TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing!
1. REPORT NO.
-.J)PA/ROp/303-84/003
2.
4. TITLE-ANO SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION:
- Enterprise Avenue Site, PA
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
05/10/84
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Enterprise Avenue site is located within the City of Philadelphia. It
encompasses approximately 57 acres and is situated within the 100-year flood plain of
the Delaware River. It has been determined that the site is contaminated with in-
dustrial and chemical wastes from the unauthorized disposal of approximately 5,000 to
15,000 drums containing paint sludges, solvents, oils, resins, metal finishing wastes,
and solid inorganic wastes.
1;
The off-site disposal alternative was selected as the most cost-effective
remedial action. This alternative includes: resampling and analyzing the stock-
piled soils in 100-cubic-yard lots for key indicator parameters; on-site containment
of soils which do not exceed key indicator limits; off-site disposal at a RCRA
approved facility of soils which exceed parameter limits; grading, completion of clay
cap and cover, and site vegetation. The capital cost for the selected alternative is
estimated to be $4,324,000 and annual O&M costs are $4,200.
Key Words: Municipally-Owned Site, Potential Responsible Party (PRP), Key
Indicator Analysis, Soil Contamination, RCRA Closure Regulations, Off-Site
Disposal, On-Site Disposal
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Site Name: Enterprise Avenue Site, PA
Contaminated media: sw, soil
Key contaminants: paint sludges, solvents
oils, resins, metals
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report I
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tills page I
None
-22_
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4-77)
-------
ROD BRIEFING ISSUES
Site:
-
Enterprise Avenue, Pennsylvania
Region:
111
AA, OSWER
Briefing Date:
Hay 4, 1984
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Enterprise Avenue site is located within the City of
philadelphia. It encompasses approximately 57 acres and is situated
within the 100-year flood plain of the Delaware River. It has been
determined that the site is contaminated with industrial and chemical
wastes from the unauthorized disposal of approximately 5,000 to 15,000
drums containing paint sludges, solvents, oils, resins, metal finishing
wastes, and solid inorganic wastes.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The off-site disposal alternative was selected as the most cost-
effective remedial action. This alternative includes: resampling and
analyzing the stockpiled soils in 100-cubic-yard lots for key indicator
parameters~ on-site containment of soils which do not exceed key indi-
cator limits~ off-site disposal at a RCRA approved facility of soils
~hich exceed para~eter limits~ grading, completio~ of clay cap and
cover, and site vesetation. The capital cost for the selected alterna-
tive is estimated ~o be $4,324,000 and annual O&M costs are $4,200.
ISS~ES AND RESOLUTIONS
1'.
The Enterprise Avenue site is a city-
owned landfill contaminated with illegally
dumped industrial waste materials. The
City has undertaken response actions at
the site and would like to continue to
oversee the re~aining cleanup activities.
However, the City has been iqentified as a
Potential Responsible Party (PRP). Therefore,
specific criteria were developed for the
Cooperative Agreement to define the ratio-
nale for enforcement where Fund monies will
be used by a F~ for cleanup. These cri-
teria included:
EPA's reserved right to sue
Rei~ursement agreement between
the City and EPA
-1-
KEY WORDS
. Municipally-Owned
Site
. Potential
Responsible
Party (PRP)
-------
Enterprise Avenue, Pennsylvania
May 4, 1984
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS
The City's responsibility to con-
tinue to pursue its pending law-
suits against Enterprise Avenue
generators. .
2.
A Key Indicator Analysis (KIA) was developed
and used to determine whether or not exca-
vated soil was contaminated. The objective
of the KIA was to identify those contaminants
~~ich were most likely to be found on-site
and of greatest concern with respect to
potential environmental impacts. Technical
Report 15 "Hot spot Soil Handling Protocol"
ciscusses the rationale employed in the KIA
cevelopment and is included as an attachment
to the ROD. .
3.
T~e recommended alternative complies with
t~e Part 265 RCRA closure regulations. This
i~cludes ground water monitoring, a 2-foot
c:ay cover and site vegetation.
4.
~~e justification for off-site disposal was
tased on the elimination of on-site disposal
c?tions for the following technical reasons:
.. .
The high ground water table and subsur-
face soils are not suitable for con-
struction of a land disposal facility.
~.
There is a high possibility for dif-
ferential settlement due to the presence
of organic matter in the subsurface
soils (incinerator residue), that could
adversely affect the integrity of a land
disposal cell.
- .
Migration to the shallow ground water
table (2-5 ft.) could be expected in the
event of a release of cont~inants from
a disposal cell. .
-2-
KEY WORDS
. Key Indicator
Analysis
. Soil Contamination
. RCRA Closure
Regulations
. Off-Site Disposal
. On-Site Disposa:
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE:
Enterprise Avenue Site, Philcrlelphia, Pennsylvania
00CUMEN1'S RE.VIE.WED
I have reviewed the following doclJnents describing the analysis of cost-
effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Enterprise Avenue site:
- Enterprise Avenue Remedial Action Feasibility Study titled "Remedial
Action Program, Excavation and DiSIX'sal of Ibt-Spot Soil From, and Clo-
sure of, the Enterprise Avenue Site, Ph ilcrlelphia , Pennsylvania, dated
April 1984.
- Sununary of Remedial Alternatives Selection
- Technical reports prepared by iby F. Weston, Inc. in September of 1981
for the City of Philcdelphia is, "Ibt Spot Soil Handling Protocol"
and #3,. "Gc"Olmdwater and Surface Water M)nitoring".
- Responsiveness surrmary dated February 23, 1984.
DESCRIPTIOO OF SELECTED Im-1EDY
- Sampling and analysis of all soil stockpiled on-site in 100-cubic-
yard lots to determine disposal requirement.
- Off-site diSIX'sal at a RCRA appr~ed facility of all soils which fail
the Key Wicator Parameter Test.
- Backfilling, grcrling and vegetating of the site as a final cover.
DECIARATICNS
Consistent with the Canprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), and the National Contingency Plan
(40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the off-site disposal of con-
taminated soil at the Enterprise Avenue site is a cost-effective remedy
am pr~ides cdequate protection of public health, welfare, and the
envirornnent. '!he State of Pennsylvania has been consulted and agrees
with the appr~ed remedy.
I have also determined that the action being taken is appLop,iate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund lIDI1ies for use at other
sites. In addition, the off-site transport and secure disposition in
an approved facility is JlDre cost-effective than other remedial actions
and is necessary to protect public health, welfare, and the environment.
~~~
D Ir!at~/ & 'f
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and ertergency ReSIX'nse
-------
SUMMARY OF RnomDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTICW
ENTERPRISE AVENUE SITE .
SITE IDCATICN AND DESCRIPl'ICN
The Enterprise Avenue site is located within the City of Philcrjelphia
crjjacent to the SOuthwest Water tUllution CDntrol Plant and near the
eastern end of philcrjelphia International Airport (See Figure 1). The
city-owned site encompasses a total of approxtmately 57 acres, and is
located within the 10o-year flood plain of the Delaware River. The
imnediately crjjacent land use is primarily industrial, and the closest
residential population is located slightly rore than t\tlO miles northwest
of the site.
Natural marsh conditions are found at the site in isolated areas. A
low-permeability, silty clay layer underlies the site. The thickness
of this layer ranges fran 5 feet to 25 feet. Multiple culverts, canals,
and drainage ways introduce variability to the surface water system by
concentrating rlmoff. All surface draincge fran the site is channeled
into Ecgle Creek, which flows to Mingo Creek, then to the Schuylkill
River, and ultimately the Delaware River. ..
'!here are tw:> grOlmd water-bearing zones at the site.. The first zone
is above a silty clay layer. It is under perched water table conditions.
'!he second grOlmd water-bearing zone is found in the sands and gravel
that lie beneath the silty clay. The grourXi water in this zone is under
confined conditions. '!here are no known users of the grOlmd water in
the general area1 however, the deeper ground water-bearing zone may re-
charge sources of grOlmd water for portions of southern New Jersey.
'!he observed flow in the deep aquifer is east toward the Delaware River.
SITE HIS'IDRY
The Enterprise Avenue site historically was part of the extensive tidal
JDarshland along the Delaware River. '!he back channel of the Delaware
River hcrj naturally silted-in because of extensive farming and mining
on the upper reaches of the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers. The low-
lying land in the area has been extensively filled-in for facilities
such as the airport, tanker terminals, roadways, and industrial sites.
Until mid-1976, the City of Phil~elphia Streets Department used 40
acres of the low-lying land to landfill pr imarily incinerator residue
and lesser quantities of fly ash cud constructionjdenclition debris.
In response to reports of unauthorized dlmping of indUstrial waste, the
Philcrlelphia Water Department (N)) in late 1978 developed a work scope
to perform an initial investigation of the site conditions in consultation
with EPA. Exploratory excavations during January of 1979 uncovered approxi-
mately 1, 700 55~allon drlllLS containing industrial waste materials. The
-------
DELAWARE COUNTY
\ COUNTY .„
\ ID OHIO
\
-A
NfW YORK
V
PENNSYLVANIA;
HAF
W. VA.
*%JS?'-]
VP
L
;as. w
PHILAbELPHIAl
^&
^yfe CAMDEN'
">—. \ ^.PgXBQSE-^ ••j^
^V.*-'•••TI«~v
V^;.'.<.V
vV- >»• • •».
\-^x» •i'
lNTEnNATlONAL AIRPORT
FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE ENTERPRISE AVENUE SITE
-------
- 2 -
great majority of these drums were broken and frcgmented. Generally, it
was determined that the druns contained such industrial and chemical
wastes as paint sllrlges, solvents, oils, resins, metal finishing wastes,
and solid inorganic wastes. '!he total nllllber of drlJllS disposed of at
the site was estimated by the PWD to be between 5,000 and 15,000.
'!he PWD undertook a response action at the site which included: A detailed
site investigation to determine the degree and extent of contamination;
the development of plans and specifications to accomplish site cleanup;
and procurement of a cleanup contractor to excavate and properly disIX'se
of contaninated soil and drlltll'l1ed waste at an approved off-site facility.
Contaminated water was also taken off-site for disposal.
A Key Irdicator Analysis (KIA) was used to determine whether or not ex-
cavated soil was to be considered contaminated. '!he objective of the KIA
was to identify those contaminants which were nr:>st likely to be found on-
site and of greatest concern with respect to potential environmental
impacts. '!he list of key irdicator contaminants was developed by re-
viewing the records in existence which pertained to the type and quantity
of waste materials buried at the site. In general, the waste materials
were organic in nature. '!he key indicators and their associated limits
are listed below. If anyone limit were exceeded in an analysis, the
entire batch of soil was considered contaminated and was taken off-site
for disposal at an approved landfill. If none of the limits were ex-
ceeded, the soil was classified as noncontaminated and remained on-site
to be used as backfill material.
Key Irdicator Analysis
Irdicator
Limit
1. . 'roX (Total Organic Halogen)
25 ppn
2.
.'
