173529014_Full_FINAL_Emsworth_Back Channel_SAR.pdf

Sampling and Analysis Report

Phase II HTRW Sampling and Analysis Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Investigation Back Channel Dam Abutment Stabilization and Scour Protection Project Emsworth Lock and Dams Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Contract W91237-08-D-0028 Work Order No. 0003

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District Huntington, West Virginia

June 25, 2009

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc E.1

Executive Summary

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) was contracted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Huntington District, to perform a limited sampling of soil and groundwater located near the concrete abutments of the Emsworth Back Channel Dam in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania near the town of McKees Rocks. Studies performed by others indicate the abutments are in need of stabilization and scour protection. Previous studies also indicated that work to conduct the stabilization may result in the exposure of workers to potential contaminants in the subsurface soil or groundwater. The objective of this assessment was to characterize contamination in the soil and groundwater that may be encountered as part of the Back Channel Dam abutment and scour protection efforts. Data obtained during this assessment are also intended to provide information useful in evaluating the exposure of workers to any potential contaminants present in the subsurface and useful in the future management of any excavated materials.

The field sampling activities were performed on May 12 through the 16th and May 26 through 28, 2009. A total of five (5) soil borings were made, three (3) on the right descending bank (north end of dam) and two (2) on the left descending bank (south end of dam). Soil samples were collected from each boring, at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals, and submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Temporary groundwater wells were installed in the boreholes, sampled and abandoned.

In addition, three test pits were excavated with a backhoe and the soil sampled. The test pits were excavated on the James Bisbee property west and adjacent to the USACE property. Two samples were collected from each excavation and submitted for analyses.

Laboratory results for the soil samples reported the presence of some target analytes. These results were initially compared to the Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program Organic and Inorganic Regulated Substances in Soil, Non Residential Surface and Subsurface Soil, Statewide Heath Standards, (Pennsylvania’s Brownfields Program). This analysis reported the presence of lead at 5760 mg/kg above the target criteria at one location. This sample was re-analyzed and the new result indicated a concentration of 46.1 mg/kg. It appeared that the initial high result was a data outlier. Stantec further evaluated the lab data utilizing the United States Protection Agency’s ProUCL 4.0 statistical program. The results of this analysis indicated that the lead exceedance appeared to be a statistical outlier. Accepting this result, none of the assessment data set exceeded the regulatory action levels.

The soil data were also compared to the Pennsylvania Management of Fill Policy (MoFP). The Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program action levels were derived with an understanding that the material will remain in place. If there is the potential for the subsurface material to be excavated or otherwise brought to the surface, the soil concentrations must be compared to the MoFP for guidance in managing the material.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc E.2

The MoFP differentiates fill into the following regulatory classes: Clean fill, Historic Fill, and Regulated Fill. Stantec compared the lab data to the MoFP criteria, where several metals exceeded the Clean Fill criteria; therefore, based on the data that we currently have today, disturbed materials would be considered Regulated Fill.

Regulated Fill requires conformance to various guidelines when reused on a project site. This includes, but is not limited to (1) the potential for requiring a Pennsylvania General Fill Permit, or

(2) the implementation of Best Management Practices during soil disturbance activities. The best management practices governs both generation and placement and possible requirements for a surface cover over Regulated Fill to mitigation exposure pathways, to name a few. If excavation spoils are to be managed off-site, these materials must be transported and managed as regulated fill.

Groundwater sample data were compared against the Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program Standards for Used Aquifers with high total dissolved solids. This evaluation indicated the exceedance of lead above the target criteria at one well on the left descending bank (south end of dam) of the Back Channel Dam. Because this well yielded samples with very high turbidity (fines in suspension), this result may more indicative of dissolved soil concentrations than concentrations dissolved in groundwater.

Lastly, the data obtained during this assessment, with the exception of the lead result outlier, did not indicate the exceedance of the Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program Statewide Health Standards; however, future worker safety and the selection of personal protective equipment are based on numerous factors and these factors should be considered and evaluated by safety professionals in the implementation of specific work assignments.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK (SOW)

1.3 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT

1.5 LIMITING CONDITIONS AND METHODOLOGY USED

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES

2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING

2.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

2.3.1 Geologic Setting

2.3.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions

2.4 SITE HISTORY AND LAND USE

2.5 ADJACENT PROPERTY LAND USE

2.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS

3.0 PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

3.1 PROJECT APPROACH

3.1.1 Preparation of Plans

3.1.2 Selection of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

3.1.3 Approach

3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF SOW

3.2.1 Notification of Appropriate Authorities

3.2.2 Health and Safety Procedures

3.2.3 Field Documentation

3.2.4 Photographs

3.2.5 Soil Boring and Soil Sampling

3.2.5.1 Soil Boring Procedures

3.2.5.2 Summary Description of Subsurface Materials

3.2.5.3 Field Screening and Laboratory Sample Retention

3.2.6 Groundwater Sampling

3.2.7 Test Pit Investigation

3.2.8 Investigation Derived Material

4.0 QUALITY CONTROL

4.1 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY

4.2 EQUIPMENT BLANK SAMPLES

4.3 TRIP BLANK SAMPLES

4.4 TEMPERATURE BLANKS

Table of Contents (Cont.)

