^

R-5SM2O-21.ILFINAL DRAFT

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONINDUSTRIAL LANE

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAPREPARED UNDER

EPA WA NO. 7S.3R6&3

PROJECT FORPERFORMANCE OFREMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIVITIES ATUNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUSSUBSTANCE FACILITIES-ZONE 1

NUS CORPORATIONSUPERFUND DIVISION

BR300086

R-585-12-5-2*1LFINAL DRAFT

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONINDUSTRIAL LANE

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAPREPARED UNDER

EPA WA NO. 78.3R62.3TDD NO. F3-2404-04

CONTRACT NO. 68-01-6699

NUS PROJECT NUMBERS 0597 and 0797

JUNE 10, 1986

REVISION 1j

SUBMITTED FOR NUS BY:

MARTIN R. HOWEPROJECT MANAGERPROJECT HYDROGEOLOGIST

APPROVED BY:

RICHARD M. CROMER GARTH GLENN ^->DIRECTOR, FIT REMEDIAL REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGEFOPERATIONS

AR300087

NOTICE

The information in this document has been funded wholly by the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract Number 68-01-6699 and isconsidered proprietary to the EPA.

This information iis not to be released to third parties without the expressedwritten consent of the EPA or the NUS Corporation.

AR3QQQ88

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL SITE BACKGROUND 1-11.1 GENERAL SITE OVERVIEW 1-21.2 GENERAL SITE-RELATED HISTORY 1-51.3 CURRENT USE AND OWNERSHIP 1-121.4 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 1-151.5 COMMUNITY PERCEPTION AND INVOLVEMENT 1-181.6 RANKING OF THE INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE ON THE 1-19

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST1.7 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STUDY DESIGN . 1-20

_ 1,8 OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 1-21

2.0 FEATURES INVESTIGATION 2-12.1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS 2-12.2 TOPOGRAPHY 2-22.3 GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING 2-32.4 STREAMS AND LOCAL HYDROLOGY 2-122.5 DEMOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS 2-312.6 WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION 2-352.7 LAND USE 2-412.8 NATURAL RESOURCES 2-452.9 CRITICAL HABITAT 2-472.10 CLIMATOLOGY 2-482.11 FEATURES SUMMARY 2-50

3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OVERVIEW 3-13.1 SAMPLE LOCATION METHODOLOGY 3-13.2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 3-143.3 DATA REVIEW 3-153.4 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SAMPLE RESULTS 3-153.5 EVALUATION OF CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED 3-17

*.0 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION 4-14.1 INTRODUCTION 4-14.2 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION 4-3

—— WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

5.0 CHRIN LANDFILL INVESTIGATION 5-15.1 INTRODUCTION 5-15.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE

CHRIN LANDFILL 5-15.3 WASTE CONTAINMENT . 5-14

fiR300089

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

6.0 SURFACE WATER, SEDIMENTS, AND SOILS 6-1SAMPLING INVESTIGATION

6.1 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAYS 6-16.2 DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS 6-26.3 CONCLUSIONS 6-14

7.0 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION - 7-17.1 SOILS 7-i7.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY 7-57.3 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY 7-117.4 HYDROGEOLOGY 7-147.5 SUMMARY 7-57

8.0 AIR INVESTIGATION 8-18.1 FIELD LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS 8-18.2 RESULTS 8-1

9.0 BIOTA INVESTIGATION 9-19.1 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT 9-19.2 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT 9-209.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES 9-379.4 BIOTA SUMMARY 9-37

10.0 PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT 10-110.1 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 10-210.2 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS 10-810.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL 10-11

IMPACTS10.4 PUBLIC WELFARE 10-1710.5 PUBLIC HEALTH SUMMARY 10-17

PLATE 1 GROUNDWATER COMPOSITE MAP

AR30GG90

APPENDIX A ANALYTICAL DATA COLLECTED DURING THEREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

APPENDIX B QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS OF ANALYTICALDATA

APPENDIX C HISTORICAL DATA

APPENDIX D RESPONSES TO HOME WELL QUESTIONNAIRES

APPENDIX E DETAILS AND LOGS FOR WELLS INSTALLEDDURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGTION

APPENDIX F DESCRIPTION OF SOILS

APPENDIX G SURVEY INFORMATION

APPENDIX H WATER-LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

APPENDIX I GROUNDWATER VOCS PRESENTED IN PLATE 1

ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SEPARATE COVER

SR3QOQ9!

FIGURES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

ES-1 LOCATION MAP ES-2

1.1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP 1-31.1-2 STUDY AREA FEATURES MAP 1-41.2-1 HISTORICAL FEATURES 1-81.2-2 HISTORICAL FEATURES OF GLENDON AREA 1-91.3-1 LOCAL INDUSTRIES MAP 1-15

2.31a LEGEND FOR THE GEOLOGIC MAPS 2-42.3-1 GEOLOGIC MAP OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY 2-52.3-2 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE EASTON QUADRANGLE, N3 - PA 2-62.4-1 SURFACE WATER INVENTORY MAP 2-132.4-2 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR GLENDON 2-232.4-3 LEHIGH RIVER 100-YEAR FLOOD PRONE AREA 2-242.4-4 WATERSHED AREA 1 - SUBDRAINAGE BASINS 2-302.6-1 EASTON AREA SUBDRAINAGE AUTHORITY 2-38

PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT AREA2.7-1 LAND USE MAP 2-42

3.1-1 RIVER/CANAL/STREAM SAMPLE LOCATIONS 3-33.1-2 DRAINAGE PATH SEDIMENT AND SOILS SAMPLE 3-4

LOCATIONS, CHRIN LANDFILL AREA3.1-3 SURFACE MEDIA AND UNKNOWN SUBSTANCES SAMPLES, 3-7

PENNSALT AREA3.1-4 AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS 3-73.1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS 3-11

4.1-1 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION WITHIN 4-2THE STUDY AREA

5.2-1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRIN LANDFILL 5-35.2-2 LANDFILL AREA FILL VOLUME CALCULATION MAP 5-65.3-1 LEACHATE INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM FOR CHRIN LANDFILL 5-1S5.3-2 SOLUTION TO THORNTHWAITE POTENTIAL 5-30

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FORMULA

6.2-1 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE PATH AND UNKNOWN 6-4SUBSTANCES SAMPLE LOCATIONS

6.2-2 SURFACE DRAINAGE SAMPLE LOCATIONS, 6-6WATERSHED AREA 1

6.3-1 LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SEDIMENTS 6-176.3-2 ZINC CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE SEDIMENTS '6-18

VI AR3QQQ92

FIGURES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

7.1-1 SOIL MAP OF THE INDUSTRIAL LANE AREA 7-47.2-1 GEOLOGIC MAP OF STUDY AREA SHOWING LOCATIONS 7-17

FOR CROSS SECTIONS A-A1 AND B-B'7.2-2 GEOLOGIC MAP SHOWING CROSS SECTION 7-8

THROUGH A-A17.2-3 GEOLOGIC MAP SHOWING CROSS SECTION 7-9

THROUGH A-A' AND B-B17.4-1 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP BASED ON WATER 7-17

LEVELS COLLECTED ON MARCH 10, 19867.4-2 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP BASED ON AN 7-18

AVERAGE OF WATER LEVELS COLLECTED FROMMAY 5, 1985 TO JUNE 27, 1985

7.4-3 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP SHOWING FLOW 7-21DIRECTION

7.4-4 GROUNDWATER BASIN MAP 7-227.4-5 GROUNDWATER PROFILE BETWEEN LUCY'S 7-46

CROSSING AND THE LEHIGH RIVER7.4-6 GROUNDWATER PROFILE BETWEEN N-l AND 7-46

THE LEHIGH RIVER7.4-7 INSET AREA MAP FOR FIGURES 7.4-8 7-51

THROUGH 7.4-127.4-8 AREA MAP NO. 1 7-527.4-9 AREA MAP NO. 2 7-537.4-10 AREA MAP NO. 3 7-547.4-11 AREA MAP NO. 4 7-557.4-12 AREA MAP NO. 5 7-56

8.1-1 AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS 8-2

Vil

TABLES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

1.3-1 INDUSTRIES IN THE STUDY AREA 1-141.4-1 PREVIOUS SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 1-16

2.4-1 EPA STORET WATER QUALITY DATA - 2-20LEHIGH RIVER PR378 BRIDGE BETHLEHEM

2.4-2 EPA STORET WATER QUALITY DATA - 2-21LEHIGH RIVER - 3RD STREET BRIDGE EASTON

2.4-3 LEHIGH RIVER: INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS 2-25FROM BETHLEHEM TO EASTON

2.5-1 POPULATION TRENDS - WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP 2-332.5-2 POPULATION TREND - GLENDON 2-342.6-1 WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION SUMMARY 2-402.7-1 LAND USE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA 2-432.10-1 WEATHER CONDITIONS AS RECORDED AT THE ' 2-49

ABE AIRPORT

3.1-1 PRIVATE HOME WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS 3-93.1-2 NEW MONITORING WELL INFORMATION 3-13

4.3-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCES 4-9

5.2-1 FILL VOLUME SUMMARY 5-75.2-2 DOCUMENTED INDUSTRIAL WASTES DISPOSED OF 5-9

AT THE CHRIN LANDFILL5.2-3 ALLEGED INDUSTRIAL WASTES DISPOSED OF 5-11

AT THE CHRIN LANDFILL5.3-1 VOLUME OF LEACHATE RECEIVED BY THE EASTON 5-19

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT FROM THE CHRINLANDFILL 1983 - 1985

5.3-2 WATER BALANCE CALCULATION YEAR 1983 5-275.3-3 WATER BALANCE CALCULATION YEAR 1984 5-285.3-4 WATER BALANCE CALCULATION YEAR 1985 5-295.3-5 LEACHATE GENERATION QUANTITIES FROM 5-32

THE CHRIN LANDFILL 19835.3-6 LEACHATE QUANTITIES GENERATED VS. 5-33

LEACHATE QUANTITIES TREATED5.3-7 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN 5-36

LEACHATE SAMPLES5.3-8 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DATA OBTAINED FROM 5-40

EASTON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT5.3-9 COMPARISON BETWEEN TYPICAL LEACHATE QUALITY 5-43

RANGES AND DATA FOR THE LEACHATE GENERATEDBY THE CHRIN LANDFILL

6.2-1 LEVELS OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED 6-8IN SURFACE WATERS, DRAINAGE PATH, AND SOILSSAMPLES

6.2-2 LEVELS OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED 6-12IN UNKNOWN SUBSTANCES SAMPLE LOCATIONS

Vlll

AR3000914

TABLES

NUMBER TITLE

7.4-1 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVES FOR UNCONSOLIDATEDMATERIAL

7.4-2 RELATIONSHIP OF POTENTIAL SOURCES TOPOTENTIALLY IMPACTED AREA

7.4-3 AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF COMPOUNDS OF——— CONCERN WHICH APPEAR IN FIGURES 7.4-8

THROUGH 7.4-12

8.2-1 MAJOR AIR CONTAMINANTS OF CQNCERN 8-38.2-2 COMPARISON OF AIR OBSERVATIONS 8-5

9.1-1 PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 9-39.1-2 AMPHIBIANS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 9-79.1-3 REPTILES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 9-89.1-4 RESULTS OF 1980 - 1981 BETHLEHEM - 9-10

EASTON CHRISTMAS BIRD COUNT9.1-5 BIRDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 9-139.1-6 MAMMALS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 9-199.2-1 CHECKLIST OF SUBMERGENT AND FLOATING 9-21

VASCULAR PLANTS - DELAWARE ANDLEHIGH RIVER, 1965

9.2-2 MACROINVERTEBRATE COLLECTIONS - 9-23LEHIGH RIVER, 1965

9.2-3 MACROINVERTEBRATE COLLECTIONS - 9-24LEHIGH RIVER, 1966

9.2-4 AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAKEN AT 9-25FIVE STATIONS ON THE LOWER LEHIGH

- RIVER IN 19729.2-5 MACROINVERTEBRATE OCCURING IN THE 9-26

LEHIGH RIVER DURING SAMPLING ONSEPTEMBER 15 AND 16, 1981

9.2-6 MACROINVERTEBRATE COLLECTIONS - 9-27DELAWARE RIVER, 1965

9.2-7 MACROINVERTEBRATE COLLECTIONS - 9-28DELAWARE RIVER, 1966

9.2-8 MACROINVERTEBRATE DISTRIBUTION IN DELAWARE 9-30AND LEHIGH RIVERS, SAMPLES ARE COMBINEDFOR 1965 AND 1966

9.2-9 FISH SPECIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 9-329.2-10 FISH TAKEN BY ELECTROSHOCKER - LEHIGH 9-34

RIVER AT CHRIN DAM, JUNE 19809.2-11 FISH OCCURING IN LEHIGH RIVER DURING 9-35

SAMPLING OF SEPTEMBER 15 AND 16, 19819.2-12 FISHES TAKEN BY ELECTROSHOCKER IN THE LEHIGH ' 9-36

CANAL IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF THEFREEMANSBURG BRIDGE IN 1978

flR300G95

GLOSSARY

AADI Adjusted Acceptable Daily Intake

ABE Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

ADI Acceptable Daily Intake

AGES Applied Geotechnical and Environmental Services Corporation

AIC Acceptable Intake/Chronic

AIS Acceptable Intake/Subchronic

ALA Aminolevulinic acid

AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria

BCF Bioconcentration Factor

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CAG Carcinogen Assessment Group

CAS Chemical Abstract Services

CDC Centers for Disease Control

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act of 1980

CLP Contract Laboratory Progam

CNS Central Nervous System

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CRL Central Regional Laboratory

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission

E & E Ecology and Environment, Incorporated

EEC Eiectroencephalography

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

fiR30GG96

EPIC Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center

FAV Final Acute Value

FCV Final Chronic Value

FIA Federal Insurance Administration

FIT Field Investigation Team

FS Feasibility Study

GC/MS _ Gas chromatography/mass spectometry

gpd gallons per day

gpm Gallons per minute

HR-CWF High Quality - Cold Water Fishery

HRS Hazard Ranking System

HSL Hazardous Substances List

IARC International Agency for Research of Cancer

IQ Intelligence quotient

Kow Organic carbon partition coefficient

Lowest published lethal concentration

Lowest published lethal dose

LOAEL Lowest observed adverse effect level

LOEL Lowest observed effect level

MCL Maximum contaminant level

MF Migratory fishes

mgd Million gallons per day

MSL Mean sea level

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NCI National Cancer Institute

NCP National Contingency Plan

ND Not Detected

NIOSH National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health

xi AR300097

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration •

NOAEL No observed adverse effect level

NOTIS EPA tracking system for hazardous waste notification

NPL National Priorities List

NR Not reported

NRC National Research Council

PA DER Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources -

PAH Polyaromatic hydrocarbon

PbB Blood lead

PCB Pclychlorinated biphenyl

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PNS Peripheral Nervous System

PRP Potential Responsible Party

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

RAMP Remedial Action Master Plan

RAS Routine Analytical Services

RDA Recommended Daily Allowance

RI Remedial Investigation

RMCL Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level

SAS Special Analytical Services

SDWC Safe Drinking Water Committee

S.O.L.V.E. Save Our Lehigh Valley Environment

STEL Short-Term Exposure Limit

TAT Technical Assistance Team

TCE Trichloroethene

TDD Technical Directive Document

TDS Total Dissolved Solidsxii

AR300098

TLV Threshold Limit Value

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TSD Treatment, Storage, Disposal

TSF Trout Stocked Fishery

UCR Unit Cancer Risk

U.S.G.S. United States Geological Survey

VOC Volatile organic compounds

WWF Warm Water Fishery

ZPP Zinc protoporphyrin

itXJU

Final Draft

Executive Summary

A remedial investigation (RI) was performed for the Industrial Lane site by NUSCorporation under l:he direction of the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). The purpose of the RI was to characterize the type and extent ofcontamination in and around the Industrial Lane site and to evaluate the potentialpublic health and environmental concerns associated with that contamination. TheRI report presents the details of this investigation and summarizes the publichealth assessment. The assessment of public health and environmental concernsare detailed and presented under separate cover in the document titledEndangerment Assessment for the Industrial Lane Site. These two documentsprovide the data necessary to evaluate remedial alternatives during the feasibilitystudy (FS). The RI was performed by NUS Region III FIT. The FS is beingperformed by the NUS Remedial Planning Office and is being submitted underseparate cover. The purpose of the FS is to identify and evaluate remedialalternatives with a range of responses from no action to off-site disposal and/ortreatment. The evaluation of remedial alternatives is based on technological,public health, institutional, environmental, and cost considerations. The selectionof the appropriate alternative is made by EPA.

Background

The Industrial Lane area is located in the Lehigh Valley along the eastern bank ofthe Lehigh River in Northampton County, Williams Township, Pennsylvania. Thearea investigated encompasses approximately two square miles and includes theresidential communities of Glendon, Lucy's Crossing, and Morgan Hill. Alsolocated within the area are an active sanitary landfill and various active, inactive,and abandoned industrial facilities (see figure ES-1).

ES-1

A R 3 G G 1 0 0

INDUSTRIAL LANEREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

SOURCE:(7.5 MINUTE SERIES) USGS EASTON , PA. QUAD.

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIG ES"1INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION,

NORTHAMPTON CO.. PA. NUSCORPORATION

'SC~'E,2fiR30010) QAHa^C^panv

Final Draft

This area has a very extensive and varied industrial use history dating back to theIndustrial Revolution. The presence of iron ore and the Lehigh Rivertransportation route led to the development of a large mining and smeltingoperation (Glendon Iron Works). In addition, many support and service industriesexisted throughout the area. The major industries have long since closed down andthe only evidence of their existence is the remains of abandoned facilities and thewaste smelting slag that has been deposited throughout the area. The study areanow supports light industries and a rural- to suburban-type environment. '

Geologically, the Industrial Lane area is located in a region of highly weatheredand structurally deformed rocks which are more than 500 million years old(Cambrian/Precambrian era). Past geologic events have caused the shifting,thrusting, fracturing, and tilting of these rock strata and have allowed for varyingdegrees of weathering throughout the area. As a result, much of the carbonaterock is highly fractured and solutioned, rendering it noncompetent and quitepermeable. The more resistant formations contain fractures due to the greatstress of past structural disturbances of the earth's crust. Also, a portion of thearea rests upon the trace of a thrust plant known as the Musconetcong fault. Ingeneral, the hills are composed of a resistant gneissic material, whereas the valleysand low lands are composed of a much less resistant dolomitic limestone. Thetrace of the Musconetcong fault runs between these two characteristic rock types.These conditions have created a very complex geologic setting.

Groundwater flow throughout the area is, in general, governed by topography. TheLehigh River acts as base level for this groundwater system, which flows primarilyunder water-table conditions. Depth to groundwater throughout the area variesfrom about 18 feet to greater than 200 feet below ground surface.

ES-3

AR300I02

Final Draft

Groundwater use as a drinking water supply within the area is limited to theMorgan Hill area, the borough of Glendon, and Lucy's Crossing. The scatteredhomes along Morgan Hill depend exclusively on groundwater for their drinkingwater supplies. There are no alternate supplies readily available to these homes.Public drinking water supplies are available to all residents within the Glendon andLucy's Crossing area. However, a few home owners within these two areas haverelected not to hook up to the public system. During the RI, 15 drinking water wellswere identified within these 2 communities. An estimated total population, whichutilizes groundwater for drinking water supplies, within these 2 areas isapproximately 54 people. It is important to reiterate that all homes in Glendon andLucy's Crossing have public water readily available (i.e., curb hookups).

Problem Identification

The Industrial Lane area became noteworthy during the late 1970s with allegationsthat the Chrin Landfill had accepted and was still accepting potentially hazardouswaste for disposal and that these hazardous wastes were contaminating localdrinking water wells. Since that time, the area has been the center of manyinvestigations by federal and state governmental agencies. No conclusive evidenceregarding the disposal of hazardous waste was identified. However, it wasdetermined that low-level contamination of drinking water wells did exist and thata potential for more extensive contamination might exist.

The final outcome resulted in the placement of the Industrial Lane site on theFederal Government National Priorities List (NPL), of Superfund sites. As requiredby the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),all sites listed on the NPL are to be subjected to the RI/FS process.

ES-4

'AR300I03

Final Draft

Remedial Investigation Objectives

The objectives of the investigation were to determine the nature and extent ofgroundwater contamination in and around the boroughs of Glendon and Lucy'sCrossing; to identify source(s) of the contamination; to identify potential receptorsof contamination; to determine the migration pathways for contaminants; and todetermine the associated risks to public health and/or the environment.

Major Findings

During the course of the RI, historical records and sampling data were reviewed, anextensive subsurface investigation was performed, various potential sources forcontamination were evaluated. Additionally, an in-depth evaluation of the ChrinLandfill was performed, and over 325 environmental samples were obtained fromvarious media throughout the area. Major findings of these efforts were as follows:

o Local groundwater is contaminated with a variety of volatile organiccompounds. This contamination is detected at extremely low levels and iswidely scattered.

o Surface soils throughout the entire area are contaminated with moderatelyelevated levels of lead and zinc.

o Surface waters are unaffected by any source within the study area.However, the water quality of the Lehigh River upstream of the study areais in excess of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for several parameters.

o Ambient air quality for the area is within typical ranges for anurban/suburban environment.

it

it

Final Draft

o No single point source of low-level groundwater contamination within thearea can be identified. The sources that were evaluated included the ChrinLandfill, abandoned industrial facilities, on-lot septic systems, AshlandChemical Company, and the Lehigh River/Canal.

o There is no evidence of a wide-spread, continuously contaminatedgroundwater plume within the area.

o The leachate interceptor system currently in place at the Chrin Landfill,although functioning as a toe drain collector system, is not capturing all ofthe leachate being generated by the landfill. Quantities of leachate areescaping to the subsurface. However, samples collected from themonitoring wells and home wells revealed scattered, low-levelcontamination, which is not indicative of the leachate; therefore, no direct

_link to the landfill can be established.

o Residents of the Morgan Hill area are unaffected by any study areacontamination. This area is significantly upgradient from all study areacontaminations.

o Potential receptors of groundwater contamination from the study area arethose residents within the communities of Glendon and Lucy's Crossing whohave elected to use groundwater for their potable supply.

o The risks associated with the use of this groundwater, at currentcontaminant levels, are limited to a relatively low carcinogenic risk.

Es-6 AR3Gui05

Final Draft

Samples obtained from domestic wells within the areas identified as those at riskshowed the presence of three organic compounds which are classified as probablehuman carcinogens. These compounds were detected in three active wells, one inGlendon and two in Lucy's Crossing. The current unit risk for individuals using thewell in Glendon is 1 x 10~6. That is, the additional risk of developing cancer fromusing this well over a lifetime is one in a million. The current unit risk forindividuals using the two wells in Lucy's Crossing is 2 x 10~ . That is, theadditional risk of developing cancer for each individual using these wells over alifetime is 2 out of 100,000 people. In a worst-apparent case situation, if all homewells in these 2 areas were contaminated with the highest level of groundwatercontamination found in any upgradient location over a 70-year period, theindividual risk would be 1 in 10,000. These risks are discussed, in a comparativesense, in the endangerment assessment.

The following sections of the RI and the endangerment assessment reports presentthe methodologies, data, and conclusions that were arrived at through the course ofthe investigation. These conclusions, which are supported by the data, will serve asthe basis for the evaluation of technologies during the FS.

ES-7

it

Final Draft

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL SITE BACKGROUND

i - ;A remedial investigation (RI) was performed for the Industrial Lane site by theNUS Corporation, Region III Field Investigation Team (FIT). This work wasassigned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III under ContractNumber 68-01-6699, Work Assignment No. 78-3R62.3, and TDD No. F3-8*0*-0».The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980 (CERCLA), otherwise known as Superfund, authorizes EPA to develop aremediation plan for those sites which pose potential threats to public health,welfare, and the environment.

The Industrial Lane study area included the communities of Lucy's Crossing,Glendon Borough, and adjoining lands along Industrial Drive between Lucy'sCrossing and South Easton. This area has a documented history of low-levelgroundwater contamination.

Key features associated with the study area are an active, PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources (PA DER)-permitted landfill (known asthe Chrin Landfill), several active and abandoned industrial properties, intermixedcommercial establishments, and residential developments.

A potential public health problem due to groundwater contamination wasrecognized within the study area by State and Federal governmental agenciesduring the early 1980s. In compliance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP),the site was identified and proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List(NPL) in 1983.

Ail sites listed on the NPL, in accordance with the NCP, are to be subject to theremedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process. The RI/FS is an in-depthenvironmental investigation and engineering evaluation process designed toevaluate public health concerns associated with a particular site. The ultimate1 ' -purpose of the RI/FS is to determine the nature and extent of contamination and toevaluate potential remedies for the problem.

1-1

AR30QJ08

Final Draft

This report represents the findings of the RI portion of the above described^process. Specific goals of the RI have been the compilation of sufficient data tocharacterize the nature and extent of contamination associated with the IndustrialLane site, to identify critical contaminants, to determine potential public healthand environmental concerns, and to provide additional support data for the PS. TheFS will be prepared by the NUS Remedial Planning Office (REMPO) and submittedto EPA under separate cover.

1.1 General Site iQverview

The Industrial Lane study area encompasses approximately two square miles inWilliams Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The study area borders onthe city limits of South Easton, along the Lehigh River. The study area is situatedapproximately 15 miles east of Allentown and 50 miles north of Philadelphia,Pennsylvania (see figure 1.1-1).

The Lehigh River and the Lehigh River Canal form the approximate northwesternborder of the study area. The communities of Glendon and Lucy's Crossing arelocated in the west and southwest portion of the study area. Morgan Hill issituated within the east and south portions of the area. The total population of thestudy area has been estimated at 517 persons. Refer to figure 1.1-2 for a moredetailed illustration of the Industrial Lane RI area.

The previously described inclusion of the Industrial Lane site on the NPL was aresult of a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Report prepared of the Chrin Landfill(for a general description of the process which involves the compilation of the HRSscore and the ultimate inclusion of site on the NPL based on the HRS score, referto section 1.6 of this RI).

Allegations by local residents have prompted focus of attention to be on the ChrinLandfill. These allegations indicate that large quantities of industrial waste andpotentially hazardous materials were disposed at the landfill. These allegationshave not been confirmed and the landfill operators have strongly contested theirvalidity.

1-2

AR3GOI09

•> - \-r7 / yy// // ! jINDUSTRIAL LANE j\T/'; - '

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION t?V '-•• -. •

'. C -Vi • | »' V! ! C.-j'i •' ' f" l- ' "' /'

SOURCE!(7.5 MINUTE SERIES) USGS EASTON , PA. QUAD.

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIG 1 1-1INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION,

NORTHAMPTON CO..PA. ___ CCDRFORATON_ (SCALE ABOVE ) Q A Ha||jburton

BR300I I I

Final Draft

The landfill area was originally used for agricultural purposes. Two small operatingdumps have been tentatively identified on the site, which were present prior to thecurrent operator's involvement. In 1958, the current operator purchased theproperty, and in 1961, the site was developed and used as a sanitary landfill.Presently, the landfill is active, operating under a PA DER permit and has reachedapproximately 30 acres in size, with an additional 10 to 20 acres of support areas.

Extensive environmental sampling (conducted by PA DER and EPA) of groundwatermonitoring wells, surface waters, and home wells within the vicinity of the ChrinLandfill has indicated low levels of several organic and inorganic prioritypollutants. The source of these contaminants has not been conclusively attributedto the landfill.

In addition to the Chrin Landfill, several other potential groundwatercontamination sources exist within the study area. Among these sources are theLehigh River/Lehigh River Canal, several active and/or abandoned industrial-useproperties, and privately used on-lot sewage disposal systems (commonly known asseptic systems). The key problem associated with this study area is theidentification of the source or sources of low-level groundwater contamination.

1.2 General Site-Related History

The consideration of the historical development of an area is significant whenevaluating present-day environmental conditions. Industrial expansion, prior to theexistence of environmental regulatory constraints, has resulted in innumerabledocumented cases of complex environmental problems throughout the country. Aswill be described in this section, the Industrial Lane area has a significantindustrial development history.

This section presents a general description of the historical industrial developmentof the study area. These factors are critical for the development of an objective,thorough understanding of the existing pollution problems associated with theIndustrial Lane area.

