PB94-963716
EPA/ROD/R01-94/090
January 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Coakley Landfill,
Management of Migration (O.U.2), NH
-------
". ~
DECLARATION 'FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Coakley Landfill
North Hampton, New Hampshire
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document sets forth the selected remedy for
Operable Unit-2 Management of Migration, for the Coakley Landfill
site in North Hampton, New Hampshire. The selected remedy was
developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, and to the extent practicable, the National oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300 gt
sea., as amended. The Region I Administrator has been delegated
the authority to approve this Record of Decision.
The State of New Hampshire has concurred on the selected remedy.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based on the Administrative Record which has
been developed in accordance with section 113 (k) of CERCLA and
which is available for public review at the North Hampton Public
Library in North Hampton, New Hampshire and at the Region I Waste
Management Division Records Center in Boston, Massachusetts. The
Administrative Record Index (Appendix E to the ROD) identifies
each of the items comprising the Administrative Record upon which
the selection of the remedial action is based.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
G
This ROD sets forta the selected remedy for the second operable
unit (OU-2) at the Coakley Landfill Site, which addresses
management of migration to meet off site cleanup levels for the
groundwater from the landfill. A first ROD addressed the source
control remedy. The source control operable unit one consists of
. a multi-task remedy which included capping the landfill and
-------
The remedial measures included in the remedy will rest~re the
aquifer t~ drinking water quality by allowing natural attenuation
of the contaminated groundwater, and will eliminate. threats posed
by the future ingestion of the contaminated groundwater by
implementing controls restricting the use of the groundwater.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
"
.
institutional controls (such as deed restrictions)
to prevent use of contaminated groundwater;
.
natural attenuation for the contaminated
groundwater plume; and
.
groundwater monitoring.
DECLARATION
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 remedial action
and is cost-effective. The overall remedy satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that utilize treatment as a
principal element to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances. In addition, this remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
As this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on
site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within
five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
c=-: 3 0 rc'y
~ L",
\~
Date
John P. De\{illars
Regional Administrator
-------
IV.
V.
V1:.
RECORD OF DECISION
COAKLEY LANDFILL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
~~AGEMENT OF MIGRATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
paae Nu:mber
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . .
A. General Description ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Geologic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Hydrogeological Characteristics. . . . . . . . . .
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . .
A. Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Response History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Enforcement History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Activities During Operable trnit 1 Source Control
Remedy Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Activities During Operable trnit 2 Management of
Migration Remedy Selection. . . . . . . . .
B.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
. . . .
. . . . .
SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. S edimen ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Groundwa ter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
V1:I. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . .
A. statutory Requirements/Response objectives. . . .
B. Technology and Alternative Development
Screeninq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VIII.
A.
IX.
x.
<::
and
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES.
Management of Migration
Analyzed. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .
(D)
A1.ternatives
. . . .
. . . . . . .
SUHHARY OF TEE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
THE SELECTED REMEDY .. . . . . . . . .
A. Interim Groundwater Cleanup Levels
B. Description of Remedial Components
. . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . .
1
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
12
15
19
19
20
21
21
24
29
29
-------
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health
and the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs . . . . . . . . .
The Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective
The Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions
and Alternative Treatment or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable. .
The OU-2 Selected Remedy does not Satisfy the
Preference for Treatment as a principal Element. .
B.
C.
D.
E.
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
XIII.
. . . . .
. . .
STATE ROLE
.........
. . . . .
. . .
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
APPENDIX B - TABLES
APPENDIX C - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX D - STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONCURRENCE LETTER
APPENDIX E - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
2
34
35
35
37
38
39
39
-------
ROD DECISION S~~y
septe!llber 1994
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
. A.
General Description
The Coakley Landfill site (the site) is situated on
approximately 100 acres located within the Towns of Greenland
and North Hampton, Rockingham County, New Hampshire (Appendix
A, Figure 1). The actual landfill area covers approximately
27 acres of this property. The Site located about 400 to 800
feet west of Lafayette Road (U.S.Route 1), directly south of
Breakfast Hill Road, and about 2.5 miles northeast of the
center of the Town of North Hampton. Vehicles access the site
through an entrance gate located on Breakfast Hill Road,
approximately 600 feet northwest of the intersection of
Lafayette and Breakfast Hill Roads. The Greenland-Rye town
line forms a maj or portion of the eastern boundary of the
site. A more detailed site map is shown on Appendix A, Figure
2. There is a more complete description of the site in the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study (RIfFS) in Volume
1, section 1, Pages 1-3 to 1-9.
Breakfast Hill Road forms the northern boundary of the site.
Privately owned properties border the site to the west and
north and include both farmland and undeveloped woodlands and
wetlands. Properties abutting east and south of the site are
generally commercial or residential. The Rye Landfill, which
was closed in 1987, abuts the site directly to the northeast.
The Lafayette Terrace housing development is directly
southeast of the site. The Granite Post Green Mobile Home
Park lies approximately 500 feet to the south of the Site,
west of Lafayette Terrace. The Boston & Maine Railroad, which
runs north-south, forms the western border of the southern
half of the site.
The landfill is situated within the southernmost portion of
the Site, almost completely within the Town of North Hampton.
The Coakley Landfill covers approximately 27 acres,
constituting the major portion of the southern section of the
site. Generally rectangular in shape, with an average width
of approximately 900 feet and an average length of
approximately 1,300 feet, the landfill extends to the western,
southern, and eastern boundaries in the south direction.
<.'
-------
The landfill fo~s a hill rising approximatelY-10 to 60 feet
above the surrounding area. At its highest point the
elevation is about 137 feet above mean sea level. Ground
surface in the landfill area originally sloped gently
westward. The landfill now forms a prominent raised plateau
in that area, with a generally flat upper surface. The
landfill has moderately steep slopes along its western,
eastern, and southern sides, and a gentle slope along the
northern side.
\'
Fine, sandy soil and a crushed aggregate of variable thickness
covers most of the landfill, and vegetative cover is
intermittent and sparse. Along the top of the northern and
western slopes, some incinerator residue is visible in banks
where wind and water action apparently removed the sand cover.
A drainage ditch bounds the southern and western sides of the
landfill, channeling surface water runoff into a wetland area
situated immediately to the north-northwest of the landfill.
The wetland area generally extends from the northwest corner
of the landfill area, along both sides of the B&M Railroad, to
a point approximately 500 feet south of Breakfast Hill Road,
The margins of the wetlands adjacent to the landfill have been
partially filled with rock removed from the quarry and some
native sand and gravel. Wetlands west of the railroad track
drain both north and south. The landfill is located on a
subregional drainage divide and contributes runoff in a
generally radial pattern into the watersheds of four nearby
$treams west of the Site: Little River, Berry's Brook, North
Brook, and Bailey Brook (Appendix A, Figure 2).
Natural resources in the area include the agricultural lands,
woodlands, and wetlands which surround the Site. Surface
water bodies feed the wetland area. The groundwater is
available in aquifers formed by water saturated portions of
sand and gravel deposits and in fractured bedrock. Sand and
gravel deposits are found throughout the Site. Some bedrock
outcrops were mined for crushed aggregate in a quarry
operation. It is reasonable to expect that wetland and stream
areas receive some hunting and fishing activity. This is
considered minor recreational use. There is also occasional
use of all-terrain recreational vehicles on and around the
Site.
B.
Geologic Characteristics
Portions of the landfill lie directly on fractured bedrock of
the Rye Formation or on an undetermined thickness of
unconsolidated sediments of the Pleistocene age. Bedrock
consists of deformed igneous and metamorphic metasediments of
the Precambrian to Ordovician Age intruded locally by
pegmitites of the Hillsboro plutonic series.
-------
On site drilling and qeo~hysical work indicated the bedrock
surface is irregular and a~pears to form a northe~st/southwest
ridge beneath the landfill.
Surficial geology in the site vicinity varies from ice contact
sand and gravel deposit on the easterly side of the landfill
to marine sandy silt on the westerly side. Ice contact
deposits also appear to overlie the marine sediments on the
northeastern side of the landfill.
The overburden materials on site vary in thickness from three
feet to almost fifty feet and grade from highly permeable
sands and gravels to stiff, low permeability sandy silt.
Hydrogeological Characteristics
C.
The generalized groundwater hydraulics of the Coakley Landfill
Site are presented in Appendix A, Figure 3. Both the
direction and magnitude of the hydraulic gradients appears to
be similar in the overburden and bedrock units. In addition,
the data suggest that the overburden is recharging bedrock
over the topographic high area east of the coakley Landfill,
and that bedrock is discharging into the overburden in the
wetlands area.
The primary directions of groundwater flow from the Coakley
Landfill are southwest, west and northwest toward the
wetlands. In the wetlands, an east to west groundwater divide
directly west of the landfill causes groundwater to flow south
toward North Road and presumably north toward Breakfast Hill
Road. Residential and commercial pumping, occurring prior to
the installation of public water supplies, altered the natural
hydraulic system. EPA considers this pumping to be the
primary reason for contaminant migration south, east, and
northeast of the landfill.
Overburden groundwater flow appears to be radial from the
Coakley Landfill and vertically downward into the bedrock
aquifer. Surface drainage is also multidirectional since the
landfill is near the headwaters of Berry's Brook to the north
and the Little River to the south. Flow within the bedrock
aquifer is a function of interconnected fractures and is
affected locally by hydraulic gradients induced by bedrock
water well usage within the area. At least one major fracture
system positioned in a south/southeast direction has been
documented to interconnect with the Coakley Landfill. This is
located in the south/southwest boundary where substantial
recharge to the bedrock aquifer may be occurring.
L-
Groundwater recharge from the overburden to the bedrock
aquifer occurs where overburden water levels are higher in
elevation than those in bedrock and fine grained materials do
-------
r::-: prohibit this recharge. The bedrock rec~a~ges to the
~:~lands west of the landfill. Direct leachate discharge to
t~e bedrock may take place beneath parts of the landfill,
s~~ce the refuse is in direct contact with bedrock in areas
~~ere rock quarrying had previously occurred.
"
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A.
Land Use
In approximately 1965 sand and gravel operations began on the
Coakley property, which had previously consisted of wooded
a~eas and open fields as evidenced by aerial photographs.
These operations continued into the late 1970s.
Pe~itting for a landfill began in 1971 when the New Hampshire
Department of Public Health granted the Town of North Hampton
a permit to operate a landfill on the Coakley Site. Early in
1972, Coakley Landfill, Inc. and the Towns of North Hampton
and the City of Portsmouth entered into an agreement which
p~ohibited the dumping of shop and ordnance waste from Pease
Air Force Base, located in Newington, NH, as well as
de~olished buildings, junk autos, machinery, and large tree
stumps or butts.
<)
Landfill operations began in 1972, with the southern portion
of the Site used for refuse from the municipalities of
Portsmouth, North Hampton, Newington, and New Castle, along
with Pease Air Force Base. Coincident with landfill
operations, rock quarrying was conducted at the Site from
approximately 1973 through 1977. Much of the refuse disposed
of at Coakley Landfill was placed in open (some liquid-filled)
trenches created by rock quarrying sand and gravel mining.
In 1978 and 1979 oil-soaked debris from accidents in
Portsmouth and Newington, was placed in what is known as the
Oily Debris Area in the northern section of the Coakley Site
(Appendix A, Figure 2). The precise volume of this material
is unknown.
In 1981, the State of New Hampshire granted the Town of North
Hampton permission to dispose of pesticide waste containers at
the Coakley Landfill Site.
The City of Portsmouth began operating a refuse-to-energy
plant on leased property at Pease Air Force Ease in 1982.
From July 1982 through July 1985, Pease Air Force Base and the
municipalities of Rye, North Hampton, Portsmouth, New Castle,
and Derry began transporting their refuse to this plant for
incineration. After that time, the Coakley Landfill generally
-------
accepted only inc:nerator residue fron the new plant. In
Marc~ 1983, the B~reau of Solid Waste Management ordered an
end to the dispcsal of unburned residue at the Coakley
Landfill.
Prior to incinera-:ion, the New Hampshire Waste Management
Division estimated that approximately 120 tons per day were
disposed of at the landfill. The daily weight of incinerator
residue was estimated to be approximately 90 tons. A more
detailed description of the site history can be found in the
RIfFS Volume I, Section 1 at pages 1-9 through 1-14.
B.
Response History
In 1979, the New Ha~pshire Waste Management Division received
a complaint concerning leachate breakouts in the area. A
subsequent investigation by the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management resulted in the discovery of allegedly empty drums
with markings indicative of cyanide waste.
A second complaint was received in early 1983 by the New
Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
(WSPCC) regarding the water quality from a domestic drinking
water well. Testing revealed the presence of five different
VOCs.
A subsequent confirmatory sampling beyond these initial wells
detected VOC contamination to the south, southeast,and
northeast of the Coakley Landfill. As a result, the Town of
North Hampton extended public water to Lafayette Terrace in
1983 and to Birch and North Roads in 1986. Prior to this
time, commercial and residential water supply came from
private wells.
Also in 1983, the Rye Water district completed a water main
extension along Washington Road from the Corner of Lafayette
Road and along Dow Lane. This extension brought the public
water supply into the area due east and southeast of the Rye
Landfill. The WSPCC submitted proposals to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in May and October of
1983 recommending that the coakley site be included on the
National Priority List (NPL). In December 1983, the coakley
Landfill was listed on the NPL, and ranked as No. 689.
In July 1985, after additional investigation conducted by the
EPA and the WSPCC, the coakley Landfill ceased operations.
'~
-------
A cooperative agree!:'lent was signed with the - S~:te of New
Hampshire on August 12, 1985 to conduct a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The con~~actor, Roy
F. Weston, Inc., completed the RI and the FS which were
released for public comment on October 31, 1988 a~d March 2,
1990, respectively. The Proposed Plan which cor.~ains EPA's
preferred alternative was released with the FS.
"
The Record of Decision (ROD) for Source Control (O~erable Unit
1) was signed by the EPA Regional Administrator in June 1990.
The Source Control remedy called for:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Consolidation of sediments in the wetlands;
Consolidation of solid waste;
Capping of the landfill;
Collection and treatment of landfill gases;
Groundwater extraction and treatment;
Long-term environmental monitoring; and
Institutional controls where possible.
An Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) was issued by
the EPA Regional Administrator in March 1991, to make
clarifications to the remedy set forth in the ROD. The ESD
required the cap design to include a composite liner and
treatment of the off gases from the air stripper.
The RI/FS for the Management of Migration (Operable Unit 2)
was performed by an EPA contractor, CDM - Federal Programs, as
a fund lead project.- The project began in September 1990.
The RI/FS was completed on May 23, 1994. The Proposed Plan
which contains EPA's preferred alternative was released with
the RI/FS.
c.
Enforcement History
The State of New Hampshire began discussions concerning the
Site with Coakley, the owner, and with the municipalities as
early as December, 1983. Information request letters were
sent by EPA to these parties in September and October, 1987.
Additional information request letters were sent to
approximately 300 parties during 1988.
On February 2, 1990, EPA notified approximately 59 parties who
either owned or operated the facility, generated wastes that
were shipped to the facility, arranged for the disposal of
wastes at the facility, or transported wastes to the facility
of their potential liability with respect to the Site. The
PRPs formed a steering committee and initial cowmunication
took place with EPA. On March 14, 1990 EPA met with the
potential responsible parties (PRPs) to discuss their
potential liability at the Site.
-------
Soon after the PRPs were noticed the City of Portswouth, the
Town of North Hampton and the Town of Newington notified the
EPA of their suspicions that additional parties also dumped at
the coakley Site. These additional 126 parties were informed
by letter that EPA may notice them in the future. copies of
the Proposed Plan were sent to parties to provide them with an
opportunity to comment on the EPA's Preferred Remedial
Alternative.
The PRPs were active in the source control remedy selection
process for the first operable unit of the site. The steering
committee retained a technical consultant to review the RIfFS
and to evaluate EPA's preferred alternative. The Coakley
Landfill steering Committee submitted technical comments to
the EPA during the public comment period. Responses to these
comments as well as comments from other members of the public
were included in the Responsiveness Summary attached to the
source control Record of Decision.
On March 29, 1991 Special Notice was sent to 55 parties who
either owned or operated the facility (Coakley family members,
towns of Newington, North Hampton and the city of Portsmouth) ,
or generated wastes (two federal facilities, Pease Air Force
Base and Portsmouth Navy Yard, and some private companies)
that were shipped to the facility, arranged for the disposal
of wastes at the facility, or transported wastes to the
facility of their potential liability with respect to the
site.
A consent decree was lodged with the court on March 2, 1992
concerning the Operable unit 1 (source control) remediation of
the Coakley Landfill. pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et. seq. The consent decree was
entered with the court on May 5, 1992 which sets forth the
remediation to be performed by 32 potentially responsible
parties (PRPs).
CUrrently, the PRPs have completed the predesign studies as of
June 1994 and are currently performing the design for the
source control remediation.
The PRPs have been active in the management of migration
remedy selection process for the second operable unit of the
site. The steering committee's technical consultant reviewed
the RIfFS and evaluated EPA's preferred alternative. The
coakley Landfill steering Committee submitted technical
comments to the EPA during the public comment period.
Responses to these comments as well as comments from other
members of the public are summarized in the attached
Responsiveness Summary.
-------
III. CO¥_~UNITY RELATIONS
. .
Through most of t~e Site's history, community concern and
involvement has been high. EPA and the state have kept the
community and other interested parties appraised of the site
activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press
releases and public meetings.
u
A.
Activities During Operable Unit 1
Selection
Source
Control
Remedy
During January 1986, EPA released a community relations plan
which outlined a program to address community concerns and
keep citizens informed about and involved in activities during
remedial activities. On May 14, 1986, EPA held an
informational meeting at the North Hampton Town Hall, North
Hampton, New Hampshire to describe the plan for the RI/FS. On
November 3, 1988, EPA held an informational meeting at North
Hampton Town Hall, North Hampton, New Hampshire to discuss the
results of the Remedial Investigation (RI).
On May 10, 1988, EPA made the administrative record available
for public review at EPA's offices in Boston and at the North
Hampton Public Library. Additional materials were added to
the Administrative Record on October 31, 1988 with release of
the RI and on March 2, 1990 with release of the FS and the
Proposed Plan. Comments on the RI were received from Coakley,
the Town of Newcastle and the City of Portsmouth. EPA
published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan for
Operable Unit 1 in Foster's Daily Democrat and in the
Portsmouth Herald on March 9, 1990 and made the plan available
to the public at the North Hampton Public Library and EPA's
Record Center in Boston.
On March 15, 1990, EPA held an informational meeting at the
North Hampton-Elementary School to discuss the results of the
Remedial Investigation and the cleanup alternatives presented
in the Feasibility Study and to present the Agency's Proposed
Plan for Operable Unit 1. Also during this meeting, the
Agency answered questions from the public. From March 16 to
May 14, 1990, the Agency held a 60-day public comment period
to accept public comment on the alternatives presented in the
Feasibility study and the Proposed Plan and on any other
documents previo,usly released to the public. On April 3,
1990, the Agency held a public hearing at the North Hampton
Elementary School to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept
any oral comments. A transcript of this meeting and comments
from the general public and from the Coakley Landfill Steering
Committee along with the Agency's response to comments are
included in Operable Unit 1 Record of Decision's
Responsiveness Summary.
\'
-------
B.
Acti vi ties During Operable Unit 2 Management of Migration
Remedy Selection
On March 3, 1992, EPA held an informational meeting on the
start-up of the Coakley Landfill OU-2 Management of Migration
RI\FS. On May 23, 1994, EPA made the Management of Migration
RI\FS and the OU-2 Proposed Plan available for public review
at the site Repositories at EPA's Record Center in Boston and
at the North Hampton Public Library. EPA published a notice
and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in the Hampton Union
and in the Portsmouth Herald on May 24, 1994.
On June 1, 1994, EPA held an informational meeting at the
North Hampton Elementary School to discuss the results of the
Management of Migration Remedial Investigation, the cleanup
alternatives presented in the Feasibility Study and to present
the Agency's Proposed Plan. Also during this meeting, the
Agency answered questions from the public. From June 2 to
August 1, 1994, the Agency held a 61-day public comment period
to accept public comment on the alternatives presented in the
Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan and on any other
documents previously released to the public. On June 21,
1994, the Agency held a public hearing at the North Hampton
Elementary School to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept
any oral comments. A transcript of this meeting and comments
from the general public and from the Coakley Landfill Steering
Committee along with the Agency's responses to comments are
included in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
The selected remedy which is the second operable unit of a two
operable unit approach to the remediation at the Site, provides for
the remediation of the contaminants which have migrated from the
landfill (i. e., management of migration). During this phase a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study including a human
health risk assessment were undertaken to better characterize the
nature and extent of this off site groundwater contamination and to
develop and evaluate alternatives for remediation. An
environmental risk assessment was also performed to evaluate the
impact of an exposure to ecological receptors from contaminants
migrating from the landfill into the adj acent wetlands. The
studies identified ingestion of groundwater as the principal threat
to human health. EPA considers the environmental risk posed by the
site to be low.
The response action for the Management of Migration Operable Unit
2 will therefore address the threat to human health posed by the
future ingestion of off site contaminated groundwater.
-------
v.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1.0 of the Feasibility Study ("Management of Migration
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Volume 3",
May 1994), contains an overvieTN of the Remedial Investigation. The
study area, as defined in the RI\FS, Volume 1, includes all the
land area beyond the landfill where contamination from the landfill
has migrated or may be impacted by future migration. The study
area boundaries are generally as follows: .the entire wetland to
the west and north of the site; to the northeast, the boundary is
set with consideration of the presence of the Rye Landfill; to the
east Lafayette Road (Route 1); to the south, North Road. This
study area is smaller than OU-1 study area due to more information
being available from the OU-l RI and FS on the nature and extent of
contamination at the Site. A detailed Site map showing the study
area is shown in Appendix A, Figure 2.
Migration of the contaminants from the landfill source is primarily
due to leachate contaminated groundwater movement and surface water
runoff which can contain sediment. Therefore, these were the media
sampled during the Remedial Investigation for the Management of
Migration operable unit 2.
~
The significant findings of the RI (Volume 1 & 2 of the RI/FS) are
summarized below. A complete discussion of Site characteristics
can be found in the RI/FS, Volume 1, Section 4 and 5.
A.
Sediments
Two rounds of sediment samples were obtained for quantitative
chemical analyses at seventeen sampling points Appendix A,
Figure 3. Laboratory and field analyses were performed for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
compounds, inorganic compounds, pesticides/PCBs, total organic
carbon (TOC) and grain size. Sediments with detectable limits
of contaminants were observed within the Little River
wetlands, and within the Berry's Brook wetland and at a
location downstream in Berry's Brook.
contaminants were detected at sample locations throughout the
study area and at the background sample location for some
compounds. However, compounds from each contaminant qroup
were most consistently detected in sediment collected from an
area immediately north of the landfill having visible evidence
of leachate contamination. vocs detected at the site include
benzene, ethyl benzene, chloroethane, chlorobenzene and
xylene. Semi-Vocs detected at the site include predominantly
PARs and dichlorinated benzenes. Inorganic compounds were
detected in all sediment samples and include arsenic, barium,
iron, lead, manganese, nickel, beryllium, selenium and
vanadium. All of these inorganic compounds occur naturally in
j,)
-------
the environment, howeve~, elevated concentrations associated
with the Coakley Landfill are indicated for arsenic, barium,
iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc. Mercury and silver do not
appear to be associated with the landfill. These two
compounds were sporadically detected and were not detected in
sediment north of the landfill in the area of visible leachate
contamination. Vanadium does not appear to be landfill
related based on concentrations which are fairly evenly
distributed across the study area.
Pesticides were also detected in sediment samples, but do not
appear to be landfill related. The pesticide 4,4-DDE was
"detected in 9 of the 17 sample locations, including the
background sample 5-15. Pesticide distribution did not
indicate the landfill as the source. Concentrations were not
consistently greater at sample locations closer to the
landfill particularly in the area of visible leachate
contamination north of the landfill. No PCBs were detected in
any sediment samples.
B.
Surface Water
~«o rounds of surface water samples were taken at seventeen
sampling station locations during the management of migration
Remedial Investigation Appendix A, Figure 3. Laboratory and
field analyses were performed for VOCs, Semi-Vocs, inorganic
compounds and water quality parameters.
VOCs, Semi-VOCs, and inorganics were detected in surface water
samples collected in the study area. These contaminants were
detected at several sample locations and in some cases at the
background sample location. However, contamination from each
contaminant group was most consistently detected in samples
collected in an area immediately north of the landfill with
visible leachate staining (5-9, -10, and -11). Two VOCs,
benzene and chlorobenzene were detected in this northern area.
5emi-VOCs detected include bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate:
1,4-dichlorobenzene and dimethylphthalate. Inorganic
compounds detected in study area surface water samples include.
aluminum, barium, calcium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium and zinc. Not all metals
are clearly attributed to landfill contamination. The
distribution pattern of barium, iron, manganese and sodium
indicates the landfill as the source of the elevated
concentration of these substances in surface water.
("
-------
c.
Groundwater
Groundwater samples were collected from 29 overburden
monitoring wells, 21 bedrock monitoring wells, and 4
residential wells during the management of migration Remedial
Investigation. Well locations are shown in Figure 2-3.
Analytical results are summarized in Volume 1, Tables Section
4, Tables 4-5 through 4-17 of the RI/FS and ,organized by
contaminant category: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) , inorganic compounds, and
water quality parameters.
VOCs and inorganics are the predominant compounds present in
overburden and bedrock groundwater. Semi-VOCs are present as
well, but in fewer w~lls and at lower concentrations. The
greatest concentrations and frequencies of detection for most
groundwater contaminants were at the landfill perimeter wells.
The predominant VOCs detected include aromatics, chlorinated
hydrocarbons and ketones. The most frequently detected
compounds include chloroethane; 1,1-dichloroethane;
chlorobenzene; ethylbenzene and benzene.
Predominant SVOCs present in groundwater include phthalates,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols and dichlorinated
benzenes. Naphthalene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene were most
frequently detected.
Several inorganic compounds were detected in the majority of
study area wells, including the background overburden well
GZ-129 and bedrock well GZ-130. These compounds include
aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, iron,
magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium and
zinc.
Appendix B, Tables 1 & 2, summarizes some of the commonly
observed contaminants detected in the overburden and bedrock
wells. The average and maximum contaminants are presented and
compared to the acceptable regulatory levels for drinking
water.
Observed contaminants in the Overburden HvdroQeo1oQica1 Unit
for OU-1
Groundwater samples were obtained from 23 overburden
monitoring wells in the OU-1 study area. Concentrations of
total VOCs detected in seven monitoring wells located within
and along the border of the Coakley Landfill ranged from 600
ppb (MW-1, MW-2) to 10,000 ppb (MW-3D).
12
;j
-------
commonly observed contaminants detected in tpe overburden
wells and the observed concentration ranges detected were as
follows:
COMPOUND
benzene
ethyl benzene
chlorobenzene
toluene
acetone
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
tetrahydrofuran
diethyl ether
l,l-dichloroethane
l,2-dichloroethane
l,2-dichloropropane
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
CONCENTRATION (PPB)
6-60.6
18-499
less than 5-182
21-1200
14-2800
17-2700
11-1130
16-1650
12-198.8
7.3-20.8
less than 5-72
30
11-16
Inorganics detected in these same seven overburden wells and
their detected concentration ranges are presented below.
COMPOUND
arsenic
aluminum
barium
chromium
iron
lead
manganese
nickel
potassium
sodium
arsenic
vanadium
zinc
CONCENTRATION
7.6-89 ppb
152-337 ppb
243-368 ppb
330 ppb
21,000-280,000 ppb
less than 1.7-43 ppb
2,620-27,000 ppb
122-200 ppb
16,000-480,000 ppb
1,000,000-1,460,000 ppb
10-89 ppb
23-45 ppb
less than 1.1-34 ppb
Observed contaminants in the Bedrock Hvdroaeoloaical Unit for
OU-l
Groundwater samples were obtained from 20 bedrock monitoring
and 17 bedrock domestic wells within the OU-1 study area.
Bedrock monitoring wells are those installed outside of the
landfill itself by EPA and the state of New Hampshire.
Bedrock domestic wells are also located off site and are
either current or past commercial and residential drinking
water sources. Highest measured total VOC concentrations
within the bedrock wells were detected in samples obtained
from MW-5, MW-6 around the southern perimeter of the landfill
and in GZ-105 located approximately 800 feet off site in a
westerly direction. Maximum total VOC concentrations were
2,400 ppb, 97 ppb and less than 807 ppb, respectively.
-------
Individual compounds comprising the bulk of the observed
contaminants in both the monitoring and domestic- bedrock wells
and the observed concentration ranges detected were as
follows:
COMPOUND
benzene
chloroethane
toluene
diethyl ether
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
tetrahydrofuran
acetone
xylene
ethyl benzene
1,1-dichloroethane
CONCENTRATION
5.2-12.8 ppb
294 ppb
125-1,340 ppb
180-350 ppb
170-407 ppb
85-96 ppb
238-715 ppb
16-437 ppb
21-87 ppb
less than 34 ppb
7-47 ppb
o
VOCs were detected in bedrock domestic wells located off site
to the southeast at Lafayette Terrace (R-25, R-26 and R-28).
Observed total VOCs concentrations ranged from none detected
(R-28) to 1,445 ppb (R-25). Observed compounds in these wells
were similar to those observed within the off site bedrock
wells.
Metals detected in the bedrock monitoring and domestic wells
located throughout the source control OU-1 study area of the
Coakley Landfill and the observed concentration ranges
detected were as follows:
COMPOUND
aluminum
barium
iron
manganese
nickel
potassium
sodium
arsenic
vanadium
CONCENTRATION
119-200 ppb
12-269 ppb
14-140,000 ppb
100-120,000 ppb
8-65 ppb
2500-190,000 ppb
15,000-720,000 ppb
5-9.6 ppb
5-49 ppb
Monitorinq ReDorts Previous to the OU-l RI
Groundwater samples collected prior to the OU-1 RI from on
site monitoring wells in bedrock, overburden and from off site
residential drinking water supply wells indicated the presence
of VOCs and are reported in the WSPCC, "Hydrogeological
Investigation of the Coakley Landfill Site". Ten VOCs were
frequently detected in on site and off site wells, (toluene,
MEK, diethyl ether, tetrahydrofuran, xylenes, ethylbenzene,
dichlorobenzene, benzene, l,l-dichloroethane and 1,2-
dichloroethylene).
-------
VI.
SUMY~RY OF SITE RISKS
A human r.ealth baseline risk assessment (HHRA) found in Volume 1,
section 6 of the RI/FS and a:1 ecological risk assessment (ERA)
found in Volume 1, section 7 of the RI/FS were performed to
estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human
health e:fects and environ~ental effects from exposure to
contamina:1ts associated with the Site. The public health risk
assessment followed a four step process: 1) contaminant
identification, which identified those hazardous substances which,
given the specifics of the site, were of significant concern; 2)
exposure assessment, which ide:1tified actual or potential exposure
pathways, characterized the potentially exposed populations, and
determined the extent of possible exposure; 3) toxicity assessment,
which considered the types and magnitude of adverse human effects
associated with exposure to hazardous substances, and 4) risk
characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to
summarize the potential and actual risks posed by hazardous
substances at the Site, including carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
risks. The results of the public health risk assessment for the
Coakley Landfill Superfund Site are discussed below followed by the
conclusicns of the environmental risk assessment.
T",.;enty-one (21) contaminants of concern, listed in Appendix S,
Tables 1 through 7, were selected for evaluation in the HHRA.
These contaminants constitute a representative subset of the more
than fifty-one contaminants identified at the Site during the
Re~edial Investigation. As shown in these tables, the seventeen
contaminants of concern were selected to represent potential site-
related hazards based on toxicity, concentration, frequency of
detection, and mobility and persistence in the environment. A
swnmary of the health effects of each of the contaminants of
concern can be found in Volume 1, section 6, Pages 6-31 to 6-39 of
the RI/FS.
c
Potential human health effects associated wi th exposure to the
contaminants of concern were estimated quantitatively through the
development of several hypothetical exposure pathways. These
pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances based on the present uses, potential future
uses, and location of the Site. Currently the land use east and
south of the site is either residential or commercial, while west
and north of the site the land use is residential and undeveloped
woodlands or wetlands. In the future land use is expected to be
used for residential, commercial, agricul tural and recreational
purposes. The following is a brief summary of the exposure
pathways evaluated. Ingestion of contaminated groundwater was
evaluated for an adult consuming 2 liters per day, 350 days per
year for thirty years. This pathway was evaluated separately for
residential wells, overburden groundwater and bedrock groundwater.
Dermal contact with sediments was qualitatively evaluated for a
child who may be exposed 36 days per year for 12 years. Incidental
-------
i~gestic~ of sediment was evaluated for a child of 6-17 years of
age who =ight be exposed 36 days per year for 12 years while wading
a~d playing in nearby brooks and wetlands. A thorough discussion
of expos~re pathways and parameters can be found in Section 6.4 of
the RI/FS. For each pathway evaluated, an average and reasonable
~aximurn exposure estimate was generated corresponding to exposure
to the average and maximum concentration detected in that
particular medium.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure
pathway by multiplying the exposure level with the chemical
specific cancer potency factor. Cancer potency factors have been
developed by EPA from epidemiological or animal studies to reflect
a conservative "upper bound II of the risk posed by potentially
carcinogenic compounds. That is, the true risk is very unlikely to
be greater than the risk predicted. The resulting risk estimates
are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g. 1 x 10-6
for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (using this example), that an
individual is not likely to have greater than a one in a million
c~ance of developing cancer over 70 years as a result of site-
related exposure as defined to the compound at the stated
concentration. CUrrent EPA practice considers carcinogenic risks
to be additive when assessing exposure to a mixture of hazardous
substances.
'0
The hazard index was also calculated for each pathway as EPA' s
measure of the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects. The
hazard index is calculated by dividing the exposure level by the
reference dose (RfD) or other suitable bench mark for nonc~rcino-
genic health effects. Reference doses have been developed by EPA
to protect sensitive individuals over the course of a lifetime.
They reflect a daily exposure level that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of an adverse health effect. RfDs are derived
from epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate uncertainty
factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will not occur.
The hazard index is often expressed as a single value (e.g. 0.3)
indicating the ratio of the stated exposure as defined to the
reference dose value (for this example of 0.3, the exposure as
characterized is approximately one third of an acceptable exposure
level for the given compound). The hazard index is only considered
cumulative for compounds that have the same or similar toxic
endpoints (the hazard index for a compound known to produce liver
damage should not be added to a second whose toxic endpoint is
kidney damage).
Presented in Appendix B are cumulative risk tables for those
exposure pathways which exceeded EPA's target risk range. These
include the future ingestion of overburden groundwater (Table 8),
bedrock groundwater (Table 9) and groundwater in residential wells
(Table 10). Risks from all other pathways are summarized below in
Table 11.
-------
:'
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES FOR EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
NOT EXCEEDING EPA'S TARGET RISK RANGE
EXDosure Pathway
Cumulative I
Excess Lifetime I
Cancer Risk
Maximum: AveraO'e!
Cumulative
Hazard
Index
Maximum: AveraO'e
Direct Contact (DC) with
Surface Water (SW) 1. 9xlO.7
4.0xlO.S
0.04
0.006
Incidental Ingestion
of SW
4.8xlO.6
5.0xlO.6
1. Ox10.6
1.0x10.6
1
0.16
Total Risk from SW
1
0.17
DC with Sediment
from streams, wetland
and Leachate Area
1.0x10.S
2.7x10.6
0.12
0.028
DC with Sediment
in streams
2.7X10.6
1.6X10.6
0.026
0.016
cumulative potential cancer risks associated with incidental
ingestion and direct contact with, surface water, and sediments did
not exceed EPA's target cancer risk range of 10.' to 10-6.
Similarly, cumulative hazard indices as a measure of the potential
for non-carcinogenic effects for each of the above exposure
pathways did not exceed unity (1.0).
Potential risks associated with the ingestion of groundwater as a
drinking water supply were estimated based on data from overburden
and bedrock monitoring wells and domestic wells. The cumulative
excess lifetime cancer risk predicted for the consumption of
groundwater from overburden and bedrock monitoring wells exceeded
EPA's target risk range of 10.' to 10.6.
In overburden groundwater the major contributors to carcinogenic
risk estimated were arsenic and beryllium. The major contributors
to non carcinogenic risk estimates were antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, chromium and nickel. The action level for lead in was
also exceeded.
-------
In bedrock groundwater, the majority contributors to the
carcinogenic risk were arsenic and beryllium. The major
contributors to noncarcinogenic risks were antimony, arsenic,
manganese and vanadium. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),
established in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 40 CFR, Part 141, were
exceeded for benzene, antimony, beryllium, chromium and nickel.
The action level for lead was also exceeded.
'0
For groundwater monitored in residential/commercial wells only
noncarcinogenic risk estimates exceeded EPA's target risk level and
the major contributor to this risk was manganese. MCLs were
exceeded for chromium and an action level was exceeded for lead.
Based on the human health risk assessment the only pathway which
could result in a risk is the ingestion of contaminated
groundwater, therefore the response action(s) for the management of
migration operable unit (OU-2) will deal with the mitigation of
this potential threat. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances in groundwater from this Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare.
The results of the environmental risk assessment indicates that
arsenic in sediment may pose a potential risk to shrews whose diet
is obtained entirely from contaminated OU-2 areas. The assessment
. indicates the shrew is the only wildlife species at risk of three
key species evaluated.
For the shrew (as well as for the muskrat and mallard),. the
majority of the estimated risks are attributable to consumption of
terrestrial (soil) macroinvertebrates or earthworms. Arsenic is
the principal contaminant of concern responsible for the majority
of predicted risks.
Based on the conservative assumptions applied in the risk analysis
for wetland wildlife and the comparison of exposure point
concentrations with background concentrations, it is unlikely,
however, that the risks associated with potential shrew exposures
to contaminants of concern in wetland and stream sediments are
significant. Risk estimates associated with landfill runoff areas
are approximately 2- to 5-fold higher than those estimated for the
wetlands and streams. The estimated risk is based on the
assumption that the shrews entire dietary intake of arsenic over a
lifetime is received from the site areas of concern. The
conservatism introduced throughout this analysis is expected to
outweigh the uncertainties which may tend to under estimate
exposures. Under the existing baseline conditions, the estimated
risks of adverse effects at the individual or population level.are
concluded' to be low. Therefore, EPA considers the environmental
risks posed by the site to be low.
-------
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
statutory Requirements/Respons'e objectives
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that are
protective of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, (as amended by
Superfund and Reauthorization Act of 1986) (CERCLA)
establishes several other statutory requirements and
preferences, including: a requirement that EPA's remedial
action, when complete, must comply with all federal and more
stringent state environmental standards, requirements,
criteria or limitations, unless a waiver is invoked; a
requirement that EPA select a remedial action that is cost-
effective and that utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies, to the maximum extent practicable; and a
preference for remedies in which treatment which permanently
and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity or mobility of
the hazardous substances is a principal element over remedies
not involving such treatment. Response al ternati ves were
developed to be consistent with these Congressional mandates.
,Based on preliminary information relating to types of
contaminan~s, environmental media of concern, prior and
potential use as a drinking water source and potential
exposure pathways, remedial action objectives were developed
to aid in the development and screening of alternatives.
These remedial action objectives were developed to mitigate
existing and future potential threats to public health and the
environment. These response objectives were:
1. To prevent ingestion of groundwater contamination in
excess of drinking water standards (MCLs/MCLGs) or in their
absence, an excess cancer risk level of 10-6, for each
carcinogenic compound. Also to prevent ingestion of
'contaminated groundwater in excess of a total cancer risk
level for all carcinogenic compounds outside the risk ranqe of
10.4 to 10'6.
"
2. To prevent ingestion of groundwater contaminated in excess
of drinking water standards for each noncarcinogenic compound
and a total hazard index greater than one for each
noncarcinogenic compound.
"
3. To facilitate the restoration of the groundwater aquifer
to drinking water standards or in their absence, the more
stringent of an excess cancer 'risk of 10-6, ,for each
c~rcinogenic compound or a hazard quotient of one for each
-------
noncarcinogenic compound. Also, restore the aquifer water
quality to the mor~ stringent of 1) a total excess cancer risk
wi thin the risk range of 10-t. to 10-6 and 2) a hazard index of
1-10.
~
4. Ensure that the remedy does not negatively impact the
wetlands and facilitates the restoration of the wetland
environment.
B.
Technology and Alternative Development and screening
CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) set forth the process by which remedial
actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance with these
requirements, a range of alternatives was developed for the
Site.
Wi th respect to this groundwater management of migration
response action, the RI/FS developed a limited number of
remedial alternatives that attain site specific remediation
levels within different time frames using different
technologies; an alternative that involved no treatment but
provides protection through institutional controls; and a no
action alternative.
As discussed in Volume 3, Section 4.0 of the RI/FS identified,
assessed and screened technologies based on implementability,
effectiveness, and cost. These technologies were used for the
management of migration (MM) alternatives. Volume 3, Section
5.0 of the RI/FS presented the remedial alternatives developed
by combining the technologies identified in the previous
screening process in the categories identified in Section
300.430(e) (3) of the NCP. The. purpose of the initial
screening was to narrow the number of potential remedial
actions for further detailed analysis while preserving a range
of options. Each alternative was then evaluated and screened
in Volume 3, Section 5.0 of the RI/FS.
In summary, of the four management of migration remedial
alternatives screened in Volume 3, Section 5.0, all four were
retained for detailed analysis. Volume 3, Section 5, Pages 5-
1 and 5-2 of the RI/FS identifies the four alternatives that
were analyzed.
\>
-------
VIII.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section presents a narrative sU!':II!Iary of each alternative
evaluated. A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative can
be found in Table 6-10 in Volume 3, Section 6 of the RI/FS.
A.
Management of Migration (MM) Alternatives Analyzed
The management of migration alternatives address contaminants
that have migrated from the coakley Landfill, the original
source of contamination. contaminants have migrated radially
from the landfill with the majority of the flow towards the
wetland to the west. All of these alternatives assume that
the Remedial Action for the source control operable unit (OU-
1) is in place and operating. The Management of Migration
alternatives evaluated include:
MM-1:
No-action Alternative;
MM-2
Limited Action Alternative;
MM-3:
Groundwater Treatment/Disposal In Conjunction
with OU-1 Source Control Remedy; and
MM-4:
Groundwater Treatment/Disposal - Independent from
Source Control Remedy.
A more detailed description for each of the management of
migration alternatives follows.
MM-l
No-Action
This alternative is included in the Feasibility Study (FS), as
required by CERCLA, to serve as a basis for comparison with
the other source control alternatives being considered.
This alternative was evaluated in the FS to serve as a
baseline for all remedial alternatives under consideration.
Under this alternative, no action would be taken except for
long-term monitoring of groundwater for thirty years near the
Site. The results of the groundwater sampling from
groundwater monitoring wells would be reviewed to evaluate any
changes that occur and to reassess the need for additional
remedial actions. .
..
This alternative is primarily a data collection activity; no
treatment or containment of the landfill wastes or
contaminated groundwater would occur, and no effort would be
made to reduce the risk of potential human exposure to
-------
contamination. It is expected that a reduction in the level
of contaminants to meet cleanup levels in the groundwater
would occur over an eleven (11) year period due to natural
attenuation.
i",
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Time for Desiqn and Construction: None
Capital Cost (1994 Dollars): $ 0
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs:
Total Cost Over 30 Years(1993 Dollars):
$ 98.000
$ 1. 212.000
\~
This alternative is not protective since it does not prevent
the use of contaminated groundwater as a drinking water
supply. If the groundwater was to be used as a drinking water
supply it would not meet all of the identified applicable or
relevant and appropriate environmental regulations (ARARs),
particularly since MCLs would be exceeded at the Site.
MM-2
Alternative MM-2, Limited Action, Natural Attenuation and
Groundwater Monitoring
The main elements of the Limited Action remedy are listed
below:
. institutional controls (such as deed restrictions) to
prevent use of contaminated grounqwater;
natural attenuation for the contaminated groundwater
plume; and
groundwater monitoring.
.
.
The key element of this alternative is the ability of the
groundwater contamination to naturally attenuate. A
mathematical. model was used to predict the effect of the.
natural processes (dilution and biodegradation) to reduce
contaminant levels in the groundwater. The model predicted
that the contaminants in the groundwater will naturally
attenuate to cleanup levels in approximately 11 years. This
compares to the estimated 5 to 10 years it will take to
actively pump and treat the groundwater until cleanup levels
are met.
