United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIRODIR05-91/183
September 1991
Gft (
"fB tf~ - q 6 t.f /0 I
oEPA
Superfund .
Record of Decision:
Fultz Landfill, OH
u. S. Environmental p,; . .'
~o~ In Hazardous W:tecflon Agency
84Techn,ca, 'nformation Ce::r
.1 Chestnut Street 9th~-
Philadelphia ~ PA 19107 . JWJ
Hazardous wait. CoIIectJob . ":"
InformattQn'Rescuce ceo- ',"
US EPARegton 3 .. "'...'
PhUadelphla, PA 19107
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. I ~ 3. RecIpient. Ac:ceuIon No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-91/1B3
... TIle end~" "5. R8par1 D81It
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/30/91
Fultz Landfill, OH 6.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Aulhor(.) 8. PlHfonning Org8ll1z8t1on Rept. No.
8. PiIrfonnlng Org8lnlzatlon N8me end Add.... 10. ProjectlTuklWork Unit No.
11. Contnoct(C) or Gr.nt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ ~ Org8lllz8tlon N8me end AdIh88 13. Type 0' Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency BOO/OOO
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplem8nt8ry No,"
18. Ab81r.c1 (UrnI1: 200 wold.)
The 30-acre Fultz Landfill site is a privately owned inactive sanitary landfill on
the north slope of a ridge that overlies abandoned coal mines in Jackson Township,
Guernsey County, Ohio. Land use in the vicinity of the site is primarily rural to
the south, north, and east; and residential and light industrial to the west. The
site lies within the drainage basin of Wills Creek, which flows north adjacent to the
site and is used by the city of Cambridge as the municipal water supply. The
northern half of the landfill lies in an un reclaimed strip mine where surface mine
spoil and natural soil form a shallow aquifer. The southern half of the landfill
lies 25 to 80 feet above an abandoned flooded underground mine in the same coal seam
as the strip mine. The flooded underground mine forms an aquifer, which also is
utilized for drinking water. Six ponds, designated as wetlands, are located on the
north side of the landfill in the area of unreclaimed strip mine spoil. Surface
water runoff and leachate from the landfill collect in several of these ponds. From
1958 to 1968, the landfill was operated as an open dump. In 1969, the site was
licensed by the County and began to accept household, commercial, and industrial
solid waste. During the 1970's, the landfill operator was cited for various
(See Attached Page)
17. Document An8IyeI. L Oe8crIpiore
Record of Decision - Fultz Landf i 1'1, OH
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw, sw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead), other inorganics
II. 1denliller8/00000EndecI Term8
c. COO" 11 FI8IcfIGroup
18. Avlilllblity St8t8ment 19. Secwlty CI... (Thl. Report) 2t. No. 0' P.ge.
None 106
I 20. Secwlty CI... (Thl. ""ge) n Price
None
272 (4-77)
(See ANSl-Z38.18)
See InIJlTUcboM on Reverse
(Formerly N11S-35)
Department 0' Commerce
-------
EPA!ROD!R05-91!183
Fultz Landfill, OH
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
v
violations including inadequate daily cover of waste, receiving unauthorized waste,
leachate runoff, blowing debris, and open dumping; and in 1985, onsite landfill
operations ceased. Disposal records show that an estimated 6,240 drums containing
chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents and plating sludge were disposed of in the
landfill. Records also show that drummed liquid and semi-liquid wastes were disposed
of onsite, and some of the solvents were poured directly onto the ground and burned.
Investigations in 1988 by EPA indicated that ground water and leachate contaminants
emanating from the site have contaminated the shallow aquifer and, to a lesser extent,
the deep mine aquifer. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses all contaminated media,
and provides a final remedy for the site. The primary contaminants .of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, debris, ground water, and surface water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics including PAHs and
phenols; metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and other inorganics.
The selected remedial action for this site includes constructing a containment berm and
capping the entire 30 acres of the landfill with a mUlti-layer cap; installing
structural supports for voids in the underground mine to prevent cap damage by
subsidence; constructing an onsite treatment plant and leachate collection system;
pumping and onsite treatment of contaminated ground water and leachate using oxidation
and precipitation to remove metals, and filtration and carbon adsorption to remove
organics, or using another treatment based on the outcome of a bench-scale treatability
study; discharging the treated effluent onsite to surface water; regenerating spent
carbon or disposing of the carbon offsite; disposing of sludge resulting from the
treatment plant processes offsite; constructing surface water and sediment controls to
divert runoff away from the landfill; mitigating affected wetlands; providing an
alternate water supply for contaminated residential wells by connecting these homes to
a municipal water supply; monitoring soil, sediment, ground water, and air; and
implementing institutional controls including deed restrictions to limit ground water
and land use, and site access restrictions including fencing. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $19,480,700, which includes an annual O&M cost
of $218,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: For ground water remediation, site-related
contaminants that appear upgradient will be reduced to their respective background
concentrations. Other non-background contaminants will be reduced to SDWA MCLs, or to
a cumulative carcinogenic risk no greater than 10-6 or an HI<1. Discharge of treated
leachate and ground water must meet CWA and State requirements. Chemical-specific
remediation goals were not provided.
-------
.
.
u.s. ENVIRON~EHTAL PROTECTION AGEHCY
Record of Decision
Fultz Landfill
. Byesville, Ohio
----
:-~---j~
I
,
i OHIO
--
c-rr ---""""j I
'..,....-' .
//
-\.... ,-;
------ ""',-'"
"
.
.
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
Fultz Landfill
Byesville, Ohio
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision doc~ment presents the selected remedial action for the Fultz
Landfill site, in Byesville, 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 Amendmen~s and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the ex~en~ practicable, t~e
National Oil and Hazardous Subs~ances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision documen~ explains the fac~ual and legal basis for selec~ing t~e remedy
for this site. This decision document is based on the adreinis~rative record
for ~his site.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) concurs with the selected
remedy. The information suppor~ing this remedial ac~ion decision is contained
in the administrative record for this site.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if no~
addressed by implementing the response action selec~ed in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
Descri~tion of the Selected Remedv
The selected remedial action for the Fultz Landfill site addresses the source
of contamination by containing the landfill contents and treating contaminated
groundwater and leachate. This is the first and final remedy for the Fultz
Landfill site. The major components of the selected remedial action incl~de:
.
Institutional controls will be sought to reduce exposure to site
contaminants through legal restrictions. In the event that ins~it~tional
controls are not implemented, the selected remedial action will be re-
evaluated to determine if additional actions should be im~lemen~ed to
ensure that the remedy is permanent and effec~ive on a long term basis.
.
Site fence approximately 10,000 feet in length, to reduce direc~ exposure
to surface contamination.
=
.
Alternate water supply for downgradient residential wells
present an unacceptable risk, attributed to the site.
i: found to
.
Long term monitoring of air, surface and ground
sediments.
water,
leachate, and
.
Subsurface structural supports for mine voids, to prevent cap damage by
subsidence, and reduce bedrock fracturing between the landfill and coal
mine aquifer. .
.
Surface water and sediment controls to eliminate standing water and
divert runoff away from the landfill.
.
Berm and multi-layer cap to reduce infiltration, preven~ erosion, and
reduce human and environmental health risks from direct con~act wit~
contamina~ed materials.
-------
.
Leacha~e c=lle=~~=n 5YS~=~ ~=
leacha~e, wh~=h is c~==2~~ly
gall:r.s Fe= ~~~~~e (G?~).
:.-ed\.:ce
~~e p=~~=~;a~_~~~k =y ==~=v~~g
===m ~~e la~c=~l~ a~ a;p==xi~a~ely 2
::=wi~g
.
Ex~=ac~i=n well sY5~e~ t= re~~ce ~he :=~~=~;al =is~
'c=~~amina~ec g==~~d~a~e= mig=a~i~g ===rn ~~e la~==i:l
a~i:e= a~d i~~o ~~e ==a~ mi~e a~~i:==.
::y :..::::.e==e;:-:':":lg
~~==ugn ~~e s~a::=~
.
O~-si~e wa~e= ~=ea":~e~": 5ys~e~ ":= e~~~cm.:..=ally ":==a~ six mi::i=~ ga::=~E
c: c:n~am~~a~ed g=~ur.dwa~e= whic~ is curre~~ly bei~g pr~duced ar.~ual:y,
a~d leac~a":=. !~ will be mos,,: c=s~ ef=e=~ive tc t=ea~ leac~a":e i~ ~he
same sys~=m used t~ t=ea,,: g=~~~dwa":er, =a,,:her t~an ha~: i~ c:f-s:..-:e.
j
.
tischarce c: t=ea~ed wa~e= t~
subs~a~tive re~iremer.~s c: a
Sys~em (NPDES) permit.
surface wa-:er will
NQ~icna: ?=ll~,,:an,,:
be i~ ac====a~ce w~~h
Discha,=;e
El.i.~~:la-=i=n
.
We~lands ~e~~a~ement =~a~ wn~=~ will =es~=~e t~e pc~cs a~c
ha~~tat cis~~=~ed d~=i~g =emec~al ac~ion ac~ivi~ie5.
St:.:==t.:~c.:.::.;
Declaration of Stat~torv Determinations
""'~e se' ec-cd r=me""'v ; - ----=--.; "'.JQ c": hn:n-n hea.l-:~ a:;.d -~e e~.';"==:-'...'7le::~, c--.....~.; ==
-.... - 0 -- _0 -... -;:t :---1".:--_..... - - ~...... Q. .. ~ -."". . ~ .. _..u:"'----
W~~~ Fece:al a~d S~a~e =e~~=e~e~~s ~~a~ a=e ~egal~y a;;~~ca~~e c= =e_;va~~ a~=
a:~:~~riate t~ ~~e remecia.l a=~ion, a~d is c05~-e::=c~ive. ~~is re~ecv
~~ll~zes per~ane:l~ sol~~~=ns and al~a=na~~ve t==a~me~~ (or resou=== :e;=ve=y)
~echnologies ~o the maximum ex~en~ practicable, and it satis=ies the 5~at~t=ry
p:e:e:ence for remedies tha~ employ ~=eatment t~at recuce tcxici~y, mc:ili-:y,
or volume as their princi?al element.
3ecause this remedv will result i~ hazardous substances =emaininc cr. site a~:ve
health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five yea=s a:~er
c:mmencement c: remedial action t~ ensure tha~ ~he remedy con~~nues t= p==v~=e
adequate protec~ion c: huma~ heal~h anc the e~vi==~~en~.
~4.~~
///,.; // ~
~A~~~
/ \% ~
6// V;L::las vt/Adamk~s
~~ional Adminis~rator
u;L~A//
/'~~.
tj"-/ ( ./
,
"""--0
wQ....-
=
'"
2
-------
Table of Contents
Title
~
I. Site Name, Location, and Description....................l
II. Site History and Enforcement Activities.................2
III. Highlights of Community Participation...................4
IV. Scope and Role of Response Action within Site Strategy..S
V. Summary of Site Characteristics.........................5
VI. Summary of Site Risks.............. -' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
VII. Description of Alternatives.............................l6
VIII. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives.........29
IX. Selec':.ed Remedy........................................ .32
X. Statutory Determinations................................36
-~:
i
-------
Fiqure No.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
List of Fiqures
Title
Paqe Ne.
Site Location Map................................F-1
Site Map......................................... F-2
Ideal Coal Mine..................................F-3
Cross-sec~ion of Underlying Aquifers.............F-4
Monitoring Well and Groundwater
Sampling Locations.............................. F-S
Residential Well Sampling Locations..............F-5
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations....F-7
Surface Soil Sample Locations........... ......... .F-8
Phase I RI Sampling Locations (Air)..............F-9
Alternative 2: Institutional Actions and
Monitoring..................................... .F-I0
Multi-Layer Cap................................. F-II
Alternative 3: Multi-Layer Cap..................F-12
Alternative 4: Multi-Layer Cap with
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment............F-13
Alternative 5: RCRA Landfill Double Liner
On-Site Landfill................................F-14
Typical Landfill Cross-Section..................F-1S
Alternative 6: Multi-Layer Cap with
Subsurface Barrier..............................F-16
~
ii
-------
"Tabl.e No.
"r'-h~.= 1
... :1- - -
Tab:'e 2
:ab:e -
Tabl; 4
Tab:e 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Tabl.e 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 13
7a:Ole 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
TaJ:l.e 25
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
Table 29
Table 30
Table 31
':'a!::le 32
List of Tables
Tii;.le
Pace No.
Summary of C~emicals Detected..................T-l,J
Shallow Aquifer Da~a Summary.....................T-4
Downgradient Coal Mine Aquifer Data Summary... ...T-5
Chemical Ccr.cen~rations in Residen~ial Wells.....T-5
Chemical Concentrations Detected in the 8yesville
Ccmmuni':', Wa1:er Supt:llv.......................... .T-7
Phase II' Leachate Data summary...................T-a
Leachate Sediment Summary........................ T-9
Surface Water Data summary......................T-10
Sediment Data Summarv........................T-1l,l2
Wills Creek Surface Water Data Summary .........T-13
Wills Creek Sediment Data Summary...............T-14
On-Site Surface Soil Data.......................T-15
Concentrations of Chemicals Detected in Air.....T-l6
Slo~e Factor Eealth Effects Criteria for Exposure
to Chemicals of concern....................:....T-l7
RfD Health Effects Criteria for Exposure to
Chemicals of Concern.........................T-18,19
Lead Up1:ake and Blood Lead Level Estimates......T-20
Ex~osu~es and Risks to Children and Teenagers from
Inciden1:al Direct Contact with S1:ream A Sediments
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-21, 22
Ex~osures and Risks to Children and Teenacers from
Incidental Direct Con1:act with Wills Creek Sedimen1:
.. ............................................. .T-23
Exposures and Risks to Children and Teenagers from
Incidental Direct Contact with Soil.............T-24
Exposures and Risks to Individuals from the
!nges~ion of Groundwater from Off-Site Residential
Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-25
Exposures and Risks to Children and Teenagers from
Incidental Direct Contact with Leachate Water...T-26
Exposures and Risks to Children and Teenagers from
Incidental Direct ContaC1: with Leachate
Sedimen1:s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-2 7
Exposures and Risks to Nearby Residents from 1:he
Inhala1:ion of Airborne Contaminants..............T-28
Exposures and Risks to Hypothetical Resident from
Incidental Direct Contact with Soil.............T-29
Exposures and Risks to Future Residents from the
Ingestion or Groundwater from Shallow Aquifer
............................................ .T-30,31
Exposures and Risks to Future Residents frcm the
Ingestion of Groundwater from the Deep Mine Aquifer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."';-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-32
Exposures and Risks to Future Residents from
Inhalation while Showering with Groundwater from
the Shallow Aquifer.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-33
Exposures and Risks to Future Residents frcm
Inhalation while Showering with Groundwater from
the Deep Aauifer................................T-34
summary.of.Uncertainties in the Baseline Risk
Assessment..................................... .T-35
Concentrations of Inorganics in Surface Water from
Stream A and Recommended Maximum Dietary Levels for
Livestock Drinking Water........................T-36
Major Conclusions of the Baseline Risk Assessment
............................................ .T-37, 38
Cost Estimate Summary for Alternative 4.........T-39
iii
-------
Attachment No.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
List of Attachments
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency - Letter of Concurrence
~
Responsiveness Summary
Administrative Record Index
.~:
iv
-------
-" ---
Deci.ion Summary for the Record of Decision
Fultz Landfill Site, Byesville, Ohio
I.
Site Name, Location, and Description
\,
The Fultz Landfill is located in an agricultural and coal mining region of
east-central Ohio, approxLmately 75 miles east of Columbus, and is situated in
Jackson Township in the northwest corner of Military Lot 5, Township 1 North,
Range 3 West in Guernsey County, Ohio. The site is about one-half mile
northeast of the corporate lLmits of Byesville, Ohio, and about one mile
southeast of the interchange of Interstates 77 and 70, as illustrated on Figure
1. The county's largest city, Cambridge, lies approximately three miles
northwest of the site.
The Fultz Landfill is a privately-owned sanitary landfill where hazardous
industrial wastes were co-disposed with municipal waste. Closed since 1985,
the landfill was one of two facilities that served the refuse-disposal needs of
Guernsey County. The landfill, illustrated on Figure 2, occupies approximately
30 acres of a 58-acre land tract within Parcel 1 of Military Lot 5. Parcel 1,
prior to 1950, was part of a large farm that comprised approximately 200 acres.
Land use in the vicinity of the site is primarily wooded and pasture to the
south, north and east. To the west, land has been developed for residential
and light industrial use.
The landfill is situated on the north slope of a ridge that overlies a coal
mine in the Upper Freeport Coal seam, which was abandoned prior to 1940. The
north half of the landfill lies in an unreclaimed strip mine in the Upper
Freeport coal seam, where surface mine spoil and natural soils form the
"shallow aquifer." The south half of the landfill lies 25 to 80 feet above an
abandoned, flooded deep mine in the same coal seam. The flooded deep mine
forms an aquifer referred to as the "coal mine aquifer". The City of Byesville
utilizes water from the coal mine aquifer at a location approximately one mile
south of the site. The position of the landfill relative to the deep mine and
the Byesville Plant Number 2 well is presented on Figure 3, which was produced
from the available mine maps and illustrates the intricate pattern of room and
pillar voids in the deep mine.
The site is located on the western edge of the Allegheny Plateau Physiographic
Province, which was originally a low-lying plain of sedimentary rock that has
since undergone uplift and erosion. Topographic relief in Guernsey County
varies by approximately 200 feet. Surface elevations at the Fultz Landfill
site vary from approximately 800 to 900 feet MSL. A high percentage of the
land surface in the vicinity of the site is steeply sloping, with natural
slopes of 10\ to 25\ occurring on and near the site. Broad flat areas are
found along the Wills Creek flood plain t~ the west of the site.
The site is located within the Wills Creek drainage basin, a subdivision of the
Muskingum River basin. The total area drained by Wills Creek is approximately
850 square miles. Wills Creek flows northward adjacent to the site and through
the City of Cambridg~, which uses the creek as a municipal water supply,
approximately three miles downstream.
The drainage course on the north side of the landfill is designated "Stream A."
Prior to the existence of the landfill, Stream A was interrupted by surface
mining activities, and six ponds were left in unreclaimed mine spoil. These
ponds are numbered 1 through 6 on Figure 2. Pond 1 forms pond 1 and pond lA
during low precipitation periods. Pond 2 also becomes divided into pond 2 and
pond 2A during low precipitation periods. The six ponds have been classified
as wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Surface water and leachate
running off the landfill collects in ponds 1, 2, 3 and 6, which border the
north side of the landfill.
-------
-'-
~. --'- --..-.-
---
"The stream located south of the site is designated" Stream B," which drains a
one-square-mile area consisting of farm land and reclaimed strip mines. Stream
B discharges into Wills Creek upstream from the Stream A confluence.
