United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office 01
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EP AIRODIROS-91/167
August 1991
Cory I
~B 92..' &( 6~ !Z.3
oEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Buckeye Reclamation, OH
\J. s, En~m Protection Ag8fCr
~e~ I HazardoUS Waste.
~ Information Center
.., a.\mt Street ~ 9th Floor
~'t R\ 19101
~
Hazardous waste C~ .>
Information Resourc8>~ter'
US EPA Region 3.. '..
Philadelphia, PA 19107
.18
rPA H 'port (;Ol!BGlHid
!nforn fion Resourca Ceirtm
US EI\ Region 3
phltati Iphia, PAi91Q7
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO. . 1 ~ 3. RecIpient'. "cceulon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-91/167
.. 1118 8l1li Subft8 5. Report 0818
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 08/19/91
Buckeye Reclamation, OH 6.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AuIhor{.) 8. P8rIonnlng Or"enizllllon Rapt. No.
8. P8rf0nnlng Org8lnizll1lon ...... end Add- 10. Proj8c:1fT88IIIWoril UnI1 No.
11. ConIr8cqC) or GrIll11(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ ~ng Or"anlz8tlon Name end Addre88 13. Type 01 Repor1 & PerIod Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Suppl8m8n18Jy No,..
16. Ab8tr.ct (Umll: 2011 warde)
The 658-acre Buckeye Reclamation site contains a 50-acre former landfill in Richland
Township, Belmont County, Ohio. Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural,
rural residential, and strip mining. A total of 46 domestic wells and springs are
located within 1 mile of the site. The site is situated in the King's Run drainage
ravine, and is bordered by King's Run to the east and Unnamed Run to the west. King's
Run flows to the south into Little McMahon Creek. The original topography of the
valley has been altered by coal mining and landfill operations. Prior to 1940, the
site served as a disposal area for coal mine refuse. The county licensed the area as
a public solid waste landfill in 1971, and the facility accepted general trash,
rubbish, and nonhazardous waste. The landfill also accepted industrial sludge and
liquids, most of which were received between 1976 and 1979, and deposited in the Waste
Pit located in the northern section of the landfill. Solid industrial wastes also
were disposed of with municipal wastes elsewhere in the landfill. In 1980, the Waste
Pit was filled with sludge, mine spoil, and overburden soil; covered with soil and
garbage; and seeded. Results of the RI indicate various levels of contamination in
all media sampled, except air. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the
(See Attached Page)
17. Docum8nIAn8lye1. .. De8crlpIo18
Record of Decision - Buckeye Reclamation, OH
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, toluene), other organics (PAHs),
b. 1denliller8l00000EndecI Tem18 and metals (arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead)
c. COB" 11 Fl8lcl/Group
18. "vlll.bllly S18I8m8nt 18. SecurIty C18u (Thi. Report) 21. No. 01 P.ge.
None 116
20. Sec:url1y CI... (Thi8 Page) n PrIce
l\T"nQ
"NSI-Z38.18 See lft8trucli~ on 1Ie",,- 272 (4-77)
(See
(FOI'III8fIy NT1~)
Depertmenl 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-91/167
Buckeye Reclamation, OH
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
remediation of contaminated leachate and ground water and eliminates exposure to
contaminated surface soil. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene, TCE, and toluene; other organics including PAHsi
and metals including arsenic, chromium, beryllium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes capping the entire landfill area,
including the Waste Pit and suspected sources of recharge for the Waste Pit and water
bearing zones, with a solid waste landfill cap; installing a leachate seep and ground
water collection system; treating collected wastewaters with constructed wetlands and
discharging the treated waters onsite to Little McMahon Creek; conducting long-term
ground and surface water monitoring; and implementing institutional controls including
deed, land, and ground water use restrictions, as well as site access restrictions
including fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$48,663,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $99,000 fqr 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: EPA is invoking a waiver of RCRA closure requirements
due to the steepness of the landfill slopes, which makes construction of a RCRA
Subtitle C cap technically impracticable. Contaminants discharged from the wetlands
treatment system will not exceed NPDES discharge limits. The limits may be modified to
more stringent levels if proven feasible.
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
~ame and-Location
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site, Belmont County, Ohio
Statement o(Basis and_Puq>ose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site, in Belmont County,
Ohio, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent
practicable, the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency concurs with the
selected remedy. The information supporting this remedial action
decision is contained in the administrative record for this site.
Assessment oUhe Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
This is ,the first and only operable unit for the site. The
remedy selected in this Record of Decision will address principal
threats posed by the site by treating contaminated surface and
ground waters and eliminating exposure to contaminated surface
soils. Because the selected remedy involves long-term treatment
of collected surface leachate and ground water, operation and
maintenance of the treat~ent system will be required. '
Major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Solid Waste Landfill Cap
Institutional controls
Fencing
Ground water collection
Surface leachate seep collection
Ground water monitoring
Surface leachate seep monitoring
Monitoring of Kings Run
-------
*
Leachate/ground water treatment by constructed
wetlands
A solid waste landfill cap will be constructed over all
areas where landfilling activities occurred and areas which would
allow water infiltration into and under the landfill. The ground
water and surface leachate collection system will eliminate
contaminated water discharges into surface waters and channel the
collected waters to a constructed wetlands. Wetlands treatment
of the landfill leachate and ground water is an innovative
technology which has proven effective in removing contaminants of
concern during preliminary treatability studies. Periodic
sampling of water media at the site will monitor any contaminant
migration. Installing a fence around the site will discourage
trespassing and institutional controls will be sought to specify
that the constructed remedy is not tampered with in the future.
~aration of Statutory Determinations
The. selected remedy is protective of human health and the
. environment, is cost-effective an~ complies with Federal and
State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action. A waiver can be justified
for any federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements. that will not be met. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or. resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and it
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as their
principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
every five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health a:;;;;2ento
u.s. EPA
Region V
r4;f/
ate
-------
Decision Summary for the Record of Decision
1.
site Name. Location. and Description
The Buckeye Reclamation Landfill (BRL) is located off of State
Route 214, approximately 4 miles southeast of st. Clairsville and
1.2 miles south of Interstate 70 in Sections 20 and 21 (Township
6 North, Range 3 West), Richland Township, Belmont County Ohio
(Figure 1). Interstate 470 is located just south of the landfill
entrance and approximately 3,000 feet north of the landfill area.
~ ~ ~ Buckeye Reclamation Landfill
~ r~ Belmont County, Ohio
S T. C L A IRS V ILL E
-
N
1.lit/e
W$E
s
Fiqure 1. Buckeye Reclamation Landfill Location Map
The BRL site is situated in the Kings Run drainage ravine; it is
bordered by King's Run to the east and Unnamed Run to the west.
King's Run flows to the south and empties into Little McMahon
Creek. The landfill extends approximately 3,700 feet north to
south and is approximately 500 to 1,000 feet wide. The site on
which the landfill is located occupies 658 acres. The landfill
occupies approximately 50 acres of this area.
The original topography of the valley of King's Run and the ridge
to the west has been altered by coal mine refuse disposal and
landfill operations (Figure 2). Prior to 1950, coal mine refuse
was removed from deep coal mines and deposited in the valley.
Refuse placement dammed Kings Run, creating northern, middle, and
-------
2
southern impoundments. Subsequent landfilling operations
resulted in the draining and filling of the middle and southern
impoundments by 1972 and 1976, respectively. A fourth
impoundment, referred to as the Waste Pit, was created by the
damming of a western tributary of King's Run by mine refuse.
Property surrounding the site to the east and west
mostly forested. West of the site is Ebbert Road.
road are farms and further to west, a strip mine.
the land is forested along the steeper slopes, and
residential use along the stream
valleys and roadways. There is more
farmland to the north and northeast.
within the vicinity of the site, the
most complete accounting of the number
of households was performed during the
domestic well survey. Approximately
200 homes were surveyed within a two-
mile radius of the site, downstream of
the site boundaries. Approximately
40 households are located within a 1-
mile radius of the Waste pit.
Assuming equivalence with the
statistics for the remainder of
Richland Township, this equates with a
population of 2.77 persons per
household, or 110.8 people. This is
also approximately equivalent to 7
persons of under 5 years old, 18 from
ages 5-14, 36 from ages 15-34, 38 from
ages 55-64, and 13 from ages 65 and
over. Natural resources in Belmont
County, Ohio include large areas of
predominantly deciduous forest land
(42 percent), agricultural lands (35
percent), and lands used for coal
mining (both underground and strip
mines). There are also four active
limestone quarries in the county.
Aquatic biota are considered to
receive the greatest impact from the
site via site runoff and acid mine
drainage (AMD) contributions to local
streams.
Surface water use in the area includes
the following upstream discharge
points for treated wastewater to
Little McMahon Creek; 1) City of st.
Clairsville public water supply, 2)
City of st. Clairsville west sewage
is hilly and
Along this
To the south,
cleared for
Original Surface
-
.
~
King.
->;,~~~~; i,. "'J":.
.' . ';""'I"'~''- ..'..... i'
.. ..ii~i#;,~~:~-:/'L ,(;".:
11_"'" Eue8er-
After: Mine Spoil
Disposal
lOngs
~"
, -~.'~. \
. : .,' :- .~. i:" .
~ ':'~,1itJa~~;;~i*~ i
After Waste Disposal
~
~
lOng.
Run
.,::. ..:'.~.'..:~:? :':', I /:
" . '.' """ ~ t " m
,"'iT~~$t~t; 1
Figure 2. Buckeye
Reclamation Landfill
Disposal History
-------
3
treatment plant, and 3) treated wastewater from the saginaw
Mining Co. - saginaw Plant. Little McMahon Creek is also
designated as a limited resource water (AMD-impacted) stream.
A total of 46 domestic wells and springs were identified and
located in the area downgradient of and within one mile of the
site, and downstream from the confluence of Little McMahon Creek
and King's Run for at least two miles.
II.
site Historv and Enforcement Activities
Deep mining occurred beneath the 658-acre site until around 1940.
During that time, the site was a disposal. area for mine refuse.
Mine refuse was removed from the mines and disposed of on the
ridge west of King's Run (see Figure 2) and in the drainage
ravine for King's Run. The area was licensed as a public solid
waste landfill in 1971 by the Belmont County Health Department
and has been operated by Ohio Resources Corporation, under the
name of Buckeye Reclamation Company,. since that time. As a
public landfill approximately 50 acres in size, the facility
accepted general trash, rubbish and nonhazardous waste from
municipalities and villages in the county and local area.
~:
., J
WAS J. Ro8d
PIT~ I
{
,
In addition, these records indicate a
total volume of approximately 950 tons
per week or 49,400 tons of solid waste
per year were disposed at the site.
The landfill also accepted industrial
sludges and liquids. Most of these
wastes were received between 1976 and
1979 and deposited in or near the
Waste pit. The Waste pit was an
impoundment located in the northern
section of the landfill area (Figure
3). Estimated total volumes of
industrial wastes received are 4.7 million gallons of
Detailed records of the actual types
and quantities of wastes and their on-
site location are limited. A 1979
OEPA Solid Waste Disposal
Questionnaire indicated the following
distribution of materials received by
the site.
55%
20%
10%
5%
5%
2%
1%
household
industrial
commercial
agricultural
construction/demolition
incineration residue
dead animals'
\
~
~ /
'1",/
. , (
r ===- rt
\ MWllclpaI Waate {(
")
} Unnamed
,Run
i
(
\
I
\. .I
~.
\
',- I /.
-., t-'
'. lJIII8
\, MeMu- IIOnga
lCr8e1c l Run
. ../a,- "-
,-_./ -, '
'-\
........-..........'"'"-
Fiqure 3. Features of the
Buckeye Reclamation
Landfill site
liquid and
-------
4
3,300 tons of industrial solid wastes. Transporter records show
that the majority of the liquids were oil/solvent/water mixtures~
Maleic anhydride wash water sludge, neutralized pickle liquor
sludge, sodium sulfide, desulfurization plant sludge, maleic
acid-fumaric acid wastes and special pumpings from maleic or
fumaric acid spills were also known to have been deposited in the
general area of the Waste Pit.
In 1980, the waste pit was filled by pushing some of the sludge,
mine spoil and overburden soil into the impoundment.
Photographic evidence exists that some of the sludge was buried
in place on the slope of the waste pit. The waste pit area was
then covered with soil and garbage and seeded to grasses. A low
soil berm was graded in place upgradient of the Waste Pit to
route surface flow around the area and prevent erosion.
Solid industrial wastes (i.e. asbestos, carbon black, fly ash,
etc.) were disposed of with municipal wastes elsewhere in the
landfill. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) landfill
inspection reports also speak of unspecified industrial waste
being disposed of in the southeastern portion of the landfill.
The Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site was listed on the National
Priorities List by publication in the Federal Register on
September 8, 1983. A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) search
identified a number of parties, including the landfill operator
and several generators. Negotiations with PRPs for conducting
the RIfFS were successfully concluded on September 19,1985. An
Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) for this site was signed
October 31, 1985. Signatory to the AOC are Cravat Coal Company,
the landfill operator, and Ashland Chemical Company, Aristech
Chemical Company (formerly u.S. Steel Corporation), Beazer
East,Inc. (formerly Koppers Company, Inc.), Triangle PWC and SKF
Industries, as waste generators. On June 26, 1986 the Consent
Order was modified to include Kittle Hauling, a transporter, as a
Respondent to the AOC.
III. Hiahliahts of Community ParticiDation
The Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan for the Buckeye
Reclamation Landfill site were released to the public for comment
on May 15, 1991. These two documents were made available to the
public in the administrative record and information repositories
maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region Five, at the st.
Clairsville Public Library, St. Clairsville, Ohio, and the Neffs
Branch of the Martins Ferry Public Library, Neffs, Ohio. The
notice of availability for the documents was published in The
Times Leader, Martins Ferry, Ohio and The Intelligencer,
Wheeling, West Virginia on Monday, May 13, 1991. As required by
CERCLA sections 113 and 117, a public comment period on the
documents was held from May 15, 1991 to June 24, 1991. In
addition, a public meeting was held on May 30, 1991. At this
-------
5
meeting, representatives from u.s. EPA and Ohio EPA answered
questions about problems at the site and the remedial
alternatives under consideration. The proceedings were
transcribed by a court reporter. A response to the comments
received during this period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this ROD.
IV.
ScoDe and Role of ReSDonse Action within site Strateqy
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Buckeye
Reclamation Landfill site are complex. Adverse environmental
impacts are derived from coal mine refuse present on the site
(Acid Mine Drainage), hazardous waste disposal practices and
solid waste disposal which have occurred at the site. As is
discussed below, surface and subsurface soils and surface and
ground water are contaminated to various degrees. Current and
potential risks to human health and the environment are shown to
be posed by this contamination. This ROD selects a remedial
action for the site which addresses risks posed by all identified
pathways.
V.
Summarv of Site Characteristics
The Buckeye ,Reclamation Landfill Remedial Investigation (RI)
investigated the contaminant source area (landfiil), soils,
surface water and sediments, leachate, groundwater, and air.
Numerous carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic contaminants were
detected in most media sampled. Table 1 summarizes the average
and maximum concentrations of all chemicals identified in media
of concern at the site.
a.
Source Area
An Electromagnetic (EM) Survey was first performed to
ascertain the presence of buried drums or a distinguishable
ground water plume of contamination. Findings of this
survey did not reveal any 'buried drums and were unable to
establish the presence of a contaminant plume.
Five locations within the Waste Pit were selected for soil
borings to delineate contaminants present. Four of the
borings were taken for chemical analyses and the fifth was
collected for physical testing of the soil characteristics.
The chemical analyses identified high levels of volatile
org~nic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds and metals
in the waste pit soils. Concentrations of the volatile and
semivolatile contaminants peaked at two different depths in
the Waste pit and these peaks were associated with a brown,
odorous oil visually identified in the borings. It is '
believed that this is the liquid originally present in the
Waste Pit before it was filled.
-------
6
b.
Soils
Twelve borings were performed throughout the site to collect
landfill soils for chemical analysis. Numerous volatile
organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds and metals
were detected throughout the borings. Low levels of
asbestos and pesticides were also detected. In general, the
concentrations of contaminants were lower than those of the
Waste Pit.
Surface Water
. c.
Nine surface water stations were constructed to monitor
surface water quality in King's Run, Unnamed Run and Little
McMahon Creek. Two surface water runoff stations were also
constructed to evaluate water running off of the surface of
the Waste Pit and asbestos disposal area which is located in
the southern portion of the landfill. Sample analyses
determined that several semivolatile organic compounds and
heavy metals were present in the surface waters (see Table
1, p. 43).
d.
Sediments
J
4
Sediment samples were collected at eleven locations which
included eight of the nine surface water stations, one in
King's Run south of the asbestos disposal area and two in
the former drainage ditch which runs on the west side of the
active landfill. Several semivolatile organic compounds and
a wide range of metals were detected (see Table 1, p. 43).
Concentrations of the metals varied greatly. A trace of
asbestos was detected in one sample.
e.
Leachate
Six leachate samples were collected to provide additional
information on the water-bearing formations in which on-site
monitoring wells were installed. Three leachate seeps were
sampled in the vicinity of the Waste Pit, one along Unnamed
Run, one along King's Run and one at the southern toe of the
landfill. Five of the six leachate seeps are affected to
some degree by mine spoils and at least two of the leachate
seeps are impacted by waste disposal practices. The
sampling results showed high levels for metals including
arsenic, cadmium and chromium (see Table 1, p. 42). Iron,
manganese, and sulfate were also detected but are not of as
much health concern. Comparison of the various sampling
locations indicates that some of the inorganic contamination
could be coming from the coal mine spoils located on-site.
Three semivolatile organic compounds were detected in the
leachate and low levels of volatile organic compounds were
identified.
-------
7
f.
Air
The air investigation examined the potential for air
releases from the Waste pit and Asbestos Disposal Area.
This investigation involved two studies: 1) a perimeter air
survey to determine personal protection levels for on-site
work, and 2) a quantitative air monitoring study to quantify
on-site exposure. The perimeter air survey found no
detectable asbestos or organic vapors, except methane,
present anywhere on the site in the air.
g.
Ground Water
A network of 25 monitoring wells was installed throughout
the site. Water bearing units sampled include the
unconsolidated material above the first confining layer
(shallow upper zone or A-Zone), several bedrock aquifers
including the Wegee limestone, Waynesburg coal, Uniontown
sandstone, and Benwood limestone (deep upper zones or B-
Zone), and an aquifer which underlies the entire site, the
Redstone limestone (deep zone or C-Zone) (see Figure 4).
The hydrogeology of the shallow upper zone appears to be
controlled by the original topography and ground water
generally flows north to south. Water enters the shallow
upper zone through; 1) the northern impoundment, 2) King's
Run, and 3) infiltration from the northwest.. Ground water
flow directions are to the north and southwest in the Wegee
limestone and Waynesburg coal, respectively. Water levels
in the Uniontown sandstone indicate flow from the east to
the southwest, west, and northwest. Water enters the
Benwood limestone chiefly in its outcrop area, much of it by
percolation through the mine spoil, and moves generally
southward in response to the regional gradient. The
Redstone limestone only produced groundwater at two well
locations. All bedrock formations show no indications of.
any substantial primary porosity or permeability. Ground'
water yields are the result of secondary porosity and
permeability at joint faces, coal cleats, and along bedding
planes. In, general, most ground water emanating from
beneath the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site is discharged
laterally to surface water before leaving the site.
The overall ground water quality of the area reflects high
levels of inorganic constituents (see Table 1, pages 38 -
42). Most of the monitoring wells on-site, including the
background wells, exceed Secondary Maximum contaminant
Levels (SMCLs) for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), iron,
manganese, and sulfates. Maximum contaminant Levels (MCLs)
for a number of contaminants, including benzene, arsenic,
chromium and lead, were exceeded in several water-bearing
zones. Nineteen volatile organic compounds were detected in
monitoring wells. Most were at low concentrations of less
-------
Figure
8
-------
9
than 10 ug/l. A-Zone wells contained the largest number of
VOCs (11), B-Zone wells had fewer (6), and C-Zone wells the
fewest (2). Semivolatile compounds detected in wells
included naphthalene, 4-methyl phenol, and benzoic acid at
low concentrations. A wide variety of types and
concentrations of metals were detected in the monitoring
wells. Metals found most commonly include aluminum,
calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. other
metals found at lesser concentrations include barium,
chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, lead or
mercury.
Downgradient residential wells were also tested to determine
if the site was impacting drinking water supplies. Metals.
were primarily detected in the wells. In addition, two
organics, toluene and trichlorofluoromethane, were
identified. Trichlorofluoromethane was not detected on the
Buckeye Reclamation site. However, toluene was found in
many. samples on the site. The occurrence of toluene may
indicate that contamination is migrating from the site.
h.
Summarv
The primary objective of the RI was to define the nature and
extent of contamination at the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill
site. sampling results identified various levels of
contamination in all medias sampled, except air. Three
sources of the contamination were observed; 1) industrial
wastes disposed in or around the Waste Pit, 2) solid wastes
disposed in the general landfill area and, 3) coal mine
refuse which were placed in the area before landfi11ing
operations began.
The RI focused on determining if migration of cont~inants
from the Waste pit area had occurred by establishing
contaminant levels in the background, coal mine refuse,
general landfill and the Waste Pit. High levels of heavy
metal contamination were found in buried sludges near the
waste Pit as well as in the coal mine spoils. Overall, the
study did establish that high levels of contamination,
derived from industrial waste disposal activities exist in
the waste pit area. There is evidence that contaminants
have moved from the waste pit sediments at least as far as
monitoring well 4A (refer to Figure 4), about 100 feet east
of the waste pit. contaminants emanating from the waste pit
may have moved beyond well 4A, to the vicinity of monitoring
well 7A, and even farther, but the evidence is not
conclusive.
Migration of contaminants from the waste pit is a concern
because these contaminants further degrade groundwater in
the area. Groundwater which has migrated through the
-------
10
landfill and coal mine spoil can also be released to surface
waters through leachate outbreaks, further degrading surface
water quality. Soils which have come in contact with the
hazardous wastes disposed at the site and/or leachate
emanating from the site have also become contaminated.
Trespassers and people who worked in the active portion of
the landfill may have been exposed to site related
contamination. King's Run and Little McMahon Creek, which
receive drainage water from the site, have been designated
as limited resource waters (AMD-impacted) and are vulnerable
to contaminant releases from the landfill.
VI.
Summarv of site Risks
An Endangerment Assessment (EA), which received extensive u.s.
EPA and OEPA input, was conducted in order to determine the
extent of the threat to public health and the environment under
presentan~ future conditions, and to determine which aspects of
the site merit remediation (Buckeye Reclamation Landfill
Endangerment Assessment, Buckeye Reclamation Landfill Steering
Committee, 1991). The EA assesses health risks by selecting
indicator chemicals, evaluating pathways through which the
contaminants could come in contact with people, calculating risks
then posed by each chemical in each pathway and summing relevant
risks for current and future uses of the site. There are two
types of risks that contamination from a site may pose to humans,
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic. All people carry a risk of
contracting cancer in their lifetime. The EA estimates the
excess environmental risks, posed by the site over and above the
average risk. Excess upper bound lifetime cancer risks ranging
between lO~ and lO~ (one person in ten thousand to one person in
one million) are considered acceptable. However, a risk. of 10~
will serve as the point of departure for remediation goals for
the BRL site. Noncarcinogenic risks are those which cause other
illnesses such as impaired organ function, damage to the nervous
system, etc. Noncarcinogenic health effects are measured. by a
"hazard index", which is a calculation of a ratio of exposure to
dose at which no effect is seen. If potential exposures to
contaminants result in hazard indices which are greater than a
value of one, then noncancer health effects may result from
exposure.
a.
Selection of contaminants of Concern
As was indicated previously, there are three potential
sources of contamination at the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill
site. In the Buckeye EA, the hazards/risks attributable to
the following contaminants were compared to hazards/risks
associated with pre-landfill conditions (conditions which
would include contamination levels resulting from coal mine
-------
11
refuse). Twelve contaminants detected in the Waste Pit,
soils, leachate, ground water, and surface water were
identified as indicator chemicals. Indicator chemicals were
chosen based on factors such as the number of times a
chemical was detected, the maximum concentration, and
persistence and toxicity to human health and the
environment. The indicator chemicals listed below account
for the majority of health-based risk from conditions at the
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill.
Inoraanics
oraanics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Benzene
Trich10roethene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,1-Dich10roethene
Carcinogenic PAHs
Toluene
b.
AssumDtions and Constants Used
The toxicity factors for quantification of subchronic,
chronic and lifetime hazards for indicator chemicals at the
Buckeye site are given in Table 2. Adjusted oral toxicity
values for quantification of subchronic, chronic, and
lifetime dermal hazards and risks associated with indicator
chemicals are given in Table 3. A summary of noncancer
hazard/cancer risk calculations for environmental media are
provided in Table 4.
c.
Baseline Risk Assessment
As part of the EA, a baseline risk assessment was conducted.
This evaluation was performed to determine the likelihood of
current or future exposures generating adverse health
affects, such as cancer. To ascertain the level of .
remediation warranted at the site, the risk assessment also
determined which contaminants and exposure pathways need to
be addressed in the remedial action. Table 5 provides the
major findings of the EA for the BRL site.
Routes of exposure were identified through which the public
and environmental receptors could come in contact with
contamination at the site. Both current-use pathways and
future-use pathways were examined.
d.
Evaluation of Future Risks
Potential future-use exposure routes may evolve if the land
upon which the landfill is situated is used for different
purposes. As a means of assessing a worst case situation,
if no remediation occurs at the site, a future-use scenario
-------
12
was developed in which residential housing was built on
site, and residents, including children, were exposed to
contaminants. The potential routes of exposure evaluated
under these conditions were:
1.
ingestion of on-site surface water, groundwater,
or off-site residential well water,
incidental ingestion of on-site soil,
inhalation of VOCs while showering,
dermal contact with on-site ground water or off-
site residential well water, and
dermal contact with on-site soil.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Under the future use scenario, both excess cancer risks and
noncarcinogenic hazards were, identified. For'
noncarcinogenic exposures, ground water and surface water
utilization are of primary concern. Hazard indices for both
average and maximum contaminant concentrations at the BRL
site are greater than one, ranging from value of 7.81 to
21.3.
Excess cancer risk estimates were also identified for
exposures to site soil, ground water, and surface water.
Site related potential cancer risks range from 6.53 x 10-3to
1.48 x 10-2for average and maximum chemical concentrations,
respectively. '
e.
Evaluation of CUrrent Risks
CUrrent risks from site related contamination were.
evaluated. These risks were associated with contaminant
exposure to adults and adolescents who go onto the site.
Under current conditions at the site, the existing routes of
exposure include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
incidental ingestion of on-site soil,
inhalation of on-site particulates,
dermal contact with on-site soils and leachate,
and
dermal contact with on-site surface water.
None of the existing exposure pathways for the BRL site were
associated with noncarcinogenic hazards indices greater than
one. Of the existing exposure pathways identified for the
BRL site, only the inhalation of fugitive dusts was
associated with excess cancer risks. current use cancer
risks range from 3.76 x 10-4to 1.05 x 10- for average and
maximum chemical concentrations, respectively.
-------
13
f.
Ecoloqical Assessment
An Ecological Assessment was performed as part of the EA.
The objective of the Ecological Assessment was to examine
impacts on the local environment, posed by the site. The
study also attempted to differentiate effects from acid mine
drainage and waste disposal practices on the environment.
The contaminant levels in the soil and surface-water samples
downgradient from the site are elevated as indicated by the
monitoring results from these media. Acute toxic effects
from the contaminants at levels (see Table 1) present (in
soil and surface water) may cause death to animals, plants,
birds and fish; they may also cause suppressed growth
rates/crop yields in plants.
The contaminants present at the BRL site may potentially
accumulate in the tissues of plants, fish, shellfish, and
animals. Chronic toxic effects on animals and birds include
a shortened life span, reproductive problems, lower -
fertility, changes in appearance and behavior and/or death.
The effects on plants are a low growth rate and decreased
crop yields.
3
,~ 4
'ON
- ,
Comparison of information
concerning potential
threatened, rare or endangered
species of fauna in Belmont
County and data collected in
the RI showed no potentially
threatened, rare or endangered
species or fauna. According
to the RI, fauna observed in
the area were red fox,
whitetail deer, great blue
heron, rabbits, possum,
eastern gray squirrel, striped
skunk, mice, songbirds, and
other common bird species.
An Aquatic Biota Survey was
also conducted to evaluate the
effects of any potential
contaminant releases from the
site on aquatic organisms -
present in streams receiving
drainage from the site. The
survey, explained in the RI,
section 7.0, involved
characterization of fish and
benthic macro invertebrate
communities. The benthic
Fiqure 4. Sampling stations
for the Buckeye- Reclamation
Biota Survey
-------
14
invertebrate samples examined were dominated by pollution-
tolerant groups; and fish species (see below) considered
tolerant of pollution were the only species collected at
eight stream stations (see Figure 5 for station locations).
All locations surveyed appeared to be impacted; results of
both fish and macro invertebrate surveys demonstrated a
pronounced gradient in stream water quality with proximity
to the site. stations 2, 5, and 6 exhibited a scarcity of
benthic macro invertebrates and absence of fish (refer to
Table 6). This suggests that the instream environment was
extremely poor at these stations, with conditions at Station
2 least favorable for persistence of living organisms.
Fish were captured at five of the eight stations where
electrofishing was conducted, including a single creek chub
(Semotilus Atromaculatus) from Station 7 just downstream of
the impoundment on Kings Run. No fish were collected from
Unnamed Run or at the lower two stations on Kings Run
(Stations 5 and 6), while fish were most abundant in Little
McMahon Creek upstream of the confluence with Unnamed Run
and in Kings Run above the impoundment, Stations 1 and 8,
respectively.
Four species of fish (representing three families) were
taken during stream electrofishing: creek chub, blacknose
dace (Rhinichthvs atratulus), white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), an apparent Lepomis hybrid between green
sunfish (LeDomis cvanellus), and pumpkinseed sunfish
(LeDomis aibbosus). Of these, creek chub was the most
widespread in distribution while slightly higher numbers of
Lepomis hybrids were taken overall. A single white sucker
was collected at Station 1, on Little McMahon Creek upstream
from the Unnamed Run confluence. .
g.
Conclusions of the Endanaerment Assessment
Table 5 summarizes the results of the Endangerment
Assessment. The results of the EA indicate that remediation
is needed as current and potential future exposures pose
health threats. CUrrent threats result from inhalation of
fugitive dust at the site along with incidental ingestion of
and dermal contact with on-site soils at the site. Future-
use carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic threats may occur from
direct contact with and long-term ingestion of surface
water, soils, and ground water as well as inhaling VOCs
while showering with contaminated water from the site.
Site related impacts on the local environment were assessed.
Surveys of larger fauna showed no potentially threatened,
rare or endangered species. A macro invertebrate population
survey and fish population survey documented that the site
-------
15
was impacting nearby streams and stream beds. Where
organisms were present at all, communities were dominated by
pOllution-tolerant species. Monitoring data, however, was
unable to distinguish between impacts on the environment
posed by waste disposal practices at the site or acid mine
drainage emanating from the site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response
action selected in this Record of Decision, may present
imminent and substantial endangerment to pUblic health,
welfare and the environment.
VII. DescriDtion of Alternatives
Alternatives for the remediation of the Buckeye Reclamation
Landfill site have been evaluated in a Feasibility study (FS),
which is available for review by the public at the st.
Clairsville Public Library and at the Neffs Branch of the Martins
Ferry Public Library. The Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted
to identify and screen technologies and alternatives for
addressing the contamination problems at the site (Feasibility
Study, Buckeye Reclamation.Landfill Steering Committee, April,
1991). The Endangerment Assessment concluded that three
significant exposure and contaminant routes exist for the Buckeye
Reclamation site. These routes are:
*
Dermal contact / inhalation / ingestion of surface
soils
Migration of contaminants from surface and
subsurface soils into ground water / surface
water
Ingestion of contaminated ground water / surface
water.
*
*
The following media, therefore present an existing or potential
future threat to public health and the environment:
Surface / Subsurface Soils
Ground Water / Surface Water
The Feasibility Study evaluates methods to meet remedial action
goals which, based upon the EA, are to protect public health and
the environment from contaminants in soils and surface/ground
water. This can be accomplished by limiting direct physical
contact with the contaminated soils to reduce the threat of
dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion of soils and to restore
the surface/ground' water to a useful, less threatening state by
reducing the levels of the contaminants present. Site
investigations show that most ground water originating in
aquifers under the Buckeye Reclamation site migrates laterally
into the coal mine refuse and is eventually discharged as
*
. *
-------
16
leachate to Kings Run. In effect, most site groundwater becomes
surface water before it leaves the site. Therefore, groundwater
and surface water may be treated under a single remedial action
objective.