1-5

AR300I 12

Final Draft

Information sources utilized for the completion of this section include historicalaerial photographs (provided by Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center(EPIC), Warrington, Virginia, and reviewed by NUS FIT III), local historicaldocuments obtained from the Lehigh Canal Museum in Easton, Pennsylvania,historical geologic publications, and information obtained from local citizens.

1.2.1 Historical Development Of Industrial Drive

Industrial Drive is the name of record for the road which extends through thecentral portion of the study area. The site is listed on the NPL under the nameIndustrial Lane. To avoid confusion throughout this report, the name IndustrialLane will be used when referring to the RI site. The 1874 Atlas of NorthamptonCounty depicts the area currently occupied by the Chrin Landfill as undeveloped,with the exception of several iron ore mines. These mines are depicted, onavailable historical maps, as being located approximately 450 feet south of theroad now known as Industrial Drive, within the vicinity of what is now the southernarea of the Chrin Landfill and the abandoned industrial use property (now known athe Pennsalt area). Figure nos. 1.2-1 and 1.2-2 illustrate significant historiesfeatures associated with the area, including the possible locations of these ironmines.

Aerial photographs from 1947 of the Industrial Drive and Holly Street intersectionarea, including the northern portion of Morgan Hill, indicate that the Chrin Landfillarea was used for agricultural purposes. Several small open areas, located in thecentral area of what is now the oldest portion of the landfill, may represent thelikely locations of the above described iron ore extraction pits. A similar openarea is observable on a property adjoining the landfill on the east. Likewise, thisarea may represent the location of another iron ore extraction pit.

In addition to these features, the 1947 photographs reveal a variety of industriallyrelated activities concentrated at the adjoining property identified as the Pennsaltarea. The photographs indicate the presence of a railroad spur, serving' thePennsalt area. The existence of this rail siding can be interpreted as an indicationthat large quantities of equipment, raw materials, or finished products enteredexited the area.

1-6

A R 3 0 0 1 1 3

Final Draft

" " " ~ " :The Metropolitan Edison Substation is readily identifiable in these photographs,along with a small open area/excavation located adjacent to and southwest of thesubstation. The remainder of the Industrial Drive corridor appears in thesephotographs to be used for agricultural or residential purposes.

1-7

AR3001.\k

PRTijQih.j7gg"'gyipptsssSor

.**»J"-ra

.*au/•

,:—#"'/'*•-, ?*'£&•'jt_ •Xua •*•**.•]

> A4M» j.

J A \*MLf **-*. S,

•r——,*•} A*«* •/A"*ir J-fJt+i,,,*

.PIT

[»• /.>.'*«* '———~« >

u ;•*'**'""*<+ */ \ _ ._-M»>»IKJl<**&f / \S~>Ji- SJ~,^\ •***>***„ . V-X < ——

/£&' •%!»

. . _ . .. ™x^

' ~~ •** > " - -r :*- •«r'>..x z> i > t xjTV »«" , 3c-*

•, \-*rj'«»>wfc,!T" iijpBfc.4**f A.*. ~ '

J<1**~.'*A£ *"I5 7% f™*** * *r~l!JtfS!;y£3h'"££*. ~J>Sfej*??r xz..,, y . J i"*/.-"*vr5 *5.•/>*

J;2T«s:as?5<t£:''' i£~rt> '

SOURCE: ATLAS OF NORTHAMPTON co.,PA. BY D.G. BEE,R,i874HISTORICAL FEATURES FIG.J.2-1

INDUSTRIAL LAME REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONNORTHAMPTON CO.. PA.

(SCALE UNKNOWN)1-8

A R 3 0 0 J 1 5

SOUTH E AS

off3J Kwtt to fhc Jjtch.

i/ N\ //V'// MllM'X

• - ti. I <fl

APPROXIMATE AREA.OF CHRIN LANDFILL

SOURCE: ATLAS OF NORTHAMPTON CO..PA. BY D.G. BEER.,1874HISTORICAL FEATURES OF GLENDON AREA FIGURE ''

INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONNORTHAMPTON CO. .PA.TAPPROX. SCALE: i"=40g'^20Q j j g AHaJttbuftonCompany

Final Draft

Aerial photographs from November 1958 show the landfill area as remaining!undeveloped and mostly wooded. The previously described iron ore extractionareas appear as if they had been naturally revegetated or were graded over. The1958 aerial photographs reveal that industrial activities continue to occur in theadjoining Pennsalt area.

Aerial photographs from June 1964 reveal that landfilling activities had begun atChrin Landfill, and industrial activities continued in the Pennsalt area. Alsonoticeable on these 1964 photographs is the industrial/commercial development(since 1958) of properties situated directly north of Industrial Drive, approximately1,350 feet east of. the intersection of Holly Street.

Photographs from 1971 show the continued expansion of the Chrin Landfill, toencompass an area of approximately 13 acres. Industrial-use developmentcontinues to be evident within the areas east and northeast of the landfill.

Available April 1980 aerial photographs of the area are of poor quality and detailedinterpretations are difficult to make. However, the increased expansion ofChrin Landfill to approximately 30 acres can be easily observed.

A large, aerial color photograph of these areas, taken on May 12, 1983, showsconditions very similar to those associated with the area at present. The ChrinLandfill has expanded to its current areal extent, and adjoining support areas, fromwhich cover soilsi had been excavated for the landfill, are readily observable. ThePennsalt area exhibited the same industrial buildings and equipment, but appearedto be abandoned, A large pile of gray slag is noticeable, with scattered refuse,abandoned automobiles, drums, industrial equipment, tanks, and various rubbleobserved to be strewn over the entire area.

1.2.2 Pennsalt Area

The review of available aerial photographs of the Chrin Landfill area resulted inthe conclusion that the adjoining Pennsalt area deserves further attention. Thesephotographs indicate extensive potential for significant quantities of industrialsubstances to be released to the environment within this area.

1-10/1R300!I?

Final DraftOf note, in 1947 photographs, several types of substances (both solid and liquid) canbe observed on site. Also obvious are large storage tank areas, with easilyidentifiable stained soil areas and miscellaneous excavations and fill areas.

Property ownership records for this area are complex; however, records indicatethat the area was owned by the Glendon Iron Works between the late 1800s andearly 1900s. During the early 1900s, Sterling Products, Incorporated purchased theproperty. In 1940, the Pennsylvania Salt Company (Pennsalt) purchased theproperty and eventually sold a small portion to the Easton Print Company.

Little official documentation exists describing the site operational practices.Interviews and discussions with local residents have indicated that SterlingProducts, Incorporated and the Pennsalt Company may have manufactured similarproducts. The Pennsalt Company reportedly produced various acid compounds.

i

1.2.3 Abandoned Iron Mines on Morgan Hill

The abandoned iron mines on Morgan Hill have been referred to several timespreviously in this section. Reportedly, they were owned by the Glendon Iron Worksand by Adam Horn. Although there is very little detailed official documentationpertaining to these features, the information that is available is sufficient toestablish their presence. Refer to figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2 for the approximatelocation of the mines within the area.

1.2.4 Glendon Iron Company

It is significant to consider the Glendon Iron Works while discussing the historicaldevelopment of the Industrial Drive area. The Glendon Iron Works, in operationfrom approximately 1844 to 1896, was located along the Lehigh River within thevicinity of what is currently the Hugh Moore Memorial Park. The area is roughly1,800 feet northwest of Industrial Drive (refer to figure 1.1-2 for iron workslocation).

Five furnaces were operated at this facility during peak production periods. Duringthis time period, an unquantifiable volume of air contaminants (lead, zinc, and iron)was undoubtedly released into the lower atmosphere of the Industrial Lane -Glendon area.

i-ii 'AR300U8

Final Draft

1.2.5 Conclusions of the Historical Review

The review of the available historical photographs and additionaldocumentation has resulted in the following conclusions:

historica ^

o Significant industrial activities characterized the Industrial Drive areabefore the development of the Chrin Landfill. The most notable includethe Pennsalt Industrial Complex, which operated during the early 1900s;the Glendon Iron Works, which operated between 1844 and 1896; andlimited iron ore extraction activities which occurred between 1840 and1890.

o Scattered industrial development can also be observed north and northeastof the Chrin Landfill, on 1947 aerial photographs. The area correspondswith the present day locations of Easton Car and Construction, SpecialtyProducts, and Dynatherm, Incorporated. These facilities were all inexistence prior to the development of the Chrin Landfill and prior to theenactment of present day environmental regulations.

o The Chrin Landfill and adjoining properties to the northeast have haddocumentable history of iron ore extraction activities. The probable"location of at least three of these extraction pits or shafts fall within thearea which is presently occupied by the Chrin Landfill and the abandonedPennsalt Industrial Complex.

o The possibility exists that refuse and/or other substances were disposedinto one or more of these pits on the Chrin Landfill and Pennsalt facilityarea.

1.3 Current Use «ind Ownership

The Industrial Lane area is currently used for industrial, residential, and (limited)agricultural purposes. The ownership history for all of the properties locatedwithin the Industrial Lane area is complex. A comprehensive ownership historysearch was not within the scope of the RI. However, the following summarizes thevariety of residential, commercial, and industrial facilities found within the 'area.Residential communities within the study area include Glendon, Lucy's Crossing,and the area surrounding Morgan Hill.

A R 3 0 0 I I 9

Final Draft

Facilities currently located along Industrial Drive include the Chrin Landfill,Metropolitan Edison, Taylor Tank Cleaning, Easton Print Plant, Easton Coal, andPennsalt (see figure 1.1-5). The Chrin Landfill is a PA DER-permitted sanitarylandfill which accepts municipal and certain approved industrial wastes fordisposal. Metropolitan Edison operates a power substation across the street fromthe landfill. Taylor Tank Cleaning reportedly cleans out and repairs fuel oil tanksand boilers. The Easton Print Plant, located adjacent to and east of the Pennsaltproperty, is currently closed. Easton Coal, located across Industrial Drive from theEaston Print Plant, is an active anthracite coal crushing and storage/distributionfacility. The Pennsalt area, located along Industrial Drive adjacent to the landfill,was reportedly operated as a chemical processing facility. This site is now

iabandoned.

Other production facilities within the study area include, or have included, EastonCar and Construction, Specialty Shapes, Moss Dynamics, Dynatherm, Sortino's AutoBody, Andy's Excavators, Purity Zinc, and Craft Rug Mills. Easton Car andConstruction, which reportedly built truck bodies and railroad cars, is the onlyabandoned facility in this group. Specialty Shapes and Dynatherm, which arelocated on the same property, process steel plates and product boilers,respectively. Moss Dynamics and Sortino's Auto Body deal in the distribution ofauto parts and repair. Andy's Excavators primarily deals with contractconstruction. Purity Zinc, not currently operating at full capacity, is involved inspecialty primary metals casting. Craft Rug Mills operates a rug production/retailfacility. For a summary of the area's industrial facilities, see table 1.3-1. For amap depicting the locations of these industries, see figure 1.3-1.

Also discussed in this report is Ashland Chemical Company, which is located alongthe east bank of the Lehigh River, approximately 3,000 feet southwest of Lucy'sCrossing. Although not located within the Industrial Lane RI study area, knowledgeof the facility location is critical in providing a comprehensive understanding ofthis RI (see figure 1.3-1 for the location of Ashland Chemical).

4R300I20

Final Draft

TABLE 1.3-1INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

INDUSTRIES IN STUDY AREA

Name

Chrin Landfill

Pennsalt

Easton Print Plant

Easton Car andConstruction

Craft Rug Mill

Taylor's TankCleaning & LiningCompany

Easton Coal

Andy's Excavators

Specialty Shapes

Dynatherm

Moss Dynamics

MetropolitanEdison

Sortino's AutoBody

Purity Zinc

Operation

sanitary landfill

chemical plant

packaged pantyhose

machine specialityproduced railroadcars

produces rugs,sells retail

tank cleaning/boiler repairs

coal transfer(apparent)

excavations/ contractors

steel plateprocessing

produce boilers(home-heating units)

auto partsdistributors

power substation forparts of WilliamsTownship (S. Easton,W. Easton)

auto repair

specialty metalscasting

Years

1962 to present

early 1900s

1976 to 1984

pre-1930 to1983

1981 to 1985

1979 to present

unknown

1970 to present

1982 to present

1936 to present

1978 to present

approximately1920s to present

1970 to present

unknown

Current Status

active

abandoned

moved to another loca

closed

currently closingmanufacturing

active

active ^

active

active

active

active

active

active

partiallyactive

M* A R 3 0 0 1 2 1

•

Ou

oQ_

Ih-cco

UJorCOo

oUJ

UJOrUJ

<

<or

Qz

UJ

03

fiR'300122

Final Draft

1.4 Summary of Previous Investigations

From 1980 to 11985, the Chrin Landfill and adjoining residential areas have beeninvestigated and sampled by both PA DER and EPA. The levels of analysis for thesamples obtained have varied from complete scans for priority pollutants and tracemetals to the standard water quality parameters (i.e., pH, conductivity). Theresults of these sampling efforts have identified variable concentrations of avariety of priority pollutants; however, the quality of much of the data isinadequate to reliably establish trends which are necessary to identify sources.Table 1.4-1 presents a summary of previous sampling events.

AR300123

Final Draft

TABLEINDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

PREVIOUS SAMPLING ACTIVITIES*

_ _ Agency Date Type Of Samples Collected

EPArCRL May 1980 Groundwater, leachate, surfacewater

PA DER February 1981 Groundwater

PA DER May 1981 Groundwater

PA DER July 1981 Groundwater, leachate

EPA:FIT December 1981 Groundwater, leachate

EPA:CRL July 1982 Groundwater, leachate

PA DER July 1982 Groundwater

PA DER February 1983 Groundwater

EPA.-TAT April 1983 Surface water, sediment

PA DER June 1983 Groundwater

PA DER August 1983 Groundwater

PA DER December 1983 Groundwater

PA DER June 1984 Groundwater

PA DER July 1984 Groundwater

*Not included are quarterly monitoring and sampling activities conducted at theChrin Landfill, which are required by PA DER.

M6 A R 3 G G I 2 1 *

Final Draft

1.4.1 Summary of Significant Findings from Previous Investigations

In May 1980, EPA's Annapolis Laboratory sampled monitoring wells and leachatefrom the collection system associated with the Chrin Landfill. Analysis ofsamples collected from monitoring wells and leachate samples revealed measurablequantities of chromium and lead contaminants and organic compounds, includingbenzene, tetrachloroethene, and 1,1-dichloroethane. The organic compoundsidentified ranged in concentration from below detection limits to 10,000 ppb; theinorganics ranged from below detection limits to 70.0 ppb.

EPA and its contractor, the Ecology & Environment (E &. E) FIT III team, initiatedsampling of residential wells in December 1981. The sampling program included sixhome wells, five on-site monitoring wells, and one landfill leachate collection tank.No reliable data for organic compounds were provided from these analyses. Levelsof lead ranged from below detection limits to 49 ppb in the residential wells and 9to 86 ppb in the landfill leachate collection system.

In July 1982, five residential wells, two monitoring wells, and two landfill leachatlcollection tanks were sampled and then analyzed by EPA's Annapolis Laboratory.Compounds found included chloroform, tetrachloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane,1,1,1-trichloroethane, barium, and lead. Ranges of organics found included belowdetection limits to 30 ppb in the home wells, 90 ppb in the leachate, and 12 ppb inthe monitoring wells. Ranges of inorganics found included below detection limitsto 5 ppb in the home wells and 26 ppb in the monitoring wells.

PA DER sampled groundwater from monitoring and residential wells on fourdifferent occasions in 1983. Priority pollutant analysis of the samples identifiedorganic contamination in some of the wells. Among the compounds identified weretetrachloroethene, 1,1-trichloroethene, and chloroform. Concentrations rangedfrom below detection limits to 96 ppb in the home wells and below detection limitsto 13 ppb in the monitoring wells. In addition, as part of the permit requirements,PA DER maintains a quarterly sampling program of the landfill monitoring wells.Analytical parameters include pH, alkalinity, total solids, sulfates, chloride,biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and specificconductance.

AR3G0125

Final Draft

In May 1980, EPA's Annapolis Regional Laboratory obtained a water sample fromthe small stream in Morgan Valley. Laboratory priority pollutant analysis did notidentify any contamination.

On April 7, 1983, EPA Region III Technical Assistance Team (TAJ) (EPAcontractors) obtained samples from a drainage ditch which carries surface waterrunoff from the landfill area. No organic contaminants were identified in aqueousor sediment samples; however, heavy metal contamination was identified in ail thesamples taken. The downgradient water sample showed concentrations of cadmiumat 1,440 ppb and lead at 20 ppb. In the sediment samples, cadmium ranged from0.23 to 19.5 ppm, and lead from 86 to 191 ppm.

__ _ i - .

In June 1984, PA DER sampled a spring in Glendon for priority pollutants (organicand inorganic). No contaminants were reported.

No soil samples had been taken in the study area prior to this RI. However, during-the RI, PA DER implemented a soil sampling effort northwest of the landfill,across Industrial Drive. PA DER reportedly initiated this sampling in an attemptto determine the nature and extent of soil contamination within this specific area.

A air monitoring investigation had not previously been performed within theIndustrial Lane area. However, during the EPA sampling activities performed in1981 and 1983, ambient air was monitored using an HNU photoionization detector.(This monitoring was implemented at all sample locations and was required forhealth and safety considerations during sample collection.) No organics abovebackground concentrations were recorded within the breathing zone during theseinvestigations.

Analytical results from previous samplings of the area are contained in appendix C.

1.5 Community Perception and Involvement

The Chrin Landfill, a key feature associated with the Industrial Lane study area,has been the focus of significant public attention. In particular, the involvement ofa local environmental group, S.O.L.V.E. (an acronym for Save Our Lehigh ValleyEnvironment), has been very influential toward the development of general publicawareness and eventual regulatory actions.

1-18

! AR300i:26

Final Draft

S.O.L.V.E.'s concerns over the Industrial Lane site prompted the group tomanifest records from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJ DEP) and the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. Theserecords allegedly document large quantities of hazardous and industrial wastematerials being disposed in the Chrin Landfill. Additionally, numerous allegationshave been made by local individuals claiming eyewitness accounts of illegaldisposal activities. These allegations prompted the group to solicit a privateconsultant to investigate existing hydrogeologic conditions of the area in anattempt to clarify potential groundwater contamination threats.

This investigation was completed in 1982 and, since then, S.O.L.V.E. has remainedquite active in promoting State and Federal environmental regulatory involvementin investigation of the Chrin Landfill.

1.6 Ranking of the Industrial Lane Site on the National Priorities List

In accordance with the requirements established under CERCLA, the IndustrialLane site was evaluated by EPA in February 1983. As previously mentioned isection 1.1, an HRS report was developed around data applicable to the ChnLandfill.

The HRS is used by EPA to evaluate relative risk or endangerment factors existingat a particular site. The HRS is a statistically based mathematical model thatconsiders the population at risk, the hazard potential of the substances found to beconclusively present at the site, the potential for site-related contamination ofdrinking water supplies, the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems fromthe site-related hazards, and additional factors. The ultimate purpose of the HRSis to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substance sites tocause human health or safety problems or ecological or environmental damage.The HRS is designed so that sites are assigned a numerical score based onconsideration of the above described factors.

Under current NCP requirements, all uncontrolled, potentially hazardous sites arescored via the HRS. The ultimate score of any particular site determines itseventual inclusion on the NPL. ^^

1-19

/IR300I27

Final Draft

The Industrial Lane site's overall score was 41.12, which ranked the site in Group 6(HRS scores 43.19 to 40.74) on the proposed NPL. The site received high rankingbecause of the identification of hazardous contaminants (lead, carbontetrachloride, and chloroform), the alleged large quantity of hazardous wastedisposed at the landfill, and the proximity to the nearest drinking water well (lessthan 1,000 feejt). Additional factors included the potential for surface watercontamination due to runoff, inadequate containment, and the recreational use ofsurface waters within a three-mile radius. A direct contact threat was alsoestablished due to inadequate access control, leachate seeps on site, and thesizeable population within one mile of the site.

As stated in section 1.0, the NCP requires that all sites listed on the NPL besubjected to the RI/FS process.

1.7 Remedial Investigation Study Design

As previously described, the principal problem associated with the Industrial Lanesite has been low-level groundwater contamination and the related potential healthrisk to residents who may be exposed to the contamination. This RI has beendesigned to address these key issues. More specifically, the RI for the Industriali -Lane area was designed to determine the level of contamination, identify potentialsources of contamination, define potential migration pathways, identify receptorsof contamination within the study area, and support the evaluation of technologiesfor the FS.

To develop this information, the study required considerable field data collection,historical records review, and data interpretation. Tasks completed for the RIincluded:

o In-depth review of available historical records and pertinent literatureo Detailed study area field reconnaissanceo Water supply investigationo Hydrogeologic evaluationo Environmental sampling of groundwater, surface water, soils, and air •o Home well sampling

1-20

AR30Q128

Final Draft

o Engineering evaluation of key factors associated with the Chrin Landfillo Literature survey of existing flora and fauna within the study areao Public health assessment

1.3 Overview of the Remedial Investigation Report

The remaining sections of this report will present the results of the investigationsconducted at the Industrial Lane site. These sections include the following:section 2.0, Features Investigation; section 3.0, Sampling Program; 4.0, SourceIdentification; section 5.0, Landfill Investigation; section 6.0, Surface Water,Sediment, and Soils Investigation; section 7.0, Geologic/HydrogeologicInvestigation; section 8.0, Air Investigation; section 9.0, Biota Investigation; andsection 10.0, Public Health Assessment. The reports also includes anEndangerment Assessment, which is presented under separate cover. Supportingdata referred to in the text are compiled in separate appendices.

AR300J29

Final Draft

REFERENCES

1. Beers, D.J. Atlas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. A. Pomeroy andCompany, 1874.

2. Fritts, Peter. History of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, pp. 228 -229.1877.

3. Miller, B.L., R.M. Fraser, and R.L. Miller. Northampton County,Pennsylvania. Third Printing, Pennsylvania Geologic Survey ControlReport 48. pp. 163,311-345. 1973.

4. Metz, L.E. (Ed.) Procedures of the Canal History and Technology Symposium.Volume II. The Center for Canal History and Technology, pp. 87 - 104.March 1983.

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental PhotographicInterpretation Center. Chrin Brothers Site Investigation, Easton,Pennsylvania. December 1983.

6. VERSAR, Incorporated. Remedial Action Master Plan for the Industrial LaneSite. March 1984.

7. Northampton County Tax Assessment Office, Easton, Pennsylvania, withJudith Delconte, NUS FIT III. November 20, 1985.

8. Receptionist, Moss Dynamics, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT III. Telecon.November 21, 1985.

9. Smith, George, Metropolitan Edison, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT III.Telecon. November 21, 1985.

10. Receptionist, Easton Print Plant, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT III. Telecon.November 21, 1985.

1-22

6R300130

Final Draft

11. Receptionist, Craft Rug Mills, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT HI. Telecon.November 21, 1985.

12. Shippers, Ann, of St. Petersburg, Florida, concerning Pennsalt, with JudithDeiconte, NUS FIT III. Telecon. November 21, 1985.

13. Receptionist, Taylor Tank Cleaning, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT III.Telecon. November 21, 1985.

14. Receptionist, Dynatherm, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT III. Telecon.November 21, 1 85.

15. Sortino, Pat, Sortino's Auto Body, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT III. Telecon.November 21, 1985.

16. MaxBarren, Phil, Specialty Shapes, with Judith Delconte, NUS FIT III.Telecon. November 21, 1985.

17. Maleski, Joseph, concerning Easton Car and Construction, with Judith'Delconte, NUS FIT III. Telecon. November 22, 1985.

18. United States Geologic Survey. Easton, New Jersey and PennsylvaniaQuadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series. Topographic Map. 1973.

19. Parizek, Richard R., Ph.D., Consulting Hydrogeologist. Evaluation of theChrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.February 1, 1982.

20. Rand McNally. Commercial Reference Map and Guide. Pennsylvania. RandMcNally and Company, New York, 1983.

1-23

AR300I3

*AR300132

Final Draft2.0 FEATURES INVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTION

This section of the remedial investigation (RI) report presents descriptiveinformation which pertains to critical features associated with the Industrial Lane

I ,

study area. The features investigation was implemented to establish anunderstanding of existing conditions within the study area. Included in this sectionare descriptions of existing physical characteristics, such as general geologic

i " isetting, general hydrologic conditions, existing land use, local climate, and naturalresources. Also discussed are general demographic conditions and existing watersupply data. This information is critical to evaluating the public health risks andenvironmental impacts associated with identified pollution problems.

iThis section has been compiled through a review of available historical literature,Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PA DER) and EPA fileinformation, personal interviews, and field observations.

2.1 Physiographic Conditions

The location of the Industrial Lane study area is on or near the boundary betweentwo physiographic provinces. It is within this region that the Limestone Valley,representing the Ridge and Valley Province, meets the South Hills, a portion of the

iNew England Upland Province. The topographic regions representing these twoprovinces are discussed in detail below.

2.1.1 Limestone Valley

The area of Northampton County between Kittatinny Mountain and the SouthMountains is known as the Limestone Valley. This area may also be referred to asthe Appalachian or Lehigh Valley. Cambrian and Ordovician limestone formationsdeposited in this region tend to form a relatively flat plane. Characterized by alack of streams and broad, nearly flat interstream areas, the region possesses aunique appearance. The average elevation of the valley is reported to be near 400feet above mean sea level (MSL).

2-1

'AR300I'3

Final Draft2.1.2 South Mountains

Known also as the Durham and Reading Hills, this area forms a sharp contrast tothe Limestone Valley previously discussed. The area, composed of crystalline rocksof various lithologies, forms a portion of the Reading Prong Section of the NewEngland Uplands Province.

Characteristic of this region are hills of varying size, shape, and height, whichtrend in a southwest-northeast direction. Separating these hills are narrow valleys,often composed of limestone. The tops of some of these hills rise to above 700feet MSL and two are reported to exceed 1,000 feet. They are the second highestgroup of hills in Northampton County, and they are only exceeded by the moreresistant sandstones and conglomerates of Kittatinny Mountain. An interestingfeature of the South Mountains, represented in the study area by Morgan Hill, isthat the northern slope will often be steeper than its corresponding southernmember. It is reported that this feature is attributable to the effects of frost.

Structural deformation, and subsequent differential erosion, has helped tothe present topographic features displayed in this region. In general, thosethat form the hills are found to be more resistant to erosion than those stratawithin the valleys,,

The New England Uplands, the Ridge and Valley, and a third province, thePiedmont Lowlands, are all represented in Northampton County. These three areall members of a major physiographic division, the Appalachian Highlands.

2.2 Topography

The topography oJ: the study area is characterized by hills and valleys with averagehill top elevations of 750 feet above MSL and valley elevations to 170 feet aboveMSL. Morgan Hill is a key topographic feature of the area. It forms a long ridgethat runs roughly east to west between the Delaware and Lehigh Rivers. The crestelevation of Morgan Hill is 450 feet above MSL directly south of the Chrin Landfilland it rises to a maximum elevation of 800 feet above MSL about 3/4 mile east ofthe landfill. The terrain to the west and north of Morgan Hill slopes gently in anortheastwardly direction to the Lehigh River.

2-2

A R 3 0 0 I 3 I +

Final Draft

The topography of the Chrin Landfill has been influenced primarily by man-madeexcavation and fill operations. Topographic features of the landfill and thesurrounding support areas change regularly due to landfill progression. The highestelevation of the landfill during preparation of this report was 522 feet above MSL.From that point, the landfill slopes sporadically downward to an elevation ofapproximately 307 feet above MSL at Industrial Drive.

2.3 General Geologic Setting

The Industrial Lane study area is located in a geologic region of highly weatheredand structurally deformed rocks which are older than 500 million years(Cambrian/Precambrian era). In addition, a portion of the area rests upon thetrace of a thrust plane known as the Musconetcong Fault. These conditions havecreated a very complex geologic setting. This section focuses on the complexity ofthe geology and its associated structure.