The hydrogeology of the site area is complex due to the underground and surface
coal mining. The groundwater regime generally consists of two hydrogeologic
systems. The first, designated as the shallow aquifer system, consists of
groundwater at water table conditions within the unconsolidated alluvial
deposits and surface mine spoil in the Stream A and Stream B valleys. The
second system is the partially-confined "deep mine aquifer" that formed from
the flooding of interconnected abandoned underground coal mines of the Upper
Freeport Coal. The coal mine aquifer is used by the City of Byesville as a
source of municipal water, with the withdrawal point shown on Figure 3.
The population of Guernsey county was estimated at 40,280 in 1988. The Ohio
Department of Development projects a county population of 52,606 by the year
2000. The major population centers for the area are Cambridge, which is the
major center with an estimated 1988 popul~tion of 12,200 and Byesville with
2,690. The projected growth will result in an increased demand on the current
water supply and will require the development of new areas for residential
dwe 11 ing .
II.
Site Historv and Enforcement Activities
The 30-acre landfill property was owned, developed and operated by Mr. Foster
Fultz from October 1954 until his death in June 1982. The landfill was
operated from 1982 until closing in 1985, by Mr. Fultz's family. The Fultz-
operated landfill was an open dump from about 1958 through 1968. The site was
first licensed by Guernsey County District Board of Health in 1969, at which
time the landfill was permitted to accept household, commercial and industrial
solid waste.
During the 1970's the operator was cited for inadequate daily cover of waste,
open dumping, receiving unauthorized waste, leachate runoff and blowing debris.
On April 14, 1983, the site was again brought to the attention of the
authorities when a bulldozer working there rolled over a drum containing
calsibar (a dry pyroforic powder mixture of calcium, silicon and barium). The
calsibar ignited and burned. It was reported to local and state authorities
that the calsibar drum was accidentally discharged to the landfill. The
landfill ceased waste disposal operations in December 1985, when the owner
failed to renew the operating permit for~986.
The following is a summary of agency actions compiled from information provided
by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region V, ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) and the Guernsey County General Health
District.
~
October 1968
Pre-licensing"
Health (ODH).
unsuitable for
deep mine used
site survey by the Ohio Department of
Survey noted that the site could be
a landfill because of proximity of the
by Byesville for a water supply.
February 1969
Fultz Landfill received an operating license from the
County Board of Health.
March 1969
Operator (Fultz) submitted the required Operational
Procedure Plan.
December 1969
through 1979
Operator repeatedly cited by the OEPA for inadequate
covering of waste, open dumping, leachate runoff and
receiving unauthorized industrial waste.
2
-------
---
c'
--'--.-
-.--
April 1978
May 1978
1979
March 1979
1980
1981
Early 1982
July 1982
April 1983
June 1983
April 1984
September 1984
February 1985
1985
1986
March 1988
March 1989
June 1991
._--_.~---
-----
An OEPA inspector reported seeing 1,000 drums on site.
Final disposition of drums unknown.
OEPA sent notifications to the known industrial clients
of the landfill informing them of potential liability
under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for
disposal of potential hazardous waste at an
unauthorized facility.
Operator informally requested OEPA permission to accept
industrial solvents for disposal. Formal application
never submitted, and request was denied.
.j
Operator submitted an operational report to OEPA.
OEPA conducted sampling inspection of site. Results
showed high levels of 10 metals plus phenolic compounds
in leachate.
Operator filed a request for solid waste disposal site
investigation as part of a request to expand the
boundaries of the landfill.
Request to expand landfill boundaries denied.
Hazard Ranking System evaluation prepared by Field
Investigation Team. Score exceeds 28.5 limit.
USEPA performed a Responsible Party Search (RPS) to
determine possible generators at the site.
OEPA sent requests for information regarding
Landfill, to known industrial clients of the
asking for records and information regarding
disposal at the site.
the Fultz
landfill,
waste
Final Remedial Action Master-Plan was prepared by
Consultants for USEPA, Region V.
Consultants received a USEPA work assignment to perform
a Remedial Investigation (Phase I).
OEPA submitted a preliminary assessment of the site to
the USEPA Region V.
OEPA renewed oper~tor's operational license.
Operator did not apply for license renewal and ceased
operations.
Draft and Final Remedial Investigation (RI) Report,
(Phase I), was prepared by Consultants for the USEPA,
Region V. Data from Phase I RI was incorporated into
the Phase II RI report.
Consultants received a USEPA work assignment to perform
a Remedial Investigation (Phase II), and Feasibility
Study (FS).
Draft and Final (Phase II) RIfFS Report are finalized
and released by the USEPA.
3
-------
--
June 27, 1991
July 11, 1991
July 27, 1991
Proposed Plan for remediation of site is presented to
public. Public comment period begins.
Public meeting is held in Byesville, Ohio to explain
and discuss Proposed Plan.
Public comment period ends.
The OEPA and County Board of Health records indicate that the landfill accepted
about four drums per week of spent lacquer thinners from a local industrial
plant as early as December of 1969. Based on the conservative assumption that
two industrial waste generators shipped four drums each of hazardous waste per
week for 10 years, it is estimated that 6,240 drums of hazardous waste may have
been accepted and disposed of at the Fultz Landfill site. Although limited
information is available concerning the character or volume of the wastes,
information obtained during the Phase I RI indicates that chlorinated and non-
chlorinated solvents and plating wastes represent the majority of the hazardous
wastes disposed of on site. Liquid and s~mi-liquid wastes were brought to the
site in drums, and some of the solvents were reportedly poured onto the ground
and burned. Some of the emptied drums were reportedly sent to be recycled.
A review of the Guernsey County General Health District's records of the
Landfill's 1974 and 1979 Solid Waste Disposal Questionnaires indicated a
solid waste volume of approximately 35 tons per operating day, or 11,000
per year. These records also indicate the following distribution of the
of wastes received regularly:
Fultz
total
tons
types
.
3\ construction/demolition
25\ household.
32\ industrial.
40\ commercial.
debris.
.
.
.
The USEPA Region V conducted a Responsible Party Search (RPS) for the Fultz
Landfill site in April 1983. The RPS identified several potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) in connection with hazardous waste disposal at the
site. Of the several possible parties listed, only three of the companies
provided documents confirming shipment of hazardous wastes to the Fultz
Landfill site. One generator reported that plating sludges were sent to the
Fultz Landfill site during the period 1971 to 1981. Another generator reported
that the following RCRA hazardous wastes were sent to the Fultz Landfill site
during the period 1969 to 1980: -
Rollwash sludge; non-flammable liquids (F006).
Triblend (trichloroethylene); flammable liquids
Waste paint; flammable liquids (D001).
Waste paint; flammable solids (DOO~.
Rags; non-flammable solids. ---
The types of chemicals and compounds associated with the above hazardous wastes
generally include hazardous metals, cyanide, chlorinated and non-chlorinated
organic solvents, and phthalates.
.
.
.
(FOOl).
.
.
III.
Hiahliahts of Community Participation
The RI/FS Report and the Proposed Plan for the Fultz Landfill site were
-released to the public for comment on June 27, 1991. These documents were made
available to the public in both the administrative record and an information
repository maintained at the USEPA Docket Room in Region V and at the Guernsey
County District Public Library Main Branch and Byesville Branch. The notice of
availability for these documents was published in The Daily Jeffersonian in
Cambridge, Ohio on June 27, 1991. The public comment period on the Proposed
Plan was from June 27, 1991 to July 27, 1991. In addition, a public meeting
4
-------
---
--
---.-
.----
-- --~ - -_.
was held on July 11, 1991, in Byesville, Ohio. At this meeting,
representatives from USEPA and the OEPA presented the Proposed Plan and
answered questions about the site and the remedial alternatives under
consideration. A response to the comments received during this period is
included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of
Decision (ROD). See Attachment 2. .
IV.
Sco e and Role of Res onse Action Withi
Site Strate
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Fultz Landfill site are
Complex. The Fultz Landfill Remedial Investigation (RI) studied the
contaminant source area (landfill), soils, surface water and sediments,
leachate and sediments surrounding leachate seeps, groundwater (both shallow
aquifer and deep "coal mine" aquifer), and air. Numerous carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic contaminants were detected in most media sampled.
Results of the RI concluded that groundwater and leachate as well as airborne
contaminants emanating from the site,-pose unacCeptable risks to human health
and/or the environment. The USEPA has identified four remedial action
objectives:
1.
Reduce potential for risks to human health associated with use of
groundwater from either the shallow aquifer Or the deeper coal mine
aquifer.
2.
Reduce risks to human health associated with the inhalation of airborne
Contaminants from the landfill area.
3.
Reduce risks to human health associated with the future Use of
groundwater from either the shallow aquifer or the deeper coal mine
aquifer.
4.
Reduce risks to the environment associated with excessive manganese
concentrations in the on-site surface waters.
This ROD addresses all of the above mentioned remedial action objectives.
By Capping the landfill and hYdraulically Containing, extracting and treating
groundwater and leachate emanating from the landfill, this remedial action
addresses the principal risks caused by the deposition of liquid hazardous
substances, to the maximum extent praCticable. Extraction and treatment of
groundwater in the shallow aquifer will also preclude the migration of
contaminants into the deeper coal mine aquifer by both reduction of the level
of contaminants in the shallow aquifer and by lowering the water table and
thereby reducing the exposure of groundwater to contaminants in the subsurface
of the landfill. Collecting leachate and capping the landfill will reduce
human health risks associated with inhaiation of airborne Contaminants
from the landfill and reduce risk to the environment due to excessive
concentrations of manganese. This is the first and final remedy for the Fultz
Landfill lite.
V.
Summary of Site Characteristics
Table 1 presents a summary of the chemicals detected during the RI at the Fultz
Landfill site and indicates which chemicals were site related. A description
of site characteristics and the chemicals detected by location and media type
.,follows.
A.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The hydrogeology of the Fultz Landfill site area is complex due to the
underground and Surface (strip) coal mining on and adjacent to the site.
conceptual model of groundwater flow at the Fultz Landfill site is a two-
The
5
-------
-- ---
--
. Six inorganic chemicals were detected above background in the leachate sediment
samples, including calcium, iron, silver, selenium, thallium and cyanide.
3.
Pond Water and Sediment Contamination
"
Surface water and sediment samples were collected from all six of the ponds on
site. Trichloroethene was detected at a concentration of 1.75 ~g/l in Pond 1.
Chlorobenzene, chloroform and l,l,l-trichloroethane were detected in the
sediments of all ponds. In addition to these compounds, phthalates were
detected in the sediments of Ponds 1, 3, and 4. Manganese was the only
inorganic chemical regularly detected above background, in the pond water
samples.
4.
Shallow Aquifer Contamination
The eastern shallow aquifer within the influence of the eastern groundwater
capture system contained relatively low concentrations of carbon disulfide,
chloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene, ethylbenzene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, vinyl
chloride, xylenes, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate).
All of the metals analyzed were detected above background concentrations, with
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese and
vanadium present in concentrations greater than 5 times the background
concentrations. Contaminants in the eastern shallow aquifer have the potential
of moving into the deep mine aquifer via Pond 2 and the coal barrier routes.
The coal barrier route is formed by unmined coal which was left in-place,
between the shallow and coal mine aquifers. See Figure 3.
The western shallow aquifer contained low concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethene,
ethylbenzene, tOluene, xylenes and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate which were found
mostly in a well that was screened in the landfill.
Some metals detected at off-site well nest M5/M6 were detected in on-site wells
immediately downgradient from the landfill. Concentrations were higher in the
well closer to the landfill (Well M5), than in the well M6, which is further
from the landfill. Metals concentrations in Well MS that were elevated above
the GW004 background sample include arsenic (136 ~g/l), barium (2120 ~g/l),
copper (277 ~g/l), lead (150 ~g/l), manganese (5,560 ~g/l), mercury (0.4 ~g/l)
and vanadium (126 ~g/l). Because groundwater gradients in the western shallow
aquifer indicate that groundwater flows from the western half of the site to
the sand and gravel aquifer under Wills Creek, it is probable that the metals
detected in Well M5 are site-related.
5.
Deep Mine Aquifer Contamination
The deep mine aquifer groundwater near the~oastern groundwater capture system
contained elevated concentrations of most of the metals found in the shallow
aquifer, but did not contain any ot the organics found in the shallow aquifer.
The deep mine aquifer groundwater near the coal barrier route was found to
contain elevated concentrations of only a few metals, but also contained low
concentrations of organics including vinyl chloride, 1,2-dichloroethene, and
benzoic acid. The vinyl chloride may be a biodegradation by product of the
trichloroethene reportedly disposed of in the landfill.
The deep mine aquifer contaminants reflect the effects of contaminated
groundwater moving from the shallow aquifer through the coal barrier route into
the deep mine aquifer. The contaminants found in the deep mine aquifer at this
location may also reflect the effects of contaminated groundwater moving from
the bedrock via secondary permeability in the rocks underlying the southern
half of the landfill.
7
-------
-------
aquifer system:
the shallow aquifer and the coal mine aquifer.
See Figure 4.
1. The shallow aquifer system is a local water table aquifer generally limited
to the unconsolidated valley sediments and strip mining spoils in stream valley
A. The overall groundwater flow direction in the stream valley A is from east
to west, with the exception of the region around Ponds 2 and 2A, where there is
a depression in the water table between Ponds 1 and 2 that forms a groundwater
capture, defined as the "Pond 2 groundwater capture area," which causes a
groundwater divide, splitting the shallow aquifer into eastern and western
systems.
a. Eastern system groundwater flow is dominated by radially inward
gradients centered around Wells M3, M10, and GWE04, and the Pond 2 and 2A
areas. This inward gradient makes groundwater flow down into the shallow
aquifer and then to the deeper coal mine aquifer, and acts as a
communication point between the two aquifers whereby contaminants in the
shallow aquifer migrate into the deeper coal mine aquifer. This is
referred to as the eastern groundwater capture system. See Figure 5.
b. Western system groundwater flow is west toward Wills Creek. The flow
originates partly from the mine spoil areas on the north and south sides
of Stream A, and partly from the western half of the Fultz Landfill site.
The groundwater then flows west beneath I-77 and into Wills Creek.
2. The coal mine aquifer system is a confined to partially-confined aquifer
that has formed in the abandoned Ideal Coal Mine due to the flooding of the
inter-connected underground mine workings of the Upper Freeport Coal. See
Figure 3. Groundwater flow directions lead from the Fultz Landfill site to the
Byesville Plant No.2 well. The withdrawal point for the Byesville Plant No.2
is approximately one mile south of the site. The City of Byesville uses the
coal mine aquifer system as a source of municipal water.
In addition to the shallow and coal mine aquifers, groundwater may also
seasonally occur above perching layers in intact bedrock above the mined Upper
Freeport Coal Seam. See Figure 4.
B.
SITE CONTAMINATION
1.
Surface Soil Contamination
The following organic chemicals were detected in the on-site samples: acetone,
di-n-butylphthalate, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene and toluene.
Selenium was the only inorganic chemical found in the on-site soil samples at
concentrations above background.
2.
Leachate and Leachate Sediment
~
Several organic chemicals were detected in the leachate water, including
acetone, benzene, benzyl alcohol, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chlorobenzene,
chloroethane, diethylphthalate, ethylbenzene, 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol,
n-nitrosodiphenylamine, naphthalene, phenol, toluene and xylenes. The
concentrations ranged from 2 ~g/l for benzene, to 150 ~g/l for ethylbenzene.
The following inorganic chemicals were detected in the leachate water at levels
above the background range: barium, calcium, chromium, magnesium, manganese,
potassium and sodium.
Several organic chemicals were detected in the leachate sediment samples
including acetone, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, butylbenzylphthalate,
benzo(a)anthracene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 3,3-dichlorobenzidene,
di-n-octylphthalate, ethylbenzene, dibenzofuran, fluoranthene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, methylene chloride, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, toluene and xylenes.
6
-------
6.
Chemicals in the Background Environment
Fourteen polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in the Phase II
background soil, sediment, and water samples. PAHs can be associated with
coal, coal tar or other coal distillation products, as well as coal and
petroleum combustion products. Because they are common trace chemicals in the
environment, PAHs were not attributed to the landfill based on the available
background data and screening criteria. Aside from the typical metals normally
associated with coal such as iron and manganese, several other heavy metals
have been documented in the literature as being associated with coal pile
leachate, including arsenic, antimony, and selenium. In order for a compound
to become a Contaminant of Potential Concern (COPC), it would have to be
present at twice (2X) the detected background concentration. In the RI, if a
contaminant was found on site and not in background samples, it would be
considered a COPC.
C.
ROUTES OF MIGRATION
1.
Migration through Surface Water and Sediment
Contaminated surface water at the Fultz Landfill site is present in the
leachate seeps around the base of the landfill. Contamination in these seeps
results from the infiltration of precipitation into the landfill surface, and
subsequent percolation through the wastes. Leachate seeps on the eastern side
of the landfill enter Pond 2, and the water in Pond 2 ultimately infiltrates
into the groundwater system. Leachate seeps on the western side of the
landfill enter Stream A downgradient of the site, which in turn flows into
Wills Creek.
Many of the contaminants in the leachate water and sediment are the same as
those detected in groundwater, the concentrations of the contaminants are an
order of magnitude higher in the seep samples. Lower contaminant levels are
seen in the groundwater because the leachate is diluted when it mixes with the
groundwater.
2.
Migration within Groundwater
Contaminated groundwater beneath the eastern half of the landfill flows to the
deep mine aquifer by two main routes: (1) north through a pathway created by
the intersection of the strip mine and deep mine near Ponds 2 and 2A, and
(2) south through potential mining-related breaches or natural fractures in the
coal barrier that separate the shallow and deep mine aquifers. .
Groundwater from the western side of the landfill flows north towards the
western end of Stream A and into Wills c~eek. Groundwater infiltrating into
the bedrock moves mostly via unsaturated~low into the deep mine. In areas
where the bedrock is undermined, contamination may also be transported through
subsidence fractures.
3.
Migration into and through Air
Volatile compounds can migrate from the soil, leachate, and/or surface water
into the air. Of the several volatile organic compounds which were found in
the soil, leachate, or surface water, only benzene, toluene, and acetone were
detected during the air monitoring survey. See Figure 10 for exact locations
of air monitoring points.
VI.
Summary of Site Risks
Presented in the following section is a discussion which provides an indication
of the actual and potential risks to human health and the environment posed by
conditions at the Fultz Landfill site. This information supports the decision
8
-------
----
-
~--=-.;..=...-~--
-
--.-.
---
to take remedial action at the Fultz Landfill site.
1.
Human H.alth Risks
A.
Media of Concern
Chemicals detected in surface water and sediment, surface soil, groundwater,
leachate and sediment, and air are identified for evaluation in the risk
assessment.
