otherwise
tampered with. If the paper seal has been damaged in shipping but it is clear
that the shipping box has not been opened, further handling of the samples may
proceed. If tampering 1s suspected, the designated Sample Custodian shall
notify the on-scene coordinator and the sample bank supervisor.
(Chain-of-Custody Forms and seals available at NEIC.)
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Building 53, Box 25227
Denver, CO 80225
FTS 8-234-4650
-------
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84~
Page 10 of 13~
EMSL-LV
PROJECT CODE: Palmerton Zinc NPL Site DATE
SAMPLER:
SITE ADDRESS: (STREET, NUMBER, GRID COORDINATES)
TYPE OF SITE: (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL, ETC.)
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION OF SAMPLING: (BACKYARD, PARK, FARM, FOREST, ETC.)
'SKETCH MAP OF THE SAMPLING AREA ON BACK OF THIS FORM.
ATTACH POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH OF SAMPLING SITE TO THIS FORM.
ADJOINING PROPERTY: (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ETC.)
GROUND SURFACE: (BARE, LAWN, CROPS, ETC.)
STRUCTURAL ODDITIES: (SWIMMING POOLS, SHEDS, ETC.)
CANOPY LAYER (SPECIES, ESTIMATED GROUND COVER)
SAMPLE COLLECTION TAG NUMBERS:
CONDITION OF SAMPLING SITE: (DEBRIS, RESIDUES, STANDING WATER, ETC.)
REMARKS:
*Sketch of the sampling area should be prepared with fixed landmarks suitable as
reference locations. Distances and locations must be measured by tape or hand-
held range finding equipment, or a combination of both.
Figure 1. Sampling Site Description Form.
-------
I
ft
•
i
i
I
i
I
«
I
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84"~
Page 11 of 13
EMSL-O
m m
\ I
CM
41
3
-------
\
i
I
Section No.
Revision No.
Date 9/27/8T""
Page 12 o
EMSL-L\
i
I
i
j
I
I
J
J
«
i
t
-------
Section No.
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84
Page 13 of 13
EMSL-LV
J
I
1
1
i
s
r
i
i
I
\
01
3
-------
Section No. Attachment 1
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84
Page 1 of 2
EMSL-Ll
ATTACHMENT 1
SITE I.D. SOIL GRID SAMPLING SITES
I. Sampling Site Identification (Site Code)
Aerial photographs overlayed by a soil sampling grid will be provided to
each sampling team. Every grid line is identified. The rows are identified
alphabetically, and the columns numerically.
Each soil sample collected from the grid configuration will have a site
identification code that will identify the grid site from which the sample was
collected. It is required that all forms that originate with the sample col-
lection (sample collection tags, site description forms and chain-of-custody
forms) have a site identification code on them. Sample bank personnel will not
accept any sample in which information, as required on the forms, is missing.
The sampling team leader will be responsible for making sure all required
sampling forms are properly filled out.
The grid sampling site identification code will be as follows:
a. The first two letters will identify the grid location, PA
(Palmerton).
b. Place a hyphen (-) after the last letter of the grid location
designation.
c. The fourth and fifth spaces will be letters identifying the row.
d. The sixth and seventh spaces will be numbers identifying the columns.
e. A typical site Identification code should appear as PA-AA01. At five
percent (5%) of the grid sampling sites (these sites will be identi-
fied), duplicate samples will be collected. The duplicate (the second
one collected) will be identified by adding an A Immediately following
the number identifying the column. For example:
PA-AA01 Identifies the first soil sample collected at the PA location,
at the grid Intersection located in row AA, column 01, while PA-AA01A
Identifies the duplicate sample collected at the same location, row and
column.
For every 20 soil samples collected from the grid sampling sites, one
decontamination blank will be prepared. The on-scene coordinator or
his designee will select and notify the team responsible for collect-
Ing the decontamination blank on a daily basis as required. Decon-
tamination blanks will be Identified with a specific soil sampling
-------
Section No. Attachment
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84""
Page 2 of 2
EMSL-LV
site. The decontamination blanks will be collected immediately prior
to collecting a soil sample at a designated site. For example, if the
next soil sampling site is identified as PA-AF08, prepare the decon-
tamination blank first before collecting the soil sample. Identify
the decontamination blank by placing a B immediately following the
number identifying the column; i.e., PA-AF08B.
The appropriate site identification code for each soil sample col-
lected by grid designation, including duplicate and decontamination
blanks, must appear on the sample collection tag in the space identi-
fied (as site code) on the chain-of-custody form space identified as
site location, and on the site description form space identified by
site address.
Designations X, Y and Z immediately following the column identifica-
tion number will indicate the soil sample as split: i.e., PA-AD02X,
PA-AD02Y and PA-A002Z. The sample bank personnel, however, will add
the X, Y, and Z designation. Soil samples designated for splitting
will be identified.
The sampling teams will be provided aerial photographs identifying
the desired sampling location. The sampling team leader will be
required to plot on the aerial photograph the actual sampling loca-
tion. Photographs showing the actual sampling location will be sent
to EMSL-LV.
f. When individual subsamples are to be treated separately, identify the
collection location as follows: Place the letter N, indicating
northernmost part; W, westernmost; S, southernmost; and E, eastern-
most, at the end of the Identification code. A typical code for this
treatment should appear as PA-AA01W.
g. When identifying the 2.5 cm depth increments, place a hyphen at the
end of the last letter or number of the site 1.0. code and then place
one of the following numbers corresponding to a particular depth
after the hyphen. 1-0-2.5, 2-2.5-5.0, 3-5.0-7.5, 4-7.5-10.0, 5-10.0-
12.5, 6-12.5-15.0, 7-15.0-17.5, 8-17.5-20.0, 9-20.0-22.5, 10-22.5-25.0,
11-25.0-27.5, 12-27.5-30.0.
When Identifying the 15 cm to 30 cm depth increment, place a hyphen
at the end of the last letter or number of the site I.D. code, and
then place the number 13 after the hyphen.
A typical code for Identifying depth increments should appear as
PA-AA01-1.
For the top 15 cm depth Increment, use only the site I.D. designation
without the hyphen and depth designation number.
-------
Section No. Attachment 2
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/87""
Page 1 of 6 ""
EMSL-LV
ATTACHMENT 2
SAMPLE BANK PROCEDURES
I. Responsibility
The sample bank is the custodian for all records pertaining to the sam-
pling, sample preparation as required, and transport of environmental samples
to the analytical laboratory.
The sample bank is responsible for record filing and storing, for storing
and preparation of all samples, and for (if not designated to other parties)
dispensing containers, sampling equipment and all custody documents such as
chain-of-custody forms and sample collection and analytical tags, as required.
The sample bank is responsible for updating and maintaining the projects'
master log book, auditing the records as required, generating sample bank QC
sample blanks, accepting QA/QC samples for inclusion into the analytical scheme,
and for scheduling the collection of decontamination sample blanks.
The sample bank is responsible for completing, as required, analysis data
reporting forms and for assuring that all chain-of-custody requirements as
stated in the Palmerton Zinc Studies Quality Assurance Plan, pertaining to all
sample bank operations, are adhered to.
II. Procedures
a. Issuing Supplies:
(1) On a dally basis, or as appropriate, the sample bank will issue
as required sample containers, sample collection tags, chain-of-
custody forms as shown on Figure 2, and site description forms to
the sampling teams. As sample collection tags are accountable
documents, the sample bank will log the tags by numerical lot
Identifying the team and/or the Individual responsible for the
temporary custody of these documents. (This responsibility
may be delegated to other parties by the on-scene coordinator.)
(2) The sample bank may be required to store sampling equipment in
a suitable environment. If sampling equipment 1s stored at the
sample bank, Issuing this equipment to the sampling teams on a
dally basis, or as required, will be necessary. (This responsi-
bility may be delegated to other parties by the on-scene
coordinator.)
b. Accepting and Logging Samples:
-------
Section No. Attachment 2
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84"'
Page 2 of 6 ~
EMSL-LV"
(1) Transfer of sample custody from the sampler to the sample bank
personnel (any sample bank personnel may accept custody) will
normally occur at the sample bank.
(2) Before accepting custody of any samples, sample bank personnel
must check all tags and forms for legibility and completeness.
(a) All individual samples must have a completely filled out
sample collection tag attached.
(b) Every sample must be identified on the chain-of-custody form.
(c) Each site sampled must have a completely filled out site
description form. (Under some conditions, the sample bank
will not have to check for this; the on-scene coordinator
or his designee may assume responsibility.)
(d) Any discrepancy will be corrected before the sample bank
personnel will assume custody. If a discrepancy exists
that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the sample
bank personnel, re-sampling, filling out additional tags
and forms, and/or re-v1s1t1ng the site to obtain necessary
documentation may be required.
(e) All unused accountable documents, if possible, must be
returned to the sample bank on a dally basis. However,
depending upon circumstances such as a sampling team's
schedule and route, accountable documents may be retained
by the sampling team leader. The on-scene coordinator,
however, must be aware of the situation.
(3) After the sampler relinquishes custody and the sample bank person-
nel assumes custody of the samples, each sample must be logged
Into the master log book. The master log book should be a
suitable ledger with column headings, as shown on Figure 5.
Additional headings may be required as the program develops; as
such, blank columns should be available in the ledger.
c. Soil Samples:
(1) All sample bank numbers designating soil samples should begin
with the capital letter S. The remaining five digits will be
numbers beginning with 00001, I.e., the first soil sample logged
Into the log book will be S00001, the second soil sample S00002
and etc.
(2) The log book should be arranged in such a manner as to log media
1n groups. For example, all soils should be logged together,
all vegetation together, etc.
-------
I
ill
il
ii
iii
i
'a,
i
**
ii
I
I
K
4
i
I
Section No. Attachment 2
Revision No.3
Date 9/27/8T"'
Page 3 of 6
EMSL-LV
(fl
er>
•8
o
0)
4J
I/I
LO
4)
3
-------
Section No. Attachment 2^
Revision No. 3"
Date 9/27/84
Page 4 of 6
EMSL-LV
(3) The soil samples must be prepared for analysis by sample bank
personnel before they can be shipped and/or transported to the
analytical laboratory. The sample should not be given an ana-
lytical tag until after preparation.
(4) After assigning a sample bank number to the soil sample and
recording the proper information into the log book, place the
soil sample into a properly identified drying container (label
the container with the sample bank number). Follow the soil
sample preparation procedures as identified in the soil sampling
protocol.
(5) If the sample is a split as previously identified, prepare three
2.0 g samples after rotating (mixing). Place each portion into
a clean polyethylene vial. Attach a completely filled out
analysis tag to each sample, assign a sample bank number to the
two additional soil samples, place an X, Y and Z designation at
the end of the site Identification code numbers and log all
information into the log book.
(6) All soils samples are to be prepared identically, i.e. drying,
sieving and mixing. For those soil samples that are not
designated as splits, place 2.0 g of the mixed soil in a clean
polyethylene vial, attach an analysis tag to this sample and
record the necessary Information into the log book. The remain-
ing portion should be repackaged, labeled and identified by the
same sample bank number and then stored in a secure environment
at the sample bank.
(7) The analyzed sample shall consist only of mineral soil less than
2.0 mm. Material that 1s classified larger than 2.0 mm during
the sieving procedure must be described, i.e. approximate amount,
presence of paint chips, etc. Record this Information in the
master log book under remarks. Archive this material.
(8) The soil samples can now be prepared for shipment and/or trans-
ported to the analytical laboratory. Fill out the required CLP
Request for Analysis Form (see USEPA "User's Guide to the Con-
tract Laboratory Program" July 1984).
Record 1n the log book the initials of the analytical laboratory
to which the sample 1s to be sent and the date the sample was
submitted.
Fill out a chain-of-custody form (Figure 4 or use CLP Form),
Identifying the analytical laboratory to which the samples are
to be submitted, the analytical tag number of each sample in the
shipment, the sample description (soil), and any remarks concern-
ing the sample that are appropriate. Record the chain-of-custody
form number in the log book.
-------
Section No. Attachment 2
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84~
Page 5 of 6 ~
EMSL-LV
Remarks concerning the condition of a sample or other pertinent
sample information can be beneficial, especially during data
interpretation. Record in the log book any information that may
be appropriate.
(9) The analytical laboratory will analyze all of the soil in the
glass vial by pouring the total vial contents into a suitable
digestion container. Soil fines remaining in the glass vial
will be included in the analyzed portion by rinsing the glass
vial with the selected digestion reagent. Pour the reagent
rinse and fines into the digestion container.
(10) Soils analytical data will be sent from the Laboratory to the
Palmerton Zinc studies project officer (USEPA Region 3} for
validation. After validation, the data will be sent to the
EMSL-LV Palmerton Zinc Contact (Kenneth W. Brown) for Geo-
statistical Analysis.
d. Vegetation Samples:
(1) All sample bank numbers designating vegetation samples should
begin with the capital letter V. The remaining five digits will
be numbers beginning with 00001, i.e. the first vegetation sample
logged Into the log book will be V00001, the second vegetation
sample V00002, etc.
(2) After assigning the sample bank number, record the sample bank
number, collection tag number, date collected, media, chain-of-
custody form number, and the site I.D. code number in the log
book.
(3) Record the sample bank number in the remarks section on the
sample collection tag. Don't remove the sample collection tag
from the sample container; store the vegetation sample as
described in the soil sampling protocol.
e. Quality Control Samples:
(1) Quality control samples will be sent to the sample bank
accompanied by chain-of-custody forms as shown in Figure 3.
These samples will be appropriately Identified by sample
description and concentration. Additional Information may be
written in the remarks section of the chaln-of-custody form.
(2) These QC samples will be given a sample bank number beginning
with the capital letter N. The remaining five digits will be
numbers beginning with 00001, I.e. the first Quality Control
sample logged into the log book will be N00001, the second
N00002, etc.
-------
No. Attachment
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/84
Page 6 of 6 "~
EMSL-LV
(3) These QC samples will be logged in, documented, and shipped
Identically to the soil samples.
(4) The sample bank personnel will generate one sample bank blank
after preparing 40 soil samples. The sample bank blank will be
DOI water that has come in contact with both the soil sieve and
mixing equipment.
(5) These sample bank QC samples will be given a sample bank number
beginning with the capital letter N followed by a capital letter
B. The remaining four digits will be numbers beginning with
0001, I.e. the first sample bank blank logged into the log book
will be NB0001, the second NB0002, etc. The sample bank blanks
will be submitted to the analytical laboratory with the soil
samples.
(6) Every soil sample designated as a split by the site identifica-
tion code number ending with the capital letter X will be sent
to the Referee Laboratory if utilized.
The remaining splits (Y and Z designations) will be submitted
to the same analytical laboratory.
(7) Duplicate samples designated by the capital letter A at the end
of the site Identification code will be sent to the same analyti-
cal laboratory.
(8) The following 1s a listing of sample bank identification numbers
and what they designate.
Number Designation
S00001 Soil, Decontamination Blanks
V00001 Vegetation
N00001 QC Samples sent to Sample Bank
NB0001 Sample Bank Blanks
-------
Section No. Attachment 3
Revision No. 3
Date 9/27/8~
Page l of 2
EMSL-LV
ATTACHMENT 3
PERFORMANCE AND CONTAINER CONTAMINATION CHECKS
A number of performance and container contamination checks will have to be
completed before the collection and preparation of the grid soil samples. In
addition, these performances and container contamination checks will serve to
train sampling team and sample bank personnel prior to the initiation of this
monitoring program.
1. The on-scene coordinator shall select at the Palmerton NPL Site three
typical sampling sites, i.e. yard, field, forest, likely to be en-
countered by sampling personnel.
2. The sampling teams shall locate and describe the site using site
description forms and necessary measuring instruments. They shall
locate the specific sampling locations using the circular config-
uration and collect both 15 cm and 2.5 cm depth increments to a
maximum depth of 15 cm. The four subsamples of corresponding depth
shall be placed in a single sample container sealed and labeled as
previously described. Sampling equipment must be cleaned after the
collection of soil from each site.
3. Each sampling team must collect one duplicate, a decontamination
blank (before the second site is sampled), a 15 cm depth increment
sample and the 2.5 cm depth Increment samples. All forms including
sample tag, site description and chain-of-custody must be utilized
and properly filled out.
4. To Identify sample container contamination, three (3) sample con-
tainers from each lot will be filled with 001 water, carried to the
sampling sites and sent unopened to the sample bank after the soil
sampling 1s completed. These field blank samples shall be Included
on the chain-of-custody form, and identified as to the sampling site
they were transported to and lot in the remarks section on each form.
Identify each of these samples by the designation DOI-1, ODI-2, and
DDI-3, on an attached soil sample collection tag.
5. All samples are to be transported and/or shipped to the sample bank.
Sample bank personnel must check all forms for completeness, accept
custody if no problems are encountered and prepare soils for analysis
as previously described. All required documents, I.e., log book,
chain-of-custody and analytical tags, and procedures, I.e., assign-
Ing sample bank numbers must be utilized and followed.
-------
Section No. Attachment 3
Revision No.3
Date 9/27/gT""
Page 2 of 2
EMSL-I3
6. After mixing, every son sample collected 1s to be divided Into 2.0 g
allquots. Maintain the same sample bank number on all corresponding
allquots. Identity of the allquots will be accomplished by placing a
hyphen (•) after the last number of the sample bank number followed by
a 1, 2, 3 etc. (to the total number of allquots). Note 1n the log
book the total number of 2.0 g allquots obtained from each sample.
7. The on-scene coordinator or his deslgnee will select ten of the 2.0 g
allquots at random from each of the top 15 cm depth Increment samples
collected from the three sites for analysis. In addition, all blanks
(decontamination, field and sample bank), and all DOI-1 through DOI-6
samples will be submitted for analysis.
8. Sample bank personnel must prepare three sample bank blanks during
the soil preparation procedures. In addition, to check for poly-
ethylene vial contamination, three (3) vials from each lot are to be
filled with DDI water. Identify these samples as DDI-4 through
001-6, assign a sample bank number to each and then record in the log
book.
Sample bank personnel using appropriate forms, I.e., cha1n-of-custody,
will ship the samples to the CLP Laboratory for analysis.
9. After data validation, EMSL-LY will receive the data for evaluation.
-------
APPENDIX II
PALMERTON ZINC NPL SITE INVESTIGATION SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
A-2
-------
List of Sampling Locations
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOG
AA02
AC04
AE06
AG08
AH14
AH17
AH20
AH23
AH26
AK26
AM28
A030
AQ32
AS34
AV34
AY34
AY56
BA54
BB34
BC52
BD50
BE34
BF20
BF48
BG34
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
LOG
BH22
BH34
BH46
BI34
BJ24
BJ34
BJ44
BK34
BL26
BL34
BL42
BN27
BM34
BM41
BN28
BN34
BN40
B029
B033
B034
B035
B039
BP30
BP32
BP33
1
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
LOG
BP34
BP35
BP36
BP38
BQ31
BQ32
BQ33
BQ34
BQ35
BQ36
BQ37
BR30
BR31
BR32
BR33
BR34
BR35
BR36
BR37
BR38
BS29
BS30
BS31
BS32
BS33
-------
1
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
LOG
BS34
BS35
BS36
BS37
BS38
BS39
BT13
BT16
BT19
BT22
BT25
BT26
BT27
BT28
BT29
BT30
BT31
BT32
BT33
BT34
BT35
BT36
BT37
BT38
BT40
1
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
LOG
BT41
BT42
BT43
BT46
BT49
BT52
BT55
BT58
BT61
BT64
BT67
BT70
BT73
BT76
BT79
BT82
BU29
BU30
BU31
BU32
BU33
BU34
BU35
BU36
BU37
1
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
LOG
BU38
BU39
BV30
BV31
BV32
BV33
BV34
BV35
BV36
BV37
BV38
BW31
BW32
BW33
BW34
BW35
BK36
BK37
BX30
BX32
BX33
BX34
BX35
BX36
BX38
-------
1
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
LOG
BY29
BY33
BY34
BY35
BY39
BZ28
BZ34
BZ40
CA27
CA34
CA41
CB26
CB34
CB42
CC34
C024
CD34
CD44
CE34
CF22
CP34
CF46
CH20
CH48
CI34
±
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
LOG
CJ50
CL52
CN54
CP56
CR58
CT60
CV62
CX34
CX64
CZ66
DA34
DB68
DD34
DD70
DF72
DG34
DH74
DJ34
DJ76
DL78
DM34
DN80
DP34
OP82
OR84
I LOG
201 DS34
202 DT86
203 DV34
204 DY34
205 EC34
206 EF34
207 EI34
208 EL34
209 E034
210 ER34
-------
PALMERTON ZINC NPL SITE INVESTIGATION SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
A-2
-------
Sampling Locations for 2.5 cm. depth increments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
BH34
BN34
BQ32
BQ36
BT34
BW32
BW36
BZ34
CA27
CF34
Sampling Locations for two 15 cm. depth increments (0-15 cm
ana ID-JO cm.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
AH23
AS34
BF48
BJ24
BT19
BT52
CN54
CX34
CZ66
DJ34
Sampling Locations for four individual subsamples
1. B029
2. BR33
3. BR38
4. BS33
5. BU33
6. BV38
7. BX30
8. CF46
9. CI34
10. CJ50
Sampling Locations for duplicates
1. AK26
2. A030
3. BP30
4. BQ33
5. BQ34
6. BT32
7. BT46
8. BY29
9. DL78
10. DP34
-------
Sampling Locations for splits
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Sampl
ini
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
AY34
BR34
BT35
BT70
BV35
CB34
CB42
CD24
DD70
DPS 2
ing
tial
AA02
AE06
AH14
AH20
AH26
AM28
AQ32
AV34
BT55
BT61
BT67
BT73
BT79
CL52
CP56
Locations where soil samples that will not be
ly submitted
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
for chemical analysis
CT60
CX64
DA34
DB68
DF72
DG34
DJ76
DM34
DN80
DR84
DS34
DY34
EF34
EL34
ER34
-------
PALMERTON ZINC NPL SITE INVESTIGATION
PHASE II SOIL SAMPLING
REWAI/G+W
DATE 05/20/86
ATTACHMENT IB
List o-f 121 Sampling Location Coordinates
As Proposed by REWAI/G+W
IS
-------
PHASE II VERIFICATION SOIL SAMPLING LOCATTn.NS
NUMBER LOCATION
NUMBER LOCATION
NUMBER LOCATION
1
- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
77
38
39
40
41
AE2S
A628
AI28
AJ21
AK07
AK10
AK12
AK15
AXIS
AK28
AM24
AM26
A028
AG28
AQ40
AR37
AR39
AS19
A520
AS23
AS24
AS26
AS28
AS31
AS35
BA18
BA21
BA23
BA26
BB36
BQ64
BS72
BI57
BJ71
BK57
3L65
BM21
BN57
BN64
BN72
BO23
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
30
31
32
PQ56
BR26
BR65
BS72
BU56
BV72
BW64
BX22
BX56
BY24
CA21
CA64/
CA72,/
C319
CD64
CD72
CI25
CI32
CJ1S
CJ20
CJ22
CJ26
CJ29
CM25
CR18
CR25
CU23
CU27
CU30
CU31
CV18
CV21
CV23
C224
OBIS
OB28
DC24
OG24
DK19
OK20
DK21
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
DK24
DK26
DK31
DK33
DK36
Du22
DT30
DT32
DT36
Duia
DV21
DV22
DV26
DW28
EB28
EE26
EE30
EE31
EE35
EE37
EF27
EF29
EF32
EF39
EL26
EL29
EL32
EM37
EN24
EN27
EN40
EQ27
ER32
ET24
ET27
ET30
ET37
ET38
ET40
-------
NUMBER LOCATION
NUMBER LOCATION
NUMBER LOCATION
ARCHIVED SAMPLES FROM PHASE I SAMPLING TO BE ANALYZED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
AH14
AH20
AH26
AM23
AQ32
AV34
BT55
BT61
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
BT67
BT73
BT79
OA34
DQ34
DM34
DS34
DY34
17
IS
19
EF34
EL34
ER34
PHASE II VERIFICATION SAMPLING DUPLICATE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
1
2
Z
4
AK28
BU56
CB19
DK26
PHASE II VERIFICATION SAMPLING SPLIT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
1
2
3
4
BI57
DV26
EL32
ET4B
-------
-
-------
Pag* 1 o-f 12
REWAI/G+W
PALMERTON ZINC NPL SITE INVESTIGATION
PHASE II SOIL SAMPLING PROTOCOL
A. Location
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel from the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory at Las Vegas (EMSL-LV)
and/or personnel from the Environmental Research Center of the
University of Nevada, Los Vegas, have proposed four hundred and
eighty four (484) new Phase II soil sampling points in the Palmerton,
PA area. These locations have been established on a grid and transect
system prepared for the Palmerton area and Mere provided to R. E.
Wright Associates, Inc. (REWAI) by EPA's Region 3 office. A list of
the EMSL-LV proposed sampling locations is provided as Attachment 1A.
Isopleth maps of cadmium and sine concentrations based on
Phase I soil sampling have been prepared by REWAI and are provided as
Drawings Numbers 8498-0C3-E and 8498-005-E. Validation of these maps
Mill be accomplished by collection and analysis of samples from one
hundred and twenty one (121) of the new Phase IX sampling locations
proposed by EPA, as well as analysis of nineteen (19) archived samples
collected during Phase I. If the results from these one hundred and
twenty one (121) new sampling locations significantly change the
mapping patterns depicted on Drawings 8498-083-E and 8498HB05-E, the
remaining three hundred and sixty three (363) locations will be
sampled and analyzed. A list of the one hundred and twenty one 1121)
sampling locations is provided in Attachment IB.
2. Samples will be obtained from each new sampling site by
compositing four (4) subsamples collected from the compass points
(N, E, S * W) on the arc of a six (6) meter diameter circle, plus four
(4) subsamples collected from the minor compass points (NE, SE, SW *
NW) on the arc of a 4.23 meter diameter circle, plus one (1) subsample
collected at the center point of both circles, for a total of nine (9)
subsamples as shown bel<
-------
Date (35/20/86 _
Page 2 o-f 12 _
REWAI/G+W
3. All . subsamples for compositing shall be collected from the top
15 centimeter increment o-f soil.
4. The identical 400 X 400 foot sampling grid utilized for the
Phase I sampling effort was used to identify Phase II soil sampling
locations within and covering the Palmerton area. Phase II soil
sampling locations are identified in Attachements 1A and IB. The exact
sampling location will be plotted on aerial photographs by the on-site
REWAI sampling team. All samples will be collected at each o-f those
locations using the circular con-figuration previously described.
B. Frequency
1. Phase II soil sample collection methods will be identical to
those employed for the Phase I sampling effort
At -five (5) percent o-f the sampling locations, duplicate samples
will be collected within a 0.5 meter radius o-f the initial sub sample
collection location. Duplicate samples will be composited together and
prepared identically to those collected at the initial sub sample
locations. Sampling locations for duplicates are identified in
Attachments 1A and IB.
At an additional -five (S) percent of the sampling location
samples will be collected for splits. Samples designated as split
will be divided into three homogeneous portion* at the Sample Ban*
(REWAI) and submitted to the laboratory -for analysis. Sampling
locations for splits are identified in Attachments 1A and IB.
C. Pollutant Class
Soil samples designated for analysis will be transmi
le Bank to th» Pennsylvania State University, State
analysis. Samples received by Penn State will be a
ium and Zinc using analytic method EPA-6ae-4-79-S2B ,
transmitted by the
Sample Bank to th» Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA
for analysis. Samples received by Penn State will be analyzed for
Cadmium and Zinc using analytic method EPA-6ae-4-79-S2B , Metals by
Atomic Absorption Methods.
Penn State University will maintain proper Chain-o-f -Custody for
all samples in their possession as well as provide proper Quality
Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) as described by Attachment 1C,
o-f REWAI 's Phase I Soil Sampling Protocol dated 11/20/85.
D. Decontamination Blanks
Decontamination blanks will be used to monitor sample handling
procedures* _ container cleanup and to document any cross contamination
of samples." Decontamination blanks will be prepared in the -field and
-------
Date 05/20/86
Page 3 o-f 12
REwAI/G+W
handled in the same manner as collected samples. Decontamination
blanks Mill be placed and remain in the -field sample storage container
during the daily -field sampling e-f-fort.
The decontamination blank Mill be analyzed by Pennsylvania State
University using the same procedures as used for soil samples. Unless
otherwise stated, the decontamination blank Mill be DDI (distilled
deionized) Mater that has come in contact Mith the sample corer or
sample collection device. All decontamination blanks Mill be double
bagged.
Soil sampling teams Mill prepare and collect one (1) decontamination
blank -for every twenty (20) soil sampling locations. All blanks Mill
be prepared in the field at one (1) of the sampling locations and Mill
consist of a sample of the final 001 rinsate collected during the
decontamination of a sample collection device.
€.. Sampling Procedures
1. Container
Soil samples collected in the field Mill be placed into seal able
polyethylene containers that have the capacity to hold 42 oz.
Following collection, scaled soil samples Mill be placed in a covered
container at ambient meteorological conditions, until delivered to tiic
sample bank.
2. Container Preparation
Containers used for all field collected soil samples Mill be
sterile Whirl-pak polyethylene containers, and, a* such, no
precleaning Mill be necessary. Sample containers Mill be stored and
kept in a closed container to minimize atmospheric contamination.
3. Sample Collection and Handling Procedures
Soil coring devices to be used for sample collection Mill be
standard soil probes as manufactured by AMS Manufacturing, American
Falls, Idaho. Probes are constructed of cold drawn seamless 4130 alloy
steel aircraft quality tubing and contain neither cadmium nor zinc.