\\:>latile Organics
- Benzene
Toluene
. - Ethylbenzene
12 ppn
. 15 ppn
15 ppn
3.
fP Toxicity (~tals)
- Arsenic
- BarilD
- CcdnilD
- O1rcmilD
- lead
- ~rcury
- Selenill1\
- Silver
5 ppn
100 ppn
1 ppn
5 ppn
5 ppn
0.2 ppn
1 ppn
5 ppn
-------
- 3 -
In developi.r¥3 the limits for the key iB3icators, the maximun backgromld
levels present for the various parameters were identified. '!he upper
limits for the key organic iB3icators were established at 75 times the
maximum background levels. As the lirn.lts 'were set they were compared to
the maximum fresh water criteria for reasonableness and found to be can-
parable. '!he EP toxicity test was applied for analysis of metals only,
due to the fact that the TOX iB3icator will detect the presence of
pesticides/herbicides. '!he approach taken for establishing the organic
limits (i.e., 75x) is consistent with EPA's methodology which uses 100
times drinking water standards for establishing the limits for EP toxicity
under RCRA. Technical RePJrt is entitled "Ebt Spot Soil Handling Protoool"
discusses the rationale employed in the KIA development.
unfortunately, in the Fall of 1982 the PWD hcrj to halt cleanup w:>rk at the
site due to a lack of funds available for the completion of the project.
'!he rertedial project contract cost had reached $7.2M at that time. '!he
initial bid price was $4.95M. '!he w:>rk aca:xnplished during 1982 incllrled:
excavation of all contaminated soil and buried druns: off-site disPJsal
of all drtmned waste material (11,600 druns uncovered): off-site disposal
of approximately 226,000 gallons of contaminated water: and off-site
disposal of 21,350 tons of the approximately 39,150 tons of contaminated
soil present on-site. W1en the PWD realized that the funds available
were inadequate to complete the project, they directed the contractor
to stockpile the remaining 17 ,800 tons of excavated contaminated soil
on-site (see Figure 2 for location of piles). '!he City of Philadelphia
spent nore than $8.35M for site cleanup and related investigative and
engineering activities.
All cleanup actions taken to date at the site by the PWD were done with
the concurrence of EPA. '!he Agency was intimately involved, both techni-
cally and legally, in the developnent am implementation phases of the
cleanup. All proposed actions were reviewed to assure that they complied
with Federal environmental regulations which existed at the time. '!he
City was JlDst cooperative in IIDdifyi.r¥3 it's plans in response to the
Agency's a:mnents.
aJRRml' SITE STA'lUS
.:the tw:> stockpiles of soil remaining on the site are the subjects of the
. proposed rertedial action. '!he larger of the tw:> piles (11,700 tons) was
deteDnined to be contaminated primarily with Total Organic Halogens ('lUX).
'!he ne
-------
x >- «»" »c*
l 1.700 TON STOCKPILE
SUGGESTED STAGING. STORAGE
AMD STOCKPILE ARE*
?l \ V - 12
6,100 TON STOCKPILE
SOUfI WEST WATER
POLLUJliN CONTROL CEN1
' j:
i > • co r"
r'-L-Jfj ^
LOCATION OF CONTAMINATED
SOIL STOCKPILES
' ] riGUREt
-------
- 4 -
Each stockpile has been graded and covered with 9 to 12 inches of clay.
The deteIInination as to which soil wculd be stockpiled was based upon
analytical results produced qy the cleanup contractor in the Fall of
1982. (See Appendix A for results.)
Subsequent sampling and analysis of soil fran the stockpiles perforrreO by
Roy F. Weston, Inc. in March of 1983 and March of 1984 yield results which,
when canpared to the original analytical results of the cleanup contractor,
raise questions as to the level of contamination in the piles. The Weston
results are generally lower than the contractor's. (See Appendix B for
Weston's analytical results.) This could be due to volatilization/bio-
degradation of same contaminants. Also, it could be the result of non-
representative sampling of the piles. In any event, re-verification of
the degree of contamination in the soil nust be done prior to final dis-
position.
Contamination at the site is limited to the confines of the two stock-
piles. Gramd water and surface water samples taken each IIDnth at the
site continue to indicate no measurable ~act from the site on the
surramding environment.
A silty clay layer from 5 to 25 feet in thickness, which underlies the site,
generally restricts IIDvement of the surface water and shallow gramd water
into the deep water-bearing zone. As a result, IIDSt precipitation infil-
trating the ground at the site drains to adjacent surface streams via
discharge of the shallow (perched) water-bearing zone rather th~m IIDving
downward into the deep water-bearing zone. However, the potential exists
for contamination fram the stockpiled soil to leach into the deep water
aquifer, and for volatile compounds to find their way into the various
surface streams in the area.
Em'ORCEMENI'
EPA has sent the City a letter stating that the agency does not plan to
initiate any court actions concerning Enterprise Avenue so long as the
City continues to pursue it's pending lawsuit against Enterprise Avenue
generators, and returns half of the recovered IIDnies to the Superfund
until the Superfund expenses are fully repaid. EPA is not involved in
.' any litigation or negotiations concerning generators or transporters
linked to the Enterprise site. The City's Philadelphia v. Stepan case
was filed against IIDre than 80 generators in 1980. The City has also
brought suit against transporters linked to the site.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATlal
The remaining clearop action to be undertaken at the site will address the
stockpiled soil. The objective of the cleanup is to provide adequate pro-
tection of public health, welfare, and the environment. The alternatives
for cleanup action considered include:
soil Aeration
Land Treatnent
C~ting
-------
- 5 -
On-Site Encapsulation
. Off-Site Disposal
No Action
Since the origins of the hazardous substances discovered at the site
could not be determined conclusively, it was assL!'Oed that the stockpiled
soil is regulated by RCRA for handling and disposal puqx>ses. All
alternatives evaluated (except No Action) were designed to comply with
RCRA technical and administrative requirements.
'n1e ReIredial Action strategy may be an individual alternative, or a canbi-
nation of the alternatives evaluated. Each of the alternatives has been
evaluated with respect to: technical advantages, disadvantages, and 1 imi-
tations; cost; environmental factors; implementability; and institutional
and regulatory considerations.
'Ibe on-site encapsulation, on-site treatment, and off-site disposal options
were analyzed in detail. '!he No Action alternative was eliminated fran
evaluation during the screening process. 'Ibis was due to the fact that
the existing piles were a means of temporary storage, and they do not
canply with technical requirements of RCRA (Le., no SYnthetic liner, no
leachate collection system). '!his is in a:1dition to the p::>tential
contanination to ground and surface waters fran the stockpiles.
The On-Si te Encapsulation alternative involves the construction of a cell
on-si te for the permanent containment of the stockpiled soil materials.
The design of such a system would comply with the technical requirements
of RCRA, which in this case would inclooe protection fran a 10o-year
flood occurrance, placement of IIDnitoring wells around the cell, and a
proper liner and capping system. Several tedmical disa:1vantages of
this alternative are:
1.
Although construction of an on-site disposal facility t.1Ould be in
compliance with appropriate RCRA regulations, the high ground water
table and subsurface soils are generally not suitable for construction
of a land disposal facility.
2.
'Ibis also is consistant with Pennsylvania regulations, which require
that a separation of at least four feet be maintained between the
seasonal high elevation of the shallow (perched) water table and
the base of the encapsulation cell.
'Ibe on-site material (incinerator residue) upon which the cell
will be placed contains organic matter and is difficult to can-
pact. The possibility exists for differencial settlement to
occur which may adversely affect the integrity of the cell and
allow for the release of the contained material.
.'
3.
The depth to ground water at the site has been measured to be as
little as 2 - 5 teet below the surface. In the event of a release
of contaminated material fran the cell, migration of contaminants
to the shallow ground water table could be expected.
-------
~'.
- 6 -
Besides these factors, the Pennsylvania Department of Envirorunental Re-
sources prohibits the placement of encapsulation cells within the 100-
year flood plain, regardless of the flood protection provisions made.
'!he other alternatives evaluated all require verification sanpling and
analysis of the stockpiled soil to determine whether or not it presently
exceeds the key indicator parameters established for this project. '!he
nost recent analytical results indicate that approximately 25% of the
sanples taken fran the piles fail the KIA. ft:>wever, the samples were
drawn from the upper layers of the piles. Degree of contamination of
the soil at greater depths is unknown. For the purposes of developing
cost estimates for the alternatives which include off-site disposal of
soil, it was assumed that 50% of the soil in the stockpiles is currently
contaminated (i. e., will fail the KIA test). '!his percentage was de-
rived using the latest analytical results, and includes a 25% contin-
gency due to the uncertainty associated with the degree of contamination
of the soil in the inner portions of the piles. '!he remaining 50% of
the soil was assumed to be noncontaminated and suitable for use as
backfill on-site.
'!he on-site treatment alternatives (Land Treatment, Composting, and
SOil Aeration) are all source control measures which call for treatment
of the soil which exceeds the key indicator limits with the goal of re-
ducing the degree of contamination through aeration and biodegra:Jation.
After a batch of soil receives treatment, it would be tested and, if it
still exceeds the parameters, it would be . taken off-site for disposal at
an approved landfill.
In the SOil Aeration alternative, treatment of the soils would be ac-
canplished by usin:3 mechanical equipnent to agitate, mix, and aerate
the soils. Sane technical uncertainties are associated with this
operation since mechanical aeration of soils has not been extensively
used in the past. '!he noisture content and consistency of the soils
would need to be controlled to insure that the soils can be physically
mixed and will not jam or plug the equipnent. In a:Jdition, the resi-
dence time and agitation required to achieve an acceptable level of
devolatilization is not known.
}:n the O:Jnp:>sting alternative, biological treatment of the soil would
'be employed to achieve contamination reduction. E.Ven though carp:>sting
has proved successful for municipal sewage slOOge, its application to
contaminated soils has not been proved. '!here are also technical un-
certainties regarding the microorganisms and nutrient seed material to
be used, and the degree of success which can be expected £ran the process.
'l\1e rand Treatment alternative involves sprea:Jing and cultivating of the
contaminated soils. Cultivation would be performed using agricultural
equipnent such as disc .harrows, rakes, or plows. Cbntamination reduction
could be achieved by volatilization and biodegra:Jation. Although land
treatment has been used successfully for many years in the petrole\D re-
fining industry, the rate or levels of treatment that can be achieved
for the waste contained in the stockpiled soil is unknown. As stated
-------
- 7 -
earlier, the ground water level at this site has been measured to be as
little as 2 - 5 feet below the surface. If the land treatment technique
were implemented and reduction of the hazardous waste were not achieved,
the migration of the contaminants to the shallow ground water table could
resul t.
'!he Off-Site Disposal alternative would require that any soil which failed
the KIA test be taken to an approved, permitted facility for ultimate dis-
posal of the contaminated soil. '!he soils would be excavated fran the
stockpiles in lots of 100 cubic yards. '!he sampling protocol will provide
for a variable sampling frequency per soil lot to ensure a high degree of
sampling sensitivity. Any soil lots that do not exceed the key indicator
limits will be backfilled on-site in area's having no planning future
developnent. '!he site will be covered with an iIt'permeable clay cap to
prevent potential leaching of any residual contamination into the ground
water. '!he material taken off-site for disposal would be manifested in
accordance with RCRA. '!here are no technical uncertainties associated
with this alternative. Standard construction, excavation, and earth
J1O\7ing equipnent and techniques will be employed. Existing permitted
. hazardous waste facilities will be allowed to accept the waste fran this
site. In fact, this was the alternative implemented for the previous
cleanup effort at this site. '!he environmental concerns associated with
this alternative are minimal. '!his alternative proI7ides the additional
benefit of preserving the planned use of this site for a waste treatment
facility.
