United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-87/040
July 1987
3 EPA
Superfund
Record of
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pita. "ad l"flNCllO'U Oil tht ft"tn. Mfon co,""ltti"l)
1. III litO lilT NO. 12. 3. AEClltIENT"S ACCesSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-87/040
.. TITLI ANO SUITITLI 5. IIIlltOIH OATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF D'!CISION Julv 31. 1987
Volney Landfill, NY 8. ItEIII'OAMING OAGANIZATION COOE
First Remedial Action
7. AUTHOIilISI S. PEIII'OlilMING OlilGANIZATION AEltOAT 1110.
e. Itllll'OlilMINO OlilOANIZATION NAME ANO A~O~ESS- - 10. ItAOGAAM EL.EMINT 1110.
11. CONT..ACT/uI'IAIliT NO.
12. SltONSOAING AGENCY NAME ANO AOOAESS 13. TYPE OF AEltOlilT ANO PEAIOO COVEReo
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. S,"ON50..INO AOENCY COOl
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
111. SUltltLEMINTAlily NOTES
18. A8ST..ACT
The Volney Landfill site, located in the Town of Volney, Oswego County, New York, is
a 55-acre, unlined municipal landfill. From 1969 until 1983 municipal waste dispo~al
operations occurred at the site. Most of the waste disposed of at the site consisted of
typical residential, commercial, institutional and light industrial waste. However,
between March 1974 and January 1975, Pollution Abatement Services, a hazardous waste
incineration facility, was permitted to dispose of approximately 8,000 drums containing
only residue coatings. Allegedly, 50 - 200 of these drums contained unidentified liquid
waste. The condition of these alleged drums is unknown, as is their location within the
landfill. In September .1983, waste disposal at the landfill ceased with the opening of
the Bristol Hill Landfill approximately 2 miles southeast of the site. In the fall of
1985, closure operations for the Volney Landfill were completed by the current owner,
Oswego County. Because the landfill is unlined and has a leachate collection system
only in its newer (northern) section, leachate migration is occurring in both horizontal
and vertical directions. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water
include: vinyl chloride, benzene, arsenic, VOCs and metals.
The selected remedial alternative includes: supplemental capping of the landfill
side slopes; installation of a leachate collection system including a slurry wall,
collection wells, force mains and collection drain; and on or offsite leachate (See
'attached sheet)
17. KIY WOIilOS ANO OOCUMINT ANALySIS
~. OUCllllltTOIilS b.IOINTIFIEIilS/OItIN ENOEO TERMS C. COSATI Field/Gtoup
Record of Decision
Volney Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: vinyl chloride,
benzene, arsenic, VOCs, heavy
metals
11. OISTIII.IUTION STATEMENT 1e. SECUIII.Ty CLASS ITIIi, R,po"J 21. NO. 01' PAGES
None Co5
I 20. SICUlillTy CLASS 1T11;' pOPJ 22. PRICE
None
I!'. ,- 2220-1 (It.... .-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-87/~0
Volney Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
treatment. The estimated "capital cost for this remedial alternative is either
$12,754,000 or $12,876,000 pending selection of off or onsite leachate treatment
respectively, with present worth O&M costs of $691,000 or $882,000 for on or offsite
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
-
Volney Landfill site, Town of Volney, Oswego County, New York
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Thi$ decision document represents the selected remedial action
for the Volney Landfill site, developed in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to the extent practicable,
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, November 20, 1985.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based upon the administrative record for the
Volney Landfill site. The attached index identifies the
items which comprise the administrative record upon which the
selection of a remedial action is based.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY (Source Control Operable Unit)
o
Su~~lemental ca~ping of the landfill side slopes in
accordance with the Resource, Conservation and Recovery
Act 40 CFR Section 264.310 requirement of 1xlO-7 em/sec
permeability for final covers at hazardous waste sites.
o
Installation of a leachate collection system consisting
of a perimeter gravel-filled leachate collection drain
and soil-bentonite slurry wall around the northern and
southwestern sections of the landfill, with accompanying
collection wells and force mains from the two drain
segments.
o
. Treatment of the contaminated leachate in an on-site
treatment plant or transport to an off-site facility
for treatment. The specific treatment method will be
determined upon completion of the treatability studies
performed during the remedial design.
o
Operation and maintenance requirements, primarily for
treatment of leachate, groundwater monitoring and cap
maintenance are required, and are eligible for Super-
-------
-2-
...
o
A review of the recommended containment remedial action
no less often than each 5 years after the initiation
of the proposed remedy, to assure that continued pro-
tection to human health and the environment is being
provided.
o
This Record of- Decision addresses only source control
measures for the Volney Landfill site. An additional
operable unit remedial investigation/feasibility
study for the contamination pathways will be conducted
which will define the extent of contamination in the
shallow and bedrock groundwater and will assess the
potential contamination of the stream/wetland ecosystems
downgradient from the site. If additional remedial
actions are determined to be necessary, a Record of
Decision will be prepared for approval of future
remedial action.
DECLARATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, attains federal and state requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate for this source control
operable unit and is cost-effective. The statutory preference
for treatment is not satisfied because treatment was found to
be impracticable. This determination is made based on the
volume of waste material at the site (e.g., four million
cuoic yards) and the fact that no known "hot spots" of hazardous
materials have been identified at the landfill.
The action will require future operation and maintenance
activities to ensure the continued effectiveness of the
remedy. These activities will be considered part of the
approved action and eligible for Superfund monies for a
period of up to one year.
The State of New York has been consulted with and agrees with
the approved remedy (see attached).
I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate when balanced against the availability of Super-
fund monies for use at other sites.
:Jell 3/, fri I"
-------
,.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
VOLNEY LANDFILL SITE
NEW YORK
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Reg ion 2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and. Description. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site R is to ry ..........................................
Current Site Status .................................
Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contaminants of Concern ..........................
Exposure Pathways ................................
Risk Characterization............ .................
Environmental Impacts 0.... i .. .............. .... . . .
Al terna t i ves Eval ua t ion" .............................
Development of Alternatives/Initial Screening ....
Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives ..............
Commun i ty Relations.................................
Enforcement Analysis................................
Recommended Alternative.............................
Operation and Maintenance ...........................
Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Future Actions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTACHMENTS
A - Administrative Record Index
B - NYSDEC Letter of Concurrence
C - USEPA Memorandum- Discharge of Wastewater from
CERCLA Sites into POTWs- 4/15/86
D - Responsiveness Summary
E - Cost Estimates for Recommended Remedial Action
Page
1
6
8
15
15
16
17
17
18
21
27
44
45
47
54
56
-------
FIGURES
Figure
...
1 - Site Location Map ..................................
2 - 5 i te Layou t Map....................................
3 - Potential Groundwater Receptors ....................
4 - Potential Surface Water Receptors..................
5 - Previous Investigation Sampling Locations ..........
6 - Recommended Remedial Plan (Plan View) ..............
7 - Recommended Remedial Plan (Sections) ...............
Page
2
3
11
19
31
50
-------
TABLES
~
Table
Page
1 - Groundwater Substances and Parameters
.Exceeding Standards and Guidelines ................ 10
2 - Surface Water Subst~~ces and Parameters
Exceeding Standards and Guidelines ................ 13
3 - Inappropriate Remedial Technologies ................ 24
4 - Appropriate Remedial Technologies .............. .... 25
5 - Preliminary Remedial Action Alternatives ........... 26
6 - Final Remedial Alternatives and
Total Present Worth ............................... 28
7 - Proposed Long~Term Groundwater
Monitoring Program ................................ 30
8 - Annual and Present Worth Operation and Maintenance
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Volney Landfill Site
New York
.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
This summary addresses the site proper operable unit, which
involves addressing the source of contamination to prevent
further potential contaminant-migration from the site, and
to eliminate the direct contact threat posed by the site. A
subsequent operable unit remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS) will be conducted to address the contamination
pathways. This study will involve more accurate definition
of the extent of contamination in the shallow and bedrock
groundwater at the site and an environmental assessment of
the stream/wetland ecosystems downgradient from the site.
The Volney Landfill site was placed on the National Priorities
List of known or threatened releases in October 1984. The
site is located in a rural area of the Town of Volney, in
Oswego County, New York, as shown on Figure 1. This location
is approximately 2 miles northeast of the City of Fulton, 25
miles northwest of the City of Syracuse and 10 miles southeast
of Lake Ontario. .
.
The site consists of 85 acres, of which 55 acres are an in-
active, unlined landfill on which closure operations were
completed by Oswego County in the fall of 1985. The closure.
operations included an impermeable membrane cap on the landfill
top, lodgement till cover on the side slopes, surface water
drainage controls, landfill gas control and recovery, and
leachate manangement. The leachate management consists of a
leachate collection drain in the central and northern portions
of the landfill that connect to two sumps. Both sumps discharge
to the leachate collection tank located on the east side of
the site, as indicated on Figure 2. The tank has a design
capacity of 300,000 gallons and an overflow capacity of
374,000 gallons.
Most of the waste materials disposed of in the landfill
consisted of typical residential, commercial, institutional
and light industrial waste. However, disposal of approximately
8,000 drums from the Pollution Abatement Services site was
permitted. These drums were to contain only residue coatings
on the inside of each drum. Allegedly, 50 to 200 of these
drums contained unidentified liquid waste. The condition of
these alleged drums is unknown, as is their location within
-------
-5-
.
Surface drainage in the area is generally by low-gradient
streams. The site area is drained by Bell Creek and tributaries
of Black Creek which eventually drain into the Oswego River,
a major regional river that empties into Lake Ontario at
Oswego, New York. The landfill was constructed on a pre-existing
topographic high which .forms the divide between the headwaters
of the north-flowing Black Creek to the west and the south-
flowing Bell Creek drainage to the east of the site. For most
of the site area, surface drainage is not well developed and
the location of the drainage divide is approximate. A small
portion of the 100-year storm flood for Bell Creek crosses
the site boundary in the extreme northeast corner but this
parcel is beyond the limits of previous lanQfilling operations.
The geomorphic setting of the region in which the site is
located consists of gently rolling hills and intervening
flatlands. The site is underlain by a thick section of
unconsolidated deposits, primarily of glacial origin,
overlying bedrock. The bedrock unit, occuring at depths
ranging from about 30 to 100 feet below ground surface,
consists of reddish-brown sandstones, siltstones and shales.
A basal layer of compact lodgement till, varying in thickness
from about 16 to 73 feet, appears to be laterally continuous
over bedrock throughout the site. This lodgement till unit
is a compact, relatively impermeable layer with an average
hydraulic conductivity of approximately 6.7 x 10-5 em/sec.
Glaciolacustrine deposits occur as layers of fine sand and
silt, up to 28 feet thick, directly overlying lodgement till
in the topographic basins between drumlins. Reworked sand
and gravel, ranging from 4 to 25 feet thick occurs as a
surficial mantle which overlies the lodgement till and
glaciolaustrine deposits. This reworked sand and gravel unit
was exc~vated to till prior to the placement or refuse.
Groundwater flow systems at the site were evaluated in both
horizontal and vertical directions. The shallow, unconfined
aquifer, comprised of reworked sand and gravel overlying
.lodgement till, has a water table configuration which is
closely related to topography, therefore groundwater flows
radially outward from the landfill. A large portion of the
shallow groundwater draining from the landfill is directed
eastward under Silk Road to Bell Creek. The southwest corner
of the landfill drains to the southwest, into the Black Creek
-------
-6-
~
Bedrock aquifers in the region of the site generally transmit
water through secondary porosity features, such as joints and
fractures. Available data from the limited number of bedrock
wells. indicate that the bedrock surface has a generally low
relief with linear trends simi~ar to the regional surficial
land forms. Though inconclusive, this indicates that ground-
water flow in the bedrock generally trends to the easterly
direction with upward and downward gradients due to joints and
fractures.
Vertical hydraulic gradients at the site were found to be
highly variable. This is probably the result of groundwater
mounding at the site, which is induced by the relatively
impermeable lodgement till unit underlying more conductive
overburden strata. This will tend to produce relatively
short-term, drainage-related fluctuations in water table
elevations and vertical gradients. In addition, the recent
site capping is producing a long-term change in these vertical
flow patterns.
SITE HISTORY
Operations at the Volney Landfill, also known as the Silk Road
or the Oswego Valley Sanitary Landfill, were initiated in 1969 in
a former sand and gravel pit located in the southeast corner
of the site, and thereafter progressed generally northward.