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc ii

4.5 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL

4.5.1 Method Blanks

4.5.2 Calibration Curves

4.5.3 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates

4.5.4 Data Usability Assessment

4.6 DECONTAMINATION ACTIVITIES

5.0 DEVIATIONS FROM THE WORK PLAN

5.1 TEST PIT EXCAVATIONS

5.2 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES

5.3 ADDITIONAL ARARS

5.4 LOCATION OF SOIL BORINGS AT BACK CHANNEL DAM

6.0 EVALUATION AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

6.1 PROJECT FINDINGS

6.1.1 Laboratory Analysis

6.1.2 Soil Boring Sampling Results

6.1.2.1 Soil Boring TPH Sampling Results

6.1.2.2 Soil Boring Metals Sampling Results

6.1.2.3 Soil Boring pH Sampling Results

6.1.2.4 Soil Boring Herbicide Sampling Results

6.1.2.5 Soil Boring PCBs Sampling Results

6.1.2.6 Soil Boring SVOC Sampling Results

6.1.2.7 Soil Boring VOC Sampling Results

6.1.3 Test Pit Sampling Results

6.1.3.1 Test Pit TPH Sampling Results

6.1.3.2 Test Pit Metals Sampling Results

6.1.3.3 Test Pit pH Sampling Results

6.1.3.4 Test Pit PCBs Sampling Results

6.1.3.5 Test Pit SVOC Sampling Results

6.1.3.6 Test Pit VOC Sampling Results

6.1.4 Groundwater Sampling Results

6.1.4.1 Groundwater TPH Sampling Results

6.1.4.2 Groundwater Metals Sampling Results

6.1.4.3 Groundwater pH Sampling Results

6.1.4.4 Groundwater PCBs Sampling Results

6.1.4.5 Groundwater SVOC Sampling Results

6.1.4.6 Groundwater VOC Sampling Results

6.2 SUMMARY OF SOIL BORING AND TEST PIT LABORATORY RESULTS

6.2.1 PLRP Data Comparison

6.2.2 Management of Fill Policy Data Comparison

6.3 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER LABORATORY RESULTS

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS CONCLUSIONS

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc iii

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.0 CLOSURE

10.0 REFERENCES

TABLES

FIGURES

APPENDICES

Appendix A USACE Scope of Work Appendix B Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Appendix C Health and Safety Checklists Appendix D Photographs Appendix E Boring and Test Pit Logs, Daily Inspector and Field Supervisor Reports, Quality

Control Field Oversight Checklists Appendix F Chain-of-Custody Documentation Appendix G Quality Control Certification, Quality Control Review Checklist, IQCT and USACE

Review Comments and Responses Appendix H Soil and Groundwater Laboratory Reports on CDs

ACRONYMS

ARAR

ASTM

bgs

COC

DoD

DRO

DQO

ESA

FSP

GPS

GRO

HSA

HTRW

ID

IDW

IQCT

Applicable or Relevant, and Appropriate Requirements American Society of Testing and Materials below ground surface Chain-of-Custody Department of Defense Diesel Range Organics Data Quality Objectives Environmental Site Assessment Field Sampling Plan Global Positioning System Gasoline Range Organics Hollow Stem Augers Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Inner Diameter Investigation Derived Waste Independent Quality Control Team jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc iv

MDL

MoFP

MS

MSD

MSL

NGVD

PADEP

PCB

PID

PLRP

POC

PPE

PQL

PVC

QA

QAP

QAPP

QC

QCP

QSM

RCRA

REC

RLs

SAP

SOW

SSHP

Stantec

SVOC

TAL

TCL

TestAmerica

TPH

USDA

USACE

VOCs

Method Detection Limit Management of Fill Policy Matrix spike Matrix Spike Duplicate Mean Sea Level National Geodetic Vertical Datum Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Polychlorinated Biphenyl Photoionization Detector Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program Point of Contact – Technical contact for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Personal Protective Equipment Practical Quantitation Limit Polyvinyl Chloride Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Plan Quality Assurance Project Plan Quality Control Quality Control Plan Quality System Manual Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Recognized Environmental Concern Reporting Limits Sampling and Analysis Plan Scope of Work Site-Specific Safety and Health Plan Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Target Analyte List Target Compound List Test America Laboratories, Inc.

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons United Stated Department of Agriculture United States Army Corps of Engineers Volatile Organic Compounds

Introduction jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 1

1.0 Introduction

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) was retained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to perform a limited Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the Emsworth Locks and Dams, Back Channel Dam site (Figure 1, 2). During a Phase I ESA performed by the USACE Huntington District, several Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified on or near the target property. Assessment of these RECs is required prior to construction activities planned to take place on the dam property.