B. Contaminants of Potential Concern and Concentrations for each Medium
1. Groundwater - Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells
(Figure 5) as well as from several residential wells (Figure 6) and the
Byesville Plant No.2 well. Monitoring well data from Phases I and II were
combined in the risk assessment in order to provide a more complete data base
that is more representative of the range_of groundwater quality that could
occur at the site. Groundwater data from the monitoring wells were presented
separately for the shallow aquifer and the coal mine aquifer. Data from the
residential wells and the Byesville water supply well were evaluated
individually by well.
a.
Shallow Aquifer
The shallow aquifer well group is comprised of 15 wells that are screened
in the alluvial sediment and strip mine spoil materials on site, along
Stream A and in the bedrock immediately beneath the landfill. See
Figure 5. Data from the shallow aquifer on-site wells is presented in
Table 2.
b.
Coal Mine Aquifer
Four monitoring wells are screened in the coal mine aquifer located in
the Upper Freeport Coal seam. Data from the deep mine aquifer wells were
summarized in Table 3.
c.
Off-Site Residential Wells
Five residential wells in the area and one background well (RW004) were
sampled. A data summary for the s~x residential wells is presented in
Table 4.
d.
Byesville Water Supply Well (Plant No.2)
The City of Byesville operates two ~umping and treatment plants for the
supply of community water. Plant N~. 2 pumps groundwater from the deep
mine aquifer east of the city. The average of the untreated sample and
its duplicate as well as the treated sample results are presented in
Table 5.
2. Leachate and Sediment around Leachate Seeps - Phase II RI data is used for
the evaluation of risk based on the leachate seeps. The leachate sampling
locations are shown on Figure 7. Data from samples of leachate and sediment
around leachate seeps are summarized in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
3. Surface Water and Sediment - Phase II RI surface water and sediment data
are used in the risk assessment. Surface water and sediment samples were
collected from mid-stream or mid-pond at mid-depth from two locations on Stream
A (upstream and downstream of the landfill), from five of the ponds, and from
four locations along Wills Creek. See Figure 7 for exact sampling locations.
9
-------
-....--- --
-.---
a. Stream A and Ponds
Surface water and sediment data for Stream A and the ponds are presented
in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.
b. Wills Creek
Tables 10 and 11 present the data results for the Wills Creek surface
water and sediment, respectively.
4. Soils - Surface soil samples were collected from the Fultz Landfill site
from ten locations. In addition, three off-site locations were sampled to
represent background conditions. The sampling locations are indicated on
Figure 8, and analytical summaries for the on-site surface soil samples and the
background surface soil samples are presented in Table 12.
5. Air - An ambient air quality monitoring survey was conducted to measure the
total concentration of volatile organic compounds in the ambient air at the
site. Seven air 5ampling stations were established at various locations around
the site. The sampling locations are indicated on Figure 10. The frequencies
of detection and the maximum concentrations of detected chemicals are presented
in Table 13.
2. Exposure Assessment
Exposure pathwavs
Exposure pathways (the link between the source and receptor), by which human
populations could be exposed to contaminants are defined by a source and
mechanism of chemical release to the environment, an environmental transport
medium for the released chemical, a point of potential exposure by the receptor
with the medium (Le., the "exposure point"), and a route of exposure (i.e.,
inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact).
1. Current Use Scenario
Exposure pathways that were quantitatively evaluated under residential land use
conditions were:
.
direct contact with sediments in Stream A and its ponds by children
and teenagers;
.
direct contact with sediments in Wills Creek by children and
teenagers;
.
direct contact with surface water in Stream A and its ponds by
children and teenagers; ~:
.
direct contact with surface soil by children and teenagers;
.
ingestion of groundwater from the Byesville water supply by off-
site (Byesville) residents and inhalation exposure via showering;
.
ingestion of groundwater by nearby residents (inhalation exposure
via showering will be qualitatively evaluated);
infrequent direct contact with leachate seeps by children and
teenagers;
.
.
infrequent direct contact with leachate sediments by children and
teenagers; and
10
-------
. --.- ---- '-
-----.-
---
--
.--- ---
- --
2.
.. direct" inhalation of airborne chemicals by n~arby residents.
Future Use Scenario
Exposure pathways that were quantitatively evaluated under residential land use
are:
.
direct contact with surface soil by hypothetical residents on the
Fultz Landfill sitei
.
ingestion and inhalation (while showering) of groundwater from the
shallow aquifer by hypothetical residents on the Fultz Landfill
sitei and
.
ingestion and inhalation (while showering) of groundwater from the
deep aquifer by hypothetical residents on the Fultz Landfill site.
EXDOsure Point Concentrations
Exposure point concentrations were derived for evaluating a reasonable maximum
exposure (RME) case. They represent possible upper bound exposures for a
typical individual by combining reasonable maximum exposure estimates with
upper bound toxicity criteria. The upper 95th confidence limit of the
arithmetic mean concentration for each chemical is combined with reasonable
maximum values describing the extent, frequency, and duration of exposure to
estimate Chronic Daily Intakes (CDIs) for the RME case.
Exposure point concentrations used to estimate risks for inorganic chemicals of
concern are based on total inorganic analytical results (i.e., non-filtered
samples) for groundwater and surface water. Dissolved estimates of inorganics
were not used in this risk assessment because dissolved estimates may tend to
underestimate exposure (the screens on potable wells are not a8 fine as the
filter systems used to analyze dissolved concentrations). An assumption is that
exposure point concentrations will remain constant over the exposure period
assumed under the different exposure scenarios evaluated. This is a reasonable
assumption for persistent chemicals or where a large reservoir of chemicals
exists.
CDIs were used to predict potential human intakes of chemicals of concern.
Concentrations of chemicals in relevant e~vironmental media at points of
potential exposure points were used to estimate CDIs. CDIs are expressed as
the amount of a substance taken into the body per unit body weight per day, or
mg/kg-day. A CDI is averaged over a lifetime for carcinogens and over the
exposure period for non carcinogens. Estimates of CDIs are then used to predict
the potential health risks associated with exposures to carcinogens and the
potential for adverse noncarcinogenic healih effects.
The USEPA has not derived a Reference Dose (RfD) for lead, one of the selected
chemicals of concern listed in the risk assessment. Exposures to lead were not
evaluated by deriving a CDI. Instead a pharmacokinetic model (the Integrated
Uptake/Biokinetic [IU/BKJ Model) developed by the USEPA was used to evaluate
the impact of potential lead exposures on blood lead levels in young children.
For direct contact with sediments from on-site soil and sediments, the risk
assessment assumed that children and teenagers, from 6 to 16 years of age would
be exposed 109 days per years for 10 years. To estimate dermal exposures, the
amount of sediment accumulation on skin, the area of skin exposed, and the
amount of chemical absorption are defined in the RI. An estimate of the amount
of sediment accumulation on skin of 1.45 mg sediment/cm% for the RME case is
used for this pathway based on an estimated average soil accumulation rate and
adjusted to account for potential differences between sediment and soil
adherence to skin. The surface area of exposed skin was calculated assuming the
hands, arms, legs, and feet (6,810 cm%) would be exposed for the RME case
11
-------
"(i.e., assuming children play in the sediments). Thus, sediment contact rate
(in mg sediment/day) was calculated by multiplying the sediment accumulation
rate of 1.45 mg/cm- by the exposed skin area (in cm=/day).
For incidental ingestion of soil and leachate sediment, a weighted average
ingestion rate for the 6- to l6-year age period was calculated based on values
provided for soil. The weighted average ingestion rate was a conservative
estimate (6- to l6-year olds), based on the results from a recent study on soil
ingestion among 1 to 4 year olds.
Many of the assumptions used in the risk assessment when evaluating exposure
point concentrations and ceIs under cur~ent and future use scenarios for
ingestion of groundwater (shallow and deep aquifers) and inhalation while
showering with groundwater (shallow and deep aquifers) are similar. Parameters
used to evaluate ingestion of groundwater for current and future use scenarios
are a person weighing 70 kg ingesting 2.0 l/day for 365 days/year over a 70 .
year period. For inhalation of contaminants while showering with groundwater, a
Foster and Chrostowski model was used to assess the possible inhalation
exposures. Section 6.3.5- Estimation of Human Exposure in the RI can be
referred to for further discussions of parameters and concentrations used to
determine exposure point concentrations.
3. Toxicity Assessment
In the risk assessment individual pollutants are separated into two categories
of chemical toxicity depending on whether they exhibit noncarcinogenic or
carcinogenic effects. For the purpose of assessing risks associated with
potential carcinogens, the scientific position is that a small number of
molecular events can cause changes in a single cell or a small number of cells
that can lead to tumor formation.
For chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects, it is believed that organisms
have protective mechanisms that must be overcome before the toxic endpoint is
manifested. For example, if a large number of cells perform the same or
similar functions, it would be necessary for significant damage or depletion of
these cells to occur before an effect could be seen. This threshold view holds
that a range of exposures from just above zero to some finite value can be
tolerated by the organism without appreciable risk of causing the disease.
Some chemicals can also exhibit both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects.
A. Cancer Potency Factors for Contaminant~ of Concern that are carcinogens
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by the USEPA's carcinogenic
Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)OI, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential
carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term
"upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from
the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk
highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human
extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied. Health criteria for
potentially carcinogenic chemicals of concern are presented in Table 14.
B. Reference Doses for the Contaminants of Concern that have
Noncarcinogenic Effects
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by USEPA for indicating the
potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting
noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are
estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive
12
-------
--. ---
-
~_.'-
-----.
-~--
individuals, that are not likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse
health effects. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g.,
the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be
compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or
animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account
for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty
factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for
adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur. Health criteria for noncarcinogenic
chemicals are presented in Table 15.
C. Health effects for Lead
The USEPA has not developed an RfD or Cancer Potency Factor for lead. Chronic
health effects associated with lead exposure have been related to elevated lead
concentrations in the blood. Investigations have indicated that the adverse
effects of lead are dependent upon the age of the exposed individual.
Exposures to lead are highly variable, the same daily dose in mg/kg/day may
have different effects on individuals of different ages. Therefore, measures
of total lead in the body [via blood lead levels (PbB») are believed to be more
accurate correlates of the potential effects of lead than are average daily
exposure levels (in mg/kg/day).
The Center for Disease Control considers a blood lead level of 25 ~g/l or
greater in combination with an erythrocyte protoporphyrin (EP) level of 35 ~g/l
or greater to be potentially toxic. More recent studies suggest that much
lower levels, in the 10-15 ~g/dl range, may be a public health concern. In the
risk assessment, the health criterion for lead is considered to be in the 10-15
~g/dl range. Table 16 presents the total lead uptake for all sources combined.
4. Risk Char.ct.riza~ioD
A. Carcinogenic Risks
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake level
with the cancer potency factor. These risks are probabilities that are
generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., lxlO~ or lE-6). An excess
lifetime cancer risk of lx10~ indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an
individual has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen ov~r a 70-year lifetime under the
specific exposure conditions at a site. The following tables present
quantified carcinogenic risk of each contaminant along with combined
carcinogenic risks.
Evaluated in the risk assessment were:
Current Use:
~...:
1. Direct Contact with Stream A Sediments, Table 17
2. Direct Contact with Stream A Surface Water, Table 18
3. Direct Contact with Soil, Table 19
4. Ingestion of Groundwater, off-site Residential Wells,
5. Direct Contact with Leachate, Table 21
6. Direct Contact with Leachate Sediments, Table 22
7. Inhalation of Airborne Contaminants, Nearby Residents,
Table 20
Table 23
Future Use:
1. Direct Contact with Soil, Table 24
2. Ingestion of Groundwater from Shallow Aquifer, Table 25
3. Ingestion of Groundwater from Deep Mine Aquifer, Table 26
4. Inhalation while showering with Groundwater from the Shallow
Aquifer, Table 27
13
-------
5. Potential for Adverse Effects from Exposure to Lead, Table 16
B. Noncarcinogenic Effects
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a
single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the
estimated intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium
to the contaminant's reference dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants
within a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably
be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. The following tables present
the potential for noncarcinogenic effects for each contaminant of concern along
with the combined potential for noncarcinogenic effects.
Current Use:
1. Direct Contact with Stream A Sed~ments, Table 17
2. Direct Contact with Stream A Surface Water, Table 18
3. Direct Contact with Soil, Table 19
4. Ingestion of Groundwater, off-site Residential Wells,
5. Direct Contact with Leachate, Table 21
6. Direct Contact with Leachate Sediments, Table 22
7. Inhalation of Airborne Contaminants, Nearby Residents,
Table 20
Table 23
Future Use:
1. Direct Contact with soil, Table 24
2. Ingestion of Groundwater from Shallow Aquifer, Table 25
3. Ingestion of Groundwater from Deep Mine Aquifer, Table 26
4.. Inhalation while showering with Groundwater from the Shallow
Aquifer, Table 27
5. Inhalation while showering with Groundwater from the deep mine
aquifer,
Table 28
UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in the risk assessment for the
Fultz Landfill site, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety
of uncertainties. Uncertainties regarding the human health assessments are
summarized in Table 29, along with their likely effects on risk estimation. In
general, the main sources of uncertainty in a risk assessment are:
. Environmental sampling and analysis;
. Exposure parameter estimation; a~
. Toxicological data .
5. Environmental Assessment
Methodology used in the environmental assessment roughly parallel those used in
human health risk assessment, and follow currently released guidance.
Potentially exposed populations (receptors) are identified, and then
information on exposure and toxicity are combined to derive estimates of risk.
Some of the descriptions presented in the Environmental Assessment were not
based entirely on site-specific information but rather on a thorough literature
search of the region. Risk estimates are limited to the population (species)
level, because data on community and ecosystem level responses to environmental
pollutants are generally lacking. The uncertainties associated with the
Environmental Assessment of this site were not included in Table 29.
14
-------
----
------
---
-----
Terrestrial Ecosvstem
The region surrounding the landfill is a mixture of open fields used for
grazing cattle and woodland areas of deciduous forest. GOldenrod, Queen Anne's
lace, bull thistle, clover, milkweed and a mixture of grasses are found in the
open grassland areas surrounding the site. Tree species commonly found in
mixed-hardwood stands in this region include beech, black birch, black cherry,
black locust, elm, hickory, red maple, red oak, sassafras, white oak, and
yellow birch. Mayapple, pink ladY's-slipper, and wintergreen are plants that
may be found in the herbaceous layer of hardwood forests.
The woodlands in the vicinity of the Fultz Landfill site may provide breeding
and feeding areas for resident and migratory birds, as well as mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians. Amphibians in the woodland areas may include
Fowler's toad, red spotted newt, and four-toed salamander. Black racer and the
eastern box turtle are probably the dominant reptiles of the woodlands. Bird
species likely to use the open grassland areas and woodlots include robin,
American gOldfinch, eastern meadowlark, cardinal, barn swallow, pigeon,
mourning dove, vireos, warblers and other passerine species. The belted
kingfisher and green-backed heron inhabit areas around Stream A and on-site
ponds. Raptor species common in the woodlands include red-tailed hawk, turkey
vulture, American Kestrel, and screech owl. Mammalian species include eastern
cottontail, eastern mole, masked shrew, meadow vole, opossum, raccoon,
shorttail shrew, star-nosed mole, white-footed mouse, white-tailed deer, and
woodchuck. During site investigations, numerous signs of white-tailed deer
were noticed.
AQUatic Ecosvstem
Chemicals of potential concern were identified in the sediments of Wills Creek
and the surface water and sediments of Stream A and on-site ponds. Aquatic
species that may be found in Wills Creek and Stream A and the associated
retention pond include plankton and macroinvertebrate species, crayfish, common
shiners, sunfish, suckers, and striped bass. In addition, several mammalian
species may feed in and around these surface water bodies, including beaver,
marsh rice rat, masked shrew, mink, and muskrat. During previous site visits,
beaver activity was noticed along Pond 1. Water snakes, water turtles, frogs,
and algae were noticed along Stream A, the ponds, and Wills Creek. No sport
fish were noticed in these surface water bodies. The wetlands surrounding on-
site ponds, may be impacted by the site. -
Potential Excosure pathwavs
Selection of indicator species is driven by several factors, including species
diversity at the site, the potential for exposure, and the availability of
toxicity data. ~
The white-tailed deer was selected as the indicator species for evaluating this
pathway because of its high potential for exposure (numerous signs of deer were
noticed along the banks of the on-site ponds). Potential impact from ingesting
of surface water by white-tailed deer was evaluated by comparing the
concentrations of chemicals of potential concern in surface water with
recommended maximum dietary levels for livestock drinking water developed by
NAS (1980) and Puls (1988). Recommended maximum dietary levels for livestock
are presented in Table 30. These levels provide a basis for comparison as to
the maximum dietary levels for deer.
Concentrations of manganese detected in Pond 1, Pond lA, Pond 2, Pond 3, Pond
4, Pond 5, and downstream of Pond 5 exceeded the recommended maximum dietary
level for livestock developed by Pule (1988). The highest detected
concentration of manganese in surface water exceeded the maximum dietary level
for livestock. by a factor of 30. Therefore, white-tailed deer that ingest
15
-------
---
surface water from these surface water bodies around Fultz Landfill may be
adversely affected.
Risk Assessment Conclusions
Major conclusions presented in the risk assessment for the Fultz Landfill site
are presented in Table 31. In summary, the major risks at the site are posed
by ingestion of groundwater and inhalation while showering with groundwater
from either the shallow aquifer or the deeper coal mine aquifer, based on
future residential use of the landfill. The possibility of residential
development on or near the landfill is based on the Ohio Department of
Development projection for population growth for the towns of Byesville and
Cambridge and the corresponding need for additional land necessary to develop
residential areas. The additional population will create a greater demand for
water thereby increasing the use of, at a minimum, the deep mine aquifer as a
water supply source. This increased demand could result in a reduction in the
present dilution of contamination in thegeep mine aquifer and could increase
the migration of contamination from the shallow aquifer to the deep mine
aquifer. The cumulative carcinogenic risk posed by ingestion of groundwater or
inhalation while showering with groundwater from either the shallow aquifer or
the deeper coal mine aquifer would be lxlO'), which does not fall within the
USEPA acceptable risk range of lx10~ to lxlO~. In addition, the environmental
risk assessment concluded that the site poses an unacceptable risk to white-
tailed deer.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
VII.
Description of Alternatives
Alternatives discussed in the FS for the Fultz Landfill site were developed by
combining the technologies and process options and evaluating them against
remedial action objectives. The remedial action objectives considered are:
1.
Reduce potential for risks to human health associated with
the use of contaminated groundwater from either the shallow
aquifer or the deeper coal m~ne aquifer.
2.
Reduce risks to human health associated with the inhalation
of airborne contaminants from the landfill area~
3.
Reduce risks to human health associated with the future use
of groundwater from either t~ shallow aquifer or the deeper
coal mine aquifer. -
4.
Reduce risks to the environment associated with excessive
manganese concentrations in the on-site surface waters.