This alternative is similar to a No-Action remedy (see MM-l
above), except in addition to a groundwater monitoring program
for thirty years, it would include institutional controls to
prevent use of contaminated groundwater as a drinking water
supply until cleanup levels are maintained. This alternative
allows for the installation of additional monitoring wells to
observe and evaluate the natural attenuation of the plume and
to confirm the distance of migration. The monitoring program
will include establishing the naturally occurring background
levels of Manganese and Antimony in the adjacent aquifers.
"
-------
Estimated Time for Desian and Construction: 1 year
Estimated Capital Cost (1993 Dollars): $ 301.000
Estimated Annual Ocerations and Maintenance Costs:
Estimated Total Cost Over 30 Years (1993 Dollars): $
$ 98.000
1.412.000
MM-3
Alternative MM-3: Groundwater Treatment/on-site Disposal in
Conjunction with OU-l Groundwater Treatment system.
This alternative would include the construction of a
groundwater extraction system in the wetlands west of the
landfill. The groundwater would then be pumped to the OU-l
source control groundwater treatment system. After the
groundwater is treated by the OU-1 system the water would be
recharged back to the local groundwater by the OU-1 recharge
and/or discharge system. The OU-1 treatment system would be
able to treat the contaminated groundwater since the
contaminants are similar. MM-3 includes institutional
controls to prevent use of contaminated groundwater as a
drinking water supply until cleanup levels are maintained.
Estimated Time for Desian and Construction: 2 vears
Estimated Capital Cost (1993 Dollars): $ 586.000
Estimated Annual ODeration and Maintenance Costs: S 151.000
Estimated Total Cost Over 30 Years (1993 Dollars): $ 2.067.000
MM-4
Alternative MM-4:
(separate system)
This alternative is similar to MM-3 except that the extracted
groundwater would be treated and recharged using a separate
system constructed and operated independently from the source
control system used for OU-1. The treatment plant would be
built above the 100 year flood plain. The system's processes
would include metals precipitation for treatment of the metals
and carbon adsorption for the VOCs. MM-4 would include
institutional controls to prevent use of contaminated
groundwater as a drinking water supply until cleanup levels
are maintained.
Groundwater Treatment/on-site Disposal
,
Estimated Time for Desiqn and Construction: 2 vears
Estimated Capital Cost (1993 Dollars): $ 1.438.000
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $ 196.000
Estimated Total Cost Over 30 Years (1993 Dollars): $ 3.232.000
"
-------
IX.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121 (b) (1) of CERCLA presents several factors that at a
minimum EPA is required to consider in its assessment of
alternatives. Building upon these specific statutory mandates, the
NCP articulates nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing
the individual remedial alternatives.
A detailed analysis was performed on the five alternatives using
the nine evaluation criteria in order to select a site remedy. The
following is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's
strength and weakness with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
These criteria and their definitions are as follows:
Threshold criteria
An alternative must meet the two threshold criteria described below
in order to be eligible for selection in accordance with the NCP.
1. Overali protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. compliance with Applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARS) addresses whether or not a remedy meets
all ARARs or other Federal and State environmental laws and/or
provides grounds for invoking a waiver.
Primary Ba1ancinQ criteria
The following five criteria are used to
elements of alternatives which have met the
each other.
compare and evaluate
threshold criteria to
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time, once clean-up goals have
. been met.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment addresses the degree to which alternatives employ
recycling or treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume including how treatment is used to. address the
principal threats posed by the site.
S. Short term effectiveness addresses the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may. be posed during the
construction and implementation period, until clean-up goals
are achieved. . .
'.'
-------
6. Implementability addresses the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a
particular option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation
maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as present-worth costs.
&
Modifvinq Criteria
The modifying criteria are factored into the final balancing of
remedial alternatives. This generally occurs after EPA has
received public comment on the RIjFS and Proposed Plan.
8. state acceptance addresses the state's position and key
concerns related to the preferred alternative and other
, alternatives; and the state's comments on ARARs or the
proposed use of waivers.
9. Communi ty acceptance addresses public general response to
the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and RIjFS
repo'rt.
, , A detailed tabular assessment of the nine criteria applied to each
alternative can be found in Table 6-10 in Volume 3, section 6 of
the RIjFS.
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a
comparative analysis, focusing on the relative performance of each
alternative against the nine criteria, was conducted. This
comparative analysis can also be found in Table 6-10.
The section below presents the nine criteria and a brief narrative
summary of the alternatives and the strengths and weaknesses
according to the detailed and comparative analysis.
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Each of the alternatives is protective at the completion of the
remedy. MM-l will be protective after an expected eleven year
period, however, in the interim there would be nothing in place to
prevent the drinking of contaminated groundwater.
2.
Compliance with ARARS
Each alternative was evaluated for compliance with ARARs, including
chemical specific, action specific and location specific ARARs.
These alternative specific ARARs are presented in Volume 3, Section
6 of the RIjFS in Appendix B. Alternatives MM-2, MM-3 and MM-4
will meet their respective ARARs. MM-1 fails to meet a state
-------
groundwater regulation (En./-Ws 410) which, among other things,
requires the establishment of a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ)
when a groundwater plume is migrating from a landfill or other
source area. Groundwater needs to be restricted in the GMZ.
3.
Lona term effectiveness and nermanence
MM-l and MM-2 are equivalent in terms of meeting the long term
effectiveness and permanence criteria. Neither will generate
residual waste which will require disposal and/or long term
management. Any residual contamination remaining after cleanup
levels are met will be within EPA's acceptable risk range. A five
year review would be necessary since cleanup levels are not
expected to be attained for ten to eleven years. Long term
monitoring will done for up to thirty years to confirm that the
cleanup level are achieved and maintained.
MM-3 and MM-4 are similarly long term effective and permanent. In
MM-3 and MM-4 the contaminated groundwater will be extracted and
treated in a treatment plant which will generate residual wastes
requiring disposal off site and long term management. Once cleanup
levels are met, however, the residual contamination in the
groundwater will be within EPA's acceptable risk range. Five year
reviews will be required until cleanup levels are met.
. Therefore, MM-l and MM-2 are the most long term effective and
permanent when compared to MM-3 or MM-4.
4.
Reduction of toxicitv. mobilitv. or volume throuah treatment
Alternatives MM-l and MM-2 do not employ any active treatment
technologies although, the toxicity of the groundwater will be
reduced wi th time due to natural attenuation processes.
Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 use treatment technologies that result
in a reduction of toxicity, mObility and volume through treatment,
however, residuals are created which will require treatment and/or
long term management. Compared to each other, MM-3 and MM-4
provide equivalent reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume
through treatment. MM-3 would use the Source Control treatment
plant and MM-4 would construct a new treatment plant.
5.
Short-term effectiveness
Alternatives MM-l, MM-2, MH-3 and MM-4 have similar times until
protection is achieved. MH-l and MM-2 are expected to achieve
cleanup levels in approximately 11 years according to the
groundwater model developed in the RI/FS. MM-3 and MM-4 are
expected to achieve cleanup levels in 5 to 10 years. For
groundwater remediation these time frames are considered similar
due to the uncertainties with any groundwater extraction and
.treatment remediation.
-------
Alternatives MM-l would have the least impact to.the community,
site workers or the environment since there is no construction or
disruptive activities during implementation of this alternative.
Alternative MM-2 will require construction of more monitoring wells
in the wetlands which will temporarily impact the wetland and
potentially expose the site workers to contaminated groundwater.
These activities are not expected to adversely impact the community
during or after implementation since they are, for the most part,
occurring in the wetland away from the residential area.
Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 have the greatest potential for causing
health risks to the community, site workers and the environment.
Although unlikely, the public could be exposed to contaminants as
a resu],.t of the construction of the groundwater treatment plant and
during its operation. Also, MM-3 and MM-4 has the greatest risk of
impacting the site workers during construction and operation of the
groundwater treatment plant by exposing them to the groundwater
contamination from direct contact or an accidental release. During
implementation of the remedy the wetland has a great potential of
environmental damage from disruption of the water balance and could
cause permanent damage to this natural resource.
6.
Implementabilitv
Alternatives MM-2, MM-3 and MM-4 can be implemented using standard
construction methods. MM-l requires no construction activities
which makes it the easiest alternative to implement. MM-2 involves
the construction of only a few monitoring wells in the wetland and
is the next easiest alternative to implement. MM-3 involves
constructing a groundwater extraction system in the wetlands and,
therefore, significant implementation/construction problems are
likely. MM-4 will encounter the most implementation problems since
it involves the most construction (the extraction system and a
treatment plant).
All alternatives are technically and administratively feasible.
There is no special technology proposed for these alternatives.
All materials and services are readily available for these
alternatives to be implemented.
7.
Cost
The capital, operation and maintenance, and total cost for each
alternative is provided below. For comparative purposes, the costs
are all based upon thirty years of operation and/or monitoring of
each alternative. The actual costs would differ somewhat based
upon the length of time necessary to achieve cleanup levels. The
estimated present worth value of each alternative and the options
are as follows:
-------
COST COMPARISON OF SOURCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
capital O&M Costs Present
Costs CS/vr) Worth
MM-1 No Action $ 101,000 98,000 1,212,000
MM-2 Limited Action 301,000 98,000 1,412,000
MM-3 Groundwater Treatment wi
OU-l System 586,000 151,000 2,067,000
MM-4 c:;roundwater Treatment wi
New System 1,438,000 196,000 3,232,000
8. state accet>tance
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) has
been involved with the Site from the beginning as summarized in
Section II of this document "SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES". The Source Control Operable Unit-l Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study was performed as a state lead
through a cooperative agreement between the State and the EPA. The
New Hampshire DES and the Attorney Generals Office have reviewed
this document and concur with the alternative selected for the
. management of migration remedy as documented in Appendix D, the
Declaration of Concurrence.
9.
Community accet>tance
The comments received during the public comment period and the
discussions during the Proposed Plan and RIIFS public meeting are
summarized in the attached document entitled "The Responsiveness
Summary" (Appendix C). Varied comments were received from
residents living near the Site (concerned citizens and property
owners) and from the Coakley Landfill Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs). One concerned citizen wanted EPA to choose MM-4
and also wanted soils treated. The adjacent property owners
generally agreed with the Limited Action Remedy but were concerned
with the possibility of deed restrictions, which limited the use of
groundwater under their property, being used as an institutional
control. The PRPs generally want the EPA to choose the No-Action
alternative, MM-l, which would be the least costly and most easily
implemented remedy.
-------
x.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has selected alternative MM-2, Limited Action, for the Second
Operable unit, Management of Migration, at the Coakley Landfill
site. A detailed description of this remedy is presented below.
The limited action alternative requires a long term monitoring
program. Existing and additional monitoring wells in the area of
vicinity of the management of migration plume and the expected
extent maximum extent of the plume shall be monitored for up to but
not limited to 30 years. During the time natural attenuation is
expected to occur and institutional controls will need to be in
place to assure the contaminated groundwater is not used for
drinking water. The institutional controls that need to be
implemented could take the form of a deed restriction, a local
ordinance, or other control that is deemed protective by EPA.
A.
Interim Groundwater Cleanup Levels
"
Interim cleanup levels have been established in ground water
for all contaminants of concern identified in .the Baseline
Risk Assessment found to pose an unacceptable risk to either
public hea~th or the environment. Interim cleanup levels have
been set based on the ARARs (e. g ., Drinking Water Maximum
.Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and MCLs) as available, or
other suitable criteria described below. Periodic assessments
of the protection afforded by remedial actions will be made as
the remedy is being implemented and at the completion of the
remedial action. At the time that Interim Ground Water
Cleanup Levels identified in the ROD and newly promulgated
ARARs and modified ARARs which call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy have been achieved and have not
been exceeded for a period of three consecutive years, a risk
assessment shall be performed on the residual ground water
contamination to determine whether the remedial action is
protective. This risk assessment of the residual ground water
contamination shall follow EPA procedures and will assess the
. cumulative carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks posed by
ingestion of ground water. The potential risks associated
with the inhalation of volatile organic compounds during
showering would be comparable to those risks predicted for the
ingestion route of exposure. If, after review of the risk
assessment, the remedial action is not determined to be
protective by EPA, the remedial action shall continue until
either protective levels are achieved, and are not exceeded
for a period of three consecutive years, or until EPA deems
the remedy protective. These protective residual levels shall
constitute the final cleanup levels. for this Record of
Decision and shall be considered performance standards for any
remedial action.
'-,
-------
Because the aquifer impacted by the remedy is a Class IIB
aquifer, which is a potential source of drinking water, MCLs
and non-zero MCLGs established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act are ARARs.
Interim cleanup levels for known, probable, and possible
carcinogenic compounds (Classes A, B, and C) have been
established to protect against potential carcinogenic effects
and to conform with ARARs. Because the MCLGs for Class A & B
compounds are set at zero and are thus not suitable for use as
interim cleanup levels, MCLs and proposed MCLs have been
selected as the interim cleanup levels for these Classes of
compounds. Because the MCLGs for the Class C compounds are
greater than zero, and can readily be confirmed, MCLGs and
proposed MCLGs have been selected as the interim cleanup
. levels for Class C compounds.
Interim cleanup levels for Class D and E compounds (not
classified, and no evidence of carcinogenicity) have been
established to protect' against potential non-carcinogenic
effects and to conform with ARARs. Because the MCLGs for
these Classes are greater that zero and can readily be
confirmed, MCLGs and proposed MCLGs have been selected as the
interim cleanup levels for these classes of compounds.
In situations where a promulgated State standard is more
stringent than values established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the State standard was used as the interim cleanup
level. In the absence of an MCLG, an MCL, a proposed MCLG,
proposed MCL, State standard, or other suitable criteria to be
considered (i.e., health advisory, state guideline) an interim
cleanup level was derived for each compound having
carcino~enic potential '(Classes A, 5, and C compounds) based
on a 10' excess cancer risk level per compound considering the
ingestion of ground water. In the absence of the above
standards and criteria, interim cleanup levels for all other
compounds (Classes D and E) were established based on a level
that represent an acceptable exposure level to which the human
population including sensitive subgroups may be exposed
without adverse affect during a lifetime or part of a
lifetime, incorporating an adequate margin of safety (hazard
quotient = 1) considering the ingestion of groundwater. If a
value described by any of the above methods was not capable of
being detected with good precision and accuracy or was below
what was deemed to be the background value, then the practical
quantification limit or background value was used as
appropriate for the Interim Ground Water Cleanup Level.
Table 12, below, summarizes the Interim Cleanup Levels for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic contaminants of concern
identified in ground water.
-------
TABLE 12: INTERIM GROUND WATER CLEANUP LEVELS
Interim'
Cleanup
Level (uq/l)
5
50
50
4
Carcinogenic
Contaminants of
Concern (class)
Benzene (A)
1,2-Dichloropropane (B2)
Arsenic* (A)
Beryllium (B2)
Non-carcinogenic
contaminants
of Concern (Class)
Antimony (D)
Arsenic (A)
Beryllium (B2)
Chromium (D)
Lead (B2)
Manganese
Nickel (D)
Vanadium (D)
Interim
Cleanup
Level (uq/l)
6
50
4
100
15
180
100
260
Totals
Basis
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SUM
Basis
Target
Endpoint
of Toxicitv
Blood
Skin
None
None
CNS
CNS
Organ W1
CNS
Level of
Risk
1. 7xlO-6
3.9xlO-6
1. OxlO-1t
2.1X10-1t
3.2xlO-1t
Hazard
Ouotient
0.4
4.5
0.02
0.003
1
0.1
0.5
6.6
4.5
1.5
0.4
1.2
*Recent studies indicate that many skin tumors arising from
oral exposure to arsenic are non-lethal and that the dose-
response curve for the skin cancers may be sub-linear (in
which case the cancer potency factor used to generate risk
estimates may be overestimate). It is Agency policy to manage
these risks downward by as much as a factor of ten. As a
result, the carcinogenic risk for arsenic in the above table
has been managed as if it were one order or magnitude lower
than the calculated risk. Consequently, the risk level for
arsenic in the above table reflects a risk management factor.
These interim cleanup levels are consistent wi th ARARs or
sui table TBC cri teria for ground water, attain EPA' s risk
management goal for remedial actions and are determined by EPA
to be protective. However, the true test of protection cannot
be made until residual levels are known. consequently, at the
time that Interim Ground Water Cleanup Levels identified in
the ROD and newly promulgated ARARs and modified ARARs which
call into question the protectiveness of the remedy have been
achieved and have not been exceeded for a period of three
consecutive years, a risk assessment will be performed on
residual ground water contamination to determine whether the
remedial action is protective. This risk assessment of the
MCL
MCL
MCL.
MCL
AL
HB
MCL
HB
Skin
CNS
Blood
Other
-------
residual groundwater contaI:\ination shall follow EPA procedures
and will assess the cumulative carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks posed by ingestion of ground water. If,
after review of the risk assessment, the remedial action is
not determined to be protective by EPA, then remedial actions
shall continue until either protective levels are achieved and
are not exceeded for .three consecutive years or until the
remedy is otherwise deemed protective. These protective
residual levels shall constitute the final cleanup levels for
this Record of Decision and shall be considered performance
standards for any remedial action.
All Interim Ground Water Cleanup Levels identified in the ROD
and newly promulgated ARARs and modified ARARs which call into
question the protecti veness of the remedy and protective
levels determined as a consequence of the risk assessment of
residual contamination, must be met at the completion of the
remedial action at the points of compliance for the source
control remedy. EPA has estimated that these levels will be
attained within 11 years after completion of the source
control component.
The compliance boundary established for source control
groundwater cleanup levels (OU-l) is the perimeter of the site
which runs close to the current property boundary of the
Coakley Landfill on the south, west and east sides and
approximately 200 feet from the current toe of the slope of
the landfill to the north and northeast within the Site
boundary. Groundwater cleanup levels established in this ROD
need to be attained within the area of groundwater beyond the
source control compliance boundary that is impacted by
contamination .from the landfill or could be impacted as a
result of pumping activities. This groundwater cleanup area
is the same as the area where institutional controls need to .
be implemented as defined in the next section (B. Description
of Remedial Components) and designated in Appendix A, Figure
5. The remedy will be reviewed and a revised plan will be
adopted, if EPA determines that groundwater contamination from
the landfill has migrated beyond the boundary of the
groundwater cleanup area. Based on available data I the
groundwater contamination is not expected to migrate beyond
the area of institutional controls.
B.
Description of Remedial Components
The Limited Action remedy allows for the natural attenuation
of the groundwater plume migrating from the source control
area. The main elements of the Limited Action remedy are
listed below:
-------
.
institutional controls (such as deed restrictions) to
prevent use of contaminated groundwater;
natural attenuation for the contaminated groundwater
plume; and
groundwater monitoring.
.
.
The key element of the remedy is the ability of the
groundwater contamination to naturally attenuate. A.
mathematical model was used to predict the effect of the
natural processes (dilution and biodegradation) to reduce
contaminant levels in the groundwater. The model predicted
that the contaminants in the groundwater will naturally
attenuate to cleanup levels in approximately 11 years. This
compares to the estimated 5 to 10 years it will take to
actively pump and treat the groundNater until cleanup levels
are met.
A monitoring program will be developed and implemented as part
of the remedy to evaluate and determine the extent of
migration of the contaminated groundwater and other
potentially affected media (surface water and sediments) and
to track the natural attenuation of the contamination. EPA
will determine the frequency of sampling, the types of
analyses, the sampling method and the media to be sampled for
the monitoring program during the design phase. Initially,
monitoring wells at a minimum shall be sampled on a semi-
annual basis. The other affected media (surface water and
sediments) at a minimum will be sampled annually. Each
sampling location shall be analyzed for priority pollutants
(volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds
and inorganics) unless EPA determines that the analyses are
not necessary. The monitoring program is currently estimated
to continue for thirty years.
The monitoring program will include establishing the naturally
occurring background levels of manganese and antimony in the
adjacent aquifers. This remedy provides for the installation
of additional monitoring wells to accomplish this and to
confirm the distance that contaminated groundwater has
migrated. EPA will determine the number and location of
additional monitoring wells that are necessary during the
remedial design.
In order for the remedy to be considered protective,
institutional controls need to be implemented to prevent use
of contaminated groundwater as a drinking water supply for the
duration of the remedy. Institutional controls are required
within the groundwater cleanup area. The area where
institutional controls will need to be implemented is
currently estimated to be Lafayette Road (Rqute 1) to the
south, the power line easement to the north, the extent of the
-------
wetlands immediately to the west of the landfill and railroad
tracks and approximately 1400 feet from the landfill property
boundary to the south (see Appendix A, Figure 5). There are
no groundwater wells in use within the groundwater cleanup
area. The exact area where institutional controls will be
implemented will be determined during the remedial design as
approved by EPA. All residences within the expected area of
institutional controls are currently connected to a community
water system and do not depend on private drinking water
wells. The number of private property owners that will be
adversely impacted by the imposition of institutional controls
is anticipated to be few. Further, the remedy will be
reviewed and a revised plan will be adopted, if EPA determines
that the contamination from the landfill in the groundwater
has migrated beyond the boundary of the groundwater cleanup
area. Institutional controls can be removed from affected
property after the remedy has been determined by EPA to be
protective. The types of institutional ~ontrols which may be
implemented are deed restrictions, local ordinances or other
controls if they meet ARARs, incl uding NH Env-Ws 410.26,
provided EPA determines the controls would be protective.
Though they are not ARARs, the administrative provisions NH
Env-Ws 410.20 and 410.21 may provide useful guidance for the
implementation of these controls.
To the extent required by law, EPA will review the Site at
least once every five years after the initiation of remedial
'action at the Site if any hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants remain at the Site to assure that the remedial
action continues to protect human health and the environment.
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action selected for implementation at the Coakley
Landfill Superfund Site is consistent with CERCLA and, to the
extent practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of
human health and the environment, attains ARARs and is cost
effective. Although this operable unit for the management of
migration involves no ,treatment and therefore does not satisfy the
preference for treatment which permanently and significantly
reduces the mobility, toxicity or volume of hazardous substanc~s as
a principal element, the remedy for the Site as a whole, including
the OU-l remedy, satisfies this statutory preference.
Additionally, the selected remedy utilizes alternate treatment
t'echnologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. '
-------
A.
.'
The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the
Environment
The remedy at this Site will permanently reduce the risks
posed to human health and the environment by eliminating,
reducing or controlling exposures to human and environmental
receptors: more specifically the management of migration OU-2
remedy reduces exposure through institutional controls during
an interim period as cleanup levels are reached through
natural attenuation.
Moreover, the selected remedy will achieve potential human
heal th risk levels that attain the 10-4 to 10-6 incremental
cancer risk range and a level protective of noncarcinogenic
endpoints, and will comply with ARARs and to be considered
criteria. At the time that the Interim Ground Water Cleanup
Levels identified in the ROD and newly promulgated ARARs and
modified ARARs which call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy have been achieved and have not been exceeded for
a period of three consecutive years, a risk assessment shall
be performed on the residual ground water contamination to
determine whether the remedial action is protective. This
risk assessment of the residual ground water contamination
shall follow EPA procedures and will assess the cumulative
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks posed by ingestion of
ground water. If, after review of the risk assessment, the
remedial action is not determined to be protective by EPA, the
remedial action shall continue until protective levels are
achieved and have not been exceeded for a period of three
consecutive years, or until the remedy is otherwise deemed
protective. These protective residual levels shall constitute
the final cleanup levels for this Record of Decision and shall
be considered performance standards for any remedial action.
B.
The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
This remedy will attain all applicable or relevant and
appropriate federal and state requirements that apply to the
Site~ Environmental laws from which ARARs for the selected
remedial action are derived, and the specific ARARs include:
- .
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)]
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Safe Drinking Water Act
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)
Clean Air Act (CAA)
occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)
-------
state Superfund Laws
State Hazardous Waste Facility Laws
State Groundwater Protection Rules
The specific ARAR table associated with this remedy are
attached in Appendix B, Table 13. It should be noted that
RCRA Land Disposal Restriction requirements are not an ARAR if
the remedy is implemented as described in this ROD.
A discussion of why these requirements are applicable or
relevant and appropriate may be found in Volume 3, Section 2
of the RIfFS at pages 2-2 through 2-30.
The following is a discussion of the applicable or relevant
and appropriate State of New Hampshire Groundwater Protection
Rules, Env-Ws 410, February 1993.
chemical Snecific
Env-Ws 410.05. Ambient Groundwater Quality Standards (to
the extent they are more stringent than MCLs and non-zero
. MCLGs)
Env-Ws 410.03. Groundwater Quality criteria
Location Snecific
Env-Ws 410.26, Groundwater Management Zone
Action Snecific
Env-Ws 410.24 (a) and (b), Criteria for Remedial Action.
Note: Other criteria in 410.24, which do not impose
distinct requirements but rather are weighed more
generally in selecting remedial action plans would not be
ARARs .
Env-Ws 410.27, Groundwater Management Permit Compliance
Criteria.
Note: This provision reqUires a revised remedial action
plan if contamination migrates beyond the area where
institutional controls are implemented. The remedy will
be reviewed and a revised plan will be adopted, if EPA
determines that the contamination from the landfill in
the qroundwater has miqrated beyond the boundary of the
groundwater cleanup area. .
-------
The following policies, criteria, and guidance will also be
considered (TBCs) during the imple~entation of t~e remedial
action:
a) USEPA Human Health Assess~ent Cancer Slope Factors
(CSFs);
b) u.S. EPA Risk Reference Doses (RfD's); and
c) u.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group Potency Factors.
C.
The Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective
In the Agency's judgment, the selected remedy is cost
effective, Le., the remedy affords overall effectiveness
proportional to its costs. In selecting this re~edy, once
EPA identified alternatives that are protective of human
health' and the environment and that attain, or, as
appropriate, waive ARARs, EPA evaluated the overall
effectiveness of each alternative by assessing the relevant
three criteria--long term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment;
and short term effectiveness, in combination. The
relationship of the overall effectiveness of this remedial
alternative was determined to be proportional to its costs.
The costs of this remedial alternative are:
COST COMPARISON OF SOURCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
capital O&M Costs Present
Costs CS/vr) Worth
MM-1 No Action $ 101,000 98,000 1,212,000
MM-2 Limited Action 301,000 98,000 1,412,000
MM-3 Groundwater Treatment wi
OU-1 system 586,000 151,000 2,067,000
MM-4 Groundwater Treatment wi
New System 1,438,000 196,000 3,232,000
The time to meet cleanup levels for MM-2 is estimated to take
eleven (11) years. The time to meet cleanup levels for MM-3
and MM-4 is estimated to take five (5) to ten (10) years.
These time periods are relatively similar for cleaning up
groundwater. Therefore, MM-2 is the most cost effective
alternative that is protective and meets ARARs, the threshold
criteria.
-------
D.
The Selected Remedy utilizes Permanent Solutions and
Al ternati ve Treatment or Resource Recovery Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
Once the Agency identified those alternatives that attain or,
as appropriate, waive ARARs and that are protective of human
health and the environment, EPA identified which alternative.
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. This determination was made by deciding
which one of the identified alternatives provides the best
balance of trade-offs among alternatives in terms of: 1) long-
term effectiveness and permanence; 2) reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume through treatment; 3) short-term
effectiveness; 4)implementability; and 5) cost. The balancing
test emphasized long-term effectiveness and permanence and the
reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment;
and considered the preference for treatment as a principal
element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated
waste, and community and state acceptance. The selected remedy
provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives.
The limited action remedy is as effective in the long term and
permanent as any active treatment system alternative since
cleanup goals will be reached in a similar time period and
will be permanent once met for both the source control and
this management of migration remedy (OU-l and OU-2). Also MM-
3 and MM-4 will result in the production of residuals which
would have to be disposed of off site. Although treatment
will not be used to achieve a reduction in toxicity, mobility,
or volume in the selected remedy, reductions will be similar
to the MM-3 and MM-4 alternatives, where treatment would be
used, at a significantly lower cost. The short term
effectiveness is greater for the limited action remedy than
the active remedies since construction involves minimal impact
to the wetland with the drilling of wells and there is little
to no exposure threat to the workers, local community during
construction and protectiveness is attained in a similar time
frame. All the remedies are implementable with limited action
being the more implementable based on the complexity of the
alternatives. The limited action remedy is also the most cost
effective when compared to the active treatment remedies.
Overall, the balancing criteria favor the I imi ted action
remedy.
-------
The state has reviewed the ROD and concurred with the remedy.
The community varied in their acceptance of the limited action
remedy. The property owners were against institutional
controls but did not prefer the active treatment alternatives.
The PRPs wanted the no-action remedy to be chosen and some of
the community members wanted an active treatment remedy
chosen. Overall, the modifying criteria did not change the
EPA preferred alternative.
The selected. remedy meets the statutory requirement to utilize
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The source control remedy OU-l provides
treatment of the more concentrated contamination. Although
the management of migration remedy OU-2 does not utilize
treatment, it does provide a permanent solution by allowing
natural attenuation of the lower concentration of contaminated
groundwater migrating from the site. Since the result of
natural attenuation is similar to the result of active
treatment o.f the groundwater EPA concludes that natural
attenuation remedy is the most practical alternative.
E.
Tbe OU-2 Selected Remedy does not satisfy tbe Preference for
Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy is an operable unit limited in scope. It
. involves no treatment and therefore does not satisfy the
preference .for treatment as a principal element. However, the
source control OU-l remedy fulfills the preference for
treatment as a primary element for the overall Site cleanup.
The remedy requires treatment of the groundwater from under
the landfill and treatment of the landfill gases. The limited
action remedy does not use treatment as the principle element.
However, the natural attenuation model used in the RIfFS
estimates a similar time in meeting cleanup levels as an
active system and natural attenuation would cause less impact
to the wetlands, thereby satisfying one of the response
objectives.
~X. DOCUMENTATXON OF NO SIGNXFICANT CHANGES
EPA presented a proposed plan (preferred alternative) for
remediation of the Site on May 23, 1994. This management of
migration preferred alternative included a limited action remedy
based on natural attenuation of the contaminated. groundwater
migrating from the site. The remedy includes long term monitoring
for up to thirty years and institutional controls to prevent the
affected groundwater from being used as a source for drinking
water. The remedy contains no significant changes from that
proposed.
-------
XIII.
STATE ROLE
The State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
(DES) has reviewed the various alternatives and indicated its
support for the selected remedy. The State has also reviewed the
Remedial Investigation, Risk Assessment and the Feasibility Study
to determine if the selected remedy is in compliance with
applicable or relevant and appropriate State Environmental laws and
regulations. The New Hampshire DES concurs with the selected
remedy for the Coakley Landfill Superfund Site. A copy of the
declaration of concurrence is attached as Appendix D.
-------
<~
APPENDIX A
-------
. r
<~
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NOArri HAMPTON. NEW HAMPSHIRE
CP=~AaL= UNIT. 2
REME::IAL INVESTIGATION I FEASJ8IU'TY STUDY
LOCUS PLAN
CDM
-------
',- ~
-~--_../ -'-.....
-" ,- ."
-'\
/
I
...114."": .....,..
.'
"/,,
......."."..
t:J
, .
, ,
'\
\
.----
--au
--
---
--
--
---
-
-..-
81
waa................ --....
w.&""81 -..-
....., ...
--~, ....
f)
"'.
"
",
'. -.....,
"'.
"
",
..."
..;:::--~ ""-
. ~,.,~
""
'.
--,
. """'-18L
... 18L-"--'-
. 8&.-...81...... -".-
-
..
.....-..
. . .
~
-
~.. -
........
8'
_ue
---........
_ue-
..-.. _.....,~........
-.IMWIL-
........-.
.-/
~
-,-
CDM
~nvl'on"'enlal enl}lnet!f!f.
pl,'nnt"~. It nronal}t'mt'nt
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NORTH HAMPTON. NH
STUDY AREA BASE MAP
sc1enflsls.
consllltants
-------
"
II
,
~.
~
./
,/
HOTIS:
'--
LiiB'w:~
\,-.,
\ "'.
"
\ "'.
\ "
..,
",
"'. --
',-~
..;:.;:~ ,
,.~
'"
"-\
Q
, I
, I
\'
-.,
--
---
--
--
---
-
-.-
--....
... ---....
... .............. -.--
. 18&.-",,-----
fJ
-
-----
..
~............... .---.
I8&. -......_--
-...
.,. ...... ...
+-+
.. .
~...
,..--...
-
a-
~
-.
II
~
. CiiJ)
--
----
-'--
'II ""."'~""IMA-
-,-
CDM
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NORTH HAMPTON. NH
SURF ACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
,.11 vi, nnme" 101 eoglne",~. sclenl!!: Is.
plonn,.,.<, Il monogemenl conli'lIlIonls
-------
~
.~
I.]
,
'......
/
-I
,/
\""""'""""
, """"'"
\ ................
" ...................
'.......
\ ........~,
) ~- .:..: If ~~~,.
: '.
''''''''''
..............
tJ
,
'~'
.\
,
~..,
--
---
+ --....
IN .... ......,-- -.-
(J
o~
=
--
--
--
-
---
.
..
....--"----
.......... 11.""'.----'
-----
+-+
~
-
$
.... -.....---
-...
-.8ft.,,,,,
...--
. . .
.---'
~
-..
-.--
-,-
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NORTH HAMPTON. NH
CDM
GROUNDW A TER MONITORING WELL
. LOCATION PLAN
,.1Ivfronnr,.IIfaf ~ngineer~, scfenffsfs.
pfanners, 8 management crmsullants
-------
[I
,
..~,.
"
,."...
".
.~::~~~ ''''''''''
"x, .....,
, J.I ( J'x,\. '----..-......
..., . '''' x
"--... '0 "",
',,--
)
\ ------
"... .."",,-
') ~_/
<-.-----
\"'.......
\, "........
'.......
" "........
'.......
I """"'"
, ................
\ .........~~
) ~- .:..: 6" ~,,~~
I """"''''''''
'.
C1
//
.~. '~'-. .~-- ~-
t}
'.
',I
1\\
,
(J
£~
o
-----
--
---
--
--
---
-
-.-
....--- -.&.
... .... -....... -.-
. ....-..----
-
..
.... -...........-.----.
.........",---
-...
... 88'\.' 884
-.-
. . .
~
-
tit
..---'
~
--
----
IMI. .-..
-,-
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NORTH HAMPTON. NH
CDM
t'n"/'onmt'nlal t'nglnct'r~, ~c;enlls/s.
planner~, Ii manntJl'rnenl consl/"anl~
ESTIMA TED AREA. OF INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS LOCATION PLAN
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN IN OVERBURDEN GROUNDWATER
Average Maximum
contaminants Concentration Concentration Frequency
of Concern lucr/l) lucr/l) of Detection
Volatile orcranic Comtlounds
Benzene 5.7 30 14/57
Chlorobenzene 4.7 17 15/57
1,2-Dichloropropane 1.1 10 2/57
Vinyl Chloride 0.53 1 1/57
Semi-Volatile orcranic Compounds
4-Methylphenol ND ND 0/56
Inorcranics
Antimony 18 37 3/39
Arsenic 36 210 44/47
Barium 420 1,500 47/47
Beryllium 4.5 16 22/47
Chromium 240 980 41/47
Lead 56 160 41/47
Manganese 6,000 21,600 47/47
Nickel 200 700 42/47
Vanadium 180 680 41/47
zinc 240 980 35/39
-------
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF CONTA..~INANTS
OF CONCERN IN BEDROCK GROUNDWATER
contaminants
of Concern
Average
Concentration
(ua/l)
Volatile Orqanic Com~ounds
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
3.3
3.1
0.88
0.53
Semi-Volatile Oraanic Com~ounds
4-Methylphenol
Inorqanics
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
90
14
9.5
170
2
88
14
2,000
100
73
93
Maximum
Concentration
(Uq 11)
19
24
4
1
1,100
50
26
640
12
340
52
5,300
470
350
440
Frequency
of Detection
11/47
12/47
6/47
1/47
6/50
1/38
24/42
36/41
8/42
8/43
13/43
43/43
30/43
23/43
-------
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN IN RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL GROUNDWATER WELLS
Average Maximum
contaminants concentration concentration Frequency
of Concern (ucr/1) (ucr/1) of Detection
Arsenic 2.5 3 3/15
Barium 17 32 10/21
chromium :31 113 6/21
Lead 22 43 12/21
Manganese 759 1,900 21/21
Nickel 25 64 6/21
Vanadium 6.8 11 6/21
-------
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN IN SURFACE WATER (STREAMS ONLY)
Average Maximum
contaminants Concentration Concentration Frequency
of Concern (uc:r/1) (ua /1) of Detection
Arsenic ND ND 0/7
Barium 18 27 7/9
Beryllium ND ND 0/9
Lead 11 36 8/9
Manganese 460 980 9/9
-------
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF CONTAMINAN'rS
OF CONCERN IN SURFACE WATER STREAMS WETLAND & LANDFILL RUNOFF
Average Maximum
contaminants Concentration concentration Frequency
of Concern (ua/l) (ua/l) of Detection
Arsenic 24 130 10/30
Barium 430 4,900 24/31
Beryllium 2 2.9 4/31
. Lead 51 300 24/31
Manganese 6,100 41,000 30/31
-------
TABLE 6: Sm!MARY OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN IN SEDIMENT (STREAMS. WETLAND & LANDFILL RUNOFF)
Contaminants
of Concern
Average
Concentration
lmer/kQ')
Semi-Volatile Oreranic Comnounds
Total Carcinogenic PARs
0.91
InorQ'anics
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
14
62
0.69
500
0.21
22
25
47
Maximum
Concentration
(mer/1 )
Frequency
of Detection
0.91
43/171
64
110
2.2
2,500
1.3
42
46
78
32/32
32/32
17/27
32/32
10/28
31/31
32/32
-------
TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCER-\{ IN SEDIMENT ( STREAMS )
Average Maximum
Contaminants Concentration Concentration Frequency
of Concern (mer /ker) (mer/I) of Detection
Semi-Volatile oreranic Com~ounds
..
Total Garcinogenic PAHs 0.84 0.84 21/48
Inoreranics
Arsenic 7.7 13 9/9
Barium 46 75 9/9
Beryllium 0.61 1.1 6/9
Manganese 230 280 9/9
Mercury 0.28 0.4 5/9
Nickel 25 35 9/9
Vanadium 28 46 9/9
Zinc 52 78 8/9
-------
TAn!.!! 8
CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR THE POSSIDLE FUTURE INGESTION
OP OVERnURDEN GROUNDWATER nv ADULTS
Contaminant of Cone. Exposure Cancer Potency Risk Estimate
Concern (mgIL) Factor Foetor
(Class) ave max (L/kg/day) (mglkg-dy)"' live nME
antimony 0.018 0.037 1.2x IO.J
orsenlc (A) 0.036 0.21 1.2x I O.J 1.7S 7.61(10.4 4.4x I 0"
barium 0.42 8.S 1.21( IO.J
benzcne (A) 0.00" 0.03 1.2x 1 O.J 0.029 2.0,,10" 1.0" 10"
beryllium (n2) 0.0045 0.016 1.2x 10.J 4.3 2.J" 111.4 S.31( 10.4
chlorobcnzcnc(O) 0.0047 0.017 1.21( 1 O.J
chromlllln (0) 0.24 0.98 1.21( 10.J
1,2-dichloropropone(n2) 0.00 II 0.01 1.2x 1 O.J 0.067 S.S" 10.7 H.O" III'~
Icad (n2) 0.056 0.16 1.2x 1 O.J
manganese (0) 6 21.6 1.2x10.J
nickel 0.2 0.7 1.2x I O.J
vanodium (0) 0.18 0.68 1.2x 10.J
vinyl chloride (A) o.ooon 0.001 1.2x I O.J 1.9 1.2,,10" 2.31( 1 0"
zinc (0) 0.24 0.98 1.2xIO.J
SUM 1.0,,10" S.3"IO.1
-------
TADI.I~ SA .
.
NONC~RCINOGBNIC RISKS FOR THE POSSmLE FtITURE INGESTION
OF OVERDURDHN OROUNOWATER DY ADULTS
Contaminant of Cone. Exposure Reference Toxicity Ilazord Quotient
('lIncern (mgll.) Pnclnr /)IISC El1Ilpllinl
ave max (L/kg/day) (mglkg/dy) live Itt-.tE
antimony 0.018 0.037 0.027 0.0004 blood 1.2 2.5
arsenic 0.036 0.21 0.027 0.0003 skin 3.2 II)
barium 0.42 1.5 0.027 0.07 cardiovas. 0.16 0.58
hcn7cne 0.00" 0.03 0.027
beryllium 0.0045 0.016 0.027 0.005 none 2.4x 10" 8.6x 10.1
chlorobenzene 0.0047 0.017 I' 0.027 0.02 liver 6.3xIO" 2.]x 10.1
,':
. .
chromium 0.24 0.98 0.027 none 6.5xlO" 2.6,,10"
1,2-dlchloropropane 0.0011 0.01 0.027
lead. 0.056 0.16 0.027
manganese 6 21.6 0.027 0.005 CNS 32 nil
nickel 0.2 0.7 0.027 0.02 orgon wI. 0.27 11.95
vanadium 0.18 0.68 0.027 0.007 liver 0.69 2.6
vinyl chloride 0.00053 0.001 0.027
zinc 0.24 0.98 0.027 0.3 blood 2.2x 10" 8.8x I 0"
ENOPOINT I'lls
CNS 32 120
SKIN 3.2 .19
DLOOO 1.2 2.5
LIVER 0.7 2.6
-------
TABU! 9
CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR THE POSSIRLB FUTURE INGESTION
or REDROCK GROUNDWATBIt nv AOUI.TS
Contaminant of Cone. Exposure Cancer Potency Risk Estimate
Concern (mg/L) Factor Factor
(Class) ave max (Llkglday) (mglkg-dy)-I ave RME
anlimony 0.014 0.05 1.2x 1 O.J
arsenic (A) 0.0095 0.026 1.2x I O.J 1.7S 2.0x 10.4 S.Sx IO'~
barium 0.17 0.64 1.2x10.J
benzene (A) 0.0033 0.019 1.2x IO.J 0.021) 1.1 x 1/1'. (1,("" 0'.
beryllium (02) 0.002 0.012 1.2x I O.J 4.3 LOx 10.4 6.2x IO'~
chlorobenzene(D) 0.0031 0.024 1.2x I O.J
chromium (0) 0.088 0.34 1.2x 1 O.J
1,2-dichloropropanc(02) 0.00088 0.004 1.2x10.J 0.067 7.lxI0" 3.2xIO"
Icad (82) 0.014 0.OS2 1.2x10.J
IIIlIlIgllnesI: (I») 2 5.3 1.2x10.J
nickel 0.1 0.47 1.2x I O.J
vllnlldium (0) 0.073 0.35 1.2x I O.J
vinyl chloride (A) 0.0002 0.0002 1.2x IO.J 1.9 4.6xlO-6 4.6x I 0.6
zinc (D) 0.093 0.44 1.2x I O.J
-------
,
TABLB 9A
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR TIm PossrnLE FUTURE INGESTION
OF BBDROCK GROUNDWATER BY ADULTS
Contaminant of Cone. Bxposure Reference Toxicity Ilazard Quotient
Concern (mgIL) Factor Dose Endpoint
ave max (LIkglday) (mglkg/dy) ave RME
IIntimllny 0.014 0.0' 2.7xIO.J 0.000~ hlllllll 1I.9S 3..1
arsenic 0.009' 0.026 2.7xlO.J 0.0003 skin 0.86 2.3
hnrhllu 0.17 0.6~ 2.7xIO.J f),(l7 clinlillYlis. ('.(,s 111.1 tI.:!~
hcnzcne 0.003] 0.019 2.7xIO.J
heryllium 0.002 0.012 2.7xIO.J 0.00' none 1.1 x 10.1 6.Sx 111.1
chlorohenzene 0.0031 0.024 2.7xIO.J 0.02 liver 4.2xI0') 3.h 111,1
chromium 0.088 0.34 2.7xlO.J none 2.4x I 0" 9.2x 10"
1,2-dichloropropane 0.00088 0.004 2.7xlO.J
lead. 0.014 0.0'2 2.7xlO'J
manganese 2 S.3 2.7xIO.J O.OOS CNS " 29
nickel 0.1 0.47 2.7xlO.J 0.02 organ wt. 0.14 0.63
vunlldilim 0.073 0.3' 2.7xIO.J 0.007 livcr 0.28 1..1
vinyl chloride 0.0002 0.0002 2.7xIO.J
linc 0.093 0.44 2.7xIO.J 0.3 blood 8.4x I 0" 4.0" 11)"1
ENDPOINT Ills
CNS " 29
SKIN 0.9 2.3
nr.OOD 3.4
LIVER 0.3 1.4
-------
TAnLE 10
CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR TIlE POSSmLE FUTURE INGESTION
OF OROUNOWATRR IN RESIOENTIALICOMMERCIAL WELLS nv AOtlLTS
Contaminant of Cone. Exposure Cancer Potency
Concern (mgIL) Factor Factor
(Class) ave max (Llkglday) (mglkg-dy)-1
arsenic (A) 0.002~ 0.003 1.2x 1 0.1 1.75
harium 0.017 0.032 1.2xI0.1
chromium (0) 0.031 0.113 1.2xIO.1
lead (02) 0.022 0.043 1.2xI0'1
manganese (0) 0.7~9 1.9 1.2xI0'1
nickel 0.02~ 0.064 1.2x I 0.1
vanadium (0) 0.0068 0.011 1.2x 1 0.1
zinc (0) 2.3 8.4 1.2xI0.1
SUM
,
.1
Risk Estimate
ave
5JK 10"
5.3x 10"
RME
6.3" I 0"
-------
TABLE lOA
NONCARCINOOnNIC RISKS FOR Tlln I>OSSJIlI.r. FUTIIitH INCiESTION OF
OROUNDWATER RESIDI!NTIAI.JCOMMRRCIAJ. WHI.J.S nv AOULTS
(:111111111111111111 III' Cone. I!xposuru
Cllncern (mgll.) Paclor
ave max (Llkglday)
arsenic 0.0025 0.003 2.7xIO.J
. barium 0.017 0.032 2.7xlO.J
chromium 0.031 0.113 2.7xlO.J
leod. 0.022 0.043 2.7xI0.1
mungonese 0.759 1.9 2.7x 10.1
nickel 0.025 0.064 2.7xlO.J
vunudium 0.0068 0.011 2.7xIO.J
zinc 2.3 8.4 2.7xlO.J
nelercllcc
Dose
(mglkgldy)
0.0003
0.07
O.OOS
0.02
0.007
0.3
. . Lcud Is cvaluoled quonillatlvely by use of EPA's mUDK Model, Version 0.5. See lIuman lIeollh RIsk Assessmcnt.