'!he cost of the various alternatives range fran $3.0M to $~.3M, excllrling
the No Action alternative. 'Ihe following is a tabulation of the cost
estimates for the alternatives.
Cost SlITI1\arY for Remed ial Actions
Alternative
Estimated Capital
Construction Cost
Est imated Post
Closure Cost*
1. Soil Aeration
2. Land Treatment
3. CDrp:>sting
4. cn-Site Encapsulation
5. No Action
6. Off-Site Disposal
$4,595,000
4,238,000
5,297,000
3,006,000
- 0 -
4,324,000
$ 66,000
66,000
66,000
154,000
1.54,000
49,000
*Present worth canputed over 30 years at a 7 3/8% discount rate.
-------
- 8 -
CCMroNITY REIATICNS
'!he Draft Feasibility stlrly was ma:3e available for public comnent. Copies
of the docllDel1t were placed in rep::>sitories in the vicinity of the site. A
notice was placed in the local newspaper regarding the availability of the
Feasibility Stlrly for public review, and to announce that a public meeting
was scheduled for February 23, 1984. '!he meeting was held at the City of
Philadelphia's Southwest Water R:>llution Control Plant, and was attended
by representatives of EPA, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, the City of Philadelphia Water Department, and several citizen/
environmental act ion groups.
Basically, the ccmnents received fran the public expressed their displeasure
with the lack of detailed information in the Feasibility Study, and indicated
a strong preference for implementing the alternative requiring off-site dis-
p::>sal of all soil determined to be contaminated. '!hey were adamantly optX)Sed
to ~lementation of any of the alternatives calling for on-site containment
or treabnent of contaminated soil. '!he public camnent period closed three
weeks after the stlrly was made public.
In response to the public ccnments received, extensive revisions were made to
the Feasibility Stlrly, greatly increasing the degree of detail and supporting
dOClmlentation for the alternatives considered for cleanup.
crNSISTENCY WI'nt arHER ENVIRCNMENTAL ~
All of the alternatives evaluated (except No Action) were formulated to be
in canpliance with RCRA land treatment, storage, and disposal technical and
administrative requirements whenever possible. Incllrled were the physical
controls necessary (Le., nonitoring wells, leachate collection systems,
liners, etc.) to implement the on-site treatment and disposal alternatives.
'!he cost estimates developed for the alternatives took into account the
RCRA ted1nical and administrative requirements which apply to the individual
remedial actions. '!he reccmnended alternate of off site disposal provides
a beneficial effect on the 100 year flood plain.
RECX:MMENDED ALTERWl'IVE
.-Section 300.68 (j) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) [47 FR 31180,
July 16, 1982] states that the appropriate extent of remedy shall be
deteDnined by the lead a:Jency's selection of the remedial alternative
which the agency determines is cost-effective (Le., the lowest cost
alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable) and which
effectively mitigates and minimizes darta3e to and provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare, and the environment. Based on
our evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of each of the proposed alter-
natives, the ccmnents received fran the public, informations fran the
Feasibili ty Stlrly, and information fran the City of Philadelphia, we
reccmnend that the Off-Site Disposal alternative be implemented. 'n1is
alternative incltdes: Resampling and analysis of the stockpiled soils
in 10Q-cubic-yard lots for the key indicator parameters: on-site con-
tainment of soils which do not exceed established parameter limits:
off-site disposal at RCRA approved facility of soils which exceed
established parameter limits: grading, canpletion of clay cap and cxwer,
and vegetating of the site.
-------
- 9 -
'!be recomrnen1ed alternative is the least cost alternative that is tech-
nically feasible and reliable, and which effectively mitigates and "
minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of public health,
welfare, and the environment. It also complies with RCRA by calling
for off-site disposal of contaminated soil at a RCRA approved facility,
and the level of cleanup was determined in a manner consistent with the
RCRA methodology. In COI1parison, the al tematives evaluated calling
for on-site treatment of contaminated soil by corrp:>sting and aeration
are nore costly, and the reliability of the processes associated with
treatment of the waste present in the soil on-site is uncertain: the
Land Treatment alternative, although less costly than off-site disp:>sal,
has technical "uncertainties associated with it, and failure to achieve
the desired contaminant reductions could result in migration of hazardous
substances to the shallow ground water table: the On-Site Encapsulation
alternative is less capital cost intense, however, it will require a
longer term 0 & M period at a much higher cost than the recomrnen1ed
alternative, is not as technically reliable as the Off-Site Disposal
alternative, and the high ground water table and fill material at the
Enterprise Avenue site are generally not suitable for construction of an
on-site disposal facility so long as there is another viable cost-effective
alternative for disposal. Although the on-site cell would be designed
to guard against releases, the hydrogeologic conditions at the site
( 1. e., high grOLmd water table, located wi thin the 100-year flood plain)
would multiply the adverse effects of any failure of the cell which may
occur. "
'!be capital cost for the reccmnended alternative is estimated to be
$4,324,000. '!he nonitoring and maintenance costs are estimated to be
$49,000 (present worth value) for a period of thirty years. A breakdown
of the capital oosts appear in Appendix c.
OPERATICN AND MAINTENANCE (0 & M)
'Itle 0 & M activities associated with the recarmended alternative are in-
spection of the site (1 cr~ay /year) and maintenance of the vegetated
cover (5 crew-days/year) at an annual cost of approximately $4,200. '!be
City of Philadelphia will assume full responsibility for 0 & M since it
is a city-owned property.
,. proI?a:)ED ACTICN
We request your approval of the rE!!ID\Tal of all soil fran the Enterprise
Avenue site which fails the established Key Indicator Parameter test.
This action will complete the cleanup of this hazardous waste disposal
site. '!he estimated total cost for this state-lead project is $4.82M,
which inclldes the cost for construction management. We also request
an allocation of $2.41M fran the Superfund to fund this cleanup at the
50% level since it is a municipally owned site.
PRQJECl' SCHEOOIE
- Approve Record of Decision
- Award Cboperative Agreement
- Start Construction
Gomplete Cbnstruction
for Cbnstruction
May 1984
May 1984
July 1984
N:>venber 1984
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
S\.mnarY of Analytical Results of Soil in the
'lUX Stockpile
Sample lb. Results Sample No. Results
5-0059 51 5-0243 82
5-0167 110 5-0246 150
5-0169 330 5-0247 259
5-0170 61 5-0248 5,350
5-0 192 51 5-0250 148
5-0201 39 5-0284 135
5-0207 49 5-0295 39
5-0208 83 5-0296 65
5-0209 59 5-0300 29
5-0227 59 5-0302 1,921
5-0228 100 5-0303 213
5-0236 98 5-0304 78
5-0239 51 5-0306 29
5-0241 38
5-0242 42
lbte
. All results measured in parts per million.
..
-------
Stmnary of Analytical Results of Soil in the
Volatile ~ganic Stockpile
Sample tb. Benzene Ethyl benzene 'lbluene
5-0179 27 364
5-0180 24
5-0181 90 157
5-0183 28 22
5-0184 27
5-0188 17 24 35
5-0 189 27
5-0193 19
5-0217 93 30
5-0218 158 53
5-0219' 41
5-0249 86 47 330
5-0283 1 ,000
5-0287 25
5-0288 36
5-0297 22
5-0298 18 283
5-0305 18 49 36
5-0307 18 427 438
5-0309 43 33 54
5-0312 42 22
5-0313 42
5-0315 19
tbte
All results measured in parts per million.
"
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
.Ana1ytica1 Information on TOX Pile - March 1983
. TOX Toluene Ben~ene Ethy1benzene
. Quadrant ppm ppm ppm ppm.
A 0.52 0.58 0.25 0.13
B 0.17 1.10 0.26 0.24
C 0.56 1.10 0.63 0.42
D 0.42 7.80 2.00 .1.30
EP Toxicity - Metals (ppm)
Quadrant As Ba Cd Cr Pb Hq Se Aq
A NF 0.32 NF NF NF <0.001 NF NF
B NF 0.16 NF NF NF <:::.001 NF NF
C NF 0.20 NF NF NF <0.001 0.012 NF
D NF 0.09 NF .NF NF <0.001 0.011 NF
Composite of Quadrants (ppm unless noted otherwise)
F1 6.7 CN (T) 1.11 Cu (T) 462
NH3-N - 4.9 Aq (T) NF Fe (T) 45,600
N03-N - 13.7 Zn (T) 1054 Pb (T) 960
pH 7.8 pH units As (T) 35 Hq (T) o.
VOC <3 Ba (T) 208 Se (T) 2.
SPCD - 1300 mmho Cd (T) 12 Ti (T) 21
TOC 83 cr+3 (T) 5.01 cr+6 (T) - <4.
NF = Not Found
T - Total Metals
,...'.."'
. .
.-."
-------
. .
Analytical Information on Volatile Organic Pile - March 1983
Tox Toluene Benzene Ethylbenzene
Quadrant ppm ppm ppm ppm
A 0.24 0.50 1.20 0.53
B 0.26 1.60 4.00 0.69
C 0.08 1.00 0.17 0.2C
D 0.47 1.40 0.84 0.50
EP Toxicity - Metals (ppm)
Quadrant As Ba Cd Cr Ph Hg Se Ag
A NF 0.30 NF NF NF <0.001 0.012 NF
B 0.01 0.13 NF NF NF <0.001 0.013 NF
C NF 0.14 NF NF NF <0.001 0.013 NF
D NF 0.10 NF NF NF <0.001 0.012 NF
Composite of Quadrants (ppm unless noted otherwise)
/
Fl 9.1 CN (T) 1.55 CU '(T) 344
NH3-N 3.9 Ag (T) NF Fe (T) - 42,405
N03-N - 259 Zn (T) 1166 Ph (T) 954
pH 7.9 pH units As (T) 8 Hg (T) 0.85
VQC <3 Ba (T) 226 Se (T) 2.0
.SPCD - 820 mmho Cd (T) 11 Ti (T) 39
TOC - 122 cr+3 (T) 69 CR+6 (T) <4.0
NF = Not Found
T = Total Metals
J.- ~:
~
-------
,
'.
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION ON TOX l'ILg - MAnCil 19U
J
I TOX Toluenl! Bcn:ene £thylbcnzen.:
~,Jl1Ipl" No. Quadrant ppm ppm ppm ppm
A-I A
1\-\ (.iupUcatlil A 570 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
A-Z C
A-) C 1,150 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
1\-4 0
A-4 (duplicato I D
A-5 D
A-5 (dupUcAte) D 2,860 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
A-6 B
A-6 (duplicatn' B
1'-7 B 1,660 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
A-8 A
Fiold blank 47 <0.001 0.0059 <0.001
(distilled water)
-------
"
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION ON VOLATILE ORG~~IC PILE - MARCH 1984
TOX Toluuno Oenzene Ethylbenzllne
S.1JI\ple No. Qu.H!~ant ppm ppm ppm ppm
0-1 A
D-2 C 530 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
0-2 (duplicato) C 490 39 52 <5.0
8-J c
8-4 D
8-4 (duplicate) D 460 7.9 <5.0 <5.0
8-5 D
8-5 (duplicate) D
8-6 8
8-7 8
8-8 A
8-8 (duplicate) A 2,J20 54 5.8 59
Field B14nk (8011)
"
"
. ~ , "',\ ,,~".'
o 0
"'0
o C'
, '.