The initial screening included four alternatives which were
evaluated against effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
Three of the original four alternatives were evaluated in detail
in the Feasibility study, Alternatives 1,3 and 4. Alternative 2,
which consisted of monitoring and institutional controls, did not
meet remedial action objectives, therefore it was not carried
through detailed analysis. Alternative 1, the no-action
alternative, does not comply with Applicable and Relevant or
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs - pertinent environmental
regulations), however it is retained as a statutory requirement
for baseline comparison to other alternatives. The other two
alternatives each incorporate treatment of leachate and ground
water as a portion of the remedy. Two methods of leachate
treatment were examined; option A - Chemical Treatment and Option
B - Constructed Wetlands for each of the remaining alternatives.
Under Option A, a surface leachate seep and ground water
underdrain collection system shall discharge into an aeration
pond where aeration of carbonates and bicarbonates shall reduce
lime requirements for precipitation and also remove any volatile
organic compounds present. Water from the aeration basin would
then be transferred to a settling basin through a channel, where
a lime slurry would be added. The settling pond would have
sufficient residence time to allow settling of the metal
hydroxides, calcium sulfate formed from reaction between the lime
feed and sulfates in the water, and suspended total solids.
Treated water from the settling pond would discharge into Little
McMahon Creek through a riprap-lined channel.
Under Option B, the surface leachate seep and ground water
underdrain system would discharge into a riprap lined channel at
the southern end of the landfill cap which would in turn
discharge to a constructed wetlands. The channel will be lined
with limestone riprap to assist in pH adjustment~ The wetlands
size will be from 9 - 18 acres. The envisioned design includes
construction of a maximum of six cells, each approximately 3
acres in size. Each cell would have a 1 -foot base of compacted
clay, a geomembrane, sand, crushed limestone, and one foot of
spent mushroom compost or other suitable substrate which will be
seeded or mulched to establish cattails and other wetland
vegetation. Flow paths would be established using hay bales to
maximize the effective retention time and avoid channelization or
short-circuiting of the cells. Bacteria driven chemical
reactions in the wetlands will cause iron and other metals and
chemicals of concern to drop out of solution and lower the
acidity of the water. This is accomplished by creating a sulfate
reducing environment. Since the leachate has a high
-------
17
concentration of sulfate, generation of sulfide in an anaerobic
environment is assured. Under these conditions, iron sulfide
(FeS) precipitation should also remove arsenic as an arsenide.
with the rise in pH to above 6, aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3) will
precipitate and this will also positively affect the removal of
beryllium either as an hydroxide or an adsorbed species. Treated
water from the constructed wetland treatment system would be
discharged to Little McMahon Creek.
Wetlands treatment of a mixture of landfill leachate, acid mine
drainage and ground water is an innovative technology.
Treatability studies are being performed to "assess the
effectiveness of the wetlands treatment m~thod. The object of
the treatability studies is to determine if levels of
contaminants of concern, mainly metals, can be lowered to meet
discharge limits.
All alternatives are summarized below:
Alternative 1 - No Action
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
Estimated Annual O&M Cost:
Estimated time to Implement
$
$
$
o
o
o
none
The No Action Alternative is a no cost alternative that is
required to be retained through the detailed analysis of
alternatives stage by the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Under a No Action Alternative, no remediation or maintenance
of the site would be performed whatsoever. The site would
remain in its current state. The No Action Alternative can
therefore be used as a baseline for comparison to the other
alternatives developed.
Alternative 3A - Fullv RCRA ComDliant. subtitle C CaD with
Chemical Treatment
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Capital Costs: "
Present Worth Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Time to Implement:
$184,745,000
$196,913,000
$ 834,000
30 months
Alternative 3A involves the following major components:
*
*
*
*
*
*
RCRA Compliant, Hazardous Waste Cap
Institutional controls
Fencing
Ground water collection
Surface leachate seep collection
Ground water monitoring
-------
18
Surface leachate seep monitoring
Monitoring of Kings Run
Leachate/ground water Treatment by
Precipitation (Option A)
Alternative 3A utilizes a full RCRA cap to contain the
entire site. The cap will eliminate direct contact with
contaminated soils, reduce infiltration of rainwater, and
minimize the formation of acid mine and leachate drainage.
A RCRA cap consists of the following layers, from bottom to
top: a grading layer, a minimum of two feet of relatively
impermeable clay covered with a geomembrane (rubberized
sheet), at least one foot of sand, and two feet of soil for
establishing vegetation. Slopes for a full RCRA cap must be
2% to 5%. The slope requirements would result in Kings Run
being culverted under fill materials. Alternative 3A uses
the chemical treatment system to treat leachate and ground
water collected in the underdrain collection system. This
alternative also includes institutional controls on what the
property may be used for in the future, installing a fence
around the site, and periodic sampling of ground water to
monitor contaminant migration.
*
*
*
Neutralization/
Alternative 3B - Fullv RCRA ComDliant CaD with Wetlands
Treatment
~
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Capital Cost:
Present Worth:
Annual O&M Cost:
Time to Implement
$191,227,000
$193,084,000
$ 153,000
30 months
The major components of alternative 3B are:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RCRA Compliant Hazardous Waste Cap
Institutional controls
Fencing
Ground water collection
Surface leachate seep collection
Ground water monitoring
Surface leachate seep monitoring
Monitoring of Kings Run
Leachate/ground water Treatment by
Wetlands (Option B)
Constructed
Alternative 3B utilizes the same type of RCRA cover.system
and underdrain collection system as 3A above, except
alternative 3B uses constructed wetlands to treat the
collected leachate and ground water. All other components
are the same as 3A.
-------
19
Alternative 4A - Solid Waste (Standard) Landfill Cap with
Chemical Treatment
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Capital Cost:
Present Worth:
Annual O&M Cost:
time to Implement
$ 40,447,000
$ 52,492,000
$ 780,000
18 months
The major components of Alternative 4A are:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Solid Waste Landfill Cap
Institutional controls
Fencing .
Ground water collection
Surface leachate seep collection
Ground water monitoring
Surface leachate seep monitoring
Monitoring of Kings Run
Leachate/ground water Treatment by
Precipitation (Option A)
Neutralization/
This alternative consists of a solid waste landfill cap
which should have a final slope of 5% to 25%. Ohio Solid
Waste Requlations for closure of a solid. waste landfill were
used to' develop this alternative. A solid waste cap
consists of two feet of impermeable clay, a one foot minimum
drainage layer of sand, and a vegetated top layer with a
minimum thickness of two feet. Kings Run will remain in
place and the western bank will be lined with riprap to
control erosion. A leachate and ground water collection
system will be installed to intercept acid mine drainage
(AMD) and leachate from the landfilled areas and channel it
to the treatment system. The AMD and leachate will be
treated with hydrated lime in the treatment system. Also
included in this option are institutional controls on future
property use, installing of a fence around the site, and
ground water monitoring for contaminant migration.
Alternative 4B - Solid Waste (Standard) Landfill Cap with
Wetlands Treatment
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Capital Cost:
Present Worth:
Annual O&M Cost:
time to Implement
$ 46,923,000
$ 48,663,000
$ 99,000
18 months
The major components of Alternative 4B are:
*
*
*
*
Solid Waste Landfill Cap
Institutional controls
Fencing
Ground water collection
-------
20
*
*
*
*
*
Surface leachate seep collection
Ground water monitoring
Surface leachate seep monitoring
Monitoring of Kings Run
Leachate/ground water treatment by
wetlands (Option B)
constructed
Alternative 4B is the same as 4A except AMD, leachate and
ground water collected by the underdrain system will be
treated by the constructed wetlands. All other components
are similar.
VIII.
Summarv of Comoarative Analvsis of. Alternatives
The remedial alternatives developed during the Feasibility Study
were evaluated by the u.S. EPA using the following nine criteria.
The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were then
compared to determine which alternative provided the best balance
among these nine criteria. These criteria are set forth in the
National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.430. .
1. Overall orotection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection, and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced
or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
2. Comoliance with ARARs addresses whether
will meet all of the applicable or relevant
requirements (ARARs) of other environmental
provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
or not a remedy
and appropriate
statutes and/or
3. Lona-term effectiveness and
ability of a remedy to maintain
health and the environment over
been met.
oermanence refers to the
reliable protection of human
time once cleanup goals have
4. Reduction of toxicitv. mobilitv. or volume is the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a
remedy may employ.
5. Short-term effectiveness involves 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 cleanup
goals are achieved..
6. Imolementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of goods
and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
7.
Cost includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
-------
21
8. State'aaencv acceDtance includes whether, based on its
review of the RIfFS and Proposed Plan, the State agency
(OEPA) concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred
alternative.
9. Communitv acceDtance will be assessed in the Record of
Decision following a review of the public comments received
on the RIfFS Report and the Proposed Plan.
Each alternative was evaluated against these nine criteria. The
selected alternative is Alternative 4B, a standard, or solid
waste landfill cap, with wetlands treatment of collected
leachate, acid mine drainage and ground water. A discussion of
how the alternatives compare to each other based upon these
criteria follows. .
criterion 1-
Environment
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
All of the remedial alternatives considered for the Site,
except for the no action alternative and the institutional
controls alternative, are protective of human health and the
environment. This protection is achieved by eliminating,
reducing or controlling risks through combinations of
treatment, engineering controls and institutional controls.
As the no-action alternative and Alternative. 2, the
institutional controls alternative, do not provide
protection of human health and the environment, they are not
eligible for selection and shall not be discussed further in
this document. .
Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide protection to trespassers
on site because the landfill caps would cover contaminated
soils thus eliminating exposure to the soils. Collection of
landfill. leachate, ground water and acid mine drainage would
eliminate uncontrolled releases of contaminants to the
environment, thereby minimizing the chance of exposure.
Treatment of the leachate, groundwater, and acid mine
drainage will convert contaminants in these liquids to more
stable forms and remove the contaminants from solution.
criterion 2. ComDliance with ADDlicable or Relevant and
ADDroDriate Reauirements (ARARs)
section 121 (d) of SARA requires that remedial actions meet
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) of other environmental laws. These laws may
include: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and any state law which has more
stringent requirements than the corresponding Federal law.
"Legally applicable" requirements are those cleanup
-------
22
standards, standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria or
limitations promulgated under Federal or state law that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstances at a CERCLA site. "Relevant and appropriate"
requirements are those requirements that, while not legally
applicable to the remedial action, address problems or
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the
site that their application is well suited to the remedial
action.
Non-promulgated advisories or guidance documents issued by
federal or state governments do not have the status of
ARARs; however, where no applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements exist, or for some reason may not
be sufficiently protective, non-promulgated advisories or
guidance documents may be considered in determining the
necessary level of clean up for protection of human health
and the environment.
Several specific ARARs are discussed below.
a) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA
characteristic wastes (corrosive; D002 and EP Toxic) were
disposed in a limited portion of the Buckeye Reclamation
Landfill (BRL) site, prior to 1980. U.S. EPA is
implementing a waiver of RCRA landfill closure requirements
pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(d)(4)(C) and (D) and 40 CFR
300.430(f) (1) (ii) (C), due to the steepness of the slopes
present at the BRL site. Sections 121(d) (4) (C) provide U.S.
EPA authority to waive a requirement when "compliance with
such requirement is technically impracticable from an
engineering perspective". Slope requirements for the
subtitle C cap cannot be reasonably implemented at this site
because filling the valley would be required and Kings Run
would be diverted through pipes under the cap. Inasmuch as
the subtitle C cap is technically impracticable, from both
an engineering and reliability perspective, a waiver of the
RCRA closure requirements pursuant to CERCLA 121(d) (4)(D) is
also justified. This section provides u.S. EPA authority to
waive a requirement when "the alternative will attain a
standard of performance that is equivalent to that required
under the otherwise applicable stan~ard, requirement, or
limitation through use of another method or approach". A
subtitle C cap at the BRL site is technically impracticable
and a solid waste cap will attain a standard of performance
equivalent to or greater than RCRA cap requirements for the
following reasons: .
1)
The steep slopes of the. area to be. capped at the
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill will have to be
-------
23
reduced significantly (to 2-5%) in order to
construct the RCRA cap. If it is not possible to
decrease the slopes to this level, cover materials
placed over the synthetic liner, which is required
for a RCRA cap, may become unstable when saturated
and contribute to synthetic liner failure and
possible subsequent cap failure. Since the solid
waste cap can be implemented over steeper slopes
(5-25%) and does not require such liners, the
likelihood of a solid waste cap failure at this
site is significantly decreased. Therefore, the
solid waste cap requirements are likely to result
in improved performance of the remedial action.
2)
Implementation of the RCRA cap will require
excavation of large volumes of waste material in
order to meet RCRA slope requirements. The
excavation of waste will increase the likelihood
of human exposure to hazardous substances. Since
the solid waste cap can be implemented over
steeper slopes, a much lower volume of waste will
have to be excavated during remedial construction.
Thus, implementation of the solid waste cap will
achieve enhanced performance from the perspective
of overall control of risk.
3)
Implementation of the RCRA cap will require
culverting Kings Run under the cap. Allowing
water to flow under the cap will increase the
potential for infiltration of such water into the
capped waste material (potentially increasing the
amount of ground water contamination and leachate
production). However, the solid waste cap can be
implemented without cUlverting Kings Run.
Therefore, the solid waste cap will decrease the
potential for increased infiltration, contaminant
migration, and leachate production from the
culverted stream. .
b) Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-27-11, Final Closure
of sanitary Landfill Facilities. The selected remedy will
meet or exceed the requirements of this rule by installing
the specified cap and surface water diversion controls. The
cap shall be installed over all areas where waste disposal
occurred and up gradient areas which could act as recharge
zones to site ground waters. .The impermeable layer of the
cap must not exceed 1x10~ cm/sec. permeability and the
layers must meet the minimum thickness requirements.
c) OAC 3745-27-10, Ground Water Monitoring Program. The
.selected remedy includes a ground water monitoring program
-------
24
which will assure no contaminants are leaving the site.
Points of ground water compliance are considered to be the
landfill boundaries.
d) OAC 3745-27-14, Post Closure Care of Sanitary Landfill
Facilities. Post closure care will continue for a minimum
of 30 years after the closure date. Post closure care
involves leachate collection and management, surface water
management, ground water monitoring, regular inspections of
the cap for erosion, subsidence, and/or settlement, and
periodic maintenance such as repair of any erosion damage to
the cap or any of the drainage channels from surface water
runoff.
e) Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 6111, Water Pollution
Control Law. Treatment of the collected leachate and grourid
water will restore the quality of waters leaving the site in
accordance with this law.
f) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The treatment system is expected to be located on-site, or
in near proximity to the site. Consequently, the
administrative requirements of an NPDES Permit and Permit-
To-Install need not be met. However, substantive
requirements such as design standards and'effluent discharge
limits must be adhered to. Interim limits for the wetlands
discharge have been calculated based on water quality
standards (see Attachment A). These limits may be made more
stringent based upon the performance of the wetlands system.
Should the treatment system be located off-site, the full
NPDES Permit and PTI will be required.
g) Any sludge generated by the chemical/physical treatment
system or the wetlands treatment system, whether the system
is located on-site or off-site, will need to be evaluated
pursuant to OAC 3745-52-11 as a potential hazardous waste.
Criterion 3.
Lona-term Effectiveness and Permanence
capping is a reliable technology for isolating contamination
from the surface environment and minimizing infiltration of
precipitation. with infiltration minimized, leachate
generation should be minimized. The RCRA multi-layer cap
will require more involved inspection and maintenan~e to
assure long-term performance. The RCRA cap would also cover
a portion of Kings Run, because of the slope requirements.
Kings Run would then be channeled through culverts under the
cap. This would result in loss of some surface water
wildlife habitat and involve complicated inspection and
maintenance of the culverts. Wetlands treatment of the
collected leachate/groundwater should prove more effective
over the long term because, once established, the wetlands
-------
25
should be a self contained system. Bacteria in the
anaerobic substrate should reproduce, feeding on the inflow
of sulfate-rich leachate. with the site capped and leachate
generation from the site decreasing, required capacity for
the wetlands treatment should also decrease. In effect,
long-term effectiveness of the wetlands treatment should
increase with time. Any combination of the above
alternatives will increase water quality in the area of the
site, which will benefit surface water wildlife habitats.
Criterion 4.
Treatment
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv or Volume Throuqh
Alternatives 3 and 4 will both include treatment of
collected leachate/ground water. Either of the two
treatment options will reduce the mobility of the
contaminants of concern by converting the compounds to a
more chemically stable species. By physically eliminating
discharges to Kings Run with the leachate/ground water
collection system, the total volume of contaminated waters
will be greatly decreased. Capping the site will minimize
leachate generation as water-bearing zones under the site
dewater.
options for treating waste pit soils, including incineration
and sOlidification/stabilization, were evaluated in the
Feasibility study. Both treatment options were eliminated
during the phase two screening process due to the types of
contaminants which are present in the soils, difficulties in
implementing the treatments, short-term health risks
involved in digging up the contaminated soils and the high
cost versus little overall environmental benefit of
treatment. Incineration effectively destroys organic
contaminants but leaves metals in the ash, which would
require further treatment before disposal. SOlidification/
stabilization would immobilize the metal contaminants but
may not address the organic contaminants. Based on the
above factors, the Agency determined that treatment of the
waste pit soils would not be part of the remedy for the BRL
site.
Criterion 5.
Short-term Effectiveness
The standard or solid waste landfill cap proposed in
Alternative 4 requires far less earth moving activities
(approximately 1.3 million cubic yards) and an estimated 18
months for construction. Alternative 3, the RCRA cap,
involves extensive earth moving activities (approximately 11
million cubic yards) and an estimated 30 months for
construction because of the 2% to 5% slope requirement.
Each of the cap types will likely use some cut and fill of
landfilled areas to meet slope requirements, however, the
-------
26
standard cap requires less excavation and time, decreasing
the amount of exposure to contaminated soils. Installation
of the RCRA cap would cover the northern portions of Kings
Run, therefore necessitating culverting those portions of
the stream. This would require more extensive surface water
runoff management because surface runoff would need to be
routed to the southern portions of Kings Run where it is not
culverted. The implementation of the preferred alternative
utilizing the leachate/ground water collection with either
water treatment option A or B is not expected to have a
significant detrimental impact on the environment. It
should produce an immediate environmental benefit by
significantly reducing or eliminating the quantity and
concentration of the contaminated waste/leachate that is
currently being released to local surface waters.
Criterion 6. ImDlementability
Each of the alternatives considered is implementable. The
technologies of excavation and capping have been well
proven, and have been extensively practiced on hazardous
waste sites in the past. Alternative 4 is more readily
implementable because less culverting and diverting of
streams is involved and less earth/waste movement will be
necessary. The proposed ground water and surface leachate
seep collection technologies are readily implementable at
the BRL site. Implementation of the ground water and
surface leachate seep treatment by precipitationl
neutralization can also be readily implementable.
Sufficient area is available for the construction of this
option. As wetlands treatment requires more space
(approximately 9-18 acres), site topography needs to be
carefully evaluated during the remedial design phase. A
treatability study is currently being conducted to evaluate
the effectiveness of the wetlands treatment for removal of
the contaminants of concern.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would be expected to take a
minimum of 30 months whereas Alternative 4 would take 18
months. Construction schedules could be delayed based on
weather conditions as well as construction-related factors.
criterion 7.
Cost
Alternative 4 costs are estimated to range from $52,492,000
to $48,663,000, with option A or B, respectively.
Alternative 4B is the least expensive remedy which is
protective of human health and the environment and meets
ARARs. The cost of Alternative 3 ranges from $196,913,000
to $193,084,000 with treatment option A or B, respectively.
-------
27
criterion 8.
state Acceptance
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has been
closely involved with the development and review of all
aspects of the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study,
Endangerment Assessment, and all related documents for this
Site as a Party to the AOC under which the RI/FS was
performed. The Ohio EPA has also been closely involved'in
the remedy selection process. The Proposed Plan was issued
as a joint proposal of the u.s. EPA and Ohio EPA.
A letter from the Director of the Ohio EPA indicating Ohio
EPA's concurrence on this Record of Decision has been
received by the u.s. EPA.
criterion 9.
Communitv Acceptance
Written comments rec~ived during the pUblic comment period
and, oral comments taken during the Proposed Plan public
meeting have been considered by the u.s. EPA.
Several members of the community expressed concerns that the
cost of the proposed remedy would raise their taxes and/or
bankrupt companies responsible for the cleanup. Other
members of the community were not convinced that the site
actually posed a health risk, therefore stating that any
remedial costs were not justified. Comments submitted by
the PRP group which conducted the RI/FS under the Agencies'
oversight stated that several assumptions used in the
Endangerment Assessment were overly conservative. All of
the public comments received are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary which is attached to this Record of
Decision (ROD).
After considering public comments, the u.S. EPA determined
that public health and the environment are at risk from site
related contamination. Therefore, public health and the
environment would be bett~r served by finalizing the ROD in
its present form'so that implementation of the remedy could
begin. ' , ,
In summary, the u.s. EPA has determined that the selected
alternative provides the best balance with respect to the nine
criteria used to evaluate remedies. Based upon the information
available at this time, therefore, the u.s. EPA and the OEPA
believe that the selected alternative would protect human health
and the environment, wo~ld comply with ARARs as qualified above,
would be cost-effective, and would utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. The selected alternative will satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element by utilizing
wetlands treatment of collected leachate and ground water. A
-------
28
full Responsiveness Summary to all comments received by u.S. EPA
is attached.
IX. Selected Remedv
The selected Alternative. detailed descriDtion
The selected alternative at the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill Site
is Alternative 4B, which involves the following:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Solid Waste Landfill Cap
Institutional controls
Fencing
Ground water collection
Surface leachate seep collection
Ground water monitoring
. Surface leachate seep monitoring
Monitoring of Kings Run
Leachate/ground water treatment by
wetlands (Option B)
constructed
Details on each component of the alternative are given below.
The remediation goals for this selected alternative were based on
current and potential future-use risks posed by the site which
were developed in the BRL Endangerment Assessment. state of Ohio
solid waste closure regulations were also considered in selecting
this alternative.
Solid Waste Landfill CaD
This alternative involves leaving the waste pit material in place
and covering the entire landfilled area, the waste pit, and
suspected sources of recharge for the waste pit and water-bearing
zones potentially in contact with it with a solid waste landfill
cap (Figure 6). The purpose of the cap would be to minimize
infiltration of precipitation' through the landfilled material,
minimize human and animal contact with the landfilled material,
control surf~ce flushing of acid-producing material by air and
water erosion. The cap will also minimize contamination of
surface water runoff and the dispersion of hazardous wastes and
contaminated surface soil by wind. This alternative requires
limited cut and fill volumes and fewer cap materials. Asolid
waste cap is preferred over a cap with a geomembrane because, for
the site conditions at Buckeye, it would be as protective of
human health and the environment, more stable on the steeper
slopes and less costly to construct, inspect and maintain.
A solid waste landfill cap (Figure 6) consists of a vegetated top
cover, a middle drainage layer, and low permeability layer. The
material constituting the low permeability layer must not exceed
-------
29
u.s. EPA's Preferred Alternative
Cross-Section Landfill Cap
and Leachate Collection Trench
. Existing landfill contours
will be leveled during
construction of the landfill cap.
Figure 5. Cross-section 'of Cap and Leachate Collection System
IO~ em/sec. permeability. This design for a solid waste landfill
cap is specified by the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-27-
11. All solid waste landfills in Ohio must be closed in
accordance with this regulation. The vegetated top layer will
have a minimum thickness of two feet and consist of topsoil that
can support vegetation. A well-mixed cover of grasses and
legumes such as Kentucky bluegrass, c10ver~ and red top will
provide dense root system to anchor the soil and minimize wind
and water erosion. The drainage layer is located directly belo~
the vegetated top layer and has a minimum thickness of one footo'
The low permeability layer will consist of a low permeability.
soil with a minimum thickness ot two feet. This low permeability
soil layer minimizes the amount of infiltration to the capped
material.
To protect the west bank of Kings Run from further erosion and
preserve the integrity of the cap, the west bank will be lined
with a layer of stones called riprap. The channel will be lined
with an 18 inch blanket of graded riprap (around 12 inches in
diameter) that will extend approximate1Y.7 feet up the west bank
of Kings Run and along the stream bottom. A non-woven geotexti1e
will be installed between the soil and the riprap to minimize
soil movement into or through the riprap.
Drainage channels will be installed to the north and west of the
cap to collect surface water runoff from the cap and divert it
-------
30
away from the cap to protect it from erosion. North-south berms
will be constructed at all major slope breaks on the cap. The
berms will control the surface water runoff on the cap, therefore
minimizing erosion.
Post closure care for the cap will continue for a minimum of 30
years after the closure date as outlined in OAC 3745-27-14. Post
closure care involves leachate collection and management, surface
water management, ground water monitoring, regular inspections of
the cap for erosion, subsidence, and/or settlement, and periodic
maintenance such as repair of any erosion damage to the cap or
any of the drainage channels from surface water runoff.
Surface Leachate SeeD and Ground Water Collection Svstem
A leachate and ground water collection system will be installed
to intercept acid mine dr~inage (AMD), leachate and ground water
from thelandfilled areas and channel it to the treatment system.
This collection system will prevent .AMD and leachate from
collecting under the cap and discharging into Kings Run. The
collection system is envisioned to consist of combined
underdrains and french drains that will be installed around the
site perimeter and at existing and newly-identified leachate
seeps. Specifics of the leachate and ground water collection
system requirements will be determined during a predesign ground
water study of the site. This additional hydrogeologic
investigation will also be necessary to provide further data on
the extent of ground-water contamination and to determine the
potential for contaminated ground water to discharge beyond the
proposed collection drain.
Treatment of Collected Waters with Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetlands are the method of treating acid mine .
drainage and leachate preferred by U.S. EPA and OEPA (see Figure
7) at the BRL site. Wetlands are preferred over chemical
treatment because they reduce operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs, .will have less impact on the surrounding area, and have
proven effective at acid mine drainage reclamation projects in
Ohio. The goals of the treatment system are to raise the pH of
the collected waters and reduce the levels of contaminants of
concern to acceptable levels prior to discharge. Interium
discharge limits and a monitoring program for waters discharged
from the constructed wetlands treatment system are presented in
Attachment A.o Treatability studies are underway to test how
effectively the wetlands will remove contaminants of concern and
to optimize the performance of the system. If the studies
conclude wetlands do not adequately remove the chemicals,
construction ofothe chemical/physical treatment system will be
required.
The surface leachate seep and ground water collection system will
-------
Proposed locaUon ot landfill Cap
and Constructed Wetlands
31
discharge into a riprap-lined
(limestone) channel at the
southern end of the landfill
cap for the purpose of
aerating the leachate. The
limestone riprap may also act
as a pretreatment to
neutralize the leachate.
The riprap lined channel will
then discharge to a wetland
with up to six, 3 acre ponds,
resulting in a total size up
to 18 acres. Eac~ wetland
will have a one foot base of
compacteq clay overlain by ~
geomembrane to minimize the
loss of treatment waters into
the underlying soil. The
geomembrane liner is overlain
by six inches of sand, then
one foot of crushed limestone
aggregate. The limestone is
then covered with, one foot of
spent mushroom compost, or
other suitable.substrate,
which is seeded or mulched to
establish cattail and other
Fiqure 6. Proposed Landfill Cap wetland vegetation growth.
and Constructed Wetlands The clean water resulting from
the constructed wetlands
treatment will be discharged
into Little McMahon Creek. Testing of landfill leachate will be
used to refine design specifics of the constructed wetlands.
Wetland cells. may require dredging if sediments and/or sludge
accumulates to the point that treatment effectiveness is
decreased. The dredged materials shall be tested to determine
the proper method of disposal. Once a cell has been dredged, it
shall be reconstructed to the original specifications.
i
Monitoring and Institutional Controls
Other components of the preferred alternative include monitoring,
fencing and possible institutional controls. Ground water
monitoring wells will be sampled periodically to assure that no
contamination is moving off of the site. If excess levels of
contaminants are identified, future actions may be necessary to
address ground water problems. Surface leachate seeps will be
sampled to monitor contaminant levels in the landfill and
monitoring Kings Run will detect any possible discharges to that
stream. A fence will be installed around the perimeter of the
landfill to limit trespassing. Institutional controls limiting
-------
32
the development of the property and the placement of new wells on
the property and adjacent to the site may be sought voluntarily
from owners or compelled to the extent authorized under any
applicable local and state laws. In the event that institutional
controls are not implemented, the selected remedial action will
be re-evaluated to determine if additional actions should be
implemented to ensure that the remedy is permanent and effective
on a long term basis.
Treatabilitv Studv and Additional Hvdroaeoloaic Study
The first phase of treatability stuQY has begun to evalu~te the
effectiveness of wetlands treatment of waters typically emanating
from the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site. The first phase
involves a laboratory or screening scale study in which leachate
collected from the Buckeye Reclamation site is introduced to
different combinations of substrates under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Analyses of the liquid both before and
after treatment, in addition to monitoring the samples for
hydrogen sulfide generation and color changes, will provide
information on which combination of substrates and conditions are
more effective. Once the first phase is complete, larger scale
studies will be required during the remedial design. These
studies may be comprised of longer term laboratory testing and/or
small scale test systems constructed on the Buckeye Reclamation
Landfill site. If treatability studies indicate that the
wetlands will not effectively remove contaminants, chemical/
physical treatment will be required.
Additional hydrogeologic studies will be performed during the
remedial design of the selected remedy. The objective for these
studies is to refine data on ground water flow directions in
water bearing zones under the site, to better define locations of
the water table, and to provide additional information on the
extent of site related contamination. This information is
required for proper design of the ground water and surface'
leachate seep collection system.
Performance Standards and Clean-uD Goals
Performance standards for the solid waste landfill cap are taken
from the Ohio solid waste regulations (OAC-3745-27-11).
Permeability of the low permeability (clay) layer shall not
exceed lXlO-7centimeters per second. Permeability of the
drainage layer shall be lXlO-3centimeters per second at a
minimum. Thicknesses of the cap layers shall meet the minimum
requirements specified in the regulations. All surface water
management structures shall be designed and constructed to meet
the Ohio solid waste closure requirements.
Design, construction, and operation of the wetlands treatment
-------
33.
system must meet the substantive requirements of appropriate Ohio
permits. contaminants in waters discharqed from the wetlan~s .
treatment system to Little McMahon Creek shall not exceed the
interim.discharqe limits shown in.Attachment A.More strinqent
concentration limits may be required if proven attainable durinq
Remedial Desiqn/Remedial Action. . .
Cost
The approximate costs of the selected remedy are provided below:
Estimated capital Cost:
Estimated Present Worth:
Es~imated Annual .O&M Cost:
$ 46,923.,000.
$ 48,663,000
$ 99,000
Timeframe for ImDlementation
The estimated amount of time required for construction of this
remedy is 18 months. This construction schedule is heavily'
dependent on weather conditions and construction considerations
such as availability of materials and ~quipmerit. Neqotiations
for performance. of the Remedial Desiqn will require four months
and desiqn will require one year at a minimum. Therefore,
construction of the remedy should be completed approximately
.three years after the Record of Decision is siqned.
The wetlands will need to function as a lonq-term treatment
system. Volumes of collected leachate and qround water will
decrease once the cap is in place, but the treatment period will
likely be in excess of 30 years.
x.
statutorY Determinations
The followinq is a brief description of how the selected remedy
meets. the statutory requirements of se~tion 121 of CERCLA.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment.
~he Endanqerment Assessment which was developed for this .site
concluded that three sig~ificant exposure and contaminant routes
exist for the Buckeye Reclamation site. These routes are:
.
Dermal contact / inhalation / inqestionof surface
soils .
Migration of contaminants from surface and
subsurface soils into ground water / surface
water -
Inqestion of contaminated ground water / surface
water. I
.
.
The followinq media, therefore present an existing or potential
threat to public. health and the environment:
-------
34
*
*
Surface / Subsurface Soils
. Ground Water / Surface Water
Implementation of the selected remedy will reduce and control
potential-risks to human health and the environment posed by
exposure to these two media. contaminated surface and subsurface
soils. will be covered by the landfill cap, thereby eliminating
the direct exposure route. Institutional controls that may be
placed on the property will specify future use limitations for
the site area. contaminated discharges from the landfill will be
intercepted by the surface leachate seep and ground water
collection system, thus improving th~ local surface water
quality. Risks presented by the ground water and surface waters
will be reduced by treating the waters in the constructed
wetlands. Surface and ground water clean-up levels for the
treatment system are listed in Attachment A. Once remedial
action is underway, any risk posed by the site will fall within
the cumulative risk range of 10-4 to 10-7 for carcinogenic
compounds and so that the cumulative hazard indices for non-
-carcinogens will be less than one. Implementation of~the
selected remedy will not pose Unacceptable short-term risks or
cross-media impacts. .'