Composite soil samples Mill consist of all nine (9) subsamples
placed in the same sample container. If sod layers are encountered
(90% vegetative material), the sod Mill be cut from the core using a
clean scalpel. Vegetative material will then be placed into a separate
polyethylene container, identified with an appropriate vegetative
-------
Date 05/2g/aA
Page 4 o-f 12
REWAI/G+W
collection tag and transmitted to the sample bank. Vegetative samples
will be composited identically to that of soil subsamples.
During all sampling and handling o-f soil cores, -field samplers
will wear ore-cleaned polyethylene gloves. Gloves will be changed -for
each sampling location to avoid sample contamination.
The senior member o-f each field sampling team is responsible to
assure adherence to the -following sample collection guidelines:
1. Samples will be collected at the grid and transect locations
described by Attachments 1A and IB. If a location is unsatisfactory
due to streets, structures and/or other obstructions, the sampling
site may be moved within a 65-meter radius o-f the originally
designated 'location. If a sample cannot be obtained within this 65-
meter radius, the sampling location will be abandoned and EPA's
Region 3 on-scene coordinator will be notified.
2. Avoid sampling on what may appear to be recent fill (by man or
by natural action of water such as a sand bar beside a river), cuts or
severely eroded soils if they can be avoided by moving to a new
location within the 65 meter radius. If a move is possible, the
sampling team will go to the nearest location within the 65 meter
radius where sampling is possible. If fill or cuts are man-made the
sampling crew will attempt to determine the age o-f the fill or cut by
contacting the property owner or neighbor. If the fill or cut is at
least 10 years old, sampling may proceed, but if the cut or fill is
less than 10 years old, the sample should be collected elsewhere
within the 65 meter radius. In the event that a more suitable location
cannot be found within the 65 meter radius, sampling will proceed at
the originally designated location.
3. Avoid, if possible, collection of samples that are less than
20 feet from painted surfaces.
4. Locate collection sites away from vehicular activity such as
streets, driveways, parking lots and automobile repair areas.
5. Avoid, if possible, collecting samples under or immediately
adjacent to trees, shrubs and/or structures.
6. Label the sample container with an appropriate sample
collection tags supplied by the sample bank.
7. Complete site description forms, noting any information
concerning -filling or erosional material.
-------
Date 35/20/86
Page 5 o-f 12
REWAI/G+W
8. Decontaminate soil coring equipment prior to collection o-f
samples from each sampling location. Decontamination will include
thoroughly washing and rinsing corer using tap water, Cd, Zn, Cu and
Pb—free detergent, brushes or Kimwipes and then rinsing in DDI water.
Sample Collection Tag
Sample collection tags have been as shown on Page 4 will be used for
all soil and any vegetation samples collected. These tags have been
preprinted to assure that the necessary information is provided for
all samples. Each sample collected, including duplicates and
decontamination blanks, shall have a completely filled-in tag
securely attached to it.
The person who physically collects the sample is the SAMPLER and signs
the sample tag. The SAMPLER initiates the chain o-f custody record for
transfer o-f samples to the sample bank.
When a sample is received at the sample bank, it will be recorded in
the sample bank's master log, given a new sample bank number and
identified with a new sample analysis tag. The
original sample collection tag will b* stored at the sample bank. The
only exception to this procedure will be for any vegetative samples.
These samples will retain their original sample tags.
Drying and mixing o-f all soil samples prior to submittal to the
analytic laboratory will be completed by the sample bank and will
entail:
1. All samples collected will be placed into a 500 ml glass
beaker and dried in a soil drying oven at a temperature o-f 100 degrees
centigrade for an 8—hour period or until dry.
2. After drying, the sample will sieved using a stainless steel
#10 soil sieve. The unsieved portion >2 mm will be repackaged, labeled
and archived at the sample bank.
3. Soil passing the #10 sieve will be sieved through a #100
stainless steel soil sieve. Where necessary, a mortar and pestle will
be used to prepare the soil sample for sieving.
4. Soil passing the #100 sieve will then be placed into a
new 125 ml HDPE plastic bottles and mixed by placing that jar on a jar
mill and rotating it at a speed o-f 250 RPM for a 30 minute period.
5. Following mixing, not less than 10.0 g o-f dry soil will be
placed in a"60 ml HDPE and properly labeled. Any soil not used in the
-------
Date 05/20/56
Page 6 o-f 12
REWAI/G+W
analyses will be returned to the sample bank in its original 125 ml
HOPE bottle where it will be stored.
6. All sample drying and mixing equipment coming in direct
contact with the soil samples will be thoroughly decontaminated
between samples. Decontamination will consist o-f washing in hot tap
water with a Cd, Zn, Cu and Pb—free detergent and rinsing with DDI
water.
Any vegetative samples collected will be stored at the sample bank.
Soil samples identi-fied as splits will be dried, sieved and mixed as
described above, however, three (3) separate 10.0 g samples will be
prepared -from the mixed soil and placed into three (3) separate 125 ml
HOPE containers. Two (2) o-f these three (3) samples derived -from the
split will be sent to Pennsylvania State University -for analysis, the
remaining sample -from the split will be held by the sample bank and
made available to EPA -for submit tal to an independent re-feree
laboratory, if requested.
F. Site Description Form
A site description -form will be completed by each field party for each
sampling location, and will include all pertinent information about
the location and a photograph of the location. An example form
provided on the following page.
If soil samples cannot be collected at each of the designated sampling
points of the 6 and 4.25 meter circles, the sampler will identify the
exact location on the circle where each sample was collected, along
with the rationale for making these changes.
Original copies of all site description forms will be kept on file by
REWAI, and photocopies made available to EPA Region 3 upon request.
-------
Date a5/2E)/8&
Page 7 o-f 12
REWAI/G+W
SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION FORM
PROJECT CODE : Palmerton Zinc NPL Site Date
SAMPLER:
SITE ADDRESS: (STREET, NUMBER, GRID COORDINATES)
TYPE OF SITE: (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ETC).
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION OF SAMPLING: (BACKYARD, PARK, FARM, ETC).
ADJOINING PROPERTY: (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ETC).
GROUND SURFACE: (BARE, LAWN, CORPS, ETC).
STRUCTURAL ODDITIES: (SWIMMING POOLS, SHEDS, ETC)
CANOPY LAYER (SPECIES, ESTIMATED GROUND COVER),
SAMPLE COLLECTION TAB NUMBERS:
CONDITION OF SAMPLING SITE: (DEBRIS, RESIDUES, STANDING WATER, ETC)
REMARKS:
ATTACH POLAROID PHOTOGRAPH OF SAMPLING LOCATION TO THIS DESCRIPTION
FORM COMPLETED BY:SIGNATURE :.
PRINT NAME:
-------
Date 05/20/36
Page 8 of 12
REWAI/G+W
G. Sample Transfer Procedures/Chain-of-Custody
Customized chain-o-f-custody record sheets, following NEIC format
will be provided by the sample bank. Examples of the chain-of-custody
sheets to be used are provided on the following pages.
Custody records will be used for a packaged lot of samples, and
more than one sample will typically be recorded on a single sheet. If
necessary, more than one custody record sheet may be used for one
package.
Whenever the samples for which a chain-of-custody record is being
kept change custody (i.e. are turned over to another party for safe
keeping or processing) the ORIGINAL custody sheet is signed by both
the relinquisher and receiver and transferred along with the samples.
A photocopy of the signed sheet should be kept by the relinquisher.
Using the Custody Record Sheet
o The originator fills in all requested information from the
sample tags and any additional information requested by the
form.
o The person receiving custody checks the sample tag information
against the custody record, checks sample condition and number
of containers. Any unusual conditions are noted in the remarks
portion of the custody form.
o The originator signs the top left "Relinquished by:" box.
o The person receiving custody signs in the adjacent "Received
by:" box and keeps the original form with the samples. A
photocopy o-f the signed form is kept by the originator.
o Date/Time will be the same for both signatures since custody
must be transferred to another person, however, this box must
be filled in.
o In all cases, it shall be readily shown that the same person
receiving custody has relinquished it to the next custodian.
o If it is necessary to leave samples unattended, or if a person
re-fuses to sign, this must be documented and explained on the
custody form.
Copies and/or originals of all shipping papers, bills o-f lading and
any other records dealing with the shipping of samples shall be
retained by the sample bank, and photocopies made available to EPA
Region 3 upon request.
8
-------
O
tr
o
o
LU
cr
O
o
w *
a
a
4)
O
I
2"
i
e
I
i
I
2
s
I
8
I
4
i
i
I
£
•9
^»
i
M
j
I
•
i
I
!i
I
!
if
1
c
1
-------
f
7
7
I
o
oo
f«
I
°S
»o>
mZ
I!
So
\l
i
5
c
5
I
$
a
»
7
ut
I
I
5;
3
m
O
X
O
g
o
o
o
o
20
o
-------
Q
Or
O
O
3
x
O
UJ
cr
1
V)
»
I!
65
11
•*•&
55
i
i
-------
Date 05/20/86
Page 9 of 12
REWAI/G+W
If any discrepancies between sample tag numbers and custody record
listings are -found, the person .--_ieving custody shall document this
discrepancy and properly store the samples. These samples shall not be
analyzed until the problem is resolved by contacting the on-scene
coordinator.
Custody Seals
Custody seals shall be used when shipping samples by commercial
carriers. Seals shall consist of padlocks or tamper-proof adhesive
srrips where padlocks cannot be used. Custody seals are not intended
for use on individual sample containers.
Custody of Shipped Samples
When a group of samples with its custody form is to be shipped, the
shipper (e.g. sample bank personnel) shall accompany the package to
the carrier (e.g. Federal Express) so that, if requested, the number
and identification of the samples in the container can be verified.
The commercial carrier however shall not be required to verify this.
The package shall then be closed with a strong, keyed padlock or
strapping tape and custody seals so that the carrier is transporting a
secure container.
The person receiving custody of shipped samples shall document the
condition of the locked, or strapped and sealed shipping box on
arrival. It shall be checked that neither the tape nor the custody
seals have been cut or otherwise tampered with. If the seal has been
damaged in shipping, but it is clear that the shipped box has not
been opened, further handling of the samples shall proceed. If
tampering is suspected, the designated Sample Custodian shall notify
the on—scene coordinator and the sample bank supervisor.
Tamper-proof paper custody seals may be supplied by the National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC).
-------
Date 35/20/96
Page 1 of 2
REWAI/G+W
ATTACHMENT 1
SITE I.D. SOIL GRID SAMPLING SITES
I. Sampling Site Identification (Site Code)
Aerial photographs overlain by a soil sampling grid have been
provided to Gulf and Western by EPA Region 3, and shall be provided
to each sampling team. Every grid line is identified with rows
designated alphabetically and columns designated numerically. All soil
samples shall be collected at the grid locations specified by
Attachment IB, and if necessary Attachment IB. Any necessary deviation
from predesignated sampling site locations, as provided for in the
Soil Sampling Protocol, will be plotted on the aerial photographs.
Aerial photographs used by the field sampling teams with the sampling
locations plotted on them will be provided to Region 3 upon completion
of the sampling effort.
Each soil sample collected from the grid configuration will have a
site identification code that will identify the grid site from which
the sample was collected. ALL forms that originate with sample
collection (e.g. sample collection tags, site description forms, site
photographs and chain-of-custody forms) shall have a site
identification code recorded on them. Sample bank personnel shall not
accept any sample for which information, as required on the forms, is
missing. Sampling team leaders will be responsible for assuring that
all required sampling forms are properly completed.
Grid sampling site identification codes shall be as follows:
o The first two identify the grid location, PA (Palmerton).
o A hyphen (-> is placed after the last letter of the grid
location.
o The fourth and fifth spaces will be letters identifying the
row.
o The sixth and seventh spaces will be numbers identifying the
columns.
o An example of a TYPICAL SAMPLE SITE IDENTIFICATION CODE is
PA-AAB1.
o At locations where duplicate samples are to be collected, the
duplicate sample shall be identified by placing an "A"
immediately following the number identifying the column.
10
-------
Date 05/20/86
Page 2 of 2
REWAI/G+W
o An example of a TYPICAL DUPLICATE SAMPLE SITE IDENTIFICATION
CODE is PA-AA01A.
o For every 20 soil samples collected from the grid sampling
sites, one (1) decontamination blank will be prepared.
Decontamination blanks will be identified with a specific
soil sampling site. The decontamination blanks shall be
collected immediately prior to collecting a soil sample at
a designated site, and identified using that sample site
identification code followed by the letter "B".
o An example of a TYPICAL SAMPLE BLANK IDENTIFICATION CODE is
PA-AAPIS.
o Soil samples identified as splits by Attachment 1A shall have
the letters "X", "Y" and "Z" following the sample site
identification code. Sample splitting shall be the
responsibility o-f the sample bank personnel, and the X, Y
and Z designation will be added by the sample bank.
o Examples of TYPICAL SPLIT SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION are PA-AA01X.
PA-AA01Y and PA-AA01Z.
11
-------
Date
Page _
REWAI/B+W
Lot
ATTACHMENT 2
SAMPLE BANK PROCEDURES
I. Responsibility
The sample bank is the custodian for all records pertaining to
sampling, sample preparation as required, and transport
environmental samples to the analytical laboratory.
the
of
The sample bank is responsible for record -filing and storing, for
storing and preparation of all samples, and for dispensing containers,
sampling equipment and all custody documents such as chain-of -custody
forms and sample collection and analytic tags, a» required.
The
llection and analytic tags, a» required.
is responsible for updating and maintaining the
projects' master log book, auditing the records as required,
generating sample bank QC sample blanks, accepting QA/QC samples for
inclusion into the analytical scheme, and f
collection of decontamination blanks.
sample bank
master
for scheduling the
The sample bank is responsible for completing,
data reporting forms and for assuring that
requirements are adhered to.
as required, analysis
the chain-of -custody
All sample bank activities Mill be the responsibility of REWAl,
however, physical sample preparation prior to submittal to the
analytical laboratory will be completed by Wright Lab Services, Inc.
(WLSI) under the supervision of REWAI.
II. Procedures
o Issuing Supplies
sample bank will issue sample
collection tags, chain-of -custody
description forms to the field
. As appropriate, the
containers, sample
forms, and sit.*
samp ling t earns .
o Accepting and Logging Samples
. Soil samples collected by the field sampling teams shall
be transferred to the sample bank by the team leaders
for transfer of custody. Prior to accepting custody Q-t
any sample, the sample bank personnel will assure:
12
-------
Date gS/
Page 2 o-f S
REWAI/G+W
- Each sample has a properly completed soil
sample collection tag attached.
- All samples are identified on the chain-o-f-custody
forms.
- Each site sampled has a completely filed out Sampling
Site Description Form.
- Any discrepancies are corrected prior to accepting
custody. Any discrepancies which cannot be resolved
to the satisfaction of the sample bank may require
re-sampling, filling out additional tags and forms,
and/or re-visiting the field site to obtain any
additional documentation required.
Upon acceptance of sample custody by the sample bank
personnel, each sample shall be recorded in the master
log book. Because of the large number of samples which
will be collected as a result of this sampling event,
the master log book will be kept on a computer data
base, with hardcopy back-up revised weekly.
o Soil Samples
All sample bank numbers designating soil samples shall
begin with the letter "S". The remaining -five digits of
the number begin with 0(30(211 (i.e. the first soil sample
entered into the log book will b* 500001, the second
soil sample will be S00002, etc.).
The log book will b* arranged so that similar samples are
grouped together. For example, all soil samples would
be grouped separately from quality control samples.
Soil samples shall be prepared for analysis by WLSI under
the direction of REWAI before they are shipped to the
analytical laboratory. Samples will only be given an
analytical tag AFTER preparation.
After assigning a sample bank number to the soil sample
and recording the proper information into the log book,
the sample shall be placed into a properly identified
drying container (labelled with the sample bank
number). Sample preparation will then proceed as
descrioed by the Soil Sampling Protocol.
13
-------
Date 05/20/86
Page 4 of 5
REWAI/G+W
I-f the sample is to be a split sample, three 10 g samples
shall be prepared -following mixing. Each sample shall
be placed into a clean polyethylene vial to which a
completed analysis tag is attached. A sample bank
number will be assigned to the additional two samples,
and an X, Y and Z designation will be placed at the end
of the site identification code numbers. Finally, all
three samples will be logged into the master log book.
All soil samples shall be prepared identically. For those
soil samples that are not designated as splits, a
minimum 10 g portion of the mixed soil will be placed
into a clean polyethylene vial to which a completed
analysis tag has been attached. All necessary
information will be recorded in the log book. Remaining
soil not consumed by the analyses will be returned to
the sample bank in its original 125 ml bottle for
storage in a secure area at the sample bank.
Soil samples submitted to the laboratory for analysis
shall consist of mineral soil less than 2.0 mm. Any
material larger than 2.0 mm will be separated during
the preparation procedure. This material will be
archived along with other remaining soil.
Subsequent to preparation and completion of an analytical
tag, the samples may be shipped to the analytical
laboratory. Proper chain-of-custody shall be completed
and will accompany the samples. A record will be made
in the master log book to designate the laboratory to
which the samples have been sent.
Analysis of all soil samples shall be as described in the
Soil Sampling Protocol using the methodology and
equipment specified by Attachment 1C of REWAI's Phase I
Soil Sampling Protocol dated 11/20/86.
Upon completion of the soil analyses, all analytical data
will be sent to REWAI for validation subsequent to
which it will be forwarded to EPA Region 3.
15
-------
Date 35/2B/8&
Page _ 5 of 5
REWAI/G+W
o Vegetation Samples
. All sample bank numbers designating vegetation samples
shall begin with the capital letter "V". The remaining
•five digits Mill be numbers beginning with 80001 (i.e.
the -first vegetation sample logged into the master log
book will be V00001 , the second will be V00002, etc.).
. A-fter assigning a sample bank number, that number along
with the collection tag number, date collected, media,
chain-of -custody form number and the site I.D. code
number shall be recorded in the master log book.
. The sample bank number shall be clearly marked in the
remarks section of the sample collection tag. The
sample collection tag will not be removed from the
sample container, and the vegetation sample will be
stored as required by the Soil Sampling Protocol.
16
-------
PALMERTON ZINC NPL SITE INVESTIGATION
PHASE II SOIL SAMPLING
REWAI/G+W
DATE 05/20/86
ATTACHMENT 1A
List o-f 484 Sampling Location Coordinates
As Proposed bv EMSL-LV
17
-------
EMSL-LV
LIST OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Number Location Number Location Number Location
1 AD16 39 AK07 77 AR37
2 AD22 40 AK10 78 AR39
3 AD25 41 AK12 79 AS19
4 AE13 42 AK15 80 AS20
5 AE16 43 AK18 81 AS22
6 AE20 44 AK28 82 AS24
7 AE23 45 AL07 83 AS26
8 AE26 46 AL29 84 AS28
9 AE28 47 AL34 85 AS31
10 AE30 48 AL36 86 AS35
11 AE31 49 AM04 87 AS36
12 AF25 50 AM10 88 AS41
13 AF27 51 AM11 89 AT27
14 AF29 52 AM14 90 AT37
15 AG04 53 AMIS 91 AT38
16 AG06 54 AM24 92 AT40
17 AGIO 55 AM26 93 AU18
18 AG24 56 AM32 94 AU22
19 AG26 57 AN21 95 AU24
20 AG28 58 AN30 96 AU26
21 AG30 59 AN35 97 AV21
22 AH05 60 A024 98 AV37
23 AH11 61 A026 99 AV34
24 AH13 62 A028 100 AV38
25 AH16 63 A037 101 AV40
26 AH19 64 A038 102 AMIS
27 AH29 65 A039 103 AW24
28 AI06 66 APIS 104 AW35
29 AI08 67 AP30 105 AW39
30 AI10 68 AP32 106 AX 19
31 AI24 69 AP35 107 AX21
32 AI26 70 AQ22 108 AX23
33 AI28 71 AQ24 109 AX27
34 AJ05 72 AQ26 110 AY20
35 AJ09 73 AQ28 111 AY35
36 AJ21 74 AQ40 112 BA18
37 AJ30 75 AR18 113 BA21
38 -AJ33 76 AR33 114 BA23
-------
EMSL-LV
Number Location Number Location Number Location
115 BA26 158 BJ63 201 BP54
116 BB24 159 BJ66 202 BP59
117 BB33 160 BJ68 203 BP73
118 BB36 161 BJ71 204 BP75
119 BC21 162 BJ73 205 BQ21
120 BC23 163 BJ75 206 BQ28
121 BC26 164 BJ77 207 BQ54
122 B036 165 BK23 208 BQ56
123 BE18 166 BK28 209 BQ61
124 BE21 167 BK33 210 BQ63
125 BE24 168 BK56 211 BQ68
126 BE25 169 BK57 212 BQ70
127 BF32 170 BK67 213 BR26
128 BF35 171 BL18 214 BR65
12*9 BF65 172 BL58 215 BR75
130 BF73 173 BL60 216 BR77
131 BF77 174 BL62 217 BS18
132 BG27 175 BL65 218 BS23
133 BG33 176 BL68 219 BS28
134 BG61 177 BL71 220 BS40
135 BG64 178 BL73 221 BS62
136 BG68 179 BL75 222 BS66
137 BG72 180 BL77 223 BS69
138 BG75 181 BM21 224 BS72
139 BH56 182 BM31 225 BU54
140 BH61 183 BM33 226 BU56
141 BH63 184 BM59 227 BU59
142 BH67 185 BN26 228 BU60
143 BH70 186 BN56 229 BV20
144 BH76 187 BN57 230 BV26
145 BH77 188 BN64 231 BV40
146 BI18 189 BN66 232 BV58
147 BI22 190 BN68 233 BV72
148 BI32 191 BN70 234 BV74
149 BI33 192 BN72 235 BV76
150 BI57 193 BN74 236 BU27
151 BIS9 194 BN76 237 BW28
152 BI66 195 BN78 238 BW29
153 BI69 196 B023 239 BW39
154 B173 197 B027 240 BW58
155 BI76 198 8033 241 BW60
156 BJ26 199 BOSS 242 BW64
157 - BJ61 200 BP18 243 BW68
-------
EMSL-LV
Location Number Location Number Location
244 BW73 287 CE28 330 CN30
245 BX18 288 CE30 331 CN32
246 BX22 289 CE32 332 C025
247 BX56 290 CF18 333 CP24
248 BX66 291 CF25 334 CP26
249 BY24 292 CF69 335 CP30
250 BY26 293 CF72 336 CP32
251 BY27 294 CG20 337 CR18
252 BY28 295 CG23 338 CR21
253 BY30 296 CG25 339 CR25
254 BY37 297 CG28 340 CR27
255 BZ19 298 CG30 341 CS24
256 BZ26 299 CG32 342 CT24
257 BZ27 300 CG72 343 CU23
258 BZ59 301 CH24 344 CU27
259 BZ61 302 CH27 345 CU30
260 BZ64 303 CH67 346 CU31
261 BZ68 304 CH69 347 CV18
262 BZ72 305 CH70 348 CV21
263 CA21 306 CI23 349 CV25
264 CA28 307 CI25 350 CW22
265 CA32 308 CI28 351 CW23
266 CA35 309 CI30 352 CW32
267 CA37 310 CI32 353 CX31
268 CA70 311 CI69 354 CX33
269 CB19 312 CI72 355 CY25
270 CB23 313 CJ18 356 CZ18
271 CB67 314 CJ20 357 CZ21
272 CC26 315 CJ22 358 CZ23
273 CC28 316 CJ26 359 CZ24
274 CC30 317 CJ29 360 CZ33
275 CC32 318 CJ31 361 DA22
276 CC36 319 CK24 362 OB18
277 CC66 320 CK28 363 DB28
278 C022 321 CK30 364 DB33
279 C025 322 CK32 365 DC24
280 C027 323 CK71 366 D021
281 C029 324 CL26 367 D026
282 C064 325 CM25 368 D032
283 C069 326 CM31 369 DE28
284 C072 327 CN18 370 DF20
285 CE20 328 CN20 371 DF22
286 CE26 329 CN22 372 OG19
-------
EMSL-LV
Number Location Number Location Number Location
373 DG24 416 DV26 459 EJ31
374 DG27 417 DW22 460 EJ37
375 DG32 418 DW30 461 EJ39
376 DI22 419 DW32 462 EK35
377 DI27 420 DW39 463 EL24
378 DJ28 421 DX18 464 EL26
379 OK18 422 DX25 465 EL29
380 DK20 423 DX33 466 EL32
381 DK21 424 DX35 467 EM37
382 OK24 425 DY24 468 EN24
383 DK26 426 DY27 469 EN27
384 DK31 427 DY31 470 EN40
385 DK33 428 DY33 471 £030
386 DK36 429 OY37 472 E033
387 DM26 430 EB28 473 EP35
338 DM28 431 EB35 474 EQ24
389 DN21 432 EC24 475 EQ27
390 DN33 433 EC27 476 EQ37
391 DN35 434 EC30 477 ER29
392 OP18 435 EC32 478 ER32
393 DP23 436 EC33 479 ET24
394 DP25 437 EC39 480 ET27
395 DP31 438 EE26 481 ET30
396 DP33 439 EE30 482 ET37
397 DP36 440 EE31 483 ET38
398 DQ20 441 EE35 484 ET40
399 DQ22 442 EE37
400 DQ32 443 EF24
401 OR18 444 EF27
402 DR33 445 EF29
403 DR37 446 EF32
404 DS21 447 EF37
405 DS23 448 EF39
406 DS26 449 EG24
407 DT19 450 EG26
408 DT21 451 EG29
409 OT30 452 EG35
410 DT32 453 EH26
411 DT36 454 EH31
412 DU18 455 EI24
413 DU27 456 EI25
414 DV21 457 EI36
415 DV22 458 EJ29
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
IN THE MATTER OF:
Palmerton Zinc Site
Horsehead Industries, Inc., and its
Division, The New Jersey Zinc Company
204 E. 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
U.S. EPA Docket No.
Gulf & Western Industries, Inc. III-85-23-DC
One Gulf & Western Plaza
New York, NY 10023
Respondents
Proceeding Under Section 106(a)
of the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980
(42 U.S.C. §9606(a))
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BY CONSENT
The parties to rhis Administrative Order By Consent ("Consent Order"),
having agreed to the entry of this Consent Order, it is therefore Ordered,
Adjudged, and Decreed that:
I. JURISDICTION
This Consent Order is issued pursuant to the authority vested in the
President of the United States by Section 106(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"),
42 U.S.C. §9606(a), and delegated to the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") on August 14, 1981, by Executive
Order 12316, 46 Fed. Reg. 42237, and further delegated to the Assistant
-------
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Regional
Administrators by EPA Delegation Nos. 14-14-A and 14-14-C, the latter of
which was signed on April 16, 1984.
Subject to the provisions of this Order, the respondents agree,
solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of EPA for certain
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies, and without admitting
the jurisdiction of EPA to take any action beyond the scope of this
Consent Order or the propriety of such action under CEBCLA or otherwise,
to undertake all actions required of them by the terms and conditions
of this Consent Order and agree not to contest EPA's jurisdiction to
enter this Consent Order or the respondents' obligations assumed under
this Consent Order.
II. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
In entering into this Consent Order, the objectives of EPA
and the respondents are to conduct 1) as to the New Jersey Zinc Company
a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for the
Palmerton Zinc Plant - Cinder Bank; 2) as to Gulf & Western Industries,
Inc., an RI/FS on certain offsite areas. The activities conducted
pursuant to this Consent Order shall be consistent with the National
Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.68(c)-(i) (47 Fed. Beg. 31180, July
16, 1982, revised at 48 Fed. Reg. 40658, September 8, 1983).
III. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
EPA has determined that:
A. The respondents are Horsehead Industries, Inc., and its Division,
The New Jersey Zinc Company ("New Jersey Zinc"), and Gulf & Western
-------
3.
Industries, Inc., ("G & W"). Corporate headquarters for New Jersey
Zinc are located at 204 E. 39th Street, New York, New York 10016.
Local offices are at 4th Street and Delaware Avenue, Palmerton, Pennsy-
lvania 18071. Corporate headquarters for G & W are located at One
Gulf & Western Plaza, New York, New York 10023.
B. The Palmerton Zinc Site ("Site") includes a cinder bank approxi-
mately 2 1/2 miles long and other portions of property currently owned
by New Jersey Zinc in Carbon County, Pennsylvania. The Site also
includes an area outside the Palmerton Zinc Plant property ("off-plant
area").
C. The cinder bank consists of approximately 33 million tons
of material from a zinc smelter now owned by New Jersey Zinc.
D. New Jersey Zinc is the current owner of the cinder bank as well as
the smelter. G & W is a prior owner of the cinder bank and smelter.
£. The Palmerton Zinc Pile is on the National Priorities List in
accordance with Section 105(8) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9605(8).
F. Hazardous substances within the meaning of Section 101(14) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9601(14), are present at the Site. Substances of
primary concern are arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, selenium and zinc.
G. The Aquashicola Creek, which joins the Lehigh River downstream,
is adjacent to the Site and ground water resources are found below the Site.
H. Preliminary data indicate that surface runoff and erosion from
the Site discharge into the Aquashicola Creek. Samples from shallow wells
at the Site have shown elevated levels of cadmium. Soil samples from the
off-plant area indicate the presence of elevated levels of cadmium.
I. These conditions constitute "a release or threat of a release" as
defined in Section 101(22) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9601(22).
-------
4.
J. The Sice is a "iacility" as defined in Section 101(9) of CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. §9601(9).
K. New Jersey Zinc and G & W are "persons" as defined in Section
101(21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9601(21).
L. Because of an actual or threatened release of hazardous substances
from the Site, there may be an imminent and substantial endaagerment to
the public health or welfare or the environment, warranting the further
investigation of conditions at the Site as provided herein.
IV. PARTIES BOUND
This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding upon New Jersey
Zinc, G & U and EPA, their agents, successors, and assigns. Notice of
this Consent Order shall be given to all persons, contractors and
consultants acting under or for either New Jersey Zinc, G & W or EPA
or any combination of the above, in connection with the work required
herein.
