UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY … · 2016. 10. 21. · UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 841 CHESTNUT BUILDING PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III

841 CHESTNUT BUILDINGPHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107

Attorney Melody S. Fleck August 6, 1991500 West Nittany AvenueState College, PA 16801

RE: Centre County Kepone

Dear Ms. Fleck:

The EPA project team has had the opportunity to review thecomments provided by, your technical experts regarding the Remedi-al Investigation(RI)]at the Centre County Kepone site, and offersthese responses:

COMMENTS PROVIDED BY NITTANY ECOSYSTEMS GROUP

1. Comment; Benthos Recommendations

Response; The comment requests that previous benthos studiesbe made available. Included with this responseare five such PADER studies (January 1987, Novem-ber 1987, October, 1988, May 1989, and February1990) conducted on Spring Creek or tributaries.

The information provided above documents extensivebenthic investigations. Based on their researchPADER concluded that little more could be gainedfrom additional benthic studies and recommendedbioassays as a means to identify the source ofcontamination(see page 5 of PADER's study datedJanuary 8, 1987). This strategy was followed andthe results of the toxicity tests were submittedby Ruetgers-Nease with the "Remedial InvestigationProgress Report" dated July 19, 1991(to be includ-ed in the Administrative Record along with thisletter). The EPA project team is currently evalu-ating the results of those tests and will subse-quently make a decision concerning the need foradditional work in this area.

2. Comment; Ecological Characterization Recommendations

Response: The scope of the studies described in this commentare included in the RISOP. On page S f fQ f Q h

RISOP, it states that available existingbackground information will be obtained, re-viewed, and incorporated into the RI report. Theliterature review will allow for the characteriza-tion of the general ecology of the area, includinga description of the local flora and fauna (in-cluding emphasis on threatened or endangered spe-cies in the area), wetlands, floodplains, recre-ational areas, farmlands, historical buildings,etc.

Specific field studies to identify some of theseitems (e.g. wetlands delineation, actual threat-ened or endangered species habitat investigation,etc.) are not proposed at this time, as they arenot considered to be necessary for the evaluationof the site. However, should additional fieldinvestigation of these items be necessary, such asa requirement for construction in wetlands (Thorn-ton Spring), they will certainly be performed.

3. Comment; Statistical Analyses of Data Recommendations

Response; It is clear that the statistical analysis present-ed in the Work Plan and RISOP is flawed to someextent. However, it should be noted that thegeneral statistical analysis was originally re-quested by EPA in an attempt to summarize andevaluate the extensive amount of available histor-ical data. Unfortunately, the results of thestatistical analysis reveal that the historicaldata are probably not of sufficient quality orquantity for valid rigorous statistical analysis,at least with regard to establishing trends inconcentrations of contaminants.

The on-going RI/Feasibility Study(FS) will evalu-ate the current extent of site contamination andevaluate current_risk. Consequently, remedialobjectives and ultimate remedial actions will bedeveloped to address the current levels of contam-inants and risks at the site. Therefore, estab-lishing the significance of the extent of contami-nant decrease over time is not considered to be animportant objective at this point in the RI/FSprocess. However, monitoring in the future willbe extremely important for evaluating the perfor-mance of the remedial actions chosen. At thattime, an appropriate monitoring program will bedesigned to provide data of sufficient quality andquantity that can be reasonably evaluathe appropriate statistical methods.

COMMENTS PROVIDED BY MR. HENRY SCHUVER

1. Comment; Current Thornton Spring/Spray Field Risks

Response; A 1983 EPA investigation of the former Spray Fieldarea revealed that the area was not contaminatedwith significant levels of priority pollutants,kepone, or mirex, although concentrations of con-taminants were detected. Since EPA's letter ofJune 13, 1989, a determination was made that thelevels of contaminants at the site (including theThornton Spring and Spray Field areas) did notmeet the emergency removal action criteria neces-sary for a short-term response. Consequently, noemergency actions have been warranted, such as therestriction of access to these areas. EPA'sevaluation of the most recent data confirms ourearlier determination.

The extent of any current risks to human healthand environment as a result of residual contamina-tion present in these areas is currently beingevaluated as part of the Risk Assessment. The riskassessment will determine whether contaminantconcentrations pose a potential long-term risk tohuman health and environment. Should a risk beidentified, remedial measures will be developed tomitigate or eliminate the risk.

2. comment; Scientific Assessment/Health Risk Issues

Response; It is standard procedure for the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry to prepare a Pre-liminary Health Assessment based on preliminarydata and a Final Health Assessment based on finalRI data. As stated above in Response 1, EPA hasassessed the health risks to ensure that no imme-diate removal response action is warranted. Po-tential risks to human health as related to sitecontaminants present in the soil, surface water,ground water, sediment, and air are being evaluat-ed as part of this RI, and will be described indetail in the RI report.

AR303186

4. Comment: Historical Data

Response: The scope of work for the current RI/FS was devel-oped based on a review of the extensive amount- ofhistorical data available. However, it was deter-mined early in the RI scoping process that some ofthe historical data could not be used for quanti-tative assessment purposes, although most of thedata had some qualitative merit. Because of thehistorical data problems, one of the primary ob-jectives of the RI/FS was to develop a completedata base which would unequivocally characterizethe extent and limits of contaminant migration atthe site.

Based on a review of the historical data, sevenmajor data gaps were identified to be studiedduring this RI. The RI scope of work was devel-oped to study the extent of site related contami-nation originating from numerous on-site sourceareas in the air, ground water, surface water,sediment and soils in the area.

It should be noted, however, that some historicaldata(from EPA and PADER) of sufficient quality andquantity were used to eliminate several areas frontfurther consideration. These areas included off-site residential wells, several former lagoonareas, and some additional off-site locationsreported to be site related. EPA believes thatthese areas have been sufficiently characterizedand evaluated in the past.

5. Comment; Number of Samples and Sampling Rationale

Response; Based on the soil gas survey and a subsequentmeeting held during November 1990, the scope ofthe RI sampling effort was expanded well beyondthe nine surface soil and one soil boring samplesdescribed in the comment. A complete descriptionof these changes can now be found in the Adminis-trative Record.

Phase I RI activities, which were conducted duringthe period October 1990 through present have in-cluded the collection of 6 surface soil samples,19 subsurface soil samples from a total of 8 soilborings, 17 ground-water samples, 6 surface waterand sediment samples, and 6 fish sampleslocations. Based on a review of the Phase

additional soil, surface water, sediment, andground-water sampling will be conducted to furtherevaluate the extent of site contamination.

It is EPA's opinion that the scope of samplingalready completed(Phase I) in conjunction with thesampling planned to be completed(Phase II) andextent of the various media sampled, will be morethan adequate to characterize the Centre CountyKepone site.

6. Comment; Analytical Considerations

Response; Previous investigations completed at the site byEPA, PADER, and Ruetgers-Nease consultants haveincluded analysis for a full range of organiccompounds and inorganics, and the results of thoseprevious investigations reveal the contaminants ofconcern at the site to be volatile organic com-pounds, kepone, and mirex. This determination wasbased on the evaluation of data of sufficientquantity and quality collected from on-site andoff-site monitoring wells, on and off- site sur-face water and sediment locations, and on- andoff-site soils locations. See also the followingresponse to Mr. Mark R. Ralston's comment A4.

Results of Phase I analysis for full Target Com-pound List/Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL)(plustentatively identified compounds) further confirmthat volatiles and kepone/mirex remain the primarycontaminants of concern at the site. No semi-volatiles, PCBs, other pesticides, or unusualinorganics, or unknown tentatively identifiedcompounds (library search compounds) were detectedin subsurface soils collected from the most likelysource areas at the site.

7. Comment; Hydrogeologic Data

Response; Included with this response is a 11/23/81 SMCMartin report on a pump test performed on monitor-ing well #0. Pump testing of several on-sitewells is also proposed as part of the Phase II RIactivities. A description of the proposed pumptesting is included in the July 19,1991, "RemedialInvestigation Progress Report" which will be addedto the Administrative Record with this letter.The objective of the pump testing wiluate the subsurface interconnection be

Xat the site.-- Ttiis data is intended to be used toevaluate the feasibility of the various ground-water containment, collection, and treatment op-tions that will be evaluated in the FeasibilityStudy.

8. Comment; Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids

Response; The presence of light non-aqueous phase liquids(LNAPLS) and dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNA-PLS) is being investigated during the current RI.Monitoring wells at the site are being measuredfor the presence of these liquids, and chemicalconcentration data are being analyzed to determineif certain compounds are in concentrations highenough to be considered a NAPL. To date, therecontinues to be evidence for the presence of LNA-PLs (the remediation of which will be addressed inthe fS). Although no DNAPLs have been observed todate, high concentrations of dense dissolved phasecontaminants, such as found in the groundwaterbeneath the site, are sometimes associated withdistinct DNAPL accumulations. Strategies to cleanup any NAPLs, if their presence is confirmed bythe RI, will be included in remedial alternativesas part of the Feasibility Study.

9. Comment: Air Sampling Issues

Response; The scope of air sampling in the vicinity ofThornton Spring has been expanded to include twoseparate 24-hour duration sampling events. Adescription of the revised air sampling scope ofwork is now part of the Administrative Record.

One of the events was completed during an averagewarm temperature low humidity period, and theother event was completed after a major precipita-tion event, when flow in the spring was high.This sampling approach was determined to be themost efficient and effective means of collectingdata of sufficient quality and quantity that canbe used to evaluate any risk related to air emis-sions from the spring.

flR303i89

COMMENTS PROVIDED BY MR. HARK R. RALSTON

Al. Comment; Access to the site is not restricted by fencing,although fencing of the site and Thornton Springwas recommended by the USEPA.

Response s See the response to comment / 1 in the precedingsection. .

A2. Comment t Monthly reports are not being appended to theAdministrative Record.

Response! The Administrative Record has recently been updat-ed and EPA will make every effort to keep the ARupdated in the future.

A3. Commentr The status of the Kline Dump site as related tothe Centre County Kepone Site.

Response; The Kline Dump site has been preliminarily assess-ed by EPA and will undergo a formal Site Inspec-tion (SI) in the future. The SI will includesampling and based on the results, the site willbe reevaluated by EPA to determine if furtheraction is warranted. If an action is required, adecision will be made to propose the site to theNational Priorities List, or as provided undersection 104(e)(4) of CERCLA, to treat the twosites as one.

A4. comment t Many of the USEPA review comments included in aJune 1989 letter do not appear to have been incor-porated into the final RISOP.

Responses It should be noted that a technical meeting wasconducted to discuss the EPA 1989 review commentswith Ruetgers Nease. As a result of that meeting,attended by all relevant EPA and PADER technicalsupport staff, several comments were revised orwithdrawn. Therefore, not all comments includedin the June 1989 review letter were incorporatedinto the final RISOP. Included with this responseis a letter from Ruetgers-Nease dated August 25,1989, documenting the meeting, a sign-in sheet ofthose parties attending and a PADER letjfffo fJj n nSeptember 7, 1989, concerning that meetflfigJU J I yv

8

Bl. Comment; Volume IV of information appears to be missingfrom the Administrative Record information reposi-tory.

Response; This volume is reserved for removal response ac-tion documentation. No such action has occurredat this site.

B2. Comment; Request for the entire Meiser & Earl (1977) hydro-B3. geologic report, and the Kurtz and Parizek(1986)

study report.

Response; The complete Meiser & Earl report is included inthe Work Plan Appendix section(the first pagebegins with "Conclusions"). The Kurtz and Parizekarticle is also included with this response.

B4. Comment; Request for additional well information.

Response; Additional well information from the current RIactivities (i.e., construction details and drill-ing logs for newly installed wells and geophysicallogs for all wells) are included in the July 19,1991, "Remedial Investigation Progress Report".Additional well information on the older wells canbe found in the Work Plan appendices.

B5. Comment; Request for recent water-level data and piezomet-ric contour maps.

Response; Recent water level data and piezometric contourmaps are included as part of this response.

B6. Comment; Request for 1976 PADER water quality sampling fromThornton Spring, Spring Creek, and the drainage

B7. ditch, 1986 PADER report on benthic macroinverte-B8. brates, January 1985 and June 1985 PADER ke-B9. pone/mirex fish data.

Response; This information is included as part of this re-sponse .

Cl. Comment; Request for additional information regarding theMay 1976 piezometric contour map.

AR303I9I

Response; The map is from Figure 4. of the enclosed 1986Kurtz and Parizek paper.

C2. coflipep ; Clarification on the reported "no-flow" boundarybetween the site and nearby residential wells.

Response; The concept of the no-flow boundary between thesite and residential wells located northwest ofthe site is likely based on the local geology,topographic considerations, and general waterlevels measured in these residential wells whichindicate that the residential area to the north-west of the site is located hydrologically "upgradient". Further details on this concept will bepresented in the RI report.

01. Comment; Request for an assessment of the amount of contaminants released from the site as compared toamounts removed from the site.

Response; Total estimates of the amount of contaminants thathave been released or removed from the site havenot been calculated. However, Ruetgers-Nease hasprovided the enclosed Table 9 documenting theirestimates of the volatile organic compounds re-moved from their groundwater treatment system. Inaddition, Ruetgers-Nease reported that during thefall of 1981 they removed approximately 4,000 tonsof contaminated soil from the drum storage andsurface water drainage ditch areas. Approximately9,000 tons of material were reportedly removedfrom the upper and lower chemf ix lagoon areas inthe fall of 1982.

02. Comment; Request for clarification regarding the apparentpumping rate of the groundwater extraction andtreatment system.

Response ; The groundwater treatment system, based on thecurrent configuration, was not designed to nor iscapable of complete groundwater containment andcollection from the site. The feasibility of amore comprehensive groundwater containment, col-lection, and treatment system will be evaluated aspart of the FS. If feasible, such a system couldpotentially be part of the remedial actions chosento mitigate the groundwater relatedS JL U0 •

10

03. Comments Request for additional information on well effi-ciency at the site.

Response; There are no well efficiency data available forthe site wells. However, given that these wellsare predominantly screened in fractured bedrock,the traditional techniques for the evaluation ofaquifer parameters, including well efficiency, arenot considered appropriate. Further characteriza-tion of the wells, as related to the feasibilityof groundwater extraction evaluation of site hy-drogeology, was investigated during Phase I activ-ities and will be more fully investigated duringPhase II hydrogeologic testing activities. All ofthis data will be presented in the RI report.

04. Comment; Request for additional information on the 1981 SMCpump test conducted on well MW#0.

Response; A copy of this information is included with thisresponse.

05. Comment; Request for additional information as to how thepresence of contaminants in deep sediments andbedrock are being investigated, and whether miti-gation of contamination in the deep sediments andbedrock surfaces is being considered as part ofthe RI/FS.

Response; The presence of contaminants in deep soils at thesite are being investigated by the completion ofnumerous soil borings in and around the site.Depth discrete samples have been collected fromvarious areas at the site, and a characterizationof soils from the surface to the bedrock interfacehas been completed. This data is presented in the"Remedial Investigation Progress Report" datedJuly 19,1991. Potential subsurface migrationpathways will also be evaluated.Remediation of any contaminants sorbed to thebedrock matrix in the saturated zone or bound tosediments found in rock fractures or voids wouldinvolve contaminant desorption from the bed-rock/sediment into the groundwater and subsequentremoval of contaminated groundwater via a pump andtreat system. Please note, however, thdtDfjLdlHjobservations of rock cores obtained during moni-

11

toring well installation did not indicate thepresence of contaminants sorbed to the bedrock orin sediment filled voids.

06. Comment; Request for clarification as to the adequacy ofthe soil sampling proposed for the site as part ofthe RI/FS.

Response; See the response to Henry Schuver comment # 5above.

In conclusion, EPA believes that the issues raised by yourexperts have been resolved by the above responses and the refer-enced supporting documentation. Should you, or the citizens ofthe State College area, have any remaining unresolved concerns,the EPA project team will be glad to address these during theRI/FS. Please feel'free to contact me at (215) 597-8186 if youneed further clarification or have additional questions.

Sincerely,

David 6. Byro, Project ManagerS.E. PA Remedial Section(3HW21)

Enclosures

cc: Mark Ralston, SCSCFrederick Williams, Nittany Eco.Henry Schuver, Nittany Geo.Jack Wagner (DER)Steven Foard, Ruetgers-NeaseBrian Smith, SMC A R 30*3 I QL

January 8, 1987

SUBJECT: Aquatic Biological InvestigationSpring Creek 4.20.3Centre CountyOctober 3, 1986

TO: Daniel L. Alters'Chief - Operations SectionBureau of Water Quality Management

FROM: Ronald E. Hughey A Ken MeyerAquatic Biologist** N Aquatic BiologistBureau of Water Quality Management D Mansfield UniversityWilliamsport Region

Background

This report is yet another chapter in the swelling saga of Spring Creek,Centre County. NPDES permit #0026239 obligated DER to do biologicalinvestigations on Spring Creek near the University Area Joint Authoritysewage treatment plant in 1984 and 1985. Those investigations indicated adepressed benthic macroinvertebrate community in the reach between Lemontand Slab Cabin Run. These findings differed from those of earlier DERinvestigations (Miller, 1981 and 1979; Ulanoski, 1972). The exact sourceand cause of this depression was never identified, although the problemseemed to begin at or around the PA Route 26 bridge. Fish were apparentlyunaffected because healthy populations of brown trout and other specieswere found throughout this reach.

I made reconnaissance benthic macroinvertebrate collections in May 1986using a kick screen (Appendix A). These collections were centered aroundthe PA Route 26 bridge in an effort to better define the source of theproblem. The results were less than clear. Mayflies of the genusEphemerella were found throughout the reach, even at Houserville where thebenthos was severely depressed in 1984 and 1985. Another mayfly genus,Baetis, was common above and below the Route 26 bridge, but not furtherdownstream at the park in Houserville. Caddisflies (Hydropsychidae)followed the same pattern. They were common above and below the Route 26bridge, but sparse at Houserville. Two crustaceans, Lirceus (sow bugs) andGamma rus (scuds), are important in this part of Spring Creek. They wereabundant just above Route 26, but scarce below the bridge. I was unable toidentify any habitat changes that would explain these population shifts.Therefore, in May, two genera (Lirceus and Gamma rus) indicated a problemoriginating very near the Route 26 bridge. Ihree others (Baetis,Cheumato'psyche, and Hydropsyche) indicated a problem originating somewhatfurther downstream, but above Houserville. Ephemerella, a miM>y f5Psusually considered sensitive, indicated that there was noin the area. I left the stream somewhat confused.

Aquatic Biological InvestigationSpring Creek 4.20.3Centre CountyOctober 3, 1986Page 2January 8, 1987

In August I tried again. As in May, I walked the stream with my kickscreen attempting to locate a specific point where stream qualitydeteriorated. Once again the results were confusing (Appendix 8).A healthy community was found at Lemont. This station and conditioncorresponded with the 1984 and 1985 studies. I next attempted a collectionright at the Route 26 bridge. This location was just below the ThorntonSpring discharge and just above the stormwater drainage ditch that carriesNease Chemical Company's treated discharge. Although the collection wassparse and indicated a toxic response, poor habitat may have been partiallyresponsible. Further downstream, at Houserville, the community againindicated a depressed condition, but was different from previouscollections. Dipterans dominated the community but Gammarus was alsocommon. If the reader isn't lost by now, he will remember that Gammaruswas conspicuously absent at this station in May, as well as in tlie 1984/85studies.This was all quite perplexing, but one thing seemed certain. The benthicmacroinvertebrate .communities found at Lemont and Houserville were notcomparable. The affected taxa, the season and exact point of impact seemeduncertain. Much of the problem stems from the proximity of the potentialinfluences on Spring Creek. Thornton Spring enters Spring Creek on theeast bank and 200 feet upstream from the Route 26 bridge. Thornton Springhas been contaminated in the past with kepone and mirex, and still containssome volatile organic substances. Immediately below the Route 26 bridgeand again from the east, a stormwater drainage ditch joins Spring Creek. Ihave observed the runoff from this ditch during a moderate rainfall and itsdischarge was violent and turbid. The ditch drains the Route 26 roadsideand an area populated by a number of light industries. This same ditchalso receives Mease Chemical Company's treated effluent. These threefactors, Thornton Spring, Mease's effluent, and stormwater runoff, enterthe stream within a 200 ft. reach. There are no good riffle habitatsbetween these point sources making it difficult to separate their impact bysampling natural substrate. Of course, there is no way to separate impactof the various influences introduced by the stormwater ditch by sampling inthe stream. An additional complicating factor is the unknown quality ofthe ground water entering Spring Creek's base flow in the reach. Given thehistory of the area, this may be a significant unknown.

88303196

A.