ComDliance with ADDlicable or Relevant and ADDroDriate
Reauirements.
The selected remedy is designed to meet all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of Federal and
State statutes in accordance with section l21(d) of CERCLA,
except where it will be ~ecessary to obtain waivers. CERCLA
Section 121(d) allows for selection of a remedy that does not
attain ARARs under limited circumstances. The waiver of the RCRA
closure .standard ARAR at the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site is
justified because "compliance with such requirements is
technically impracticable from an engineering perspective" and
"the remedial action selected will attain a standard of
performance that is equivalent to that required under the
otherwise applicable standard, reqUirement, criteria, or
limitation, through use of another method or approach". .
The Fe~eral ARARs include RCRA (40 CFR Part 260~271), the Safe
Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Section 141.11 and .12), the Clean
Water Act (40 CFR Parts 122, 125 and 131), and the Clean Air Act
(40 CFR Parts 50, 60 and 61). State ARARs include the Ohio
Revised Code Chapter 6111 and 3734.
The following specific ARARs will be met.by the selected remedy:
Surface Water
Substantive requirements of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 6111,
the National pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
. I
-------
35
the National pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) will be met by the
wetlands treatment system. The discharge limits for treated
ground water and landfill leachate discharged to Little McMahon
Creek are listed in Attachment A. The limits may be modified to
more stringent levels if proven feasible during the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action process. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 6111
~stablishes Ohio EPA'S authority to set water quality standards
(Section 6111.04) and regulate water pollution sources. The
rules developed and implemented by Ohio EPA based on Chapter 6111
ORC are contained in OAC Section 3745-1-03 through 3745-1-07
inclusive, 3745-01-13, 3745-31-05, 3745-32-05, and 374~-33-05.
~
RCRA.Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR Part 268)
The selected remedy involves capping wastes located on site~
therefore off-site disposal will not occur as part of the
selected remedy. Consequently, the R~ LDRs will not be
triggered. .
Solid Waste. Closure Reauirements
ORC Chapter 3734 establishes Ohio EPA's authority to requlate
closure of solid waste landfills. Pursuant to that statute, OAC
3745-27-11, 3745-27-10, and 3745-27-14 describe the specific
requirements for final closure, ground water monitoring programs,
and post-closure care of sanitary landfill facilities,
respectively.
Cost-Effectiveness.
An' analysis of cost effectiveness of the selected remedy
indicates that the remedy c~osen is cost. effective. . While the .
overall cost. of the remedy is high,' it is much less costly than.
and is as protective as a RCRA cap. The'wetlands innovative
treatment technology for collected leachate and ground water
should provide effective treatment at lower capital and operation
and maintenance costs, increasing the cost-effectiveness. of the
remedy. .
. utilization' of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
(or resource recoverv) Technoloaies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP). .
The U.S. EPA believes that. the selected remedy represents the.
maximum extent which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
final remedy at the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site. Of the
alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, U.S. EPA has determined that
the selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs when
-------
36
considering long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in
toxicity, mobility or volume achieved through treatment, short-
term effectiveness, implementability, the statutory prefer~nce
for treatment as a principal element and considering the state
and co~unity acceptance. .. .
The two capping alternatives which were evaluated are considered
to be equal in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence.
The two leachate and ground water treatment options were
considered equal in terms of reduction of toxicity, mobility or
volume through treatment, although the wetlands treatment is an
innovative technology and is less proven. The solid waste
landfill cap was considered superior to the RCRA cap in terms of;
1) short-term effectiveness because it may be constructed more
quickly; 2) implementability because it requires far less earth.
moving activities and does not require piping of Kings Run under
the cap and; 3) the solid waste cap with the we~land treatment.
option is approximately $150,000,000 less costly than the.RCRA
cap with similar treatment. .
Preference for Treatment as a pr~nciDal Element.
Threats from exposure to surface and ground water at this site.
shall be addressed through treatment in the constructed wetlands.
The treatment system will remove contaminants of concern from
collected waters and convert them into more stable forms.
Because the on-site soils contain low levels of contamination
over a large area, treatment is not a practicable solution for
threats posed by them. For this reason, a containment option was
selected over a treatment option.
XI.
Additional Studies
Section 311 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9660, provides that u.S.
EPA shall conduct "research evaluation, testing, development, an~
demonstration of alternative or innova~ive treatment technologies.
which may be utilized in response actions to achieve more
permanent protection of human health and .welfare and the
environment. ..
Wetlands treatment of the collected leachate and ground water is
an innovative technology which involves utilizing indigenous or
introduced microflora to raise Ph of the waters and catalyze
sulfate reducing reactions. The leachate has a high.
concentration of sulfate, therefore generation of sulfide in an
anaerobic environment is assured. Under these conditions, iron
sulfide precipitat.ion should also remove arsenic as an arsenide.
.With the rise in pH to abov~ 6, aluminum hydroxide will
.precipitate and this will also positively affect the removal of
beryllium either as an hydroxide or an adsorbed ,species.
A bench-scale or screening-scale treatability study is currently
-------
37
in progress. Information gained from this study will be used to
scope larger-scale, longer term studies to be conducted during
the remedial desiqn. If the wetlands do not prove. effective in
removing contaminants, chemical/pnysical treatment will be used.
Additional hydrogeologic studies will be performed during the
remedial desiqn of the selected remedy. The objective for these
studies is to refine data on ground water flow directions in
water bearing zones under the site, to better define locations of
the water table, and. to provide additional information on the
extent of site related contamination. This information is
required for proper design of the ground water and surface
leachate seep collection system. .
XII.
Documentation of sianificant Chanaes
The selected alternative is identical to the Preferred
Alternative. as described in the Proposed Plan. If the wetlands
treatment system proves ineffective during the treatability
. studies iri removing contaminants of ~oncern, the Record of
Decision will be modified with an Explanation.of Siqnificant
Differences (ESD) to select chemical/physical treatment for the
collected leachate and ground water.
-------
Table 1. Average and Maximl.ln COllt;11!1i u;)nL (:01\('('111. r:ll i nus ;)1. B'Jckl'Y(~ gee l.'l[.I.'ll ion L:mrl [i II
GROONDIIAJEI
PRE-LANDfILL AVEIAGE AND MAXIMUMS - (MG/L)
""-lA. ""18
""-lA ""-18 ""-2A AND ""-II
CHEMICAl AVERAGE MAXI"" AVEIAGE MAXI MUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM
......-......-....-.-.-------..---.--------.-----------.--------------------.-.-------------.---------------------
AL...I.... l.22E+00 4.30E+00 8.22E-OI 1.311:+00 1.52E+00 4.30E+00
AN"Matty 2.66(,01 4.56£-01 I.IIOE-02 2.10E-02 1.42E -01 4.56£-01 I.
ARSEilIC 3.00E-Ol 5.00E-02 1.00E-02 1_00E-02 2.00£-02 5.ooE-02
l-BU'AIIOIIE 1.00E-02 1.00E-02 1.00E-02 1.00£-02 1.00(-Ol l.ooE-02
8AIII... 3.40£-02 5.50E'02 6.80E-02 9.50E-Ol 5.10E-02 9.50E-02
IUZENE 5.ooE'03 5.ooE-03 5.00E-0) 5.00E-0) 5.00(-0) 5.00E-0]
IEIIZOIC ACID 5.00(-02 5.00E-02 5.00E-02 5.00£-02 5.00E'02 5.ooE-02
IUYlllUM 1.00£-0] 1.00E-03 1.00E'0] 1.00E -OJ 1.000-OJ I.OOE-O]
. CAOf"'" 5.05E'04 5.10E-04 ).75E-114 5.00E -04 4_40E-04 5.10E-04
CALC I'" 4.3U+02 4.42E+02 5.16E+00 5.6U+00 2.20£+02 4.42£+02
CAII80N DIStAFIDE 5.ooE-0] 5.00IE-03 5.00E-0) 5.ooE -0) 5.00E-0) 5.00E-OJ
CAII80N TE'IAC"LORIDE 5.00£-0] 5.00E-03 5.00£-03 5'00E-0] 5.00E-0] 5.00E -OJ
CIIIIONI... 1.45E-02 2 .40E -02 5.50E-0] 6.00E-OJ 1.00E-02 2.'OE'02
COBALT 5.50E'03 6.00E-03 5.00£-0] 6.00E-OJ 5.25E'0] 6.ooE-03 l.o..'
COPPEI 1.10E-02 1.80E-02 2.40E-Ol 4.40£-02 1.75E'02 4.I,OE-02 0.'
1.1-DICHLOIIOIETHENE 5.ooE-0] 5.00E-0] 5.00E-0) 5.00E-OJ 5.00(-0] 5.ooE'0]
DI-N-IU'YLPHTHALA'E l.ooE-02 l.ooE-02 6.00E-0) 1.00E-02 8.DOE-OJ l.ooE-02
lEI IIYLIEllZEIIE 5.00£-OJ 5.00E-0] 5.00E-OJ 5.00£-OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00E-OJ
liON 2.8I.E+02 2.9U+02 7.87E-01 11.711: .01 1.42E+02 2.94E+02
LEAD 1.00£-02 1.50E-02 1.50E-02 2.50E'02 I.l5E-02 2.50E-02
MAGNESIUM 1.4]E+02 1.45E+02 1.80E+00 1.~E+OO 7.2U+OI 1.45E+02
MANGAIIESE 3.67E+00 3_82E+00 2.80E-02 3.20E-02 1.8n+00 3.82E+00
NAPTHALEIIE 1.00E'02 1.00E'02 1.00E -02 I.DOE-02 . 1.00£-02 l.ooE'02
NICkEl I.J5E-02 '.IIOE -02 I.J5E-02 1.8OE -02 I.J5E-02 1.80E -02
POIASSI... 9.26£+00 9.'IIE+00 1.12E+00 1.75E'00 5.19E+00 9.48E+00
SOD I'" 7. 79E+02 8.]6(+02 5.8JE+02 6.45Eo02 6.8IE+02 8.16£+02
'OlUIE liE 5.00£-0] 5.00E-03 5.00E-OJ 5.00('OJ 5.00E-03 5 .OOE -OJ
'IANS-I.Z-DICHLOROIETHENE 5.00E-03 5.00E-OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00E-0) 5.00£ -OJ 5.00E-0-'
1.1.I-TIICNLOIIOIE'HANE 5_ooE'OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00E-0] 5.00(-OJ 5.00E'0]
'I I CHLOIIOIE'HENE 5.00E-03 5.00E-0] 5.ooE-OJ 5.00E-0] 5.00E-OJ 5.ooE'0]
VANADIUM 2.10£-02 2.50£-02 3.00E-0] J.OO£ -OJ 1.2OE -02 2.50(-02
nLENES nOTAl) 5.00E-03 5.00E-OJ 5.00E'OJ 5.00E-0] 5.00£'OJ 5.ooE'0]
ZINC 5_10E-02 9_20E-02 ].53E-02 5.JOE-02 4.32E-02 9.20E-02
-------
'1..1> Le 1. (Con tinued)
GROU"DUAIEI GRIXINDUA I E I
&011 Aau If E I 81"l1OOO AOUIFU
AVEIAGES AlII MAIIIIIIS (/lli/l) AVEIAG'S AlII MAIIIIIIS (/lli/l)
IUttnf l-flll 'If - Ulllflll lucrfT£ lAIIIEll1 '1£ - tAllO' II L
AVEIAGE MAlIIIII AVEIAGE MAlIIIII AVUAIiE MAil.... AVERAIiE MAil....
ALlIIl1IUN 2_81£'00 8. ,IIE'OO 2.22£'00 4.JIIE.00 All... 11111 5.66£-01 1.29£'00 8-21f-ol I.]1EtOO
ANIlHOIIT )_211E-0, 1.461'00 2-66£-01 4_56E'C'" ANlllIONT 2_19£ -02 6.IIIE-02 1.811E -02 2_'0/-02
ARSENIC 5.6S£-02 '.4lE-OI J.0DE-02 5.0DE-02 AISEN'C 1. ODE -02 I. ODE -02 I. ODE - 02 I. ODE -02
IAlIIII ,.nf-O' 5.18£-01 J_411E -02 5.SIIE-02 2-IU'AIQI£ '.18£-02 2.411E-02 1.00£-02 1.00£ -02
BINlEN£ 5.12£-OJ 9.0DE-OJ 5.0DE-OJ 5.00(-OJ IAI'lII 1.01'-01 J.06E-OI 6.80£-02 9_SIIE-02
8ENlOIC ACIO 4_S6E-02 5.IIIE-02 5.00(-02 5.0DE-02 BENZEN£ 5.62£'OJ I. ODE -02 5.01lE-OJ 5.00(-OJ
IEIUtllIt 1.14£-OJ 1.6IIE.oJ 1.000-OJ 1.00(-OJ 8ISC2-£'ITllEl'l)'.'HALA'E 2.02£-01 2.02'-01
CADMII.. 7. IJ£'04 2.0DE'OJ 5.DSE-04 5.111E'04 CAD" I lit 1.0SE -01 ).20£'01 J.IS£-04 5.0DE-04
CALC I lit J.91'.02 4_8S£'02 4.JU'02 4.4lE'02 CAlC I lit ).461.02 5.SIIE'02 5.16£'00 5.6J£.00
CARBON DISUlfIDE 4.62£'OJ 5.0DE'0) 5.ODE -OJ 5.0DE-0) CNIOIflllt 8.2S'-OJ 2.01lE-02 5.SOE-OJ 6.0DE-OJ
CARBON 'ElIACllOlIDE 4.62£-OJ 5.0DE-OJ 5.0DE-OJ 5.0DE-OJ COIlAI I I .OSE -02 2.8OE-02 5.00E-OJ 6.00(-OJ
CNROIflllt 1.69£,02 5.8OE-02 1.4S£-02 2.411E-02 COPP'I 7.JS'-OJ 1.90(-02 2.40£-02 4.40£-02
COIAL I 7.9OE-OJ 1.111E -02 5.511E-OJ 6.0DE-OJ DI'N-IU"l'I'HAIAI£ 8.511E-OJ 1. ODE '02 6.00E-OJ 1. ODE -02
COPPEI 1.4U-02 ).80£-02 1. llIE -02 1.8OE-02 liON 7.981'00 1.64' .01 1.86'-01 8.11'-01
I.I-OICILOIO/IH'N£ 4.62£-OJ 5.00(',OJ 5.0DE-OJ 5.00(-OJ MAGNESllIt 1.02"02 I.J/('02 1. 79ft 00 1.8Of.00
OI-N-IU"IPH'HAlAIE 7.ISE-OJ 1.00(-02 1.00(-02 1.00(-02 MANGAN'SE 5.60(-01 1.10£'00 2.80'-02 ).20/-02
ElHTlIENZEN' 4.88£'OJ 5.00(-OJ 5.01lE-OJ 5.00(-OJ IICkEl 2_]1'-02 5.JIIE -02 I.J5' -02 1.811E -02 1....
liON 2. 5/E.02 8.68£'02 2.8U.02 2.94"02 POI ASS I lit I.S1£IOI 4.61' '01 I. 12"00 1. ISf '00 \0
LEAD I.OBE -D2 2.SIIE-02 I.00E-02 I.SOE-02 SOO I lit I.5SE'02 2.S9£'02 5.81"02 6.4S"02
MAIitIUllIt 8.2S"OI 1.44"02 1.41"02 I .4S(l02 VANADllIt 5.2)'-01 I. 5 lIE -02 J.ODE-OI J.OO£-Ol
MAII&AN' 5£ 2.64£'00 5. I 1ft 00 ).61£100 ).82£'00 ll.C I.6)f-02 ).901-02 J.SSE-02 5.311E -02
NAPIII NALENE 8.6SE'OJ 1.0DE-02 1.00(-02 1.0DE-02
'"CICEl 2.06E'02 ).2OE-02 I.JS£-02 1.8Of -02
POIASSllIt 9.DS£IOI ). 161'02 9.261'00 9.481'00
500 I lit 7.33'"02 2.)lE'OJ 1.19£'02 8.J6E'D2
IIANS-I.2-DICNlORO/IIEIE 4.62£'OJ 5.IIO(-OJ 5-00(-OJ 5.00(-OJ
1.1. I-IIICHlOROElHAHE '.IS£-OJ 5.UCIE-OJ 5.00(-OJ 5.0DE-OJ
'1ICHlOROUIlEI' '.IS£-OJ 5.IIIIE-OJ 5.oo'-OJ 5.0DE-OJ
VANADllIt 1.81£-02 7.!i1lE .02 2. llIE -02 2.511E'02
xnuES nO'Al) 6.6J'-OJ 1.80£-02 5.0DE-OJ 5.0DE-OJ
llNC 1.21£.01 5.09E-OI 5.IIIE-02 9.2OE-02
-------
T:lblc? 1. ( C.on t i. nuerl )
GRWIIOUAIER
GRWNDUAIER IINIOIIIOIIII SANOSIOIIE AIllIHER
RfOSIOIIE llllESIOIIE AWHER AVERAGES AND MAXIHUHS (NG/l)
AVERAGES AND MAXIIUIS (NG/U
BUCKEYE lAND, III PRE -lAND' III
IUCkEYf lANDfill PRE-UNDflll AVERAGE NAil...., AVERAGE NAllllUI
AIlfIAGE MAX I IUI AVERAGE MAli I HUH
AL...IIIIII J-Z1E'00 9.60E'00 2.2ZE'00 4.JOE'00
AIIIIIIIIII 1. 5U'OI 5.90(.01 2.UE.00 4.JOE'00 ANII/IOIIY 2.Z1E-02 4.10E-02 2.66E'OI 4.56E-OI
ANII",II/Y 6. 75E .112 2.19('01 2.66E-OI 4.56E-OI BAR..II 7.1I1IE-02 1.61E-OI J.40E-02 5.50E'02
ARSENIC 2.0U-01 4.111E-OI J.DOE-02 5.DOE-02 BENlENE 1I.1I1E'OJ J.2I1E-02 5.00(-OJ 5.00E'OS
BAR I'" 5.15E'OI 1.5JE.00 ).40E'02 5.50E-02 BISIZ-EIH'LHEII'l)PHIHALAIE
BENlENE 9.00E'01 1. 50E -02 5.00( 'OJ 5.00E.OJ CADNI... 1.4SE-OJ 4.IIOE-OJ 5.05E-04 5.10E'04
BERn L I'" 3.25E'01 1.0OE .02 1. DOE -01 1. DOE -OJ CAlC..II J.04E'02 5.5IE'02 4.J4E'02 4.4ZE'02
CADN 1111 3.62E-OJ 7.9OE-OJ 5.05E-04 5.10E-04 CARBON DISUlfiDE 4.15E'OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00(-OJ 5.0DE'01
CAI "... 1.61E'02 2.JIE'02 4.JU'02 4.42E'OZ CAR BOIl I((RACHLORIOE 4.15E -os 5.00E 'OJ 5.00(-OJ 5.00E-01
[KROll I'" J.7U'02 1. 10E'01 1.45E .02 2.40E'02 CHN.II/I... 1.05E-02 I.IIOE-02 1.45E-02 2.40E'02
COllA" J. 111E -02 1. nE-OI 5.50E-OJ 6.00E'OS [lllIAl I I.Z6E-OZ 2.6OE-02 5.50E'OJ 6.DOE-OJ
ClIPPER I.JIE'OI 4.56E-OI 1.10E-02 I.II0E .02 COPPER 2.1JE-027.40E-02 1. 10E'OZ 1.80E-02
OI-N-BUI'LPHIHAlAIE 9.00E'OJ I.JOE-02 - 1.00E-02 I.00E .02 OI-H-BUI'lPHIHAlAlf 7.50E-OJ 1.00E'02 1.00E-OZ 1.DOE'02
1.2-0ICHlOROIIUIUE 2.2Sf'02 6.00E-02 I.00E-02 1. DOE '02 I ROIl II.IIE'OO 1.HE'01 2.114E'02 2.94E'02
I ROIl J.I2E'OI 1.20E'02 2.114£'02 2.94E'OZ lEAO 1I.65E'OJ 1.90E'02 I.00E-02 1.50E-02
lEAD 9.25E'02 1. 90E .01 1. DOE .02 1. 50E .02 "AGNE 5 I'" 7.9OE'01 1.J8E'02 I.4JE'02 1_45E'02
"AliNESI... 6.50E'OI 1.21E'02 1. HE '02 1.45E'02 NANGANESE 4.7)E'00 9.JU.00 J.61E'00 J.1I2E'00
"ANGANESE 2.5U'OI 7.J6E-OI J.61E'00 3.IIZE.00 NIClEl 2.04E-OZ 2.10E-02 I.J5E-OZ 1.8OE-OZ
IlERCURY 1.5SE'04 4.IOE-04 - 2.DOE-04 2.DOE'04 POI"SSI'" 4.71E'00 6.19E'00 9.26E'00 9.411E'00 .f:'--
NICKEl 1.2IE'OI 4.25f-01 I.JSE.02 1.IIOE '02 5001... 2.66E'02 6.62E'02 7.79£'02 II.J6E'02 C
POIASSllII 4.02E'01 11.66£'01 9.26E'00 9.48E.00 1. I. 1-IRICHlOROElHANE 4.6ZE'OJ 5.00E'OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00E'OJ
SElENI... 4.40£-02 5.00('02 J. 50£ .02 5.00E'02 lOt OENE 4.7Sf-OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00E-OJ 5.00E-OJ
5001... 1.42E'0) 2.24£'0) 7.79('02 II.J6E'02 IRIUlOROEIHENE 4.6ZE-OJ 5.ooE'OJ 5.00£-OJ 5.00E-OJ
lot IlENE 6.50E'01 1.20E-02 5.00E -OJ 5.oo('OJ V"NADI'" 7.I)E-OJ 1.40E'02 2.10('02 2.50E'02
VANADI... 3.)1IE-02 1.15('01 2.10E-02 2.50E-02 IINC 4.111E-02 1.211E-OI 5.10E-02 9.20('02
llNC 2.62('01 8.27E .01 5.10E-02 9.20('02
-------
Tahle 1.
(C.ontinued)
GROUIIDIIATEII
""'N[SIURC COAl. AQUIFEII
AYEIlACES AND KAXIHUHS
AI.UtI I NUIt
AIIT IItUNI
ANSEIIIC
IAIIIUK.
IENZENE
InULlUH
IIS(2-ETHIUIIXIL,PlnHALAra
CAOttIUH
CAlCIUH
CIIRIIHIUH
COPPEII
I . 1 - D I CIIUIROErHANI
ETlIIlIEIlZElI1
IIOK
lEAD
HACNESIUH
HANI:AIIESE
II I C";L
POTASSIUH
100 1 UIt
XYUIIES crOTAL,
VAIIADIUH
IIIIC
..
IUCIIEU LAIIDFII.L
AYEIACI KAXIHUH
I.O'EIOO .."EIOO
2.2'E-02 '.10E.02
1."1-02 '.00E-02
I.S6E-01 1.IIE-01
I.I'E-O' 1.'OE-02
1.001-0' 1.001-0'
..OOE-O, 1.101-0'
I..2EtOI '.06EIOI
6.0'E-0' 1.20E-02
I."E-OI 0.10E-OI
S."E-O' 1.00E-OI
I."E-OI '.001-01
O.IIEtO'I..SEIOI
'."E-" 1.'01-01
5.I.EIOI I.O'EIOI
1.601-01 '."EIOO
1.20E-02 S.'OE-OI
0.10100' 2..0EIOI
1.16Eo'l '.0.EI02
O..JI-OJ 1.601-02
'.S'I~'J I.'OE-02
6.601-01 1.018-01
CRIIIIIDIIA nl
IIUiEE t 1M SlONE
AVE RACES AND *IIIIJIIS
PRE'!.AIIDFILL
AYEIlACE KAXI-
2.IIEIOO '.JOEIOO
2.66E-01 '.'6E,01
1.00E-02 S.001-02
'.'OE-02 S.'OE-ol
S.OOE-OJ S.OOE-O'
I.OOE-O' ..001-0'
Al UII ,....
ANIlHOItl
ARSENIC
IARIUII
lUll LIlli
CAOH I UII
CAtCIUII
CNROKIUII
CoeAI I
COPPEI
01 -N-lUntPN'IIALAIf
I ROIl
LEAD
HAGNESIUII'
MANGANESE
Nlnn
POIIISSIUII
500/1..
YIINIIDIUII
IIIlC
5.0'1-0. 5.101-0'
'.J.II02 ...11102
1."E-02 2.'OE-02
1.101-02 1.'0£-02
S.OOE-O' S.OOI-O'
S.OOE-O' S.OO£-O'
1."£102 1."£102
1.00£-02 1.'01-02
I."EI02 I.UEI02
'.6'1100 '.'21100
1."1-02 I.IOE-OI
'.261101 0.'11100
'.191102 I. J61102
S.OOI-OJ S.OOI-O'
2.101-01 I.SOI-02
S.IOI-OI 0.201-02
IUCrEYE IANDfltL
AVEIAGE *IIIIJII
5.16ElOO
3.UE'02
1.06E -02
8.98(-02
1.0'E-0)
1.5U-0)
3.;>6EI02
1.08E-02
1.;>6E -02
1.61E-02
6.110(-0)
1.10(101
8.ME-OJ
2.ODEo02
4.21EtOO
2.1U-02
I.ODEIOI
4.61EI02
1.0)E -02
2.11E-02
2.7;>Eo01
6.80E'02
1.)OE-0;>
3.08E-01
1.;>0( -OJ
4.4DE-0)
5.7;>E<02
3.IDE-02
3.)0E'02
4.6OE-02
1. DOE -02
4.08EoOI
2.60E-02
4.1IE<02
1.IUIOI
6.1DE-02
1.8IE'01
8.29E<02
3.6OE-02
8.40('02
PIE - UlIDfI tL
AVERAGE
2.22ElOO
2.66E-01
3.0DE-02
3.'0E-02
1.00E -03
5.05E-04
4.)Uo02
1.'5E-02
5_50E-0)
I.IDE-02
1.ODE -02
2.8'EI02
1.00( -02
1.41E.02
3.61E<00
1.35E-02
9.26E<00
1. 19E'02
2.IDE-02
5. lOE .02
*IIIIJII
4.30«00
4.56E-OI
5.DOE-02
5.5DE-02
1.00E -03
5.IDE-04
4.4;>E.02 .
2.40E-02
6.00E-03
I .8OE -02
I.0DE'02
2.9'Eo02
I.50E-02
1.45E<02
3.82E<00
1.80E'02
9.48E<00 .p.
8.]6EI02 1-0
2.5DE-02
9.20(-02
-------
T;thlc' :1. (Colltililled)
GRWIIDUA'EI
RES'DfN"At IlEUS
AVERAGU All» MIII""S
At....INUIf
IAR'''''
CADN'''''
CAt C I""
COPPEI
IROII
lEAD
HAGNESIIII
HANGANUE
III erfl
PO, ASS 1111
SOD I""
'OtUENE
IRICHlORDflUDRONflHANE
llNC
IUCKnE lANDfill
AVERAGE MIll""
5.61(-01
6.511E-D2
5.IIIE-04
1. J1E '02
1.52E-02
4.6)('00
1.07E.02
2.96EtOl
2.99£.02
9.11(-OJ
5.45E'00
6.77E'OI
4.55E-04
4.511E'04
I. I lIE -01
1. 22f'00
1. DOE -01
6. lOf.04
J.2".02
J.7Of-02
I.5tE'Ol
J.8Of'02
5.05E'OI
1.26f-Ol
I.DOE-02
I.29f'Ol
1.45E'02
5.0DE-04
5.0DE-04
2.26f-Ol
PIE -LANDfill
AVERAGE MAXI""
tUCHAIE AVERAGES
IUUElE -LANDfill = S'AIIONS 1.2.5.4
PRE-LAlllfill . S'A"ONS 5.6
4.9Qf-02
1.26f-Ol
5.00f-04
1.4)('02
I.2Of-02
2.1Of-Ol
5.00f-OJ
5.0IIE.00
4.4Of-OJ
9.0DE'OJ
2.J2f.00
J.9"'OI
5.00f-04
5.0DE-04
I.16f-Ol
lUCrE Yf LAlli flU (119ft)
AVUAGE NAXI....
4.9Of-02
I.l6f-Ol
5.0DE-04
1.43E'02
1.2Of -02
2.1Of-01
5.00f-OJ
5.01lf.00
4.4Of-OJ
9.DOE-OJ
2. J1E'00
J.9"'OI
5.DOE-04
5.DOE-04
1.161:-01
ACEI ONE
All'" HI"
AH" HO...,
ARSENIC
2-8U'AIHIIIE
IARII"
IU'lll""
CAONI III
CAt C I....
CIIAOM I III
COIIAt ,
lIE ACUR ,
COPP'R
EI'IYtB'N1EIIE
1- HUAIHIIIE
'RON
tUD
4-HEIH'l-2-PEN'AIIONE
4 - HE I Hft PHEIIOt.
HAGNES'....
HANGAIIESE
N'ClH
PilE NOt
PO 'ASS 1111
SEUNIIII
SOD 1111
'OtUENE
VANAD'III
XftEIIU
IINC
J.I4E-02
2.J1E'01
I. 9" -01
1.2JE-02
6. '6f-O'
1.09(-01
5.05E-0)
8.6IE-04
4.IU'02
1.9)E-02
3.)"-02
2.DOE-04
2.7ff-02
5.64E-02
1.1"-01
J.IO"02
9.2ff -0)
I.ISf.Ol
6.0ff -01
9.66E'OI
6.41£'00
1.20(-01
I.66f -01
6. 7lE '0'
1.66f -02
2.89£'02
5.92E-02
2.95E-02
5.6IE-02
J.71£'OI
I. fOE -01
8.4\1t'01
8.)8£-01
2.00E-02
4.20E'00
4.0\E-01
I. 50r -02
2.IOE -0)
1.15E.02
4.00( -02
1.10(-01
2.00E-04
I.OOE -01
5.00E-01
1.0Of .00
9.11E'02
2 .1Of -02
I.OOE '00
J.OO( '00
I. 22E '02
2.00E'01
J.02E-01
1.20E-01
I. 9ff '02
5.00E -02
4.11E .02
5.00E -01
I. DIE -01
5.00E -01
I.17E'00
PRE-tANDflll (1119/1)
AVERAGE HAXI....
I.05E.02
J.77E'02
2.4"-01
I. 19£-01
I. ODE -02
1.)0E-Ot
2.26E-02
I.IIE-02
4.00E'02
I. 51E -01
4.11IE-01
2.0UE-04
I. 16E -01
5.00E-0)
I. DOE -02
6.)6E.02
5.00E-03
I.OOE -02
1.61f -02
5.15E'01
4.6"'00
I. 02E'00
1.61E -02
6.20E'00
J.50E-02
2.50E'OI
5.DOE-0)
1.0ff -01
5.00E:0)
1.15E'00
I.2Of-02
5.51f'02
5.6"-01
-2.6)(-01
I.DOE -02
I.DOE -02
2.9Of-02
1.40( -02
4.65E'02
2.4" -01
4.79£-01
2.DOE -04
2.4IE -01
5.DOE-OJ
I.OOE -02
8.29E.02
5.DOE -OJ,
I.OOE -O~-
5.DOE -02
6.52E'01
5.12E '00
I. 2ff .00
5.DOE-02
I.IJE'OI
5.00E-02
2.70E'01
5.00f -0)
2.I4E-01
5.00E-0)
2. I lIE '00
-------
Table 1. (Continued) SIOIHfIlIS
8IJUIJE LANDfILL. SID, I, SEO'l, SED'), -SI0-4, S10'1
PRI-lANDflll . S10'6, SID-II .