Regionally, the geology has been mapped twice, once by Miller et al. in 1939, andagain by Drake in 1967 (see figures 2.3-1, 2.3-2, and accompanying figure 2.3-lafor legends). For the purposes of this investigation, the map by Drake has beenchosen, as it is the most recent; however, reference material consulted for theipreparation of this report is largely the work of Miller. The following is a summaryof the major dissimilarities between these two maps:

o Miller et al. mapped an assemblage of Precambrian metamorphic rocks as asingle unit and named it the Byram Gneiss. Drake more accurately definesthe local variations within this metamorphic assemblage.

o The Tomstown Formation is termed the Leithsville in Drake's map.

o Miller's map does not indicate the Musconetcong thrust fault, nor an areaof shearing mapped by Drake.

The following sections will focus on the lithologic characteristics of the formationspresent within the study area. They are the Byram Gneiss, the HardystonFormation, the Tomstown (Leithsville) Formation, and the Allentown Formation.The formations are presented from oldest to youngest.

AR300I35

LEGEND FOR THE GEOLOGIC MAPOF

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

ctTomstown limestone

Ca

Allentown limestone

p€bt iByram gneiss

€h

Hardyston quartznte

LEGEND FOR THE GEOLOGIC MAP

4THE EASTON QUADRANGLE

Ca

Allentown Dolomite

Leithsville Formation

Hardyston Quartzite

F^T — i mI ~ ~~ ' - ^^1js£Z> -." . ^

Hornblende granite and associated biotite granite

V gma i^X*l

Alaskite

Ip HPBsfc8GAmphibolite

SOURCE: TAKEN FROM THE GEOLOGIC HAP OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY t THE GEOLOGIC WP OF THE EASTON QUADRANGLE

LEGEND FOR THE GEOLOGIC MAPS FIGURE 2.3-la INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION , J- IVIL JS"V

NORTHAMPTON CO..Pft- CORPORXW1ON2-4 AR300I35 W A Halliburton Company

SOURCE: GEOLOGIC MAP OF NORTHAMPTON CO. ADAPTED FROM B.L. MILLER,ET AL. 1939

GEOLOGIC MAP OF NORTHAMPTON CO. FIGURE 2.3-1INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION.

NORTHAMPTON CO..PA. rrwaoaATT J(SCALE ABOVE) L__J_J OJ-f-LJ-IMI I-IN

i - iV:'.- /

SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM THE GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE EASTON N.J-PA. QUADRANGLE BY A.A.DRAKE,JR. 1967.

GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE EASTON QUADRANGLE .N.J.-PA. FIGURE 2.*-2INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION.

NORTHAMPTON CO.. PA.SCALE 1:24000 CORPORATION

A HaJlitxjrtoo Company2-6 AR300I38

Final Draft

2.3.1 Byram Gneiss

The assemblage of Precambrian metamorphic rocks, mapped as one unit called theByram Gneiss, by Miller, actually contains three mappable units within the region.As defined by Drake, the units are a hornblende granite, microperthite alaskite,and amphibolite. The characteristics of each are as follows:

I

o Hornblende granite is a granite gneiss described as medium to coarsegrained, and pink to light gray in color. Compositional minerals includemicroperthite, quartz, oligoclase, and hornblende.

o Microperthite alaskite is a granite gneiss described as medium to coarsegrained, with color ranging from light pink to light gray. Chief mineralsare microperthite, quartz, and oligoclase. Alaskite appears in the region asa small body within the above-mapped portion of hornblende granite.

o The area mapped as amphibolite is composed of medium-grained, dark grayto black, hornblende and hornblende-pyroxene amphibolite. As withalaskite, amphibolite occupies a small area within the section mapped ashornblende granite. ,

For the remainder of the text, this formation will be referred to as the ByramGneiss.

The Byram Gneiss is thought to have originally been a granite. As a result ofexcessive compression and resultant heating, the gneiss banding now observed wasdeveloped.

While an exact age of the Byram Gneiss is not known, its relative age can bedetermined from the other formations with which it comes into contact. Its age isbelieved to lie somewhere in the late Precambrian, as it intrudes older rocks of thisperiod.

AR300139

Final Draft

2.3.2 Hardyston Quartzite

This Cambrian metamorphic rock is normally found cropping out in narrow bandsbetween the Precambrian crystalline formations and the overlying TomstownFormation. The Hardyston, generally found along the base of gneissic hills, isfound at greater elevations compared to the stratigraphicaily overlying TomstownFormation. This is reportedly due, in part, to the Hardyston's greater resistance toerosion.

The Hardyston displays a variety of lithologic features; differences occur bothvertically and horizontally and are often within very short distances. Theformation contains conglomerate, sandstone, quartzite, jasper, chert,- shales, and amicaceous material known as pinite. Limonite ore is also present in the formationand generally occurs in a matrix of yellow, red, white, or dark clays. The thicknessof the entire formation is extremely variable; it is estimated to be between 100and 250 feet within the region.

The Hardyston rests unconformably upon the older Precambrian crystalline gneiss.1The long intervals of erosion, which are thought to have occurred betweendeposition of the basal conglomerate and solidification of the underlying crystallinerocks, represents a major unconformity.

The Tomstown is presumed to conformably overlie the Hardyston. In the studyarea, however, the Tomstown-Hardyston contact is marked by the Musconetcongfault. No exposures of the contact within the area are known; however, a generalparallelism of strike and outcrop pattern suggests conformity.

2.3.3 Tomstown (Leithsville) Formation

The Tomstown appears in an almost continuous band along the south side of theLehigh River between Bethlehem and Easton. Good exposures are not common, ashillside talus, residual soils, and glacial-alluvial deposits tend to overlie potentialoutcrops.

2-8

AR300UO

Final Draft

The formation is composed largely of dolomitic limestones, of which several phasesare recognized. A thin-bedded variety, high in magnesium and containing impurelimestone, is the most common, and individual beds are often less than one footthick. The other phases include the following: (i) a more argillaceous limestonecontaining an abundance of sericite; (2) a sericitic shale which the above gradesinto; and (3) a massively bedded, dense dolomite, with individual beds up to 10 feetthick. The color of this formation changes nearly as much as its various phases,ranging from a dark steel blue to a dirty yellowish-white. Weathered surfacesappear light buff to chalky white.

Variations within the Tomstown are frequent and abrupt, so that no guide stratumexists. Joint planes, which are abundant and occur in various directions, areevidence of the earth movements which shattered this formation. Complicatedstructure and a limited number of exposures make obtaining a measurement of theTomstown's total thickness impossible. Thicknesses of 900 to 1,000 feet have beenidentified west of the area, but the entire formation is thought to be considerablythicker.

Overlying the Tomstown is the Allentown Formation, and from observed contacts,the two formations appear to be entirely conformable.

2.3.4 Allentown Formation

The Allentown occurs in the region within a broad band extending west-southwestfrom New Jersey to Lehigh County. This formation underlies a major portion ofEaston and Bethlehem.

The formation is composed of bluish-gray to gray magnesium limestone interbeddedwith fine shale laminae. Individual beds are relatively thin and alternatefrequently from predominantly limestone to predominantly shale, and the beds varyin thickness from 6 to 18 inches. Alternating light and dark beds exist as a resultof varying amounts of magnesium carbonate, which can be observed in localweathered outcrops.

Constituent minerals include calcite, dolomite, quartz, sericite, carbonaceousmatter, and occasional pyrite.

AR300UI

Final Draft

As with the Tomstown, exposures of the entire thickness are not found, and also no <marker bed or group of beds can be identified. Best estimates report the thicknessto be 1,500 to 1,600 feet.

2.3.5 Geologic Structure

The geologic structure is reported as extremely varied and complex with nearlyevery type of geologic structure represented in the region. Surficial cover ofresidual soil, talus, and glacial debris compounds the problem further by concealinglarge sections of strata. Even where good exposures are present, the structure canbe so complex that explaining the sequence of events has still been difficult.

At least three known periods of deformation have been documented since the startof Paleozoic time: the Taconic disturbance dated at the close of the Ordovician;the Appalachian Revolution, which closed the Paleozoic; and the normal faultingassociated with the Triassic.

These periods of deformation generated the compressive force necessary to throwpreviously deposited strata into more or less parallel longitudinal folds.Precambrian crystalline rock and overlying sedimentary strata were bothparticipants in the folding. In certain areas, older rock was uplifted in anticlines,far above the down-warped younger rocks in the synclines.

Complicating the situation even further is the fact that these folds were thenbroken by faults with displacements of up to several thousand feet. Regardless ofthe type of fault, some controversy does exist as to the various types present; theyall tend to follow the general northeast-southwest trend of the strata.

All of the above mentioned deformation techniques have been influential increating a general structure pattern. Precambrian crystalline rocks, which formthe ridges, are separated by narrow, steep-sided valleys which are floored byPaleozoic strata. These Paleozoic units have been downfolded, downfaulted, orboth.

2-10

AR3GGU2

Final Draft

Another unique feature is that faults are common along the lower slopes of one orboth sides of the Precambrian crystalline ridges. This feature is represented in thestudy area by the Musconetcong fault, as it follows Morgan Hill.

Jointing is well developed throughout the region and the joints trend in manydirections. The varying orientation of the joints is to be expected considering theamount of deformation that has taken place here.

2-11

AR3001U

Final Draft

2.4 Streams and Local Hydrology

2.4.1 Surface Water Bodies

Surface waters within the study area have been evaluated on a local and regionalscale. An inventory of local surface waters includes Morgan Valley Creek, theunnamed tributary to the Lehigh River that drains the Chrin Landfill, the unnamedtributary to the Lehigh River which drains South Easton, the unnamed tributaryflowing past Ashland Chemical, and the unnamed tributaries flowing into theDelaware River on the eastern side of Morgan Hill. Aside from sedimentationcontrol basins at the Chrin Landfill, no significant natural or man-madeimpoundments have been identified within the area. Regional surface water bodiesinclude the Lehigh Canal, the Lehigh River, and the Delaware River. Following isa discussion of each of the surface waters mentioned above and their relation tothe study area. Figure 2.4-1 illustrates the surface water and drainage basininventory of the study area. It should be noted that the areal extent of availablemapping (both United States Geologic Survey (U.S.G.S.) 7.5 minute topographicmaps and the study area fly-over maps) is insufficient to adequately illustrate the'total watershed boundaries of all adjoining watersheds.

AR30GIH

\V • I , •• W . >'. \ • **•**:-'*~'••m -\\ H .

i xQ.'

AR300U5

Final Draft

2.4.1.1 Morgan Valley Creek

Morgan Valley Creek is a tributary to the Lehigh Canal, located approximately 1.9miles upstream of the confluence of the canal with the Lehigh River. Theheadwaters of the creek originate at the crest of Morgan Hill along PhiladelphiaRoad in a typical dendritic-type drainage configuration. The creek is designatedperennial by U.S.G,S. topographic mapping from a point approximately 6,000 feetupstream of the confluence of the creek with the Lehigh Canal. The entirewatershed associated with the Morgan Valley Creek drains approximately 920acres. A variety of land uses occupy the watershed. Forest lands and crop landdominate the majority of the surface area of the basin, with single-familyresidential developments being a less significant land use. Slopes in the headwatersof the watershed are steep and range from 18 percent to greater than 25 percent.Slopes in the lowlands adjacent to the Lehigh Canal are moderate and range from 5to 10 percent. This watershed is depicted on figure 2.4-1 as area no. 2. The 100-year flood level of Morgan Valley Creek extends upstream from the Lehigh Canalto approximately 200 feet above MSL. The 500-year flood level extends toapproximately 204 feet above MSL. More detailed descriptions, with maps,flooding potential are presented in subsections of this section. Morgan ValleyCreek is not of sufficient size to be considered a sport fishery. The PennsylvaniaFish Commission does not stock this creek with trout, nor is the creek on theapproved trout water listing. This is not to imply that warm water species do notinhabit the creek or that it is not important as a bait-taking fishery by localsportsmen.

2.4.1.2 Unnamed Tributary Flowing Through South Easton

The unnamed tributary flowing through South Easton originates at the topographichighs near the southern corporate limits of Easton. With the exception of someopen land in the headwaters, this drainageway almost entirely drains residentialSouth Easton. This watercourse is undoubtedly culverted beneath South Eastonalmost the entire length. Due to this fact, the stream cannot be accuratelylocated on available maps without reviewing the South Easton storm sewer layoutplans. The confluence of this tributary with the Lehigh Canal is locatedapproximately 1,200 feet upstream of the canal discharge point into the river. Thetotal watershed feeding this tributary is approximately 800 acres. This watershedis depicted on figue 2.4-1 as area no. 4.

AR300U6

Final Draft

2.4,1.3 Unnamed Tributary Which Drains The Chrin LandfillI '

This unnamed tributary is the discharge stream for the area no. 1 watershed. Thiswatershed includes the Chrin Landfill and drains approximately 220 acres.Detailed discussions about this watershed are presented in section 2.4.2, SurfaceHydrology.

2.4.1.4 Unnamed Tributary Flowing Past Ashland Chemical

The main unnamed tributary flowing past the western edge of the AshlandChemical Company originates from the topographic highs extending north ofHexenkopf Hill. The confluence of this tributary with the Lehigh River is locatedapproximately 500 feet upstream of the entrance to the Lehigh Canal and 800 feetupstream of the Chain Dam. The total drainage area feeding this watershed isapproximately 520 acres. This watershed is depicted on figure 2.4-1 as area no. 3.Land use in the watershed, other than Ashland Chemical, is primarily forestland inthe headwaters, crop land and open pasture through the central portion, andindustrial and quarry mining near the mouth of the Lehigh River. U.5.G.S.designates this tributary a perennial stream for approximately one mile upstreamof the Lehigh River. Slopes in the watershed are relatively steep in the headwatersand central portion of the watershed (15 to 20 percent) and moderate immediatelyupslope of the Ashland facility (8 to 15 percent).

In addition, a small drainageway/watercourse flows along the eastern portion ofAshland Chemical. This is a small watershed which originates along PhiladelphiaRoad and a local topographic high southwest of Morgan Valley. This watersheddrains approximately 70 acres. Slopes are steep northwest of Philadelphia Road.Slopes northeast of the Ashland Chemical facility are moderate and range from 7to 10 percent.

2-15

AR300U7

Final Draft

2.4.1.5 Unnamed Tributaries Flowing into the Delaware River

Generally, all surface water drainage flowing on the eastern slopes of Morgan Hillenters tributaries to the Delaware River. There are a series of several unnamedtributaries draining a portion of South Easton and the area east of PhiladelphiaRoad. At the crest of the hills above South Easton and on Morgan Hill, crop landand open pastures are the predominant land use. Slopes are moderate to the northand northwest. In the lower portions of these watersheds, slopes are steep andexceed 25 percent. This drainage basin and corresponding surface waters arelocated on the western side of a major groundwater divide; therefore, detailspertaining to the basin and surface waters will not be provided.

2.4.1.6 Lehigh Canal

The Lehigh Canal is located on the southern bank of the Lehigh River. Theupstream entrance to the canal is located 3.26 miles upstream from the confluenceof the Lehigh River with the Delaware River. The downstream entrance is located0.8 miles upstream of that same confluence. The canal is approximately 2.5 mileslong with an average width ranging from 60 to 70 feet. The average elevation ofthe canal is approximately 190 feet above MSL. Based on U.S.G.S. topographicmapping, the canal drops in elevation approximately 20 feet over its entire lengthfor a slope of less than 1 percent. Within the area, Morgan Valley Creek, anunnamed tributary originating in the vicinity of Chrin Landfill, and the unnamedtributary flowing through South Easton are the only significant naturaldrainageways entering the canal. Incidental runoff from the banks of the LehighRiver and the flood plain area also contribute flow to the canal.

The discovery of coal in the upper Lehigh Valley and iron ore in the lower portionnecessitated a water transportation system along the Lehigh and Delaware Riversto Philadelphia. Inadequate ark travel on the Lehigh River prompted theconstruction of the canal in the early 1800s. The canal was formally opened in1829 and was heavily operated into the early 1900s.

2-16

AR300U8

Final Draft

Presently, the abandoned canal has been developed into a 250-acre, multi-recreational facility consisting of the Locktenders House, Canal Boat Dock andRentals, and Canal Museum. Canal boat rides are presently offered along a.restored section of the canal. In addition to historical significance, picnic areasand modern restroom facilities have been developed on the flood plain areasadjacent to the canal to support other recreational activities. Warm water fishspecies have inhabited the canal over the years and have naturally provided apotential fishery used by visitors of the canal area.

2.4.1.7 Lehigh River

The Lehigh River is located approximately 2,200 feet northwest of Industrial Drive.Surface water drainage from the landfill and the remaining study area dischargesinto the Lehigh Canal. The Lehigh Canal in turn flows into the Lehigh River. TheLehigh River is tributary to the Delaware River at Easton.

The headwaters of the Lehigh River originate in the Pocono Plateau of WayneCounty, Pennsylvania. From Wayne County, the Lehigh River winds throughportions of five counties in Pennsylvania, including Luzerne County, LackawannaCounty, Monroe County, Carbon County, Lehigh County, and Northampton County.From its point of origin, the length of the main stem of the river is approximately100 miles. The total drainage area of the basin above the Chain Dam isapproximately 1,359 square miles. Major tributaries to the Lehigh River includeWest Fork, Tobyhanna Creek, Nesquehoning Creek, Pohopoco Creek, Little LehighCreek, Saucon Creek, and Aquashiola Creek. Upstream of Jim Thorpe and theLehigh Gap, the river has a steep gradient and is characterized by rapids andsteeply sloping banks. Through Lehigh and Northampton County, the river has amoderate gradient. From Slatington to Allentown, the river descends 113 feet in17 miles, or 6.65 feet per mile. The gradient from Allentown to Easton is a 68-footdescent in 16.5 miles, or 4.12 feet per mile.

2-17

AR300U9

Final Draft

The river substrate in the upper reaches above Northampton County is typically1rock. As the flow gradient decreases through the limestone region aroundBethlehem, and the Jordon and Saucon Creek confluences, it becomes an alluvial-filled watercourse. Alluvial thickness is reported to be 40 feet in this area. Thisalluvium, which originated in the anthracite coal fields, has been carried from theculm banks and washeries of the mining operations, as evidenced by black silt claystream banks. The alluvial stream properties are maintained from Easton to theconfluence of the Lehigh with the Delaware River.

A biological study was performed in 1968 of the Lehigh River from its headwatersthrough Easton. Generally, the report found the river to be severely affected byacid mine drainage for a stretch of 45 miles from Northampton. Alkaline inflowsfrom limestone streams and the carbonate rocks around Allentown and Bethlehemincrease productivity of the river and raise the pH to a level acceptable fornoticeable fish and benthic macroinvertebrate life. The water quality of theLehigh River undergoes chemical and biological degradation around Allentown andBethlehem from sewage effluents and industrial wastes. At Bethlehem, highconcentrations of cyanide, phenol, manganese, iron, and coliform were found duringlow flow periods. In the 1968 report, water quality between Allentown andBethlehem was considered to be too poor to support resident fish and wouldprobably prevent the passage of anadromous fish. From Bethlehem to Easton,recent studies have shown improved water quality. Sport fish were collected in thevicinity of the Chain Dam by electrofishing and rotenone surveys conducted by thePennsylvania Fish Commission. The commission is presently trying to introduceshad to the Lehigh River.

Lehigh River Water Quality

The water quality of the lower Lehigh River can be characterized as moderatelydegraded. The 1965 and 1968 reports discussed earlier state that the riverdownstream of Bethlehem has elevated levels of dissolved solids and biochemicaloxygen demand. A ho, a reduced dissolved oxygen concentration was reported.

2-18

AR300150

Final Draft

A subsequent study in 1972 reported total conform bacteria counts exceeding statestandards. Lehigh University reported a severe dissolved oxygen sag upstream ofChain Dam and suggested that passage of water over the dam resulted insignificant aeration. Through 1975 to 1981, mean monthly dissolved oxygenconcentrations at Easton showed general improvements.

A study conducted between August and September 1982 of dissolved oxygenconcentrations above and below the Chain Dam showed the river to be above ornear saturation. An increase in macroinvertebrate and game fish sampling supportsfurther improvements in the lower Lehigh River.

The Water Quality Division, Monitoring and Compliance Section, of PA DER hasmaintained sampling/monitoring stations along the Lehigh River since 1962. Thehistorical data for the closest upstream and downstream stations in relation to thestudy area are presented in tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2. The upstream station location isapproximately 6.0 miles upstream from the site area, and the downstream stationis located approximately 1.75 miles downstream from the site area.

2-19

Final Draft

TABLE 2.4-1

EPA STORET - WATER QUALITY DATALEHIGH RIVER - PR378 BRIDGE

BETHLEHEM

SAMPLE NUMBER OFPARAMETER UNITS PERIOD SAMPLES MIN. MAX. MEAN

DO mg/1 62-85 157 3 15.5 10.5BOD mg/1 62-85 103 .1 12.0 1.9COD mg/1 82 1 10 10 10pH units 62-85 147 6.2 8.0 7.2T O C mg/1 . . . .CN-TOT ug/l 77-85 36 .001 0.41 .012Chloride-TOT mg/1 62-85 171 2 50 15.9S04-TOT mg/1 62-85 170 9 71 31.4As-TOT ug/1 80-85 6 4 10 5.5Cd-TOT ug/1 71-85 23 .9 10 2.4Cr-Hex-Val ug/1 83-84 3 10 10 10CrTOT ug/1 71-85 48 0 130 17.3Cu-TOT ug/1 71-85 46 0 80 25.4Fe-TOT ug/1 62-85 172 0 12,000 500Pb-TOT ug/1 73-85 43 4 50 28.2Mn-TOT ug/1 62-85 .102 0 500 130.2Ni-TOT ug/1 71-85 49 0 140 34.5A g ug/1 . . . .Zn-TOT ug/1 71-85 54 10 440 115.7Al-TOT ug/1 73-85 .5 130 1,050 352TOT-Colif col./iOOrnl 62-71 33 307 946,600 161,040Phenols-TOT ug/1 77-85 36 0 12 1.9DDD ug/1 74-75 2 .002 .002 .002DDE ug/1 74 1 .002 .002 .002DOT ug/1 74-75 2 .002 .002 .002PCB-1242 ug/i 74-75 .2 .020 .020 .020PCB-1254 ug/1 74-75 2 .020 .020 .020Total Hardness mg/1 62-85 171 23 190 72.7

2-20

AR300I52

Final Draft

TABLE 2.4-2

?A£2¥.L">JrATia QUA"TY DATALEHIGH RIVER - 3rd STREET BRIDGEEASTON

•PARAMETER ^5 a-aaj SAMPLES. MJN, MAX. MEANDO ——— —BOD -CoS mS/ 62-85COD mg/1 78.85

ror uni/f 62'85T°C mg/1 75CN-TOT ug7l 62-85Chloride-TOT mg/1 62-85S04-TOT ml/1 62-85Cd~T°,T «* 80-85Cd-TOT ug/1 80-82

«-Ug/l 7I.g5T "S/1 74-79

AMW uf/11 71'85TOT-Colif co"flOOml 62 71Phenols-TOT ug/l 73-S5

ug/l 74-75

ug/l 74.75

74-75Total Hardness mg/1 62-85

2-21

AR300I53

Final Draft

Lehigh River Flow

The drainage area above the Chain Dam is 1,359 square miles. River discharge atBethlehem during water years 1903, 1904, and 1910 through 1981 averaged 2,347cubic feet per second. Flows at Chain Dam are approximately 6.5 percent greaterthan those at Bethlehem.

Information was collected from the U.S.G.S. gauging station at Glendon fromOctober 1984 to July 1985. From this information, the average river height wasapproximately 171.93 feet MSL. The mean discharge was approximately 1,440million gallons per day (mgd).

Lehigh River Flooding

To determine the flood potential within the study area, 100-year and 500-yearflood information has been collected and evaluated for Glendon and the east bankof the Lehigh River. This information was compiled by the United StatesDepartment of Housing and Urban Development in conjunction with the FederalFlood Insurance Agency. Figure 2.4-2 was generated from the Flood InsuranceRate Map for Glendon. The Chrin Landfill and slag quarry pit have been shown onthis map for orientation. As shown on the mapping, the 100-year flood levelupstream along Morgan Valley Creek is to Legislative Route 48010 and just belowMain Street. No 500-year flood zone has been mapped in this vicinity. The floodlevels at Morgan Valley Creek for 500-year, 100-year, 50-year, and 10-year floodsare 204 feet, 197 feet, 195 feet, and 188 feet above MSL, respectively.Additionally, the 100-year flood prone area for the Lehigh and Delaware Rivers, asdepicted by U.S.G.S,,, is illustrated in figure 2.4-3.

Lehigh River Dischargers

Table 2.4-3 presents, a summary chart of the industrial dischargers located on theLehigh River from Bethlehem downstream to Easton.

2-22

EX^tANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS

SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATIONFIG. 2.4-2FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR GLENDON

. LANE REMEDIAL INVESNORTHAMPTON CO.. PA.

INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVEST IGATION , ' X IVI1IGB

(SCALE ABOVE) 2£— CORPORATIONCl A HaUtourton Company

2-23

~ V-

INDUSTRIAL LANEREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

CONTOUK INTERVAL 20 K.C!IUTIOMAI. tioocnc viimou. MTUM or l*»

SOURCE :(7.5 MINUTE SERIES) USGS EASTON, N.J.-PA. FLOOD PRONE MAP

LEHIGH RIVER 100-YEAR FLOOD PRONE AREA FIGURE 2.4-3INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION _______

NORTHAMPTON CO.. PA. _ ~ cdpESSxTOSJ

(SCALEA82°_24E) *ff300 156 OAHalllburtonCompany

Final Draft

TABLE 2.4-3

LEHIGH RIVER: INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS FROMBETHLEHEM TO EASTON

NPDES NAME OUTFALL DESCRIPTIONNUMBER _____ADDRESS_____ .________LOCATION_______

0011801 Ashland Chemical Cooling water/Acid rinsesRD 04, Easton Lat. 40<> 39' 25"N

Long. 75<> iff 42 "WReceiving Stream: Lehigh River

0040614 Beth. Steel. Corp. Hdqtrs. Cooling tower blowdownMartin Tower, Bethlehem Lat. 40° 37' 54"

Long. 750 23' 22"Receiving Stream: Monocacy Creek

0011177 Beth. Steel Corp., 26 outfalls - no descriptionBethlehem available

40° 36' 39" - 40° 37' 13" Lat. range75° 20' 12" - 75° 221 50" Long, rangeRec. stream: not available in permit

0044423 Beth. Steel-Homer Research Bo^er blowdown/NCCWLat. 40° 35' 45"Long. 75«> 20'50"

Receiving Stream: Saucon Creeki. i

0052213 Burron Medical Discharge from extrusion machinesLat. 40° 37' 35"Long. 75° 23' 59"

Receiving Stream: Monocacy Creek

0070416 ConRail Machine shop dischargesBeth. Diesel Term. Lat. 40° 37' 00"

Long. 75° 24' 36"Receiving Stream: Lehigh River

0052001 Lehigh University Cooling tower blowdownLat. 40« 36'35"Long. 750 22' 30"

Receiving Stream: Lehigh Riveri

0052124 Raymond Monroe Outfall not described; Lat. 40° 44; 42"Long. 75° 30' 20"

Receiving Stream: unnamed tributaryto Indian Creek

2-25

_ AR300I57

Final Draft

Intakes

The upstream limit of the study area is approximately 3 miles from the confluenceof the Lehigh River with the Delaware River. There are no municipal surfacewater intakes on the Lehigh River within this stretch. The city of Eastonmaintains an intake on the Delaware River to supply its water needs. This intake is1.5 miles upstream of the confluence of the Lehigh River and Delaware River. Thecity of Phillipsburg, New Jersey utilizes groundwater east of the Delaware Riverfor its water supply.

No municipal surface water intakes are located on the Delaware River downstreamof the confluence of the Lehigh River for at least five miles.

2.4.1.8 Delaware River

The Delaware River, of which the Lehigh River is one of the tributaries, has adrainage area that encompasses 12,765 square miles. The basin drainsapproximately one percent of land of the United States. The lands of the basincomprised of farm land, forest, urban and industrial areas, and marshlands.