Aquatic Biological InvestigationSpring Creek 4.20.3Centre CountyOctober 3, 1986Page 3 • - -January 8, 1987

Methods

On August 22, 1986, I made another "last" attempt to pinpoint the source ofSpring Creek's benthic problems. Lacking adequate natural substrates, Iplaced artificial substrate samplers at four locations in Spring Creek(Figure 1, Table 1). The stations are designated by river mile index(miles upstream from mouth) for these collections as well as those listedin Appendices A A B. The samplers were of the multi-plate type,constructed from 3" hardboard squares threaded on metal rods. Smallspacers between the plates provided interstitial space. Each samplerexposed approximately one square foot of area for benthic colonization.I placed dye at the discharge points to ensure that samplers wereappropriately located within the intended mixing zones. I used a velocitymeter to measure current velocities in each sampler's microhabitat. Underthat day's flow condition, which was slightly lower than normal, samplerswere placed in velocities of 1-2 feet per second. Three replicate samplerswere placed at each station and collected on October 3, 1986, after a sixweek colonization period. I scrubbed each sampler in a bucket of waterwith a soft bristled brush, concentrated the residue in a U.S. #30 meshsieve and preserved the samples with formalin. The samples were returnedto the laboratory for picking, sorting and enumeration. Identificationswere made at levels of convenience, most often genus.

Brillouin's (1962) diversity index and Hilsenhoff's (1982) biotic indexwere calculated for each sample. Brillouin's diversity index measurescommunity complexity and is affected by number of taxa and distribution ofindividuals among the taxa in the sample. Diversity indices in healthystreams usually exceed 3.0 and drop below 1.0 in severely polluted habitats(Wilhm, 1970). Hilsenhoff's is a saprobic index ranging from 0 to 5 and isentirely dependent on the pollution tolerance values assigned to thevarious taxa in a sample. Hilsenhoff evaluates the biotic index asfollows:

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Evaluation Table

Biotic Index Water Quality Degree of Organic Pollution

0.00 - 1.75 Excellent Mo organic pollution1.76 - 2.25 Very Good Possible slight organic pollution2.26 - 2.75 Good Some organic pollution2.76 - 3.50 Fair Significant organic pollutiftiR3QQ f Q73.51 - 4.25 Poor Very significant organic poTTuWn*' ! - '4.26 - 5.00 Very Poor Severe organic pollution


Most pollution tolerance values used in this study were adapted fromHilsenhoff, but some were derived from my own observations. Pollutiontolerance values are listed in parenthesis in.Appendix C. It is importantto remember that high diversity indices indicate healthy stream conditions,whereas high biotic indices indicate polluted conditions.Analysis of variance and Fisher's (1956) least significant differences wereused to test for significant differences between station means. Afourth-root transformation was applied to population data prior tostatistical testing in order to satisfy assumptions of normality (Downing,1979). Statements of significance indicate a 95% or higher level ofconfidence (P < 0.05).

Results

Our collection of 12 samples contained 1,948 organisms distributed among48 taxa. Appendix C contains a complete tabulation by replicate. Meandensities for the important orders are summarized in Appendix D.Appendix D also contains mean values for number of taxa per station, totalindividuals per station, Brillouin's diversity index and Hilsenhoff'sbiotic index. Values that are connected by underlines are notsignificantly different. Breaks in the underlines indicate values orgroups of values that are significantly different.

A glance at Appendix D reveals that this study may have been much ado aboutlittle. Amphipoda and Ephemeroptera were the only groups to demonstrateany significant trends. There were no significant differences betweenstations for Tricoptera, Diptera, number of taxa, individuals or either ofthe indices. Mean values for the indices indicated slight reductions incommunity complexity and sensitivity at the two downstream stations, butreplicate variability was large enough to make these trends insignificant.Amphipod and Ephemeropteran densities declined with distance downstream..However, their significant break points occurred at different locations.There was no difference in Amphipod density above and below ThorntonSpring, but their numbers declined below the stormwater ditch and again atHouserville. Mayflies, conversely, declined sharply below Thornton Spring,but showed no change above and below the stormwater ditch. As with theAmphipods there was another sharp decline further downstream atHouserville. These two groups, like the earlier studies, indicateddeclining stream health below the Route 26 bridge. As before, a specificpoint source was not implicated since one group declined below ThorntonSpring and the other below the stormwater ditch. Rather, a cumulativeimpact from the two sources seemed a more likely conclusionthe data. The impact did not appear nearly as severe as indiof the 1984 and 1985 collections.


Another enigma to dance around is the increasingly depressed condition atHouserville. There are no known point source discharges betweenHouserville (15.2) and the next upstream station (15.5). Either poorquality ground water adds to the stream's problems, or the influencesentering the stream near Route 26 simply need more time and distance tofully exert themselves. I don't know which is the case, but I suspect thelatter.

Conclusions?

All the benthic macroinvertebrate collections made by DER since 1984 haveindicated some degree of depression in Spring Creek below the Route 26bridge. The Thornton Spring and stormwater ditch discharges seemed toshare responsibility for the problem, but neither was clearly convicted.The list of potential polluters still includes Thornton Spring, NeaseChemical Company's permitted discharge, stormwater runoff, and contaminatedground water entering the stream at base flow. Unfortunately, this studydid not shorten the list. The latest collection indicated a less severeimpact than the 1984 & 85 collections. Conventional ambient benthicstudies such as this one are not likely to shed additional light on thiscase other than to monitor the current health of the stream.

Recommendations

Whole effluent type bioassays run on the Thornton Spring discharge andNease Chemical Company's permitted effluent should be useful in definingtheir respective contributions to Spring Creek's condition. Of thepotential polluters, Nease Chemical Company's discharge is the only onedirectly controllable. I'm not sure what options are available ifThornton Spring is shown to be toxic, and I doubt that much could be doneabout the stormwater or ground water even if there were a way to test theirtoxicity. Nonetheless I recommend that DER,- EPA and Nease ChemicalCompany either separately or cooperatively conspire to run theaforementioned bioassays.

Authors' Note

This report was a joint effort between Ken Meyer and myself. Ken did mostof the sample sorting and enumeration, data organization and tabulation,statistical and index calculations, and assisted with the draft. Iconducted the field work, provided taxonomic assistance, and took primaryresponsibility for the final draft.

RH/rjh ... ... .....,, ,. ... . .cc: Robert Frey

Bruce Hollender

Literature Cited

Brillouin, L., Science and Information Theory, Academic Press. New York,1962, pp. 1-347.

Downing, J. A. 1979. Aggregation, transformation, and the design of benthossampling program. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 36:1454-1463.

Fisher,'R. A. 1956. Statistical Methods and Scientific Inferences, Oliver &Boyd, Edinburgh.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1982. Use of the biotic index to evaluate water quality ofstreams. Wis. Dept. Nat. Resources Tech. Bull. No. 132.

Miller, G., 1981 and 1979. Aquatic Biological Investigations - Spring Creek,Centre County. Pa. Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of WaterQuality (unpublished memo).

Ulanoski, J. T., 1972. Aquatic Biological Investigation - Spring Creek, CentreCounty. Pa. Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water QualityManagement (unpublished memo).

Wilhm, J. L. 1970. Range of diversity index in benthic macroinvertebratepopulations. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 42:221-224.

AR3Q32QO

M ouser vi/U

A

igure 1: Sampling locations for aquatic biological investigations of?3pnng*frek' inCentre County. Collections were made on May 14, August 15, and October 3, 1986.Underlined numbers are artificial substrate stations that were collectedOctober 3. Traced from an enlarged copy of USGS map 5-12.2 (State College, PA7.5" quadrangle).

Spring CreekCentre CountyMay, Aug. ?< Oct. 1986

TABLE 1Sampling Station Locations

16.1: Spring Creek in Lemont, 0.5 upstream -from thePA 26 bridge and Thornton Spring.

USGS Quad. OS - 12.2 11.3Q"N 9.60"W

15.7: Spring Creek, 200 ft. upstream from the FA 26bridge and just upstream from Thornton Spring.

USGS Quad. 05 - 12.2 12.20"N 9.50"W

*15.65: Spring Creek, in the immediate vicinity ofthe PA 26 bridge, below Thornton Spring andabove the stormwater drainage ditch thatreceives Nease Chemical Company's permitteddischarge.

USGS Quad. 05 - 12.2 12.30"N 9.5O:"W

**15.6: Spring Creek, 100 ft. downstream from the PA26 bridge.

USGS Quad. 05 - 12.2 12.3O"N 9.60"W

15.5: Spring Creek, 1,000 ft. downstream from thePA 26 bridge.

USGS Quad. 05 - 12.2 12.45"N 9.95"W

15.2: Spring Creek at the Houserville Park, 0.5 miledownstream from the PA 26 bridge and 0.5 mileupstream from Slab Cabin Run.

USGS Quad. 05 - 12.2 12.80"N 10.80"W

* Collected in May and August only.

.** The May collection at this station was from midstreamand within mixing zones of Thornton Spring and thestormwater ditch. Sampler placement for the Octobercollection was along the west bank within the ThorntonSpring mixing zone but outside the stormwater ditchmixing 2one.

AR303202

Spring CreekCentre CountyMay 14, 1936

APPENDIX A

Taxa Station15.65 15.6 .15.2

Isopoda (Sowbugs)Lirceus A P

Amphipoda (Scuds)Gammarus C P

Decopoda (Crayfish)Cambarus P P

Plecoptera (Stoneflies)Leuctra P

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)Baetis C C PEphemerella C C CPrune!la P PSten-onema spp. C P PS. v i c ar i .urn C

Trichoptera (Caddisf1ies)Cheumatopsvche C C PHydropsyche bet_teni C C PH. bifida gr. PRhvacophi1 a P P

Coleoptera (Beetles)Elmidae P

Diptera (Midges, Flies)Antocha PCricotoous P C PDiamesa P CEndochironomus PEukiefferiella PParametr i ocnemus PPsectrocladius PSimuliidae P C CTanytarsus PTi pu.l a P

Total Taxa 15 14 15

Relative AbundanceA (Abundant) =* > 25/screenC (Common) = 10 - 20/screenP (Present) = < 10/screen

AR303203

L

Spring CreekCentre CountyAugust 15, 1986

APPENDIX B

Taxa Station16.1 15.65 15.2

Annelida (Aquatic Earthworms) P * PIsopoda (Sowbugs)

Lirceus C C PAmphipoda (Scuds)

Gammarus A P CEphemeroptera (Mayflies)

Baetis C PEphemerella PHeptaqenia PParaleptophlebi a PStenonema spp. P PS. vi carium PTri corythodes - P P

Odonata (Dragonf1ies)Corduleqaster P

Megaloptera (Alderflies)Sialis P

Trichoptera (Caddisf1ies)Cheumatopsvche PPolophilodes PGlossosoma PHydropsyche betteni C PH. bifida gr. C P

Coleoptera (Beetles)Elmidae . P P

Diptera (Midges, Flies)Antocha P PAtherix ' PChrysops PCricotopus • P PDiamesa CEndochi ronomus PPolypedilum fallax PPsectrocladius p PPseudodi amesa C P ASimuliidae C P ATh i enemann i myi a PTipula P

Total Taxa IS 13 17

Relative AbundanceA (Abundant) = > 25/screen «R30320fyC (Common) = 10 - 20/screen ~ "P (Present) = < 10/screen

Spring CreekCentre CountyOctober 3, 1986

APPENDIX C

Station_________15.7________15.6______• 15.5_______T a x a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R e p l i c a t e _ _ _ _ _ A B C A B C A B C A

Turbellaria (Flatworms)PIanari idae

Oligocheata (Aquatic Worms)Isopoda (Sowbugs)

LirceusAmphipoda (Scuds)

Gammarus (2)Hydracarina (Water Mites)Plecoptera(Stonef1ies)

Phagqanophora (0)Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)

Baetis (3)Pseudocleon (2)Serratella (1)Stenonema (2)

Trichoptera (Caddisf1ies)Cheumatopsvche (3)Polophi1 odes (0)Glossosoma (1)Hydropsvche alhedra (1)H. betteni (3)H. b i f i da gr. (3)H. slossonae (2)H. sparna (1)Rhyacophila (0)

Coleoptera (Beetles)Elmidae (3.)

Diptera (Midges; Flies)Antocha (2)Brill a par (3)Cardi ocladius (3)Chironomus (5)Corynoneura <2)Cri cotopus bicinctus (4)C. tremulus gr. (4)C. trifascia gr. (4)Dicrotendipes (4)Empididae (3)Eukiefferiella (2)Glyptotendi pes (5)Mi crotendi pes (3)Nanocladius (1)Paratanytarsus (3)Parametriocnemus (3)

56 301

19

8 20 446 35 35

23 23 6

1 116 17 8

7 8 510 5 41

2 13 211 2 1

11o 1

1

i a

4 3

54 17 21

34

151

12 4 14

24 35 310 9 179 5

45

1

8

2 731 3 17 12 5

1718

13 291 1

3 41 11

1

1 AR30320S4 &t 9 10 12

1C

13

i10 5 It6

11

8 4


APPENDIX C

StationTaxa Replicate

Polypedi lum convictum (3)P. fallax ar. (3)Psychodidae (5)Rheocricotopus (3)Rheot any tarsus (3)Simuliidae (4)Tanvtarsus ( 3 )Thi enemanni el 1 a (2)Tipula (2)

Gastropoda (Limpets, Snails)Ferri ssiaPhysa

Total TaxaReplicates Pooled

Total IndividualsReplicates Pooled .

Brillouin's Diversity Index

Hilsenhoff's Biotic index

A

1

82115

4

28

225

3.6

2. 3

15.7B

_^

15~!?

1«=:

2532'

227588

3.3

2.2

C

1123*_

Z

21

136

3 . 0

2.3

15.6A B

_^

12

61

11

13 2231

129 21 0448

2.5 3.2

2.4 3.0

C

1

2

41

^

23

110

3.5

2.5

A

1

102TJ

1

21

1O5

3. 2

2.5

15.5B C

^

2220 1554 11

21

23 1429

158 227490

3.5 1.7

2.7 3.6

15.2A B

12 4

331 2

6 43 1

21 1726

123 182 J.42"-'

3.0 2.9 2

2.9 3.2 3

C

1==

1

ia

17

.9

.0

AR303206


APPENDIX DData Summary (Mean Values/Station)

Parameter Station15.7 15.6 15.5 15.2

Amphipoda 39.6 30.7 7.0 2.3

Ephemeroptera 59.O 20.0 13.7 2.O

Trichoptera 45.7 50.3 30.0 51.O

Diptera 45.7 38.7 108.7 79.0

Taxa 24.7 19.3 19.3 18.7

Individuals 196.O 149.6 163.3 14O.6

Diversity Index 3.31 3.04 2.32 2.95

Biotic Index 2.34 2.62 2.96 2.85

* Means connected by underlines are not significantly-different. Breaks in the underlines indicate values orgroups of values that are significantly different(P<0.05).

AR303207

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA |

November 20, 1987

SUBJECT: Aquatic Biological InvestigationSlab Cabin RunStream File 23036Centre CountyJuly 27-August 7, 1987

TO: L. Richard Adams THROUGH: Daniel L. AltersChief - Permits & Grants Chief - Operations SectionBureau of Water Quality Management Bureau of Water Quality Managementwnilamsport Region WIlHamsport Region

FROM: Ronald E. Hughey iAquatic Biologist 1Bureau of Water Quality ManagementUllllamsport Region

At your request I conducted an aquatic biological Investigation of SlabCabin Run In the vicinity of the Ferguson Township sewage treatment plant.The purpose of the Investigation was to determine If the sewage treatmentplant was affecting aquatic life In the stream* I was specificallyInterested In finding out If nutrients 1n the effluent were stimulatingexcessive plant colonization and thus causing violent diurnal swings 1ndissolved oxygen concentration.Slab Cabin Run Is a second order tributary to Spring Creek occurring 1n theRidge and Valley Province of central Pennsylvania. Above P1ne Grove Hills1t drains a forested mountain valley, but below P1ne Grove Mills 1ttraverses a low gradient, deforested valley floor. Grazing, primarily bydairy cows*is fairly Intense In the lower reach and becomes more Intensewith distance downstream. The Ferguson Township sewage treatment plant Islocated 1n the village of Pine Grove Mills and consequently In a transitionzone between mountain and valley floor ecosystems*Three chemical and biological sampling stations were established at

x» loglstlcally Important locations (Figure 1, Table 1). Physical and30 chemical data (Table 2) were obtained from field and laboratory analyses ofco grab water samples. Benthic macrolnvertebrates (Table 3) were collectedo with a 3' x 3' kick screen constructed of 800-900 micron mesh material.<-*> Four replicate screens were collected at each station and family occurrence£? recorded 1n the field. Fish populations (Table 4) were sampled by —————E: electroflshlng representative habitats at each station. Fish were

Identified In the field and returned to the stream. Temperature and A fidissolved oxygen concentrations were recorded for at least 43 hours atStations 2 and 3. 1 judged diurnal variation to be minimal at Station 1because plant colonies were sparse, and didn't Invest the time to recorddlurnals there.

Aquatic Biological InvestigationSlab Cabin RunStream File 23036Centre CountyJuly 27-August 7, 1987Page 2November 20. 1987

ResultsStation 1. Slab Cabin Run, just upstream from the Ferguson Twp. STP

At this point Slab Cabin Run was first order, 6-8 feet wide and no morethan a foot deep. The substrate was primarily rubble. Riparian vegetationconsisted of shrubs and trees and the stream was well shaded. Chemical andbiological parameters were characteristic of a cold water, limestonestream. Alkalinity and pH were high and the benthos was dominated by adense population of scuds (Gammarus). Only three species of fish werepresent, but an abundance of slimy sculplns Indicated a healthy cold watercommunity. Trout were present but not nunerous. They were probablylimited by habitat and/or fishing pressure.

Station 2. Slab Cabin Run, approximately one mile downstream from theFerguson Twp. STP.

Slab Cabin Run was still first order at this point, 6-8 feet wide and nomore than a foot deep. However, the substrate was predominantlygravel-sand and no more than 50% of the stream was shaded. Substantialcolonies of pondweed (Potoraogeton), watercress (Nasturtium) andfilamentous algae (Cladophora and Splrpgyra) were present.The chemical and physical data revealed Increases 1n temperature, 300,total phosphorus, and nitrate-nitrogen. All of these but temperature wereattributable to the Ferguson Township STP effluent (Table 2). The Increasein phosphorus and Its contribution to plant growth was probably the mostsignificant change. The benthic comnunlty was similar to that found atStation 1 in that it was dominated by scuds. The fish community wasdominated by dace, but there were enough sculplns present to Indicate ahealthy cold water comnunity.

There were marked diurnal variations in temperature and dissolved oxygen(Figure 2). The dissolved oxygen concentration never fell below 6 ppm anddid not threaten the stream's use as a cold water fishery. Daytime hightemperatures, however, ranged from 19.5 to 22.0*C. and were marginally highfor a cold water

£§303209

Aquatic Biological InvestigationSlab Cabin RunStream File 23036Centre CountyJuly 27-August 7, 1987Page 3November 20, 1987

Station 3. Slab Cabin Run, approximately 3 miles downstream from'theFerguson Twp. STP.

Slab Cabin Run was second order at this station with an average width of8-12 feet. Mean depths ranged from 3 Inches 1n riffles to 18 Inches 1npools. Riparian vegetation was mostly grass and weeds providing minimalshading. Bank erosion from livestock pasturing was severe in the two milereach above this station. Consequently, the substrate was smothered withsilt. I found a small patch of gravel and rubble for macroinvertebratesampling, but most of the strean bottom was ankle deep in silt. Coloniesof filamentous algae and pond weed were extremely dense. This abundanceof vegetation on unstable substrate Indicated infrequent scouring flows.

Nutrient concentrations were lower than those found at Station 2, buthigher than at Station 1. Nutrient concentrations were obviouslysufficient to stimulate excessive plant growths. Unfortunately, there wasno way to differentiate between point source and nonpoint source nutrientsat this station.The benthic community was dominated by sludgcworas (Tub1f1c1dae) and midges(Chlronowfdae). Few sensitive organisms were present, but poor qualitysubstrate may have been to blame. The fish collection contained sixspecies and was dominated by white suckers. No cold water species werepresent. The aquatic community was generally characteristic of aneutrophlc, silted stream.

As at Station 2 there were narked diurnal variations in temperature anddissolved oxygen (Figure 3). At this station, however, dissolved oxygenconcentrations fell below 5.0 ppm every night. The low concentration was3.0 ppm. The daytlne high temperatures ranged from 22.0 to 30.0°C.Either the nighttime low oxygen concentrations or the daytime hightemperatures were sufficient to limit the stream's use as a cold waterfishery.

Conclusions

Slab Cabin Run's designated use as a cold water fishery was not beingachieved in the middle reach of the stream. The use was United thermallyand by lack of sufficient dissolved oxygen. The dissolved oxygen problemwas attributable to excessive nutrients in an environment conducive toaquatic plant growth. It is interesting to note that concentrations ofnutrients were higher at Station 2 than at Station 3, but did not stimulateexcessive plant growths at Station 2 because conditions were 3 032 I 0

Aquatic Biological InvestigationSlab Cabin RunStream File 23036Centre CountyJuly 27-August 7, 1987Page 4November 20, 1987

anwnable to plant colonization. Unfortunately there was no way to knowwhat percentage of nutrients at Station 3 were contributed by nonpointsources or whether stream quality would improve much if nutrients wereremoved fron the Ferguson Twp. STP effluent. It can certain, however, thatnothing short of restoring riparian vegetation will improve the thermalregime in the stream.

Recommendations

In spite of the nonpoint nutrient sources and high temperatures in SlabCabin Run, I think Ferguson Township should remove phosphorus from theireffluent. Their discharge undoubtedly contributes to the dissolved oxygenproblem. I recommend an effluent limit of 1.0 ppn total phosphorus to beconsistent with other dischargers in the watershed.