Stantec performed the sampling in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (ESA): Phase II ESA Process (ASTM Designation: E1903-97, Re-approved 2002)

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The USACE stated objectives within this scope of work are: “to further determine, by sampling and analysis, the potential for Hazardous Toxic Radioactive Waste (HTRW) contamination which may be present within the project work area at the Emsworth Locks and Dams, Emsworth Back Channel Site.”

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK (SOW)

The SOW for this assessment included the following tasks:

1. Preparation and submittal of the following Plans:

• Quality Control Plan (QCP);

• Site Specific Health and Safety Plan (SSHP);

• Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), which includes:

o A Field Sampling Plan; and o Quality Assurance Project Plan.

2. Determine Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), Screening Criteria and Action Levels.

3. Drill 5 (five) borings from ground surface to bedrock and 3 (three) test pits within the project area.

4. Collect subsurface soil and groundwater samples from the 5 (five) borings for analysis.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 2

5. Prepare and submit a Sampling and Analysis Report (SAR). The report was to include analytical results, findings and conclusions, along with recommendations for the necessary level of personal protective equipment (PPE) required for construction workers.

6. Manage IDW waste as indicated in Section 7.8 of the SOW and in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.

A May 18,2009 modification to the contract, included the excavation of three test pits on the James Bisbee property adjacent to and west of the USACE property at the north end (right descending bank) of the Back Channel Dam. The scope of work for this modification included the collection of two soil samples from each test pit using the same sample screening strategy in the initial SOW. These samples were to be laboratory analyzed for the same parameters as those for the soil samples collected from borings on the USACE property.

The QCP, SSHP and SAP were reviewed and approved by the USACE technical point of contact (POC) prior to the implementation of field activities. The project SOW is provided in Appendix A.

1.3 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

This report only addresses the RECs identified by the USACE to Stantec.

The USACE has indicated that the area of testing to be performed under this work order should be limited to the USACE’s planned work zone. On the right descending bank, this was generally defined as the area between Neville Road and the Ohio River. A small portion of the Bisbee property was included after the project field work began. The limits of the investigation area are provided in Figure 3.

On the left descending bank, the investigation area was between the CSX rail corridor and the Ohio River. Again, this area is identified on Figure 3.

Due to the limited nature of the assessment, the extent of any identified contamination cannot be determined and the absolute absence of contamination cannot be confirmed.

The findings and conclusions presented in this report apply only to the assessment of the property located immediately near the two dam abutments at either end of the Back Channel Dam.

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT

The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted environmental methodologies referred to in ASTM 1903-97 (Re-approved 2002), and contains all of the limitations inherent in these methodologies.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 3

No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our contract and included in this report.

1.5 LIMITING CONDITIONS AND METHODOLOGY USED

No sampling activity can eliminate all uncertainty. Furthermore, any sample, either surface or subsurface, taken for chemical analysis may or may not be representative of a larger population. Professional judgment and interpretation are inherent in the process and uncertainty is inevitable. Additional assessment may be able to reduce the uncertainty.

Even when the sampling activity is executed with an appropriate site-specific standard of care, certain conditions present especially difficult detection problems. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to; complex geological settings, the fate and transport characteristics of certain hazardous substances and petroleum products, the distribution of existing contamination, physical limitations imposed by the location of utilities and other man-made objects and the limitations of assessment technologies.

Phase II ESAs or site specific sampling projects do not generally require an exhaustive assessment of environmental conditions on a property. There is a point at which the cost of information obtained and the time required to obtain it outweigh the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be a material detriment to the orderly completion of the overall project.

Measurements and sampling data only represent the site conditions at the time of data collection; therefore, the usability of data collected as part of this SAR may have a finite lifetime depending on the application and use being made of the data. An environmental professional should evaluate whether the generated data are appropriate for any subsequent use beyond the original purpose for which it was collected.

Site Description and Background jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 4

2.0 Site Description and Background

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES

The Emsworth Locks and Dams are located on the Ohio River immediately downstream and northwest of the City of Pittsburgh. The Main Channel Locks and Dam are located at river mile

6.2 and the Back Channel Dam is located at river mile 6.4. At this location, the river runs east-west and the downstream direction is toward the west of both dams. The structural components of the Emsworth Locks and Dams are the oldest of any project on the Ohio River, dating back from 1919 to 1922, when Emsworth was constructed.

The two dams are located in two channels of the river that are created by the presence of Neville Island. Neville Island is approximately three miles long and 1000 to 2000 feet wide at it’s widest. The northern channel is the widest and contains the Main Channel Locks and Dam. The southern channel is the narrowest and contains the smaller Back Channel Dam. The Back Channel Dam is located 0.2 miles southwest of the Main Channel Locks and Dam. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the location of the Emsworth Locks and Dams.

The right descending bank (north end of dam) of the Back Channel Dam is situated on Neville Island. The left descending bank Back Channel Dam (non island side) is located just west of the town of McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania.