The Delaware River Basin is formed at the confluence of the East and WestBranches of the Delaware near Hancock, New York. From that point, theDelaware River flows across the Appalachian Plateau through the Pocono andCatskill Mountains, approximately 76 miles. The upper reaches of the Delawarehave a steep gradient and are characterized by rapids and pools between steep-sided narrow valleys. At Port Jervis, the Delaware River flows approximately 44miles through the Minisink Valley to the Delaware Water Gap. From the DelawareWater Gap, the river cuts through the Appalachian Ridge, approximately 77 milesto Trenton. The Lehigh River flows into the Delaware River at Easton midwaybetween the Delaware Water Gap and Trenton.

From Trenton, New Jersey downstream 133.4 miles to the Atlantic Ocean, theriver is under tidal influence. The estuary zone is considered to be roughly fromTrenton to New Castle County, Delaware. Downstream of New Castle is normallyconsidered the bay zone.

2-26 /JR300I53

Final Draft

2.4.2 Surface HydrologyThe surface drainage evaluation has been prepared for the Industrial Lane area andis based on information depicted in figure 2.4-1. To facilitate this discussion, thestudy area has been divided into four watersheds which have been labeled aswatershed area nos. 1 through 4. Below is a description of area no. 1, along withthe accompanying important surface drainage features. Emphasis is on area no. 1,which contains the Chrin Landfill and the surrounding areas.

2.4.2.1 Watershed Area No. 1

The watershed area no. 1 encompasses approximately 220 acres. Significantfeatures within this area are the Chrin Landfill, the Metropolitan EdisonSubstation, the abandoned Lehigh Valley rail line, the abandoned quarry pit, thePennsalt/Easton Print area, and a portion of Glendon. These features will bediscussed in more detail in section 4.0 of this RI. Generally, the upslope watershedboundary originates at Morgan Hill at an approximate elevation of 826 feet aboveMSL. Slopes generally are moderate to steep and generally slope to the northwest.Surface runoff from the watershed drains into the Lehigh Canal at Glendon. Thelength of the watershed is approximately 5,700 feet, with an average width ofapproximately 2,400 feet. The predominant land use in the watershed is forestland. The Chrin Landfill is the second largest land use type in watershed area no.1. The elevation of the discharge point of the watershed into the Lehigh Canal isapproximately 190 feet above MSL.

There are four subdrainage area basins within watershed area no. 1. Thesesubdrainage areas and related characteristics are illustrated in figure 2.4-4.Subdrainage area A represents the headwaters of the watershed generally upslopeof the Chrin Landfill. This subdrainage area does include a portion of the futureexpansion area of the Chrin Landfill. Subdrainage area B is located in the centralpart of the watershed and includes the majority of the Chrin Landfill, the slagquarry pit, the Metropolitan Edison Substation, the abandoned Pennsalt property,and the Lehigh Valley rail line. Subdrainage area C is also located in the centralportion of the watershed downslope of the slag quarry pit. This area includes aportion of Giendon, a forested area, and a large seep area. Subdrainage area D isthe farthest downslope portion of the watershed adjacent to the Lehigh Canal.This area includes, primarily, Glendon, the forested topographic highs above SouthEaston, and the Lehigh Canal. Following is a more detailed description of eachsubdrainage area and related drainage characteristics.

2"27 ; HR3QQI59

Final Draft

Subdrainage areai A drains approximately 75 acres of the watershed. The majoriof the acreage in A is undisturbed forest land. Slopes in the forested areas are*steep, ranging between 28 and 29 percent. At the base of the forested area, theoperations of the Chrin Landfill have excavated into the hillside, forming a sharphighwall cut and an unlined drainage pathway at the base. This drainageway runsnortheast and discharges into the large sediment control basin depicted on figure2.4-4. The slope of the drainageway is approximately nine percent. Thedrainageway also receives a minimal amount of runoff from active portions of theChrin Landfill. The sediment trap in this subdrainage area is located in a naturallow area and does not have a formal embankment, or emergency spillway, etc. Thetrap does have a principal spillway consisting of a riser and barrel. Presently, thislow area is collecting all surface runoff from subdrainage area A. The pipedischarge from the sediment trap is into a drainageway adjacent to the abandonedPennsalt facility.

Subdrainage area B drains approximately 85 acres of the watershed. The majorityof the acreage within area B is associated with the activities of the Chrin Landfill.Slopes in the landfill area upslope of Industrial Drive range from 10 to 23 percentThe Chrin Landfill, including the closed area, the active area, the expansion aand the support area, accounts for approximately 50 acres of subdrainage area B.Surface drainage facilities utilized by the landfill upslope of Industrial Driveinclude a large rock-lined ditch which collects runoff from the landfill on theupslope side of Industrial Drive. This ditch runs southwest and discharges into asediment trap adjacent to Industrial Drive, southwest of the slag quarry pit. Thisdrainage ditch al«o collects the surface water runoff/discharge from subdrainagearea A. The sediment control basin along Industrial Drive discharges beneath thisroute by a pipe culvert with the water flowing into the slag quarry pit.

The Metropolitan Edison Substation is also located within subdrainage area B. Thisarea drains directly into the slag quarry pit by a drainageway which flows adjacentto Industrial Drive. The slope of the drainageway is approximately four percent.The estimated acreage of the substation and the area between the railroad tracksand Industrial Drive is approximately 13 acres.

fiR300!60

ft

Final Draft

The abandoned Pennsalt facility, located along Industrial Drive northeast of theChrin Landfill, is also a part of subdrainage area B. Surface runoff from thisfacility is primarily collected by the rock-lined ditch running along the base.of theChrin Landfill. Undoubtedly, some runoff from this area crosses Industrial Driveduring storms and enters the drainageway flowing adjacent to the electricsubstation.

The surface area of the slag quarry pit, located between the Chrin Landfill and theabandoned rail line, is approximately 10 acres. This surface depression areacollects all the surface runoff from subdrainage areas B and A. This depression hasno formal outlet structure. Water accumulates in the pit and evaporates orinfiltrates into the underlying rock strata or seeps through the abandoned rail gradeto areas of lower elevation located north of the rail grade. The elevation at thelow point of the pit is approximately 258 feet above MSL. The embankment(railroad bed) is at elevations approximately 300 feet above MSL. Therefore, thetotal depth is approximately 42 feet. The volume of this pit is over 650,000 cubicyards.

Subdrainage area C is located downslope of the Lehigh Valley rail line and drainsapproximately 30 acres. Slopes in area C range from 11 percent along thesouthwestern slopes to 18 percent along the northeastern slopes. A largeseep/spring area was identified during site visits conducted in this area for the RI.The origin of this seep is believed to be the standing water in the slag quarry pit.In addition, two drainageways feed the area of the seep. One originates along thebase of the railroad bed to the west, and the other originates along thesouthwestern spurs of the bed. All drainage from area C is channeled through alarge culvert beneath Franklin Street in Glendon. This culvert was installed by theoperators of the Chrin Landfill to facilitate excessive surface water runoff.

Subdrainage area D is the farthest downslope area of the watershed. This areaconsists of approximately 30 acres. The slopes above Glendon are approximatelyseven percent in a northeast direction and 8.6 percent to the southwest.

2-29

SR300I6I

/..(.i j i i ' ' !-»'•' f'"

V/' ^

-"'•~ ••—_-ll <Vl

•>. / s«•< x J ' •;

Sz

UJ

UJ

Final Draft

Demographic Considerations

2.5.1 Corporate Boundaries in Relation to Study Area Features

The Industrial Lane study area encompasses land areas which fall within severaldifferent political boundary classifications. The study area is entirely withinNorthampton County. Some features investigated within this RI are located inGlendon Borough and the city of South Easton. The vast majority of the site studyarea is within Williams Township.

Population distribution within the Industrial Lane study area is concentrated withinthe small communities of Lucy's Crossing and Glendon. Scattered residences aresituated on or around Morgan Hill and along Industrial Drive.

For descriptive and identification purposes, these communities will be referred tothroughout the context of this RI. The Lucy's Crossing area consists of the smallcommunity at the intersection of Island Road, Berger Road, and Morgan ValleyRoad. Though this community is situated entirely within the corporate limits ofGlendon, it will be considered as a separate community throughout this report.Glendon, located north of Lucy's Crossing and adjacent to the Lehigh River,extends northeastward to the South Easton Line. Within this report, Glendoni 'consists of those homes along Main Street, Front Street, Second Street, ThirdStreet, Franklin Street, and High Street. The corporate boundaries of Glendonwere established in 1867, during which time the town was considerably larger inboth population and developed land area. Since the closing of the Glendon IronWorks in 1896, the borough population has steadily declined, though corporate

- - - |— -

boundaries have remained unchanged. Morgan Hill includes the homes locatedalong Morgan Valley Road, Morvaie Road, Spring Valley Road, and Morgan HillRoad. Industrial Drive, from its intersection with Morgan Valley Road and theSouth Easton city line, is also considered. Both Morgan Hill and Industrial Driveare within Williams Township's jurisdiction.

AR300I63

Final Draft

2.5.2 Population Distribution within the Study Area

In an attempt to approximate the total population of the study area, the EPA-approved method of home counting adjusted by 3.4 persons per home will beutilized (3.4 persons per home is based on the EPA-approved Superfund HealthAssessment Manual, 1985). The communities described above have been identifiedon a May 1984 aerial map of the study area. Based on field observation to identifyhomes and non-inhabited buildings and on a total count of the buildings depicted onthe 1984 aerial map, the following population breakdown has been established forthe study area.

EPA Factorfor Average Persons Estimated

Community No. of Homes ___Per Home___ Population

Lucy's Crossing 15 3.4 51Glendon 35 3.4 119Industrial Drive 18 3.4 61Morgan Hill 84 3.4 286

Approximate Total Population 517

2.5.3 Population Trends

Population trends are significant when considering long-range planning andremedial alternatives. Tables 2.5-1 and 2.5-2 represent population trends forWilliams Township and Glendon Borough, respectively. Population figurespresented on these tables prior to 1980 are based on the United States census data.Projected population figures from 1980 to 2000 are based on Northampton County-Lehigh County Joint Planning Commission population projections.

2-32 AR300161*

I

J>•

CM

(SpUDSnOLjJ.)NOiivnndOd 6R300I65

CVJ

csUl

§

M C J C O < 0 ^ r N ^ C O < 0 < < r NO O O O

(spuosnoLji)NOUVindOd

2.34 AR300I66

Final Draft

2.6 Water Supply Investigation

Since groundwater contamination is the chief problem associated with the studyarea, the primary emphasis of the water supply investigation is the conclusivedocumentation of the prevalence of groundwater use wells within the study area.

As described, the focus of the RI has been the Chrin Landfill. Therefore, the watersupply investigation has been designed primarily to consider contamination fromthe landfill area. Evaluation of the Chrin Landfill, along with the physiographic,geologic, and hydrologic factors affecting contaminant migration from this area,permits identification of potential receptors as those located in areas of probableconcern and little or no concern.

The areas of concern have been identified as Lucy's Crossing, Glendon, and thewestern end of Industrial Drive. The areas of little or no concern have ~beenidentified as Morgan Hill and the eastern end of Industrial Drive.

Within Lucy's Crossing, Glendon, and the western end of Industrial Drive, particularattention was given to the identification of the total number of persons currentlyusing groundwater drawn from local wells and the location of the wells. For theremainder of the study area (eastern end of Industrial Drive and Morgan Hill), anattempt was made to qualitatively identify and describe the extent of home wellusage.

2.6.1 Public Water Supply Systems within the Study Area

Water supplies for users within the study area are developed from bothgroundwater-private domestic wells and from a public municipal distributionsystem. The public water system that extends into the study area is operated bythe Easton Area Suburban Water Company. Water supplies for this system arepurchased entirely from the city of Easton. The city of Easton Water Company inturn draws 100 percent of its water from an intake on the Delaware River. Thisintake is located approximately 1-1/2 miles up the Delaware River from theconfluence of the Delaware and Lehigh Rivers.

2.35 flR300!67

Final Draft

Easton Area Suburban Water Company distribution lines extend to all residentialareas of the Industrial Lane study area except Morgan Hill. Residents of MorganHill, therefore, depend entirely on private wells, cisterns, or bottled water fordomestic water needs. Though water lines exist within the communities of Lucy'sCrossing and Glendon, several individual home owners within these areas havechosen to use private wells. Figure 2.6-1- illustrates the general layout of theexisting Easton Area Suburban Water Company's public service district within thestudy area. Figure 2.6-2 illustrates the locations of confirmed drinking watersource wells within the study area.

2.6.2 Private Domestic Use Wells within the Study Area

2.6.2.1 Lucy's Croissing

The community of Lucy's Crossing has been identified as an area of concern.-Thiscommunity currently consists of 15 residential homes. As stated, public water isavailable to all homes in this community. In an attempt to document the locationand use of private wells within this community, a detailed water supplyquestionnaire was distributed to all 15 homes. Of the 15 questionnaires distributed,10 responses were obtained, resulting in a 67 percent survey response. The 10responses indicated the presence of 8 drinking water wells used within this area.One resident reported that well water was used for bathing and miscellaneoushousehold cleaning,, but it was not used for drinking. Utilizing the EPA's methodfor estimating population (3.4 persons per home times 8 homes equals 27 persons),27 persons are drinking groundwater drawn from local wells within the Lucy'sCrossing area. A summary of home well survey results is contained in Appendix D.(It should be clarified that, since five residental homes were not accounted forbased on survey response, the actual number of persons drinking groundwater inLucy's Crossing could be greater than the reported figures.)

2.36 AR300168

Final Draft

2.6.2.2. GlendonThe community of Glendon has also been identified as an area of concern. Thiscommunity currently consists of 35 residential homes. A detailed water supplyquestionnaire was also distributed to all the homes in this community. The surveyresponse for Glendon was less than 50 percent; therefore, a door-to-door personalinterview survey was required. Of the 35 homes within Glendon, 7 were found toutilize private wells for drinking water needs. The remaining 28 homes areserviced by a public water supply system. Interviews with home owners whoutilized wells indicate that the total number of persons drinking groundwater drawnfrom local wells within the Glendon area is 27.

2.6.2.3 Western End of Industrial DriveI

The western end of Industrial Drive has also been identified as an area of concern.The previously described water supply questionnaire was distributed to the threehomes located within this area. Additionally, the home owners were interviewedpersonally. It has been conclusively determined that, though two homes havepreviously used wells for drinking water supplies, a public water supply line nowprovides drinking water supplies to all homes in the area.

2.6.2.4 Morgan Hill

Since the Morgan Hill area is topographically upgradient from anticipated potentialsources of contamination, it is not expected to be an area of concern. However,based on historical documentation of area-wide, low-level groundwatercontamination and complex hydrogeologic conditions, it is significant to furtherdefine the current water supply situation for this community.

An estimated 84 homes have been identified within this community. The previouslydescribed water supply questionnaire was distributed to all these homes. Of the 84questionnaires distributed, 48 responses were obtained, resulting in a 57 percentsurvey response. The 48 responses indicated the presence of 46 drinking waterwells used within this area. One resident reported use of a cistern and one residentreported use of bottled water. See table 2.6-1 for a summary of the water supplyinvestigation data. (It should be noted that, since only 57 percent of thosesurveyed responded, the actual number of domestic wells may be greater.)

• • ' ' 2_37 AH300I69

z

mil .>\ ( ; L I . \ si, ,'fifi .TTT"- " / ••••':? ' \/ is/ / i •N I- - \T j ' \ ty it:;' '"' vg l g g U -f iViy ' • • 3\ '-Stg ' 1 :lIs 2 £ « i'/ ii" 'A.' s \ sss • -, •« ', i) • ]- ' • ! ' - • ' : | • ' ' ' v

OCQ<

>

AR300I70

ft <ooxx

_j

E0 UJ

Final Draft

Table 2.6-1WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION SUMMARY

1. 2. 3. 4.Total Homes No. of Identified Population PopulationIdentified Estimated Home Wells Used Served by Served by

Community in Community Population for Drinking Groundwater Public Water

Lucy'sCrossing 15 51 8 *27 24

Glendon 35 119 7 27 92

Industrial 18 61 0 0 61Drive

Morgan Hill 84 286 46 *156 **0

Totals 152 517 61 210 177

1. Homes have been identified based on recent (1984) aerial mapping of the study area and fieldverification.

2. Estimated population has been established by applying EPA-approved persons per home factorof 3.4 persons per home in order to total the number of homes identified.

3. Home wells in Lucy's Crossing and Morgan Hill have been identified through water supplyquestionnaire surveys. Home wells in Glendon and Industrial Drive have been identified bypersonal interviews with home owners.

4. Population served by groundwater in Lucy's Crossing and Morgan Hill is based on EPA-approved factor of 3.4 persons per home. Population served by groundwater in Glendon isbased on reports/statements made by home owners.

* Based on number of identified wells.

** Since the Easton Area Suburban Water Company does not service this community, the valuefor this column is 0.

2_w AR30QI72

Final Draft

2.7 Land Use

Land use within the study area is light industry, single-family dwellings, forests,and crop land. The light industry in the area includes the Chrin Landfill along withthe 10 other active industries. The single-family dwellings are concentrated in thecommunities of Glendon, Lucy's Crossing, and Morgan Hill. Forests occupy theland just east of the landfill that extends upward to Morgan Hill; and crop landoccupies land in Morgan Valley and Glendon. Descriptions of historical land useswithin the study area have already been discussed in section 1.0.

An aerial study, done by the Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center(EPIC) in 1983, determined a specific breakdown of 20 land uses within a 1.2-mileradius of the Chrin Landfill. For the purpose of the RI, the data from the 20specific categories presented in the EPIC study were consolidated to 9 generalcategories. The data are presented in table 2.7-1 and figure 2.7-1.

AR30QI73

LEGEND

I-CROPLAND . 3-RIVER2-FORESTLAND *-LANDFILLS 9-HISCELLANEOUS: CEHETARIES,Z FORE5TLAND 6-LANDFILLS EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES,3-SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 7-SAND/GRAVEL QOARRY PARKS/PLAYGROUNDS,

4-INDUSTRY . a-JUNK/SALVAGE YARDS

iUUKCt: EPIC

FIGURE 2,7-1LAMP USE MAPINDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION. NUS*NORTHAMPTON CO. .PA. |_\_jcarronAT|Qr

(NO SCALE) ft A Halttyton Company

Final Draft

Table 2.7-1

Land Use Within and SurroundingThe Industrial Lane Area*

Category Percent of total

Single-Family Dwelling 33 percent

Deciduous Forest 30 percent

Cropland 16 percent

Industry 8.3 percent

River/Stream (Lehigh) 3.7 percent

Landfilling 2.0 percent

Sand/Gravel Quarrying 1.2 percent

Junk/Salvage Yards 0.6 percent

Miscellaneous** 5.2 percent

* Categories were determined for a 1.2-mile radius surrounding the Chrin Landfill.

**Includes cemeteries, educational facilities, parks/playgrounds, and vacant land.

A'R30GJ75

Final Draft

2.7.1 Future Use of the Area

As described, the study area is currently characterized as a combined residentialand industrial use sector. Though property owners within the area have not beencontacted and surveyed for proposed future land uses, the guidelines produced inthe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and corresponding township zoningordinance requirements will, in most cases, determine future land use.

According to Williams Township officials, the sector along Industrial Drive, whichextends from the intersection of Morgan Valley Road to Morgan Hill Road, iscurrently zoned for light industry and scattered residences. Proposed future zoningof this area includes no major changes. Those areas which make up the sectorsalong Morgan Valley Road, Morvale Road, and Morgan Hill Road are currentlyzoned residential. Future zoning of this area includes no major changes.

The most notable changes to the area are expected to occur along the proposed I-78 right-of-way corridor, which extends east to west approximately 850 feet northof Industrial Drive near the Chrin Landfill. Currently, these areas are zonedmostly residential with some light industry. Proposed future land use of this areawill undoubtedly be influenced by proposed zoning changes, which include thedevelopment of a commercial district along the 1-78 corridor.

Proposed future use of the landfill area has been well defined by Chrin Brothers,Incorporated. The site will be utilized, if applicable permit applications areapproved, for continued solid waste management. Specifically, the existingsanitary landfill will be closed. A methane gas recovery system, portions of whichare already in place at the landfill, will be utilized (proposed). The methane gascapture system will collect methane for direct conveyance to electrical generatorsfor power conversion. The electric generation facility will be located within thewestern section of the closed portion of the landfill. Proposed plans also call forthe development of a resource recovery facility including materials recoverycapabilities (such as paper and glass), and/or a mass burning incinerator withenergy recovery capabilities. These facilities are proposed to be located within theclosed, western portion of the landfill. Approximately 10 acres of property,located east and adjacent to the existing landfill, have been proposed for continuedacceptance of municipal solid waste and demolition wastes.

2-44

AR300176

Final Draft

2*3 Natural Resources

The general natural resource inventory of the Industrial Lane area includes a briefsummary of such natural attributes as surface waters, groundwaters, mineralassets, and plant and animal resources. Though all of these factors are described indetail within the other sections of this report, this section will serve to describethese factors within the context of their intrinsic value to the general population.

By far the most valuable of these factors are surface water and groundwater.Available information indicates that a large portion of the general population ofWilliams Township depends on groundwater for drinking water and general domesticuse. Within the Industrial Lane study area, groundwater is currently the onlysource of drinking water for those residents along Morvale Road, Spring ValleyRoad, and Morgan Hill Road. As previously described, several homes in Lucy'sCrossing and in Glendon also depend on groundwater for domestic needs.

Surface waters within the Industrial Lane area include Morgan Valley Creek andthe Lehigh River/Canal. Morgan Valley Creek, due to low flow characteristics, haslittle value for recreation. The Lehigh River and the adjoining Lehigh River Canalflow through the northern portion of the Industrial Lane study area. The canal wasonce used extensively for transportation of raw materials and products, supportingthe industrial and commercial growth of the Easton/Phiilipsburg area. Currently,the canal is an important recreational attraction. The Lehigh River also hasimportant recreational value, in addition to its significant flow contribution to theDelaware River. (The confluence of the Lehigh River with the Delaware River isapproximately 2-1/2 miles downstream from the Industrial Lane area ) The City ofEaston Water Authority, which supplies drinking water to a majority of thepopulation in and around Easton, utilizes as its only water source an intake on theDelaware River. This intake is located approximately 1-1/2 miles upstream fromthe Lehigh River/Delaware River confluence. Both the Lehigh and the DelawareRivers are considered Warm Water Fisheries, with the Delaware River alsoprotected for Migratory Fishes along its entire length.

2-45

Final Draft

Natural soils of the Industrial Lane area are grouped into four soil series: thaWashington, the Conestoga, the Hollinger, and the Conestoga and HollingerSpecific characteristics of these series have been presented in section 7.1 of thisRI. Existing topographic features and activities by man, including filling andquarrying, have strongly influenced soil types within the area. Agricultural use ofthese soils is limited by the high erosion hazards created by indiscriminate tilling.However, these soils are generally suited for raising crops. Limitations forselected development of these soil areas (home placement, septic system use, landfill use) are determined by topographic and slope conditions. Generally, the levelareas with slopes from zero to five percent have slight to moderate limitations forland use development, while the steeper sloped areas exhibit gradually increasinglimitations with increased slopes. Refer to figure 7.1-1 for summary map ofexisting soils within the study area.

Northampton County is rich in mineral resources. Deposits of both metallic andnonmetallic minerals have been extensively exploited. Iron ore, in particular, hasplayed an important role in the mineral extraction industry of the area.Additionally, cement rock, limestone, and slate have been extensively quarried iNorthampton County.

Although there are currently no mineral extraction activities within the IndustrialLane area, historical accounts and abandoned quarries indicate an influentialpresence of these activities within the past 100 years. Historical aerialphotographs and current topographic maps illustrate the location of three quarriesand at least two gravel pits located within two miles of the Industrial Lane area.Historical deeds and reports from residents and state officials also indicate theoccurrence of iron ore mining (deep mines or pits) within the immediate vicinity ofIndustrial Drive. In addition, slag, resulting from previous smelting activities, hasbeen quarried in the area.

It is also significant to consider the historical mining that occurred along IndustrialDrive at the base of Morgan Hill (see section 1.0 for more details). Iron ore wasextracted from the mines and sent by wagon or tramway to the Glendon Iron Worksacross the canal., at the present location of Hugh Moore Park. Slag from themelting process was returned to the mines along Morgan Hill.

2'46 6R300178

Final Draft

Plant and animal resources within the area currently have low to moderateeconomic value. However, their intrinsic aesthetic qualities are important inmaintaining livable standards for the area's population.

j

Of the land use within the Industrial Lane area, approximately 16 percent isdevoted to agricultural use. A large portion of the study area is also forested,making the possibility of small scale timbering operations viable.

Published classification for wetlands and aquifers are described below:i

o According to the published definition of national wetlands, FederalRegister 40 CFR appendix C, the land areas within the the Industrial Lanearea do not qualify as wetlands. The National Wetlands Inventory publishedby the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serviceconfirmed that no wetlands occur in the area.

o The groundwater system for the Industrial Lane area has not beenclassified as a sole source aquifer, according to the EPA Water SupplyDivision and according to the PA DER Regional Office.

Finally, existing woodlands and vegetation cover maintain habitat for typicalnortheast Pennsylvania wildlife. In addition to the previously described aestheticqualities of the wildlife population, the wildlife is important as a recreation factorfor local sportsmen.

2.9 Critical Habitat

A review of the available information indicates that no state or federally listedendangered or threatened species are known to permanently or seasonally reside inthe area investigated. Two endangered bird species are known to migrate throughthe region. These species, the bald eagle (Halineetus leucocephalus) and theAmerican peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus ana turn), are both present on the~~"~~"~ ifederal listing and the former is also present on the state list. Only the bald eaglehas been reported to stop briefly within the area. No portions of the area havebeen formally designated as a critical habitat, for either species.

BR30QI79

Final Draft

2.10 Climatology

Climatological data utilized for the preparation of this section have been providedby National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. The data have beenrecorded from weather stations located at the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (ABE)Airport, which is approximately 15 miles west of Easton.

Within this area of Pennsylvania, a modified climate prevails, characterized bymoderate temperatures and ample precipitation. The bulk of the precipitationoccurs during summer months. The growing season for the area begins in late Apriland ends in October, an average of 177 days per year. Though, on the average,temperatures seldom exceed 100°F, average humidity is high, creatinguncomfortable conditions during normal summer periods. Average summertemperatures normally are in the high 60s to low 70s. The coldest times of theyear are recorded during December, January, and February, when temperatures areusually below freezing. Average winter temperatures are normally in the high 20sto low 30s. Weather conditions from 1955 to 1984 are presented in table 2.10.1.

Wind patterns in the area, as recorded at the ABE Airport, indicate a prevailingwind direction from the west, with a 20-year mean wind speed of 9.2 miles perhour. Local topography may influence the actual wind patterns within the studyarea. The measurement of wind speed and direction at one location in the studyarea, however, did confirm the wind patterns recorded from the ABE Airport asbeing generally applicable to the study area. During the collection of air sampleson November 7, 1985, the FIT personnel recorded wind speeds of zero to four milesper hour (mph) from the west.

2-48

AR300I80

f>

Final Draft

Table 2.10.1

Weather Conditions as Recorded at the ABE AirportMonthly Mean Values from 1955 to 1984

MonthParameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec /

Temp. 27.3 29.6 38.6 49.8 60.0 69.3 74.0 72.1 64.7 53.8 42.7 31.5 5(op)

i

Total 3.22 2.95 3.68 3.95 4.06 3.77 4.24 4.28 3.79 2.86 3.62 3.67 4Precip.(in.)

Snowfall 8.3 9.2 6.1 0.8 trace 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 6.8 3

2'49 A R 3 0 0 I 8 I

Final Draft

2.11 Features Summary

The Industrial Lane study area is situated on the boundary of two physiographicprovinces, the Ridge and Valley and New England Upland Provinces. Topography ischaracterized by hills and valleys. The Chrin Landfill area is heavily influenced bycut and fill activities.

The study area is situated over rocks of the Cambrian/Precambrian era. A majorstructural feature, the Musconetcong fault, dissects the central portion of thestudy area. In general, the geologic setting of the study area is very complex,adding considerable uncertainties to the ultimate definition and description ofhydrogeologic conditions.