The remedial action alternatives discussed in the FS and a description of them
are as follows:
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
No.5:
No.6:
No.7:
No.8:
No Action
Institutional Controls and Monitoring
Multi-layer Cap
Multi-layer Cap with Groundwater Extraction and
Treatment
On-site RCRA Landfill
Multi-layer Cap with Subsurface Barrier
Groundwater Extraction (without cap)
Cap with Upgrade of the Byesville Water Treatment
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
No.1:
No.2:
No.3:
No.4:
16
-------
--.-
----.---
-------
------
Alternative NO.9:
Alternative No. 10:
Plant.
On-site Landfill with Groundwater Extraction
Coal mine aquifer cut-off barrier.
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
The no action alternative is a no cost alternative that is required to be
retained by the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Under this alternative, the
site would be left as is without taking any steps to reduce the risks of
expOsure to contamination. The no action alternative can therefore be used as
a baseline for comparison to other alternatives developed.
ALTERNATIVE 2:
INSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS AND MONITORING
This alternative attempts to meet the remedial action objectives 1, 2, and 3 by
restricting access to the site thereby preventing human eXPOSure. Remedial
action objective 3 is addressed also by restrictions on future use of the site
for water supplies and habitation.
The components of Alternative 2 are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Institutional Controls
Site Fence
Alternate Water Supply
Monitoring
1.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls would be sought to reduce exposure to site contaminants
by legally restricting access to the site. Deed restrictions on land and water
use on and adjacent to the landfill would be sought from the landfill owner and
nearby residents. A public information program to advise nearby residents of
the nature of the problem at the site would be established. The USEPA would
request local municipalities to enact local and zoning ordinances that will
forbid future use of the site that would expose humans to contamination, and
restricting the drilling of wells and the use of groundwater and surface water.
2.
Site Fence
Prior to the commencement of any work on the Fultz Landfill site and
immediately following initial mobilization, an equipment staging/site
admittance area would be constructed. A 6-foot high chain-link fence
approximately 10,000 feet in length, would be installed 'around the entire Fultz
Landfill site to restrict access and reduce direct exposure to surface
contamination. The fence will be topped with barbed wire and equipped with
warning signs posted at 100-foot intervalS~long the fence. Periodic
inspection and maintenance of the fence will also be required. Locked gates
will be installed to permit controlled access to the site for monitoring and
maintenance.
3.
Alternate Water Supply
A water supply inventory would be conducted to identify all residential wells
that are downgradient and affected by the Fultz Landfill site. The depth of
each well would be ascertained to determine if it is screened in one of the
~otential1y contaminated aquifers. A sample would be taken from each well and
analyzed using analytical methods appropriate to characterize water intended
for drinking for the full Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Target Compounds
List for organic contaminants (TCL) and the Target Analyte List for inorganic
contaminants (TAL). Residential wells with site-related contamination that are
found to present an unacceptable risk and contain groundwater concentrations
above Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs), would be connected to the municipal
17
-------
drinking water supply.
4.
Monitoring
Long-term monitoring of air, surface water, leachate, groundwater, and
sediments would be performed in accordance with Ohio Administrative Code 3745-
54-90 through 99 and other applicable regulations for a minimum of 30 years to
evaluate the migration of contaminants from the landfill and to monitor the
effects of natural attenuation. The actual monitoring plan would be determined
during remedial design. One possible monitoring plan could be as follows:
Ambient air monitoring would be performed quarterly at a minimum. Four samples
obtained from the vicinity of the landfill (1 upwind and 3 downwind) would be
analyzed for volatile contaminants. Ambient air monitoring would also be
conducted during the remedial action implementation phase.
Quarterly monitoring of surface water and sediment would be performed at 2
locations in Wills Creek, two locations ~n Stream A and S, and one location in
each of Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 6. Chemical analysis will consist of the full TCL
and TAL. The purpose of this sampling and analysis would be to monitor the
levels of various contaminants in Valley A, Valley S, and Wills Creek resulting
from the discharge of the shallow and coal mine aquifers, or leachate from the
landfill, to the ponds or streams.
Quarterly sampling of leachate at 8 locations would also be performed. The
purpose of these samples will be to monitor any changes in the level of
contamination in the leachate over time. Leachate will be analyzed for the
same parameters as surface water/sediment.
For groundwater monitoring, existing regulations (Ohio Administrative Code
3745-27-10 and Ohio Administrative Code 3745-65-91) call for a minimum of one
upgradient well and three downgradient wells. Because of the size ,and
complexity of the Fultz Landfill site, additional monitoring would be
performed. One potential groundwater monitoring plan would be as follows:
Shallow Aquifer: 10 points (8 existing wells, 2 new)
Coal mine Aquifer: 9 points (6 existing wells, 3 new)
Two new wells in the shallow aquifer would be needed to fill a data gap that
exists downgradient of the existing land~ill to the west. Three new coal mine
aquifer wells would be needed downgradient of the existing landfill to the
southeast to supplement GW005 and GW006 in detecting possible migration of
contaminants towards the Byesville municipal well. One of the new coal mine
aquifer wells would be installed southeast of the existing landfill in an area
where the mine is constricted because con~amination that might not be detected
in other wells would be more likely to b'~bserved in this area. See Figure 10.
Groundwater sampling would be performed semi-annually at a minimum. The above-
referenced monitoring program should be sufficient to monitor contaminant
migration both horizontally and vertically. Chemical analysis would consist of
the full TCL and TAL. Five-year reviews would be instituted in order to re-
evaluate the site conditions on a periodic basis. The reviews would include a
detailed analysis of the long-term monitoring data, a temporal and spatial
evaluation of contaminant migration and attenuation in various media, an
assessment of current residual health risks, an evaluation of the effectiveness
of the institutional controls, response to public comments or complaints
received during the five-year period, and an evaluation of what additional
remedial measures, if any, would be implemented based on the reviewed site
conditions.
The capital cost of this alternative is S 519,600. The Operation & Maintenance
(O&M) cost is S 109,400. The total present worth cost over a 30 year period
18
-------
---
"-==- '''''''';'''~
----
considering an interest rate of 5\ is S
implement this alternative is less than
alternative are the Safe Drinking Water
regarding proper closure of a landfill.
2,284,600. The time required to
1 year. Key ARARs not addressed by this
Act (SDWA) MCLs and Ohio standards
ALTERNATIVE 3:
MULTI-LAYER RCRA CAP
Closure of the existing landfill would be performed by installation of a 30
acre cap, gas venting system, and leachate collection system. The cap would
meet the remedial action objectives 1, 3, and 4 by reducing the migration of
contamination from the landfill into the shallow and coal mine aquifers and the
production of leachate. A cap would meet remedial action objective 2 by
preventing exposure through direct inhalation of airborne contamination. The
cap would be designed to meet Ohio landfill closure requirements. A Subtitle C
RCRA cap is necessary because of disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes after 1980.
The components of Alternative 3 are:
1-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Institutional Controls
Site Fence
Alternate Water Supply
Monitoring
Subsurface Structural Supports
Surface Water and Sediment Controls
Multi-layer Cap
Leachate Collection System
Wetlands Replacement
Institutional Controls, Site Fence and Alternate Water Supply
Items 1. through 3. of Alternative 2 would be performed.
4.
Monitoring
Because the landfill would be capped with this alternative, and the leachate
collected for off-site disposal, no leachate samples would be collected for
analysis. Long-term monitoring of surface water, groundwater, combustible gas,
and sediments will be performed in accordance with Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) 3745-54-90 through 99 and other applicable regulations for a minimum of
30 years to evaluate the migration of contaminants from the landfill and to
monitor the effects of natural attenuation.
5.
Subsurface Structural Supports
Subsurface support would be provided for the mine voids under the landfill to
prevent damage of the cap by subsequent mine subsidence and to reduce the
potential for bedrock fracturing between~he landfill and the coal mine
aquifer. There are two standard approaches to providing subsidence supports,
namely, grout pillars and mine flushing.
a. Grout Pillar Method
The grout-pillar method would provide roof support by drilling into a
mine cavity and installing wide pillars made of material similar to
concrete. The pillars would be installed so .that they achieve a minimum
contact area (generally six feet in diameter) with the roof of the mine.
The pillars would be built up in layers to prevent the concrete from
slumping away. In areas where the mine is flooded, special admixtures
are added to the mix to compensate for the water in the mine.
b. Mine Flushing Method
The mine flushing method would attempt to fill entire mine voids with a
lower cost mixture, usually consisting of fly ash, cement, sand, and
19
-------
water. Sometimes coarser aggregate is used in sloping or flooded mines.
The mix is pumped down a borehole into the mine with a large quantity of
water. As the mix flows through the mined-out rooms, the solids settle
out of the mix and the water flows through. After a time the solids
build up from the mine floor to the roof providing support.
6.
Surface Water and Sediment Controls
Part of Stream Valley A northeast of the existing landfill would be regraded to
eliminate standing surface water, and divert runoff away from the landfill.
This would include filling in Ponds 2, 2A, and 3 and constructing a clean water
diversion channel in the approximate location of Stream A from the western end
of Pond 1 to the culvert downstream of Pond 6 to divert runoff away from the
landfill. In order to provide sediment control for earth disturbances
resulting from capping the landfill, a sediment control pond would be
constructed in an area to the northwest of Pond 6. The size of the sediment
pond at maximum pool level would be equal to or greater than the combined area
of Ponds 2, 2A, and 3. A sediment control ditch would be constructed at the
base of the existing landfill to channel -runoff from the landfill to the
sediment control pond. The northern part of Valley A along the border of the
existing landfill would be filled and graded to elevation 820 feet MSL to
remove standing surface water from that part of the valley. Ponds 2, 2A, and 3
would be breached and filled in to avoid interference with the leachate
collection system. The outlet elevation of Pond 1 would be reduced from
elevation 814 feet MSL to elevation 808 feet MSL for the same purpose. This
would cause an estimated 20% reduction in the size of the pond, while
significantly reducing the potential for groundwater flow from Pond 1 to the
leachate collection system.
7. Multi-layer Cap
A berm would be constructed of compacted clay along the northern side of the
landfill to bring the toe of the cap up to elevation 835 feet MSL and reduce
the overall slope of the cap to about 5-1/2\. Following the construction of
the containment berm, a multi-layer cap would be installed over the entire 30
acre landfill area. A detail schematic of the multi-layer cap is presented in
Figure 11. Cap layers would include (from the bottom up):
Random earth fill required in places to grade off the existing landfill
and establish an even slope of 5-1/2\;-
A synthetic drainage layer for gas-collection with filter fabric above
and below;
A 24-inch thick compacted clay layer (10~ cm/s permeability);
A 40-mil HDPE synthetic liner;
A synthetic drainage layer for infiltration with filter fabric above;
A 30-inch thick random earth fill; and
A 6-inch thick topsoil layer. ~-
Surface and subsurface diversion drains at the top of the landfill would be
used to collect and divert any water which might flow towards the landfill.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.
Leachate Collection System
The quantity of leachate that would be produced by the landfill once it is
capped was estimated using the U.S.G.S. HELP model. The current rate of
infiltration predicted by the HELP model is 4.2 inches per year or about 4.88
gallons per minute (GPM). This prediction corresponds well with the field
estimates of the volume of seeps from the landfill as 2 to 4 GPM. After
capping, the steady-state infiltration is predicted to be 0.02 inches per year
or 0.02 GPM.
20
-------
F._.
--" ---
----
-..-
--------
The leachate collection system would be installed along the northern side of
the landfill to intercept groundwater leaving the landfill. It would consist
of a subdrain similar to the upgradient groundwater diversion drain extending
below the lowest elevation of landfill waste or about elevation 795 feet MSL.
The rock drain would be sloped to a central sump from which the accumulated
leachate can be pumped for off-site treatment or disposal. See Figure 12.
9.
Wetlands Replacement
During the design and construction of Alternative 3, every effort would be made
to minimize the disturbance of areas identified as wetlands. Since the
disruption of the wetland environment is anticipated from proposed remedial
activities, a study to delineate the extent of wetlands and develop a plan for
remediation would be conducted. At a minimum, the wetlands replacement plan
would include replacement or restoration of the ponds and surrounding habitat.
Upon completion of construction, the clean water diversion channel would be re-
routed into the sediment pond, and the base water level of the sediment pond
would be raised to provide pond surface area equal to the area lost by the
elimination of Ponds 2 and 3 and the lowering of the pool level of Pond 1.
Every attempt would be made to provide a minimum of a 1 to 1 wetlands
mitigation.
The capital cost of this alternative is S 14,724,900. The O&M cost is S
245,000. The total present worth cost over a 30 year period considering an
interest rate of 5\ is S IB,906,900. The time required to implement this
alternative is 3 years. Key ARARs addressed with this alternative are Ohio
closure requirements for landfills, and SWDA MCLs.
ALTERNATIVE 4:
MULTI-LAYER CAP, GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND ON-SITE TREATMENT
This alternative would attempt to meet the remedial action objectives in the
same way as Alternative 3, with the added advantage that contaminated
groundwater would be removed from the shallow aquifer and treated. The
groundwater extraction and treatment system attempts to improve the
effectiveness of Alternative 3 by directly intercepting a groundwater
contaminant migration route and removing leachate directly from the existing
landfill. The multi-layer cap, groundwater extraction and treatment system
attempts to address the principal threat by containing the source material to
the maximum extent practicable.
The components of Alternative 4 are:
1-
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11-
12.
Institutional Controls
Site Fence
Alternate Water Supply
Monitoring
Subsurface Structural Supports
Surface Water and Sediment Controls
Multi-layer Cap
Leachate Collection System
Extraction Well System
On-site Water Treatment Plant
Discharge of Treated Water To Surface Water
Wetlands Replacement
-~
Components Similar To Alternative 3
With Alternative 4, Items 1 through 8 of Alternative 3 would be performed, with
the exception that leachate would be discharged to an on-site treatment system
rather than hauled off-site. Since an on-site treatment system would be needed
to economically treat the volume of groundwater extracted from the shallow
aquifer, it would be most cost-effective to treat the leachate in the same
21
-------
--- .-.-----.
system rather than" haul it off-site. Item 12 as described in alternative 3,
would also be included with Alternative 4.
9.
Extraction Well System
An array of extraction wells would be installed in the shallow aquifer to; 1)
lower the water table in the landfill area, 2) intercept and hydraulically
contain groundwater migrating into the deep-mine aquifer, and 3) collect
contaminated groundwater for treatment thereby reducing the volume of hazardous
liquids on site. The ext~action well system is shown in Figure 13. For the
purpose of containing contaminated groundwater between shallow and deep
aquifers, five of the twelve extraction wells may have to be installed through
the multi-layer cap and would have to be sealed to the liner to minimize
infiltration. Pump tests would be conducted to determine the exact well
production rate and zone of influence for each extraction well. Figure 13 also
illustrates the estimated zone of capture.
10.
On-site Water Treatment Plant
The process options for treatment that are being considered for remediation of
leachate and groundwater at the Fultz Landfill are:
.
.
Oxidation
Precipitation
Filtration
Carbon Adsorption
.
.
In order to treat the water extracted from the shallow aquifer and the leachate
produced by the existing landfill, an. on-site water treatment plant would be
installed which would reduce the contaminant levels sufficiently for discharge
to surface water. Processes listed above can be combined into a treatment train
capable of treating the compounds identified in leachate and groundwater at the
Fultz Landfill site. It is currently estimated that the treatment system for
the site must be capable of operating at rates of at least 15 gpm, that is,
about 10 GPM from the extraction wells, 2 GPM from the leachate collection
system, and 3 GPM excess capacity as a factor of safety.
The final treatment system used at the Fultz Landfill site must be capable of
detoxifying or removing a number of inorganic compounds, volatile organic
compounds, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The treatment system will be
capable of removing, at a minimum, all chemicals that contribute to the
carcinogenic risk above 10~ and non- carcinogenic risk factors greater than 1
as defined in RI Chapter 6.
In addition, the effluent from the treatment system must meet all limitations
established by the State of Ohio. For t~ purpose of a conceptual design of
the treatment system we have considered Federal MCLs, MCLGs, Drinking Water
Standards, and Ohio State Water Quality Standards for Wills Creek.
The final treatment system selection will be based on samples from the
extraction system, after it is constructed and functioning. A bench scale
treatability study would be conducted to determine the most efficient manner
to treat contaminated leachate and groundwater.
The proposed treatment process would begin with the addition of an oxidizing
agent, such as hydrogen peroxide, to oxidize the iron, arsenic, and other
metals. A precipitant would then be mixed with the solution, which will be
discharged to a clarifier where most of the solids will precipitate out, and be
removed as a sludge. The sludge will be discharged to a filter press that
removes moisture, increasing its solids content to about 30\. The sludge
produced may be conside~ed a RCRA hazardous waste and may be considered a Land
Disposal Restricted (LDR) waste. Sludge produced from the on-site treatment
22
-------
----.
.-- ---. ----.
...------- ---
--..- -
system would be di~posed of in accordance with applicable Federal Land Disposal
Restrictions. If the sludge is found to be non-hazardous it would be disposed
of in an approved landfill.
Clarified water would then be passed through a granular carbon filter to remove
the remaining Suspended solids. Effluent would be passed through a bed of
granular activated carbon (GAC) as a polishing step to remove any remaining
organic compounds. At periodic intervals, the spent carbon must be replaced
with fresh carbon, and the used carbon either regenerated or disposed of in
accordance with Federal Land Disposal Restrictions. If the spent carbon is to
be regenerated, it must be treated in a unit that is in compliance with
40 CFR 264 Subpart x.
11.
Discharge of Treated Water To Surface Water
Discharge of the treatment plant effluent will be to Stream A downstream of the
sediment pond by way of a dedicated discharge pipeline. The discharge of
treatment plant effluent would be in accOrdance with substantive requirements
of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
The capital cost of this alternative is S 15,759,700. The O&M cost is
S 218,000. The total present worth cost over a 30 year period considering an
interest rate of 5% is S 19,480,700. The time required to implement this
alternative is 3.5 years. Key ARARs addressed with this alternative are Ohio
closure requirements for landfills and SWDA MCLs for groundwater leaving the
site, and NPDES requirements for discharge of water to surface water bodies.
ALTERNATIVE 5:
ON-SITE LANDFILL
An on-site landfill was proposed to remove the contaminated municipal waste
from its existing location and deposit it in a secure double-lined RCRA
equivalent landfill. Fultz Landfill site property is large enough to permit
the construction of a landfill in a side valley adjacent to Stream Valley A to
the east of the existing landfill. See Figure 14.
The components of Alternative 5 are:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Institutional Controls
Site Fence
Alternate Water Supply
Monitoring
Over-excavation of the Underground Mine
Rock Underdrain
Erosion and Sediment Controls
Dewatering Facilities
RCRA Equivalent On-site Landf~l
Wetlands Replacement
Institutional Controls, Site Fence and Alternate Water Supply, Items 1 through
3 of Alternative 2 would be performed as described. Item 10 as described in
Alternative 3, would a180 be included with Alternative 5.