From 1969 until 1974, the landfill was operated by the Oswego
Valley Solid Refuse Disposal District Board. The Board
consisted of the City of Fulton, the Village of Phoenix, and
the Towns of Granby, Schroeppel and Volney. In early 1975,
Oswego County purchased the site from the board. Waste
disposal operations continued at the landfill until 1983.
Most of the waste materials disposed of in the landfill from
1969 to 1983 consisted of residential, commerical, institutional
and light industrial wastes. However, between March 1974 and
J.anuary 1975, approximately 8,000 drums from Pollution Abatement
Services (PAS), a hazardous waste incineration facility
located in the City of Oswego, were allegedly buried at the
site. The New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
-------
-4-
The average de~th of fill of the unlined Volney Landfill is
estimated to be approximately 45 feet, with a maximum depth
of 60 feet in the northern portion of the landfill. The
total volume of waste materials buried at the landfill is
estimated from the overall dimensions of the site and depth
of fill to be approximately 4 millio~ cubic yards. A minimum
5 foot separation betw~~n waste materials and the water table
was reportedly maintained in the northern (newer) portion of
the site. Operations in the southern (older) portion of the
landfill, prior to implementation of New York State Part 360
regulations, required only a 3 foot separation: although in
general, at least a 5 foot separation was maintained. The
landfill has a relatively flat top and moderately steep side
slopes of between 15 to 25 percent. It rises approximately 50
feet above the surrounding terrain and forms a locally prominent
topographic feature. The site is fenced, with access gates
on Silk and Howard Roads.
Woodlands, and farmlands are the principal land use in the
vicinity of the Volney Landfill. The zoning of the area is
residential with homes sparsely located in the area. A trailer
park is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the site on
Silk Road and a few houses are located within 100 feet of the
site boundaries. In the RI analysis, 25 single-family residences
utilizing individual wells have been indentified as potential
receptors of g~oundwater from the landfill. However, no
private wells were found to exceed state or federal drinking
water standards. The closest population center is the City
of Fulton, which is located approximately 2 miles to the
southwest and has a 1980 census population of 13,312.
The Oswego County Airport is situated approximately 1000 feet
southwest of the site. Also located near the southwest corner
of the landfill is a Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation facility
on Howard Road which is a base for transmissionline construction
and maintenance crews. Numerous inactive sand and gravel pits
are located in the area, including locations south and east
of the site. Northern Readymix, which is a major producer of
.aggregate materials and concrete products, is located on Silk
-------
-7-
discarded drums from PAS containing the residues of chemical
sludges, with tne exception of phenols or chlorinated compounds.
The landfill operator at the time has indicated that 50 to 200
of these drums contained unidentified liquid waste that was
incorporated into the everyday fill. The condition of these
drums is unknown, as is their location within the landfill.
As the landfill expanded-in-the mid-1970s to the central and
northern parts of its present configuration, a leachate
collection system was installed. After the County purchased
the site, surficial sand and gravel were removed and the
underlying glacial till was graded towards a common collection
trench in the central portion of the site and connected to a
small sump opposite the maintenance building. In the northern
portion, a leachate collection drain was installed by the County
in 1982 (as part of a consent order with the NYSDEC), and
connected to a second sump. Both these sumps discharge to
the leachate collection tank located on the east side of the
site.
Several methods have been employed to treat collected leachate
from the site. From about 1979 to 1983, leachate collected
first from the sump~ and then from the collection tank was
treated at Armstrong Cork Co. Wastewater Treatment Center in
Fulton. The volume of collected leachate was reported to
range between 500 and 5,000 gal/day from 1980 to 1982. After
the County was informed that Armstrong woulc no longer accept
leachate for treatment, it temporarily utilized the City of
Oswego's Westside Sewage Treatment Plant. Leachate was
transported to and treated in the Oswego plant during 1984
and 1985. Reported average daily quantities of leachate
treated at the plant were 3,550 gal/day and 6,900 gal/day,
respectively, for 1984 and 1985. The Fulton Wastewater
Treatment Plant has been treating the leachate since 1986;
however, the quantities of leachate treated have not been
identified.
Waste disposal continued at the Volney Landfill until shortly
after the opening of the Bristol Hill Landfill, approximately
2 miles to the southeast of the site, in September 1983.
In the fall of 1985, closure operations for the Volney Landfill
-------
-8-
-
On March 14, 1979, the NYSDEC entered into a consent order -
with Oswego County after the County contravened NYSDEC's
groundwater quaLity standards in monitoring wells near the
site~ Pursuant to the consent order, corrective actions to
be taken by the County 9~ or before June 15, 1979 involved
groundwater monitoring studies, evaluation of leachate and
sludge treatment, and the development of a closure plan. The
County subsequently developed a closure program for the site
which was in compliance with the minimum closure requirements
specified in New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 and the Solid
Waste Management Facility Guidelines. The closure program
involves a three-tiered approach. Phase I was completed in
the fall of 1985 and included a combination soil barrier and
PVC membrane cap (1 x 10-7 em/see permeability) over the
relatively flat top area, a two foot soil cap (1 x 10-5 em/see
permeability) over relatively steep side slopes, a surface
water drainage system, a methane gas control system, a leachate
collection and disposal system and a post-closure maintenance
program. Phase II and III of the closure program, which
involves long-term groundwater monitoring and potential develop- -
ment.of remedial actions, respectively, will not be implemented
due to the proposed CERCLA action.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Through a Cooperative Agreement with USEPA, the NYSDEC completed
an RI/FS for the Volney Landfill site in May 1987 through its
contractor, the URS Company, Inc. Contamination sources,
contaminant transport, environmental receptors impacted and
suspected risks posed by contaminants are evaluated in the
RI/FS. The following is a brief summary of the types and
concentrations of contaminants detected at the site.
A variety of hazardous substances were detected in groundwater
monitoring well samples around the landfill perimeter. Their
appearance is generally erratic from well to well. From the
~vailable data generated from the RI, it appears that groundwater
contamination by hazardous substances is somewhat greater in
the southern (old) portion of the landfill. The compounds
detected include 17 volatile compounds, 14 semivolatile
-------
-9--
be in violation of their enforceable groundwater limits and
guidelines. - These include vinyl chloride (USEPA Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is 1 ppb),
benzene (USEPA MeL is 5 ppb and NYS 6 NYCRR Part 703.5 Class
GA groundwater standard is not detectable), total phenols
(NYS 6 NYCRR Part 703.5 Class GA standard is 1 ppb), arsenic,
beryllium (USEPA Clean Water Act (CWA) Water Ouality Criteria
(WOC) is 0 ppb), chloroform (USEPA CWA wOC is 0 ppb), nickel
(USEPA CWA WQC is 15.4 ppb), and selenium (USEPA MCL is 10 ppb).
The maximum contaminant.conc~ntration detected at the site
was arsenic at 85 ppb. The Part 703.5 NYS groundwater standard
for Class GA (potable water) for arsenic is 25 ppb. The USEPA
MCL is 50 ppb for arsenic. Table 1 summarizes the groundwater
substances and parameters that exceed standards and guidelines.
Leachate indicator parameters observed in most of the
groundwater samples indicate that groundwater contamination
by landfill leachate is occuring around the perimeter of the
site. Available data also indicate that leachate from the
landfill has permeated the lodgement till and has reached
~edrock. This analysis is based upon a limited number of
-bedrock monitoring wells installed and sampled during the RI.
A subsequent operable unit RI/FS for the contamination pathways
will define the extent of con~amination of the shallow and
bedrock groundwater.
Because ~he landfill is unlined and has a leachate collection
system only in its newer (northern) section, leachate migration
~n both horizontal and vertical directions is occuring. Vertical
migration, however, is impeded by a relatively impervious
(6.7 x 10-5 cm/sec permeability) lodgement till unit underlying
the fill.
The shaded area of Figure 3 indicates the potent~al receptors
of contaminated groundwater from the site. This area was
estimated by determining that groundwater flow reflects surface
topography and by tracing the extreme surface drainage flow
-------
.- J. v-
...
- Exceeded Enforceable Limit
. Max co}c. Cone. No. Samples/
Substance (uo/l ( uo/1 j Source * Total Samo1es
Vinyl Chloride 5.8 1 MCl 1/Z4
Senzene 3.5 not detectable 703.5 Z/Z4
Arseni c 85 Z5 703.5 1/Z0
Selenium 16 10 141.1XMeJ ) 5/Z0
Total Phenols 13 1 703.5 8/Z0
p~ (Min) 6.31 6.5 170.4 1/22
TDS 880 "'9/1 500 mg/1 170.4 4/18
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER SUBSTANCES AND PARAMETERS
EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUI.DElINES
Exceeded Guideline
Max co)c. ( c-onc) N-o. Samples!
Substance (Uq/1 uo/1 Source Total SamDles
Chloroform 70 0 CWA 1/24
Vinyl Chloride 5.8 0 RHCl 1/24
Benzene 3.5 0 RMCL 2/24
Trichloroethene 3.4 0 RMCL 7/24
Tetrach1oroethene 0.62 0 RHCL 1/24
Arsenic !5 0 CWA 5/Z0
Beryllium 5 0 CWA 7/20
Nickel 75 15.4 CWA 8/Z0
TDS . 880mg/l 500 mg/l 143.3 4/18
* See Table 2 for explanation of sources
-------
\"
. AOWL.EE
-'--~-~
~ ;' ~~ "'1:",,", ...
'. /"", ", ,;'::..;;;, .
'. ''VL/~i'c\Ji~~7"~~ SITE
'i \ -t- ~-.....,- 'i',,-,-c,/,'.-,,- -\
- - u \. -.. '0,; =f'.i<1(iJij.... v
CALKINS
L
~
&&I
.
~
i
ROAD,
"-
".
. I
LEGEND
V-::::::::::1 AREA OF GROUNDWATER POTENTIALLY
.;,'';':-:-:-: AFFECTED BY LANDFILL
-~ STREAM
. RESIDENCE
. MOBILE HOME
B FARM BUILDING
SCALE
1000 0
1000 FEET
- -
---
l~
URS ComP8£l' Inc.'
C()NSULT7". c. 'ltR1f8
.... ~ .. .--.r
-
FIGURE 3
POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER
RECEPTORS
N
-------
-12-
perennial streams. All residences within this shaded area are
served by individual wells and are therefore potential receptors
of groundwater contamination from the landfill. A total of
25 single-family residences (approximately 100 people) are
located within the shaded area of Figure 3. A trailer park
is located aproximately 1,000 feet north of the site on Silk
Road. It is not believed, however, to be a potential receptor
from .shallow groundwater flow from the site since it is
separated hydrogeologically f~om the site by a stream.
RI surface water samples were collected along Black and Bell
Creeks. Analysis of these samples indicates a generally lower
incidence of surface water contaminants and at lower concentration
levels than observed in groundwater. Total phenols were found
to be in violation of its enforceable surface water limits (NYS
6 NYCRR Part 701.19 standard of 1 ppb). The compounds found to
be in violation of their USEPA CWA WQC guidlines include
chloroform (0 ppb), arsenic (0 ppb), beryllium (0 ppb), lead
(50 ppb), thallium (13 ppb) and mercury (0.144 ppb). Arsenic was
the most widespread of these contaminants and it was detected
.at a maximum concentration of 37 ppb. Table 2 summarizes the
surface water substances that exceed standards and guidelines~
Leachate indicator parameters (e.g., temperature, alkalinity,
COD and TOC) reveal contamination of adjacent surface waters,
though in an apparently diluted form as compared with groundwater
contamination. The upstream sampllng station on a tributary
to Bell Creek showed the highest overall concentration of
leachate indicators. Thus, it appears that a source of
contamination may exist upstream from the landfill. The
contamination pathway operable unit RI/FS will more accurately
define the extent of contamination in the streams and assess
whether the site is a potential source of this contamination.
The impact of surface water contamination adjacent to the
Volney Landfill site is lessened considerably by the natural
dilution of contaminants within the stream system. This
. dilution results from a number of processes, including
mechanical dispersion and physical/chemical/biological
reductions (e.g., due to adsorption, settlement, volatilization,
biological decay, etc.)
There is a low probability that several municipal supply well
fields located approximately twelve river miles downstream (south)
of the site, located adjacent to the Oswego River, will oe im-
pacted by surface water contamintion from the site. The rationale
is that surface water contamination is already at low levels
adjaceAt to the site and will decrease considerably by natural
dilution of contaminants with distance within the stream system,
-------
-13-
...
TABLE l
SURFACE WATER SUBSTANCES AND
PARAMETERS EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
. .