RH/rjh

cc: Robert FreyBruce Hollander

AB3Q32Ii

O*»O> ill O*»

SCALE 1:240007__________________0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6003 7000 FEET

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEETDATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

Figure 1. Sampling station locations for an aquatic biological iCabin Run in Centre County. Field collections were made betweenAugust 7, 1987. Map was reproduced from the following USGS 7.5" quadrangles:

1. State College, Pennsylvania 2. McAlevys Fort, Pennsylvania3. 'Pine Grove Mills, Pennsylvania

•_ — •— J <-f — •« cf — J <f fl> O r* o>a> o> 01 o> o> -> <-»• c -j o"-!• - "n-cr <-!• o- r* O"-I. _i. _i.

00 0000fo fo 3

a><< 3Ol 3 Ol 3 Olo - o - o -

W3 ~3 ~3C- O OO

33 73 J C fD —'

§ § I vT2£-»ro fo o>>i o>i cr>C 31C

Cn -^J 3 fD in c^ 0. -J <f 3cn en

fD —•1000

O fO fO—• -J 1—i ia tofD C Ci__ in </>ro o o

3 3

oo a*

Y1 • T LOC I?ro ro ro !a> o -<• CT. . . |Q. oo 3 -»•ro ro —• VQ o

ooo'

CO.en

ro en• •-P* CO

. .3ô"a om-s co-fD Q) ~O S -"• W» O

-j- -j 3 O < rf C-n -j. o in -h QI ct-fO 3 X rf <rf cT«Q-J- -J^fO "OOIQ 3 fD —<• </> •C ^3 G) O»3-n <-f<JlW «=<-!• 3 fD 01 -JO 3 (V ~J fD 33. —' -hCT3 fli-*-

*< -i -I 3 —'O O -J fD3<o -»

fD QJ -) 2. o o rt o. o m03-3 3

OO 3 O fO -•• O* O—»--• —• -j n- -*-is —j -ti -n -j —*. 3-. fD fD fD V* Q. fD "O«/> fo -j <a -••<•»• «a a fo ~n 3Q. C 3 fD fDO c en o. 01 nS o o cr <a o3 «/» 3 —' O C. -)(/)<•+ . c in of* i —t o «•*• o <-J fD S 3 fDfD fi» T3 3 —•Qi 3 • -~~ • -H33 —• tn * -1-

-h 00 fO -O —'-ti-j —13 « —'-JO -O -•• </>03 • —• oo3 ro —io»

</l -03• Q.

rf O_: >—« _i. o»o 3 o —>-JO 3<-(• 3" •—3" fo r— 3w o <

O fD01 in<-(• c*« . —j*o ua3 O)i—i in r*

S3 -••fD O Oin 3" 3rf fDLO

OfDinn

W3032I3

TABLE 5.5-29

RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.STATE COLLEGE. PA

REPORTED KEPONE AND/IREX CONCENTRATIONS INSPRING CRffl2dEBM)WN TROUT

FISH TliggP AMPLES(FILLETS WITH SKIN)

Kepone Mirex Number of Mean Length Mean WeightDate Station foom) (ppm Specimens & Range fern) & Range

May 1976 1 0.170 --- 5 34 (31-38) 424 (332-566)

August 1976 1 0.190 1.00 6 24 (20-28) 148 (90-230)(GC/EC) 2 0.087 0.320 5 28 (22-31) 224 (115-320)

3 0.060 0.165 8 25 (21-28) 162 (95-205)4 0.037 , 0.088 6 26 (24-30) 162 (115-250)

January 1978 1 0.116 2.97F; 6 26 (20-34) 159 (68-350)2 0.050 0.048 4 34 (29-42) 449 (285-725)3 0.036 1.68 5 29 (26-39) 251 (148-4764 0.025 0.044 5 33 (24-44) 383 (133-84

November 1978 1 ND 0.585 5 27 (23-32) 204 (113-310)2 ND 0.022 5 28 (24-31) 201 (140-289)2.5 ND 0.285 5 34 (23-52) 509 (124-1450)3 ND 0.175 5 31 (28-36) 358 (234-497)3.5 ND 0.130 5 30 (28-36) 282 (221-408)4 ND 0.022 5 33 (25-48) 439 (140-1300)

July 1979 0.25 ND Trace 5 30 (28-33)0.5 ND '0.010 5 31 (28-34)1 0.130 1.20 5 32 (29-36)2 ND 0.210 5 32 (28-36)2.5 ND 0.350 5 33 (30-40)3 ND 0.160 5 36 (32-39)3.5 ND 0.270 5 31 (28-34)4 ND 0.150 5 34 (28-39)

November 1981 0.5 0.052 0.1301 0.270 0.6302 0.070 0.1402.5 0.051 0.0833 0.060 0.1303.5 0.040 0.220 _ _______________________4 0.027 0,085

8983:ERT4M/1

RR3033U

ibis: 3cream: Slab Cabin Run

County: Centre Date: 07/29/87

BEMTHIC MACROINVERTE3RATES

Station

Tur bell ar i a •' F1 s. t warms) j |Planaridae 11 X XX

Annelida (Earthworms, leeches) j|Naididae || XXXX | XXXXTubificidae I! || XXXX || XXXX

Amphipoda (Scuds) || || ||Gammaridae || XXXX |> XXXX ||

Decapoda (Cray-fish) |1 j| ||Cambaridae || XX || || X

Plecoptera (Stone-flies) || || ||Leuctridae II X jj ||

Ephemeroptera (May-flies) j| jj ||Baetidae II X XX jj X || XX ||Ephemerellidae || X XX j| X X j| XX |jLeptophlebiidae II X X || j| ||

Jonata (Dragonf 1 ies, Damselflies) || || || jjCoenagri oni dae 11 j| II X jj

•legal optera (Alder-flies) || |j || j!Sialidae !i jj X XX jj XXXX i;

Trichoptera (Caddis-flies) Ij \\ \\Glossosomatidae jj X XX jj XX jjHydropsychidae II II -<XX jj XXRhyacaphi i i dae ' -jj XXXX i|

Calsoptera (Beetles) ' jj i! \El midae i i A A

I XXXX

XXX

Diptera (Midges,. Flies) j| jjChironomidae ' || XXXX jj XXXXSimuliidae || XXXX jj XXXXTab.an idae jj ijTi puli dae || j| XX j X

Gastropoda (Snails) jj jjPhysidae j| X X j| X j| XXX ||

Total Taxa || 13 |j 13 || 13 ||

X indicates that taxa ocurred in that screen.Underlines indicate dominant taxa at station.

A83032I5

Table: 4Stream: Slab Cabin RunCounty: CentreDate: 07/29/87

FISHES

Species ' , Staticn

Trouts - Salmon idaeBrown Trout, Sal mo trutta

Minnows — Cyprinidae

Sucker

Killi-f

Fathead Minnow, Pimphales promelasBlacknose Dace, Rhini chthys atratulusLongnose Dace, Rhi.ni chthys cataractaeCreek Chub, Semotilus atromaculatus

s - CatostomidaeWhite Sucker, Qatq_spufnus. commersani

ishes - CyprinadantidaeBanded Killi-fish. Fundulus diaphanus

Perches - Percidae

Scul pi

Tessellated Darter, Etheostoma gl mstedi

ns - Cot t idaeSlimy Scul pin, Cottus coqnatus

i 1!i P || P! 111 II1 II1 II A| P i| A1 II1 IIi II

II C1 111 II1 II1 ' IIi II1 it! IIi i i! A jj Ci II

I II II!l iII CII11 PII PI IIIII AIIIIII CII1!II C1!1 lt !

l iII

HI II II II II II II II III1 1IIIIIIII .I il iI Ii!i iII.

Total SpeciesShack Time nnincites)S r. a c k D i s t a nee i y a r d s)

Relative Abundance: A = AbundantC -- CcmmorP ~ Present

AR3032I6

fe . : V 5 3!

ft£303217

.; *• .- ; i. ^ i si---" *.< 7 l; ,:. s.ir ••. ,l •£ v •• • - • - •-: - 4 *, ST; /f

r -. •..i_"

\ •• I -; -;... i • <;.:••:•• v- •=;-•: :- • p f ' .M

... .. ...L, .. .._...._....——.. _. . .. i .. .„• : >! ! !i ; ! • , ••-•»-

i :' i

.;

: !' i ••• • . ! . 1; • , i •' - '• i . ;.• . i t ;• ' ; i l

' ; : ••....,. . ' i i i • •. . . > . • • ! . : !' - • • • , . •; • ; ; i ! i•j • i •' •• : ; i i . :

' ! : : ! '' i ; —~;•• •• I '"'•': . . •• : '• , . • ' . - ! . . , • -

i . : • - . ! . ....'.! ••• .......„,; ; , . ; ;'." . . • - - • • ' • ; • \: .•-.:•. i ' . - ' . i : i

.: i j. • : : , I (>—

1 I •• i . , i i

1 i ;r ; ; '•

AR3U32I8

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

October 11, 1988

•UBJECT: Fish Kill InvestigationSpring Creek 22966Centre County

"0: Daniel L. AltersChief - Operations' SectionBureau of Water Quality Management

•"ROM: Ronald E. HugheyAquatic BiologistBureau of Water Quality ManagementWilliamsport Region

During the week of September 19, 1988, a fish kill occurred in Spring Creekof Centre County. Officials at University Area Joint Authority (UAJA)notified our office of the kill on September 23. Initial investigations ;were conducted by Waterways Conservation Officer Brian Burger and WaterQuality Specialist John Sengle. They traced the kill to the vicinity ofUAJA's outfall and John's interview with UAJA officials implicateddischarges of high chlorine on September 21 & 22 as the most probable causeof the kill. The high chlorine discharges occurred during initial attemptsto operate a breakpoint chlorination system. Brian determined that atleast 979 fish were killed, 240 of which were trout.

On September 30 I conducted a follow-up biological investigation todetermine if benthic macroinvertebrate populations (fish food organisms) -had also been affected. I collected samples at three locations (Figure 1,Table 1) following the Department of Environmental Resources's protocol forqualitative cause and effect investigations. The protocol called for thecollection of four standardized kickscreen samples from mid-reach rifflehabitats at each sampling station. Families of macroinvertebratesoccurring in each kick screen were recorded (Table 2) and a representativecomposite sample was preserved at each station for generic identification(Table 3). Although these collections were qualitative, effort wasstandardized. Since they are a sensitive group and effort wasstandardized, I counted all the mayflies that I found in each kickscreen.

On October 3 Bruce Hollender and Bob Wilberding of the Pennsylvania FishCommission and I sampled fish populations in Spring Creek near the UAJAdischarge. We made single electrofishing passes through measured 300 meterstream segments at two sampling stations. One station began approximately2,000 feet downstream from UAJA's outfall and extended 300 meters upstream.Our control station extended 300 meters downstream from the Trout Runbridge (Figure 1). We counted and measured all trout (Table 4) andrecorded relative abundances of other species (Table 5). No e or%'fSl$n'5O I Qmade to estimate populations and all fish were returned to the stream*.' _ . .

Fish Kill InvestigationSpring Creek 22966Centre CountyPage 3October 11, 1988

Results - Fish

The fish populations were very much affected by UAJA's discharge. At the300 meter control station we found 117 brown trout ranging from75 milimeters (3 inches) to 450 milimeters (18 inches). Our catch rate perhour of effort was 234 brown trout. The collection included nine species.White suckers and cutlips minnows were abundant and blacknose dace werecommon. I fished this station in September 1985 and captured 96 trout onthe initial 300 yard marking pass. Our catch rate in 1985 was 100 troutper hour, but I suspect my crew was a bit slow. The numbers for 1985 areat least of the same order of magnitude as those found by thisinvestigation.

Below UAJA's discharge things were different. We found only two browntrout and a total of five species in the 300 meter reach. Our catch rateper hour was eight brown trout. Suckers, sculpins and dace wererepresented by no more than 20-30 individuals per species. In contrast, weobserved hundreds, perhaps thousands of minnows and suckers at the controls-station. In September 1985 I found 48 trout on the 300 yard marking passat this station and had a catch rate of 55 trout per hour. The recent fishkill obviously had a substantial impact.

Conclusions

Two dominant groups of benthic macroinvertebrates (Asellidae andHydropsychidae) were not drastically reduced during the fish kill. Gilldamage on Hydropsychidae larvae more or less confirmed that chlorine causedthe fish kill and that the UAJA outfall was the source. One dominant group(Chironomidae) was almost eliminated below UAJA after the fish kill.Mayflies, which were not a dominant group, were also scarce below the UAJAoutfall. Mayfly scarcity may be a chronic problem below UAJA.

Fish, and especially trout, were scarce below UAJA after the kill.Historical data have frequently indicated lower populations of trout belowUAJA than above. However, the difference was never as severe as we foundin this investigation.

Recommendations

UAJA should be assessed for stream damages. Better fail-safe mechanismsshould be installed on UAJA's break point chlorination system before it isoperated again.RH/rjh

cc: Bruce HollenderBob Frey 'Bud DykinsJohn Sengle

Fish Kill InvestigationSpring Creek 22966Centre CountyPage 2October 11, 1988

Results - Benthos

Benthos populations in this reach of Spring Creek were dominated by. sowbugs (Asellidae), filter-feeding caddisflies (Hydropsychidae) and midges(Chironomidae). These groups are somewhat tolerant of pollution.Consequently, the impact on the benthos was not as dramatic as the fishkill. Large numbers of live invertebrates were found at the stationlocated above UAJA, as well as at the two stations below UAJA.

There were some differences in the samples. Mayflies, although not adominant group, occurred in all four kickscreens collected above UAJA.Three genera and 27 individuals were found in that collection. Conversely,no mayflies were found 1,000 feet below UAJA and only one was found in thecollection made 2,000 feet downstream (river mile 12.0) from UAJA. Icollected benthos samples at river mile 12.0 in September 1984 and 1985.Mayflies were not common then so their scarcity at this time may not berelated to the fish kill. It is more likely a chronic impact from UAJA's-"discharge.

A more striking impact was the virtual absence of midges in the samplescollected below UAJA. They were abundant in the upstream collection,accounting for 35% of the taxa found there. Their scarcity below the plantcaused substantial reductions in number of taxa found in the downstreamsamples. The 1984 and 1985 samples from river mile 12.0 contained anabundance of midges. Therefore, their absence at this time must have beencaused by the same agent that caused the fish kill.

One other difference in the collections had to do with the caddisflies.The family Hydropsychidae was a dominant group at all sampling stations.Hydropsychidae have tufts of filamentous gills located on the ventral sideof their abdominal and thoracic segments. The individual gill filamentsare thin and delicate. Gills on the caddisflies collected upstream fromUAJA were bushy and white which is normal. At the station located1,000 feet downstream from UAJA, about 50% of the Hydropsychidae in thecollection had some gill filaments that looked as if they had been singedor burned. A few individuals had lost most of their filaments. About 20%of the caddisflies collected at the station 2,000 feet downstream from UAJAalso had burned gills. Chlorine is a strong oxidant capable of causingthis type of gill damage. I believe the burned gills confirmed that a slugof highly chlorinated water caused the fish kill. Gills near the thorasicsegments were damaged much more frequently than those near the posteriorend of the caddisflies. These caddisflies build retreats and back intothem when disturbed. The anterior end would be most exposed and mostlikely to be damaged by a passing slug of chlorine.

AR3Q322I

3RIO AND 1971 MAGNETIC NORTH:LINATION AT'CENTER OF SHEET

SCALE 1:24000o

1000 0 1000 200', 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET

1 KILOMETER3

CONTOUR INTERVAL-20 FEETDATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

Figure I: Sampling stations for fish kill investigations conducted on SpringCentre County. Collections were made on September 27 and October 3^ 1988Reproduced from 'ISGS State College, PA 7.5" quadrangle. Expanded 141%.

ro PO ro

53 O O CO —I-•• cu o <-<• o>' < n- c -i crfD fD 3 fD —i

Q. ~J •• c* fli fOo en en ~

fD ro o eo-•j ro ~o3 -J

00 rt1 -i-fo -s 3"O fD to

CO CO CO OfD (T> fD O3 D 3 —'3 3 3 —>fD CD Q (D-J -J -J tO

fD

-H CO Oi °° 33 Qo. fDen TT3- CO£• o

O

coCO

en en en en .O c:c eo01 oQ. co

ro ro ro ro

i iro ro ro

CT> en 01 en. « • •10 -~j co ro

CD VO VD O• * • •—* 4 00 - J

0.3* 3» 3=> — Itc+ T3 T3 -J•o -a o3 -h T -J Cl/> ->. o O f+c+ -5 X X-, 3~a <-<• c* Q.

-3 fD fD-t, _i. _j _i o-n < << ^< TO Q) -J.3d- — > ^j Cu

fD •» en toft- O <T33" cr o -h •fD ~J O fD

-4. fDC= Q. -h c-*

fDro ro c5» rt- T3

01 00O ~O Q. <-hc -a o -irt- -s S ro-h O 3 fl»01 x co 3— ™^« ci"— 3 T -ti• Oi fD -i

ct- fli Orr 3 3

-5 3-ro o roo 3 <=O c* >O 3" C-

fO >-hfD C OfD 3> C

OJO — 'rt--hO)

O 3-j of* =T 3=>3" ro J3co c

CO O)ai n-3 -••T3 O

—'• CO1—4 3 -«•

S3 Id OfD O —'co 3- CO oCf fD rl-tQin a> -"•

(-1- O_1. Q)O —•3

r~ 3o o <fD O fDCO Oi COo n- <-i--j _i. -i.-j. o ta•a 3 o<<-h co t-h.. «j.O O3 3

AR303223

Table: 2Stream: Spring CreekCounty: CentreDate: 27 SEP 88

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA

Taxa Stations/3-k a 3

Turbellaria (Flatworms)Planaridae X

Annelida (Earthworms, Leeches)Oligocheata X XXXX X X

Isopoda (Sow Bugs)Asellidae XXXX XXXX XXXX

Decapoda (Crayfish)Cambaridae XX XX XX

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)Heptageniidae * 3-10-3-6 0-0-0-0 0-1-0-0Tricorythidae * 1-00-2-1 0-0-0-0 0-0-0-0

Odonata (Dragonflies, Damselflies)Aeshnidae X

Megaloptera(Alderflies, Dobsonflies, Fishflies)

Sialidae X

Trichoptera (Caddisflies)Hydropsychidae XXXX XXXX XXXX

Coleoptera (Beetles)Elmidae XX X XXX X

Diptera (Midges, Flies)Chironomidae XXXX XX XSimuliidae XXXTabanidae XTipulidae X

Total Taxa 12 8 9

X indicates that taxa occurred in that replicate.Underlines indicate dominant taxa at station/! DO

* Actual counts of that taxa found in replicate1." T

.e: 3Stream: Spring CreekCounty: CentreDate: 27 Sep 88


Taxa Stations12.6 12.3 12.0

Turbellaria (Flatworms)Planaridae X

Annelida (Earthworms, Leeches)Oligocheata X X X

Isopoda (Sow Bugs)Asellidae

Asellus XLirceus X X X

Decapoda (Crayfish)Cambaridae

Cambarus XOrconectes X X

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) *Heptageniidae

Stenacrorx 22 1Stenonema 1

TricorythidaeTricorythodes ' 4

Odonata (Dragonflies, Damselflies)Aeshnidae

Boveria X

Megaloptera(Alderflies, Dobsonflies, Fishflies)

SialidaeSialis X

Trichoptera (Caddisflies)Hydropsychidae

Ceratopsyche bifida gr. X XCheumatopsyche X X XHydropsyche betteni X X X

ftR303225

Table: 3Stream: Spring CreekCounty: CentreDate: 27 Sep 88


Taxa Stations12.6 12.3 12.0

Coleoptera (Beetles)Elmidae

Qptioservus X XStenelmis X X

Diptera (Midges, Flies)Chironomidae

Chironomus XCricotopus bicinctus g r . X X£ • tremulus g r . X XDicrotendipes XGlyptotendipes XMicrotendipes XNanocladius X XParametriocnemus lundbecki XPseudodiamesa X XRheotanytarsus • X

Empididae XSimuliidae

Simulium XTabanidae

Chrysops XTipulidae

Antocha XTipula X

,'otal Taxa 23 12 13

* All mayflies in samples were collected and counted.

AR3Q3226

'.e: 4'aam: Spring Creek

County: CentreDate: 3 Oct 88

GAME FISH DATA

Length mm Species/Station Species/Station

Brown Trout/13.4 Brown Trout/12.0

75 4100 9125 5150 1175 8200 17225 16 1250 14275 16300 10325 8 1350 7375400 1425450 1

Total 117

A8303227

Table: 5Stream: Spring CreekCounty: CentreDate: 3 Oct 88

FISH DATA

Taxa Stations13.4 12.0

.Salmonidae (Trout)Salmo trutta, Brown trout 117 2

Cyprinidae (Minnows)ExQglossum maxillingua. Cutlips minnow XNotropis cornutus. Common shiner XPimphales promelas. Fathead minnow XRhinichthys atratulus. Blacknose dace X XRhinichthys cataractae. Longnose dace X X

Catostomidae (Suckers)Catostomus commersoni. White sucker X X

Percidae (Perches)Etheostoma olmstedi. Tesselated darter X

Cottidae (Sculpins) X X

Total Species 9 5

AB303228

Bureau of S'ater Quality Management200 Pine Street

Hilliamsport, Pennsylvania 17701-5510

Hay IS, 1989

Sprinq Creek, Centre CountyStream File ho. 22966

Mr. H. Ronald PrestonMS EPAEnvironmental Services Division303 Methodist RuildingWheelinq, WV 25003

êar Son:As I oromised some time aqo, I'm sendinq you some benthos data from Sprinq

Creek. The Soring Creek files are voluminous and, consequently, confusino. In orderto cut through the confusion, I have extracted and summarized four sets of•iantitative collections made in the vicinity of Thornton Sorinq and êase Chemicaljrooany.