The USACE has determined that the Emsworth Dams are currently in need of repair. A Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Report for the Dams approved in 2002, documented many areas that needed rehabilitation and repair. According to the report, the concrete of the dam abutments and bulkhead storage pits, particularly in the Back Channel Dam, are in poor condition, with severe deterioration, cracks and spalled areas. Repair work will include stabilization of the Back Channel abutments with the installation of rock anchors along with repair of the Back Channel erosion with scour protections. Scour protection may include placement of stone and/or placement of an artificial surface such as concrete in places of high velocity water flow for protection of areas down gradient of the dam and along the downstream banks. Each dam is being evaluated and repaired separately. An aerial view of the Back Channel Dam is shown in Figure 2.

2.2 PHYSICAL SETTING

Site assessment activities during this investigation took place on both the right and left descending banks. The project assessment area on the right descending bank encompassed the area south of Neville Road to the Ohio River on the USACE Dam property and a small area of land (Bisbee Property) located just northwest of the dam. Both the soil borings and the test pits were located on the top of the adjacent river bank (not on the slope of the river bank). The limits of the assessment are defined on the Figure 3.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 5

On the left descending bank, the assessment area was between the CSX railroad corridor and the Ohio River, just west of the dam structure near the abutment. The limits of this assessment area are defined on Figure 3.

On both sites, the soil and groundwater assessments were initiated at the top of the surrounding river bank, and not on the slopes or concrete-paved esplanades.

2.3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

2.3.1 Geologic Setting

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Alleghany County Soil Survey has not been completed at this time. The USDA website includes the following information:

“Allegheny County lies within the Allegheny Plateau physiographic region. The watersheds are characterized by V-shaped valleys and steep hillsides. Soils are generally silt and silty clay loams and exhibit low infiltration capacities.”

According to a 2003 paper by Prellwitz and Kyshkevych, the berm and banks soils along the Ohio River in the Neville Island area consist of manmade fill materials including cement, stone, brick, steel, and solidified slag, as well as waste soils. The underlying natural materials of the berm and bank soil include boulders, cobbles, pebbles, sand, silt and mud. The manmade and natural berm and bank materials in the Neville Island area can range in depth from 24 to 100 feet.

Underlying the bank and berm material in the Neville Island area is bedrock from the Pennsylvanian era of about 310 million years ago. The Ohio River at Neville Island is slowly eroding and down-cutting the flat-lying sedimentary beds of shale, sandstone, limestone, claystone, and coal. The upper surface of the bedrock is very weathered in places, with drainage channels etched into the bedrock from prior stream erosion.

2.3.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions

The USDA website referenced above states that the Allegheny River joins the Monongahela River at Pittsburgh to form the Ohio River. The headwaters of the Allegheny River begin in the northwestern slopes of the Appalachian Mountain range, flow in a northwestern direction to Portville, New York, then turn southward into Pennsylvania to its confluence at Pittsburgh. The Allegheny River measures a total distance of 322 miles. The average bed slope of the Allegheny River is 1 foot per mile. The valley floor ranges from 550 to 2,200 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Local relief above the stream valley varies from approximately 300 to 400 feet NGVD, to an average hilltop elevation of approximately 1,200 feet

NGVD.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 6

According to documents provided to Stantec by the USACE for the Emsworth Main Channel Dam investigation (2007), a Mr. Sam Harper of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) indicated that the Back Channel Dam causes the river’s back channel to act as a lake, resulting in head differential to the groundwater. The groundwater head differential then causes groundwater flow direction to trend toward the main channel across Neville Island. The effect of river flow across the dam then further interferes with natural flow trends, and causes several local groundwater flow gradient changes in the neighborhood of the dam.

2.4 SITE HISTORY AND LAND USE

The structural components of the project are the oldest of any project on the Ohio River, dating back to approximately 1920 when the two Emsworth Dams were constructed. The southernmost, smaller dam, the Back Channel Dam is the subject of this assessment. The Back Channel Dam is located just west of the town of McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania.

Neville Island has historically been home to many chemical and petroleum companies.

Numerous chemical and oil distribution facilities are present on the island today, such as: the Neville Island Chemical Company; Ashland Distribution and Chemical; Sunoco; Shanago; Gulf Oil Neville Island Terminal; Exxon Company USA Neville Island Terminal; Watson Standard Company; Matlack Manufacturing, and Calgon Carbon. According to the USACE SOW, the Gulf Oil Terminal and the Exxon Neville Terminal are currently the location of large petroleum storage tank farms. Product is loaded, unloaded and stored at these farms. Further, the SOW states that there have been spills and releases from leaking tanks and/or pipelines at the Gulf Oil and Exxon facilities. In addition, a 32-acre federal Superfund site, referred to as Poison Park, was recently transformed into a 20-million dollar sports complex.

The USACE SOW stated that the Neville Chemical Company has caused groundwater contamination in the area, which may have impacted off-site sources. It was reported that a surface impoundment as formerly located in the vicinity of the Back Channel Dam. Other regulated facilities were also reported in the vicinity of the dam.

Property in the vicinity of the left descending bank (non island side) of the Back Channel Dam is mainly vacant land. CSX has a two track railroad right-of-way parallel to the Ohio River, close to the dam abutment. Stantec observed indicators that a petroleum pipeline was in close proximity to the dam. According to the SOW, Buckeye Pipe Line Company had a gas pipe release in which a large amount of gasoline was spilled into the environment in the area of the Back Channel Dam.