SURfACEWAIEI AVEIAGE AND MAXIMUM VALUES IUCKE'E lANDfill PRI-lANDflll
IUCKE'E lANDfIll SIA"ONS . 1'-1, 1'-2. .,.). 1'-4. 1'-10 (KII'S RUM' AVEIAGE MAl I MUM AVERAGE MAl I MUM
PIE-lANDfIll. 1'-6. 1'.11 A[(lONE 1.68(-02 ) .211E .02 2.55E-02 ).60('02
(1IG/lI Alt..1 Nt.. 8.261tO) 1.251t04 1.9)100) I.06£t04
IUCKE'E lANDfIll PIE-lANDfill All I HRACENE 1.12E-01 1.411E'OO 4.)51-01 6.211E '01
All "_, 2.9Of.oOI 4.211EtOI 2.15£'01 2.5Of'01
AVERAGE IWllfUI AVEIAGE MAXIMUM ARSIIIIC 1.)6£'01 1.1111( .01 1.651'00 . 9_011(000
BAli "" 8.1Of'01 1.)1IE .02 9.1\0('01 I.1JEt02
AllMllUt 4.4lEoOI 1.98(t02 1.09E001 1.9)EtOl IIIIIO(A,AII..ACEI£ 1.121'01 1.4Of tOO 1.4Of .01 8.60('01
8ENIOCA)PYIEIII 1.121,01 1.4OfoOO 1. ODE .01 1.IIOf'01
AlII lION' 4.65£-02 2.25£-01 ).85E-02 1.19£,01 111I10CI)flUOlAIIIHIIIE 1.12E'01 1.4OfoOO 6.45£-01 6.111E '.01
AlSIIIIC 2.55E-02 9.2OE-02 1.))(-02 5.011('02 IIIIIO(G.II,I'PII"IIIE 1.12£-01 1.4OfoOO 5.151-01 6.20('01
IflllOCK'flUOlANIHEIIE 1.121-01 1.40£ tOO 1.4Of-01 8.60(-01
IAIll8I 2.8OE-01 1.221000 4.99£-02 1.10E-02 IU'llll8l 1.521-01 9.0DE-01 6.05£ -01 9.20E'01
IEUllll8l ).1OE-0) 1.10£-02 5.45E-0) 1.IOf-02 IISC2'(III'lIfIYl,PHIHAlAIE J.961-01 5.40E-01 6-5Of-01 6.80(-01
IUI'llllll'lPHIIIA'AI£ 1.121-01 1.40£000 ).601'01 6.2Of-01
CADII I lit 2.0)(-0) 9.20£-0) 2.))E-0) 5.20E-0) CAICII.. 6_49£ 00) 1.111E t04 4.9)('01 9.19(00)
CAlCll8I 2.02(002 ).:J8fo02 1.98(002 2.98£002 CllIIOItIIM 1. 161001 2.Otl{tOI 1.18(001 1.50('01
CIIRISI11£ 6.121 -01 1.40('00 1.MI-01 9.10E-01
CHIIIUUN 4.49£-02 2.191-01 2.lOE-Ol 4_1IIE-02 COBA'I 1_11\( olIO I.JOfoOI 1.951000 ..40EoOI
COBAlI 5.0IE-Ol 1.95E-OI 9.0)(-02 1.91£'01 COPPII ).09(tOI 5.511E'01 1.951001 2.60(001 ~
OIIlUIOf..A. 5.92(-01 1.40(000 4_501-01 6.1I0E-01 W
II£ICUI' 5.59£-04 2.20£-0) 2_00(-04 2.011(-04 018111ICA,H)A.I..A[(IIE 1.121-01 1.4OftOO 6.501-01 6.110£-01
COPPEI 8.81£-02 4.50£-01 1.81£-02 5.)0(,02 OI-II-IUIY'PllINA'AI£ 4.lZ1 -01 6.2Of -01 6.501-01 6.1I0E-01
fltJOllAIIIIIIII£ 6.20£-01 ..40EtOO 1.161000 1.70£000
OI-.-IUI'lPIIIHAlAIE 1.08(-01 1.40£-02 9.9O(-OJ 1.10E-02 flUOIENI 1_121-01 1.4Of'00 ).651-01 6.20(-01
OI£IHYlPHIHAlAI£ 1.18(-02 ).40£-02 1.00E'02 1.10E'02 10INOCI,2,)-CO'''IUE 1.121-01 1.4OftOO 5.951-01 6.2OE -01
I ROIl 2.5)(004 ).)6(.04 2-29£004 2.641004
2 -If IAIIONE 1.0)(-02 I.JOE.Ol 1.00E-02 1.00(,01 UAD 1.421001 1.90(001 1.961001 )-251001
11011 1.62EtOl 5.291002 1.82£ 001 1.81£002 2-HfIHYlIIAPHIHAlEII£ 4.041-01 1.4Of-01 4.65£-01 6.1\0(-01
MAGIIESIIII 1.5OfoO) 6.IO£oOJ 1.69£ oOJ ).17100)
LEAD ).4ZE-02 1.18£.01 6.61£'0) 1.50E-02 ",,11"""1 SE 1. 961 002 4.5Ofo02 2.921002 5.74£002
MAGIES Il8I 4.1lEoOI 8.22£001 5.06EtOI 1.12£001 II£III"(HI CHlOlIO£ 8.00£-0) 1.1IIIf-02 1.50£-OJ 8.DOE-0)
IIAPIIIHAUIIE 5_58£'01 1.4OfoOO 4.)51-01 6.IIOf -01
MAllGAllESE 2.0)(000 S.OIEtOO 1.00EoOO 2.12EtOO IIICkEl 1_841001 2.60(001 1.)l\(tOI 2 .4DEtOI
.,CKn 1.)1£-01 4.54£-01 2.241-01 4.19(-01 PHIIIAIIIHIIH£ 4.91\(-01 I.IOf.oo 6.)0(-01 9-10£-01 I
POIASSSIIII 1.49£.0) 2.6)( .0) 1.42(00) 1.47100J
POIASSSll8l 1.)OEoOI 4.471001 2.95EoOO ).92£tOO "RIIII 1.121'01 1.411E000 1.01ltOO 1.401000
SIlVEI 6.58(-0) ).00E-02 1.50E-0) ).00(-02 SII(IIIIII 1.70E000 2.2Of.00 1.50('00 1.601 tOO
SODIIaf 6.)8£001 1.)SEtOl 1.21EtOI I.04Et02 SUO "" ).15Eo02 5.071002 )-1161002 4.21Eo02 I
101 UU£ 8.60(-0) 1.1IOE-02 4 - SOl -0) 11.001'01
VAHAD I lit 4.90(-01 1-271.01 6.))£-0) 1.)0E-02 "ANADIIII I.)7EoOI 1.411E,01 1. )51 tOI 1.60(001'"
ZINC 2.95E-01 1.0)(000 5.00E-01 1.141000 ZlIIC 6.88£001 1.08(002 4.IIIEtOI 8. 70£00" ~ I
-------
Tahle 1. (Continued)
SURfiCIAL SOilS
AVERAGU Alii MAXI....S CIIG/I)
IUCkfJE lAlllflll PIE -I ANOflH
CH£KICAt AVEIAGE MAXI"" AV£RAIif MAXI""
-. --. - --e......___......----.....
ACEION£ 5.61£.02 2.]0E-OI 2.0U-02 5.50£-02
AIII"IN'" '.1](tO] 1.IIIE'04 1.91£.0] 2.IU<1K
ANIlItONY 1.01£tOI 1.111«01 8.14£'00 1.00Et01
ARSfNIC 2.21EtOI 1. ,)tIE <01 1.2IEtOl 1.50(tOI
2-BUIANOIIE
IARI... 1.95(t02 1.82£t02 5.5Ut01 1.2]E<02
IINIOeA)ANIHRACENE 5.00(-01 5.40£ .01 5.08('01 5.90(-01
IUYlLI... '.991-01 1.6O£too 6.19£ .01 1.60Etoo
Ilse2-£IHYlHEXYl)PHlHAlAIE
CADKI... 5.2U'01 1. 20£ tOO 1.66£-01 3.40(-01
UICI... 1.59E<1K ].95E<1K 2.62E<0] 4.8O£tO]
CIIRI»II... 1.8II£t01 3.10£t01 1.]]E<01 2.9OE'01
CIIR'SIIIE 4. 51E .01 5.20E -01 1.49£-01 4.80«00
COItAl! 1.15£t01 1.10£tOl '.211('00 2.811£ <0)
COPPEI 2.49£t01 4.00£<01 1.96EtOl 4.101<01
2.4-0IMEIH'1 PHEIIOt 5.00E-01 5.40£-01 1.21«00 2 _10E<00 ~
OIBINIOfURAN 5.22E<01 3.IO£t02 ].26E<00 7.20Etoo ~
OIHIIN'1 PHlHAlA1E 4.40(-01 5.40£'01 4.80£ -01 5.00£ -01
flllOlAlIlHIEIIE 4.841-01 5.40£-01 6.85E.01 1.]OE <00
IRON 2.11E<1K 4.65Et04 1.9UtIK 2.811£ £too '.6OE'00
/'fll ASS I'" 1.8)£ <0] 2_111\('01 1.IISE'OI 4.411£'01
P'RINE ).541'01 2.10£'02 6.IISE-01 I. )OE'oo
SHEIII... 2.]]«00 ].6O£too 2.2Of.00 4.00£'00
SILVER 1.])«00 1.6OE.00 1. 50£ tOO 1.10E'00
500 11111 4.11(t02 1.041<0) 5.511('02 1.28£.0]
IIIAIlI... 2.411«00 2.80£ tOO 2.55Etoo 3.20«00
101 UEII£
VANAnI... 1.741001 2.70£001 1. 811(t 01 5.9OEoOI
lINC 6.511(002 6.5UtO) 2.40EtOI 6.10(001
-------
45
Table 2.
TOXIcity Factors for QuantifIcatIon of Chronic and Llfet:me Hazards for Indicator Chemicals at
the IIRL Site ( 1 )
Chronic Noncarclnoaen RfDs Carc;noaen SloDe Factors
Cancer Cancer
Inhalation Slope Factor S lope Factor Cancer
Oral RfO RfO (Ora 1) (Inha lat ion) Weight of
Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 Evidence
Arsenic 1. 00E-03 (2) ItA l.75E.oO(2) 5.00E-001 A
Benzene ItA ItA 2.90E-02 2.90E-02 A
Bery 111 lID 5.00E-03 ItA ..30E.oO 8..0E+OO B2
CaanlU111 5. ODE-a' ItA ItA 6.10£+00 Bl
Carbon Tetrachloride 7.00E-0. ItA 1. 30E -i)1 1.30E-1I1 B2
ChramillD(3) 5.00E-03 ItA, NA . .10E-001 A
1.I-d1chloroethene 9.00E-03 NA 6.00E-01 1.16E -000 C
Lead ItA IIA IIA ItA B2
!llckel 2.00E-02 IIA NA IIA NA
Carcinogenic PAHs(4) ItA ItA 1. m...01 6.10E-oOO(5) B2
Toluene 3.00E-Ol 5.70E-Ol(6) NA ItA 0
TrlChloroethene(7) IIA IIA 1.1 DE -02 1.70E-02 B2
(I)Source: IRIS. June 5. 1990 (unless otherwise indicated).
(2)Oral RfO and cancer slope factors for arsenic concurrently under revIew by U.S. EPA. The oral values
herein reported aM! derived fl'Oll a recent U.S. EPA fONi report on arsenic (U.S.' EPA. 1988).
(3)The RfO and Cancer Slope Factor for chromium reflects the most conse~at1ve value provided for either
chromIum (Ill) or chromium (VI): Noncarclnogen Oral Rfd - chromIum (VI); Inhalation Cancer Slope
Factor - chl'Ollium (VI)
(4JToxicity factorz for PAHs are based on values for benzo(a)pyrene.
(5)Source for CSF values for carcinogenic PAHs: ECAO. 1984.
(6)Source for toluene RfD values: U.S. EPA. 1989b. Value derived assumIng 70 kg body weight and
20 m3/day Inna lat ion rate. '
(7)Source for trichloroethane CSF values: U.S. EPA. 19B9b.
-------
46
Table .2. (Continued)
TOXICIty Factors for Ouantlflcation of Subchronlc lIazards for Indicator Chemicals at the BilL
5 I LeI I)
Subchron ic IIfOs for Honcarc;noaens
Ora I IIfO Inhalation IIfO
Chemical Img/kg/day) Img/kg/day)
, Arsenic 1.00£ -03 NO
Benzene NO NO
Berylliln 5.00E-03 liD
Cacinium lID NO(2)
Carbon Tetrachloride 7.00E-03 NO
Chranll.llI(3) 2.00E-02 liD
l,l-dichloroethene 9.00E-03 NO
Lead NO 110(4)
Nickel 2.00E-02 liD
CarCInogenIc PAHS(S) NO NO
Toluene 4.00E-Ol 5.70E-~I(S) .'
Trichloroethene NO NO
(I)Saurce: U.S. EPA 1989b.
(Z)6ecause of background dietary exposure;, an RfD .as not estimated.
(3)The IIfO for chranlln reflects the mast conservatlye value provided for either chromium (III) or
chranium (VI); lIancarcinagen Oral IIfd - chranium (VI)
(4)Final draft air quality criteria document (SOO/S-53-0Z8F) declines to derive an air quality criterian
far lead.
(S)Taxiclty factors for PAHs are based on values for benzo(a)pyrene.
(S)Value derlYed assuming 70 kg body weight and 20 m3/day InhalatIon rate.
-------
47
Table 3.
Adjusted Ora] Toxicity Values for Quantification of Subchrontc, Chronic. and lifetime Dermal
Hazards and Risks Associated with Indic~tor Chemic~ls at the BRl Site(l)
Absol'1ltion Subchronic HoncJncer Values Chronic Hcncancer Values Carc;nOQen Va lues
Factors Used Adjusted(Z) AdJusted(3} Cancer
for Ora 1 Subchron ic Subchron ic Chronic Chronic Slope Factor Adjusted( 4)
Toxicity Ora I RfO RfO Oral RfO RfO (Ora I) Slope
Chem ica 1 Va1ues(2) (l119/kg/day) (l119/kg/day) (l119/kg/day) (riIJ/kg/day) (l119/kg/day)-1 (lII9/kg/daY)-l
Arsenic 95.00 1.00E-03 9.50E-04 1. DOE -03 9.50E-04 1. 75E+OO 1.84E~0
Benzene 90.00 NA HA HA NA 2.90E-02 3.22E-02
aery 11 i IJII 10.00 5.00E-03 5.00E-04 5.00E-03 5.00E-04 4.30E+OO 4.30E~1
Cacin i "" 7.00 NA NA 5.00E-04 3.50E-05 NA HA
Carbon Tetrachloride 86.00 7.00E-03 6.02E-03 7.00E-04 6.02E-04 1.30E-Ol 1.slE-01
Chroml1J11(s) 50.00 2.00E-02 1.00E-02 5.00E-03 2.50E-03 HA HA
1.1-dichloroet~ne 100.00 9.00E-03 9.00E-03 9.00E-03 9.00E-03 6.00E-01 6. OOE -01
lead 50.00 HA NA HA NA HA !lA
NIckel 10.00 2.00E-02 2.00E-03 2.00E-02 2.00E-03 IIA NA
CarCInogenic PAHs(4) 60.00 IIA NA NA IIA 1.15E~1 NO (7)
TOluene 100.00 4.00E-Ol 4.00E-Ol 3.00E-Ol 3.00E-Ol IIA HA
Trichloroethene(7) 100.00 IIA HA HA HA 1.10E-02 1.10E -02
(l)sources for subchronic and chronic RfD/CSF values. U.S. EPA. 1990: U.S. EPA, 1988: ECAO. 1984: U.S. EPA. 1989b.
(2'Oral absor~tion factors are discussed in Appendix 0 (Source U.S. EPA. 1990).
(3)AdJustment of an acinlnlstered to an absorbed dose RfD:
(Administe~ed RfD) x (Oral Absol'1ltion Factor) . Absorbed Do~e RfD
(4)Adjustment of an acininistered to an absorbed dose slope factor:
(Acininis:ered Siope Factor)-l/IOral Absol'1ltion Factor)
(5lThe RfD an~ Cancer Slope Factor for chrcmllJll reflects the most conse~ative value provided for either
chromllJll (!!1) or chromilJll (VI): Honcarcinogen Oral RfO - chromIum (VI)
(6)ToXicity fac:ors for PAHs are based on values for benzo(a)pyrene.
(7)8ecause PAhs such as benzo(a)pyrene are skIn carcinogens whicn act direc:1y at the point of contact. it is
Inappropr,a:e to use the oral slope factor to evaluate dermal cancer rIsks for these compounds.
-------
Table 4. Surmary of Noncancer Hazard/Cancer Risk Calculations for Envirormental Media at the BRl
Site for Existing ~-site Exposure Pathways: Dirt Bike/'respasser Exposure Scenarios
Appendix C
'olile
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Envirormentel
Medio
Ellposure
Route
'otal Pathway Noncancer Hazard Index.
Pre-londlill BRl Site
~G ~K A~ ~X
'otal Pathway Cancer Risk..
Pre-londl i II BRl Site
AVG "AX AVG MAX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fabl e C - 1 Salts Ingestion 3.18E-03 5.59E-03 6. 71E -03 2.06E-02 6.20E-07 1.23E-06 7. 54E -07 2.16E-06
fable C-2 Soils Inhalation 2.30E-04 3.90E-04 3.73E-~ 1.04E-03
fable C-3 Leachate Dermal 2.96E-03 5-25E-03 4.89E-04 2.09E-03 2.31E-07 4.42E-07 3.26E-08 7.51E-08
fable C-4 Surfacewater Dermal 4.46E-04 1.24E-03 5 _89E -04 2.30E-03 3.53E-08 1.02E-07 4_57E-08 1.57E-07 .p-
o:>
fable C-5 Salt s Derlll81 3.80E -03 5.57E-03 6.69E-03 2.06E-02 3.19E-06 8.16E-06 2.13£-06 4.17E-06
Site 'otal for Existing Exposures
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.04E-02
1. 76E -02
1.45E-02 4.56E-02
2.34E-04 4_00E-04
3.76E-04
1.05E-03
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Hazard indices >1.0 indicate that the potential exists lor non-carcinogcnic ellects Irom ellposure to chemical concentrations detected
at the BRl site- .
**Cancer risks >1.0E-06 Indicate that the potential exists for carcinogenic effects from ellposure to chemical concentrations detected
at the BRl site.
-------
Table 4. Summary 01 Noncancer Hazard/Cancer Risk Calculations for Environmental Media at the BRL
Site for Potential on-Site Pathways: Residential Living on-Site in a future Development
-----------.--------------.-----------.------.-.-.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C Environmental Exposure lotal Pathway Noncancer Hazard Index* lotal Pathway Cancer Rlsk**
Table Media Route Pre-Landf i I I BRL Site Pre-Landfill BRL Site
AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX AVG MAX
---------------.------------______i______---------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tohle C-6 Benwood Ingest Ion 3.58E-01 3.7'E-01 ~.25E-01 6.59E-01 2.16E-04 2.16E-04 2.16E-04 2.18E-04
lulJle C-7 Mine Spoils Ingest ion 1.21£.00 1.85E.00 1. 99E.00 1,_78E.00 7.~3E-0~ 1.17E-03 1.31£ -03 3.18E-03
Table C-8 Redstone Ingestion 6.41£.00 1. 5'E .01 4.52E-03 1.08£ -02
lable C-9 Uniontown Ingestion ].]6E-01 ].97£-01 ]_65E-01 6.20E-01 1.04E-05 1.04£ -05 1.13E-05 2.00E-05
lable C-10 \lavnesburg Ingest ion 9.94E-01 1.63E.00 8.07E-01 2.21£.00 6.97E-04 1.13E -0] 5.77E-04 1.56E-0]
lable C-11 \legee Ingestion 9.94E-01 1.63£.00 4.97E-01 9.0U-01 6.96E-04 1. 12E-0] 2.82E-04 ].42E-04
MAXIMUM: 1.21E.00 1.85E.00 6.41E.00 1.54£.01 1.43E-04 1.11E-0] 4.52E-0] 1.08E-02
'llble C-15 Benwood Inhalation 2.9OE-05 2.90E-05 ].28E-05 5.8]E-05
lahleC-16 Mine Spoils Inhalat ion 1.]4E-0] 1.]4E-0] 1.24E-0] 1.]6E-0]
'able C-17 Redstone Inhalat ion 5.]1,£-0] 9.85£-0] 5.23£-05 8.72£-05
'able C-18 Uniontown Inhalet ion ~.11E-O] 4.11£-03 ].90£-03 4.11£-0] 1. 77£ - 04 1.77£-04 1.91£-01, 3.34£-04
'uble C-19 \lavnesburg Inhalation 2.91£-05 2.91£-05 4 . 75E - 05 1.63£-04 ~
'able C-20 "egee Inhalation \0
MAX I"": ~.11E-03 ~.11E-0] 5.34E-03 9.85E-03 1.31,£-03 1.3'£-0] 1.21,£-03 1.36E-03
Tobie C-22 Benwood Dermal 2.51E-03 3.01£-03 1,.57E-03 1. 13E-02 1.01,£-06 1.0U-06 1.09E -06 1.1,2E-06
Table C-23 Mine Spoils Dermal 5.~2E-02 5.ME-02 5.37E-02 6.98E-02 1.29E-05 1.42E -05 1.42E -05 2.15E-05
Table C-24 Redstone Dermal ].]2E-02 8.38E-02 1.89E-05 4.18E-05
Table C-25 Uniontown Dermal 4.84E-02 4.89£-02 4.84£-02 5.93£-02 2.31£-06 2.31E-06 2.50E-06 4.31E-06
Table C-26 \laynesburg Dermal 5.0]E-03 1.]0£-0] 4.87£-03 1.15E-02 3.88£-06 5.19E-06 3.15E-06 8.26£-06
lable C-21 \legee Dermal 5.0]E-0] 1.]0£-0] 6.25£-03 1.56E-02 3.50E-06 4.81£-06 2.29E-06 2.69£-06
MAXIMUM: 5.42E-02 5.M£-02 5.31E-02 8.38£-02 1.29£-05 1.42E-05 1.89E -05 4.18E-05
Tobie C-12 Surface \later Ingest Ion 9.91E-01 2.75E.00 1.31E.00 5.69E.00 5.72£-04 1.65E-03 1.41E-04 2.56£ -03
Table C-1~ Soi Is Ingestion 1.44E -02 2. 11£ - 02 2.5I,E-02 1.79E-02 1. 30E -05 2.59E-05 1. 58£ -05 4.52E-05
TQble C-29 Soils Dermal 4.ME-03 8.72E-03 8.94E-0] 2.23E-02 3.22E-06 6.]4E-06 5.50E-06 1.]6E.05
-.---.-----...-----..-------------------------.-----------.----------------------------------------------.-.----.----------------------
Site lotal for Potential Exposures
2.28£.00 4.69£.00
1.81£.00 2.1]£.01
2.68E-0] 4.21E-03
6.54£-0] 1.48£-02
----------------------------.-.----.--------------.-----------------------------------------------------.-..------------------.--------
.Hazard indices >1.0 Indicate that the potential exists for non-carcinogenic effects from exposure to chemical concentrations detected
at the BRL site. .
..Cancer risks >1.0E-06 Indicate that the .potential exists for carcinogenic effects from exposure to chemical concentrations detected
at the BRL site.
-------
Table 4.
Surmary of Ifoncancer Hazard Calculations for Off-she Residential Uells.
Appendix C
Table
-----.-------------------..-------------.---------------------------------------~----
Envi ronnental
Hedia
Exposure
Route
..-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8ad:grOt.QJ
Total Pathway Noncancer Hazard Index..
-8Rt Si te
AVG HAl(
Tabl e C-1}
Table C-21
Residential
Residential
Ingestion
2.86E-02
2. 97E -02
3.1,9E-02
Inhalation
Table C-28
Residential
Oermal
5.5I,E.03
5.7I,E-03
6.76E-03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resdential Uell Total
3.I,IE.02
3.5I,E-02
1,. 1 7E - 02
lT1
o
------.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Cancer risk values were not calculated for the indicator constituents in the off-site residential wells. Cancer slope factors
have not been developed by u.s. EPA for any of the three indicator constituents identified in the off.slte residential
wells for the relevant exposure routes.
.."azard indices >1.0 Indicate that the potential exists for non.carcinogenic effects from exposure to chemical concentrations detected
in the off-site residential wells.
-------
Table 5.
Summary of Total Site Risk (Existing and Potential Exposure Pathways) For
. Chemical Contaminants at the BRl Site
Noncancer Hazard" Noncancer Hazard" Cancer Risk" Cancer Risk"
Associated With Associated With Associated With Associated With
Average Chemical Maximum Chemical Average Chemical WaGmm ~
Concentrations Concentrations Concentrations Concentrations
BRl Site Conditions
Existing Exposures 1.45E-02 4.56E-02 3.76E-04 1.05E-03"
Potential Exposures 7.81E+OO 2.13E+01 6:54E-03 1.48E-02''
Pre-landfill Conditions
1.11
Existing Exposures 1.04E-02 1.76E-02 2.34E-04 4.00E-04 .....
Potential Exposures 2.28E+OO 4.69E+OO 2.68E-03 6.21 E-03
Recommended Criterion 1.00E+OO 1.00E+OO 1.00E-06 1.00E-06
"Hazard and risk values estimates are unitless indices.
""Exceedances of recommended criteria values indicate that the levels of contaminants at a site may potentially cause adverse
noncancer or carcinogenic effects.
-------
TABLE 6. DENSITY, BIOKASS, AND "EAN LENGTH OF FISH CAPTURED AT EIGHT
STATIONS IN THE LITTLE McMAHON CREEK UATERSHED, BELMONT
COUNTY, OHIO, JUNE 25-26, 1987. SAMPLE SIZE OF MEAN LENGTH
MEASUREHENTS (nx) AND STANDARD DEVIATION ARE SHOUN IN
PARENTHESIS (continued)
Station
Speclea I 28 ) 4 S8 '8 78 8
IfH ITE SUCItER
Nuaber- per- SOli
BI0II8..(0' 1]..
per- So.
"e8n lenothl-' 1110,0'
(nx etd. de..'
Catch8blllt, 1.00
ALL SPECIES
TOTAL NUMBER per- 50. 168 0 18 ) 0 0 120
U1
N
TOTAL BIOMASS per- 50. 860.. 0 IU.I 16.. 0 0 20.' 47S. 7
Index of Biotic InteOr-lt, )4 NIA 22 22 NIA NIA 22 ]0
(181)
IBI Classification Poor- No rleh Ver-, Poor- Ver-, Poor- No 'Iah No 'Iah Ver-, Poor- Poor-
-------
TABLE 6 .
DENSITY, BIOMASS, AND "EAN LENGTH OF FISH CAPTURED AT EIGHT
STATIONS IN THE LITTLE "cHAHON CREEK WATERSHED, BELHONT
COUNTY, OHIO, JUNE 2S-26, 1987. SAMPLE SIZE OF "EAN LENGTH
"EASUREHENTS ("x) AND STANDARD DEVIATION ARE SHOWN IN
PARENTHESIS
8pecte.
St.tton
I
2'
]
4
5'
'*
7*
8
.LACINaSI MCI
Nullber per 50.
8108a..CO)
per 50.
Mean I.nothe_)
C n. .td. de".)
CatchabUtty
CRIll CHU8
Nuaber per 50.
8to.a..(0)
pe r 50.
Mean lengthC_)
Cn. atd. de".)
CatchabUtty
UPONIS Hr8RID
Nullber per 50.
8t08a..Co)
per 50.
Mean length(_)
Cn. .td. de".).
Catchabt 11 ty
" ]
184.0 10.1 0.8
n.8 65.7 Ui
U6,'.49)' (J,4.']) (1,0)
.08 0.50 1.0
U1
w
87 10 ] I 12
596.0 68 16.4 20.' 97.4
17. ] 79.8 76.7 115 78.]
(J6,1'.IU ClO, 9. ]0) (J, lI. 50) Cl,O) C12,21.
0.]9 <0 1.00 1.00 0.80,1.00*
11 5 101
67.0 ]5.0. ]11.5
71.] 67.6 51.8
(7,U.14) (5,20.90) (H, 7.6
O.U <0 0.5),0.74*
* 8lnol. pa.. ..tt.ate..
** Second-thtrd pa.. catchabtlltr.
-------
TABLE 6 . BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED FROH ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE
SAMPLERS DEPLOYED AT 8 STATIONS IN AND NEAR THE BUCKEYE
RECLAMATION LANDFILL, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO, DURING JUNE 26 .
AUGUST 6, 1987
8t8t Ion
Ta.a 2 ) . 5 6 1 8
Turbellar18 2 2
Hydracadna 16 I
Ollgochaeta 21 )6 2) 2 5 92 8
Cruetacea
laopoda 10 3 2
AIIIphlpoda
Ga_arua U 16
Decapod a . U1
.po
Gaatropoda 11 12 ..
Colle.bola 1
Ephe.eroptera ~8
Trlchoptera 2. . 12
Odonata 2 3
He.lptera 9
"egaloptera 2 2
Coleoptera 21 20 .0 2
Dlpten 236 119 186 5 15 95
Chlron08ldae 211 t2 161 89
Ceratopogonldae 8 2 3
Chaoboru. .p.
Total )1t 3 238 268 8 22 93 In
-------
l"\.1..1.t'\\""1JL.~'.1.l"\
Authorization to discharge to Little M~Mahon Creek
I
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) and the Ohio Water Pollution Control Act
(Ohio Revised Code Section 6111).
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill
is authorized by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. hereafter referred
to as "Ohio EPA". to discharge from the treatment system located approximately
4 miles south of St. Clairsville. Ohio in Belmont County in accordance with
the conditions specified below:
A.l. FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REOUIREMENTS FOR THE BUCKEYE
RECLAMATION LANDFILL
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill (the entity) is authorized to discharge in
accordance with the following limitations and monitoring requirements
from the wastewater treatment works. beginning on the first day of
authorized discharge and lasting until 44 months from the date the
twelfth bioassay is completed (in accordance with the provisions
contained in Paragraph C. below):
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS. f«)N 1 TOR I NG REQU I REMENT
Concentration loading
REPORT 1 NG Other Units (Specify) kg/day Measur81118nt Sample
CODE/UNITS PARAMETER 30 DAY DAILY 30 DAY. DAILY Frequency Type
"-
01002 UGIl Arsenic, Total (As) 521 1.41 2/V..k Grab
01012 UG/L Bery II hili, T ota I 6.7 13480 0.018 36.38 2/Veek Grab
01027 UG/L Cacbium, Total 14 57 0.038 0.15 2/Veek Grab
01034 UG/l Chranium, Total 517 11,300 1.40 30.5 2/Veek Grab
01042 UG/L Copper, Total 157 0.424 2/V..k Grab
34371 UG/L Ethyl benzene 2/V..k Grab
39100 UG/L Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 43 1,594 0.12 4.302 l/Month Gra~
01051 UG/L Lead, Total 253 1,883 0.683 5.08 2/V..k GrlJb
71900 UG/L Mercury, Total 0.04 1.6 0.0001 0.0043 2/Ve.k Grab
01067 UG/L Nickel, Total 2/V..k Grab
01077 UG/L Si Iver, Total 7.2 51 0.019 0.14 2/V..k Grab
01092 UG/L Zinc, Total 764 2.06 2/Veek Grab
78396 UG/l 4-Methylphenol, Total 21 202 0.057. 0.545. 2/Veek Grab
00610 MG/L Nitrogen, Ammonia (NH3) Sumner 6 16 2/Veek Gr...b
Wi nter 2/Veek Grab
01097 UG/l Antimony, Tot.al 942 2.54 2/Veek Grab
00981 UG/L Se 18n i UIII 24 29 0.065 0.078 2/Veek Grab
22456 UG/l PAHs". 1.8 0.0048 l/Month Grab
78356 MG/L 2-8utanone l/Month GraD
34694 UG/L Phenol 2/Week Grab
61425 TUa Acute Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia See Paragraph C, Below
61427 TUa Acute Toxicity, Pimephales promelas - See Paragraph C, Below
(CONT 1 NUED)
-------
A.I. FInAL EFFLUE!IT LIMITATIONS ~.ND HOHITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUCKEYE
RECLAMATION L~IDFILL (Continued)
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS.
Concentration Loading
Other Units (Specify) kg/day
30 DAY DAILY 30 DAY DAILY
MONITORING REQUIREMENl
REPORTING
CODE/UNITS PARAMETER
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
I (max) -
Dai Iy
l/Month
l/Month
l/Month
. l/Month
l/Month
l/Month
24 Hr. Tota
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Calculated
50050 MGD.
00550 MG/L
00530 MG/L
00310 MG/L
00680 MG/L
00335 MG/L
99997
FI~ Rate
Oil and Grease, Total
Residue, Total Nonfilterable
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day
Total Organic Carbon
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Carcinogen Addittvity Factor*.
15
30
20
45
* Effluent limitations have been established using a flow value of 0.713 HGD.