Tm.:lcil)' IllIzlInl ()ullliclIl
1!IIIIImilll
Rve RME
skin 0.23 11.27
cardiovns. 6.6x I 0') 1.2xIO.1
none 8.4xI0'4 3.lxI0')
CNS
CNS 4.1 III
orgnn wI. 3.4x IO.J R.(is 10.1
liver 2.6x 11)'1 .I.:!" III"
blood 0.21 0.76
ENOPOINT Ills
CNS 4.1 III
SKIN 0.2 0.3
nLOOI) 0.2 II./!
-------
TABLEtJ
COAKLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
NORTII IIAMPTON. Nil
RECORD OF DECISION FOR OU-2
AItAlb 1"OIt ImMlmv MM-2
Mcdln Typclf# Requlremcnt Stntns Ucqlllrcmcnt Synopsis Action to hc Tnl(cn to Allnin AnAlh
Groundwater - Chemical Safe Drinking Water Act, Relevant and MCLs have heen promulgnled for a Through a comhinaliou or reduclillll ill
Federal Specilicll Maximum Contaminant Levels Appropriate number of organic IInd inorgllnic landlill inlillration IIlIItllatuml allelllmlion,
(MCLs), 40 CfR, Ilart 141 contaminants. These levels regulate the constituenlS of concern will meet MCLs, and
concentration of contaminants in Ihis ARAR will be allained. Lllllg-term
drinking waleI' supplies. MCLs are monitoring will be perfolllled to ensure Ihnt
considered relevant IInd approprinle for Ihese stnndards nre mel.
groundwater heeause it is lederally
clnssified ns n putenlial drinking walcr
source.
Groundwater. Chemical Safe Drinking Water Act, Relevant and Non-enforeeahle henlth gonls Iilr puhlie Thl'llll~h a cumhinllliun of I'eduelion ill
Federal Specific/2 Maximum Contaminant Level Appropriate water syslems. Thc USEPA has landlil inlillralion nnd nalural allclIIl&lllon,
Ooals (MCLOs), 40 CFR, Part 141 promulgated non-zero MCLfis for consliluenls of concern will meel nUIl-zel'U
specific contaminants. MCLfis, and Ihis AllAR will he allained.
Long-Ierm monilorillg will he perflll"lllc,1 tll
cnsure Ihal Ihese slallllanis lire IIICt.
Groundwater. ChemlclIl Safe Orlnkln~ Water Act (SOW A) To ne MCI.s have heen promulgated iiII'II When Ihe risks to human heallh Ilue III
Federal Sflecilic/3 . Muxilluun 'ontlllllinllnt I.ewls Considered lIulllhel' of COIIIIIUIII urganic 1111" C11i1SUlllp1i1l1l uf 11-1'1 II II II Il\'alc I' wcrc asscsse".
(MCLs) (40 CFll 141.11 . 141.16) inur~"nic cOlllnmillnnls. These levels Cllllcclltmliuns of Clllllillllillilliis IIf cUllce....
regu ale the cunlalllimlllts in 1}!lhlic were compur~d 10 Iheir 1"ICLs 111111 wcn:
drinking water supplies hilt may also he included 115 a compollent of the risk
considered rdevunt 111111 IIpprnprillle lilr IIsscssmclIl.
~roundwllter IIlIuili:rs potcnliully used
or drillking wuler.
Grollndwater - Chemical USP.PA Human Health Assessment To ne CSFs lire developcd hy EllA ror hellllh Thcse vnlucs prescllt Ihe mosl up 10 lIale
Federal Specific/4 Cancer Slope factors (CSFs) Considered effects assessmellts or evaluation by the cancer risk pOlency inlomultion. CSFs shall
IllImlll1 Ileallh Assessment Cinmp he used 10 compule the individual canccr risk
(1IiIAO) rcsullillg Ihllll c"lln:mre III cllnlulllinanls.
(Jruunllwuler . Chemlcill Sofe I)rlnklng WaleI' Act, To he MCLGs lire nlln-cnlilrcenhle hCllllh (irnllllllwilicr cllntlllllinnni cllnccnirulillils
Federal Speci ficlS Maximum Contaminant Level considered gonls. They estuhlish drinking watcr wcre comJlared 10 non-zcro MCLlis 111111 were
Ooals (MCLOs), 40 CFR, Part 141 quality goals at levels of no known or includcd liS olle component of the risk
anticipated health ellccts wilh an IIssessmenl.
adequate margin or sarety.
Groundwater. Chemical U.S. EPA RIsk Reference Doses To be RID's are dose levels developed bosed U.S. EPA RID's were used 10 characlerize
Federal Specific/6 (RID's) considered on the noncarcinogenic effeclS. risks due to exposure to contaminants in
groundwater (for ingestion pathways).
:,
-------
TAnLE 13
COAKLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUNO SITE
NORTI-I HAMPTON, Nil
RECORO OF OECISION Fon OIJ-2
ARARs FOR REM ROY MM-2
( ~
Medin Type/II Requirement Stntus
nroumlwaler - Chemical U.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment To he
Fcdeml Specificl7 Group I'otency 11aclors considered
Ornundwater - Action RCRA - Ornundwater Protection Iteh:vant IInd
Fcderul Specilicll (40 CrR 264) Subpart F Appropriate
Oroundwater - Action N.II. Admin. Code P.nv-We 604, Appllcahle
Slate Specificl2 Abandonment of Wells
Groundwater -
Slate
Groundwater -
Slate
Ornundwater -
Siule
(irllllllllwilter -
Slille
Chemical
Specificll
Chemical
Specific/2
Chemical
Specific/3
Chemical
Specitic/4
Ambient Groundwater Quality
Standards, 410.05
Applicable
New Hampshire Primary Drinking
Water ,Criteria (MCLs and
MCLGs) under RSA Ch. 485,
promulgated at Env-Ws 316 and
317
Relevant and
Appropriate
Oroundwater Quality Criteria, I!nv-
Ws 410.03 (a) and (b)
Appllcahle
Oroundwatcr Quality Crltcrln. Hnv-
Ws 410.03 (c)
Appllcllhle
Requirement Synopsis
Potency fllctors arc developed hy Ihe
EI'A from Ilellllh EI1i:cls Asscssmenls
or CVllhllllion hy Ihc Carcinllgcns
Asscssmcnl (iruuI1.
This rcgulalinll dClaiis rClluiremcnls Iilr
a grotludwlltcr mllniloring program to he
inslallcd 01 Ihe sile.
This provision rcquires Ihal ahlllllioned
wells must be sealed to prevent Ihe
entry of contaminanls inlo Ihe
groundwalcr.
Siandards for quality of groundwaler.
Standards for public drinking water
syslem. Used as cleanup slandards for
aquifers and surface waler hodies Ihal
are [lolenlilll drinking wilier sources.
Ornundwilier shall hc suilllhie fin use liS
drinking waler wilhout treulment and
shall nol conlnin any regulnled
contnminnnt in coneenlrations j?realcr
1111111 IImhient grlllllldwnier Ilunhly
stundllflls cSluhlishcd in Env-Ws 410.05.
Unless IIlIturallly IIceurrillg. grnlnlllwilicr
shall nol eonlilln IIny conlaminllnlS III
concentrations such that Ihe nnturnl
disehnrge of Ihllt groundwatcr to surface
water resulls in II villialion of surlilce
standards in uny surlilce water hody
within or adjacent to the site, unless the
groundwater discharge is exempt under
Env-Ws 410.114. '
2
Action to he Tnl(clI 10 Attain AUAlts
1I's. EPA Cnrcinogcnic Potency Faclllrs wcrc
uscd III com pule Ihe individual inCl"cmcnlal
cllncer risk I'esulling Ihlln exp"sun: III silc
cUllluminanls.
It. gn1llndwlltcr lIIuniluring prn~nllll is a
componcnl III' all IIllel"llulivcs. A II
groullliwaler moniloring rell"iremenls of this
suhparl will he met.
Once monilnring wclls havc lililillcd Iheir
uselill life, requiremenls for cllISurC will he
followed.
When the state standards are more slringcnt
than federal MCLs, and non zero MCLGs.
Ihe stale slandards arc used.
Through a combination of reduction of
landfill inlillration and natural allenualion,
consliluenls of concern will mcel Ihesc slale
slandards if Ihey arc more slrin~cnl Ihan
federal MCLs und non-zero MCL(js. Lung
tcrm moniloring will ensure Ihul Ihese
sllIlIIlunls urc mcl.
Itemcdilll IIction will he requircil lu Ircal
alfecled groullllwuler or eliminale discharge
of substances that may be harmful 10 Ihe
drink illg wilier or groullllwilier. which lIIay
include suhslanccs excceding III'. calu:er risk
Icvcl heulth mlvisnry limils.
(jl'tlllllllwilicr nlllsi hc I'clllciliaicil III CIISIII'C
nUllllcgl'lldalion of surlilce waler. Any
dischurges to groundwalcr nlllsl nol cause any
degradalion to surlilce wilier so liS 10 vililate
surlilce waler quality slandarcls in IIIljm:enl
surlilce willers. Class U waters IIrc lu he
maintained as acceptable for use, afier
-------
TABLE 13
COAKLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
NORTH HAMPTON, Nil
RECORO OF DECISION FOR 011-2
ARARs FOR REMEDY MM-2
elll
Action '0 he Tnllen '0 Allnin AltAlts
Media
T
Re ulrement
Env-Ws 410.26 Groundwater
Management Zone
S'R'ns
Relevant and
Appropriate
Groundwater -
Slate
Location
Specificll
Groundwater - Action Requirements for Owners and
Siale Specilic/J Operators of Hazardous Waste
Facilities, Eov-Wm 7110 and as
Ihllows:
En-Wm 707.02(1) Groundwater Relevant and
Monitoring Appropriate
Env- Wm 702.11/. J 2 Groundwater Relevant and
and Other Monitoring appropriate
Groundwater - Action Env-Ws 410.24(a) and (b), Criteria Applicable
State Speci fic/4 for Remedial Action
Groundwater -
State
Action
Specilic/S
Env-Ws 410.27, Groundwater
Mana~ement Permit Compliance
Criterlu
Applicable
At contaminated sites, requires
groundwater management zone to be
designated and use restricted.
These provisions eSlahlish operating and
monitoring requirements ror owners nllIl
nperulors of huzurdlllls wnste Iheililies.
ns well as genernl, environmenlul, heuUh
IInll design I'eljllircmcnts.
Requires operators or existing hazardolls
wasle rucilllies 10 cllmply willi Ihe
requirements or 411 CFR Suhpart F.
Specified types of hazardous waste
treatment facilities must monitor
migration of hazardous waste as
specified.
Requires remedial action ror
groundwaler to ensure protection of
human heallh and the environment and
IIttain the groundwaler 111m lily crileria or
Env-Ws "111.1)].
Where an approved remedinl action plull
fails to meet perfl,lrmance standards, a
revised plan mllsl he developed.
Adtlitillnnl inVcSlif(lIlilln IIr rCllleclili1
IIctllln mny hc re11llircll. (inl1l1uhvnlcr
IIIUst he 1I\llIIilllred nnd IIIlInnged in
.lIcellrdnnce with Ihe 11111n unlil
cOlltnminnlioll Sllllrces IIr rel1lllved IIr
treated and compliance with
groundwater quality criteria are
achieved.
3
Use of groundwater extraction rrom wells
wilhin the groundwater cleanup area will he
restricted by instillliiollal controls alldlllr
groundwater lIIallagement 7.lIlIe relillirclllenis.
All lither relevalll alld IIprrolu'ialc pnl\'isiulls
III' Ellv-Ws 4111.2(. will hc implcmcnlc.l.
Rcmedial activities which inehulc
cllllsiruclion of a hazunillus wasle nlcilily
IIIlIst l1Ieel Ihe rCllllil"elllCnls Iish:tI helll\\'.
A groundwater monitoring rrogram will he
inslalled liS reqllirctl 10 nUlllilur grmlll.twah:r
wilhin Ihe gl'Oundwlller cleanup III"CIl.
A groundwater monitoring program will be
installed as required to monitor groundwalcr
wilhin the groundwaler cleanup area.
The remedy l11ust achicvc these specific
goals.
II' the remedy rails to mect performance
slandards, the remedy will be revicwed and a
revised plan will he ador1ed. (jrOlllulwaH:r
mllsl he munilurcll IIn,1 milllaJ~cll as
-------
TABLE 13
COAKI.EY IJANnFILI.. SIJPEIUi'UNn SITE
NOItT... IIAMIYfON, Nil
RECORD OF DECISION FOIt OtJ-2
ARARs FOR ItEMRIW MM-2
(.
Media
Action to he TAlten to AttAin AltARs
Surfncc Watcr
- Fe:de:ral
Surfncc Wllter
- Stale
Surface Water
- Slate:
Surface Water
- State
T
e/ll
Re ulrement
Clean Water Act (CWA) federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(A WQC) 40 CFR 122.44
Stntus
Appllcnhle
Chemical
Specificll
Chemlcnl
Specilicll .
Chemical
Specific/2
Chemical
Specific/3
RSA 485-A:8
Appllcllhlu
RSA 485-A:12
Applicahle
Env-432
Relevant and
appropriate
Air Quality - Action N.H. Admin. Rules, Env-A 1002 Applicable
State Speclflcll Fugitive Dust
Wetland - !.ocatlon CW A - Section 404 Appllcahle
Fe:deral Spec ilicll
Federnl A WQC nre hCllllh-hnscll crilerill
that have heen develope:d lor 95
carcinogenic nnd noncarcinogenic
compounds.
This Idcntilics IIhyslcnl, chclllicnl, 111111
hnctcrioillgicni shulllnnis CllIss A, It,
IInd C Wlllcl'S lIIust siltisfy.
This prohihits dischargcs Ihot will lowcr
the quality of ony surlilcc watcl' hclow
the minimum requirements of the
surface wAter classificAtion. Specific
stnndards Iilr classilication of slII'fnce
wlltcrs ore found at RSA 4I1S-A:K.
Water quality crileria for toxic
substances in fresh and marine waters
arc estahlished. They arc essentially the
some os the federnl ambient water
quality criteria.
Constnlction and excavalion aClivlties
restricted from causing fugitive dust.
This rcgulation outlines requirements fllr
discharge:s of dredged or fill malerial.
Under Ihis requirement, no aclivily that
anects a welhmd sholl be pennilled if a
practicable alternative that has less
Impact on the wetland is ovailable. If
there is no olher prnclicohle nliernillive,
h"I)lIcts Il\IlSt he lIIitiglltcd.
4
A WQC wcre conshiercil in chllnlCleriJing
human heallh risks and toxic c:fli:cls on
aquatic organisms due to concentrations in
surlilce willeI'. nccilu~e this willcr is ulIl lI~cll
liS II drinking wilier slIurce, 111111 is nlll 11.1111.1
habitnt for fish, only the criterin 1(lr 1IIIIIalic
orgonism protection were relevllnl. Thesc
standards will be met for any discharge 10
surface water.
These set clCllnlll\ slllllllanis Iilr \\'ull:rs Ihal
un: I'olcnlilll drinking \\'al':I' ~lIl'lllie~, These
siundnnis lire IIlslI IIsclllo delennill':
compliance wilh thc SIUI's 1IIIIIIIcgrillialilln
policy,
Remedial AClion 5houlll elimillale nil}'
dischnrge to SlIrlilce wnl.:rs in IIr IlIljacclit III
the sile which lowers Ihe quality of any
surface waler bod}' below Ihe applicahle
cinssilicillioll requircmcnls.
Discharges to surface waters in or adjAcent 10
the site must meet NH's surface waler qllalil)'
standards to the exlent they are nllue
stringent Ihen the Ii:deral criteria
Constnlction and/or excavotion for access
roads or well or pipe installation shall .;:ontrol
fugitive dUSI in accordance with this
regulntion,
Activilles in wctlands will cOlIIl'ly wilh Ihc
-------
TAnl.l~ 13
COAKLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
NORTH HAMPTON, Nil
RECORD OF DECISION FOR OU-2
ARARs FOR REMEIW MM-2
Medin
Action to he Tnl(cn to Aflnin AIIAlh
Weiland.
Fedcrul
T elll Re ulrement Statns
I.ocntlon Wellands Executive Order (POO Appllcnhle
Specilic/2 11990), 40 CPR Pllrt 6 Appcndix
A
tocallon Flood Plains Execlllive Order (EO Applleohlc
Specilic/J 11988) 40 CrR IJart 6 Appcndix A
Weiland -
Federal
Welluml - I.ocnllon Crllerla Pond Condilions for Pili Appllcllhle
:-ilille Specific/l and Dredge in Wcllllnds: ItSA
482-A. Env Wt 300-400, 600.
Weiland - location Dredging and Conlrol of Run-off: Applicable
Slale Specificl2 RSA 485-A: 17 Dredging Rules:
Env-Ws 415
WeIland - location RSA 217 A NH Nalive Plant Applieablc
Siale Specific/J I)rolection Act
Wellond - I.oentlon Iles-N I nn-300 ApplicllhliJ
Siale Specllie/4
lInder Ihis regnlillion, federnl ngencies
ore required III minimize Ihe deslruclilln,
IIISS, or degrndnlioll of wel/onds IInd
preserve IInd enlllmce niliurni IInd
beneficial vlIllICS of wel/nnds.
Pedeml ogencies ore required 10 redllce
Ihe risk of 1100d 11155, 10 minimize
impllcl of IlOllds, IInd III resillre IInd
preserve Ihe nlllllrni 111111 hcnclicilll villue
of Oood plains.
These reglllillions IIrc pmnmlgilicil IIndcr
Ihe Ncw 1IIIIIIpshire Wclllllllis BOllnl,
which rcgulale dredging, Iilling,
allcring, or polin ling inland wcllands.
These regulale aClivilies in or near
sllrroce walers which may impacl waler
IllIIIlily, impede nillurill runoff or creale
IllIIullurnl nllllllI
Prohibils damaging plant species lisled
as endangered wilhin Ihe slille.
Pmhihils dllmnging plllnl species lisled
as endllngered wilhin Ihe slille.
Cllnslruclilln in wclliluds musl includc all
pruclicllhlc mCllns IIf minimizing hurm III
wCllonds. Wellands Iuoleclinn cllnsi,lcnllillns
IlllIsl he incolllI)nlled inlu Ihe plillllling ami
decision making aboUI ..emedial IIlh:malives.
The pOlentiol effcCls of any aClion mllsl hc
CVlllllilied 10 cnsllre 111111 Ihe planning an,1
deci~inn milking rellcci eon~i,lcnllion of n..,,,1
hazllnl~ 111111 nlllill Ilia in manilgcmcUI.
incillding rcsloralion IInd prescrvaliun nf
nalllrni IInderdeveloped Ooor plain~.
Filling ur olhcr IIclivilics in III' IIIlian~ul I..
wCllllmls will comply wilh Ihcsc
requiremenls.
Pilling or olher aClivities in or adjacenl 10
wellands will comply wilh Ihese
rcqllircmcnls.
Lisled species will he identified and remedial
activilies will comply wilh reqllirell1CnlS,
Lislell species will he idenlilied anll rcmc,lial
IIclivilies will comply wilh rC11Ili..cmclIIs.
~
5
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Preface
I.
II.
COAKLEY LANDFILL
~~AGE~~NT OF MIGRATION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
.......
..........
.......
OVERVIEW OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PROPOSED PLAN . . . . . . . . . .
SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND
CONCERNS ~ . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS. . . . . . .
A. Summary Of Resident Comments. . . . . . . . . . .
1. Comments Regarding site Characterization. . .
2. Comments Regarding Remedial Alternatives. . .
3. Comments Regarding the Preferred Alternative.
4. Comments Regarding the site's Impact to
Property Owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments Regarding the Coakley Landfill's
Compliance with Federal, State and Local
Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Pot enti all v Responsible Parties
Comm.ents ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Evaluation of Remedial Investigation. . . . .
2. Evaluation of the Feasibility Study and EPA's
Preferred Alternative (MM-2) . . . . . . . . .
5.
B.
ATTACHMENT A - COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT
THE COAKLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE IN NORm
HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
ATTACHMENT B - POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES' COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT C - TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUNE
PUBLIC HEARING
INFORMAL
21,
1994
ATTACHMENT D - GUIDANCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ON INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT SUPERFUND
SITES
i
1
2
3
4
4
6
7
8
9
10
10
-------
COAKLEY LANDFILL ~JWAGEMENT OF MIGRATION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Preface
::.-
The U.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a 61 day public
comment period from June 2, 1994 to August 1, 1994 to provide an
opportunity for interested parties to comment on the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study Report (RIfFS) and the Proposed
Plan prepared for the Coakley Landfill Superfund site (the Site) in
North "Hampton, New Hampshire. This is the second operable unit
(OU-2) Responsiveness Summary for the management of migration
remedy. The first operable unit was for the source control remedy
and the ROD and responsiveness summary was signed in June 1990. As
part of the OU-2 RIfFS the Human Health Risk Assessment and the
Ecological Risk Assessment are presented. EPA made a preliminary
recommendation of its preferred alternative for Management of
Migration Remediation in the Proposed Plan issued on May 23, 1994,
before the start of the public comment period.
The purpose of the Responsiveness Summary is to document EPA's
responses to comments and questions raised during the public
comment period. EPA considered all of the comments summarized in
this document before selecting a final Management of Migration
remedial alternative to address contamination at the site.
This Responsiveness
sections:
Summary
is
organized
into
the
following
I.
overview of Remedial Alternatives Considered in the
Feasibilitv StudY and Proposed Plan - This section
briefly outlines the remedial alternatives evaluated in
the FS and Proposed Plan, including EPA's preliminary
recommendation of a preferred alternative.
II.
site Historv and Backqround on Communitv Involvement and
Concerns - This section provides a brief Site history,
and a general overview of community interests and
concerns regarding the Site.
III. SummarY of Comments Received Durinq the Public Comment
Period and EPA Responses to These Comments - This section
summarizes and provides EPA's responses to the comments
received from residents and other interested parties
during the public comment period. During the comment
period there was a letter received by the Regional
Administrator, John P. DeVillars from Senator Bob Smith
which is Attachment E of this document. Additionally,
comments received from the Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) are summarized and EPA's responses to the
comments are provided.
-------
Attachment A - List of community relations activities that EPA
has conducted to date at the site.
Attachment B - Potentially Responsible Parties' comments
Attachment C - Transcript of the June 21, 1994 informal public
hearing on the Site, held in North Hampton, New Hampshire.
Attachment D - Guidance and other documents on Institutional
controls and residential property at Superfund Sites.
-------
I.
OVERVIEW OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PROPOSED PLAN
CONSIDERED
IN
THE
Using information gathered during the Remedial Investigation (RI)
(an investigation of the nature and extent of contamination) and
the Risk Assessment (an assessment of the potential risks to human
health and the environment associated with the contamination
migrating from the site), EPA identified several cleanup objectives
for the site.
-
The primary cleanup objective is to reduce the risks to public
health and the environment posed by exposure to contamination that
migrates off-site away from the landfill source. (Source control
at the landfill was the subject of operable unit 1.) Cleanup goals
for groundwater are set at levels that EPA considers to be
protective of public health and the environment.
After identifying the cleanup objectives, EPA developed and
evaluated potential cleanup alternatives, called remedial
alternatives. The Feasibility study (FS) describes the, remedial
alternatives considered to address groundwater, surface water, and
sediment contamination associated with off-site migration. The FS
also describes the cri teria EPA used to narrow the range of
alternatives to four.
EPA's preferred alternative to address the off-site contamination
includes institutional controls to prevent use of contaminated
groundwater, natural attenuation of the contaminated groundwater
and groundwater monitoring. .
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATED IN THE OU-2 FEASIBILITY STUDY
The four management of migration remedial alternatives considered
for detailed analysis by EPA are listed below. The May 1994
proposed Plan should be consulted for a detailed explanation of
these remedial alternatives as well as EPA's preferred alternative.
ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION
Alternative MM-1:
No Action
Alternative MM-2:
Limited Action, Natural Attenuation and
Groundwater Monitoring (EPA has recommended
this as the preferred alternative)
Groundwater Treatment/On-site Disposal in
Conjunction with OU-1 Groundwater Treatment
System
Alternative MM-3:
Alternative MM-4:
Groundwater Treatment/On-Site
(separate system)
-------
II.
SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND
CONCERNS
The Coakley Landfill Superfund Site is situated on approximately
100 acres of land within the Towns of Greenland and North Hampton,
New Hampshire. It is located west of Lafayette Road (U. S. Route 1)
and bordered on the north by Breakfast Hill Road. The landfill
itself covers approximately 27 acres and is situated within the
southernmost portion of the Site.
In 1971, the New Hampshire Department of Public Health granted the
Town of North Hampton a permit to operate a landfill on the Coakley
site. The Coakley Landfill accepted municipal and industrial waste
from the Portsmouth area from early 1972 through 1983 and
incinerator residue generated by an incinerator located at Pease
Air Force Base from 1982 through 1985. The landfill stopped
accepting material in July 1985. A temporary cap was eventually
placed on the landfill.
.j
In early 1983 the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (DES) (formerly the Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, or WSPCC) received a complaint from a resident of'
Lafayette Terrace, near the southeastern corner of the Coakley
Landfill, concerning drinking water quality in a residential well.
DES analysis determined that the well was contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). .
Subsequent sampling of residential wells by DES detected additional
areas of VOC contamination to the south, northeast, and southeast,
of the Coakley Landfill site. As a result of these findings, water
supply distribution lines were extended into the area in March
1983.
In December 1983 the site was placed on EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL) making it eligible to receive Federal Superfund money
for investigation and cleanup. The OU-1 RI was conducted at the
Site from April 1986 to May 1987.
In general, results of the OU-1 RI indicated that VOCs and metals
were observed to be the predominant contaminants within the
landfill and in the overburden and bedrock wells under and
immediately adjacent to the landfill.
Using data collected during the OU-1 RI, EPA developed a FS that
included the initial screening of the source control (SC) remedial
alternatives and the management of migration (MM) remedial
alternatives. EPA's selected source control remedy was capping the
landfill, on-site groundwater extraction and treatment and on-site
disposal. Design of the preferred remedy is currently underway.
-------
The OU-2 (Management of Migration) RI/FS was conducted from
September 1990 to May 1994. The OU-2 RI indicated that landfill
contamination had migrated off-site in the groundwater in the
westerly direction into the wetland. Groundwater was the primary
media contaminated with VOC's and metals while surface water and
sediment were impacted to a lesser extent.
Foremost concerns of Town residents continue to focus on the
potential health risks to residents living near the Site, the delay
in action toward site cleanup, and the cost and responsibility for
cleaning up the Site. Some residents believe that contamination
from the Site caused and may cause serious health problems in the
area. They are also concerned that continued delays in Site
cleanup may result in further migration of contamination from the
Site, causing an increase in potential health risks. Another
concern of area residents is cost and responsibility for site
cleanup. Residents feel that the State and EPA are spending too
much time and money on investigation rather than taking action to
clean up the Site. Finally, many residents have expressed concern
that EPA's proposed OU-2 remedial alternative unfairly penalizes
adjacent property owners to the Coakley site. They were concerned
that the proposed institutional controls would lower there property
values and they would not be fairly compensated.
A complete list of community relations activities conducted at the
site is included in Attachment A at the end of this document.
III. St7MHARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS
This Responsiveness Summary summarizes the comments received during
the public comment period held from June 2, 1994 to August 1, 1994.
six sets of written comments were received: four from individual
residents and two from the coakley Landfill Group (PRP comments).
Three sets of the written comments received by EPA, were also
presented orally at the informal public hearing held on June 21,
1994. In addition, two other people made comments orally at the
informal public hearing. PUblic comments are summarized below.
The PRP comments are included as Attachment B. A copy of the
transcript from the informal public hearing is included as
Attachment C of this document and is available in the
Administrative Record located at the site information repositories
at the North Hampton Public Library North Hampton, New Hampshire
and at the EPA Records Center, 90 Canal Street, Boston,
Massachusetts. Attachment D contains some of EPA's guidances and
reports on insti tutional controls and residential property at
Superfund sites.
-------
A.
S~arv Of Resident Comments
Comments from residents are summarized below.
organized into the following categories:
The comments are
1.
Comments Regarding Site Characterization
Comments Regarding Remedial Alternatives
2.
3.
Comments Regarding the Preferred Alternative
4.
Comments Regarding the Site/s Impact to Property Owners
5.
Comments Regarding the Coakley Landfill IS Compliance with
Federal, State and Local Regulations
1.
Comments Regarding Site Characterization
Comment a: One commentor asked how contamination associated with
the Rye Landfill which is located close to the Coakley Landfill was
addressed in the Remedial Investigation.
EPA Response: The OU-2 investigation did not focus on the Rye
Landfill. The focus was on the contamination associated
specifically with the Coakley Landfill. Sample locations were
selected based on the potential contaminant migration pathways
identified in the work plan for the site and based on existing
information from the first operable unit. The first operable unit
RIfFS concluded that the groundwater from the Rye landfill is
separated by the presence of high bedrock and groundwater levels in
the area between the two landfills. Therefore, commingling of
contaminants from the Coakley and Rye landfill is unlikely. OU-l
RIfFS resul ts allowed for the OU-2 investigation to focus on
contamination associated specifically with the Coakley Landfill.
Comment b: Several commentors questioned the assessment of the
bedrock groundwater contamination at the site. Specific questions
focused on what area of bedrock was assessed and the degree of
certainty to which the extent of contamination was defined. One
commentor ask if the information that bedrock was previously
blasted and removed from the site was used.
EPA Response: EPA was aware that rock quarrying as well as sand
and gravel mining activities were performed at the site and that
bedrock was blasted and removed as part of the quarrying operation.
The bedrock groundwater evaluation provided in the OU-2 RI refers
to bedrock remaining at the site below the landfill and overburden
soils. Rock blasting and excavation would have removed bedrock to
a limited depth in the quarry area but bedrock would remain below
that depth and throughout the site. The OU-2 RI information on
bedrock groundwater is based on hydrological and analytical data
-------
,)
from the nine new monitoring wells installed to depths of
approximately 20 feet into the bedrock. Existing monitoring wells
installed as part of prior investigations in the bedrock (e.g.
GZ-105) were also a source of information. The OU-2 RI bedrock
investigation focused on the shallow bedrock (upper 20 feet) which
is more heavily fractured than deeper bedrock at the site and as a
result is a more significant groundwater migration pathway.
The extent of bedrock groundwater contamination was conservatively
defined based on the information obtained during this investigation
and prior studies in the site area~ With' the conservative
assumptions made in defining the extent of contamination, it is
unlikely that significant contamination associated with the Coakley
Landfill would be encountered in bedrock groundwater beyond the
limits identified in the RIjFS.
J
Comment c: One commentor asked about the possibility of surface
water runoff from the Coakley Landfill carrying contamination from
the landfill onto his property approximately 1100 to 1200 feet
away.
EPA Response: Surface water runoff was identified as one of the
potential contaminant migration pathways at the site. Based on the
sampling results of the surface water and sediment, there was no
indication of contamination associated with the Coakley Landfill at
distances over 1000 feet north of the landfill. Contamination was
found in surface water and sediment locations immediately adjacent
to the Coakley Landfill.
Comment d: One commentor asked if samples were taken at the bottom
or sides of surface water bodies.
EPA Response: Sediment samples were collected at the bottom of the
surface water bodies. The specific locations were chosen based on
where sediment would most likely collect due to the site drainage
characteristics.
Comment e: One commentor said actions by parties other than those
identified as PRPs to date caused the problems at the Coakley
Landfill.
EPA Response: The information available to EPA was used in
development of the PRP list. EPA conducted a detailed PRP search
to identify those parties liable for the cleanup at the Coakley
Landfill site. A total of 60 parties were ultimately included in
the final PRP list. Notification of the potential liability was
based on the Superfund law which defines the liability of parties
as:
i. an owner or operator of a facility were hazardous waste is
disposed,
ii. a generator of the hazardous waste disposed of at the
facility, and
-------
iii. a transporter of hazardous waste to the facility.
EPA is always interested in obtaining any information on possible
new PRPs. Information can'~e forwarded to steven J. Calder (HSN-
C~~5), EPA New England, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-
2211.
Comment f: One commentor asked about radioactive dust that was
disposed of at the Coakley Landfill.
"
EPA Response: EPA found no evidence of any disposal of radioactive
dust at the site. Several radioactive surveys done at the site
during the OU-l Remedial Investigation found only background
(normal) radioactivity.
Comment g: One commentor asked who was responsible for the health
affects of the residents at Lafayette Terrace who were drinking
contaminated groundwater.
EPA Response: The PRPs may be responsible if it could be
determined that health affects were caused by the exposure of
contamination at Coakley Landfill.
2.
Comments Regarding Remedial Alternatives
Comment a: One commentor questioned whether the shorter projected
cleanup time associated with alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 was worth
the additional cost and risk to the wetlands and whether a deed
restriction (institutional controls) would be required for these
alternatives. .
EPA Response: The chosen remedy MM-2 is expected to achieve cleanup
levels in approximately 11 years according to the groundwater model
developed in the RIfFS. MM-3 and MM-4 are expected to achieve
cleanup levels in 5 to 10 years. For groundwater remediation these
time frames are considered similar due to the uncertainties with
any groundwater extraction and treatm~nt remediation.
Institutional controls are necessary in all the alternatives
reviewed except for no-action MM-l no action which is used as a
comparison as required by EPA guidance.
Comment b: One commentor asked what the future uses of the Coakley
Landfill Superfund site would be.
EPA Response: The remedy selected for the Coakley Landfill contains
the waste material under a cap which must be maintained until such
time as it is determined that this material no longer presents a
threat to public health or the environment. Any foreseeable use
for the landfill would have to be consistent with the requirement
that the caps integrity be maintained. . EPA will conduct 5-year
reviews at the site to insure the remedy remains protective. EPA
is currently unaware of any proposed uses for the landfill area.
-------
3.
Co~~ents Regarding the Preferred Alternative
Comment a: Numerous comments were received regarding the financial
impact of the proposed institutional controls, specifically deed
restrictions, on use of groundwater as a component of the preferred
alternative. Commentors noted that along with the loss of property
value associated with their proximity to the Coakley Landfill
Superfund Site, the additional restrictions on groundwater use for
an extended period of time was an unfair burden. Commentors viewed
deed restriction as punishment for a situation over which they had
no control and for which they bore no responsibility. Numerous
comments on the specifics of the proposed institutional controls
were also voiced, including financial compensation for loss of
property value, the exact areal extent of any deed restriction.
Also commentors asked if the restriction could be the subject of
negotiation with EPA.
EPA Response: EPA is aware of the potential for financial hardship
associated with the implementation of institutional controls on the
use of groundwater on properties abutting the Coakley Landfill.
The institutional controls which will restrict groundwater use is
intended to safeguard the public while addressing the issue of
groundwater contamination. The implementation of the OU-l remedy
to control the source of the contamination along with the
institutional controls on the use of contaminated groundwater
moving away from the landfill perimeter is considered by EPA to be
a necessity if the remedies are to be protective of public health.
The expected areal extent of the institutional controls are
designated in Figure 5 in Appendix A of the Record of Decision.
Deed restrictions are not the only option for implementing
institutional controls. There are fundamentally two types of
institutional controls, governmental and proprietary. A local
ordinance restricting the use of groundwater is an example of a
governmental control. A deed restriction or easement are examples
of proprietary controls. The type of institutional control used at
the site needs to be approved by EPA. EPA will base its decision
to approve an institutional control on its ability to protect human
heal th by restricting the use of groundwater for drinking at
Coakley Landfill for the duration of the cleanup.
Comment b: A commentor thought that 30 years was too long for
groundwater monitoring for this remedy.
EPA Response: Thirty.. years is a conservative estimate used to
allow the proper monitoring throughout the implementation and long-
term monitoring portions of the remedy. It is also a requirement
according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
is an ARAR for the remedy.
-------
Comment c: A commentor th=ught t~at S days to sample 13 wells was
excessive.
EPA Response: S days was used for a conservative cost estimate.
S days may not be unreasonable since the sampling at a hazardous
waste site is a lengthy process in order to assure the safety of
the sampler and the data accuracy. The sampling procedures will be
defined in the Sampling and Analysis Plan developed during the
implementation of the renedy.
Comment d: A commentor asked if aroundwater outside of the area of
the institutional controls couid be pumped and used a drinking
water source.
EPA Response: The groundwater model used to estimate the extent of
contamination with time did not predict the impact of pumping the
groundwater. Excessive pumping of the aquifers near the landfill
might cause the contamination to migrate further than originally
expected. The groundwater monitoring program should be able to
detect the migration of the contamination in this case.
Institutional controls would need to be extended in the affected
area or other action would be taken to assure that public health is
protected.
4.
Comments Regarding the site's Impact to Property Owners
Comment a: There was a comment regarding inability to sell or get
bank loans on property near the landfill.
EPA Response: EPA has attempted to address these concerns on a
national basis by promulgating the Lender Liability Rule in 1992.
However, this regulation was challenged and eventually struck down
by a federal court.
Comment b: Several comments focused on the rights, liabilities and
options of property owners in the Coakley Landfill area. The
comments addressed current issues and potential future issues
assuming that contamination was discovered in the future on their
property as a result of landowner's activities. The commeritors
requested information on how such issues were addressed at other
Superfund sites and what help is available to the site area land
owners. The commentors ask what are their options for dealing with
the negative impact the landfill-has had on their properties. They
asked what is the full extent of the current problem, what are the
potential future ramifications and how can they best resolve the
situation based on EPA's experience at other Superfund sites.
('
EPA Response: In general, land owners adjacent to Superfund sites
may not be considered liable for contamination unless they fall'
within one of the four categories of liable persons under CERCLA
(owner, operator, generator or transporter, see response to A.I.e).
-------
Whether individuals may have clai~s for damage to their property is
a question for those individuals' legal representatives. Any deed
restriction, easement or property transfer would need to be
negotiated with the landowner and the party performing the remedy
if such actions are dee~ed necessary by EPA. Attachment D of this
Responsiveness Summary has guidance and other documents that help
explain institutional controls and residential property at
Superfund sites.
::J
Comment c: One commentor noted that wells north of landfill near
Breakfast Hill Road had not been sampled recently and asked if they
could be sampled.
EPA Response: EPA did not sample these wells since they were not
considered in an area that would be impacted by the Coakley
Landfill groundwater conta~ination. NH DES has, however, sampled
residential wells, since this request, in this area and the results
were forwarded to the homeowners. The need for sampling of the
monitoring wells in this area will be reevaluated at the time the
Sampling and Analysis Plan is prepared for the OU-2 remedy.
Comments Regarding the Coakley Landfill's Compliance with
Federal, State and Local Regulations
Comment a: Several comments requested information regarding the
coakley Landfill's compliance with federal, state and local
regulations during its construction and operation.
5.
EPA Response: The information available to EPA indicates that in
March, 1971, the Town of North Hampton requested approval from the
New Hampshire Department of Public Health to operate a landfill at
the Coakley site and that in April 1971 the necessary permit was
granted. In March 1983, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
ordered an end to the disposal of unburned residue at the Coakley
Landfill. In July 1985, after additional investigation conducted
by the EPA and the WSPCC, the Coakley Landfill ceased operations.
In general, there has been increased regulation on the disposal of
solid waste and hazardous waste by federal, state and local
authorities since the Coakley Landfill began accepting waste in the
early 1970's. Practices which were acceptable in the past are now
unacceptable and the disposal of waste is now highly regulated to
protect the public. Some materials disposed of at the landfill in
the past are now the subject of stricter disposal restrictions.
-------
B.
Summary of PotentiallY Res~onsible Parties Comments
Comments from the Potentially Responsible Parties were submitted by
Aries Engineering, Inc. The comments organized into the following
categories and summarized below:
1.
Evaluation of Remedial Investigation
i. General Comments
ii. Specific Comments
2.
Evaluation of the Feasibility Study and EPA's Preferred
Alternative (MM-2)
1.
Evaluation of Remedial Investigation
i. General Comments. In Section 2.0 of the Aries report focused on
the Remedial Investigation and concerned primarily four general
issues. These 4 issues and the specific comments from the Aries
report with responses are provided below.
General Comment a: High turbidity and suspended solids in
monitoring well groundwater samples collected at the Coakley site
during the OU-2 investigation are the source of elevated inorganic
compound concentrations reported in the groundwater due to using
unfiltered samples. Comments suggest that EPA guidance, well
construction and groundwater sampling techniques used were not
appropriate.
EPA Response: The issue of collection of filtered (dissolved)
versus unfiltered (total) inorganic compound was discussed prior to
the start of sampling activities and it was EPA's opinion that the
unfiltered samples presented a more accurate and conservative
indication of actual groundwater quality at the site. EPA approved
procedures were performed both during monitoring well development
following installation and prior to actual sampling to minimize
suspended solids and turbidity in the samples. EPA's conservative
approach on this issue was followed to ensure that data used in the
risk assessments performed as part of the RI ensured adequate
protection of public health and the environment. While conductinq
the "Limited Action" remedy, the sampling technique will be altered
to the new "low flow" procedure, which should minimize any high
levels which may have occurred as a result of using the unfiltered
samples.
"
-------
General Comment b: Conservatively high hydraulic conductivity data
included in the RI report overestimates site groundwater migration
travel distances and rates.
EPA Response: Several comments noted that conclusions on the
contaminated groundwater migration rates and travel distances from
the landfill are based on unrealistically high hydraulic parameter
values resulting in overestimation of the magnitude of the
groundwater contamination problem. It is EPA's opinion that it is
appropriate to use maximum or "worst case" values to determine the
maximum possible extent of contamination to ensure the protection
of public health and the environment. This conservative approach
to evaluating the magnitude and potential extent of contamination
was generally followed throughout the RIfFS to ensure the maximum
amount of protection to the local community.
General Comment c: Elevated sediment and surface water inorganic
compound concentrations are naturally occurring and unrelated to
the Coakley Landfill. .