2.5 ADJACENT PROPERTY LAND USE

The right descending bank side of the site is adjacent to Neville Road to the North, the Ohio River to the South, a trucking related business to the east and the Bisbee property (a construction company with a lay down area) to the west. Further north, across Neville Road, are a number of industrial complexes with large above ground storage tanks.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 7

In the vicinity of the right descending bank, according to documents provided by the USACE Huntington District (including a 2009 USACE Phase I report), primary properties in the study area were formerly owned by the Island Petroleum Company, Dravo Corporation, and the Neville Chemical Company. The Neville Chemical Plant had a lagoon along the back channel that was removed in the 1970s. The USACE Phase I report indicated that residual contamination may still exist in the area of the former lagoon.

Along the left descending bank, the Ohio River is located north of the target assessment area, the CSX rail corridor to the south. Undeveloped woods are present to the east and the west.

Stantec observed signs indicating the presence of an underground petroleum pipeline just east of the target assessment area. This pipeline is believed to belong to the Buckeye Pipe Line Company.

As stated above, the Buckeye Pipe Line Company had a gas pipe line release in which a large amount of a gasoline product was spilled to the environment in the area of the left descending bank and Back Channel Dam. According to the USACE Phase I report (noted in Subsection 2.6), the PADEP indicated that impacts of this release into the subsurface should be expected.

2.6 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS

Stantec was provided excerpts from a previous report prepared by the USACE Huntington District, dated February 2009. The report was attached to the SOW for this project and was titled, “Phase I Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Investigation Report, Emsworth Lock and Dams, Emsworth, P.A., Emsworth Back Channel Abutment Stabilization and Scour Protection Projects, February 2009”. The report identified a number of RECs, including the presence of various companies with the potential to release hazardous materials into the environment as well as documented actual spill and/or release of petroleum or chemical constituents.

Based on this information, and the proximity of these sites to the project work area, the Phase I indicated that contaminated soil and/or groundwater may be encountered during future construction activities. The SOW for this assessment with the attached above referenced report excerpt is provided in Appendix A.

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Activities jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 8

3.0 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Activities

3.1 PROJECT APPROACH

3.1.1 Preparation of Plans

In accordance with the project SOW, planning documents were prepared under Contract W91237-08-D-0028, Work Order No. 0003 and modification dated May 18, 2009 and submitted to the USACE for review and approval. These plans were reviewed by Stantec’s Independent Quality Control Team (IQCT) and the USACE. Review comments were addressed and the final plans published for inclusion in the project file. Activities, practices and procedures described in these plans were followed during the performance of this project.

3.1.2 Selection of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

The ARARs for this project were selected from state level environmental regulations and screening tables that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the project site location, type and the nature of potential chemical constituents, and objectives of the assessment. With regards to confirming or denying the presence of contamination on the site, Stantec used the Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program (PLRP) Statewide Health Standards. Since the area surrounding the dam is zoned industrial, Stantec selected the organic and inorganic nonresidential surface and subsurface soil criteria.

Groundwater for this portion of the assessment is compared to the PADEP, Brownfields Redevelopment, Statewide Health Standards for residential, in use aquifers. It is important to note that there appear to be no differences between the residential and nonresidential standards for in use aquifers. In the event that soil is disturbed on a site, the PADEP uses the Pennsylvania Management of Fill Policy (MoFP) to manage fill moved on or off a construction site. These various Pennsylvania standards are provided in Appendix B.

3.1.3 Approach

The chemical testing approach was designed to detect chemical constituents suspected to be present in the samples collected. This approach included tests that provide quality assurance (QA) and techniques that provide quality control (QC) over the chemical analysis. The required sample analysis for the environmental media is included in Table 1 in the Tables section of this report.

Laboratory analyses were provided by TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. (TestAmerica), a Department of Defense (DoD) Quality System Manual (QSM) accredited laboratory at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and North Canton, Ohio locations. Soil and groundwater samples were transported to the Pittsburgh laboratory. Once the samples were received in Pittsburgh, the Gasoline Range Organic (GRO)/Diesel Range Organic (DRO) soil samples were shipped to jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 9

TestAmerica’s North Canton, Ohio laboratory. The North Canton lab is accredited to perform GRO/DRO in accordance with the QSM requirements.

A thorough discussion of sampling procedures is provided in the SAP. The SAP includes the sampling objectives, rationale and methods.

3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF SOW

The SOW for this assessment includes; the drilling of five environmental soil borings, three on the right descending bank (north end of the dam) and two on the left descending bank (south end of dam) of the Back Channel Dam, the installation of temporary monitoring wells in each of the borings, and the excavation of three test pits. Soil and groundwater samples were collected from each of the soil borings and monitoring wells. Soil samples were collected from the test pits. After sampling, the wells were removed and the soil borings grouted to surface. The process used for removing the well and grouting the boring to ground surface was in compliance with the Pennsylvania soil boring abandonment guidelines. Investigative derived wastes were drummed and labeled and stored in secure locations for later disposition, pending analysis of the samples. The SOW for this project is provided in Appendix A. The following subsections describe these procedures in more detail.