I don't think a qreat deal of perception is reauired to see that somethinq isgoing on in the stream. Crustaceans, mayflies and caddisflies were importantcomponents of the community above the Pa. Route 26 bridge. * snort distancedownstream, they were not. In the one case (October 19B5) v/here caddisflies persistedbelow Pa. °.oute 26, the persistent critter was Hydropsychog bifida ar., a rathertolerant consortium nf caddisflies. In Houserville, about 0.5 nile below Pa.;";out2 2?, nidaes and other dipterans dominated the collections, "n paper, this looksa bit like a saprobic response. I don't believe that is the case. The visual '.-noactof the samples left ne with the impression that there *as very little oiomass at•Houserville. It looked like a toxic response. Unfortunately, we have not measuredbiomass, only numbers. The total number of individuals weren't affected much sincethe increase in dipterans offset the decline of other taxa.

Other data, mostly qualitative, have been collected that showed a similar trend.I have also attempted to find exactly where in the mile or so between Lemont and•iouserville that the problem begins. That effort has larqelv failed and onlyobscured the obvious conclusion that impact occurs.

If you would like to see or discuss any of these data sets and reports in theirverbose, unabridged condition, feel free to call me at 717-327-3660.

Sincerely yours,

ftR303229Aquatic Biologist

REH/blsEnclosurescc: Stream File

UAJA

\\tosettitle

\\ N

A

Figure.1: Sampling station locations for aquatic biological Investigations of Spring Creek,Centre County, September 1984 through Septenter 1985. Traced from US6S map 5-12.2(State College, PA 7.5" quadrangle). \ , , ;One Inch - 2,000 feet '.-l 3

gr rt<q

Xo Cowjpo 5 / // '* M die o rt /' /s /Ve- Qg^M «5 Co_....._——.. .__ ..... ...........—————————

/

I J- it Uhe/ efo T ro * I 7

/ /

~>0ure.<s. _ '• Qo 0 ^ r h ^ - - d'

< / s ^ S'or'

__ ..-/>?' /e. ).

%

__; Ssrfor?r _____jl/OUSer////<

30

A?

44*3" ey fifl-, ~ —^

&'$ '* ***-. is*SfrrSttf——— — x —— -

let ../I £

Co»y?o5i/t0._*i_6^ Q rt /,' /a Ti Ve> og^/Ao 3 Co //g g

, da

/

I / -? -» )

J*r* If 1

.______ (______ <s< shot"! dtsl6H.ee-, LfSf

_C.'\rt f ^ fi/£0s<z~ c /t&r7*C0/

*ig_-. _L

v\ Qu* « I' / 6 n Ve> Qg*?/Ao3

T ____ / # 5 r // '//e.

o

o•# T

// /

jr/./ <?/• / </ 5 /- «<r <_, <<r r

>*tt? - /iXet f <_=- •.A

/ W'57<?

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAi

February 14, 1990

SUBJECT: Aquatic Biological InvestigationSlab Cabin Run WatershedStream File 23036Centre CountyJuly 1989

TO: William P. ParsonsEnvironmental Protection ManagerBureau of Water Quality ManagementWilliamsport Regional Office

FROM: Ronald E. HugheyAquatic BiologistBureau of Water Quali'ty ManagementWilliamsport Region

On July 5, 6 and 7, 1989, Bruce Hollender (PFC, Area Fisheries Manager) andI surveyed some Spring Creek tributaries in Centre County. Our objectivewas to fill data gaps in our Spring Creek files. The Slab Cabin Runwatershed was included.

We collected fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and water samples from threelocations on Slab Cabin Run and one location each on Roaring Run andThompson Run-(Figure 1, Table 1). Student intern, Brian Trowbridge, and Icollected the water samples and benthic macroinvertebrates. Water sampleswere icad in the field and shipped to the Department of EnvironmentalResources' laboratory for next day analysis. We collected benthicmacroinvertebrates following the Department of Environmental Resourcesprotocol for qualitative cause and effect surveys. Specifically, four3' K 3' kick net collections were made at each station. Family occurrencewas recorded for each net and dominant families noted for the station(Table 3). A representative composite sample was preserved at eachstation for generic level identification (Table 4).

Bruce, Bob Wilberding (PFC, Fisheries Technician), and their student interncollected fish from 300 meter stream segments. They recorded speciespresent, and where numbers warranted, did Zippen (1958) style two passpopulation estimates for trout.

Aquatic Biological InvestigationSlab Cabin Run WatershedStream File 23036Centre CountyJuly 1989Page 2February 14, 1990

Results

Station SCR 1

SCR 1 was located on Slab Cabin Run a short distance from the intersectionof PA Routes 45 and 545. This intersection is about 1.5 miles northeast ofPine Grove Mills. The stream was about 10' wide and flowed throughagricultural land. Riparian vegetation was mostly grass and shrubs whichprovided little shade. Riffle substrate was gravel, cobble, and silt inthat order of abundance. Pgtomogeton pectinatus and assorted periphytonwere moderately abundant. Stream flow was high from recent rains.

Chemical and physical parameters characterized this reach as alkaline andlimestone influenced. Nutrient and BOO concentrations were low. Thebenthic macroinvertebrate collection was typical of a limestone stream.Biomass was high, taxa richness somewhat low, and the scud Gammarus wasvery abundant. Also common were baetid mayflies and diamesan midges.

The fish collection was sparse. We found one brown trout plus creek chubs,white suckers, and sculpins. I don't know why so few trout were present.Habitat or fishing pressure may have been limiting. Sculpins were commonenough to indicate a cold water habitat.

Station SCR 2

This station was located off L.R. 14019, a short distance upstream from themouth of Roaring Run. Slab Cabin Run was about 10' wide here, and flowedthrough agricultural land. Stream flow was above normal from recent rains.Grass and weeds along the stream provided little shade. Bank erosion wasnot bad in the immediate vicinity, but the stream bed was severely silted.Erosion must have occurred somewhere upstream and apparently this stretchseldom experiences scouring flows.

There were no decent riffles for benthic macroinvertebrate colonization andthe invertebrate community was sparse. We found 12 taxa, most representedby few individuals. Blackflies were common in dense beds of Potomogeton.Other invertebrates vyere limited by the silted habitat. Siltation alsolimited fish populations. We found only longnose dace, creek chubs, andwhite suckers. None were common.

Chemical and physical parameters were similar to those found at SCR 1. Thestream was alkaline, limestone influenced, and did not suffer fromexcessive nutrients or BOD. However, in 1987 I found severe diurnalvariations of dissolved oxygen concentration in this part of SlaRun. Nighttime lows dropped to 3 ppm. Aquatic vegetation was a1989 as in 1987, so the stream probably experienced similar diurnavariations.

Aquatic Biological Investigation !7jSlab Cabin Run WatershedStream File 23036Centre CountyJuly 1989Page 3February 14, 1990

Station SCR 3

This station was located in a park off L.R. 14019 and about half a mileupstream from the mouth of Thompson Run. Slab Cabin Run was about 24' wideat this station and flowed through wooded park land. Land use above thepark was mostly residential with, some agriculture. Riparian vegetation inthe immediate vicinity was mostly trees and the stream was well shaded.Most of the reach above the station was open and unshaded. Rifflesubstrate was mostly gravel mixed with sand and boulders. Rocks were about30% embedded. Fissidens and diatoms were moderately abundant. Flowcondition was high from recent rains.

Chemical and physical parameters were not much different from those atupstream stations. The stream was alkaline and limestone influenced.Nutrient and BOD concentrations were not excessive.

We found a pretty healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community at thisstation. The collection included 23 taxa within 16 families. Dominantfamilies included mayflies, aquatic beetles, and midges. Several sensitivemayfly and caddisfly taxa were present.

The fish collection was not impressive. We found only 6 brown trout in300 meters. Longnose dace, blacknose dace and white suckers were alsopresent.

Station RR

Roaring Run is a first order tributary to Slab Cabin Run. Our station was 'off T-354 approximately 1.4 miles upstream from Roaring Run's confluencewith Slab Cabin Run. The area was forested and the stream was well shaded.Average width was about 8' and gradient was moderately steep. Rifflesubstrate was mostly Fontinalis covered cobble. Other periphyton wassparse. Flow condition was normal.

Unlike Slab Cabin Run, this stream was not influenced by limestone geology.It was slightly acidic and had very low nutrient concentrations. However,there was measurable alkalinity (10 ppm), and water quality was good.

There was also a good benthic macroinvertebrate community at this station.Benthic macroinvertebrates were moderately abundant and represented by18 taxa. The community was characteristic of a first order, lowalkalinity stream. Stoneflies (Isoperla) were the dominant groups o A q oo 7Mayflies, caddisflies, and blackflies were also common. ««wUu£a/.


For some reason there were no fish at this station. In 300 meterswe found only-two small brook trout and one creek chub. The stream lookedlike good brook trout habitat. This reach may have gone dry during thedrought of 1988 and not had time for fish populations to recover.

Station TR

Thompson Run is a short, spring fed tributary to Slab Cabin Run. Itreceives much of the storm water runoff from the northeast side of StateCollege. Our station was located off Puddington Road, just downstream fromPA 26. The stream was about 14' wide and flowed through a residentialarea. Riparian vegetation was mostly trees and shrubs which providedpartial shade. Riffle substrate was mostly sand and fine gravel thatlooked as if it had washed into the stream from the shoulder of PA 26.Larger rocks were about 40% embedded. It was not good habitat for benthicmacroinvertebrates. The substrate did support a moderate to thin layer ofperiphyton, but no macrophytes were present. Flow condition was normal.

This station was an enigma. Chemically, it was similar to Slab Cabin Run.The stream was limestone influenced and very alkaline. However, thebenthos community was exceptionally sparse. We found only 5 taxa and veryfew individuals. The limestone loving Gammarus dominated the collection,but even they were not common. It looked like toxic stormwater runoff orpoor substrate was limiting the community. Trout, on the other hand, wereeverywhere. The first pass through the 300 meter station yielded 48 brooktrout. The second pass yielded 17 for a total of 65. I don't know whatthe final estimated population was, except that it was greater than65/300 m. Also present were sculpins, white suckers, creek chubs,goldfish, and a largemouth bass. Sculpins were common. I suppose thetrout were eating the sculpins, but what were the sculpins eating? It ispossible that macroinvertebrates were more common in Thompson Run a shortdistance downstream and further away from PA 26. I simply don't know.

Conclusions

1. Much of Slab Cabin Run, especially the middle reach, was notsupporting a cold water fishery. Excessive erosion and sedimentationappeared to be the limiting factor. Inadequate shade and diversion ofgroundwater by well fields may also be problems.

2. Although Roaring Run held few fish, I think it was a temporarycondition caused by the 1988 drought. It did support a nea|f 1^3 H 3 ? 3 8benthic macroinvertebrate community. . _ _ _ . _


3. Thompson Run certainly held trout. But, I would say that itsdesignated use was only partially attained because of the sparsebenthic macroinvertebrate community. Stormwater runoff from PA 26 andsedimentation of substrate were likely limiting factors.

Literature Cited

Zippen, C. 1958. The removal method of population estimation. Jour.Wildlife Management 22(1):82-90.

REH/skb

cc: Bob FreyJohn Sengle

A8303239

Co. ffi

/ftf

Q.S-

co0)Q

coO> 4->.C COU CL>C 3

+J CO COfO C OJ01 O -C

U S-

i— O 1/1 T3IT3 -r— t3 <OO 4J CO 3•r- to :zj crO CO

O Ol•r- CCO -r-

U Q.'*"" E4-1 fOt3 CO Q.3 ••-

<ac co3O

« E 01OJ "3 S-S. O) 4J

o3 -U S_ coco .U c

tn Q. </> 3:«a- 3 a. o3 -o<=c -i-> T;a. c:cD i— <a jjE M- •-• <+-o E CS - O - 2 0i+_ o • tn c o o

O C -3 -M • OEC: i—I 3 • O O£ (DO. .—I<T5 O Oi i— "3Ol •.- >i >> C O1CO >i-s_^j i— en •— o c r— ajjju <DC <DCO T- c aicn(/)(3J 4J-i— 4->CL £Z ~Z -4JT3c</> <ot- tSE LOO rc-r—st- e«3 eo +j es_o a; •!- o T- _r cai -r- j2-a*j XQ: xi— ai.— xco o at 01 o vo+j T- S_E s-S s<= s-cvj

CO CLO O-O *J •!- Q.3VO Q.S. O.1- OJ.C O-ef

O

Or-l

4J +J COCO (Oai o> oC _!i— i CM CM OJ CM CVIc

CM CM CM CM CVJr—I «—t <—4 t—4 (.

I I I I ILO IT) LO LD en

cO <D OJ O)CO Ol Ol co 013 a) ai •-• aiOl c—— r—— i. ——S- r— ,— S- e—O) O O "3 O

OJ

_E xO)-a s- -aai a> c

CO r-1 « - COCO4- Qi O •=}• i—I <—I O0)(O3c3c_c coX3 >>

O) i c 3

COCJLD C C C 3 Q C- -i- -f- Q£

AR3032M

v E >i OOJ (T3 4J •• -r-•— O) C 0) 4-)J3 i- 3 +J <T3<t3 +-> O fO JJI— CO O Q CO

<O rH (O CM (TJ CO Ol OO O O C CO

3 (S) (& {f} O (/} *

co co co a:

ible: 2•-ream: Slab Cabin Run Watershedmnty: Centreite: 5-7 Jul 89

PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL DATA(values reported in mg/1 unless noted otherwise)

Parameter StationsSCR1 SCR2 SCR3 RR TR

.me 1320 0940 1045 1100 1430

smperature C (field) 13.00 14.50 14.00 12.00 15.00

.ssolved Oxygen (field) 9.80 10.80 10.80 9.80 9.80

I (field) 7.30 7.60 7.60 6.40 7.70

I (lab) 7.20 7.30 7.40 6.30 7.70

Lkalinity 116.00 140.00 150.00 10.00 184.00

)D (5 day) 0.80 0.80 2.00 0.80 1.20

(total) 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.06

•.ssolved Solids 238.00 234.00 248.00 24.00 328.00

ispended Solids 14.00 8.00 22.00 8.00 12.00

irbidity (NTU) 8.40 12.00 6.80 <1.00 4.00

32-N 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02

)3-N 2.88 2.40 1.92 0.09 2.88

13-N 0.04 0.04 0.04 <0.02 0.14

irdness 135.00 155.00 167.00 11.00 203.00

i 42.40 46.77 46.31 3.34 58.60

I ' 13.40 15.63 17.62 1.24 22.00

J4 10.00 <10.00 12.00 <10.00 13.00

I 19.00 13.00 14.00 2.00 31.00

tb 3,r, • Slab Cabin Run Watershed H "mnty: Centreite: 5-7 Jul 89


Taxa StationsSCR1 SCR2 SCR3 RR TR

irbellaria (Flatworms)Planaridae 2 1234 1 4

inelida (Earthworms, Leeches)Oligocheata 12 4 1234 1234 34 1 34Tubificidae 234 234 3

iopoda (Sow Bugs)Asellidae 1234

iphipoda (Scuds)Gammaridae 1234 1234

ic .la (Crayfish).mbaridae 12 4 34 4

.ecoptera (Stoneflies)Nemouridae 1Peltoperlidae 3Perlodidae 1234

ihemeroptera (Mayflies)Baetidae 1234 1234 234 1234Ephemerellidae 4 1 34Heptageniidae 1234 1234Leptophlebiidae . 1234

.-ichoptera (Caddisflies)Brachycentridae 1234Hydropsychidae 1234 1 34 1234Limnephilidae 1 2Philopotamiidae 3 123Polycentropidae ' 3Rhyacophilidae 1 23

>leoptera (Beetles)Elmidae 3 123Psephenidae 1234

AR3Q32M

able: 3tream: Slab Cabin Run WatershedDunty: Centreate: 5-7 Jul 89



iptera (Midges, Flies)Chironomidae 1234 1234 1234 2 4 1234Simuliidae 1234 1234 1234 1234 234Tabanidae 1234Tipulidae 1

astropoda (Limpets, Snails)Lymnaeidae 12 4Physidae 1

otal Taxa 15 8 16 16

Numbers indicate that taxa occurred in that replicate.Underlines indicate dominant taxa at station.

tble: 4:ream: Slab Cabin Run Watershedn- : Centreit 5-7 Jul 89

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATATaxa Stations

SCR1 SCR2 SCR3 RR TR

trbellaria (Flatworms) X X Xtnelida (Earthworms, Leeches)

Oligocheata X X X X XTubxficidae X X X

iopoda (Sow Bugs)Asellidae

Asellus • Xaphipoda (Scuds)

GammaridaeGammarus X X

icapoda (Crayfish)Lambaridae

Cambarus X X.ecoptera (Stoneflies)

NemouridaeAmphinemura X

Peltoper1idaePeltoperla X

rlodidaeIsoperla X

:>hemeroptera (Mayflies)Baetidae

Baetis X X X XEphemerellidae

Ephemerella X XHeptageniidae

Epeorus XHeptagenia XStenacron XStenonema " X X

Leptophlebiidae-Paraleptophlebia X

•ichoptera (Caddisflies)Brachycentridae

Micrasema XHydropsychidae

Ceratopsyche bifida XGeratopsyche slossonae X XDiPlectrona" XH.ydropsyche betteni X

LimnephilidaeNeophylax XFycnopsyche X

Philo?9tamiidaeC'iimarra XDolophilodes X

PolycentropidaePolycentropus X

RhyacophilidaeRhyacophila X X

ble: 4ream: Slab Cabin Run Watershedunty: Centrete: 5-7 Jul 89

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATATaxa Stations

SCR1 SCR2 SCR3 RR TR

deoptera (Beetles)Elmidae

Stenelmis X XPsephenidae

Psephenus Xptera (Midges, Flies)Chironpmidae

Cricotopus XmCryptochironomus X

'3iames"a X X X'olypec ilum X XPseudocgamesa X X XStictochironomus XThienemannimyia X X

SimuliidaeSimulium X X . X X

TabanidaeChrysops X X

TipulidaeDicranota XT x p u l a X X

tstropoda (Limpets, Snails)Lymnaeidae

Lymnaea XPhysidae

>tal Taxa 16 12 23 18

.ble: 5

.ream: Slat cabin Run Watershed•unty: Centre,te: 5-7 Jul 89

FISH DATA


dmonidae (Trouts)Salmo trutta. Brown trout 1 6 65Salvelinus fontinalis. Brook trout 2

•prinidae (Minnows)Carassius auratus. Goldfish XRhinichthys atratulus. Blacknose dace XRhinichthys cataractae. Longnose dace X XSemotilus atromaculatus. Creek chub X X X X

ttostomidae (Suckers)patostomus commersoni. White sucker X X X X

in archidae (Sunfish)Lepomis macrochirus. BluegillMicropterus salmoides. Largemouth bass X

ittidae (Sculpins)Cottus cjDgnatus, Slimy sculpin X . X

ital Species 4 3 4 2 6

STEP-DRAWDOWN TEST ON WELL #0AT

RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL COMPANY

Prepared for:

Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Company, Inc.P. 0. Box 221

State College, PA 16801

Prepared by:

SMC Martin Inc.900 West Valley Forge Road

P. 0. Box 859Valley Forge, PA 19482

November 23, 1981

AR3Q32U8

Introduction

SMC Martin is the hydrogeologic and environmental

engineering consultant for the Ruetgers-Nease Chemical

Company, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania. As part of

Ruetgers-Nease's ongoing remedial program, a pilot ground-

water test study is being conducted relating to the removal

of contaminants (product) from the subsurface. The Supple-

mental Order issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-

mental Resources on June 19, 1981 to Ruetgers-Nease Chemical

Company discussed in part a ground-water cleanup and recovery

program involving the pumping of existing or new wells. The

first step in considering a ground-water rehabilitation

program is to stress the ground-water system to determine

optimum pumping rates and the likelihood of contaminant

removal.

A production well (Well #0) had been drilled 18 years

ago adjacent to the plant for process water. Upon development,

it was reported that the well yield was unable to supply an

adequate water supply and was subsequently abandoned. This

well is under consideration as a potential ground-water

recovery well because it is located adjacent to the plant,

has produced product in the past, is drilled to a depth of

300 feet allowing significant drawdown, and is an 8-inch

diameter well thus facilitating the installation of a sub-

mersible pump.