Surface waters and hydrologic conditions within the study are such that fiveseparate drainage basins can be identified. The Chrin Landfill is situated within awatershed with boundaries entirely within the study area. Adjoining watershedareas extend beyond the limits of the study area. Morgan Valley Creek, anunnamed tributary which drains the Chrin Landfill area, the Lehigh River, andLehigh River Canal, are the chief surface water drainageways or surfacemigration pathways associated with the study area.

The estimated population of the study area is 517. The population of the studyarea is concentrated in the communities of Lucy's Crossing, Glendon, Morgan Hill,and Industrial Drive. Lucy's Crossing and Glendon are within the Glendon Boroughcorporate bounds. Morgan Hill and Industrial Drive are within Williams Township.The entire Industrial Lane study area is within Northampton County. Thecommunities of Lucy's Crossing, Glendon, and the western end of Industrial Drivehave been identified as probable areas of concern based on historical informationand physical, geologic, and hydrologic conditions.

Water supplies fot1 the population within the study area are developed from bothprivate domestic use wells and from a public municipal distribution system. Over40 percent of the population of the study area uses groundwater drawn from wellswithin the study area for drinking water supplies.

2-506R300182

I

(A

Final Draft

Land use within the study area is combined light industry, single family dwellings,forest lands, crop land, and commerce. Future land use of the study area will bestrongly influenced by the proposed construction of Interstate 78. The interstateright-of-way corridor bisects the north central portion of the study area.

The chief natural resources of value within the study area are groundwater andsurface water. The mining of iron ore from Morgan Hill during the mid-i800s hasinfluenced the industrial development of Easton. Plant and wildlife resourceswithin the study area provide important aesthetic qualities.

There are no critical habitats or endangered species within the study area. Withinthe northeastern area of Pennsylvania, a modified climate prevails, characterizedby moderate temperatures and ample precipitation. Average summer temperaturesrange in the high 60s to low 70s. Winter temperatures range in the high 20s to low30s. The total annual precipitation ranges from 0 to 16 inches per year. A 1-year,24-hour rainfall for the area is 2.4 inches.

2-51

AR300I83

Final Draft

REFERENCES

1. Joint Planning Commission, Lehigh-Northampton Counties. Water Supply andSewage Facilities Plan Update. 1979, 1980.

2. Kerzner, Stuart, EPA Water Supply Division, with Richard Gorrell, NUS FITIII. Tellecon. December 12, 1985.

3. Miller, Benjamin LeRoy, et al., Pennsylvania Geological Survey. NorthamptonCounty, Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, 1939.

4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental DataService. Climate of Pennsylvania. National Climatic Center,Asheville, NC, June 1982.

5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental DataService. Climate of Pennsylvania. National Climatic Center,A she vi lie, NC, 1984.

6. 1980 United States Census. As quoted in: Rand McNally. CommercialReference Map and Guide; Pennsylvania. Rand McNally and Company,New York. 1983.

7. 1970 United States Census. As quoted in: Jung, Arthur, et al., VERSAR,Incorporated. Remedial Action Master Plan: Industrial Lane Site.1984.

8. Rothstein, Phil, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, withRichard Gorrel, NUS FIT III. Telecon. December 12, 1985.

9. United State:; Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. SoilSurvey of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. July 1984.

2-52

AR300I814

Final Draft

10. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National__Wetlands Inventory for Easton, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Aerial- photography. November 1975.

11. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental PhotographicInterpretation Center (EPIC). Chrin Brothers Landfill SiteInvestigation. December 1983.

2-53

^ AR300185

*

AR300I86

ftFinal Draft

3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OVERVIEW

This section summarizes the development of the sampling program to obtain datafor the evaluation of each potential route of contaminant migration and impactupon possible receptors. Specific sampling results will be discussed in detail insectfons 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 of this report. This section will discuss sampleresults on a general basis, concluding with the development of a list of criticalcontaminants detected in environmental samples. These contaminants will bediscussed in greater detail in the following section of this report and in theendangerment assessment (EA), submitted under separate cover.

3.1 Sample Location Methodology_____4^__^_____-_______^________kM. ,

In selecting sample locations, four major factors were considered: potentialcontaminant migration pathways and possible exposure routes; historical analyticalresults and their reliability; past and present land use patterns with respect toimpacting migration routes; and provision of supplemental data necessary for thefeasibility study (FS). The following subsections will present discussions of thesample locations selected for each medium or migration route. Samples wereobtained from the following media: surface waters and sediments, surface soils,air, groundwater, and subsurface soils. ,

3.1.1 Surface Waters and Sedimentsi

The surface waters/sediment sampling program was designed to determine thenature and extent of study area contaminants within local surface waters. Asdiscussed in section 2.4, various drainage basins were identified within the studyarea. The drainage pathways within these basins were sampled at locations thatwould provide evidence of contamination by local runoff. Sample locations wereselected along the Lehigh River and Canal in order to evaluate the quality ofsurface water discharging from the study area. Additionally, these locations wereselected to establish background levels for the river and canal, which woulddetermine if they were affecting water quality within the study area. An area ofimpounded water was identified and sampled within the abandoned Pennsaltfacility.

AR300187

Final Draft

A total of 19 surface water/sediment locations were designated to be sampledduring the remedial investigation (RI). Aqueous and sediment samples (whereavailable) were be collected from all locations. Refer to figures 3.1-1, 3.1-2, and3.1-3 for sample locations.

3-2 fiR300l88

DOWNSTREAMLEHIGH RIVER

./." A*./CANALDOWNSTREAM

CREEK INGLENDON

CANAL BELOWMORGAN CREEK

DOWNSTREAMMORGAN CREEK

CANAL ABOVEMORGAN CREEK

LEHIGH RIVERNEAR DAM ENTRANCE TO

CANAL WESTENTRANCE TOCANAL EASTUPSTREAM

LEHIGH RIVERASHLAND'SDISCHARGE

UPSTREAMMORGAN CREEK

RIVER/CANAL/STREAM SAMPLE LOCATION MAP FIG'3''"'INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION. I r4-

NORTHAMPTON CO., PA.(SCALE ABOVE)

CORPORATION4 fi 3 0 0 I 89 / A Halliburton Company

AR300190

toIfO6

<UJ

Z'gzUJ

COCO,UJ a\ u0| ,_i o

GO

UJ

co

°'UJ*!*

UJ

oO

ori w

UJoz>o( z

u.1cc3CO

Lft

03UJ|:

LU

A R 3 0 0 I 9 I

Final Draft3.1.2 Surface SoUst and Unknown Substance

The surface soils and unknown substance sampling program was designed to identifylocalized areas of contamination or "hot spots." The selection of these locationswas based primarily on historical information and field observations. The majorityof these locations were within the abandoned Pennsalt facility. In addition, a soilsample was obtained from a local garden. This location was selected becausehistorical information indicated that well water used in the garden wascontaminated. Eight locations were designated to be sampled during the RI (referto figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 for sample locations).

3.1.3 Leachate

The sampling investigation included collection of leachate samples from theleachate interceptor system currently in place at the Chrin Landfill. Leachatesamples were drawn from a location/component of the leachate interceptor systemwhich contains combined leachate flows generated from the entire fill area.Samples were analyzed for full scan organic and inorganic priority pollutants iorder to characterize the leachate in relation to the area groundwatecontamination.

3.1.4 Air

The air sampling program was designed to identify and quantify any volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) present in the ambient air throughout the study area.The selection of sample collection locations was based primarily on the prevailingwind direction with respect to the study area. Sample collection locations wereselected so that a background was established for both a westerly andnorthwesterly wind, which are reported by the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (ABE)Airport to be the prevailing wind directions from the main study area and the ChrinLandfill. A total of nine locations were designated to be sampled during the RI(refer to figure 3.1-4 for air sample locations).

3-6 AR300192

oCJ

oJ-Q.

II-c:O

COd2<OICOUJ>z:

CO

usUJ<rUJ

a:CO

LJ

03

LU

Final Draft3.1.5 Groundwater

The single most important activity in determining contamination levels in the studyarea was the groundwater sampling program. Groundwater contamination wasidentified as the major concern within this area, with particular concern for thecontinued use of groundwater by local residents via private home wells. As such,the groundwater sampling program was designed to identify and quantifycontamination, especially any home wells, so that migration pathways andappropriate health concerns could be addressed. Various locations throughout thestudy area were designated to be sampled during the investigation. These locationsconsisted of two types: private home wells and groundwater monitoring wells.These locations are discussed individually in the following subsections. (Refer tofigure 3.1-5 for location of all groundwater sample locations.)

3.1.5.1 Private Home Wells

Private home well sampling locations were selected based on severalconsiderations. The primary consideration was the results of previous sampling (investigations. These investigations identified contamination of home wells inGlendon, in Lucy's Crossing, along Industrial Drive, and on Morgan Hill (refer toappendix C for summaries of previous samplings). The second consideration wasthe recommendations of Dr. Richard R. Parizek, consulting hydrogeologist for SaveOur Lehigh Valley Environment (S.O.L.V.E.), who recommended the sampling of 31home wells within the area, on the basis of theorized groundwater flow directions.The final consideration was based on the responses received from the home wellwater supply investigation survey. The questionnaires that were received provideddetails of well construction and also provided permission to obtain water samples(refer to section 2.0 for more information on home well locations and theprevalence of private well use within the study area; see appendix D for thetabulated results of this survey).

fiR300i9i»

Final Draft

A total of 37 private home wells were designated to be sampled during theInvestigation. These locations were in the following areas:

o Nine homes in Lucy's Crossingo Nine homes along Morgan Valley Roado Eight homes on Morgan Hillo Four homes in Glendono Four homes along Berger Roado Three homes along Industrial Drive

For a tabulated list of the private home wells sampled, see table 3.1-1. Refer tofigure 3.1-5 for a map depicting the locations of the private home wells sampled.

TABLE 3.1-1

Private Home Well Sampling Locations

Area Home Owner Name/Number

Lucy's Crossing Summermill-Fretz/1F. Ebner/2Lilly/3Mineo/5Klotz/7Gardner/8Krecker/9Kelm/10Washburn/12

Morgan Valley Road Dieh/28Miiler-Elliott/31Hendricks/33Lutzi/34Cascioii/36Fretz/39Sandt-Fischer/51English/64Thatcner/114

3-9 AR300f95

Final Draft

TABLE 3.1-1 (continued)

Area__ Home Owner Name/Number

Morgan Hill Purdy/79McGinley/123Lasagio/125Korhammer/127Deegan/128Vandergrift/130Boylan/131Mueller/132

Giendon Moser/893. Ebner/95Hodge, Sr./lOOHodge, Jr./101

Berger Road Crivellaro/18White/21Powell/23Seip/24

Industrial Drive R. Cressman/87Tombler/107Pfister/108

3-10 AR300I96

AR300I97

Final Draft

3.1.5.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells

To initiate this phase of the investigation, all the locations of existing groundwatermonitoring wells were reviewed. These locations were evaluated for usefulness,based on geology and hydrogeology, well construction information, and previoussampling results. Subsequently, 17 existing locations were selected that werestrategically situated within the study area.

o Eight landfill monitoring wells-sample name/map reference: C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-6, C-8, C-9, and C-10

o Three industrial wells located north of the Chrin Landfill-sample name/map reference: Andy's Well (AN), Purity Zinc, and Dynatheren

o Four monitoring wells, located at Ashland Chemical Company-sample name/map reference: A-l, A-2, A-3, and A-4 ^^

o Two production wells at Ashland Chemical Company-sample name/map reference: Production Well No. 1 and Production Well No. 2

To supplement the hydrogeologic and groundwater quality data available fromexisting wells, eight locations within the area were selected for monitoring wellinstallations. Table 3.1-2 summarizes the geologic formations and locations wherenew wells were installed. This table also presents well construction detail.

3-12 AR300198

f>TABLE 3.1-2

NEW MONITORING WELL INFORMATION

HISTORICAL POSSIBLE SUPPLE- AREA«: CONTAMI- SOURCE MENTAL MONI-

WELL FOCtATlON NATION I.D. FLOW FLOW TORED TYPE

N-i Allentown Yes Yes Yes* No Glendon 2

N-2 Tomstown/ Yes Yes No Yes*» L.F. 2Hardyston

N-3 Alientown Yes No Yes No L.Crossing 2

N-* Byram No No Yes No M. Ridge 1Gneiss

N-5 Tomstown No No No Yes L.Crossing 1

N-6 Tomstown Yes Yes No Yes L.F. 2

N-7 Tomstown No Yes Yes No Industrial 2j ' Area

N-8 Tomstown No Yes Yes No L.F. 2

*Bolded print indicates primary reason for installation**Replaced existing monitoring well C-l

WELL TYPESTYPE I

MONITORING WELL CONSTUCTION DETAILS

3-13

AR300199

Final Draft

3.1.6 Subsurface Soil Samples

Subsurface soil samples were obtained during the drilling program. The primaryreason for obtaining these samples was to provide a visual description of theformation being encountered during drilling. Additionally, samples were obtainedfor field monitoring of organic vapors and for laboratory analysis. This wouldassist in the identification of "hot spots" or the location of a plume that may havebeen encountered during drilling. Discrete samples were obtained at each drillinglocation. All samples were obtained by means of a split spoon barrel sampler, atdepths specified by the NUS field representative. A total of 239 split spoonsamples were collected during the drilling program. Selected samples from eachboring were submitted to the laboratory for screening analysis to determinepotential contaminant "hot spots." A discussion on this screening procedure andthe results are presented in section 3.4.1.

3.2 Sampling and Analysis

Samples were collected in a series of three rounds in order to account for seasonalvariations and in order to provide a data base. During the first two rounds, alldesignated locations except the air sampling locations were sampled. Upon reviewof the data from the first two rounds, selected locations were eliminated from thethird round of sampling due to insignificant contamination levels. All sampling wasconducted according to the approved Site Operations Plan and EPA protocols. Thesampling dates for the three rounds of sampling were as follows:

o First round - December 1984 through January 1985o Second round - May 1985o Third round - August 1985o Air samples - November 1985

j.» AR300200

Final Draft

All samples collected were analyzed through EPA's National Contract LaboratoryProgram (CLP) in accordance with EPA-approved protocols. All aqueous, air, andsolid samples were analyzed for the complete Hazardous Substance List (HSL)parameters. Additional parameters of total organic carbon (TOO, chemicaloxygen demand (COD), and total dissolved solids (TDS) were also included in theanalysis of all aqueous samples obtained. Selected home wells within the area werealso analyzed for fecal coliform. The purpose of this analysis was to determine ifon-lot septic systems were impacting private drinking water sources. All aqueoussamples obtained were analyzed for pH and conductivity in the field, prior toshipping the samples to the laboratory.

I

3.3 Data Review

All sample results received a rigorous quality assurance review. The reviews wereconducted in accordance with the most recent EPA-approved protocols. Allqualitatively confident analytical data are presented in appendix A. The data thatappear in the appendix have been footnoted in cases of quantitative uncertainty orbias. A complete listing of laboratory-reported results and descriptions of themagnitude of bias for certain results are presented in appendix B.

3.4 General Overview of Sample Results

A wide variety of organic and inorganic constituents was detected at the IndustrialLane site. All inorganic constituents analyzed for were detected at varyingconcentrations in both aqueous and solid samples. Organic compounds detectedwere mostly of the chlorinated aliphatic, aromatic, and polyaromatic hydrocarbon(PAH) classes. In addition, a variety of tentatively identified compounds weredetected at varying concentrations. The inorganic and organic data results,including tentatively identified compounds, are presented in appendix A.

3-15 AR300201

Final Draft

3.1.1 Screening Procedures and Results

Analyses of split spoon samples obtained during the drilling program wereperformed in order to more clearly define potential contaminant concentrationgradients and/or to identify a point source of contamination. The inorganicanalysis of these samples was performed by the CLP. In order to attain a quickturn-around (less than 15 days) of analytical results for a large number of samplesin a cost-effective manner, GC screening for volatile (VOA) base neutral and acid(BNA) and pesticide compounds was performed on samples obtained during thedrilling program.

This quick turn-around screening was to provide the field crews with timely data inorder to modify sampling and drilling procedures if needed. The organic screeningresults indicated that discernible concentrations of VOCs were not present in anyof the 160 samples which were submitted to the laboratory for analysis.

Inorganic compounds were also identified in these samples at varying Iconcentrations. The inorganic results are presented in appendix A, andcorresponding quality assurance reviews are presented in appendix B.

3-16 AR300202

Final Draft

3.5 Evaluation of Contaminants Identified

The contaminants identified during the RI, through sampling and analysis, wereevaluated in a systematic manner designed to identify any potential public healthor environmental hazards associated with the contaminants. Due to the largenumber of contaminants detected during the investigation, it was necessary toselect a manageable number of these for use in the appraisal of migration routesand receptors. This screening process is necessary in order to focus subsequenteffects in the endangerment assessment process on a few, representative, selectedcontaminants, as described in the Endangerment Assessment Handbook (EPA,1985). The goal of this evaluation was to select the contaminants which encompassall the relevant physiochemical and toxicological properties of the contaminantspresent at the site. This evaluation considered historical data as well as datacollected during the RI.

Prior to the evaluation of individual contaminants, the collected data were firstevaluated as a whole to determine whether they were representative andcharacteristic for each environmental medium (air, soil, surface, and groundwater).Representative data were defined as those data collected over a sufficiently largearea to reflect the actual conditions for those media at the time of sampling.Characteristic data were defined as those data collected over a sufficient period oftime to establish baseline conditions for those media.

The comprehensive list of identified contaminants, applicable to all samplelocations, was then subjected to a two-phase evaluation process.

M7 /IR300203

Final Draft

The first phase of the evaluation process consisted of tabulating the contaminants'identified at each sample location, for each medium and their respectiveconcentration ranges. These concentrations were then compared to typicalenvironmental background levels, and available standards, advisories, and otherguidance document;, to identify elevated concentrations of contaminants. Thosecontaminants consistently identified were further evaluated to determine if theiroccurrence could be related to specific or point sources of contamination. Theobjectives of this evaluation process were to narrow the field of contaminantsidentified to those that best reflect migration potential, provided information onarea conditions, were present at elevated concentrations, were detected withgreatest frequency;, are persistent, or were the most toxic. The contaminantswhich were identified through this evaluation were then evaluated in relation tothe migration pathways and the potential exposure routes for each environmentalmedium considering the method developed by EPA's Office of Emergency andRemedial Response and delineated in the Superfund Public Health AssessmentManual (ICF, 1985). This evaluation considered the significant public healtheffects and toxicological potential based on the distribution and Concentrations ofthe contaminants present. The potential public health and environmental concerns'were then defined for each contaminant. Since domestic well contaminationproblems had been identified in the past, the detailed description of public healthand environmental concerns was directed towards groundwater; however, eachmedium was evaluated with equal regard to the potential public health andenvironmental concerns. As a result of this further hazard evaluation, a subset ofcontaminants was identified. These select indicator chemicals or contaminants ofconcern are chloroform, trichloroethene, benzene, lead, arsenic, zinc, andchromium. These compounds are the contaminants that were identified as posingthe greatest potential hazards to human health and/or the environment. They areregarded as critical contaminants of concern and were selected for the purpose ofassessing present and potential endangerment.

3-18/1R30020**

Final Draft

In summary, all contaminants and their concentrations were tabulated. Thesecontaminants were then evaluated based on various considerations, includingranges, frequency of occurrence, distribution, mobility, and toxicity, and a sublistof contaminants of concern was developed. Tabulated below is the final list of thecontaminants of concern which will be addressed throughout the remainder of theRI. (For more information pertaining the selection of the contaminants of concern,refer to the endangerment assessment.)

benzene trichloroethenechloroform leadchromium zincarsenic

3-19 AR300205

flR300206

i Final Draft4.0 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION

».l Introduction

As previously stated, the chief problem associated with the Industrial Lane studyarea is low-level groundwater contamination. Because of the proximity of ChrinLandfill, it has been implicated as the probable point source of this contamination.However, based on the areal extent of the Industrial Lane study area, existingphysical and geologic conditions, and the historical industrial development of theland areas within the study area, the possibility of other potential sources ofcontamination existing and contributing to the identified contamination problemmust be considered.

Although the focus of this remedial investigation (RI) has been the Chrin Landfill,efforts were also directed at identifying other potential sources of contamination.This section will be presented as an objective inventory of these potential sources.An in-depth investigation of each potential source was not within the scope of thisRI. Data obtained pertaining to each potential source will, however, be consideredand incorporated into those sections of the report which describe sample resultsand routes and receptors.

This portion of the RI has been accomplished through reviews of pertinent availableliterature, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PA DER) fileinformation, personal interviews, and field investigations. Figure 4.1-1 illustrates

ithe location of the potential sources. The Chrin Landfill will be examined in moredetail in section 5.0.

AR300207

oO

OO.S<

COUJO

015<

tr

oo03CO

UJIUi

UJ

<

gtrCO

'AR300208

— Final Draft

4.2 Other Potential Sources of Contamination Within The Study Area

4.2.1 Pennsalt/Easton Print Area

This potential source consists of an abandoned industrial area located adjacent toand east of the Chrin Landfill. Reconnaissance of this area has revealed that,currently, the area consists of at least two separate properties. The westernmostarea has been identified as the previous site of Pennsalt Corporation. The easternproperty is currently the abandoned site of the Easton Print Company.Reconnaissance of these areas during the RI revealed the presence of numerousabandoned buildings, equipment, and related industrial use support equipment. Alsoobserved within this area were several large piles of solidified slag. A review ofavailable historical aerial photographs reveals that the area was heavily influencedby industrial activities during the 1940s. Reportedly, the entire area was owned bythe Sterling Products Company and the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company.These companies allegedly manufactured acidic compounds and products.Information pertaining to the history of these companies has not been extensivelydeveloped in this report.

• , • - - . - . ! _ , . , - _ , , . -

Little substantial information exists that documents the type of materials whichwere or may have been released to the environment from the Pennsalt area.Likewise, little historical information is available to document the type andquantity of finished products generated at this facility. Reports from localresidents include the probable release of a caustic/acidic air contaminant duringthe early 1950s, which stripped the leaves from the surrounding woodlands onMorgan Hill. Additionally, liquid acidic wastes were also reportedly pumped downa well within the area.

A review of the historical aerial photographs reveals that a substantial quantity ofmaterials, both solid and liquid, were stored on site. Landfilling activities havebeen identified within the eastern area, near the Easton Print warehouse. Alsoobservable on these photographs are tank areas with evidence of spillage, openliquid storage areas, and large piles of unidentifiable solids. The photographs,covering the time period from 1947 to 1983, indicate that the most intensiveactivities probably occurred between 1947 and 1964.

i r

4-3---" ~ AR300209

Final Draft

Based on the historical use of this land area, it is concluded that thePennsalt/Easton Print area should be considered a potential source of regionalgroundwater contamination. Since there are no single surface drainage dischargepoints or major surface drainage patterns to convey contamination from thePennsalt area, the groundwater migration route will be considered as the majorroute of concern.

4.2.2 Glendon Iron Works

This area, now the location of the Hugh Moore Memorial Park, is locatedapproximately 2,400 feet northwest of Industrial Drive. Prior to the turn of thecentury, this facility operated as an iron ore smelter consisting of five furnaces.Available historical documentation indicates that the smelter was in operationfrom 1840 to 1896.

The smelting of iron ore via open harth technology produces many aircontaminants, including lead, zinc, and iron. Although current air pollution^emission control standards regulate widespread contamination from existing*smelting operations, no such regulations existed during the late 1800s and early1900s. Physiographic conditions and prevailing wind directions may, therefore,have contributed to the dispersion and eventual accumulation of lead, zinc, andiron within the surrounding area.

Considering the type of operation and lack of emissions controls, and based onpresent-day conditions, the major route of contamination migration associated withthe Glendon Iron Works is widespread surface soil contamination.

4.2-3 Taylor Tank Cleaning

The Taylor Tank Cleaning Company, located along Industrial Drive east of theChrin Landfill, is an active facility involved with the cleaning and maintenance ofvarious types of containment tanks.

fiRSOOZIO

f>

Final Draft

PA DER has reported that descriptions of waste types associated with the site areunknown. A variety of tank trucks have been observed at the site, and siteemployees have been seen cleaning tanks over open ground areas. No containmentmeasures have been observed by RI personnel, at the site.

Significant potential exists for this site to be a contributor of contaminants withinthe Industrial Drive area. The current lack of descriptive information pertaining tothe site makes further evaluation within the context of this report impossible;however, the major route of contamination migration from this area would be viagroundwater.

4.2.4 Robert Cressman Property

PA DER reports that, during the summer of 1984, the agency supervised theremoval of a 2,000-gallon storage tank from the property of an Industrial Laneresident. Reportedly, the tank was utilized by a previous property owner as acomponent of a dip and strip process. (Details pertaining to the type of dip andstrip operation have not been identified.)

PA DER reports that the contents of the tank were observed as a dark brown liquidwhich emitted a pesticide odor. Local residents have reported that liquid contentsfrom the tank spilled, killing grass in areas of contact. Further descriptions of thetank contents are not available.

The tank was reportedly removed, along with its residual contents. The extent ofresidual contamination remaining in soils and/or groundwater has not beeninvestigated. Additionally, a well located at this property was recently sampledby PA DER. Analytical results indicated the presence of several volatile organiccompounds. PA DER has since advised the home owner not to utilize the wellwater for drinking water purposes. No positive connection has been made betweenthe tank and the contaminated well. Because of this, the potential for theCressman property to be a source of residual contamination exists. Localgroundwater and soils are the migration routes of concern.

AR3002II

Final Draft

4.2.5 Abandoned Iron Ore Mines on Morgan Hill

Available historical information indicates that the mining of iron ore was carriedout in several locations on Morgan Hill, within the vicinity of the Chrin Landfilland the abandoned Pennsalt-Easton Plant area. Reportedly, ore was extractedfrom open pits or mines and transported down to the previously described GlendonIron Works. Slag from the smelter was reportedly transferred back to some of theoriginal ore pits, and dumped for fill. It is likely that existing slag piles on thePennsalt/Easton Print area are remains of this slag.

Open pit mining has a confirmed history as a pollution source. Aside from thepotential creation of acid mine drainage, which can pollute both surfacedrainageways and groundwater, the opening of pits creates attractive disposallocations for refuse and miscellaneous wastes. Strong possibilities exist thatindustrial wastes were disposed in one or more of the pits within thePennsalt/Easton Print area.

Little information has been obtained that documents the reclamation of these ore!pits; however, the above-described scenario suggests significant potential for thesefeatures to be included as sources of localized or regional groundwatercontamination.

4.2.6 Craft Rug Mills

PA DER reports that, during late 1983 and early 1984, the Craft Rug MillsCompany, located approximately 1,800 feet north of Industrial Drive along HollyStreet, began disposing portions of its waste stream on its own property. PA DERsubsequently issued a notice of violation for the illegal discharge of industrialwaste.

Reportedly, the company was dumping adhesive compounds, used for theapplication of padding to the carpet backs. The estimated quantity of adhesivedisposed on site is 10,000 gallons. Further descriptions of the waste characteristicsare unavailable.

4-6

AR3C02I2

Final Draft

It is difficult to ascertain if this facility is a source of contamination because of aninsufficient amount of descriptive information. The area, however, cannot be ruledout as a potential source of soil and localized groundwater contamination.

4.2.7 Easton Car and Construction Facility

Reconnaissance of the Industrial Drive area by RI personnel revealed a small areaof stained soil, approximately 15 by 15 feet in area, located behind and adjacent tothe main warehouse on the grounds of the former Easton Car and Constructionfacility. Reportedly, this area was once used as a drum storage area.

jThe observations made by RI personnel indicated that soil appeared to be coatedwith a black and dark brown, oily, sludge-like material. HNU recordings indicatedthat no significant levels of organic vapors were present around the stained area.A probe of the soil area indicated that the material extended to an approximatedepth of three inches.

This small, inactive drum area presents limited potential as a local soils and localgroundwater contamination source.

4.2.8 On-Lot Septic Systems

The use of on-lot septic systems is prevalent throughout the Industrial Lane area.Application of chemical degreasers to septic tanks and system drain fields canpotentially contaminate drinking water wells.

Allegations have been made that local residents may have added industrial solvent-j

laden degreasers to septic tanks. Allegedly, the documented low levels of organiccontamination in private wells are a result of these activities.

On-lot septic systems should, therefore, be considered a potential source oflocalized groundwater contamination.