In the event of any change in ownership or control of the cinder
bank or Palmerton Plane, New Jersey Zinc shall notify the EPA in writing
of such change and shall provide a copy of this Order to the transferee
in interest.
V. NOTICE TO THE STATE
Notice of issuance of this Order has been given to the State of
Pennsylvania, pursuant to Section 106(a) of CEBCLA, 42 U.S.C. S9606(a).
-------
5.
VI. WORK TO BE PERFORMED
All response work performed pursuant to this Consent Order shall be
under the direction, and supervision of qualified personnel. New Jersey
Zinc and G & W shall notify EPA in writing, forty-five (45) days prior
to the initiation of their respective Site work, of the identity of
the persons to be primarily responsible for and of any contractor
and/or subcontractors to be used in carrying out the terms of this
Consent Order. EPA may disapprove the use of any supervisory personnel,
contractor and/or subcontractor if EPA believes they are not qualified
to perform the response work. EPA shall not unreasonably veto New
Jersey Zinc's or G & W's choice of supervisory personnel, contractor
or subcontractor. In the event of a disapproval, EPA shall be notified
within thirty (30) days of the person, contractor or subcontractor
that will replace the one that was disapproved, and the work schedule
provided in the Scope of Work applicable to the respondent whose choice
of personnel has been disapproved shall be extended for a period equal
to the length of time it takes that respondent to find a new contractor
or subcontractor. In the event that agreement cannot be reached within
30 days after disapproval by EPA, EPA reserves the right to perform the
RI/FS for that respondent to the extent authorized by CEBCLA. In
the event of such election by EPA, that respondent's obligations assumed
hereunder shall terminate without penalty.
Work shall be performed by each respondent in accordance with the
terms and conditions of its respective Scope of Work, attached hereto
and incorporated into the Consent Order.
-------
6.
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of any Site Operations Plan
("SOP") by EPA (as required by each attached Scope of Work), EPA shall
notify the respondent submitting such SOP, in writing, of EPA's approval
or disapproval of the SOP or any part thereof. In the event of any
disapproval, EPA shall give notice of the deficiencies in writing.
Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of EPA notification of SOP
disapproval, the respondent shall amend and submit to EPA a revised
SOP. In the event of subsequent disapproval of the SOP, EPA reserves
the right to conduct the RI/FS for that respondent to the extent authorized
by CERCLA. In the event of such election by EPA, that respondent's
obligations assumed hereunder shall terminate without penalty.
Each respondent shall implement the tasks detailed in its approved
SOP. This work shall be conducted in accordance with the standards,
specifications and schedule contained in the SOP.
EPA shall review the preliminary and final reports (as required by
each attached Scope of Work), and within thirty (30) days of receipt by
EPA of any such reports, EPA shall notify the respondent submitting the
report, in writing, of EPA's approval or disapproval of such reports
or any part thereof. In the event of any disapproval, EPA shall specify
the deficiencies in writing.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of EPA notification of preliminary
or final report disapproval, the respondent shall amend and submit to
EPA a revised report. In the event of subsequent disapproval of the
report, EPA reserves the right to amend such reports and to perform such
additional studies as it deems necessary to the extent authorized by
-------
CERCLA. In Che event of such election by EPA, that respondent's
obligation to write a report acceptable to EPA shall terminate without
penalty.
No approvals or disapprovals required to be made by EPA pursuant to
this section shall be made by an employee of EPA below the Chief,
Eazardous Waste Enforcement Branch. The respondents shall have the
right to review by the Division Director, Hazardous Waste Management
Division of any disapproval. The time for resubmittal of a disapproved
document shall be extended for a period equal to the time taken for
review by the Division Director. This review shall not operate as a
substitute for any other form of review, either administrative or judicial,
to which a respondent may be entitled.
Three copies of documents, including reports, approvals or other
correspondence to be submitted pursuant to this Consent Order, shall be
sent by certified mail to the Project Coordinators for New Jersey Zinc,
G & W and EPA, as they may hereafter be designated in writing.
VII. DESIGNATED PROJECT COORDINATORS
On or before the effective date of this Consent Order, EPA, G & W
and New Jersey Zinc shall each designate a Project Coordinator. Each
Project Coordinator shall be responsible for overseeing the implementation
of this Consent'Order. To the maximum extent possible, communications
between respondents and EPA and all documents, including reports,
approvals, and other correspondence, concerning the activities performed
pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Consent Order, shall be
directed through the Project Coordinators.
EPA, New Jersey Zinc and G & W each has the right to change its
-------
respective Project Coordinator. Such a change shall be accomplished
by notice to all other parties in writing at least five (5) calendar
days prior to the change.
The EPA Project Coordinator shall have the authority vested in the
On-Scene-Coordinator by the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300,
47 Fed. Reg. 31180 (July 16, 1982). This authority includes the
authority to halt, conduct, or direct any tasks required by this Consent
Order and/or any response actions or portions thereof when conditions
present an immediate risk to public health or welfare or the environment.
In the event that work is halted or changed under order of the EPA Project
Coordinator pursuant to this section, the schedule for completion
of the work set forth in the affected SOP shall be extended to the extent
of such delay.
VIII. SITE ACCESS
To the extent that property included in the study area is presently
owned by parties other than those bound by this Consent Order, each
respondent will have obtained or will have used its best efforts to obtain
site access agreements from the present owners within thirty (30)
calendar days of approval of its SOP. Such agreements shall provide
access to EPA and/or its authorized representatives and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources ("DER"). In the event that
access agreements are not obtained within the time designated above,
EPA shall be notified immediately regarding the lack of such agreements.
If EPA is unable to provide such access, the approved SOP may be modified,
with EPA1 s approval, to take account of such lack of access.
-------
IX. SAMPLING, ACCESS, AND DATA/DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
Each respondent shall make the results of all sampling and/or
tests or other data generated by it, or on its behalf, with respect to
the implementation of this Consent Order, available to EPA and shall
submit these results in monthly progress reports as described in each
attached Scope of Work. EPA will make available to the respondents
the results of sampling and/or tests or other data similarly generated
by EPA.
At the request of EPA, each respondent shall allow split or duplicate
samples to be taken by EPA and/or its authorized representatives, of
any samples collected pursuant to the implementation of this Consent
Order. EPA shall be notified not less than forty-eight (48) hours in
advance of any sample collection activity.
EPA, its authorized representatives and DER shall have access to the Site
at reasonable times in order to observe and monitor the progress of the work
and to take samples from and to inspect the Site, and shall have the right
to inspect and copy records related to the performance of the provisions
of the Consent Order as provided herein. EPA shall provide advance
notice to the Project Coordinator responsible for the portion of the
Site EPA intends to enter. Nothing herein shall be interpreted so as
to limit the inspection authority of EPA pursuant to federal law.
All parties with access to the Site pursuant to this paragraph shall
comply with all approved health and safety plans.
Each respondent shall make available to EPA and shall retain
during the pendency of the Consent Order and for a period of six years
-------
10.
after its termination, all records and documents not privileged, in
its possession, custody or control, that relate to the performance of
the Consent Order, including but not limited to documents reflecting
the results of any sampling, tests or other data or other information
generated or acquired by each respondent, or on its behalf, with respect
to the implementation of this Consent Order. Following that six years,
each respondent shall provide EPA an opportunity to obtain copies of
any documents prior to destruction of those materials.
Each respondent may assert a confidentiality claim covering part or
all of the information requested by this Consent Order pursuant to 40
C.F.R. §2.203(b). Such an assertion shall be adequately substantiated
when the assertion is made. Analytical data shall not be claimed as
confidential by either respondent. Information determined to be confidential
by EPA will be afforded the protection specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 2,
Subpart B. If no such claim accompanies the information when it is
submitted to EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without
further notice to the respondent by which it was submitted.
X. DELAY IN PERFORMANCE/STIPULATED PENALTIES
For each week that a respondent fails to submit a report or document
or otherwise fails to achieve the schedule requirements of this Consent Order,
that respondent shall be liable for the sum* set forth below as stipulated
penalties. Checks should be addressed to:
EPA Region 3
Regional Hearing Clerk
P.O. Box 360515M
Pittsburgh, PA 15251
-------
11.
Stipulated penalties shall accrue in the amount of $375.00 for the
first week, or any portion thereof, and $750.00 for each week thereafter,
or any portion thereof, for failure to comply with a schedule as
required by this Consent Order.
Any stipulated penalty assessed for failure to meet an interim
schedule date for performance of work shall be forgiven in the event
that the corresponding final schedule date for completion of the work
under the SOP is met.
Delay in compliance/performance by a respondent for which a
stipulated penalty may be assessed shall not also subject that respondent
to statutory fines and/or punitive damages.
XI. FORCE MAJEURE
Each respondent shall notify EPA within seven days of any delay
or anticipated delay caused by circumstances beyond its control
that occurs or may occur in the performance of the work or the
submission of reports required under this Consent Order. Such
notification shall be in writing and shall describe fully the nature
of the delay, the actions that will be taken to mitigate further delay,
and the timetable by which the actions in mitigation of the delay will
be taken. If EPA agrees that the delay or anticipated delay has
been or will be caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of
that respondent, the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for
a period equal to the delay resulting from such circumstances. Each
respondent shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize
delay. Failure of a respondent to comply with the notice requirements
-------
12.
of this paragraph shall render this paragraph void for that respondent
and shall constitute a waiver of that respondent's right to request a
waiver of the scheduling requirements of this Consent Order.
Any failure to timely complete the work or submit reports that
results from circumstances beyond the control of a respondent and that
cannot be avoided or overcome by due diligence by that respondent, shall
not be deemed a. violation of this Consent Order and shall not make
that respondent liable for the stipulated penalties contained in Section
X of this Consent Order. Circumstances beyond a respondent's control
may include, but shall not be limited to, adverse weather conditions
or unreasonable delay by EPA in reviewing documents or acting on permits.
Increased costs of performance of the terms of this Consent Order or
changed economic circumstances of a respondent shall not be considered
circumstances beyond the control of a respondent. Each respondent
shall have the burden of proving that the delay was caused by circumstances
beyond its control and that it took all reasonable measures to avoid
or minimize the delay.
XII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Except as expressly provided in this Consent Order, each party
expressly reserve all rights and defenses it may have. Moreover, except
as expressly provided, nothing herein shall prevent EPA from seeking
legal or equitable relief to enforce the terms of this Order, including
the imposition of statutory fines and/or punitive damages, or from
taking removal or remedial action to the extent authorized by CEKCLA
or otherwise. EPA will not arbitrarily or unreasonably undertake any
-------
13.
CERCLA removal or remedial action that falls within the scope of this
Order.
In agreeing to this Consent Order, neither respondent admits any
legal liability whatsoever in connection with the Site or otherwise, or
admits or concurs with any findings of fact or determinations of EPA
contained in this Order, including but not limited to those set forth
in Section III herein.
XIII. OTHER CLAIMS
Nothing herein is intended to release any claims, causes of action
or demands in law or equity against any person, firm, partnership, or
corporation not a signatory to this Consent Order for any liability it
may have arising out of or relating in any way to the generation, storage,
treatment, handling, transportation, release, or disposal of any hazardous
substances, hazardous wastes, pollutants, or contaminants found at, taken
to, or taken from the Site.
This Consent Order does not constitute any decision on preauthorization
of funds under Section lll(a)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9611(a)(2).
Upon completion by New Jersey Zinc of its obligations under the
Consent Order, G & W waives all claims that it may have against New
Jersey Zinc for recovery of amounts expended by G & W in connnection
with G & W's performance of its obligations under the Consent Order.
Upon completion by G & W of its obligations under the Consent Order,
Mew Jersey Zinc waives all claims that it may have against G & W for
recovery of amounts expended by New Jersey Zinc in connection with
New Jersey Zinc's performance of its obligations under the Consent Order.
-------
14.
XIV. OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS
In taking the actions required to be taken pursuant to this Consent
Order, each respondent is responsible for and shall comply with the
requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal laws and
regulations, including but not limited to all Pennsylvania laws and
regulations governing solid and hazardous wastes and the use and land
application of sewage sludge.
XV. PUBLIC COMMENT
Upon submittal to EPA of an approved Feasibility Study Final Report,
EPA shall make such Feasibility Study Final Report available to the public
for review and comment for, at a mini mam, a twenty-one (21) day period,
pursuant to EPA's Community Relations Policy. Each respondent agrees not
to release any reports required under this Consent Decree unless and until
they have been approved by EPA. Following the public review and comment
period, EPA shall notify each respondent which remedial action alternatives
are approved for the Site.
XVI. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION
The effective date of this Consent Order shall be the date on which
it is signed by EPA. Each respondent acknowledges it has had adequate
opportunity to confer with EPA before entry of this Consent Order.
This Consent Order may be amended by mutual agreement of EPA, New
Jersey Zinc and G & W. Such amendments shall be in writing and shall
have as the effective date, that date on which such amendments are
signed by EPA.
-------
15.
XVII. TERMINATION AND SATISFACTION
The provisions of this Consent Order shall be deemed satisfied by a
respondent upon that respondent's receipt of written notice from EPA that
it has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of EPA, that all of the applicable
terms of this Consent Order have been completed.
IT IS SO AGREED AND ORDERED:
HORSEHEAD INDUSTRIES, INC.
Title:
l/tcc.
5«A>. >/.
"Date'
GULF & WESTERN INDUSTRIES, INC.
Title: Executive Vice President
September 12, 1985
Date
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
///'^Regional Administrator
//' EPA Region III
Date
-------
SCOPE OF WORK
I. OBJECTIVES
The prime objectives of the New Jersey Zinc RI/FS shall be to:
a. determine the extent, concentration and physical/chemical properties
of hazardous substances at the Site;
b. determine the character and extent of surface water/sediment
contamination caused by the Site and the potential for further
cont amination;
c. determine the character and extent of ground water contamination
caused by the Site and the potential for further contamination;
d. assess the potential risks to the public health and the environ-
ment associated with the levels of contamination resulting
from the Site;
e. identify technologies for the Site and evaluate their appropriate-
ness/applicability for remediating Site contamination and for
compliance with all federal, state and local laws and regulations.
Current RI/FS guidance documents provided to New Jersey Zinc by EPA shall be
adhered to in the performance of the RI/FS.
Existing data that is of sufficient quality, reliability and relevancy shall
be used to the greatest extent possible to develop and conduct an efficient
and effective RI/RS.
II. SITE OPERATIONS PLAN
New Jersey Zinc shall submit a Site Operations Plan within 60 days of the
effective date of this Order with the exception of the portion of the
operations plan directly relating to TASK 7, which may be submitted
within 90 days of the effective date of the Order.
In order to assure cooperation and effective communication during the
development of the Site Operations Plan, a weekly project status meeting
will be held between the EPA and New Jersey Zinc Project Coordinators.
A representative from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
will be invited by EPA to the meeting.
-------
2.
The Sice Operations Plan shall include the following:
TASK 1 Community Relations Plan
The Site Operations Plan shall include procedures for New Jersey
Zinc to assist EPA in implementing EPA's community relations plan
in accordance with EPA's Community Relations Handbook.
TASK 2 Health and Safety Plan
The Site Operations Plan shall include a Health and Safety Plan
developed in accordance with current RI/RS guidance documents.
TASK 3 Quality Control, Quality Assurance and Chain-of-Custody
Procedures Plan
New Jersey Zinc shall specify in the Site Operations Plan all
quality assurance, quality control and chain-of-custody procedures
used throughout all sample collection and analysis activities.
The procedures shall be developed in accordance with the "EPA
NEIC Policies and Procedures Manual", Hay 1978, revised November
1984, EPA-330/9-78-001-R. New Jersey Zinc shall consult with
EPA in the development of these procedures and in the planning
for, and prior to, all sampling and analysis as detailed in the
Site Operations Plan. New Jersey Zinc shall ensure that EPA
personnel are allowed access to the laboratory utilized by New
Jersey Zinc for analysis of samples collected pursuant to this
Consent Order, for the purposes of verifying laboratory capability,
adherence to procedures, and inspection of records. New Jersey
Zinc agrees to analyze performance evaluation samples at EPA
request and further agrees to accept blind samples at a rate not
to exceed 10X of the analytical workload.
TASK 4 Ground Survey/Mapping
The Site Operations Plan shall include a schedule for preparing a
topographic map of the area 1,000 feet to the east and west of
the Cinder Bank running from the north end of Aquashicola Creek
to the top of Blue Mountain. The contour interval shall be a
minimum of 5 feet. All monitoring wells will be located horizontally
and vertically with respect to the site grid and datum.
TASK 5 Cinder Bank Characterization
The Site Operations Plan shall include a schedule to obtain the
information necessary to determine the extent, concentrations and
physical/chemical properties of hazardous substances at the cinder
bank. The schedule shall incorporate the following elements:
-------
3.
a. a comprehensive data review of existing information to:
(1) identify in detail the types, quantities and location of
wastes deposited on the cinder bank, (2) present and summarize
available information and analytical data on the concentrations,
physical/chemical properties and distribution of hazardous
substances on the cinder bank;
b. submittal of a letter report to EPA detailing the review
conducted under a above;
c. submittal of a letter report to EPA providing EPA with the
recommendations on the need for conducting field studies
or analyzing existing cores samples to better characterize
the cinder bank. If such work is approved by EPA, New Jersey
Zinc shall perform the work.
d. preparation of a list describing all previously collected
core samples from the cinder bank. This list shall be
submitted to EPA. New Jersey Zinc shall retain such samples
for 3 years. All such samples shall be available to EPA
or its contractors for analysis upon request.
TASK 6 Surface Water Assessment
The Site Operations Plan shall include a schedule for conducting
a surface water assessment. The schedule shall include the
following elements:
a. a comprehensive review of existing data on run-on and runoff,
stream quality data and aquatic life in Aquashicola Creek and
the Lehigh River in the vicinity of its confluence with the
Creek;
b. preparation of a sampling plan to include the following
sampling points: (1) run-on to the cinder bank, (2) runoff/
leachate from the cinder bank, (3) surface water/sediment from
Aquashicola Creek and the Lehigh River, and (4) all point
discharges controlled by New Jersey Zinc. For point discharges
not controlled by New Jersey Zinc, New Jersey Zinc will attempt
to obtain and review sampling data from owners of the point
source. If the data is inadequate New Jersey Zinc will make a
reasonable attempt to collect samples of the discharge for
analysis. If New Jersey Zinc cannot obtain data and/or collect
the samples, EPA retains the right to collect the data and/or
have the samples collected.
c. plans for two rounds of sampling. One round shall be conducted
during a wet period in the Spring of 1986 (no later than March
30, 1986) and the other round during a dry period in the Summer
of 1986 (no later than August 30, 1986). A minimum of 70 surface
water/sediment samples will be collected in total for these
two rounds.
-------
4.
d. flow measurements adequate to perform a mass loading analysis
in conjunction with sampling rounds;
e. samples analysis for total cadmium, lead, manganese, zinc and
copper and for pH.
TASK 7 Geology/Hydrogeology Investigation
The Site Operations Plan shall include a program for performing a
geology/hydrogeology investigation that will include the following
elements:
a. a comprehensive review of all literature, data and other infor-
mation regarding the geology and hydrogeology of the site
vicinity;
b. a shallow ground water field investigation program that shall
involve the installation of a minimum of 10 shallow monitoring
wells (eash well approximately 50 feet deep). A minimum of two
rounds of well sampling will be performed. If possible, well
sampling will be done concurrently with the surface water sampling.
c. a program to assess the interrelationship between the shallow
and deeper formations. Additional wells will be drilled and an
adequate testing program will be implemented if the existing
information is inadequate to provide an accurate assessment
of the interrelationship.
All work under the SOP, including placement of monitoring wells,
will take into consideration the need for equivalent or similar
work that New Jersey Zinc must complete in order to meet the
requirements of RCRA, in order to avoid duplication of required work
wherever possible.
TASK 8 Identification of Technologies for Remediating Site Contamination
New Jersey Zinc shall include a schedule for identifying and
evaluating remedial technologies and conducting a feasibility
study in accordance with current EPA, RI/FS guidance documents.
As part of this activity New Jersey Zinc shall diligently attempt to
obtain a demonstration permit from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources for applying sewage sludge to the steep
slopes of the cinder bank for the purposes of investigating
and evaluating techniques to revegetate the cinder bank.
TASK 9 Remedial Investigation Report
A remedial investigation report shall be prepared in
acordance with current EPA RI/RS guidance documents. A final
remedial investigation report shall be submitted to EPA
within 15 months of the effective date of this Order.
-------
5.
TASK 10 Feasibility Study Report
A feasibility study report shall be prepared in accordance
with current EPA RI/FS guidance documents. A final feasibility
study report shall be submitted to EPA within 18 months
of the effective date of this Order.
TASK 11 Reporting Requirements
The Site Operations Plan shall specify the frequency and content
of project status reports to be submitted by New Jersey Zinc
to EPA during the performance of the RI/FS.
-------
SCOPE OF WORK
I. OBJECTIVES
The prime objectives of the Gulf & Western (G & W) RI/FS
shall be to:
a. determine the extent, concentration and physical/chemical
properties of hazardous substances in the offsite area
deposited by emissions from the New Jersey Zinc smelter,
including the extent of surface soil contamination resulting
therefrom;
b. determine the current and potential future risks the hazardous
substances are or may be posing to the environment, agriculture
and public health in the site area;
c. identify technologies and evaluate their appropriateness/
applicability for remediating the offsite contamination and
for compliance with all federal, state and local laws and
regulations.
Current RI/FS guidance documents provided to G & W by EPA shall be
adhered to in the performance of the RI/FS.
II. SITE OPERATIONS PLAN
Within 15 days of the effective date of this Consent Order, G & W
shall submit a Site Operations Plan for the Phase I soil sampling
program described in Task 3. Within 15 days of EPA approval of the
Phase I SOP, the Site Operations Plan for the other work not relating
to the Phase I soil sampling program shall be submitted by G & W.
The Site Operation Plans shall include the following:
Task I Community Relations Plan
The Site Operations Plan shall include procedures for G & W to assist
EPA in implementing EPA's community relations plan in accordance with
EPA's Community Relations Handbook provided to G & W.
Task 2 Health and Safety Plan
The Site Operations Plan shall include a Health and Safety Plan
developed in accordance with current RI/FS guidance documents. Level
D protection shall be used unless unanticipated site conditions indicate
otherwise.
-------
2.
Task. 3 Soil Sampling
The Site Operations Plan shall specify that the soil sampling
will include a Phase I and, if determined necessary by EPA, a Phase
II sampling program.
The sampling program should be implemented in accordance with
the Palmerton Zinc NPL Site Investigation Soil Sampling Protocol, dated
September 27, 1984, except to the extent that deviations from the protocol
have been required or are in the future approved by EPA. Samples
will be collected at the locations previously specified by EPA,
unless lack of access or physical obstructions requires that sampling
locations be changed.
The total number of laboratory analyses for soil samples and quality
assurance samples required in the soil sampling protocol will not exceed
300 for the Phase I program. If EPA determines a Phase II program is
necessary, the total number of laboratory analyses of soil samples and
quality assurance samplies required by the protocol for the Phase I and
Phase II programs combined will not exceed 1,000.
The parameters to be utilized by the analytical laboratory for all
Phase I and, if necessary, Phase II samples shall be those outlined in
the August 19, 1985, letter from R.E. Wright Associates, Inc., to Edward
Shoener. The Pennsylvania State University Laboratory or another laboratory
acceptable to EPA shall perform all Phase I and, if necessary, Phase II
analyses. The quality control and chain-of-custody procedures, as well
as the analytical methods to be utilized by the laboratory, shall be
developed in accordance with the "EPA NEIC Policies and Procedures manual",
May 1978, revised November 1984, EPA-330/9-78-001-R, and shall be specified
in the Site Operations Plan.
All Phase I field saapling activities shall be completed within
60 days of Phase I SOP approval. Within 60 days of completion of field
sampling activities G & W shall have completed all analyses of the samples
and submitted to EPA a compilation of the results for all soil samples and
quality control samples. G & W shall also submit copies of any and all
logs, notes, sketches, and other information specified in the protocol if
requested by EPA.
EPA shall review the Phase I data and determine the need for a Phase
II Program. G & W consultants shall be available to EPA for consultation
(including one trip to EMSL in Las Vegas, Nevada) in order for EPA to
thoroughly analyze the data and specify the requirements, if any, for the
Phase II program.
Within 60 days of receipt of all Phase I analyses EPA shall notify
G & W if a Phase II program is necessary and if necessary, EPA shall specify
in writing to G & W the Phase II sampling locations, depths and quality
assurance samples required. Within 30 days G & W shall then modify
the Phase I plan to incorporate these new specifications. All other
-------
3.
specifications in the Phase I plan should be adhered to by G & W in
the Phase II program unless the EPA project coordinator grants G & W
written permission to make additional modifications.
If a Phase II program is necessary, G & W shall collect the Phase
II samples, perform the analyses and shall submic the same type of
information as was required for the Phase I program within 180 days of
EPA approval of the Phase II SOP. EPA shall review this data and
provide to G & W all maps, statistical analyses and technical reports
relating to EPA's review of the data's statistical significance and
distribution within 60 days of receipt of the Phase II data.
Task 4 - Identification of Technologies for Remediating Site Contamination
Dr. Dale Baker will be retained on behalf of G & W to conduct the
investigation and submit the reports and data as specified in
"Strategies for Management of Cropland Soils Contaminated with Zinc
and Cadmium in the Vicinity of Palmerton, Pennsylvania," Principal
Investigator: Dale E. Baker. G & W shall also consider any other
technologies as may be appropriate under the requirements of the NCF
to remediate any environmental or public health damage or threats.
G & W shall include a schedule for identifying and evaluating remedial
technologies and conducting a feasibility study in accordance with
current EPA RI/FS guidance documents.
Task 5 - Remedial Investigation Report
A remedial investigation report shall be prepared in accordance
with current EPA RI/FS guidance documents. All data collected during
the field activities required under this Order along with all other
data collected by other researchers that is in the possession of EPA
or is otherwise readily available to G & W shall be reviewed and evaluated
in the RI report. A draft remedial investigation report shall be
submitted to EPA within 90 days of G & W's receipt of EPA's review of
the Phase II soil data and a final report shall be submitted within
30 days of receipt of EPA draft report comments.
Task 6 - Feasibility Study Report
A feasibility study report shall be prepared in accordance with current
EPA RI/FS guidance documents. The feasibility study report shall
be submitted at -the same time that the RI report is submitted.
Task 7 - Reporting Requirements
The Site Operations Plan shall specify the frequency and content
of project status reports to be submitted by G & W during the performance
of the RI/FS.
-------
[foto wtrog
earth resources consultants
August 19, 1985
Mr. Edward Shoener
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Subject: Soils Analytical Protocol for Palmerton, PA
REWAI Project 8498
Dear Mr. Shoener:
As you requested during our telephone conversation this past
Friday, August 16, 1985, we are enclosing information on the soil
sampling analytical protocol for the Palmerton study. Attached
you will find a copy of the Quality Assurance Program Protocol
submitted to us by Dr. Dale E. Baker of Pennsylvania State
University. This document refers to Diagnostic Soil Tests
(ST-12) , which will be forwarded to you at a later date, as Dr.
Baker neglected to include that with, his submittal to us.
Basically, Diagnostic Soil Tests lists the tests which Penn State
is proposing to complete for the Palmerton samples. These tests
include total metals concentration for Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cd, and
Cr; and the Baker Soil Diagnostic Test, including Merkle Test,
pH, lime requirements, P, K, Mg, Ca, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Na, Al, Pb,
Ni, and Cd. The Baker Test would be a measure of the
availability of the listed metals for plant uptake.
If the Penn State Lab and attached protocol is to be used, their
analyses will produce extraneous data which Gulf and Western will
make available to EPA as a part of the record, but does not
necessarily relate to the specific investigation in any direct
manner. Thus, any data beyond the four (4) metals listed by the
NUS work Plan dated August 1984 and the EMSL-LV Soil Sampling
Protocol dated September 27, 1984 (i.e. Cd, Cu, Zn, and Pb) would
have no relationship to any activities of the Palmerton smelter.
Therefore, we should discuss with you, in detail, the need for
and possible use of these additional data.
For analysis of soil samples collected from 210 sampling
locations of our Phase 1 Soil Sampling, we propose to use the
Penn State Laboratory and to complete analyses for Total Metals,
Baker Test, and Merkle Test. For any additional soil samples
3240 schoolhouse road middletown, pa. 17057 (717) 944-5501
-------
Mr. Edward Shoener - 2 - August 19, 1985
collected during our Phase 2 Soil Sampling, analysis will be for
total Cd, Cu, Zn, Pb, and pH, with any additional analyses to be
completed solely at the discretion of Gulf and Western.
If you have any questions concerning the laboratory or protocol
discussed herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
R. E.. WRIGHT ASSOCIATES, INC.
Er/Lc J. Slavin, P.G,
Project Manager
EJS : pr
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Kenneth R. Myers
Mr. Robert P. Marshall
-------
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 1st day of August, 1985, by and
between OR. DALE E. BAKER, 1429 Harris Street, State College,
Pennsyl vania 16803 and OR. LES E. LANYON, 102 Cherry Ridge Road, State
College, Pennsylvania 16803 (hereinafter called "CONSULTANTS"), and
R. £. WRIGHT ASSOCIATES, 3240 School house Road, Middletown, Pennsylvania
17057 (hereinafter called "COMPANY");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, COMPANY has outlined a program for the evaluation of land-
use problems associated with soil contamination 1n and around Palmerton,
Pennsylvania, said program being commonly referred to as the Palmerton
Clean-Up Program; and
WHEREAS, as Phase IA of the Palmerton Clean-Up Program, COMPANY
wishes to conduct a study, "Strategies for Management of Cropland Soils
Contaminated with Z1nc and Cadmium 1n the Vicinity of Palmerton,
Pennsyl vania;" and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANTS represent that they are qualified to complete
such a study;
i
NOW, THEREFORE, for and 1n consideration of the foregoing and the
mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties agree
as follows:
ARTICLE I
Scope of Work
CONSULTANTS shal 1, during the term hereof, perform the services
described 1n Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Such
tasks are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Services."