AB3032&9

The results from a prior pump test of Well #0 done

in 1978 lend further supporting evidence that it could serve

as a recovery well. During this 1978 test, a low rate of

withdrawal, 12 gpm, was sustained for 12 hours which drew

down the water level about 10 feet. This affected surrounding

Wells #20, #21, #22, and #7; the latter located about 900 feet

south of the plant. These wells line up in a direction

towards Thornton Spring. A thrust fault is believed to

connect Thornton Spring to the ground-water system around

the plant. Therefore, pumpage of Well #0 could aid in the

rehabilitation of ground-water draining through Thornton

Spring.

It was decided to conduct a step-drawdown test on

Well #0. The main purpose of such a test is to obtain

information regarding the relation between well discharge

and drawdown in a given well. This information can then be

utilized in the determination of the optimum pumping rate

which would actively stress the ground-water system. To do

this, drawdown is measured in the pumped well for successively '

increasing values of Q (discharge). The well is pumped at a

certain Q until the drawdown essentially stabilizes; Q is

then increased, and the drawdown is measured at the same

time intervals. This should be done for about four different

Q values until the drawdown reaches an acceptable depth.

Based on existing data and results from a previous pump

test at Well #0, a relatively low discharge rate for a shortftR3Q3250

period was expected to dewater the well bore. With this

evacuation, the induced hydraulic gradient towards the well

was believed to be capable of flushing product out of the

carbonate rock system and into the well bore where it could

then be recovered.

Step-Drawdown Test

The step-drawdown test was initiated on September 15,

1981 at 10:30 a.m., on Well #0. The initial pumping rate

was set at 25 gallons per minute (gpm) and was to be stepped

up to a maximum of 50 gpm. The reason for starting at

25 gpm instead of 10 gpm as previously proposed, was that

available storage of pumped water was limited to about .

14,000 gallons. This storage capacity would be used up

before attaining 50 gpm if steps ranged from 10 to 50 gpm.

Pumping at 25 gpm was maintained for about 25 minutes

resulting in a drawdown of 1.6 feet. Due to the small

amount of drawdown, the Q was increased to 35 gpm for

65 minutes which drew the water level down an additional

3.74 feet. h.t 40 gpm for 30 minutes, the water level de-

clined another 2.66 feet. At. this point, total drawdown was

only eight feet with about 4,000 gallons already pumped out

in two hours. It was then decided that maximum discharge

from the pump should be utilized for the remainder of the

test to see if it would induce a greater drawdown.

AR30325!

To do this, the pump was shut down for about three

minutes while the flowmeter was removed. Removal of the

flowmeter eliminated back pressure from the three-quarter

inch internal diameter inflow pipe on the meter. The new

flow rate was then determined (staff readings in the dis-

charge storage tanks) to be about 50 gpm. This rate was

maintained for three hours which removed an additional

9,000 gallons of water and drew down the water level another

12.62 feet. Total drawdown in the 300 foot well was 20.62 feet

after the removal of about 13,000 gallons in five hours of

pumping (Figure 1).

During the test, various wells were measured for changes

in water level caused by the pumping. The greatest change

found was in Well #22 which dropped 1.9 feet at the end of

pumping (Figure 2). Wells #7 and #7a both dropped about

.5 feet with other wells showing no discernable changes.

Recovery was measured for four continuous hours after

pump shut down and then measured selectively for the following

15 hours. In the first 30 minutes after pumping stopped,

drawup (recovery) was about 6.4 feet in Well #0 which was.

about one-third of the total drawdown. After this initial

rise, the well only recovered an additional 3.3 feet in the

next 3.5 hours and an additional 4.8 feet in the next

14.5 hours for a total of 14.5 feet of recovery in 18.5 hours

(F igure 3).

AK303252

Conclusions

During this test, aquifer response to the pumping

indicated the possibility that Well #0 tapped shallow solu-

tion conduits and fractures which supplied water to the

well, rather than through the formation of a cone of depres-

sion. These sources of recharge water to the well, appear

to be relatively large in areal extent and contain water

which would have to be drained before a true cone of depres-

sion could be developed. Evidence of this was in the rela-

tively slow and steady rate of drawdown at all phases of

pumping, with no evidence of abating during most of the

test. Towards the end of pumping, the water level was still

declining but the rate appeared to be slowing down, possibly

attaining steady state conditions. Recovery data for Well #0

showed that about 50 percent of recovery occurred within the

first six hours. As of September 28, 1981, 13 days after

pumping occurred, the well had only recovered about 80 percent

of the total drawdown.

Further evidence supporting the idea that the pumped

water was obtained from storage in fractures and conduits is

exhibited on Figures 2 and 3. On these hydrographs similar

trends are exhibited both prior to and after the step-drawdown

test. Natural changes in storage are reflected in the

fluctuating water levels from days 0 to 15 as a result of

recharge from rainfall events. Upon commencement of the

pumping, both water levels declined in response to the

W3Q3253

dewatering of the fractures and conduits. After pump shut-

down, recovery in both wells was only about 80 percent of

the total drawdown with the water levels being about 4 feet

lower than at the start of the test. Since changes in

storage account for most large fluctuations of water levels,

recharge from precipitation to the fractures and conduits

will be necessary prior to the return of the water levels to

prepumping levels.

Water pumped out of Well #0 had a chemical odor but no

free product was recovered from the direct pumping of thes

well. When the pump had been shut down for 18.5 hours arid

the water level recovered 14.5 feet, the well bore was

bailed to check for product recovery. This produced a total

of about 12 gallons of product, none of which had been

present prior to pumpage. Since this time, no free product

has been recovered by subsequent bailing from Well #0. This

test did not produce the expected drawdown. Pumping at up

to 50 gpm for four (4) hours produced a drawdown of 20 feet.

This did result in product recovery.

If a ground-water rehabilitation program should be

instituted, a possible initial scenario could be one where

pumping of Well #0 would be maintained at the rate of 50 gpm

for a period of four hours. This would remove 12,000 gallons

of water to be treated and then discharged in an approved

manner. A recovery period would then follow for 20 hours at

the end of which any product which had migrated into the

AR3Q3251*

well bore would be bailed out and disposed of in a manner

approved of by DER. After implementation of this tentative

pumping scenario, applicable modifications would be made to

maximize product recovery.

Summary

From the results of this step-drawdown test, one possible

initial scenario evolving out of this pilot program may be

to pump ground water from Well #0 at a rate of 50 gpm for

four (4) hours in every twenty-four (24). It is believed at

this time that this would sufficiently stress the ground-

water system to result in product movement to Well #0. As a

program progressed, the scenario would need to be evaluated ..

for its effectiveness in rehabilitating the ground water.

This evaluation process would aid in the modification of

pumping rates and duration to be used in alternate scenarios

so that the most efficient and cost effective combination

for the removal of product from the subsurface for ground-

water cleanup could be determined.

AR303255

<yS H

ooc tr>>. OC030.§U

O•HE(UO

CO(0oXCOU0)Cr•P0)

(0o=**:

r-l<DSiwO

§otJ(flMQCQ

0)•H

»H

0)

- oin o. «o

CJ ~

W303256

O£a

SB

(IJM3Cr>

CM

I I hSIUr-t<0O•H

<UX!OCDCO(0Q)2co0)tn4Jcu3rt

w / I*• X L cc' 0> OCO Q

Nl / I UJ

LO

COI

1C\J ^ CD 00 8

Hid3a AR303257

crtQ.§O

rtO-H0)X3O

03rt0)Sltoh0)Cn4J0)S-Prto=t*=

QrtCPo

roCDUdtn•Hfe,

T————[-

S10 CD

JXJ ________*; "U»1 a >»' « oCO Q

UJ

hoo

10 m

01 Hld3Q

10

IOJe/1 A/0r>w/ O 1) 23 24 25

,c.rt. 2.

?-3/-#<?-/-$>/

__9.-2:.#

So-?

3 -3.1* ••firt V V I <• t ~ I ' I * &

.«,

o.Z?JL

3H

» : * #'-*5-Z.-5-'

/ •"28-S/ /• •/-

63-1'

ll'*

is- 8

7%-to •/V-n77-Vof/-./

'1- /l31 /

is-/

zsri(,1-7

O

: V.. >./.

<!,t.*>ww

1-?/

n

2-I

go/ *

' '-."1 ?i "

2&J V?I

"3 *-'?'

HZ l/

OS

.d

$09

£/ o

Z.Z 0

2? O

2g"/

V.ST'M„.!•">

/ //

f . '

/ -/IfV4 0

0 23 / 2

r> vV7 Z.

f2.lt "ton /o

II

6

>i—Vz- n 73-5

3!T3ir

zoo )<i.n3-1 O IS'.10

.. y _ _ ' J- . , " • • • , .. .

- ¥7.1}

*°M,A

7-2, 7.2.9

3,17 n 7-*"?

P"AQ S9tl/g >7-3 W.73 f z>o ~ S,S3 ttf* -W

-X* *rt.Ll i/.g3 ~ '7 Vfo'2-' 2i*A~i-% ?-2- ;-y5- /0.7>i1. 7<> f'5"o ' ;;./ 0

/5r 11.10}bb )l'°lI fcs- a.?I-7o '!.<?J?:? ;3.Ql_

/ro /</.«"

- S-Jr- ^-« . 7 - ~ -2/ ^ .72. / " A. ..///t/ aiO U.OI3o / .7o

3-V - 7.frT-2S» / ,£5<J

zfco /? V370, ;y.87

Z.tsf -.&fv.z5 /to , ,-L, afo .52 7 ,<,.fz,

57 -4, 'OS . no — /jTJ"? A<i* \<t.<\-\3»o 20.1 f

AR303260

{\

AB30326I

J J

DRAWDOWN DATA

Identification: PAGE ____ of

DateActualTime

\l-3k;j 2.

/VS7-"

ElapsedTime0

TimeMeasure-

ment

%(_)' -?'<?0 720.2"

Marker+ /-

Depthto

WaterDraw-down

———

Mano-meter

•

q Remarks

ftR3fl3253—— p. -; .

T?

ii-o

3/1

'•/it

r«> -

f/6/ T T

4 IT

»^£

6 zM

/o -

f

3

f

/W

mi J • Hl 30 - i i -o -

-;•/V t

o -

Hjfl .f o -

•3 \ T

- 1 3 - 0 -

Vc

, ti T - V i T ! "2

Jo -i

i

r o - i

•/,.,*>,!•;<//TV-MM >' //<r3o- ro-:-/«'- ;r* - ;v°" i"10 "fo- «- V'- IJ° - " '*~

/ o -

o -

/ 0 -

I T -L\

r,, i f r r {J w Tit''/ rr

^ i | to - 'to-

1 6 -

'- ii

3 -i -r M-' s •/ ri 3 1

/•-[ ji !

; / » — • -u i »i i .

-_,.<,-

f -

/ 0 -

-2 «* -

i ° -

T «/ 3J J Z • X. O T

\ ' / . / . / » i w r r - * - ' •

AB3D326«»

DRAWDOWN DATA

identification: ^ " PAGE / of

Date?-/<T

-

ActualTime

y/4in V3/vv-3;7 3o;oo&

ElapsedTimeO30

TimeMeasure-

ment

4(5.75.7 ~W.3.6M<£-$

Marker+ /-

Depthto

WaterDraw-down

Mano-meter

—— A-* V

9-r

t?n :»• v> U .

Remarks

i O /• r-(265

DRAWDOWN DATA

Identification: __ PAGE _____ of

idel/ 7/j

Date?-/5"

-

ActualTime9-/oftA//33/j (/%)yy<%

ElapsedTime Time

Measure-ment%/ >SI J°"91! 2"$2, /

MarkerDepthto

WaterDraw-down

Mano-meter

*

9

\ PO "rttT^J

Remarks

S3255

s.

>j?r'.vj ny >/

00

N

.*•.«•

II<3Q o.IN «iV *=»

r-

«0N

•50

00O ~

AB30326S- - -

.1

M-^

f\

II\

... CO .

"-r

\ • 1\ • o

c^ X 3

\

COIcr

'-- _- - _ -~^_ —:————————:————-E-—— _., '—- i*

2 000. .

.-oo

6QO

i:

ScV

"1:00 ...

• ' r'

««««-.fcj

' •? :..:—

5- -- ,.x £ M - __- xS y, ,- — -i

--rCO °N ^

•-...

ooo

\ :

oo

o . ...

I -\

._\

izir.izm~ZM3Q.32 71

C. , -<s 5 "

_CjNJ!

b0

O 0

c£

CO

CO

4-v\o-p<a\AJT1<0

.

V.N

trQ.<r00<-*

\co <3 <r> <f \l.n I* G \

72

4————*————l————>————\———I————V-

ON

.>..

«3f

So.V 0^

00

O-

rv. o

-Q

\IV)

Q

•2 t 4-0

cO

00

0

N

V

oN

• •DO

o £flR3_0327

-4————V-

N

P-

00o-

T)

. o

N

oO

3-ri

00

-t-oIoo

r*o

^ t, . „H-

IQ

*->

-i—————(

AB303280

0

\\

\-,

0xN

3

,£830328?

-=«/34t_<a'

.Q

- CO

•N

0"0

cr )AB3032(B2

-U

X

-L.

V)

, £

faH o.

1——————l——————)——————j^——i———i——————|——————!——————i——————|——————^-

V .--x^ •—'

- — • — * V*

ON

.. '(si

F-bo

j _____

cr

&> -

o — °?•h °°

, *s •••

'Jy

DRAWDOWN DATA

Identification: ** _/ PAGE —--—— of

DateActualTime

ElasedTime Time

Measurement

MarkerDepthto

WaterDrawdown

\Mano-meter Remarks

o

J.O" .7

V.o

/o#0.01

AV2.G.

sr'II. ?</

if.lt

.i: ill

H . c o 3 i ~ ' r T r a a p t 3 3 O 3 c ' O r r ai £ . e n a r a n « o f t . Q . f i T O I « 1 v ^ i( t n i 3 ' O 3 - r e ai - i a . ( t 3 n > n p t

030

n5!»

a C. 3 BO. n rt n n H-

H- (t O B H-l-c f* 3 3 rr o fl>rr 3 TO IT (t I <a

rt O. O >•*> 01 B> 1 « r r— »-. O C "3 3 ft r-- IB(t IB H" l— r| •< Ulf-m

rt h- ta* H. K* tt t--• _ B » 3 i* 0.3O2-an oalTs C H - 3r n r t O ?(ii i t N l

o si i:: = s s s.3 » a P2 S S S

13 O (5 "S O" rr rr ;;J co

= H.3|H- |o «|H 5 ___ jj j ;< « w g » 3J S O.JT a. r;°»^ rT°M.ao,0r< S^^^'^TOgS -"-' . r r r T r , B 3 » S B 0 . N

4S: 5i = 'i|5 .:f."|5S5: s!!!l«,rBS.!!&. iHi ill;-/: :i'?.f:v'io mre ^ i*

c s e - - = » » * • i* "^^ .^SSo?"- ««§.

S

13 3 »S ^-!r,Sl=- >r r « , < s - -» =0.0 eoS

W O S r t r e a i - r r 3 O O 3 « i - ! 3 1n m d s a i . o o rt n o. i- a. » i »

c

t3

ozo•3mw-jo

Izo—

zc

— Hroa"B r t f i C O r l C/lH.Cll-'IBtSBIjenZ3 — 3* ~ (D I B 3 r t H . X O C r a i - t r f H J . - _Q. IB i— B 'to O3 3 r r c B O n n S ( Do -.'H. r t i t a r n i t s H - a o r t ai^<7*. it.tn H«a.H'.co3rT3rfrTBCO(a- - ._— ot— I— r t C L B C O ' O 3 >< ±.

3 B ra O H. H. rr y-SH-ert o: 3 3 3 < B.o n e* B OQ . r t o a a i B B ^

tî c 3 - B O 3 3j j I B N t ID h- c °. >— o,Z^WaU. o . r r B «

Q. l]«i s-H-2r 5 7 t*i 5 5 a

a 0> rr ./^ riLO ( n r o S T C C D O

• B IBO.C3 >— 'OQ• - - - -raB0>

e to .n oQo n 2 S x afK O = 2rr•a c o

Br t v ^ B B H - O

rr a n _. € n

(t

1o i t a 3 a 3 p."Sco E°2 rt >" a _

iB,1

i?n! iJisSi ?!:!;,».;ii?f?iii ' s.: iIs- ?:-:iis ss5-_?is.i-— rr re ra — «T " u «.w ° :r a 3 o w<^ r--o i £.Tog > o I--0 1 !? £T 2 • ia ^. B n a a

.• *. w r— g Q ^ rtO rt-Q.IB ^3^.nrth- O r t S C *

a 3 c i— 3" B n »i H» n H •TO B r t 3 ( 5 - < r i ^ C.!??"!:

B a rr o S3 C H- C- tlB <n CO T3H" H> • 3" rt It•< H- 2 S, .I"

^^S-oO"= £3 £0^0f re »- cr o ti.

r- -. t- 3 B ""B re •» >~3

* — t-eo T33- roO BC 7ft-.o. a-re itt H**

00•o a-re rtU CO7? •-co o• i-n

UBaa.to•U)

o"

I It.\ reCO•o•

o03rtBH-3rea.c3tnreCOO(-><Ba-t— •it

TJ — .it B0- . 3. .

\O VO00 09in ui

s cn s:a -a oC 1 C« H- »re 3 noqfo Srt it rtre re itn re t

B rrj BT3 t- -OCO O (Q

8.

H*ui M ui ro

u<

i- hJ to NJ OÔOvo>_>_^|^| ON9.C-V6* * * *

-

<— t- >n c c9 S 09. • .

» *- »-.iO vO \Oao oo <»«- U f

CO H U Urt 3"O H-t o n 3» n H. 00B 3 3 f3 n oo re

O0 3 <-> £ti it reo cn re H-« -a It r-• it 75-

H«CO 3a ooortM>O3

ro >-** ui toO O UJ O>

^

»« !«.Ô O O vO soro 10 «J so o

t .•vj 10

/ » *-

? ?» i-.O *~-N^

aBrtre

V)rt B3- are -oH. •Ti reIB (0n0 >< 0re ot o>< a

T3H Bre 3CO VJrt >-•0) 3

00

•CO•oI-.?rre

300 O

3-Bit00re

*« 2Bit7freit

cort JOcu re• Ooo. <re re< it' •<

HBcr- =K- . .(t '

M

33reno<itnv;Ot »rt3"IB

Bit*•rertpo3•aOc3a.w»ItO3cn~sH>7?rea.S?•aSrtrert

S

n1™

o

rri

04IBOt-.OOQ

ig S

i N.OOIt

**»

tuuriin

N>Z

Nm

CO H. rrr- ~ H. o 3 sra a rr H. it, roIB rt rt Hrf H.CO B CO M T3rt a. 3 v rt Mo r^ x rt a

l* Hi*O rr irt00 nt-r HS c re ;S a 3- - _re n » !TiOti *: _ B. rr ah-" re eo p o re iSire o v;to 1: ire

H. rt H. ItIB M Q. X _ _ -i-nva OO.TJC/IH HifTi-ao re 3- rr o oy OQ H. os it «

3 O 3 O.a. a c i-H- re reCD rr 3t* re o oo« re rt

Q.O

re ••H- a, -• n n a-a. o c ol-i O 3 CO <IB m B. rr re

>.5ot>

oz

0

m'

fir

â>

AH303289 I

,«ATER TABLE MAP ro " '*.