Substance
Exceeded Enforceable limit
onc. No. amp es/
u It Source * Tota 1 Sam 1 es
Total Phenols
16
1.0
701.19
5/7
Exceeded Guideline
Max Cone. .cone. No. Samples/
Substance (Uglt) (UQIt ) Source Total Samples
Chlorofonn 0.48 0 CWA. 2/7
Arsenic 37 0 CWA 7/7
Beryll fum 5 0 CWA 4/7
Lea~ 79 SO CWA 1/7
Tha 11fum 20 13 CWA 4/7
Mercury 0.4 .144 CWA 317
* 1) Sources for the Enforceable Limits are as follows:
o 703.5- 6 NYCRR Water Quality Regulations. Part 703.5- Classes and quality
standards for groundwater
o 170.4- 10 NYCRR Part 170.4- Sources of Water Supply- Standards of raw
water quality
o 141.11- 40 CFR Part 141 EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWR) Subpart B. Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for inorganic chemicals
o MCL- 40 CPR Part 141 EPA NPDWR. MCLs for organic chemicals proposed in
Federal I.si.ter (11/13/85)
2) Sources for the Guidelines are as follows:
o CWA- Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria
o RMCL- 40 CFR Part 141 Recommended maximum contaminant levels
o 143.3- 40 CFR Part 143.3- EPA National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations-
Secondary MCts
-------
-14-
-
During the RI, sediment samples were collected at the same
location as the surface water samples, along Black and Bell
Creeks. RI analysis performed on these stream sediments
generally detected fewer hazardous substances than in ground-
water or surface water, though at somewhat higher concentra-
tions. These compound~ .include 8 vOlatiles, 6 semivolatiles,
1 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and 11 metals. Both cyanide
a.n~ the occurance of one PCB compound (Aroclor 1248 at 80 ppb)
were detected in the sediment samples. Neither of these
compounds however, were detected in groundwater or surface
water samples.
There is no spatial trend of sediment contamination within
the sediments sampled from the streams. The upstream sediment
sample taken during the RI is upstream from the landfill but
is also downgradient (hydrogeologically) and down slope
(topographically) from the northern end of the landfill. The
contamination detected at this location may either be a
result of the landfill as a source of contamination or from
an upstream or background source.
Due to cold and windy field conditions during the RI, field
screening of spilt-spoon soil samples taken from the soil
borings along the site perimeter was not feasible. Instead a
photoionization detector was used to screen soil samples.
Soil samples with ambient vapor readings (less than 1 ppm)
were found in shallow wells near the site boundaries just
west and north of the limits of the fill. Elevated readings
were found in shallow wells located outside the fenced area
of the site. These were found to be increasing from slightly
elevated (e.g., 15-20 ppm) in the east to moderately elevated
(e.g., 20-25 ppm) in the southeast and high (e.g., greater
than 30 ppm) in the southwest.
Wells which were within or near the limits of fill showed
moderate and high (up to 1090 ppm) vapor readings. Well
clusters with upward gradients showed ambient to moderately
. elevated vapor readings, while well clusters with downward
gradients showed high vapor readings.
Based upon the previous discussion concerning the extent of
contamination at the site, and the results of the following
baseline risk assessment conducted for the site, the primary
potential human health impact of the site is through local
contamination of groundwater, which is a source of potaole
water. This impact is identified as potential, because on
the basis of an ongoing testing program of residential wells
in the site vicinity, there has been no significant contraven-
-------
-15-
From an overall.standpoint, the primary potential environmental
impacts of the site are upon the stream channels and wetlands
located downgradient from it (Figure 4). Based upon the
sampling conducted during the RI, the relatively low levels
of surface water contamination are not considered to be a
significant threat to the wet~and and ~tream environment at
this time. However, a more accurate definition of the surface
water contamination will be provided following a subsequent
RI/FS of the contamination pathways.
The above discussion addresses primarily the lesser impact of
contaminated surface water upon the wetland system. It
should be noted, however, that contaminated sediments within
the stream system pose another, significantly greater, potential
risk to the environment. As discussed earlier, contaminant
levels in sediments are generally much higher than in surface
water, especially among metals (e.g., cyanide). Contaminated
sediments which are transported and deposited throughout the
stream system intermittently in response to flooding events,
may pose a risk to the wetland ecosystems downgradient from
the site. An environmental assessment of the stream/wetland
ecosystems downgradient from the site will be conducted in a
subsequent contamination pathway RI/FS operable unit.
RISK ASSESSMENT
As discussed previously, the primary potential human health
impact at the Volney Landfill is the contamination of groundwater,
which is used as a local source of water supply. In order to
assess the level of risk associated with this groundwater
contamination, a baseline public health evaluation was conducted.
This evaluation provides a qualitative estimate of risk
levels under existing conditions, in the absence of remedial
action. This in turn, can be used as a component factor in
determining whether remedial action at the site is warranted.
The risk assessment was developed as follows: identify contaminants
of concern: describe pathways of exposure associated with
site contaminants: estimate levels of exposure and determine
populations exposed and characterize current and potential risks
to human health and the environment.
Contaminants of Concern
Two separate risk assessments were performed: ~ne utilizing
data collected from residential wells and the other using data
collected from monitoring wells. A common set of indicator
chemicals were selected for both of these separate risk
-------
-16-
Indicator chemi~als were selected based upon the following
criteria: the chemical must have been detected in at least
one valid analysis since 1984; the chemical must have known
toxic or carcinogenic effects and there must be quantitative
data available for toxicity or carcinogenicity for the chemical.
A variety of chemical compounds were tound at the site,
however, many were eliminated as possiole indicator chemicals
based on the above factors. Three compounds detected in
residential wells (toluene, manganese and zinc) and 18 compounds
detected in monitoring wells (9 volatiles, 9 metals) were
selected as indicator chemicals. Contaminants detected in
monitoring well samples which were considered as indicator
chemicals and which are known or suspected carcinogens include
vinyl chloride, benzene and arsenic.
Exposure Pathways
-Due to the previous waste disposal operations and the observed
occurrence and pattern of groundwater contamination at the
site, it is believed that the Volney Landfill is the principal
source of most, if not all, of the indicator chemicals selected
above for the risk assessment.
Based upon the results of the RI/FS, it has been determined
that groundwater contamination is the primary human health
risk at the Volney Landfill. The groundwater contamination
from the site travels primarily in a horizontal and outward
radial direction, but at the same time it moves vertically
through the lodgement till toward bedrock. Residential wells
in both overburden (sand and gravel) and bedrock units are
potentially affected by this contamination, though the
impact upon overburden wells is considerably more direct.
It is currently estimated that 25 residential wells (approxi-
mately" 100 people) may be eventually exposed to the contaminants
migrating from the site. Of the eight residential wells from
which analytical data is used in this assessment, four are
bedrock wells and four are screened in overburden deposits.
'The major exposure pathway and subsequent health risk is the
ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Although there may
be some risk of exposure via inhalation mainly through showering,
-------
-17-
The only two compounds detected in monitoring wells at concen-
trations exceed~ng their Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) values of 10 ppb and 1 ppb, respectively,
were selenium and vinyl chloride. These exceedances were
based on maximum concentrations. Neither compounds' mean
concentration exceeded its MCL value. Maximum detected
concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, nickel, selenium,
benzene and vinyl chlo~iqe exceeded the USEPA Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (WOC), and mean concentrations of arsenic
and beryllium exceeded the WQC in monitoring wells. However,
neither MCLs or WOCs were exceeded in any of the residential
wells utilized in this health risk assessment.
Risk Characterizations
Available analytical data from residential wells in the
vicinity of the landfill does not indicate any risk associated
with toxic or carcinogenic chemicals. However, arsenic, the
carcinogenic chemical of greatest concern in the monitoring
.well data, was not analyzed in the residential well samples
utilized in this assessment. Arsenic will be one of the
parameters analyzed for during the proposed long-term ground-
water monitoring program.
Monitoring well data indicate that there is some potential
for health risk associated with toxic chemicals (manganese,
MEK, and phe~ol), but a considerably larger risk related to
carcinogenic chemicals (benzene, vinyl chloride, and arsenic).
However, any risk derived from this monitoring well data assumes
that groundwater of the quality observed in the monitoring
wells reaches the residential wells and is subsequently
ingested.
Environmental Impacts
Potential environmental impacts of the Volney Landfill are
limited in both type and degree. Since the landfill top has
been capped and the entire site is fenced, the possibility of
direct contact with waste materials is minimal. However,
there is a direct contact threat associated with the soil
capped side slopes as well as side slope leachate breakout.
In addition, subsurface gas migration away from the site,
with its corresponding potential impact upon resident flora
and fauna, will presumably be prevented by the gas collection
and venting system which was previously installed by
-------
-18-
.
The NYSDEC-designated wetlands located downstream (Figure 4)
from the site have been designated primarily upon the basis
of resident vegetation. These wetlands provide a haven for
fish, waterfowl and birds migrating through the area. Although
the landfill and surrounding wetlands are not known to be the
habitat of any endangered o~ ~hreatened species, they are
within the migrating range of the Osprey (fish hawk), a threatened
species protected at Three Rivers State Wildlife Management
Area, located approximately 10 miles south of the site. The low
levels of surface water contamination observed during the
RI/FSare not considered a significant threat to the wetland
ecosystem. Contaminated stream sediments which are transported
and deposited throughout the system as a result of flooding
events, however, may pose a significantly greater risk to the
wetland ecosystems downgradient from the site.
At the request of the USEPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry conducted a health assessment in July
19~7 for the Volney site. The assessment concluded that
groundwater flow patterns at the site indicate that the
spread of the contaminated groundwater threatens the quality
of local groundwater supplies unless appropriate action is
taken to contain the spread of the contaminated groundwater.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The remedial alternatives for the Volney Landfill site were
developed and evaluated using the Comprehensive Environmental,
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(CERCLA), the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR S300.68, and the "Guidance on
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA", as guidance.
The major objective of the FS is to evaluate remedial alterna-
tives using a cost-effective approach consistent with the
goals and objectives of CERCLA. According to Section 121 of
CERCLA, the recommended remedial alternative should protect
human health and the environment, should be cost-effective,
and should utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. The proposed remedy must also attain applicable
or relevant and appropriate federal and state public health
and environmental requirements (ARARs) that have been identified
for the site. Section 300.68(e) of the NCP outlines procedures
and criteria which were used in selecting the most cost-effective
alternative.
A five step process was developed and used to meet the FS objec-
-------
-19-
~
N
LEGEND
. MUNICI'AL WATE" WELLS
APPROXIMATE SCALE
I 0 I ""~E
~ J
. I~ URS ;:o~
2 VII~ ~,
~ ... ~ 11ft ....,.
.
POTENTIAL SURFACE
WATER RECEPTORS
-
-------
-20-
The first step is to evaluate human health and environmental
effects associated with releases and threatened releases of
hazardous substances from the site. Criteria to be considered
are outlined in Section 300.68(e) of the NCP and include such
factors as actual or potential direct contact with hazardous
material, degree of contamination of drinking water, and
exte~t of isolation and/or migration of the contaminants.
The next step is to dev~lop-a-range of potential available
remedial technologies that could be used to remediate the site.
Remedial technologies in which treatment which permanently
and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume
of the hazardous substances as a principal element, are to
be preferred over remedial technologies not involving such
treatment. These technologies are initially screened on a
technical basis. Based on the screening, a list of individual
remedial technologies appropriate to site conditions and
consistent with the remedial action objectives is developed.
-The site-appropriate remedial technologies are then combined
into a number of preliminary remedial alternatives. The basis
for the various combinations are: the technical and logical
interrelationship between separate technologies; Section
300.68(f) of the NCP requirements regarding the general
categories of alternatives which must be considered and
CERCLA Section 121 provisions regarding the preference for
remedial actions that utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment or resource recovery technologi~s. USEPA is in the
process of revising the NCP to reflect these new provisions
added by CERCLA. USEPAs "Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection
of Remedy" memorandum, issued December 24, 1986, is intended to
aid the Agency in the selection of remedial actions pending USEPAs
upcoming revisions of the NCP. This summary reflects that
guidance. USEPAs interim guidance requires analysis of alternatives
involving: 1) treatment options; 2) containment of waste option
with little or no treatment, but providing protection of human
health and the environment primarily by preventing exposure or
reducing the mobility of the waste and 3) the no-action
alternative. These three categories of alternatives must be
carried through the detailed evaluation process, and should
not be eliminated during previous screening processes.
The fourth step in the process is to provide an initial screening
of these alternatives as delineated in Section 300.68(g) of the
NCP. The three broad criteria that should be utilized in the
screening are: the relative effectiveness in minimizing
-------
-21-
the cost of implementing the remedial action. Treatment
options, containment options and the no-action alternative
should be carri~d through this step. This general screening
is intended primarily to reduce the number remedial alternatives
which will subsequently be evaluated in detail.