ARTICLE II
COMPANY Representative
COMPANY hereby designates as its representative to authorize
Services and expenses under this Agreement, Mr. Eric Slavin, R. ft.
Wright Associates, 3240 School house Road, Middletown, Pennsylvania
17057, or such other representative as he may designate in writing.
-------
ARTICLE III
Compensation to be Paid CONSULTANT
Compensation for the Services provided by 0. E. Baker under this
Agreement shal 1 be at the rate of $50.00 per hour or $350.00 per day
in field plus direct expenses
Compensation for the Services provided by L. E. Lanyon
under this Agreement shall be at the rate of $40.00 per hour or
$300.00 per day in field plus direct expenses.
Complete and accurate records of costs and
hours worked shal 1 be kept by CONSULTANT, and shal 1 be subject to
audit by COMPANY using generally accepted accounting and auditing
procedures. Copies of paid Invoices for direct expenses shall
accompany CONSULTANT'S statement. A detailed statement of charges
shall be prepared and submitted to COMPANY by CONSULTANT on a
calendar month basis. Payments of amounts due shall be made by
COMPANY within flPlseu (13) days after receipt aiiU upui uiul uf jui.li .
* ~~ *~*~ """MJ
ARTICLE IV
Non-Disclosure & Ownership
All written and oral information not in the public domain or not
previously known, and all information and data obtained, developed,
or supplied by COMPANY under this Agreement, or at the expense of
COMPANY, will be kept confidential by CONSULTANTS, their employees,
agents and servants. Such data and information will not be
disclosed or provided to any third party directly or indirectly for
a period of two (2) years after the expiration or termination of
this Agreement without the prior written consent of COMPANY.
CONSULTANTS agree that they will cause their employees, agents and
servants to maintain such confidentiality.
Al 1 drawings, maps, sketches, and other data devel oped, bui It, or
purchased under this Agreement or at the expense of COMPANY shall be
and remain the property of COMPANY and shall be turned over by
CONSULTANTS upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, if
requested by COMPANY within a reasonable period of time after such
expiration or termination.
-------
ARTICLE V
Independent Contractor Relationship
CONSULTANTS are and shall at all times be, and shall constitute in
the performance of all work, Services, and activites under this
Agreement, independent contractors. All employees, servants or agents
of CONSULTANT are, and shall be and remain at all times, employees,
servants, or agents of CONSULTANTS and shall not in any way or at any
time be, become, or be deemed to be employees, agents, servants or
subcontractors of COMPANY, and said persons shall at all times and in
all places be subject to the sole direction, supervision and control of
CONSULTANTS.
ARTICLE VI
Professional Responsibility
CONSULTANTS agree, In connection with the Services performed
pursuant to this Agreement, that such work will be performed in
accordance with the standards of care, ski 1 1 and d11igence normal ly
provided by competent professionals in the performance of services in
respect of work similar to that contemplated by this Agreement.
ARTICLE VII
Hold Harmless
CONSULTANTS agree to save, Indemnify and hold COMPANY harmless from
any losses, injuries, damages or liabilities of any kind whatsoever
arising directly or Indirectly out of the performance of this Agreement.
CONSULTANTS' responsibility under this Article shall not apply to any
such losses, damages, Injuries or liabilities arising out of an
intellectual act such as an opinion, report, map, plan, or design
prepared or published by CONSULTANTS unless caused by the willful
misconduct or gross negligence of CONSULTANTS, their employees,
servants, or agents. The foregoing shall not relieve CONSULTANTS of any
liability Imposed by law in connection with the Services furnished under
this Agreement.
-------
ARTICLE VIII
Term and Termination
A. The term of this Agreement shall commence as the the date first
above mentioned, and shall end not later than September 30, 1986, or
such earlier time as CONSULTANTS complete all Services.
B. At Its option, COMPANY may terminate this Agreement at any time upon
ten (10) days written notice to CONSULTANTS. Should this option be
exercised by COMPANY, CONSULTANTS shall be compensated for Services
provided to and including the date of termination.
ARTICLE IX
Compliance with Laws
CONSULTANT shall at all times and places comply with all statutes,
ordinances, rules, orders, regulations, and requirements of federal,
state and local governments, and of their departments, agencies, and
subdivisions, that are applicable to the performance of this Agreement.
CONSULTANTS shall be solely responsible for payment of all fines,
penalties, charges, and costs Imposed for their violations of law,
including without limitation, health, safety, and environmental laws and
regulations. No payment shall be made to CONSULTANTS for or on account
of any cost or expense Incurred in complying with this Article.
ARTICLE X
Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action
Unless otherwise exempt, CONSULTANT shall comply with the
requirements of Executive Order 11246, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Clause, Certification of Non-Segregated Facilities, Section 503 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1974, Section 402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Executive Order 11625 (entitled
National Program for Minority Business Enterprises), and all applicable
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder and amendments thereto,
specifically Incorporating by reference the provisions of 41 CFR SS 60-
1.4, 60-1.8(b), 60-741.4, 60-250.4 and 1-1310.2 respectively.
-------
ARTICLE XI
Notices
All notices and/or reports required by this Agreement including
statements and/or invoices shall be deemed to be made or given when
deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or deliverd in
person, addressed as follows:
COMPANY:
R. C* Wright Associates
3240 School house Road
Mlddletown, Pennsylvania 17057
Attention: Eric Slavin
CONSULTANTS:
Or. Dale E. Baker
1429 Harris Street
State College, Pennsylvania 16803
Dr. Les E. Lanyon
102 Cherry R1dye Road
State College, Pennsylvania 16803
ARTICLE XII
Change of Address
If either party should change Its address as shown in Article XI,
he or it shal 1 notify the other party of such change in the manner set
forth above within fifteen (15) days of such change.
ARTICLE XIII
Choice of Law
This Agreement 1s to be construed and the respective rights of
CONSULTANTS and COMPANY are to be determined according to the laws of
the State of Pennsylvania.
-------
ARTICLE XIV
Binding Effect
Neither this Agreement, nor any of the rights, duties, OP
obligations thereto, may be assigned, delegated or transferred in any
manner 1n whole or 1n part by CONSULTANTS without first obtaining
COMPANY'S written consent. Any assignment, delegation or transfer in
violation of this restriction shall be void.
ARTICLE XV
Entire Agreement
This Agreement constitutes the.entire Agreement between the parties
hereto and supersedes all other prior agreements and representations.
No amendment hereof shall be binding on any party hereto unless and
until approved in writing by each party.
ARTICLE XVI
Severabi11ty
In the event any provision of this Agreement 1s declared by any
Court of competent jurisdiction to be Invalid or unlawful for any
reason, such Invalidity or unlawfulness shall not affect the remaining
provisions, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if
such Invalid or unlawful provision had never been Inserted in this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement
as of the day, month and year first above written.
' R. /.
Wright Associates CONSULTANTS
BY 7*1 I
-------
Exhibit A
Strategies for Management of Cropland Soils
Contaminated with Zinc and Cadmium
in the Vicinity of Palmerton, Pennsylvania
Principal Investigator: Dale E. Baker, Professor of Soil Chemistry
Project Associate: Les E. Lanyon, Associate Professor
Introduction:
The investigations beiny summarized and prepared as a M.S. Thesis
by John Washington provide much of the soil metal concentration data
required for the development of demonstration projects which will enable
landowners to manage their cropland in an environmentally acceptable
manner. The goal of this Investigation is to concentrate additional
effort on the development and relationship of appropriate rehabilitation
strategies to areas of similar soil resources, land use and concentra-
tions of zinc (Zn) and cadmium (Cd) within the surface soil.
The surface metal distribution maps from the work of John
Washington are attached as Appendix A. The predicted total metals
represent the amounts extracted by the EPA method (EPA-600 4-79-520,
Metals by Atomic Absorption Methods, 4.1.3). The method Involves soil
extraction with boiling, concentrated HN03 followed by 1:1 MCI. The
extract able level.s were obtained by the Baker method which Involves an
extraction with OTPA 1n the presence of a balanced cation solution
containing Ca'*"*', Mg**, K*, and H* at appropriate ionic activities for
agricultural soils.
The equations used to generate predicted concentrations for the
various metals are also presented in Appendix A. The r2 values for the
predicted and measured levels for each metal are considered excellent.
Table 1. The relationship (r2) between the predicted and measured
levels for two extraction methods of Pb, Zn and Cd.
Metal Extraction Method _r2_
Zn Total 0.90
Zn Extractable 0.82
Cd Total 0.83
Cd Extractable 0.81
Pb Total 0.72
Pb Extractable N/A
-------
For sewage sludge applications on land, it is generally agreed that
with routine soil management practices including liming to maintain the
soil pH above 6.0, land contaminated with no more than 2.5 ppm Cd, 125
ppm Zn and 250 ppm Pb can be farmed with no adverse effects on crop
production or on animal or human health. The results in Appendix A
indicate that phytotoxicity of Zn plus Cd is likely to occur before
adverse effects of Cd on animal and human health can be observed. With
this postulate as a basis, the approach of this project will be to
demonstrate the soil management requirements for important crops on
common soils of the area when the total Zn is 125 to 150 ppm or higher
and total Cd is 2.5 to 3.0 ppm or higher.
Part I. Provide a Soil Resource/Land Use Inventory.
Objectives:
1. Relate contaminant distribution to both soil resources and land
uses.
2. Provide a quantitative spatial Information foundation for use in
prioritizing treatment regions.
Methods:
1. Spatial databases would be developed to Include soil metal
distribution, soil association, and land use Information. Previous
work on Cd, Pb, and Zn in the area by John Washington, soil
association maps from soil surveys, and photo interpretation would
be relied upon in the initial stages as Information sources. The
information would be compiled 1n a computer-compatible digitized
format.
2. Composite maps would be developed from the digitized databases
describing the distribution of specific soil resource/land use
combinations associated with the available soil distribution of each
metal. The regions could then be prioritized for targeting the
available demonstration resources. For instance, regions of soils
with high levels of available soil metals that are well suited for
agricultural production and that are being Intensively used for
agriculture may be high priority regions that should be emphasized
in the rehabilitation program. Other regions of low available soil
metals, soils poorly suited for agriculture, and low Intensity of
agricultural use may be low priority regions. Various organizations
responsible for the project could participate in the assignment of
treatment priorities.
Part II. Selection of Field Sites.
Objectives:
Select areas within the priority treatment regions that were
Identified In the preceding stage to evaluate management options in the
field. A minimum of 12 locations will be Included.
-------
Methods:
Areas with similar soils and land use will be selected which vary
in soil concentrations of Cd and Zn as determined in previous studies.
Soils at these field sites will be sampled using 0-15, 15-30, and 30-45
cm increments. Five samples will be taken from each location using a
circle of 50 meters with one sample from the center and four others from
north, south, east and west of center. The total number of samples
would be at least 180. Each sample would be assayed for total sorbed Zn
and Cd plus extractabl e^l abi le Zn and Cd and pCd and pZn in the OTPA
solution of the Baker method.
Part III. Laboratory Evaluation of Possible Soil Treatments.
Objective:
Screen soil treatment approaches using laboratory incubations. The
effectiveness of the treatments will be evaluated by the Baker soil
test. A minimum of 200 samples will be included.
Methods:
For selected soil locations the surface (0-15 cm) layer or mixtures
of horizons will be used In factorial designs with rates of lime and
rates of humus peat to evaluate their potential for lowering the plant
aval 1 abi 1 ity of both Cd and Zn. The soi 1 -treatment mixtures will be
alternately wetted and air-dried to attain equilibrium. The samples
will then be assayed for metal activity by the Baker method to determine
treatments which show promise for greenhouse and field trials. Results
of this experiment will be used to predict the needed demonstrations
under both greenhouse and field conditions.
Schedule of Work:
November, 1984 - Initiate work on Parts 1 and 2 at Penn State. In
order to obtain samples required for the laboratory assays, some field
work wi 11 be Initiated in November to obtain representati ve sampl es,
hopefully before the soils become frozen.
December, 1984 and January. 1985 - The work on Part 1 wi11 be
completed and the composite maps will be completed.
March, 1985 - The project will be completed. The final report will
Include the strategies for demonstration projects. The initial program
will include soils, treatments and plants in a factorial design for
greenhouse pot studies. In addition, field investigations will be
proposed to relate greenhouse results to field situations.
-------
BUDGET
Part 1.
L. E. Unyon, Program Leader
Mages
Computer
TOTAL
Part 2.
0. E. Baker, Program Leader
Sample Preparation and Analyses*
Wages
Supplies, Computer, etc.
TOTAL
Part 3.
D. E. Baker, Program Leader
Sample Preparation, Equilibration and Analyses
Wages
Supplies, Computer, etc.
TOTAL
*Analys1s w111 Include the Baker soil diagnostic test, Merkle
sol! test plus the total metals test as performed at a cost of
$44.00 per sample by the Soil and Environmental Chemistry
Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University.
-------
STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS OF
SECOND PALMERTON SOIL SURVEY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Thomas H. Starks
Diana Gruber
Kenneth W. Brown
Technical Contacts
Environmental Research Center
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Computer Sciences Corporation
Las Vegas, Nevada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
April 1987
-------
ABSTRACT
i^aa^
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Subcontract EM 1 ss? RV * £ •
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ....
Figures .
Tables ... • • • iv
v
Transparencies
'•••-. vi
Introduction ....
Conclusions ...
Methods of Data Analysis ...
Results and Discussion
4
References .
Appendix-Listing of Data. ....
Ill
-------
FIGURES
Number .
1 Sample points of second survey ..... 2
2 Sample points of first and second surveys .... 3
3 Cadmium concentrations (mg/kg) in the southwest quadrant . . 5
4 Cadmium concentrations (mg/kg) in the northwest quadrant . . 6
5 Cadmium concentrations (mg/kg) in the northeast quadrant . . 7
6 Cadmium concentrations (mg/kg) in the southeast quadrant . . 8
7 Lead concentrations (mg/kg) in the southwest quadrant . . 9
8 Lead concentrations (mg/kg) in the northwest quadrant . . . 10
9 Lead concentrations (mg/kg) in the northeast quadrant . . . 11
10 Lead concentrations (mg/kg) in the southeast quadrant . . . 12
11 Zinc concentrations (mg/kg) in the southwest quadrant . . . 13
12 Zinc concentrations (mg/kg) in the northwest quadrant . . . 14
13 Zinc concentrations (mg/kg) in the northeast quadrant ... 15
14 Zinc concentrations (mg/kg) in the southeast quadrant . . . 16
15 Isopleths of cadmium concentrations (mg/kg) . . . . 21
16 Isopleths of standard errors of log-transformed cadmium estimates . 22
17 Isopleths of lead concentrations (mg/kg) .... 23
18 Isopleths of standard errors of log-transformed lead estimates . . 24
19 Isopleths of zinc concentrations (mg/kg) .... 25
20 Isopleths of standard errors of log-transformed zinc estimates . . 26
IV
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Results from Duplicate Samples-Second Palmerton Survey. . . .17
2 Results from Splits - Second Palmerton Survey . . . . .18
3 Comparison of Duplicate-Pair Variances from Two Surveys. . . .18
4 Comparison of Split-Pairs Variances form Two Surveys . . . .19
5 Comparison of Spatial Structure Estimates. . . . . .19
-------
TRANSPARENCIES
Number Location
1 Geographical features of Palmerton area Back Cover
2 Sample points from both surveys Back Cover
3 Standard error isopleths for log-transformed cadmium estimates . . Back Cover
4. The 10 ppm isopleths for cadmium based on
concentration estimates ± 2 standard errors Back Cover
5 The 50 ppm isopleths for cadmium based on
concentration estimates ± 2 standard errors Back Cover
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the second (1986) soil survey was to determine the spatial distribution of
three metals (cadmium, lead, and zinc) in the region around the two Palmerton smelter facilities.
Soil samples wen taken at 218 sites that were fairly uniformly scattered (see Figure 1) over areas
where concentration of cadmium was anticipated to be at or above 10 ppm, where land use might
dictate remedial action, and that were outside of the central Palmerton area sampled in the first
survey (1985). Figure 2 shows the locations of all the sites sampled in both surveys. (Use
Transparency 1, which can be found in the back-cover envelope, to determine geographical
location of sites.)
The statistical analysis of the data involved evaluation of variances obtained from seven
samples that were split after compositing and mixing to provide two samples for chemical
analysis, and from duplicate samples taken at eleven sites; estimation of spatial structure; and
kriging based on the data from the two studies and the spatial structure estimates to obtain
isopleths of estimated concentration levels.
CONCLUSIONS
The data from this survey allow estimation of the concentrations of cadmium, lead, and
zinc with high levels of precision within the region of sampling. Extrapolation beyond the region
of sampling is extremely imprecise and cannot be recommended. The 10 ppm isopleth for
cadmium is reasonably well defined within the region of sampling with the exception of a few
areas to the north and to the west
METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS
The first step in the data analysis consisted of plotting the measurements at the sample
point locations on the map to allow visual inspection for trends, anomalies, and ranges of values.
Quality assurance data from duplicates were inspected to determine an appropriate transformation
to stabilize the variance, and to estimate that variance that is due to the combined sampling,
handling, subsampling, and analysis sources of variation. Owing to the small number of
duplicates available, determination of appropriate transformation was based on results from the
first survey and from the Dallas Lead Study, as well as from current results. Also after
transformation, variance between splits was estimated to determine the contribution of
subsampling and analytical errors to total variance of the data.
The spatial structures of the concentrations of the four metals in the soil were obtained by
using a method consisting of cross validation and response-surface analysis (see Starks and
Sparks, 1987, in press). This procedure uses the fact that if the spatial structure model is correct,
point kriging estimates are unbiased, and, in addition, unbiased estimates of the sampling
variance of the estimators are obtained The cross validation involves comparing the standardized
residuals obtained in point kriging at the sample points with results that would be obtained in
sampling from a standard normal distribution. By the use of response-surface analysis, one can
compare many models and can find a model that gives the best cross-validation results. This
procedure was applied to the transformed metal concentrations.
Block kriging on 209'x209f blocks centered at points on a 1,000* (5001 for cadmium)
square grid over the sampled region was performed by using the estimated models for spatial
structure. Isopleths of the estimated metal concentrations over the region covered by the sampling
points were obtained by applying the Surface n (piecewise Bessell) interpolation procedure to the
block estimates. Isopleths for standard errors of the metal concentration estimates were obtained
by the same procedure.
-------
* » *
* * «• 4* 4
4
*
* *
* * *
*
4
4*
4
44> *
** * * 4
44 * * * *
» ,.*».«•** 4*4
4*4 4
* * * * *
+
* * 4 *
«• •*»
4 * * ^ * 4
4 » 4 4> 4 .
4* * 4
* ** 4 »
4 4
4 4>
»
4 *
*
* * 4 *
O
C
0
> * «•
xtl w >• S
w n +* 5 *•
S-o o bl
£ § °-^« s
* * 4
»
^
•# * *
JR
^
0)
3
en
O
0
w
- M-l
4-1
C
•H
O
a.
0)
a
_ g
" ^
CO
«
JB ^«
0)
>-i
3
60
» * «•
* *4 *
:* **%
* » ;
• » »
1 I 1 1 1 1 1
1
9
-------
c »-
* * + a
•>, +» w > 5
»4* *44 W f) +* fc *
«• * c c ,5» 0
Si "o ° i
* 4 4 1? 5 °-«4.'° S
* * »* * °- • o
* * * •§ >
, - * -:. * «• -
* * 4
* *
*
. ,*.**** \* * * 4
*
^4*4 4*4* 44 44
* * .. *
4*4* 44*
* * *
* * * *
» * * 4 *
****** *
* 4
4
+ **,.** *4*
4*4*4 +
**»4 * «» *
****** » 4
** »** ^» **
****»! * * *
+ T t ^^ ^
* * * **tt^> *" *
^***\^l\ \ J
***** *
* * * * *
** * 1 * *
* * * e ** *
* *•*
* * * + »
»* *
* * » * *
* 4
* * * * *
******* **.»^ «,.
* * * * *
•> * *>
* * * * *^f*>^h^
***» .1***
* * *
T *
*«. * * * * »
*
4
^
P
C
In
9
~
-
_
-
_
Jl
^
-
—
•*
™
JB
:
^
.
~
•
_a
-
~
—
-
rveys.
3
T)
C
O
CJ
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The "post plots" showing the concentrations (in mg/kg) for cadmium, lead, and zinc in
each of the four quadrants of the sampled region are given in Figures 3 through 14. These
plotted measurements include 18 samples from the initial survey that were archived (not
analyzed) and the 218 samples taken in the second survey. In some cases the plotted
measurements are averages over two (duplicates or splits) analyses.
At eleven sample sites, two samples were taken 0.5 m apart and were analyzed separately
to provide "duplicate" sample results. Samples from seven other sites had two subsamples
obtained after grinding and sieving that were forwarded separately for analysis to provide "split"
sample results. The duplicate sample results from the first survey showed the difference between
duplicate pairs increasing in an approximately linear fashion with the pair averages. This
indicates that a logarithmic transformation of the data should be made to stabilize variance. After
the log-transformation (base e) of the initial-survey data, comparison of the variance calculated
from duplicates with that calculated from splits indicated that most (roughly 95 percent) of the
measurement variance comes from operations prior to subsampling. It was further discovered in
looking at results from individual cores taken at a sampling site that most of the variation between
duplicates was probably due to large differences between the four cores that were taken at a site
and composited to make the sample for the site. To reduce the large between-duplicate-pair
variance, it was suggested that this second survey take and composite more cores at each site. In
response to this suggestion, in the second survey, nine cores were taken, four at the principal
compass points on a 6-m (diameter) circle, four from the minor compass points on a 4.25-m
concentric circle, and one at the center, whereas the four cores taken at each site in the initial
survey were taken at the principal compass points of a 6-m circle. If the core measurements are
uncorrelated, one would expect the increase from four to nine cores to reduce the duplicate-pair
variance by a factor of 2.25.
The results from the 11 duplicate pairs taken in the second survey are given in Table 1.
The results for each metal from the seven splits in the second survey are given in Table 2. A
comparison of duplicate-pair variances for the two surveys is given in Table 3, and a similar
comparison for split variances is given in Table 4. One should note that the reduction in
duplicate-pair variance from first survey to second is much greater than expected and that the
extremely unusual events of equal values in a duplicate pair occurs four times. The contractors
that took and analyzed the samples were asked to check their records to look for transcription
errors, but they found none. They were also asked if there was any change in procedure in
taking duplicate samples between the two surveys, and they responded that there were none.
Because no error was found in these results, the variances between duplicate pairs were taken as
estimates of the measurement error variances for this survey. A possible explanation for the large
decrease in duplicate-pair variances is that the initial estimates of these variances were inflated by
outlier differences and in particular by differences in pairs from sites AO30 and 8Q33 (see Table
1, of the initial survey report, Starks et aL 1986a). The variances calculated on the basis of the
data from splits were also somewhat smaller than that obtained in the first survey, but not so
much smaller that they cannot be explained in terms of variability of the estimators and of
improved technique which is due to experience gained in the first survey. The decrease in split
variance (i.e., variance associated with subsampling and chemical analysis) owing to experience
could account for some of the decrease in the duplicate pair variance, but since this variance was
such a small part of the original duplicate-pair variance, one would still expect the ratio of the two
duplicate-pair variances to be less than 2.5.
The intrinsic functions associated with the three metals were estimated to be of order 2 and
to have white-noise generalized covariance functions. The nugget (sill) values were 0.220 for
cadmium, 0.200 for zinc, and 0.266 for lead, with best criterion values obtained when kriging
with the nearest 15 neighbors for cadmium and zinc, and with the 8 nearest neighbors for lead.
The discrepancy between the models for lead and for the other metals was also observed in the
-------
x
»
03
so
in
ru
CD
(\l
03
CC
*
•u
(0
J-l
T3
(0
a
a-
?
CD
*
o
S
0
c
LD
1C
0
en
(0
C
0
•H
u
c
o
o
ITJ
u
ro
0)
b
-------
1 I 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' — T 1 1 1 1
1 - 01 Ml
* m. n* * oJ « °. °.
r (D er — t\i — •" • ui 0
* * * ccj T ?
U * ^ w »
Ul Ul - 01 • CD
. ^ ^0 ^fl O «—
* * w * * tn «
! _: - • LD » n,
oj ^ N. nj
h * < ? c, ai
' * * *
ID . -
L t ^
- 5 *
i ^
*
* -
r 01 ° 01 * CD
*
1 (£ nj
- t J * ""
^ en m -,
•• * * ~
* en
fS. '
^ °. en ^ 5
op ^* " T
° «, *« - °
, * * U^
*(*)*?* f>J
^
«^* „„, ^ * CD *-
K ' ' ' ^ ni J^ 0*°J
oj co .co T HI ^! LO ,^°
*** * S *5 -f * ?«
CD a 9J * OJ ^
CD «i ^ (9 *
Lfl >O «-*OOIO CU^
• '(D •* T**fu UO^
N) OB W 4. * ni --^t
»*»*>r
o w
OJ |
4J
0
c
c
•H
tp
^ "-
en
c
0
•H
4J
03
^j
C
CO
u
8
o §
^ -H
*u
iD
U
«•
eu
3
•H
&4
vO
(-%
D O LO 0
" *o nj cxi
-------
-
-
-
"
.
-
-
.
.
_
-
.
™
-
-
-
-
m
-
~
1
«
rs.
(\J ^ rr.
» t »
31 <7> °^ 0 01 i/l"
*» o *• *
* en '2(ri'~. - - or
* * " * * •
OJ to 01 *
in T 7
01 •*)
* ,n
- «" * ®-
* ^ m «> ": M ; ^
— * _ . . " ™
® QD CD — *
1rt ru^-^runj *^-
Lfl * 4 • 4- fU &
* rTl • •
w
U! ff)
^ ^ «—
•
lO
* •" OB
or. CD— ' CD -
i. ., , . (U in U>
* ^t^'V';^a?S
ru * ^« * —
^ » ^ ** ; o *
UT) «
r « „ MJ
10 •
njnj * o
» to cu -
a>.°. m. s * «
«» -S i * <° «J o *
<*«* * * w ^ W '
•- ^ w • IT
in 7 . * » an ~
• u> t
0 ° * " "
aj - nj (c
: s * * _ 5
7 *
__ o
0 <0 °i « OD «? °
w • * ^ ^
: S J S * *? J t ;
* * * • o
U) O CD K. .
® ". "i o 01'^?;^
m 10 10-- -fU*_
®»** **»»
in CD aj
(T) OJ ^ l2*~nP
.4 r» <- * *" 2*"
* « « «- ~*
•£ ? "J ' *
fl) * o _
• KfV °. 00
" I * z* ! 2;
m A ^^^"
i « « " * « T*
« = * ? s s
* * * « rf
09 • w •
55 u> •- • -
- « <5f -' » 2
. 1* . 1*1 , , ,
•H
in
"O
o
»o
in
OJ
o
cu
-------
ID
in
o
in
c
(0
^
TJ
o
10
0)
4-1
3
8
c
•H
CP
in
I
4J
(8
C
0)
o
c
0
CJ
u
in
co
00
*
cv
?
V
3
O
•
00
ru
tu
o
*
Ml
»
i » i
-------
isi
*
CO
LH
»
LO
0)
CD
01
IV Ul ^
1 (y U) *
r * ru* »
(M CO
". I 3
is,
= nj o * So 5,
?- *i* J,
i* * * 5* •
[ •» O t«n ^
oi T
1-^0 H
* o • o
1 o 5ffl o
* » • »
- NO
r *o ^ " -
- * CD
?> 0
O -
LO • » _
• «*>
* CD
* LO
-
-
-
~>
-I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 t 1 I
0
quadrant.
nj w
w
0)
5
x:
3
0
to
£•
.^
"»
^
LO \
"" e
^-*
w
c
0
•H
(0
4J
C
0)
u
c
o 8
(0
*
r-
OJ
M
3
b
o
-------
! 1 1 | ; 1 1 \ 1
O O
c o °
CO >-
nj f IT; ^ ffi
< "2 5 ; 7
o
LH
0 w
^ - "1^
* * w °.
^ * w -
*• (V flo
0 *°.
* p^
•0 o
"• 'l— '
- *
•
.
c
•
^ o
.! u
01 »
* 0
*
t
en
NO
«
O
OJ
CD
^
0 o
S CO
"" ui
•— ^
* *
o
^
• rtj
v u
v* CO
hfj *•»
*• *
0
r- O
w '
*- y?
• O
°o*
(0 •
,_ tOOD
_ T*
0 * *
•
n i
«
00 o °
* . (fl
- S 2 s ^ °-
* ' * -> * 8 «
- . v o -
L. • rx • *
o «o fu
« «n* ?
» ' O
OJ m
J* VJ
•j «
t i i i i i i i i
0 O
0 *0
0 1
0
^^ CO .
° ' tr 03 H
oj? *• " 1
m» * Ul
» » J1^
oo |fU
• O O j
ID Oi J
en o o nj i
i- Oj »0 0)
* * O J (8
ffl * M
» T!