EPA Response: Several comments highlighted RI statements which
noted that inorganic compounds are naturally occurring in the site
area, inferring that the elevated concentrations detected in
surface water and sediment samples are, in general, unrelated to
the Coakley Landfill. Although it is true that naturally occurring
background sources contribute to the concentrations of inorganics
detected at the site, distribution patterns of certain inorganics
indicate the landfill as a potential and likely source. The issue
of the contribution of naturally occurring background
concentrations of compounds is considered in the development of the
human health and ecological risk assessments for the site. Part of
the remedy is a monitoring program which will include attempting to
establish naturally occurring background levels of certain
inorganic compounds such as Manganese and Antimony in area
aquifers.
General Comment d: Several comments II questioned the accuracy of the
groundwater risk assessment estimates based oni the likelihood of
this exposure pathway, a consideration of external sources of
groundwater contamination, and the concentration term used to
assess exposure. Organic compound contamination of site
groundwater is relatively low and associated with non-landfill
sources.
EPA Response: EPA considers the ingestion of groundwater in the
vicinity of the Coakley Landfill as a reasonable future exposure
. scenario. Although nearby residents are no longer ingesting
groundwater due to the availability of municipal water sources, the
groundwater surrounding the Coakley Landfill is considered potable
by the State of New Hampshire under the New Hampshire Ambient
. Groundwater Quality Standards. Thus the future intent and use for
-------
this groundwater is as a drinking water source. Regarding external
sources, some off-site sources of groundwater conta~ination may
exist near the Coakley Landfill. Current groundwater studies,
however, do not support the conclusionlthat those contaminants
retained in the risk assessment originate fro~ off-site sources.
Based on the above, EPA considers it reasonable and conservative to
include these chemicals in the HHBRA. .
Finally, four rounds of groundwater data were used to assess
exposure in the risk assessment. One round of data was collected
at the end of 1991 and the other three were collected at the end of
1992 and beginning of 1993. A review of all groundwater data
collected at the site since 1987, suggests a general decrease in
VOC concentrations between 1985-1987 with concentrations
stabilizing in 1991. A review of inorganic ground°..rater trends
suggests that although a slight decrease in concentrations has
occurred since 1987, inorganic contamination has continued since
that time at a relatively steady state~ .in the overburden and
be.drock aquifers. Thus the four rounds of groundwater data
collected between 1991 and 1993 provide a reasonable basis for
estimating human exposure to groundwater. EPA chooses the maximum
groundwater concentration of all four rounds to estimate the RME
and an average concentration to estimate a central tendency
exposure. EPA considers the use of a maximum concentration for the
RME reasonable since an individual could develop a residential well
anywhere within the plume.
Regarding the contribution of non-landfill sources, it is EPA's
responsibility to report all of the contamination found at the site
regardless of its source. While it is po!ssible that some unknown
non-landfill sources may have contributedi to some small extent to
the organic compound contamination found, in most cases a clear
connection to the landfill has been established. The RI focused on
organic compounds which the data indicted as landfill related.
Benzene, for example, was detected in a characteristic pattern of
high concentrations at the landfill perimeter monitoring wells and
at decreasing concentrations at wells located away from the
lan~fill. Benzene was also detected at concentrations exceeding
regulatory standards and above concentrations with reported
toxicological effects. Although non-landfill sources may have
contributed to some of the groundwater" organic concentrations
reported in the RI, their potential contribution does not diminish
the significance of the landfill related organic contaminants
detected in groundwater at the site.
-------
ii. Specific Comments. Responses to specific comments on the RI
from the Aries report are provided below.
Specific Comment a:
topographical peak is
elevation of 90 feet.
the bedrock elevation
Landfill is 112.4 feet.
The RI indicates that one bedrock
located in the Coakley Landfill at an
The RI Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3 indicates
at monitoring well RP-2 in the Coakley
This 22.4 discrepancy should be explained.
" ~
EPA Response: Topographic peaks of 90+ ft. were noted in the OU-2
RI and also in the OU-1 RI and prior investigations. The bedrock
high of 112.4 ft in the Coakley Landfill was discovered during the
pre-design investigation conducted by the PRPs contractor in the
summer 'of 1993 following the OU-2 RI field work. This data was
added to the final version of the RI report and does not conflict
with the conclusion that a bedrock peak exists in the area of the
coakley Landfill.
Specific Comments: The hydraulic conductivity values and linear
velocity values used in the hydrogeological evaluation in the RI
were high.
EPA Response: EPA does not disagree with some of the comments;
however, Aries focused their comments on the high end of the
groundwater velocity range presented in the RI. . EPA agrees that
hydraulic conductivity measured by grain size is less accurate than
rising/falling head in situ test. For that reason, the average
hydraulic conductivity used in groundwater velocity calculations is
based on only the in situ results. The RI presents a range of
groundwater velocities using available data. The range is intended
to present possible. groundwater flow conditions. Lastly, the
travel distance reported in the RI are presented as a worst-case
estimate of groundwater travel. The purpose of the travel distance
is to provide a possible range using current available data. The
results reflect groundwater travel distance and not necessarily
contaminant migration. contaminant migration at the groundwater
flow rate is a conservative "worst case" assumption designed to
provide maximum protection to the public.
specific Comment: The RI states that off-site
contribute to study area groundwater contamination.
points to VOCs not detected at the Coakley Landfill.
EPA Response: Noting that VOCs other than those identified as
associated with the Coakley Landfill were detected in the site area
does not diminish the risks associated with landfill related VOC
g~oundwater contamination.
sources may
The comment
-------
Specific Comment: The low concentrations of contaminants indicate
the overall magnitude of site groundwater contamination is
extremely low and close to the MCL.
EPA Response: EPA agrees that in general groundwater contamination
beyond the perimeter of the landfill is relatively low. However,
ARARs such as MCLs are exceeded in numerous locations. Therefore,
an action must be taken. We believe MM-2 which primarily consists
of natural attenuation and monitoring is appropriate and consistent
with the NCP.
Specific Comment: Since the RI/FS does not consider techniques to
reduce. off site sources or naturally occurring concentrations,
inorganic concentrations would not be significantly affected by the
remedy alone.
EPA Response: Naturally occurring background and other non-
landfill sources may contribute to the elevated inorganic
groundwater. concentrations, but the data also indicates the
landfill as the elevated source of inorganic compounds. If the
source control remedy stops the migration of the elevated source of
inorganic compounds on site then the off site levels will reduce
with time through dilution. Establishing background levels of
inorganic contamination is an objective of the monitoring program
for the OU-2 remedy.
.Specific Comment: The conclusion that the Coakley Landfill is a
source of the arsenic, barium, iron, manganese and sodium in
surface water is not consistent with the RI page 5-22 discussion
indicating that elevated concentrations of metals in surface water
are associated with high suspended solids concentrations and
naturally occurring soil particles.
EPA Response: The RI states that distribution patterns of certain
compounds indicate the landfill as a potential source and that
naturally occurring sources also cqntribute to the elevated
concentrations detected at the site.
Specific Comment: Sediment concentrations do not indicate a
pattern and, therefore, the landfill is not the potential source.
Based on literature values of barium and other inorganic compounds,
there is the argument that the Coakley Landfill is not the source
and within anticipated naturally occurring concentrations.
EPA Response: Regional (Eastern United States) soil data provides
a wide range of typical soil inorganic concentrations which gives
some indication of the significance of soil concentrations found at
a specific location within the region. However, site specific
information such as a distribution pattern indicati~g elevated
-------
concentrations close to the landfill with decreasing or stable
concentrations away from the landfill. This provides a clearer
indication that the landfill is the potential source of the
elevated concentrations of inorganic compounds.
2. Evaluation of the
Alternative (MM-2)
Feasibility
Study and
EPA's
Preferred
"
A summary of the comments and responses provided on the FS by.
Coakley Group's consultant, Aries Engineering, Inc. is provided
below.
Comment a: In general, there was agreement with the conclusions of
FS in comments in comments 5, 15, and 20.
EPA Response: The Aries report agrees with the conclusions of the
FS for these comment numbers. The Aries document concurred with
the recommendation that no further active management of migration
remedy is required for OU-2. The recommendation contained in the
FS is based on a conservative approach to human and ecological
risk, groundwater concentrations, and dispersion analysis.
Therefore, the conservative results of the FS only more strongly
supports the recommendation for 'no further active remedy is
. warranted.
Whether any further action was or was not required, institutional
controls are appropriate for this site since water quality could
cause a risk t~ public health if used as drinking water. This
measure is temporary, until the water quality improves by
elimination of contaminant migration by the OU-l remedy and by the
dispersion of contaminants within the OU-2 study area.
However, the FS interpretation would not exclude lead since the
average calculated concentration was 6 ppb in the FS in response to
comment 20.
Comment b: The Aries reported discrepancies between RI and FS in
comments 1,3,9,10 & 13.
,)
EPA 'Response: These comments suggest that there are differing
statements between the two documents. Paraphrasing of the RI in
the FS may suggest that the conclusions vary. However, this is not
the intention nor the case. The FS builds upon the RI with the
incorporation of methodology considerations of how data shall be
interpreted and evaluated.
Comment c: The Aries report discussed differences between the OU-l
groundwater controls vs. FS assumptions in comments 2,14,16 & 17.
EPA Response: The Aries document cites differing remedial methods
by which OU-l will contain the groundwater that could mi.grate from
the l~n:dfill itself. Although the methods of containment and
-------
collection may vary, the OU-2 FS assumes that no groundwater
contaminated above cleanup levels will migrate from OU-1.
Therefore, the specific design of cOllection/containment will not
change the basic approach or assumptions.
The primarj impact of a different containment/collection scheme is
the capture zone around the landfill. The extent of the capture
zone will determine the amount of contaminated groundwater that
would be excluded from the dispersion analysis because of
collection by OU-1. Where existing information for the OU-1
capture zone analysis did not fully encompass the landfill, the
capture zone was assumed to extend to the limit of the landfill
since this is part of the OU-1 ROD requirement.
Comment d: The Aries report discussed differences of opinion with
regards to the site hydrogeologic assumptions used in the FS in
comments 6,8,11 & 18.
EPA Response: site hydrogeology was based on the data and
discussion contained in the RI. A uniform radial flow was assumed
,around the landfill based on hydrogeologic recommendations and
groundwate~ divides. The overburden strata and upper fractured
,bedrock formed one unit for groundwater transport, with average
hydraulic properties derived for the unit. Bedrock was generally
fractured in the upper surface and it was considered to transport
groundwater as the overburden. It is noted that deeper bedrock was
excluded from consideration in the RI and FS.
No specific flow paths were delineated for this site since they
could not be located with a high degree of certainty. Groundwater
divides were noted along Lafayette Road and in the wetland area
west of the landfill. These divides impacted the overall regional
groundwater flow for the site. The continued radial flow was
continued but only until the limit of the long-term divides were
attained considering post-closure conditions of CU-1.
Comment e: The Aries discussed differences of opinion with the
human health risk methodology used in the FS in comments 4,12,19,21
& 22.
EPA Response: Although, the majority of the cancer and noncancer
risks at the. Coakley Landfill Superfund site are due to inorganic
contaminants, several organic contaminants exceeded their
respective federal drinking water standards or resulted in cancer
risks exceeding EPA's point of departure for carcinogens
(1XIO-6). These exceedances indicate that these compounds,
(benzene, 1,2-dichloropropane, 4-methylphenol, and vinyl chloride),
could potentially result in risks to public health. Thus, these
compounds were evaluated in the human health baseline risk
assessment (HHBRA) and will be monitored during and at the
completion of EPA's remedial effort.
-------
, ~
For the health risk assessment, the methodology used was to
identify contaminants above levels that could cause a risk to the
public. The basis of the methodology was to utilize highest
detected concentrations to determine if a risk could be present.
Averaged values were used quantify groundwater quality and to
assess dispersion impacts t9 groundwater quality. The impacts of
the OU-1 capture zone were considered in the analysis to reduce the
potential volume of contaminated groundwater within OU-2. Where
limited quantities of data were available, conservative assumptions
were made so that the final recommendation would be fully
protective of human health and the environment.
Comment f: The Aries report discussion differences in opinion with
respect to the dispersion methodology used in the FS in comments
7,23,24,25,26,27 and the Appendix C discussion.
EPA Response:' The dispersion methodology was based on site
hydrogeology and the interpretation of lo~al soil conditions and
characteristics. The use of sorption was used in this model.
Although the model using sorption may be a valid method, the
objective of this RI/FS was to assess the migration of
contamination assuming the OU-1 remedy is implemented. The Aries
model reviews the time that cleanup levels will be met if a cap is
installed. Twenty years is too long and not considered reasonable.
A groundwater extraction and treatment system is part of the OU-1
remedy and therefore not a subject of this remedy. The FS model
'used considered a conservative method to ensured adequate
protection of public health.
The extent of dispersion to achieve MCLs is clearly dependent on
the groundwater contaminant concentrations and the transport
mechanism.
For this site, the groundwater concentrations for the contaminants
of concern were based on the available RI data. Where
interpolation was needed between monitoring wells, a linear
interpolation was used since radial and uniform transport of
grGundwater was assumed. Those wells with detection levels above
the MCLs were set at the MCLs.
The dispersion analysis was limited to numerical methods and did
not utilize extensive computer modeling. This was based on the
interpretation of groundwater flow patterns, and on the averaged
soil strata and hydrogeologic properties for the site.
Note that Appendix C of the FS was included as a comparison if OU-1
did not install a groundwater containment/collection system. This
scenario was evaluated at EPA's request for informational purposes
only. It is not the objective of the FS to consider this option
and it is not an option in OU-1 ROD.7
-------
Comment g: The Aries report discussed a difference of opinion with
regard to the remedial alternatives evaluated in the FS in comments
28,29 & 30.
EPA Response: The remedial alternative that includes additional
monitoring wells was based on the need to monitor groundwater
quality at specific points within the dispersion zone around the
landfill and to establish background levels of inorganics in the
area.
The 30 years of monitoring (quarterly and semiannually) was
utilized as a standard basis to help evaluate long-term compliance
with groundwater quality regulations. It is also a requirement
according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
is an ARAR for the remedy. This requirement is consistent in all
the alternatives evaluated.
The possibility that a well can be installed and used for drinking
water is a consideration that must be assessed as potential
exposure scenario.
-------
',~
ATTACXMEN'l' A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
-------
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
CONDUCTED AT THE LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
IN NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
EPA/DES have conducted the following community relations activities
at the Coakley Landfill Superfund site:
,
,0
o
August 18, 1983 - Site Tour (presentations by NH WSPCC,
North 'Hampton Selectmen, US EPA, and Senator Gordon
Humphrey) .
o
November 4, 1985 - North Hampton Board of Selectmen hold
a Public Informational Meeting to receive State input
about the hydrogeological study to assist the town in
planning water line extensions.
January 1986 - DES/WSPCC prepared a Community Relations
Plan. '
o
o
April 1986 - DES issues ,a Press Release announcing the
Public Meeting to kickoff the RI/FS.
May 14, 1986 - DES holds the RI/FS kickoff Public
Informational Meeting.
o
o
July .8, 1988 - NH Division of Public Health Services
issues Report #88-007, "Evaluation of Cancer Incidence
and Mortality."
o
October 13,
Report.
1988 - ATSDR
issues
a Health Assessment
o
October 25, 1988 - EPA issues a Press Release announcing
the Public Meeting to discuss DES/EPA Remedial
Investigation results.
October 198'8 - EPA issues a Fact Sheet on the RI results.
0,
October 1988 - DES issues a Fact Sheet on the RI results.
o
November 3, 1988 - DES/EPA hold a Public Informational
Meeting on the results of the RI.
November 30, 1988 - EPA issues a Public Notice in the
Portsmouth Herald announcing the availability of the
Administrative Record.
o
o
February 1990 - EPA issues the Proposed Plan for site
cleanup.
-------
o
March 7, 1990 - EPA issues a Press Release announcing the
availability of the Proposed Plan, the dates of the
Public Informational Meeting and Informal Public Hearing
and the beginning of the Public Comment Period.
o
March 9, 1990 - EPA issues Public Notices in the
Portsmouth Herald and Foster's Daily Democrat announcing
the Proposed Plan, the dates of the Public Informational
Meeting and Informal Public Hearing, and the beginning of
the Public Comment Period.
o
March 15, 1990 - EPA/DES hold a Public Informational
Meeting on the Proposed Plan for site cleanup.
o
March 16, 1990 - May 14, 1990 - Public Comment Period on
the Proposed Plan.
o
March 30 1990 - EPA issues a press release announcing the
extension of the Public Comment Period.
o
April 3, 1990 - EPA/DES hold an Informal Public Hearing
on the Proposed Plan.
o
March 3, 1992 - EPA hold an informational meeting on the
start-up of the Coakley Landfill OU-2. Management of
Migration RI\FS.
o
May 23, 1994 - EPA makes the Management. of Migration
RI\FS and the OU-2 Proposed Plan available for public
review at the site Repositories at EPA's Record Center in
Boston and at the North Hampton Public Library. EPA
publishes a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed
Plan in the Hampton Union and in the Portsmouth Herald on
May 24, 1994. .
June 1, 1994 - EPA hold an informational meeting at the
North Hampton Elementary School to discuss the results of
the Management of Migration Remedial Investigation, the
cleanup alternatives presented in the Feasibility Study
and to present the Agency's Proposed Plan. Also during
. the meeting, the Agency answers questions from the
public.
o
o
June 2 to August 1, 1994 - EPA hold a 61-day public
comment period to accept public comment on the
alternatives presented in the FeasibilitrStudy and the
Proposed Plan and on any other documents previously
released to the public.
June 21, 1994 - EPA hold a public hearing at the North
Hampton Elementary School to discuss the Proposed Plan
and to accept any oral comments.
o
-------
ATTACHMENT B
-------
~ ARIES ENGINEERING, INC.
envirc~menrol engine:": :-c hydrogeologisrs
"
July 29, 1994
File No. 92033
46 South Moin Si!:er
Concord, N.H. 03301
PHONE: 603.226.2545
FAX: 603.226.Q374
Mr. Steven I. Calder, HSN/CANS
Remedial Project Manager
US EP A Region 1
IFK Federal Building
900 Canal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
P.O. Box 5124
700 Islington Sr.eet
Pommouth, N.H. 03801
PHONE: 603-427-1568
Re: . May 1994 Coakley Landfill Management of Migration
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Repon Comments
Dear Mr. Calder:
On behalf of the Coakley Group, Aries Engineering, Inc. .(Aries) is submitting the following
comments to the May 1994 Coakley Landfill Management of Migration Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study Repon.
Sincerely, .
Aries Engineering, Inc. .
.-7 C:-"~
.' ....4., /J .
.-' ...' ':. ~-,\.!..-~L .\ ~
Tho~ E. Roy, P.E. >J 7
Supervising conttacj -
cc: . Coakley Executive Committee
Coakley Technical Committee
Mr. Tal Hubbard, NHDES
TERJemr'
Enclosure
.
-------
May 1994 Coakley Landf"ill Management of Migration
Remedial Investigation and Feasability
Study Report Comments
Prepared for:
Unites States Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts
Prepared by:
Aries Engineering, Ine.
46 South Main Street
Concord, New Bampshire
(603)226-2545
July 1994
Flle No. 92033
e-.--:/ c:I)
L.-~"I.l>b ~
Thomas E. Roy, P .
-------
SECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.0
FEAsmlllTY STUDY
4.0
FS APPENDIX C GROUND WATER SOLUTE TRANSPORT
4.1
4.2
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
",
FIGURES
\.:.
Figure 1
Figure' 2
Figure 3
-, Figure 4
Figure S
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure,IO
FS Appendix C Comments
PreHminary OU-2 Ground Water Solute Transport Assessment
and Comments
Introduction
Site Hydrogeology and Ground Water Quality Snmmary
Ground Water Solute Transport Analyses
Di$cussion
Conclusion and Recommendations
References
Parameters for Analytical Model of Flow and Mass Transport
Model Prediction Parameters for Cont:lminant Transport After
Landfill is Capped
Site Plan
Observed Bedrock Ground Water Elevation Contours
Observed Shallow Overburden Ground Water Elevation Contours
Preliminary Solute Transport AssessmeJlt
Preliminary Solute Transport Assessment
Preliminary Solute Transport Assessment
Model-Predicted Benzene COncentratioDS After Landfill is Capped
Model-Predicted Arsenic COncentratiODS After Landfill is Capped
Benzene Dispersion Without OU-l ~apture- Zone
Arsenic Dispersion Without OU-1 Capture Zone
PAGE
1
1
10
18
18
20
20
21
22
32
34
3S
-------
"
G
, .
1.0 l.'.iRODUCTION
The Coakley Group generally concurs with the May 1994 Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility StUdy (RlIFS) conclusion that funher management of migration remedial
action is not required. However, the Coakley Group feels the May 1994 RI/FS was
based on several conservative assumptions which overstate the Coakley landfill risks to
hwnan health and the environment, and overestimates the time for area contaminants to
attenuate to background conditions.
The Coakley Group also feels the RI/FS Appendix C OU-l non-pumping analysis
included several conservative assumptions that underestimate OU-l remedial impacts on
site ground water, and overestimate the ground water area affected by aU-l non-
pumping conditions. Our comments on the RIfFS Appendix C are in tWo parts for
clarity as follows: direct comments on Appendix C are presented in Section 4.1; our
. analysis of OU-l remediation impacts under non-pumping conditions, with the relevant
, RlIFS Appendix C commemsare presented in Section 4.2.
Our detailed RIlFS comments follow.
2.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - lRD
"
1.
Pa2e (P2,) 2-11. oarallI'aoh (oara.) 2 In descn'bing ground water monitoring well
installation, the RI States "To filter fine sediment and enhanCl'! well production, quartZ
sand was backfilled around the screen section. "
Comment EP A publication EP AI530-R-93-OOl "RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring:
Draft Technical Guidance" recommends that the filter pack grain size be 3 to 5 times the
50 percent retained size of the formation materials or two times the 50 percent retained
size for fine-grained formations. The EPA publication recommends a minimtmt filter
pack thickness of tWo inches betWeen the well screen and the borehole wall. These
recommendations would provide monitoring wells "capable of producing samples of
, acceptably low turbidity." The RI does not indicate that the monitoring well filter packs
were designed according to these or similar procedures for producing low turbidity
samples. Acceptably low tUrbidity is defined by the EP A as less than 5 nephelometric
tUrbidity units (NTUs). The RI indicates monitoring well FPC-3B was constrUCted of
1.5-inch diameter casing in a 3-inch diameter borehole, leaving an appro:rimat~ly 0.75-
inch thick filter pack which is less than the recommended miniTm.Jm. This could result
in excessively turbid ground water samples with artificially elevated inorganic
concentrations. EP A's guidance indicates that to use unfiltered ground water samples for
inorganic analysis, the monitoring well should be appropriately designed, adequately
developed, suitably purged at a low rate, and sampled with a low flow sampling
technique of about .1 liters per minute. The EP A guidance indicates these precautions
are necessary to avoid a "false indication of CODtamination. "
The RI does not indicate that these precautions were taken and funher notes samples
-------
samples. The unfiltered samples, therefore, likely resulted in sampling anifacts
indicating elevated inorganic concentrations. Filtered ground water samples would have
better reflected site ground water conditions given the monitoring well constrUction,
development, purging and sa,mpling techniques employed.
"
2.
P!Z. 2-12. para. 1
well development.
The RI indicates that turbidity was measured during mopitoring
Comment The RI does not indicate whether well development was continued until
turbidity less than S NTU was measured as recommended by the EP A. Continued well
development would be important to avoid turbid ground water samples which can
produce anificially-elevated inorganic concentrations.
3.
Fe. 2-19. bullet S The RI indicates that "pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity
measurements were taken" during purging of monitoring wells for ground water sampling
and that "sampling was performed when stable readings of pH, temperature and
c~nductivity were obtained. "
Comment The RI does not explicitly state that steps were taken to obtain low
turbidity ground water samples. Table 4-S indicates that of 91 RI ground water samples
collected, only 6 samples had turbidity readings less than EP A's recommended S NTU.
Most RI turbidity- readings were in the hundreds of NTIJ. and many were off-scale
(reading of 999) indicating very turbid ground water samples.
These turbid ground water samples would likely result in artificially-elevated ground
water inorganic concentrations.
4.
Fe. 3-11. uara. 3 The RI indicates that one bedrock topographical peak is located in
the Coakley Landfill at an elevation of 90 feet.
Comment RI Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3 indicate the bedrock elevation at monitoring
well RP-2 in the Coakley Landfill is 112.4 feet. This apparent 22.4-foot discrepancy
should be explained. . -
S.
Fe. 3-11. t'ara. 4 In the discussion of photolineaD1ents. the RI states that "fracture
zones significantly increase hydraulic conductivity, creating preferred ground water
f1ow/connlmin~nt migration pathways" and that tWo significant lineament swarms were
identified, one paralleling the bedrock valley west of the 1andfi1l and one north of
Breakfast Hill Road.
Comment The RI does not distinguish betWeen observed lineamentS and field-verified
fracture zones exhibiting enhanced hydraulic conductivity. lineamentS may indicate low
permeability dikes or fractUre zones that are sediment-filled or mineralized. In New
H~shire, many northwest-southeast trending photolineaments are the result of glacial
921D3a8L-
-------
erosion/deposition of the southeast moving glacier. To conclude that a photo lineament
indicates a permeable fractUre zone requires additional evidence such as geophysical
surveys or, preferably, rock coring and hydraulic conductivity testing. RI Table 3-4
hydraulic conductivity testing results do not show higher hydraulic conductivities in
bedrock monitoring wells located in the lineament swarm west of the landfill which
would suggest this fractUre zone is not a preferred ground water flow pathway.
6.
PI!. 3-20. eara.! The RI states that "A localized and deeper fracture system was
identified by photolineament and fractUre trace analysis reported by Weston. "
Comment Identifiable fractUre zones having enhanced permeability consistent with
, Weston's photolineament locations are not evident in site bedrock core data, hydraulic
conductivity data or ground water flow data. It would be more accurate to interpret the
phOtolineament analysis results to indicate possible directional orientations of site area
fractUre systems. Site bedrock StIUCtural information, fracture fabric data and
. photo lineament analysis results suggest a dominant north-northeast fracture system.
However, site area bedrock ground water flow and contaminant migration data do not
indicate a significant anisotropy in the north-northeast direction.
7.
PI!. 3-22. eara. 2 The RI states that site estimated hydraulic conductivity values for
glacial till exceed the high-end literatUre range by tWo orders of magnitUde. One
hydraulic conductivity value was from rising/falling. head tests, while tWO of the high
hydraulic conductivity values were from grain size analysis.
Comment If a small volume of well water is displaced during a rising or falling head
test, the resulting, hydraulic response observed in the well may be due to the fIlter pack"
which would give 'hydraulic conductivity values orders of magnitude higher than glacial
till. Grain size' analysis is generally less reliable than in-sitU hydraulic testing. This may
account for the high estimated hydraulic conductivity.
8.
PI!. 3-25. para. 3 The RI references overburden and bedrock ground water flow
directions shown in Figures 3-11 and 3-12. The RI indicates that overburden ground
. water flow is radial at the Coakley Landfill and that bedrock ground water beneath the
landfill is probably mounded because of the overburden mound. . .
Comment. The overburden flowline shown on Figure 3-11 from the center of the
landfill ground water mound toward the southeast does not take into account vertical flow
of overburden ground water into bedrock. The OU-l Remedial Design site tbree-
dimensional 2-layer ground water model and flow path analysis indicates that most east-
flowing overburden ground water in the landfill mound tUrDS north or south and then
flows into bedrock where flow is predominantly toward the west. As indicated by the
RI, bedrock ground water mounding at the Coakley landfIll is inferred. Aries
anticipates that radial flow associated with possible bedrock ground water mounding
would be localized as indicated by the RI.
"...,..., CO""
-------
12.
13.
921D3a1a2.......
10.
PI!. 3-28. para. 3 The RI indicates that overburden ground water average linear
velocity betWeen the Coakley Landflll and the wetland to the west is from 296 feet per
year (ftJyr) to 1,482 ftJyr.
Comment The RI estimate of overburden ground water average linear velocity
betWeen the Coakley Landfill and the wetland to the west appears unrealistically high.
The RI assumed hydraulic conductivity of 11 feet per day (ftJday) for the landfill appearS
high based on hydraulic conductivity data from the west side of the landfill. Using a
high ground water velocity to estimate travel times for contamin~nts would overestimate
the distance contamination could travel from the landfill since landfill operation began.
11.
. PI!. 3-28. Dara. 3 Average linear ground water velocities were calculated for assumed
overburden ground water flowlines from the landfill.
Comment Using a porosity of 0.1 for outwash deposits with relatively high hydraulic
conductivity is not appropriate and results in unrealistically large velocities. RI Table
3-6 indicates the literature range for porosity of outwash is 0.25 to 0.5. Using a porosity
of 0.1 may cause unrealistically high estimates of ground water contamin~nt migration
distances from the landfill.
P2. 3-29. para. 3 The RI discusses estimated ground water travel distances along
assumed flowlines in various directions from the Coakley Landfill for the time since
landfilling began.
Comment. The assumed ground water flow paths may not be valid. Because the
travel distances are based on the RI estimated ground water average linear velocities
which range too high, the larger estimated travel distances are not realistic. Further, the
assumed flow paths were esrim~ted based on general ground water conditions after the
completion of the landfill. Before the landtill was completed in the early 1980's, there
likely was not a ground water mound in the landfill and therefore ground water flow
paths from the landfill until the early 1980' So were likely toward the west. Ground water.
flow from the landfill toward the east may not have developed until as late as the early
1980's which limits the potemial travel time for migration of contamination from the
landfill.
P2. 4-20. bullet 1 The RI discussion of sediment sample inorganic compound
analytical results states "The data indicates that arsenic, barium, chromium, iron, lead,
manganese, nickel, vanadium, zinc and probably beryllium, copper and selenium are
naturally occurring elements at the site. "
Comment. The Coakley Group concurs with the conclusion that the stated elements
are natUrally occurring in sediments and soils at the site.
-------
~.
14.
P~. 4-20. bullet 2 The RI states that "Chromium and copper were detected at
concentrations [in sediment samples] which did not clearly indicate the landfIll as their
source. "
Comment The Coakley Group concurs that chromium and copper in sediment
samples is not associated with a landfill source.
15.
PIZ. 4-31. para. 2 In discussing bedrock ground water inorganic analytical results,
the RI states' "Interpreration of the inorganic data is complicated by significant
fluctuations associated with highly turbid samples and naturally occurring background
concentrations. "
Comment The Coakley Group concurs with the stated difficulties in interpreting the
ground water ~organic analytical data. The high turbidity of the samples is documented
in RI Table 4-5. Only six of 91 samples (less than 7%) were within EPA's acceptable
turbidity range of less than 5 NTU. Most Rl samples bad noted turbidity readings in the
hundreds of NTu. The samples were analyzed for total inorganics. The total inorganics
analysis methods would include the natUrally-occurring metals contained in the sample
sediment responsible for elevated turbidities. The resulting metal concentrations would
therefore, be erroneously high. The fluctuation of RI inorganic compound concentrations
from one sampling round to the next was as much as one to two orders of magnitude at
some monitoring wells. This indicates that the total inorganic compound analytical
methods eny>loyed in the Rl are inappropriate for ground water samples collected from
monitoring wells not specifically designed, constructed, developed, purged or sampled .
for low turbidity, unfiltered samples. Therefore, due to turbidity interference, the RI
inorganic analytical data are not reliable to assess cont~min~nt concentrations in ground
water or contamin~nt migration from the Coakley Landfill. A better analytical technique
would be to use filtered ground water samples for the Rl well construction and sampling
methods.
16.
PIZ. 4-34. Darn. 1 The RI states that "landfill associated contamin~tion of overburden
and sbaIlow bedroc~, ground water bas continued at a relatively steady state with some
slight rEduction. "
Comment The Coakley Group concurs with the interpretation of steady stite ground
water conditions. RI Table 4-32 indicates that for the three on-site monitoring wells
listed, concem:rations of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and sodium have decreased or
rem~ined stable since 1987. Concentrations of benzene and sodiuin in off-site bedrock
monitoring well GZ-I05 have remained generally stable since 1987 and have decreased
slightly since October 1991. Rl Figures 4-18 through 4-34 show 1991 through 1993
. concentrations for selected contamin~nts of concern. 'P1e figures show that contamin~nt
concentrations have stabilized or decreased where concentrations are above detection
limits or above background concentrations. .
-------
. .
Steady state ground water contaminant migration conditions indicate an approximate
equilibrium betWeen the flux of contaminant mass from a source and the natural
attenuation processes such as dilution, dispersion, degradation and adsorption.
Conr~minant concentrations within the contaminant plume do nOt increase under steady
state conditions. Contaminants do not migrate downgradient beyond the plume at
detectable concentrations under steady state conditions. Steady state conditions would
be expected to be followed by gradually declining CODr~minant concentrations because
of cont~minanr source reduction caused by dilution and degradation. Therefore,
decreases in site CODtaminant plume size and concentrations would be expected without
remedial action. Funher, FS dilution analysis assumptions are not consistent with
observed site steady state. plume conditions causing the dilution analysis results to over-
estimate site contaminant migration.
,}
<'
17.
PI!. 4-36. para. 1 and 3 The RI states that non-landfill potential sources in the area
. include underground storage tanks (USTs), domestic and commercial septic systems, and
. stormwater runoff. The RI indicates that all residences and commercial and industrial
establishments use individual septic systems. According to the RI, compounds potentially
present in commercial and industrial septage include chloriJJated and aromatic solvents
which are frequently used in cleaning products used by most retail and commercial
stores. The RI states that non-landfill source contamin::ltion is expected along Lafayette
Road and may affect monitoring wells and monitoring well "Clusters FPC-l1, FPC-9,
GZ-I09/117, GZ-I0l/103, Betty's Kitchen, and North Hampton Grocery. This indicateS.
VOCs observed in the wells would be due to off-site sources other then the Coakley
landfill. These sources would likely continue to contaminated these wells regardless of
remedial action taken at the Coakley site. . .
Comment The Coakley Group concurs with the RI statement that non-landfill
contamination sources are present along Lafayette Road east of the Coakley Landfill.
Previous ground water analytical data indicate that some VOC compounds detected in
off-site monitoring wells and private wells were not detected at Coakley Landfill
monitoring wells. The Waste Management Division (WMD) maintain~ files concerning
the Ferland propeny which abuts the Coakley Landfill to the east. The WMD documents
include: Environmental Site Assessment, by Normandeau Associates (Normandeau) of
Bedford, New Hampshire, dated June 1986; Subsurface Investigation, by Shevenell
Gallen Associates (SGA) of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, dated October, 1986; and a
letter to Mr. Richard Ferland from SGA dated March 1987. The Normandeau ESA
indicated that a 500-gallon beating oil UST was located on the propeny. The
Normandeau ESA also indicated that tWo empty 55-gallon dmms were observed on the
propeny and that screening of the drums with an HNU photoionization detector (HNU)
indicated readings of 0 parts per million (ppm) to 5ppm. Normandeau screened the
surface and shallow subsurface soil near the drums with the HNU and reported readings
of 0 ppm to 5 ppm. Normandeau did not observe soil Stains near the dmms' SGA
installed tWo test borings and monitoring wells as part of their Subsurface Investigation.
Ground water in the monitoring wells was sampled and analyzed for VOCs. Of the 12
9"""'--' -
-------
20.
21.
-------
24.
25.
26.
9JG33aaZ......
Comment The average linear ground water velocities estimated by CDM appear to
be [00 high for glacial till and bedrock which, according to the RI are the primary
pathways for contaminant migration in ground water.
22.
P!Z. 5-18. Dara. 1&2 The RI indicates that off-site inorganics may be natUrally
occurring or due [0 off-site sources such as septic systems. Eevated chromium, lead,
nickel, vanadium and zinc may be due to the landfill, but off-site sources and naturally
occurring sources are indicated.
"
Comment The Coakley Group agrees that these inorganics are naturally occurring
and due to other off-site sources. Since the RIlFS does not consider techniques to reduce
.. off-site sources or naturally occurring concentrations, inorganic concentrations would not
be significantly affected by Coakley Landfill remedial action alone. .
23.
P!Z. 5-21. para. 2 The RI notes VOCs were observed in off-site surface water samples
. and interprets these VOCs as due to off-site sources.
Comment The Coakley Group concurs with this conclusion and notes the VOC
benzene is very common and is anticipated to be widely present in the study area due to
nearby petroleum storage and vehicle traffic. We anticipate benzene will remain in area
ground water due to numerous sources separate from the Coakley Landfill regardless of
OU-l Remedial Action. . .
Pe.5-22. "ara. 1 The RI indicates elevated concentrations of metals in surface water
are associated with high suspended solids concentrations and natUIally occurring soil
particles.
Comment The Coakley Group concurs and notes the same effect would be anticipated
for high suspended solids in ground water samples. Unlike surface water, however,
these soil particles would not be transported with ground water flow, would be filtered
by the soil medium and would therefore not be an anticipated constitUent of ground
water.
Fe. 5-22. narn. 2 The RI notes slightly elevated VOC concentratiOI1$ along the B&M
railroad tracks and associates lead residuals with train traffic.
Comment The Coakley Group concurs and notes elevated lead concentrations would
also be anticipated with vehicular traffic such as that in the site area.
PI!. 5-27. Dara. 1 The RI indicates that pumping the Hobbs area ground water at a
rate sufficient to intercept Coakley Landfill ground water, would result in environmental
dewatering impacts more severe than adverse impacts from contaminant diversion from
the landfIll.
-------
<;
prn...' -
Comment The Coakley Group concurs and notes that pumping the Hobbs area
ground water would likely induce contaminated ground water flow from surrounding off-
site contamin:!nt source areas unrelated to the Coakley Landfill.
27.
pg. 5-27. bullet 6. The RI states that "the distribution pattern of arsenic, barium, iron,
manganese and sodium indicate the Coakley Landf"ill as a potential source of these
compounds... "
Comment The conclusion that the Coakley Landf"ill is a source of the arsenic,
barium, iron, manganese and sodium in surface water is not consistent with the RI page
5-22 discussion indicating that elevated concentrations of metals in surface water are
associated with high suspended solids concentrations and natUrally OCCurring soil
. particles.
28.
pg. 5-28. bullet 1 The RI indicates that "compounds which exhibited a distribution
pattern indicating the landfill as a potentW source included: arsenic, barium, iron,
manganese, nickel and possibly zinc. " .
Comment The barium coment in eastern United States soils is reported to average 420
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and range from 10 mg/kg to 1,500 mg/kg:. Site
sediment barium concentrations for the September 1992 sampling round ranged from 9.3
mg/kg to 94.4 mglkg. Barium, therefore, does not appear to be elevated. Zinc content
in eastern United Srates soils is reported to average 52 mg/kg and range from < 5 mglkg
to 2,900 mg/kg. Site sediment zinc concentrations for the September 1992 sampling
round ranged from 14.4 mglkg to 78.2 mg/kg, with the highest concentration observed
at sample S-16 approximately 4,000 feet from the landfill. Zinc does not appear to be
elevated due to the landfill. The arsenic content in eastern United StateS soils is reported
to average 7.4 mglkg and range from <0.1 mg/kg to 73 mglkg. Site sediment arsenic
concentrations for the September 1992 sampling round ranged from 2.4 mglkg to 52.3
mglkg, with the highest concemrations observed in samples S-10 and 5-11 approximately
200 to 400 feet nonh of the landfill. Therefore, while arsenic is elevated slightly in two .
samples compared.to other site sediment .samples, it is within anticipated naturally
occurring concentrations. Iron, manganese and possibly nickel were very slightly
elevated in sedimem sample S-10 compared to other site sample concentrations, but well
within naturally occurring concentrations.
-------
3.0 FEASmn..ITY STUDY - (FS)
1.
P9:, 4. Dara. 2 The FS states that elevated concentrations of inorganics associated
with the Coakley landfIll are indicated for arsenic, barium, iron, manganese, nickel and
zinc.
Comment As RI comment 25 indicates, barium and zinc are not likely associated
with the landfill. Arsenic is slightly elevated in two samples compared to other site
sedimem samples, but is within anticipated naturally occurring concenttations. Iron,
manganese and possibly nickel were very slightly elevated in one sediment sample, but
well within anticipated natUrally occurring concenttations.
2.
P9:, 7. 1;)ara. 2 The FS indicates that the OU-l remedy will impact OU-2 ground
water contaminant concenttatioDS because of the captUre zone of OU-l ground water
. exttaction wells. The FS refers to Weston's 1989 proposed OU-l source control remedy
to assess the OU-l captUre zone.
Comment. Proposed OU-l Remedial Action ground water extraction design is based
on PDI data and differs significantly from Weston's 1989 proposal. OU-l Remedial
Action ground water exttaction is proposed only from the west side of the landfill, while
Weston's OU-l source control includes ground water exti'action from the east side of the
landfill. Ground water extraction from the west side of the laDdfill is appropriate
because capping of the landfill will reduce or eliminate ground water mounding within
the landfill'and both overburden and bedrock ground water will flow westward beneath.
the landfill. The cap alone will eliminate off-site flow of ground water from the landfill
on the east, south and nonheast sides. Capping the landfill will reduce total off-site
migration of cont~minants because of the following: the volume of ground water flowing
through the landfill will be reduced; precipitation will not infiltrate downward through
the refuse and leach contaminants; and lowering of the ground water table will .
substaDtial1y reduce the amount of refuse located within the ground water zone. The FS
therefore does not consider the likely impacts of OU-l Remedial Action on OU-2 ground
water conditions.
3.
p!!. 7. Dm. 3 The FS states "Due to high COncentratiODS in ,background
'monitoring wells, manganese was eliminated as a cont~minant expected to reaCh clean-up
goals. It
Comment The Coakley Group agrees that manganese should be eliminated as a
contaminant of concern because background data indicate that it is naturally occurring
and therefore could not be reduced below background levels. Likewise, lead should also
: be eliminated as a contaminant of concern because background data indicate lead
concentrations above the clean-up goal. As indicated in comment 17, the total inorganic
. compound analytical methods used in the RI' are appropriate for ground water samples
. collected from monitoring wells specifically designed, constructed and sampled for low
92ID:Jo8Z.""", .
-------
. .
tUrbidity, unfIltered sarpples. However, RI information indicates the RI monitoring wells
were not specifIcally designed, constructed and sampled for low turbidity samples.
Therefore, the RI inorganic analytical data likely overstate metal cont~mtn:mt
concentrations in ground water and metal cont:lmtnant migration from the Coakley
Landfill.
4.
PI!. 8. Dan. 2
health.
The FS states that area ground water poses a threat to human
Comment Ground water would pose a potential threat to human health only if
ingested. Because the developed OU-2 area is served by municipal water supply, human
ingestion of ground water is unlikely and therefore the ground water threat is very low
and only potenrial. Funher, if ground water were ingested, off-site source areas other
than the Coakley Landfill would contribute to the potemial threat. Off-site source area
. remediation is not contemplated for OU-1 Remedial Action.
5.
Pi. 8. para. 2 The FS states that remediation in the wetlands would pose more
potemial damage to the environment thaJi the low risk posed by landfill contamination.
Comment
The Coakley Group concurs.
6.
PE. 8. 'Para. 3 The FS states that "A numerical ground water dispersion analysis'
was conducted for the coutaminan~ retained for consideration... The dispersion analysis
determined the extent of ground water migration required to dilute contaminant plume
concentrations to the clean-up goals. " . .
Comment The FS analysis assessed dilution but did not address dispersion of
COT't:lminan~. The FS analysis did not fully assess ground water migration, because
ground water migration occurs along flow paths, while the analysis was based on dilution
volumes and disregarded site ground water flow paths. To fully assess cont:lminant
migration, site ground water flow paths must be considered.
7.
P~. 8. Dara. 3 The FS indicates that, based on the dilution analysis, lead would
reach clean-up levels at up to 1,380 feet from the l~odfit1. .
Comment RI data indicate that the background overburden ground water
concemration for lead, based on total metals analysis, is 29.7 ug/1 while the clean-up goal
is 15 ugll. Therefore, the clean-up goal for lead. if based on total metals analysis
concentrations, would not be atf;!inable because it exceeds background conditions.
8.
PE. 1-19. Dan. 5 The FS states "The primary. hydrogeologic featUIeS controlling
contaminant transport include the ground water mound within the landfill... " .
9'2II3JaI2.CIIIII
-------
11.
12.
13.