-------
.
.
ADDITIONAL ANALYTICAL INFORMATION ON TOX AND VOLATILE-ORGANIC PILES - MARCH 1984
Sample No.
PUe
QUAdrA~t
TOX
Pplll
To1uane
ppl1l
Benzene
ppm
~thylbtlnacne
ppl1l
A.l TOX A <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
A.2 - TOX C 14 2.2 3.4
".4 TOX D 10 12 23
"-4 CdupUc:ete) TOX D 23 7.6 59
".5 TOX D 3.0 1.5 5.9
".6 TOX B 53 1.1 2.3
"-6 CdupUc:ete) TOX a 34 d.O <1.0
"-8 TOX A 1.2 <1.0 <1.0
8-1 Vol ~ 1.5 5.8 1.1
8-3 vol C <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
8-4 1.'01 D 1.2 1.4 <1.0
8-5 vol D 5.0 14 7.6
8-5 CdupUc:ete. Vol D 7.7 25 6.0
B-6 Vol B 9.0 28 1.3
B-7 Vol B 2.4 2.9 4.9
8-8 Vol A 1.4 <1.0 6.2
Field Blenk Ceoil. <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
-------
, .
-~.hi r I
ANALYTICAL INFORMATION ON VOLATILE ORCANIC PILE - KARCH 1984
-' 'l'OX Toluene Bonzene Ethylbenlen8
Sample No. auaclrar.~ pp::\ ppru ppm ppru
" B-1 A
8-l C 530 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
D-l (duplicate) C 490 3!1 52 <5.0
8-) 'C
8-4 :>
8-4 (duplicate. t> 460 1.9 <5.0 <5.0
8-5 0
8-5 (duplicate) 0
8-6 8
8-1 B
8-8 A
8-8 (dupUcate) .\ 2,JlO 54 5.8 59
Field 8hnk (.oilt
, '
, .
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Construction Cost Estimate
Off-Site Disposal
(Alternative 6)
Description
1.
.
Flood controls
2.
Excavate material from stockpiles
and transfer on-site
3'.
Segregate construction rubble
.
4.
Analyze samples for key indicators
5.
Backfill"acceptab1e material and
rough gra.de
6.
Dispose of cQntarnin~ted material
at an approved off-site facility
7.
Bury debris/rubble on-site
Complete site final cover
Quantity
Unit Cost
1800 cu. yd.
$10/cu.yd
18,000 tons $4/ton
15 crew days $1,000/
crew day
200 samples $200 ea.
9,000 tons $2/ton
9,000 tons
$150/ton
$2/cy
500 cy
25 ac
$58,000/ac
Subtotal (roundp.d)
Mobilization,
demobilization and
site services (10%)
Subtotal
Contractor's Fee
(16%)
Subtotal
Contingency (15%)
TQTAL
'f
Total Cost.
$
18,000
$ 72,000
$ 15,000
$ 40,000
..
$ 18,000
$1,350,000
$ 1,000'
$1,450,000
$2,946,000
$' 295,000 /'
$3,241,000
$
519,000
$3,760,000
$
564,000
$4,324,000 .
-------
Post Closure Cost EstLmate - Alt 6 (Off-Site Disposal)
Description
Annual
Quantity
1.
Inspect the site
1 crew day
2.
Maintain the vegetated
cover
5 crew
day
Subtotal
Contingency (20%)
TOTAL Annual Cost
Unit Cost
($)
$500/crew
day
$600/crew
day
*
TOTAL Present-Wo~~ Cost
"
*
Present-worth cost is computed over 30 years
@ 7 3/8% discount rate; present-worth factor
~
=
11.7
Annual Cost
($)
$
500
$ 3,000
$ 3,500
$
700
$ 4,200
$49,000
,.
-------
..-.----..-----
. ------ "--'--- ..~ - -
ATTACHMENTS
-------
~.
'-
,.
,
I
/
/
CITY OF PMfLADELPHIA
ENTERPRISE AVENUE SITE
REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
.,
-.. -----.-
DRAf1
HOT SPOT SOIL HANDLING PROTOCOL
September. 1981
w.o. 1290-06-01
Technical Report 15
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
Oi; I,.~ i.~
\/I"IAt
('~ed)
. .
-------
-----. ._- --'-.--. -
- - - -..... --
HOT SPOT SOIL HANDLING PROTOCOL
ENTERPRISE AVENUE SITE
'-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
,.
I '-
The closure activities at the Enterp~ise Avenue Site wil I involve the
excavation, hand1ing;9nd off-site disposal of drummed waste previously
disposed of on-site~ A ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the site
is being performed .to locate and map suspected pockets (groups ~f buried
drums. . Specifications are being prepared for incorporation in.t.o a bid
document which wi I I form the basis for inviting bids for removal of the
drumm~: waste and hot spots followed by site closure by a contractor.
Records indicate that the burial of drums occurred during the period of
1971 through mid 1976. From the time the drums were buried on site it is
possible that contents from the drums have leaked and contaminated soils
surrounding the drum pocket. The term Ilhot spotll refers to any soi Is in
or around a drum pocket that are highly contaminated and saturated by waste
materials that have leaked from the drums. Leakage from the drums may have
occurred due to
.
damage to the drums during handling and burial
.
fa i I ure of the drums due to chemi ca I act i vi ty and rus t i ng in
the 1andfill environment.
2.0
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The protocol for removal of hot spots must meet the following objectives.
.
the handling of hot spots must be accomplished under field
conditions so that excavation and earth moving activities
can proceed 0" an expe~itious basis
.
the protocol must be applicable to onty those soils where hot
spots are most likely to occur
.
the protocol must differentiate between the normat background
landfill conditions and those conditions that represent highly
contaminated soi Is due to waste material leakage from drummed
waste
.
the protocol must be consistent with the overall objective for
si te ,'::~re and removal of drummed waste
-1-
O~~G'NAl
~ ~.n
-------
--. . ._-- ---4__-.
--- ---. _4_-. . -
- .---- ---
-~
.
the ultimate handling and disposition of hot spot soi I material
must be in a manner such that furthe~ leaching and migration of
contaminants from these soi Is will be minimized
.
t~protocol should not invol~e any damage or disruption to the
clay layer which underlies the site and serves to protect the lower
wa~er bearing zone from contamination impacts.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOCOL
3.0
3. I
Model of Drum ~ocket
Information indicates that drums were delivered in truckload quantities
and dumped into the landfi II. After the drums were deposited, they were
covered with incinerator residue and buried. As a result buried drums wi II
be found in groups or pockets of many drums. Based on this scenario for
drum burial Figure I depicts a typical cross-section through the landfill
site and a drum pocket. .
The ground penetrating radar (CPR) survey work being conducted at the EAS
site is being used to plot the location of "burled targets.IIThese targets
relat~ to the probable location of a pocket or group of buried drums. Each
pocket of drums in turn corresponds to a truckload of drums that was delivered
to the site and buried.
From Figure I it can be seen that any leakage of contents from the drums
located in the unsaturated zone wil I be expected to migrate in a generally
vertical direction under the influence of gravity. Lateral migration due
to chemical diffusion is minimal and can be assumed to be restricted to a
few inches of soi I around the drum pocket. During excavation of the drums
. these soi Is along the sides of the pocket wi II be removed as the drums are
located and dug out. With the primary migration pathway being in a vertical
. direction leakage could contaminate soi Is wi thin the pocket of drums and
below the drum pocket and thereby create hot spots in these soil locations.
Based on this analysis or the drum pocket, surrounding the soi Is, and
potential hot spot material, a soil handling protocol has been developed
that addresses the identification of potential hot spots according to
.
location or the soils with respect to the drum pocket
ORIGINAL
(Red)
.
physical condition or the drums
--
.
analyti~al testing of soi Is for key indicator parameters.
Two approaches wi I I be employed for handling the soils that may have been
contaminated from the contents of the drums. In those cases '/'Ihen the soils
have 14_CII highly contaminated by the drum contents and are classified as
hot Spots they wi II reQuire off si te disposal. For those soils that are
lo~~ted in close proximity to the drums and for which there is no evidence
-2:-
-------
. --. - ---
-- -" . ~- -.--.- -
.-
'-
~
'-
~
....L LANOFllL S~RFAC£
"
CLEAN
MATERIAL
I
I
: lC'iRATOR iES'OUE I
I /
I I I III
I
I
~ ~a:: I.
z ""
/ ;: d?illl
. / a g...l I
SOIL SUBJECT
10 REMOVAL
C1..AY L.AYER
TYPICAL
VIEW OF
CROSS - SECTIONAL
DRUM POCKET'.
o,!
("- .
(!')
fii;": J
ORAWN
ROY F "'(STON. .!'oIC
i='IGURE
-------
-------- .
----. _.
of high levels of contamination reburial on-site will be employed. On-site
areas designated for receiving the soi'ls must be located at least 3 feet above
the first water bearing zone so that the soi Is are not plac~d in areas that
are subject to continued leaching by groundwater.
'-'"
1.:2
Temoorary Storage/Staging Areas
Temporary on-site storage wi~'1 be required for handling materials excavated
from the drum pocket as fol lows:
Storage Are-a
Function
1.
Drum Staging Area
- Temporary drum storase for analysis and
Identification, staging. materials bulking.
repackaging and transfe; for off-sicA
disposal.
2.
Clean Soil Staging Area
- Temporary storage of cl~an soils for use
as backfill as drum pocket excavation and
materials removal is completed.
3.
Soil Holding Area
- Temporary storage of soils for analytical
testing foltowed by use as select fi II on-
site or transfer for off-site disposal.
Table I summarizes the 5011 handting protocol to be used during the drum
excavation activities. .The soil categories identified. in this table relate
to the drum pocket concept as shown in Figure 1. In this table eight soi 1
categories are identified along with the handling procedures. analytical
tes t i ng requ i remen ts and f i na I d i spos i.t i on for tha t so ilea tegory.
3.3
Soi I Categories and Handling
3.3. I
Soil Cover over Drum Pocket
';,.7' ,.
. "i' ~, "f
. .~~
Soi I Category I relates to thac soil found above the drum pocket. This
soil has not been contaminated due to the leakage of drum contents and there-
fore is not subject to classification as a hot spot. The procedure wilt be
for removing this soil material to a clean soil staging area where it can be
temporari Iy Stored. After the drum pocket has been excavated and drums removed
according to this protocol soit from the clean soit Staging area can be used
for backfi I I ing of the excavation.
3.3.2
Soil Mixed with Drums
The soi 1 which is mixed with the drums in the drum pocket wi 11 be handled
using several procedures. If the drums are found to be intact wi th no signs
of leakage or spi Ilage the soi I mixed wi th ,the drums (shown as Soi I Category 2)
can be removed to the clean soil staging area. This protocol requires that
the clean soil be successfully separated from the buried drums during excavat:o~
-------
,
~
--. --.-
.J -
'-
(1)
I
Sele~t Ba~kfill:/
,f
,/
(2)
Minor Spi I I age
(Solid).:
(3)
Drums I n Good;
Cond i t i on :
(4)
Spot Che~k
- -- ----------.