AR30Q2I3

Final Draft

4.2.9 Abandoned 'Quarry and Lehigh Railroad Bed

PA DER and local residents have reported that the abandoned gravel quarry,located adjacent to the abandoned Lehigh Railroad bed and directly northwest ofthe Chrin Landfill, served as a dump during, the early 1900s. Additionally, this areaacts as a collection basin for surface water runoff from the Chrin Landfill.

A reconnaissance of this area was completed by PA DER and by RI personnel. Noobservations were made to indicate that waste materials are present or weredisposed within this area; however, the potential exists for this area to be a sourceof surface water and groundwater contamination.

4.2.10 Lehigh River and Lehigh River Canal

There are several additional potential sources of pollution located along the LehighRiver, upstream from the Industrial Lane area, located outside of the study area.Discharges from these sources may flow downstream and affect the Industrial Lanarea.

The potential, therefore, exists for the Lehigh River/Lehigh River Canal to act asa transporter of contamination into the study area. If certain geologic andhydrologic conditions exist, the river/canal could act as a recharge to areagroundwater. These conditions are further defined and investigated in section 7.0of this report.

4.2.11 Ashland Chemical

Ashland Chemical Company (EPA identification no. PA043394683), formerly theLehigh Valley Chemical Company, is not located within the Industrial Lane area,was previously defined. The facility currently has RCRA status as a hazardouswaste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSD). However, due to itsproximity to the Industrial Lane study area, and historical sampling data, thefacility is identified as a potential source of regional groundwater contaminationthrough direct groundwater migration and/or through discharges to the LehighRiver.

AR3002II*

Final Draft

TABLE 4.3-1

Summary of Potential Contamination Sources

Source Name Anticipated Pollution/Public Health Problem

Chrin Landfill Regional groundwater contamination, local surfacewater contamination

Pennsalt/Easton Print Area Regional groundwater contamination, local soilscontamination

Glendon Iron Works Regional soils contamination

Taylor Tank Cleaning Localized soils and groundwater contamination

Robert Cressman Property Localized soils and groundwater contamination

Abandoned Iron Ore Mines Localized groundwater contamination

Craft Rug Mills Localized soil and groundwater contamination

Easton Car and Construction Localized soils contamination

On-Lot Septic Systems Localized groundwater contamination

Abandoned Quarry Groundwater, surface water, and soils contamination

Lehigh River/Lehigh River Canal Regional groundwater and surface water contamination

Ashland Chemical Regional groundwater and surface water contamination

4-9AR3002I5

Final Draft

REFERENCES

1. VERSAR Remedial Action Master Plan, Industrial Lane Site. Developed forNUS Corporation. March 1984.

2. Kunkle, James, Solid Waste Specialist, PA DER, with Richard Gorrell, NUSFIT IIL Telecon. November 20, 1985.

3. Pomponi, Joseph, PA DER, with Richard Gorrell, NUS FIT III. Teiecon.November 18, 1985.

4. Jacobson, Barry, United States Environmental Protection Agency RCRAPermitting, with Richard Gorreil, NUS FIT III. Telecon. December 13,1985.

5. Quigley, Daniel, Superintendent of City of Easton Water Company, wiRichard Gorrell, NUS FIT HI. Telecons. November 25 and12, 1985.

4-10

AR3B0216

AR3002I7

ftFinal Draft

5.0 CHRJN LANDFILL INVESTIGATION

5.1 Introduction

As described, this remedial investigation (RI) was designed with the focal point ofthe investigation efforts directed at the Chrin Landfill. It is the purpose of thissection to present critical information which pertains to the landfill itself.Specifically, section 5.2 will present a discussion of the historical development ofthe Chrin Landfill, including an estimation of the fill volume, and a discussion ofindustrial waste disposal history at the landfill. Section 5.3 will discuss wasteicontainment at the landfill considering the interceptor in use and the hydroiogicbalance of the landfill area. Section 5.3 will also include a comparison ofdocumented leachate quantities disposed of at the Easton Sewage TreatmentFacility with total quantities of leachate being generated by the landfill. Finally,section 5.3 will present a discussion of leachate quality applicable to historicalsampling results at the landfill and sampling during the RI.

5.2 Historical Development of the Chrin Landfill

5.2.1 General Historical Overview

Aerial photographs from 1947 reveal that the current landfill site consisted ofagricultural fields. Notable characteristics appearing in these photographs are twosmall areas, each approximately two acres in size. It is likely that these areaswere used as open dumps. As described in section 1.0, these small areas may alsobe the location of one or two of the previously described iron ore extraction pits.

AR300218

Final Draft

The current landfill operator purchased the property in 1958. The ownerthat the facility began operations as an approved sanitary landfill (approved by thePennsylvania Department of Health) in 1961. Aerial photographs from 1964substantiate that filling operations had begun at the site and that they were limitedto an area of approximately five acres. (Aerial photographs of the area between1947 and 1964 were not available for review.) Under 1968 regulatory requirements,the landfill operator submitted a detailed permit application. The approved permit(Solid Waste Permit No. 10022) was issued by the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources (PA DER) in late 1975. Generally, the site was permittedas a natural renovation sanitary landfill facility which was not to exceed 30 acresin area within the approved location, and was to receive municipal solid wastegenerated from the surrounding area. Industrial wastes were not to be disposed atthe site, without prior approval by PA DER.

Aerial photographs from 1964, 1971, 1981, and 1983 illustrated the progressivedevelopment of the landfill. Photographs from 1971 show the landfill areaencompassing approximately 13 acres. Photographs from 1983 reveal thatlandfill area had been expanded to approximately 30 acres, which correspondsroughly with the current acreage of the landfill area. Subsequent filling activitiesat the site from 1983 to the present have involved the placement of solid wasteover top of previously filled areas. These photographs also indicate that thelandfill was developed in a somewhat irregular manner, due largely to itsplacement on a hillside with variable slopes. Refer to figure 5.2-1 for anillustration of the Chrin Landfill development.

Regular inspections of the facility by PA DER in 1977 revealed several violationsof the approved permit. These violations centered around the discharge ofuntreated leachate from the site, improper side slope construction, and theacceptance of unapproved industrial waste. Despite these violations, the facilityremained in active operation.

Early in 1978, documents received by PA DER from the landfill operator andmanifest records from the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission led to anincreased suspicion by PA DER that unapproved industrial wastes wereaccepted by the site for disposal. No official PA DER observations werethat documented the disposal of such materials.

&R300219

1 £ *_£ ^M uj «r uj oMil ? ~£ 2 s

. .O> O Ot O« *-» UJ*- <»-^ 0.t i u j i O

w 2 **• ^ *c w ^ ^ A-* 6 -, O -J -JO £ OX UJ O*

i*s u I -c S- a «s =° 0:::!g! M I Sfe 2S 2< PcJ 5d Sis.

o

oa.

oUJ

1"-UJ

'UJ

<

ocUJoJ

ITCO

COUJ3<s>

UJSU

»•*o03

AR300220

Final Draft

In July 1978, the operator submitted an application for permit amendment whichincluded the proposed expansion of the landfill area to an adjoining 10-acre area.No approval was granted by PA DER and suspicion that industrial wastes werebeing disposed of at the site continued through 1979, 1980, and 1981. During thisperiod of time, PA DER noted several continuing, site-related problems includingleachate management and soil-covering activities.

From 1981 to the present, the landfill has undergone both extensive investigationinto the alleged disposal of hazardous substances and routine complianceinspections for sanitary landfill operations. Conclusive evidence that illegaldisposal activities have occurred at the site has not been established.

In 1983, the operator resubmitted the application for permit amendment andconcurrently addressed PA DER concerns about leachate collection- andmanagement by installing a force main which carries leachate flows from the siteto an approved hookup with the Easton Sewage Collection System. The EastonSewage Treatment Plant began accepting leachate from this hookup in May 198As of the date of preparation of this report, the landfill remains in operation.Although the capacity of the present fill area has been exceeded, PA DER has yetto approve the resubmitted permit application. In July 1984, PA DER issued adepartmental order requiring closure of the landfill.

5.2.2 Fill Volume Calculation - Chrin Landfill

The estimation of the total volume of fill contained within the Chrin Landfill iscritical to the development of the Feasibility Study (FS). Since reliable recordsdescribing daily disposal volumes at the landfill are unavailable, it is concludedthat the most practical method of estimating waste volume is the calculation ofexisting fill volume. Fill volume is defined as the total volume of materialsdeposited at the landfill. This estimate can be made by applying depth of fillcharacteristics to the acreage of the landfill area. Depth of fill can be establishedthrough comparison of original topography, prior to landfilling activities, withcurrent topography. (Refer to figure 5.2-2 for the illustration of currenttopography versus original topography of the landfill area.) Jtt

5-4 AR30022I

Final Draft

The Chrin Landfill has been constructed along the contour of a hillside whichoriginally had slopes ranging between 5 and 15 percent. The width of the fill areais roughly 1,500 feet. Across this width, original topography is variable. Tofacilitate side slope stability, the landfill operators constructed the landfill in asomewhat irregular pattern. Filling activities did not follow a consistentprogression across the width of the landfill area; rather, topographic low areaswere filled to create bench areas for future fill areas and so on. Consequently,depth of fill characteristics vary considerably across the landfill.

iTo compensate for these variabilities, the estimation of the fill volume requiredthat the landfill area be subdivided into areas of similar existing topography. Thearea of each sub-area was then calculated using a manual planimeter. Averagedepth of fill was then calculated for each sub-area, using existing contours andoriginal contours. Existing contours are based on the May 1984 fly-over ef thelandfill area, as prepared for this report. Original contours are based on the EastonNew Jersey and Pennsylvania United States Geologic Survey (U.S.G.S.) 7.5 MinuteTopographic Map representation (1956) of the site area. Average depth of fill wasthen applied to acreages of each corresponding sub-area and volumes werecalculated. All sub-areas were then added together to give the estimated totalvolume of fill within the landfill itself. (Refer to figure 5.2-2 for locations andmap representation of fill volume landfill segments and to table 5.2-1 for fillvolume calculation summary.)

6R3G0222

AR300223

Final DraftTABLE 5.2-1

INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONCHRIN LANDFILL

FILL VOLUME SUMMARY TABLE

Area 1 Area 2 Average Depth 3 Volume OfIdentification (Sq. Ft.) Of Fill (Ft.) Fill (Cu. Yds.)

1 116,000 40^ 171,8522 24,000 41 36,4443 44,000 42 68,4444 60,000 41 91,1115 20,000 50 37,0376 88,000 47 153,1857 40,000 37 54,8158 60,000 40 88,8889 56,000 38 78,81510 52,000 60 115,55511 89,000 89 293,37012 20,000 15 11,11113 54,000 66 132,00014 250,000 72 666,66715 58,000 70 150,37016 18,000 84 56,00017 124,000 77 353,63018 152,000 92 517,926

Totals 1,325,000 3,077,220

1 Area based on manual planimeter measurement of landfill segments on 1inch equals 200 feet scale map.

2 Average depth of fill based on existing topography and original topography.Existing topography is based on May 1984 fly-over of landfill area. Originaltopography is based on Easton, NJ, PA, 1956, U.S.G.S. Topographic Map of thearea. Average fill depth was calculated by comparing existing elevations withoriginal elevations at representative locations within each landfill segment.

3 Area (square feet) times depth (feet) equals cubic feet divided by 27 cubicfeet/cubic yards equal cubic yards. This figure represents total volume of allfill materials, including waste and intermediate soil cover.

Final Draft ^^ ^ ^ •t

Based on this calculation, the total volume of fill, including waste and intermediatesoil cover, at the Chrin Landfill, is approximately 3,077,220 cubic yards.

It is significant to consider the date of the topographic fly-over compared withcurrent conditions at the landfill. Approximately 18 months have passed since thefly-over, during which time the landfill operator has continued to fill. As of thepreparation date of this report, the existing topography is different, thus these fillvolumes are now greater.

It is also significant to consider that the volume figures calculated using thisapproach include all fill material which has been deposited over original contours,including waste and intermediate soil cover. This approach does not include afactor which compensates for excavation of original topography. If extensiveexcavation of the area had occurred, thus bringing pre-filling topography below theelevations illustrated on 1956 topographic maps, it is likely that a substantiallygreater volume of fill may be contained within the area. Since topographic mapsare unavailable that indicate excavation at the site, it is not possible tohow these activities may have affected total fill volumes.

5.2.3 Documented Industrial Wastes Disposed at Chrin Landfill

In addition to the municipal solid waste, records from EPA and PA DER filesindicate that miscellaneous industrial wastes have also been disposed at thelandfill. The available file information indicates a wide range of liquid and solidindustrial and demolition wastes were disposed of at the landfill between 1977 and1981. Most of these substances were approved for disposal by PA DER. (Asignificant inadequacy associated with the available file information is the lack ofquantity descriptions for all substances.) The following table (5.2-2) summarizesthe available information.

BR300225

o o 2 U

% °9 -' - Si - 2 7 Si « E Eis

•C -j;

7 o 1S*§ 2 1 « .S is - S -2 I 'I 1 B °,Q S| ? . I -g I'M I -g

" " " " " " -S . «_ .. 5 ~ .g.i- «! g J T,W S -o 0 S -o.y a

il'S ' '

a

5*

1 * If II II I .19 J Hi* * 1- Jo *' Jo ! Jo!l§l i i! H I 11 i *!,, 41 .. ™ 4> 3 4) -o c 4i ?e *• "J!sf 1

6 .— *i ?P "|6,S « •? sEsI £ *- «S S Is111 I I Ilil i H i l l II i t-js z §

&§ § § § i § S I . I I g §•r: 'i! '£ w ~ M ' £ ' £ » « « - > .s <s(0 (0• - • ( 5 nj nj rt ( t ( (

T E E E E E • E E E 6 E• >- t.•

>- t. = 2,2 £ £ £ 5 £ - , 2 £ 2 S S-e

Z ^ _ « ; 5 •- .§ JK ii J K i J B J ! ^^7 1z o E »5 E -5 S E E E E E E E E j= >.< " 2 < ' 5 . « c 2 f c < < < < : < < ^ ^ Q S - y&3fi &t &5« & fe & Si & & & S | i«0=| ^2 'O l "5 -"3 < « « 0 ^ « 0 M 3 I / J <3oS 3§ 3ju 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 . £.

Ig S |f

£ 2 2 ^ s i i i S | s s | f& ^ - - - - - ^3 y .si

i ^ I It « . - SP= B-o OI § <L£ S* -o . o- ? o. «? <

cl< ^ , k i! Is t I b ii I!

it II I* 1^5= c k i h a sr cs 5 J i ! ! o . a - - « s - s a 3 < u . ^«(d nJs s o y 3 >.£ 2° «> " u t i g O O t i W n i B n g - o j S i il£Z (-2 </5z IZ flZ i^U DC SuJ HU i/Tu, UiX

n( A ( A 4 A I A M M I A M * ? «2 2 2 ? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s » s 1 1

I 4 - si2" I 1 J l l J l l l l l 11ll I I | I I I I I I I I If° —— «1 M !? «-> ^ l O w M W ^ W <• »-T •= o o ^. o o •*. e o o o o S:2&z 2 - Z Z N Z Z Z Z Z £i75

H -*soo *o•O T3 "O "O -O C .£:i -i i i :i i i :n i i i 1:1 ;io

5 c, ,- -

C

fi • « .2 .aUl (A *j (ft *J —• V C k> T) •" iJ *** * «! P U

I , !l ?I I! *i l SJ I i ! I I li£a ! II I! ii iL f |1 i I i, i it; ti >i U KI I ifi 1^ is -al s^s i *§ s« ** *J §1 li^ ^ Si ?- 1 ^£ .8-8 \\- ll Is .*! sis I f! Si i « ^= sl<n <n S () Q.

AR300226

Final Draft

Alleged Industrial Wastes Disposed at Chrin Landfill

As described in section 1 of this report, a local citizen's group, Save Our LehighValley Environment (S.O.L.V.E.), has had significant involvement with activitiesassociated with the Chrin Landfill. S.O.L.V.E.'s concerns over the presence ofhazardous substances at the landfill prompted group members to pursue anindependent investigation into the waste disposal records. This investigationproduced a list of manifest records obtained from both the New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Division of Water PollutionControl. The manifests detail large quantities of liquid and solid industrial wastematerials that were allegedly disposed at the landfill between 1977 and 1979.

In an attempt to verify the authenticity of these manifest records and toconclusively establish the Chrin Landfill as an acceptor of hazardous materials,EPA obtained and reviewed the manifests. Due to the fact that none of themanifest records contained signatures of acceptance from Chrin Landfilloperators/representatives, the information reported on the manifest records mustjbe considered allegations and should not be interpreted as factual. Table 5.2-3summarizes the information reported on these manifests.

Based on this information and using EPA-approved method for computing totalwaste quantities (1 ton equals 1 cubic yard equals 200 gallons), it has beenconcluded that the total quantity of industrial waste allegedly disposed at theChrin Landfill is 2,723 cubic yards.

5-10

AR3D0227

21lioug

c(9 s ffl ^ ffi —'

19 _ a — a2 '5 2 5 2 '5 2 6 2 5 2 u £ 5 S '5|

e"5 <y c"i= «3 = 5 «5 C";E «J gS a g"£ s § ~ £ 5~s' *£« §"•*= i i - 4JI-S JI-S !§•* 5§-» J&£ |S-» JZ&* 5s-* |s-» jl-s .§ &*3 "5 "3 3 "S *5 3 *5 "5 3 "3 *o 3*0*0 3*o*o 5*So 3*0*0 3*00 3 *S "5 3 "5 "5

\nC

I I =t -5 "c » •; '£ * '> '= * '> g * '> g * '? g J '> 'g * '> 'I

AM «^ i«% aa ao eA aA OA

<.;, S&|j<^ O>ON s^ a>?^ 9?^ H <4) fx 1) IX *l !-. 11 V t*. ON. Cirv c X.x . . .

O\ J ff\ J ffs J OX J OX J J OX 5 ON

sfe2ii «• Q t/) k.tti O Si

§u| cj<*5 .§•=88 §

-j "Oos o>UJ >°Szl

.;* «

1

3*1

Is ig ig 8I 1.1 ul 8.2 -e .2 •§ .2 •§ .2 £ S § S. 3 3 ~ | ; -o .2 TJ .2g J2* 3

•*

or oe Oe Oe oe Oe Oe Oe oe or ee«*O «^O .^O 4^O 4^O 4tfQ «4W 4rtO 4.O 4rf? 4^9c s c «3 c « e'S e'S c'S CM ex: e — c - c -Wy fl'U 4*(J ClU 4*U w t J ' C ^ U *^O f(J 4»u ^Vg 11 CD C4> CD §41 CD c c; g 41 c o c c CD

Ei «1 'I_ _ . . . . . . ! ° ! 0 « w wIn.

c c c e c e e e c c4>9X H <T^ VO>^ V t*. ON.OX OXOg S.2

1^ ° £2 £2 «S2 2s ^2 £s 2s 2s £2 £2 2s> <

.T f! fr H! «i II i! h It I?: I?il Jl if i! ?J li it 51 51 i,2aj ais .'T! t>Ji e*j tfij 2 oS 2P 5? « S Si J= J= J; S, I"i- el

l i i i I I i I I IV ) M M

i 1 I I « « § | " £"S "• BO oo — s 13 o — —

Q ^ M * ° ^ - 2 § ^ . § . S 2

2 2 "O -O •« •B'§• §• 'I 'I f I'J j j 3 3 S

4 ) 1 ) 0 ; C I A I M M • > » - , t ,f f f I f I I II? «t . f f

AR3C0228

ieQ

1

o !3

aOQ

* Sw >

I

.Si

- - — - — -.. . .3 3 3 O '£ O '*-.o .a j; ~ u J- uM <fiii i! il |l t! !f i| i!

b >. .i >. !:>. .h >• ..:>• S"~«3 £ ~ 4°> E "" «5•? 2 *? 3 •? 2 •£ 15 •£ 3 | u S * '" - * " -

gj 85

c

«"•? e * T ST * ""i u 'fez o^ fez fez fez g:<3 £ I z o u 52? n°O ? fl«T o^ o^ w- w

«J eC Ufl Ufl y<fl U^ PC C - C - V - 4)

3 o O

?"'x

g-s gi gi g-8 i"§ I** Is"*5l Sfc. 3^. 3fe. 3fe. 3-30 3*0 O

M. ted *4« *M rt «4. *Mor op oc Oe oc oc oe4^0 4riO 4rfO 4^0 4d9 4rfO ***2c 'C CM c "i- c'S c'S c 'C c '*- e1> u «»u 4iy 4)u fO VU «iO OC4j £ 4) ec C4) C4J C«) Cj) •-£o t!o t!o To wg Co Co ">cS.a S.£ g.4 a£ at ££ S.£ 5-2«(Ss ^5 £« tS 2 ^2 1^2 ^2 £=§>- = >.C >, C >.C >, C ><C >.C «J ,? 4)S4; flj4) ej4> 4>4> (jC* 4>4> 4)4> ^CUbC 44 KC- 5>C4< '"§4- ?=44 £Cw !"£*• HI-*'

^i? *M ^15 ^§5 ^!^ ^1^ £§3 1S5) -r 'e » -r 'c » •> e S •; 'c * •> '£ * '5 'e i •; 'c in * '£Sll. zlii St§3 2.5-J l£s ££S z5ii £<s-lo o o o e o o o o o o o o o f ^r s . N . r s . r ^ r s . f v f s » T ^\ \ N (" 'v CN ^ "\

a>9^ 4; ffs u^ &ON &<7s 4) ffv V^ a; oo»£ s- »2 IE »2 »2 »2 »2Is Is Is Is Is %~?- r"

->« IS f 1 15 IS IS 130 « 5-2 fe S .2 g .12 c .2 £ «Zffi HQ. Z £0 (-0. t-O. l- CL t-£

i I I I I g1 1 1 1 1 I5 5 5 5 5 !

Ill * i 1 1 1 Hi I3V?I

I i iii li I*4) >. Jl

tf^ Hi ?i£- £ fc fc 8 E-OT) fie«S « «£x .I'S'S S &o- * ^ ujt,-Sb £ S E it's.

AR300229 I

Final Draft

5.2.3 Location of Industrial Waste Substances within the Chrin Landfill

Historical information indicates that the placement of industrial wastes at theChrin Landfill occurred between 1977 and 1981. Wastes listed on the previouslydescribed manifests were reportedly deposited between 1977 and 1979. Recordsalso indicate that wastes were allegedly deposited mostly in liquid, unconsolidatedform. No drums were reported to be buried at the landfill.

Identification of the locations of allegedly disposed hazardous substances withinthe Chrin Landfill is difficult. Several factors exist which limit any practicalverification and available historical documentation is inadequate.

Specifically, the maximum depth of fill at the landfill, as based on closure plans,exceeds 100 feet. The landfill has been in operation for roughly 24 years, and thefill area has expanded to approximately 30 acres. The area over which the fill hasbeen constructed is a hillside with slopes ranging from 5 to 15 percent. Thesetopographic, acreage, and operational time period factors have forced the landfilloperator to develop the fill in a somewhat unconventional manner. Aerialphotographs of the landfill taken between 1964 and 19S3 indicate filling activitiesoccurring at different locations, at different time periods, within the 30-acrelandfill area. These photographs show the sporadic development of the landfill,including recent waste deposition over very old fill areas, the abandonment of someareas of the landfill for several years, and the filling of valleys between old fillareas. Under these conditions, the depth (and ultimately the elevation) of wastematerials is not necessarily reflective of its age or time period of deposition.These factors make estimation of the location of the hazardous waste materialsthrough a review of landfill development records practically impossible.

A core boring and sampling investigation of the landfill was considered; however,the extent of a program needed to develop a representative characterization for alandfill of such large area and great depths of fill would be exceedingly costly.Additionally, significant health and safety risks would be faced by field personnel.

5-13AR300230

Final Draft

The location of industrial waste substances within the landfill is unknown. Though^^a significant quantity of such substances may have been disposed of at the landfill,existing conditions preclude further identification.

5.3 Waste Containment

The consideration of waste containment methods utilized at the Chrin Landfillincludes an evaluation of the leachate collection and conveyance system currentlyin place at the landfill. Since there are no other containment practices utilized atthe facility, aside from the application of required cover material andrevegetation, this section will concentrate on the specific aspects of. the leachatecollection system., (The landfill operator is currently considering the installation ofa methane gas recovery and capture system for use at the landfill. In fact, severalcomponents of the system, including vents and gas conveyance lines, have- beeninstalled. However, the operator has not received approval from PA DER toproceed with these plans; therefore, no complete system has been installed.)

This evaluation will include a description of the existing system, a discussion of ifeffectiveness, and an estimation of leachate quantities collected. A generalizedhydrologic balance will be established for the landfill area in an attempt toestimate the quantity of leachate being generated by the landfill. The quantity ofleachate currently being collected by the system will then be compared with thequantity of leachate generated by the landfill. This comparison permits anevaluation of the relative efectiveness of the collection system.

The technical approach utilized in completing this evaluation included thecollection and review of available system component layout diagrams andsupporting design calculations, as developed by the landfill operator's consultants.Following the review of this information, field verification of the reported systemlayout was performed. In addition to these activities, the conformance of thesystem to previous and existing environmental regulatory requirements wasinvestigated. The chief regulatory agency involved with landfill operations is PADER. Therefore8 the facility was evaluated within the context of the Chapter 75,Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act.

5-14

A R 3 Q Q 2 3 I

Final Draft

5.3.1 Description of Existing Leachate Interceptor System

The Chrin landfill has been designed, permitted, and operated as a naturalrenovation facility. As such, there were no impervious collection liners installedunder the waste fill area. Additionally, there are no natural impervious geologicfeatures under the landfill area, based on the geologic investigation implementedduring the RI.

The leachate interceptor currently in use at the landfill was installed by thelandfill operator, in an attempt to control and/or eliminate leachate seepssurfacing along the face of the landfill side slopes and entering surfacedrainageways. As such, existing system components have not been designed for thepurposes of collecting the total quantity of leachate generated by the landfill.

I _

From a historical perspective, the system has been used at the landfill since themid-1970s. As the landfill expanded, additions and deletions to the system weremade, mostly in response to PA DER requirements for leachate management. Thecomponents that are now in place at the landfill are not anticipated to be changed,based on existing requirements.

As described in the Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) for the Industrial Lanesite, the leachate interceptor system consists generally of french drains placedaround the landfill perimeter area, and interceptor drains running through portionsof the main fill area. Leachate conveyance lines are interconnected in somesegments by manholes, which also serve as methane gas vents. The conveyancelines have been installed to carry leachate flows via gravity to two main pumpstations, which eventually drive flows to a connection point with the EastonSanitary Sewer lines located adjacent to the landfill. Leachate has been pumped tothe Easton Sewage Treatment Plant through this connection since May 1984. Priorto 1984, leachate was conveyed to on-site storage tanks and eventually pumped outand transported to the sewage treatment plant by tank trucks. The capacity ofthese storage tanks is unknown. During the 1970s, the operator reportedly pumpedleachate from the storage tanks and sprayed it back over the surface of the landfillarea.

5-15

AR300232

Final Draft

Currently, the landfill operator has submitted the required applications for a 10-acre landfill expansion. The proposed expansion, to be developed adjacent to theeast side of the existing landfill, will include the placement of an impervious linerleachate collection system and accompanying leachate transmission lines. Thecollection system for the proposed expansion will be utilized in conjunction withthe existing leachate interceptor system. Proposed operations include theinstallation of three 20,000-gallon steel storage tanks. These tanks will serve toretain leachate on site, as collected from both the existing landfill area and theproposed landfill area. Leachate from these tanks will be released at a rate not toexceed 30,000 gallons per day, in accordance with the operator's currentcontractual arrangements with the Easton Sewage Treatment Plant.

More specifically, the leachate interceptor system, which is currently in place atthe Chrin Landfill, can be described as two separate subsystems including gravityinterceptor and conveyance components (interceptor lines and manhole connectionpoints), and the pump station/force main conveyance components. Refer to figure5.3-1 for a graphic illustration of the leachate interceptor plan layout.