~~,~
Comment Although the groundwater mound within the landfIll is recognized as a
primary feature controlling contaminant transpon, the reduction of this mound by the
OU-1 Remedial Action cap is not considered in the contaminant transport analysis.
Reducing the landfill ground water mound will significantly reduce and control
contaminant transport.
9.
PI!. 1-21. Dara. 1
broadly shaped. "
The FS states "The plume extending toward Lafayette Terrace is
Comment The RI concluded that CODt:lminanrs in monitoring well cluster FPC-ll
located at Lafayette Terrace are likely from non-landfill sources. Benzene and other
VOCs have not been observed at monitoring well cluster GZ-I01l103 located adjacent
to the southwest comer of Lafayette Terrace. Therefore, site data do not indicate a
plume extending toward Lafayette Terrace.
10.
PI!. 1-21. para. 2 The FS states "Off-site migration of benzene and chlorobenzene in
bf?drock ground water is indicated along a preferential fractured bedrock pathway toward
monitoring well GZ-I05 in the west wetland."
Comment It is not clear that the RI concluded that ground water migrates toward
GZ-I05 from the landfill along a preferential fractUred bedrock pathway. The RI did not
idenDfy and confirm enhanced permeability fracture zones betWeen the landfill and
GZ-I05. Site hydrogeologic data do not indicate a preferential fractured bedrock
pathway from the landfill to GZ-I05.
Pe. 1-21. para. 3 The FS indicates that "CoDt:lminantdisttibutionofthesecompounds
[inorganics] does not illUStrate the preferential pathway indicated by benzene and
chlorobenzene. "
Comment This information indicates that preferential bedrock fracture pathways are
not likely significam site ground water migration n:iechani~ms.
Pe. 1-22. para. 2 The FS indicates "that potential risks were evaluated for ingestion
of ground water from monitoring wells and commercial/residential wells.
Comment The RI concluded that contamination in residential and commercial wells
along Lafayette Road is likely from non-landfill sources including USTs and septic
systems. The FS does not indicate that risk was apportioned betWeen cont:lminan~ from
non-landfill sources and landfill cont:lminan~.
PI!. 1-23. Dara. 4 The FS states that "Maximum overburden ground water exposure
point concenttations exc~ed federal or state standards for benzene, 1,2-
dichloropropane, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel.
In ~k ground water, maximum exposure point COncenttatioDS exceeded these
-------
, '
standards for benzene, 4-methylphenol, antimony, beryllium, chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel. ~
Comment The RI concluded that manganese is present in background concentrations
that would prevent attaining clean-up goals. Lead is present in Lafayette Terrace
overburden ground water background samples exceeding clean-up goals. Antimony was
detected in Lafayette Terrace overburden monitoring well FPC-ll which the FS states
is in an area of off-site sources. Antimony was detected in one off-site bedrock
monitoring well and is unlikely to be related to the Coakley Landfill. The FS states on
page 1-20, paragraph 3 that "chromium, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc concentrations
are fairly uniformly distributed in the ground water beneath both the landfill and off-site.
. The data suggests naturally elevated levels or off-site source contributions." The purpose
of the RIlFS is to assess risk associated with the Coakley Landfill. Risk associated with
non-landfill or natUral sources should not be considered in assessing appropriate remedial
actions for the Coakley Landfill, because aU-2 Remedial Actions will not affect these
sources. Therefore, manganese, lead, nickel, vanadium, antimony and zinc should be
eliminated from the risk assessment.
14.
P2. 3-3. para. 3 The FS indicates a capture zone analysis was performed for the
ground water collection system preliminary design presented by Weston in the aU-l
Feasibility Study.
Comment The aU-1 PDI Repott and Remedial Design included additional site data
collection and analyses, and 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional ground water flow
modeling. This design work indicates that, as stated in the RI and FS, capping of the
landfill will resu1~ in the reduction or elimination of ground water mounding at the
landfill. Because elimination of the ground water mound results in landfill overburden
and bedrock ground water flowing westWard, proposed aU-l extraction wells are located
on the western, downgradiem side of the landfill. This is a signiticam difference from
Weston's preliminary design which bas extraction wells located along the landfill eastern
and northeast sides as well as the western side. The proposed ground water extraction
capture zone would include the whole landfill area. These significant changes should be
. considered in the ground water contaminant tranSpott analysis.
15.
PI!. 3-5. !Jam. 2 The FS states that "...several inorganic compounds were detected
throughout the snuiy area, regardless of proximity to the landfill itself. The delineation
of these COnt2minant~ extended beyond the study area and, therefore, were not considered
in the FS, since it is not practical to include these with aU-2. "
Comment It is not appropriate to assess contaminants not associated with the landfill
source because Coakley Landfill Remedial Action cannot affect these sources.
16.
P2. 3-5. Dara. 3 . The FS indicates that the RESSQC module of the EPA Well Head .
Protection Area (WHPA) model was used to assess the capture zones of Weston's
1'Jm3oo., ~
-------
proposed OU-l pumping wells. In the following bullet 7, the FS indicates that ground
water mounding effects in the landfill overburden can be assumed absent from the
extraction analysis because OU-l remediation will contain and collect the landf1l1 ground
water.
Comment The Coakley Group agrees that ground water extraction analyses should
assume the overburden ground water mound will be absent. However, capping of the
landfill, not extraction of ground water, will eliminate the ground water mound. Review
ofFS Appendix A calculations and figures, and Figures 3-3 through 3-10 appear to show
that the FS assumed a landfill ground water mound would be presem. This is not a
realistic assumption and would likely provide unrealistic results for capture zone analysis.
17.
PIl. 3-7. bullet 1 The FS assumed infiltration through the Coakley Landfill cap as
a conservative assumption.
Comment The OU-1 Remedial Action cap will be a composite cap. Infiltration
through the first cap liner, if any. will be stopped by the second cap liner. In cap sloped
areas, over 95 % of incident precipitation will be removed through nm-off before
contacting the first liner. It is therefore unlikely precipitation will inf1ltrate the cap.
18.
PIl. 3-7. bullet 3 The FS indicated an estimated outwash drain flow rate of 3,330
gallons per day (gpd), while Weston's FS estimated a flow rate of 87,500 gpd.
Comment The Coakley Group agrees that the FS estimated flow rate for outwash is
more realistic than Weston's. The FS does not indicate flow rates from other
hydrogeologic units, however.
19.
PIZ. 3-8. Dara. 2. FS Table 3-1 lists ground water conr~min~n~ that have been shown
to presem .an unacceptable risk from the RI and the screening rationale for retaining or
eliminating each CODtamin~nr. .
Comment The "table includes antimony. beryllium. chromium. lead, manganese.
nickel, and vanadium. The FS previously stated that chromium, lead, nickel and
vanadium were evenly distributed over the study area and therefore did not indicate a
landfill source. Bec~use these contaminan~ are not shown to be associated with the
Iandfill, they should not be retained for screening. Interpretation of site antimony and
beryllium data does not indicate the landfill as a source. The~fore, antimony and
beryllium should be eliminated for screening.
20.
P~. 3-10. para. 1 The FS states that "The MCLsIMCLGs for [manganese and
antimony] were exceeded throughout the area and no dilution would occur that would
result in the attainment of ARARs within the study area. "
,.......... -
-------
".,
"
<)
Comment The same condition applies to ground water lead .which was observed in
background wells in concentrations above the action level. Therefore, lead should be
excluded from the scre:ning analysis.
21.
PIl. 3-10. para. 3 The FS states that the aU-l ground water concentration for each
CODT:lmimmt was represented by the highest concentration of that contaminant deteeted
in any of the landfill perimeter wells during any previous sampling event.
22.
Comment' Using the highest concentration among a group of wells is. not a
statistically reasonable method to estimate concemrations in areas between ground water
data points. Averaging the ground water concemrations at the known data points is a
widely accepted method of estimating values for intermediate areas. Similarly, using the
highest ground water concentration observed in any previous round is not realistic. Site
historical data indicates a general reduction of ground water contaminant concentrations
with time. Combining of two overly conservative assumptions to estimate the OU-1
CODTaminant concentrations provides unrealistic concentration values that overstates
Coakley Laridfill source strength and likely affects the analysis results.
PIl. 3-20. cara. 3 The FS indicateS that for vacs, the OU-2 plume concentration
assigned was the highest level detected in any of the wells within this plume.
Comment Using the highest observed contaminant concentrations among a group of
wells is not a statistically reasonable method to estimate ground water con~mm:lnt
concentrations in areas between the data points. Averaging the groUDd water conmmma~
concentrations at the known data points is a more realistic technique.
23.
P2:. 3-20. ~ara. 4 The FS indicates MCLs were assigned as the estimated plume
concentrations in areas where the plume did not encompass wells.
Comment This assumption is overly conservative and results in an excessively
conservative analysis.
24.
PIZ 3-21. para. 5 The FS indicates representative ground water COtiUlminant
concentrations were assigned for the dispersion calculations.
Comment The ground Water conmminanr conccnttations selected were not
representative of current conditions, but as previously indicated arc instead overly
conservative.
25.
P~. 3-25 throu2h 3-29 The FS presents results of the dilUtion analysis. The
. analysis indicates that benzene would travel 240 feet beyond the FS-deJin~ted limit of
benzene concentrations above MCLs. The analysis indicates that inorganics generally
would travel 230 feet to 340 feet beyond' the FS-delineated M~ limits for those
...........,- .
-------
conr~min~nts. Lead is estimated to travel 1,380 feet beyond the-landfIll footprint before
diluting to its clean-up goal.
Comment The dilution analysis results are not realistic because of conservative
analysis approach, assumptions, and input parameters. The RI and FS conclude, and site
data show, that ground water conr~min~tion concentrations from the landfill have reached
Steady state and may be declining. Steady State contaminant plumes do not increase in
size or concentration. Tnus, the extent of contamination would not increase even if no
action were taken to reduce the flux of conr~miTiation migrating from the Coakley
Landfill in ground water. If a source of a Steady state cODr~min~nt plume is eliminated
or reduced, the plume will gradually degrade with decreasing conr.amimmt concentrations.
The FS analysis assumes the flux of conr~minant migration from the landfill would be
zero. Therefore, over time the contaminanr plumes sizes should decrease, not increase.
-,
. The FS indicates that the purpose is to assess the effects of OU-l remedial action on
OU-2 area ground water quality. The RIfFS indicates that capping of the landfill would
result in elimination of the landfill overburden ground water mound. The ground water
flow direction would then be westward and the east side of the landfill would be
upgradient. Therefore, it is more representative of anticipated site ground water
conditions to model the effects of OU-l remedial action by assuming westward ground
water flow. Ground water conramin~nt transport modeling can be performed for the
anticipated site conditions using models based on the advection-dispersion equation,
which is the basis for most accepted and verified ground water conr~minant transport
models. An additional analysis of contaminant transport is presented in the fonowing
Appendix C discussion.
26.
PI! 3-28. oarn. 3 The FS States "It was conservatively assumed that inorganics will
travel at the same rate as ground water. For inorganics, this should be acceptable since
there is no impact of natural attenuation (biodegradation) for inorganics."
Comments FS assumes that inorganic contaminant~ in ground water would travel at
the same rate as ground water and would not be affected by adsorption to organic matter
and layered silicates contained in ov~rburden deposits. Sorption processes include
adsorption, chemisorption and absorption (Fetter, 1993). Additional inorganic reversible
reactions that would retard inorganic substances are ion exchange and
solubility/dissolution/precipitation- The ability of a porous medium to absorb cations is
measured by the cation exchange capacity (CEC). Clay and glacial till, which contains
clay, typically have significant CEC. Site OU-l and OU-2 data indicate ground water
flows within glacial till and marine deposits in many site areas.
Cation mobility in ground water typically decreases over time" as cation complexation
proceeds toward larger, less reactive and less mobile forms (Bohn, et al, 1979). Freeze
and Cherry (Groundwater, 1979) state that the mobility of trace metals in ground water
environments can be strongly influences by adsorption processes. Therefore, the FS
~''''''''
-------
(,
27.
'"
28.
29.
30.
...........,-
assumption of no adsorption and attenuation of metals in grou=.d water is overly
conservative and overstates "the potential migration rates and dis~ of metals in site
ground water.
Fieures 3-2 dhrou2h 3-10
analyses.
Figures 3-2 through 3-10 depict the results of FS dilution
Comment The plume for bemene is extrapolated toward FPC-ll and GZ-I03/101.
This is not justified on the basis of site data because benzene ground water concentrations
were below detection limitS in FPC-ll and GZ-I03/101.
The dilution analysis appears to show radial ground water flow from the plumes for each
plume. This is not consistent with site conditions nor the fact that piume concentrations
have reached steady state. Radial ground water flow and increasing plume size are not
a realistic assumptions because the aU-l cap will reduce or e1iminate the landfill ground
water mound and plumes have reached steady state.
PI!'. 5-6. para. 3 The FS MM-2 Limited Action alternative proposes up to 20
additional ground water monitoring wells.
Comment The present monitoring well netWork of approximately 75 individual
iDstallations is more than adequate to assess the effects of .IeY'(1edia 1 actions on ground
water concentrations. The FS does not include a justification of the need for additional
wells, such as data gaps. It is therefore not coSt-effective to install additional monitoring
wells.
PI!' 6-9. nara. 1 The FS indicates ground water monitOring would occur for 30 years
and include 4 residemial wells.
Comment The FS assumes 10 years to reach ground water clean-up goals.
Environmental monitoring for 20 years beyond this period is not justified.
The ground water monitoring is quarterly, which is excessive. Annual or semi-anmrnt
sampling would be adequate.
The residentiaIlcommercial wells referred to in the FS were interpreted to be affected by
contaminant sources other then the Landfill. Continuing to sample these weIIs is not
warranted.
PI!' 6-9. nam. 2 The FS indicates there is no protection of bum an health since there
is no way of controlling ground water from being used in the shon tcm1.
Comment The RIfFS indicates there are acmally no residents known to be exposed
to confamimmt~. Further, with the aU-l cap constrUCted, ground Water flow will be to
-------
the west which includes a wetland with no residences and no likelihood of development.
It is therefore not accurate to say there is no protection of human health because there
is now no human exposure and no likelihood of futUre human exposure.
4.0 FS APPENDIX C - GROUND WATER SOLUTE TRANSPORT
Following are comments on the FS Appendix C. For clarity, the commentS are divided into
those commentS that address the FS Appendix C work, and a separate detailed solute transport
analysis that provides detailed comments on the FS Appendix C conclusions.
4.1 - FS APPENDIX C COl\1l\1ENTS
1.
P~. C-l. para. 3 The FS states that the ground water conmm;n:lnt.c; were eliminated .
from the analysis if their source appeared unrelated to the landfill such as for antimony
and beryllium.
Comment Although the FS indicateS beryllium should be elimiDated, Figure C-8
depicts beryllium dispersion. The FS previously stated that chromium, lead, nickel aDd
vaDadium were evenly distributed over the study area and therefore did not indicate a
landfill source. Because these cont:lm;n:!nt~ are not shown to be associated with the
landfill, they should not be retained for analysis. Chromium, lead, nickel and vaDadium
dispersion analyses were presented in Appendix C. . .
2.
P~. C-l. para. 3 The FS states thaI the OU-l ground water concentration for each
conf:lm;n:lnt was represented by the highest concentration of that COTlf:!m;n:lnf detected
. in any of the landfill perimeter wells. Table C-l provides the concentrations used for
the dispersion ~yses. .
Comment OU-l February 1994 ground water analytical data indicate an average
bemene concentration of 14 ugll for landfill wells, which is less than half of the FS value
of 30 ugfl. 1,2-Dichloropropane was net detected above the detection limit of 1 ugll,
which is less than 0.15 of the FS value of 7 ugll. OU-l February 1994 ground water
. aDalytical data indicate an average total arsenic concentration of approximately 162 ugll
compared to the FS value of 212 ugll.
The FS values therefore are much more conservative than current site conditions indicate.
3.
Figures C-l through C-8 depict the results of the FS dilution
P~. C-l. cara. 3
aDalyses.
Comment Figure C-l shows that the benzene plume concentration is esrim:!ted at 11
ug/l, while OU-l . February 1994 data indicate benzene concentrations for 1;;ltJdfill
perimeter monitoring wells to be 7 ugll for MW-l, 5 ugll for MW-2, 10 ugll for'
MW-3D, 9 ug/l for MW-4 and 10 ug/l for MW-SD. Therefore, the estimated off-site
""'-' -
-------
L!
q
92II33aa1......
plume concemration is too high. With a cap, Landfill ground. ware: flow would be to
the west.
The conditions are assumed to include a capped landfill which would eliminate radial
flow componentS in the landfIll, according to the RIfFS. The figures show that ground
water flow is assumed to be radial from the estimated plumes, which is not reflective of
present or anticipated site ground water flow paths.
4.
Pg. C-15 through C-19 The FS presents results of the dilution analysis. The
analysis indicates that benzene would trave1I,180 feet beyond the FS-delineated limit of
benzene concentration above MCLs. The analysis indicates that inorganics generally
would travel 334 feet to 825 feet beyond the FS-delineated MCt limits for those
contamin::!nts. Lead is estimated to travel 2,830 feet beyond the landfill footprint before
diluting to its clean-up goal.
Comment The analysis results are excessively conservative because of conservative
analysis design, assumptions and input parameters. The RI IFS concludes, and site data
show, that ground water contamin::!tion from the landfill has reached steady state and
contaminant concentrations may be declining. Steady state contamin::!nt plumes do not
increase in size or concentration. Thus, the extent of ground water contamination would
not increase even if no action were taken to reduce the flux of contamination migrating
from the Coakley Landfill in ground water. If a source of a steady State contaminant
plume is eliminated or reduced, the plume will gradually degrade. The FS analysis
assumes the flux of contaminant migration from the landfill would be zero. Therefore,.
over time the conraminant plumes sizes should decrease, not increase.
The purpose of the Appendix C analysis was to assess OU-2 area impaCtS, assuming OU-
I ground water pumping and treatment did not occur. However, the analysis does not
consider OU-l cap effects. The RIlFS indicates that capping of the landfill would result
in elimination of the landfill overburden ground water mound. The ground water flow
direction would then be westward. The east side of the landfill would be upgradiem. .
Therefore, it is more representative of anticipated site ground water conditions to model
the effectS of OU-l remedial action by assuming westward ground water flow. Ground
water conrnminant transport modeling can be performed for the anticipated site conditions
using models based on the advection-dispersion equation, which is the basis for most
accepted and verified ground water contaminant transport models.
-------
4.2 - PRELIMINARY OU-2 GROL~TI WATER SOLUTE TR&'\TSPORT ASSESSMENT
ThLRODUCTION
The May 1994 Coakley Landfill OU-2 RIfFS (RIfFS) contains ground water solute
transport analyses to assess the effect of OU-1 Remedial Actions on OU-2 ground water
conr:!minant concent:rations. The analysis performed did not consider OU-1 cap effects
on area ground water quality.
To further assess OU-1 cap impacts on area ground water quality under OU-1 non-
pumping conditions, Aries Engineering, Inc. (Aries) conducted a preliminary ground
water solute transport analysis for selected chemicals. The analysis resulted in more
detailed comments on the FS Appendix C which are provided in the Discussion and
Conclusions and Recommendations sections which follow on pages 32 through 3S.
OBJECTIVES
Aries' preliminary ground water solute transport analyses objectives were to assess
potential off-site migration of selected ground water chemicals of concern assuming non-
extraction and treatmem of OU-1 ground water after Coakley Landfill capping. ArieS'
solute traDsport analyses, which considered chemical attenuation mechanisms, were
compared to the RIfFS dilution analyses which relied on dilution factors only.
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND WATER OUALITY SUM:MARY
GEOLOGY
A site plan is provided on Figure 1. Observed site area overburden geology generally
consists of a thin layer of glacial outwash deposits which overlie marine deposits and
glacial till deposits. Observed site area overburden deposits are discontinuous and vary
in thickness. Observed marine deposits are sufficiently thick to act as an aquitard in
some areas primarily east of the site and in scattered areas around the landfill.
Observed site bedrock Consists of intrusive granite-gneiss surrounded by metasedimentuy
. quartZite, schist, phyllite and amph1"bolite. Site data indicate the upper. portion of
bedrock is moderately to highly weathered and well fractI1red. Observed bedrock
elevations in the model area range from -27 feet national geodetic vertical datum
(NGVD) to 136 feet NGVD. Bedrock elevations are highest within and northeast ofthc
landfill.
. HYDROGEOLOGY
Site ground water occurs under water table conditions in the uppermost satUrated deposits
while semi-confmed conditions are likely where significant thicknesses of marine deposits
overlie satUrated glacial till or bedrock. Site area ground water originates as infIltrating
~
-------
pre::ipitation OD the uppe:wost geologic deposits and flows mainly through the more
permeable strata toward screams and wetlands which then act as discharge areas. A
distinct downward vertical hydraulic gradient is present over much of the landfill area
indicating a component of ground water flow from the upper overburden deposits toward
the underlying bedrock. A strong upward venical hydraulic gradient was measured in
the wetland areas where bedrock and overburden ground water discharge. Site bedrock
pump test data did not indicate anisotropic conditions.
Previous ground water flow modeling conducted by Aries indicates that there is a local
easrward overburden ground water flow component from the Coakley Landfill. This
eastward flow component is small and is caused by local ground water mounding at.the
landfill. The low hydraulic gradients east of the landfill result in a small volume of
easterly flowing ground water. Moreover, Aries' previous ground water flow model
flow path analysis indicates that the initial eastward flow paths turn westerly and flow
. either beneath the landfill in the bedrock, or around the landfill then toward the west in
the overburden deposits. Simulated ground water flow after Coakley Landfill capping
indicates that overburden and bedrock ground water flows to the west. These flow paths
are consistent with site monitoring well observed ground water quality.
GROUND WATER OUAUTY
Site ground water quality data from between 1985 and 1994 generally indicate the
presence of VOCs including the petroleum-related VOCs benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene
and xylene (BTEX), as well as inorganic compounds including arsenic and metals such
as iron, manganese, and lead. '
Historically, ground water observed benzene concentrations in landfill monitoring wells
have ranged from approximately 5 ugl t to 60 ugl t which is above the 5 ugl t MCL~
Benzene concentrations in ground water generally decrease with distanCe from the
Jandfill. Benzene concentrations detected in OU-2 RIlFS monitoring wells have ranged
from 0.5 ugl t to 11 ugl t . Ground water analytical results indicate that area ground
water observed benzene concentrations have generally decreased since monitoring well
sampling began in 1985.
Observed concentrations of inorganic compounds, metals and metalloids in particular,
were variable in the landfill vicinity. Area ground water quality samples were analyzed
for either total or dissolved metals from 1985 to 1993. Area ground water samples were
filtered for dissolved metals analysis and unfiltered for total metals analysis. Because
inorganics adsorbed onto or present in sediments in ground water samples are dissolved
when preserved with acid for subsequent analysis, total metals concentrations are
subsranria l1y greater than dissolved metals concentrations unless 'special well constrUCtion
and sampling methods designed to reduce sample turbidity are used.
"
In February 1994 ground water samples were analyzed for both total and dissolved
metals as part ofrhe OU-l Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP). February 1994 OU-l
92IDJaa1.aIIII
-------
observed arsenic total concemrarions were on average four -times grearer than the
dissolved arsenic concentrations from the same monitoring well.
\\'1ille a February 1994 OU-1 ground water sampling round from landfIll monitoring
wells indicated concentrations of tOtal beryllium, total chromium, total lead, and total .
nickel above their respective MCLs, historic site vicinity water quality data indicate that
concentrations of these metals have been periodically observed higher funher away from
the landfIll than at the landfill itSelf. Moreover, metals concentrations in site vicinity
monitoring wells have varied by up to an order of magnitude within a 12-month period.
Tne RIfFS concluded that the spati.a.l and temporal variability in the site vicinity ground
water inorganic concentrations may be related to elevated background concentrations,
non-landfIll source areas, or variability in sampling techniques affecting sample tUrbidity.
GROl)."]) WATER SOLUTE TRANSPORT ANALYSES
GROUND WATER SOLUTE TRANSPORT ANALYSES APPROACH
Aries used an analytical tWo-dimensional advection dispersion model to assess migration
of contaminants from the Coakley Landfill to off-site ground water monitoring wells.
Tne model used by Aries simulates contaminant transport from a strip source. A strip
source is appropriate because the landfill is large compared to the distance of off-site
wells from the landfill. Therefore, the landfill areal extent and potential area for
chemical leaching would not appropriately be modeled as a point source.
The analytical flow and transport model used was developed for and is used by the EP A
to assess chemical solute transport in ground water.
Aries used site hydrogeologic data and historical ground water quality data from 1985
through February 1994 to estimate ground water solute transport model parameteIS
representative of site conditions. The ground water solute transport model was then used
to predict fumre ground water contaminant concentrations after landfill capping.
PRINCE AL~AL YTICAL FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODEL
Aries used Princeton Analytical Models of Flow and Mass Transport (PRINCE).
PRINCE contains both solute transport models and flow models. The solute transport
models are solutions to the advection-dispersion equation (ADE) for transient one-, two-,
and three-dimensional conditions. The solute transport model solutions incorporate
longitudinal and transVerse dispersivity, ground water seepage velocity, chemical first
order decay constantS, and linear, equilibrium sorption (retardation factor). FUDdamentaI
model assumptions include: aquifer properties are uniform in space (homogeneous); and
the source concentration is uniform in time, although source concentration first order
decay may be simulated
~
-------
There are 14 input parameters to PRINCE shown in Table 1. Descriptions of the input
parameters and methods of estimating these parameters follow.
First Order Decav ConstantS (k and Gamma)
PRINCE accountS for fIrst order decay of the CODt~minant source and plume. The decay
coefficients represent chemical and biological processes that remove CODt~minant mass
from the system over time. Decay processes include biodegradation of organic
compounds and abiotic reactions such as hydrolyzation of chlorinated hydrocarbons,
while inorganic compound decay processes include radioactive decay, complexation,
speciation and oxidatioDireduction. The decay constant values are empirically estimated
. based on literature values and site historical ground water quality data.
First order decay of the cont~min::lnt source (gamma) and plume (k) are expressed
mathematically as
CaqWfCl' = COD e -It t
C = C e~t
sou= OD
where
CaqWfCZ' =
Csour= =
CnD -
t
concentration in aquifer, [MIL3]
concentration in source area, [MIL3]
concenttation in source area at time 0, [M/V]
time, [T]
exponential function
-
e
-
where .
M
L
T
-
mass
length
time
-
-
First order decay of the source (gamma) can be estimated using concentration data for
differem times. First order decay of the plume (Ie) can be estimated using literature
values for a given contaminant, where available. Reported literature values for first
oIder decay ofBTEX compounds range from O.OOOllday to O.OO4/day (Olsen and Davis,
1990). .
Lon~tUdinal and Transverse Dispersion CoefficientS (D. and D~
Dispersion is an attenuation mechanism that results in dilution of the le3.ding edge of a
contaminant plume. caused by differential flow velocities (mechanical mixing) and.
chemical diffusion (Fetter, 1993). At very low average linear ground water velocities,
diffusion is the primary cause of dispersion, while at higher velocities mechanical mixing
"...,..., ~
-------
is the dominant process (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Dispersion-causes contaminants to
arrive at a point in the flow path before the average linear velocity would predict.
LongitUdinal dispersion (DJ refers to spreading of a plume in the primary (x) direction
of flow, whereas transverse dispersion (Dy) refers to spreading of a plume in the lateral
(y) direction. The dispersion coefficients Dx and Dy are the product of dispersivity (a)
and average linear ground water velocity (V):
Dx = C!x V
Dy = a, V
Researchers have observed that the value of dispersivity generally increases with the
length of flow (Gelhar, 1986; Lallemand-Barres and Peaudecert, 1978) according to
the relationship Dx = (O.1)(X), where X is the length of flow. Dy is generally taken
as one to two orders of magnitude smaller than Dx.
Average Linear Ground Water VelocitV M
Average linear ground water velocity V is defined by the relationship
V = K*iIn
where
K = aquifer hydraulic conductivity, [IJT]
i = hydraulic head gradient, [UL]
n = aquifer porosity, [1.3 fL3]
The primary mechanism for contaminant migration in aquifers is advection wherein
coutaminants are transported by bulk ground water movement. Solutes are assumed to
travel in the same direction and with the same velocity as the ground water.
Values of aquifer hydraulic conductivity are generally estimated from aquifer pumping-
tests, hydraulic coiuiuctivity tests and literature values for similar geologic materials.
The hydraulic gradient is estimated from water level measurements across a site, and
porosity can be estimated based on the type of geologic materials. Typical values of
porosity for different aquifer types are summarized in Freeze and Cheny (1979) and
other literatUIe sources. .
Source Concentration (C.,J
The source concentration is estimated as the concentration of the contaminant of concern
at time zero. For ground water contaminant transport analyses, Cog is the concentration
of COl1taminant at the source. However, when that conce~on is unknown, Cog is
estimated from contamin~nt concentrations observed in a wells near the contaminant
release at a time shortly after the release. If the release occurs prior to available data,
9"""-' ~
-------
~,
".,......, ~
COD can be estimated by extrapolating available data with the source fIrst order decay
constant (Gamma).
Retardation Factor (R.)
The retardation facIor (RJ is a measure of reversible mass exchange processes such as
sorption of cont3min~nt to aquifer materials. Sorption processes include adsorption,
chemisorption and absorption (Fetter, 1993). Additional inorganic reversible reactions
that would increase the retardation factor are ion exchange and
solubility/dissolution/precipitation. Retardation causes contamin~nts to migrate slower
than the average ground water velocity. The retardation factor Rct for linear equilibrium
sorption can be estimated using the following relationship (Fetter, 1993):
Ru = 1 + [ ~ * PJ/n ]
where
Kct = Distribution coefficient, [I} 1M ]
Pb. Dry bulk density, [MIL3]
n = Aquifer porosity, [V IV]
Aquifer bulk density P b can be estimated using the relationship
Pb = Ps * (l-n)
where Ps is the soil grain density [MIL3] of aquifer materials. For most mineral soils,
Ps varies between 2.6 gIcur to 2.77 glcm.3 (Cleary and Ungs, 1994).
The distribution coefficient Kg appro~im:ltes the slope of the linear equilibrium sorption
isotherm, and can be estim:lted either from laboratory column experiments, field-scale
tracer experiments or ~ following relationship (Fetter, 1993):
~=Koc*foc
where
~ = Distribution Coefficient [LJ/M]
Ku.: = Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient [L3/M]
foe = Organic Carbon fraction [L3fL3]
Ranges of conramin:lnt-specific values of the Organic Carbon. Partitioning Coefficient
-------
samples or on knowledge of geologic conditions within the sous. Conservatively low
estimates of soil organic carbon fraction (foJ range from 0.0001 to 0.001.
The preceding linear relation for organics or inorganics adsorbing onto the soil organic
carbon does not account for the inorganics removal from ion exchange and
solubility/dissolution/precipitation. These factors must be estimated separately and would
increase the retardation of inorganics.
Model Time and GeometrY Parameters (Ta~ff' x... y~. W. Theta and..l!Gauss)
PRINCE can account for various model geometries. Too is the time at which the
conT;\minant release began; TOff is the time at which the conTaminanT release ends. Xu and
Yo are the cartesian coordinates of the centroid of the source. For a strip sourcet Xu and
Yo mark the mid-point of the strip. W is the width of the strip source, and Theta is the
. direction of ground water flow counterclockwise off the x axis (degrees); ground water
flow is assumed to be perpendicular to the Strip source. NGauss is a parameter
associated with the numerical integration perfOImed in PRINCE.
PRINCE MODEL FOR OU-2 SOLUTE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT PARAMETER
ESTIMATION
Aries estimated the solute transport model input parameters based primarily on available
site hydrogeologic and ground water quality data. For parameters not measured at the
site, including plume and source decay CODStantSt Aries used literature values for similar
chemicals and hydrogeologic conditions.
. Aries performed sensitivity analyses to assess the model results sensitivity to changes in
individual input parameters. The sensitivity analyses were directed toward parameters
not measured at the site.
Aries did not rigorously calibrate the model simulations because of the following site data
and model limitations: the landfill source area is widespread and heterogeneous; ground
water chemistry variations in the landfill likely affect cont;\minant mobility; and the
density of the monitoring well netWork: and frequency and duration of site water quality
data limits model calibration. 'Site ground water quality data are available from 1985 for
MW -series monitoring wells, from 1987 for GZ-series monitoring wells and from 1992
for most FPC-series monitoring wells.
Aries selected PRINCE Model 4 - Two-Dimensional Mass Transport, Strip Boundary
Condition for the Coakley Landfill OU-2 solute transpOrt assessmem. Model 4 assumes
a contaminant source of width W t oriented perpendicular to ground water flow in an
aquifer of infinite width. PRINCE input parameter units are in feet and days, except
concentrations which may be mass per volume or normalized concentration based on the
initial contaminant concentrations.
~
-------
<.
Previous hydrogeologic investigations of the Coakley Landfill area indicate that ground
warer flow occurs both in glacial and marine de;:-osits (overburden) and in underlying
metamorphic and igneous bedrock. the direction of ground water flow appears to differ
locally betWeen the overburden and bedrock. Historical observed water level data
suggests that site ground water flow in the underlying bedrock is predominantly to the
west, beneath the landfill as shown on Figure 2 and overburden ground water flows is
radial from the landf1l1 as shown on Figure 3. The aU-l Remedial Design calibrated 3-
D numerical ground water flow model for the landfill (Golder and Aries, 1994) supports
these observed ground water flow directions.
Contaminant transport depends on conTaminant property, the ground water flow medium
property and hydrogeologic conditions. Therefore, for this aU-2 solute transport
assessment, Aries estimated the model parameters for the transport of tWo cont.aminant~,
benzene and arsenic as follows: in bedrock flow only. betWeen the tWo bedrock wells
MW-5 and GZ-I05; in overburden flow only betWeen MW-3D and FPC-9A; and a
combination of bedrock and overburden flow betWeen RP-l and MW -1. The solute
transport model flow path in bedrock is shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2, and the flow
paths in overburden and overburden/bedrock are shown on Figure 1 and Figure 3. These
flow paths are generally consistent with observed site hydraulic heads depicted on Figures
2 and 3. Solute transport model parameter estimation sensitivity analysis flow path
selection was limited to locations with available historical ground water quality data.
Benzene and arsenic were selected for tWo reasons: 1) both are locally present in the
landfill vicinity at concentrations above their respective MCLs, and 2) concentrations of
these CODtaminants are generally higher at the source area (landfill) than in surrounding
wells. Solute transport model simulations were not performed for other inorganic
compounds such as metals observed in the site vicinity due to the variability of this data.
Table 1 summarizes estimated input parameters. The basic model geometry was similar
for all six simulations. Because of limited information on timing of source releases of
individual contaminant.c::, Aries modeled each conraminant source as a 3O-year continuous
release beginning in 1971 (Toa = 0) and ending in 2001 (Toff = 10,950 days) to
represem a continuous source. The source was simulated as a 300-foot wide strip
orientated parallel to the Y axis centered at (0,500): W = .300, Xo = 0, Yo = 500,
Theta = O. NGauss was set equal to 20 as recommended in the PRINCE Users Manual.
Input parameters that were varied betWeen solute transport simulations included the
contaminant source and plume first order decay constants k and Gamma, longimdinal and
transverse dispersion coefficients Dit and Dy, ground water seepage velocity V, and the
contaminant retardation factor Re. The individual solute transpon model simulations are
summarized in the following.
1IM33-' ~
-------
Bedrock Flow Path Estimated Model Parameters (MW-5 to GZ-105)
Benzene - Bedrock
~ shown in Table 1, Aries used a value of 0.0001 for the benzene plume fIrst order
decay rate (k) in bedrock and overburden. This value is conservative, and is consistent
with values reponed in the literature for BTEX compounds (Davis and Olsen, 1990).
The fIrst order decay constant for the source area (Gamma) was estimated at 0.0001
based on observed changes in benzene concentrations in ground water collected from well
MW-5 betWeen 1985 and 1991. D;t, the coefficient of longitudinal dispersivity, was
estimated at 100 based on the following relationship (lallemand-Barres and Peaudecert,
1978):
D;t = 0.1 * X
where
X
-
the flow distance, [L]
The approximate flow distance betWeen MW-5 and GZ-I05 is 1,000 ft, so D;t was
estimated at 100. Dy for fractured bedrock was assumed to be tWo orders of magnitude
smaller than D;t (Dy = 1) due to the observed narrow site bedrock benzene plume.
The average linear ground water velocity betWeen MW-5 and GZ-I05 was estimated at
0.30 ft/day based on the observed hydraulic gradient in bedrock in this vicinity of the site
of 0.0167 shown on Figure 2, a hydraulic conductivity of 1 ftlday from the QU-l
Remedial Design calibrated 3-D flow model (Golder and Aries, 1994), and an estimated
effective porosity of 0.05. Aries estimated the retardation factor ~ for benzene to be
2.6 based on a benzene-specific Kac value (Fetter, 1993), and estimated values of aquifer
organic carbon coment and porosity. The organic carbon coment was estimated at .0005
which is a conservatively low value for site fractured and weathered upper bedrock.
The source concentration of benzene for the MW-5 to GZ-I05 flow path was estimated
at 30 uglt. This was estimated by extrapolating backward to 1971 using the observed
. benzene concentrations in MW -5 in 1985 and the first order source decay constant
Gamma = 0.0001. The estimated source concentration is consistem with site historical
ground water benzene concentrations.
Figure 4 depicts model calculated benzene concentrations from 1971 to 2001 in well
GZ-I0S using the above parameters. As shown, the observed benzene concentrations are
within 3 ugl t of the model-predicted concentrations.
Arsenic - Bedrock
Table 1 lists the values for Aries' solute transport model arsenic parameter estimation
simulation. Aries' parameter estimation for arsenic transport in bedrock used the same
~,~
-------
~"-, -
input parameters as those sele~ted for benzene transpon in bedrock with the following
exceptions :
.
The retardation factor for arsenic was calculated as 1.0 based on a literatUre Koc
value of 5 for arsenic trioxide (USEPA, 1986) and conservatively estimated
values for foc and porosity. Generally metals have higher retardation factors than
organics, as much as 1,000 or more (Wilson and Clark, 1994). Aries' retardation
factor of one is based only on the linear adsorption of arsenic trioxide to available
soil organic carbon and does not include other arsenic compounds or other
reactions such as complexation, ion-exchange, solubility I dissolution/precipitation.
Therefore, Aries simulated the most mobile species and conservative conditions
for arsenic transpon.
.
The arsenic source concentration COD was estimated at 30 ugl t in 1971 following
the same technique employed to estimate COli for benzene.
.
The flISt order arsenic plume decay constant was estimated at 0.0005 in order to
best fit observed arsenic concentrations in well GZ-I05. It is reasonable to
assume a larger flISt order decay constant for arsenic than for benzene, as
inorganic compounds are generally subject to a wide variety of reactions that limit
their mobility in the subsurface (Fetter, 1993; Allen, H.E., et. al, 1993; Mirecld
and Parks, 1994).
Figure 4 depicts model calculated arsenic concentrations from 1971 to 2001 in well GZ-
105 using the above parameters. As shown, the observed arsenic concentrations are
within 6 uglt of the model-predicted concentrations.
Overburden (Glacial Till) Flow Path Estimated Model Parameters (MW-3D to FPC-9A)
Benzene - Overburden (Glacial Till)
Aries used the same parameter values for first order decay, source decay, retardation
factor, model geometry and time for the benzene overburden model iDput parameterS as
were used for the benzene bedrock model input parameters. The following parameter
values were used for the benzene overburden solute transport parameter estimation
siornlatiOI1. .
.
The average linear ground water velocity in the overburden was estim~tM at
0.0008 ftlday based on observed hydraulic gradients on the northeast side of the
landfill shown on Figure 3, Remedial Design 3-D ground water flow model-
calibrated values of hydraulic conductivity (Golder and Aries, 1994), and
estimated values of till porosity.
.
The source concentration Con of benzene in 1971 was based on the observed
concentration in well MW-3D and a source decay constant of 0.0001.
-------
.
.
A longitUdinal dispersivity coefficient Dx of 50 feet was estimated based on the
flow path length betWeen MW-3D and FPC-9A (500 feet) and the relationship Dx
= 0.01 * X. Transverse dispersivity Dy was estimated at 5 f~t, one order of
magnitUde less than Dy.
Figure 5 depictS model calculated benzene concentrations from 1971 to 2001 in FPC-9A
using the above parameters. As shown, observed benzene concentrations are within 6
ug/ t of model-predicted concentrations.
Arsenic - Overburden (Glacial Till)
Aries used the same parameter values for solute decay, source decay, retardation factOrs,
model geometry and time for the arsenic overburden input parameters as were used for
the arsenic bedrock input parameters. The following parameter values were used only
for the arsenic overburden solute transport parameter estimation simulation.
.
The average linear ground water velocity in the overburden was estimated at
0.0008 ftIday.
.
A longitUdinal dispersivity coefficient Dx of 50 feet was estimated based on the
flow path length betWeen MW-3D and FPC-9A (500 feet) and the relationship Dx
= 0.01 * X. Transverse dispersivity Dy was esrim~ted at 5 feet, one order of
magnitUde less than Dy.
A source concentration COD of arsenic in 1971 of 270 ugli was based on the
observed concentration in well MW-3D and a source decay constant of 0.0001.
Figure 5 depicts model calculated arsenic concentrations from 1971 to 2001 in FPC-9A
using the above parameters. As shown, the observed arsenic concentrations are generally
10 uglt to 20 uglt higher than model-predicted concentrations. This is likely because
the model is based on dissolved arsenic concemrations and FPC-9A available analytical
data reports total arsenic concentrations including arsenic adsorbed to sample sediment.
The difference between the simulated arsenic concentrations and the observed
concentrations is similar to the difference in dissolved and total concentrations in site
analytical data.
Combined Bedrock/Overburden Flow Path Estimated Model Parameters ~
Aries also used PRINCE to evaluate benzene and arsenic transport betWeen wells RP-l
and MW-l. Both RP-1 and MW-1 are screened in overburden depositS. However, when
. Aries employed model input parameters for overburden solute transport from the MW-3D
to FPC-9A flow path, the match betWeen observed and model-predicted arsenic and
bemene concentrations was poor. However, the match betWeen model-predicted.
concentrations versus observed arsenic and benzene concentrations improved when input
parameters were adjusted to simulate ground water flow betWeen the landfill and MW-1
D'JIn'L..., -
-------
U: both overburden and bedrock. OU-2 RIIFS geologic cross-section Figure 3-9 shows
that an overburden/bedrock flow path is likely in the RP-1 to MW -1 area.
Benzene - Flow through both Overburden (Till) and Bedrock
As shown in Table 1, Aries estimated D;t at 40 feet ex = 400 feet) and Dy at 4 feet. The
estimated benzene source concentration at RP-1 in 1971 was 30 ugli. The observed
hydraulic gradient betWeen RP-1 and MW-1 is shown on Figure 3 and hydraulic
conductivity values for the area (Golder and Aries, 1994) indicate that average linear
ground water velocities should be approximately 0.02 ftlday. However, this value was
increased to V = 0.10 ft/day to provide a better match betWeen observed benzene
concentrations in MW -1. This higher average linear ground water velocity suggestS that
ground water may also be migrating within portions of the underlying bedrock.
. Figure 6 depicts model-predicted benzene concentrations in monitoring well MW-l.
MW -1 simulated benzene concentrations were close [0 observed concentrations for the
1990 data, bUt observed benzene concentrations during the 1980s were up to 30 ugll
higher than predicted. The steady decrease in observed benzene concentrations may be
due to a higher than anticipated source reduction rate.
Arsenic - Flow through both Overburden (Till) and Bedrock
Figure 6 depicts model-predicted arsenic concentrations in monitoring well MW-1. MW-
1 simulated arsenic concentrations were generally 15 ugl i to 25 ugl i higher than
observed. The arsenic source concentration of Coo was estimated by assuming that
observed 1991 through 1994 arsenic concentrations in landfill monitOring well RP-l .
apparently decayed according to a first order decay constant of k = 0.0005. The
difference betWeen model-predicted and observed arsenic concentrations may be due to
variations in source strength, grouiui water conditions affecting arsenic mobility,
heterogeneities in ground water flow paths and other factors not simulated in Aries'
preliminary solute transport model.