3.2.1 Notification of Appropriate Authorities

Prior to the commencement of field activities, Stantec performed the following notifications:

• Stantec coordinated and received authorization to proceed from the USACE POC.

• Stantec contacted the Pennsylvania Utility Protection Service (Pennsylvania One Call) on May 5, 2009 (Call # 20091241694). Pennsylvania One Call was requested to review the proposed sampling locations and mark potential buried utilities prior to the field work.

• Stantec contacted and obtained access from Emsworth Dam Lock Master for the use of the field office storage area inside the fenced secure control building on the right descending bank (north side of dam). Access to this area was limited by a security system. Stantec personnel coordinated with the Emsworth Dam Lock Master for access to the field office storage area during the field activities.

• Stantec contacted CSX and obtained a flagman to safely direct the drill rig and personnel across the CSX track which is adjacent to the left descending bank of the Back Channel Dam (south end). CSX was unable to provide the flagman on the requested date which resulted in a delay of one week (from May 19th to May 26th) before a flagman was dispatched to the left descending bank and drilling could proceed at this location. This resulted in an unplanned demobilization and remobilization of the drill crew and some of the drilling equipment.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 10

• Prior to equipment transportation to the site, Stantec obtained a variety of permits for the transportation of the drill rig from the Ohio and Pennsylvanian Departments of Transportation.

3.2.2 Health and Safety Procedures

Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, Stantec led a safety meeting with representatives from the USACE, Stearns Drilling Company crew, and Stantec field crew. The safety briefing discussed various aspects of the approved SSHP, required PPE, inclement weather considerations, and general heavy equipment operation safety. At the left descending bank the CSX flagman led a daily safety meeting on safely operating near a railroad track that had no established crossing or warning equipment. The flagman required the drill rig and personnel to maintain a distance of 30 feet from the track and informed personnel when it was safe to cross the tracks to obtain equipment and supplies from company trucks which remained on the opposite side of the tracks.

3.2.3 Field Documentation

The Stantec sample team leader populated required checklists per the approved QCP and the SSHP developed for this project. Standard documentation required on all USACE projects, including daily reports and field log book, was completed by the Project Manager or his designee. The populated QCP and SSHP checklists are included in Appendix C.

3.2.4 Photographs

Photographs were taken of the site before, during and after the field activities. The purposes of the photographs were to document the site conditions and to document various portions of the field activities. Photographs are included in Appendix D.

3.2.5 Soil Boring and Soil Sampling

3.2.5.1 Soil Boring Procedures

Stantec contracted Stearns Drilling Company of Grande Rapids, Michigan to drill the soil borings and install the temporary monitoring wells in the borings. Stearns mobilized a two-man drilling crew to the site and a track mounted CME 850 rig. The rig was equipped to drill with 3.25-inch (internal diameter – I.D.) or 4.25 –inch I.D. hollow stem augers (HSA). Stantec and the drill rig mobilized to the site on May 11, 2009 to the right descending bank. After meeting with USACE representative and POC Dan Stark, and meeting with neighboring property owner James Bisbee, the drilling locations were selected, two on Mr. Bisbee’s property (H09-2 and H09-3), and one (H09-1) on USACE’s property immediately adjacent to the north end of the dam. These boring locations were near the right descending bank and representative of the area that may be impacted by future earth disturbance activities. The locations of these borings are shown in Figure 4 and the logs for the borings are provided in Appendix E. Table 2 summarizes data concerning each boring and well.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 11

Stearns commenced drilling at H09-1 on May 12, 2009 using 3.25-inch augers and continuous sampling using 2-inch diameter, 24-inch long split-spoon samplers. During the first boring, heaving sands were encountered that resulted in the auger annulus filling with sand and preventing discreet soil sampling from continuing. The drillers switched over to 4.25-inch augers and were able to complete the boring. The 4.25-augers allowed the drillers to remove the heaving sands from the augers through the use of a sand bailer.

Drilling continued but encountered refusal at 10 feet. After discussion with the USACE POC, it was speculated that the rig was encountering a step like shelf in the concrete structure of the abutment. It was, therefore, decided to move the drilling location five feet to the north. No further refusal problems were encountered at H09-1. The boring was advanced to a depth of 72-feet below grade.

The materials encountered during the boring were recorded on a boring log. The upper 26 feet of fill material consisted of cinders and slag mixed with sandy clay. A three-inch wet zone was encountered at 7.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) with an odor like hydraulic fluid. Native materials several feet thick consisting of clayey sand and clay and silt were encountered at 26 feet, followed by saturated sand and gravel at 30 feet. The sand and gravel continued to a depth of 71.5 feet at which sandstone bedrock was encountered. Saturated subsurface materials were encountered initially at approximately 25 feet. The boring was discontinued at 72 feet. Soil samples were collected at four to eight feet (H09-1:4-8), 28 to 30 feet (H09-1:28- 30), 46 to 50 feet (H09-1:46-50), and 66 to 70 feet (H09-1:66-70).