** The 30-day average reported values obtained in the monthly sampling period
for the following parameters shall be used in the carcinogenic additivity
factor evaluation:
Parameter
Avera~e Re~orted Value (u~/I)
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
"-
The.carcinogen additivity factor
equation:
A
B
shall be calculated using the following
A
6.7 ug/l
+
B
344 ug/l
*** The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) criteria apply to the sum of
anthracene. benzo(a) anthracene. benzo(k)flouranthene.
3,4-benzofluoranthene. benzo(b)flouranthene). benzo (g.h.i)perylene.
benzo(a)pyrene. chrysene. dibenzo(a.h)anthracene, flourene.
indeno(l.2..3-c.d)pyrene. naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene.
B.I. The pH (Reporting Code 00400) shall not be less than 6.5 S.U. nor greater
than 9.0 S.U. and shall be monitored 2/Week by grab sample.
-------
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS &~D MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUCKEYE
RECLAMATION LANDFILL
1..2.
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill is authorized to discharge 'in accordance with the
following limitations and monitoring requirements from the wastewater
treatment works, beginning 44 months from the date the twelfth monthly
bioassay is completed (in accordance with the provisions contained in
Paragraph C below) and lasting until the treatment works are no longer in
service and there is no discharge from the facility or until these
requirements are modified:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS. MON I TOR 1 NG REOU I REMEN1
Concentration Loading
REPORT! NG Other Units CSpecify) kg/day Measurement S8nple
CODE/UNITS PARAMETER 30 DAY DAILY 30 DAY DAILY Frequency Type
Dl002 UG/L Arsenic, Total' CAs) 521 1.41 2/Week Grab
01012 UG/L Beryl I il8l\, Total 6.7 13480 0.018 36.38 2/Week Grab
01027 UG/L Cacinil8l\, Total 14 57 0.038 0.15 2/Week Grab
01034 UG/L Chranil8l\, Total 517 11,300 1.40 30.5 2/Week Grab
01042 UG/L Copper, Total 157 0.424 2/Week Grab
34371 UG/L Ethy I benzene 2/Week Grab
39100 UG/L BisC2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 43 1,594 0.12 4.302 l/Month Grab
01051 UG/L Lead, Total 253 1,883 0.683 5.08 2/Week Grab
71900 UG/L Mercury, Total 0.04 1.6 O. OCXH 0.0043 2/Week Grab
01067 UG/L Nickel, Total 2/Week Grab
01077 UG/L Si Iver, Total 7.2 51 0.019 0.14 2/Week Grab
01092 UG/L Zinc, Total 764 2.06 2/Week Grab
78396 UG/L 4-Hethylphe~, Total 21 202 0.057 0.545 2/Week Grab
00610 MG/L Nitrogen, Ammonia CNH3) SlmIIer 6 16 2/Week Grab
Winter 2/Week Grab
01097 UGIL Antimony, Total 942 2.54 2/Week Grab
00981 UG/L Seleniun 24 29 0.065 0.078 2/Week Grab
22456 UG/L PAHs." 1.8 0.0048 l/Month Grab
(CONTINUED)
-------
~.2. FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MJD MONITORING REOUIREMENTS FOR THE BUCKEYE
RECLAMATION LANDFILL (Continued)
DISCHARGE lIMITATIONS*
Concentrat I on Load i ng
Other Units (Specify) kg/day
30 DAY DAILY 30 DAY DAILY
MONITORING REQUIREMENT
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC
REPORT! NG
CODE/UNITS PARAMETER
Measurement
Frequency
Ssnple
Type
78356
34694 UG/L
61425 TUa
61427 TUa
50050 MGD
00550 MG/L
00530 MG/L
00310 MG/L
00680 MG/l
00335 MG/L
99997
2~utanone
Phenol
Acute Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia
Acute Toxicity, Pimephales promelas -
Flow Rate
Oil and Grease, Total
Residue, Total Nonfilterable
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day
Total Organic Carbon
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Carcinogen Additivity Factor**
l/Month Grab
2/Week Grab
See Paragraph C, Below
See Paragraph C, Below
Daily 24 Hr. Total
l/Month Grab
l/Month Grab
l/Month Grab
l/Month Grab
l/Month Grab
l/Month Calculated
1.5
1.5
15
30
20
45
I (max) -
Effluent limitations have been established using a flow value of 0.713 KGD.
The 30-day avera~ reported values obtained in the monthly sampling period
for the following parameters shall be used in the carcinogenic additivity
factor evaluation:
*
**
Parameter
AveraRe Reported Value (uR/I)
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
A
B
. The carcinogen additivity factor shall be calculated using the following
equation:
A
6.7 ug/l
B
344 ug/l
+
*** The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) criteria apply to the sum of
anthracene, benzo (a) anthracene , benzo(k), flouranthene
3,4-benzofluoranthene, benzo(b)flouranthene), benzo (g,h,i)perylene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, flourene,
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene.
B.2. The pH (Reporting Code 00400) shall not be less t.han 6.5 S.U. nor great.er
than 9.0 S.U. and shall be monitored 2/Week by grab sample.
-------
C.
Biomonitoring requirements for Buckeye Reclamation Landfill
As soon as possible, but not later than three months .after treatment has
been installed to meet "final chemical-specific limits, the entity shall
initiate an effluent biomonitoring program to determine the toxicity of
effluent from Buckeye Reclamation Landfill.
TestinR Requirements:
1.
Acute Bioassays:
The entity shall conduct monthly 48-hour acute bioassays using
Ceriodaphnia and 96-hour acute bioassays using the fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas) for a period of one year. If discharges are
intermittent and do not occur on a monthly basis, then 12 acute bioassays
shall be completed with no more than 1 bioassay occurring per every four
weeks per calendar month. The tests shall be conducted' using 24-hour
composite samples of final effluent from outfall 001. In addition, an
instream grab sample will be tested to determine near field toxicity. See
item 4 under testing protocol for specifics on sampling locales.
2.
Chemical Analysis:
A sufficient volume of effluent shall be collected to allow for chemical
analysis. Bioassay effluent s~~ling may be coordinated with other
sampling requirements as appropriate to avoid duplication. The analyses
detailed in the Final Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
tables should be conducted for the effluent sample. In addition,
alkalinity and hardness (as CaC03) should also be measured. Chemical
analysis must comply with Ohio EPA accepted procedures.
~
'TestinR Protocol:
1.
The test shall be conducted using procedures contained in the Ohio EPA
Quality Assurance Manual (or current revisions). Any request to use a
different methodology must be approved by the OEPA prior to the
initiation of testing.
2.
The entity shall determine a median lethal concentration (LCSO) and/or
median effective concentration (EC50) for acute effects.
3.
A minimum of 5 effluent concentrations (e.g., 100, 56, 32, 18, and 10
percent by volume effluent) shall be used in each effluent bioassay.
Dilution and control water shall be collected as a grab sample at
Station 801 (a site upstream from the outfall outside the zone of
effluent and receiving water interaction). Reconstituted water, .
rearing unit water (water in which the test organisms were reared) or
other high quality water shall be used as a second control water. If
the primary control and dilution water from station 801 is
demonstrated to contain unacceptable toxicity in a test, then the
secondary control shall be used as the diluent in succeeding tests
until water from Station 801 is shown to be acceptable for use as a
diluent in three successive bioassays where it has been tested at
full-strength (i.e., no dilutions). An acute test shall be repeated
if mortality, or combination of mortality plus other adverse effects,
exceeds ten percent of one of the species of test organisms in both
control waters (primary and secondary).
-------
4.
Testing of ambient water shall be conducted as follows. In
conjunction with the acute tests of the effluent. an instream grab
sample shall be collected at Station 901 (a point located within the
effluent plume 3 meters (10 feet) downstream from outfall 001). The
location of the effluent plume should be confirmed at the time of
sampling using temperature measurements, conductivity measurements or
a dye study. Bioassays of these instream samples will determine if
near field toxicity is occurring.
'.
-------
Responsiveness Summary for the Record of Decision
I.
overview
Public reaction to the Proposed Plan was mixed. A number of
citizens expressed concern over the high cost of the proposed
remedy. Some were doubtful that health risks at the site had been
characterized accurately and that the expensive remedy was
justified due to the Agencies' risk estimates. Comments
supporting the proposed alternative were also submitted by the
public. The Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) group submitted
comments regarding several of the Agencies' assumptions and
conclusions in the Remedial Investigation and Endangerment
Assessment.
II.
Backaround on Communitv Involvement
The following are the community relations activities conducted at
the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill Superfund site (BRL site) from
the completion of the Feasibility Study to the end of the public
comment period.
1.
u.S. EPA and Ohio EPA prepared a Proposed Plan in May 1991
for release to the public at the beginning of the public
comment period. A fact sheet, which summarized the proposed
plan, was also distributed to individuals on the mailing
list. The Administrative Record was placed in local
information repositories at the st. Clairsville Public
Library and the Neffs Branch of the Martins Ferry Public
Library.
U.S. EPA placed public notices on May 13, 1991 in local
newspapers including The Intellingencer, Wheeling, West
virginia and The Times - Leader, Martins Ferry, Ohio to
announce the beginning of the public comment period. The
notice also announced a public meeting which was held on May
30, 1991.
2.
3.
u.S. EPA and Ohio EPA conducted a public meeting on May 30,
1991, to explain the details of the Remedial Investigation
. /Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan, to answer questions
from interested members of the community; and to accept pubic
comments from the community. A court reporter was present to
record the meeting. u.S. EPA distributed the Proposed Plan
fact sheet at the meeting.
A request for a 10 day extension to the public comment period
was made on May 31, 1991. U.S. EPA granted the extension,
which ran until June 26, 1991.
4.
5.
u.s. EPA placed a public notice in The Intellingencer and The
Times - .Leader announcing the extension to the public comment
period.
-------
2
III. Summarv of Public Comments and Lead Aaencv ReSDonse
Comments 1 through 16 were raised in oral comments at the public
meeting and in written comments:
1.
Comment
The situation at the landfill could have been avoided in 1987
because the Agencies knew of the gob (coal mine spoil) pile,
creeks and runoff.
ResDonse
U.S.EPA was aware of potential problems at the Buckeye
Reclamation Landfill site in 1987. The site had been placed
on the Superfund National Priorities List on September 8,
1983. However, the Agencies did not have enough.
environmental data to characterize the site and select an
appropriate remedy until the end of the remedial
investigation.
2.
Comment
Landfills should be done away with as much as possible.
Recycling is the answer to the garbage and hazardous waste
problem.
ResDonse
The Agency agrees and supports all recycling efforts.
However, landfills will be necessary for at least the
foreseeable future or until consumer product manufacturing
and disposal trends change.
3.
Comment
with forty-eight million the Agencies could build an
incinerator on the site.
ResDonse
Incineration of on-site soils was considered in the earlier
phases of the Feasibility study. It was eliminated as a
treatment option because it is more effective for volatile
and semivolatile organic compounds. Further treatment and/or
disposal would be required for the residual ash which would
contain elevated metal concentrations. Incineration would be
difficult to implement and capital and operation &
maintenance costs would be high. Costs would be further
increased due to the treatment and/or disposal costs for the
residue ash. Additional costs to the overall remedy
associated with incineration of the Waste pit soils may have
been as much as 20 million.
-------
3
4.
Comment
closing of old landfills leads to the requirement that new
landfills be constructed for garbage disposal in the same
locality. Under recently passed legislation, it costs
approximately ten million dollars to establish new landfills.
The cost to dump in new landfills will increase greatly.
More people will illegally dump rather than pay increased
fees. Thusly, new laws aimed at protecting the environment
lead to degradation of it.
ResDonse
The Agency disagrees with this comment. Examples which
illustrate progress toward making the environmen~ safer and
cleaner are evident throughout the nation's land, air and
water. Much of this progress is the direct result of laws
passed by Congress to protect the environment and an
increased public awareness of the benefits of a clean
environment. The economic costs seem high because they were
largely ignored in the past. As the nations economy switches
toward the inclusion of environmental cost as a cost of doing
business, the dollars spent on disposal and waste will
actually drop.
5.
Comment
The gob (coal mine refuse) that is exposed at the bottom of
the landfill shows high clay content -- a perfect sealer for
a landfill. In essence, the location of this site and
composition is perfect for a landfill.
ResDonse
The coal mine refuse may have a high clay content, but it
also contains a large fraction of coarse grained particles,
which increase the permeability of the material. If the ~oal
mine refuse was a perfect sealer, there should be no leachate
discharges from the site, however, this is obviously
happening. Ground water monitoring data has also
demonstrated that contaminants found in the waste pit have
miqrated out of it and moved downqradient. In summary, the
materials and location of this landfill are really no
different from any landfill which is not an engineered
structure. There are problems with the Buckeye Reclamation
Landfill which the studies have identified and the Agency
intends to address.
6.
Comment
What's the big danger that EPA has found with this landfill?
A number of contaminants such as benzene, arsenic, and
chromium which exceed Federal safe drinking water standards -
- but no one is drinking the water from the site! Your
-------
4
report states that "Concentrations of ground water
contaminants decreased below detection limits before moving
beyond site boundaries." (i.e. ~his means DQ contamination
from those previously mentioned are moving off-site.)
ResDonse
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates that the Agency implement
remedies which ensure long-term protection of human health
and the environment utilizing institutional controls only
when no other remedy will work. The presence of the
contaminants mentioned above in the on-site ground water
indicates a potential for further future releases. The
Agency can not rely on happen stance and luck to assure the
contamination stays put. Buckeye Reclamation Landfill is a
fairly young landfill. Its peak gas and leachate production
probably won't occur for ten years or more. The Agency,
therefore, must take measures now to prevent off-site
migration of the contaminants before the current situation
becomes worse.
7.
Comment
"Surface water samples collected ffJ.;1m nearby creeks and
leachate seeps detected contamination from both acid mine
drainage and the landfill. This type of leachate can be
neutralized and treated by the use of crushed limestone and
the construction of wetlands or bogs utilizing cattails.
ResDonse
The Agency agrees that this type of leachate can be treated
with constructed wetlands. However, the Agency would like to
stress that for this system to perform effectively and
reliably, it must be carefully evaluated and designed. The
treatment system must comply with regulations which establish
discharge limits for the treated water. .Because of this,
treating the leachate is not as easy as lining the creeks
with limestone and planting cattails.
8.
Comment
There is mention of an "industrial waste pit" in which high
levels of contamination were found. This pit is only
approximately one half acre in size and nearly in the middle
of the landfill, and it is covered with top soil and growing
grasses. Three of the twenty-four monitoring wells drilled
are found only 40 yards and below this pit, and it's my
understanding that these wells show no migration of the
contaminants from the pit. One must assume that the
industrial waste is staying right where it was put.
-------
9.
10.
5
ResDonse
Monitoring data collected during the Remedial Investigation
does not support this statement. Relatively high levels of
three volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which were
identified as chemicals of concern and detected in the waste
pit, were detected in monitoring well MW-4A. This well is
located approximately 100 feet east of, and downgradient
from, the waste pit. Relatively small amounts of two of
these VOCs were also detected in monitoring well MW-7A it is
likely but not certain that these VOCs are originating from
the waste pit too. In summary, monitoring data does show
that contaminants are slowly leaking from the waste pit.
Comment
The Endangerment Assessment report states that "current
existing human exposure to site contaminants occurs when
people enter the site and inhalation of contaminated dust
over a long period of time poses a potential risk of cancer".
The site is closed down and there will be no long-term
exposure, nor will there be any substantial amount of dust
since there are grasses growing over most of the site.
ResDonse
The current risk calculations performed in the Endangerment
Assessment considered trespassers entering .the site for the
purpose of dirt biking. This activity was observed during
performance of field work for the Remedial Investigation.
Even though the site is now closed, the Agency assumes dirt
biking and other forms of trespassing activities will
continue and therefore the risks calculated in the
Endangerment Assessment will continue to exist.
Comment
The findings also mention that "direct contact with and long-
term ingestion of surface waters, soils, and ground water
could result in an unacceptable level of noncancerous or
cancerous human health risks". Who is going to drink the
ground water from the site or eat the dirt from the landfill
over a long period of time or even over a short period of
time? No one, of course!
ResDonse
The findings referred to in the comment above concern
potential future-use risks which may be posed by the site if
it were used for residential purposes. It is the Agency's
policy to calculate risks under a reasonable worst case
situation as a means of establishing a base-line for
comparison of remedial alternatives. The Agency chose to use
the residential use situation for the reasonable worst case
-------
12.
13.
6
scenario at this site. The Endangerment Assessment
calculations showed that potential residents on the site
could be exposed to unacceptable health risks. Therefore,
the Agency must take measures to assure the risks are
minimized.
11.
Comment
"Proposed [Potentially] Responsible Parties", certain
companies, are being told they have to "fork out" 48+ million
dollars to cap the landfill. It's already almost all covered
with top soil and planted and growing grass. Why not leave
it as it is? It's not hurting anyone and I'll bet won't hurt
anyone in the future. Put some limestone in the creeks and
plant some cattails in wetlands and it will be fixed.
ResDonse
.It is true that the site is covered with soil which is
growing grasses. The existing "cover, however, was not
engineered to minimize infiltration of water, as. is required
by law for solid waste landfills. Minimizing infiltration of
surface water will inhibit contamination migration and
decrease leachate generation, effectively reducing health and
environmental risks posed by the site. In order to assure
that the site poses minimized risk over the long-term, a cap
is a necessary component of the remedy. The Agency does
intend to use constructed wetlands for treatment of collected
leachate and ground water, however the wetlands will be
properly designed to assure the collected waters are treated
sufficiently to meet appropriate discharge limits.
Comment
We have to do away with landfills because we're destroying
the lands. We're making more people but we don't make more
land. There's 50 acres down there (the Buckeye site) that
nobody can use or live on. We keep continuing building more
landfills but we don't figure out a way to recycle our waste.
ResDonse
The Agency fully supports waste minimization and recycling
efforts as a means of preserving the environment. Also see
response to comment 4.
Comment
The landfill was constructed on the mine spoilage (refuse).
The reason it was constructed on the mine spoilage was -- it
was a waste area, why not put a dump on it. We'll put our
garbage on it, cover it up, put grass on it when it is done
and have a nice area when it was done. I certainly believe
that's the thought behind that landfill.
-------
7
. ResDonse
The Agency can not speculate on what the intentions were for
locating the landfill in the Kings Run valley.
14.
Comment
The thing I fear most about your proposal is the costs and
its benefits. There is an awful lot of acid mine drainage
that comes into Little McMahon Creek, not only from the
landfill area but from other areas. I can't see spending
48.6 million dollars, or whatever that figure is, when you
have other areas, other acid mine drainage coming off into
those creeks.
ResDonse
The remedial action which has been selected for the Buckeye
Reclamation Landfill site is not exclusively a mine
reclamation project. The components of the remedy serve to
minimize infiltration of surface water into the landfilled
area, collect landfill leachate and ground water (much of
which is also acid mine drainage impacted), treat the
collected waters and possibly implement institutional
controls on the site property. The goal of the remedy is to
prevent off-site migration of contaminants. and treat
contaminated waters which do move off-site. Acid mine
drainage is not the only problem identified at this site as
evidenced by the presence of man-made chemicals.
15.
Comment
I don't know whether Belmont County is going to end up having
to pay for this or not. I feel like the Agencies are
penalizing the local people that own that landfill, causing
them and some of the other dumpers to come up with all this
money to repair all of this when your studies show that all
the metals and everything that is coming out of the landfill
is coming out of that acid mine drainage.
ResDonse
First, Belmont County is not the only potentially responsible
party at this site. The Agency will attempt to negotiate an
agreement with a number of potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) for the performance of the remedial design and
remedial action. Second, the Agency studies show that man-
made contaminants, which could not have come from acid mine
drainage, are present at the landfill. Sample analyses also
showed high concentrations of metals, some of which could
have been released from industrial wastes disposed at the
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill site. The acid mine drainage is
not the primary reason Superfund is conducting a remediation
at this site.
-------
8
16.
Comment
I can't see where you are being fair in wanting to have PRPs
put all this money out when the original intent of the
landfill was to cover all the mine refuse anyway. I think
you are penalizing those people very unjustly for the
benefits that will be derived.
Res~onse
Regardless of the original intent of the landfill, the
studies performed by the Agency have concluded that an
already degraded situation at the Buckeye Reclamation
Landfill site was made worse by landfilling. The selected.
remedy is similar to the sort of landfill closure which is
required under State of Ohio solid waste regulations. All
solid waste landfills in Ohio are required by Ohio law to be
covered in a proper manner and provide for leachate
collection and treatment. The Agency does not intend to
penalize any party, only to protect human health and the
environment.
Comments 17 through 27 were submitted by the Buckeye Reclamation
Landfill Steering Committee. Because most of these comments are
lengthy, they have been summarized in this responsiveness summary.
The complete comments can be found in the administrative record
for the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill Site.
17.
Comment
The final RI Report states that "the flow system in the mine
spoil is complicated because of its heterogeneity. It
involves not a single, uniform water table but a series of
semi-isolated saturated zones, some with fairly extensive
water tables, coexisting in places with more local,
semiperched water tables." Final RI p. 142. The conclusions
expressed in this quote are entirely without support and
inconsistent with the information and data collected during
the RI. The data collected during the RIindicate$ that the
water table (in the mine refuse zone) is a single saturated
zone which exists at the base of the unconsolidated material,
and occurs due to the permeability contrast between the
unconsolidated materials and the relatively impermeable
virgin soil horizon or bedrock formations below (although
leakage surely occurs).
Res~onse
The Agency has determined that hydrologic description
provided for the mine refuse zone in the above comment may be
an oversimplification of the situation. The Agencies contend
that data from the RI shows that in places where the mine
refuse is relatively thin, as at MW-6A (36 feet) and MW-11A
(17 feet), it is dry. In the other monitoring wells (MW-2A,
-------
9
MW-7A, MW-8A, MW-9A and MW-12A), where thicknesses of mine
refuse range from 40 to 100 feet, the mine refuse is
partially saturated. Therefore, moving from north to south
within the mine refuse on-site, a continuous ground water
table may not be present as is implied in the above comment.
The above comment took special exception to the use of "semi-
perched" in describing the ground water conditions in the
mine refuse. This term was intended to describe ground water
levels which were measured higher up on the ridge which
separates Kings Run and Unnamed Run. Because of the
heterogeneity of the mine refuse in the landfill area, the
Agency concluded that some of these topographically higher
ground water measurements could have resulted from restricted
downward percolation of water in localized areas.
18.
Comment
The draft RI Report contained important observations and data
regarding recharge to bedrock formations. Although the data
was consistent with other site data, the Final RI Report
ignored the information, and as a result, fundamental site
hydrogeologic observations and descriptions were lost. This
comment takes special exceptions to revisions performed by
the Agencies regarding ground water recharge and discharge
from the Redstone Limestone and Sewickly Coal.
ResDonse
The Agency determined that careful examination of drilling
data is required or else erroneous conclusions may be made as
to which units are or are not water bearing. An example of
what is believed to be such a misinterpretation is the
statement in the above comment that the Sewickley Coal is not
water bearing at the site. This all inclusive statement is
based on the loss, during drilling, of approximately 3750
gallons of water in MW-5C between depths of 216 and 295 feet
(a 79-foot interval that includes the Sewickley Coal), plus
. the fact that the well, having been "blown dry", failed to
"recharge". The Agency was not told how much time was.
allowed to reenter the well, a process that conceivably could
take several hours or even days. Moreover, there is no
evidence presented that the water was indeed lost in the
Sewickley Coal and not in permeable zones above or below the
coal. .
The statement also implied in this comment that the Sewickley
Coal and Redstone Limestone are "naturally dry" because they
"lack recharge areas" is not correct. Both units crop out on
the sides of the ridge where they are exposed to recharge by
precipitation, similar to the other beds that underlie the
site.
The question of why wells MW-1C and MW-5C were dry was not
addressed to the satisfaction of the Agency in this comment.
-------
19.
10
According to mine maps of the Ohio Division of Reclamation,
the Pittsburgh Coal had been essentially mined out, except
for pillars and walls required for roof support, over the
entire site. It is common practice in underground mining to
remove, for safety reasons, incompetent beds of clay and
shale overlying the coal. It is this material that makes up
most of the mine spoil now piled on the surface. In this
instance, removal of these overlying beds would allow water
in the Redstone Limestone to drain into the abanqoned mine,
probably at a rate faster than it can enter the limestone by
normal recharge.
The hypothesis of drainage into the underlying mines to
account for the absence of water in the Redstone Limestone at
wells MW-1C and MW-SC is strengthened by statements relative
to the Redstone Limestone in the Final RI, p. 164: "During
the drilling of MW-SC, the drill stem encountered a void and
abruptly dropped one-half foot..." "Drilling fluids were
rapidly lost ... indicating substantial porosity and
permeability at MW-SCi however, the formation is dry at this
location." Drainage into the mine would seem a logical
explanation of why this permeable unit was dry at these well
sites. The underlying mines may not be dry everywhere,
however, because of unevenness of the old mine floors,
possibly accounting for the fact that the Redstone Limestone
is water bearing in places, as at the sites of wells MW-10C
and MW-1"2C. It is possible that local mounding of the water
table offers increased local recharge to the Redstone
Limestone as is proposed in the comment, but the Agency
believes drainage to the under ground mine theory is better.
Comment
The draft RI Report's observation, indicating that a large
site surface water body, the northern impoundment, serves as
a primary source of recharge for the Benwood limestone water-
bearing zone was erroneously excluded from the Final RI
Report. As a result, "the Final RI Report's discussion of
limited recharge to the Benwood formation by the northern
impoundment is based on improper use of site data and flawed
logic.
ResDonse
The Agency maintains its position that the northern
impoundment is not the primary recharge source for the
Benwood limestone. The above comment presented calculations
which estimated the recharge potential to the Benwood from
both the mine refuse at the Benwood subcrop and the northern
impoundment. The calculations concluded that the northern
impoundment may have 2 to 5 times the recharge potential of
the subcrop. These calculations, however fail to take into
account the sediments at the bottom of the northern
impoundment, which should reduce discharge from the
-------
20.
21.
11
impoundment. In the concluding statement of the final RI
Report, the Agency did not discount the northern impoundment
as a recharge source, only that it is not the major recharge
source.
Comment
The Final RI Report (p. 211) notes that NW-10C and MW-3B
could not be properly developed because of exceptionally low
yields. Despite these deficiencies, .the agencies required
that data from these wells be used in the endangerment
assessment (Final EA Report, p.2-9) in calculating potential
human exposure to ground water. It is never necessary or
proper to use data when there is strong reasori to suspect
that the data is spurious. In both instances, other wells in
the same formation are available to provide adequate
information to establish the true water quality of those.
zones (Final RI Report, p. 211). The required use of data
form undeveloped wells is contrary to numerous EPA guidance
on ground water monitoring. It is unacceptable to use
spurious data by claiming that its use is a conservative
assumption. The data is invalid and meaningless. Moreover,
the data cannot be considered valid, meaningful, or
"conservative" simply because similar "numbers" are obtained
from valid data.
ResDonse
The Agency maintains its position that analytical data from
these wells is valid. The data from these wells was
validated through laboratory and Agency QA/QC procedures. In
this instance, the Agency stated that inclusion of the data
was a "conservative approach", not in terms of estimating t:he
health risks posed by the site, but in terms of the
uncertainty of the source of contaminants detected in the
well. The Agency was not convinced that the chemicals of
concern present in the sample were derived merely from well
installation problems, therefore the data. from these wells
was included in the endangerment assessment.
Comment
The Final Endangerment Assessment (EA) Report assumes an
unreasonable future residential use scenario where local
streams are used as a primary drinking water source, even
though ingestion of surface waster is "not expected to be a
major or probable exposure route" (Final EA Report, p. 3-28),
and "ingestion of untreated surface water probably
constitutes the least likely exposure pathway due to the poor
aesthetic quality of the stream water (i.e, discoloration and
palatability effects due to acid mine drainage conditions",
Final EA Report, p. 5-16). Risks calculated under this
scenario provide an inappropriate and misleading
characterization of BRL site-related risks.
-------
22.
12
Response
The Agency determined that calculating future residential
risks for ingestion of surface water (as a primary drinking
water source) in this area was justified. During the
residential survey, wells which were installed into the
alluvial aquifer adjacent to Little McMahon Creek were
identified. There is a possibility that the water entering
these wells is coming directly from Little McMahon Creek.
Another consideration under the future use scenario was that,
because water bearing zones under the site do not produce
large amounts of water, surface water may be the only viable
source of water in an on-site residential scenario.
Comment
The Endangerment Assessment (EA) attempted to examine "the
potential health and environmental effects which may be
associated with contaminants in the environmental media at
the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill." Final EA Report,
Executive Summary. The EA is'based on the analytical results
of samples collected during the RI. The results of such an
assessment can only be meaningful if the analytical methods
used are sensitive enough to accurately determine the levels
of contaminants present in the samples being analyzed. The
analytical methods used in the RI were selected based on what
was understood to be the exposure pathways that would be
considered in the EA, and the sensitivity of the selected
methods provided results that can be used to characterize the
risk of those pathways. For example, for dermal exposure the
analytical results allowed for an accurate calculation of
risk and indicated that the total pathway hazard indices and
cancer risks from dermal contact with surface water were well
within the acceptable range. The selected analytical
methods, however were not sensitive enough to properly
characterize the risk created by a surface water ingestion
scenario.
Analytical methods with .very low limits of detection were not
used because exposure through surface water ingestion was not
considered to be a realistic or even proper exposure
scenario. As a result, the analytical methods used do not
provide the low detection limits that are needed to properly
characterize risk associated with a water ingestion scenario.
Despite the lack of appropriate analytical sensitivity, the
Final EA Report added a surface water exposure pathway and
assumed that each non-detected contaminant was present at its
analytical detection limit. Thus, all samples were assumed
to have contaminants present at least at the analytical level
of detection.
This fundamentally flaws the EA process because the minimum
detection levels for the analytical methods used, the lowest
level possible under the assumptions used in the Final EA
-------
23.
24.
13
Report, present unacceptable risks.
ResDonse
Data used in the calculation of risk in the EA was first
screened using several criteria. One of the first
requirements for a contaminant to be considered present in a
media was that it was detected, either at estimated or above
detection limit concentrations. If a chemical was not
detected in a certain media, risks were not calculated for
that chemical in that media. If a contaminant was detected
at one sampling point in a specific media, it was considered
to be present throughout the media, at the detection limit.
The quidance under which this document was prepared, the
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual (SPHEM), allows
latitude in selecting one-half or full detection limits for
performing calculations. The Agency chose to use the full
detection limit for EA calculations because a conservative
approach was desired and this option was available in the
Agency guidance. If a contaminant is present in a media and
tha~ media provides a complete exposure pathway, the Agency
must estimate the risks associated with the pathway.
Comment
Calculation of risk in the Final EA Report employs
methodologies that pool data from several surface water
sampling stations to derive mean contaminant concentrations
for use'in exposure calculations. The way in which the data
from the surface water stations was pooled resulted in
groupings of data that make it impossible to meaningfully
compare the risk caused by landfilling activities with the
risk created by acid mine drainage (ltAMDIt) from the mine
refuse at the site or in the surrounding area.
ResDonse
The groupings of the surface water data used to derive the
mean contaminant concentrations were developed jointly by the
site steering committee and the Agency. At the time, all
parties agreed that this grouping would best assess the
health effects posed by the site. A major issue discussed
was how applicable the Unnamed Run surface water station (BY-
6) data was for BRL site comparisons. The Unnamed Run is not
impacted by landfilling but is greatly impacted by acid mine
drainage (AMD). Because Unnamed Run is in a different
drainage basin in which there has been no reclamation
activity similar to that which has occurred in the Kings Run
Basin, the Agency determined that any risks calculated using
only Unnamed Run data would overstate site related AMD
effects. For this reason, the Agency determined the data
groupings used in the Final EA best assessed site risks.
Comment
-------
14
The use of storm water flow data in deriving mean
contaminants concentrations for use in exposure modeling is
improper and unrealistic. By Combining two rounds of storm
water data with baseflow data in the calculation of mean
contaminant concentrations, the results of the Final EA
Report are inappropriately slanted toward storm conditions.
Baseflow conditions are more typically present in the stream.
Storm water flow in these streams is a brief, rare event.
Using both sets of the data causes the exposure scenario to
effectively model a situation where a major storm event
occurs half of the time. Giving equal weight to both sets of
data results in a mean calculation that is inappropriate and
not representative of site conditions.
When calculations in the Firial EA Report are recalculated
with only baseflow data included, Hazards and risks are
greater in the Pre-landfill condition than at the BRL site.