MODEL PREDICTION OF SOLUTE TRANSPORT AFrER LANDFIlL CAPPING
.>
Aries used the PRINCE model with the estimated input parameters shown in Table 2 to
predict the concentration of benzene and arsenic at 10- and 20-year intervals following
capping of the landfill. The strip source for the model prediction. shown on Figures 9
and 10 is 1,400 feet wide, the approximate north-south length of the landfill. With the
exception of source concentration Con and average linear ground water velocity V, Aries'
model-prediction parameters were the same as the estimated model input parameters in
Table 1. The direction and average linear ground water velocity (V = 0.26 ftlday) of
ground water flow are based on hydraulic conductivities and hydraulic heads in the
bedrock and overburden from the Remedial Design 3-D ground water flow model of
predicted heads following capping of the landfill (Golder and Aries, 1994). The 3-D
model predicts the landflll ground water mound will be eliminated by the cap and will
"
9'"'"-' ~
31
-------
result in westerly ground water.flow. The source concentrations of 14 ugli for benzene
and 170 ug/ i for arsenic are based on 1994 ground water quality data from landfill
monitoring wells. The assumed benzene concentration in the average of the OU-1 EMP
February 19941andf1l1 monitoring well benzene concentrations. Aries used total arsenic
concenrrations to be consistent with the OU-2 dilution analysis. The assumed arsenic
concentration is the total arsenic reported for RP-1 and is close to the average to~
arsenic concentration for landfill monitoring wells of 162 ug/t. The OU-1 February
1994 average dissolved arsenic concentration for landfill monitoring wells was
approximately 50 ug/ i .
PREDICTED BENZENE CONCENTRATIONS
Model-predicted benzene concentrations at 10- and 20-year intervals following capping
of the landfill are shown on Figure 7. As shown, after 10 years, the 5 ugli contour,
which is the benzene MCL, extends approximately 600 feet downgradient of the snip
source, which is approximately 300 feet to 400 feet from the weStern landfill edge. After
29 years, the 5 ug/ t contour is still located approximately 600 feet downgradient of the
Strip source, but up gradient concentrations have decreased.
Predicted Arsenic Concentrations
Figure 8 depicts model-predicted total arsenic concentrationS at 10- and 20-year intervals
following capping of the landfill. As shown, after 10 years, the 50 ugl t contour (arsenic
MCL) eXtends approximately 750 feet downgradient of the strip source. After 20 years,
the 50 ug/t contour extends approximately 500 feet downgradient of the strip source.
The reduction in plume concentration observed in the simulated arsenic plume compared
to a smaller reduction in the benzene plume after 20 years is probably due to the higher
value of the arsenic plume first order decay (k = 0.0005 for arsenic as opposed to k=
0.0001 for benzene). Also, the higher value of the benzene retardation factor would tend
to prolong the arrival of the benzene front.
DISCUSSION
IMPUCA TlONS OF ARIES' SOLUTE TRANSPORT PREDICTIONS
Aries's solute transport predictions were based on a simplified 2-D analytic31 solute
transport model adjusted to site conditions with a limited amount of spatially and
chemically variable data. The model accounted for processes governing solute transport
with parameters such as fIrst order decay constants and retardation. The model assumed
that the source concentration was evenly disttibuted along a line source and followed a
simple first order decay in time. The model is not capable of reproducing the effects of
smaIl localized releases of high concentrations at various locations and times which may
occur at a landfill. Ground water velocities for model predictions were estimated based
".."..., -
-------
on Golder and Aries' Remedial Design 3-D ground water flow- model predictions for
ground water flow conditions following landfIll capping.
Aries' solute transpOrt model indicated that following landfill capping, within 10 years
benzene concentrations would likely reach the 5 ug/£ MCL within approximately 100 fe:t
to 200 feet from the western edge of the landfill. Moreover, Aries' model predicted that
the position of this 5 ug! t benzene contour would not change substantially through time,
indicating that the benzene plume is decaying and being attenuated at approximately the
. same rate it migrates. Site ground water flow and analytical data suggest that steady
state conditions have developed as chemical concentrations appear to have generally
. decreased with time and are not flucmating substantial1y.
Aries' model simulations indicated that, based on total arsenic concentrations, arsenic'
concentrations could reach the 50 ug! £ MCL 200 feet to 300 feet downgradiem of the
landfill boundary within 10 years of landfill capping, and 50 feet downgradient (west)
of the landfill boundary within 20 years of landfill capping. It should be noted that OU-1
EMF February 1994 data indicate that arsenic concentrations do not generally exceed the
50 ug/ £ arsenic MCL in wells downgradient (west) of the landfill. It is likely that the
preliminary solute transport model overestimates the arsenic concentrations because of
the following: 1) several attenuation mechanisms that reduce the arsenic concentrations
are not simulated in the model 2) and as previously indiC3:ted the arsenic source may not
be widespread in the landfill compared to that of the model simulation.
COMPARISON WITH OU-2 FS DISPERSION CALCULATIONS
I.>
The OU-2 FS dilution model differed substantially from Aries' solute transport model
because the FS analysis did not use ground water flow paths to simulate solute transport
and did not inClude the attenuation of inorganics and decay of the chemical source' for
organics or inorganics. Aries' solute transport model used widely-accepted solute
transport advection and dispersion equations relied on by the EP A and others in analyses
at other Superfund sites. The source area concentrations selected for the landfil1 area
were based on total metals analytical data which is elevated compared to the dissolved
. metals data analytical results. Further, OU-2 FS dilution calculations included the
highest observed concentration to represent the entire landfill although historical and
recent landfill ground Water quality data do not support this assumption. OU-1IlemMI!11
Design ground Water flow and solute transport model results indicate a westerly flow
after capping the landfill. The OU-2 FS model was based on the assumption that the
chemicals will disperse radially from the landfill even after capping which will not likely
occur.
Site data indicates that the cont~minant plume is in steady state. Under steady state
conditions, a CODtamin:!nt plume does not increase in size or contamin:!nt concentration.
The conservative OU-2 FS model results were not consistent with site data because it.
indicated CODr~min:!nt transport will occur well beyond the moSt recent observed
CODtaminant plume boundaries.
92ID3aa1....
-------
Radial flow in the overburde:.t near the landfill is due to the ground water mound beneath
the landfill caused by increased ground water recharge in the refuse area. Placing a low
permeabiliry cap over the landml will eliminate ground water recharge in the landfill,
and will therefore eliminate the observed ground water mound and associated radial flow.
OU-l Remedial Design 3-D ground water flow model supports this, indicating that
capping the landfill will result in generally westerly flow in both overburden .and
bedrock. The conservative OU-2 FS model was apparently based on the assumption that
ground water contamimmT~ will disperse radially from the landfill even after capping.
Aries' analytical solute transpon model predictions assumed that flow in both bedrock
and overburden will be essentially westerly following landfill capping.
OU-2 FS Appendix C dilution calculations for bemene indicate that ground water would
need to flow radially 1,178 feet from cUITently delineated extent of the benzene plume
to attain a uniform bemene plume concentration of 5 ugli. Aries' model predicts that
the 5 ugl i benzene MCL may be attained at a distance of approximately 100 feet to 300
feet from the landfill's western edge within 10 years without OU-1 ground water
extraction and treatment. Figure 9 depicts Aries' simulated 10-year bemene dispersion
concentration contours.
OU-2 FS Appendix C dilution calculations for arsenic suggested that ground water would
need to flow radially 825 f~t from the arsenic plume boundary with an estimated travel
time of 4 years to attain a uniform arsenic concentration of 50 uglt (MCL). Aries'
solute transport model indicates that arsenic concentrations could reach 50 ugll 200 feet
to 400 feet downgradient from the landfill western edge within 10 years without OU-1
ground water extraction and treatment. Figure 10 depicts Aries' simulated 10-year
arsenic dispersion concentration contours. Arsenic concentrations in most wells
downgradient of the landfill do not exceed 50 ugl t, suggesting that arsenic may be
considerably less mobile than assumed by both the OU-2 FS and Aries' models.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the preliminary OU-2 ground water solute transport assessment, Aries' concludes the
fonowing:
.
. Considering the hydraulic effects of capping the landfill and chemical decay and
attenuation, concentrations of benzene and arsenic that exceed their respective
MCLs may be limited to an area within 100 feet to 400 feet downgradient (west)
of the landfill. Therefore, landfill capping without ground water extraction and
treattnent may reduce site ground water contaminant concentrations to within
clean-up goals in an acceptable time period.
.
Aries' site ground water solute transpon analysi~-predicted ground water
contaminanr plume geometry is significantly smaller than the OU-2 FS prediction
and located to the west of the landfIll only rather than surrounding the landfill.
92II33aI12.CI:IIII
-------
.
Chemical concentrations in ground water at and surrounding the landfill appear
to be in a steady state condition. Site ground water data indicate that contaminant
concentrations have generally stabilized through the 1980s and may be decreasing
slightly. VOC concentrations do not appear to be fluctUating substantially at the
present time.
.
Aries' model predicted concentrations of arsenic greater than those currently
observed in the landfIll vicinity, suggesting that arsenic concentrations were
overestimated because of the following: 1) several attenuation mechanisms that
reduce arsenic concentrations are not simulated in the model, 2) as previously
indicated the arsenic source may not be widespread in the landfill compared to
that of the model simulation, 3) arsenic is less mobile than assumed by the model.
.
The spatial and temporal variability of the site ground water metals data are too
great for use in the simplified 2-D analytical solute transport model employed by
Aries. for this analysis. This data variability is likely a result of total metals
analysis being compared to dissolved metals analysis, variability in sampling
techniques resulting in samples with differing turbidities and spatially and
temporally variable metals source areas within the landfill.
Based on this study, Aries recommends that ground water conditions be monitored following
capping of the landfill. Landf111 capping without ground water eXtraCtion and tteatment. may
reduce ground wa~r contamin:lnt concentrations to clean-up goals about as quickly as would
occur with ground water treattnent. FutUre ground water quality and elevation monitoring ~
should be used to update the solute transport model results. A more detailed assessment of
contaminant transport would be required to better assess whether OU-l Remedial Action
consisting of capping without OU-l area ground water treatment. could attain OU-l and OU-2
cleanup standards about as quickly as with OU-l ground water treattnent.
REFERENCES
Allen. H.E.. Perdue, E.M,.and D.S. Brown, 1993. Metals in Groundwater. Lewis Publishers..
437 p.
Bohn. H., McNeal, B. and G. O'Connor. 1979. Soil Chemistry. John Wiley and SODS. New
York. 327 p.
.,
Camp Dresser McKee Federal Programs, 1994. Coaklev Landfill Manasrement of Miszration
Remedial Investisration and Feasibilitv Studv Report. Volume 3, May 1994.
Cleary', Robert W. and Michael 1. Ungs. 1994, PRINCE: Princeton Analytical Models of Flow
and Mass Transport. Waterloo Software, 200 CandIewood Crescent, Waterloo, Ontario. Canada.
Fetter. C.W., 1993, Contaminant HvdrOlleolo!JV, MacMillan Publishing Co., 458 p.
~., .....
-------
Freeze, R.A. and I.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall.
Gelhar, L.W., 1986, Stochastic subsurface hydrology from theory to application, Water
Resources Research, v. 19, p. 161-180.
Golder and Associates, Inc. and Aries Engineering, Inc., 1994, Groundwater modeling report,
Coakley Landf1l1 Remedial Design.
Lallemand-Barres, P. and P. Peaudecref, 1978, Recherche des relations entre Ia valeur de.la
dispersitivite macroscopique d'un milieu aquifere, ses autres caracteristiques et les conditions
de mesure, ewde bibliographique, Bulletin, Bureau de Rechereches Geologiques et Miniers, Sec.
3/4, p. 277-287
Mirecki, June E. and William S. Parks, 1994, Leachate geochemistry at a municipallandtill,
Memphis, . Tennessee, Groundwater, 32(3), p.390-398.
Olsen R.L., and A. Davis, 1990, Predicting the fate and transport of orgamc compounds in
groundwater: Part I, HQ1.flrdous Materials Control 3, no. 3, p. 38-64.
Shacklette, H. T. and J. Boemgen, Eement Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials.
of the Cotenninous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270, 1984.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989, Determining soil response
action levels based on potential contaminant migration to ground water: A compendium of
examples, EPA/540/2-89/057, 144 p.' .
Wilson and Clark, 1994, Hazardous Waste Site Soil Remediation, Marcel Dekker, Inc. p 55.
9ZIIJJouZ.-
-------
Table 1
Parameters for Analytical Model of Flow and Mass Transport
Aries No. 92033
Coakley Landfill
OU-2 Ground Water Contaminant Transport Assessment
Bedrock Overburden (Till) Till/Bedrock*
MW-5 to GZ-105 MW-3D to FPC-9A RP-1 to MW-1
Parameter Parameter (Figure 5) (Figure 6) (Figure 7)
Descr!p-tlon symbol Units Benzene Arsenic Benzene Arsenic Benzene Arsenic
---
Solute first order decay K [1/days] 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0005
Source first order decay Gamma [1/days] 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Longitudinal dlsperslvlty Dx [feet) 100 100 50 50 . 40 40
Transverse dlsperslvlty Dy [feet] 1 1 5 5 4 4
Average linear ground water velocity V [ftlday] 0.3 0.3 0.0008 0.0008 0.1 0.1
Initial source concentration Con [ppb] 30 30 70 270 30 200
Solute retardation factor Rd [ ] 2.6 1 2.6 1 2.6 1
Simulation start time Ton [days] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simulation end time Toft [days] 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950 10,950
X-coordinate of center of strip sourCE Xo [feet] 0 500 0 500 0 500
Y -coordinate of center of strip source Yo [feet] 500 500 500 500 500 500
Width of strip source W [feet] 300 300 300 300 300 300
Angle of ground water flow direction Theta degrees 0 0 0 0 0 0
Numerical Integration parameter NGauss [1 20 20 20 20 20 20
07/20/04
NOTES:
* Ground water flowing northwest from landfill monitoring well RP-1 vicinity
towards MW-1 may mlgrate'through both bedrock and till.
clfcta_c.wb1
-------
Table 2
Model Prediction Parameters for Contaminant Transport After Landfill Is Capped
Analytical Model of Flow and Mass Transport
Aries No. 92033
Coakley Landfill
OU-2 Ground Water Contaminant Transport Assessment
Parameter
Descrl tlon
o u e Irs or er ecay
Source first order decay
Longitudinal dlsperslvity
Transverse disperslvity
Average linear ground water velocity
Initial source concentration
Solute retardation factor
Simulation start time
Simulation end time
X-coordinate of center of strip sourc
Y -coordinate of center of strip sourc
Width of strip source
Angle of ground water flow direction
Numerlcallntegratlon arameter
Parameter
Units
ays
(1/days]
[feet]
(feet]
(ftIday]
(ppb]
[ ]
(days]
[days]
[feet]
[feet]
(feet]
degrees
[
Total Hydrogeo oglc System (Bedrock an Overburde
Benzene Arsensie
(Figure 8) (Figure 9)
Gamma
Ox
Dy
V
Can
Rd
Ton
Toft
Xo
Yo
W
Theta
NGauss
0.0001
100
10
0.26
14
2.6
o
18250
o
700
.1400
o
20
0.0001
100
10
0.26
170
1
o
18250
o
700
1400
o
20
-------
''',
~
I
...
"
NOTES:
FPC-02B +
fPC.02A
FPC~oeB ~
oJD
~I.fi +./
..'" /'
FPC~'05B .' Gl.111
GZ.105 +---
~
\ FPC-08B MW.01
"~~+ fPC-G78
\ FPC-OIIA SP.' FPC-G7A *
\ ,
\ ,
, , ,
\ ~ RP.t..,.
~ ~
MW-G2 " I' + ~~L - ~MW.C!!. -
"'W-G~I' - RP.3"'-t..::;
MW.Oe + ~
t. Anal d..,1oped !his plan 'lOIII . ",an ~lIud ''''alplulud POIa~an:
6u1.." ... 6h811ow Bodr""., Fog... 2S' CDnIa""'1lgauon n.'>0<1 p.......... by Golde.
AI""'It... IGoIdat). -
2. Sd"'.....lacallons ... .ppuxim...,
FPC.03Bt
fPC.03A
Ff'C.US
FPC.110
aZ.I1D
GZ.115 4-
GZ.114 .
/N
OZ-10R
...J..
COAKlEY LANDFILL
APPROXIMATE
EDGE OF REFUSE
FPC.OIIA
FPC-GIIB
fPC.oOC
LN'AYETTE ROAD-
c
---:::..
LEGEND:
.J
MOM~ well,
,a.u. +
Gl-100
+ Gl.m
.....
SohAIlIrip IOIMI:. lor model pI&dictlon
SoIIAe llrip COlM1:. IOf mode' ~tib'al101\
~
---
MOdII "'oJ, now pell\
. 'r'"
~=--
APpnOXILlAlliSCAlE I'G~
1.,.-
(
Jon, 020;1;1
~ ARIES
~\. ~;~~ E'IGltlEf'IING,IfIC.
~''; '"
~ ~, ,nwhlWll.nIalMgInooq. hrdn>goologl.1I
OU.2 PRELIMINARY SOlUTE
TAANSI'Om Mont:lING 1II:l'onr
COAKLEY LANDFill
NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
sITe PLAN
") IVij4 ARIES ENGINEERING. INC.
JULY 1004
-------
I
"
--.
NOTES:
..
/
.....
:
..
,
'..
t. Ari.. d...1oped \toi. plari 110lIl I pion 0I11d "~O'plOlud P"'"'Clerr
6U1facol1 Shabow eod,uck. feg,.. ~. cora".,.,&j... U~ "4'''''''')'
Pho.. I P"'-Ouoign In"'0Io00"ol1 "uI'OIl I"q"'''''hy c."",.,
A._,II.I IGoIcJ.,)
2. Sdl III".. Iocallons a.. Ip,..oximl"
FPC.o38..
FPC-OJA .,..
./
GZ'110-
GZ.115 ~
GZ.114 "T"
--
II'"
...."
"-
_N-
,..-
,,-
-
II"'"
lEGEND:
",.", +
..
---
~ 1894 ARIES ENGINEERING, INC.
1._..._.... -
. ",.....
~~_. I
APpnOXIMA TE SCAlE: I". ~OO'
OU.2PRELIMINARY SOLlIfE
TRANSPORT MODELING REPOAT
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NORTH HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
/N
MOIIII"""IIweq.
Goldef. ""of1lUd bDdrtx:k goo.nlwaillf
..tDvo1hunr;cnour ,,'wi
SolLee II'" IOUt:8 fat model plodlCllOR
SohAl II~ KII.rC8 fat model caUIIII"",
Modll soI"'l how plih
JOU , O;?oJJ
OBSERVED BEDROCK
GROUNDWATER
ElEV A TlON CONTOURS
-------
J
"
NOTES:
'"
t. Arlel do~bped..118 pllII 'mm.1 pll" 1II'."beOl"o,." U.........
fI"..1a: tjc.'...:e. f",118 ~.. CU.....,8U\J ""ha .III'....,)' IWI ",uw I
p,..o..''On '''''''IIgI'''''' Aopoo. f'lup;I'''''' by GDI
JOII , II~U;):I
OBSERVED SHAllOW
OVERnUROEN GROUNOWATER
HlVA HlIN l:OH 10111 IS
-------
Figure 4
Coakley Landfill OU-2
Preliminary Solute Transport Assessment
Simulated vs. Observed Ground Water Concentrations
Ground Water Flow Path from MW-5 to GZ-105
. Simulated vs Observed
Benzene. Bedrock
Monitoring Well GZ105
12 t
A j
~ 10 rumuumuoouuuoum.mmuumj
~ af-----------------------..__.~ --~..--------,
.- .... I
c ..
~ ..
i 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~:; 8- - - - -.a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --1
~ 4 ruuou.u-,_'m_u_mumUO~_UUO_U_Ol~
0. 2 u_o_o::.~.--ouou--o--ou:u--OOU"OOUUU
O .. -. . . . . . I . I . . . ,
. . I . . '. . ".
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
I . Model
.A Observed I
Simulated vs Observed
Arsenic. Bedrock
Monitoring WeD GZ105
12
A
10 -------------------------------------------
-
II::
C)
= 8 r----------------- ------- .-. .--.---------
~ ... ....
S ..
~ 6 ----------------~-------------------------
.: .
i .
g 4 ------------_!_---------------------------- .
o . ~
(.) . -
2 --------_._---------~----------------------
.
.
.
<.
o
1970
1975
1S80
1985 1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
I . Model
.A Observed I
-------
<,
L
Aries Engineering, Inc.
Figure 5
Coakley Landfill OU-2
Preliminary Solute Transport Assessment
Simulated vs. Observed Ground Water Concentrations
Ground Water Flow Path from MW-3D to FPC-9A
Simulated vs Observed
Benzene - Till
Monitoring Well F?C-9A
10
... ....
. ..
. ..
- -.
8 -------------~------------------------_!~.
.
E"
~ .
~ 6 -------------------------------------------
.E -
;;
~ 4 --------~----------------------------------
c.J
c:
o
U
.
...
2 ----~-------------------------------------
.
o
1975
8.
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
I . Model
... Observed'
Simulated vs Observed
Arsenic - Till
Monitoring WeD F?C-9A
50
A
40 ---------------------------A---------------
-
c:::
CD .....
: ...
c 30 ----------------_I!...--------.--------------
£. ..
m ..
~ ..
c. ..
G) 20 - - ------ -- -- - --- -- - - - -- ---- --- _I!. 8y - -- ----
g ...
o
u
10 -------------------------------------------
.
o
1970
.
.
1995
1975
1980
1985 1990
Year
2000
2005
I - Model
-------
Aries Engineering, Inc.
Figure 6
Coakley LandfiJI OU-2
Preliminary Solute Transport Assessment
Simulated vs. Observed Ground Water Concentrations
Ground Water Flow Path from RP-1 to MW-1
Simulated vs Observed
Benzene. TiIUBedrack
Monitoring Well MW-1
35 I
T
30~--------------------------------------------
I
.-. r
'a, 25 ..;.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
= !
-- I
g 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ ! .A
.: I
c: 15 ..;.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
~ I £
g f -
o 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
<.> 1 .................
I .. A.....
5 ru~-~;-, "- u Uu -u u - -_-muu- 'u -------1
o . . -: : . : . : : ~ . : :
.....
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
I . Model
.A Observed I
Simulated vs Observed
Arsenic. TiIUBedrack
Monitoring Well MW-1
60
so ---- ---......~ - ----- - - - - -------------- - - - ----
t . ..
~ . ...
g 40 ----- - -------- - ---_I!.- - ---- - -- - ----- -- - -----
- f.. .
c. -.
~ -..
Iii 30 r- ------------ - - - -- - - - ------ - -..,.. - -- - - - - ----
= -.
c: ..
~ . .
g 20 ---- ------ --. ----- - - - ----,. --- --------- ----
(3 t
10 - ---- ------ -- - - -- -- - - a- -- -- - - - - ------ -- --- --
.
o
1970
1975
1980
1985 1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
I . Model
-------
Bz 10 yrs after cap
zoccr
16001'"
~1.0
1200
--
CD
CD
-
- 800
>-
400
c
c
..;
300 600 900 1200 1500
x (feet)
Contours illustrate mode!-predided contaminant
concentration in micrograms per liter (ugll).
o
o
Bz 20 yrs after cap
2000
1600
400
-- 1200
-
GI
GI
-
-
:>. 800
JOBI~
~~.. ARIES
'""" ~ ~ ~ EHGIHEEnlHG,IHC.
~... ""';.Qo.---.....--a~
01.1-2 PRE':JMINAR Y SOLl1T'e TRANSr:oRT
MCCEWNG RE?ORT
MOOe...,cREDICTED BENZENE
CONCENTRA T10NS AFiER ~NCFiLL
IS CAPPEL)
JULY 1594 FIGURE 7
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NCRi'H HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
-------
10 yrs after cap
"
A.s
2000r-
,J
- 1200
~
~
-
'-'
>- 800.
o
o
.n
.....
.300 600 900 1200 1500
X (feet)
Contours illustrate mode!-predided contaminant
concentration in micrograms per liter (ug/l).
As 20 yrs after cap
2000
1600
=- 1200
~
~
-
-
400
300 600 900 1200 1500
x (feet).
o
o
JOB # 92033
CtH PREUMINARY SOLUTE T;;ANSPCFIT
MCDE":JNG RE?ORT
MOCe..-PREJICTED ARSENIC
CONCEN1i=1A T10NS AF"iEM LANDFILL
IS CAPPED
JULY 1594 FiGURE 8
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NCMTH HAMFTCN, NEW HAMFSHIRE
-------
(
/'
"
r
I
I
I
Gl.105
+
fPC.o:JO ...
FPC~3A "?'
FPC~7B ...
FPC~7A ~
GZ.l1D
GZ-115 ~
GZ-114T"
FPC-020 +
FPC~2A
GZ.108
Gl.101
GZ.I03 +
UW.3S
G1UW~' \
. CEO£~~~~~~~L
WAYnTlAOm-
~
FPC-ODA
+ fPC.OOB
FPC.OOC
FPC.l1 0
FPC.lIC
Gl.108
+02-117
J 1894 ARIES ENGI...EERING. INC.
NOTES:
t.
Art.. d8v81oped Ihl pI-"'rom . pion .fW ."".'I"8IUtJ ""1"1"."'11111...::
511"611:.111 5twtJow UtKJIOC'. f"".. 2:'- COI'''U",,", If' the J"'."'lr 'U".J~
P'..,.. Pr..O..lgn Inyu>I'1/11lo,,, R.'",,""'18'." by GuM.'
A",o.:l..... CGokl.'I.
2.
su.,..".. 1ac.1I""" a.. .pp'O>lmAte.
/N
lEGEND:
.,.... +
lAonitOl1ng ....
---
SoU. IUlp ICU'C. lor mod.. predlcllon
BimU.,8cI _.... con:.,."'"", cDl10ur 11'1
nu::rog/ilml pet bIer (ugnllo years aner
lenalill cap.
-5.0-
b---~-~-
APPROXIMA1E SCAlE. I'. f>(1O'
.1011 , O;!UJJ
OU.2 PAELIIAINAAY SOLUTE
TRANSPORT MODELING REPOAT
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NORni HAMPTON. NEW ItAMPSHIRE
BENZENE DISPERSION
WITIIOUT QU.! CAPTURE lONE
Jill Y !OO~
-------
:
.
,
0011:5:
+
Fpc.OOB
.~
~O.n
,.~~
,. Ariel developed .hl ""n ,,0lIl1 ""n 1~lod "".I'Plled PoIo'.IOIIItIIIC
6"'111:1111511,1110.. IIDCIIOCk. F'O"I 2~' COI.."'" kl 1110 J.....,y I ~\l4
Ph.... I P/8.OaI.gn Invll"gll,on A.pon ",I"""'''r Gulllo,
AuocIIIIIIGokIlll.
2. Sh 'Nil" 1oc1t1onl1l8 Ipproxlmili.
OZ.'05
+
FPC.o58
+
+ ,../
02.'11
.-----
Fpc.03B ..
FPC-03A T
Ff'C.088
.....
fPC.o8A
fPC-018..
fPC-01A ~
02.118
OZ.ns ......
GZ.114 T
/N
FPC.02B +
FPC.02A
02.108
Fpc.118
FPC'11C
MW.Q4 \
L COAKlI!~~NDFllL
APPROXIMATE
EDGE OF REfUSE
Ul'AymlRO..o;:......
FPC-09A
+ Fpc.OOB
Fpc.oOC
lEGEND:
OZ.101 .
OZ.103 +
~
OZ.,OO
+ OZ. 117
----==
~
~
'.'
I..'" +
Momonng WIO.
SakAI I1rlp 10=1'01 modal p8di:l>on
---
-50-
SUNJoI.d llsenlc CDIC....,.II"" c:cnIour In
mcrogllllli po' 1~lIluunl'O p8B In",
lMIIIoII Clp.
..
. ...
'== ~
APPROXIMA11: SCAI E ,'. 500'
't'
.-
Jon I 02033
1994 ARIES ENGINEEAIIIG. .tiC
OtJ.2I'nELIMINAnVSOLUTE
TnllNSrOIH MODELING III:I'OOT
COAKLEY LANDFILL
NORTH HAMPTON. NEW HAMPSHIRE
An5ENIC OISrEII!iION
WITIIOUT OU.\ CAPIUllt; lONE
JUl V \094
-------
v
ATTACHMENT C
-------
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
IN RE: COAKLEY ~3~FILL
SUPERFUND SITE, NORTH H}l@TON,
NEW HAMPSHIRE
*
*
*
*
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Public Hearing conducted by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency at North Hampton Elementary School,
North Hampton, New Hampshire, on Tuesday, June 21, 1994,
commencing at 7:30 p.m., before Dan Coughlin, Moderator.
Court Reporter:
John G. Kinchen, RPR-CP
117 M,\r!i<;i" STi'I;::7
P.O. s.::x :!V
MANC:-:SiE:=!. NH ~CS. r:IIT
(6C31 :e-;-m
BRAGAN REPORTING ~SS([I~TES, INC.
C€'QTI~IE:D ~RTHAND RE'.oRT€.~~ . RE:Q~€RE:D PRO~~ONAl RE:PORTEJ'S
PROF6~ONAl \JIDE:OTAPE: ~E:x\j'jCE:~
(TOLl-FRE :N NH)
-------
I N D E X
Speaker Page
Opening Remarks by Moderator 3 "
Steve Calder 7
Thomas Roy 14
Mary Herbert 19
Peter Bresciano 20
Lillian Wylie 27
Elmer Sewall 31
,\
-------
,~
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I)
23
1
PRO C E E DIN G S
2
MR. COUGHLIN:
Could I have your
3
attention, please?
We would like to start the
4
hearing.
Could you please take your seats?
5
Good evening.
Can everybody hear me
6
all right?
If you can't hear, please,
raise
7
your hand and we will do something to
8
accommodate you.
9
Thank you for coming tonight.
My
name is Dan coughlin.
I am the chief of the
New Hampshire Superfund section in Boston.
My
staff and I are responsible for the
implementation of the Superfund program in New
Hampshire.
with me tonight is steve coughlin,
the project manager for EPA.
We have in the
audience John Cavanaugh, who is representing
Senator Judd Greg's office, and we have a
representative from the New Hampshire
environmental services in the audience with us.
We are here tonight to conduct a
public hearing to gather public comments on the
proposed plan for the clean up of the Coakley
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
landfill site.
I will be the hearing officer.
2
As you probably. are aware, the EPA
3
held a public informational meeting on June 1,
4
1994 to describe alternatives evaluated in the
o
5
FS.
A 30 day com~ent period began on June
6
second and will e~d July first.
7
Before we start the meeting, I would
B
like to give you the agenda.
steve will give
9
you an overview of the proposed plan.
Following his presentation we will accept any
comments you wish to make into the record.
Those of you who wish to make a
comment should have indicated by filling out an
index card back at the desk.
Also available
are copies of the propose plan.
It looks like
this.
I am just going to stop for a moment.
and let the people sign their cards, so I don't
confuse anybody.
Okay.
As I said, there are copies of the
proposed plan out back as well as the index
cards.
I will call on those wishing to make a
statement in the order in which you signed in
-------
1
2
v
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'.'
23
this
evening unless you have some commitments
that require you to speak earlier.
Please,
indicate so and I will accommodate that.
When you come to the microphone to
give your comments, please tell us your name
and who you rep=esent.
Speak clearly so our
stenographer can hear you and record your
comments accurately.
If you think your comments are going
to be more than 10 or 15 minutes long, we. would
request that you summarize them for us and give
us a copy of the text of the comments tonight
or mail them at-the address in the proposed
plan.
That will give everybody an opportunity
or a chance to speak.
If you wish to submit written -
comments, please, do so.
I encourage you to do
so.
The address is in the proposed plan on
page two.
Just write-them down and send them
in to us by the end of the -- postmarked by
July first in the comment period.
All the comments we receive tonight
and any written comments will be responded to
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
and considered in the remedy decision and
2
responded to in a document called the
3
responsive summary.
That document becomes part
4
of the record of the decision, which is the
5
EPA's decision document for the remedy of the
6
clean-up of the site.
This summary will be
7
included with the record of decision and become
8
a public document.
9
We anticipate the record of decision
will be issued some time around September of
this year.
If after I have closed the hearing
anybody would like to come up front and speak
with us, we will stay around and answer your
questions.
Feel free to come up and speak with
us and Steve and I will stay around as long as
possible.
Any questions on the format of the
hearing?
Okay.
Again, I would encourage you
to submit written comments if you would.
We
would like all comments we could get on this'
plan.
'!
With that, if I can get the cards,
these are in order I assume more or less.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,',
23
Thomas Roy.
Sorry, Tom.
I messed up.
My
apologies.
Steve, as I told you, was going to
give a brief description of the proposed plan
and the proposed remedy.
Let's let him to do
that and I will open the hearing for comments.
MR. CALDER:
I know my voice carries
quite well, so I am not going to use the
microphone.
Welcome to the Coakley landfill
public hearing for the management of migration
operable unit.
I am EPA's project manager for
the Coakley landfill Superfund sight and I am
responsible in over seeing all remedial
activities at the the Coakley landfill.
Tonight as Dan as said, you are given
an opportunity to enter any comments on EPA's
proposed remedy.
First I would present this quick
summary before the public comment section
begins.
The Environmental Protection Agency is
recommending natural attenuation of the
groundwater as a proposed remedy for the
management of migration for the contamination
-------
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1~
11
12
1
at the Coakley landfill.
Natural attenuation
2
refers to letting the contamination in the
3
groundwater degrade naturally with time through
4
dilution, dispersion, and other mechanisms such
o
5
as biodegradation.
6
As part of the remedy, institutional
7
controls such as deed restrictions will be put
8
in place on affected properties to prevent the
9
groundwater from being used as a drinking water
source.
A quick history on the site.
It's a
27 acre landfill.
It's privately owned and
municipally operated.
It operated from 1972 to
1985.
.In 1983 the state sampled a domestic
well and detected volatile organic compounds.
The public water supply was extended to the
residence in 1983 by the Town of North Hampton.
In December 1983, the Coakley
landfill was listed on the national priorities
list.
The RIfFS were conducted by Roy F.
Weston as a state lead that identified drinking
of the groundwater as the principal risk of
human health.
-------
. a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
The operable unit one record of
2
decision was siqned in June 1990.
The remedy
3
for the first operable unit, the source control
4
remedy, is being done by three municipalities,
5
two federal facilities, and about 40 private
6
generators and transporters.
7
The remedy calls for consolidation of
sedimeLts in the wetland, consolidation of the
9
solid waste, capping of the landfill,
collection and treatment of landf~ll gases,
groundwater extraction and treatment, long-term
environmental monitoring, and institutional
controls where possible.
We have conducted a second remedial
inv~stigation for the management of migration
of the waste.
The results of the R I
identified the following contaminants of
concern.
In the groundwater, surface water and
sediments, the hum~n health risk looked at the
following pathways which was ingestion of
groundwater, ingestion of surface water, and
dermal contact of surface water and the
sediments.
In the human health risk assessment
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
the only pathway that was above EPA's
2
acceptable levels was the drinking of the
3
groundwater.
4
The results of the remedial
5
investigation identified the following clean up
6
levels for the groundwater for the second
7
operable unit.
Again the volatile organic
8
compounds or industrial solvents are the main
9
compound of concern and metals are another
major type of contamination.
Also as a result of the remedial
investigation, we also looked at -- we also
performed an ecological risk assessment, and
here they are described in this chart,
summarized in this chart.
There is a risk to
an individual mammal, but not to the
population, except in the landfill run off
area, which is part of the source control
remedy.
It was concluded that the slight risk
to the wetland wildlife did not warrant an
active remediation which could negatively
impact the wetland by disturbing the natural
-------
1
2
~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17"
18
19
20
21
22
23
species or disrupting the water balance in the
wetland.
We moved into the feasibility study
and took a look at the potential remedies to
clean up the groundwater, to clean up to levels
establish in the risk assessment, and that
would meet the drinking water standards.
Management of migration, number one, the no
action remedy used for a cost comparison,
involves monitoring the groundwater for 30
years.
This remedy is estimated to cost one
point two million dollars.
The limited action
remedy, which is also the preferred remedy here
by -- the proposed ~emedy by EPA, includes
monitoring the groundwater for 30 years, ~nd
uses a conservative natural attenuation
groundwater model to predict the time of clean
up if the natural attenuation processes were
allowed to occur without any active pump and
treat system.
Natural attenuation refers to
letting the contamination of the groundwater
degrade naturally.
Here are the dispersion results on
-------
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
the groundwater model.
The groundwater is
2
expected to clean up in approximately 11 years,
3
which is here ten point eight for the benzene.
4
Also in order to prevent the groundwater from
5
being used as a drinking water source,
6
institutional controls such as deed
7
restrictions need to be placed on properties
8
surrounding the site.
The remedy is estimated
9
to cost one point four million dollars.
Management of migration, number three, the
groundwater treatment remedy proposes using the
same groundwater treatment system that is to be
built by the potentially responsible parties.
This remedy is estimated to cost two point one
million dollars.
The management migration
number four is the groundwater treatment remedy
that uses a separate treatment system than the
one being used for the source control remedy.
The treatment processes would be metals
precipitation and carbon absorption.
This
remedy is estimated to cost three point two
million dollars.
The Environmental Protection Agency
-------
v
{j
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
1
uses nine criteria when evaluating remedy
2
selection.
Here we have the threshold
3
criteria, which are the overall protection of
4
human health and the environment in compliance
5
with applicable and appropriate and relevant
6
regulations, environmental regulations that is.
7
The balancing criteria is a long-term
8
effectiveness and permanence, reduction of
9
toxicity mobility and volume.
The short-term
effectiveness, implementability, and cost, and
the modifying, and that's one reason why we are
here today is state acceptance and community
acceptance.
Again, the EPA's proposed remedy is
the management of migration number two, limited
action, which .is the preferred alternative,
which uses natural attenuation as the basis of
the clean-up of groundwater.
I would now like to reintr~duce Dan
Coughlin who will be opening up the floor for
comments to be taken.
MR. COUGHLIN:
Let me reopen the
hearing now for comments.
Do we have any more
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
1
-- I saw some people come in later -- do I have
2
any more cards?
Does anybody else wish to make
3
a presentation tonight.
If you do, fill out a
4
index card.
It helps us keep an accurate
5
account of who spoke,
et cetera
6
So with that, we will go back to
7
Thomas Roy.
8
MR. ROY:
My name is Thomas Roy.
I
9
am an engineer with Aries Engineering in
Concord, New Hampshire.
Aries Engineerin~ is
the supervising contractor for the Coakley
landfill operable unit one, remedial action.
I speak here tonight representing the
Coakley landfill group that is performing OU-1
remedial action.
In the interest of keeping my
comments brief, I have summarized them and I
will read them to you tonight i~ a summary
format.
The Coakley group will provide more
detailed comments that we will submit to you
before the comments period concludes.
The Coakley group concurs with the
OU-2 draft remedial investigation study
-------
1
2
3
4
(j
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
conclusion that there is no current
unacceptable risk to public health or the
environment.
The group notes that the
potential threat to the public health woul~
occur only if contaminated groundwater is used
for drinking water purposes.
The potential
risk even in this circumstance would be low,
due to the low concentration of contaminants in
site groundwater.
However,
contaminated
grpundwater is not used for drinking water.
And an alternate water supply is available.
It also appears unlikely that site
groundwater would be used for drinking water
even without institutional controls such as a
town ordinance or deed restrictions temporarily
limiting site groundwater supply development.
The RIfFS appear to understate the
attenuation of site contaminants.
Based on our
review of site data, it appears clear that
groundwater contaminants will not move as far
from the landfill as indicated in the RIfFS.'
The group notes that the RIfFS did
not assume attenuation metals as they moved
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 .
19
20
21
22
23
1
th~ough site groundwater.
We would expect due
2
to the till formation and marine sediments in
3
the area that there would be a high cationic
4
exchangeable capability in the soils that would
5
retire and attenuate metals that may move frnm
6
the landfill area.
The attenuation would be
7
for a greater extent than estimated in the
8
RIfFS and would result in a smaller
9
contaminated groundwater area.
The group concurs with the RIfFS
conclusion that there are other nonlandfill
sources of inorganic and volatile compounds
that have been observed in the study area
groundwater.
These sources could contaminate
groundwater independently from the landfill.
We also concur with the RI/FSs .
conclusion that many inorganic constituents are
native to the environment and will present in
area -- and will be present in area groundwater
regardless of any remedial action taken.
We
would expect, however, that there would be some
reduction in the leaching of inorganic
contaminants from study area soils as the
-------
1
2
~
3
4
, '
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
"
23
operable unit one cap reduces leachate
generation, and therefore reduces the potential
to leach metals
from area
soils.
We note that the RIfFS indicate that
a level of lS parts per million has been
selected for lead in groundwater.
However, the
report also notes that the background
concentration of lead was observed at a higher
concentration of 30 parts per billion, which is
above the action level.
It does not appear to
reduce lead concentrations to less than the
native lead concentrations in the area.
There are an active number of
monitoring wells in the site area to monitor
OU-1 and OU-2 site groundwater.
There are
currently scores of-monitoring wells in the
area of the Coakley landfill, and another score
plus in this heavily monitored area is not
needed to adequately monitor groundwater.,
The cost estimate for groundwater
monitoring could be reduced in recognition of
the ongoing operable unit one environmental
model plant.
And incremental addition of
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
sampling would adequately monitor the
2
environmental effect of OU-l remedial action on
3
area groundwater and environmental resources.
4
We do not agree that one point four
5
million dollars would be required to adequately
6
protect and monitor site area groundwater.
7
Adequate monitoring should be done for less.
8
We suggest that the OU-2
9
environmental monitoring plan when developed
could be revised consistent with state of New
Hampshire groundwater monitoring requirements
to sample groundwater not more than three times
a year and probably on a reduced frequency
based on the observed groundwater results.
Reducing the cost of monitoring would be
consistent with the requirement that Superfund
work be cost effective while fully protecting
the public health and the environment.
We are currently reviewing the RIfFS
Appendix C, OU-1 nonpumpinq analysis.
Based on
~
your previous comments presented here this
evening and OU-1 groundwater modeling, we feel
a nonpumping analysis overstated contaminant
-------
0"
c
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
"
23
1
migration.
2
We will provide a more detailed
3
analysis of the assessment.
Because of the
4
large amount of RIfFS data and report
5
information to review, the group requests the
6
formal comment perioc be extended to August 12,
7
That concludes my comments.
1994.
8
MR. COUGHLIN:
Thank you.
Mary
9
Herbert.
MS. HERBERT:
I am Mary Herbert.
I
am chairman of the North Hampton board of
selectmen and I would like to read a very brief
statement.
The board of selectmen are aware that
since the installation of a water line by the
town to certain residents located nearby to the
site no further public health problems have
been reported.
The board also notes that the
current projected cost of the work involved
with unit one is in excess of 25 million
dollars.
The EPA denotes May 23, 1994, may
involve further cost or responsibilities placed
on the town.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
The town continues to recognize its
2
responsibility to protect and preserve the
3
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
4
North Eampton.
However, the board of selectmen
5
do not presently understand the necessity to
6
expend substantial amounts of town funds
7
without a demonstrated risk of adverse
8
consequences to the public health, safety, and
9
welfare caused by the Coakley landfill.
The board is also concerned with the
financial stability of the town in the face of
further costs related to the Coakley site.
On
behalf of the town, the board of selectmen
would respectfully request that the EPA's
public input process and any future
administrative action address the town's
concern with respect to .the status of the
Coakley landfill and the actual need to
continue with the present as well as any future
expensive clean up program.
Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN:
Thank you.'
Peter
Bresciano.
MR. BRESCIANO:
My name is Peter
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
Bresciano.
I am from Portsmouth, New
2
Eampshire,
a~d I am sorry to say, ma'am, but
3
you are dealing with the EPA.
And you will
4
never, never,
never get the costs down.
It's
5
been 11 years since the Coakley landfill was
6
placed on the EPA's national priority list.
11
7
years since the water supply distribution lines
8
were extended into the area.
Nine years since
9
the landfill stopped accepting material, and
four years since the record of decision.
11
years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and
yet not an ounce of clean up.
We are now entering into the second
phase of the Coakley clean up, and the cost to
the taxpayers continues to go unchecked.
Take
a look at some of the costs we are expected to
pay.
Tell me the figures contained in the FS .
are estimates, and I will tell you what you see
today is one thing.
And by tomorrow, this is
goirig to cost the taxpayers much, much more.