.- --... .-' -.. -
SOIL HANDLING PROTOCOL
FOOTNOTES
/
To be used as ba~kflll on-site in areas that
are at least 3 feet above the high elevation
of upper water bearing zone.
'Spillage being in nen-liquid (not freely flowing)
form; and spillage residue located wi chin I
foot of the drum; and no more than 5 drums in
each pocket showing signs of minor spillage.
Drums capable of being handled without additional
leakagefspi I I age of contents.
Based on field conditions and inspections, com-
posite samples will be collected for verification
purposes, using the key indicator parameters.
C~,.,
-, /:.. J.,
"/ :" ," I
" "'1(,
: . ;"
--.....
, -4-
-------
"
Ii I :..C P-:-')''''
!.oIl .aa.e Itr....,. QIOC-.t.
-----
TAIU "
SOI~ HANO~I~ '-oTOCO~
"'."d I i "'4 ' ~'X e-m'ii-.
I. ..
'.-0.. ,oil (0 ~I..ft ,oil 't..lft9
,r..
....IYllul
r."I_q ~( So;l,
I. ..
Soot (~It. (~)
--- -¥ -- ---
OI~OOtjtio'" :J' Soil
I, ..
'.~.OO"t ~1~lft \0" ,~ ~.C"4ti~~
,'trr -jr\l~ ".". ~.... ,.~".t1.
..-~~O()\ it I; I ~." .0 i I I" .,-C.a"'4C; t)f9
.It., d,."""" "'.". ~e~" refllilM....d.
So.1 ....4 .i t" 4r,,"'-
~r\l"'" Ir, i "t.et 0"
':1"""" ,0Hd' t"'.C
",-"" "'IOC I ....d 0"
'0111 f4.
2, .,
S.o.,.t. dry... frC18 loll ...d ,....,...
z. ..
SOOl CIoftk
z, ..
Soi I "'..0 .'Ut d,.",...-
dr\l~ "T I~ 90Dd can-
~I r lo"U .,.4 to",.i"
,oj Ich .It,. Oftl, .£"0"
'0111..,. \Z) of ,..lleI,
.rc"". t". dr.......
Z. b.
'.-0.. ,oil to (I.... ,oil 11.01.., .,...
). a.
\001 CMeIt.
). a.
..deoo"i( ~I.." ,0,1 i" P1lC.a....u'''''''
.It.r d"u~ "'8Ye ~.." ,.~..~.
Soil ,8' ,.et .'1" d,v..-
4r..... Ir. 1ft ;oar ~OR-
dillooo ...et ""val .....-
...c. I"etleal" I".C eI,v..
".- I..." eOflUIIU.
.-
}. a.
$'08"1' d'~ ,.~ loll , ..~-
d'y,"" (0 "V- It.ql", .'...
"
.1 C.t I~'"
Soil ').1- d,,,.. .
4ry~ ar. I~t.ct or
'0"'"1" ,olld' I"'C
~... ~t I....d ~r
\0.11...
). b"
Coll"CI ,01141 '011"98 'nlctva,;
CQf'tt'~".f"I,.d , ,..,... to 4,.",.
ua,I", .....
~. a.
;Out 0f0. ~_,Iu.
~. .,
0,,-,11. dh",..al If ~.., I"dl_..,,~
1 i /tit t, .~. ..c..fj.tcS.
oJ,. n ,,,I"CI 1111(1) ....-,Iu ;, ',.'
i~dICICO' II.ie, Ir. ~C ..C..d~1.
~. b.
........,tlul
r.'II". 01 toil,
01,,,,,,1( 10" 01 Soil
.. ..
500c C"eell
). e.
-~""Ioll to el.... '01' ""',,, I"'.
~. b.
II O"-lft. diu,,".'
,_I,.d. tlU U 08'
._I,_u 01 '1,-
""..I 'eellll.,.
S. I.
--,.. 1".,ltv.
~. ..
5.0,'.1. d,v,"" 1.- ,oil """ '-'"
d,~ (0 4.V8 't81'''. I"'.
s. I. 500t CNeIl
So; 1 ,.1.... d.y.....
dry.. .r. ill ~
co~dl'l~ ,Ad COftt.'ft
'01141 .11" 0001.,..,....,
'11111". 01 ,..nd,
or-" I'" dr_.
Soil ",- d,.... I"'C
"".. '"'''' . d..I!!
10 el.., II"''' ,.1...
Z llOC 0' I.".
~,b.
ColleeC ,oil' '0111... '.,uIOl';
eonlli...,I,. , '...... to ',v.
1t...1". .....
7. ..
/
feu - __II.
,oil ,_,. I",
k.., 1..,lIuc";,.
;,1.
6. a.
........i,. ,,,.,,. tu.
7. I.
0".,118 dl,o.".1 If 'o.., 1...lIe810'-
Ii..." .r. PC,,"".
~. c.
-~... ,oil to '0" ...,..... I'"
10' Int.l....
7. 1t.
If off..,lt. elhoowl
I, ._1'''', (I'lt 81
08' ,",,1'_11 01
eI I '00'" leci lit.,.
7. 1».
U,. ., ,.\ect ,,,. Oft-~,t. a ,,~.;,
I~dic.tor 11.'t, .r. ~r ..C~~~P~.
M..df ;"'1 ''''X8dUf".
S. I.
... ...a..8\IOIO.
-...
Soli "1_',,- I"-C
""'O. 1"."""0'" to
c I.., bel", 9'''18' I".
Z ","
.. ..
No .......t 1011.
7. e.
bu...t. tOl' to 108 0'
cia., loye,;, do noc. IS-
ee...c. Illco cley loye...
7. 1».
-- Mil to _II 118"'",
I'" 10' t.,cl....
8.
a.
.-... 2 h.c 0' _" 10 I'"
101' 1001.1... a.... 'or t.u I....
s. b.
[ac....,. end ,...-.1 IcIcIlclOIIel ,all
la.., II (OMOD,II. ,...1, 01 11I-lltu
s. ..
rnl on. e_lll.
,...,. 0' \0" tft
t~. ..c...ciOft 'or
k,., I-dl(alo'"
S. b.
r.,t 0". co,..,. it.
.0; 1 ,_I. ,,"'"
ftOldl", .,.. '0'
~.Y i_dle.Io'" I"a'
.il1 det.,.,... ..,.
OOIlt I....
S. I.
01,-,11. ell 0..,.1 II ~..., I".;c"-~
II.; u ... ..el'.d"',
8. II.
u,.,t '4!"'"ct "J1 ",.."it. ,I .-.,
;"d'C'(f'''' I i;"it\ ..re ~ct ....(.._~~.,
l". "J" I"A l
:.i.\ I.! U
i' ~ 4)
\ . .;' J,
-------
-----
.-----.-
Soil Cac.egory 3 involves soit m1xed with drums in the drum 'pocket '",ith
d~w~s containing solid waste material and being in good condition. Visual
inspection of the drum pocket should indicate that only .minor spillage of
sol id material may have occurred and is I imi ted to the soi Is immediately
adjacent to the drums. The recommended procedure for this category of soi Is
is to separate the drums from the soi I and remove the drums to a drum staging
area. Any sol id spi I lage residues wil I be properly containerized and removed
to the drum staging area. Soi I wi II then be collected and removed to the
clean soil staging area. Guidelines are provided in this protocol in the form
of footnotes for determining when drums can be classified as being in "good
cand it i onll and sp i I I age can be viewed as bei ng "mi norll in extent.
The Soi I Category 4 addresses those soils mixed with drums in the drum pocket
when the drums are in poor can~ition and visual evidence ind(cates that drum
contentS have leaked. In this s:cuation the soils in the drum pocket have
been exposed to the contents of the drums and therefore wi II require special
handling so that they do not bec~me a future source of contamination. In this
case the soils may be ctassified as a hot spot depending upon the \evel~ and
type of contamination.
The Category 4 soils wi II be separ ted from the drums and removed to a soil
holding area for analytical tes.tin.. Two composite soil samples will be
collected from these soils and one )f the samples tested for the Key Indicator
Parameters as shOfoln in Table Z. S. 'ple collection protocol is shown in
Table 3.
3.3.3
Soil Below the Drum Pocket
The next category of soi Is. Category 5. invclves those soils located below
a drum pocket. This layer of soil i: located between the bottom of the drum
pocket ~nd the top of the clay layer. Soil Category 5 addresses those soi Is
below a drum pocket where the drums a.e shown to be intact or contain solids
that have not leaked or spilled. Thi3 corresponds to the Soil Category Z
previously discussed. For the Catego~y 5 soils no excavation. testing or
removal is required.
The Category 6 soi Is encompass the soi Is located below the drum pocket where
the drums are in good condition and contain only solid ~a~erials with evidence
of only minor spillage around the drums. This correlates with the condition
described for Soil Category 3 previously discussed. rn this situation any
sources of potential contamination will hav~ been removed when the drums are
excavated and when any spillage is collected from the soils in the drum pocket.
For the Category 6 soi Is no excavation, testi'ng or removal is required.
Category 7 soi Is are those soils located below a drum pocket ~Qere the drums
have leaked and the distance betWeen the bottom of the drum pocket and the
clay layer is 2 feet or less. In this particular case the soils below the
drum pocket may have received contamination due to leakage of contents from
the drums. The protocol for this soil category calls for the excavation of
the soils down to the top of the clay layer. Under no circumstances should
-5-
. i.
... .
- . I ~ . '.
, 44/
-...~. -
-------
o
-..... =0
~o~ e
.~ :c::
~
r-
Indicator
I. TaX
(Total Organic Halogen)
2. Organ I c Scan (I)
o Benzene
o Toluene
o Ethy'benzene
3. EP Tox lei tv (5)
o Arsenic
o Da r I urn
o Cadmium
o Chromium
o Lead
0 Mercurv
o Sehn I urn
o 5 i 'v~r
'L Other Tests
footnotes discussed in Appendix A.
'.
Table 2
'"': ".
5011 Analysis - KeV Indlcato5
\
,
limit
Ana' y t lea'
Protocol
25 ppm
I
I
",
.........
"
....
. 12 ppm (2)
15 ppm (])
'5 ppm (It)
'.
~o CFR Part 261 Appendix II
5 ppm
100 ppm
, ppm
5 ppm
5 ppm
a . 2 ppm
1 ppm
5 ppm
To be based on, field inspections
and specific conditions of In-
dividual drum pocket.
-------
..
\.
J.
2.
3.
..--. --
-...
-
Table 3
Soi I Handling Analytical Protocol
Sampling of 50i 15 in soil holding area.
a.
Two composite samples wi! I be obtained from each drum pocket soil
category designated for testing.
b.
Each composite ~i I I consist of 4 surface grab samples; the grab
samples for the conposite wi I I be of roughly equal quantities.
c.
One grab sample should be collected from each of the quadrants of
':ne soi I pi Ie.
d.
The surface grab samples will be collected as representative samples.