The original installation of the gravity interceptor lines was undertaken during themid-1970s. During that time period, there were no regulatory design requirementsfor such systems. As a result, the interceptor lines were probably installed withoutspecific engineering design criteria. (PA DER and the landfill operator's currentengineering consultants have been contacted. Both have reported no record ofreview or development of such specifics as line placement, line sizing, line depth,or other design considerations.)

5-16

AR3QG233

Final Draft

Recenit additions (1983 to 1984) to the system have been undertaken by theoperator, including the installation of the previously described pump stations andforce main components. According to the operator's consultant (AGESCorporation), these additions have been reviewed and approved by PA DER. As arequirement for the connection to the Easton Sanitary Sewer system, a flow meterwas installed at a point downgradient from all collection lines. Quarterly flowvolumes from the collection system have been recorded by the Easton SanitaryAuthority. Table 5.3-1 serves to summarize these flow data records.

5-1? AR3GQ23I4

.3DCOCDCDroGOen

Final Draft

TABLE 5.3-1INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

VOLUME OF LEACHATE RECEIVED BY THE EASTON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTFROM THE CHRIN LANDFILL

19S3 - 1935

Volume of LeachateTime Period Received (gallons) _.____Comments_____

1st Quarter 1983 18,900 Brought by tank truck2nd Quarter 1983 65,500 Brought by tank truck3rd Quarter 1983 34,000 Brought by tank truck4th Quarter 1983 55,000 Brought by tank truckTotal Volume 1983 173,400Average Monthly Volume 14,450 (Total volume divided by 12 mon-

1st Quarter 1984 80,500 Brought in by tank truck2nd Quarter 1984 83,700 Brought in by tank truck" " " 163,790 Direct pipe feed from hookupTotal 2nd Quarter 1984 247,490 Combined tank truck and hookup3rd Quarter 1984 4,000 Brought in by tank truck" " " 321,730 Direct pipe feed from hookupTotal 3rd Quarter 1984 325,730 Combined tank truck and hookup4th Quarter 1984 278,420 Pipe feed hookupTotal Volume 1984 932,140Average Monthly 1984 77,678 (Total volume divided by 12 mont

1st Quarter 1985 510,510 Pipe feed hookup2nd Quarter 1985 213,500 Pipe feed hookup3rd Quarter 1985 351,290Total Volume 1985 1,075,300Average Monthly forFirst 3 Quarters 119,478 (Total volume divided by 9 mor

- .-=___ [

Source: Edward Messa, chief lab technician, City of Easton Wastewater Treatment Plan

5-19

: ""AR300236

Final Draft

^_-i_^^__-__^______,_____________.

The evaluation of the leachate collection system in use at the Chrin Landfillincluded the field verification of reported system components. Prior to initiatingan inspection of the system, several test activities were proposed, including thefield measurement of pertinent elevations associated with gravity components andthe dye testing of individual gravity conveyance and collection lines.

Upon the completion of a preliminary inspection of the system, it was concludedthat field measurements and dye testing of all system components was not possible.Figure 5.3-2 illustrates the existing extent of the system, as determined throughreview of as-built diagrams, gravity interceptor layout plans (which were submittedin permit applications), and field observations. The ultimate nature of the systemmade a detailed field verification impossible. Factors such as manhole depth (insome places in excess of 50 feet), collapsed manholes, and poor visibility inmanholes due to the steam generation, made a more detailed field verificationimpossible. ^ ,

5.3.1.2 Summary of Field Observations

The field inspection was initiated to verify as built diagrams and plans and todetermine if system components are functional. Interceptor components aredescribed as segments, based on manhole location and upslope and downslope designconditions. Refer to figure 5.3-1 for system segments referred to in this section.

5-20

fiR300237

Final Draft

Pump Station No. 1

This component receives leachate collected from the western portion of thelandfill area. Major flow contribution to this pump station is from three perforatedcollection lines. Of these three lines, only one short line, between manhole nos. 3and 1, is open at both ends. The upslope end of this line, in manhole no. 3, isapproximately 20 feet deep and the manhole was observed to be partially collapsed.The depth of the manhole, combined with poor visibility, precluded observation ofthe invert elevation and/or depth of flow in the pipe.

Under these conditions, upslope and downslope invert elevations could not beobtained for any of the contributing collection and conveyance lines whichdischarge into pump station no. 1. Due to poor visibility, depth of flow anddiameter of pipes could not be measured, from the top of the manhole; therefore,flow volumes in lines could not be calculated. Likewise, since upslope ends of theremaining two lines were buried, dye testing could not be attempted. A dye testwas performed between manhole nos. 3 and 1. This test proved positive, thusindicating that 'the line was at least in place. More details pertaining to thestructural integrity of these lines could not be observed or calculated.

Pump Station No. 2

This component receives leachate collected from pump station no. 1 and fromcollection and conveyance lines which extend into the eastern area of the landfill.Major flow contributions to this point, aside from pump station no. 1, are 4subsystems summarized as follows:

o 340-foot, perforated gravity interceptor line which discharges into manholeno. 2. This manhole is equipped with a sump and a pump, which conveysthe collected leachate flows to pump station no. 2. The upslope portion ofthis line is buried. The invert elevation of the downslope end of the linecould not be measured due to the sump action of manhole no. 2 (i.e.,discharge portion of the pipe is submerged in the sump). Also, due to theseconditions, flows, line depth, and line slope could not be measured orcalculated and a dye test could not be performed.

5-21 AR300238

Final Draft

o 385-foot, perforated gravity interceptor lines placed between manhole nos18, 10, and discharging into pump station no. 2. The upslope end of theselines are reportedly in manhole no. 18. Available system layout plansindicate that the probable depth of manhole no. 18 is at least 90 feet,based on current elevations of the landfill. The manhole, along with poorvisibility within the manhole, precluded the measurement of flow in pipesand the invert elevations. The downslope end of this line, discharging intopump station no. 2, was constructed with "T" ends, thus making'downslopemeasurement of inverts and flows impossible. A dye test was performedfor the lino between manhole no. 10 and the pump station. This test provednegative; however, due to the depth factors associated with the upgradientends of the pipe, the poor visibility in pump station no. 2, and the darkcoloration of the leachate, no conclusion can be made as to the connectionbetween manhole no. 10 and pump station no. 2.

o 385-foot, solid conveyance line extending from manhole no. 18 to pumpstation no, 2. Available system layout plans depict this line as carryingflows which are collected from 5 short, perforated interceptor linelocated within the central and oldest portion of the landfill. Depth factors,and poor visibility in manholes did not permit conclusive identification ofthe location and characteristics of these components. However, the solidconveyance line was observed discharging into pump station no. 2. Thisdischarge point was constructed with a down-turned "elbow," thus invertelevation and flow levels could not be measured or calculated.

o 570 feet of perforated interceptor lines placed between manhole nos. 8 and6, which discharges into the solid conveyance line between manhole no. 18and pump station no. 2. (Available system layout plans depict this line asdischarging into the solid conveyance line, which extends from manhole no.18 to pump station no. 2 at a point approximately 35 feet upslope frompump station no. 2.) This discharge point, as depicted on the plans, isburied and, therefore, unobservable. The intermediate, upslope point ofthis line is at manhole no. 6. As per the plans, a short 200-foot, perforatedcollection line discharges into manhole no. 6 from manhole no. 8,farthest upslope point of this entire interceptor line.

5-22

AR300239

Final Draft

Field observations indicate that manhole no. 8 is currently buried;therefore, upslope invert elevation could not be determined. Additionally,dye testing between manhole nos. 8 and 6 could not be attempted.Observation of manhole no. 6 revealed standing, backed-up leachateconditions, contained in the manhole itself. No discharge pipe from theinterceptor between manhole nos. 8 and 6 could be observed and no pipefrom manhole no. 6 to the solid conveyance line was observed. Leachatestanding in this manhole appeared "septic," black in coloration with stronghydrogen sulfide odors. However, HNU readings above ambient air werenot recorded around this manhole.

Based on these conditions, intermediate invert elevations and flow levelscould not be measured, not could a dye test be initiated. These conditionspreclude the final determination as to whether or not the line actuallydischarges into pump station no. 2. Since the line appeared to be backedup, it may be either clogged or its integrity has been destroyed.

Pump Station No. 3i

This component consists of a 1,000-gallon storage tank, a standard centrifugalpump, and two 20,000-gallon backup storage tanks. Pump station no. 3 receivesleachate flow from all components of the leachate interceptor system. Currently,leachate is pumped from pump station no. 3 to a solid ductile iron conveyance lineto off-site manhole nos. 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27, a total of 1,700 feet to theEaston Sanitary sewer system hookup at manhole no. 201.

5.3.1.3 General Conclusions of Field Verification

A comprehensive field evaluation of the leachate interceptor is difficult, if notimpossible. At best, only these observable portions of the system can be evaluated.Several interceptor lines, including those discharging into manhole nos. 5 and 1, andpump station no. 2, cannot be evaluated because they are either buried or too deepfor observation.

5-23

Final Draft

When considering whether the components, which are in place, are functionalnot, the following general conclusions are made. Observable leachate flows werenoted in those lines which could be seen; therefore, the system is at least partlyfunctional. PA DER has supervised and approved the design of the force main andthe system connection with the Easton Sewer Authority.

Reconnaissance of the landfill side slopes, made during the field evaluation of theinterceptor system, and during previous field work completed during the course ofthe remedial investigation, revealed the presence of numerous small leachate seepsbut no major ones,, Therefore, at present, the system appears to be functioningwithin its intended use.

5.3.2 Existing Hydrological Balance Associated with the Chrin Landfill

It has previously been established that the leachate interceptor currently in use atthe Chrin Landfill was not designed installed to collect 100 percent of the leachatethat is generated by the landfill. In an attempt to evaluate the system's overall,effectiveness, and to quantify the volume of waste (leachate) which is not beingcollected and treated, it is necessary to estimate the total quantity of leachatethat is potentially being generated by the landfill. This section will serve topresent an approach for estimating this leachate quantity. In esssence, theestimation involves, the calculation of the hydrologic balance associated with thelandfill area.

5.3.2.1 Hydrologic Balance Calculation Methodology

When calculating the hydrologic balance associated with a landfill, severalmathematical models are available for application. A widely accepted method isthe C.W. Thornthwaiite adaption - moisture routing method. The use of this methodrequires the development of specific information pertaining to landfillcharacteristics and operational practices. (These factors include average depth ofwaste cells, depth of soil cover, moisture capacity of cover soils, and compactedwastes.) If these factors are unknown, standard assumptions must be made in orderto complete the calculation.

5-24

flR3002i*l

Final Draft

Because of varying patterns of waste deposition at the Chrin Landfill over a 24-year period of operation, it is difficult to apply even standard general assumptions.

A second method can also be used to calculate the water balance of a landfill area.The method is known as the gross estimation calculation or mass water balance.The gross estimation method is generally less accurate than the moisture routingmethod since it does not account for soil and waste moisture retention. The grossestimation method assumes that the moisture content of the landfill is equal to orgreater than field capacity. (Field capacity is defined as the maximum moisturecontent which a soil or solid waste can retain in a gravitational field withoutproducing continuous downward percolation.) Additionally, the gross estimationmethod does not consider the contribution of groundwater under flow, fromupgradient land areas, to the net quantity of leachate generated.

Several factors exist which support the assumption that the Chrin Landfill is at ornear field capacity. Most notable is the age of the landfill. A review of historicalaerial photographs and topographic maps which show the historical development ofthe Chrin Landfill between 1964 and 1984, indicated that over 60 percent of thehorizontal and vertical area of the fill are had been developed by 1971. Also, theoperator sprayed (recirculated) leachate from the collection system back over thelandfill surface. Additionally, field observations of the landfill have revealed thatthe existing leachate interceptor flows throughout the year. Numerous small seepshave also been observed throughout the year, along the face of the landfill.

The gross estimation method, therefore, appears to be the most practical model toapply in calculating the water balance for the Chrin Landfill. The basic equationfor the model is:

L =P-R-Ewhere:L = leachate generationP = precipitation (developed through historical .National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) weather data)R = runoff (standard runoff coefficients)E = evapotranspiration' (Thornthwaite method for calculating potential

evapotranspiration)5-25

1 AR3002t*2

Final Draft

The quantity of teachate generated equals the annual precipitation minus the!quantity of precipitation which runs off minus the quantity of precipitation whichis lost to evapotranspiration. These figures must be applied to specified timeperiods.

For this report, the time period that will be considered corresponds with the timeperiod of disposal of known volumes of leachate to the Easton Sanitary SewerSystem (i.e., 1983, 1984, and the first nine months of 1985). This will allow acomparison of the leachate quantities estimated through use of the gross estimationmodel with the quantities recorded at the sanitary sewer system connection point.

Tables 5.3-2, 5.3-3, and 5.3-4 summarize the gross estimation calculations forthese time periods.

5-26

AR3002l*3

0ua

.< .< .< < < «oz* z z" z* z *

51 oo ooo «*» w o ^w\ <N <N >> _* i- +"c TS —..on)

oZ

•«-•*

oj«T«/l

I S .2.32

« <2 t S m WJ| r> -o ^Sw

n

5| — V«r __

<u **-) t- "2. . „ . . _ . - so o2<

I

Cx.

?S S S a 2

1 1 illt -n *s •"V (0 -S L. (U-, - o' d rf * C S * - „«-T3 v e -^ 4» <s

» - « « * . * 8 Q « S f y*}•» °S *•}«.• o « M 2rf, -2 o SC V 4 C M O — i v £ > u .S -S^^>.M —

<S 13 g-A u « c™ ^ o - * - - r t " * 3 S " ^•^ 3 ^ *5 3 o ^ ja 5zC S J N O - H ^ u ^ 0 - 3

J S |.000 0 _ ^ , ^ *- C >•«5 rf 2 a a - I a, ||=5 3 s 5 * g Is! li

^ -a >: «I II• 3 i^5 r t S M ^ * 0<*N O ^-S —JS.S-"!= ° = 2 -» «S .'S S? -S.5

ON _, "S C 00•o ^ Ss °°S8™ C •O'- « ; C £ C

1 5| $3 jw

o

°5 o «5 •§ g,° a u i s > ' - < * ' T 3 f l J ( U . f f•g ^ = 9 F « ^ S - § >i u\ fl «w 3

00 o 00 •« 0-0O C5 <0 §J2

"« *'T3 U1"?-8 I! JJf

h t i i l J!till!illI f 1 1 J I f] P f fi HISI I § 1 I 2 -i p S |g |^S«^ H Q i ^ u j j - 0 2 = 3 ^ fl-a <o *i 3 2

C; - U J= HJ CfH M fr _-_ .— "

oZ

00

u. p

H

I

4;

oj

S

.<.<<.<.< ™z z z z" z" 2fx .n 10 CM <SI OO ^ — ON "•*• *^9 .Mk • • • * ~ __

<»> ^ <N O O O c ^— 4>3 "I »«•*

. ^* . . . — .r.—I —« O O fN|

- e

oO

CM —< <S

oo oo oo 2 * £ "2 >.«;"i ^ °- ° % * s %£«O —• <N ± (fl =— 'ouy !r,

JS 3 § « «!=> C HH J

c _ «=

C4>>

o w J2 *•• £ 3- - - I 1 J| J|83 * c s 0 | | !s.1|lCM — CNI <n ^ O J fls(0 J= 3 =»

£ * '+- «; ^ <^ SO O C M _ . ^ « « N < L,>» S S C „ "Si S 2 s S § f| ij |||

^ »•« fesis.?:"«S ON _; «-A _; _ g •- -.3 _s .s -• 0

i °.S 1 2 -g 5 «*- ^2 £o o*-(jCM J J - O O 00 _ cS O O „, a. <"•0 0 0 ^ * 0 * 15 £5 -•* 8 8t:«»\ -^(N (N» C 'u 4 ) C J : C 3

"2 .S oi -is -2 U •- <"

2 « : • = ? £ « *» « g- ! 5S jd « §J2 W H o. +.5 u 'o § oo 2 «4 ifl v> .= c ;;2 S = E "3 2 J

•^ $ i S c 3 ' 3 ^ ^

i ! Is i I I! illc S ,.? sS -a =* S-8.-S-» c *s -S.-3 g-§ g>«

|£ f is 111 *;rim ^ « 2-s. ?° .2 i 3 aj o s^II! si |t i ti |? iS uj j IS §S 2 51 Sl^5* i v« S! e «<• .a e .f. S2 _j 3 .-s ..

c >• o.S <3 E

" • » . 5 2 » - « , « £•7 •» *9 "v <-» •Z Z . Z l Z . Z r s ,

j*." rfl *u

51*««

<U

m

< S *•«•o

~ u" «• B ^ l 3CM ON .. CM NO NO <d e -i 2^^

•^ oo £ S ^ ".- -o g . ^ £ u «00 - <*< NO <M <^ « U c ~ g~

o O .2 U e .5s 2 ~ s s o ^ ? 2fj.«^s« c, - <s « - .I -^ g«c—« ON NO <O O\ NO "2

NO 3r 18 =_ = c ^ a

.» ^ ON u-j ro <N ^ SI,' | g § .« "gVA -. — f^ <N ^ O -2 E.8. •*3— "

7 T3 «- ^^ <8S —- «, - * ^ I so if *n3 a' 3 3 3 ° 8 -.1 ^3 =^^

s

m

«i ^ ^ !R s s o ^ II S5 S85sl - ° "* -I II «i IIs/al oo — o oo oo 5 •« .5 $ ±: •= 82- Q l c N J - N O x O o v O ^ g M . . "I [* « «• 5

Csl O -^ O O 2(0

o

i :s i g»« «|iI IS = *5 ll|

^ < I- -I 1 M ill1 ^ ;! ^s t -i-i 111o§ ?u a8 f J/' ?lux-. e.2 fl>«*S.'- 4) < "° e * > «1/1 I -5 e " -n5 fe 8-2 o «-S

I S 1 s ff ? !* is 8- -II4- « o -3 2 +j S{ <o §•-.: c « 2v S 2 o 5 >'S «° .2 §31 I ! I ! 1 S|•*$ l ii

a . H i ^ = w - > - S S g g s l ^- ( N f N . w - j . ^ v o H g c s S - g ^ t i j e

—• D. tf\ u. &• >f\ 2

AR3'002i*6

FIGURE 5.3-2SOLUTION TO THORNTHHAITE POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FORMULA

- 150 -

10 20 30 5Mean annual tempisrature (*C) 5

F1 g. A Annual heat index / of the Thornthwatte Equation as ^a function of mean annual temperature. (From Palmer andHavens 1958.)

EXAMPLE:.

Assume: Month of NovemberAverage Precipitation* 10.0°C

1. Obtain Annual Heat Index from Fig. A. 0.1 iI * 50

2. Obtain Potential Evapotranspiration in Mean monthly air temperature CQcm/mo, from £19- B. F1g.B Graphical solution of the Thomthwaite formula for

3. AdJust.PEl'for sunshine duration factor K V ^ ^ ^ Tfrom Fig. C.

4.0 cm/mo X 0.83 * 3.32 cm/mo4. Convert from cm/mo to inches/month.

3.32 cm/mo X 0.394 In/cm « 1.31 in/mo

F1 g. C Correction factor for monthly sunshine duration for multiplication of the standard potentialevapotranspiration

LATITUDE

60°N50°N40'N30°N20'NlO'N010°S20°S30°S40°S508S

JAN.

0.540.710.800.870.920.971.001.051.101.161.231.33

FEB.

0.670.840.890.930.960.981.001.041.071.111.151.19

MAIL

0.970.980.991.001.001.001.001.021.021.031.041.05

APR.

1.191.141.101.071.051.031.000.990.980.960.930.89

MAY

1.33US1.201.141.091.051.000.970.930.890.830.75

JUNE

1.561J61.251.171.111.061.000.960.910.850.780.68

JULY

1.551.331.231.161.101.051.000.970.920.870.800.70

AUG.

1.331.211.151.111.071.041.000.980.960.930.890.82

SEPT.

1.071.061.041.031.021.021.001.001.001.000.990.97

OCT.

0.840.900.930.960.980.991.001.031.051.071.101.13

NOV.

0.580.760.830.890.930.971.001.051.091.141.201.27

DEC.

0.480.680.780.850.910.961.001.061.111.171.251.36

SOURCE: Water in Environmental Planning, T. Dunne and L. B. Leopold.Pages 137 and 138.

5-30

6R3002U

Final Draft

5.3.2.2 Estimated Leachate Quantities Generated by the Chrin Landfill

The water balance calculations indicate that approximately 14.81 inches and 10.24inches of the total precipitation, which fell over the Chrin Landfill in 1983 and1984, respectively, percolated through the landfill and were generated as leachate.

i f

Likewise, approximately 7.25 inches of leachate were generated during the first 9months of 19S5. The following computation indicates the estimated annual volume

!

of leachate generated in gallons, as applied to the 30-acre Chrin Landfill.

1983; 14.81 in. divided by 12 in./ft. = 1.23 feet1.23 times 30 acres = 36.9 ac.-ft.36.9 ac.-ft. times 325,851 gal./ac.-ft. = 12.023.902 gallons

= 32.942 gpd= 22.88 gpm

1984; 10.24 in. divided by 12 in./ft. = 0.85 feet0.85 ft times 30 acres = 25.5 ac.-ft.25.5 ac.-ft. times 325,851 gal./ac.-ft. = 8.309.200 gallons

= 22.765 gpd= 15.81 gpm

1985; (first 9 months)7.25 in. divided by 12 in./ft. = 0.60 feet0.60 ft. times 30 acres = 18 ac.-ft.18 ac.-ft. times 325,851 gal./ac.-ft. = 5.865.318 gallons

= 16.069 gpd= 11.16 gpm"

For comparison, the 1983 data are presented in table 5.3-5, with recent waterbalance calculations performed for the landfill area, by the current landfilloperator's consulting firm (AGES Corporation). AGES has reported two differentestimates for leachate generation, as calculated using the approved EPA method,Use of the Water Balance Method for Predicting Leachate Generation at SolidWaste Sites (1975) and the PA DER approved method, Method for PredictingLeachate Generation of Solid Waste Sites (1975).

AR3002l*8

Final Draft

TABLE 5.3-5INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

LEACHATE GENERATION QUANTITIES FROM THE CHRIN LANDFILL - 1983

AGES CORPORATION______NUS FIT HI RI •> EPA WATER * PA DER WATER

WATER BALANCE BALANCE METHOD BALANCE METHOD

32,942 gpd 9,195 gpd 39,130 gpd

1 Figures represent quantity of leachate generated at the Chrin Landfill in 1983, ascalculated through the use of the gross estimation water balance by NUS FIT III forthis RI.

2 Figures represent quantity of leachate generated at the Chrin Landfill in 1983, ascalculated by AGES Corporation and reported to PA DER in Addendum No. 1Application for Permit Amendment - Phase II Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill,Williams Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. PA DER permit no.100022, Response to PA DER Letter, Dated August 9, 1983, submitted to PA DERin June 1984.

3 Figures represent data reported by AGES Corporation, in above referencedreport, following the EPA Water Balance Method, Use of the Water BalanceMethod for Predicting Leachate Generation at Solid Waste Sites (1975).

* Figures represent data reported by AGES Corporation in above referenced report,following the PA DER Water Balance Method, Method for Predicting LeachateGeneration at Solid Waste Sites (1979).

Final Draft_•__ ' i - '

5.3.3 Conclusions to Evaluation of the Leachate Interceptor

It has been concluded that the leachate interceptor currently in place at the ChrinLandfill has been installed to control major leachate seeps from discharging alongthe side slopes of the landfill. This intended use is currently being met. However,the continued effectiveness of the system in serving this purpose over the long-term natural reclamation of the landfill area cannot be conclusively determined.

The collection and conveyance lines appear to be adequately sized, but load bearingover the pipes could not be calculated. Thus, the long-term structural integrity ofthe lines, and ultimately the entire system, cannot be determined. It is possiblethat, over time, the flow capacity of the existing pipes will decrease, through thebuild up of foreign matter and/or the collapse of line segments. Futuremaintenance of the system will therefore be required.

i . i

The quantity of leachate generated by the landfill, compared with the quantitywhich has been transported to the Easton Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), isillustrated in the following table:

TABLE 5.3-6INDUSTRIAL LANE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

LEACHATE QUANTITIES GENERATED VS. LEACHATE QUANTITIES TREATED

2 Quantity of Leachate1 Quantity of Leachate Transported to 3QUantity of Leachate

Year Generated (gals.) STP (gals.) Remaining (gals.)

1983 12,023,902 173,400 11,850,502

1984 8,309,200 932,140 7,377,060

1985 5,865,318 1,075,300 4,790,018(First nine months)

1 Based on NUS FIT III water balance calculation

2 Based on records provided by Easton Sewer Authority

3 Quantity generated minus quantity transported to STP

5-33AR30G25Q

Final Draft

Table 5.3-6 illustrates that a significant quantity of leachate is not being collecteby the interceptor system. The remaining leachate is percolating through thelandfill's subsurface zones into the subsurface strata below the landfill, and/or it issurfacing along the face of the landfill and re-infiltrating downslope orevaporating.

5.3.3.1 Subsurface Investigation to Identify Leachate Seepage

The subsurface investigation initiated during the course of the RI included theadvancement of three borings, located adjacent to and downslope from the oldestportion of the landfill and the lowest elevation reported for components of theleachate interceptor system. These borings were advanced approximately 50 feetdeep, in an attempt to identify shallow, laterally flowing surbsurface leachatewhich may be breaching the interceptor system. Lithologies of the borings wererecorded and split spoon samples were obtained at two-foot intervals. Sampleswere subsequently analyzed for organic and inorganic contaminants.

The lowest elevation associated with the leachate interceptor, as reported Oilavailable-as-built drawings, is the bottom of pump station no. 1, at 288 feet abovemean sea level (MSL). Boring no. 1 was advanced to the greatest depth below thiselevation, to approximately 255 feet MSL. Boring nos. 2 and 3 extend to 262 and267 feet above MSL, respectively. (Refer to figure 5.3-1 for location of borings.)

Split spoon samples were screened for organic contaminants as described insection 3 of this report. Samples were also shipped to the EPA CLP (ContractLaboratory Program) laboratories for inorganic analysis. The organic screeningwas designed to identify the presence of organic contaminants above the detectionlimits of 50 to 100 ppb. The inorganic analyses were performed under the standardCLP procedures for Hazardous Substances List (HSL) inorganic analysis.

Quality assurance reviews of the organic screening indicated no organic substancecontamination above the reported detection limits. A similar review of theinorganic analytical data revealed elevated levels of zinc, beryllium, and cadmium;however, the ranges reported were below levels of concern. (Refer to appendixfor sample data summaries of the shallow boring investigation^)

AR30025

Final Draft

5.3.4 Leachate Quality

Leachate samples were collected during the RI for chemical analyses. Data fromthese sample analyses were used to evaluate the impact of leachate infiltration tohydrogeologic units beneath the landfill. These data were also compared to datafrom previous leachate analyses conducted by the Easton Municipal SewageAuthrotiy and to leachate data in the literature. The following sections present adiscussion of these data.

5.3.4.1 Remedial Investigation Sample Results

During the RI, the leachate from the collection system was sampled three times,corresponding with the samples of other media during the RI. Samples were

! :

collected and shipped to EPA's CLP and analyses for HSL organics and inorganicsas well as total dissolved solids, total organic carbon, and chemical oxygen demand.

I

The three rounds of sampling reliably identified the presence of 11 organic and 21inorganic compounds in the landfill leachate. Table 5.3-7 presents these data withappropriate qualifiers based on Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) review.

5-35l

'. AR300252

Final Draft ITABLE 5.3-7

SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED INLEACHATE SAMPLES

Parameters _________Date Sampled_________

12/84 5/85 5/85 8/85

Volatile Organicsvinyl chloride ND ND ND 3.0*trans-l,2-dichloroethene 9.0 ND ND 22acetone 140H -F -F -F2-hexanone 33 ND ND NDtrichloroethene* ND ND ND 2.0Atoluene 42 4.0A 5.0A -Fethylbenzene 10 ND ND 2.0Atotal xylenes 56 13 14 30

Extractable Organicsbenzole acid 120 ND ND NDbis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -F ND -F 53Hchlordane ND 1.2B 0.42B ND

Inorganicsaluminum -F 10745B 15080B -Fantimony ND ND 387B NDarsenic* 14 11B ND 33barium 300 6345B 8459B 307beryllium ND -F 52B NDcadmium ND ND 37B NDcalcium 140000 614000H 1,263,500B 125000chromium* -F -F 310B 46

Note; Refer to page 5-38 for footnotes and abbreviations used on this tableAll concentrations are reported on PPB except where noted.