ResDonse
The Agency insisted on collection of storm flow surface water
samples in order to evaluate potential maximum contaminant
releases in this pathway. Analytical data from these storm
flow samples did show higher contaminant levels than those
found in base flow samples. The above comment and appendix
to the comment proposes to ignore the data' and only include
base flow data in calculating risks from this pathway. The
Agency determined the two sets of data should be combined in
order to fully evaluate risks posed by the pathway.
25.
Comment
The draft RI Report provided important observations related
to the potential for the BRL site to impact local streams by
noting that BRL site-related contaminants in surface water
are the same metal contaminants, and in similar
concentrations as found in the AMD. It is altogether
reasonable and proper to. contrast potential future impacts
~ all sources of contamination in discussing the
likelihood that the alluvial aquifer will be impacted by the
BRL site in the future. .
The draft RI Report (p. 407) also noted the elevated
concentrations of metals from mine spoil leachate in the
Unnamed Run drainage have been acting on this aquifer for
over 60 years, yet no MCLs for these contaminants were
exceeded in domestic well samples. There were very few
occurrences of volatile or semivolatile contaminants detected
in surface waters recharging this aquifer and values for
contaminants that were detected were at or near detection
limits. In addition, the highly mobile organic contaminants
that could conceivably be coming from the Waste Pit have not
been detected in surface water and are in low concentrations
in on-site ground water. Semivolatile compounds were not
-------
15
shown to have contaminated surface water. Semivo1ati1e
compounds were detected in wells near the Waste Pit but only
at very low concentrations. Should any of these organic
contaminants in on-site ground water reach the surface
waters, natural dilution would reduce the currently very low
concentrations to below analytical detection. Thus future
contamination of the alluvial aquifer, and the domestic wells
is extremely unlikely.
ResDonse
The Agency cannot speculate on the water quality in the local
private wells over the past 60 years~ no matter what
contaminant releases may have occurred in the area. With no
real data to establish the water quality in the domestic.
wells in the 60 years prior to RI activities, it is difficult
to claim that the wells have never been impacted by the site
and therefore will not be impacted by the site in the future.
Residential wells were sampled during RI activities for the
site and the final EA states ,that no unacceptable noncancer
hazards were identified for the indicator ana1ytes detected
in off-site residential well water (EA Report, Executive
Summary). It is unlikely that the site is impacting these
wells given the data collected for the RI. In this case, the
Agency chose to rely on data collected during the
investigation and not speculate on the past. While current
alluvial ground water risks are low, the Agency chose a
course of action to assure that future exposures are low risk
as well.
26.
Comment
In the draft Endangerment Assessment (EA) Report (August,
1989), the worst case current soil exposure modeled a pair of
dirt bikers, one following the other while trespassing on the
BRL site as it existed at the time of the remedial
investigation. This scenario was consistent with.
observations made by the landfill operators and those made by
-the remedial investigation field team during the remedial
investigation. In this scenario, the second biker in the
pair would be more exposed than any other person who might
come into contact with the site. The Final EA Report,
however, noting that other types of vehicles use the area and
other receptors such as hunters and hikers may also be on
site at times, materially altered the inputs to the Model by
using worst case values for all parameters in the Model. The
Model by definition presents a worst-case, and the Final EA
Report's selection of all worst-case variables as inputs
causes the output from the Model to be so unrealistic that it
is meaningless.
ResDonse
The above comment maintains that virtually all parameters,
-------
16
selected by the Agency for the dust generation model, were
too conservative or unrealistic. The Agency carefully
reviewed the draft EA Report. It contained parameters which
were determined, by the Agency, to be either incorrect or not
conservative enough. Parameter values recommended by the
Agency were then taken from guidance (ComDilation of Air
ollutant Emission Factors: Volume: Stationar Po'nt and
Area Sources. AP-42 , 4th Edition, U.S. EPA, September, 1985
and SUDer fund EXDosure Assessment Manual. EPA/540/1-88/001,
OSWER Directive 9285.5-1. April, 1988) after the Agency had
considered site conditions, and examined parameters which
best fit site conditions and the model which was being used.
The Agency maintains that all assumptions best represented
site conditions and best suited the model used for the
calculations.
27.
Comment
Ambient air samples were collected during the remedial
investigation (Final RI Report, Section 6.0). Air sampling
data indicated there was no risk to human health because the
concentrations detected were more than a thousand times less
than the pertinent health based standard, the OSHA PEL. At
the time of the air sampling, the samples collected in the
Waste Pit area were collected directly downwind of the active
landfill area and the most-widely used haul road. The
sampling areas were approximately 100 to 900 feet down wind
of the active landfill and the haul road, and so the
locations of samples are reasonably consistent with a 100-
yard distance from the source used in the Model (one sample
is closer, the other more distant). Therefore, the Model can
be used to calculate risk at the sampling locations, with the
garbage hauling vehicles on the haul road considered as the
source of dust. These calculations can then be compared to
risk calculated using actual air sampling data obtained at
the site to calibrate the Model. Comparing the exposure risk
calculated from actual chromium air sampling data with risk
arrived at by using the model, shows two orders of magnitude
difference in risk. That is, the Agencies variables result
in a risk that is 100 times more severe than the risk
indicated by actual data.
ResDonse
The Agency finds the difference in the risks determined from
the two methods referred to in the above comment acceptable.
Data collected during air sampling at the site likely
represents typical conditions at the site. The risk
calculations for inhalation of fugitive dust attempted to
estimate the worst case conditions, which were not present on
site while the air sampling was being conducted. The results
given in the above comment conclude essentially' that worst
case risks are approximately two orders of magnitude greater
than average conditions.
-------
17
4.
Remainina Concerns
. Issues and concerns that the Aqency was unable to address
durinq remedial planninq activities include the followinq:
*
Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands Treatment.
The Aqency plans to conduct a pilot-scale treatability
study durinq remedial desiqn to further evaluate the
effectiveness of the wetlands treatment system. A
bench-scale treatability study is beinq completed and
preliminary indications for effectiveness of contaminant
removal are favorable.
*
Hydroqeoloqic Data Gaps.
In order to desiqn the leachate and qround water
collection system for this site, additional
hydroqeoloqic studies will need to be performed durinq
the remedial desiqn.
-------
-.
t, fJqt 1o. FINAL.-
- Utomo -- -.---.
.Dll'lsrIArlVI IICO'; I.Dll
IDClifl IICLjlA110. LAIDr!LL SIrE
sr. CLAl'SflLLI, OHIO
1ICBI:IUII PACES DArI rULl UrlO, IICIllllr Dorallnr f'PE lOCIU.BEi
DO/DO/DO Ltttlr lorr.r4iag . l.litJd,DSIPA O.'r.b't,lrttl.aa, Corrupo!J4lOCt "~
cerrlctld cOPT of tbt tt..1.
Couut Or4u
00/00/00 Ltttlr lorr.rliog , t,lil1rr,rSnA ';Oluio,larlr. Corrupoaltoet Z
eop, 01 tbt IAI' lor '.ugu
luett" Itel...tloD
78/D6/0J Lttttr rt, fbe 0.'t""ll.1r Cbt.ie.l I.'ltebtll,Sll C: ::upoaltoet .. J
lI.l"i, 01 dt Laboratoriu ladilltriu
~rr..p 011 .irtDrt.
'J 75/02/J2 Lttttr rt, Ao .o.l"i, ..1.'eClutl,AI.ia. 1.1.""", Corp. Corrupoaliaet 4
of tbl rt.idul tb.t $trrlet. '.a.gtr
I. bliag baultd to
Buehrt
Hl03/~' Lttttr rt: A brt.kdoro 1.'"""", Di,po,al Corrl'poodtaet S
01 tbl .rlr.gt ..ouot Corp
of rl,idut ptr .ootb
J 75/oom Lttttr rt, Itl.oot $....lio,O"A f.Ditriortr,'uekt,t Corrupoadtoet f
CouotT Buektrt 'tel..,- Ite.
tio~ Solid r.,tt -
Sitt Iuptetloo
JJ 8D/D8/H Llttlr rt, 'tl.oat '.'mbell,On. '.llrkl.od,Bt.ltb Corrupoadtoet 7
rOuot, Solid r.,tt COlliu
Oi,po,.l Sur", rltb
otbtr rtltr.:t Ittttr, #
Itwbtd '
2 8~tD9:26 i. -::Ir rl, DI,cu"loo J.e,ro",Cr."t Co.l Co. D.Picttap,urb,BCBH ,CorruFoodtacl 8
: :;t eooditloo .t tbt
be.':'t Couot, £,odfl11
., outliatd io tbt Aug.
J4, J'8D Iltttr Iro.
DIn
, I
BO/J 1/0' Lttttr rtr"tl.oot . J.'mb,ll,OIPA '.lirtlaad,ICBD Corrupoadtoet ,
Couot, Solid r"tt
Surrty .~d t,trltat"
.ecouot, ot ,ludrt
dl,pml
.
:S BlI01l0S Lttttr rt, 't'POO,t, liPs '.lIbaJ. . Corrupo04toct JO
..4, b! "P, cooctr'ior 'OIcbtll,OIPA
., tbt d/'po,.1 ot r"tt
-------
- '.,e '0:- z - - - - '
. . 181117196
IDII'ISfIAflrl .,COID I'DI'
'UCI,rl ',CLAIAfIO' LAID11LL SIfl.
Sf. tLAIISfIll', OHIO
IICIIIIU" IUIS DAfI tULI AUUOB IICHlnr Docur"f 1m ' DOCIUrBlJ
It tAe .IL ~ite
J 'J/DlIDS ' Letter re, le.poa.e to l.roaiot,Vaited St.tes l.rusb.ll,OIPA Corrupoadtact JJ
DIIA tor 1atorl.t10a S,tul Corp.
oa r..te di"o..l It tbe <'
',L .ite, 'itb . 11.t
prunted
J ,JlOJlJ' £e~ter re, $'I,le. '.'n.hU,DlP! '.lirtllDd,ICHD CorrupoDltace 12
t.kfa oa Oct. JS,J"D
ot tbe or.age .ludge
trol fri.a,le IfC,
dUI,ed .t luctere
b.r; .bo,a tbe ,..te
. to be tuic
.
1 U/02l07 Letter reI Asbl.ad'. I.Sterrett,A.bl.ad Cbel '.r~.cbell,OIPA Corrupoadeace' 13
ffspoue .t-o ~"A'-t Co. '
request tor 1atorl.tioa .
coaceraia, di.,o..l ot ,
,.ste .t lucteye
f .mJ/Jo Letter re: 055'. D. rlD/mea,05S . 1.loscbell,OIIA Corru,oadeace H
respoa.e to OIIA'.
request tor j!f~rl.tioa
re,udia9 di.; .1. 01 ot
.lud9tS .ad otaer ,.ste.
2f .JIDJllJ A p.cket ot Jetter. 1.lmbeU,DIPA l.firkl.ad:He.ltb Corrupoadeace JS
re,.rdia9 Jelloat COlliu .
Couaty Solid r..te
Surrey trol OIIA to
thf ~fl.oat Couatr
lo.rd 0/ He.ltb .ad
,.tt lirtl.ad, tbe
'e.ltb COlli"ioaer
7D UIWU Copir. ot coatr.et. '.'o.ehU,OIPA 1.'lrtferlr,Or'A' CorrupoadeDCt U
betrtta 'uder'
lecl.r.t10a L.adt111
.ad Jelloat Couatr
COlri..iooer',,1tb
Ino .tuebed I
f
2 .JtJDI1D Letter rfl IRl b.. beea 1.'16i"r,DIIA r.Dieriager,Cr.r.t Corrupoadeace J7
listed .. . b.%.rdou. COIl
, ,.ste Supertu~d .ite .ad
, tbe 1.a4ti11 ,bould aot
be frp.aded iato tbe
Ib"e 11 .re. uatil tbe
-------
--.- -
. "vt '0: J
"ID7i9D ---
---_..
U.l.1S1IUIrI JlCO'D lJDII
. 'UC1111 ',CLA.A110' LA.DIILL 1111
111. CLA1'SflLLI, OHIO
IICBE/"A" PAGlS 'Arl U1Ll UrJO, IIC111111 'OCU"" rr.D~f JOC'UIII
.
'IllS i; cOlpltttd
8 8I!DUDo Lttttr rt, Obio IPA '.It"J,OIPA 1.'utttr, lLSlPA Corrup;adt~ct J8
b., cOlpltttd cbt rtrit'
ot cbt 4r.tc .AIP lor
lucttTt ItcJ.I.tloo ,lt6
COlltot, iocJadtd
I 8IIU/U Lttttr lor,.r4io, " ..lUcr,.SIPA 4.S.r,u"Co..i,,100t C~rt'poodtoct U
COPT ot tbt 'acttT' r
'tcl...tioo £.a4tlJl
IANP
j
3 "10912J SoJ14 ,..tt .I.po"l '.II6I"r,0"A '.r.rotr,le't.Jc6 Corrupoadtact 14
'.ciJitT floJ.tioo 'tpt.
'otlct ,lt6 cor,r
Jtttlr ItUcbtd
1 "/10/~2 L,tt,r ot 'otitic.tioo, l.eoo,t.ot,Jo,.USIPA J.I.cb.Jo,Ad.iai,tr. Corr,spoad,ac, 21
fbi, Jttt,r ootiti" COr
St.tt Clt.rio,bou,t ot
tb, 'RL Sup,rtuod 'it'
co b, luod,d b, cb,
US"A
2 84/JJ 114 Lttt,r r" St.e, CI,.r- L.lil',St.t, Cl,.rio,- '.Cco,t,attJo"USIPA Corr,spoadtact 22
io,bou,t lattrfO'tro- boult 1C
.tai.l ',rltr-'otict ot
'tctipt.
0 841l2/D7 MOfICE Llf1GR rt: USBPA I.Coose.attlos,USIPA Crarat Co.l COlpJay Corrupoadtact 23
is curr,otJT pJiooiaa,
to cood~ct It'~Jbilit' I
seudits to ,r.lu.et
po,sibJ, r'I,di.l
,ctioa, to "'O't or
coot.io b,:,rdou,
'U~HIOC"
2 841J1/U Lttttr rt, OIPA .,r", "'.,urd,OIPA f. Adutu., USIPA Coruspoodtoc, 14
eb.t iort,tlf.eioo. .04
.tudit' tor tb, ,.L .1c,
.bould bt !GiCi,t,d ,.
'000 ,. po.,ibl,
2 84/11/28 L,tt,r rt, St,tt Clt,r- L.'obtrt.,St.tt elt,r- I.Coo,t.ottlo.,OSIPA Corrt,pcodtoct 25
io,bou't 10e",0"ro- n,b'oulf
ItDe.l '''In
UIDU31 Lttttr torr.r4iof copi,. '.Si'd,loppers '.I,r"o,OS"4 CorrUpJr:dtDCt 20
-------
- "ft '0, .
08/D7/JD - .--:-.
..llI1Sf.aflfl .,COID liD II
.DCllfl IICLa.Ar10. LAIDI1LL Slfl
Sf. CLalISf1LLI, 0110
l1eBI/liall IAGI~ Dafl fml AUrBOI JlCIPlIrr DOCDl"f fm 'OClUB"
of .11 .bipplof docultot.
io ropptr,' ,o.,t..ioo
llLitiAg tD tbl tr.o.- ' .
,ort.tioo lad 4i,po,.1
ot 6J'Jrdoa, ,..te. It
tbt 'UCkITe ',clll.tioo
£.adtiU
( U/U/J4 10fICI LlfflR re, '.Coo,t.atelo.,'SI'. 1.I.r.,oer 'Soo,' eorrupoDdeace 27
DSIPA bJ' jatorl.tloo
tb.t iodic.te. tb.t
J~I.r"olr , Soo. I., .
bt . rl.poo.ible p.rt,
2 IS/DB/3D Lttter re, fo lorl.li,e '.'ickDell,'SIPA l.erulriol,fer..r Corrupoodtoct ZI
.0 10fe.tl,.tlre ,b..t lac.
of tbt IJ.tl pit borio,'.
lo.lrtic.l ,rotocol
di.cu,.td 10 . ,boal
cOOftr..tloD 00 '/29/85
25 85/0" 10 Ltttir lor..rdia, 1.'ubro,OIU 1.'erua,'SlU Corrupoodeoct Z9
erctrpt. frol DIP. tile.
rt,.rdio, tbe 'ucke,e
Itcl"Jtioo L'Ddtlll;
tbe gtotr.l ,ite iotor-
I.tioo i. t.keo trot tbe
lio.l IAlP dJted April
27, UBf
1 IU/lJ111 Lttttr re, 'el.oot J.Co.tioe,Co.tloe , 1.lcCue,rSIPA Corrupoodeoce 3D
Cauoty 1110ri.l '.rt COHilll
Auociltioo
I'
4
2 1S1l2lDD Letter tor..rdio, I '.lcCue,USlU a.su,UI;'el.C Corrupoadeoce JI
cop, at tbe COlluate, COlliuioa
lel.tloo. 11.0 tor tbe
ilL .iu
SSIl1tD! Letter re, II ,ublic './u" 1.Il:Cue,fiSIU Corrupoodloce 32
coueU
IS/11m Letter tor..rdiog I '..ickDell,'SI'A ..imhll,OIPA Corrup~DdtDCI 33
COlltDt letter .eDt to
USIPA tollo.io, tbe
RI/IS public .eltlD,
Z S6IDJ/DD le,poD.e to PublIC DSIPA ('orrupoodeoce Jf
COIIlot BRL ,J.ou.r,
-------
- "" '0. j
. ,
f8/D7/10
U.IIISfUfIrI JlCOID I.Dll
.rerUI JleU.ArID. LAlD11LL SIrr
Sf. CLAIF.SFILLI, OlIO
IICB./IIANI fAGIS DAf. nfU JOflOR JlCIP1IMr DOCUII" rrPl laClU'UI
UB6
. B6/0J/1J I,Ittlr tor,.rdiQJ . cOil 1,IcCUI,DSIPA '.rtburst.Z.r,.t,ti, tDrrlSp~QdtocI 35
ot ISIIA', .ad aIPA', lutS
I"POQ". co tbl pablic
eOllaC. I,e,l"d I".rd-
la, cbl eoa.,at ordlr co
la".ti,.t, ttl III, 'It I
"/0J/13 I,Ittlr rl' lactl" . '.'mu,ISIPA D.Gr.b..,lrlld..a.lt CorrlspoadlQCI 36
JlcJ.,,:ioa Adli~i.tr.- .d.
ti" ~rdlr b, COD"DC
3 I "/02105 Lltclr rl, Irl,.c, ,,11 I. Irutoa, DIP! I.Zumdl CorrupoadlQCI 37
I Co.pJ.iat I,l.oat
Coaat, luctl" lIe. ,
CUCLA ,
4 86/D3/1J Lltclr rl, la,it.tloo A.'ulor,DSlPA BCe,BCND.BCrOC , CorrupooduCl 3B
to . ,"tia, ritb DS'PA CLSe .
.ad OllA rlquI.tld b,
II1.oac CoUatT COlli,-
.ioatr. .ad tbt Clcizto.
tor L.odtill S.t,t,
I
S6/03/24 Llcter rtl rb. .~ttUr D.Gr.b.I,/rttdl.a.tt..l. I.Blrua,DSIlA CorrupoDdlaCl 39
rill .,r,t .. tbt
BRLSC', tir.t pro,rl"
Itpor:
11 86/05I1B Lltttr rt, gAO b.. D.BlctatJJ,DS"! , '.OI..ia,BILSC-fC Corrupoodtoet 40
rrerl"d tbl 'uctt,t r,lIIlblo,Oln
Itcl.l.tioo COllitttt',
sublitt.l .od drtlliiord
tbt gAff 01 tbt dOCUlrQt
to bl aD.ppro,.bJ, dut
Co iD.uttlcl1ac 41c.1J
'Itb '.Iplt Joc.tloo
dut ItUcbtl
11 IO/06/U Llttlr rll A,toclt" D.'r.b.I,/rtld..o.lt..l. l.hruD,DSIlA CorrupooducI 41
eo..,at. oc Cbl Bact",
Irel..,tioG COllltttt'.
.ub.itt.l pur,u,Qt co .
tbt AO b, Coa.,Qc tltltd
'Op,r.tloo. IJ.o tor
'I/IS' 'ltb .tt.ebltot.
J-3 lacloud
2 80/07/00 Llttlr rl, rbt cOlrtcttd V"ur lac. Arll h.iduu eorrupoodtQCI 41
-------
- - . - -- - - -. . ~ - -
-- ._.
. '.,e '0. ,
"/07m ..
--- - . -- -
UrllISflArIrr lIeOID llOll
.Dellrl .,eLA'ArlD' LA'DIlLL SI',
..,r. CUIRSVILU, 0110
IICBI/IIA., 'AGIS ~Arl r If I.I UtBOR IICIlIlrr Docurru nil .0eJaoll
.'
Door-to~Door Surre,
Iatroductioa Letter,
lIitb. tJlt-f"uri()lIlIaiu
Itucbd
f "/07/1' Letter re, 'ucte,e' J..icb.rd"rer,.r llc. '.lidull,DUPA CDrrupoldeace 43
'ecl...tioa L.adt111
lecoaa.l,..ace Surrer
ot 'o.e,tic 'ell,
4 . "/07/21 Letter torr.rdia, tbe D.lictaell,DS'PA 1.0luia Corrupoaduce "
ori,ia.l lItter, lIitb
DSIPA co..eat., tb.t
rill be di.tributed
door-to-door br tbl
eoatr.ctor, r,r..r
hc., to deuraiae IIbo
i, o~ ,roaDdr.ter Ib~ut
tbe liL ,ite
J 86m/2S Letter 're, IlL lecoa- J.licbJrd',ferur be. D.lictalll,USIPA Corrupoadeace U.
a.i,s.ace Surre, ot
qOlUtic 'ell,
"/DBID4 Letter reI Appro,.l of .D.lictaell,DSIP.' .. I.Ol.,ia,'.LSC-PC CorrupoadlDce 4f
tbe 'Letter of Iatro- r.IR.bro,DlPA .
ductioa' tor tbe door-
to-door .urrer by tbe
uSln .ad OlP.
10 86mllS Litter re, Co..eat, to D.'iciaell,DSIPA' r.Oluia CorrupoadlDce f7
tbe Juae 14, UBi . '.fu.bro,DlPA
BRLSC " re-JUb,ittal #
. titled 'Site ..aa,e.eat
. PI.a tor tbe Pertoruace
ot tbe 11115 Project .t
Cbe IiL ,lu'
. ,
I
SO/U/01 Letter torr.rdia, . D.'iciaeJl,DS'PA . '.fu.bro,DlPA CorrupoGdeace .,
tigure det.ilia, tbe
loc.tioa of aerl,
ideatitied .ctire
le.cb.te ;tep, .t cbe
lit ,ite
86m/D7 Letter re, rbi. leCter D:,!chell, USII. '.IcCoraict Corrupoadeace "
is to ja/or. IOU ot tbe
l.bor.tor, re,ult,
obt.iaed tro. tbe lul,
JJ, !936 ...plia, ot
-------
-
. '.gt ro.. 7
IB/D 1I9D - "-..... . ----... . _.-
JDIIIISfUrrVl IICOID IIDl1
-I'ClIrl "C£AIArIO' U'DllL£ SIrI
sr. CLAIISf1LLI, 0110
IICBI/IRAII IA"S DArl fUll A 0"01 IIC1IIIIr DOC OlIN' ,,,, JOC"O"
,oar 4riakiag r.ttr b,
£bl USIPA
. .
"lUlU I'tt,r torr.r4iDg I '.'lekD'll,'SIPA '.'ueb,ll,OIPA Corrupoa4ue, SO
,botgl.pble log 01 Cbl
Aag. I', 1"6 ,lt'
.arr" IC cb, .IL 'P~
.lu
"11 !/lI L,cc,r r" ',e,i,c 01 I.Ol.,iD,IRL5C-IC '.IJekD,ll,'!IPA CorrupoD4lDC' :SI
l,cc,r 4.c,4 lor. 1',
1"6 .04 r'fa"c tor
ID "c,a.loD OD cb,
"ri.loa. to tb, Slc,
'.DIg',lac PIID,9APP,
104 '"lcb , S.t,c,
Il.D lor Cbl 'IllS
UllllU L,tc,r ", I'fa,.c D.'lcka'll,'SlfA 1.0luia CorrupoD4'DC' S1
,ruu4 lor .a
~lt'o.ioo iD cb,
I,-,ub.ite.l 01 cbe
SiCI "o.g~r~ac Pl.D,
VAP1, .04 1:4J£b ,
. S.lttr P lie
. '611Z1D2 L,ct,r torw.r4iog . '.'mu,USIPA ,.Gr.b..,lr,,41.o,lt'COlll.po041acl 53
I cop, 01 Cbl oocic, ..1.
Ilttlr "ac to ..cloa.l
Stltl Corpor.tioa .04
Sblo.ago, Ioc. .04 cop,
of aocie, Ilttlr
J UIl2l03 L'tctr rt, 'b, eb.agl. '.OI..ia,BRLSC-PC D.BJekolll,USIPA COllupoodta:t 54
jcb.c b.r; bllD 1.4, t.
to eb, SJc, ..a.g,.,ac
11.0 'D4 9A" tor tb,
"rlor.,De, 01 'D
II/IS .c ebt 'uek",
Il:l,..t10a L.04fill
'7/DUD7 Ltcetr lorw.r4iag topi" r.OI"iD,IRLSC-PC D.Bictn,ll,OSIPA C~llupoadtact H
01 100 ebro..eogl.,.
obt.io,4 duriog cb,
tour., of d,r,loplDg cb,
"tb04. tOI .o.l"i, ot
cb, org.aie .cid. io
vac'l .04 ,011l'la4g,
...pl"
-------
- ,.,t 10: , --
. OlIO 7/fo --
--JD'I.IS',A11VI .,COID IIDll
.ucrl" IICLA'A'10' LA'Dl1LL Slf~
s,. CLA1iSV1LLI, OHIO
IICB",iA.' PAG'S DA" fULl AUriOl. IIC1P1II' DOCL'IGIr 1m DOCJU!BEB
J B7/0J/2' Letter re, USIPA 'Dd D.lielDeJl,~SIPA , r.Ol.,iD,BILSC-PC COrrtipoodeoce si
O'PA reriered tbt gAP' '.'o.ebtll,OlP!
'Dd tbe eb'I,e. tor
.ppror.l .re 11.t;.
13 17/02/JJ Letter re, lerl.iol. ot 1.'Jellell,'S"A' '.01..JI,"LSC-1C CorrupoDdeoce S7
tbe $Jte '.D.,elelt 11.1, '.'o.ebell,O'P!
tbe gAPP, lId tbe 'e.ltb
.06 S.fet, II.D lor
Jucle,e .eel.l.tlol b,
tbe USI'! .od DIP!
J B7/D2/J7 Letter ce, .erJ.Jol. '.Ol..ll,IILSe-PC 1.'ietaell,USIP! CocrupoDdeoce 58
to tbe gAP' ritb I . Obl0 Juourcu Corp.
repl.celeat ,.,e IJ.t
uucbed
S BlI03/J7 Letter reI 'be OS,P!- D.'Jetoell,OS"! r.Ol"ia eorrupoDdeoce H
gAD b.. reriered tbe
d.t. .od deterliae. tbe
iotorl.tioo il.attJeieot
to deloo.tr.te tbe
proprlet, ot ..11' tbe
de.cribed e.rbc:,lJe
.cid letbodol(~' 'ltb
tbe le.or.oda. coelo.ed
J a7/Df/lD Letter ce, le.ult. ot r.OI..io,IRLSe-PC 1.lldoell.US"A eorcespoodeoce 'D
.
.ddltioo.l te.t. ot tbe Obl0 le.ouree. Corp.
o.rbo:,lio .cid letbodo-
logy
87/05/H Letter re: US,,! .od I.8ictoell,US'P! , 'r.Ol"10 ".Gr.b.. Corrupoodeoce U
oln rill .pprort tbi r.'oscbtll,O'PA
QAPP 'itb .odilic.tioo.
.ttel tbe rerier ot tbe
'1' d.t. .ublitt,d OD
'4/JDII7 . .
U 17/0WS Letter torr.rdlo, I I.Coo.t.otelo.,OS',J '.01"10 eorrupoodeoce n
briet .u...r, of
Seotioo III ,I'ltb
. .e.o trol J. lorter,
A..i.t.ot Jd.lol.tr.tor
for Solid r..te lod
'.erg;oc, le,poole 00
10teri. Guid.ooc 00
SupeltuDd Seleetloo
ot rued, "
-------
- 9
. "91 ,~.
'BID 7!90 ---.-
!DIIIISrRArIVI IICOID 11011 ----
lDellrlIlCUIArIO. LAID1ILL .sru
.". CLAIRSVILLI, OBIO
IICBllIRAr, 'A"5 DArl rnLl U1IOR IICIfI"r ~oeUllflr ntl HeIUIl"!
JS BTIWDT LItter re, 'ropo.ed r.lr.dford,r,r..r I.c. ~.lictatll,BS"A Corrupoodtoct .. iJ
5..pli'J i. .. AlltJld
Di.poul Am
2 87/WlJ Llttlr rl, rbt lo.tbl, D.licl.,ll,.SI'A D.GI.bi.,IRLSC-Cb.il COIII.poodl.cI "
,1091,.. Ilpolt tOI 110
Joat, JJ87 tlO. IILSe,
... . .o.bll ot ,01.t.
rbicb r.lllar cOI.eat
b, tbt USIIA ..d OIIA
5 'TIHll0 Ltttll It, A. p.rt ot I.riad.ll, US"A , '.OJ"i.,IRL II,-,e CorrupoDdlDcI' n
tbe Co..t.t Oldel, it '.'o.cbell,OIPA
r.. .grltd tb.t tbe
OSI'A ..d OIIA rould
orer.ee, rerler, ..d
.pprore tbe fi',
i.plt.eat.tioa .ad
productioa ot tbl
rort letuiled b, tbe
Co..eat Order rit.
~oaceru listed
B B1/0512J Letter re, tollor .p to ~.Grd..,lr"dua,Ln" h 1.'idatU,OSIPA Coelupoa4eace H
Due coa/eleace c.l1 0/ ft..1.
BI4181 coacee.iag tbe
pe09rt.. 0/ .ctlrit11'
at tbe .IIL .itl
J~ BTtW1J Letttl III 'eoble.. ritb r.Ol..i.,IRLSe-,e I. r1Dd.ll, USI,. eorrupoadeace (7
Air Coriog ..d Selectio. erarat Co.l Co.
0/ OtMe'DrilUa, IluW, I
fitb lltttr d.tld '/JO/,7
i 1'9.rdia, tbe ,,11
Iloject .tt.cbed
J 8;10112J Letter re, 'odlllc.ti.,. r.~1.,~.,IJ1SC-'e I. rld.ll, USIIA torlupoadlOCt {I
to Irocldore. tor Cn"t CoaJ to.
I..t.llla, Dlep Opper-
tODe reu.'
2 11108/26 Lettee re;".e lo.tbl, 1.'1.d.1J,USIIA' '.01..io,8RL ',P-'. torrupoodlocl "
,rogrl" report tor ...00cbtll,0IPA
J~J" J'87 leo. IILSC,
b.. . .a.btr of ,010t.
r~icb r.ereac CO.,IDt
by tbl US"A ..4 OI'A
., LItter reI Str.tigr.pblc r.Ol..Ja,IR~SC.'C l.rja~.il,U5g'A. Corrupoodeact 70
JO BTWill,
-------
,.,; .~. 11 --
"'''07/;D - n__-
-- tDil.1S"A'l" "CO'D I.D',
'DCI'" J'CLA'Afl0. LAID' ILL SIr,'
sr. CLAIRSfILL', OHIO
l1Cill1i!1lI 'ASIS Jirl rrru .
A/lfBOB IICIflln DOCDllln fm DOC.DIlBIi
ADalr,i. tor 'lace.eDt Crarat Coal Co.
aDd ID.talJ.t1oD ot Dtep
Opptr lODe 'tll. ". .
Z '1110/13 letcer re, Approral ot I. riDdaH ,'IIS'PA , '.Ola,iD,I'L '.'-'Il CorrupodeDce 7J
cbe ~o.e.cic ,elJ. aDd '.'o.cbtlJ,OIU
.priD,' ,ropo.el to be
.upld iD cbt .