The final step as outlined in Section 300.68(h) of the NCP is
to conduct a detailed analysis of the _limited number of
alternatives that remain after the initial screening. A
treatment, containment "and no-action alternative should be
included in this analysis. For each alternative, the following
factors, as appropriate, are to be considered:
o
An evaluation in terms of engineering implementation,
reliability, and constructibility:
An assessment of the extent to which the alternative is
expected to effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize
threats to, and provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. This includes an evaluation
of the extent to whch the alternative attains or exceeds
ARARs for the site. Where the analysis determined that
federal and state human health and environmental require-
ments are not applicable or relevant and appropriate,
the analysis, as appropriate, evaluated the risks of the
various exposure levels projected or remaining after
implementation of the alternative under consideration;
o
o
An analysis of whether recycle/reuse, waste minimization,
waste biodegration, or destruction, or other advanced,
innovative, or alternative technologies is appropriate
to reliably minimize present or future threats to human
health and the environment:
o
An analysis of any adverse environmental impacts and meth-
ods for mitigating these impacts, and costs of mitigation:
o
~ detailed cost estimation, includig operation and
maintenance costs, and distribution of costs over time.
This includes a cost comparison of alternatives within
each category.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND INITIAL SCREENING
Source control remedial responses for the Volney Landfill site
will address the site 9roper (fenced area) contamination. A
further definition of the extent of contamination in the
shallow and bedrock groundwater and the potential contamination
of the stream/wetland ecosystems downgradient from the site
-------
-22-
The objective of the proposed source control remedial action
is designed to prevent further contaminant migration from the
site and thus minimizing the threat to human health and the
environment. Criteria established to obtain this objective are:
o Reduce the potential for human/animal direct contact
. with site waste;
o Minimize the migration of landfill leachate through
surface and groundwater; and
o Minimize the potential for precipitation/infiltration
contact with site wastes.
Considering the potential receptors of contamination from the
Volney Landfill, the conformance with regulatory limits (ARARs)
for surface water and groundwater contaminants, and the base-
line risk assessment, it is believed that the primary potential
human health impact of the site is through local contamination
of groundwater, which is a source of potable water for area
residents.
Potential environmental impacts resulting from surface water
contamination of the site are minimal, though contaminated
sediments pose a significant risk to the wetlands downgradient
from the site. A more accurate definition of those impacts
and potential contamination of the shallow and bedrock aquifer
at the site will be addressed in a subsequent operable unit.
For the Volney Landfill, the applicability of certain remedial
technologies is limited from a technical standpoint by site
conditions and oy the site-specific objectives for remedial
action. Due to the physical size and volume of the waste
material at the site (e.g., four million cubic yards) and the
fact that no known "hot spots" of hazardous materials have
. been identified at the landfill, the development of treatment
alternatives ~o satisfy the surface and groundwater ARARs for
this site would be inappropriate. ARARs other than surface
and groundwater will be identified during the alternatives
evaluation, and they will be met to the extent practical.
The technologies appropriate for this site will address
containment of the source of contamination. However, an
alternative technology addressing treatment of the waste will
be carried through the entire alternative evaluation process.
In addition, the no-action alternative and non-treatment
-------
-23-
Source control technologies that are not considered appropriate
for utilization at the Volney Landfill and a brief discussion
of the reasons tor their exclusion are listed in Table 3.
Table 4 lists and briefly describes the technically appropriate
remedial technologies for the Volney Landfill. These
technologies were accepted on the basis that they are compatible
with the specific site conditions and the remedial action
objectives for this operable u~it. These technologies were
then combined into. source-control alternatives. As a result,
twelve remedial action alternatives, as specified in
Table 5, were developed for evaluation.
The twelve remedial alternatives have been subjected to an initial
screening consistent with 40 CFR Section 300.68(g)(1),(2) and
(3) of the NCP to narrow the list of potential remedial
actions for futher detailed analysis. This screening provided
the following results:
o
On-site leachate treatment was estimated to cost
approximately $0.065 per gallon, versus off-site
treatment, whose costs are highly variable but are
estimated at approximately $0.079 per gallon. The
variable costs for treating leachate off-site at a
private or a pUblicly-owned wastewater treatment
facility (POTW) depends not only on the chemical
nature of the leachate, but also the size, design and
operating conditions of the plant, and the regulatory
status of the plant pertaining to acceptance of
extraneous waste streams. 80th technologies will be
carried forward as alternative leachate treatment
methods, since without treatability studies, it is
impossible to conclusively establish the feasibility
of anyon-site leachate treatment process or alternately,
to rule out the need for off-site treatment of leachate.
o
A slurry wall keyed into the relatively impermeable
lodgement till was determined to be a cost-effective
measure for preventing entry of clean water into a
perimeter leachate collection drain, and will be
incorporated as part of all alternatives which include
leachate collection. The slurry wall would be installed
around the northern and southwestern portions of the
-------
-24-
Table 3
Inappropriate Remedial Technologies
...
o
In-situ waste treatment - Impractical due to the unknown
locations of hazardous wastes within the very large land-
'fill volume.
o
Encapsulation of wastes - Better suited for smaller waste
quantities and a larger site area that could physically
accommodate excavation and relocation for encapsulation.
The Volney Landfill site contains a very large quantity
of fill material (approximately 4 million cubic yards)
and insufficient available site area to consider
e ncapsulat ion..
o
Stormwater diversion - The site is located on a topographic
high, therefore, stormwater diversion is unneccessary. The
minor encroachment of the lOa-year flood boundary for Bell
Creek in the extreme northeast corner of the site is
beyond the limits of previous landfilling activities and
beyond the area of potential remedial measures.
o
Supplementary cappinq of landfill top - The landfill top
surface has recently been capped with a membrane liner
underlying a 2 foot compacted soil barrier. Based on the
infiltration analysis in the FS, the averag~ annual
infiltration through the top surface is calculated to be
0.62 inches/year, as compared with 5.91 inches/year
through the side slope surface. Therefore, supplemental
capping of the landfill top would not provide a signifi-
cant reduction in the quantity of leachate generated.
Gas migration controls - Unnecessary due to the recent
design and construction of a gas cOllection/venting
system at the site.
o
o
Bottom sealinq - Bottom sealing of the landfill, by block
displacement or other method, is inappropriate because of
the large size of the site and the lack of geologic data
from immediately under the refuse.
o
Off-site incineration - Both on- and off-site incineration
provide the same degree of remediation. However, the
environmental impacts associated with trans~orting 2
million cubic yards of waste (from the southern portion
of the landfill) to an off-site facility (e.g., increased
truck traffic, increased risk to area residents) make
-------
-25-
Table 4
~- Appropriate Remedial Technologies
o
Excavation and off-site disposal of waste - Aside from its
practical, environmental, and economic disadvantages,
excavation and off-site disposal is a technically feasible
technology. It is assumed that application of this
technology wo~ld req~ire complete excavation of the old
(southern) portion of the landfill, in which the reported
hazardous wastes was buried. This volume is estimated to
be 2 million cubic yards.
On-site incineration - Although potential logistical limi-
tations with on-site incineration exist, the technology
is technically feasible. In evaluating incineration, it
has been assumed, as in the case of excavation and off-site
waste disposal, that the southern area, which is one-half
the total site volume, or approximately 2 million cubic
yards, would be incinerated.
o
o
Supplementary capping of landfill side slopes - The
existing cap on the side slopes consist of a 2-foot layer
of com~acted glacial till, with a design permeability of
1x 10- em/sec. To comply with the current RCRA guidelines
for cap closure of a Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, the
side slopes need to utilize a combination membrane/soil
cap with a 1 x 10-7 cm/sec permeability. This system will
provide a uniform 1 x 10-7 cm/sec permeability cap throughout
the site and it will significantly reduce the infiltration
through the landfill sides. Taking into consideration
the moderately steep side slopes (approximately 20%), this
is a technically feasible and appropriate technology for
the site.
o
Slurry wall - A continuous layer of lodgement till with
an average permeability of 6.7 x 10-5 cm/sec underlies the
site and acts as a relatively impe~eable geologic unit
which can serve as the wall's foundation. The slurry wall
and would be used around portions of the site perimeter in
conjunction with a drain system, to prevent the entry of
clean water into the leachate collection drain.
o
Leachate collection drain - From a technical standpoint,
the drain could be constructed around portions of the
landfill perimeter to intercept lateral groundwater flow
from the site. The drain would rest atop "lodgement till
and will be constructej only along those sections of the
landfill perimeter where there exists a significant depth
of saturated soil overlying lodgement till (i.e., south-
-------
-25a-
- -
Table 4 (continued)
Appropriate Remedial Technologies
o
Off-site leachate treatment - Leachate from the landfill,
which is collected by the existing-leachate collection
system in the newer (~orthern) section of the site, is
presently taken to the City of Fulton municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Continued use of this facility, or
alternate municipal/private treatment facilities, is a
feasible technology for disposal of leachate.
o
On-site leachate treatment - A
technologies are available for
at the Volney Landfill. Among
considered to be most feasible
batch biological treatment and
variety of treatment
on-site treatment of leachate
these, the process train
includes flow equalization,
-------
-~6-
Taole 5
~r~liminary Remedial Action Alternatives
Alternative Number
Description
1
No action with site monitoring
2
Excavation and off-site waste
- disposal
3
Supplementary capping of landfill
side slopes
4
Supplementary capping of landfill
side slopes, slurry wall, leachate
collection drain and off-site
leachate treatment
5
Supplementary capping of landfill
side slopes, slurry wall, leachate
collection drain and on-site
leachate treatment
6
Supplementary capping of landfill
side slopes, leachate collection
drain and off-site leachate
treatment
7
Supplementary capping of landfill
side slopes, leachate collection
drain and on-site leachate
treatment
8
Slurry wall, leachate collection
drain and off-site leachate
treatment
9
Slurry wall, leachate collection
drain and on-site leachate
treatment
10
Lechate collection drain and
off-site leachate. treatment
11
Leachate collection drain, and
on-site leachate treatment
12
-------
27-
DETAILED EVALU~TION OF ALTERNATIVES
As a result of ~he screening process, a total of eight remedial
action alternatives were developed for detailed comparative
evalution at the Volney Landfill site. To be consistent with
CERCLA provisions which promote the use of treatment technologies,
on-site incineration was carried through the screening process.
The no-action alternative was also included in the detailed
evaluation. These eight feasible remedial alternatives, and
their associated capital costs, operation and maintenance
present worth costs and total present worth costs are provided
in Table 6. This table also provides the estimated time to
implement each remedial alternative from the completion of
the RI/FS.
A detailed evaluation of each of the eight alternatives
remaining after the initial screening was conducted in the
RI/FS, consistent with 40 CFR Section 300.68(h) of the NCP.
The non-cost, and cost evaluation criteria were discussed in
the RI/FS.
The detailed analysis of the eight remedial action alternatives
is summarized as follows:
Alternative 1 - NO-Action with Site Monitoring
Evaluation of the no-action alternative is required by the
NCP. This alternative consists of allowing the site to remain
in its existing condition. However, a groundwater monitoring
program would be initiated to allow periodic reassessment of
human health and environmental risks posed by the site.
. The assumed length of long-term groundwater monitoring is 30
years. This monitoring program is directed solely toward
evaluating groundwater quality in the immediate vicinity of
the landfill. In doing so, it would provide a data base for
ongoing assessment of health risks associated with groundwater
contamination, and a basis for evaluating the effectiveness
of remedial measures to be implemented at the landfill. It
would not, however, specifically address the impact of the
~ite upon surface water quality, nor would it attempt to
establish the limits of groundwater contamination, originating
from the site, in horizontal or vertical directions. These
objectives will be addressed as part of a recommended
-------
-2-
KEY MAP
New TOI'. 'T.~
UCIfAW...A
..'UO.O -....
(OIWIIO UA-
UWIS
CO"~I
4 VOLNEY I.ANOf'IU. IITI
N
- -
---
APPROXIMATE SCA1.E
I 0 1 ..11.1
Wli~ :::'u~P:~
..." .... .... ...,
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE I
-------
-.)-
/
.j''')
1- ./
/' c",
,
/
N
- .
l
\
\
.