5-36

AR300253

Final Draft

Table 5.3-7 (continued)

Parameter _________Date Sampled_________

12/84 5/85 5/85 8/85

cobalt ND 200B 747B (44)copper ND 680B 1001B -Firon 7900 1,231,300* 2,052,500B 4700lead* 12 710B 1400B NDmagnesium 96000 101300B 187500B 93600manganese 2100 51050s 83170B 360nickel 110 240B 619B 146potassium 340000 237500B 318800s 394000sodium 790000 721500 849900 943000tin ND ND 6700s 61vanadium ND 29 5B 806B (22)zinc* -F 14030s 20230s 153cyanide 11 -F -F ND

j i

Other Parameters(Reported in PPM)

total dissolved solids E 1340s 3770s Etotal organic carbon 461 718B 69 3B Echemical oxygen demand -F 1306 912B E

Note: Refer to page 5-38 for footnotes and abbreviations used on this table

5-37 A"R30Q25i*

Final Draft

Footnotes for Industrial LaneAnalytical Data

A. Estimated value - reported below quantitation limit.

B. Estimated value - based upon quality assurance review.

C. Higher detection limit reported.

D. Detection limit unreliable; exceeded holding time.

E. Analysis not performed.

F. Positive value reported but was questioned by quality assurance. (However,the presence of this constituent at this sampling location was confidentlyestablished during a different round of sampling.)

G. Tentative identification - not confirmed by GC/MS.

H. Suspected laboratory contaminant; however, value could not be questioned.

I. Estimated concentrations for tentatively identified compounds.

J. High detection limit expected.

General Footnotes/Considerations

All solid sample analysis results are based upon dry weight.

(.) Value greater than instrument D.L., but less than required D.L.

N.D. None detected - laboratory result forms with appropriate detection limits areavailable upon request.

N.C. No confident positive results were obtained.

* Compounds of concern

AR30025'5

i>

Final Draft

5.3.4.2 Historical Data Obtained from the Easton Municipal Sewage Authority

The Easton Sewage Treatment facility has been receiving leachate flow from theChrin Landfill via a direct conveyance line connection since early 1984. TheMunicipal Sewage Authority has forwarded analytical results of samples ofleachate collected from this connection, on a quarterly basis, beginning the secondquarter of 1984 and ending in the second quarter of 1985. Table 5.3-8 summarizesthe data received.

5.3.4.3 Anticipated Leachate Quality Rangesl

Available literature reports extensive data pertaining to the typical inorganiccharacteristics of leachate generated from municipal landfills. A comparisonbetween leachate quality data for inorganics developed for the Chrin Landfill thisRI and reported typical leachate quality ranges from the literature is shown intable 5.3-9.

5-39

flR300256

•o

Qt

£ •<=*+. +•"Q *

isc/2•o

4->

'c

<« .2SII SC IS **— - 4}

O — •1

</>•8aatc•o

<uaz

Iou

(0c'im§u

(A

8

I *}AR300257

300

(N

-'v>— « ve NO <»> oo —— - * — l . - > o o - ' - « « * % »<-^ _. . . O . rt . ; .... «ST . . *^ . . » O _ i ...° — oo-.o®o — oooo — o — ' o-'-Id _?•• ooo

301*l *

4*

vv

0*2

^ (-(— »«*><*•* — 2v'V V V V

V

3 00

•o4)

pi

o&sou

g

•otM

OS tX NO <O NO<1 -. •* "io o — o o

1 0*24-></>

<D

tri^~.-».3<<o--:23oooocjZZdd°dd

Q

o

0*2•o<N

I

;*oo — 2-i°«2•"^ • § • *«r • • o "^

Q

oo

AR300259

Final Draft

TABLE 5.3-9

COMPARISON BETWEEN TYPICAL LEACHATE QUALITY RANGESAND DATA FOR THE LEACHATE GENERATED

BY THE CHRIN LANDFILL

*Leachate Quality 2Average Levels Average Levels(Typical Ranges) Detected During Reported by Sewage

___Constituent___ Reported RI Sampling (mg/1) Treatment Plant (mg/1

Chloride 34 - 2,800 NA NAIron 0.2-5,500 824 11.78

Manganese .06 - 1,400 34.2 0.83Zinc 0-1,000 11.5 0.23

Magnesium 16.5 - 15,600 120 105Calcium 5 - 4,880 3,350 102Potassium 2.8 - 3,770 323 448Sodium 0-7,700 826 NA

Phosphate 0 - 154 NA NACopper 0 - 9.9 0.84 0.08Lead 0-5.0 Q.53 0.15

Cadmium — 0.009 0.02Total Dissolved Solids 0 - 42,276 2,555 NA

Chemical Oxygen Demand 0-89,520 1,109 NA

NA - Not Analyzed

^Reported by EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management programs, Hazardous WasteManagement Division. Environmental Protection Publication SW-110, U.5. EPA,1973, 32 p (open file report)

^Average levels detected during 3 sampling rounds implemented during the RI

^Average levels reported by Easton Sewage Authority for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarterof 1984 and 1st and 2nd quarter of 1985.

AR3Q0260

Final Draft

5.3.5 Conclusions

The leachate interceptor system currently in use at the Chrin Landfill appears tobe effective in controlling major leachate seeps from breaking out along thelandfill side slopes. A calculation of the water balance for the landfill areaindicates that large quantities of leachate are not likely to be collected by thesystem. Shallow borings placed downgradient of the landfill interceptor system didnot provide evidence of laterally migrating subsurface leachate flows. Thus, itappears that leachate which is not collected by the leachate collection system, isinfiltrating into the geologic overburden between the base of the landfill andsubsequent bedrock zones.

Data from the analyses of leachate samples collected during the RI were comparedto data obtained from the Easton Sewage Authority and to data reported in theliterature for typical inorganic contaminant concentration ranges. Both the RIdata and the Easton Sewage Authority data are consistent with expected inorganiccontaminant concentrations for municipal landfill leachate.

J>5-44

flR30026J

Final Draft

REFERENCES

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Use of the Water BalanceMethod for Predicting Leachate Generation From Solid Waste DisposalSites. No. EPA/530/SW-168.

2. Dunne, Thomas, and Luna B. Leopold. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H.Freeman and Company, pp. 127 - 157. 1978.

3. James, C.S. Production and Management of Leachate from Municipal Landfill.pp. 76- 107.

4. Applied Geotechnicial and Environmental Services Corporation. Solid WasteManagement Facility Master Plan. For Chrin Brothers, WilliamsTownship, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1985.

5. Applied Geotechnicial and Environmental Services Corporation. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources Replacement Phase I -Application for area no. 4 of the Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill.Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Permit No.100022. 1983.

6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund ViolationEvidentiary Files for the Chrin Sanitary Landfill. (Includes allegedmanifest records from Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania).

7. Applied Geotechnical and Environmental Services Corporation. IndustrialWaste Assessment, Chrin Sanitary Landfill, Williams Township,Northampton County, Pennsylvania. 1983.

8. Applied Geotechnical and Environmental Services Corporation to PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources. Correspondence. August 9,1983. (Project no. 43881, submitted to Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources, June 1984.) Addendum no. 1 Application forPermit Amendment - Phase II. Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill,Williams Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. PA DERPermit No. 100022.

_ AR300262

Final Draft

9. Applied Geotechnical and Environmental Services Corporation.for Permit Amendment - Phase II. Site Development Layout Plans;drawing nos. 43881-D-026, D-028, D-034, D-027, D-038, D-009, D-039,D-029, D-030, D-071, 32, 33, 40, 36, 35, 48, 46-003. Submitted toPennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, June 1985.

10. Site investigation of Chrin Brothers Landfill, Easton, Pennsylvania. BioneticsCorporation. For the Environmental Photographic InterpretationCenter^ Contract no. 68-03-3161. December 1983.

11. VERSAR Remedial Action Master Plan, Industrial Lane Site. Developed forNUS Corporation. March 1984.

12. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Hazardous Waste ManagementDivision. An environmental assessment of potential gas and leachateproblems at land disposal sites. Environmental Protection PublicationSW-llOi of (Cincinnati), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.33 p. (Open-file report, restricted distribution.)

5-46AR300263

flR30026U

it Final Draft6.0 SURFACE WATER, SEDIMENTS. AND SOILS SAMPLING INVESTIGATION

The objective of the surface water, sediments, and soils sampling investigation wasto establish a reliable data base for characterizing the general extent ofcontamination within probable surface water migration routes associated with thestudy area. Potential public and environmental receptors along those routes were

_. . . !also evaluated. A secondary objective included the identification of hot spots, orpoint sources, of contamination within the study area.

The data base is used as support documentation for a risk assessment calculated forpublic and environmental receptors within the study area. The data will also beused as supplemental information necessary for the feasibility study (FS).

Within the study area, surface water migration routes leading from the ChrinLandfill area were principally addressed. The majority of the sample locationswere within the Chrin Landfill watershed drainage basin. The primary receptor forcontamination migration through surface water routes is the Lehigh River. Sincethere are no public drinking water intakes on the Lehigh River downstream of theIndustrial Lane study area, environmental receptors were of principal concern.

6.1 Surface Water Migration Pathways

Surface water migration pathways are defined by drainage characteristics and thelocation of respective contamination sources and receptors of concern.Contamination migration along surface water routes is controlled by and confinedto watershed areas. As described in section 2.0 of this report, there are fourdifferent watershed areas within the Industrial Lane study area. Surface waterflows within each watershed are confined to that watershed area and ultimatelydischarge into the Lehigh River.

6-1

AR300265

Final Draft

As described in section 4.0, in addition to the Chrin Landfill, there are sevenpotential surface water and/or soil contamination sources located within the studyarea. Each potential contamination source is situated within one of thesewatershed areas. Of these eight potential sources, three are most prone tocontributing to surface water contamination. The remaining five are insignificantfrom the standpoint of their respective probable contribution as surface watercontamination sources.

6.2 Distribution o! Contaminants

As described in section 3.0 of this report, the contaminants identified during theRI, at all sample locations, were evaluated in a systematic manner designed toconsider public health and environmental hazards. Based on this review, sevencontaminants, including benzene, trichloroethene, chloroform, lead, zinc,chromium, and arsenic, were established as contaminants of concern. Thedistribution of these substances will be considered within this section.

Several factors should be considered when reviewing analytical data applicable tosamples collected from surface waters, drainage paths, and soil locations.Specifically, physical and chemical characteristics of the contaminants and themedia in which they are present, combined with migration pathway patterns(described in section 6.1), will determine the ultimate distribution of contaminants.This concept is commonly referred to as the mobility factor. Mobility factorsgenerally vary for contaminants. For a detailed explanation of specificcontaminant mobility factors associated with the contaminants of concern and howthey impact study area receptors, refer to the accompanying endangermentassessment (EA) report.

RR30Q2&6

Final Draft

The description of the distribution of contaminants in surface water, drainageways,and soils within the Industrial Lane study area, as based on the results of thesampling investigation and considering the contaminants of concern, is presented inthe following discussion. Tables 6.2-1 and 6.2-2 present a summary of the levelsof contaminants identified in samples collected during the RI.

6.2.1 Surface Waters, Drainage Pathways and Surficial Soil Samples

There are four watershed basins which occur within the Industrial Lane study area.Refer to figure 6.2-1 for delineation of this area. This discussion will considereach basin, including consideration of potential contamination sources.

Area no. 1 includes the drainage area which surrounds the Chrin Landfill. Thesurface water, soil, 'and sediment sampling investigation primarily involved thisdrainage area. Original drainage patterns for this watershed area have beenaltered by both landfill development and the placement of a man-made sub-watershed drainage divide (the abandoned railroad grade). This railroad gradeeffectively contains surface water runoff from the landfill area. Surface waterrunoff from the headwaters of watershed area no. 1 drains to the abandoned quarryarea along the south side of the rail grade, where it is contained until it eitherevaporates and/or seeps into the subsurface strata. A wet area, observed during

;field reconnaissance, is located north of the rail grade. This wet area is probablyrecharge from the quarry area. Water in this wet area is eventually channelized,flowing to a small intermittent stream that traverses central Glendon anddischarges into the Lehigh River Canal.

6-3

fiR300267

i *!-•( ' ^ * ' \ x Ni.I * I \ « \' <r * « \ \ ^V ^C \i >'F\ -.,-X-. —- J X < £3^ \ '•• .. \-'--, '- V" uj sr j !r•••^•' x \ 5 ./••-*•.'' *r>N .. <:- . .,..•''. -V

(O

00 z.zo

>Otnco -

UJ>

BR300268

Final Draft

The abandoned quarry area, therefore, becomes the collection point for surfacewater runoff from the landfill area, which has drained through the landfill's surfacewater control structures. (Refer to figure 6.2-2 for a detailed illustration ofdrainage patterns within this watershed area.)

iSurface water aqueous samples from this drainage area were not collected due todrought conditions which prevailed during the sampling periods. Drainage path

I - !

sediment samples were, however, obtained from all evident drainage ditches. Alow point in the abandoned quarry area was sampled and the drainage path throughGlendon was also sampled. Several drainage paths flowing from the landfill and thelandfill check-in point were sampled. The Pennsalt property, located adjacent tothe landfill, was also sampled. Specifically, samples of an impoundedwater/swampy area in the central area of the property, along with surface soils andhand auger samples, were obtained. No single surface drainage path was identifiedflowing from the Pennsalt property.

Generally, the analytical data reveal that the distribution of organic contaminantsof concern within this watershed basin is insignificant. The only organic

| i

contaminant of concern identified was trichloroethene. This contaminant wasfound in a sediment sample collected from a drainage ditch, which carries surfacerunoff from the landfill, at 7.0 ppb concentration. This contaminant was onlyidentified during one round of sampling. Inorganic contaminants of concern were

i iidentified at elevated levels in most sample locations. However, the drainage pathand soil samples obtained within this watershed area were not found to exhibitsignificantly greater levels of contaminants of concern, as compared to levels ofcontaminants identified in samples obtained from the Lehigh River upstream fromthe influence of the watershed area. The exception to these general findings is onesample location, located on the Pennsalt property, which exhibited elevated levelsof arsenic. This sample was obtained directly beneath an abandoned wooden vatwhich contained residual white and gray powdery substances. A sample of thissubstance was also obtained and found to contain high levels of arsenic. Nodrainageway leaving this area could be identified and samples from downgradientareas did not exhibit elevated levels.

6-5

AR300269

K\ """O •>'/ *A,A. NN •'-•> /<>f i l i h

Final Draft

The remaining three watershed areas were sampled to a lesser extent. Limited soilsampling was implemented in watershed no. 4. Since surface water flows from thisarea drain to the South Easton storm sewer system, surface water aqueous sampleswere not obtained.

The soil sampling investigation in watershed area no. 4 revealed the presence ofpolychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 1260 in a sample collected from a stained soil areaadjacent to Easton Car and Construction's abandoned factory building. However,PCB 1260 has not been identified as a contaminant of concern, due largely to itsrelative immobility in soils. (For further consideration of this factor, refer to theaccompanying EA report.)

Morgan Valley Creek, the surface water draining watershed area no. 2, wassampled directly upstream from its confluence with the Lehigh River Canal andfarther upstream from the confluence, at a distance of approximately one milefrom the canal. Analysis of aqueous samples obtained at both sample locationsduring all sample rounds did not reveal site-related contaminants. However,elevated levels of zinc were identified in upstream sediment samples. Pointsources within this watershed could not be identified. This watershed area was notadversely impacting the Lehigh River during the RI.

Watershed area no. 3, extending to within the southwestern area of the IndustrialLane study area, has land areas which are largely outside the study area. However,the surface water which drains this watershed collects runoff from the AshlandChemical Plant area, which could be considered a potential point source.Additionally, Ashland Chemical directly discharges (NPDES discharge no. 0011601)into the Lehigh River. Both aqueous and sediment samples were obtained from theAshland Chemical discharge point and were found to contain elevated levels oftrichloroethene. Additionally, high levels of chromium were identified in aqueoussamples obtained during the first round of sample collection. Sediment samplesobtained from the discharge point exhibited elevated levels of inorganiccontaminants of concern, although the levels were not significantly higher thansediment samples from the Lehigh River.

6-7

AR30027

I&«ls.a.I

. e

ftI if& S

g1 0=5I .a <X,

M•«! £ =

O i OZ !Z

a sis31 §!§

* =. eIIf?3W »^l-s*l*ifH|f a

.3SS SftOj? u•3» u

I I

li

U> ~I- V

a i az I z

!liiT)

i

ilia

— NO ZU.

: u.s

GO O

QV.Q

OOQQZZZZ

Q O Q Qzzzz

—-. U.—

QQQZZZ

aztt.

Q aoZ ZZ

lal

OQQQZZZZ

CJOCJU QQQQZZZZ ZZZZ

•S II. tt.

2 zz

z1fs.1

•1w%•0^

QQQQZZZZ

ogcxg<"<"

irt «N*0 M^S ^

IS0

*

1u &If1<Q

ouuoZZZZ

o-gag<</)<to

w\ <r>•0 M— "rt

mQ

asi*li£u

QQQQZZZZ

o-gc/g< 10 < V)

irt «•9 M5 ^

2

s-8.11?

z1

ex<

m•9•N

•a

SS5,1

^5

i -9Z «si Z

5

U ! u !z ! z I

O UU oZZZZ

cxgcxg

si 5 |i 12 12 12 1^

BO 5il

AR300272

1 II

aau o—— > — *• •« M — •• M M •• M •«• B MB *V M Z* » M

ill 1jy_ 3 *

•s"h

.a11|

*„N

V

E

o

U

Trichloro-

ethene

gj}i

II

5 "3GU

II

11

oz

ioz

oz

i

]iii

ii

?*

••

2

E:

i4ii

00zz

QQZZ

QQZZ

ii

23

zz9

L1! y y» *• «t»

Itf

•o

f>

[J

ill

Isl

2Su.

zfcz

uuuzzz

uuuzzz1"1

222!

<l?b

•• •

s«&•*IfJfitiiJ

9frfJ

1

1

i§

««•gs«J5

„2n.

z

yz

Mz

Q QHllUI/) V)

•O M

— ejc -8til(5<3

ooozzz

§=§«« !-•Ml.

Z ° Z

1

yzz^

•o

1S

y^i

?l?sM •«

O

3

Pi-

0000ZZZZ

SP3tt.ii.

NP KS « u. «

ON O22fcPi

2zzi

si

Iuuuzzz i

ryQ/yQw m vj j

•a «o^ 5?

IIIf

aau azzz z

8S P* 5» ^^»f^^s ^»r^/i.< * i ? » f i r i f i ^ T r i r i / i ! OOUO

ZZZZ

agog

ooa azzz z

z-z z

ago u.

§§§«,

XJ!

III

AR3Q0273

?

SM O

I I.E

J3 J ._ E -9fls I

21-s-J «5||*l A

I

<_^ •• - - - - U.U,Kia

3N| a» tt. —

M$ £60 • w

o u

.a.H

Benz

!

^ z

00

o.H S-Jit o

•igiIII

zzz

uuuzzz

ooo

ii

M 0 (M

U.U.2

(N«»\£ N

*s=

^yuuuzzz

zzz

QQQm *y MI(/•> w) (/i

•O #6 tO

-•*"

§

g

IfIi

si»

U. O.S

ON m J»

=*§

USK

UUUzzz

zzz

oooU UJ Ul 'I/I I/) I/)

*>*%!*

-

—

|J

••-,

»M IA

— fv «NVO ON <»l

M — —

QQQZZZ

900£zz

OQQZZZ

aaoUJ UJ UJ1/5 55 10

«r\««? «o

§

p5.i

ooszz =

U.U.S

§ — S

«-*m (M {N

mQ U U

iy^

???•• <r\*\aS»n

Pennsalt

Drainage

vfi ».0 r-vin

UUUZZZ

UUUzzz

uuuzzz

s

IetM

A

Siir51

Jl

|ifill

ii I

millI !!»• BiJ -

wg2

oaiN

3

E

2oS

22 vS|

1V

tsiS|CA H«

1oiaII

a

li

2SS

U.B. m

ft la

\O tv rsi£82

QQQZZZ

QQQZZZ

ooozzz

III

5SS

s_8— »!fs-3.3<0

Q ggjz — —

tt. U.S

s««

(N •% «««

^

"°z222

III

5SS

D:

-1If

*2s

tx mtt. ON M

<a

-3*^ rv ON* m ON(N ON Nf\

ZZZ

uuuzzz

uuuzzz

III

"5S§

3~st ~*< 0

cs»U.U.*

-ISe .

sli

zzz.

uuuzzz

uuuzzz

o o ot/> t/1 C/1

sss2~8« ™If '

•SRiS

U.U.SJ

o

5u.s

ooozzz

QQQZZZ

ooozzz

$£&

90 « W

J

i*•«ii

M •»

ooZZ

S3

ftu.

zz

"

uuzz

II*

•3

1i

;Sz2

B.S

» » •

f\ *>\Orx va M

QQQZZZ

QQQZZZ

ooozzz

«.«*

s s

JII*"* e

2Piills'HJfJ'3 .1 r -^ Q Q Q UUU UUU UUU OOO UU OOO os

Z

I 5z <

a cZ <

O J» C*. b u*

AR300275

.

il.s

ill5 g'3H|ill3PJ3 I e^£§*la e |

rfJ gt?I'l1S

i

s i

«*•* *=«

oog u zz_c

1 II ss1o __« |E*.£ T* ^

S|6

1 S«NO -

oozz

a gC S u« S «|

1 II oozzi«i1 ii5 S OC3« a! z SE

t|| S2in .H oo10 (-] <« M

TJauvJt• 0OO

WN «N

5?r

f SI 7SiCJ >

.5c 311 IIui Zl S >

oozz

oozz

^Stu

«»W «*l

22

u uzz

uuzz

•o -oIINfN Nf\•a w-« f

ts>

Ia1aj

•§.=•a.SilaiifUs"ic gla2 g5 u•••! lf

4 -P)

SR30G276

Final Draft

Footnotes for Industrial LaneAnalytical Data

A. Estimated value - reported below quantitatlon limit.•B. Estimated value - based upon quality assurance review.

C. Higher detection limit reported.

F. Positive value reported but was questioned by quality assurance. (However,the presence of this constituent at this sampling location was confidentlyestablished during a different round of sampling.)

G. Tentative identification - not confirmed by GC/MS.- - - _ t

H. Suspected laboratory contaminant; however, value could not be questioned.

I. Estimated concentrations for tentatively identified compounds.

General Footnotes/Considerations

All solid sample analysis results are based upon dry weight.

() Value greater than instrument detection limits, but less than requireddetection limits.

ND None detected - laboratory result forms with appropriate detection limits areavailable upon request.

NC No confident positive results were obtained.

ppb Parts per billion.

ppm Parts per million.

ftR300277

Final Draft

Aqueous and sediments samples were also obtained from the Lehigh River and theLehigh River Canal, at locations upstream and downstream of anticipated pointsources. Sample locations were established primarily to identify the impact ofwatershed area no. 1 on the Lehigh River and the Lehigh River Canal. Organiccontaminants of concern above detection limits were not identified in any aqueousor sediment sample collected during all sample rounds at all sample locations.However, the levels of lead and zinc identified in both aqueous and sedimentsamples were elevated. Of particular significance was the fact that identifiedlevels of zinc and lead, in samples obtained upstream of the influence of runofffrom watershed area no. 1, were higher than the levels of zinc and lead in samplesdrawn downstream of watershed no. 1.

6.3 Conclusions

Data from the analyses of surface water, sediment, and soil samples indicate thatno significant or wide-spread organic compound contamination of these mediaoccurs within the Situdy area. Elevated levels of several inorganic contaminants ofconcern were identified within a widely distributed area. This distribution is notconsistent with the migration of these contaminants from any existing point sourcewithin the study area but instead indicates contaminant dispersion through the airroute or from surface water point sources located upstream or outside of the studyarea. Presented below is a discussion of the probable sources of the wide-spreadzinc and lead contamination which was indicated by analytical results from samplesobtained during the; remedial investigation (RI).

6-1*fiR300278

Final Draft

6.3.1 Probable Sources of Lead and Zinc Contamination within the Study Areai

As described in section 4.0 of this RI, in addition to the Chrin Landfill, sevenpotential sources of surface water and/or soils contamination have been identifiedbased on historical information. (Refer to table 4.3-1, in section 4.0 of this RIreport, for a list of these potential sources.) The basic inherent characteristics ofeach potential source are such that only the Chrin Landfill, Ashland Chemical, andthe abandoned quarry area pose exclusively as potential surface watercontamination sources. The preceding portions of this section explain sampleresults associated with these two areas.

A factor which has not been addressed involves the consideration of the GlendonIron Works, and various additional, unnamed primary and secondary metalfabricating centers located outside the study area, as potential sources of wide-ispread inorganic contamination. In particular, elevated levels of lead and zinc instudy area soils and sediments could be attributed to the deposition of particulatelead and zinc throughout the entire Lehigh River Valley from air pollution producedby these manufacturing facilities which are interspersed throughout the LehighValley. This type of industry has been prevalent throughout the study area and theLehigh River Valley since the mid-1800s.

j :

Figures 6.3-1 and 6.3-2 have been developed to illustrate the levels of lead and zincidentified in sediment samples obtained from locations across the study area.Insufficient data exist to statistically verify that the Glendon Iron Works is thesource of these contaminants; however, the lack of conclusive evidence identifyinga point source within the study area, combined with the wide-spread identificationof elevated levels of lead and zinc, supports the probability of this occurrence.

6-15

AH3

Final Draft

In conclusion, the surface water, sediment, and soil sampling investigation did not"positively identify specific point sources of contaminants of concern within theIndustrial Lane study area. The investigation, however, did provide a significantdata base by which to conclude that surface water migration routes are currentlynot impacted by organic contaminants of concern from within the study area.Likewise, the investigation clarified that upstream water quality associated withthe Lehigh Rivet-Lehigh River Canal exhibited inorganic contaminants of concernat levels equal to or higher than levels identified within the primary watershed ofconcern. For detailed consideration of the environmental impacts associated withthe levels of both organic and inorganic contaminants of concern identified withinthe study area during the RI, refer to the accompanying EA report.

6-16

AR30G280

U!

oUl

ccfe3OZ

AR300281

isi

*' ISL " t \v• " 3l^3\ *. /X -\.' • • '• -YPvJfs \ 7 '* --W ;J£v- <,P.-•,;., Aw. )f\ j -h-$•'••'•*.*' -:- /""• I li t/ /'/ /5" \ V

;K, -0. 4<!:;JL |v | ///' i -?; ' ) K,;-..- i^'V^M / AO. .l-'i- f [ / f, > //\ ///S:Tvi n •• :- i1 'f: r' " /fi J- .j ;\ ! '-.A II h : V ,--//

' r"

S::.-.'•: \' S .sC^.-i Nfe<*CviN¥? . .s< • - - - >vr^«A \ *«:\ ••!,/• ,.- > r,« \j- \ .<n| ,• . • • • rfr 5§i^ ( \/r«!^ i li iifi;,w1 f r<gu$ r'i:;-;-/r"•* "x* x^1 ~_«i" ' 5

/ xy/ ^hsttnat* »6. ' '«|,.:' "I '/ // '-v—————————. ,. I • U«i / •< i*/r v vt^X''UiV !.-\!5 H ^ sr-r 1 s \ .

.... ••* % ri/"*V- i § I si

i :! e!n j i i S siiijUi!Ins!•300XX !!-su

t!

LU

_l

fiR300282

REFERENCES

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Data base of sampling sitesand water quality data, Easton and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. StoretSystem, December 9,1985

2. United States Geological Survey. Easton, Pennsylvania Quadrangle, 7.5 MinuteSeries. Topographic Map. 1973.

3. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Northampton County,Pennsylvania. County Report 48, 1973.

4. Center for Canal History and Technology. Proceedings of the Canal Historyand Technology Symposium. Volume II, March 26, 1983.

5. City of Easton, Canal Museum and Hugh Moore Park. An Adventure intoHistory is Just Around the Bend. Date unknown.

6-19

AR30-G283