4. Monitoring
Because the new landfill would be lined and capped, and the leachate would be
collected for off-site disposal, in accordance with Federal Land Disposal
Restrictions, long-term monitoring of surface water, groundwater, sediments and
COmbustible gas would be performed in accordance with all applicable
regulations for a minimum of 30 years to evaluate the migration of contaminants
from the landfill and to monitor the effects of natural attenuation. The
actual monitoring plan will be determined during remedial design.
23
-------
5. Over-excavation of the Underground Mine
Construction of a landfill on the eastern portion of the Fultz Landfill
property would require some treatment of the abandoned underground mine
remove the danger of subsidence. The same mine flushing procedure of
Alternative 3 could be used to provide adequate support, but in the case
new landfill where a disposal pit must be excavated for the installation
liners, leachate collection system, and waste disposal, it would be more
effective to continue the excavation down to the mine floor to eliminate
mine cavities and in-place coal. Over-excavation would be more reliable
mine flushing since the mine itself will be eliminated.
site
to
of a
of
cost-
the
than
6.
RockUnderdrain
As part of the procedure of elimination of the underlying coal mine, the
excavated mine void would be backfilled with a 5-foot thick rock underdrain and
15 additional feet of low-permeability granular fill approved by the OEPA in an
effort to maintain the water table at least lS feet below the bottom of the
landfill. See Figure 15. .
7.
Erosion and Sediment Controls
Prior to commencing any excavation for the new landfill, Stream Valley A would
be regraded, and erosion and sediment controls would be installed. First,
ponds 1, 2, and 2A would be drained and the sediments removed to a stockpile on
the existing landfill. Ponds 2 and 2A will be backfilled and a clean water
diversion channel constructed along the north side of Stream Valley A as shown
in Figure 14. A sediment control pond would be excavated in an area to the
west and north of Pond 6, and a temporary sediment control ditch constructed
just south of the clean water diversion channel.
The sediment pond would remain after construction to replace pond water habitat
eliminated by the filling of ponds 1, 2, and 2A, and the clean water diversion
would be re-routed into the sediment pond after revegetation of all disturbed
areas.
8.
Dewatering Facilities
Temporary dewatering facilities consisting of well points and sump pumps would
be required during the excavation of the-landfill pit to eliminate the seepage
of groundwater into the excavation. A line of well points would be installed
along the northern edge of the proposed pit to lower the water table as needed
during excavation. After the rock underdrain is installed, groundwater will
drain under the backfill and the dewatering equipment will not be needed.
9.
RCRA-Equivalent On-site Landfill
~
A landfill pit would be prepared as shown on Figures 14 and 15. After over-
excavation and backfilling of the coal mine, the sides of the pit would be
graded to the proper slope and a thirty-six inch thick layer of clay compacted
to achieve a permeability of 10.7 cm/s would be installed. A synthetic double
liner with leachate collection and leak detection systems using synthetic
drainage netting would also be installed. A layer of filter fabric and a
12-inch-thick layer of sand would be placed on top of the uppermost drainage
netting. The solid waste from the existing landfill would be placed on top of
the sand layer. Before placement in the new landfill, solids from the existing
landfill would be excavated and segregated into hazardous and non hazardous.
After analysis, landfill material considered to be hazardous would be disposed
of in an off-site USEPA approved landfill. Non-hazardous wastes would be
compacted to reduce the volume of the waste and to reduce the potential for
settlement within the new landfill, and disposed of in the new on-site
landfill.
24
-------
"----.-
--
-- ---
---
--..- ---
-----... ---.---.
The capital cost of this alternative is S 54,404,600. The O&M cost is
S 134,000. The total present worth cost over a 30 year period considering an
interest rate of 5\ is $ 56,766,600. The time required to implement this
alternative is 7.5 years. Key ARARs addressed with this alternative are Ohio
closure requirements for landfills and siting criteria for construction of new
landfills.
ALTERNATIVE 6:
MULTI-LAYER CAP WITH SUBSURFACE BARRIER
The purpose of this alternative is to isolate the landfill from infiltration,
including lateral infiltration from the groundwater flowing through Stream
Valley A and vertical infiltration through the ground surface. The cap would
prevent infiltration of precipitation from the landfill surface and shallow
groundwater from the south. At the same time the cap would lower the water
table under the landfill by an estimated 3 to 7 feet. This would increase the
potential for groundwater in the eastern side of the shallow aquifer to flow
under the landfill thereby reducing contaminant flow southward, into the coal
mine aquifer. A subsurface barrier around the west and north of the landfill
would minimize the transport of contaminants by preventing groundwater from
Stream Valley A from flowing under the landfill.
The components of Alternative 6 are:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Institutional Controls
Site Fence
Alternate Water Supply
Monitoring
Subsurface Structural Supports
Surface Water Controls
Multi-layer Cap
Leachate Collection System
Slurry Wall
Wetland. Replacement
Components Similar to Alternative 3
Items 1 through 8 of Alternative 3 would be performed with the exception that
Pond 3 would not be removed. Item 10 as described in alternative 3, would also
be included with Alternative 6.
9. Slurry Wall
A low-permeability, subsurface vertical barrier would be constructed around the
eastern and northern sides of the existing landfill to divert groundwater in
the shallow aquifer around the landfill" illustrated on Figure 16. A soil-
bentonite slurry wall would work best in the mine spoil and alluvium
encountered in Stream Valley A. After Stream Valley A is regraded, and the
multi-layer cap with leachate collection 1s installed, the slurry wall would be
constructed from the ground surface to the top of competent bedrock. Bedrock
in Stream Valley A is a sandy shale of the Allegheny Group, which also forms
the floor of the Ideal Mine. After regrading, the depth to bedrock would vary
from about 4S feet below the surface at the western end of valley to about 30
feet in the area between Pond 1 and the landfill. Along the eastern side of
the landfill the slurry wall would run north to south and would tie into the
former face of the strip mine excavation where it would continue up along the
sandstone and claystone that overlies the in-place coal. The overall average
depth of the slurry wall would be about 40 feet.
The capital cost of this alternative is $ 15,455,900. The O&M cost is
$ 245,000. The total present worth cost over a 30 year period considering an
interest rate of 5\ is $ 19,627,900. The time required to implement this
alternative is 3 years. Key ARARs addressed with this alternative is Ohio
25
-------
.-----
-._---
closure requirements for landfills and the SDWA MCLs.
ALTERNATIVE NO.7:
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND ON-SITE TREATMENT
This alternative is the same as Alternative 4, Multi-layer Cap, Groundwater
Extraction and On-site Treatment, shown on Figure 14 except that a multi-layer
cap and leachate collection system would not be installed. As with Alternative
2, Alternative 7 attempts to meet the remedial action objectives through
institutional actions and monitoring with the added advantage of treating
groundwater from the shallow aquifer.
The components of Alternative 7 are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Institutional Controls
Site Fence
Alternate Water Supply
Monitoring
Surface Water Controls
Extraction Well System
On-site Water Treatment Plant
Discharge of Treated Water To Surface
Wetlands Replacement
Water
Although this alternative meets the four remedial objectives discussed on page
16 of this section, this alternative does not address one key ARAR which is the
Ohio landfill closure requirement.
ALTERNATIVE NO.8:
MULTI-LAYER RCRA CAP WITH UPGRADE OF THE BYESVILLE WATER
TREATMENT PLANT.
Alternative 8 is the same as Alternative 3, Multi-layer RCRA Cap, with the
addition of an upgrade to the Byesville Water Treatment Plant to prevent any
contamination from the Fultz Landfill site that might migrate to the Byesville
Plant No.2 from entering the public drinking water supply. The upgrade to the
Byesville Water Treatment Plant would consist of a well-head treatment system
to treat site related contaminants. This Alternative achieves the remedial
action objectives both by institutional controls and by insuring a safe
drinking water supply regardless of increases in contaminant concentrations, if
any, in the deeper coal mine aquifer.
The components of Alternative 8 are:
1. Institutional Controls
2. Site Fence
3. Alternate Water Supply
4. Moni tor ing
5. Subsurface Structural supports~
6. Surface Water Controls
7. Multi-layer Cap
8. Leachate Collection System
9. Upgrade of the Byesville Water Treatment Plant
10. Wetlands Replacement
This alternative meets the four remedial objectives discussed on page 16 of
this section. However, it allows groundwater contamination to spread through
approximately 1 mile of aquifer before being treated at the Byesville Water
Treatment Plant. It is USEPA policy to intercept and collect contaminated
groundwater as close to the source as possible. By allowing contaminated
groundwater to spread and treating it when it gets to the Byesville Water
Treatment Plant, a large portion of the aquifer will become contaminated.
26
-------
-- ----
AL TERNATIVE NO.9:
ON-SITE LANDFILL WITH GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND
TREATMENT
Alternative 9 is a Combination of Alternative 5, On-site RCRA Landfill with
the groundwater extraction and the on-site treatment system of Alternative 4.
The array of groundwater extraction wells consists of 8 wells instead of the 12
wells used in Alternative 4. Only 8 wells would be used because the wells in
Alternative 4 that were intended to cut off the migration of contaminants from
the existing landfill to the coal mine aquifer would not be needed once the
landfill waste is relocated. Alternative 9 meets the remedial action
objectives in the same manner as Alternative 5 with the added benefit of
extracting contaminated groundwater from the shallow aquifer for treatment.
The components of Alternative 9 are:
1. Institutional Controls
2. Site Fence
3. Alternate Water Supply
4. Monitoring
5. Surface Water Controls
6. Over-excavation of the Underground Mine
7. Rock Underdrain
8. Erosion and Sediment Controls
9. Dewatering Facilities
10.RCRA Equivalent On-site Landfill
11.Extraction Well System
12.0n-site Water Treatment Plant
13.Discharge of Treated Water To Surface Water
14.Wetlands Replacement
Althouqh thia alternativa meota tho four remedial objectivaa diacuaaed on paqe
16 of this section, this alternative does not address one key ARAR which is the
Ohio landfill siting criteria.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 10:
COAL MINE AQUIFER CUT-OFF BARRIER
Alternative 10 meets the remedial action objectives by a combination of the
institutional actions of Alternative 2, and the installation of a low
permeability barrier within the coal mine aquifer. The cut-off barrier would
effectively prevent the migration of contaminants from the existing landfill
and shallow aquifer into the coal mine aquifer.
The components of Alternative 10 are:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Institutional Controls
Site Fence
Alternate Water SuPply
Monitoring
Erosion and Sediment Controls
Dewatering Facilities
Low Permeability Compacted Clay Cut-off Barrier
Surface Water Control
Wetlands Restoration
~:
Inatitutional Controla, Site Fence, Alternate Water Supply, and Monitorinq
Items 1 through 4 of Alternative 2 would be performed. Item 9 as described in
Alternative 3, would also be included with Alternative 10.
5.
Erosion and Sediment Controls
Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls such as silt fences, hay-bail
siltstion barriers and small divorsion channels would be installed .s needed to
27
-------
...----
--- ---- - ---"-
---.-.
- --
.-----
.--.-
prevent erosion during the construction of the cut-off barrier. Because the
excavation and construction of the barrier can be staged to proceed from one
end to the other, no permanent diversion channels or sediment ponds would be
needed.
6.
Dewatering Facilities
Temporary dewatering facilities consisting of well points and sump pumps would
probably be required during the excavation of the trench for the cut-off
barrier to control the seepage of groundwater into the excavation. A line of
well points will be installed along sides of the excavation to lower-the water
table as needed during construction. Water that seeps into the excavation from
the coal mine aquifer would be removed with sump pumps. Temporary facilities
meeting all applicable Federal and State requirements would be built to hold
the extracted water for testing and treatment or disposal.
7.
Low Permeability compacted Clay Cut-off Barrier
Construction of a 2,400-feet long cut-off barrier in the coal mine aquifer
would begin with the excavation of a trench from the ground surface to the
floor of the coal mine. The trench would be 20-feet wide at the bottom and
from 50 to 180 feet wide at the ground surface. It would extend from the
intact coal to the north of Stream Valley A through the former Ideal Mine,
Stream Valley A between Pond lA and Pond 1, through the former Ideal Mine west
and south of the existing landfill to the-intact coal on the northern side of
Stream Valley B. The depth of the trench would vary from 36 feet near Stream A
to 115 feet at the crest of the hill south of Pond 1. The average depth would
be about 80 feet and would require the removal of an estimated 610,000 cubic
yards of material approximately 60\ of which would be rock. The trench would
be filled with compacted clay to achieve a permeability of less than 10"
cm/sec. The clay backfill would extend to within 3 feet of the original ground
surface. The uppermost 3 feet of the excavation would be backfilled with
random fill and covered with sufficient topsoil to permit revegetation of the
disturbed area.
8.
Surface Water Control
Part of the cut-off barrier would intersect Stream Valley A between Pond lA and
Pond 1. During the excavation and backfilling of the cut-off trench, Stream A
would have to be temporarily re-routed a~ound the excavation. To accomplish,
the excavation would proceed in stages to allow Stream A to be diverted through
a series of channels circumventing the excavation area.
Although this alternative meets the four remedial objectives discussed on page
16 of this section, this alternative does not address one key ARAR which is the
Ohio landfill closure requirement. .~
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives were initially developed to be evaluated against the short- and
long-term aspects of three broad criteria: effectiveness, implementability, and
cost. Alternatives were evaluated generally in the screening stage, then in
more detail in the detailed analysis of alternatives. Of the 10 alternatives
that were developed to meet the remedial action objectives, 4 were eliminated
.in the screening stage. Rationale for screening out Alternatives 7 through 10
is as follows.
ALTERNATIVE 7:
GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION (WITHOUT CAP)
Alternative 7 was not carried forward for detailed analysis because, without
the installation of a cap, it did not provide adequate closure of the existing
landfill. It would be less effective in preventing the spread of contamination
28
-------
---.
-.- ---
.--.
-- - --_..
---
-_.._-
because it would not address the vertical migration of contaminants" through the
bedrock layer between the existing landfill and the coal mine aquifer.
Although the cost would be much lower than Alternatives 3 through 6, the
groundwater extraction system would need to be operated indefinitely because
there would be no reduction in contaminant transport by infiltration of
precipitation through the existing landfill.
ALTERNATIVE 8:
CAP WITH UPGRADE OF THE BYESVILLE WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
Alternative 8 was not carried forward for detailed analysis because the
analysis of contaminant transport from the Fultz Landfill site to the coal mine
aquifer utilizing a two dimensional solute model indicated that the effects of
the Fultz Landfill site on the Byesville water supply well are minimal at
present but may be more significant in the future. This alternative allows
groundwater contamination to spread through approximately 1 mile of aquifer
before being treated at the Byesville Water Treatment Plant. As stated on page
26 of this section, contaminated groundwater should be intercepted and
collected as close to the source as possible. The cost of remediation of 1
mile of contaminated aquifer in the future is much greater than the present
cost of containing the contamination.
ALTERNATIVE 9:
ON-SITE LANDFILL WITH GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION
Alternative 9 was not carried forward for detailed analysis because it would
not be necessary to collect and treat groundwater once the source of
contamination (the landfill) has been removed. Additionally, the construction
on-site would not meet Ohio Solid Waste Landfill siting requirements. Although
the cleanup time for the shallow aquifer would potentially be shorter with
groundwater extraction and treatment, the additional expense of an extraction
and treatment system is not justified. The cost of groundwater extraction and
treatment would make Alternative 9 substantially higher than Alternative 5 -
On-Site Landfill.
ALTERNATIVE 10:
COAL MINE AQUIFER CUT-OFF BARRIER.
Alternative 10 would be the most effective alternative for preventing the off-
site migration of contaminants from the Fultz Landfill site through the coal
mine aquifer. However, the highest risks that were identified in the risk
assessment were attributed to future use of on-site groundwater. Alternative
10 would address risks from use of the on~site groundwater with site access and
use restrictions only, making it no more effective than Alternative 2 at
reducing the highest risks. Although the technologies used to implement
Alternative 10 are Common and readily available, an excavation of this size
involving the movement of 700,000 cubic yards of earth and rock and the
importation of a near equal quantity of cl.y would be an enormous task.
Controlling the infiltration of groundwater" from the coal mine aquifer might
also prove very difficult. Because it is not more effective in reducing the
major risks at the Fultz Landfill site, would be costly and difficult to
implement, and without the installation of a cap would not provide adequate
closure of the existing landfill, Alternative 10 was not carried forward for
detailed analysis.
VI II .
Summary of Comparative Analvsis of Alternatives
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
This criterion 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.
Alternative 1 does not eliminate, reduce or control the current and future
potential risks to human health and the environment associated with the Fultz
29
-------
._---
"Landfill. Alternative 2 does not reduce risks to the environment. All of the
alternatives except 1 and 2 reduce the current and future potential risks to
human health and environment associated with the Fultz Landfill.
COMPLIANCE WI~B ARARS
This criteria addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other environmental
statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver. A waiver would be
allowed only if the chosen remedy is considered to be an improvement over other
remedies that do comply with ARARs. ARARS are divided into action, location,
and chemical specific categories.
1.
Action specific ARARs are requirements that set controls or restrictions
on design, implementation, and performance levels of activities related to
the management of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Location specific ARARs are requirements that restrict remedial actions
based on the location or characteris~ics of the site or its immediate
environs.
2.
3.
Chemical specific ARARs are requirements that set protective cleanup
levels for chemicals of concern, .or are used to indicate an acceptable
limit of discharge associated with a remedial action.
Alternative 2, Institutional Actions and Monitoring, does not meet ARARs for
the Fultz Landfill site. ARARs not addressed by this alternative are: closure
of the existing landfill according to state standards; MCLs would be exceeded
in the shallow or deep mine aquifers for lead, antimony, beryllium, and vinyl
chloride; and maximum leachate concentrations would continue to exceed surface
water criteria for discharges to Wills Creek for at least four organic and
inorganic compounds. Alternative 5 does not meet ARARs because it does not
meet State of Ohio solid waste landfill siting criteria. Alternatives 3, 4 and
6 would meet all Federal and State environmental requirements. Since
Alternatives 2 and 5 failed to meet this criteria they will be eliminated from
further consideration. Alternatives 3, 4 and 6 will be carried forward in the
comparison.
LONG-TERM EFFEC~IVEHESS AND PERMANENCE
Long-term effectiveness refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time once cleanup goals
have been met.
The reduction in long-term effectiveness of each of the alternatives depends in
part on the enforcement of institutional_controls. Alternative 4, provides an
advantage over alternatives 3 and 6 becaaBe contaminated groundwater is
extracted and treated. By removing contaminated groundwater alternative 4
provides for a greater degree of permanence in groundwater cleanup.
Alternative 4 also provides hydraulic containment of contaminants from the
existing landfill. By not allowing groundwater contamination to spread,
alternative 4 also provides a greater degree of long-term effectiveness.