I just briefly want to look at a
couple of the costs.
75 dollars a day for
gloves and jars.
Gentlemen, that's 28 dollars
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
per well for gloves and jars.
2
Normally in ta~ki~g to other
3
engineering firms, they tell me that usually
4
the analysis lab gives them the jars for
5
nothing.
75 dollars
I mean let's be serious.
6
a day for the gloves and jars.
45 dollars a
7
day for O&M costs.
I
And what's an O&M cost?
8
don't know, because it's not in the report, but
9
if you look at the FS, you will find more data
in there about swamps and grasses, and bushes,
and trees.
It's enough to make your head spin,
but let the public know what the cost is or to
even put that data -- break that data cost
down.
It's not in the FS.
It's scribbled in
there in handwriting.
Thirteen monitoring wells.
It's
going to take the contractor five days to get
samples out of 13 wells.
Now, that's a bit
much.
I mean we have got six overburden wells
and one bedrock well.
That's going to take two
~
and a half days.
You know, if you break it
down by like the way the EPA did or the way the
contractor did, three hours per well, we can
-------
v
~,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I,
23
1
get two and a half wells done a day on an eight
2
hour day, 40 hour week.
When you look at the
3
40 hour week, you look at the figures in the
4
FS, we are talking about each well three hours
5
per well.
That adds up to about 39 hours, but
6
the labor cost at 71 dollars an hour, it gets
7
to be very, very expensive.
And to add to
8
that, we are not going to do it three times a
9
year, we are going it to do it four times a
year even though we know that the contaminants
are not moving.
We are going to do it four
times a year.
Now, does that make any sense?
It
does to the contractor.
It makes a lot of
sense to the contractor and the EPA, because
the EPA is in this business.
You must remember, the EPA is a
regulatory agency:
If they stopped making
regulations, they would go out of business.
So
the contractor is the one that's going to make
the money on this one, four times a year, for
not ten years as it. may be that the
contaminants that will attenuate themselves,
-------
13
14
15
. 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
1
not for 12 years.
We are going to do this for
2
30 years.
That's what w~ say in the FS.
We
3
are going to do this 30 years, monitor these
4
wells.
5
I agree with the engineer, it's too
6
long, and it's too expensive.
In the FS, they
7
talk about limited action alternative will have
8
the same cost as alternative MM-1, which is no
9
further action, with the possibility of
"additional incremental costs that may be
associated with the potential loss of property
value as a result of the deed restriction.
.Now, this has been in the FS, this
statement has been in the FS for how long?
For
as long as the FS has been out, but, what, two
weeks ago, we sat here and we talked about deed
restriction, and nobody had an answer.
Do you
get the answers about if I own a hundred acres
.
and 25 of those acres is on Coakley and it's in
the footprint, do I get a deed restriction on
those 25 acres or do I get a restriction on the
whole hundred acres?
The value of my land
decrease on a hundred acres or just on the 25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
"
23
acres?
Who is going to do this survey?
Am I
paying for the survey to figure out this
portion of my property has a deed restriction
on it?
And if I feel like dropping a well a
hundred feet from where the deed restriction
line is or whatever it is, can I start pumping
water out of there, or is it going to affect
the Coakley contaminants starting to move,
because I am using a well to 4raw water.
Where
are the answers?
We didn't have them at the
information session and we still haven't got
them.
I would like to say in closing that I
agree ~hat as a layman reading through the FS,
a lot of it goes over my head, but the overall
picture says why are we spending this kind of
money that the residents don't have -- and I
hate to say this, because I sit and listen to
the people up in Rochester, I sit and listen to
the people over at the shipyard.
I racked my brain trying to tell the
Air Force to stay off of the empty NPL at
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
Pease.
Don't get on the national priority
2
list, because it does no .good.
They don't
3
listen, but you have got to start listening,
4
because we don't have deep pockets.
5
The guys sit down there in the board
6
room and say, hey, the taxpayer has the money.
7
He's got the money in his pocket.
All we have
8
to do is set the goal, set the price, and they
9
will have to pay for it.
They have just got to
come up with it.
The residents can't come up with it
any more.
We saw that last night at the.
Portsmouth city budget.
We don't have the
money, and, therefore, we are telling you if
you want to cut services, cut them, but we
don't have the money.
We don't have the money
to pay for the Coakley landfill clean up.
And
one day, some representative~ some town
selectmen, some chairman, sdme mayor, is going
to stand before you and say, no, and they are
,.
going to stand their ground.
Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN:
Thank you, sir.
Lillian Wylie.
-------
1
2
\)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
"
23
MS. WYLIE:
I am Lillian Wylie from
Lafayette TerracE, North .Hampton, and I
represent most of the people of Lafayette
Terrace and the Martin family.
First of all on paragraph two, we are
not in a football game, we are not in a kick
off for anything.
This is a major comment
period in the lives of human beings that
affects the whole area of North Hampton and our
water supply.
You might say you are doing a little
of nothing, next to an option of doing nothing.
A low cost movie costs three hundred thousand
dollars.
Portsmouth is paying seven hundred
thousand dollars.
A high cost movie costs in
the millions.
This is an environmental tragedy.
By
the way, this is not typical of a clean
sanitary landfill.
Only of a clean sanita~y
landfill going wrong by responsible people who
should have known what they were doing, and the
money making scheme that put big bucks in
certain pocket books at the cost of innocent
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
lives.
2
The idea that the land is going to
3
naturally dilute is obscure.
I cannot see it
4
-- excuse me -- I can see it, though, when
5
there was a plan for culverts that leads to the
6
wetland and the streams, why you would say it
7
would dilute right into the ocean where Berry's
8
Brook and Little River go.
9
Why don't you be honest, which hasn't
been the case right along.
If you pump and
treat, you will draw in our water that is the
municipal water.
This report is wrong just like the
health reports, so cleverly done by the state
and by the word of the mouth of the feds, by
the follow up of the feds.
This is the human
side of the story.
Now I want to ask why, why,
why?
Why in 1971, in 1972, did the town
promise Ruth Martin a clean sanitary land~ill?
All she got was a dead husband, an adopted dead
son, a daughter dead, and only one living
daughter that is not expected to live long.
Why in 1975 did Coakley send Lafayette Terrace
-------
1
D 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
notices that you will be dynamiting at coakley
landfill company?
Littl~ did we know that it
was the bedrock that protected our aquifers
that was being blown up and sold for crushed
rock.
In 1975 was there noticeable
leaching?
Why wasn't the Lafayette Terrace
residents informed of this and why is it not in
the fed's reports?
Why in 1991 and 1992 was
the master plan for North Hampton ignored when
it said around Coakley landfill and company was
contaminated or could become contaminated?
The
state, the town, the feds were going to tell --
when were the state and the feds going to tell
us that our water was contaminated?
They knew,
but we didn't know.
Was we all going to die
one-by-one?
Why in 1984 did Senator Humphrey and
all public officials, state town and feds, get
up on Coakley landfill and tell everybody there
wasn't a problem, but -- and -- and the only
problem that there might be would be that the
residents of Lafayette Terrace was eating too
-------
. 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
16
19
-..--..
1
m~Qh p.~nut putter.
2
Why has there been no mention of,
3
culverts at the landfill that was taklng
chemicals away from the landfill by way of
4
5
w8tl~nds lntothe streams and into the ocean?
6
At one ot the fir.to meet.1.nga with tbe'
feds, why was a man h us.hed up that va. telling
of putting radioactive dust at. Coakley trom the
7
8
Navy Yard?
Why didn't you tell us -- why don't
you tell us everything and any~hing went into
coakley landfill after blow1nq ~p the bedrock,
includin9.,chemicals from as ~ar away a8 New
York.
YOU speak wlth a forked tODQue.
When ve were dri~k1D9 the
contaminated water, there was no health effect,
but now if we drink the water, there will be a
health eftect.
somebody 18 responsible for our
well-beinq.
It hasn't been the feds, the
20
state, or the town in which we-~1ve in North
21
Hampton.
22
You have a steering committee for the
23
responsible parties to steer them out of
30
JAN 11 . 95 14: 37
-------
1
u 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
liability when they should get a jail term.
You know, the human -- you know, the
society for the prevention of the cruelty to
animals gets more protection than the people"
did of Lafayette Terrace, and I want you to
know, I am dying, so it doesn't matter to me,
but Lafayette Terrace is not going to be my
cemetery or the cemetery of my family or the
cemetery of the residents who lived at
Lafayette Terrace.
MR. COUGHLIN:
Thank you, ma'am.
Elmer Sewall.
MR. SEWALL:
My name is Elmer Sewall,
and I am an advisor for the North Hampton
landfill site.
Let me further identify myself
as a landowner.
We own a 14 acre parcel in
North Hampton which is directly opposite from
the landfill site, and we own a 170 acre parcel
that is immediately adjacent to "the North
Hampton parcel and runs northerly and westerly
to Breakfast Hill Road.
We also have a 30 acre
parcel which abuts "the landfill property and is
situated approximately 11 to 12 hundred feet
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
from the landfill area.
And this runs to
2
Breakfast Hill Road.
3
I am deeply troubled with the
Now,
4
prospect of deed restrictions being placed on
5
my property.
As I regard this, it is
6
tantamount to saying there is virtually nothing
7
that I can do with my land, and as I see it,
8
such action would put the kiss of death on the
9
entire parcel, not the area under study.
I fear it would also hurt the values
of buildings and land that we own on the
opposite side of the road from the involved
land and is separated only by the road.
Now, in reviewing the history of the
Coakley -- the EPA -- this environmental news
bulletin makes the point that abutters on the
northeast, southeast, and south are served by a
public water line and shall provide relief to.
owners affected by the contamination.
With the
public water line in place, further development
"
would be possible.
And land ~se would be less
restricted.
I would like to point out that there
-------
1
If 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
. 21
22
23
i~ no public water line on Breakfast Hill Road
a~d we do not have such relief.
I have tried to cooperate with the
state of New Hampshire and the EPA and the
responsible parties for 11 years while they
have been, quote, ~tudying, unquote, the
problem, and have not as yet done any actual
clean up.
My land has been used by them at no
cost for 11 years for their studies, and now we
are being told that they will be using it for
another 11 years for what I see is a giant
filtration system to attenuate the groundwater
contamination.
Not only that, but now we are
told that it will be a cloud cast over all our
properties in the form of deed restrictions
which will probably last far beyond my life
expectancy.
Enough I say.
It is time for some
sort of compensation.
My retirement has
already been constrained because of the
inability to dispose of my property due to the
proximity of Coakley.
My hopes for aidinq in
the education of my grandchildren are abated.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
I don't wish to become uncooperative.
2
I don't wish to make a fortune in damage
3
awards.
I merely seek to be in as good a
4
position as I was in before the landfill came
5
into existence.
6
I have lost the sale of property on
7
three occasions.
Prospective buyers could not
8
obtain bank loans.
Imagine what it would be
9
like getting bank loans with a deed restriction
in place.
Now, I propose two possible
solutions.
The cost of either would be a mere
pittance when compared to the millions already
spent.
Or in fact it would be less than the
difference in the cost between MM-4 and MM-2.
The first proposal is simple.
Extend.
the public water line down Breakfast Hill Road.
The second proposal would be in several parts.
A, the EPA should require the
responsible parties to delineate by survey by a
registered surveyor the area where contaminated
groundwater exists, plus all surrounding areas
where monitoring needs to be done, plus
-------
1
\) 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
() 22
23
whatever is consicered necessary to be marked
off as a safety zone, and that this area be
marked off by fe~cing or some other acceptable
means.
B, the EPA require the responsible
parties to buy the land, the price to be
determined by good faith negotiations with the
landowners involved.
C, if the responsible parties or
designated representatives hold title to the
land as long as the monitoring and clean up
activities continue, that when contamination
has abated to an acceptable level and
monitoring is no longer necessary, that the
land shall be deeded to the respective towns as
conservation land and wildlife refuge in
perpetuity.
Indeed, the EPA issue to the
landowner a statement to the effect that as a
result of their exhaustive studies and to the
best of their knowledge and belief,
contamination from the Coakley landfill is not
nor is deemed likely to in the future affect
the remainder of our lands.
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15 .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
In addition to the above comment, I
2
ask you to direct your a~tention to the
3
question of contamination as it mayor may not
4
involve our property on the northeast side of
5
Coakley property.
As you know, this land
6
fronts on Breakfast Hill Road, runs from the
7
former Coakley house westerly to the railroad
8
and hence southerly along the railroad to a
9
point approximately 11 or 12 hundred feet from
the formal landfill.
A lot of surface water is
running off the Coakley property on to our
property.
To a less knowledgeable person such
as me, it would seem probable to be bringing
contaminants with it.
Do you find this to be
true and is this property also included in that
area in which deed restrictions "are to be
proposed?
One of the earlier investigations
done at GZIIO, GZlll and GZl12 and GZ133 was
placed upon "this piece of land and shows small
amounts of, I believe, chloromethane, but I
have seen no tests of this well for several
years.
If this has not been done recently,
-------
1
2
I)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~)
23
could it be sampled so that we may know its
present status?
Also I would be interested in
the status of well number GZ111 as it is on the
Coakley property, but only 20 feet away from my
property line. Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you, sir. That
is all the cards that I have. Is there anybody
else who would like to make a statement for the
record?
All right.
As I previo?sly said, I
would recommend and encourage you to send. us
written comments if you would like to for the
rest of the comment period.
We heard at least
one and perhaps two requests for extensions of
that comment period.
We will take those back
and consider that and get back to you.
I am
obviously not in a position to rule on that,
but we will take up those requests.
".
I would also like to request of you.
who did make a request tonight to send a letter
direct to steve Calder's position so we will
have something we can officially act on.
We
will take that request and consider it
-------
1
immediately.
2
If there are no other statements,
3
then I will declare the hearing closed.
As I
4
said in the beginning, steve and I will stay if
5
you have any questions and you want to come up
6
front and discuss those.
Thank you.
7
(The public hearing was adjourned at
8
8:30 p.m.)
-------
1
2
u
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
C E R T I F I CAT E .
I, John G. Kinchen, a certified Shorthand
Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate transcript of my
stenographic notes of the hearing, taken at the
place and on the date hereinbefore set forth.
I further certify that I am neither
attorney nor counsel for, nor related to or
employed by any of the parties to the action in
which this hearing was held, and further that I
am not a relative or employee of any attorney
or ~ounsel employed in this case, nor am I
financially interested in this action.
THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS
TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION
OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE
DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE
CERTIFYING REPORTER.
-------
ATTACBMEN'r D
GUIDANCE AND OTHER DOCtJ'HEN'rS ON INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
AND RESIDEN'r:IAL PROPERTY AT SUPEUtrND SITES
-------
u
~~.I~~il~II~~~II~lf~~~~jfI1~il~I~I!;'11!1\~~[ilt~~LtiJt.~~'~,,:~".."
::'.: : ': :.:::.:::~:::~~:i:;:::": :::::=>;.' ';:"':::'.:'~:(:J:' .:+::..:.': :::.:fs,;.:::' "':,::::.:,::::.:,::::/':ii::::,=:.:..;:'::;'[/; :~;:Cr:::::::,:,':i~::;:0::1.i:;~!j:~:ii~:~:;::i~t;;;f,;~:~;:~;~t,~~}:~~.:.;ra.~{~~!.l.~~~.::... J.').~~~
..:. '::.":..',.... ..:.: '.. NSTITUTJONAL ONTROLS..;~::r:;i:~:::.::,:.:::::~:.::.:-'~,>,;;:::::;:::
%.::d~f:~*TOOLS AND PROPOSED IAfP!EMENTATIONPRIXES
~~i;~I~;f.if~}I!~{ii~fI.;i;iif}1~~:;ij~i2€f;i:~:i~I);}J::fu@ft@Si~~~;;~~~3t~~!~~~:: .
.'
. ,".:."
.. .'
. .
....
..',.. .".'",,'
." "," ".",'
. . ....
.",",
April, 1991
(\..tURRA y LA~fONT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1660 WyrJtoop. Suite 1060. Dc:1vcr. CoJando 80202
-------
u
CI'J -
! I'! 5 i~ !.' ~ I ; ~ j I
" I "-':- ~ '1 ! z- ~
! len!~ic:.tu; i ~ ~~u ~.
,,, ;s (/) J z It a: ',:, Cl. ~. 0 'i< en f i Z ~ ~I- ; CIJ
\II ; Z i 0 I I- i::> ;; Z ~ I- ~ Z ~ 0 ~z" I- ~
W ;. 0 t i= i CI'J ~ CI'J ~ < ~ z ~ 0 ,. z ~ ;W i Z ~
(J) ~ i= i u ~ w ~ c: ~....J ~. ~ I j:: i::> LL. ti::E t W ~
::;) iu i 1: I~ a: ~.~w i u. I w 10 I u.a: ~ ;~ i
-J ic: Iii t; ffi l~ ! OU) j ~ I~ . ~~~io 19: ~
:. '. ~ I ~ .. ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ 6 I ~ I ~ «~~ ~ ~~ 5 ~
INSTITUTJONAr->. J- ~ c: w I ~ r I- ~:E 0 ~< z I Q. I a: en ::E"~ I W ~
CONTROLS .. . (",':) ..- . z : CI'J i CI'J i 0 t .. Cl. z w ~ : a: ~
I , .. w;j CI'J ;.::> ti Z ". ;-; "a: ~ .....J.' ~ i C3 < > !z I a: !
. J- ~u..: go f ::> !.:a: ~ I ~ I as 0 ~ ~< dt ~
:! u I' < to a: ;'='....I i:> < < '. £2 . < ::;) W ... ;;.~ i;::> ~
TOOLS . Q. ~.< t....J i. ~t< i::E~! >:::; :':Cl.:E~)C: ;~ r
. ! ~ : i i: ,,; ! I ~ i «
",,;~::::;,{,,~:-:':;:':;"~,:;;"::..;.:.:.'5~.:.:.:*'!-t.;.:.:::........"'!r...~~~~::::~;:;:;..;:::t;z.;::~."W'''''''''''''';;;'N",,:*....,.~~t::.~z;;:;;''''''''''''.~~~;::.~t%::~r-~~:}::.;.;;:::~j~....~.............,.,~~~.'-'~"'''-''-''-':i.''''-'~':~::;i"~~~~;:'r'~''~~
REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN LAND ~ i i t~ ~) i i i i:i ~
INClUOING EASEMENTS. DEVELOPMENT ;;.& .'GiA~ A "'.~: ~.i IA ~ fA1 I .f~(~.:.
RIGHTS. FEE OWNERSHIP OR RESTRICTIONS ;,-,.;s~. V ;.: ~ Vi:tI ~ i'WJ ~: ;\g,
INCL UDING COVENANTS ~ i. i i ~ ~. i. i $ ~
;;;,.::;.:.::;:....;. . ;..;....;;;...~.,:.:.:.:..:.:.~:;:::;;::;i..',~$."t:':::":"'i~:':.>'M$.'''':''';';.;';''=;:<;'''~''''':$.''''::;::i~'~';:~';'';':;:;'~::;,~.:;~"w;.;..~.;~>;:~;::,:',«;~:~.;:;:;.:;",.i:.:.:.....::';;:,;.:,~;~f.:;~~~\r..'I''i'~':*':~i::!q':m:%~;;:1::~..~'z~,;;;:J
LAND USE REGULA TIONS ~ fA¥. ; ~ ! ~ ~. ; i ~
INCLUDING ZONING. FlOOD PLAIN I iV;; ~ ~:: . t I i ~ te:':
=;:~T,o~w~~~~=~+-i+t...i~i=W~="~
FOR PUBLIC USES AND/OR GOVERNMENTAl'~ .,:. .~ *<. :~ i i !. ;;,;.;:1...
~:~~~~.'~~~EO~~~~~~I~~~~~NG ;0~t/); i 0;81 I 0 ;e~1
! ~ i t i ' I' I. ~ ~ ~
~ y;; - * .:~. I I ~:« ~
!~f~~~~~~~~;~~I-'fG~~~8Tll8T.rl
i - , i i ~ 'I I . . j .'. ) . i
~,.:o.~:.>x.y:.,.. ':"»M-'7:<-:.....~:-:.~-::t:-"*~'''''.~~~~~''~~~~*a~~~~~~{-~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)C4O"" ...~~ .:ul~~l""""'''~~
'MAST ER""p'LA'NNi'NGw "0 .- '!' .~. I" r ~ ~ r4);. I' . re':1.~
~,::,,~,:,:,;::";::o',"::'::"'...:<.o...;<:Z:;;;Z:ii:iZ"';;;"~~',.:A~:.I.'~",==,,~"""'~=,,~~";"'.o:;:o<~'~"""'.;!;;"i~~..:K~~~~"-""'~~:;~~i,;.::.~""~~'~'.~:~-,~"".,.",.,J
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES/INSURANCE ~ i. i i. i !f:8: i.;
~~:~.~~~~~:=::=~ti1;:lljJ~b"!~
FINANCIAL POOLS i ! ~ ;¥. { ~ i i i" ~ *
INCLUDING ESCROWS. TRUSTS. DEPOSITS. ~ ~ I ! ~ i i ~ !. ..! I
BONDS."FOR SUPPORT OF DEDICATIONS TO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ! ~ ~ () ~;A:~ ~
PUBLIC FACILITIES. CONTINGENCIES. ~.' f-.= ; 1 :~; ~ if ~ 1~'5; ~;.'W1 ~
'" - - '" -. I:< ~ "." ~
ASSURANCES ~ - ~ i ~. j t ~. ~ ~ i
.. ~ '- ;r i. ~ ~ J t J ~
; r<: iii .> ~ 11. Ii ~ ,"";<
'.';'",P '\. .', :'. "":""::;'" .~-::-:. :,:;:,~:':'~-;::-;::::,:,,~::"'.;~:.:" ~ :~:.;.;.:.t~::~:.::::.::.::;~~;::..~.;;.;:::-:-::":..-"",:.~".-, :::.,,:':::'; ":' .:' .::'.".-.'.: :,:,~:"}:':'" .,.;.::' '~-:.:.::;:,:.:.:.:~:.;..::::f>~::;:;::.:~.:.:..::i~::;:;.~!,,:~ ,,:.:.:.:~~~~~:..:;;-.z~<~:+;:~~:!,:::~";"$~',~,~:~"::-:~:';~~:r~..':':':\;;~,:.~:;~.i::;':;::::::~::~M1
CLARK FORK
SUPERFUND
SITES
':
,,;.
,
1
"'
, ~~ 'C~ES. ~OL:.CWING "AGe
-------
Footnotes to Matrix of
Institutional Controls
.
Application of these, and other institutional controls tools will
normally depend on site-specific characterjstics of areas,
includin; the land and water, and their location and situation.
Typically the institutional controls are used in combination with
each ot~er and together with treatment and engineering measures.
Depe~ding on the particular institutional control, cooperation or
action and commitment may be required among some of the
followin;:
A PRP
County/town
Citizens group
State of Montana
Fores~ Service/Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Protection A;ency
Other private entities such as banks, insurance
companies, etc.
Murray La:ont « Associates, Inc.
-------
~:
Institutional Controls Tools tor'
Clark Fork S~?ertund Sites
Montana
Real property interests in lane, including ease~ents, deed
restrictions, development rights and ownership
Descr ipt ion: A var':ety 0: opt ions exist to acquire ane/or control
property rig~ts at a site or areas surrounding a site for the
purpose of limiting access, controlling eevelopcent, providing
butter areas, or controlling groundwater use. First, ownership of
property may be transferred to a governroental or quasi-
governmental entity, accountable to the public for use of the
proper~y. Second, t~e owner of t~e property may give an easement
or transfer the development rights to a public entity or some
other person which would limit development of the site. Third,
an owner may impose on his property a covenant restricting the
uses to whic~ he can put his lane. '
An important'aspect for the citizens is that their interests are
best protectec by p:acing a degree of control in a public body.
Imple:entat1on: All o~ t~ese tools are generally imple=entable
under Montana law, providing there is agreement among t~e various
parties. These tools would typically re~ujre the coope:ation of
the current land owner, although in some instances the
~oneemnation power of the State may ~e available. It :ay,be
r.ecessary to.creafe-r.ew le;al entities for the p~rpose of holding
property rjg~ts. !t may also be necessary to provide limited
financial resources and assurances for ongoing management of the
conta~inated properties to entities to whom property interests
would be transferred.
Enforcement: If properly i~plemented, these property interests
run with the property and would be enforceable against the owner
of the "burdened" property, either 1n an action for damages or
for an injunction to enforce the restrictions. Who the person or
entity 1s who can enforce the restriction depends on how the
. restriction is set up, and in whose favor.
"The Test of Time": If properly implemented these property rights
are independent of ownership and run with the property until they
are abandoned or terminated or until they become purposeless.
Involvement by a public entity such that that entity has the
power of enfo~cement may assure that the restrictions are
continued for as lon; as they are in the public interes~.
Murray Lamont &,Associates, Inc.
-------
Institutional Controls To01s tor
Clark Fork Superfund Sites
Montana
Land use regulations, including zoning, develop~ent pe~mit
systems, and subdivision regulations, flood plain regulations, or
development regulat~ons.
Description: Land ,use regulations are systems of coun~y and/or
town laws and regulations that limit or shape allowed land uses
in the county or town. Zoning is the most com:on form of land
use regulation, and is used by many cities and towns in the
State. Recently, so~e local gove~nments have adopted an
alte~native to zoning co~~only known as a "development permit
system". Few counties in Montana are zoned or have adopted a
development permit system. Land use regulations can explicitly
identify allowed land uses for specific sites, or as in the case
of a development per:it system, set forth a set of criteria and a
process for determining allowed uses for any site in the county
, or town.
Imple~entation: Land use regulations, including zoning and
development pe~mit system~ are imple~ented by adoption of local
laws passed by the local govern~ent. It may be necessary to have
a master plan before a local gove~ning.body can adopt such laws.
These laws usually can be adopted or changed by a simple majority
vote of elected officials.
Enforce:ent: Land use re~Jlations are enforced by the local
government which adopts the pertinent law. Most often
enforce~ent actions are initiated by citizen complaint or by the
conditions stated on the permit of a developer. Then the proper
authorities of the town or county have the power to prevent or
remedy the illegal act or to seek penalties against those
violating the law. Withholding grading, foundation or building
permits is the process ~f enforcement when a new development or
major 'redevelopment 1s proposed and the proposal do~s not meet
the local requirements.
liThe Test of TimeD: Land use regulations adopted by governing
bodies as local law usually require a simple majority, and can be
changed by future bodies with a majority vote. Publjchearings
are required. Their strength rests with the level of community
support that holds elected officials responsible for the
commitment.
Murray La~ont « Associates, Inc.
-------
In8~itut!on.l CQntrol. Tool. tor
Clark Pork Superfund Sites
Montana
()
Dedication of Lands for public ~ses a~d/or governmental
mana~ement, includin~ ope~ space, parks, lakes, greenway strips
along river, etc.
Description: Privately owned lands, or real property interests
therein, are often dedicated to publica~encies for the purpose
of serving a public benefit. For instance, local roads
constructed by a private developer in a new subdivision are
typically dedicated to the town or county for their management
and maintenance. This may also be an option for certain lands in
a cleanup program. This could be the case for lands that have
the potential for public benefit. And, it may allow for a future
land use that makes possible a particularly advantageous cleanup
option,. like cappin~ a landfill site, whereby future land use
must be restricted to preventpe~etration of the site. It may
. also make possible f~ture custodianship by a public body, thereby
brin~ing the public interest directly into the picture.
Imple~entation: Such arrange~ents must be mutually agreed- upon
by the land owner a~~ a p~blic body who will undertake future
~ana~e~ent of a site. It may require the public body be provided
financial ass~rances agai~st co~taminant-related liabilities.
The public body must find a public benefit in accepting dedicated
lands, and may require a commit~ent of resources, or other
provisions for carrying out future custodial or manage~ent
responsibilities.
Enforcement; The public body's commit~ents- for future manage:ent
of a site can be spelled out in a contract with the party
dedicating the site. In some co=~unities, once park land is
dedicated, a public vote is required to change the land use. If
part of a master planned development, like a river greenway
program, open space or parks pro~ram, public involvement would be
substantial, and public-pressure would enhance enforcement of the
contracts. Issues of continuing protection of the environment
may be enforce~ by EPA, and the State, through the applicable
laws or contractual arran~ements, and typically notice of
violations would be based on complaints filed by citizens or
environmental groups.
"The Test of Time": Public management or custodianship of lands
will ultimately follow the demands of the citizenry through the
elective process. These ce~ands can change over time, but will
normally be most fundamentally driven by the public interest.
Once the land is dedicated to a public entity, tbe public entity
has a contrac~ual obligation concerning future management of the
land.
Murray La=ont & Associates, Inc.
-------
Institutional Controls Tools tor
Clark Fork Superfund Sites
~ontana
Financial Assurances/Insurance
Description: These a~e methocs of ensuring that parties who are
not Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) in a cleanup, but who
might play some role in remediation, or use a site after
re:ediation, are assured that they will not be financially
responsible for environmental impair~ent resulting from the
contamination. Fina~cial ass~rances
may be through a contractual agreement with the PRP or Insuran~e .
may be acquired via premiu: pay:ents paid by the PRP, and based
on actuarial risk.
Implementation: Contracts would be used to provide financial
assurances to a non-PRP. Insurance could be obtained through an
ins~rance underwriter or financial institution, who is able to
shew suffi.cient financial strength to cover all potential
liability. .
Enforcement: Enforce=ent would ce through standard legal
previsions for breach of contract, and/or proof of insurance
pre. :ed by the ins~rer. Legal remedies for breach of contract
may lnclude damages and speci~ic performance requirements. The
beneficiaries of t~e financial assurances would be responsible
for ensuring the contract, and/or insurance remains in force.
"The Test of Time": A contract would be valid until terminated.
It cay depend on the flnancial strength of the party providing
the financial assurances. Insurance would remain in effect so
long as premiums were paid. Pre:iums could be prepaid. A trust
fund could be created to ensure sufficient money would be
available in the event of breach of contract.
.,
Murray Lamont & Associates, Inc.
-------
Institutional Cc~trols Tools tor.
Clark Fork Su~erfund Sites
Mon~ana
Special Legislation to p~ohibit C~ reg~la~e activities like well
drilli~g, cevelop~ent, etc.
Description: Special State legislation has been used in other
states to create special institutional controls such as
grou~cwater manaqe~ent zones. These are delineated geographic
areas in which certain activities (well 'd~illing) must be
permitted, or may be completely p~ohibited by State law. A
similar concept of legislation mi;ht designate a river course,
anc buf:er lands as a protected a~ea in which developcent
act;v:~:~~ are lim~~rl to serve flood and open space interests.
Having declared that an area woul: be protected in this way, a
broade~ range of advantageous re~eciatio~ options may be
avai~able, because of the land use restrictions inherent in the
State law.
Special legislation could also be local. Such legislation would
~ave to fall within the powers 0: loca: governme~t in Montana and
be acopted according to local laws.
.!mple:entat' ; . Special State leg~slatio~ would iequi~e
ide~ti:ication of a public benefit, obtaining local anc a certain
degree c~ statewide sUppo~t, possibly substantia! educational ~~d
lobbying efforts, and could take se~eral years to gain passage of
a measure. Fo~ local legislation, less ti~e probably would be
re~~ired.
Enforcecent: There would be the ferce of State and/or local law,
and also possibly local administrative or regulatory'
responsibilities. New local responsibilities may need to be
funded in order to be effective. The precise method of
enforce~ent would likely depend on the natu~e of the law. For
example. groundwater management zone enfo~ce~ent is achieved
through a well-drilling permitting system. Violations would. be
discovered through complaints, or inspections.
"The Test of Time": Once established, and funded. public programs
tend to become institutionalized. In order to be effective'
public programs must be properly fun~ed. State and local laws
can be changed. though they will tend to hew to the public
inte~est t~rough a political process;
Murray La:ont « Associates. Inc.
-------
Institutional Controls Tools tor
Clark Fork Superfund Sites
Mc~tana
Master Planning
Description: ~aster planning is a local government process
designed to set forth a town's or region's future direction,
addressing development, redevelopment, investment in
infrastructure. public a~enities, and other actions, including
setting priorities, assigning responsibilities, and designating
funding.. Master plans are long range in outlook, but usually
also address near ter~ actions. Such plans o~ten identify
general land uses that should occur in certain locations, but are
not speciflc like a zoning map would be.
Implementation: Master plans are generally created with
significa~t co~~unity involvement over several months. or even
years. . T~e public agency (towr., county) is in charge. and the
plan is its responsibility to create. adopt and administer. For
a master plan to serve as useful in remediation of contaminated
sites. a concept that shows how the cleanup relates to broad
issues 0: public interest must be offered during t~e planning
process.
Enforcement: Master plans the~selves rarely carry the force of
law. They are guidelines for adoption of more specific programs
(like zoning, development regulations. a bond issue, or a budget
allocation) that may be local laws. .
"The Test of Time": A master plan can set the stage for a concept
that is subsequently put into a specific action program. Master
plans t~emselves change over time as conditions change. and they
are updated. The value is measured by the level of community
commitment and agreement that exists with regard to the concepts
in the plan. A master plan widely understood and endorsed by the
community can have a long term effect and force over time by
virtue of such endorsement.
"
Murray Lamont & Associates. Inc.
-------
Institutional Control. Tool. tor
Clark Fork Superfund Sites
Montana
Contract~al Agree~ents
Description: A contract is a legally enforceable agreement
between pa~ties who agree to perform or refrain from performing
certain acts. Any of the major players in the Montana
re:ediatlon, ARCO.. Montana Resources, a town, county, the State,
etc. could enter into contracts with any or all of each other
regarding land transfe~s, future land uses, access restrictions,
phasing cleanup or public improvements, or other issues including
management of re~ediated lanes.
Implementation: The cont~act itself. is simply a signed ag~eement
among the parties.. A contract may be only part of a broader set
of public/private ag~ee~ents as to how certain responsibilities
or lands will be handled in the remediation. Thus substantial
negotiations may be r.ecessary amongst the key parties.
Enforcement: Breach ot cont~ac~ constitutes grounds for legal
action. Such action would have to be initiated by one of the
parties to the contract. Da=ages and/or specific pe~for~ance are
re~edies that may be availabl~
"The Test of Tl~en: A cont~act would remain in effect until
te~=inated by the parties. ~o be effective, parties must monitor
pe~for~ance, and parties mus: be financially capable of handling.
their responsibilities.
Murray ra~ont & Associates, In:.
-------
Institutio~al Controls Tools tor
Clark Fc:k Superfund Sites
Monta~a
Financial Pools, including escrows,
trusts,
deposits,
bonds, etc.
Description: These a~e a va:iety of forms of financial resources
that would be held by a disinteres~ed third party until or if .
certain terms and conditions of interest to the original parties
occur. Such resources could be used to e~sure the involvement of
a public agency, or other ~a~ty.in post-remediation lane uses,
where there is some u~certainty as to fut~re financial demands or
other contingencies that might arise for management, land sales
prices, costs for o~erating responsibilities, or the like. The
financial pool would be available to address enumerated needs or
contingencies per a contractual agreement, such as between a PRP
and a public body, or othe~ entity involved.
v
Imple:entation: There are ~any standard methods for trusts,
escrows, etc. using financial institutions, including most banks
in Montana. The financial resources would be made available
. pursuant to a contractual a~:eement possibly between a PRP and a
public body whereby the public e~tity takes on certain
respo~sibilities. More impo:tantly, the creation of' a financial
pool probably would be a s=all part 0: ~ i.roader agree~ent a~ong
all the affected parties involved in t~~ remediation, and
involved in afteruse of re:e~iated lands.
Enforcement: There are standard legally enforceable measures
s imi lar to the remedies for breach of contract. (See 'glossary. )
~ost banks have trust cepart:ents whose function it 1s to manage
such funds pursuant to the terms of the escrow or trust
agree=ent. This would normally be formed under contract, and be
subject to all the laws that govern a trustee's responsibilities.
"The Test of Time": These measures may not be dependent on the
financial resources of the party creating the pool. Once created
"pay-in" could be phased so that financial soundness may be an
issue, or prepaid so it would not. This would be negotiated
among the parties at the outset.
n
Murray Lamont & Associates, Iac.
-------
iJ
Ste=, 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step S
POSSIBLE STEPS lOR
APPLICATION 01 INSTITU~!ONAL CONTROLS
IN CtA~~ FORK SUPERFUND SITES MONTANA'
9ased on the nature of a g:ven site, including
contamination, location. ptysical characteristics such
as slope, flood plair., topcg~aphy, etc., and possible
effectiveness 0= various a~proaches to remediation,
deterMine general options and critical limitations for
future land uses for each site in question.
Determine community land use needs, in light of the
opportunities and limitations afforded by the site(s).
These may be public needs, including for example
recreational uses such as parks, greenways,
recreational water courses, ... or economic development
needs, and/or private needs such as development sites
at certain locations, or 0= a certain size, etc. To
some extent this infor~ation may be available from
existing local master plans or developed as part of the
".creation of a new master plan. However, there cay be
opportunities present that were not previously
considered whe~e cleanup has been narrowly construed.
!r. cooperatior. with the cOl:!lunity, tocns in on the
desirable end use options for the sit) based on
physical/environ~ental possibilities and areas of
greatest community need.
most
Werking toward the most desirable end use options
identified in Step 3, evaluate the potential
application of institutional controls, to complement
treatment and engineering technologies. Do this to
~aximize..the land use benefits, public and private,
taking into account the mandate of environmental
protection. (See matrix 0= example institutional
controls and their potential uses on the following
page.) Use of the matrix together with the background
of Steps 1-3 will permit a narrowing of viable options
with a specific purpose in mind.
Implementation by ARCO and State/local governments, as
required, of the necessary actions over a phased period
to make physical improvements, including Superfund
cleanup and the companion improvements aimed at the
public benefit, and adopt needed institutional
controls.
: '!'hese general steps delineate a joint process with the
affectec co~~unities to gain agreeme~t on certain end land uses
that then ~akes it possib~e to determi~e the most advantageous use
of institutional controls.
Murray ta=ont « Associates, Inc.
-------
SIMPLIFIED SUPERFUND PROCESS
"',,' '..: ", . '.~"~:"...' ....~.":.:....... ". ',:...::..~....~.,;...."t;;..~'
, ,', "PREUWNAJ1X ASSESSMEN.TI Srr.~/?i;,
',","" ',"'" 'l\.iS~CT1'-"'H 10A':'C')"";:'~;'."'~~:::;;':'"
. '.'.:~'. ..~ ..:, a' r:,S;; fVl' \T:.~~ ...~t;.:~~;~~.,.~~.:..
.. '''';.. .' .";,.:':: . '........', .~~",:o,,". ~.'::< .".'. ......A"'''''':'''''',~'.<~~.""....
;o~-...,. ............... "'" ..,- .. :'10:0.- a.v..
;oq,;o ....-........ -IT ~ -.......,
..': :::~.~:;'.:~i:: :'''." t ':~::. '".: .,': ~Z;f':;:>:(.~~~":~~~:~ ::(~:;;;h~~:":~f:'~,,;. t~::~~'~":i$i:~~~:'G~;4~<~
',:,:,:' HAZARDo'UsR.MOONGiod~A TIONAt:t
'::':};':iii::~:~:;:,."",,~,,~~~;~,~~,:,~~~~t~~~!j~J:i1~i~~~:
a_E~
. -.""c.a: ~.""'iI ,. ~9" """"9~, N........;o"""", L.8I
:s~..I\CI,: .u - ....- II. '-:c "roo.oa"
.~..~ ;'0;""".
~
, ,
: ~:. ::', . . :. . ~:.:.: :"". ," ',. : <-:.::;:' <.:::~::.:::::..~.:.;::..... '.::-;'" '::~::~:~":'.f:,::~~~r;:~~
", RE:U,", VAL ACTiONS n::~ I CA}""::~':\A:,r~1
.;';" ",~~ : ,..':-::::;" ',,:: :.:, :.::,;::,.:.:::::::;?:'.\:::;:,:.:.,;:;::::..~;.;:~;:,;:~~::::::~\~:':
~e"""I:'\,-a.: cO"'s a... .......-..:.z. ~O""S ~:woo to 01
.......,.,..", ...~ r.'I8 s:"q. :>.~ :R; ,'1'$)
',' ,"
,,,
~..
..
"
ii~=:&~~
"
., "'" '"'''''''.''''' ""."'''''' .-.
... '...... '''..'''''-, .-'-" ..,.. ....
':,M~~~ l I~~,:", Jr"~(,;,.":,~"",~~,,,',,,:',FEA,":::;,:;{,;,::,i,:,.~,:Sj,:,:;;;,:",r,/JUTY,r,i;,:ifi,'i,i:,::,:;',;~
," ':""';:':"::"""':"':' , "
II"..,.,,. '.~ ..~- &,..: '~"caI.'&I\&Ir'!e&! ~".."
Us".;'!' 1,5 J'U'S ""'30- C"--..c: .'"""'1:1 -..,..,
'......co.., "..c!y~.., ..., ;.1.... ._fo8d :or £114.
1. LA.'1> USE OPTIONS &: LIMIT A TIO~S
'. '.'.
, ,
"
; ::;~.:,,:,
"
2. CO~fl.j'NITY LAo'ItD USE NEEDS
"";:.'" ,;.. ..,:..:. /i::;'::.~~,:,:'
:~ i:':: ':;i,:i'~::i:::i~f::~,i';:!',::,;::i:~~;~':~i~:,t
,':::/!j:i;:~):;:;i"':~"Tf,P~#,::9~,'R~f.i:~B~~1,5!i;lfII~ ,',i;%r
),~::~~~:"
;';.':;
:..."
3, DESIRABLE E.'ItD.USE OPTIONS
,..
4. INS11TL'TIONAl CONnOLS NEEDED
5. IMPlE.'dE."IT A TION
p~c dcII:a.t"8rI N ...".. -1oIO~,
:,:'.";"
.,..','.:;',
.' . ',.' ,
",RE~tEbfA'L'bE~jREME,b.,~;AGii~:,
' ,',',?:;;;/~,:?E::":;::::::::::::'.":::,i',,:' .,)~~ ,fiJ\) ','::::,)\r,,:'::'~;(t:~~:,::;:;t:ti$
... ,.
0.
E"'9-~ ;01'»8 18OII.~ d~...... M'
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
CLARX FORX SUPERFUND SITES MONTANA
Breach of Contract: Violation of any of the ter:s or co~diticns
of a contract without legal excuse; default; nonperfor~ance.
Depending on the ter:s 0: the contract jnvolved, the nonbreaching
party to the contract may seek one of three possible alternative
remedies upon a material breach of the contract: rescission of
the contract, action for mo~ey damages, or an action for specific
perfor:::ahce.
Contract: A legally enforceable agreeme~t betwee~ competent
parties who agree to perfor: or refrain froe performing certain
acts for a co~sideration. In essence, a contract is an
enforceable pro~ise.
Covenant: An agree:::ent or promise betwee~ two or more parties in
which a party or parties pledge to perfor~ or not to perror:
specified acts on a property that, under certain circu:::stances,
is enforceable against purchases of the property affecte~ by the
covena~t. A ~ove~a~: a:so cay be a written agreecent t~at
specifies certain uses or nonuses of the property. Covenants are
'found i~ such real estate documents as leases, mortgages,
contracts for deed, and dee~s. Da~ages may be claimed for breach
of a t;ovenant.
Developeent Permit System: A form of land use regulation that
sets criteria ana stancarcs that must be attainec by any of a
variety of land uses to be allowed in certain locations. Such
standards would typically address issues that relate to a
community's objectives in regard to compatability of uses,
safety, environmental protection, economic viability, design,
aesthetics, etc. .
Development Rjghts: The rights a landowner sells to another to
develop and improve the property.
Easement: A property interest that one person (the benefited
party) has in land owned by another (the burdened party),
entitling the holder of the interest to limited use or enjoyment
of the other's land. An easement is an actual interest in land.
Accordingly, the grant of an easement must be in writing, usually
in the form 0: a separate deed or a reservation in a deed.
Escrows: The process by which money and/or documents are held by
a disinterested third person until the satisfaction of the ter~s
and conditions of the escrow instructions (as prepared by the
parties to the escrow). Whe~ these terms and conditions of the
,escrow i~structjor.s have been satisfied, the escrowed fu~ds and
documents are celivered as specified in t~e escrow instr~ctions.
Murray La=ont & Associates, Inc.