After completion of the soil boring, the open borehole was backfilled with clean filter sand to 35 feet. A temporary monitoring well was set using 1.5-inch PVC riser and a 10 foot 1.5-inch PVC screen. The screen was set from 25 to 35 feet with a filter sand pack set to 21 to 22 feet. The soil boring and monitoring well was completed on May 13, 2009.

Stearns moved to drilling location H09-2 on May 13, 2009. The boring was advanced and the drill rig encountered refusal at 20 feet. After discussion with the USACE POC, it was decided to relocate the boring location five-feet west. No further refusal problems were encountered at H09-2. The boring was advanced to 72 feet. The upper 24 feet consisted of coarse fill material with cinders, quartz pebbles, and slag. Native materials consisting of clay and silt were encountered at 24 feet, followed by saturated sand and gravel at 32 feet. The sand and gravel continued to a depth of 72 feet where sandstone bedrock was encountered. Saturated subsurface materials were encountered initially at approximately 25 feet. The boring was discontinued at 72 feet. Soil samples were collected at 10 to 14 feet (H09-2:10-14), 26 to 28 feet (H09-2:26-38), 54 to 56 feet (H09-2:46-50), and 68 to 70 feet (H09-2:68-70).

The open borehole was backfilled with clean filter sand to 35 feet. The temporary monitoring well was set using 1.5-inch PVC riser and a 10 foot, 1.5-inch PVC screen. The screen was set from 25 to 35 feet with a filter sand pack set to 21 to 22 feet. The soil boring and monitoring well were completed on May 14, 2009.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 12

Stearns moved to drilling location H09-3 on May 15, 2009. The soil boring was advanced to 72 feet. The upper 28 feet consisted of coarse fill material with cinders and slag. Native materials consisting of black clayey silt were encountered at 28 feet, followed by saturated sand and gravel at 33 feet. The sand and gravel continued to a depth of 72 feet where sandstone bedrock was encountered. Saturated subsurface materials were encountered initially at approximately 30 feet. The boring was discontinued at 72 feet. Soil samples were collected at 14 to 24 feet (H09-3:14-24), 28 to 32 feet (H09-3:46-50), 46 to 50 feet (H09-3:46-50), and 68 to 70 feet (H09-3:68-70).

The open borehole was backfilled with clean filter sand to 39 feet. The temporary monitoring well was set using 1.5-inch PVC riser and a 10 foot 1.5-inch PVC screen. The screen was set from 29 to 39 feet with a filter sand pack set to 26 feet. The soil boring and monitoring well was completed on May 16, 2009. Summary information of H09-1, H09-2, and H09-3 is included in Table 2.

The subsurface investigation continued on the left descending bank on May 26, 2009. The drillers crossed the CSX railroad tracks, under the supervision of the CSX flagman and set up at location H09-4. The soil boring was advanced to 38 feet. The upper 20 feet of material consisted of fill, primarily cinders and slag to 16 feet followed by clayey sand and saturated gravel to 20 feet. Native subsurface of clay and sand was encountered to 33 feet, where heavily weathered shale claystone bedrock was found. The boring continued from 32 to 38 feet drilling through the weathered shale and claystone bedrock. The boring was discontinued at 38 feet. Soil samples were collected at 10 to 12 feet (H09-4:10-12), and 26 to 30 feet. The sample from 26 to 30 feet was mislabeled H09-4:24-28. The locations of the borings are provided in Figure 5 and the data concerning the borings and associated wells are provided in Table 2.

Boring logs are provided in Appendix E.

The open borehole was backfilled with clean filter sand to 31 feet. The temporary monitoring well was set using 1.5-inch PVC riser and a 10 foot 1.5-inch PVC screen. The screen was set from 21 to 31 feet with a filter sand pack set to 18 feet. The soil boring and monitoring well was completed on May 26, 2009.

The drillers moved to location H09-5 on May 27, 2009. The soil boring was advanced to 36 feet. Upper 18 feet of material consisted of fill, primarily cinders and slag to10 feet followed by silt and sand and saturated sand and gravel to 18 feet. Native subsurface material consisting of sand, silt and clay was encountered to 32 feet, where heavily weathered shale claystone bedrock was encountered. The boring continued from 33 to 36 feet drilling through the weathered shale claystone bedrock. The boring was discontinued at 36 feet. Soil samples were collected at 16 to 18 feet (H09-5:16-18), and 26 to 28 feet (H09-5:26-28).

The open borehole was backfilled with clean filter sand to 28 feet. The temporary monitoring well was set using 1.5-inch PVC riser and a 10 foot 1.5-inch PVC screen. The screen was set from 18 to 28 feet with a filter sand pack set to 15 feet. The soil boring and monitoring well was completed on May 27, 2009.

jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 13

All soil and groundwater samples collected during the assessment were immediately placed in a cooler containing ice and later transported to the TestAmerica Laboratory in Pittsburgh,PA.