The EPA 600/2~80-o18 January 1980 document will be us~d as guidance
for ~epresentative sampling techniques.
e.
One composite sample will be analyzed for key indicators and the.
second will be retained for retesting if necessary.
Sampling of Category 8 Soils in Excavation Below Drum Pocket.
a.
Two composite surface soil samples will be obtained from the
excavation below the drum pocket as it relates to the Category 8
so i I protoco I.
Analytical Testing~
a..
Analytical testing will be performed in accordance with the protocol
as shown in Table 3.
b.
If anyone of the analytical testing limits are exceeded, the soil
will be removed for off-site disposal; additional testing may be
required to meet the requirements of the disposaJ faci!ity.
I
.j
I
/
;"
/
-,
ORIGiNAL
., !Red)
"'.- .;",
-------
- .. - - --_.
'.~ _. .
,.
-~
excavatIon continue into the clay layer or result in damage to the clay layer.
These soils are to be removed to the soil hot ding area for testing. If the
key indicator timits are not exceeded the soil can be used as select fi 11
on site however if the timits are exceeded off site disposat is required.
...
-
The Soft Category 8 are similar to that described at Category 7 however the
distance between the bottom of the drum pocket and the clay layer is greater
than 2 feet. In this case contamination of the bottom soils may have occurred
due to drum leakage however the depth to which this contamination may have
migrated is not known. The first two feet: of soit below the drum pocket is to
be removed to the s6il holding area for testing. After excavating this 2 feot
layer of soi 1 a compos i te sample collected from the bottom of the excavation
should be tested for key indicator parameters to determine if additional
excavation is required. The sample collection protocol is shown in Table 3.
If the key indicator limits are exceeded an additionat 2 foot soi I layer
should be excavated or to the top of the clay la~er whichever comes first.
If additional soit is excavated betow the initial 2 foot layer the soil should
be removed to the holding area for testing and uttimate disposition.
(
-6-
ORIGINAL
(lled) .
....~~
-------
----
--------
3.4
Key Indicator Analyses
A key indicato~ methodology will be u~ed for th~ testing of soil samples.
The key indicators which will be used have been selected from a review
of the existing re£9rds pertaining to the type and quantity of waste
~aterials buried in the landfil I.
3.4. 1
Organic Scan
In general the waste materials are orgGnic in nature. The primaryconsti-
tuents of these organic waste materials include oil sludges, waste oils,
toluene, xylene, and other generic descriptions such ~s waste acids, soaps,
latex, and laboratory wastes. .Many of these materials may not be hazardous
by their chemical nature and, therefore, will not require secure off site
disposal. The objective of the key indicator analysis is to identify
those contaminants that a~e most likely to be found on-site and are of
greatest concern with respect to potential environmental impacts.
The results 6f WES70N's August 1979 Phase I site investigation work basically
confirmed these existi~: records. On site contamination of the upper water.
bearing zone was organic in nature with 'nly isolated evidence of ccssible
contamination from heavy metals. Records indicate that metall ic bearing
wastes were deposited on-site but Phase I did not indicat~ that heavy metals
are a major potential contaminated problem. Organic contaminants that
were identified included benzene.. toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes.
It should be noted that these contaminants are generally found in relatively
low levels and were also detected in back .groundwater samples. The highest
level of benzene was found in a background monitoring well.
The key indicators ~elected for analysis are shown in Table 2. With the
exception of E? toxicity, analytical limits have not been established
for characterizing these parameters as relating to hazardous or ~onhazardous
levels. To establ ish these types of limits several literature ~~urces
were used to provide guidance as follows:
.
1981 background levels in soils at the Enterprise Avenue site
.
1981 groundwater readi~9s in the Enterprise Avenue site
. Fresh water criteri~
/
Salt water criteria ..
. /
,
. Human health criteria I
,
,
. Chemica) characteristics. including so I ub i I i ty and toxicity
.
The levels of contaminants in groundwater as measured-d~ring
the ~eston's Phase' (August 1979) Site Investigation Report.
I
-7-
." !'I
.. ,-, 1.1\ 1
:",~'.YAL
! . .",J)
. .' J
-------
.--.-
...--.--------
The obje~tive in establ ishing I imits fur the key indicators is to provide
g~id~nc~, for iden:ifying hoc spots. Hct Spots are those soils that have
been highly contaminated due to. the leakage of contents from the buried
drums. The levers Q..f contaminants in a hot Spot sho~.d be ,00any cimes
greater C~Ic1n the concentration of these contaminancs in background samples.
The chc!:1ical Icvels in 'the hot spot soils should be similar to che original
or chemical composition of the drum concents.
During WESTON's Ph~se I field investigation ic ~as suspected Ch~t the
PI,.'Q ,¥1 monitoring '",cll \..as placed in Or thr.ough a pock~t of buried drums.
This evidence is based on the fact that this we' I reflected levels of
contaminacion chac were much greater than that observed in ocher wel Is and
the f3Ct that this well continued to foam for many months after it was
developed. The TOC reJdings in chis particular 'Nell '...ere 100 times (2 orcerS
of magnitude) greater than TOC levels recorded in other we! 1s located within
the site perimeter as measured in 1979. This wel I was resampled and
retesced in 1981 and the findings indicated that TOC readings in P~D #1
are generally 20 to 50 times greater than TOC readings in other wells
within the site. The a~a1ytical readings for thse we] Is are presented in
tabular form in Appendix 6. These readings provide a yardstick with
respect to assessing the relative level~ of contam~nation that may be
found in a hot spot as compared to ather soils at the site.
In developing the I imits for the key indicators the present maximum
background levels for the various parameters were identified. The
.upper I imit for the key indicator was computed at 75 times the maximum
bac'~nd level. The mul tipl ier of 75 was selected based on the relative
rea~ings measured in the p~O #1 monitoring wel I for TOC. As the limits
were set they were compared to the ~~ximum freshwater cri teria for reasonable-
ness and found to be comparable.
This approach is consistent with EPA's methodology which uses 100 times
drinking water stJndards for establ ishlng the I imits for EP toxicity
under RCRA. The human health factors under the water qual ity criteria
also uti t izes a two order of m~gnitude (100 x) methodology for assessing
an incremental increase of cancer risk over a lifetime.
3.4.2
EP Toxicity
The E? toxicity test will be appl ied for analysis of EP metals only.
The EP I imits as publ ished in the RCRA part 261 criteria will be used
as I imits. Only the EP toxicity for metals wi II be appl ied due to the
fact that the TOX indicator wi! I detect the presence ,of pesticides/herbicides.
3.4.3
TOX
TOX levels in background surface soils on the landfil I area ranged from
0.27 - 0.33 ppm. These levels are generally higher than the concentrations
of pesticides and chlorinated organic volatil~s as measured in groundwater
monitoring wel Is during the 1979 Phase I study. The highest concentration
recorded in the Phase I study was 134 ppb measured in a deep wel! outside
the landfill perimeter. '
-8- ,
,OI?/GINAl
. ,-,(Red) '",;"t'
-------
----- -_.
- ----- ---
The hot spot I imitation. for TaX uttlizes the same 7) x methodology discussed
for the other organi~ key indicators. Using the highest recorded TaX in
background the computed limit' is 25 ppm~
As a reasonableness comparison for this I imi~ the RCRA EP toxicity limits
for pesticides were reviewed. The E? 1 imits for Z.40 and methoxychlor;
'ar~'T() ppm~ The TOX. ltmit of 25 ppm Is reasonabTe- considering that chlorinated.;-
-pes.tlci de. compounds may be found i n° 'tOhe-presence whh-o"ther ch 1 ori na teet
arga'!..i 6{
3.4.4
Other Tests
Depending upon specific conditions observed in individual dr~~ pockets
other analytical tests may be needed for identifying ho: spots. These
tests, if needed, would be initiated based on freld observations during
excavation. Tests which may be conducted include:
8 pH of the so i 1
8 ~':a of 0 i Is
8 Cyanide
8 Specific conductIvity
8 19n i tab i 1 i ty
8 TOC
/
/
I
,
/
./
-...
-9-
,."
;J 1r16,/
-'., ,V4L
. -'~ J
. ..- .'..J
- -
-------
, I
----. -
--
APPENDIX A
Analysis of Key Indicator Limits
/
./
/
,
I
./
-,
-------
'~H/ "/
;" .(1 !/4l
, - J)
~.. :
-------
, I
.- -
. (1)
-------.
- _. -. - '.
-------
APPENDIX A
KEY INDICATOR FOOTNOTES
Organic Scan: Compounds were selected based on types of compounds
dumpe1f' at the site as determined by existing records.
(2)
Benzene:
Analy~i5
(3)
Toluene:
o
o
'0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1981 background 1 eve I sin 50 i ls -
1981 groundwater in landfill area
Fresh water criteria - 5,300 ppb
Sa It. ' wa t e r c r i t e ri a .. 5, I 00 P pb
Human health - 0.066 - 6.6 ppb
Characteristics of benzene
<1 0 ~ 168 ppb
- <. I 0 - 1 02 ppb
"sl ight1y soluble' in H20 1 :1450 parts H20"" 690 ppm
*
Oral-human LDL : 50 mg/kg
o
o
.
In August. 1979 background ranged to 50()+o ppb in a groundwater
sample outside of landfill parimeter.
(1)
Benzene levels in background soils correlates with that in
landfill groundwater ~-<-4'1:1 (both 10-100+- ppb range)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Benzene is only "51 ight1y soluble" in water
Fresh water criteria maximum range 3-7 ppm
Assume that "1.5-2 (50-100) order' of magn i tude,t+
greater than maximum 1981 background levels in soil
and groundwater "~ identifies a hot spot (e.g. 75 x 168
~/1 . 12,600 ppb): 12 ppm - this is basically consistent
with fresh water criteri~ (5.1 ppm).
++ . Consistent with TOC reading @ P\IlO #1 '.~hich is a "hot
spot" which is 20-50 x TOC in other wells per 1981
.
measurements and 100 x TOC per 1979 measurements.
o
o
1981 background in soils - ~10-50.1 ppb
1981 groundwater in landfill area ~ (10-20a
in range of 75 ppb) .
Fresh water criteria - 17.500 ppb
~_:~ water criteria - 5000-6300 ppb
Human health - 14.3 ppm
Characteristics of Toluene
"Very 51 ightly soluble" in water (less soluble
than benzene)
'.
ppb(genera11y
,i,-'-
, Ii iiJ', AI
II) i;Al
,. '?1}
..' ~
-------
, I
Analysis
(4)
.--- - ------ .-
o . In Auqust.1979, Toluene. ranged to 1240 ppb inside
. landfill peri-meter in groundwater and 300+ ppb
outs~de llMdfill perimeter. .
( I )
Toluene l~vels in background soils correlates with
that in landfill groundwater'.~l:l
.
(2)
(3)
(4 )
Toluene is I/practica11y insoluble" in water
Fr~sh water criteria range 2.3-5.2 ppm
Assume that 1/1.5-2 50-100) order of magnitudel'
greater than maximum 1981 background levels in
groundwater or soil~.,.-; identifies a hot spot
(e.g. 75 x 200~/1 . 15,000 ppb)...