* j H3
* 1 3
1 cr
jo ^
! OJ W
J
V
.c
CO | 4-1
CC Q
u
= * • 1 §
1 fc/1 "*
' "i O I
° *° . ' r-
* « 5 1 -
~ °. y j 9
0 W 1 ^
in CD i «;
* * 1 LT 21
00 ]- 1
o m 03
' Ul IV
0 *
T *
7 o -
i
f^ r >r>
•• •
r- r;
- * o
* - 0
o r H;
ij • «
w ° o ° *C' ° o
^'»o ' °, • o ~ • °
^••CJBa "J . *•- O
*7 ? fi S 2 =* - ^^' "
* I ii'0 ^*~fu
•«• Ci *™ Ml * ^
™ 4 *" -<
? : S. .;- .
£. ? Is « J
. - ty *i
0 * *
O f»
. o
0 "> ,K
1 rv U1
0 4 Of
O —
^ ^
* ?
»
r i i I i I I L
tn
0
.^
4J
(0
^
4J
C
0)
O
C
0
u
c
_ -0
n3
CO
h4
03'
(U
ti
w
3
O<
•H
fa
LO
(—1
LO O
OJ OJ
10
-------
in
id
* ^ *n
: * '*l :• ^ r
55 — Ul
: * *
g =* o 0 „, ^-
nj « 10 nj o nj 03
to - «u "»- w *• ° * "
» • • » CD
•O (j « rx
* O) -
* • «—
JP ° *
tf; o ^ o o
"" ^f *OO * "*
• 3 ^ ' (U ^ • "• U3
^ ^? ^*<^ • ^ CD oa —
ID *°V» OD^»"
» ' * »
o *
^ OJ ° o
i2°* S o o .
0 0 * ^ - f
•O . U) » » —
« • tn T o ^
^"^ ^ - o ® ^y
- . T<£ * rv . o '
•iv * . in to • ^
0^ 01 iv wi T
t* ° *o» : j
o . 7 o
n *~ as ^
o ° ui - S: ^
•
* ** " °O
* 0 (D * °- W US r^
J j, min co<=^cn
w ww"j **;•;
o ° o
n) «i - ° 5o So °-
t *- * o - *® IG
" • ^ * *~ Gju
oi "• * ° ^
*'*OOUJ * "*
* • • (0 °.
0 * * ^ 5 ^
* 0|?lo*||
? r f « « s
l^AhxtW
* * ° * o &
• 9- • ° ,: ;
rn O ' <* *
J5 "~ i. 0) w o>
1 1 1 1* . 1*1 1 1 * 1 •- 1 ** 1 * 1 1 1 t 1
W1 §
•0
3
cr
(^1
w
(Q
4J
^
0
LO C
* C
• H
9
§
•*
w
C
0
•H
* n
C
o
C
0
U
T3
-------
jLO
in
4-1
C
(0
(8
cr
in
nj
4J
3
0
w
C
•H
^» «
-
-
.
-
^ ^
nj in
» » *
*
in o <-
00 (D O
*• m MI
* * •»•
in si
— o
* XI
* *
o
o
to <-
* * -
0 •*• "".
CU (\J *
CP
Is
(A
C
0
•H
4-1
O flJ
c
0)
u
c
o
o
•o
(8
(U
hJ
»
LH O
ret **
VH
3
£
o
LO
12
-------
o
t
o
wi
Ul
nj
o
U3
"1
*
O
o
<*•
nj »
ru
* o
O
ff)
to
in
0
^
o
ni
o»
o
I/!
CD
0
0
in
CO
7 o
wi
tt
•
o
o
o
7 o
ii W
ID
O
ru
ru
»
o
in
4J
c
(0
1-1
13
-------
I °
O o O N. O C
nj KI — 0 r~ 0 0 0
* t * « * o« S 2
f» — » *
CD * ^
* -
£ O 0 o
~ O ^ O r\j
L/) r\| sr o M)
o ^ - - *"
C ° Ul * * * Ul *
'_" "*• O ° °
* - o °
* tu o I£
* 0 0 4
s * ?
in *
U o
^ Ul
C r.
Oi "* 0 tO
CO 00 U3 _
* ° ^ I 0
o * * ;;
* ° ^
• o UJ »
CD (XI
m
o » »
^
^ 00
^ o
O O * (n
° w u> *
U1 ^ 01
? * * 0
Oj
0 o S T
oj o o ™j »
*• t CO *
* o
_ o o
0 o a, o
5 § 5 * §
3D T
0 * _ _ *o
SsS5°°lo5o =
o:t ** 7 J -| | | s§
5! o§ * - 'V '
T 00 * »-
* S: o P »
0 » Ml «
oo t- ooi °2
ocoo o$ "7** 5-
0 V Ml ^
o (j, o * o tj
* * S o 5 ?
° * MI at
JJ ^ f<
C
(0
O"
0
^ w
(U
s
Jj
0
c
•l-t
5*
»^
^ ai
f— g
0
>r^
4J
2
4J
C
4)
U
o 8
*~ u
•H
N
(N
<-(
0)
3
C7>
•H
DM
in
o
14
-------
0
o
a
o
CO
nj
o
Oj
*
J
O
»0
LI
i
03
O
I/)
4J
18
13
3
cr
-
__
_
,
-
-
"
"
"
_
~
-
.
.
1
f)
•)
^
•
Cfl
•
Oo
=>§ **
8$
T*
O
° s *
§ «
* *
0 0
Q O ® O **) CD
^ S * £ * ?
^ 4> 4
* ° S S I
T "* * * *
* 0
* *
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
o un
"0 fU
U»J ~ —
m t* ' (o
* 1 m
^ 0.0 g o e ^ g
n>' oio?- (V(5?°rjL,'! c
^o1** »t* * c
CO H
_ o _j
° <- r^
^£ + O ?
U3 — ^
u*
y*
- 0 ,f - _ <^
• O _ •- S
rn
o cu » * c g
5 * § s * 1 »
S S o o ! c
Oi - 0 UJ -1 0
* » " CD -H
(M * -0
o .
**~ y)
tn — ! *"
* 0 *
*
cn iv co^ o
ID rv CD j,
» * » t
o o o
01 0 o
— ° in
* "* "* -j
o
WO 0
® 5^^**
cn «*r,
•o -*
^ y?
~
1 §§
* us
a-T
,
*
0 0
00
M Ul
^ +
III 1 I 1
O <0
Th V4
c
0)
c
s
y
c
•H
un M
V) r-l
0)
5r>
lpj
O
O
CU
15
-------
IP
iin
o
LO
in
•o
(0
cr
.p
W
0)
*J
0
CO
c
-.-4
-
.
00
co nj
* *
0 0 0
CO CD CD
r> oi »o
* • •»
0 O 0
— in in
•* IT) O|
* * •»•
o in ~
CO
0
O 0
CU 01
us «-
* *
O o °
*
IH
0>
•r-(
o
16
-------
TABLE 1. RESULTS FROM DUPLICATE SAMPLES - SECOND PALMERTON SURVEY
-SLTJL
AL30
BM31
BR65
BU56
CA72
CB19
CJ26
DH64
DK15
DK26
EM37
s2 = ZLV
SITE
AL30
BM31
BR65
BU56
CA72
CB19
CJ26
DH64
DK15
DK26
EM37
CADMIUM
10.20
52.70
12.70
22.50
3.39
27.10
24.80
3.57
12.30
46.00
14.20
'/22-0.01
ZINC
1190
2600
1270
1340
460
1060
1320
300
550
1690
S2Q
13.80
38.50
15.40
22.30
3.98
27.40
24.30
3.75
12.30
45.60
14.10
Median:
16
2100
2600
1420
1280
420
1070
1300
260
550
1700
8JO
Median:
_Jl_a
3.60
14.20
2.70
0.20
0.59
0.30
0.50
0.18
0.00
0.40
0.10
0.40
JL.
910
0
150
60
40
10
20
40
0
10
5J1
40
_L_a
0.302
0.314
0.193
0.009
0.160
0.011
0.020
0.049
0.000
0.009
0.007
0.020
L
0.568
0.000
0.112
0.046
0.091
0.009
0.015
0.143
0.000
0.006
Q.059
0.046
LEAD
206
234
123
110
51.1
253
91
32.9
68
173
22.
S2 = ]
184
180
145
94
41.6
258
92
34.3
64
156
22.
LLj2/22
D
22
54
22
16
9.5
5
1
1.4
4
17
1
9.5
= 0.0088
L
0.113
0.262
0.165
0.157
0.206
0.020
0.011
0.042
0.061
0.103
0.019
0.103
s2 = 0.0168
= |XrX2l, L =
17
-------
TABLE 2. RESULTS FROM SPLITS - SECOND PALMERTON SURVEY
STTE
AE13
CY10
DG19
CADMIUM
4.32
6.31
10.07
4.48
6.56
10.92
JJ.
0.16
0.25
0.85
JL.
0.036
0.039
0.081
LEAD
31.8
48.5
37.3
34.0
50.8
41.4
_D_
2.2
2.3
4.1
_L_
0.067
0.046
0.104
DV26
EF39
EJ31
EL32
9.74
35.10
18.32
28.60
10.12
36.60
18.36
28.00
Median:
0.38
1.50
0.04
0.60
0.38
0.038
0.042
0.002
0.021
0.038
= 0.00093
DV26 580 560 20 0.035
EF39 1890 1950 60 0.031
EJ31 980 940 40 0.042
EL22 1460 1220. 240 Q.I 80
Median: 30 0.042
s2 = 0.0029
44.8 47.2
161 169
97 96
126 118
s2 = 0.0019
2.4
8
1
3
2.4
0.052
0.048
0.010
0.066
0.052
SITE
AE13
CY10
DG19
ZINC
440
360
610
420
360
640
JL
20
0
30
_L_
0.047
0.000
0.048
TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF DUPLICATE-PAIR VARIANCES FROM TWO SURVEYS
ESTIMATED VARIANCE
METAL SURVEY 1 SURVEY 2
RATIO
EXPECTED RATIO
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
0.0691
0.0751
0.0989
0.0116
0.0088
0.0168
5.96
8.53
5.88
<2.5
£2.5
£2.5
Number of duplicate pairs in Survey 1 is 10.
Number of duplicate pairs in Survey 2 is 11.
18
-------
TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF SPLIT-PAIRS VARIANCES FROM TWO SUR\"EYS
ESTIMATED VARIANCE
METAL SURVEY 1 SURVEY 2 RATIO
Cadmium 0.0032 0.00093 3.44
Lead 0.0045 0.0019 2.37
Zinc 0.0038 0.0029 1.31
Number of paired splits in Survey 1 is 10.
Number of paired splits in Survey 2 is 7.
analysis of the initial survey (Starks et al., 1986b, unpublished). A possible reason for this
discrepancy is that most of the lead came from the West Plant while the other metals originated
primarily from the East Plant. A possible explanation for the discrepancy between lead and the
other two metals in the number of nearest neighbors allowed in the kriging is that for fcis second
set of observations many of the sample points were far from the smelters, and lead kvels were
sufficiently near background levels that lead from auto exhausts near roadways may have
complicated the drift function for lead while having no effect on the drift functions for the other
metals. A comparison of the spatial structure results obtained here with those obtained in the
initial study is given in Table 5.
TABLES. COMPARISON OF SPATIAL STRUCTURE ESTIMATES
Metal Initial Surveya Second Survey"
Cadmium White Noise, k=2, S=0.22C White Noise, k=2, S=0.22
Zinc White Noise, k=2, S=0.21 White Noise, k=2, S=0.20
Lead White Noise, k=2, S=0.34 White Noise, k=2, S=0.27
a Estimates based on 69 data points in initial survey (Starks et al., 1986a).
" Estimates based on 218 data points in second survey.
c S = sill (nugget) value, k = order of intrinsic random function.
Block kriging was performed for each metal to obtain estimates of log-transformed metal
concentrations in 209'x209' blocks located at the grid points of a l.OOO'-square grid. Surface n
was then applied to obtain the isopleths of log-transformed metal concentrations and the
corresponding standard errors. Graphs showing these contours are given in Figures 15 through
20. To ease interpretation, isopleths are identified by concentrations in ppm, rather than in the
estimated log-concentrations. Similar back-transformations for standard errors wouJd destroy
their meaning; so isopleths for standard errors are left in terms of log-concentrations. The
standard-error isopleths indicate that over the area where sampling was performed, precision of
estimates is fairly uniform (i.e., standard error is always below 0.3 and usually belov 0.1), but
as soon as one leaves the the sampled region, the estimated concentrations are extrapolzions, and
the standard errors of the extrapolations increase very rapidly with distance from the sampled
region. This means that very little confidence should be placed in these extrapolated
19
-------
concentration estimates. As an example of how to use the combined concentration and
standard-error isopleth graphs, consider a point on a 10 ppm cadmium isoplcth which
corresponds to a point on the standard error figure that is inside the 0.1 isopleth. The natural
logarithm of 10 is 2.3, and the standard error of the estimate 2.3 is no greater than 0.1. Hence,
we would not expect a 95 percent confidence interval to be wider than the interval (2.3 ± 0.2).
Taking anti-logarithms of the end points of the confidence interval, one obtains the interval (8.2,
12.2) for concentration in ppm.
In the envelope at the end of this report are five transparencies. Transparency 1 shows
the principal geographical features of the Palmerton area. Transparency 2 shows the locations of
the sample points from both surveys. Transparency 3 gives the isopleths of cadmium standard
errors. Transparency 4 gives the 10 ppm isopleths for cadmium based on the block kriging
estimates minus two standard errors and for the estimates plus two standard errors, while
Transparency 5 gives the corresponding isopleths for 50 ppm. These transparencies are at the
same scale as Figures 15 through 20, and they can be placed over the figures to give the reader a
better sense of the location and precision of the isopleths.
REFERENCES
Starks, T. H., and A. R. Sparks. On the Estimation of the Generalized Covariance Function: II.
A Response Surface Approach. (In Press) Mathematical Geology. 1987.
Starks, T. H., A. R. Sparks, and K. W. Brown. Analysis of Initial Palmerton Soil Survey Data.
Environmental Monitoring Research Laboratory-Las Vegas, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1986a.
Starks, T. H., A. R. Sparks, and K. W. Brown. Geostatistical Analysis of Palmerton Soil
Survey Data. 1986b. Submitted for publication in Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment.
20
-------
60
00
E
05
C
O
a
c
o
u
fl
O
CO
J5
a
o
co
0)
1-1
t>o
21
-------
i n \ i i i n i i i n i i n i i n i i i i i
CO
E
CO
0>
T3
t8
CO
a
to
00
o
co
t-l
o
(-
u
CU
to
o
co
a.
o
CO
00
22
-------
d
c
d
>
>,
Ul
c
c
to
a.
er"ton,
E
d
Q.
0)
•P
CO
1 «
J •
**• J
ft*
a
CO
_
^
CL
.
2
*
f
•*•
c
U
o
u
4»
:
<*
_
•
i
i
oc
00
E
to
c
o
c
(U
u
c
o
o
•o
cS
0)
o
co
a
o
co
3
oc
I I I I I
I I i I I I I I I I I I I
23
-------
w
0)
iJ
03
E
(0
c
fl
00
o
o
CO
o
01
•o
05
T3
c
o
(0
a.
o
co
oo
V
u
a
00
24
-------
oo
CO
c
o
C
0)
u
o
o
o
(0
.c
a.
o
CO
3
00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I llllliTlIlllllllIIII
25
-------
co
-------
APPENDIX
Listing of Data
Notation
X,Y - Rectangular coordinates in units of 1000 feet
S - Split sample
D - Duplicate sample
Cd, Pb, Zn - Concentrations of these three metals in mg/kg
27
-------
Palmer-ton, Pennsylvania — Data From Second Survey
ID #
AE13S
AE13S
AE20
AE28
AF25
AGO 6
AG28
AI28
AJ18
AJ21
AK07
AK10
AK12
AK15
AL30D
AL30D
AL34
AL36
AMIS
AM24
AM26
A024
A028
APIS
APS 5
AQ28
AQ40
AR37
AR39
AS 19
AS20
AS23
AS24
AS26
AS28
AS31
AS35
AV21
AW18
AW24
AW28
BA18
BA21
BA23
X
2.2803
2.2803
2.1702
1.8706
2.4615
3.2822
2.7358
3.7970
4.2706
4.1169
4.7954
4.8044
4.7963
4.6688
4.7349
4.7349
4.7956
4.8453
5.3193
5.2534
5.3101
6.0750
6.0782
6.5186
6.4015
6.7233
6.8147
7.3880
7.1841
7.6036
7.5979
7.6802
7.6098
7.6910
7.4785
7.4473
7.6321
8.8053
9.3261
9.2512
9.4501
10.9570
10.9187
10.7149
Y
29.1438
29.1438
26.4413
23.1517
24.5826
31.9849
23.0754
23.1037
27.1378
25.8654
31.4760
30.2856
29.4709
28.1600
22.4697
22.4697
20.7809
19.9610
26.9966
24.6769
23.8727
24.6304
23.0379
27.0126
20.2632
23.0493
18.0425
19.3162
18.4616
26.5864
26.1773
24.9850
24.5743
23.8557
23.0448
21.8893
20.1497
25.7894
26.9827
24.5267
22.8815
26.8932
25.6661
24.9234
Cd
4.32
4.48
39.40
14.10
12.90
5.23
6.91
5.66
6.35
2.17
3.63
8.36
29.50
4.20
10.20
13.80
45.20
47.40
13.80
11.60
13.30
6.75
8.53
6.37
23.30
16.80
26.00
6.41
45.20
27.80
6.44
4.72
8.48
12.00
12.40
23.80
60.30
13.90
15.00
6.58
41.30
6.47
3.98
6.94
Pb
31.8
34.0
590.0
184.0
100.0
20.1
145.0
170.0
98.0
126.0
51.4
860.0
770.0
105.0
206.0
184.0
248.0
296.0
160.0
77.0
280.0
12.4
455.0
52.0
133.0
101.0
127.0
131.0
171.0
166.0
48.0
47.5
7.3
56.0
84.0
202.0
242.0
109.0
121.0
50.4
141.0
39.7
162.0
51.7
Zn
44C
42C
1740
125C
93C
26C
64C
610
540
380
300
1180
2400
410
1190
2100
1410
3100
610
900
1230
780
1160
420
1190
1090
2200
660
3600
1620
470
230
650
770
800
1340
5400
880
720
340
2600
380
400
640
28
-------
ID #
BA26
BB36
BE18
BE21
BE25
BF32
BG27
BG64
BG72
BUS
BI57
BJ71
BK23'
BK28
BK57
BL65
BM21
BM31D
BM31D
BN57
BN64
BN72
B023
B027
BP18
BQ21
BQ56
BR26
BR65D
BR65D
BS72
BU56D
BU56D
BV72
BW64
BX18
BX22
BX56
BY24
CA21
CA32
CA64
CA72D
CA72D
CB190
CB19D
CD10
X
11.0806
11.5562
12.6314
12.8380
12.8570
13.3620
13.6585
13.8471
13.7410
14.3693
14.4417
14.9549
15.1988
15.2312
15.4522
15.8148
15.9516
16.1301
16.1301
16.6162
16.6265
16.6710
16.8440
16.8646
17.1000
17.5810
17.8075
18.0714
18.3111
18.3111
18.7953
19.4367
19.4367
19.9196
20.3572
20.2871
20.4791
20.6326
20.8959
21.7839
21.7308
21.8660
21.9019
21.9019
22.1379
22.1379
22.4609
Y
23.8024
19.8125
26.7110
25.5885
24.0151
21.1895
23.3306
8.2299
4.6079
26.8591
11.1048
5.1448
24.8162
22.8898
11.1874
7.6854
25.7348
21.7785
21.7785
11.0181
8.1477
4.6478
24.9750
23.3492
26.9762
25.7869
11.6284
23.8353
7.6910
7.6910
4.9231
11.5791
11.5791
5.0877
8.2303
27.1242
25.6031
11.6842
24.7722
26.0909
21.5493
8.3996
5.0624
5.0624
26.8002
26.8002
30.5688
Cd
14.70
94.90
17.30
9.37
21.50
52.00
6.66
1.29
3.98
10.96
14.70
10.60
12.40
18.20
29.30
5.46
66.70
52.70
38.50
17.00
21.00
6.67
13.20
31.60
9.17
10.41
17.20
11.40
12.70
15.40
5.03
22.50
22.30
9.70
14.10
10.60
23.40
14.70
51.90
36.50
62.20
6.04
3.39
3.98
27.10
27.40
9.42
Pb
71.0
384.0
136.0
58.0
140.0
176.0
55.0
146.0
56.1
82.0
96.0
108.0
50.2
83.0
131.0
47.8
394.0
234.0
180.0
90.0
134.0
90.0
60.0
233.0
42.7
60.0
79.0
88.0
123.0
145.0
43.9
110.0
94.0
70.0
84.0
113.0
107.0
90.0
433.0
181.0
375.0
52.2
51.1
41.6
253.0
258.0
53.7
Zn
930
11200
850
420
960
6900
440
240
540
490
1060
1150
980
1260
2500
630
2800
2600
2600
2040
1860
710
780
1660
620
580
1490
750
1270
1420
640
1340
1280
1000
1690
570
1080
1400
2500
2030
3600
710
460
420
1060
1070
520
29
-------
ID 1
CD15
CD59
C064
CD73
CE20
CE26
CE28
CE30
CE32
CI25
CI32
CI59
CI64
CI72
CJ10
CJ15
CJ18
CJ20
CJ22
CJ26D
CJ26D
CJ29
CM25
CN10
CN15
CN22
CN28
CN30
CN59
CN64
CN72
CR10
CR15
CR18
CR21
CR25
CR30
CS64
CS72
CT10
C023
CU27
CU30
CU31
CV18
CV21
CW24
X
22.5807
22.9612
23.0143
23.2633
23.3629
23.3108
23.2872
22.9993
23.2569
25.0054
25.1049
25.1745
25.1474
25.0294
25.7389
25.7556
25.8031
25.7667
25.7797
25.2742
25.2742
25.4876
27.0122
27.3787
27.3918
27.4981
27.2939
27.3051
27.1918
27.1455
27.2393
28.9922
28.8795
29.2292
29.0316
28.8109
28.8801
29.1438
29.1240
29.8190
30.1773
30.4008
30.0005
29.9598
30.5334
30.5366
31.1349
Y
28.5635
10.4366
8.2024
4.7285
26.4088
23.9615
23.3426
22.3780
21.4739
24.5134
21.6464
10.5054
8.4776
5.1073
30.7271
28.7482
27.6031
26.5455
25.7554
24.1372
24.1372
22.8993
24.4794
30.7303
28.7321
25.7112
23.3078
22.4687
10.5325
8.5117
5.3195
30.7194
28.7180
27.4606
26.0152
24.3792
22.3915
8.6228
5.4517
30.6747
25.1728
23.6097
22.2711
21.9495
27.5219
25.9520
24.8779
Cd
14.50
2.75
8.14
3.77
42.70
31.30
32.80
90.50
18.60
18.10
140.00
7.16
6.69
3.64
6.64
9.90
19.10
23.20
16.30
24.30
24.80
65.00
21.10
11.80
9.92
25.40
51.30
121.00
5.00
5.73
5.06
6.58
11.80
68.70
70.50
24.50
80.70
10.20
34.20
14.50
18.30
84.00
112.00
147.00
24.90
86.40
30.30
Pb
141.0
27.5
55.8
39.4
255.0
186.0
202.0
530.0
92.0
82.0
536.0
54.3
56.4
47.4
62.0
63.0
89.0
178.0
197.0
91.0
92.0
568.0
169.0
96.0
61.0
108.0
226.0
494.0
32.0
42.7
44.1
44.6
71.0
309.0
376.0
79.0
254.0
56.0
171.0
75.0
84.0
260.0
339.0
399.0
118.0
347.0
166.0
Zn
710
360
650
380
2500
1200
1390
5300
1320
870
7400
410
530
320
320
430
810
1070
770
1320
1300
3700
1370
620
580
1190
2600
5500
340
480
430
640
650
2200
3600
1070
4400
520
1900
660
890
3200
4500
6000
910
2800
1060
30
-------
ID |
CX59
CX72
CY10S
CY10S
CY15
CZ21
CZ29
CZ33
DA25
DB10
DB15
DB18
DB28
DC24
DCS 9
DC64
DC72
DG 5
DG10
DG15
DG19S
DG19S
D624
DG26
DG30
DH59
DH64D
DH64D
DH72
DK10
DK15D
DK15D
DK18
DK20
DK21
DK24
DK26D
DK26D
DK31
DK33
DK36
DM64
DM72
DP15
DP18
DP25
DP31
X
31.1429
31.1170
31.8348
31.8348
31.9702
32.5225
32.3244
32.1036
32.8526
33.1215
33.1748
33.1682
33.2199
33.6729
33.1237
33.1106
33.0820
34.9613
35.0270
35.0718
35.1221
35.1221
35.1588
35.1892
35.1363
35.1499
35.1071
35.1071
35.0540
36.5373
36.6133
36.6133
36.7064
36.6337
36.9748
36.9155
36.8237
36.8237
36.7511
36.8443
36.7363
37.0983
37.0750
38.4242
38.5524
39.0020
38.9186
Y
10.7372
5.5418
30.8224
30.8224
28.7804
25.9407
22.7594
20.9923
24.3303
30.8732
28.8645
27.7755
23.0991
24.6526
10.8430
8.8030
5.6354
32.8550
30.9267
29.0212
27.4268
27.4268
24.6385
23.7958
22.1509
10.9313
8.9071
8.9071
5.7273
30.8811
28.7692
28.7692
27.7761
26.9878
25.7392
24.5016
23.8182
23.8182
21.7205
20.8131
19.7714
8.9989
5.8086
29.0838
27.7108
23.9395
21.6006
Cd
7.01
2.88
6.31
6.56
8.73
16.70
111.00
172.00
30.70
9.70
19.50
18.80
57.10
22.40
8.77
8.25
3.24
8.58
5.69
5.20
10.07
10.92
19.00
25.80
49.70
5.45
3.57
3.75
5.15
5.42
12.30
12.30
5.49
16.00
8.61
21.20
46.00
45.6
42.80
46.90
111.00
6.39
7.00
17.20
23.00
12.60
46.10
Pb
41.5
30.9
48.5
50.8
51.7
106.0
610.0
502.0
100.0
62.0
93.0
117.0
192.0
93.0
48.5
88.0
30.1
54.4
59.0
29.6
37.3
41.4
78.0
105.0
136.0
46.2
32.9
34.3
57.4
38.1
68.0
64.0
31.0
70.0
50.1
89.0
173.0
156.0
197.0
130.0
312.0
42.1
52.1
82.0
74.0
91.0
178.0
Zn
360
215
360
360
540
620
3900
6100
1260
460
930
890
2100
1090
410
550
250
470
370
290
610
640
900
1120
3000
360
300
260
360
380
550
550
320
770
430
880
1690
1700
1770
1880
4500
360
620
880
880
510
1340
31
-------
ID 1
DP36
DQ22
DT30
DT32
DT36
DU18
DV15
DV21
DV22
DV26S
DV26S
DW28
DW39
DY27
DY31
EB28
EC18
EE26
EE30
EE31
EE35
EE37
EF27
EF29
EF32
EF39S
EF39S
EI18
EJ31S
EJ31S
EJ39
EL26
EL29
EL32S
EL32S
EM37D
EM37D
EN24
EN27
EN40
EQ27
ER32
ET24
ET27
ET30
ET37
ET38
ET40
X
38.7866
39.2924
40.6182
40.5770
40.4053
40.5386
40.3432
41.2815
41.3344
41.5414
41.5414
41.9284
41.6622
42.7314
42.4253
43.5102
44.5834
44.8275
44.7156
44.7520
44.5904
44.5423
45.2958
45.0831
45.1533
44.8541
44.8541
46.8195
46.7725
46.7725
46.5167
47.6122
47.5583
47.5971
47.5971
47.8443
47.8443
48.5802
48.3248
48.1208
49.3789
49.9324
50.8876
50.7460
50.7759
50.6832
50.6896
50.6990
Y
19.5782
25.4688
21.9114
21.1580
19.4975
27.9565
28.2907
25.1988
25.5483
23.4485
23.4485
22.5722
18.1393
23.0274
21.5559
22.3971
26.3343
23.1261
21.7680
21.4917
19.5358
18.8313
22.9665
22.0612
20.8759
17.9324
17.9324
26.4713
21.1972
21.1972
18.0666
23.0719
21.8780
20.7906
20.7906
18.6505
18.6505
24.0426
22.5378
17.5069
22.5417
20.6530
23.9575
22.5923
21.3459
18.5630
18.1224
17.2588
Cd
36.70
10.42
72.8
27.20
25.00
13.60
5.59
13.00
17.90
9.74
10.12
33.2
46.10
26.1
34.10
35.10
7.40
20.50
19.1
19.1
17.60
8.79
7.37
5.82
32.30
35.10
36.60
6.45
18.32
18.36
19.90
20.60
48.60
28.60
28.00
14.20
14.10
15.90
9.69
17.60
35.20
63.80
1.87
9.87
37.90
10.03
17.20
24.50
Pb
123.0
51.0
257.0
76.0
145.0
77.0
40.1
64.0
116.0
44.8
47.2
157.0
271.0
153.0
139.0
214.0
64.0
111.0
94.0
79.0
88.0
48.3
64.0
72.0
227.0
161.0
169.0
43.6
97.0
96.0
117.0
112.0
275.0
126.0
118.0
53.0
52.0
78.0
55.4
86.0
149.0
195.0
44.9
50.5
116.0
50.9
78.0
113.0
Zn
1350
510
2300
1330
860
460
390
800
890
580
560
1200
1480
1660
1410
1090
390
1190
580
1100
740
400
530
280
2800
1890
1950
470
980
940
1320
670
1130
1460
1220
820
870
730
270
860
1530
3600
146
540
2300
600
1240
1390
32
-------
ID f X Y Cd Pb Zn
EZ24 53.2704 23.9666 2.88 26.6 40C
EZ30 53.1551 21.3271 47.70 175.0 260C
EZ35 53.2101 19.2432 5.35 33.4 42C
33
-------
Paljaerton, Pennsylvania Archived Soil Samples
ID 1
AH14C
AH20C
AH26C
AM28C
AQ32C
AV34C
BT55C
BT61C
BT73C
BT79C
DA34C
DG34C
DM3 4 C
DS34C
DY34C
EF34C
EL34C
ER34C
X
3.4825
3.2750
3.2264
5.3212
7.0287
8.9139
18.9635
19.0896
19.2040
19.1010
32.5735
35.0609
37.5361
40.0183
42.5407
45.0772
47.3529
49.9663
Y
28.7401
26.4032
23.9436
22.9969
21.3095
20.4942
12.0080
9.4783
4.6044
2.0540
20.7382
20.5899
20.4888
20.3563
20.2045
20.1452
19.9168
19.8453
Cd
4.54
3.33
2.48
12.80
49.70
125.00
15.50
17.50
5.45
2.83
109.00
130.00
40.10
48.20
20.30
16.80
22.30
15.10
Pb
37.5
32.9
73.0
352.0
138.0
543.0
149.0
80.0
50.0
25.9
225.0
197.0
103.0
143.0
60.0
62.0
82.0
54.5
Zn
390
33C
310
1650
4400
10000
2200
1130
620
270
3700
3500
1740
2100
HOC
900
1370
710
-------
PALMESTON ZINC
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE
Atmospheric Deposition Analysis
of
Cadmium, Zinc, Lead and Copper
in the Vicinity of the
New Jersey Zinc Palmerton Facility
May 1986
Prepared By: Alan J. Ciaorelli
EPA Region III
Air Management Division
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents i
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iii-iv
Section 1 - Introduction 1
Section 2 - General Discussion 2
2.1 - Deoosition Outside the Palmerton Valley — 2
2.2 - Deposition Within Valley 4
Section 3 - Meteorological and Source Emissions
Date Seta 9
3.1 - Source Data 9
3.2 - Meteorological Data 11
Section 4 - Analysis of Large Particle Deposition 43
4.1 - Procedure 43
4.2 - Results of Large Particle Deposition
Analysis 45
Section 5 - Analysis of Small Particle Deposition — 54
5.1 Procedure 54
5.2 Results of Small Particle Deposition
Analysis 56
Section 6 - Summary and Conclusions 66
References —— 68
Appendix A - Modeling Results 69
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 2.1 -
Figure 2.2 -
Figure 2.3 -
Figure 2.4 -
Figure 2.5 -
Figure 3.1 -
Figure 4.1 -
Figure 4.2 -
Figure 4.3 -
Figure 4.4 -
Figure 4.5 -
Figure 4.6 -
Figure 4.7 -
Figure 4.8 -
Figure 4.9 -
Figure 5.1 -
Figure 5.2 -
Figure 5.3 -
Figure 5.4 -
Figure 5.5 -
Figure 5.6 -
Figure 5.7 -
Figure 5.8 -
Figure 5.9 -
Rose
Palmerton Wind Rose
Palmerton Stable Rose
Palmerton Neutral Rose
Palmerton Unstable Rose
Palmerton Percipitation Wind
Mao of Process Locations
Tsopleths of Zinc Deposition
Isopleths of Cadmium Deposition
Isopleths of Lead Oeposition
Isopleths of Copper Deposition
Comparison of Deposition Cumulative Area
Distributions Among Four Metals - Normalized
Cumulative Area Distribution
for Zinc Deposition
Cumulative Area Distribution
Cumulative Area Distribution
Cumulative Area Distribution for Copper
Deposition
7inc Concentration
Cadmium Concentration
Lead Concentration
Copper Concentration
GLC Cumulative Area
Isopleths of
Isopleths of
Isopleths of
Isopleths of
Comparison of
Distribution Among Four Metals
Cumulative Area Distribution
For Zinc GLC
Cumulative Area Distribution
For Cadmium GLC
Cumulative Area Distribution
For Lead GLC
Cumulative Area Distribution
For Copper GLC
2a
2b
3a
3b
3a
9a
45a
45h
45c
45d
- 48
49
50
51
52
56a
56b
56c
56d
59
60
61
62
63
ii
-------
LIST OP TABLES
PA<
Table 3.1 - 7inc Emissions for Each of the Three
Designated Time Periods ----------------------- i;
Table 3.2 - Cadmium. Emissions for Each of the Three
Designated Time Periods ----------------------- it
Table 3.3 - Lead Emissions for Each of the Three
Designated Timer Periods ---------------------- 1!