$«i.«tCltrt Hi, 1J-ZS. 1376 £. '

rojo '" « "H^w„ OS • r- „, O|O* (jq (iT 3 »-• CT ^ O r* m" "~ ^ H* -1 A (0 ' AI

r «* «4 * O ^ ta— •** o Q» - •*o•_.;,; o- = i,-, m co3i-cr s o H- i •• H. a I! *''oire ° « g S n 5 rr a <r q . a t-» „ _ e. o. 3* 5P!8- = s as saa. < ai 'TJ it .

it B rr rt ^ BO H- n Hi ,_ 3O h- m 3 m £ -B.?!- re S w < s ;

O H « o cH. re H 3

B

sB o 2 o3 3

o g s S crre | re . -c

ii'i:??I— Q.XO o a

ai "> cni'l — rr -a *"•m 2 g a "S o a

" °° S 3 H- _ -fo c J c.00 f;,3t™ 5 re o

ra f 2 a

i i| c ^ « m r e r i r e = -o-Sa.30 ..a ..Q. ^w^—oVQ• ro

a rr ca on 5?* re

co ^ 5-oSo.o »"£S- 5

re ™ crre coICH* ~ roco ^ r t — 00,4 H*("B-ra«;l'-iH.._C T I t H - r t S r t XH.B._,_3- ?'OH'CoS'<«rt3(I)na r r S r , 1 0 " O r t r t S — »?T c/,3FS,'< § ^ S — C O 0/A A. <M < - JK H ~ •* 1: w3 (B ^ *i* • ri 5O .» rr 3 1 3. Ortrr_^.re.35- f«m« o j w ^ J ? » rr " s. _ « 4?£

» -o to j S. 3if.«ls&s:!-« 1 =• - f • « rS o

m

rr,GO

nCmc/lZo73Ozc

Figure 4. Water table contour map near the plane site. |j

Qj C O 23lA|fi)'A rr O rr !«-* *o O I ^ W O * i ( O h - t r T H - O J C H « >-^ n O C3 C f i < rrCOtrilr-OS 3"3rrrrO - O r - S A 3 h- rr h-. AH- 3 03 r- w H > 3 C Q

j^j AA O J A l l H - A . r— CD » <O CO frj (D O^ , 3 A CD ' n CB Ah-• (D 13 3 Am rr 1 • c/5 rt rrtO Jwfl 3^j3 Ô A^-'j^mA^ OQ3 C J « f l > H A h - r l C Q f - i 1

A < _i-o rr „ trlC „« m ^ r t ^ O tort 5 "3" • flj*? < D - O H - < a O <

r* °i-^ - ff^Mhts-â-s ?re _£•.. 22 = nS<S«'i=S -5

Qj w 1W r> .

siig -s,£.l^s-s0 s s« o^ § ^§ » c t g s 2 - « g | .«H • g1ooS H.»3.re,>*B5-H.,,=; =

10 B B _ m s r o r t - u -ri >.•i t , r t a C ™ e. a T-Sn ^7

•afjij fl^lll ^Hi^ltil^ ji!:!'!;!! IN I llllFl Jn^CS§|£- - r S < B j f 8 .111 S 3.9ff<W4. -'U«-•€*-. iirt rr W H - z s a r ÔOQi.-» -tM~rf^-*U.-C-'

^ c , o - - . r r .i- n rt a" o r e - o ^ B rtre 30. c H. re r f i - n r r s a - o r o i - r - B c n r - r tococ.re H. • e a o r e c o o o - r e rr rr a rr ri o r e i t o m n B H - 3 n o r e f f lC C R C C B . >— a rt D. i-iv Q.cow>-.3 ( O O c o i B 3 n i t r a n r e i t c n o o r e 3 C . i t

cr o, H<-> H. Bro co cr^ HIB o rert CO

"0 ^ ^ ^ « rr o w ••* »** WJ i* «• • • '» • • •*• • jj• ;;

S r t r e r e r 5 ° O B ' n a . i t o o B . a H . m ° ** 2 JL'« rero re a *• to HI n - a a rto -r ro HJK" r t H > r r i r t B r t 3 0 0 0 0 ~ . I D r t 09 O ~ H12 oo H. re p a-oq S s c o -

Is s«'"<«'s>B>!5?s'rs*E<s128' g?ss£'E'"*.* I :,.i31»'_i!|j!*«E<| s-Sjjr-l< 0 5 . a m m J - r e » « C » 5 * -2

ET B

">rerro, reaB.-OO

€

cr a-ro e\— a

o r t t r c r o B c n a B B r t f t " cn H- o »• o-ro«*itu_ • f 2 S • * • !^ 2 !f 5- =""?•«>* !*>

f S ooH. rt^^g'rjH'a.rere it „ ™ HI B a t-o o-ra "sSEftsv ^ffffff^s-?! «s ?§-«•?,JT 2 JT * a. ST S co 03B o H. ID S * ' L

o~" e o e e H> H*'< HI ID c o n o H - a H - H .rt i s g t n o r t ' O B - o c o o a - r o r t ^- ----- -'- a n> co c H. < S-11 — - _.- —. —. 0 3 ' r e n o B r —:rH 2-,H>2BH.*5\> 5 t n t j r e B r t 3 >res' reâs o7|a' =< rtH. a

_: „ H" rt re rr r t n r e o ' 001 » a a- v '_• v •" a oStli"0-^ H - S S . o a i ^ g »S-m|^S«N=jm-:-i2s»ss-rt«s_,ms- iigs-s.g-r.i32

L

US.!* il-H-sscn ^ g; °- H- g^s-s-Bico5 S = ? ^ § flSsSSSUr ii-î?i5zr:igi§lri pUssbI

te H-2 5^ Sr^.<= " ^ro- a*???'*'"'1coS ^ = , » 2 ^ » £ S r H - - S r V = »I g."""^^

e § " ° S H" I isiccnaâ-lsrt ~. re •D .CD jc

l •s.f?-§l?8Bs88.sf: .Cffli-"^ -?*??'. «y8Sffg ? S Ii5-t|3

*•, C3 ^ 3 < C O w a Ji i—'OS"'33i3Qrn r r / r f l j w ' — _ "^,-.3."w 2 CffiCrr<(S$?r!'0 rr rr g fl> » g " p r H . N l ( , > O D£s s slaffftSssj^s^ffS sfrB8&^_.;5'"« S S ES c »<g cr|§ S B g"1 S a ' a g „ a g" ? » ttS, 8. r g S g . 3 ? £ 8 s o pSS-.^g. a g - S c T p S c g"" - S * 2 2 . ! f 2 _ - 3 g ^ S ? C M 1 K-H.S^Ljjg.^f i; iS a do i * >-i?B-.rtre 5. o 1 8 ™ << rt H. rtOaSN)-Op.S r r e e O _ IB O» H. a i r « r 3 - 6 « l B _ s 2 ( B S t » ( S 3B7T3--D. 3 3 < r e B 3 l M i C ; 2 < 2 r t r r SB B°3 H - o a . r t a . ^ r e r t ) a a i r e < r e r e f l > r e r t a g r er-(»U.rT—— — > f | D Q Q H l l l | D ; i " ' « » ^^.SS

. 3»^rt C r e r e 3 S H ™ t t r)*^33« B t o o c o B 3 r r ' a , o n < < rtita.roa; rr ™ o e rt » a- â-eoo g^rrâ n s1 ore J c S r o r r H a - o " n B CJ brt. H i _ i - t M H i : i _ a ; l . n V h A i _ i M ^

£ O a r" (^«. e H. rt H* _ CT 3o ra ™

 f l H > ' t o ) o r o _ £cor->B B H - < ! r t r t B a a H . O H - H I S S rean-H. rea

co o re £H. H- a S reo a r e 3 - r e 3 3 3 3 O O r t » r o B roa.33

as "rt H..-,

ill

| £^ A OQ 1 (B (ft O* & & CD '"t ?T (t> CO I S * 1 O (0

DJIBo3O ;

i

I

roZ.|rt^H"

B 3m|oo _

HI rtCO

OO-n

Q5

•z.~! O H - ! T O » = T g . " * " a ~ " t» g

re a H> ~3 r> zn re a H-So^ O

00 3 H. < O <Ml Ml rt 1 Q) gH" o B .HI rt H- ijO o 3 —- — — ~C rt a re 3- rra ro co m

o 11c H.3 00

n i t

—--H.--2 ; <--,.,____'- -\,i. ,' ; > _...COCC COH- 3-<r oi- Cro Hi3

H-003O rtH- S-e re

n HIo H.3 rtrt ><BS HIH1 Hi3 3B rortH- BO CO

1° S » 1 £ I § -H- n ^ s. ™ _> sB s-S S

: lii s §

9

B 0 3 0 B- rtre rtH - B

o o reH co

H . . f . _ rr

re § n "ra" a ~ « r t ™ rt n rr £ IBre n "raco | i-r ro M B H-- > jo c°- 3 H. co o-^ g 5 o 3 ro <--r e g_B g e U "- 5 £, S ? SS. a. a- a m rr ? " M, p. ri C O

i- B 3 o = £

Jo -S S ""S "" 3 " " »01 H> rt tS

3 2

m /-•. l&rt £ rt rr Q g H>H*reHiHi 33m -a lo* MI a.- Son -a o c o £ aa «• ^ it rte rto e a - s a a r o a r tQ.O • O O H. reOBO-3-H MOO 3 B 3 H rt 3"n i 3 a co 1 3"< rol i re a. M a. it CD re

O r t B C H - H l H l C C H lc o a o o r > r e a B 3 3 a• o r e r e a . n o a . a . n3- a. ro ro s c rere cn c: __ a ar e C i t H > c a r o r e a

oo c Hi o re l rere 3 rt HI it cn itB. v; iti C I

O £ rt oH. a r" a HI itCO rt H. 3 B O•o re 3 Q. n co n re re aa.

c? a aO H* rt rt£ ro rom i i

rt

o oo c cac a.73 • c£ CB 3

C 7T X- CO CO ?T *• 7P X W3 3 3 C C 3 3 3 3 3f t O O C O C O O O O O O

B .^^ ^ rt rtH - v j i H . r o r e3 •>_, >_ a. a.

a ort

ait7?re

•aocaa.

B<r

•oo

r-z:a rn$

•5re —o

3'ti. 0.00 B.H- cocra'croTS'a a H r t > B a r o o c iO B > - o h ^ r t t H - r t r e r f B C D ^ O o n err_.re Hit oa.3a. f — a a a c o r e i t i t O i t | - t ' ~ t ^r o ^ t r t r e o r r r e o - r e ^ H o r o c c o g a.rj HI o r t oa n r e c « r n o u m •£ <c <a H. a _. m a C B H - B ^

a ^ o c ™ ^ x o ^ r r B o o rtH.re|^rr|I>o'^. a'rerft,o^H. =ro

„ — ~ 3 o 3- rt'

roH.™r r - H i

o r o o r t • o n r > c r £ H . r to rt it 1 - r M o . r o H - w r t S M H i r r g r ee i t r t O a ' H i ^ . r o s H - O r t r t M o r o r ea ro y c 5 ro o ?** co 3 c — cu ro t H a, 9a.

i " rt ro ca ro ooa s t MI 3-pi » a H-

IB « »

<» H-S.âJSa^rt" -M 2"J35>tTSri?™S'SSS.SSi E-H-- i:!:i!lM in: iO " H. C O o -,. w

S=-03- M - 3 H , § 5 3i a

f.cNi"

as'sa.""11 ="B-=='2' = rtH-nJ-5i-H.ro^S(33_3^^jftp.tWrrjsrt-.gOir'lrOS" *^ ST 1 i_, 0* <B''iXr*C— CO)"* w ^ ^ - > £ (U S 3 O* o *— 0*^1 oO „..^^ S" O n! O S F- '^ t O S'I-U(-^^'<^C • |Z 3 H- " "O *< 33 Q. B OQ -a ^* rr fjj 5 {^H»C/3

~ ~ m " " "" " " ~ " 0 - O r r w f D

9O S H.a n sr _.cort IB IB 2'

"-^Qi1^ CJ(DlT» 01• 5* (B "* (B no g (Q" I j T a r t r e . c r r c o ^ c

? —. QV<Q.co£'5!rt 3lHo(B_'1o-=• s£.2 " o S i o S " 1 — C 3 - « P '* 3 co i. * 5 i"™ H. H. in •* ft M r; rt a re (B HI co ~ j3 j co u. re a i..:.?, gs||s»s. !§IEL£|SS i^lg it^sls* K-"_o8i2| Ii < MI n r t . f l i f D o O o o r o a nB h- S „ HiCO r t H - C O O O B r t

1 H n -O3B.OO MH- a. OCOH - , - . - i » u > - i— u ,— ~ - ^ - —O O - H - H W Q. o - c o g s - o °* a. 3 3* 3rt'-'-;l". a.-it .«•? " a a^ o_ . ( ^ * ^ f f i H i ^ J " ' C r t 3 g ) o < ^ ^ H * C IO QJI— 3rt ••Bli' ' " B J 3 - ^ r i ' * ' U ' 5 l u 3 m — i^ vH.,— ( n ™ _ ^ 3 r t „ = • r e i t e T H i C ^ a o ) B - < B H I OH. O3"" r t f ° a . ( j n o r t H i j;ro

- J T . ^ ^ — o o H r e r o co H»<o.3.rtHi n3 IB_ rr c^-o n- c n S m c _ 3 - ° r t r o iJ? rti«H.co itooo x roo-^re o a - o - ^ c O - o c o 3°S O'aS.n'a.a=:315re a-M"OH-5_.3H.f>j r t 3 O O C D ^ ^ i t * 3 r e M i t &.B01 ari 1 ^ M B O w r t g o i B H * n3 co o ~-te r t X a i o S -, » _ B rt n o S-,™-!, 2 c-;:. .1 O n r - J s r o S - S r r S T aB - - *• *. 3.— '^* 'Ta u ^ 1 " ^ " L r l r i iJ ltf r~ t ti.1*" " i t " ^ 1 — « * w w - , ' _ - -= S r~ in w m < ^ a o r e • o r o - B r t 0 o on orr B ^. ^ O o T ^ c ro^-c" "•SSo-sl""' i Is- S5-<r»»C |§S , 2:| Sro c T aSfcilS §•»»«•u 01 cn O

3,__ r—= ^ •, — -..- «. . - «._.., *-W

i f* •• m rt PW* ™ ~~ " * ' * " " w i* r-r i» n- ^ r r r T i w u M i y s ^ - S r)*5D ff(B(i«i-'gfDH-(T> U D U r rr n . . _ ^ r ^ t « t ' - * - r o — t— O i S " c r « f D 0 1 n > ( o n > « W 0 3 n - r r a >_• »t t f i O W S f D r — f — i - t O r r r t n i t Ow *• ** ' " *" IB IB i rr m v—« m i m o_ t «. - f>_ - » 01 co o en ni o. rt ?c" ™ o^ i *~- n> » "TV u cr. n c- ^r»

< . r r r r o n r ^ w r r 30.3 ao°^'"fI"Inrr rrQ.r-*i3i-*ran'^ ai? H* w r ^ r 3 H * r r c oo S f ^ S ^ r r ^ 0 ^ 0 3 * " n)TO"< n > M r t c a i H - f l i a r t c £ 3 r - r t a > T > m < r o - « M ^ O, - S " S S - f c 5 " _ « ± r ». C Q r t r t t U Dl H. Ft 3 3 h» H. H - 3 C 3 - 1 3 * i r p < h - < » Q . 3 i - h O »

S re1 = !i 5 •§ £ S " -Srt rt^rtlSia?"B B O . 3 C C O O r t s H> V r> H > I O B r | T 3

_

" a

n rr r- o TT <* « n to ° m E £ H. 2. H> , ° IB 31 £r a" 3 <°

pi! |rl;Ma?HX£[5 -El^rffJ II1*« cr » e. ro » rt 1 3- '-<w OQ * 50 " H. o^rrg n< § N> H.

SS

• O rt S3 .__• C 1 o H • !"5. fD Mf* O O (0 £ (5 OJ CO O ® h^39^* 3 C 13 f* H" "^ ^"^ S H< O *^ *"*

gOMCOH. Ortôrta**-1 rtB H-u»rtn,rt rtn, < K » O O 5* H. v« vo r t r t c r e EH-O a-H-isa -a * nx-rt it r t H . r o < c t >n3HiOo a - a - a r e ? r i t a < o ^^g -oHiaôroa-cno a-a.i-Bc:rrt ___*o i B a 3 rt c f f a - a - H - r t t ae a r t c a r e r r r ea o o c r o B o < S - r e r e a . ? r s r t a o a n i co i o r t . c o r o s i t r o . g r o r e ^ i i a *

CONCENTRATION, pptO S

Z co C "I;o a a H>a " ooH.-O re cO M rt It OH- re ia a en ^0 ISO G ~Jrt "O •It Hi H*» 3 H. n•a re re oS .- " I grt HI ro Bre •- o aa. vo n rt«* ^j a n

^l n az -x. ro rto j a. H-00 O

CO H- H* CO rt30 "

3 30O O 00 HIrt -aro cn rt xa. a is a* Qre' H it °rt 00 H- C _re H 3 a <fl Vn a oo B m ort -O itIt 3- rt £a* it re C3

3 rea. 7? n»- HI g .„\o o *oS'1 § nH> £ O. ~

found in home

o differentn darkened graph.

no

z

•• ££X«'Mw!w!y

™ naiiaa

izmrL<*>X*K'X<it' 3

A830

^^

>N

O

a

S

to

3 €

O. C 0- M ^ Z H - n r r O J H - H - o -ro 0) n r e t o O O f D O r r t a c o H -rt os H* OQ co c DO Cn fl> o2 3 ^ M H - H - n i - a o r ta o _ o o o.^

o " jj o 3 n H " 3 5 r t < oro ™

ooo -o

"2 oo r o « O B f l ) 3 0 j_. -oii-tcn - a a o - f t r t ^ o '3 -o £ o B !T W g 5 <tro " H. a " 3. IB 33-...,,

_a. ui H> a a.rtw ' - o aH- an ' £ a- H- y =

reoo

o * < a H . c o r t O Q B f i . r e a . c r e a c o r o r o i t r e r t a o *— —. ^.i—X C O T J C O C O I l H l " * _ CO -OICT core r t » < C H>n.3m»T(-

- n «< 3 3- < r e _ H . « B C o r o B _ 3 - H > < 3 £ 5 oT »rtQH.r^ ro ? « . f - r & i art-. S, ^^-u; w'ra. ao'^H1^'^^'"' ne" " g r o . c r B g ^ r e a.i B.MIB.

ro rt Hi £ 0)i y a a ^ 3 - , v v . . , . . - . . . - . - _ „ . .

w »" J.f; H 8 « " - " " ". ogJ|n.H.3-2reeSrt 3rB "-So-S"03 '"i^LlHoreiî r t ' - h — x o ^ 3 i i . : r = ; w " ' l w r r HI *o"C H - B " H i = r _ _ j ' ° « r r t S S r o ' S " Ô S g l B r t - f l B I B "

Ba

° H - O a - = C O m C O — W" re î-rrnj-B. I B m ' -S CO r t O o it!l3rt • Strt S H- » g:?,5 ?-§f^ l ^ c T a § § » o S-S-3 S S^ SS l"Irt^^•a. "o'orrj.aa v < c o % < ' * > < r e S ^ r t r o o r e ^ JJ H

i S r r ^ ^ t ^s"reH.reH.-co

» ",~

s-gH>>-iB ^re^^^.!-

r t c r . -g r t r t <Brer'2.cn'1ôr^V< aPoS..ft?SsS » „ ? « Xi§ 8- -

3O ^-3 C3 S« S, j-^lS-ol. « S - S

^ o

^ r = - - g sB.S no r t £ 3 a . are ire r - B C n O O O - H . r e ^ r t a N ^ H - S iBHi3 I-OH-OO B < ; C r o c 3 - r o r o i t r r r t O . n a O r r c o r t r t g c O H - it n r o o g rr»-H'BoqB r t H i O H i CS»<H. a H> H - H i a o s - r e n - H i r o o e o 3 - r e H . 3 - y a a < 3 B O O B i t r t r e a a - v — n i n 3 3 " r o S r o 5r o . a E — a. c o H . i t i r o i i r t c o i a i c o 3 r o r e i a . r e o o H ' r n M i 3 o » . r t r o . c o n a a . S a. T a. m

HI a. itj JJ o" o"o o oo 2 £ S "iSS | S S gs H, " 3 n " SS3 f « >re a zit ^Co na _co rt ar <rt H O —ri re rt _:re a o

o 3 -oo a. 3-3a. 3- oH- O Hirt 3r- re <O H.3 CO B I—CO C HI M• *O CO

13H< n =" o . ^re 3 • /NCO rt 4 Oa 3. SM =" c ^ e. i ——^JBi g vMl '>. ••> g

O rtrt reH> ito3 roxO rtHI Hart n

re o *•a.3<=•> ?————— .HI f-= ° C Jm i>

l.,--, -.-, H- O "*5C rS*1 3 -! H-- ,=!*?» re «V •«! re c

H- X Tcn rec a•33-.a a. o

CONCENTRATE. pp. CONCENTrUT.ON. pp.=r ffl Ho o srg c» IBIB roa. at orB =r i Ocr O STIB B IBT re T

COa o330a re 3t— a "o•< 1 O 7U CT C 5H-«< 3 2 Mca •• o. £ j.

3. -, to0- M Ov^ cr CT 3H- re Q.

3 U3 H--r* jj

80 *3 S •co a u

ffl H< cr-«< IBout

1 H.n^ r» •

W *0 0

T

^ ^

IZOa

OC

n cST§ 550) Hirr o

oo re cH. Q. 2

23 . rriOo • »

o "JT I-*re wro c*" 3IBB •cr ->

x S . f iooc ""S " CONCENTRATION, ppt1 3 -n ro

re-so

Xoc3a

£O

1-»

reQ.

ftB303295

rtrt 9 rt MI 3 H-3 * B a a r o i t a aH. a a a M o H. aa H. s H- o 3 a roa ro s a- a.a B OT rt B It e 13 H_ rt a- ' " a. .5 H art H. o re _. o rrre 3 rt a.oo B n re

•"•"-"•" c ' ' R's ' ;*;_.sr»f |~°B ;°° s|s» § s .T o

3 B IB cr aro rt

—" oo

a. r- a rt j2 Q,H H 3 H c 3a re " S a. H. M.•- x = £: a. a3 - t- ™ u CO Ba a TJ n - rtO =

a . Ho rere aa

B a.a <

aa.

cn3

<o a o-_ re H,

Oo ,„

•s- 0£rtSr78O (B3- O B »rt jâ..