15. ppm is'general1y con~istent with fresh water
maximum criteria of 17.5 ppm and benzene 1 imit of
12 ppm
(5)
Toxicity levels for Touene and benzene are comparable
Ethy 1 ben zene:
Analysis
o
o
o
o
o
o
1981 background in soils - (10 ppb
1981 groundwater in landfill ares. - {10-199 ppb
Fresh water criteria - 32,000 ppb
Salt water criteria - 43 ppb
Human health - 1.4 ppm
Characteristics of ethylbenzene
'''insoluble to practically insolubel" in water
Oral-rat lD50: 3,500 mg/kg
In August 1979 background ranged to 486 ppb in landfill
groundwater to 50 ppb outside landfill perimeter
o
(1)
(2)
(3'
(4)
. /
Ethylbenzene was not found in 3 soil ~amples
Ethylbenzene is "practically insolubel' in water
Human health criteria is 1.1 ppm '
Assume that ~~ 1.5-2 (50-100) order of magnitude
9 rea te r than the max i mum 198.1 background 1 eve 1 sin
soil and groundwater"~-' identifies a hot spot (e.g.
75 x 199 ~g/l - 15,000 ppb)... -...
l5ppmwhich is basical1y consistent with that for
benzene and Toluene and the fresh water criteria of
32 ppm.
A-2
.. '4~
.fj
. ',/
-
-------
, ,
--~.-._- - --- -
(5)
EP Toxici ty:
EP Tox;ci~y ~alysis witl be performed onty for E? metals. The
presence of pesticides will be gauged from the results of the TaX
Analysis.
./
A-3
/
/
I
/
-...
. , :"{-41.
.'t/) . .
-
.'
-------
'. I
, '
.-----
-- ---- --.
REFERENCES
1.
"Study of Enterprise Avenue Landfill'., City of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Val. 1 Investigations Report,
Roy r. Weston, August 1979.
2.' IINIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical, Substances",
U.S. Department of Health Education & Welfare, January 1979.
3.
rederal Register, Environmental Protection Agency, Vol. 45,
No. 168, 40 CFR Part 141, Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, August 27, 1980.
4.
Federal Register, Environmenta1 Protection Agency, Vo1. 45
No. 231 Water Qua1ity Criteria Documents~ November 28,1980.
~
I
I
/
I
I
/
,/
-....
A-4
..-------. --"..
, /'1.
, :',-.. ~ I'''''
. ",/ .
--
-------
, ,
./ .
J .
,
I
I
: (
: t
,.
. .
--
'-
I
I
/
/
/
APPENDIX B
Ana1yt i~a1 Data
Hot Spot DeterminatIon
---. -_..
'1l
)
-------
, .
CI., 0' Phllad.lphla ~...r Ocpart..nt I'
In..rp,.,. Avenue ,... i
aa,..roun4 Anal,ol, 'or 'laool',ln, Or~ and .000(1..a4 ivll !
I
$p.dll,"1 lliUt !J.fU £!. (l1 !!CU Ut ~(li hhrl UI ~... I
~ COftduc..nc. f!! '.nl..n.. ~
HI 5.000 '., cn 0."5 .. 1,",0 CJt CJt CU CU
"'1 1.'00 '.S "5 0.011 .. '.0," IIA IIA IIA IIA
,-" I.MO '.0 15 O.OtO 0.0' O.lI "., "1.0 51.' IIA
'-III 1.,"00 '.5 "0 0.)" .. 0." 10J.0 .. . IIA
..
'-1" I,SOO ,... 100 .. 0." o.U 'I.I )5.) IIA
..
,'JU 1.100 6.6 J51 O.IOS .. 0." ".' 6).S IIA
..
"J" 1,'00 6.' SO 0.068 0.0' 1.1, )5. t ".1 IIA'
..
- 101. 1.100 ,., UI 0.015 0.0' 1010 .. ".) 1".0 IIA
-)11 ).Joo , '.0 JSS O.IIS O.U 0." ".) .. .. IIA
-IU 1,000 '., JOO .. .. 0." ".' '0.1 U.I IIA
- I" ).000. '.5 SS .. .. 0.') 'S.' .. .. IIA
-III ).~O '.1 JlO 0.0)' O.OS 0.'6 .. ".5 'I.) IIA i
-Sh ,.,.0 '-1.6 J' .. .. O.JO IIA IIA II" i
IIA \
ll.fW 110~1I) 114 I.J' ......... "' IIA SO.O 1,IlS IJS.O 11.) .. 0.)1
,
l' I.rw "'O~'j) 114 I.' '-. no IIA 61.S t,~ "'.0 .~.I .. O.~, !
l I'rw ")511 IIA '.0 UI IIA ~.o tOO .. .. .. 0.)) I
,
I. ~ a.... I " a.u,he4 I
loal, II, . Compool'. 0' 00110 I
I
PP'8
IIPIll
en.I,... pano.lln... ...II...le
Ouo.... J. I 'jdl
.. - 'e.o than 4e.e,...,I-
J
...'
~ ..'
,~;
-------
OATA SUMMARV SHEET fuR
t\t=U::.N: 101.3
a:-.:a::'D
IJI , J T ::;.
hi:':,UL TS
[lATE RECEIVED;
EPEX
MG/L
(........)
..~F~f;.NI 10114
. f-'CLI(J
lIN IT::,
.~t. ':.tlL T8
I '
." .
....~~ ".
~: .
i:
"'.. .
[lATE f1ECEJVEOI"
Ef'MS
MG/L
(........)
J
/
.
.
$.-;:p
91 4/91
9/-4/91
4,19ala CLIENT- 12900~0100
. .
,,.
ENTERPRISE LANDF)L
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: COMP OF 7058,59,7353
SAMPLE OESCRJPTION: LfACHATE OF 10113
~
<.~
& C!J ~ ~
(J,J6 . <,Or .(.()~ <.o~
. ,
""-
.',
...... .
"
.h3 S(. ih
l:0c:., ~. De I ~o'o
- ,
'f
, .
-------
--- - ..-- --. --
I ~I I
,
J
i
~
!
--II>...
_1-
..-.....-... - -- ~
~' -:'.
~ (;','
~~
",~
M
II J).
,...
.....
J~ >().~;~:::':.7::'~_.
II . ~ ~ .cr--=-J
I I '~'~
' ) !,':
'il' )
U ' J ~ J7,-
..1. - - - - ~I-I..-
'1 I---MI ,
) -- .
~.J -,' '~
{J .....-. -'-.-. .,' ..
"'1
~J
I
.'1 -
,. ...
0..--
.
r...,.
.
.
\.
H
"
--
~"... """""'10....
NII'OI.r
T'i\.
~.
~\;-:
~
- . - . - """""."AII 8Qu8.OaMli . '''''''u
CUT U P"Il~I'ILP"",,"U{IIIIII'I.IIIM("1
-----!_'~~~~i ~ ~1~1_~~..'4~~!~~~'~~~-_. ---
flC;Ullr 0-1
1...:)f~1OR -';HL LOCAIIONS
fOil WAI(~ QuAlIrr OA'''-
~OIL IIV' 51'0 T '110 JOC (~
~, I !t,~1:fI,liT:"U F" ...
"
'....
........"'.. .cu. &-GUI". ~ M"".~
A
.!,':!.i
. ".."""'0 ,... ... 'OWtaQwrtAICI
.
"...,.« SL4 ~1I8iI".
.Q
-------
......
"
".
. .)
-
- -.----.--
~~ "', --~ I' .'........"'"
.---.--.--- --
~.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
ENTERPRISE AVENUE SITE
REMEDIAL ~CTION PROGKAM
GROUND~ATER AND SURFACE WAT~R MONITORING
GENERAL REPORT
SEPTEMBER. 1981
W.o. 1290-06-01
TECHNICAL REPORT #3
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
. Weston Way
West Chester. PA 19380
~
}
,
./
."
'. .. ---.--
t
. ORIGINAL
(Reel)
-------
.~~-
...1.
SUMMARY
iI
. .
. .
The City of Philadelphia Water Department has r~tained W.ESTON for
engineering' services relative to a Remcdial Ac~ion Progr.Jm Fer the
Enterprise Avcn~ Site. Under the progr.JnI, a ground'-I.1::cr oJ:'1d surf.a.;e
water monitoring program wi! J be perfor~ed ~o ide~tify potential
'mi~ration of ~ontaminants from the site.
WESTON has det~r;nin~d, by inspccting the monitor-ing '.....~;Is ir,5r.cJllcd in
1979, which"wel Is could be used for monitoring duri~g the current
remedial action program. .
Nearly one-third of the 1979 ~el Is cou~d not be locared or wer~ blocked.
These included three ~el Is whi~h were, to be used for montioring during
this phase of the pro)ect. Therefore, three ne~ ~ells were constructed.
Including the new wel Is, a total of nine wel Is were chosen for
monitoring purposes: Of the nine, five were into the dce~ WJter-bearing-
zone and four were into the shallow water-bearing-zone. AI I ~onitoring
wel Is are cased and capped- .'
2. I NTROOUCT ION .
In March 1981, the City of Philadelphia \oIater O~~artment re~~ined I,./ESTON
for engi~eering services relative to a Remedial Action Program for the
Enterprise Avenue Site. Under the programi a.groundwater and surface
water monitoring program wi I J be performed to ide~tify pot~nti.al migrat£on
of contam'inants from the site. The program calls for mOnitoring the
lower water-bearing-zone with five wells located in back;round locations
west, north and east, as well as down gradient of the site. In addition,
four wells constructed in the sha! low w
-------
-- - \-V1-Q-i)U\I~
SELECTION OF MONITORING WELLS
-. "- ----,-----
-- S.
~
The results. of- the survey of pres!:!nt conditions were r~viewed with the
Phi ladelphia Water Department in McJY 1981. Ni'ne'moni toring we I t~ were
selected as folJo~s:
.
.
Four wells for shallow zone water monitoring (?WD's #125.645,
655 and 555). Th~ latter would be a new wel I.
.
F-ive we 115 for
570) . Numbers
these wel Is is
deep zone 'water monitoring (;"..JO's #140,440,
55D and 640 were new -'leI Is. rhe location of
show~ in Figure 1.
,.
6140, 55ij ,
All wel Is selected fo~ monitoring purposes were fi ~~ed with locking caps
to preserv.e the intj9rity of tlie monitoring pl"ogr~m. .
The location arrangement pl"ovides three well pairs (sMal low wcli near
a deep well). Pail" PWO #645 and 640 is located sou~h of the site and
pair PWD #125 and 440 is located east of the site. These two pair pl"ovide
down-gradient measure~~nts. Pail" PWD #555 an~ 550 arc located northwest
of the site and provide up-gradient ba-~gl"our.d measurc~~nt:.
Since PWO #550 and #640 will al50 be used for water level mcni:oring
and recording. both of these wells were constructed as co accomodate
monitoring equipment.
6.
WELL CONSTRUCTION'
Wells se.lected for monitoring were inspected for integrity and, in the
. case of pairs of wells (shallow and deep), to confir~ isolatio" between
well s.
The drilling of the new wells, installation of casir.gs, caps and water
level records was completed in July 1981.