'ecoDDal..aDce Sarre,
ot Do.e,cic 'ell. aDd
SpriD,', 'It6 .odlti-
cacioDJ
3 IUJi/u Letter re, COlleDC. . l.riDdall,IIS'PA '.Ola.la,I.LSC-'C Corrupoaduce 71
aDd tiDdiD,' b, tbe
/lSIP! 101 O,PA
di,cu.,el duria,
cODtuuce .cuI. .#D
Septelber JD, JJ aad
J4, J'87 OD cbt '1/15
1 . 17IU'" Lttttr re, 'bt ,0Dtblr .,ro~cbtll,O'PA' '.Ola,iD,llL fB'.PK CorrtspoDdtace 73
progre,. report. tor I. riDdalJ, OSIPA
Augu,t aad Septtlber,
J'B7, trot IIL'C, bare
a DUl6er ot poiDt. wbicb
walltDt COlltDt b, cbt
DSIPA aad OrPA
5 IUUIU Lttttl reI A DUI6,r ot l.riDdall,OSIP!' '.OJa,la,IBL fBf-PN Corrupcaduct 74
POiDt. plt.tated lD tbt ','oJCbtlJ,OIPA
OCCObtl J,,7 ~ro,re" 4
'tpoort aad otbtl i.,ut.
Wtl' di,cu,sed ia a
.coDttrtaCe caJl cODducctd
I .
oa 'o'tl6tr J7, J,,7
,
J7 . ~/JZII7 Letter reI 'tquest tor D.~'r.bll,'rtt41'D"t..l. 'trIlD,USfPA COT{UPODdtDCt . 75
aa uttU10D ot ch . fielJ,OIPA
dtli'tr, d~te ot cbt
Dratt .1115
14 17112/1' Lecter reI Que.tloaable . r,Ola,la,I'L'C-'C ria~aJJ,DSIPA , CorrupoduCt 76
Ita,ibilit, aod DtiJ1t, Crarat Coal Co. 'o.:b,ll
ot . ',i'lic .etr.ctioD
Surre,
, B71121ZB Letttr reI 'ropo'td r.Ola,la,IIL'C-'C rla~il 1: USIPA , CHrupoDdtact 77
AquHer ruu Crarat Co.l ,Co. 'o.:belJ
-------
-
'.gt 1o. JJ
- ulO7m 4
- ~JI'ISfIAfIrl .,COID IIDll
'UCllrl JlCLA'ArIOI LAIDlILL SIrI
Sf. CLAIISVILLI, 0'10
IICBI/IRANI.PAGIS DAfl fm, AUriOl' "CIPIlIf DOCUlfir rm 'OCIUIlBD
2 BS/Oll 13 Letter re, fbt .~atbl, I..'ul6,O".' I.Ol.sia,B'L PIP-PN CorrespoadeDCf 71
progle.s repc:t tor ,. '1ad.ll, USIPA
'orelber J'87 lrol Cb, .
JRLSC, b.. I IDlb,r ot
poiat, tb.t r.rr,at
tOlleat 61 Cb, 'SI'.
.d OlPA
19 16101111 Lett,r torr.rdiav '.'r.dlord,r,r..r lat. riadlll,USlPA COrrtl'CD~eac' 7J
eopi" ot Ilt~::1 .,at 'ul6,OlP.
to iadiridua.; 1l,ted
ia tbe USt!! lett,r
datd Ocr. 13, JU7,
r'g.rdiag tutur,
..I,1iav ot do."tlt
,ell. .a4 .priag, la
tb, riei4itl-ft U, -
BRL
10 BS/01m Llttlr r" Altlra.tirl I.Ol..ia,BRLSC-PC riad.ll,USlPA , CorrtS,~ad'a~I Ia
',tbod tor 110'- Crun Co. I Co. '01:6111
'ro,ortioa.1 S'I,llav
6 BB/OllU I.ettlr rl, RI.poa., to I.Ol.,ia,IRI.5C-'C riad.ll, usrl. Corrupoadlace II
Aglac, Ilttll :(g.r:Jag Cram Co.l Co. 'ud,OlPA
tbl October J;07 ',cbal-
e.l 'rogrl.. Ilport .ad
tbl 11/17/87 toallreac,
,,11
8B/D1I27 Llttlr re, 'b, U~IPA 1..'1116,0". , '.Ol'sJ~,JRL "P-FN Corrupoadeace .1
.ad DIP. b.re r,rl",4 I. fia4.11, USIPA
.ad .p,roud tbl rell
lo..tioal .ad letbod.
1 88/01101 ,Lltur rl, '61 Det'lbtr, 1.'iad.ll,'SIIA' '.Oll1ia.IIL nl'.PI Corrupoadtace 13
IJI1, 'oatbl, 'rogr", 1,.'.lIb,OlP&
"Fort trot JRLSC
t~aelraJo, tbe t'tbaie.l
II/IS ,etl'iEi,., 6.. .
au.b,r ot ICJDt. rbieb
r.rr.at tOlllat bl tb,
USIP! .ad DIP!
B8/01l11 I"ttlr r" Iropo"d ..01IliD.BRLSC 'iod.ll, USfPA: CorrupoD41DCf B4
Procldure. /or.li,14 '.ub.OEP!
I:ltr.tioa ~t 'rouad-
rICer $u,l..
-------
- -
,.ge '9' 11
'8I0mo --.--.-.-
UlIlISrlUIrl If COlD lIDfl .
, JUCI'" ,'CL'IArIO. L.,D1ILL SIrl
Sf. CL!IRSVtLLI, OSLO
IICNIIIRANr "GIS DArl fUll UfSOI "CHlllr DOCONnr fm .OCIUNPER
I
C 'S101l22' Letter torw.rdiag 'OIIA L.'usb,O'U I. fiad.U, DSrPA Corrupoad~a:e, '5
cOlltat, oa r,ebaic.l
'elor.adul lublirted
II 01 112""
J ..102m Letter ,e, fbe DS"A 1..'ud,O'U , r.01..la,ll~ III-II CorrupoadeaCf U
.ad O"A b.,e receired I. fiad.U, DSfPA
.ad reriewed tbe
,ublltt.l eatitJe4
"Que.tioa.b1e le"ibi1-
it, .ad Dtilit, 01 .
Sei'lic letr.ctioa
Surre,' d.ted Dec. 28,
JU7
40 88102115 Letter re, Over,lew '.Ol..ia,IRLSC-IC fid.U, DSfP! Corrupoadeace '7
ot Coatninu .. t'rnlt'tOilCo. "lrn,~I'A
Oceorreace .ad leeol-
lead.tioa tor Di,eoa-
tlao.tioa Irol luture
Aul"u
88iOJ/Dl Letter ,e, fbe DS"A .ad L.'.nb,O'pj' '.Ol.,la,IRL P'P-'I Corrupoadeace 18
orp. b.re ,eciered .ad l.riad.U,DSfPA
reviewed tbe ,ublitt.J
tl ~ltd "Propoud
Procedure, for lield
liJtr.tloa of Grooad-
r.ter S.lpJe," d.ted
leb. J2, 1988
I U/DJIJD Lttttr..re: fbl DSfP. l.fiad.ll,DS'P' , . r.~l'''fa;BlL IiP-P! CorrupoadrlJce' ,g \
.ad OIPA b.re receiwed L..."b,OfP'.
.ad reviewed ebe
,ub,itt.J titled
",lterutlre 'etbo4
Ifr Ilow-lroporeioa.J
silp.haf" d.ted 1IH/"
2 8SIDJ/19 Letter re,' 'be OS'PA £..u.b,O'pj , '.Ol.,la,IIL P'P-PN Couupoadeace '0
.od OIIA received .04 I. 'laddJ, OS", I
re,iewed '6e ,ublltt.J
titled "Iropo,,4
proce4ure. tor 11e14
liJel.tioo ot 'rooad-
'~tel Suplu" d.ced
lebru.l' J2,J'88
88 ID 4IDB Lttm ,,', fbe USIPA L.'.r,b.Orl~ , I. r.OJuia,BRL lil.-PII couupoodeoce 'I
-------
. ",t U. JJ
. ,8/D7!i0 - ----
.- AI«I'ISf'Aflrl "CO'D I'Dll - ---.
.aCllYI "CLArAfIO' LA'DIILL SIfl
Sf. CLAl.srILLI, oBIO
!ICS'/I'AII IAGIS DAfl fULl AaffO' "CIfIllf DOCDlllr rru ,oc,mll
lad OllA eOlltat. oa fild,ll,'SlfA
tbt J,ou,r1 , ItbrG,ry,
JJBB Iro,rts. 'tport.
trot .'LSC cooctrlla,
tbt ttcblic,l 1111S
IctiriUu
"lUlU 1t'ttr '" Strrt. " I. f1Dd,1l,rSfPA '.Ol"ia,"L-'F.!-11 Corrupoaduct SZ
tl'I..1tt,1 ot tbt 1,'lIsb,01lA t
'S"A C'L rtrit' ,Id
cOlltat. 01 tbt Juctt,t
'tcl,.,tioa ,itl
.J 'BI05/09 Lttttl rt, C'L rtrltr l.f10d,11,USlIA , r.Ol..il,.IL "'-PI COllupoDdtDCt Ij
.ad CO"tDt. OD tbl L.'II.b,OIPA
'RL ,itt ",pJt r,r
cn,
2 BBIOSIOJ Lttttr rt, fbt .oatbl, l.f1Id,11,USrPA' r.OJ,.ia,8RL Pip.PN CorlupoDd,DCt "
prO'lt" rtport tor L.'IlIb,OrPA
',rcb,JJ" tor 'ucttTI
b" , aUlbtr ot poiot.
rblcb r.rr'DC COII,DC
bf tbl as'PA ,ad Df'A
BB/OS/JO Lttttr rt, fbt QAC l.fiod,JJ,USIP4 , r.OJ'.JD,'RL PiP-EN Corrl,pJod,OCt IS
.ad tbt Ortrritr ot L.'uJb,olPA
Coot"ia.at Occurrtact
.od ileo..tod,tioo lor
Di.cootiou,tioa tro.
luturt Ao,l,.i. b,rt
btto rtritrtd ,ad tbt
COI.tOt. .rt b"il, ~
louuded
i . r.'r,dtord,Vtr.,r Ioe.
JJ BBIOS/lJ Ltttlr rl, 'uctt,t t.l.r.b,Pb.D.,OIPA 'ColrupOlldtOCl J6
!tcl,.,tioo L'ldt111
1111S A..,...,ot ot
Iro,rt.. 00 Strt"
.ltio,.
BBIDS/JZ Letter to~~'rdio, coplt. r,'r,dlord,rtr.,r loc. I. fiDldl,tSfPA Corrup004tDCt "
ot tbe dr,lt ,u..,r1
d,t, ,od 'AIQC p,ct"t'
ter ruiu
BB/OSm Lt~ttr rl, .8RL RIllS r.DJ,.lo,'RLSC-PC flodd1.~SlfA CorrupoDdtDCl "
SHoDd Om'i,r ~t Cr"l£ COil Co. 'usb,:!';! .
Coat,.ia.at Occurrtac,
.od 'tco..ea4,t100 tor
-------
'"
-- - - - _.- ------ .
"It '0. 11
--. 'BIll/gO
AD,I'ISrlArlV. I.CDID ,'D.I
.DCI.'. I.CLAIA'lDI LAIDIILL SIrl
sr. CU1RSVlLLI, DIlID
lICBI/IRAII IAGIS DAfl frru IUrlDR flCIf1"r DDCUK,n fm . JOCIUI!BIJ
Di,coatiau.tioa tro.
latuce Auly,u
f "/05/17 Letter re, IlL 'I/IS r,Oll'Jo,JILSC-IC/ flDdlll, DS.PA CorrupoDdeoce "
Co.pletloo ot Strel. trlflt COIl Co. 'ud,O"A
Iitial' 101 Storl '
.i.cblr,e SII,llo,
2 88/0ilU L'~ter re, 'eceipt ot l.fiallll,'S"A , '.Ol.,io .,L 11'-" CorrupoDleoce JDO
tbe propo,.l titled L.'ulb,OIPA
'Stcool Orerriew ot
Cootl.iolot Occurr,oc,
.al I,co..,al,tioo tor
. Di,coatiu.tioo trol
. lutar, Aa.ly'i"
rill.ll, as.PA '
1 BB/06/J 7 L,tter torw.rlial . '.Ol.,ia,I'LSC-IC Corrl,poaltac,' UJ
CO" ol-tbl-4~tt .t~ut.l4l1 to. ~uu~UJ
prllj.ia.r, r,port
utitltl 'rtll
ID,t.ll.tioa .ad
'ydrOltolo,ic .r.lu.-
tioa'
1 88/06/27 Lettlr re, COI~!~t. 00 I. riad.ll, aSIPA '.OI.,ia,Iuct,yt Corrupcadeace 102
tbt April .0: !.Y,J'SS Ii'-PM
Prolrt.. Itport' tro.
BRLSC ccaceraia, tb,
ttcbaic.l II/IS Icti,i-
tie, btia, cODluct,d .t
tbl BuctlY' ',cl...tioa
Ludlill
2 8S/06/2' Lttttr rl: OS'PA .al l.riad.ll,OSIPA , r.Ol.'ia,BRL 'R'-PI CorrupoadtDCt JOJ
OI'A rt.olre, tb, L.'.ub,OIPA
di,putt ja tbl '..pl-
iOI proc,dar,. tor
.cor. tlor .urt.Cf
w.ter er,ot, lad
proridt' I .utu.ll,
.cc,pt.bl, procldure
tor coll,ctia1 tlow
proportioa.l ...pl"
\
1 88/H /Jf Lltt,r re, IRL 1111S r.Ol.,ia,.RLSC-IC 1io4.11,D511A CorrupoDdlace JOf
Coo/trloc, C.ll ot .. ClIflt Coil Co. 'lld,OIPA
, July 7, UU
,
21 8S107/Z8 Lltttr rl: IRL .1115 r.OI.,io,IRLSC-PC 1ia41l1, ~~IIA Corrupoodtact J05
Lt.cb.tt $.,plia, cuw COIl Co. ',ut,O"A
-------
- -_.
I." Mo. IS
. 's/DuiD ._. _..
- .Drr'lsriArrrl IICOID r'Dll
'UClIflIICUIArl0' UfDlILL -SI"
11. CU1RSYI~U, OBIO
IIeBI/liA81 PAGIS DArl rULI JUIBOR RleIlI"1 Doe08"1 Irfl DoelDHBIi
88m/D1 Leccer rl, USIPA lad L.'.r.b,OIP! , I. ',OI.,ia,li£ PIP-IH eorrupoaduc, U6
OIPA propo" cb.t cbe riad.ll, USIP!
tir.t .COrl "eac
.ur/.ce ,.clr ...plio,
be coDducud II
,plc111ed JI cbe "L
gAP,
"/DJIJJ Leccer rll USI'! lid l.rild.ll,USIP! , r.Ol.,il,.,L 'I'-PC Corrupoodeoce U7
OIPA b." Ilcer.iled L.'nd,OIPA
cb.c cbe D,t,.ber
l,.cb.ce ...pJ1a, "eat
d.t. doe. .elt tb,
objeccl,e. ot cbe
luckeye QAPP .ad rilJ
be iacJuded 10 cb, II
report
88/D9I1J L,ccer torr.rdia, . '.Ol.,il,.ILSC.'C riDd.ll, IIS'PA CorrupoDdeac, lOB
COPT 01 cbe dr.tc 'lld,O"!
pleli.ia.ll lepolt
'GticJ,d 'Aquifer
le.cia, la,e,ci,.tioa.
1 88/D9I17 Leccer rll !cc'pc.ac, D.Gr.b..,Cb.irl'o- 11ad.ll,IIS'1& CorrupoDdeDc, log
of propo.ed .0dil1c,cioa ULSC 'nsb,OIP!
ot ib, luckeT' QAPP
J BBIJDIlB Letc,r re: BiL II/IS .'.Ola,ia,liLSC-PC riad.ll,DS"! Corrupood,oc,. lU
rbird O"rri,r of f,rur IDc. 'usb,OIPA
Cooc..ia.ac Occurrlac,
.ad IlCOI"Dd.~1oa IQr #
Di,coatiou.tJoa Iro.
IUUrt AuJy.u
2, "m/OJ L,cclr I" USIP! .Id £.I.r.b,OIPA , I. r.01"Ja,UL-" Corrupood,ac, 111
\ Olf! b." !~'ilr,d cb, rJDd.l1,IISIPA
.rbi~d O"crJ" ot
Coac..Ja.oc Occurr,oc,
.ad ',coll,ad,ciol tor
Di,coatiau.tJoa tro.
lucur' Aaii"".
propo,.l .ad r,l.c,d .
d.tI
'I bS1l1l1J Le~ter forr.rdia, . r.Ol"Ja,BRLSC-PC liad~ll,USIP! CouupcadeaCt Il2
COPT of tb, dr./c I. lib, DIU
pceli.ia'~r r'port
~otJtl,d .Sprio"
-------
. "fe 'D.. Ji-- - - - - -
- "/07/JD
-- - jDII.UrI&fIfI "COlD IIDn
'Dcrlrl .,CLA.AfIO' LA'DfILL SIfl
Sf. CLAIISVILLI, OHIO
tIeMl/lRAII IAGI: DArr . fULl urHOI IICI111" DoeDllllr nPl 'OCIDIJII
Iaruci,uioa'
J U/OJ/20. Leccer reI Co..eat. l.riod.ll,USIPA , '.OluiD.'U-1J Cllrtupoadeace .'. 'JJJ
..de ., cb, 'SIPA lod £.'ulb,OIPA
orPA oa tbe dr.lc
C'CbDic.l .e.or'Dda.
eocicled '"pore 00
'eri.et,r Air ,allitr
Sarre,'
2 89/0J/U £,tt,r re, C~..eot. l.fioddl,US'PA , '.Oluia.JlL." Corrupoadeoce : J.U
Iide b, tbe US'PA lad L"'tlb,OIPA
OlPA oa tb, dr.lc r,port
eacitl,d ",porc 00
'l,ctro.aga,tic IaductioD
Surff,'
2 89/0J/li Lecter re, ~H.t8U . r..f'lIdIU,.e$lPA , I.Ohsi~,'R1-" Correspood,ac, 115
..d, b, cb, USIPA lad L.'ulb,OIPA
OlPA oa cbe dr.lc r,port
eacitl,d "eport oa
BoriD,' Adraac,d lad
Sa.ple. Coll,ct,d cbe
Soutbera I.pouad.,at,
BRL'
J '9101/20 Lett,r I'; Co..,at. r.riad.ll,uS,pj , '.Olllio,IIL-PI( . Corrupoad,ac, IIf
I .ade b, cb, USIPA lad L.'u.b,OIPA
. OlPA oa tbe dr.lt
preli.ia.r, r,port tiel,d
'fell Ia.t.llacioa .ad
Hydrogeologic Ir.lu.cioa'
2 ' Leccer r" Co.,eaCI r.riad.ll,USIPA , '.Oluia,IIL-PII Cotrupoadeace 117
B9/~J/Jl
i.ade by tbe USrPA aad L...tlb.OIPA t.
OlPA oa cbe drllc
r'port ueitltd
'Pr,Ji,ia,r, leport,
Le.cb.c, IDre.ci,.eivo'
J 89lD5nJ Letter lor.ardiag OlPA L ..'ard, DIU r. ri04ali,DSlPA Correspoadeace II'
co.,eDt. aD tbe Buck",
II report
f 89105130 L'tt,r r" R,rj,. ~t J. fo.Huai , ru.b , riadaJJ,BSfPA Corr,.poad,ac, IU
.1 leport tor BiL l.rorri.oa,CON
.
J2 89106/02 Letter tor.ardiag tb, r.riDdalJ,DSIPA , r.OJu;~.IIL-P' Ccrrespoad,ace 110
USIPA aad OlPA co.,eae. . L.rard, DIU
00 ebe '~L Sit' dr.le
-------
I." '11. 17
-.~ 'BID 7/YO
lDlr.rS1'ArrVI ',CO.D I.DIl
.OCllrl ',CLAIA1IO, LAr~IILL SIrE
sr. CLAl.SfILLI, OHIO
IICBlII'AIIB PAGES DArB, fIrLl j01BOR IICIPlI~r .OCOIE" nPI .0C'U.Bl.
II report
28 B9IOol10 Letter reI 'reli'ia.r, r.Ol'Jia,IILSC-" I. 1iDdil" USrPA Corrupoaduce 12J
SCllpia, ot 10te'tJ.l Yerllr 112c.
'e,edi.l Act10a tor ebe
lacke,e 'ecl."eiol2
hDdtilJ
B "/UIJO Iteeer r" j Ji,e ot '.'1I1r,0l1A I. fil2dill, ,sr'A Corrupoadeace HZ
Se,te A'AR, tor ebe
'ucte1e 'ecl".tlol2
Sit' .r, ,0,Jo"d
. L,tter torv,rdil2, Joil2t l.riod.l1,OSI'A' r.Oluia,IlL-'1I
., "107103 C~rrupoa4'ac' H3
J..
.,eac1 co",oe, 00 tb, '.'lIir,DliA
4r.tt ,r,li,io.r,
,cllpia, ot ,ot,oel.1
r"tdi,1 .ctioal .ad .a
",ad,d {AAK}, OS'PA
AIAII .124 OI'A ARARJ
17 U/07/J2 L,tc,r torr,rdiaf tbe I. riDd.ll, US,PA . r.Oluil2,BlL.P' .:mspoadel2ce U4
..,ad,d Alterutiru
Arr., ..trlr '~AHI
I
29 "107/JJ L,ee,r torvJ:~~t, II.", A.1,I,r,lIete,lt, Iddy r. ria~.ll, osru Corrupoad,aCt J25
r"iev CII..'Ot, o. cb,
BRL Pr,li,ia,ry Dr.tt
B~d'1I9tr"Ot Alltllieat
J "108m L,tter reI O.S.lfA .ad' «.G.dt,OS'PA D.Gr.b.,.Cb.irl.n Corrtspoadtace J20
OEPA b.'t r,e,i,,4 .ad ,IlLSC
r'fJtvtd tbe 'uct"t
dr.ft IA .o~ IS .od
tou;; doeul,ot, t,eb.
oic.1J, io.4,qu.t, .od
eb, IA r",.1,4 .,jor
4ttici,acl'J .04 " .
r"ule tb, repllrc il
4i"ppro"4
I
5 "110m Letur re~ lu:h" r.riad.ll,OS'PA , r.Ol.,io,BRL-Projtct Corrtlpo04tac, J27
I ',el".tioo L.04tl11 Ltntll"OIPA 'ofr
I liul .1 Report
J 89/lJ 100 Lttt,r r" 'uck", K.R.1.cod"rU :. riod.JJ,DS'PA Corrupoa4'Dc, 12B
Reel.,.tioo-DiJcu"ioo
ot Co..,ot. oa tb, .ilt
AJ,ess.,at .od A,r'E.,.t
oa eb, Scope ot fork tor
-------
. '"e '0. 18
08/D 7/fD
- j{"I.IsrIArIV' l,eOR' I.D,r
.Del'l' "e£I'ArIOI £AlrrIL£ SIrl
sr. CLAIRsrILLr, CHID
lIeBl1rRA11 PAGIS JAr! fULl 111"01 IICIPIn, DOCUlnr fm ,OeIDIlBIJ
"
tbe IS
7 "I 121 DB Letter reI le'JoD.e D.'r,b..-r.]e,Scb01er, ficj.ll, USIPA COCIupocdtcCt 129
to Oct. Z', 1'8' li,rl'I,"",& "ldJer h,eJJe,DIPA
Jetter If I lil'1i:ll'
tbe .1 I,port, rJtb
,pecitic COllelt'
loud
f
5 JDIDJ/25 Letter I" '.S.IPA l.riadd1,I1SIPA '.I.lI0Ide,.IL Site Corrupoldeact . 130
I"i,r COI.elt. 01 ' 'Ifr.
tbe r,'i,ed 'A tor
'uctere 'ec1.I.tiol
£udtil1 Siu
4 JDIOJ/Zf Letter leI DIPI', I.LudJe,DIPI I. ~iDd.ll, I1SIPA CorrupoD4~lce UJ
co..elt. 00 tb, .oct",
',cJ.I.t1oa il~dtl11,
1&1 r"i,ed Dr.tt IA
J 'DIOflll £,tt,r're, OIPA'. 1.£u,1Je,OIPA I. rild,ll,USIPA eorrupoldelct 13Z
cOI.eot. 00 tb, 'acte,e
lec1...tl01 £'ldt111,
1&1 - le,i,e4 Dr.tt
Icd.c,erlel~ A..,...,lt
JO JDIDEI1D L,tter reI O'PA', 1.£ueJJe,OnA l.rild.ll,USnA Corrupold'le, 133
co..,ot. 00 tb, .acte"
',eJ..,tioo £'14tl1J,
IU r"i"d IS
. 7 'DID'12J £ett,r reI I.S.I'A'. r. riod.ll, IISIPA 1.I.i.oode,81£ Site Corrupoodeoct U4
- co..eot. fO t~e .oct", ,.jail. I
,15
I
2 'OIDCl2f £ettei torr.rdio, p.,e., l.riod.JJ,DS'PA' '.'ra&l.,81£ , CorrupoodeaCt JJ5
to tb, 'ucte" 'ecl..,- l.hnn',OIPI Sturio,' COI
tloo 11 report ,bleb.
b.,e beeo ..eoded b,
tbe U.S.'PA .14 D'PA
'0107/Z5 £,tt,r reI 'rt'I.Joo tOl I. riod.ll , DSIPA '.'I,b,.,IIL-Steelio eorre.p~odeoee UE
'e,pol.' ~o Jucl're ''co.
leeJ,.,tloo £.ldt(11
'od.o,e/lelf A"e,..elt
.ad ~e..ib111tr Study
COllel fl
'2 ..8010 J/OZ le.o torr.rdio, , IIp G.I.",A..f. Supt. ot D..1:tleJl,US'PA I.p. 137
.boric, tbe re.er,oir. r.ter t~r St. el.1r.,111,
-------
.- .---
.. "gt '0: J9
IS/07m -- _. ----
ADII'ISf.AfI', IICO.D I'Dll
.,crlfl IICLA'ArIO' LA'DIILL SIfl
Sf. CLAI.SVILLI, OHIO
lICBI/I.ABI PAGES'DArl fIrU UrBOR IICIPI"r DOCDBEIr nil 'OC'UBBI.
.. rtquuttd
80/03/20 'ucktyt .tcl..,tioo ISIPA liL 'tttiog 'otu jJ8
L.odlill 'ttelo, rleb
'tl.oot Couot, Co..i,-
'iootr" 'tl.oot Couot,
't.lc6 Dtpc., 'tl,ooc
CODoe, Co..i"loDtr,
Ortr,ttio, Co..1Cttt,
Citizto, tor L'Ddll11
S.ttty Co..iCCtt,OIPA
ull DSln
J HIOE:~' 't.o rt: 'uctt,t D./obt,DIPA 1....lll1,OIPA 'tlonodu. 13'
.tcl..,cioo 'tqut,e
lor IIP'lIIioll
80mm .t.o rt, 't.ule, ot.a - c..14" lIl,jC41on i - l.l411 ~trtll,'" 'tlorudu. J40
ott ,itt rtcooo,i".o:t 'arirooitae
tor cbt 'ucttyt 'tcl..."
cio~ ,lu
1 11/01101 "'0 rt: Updatt OD C.',cbuoa.,lcolo" , l.r'lI So.trtll~'" 'tlorudu. JU
S~Ct. Ia.ptcetd bl 'ariroo.,ae, I,c.
II' io ebt Soucbt.,c
Dileriet 01 06io ricb
cbt RCRA L.od Di,po,.l
Io,tO£or1 .tc,cbtd
821"122 'e.o rl: fbt pl.a"" D.Autlud.OIPA D.D"IOIIA 'tlor.odu. , 142
.ppro,td, 10cludtd . .
pror1.100 tor cbt
ia,e.ll.eioo 01 .
draiaa,t,culrtre
j t.
2 8310511. 't.o rtl 'rip 'tporc A.lucttr,USIPA ~.r'odtrl..a.DSIPA 'tlonadu. JU
COIUlbu., Lo,.o,
',,,rilit , SC.
Cl.ir,rillt.Obl0
.a, Hl,UBJ
85/JJ/OJ 'tlO r" BSIPA, OrPA D.'ickotll,DS'PA 'topl,' Iactrt.etd io 'tlor.odul Jff
.od .1: co,p.oit. b.rt ilL
rt.cbtd . ttotaclrt
.,rtl't~t 1a rbleb tbt
,i: c~.p'a1t' rill
10,t,ci"tt po"iblt
coat..io'tioo .t tbt
UL. A fublic lutio,
rill bt btld.ftd., 'or.
-------
- '.gt .,.,.-. 2D --
. "1D7liD - - (
~Dll11Sfl.flfl IICOID IIDll
.DCllrl IICL4IAfl0. £.,Dl1LL Slf~
Sf. CL'lISfILLI, OlIO
liCBllllANI 'A GIS DAfl fULl AUriO. . IICnIlrr DOCDNlIf frPl DOCIDIUi
13, J"5
, "10713J ' 'tiO r,: fb, gAPP J.4dll"Jr.rSIP4 I..i,d,r,log,DSrPA .uorudul 145
.., b"o r"i,w,d
lad cb.og,. .1"
"'0 recoII,od,d
, "I JD/.J5 "10 r" ';'i" ot J.4dll.,lr.,'Srp. 1.li,d,rglo".SrP4 luonodul JU
gAPP lor tb, 'Dct'r'
',~111.tloo 51t',Ob10
S "/J2/JJ "10 r,: '"i,r ot J.4dll',J1.0S'P. 1.li,dr"log,OSrPA 'uorudaa 147
g4PP tor tbe .1115
It U, luchr'
',c1.llt1oo £lodt111
S1t',Obio ritb trio,
litt.l Ittlcbtd
B~lDfm "10 1', Appro,al ot J.Ad'I.,Jr.,OSrP4 1.li,d,r,.D"DSIPA 'uorudaa J4B
gAP' lor tbe 'IllS .t
tbe BiL
2 B710512" "10 r,: Appro'11 of J.4d'I"Jr.,DSrp4 I..i,derg.o"USrPA 'uouodul JU
Sbort lorl g4PP lor
IPA OVtrJi,bt It tbt
Buci,y, I"l.,::joo
L.odfill Sup,;!_~d
Sit,
2 67100/19 'tlO 11: Buct", f.rio"foodw.rd-Clrde lil, Ittlorandul 150
'tCl'I,t1oD St.tu, CODlulunu
Report lrol Juo, ,
to JUDI 17,J,,7
1 87107101 IttlO 111 luchy, f.liog,foo~w'rd-Clyde lIlt Ituourdul HJ
'tclll,tioo St.tu. Couultlntl
"port 1101 Juo, ZZ
CO luJ, J, U'7
2 ,7107/J7 .uo 11: luct'r' f.liog,foodw.rd-C1rd, lilt Ittlorandul HZ
'tClllltioD StltU' CODluluot.
'eport trol Juo, , to
JUDI 15, JU7 I
3 B7~OBI07 .elo r" SUII.r, ot f.riog,foodw.rd-Clrd, lilt Ittlorandul 153
CODt,r'Dc, Cill 00 Couul tUtl
Au,. 4,J'87 r,gardin,
Bucier' 'ec111.tioo
J e7lOflDB "10 r" lu:tere r.lorlci~,roodr'1d'cJ,de lile ,. Kuoraodul 154
-------
. "9' '0. 2J
OBf0719D -;- - - - . .
- --..- -- --
ADII'ISrlAr1FI IICOID I.Dll
.oellr, IleLA.AfIOJ LA'D1ILL 5Irl
Sf. CLAIISVILLI. OHIO
11CBrfllAKr 'AGIS DArr rULI JUUO, uemu, DoeOKU' rrFG . 'OeJUrBiI
',cl.l.tioo St.tus Couult.ots
',port,Jugust J'87 .'
2 87/11IU "10 reI "L CODtereDee '.'o.ei,Il,OrU lile 'uorudul 155
C.Il
J "103m 'elo reI ,.C. J..e.sl,ac '..iederg.og,fSI'A C.lou.DSIPA . 'e.lOrudul JU
'eqouc
20 8 SID 3130 "10 rtl 'Dett,t J.'ieeioDe,'Sr'A r. rid.Il,ISIPA 'uorudul . IS7
Jecln.tioa ,IP
I.bor.cor, ,.c. rerie.
.ieb d.t. .cc.cb,d
2 "ID. /J1 "10 reI le,it. ot ,., '.Cborill',USI'A r.r~Dd.Il,USlPA .uouDdul 158
D.t. tor 'uett,e
lecln.cioD
. 8SIO.m "10 reI Cl.ritie.cloD J.'leeloDe,USlf! r. ri06.Il, USIPA 'uouadul 15'
.ad cb.Dges la '.C.
rerit' ot 3130/88 tor
Buctl,e 'eel.l.tioa
haUill
U/Df/JS "10 reI IRL d.t. 1.'leeioDe,DSr,! . r. fiad.JJ, DSIP! 'nouadul m
ruiu
J UfOfl21 "10 r" .uett,e 1.'ieeioa',USIPA I. ri06.11, US'lA lIuouadul m
',chutioa PI,
l.bor.tor, d.c. r!rie.