Table 3.4 - Cooper Emissions for Each of the Three
Designated Time Periods ----------------------- If
Table 3.5 - 7, inc Emissions Inventory (Deposition) --------- 1"
Table 3.6 - Cadmium Emisisons Inventory (Deposition) ------ 2'.
Table 3.7 - Lead Emissions Inventory (Deoosition) --------- 2!
Table 3.8 - Copoer Emissions Inventory (Deposition) ------- 2?
Table 3.9 - Category I Particle Size Distribution
(Mechanically Generated Dust) ----------------- 3:
Table 3.10 - Category II Particle Size Distribution
(Uncontrolled Stack Emissions) -------------- 3:
Table 3.11 - Category III Particle Size Distribution
(Controlled Stack Emissions) — - — --
Table 3.12 - Setting Velocities and Surface Reflection
Coefficients For Each Pollutants ------------- 31
Table 3.13 - Cadmium Emissions Inventory (Concentration) — 3<
Table 3.14 - Zinc Emissions Inventory (Concentration) ----- 3"
Table 3.15 - Lead Emissions Inventory (Concentration) ----- 3i
Table 3.16 - Copper Emissions Inventory (Concentration) --- 3<
Table 3.17 - Meteorological Input Data -------------------- 4(
Table 4.1 - Range of Predicted Large Particle Deposition — 4;
iii
-------
(Cont'rt)
PAGE
Table 4.2 - Cumulative Area Distribution (Large Particle
Table
Table
Table
5
5
A
.1 •
- Range of Predicted Ground Level
Concentration
.?. - Cumulative Area Distribution (GLC)
.1 -
Results
of
Cadmium Deposition
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
.2 -
.3 -
.4 -
.5 -
.6 -
.7 -
.8 -
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
of
of
of
of
of
of
Q*
Zinc Deposition Modeling " —
Lead Deposition Modeling
Cooper Deposition Modeling
Cadmium Concentration Modeling
Zinc Concentration Modeling —
Lead Concentration Modeling
Copper Concentration Modeling
4b
— 56
— 57
— 70
— 74
~ 78
~ 82
o a
— 88
~ 90
~ 92
iv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The New Jersey Zinc Company is a zinc smelting operation
located in Palmerton, Pa. Operation of this plant since the
turn of the century has caused large quantities of zinc,
cadmium, lead and cooper to be emitted into the atmosphere in
the vicinity of the plant. As a result of these emissions
significant concentrations of these heavy metals in the soil
have been measured within a large area surrounding the plant.
Public health concerns related to these concentrations has,
in part, caused the EPA to list this area as a superfund site
on the National Priorities List.
To perform an efficient Pemedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study at this site EPA needs to determine the extent and magni-
tude of the problem. In order to help in the design of the
actual locations where soil samples should be taken certain
quantitative and qualitative air pollution meteorological
analyses were oerformed. The purpose of this report is to
document these analyses.
Section 2 of this report describes, in very general terms,
the physics involved in the deposition process, and describes
the quantitative analyses performed to evaluate the patterns
of heavy metal deposition in the vicinity of the olant that
have occurred over it's operational life. Additionally, this
section qualitatively describes expected deposition patterns
both within and outside the Palmerton Valley due to general
wind flow in the area as well as areas of expected high
deposition due to the processes of rain-out and wash-out.
Section 3 describes the meteorological and source emissions
data sets used in the analysis. Section 4 will present the
results obtained from the mathematical modeling of deposition
due exclusively to large particle settling. Section 5 will
present the results obtained from the mathematical modeling
of the atmosoheric concentrations of the emitted heavy metals.
Atmospheric concentrations, in this context, are used solely
as an indicator of areas of high deposition due to atmospheric
processes other than wet deposition or settling. Section 6
will present a summary of the conclusions drawn from the
results of this study as they relate to the appropriate
locations for soil sampling.
-1-
-------
SECTION 2
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The general area in th« vicinity of the Mew Jersey Zinc
plant is characterized by extremely hilly terrain. A sub-
stantial mountain ridge known as the Blue Mountain located
within 1 km to the south of the olant is oriented along a line
extending from WSW to the ENE. To the north of the plant the
terrain, although less well defined and certainly less severe,
acts as the second ridge of the valley in which the plant is
located. As one would expect, air flow within the valley,
which affects the plumes from the plant, is strongly channeled
along the valley axis. Figure 2-1 presents a wind rose from
a 10m tower for the area which shows the strong up-down
valley channeling. Inspection of figure 2-1 indicates that
approximately 50% of the time the wind is blowing either up
or down valley. In general this would support an intuitive
conclusion that the majority of the heavy metal deposition
has occurred along the valley axis.
2.1 DEPOSITION OUTSIDE THE PALMERTON VALLEY
The operations of the New Jersey plant are clustered in
two distinct areas known as the East and West plants. These
two plants, located on the valley axis, are separated by
approximately 4 kms. Between the two plants and to their
south is a substantial gap in the Blue Mountain through which
the Lehigh river runs. From a meteorological point of view
this gap provides a physical means by which a substantial
guantity of the heavy metals emitted from the plants can be
transported to the areas south of the Blue Mountain. Consider-
ing the slope of the valley axis, it is reasonable to expect
that under stable atmospheric conditions metals emitted from
both the Bast and West plants will be transported through
the gap as a result of gravity driven drainage flow. Figure
2-2 presents, in the form of a wind rose, the frequency of
occurrence of given wind directions during stable atmospheric
conditions. A comparison of figures 1 and 2 lends support to
this opinion in that it indicates an increased frequency of
winds from the north and northeast sectors and the reduced
frequency of winds from the south during stable conditions.
In addition to the transport of pollutants to areas south
of the Blue Mountain by means of drainage through the gap, it
is as well also reasonable to assume that pollutants emitted
from the plant could be transported to these areas by transport
directly over the mountain ridge. Under the conditions of
both unstable and neutrally stable atmospheres, flows normal
to a mountain ridge will generally ride up and over the ridge.
Under this condition streamline compression will occur at the
ridge line causing a speed up of the wind.
-2-
-------
-------
-------
Fiaures 2-1 and 2-4 present wind roses of the area under
neutral and unstable conditions respectively. Examination of
these figures indicates that there is a substantial frequency
of occurrence of winds from the NW & NE auadrants thus
transnortina the pollutants up and over the mountain ridqe.
Although it is reasonable to expect that the greatest
deposition has occurred within the Palmerton Valley, physical
mechanisms exist, as described above, by which substantial
amounts of deposition could have occurred outside of the
valley and to it's south. In fact there is reason to believe
that in the gan, due south of the gap along the Lehigh River,
and directly on the leeside of the Blue Mountain one should
find relatively high concentrations of heavy metals in the
soil. As discussed above, transport of pollutants into the
gan should occur quite frequently during stable atmospheric
conditions. Under these conditions one exoects atmospheric
concentration of pollutants to be highest due to the poor
disnersive characteristics of the atmosphere. Since high
deposition events should correlate well with periods of high
atmospheric concentration, one should expect the area in the
gap and due south of the gap to be important areas to perform
soil sampling. On the southern slopes of the Blue Mountain,
in areas which line up with persistent pollutant transport
traiectories for neutral and unstable conditions, one might
expect hot spots of heavy metal concentrations in the soil.
There have been a number of studies 1" 2t» in recent years
which have indicated that pollutant concentrations on the
lee side of terrain obstacles can be of the same order as
concentrations measured on the windward side. One would
speculate that this is due to the rotor which can form as
wind flows over a terrain obstacle. As pollutants are
transported over a ridge they can become captured in the
rotor and downwashed onto the leeward surface of the hill.
Considering the unstable and neutral roses presented in
figures 2-3 and 2-4. the areas of prime interest for the
collection of soil samples, relative to the downwash effect,
would be on the southern slope of the Blue Mountain due
southeast of the East and West plants.
Within the scope of this work, deposition patterns outside
the Palmerton Valley can be examined only qualitatively.
This is due to the fact that mathematical models readily
available for characterizing the transport and diffusion of
pollutants are unable to appropriately account for the
transport of pollutants up and over mountain ridges, drainage
into and through the gap or the effects on plumes due to
-3-
-------
-------
-------
i.eeside rotors. Therefore, ^or the area outside the valley,
it is important that the soil sampling network be extensive
enough to characterize the extent of the contamination.
Rxceot for the area within and due south of the gap, where
one would intuitively expect a large amount of deposition to
have occurred, the Gradient of soil concentrations in other
areas south of the Blue Mountain should not be large. Enhanced
dispersion due to flow over the mountain should spread the
pollutants out over a wide area. Therefore it would not seem
necessary to construct a soil sampling network of high density
in this area. Rather it would appear more appropriate to
design a network which would be geared to examine the radial
extent of the contamination.
2.2 DEPOSITION WITHIN VALLEY
It was possible, for those areas within the Palmerton
Valley, to oerform certain guantitative analyses which should
provide some insight into the spatial patterns of heavy metal
soil concentrations that exist due to atmospheric deposition.
The vast complexity inherit in predicting the amount of
deposition that has occurred in an area of extreme terrain
for a period of 80 years make it impossible to predict with
a reasonable degree of accuracy actual expected soil concen-
trations. Rather the analyses performed should provide
useful information regarding the expected gradients of soil i
concentrations. That is, these analyses should help in
defining those areas of expected high concentrations in the
soil as well as providing useful information related to the
needed resolution of the soil sampling network.
The atmospheric deposition of airborne heavy metals is
accomplished as a result of both wet and dry atmospheric
processes. At first thought one might expect that the
mechanism which causes dry deposition is simple gravitational
setting of the particles. Certainly, gravitational setting
will account for a substantial amount of deposition if a fair
percentage of the mass of emissions is made up of the larger
particles (>5 microns). However, for particle sizes much
less than 5 microns setting velocities are too small for
appreciable deposition to occur by this mechanism. Certain
studies •*•• 4*, have shown that substantial atmospheric
deposition can occur from airborne particles of submicron
size. The dry deposition process for these particles is
thought to be a process by which particles are brought to the
-4-
-------
qround by vertical turbulent mass transfer. Once at the
air-ground interface particles are deposited by means of
inertial impaction, electrostatic and chemical attraction.
etc. Obviously, to Quantitatively account for all of these
effects is a very difficult problem. In 1952 Chamberlain5
simplified the problem by defining a parameter known as a
deposition velocity (v
-------
Results of the analysis described above should provide a
lower limit to the amount of deposition that has occurred
since this analysis effectively accounts for only 33%, 42%,
20%, and 63% of the total mass of Zn. Cd, Pb and Cu, respec-
tively, which have been emitted over the life of the plant.
The remaining mass of these pollutants were emitted as parti-
cles havinq sizes less than 5 microns and are thus essentially
unaccounted for by the above-described analysis.
In order to provide some Quantitative information which
relates to small particle deposition an analysis was performed
to calculate the lona term average ground level air concentra-
tions of the 4 heavy metals throughout the valley. Although
this parameter does not provide a direct prediction of the
small particle deposition it is directly related to the total
expected deposition as can be seen from the definitional
eguation for deposition velocity. Thus to the extent that
the deposition velocity for each of the metals is constant
both spatially and temporarily, the average air concentrations
will provide a reasonable surrogate measure for the expected
manner in which total deposited small particle mass varies
throughout the valley. That is, knowledge of the structure
of the field of average ground level air concentrations
should provide reasonable information related to the expected
locations of high deposition, as well as how guickly or
slowly the soil concentrations should be varying. Unlike the
deposition calculations, predictions of air concentrations
can be performed in elevated terrain areas, thus allowing for
substantial spatial coverage within the valley. The major
restriction, concerning where a calculation of air concentration
can be made, relates to the inability of the model to make
predictions on lee side terrain. Therefore, all locations
where concentrations were predicted were within line of sight
of the sources. The receptor grid covers a 310 km2 area north
of the Blue Mountain having a grid resolution of 1.0 km. The
specific procedures followed and the results obtained from
this analysis (in the form of concentration isopleths) are
presented in section 5 of this report.
Thus far the deposition of the 4 heavy metals have been
discussed through the dry deposition process only. Of egual
if not greater importance is the process of wet deposition.
Wet deposition is the general term which includes the two
distinct processes of rainout and washout. Rainout is the
process by which pollutants diffusing up and into a cloud, mix
-6-
-------
with cloud water, prior to precinitat ion, coagulate and are
carried by the rain droplets to the ground. Washout, on the
other hand, is a process by which pollutants suspended in the
air below the clouds are scavenged by the falling rain drop-
lets and carried to the ground. Unlike the dry deposition
process where only the concentration of pollutants in the
air adjacent to the'ground is important, the wet deposition
process is an integrated removal process which occurs through
the entire depth of the polluted air space. Therefore, there
would appear to be a much higher potential for large amounts
o^ material to be deposited, per unit time, by the wet, as
compared to the dry deposition process.
It is not possible, within the scope of this study, to
perform a guantitative analysis to predict the amount of
material deposited on the ground surface as a result of the
wet deposition process. Rather, a qualitative examination was
performed, to help identify those areas where one would expect
the greatest precentage of wet deposition to have occurred.
To do this an analysis was performed to determine the frequency
of occurrence of wind directions during precipitation events.
Figure 2-5 presents the results of this analysis in the form
of a precipitation wind rose. This fiqure indicates that
approximately 50% of all the hours when precipitation is
present the winds blow out of. the northeast quadrant and 35%
of the time the winds are directly out of a 22.5° sector
centered on the northeast direction. Therefore one should
expect that the bulk of the material deposited as a result of
the wet deposition process should have occurred due southwest
of both the Bast and West plants. Also, since the atmosphere
is usually neutrally stable during precipitation events it is
reasonable to expect that a portion of the pollutants were
transported over the Blue Mountain and wet deposited in the
areas to the south.
In general, the mass of pollutants within a plume are
removed exponentially with distance as a result of the washout
process. That is, if we track a parcel of polluted air from
it's source, we find that at a distance x the amount of mass
remaining within the parcel of air will be as follows:
-7-
-------
where Ox = total mass remaining in air parcel at distance
x
= initial mass in air parcel
- washout coefficient (amount of mass removed
per second)
jc =• downwind distance
u = average wind speed
The washout coefficient (A) varies as a function of
particle size and density, rainfall rate and the distribution
of rain droplet sizes. Appropriate values for A is the
subject of much speculation and should vary greatly from
application to application. However, studies have indicated
that, in general, values for A. should fall within the
range of 10~5 to 10~3 sec -1. Assuming a nominal value
of 10"4 sec "! and a mean windspeed of 3 m/s, approximately 6%,
15%, 30% & 50% of the mass emitted from the plant during
precipitation events should wet deposited within 2 kras; 5 kms;
10 kms. & 20 kms. of the plant respectively.
-8-
-------
-------
SECTION 3
METEOROLOGICAL, AND__SOUPCE^M^SS_IONS DATA SETS
Tn order to ner^orm the various quantitative and qual-
itative analyses presented in this report two distinct types
of data were necessary: meteorological and source related
data. This sectron describes and presents this data as well
as the procedures followed in the development of the data
sets.
3.1 Source Data
Source emissions information, needed to characterize the
concentration of emitted material in soil, will have to rep-
resent emissions which have occurred over the entire plant
life (i.e., approximately an vrs.). As one might expect,
operations at the plant, and thus emission patterns, have
changed substantially over this period of time. However, the
Co. has been able to identify three distinct periods, within
the last fin yrs., when source configuration and emissions
were relatively uniform. These periods are defined as follows:
Period A - 1900 to 1949 (50 years)
Period « - 1950 to 1969 (20 years)
Period C - 1970 to 1979 (10 years)
Each of these periods differ from the others either in
type of process or type of control.
The emissions of the 4 metals, as developed by the
Company 6 for each of the three time periods are presented
in Tables 3.1 through 3.4. As can be seen from the tables
there are five distinct emitting processes which have operated,
at various times, over the life of the plant. Figure 3.1
identifies the location of these various processes. To accomp-
lish each of the guantitative analyses which were described
in Section 2, certain source parameters much be used for each
of the sources of emissions. Since certain of these emission
source parameters change from period to period a source that
was in existence during multiple periods would be entered as
a distinct source for each of the periods of it's existence.
Therefore, a source such as stack emissions from roasting
and sintering, which were present during each of the three
periods, would enter into the calculations as three distinct
sources. Each source is provided a source number: source
numbers in the 100's refer to period A, in the 200's to
period P and in the 300's to period C. For example, stack
emissions from roasting and sintering appear as sources 102,
202 and 302 in the emissions inventory.
-9-
-------
u
Ct.
C
o s
i-i Z
a
I
S
en
n
i
^
NS (Tons/yr.l
*-i
CO
W3
H-*
o
"8
u
£
0)
0
CO
"8
u
2
M
M l-l
O O
0 C
«-4 •— 1
^ (S
0 0
«•* l-l
•»*;
"** y
Q" TO
3 jj
tt* (C
F I
^ C)
09 ^j
8-.S
£ cn
*
1-4
0
g
<*»
c
I— I
0)
•*4
4J
•^4
?
(0
(0
g
*
•-• 1— 1
l-l M
• •
O »H
QC <^
0 0
co ro
M
-~ h-l
l-l l-l
C 0
•H ^H
00 O\
ss
C 0
C 0
in
0 0
^^ «— 1
4) Q)
••H •»«
^J jj
•V4 "^
1"!
§
0
u
I
1— 1
— • I-*
c o
CN 00
c- <
f^ ^*
0 0
0 0
0 0
ft V
ss
• *
4)
•^4
4J JC
•^ y
?«
?
N
i— l
h- 1 h- 1 1— 1
COO
O 0* C
O 00 CNJ
— 1
^"^ vc r^
o o o
rn ft ft
M •-• l-l
o K"> »n
in f" r-
tn ^9 ^^
sss
* « «
4)
•»*
jj J< ^
•^4 ^ (J
(C cn w
8
N
1-4
a>
N
•**
(0
0)
>H
u
-^H
Jj
u
&
M 10
0)
d] -»H
•856
•*4
U 4J 4)
4) C £
5. 4) *J
III
g 2 -a
c $
•^ aj 6
u ^ 3
D 10
?§C
^ZJ
Si^
jj
(0
•o
•c 2
V V
0 *•• C
2 M o
0 n f4
c •*
-------
a
a u
•
*
en
>— i
a
M
S
u
Period
Source
I
02
1 Period
•» ro
c c
• •
0 C
00 O
^ M— BR^W^
C O o
• • •
coo
"^ o ^
°l (N S
« « «
§1
4J *t J<
"g> * S
C M CO
2
-rt
N
*
cn
OJ
N
-*H
(0
0)
u
•^4
4J
u
a
4J (0
(0
o jj 8
0!
0) 3
•= -O
7* a g
U 1-4 3
3 <0 00
•o u ca
*
: u
jj
^ « a
O £ •*
zp -c
« 4J
18.
$•2 s
W w Q
aj in -<
c »« m
8.IJ2
£'SS
t-4 ^ W
« -J W
o p -*
•^ u •-»
JAJ O
C Q
0 4->
II U H
-16-
-------
2
to
w
o -»
Cu S
N 3
w c
a p
£ £
S (5
.. ^
X ^
Q M
r* S
g |
**"**
W»
m
i
u
SI-
^ * *
Sfe
I §-
t E "3
tn 2 '**
^^ ^^
^^ Q
ni
§
3
N
CO
O C 0 O C
o c o o o
CM ^ *
^i «*> r-
0 O O C
*? V » T T
c^cio
§
CD
h->
h-l
Q ,~
M S
CO C
00 U3
W
u S
1 i
53
S Q
w
^ B
i i
6 8
u
o
s
i
H
u
|»
^ i
& &
i i-
' 2 3
K < "^
^c ^
z c
H
f ^
|_
3
i— t
Cft
O C O O O
-------
a £
a s
: 1
K c
m
Cb
a
^|
S*5
£&
CA
C O O O O C
ID O if) O C O
2J oe vo m in ^
o c « CN m r^
o o o o c a
c .-t
-------
Soi
O X
en E g
* u §
03 ft S.
"rs
s
••
E CL.
S U
K 2
~
d
>o
«!
>o
<;
sS
>
?!
,1
"3
Particle
Size
Ranqe
Category
U1 00 U"> O> O
oc-r- vc -4
in «»
00 f* VO W O
• • 4 •
0 O O O
(N VO O O
8-2 »n e «*>
o c (f, _| ^
e in e •
Ul • • • O
• M r-l
-------
SFCTIOM 4
ANALYSIS _OF LARGE PARTICLE DEPOSITION
4.1 PROCEDURE
This section describes the procedures followed and the
results obtained from the analysis of dry-deposition due to
gravitational'settling alone. As discussed in section 2, the
results of this analysis should provide a lower limit prediction
to the total mass of heavy metals which have been deposited
in the flat terrain areas within the Palmerton Valley.
The calculations of deposition were performed through the
use of the lonq term version of the Industrial Source Complex
model {ISCLT). This model is described completely in the ISC
Model User's Guide8. The ISC model is a gaussian dispersion
model designed to make predictions of either air concentrations
or total deposition resulting from multiple and varied emission
sources. Because of computational difficulties related to a
varying depositing surface this model is incapable of predicting
deposition in complex terrain: thus the analysis was performed
in the flat areas at the bottom of the valley.
The ISCLT model requires both a meteorological and source
emissions data base for input. Each of the data sets used in
this analysis were described in detail in section 3. Since
the goal of this analysis was to predict the total dry-
deposition due to gravitational settling over the entire 80
yr. life of the plant, the data sets need to represent what
had occurred during this time frame.
In general, the source data was divided into 3 separate
time periods: (1) the 1st 50 yrs. of operation, (2) the next
20 yrs. of operation, & (3) the last 10 years of operation.
Each of these periods represents a distinct configuration of
sources during which emissions could be considered relatively
uniform. In constructing the emissions inventory used in
the model, the emissions from a given source were considered
separately for each of the 3 time periods. Thus a single
physical source would appear 3 separate times, in the inventory,
if it had existed during the entire 80 years of the plant's
operation. The emissions for each source in the inventory
represents the total mass of material emitted by the source
during the particular time period. Thus, summing the emissions
from each of the sources listed in the inventory would equal
the total mass of a given pollutant emitted by N.J. Zinc
during its operational life.
-43-
-------
In addition to the amount of mass that has been emitted
by a source, data regarding the size distribution of the
particles is needed. Information such as percentage of the
total mass residing in a particular size fraction, settling
velocities specific to size fractions, and reflection
coefficients are necessary inputs to calculate the total mass
of material deposited. The emission rate as well as particle
size distributions for the various sources were supplied by
the Company. Settling velocities and reflection coefficients
were derived from the data supplied.
As described in section 3 the meteorological data represents
a two year (1978 & 1979) mixed data set. Hourly average wind
speed and direction were taken from a meteorological tower in
the Palmerton Valley located between the East and West plants.
Since neither cloud cover/ceiling height nor lateral turbulent
intensity was measured at this location atmospheric stability
was derived using cloud cover and ceiling height data measured
at the Allentown NWS site and wind speeds from the Palmerton
Valley Tower. Although cloud cover & ceiling height data are
generally regional in nature, & thus usually representative
over a distance on the order of the distance between the
plant and the Allentown airport, the fact that the Blue
Mountain Ridge is located between the two monitoring sites
makes the mixture of the data sets less than ideal. It is
not possible to determine, with available data, the amount of
error introduced into the determination of stability class by
mixing these data sets.
The ISCLT model reguires, as input, a joint frequency
distribution of wind speed, wind direction and stability
class. This distribution was constructed from the two year
meteorological data base. As such, when processed through
the model the results are representative of the average
meteorological conditions which occurred over the two year
period. Since the analysis being performed is to be
representative of an 80 yr. period the use of a 2 yr. data
set would seem inadequate. However, since the scales of motion
important to the transport & dispersion process are of a
period much shorter than 2 yrs., a two year period of record
should represent, fairly well, the important features of the RO
yr. period. Certainly, there will be some error introduced
but it shouldn't be very significant.
-44-
-------
Deposition calculations were performed on eight rectangular
grids located aloncj. the floor of the Palmerton Valley. Each
of the eight grids has a resolution of 200 m. Running from
the southwest to the northeast the 8 grids, when placed
adjacent to one another, form a continuous grid which extends
approximately 2.5 km southwest of the West plant and 4 km
northeast of the east plant. Thus, the grids extend a
total of approximately 12 kms aloncj the valley floor. The
two grids at the southwest end and the two grids at the
northeast end of the valley have a width of approximately 1
km. The four grids which cover the area including and between
the two plants have a width of approximately 2 kms. The
total area covered by the deposition grids is approximately
16.5 km2.
4.2 RESULTS OF LARGE PARTICLE DEPOSITION ANALYSIS
The results of the analysis, for each of the four metals,
are summarized in figures 4-1 thru 4-4. Each of these figures
presents deposition isopleths, for a given metal, over the
total area examined with the model. In certain areas,
particularly in the vacinity of the sources, the gradients of
deposition are so great that the change in deposition values
between adjacent isopleths is much greater than in other
areas. It was not possible to keep the isopleth intervals
constant over the entire grided area for a particular pollutant
or from pollutant to pollutant. Therefore care should be
exercised in interpreting these figures.
The following Table (4-1) summarizes the range of deposition
values predicted to have resulted from the operation of the
plant. Appendix A presents the numerical output for all
receptor locations modeled for each of the four metals.