The 'samp 1 i ng program was in it i ated in Augus t: 1981. Th~
program description and initial results are presented in
Report #4. .
ana tyi: i cat
Technicaf
ORIGINAL
flied)
-------
- --~~u:£1~
r ._-~ '
-. ---.----
II
Table 1
Honito~ ~eII Survey
,*, ( 1) ... Total Screen Present Oeoth(Z) t" W'ater (2)
\.Ie II -.. Setting Deoch
~
Ft (ft) ( F t) lft)
"
PWO-1 5 20 10
I I
-25 8.5 ' 7.6 3.8
I 5
-35 10 / 7 10..0 4.a
/
-45 11. 5 8 5..0 4.7
-55 Not Found
-65 17.5 7 9.3 3.42
-75 11.5 9 --
-85 36.5 14
-95 15 14
-105 26.5 20
-l1D 45.5 42 32..5 S.8r.
-
-115 Not Found
- \2S 15 15 13.5 ;.00
-135 15 Not Found
-14D 24.5 23 23.0 1'.62
-145 15 14 14.0 2.26
-155 16.5 Not Found
-16D 26.5 Not Found
-165 15 Destroyed in 1979
-1]5 25.5 21 Slock.ed
-185 20 20 20 12.72
. -195 21. 5 20 18 13.25
-205 20 Not Found
-215 20 20 20 ll~ 30 .
-225 20 18 18 14.3
-235 20 20
-245 36.5 33 33 . 14.0
( 1) "5" denotes sha J low we II, ":' =~e~ ...:e,ll. OHIGINA
(2) Blank indicates not checked
(HetJ}L
........'t(
-------
"
---.- - _. -- u-
------.--
~~~u~
'..,- ~ -.. .'
Tabl i~ 1
Mon i to r We II Survey
(Continued)
""-Tota I
\ole I 1 /I DeotM Se t t i ng Prescnt Cc~th Depth to '..later
(ft) (ft) (ft)
PWO-255 20 Not Found
-265 21.6 I Not Found
-275 20 / No t Found
-285 20 Not Found
-295 20 No t Found
-305 20 19 13.0 6.65
-315 15.5 15 8.75 3.65
-325 21.5 19 19. . 9~27
-335 20 19 13.7 7.47
-345 26.5 23.5 No t Found
-355 25 23 No: Found
-365 25 23.5 20.0 12.95
-375 25 24 16.7 .14.40
-385 25 Not Found
-400 40 Not Found
-41D 40 Not Found
-420 35 Not Found
-430 35 Destroyed in 1979.
-440 32 30 30 9.10
-45D 40 Not Found
-465 Not Found
-475 Not Found
-485 No t Found
-495 No t round
-55D 33.5 Not Found (Rcdri 1 i~d)
..~SS ~60 9.5 9.5 15 4.75
OIiIGI/fA
.. (lietl) I.
<
-------
~u~- . n. - - -------.. ..
,. --
Table 1
Mon i tor ',Ie II Surv~y
(Continued)
... Tota 1 Screen-
--
Well II Oep th Se t t i n9 Present Ce;Hh Depth to Water
-mr (ft) ( f t) - (ft)
PWD-57D 50 / 41.5 41.5 14.30
,
-585 19.5 I ' 16 16 8.47
-595 16.5/ 13 14.5 4. t 5
-60S 29 27 27 3.82
-615 2S 21 21 7.05
-625 21 5 20 20 2.86
-635 - 15 13 10 2.42
-645 21.5! 21 21 6.55
,
-64D 35.0 34 34 6.7.5
-655 11.5 9 13.8 9.05
-665 11.5 Not Found
-675 15 Not Found
-685 16.5 Not round
. -
-695 31.5 Not Found
-70S 28.5 Nbt -Found
,
. ";:';/
: . ./ ii~ L
i- /i.Jt/} . -
,~. ~
~
-------
i, 0 CPJ ;
•rl'-^-UU
'j''cvo.'..;7EHii s^iiF-'-cc '.VA
;."J\I r wrt.f.'O L OC AI IO\S
-------
~
,"
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
ENTERPRISE AVENUE SITE
REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
GroundWater and Surface Vater Monitoring Program:
Monthly Ana1ysis Results Report
September ~ 1.981
. W.o. 1290-06-01
TECHNICAL REPORT J4
ROY F. \/ES~ON.. I NC -"
Weston Way'
West Chester~ PA 1~380
/
/
I
I
.I
--- -
-.....,
-- ---- -- - ._.
"
,
. ~"I - t .
" ";1:4~
. ,} ,
t ::.~{,..,,}
.-
-------
~~
------. - ---
l.
SUMMARY'
The City of Phi fade 1 ph fa Water Department hus retuincd ~ESTON for engineering
services re1ative to a remedial action progra~ ror the tntcrprisc Avenue
Si te. One element of the program involves a grou~d'''''.:ltc:'" ~nd surface w
-------
--0..-
_n 4. - ----..-.-
~
-. --. .----. 4-
Twice per ye~r. from in~ttation' of sampling. an ~xpanded set of anajyses
wit 1 be performed. The exp~nded analyses includes:
8 PrIority pollutant analysis II A:-scnic
8 Fl uori de 0 Be, r i urn .
8 Ammonia-Nitrogen . CJd~ i;J~
8 Nitrat~-Nitrogen 0 Chrorni...Jr.I
8 p~""'- 8 Hex. Ch['"prnium
8 TDS . Cop~c r
. Sped fie Conductance 0 Iron
8 TOC ". . I.C-Jd
8 vac II J-:ccury
. CYcJnide 0 Scl('nium
. S i 1 ve,. / 0 Titanium
. Zinc /
./
AW'ESTON/City W'ater Depar.tment te.Jmwil1 coJlcct th~ sa;::~les and the
analyses wilT be performed in W'ESTON'~ laboratory. The rcsults ~re to
be reported to the City with appropriate intcrprctatio~ as applicable.
4.
SURFACE W'ATER MONITORING
Surface water samples are being collected 0" a monthly .Jne biannual frequency
concurrently with the groundwater sampJes. Five surr~ce water sampl jng
stations as indicated on Figure 1, are incJuced as foll~vs:
Station
..
l~catjon
S-4
Background on Eag~e Creek.
5-8
Background south of :hc 1~ndrilJ at Fort
Mifflin.
5-10
Eagle Creek adjacent to the landfill.
$-11
Background on tributary :0 Eagle Creek.
5-12
.
Eagle Creek dcwnstrear.: fro:':1 land~il1.
SampJes are beIng collected at these stations u~d an~Tyzed for the same
parameters as the groundwater s~mj)les. The need to' colJcct and analyze'
surface water samples during actual storm ru~off conditions is being assesjed
and the surface water sample collection scheduJe may be altered accordingly.
s. ANALYSIS RESULTS.
Presently. the first monthly sampling round hf3s been perfor~d..Table 1
presents the results for August, 1981. .
Due to the time of year, and the mini~1 r~infcJ11 s~T.C we1's were dry.
these instances, the expanded s~t of anaJyses ~ere postponed unti} the
second'month.
In
The sampling protocol involvcs pumping
"norm.11izc" the contents of the weJ1s.
are cotlected and returned" to 'WESTON's
. . CiG'
the wet1s for JO-15 minutes to tp, .
Then, the upp~opriate volumes c.
laborutory for analysis.
-------
***L«#t**«iA
V «.^
\\
h
»_
.X-N. *
'
5
•/
f
4-
1
a- !
- ,- ^
b
_ —
o
tf
^
vv
^n^^fi*-*1" N'I >-«-*<>«.*t-
*»,l^nt
. CX *-*'•
3 \ *'
-p^i^
—VTT ~
N^:\
-*L
N r
i
~\{
•y
—x
v\
^t
:\Vv^
%
\\--
r~
\
///
N
/'
/>
—^/_
'j^
.'.I
^
-/
-F-^
xx
^^
tilrf» f.i H'lHi.-*.».«'i'iii •.•"•!•!>,r
••"•IC.'HI'1-I I I •.'.' tf. •• A
-------
"
. W'W_'--,.--
I
I
, ,.~.. I
C,oundw..., .nd IWI'". Wo.., ~nl'o'ln, "
''''
~nlhl, .n.I,.., ........
...,
Au""', 1"1 ...
I "O~d~.., ~nllo~lng W.II., P\/I) "S ""'.e. h.IICMI
l"dletlO,IU ill ill ill lli .ill ~ ill m ill U !.:! ~ !:!l .!.:!!
"'
.,11, Polly',n.. en (I) Ct) (J) (I) (I; el) CJ' (I) (I) II' el' (I' (I)
I "Id. 0' 0.'" C C)) C c c UI c 10.55 0.)' 0." O,~ 0.)1'
I "".'.I'l"09fn en ... U.. IJ) ...) !S., 0 (J) !I.5 J.l I.) ... 0... l.tO
'.'.""1"'"" UI 0.'1 0.'0 ()) eh 0.51 0." CJ) ell 0.865 0.)) O..S 0. J6 0.11
e), 5.) '.1 CJI 5.' '.6 5.' UI 6.J '.1 '.1 ,.. 6.8 ,.'
(JI '" )., IJ) (I) JO. '.5 UI (J' 5S. 5SS Sit 1.0'. S~
I"e C-dwelane. IJI ltO "0 UI 1,100 "5 680 hi ,~o 180 lJO 8)0 I.m 880
IJI .10 S' CJI (,) 11 )8 UI (II 15 " I' 10 .,
OJ I., 10' CJ) el) II "1 UI (II I) .) 8Ao SJ 5'
141. OJ c c CJ) c c 0.0) OJ 0.0, c c
or ()J C c 01 c c c UI . .. ..
CJ) 0.15 0.0' ,01 I. 50 O.OJ 0.0' CJI 1.10 O.C, 0.0' o.c, o.~~ 0.C6
I .1, 01 0.0\1 01 0.010, c III 0.010 0.01,) 0.01' 0.~15
,. III 0.6S 0.)1 (J). 0.'1 0.') 0.0) . IJI ..60 :i, II 0.01 0." (.".'JS 0.11
()) '0.'5 OJ O.O~ c. .. OJ 0.10 "
I.... c
I"y. UI " IJ' c .. .. CJI O.'J c .. .c
c
: (h,o.'- (JI UI c c c UI c .. .. ..
.. c ..
10' IJ) .. .. (J) 0.', .. 0.06 (JJ 0.'5 .. .. c ..
I IJ) '.1 ".0 (JJ W Zj.o 11.0 (JJ (II 1.1 S.I 1.) I.' \.0
hI 0.0' 0.0' U, UI c (JJ CJI c 0.0' 0.61 ~.05
c
() c c CJ) 0.001 0.001 CJ) 0.001 c 0.001 c 9.001 0.001
.., ..
-I... CJ) " 0.'16 UI .. . .. IJ) .. c . 0.0' 0.0\0
1.10.. .. (J)' 0." .. c OJ 1.10 c c
I.U c c
I ......
. \ .....
I "'~ll'h P...dl~'I. ovo lIob" )0 IcPlon~' 1'8',. .~;...,. :.:~ .
'..wll' I" pp., wRI... .po,ll,.d ol~.rwl).. ..~~ ''''''.:' , . I... III... 40"( u~..
loll .... 41'" "0 ........ ...110) I.. .' .
I . '~..~I#
.~
'.
...
j'.
iot
'.
!' .
.... .
. . -
------- |