Alternative 6 provides a partial barrier to contaminant migration. Alternative
3 provides only control over infiltration induced migration of contaminants.
Listed in the order of overall long-term effectiveness from the most effective
to the least effective; they are:
Most
Long-Term Effective
Alternative No.4: Multi-layer
Alternative No.6: Multi-layer
Alternative No.3: Multi-layer
Long-Term Effective
Cap with Groundwater Treatment
Cap with Subsurface Barrier
Cap
Least
30
-------
r-
-.---
-- ---.
REDUCXION OF TOXICIrY, MOBILIXY, AND VOLUME THROUGH XREAXMENT
Reduction of toxicity, mObility, or volume refers to the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies employed under each remedy.
Alternative 4 provides the greatest reduction in toxicity and volume of
hazardous materials. Alternative 4 achieves the same reduction in mobility and
toxicity as Alternative 3 plus an additional 6 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater per year would be extracted and treated. Based on the HELP model,
over a 25 year period, an estimated 526,000 gallons per year of leachate would
be collected and treated on site. Xhe on-site treatment of groundwater and
leachate would produce residuals in the form of metal contaminated sludges.
Listed in the order of overall reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume
through treatment from the greatest reduction to the least reduction, they are:
Greatest Reduction
. Alternative NO.4:
Alternative No.6:
Alternative No.3:
Least Reduction
Multi-layer Cap with Groundwater Treatment
MUlti-layer Cap with Subsurface Barrier
Multi-layer Cap
SHORX-TERM EFFECXIVENESS
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.
Alternat~ve 4 achieves remedial action goals in an estimated range of 4-14
years. Alternatives 3 and 6 are estimated to achieve remedial action goals
between 13-46 years. Although alternative 4 requires a somewhat longer time
for construction, it is estimated to achieve remedial action goals in the least
amount of time. Alternative 6 poses the greatest risk to workers during
construction because of the excavation of the slurry wall. Releases of airborne
contaminants could OCCur during the excavation operation. Alternatives 3 and 6
pose a greater risk to the community because leachate will be hauled off-site.
Listed in the order of short-term effectiveness in achieving remedial action
goals from the most effective to the least-effective, they are:
Most
effective in the short term
Alternative NO.4: Multi-layer
Alternative No.3: MUlti-layer
Alternative No.6: Multi-layer
effective in the short term
Cap with Groundwater Treatment
Cap
Cap w~th Subsurface Barrier
~:
Least
IMPLEMENTABILIn
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of goods and services needed to implement
the chosen remedy.
Implementation of institutional controls listed under each alternative being
evaluated and the ease of implementation is to Some degree dependant upon
public acceptance. All of the alternatives are relatively easy to implement,
use widely available equipment and materials, and well established reliable
methods. Installation of the slurry wall of Alternative 6 in the strip mine
spoil of Stream Valley A may be difficult because of the nature of strip mine
spoil. A detailed design investigation would have to be performed to assure
that a slurry wall will be cost effective and practical to implement.
Alternative 4 would be less difficult than Alternative 6, but would be more
31
-------
difficult to implement than Alternative 3 because well installation would
require a detailed design investigation in order to determine the optimum well
placement and pumping rates. Alternative 4 will require the off-site disposal
of water treatment residuals. Based on the above discussion, Alternative 3
would be the easiest to implement. Listed in the order of overall ease of
implementation from the easiest to implement to the most difficult to
implement, they are:
Easiest to implement
Alternative No.3: Multi-layer Cap
Alternative No.4: Multi-layer Cap
Alternative No.6: Multi-layer Cap
Most difficult to implement
COS~
with Groundwater Treatment
with Subsurface Barrier
Cost criteria includes capital cost, operation and maintenance cost, and
present worth cost which includes capital and 0 & M costs.
All of the alternatives have about the same total implementation cost.
Alternative 3 has the lowest capital cost but projected operating costs are
higher than Alternative 4 due to the cost of off-site leachate disposal.
Alternative 6 also has a substantial cost associated with off-site disposal of
leachate. Listed in order of least costly to most costly; they are
Least
costly
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
costly
No.3:
No.6:
No.4:
Multi-layer Cap S 18,906,900
Multi-layer Cap & Subsurface Barrier S 19,627,900
Multi-layer Cap & Groundwater Treatment S 19,480,700
Most
S~A~E ACCEP~ANCE
State acceptance includes whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and
Proposed Plan, the state agency (OEPA) concurs, opposes, or has no comment on
the preferred alternative.
USEPA has involved the OEPA in the RI/FS and remedy selection process. OEPA
was provided the opportunity to comment on the RI/FS documents and the Proposed
Plan, and took part in the Proposed Plan public meeting held in Byesville, Ohio
on July 11, 1991. The State of Ohio has-indicated that it concurs on the
chosen remedial alternative. A letter from the OEPA indicates this support.
See Attachment 1.
COMMUNI~ ACCEP~ANCE
community acceptance is assessed in the Record of Decision following a review
of the public comments received on the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan.
USEPA solicited input from the community on the remedial alternatives presented
in the Proposed Plan for the Fultz Landfill site. Verbal comments received
during the public meeting indicated support of the chosen remedial alternative.
Two written comments were received and are addressed in the responsiveness
. summary. See Attachement 2.
IX.
Selected Remedv
After reviewing each remedial alternative developed for the Fultz Landfill
site, and comparing the alternatives against USEPA evaluation criteria, the
USEPA recommends Alternative 4 - Multi-layer Cap, Groundwater extraction and
on-site treatment, for addressing contamination problems at the site.
Alternative 4 meets the four remedial action objectives discussed in Section 7
of this Record of Decision.
32
-------
- .--
- - --
-- ------.
----
_._--
----
The components of Alternative 4 are:
1. Institutional controls will be sought to reduce exposure to site
contaminants by legally restricting access to the site. Deed restrictions on
land and water use on and adjacent to the landfill would be sought from the
landfill owner and near by residents. A public information program to advise
nearby residents of the nature of the problem at the site would be established.
The USEPA would request local municipalities to enact local and zoning
ordinances that will forbid future use of the site that would expose humans to
contamination, and restricting the drilling of wells and the use of groundwater
and surface water.
In the event that institutional
selected remedial action may be
should be implemented to ensure
long term basis.
controls are not voluntarily obtained, the"
re-evaluated to determine if additional actions
that the remedy is permanent and effective on a
2. A 6-foot high chain-link fence approximately 10,000 feet in length, will be
installed around the entire Fultz Landfill site to restrict access and reduce
direct exposure to surface contamination. The fence will be topped with barbed
wire and equipped with warning signs posted at 100-foot intervals along the
fence.
3.
Alternate Water Supply
A water supply inventory will be conducted to identify all residential wells
that are downgradient and affected from the Fultz Landfill site. A sample
would be taken from each well and analyzed using analytical methods appropriate
to characterize water intended for drinking. Residences with wells that are
found to present an unacceptable risk due to contamination from the Fultz
Landfill will be connected to the municipal water supply.
4.
Monitoring
Long-term monitoring of surface water, groundwater, combustible gas and
sediments will be performed in accordance with applicable Ohio regulations for
a minimum of 30 years to evaluate the migration of contaminants from the
landfill and to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy. The actual monitoring
plan would be determined during remedial_design.
5. Subsurface Structural Supports will be constructed for the mine voids under
the landfill to prevent damage of the cap by subsequent mine subsidence and to
reduce the potential for bedrock fracturing between the landfill and the coal
mine aquifer. There are two standard approaches to providing subsidence
supports, namely, grout pillars and mine~lushing. As indicated in the
proposed plan, the grout pillar method is the preferred method to prevent
subsidence.
6. Surface Water and Sediment Controls
Part of Stream Valley A northeast of the existing landfill will be regraded to
eliminate standing surface water, and divert runoff away from the landfill.
This will include filling in Ponds 2, 2A, and 3 and constructing a clean water
diversion channel in the approximate location of Stream A from the western end
of Pond 1 to the culvert downstream of Pond 6 to divert runoff away from the
landfill. In order to provide sediment control for earth disturbances
resulting from capping the landfill, a sediment control pond would be
constructed in an area to the northwest of Pond 6.
Multi-layer Cap
A berm will be constructed of compacted clay along the northern side of the
7.
33
-------
---+ -- ---.
landfill to bring the toe of the cap up to elevation 835 feet MSL and ~educe
the overall slope of the cap to about 5-1/2\. A stability analysis will be
performed on the proposed cap and berm. The results will be utilized in the
remedial design. In accordance with OAC chapter 3745-27-11(G)(1)(c) the slope
of the cap may be increased to no more than 25\ if necessary to accommodate a
stable berm. The above engineering stability analysis will determine the
optimal cap and berm slopes for long-term stability. The analysis will also
determine the effect of increasing the slope of the cap on the stability of the
liner and the possibility for using a liner specifically designed for increased
slopes. After constructing the containment berm, a multi-layer cap would be
installed over the entire 30 acres of the landfill.
A detailed schematic of the multi-layer cap is presented in Figure 11.
layers would include (from the bottom up):
Cap
.
Random earth fill required in places to grade off the existing landfill
and establish an even slope of 5-1/2\;
A synthetic drainage layer for gas ~ollection with filter fabric above
and below;
A 24-inch thick compacted clay layer (10-7 cm/s permeability);
A 40-mil HDPE synthetic liner;
A synthetic drainage layer for infiltration with filter fabric above;
A 30-inch thick random earth fill;
A 6-inch thick topsoil layer.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.
Leachate Collection System
The leachate collection system will be installed along the northern side of the
landfill to intercept groundwater leaving the landfill. A rock drain will be
sloped to a central sump from which the accumulated leachate can be pumped for
on-site treatment.
9.
Extraction Well System
An array of extraction wells will be installed in the shallow aquifer to; 1)
lower the water table in the landfill area, 2) intercept and hydraulically
contain groundwater migrating into the deep-mine aquifer, and 3) collect
contaminated groundwater for treatment thereby reducing the volume of hazardous
liquids on site. The actual amount, location, and pumping rates for the
extraction wells will be determined durin9 the pre-design phase.
10.
On-site Water Treatment Plant
An on-site water treatment plant will be installed which will reduce the
contaminant levels sufficiently for discharge to surface water. If sludge
produced from the on-site treatment syste~ is found to be hazardous it will be
disposed of in accordance with applicable~ederal Land Disposal Restrictions.
If the sludge is found to be non-hazardous, it still will be disposed of in an
approved manner. The on-site water treatment system that is being considered
for remediation of leachate and groundwater at the Fultz Landfill consists of
the following processes:
.
.
Oxidation
Precipitation
Filtration
Carbon Adsorption
.
.
The final treatment system selection will be based on samples from the
extraction system, after it is constructed and functioning. A bench scale
treatability study would be conducted to determine the most efficient manner
to treat contaminated leachate and groundwater.
34
-------
----'-"
---
----
-----
11.
Discharge of Treated Water To Surface WAter
Discharge of the treatment plant effluent will be to Stream A downstream of the
sediment pond by way of a dedicated discharge pipeline. The discharge of
treatment plant effluent will be in accordance with substantive requirements of
Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 6111, the National Pollutant Elimination System
(NPDES) and Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
12. Wetlands Replacement
Since the disturbance of wetland environment is anticipated from proposed
remedial activities a study will be performed to delineate the extent of
wetlands and develop a plan for remediation. At a minimum, the wetlands
replacement plan w~ll include replacement or restoration of the ponds and
surrounding habitat. Upon completion of construction, the clean water
diversion channel will be re-routed into the sediment pond, and the base water
level of the sediment pond would be raisea to provide pond surface area equal
to the area lost by the elimination of Ponds 2 and 3 and the lowering of the
pool level of Pond 1. Every attempt will be made to provide a minimum 1 to 1
wetlands mitigation.
Points of Compliance
Points of compliance for risks being addressed by the remedial action are:
1. Shallow aquifer groundwater at or beyond the edge of the waste management
area.
2. Surface water in Stream A, after the sedimentation pond, prior to the
confluence of Stream A and Wills Creek.
1.
Remediation Goals for the Shallow Aauifer
o
Concentrations of site-related contaminants that also appear in
background, shall be reduced to their respective background
(upgradient) concentrations.
In addition, site-related contaminants not detected in backaround
(uparadient\ wells with an existing maximum contaminant level
(HCL) shall be reduced to a concentration level at or below the
MCL. The contaminants found on site above MCLs are vinyl
chloride, antimony, beryllium, and lead.
o
o
Concentrations of carcinogenic site-related contaminants ~
detected in backaround (u~aradient) wells shall be reduced to
levels that pose a cumulative carcinogenic risk no greater than
lx10-6.
o
Concentrations of non-carcinogenic site-related contaminants not
detected in backaround (uparadient\ wells shall be reduced to
levels that pose a cumulative hazard index no greater than one.
If it is determined, based on the preceding criteria and the system performance
data over a lS year period, that the above remediation goals for the shallow
aquifer cannot be achieved, all of the following measures involving long-term
management may occur, as a modification of the existing extraction well system:
1. low level pumping will be implemented as a long-term containment
measure;
2. chemical-specific ARARs may require a review based on the technical
35
-------
---
-- ---
--------..- --
--
--
impractibility of achieving further contaminant reduction; and/or
3. institutional controls would be sought to restrict access to those
portions of the aquifer which remain above MCLs or health-based
goals, should this aquifer be proposed for use as a drinking water
source.
2.
Remediation Goals for Surface Water from Stream A
Under the proposed monitoring program, quarterly monitoring of surface water
shall be performed at 2 locations in Wills Creek and two locations in Stream A.
Sampling locations on Stream A should be prior to the confluence of Stream A
and Wills Creek. The purpose of this sampling and analysis would be to monitor
the levels of contaminants in Stream A, and Wills Creek resulting from the
discharge of the shallow and coal mine aquifers. Ohio Water Quality Standards
under the Ohio Administrative Codes 3745-01 (-03,-04,-05, and -07) shall be
used to determine if the level of contamination from the site is acceptable.
Discharge from the treated
plant to Stream A shall be
Revised Code (ORC) Chapter
(NPDES) and Section 402 of
leachate and g~oundwater from the on-site treatment
in accordance with substantive requirements of Ohio
6111, the National Pollutant Elimination System
the Clean Water Act (CWA).
3. Costs
A complete summary of capital costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and
a present worth value cost over a 30 year period at a 5% and 10% interest rate,
is presented in Table 32. The costs presented in this table assume the grout
pillar method will be used to prevent subsidence on site. The capital cost of
this alternative is $ 15,759,700. The O&M cost is $ 218,000. The total
present worth cost over a 30 year period considering an interest rate of 5\ is
$ 19,480,700.
x.
Statutorv Determinations
The following is a brief description of how the selected remedy meets the
statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment.
Current and potential future risks to hu~an health and the environment from
contaminated groundwater (shallow and deep aquifers), leachate and air would be
reduced provided that the cap remains intact, hydraulic containment and
extraction of groundwater and leachate is obtained, and site access and use
restrictions are strictly enforced. The bulk of the contamination source
(solid wastes and hazardous liquid wastes) would remain on-site, but the
mobility and volume would be reduced by tPe cap, leachate collection system,
and active groundwater containment and extraction from the shallow aquifer.
The selected remedy will attain a 10~ to 10~ risk level for carcinogens and a
Hazardous Index <1 for noncarcinogens. No unacceptable short-term risks or
cross-media impacts will be caused by implementation of the selected remedy.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
Applicable action-specific ARARs for landfill closure (OAC 3745-27-10), would
be complied with by installation of a RCRA Subtitle C cap. RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions (40 CFR 268) regarding treatment residuals and Department of
Transportation (49 CFR Parts 100-199) involving transport of waste off site,
would be complied with, if the treatment plant sludge is found to be hazardous.
Substantive requirements of a (40 CFR 122,125) NPDES discharge permit regarding
discharge of treated water to a surface water body would be complied with. SDWA
(40 CFR 144) Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) requirements regarding
36
-------
standards for the underground injection of fluids (cement used for grout
pillars) would be complied with. Executive Order 1990 (40 CFR 6, Appendix A)
regarding wetlands would be complied with.
Applicable chemical-specific ARARs (SWDA MCLs) for concentrations of antimony,
beryllium, lead, and vinyl chloride found in groundwater, at the point of
compliance, would be complied with by returning concentrations of contaminants
to their respective MCLs. If naturally occurring concentrations of
contaminants exceed their respective MCLs, attainment of their MCLs would not
be applicable or relevant and appropriate pursuant to USEPA policy.
Contaminants found naturally occurring, above acceptable health-based levels,
will be return to their naturally occurring concentration. Anthropogenic
contaminants without MCLs, found above acceptable health-based levels will be
return to their acceptable health-based level.
Cost-Effectiveness.
The USEPA believes the selected remedy complies with ARARs and is cost-
effective in mitigating the principal risk posed by contaminated groundwater
and leachate within a reasonable period of time. Section 300.430(f)(ii)(D) of
the NCP requires USEPA to assess cost-effectiveness by evaluating all .
alternatives which satisfy the threshold criteria: protection of human health
and the environment and compliance with ARARs, with three additional balancing
criteria: long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume through treatment, and short-tern effectiveness, to
determine overall cost-effectiveness. The selected remedy meets these criteria
and provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to its cost. The estimated
cost for the selected remedy is S 19,480,700.
Utilization of Permanent solutions and Alternative Treatment lor resource
recovery} Technoloaies to the Maximum Extent Practicable lMEP}.
USEPA believes the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-
effective manner for the Fultz Landfill site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, the USEPA
has determined that the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs
in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity,
mobility, and volume achieved through treatment; short-term effectiveness;
implementability; and cost. The selected remedy also meets the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element and considering State and
community acceptance.
Preference for Treatment as a Princi~al Element.
~
The selected remedy satisfies, to the maximum extent practicable, the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element. The principal threat to human
health is ingestion of contaminated groundwater from the either the shallow
aquifer or the deeper coal mine aquifer. The selected remedy reduces levels of
organic and inorganic contaminant concentrations present in groundwater by
using an oxidation, precipitation, filtration, and carbon adsorption, treatment
plant.
37
-------
. (I:
~
- 1.'... I' t
.'J .. ~":('''b~iC1&1\ c.IY..i.... .
",., ' -'1\'
':'---//.'- . ...J
: r I .
V' :
,
./
. ,
;.
'.
St;...;;. !'C.f'. "
.~~"
',,<"
"~'~~.:
=, -\:; "
. , ~<::~'2:':.. '-
~':~""" ",' "
~,~~ '(",:,"
" "~~,,.y .'.
.' 'Drnl/e-In '~,.... .)':;
/ ! . 'Tne.al.fr .'\\~"~.!;.' .~.
" - . ~ -.. - ":""~:~ ~~:~,:: .
. ,
I
o. 8991"-
£
~
~
.C'1.fI
LANDFILL
-'.-.."
. '.)~~!!~ ~
.'
- '
."
SlrlO ,..hrus
IdeaJ
9/0 .