~ £''''Ox, LIMITS 0' SO\ITHPH ~r;CTIOH (,,,r;.1I7SI
URS C~~~L~:.mp;~
N(W 'I'OItIr lib ~
APPROXIMATE
SCAL.E
zoo 0 roo 'UT
~
SITE LAYOUT MAP
-------
\ltt!rnative
Number
1
2
3
4a
4b
Sa
5b
6
Components
No Action with Site Monitoring
Excavation and Off-Site Waste Disposal
Supplementary Capping of Landfill
Side Slopes
Slurry Wall with Leachate Collection
and Off-Site Leachate Treatment
Slurry Wall with Leachate Collection
and On-Site Leachate Treatment
Supplemental Capping and Slurry Wall
with Leachate Collection and Off-Site
Leachate Treatment
Supplemental Capping and Slurry Wall
with Leachate Collection and On-Site
Leachate Treatment
On-Site Incineration
Remedial All
)le 6
"t i ves Summa ry
Capital
($ x 103)
Total Costs
o . M Present Worth
($ x 103) ($ x 103)
538,264
8,672
7,218
7,553
12,154
12,876
799,064
2,916
2 , 0 20
882
691
211
271
271
271
538,5J5
328
9,000
10,194
9,573
13,636
13,567
799,335
Tillie to
Implelllent
from RI/FS
o yrs.
5
3
3
3
3
3
7
Comments
Will not protect
human health and
env i ronlllent.
.',1
2 million c~bic yds.
Under SA~- ~Least
favored al ternat i ve8.'
Prevents direct
contact risk but
does not eliminate
leachate migration.
Does not comply with
RCRA.
Does not comply with
RCRA.
I
f',.'
0::
I
Effective in elimin.
direct contact and
reducing leachate
miyration. Complies
wi th RCRA.
Same as Alternative
5a.
2 million cubic yds.
Insufficient space
availaole to site
-------
-29-
For resideQtial and monitoring well sample locations, reference
is made to.the baseline health risk assessment conducted in
the RI/FS, whi~h utilized data from selected residential and
monitoring wells to evaluate potential health risks associated
with contaminated groundwater in the site's vicinity. 'These
previously selected well locations are, with some modifications,
considered appropriate for long-term groundwater monitoring.
Table 7 summarizes the proposed long-term groundwater monitoring
program at the site. T~~ locations of sampling points referred
to on this table 'a-re shown in Figure 5.
To evaluate seasonal fluctuations in groundwater quality, it
is recommended that initially, for a period of two years, all
residential and monitoring wells be sampled and analyzed on a
quarterly basis. Thereafter, the program frequency could be
substantially reduced, unless the data indicates the need for
more frequent monitoring. From the third year onward, it is
recommended, pending review of the initial two years' data,
that sampling and analysis be reduced to an annual basis.
Further, it is estimated, that after the second year, the
number of monitoring wells sampled could selectively be reduced
to one-half the number used initially (i.e., from 16 to 8).
The closure plan that was implemented by the County of
Oswego will not be considered a component of the no-action
alternative. The County's leachate collection system,
off-site leachate disposal operations and monitoring of
residential wells would continue to be operated by the County'
independent of the CERCLA no-action alternative.
The no-action alternative is not appropriate at this site
because it would not provide protection to human health and
the environment since it would continue to allow migration of
contaminants into the groundwater. The majority of leachate
generated at the site is due to infiltration of the landfill
side slopes. If these side slopes are left in their present
condition, precipitation at the site would continue to leach
mobile contaminants from the source. As a result, the potential
for contaminants from the site to reach the private wells in
the area would increase.
This alternative is also not consistent with the requirements
of RCRA Section 264.310, which requires closure and Post-closure
-------
-30-
- .
TABLE 7
PROPOSED LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITOPING PROGRAM
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Residential Wells
Monitoring Wells.
RW-IA
RW-IB
RW-2
RW-3A
RW-3B.
RW-4
RW-S.
RW-6
RW-7
R"'-10
RW-11
GW-3C
GW-3D
GW-5
. GW-7R
GW-9
GW -llA
GW-12A
GW-14A .
GW-17
SGW-28
VBW-1
VBW-2
VBW-3S
VBW-3BR
VPW-13
VBW-16
. Reduce number of monitorina
wells from 16 to 8 after 2nd
year
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
HSL Volatile Organics
Total Phenols
Meta 15 :
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Tha ll1um
Zinc
Leachate Indicators:
Alkalinity
Ammonia Nitrogen
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Hardness (Calcium)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Specific Conductance..
pH.*
Temperature**
** Field Measurement
SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Years 1 through 2: Quarterly
-------
\
(l~~ 0 \
POTTER SPRING .SW-I ('
Il.. to L
I .
I' SGW-29 " ...
"""" \t. :tSW-Z
f' SGW-30A,B. '}3
. GW-II
SW-3 SW-4 .SGW-!.
SGW-28 +.
. GW-nO GW.9 . SGW-!!
, .GW-24 .= . \
, GW-IO \ ..
RW-II cn:;% \ 't;,
~O"'~J?D 0 + GW-!I. GW1 ,
J?O~D Q . . ~ .
RW-~+ .tw- SGW-Z7A,B GW-IS '\
NIAGARA MOH&.c GW-X,D GW-ZS
GARAGE SGW-U. GW-6R. GW':~~W-3A:o GWO: \
LEGEND . GW-ltA RW-3B+ GW-::.'7 \\
. SURFACE WATER SITE 1 i.
. MONITORING WELL '" .i. sw-e
+ RESIDENTIAL WELL L l.
C BUILDINGS
-31-
.
NOTE: THE EXACT- LOCATION OF THE
FOI.I.OWING SAMPI.ES IS UNKNOWN,
EXCEPT THATiHE! WERE TAKEN
NEAR THE: ON-SITE .,-aJIL;DINGS,
OVL- I (SUMP)
OVL - 2 (TANK)
OVL - 3 (PUMP)
+ RW- 2
1000
o
1000 FEn
'"
o
N
N
,
C
SOURCE: GERAGHTY AND MILLER (1986)
URS ~~':L~:C;mp;:l~
ItEW ~ IIEW oIrJar:'\'
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
fIGURE 5
-------
-32-
Without ef;ective source control, contaminants from the site
would contin~e to migrate through the groundwater and could
potentially reach the private drinking water wells in the
area. In addition, surface breakouts of leachate through the
side slopes would continue.
There are no capital costs associated with the no-action
alternative since the existing monitoring well network will
be utilized. The 30 year present worth operation and mainte-
nance (O&M) cost for the-no-action alternative is estimated
to be $271,000.
Alternative 2 - Excavation and Off-Site Waste Disposal
This alternative involves excavation of the old (southern)
section of the landfill, with subsequent transportation to
and disposal at a.RCRA permitted off-site landfill. Since
the specific location of hazardous wastes at the site is
unknown, (other than the waste was deposited in the old portion
of the landfill) it has been assumed that the entire southern
portion of the landfill (approximately 2 million cubic yards)
would have to be excavated (See Figure 2). Although there
are several off-site RCRA landfills in western New York State
located approximately 200 miles from the Volney landfill, the
likelihood of any single commercial off-site landfill having
the capacity to accept these wastes is very small. Ther~fore,
the off-site disposal aspect of this alternative is treated
generically with an average transportation distance assumed
to be 400 miles. A groundwater monitoring program would also
be implemented as a component of this alternative.
Since it is oelieved that virtually all the hazardous wastes
are contained in the southern portion of the landfill, excavating
the fill from this section would effectively eliminate the
contaminant source. However, any contaminants which may
potentially be migrating from the site via surface and groundwater
would not be addressed by this alternative.
The off-site transportation and disposal operations under
this alternative would be subject to RCRA regulations 40 CFR
Sections 262 and 263. These regulations include requirements
for containerization, manifesting and transportation of
excavated materials. In addition, Section l2l(d) (3) of CERCLA
states that any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant
shall only be transferred to a facility which is operating in
compliance with Section 3004 and 3005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act or other applicable environmental law. The
-------
-33-
with relevant. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations specified in 29 CFR Section 1910.120.
.
The short-term risks associated with this alternative are
substantial. Since excessive off-site transportation of
waste materials would occur with this alternative, there is
an increased potential risk of accidents that may result in
discharge of contaminated materials to the environment. In
addition, there would be a~ increase in truck traffic in the
local communi ty. .
Excavation and removal of the entire south section of the
landfill would create problems from both a construction and
implementation standpoint. The logistics of excavating and
transporting 2 million cubic yards of fill material and the
capability of a secure RCRA landfill to accept this quantity
of material is a major issue. Excavation in the waste fill
could easily cause landfill fires since there are dry sections
within the fill and explosions from continued methane gas
pockets is a possiOility also.
Alternative 2 is not consistent with Section 121(b)(1) of
CERCLA since the off-site tran$port and disposal of hazardous
substances without treatment is the least favored alternative
remedial action where practical treatment technologies are
availabl~. Even though practical treatment of the entire 2
million cubic yards of contaminated fill is not plausable,
technologies can ~e implemented that will partially reduce the
toxicity, mooility or volume of the wastes at the site.
The capital cost for site excavation and off-site waste
disposal is estimated to be $538,264,000. The 30 year present
worth O&M cost is $271,000 and the total present worth
is estimated to be $538,535,000.
While the implementation of this alternative (which is estimated
to take approximately 5 years from the completion of the RI/FS)
would provide effective and complete removal of the contaminants
in the southern portion of the landfill, the associated
impacts to the community due to waste handling aspects of
.excavation, would be prohiOitive. Since alternatives are
available that would meet the source control objective of
this operable unit at a significantly lower cost and still
provide protection to human health and the environment, this
-------
-J4-
Alternative~3- - Supplemental Capping of Side Slopes
.
The purpose of supplementary capping is to reduce leachate
generation and migration from the site. This cap would. reduce
the majority of infiltration through the landfill side slopes.
This alternative involves capping approximately 35 acres
lying between the limits of the existing PVC membane liner
and compacted lodgement til~, .and a line lying parallel to
and approximately .~5 fe~~ beyond the existing limits of
refuse. This offset allows the cap to be extended over a
potential perimeter leachate collection drain and/or slurry
wall. The supplementary cap would be placed over the existing
2 foot layer of compacted, seeded lodgement till as follows:
Existing vegetation would be removed from the surface by
scraping, and the resulting loosened surface would be recom-
pacted by rolling. A 6-inch layer of sand would be added
to provide support for a GO-mil high density polyethlene
(HDPE) liner, textured to reduce the possibility of sliDpage
by the overlying drainage layer. Above the HDPE membrane,
a 24-inch layer of sand would be placed, followed by a
12-inch layer of topsoil or suitably amended native soil.
The surface would be fine-graded, seeded and mulched.
The landfill side slopes presently range from 15 to 25 percent
and the cover includes a 2-foot thickness of compacted glacial
till with a design permeability of 1 x 10-5 em/sec. Section.
300.68(i) of the NCP, and Section 121 of CERCLA states that
CERCLA remedial actions should comply with ARARs. For covers
at CERCLA sites, this means that the RCRA technical requirements
contained in 40 CFR Section 264.310 are relevant and appropriate
for the Volney Landfill site, and should be met. Recommended
guidance that has been developed for meeting the five regulatory
requirements are stated in Section 264.310. This policy
requires that at a minimum, the final cover at hazardous
waste sites consist of a vegetative top cover, a middle drainage
layer, and a low permeability bottom layer. The low permeability
bottom layer must include at least two feet of soil recompacted
-------
-35-
1 x 10-7 cm/~~c. The 60-mil HDPE liner of the pro~osed
supplemental side slope cap would meet the 1 x 10- cm/sec
permeability requirement. This would also result in a uniform
closure of the entire site, since the landfill top currently
employs a 1 x 10-7 cm/sec permeability Cover. The combination
membrane and soil barrier that would be installed will minimize
the. erosion and abrasion that is currently taking place on
the side slopes and will p~event further deterioration of the
existing soil cap~ Std~ slope capping is also consistent
with remedial actions taken at other similar sites (Combe Fill
South, GEMS and Helen Kramer NPL sites).
Due to the relatively steep side slopes of the existing
landfill and the insufficient site area available for regrading
the landfill, the proposed supplemental capping would not meet
the minimum slope requirements of between 3 to 5% or a soil
loss of less than 2.0 tons/acre/year, as stated in the RCRA
guidance for the vegetated top Cover. However, regrading of
the fill may be incorporated into the final cover design so
as to provide la-foot wide terraces at vertical elevation
changes of approximately 20 feet. These terraces would
reduce erosion and provide access to the landfill side slopes
for future maintenance. The design phase would further
provide a detailed erosion/sediment control plan, especially
addressing the sand layer overlying the HDPE liner. At the
same time, safegaurds need to be established to prevent
damage to the existing membrane liner and gas collection
system on the top of the landfill.