Stantec used a Garmin eTrek Global Positioning System (GPS) unit to obtain the coordinate locations for the soil borings. These coordinates are in Table 2 in the Tables section. Figure 4 and 5 in the Figures section illustrates the locations of the soil borings. Summary information for H09-4 and H09-5 is included in Table 2 and copies of the field logs and field data forms are included in Appendix E as well as presentation borehole logs which also depict the monitoring well construction.

3.2.5.2 Summary Description of Subsurface Materials

The materials encountered at the boring locations varied between the right descending bank and the left descending bank. At the right descending bank, fill extended from approximately 24 to 28 feet. The underlying native materials consisted of approximately 5 feet of silty clay followed by a sand and gravel unit starting at about 30 feet below ground surface to sandstone bedrock at 72 feet. The left descending bank consisted of 18 to 20 feet of fill, followed by a clayey sand/silt unit to claystone bedrock at 32 feet. The borings were generally consistent at within the respective area at each end of the dam. The major difference between the subsurface materials encountered at two ends of the dam was the presence of a distinct sand and gravel aquifer on the right descending bank overlying the sandstone bedrock which was lacking at the opposite end of the dam (left descending bank). The boring logs can be found at Appendix E.

3.2.5.3 Field Screening and Laboratory Sample Retention

A photoionization detector (PID) was used for field screening during the drilling of the borings and logging of soil samples. PID readings were detected in H09-3 from 28 to 33 feet and in 20 to 22 feet in H09-4. In addition the borings were sampled continuously and logged by both the driller and the geologist or environmental scientists on site. During the logging, the soil samples were also field screened for visual and olfactory indications. Olfactory indications included the hydraulic fluid smell from 6 to 8 feet in soil boring H09-1 and hydrocarbon smell from 18 to 20 feet in soil boring H09-2, and from 28 to 30 feet in soil boring H09-3. In general, the fill in the soil borings on the left descending bank exhibited a general if faint sewer odor, indicating decaying hydrocarbons. Various indications of stained soils were observed in the upper fill zones at both the left and right descending banks. Sample collection was biased toward several sampled intervals based on these indications and the availability of soil (recovery) in each split spoon sample. In addition soil samples were collected from each representative zone such as within the upper vadose zone, at the capillary zone just above the groundwater level, and just above the upper weathered bedrock layers.

Sample collected for analysis of volatile organic compound (VOC) were obtained by the TerraCore sampling method from firm areas in the split spoon samples and preserved with methanol. Samples for other laboratory analytical parameters were composite samples jlr v:\1735\active\2009\173529014_emsworth\draft & final report\report txt\173529014_emsworth_final_sar_062509.doc 14 collected from adjacent contiguous zones that were placed in the appropriate type and size labeled jars. The sample jars were then placed in a cooler containing ice.

The soil boring samples were analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 1. Soil samples collected from the right descending bank were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) Volatiles (8260B), TCL Semi-volatile (8270C), Target Analyte List (TAL) metals (6010B), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) -GRO/DRO (8015B), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (8082A), and pH (9045). The soil samples collected from the left descending bank were analyzed for the same parameters, plus herbicides (8151A). The samples were transported to TestAmerica in Pittsburgh either by laboratory courier or by Stantec personnel.

3.2.6 Groundwater Sampling

Temporary monitoring wells were constructed in each completed soil boring. After each temporary well had been installed, the well was allowed to stabilize and then water levels were measured. The water levels measured were 29.5 feet in H09-1, 32 feet in H09-2, 30.5 feet in H09-3, 19.5 in H09-4, and 21.5 feet in H09-5. These initial water level measurements were taken from top of casing. The water level elevations in all 5 wells corresponded to approximately 700 feet mean sea level.

Groundwater samples were collected from each monitoring well using a QED low flow ¾-inch diameter bladder pump with an air pump for bladder operation. The water samples were collected after the groundwater in each well stabilized. Stabilization was verified using a flow through cell and YSI water parameter meter. The meter yielded readings for pH, temperature (in degrees Celsius) and specific conductance in micro Siemens/cm. The well was considered stabilized when the values of each parameter (pH, temperature and specific conductance) varied by no more than 10 percent for three consecutive readings. The stabilization readings are summarized in Table 3 and the boring logs provided in Appendix E illustrate the well construction.

Following the stabilization, groundwater samples were collected using the QED low flow bladder pump and transferred to laboratory bottles. The groundwater samples were analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 1. Groundwater samples collected from the right descending bank were analyzed for TCL Volatiles (8260B), TCL Semi-volatile (8270C), TAL metals (6010B), TPH-GRO/DRO (8015B), PCBs (8082A), and pH (9045). Groundwater samples collected from wells installed on the left descending bank were analyzed for the same parameters with the addition of herbicides (8151A).

3.2.7 Test Pit Investigation

In accordance with the contract modification to the SOW dated May 18, 2009, three test pits were excavated on the James Bisbee property west of the USACE property.