« 3£ 5°?"§.3<na.2 HI — re ro a

rt nrto c

STrr I <» « rt» „ co . re r,

0-re te .5 c~. . H. re ro o acs^-n rtoa.;; Ô 3* O rt rt HI5"B3 H - 3 r t « a - oa rt i B i o a ro 5

o roo o0 0

Oo

noa oHI ta H-HI re coC Hi rtro o aa £ ao ore IB

oaoCO ZCO BHcn T?re roo nrt

H. Oo oa aa ca aI— CX

" " H, _»2a.='

BrtH*B3On

«- « • w hw yj B OOa re rt 3 rt 3 3jrro-.H-oaarorr

18 "> it ?

rr ar o r o o o _ m - o r e o

"S"-"?--!; s^rtc^H" s' 4srs.£8aa3.3 s§s-§|^ s_.t^ E " 3 H £-3 2 = 0.3 5 sTS.s.sfli8!5: llôs -s

SM =3^155?*"? S - "r3^ gs5 sc?« o7g5.-oao:11)|ra "a,, «o •« x -S-- H - ? o - r e " ^ S S^°M^_| "g-5re < JM\O <2a n !T ™ ? " sH O (BHiB 3 W B S - 0 J T S ^ H O O ^ O O o a

3- rere

. a2S? 3-jjH.cflrto .5 " ga- 3

3-£ 0 2 H i ° C H - Brt "-ap^xia sera.= a ^ c o a area.

\$\ll\f-, .. , , , _ rift:!!;-:! ffSsff. 11_ „ _ u ^ o t o o . Ta. °- H, ll\n III> oQ>(0 IB " c o r e c r>< >< 3 o Q > ( 0 r o I I g 3 IB B " c o r e c r

S2. • S55«2" "n.0-!? S"?

*

D HI ±;18 3 §»a Irt « affl a- ~rt IB 2

40

'aa

2-30O1-<et-•zai0 20OO

10

1983-84

! HIGH

1 LOW

"

I

// //

0 2 4 " 22 " 32STREAM DISTANCE, km

Nrri

•9,

4B303296

Figure 11. Surface-water measurements of marker compound concen-trations at various distances along Spring Creek showing therange of concentrations in shaded tone.

rsB rt>< rta

? 5 H.

B B

sisin*« 8«Q> m

.aa

?•§.

-o oo a a. i- a. « a.£-OHigi-rtC03o rt o H. o H- a H . r o c H > o > o 3 " r t < Be o H < o < a < > - g r o < o v r o i t aH. H» t3 H1 ro oa. M< H. a. o. -re H> a

O5

8*ssE?*n Si's^s-ss.jg-i.fs.n S i S o a ' S I-'1 2-re S re § H, 9 - § § H . o 1 3 r t 5 r t ' H ' C ~ H i O — 3 . -. M. re rt H. =! H . £ 3 !~ *»«« — i»i;_C. >7— ;.'™"'~i-Hie re(j

_C n

S-sS-f&s!?^H *r B B *— rr ffl nn • s S - O B i - o S n

a. 3 S a 3 „

?M.s-s--slr•8 5S«

. _ a a HIre cr rr a rero HI core o o rea 13 a n art H> co cr ts

^ a *o £ o c rert rt ro o H- ag £ o Hi^gH mH>a ro re 3- aa a. a. re M o

_ H CO Ca

o B a. HITS a" H.B rt c • o n•o an c - o3" H. rt _ 3 S. 3ro 3 H. 5 a. „ a

re ac o " < oa 5- a a a.

n o o o H i c o a o r t g o i - n *b a o r e o r i a r e s n a H r e x a.cort - o c a a r e r e H r o ^ g a i — —=•-a o 3 H. a H* *o H o re B

cn a OQro rt nS re oJ5 coo n aro o o.

g Ccn •OB

a 5 2 2 e ~ ( 0 « l t > _ c o " _ - " o - o gQ.; rt

oo" re ' -zre . a. . c?2 7" 5

6 ?a S» re 3 TCa.

i n ?§ Q. ^rtlssi °•" «g ° = °fl'"-i^ p?l2l?oL|§a=!:aa.HiH.«?- 5-0S ^ r t r t O O r t oS-ac,0; °.ort_ô a N " r t g sn roa.IB3H.co-^.= N c o 0 r o .2 ^ r T g B ^ 3 o ^ 300^ M m " . * " - ™ « _ ( 3 rem .j"^™ rn ^ .— ^ S m « .. *n

H. O » „.-< 3-o

*ilH&it ^llll \**m\ !iis!r»rMilJISK ~ I« a 9 ? i S ^ - a ^ P ™ I3.QJ3C 2 •wSft^Z.Z. Oj 2 z , C Q t Q - " . S 2 r t T n - M . c a m 2

_, to " ni i-n Z *•eg Hio-J a. o *» S " g 8rtC

OH " gn a a 5 3

W ' «*• *. '•.fB gj (0 f- » 3

g?|§|-;3|o=-^g:_, t^^

Si ° § i"^2l S 1 *" iS S-SErf " I=1^§iH,^Q-0-SS^"H.=•= ra B a£rtjr?=-3;rx -a.-o gre H Hiâ •? o a-JL™ a-cn™ ^ " r- H> 3H i H i B ^ B n n r - ^.-<m 018^H B O B ^rtH.r>3<B2,0)B"o =a n a o r o M r e r o I B B H i tr^co-oortj.- - - — - - - a.'•N co n co - ov < o . a . r t 3 oo oo itro s-3'a.. n a..—* a H co - o ro

a o o ? I— o *• — a *"" M — "" rtB r t rt?re|~j c r o a H i—

P3 >73 8 £. Hre oo c HI o y

o >s aE> roa 73 rtB B re08

ft rt JJJJ £3 M* a e a o o n o a a n o cn o o rr a. i-r a *• i—73 a o a. 73 o o o P— co 73 en re o 3- a o- » &J *O c a C M » H i » < 3 I B H 73 it 0) 3- O 3 - a 3 * * H i | - O O H < r ) O H i B 3 i t 7 3 a O B C C < B ' ''PS. -

;<*

n c a c H w HI»< are H 73 it re a- o ajc n a. cr o 73 a a, a ron 3 ro a H3 . r t , » o e i B _ r t rt IB K. rt ro aO C o - r r S O - r r t l Q - t ?r 3 It M .j ffl _

HI rt tr H1 rt re" 1o'B'n'rt5o3.»e.H *- b ro M H in * 3 ^ a S «> % ^ ~a> „ a- ~ *• *• a '^< 5 »

— r o * a £ B m . r o i T 3 * rtrtjô r o H - o ) 3 - o a . r t * o ' o a , r o a.3"Sro2 *» !- .. -OH- B 2 H . n 0 3 2H.e2H..H.2.^gr!3_B«o a- 2 SBO Hi -OH- B H. 3 H i f i H i . gf, B.«, „ H, B 0 ™ 3 o 3 O 3 a B O < O Q - 3 B H 0 , r t g " W - 3

3 <° s „ * re B M e w H. a H en- a c re.. B i ^ o j i p ^ - r s c s — r o ^ S r t * ™ w H- w w »— — t— — t ^ c a r e t a h*^»S rtO. rt g.oroaj B'r0o°3 • o r-os B B M I O rtjirrog r o H C a r t H - am re H. L _ H H i a r t n i H3 r t r t 3 « 5 t r Z l r o ^ o _ m™" ron a ^ . H - e t r o o O H O H O O c o o , a n,^;i- 0 _" a.

- .= a S O r o H - r e a " 1? M sa« C O" I D s r r ^ ' ^ C j — • 3,..m B J C O ' 1 a i ^ ^ f B i t vw1 M ' rt' U ^ ^ ' > : ; H . M A . M"rtl o-S^rTrt S-S--.,?.!" 3 g ! 3 g S B ^S'-gagcSo^cgSH^-SII1^

I"? ??JslC =l'i?!gFa- ^rt?-l "^So'^l^lrtEsHr Is!aaJ 2°-3-_ « r e r o . . 3 o a r o âoZ'o Bcj|:L'ro»a'fl£.t3rrH.a' n <* ? £ <~* o" _ —BOO 1 re— O H - O O . r t 3 < 3 c i?L n ' O n r t r t 3 f 1 3 H - r t ^00 = 32 —H - c a H -HS HI o O H H - r o c r a o a ' r - g O r o 3 c o H . a i ? ;:.« _. „ n t^3-Ma3" :-

n , z a g crS"rt B 3 r t r a r t - o ^ - 2 C r o a f . c 3 a - H . 3 O B H . o S o o = rt "> >oo o MS. r r O a S a M i H . . , - ^ . H - B 3 j 5 - 3 o r ) a 3 0 0 H . r - a aON e_ —nmC ' '"OS s-rtsrtrtC^sa. =3"^^^ a, g"3".o9O § P 3 ' n 2 * ? o c - 3 o °

§S m _ l s o . . (D5!? a-rrE?- . ^.3.. S a E ' - £ : r i _ » H i 3 i B m 5 _ f- -n73 a. H.^ Slag?3 ?3S2.3C °L r 8 o= SL 11 " 5 ? g Sf ? = 8 ; St B a - o S - C o a U Q H . _ 3 HI croo 5 J^"<So<?0<8rt»rt.... 5 H

SS-^sS*.* S Seers 8 s S 2 f i & S 3 B S . ; i i 8 _ 5 S -2S2- o-S*? 8&«5.j8S"s- 3 "Eg"* 5 S-j^gggS""-^^^^*e2. ^H?" Sl^S-iSFS! g g S H S - 2 125*58 «g gSS-J"*".*::--*'5-3" e H."«»s"'n»i 8-1-8o«. ss'?fis!as3rl?»|-8351.,? ^s =- "Ty 8 r S 73HS-"-:? <2.Hcc,H.» a- g-£-o g 8SH, H f f l a r t ---" -™° - • = - " a- r rt rt roaMiB0a.wa-H1rl „

O 3-0-2 . B _ H . O _ C O H . J O r t

a Si *• M --i "* k . * •* (* ^ ^ > '— ^ ' « *—*- • ^ fB ra * A F" -» *" •• .ff? "H^S rt3| a « i - s ^^s.î ?y?z 2 § = &•„§..SH,•O*"" B73^"rt. oôare0"0-^!" Si "re4 = §a'nrt3»'a:'^3-'r<D3a!!B§<<=> re"n- " °Hi73 Jr'S-'S- 2cr 3 . 3 3 - r t c n O C ™ 3- t-W" 2?* * » B 7 3 c o r t a g S j t 1 " DH-O S r a o a "-rert a a ~3 n n era O 7 3 r t B H > 5 ' MI orris 73 ro t- o "• o. rtrj O J H p . _rt3'£rtltrtH'r> H B r t O r e H i C r t l B l t H i S B H i . a H i r t O H B B H f tan p. r t j E r t H r t H i r * H a r t O r e n 1 C r t i B W H i sBi^t a H> it o n — ~ •, ..3 B.O Brtres'a'rocrHiO H.rtH«OHiH* H. c o a a o o H H - o o a H - a ^ - a r t BH.H.H-B s r o a r e r e B H - o s s o o s o o o - 3 3 i t o i t a . B o ~ 3 3 O t — a o s r o s a - n .u co a. i— a . n i B 3 a a a c i oo 3 3 i £ g x o a o r t a . ( B r e a a . a o o a i > < o a H i r t r t . a . r e i ri7;

O2 >>BS 73PJ "OOO05K tnplr'W'fl'O "-SO OO>«"OH"B X<• 0073B ID 3 Co S- O 03 01 rt 01 CO re O IB i— 0) fO IT) IB (5 0> 0) CTl H73?T HH H B 3 ^ B B H 3 H 1 C H ~JC O 7 3 3 3 H H HC H - H - r e BH. X 7 3 O f f l B rtrtOOBHiH. LnO Hi B 3 3 rt H- rtO H - H o o w r t r e n r e r e s * S r t r t N 1 3 * o n c o c o H i N N^, «o* 33" « a B r t c r e r o r e i.-- oort^stsare *^ a a« tfl a • GBH«a.a.?r i— H i g M h - n ^ r^ mrtc) HI >a»ctr* 3 3 r t •• vojo o r o < < * < ^ o=.- XH-. en - B a a w HiB..pif3 ro- B 3 B S^4 r e s c Q o > re r o ^ c o a n * yo .H.H.re« '>.. it • gs2 *o»q3;« £ nt*-«a.cr • C A O B B O •_ ^ o -• a • r t H > r o : r j c o a » ojo •• cm .r—wo grn c* H-eoro o n>re es* H n o*so (j ro 3 Hia-rt a r t r t p i a a z » C O O H 3 3O oo: - 3OH.ro r>am o i - H i o a _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ _rta 33 >«cn 3rt < r o H - H i -vs fi rt a rt o a .H. : .B oc o 13 3 H- r e s s r o a o . • n m to o nOHiO H uirj^roo r t o r o B rt H. 3 «. ?r rt33H rt •(— 33 a r o n a o o cs art o« H» t* reort H> a s H i c w • c r a o o HZrt 3 r t 3 - B O r t r i ) H i » ' r o

C o r e - • • . ^H B B • HSrtH- ? r g r o N r oaaa - — 1 — 0 3 - ro H ro 3 aH-rtB. ron-gOO 3<?Trt3rt» < a.i— tj rt » - it a.V S r t S B B Tjr-arj > rt B_aro HI I B H - B H -cnH.poHioô r- 3 n » r t r e r t O * roB * g o ^ 3roH.ro i— B 3 3»Oi t r o g •<! B OW vOrt J0730?T33 * c n a ^JH>cn«733-• are "»] o.-a n - o - r e - a r eaa o wo a — an i—3*o*<a. H r r H > a . » H > C B H . 50>H>a oo aroi] 73 re ? D cn. < rt re rtrtr-m 73HaH-3"rt

BH" «• r o ^ - a o ~ co ro n re u v;iAH-3 "S CB rt VO t-. 3C S B B > 3 3 B r e I T 9 H OU1S * H.CL3r| O > r e O C H H l• — HI < a. u i a c * * <

O •— • O ' i < 3 H i 7 3 T jran «= - ro s o B B C B I B Ore oo 3H-a x r t ' H 1at- Oi GrtHJfl M . f f l Q .a a - a H a-o < oe a reBB H. u H- 3- BN>aa.a.• a < r- H. 3-3• m H> a. B

ng re B 3> a.

":

.a

re «r7,*»b«."!i._-l 5a . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . - . . . g

s n?ISI

omm>

o|S3 co|o2Q2

XIm oco b " CD

2o

o

zp

169 8983 25417

si131,o

;SI! ii

o •

i

\ N \x 1 i i"' /flifr l

^ _ _ . - . . . . - , „ O?gr" " " - - - • - • - - • • - - 15!

9 ig

Ruetgers-NeaseChemical Company, Inc. • A subsidiary of Rutgarawerke AG

Aiirtnerr- -3R IQQO 2O1 Strubla RoadAugust 25, 1989 stats CollagaPennsylvania 16801

TTT Phon.: 814-238-2424U.S.EPA- Region III Fax: 314.233-1 ser841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107

Re: RI/FS- Ruetgers-NeaseState College, PA Site

Dear Ms. DeLong:

On June 20, 1989, Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Ccnpany, Inc. received theU.S.EPA letter presenting the findings of EPA's review of the Draft WorkPlan for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Ruetgers-Nease'sState College, Pa. Site which was submitted to both EPA and PaEER on March7', 1989. After reviewing EPA's comments, Ruetgers-Nease requested ameeting with all involved parties to fUsrnss specific Issues and determinethe next step in the RI/FS process.

On July 12, 1989, representatives of EPA and its oversight contractor,Tetra Tech, PaEER, Pennsylvania Fish commission, Ruetgers-Nease and itscontractor, SMC Martin, net to discuss the comments on the RI/FS WorkPlan. At the start of the meeting, I indicated that it isRuetgers-Nease's intent to operate in a manner to satisfy the concerns ofboth EPA and PaEER. The following summarizes the key results ofdiscussions during that meeting as they specifically reference commentsfrom EPA's comment letter:

Page 1

General comments1. Tables and figures in RI Site Operations Plan will have page

numbers to facilitate finding them in the text.2. Thornton Spring*- Ruetgers-Nease does not believe that people

routinely visit or play at Thornton Spring. However,Ruetgers-Nease will contact the residential neighbors livingadjacent to the spring to reinforce in their minds the problemsasRnrlaterI with the Spring. If necessary, the Company will posta sign advising people to avoid contact with the water.

3. Schedule- A detailed schedule will be included within the RISOP.

1. The statistical analysis of laboratory data presented in theRI/FS Work Plan was only a qualitative trend fitting exercise.

&R3Q33Q!

Page 1

fautgers

The statistical fit (equation) was included only for datapresentation in place of drawing a best-fit line by hand.The number of wells on Figure 5.1-1 were miscounted. Wells 14,16, 17, 18 and 19 were removed as part of the excavation of theChemfix lagoons. Well 12 was located off of the property.

2 Groundwa r foont. )3. Well 15 is in existence in the former Upper Chemfix lagoon area.

Well 26 is a sump.4. Information on the groundwater recovery and treatment system will

be detailed in the RI or FS reports.6. Baspd on the current data base of information, we believe that

groundwater flows perpendicular to the thrust fault untilreaching the thrust fault where we believe the groundwater flowsthrough the thrust fault before discharging at Thornton Spring.A monitoring well will be placed between the fault and PA Route26 during the RI to confirm this hypothesis.

10. A series of sumps collect the shallow groundwater. The shallowgroundwater will be characterized in the RI.

Page 3Groundwater fcoht.V13. Available information cn Well 0 win be included in the RI.

Well construction- Future monitoring wells will be installed 'bomonitor specific aquifers. Installation details will beaddressed in the RISOP.

2. Well 0- At this stage a meaningful pump test on Wall 0 cannot beadequately designed. If a pump test is doproxl necessary at alater stage to characterize the hydrogeology or to enhance thisgroundwater recovery system, it will be implemented.

3. Statistical analysis of data- Groundwater data reported withinthe RI Report will include statistical evaluation, asappropriate*

Page 4

4. Additional wallsa. A» descrihed in the RI/FS Work Plan, a wall will be

installed near existing Well 6 within the plans of thethrust fault at the point where all groundwater leaves tteSite boundary. A well between this new well and ThorntonSpring was agreed to be unnecessary because it is not knownwhat additional information would be obtained and due to

33 difficulti<b. Five walls currently exist in the vicinity of the tank

farm. Installation of new wells west of or near the tankfarm will be evaluated based on the results of asurvey which will be conducted during the RI.

c. A well in the vicinity of Building 5 was deemed as notnecessary because there is no evidence of contamination inthis area and Well 1 is upgradient of this location andserves as background.

5. Water budget- It was agreed that a simplified water budget willPage 2

fRtitgersbe calculated on the condition that the information obtained fromthe definition of the boundary conditions used to characterizethe hydrogeologic system be used to define the hydrology, ratherthan the water budget.

6. Based cn the history of the site including existing data, it wasagreed that only TCL volatiles, mirex and kepone would beanalyzed in groundwater.

Soils2. Soil samples will be collected at certain locations during the

RI. It was agreed that the Chemfix lagoon issue is closed.3. Soil samples described in the RI/FS Work Plan will be analyzed

for TCL volatiles, mirex and kepone. PaEER requested andRuetgers-Nease. agreed to collect soil samples near the productionfacilities/tank farm and analyze for full TCL parameters.

Well samplincr and misc llanec*1. Residential wells which were previously sampled will

within the RT.,

fcont.V2. A number of residential wells have been analyzed for priority

pollutant compounds including volatile organics. This data willbe inclined within the RI Report. MQ additional sampling of.residential wells will be conducted.

3. information on public water supplies will be addressed in the RIReport.

5. A topographic map will be included in the RI Report.

wironmenfea Assessment1. Sample locations and analytical parameters will be included

within the RISOP. Based on the history of previous sampling atthe site including the NUS-FTT data, pesticide analysis will belimited to mirex and kepone.

Page 6

«g«««Tr?nt- Specific CommentsPage 5-35 Groundwater flow directions will be addressed within the

RISOP.Page 6-6 PaEER, Ruetgers-Nease and SMC agreed that the data are

questionable at best. Alyce Fritz was to be contacted byAm Delcng for more details cn this comment.

Page 6-10 The RI Report will include a statement that harvesting offish has not been allowed in Spring Creek since 1982.

Table 7-11&2. The need for bioassay studies is discussed later in this

letter.

Page 7- Environment «« ssment- Specific Comments fcont.l JtoonÔftOAR3 03303

3. If feasible, a sample of surface water from the drainageditch on the Ruetgers-Nease property will be collected.

Section 7.3- Will be addressed in RISOP.Dash 1 Ecology- will be included within the RI Report based on

3

RUtgersavailable information.

Dash 2 Endangered Species- Will be included within the RI Reportbased on available information.

Dash 3 ARARs- A listing of potential ARARs will be provided withthe understanding that this process is iterative and thereported values are preliminary and subject to changethroughout the RI/FS process.

Dash 4 Sample locations- A site map indicating sampling locationswill be provided in the RISOP.

Dash 5 Routine air sampling for volatile organics using FID or PIDdetectors will be performed during the RI. Details of thismonitoring win be included in the Health and Safety Plan.

Page 8- Environmental Assessment- Specific Caiments (cent.)

Dash 6 Air Stripper- A discussion of the air stripper will beincluded within the RI/FS reports including a discussion ofPaEER permitting requirements. Based cn the minimi amountof emissions from the air stripper, it was agreed thatdispersion modelling was not appropriate.