Supplementary capping of the side slopes, not in conjunction
with other remedial components, only reduces the quantity of
leachate generated at the site and does not prevent the
leachate from migrating away from the site.
The estimated time to implement Alternative 3 from the
completion of the RI/FS is 3 years.
This alternative will also include a long-term monitoring
program.
The capital cost associated with supplemental capping of the
35 acres of landfill side slopes is estimated to be $8,672,000.
The 30 year present worth O&M cost is $328,UOO and the total
present worth cost for' this alternative is $9,000,000. Based
on the above discussion, Alternative 3 will be retained for
-------
-36-
Alternativ~4~ - Slurry Wall with Leachate Collection and
Off-Site Leachate Treatment
Leachate collection involves the installation of a gravel
trench drain and accompanying slurry wall around portions of
the landfill perimeter where there exists a significant depth
of saturated sediments overlying lodgement till. Based upon
current estimates, these conditions occur along two sections
of the perimeter: (a) around the north side of the site
and (b) around the "southwest corner of the site. The gravel
drain would consist of a stone-filled trench, four feet wide,
lined with filter fabric, and installed by excavation with
temporary sheet piling. The drain would be excavated to the
top of the lodgement till surface. At its two low points in
the north drain segment, and at one in the southwest segment,
collection wells would be installed consisting of l4-inch
diameter stainless steel wells with stainless steel pumps and
controls. These pumps would discharge leachate via an under-
ground force main from the collection system to an equaliza-
_tion/storage facility, for off-site treatment.
The slurry wall accompanying the drain would be located on
the outside of the drain, to minimize the entry of clean.
water into the collection system from beyond the landfill
limits. The slurry wall would be backfilled with soil and
bentonite mixture, using soil excavated from the trench, and
it would be keyed approximately 3 feet into the relatively
impermeable (6.7 x 10-5 cm/sec) lodgement till.
Off-site leachate treatment involves treating the leachate
at a local POTW. At the present time, leachate collected
from the newer (northern) portion of the Volney Landfill is
treated at the Fulton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Negotiations
for long-term leachate treatment with an acceptable treatment
facility would be undertaken during the remedial design.
Although the feasibility and cost of using a facility on a
long-term basis has not been established, the cost of off-site
leachate treatment has been generically estimated at $0.079
per gallon, which includes a transportation cost of $0.01 per
gallon. This alternative for off-site treatment of the
leachate also includes the construction of a 1,000,000 gallon
concrete storage tank on-site. Based on an average leachate
flow of 13,000 gal/day, this proposed storage tank will be
able to provide storage for approximately 77 days of normal
-------
-37-
During the ~esign of the leachate storage tank for off-site
treatment, ~~eterrnination would have to be made whether or not
the tank would Qe used for more than 90 day leachate storage.
If the residence time for hazardous waste leachate in the
tank is expected to exceed 90 days, then RCRA would be relevant
and appropriate. The new RCRA tank regulations (40 CFR
264.190 to 264.199) which became effective January 12, 1987
incl~de a requirement for secondary containment as well as
design and construction spe~ifications. These mOdifications,
if deemed necessary, woUrd be addressed during the remedial
design phase.
In addition to the above requirements, an EPA policy memorandum
dated April 15, 1986 (see attached) addresses the discharge
of wastewater from CERCLA sites into POTWs. This memorandum
requires that adequate analyses beperforrned to demonstrate
that the CERCLA discharage will not cause plant upset or
contravention of water quality standards. A determination as
to which POTW or alternative leachate treatment facility
would be used to treat the Volney leachate and the status of
their compliance with appropriate permits would be made during
the remedial design phase. A treatability study would also be
conducted to determine whether the specific leachate characteris-
tics are able to be treated effectively by the proposed treat-
ment facility, so as not to cause contravention of appropriate
water quality standards. .
The function of the perimeter leachate drain for this
alternative is to collect leachate migrating laterally outward
away from the landfill. Because of this site's irregular
stratigraphy, however, it is anticipated that this drainage
collection system would effectively intercept most, but not
all of the estimated 13,000 gal/day of leachate flowing from
the landfill. This alternative provides physical containment
of most of the contaminants within the landfill, although the
quantity of leachate being generated would not be significantly
reduced. This is due to the insufficient cap on the landfill
side s~opes resulting in substantial infiltration. Therefore,
this alternative does not comply with the Section 264.310
provisions of RCRA regarding final Covers at facilities that
manage hazardous wastes.
Utilizing the drain without an accompanying slurry wall
would result in significant quantities of clean groundwater
flowing into the leachate collection system. It has been
estimated during the RI/FS that the slurry wall would be
capable of preventing 90 percent of the clean groundwater
flow from outside the limits of the landfill from reaching
the drain and consequently reduce the volume of leachate that
-------
-38-
The cost fo~treating leachate generated from this site at a
publicly owned or private wastewater treatment facility is
highly variable.- It depends not only upon the chemical
nature of the leachate, but also the size, design and operating
condition of the plant; the regulatory status of the plant
regarding acceptance of extraneous waste streams and the
owner, of the facility generating leachate (e.g., public or
private). For purposes of this alternative analysis, a cost
for leachate treat~ent has b~en estimated at $0.079 per
gallon.
The perimeter leachate drain, like supplemental capping of
the landfill side slopes is feasible to construct, but pre-
cautions need to be taken to assure successful implementation.
The gravel fill drain will extend to depths as great as 40
feet, requiring the use of temporary sheeting during construction.
In addition, the placement of filter fabric along the drain
and installation of collection wells at its low points will
require careful planning and construction management.
Wall failure related to physical stress/strain can cause
cracking and seepage through the slurry wall; however, this
type of failure is expected to be rare. Should this failure
occur, one of three restoration methods is recommended: grouting; .
re-excavation and re-backfilling or installation of a
synthetic liner in the areas suspect to failure.
Neither supplementary capping nor leachate collection are 100
percent effective at preventing leachate generation or collecting
leachate, respectively. In combination, however, they reinforce
one another and provide the maximum possible reduction of
leachate migration from the site. The estimated time to
implement Alternative 4a from the completion of the RI/fS is
3 years. .
The capital cost associated with installation of the slurry
, wall with leachate collection and off-site leachate treatment
is estimated to be $7,218,000. The 30 year present worth O&M
cost are $2,976,000 and the total present worth cost for this
alternative is $10,194,000. Based on the previous evaluation,
-------
-39-
Alternative 4b - Slurry Wall with Leachate Collection and On-
Site Leachate Treatment
The soil and bentonite slurry wall with accompanying leachate
collection system discussed previously for Alternative 4a
would also be utilized with alternati~e 4b. Rather than
utilize off-site treatm~~t of-leachate as discussed in Alterna-
tive 4a, this alternative will focus on treating the leachate
on-site.
A preliminary leachate treatment system was considered during
the RI/FS and was based on optimum organic removal, since
organics are the major contaminants detected on-site. This
system would not consider metals removal from leachate prior to
discharge to surface water since maximum concentrations
detected in groundwater would not exceed limits specified by
New York State Water Quality Standards for surface water.
Metals removal, however, may be required pending further
detailed analysis of the data during the remedial design.
Based upon determinations made during the FS, the optimum
process train for on-site treatment appears to include flow
equalization, biological treatment and carbon adsorption.
Major equipment items needed for this system would include a .
150,000 gallon equalization/storage facility, a 50,000 gallon
sequenced biological reactor (with manual powdered activated
carbon addition) and a filter press. The design of process
equipment for on-site t~eatment is based upon the expected
rate of leachate generation and delivery to the system under
existing conditions, without supplementary capping of the
landfill side slopes.
Treated effluent would be discharged to Bell Creek. A deter-
mination as to the potential toxicity and final disposal of
sludge produced from this on-site treatment process would be
made during a treatability study during the remedial design.
The treatment plant would be located in the eastern portion
9f the site. Although other locations are possible, this one
is easily accessible from Silk Road, and provides a direct
effluent discharge route to Bell Creek, yet it does not
encroach onto the landfill surface or into the lUO-year flood
-------
-40-
phase for on--site leachate treatment is bench scale or pilot
scale treatabil~ty study testing. This would be required to
determine the effectiveness of the selected unit processes,
individually and collectively, with actual leachate from the
Volney Landfill site. In addition, this testing would establish
final design parameters for these processes. Pending the
treatability study results, certain processes may have to be
added, deleted or modified. .
On-site leachate treatment would necessitate a significant
amount of operation and maintenance (O&M). O&M considerations
include personnel requirements, daily operating procedures,
utilities and auxiliary materials. The proposed on-site
leachate treatment system would operate in a batch mode, five
days per week, eight hours per day, and would require utilizing
one person per day to operate the plant.
Treating the leachate on-site with an effluent discharge to Bell
Creek may require a New York State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permit. Parameters to be monitored for in the
permit will be better defined following the treatability study
during remedial design.
The 150,000 gallon tank in the case of on-site leachate treatment.
would be considered exempt from RCRA administrative requirements
pertaining to the 90 day storage tank regulations. However,
the substantiative technical requirements of the regulation
would need to be followed. The other wastewater treatment
system components would also be exempt from the administrative,
not the substantiative requirements of RCRA regarding secondary
containment, since they are considered an integral part of the
treatment system.
Alternative 4b utilizing on-site leachate treatment is not a
direct waste treatment technology, however, it is determined
to be more in conformance with the CERCLA preference for utiizing
on-site treatment than the off-site leachate treatment option.
Alternative 4b does not utilize supplemental capping of the
side slopes, therefore, this option does not comply with RCRA
Section 264.310 provisions pertaining to final covers at
facilities that manage hazardous wastes.
The estimated time to implement this Alternative from the
completion of the RI/FS is 3 years. The estimated capital
cost for the slurry wall with leachate collection and on-site
leachate treatment is approximately $7,553,000. The 30 year
present worth O&M cost is $2,020,000 and the total present
worth for this alternative is $9,573,000. Based on the above
discussion, Alternative 4b will be retained for further
-------
-41-
- -
Alternative Sa ~ Supplemental Capping and Slurry Wall with
Leachate Collection and Off-Site Leachate Treatment
The slurry wall with accompanying leachate collection system
and off-site leachate treatment previously evaluated in
Alternative 4a would also be utilized with Alternative Sa.
additional component to thi~ alternati~e is supplemental
capping of the landfill- side slopes.
An
Since each of the individual components comprising this
alternative have been discussed in previous alternatives
evaluation, this analysis will be directed at the overall
benefit or detriment derived from combining these components
into Alternative Sa.
The primary advantage of combining supplementary capping of
the landfill side slopes with leachate collection is the
reduction to the maximum extent practical of lateral leachate
migration from the landfill thereby protecting human health
and the environment. This would in effect reduce the
long-term O&M cost associated with leachate collection, and
the cost associated with ultimate off-site leachate treatment.
Utilizing the supplemental cap will comply with the technical
requirements of RCRA and will virtually eliminate the direct
contact threat. This cap would also minimize the erosion and
abrasion that is currently taking place on the side slopes, and
would eliminate the physical deficiencies of the existing side
slope cap.
In addition to the lower cost associated with reduced leachate
generation and handling, a far more important result is the
higher degree of protection provided to the human health and
the environment. As pointed out in the baseline risk assessment
conducted during the RI/FS, monitoring well data indicates
that there is a potential health risk associated with
toxic chemicals from the site, but there exists a definable
risk related to certain carcinogenic chemicals. This same
assessment determined that data from residential wells near
the site does not indicate any present health risk associated
with toxic or carcinogenic chemicals migrating from the site.
Since this alternative of combining supplementary capping and
leachate collection provides the greatest reduction of leachate
migrating from the site, the overall potential toxic and
carcinogenic risk to the residents in the area is also reduced
to the greatest extent practical. Since the quantity of hazardous
surface water runoff from the site would be virtually eliminated,
Alternative Sa also provides a high degree of protection to
-------
-42-
The off-site leachate treatment component of Alternative Sa
still has the ~ame limitations as previously discussed in
Alternative '4a. These include, RCRA regulations regarding
storage tank design, compliance with appropriate permits for
treatment, and the uncertainty of an acceptable off-site
facility to receive the leachate. In addition, CERCLA policy
which promotes on-site treatment will not be satisfied.
The estimated time to implement Alternative Sa from the
completion of the RI/FS is 3 years.
.-
The capital cost for supplemental capping and slurry wall
with leachate collection and off-site leachate treatment is
estimated to be $12,754,000. The present worth O&M costs are
$882,000 and the total present worth cost is $13,636,000.
Based on the previous discussion, Alternative Sa will be
retained for further consideration.