TABLE 4-1
RANGE OF PREDICTED LARGE PARTICLE DEPOSITION
METAL
CADMIUM
LEAD
ZINC
COPPER
RANGE OP
DEPOSITION
(gms/m2)
0.2 - 448.0
0.5 - 576.0
11.0 - 18,984.0
0.017 - 119.0
LOCATION OP
MAXIMUM DEPOSITION
UTM - (KM)
„ 4517. 6N x 450. 5E
4516. 2N x 446. 5E
4515. 7N x 445. 8E
4517. 6N x 450. 5E
-45-
-------
As one would expect, for near ground level sources, the
location of each of these maxima were predicted to be within
the boundaries of the plant. It is interested to note that
th» Cd and Cu maxima are associated with the East plant,
while the Zn and Pb maxima are associated with the West plant.
The minimum values, for three of the metals were predicted to
occur at the western extreme of the grid while the minimum
value for Pb occurred at the eastern edqe.
In order to provide a quantitative measure of the total
area, within the calculation grid, which has experienced a
certain degree of deposition, a cumulative area distribution,
for each pollutant, of deposited material was determined and
is presented in the following table.
TABLE 4-2
CUMULATIVE AREA DISTRIBUTION (large Particle Deposition)
POLLUTANT
CADMIUM
LEAD
ZINC
COPPER
1 DEPOSITION
GREATER THAN
(gm/m2)
ino
50
25
10
5
1
0.2
100
50
20
10
5
1
0.5
5000
2500
1000
500
100
50
11
50
25
5
1
.5
.1
.017
% OF
MAXIMUM
DEPOSITION
22
11
5.5
2.2
1.1
0.?
0.04
17
3.6
3.5
1.7
0.8
0.17
0.08
26
13
5.3
2.6
0.5
0.3
0.06
43
21
4.2
.9
.4
0.09
0.01
TOTAL
AREA
(Km2)
0.75
1.3
2.4
4.5
7.0
13.8
16.5
1.2
1.5
4.1
5.8
10.8
15
16.5
0.75
1.5
3
4.5
11.8
15.3
16.5
.4
.6
2
5.3
10.5
13.8
16.5
% OF TOTAL
GRIDED AREA
4.5
7.9
14.5
27.0
42
83
100
7.2
9.0
25
35
65
91
100
5
9
18
27
72
93
100
2.4
3.6
12
32
64
84
100
-46-
-------
Graphical representations of the data presented in this
table are given in figures 4.5 - 4.9. These figures provide
information related to how large an area is affected by a
particular range of deposition values. For example, if it
were determined that all areas having experienced a deposition
of greater than "x" gm/m2 of Cd would need treatment, Figure
4-7 should prpvide a lower bound on the total area needing
treatment. Additionally, figure 4-5 provided a comparison
among the 4 metals. To provide a comparison as to how those
deposition patterns varied among pollutants deposition values
for each pollutant were normalized to that pollutants
predicted maximum. Examining figure 4.5 shows that the
functional relationships are guite similar for each of the
pollutants. The only metal which presents a slightly different
response is Copper. It can be seen from figure 4.5 that the
amount of Copper deposition occurring over a given area falls
off more quickly with total area than for other pollutants.
This is easily understood by examining the isopleth diagrams
for each of the metals (figures 4-1 thru 4-4). It can be
seen from these figures that copper is the only pollutant
which is emitted from lust the west plant: the other three
pollutants are emitted from hoth plants: thus causing a more
widespread problem.
In general, the isopleths in the areas to the west of the
West plant and to the east of the Bast plant are oriented
perpendicular to the valley axis.* *For Copper that is true
in all directions out from the east plant. Thus, it can be
expected that deposition values in these areas should continue
to decrease with distance from the two plants in a fairly
predictable fashion.
For all pollutants except Copper, it can be seen that
for the area between the two plants the isopleths exhibit a
tendency to run parallel with the valley axis. This is not
an unexpected result considering the manner in which the two
plants interact. That is, total deposition from each plant
is simply additive in the long-term. Consider, as one moves
from the East plant west towards the West plant one can
expect deposition values to initially fall with distance
until the effects from the West plant become comparable to
the East plants effects. At this point one should expect a
very small change in deposition values for some distance.
Then as one approaches the Bast plant one should expect
deposition values to start increasing.
-47-
-------
DT AHc.A GKLAinH
-48-
-------
IUIML
-49-
-------
TOTAL AREA (km2)
o
m
O
z
3
N,
3
10
-50-
-------
TOTAL AREA (km2)
O
m
O
z
«o
3
-51-
-------
TOTAL AREA (km2)
-52-
-------
The manner in which the magnitude of deposited material
changes with distance (deposition gradient) varies widely
across the valley floor. With the exception of Copper the
general nattern of. deposition gradients throughout the valley
is quite similar for each of the metals. In general, the
gradients appear to he greatest as one travels along the
valley axis and guite small cross-valley. This tendency is
also seen in the Copper isopleth diagram. For both zinc,
copper and lead the largest deposition gradient was found to
occur in the area northwest of the east plant. The longest
cadmium deposition gradient was predicted to occur northwest
of the west plant. However, in the areas to the Northwest of
the east plant a secondary maximum was found.
In the area of Palmerton which extends from the western
edge of the residential area to 8th street and from Columbia
Ave. to the base of the Blue Mt. very little variation in Zn,
Cd and Pb deposition should be found. This will not be true
for copper since there has never been any copper emissions
from the west plant. Rather, as one travels west from the
east plant a fairly regular decrease in copper deposition has
been predicted. The magnitude of this decrease is guite
similar to that found as one travels upvalley toward Walkton.
With the exception of the fairly uniform residential
area, described above, the most gradual change in deposition
occurs in the area to the east of the east plant for zinc,
cadmium and lead. In the areas to the west of the west plant
substantially higher gradients are expected for these metals.
-53-
-------
SECTION 5
ANALYSIS OF SMALL PARTICLE DEPOSITION
5.1 PROCFDURE
This section describes the procedures followed and the
results obtained from the analysis of long term ground level
concentrations of the four heavy metals. As discussed in
Section 2, it is beyond the scope of this study to perform a
direct prediction of small particle dry-deposition. Rather,
calculations of atmospheric concentrations were made and
used as a surrogate measure of both the expected hot spots
and the spatial variability of soil concentrations resulting
from small particle deposition.
The calculations of ground level air concentrations
(GLC) were performed through the use of the LONGZ model.
This model is described completely in the LONGZ Model User's
Manual9. The LONGZ model is a gaussian dispersion model
designed to make predictions of long-term GLC for multiple
and varied emission sources in areas where the terrain is
mountainous. Although the model is capable of making
predictions on the windward side of terrain, it is incapable
of predicting GLC on the lee side of a terrain feature.
Therefore, the analysis performed with the LONGZ model was
restricted to the areas north of the Blue Mountain ridge.
Since windward side calculations are possible with LONGZ the
study area was not restricted to the valley floor, as was
the large particle deposition analysis, but covered a
substantial area within the Palmerton Valley. The area
covered extends approximately 10 kms from the Blue Mountain
Ridge line north and approximately 31 kms from the town of
"anoning east.
The LONGZ model requires the input of both meteorological
and source emissions data. Bach of the data sets used in
this analysis were discussed in detail in Section 3.
The input source data set used in the LONGZ analysis is,
in general, the same as that used in the ISCLT modeling. The
major difference relates to the form of the emissions parameter.
-54-
-------
In Che TSCLT analysis emissions were entered as the total
mass of material emitted by a qiven source during one of the
3 time periods. In the LONG?, analysis our interest is not
in predicting total deposition, but in predicting the average
GLC from a given source, during a given time period, weighted
to account for the different lengths of the 3 time periods.
Therefore, the emissions parameter appropriate to each source
is egual to the mass per unit time emitted times the ratio of
the number of years within the particular time period (either
50 vrs, 20 yr's. or 10 yrs) to the total years of operation
(i.e., 80 yrs.). In addition, since it is not the purpose of
this analysis to predict total deposition, it was not essential
to input any data related to the particle size distributions
of the emissions. Although/ use of this data in the LONGZ
model would have provided a means by which to account for the
loss of mass due to large particle settling, it's use would
have required that the analysis be restricted to the flat
areas within the valleys. As discussed in previous sections,
present day operational models are not capable of accounting
for deposition due to settlina in areas of varying terrain
elevation. It is important to realize that the error introduced
by ignoring settling would tend to produce overpredictions.
Given this error, it was felt that the prediction of
concentrations over the large complex terrain area, would be
more useful than producing more accurate predictions in the
much restricted flat terrain areas of the valley floor.
Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the total mass
of emissions was assumed to remain suspended.
The meteorological data set used in this analysis is
identical to the data used in the ISCLT modeling. A discussion
of the merits of this data set was presented in section 4.
The points made in that discussion also apply to the prediciton
of GLC by the LONGZ model.
GLC calculations were performed on a single rectangular
grid havina a resolution of 1.0 km. This grid was designed to
provide coverage over a substantial portion of the Palmerton
Valley. The southwest corner of the grid is located
approximately 2 kms. southwest of the town of Ashville at UTM
coordinate 437000mE X 4514000mN. The grid extends 10 km north
into an area approximately 0.5 km south of Jim Thorpe. To the
east the qrid extends 31 kms into an area approximately 3 km
northwest of Chaoraan. The northeast corner of the grid is
located in an area approximately 2 km east of Rossland.
Since it is not possible to make calculations on the lee side
of terrain the above described qrid was reduced to exclude
all grid points located south of the ridge line of the Blue
-55-
-------
Mounta in.
310 km2 minus
Mountain; i.e..
The total area covered by
60 km2 of area located
250 km2.
the prediction grid
south of the Blue
is
5.2 RESULTS OP SMALL PARTICLE DEPOSITION ANALYSIS
Results of the GLC analysis, for each of the four metals,
are summarized in Figures 5-1 thru 5-4. These figures present
the BO yr. average concentration isopleths, covering the
entire prediction grid for each of the oollantants. The
units of the numbers which label each isopleth are pico-gms/m^
or 10~6ug/m3. In certain areas, particularly in the vicinity
of the sources, the gradient of: GLC is so great that the
change in GLC between adjacent isopleths is much greater
than in other areas. Therefore, care should be exercised in
interpreting these figures. Also, examining the figures will
show isooleths extending onto the leeside of the Blue Mountain,
That portion of an isopleth which covers leeside terrain
should be considered an anomaly of the isoplething process:
having no physical meaning.
The following table (5-1) summarizes the maximum and
minimum GLC's predicted to have resulted from the operation
of the plant. Appendix A presents the numerical output for
all receptor locations modeled for each of the four metals.
As can be seen from Table 5-1. The range of predicted GLC,
for each of the metals, spans 3 orders of magnitude.
TABLE 5-1
RANGE OF PREDICTED GROtJND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
METAL
Zinc
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
RANGE OF
CONCENTRATIONS
(ug/m3)
0.17 - 439
0.002 - 2.9
0.004 - 7.5
0.0004 - 0.9
LOCATION OF
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
DTM - (Km)
4516N x 446E
4518N x 451E
4516N x 447E
4518N x 451E
-56-
-------
As was the case with the larqe particle deposition
analysis, Cd and Ca maxima arv associated with operations of
the East plant, while 7,n and Pb maxima are associated with
the West Plant.
In order to provide a auantitat i
-------
Graphical representations of the data presented in this
table are aiven in fiaures (5.5 - 5.9). These figures provide
information related to how large an area is effected by a
particular range of GLC's.
Figure 5.5 orovides a comparison of the distributions of
effected areas among the various pollutants. To provide for
the comparison, the GLC's of each distribution are normalized
to the pollutants predicted maximum. This figure shows the
distributions for the four pollutants to be very similar. It
can be seen that as area increases the minimum GLC effecting
that area drons-off very rapidly.
It can be seen from figures 5.1 thru 5.4 that the general
pattern of GLC is quite similar for all metals. However, due
to the lack of Cu emissions from the West plant, certain
patterns which are consistently found with the other metals
are not found with Cu. General results found from the small
particle deposition analysis are discussed below.
-58-
-------
% OF AREA GREATER THAN
-59-
-------
TOTAL AREA (km2)
NO
O
A
O
o>
O
00 O N3 A Ot 00
o o o o o o
N)
o
o
NO
ro
o
ND
A
O
K>
O
O
-60-
-------
TOTAL AREA (km2)
O O
0
-61-
-------
TOTAL AREA Ckm2)
-62-
-------
TOTAL AREA (km2)
-63-
-------
Examining figure 5-1 thru 5-4, one can see a substantial
bulge in the isooleths for each of the four metals, along a
northeast azimuth from the center of the East plant. This
indicates that the highest GLC, at any given radial distance,
in the area to the east of the East plant, will be found on
this northeast radial. This result should not be unexpected
since the greatest frequency of occurrence of a given wind
direction has been shown in figure 2-1 to be out of the
southwest quadrant. Obviously, this particular area is
prime for taking soil samples.
In the area to the north of the two plants one can again
see a bulge in the isopleths, although not guite as pronounced
as that previously discussed. Considering the fact that a
number of the sources are elevated, one would expect GLC's
to be higher in an area of elevated terrain; that is, assuming
one holds all other variables constant. Looking at the area
where the bulge is occurring it can be seen that the terrain
in that area is somewhat higher than the terrain to either
side. One would expect this terrain ridge to be responsible
for the bulge in the isopleths.
Comparing the isonleths in the areas to the west, north
and east of the two plants it seems clear that more of the
pollutant mass is transported to the east than to either of
the other two directions. For example for cadmium, looking
at the area to the east, one must travel 15 km, from the
center of Palmerton, to encounter the .017 ug/ra3 isopleth
Traveling west and north this isopleth is encountered at a
distance of only 4.5 km and 5.0 km respectively.
Considering the height of the terrain on the northern
slope of the Blue Mountain one would expect relatively high
GLC to be predicted. Examining the figures it can be seen
that, in general* the GLC's are significantly higher on this
terrain than at other areas within the valley at similar
distances from the plants. The only exception to this is the
area within the plant boundary where the highest predicted
GLC's occur. These very localized high GLC's are due to
close in impacts from near ground level sources.
-64-
-------
As was the case with the large particle deposition
analysis, isonleths in the area to the west of the West
plant and to the east of the East plant are oriented
pernendicular to the valley axis. Of course, in the case of
Copper, this is true in all directions out from the East
plant. Thus, it can be expected that deposition values in
these areas should continue to decrease with distance from
the two plants in a fairly predictable fashion.
Also, as was the case for the larae particle analysis,
for all nollutants except Copper it was found that for the
area between the two plants the isopleths exhibit a tendency
to run parallel with the valley axis.
The manner in which the magnitude of GLC changes with
distance in different areas of the study grid is quite similar
to what was found for the large particle deposition. In
qeneral, the gradients are greatest along the Valley axis,
and guite small cross-valley. The largest concentration
gradients are found to be northwest of the West plant for Pb
and Zn and northwest of the East plant for Cd and Cu.
Very little variation in GLC was found between the two
plants for all metals except Cu. Also on the high terrain
directly across from the plants a mild variation in GLC has
been predicted. This appears to be due to the steepness of
the terrain causing plume impaction to occur at approximately
the same distance from the plant at various elevations.
-65-
-------
SECTIOM 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
followina presentation is a summary of the major
conclusions reached resulting from a consideration of all
analyses performed both qualitative and auantitative-
. Conside'rina the wind analyses as well as the quantitative
larqe and small particle deposition analysis it can be
concluded that the majority of mass deposition has occurred on
the valley floor not the valley side walls.
. Due to the expected trajectory during stable drainage
conditions one would expect large deposition to have occurred
of the "gap".
. As has been seen in other studies high ground level
concentrations, and therefore expected high deposition, can
he found on the leeside of a mountain ridge. Transport over
a mountain ridge is accomplished most easily during neutral
and unstable conditions of atmospheric stability. Since
these conditions are most frequent under a northwest flow the
areas due southeast of both plants on the southern slope of
the mountain should have experienced the largest leeside effect,
. Considering both the wet and dry deposition analyses
one would expect those areas to the northeast and southwest
of each plant to have experienced the greatest average
deposition of any of the areas within the valley.
. For those areas outside of the Valley, with the exception
of the area within the gap, enhanced dispersion due to
transport up and over the mountain will have dramatically
diffused the plumes causing an expected low gradient of
deposition in those areas.
-66-
-------
. Malor Cadmium and Conner deposition is related to
operations tbac ha>'« occurred at the East plant: while West
plant operations were responsible for more 2inc and lead
deposition then were East plant operations.
. Relative to a Pollutants predicted large particle maxima
the most widespread metal, is lead followed in order by zinc,
cadmium and Conner.
. Relative to a pollutants predicted small particle maxima
the most wide'spread metal is cadmium followed in order by
lead, copper and zinc.
. With the exception of Copper, soil concentrations between
the two plants are expected to be hiqh and fairly uniform
(i.e.. small gradients of deposition).
. Small deposition gradients should be expected as one
travels cross-valley: while high deposition gradients should
be found alonq the valley's axis.
. The largest gradients of deposition should be expected
to occur in the vicinity of a specific pollutants maximum.
. In general, greater heavy metal soil concentrations can
be expected in the area east of the East plant than in the
area west of the West plant. However, in this area a higher
gradient of concentration should be found than in the area
east of the Sast plant.
-------
RRFEPENCRS
1. r.iu H-T, and Lin J-T Laboratory Simulation of Plume
nisnersion from Lf»ad Smelter in G)over, Missouri, in
Neutral and Stable Atmosphere - EPA-A50/3-75-006-
Anril 197 s.
2. Lavevy P.. Bass A., Strimritis D., Ventiatran A..
Greene B.R., nrivas P.J., Roan B.A. EPA Complex
Terrain Modelinq Program First Milestone Report - 1981.
3. Simpson, C.L. Sone Measurements of the Deposition of
Matter and Its Relation to Diffusion from a Continuous
Point Source in a Stable Atmosphere. HW-69292 Rev.
Pichland, Washinqrton. 1961 26 pp.
A. Islitzer, M.F., and DumbawId, R.K. Atmospheric Diffusion-
Deposition Studies Over Flat Terrain. Presented at the
National Meeting of the American Meteorological Society.
Jan 22-2* New York, New York. 1962.
5. Chamberlain, A.C. Aspects of Travel and Deposition of
Aerosol and Vapor Clouds. A.R.R.E., HP/R 1261 H.M.S.O 1953.
6. Silvestris, M. Untitled Letter to Shoener, E. Sept. 13, 1984
7. Silvestris, M. - Cimorelli, A. Personal Communication
Sent. 17, .1984.
8. lowers, J.F., Biorklund. J.R.. Cheney, C.S., Industrial
Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide (Volume
I) EPA-450/4-79-030 December 1979.
9. Bjorklund, J.R., Bowers, J.F., User's Instructions For
the Short2 and Lonqz Computer Programs (Volume I) EPA-903/
9-004a March 19«?2.
-68-
-------
Appendix A- Modeling Results
Tables A.I thru A.8 present the result of the modelinq
runs that were made to accomolish both the larqe and small
particle deposition analyses. The maximum deposition or
concentration found in each of the tables has been underlined
-69-
-------
-------
-------
e
a
o
e
N
^
O
•
a
I 2
-------
-------
1 •• Ifn'uxvl r'1 Vs x
-------
•S *O» 'J^LsXVV^'S\AAV
w
\ "
5
o •
• >
-------
SUBJECT: Quality Assurance Onsite Sampling Evaluation of the Palmerton
Zinc NPL Site Investigation
FROM: Kenneth W. Brown
Botanist
Exposure Assessment Research Division
TO: Ed Shoener
Remedial On-Scene Coordinator
Superfund Program, Region 3
Evaluation Team; Kenneth W. Brown, Team Leader, EAD, EMSL-LV?
Betty C. Malone, Staff Associate, Techlaw Inc.; Jeffrey Lapp,
Associate Consultant, Techlaw Inc.; Kathy Lauchner, Quality Assurance
Specialist, University of Nevada - Las Vegas.
Persons Contacted; Ed Shoener, Remedial On-Scene Coordinator, Region 3;
Eric J. Slavin, Project Manager, R.E. Wright Associates; Tom Nobile,
R.E. Wright Associates; Fred Rider, R.E. Wright Associates; Ian Milner,
R.E. Wright Associates.
Purpose; The purpose of this onsite inspection was to evaluate
the sampling effort at Palmerton and the sample bank at the R.E. Wright
Associates facility in Middletown, Pennsylvania. It was conducted to
document the extent to which procedures identified in the sampling
protocol are being followed with respect to implementing specified
field tests, chain-of-custody, record keeping, quality assurance,
sampling procedures and techniques, and sample handling methods.
The sampling effort at Palmerton was evaluated for 1) personnel;
2) general facilities; 3) sampling equipment; 4) sampling methods and
procedures; 5) security; 6) record keeping and documentation; and
7) chain-of-custody.
The sample bank at Middletown was evaluated for 1) personnel;
2) general facilities; 3) sample preparation and mixing equipment;
4) security; 5) record keeping and documentation; and 7) chain-of-custody.
Concurrently with the audit of the sampling procedures and
techniques, an inspection was made by representatives of Techlaw Inc.
for evidentiary and chain-of-custody procedures. The results of this
audit will be reported to you by Techlaw Inc. In addition, comments
concerning chain-of-custody are identified in Attachment 1, page 20,
part VII.
EAD:BROWN:x2214:sk 12/3/85
EAD:MEIER
-------
The onsite evaluation consisted of interviewing sampling and
sample bank personnel, observing sample collection and documentation
methods and techniques, observing field instrumentation, touring and
observing the sample preparation procedures at the sample bank
facility, inspecting field and sample bank logs, completing the
attached checklist (Attachment 1), and conducting a debriefing with
sampling and regional personnel to identify and review the team's
findings.
Observations; It is EPA's policy that before any environmental
measurements are collected that an approved quality assurance (QA)
plan be in effect. A QA plan was not available for the team's review
and comment. Prior to the initiation of the definitive study,
the team recommends that a QA plan be officially approved by the
appropriate Region 3 personnel.
As shown in Attachment 1, there were no serious deficiencies
noted. The onsite team was impressed with the caliber of personnel,
equipment, sample bank facility, and the dedication and commitment
of the sampling team personnel to meet the goals and objectives of this
study* The general consensus was that the problems identified below
were minor in nature.
. Sample bank personnel should wear disposable gloves when
preparing and handling soils.
. A number of procedural changes were identified. The changes
which are noted below should be documented by writing an
addendum to the sampling protocol:
1. Document that the orientation of the sampling site photo-
graph is always to the North.
2. Describe the site information (i.e., site I.D. code and
date), that is placed on the photograph prior to its
attachment to the site description fora.
3. Describe the type of information (i.e., profile descrip-
tion, sand, silt, clay, depth of each component) being
obtained from the soil core descriptions.
4* Document that the vegetation sample refrigeration
storage procedures do not meet chain-of-custody require-
ment*. Describe procedures that are being used.
5. Describe the computer data base procedures (i.e., data
storage, security of disks and hard copy outputs) that
are being used for the sample bank logbook.
6. Document that five gram (5g) soil aliquots are now being
prepared for analysis instead of the two gram (2g)
aliquots identified in the soil sampling protocol.
-------
The evaluation team hopes this information and the comments in
Attachment 1 will be useful to Region 3 and R.E. Wright Associates.
The team would like to thank the Palmerton sampling team and the sample
bank personnel for their cooperative and positive attitude and for their
dedication to the success of this project.
cc: w/attachment
Kathy Lauchner, ERC, UNLV
David McNelis, ERC, UNLV
Betty C. Malone, Techlaw Inc., Denver
Jeffrey Lapp, Techlaw inc., Region 3
Robert Laidlaw, NEIC
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. General Information i
Facility/Site Information 1
Sampling Team Information 2
Audit Team Information 2
II. Organization and Personnel Management Structure 4
III. General Facilities 6
IV. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan -
Sampling Protocols 9
V. Soil Sampling 12
Grid Soils 12
VI. Sample Duplicates, Splits and Decontamination Blanks 18
VII. Sample Bank and Chain-of-Custody 20
VIII. On-site Work Performance 26
Appendices
I Palmerton Zinc NPL Site Investigation Soil Sampling Protocol . 1-1
II Palmerton Zinc NPL Soil Sampling Location (Site) 1-2
iii
-------
SAMPLING AUDIT
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Purpose: The purpose of this sampling evaluation is to document the extent to
which procedures identified in the sampling protocol and/or quality assurance
plan are being followed with respect to implementing specified field tests,
chain-o&custody, record keeping, quality assurance, and sampling procedures and
techniques, and sample handling methods.
Audit Dates: 11 / 04 / 85 to 11 / 06 / 85 /
Facility/Site Information
Facility/Site Name: Palmerton NPL Site
Facility/Site Address or Location: (The New Jersey Zinc Co., Inc., Palmerton, PA
18071 - Field Site), (R. E. Wright Associates, 3240 Schoolhouse Road,
Middletown PA 17057 - Sample Bank
Facility/Site Telephone No.: (215) 826 - 8945 Palmerton, PA
(717) 944 - 5501 Middletown, PA
Facility Contact (Name/Title): Eric J. Slayin_- R* E. Wright Associates
Project Officer
Function/Description of Facility/Site: New Jersey Zinc Co* Office is location
of pre-audit meeting. Sampling crews operate out of a large van. R. E. Wright
Associates facility is location of sample preparation area (Sample Bank).
Media Being Sampled:
|7| Soil
Q Water
III Air
|~| Other (describe)
-------
Sampling Team Information
Team Contact (Name/Title/Affiliation): Eric J. Slavin, Project Manager,
R. E. Wright Associates. 3240 Schoolhouse Road, Middletown, PA 17057
(717) 944-5501.
Team Members (Name/Title/Affiliation):
1. Bruce Williman, Soil Scientist. R. E. Wright Associates
2. Dan Hoffman, Crew member, R. E. Wright Associates
3. Tom Mobile, Soil Scientist. R. E. Wright Associates
4. Fred Rider, Crew member, R. E. Wright Associates
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Team Contact Telephone No.: (717) 944 - 5501 FTS -
Team Contact Address: R. E. Wright Associates, Inc.
3240 Schoolhouse Road
Middletown, PA 17057
Audit Team Information
Team Leader (Nane/Title/Affiliation): Kenneth W. Brown. Botanist,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Las Vegas, Nevada
-------
Team Members (Name/Title/Affiliation);
1. Betty C. Malone, Staff Associate, Techlaw Inc.
2. Jeffrey Lapp, Associate Consultant, Techlaw Inc.
3. Kathy Lauchner, Quality Assurance Specialist, University of Nevada—Las Vegas
4. .
5.
6.
7.
8. _____
9.
10.
Team contract telephone No.: (702) 798 - 2214 FTS 545 - 2214
Team contract address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, P.O. Box 15027, Las Vegas. Nevada 89114
Techlaw Inc., 12600 West Coifax Avenue, Suite C-310
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
(303 233-1248
University of Nevada
Environmental Research Center
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154
(702) 739-3382
-------
II. ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL - MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Project Director: (EPA, Ed Shoener) (R. E. Wright Associates, Eric J. Slavin)
Project Coordinator: Eric J. Slavin
Laboratory Analysis and QA Officer: unknown
Statistical Analysis and Data Management: unknown
Sample Bank Officer: Eric J. Slavin
Project Director: (Individual responsible for overall technical effort):'
Eric J. Slavin
1. Sample Preparation: (Individual(s) responsible for preparing samples for
analysis). Name, Media, and Experience.
Responsible Individual, Eric J. Slavin
Chemist, Ian Milnes
Laboratory Technician, Annette Prins
2. Do personnel assigned to this project have the appropriate educational/exposjd
to successfully accomplish the objectives of this program?
|xj Yes |_| No Comments: Each field team supervised by a. soil scientist,
sample preparation supervised by a laboratory chemist.
3. Are curriculum vitae available for all sampling personnel?
C! Ye9 © No Comments: These were not made available for review.
-------
4. Is the sampling organization adequately staffed to meet project commitments
in a timely manner?
Yes No Comments:
5. The Projects Quality Assurance Officer: unknown
Comments: Mr. Slavin oversees performance in sampling, chain-of-custody
and sample preparation.
6. Was the Quality Assurance Officer available during the evaluation?
|~~| Yes |xj No Comments:
7. Was the Project Director available during the evaluation?
Ixl Yes I I Mo Comments: Both Ed Shoener and Eric Slavin
8. Are the same personnel performing on-site sampling procedures as those
described in the Sampling Plan?
Q Yes \—\ No Comments: Sampling team members were not identified
in sampling plan. Eric J. Slavin was identified in a variety of corres-
pondence* Dealing with the Palmer ton NPL site study.
If not, have replacement personnel been trained for the position they have
assumed?
l__l ^ea lil No Comments: This was not evident.
-------
III. GENERAL FACILITIES
The field work is headquartered in Palmerton, PA at a facility where equipment A
and samples are stored. Sample team personnel, work out of this facility. \
1. Do the sampling facilities have adequate workspace?
|xj Yes |__] No Comments: The sampling team uses a large van
2. Is the sampling facility maintained in a clean and organized manner?
|xj Yes |_| No Comments: _____________________________________
3. Are hoods provided to allow efficient work with dusty or volatile materials?
l_l Yes I*J No Comments: Van was not equipped with a hood. Hoods
were noted to be at the sample bank facility. ___
4. Are adequate facilities provided for separate storage of samples, i.e.,
prepared sample blanks and standards, including cold storage?
|xj Yes |_| No Comments: Ice chests are provided for storage, however
a specific temperature is not maintained.
5. Are the temperatures of the cold storage units recorded daily in logbooks?
Q Yea jjcj No Comments: Ice cheats are utilized. Inside temperature
was not recorded. . _
-------
6. Are contamination-free work areas provided for the handling of samples?
|xj Yes |_ No Comments: As much as possible, the transfer of samples
from sampling tool to containers is being completed onsite. However, steri-
lized containers are utilized. Samplers wear gloves and decontamination
blanks are collected.