88105123 "10 rtl D.c. A..,.sl,at 1.'leder,.a"DSIP! C.Jou,OSIPA lIuouadul 4 H2 \
Itquuc '
B9fOVa .11'10 ior,.rdi09 eOlllats S.lotbbl.et.DSIPA ~. fioddl, DSIPA ,lIuoucdul 163
00 cit ItrJt. ot cie II
report tor 11£
2 BJ 10 4125 .,10 reI '.cer Diri.ioa C.Suctia.US"A I.Ccast.Gttlo..USIPA "Ior.adul JU
'trit' ot tbt Dr.tc 11
for Buct"e 'tcl'l.cioa
.ice
BJIOflZ' .,10 rtl rb, 'r.ft 11 D. S,eaeer, OSIP! l.riad.ll,US"! ruouDdvl US
report ... .ublittt' to
cbt Otfice ot .eR! tor
rtri" .ad eOlltaC
89/05/08 r'lo reI AirborDe . S.locbbJ.tt.Osr'j r. fJDd.11, USIPA «"oundu. Iii
!sbtsto. S.cplio9 .t
-------
-. ',ge .~.- 22 --
"101/90 _. -
- .--. - - - ---U.IIISrUrIrI IICD'D IIDIl
.ucr", IICLA.ArIOI LAIO'ILL S1rl
sr. lUIISVILU. OBI0
l1CSII'RArl PACIS DArl fIfLl urSOR . IICIPll1r Docu.nr "Pf .OCIUOII
'uele,e leel,..tioo
Ludiill Site
J U/Of/JD 'elo re; rlCel Di'ilioD C.Sattio.'SfI' '.Coa.t,ot,J..,USI'A 'elor,odul U7
'erle, .1 tbe 'efae.t
tor AlAI' tor tbe
'octe" ."J.I,tl.1
l,aadtiU Si"
2 UID7/12 "10 r" .,.R. tor tb, 1.$l1l1uba,.,rSfI' . r. riDd,ll,'SIP. 'uor.DdI1. JU
Il1cle" ',el'l,tl01
Ludtill SHe
7' U/07/JJ "10 r" ',ri,w ot Dr.lt I.CJut,uS". l.fiad,u,rsru 'uouodu. Ii'
'od.Qgerleoe '..e..leot
tor tb, .,L ,1te
JSlDJ/JD ..!l1D ~" lluuJcltiol I.Clul,JWlJ ~...DUi.i..q.JWlJ. .noludu. ' -170
00 BIL lad.ogerleat
Ass"..eot leri'w
5 '''UIJ6 MUD reI ,,,ier ot tbe '.r,a £"ur,a,BS"A J.Dutlicr,USlPA 'uDuadul I7J
BRL Sit' 'od.ogell,at
Au"n,at
J '0/05/15 'elo re: Dr.l ,:s~rpeioa t.l. 'urle,OS"A P. V.a L"uwea,OSIPA K'lor.adu. 172
I.ctol. tor c;c.i,.l.
4 '0/OoIJ4 .e.o reI D,rl.J ',rle.- r.'mg.USIU ..f6ippo,U~'PA 'noraDdul 173
bilier Coettiei,at.
5 '0107/05 'elo Ie: 10licit, lei-Iuag Bur.t,OSI'. r. riDd.ll,DS'PA 'uouadul 174
ja/orl.eJo~ lor ,.B,
1 UIJl/U Bueleye leel.l.tiol USIP. JlL Ocber 175
£.adllJl labJl, "'tllg
4 86/071Jl .. Jl.t at ,rlr.ef r,JJ '.habro,OIP' D.BielaeJJ,DS". OUu 176
I1Sfr. ,rorided to 0".
by Ir. J,ra,. 11 ",
HII
5 86107/17 le,ideatl.1 'eJJ SUIre,s D.liclaelJ,OS'" lil, Otbu 177
, lor 'fo,l, Jiriog cJo.,
to tbe had/ill
2, 86107/2J . Ji.t ot ,eopl, clo,e.t D."uu D.3iclolll,OS'PA Otbfr. 178
to tbe 'l1cle,i 'fCJ..,-
tioo L,adtiJl
-------
..,- "rt 't? 2J. ..,-- .----.-
~ . 'BID 1I.9b ~ -- --
-- -=---IJISruflfl IICOID l'DII ._- -- -
~UClIrI IICUItArIO. UJDIILL SIrI '
Sf. CLAIRSflLLr, OSlO
l1CSI/IIAII IACIS DAfl fULl j/1fBOR IICl11l1f DOCUltllf frPl "OC'IIrBlJ
.\'
7S ,mmo . Lttttr lorv;rdi09 . D.liclotll,IISIPA I.'titr,Ib.D.~U ot Ibot09rapbl HI
cop, .od tbt It9.t1,t, .1
ot ,ictare. t.tro doril9
oor .it, ,J.1t to tb,
loct"e l,cI...tioo
34 85/JO/3J A4.iaJ.tr.ti,e Ord,r '.A4,.to.,I1SII£ , IIt.di09.IOrdtr. '"
.uct", ',cI...t100 ..r,Ier,OIPA
LudtilJ
"l.oot Cooot"Obio
, U/OilU 'oditic.tJoa ot '.A4..tu.,I1SIIA-'t9100 r II,.di09s/0r4,rs III
Adliaistr.tJ" Or4,r , r.r,Ier,OIPA f
b, Coostat .a4 tb,
. Dirtctor'. lia.l
liadia9s .a1 Ord,r.
1.su,d oa JO/3J/'S
2 U/lJIDJ IPA Sttts lublic CO.ltOt IIS"A lulS ItIuSt 182
00 ftot~ti't A9rtt.tot
to la,esti9.te 'RL
JU iJlJJlJJ 'toI09Y .od Co.I '.'tr1,biIl,Jr. .od I1SIFA itporu/Studiu IIJ
'tsourct' ot 'tlloot Obio Di,. ot 'tolo,ic.I
Couat"Obio . Sur",
HIDO/DO r.,tt Dispos.l Bistor, O~PA Itporu/Studi u 184
I
79/04/00 L.bor.tor, Ao.l,.1.: Cnrat Co.l Co. fr.dtt L.bor.torlt. i,pcru/Studi" lIS
Lt.cb.tt .0.1,.i. ot
'utt ,.ttrial
J HIOSIDO Bistor, 01 tbe"ucktyt OIIA RtPortsIStu~tS' JIi
',cI.,.tioo L.adtill
.ice
J2 'O/U{U loteati.l ..%.r400. '.'o.t.ricb.'ucte,e ISIIA leportJ/Stadiu 117
'.~tt Sit' - Sitt IechutiDO
IosptctJoa 'tport tor
'uclty' Itcl".tioa
;4104127 I
" Ii 011 '"t.1i.l Act10a CB21( Sill f.lutur, UsrPA R,ports/Studiu 188
'.st,r 11.0 'uct",
',cl.l.t!oa L.a411JJ
2 'flO9/l2 Si~, Ideot11Jc.tJoa '.'J6istl,0IIA 06io Itsources Corp. R,ports/Studi" J89
',port lor 'uct",
Itcl"!tioo,L.odliIl
-------
..
"
'age ~o. Zf"'- . ----
"ID7/g0 .-
- - - --~ -- ~lIfISruf1V' IICOID IIDII - ------
JDCI'" "CI,AJArIOI LAIDIILL-SIrg
Sf. C£.IISVILI,I, 0610
IICBI/IIAKI 'AGlS 'Arl run AUriOl "C1I1II1 'OCONE" '-lP' Doe.DIBIi
11 "1J2/U 'uetey, ',el...tlol 0". r.Adutul,~S'PA ',porU/St'diu' -' UO
St. el.ir,rill,.Obio
II/IS St.t'.'lt .t 'ort
18 IS/OJ/DO jeri.l Iboto,r.bple '.'lCt,het.,d 'SllA ',port,/Stadi" UJ
julrsl, .t ,,, 'a,II"rll, .Id """-
Irloritr CIICU .'It -S,rrle" Co.p.ar,
'.z.r40a, ...t, Sit'. lac.
'ort6,rl Oblo Iltb
,60to,r.p6, tro.
'ael,y, ',e1...tiol
. '1 - 15/~illl - . Ila.l 'ort 11.1 'l/rs CDllle. U~EPA ',porU/Stadlu HZ
'aet'r' ',el...tloa
I..adtill
St. C1.Ir.rl11,,0610
t'011l1f 1- 1tdai1:.1
Seop, ot r~rt
I~J 'S/OB/3D .IIIS 'orl Ilu rerur lac. -11£ Suerll, "port./Studiu U3
Buct'r' ',cl...tiol Bar".. "ipl"Li.it,d COllittu
£iadlill Beltcat
toattr, Obio
25 '5/12100 1;.:1 Co..uaiti ~~l.tioal e..p Dr,."r ~ fcl" DSnA ',ports/Studi u Uf
!_:: lor 'uct'r' ',cl...- lIe.
: -; £aadlill
245 "100m CAPP lor ',rlor.Ilg t6, 'ferur lac. .ILSC R,ports/Studiu U5
RIllS .t tb, 'ucl,y,
'ecl...tlol £.adlill #
.Jl. t.WlJrilll. Ij,jo
to "mlo, CAPP ",i4,ati.l- r,ll D.lleta,11,USI'A 'act'r; I,el...tloa 'tporc.IStudj U Ui
I ..£,r-".t I,.r ,.£ -Siu '
Siu
.
.s "108m .,.Jt6 , S.t,tr 11.0. ",ruI, lac. IIL'Sturiag Itport,/Studiu U7
luct,y, J~cl...tioa COlli Uti
Laa4till
H 86108 m Sit, '.Dlgueat llaa- fcrur lac. Bit Sturil' Itport'IScudiu US
lor cb, ',rlor.llrl ot COlli Uti
t6, .1115 Proj,et .t
t~, 'uel,y, ',el...tloo
Ludlill
St. Cl.ir,riJl',06io
-------
--
'.ge '0: 25
~8N7!fD -_.- - - -
ADrI.IS"AfIVI .,CO'O 11011
.Dellrl IICLAIAfIO. LAIOlm SIrI .
Sf. e£AIISfILLI, OBIO
l1C"/l'A.' IAGES OA" fUll ADffOR IIcl11n~ lOCDrn, nil 'OC.D.,II
3D somm 'orl 11.0 Volu.e I C..p Dr,ss,r , leI" Ioe. 'Sff! ',port./Studies JU
Buele" ',e1...tioo
Laodtill
St. Cl.ir.ril1',Obl0
Or,rsigbt f,eboie.l
Support ot . "1-
Coaducud JIIIS
249 '7/05/15 Q!" rltb App,odie,s . I.'lelo,ll,'S"A III 'eport./Studies ZOO
A-G .cuebtd
5 '7/D7/09 'uel", ',el...tioo D.Cr.b.l,lrffd..o,L,rr, '.'ieto,ll,'S"A "~orts/Studies ZU
. L.odtill Juo',J'87 ft..1.
.
Irogress "pore
54 87!D7!20 £,tt,r reI Copies of '.'r.dford,f,r..r Ioc. '.'ieloell,'S"! ',ports/Studiu ~ 202
COlpl,tf4 ~"tiODD4ile
trol tbe Door-to-Door
Surr", .od DOI"tle
'ell Log,
7 87/08/07 Bueteye ',el...tioo D.Gr.b.l,lre,d,.o,L,r,, ' I. fioddl,BSIPA ',port./Studiu ZU
£,odfJl1 Jol,.!;87 ft..1.
Irogress lep,: :
87/Dl1D' Buet,yt 'tel...tioo D.'r.b..,BRLSC-PI riod.ll,BSllA , Itportl/Stadiu ZDf
£.odti11 Augu,t,J'.7 Cb.iruo 'oscbell .
Progress "port
,711O/DO R,ritv of tbt Irtli,io.r, Dr.I..,l,r,B of .1 .SIIA I,ports/Studies Z05
'tport 00 tb, Co.po,itioo
-ot. IJJb .ud Butbic
,.croior,rt,br.t" frol
Str,.., 10 tb, f1eioit,
ot tbe IlL
JO '7!JD/U 'uel", ',cl'l.tioo 1.0l..io,.,LSC-'. r iod.11, BSn! , "port,/Studies 20&
L.odfill "fte,ber,J"7 Crant Cod Co. '0 ICbt 11
Irogrm leport
I
JO '71ll/0' Bucl", 'e:l.,.tl0. I.Ol"ia,JILSC-'r riod.ll,BSIPA , 'epores/Studiu 1D7
I L.odfill Octob,r,J'87 Cravat Cod Co. 'OlCbt II
I Irogress leport
B B71l1lDJ Buct,y, lecl...tloo . '.Ol..io,JILSe-'1 . fiod.ll,US"A.' Reporu/Studiu lOB
I L.odfi11 'of"b,r,J'B7 CraFlt Co.l Co. ro,chell
I
Progrus leport
BS/OJ/IJ Buct,y, Reel...tioo . r.Ol"l0,IRLSC-II fitd.i I, USIIA Rtports/StUdies lO'
o
-------
- . '.gt MO. U -- -.-. -
IBiD mo
~---ADIIJISmfIVr IICORD lIDII --_.
'UCllfl ,rCLAIAfIO. LAIDr!LL SIfr
Sf. CLAllsrILLI. 05:0
IICBE/IRA., 'AGIS DAfE fULl UfBO! IIC1P Illf DOCUKENf rrpg ,ocn'UR
,
L.~d/iIl Dece.ber,"87 Cnue Co.l Co. 'usb.DIPA -
'rogrus 'e,ore
2 II/OllU fecb~le.l .s.l.t.~ee I. rilld.JJ, Ism 'e,orts/Studi" 111
Seo" 01 'ork
luekere 'ecl...tloa
had/ ill
'el,olt Coaatf,Obl.
f II/D21J0 laetere 'eel...tlo~ '.Ol..ia,..LSC-,. rl~.d.JJ, 'SfPA .e,ores/Seudl" ZU
L.odIIJJ J.~u.r,,'f88 Cnut CuJ Co. 'usb,DIf.
'rogru. 'eport
, IB/OJIJO 'uetere 'eel...tloa 1.0l.sl~.BILSC." rl~d.Jl, USIPA 'eports/Studiu 111
£.odliJJ lebru.ry,"88 Cnrn C..l Co. Ind,OIP!
'rogre.. h,ore
'0 BS/041J0 Bucteye 'eel...eioa r.OJ.sla,BRLSC-" riaddl,l1SIPA 'eporu/Studi" 113
L.ed/iJl '.rc6,"88 Crlfn CD.J Co. 'usb,OllA.
Proge.. 'epore
14 BB/OS/OO 'erised lort IJ.a lor I.eob, lagioeerieg IP!-'egioo r hports/Studi" 214
PRP/RI/IS Orer.lg6e .e 'rou" Ioe.
Buctere 'eej...eioa
L.od/ill 'eJ.oae
COIlGCr,Obio
, BB/OSIJO Buctere 'eel...tloa '.OJ..la.BILSC-" fiaddl,DSJPA leports/Studi" 21$
L.od!JlJ Aprll,"88 Cnue c..J CD. 'usb,OIPA
'rogre.. 'eport
~
, 88/06110 Bueteye 'eeJ...eloa 1.0l.,'i~.BRLSC." flod.JJ,I1SrPA Reports/Seudies 2U
L.adliJl ,.,,"'8 Crlflt Ce.l Co. Insb,OEiA
'TOgUII 'eport
r
8 BB/07/07 'uctere 'eel...tloa 1.0l"i~,BRLSC-" flad.JJ,I1SJlA 'eports/Studi" 217
L.od/ill luoe,'f88 Crlflt CDd Co. 'usb, alP.
Proga.. Report
, 11/08102 Buetere leel...tloa r.Ol.,la,BRLSC-'. riad.JJ,I1SIPA 'e,oru/Scudi" 2IB
L.od/ill Jul,,"88 Crlflt C..l Co. 'ud,O'!.
'rogru. lepore
II/Of/Of luctere 'eel...tloa '.OJ..I.,I'£SC-'. rlad.JJ,I1SIPA 'eports/Scudies 2U
L.od/ll1 Augule,'J88 Cr.ue c..J Co. 'usb, DIP! .
'rogre.. 'eport
-------
, .. -
-: I." ,~. 27
.O"D 7190 -- - - - .-.--. . -_. ---- _.. -- .--.- -- ..._-
aD'I.IS'.A'IVI IICOIO 1'01'
.'Dcr", IICLA'A'10' LA'D1ILL 51"
Sf. CLAI.SflLLI, OiIO
l1eBII1RA.' IAGIS DA" fULl tUrBO, fleIlIfff Doeu.", nil HC.IIBIt
7 '''10m 'oete,e 'eelilitloo '.01I'10,"LSC-" fl04dl, flSlrA 'eportl/Sta41u ..'.. ZZ'
L.04lill Sepc'lber,J'" rerllr lac. 'ud,OIlA
'ro,reu Itp~rc
, "m/DI 'oet", ',eJ.I,cloo I,OJ,,10,"LSC-" rld,JJ, 'SIrA J,port,lSta4iu . ZZJ
L,0411Jl Octob,r,J'" rtrllr,loc. 'nab,OIU
Iro,ru, ',port
, . "/U/U 'oete" ',cJ.I,tloo '.OJ,,11,.'L5C-" rla4dJ,rslU "port.lSta41u ZZZ
L,04tlJJ 'o"lb,r,J'" rtrUr lac. ',ub,OIU
'rorr,,, ',porc
34 U/OD/DD COII,ot, b, '" 00 ',ccllt f 144,/'er"r, l,portl/Sco41u ZZJ
110,1 11 ',porc tor lac.
'uct", If:~...tifC
Ludtill
2 'UDDIDO ',ebole,l A"l,c,ac, r. fiDd,JJ, USIIA 'eportl/Stadlu ZZ4
SCOpt ot 'ort
fucte,e 'ecl'l,clol
. L,a4lill
St. Cl,lr,,111e,Ob10
t UIDlm Bucttye ',cl'l,t100 '.Ol.,la,BILSC-" fl04.1 1, USIPA R,ports/Stodlu 215
L.04lill Dec'lb,r,J'S' rerllr lac. lulb, OlPA
Ir4rreu Itport
4 ,, "/omJ Bu:t", 'ecl...tloa r,Ol.s10,IRLSe.,. fia4.Jl,USIPA R,porcs/Studiu Z2£
L.04lill J.oo.rl,J'" rtrUr lac. ',ub,OlrA
Prorru, Jqort
to
J7J 8"03100 . Dntt 'mdill rerllr lac. 'USlrA R'poru/Scu4u. ZZ7
l~r,.£jf.£jo~ .,port
Appeadll i-r
J'7 U/OJIDD Dntc Indi.l rerllr lac. flSIP! Reports/Stdlu ZZ8
10,e.cir'tioo 'tport
Appra4iz L -0
418 U/OJ/DO Dntt 'ndlll rerllr lac. flSIP! ReportslStudlu Zlf
10,e.tig.tloo ',port
Appeadiz j-G
4 B9IDJ/D' Bucte" ',el...cioa r.Ol.,la,IRLSC-'. fiad.Jl ,":SUA Reportl/Studl" ZJO
L.ad!iJJ "bru.r"J'" Verur lac. . ..tlb,OIP!
'rogress Jeport
-------
-
-
.. "", I~'. 11
IB/O 7190 ,-
, JDIIIISfIAfIF. ..COID IID.J
IDCIIY. "CL!IAfIO' LAIDIILL Slfl
Sf, tLAIISfILL.. 0110
rICBE/IIAI' 'AGES DAfl . fm. uraOR JlCInnf DOCDllur flU 'OCIDItUI
J 89/0'/0' " 'ucltye 'ecJ..,tioo I.Ol"io.IIL5C-'1 fiod,lJ,Usm. 'eports/Stu4iu 23J
£.odiill l,rcb,J'" ",rur loc. 'ud,OIU
'rovu" "PQrt
"
'.. 3 89/05/JO 'ucieye ',cJ..'tloo ..OJ..10.II£SC-'1 fiad.Jl,DSIP! 'eporu/Stndi" 232
L.odlill 'pril,J'" 'erur lac. '.ub,OlP!
'u,u.. "port
2 "lOt /OJ 'aci"t ',el...tioo '.OJ.sio,"15:-I' fi04.Jl, usn. ',porUlStudi" 23J
L,odtJll '."J,,' 'ellu loco '.ub,OIP!
'roVun leport
, "/07/JO lucitye 'eeJ...t;oo '.01..10.IILSC-I' fid.1J,ISU. 'tports/Stud;u 23.
I L.odli11 Juoe,J'" 'erur loe. 'Jlir,OIPA
Iro,utS leport
.
3 89/08m 'ucieye. ',el..,ti40 '.~ujJa.UUC-" - -1_fjA411w..u,Llle, Reports/Studiu ZJS
L,odlil1 Jul"J'" ferur loe. D5U.
hOflL' ~eport
J B9I "'OS luettt!.!:; ..uioo '.01.,io.II£SC-II 1.li04.JJ'I.£.,,11,. 'eportJ/Studi,. 23'
L.odll;. .$t,U" Verur loCo . U5n!
lrofUS:: rt
I
J 89/H/DO 'uel", 't...~;tioo '.01..io,"1SC~II r,fi04.Jl,..£.,,11,. 'eports/Studi" 237
L.odliJl Septe.ber,J'" V,rur loco DS'U
'rofu" I,port
,,-' W09 'ueleye lecJ...tioo ';OJ.sio.'ILSC-II l.fJod.JJ'A.L.,e11e. lepJrts/5tudies 23'
£,odliJJ leport ritb V,uar loco USIU
J,tter Iro. '.Co,.1
uucbtd
J Sf / WI' lueltye ',cJ...tioo '.01.,io,IR£5C-'1 r.flOd,lJ'..£",Jl" Itports/Studit, 2J9
L,odiiJl 10relber,J'S' V,rur lo:. USifA
'roflus "port
2 fO/DOIOO 5t.tt.,ot 01 f;rl "ber , fi~d.JJ,'SII. ',poru/Studiu 2.0
'k:Acyt 'tcl...t100
Itllo't Couoty,Ob10
'I
. I '.01.,io,IR£5C-'. l.fiod.ll'..£.relJe. Rtports/Studi,s 2U
J JO/OJ/OS 'uetey, ',el...tioo
I £.04IiJJ Dte,.ber,J'" t~rur loe. USIf.
I
'rofuss ',port
, WDJIU Letttr re: lucie" V.Ol.,io.Iueley, l,riod,l16A:L,rt1Je. 'eports/Studie, 112
~
, lee1..,tioo 1,.41iJJ I,cl..,tioo 1.odliJJ U$nA
Iropose6.Sitt «aiat'- St"riov Co..itt,,-
oao:e ,od Rep,ir. .06 'roject II.U9tr
-------
'---
._-_.. -
.. .JU! '~"
- eSlomo
2f-
--
---
- -~..-.....:.
~._---- .
-- -...
---
.D,IIIsr.AfI" .,CD.D IIDII
JDCI'Y' .'CLAIAfIOI LA'~IILL SIr!
Sf. CLAIRSVILLI, DBIO
IICHllliAHI PAG'S DAf' rULI UfHOR IICIPIIn DOCUlilif rrJ I DOCIDIBEI
CblrleterizItioa ot ruur lac.
Dral.ed Coateac.
3 fOI03IDS luele,e leel...cioa 1.0l..ia,IILSC-" riaddl,I1SIPA IeporttlStudiu 2U
L.a4/ill 'ebru.r"J"D ruur, lie. luelle,OIPA
'corre" 'eport
3 'OIOf/U luetere 'ecl..tioa 1,01..11,111Se-" fialdl,'S'PA .sporUlStudiu 244
L'14till ..teb, J"O recur, lac. ludle,O'U
'rorreu leport
4 fOIOJlU luelere 'eel.,.t10a I.Ol..11,IILSe-I' riaddl,ISIPA 'eporc./Studiu . US
L.ad/ill .." l'fO recur,lae. luelle,O'U
Irorre.. leport
419 f0106/20 liul .1 Jeport V,t,.t,lae./aSIPA/ 11£ Sturiar 'eporu/Studiu 246
r.,l , ot cbe lucteye e'PA COllittu
'ecl...c~a I.adtill
11IIS
4 W07109 luete,e 'eel...tioa I.Ol,'ia,111SC-" riaddl, asIP' 'eports/Studiu 247
LiadtiU Juu, U90 Vecur,II:. Luelle,Oni
frorres, leport
197 90107/U lia.l 'epore IS tor 'etelll , lddy:lae. lucleye 'eel...tioa 'eporU/Studies 2U
Buel,ye 'eel...tioa Ladt.
Ludtill
3D! 90101/2D liul ieport V,r,.r,Iae./t,ri.ed by IlL Sturia, 'eport,IStudies 2U
'adlager.eac !"ess.taC .'tce.lt' 'dd"lae. COlliceu
tor tbe lueteye Re:l...-
tioa Ludtill 4
A Supple.eat.l r.st ot
i tbe BlL II
, ,
t.
-------
--
P.ge No.
05/08/91
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
TITLE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX - UPDATE '1
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION LANDFILL SITE
ST. CLAIRSVILLE, OHIO
.
AUTHOR
IECIPI!:NT
DOCLICEIiT TYPE
--. . Dt'It'IIIlq£R
" DO/DO/DO lig Five Tunnel Pilot E. lates.RREL Cincinnati t. Tfndall-U.S.EPA Reports/Stud i el
Wetl and
3 DO/DO/DO Articl. titled Envir~t.1 M8n8g--.t t. Tindall-U.S.EPA Report./Studi.. 2
"An "An-N.tural"
Technology Cleans Up
Mining Waste in
Color8do"
10
89/00/00
Article from
Constructed Wetl.nds
for W..tew.ter
Yreetment
Municipel, Industrial
and Agricultur.1
ti tied 38h
"Bacteriologicll
Tests from the
C~nstructed Wetl.nd
. of the lig Five
Tunnel, Idaho Springs,
Colorado"
Article written by
W.f. .at'I, Leslie S.
Laudon, Thomas R.
Wildeman, & Noorhenita
Mohdnoordin
13
89/00/00
p'ticle from
=onstructed Wet lends
for Westeweter
Tr.etment
Municipal, Industri.1
end Agriculturel
titled Chepter 17
.Use of Wet lends for
Treetment of
Environmentel Problems
in Mining:
Non-Coel-Mining
Applications"
Article written by
Thomas R. Wildeman &
Leslie S. Leudon
D. H8IIIIIIr-Uwi I
P~1f shers
t. Tindall-U.S.EPA
D. H8IIIIIIr-Lewis
P~I ishers
~. Tindall-U.S.EPA
.
Reports/Studi es
3
,--
Reports/S t..:: itS
4
-.---
-------
'Ige No.
05/08/91 '
2
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE
"
89/07112
23 . 90/04/23
3
90/10/00
TJTLE
-Design and ConstrUction
of . ...e.rch Site for
P.sslve Mine Dr.ln8ge
Tre.tment in Idaho
Spring., Color8do-
Article written by
Edw.rd A. N ow. rd ,
.Iohn C. Elllerlclt, and
Thome. .. Vlldem8n
Proceedings of the
1990 Mining .nd
Recllmltion Conference
.nd Exhibition
Volune II
Article from Small
Flows titled
"Constructed wet l.nds
growing throughout the
U.S."
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX - UPOATE .1
BUCKEYE IfCLAMATJDII LAIIOFILL SJTE
ST. CLAIRSVILLE, OHIO
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
D. "_r-Lewi. .
pem l i "'e,..
K. Tlndlll-U.S.EPA
Wildem8n, M.chemer,
Klusman, Cohen & L8II1Ite
K. Tindill-U.S.EPA
F. Schutz-N.tional Small K. Tlndlll-U.S.EPA
Flows Cle.ringhouse
372 91/00/00 Final R~port vernr, Inc.
Endangerment Assessment
165 91/01,/30 Final Feasibility Study Vers.r, Inc.
K. Tlndlll'U.S.EPA
K. Tindill-U.S.EPA
.
,
DOCUCENT TYPE
ReporU/Studiei
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Reports/Studies
Repons/Studi es
DOaUGER
5
6
7
8
9
-------
..
P"ge 110.
05/08/91
TITLE
D.Hign "Irul
Constructed Wetlands
and Aquatic Plant
Iyst- for tVliciP8l
Waltewater Treatment
EPA/625/'~88/022
---.-
-
- ---'-
GUIDANCE DOCLMENTS INDEX - UPDATE '1
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION LANDFILL SITE
Guidance Doanentl are Ivai labl. for review It
USEPA Retion V-Chicago IL
AUT "011
DATE
U.S.EPAlORD/CERI
88/09/00
f
t'
-------
Page No.
08/06/91
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX' UPDATE '2
BUCKEYE REC~AMATION ~ANDFI~~ SITE
ST. C~AIRSVI~~E, OHIO
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TIT~E AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE DOCNUMBER
91/05/30 Public Meeting Agenda U.S.EPA Public Meeting Notes
for Buckeye Reclemetlon
Landfill Superfund Site
90/08/12 Public Notice re: U.S.EPA The Times Leader Public Notice 2
U.S.EPA Invite.
public comments on
the Fusibility
Study and the
Proposed Plan
90/08/19 NOTICE OF CORRECTION U.S.EPA The Times Leader Public Notice 3
Due to delays In
fine Ii zing Investi.
gat ion reports, the
Public Comment period
and the Public Meeting
have been postponed
until further notice.
91/05/13
Public Notice re:
U.S.EPA Invite.
publ I c comment on
the Feasibil ity
Study and the
Proposed Plan at
the Public Meeting
U.S.EPA
. The Intelligencer
Public Notice
"
91/05/13 Public Notice re: U.S.EPA The Times Leider Public Notice 5
U.S.EPA invites
public comment on
the Feasibil ity
Study and the
Proposed Plan at
the Public Meeting
91/06/13 Public ~otice re: U.S.EPA News-Register Publ ic Notice 6
U.S.EPA invites
public comment on
-------
Page No.
08/06/91
2
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX - UPDATE #2
BUCKEYE REC~AMATION ~ANDFI~~ SITE
ST. C~AIRSVI~~E, OHIO
FICHE/FRAME PAGES DATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE DOCNUMBER
the Feasibil ity
Study and the
Proposed Plan and
announces that the
public conment
period il extended
91/06/13 Public Notice re: U.S.EPA The Times Leader Public Notice 7
U.S.EPA invites
pub I ic conment on
the Feas i bil ity
Study and the
Proposed Plan and
announces that the
public conment
period il extended
37 OO/OO/DO Conments Concerning K. Tindall-U.S.EPA, Reports/Studies 8
Hydrogeologic RPM
Characterization
Conments 1- 7
1,6 87/07/22 Supporting Versar, Inc. W. Dlasin-Cravat Reports/Studies 9
Doc\ll1entation Moody's of Dayton, Inc. Coal Co.
Appendix C Cravat Coal Co.
Subject: Identifi-
cation and Sampling
of Perched Ground
Water
12 91/05/31 Buckeye Reclametion K. Tindall-U.S.EPA, Reports/Studies 10
Landfill R l/FS RPM
Figures and Tables
7 91/06/05 Comnents on the Concerned Citizens: U.S.EPA-Region V Reports/Studies 11
Proposed Plan for J. Zarvatski
the cleanup. of the V. Ceterelli
Buckeye Reclamation D. Lushbary
Landf ill B. Kote
-------
Page No.
08/06/91
3
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORO INOEX . UPDATE '2
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION LANDFILL SITE
ST. CLAIRSVILLE. OHIO
FICHE/FRAME PAGES OATE TITLE AUTHOR RECIPIENT DOCUMENT TYPE DOCNUMBER
84 91/06/17 Risk and Hazard Indices K. Tindall-U.S.EPA. Reports/Studies 12
Calculations Data Set RPM
Full Detection Limit
Append i x A
84 91/06/17 Riak and Nazard Indices K. Tindall-U.S.EPA. Reports/Studies 13
Calculations Data Set RPM
Half Detection Limit
Appendix B
66 91/05/30 Public Hearing for the Streski Reporting Transcript "
Buckeye ,Reclamation Service & Panel
Landfill Superfund Site Meni:lers:
G. Weber-U.S.EPA
A. Lavelle-OEPA
K. Tindall'U.S.EPA
------- |