-------
Fee (si~ple) Ownership: The =axi~~~ possible estate _one can
possess in real property. A fee s:~ple estate 1s the least
limited interest and the ~os~ co~~:ete and absolute ownership in
land; it is 0: inde:inite d~=atio~. freely transferable, and
inheritable. Fee s:~ple is ~he mest common for~ of ownersnip :or
all type of property.
Land Use Regulations: Gove=~~ental regulatory controls over the
use of private land includ:n; such measures as zoning, developcet
permit systems, subdivision regulations, sign codes, landscaping
ordinance, ... Land use re~~latio~ generally provides for no
compensation to the private landow~er.
Parties of Interest: The pri~cipals in a transaction or judicial
proceeding. For example, the buyer and seller-(not the broker)
are t~e parties to the sales contract; the plaintiff and
defendant are the parties to a lawsuit.
Subdivision Regulations: Gover~mental regulatory controls over
the division 0: tracts of la~d into lats, and for he provision of
public facilities necessary, including streets, utility rights of
way, park lands, open space, drainageways, etc.
Third Party: A person who is not party to a contract but who may
be affected by it; o~e who is not a principal to the transaction,
such as the broker or escrow agent.
Trustee: One who holds property in
the performance of an obli;a:ion~
trust
for another to secure
. .. .. -
Trusts: An arrangement where~y
transferred by the grantor (or
trustee, to ce held and-manage
another, called a beneficiary.
legal title to property is .
trustor) to a person called a
by that person for the benefit of
Zoning: The regulation of structures and uses of property within
designated districts or zones. Zoning regulates and affects such
things as use of the land, lot sizes, types of structure
permitted, building heights, setbacks, and density (the ratio of
land area to improvement area).
(:
Murray Lamont & Associates, Inc.
-------
u
'-
~~ <,p
; ft ~
~~~ffi
~ ~
t"""" 1f'
.~. _t..
. PR..'-
UNliEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGiON, D.C. 2~6V
JUL 2 7 1992
¥.~ORJ._~Du"M
OF;:ICE ~;:
G~NE AAI. ~UNSCL
Su"B.:TECT:
Use of Ins~itutional Controls at Superfund Sites
&-
F~OM:
David F. Cou:sen, At~orneY-Advisor
TO:
Howard F. Corcoran, Associate General Counsel
Grants, Clai:s and Intergover~en~al Division
I. Introduction
Institutional controls (ICs) are res~rictions on the use of
land. As applied to CERCLA, their pUrpose is to reduce the
dangers to the public frc~ a Superfund release. ICs may be used
ins~ead of or in addition to ac~ive response measures such as
treatment or physical or engineering controls. ICs may operate
by broadly preventing activities at or near a site or through a
narrow, specific restriction, such as res~ricting use of
contaminated groundwater.
The NCP sets out nA's expectation that ICs "shall nOt
substitute for active response measures ... (that actually
reduce, minimize, or eli~inate contamination] as the sole remedy
unless such measures are deter:ined not to .be practicable, based
on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is
conducted during the selection of r~edy." .40 CFR
S 300~430(a) (1) (iii) (D). Nevertheless, where active remediation
is not practicable, ICs may be "the only means available to
provide for protection of human health." 55 Feel. Reg. 8666, 8706
(March 8, 1990). However, where controls are the sole remedy,
"special precautions must be made to ensure. that the controls are
reliable." 55 Fed. Reg. at 8706. Controls may also be "a .
necessary supplement where was~~ is left in place as jt. i~-in---_~-
most respon~e ac.:ti.c.ns-" Md
1 The provisions of the NCP relating to institutional
.controls have been challenged in litigation concerning the NCP,
S~ate of Ohio et. ale v. U.S. EPA, Case No. 86-i096 (and
consolidated cases), contending, among other things, that
institutional controls may not be selected based on cost
considerations, and that institutional controls may never be the
sole remedy. As of the date of this memorandum, a decision has
not been issued in that case. }~iY decision could affect the
availability or usefulness of institutional controls in
particular cases.
J:-::. P. ..oJ -- -e:yr:'e" ::,-".
-------
--. 'WI I::::c:
"
2
The NC? coes nc~ ciso~ss or icentify the precautior.s neede: :
tc e~sure the relia=:lity of rcs. It coes specify, hewever,
t~at, in appropriate cases, the Age~cy cannot provide re~edial
action unless a state assures "that institutional controls
i=?le~ented as part of the re:ecial action are in place,
reliable, and .ill rs=ain in place after initiatio~ of operatio~
a~c 1:taintenance." 40 CF:R S 300.S10(c) (1). See, also, 42 tJ".S.C.
S 9504 (c) (3). "
An IC may fail if it is inadeguately designed or not fully
and effectivelv im~le=ented or if full and effective
i~?le~entaticr..cannot be maintained for the desired ti:e period.
For exa1:tple, an IC established ~s a restriction o~ land Use is
unlikely to be effective if the restriction is eli:inated, ,
reduced, or ignored. For this reason, it is critical to '
determine what mea$ures can be taken to maximize the
effectiveness of ICs. . It is equally critical to give careful
. consideration, early in the planning process, to the development
of appropriate controls that will meet the needs a~ the site
where' they are to be used.
Because a~ institutional control restricts the use of
property, it is possi~le that in some circumstances the
imple~entation of an IC may give rise to a cl~im that the control
effectively "takes" the property. Under the Fifth }..lrlendment, it
is entirely proper for government to take property, but when it
does so, it has the o=ligation to provide just compensation to
the property's ,owner. Meeting this obligation may increase the
cost of~the use of institutional controls.
II.
Types of ICs
, .
There are two fundamentally distinct types of ICs,' which
might be characterized as governmental and proprietary ~ontrols.
Governmental controls involve a state or local government using
~ts p~lice po.ers to i:pose restrictions on citizens or sites
under its jurisdiction. Proprietary controls involve property
owners u~inq their rights as owuers to control the use of~ or
access to, th~!;:~~E!.r~v. ~.h.e. t....~ i-ypes~:~nt~oi:s"'~:n:-b~
di~Qssea-separately, s~nce they d~ffer slqnlf~cantly In regard
to scope, reliability, and appropriate mechanis~s for
implementation.
"
- --. .. __00-_'
-------
. .
j)
..,
oJ
I!I.
Methods of I=~le~e~~ing ICs
A. Gcve=ncental Centro Is
As the NC? points o~t, institutional controls t!~ically are
u~likely to be im?le~ented by the Agency.z Governmental ICs, by
definition, involve restrictions that are generally within the
traditional police power cf state and local governments to impose
and e~force. Among ~~e ~ere common governmental institutional
controls are water and well use advisories' and restrictions,
well-drilling prohibitions, building permits, and zoning and
other land use restrictions.
In appropriate circ~stances, a state may provide EPA with
assurances concerning the continued effectiveness of a
goverrunental control.. Typically, the mechanism for providing
such an assurance will be a Superfund cooperative aq=ee~ent or
superfund State Contract (SSC) in which the state, pursuant to
CE~eLA S 104(c) (3), assures EPA that it will operate and maintain
a re~edy. In many cases, the continued enforce~ent of the Ie can
be c~aracterized as an as~ect of the effective o~eration and
maintenance (O&M) of a site. -
With a coope~ative ag=eement or sse in place, the state
retains whatever authority it has to alter ~r permit the
alteration of zoning or other use restrictions but is
contractually obligated to EPA to continue the controls to the
extent it has the authority to do so. Thus if the remedy fails,
EPA may be able (dependin; on applicable law), to pursue a breach
of contract claim against the state. The ultimate utility of
such an action may depend both on whether EPA prevails in the
action, and, if it does, on whether it could obtain specific
perfo~ance or would be limited to a da~ages remedy. .
However, states may have delegated the types of police power
that are needed for ICs to local governments, which often are not
parties to an agreement with EPA and are not required, under
. .
~- The united States has authority under CERCLA S l06(a) to
issue orders or take other appropriate actions "as may be
necessary to protect public health and the environment," if there
"may be an imminent and substantial endangerment." An order
issued under this authority may, in appropriate cases, require
the implementation of institutional controls by other parties.
.In addition, the order itself, to the extent it effective~y
restricts or prohibits certain land uses, may function as an
institutional control wit~ respect t~ the party to who~ it is
-------
4
C!?CLA, t~ give an O&M assurance. Since it is the sta~e t~at has
:ade t~e assura~ce, E?A's re=e~y for a failure of the control is
fro: the state, which :ay not have the legal authority to prevent
tte local gover~en~ fro~ actions that :ight lead to t~e failure
c: t~e IC, such as a c~ange in zoning regulations.
This arrar.ge~ent would appear to be less reliable than one
in which the sa:e entity that has the authority to maintain the
institutional control provides E?A with the assurance. To so~e
extent, this lack of reliability may be so~ething that
governmental Ies have in common with most other aspects of O&M at
a site; t!~ically, O&M is imple~ented by a local government,
although it is the state that has provided the O&M assurance.
If the local government fails to carry out activities necessary
to O&M", the state's O&M assurance would appear to obligate ~~e
state to step in. Nevertheless, while a state typically
possesses the legal authority to carry out O&M, it may not have
the legal authority t? impose an institutional control.
One approach to increasing the reliability of governmental
Ies is to create a direct contractual relationship bet.een E?A
and the governmental entity responsible for implementing and
enforcing the use restriction. In situations where ~~e state
proposes to have the local government implement O&M, arguably an
adequate assurance should 1nclude so~e commitment by the local
government toE?A in a three party agree~ent or to the state in a
separate agreement, that it will not reduce or eliminate the
" necessary use restrictions; the effectiveness of such a
co~itment will depend in part on the extent that the commit:ents
of the signatory govern:ent are binding on successive
governments. In so~e cases, this could be done in a three-party
sse or a cooperative agreement. Before entering into such an
agreement, Regional counsel should be consulted regarding the
re~edies available in the event of a breach.
" .
The most obvious application of this approach is to r~edial
actions; S 104(c) (3) expressly requires that, before E?A
provides remedial action at a site, the state in which the site
is located must provide certain assurance~i~cludi~__an
--a1;~trn:nc~-ornl Iu~ur.e maintenance i it"a. state will not prC)vide
this assurance, it may be difficult to implement institutional
controls. Where EPA is not providing r~edial action, some.
comparable method of formalizing a contractual relationship
bet.een EPA and the State or local government in which EPA
receives an assurance that the institutional control will r~ain
in place may be useful. Cf. 40 CFR 55 35.6200-6205 (authorizing
removal response cooperative agreements). The mere fact that
CEReLA does not require certain types of assurances in certain"
circumstances does not preclude the Agency from obtaining
assurances needed to maximize protection of ~ealth ~nd the
environment at the site.
-------
5
1'1
A less fcr:al, bu~ pe=~aps ~ore effe~~ive means of e~suri~g
t~e re:iability of t~is ty?e of control is to e:phasize obtaining
c~==~~i~y unders~anding of, and support for, the IC. A
co==~~ity's belief in the i=?or~ance and appropriate~ess of an
IC, c=uld, as a practical :atter, increase the likelihooc of
a~e~~a~e i~plementation of the control.
E. Pr~?rietary Controls
~nere governme~tal authority is not the basis for an
institutional control, property ow~ership must be. For example,
a consent agreement under .hich a PR? agrees to ensure that a
partic~lar IC will remain in place may be unreliable unless the
P~ has the power to enforce the restrictions in the IC. Where
the P?~ is not a sovereign, the most likely source of ~~e power
to control the use of private property would be the ow~ership of
an interest in that property. The rights of property ow~ers are
generally defined by ~e property law of the state where the
property is located. This makes it critical to identify and
understand the applicable property law principles as part of the
process of developing an IC.
Full fee title obviously constitutes an interest in property
. which is suf~iciently broad to support an IC, since fee ow~ers .
can generally restrict the uses of ~~eir properties as they see
fit, within the li~its imposed by applicable law. A lesser
interest (preferably recordable) that encompasses rights and
control over the property sufficient to enforce a use restriction
could also be adequate. Note also that a sovereign may act in
the capacity of a property Ow~er and implement a proprietary IC
subject to the same conditions that apply to a private party's
proprietary controls.
With a proprietary control, a party owning sufficient rights
in a property restricts the use of ~~e property. To ensure the
r~liability of such an arrangement, it may be desirable to
clarify the terms and conditions under which the owner will
enforce the restriction and to address the possible conveyance
~~-epro'P1!rty-"'f'nte'RSt-1:ha L lolL \Jvtaes-the-ri'9ht"-to-enforc~
restriction, and the owner's continuing responsibility to enforce
the res~riction even where there has been a conveyance.3 Thus,
if the restriction were violated, EPA could pursue a remedy.
against the party for breach of the agreement (even if it could
not e~force the use restriction as to a new owner). Ideally, a
proprietary control will be implemented with sufficient
u
3 Any such restriction, however, must be framed so that
it does not violate the prohibition of restraints on alienation
as reflected in the property law of the state where, th~
-------
6
flexibility to allow all appropriate uses o~ the property, and to
per=it the o.~er to c:nvey most interests in the property.
An ease:ent is a co~on, reliable type of property interest
sufficient for imple~enting a proprietary IC. Not only is an .
ease~ent well-recognized at common law, but it has sufficient
flexibility so that it can be crafted to give the holder
precisely the rights needed to restrict the use of the property.
other interests ~ay also provide a basis for an IC. For
example, a covenant, running with the land, restricting uses of
the property might be adequate, so long as some party has both
the ability and willingness to enforce it.'
. Ano~~er alternative might be a reverter clause in a deed, by
which the property reverts to a former owner or some other party
if it is ever used in a prohibited way. Yet another option would
be the creation of an irrevocable trust to hold the interest and
ensure that the property is not used in the prohibited manner.
Although interests less than full fee title may be adequate
to protect an IC, it is critical to ensure that, in fact, the
party overseeing the IC will be able to manage use of the
property in the desired ways. certain instruments, for example
those requiring privity, may not reliably ensure this, since the
ability to enforce will cease, and the control may fail, once the
property passes. out of privity.s
A si~ilar analysis appears to apply to any institutional
control based on property ownership~ To implement such a
control, the Agency must enter into an agreement in which a party
possessing a sufficient interest in the property to prevent the
inappropriate use fo~ally agrees to enforce that right and
prevent the use.
0.
__~_It 1p.~Ji.ht be_'ygiu)'....t9_~1.QJ:.e....th.e_PQssihi' i~y. :tM~~ ~
local community group, motivated by a desire to ensure adequate
environmental protection of an area, might hold such an interest.
In considering such a possibility, factors affecting the long-
term viability of the group must be examined such as its likely
longevity, its resources for taking legal action to address
violations of the control, and its ability to take various
actions. .
5 However, to the extent that failure of such a control
entails a CERCLA release, the owner or operator may be liable
under CERCLA S 107. Moreover, the presence of a use restriction
. or notice in a deed would probably be relevant to the ability of
-------
7
c.
P~ope~ty Acquisitic~
( J
P~oprietary controls can often be imple~ented, pa~ticularly
in an enfo~ce~ent context, under consent agreements bet.een ErA
and property o.~e~s. F.c~ever, in some cases, implementation may
require the acquisition of an interest in real property.
Further, .in some such situations, a necessary part of the
response ~ay be for EPA to acquire property on its ow~ behalf.
Whenever E?A acquires property, certain procedures an~ rules
apply.
1. Authority to Ac;uire
As pa=t of a reme~ial action, the Agency may "acquire, by
purchase, lease, conde~'ation, donation, or otherwise, any real
property or any interest in real property".under CERCLA S 104(j).
A ~ondition of the exercise of acquisition authority ~~der CERCLA
S 10~(j) is that, before an interest in real estate is acquired
"the State in which the interest to be acquired is located
assures .'.. [E?A) ... that the state will accept transfer of the
interest follo~ing completion of the remedial action."
S 10~(j) (2). Where the property interest will be extinguished
(~, a lease with a limited term or an easement for a specific
te~ or purpose) by the co~pletion of ~e re~edial action, no
assurance is necessary.
2.
Process of acquiring prope~ty
E~A's Facilities Management and Services Division (FMSD) has
sole authority within the Agency to acquire real property under
Agency Delegation of Authority 1-4. In addition,. CERCLA
Delegation 14-30 requires the approval of the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, with the
concurrence of the General counsel, for all real property
ac~isitions, "by EPA or pursuant to a cooperative agreement for
response action, including a removal, remedial planning activity,
or re~edial action." After the necessary concurrences, the
Hazardous site Control Division sends a request for acquisition
--__tJ'-..DSD......~S.D....may_..c.Qmple..t~ ~njS "'jS~' ~C::~~+-jS +-"'~,"C:~l"'tion....3i.ith ite .
own personnel, by contract with a commercial firm, or through an
Interagency Agreement with the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers or
u.s. Bureau of Recla~ation.
Conclusion
"
It would appear that certain types of proprietary controls'
can, when implemented properly, be extremely reliable. In
deciding how to fashio~ and i~plement a proprietary control, it
.is critical to ensure adequate rights to restrict property ~ses
'in the desired ways. To maxi~ize the effectiveness of the IC, it
is critical to analyze, in addition to the adequacy of the rights
-------
. .
~
8
exe~cise them and the likely effects of a conveyance of the
prope~ty on those rights.
Conversely, governmental controls, to the extent that they
are expressed in laws, policies, or regulations, may be subject
to change. To maximize the effectiveness of this type of
control, it may be useful to attempt to develop some formal
agreement in which the government possessing police power over
the activity to be regulated assumes responsibility for
implementing and maintaining tpe control.
-------
".
OSWER Directive #9834.6
Co
~
v
POLICY TOWARDS OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
AT SUPERFUND SITES
a
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Enforcement
washinqton, D.C. 20460
o .
-:
, o.
-------
OSWER Directive #9834.6
(/
I.
INTRODUCTION
,)
A.
purpose and SummarY
This quidance desc~ibes EPA'S po+icy for enforcement actions
to recover response costs or to require response actions under
the comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or superfund) as amended by the
superfund Amend:ents and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), with
respect to owners of residential property located on a Superfund
site.
. -
Under this policy, EPA, in the 'exercise of its enforcement
~ discretion, will not take enforcement actions against an owner of
residential property to require such owner to undertake response
actions or pay response costs, unless the residential homeowner's
activities lead to a release or threat of release of hazarQou.~ ---
su ancesa resu 1n 1n the takin of a response ac 10n a e
5i~e.' This po 1CY does not apply when an owner 0 r . tial
'~erty fails to cooperate with the Agency's response action or
with a state that is takinq a response action under a cooperative
agreement with E?A pursuant to section 104{d) (1) of CERCLA. This
policy also' does not apply where the owner of residential
property fails to meet other CERCLA obliqations,.or uses the
residential property in any manner inconsistent with reslden~ial-
usa. '-- ---
~
-
EPA is issuinq this policy to address concerns raised by
owners of residential property, and to provide a nationally
consistent approach on this issue.
c
B.
Backaround
Several sites that are the subject of a response action
(removal or remedial activities) under CERCLA include properties
that are used exclusively as sinqle family residences (one-to-
four dwellinq units). At several larger sites, soil or ground
water contamination may be so extensive that there are several
hundred of these residential properties located on a Superfund
site. .
. Some owners of residential property located on a superfund
site are concerned about potential liability for performance of a
response action or payment of cleanup costs because they may come
This policy does not provide an exemption fro= potential
CERCLA liability for any party; it is a statement of the Aqency's
enforcement discretion. Liability is governed by section 107 ~
CERCLA.
-------
2
OSWER Directive 19834.6
...ithin the definition of "c'.-ner" under the statute.2 OWners of
residential property located on a Superfund site have expressed
the concern that they may be unable to sell these properties
because the buyer and the lending institution may also be
concerned about potential liability.
C.
Fast ~aencv Practice and Basis for Policy
In the past, the Agency has not required owners of
residential property located on a Superfund site to perform
response actions or pay response costs except where the
residential homeowners' activities lead to a release or threat of
a release of hazardous substances, resulting in the taking of a
response action at the site.3 Despite this general practice,
some owners of residential property have asked EPA for individual
assurances that the Agency not take an enforcement action against
them for performance of the response action or paycent of
response costs. The Agency has not been able to provide
individual o...ners of residential property with assurances of no
enforcement action outside the framework of a legal settlement,
and this policy does not alter EFA's policy of not providing nQ
action assurances. 4 . .
This guidance instead constitutes a general statement of
policy regarding the Agency's exercise of enforcement discretion
with respect to owners of residential property located on a
Superfund site. The purpose of this policy is to continue the
Agency's past practice and to provide guidance for Agency
enforcement staff.
II.
DEFINITION OF KEY TE~~S
The following definitions are applicable for
purposes of this policy, and do not represent the
interpretation of these or any similar or related
in any context other than this policy:
the limited
~gency's .
statutory terms
2 Under section l07(a) (1) of CERCLA, a person is liable if
it is the owner or operator of a facility. 42 U.S.C. section
9607(a) (1). Under section 101(9) (B) of CERCLA, a facility is
defined to include "any site or area where a hazardous
substance...has...come to be located." 42 U.S.C. section
9601(9) (B).
3 The Agency has required owners of residential property to
provide access to the residential property in order to assess the
need for a response action or implement a response action, and to
otherwise cooperate with cleanup activities.
4
~ "Policy ~aainst No ~ction ~ssurances,. (November 15,
-------
()
)
-- - ..- - ~ -.
:3
OSWER Directive #9834.6
o
The term "o'Jner of residential property," means a
person, as defined under section 101(21) of CERCLA, who
owns residential property located on a Superfund site,
and who uses or allows the use of the residential
property exclusively fo~ residential purposes. The
term also includes owners who make improvements that
are consistent with residential use. Such term does
not include 1) any owner'who has conducted or permitted
the generation, transportation, storage, treatment or
handling of hazardous substances on the residential
property other than in quantities and uses typical of
residential uses; 2) any owner who disposes of
hazardous substances on the residential property
resulting in the taking of a response action; and 3)
any owner .ho acquires or develops the residential
property for co~ercial use, or for any other use
inconsistent with residential use.
o
The term "residential property,W refers to single
family residences of one-to-four d~ellinq units,
including accessory land, buildings or improvements
incidental to such dwellings which are exclusively for
residential use.s
The phrase "located on a superfund site" means
properties that are within an area designated for
investigation or study under CERCLA, listed as a
Superfund site on the National Priorities List, .
identified as the subject of planned or current removal
or remedial activities, where hazardous substances have
come to be located, or which are subject to or affected.
by a removal or remedial action.
III. STATEMENT OF POLICY
o
In implementing CERCLA, EPA may use enforceme~t discretion
in pursuing potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for
enforcement actions. It is within the Agency's enforcement
discretion to identify appropriate PRPs to perform response
actions or pay response costs.'
In the exercise of its enforcement discretion, the Agency
.~
, EPA notes that this definition of "residential property"
is consistent with the designation for single family residences
under the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 1701.
6 See generally, Heckler v. Chanev, 470 U.S. 821 (1985);
U.SL V. Helen Kra=er, et al, No. 89-4:340 (D.N.J. February 8,
-------
4
CS~ER Directive 19834.6
has determined that it will not re~~ire o~ners of residential
property located on a Superfund site to perfo~ a response action
or pay response costs if the owner's activities are consistent
with this policy.7 Under this policy, EPA's exercise of
enforcement discretion will extend to lessees of residential
property provided that the lessees' activities are consistent
with this policy. This policy also applies to persons who
acquire residential property through purchase, foreclosure, gift,
inheritance or other fo~ of ac~~isition, as long as those
pe~sons' activities after acquisition are consistent with this
policy. a .
This policy does not apply to an o.~er of residential
property who has undertaken activities leading to a release or
threat of release of hazardous substances, resulting in the .
taking of a response action at the site.9 In such situations,
the Agency would contemplate bringing an enforcement action
against the owner of the residential property to perform a
response action or to pay response costs. In addition, if an
o~ner of residential property located on a Superfund site
develops or improves the property in a ~anner inconsistent with
residential use, or the develop:ent of the residential property
leads to a release or threat of release of hazardous substances
resulting in the taking of a response action at the site, then
the owner would not be within the scope of this policy. Also, if
an owner of residential property fails to provide the Agency with
access to the residential property located on a Superfund site to
evaluate the need for a response action or to imple:ent a
response action,' or fails to co:ply with any other CERCLA
obligations, this policy would not apply.1o
This exercise of enforcement discretion applies to owners of
residential property located on a superfund site who purchased or
7 consi~tent with the Agency's no action assurance policy
(see footnote 4), this policy does not require the Agency to make
prospective determinations of whether particular owners of
residential property meet the requirements of this policy.
I If the Agency has perfected a federal lien on the
residential property prior to the acquisition by the new owner,
this policy does not affect the status of that lien.
9 The Agency's experience has been that in general,
~ctivities which are undertaken consistent with single family
residential use do not lead to a release or threat of a release
of hazardous substances, resulting in a response action being
taken at. a site.
10 ~ section IV of this policy for a further discussion
of other CERCLA obligations.
-------
._00__-
I
,
(/
5
OS~ER Directive 19834.6
,
i
sold the residential property in the past or ~ho purchase or sell
the residential property after the issuance of this policy.
"~ether an owner of residential property has or had kno~ledge or.
reason to kno~ that contamination ~as present on the site at the
time of purchase or sale of the residential property will not
affect EPA's exercise of enforcement discretion under this
policy.
This policy is not based on, and has no effect on, the
defenses to liability available to an owner of residential
property, or any other person, under section 107(b) of CERCLA.
This policy is not related to the "lMocent lando.-ner defense-
described in sections 107(b) (3) and 101(35) of CERCLAi it is
based entirely on EPA's enforcement discretion. Thus, the
ability ~f an o~er of residential property to assert any defense
to liability is unaffected by this policy.
IV.
OTHER CERCLA OBLIGATIONS
Although the Aqency, in the exercise of its enforcement
discretion, will not require owners of residential property to.
undertake or pay for response actions if the o~ners' activities
are consistent ~ith this policy, to benefit from this policy an
owner of residential property must comply ~ith other CERCLA
obligations.
To come ~ithin the scope of this pOlicy, owners of
residential property must provide access to the residential
property ~hen requested by EPA, or report information requested
by the Agency." In addition, owners of residential property
must cooperate with EPA and not i~terfere ~ith any of the
Agency's activities on the residential property taken to respond
to the release or threat of release. Similarly, owners of
residential property must cooperate with and not interfere with
the activities of a state that is taking a response action under
a cooperative agreement with EPA pursuant to section 104(d) (1) of
CERCLA. Moreover, owners of residential property must comply
~ith institutional controls placed on their residential property
in order to facilitate performance of a response action and to
protect human health and the environment.'z
11 The Agency has developed guidance ~hich explains the
authorities and procedures by which EPA obtains access or
information. ~ OSWER Directive #9829.2, Ent"rv and continued
~ccess under CERCLA (~une 5, 1987). See ~ OSWER Directive
/9834.4-A, Guidance on Use and Enfo cement 0 CERCLA n 0 at 0
Reauests and ~dministrative Subpoenas (August 25, 1988).
'2 Institutional controls are conditions or limitations
commonly" placed on property by local or state authorities to
-------
(
6
OSWER Directive #9834.6
Nothing in this policy is intended to affect any other
obligations required of o.~ers of residential property or any
other jerson under CERCLA or other federal, state a~d local
laws.' EPA reserves its authority to obtain access and to
enjoin o.~ers of residential property ~rom interfering with
response actions, and to seek recovery of response costs if
bringing such actions becomes necessary.
This policy does not change the opportunities available to
owners of residential property located on a superfund site to
participate in the response selection process. To the extent
such parties wish to receive individual notice of response
activities, EPA will provide individual notice of public
~eetings, public comment periods or other public participation.
activities to owners of residential property .hich are on the
Agency's community relations mailing list." The eligibility of
o~ners of residential property for Technical Assistance Grants
under CERCLA is also unaffected by this policy.
v.
PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS GUID~~CE
This policy and any internal procedures adopted for its
i~ple~entation are intended exclusively as guidance for employees
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This guidance does'
not constitute rulemaking by the Agency and may not be relied
upon to create. a right or a benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity, by any person. The Agency may
take action at variance with this quidance or its internal
implerwenting procedures.
.
VI.
FURTHER INFO~~TION
-~ For further information concerning this policy, please
contact Gary Worthman- in the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
at FTS (202) 382-5646, or Patricia Mott in the Office of .
Enforcement at FTS (202) 245-3733.
similar activity) undertaken by the owner of residential property
do not exacerbate the conditions at the site, in some way
diminish the effectiveness of a remedy which has been or is being
implemented, or otherwise present a threat to human health or the
environment. -
'3 For example, if the owner of residential property has
knowledge that a release has taken place on the residential
property, the o.ne~ must notify appropriate authorities.
'4 For each site the community Relations Coordinator in
each Region maintains a comcunity relations mailing list.
-------
, ;
"'
APPENDIX D
-------
SE~-2S-15=~ ~::27
(:=:~
#'.~ .~.... .
,--.L" "
.~ES
()
F=:'" ~i~:;==1' ...':'STE ;~G,1T
E=':':;:'NhL 57
TO
P.01
State of ~ew Hampshire
DEPARTME~l OF ENVIRO~~-rAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive. P.O. BoJt 95. Concord. :-'1i 03302-0095
603.2; 1-3.503 FAX 603-:71-2867
l'U:'; Access: KCI:1y:>or! !-300-rJ:.:'M"
September 29, 1994
John P. DeViliars
Regional Administrator
USEP A-Region I
JFK Federal Building (RAA)
Boston, MA 02203
"
;
u;
--. .-_4o -- ..--.-
Record of Dec:i8ion ---.'- ...-.-."-
. Coakl8y M~I LandftR, Operable Unl 2
North HamptDn, New Hampshire
RE:
Dear Mr. DeVillars:
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Servi~es has reviewed the
United States Environmental Protection Agencyrs Record of Decision (ROC) for Operable
Unit 2 of the Coakley Municipal Landfill in North HamptQn, NH. ThQ ROD selects a
preferred remedy having the following components:
.
.
.
Institutional controls (SUCh as deed restriction) to prevent use of
contaminated groundwater;
natural attenuation for the contaminated groundwater plume; and
.groundwater monitoring.
State of Nflw Hamp.hlr. RemedIal Policy
New Hampshire groundwater managementpoficy, as implemented through Env-Ws
410, estabRshes standards, criteria and procedures to remedlate sites with co'ntarnina1ed
groundwater. Under state regulations, remediation of such sites includes source removal,
containment or treatment; containmAnt of groundwater contamination within the limits of
a specified groundwater management zone (GMZ); restriction of groundwater use for
drinking water purposes within the GMZ; and reduction of groundwater contaminant levels
within the GMZ. If contamination migrates beyond the establishtKf GMZ, an alternative
. remedial action plan must be prepared and more aggressive containment and treatment
of the contaminated plume may be rAquirad. Pursuant to state regulations, groundwater
use on properties within the GMZ must be restricted by easement or ownership, unless
alternate water has been made available.
c:
AIR RESO~RCES DIY.
.. ~. :IUIII ~CW8
ou.r 1Iea:g)3
c:-onL :0;.8. ~m.:03J
T". 6O).2'7t.l~
r.... 60).3'71.;".
'I\:<\STE ~A. ,".-\UE~1£KT Dr.'
o tSaA.,. Du,""
C"".coateL N.H. :J:;:!(J!
Tci. 003,;' t.;9CO
Fu 6O~-:~1-:~6
wATER RES01jIl~-S DI\-.
60" ~:". ~ """'
P.O. ~:008
C.-ore.. ~.H: (\3:!C:.;Q)8
Tel. 6O!-~~1.:>406
Fu. =uz.:~:~n
\\"TER St.7!'LY.t: POLLUTION CO!\"TItOL DI'i.
00 !\mil'"
Concald. ~.Il 03~Z~5
Td.603.%iH!m
-------
--. --'
-~-- --'-
.. ---' ....r-'- - "'-' .
_. - _.-. .~'- .:.
i".c::~
Record of Decision
Coakley MunicIpal Landfill, OU-2
North Hampton; New Hampshire
NHDES Letter of September 29; 1994
Page 2
~--
, ~=:'~"'''''I'''' ,"
....." &livrtmmtal
~- Serrica
The preferred remedy described in the ROD is generally consistent with the
approach that would be required under Env-Ws 410 and state policy. In complying with
ARARs, the preferred remedy will meet applicable or relevant and appropriate state
fequirem9nts that pertain to the site.
Stat. Concu,,..nce
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, acting on behalf of
the State of New Hampshire. concurs with the preferred remedy described in the ROD.
The State" assures that if the Superfund Trust Fund is used, the State win contribute its
statutorily required cost share; if State funds are available.
Q:: w'.~
Robert W. Varney ~
Comissioner
cr:::
Daniel Cou;Idn. P.E.. US!PA
S1Ine Calder. usePA
PIIIIp J. O'Srien. PtI.C.. CfredDr, NHDE&-WMD
C8I1 W. I5Ut8r. P.£.. NHCI!S-WMD
T8Icoa Hubbud. P.E.. NHDes.WM&B
Anne Rennet'. Esq., NHDoJ.AGO
-------
u
\J
APPENDIX E
ADHINISTRA'r:I:VE RECORD INDEX
...;
-------
-------
coakley Landfill
Operable Unit II - Management of Migration
NPL site Administrative Record
Table ot Contents
Volume I
3.0 Remedial Investigation (RI)
3.4 Interim Deliverables
3.6 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study
(RI/FS)
Volume :I:I
3.0 Remedial Investigation (RI)
3.6
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study
(RI/FS)
Volume :III
3.0 Remedial Investigation (RI)
3.6
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study
(RI/FS)
A
\J
. Volume IV
3.0 Remedial Investigation (RI)
3.7 Work Plans and Progress Reports
3.9 Health Assessments
4.0 Feasibility study (FS)
4.9 Proposed Plan
5.0 Record of Decision
5.3 Responsiveness Summary
5.4 Record of Decision (ROD)
13.0 Community Relations
13.1 Correspondence
13.3 News Clippings/Press Releases
13.4 Public Meetings
14.0 Congressional Relations
1~.1 Correspondence
-------
<- ;'
)
O'
"'.
'--
Volume IV (cont'd)
17.0 site Management Records
-------
c
,
"
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
for the
Coakley Landfill NPL site
(O.U.II Management of Migration)
3.0
Remedial Investigation (RI)
3.2
Sampling and Analysis Data
SamDlinq and Analvsis Data for the Remedial Investigation (RI)
mav be reviewed. bv appointment onlv. at the EPA Reqion I Records
Center in Boston. Massachusetts.
3.4
Interim Deliverables
"Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance
Project Plan (Revision 1)," CDM Federal Programs
Corporation (September 1991).
Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports
3.6
C)
1.
1.
"Management of Migration Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study Report, Volume 1," CDM
Federal, (May 1994).
"Management of Migration Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study Report, Volume 2," CDM
Federal, (May 1994).
"Management of Migration Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study Report, Volume 3," CDM
Federal, (May 1994).
2.
3.
3.7
Work Plans and Progress Reports
3.9
- '
1.
"Revised Work Plan - Volume 1 - Technical Scope of
Work;" CDM Federal Programs Corporation (June
1991) .
Health Assessments
L
"Health Assessment Addendum for Coakley Landfill,"
u.S. Public Health Service Agency for ,Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (March 23,
1992).
c
4.0 Feasibility Study (FS)
Proposed Plan
4.9
-'
1.
Proposed Plan "EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan for the
-------
5.0 Record of Decision
5.3 Responsiveness summaries
1.
Cross Reference: Responsiveness Summary is
Appendix "c" of the Record of Decision [Filed
and cited as entry number 1 in 5.4 (ROD)].
The fOllowing citations indicate written comments
received by EPA Region I during the formal comment
period:
2.
Comments Dated June 1994 from Lillian E.
wylie, North Hampton, NH resident on the May
1994 Proposed Plan, "EPA Proposes Cleanup
Plan for the Coakley Landfill site".
Comments Dated June 22, 1994 from Elmer M.
Sewall, Greenland, NH resident on the May
1994 Proposed Plan, "EPA Proposes Cleanup
Plan for the Coakley Landfill site".
3.
4.
Comments Dated June 27, 1994 from Joseph F.
Fitzgerald, North Hampton, NH resident on
the May 1994 Proposed Plan, "EPA Proposes
Cleanup Plan for the coakley Landfill siten.
Comments Dated July 30, 1994 from Robert
Tibbetts, Janet Tibbetts, Katie Tibbetts and
Matthew Tibbetts, Middletown, CT residents on
the May 1994 Proposed Plan, "EPA Proposes
Cleanup Plan for the Coakley Landfill siten.
5.
5.4 Record of Decision (ROD)
1.
Record of Decision, EPA Region I
-------
13.0 Community Relations
(, ,
13.1 Correspondence
1.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Steven J.
Calder, EPA Region I (April 19, 1991). Concerning
attached correspondence:
A. Letter from Stanley W. Knowles to Keith W.
Bossung, Hampton Water Works (February 27,
1991).
Letter from Jeffrey S. Knowles to Keith W.
Bossung, Hampton Water Works (March 9, 1991)
with attached map.
Letter from Arline Deschenes to Henry B.
Fuller (March 10, 1991).
Letter from Henry B. Fuller to Rene
Pelletier, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (April 14, 1991) with
attached news clipping.
Letter from Henry B. Fuller to William H.
Zeliff Jr., u.S. House of Representatives
(April 15, 1991) with attached citizens
petition and news clippings.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Steven J.
Calder, EPA Region I(September 13, 1991).
Concerning transmittal of correspondence regarding
the proposed Hobbs Well.
Letter from Steven J. Calder, EPA Region I to John
H. Hoar, Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc. (September 23,
1991). Concerning attached correspondence:
A. Letter from Keith W. Bossung, Hampton
Water Works to Edward J. Schmidt, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (August 5, 1991) with attached
review of assessment report.
Letter from Richard P. Crowley Jr., Town
of North Hampton to Robert W. Varney, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (August 8, 1991).
Letter from Robert W. Mann, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to
Lillian E. Wylie (August 12, 1991) with
attached Letter from Lillian E. Wylie
(July 19, 1991). .
Letter from Keith W. Bossung, Hampton
Water Works to Robert W. Varney, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (September 5, 1991).
B.
J
C.
D.
E.
o
2.
'3.
B.
C.
D.
-------
13.1 Correspondence (cont'd.)
(2)
:i
../
4.
Letter from Steven J. Calder, EPA Region I to
Richard P. Crowley Jr., Town of North Hampton
(December 4, 19~1). Concerning attached
correspondence:
A. Letter from Steven J. Calder, EPA Region I to
Robert W. Mann, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (July 29, 1991).
Letter from steven J. Calder, EPA Region I to
Robert W. Mann{ .Ne~ Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (December 4, 1991).
Letter from Stuart M. Leiderman to Steven J. Calder,
EPA Region I (December 13, 1991). concerning meeting
to.discuss water-quality testing at the site and
request for clarification of EPA's cleanup plan.
B.
5.
Attachments associated with entrv number 6 mav be reviewed.
bv aDDointment only. at the EPA Reaion I Records Center in
Bo~ton. Massachusetts.
6.
Letter from Steven J. Calder, EPA Region I to Stuart M.
Leiderman (December 26, 1991) with attached EPA
guidance documents. concerning response to residents'
questions regarding EPA's cleanup plan.
Letter from Stuart M. Leiderman to Steven J. Calder,
EPA Region I (March 2, 1991). Concerning unaddressed
items of concern to residents.
Letter from Stuart M. Leiderman to Steven J. Calder,
EPA Region I (March 12, 1991). Concerning additional
items of concern to residents with attached:
A. Cost List Wylie Family - 16 Years 1975-1991
~ (December 15, 1991).
B. Page 24, Homes & Land of The Seacoast. Volume XII
Number 12.
Letter from Concerned citizens of Lafayette Terrace to
Steven J. Calder, EPA Region I (March 30, 1992).
Concerning false claims. by Lillian E. Wylie of COAST
(Citizens organized Against Seacoast Toxics).
Letter from Lillian E. Wylie, COAST to steven J.
Calder, EPA Region I (~ay 26, 1992). concerning log-in
procedures for EPA contractors.
COAST Newsletter for May 1992.
Memorandum from Louise A. House, u.S. Department of
Health & Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry to Greg Ulrisch (June 11, 1992).
Concerning transmittal of tape cassette used during the
March 23, 1992 meeting with COAST.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
-------
13.1 Correspondence (cont'd)
Letters to Residents Regarding Sample Results
c
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
(~,'
\.:_..i
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
"
'-'
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Elliot Burritt
(March 10, 1992). concerning results of well-water
analysis. .
Letter from Michael J. RObinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Norman'Corporon
(March 10, 1992). concerning results of well-water
analysis.
Letter from Michael J. RObinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Mike Cresta
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis.
Letter from Michael J. RObinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Karen Dufour,
Seacoast Mental Health Center (March 10, 1992).
Concerning results of well-water analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental services to Henry Fuller
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Bruce Harris
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Carol Hyatt
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis .'
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Jody Nordstrom'
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis.
Letter from Michael J. RObinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Mr. RObinson,
Arcway Welding (March 10, 1992). Concerning results of
well-water analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to David Sewall
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Dr. Sewall
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Bernard
Thibault (March 10, 1992). concerning results of
-------
13.1 Correspondence (cont'd)
25.
26.
27.
28.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Bernard
Thibault (March 10, 1992). Concerning results of
well-water analysis (sample 1198633).
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Departmen~ of Environmental Services to Jim Tucker and
Harold Wilkins, Dexter Shoe (March 10, 1992).
concerning results of well-water analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Walter wilhelm,
pine Haven Motel(March 10,1992). Concerning results
of well-water analysis.
Letter from Michael J. Robinette, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental services to Ben Young
(March 10, 1992). Concerning results of well-water
analysis. .
13.3 News Clippings/Press Releases
News Clippings
n
, .
-'
1.
"Water Firm Gives Up On Well Next To Waste Site,"
December 10.
Press Releases
"Environmental News - EPA Issues Plan, Announces
Public Meetings to Address Contaminated .
Groundwater Moving from coakley Landfill," EPA
Region I (May 23, 1994).
"Environmental News - EPA Announces Public Meeting
to Discuss the Status of Work at the coakley'
Landfill Superfund site in North Hampton, New
Hampshire," EPA Region I (February 19, 1992).
13.4 Public Meetings
2.
3.
1.
Notice of Public Meeting with state of New
Hampshire (July 9, 1991).
Attendance List, Informal community Meeting, EPA
Region I(May 26, 1992).
-------
14.0 Congressional Relations
14.1 Correspondence
5.
Letter from William H. Zeliff Jr., u.s. House of
Representatives to Julie Belaga, EPA Region I
(April 19, 1991). Concerning attached
correspondence from constituents:
A. Letter from Richard P. crowley Jr., Town of
North Hampton to William H. Zeliff Jr., u.s.
House of Representatives(March 30, 1991).
Letter from Robert W.Mann, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services to Board
of Selectmen, Town of North Hampton (April 8,
1991).
Letter from Henry B. Fuller to William H.
Zeliff Jr., u.S. House of Representatives
(April 15, 1991) with attached news
clippings.
Letter from Paul Keough for Julie Belaga, EPA
Region I to William H. Zeliff Jr., u.S. House of
Representatives (May 24, 1991). concerning
potential contamination of the proposed Hobbs
Well.
. Letter from Bob Smith, u.S. Senate to Julie
Belaga, EPA Region I (December 5, 1991).
Concerning potential contamination of the proposed
. Hobbs Well.
Letter from Julie Belaga, EPA Region I to William
H. Zeliff Jr., u.S. House of Representatives
(August 4, 1992). Concerning agenda of August 5,
1992 meeting with PRPs to explain terms of the
Superfund settlement process.
Letter from Gregory M. Kennan, EPA Region I to Pam
Murphy, Office of William H. Zeliff Jr., u.S.
House of Representatives (August 7, 1992).
concerning responses to questions asked at the
August 5, 1992 meeting.
B.
'- ;
1.
~
'/
C.
2.
3.
o
4.
17.0.site Management Records
17.7 Reference Documents
Reference documents mav be reviewed. bv appointment onlv. at
the EPA Reqion I Records Center in Boston. Massachusetts.
"
"-./
-------
I N D E X
Speaker.
Opening Remarks by Moderator
Page
3
Steve Calder
7
Thomas Roy
Mary Herbert
14.
19
Peter Bresciano
20
Lillian Wylie
Elmer Sewall
27
31
------- |