Dash 7 Recreational Survey- Since fish cannot be harvested franSpring Creek, fisherman will be reluctant to admit that theykeep the trout. Thus, a recreational survey was rtanmndfutile and win not be required

**?finfurl1 iff ions of J"lv 12 Meeting

Based cn the results of the mooting, EPA and Ruetgers-Nease agreedthat the RI/FS Work Plan as submitted was approved. It was alga agreedthat this letter would be prepared to document the agreement that wasreached during the July 12, 1989 meeting.

Schedule- After sent discussion and based cn the understanding thatthe work Plan was approved, it was agreed that the RISOP win be dueon October 20, 1989. The RISOP win include a Field Sampling Plain, aQuality Assurance Project Plan, and a Health and Safety Plan. HutCcBEunity Relations Plan win be prepared by EPA.

As a result of discussions during the July 12 meeting, SMC's aqudbicbiologist visited State. COUege cn August 8th and further investigated therelationship of the site*to>Spring Creek. On August 21, 1989, aconference can was held between EPA, SMC Martin and Ruetgers-Nease todisnm the need for bioassay testing to identify if the Ruetgers-Neasesite is causing any inpact cn the benthic community within Spring Creak.Daring that can, Ruetgers-Nease offered and EPA accepted the following:

Chronic tcodcity (7 day) test using Cfericdaphnia and fathead minn«5&^0330kwin be conducted with water from three locations:

1. Discharge from the groundwater treatment system.2. Thornton Spring just prior to its discharge into Spring Creek.

Page 4

MRutgers3. Water from the drainage ditch on the west side of PA Route 26immediately prior to its discharge into Spring Creek.

In addition, it was agreed that 2 control tests would be conductedusing both lab water and Spring Creek water upstream of the ThorntonSpring discharge.

Based on this agreement, Ruetgers-Nease will include the details ofthe bioassay program within the RISOP which will be submitted cn October20, 1989. It should be mentioned that the above bioassay program waspreviously discussed with Dan Alters (PaEER) and John Arway (Pa FishCommission) , and both parties supported the concept.

CCNCII35ION

Based cn the above summary of our understanding, SMC Martin has begunpreparation of the RISOP for this project with an anticipated submissiondate of October 20, 1989. If you have any questions, please give me acall.

Sincerely,

Steven H. FoardManager Environmental Services

cc: D. Alters- PaEERJ. Arway- Pa Fish OmissionK. Kellen- U.S.EPA/ORCW. Kennedy- Dechert Price & RhoadsK. Reinert- SMC MartinJ. Wagner- PaEBl

AR303305

Page 5

X r. v.. V^H Vo^v^vSi.or^ C S ' 0 t N ~7

7/7

BPAr

AR303306

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

/ENNSYLVANIA Bureau of Waste Management200 Pine Street

Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701-6510September 7, 1989

Ruetgers-Nease Reply LetterRuetgers-Nease Chemical CompanyCollege Township, Centre County

Ms. Ann DeLong(3HW12)USEPA Region III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107

Dear Ms. DeLong:

The department finds the reply letter drafted by Mr. Steve Foard ofRuetgers-Nease dated August 25, 1989 addressing EPA's comment letter to the DraftRI/FS, acceptable. However, I would like to reiterate that the department expectsthe final RI/FS due on October 20, 1989 to fully characterize the soils, throughsurface and subsurface sampling, in and around the production facility/tank farm asMr. Foard indicated on Page 3, Soils #3, of his response letter.

Sincerely,

Jack W. WagnerProject OfficerHSCP

JWW/lkr

cc: Williamsport BWM FilesWilliamsporfc BWQ Attn: Dan AltersCentral Office, HSCP, Attn: David CrownoverLegal, HSCP, Attn: Ginny DavidsonLarry Newcomer

AR303307

I

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.

January 17, 1985

SUBJECT: Kepone and Mirex levelsSpring Creek Brown Trout, 1976 to 1984

TO: Daniel L. AltersChief, Operations Section •Bureau of Water Quality ManagementWilliamsport Regional Office

FROM: Steve WebsterGovernment Services Intern (WOW)Williamsport Regional Office

In response to your request for an updated report on Kepone and Mirexlevels in Spring Creek Brown Trout, I have compiled the following:

Table I indicates the results for all stations from which Brown Trouttissue samples have been collected since 1976.

Table II shows results from Stations 1 and 2 only. These two stations havebeen sampled the most frequently and have been chosen as future samplinglocations.

Figures I and II are graphs of Kepone and Mirex levels and Brown Trouttissue samples for Stations 1 and 2 from 1976 to 1984.

SW/bls

Attachments

cc: File • • .

AB3Q3308

TABLE 1SPRING CREEK BROWN TROUTFISH TISSUE SAMPLES

1976-1984 (All Stations)

Station Kepone(ppb) Mirex(ppb)

1 160

Aug. 76 1 190 10002 87 3203 60 1654 37 88

Jan. 78 1 116 29702 50 483 36 1684 • 125 44

' Nov. 78 1 ND 5852 NO 222.5 ND 2853 ND 1753.5 ND 1304 NO 22

July 79 0.25 ND Trace0.5 ND 101 130 12002 ND 2102.5 . ND 3503 ND 1603.5 NO 2704 NO 150

Nov. 81 0.5 52 1301 270 6302 70 . 1402.5 51 833 60 1303.5 40 * 2204 27 85

Sept. 82 1 30 2502 NO 120

March 8'3 1 ND 2402 ND 240

Oct- 83 I NN° 280 HB303309*

.March 84 1 . ND ' 382 ND 30

.-*?•

SPRING CREEK BROWN TROUT -FISH TISSUE SAMPLES1976-1984 (Continued)

Date Station Kepone(ppb) Mirex(ppn)Nov. 84 1 ND 140

2 ND 904 ND ND.

AR3033'IO

TABLE 2SPRING CREEK BROWN TROUTFISH TISSUE SAMPLES

1976-1984 (Stations 1 & 2)

Date Station Kepone(ppb) Mirex(ppb)76 1 160

Aug. 76 1 190 1QOO2 , 87 320

Jan- 78 1 116 2970? 50 43

Nov. 78 1 ND 5852 ND 22

79 1 130 12002 . ND 210

Nov. 81 1 270 6302 70 140

Sept. 82 1 30 2502 NO 120

March 83 - 1 ND 24Q2 NO 240

Oct. 83 1 no 2802 ND 160

March 84 1 NO 382 ND 30

Nov. 84 1 ND 14Q2 ND 90

AS3033I 1

,

"'

:.- Tf:._ . .....—— .i. - ,..;—-. -. ... .., __. . -- . .— —.I. —l——.__......————._.. ,.1.-.-..r:.....-,t. -r-!...—————..... ^

TABLE 5.5-29

RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.STATE COLLEGE, PA

REPORTED KEPONE ANDjrflRjEX CONCENTRATIONS INSPRING CRraKjfBRDWN TROUT

FISH TISSJI AMPLES(FILLETS WITH SKIN)

Kepone Mirex Number of Mean Length Mean WeightDate Station (ppm) (ppm) Specimens & Range (cm) & Range (gm)

May 1976 1 0.170 --- 5 34 (31-38) 424 (332-566)

August 1976 1 0.190 1.00 6 24 (20-28) 148 (90-230)(GC/EC) 2 0.087 0.320 5 28 (22-31) 224 (115-320)

3 0.060 0.165 8 25 (21-28) 162 (95-205)4 0.037 0.088 6 26 (24-30) 162 (115-250)

January 1978 1 0.116 2.97 6 26 (20-34) 159 (68-350)2 0.050 0.048 4 34 (29-42) 449 (285-725)3 0.036 1.68 5 29 (26-39) 251 (148-476)4 0.025 0.044 5 33 (24-44) 383 (133-84

November 1978 1 ND 0.585 5 27 (23-32) 204 (113-310)2 ND 0.022 5 28 (24-31) 201 (140-289)2.5 ND 0.285 5 34 (23-52) 509 (124-1450)3 ND 0.175 5 31 (28-36) 358 (234-497)3.5 ND 0.130 5 30 (28-36) 282 (221-408)4 ND 0.022 5 33 (25-48) 439 (140-1300)

July 1979 0.25 ND Trace 5 30 (28-33)0.5 ND 0.010 5 31 (28-34)1 0.130 1.20 5 32 (29-36)2 ND 0.210 5 32 (28-36)2.5 ND 0.350 5 33 (30-40)3 ND 0.160 5 36 (32-39)3.5 ND 0.270 5 31 (28-34)4 ND 0.150 5 34 .(28-39)

November 1981 0.5 0.052 0.1301 0.270 0.6302 0.070 0.1402.5 0.051 0.0833 0.060 0.1303.5 0.040 0.2204 0.027 0.085

AR3033I'

8983-:ERT4M/l

TABLE 5.5-29 (CONT.)

. .f i'RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.

STATE COLLEGE, PA

REPORTED KEPONE AND MIREX CONCENTRATIONS INSPRING CREEK BROWN TROUT

FISH TISSUE SAMPLES(FILLETS WITH SKIN)

Kepone Mirex Number of Mean Length Mean WeightDate Station (ppm) (ppm) Specimens & Range (cm) & Range (gm)

September 1982 1 0.030 0.250 5(GC/EC) 2 ND 0.120 5

March 1983 1 ND 0.240 52 ND 0.240 5

1 ND 0.280 5 31 (27-32) 299 (202-349)2 ND 0.160 5 27 (22-34) 226 (118-402)

1 ND 0.038 5 32 (23-37) 291 (100-438)2 ND 0.030 4 42 (32-50) 722 (264-1025)

November 1984 1 ND 0.140 5 27 (22-31) 208 (99-311)2 ND 0.090 5 35 (29-42) 509 (221-822)4 ND ND 5 28 (24-31) 219 (126-282)

October 1985 1 ND 0.110 5 27 (24-32) 206 (142-311)2 ND 0.068 5 28 (23-35) 268 (125-500)4 ND 0.035 5 29 (24-39) 243 (144-448)

October 1986 1 0.025 0.160 5 26 (17-32) 229 (130-323)2 0.013 0.080 5 .26 (24-28) 188 (154-212)4 ND ND 5 26 (23-30) 187 (122-284)

ND - Not Detected.Samples collected by PFC and PaDER.

8983;ERT4M/2

7 yOA-501 12-67 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 13, 1976 {Q-. /ji(

Industrial Waste 0- L I [\ ; u<SUBJECT: Nease Chemical Company

College Township, Centre County

TO: Theodore P. ClistaBureau of Water Quality Management

FROM: Mark A. RollerRegional Sanitary EngineerWilliamsport Regional Office

Samples collected by Williamsport Regional Office re: Kepone and NeaseChemical Company from March 1, 1976 - August 1, 1976:

Date KeponeLocation Sampled Water ________ Sediment

1. Thorton Spring 3/9/76 (EPA) 2.09 ppb (EPA) 0.73 ppm(DER) 2.9 ppb

2. Wet weather ditch 3/9/76 (EPA) 9.17 ppb (EPA) 5.33 ppm(DER) 9.0 ppb

3. Old Nease spray field 3/9/76 — (EPA) 0.37 ppm

4. Thorton Spring 5/5/76 (DER) 3.7 ppb

5. Wet weather ditch S/5/76 (DER) 4.7 ppb

6. Wet weather ditch 5/5/76 (DER) 5.2 ppb

7. Spring Creek - below Nease 5/5/76 (DER) None detected

C ) '- Analysis performed by Department of Environmental Resources orEnvironmental Protection Agency.

Fish samples collected 5/5/76 in Spring Creek over distance of 3/4 miledownstream Rt. 26 bridge:

Sample #1 - Two Brown trout; 15.0 and 17.1 inches long; 4+ and 5+ yearsold respectively.

Sample #2 - Four Brown trout; 12.2, 12.4, 13.0 and 14.4 inches long;all 3+ years old.

Sample #3 - Five White suckers; 12.8, 14.6, 15.4, 16.3 and 16.5 inches long;6+, 4+, 4+, 5+ and 5+ years old respectively.

Kepone results as analyzed in Virginia laboratory:

Sample #1 - 150 ppb Sample #2 - 170 ppb Sample #3 - 180 ppb

All samples located on attached map.

\X'* *' '' ) v\-_y "\ i * ASk. - \ \ S N •. ,C • A \l/ '.. , /«

/' \C«m./ • '' . -X AN • •/ •' • /'S* ^^ / \swuAtiKV^g, Dale Summit, ' r _-—

/ V- >T'i..: i , *«•• • -rr- z -v1

# 1 'I -.-.-r>fr y. *-1 I /

'•if IS.T '. of i" .CVL'/•*•;i;.... . -7

1/crea.i M le o. 4. 'w.JCross reference:industrial **ste

eise Cn<*cic<il Co.Township, Centre County

TO: tidiiicl

bureau of Hater uuclity .-'.Regional Office

FKO?I: Ronala £. Mughey, Aquaticoureau of water OualltyWllUanisport Reylonil Office

Tnis > erito contains uj»oate<j tabulations of kepone anu olrex fish tissue datatrow Spriny Creek and Qlancnard Reservoir In Centre County. The lastupdates wer<j presented In «/ oenos of Marcn b and 2b. lyyb. Those »<noscontain caaulations and discussions of data fraa a nuober of types ofsables. i'3nl/ fisn tissue sawptes were coHecte-i in lysi6 and only thoseiai)les are included nere, Tne reader sô-jld r»»fer to the earlier :na.>csu«? oiner types of data.

On April 6, iSHi, Xich Aa*as.. .Steve Webster and I collected 20 &Uc*crappic frow fcl«ncnard Kescrvoir (Figure 1). After weiyning and itne fisn were fiHeced ana tht sitla was removed rro-s tne fillets.fiilet rrotd edcn fisn was ada«o to d coav^slte s^ple v^hicti xas frozen

to tne PA uER bureau of LaOuratories for analysis.

un October 7, 19iitj, iiruce Hollender (PTC), Soa Jilberdin^ (PFC), youcailectec orovm trout at Spriay Cre«k Stations l. 2 and * (Ta&le 1,, Fi2). Five flsn *er<: collected at each station.. Tne fisn were wei^ned,«easured ana filleted out the sfcln was left on tne fillets. Tne five fish(iu rillet) composite sauries w^re frozen ana shipped to tne PA OE*{ bureauof Laboratories.

K'esul ts - SUncnard Reservoir

No kepone or wirtx was detected in the black crapple fillets (Taol« 2). Iam still Holding the unused portion of the sample for future reference.Blanchard Reservoir was resa^lea on Hay 19, 19S6 &ut tnose result;; are notavailable at this ti.je.

AR3033I8

Stre*i f i l e No. 4./U.3Cross rfirerence:ladustridl wait-* , >•*u«tyeri-Nwdse cncwical Cu.Lolleye To»*MSiiij/, Centre County

June 2J,

Results - Spring Create

No kepone was detected in any of the saaples. This has been the case sinceMarch 19153 (Table 3). Hi rex was found In all saaples 1n concentrationsranging fron 110 ppb «t Station 1 to 35 ppb at Station 4. Mirexconcentrations at Station 1, which has historically been tne hot station,reaaln above the PDA action level of 100 ppb, Tne next sampling 1n SpringCreek is scheduled for tne fall of 1996.

Attachments

cc: Bruce HollanderBoa Frey

AH3033I9-

&R3.03320Figure 1: Sampling area for fish tissue samples collected from Blaiichard Reservoir

in Centre County, PA on April 26, 1985. Reproduced from USGS map 4-13.3(Howard, PA 7.5" quadrangle).

PAGE 303321 IS MISSINGFROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Stream: Spring CreekCounty: CentreDate: 1976-1985

TABLE I

Sampling Station Locations

Station V: Spring Creek; adjacent to Spring Creek at Houserville, 0.5 miledownstream from Rt. 26.U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.2 12.78"N 10.64"W

Station 2: Spring Creek; at Benner Spring hatchery, in vicinity of large pondoutlet, approximately 5.0 miles downstream from Rt. 26.U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.2 19.43"N 9.87"W

Station 2.5: Spring Creek; adjacent to upper end of large pond at upper SpringCreek hatchery, approximately 7.4 miles downstream from Rt. 26.U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.2 21.88"N 6.38"W

Station 3: Spring Creek; at first private bridge downstream from Fisherman'sParadise, approximately 9*9 miles downstream from Rt. 26.U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.1 1.86"N 4.98"W •

Station 3.5: Spring Creek; directly upstream from Rt. 550 bridge, approximately'-"* -3U9 miles downstream from Rt.. 26.

U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.1 4.64"N 6.62"W

Station 4: Spring Creek; directly below first dam downstream from Bellefonte "(McCoy Oam), approximately 15.0 miles downstream from Rt. 26.U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.1 10.48"N 5.18"W

Station 0.25: Spring Creek; near Boalsburg, above dam at 28th Division ShrineMemorial.U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.2 5.57"N 6.10"W

Station 0.5: Spring Creek; at Highway*Bridge near Oak Hall, approximately 2miles upstream from Rt. 26.U.S.G.S. Quad. 05-12.2 8.28"N 7.80"W

AB303322

PAGE 303323 IS MISSINGFROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

TABLE 3SPRING CREEK BROWN TROUT

FISH TISSUE SAMPLES1976-1985 (All Stations)

(Fillets with ikln) ".".-, fNumber Mean Length Mean Welgrrt

pate station Kepone(ppb) Mlrcx(ppb) Specimens & Range (cm) & Range(gm)

May 76 1 170 - 5 34(31 38) 424(332-566)

Auu. 76 1 190 1000 6 24(20-28) 148(90-230)2 87 320 5 28(22-31) 224(115-320)3 60 165 8 25(21-28) 162(95-205)4 37 88 6 26(24-30) 162(115-250)

jan. 78 1 116 2970 6 26(20-34) 159T68-350)2 50 48 4 34(29-42) 449(285-725)3 36 168 5 29(26*39) 251(148-476}4 25 44 5 33(24-44) 383(133-840)

Nov. 78 1 NO 585 5 27(23-32) 204(113-310)N°V' 2 NO 22 5 28(24-31) . 201(140-289)

2.5 NO 285 5 34(23-52) S09(124-145C3 NO 175 5 31(28-36) 358(234-497)35 HO 130 5 30(28-36) 282(221-408)4 HO 22 5 33(25-48) 439(140-130C

July79 o.5 ND ' Trace 5 . » 28-33)W V» V --—— - . ^

0.5 ND 10 5 311 130 1200 5 322 ND 210 5 322.5 ND 350 5 333 ND 160 5 363.5 ND 270 5 314

30-32-40)-39)

28-34)m 150 5 34(28-39)

28-34)29-36)28-36)

Nov. 81 0.5 52 130] 270 630-2 70 1402.5 51 833 60 1303.5 40 2204 27 85

Sept.82 1 30 250 '52 NO 120 5

March 83 1 ND 240. 52 ND ; 240 5

Oct. 83 1 NO ' 280 5 31(27-32)__ _???<?02-3492 ND 160 5

March 84 1 NO 38 5 32(23-37) 291(100MarCn ** 2 ND 30 4 42(32-50) 722(264-102

SPRING CREEK BROWN TROUT "FISH TISSUE SAMPLES1976-1985 (Continued)

>.

Number Mean Length Mean WeightDate Station Kepone(ppb) Mirex(ppb) Specimens & Range (cm) & Range(grc)

Nov. 84 1 NO 140 5 27(22-31) 208(99-311)2 NO 90 5 35(29-42) 509(221-822)4 ND NO 5 28(24-31) 219(126-282)

Oct. 85 1 ND 110 5 27(24-32) 206(142-311)2 ND 68 5 28(23-35) 268(125-500)4 ND 35 5 29(24-39) 243(144-448)

NO 3 None Detected

AR303325

13 '91 07:11 RUETGERS-NEASE CHEM ' • s. s. x P.1/2uetgers-"Comical Company. Inc. « A aubafdlary *t Hutgersw^rk* ACS ere

aZJSQblyg. ».*,.*_, cransmissTnn please call: fai,^ ,,a_,

FACSIMILE COVES SHEET

DATE S2NT:OPERATORj

201Stato Calle<j«PennsylvaniaPhone; 814.238-2424Fax: 314-238-1887

NUMBER OF PAGES TOFOLLOW COVES SHSET:

' IFHOM: NAME; w^ t y : ^QQVf/

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: jC-f*I ^ e .7 . _ / ***** ~———^~

T._ _ _ _ _ _ . . . >._. _ -, - '"—"""—™'—"''"""—~™— —— '•'••—-—*•————— a^^ p; o n <^ Q O c

Job Aag Jge^ vev>iovt.</. Cajf Hp q.OPSRATQg'S USE ONLY.

Id ' yi £lr ; li KUt. i'ot.ro~ric.Hoc. unc.ii

Table 9

RUETGERS-NEASE / STATE COLLEGE GROUND WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

YEARLY AVERAGES

GROUNDWATER PUMPED AND VOCs REMOVEDil •.

SROUNOWATERPUMPED

YEAR (gal)

1 1,841,7432 2,252,9753 1,630,3194 . 1,785,908

6 702,214

MEAN 1,623,439SUH 9,740,632

TOTAL VOCSREMOVED(ibs)

3,8931,313924554

5 1,527,473 ! 373251

1,2187,308

RHS03327

Documents

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY … · 2016. 10. 21. · UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 841 CHESTNUT BUILDING PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107