Alternative Sb - Supplemental Capping and Slurry Wall with
Leachate Collection and On-Site Leachate Treatment
The difference between this alternative and Alternative Sa is
the substitution of off-site leachate treatment with on-site
leachate treatment. The evaluation of the remaining components
in this alternative has been presented in the previous
discussion of Alternative Sa.
The on-site leachate treatment component of Alternatve Sb.
still has the same advantages and disadvantages as previously
discussed in Alternative 4b. Based on available data from
the RI/FS, the process train selected for treating the leachate
on-site would include flow equalization, biological treatment
and carbon adsorption. All tanks that are an integral component
of the on-site treatment system would be exempt from RCRA
administrative, not substantiative requirements regarding
storage tank regulations. However, since the effluent will
be discharged into Bell Creek, a New York State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit may be required.
Alterna~ive 5b, which utilizes supplemental capping with
leachate collection and on-site leachate treament, is in
conformance with the specific objective (source control) of
this operable unit and thereby provides a high overall degree
of risk reduction to the residents and environment in the
area. This alternative is also considered in conformance
with CERCLA preference for utilizing on-site treatment and
RCRA Section 264.310 closure requirements for hazardous
waste landfills. As pointed out earlier, however, treatability
study testing would be required during the remedial design
phase to determine the effectiveness of selected unit processes
with actual leachate from the Volney Landfill site. This
uncertainity as to the specific treatment scheme to be utilized,
along with the high level of O&M requirements and the need to
conform with SPDES requirements, limit the potential utilization
-------
-43-
The estimated time to implement Altertive 5b from the completion
of the RI/FS is 3 years.
The capital cost for supplemental capping of the side slopes,
slurry wall with leachate collection and on-site leachate
treatment is estimated to be $12,876,000. The present worth
O&M 'costs are $691,000 and the total present worth for Alternative
5b is $13,567,000. Base~ on-the above discussion, Alternative 5b
is retained for further consideration.
Alernative 6 - On-Site Incineration
This alternative involves excavation and on-site incineration
of the old (southern) section of the landfill, encompassing an
estimated 2 million cubic yards of waste materials. Since
the specific location of hazardous wastes at the site is not
known with any certainty, (other than the waste that was
deposited in the old portion of the landfill) it has been
assumed that the entire southern portion of the landfill
- would have to be excavated and incinerated.
To incinerate the two million cubic yards of waste material,
a total of ten transportable rotary kiln incine~ator units,
each with a capacity of 150 tons/day, would be brought to the
site and operated 24 hours/day,S days/week for approximately
five years. The RI/FS assumed that the resulting ash from
incinerating the wastes would be delistable (a procedure to
determine if the residuals are non-hazardous), therefore, the
nclean" material could be finally disposed of at a nearby
nonhazardous waste facility. This is a difficult assumption
to make in the absence of a treatability study or test burn.
The material at the landfill could contain highly elevated
concentrations of inorganics (e.g., lead or chromium) which
may not be destroyed by conventional incineration or thermal
destruction methods. The residual ash would still be considered
hazardous and would have to be disposed of at an approved
RCRA landfill or dispossed on-site in conformance with RCRA
regultions; both of which would not be cost-effective. A
determination of whether the volume of soil will be reduced
,or increased as a result of this alternative will be made
during the trial/test burns.
An additional limitation with the incineration alternative is the
available area to house these ten units. Sufficient area within
the fenced area of the site for these trailer mounted transportable
-------
-44-
c -
Since the incinerators would be operating on-site, federal
and state and local permits would not be required for this
remedial action. However, CERCLA requires that the remedial
action comply with the technical requirements of applicable or
relevant and appropriate environmental laws. Relevant and
appropriate RCRA regulations that apply to owners and operators
of hazardous waste incinerators are found in 40 CFR Sections
264.340 to 264.99~. -
Alternative 6 requires the highest level of operational require-
ments of the remedial action alternatives evaluated. It would
take approximately 5 years to incinerate the entire southern
portion of the site. Therefore, the estimate time to implement
this Alternative from the RI/FS completion is 7 years. Some
operational requirements that are necessary to implement the
remedial action include, supplemental fuel in case the BTU
value of the fill material is not suffcient, operation of
each unit, specific monitoring of the air emissions and
residual ash, and excavation and final disposal of ash.
Should pending trial/test burns determine that the fill material
could be incinerated and delisted, this alternative would be
most effective in conforming with the CERCLA preference for
permanently destroying the wastes on-site. .
The capital cost for on-site incineration is estimated to be
$799,064,000. The 30 year present worth O&M costs are $271,000
and the total present worth for Alternative 6 is $779,335,000.
Based on the above evaluation, Alternative 6 is not considered
for further consideration.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Pollution Abatement Services (PAS) of Oswego is an NPL site
occupying about 15 acres of land immediately east of the City
of Oswego, New York. During the operation of the PAS site,
wastes were taken off-site and were allegedly disposed of at
the Volney Landfill, Fulton Terminals and the Clothier Disposal
NPL sites.
Thoughout the Volney Landfill site's history, community
concern and involvement has been high. Local citizens have
organized the following four groups to address the community
concerns regarding the above sites: Fulton Safe Drinking
Water Action Committee for Environmental Concerns, Inc. .
(FSDWA)~ NOMORE~ S.T.O.P.~ and Toxic Action Coalition. The
latter of these groups was established to tie the other three
-------
-45-
- -
Each of these g~oups and the local community are extremely
concerned ~bout issues pertaining to the sites, such as the
extent of contamination and its public health impact, the
proposed remediation and the timing for implementing the
remedy at each of the sites. Of the above groups, S.T.O.P.'s
concerns regarding the Volney Landfil~ were directed toward
opposing the siting of the Bristol Hill Landfill in the area.
This landfill has-been -operating since September 1983 and is
located approximately two miles southwest of the site.
VariQus public information meetings have been conducted
throughout the sites' NPL history to inform the community
of the remediation progress. The public review and comment
period for the draft RI/FS prepared by the State's consultant,
URS Company, Inc. was initiated on May 26, 1987. FOllowing a
request for extension of the public comment period by the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), the comment period
was extended an additional twenty-one days to July 15, 1987,
. resulting in a total of 45 days for the public comment period.
The public repositories for the draft RI/FS are the Volney
Town Clerk's Office, Fulton City Library, FSDWA/S.T.O.P office
and the NYSDEC Region 7 Office in Liverpool, NY. The public
was notified of the RI/FS availability by a press release which
appeared in the Syracuse Post Standard (Oswego edition) and
the Palladium Times. A public meeting was held on June 15,
1987 at the Volney Town Hall, which was attended by approximately
seventy-five people, including local citizens groups, elected
officials, the press, and area residents.
A summary of the comments raised concerning the RI/FS and
public meeting are contained in the attached responsiveness
summary. The local community is generally in agreement with
the proposed remedy. The responsiveness summary also includes
a copy of press release announcing the meeting and an attendance
list for the public meeting.
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
.PRPs at the Volney Landfill site fall within three general
categories. Namely, owner/operator, direct contributor and
generators of drummed waste which was sent to the PAS site
through January 1975 which may have been redisposed of at the
Volney site (PAS Generators). Although some direct contributors
have been tentatively identified, the search for additional
-------
-46-
Notice letters for the ~erformance of the RI/FS were sent to
the PAS Generators on March 21, 1985. On June 5, 1987, the
USEPA informed PRPs of, among other things, their ~otentia1
liability at the site, the availability of the RI/FS report,
the close of the ~ublic comment ~eriod and the cost incurred
by the government at the site to date.-
The USEPA intends -t-o send notice to the PRPs in accordance wi th
the S~ecial Notice Procedures outlined in Section 122(e) of
CERCLA, u~on approval of the ROD. The PRPs will be afforded
sixty days from recei~t of such notice to make a ~roposal to
finance or undertake the activities required in the ROD.
The USEPA will evaluate such a ~ro~osal and will determine if
the ~roposal is a substantial one which warrants a sixty day
extension for negotiations. If no such proposal is made, or
if the pro~osal is not a substantial one as deemed by the
USEPA, then the USEPA will consider the issuance of an Adminis-
trative Order ~ursuant to Section 106(a) of CERCLA and/or
take response actions consistent with Section 104(a) of
-------
-47-
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
According to 40 CFR Section 300.68(i) of the NCP, the appropriate
extent of remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's
selection of a.cost-effective remedial alternative that
effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
addition, CERCLA requires protection to human health and the
environment, which is cost-effective and utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery options, and attains federal and state ARARs to the
greatest extent practicable.
Eight remedial alternatives were previously evaluated in detail.
Table 4 lists each alternative and their associated present
worth costs. This table is not intended to compare costs
between each alternative since the alternatives provide
different degrees of remediation. For example, Alternative
6, on-site incineration, could potentially eliminate the source
of contamination but at a very high cost. In contrast,
Alternative Sb provides containment of the source at a much
lower cost. These two alternatives should, therefore, not be
compared in terms of cost since one provides treatment while
the other involves containment. Alternatives that provide
the same degree of remediation (e.g., 4a, 4b, Sa, Sb) can be
compared to one another in terms of cost. Again, cost is
only one of many factors to consider when comparing alternatives.
The no-action alternative was found to provide inadequate
protection of human health and the environment since contaminated
landfill leachate would continue to migrate from the site
without any source control. In addition, leachate breakouts
and volatilization would continue to occur at the site.
The excavation and off-site waste disposal alternative and
the on-site incineration alternative would require that the
entire southern portion of the site (e.g., 2 million cubic
yards) be excavated and incinerated, respectively. Both
remedies would deal with the fill material only and not
addre$s the contaminants migrating from the site via surface
or groundwater. Due to the unknown availability and compliance
status of an off-site facility to accept the excavated waste
and the CERCLA preference for on-site treatment of the wastes,
'off-site disposal is the least favored option. Since the
composition of the fill material itself is not known, the
ability of an incinerator to produce a non-hazardous end
product is questionable. The potential short-term risks to
the pUblic, due to waste handling aspects, is also a limiting
factor. Due to these constraints and the limited available
area to house the on-site incineration units, this alternative
-------
-48-
Supplement~ry capping of the landfill side slopes by itself,
will not adequctely protect the public from the potential
contamination to the private drinking water wells. The
quantity of leachate that will oe generated will be significantly
reduced, however, a collection system would be absent from this
alternative. This remedy would therefore not be appropriate.
Alternatives 4a and 4b Qrovide a leachate collection system
with either off-site or on-site treatment. These alternatives
however, do not reduce the large quantity of leachate that is
generated through the landfill side slopes, therefore, they.
do not comply with RCRA provislons for final covers at hazardous
waste sites. CERCLA prefers a remedy whereby the volume of
contamination is significantly reduced. Since alternatives
do exist (e.g., Sa and Sb) that provide a significant reduction
in the volume and mobility of hazardous wastes without a
significant increase in cost, Alternatives 4a and 4b are not
recommended.
Of all the containment remedies considered, the combination
of supplementary capping of the landfill side slopes and
. leachate collection (Alternatives Sa and Sb) provides the
highest degree of protection to the human health and the
environment. Supplemental capping will significantly reduce
the quantity of leachate generated, thereby reducing the long-
term O&M cost associated with maintaining the leachate collection
system. Collection and treatment of the leachate will adequately
reduce the potential risk to the residents who depend on
private drinking water wells in the area for their source of
potable water thereby providing protection to human health and
the environment. In addition, this recommended remedy would
meet all federal and state ARARs.
Both the on-site and off-site leachate treatment options
provide the same degree of remediation. On-site treatment
would involve flow equalization, biological treatment and
carbon adsorption. A New York SPDES permit for the discharge
of the treated effluent into Bell Creek may be necessary.
A high level of O&M is also required for the on-site treatment
.option.
Off-site treatment on the other hand, would involve temporarily
storing the leachate on-site in a I million gallon concrete
storage tank and then transporting it to either a local POTW
or private treatment, storage and disposal facility. The off-
site facility would need to be in compliance with appropriate
water "quality standards. Based on available information, the
total present worth cost for both components are virtually
-------
-49-
The recommg~ded alternative (Alternative 5(a or b», for the
Volney Landfill site consists of the fOllowing components:
1. Supplementary capping of the landfill side slopes
covering approximately 35 acres lying between the limits
of the existing PVC membrane liner and a line lying
parallel to and approximately 45 feet beyond the existing
limits of refuse (see Figure 6)i This offset allows the
cap to be extenqed over the perimeter leachate collection
drain and slurry wall. This cap will satisfy RCRA
requirements which is relevant and appropriate for this
site (ARAR). RCRA 40 CFR Section 264.310 requires a
maximum permeability of 1 X 10-7 cm/sec for final cover
closure design for landfills that manage hazardous waste.