7. Are swipes collected from working areas, i.e., workbench tops, to determine
decontamination efficiency?
|_| Yes |xj No Comments: This was not being done. We recommend that
Eric Slavin initiate the use of swipes at the sample bank.
8. Are swipe results noted in logbooks?
I I Yes |x| No Comments: See number seven above.
9. Is the sampling facility utilizing distilled and/or demineralized water?
|x| Yes I"! No
If yes, is: the conductivity of distilled and/or demineralized water
routinely checked and recorded?
|x| Yes PI No
Can the sampling supervisor document that trace-free water is available for
preparation of standards and blanks?
Ixl Yes |""| No
What is the source of the distilled and/or demineralized water?
Comments: Water is purchased. The quality is checked at the sample bank.
-------
10. Are waste disposal policies/procedures adequate?
|x| Yes I I No Comments:
11. Are balances used at the sampling facility?
Ixl Yes |~! No
If yes, are they located away from draft and areas subject to rapid
temperature changes?
|xl Yes |~| No
Calibrated on a routine basis?
lie I Yes I I No Comments:
Is calibration information recorded in logbooks?
Ix:! Yes l"~| No Comments:
12. Is the sampling facility secure? |xj Yes |_| No
Are sample containers, tags, sampling equipment, forms (i.e. chain-of-
custody, site description, shipping) and logbooks properly secured?
Ijtl Yes PI Ho Comments:
-------
IV. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) PLAN-SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
1. Is a QA/QC Plan available for review?
|_| Yes 211 No Comments: A QA/QC plan will be perpared for second
phase or definitive study.
2. Does the QA/QC Plan discuss the objectives of the sampling program to be
performed and how the sampling approach(es) will satisfy program require-
ments?
|| Yes |xj No Comments: Only in sampling plan or protocol.
3. Are levels of precision and confidence levels identified in the QA/QC Plan?
I I Yes 1x1 No Comments:
4. Does the QA/QC Plan and/or sampling protocol describe the system to be used
for identifying, logging and tracking all samples obtained?
|x| Yes I | No Comments:
-------
5. Are sampling methods, including sampling equipment and procedures discussed
in the QA/QC Plan and/or sampling protocol?
Yes No Comments:
4
6. Does the QA/QC Plan and/or sampling plan identify criteria used for select-
ing the media (e.g., soil, etc.) to the sampled?
Yes No Comments:
7. Does the Sampling Plan identify criteria used for selecting sampling points
for each media?
Yes No Comments:
8. Does the QA/QC Plan and/or sampling protocol provide detailed information
identifying the size, number, locations, and types of samples to be
collected?
x Yes | No Comments:__
10
-------
9. Does the QA/QC Plan and/or the sampling protocol describe procedures, for
and the extent of compositing or other sample reduction methods?
Yes No Comments:
10. Are the types of sample containers and methods and materials used to clean
these containers identified in the sampling plan?
~1 Yes 1 I No Comments:
11. Are field decontamination procedures and materials for sampling equipment
discussed in the Plan?
lie) Yes PI No Comments: In the sampling protocol.
11
-------
V. SOIL SAMPLING
Grid Soils
NOTE: All soils will be collected at predetermined sites (Soil Sampling Proto-
col, Appendix I). The sites selected for this sampling effort are identified
in Appendix II. In addition, soil samples will not be composited at some sites
while at other sites soils will be collected at depth increments ranging from
2.5 cm to 15.0 cm in depth.
1. Does the sample bank logbook show that samples collected from identified
grid intersections were submitted for analysis?
|xj Yes |_J No Comments: The sample bank log is computerized.
Data is recorded on two disks and a hard copy is available.
Are soil samples placed in Whirl-Pakm polyethylene containers?
Ixl Yes I I No Comments:
3. Is a noncontaminating (Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu) corer (0.75 inch diameter) being
used to collect the soil?
|_| Yes |xj No Comments: The corer contains copper. A coter
that didn't contain any of the above metals could not be obtained. This
was approved by Mr. Ed Shoener. ^____________________________
4. Are the samplers wearing polyethylene gloves when collecting soil samples?
|x~l Yes |~| No Comments: ___
12
-------
5. After collection is the corer being washed with tap water and rinsed with
DDI water?
Yes I I No Comments:
6. Are sample containers properly labeled?
jjcl Yes | ] No Comments:
7. Do site description forms and/or field log books show exact sampling locations?
lil Yes l_l No Comments: The site description form is used in
conjunction with a photograph of the actual site samples. (Photo
orientation is always to the northO.
Are date and time of collection recorded?
lie! Yes |H No Comments:
Are all notations on the site description form addressed?
\~x\ Yes |~| No Comments: One description form (audited) was missing^
an address. Correlation between the site I.D. code and the aerial photo-
graph produced the address.
13
-------
8. Are four 15 cm deep soil cores collected from a 6 meter diameter circle at
each designated sampling location (see Appendix II, page 1)?
|xj Yes |_| No Comments: The collection procedures were being done
accurately.
9. If obstructions prevented the collection of samples at a specific site and/or
a circular sampling configuration was not used, does the site description
form and/or field logbook identify the obstruction, the reason for moving
the sampling location and/or the configuration used?
|xj Yes |__| No Comments: A site description form and photograph
identifies and shows the area sampled.
10. Are sampling teams using aerial photographs to identify sampling sites?
Ixl Yes I I No Comments:
11. If the sampling site was moved, is the site properly identified on the aerial
photographs?
|j[| Yes |_J No Comments: A soil scientist is properly identifying
the actual sampling location on the aerial photographs. .
12. Were four soil cores composited (see Appendix II for locations)?
Ixl Yes PI No Comments:
14
-------
13. At the following locations have 2.5 cm depth increments down to 30 cm been
collected?
Yes No Comments:
BH34 BW32 Comments: Site BZ34 has been sampled correctly. The
BN34 BW36 remaining sites are still to be sampled.
BQ32 I BZ34
BQ36 CA27
BT34 CF34
14. Are the 2.5 cm Depth Increment Location noted on the site description forms/
field logbooks, and/or sample bank logbooks?
|jc| Yes |_) No Comments: The 2.5 cm depth increment location
(samples) is logged in the sample bank logbook,
15. Are 15 cm depth increments (0-15 cm and 15-30 cm) being collected at the
following locations?
\~x\ Yes |~"| No Comments:
AH23 BT52 Comments: Both depth increments are logged in the sample
AS34 CN54 bank logbook as PABF48 and PABF48-13.
BF48 CX34
BJ24 CZ66
BT19 DJ34
15
-------
16. Are the 15.0 cm depth increments location noted on the site description
forms/field logbooks and/or sample bank logbooks?
Yes No Comments:
17. At the following locations have four individual samples been collected?
NOTE: Not to be composited.
lil Yes I—i No Comments:
B029 BV38 Comments: The CF46 site is indicated in the sample bank.
BR33 BX30 logbook as PACF46W, PACF46E, PACGA6N and PACF46S.
BR38 CF46
BS33 CI34
BU33 CJ50
13. Are the individual sample locations noted on the site description forms/
field logbooks, and/or sample bank logbooks?
Ix"! Yes HI No Comments:
19. Are sod layers being encountered?
|jcj Yes |~j No Comments: Vegetation samples are being collected
and archived. The storage of these samples do not meet chain-of-custody
requirements* Mr, Ed Shoener (EPA) has been informed.
16
-------
If yes, are the sod layers being removed from Che soil sample, packaged in
a polyethylene container, properly labeled and stored for possible analysis?
Yes No Comments:
20. Were performance and container contamination checks completed? (See Soil
Sampling Protocol Attachment 3, Appendix 1).
|xj Yes |_| No Comments: Performance procedures were adequate to
avoid contamination.
21. Were any changes made in the sampling procedures:
|x[| Yes |__| No Comments: Vegetation samples were not being stored
under approved chain-of-castody procedures.
If yes, were these procedures properly identified and recorded?
IZ1 Yes l_l No Comments: An addendum to the protocol showing the
following is recommended.
1. Computer data base used for the sample bank logbook.
2. Five gram (5 g) soil aliquots are being prepared for analysis instead
of 2 g aliquots.
3. Polaroid photographs are taken of the sampling site. Photograph is
always oriented to the north.
4. Vegetation samples are not being stored as described.
17
-------
VI. SAMPLE DUPLICATES, SPLITS AND DECONTAMINATION BLANKS
1. Are duplicate samples being collected at the following locations?
Ixl Yes IH No Comments:
AK26 BT32 Comments: Duplicates logged in sample bank logbook as
A030 I BT46 | PABY29A and PABY29; and PABT46 and PABT46A.
BP30 I BY29
BQ33 DL78
BQ34 DP34
2. Are duplicate samples recorded on the site description forms/field logbooks,
and/or sample bank logbooks?
|aH Yes f"l No Comments:
3. Are splits from the following identified sampling sites, being prepared?
Ixl Yes in No Comments:
AY34 CB34 Comments:
BR34 CB42
BT35 CD24
BT70 DD70
BV35 DP82
18
-------
Are the split samples correctly identified in the sample bank logbook.?
lit I Yes I I No Comments:
5. Are samples that will not be submitted for analysis (see Appendix 2) properly
identified in the sample bank logbook?
Yes No Comments:
5. Are decontamination blanks (one for every 20 soil samples) being collected?
Ixl Yes I I No Comments:
7. Are field and sample logbooks kept current, complete and up-to-date?
IZI Yes U No Comments: The field logbooks are the site description
forms.
3. Were any changes made in the procedures and/or methods for collecting and
preparing duplicates, splits, and blanks?
Yes Ixl No Comments:
If yes, were these changes properly recorded?
tea No Comments:
19
-------
9. Are "standard soil" samples being prepared at the sample bank?
LI Yes LI No Comments: A "standard" soil was sent to R. E. Wright
Associates. This soil may not be used because of low metal levels. Use of
QC material "soils" should be fully documented in the sample bank logbook.
20
-------
VII. SAMPLE BANK AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
NOTE: All tags for this sampling program are accountable documents, as
such they must be properly filled out and maintained in a secured environ-
ment.
1. Has a sample custodian been assigned to receive all samples?
|7| Yes |~| No Comments: Mr. Slavin
2. Does the custodian carefully inspect the condition of sample containers
and/or packages upon receipt?
|7j Yes |_] No Comments: Good practices were observed during sample
inspections. _____
3. If damaged or leaking containers and/or packages with broken seals are
received, is this fact documented?
171 Yes |""| No Comments:
4. a. Are sample containers and/or packages inspected to see if the sample
tag is intact?
Ill Yes Q No
b. If the tag is missing, is the Information recorded in the logbook
or on a data sheet?
|7j Y«« |~j No Comments: Information concerning all samples
are recorded on the site description forms*
21
-------
5. a. Does the sample custodian check to ensure that the information (i.e.,
sample number, date, sampling location, on the sample label match that
on the chain-of-custody form?
|:c| Yes |~| No
b. If discrepancies are found between the label and the chain-of-custody
record, what actions are taken to resolve the problem?
Comments: During this audit the sample custodian had to ask the
sampling team for missing information. The sampler had to refer to
the aerial map to recollect site description information. If problems
such as this is not detected initially, resampling may have to be
initiated.
c. Are discrepancies noted in the sample and logbook?
|~| Yes |i| No
6. Is a separate sample bank number assigned to each sample received?
IZI Yea Q No
Is this number recorded in the log book along with the other information
describing the sample?
I El Yes U No Comments:
7. Is a sample label or tag attached to each sample container?
lil Yes Cl No Comments:
22
-------
8. At a minimum, has the following information been completed on each sample
label or tag?
|jcj Collector's name
|]c| Date and time of collection
|3c| Place of collection (site code)
Comments: Sample collector was identified on the site description form.
9. Are all samples stored in a clean and secure area?
Ixl Yes P! No Comments:
10. Are samples properly prepared?
lie I Yes H No Comments:
11. Are sample holding times being recorded?
| is | Ye» Qj No Comments: The time of collection and the time the
samples are sent to the analytical laboratory are recorded in the sample
bank log.
23
-------
12. Do sample bank records show the transfer and receipt of samples? (i.e.
current custodian).
Yes I No Comments:
13. Is the following information being recorded in field logbooks, sample
bank logbooks and/or on site discription forms and questionnaires?
Yes Nto
lil Q Project Name and Project Number
1211 Q Purpose of sampling (i.e., quarterly sampling, resample to
confirm previous analysis, initial site visit, etc.)
jx] |~1 Date and time each sample was collected
J£J Q Blank, duplicate and split sample identification numbers
J£J |~] Sample description including type (i.e., soil, etc.)
P| |x[| Preservation method for each sample
Cl Cl Weather conditions at time of sampling (Did not observe this)
lil Cl Photographic log identifying subject, reason for photograph, date,
time, direction in which photograph was taken, number of the picture
on the roll
Rl Cl Sample destination (To Analytical Laboratory)
|x| P| Analyses to be performed on each sample
[x| P] Reference number from all forms on which the sample is listed
~" ~" or labels attached to the sample (i.e., chain-of-custody, bill
of lading or manifest forms etc.)
|}[j Q £«•*(•) of sampling personnel
lil Cl Signature of person(s) making entries on each page
|it| Q Archived samples, including nonsieved materials (i.e. soils)
24
-------
Comments: Photographs are attached to the back of the site description
form.
14. Is a chain-of-custody record completed for all samples collected?
|x"| Yes I I No Comments:
15. Is the following information completed on each chain-of-custody record?
Yes No
|x"| |_J Sample identification number
|£| |~| Sample collector's signature
li! Cl Date and time of collection
lil Cl place and address of collection
lil l_l Shipper's name and address
lil U Name and address of organization(s) receiving sample
|xj |__| Signatures and titles of persons involved in chain-of-possession
Commentfl:
16. Does a sample analysis request sheet accompany all samples on delivery to
the laboratory sample custodian (sample bank)?
l""| Yes l""| Mo (See Comments)
25
-------
If yes, has the following information been completed on each sample analysis
request sheet?
|__| Name of person receiving sample I
|_| Laboratory sample number
|__| Analyses to be performed
|~1 Collector's name, affiliation name, address and phone number
Q Date and time of sampling
|~| Location of sampling
Q Special handling and/or storage requirements
Comments: Did not observe this.
17. Are custody seals being used on sample transport containers (commercial)?
PI Yes PI No Comments: Did not observe this.
26
-------
VIII. ON SITE WORK PERFORMANCE
1. Indicate sampling team performance in the following areas observed during
the on-site audit. (NOTE: Identify poor work practices and violations of
protocol under comments.)
Work Practice Good Fair Poor
Sampling technique |jc| |~| |~|
Safety procedures |~| |]c| |~|
Forbidden personal practices (e.g., _ __ _
smoking, eating in forbidden areas) |xj |_| |_|
Equipment use/maintenance/calibration/ |lc| |~| |~|
storage?
Comments: Vegetation samples were not stored in a secured freezer. It
was felt that sample bank personnel should wear gloves during sample
preparation.
In addition to the observations given, one individual suggested that
the data base being used to log in the samples be set up in a manner by
which the samples could be catagorized by depth increaents (i.e., logged
in order in which the samples were collected).
Verification of samplea may be much easier if saaple logging was
accomplished in a catagorized fashion.
27
-------
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Special On-Site Laboratory Evaluation of Soil and Environmental
Chemistry Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, State College,
Pennsylvania, for Inorganic Analysis on December 4, 1985.
John W. Fowler
Chemist
Toxics and Hazardous Waste Operations Branch
Quality Assurance Division
Edward Shoener
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
An on-site at the Pennsylvania State University was conducted on
December 4, 1985. Procedures to be used in the analysis of Palmerton Zinc
samples were reviewed by the on-site team.
The laboratory personnel and equipment are adequate to meet the requirements
of the Palmerton project. Comments and suggested additional quality control
procedures can be found within the body of the following report. These comments
and suggestions were discussed with Mary Kay Amistadi of the Pennsylvania State
laboratory.
An evidentiary audit was conducted simultaneously by the Contract Evidence
Audit Team (CEAT) TechLaw. Their findings will be provided in a separate
report.
Attachment
cc: (w/attachment)
Patricia Krantz, Deputy Project Officer, Region 3
QAO:FOWLER:2115:CS-124-85:12-24-85
QAO:Pearson
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY-LAS VEGAS
P.O. BOX 15027. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114-5027 • 702/798-2100 (FTS 545-2100)
DEC 2 7 1995
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Special On-Site Laboratory Evaluation of Soil and Environmental
Chemistry Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, State College,
Pennsylvania, for Inorganic Analysis on December 4, 1985.
John W. Fowler
Chemist
Toxics and Hazardous Waste Operations Branch
Quality Assurance Division
Edward Shoener
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
An on-site at the Pennsylvania State University was conducted on
December 4, 1985. Procedures to be used in the analysis of Palmerton Zinc
samples were reviewed by the on-site team.
The laboratory personnel and equipment are adequate to meet the requirements
of the Palmerton project. Comments and suggested additional quality control
procedures can be found within the body of the following report. These comments
and suggestions were discussed with Mary Kay Amistadl of the Pennsylvania State
laboratory.
An evidentiary audit was conducted simultaneously by the Contract Evidence
Audit Team (CEAT) TechLaw. Their findings will be provided in a separate
report.
Attachment
cc: (w/attachment)
Patricia Krantz, Deputy Project Officer, Region 3
-------
Laboratory: Pennsylvania State University. State College, Pennsylvania
Date: December 4, 1985 _
Type of Evaluation: Special Inorganic
Contract Number: N/A
Contract Title: Palrcerton Zinc NPL Site Investigation
Personnel Contacted:
Name
Title
Mary Kay Amistadi
Mary Long
Laboratory Evaluation Team:
Chemist
Manager of Merkle Laboratory
Name
John W. Fowler
Steve Markham
Keith Aleckson
Bill Ryhne
Ellen Holder
Title
Team Leader. EMSL-LV
Region 3 Representative
Technical Expert, LEMSCO
Evidence Auditor, TechLaw
Evidence Auditor, TechLaw
-------
Summary of Laboratory Evaluation
-------
A. Procedural Changes the Laboratory Agreed to Implement
The following comments refer to deficiencies noted In the Laboratory
Evaluation Checklist (Attachment 1).
1. A recommendation was made to keep a logbook for sample digestions,
telephone conversations, and other Information dealing with this project.
2. EPA QC standards should be analyzed after the calibration curve is
established to verify the accuracy of the standards.
3. A control chart for Cd, Pb, Zn, and Cr results on the Hagerstown soil
should be established to monitor trends in the data.
4. A standard and blank should be analyzed after the last sample in an
analysis run. This la to ensure the validity of the calibration throughout the
run.
5. The balance should be checked with a Class S weight with each batch
of samples weighed.
6. All Instrument printouts should be dated and initialed.
7. A SOP for the sample digestion procedure should be prepared. A copy
of the SOP should be placed in the project file. Also, a list of references
for the analytical method should be placed in the project file.
8. The first set of reference standard digestates should be reanalyzed
using the new IL Vldio 22 with Smith-Hieftje background correction.
9. Someone besides the analyst should also review the data before it is
sent out.
B. Issues to be_Resolved by the Project Officer/Deputy Project Officer (PO/DPO)
1. The data user should request that copies of the raw data be included
with the analytical results. This will aid data review at the Region.
2. Standard reference materials should be digested and analyzed by the
procedures to be used on the Palnerton samples. This will establish the
effectiveness of the laboratory procedures. Standard Reference Material 1645,
River Sediment, from NBS is one possible material.
C. Review of Quarterly Blind Performance Evaluation Samples (QB)
Approximately 30 grams of a well characterized performance evaluation
sample have been sent to R» E. Wright, Associates for shipment to the labora-
tory as a blind check. The material was collected at a smelter site at Ruston,
Washington. Analytical results have not yet been reported by the Pennsylvania
State laboratory*
-------
D. Other Issues
Analysis for K, Ca, Mg, and Na on the Palmerton samples will be conducted
at the Merkle laboratory. The Merkle laboratory analyzes soil samples for
agricultural purposes. Procedures are adequate to reach the level of accuracy
and precision required for this use. Results from the Merkle laboratory should
be considered semi-quantitative by the data users.
-------
Attachment 1
Laboratory Evaluation Checklist
I. Organization and Personnel (Page 1 of 2)
ITEM
Laboratory or Project Manager (Individual
responsible for overall technical effort)
Name: Dr. Baker
Exhibit B, page 1, Section C-3
Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission
Spectroscopist
Name: N/A
Experience: 1 year minimum requirement
Exhibit A, page 4, Section 7 a
Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectroscopist
Name: N/A
Experience: 1 year minimum requirement
Exhibit A, page 4, Section 7b
Inorganic Sample Preparation Expert
Name : Mary^ Kay Ami s t adi /Mary Long^
Experience: 3 months minimum requirement
Exhibit A, page 4, Section 7d
Plane and Cold Vapor AA Spectroscopist
Name: N/A
Experience: 9 months minimum requirement
Exhibit A, page 4, Section 7c
Cyanide Analyst
Name: N/A
Experience: 6 months minimum requirement
Exhibit A, page 4, Section 7e
Do personnel assigned to this project have the
appropriate background to successfully
accomplish the objectives of the program?
YES
X
X
X
NO
COMMENT
-------
I. Organization and Personnel (Page 2 of 2)
ITEM
Quality Assurance Supervisor
Name: Dr. Baker
Glassware Preparation Technician
Name: N/A
Is the organization adequately staffed to
meet project commitments in a timely manner?
Were all personnel involved with the CLP
analysis available during the evaluation?
(List those not present.)
YES
X
NO
X
X
COMMENT
See Comment 1.
Dr. Baker
Additional Comments
1. A recommendation was made to establish data review procedures by someone
other than the analyst.
-------
II. Sample Receipt and Storage Area
ITEM
Are written Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) developed for receipt and storage
of samples?
Exhibit G, page 2, Section 2
Is the appropriate portion of the SOP available
to the sample custodian at the sample receipt/
storage area?
Are the sample shipping containers opened in a
manner which prevents possible laboratory
contamination?
Are soil and cyanide samples that require
refrigeration at 4°C stored in such a way
as to maintain their preservation?
Exhibit 0, page 5, Section 5.1 and Exhibit F,
page 1
Are adequate facilities provided for storage of
samples, Including cold storage?
Is the temperature of the cold storage recorded
daily In a permanent record?
Are temperature excursions (+4*C) noted and
are appropriate actions taken* when required?
Are the sample receipt /storage and temperature
records maintained in a manner consistent with
GLP?
Are standards stored separately from sample
digestates?
YES
X
X
NO
X
X
COMMENT
See comment 1 .
N/A
N/A
See Comment 2.
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
II. Sample Receipt and Storage Area (Continued)
ITEM
Has the supervisor of the individual maintaining
the notebook/bench sheet/logbook personally
examined and reviewed the notebook/bench sheet/
logbook periodically, and signed his/her name
therein, together with the date and appropriate
comments as to whether or not the document
is being maintained in an appropriate manner?
Do the digested cases examined contain LCS's,
duplicates, and matrix spikes?
Cases , ,
Exhibit E, Sections 6, 7 and 9
YES
NO
X
COMMENT
N/A
Additional Comments
1. A sample receipt SOP should be written* The SOP should include processing
of chain-of-custody information, assignment of laboratory ID numbers,
sample storage until analysis, etc.
2. A recommendation was made to separate documents from sample digestates.
This was primarily to preventcontamination of the documents or their
distraction by acid fumes.
-------
III. Sample Preparation Area
When touring the facilities, give special attention to: (a) the
overall appearance of organization and neatness, (b) the proper maintenance of
facilities and instrumentation, (c) the general adequacy of the facilities to
accomplish the required work.
ITEM
Is the laboratory maintained in a clean and
organized manner?
Does the laboratory appear to have adequate
workspace (120 sq. feet, 6 linear feet of
unencumbered bench space per analyst)?
Are contamination-free areas provided for trace
level analytical work?
Are the hoods in good condition and functional?
Are chemical waste disposal policies/procedures
well defined and followed by the laboratory?
Does the laboratory have a source of distilled/
demlneralized water?
Is the conductivity of distilled/demlneralized
water routinely checked and recorded?
Is the analytical balance located away from draft
and areas subject to rapid temperature changes?
Has the balance been calibrated within one year
by a certified technician?
YES
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
COMMENT
Checked monthly
-------
III. Sample Preparation Area (Continued)
ITEM
YES
NO
COMMENT
Is Che balance routinely checked with the
appropriate range of class S weights daily
before use and are the results recorded in
a logbook?
See comment 1
Is the sample preparation portion of the SOP
available to the analyst at the sample
preparation area?
Are unexplred standards used to prepare
instrument calibration standards?
Are fresh analytical standards prepared at a
frequency consistent with good QA?
Exhibit E. page 3, Section 1
Are chemicals and standards dated upon receipt?
Are reagent Inventories maintained on a
flrst-in, first-out basis?
Are reference materials properly labeled with
concentrations, date of preparation, and the
identity of the person preparing the sample?
Standards not
dated or initialed
Is a spiking/calibration standards preparation
and tracking logbook(s) maintained?
Exhibit G, page 2, Section 4
Are the primary standards traceable to EPA
standards where possible?
Exhibit G. page 2, Section 4
See comment 2.
Do the analysts record bench data In a neat and
accurate manner?
Exhibit G, page 5
10
-------
Ill, Sample Preparation Area (Continued)
ITEM
Is Che SOP for glassware washing posted at the
cleaning station?
Is a UV-Visible spectrophotometer operational
and properly maintained?
Is the mercury analyzer operational and well
maintained (i.e., properly vented)?
Are sufficient cyanide distillation apparatus
available to routinely analyze all samples
within the required holding period?
Is the pH of the samples recorded and available
for data review?
Exhibit D, page 2
Are digestion logbooks/bench sheets maintained
in a neat and organized manner?
Exhibit G, page 5
Is an adequate drying oven available with a
temperature measurement device?
Has the supervisor of the individual maintaining
the notebook/bench sheet personnally examined and
reviewed the notebook/bench sheet periodically,
and signed his/her name therein, together with
the date and appropriate comments as to whether
or not the notebook/bench sheet is being
maintained in an appropriate manner?
YES
X
X
NO
X
X
COMMENT
N/A
N/A
N/A
See comment 3
N/A
11
-------
III. Sample Preparation Area (Continued)
Additional Comments
I. The balance should be checked with a Class S weight along with each batch
of samples weighed out. The measured weight of the Class S weight and certi-
fied weight should be recorded along with the sample weights.
2. A recommendation was made to check the accuracy of instrument calibration
solutions against an EPA QC ampule before sample analysis. A control window
of 90 to 110 percent is used in the contract laboratory program.
3. A digestion log should be kept. This log should include samples and QC
materials digested, reference to procedure, weights, final volumes, and person
performing the digestion.
IV. Sample Analysis Instrumentation
A. ICP/DS Instrumentation
Not Applicable
12
-------
B. Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectrometer
Manufacturer Model Installation Date
AA
ID t
Data System
AA
ID #
Data System
AA
ID 9
Data System
AA
ID 1
Data System
Instrument
Laboratories
Internal
system
Vidio
22
September 1985
ITEM
Is there a methods manual available to the
operator?
Are element specific SOP's listing instrument
conditions, background correction, instrument
conditions, and required instrument sensitivity
available to the analyst?
Are calibration results (i.e., sensitivity)
kept in a permanent record so that instrument
performance can be measured over time?
YES
X
X
NO
X
COMMENT
Sensitivity
checked but not
recorded.
13
-------
B. Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectrometer (Continued)
ITEM
Is a permanent service record maintained in a
logbook?
Has the instrument been modified in any way?
Is the Instrument properly vented?
Is the unit equipped with flaneless accessory?
Are Lvov platforms used?
Is an auto-sampler used?
Are EPA or instrument manufacturer matrix
modifiers used?
Is the unit equipped with electrodeless
discharge lamps?
Is service maintenance by contract?
Is preventatlve maintenance applied?
YES
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
COMMENT
Maintenance log
should be
established.
Not used on flame
IL matrix
modifiers used.
Not required for
elements analyzed.
Additional Comments
14
-------
V. Data Handling and Review
ITEM
YES NO
COMMENT
Are manual data calculations spot-checked by a
second person?
Do records Indicate that appropriate corrective
action has been taken when analytical results
fail to meet QC criteria?
Is a Laboratory Information Management System
(LIMS) used?
Manufacturer/Model: IBM/PC
Is the operation of the LIMS validated with a
test set of data and is the data maintained
for on-site inspection?
Calculations
performed by
computer are
trivial.
Additional Comments
15
-------
VI. Quality Control Manual and SOP'a
ITEM
Does the laboratory maintain a Quality Control
Manual?
Exhibit G, page 2
Does the manual address the important elements
of a QC program, including the following:
a* Personnel?
b. Facilities and equipment?
c. Operation of instruments?
d. Documentation of procedures?
e. Preventative maintenance?
f. Reliability of data?
g. Data validation?
h. Feedback and corrective action?
Are files of outdated SOP's stored for reference?
YES
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
COMMENT
N/A
Additional Comments
A quality control plan for the laboratory analysis should be established for
this orolect.
16
-------
VII. Summary
A. Summary Cbecksheet (Page 1 of 1)
ITEM
YES NO
COMMENT
Do responses to the evaluation indicate that
project and supervisory personnel are aware of
QA/QC and its application to the project?
Have responses with respect to QA/QC aspects of
the project been open and direct?
Has a cooperative attitude been displayed by all
project and supervisory personnel?
Have any QA/QC deficiencies been discussed
before leaving?
Is the overall quality assurance adequate to
accomplish the objectives of the project?
Have corrective actions recommended during
previous evaluations been implemented? If
not, provide details in Section VII.B.
N/A
17
-------
|