.::':"':_...,=-=~-:.
---
SlflD Mine
0'" '-
I
,
.-'
,/
:.-
.
.1 ""1 C.'~lry
. "Ct'"
.::;..t.
. 'H~~..
- -
, ~
K
S":~'
o
-"<
REFERENCE:
U S.G S 7:5' TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, BYESVILLE QUADRANGLE,
OHIO, DATED, 1961, PHOTOREVISED 1972 AND 1975
CAMBRIDGE OUADRANGLE, OHIO, DATED: /962 PHOTOREVISED:
1972 AND 1978, SCALE ,": 2000' '
~
o
2000
400C
I
~,"'i
I I
I 0"'0 I
. I
SCALE IN FEET
" .
---",.'
POOR QUt\UTY
ORIGINAL
OUAOQ"'GL£ U)C,H,O'"
F-l
FIGURE 1,
SITE LOCA TlON MAP
FULTZ LANOFIU.. snc. BYESVILLE. OH
AI REPOAT
-------
'VNIs)I~O
All1\1'( ., ~OOd.
LEGEND
POTW
I'
, I
t..
. I
API'ROXIt.CATt: I.ANnflil1 J. II
PItOPtHTY BOUNI)AftV
rUhUCtY OWHt:1J TR£ATMI '.! III
fOIt CITy ur DYI:SVIU t
I ~ "
' I
I I
I II
i'
i
"
i I
~
, I
, I
, I
,
I
o
400
~
5CAl[ ." I [[ I
fiGURE 2
SIft MAP
fl... rz lAHOfU SITE, 8y\> '" I )
" N:l'Uflf
-------
t-rj
I
W
'}
r~--=.
."
o - a:u «' tIIn ~
o 0 il~~lf~.£;l, ~ii(HImlli
(~ ;;;or~~~~co..~~.
~ ".","9'- .
~ ! J 0 :- -. ((""'1 r ," ...'"'' n.<-I ',¥r ~
.. - '~I.")I' ~, ).,. --:_-
~~:: E ..~ --:. --:: '-=.'.
J> .J"r- -.. - -~ . ~--
r- - ...":'t.. ~WLr.'~-": '" ':.L..~ :;p
::! ~ J~j;'~~~ -:::~:~~.
....to+- . ~...;.. -~~-
~:;~~.::~~
:-:-.;.:~z~~:_:~:~~.~~.~~~. -:':. .:.
'"-.-...-... ~
:-=~~-=~~:i~i~~~:~~~;~" .
-_..-..~ j ... ..;r-
-- "-""-
...-
_I
SOURCE
U S BW8au 0' Mines, Mine Map' I
Ptn$bUlgh, I'A
,,'
NOTE This Imag. Is Ih. basI o.OOlaDI.
repfOduC11On of Ihe 1<10al MI018 a :
In Ihl Upper F ...port eoal s.~'"
Imagl Is presenled to Hlustfale thll
compl811ty 0' the mining pane", it'
passage ways The accufacy 01 I'
map tannal bl conllflnod .
",
'lil
I I
I
@
o
'00
SeAL[ 'N . [[ I
,PPROX.."I.,rf
FIGURE 3
IDEAL COAL MINE
f1A rz lANOfl..l SlfE. 8'I'T$\".
" AlE PORT
\,
I '
-------
-_.
---
----
- _. -- - --
---
--- ---
- -------
- -- --.
--
. -.--. ".-
0,...... NOlI 10 $c.8-
".
-
._"-':~
--
-----. .:: If.u1~:... --~-~,-
Shale BedrOCk.. .':::::::~~1.\\~ S~~~!~
Coal Mine Aqw'e,. . .... . Sh~IOWAqu!~~i~7
------- - -
"
'.
/
Unmlnea Coal
~:
Figure 4
Cross-section of Underlying Aquifers
F-4
-------
../
...
...
'0
.... o.
...
\:-. .
t':'~
~t
o 0
SEWAGE IJ
TREA It.4EN I '
PLANT
(POTW)
t...."
+
'"rJ
I
VI
'-.
.
t~
/ro
-0
00
'~70
90
,zc
.>)>
r-r-
~
..
LEGEND:
I:> j COAL IN PLACE
D ABANDONED
DEEP IoAINES
D rORMER SURr ACE
IAINES
---
ESDMATEO LANOrlLL M'.!
.
0"'-
OWNER INSI Al.lfD WU I
.
ow-
PHASE I RI INSTALLED
WELl
o
"-
PHASE II RI INSTAl.LED
WEl.L
+
GROU~JDWA fER SAMPU
COLl.ECTED
~
o
----- -::::::J
400 ---- 800
fiGURE 5
MONITORINO WELL LOCAnONS
~~~8.1 SIIE. 8YESVIIIE. 0.
-------
'--'- ----
'---
--- --
--------.-
.,j;' ;: ',' ,.~. .'
." .
c
..
:;''''-4'''' ::--
-x..
....
....
-....
-'So
..RW004
- ._~
. ~jO:.
... RW002
- - - -:-- - - -~;~-:---~-
o
,'I-.,.
-\.,'V"..
.:-_">~~:
.~~'. , ' .
-4;..:;":.: ~. ":..
" ": "". ".
, ':' .
'--~'" ':: "~
.--.'-,', ,'(
= =.= .
D'tv~.,n
Tne4uer
f~.:~:.:
"
~~'=--"":b.
Str,c Mi',.~S
....~~-
"'"
- .
:r.~ . .
-
" Ideal
9/~1I. . ..
~.~.:.-
.RWOO~
Kilns
8 RW003
-'7'
~:: I
StoIC "",ne
->
/.-;;:.5~
" , ---
~'"' ~
'-: "',,~
, , .~ ~
." ;~
~.I;~. .:~}~.',~-:-" ;"
" ",VVti'~ ~~
'\ " '-"..
-'-. "~:~S"
.,
-,
: -". ~ MI C.'VIr)
. . .. 'Ce",
...=.... .
'7'~~.
""
.~"'
, ,
10.... - -..... - ..
,7'
\.
\
i (
\.
'\
"
,
, S..-.
,"
0-
N
. .
. _,',l:C"
, ,
.. =-:.
.. "
REFERENCE:
U.S.G,S. 7.S' TOPOGRAPI11C MAP, BYESVILLE
QUADRANGLE, 01110, DATED: 1961
PI10TOREVISED: 1972 8 1975. SCALE: 1":2000'
~
0 2000 4000
I
SCALE IN FEET
F-6
POOR QUA
ORIGINAL
FIGURE 6
RESIDENTIAL WEll SAMPUNG LOCA TJONS
FULTZ lANDFIlL SITE. BYESVlLJ..E. OH
AI REPORT
-------
s-.G1:
SlIGh
;5
~..,(
WO'1
}:,
/'
~,
~"P
.J
~
o
00
,oiO
G)D
-C
Z»
~I
~
s..ooo
s'OOOOO
50011
.. SDO'I'D
---
.
LS- --.l
US-A..-8
OS-A _8
LS-__8
51>--
S.-__8
sw---'
50--
LEGEND:
I:}{':: -, COAL IN PLACE
D ABANDON
DHP MINES
D fORMER SURf ACE
MINES
ESIIMATED LANDfilL ARE~
LEACHATE SErp NUMHER
(NOT SAMPLED)
UPS IRf AM S I A liON ON ~,1 j,; J,f
SIR! AM A
OOWlIS IRE AM S T A liON O/j L IIif I
S mr AM A
LEACHA TE SAMPLE (5W) AI;!;
SEDIMENT SAMPLE (SO)
STREAM WAIER SAMPLE (51'.)
POtm WATER SAMPLE (5W)
Arm SEDIMENT SAMPLE (5D)
~
, :::=-.:-J
800
D
400
FIGURE, 7
SURfACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPUNG LOCATIONS
fUlTl U,NOfIl SIlE. on:''u.E. 0"
AI RlPORl
-------
~
I'
ex>
-u
o
00
:;:C~
G1D
zC
»»
.e:
~--
...,........................
[[["...............".,...
""""'" '''''P'. [[[
""""""""""""""" ''''''''''",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ..,
. . ',......... ............................................... ..
"""""'''''''''' ............................- '" '.
. . . . 0""""""""'" """"""'..........,.....
'''''''''''''''''' .n"", ......"...,-.......
""'''''p.............. ''''''''''''''''''''
... . -.......... .....
................ ..,.
..---
LEGEND:
Ii}':,::" COAL IN PLACE
D ABANDONED
DHP MINES
D FORt.AER SURF ACE
MINES
---
E S TIt.AA T£O LANDFIll. ARE A
, .'
, I'
,
I I
....., ..,......... ..
....,..,..... .......
. . . . . . . . ..
""""""
... .
""""..""",
.. .. .....
.
SOIL SAt.APLE lOCA TlON
FOR ORGANIC AND INORCAIIII
ANAL YSES
I,
I L:
! I
II
I!
I
I
! !
:-:::J
80f}
'.,
SO';'PIJ '
.::::.'::::6::.::::::::::>:>:,::::.,....., . . . .
::'!.::::::::::::8~:i[[[ .. ..
.:f@:::::!;.'}~:::'.:;.:':'::~::::..'{i~~.'.. '.
..'(
.
SOil SAMPLE LOCA TlOIJ f 0'"'
-------
i
7
"'C
o
00
A';;:o
go
ZC
»»
r- r-
=i
-<
I ;
MONITONING WUI. 'AMI'UNG I.Ot: A liON
SURFACE WArE-A S""'PI.IHG tocATlnH
SEDIMlNT SAMPI.INC LOCA TlON
AIM QUALITY SAMrllNG lOCA nON
~._---_. +-.---- ----~-.- --.-.
II
I
I
~ I
!I
~
o
4C()
I
800
flOURE 9
PtiASE I AI SAMPUNO lOCATIONS
'Ul Tt lANOfU 8/1£. 8Y£SVll£. 00.
It REPORT
-------
o "
SEWAGE ~'
TRE A 'MEN T
PLANT
(POTW)
/rt1
08
~ ;:0
Q.()
zc
» »
r- r-
~
. "'-'-. - -._-
'-,DEAL
DEEP ~INE \
"-,DEAL .
DEEP ""HE \
o
C wOO>
PONO ~I
cooo,
o
~
!
.
LEGEND:
D COAL IN PLACE
D ABANDON
DHP '-4INf S
D rOR'-4ER
S'RIP MINE S
--- ESfiMAlfO LANOfill ARE:,
-x- SITE fENCE
. EXISIING SI-tALl.OW .0.0111' II.
IAONllUfllNG LOCA liON
o OISTING OUP MINE I\QUIII
MONIIORING LOCA IIOtl
() OISIING efOROCK
'-40NI fOiliNG I OCA liON
. NEw SHALLOW AQUifER
MONI faRING LOCA nON
. NEw DEEP AQUifER
MaN! IORING LOCA TlON
. SURfACE WA TfR IsmlMEN I
SAMPLING LOCA TlON
o AMBIENT AIR SAMPLING
LOCA TlON
A LEACHA n: SAMPLING LOCA II<
~
~~:l
800
¥.
. ...
o
'00
fiGURE 1 0
AL J£RNA 11\1[ 2
INSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS
AND MON! IORING
rut 11 LANnr'll sIIr.
F£ASlBIUIV sruo, R£PORJ
I,
! II
i ,
I
I
II
I
I
I
!
! I
-------
6. TOPSOIL
tTj
I
......
......
30. RANDOM
EARTH FILL
VEGETATIVE COVER~,
~ ......................
. """"""""""""""'"
""""" :::::::::::::::.'..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..
[[[
.......................,...,..,......"..,.,
.....................,...""
::::::::::::: .... ...... --
. . . . . . . .
;...:..,;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
24. COMPACTED CLAY
(K< 1Q-7CM/SEC)
NOTE:
GAS VENTS WIll UE INSERTED
A MINIMUM 3' INTO LANDFILL
SOLIDS.
--------- CARBON ADSORPTION CANISTER
GAS VENT CONSTRUCTED OF 4. PVC PIPE
/ WITH 8' OF STICK UP AND PERF ORA TED AT GAS
/ . DRAINAGE LAYER (1 VENT PER 1-1/2 ACRES) : I
/ I
""""""""""""""""""""
............
"'.....................,.............
,.......,..."...........................................,.
""""""""""""""""""""".""""
...............................,........
""""""""""".""""
I I
. . . . . . .
....................
...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
FlL TER FABRIC:
POL Y-NET
DRAINAGE LAYER
40 MIL
HOPE LINER
FIL TER .FABRIC
/ / /'....//'.... . ,
/'.... .'- .'- . POLY-NET GAS,
~ DRAINAGE LAYER
""- MUNICIP AL LANDFILL .'
SOLIDS AND SOIL COVER r
TO ACHIEVE 5.51. GRADE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
I
FIGURE 1 L
AL TERNA TIVE 3
-------
o 0
SEWAGE ~'
rREATI.4ENl
"lANT
(POTW)
',"~I
~r
~,
'TJ
I
.....
N
-c
o
00
;:;o~
C),O
z C:.
'"h. );..,
~ ~;i
-<
SfOll.A[NT
POND
'::':'~':"':' '.':""",": . '::.:.:.: .:-:.:.:: .::::::::::: ':::::::::::::::::::::,:::: :::::.::', ::.
... .... ........... .
"
PONO :I
"-,DEAL
0[[1' I.AINE\
.
lEGEND:
Ii> I COAL IN PLACE
D ABANDON
DEEP MINES
D IORMER
. STRIP I.4INES
- -- (5111.4.0.1£0 lANDrlLl AREA
AND MULTI-LAYER CAP
-X- SITE HNCE
ClE AN WA TER
DIVERSION 01 TCii
lEMPORARY SEOII.4ENT
CON lROl 01 TCII
SUBORAIN SUI.4P ANO PUW'
IOCA nON lOR lE ACIIA IE
cOUEcnON
-.-.-
o
.
EXIS liNG SHALLOW AQUlr[l~
MONIIORING lOCA nON
o
EXIS TlNG DEEP MINE AOUIITk '
1.40NI10RING lOCA liON
EXIS IItlG B£OROCl<
MONIIORING lOCA TlON
()
.
Nfw SHAllOW AQUllfR
1.40Nl10f~ING lOCA liON
.
NEW 01 EP AQUlfTR
MONITORING LOCA TION
.
I
SURI ACE WA TER/StDII.4EN 1 I
SAMPLING LOCA nON I .
~
.:.=:.:J
800
o
'no
fiGURE 1 2
AL fl RtlA IIV[ J
t.4Ul l1-lA YlR CAP
fUt.l1lA..orlll SlI£.
HASIDOUTY 51UOY RlPORT
I,
I I
~
f
I I
I,
I I
I'
, I
,
I !
-------
,)fW"GE ,
JRr"TMENI _./
PLANT
'f'OIW)
'Tj
I
I-'
Lv
/~
'00
~;;o
5,0
:::; (.-
/. ::-:-
"" }w';'.
,. -
f'''' :..-
.-t
--<:
0::.:.;::.::::'::"':''/::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~IDEAL
DEEP IAIHE \
o
<-$
x/
"<
l
LEGEND:
",}<::",! COAL IN PLACE
D AB"NOON
DEEP MINES
D" 'fORMER
, STHIf' MINES
- -- ESTIMATED LANDfiLL AREA
AND MULn-LAYER CAP
CLE AN WA TER
DIVERSION CHANNEL
I 1
I,
~IOEAL ~
OEEP IA'HE \
o
'00
~
-x- SITE r[NCE
_._.~ SEDIMENT CONTROL
011 CII
-.. - LEACHA TE COll.ECTlON
SUBORAIN
~ ESTIMAIED CAPIURE ZONE
o SUBORAIN SUMP AND PUMP
LOCA TlON fOR LEACliA IE
COLLECTION
EXISTING SHAllOW AOUlfE~
MONIIORING LOCA TlON
: I
.
o EXISnNG DEEP MINE AQUlru<
MONITORING LOCA,TlON
() EXISTING BEDROCK
MONITORING LOCA TlON
. NEW SHAI.LOW AQUlffll
MONIIORING LOCATION
~ NEW O££P AQUifER
MONITORING LOCATION
. SURF ACE WA TER/SEOIt.4EN T
SAMPLING LOCATION
$ EXTRACTION WHL ,
'I
fiGURE 13
AL TERNA TlVE 4
MUL n-LAYER CAP WIlli I
GROUNOWA TER EXTRAC TlOII I
AND IREATMENT
::J 1\Jl n LANOfILL Sill,
800 f(ASlI~lIrY s/Uor H(PORI
-------
S£DIUENT
POND
""""""""""""'"
,........., .........,
,"','. . . . .:..::'"
...
~ID[Al
DEEP MINE \
..
~ IDEAL ..
D££P IoAIHE \
o
cwooe
A
- -------
o~~
. +/
..
LEGEND;
D COAL IN PLACE
D ABANDON
DUP MINES
D FORMER
S TRIP MINE S
- -- ESfiMAIEO lANDrILl ~'"
- X - SIIE HriCE
o
lEACHA IE SUMP ANIJ f'l . .
lOCA 11011
CI fAN WA IER
DIY[RSION CHANNEL
_. -, - TfMPORARY SfOIM(t1 I
CONIROL OITCIl
----r--- TOP Of SLOPE
~ BOTTOM OF SLOPE
.
[XIS nNG SHALL OW AOUlf I
MOtIITORING LOCA TlON
EXISTING 0[[1' AQUlffR
MONI TORING lOCA flOrl
o
.
I
NfW SHAll OW AQUlrE R :
MONI TORING lOCA nOt I
..
N[W O[Er AQUlf[R
MON! IORING lOCA Tlorl
SURf ACE WA TER/S[J)IM(t1 ,
MONI raRING lOCA liON
.
~
~. .~.)
o
u
400
rIGIJRE 1 4
Al TERNA fly[ 5
ONSlll I ANOrlLl
fUI. T1 lANDfill SII£,
f[ASlIIIUTY sruDY RCPORT
I'
I~
, I
, I
~ I
I
, .
. I
: I
I 0 I
,.
! :
i
I
,
I'
I.
I i
i
8('1
-L
-------
APPROXIMA T£ EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
'-
"-
"-
"-
'-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
EL810~/~"
, I
I I
CLEAN WA I .R DIVERSION
CHANNEL (:.TREAU A)
200'
M.NI~U~
20'
[VEGATATIVE
['~' ~:O[---_. -~,
""""F-r--:F-'-f---:t +
COVER
EL 830
.m~
'.....
--...
'-
"
GRANULAR fill '
'-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I:
'TJ
I
......
V1
T£MPORARY SEDI~ENT
CONTROL DITCH
. ------ . .
.~
tit!tif!tii
,
,
ESTI~A T£D
WAT£R TABLE
5' ROCK UNDERDRAIN
\
\
IS' OF GRANULAR FILI_---.