The supplementary cap will be placed over the existing
2-foot layer of compacted, seeded lodgement till in the
following manner:
Existing vegetation will be removed from the
surface by scraping, and the resulting loosened
surface will be recompacted by rolling. A 6-inch
layer of sand will be added to provide support for
a 60-mil high density pOlyethylene (HDPE) liner,
textured to reduce the possibility of slippage by
the overlying drainage layer. Above the aDPE
membrane, a 24-inch layer of sand will be placed, .
followed by a 12-inch layer of topsoil or suitably
amended native soil. The surface will be fine-graded,
seeded and mulched. Regrading of the fill may be
incorporated into the final cover design so as to
provide lO-foot-wide terraces at vertical elevation
changes of approximately 20 feet. (The purpose of
these terraces is to reduce erosion and provide
access to the landfill side slopes for future
ma in tenance. )
A passive gas venting system will also be incorporated
into the supplementary cap. Figure 6 indicates the
approximate limits of the proposed supplementary cap, .
and Figure 7 shows its sectional relationship to the
existing PVC membrane on the landfill top, and to the
proposed leachate collection drain/slurry wall.
....
, .
The leachate collection system will consist of a perimeter
leachate collection drain and slurry wall around the
northern and southwestern sections of the landfill, with an
accompanying force main from the two drain segments to
either a new on-site leachate treatment facility on the
east side of the site or to a storage tank to await off-
-------
SOUTHWEST
LEACHATE
COLLECTION ,
o DRAIN
~I
o.
en .
CI:'
=>
APPROXIMATE SCALE U2
lOO 0 NorEn II:
~- , ~
(
1>
,I
~
SILK
-
I
,:)
:1")
I
.
"
.'
(
SUPPLEMENTARY
CAP ON LANDFILL
SIDE SLOPES
i
I
r
t
!
L
.
(
l
to
o
NOTE:
EXISTING ON-SITE FACLITIES NOT SHOWN
-------
~ ..." .j,.-
f 5 I (TY P)
PROPOSED GRADE
/ HOPE MEMBRANE
~
"
/
I
I
----------
EXIST. GRADE
-
/4" STAINLESS STEE1. -
INNER WELL CASING a
SCREEN
--...
SOIL IBENTONrTE ...............
SLURRY WALL (I
-------
-52-
The leachate-collection drain segments will lie parallel to and
approximately 30 feet outside of the limits of refuse in the
northern and southwestern sections of the site. Although a detailed
geotechnical investigation will have to be performed along
the drain alignment prior to final design, subsurface conditions
have previously been estimated during the RI/FS. The north
drain will extend approximately from stations 31+00 to 51+20,
and the southwest drain approximately -from stations 60+00 to
9+20 (see Figure 6). These-afe the estimated reaches along
which there exists "a significant depth of saturated sediments
overlying lodgement till. The drain will extend from the
ground surface down to the top of lodgement till. In the
north, this corresponds to an average depth of approximately
31 feet and a maximum depth of approximately 39 feet over the
2,020 foot drain length. The southwest drain will have an
average depth of approximately 19 feet, with a maximum depth
of approximately 36 feet over its 1,780 foot length.
The leachate collection drain will consist of a stone-filled
trench, four feet wide, lined with filter fabric and installed
by excavation with temporary sheet piling or other approved
method. At relative low points along the lodgment till
surface which the drain will ~ollow, collection wells will be
installed. These collection wells will consist of 14-inch
diameter stainless steel casings and screens, with stainless
steel pumps and controls. It is estimated that two collection
wells will be required along the north drain segment and one
aiong the southwest drain. From each well, an underground
force main will convey leachate to the proposed leachate
treatment/collection facility.
3. Approximately 15 feet outside of the collection drain, a
soil and bentonite slurry wall will be constructed with a
key depth approximately three feet into the lodgement till.
The purpose of this slurry wall is to minimize the entry of
clean water from beyond the landfill limits into the leachate
collec~ion system.
4. The contaminated leachate from the leachate collection
system will be treated on-site or transported to an off-site
-------
-53-
- -
Based upon the available data, the optimum on-site treatment
system would include a 150,000 gallon flow/equalization
storage facility, biological treatment and carbon adsorption.
The treated effluent may require a New York SPDES permit
with discharge to Bell Creek. The sludge would also be tested
to determine if it is considered hazardous, and then disposed
of at an appropriate fa~ility. Off-site treatment would
involve temporarily storing the collected leachate in a one
million gallon concrete storage tank. The leachate would
then be transported via tank truck to an acceptable POTW or
private treatment, storage and disposal facility.
Using cost as a basis for comparison, both on-and off-site
leachate treatment are virtually identical. For purposes
of this analysis, the costs for off-site leachate treatment
will be used since they are slightly higher and therefore
more conservative than the cost for on-site treatment. A
determination as to whether the leachate will be treated on
or off-site will be made pending the results of the treatability
studies to be conducted during the remedial design. These
studies will determine the more cost-effective alternative
for treating the leachate.
5. A 30-year groundwater sampling program to monitor changes
in the nature and extent of contamination at the site.
6. CERCLA requires a review of the recommended remedial contain-
ment action no less than every 5 years after the initiation
of the proposed remedy to assure that human health and the
environment are being protected.
7. An additional operable unit RI/FS of the contamination
pathways will be conducted which will further define the
extent of contamination in the bedrock groundwater south of
the site and the potential contamination of the stream/wetland
ecosystems downgradient from the site.
Co~t estimates for the proposed remedial action are contained
in Attachment E. As noted above, for cost estimating purposes
the alternative utilizing off-site treatment is used (Alternative
5a). The actual method for leachate treatment will be
determined during remedial design.
The capital cost for the proposed remedial action is estimated
to be $12.,754,000. The 30 year present worth O&M cost is $882,000
and the total present worth cost for the recommended alternative
-------
Q
-54-
~
~
Operation and Maintenance
O&M are th6~e costs required to operate and maintain the remedial
action thro~~hout its lifetime. These activities ensure the life-
time effectiveness of the remedial alternative selected.
The recommended alternative involves supplemental capping of the
landfill side slopes with a leachate collection system along the
northern and southwestern portions of the site. It is estimated
that'three, 14-inch diameter stainless steel collection wells
will be installed at r~~~tive-low points along the lodgement
till surface which the drain will follow. These pumps and
controls are anticipated to be replaced in 15 years (half the
design life of the remedial action). The accompanying slurry
wall is intended to minimize the entry of clean water from
beyond the landfill limits into the leachate collection system.
A determination as to whether the collected leachate from this
system will be treated on-site or sent to an off-site facility
for treatment, will be made pending the results of the treatabil-
ity studies to be conducted during the remedial design.
Based upon the RI/FS findings, the optimimum system for on-
site leachate treatment consists of flow equalization, biological
treatment and carbon ~dsorption. O&M considerations include
personnel requirements, daily operating procedures, utilities
and auxiliary materials. The system will operate in a batch
mode, five days per week, 8 hours per day and will require
utilizing one person per day to operate the plant. The
treated leachate will be discharged into Bell Creek which is
located to the east of the site and will be required to
conform to New York SPDES permit requirements.
Off-site treatment would involve temporarily storing the
collected leachate in a one million gallon concrete storage
tank. The leachate would then be transported via tank truck
to an acceptable POTW or private treatment, storage and
disposal facility.
In either of the above alternatives, routine O&M will be
required to maintain the integrity of the selected remedy.
Regrading and mowing of the landfill top and supplemental cap
will also be required to maintain the proposed system.
As part of the remedial action, a 30-year groundwater sampling
program is included to monitor changes in the nature and
extent of contamination at the site to determine the effectiveness
-------
-55-
, -
To evaluate se~onal fluctuations in groundwater quality, it
is recommended that initially, for a period of two years a11
residential and monitoring wells be sampled and analyzed on a
quarterly basis. Thereafter, the program frequency can be ;'
substantially reduced, unless the data indicates the need for
mora. frequent moni toring. From the third year onward, it is
recommended, pending review. af the intial two years' data,
that sampling and- analysis be reduced to an annual basis. .".
Further, it is estimated that, after the second year, the :Ul
number of monitoring wells sampled can selectively be reduc~q.
to one-half the number used intially (e.g., from 16 to 8). ~~:
The annual and present worth O&M requirements for the
recommended remedial alternative are as follows:
t :i:..:
Table 8
Annual and Present Worth Operation and
Maintenance Costs for Recommended Remedial Action
. i,,1;;
:)Ei! ~-
Annual Cost
Present Worth Cost
(assume 30 years)~
Component
Supplementary Cap
$ 6,000
Leachate Collection
System
Off-Site Leachate
Treatment
1,200
$ 57,000
16,000
'tr
Groundwater Monitoring
Program (Sampling and
Analysis)
Total
57,000(1)
85,000(2)
- .
537,800
,;) '.:
16,000(3)
$149,200(2)
$ 80,200(3)
271,000
tfh
'1 :.1"
$881,800
"(I) or $36,800 if on-site treatment is utilized
:-: ;:-~ .
(2) for the first two years
(3) for years 3 through 30
2.
,'~ C
~
-------
'-i
-56-
.;)
Since this site is a municipally-owned and operated facility,
..J '. . .
cos~ sharlng for proJect constructlon as well as the RI/FS
and remedial design costs retroactively is 50% federal and
50% state. The O&M activities will be considered part of
the approved action and eligible for Superfund monies for a
period not to exceed one year after the completion of construc-
tion. Following that y~ar~the State of New York will be
responsible for funding and effectively operating and main-
taining the implemented remedy.
bf.
SCHEDULE*
Activity
- Public Meeting
Date
June 15, 1987
- Regional Administrator Signs
Record of Decision
July 27, 1987
- 60~Qay Enforcement
Moratorium **
September 1987 to
November 1987
If no PRP pick-up, then:
- Contractor Procurement Process
for Remedial Design
September 1987 to
January 1988
- Remedial Design to Include
Treatability Studies 8egins
February 1988
- Potential PRP Negotiations
Completion
July 1988
- Contractore 'procurement Process
for Construction
July 1988 to
November 1988
- Implement Remedy
- Construction Complete
December 1988
June 1990
* This is a projected schedule for this site and it is therefore
subject to future modification.
** If a ~good faith" offer by the PRPs is made within the 60 days,
the enforcement moratorium would be extended an additional 60
-------
-57-
FUTURE ACTIONS
This ROD addres~es the source control operable unit, which
involves containing the source of contamination at the
landfill, to prevent future contaminant migration.
Certain objectives were identified as falling beyond the
scope of the present RI/FS. These included evaluation of
shallow and bedrock contamin~tion and assessment of the
site's impact upon the "stream/wetland system adjacent to and
downstream from the landfill. A second operable unit contami-
nation pathways RI/FS will be conducted at the site to
address both of the above-mentioned areas.
The evaluation of possible shallow and bedrock contamination
from the landfill in which the extent of groundwater contamina-
tion from the site in both horizontal and vertical directions
will be addressed as part of the supplemental RI/FS. In
addition, it will be necessary to perform a residential well
survey for the purpose of establishing existing downgradient
wells (beyond those in the immediate vicinity of the landfill
which were surveyed by previous investigators), which can be
used to track, if feasible, the leading edge of a groundwater
contaminant plume. . It is anticipated that, in addition to
existing residential wells, some new bedrock and shallow
overburden wells will have to be installed at various locations
downgradient from the site.
An environmental assessment of the stream/wetland systems
along Bell and Black Creeks will also be performed in order
to assess the Volney Landfill's impact upon these ecosystems.
As indicated previously in this ROD, surface water contamination
levels within these streams are generally low, but sediment
contamination occurs at significantly higher levels. The
environmental assessment will address the site's specific
impact upon these water bodies and will include an asessment
of risk associated with surface water/sediment contamination.
A cultural resources evaluation will be performed during the
remedial design phase of the source control operable unit to
determine if any historical landmarks or additional cultural
-resources exist within the undisturbed portions of the Volney
Landfill site area. In addition, should the treatability
studies determine that on-site leachate treatment should be
utilized, a floodplain assessment would be performed during
the remedial design phase to determine the impact this treat-
ment system may have on the 100 year floodplain, and the
impact the 100 year floodplain may have on the treatment
system.
Surface and groundwater ARARs will also be addressed during
this subsequent operable unit. If the findings from the
supplemental RI/FS determine that additional remedial action
is necessary, a ROD will be prepared for approval of future
------- |