FIGURE 15
AL TERNA TlVE 5
ON-SITE LAND'-IIL SECIWN AA
FUL TZ LANDfiLL SI TE.
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPOR T
! i
-------
:;
~
~
"Tj
I
~
0'\
-a
o
00
~~
(;)0
zc
»»
.-t::
~
.1
S£DII.A£N T
POND
.""
I ' .
t.. "~I
I !
I
i
I
~ IDEAL
D£EP I.AIN£ - \
.
~
STREAM B
.
.~
lEC~
D COAL IN PLACE
D ABANDON
D[[P I.AINES
D fORMER
STRIP MINES
- -- ESTIMATED lANDFIll AREA
AND MULTI-LAYER CAP
ClEAN WA TER
DIVERSION CIiANN[l
i I
I '
I
: i
-x- SIIE fENCE
-. -, - SEDIMENT CONTROL
DITCH
-..- LEACHAIE COllECTION
SUEJDR AIN
, :
I
~ !
SLURRY WAll i i
0 SUBDRAIN SUMP AND PUW' I
lOCA liON fOR U.ACHA TE I I
COLLECTION J
. EXISliNG SHALLOW AQUIrE
MONIIORING LOCA liON I
0 EXISTING OEEP MINf AOUlfIl1
MONI TORING LOCA.lI~N
() E XIS TlNG BEDROCK
MONI TORING LOCA TlON
. NE W SItAllOW AQUIrfR
MONIIORING LOCA liON
. NEW DHP AQUIrI R I
MONITORING LOCA TlON
. SURfACE WATERjS£DIMfNT
SAMPLING LOCA TlON
~
. --.' I
eoo
o
<01)
fiGURE 16
Al TERNA fiVE 6
MLJUI-LA vER CAP WI Tit
SUB SURf ACE BARRIER
rUtH tANOfKl Sill,
nASlOIUT'r SIUUT HlPORI
, I
I I
I
I j
I ,
-------
/~
08
~AJ
go
ZC'
»"';
...- '
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED
Fultz Landfill Site, Byesville.
Feasibility Study Report
(8)
Ohio
: I
..,
I
~
Groundwlter surelCI Wltlr/Sediment
Shallow Deep R.aid.n- By..villl Phnt. "0.2 Leech.te Seep. Pond. Ind Stream A Will. Creek
Aquifer Aquifer chi.
CllP.HlCAL Welle Unt.raat.ed Tr.at..d Water Sediment Wlter S.diment Wlter Sediment Soil Air
(b)
ORGANICS:
Aceton. X (X) (X) X X X X X
Benzene X X (X) X
Benzoic Icld X X
BenzyL ILcohol X
Ble(2-ethyihexyL)phtheLete X X X X X
BromodlchLoromethene (X) X
BromoCol'III (XI
2-Butenone X (XI
ButylbenzyLphtheLete X :fl X
Cerbon dl.uLClde X (XI X
Cerbon tetrachLoride (X)
Clrcinosenlc PAB. X X
Chlorobenzene X X X X
ChLoroethene X X
ChLoroCol'III X
DlbromochLorometh.n. (X) (XI
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene X
J,3'-Dlchlorobenzldene X
I,L-Dlchloroethene (X)
I,L-Dlchloroethene X (X)
1,2-Dlchloroet.hene (totel) X X (X)
L,2-DlchLoroproplne (XI
cl.-I,3-DlchLoropropene (X)
trene-I,J-DlchLoropropene (XI
DlethylphthaLate X X
30140-42-"
.
.j
-------
):"0
o
00
,0,0
-
gO
zc
»:J>
r-C
-t
-<
I!
TABLE 1
Continued)
~
I
N
Groundwater Surfaca Watar/Sadlmant
Shallow Daep Raaldan- Bynvllh Plant Ho.2 Laachata Saapa Ponda and Straam A Willa Cruk
Aqu if er Aqulhr ehl.
CUPXICAL Walla Untruted Traatad Watar Sadlmant Watar Sldlmlnt Wltlr Sldlmant Soil Air
(b)
2,4-Dlmlthylphlnol X
DI-n-butylphthalata X X X
DI-n-oetylphthalatl X X
Ethylbanune X X X X (X)
4-Hathyl-2-pantanonl X
2-Hlthylphlnol X
4 -Hathy I phanol X
Hlthyllna chlorldl X (X) (X)
H-nltrosodlphlnylamlnl X X X
NoncarelnoSlnle PAHa X (X) X X X
Pantechlorophanol X :.I, I X
Phlnol X
Styrenl (X)
Tetrechloroethene (X) X
Toluena X X X X (X) X X X
1,I,t-Trlchloroethana X
1,I,2-Trlchtoroathana (X)
Trichloroethane (X) (X)
Vinyl acatate (X)
Vinyl chloride X X
Xylenl. (total) X X X X (X)
I HORGAN ICS':
Aluminum X (X) (X) X
Antimony X X X
AClinic X (X) X X X
». r ham X X (X) X X X
Oary ilium X X
Cadmium X X X
, I
I
303~O-~2-r
-------
-a
o
00
,0 7'''
BD
Zc
~7=
-1
-<.
TABLE 1
( Continued)
Groundwd.ar SurCaca Watar/Sadi.ant
Shallow Daap Raddan- Byuvi lla Plent HO.2 Laachata Saapa Pond a and Straam A Wllh Craak
Aquihr AquiCar chl.
CBP.HICAL Walh Untr"hd Tnatad Water Sadi.ant Watar Sadi.ant Water Sadlmant So 11 Air
(b)
Calc lum X X X X
Chlorida X X
Chromium X X X
Coball X X X X
Coppar X X (X) X
Iron X X (X) X X
Laad . X X eX)
Hasnaalum X X X
Hansana.a X X (X) X X X X
Harcury X X
Hickal X X X X
Pota"lum X X
Sai.nium X :al ! X ! X x
Si lvar X X X
Sod i um X X X (X) .
SulCate
Th.llium X X X
Van.dium X 1 X
Zinc X 1 (I)
Cyanida X X
Hota.: (a) Ch..ical. d.tarainad to ba lita-ralatad and/or ch..ic.l. oC potantl.l conclrn b..ad on tha RI ra.ull..
X A ch..ic.l oC potantial concarn In tha ri.k ...a..mant, and probably .Ita-ral.tad.
(X) A ch..ic.l oC potantial concarn in tha ri.k a..a...ant, but prob.bly not .it.-r.lat.d. Sih-nlatad ch..i c.le .ara d.t.rminad b...d on a
compari.on oC tha on.ita ver,uI blcksround concentr.tion. Cor eech .adia.
(b) Soma re.idential .alla .ay ba located in downsradiant directiona relative to the landCIII.
.,
I
W
JOHO-42-r
I.
I,
,
I
~j
II; . i
II
I
I
I
'I II
I
: I
-------
TABLE 2
SHALLOW AQUIFER DATA SUMMARY
FULTZ lANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
(Conc~trations in ug/l)
Shallow AQU; fer Baci
-------
--, '--
--_0_._- ----
- -
U8lE 3
D~CRAOIENT COAL NINE AQUIFER DATA SUNNARY
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPOIIT
(Concentrations in ug/l)
ChMical
C081 Nine Aquifer
aackgroo..r.d (b)
..................................
Fr~y
of
Detection (a)
..... ................... -...... -... -.... -......-..
Range of
Detected
Concentrat iona
Fr~y
of
Detection (a)
Range of
Detectl!d
Concentrations
.......---.
Organicl:
. Acetone
. Benzoic acid
. bis(2-EthYlheaYI)phthalate
. 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
. 2-Butanone
. Di-n-butylphthalate
. EthYlbenzene
. 2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
. Toluene
. Vinyl chloride
. Xylenes (total)
Inorganicl:
...........-.........
. All.6llinun
. An t i IIIOny
Arsenic
. Baril,.
. Beryl I iUl
. CaaaiUl
CalciUl
. Chloride
. ChrCllliUl
. Cobel t
. C~r
. Iron
. le8cl
. Nagnes i UII
. Manganese
Mercury
. Nickel
PotassiUII
SeleniUII
Sod h..
SuI fate
Thalliun
. Vanedi UI
. Zinc:
4/11 I. - 22.5 3/5 7 - 17
1/11 37 0/5 "'SO - "'100
3/11 3 - 150 1/5 15
2/12 - 1.5 - 3 0/5 "'5
3/9 7 - 8 2/4 7
1/11 4.5 014 <3 - "'27
1/12 2 0/5 <5
1/12 1 1/5 9
0/12 NIA 1/5 6
2/12 1 - 3 0/5 <5
2/12 1.5 - 7 0/5 <10
1/12 2 0/5 <5
11/11 1,030 - 242,000 2/4 1,050 . 14,100
2/9 33.3 - 58 OIl. <25 - <58
8/11 10 - 49.3 3/5 17.3 . 392
12/12 57 - 18810 5/5 41 - 322
4/12 0.5 - 1 2/5 2.4 - 3
1/9 11.4 1/4 4.5
12/12 36,850 - 202,000 5/5 38, 300 - 36lo 000
12/12 10,000 - 150,000 5/5 4,000 - 53,;00
10/12 5.6 - 345 3/5 16.6 - 56
6/12 5.9 - 222 1/5 24.7
10/12 11.3 - 526 5/5 7.4 - 34
12/12 5,300 - 422,000 5/5 6,140 - 74,000
12/12 4.4 - 273 4/5 10 . 33.7
12/12 11,900 - 126,000 5/5 10,000 - 22,200
12/12 236 - 19,600 5/5 236 - 471
2/12 0.2 - 0.6 1/5 1.2
11/12 7.7 - 461 '/5 11 - 55.6
12/12 3,270 - 32j100 5/5 3,370 - 50,600
2/7 1.2 . 2. 112 3.1
12/12 21,200 . 71,400 5/5 39,500 - 238,000
12/12 60,500 . 257,000 5/5 57,000 - 530,000
2/12 2.2 - 2.5 1/4 3.7
6/12 7..3 - '59 2/5 16.' . 30
12/12 -~ . 1,300 5/5 61 - 158
CI) The nunber of semples in which the contaminant was detected divided by the total number of samples.
The total nu.ber of samples will vary if the analysis of a sample for a specific contaminant was
rejected during QA/OC- of the data.
(b) The bec:kgr~ samples for the c081 .ine 8q.Jifer Ire samples frOll G\JOQ8 (1985 8nd
1986), 8nd CWOO9 (1985, 1986, and 1989).
. Ch~ical of POtential concern.
« ) Ch..ical was not detec:tl!d at a concentration above the ClP Contract lIequired Quantitation
--- If.it of <. ..
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
T-5
-------
"--
TABLE
4
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL WELLS
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FIliAL RI REPORT
Concentrations (ug/liter) (a)
-...--.-.----------.------------.--.-------------------------
c~ RII001 RII002 RIJ003 RIJOOS RIJ007 RWOOIo (b)
Orglnics:
Bromodichlorcmethane NS 1.2 . <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chlorodibromomethane liS 0.6 . <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Tr;chloroethylene liS <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.3
lnorgenics (total):
All.Rinua <80 131. 1,'00 . <80 <80 <80
Arsenic 5 . <2 21, . <2 <2 <2
BariUl 36.5 50.3 395 . 17';' 86.1 82
Iron 3,270 . 635. 9,680 . 886 . 80 293
Leed <2 <2 6 . <2 <2 2
Manganese 581, . 556 . 280 . 15 20.3 . 8.7
Zinc <1,0 50.5 221 . <1,0 <1,0 111
(a) Muinun values detected for each chemical. All wells were s~led once in 1985.
Wells aW001, RW003, and RII005 were sampled again for organic chemicals only in
1986. Trichloroethylene in RII001 was the only organic chemical detected in the
1986 s~les.
(b) Background well.
« ) Chemicil was not detected at I concentration lbove the CLP Contract Required Quanti
--- Limit of <. e.
115 lIot sampled.
. Ch~ical of potential concern.
'""_:
T-6
EOOR QUAliTY
'" ORIGINAL
-------
-_. -.--.
---.--.
---'-..
-----
T A8LE
5
("E"'CAL COwCE~rQATIOoiS DEYECTE~ '. '"f
6YESVILLE CC>UCU~I TY wATE. SoJ~~"
FULTZ LAI/DflLL SITE
rl~AL ./ I1EPQo;y
(Conc..ntrat 'O<\S .n "9/1)
8ackgrO
-------
TABLE 6
PHASE II LEACHATE DATA SUMMARY
FULTZ LANOFlll SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
(Concentrations in ug/l)
leachate Water BackgrOl.n:J (I)
---------------------------- ----------------------------
Frequency Range of Freq.JenCY Range of
of Detected of Detected
Chemical Detect i on Concentrlt i on Detect ion Concent ra t i on
Organics:
---------
. Acetone 6/7 9-52.5 0/3 <10
. Benzene 5/7 2-6 0/3 <5
. Benzyl alcohol 1/7 15 0/3 <10
. bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1/7 6 0/3 <10
. Chlorobenzene 3/7 3-130 0/3 <5
. Chloroethane 3/7 11.5-13 0/3 <10
. Diethylphthalate 1/7 3 0/3 <10
. Ethylbenzene 5/7 5.5-150 0/3 <5
. 2-Methylphenol 1/7 1,5 0/3 <10
. '-Methyl phenol 1/7 25 0/3 <10
. II-nitrosodiphenylamine 1/7 6.5 0/3 <10
. Noncarcinogenic PAHs 2/7 2-5 0/3 <10
lIaphthalene 2/7 2-5 0/3 <10
. Phenol 1/7 21.5 0/3 <10
. Toluene 1,17 6-87 0/3 <5
. Xylenes (total) 517 18-1,7 0/3 <5
lnorganics:
-----------
Aluainua 717 159-782_5 3/3 38!300-125.000
Arsenic '17 2.2-6_5 2/3 .2,'"
. Bariua 717 283-2,155 3/3 262-i,.S6
. Calciua 717 101.,500-282,000 3/3 69,500-103,000
. ChrOlDi ua 717 17]-900.5 3/3 63.7-95
Cobs It 717 5.3-13.5 3/3 47.2-130
Copper 717 8'32.4 3/3 80.4,261
. Iron 717 2,920-79,800 3/3 77,300-266,000
lead 717 2_3-15_3 3/3 26.3-11,2
. Magnesiua 717 1,5,450-282,000 3/3 34,500-55,700
. Manganese 7/7 1,150-9,070 2/3 765-1,020
Nickel 717 156-674 3/3 110-355
. Potassiua 717 8,330-90,100 3/3 15,200-21,,000
. Sodiua 717 lo8,OOO-W,000 3/3 18,000-89,600
VanediUII 617 6.5-52.6 3/3 56.9-218
Zinc 717 17.3-36/. 3/3 218.957
(a) The background for the leachate water s~les is the shallow aquifer background well
( GWOOl. ) .
. OIe.icals of potential concern-
« ) Cheaical was not detected It a concentration above the ClP Contract Required Quant;tation
--- Li.it of <- -.
T-8
POOR QUAUTY
ORIGINAL
-------
-- .__.-
.i......:...- -- -.
~- ---
-
-- -- ._- ------.-
---
TABLE 7
lEACHATE SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARY
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
CConcentrltiona in ug/k;)
Leechlte Sedi-.nt hckgrc:u-cj (I)
-------.--.......--...----.- .---.---------.-...-.------..
Frequency Ringe of Fr~ Ringe of
of Detected of Detected
Chemicil Detect i on Concentrltion Detection Concentrltion
Organics:
------..-
. Acetone 2/9 10-19 0/3 <10
. BiIC2-ethylhexyl)phthlllte 719 99-980 0/3 <330
. Butylbenzylphthilite 3/9 62-310 0/3 <330
. Clrcinogenlc PAM 1 2/9 75 - 120 0/3 <330
BenzoCI)anthrlCene 2/9 75-120 0/3 <330
. Ch lorobenzene 2/9 15-57 0/3 <5
. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1/9 180 0/3 <5
. 3,3'Dichlorobenzidene 1/9 1,200 0/3 <20
. Oi-n-octylphthilite 1/9 190 0/3 <330
. Ethylbenzene 2/9 7-64 0/3 <5
. Nonclrcinogenic PAMs 3/9 315- 1 ,107 1/3 <850-110
Dlbenzofuren 1/9 97 0/3 <330
Fluorenthene 1/9 300 0/3 <330
Nlphthllene 3/9 120-280 1/3 110
Phenanthrene 3/9 170-450 0/3 <330
. Methylene chloride 3/9 4-10 2/3 14-32
. II-nl trosocliphenyl_lne 1/9 100 0/3 <10
. Toluene 319 5-24 0/3 <5
. Xylenes (totll) 2/9 6-7.5 0/3 <5
Inorg."icl:
...-.-..--.
AlUlll'UII 8/8 8,150-11,900 3/3 10,000-11,800
Arsenic 8/8 4.1-22 3/3 6.1-7.6
B8riUl 8/8 137-/131 3/3 73.5-209
.eryll I UI 8/8 0_6-1.1 2/3 0- 7-1.3
C.aaIUl 2/8 1.1 -3. 1 3/3 0.8-1.3
. C.lciUl 8/8 3,320-90,700 3/3 380-2,330
OIraalUl
Cobalt 8/8 9_9-18.4 3/3 14.1-20.9
C~r
. Iron 8/8 37,000-61,600 3/3 15,800-33,700
Le8d 8/8 17.1-49 313 13.6-48.6
M8gnesiUl 8/8 2,72D..-6,69O 3/3 1,320-3,41.0
MaI'Ig.,..e 8/8 '-'4t5,49O 3/3 455-/131
Mercury 1/8 0.1 1/3 0.2
Nickel 8/8 17-38.5 3/3 13.1 -lo8.3
Pot... h.. 8/8 921-2,270 313 648-1,720
. SeleniUl 2/8 0.6-0.7 0/3 <0.74-<0.76
. Silver 1/8 1.2 1/3 0.5
SocIiUl 1/8 505 3/3 76.7-564
. Th8ll iUl 1/8 0.6 0/3 <10
V8n8diUl 8/8 30_5-88.1 3/3 21.1,-41
Zinc
. Cy8nide 1/8 0.7 0/3 <10
CI) The background samples for the lelchlte sediment Ire the off-site soil samples ($0-01',
$0-012, and $0-013>.
. . ChMlc81s of potent III concern
C<---> OIMlc.l WIS not detected It I concentrltion lbove the CLP Contrlct Required Quentit8tio
LI.it of <. -.
\ - \; \"','
POOR QJl-,;"i I I
ORiGiNAL
T-9
-------
TABLE 8
SURFACE ~ATER DATA SUMMARY
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPOIIT
(ConcMtretlons In ug/I)
SAMPLE': S~'001 S~'006 S",002 S"-003 SU.OOio SU-005 SU.008 S~'007
CHEMICAL LOCATION: POND 1 POND 1A POND 2 POND 3 POND I, POND 5 DeM/STR A UPSTREAM A
(8) (hckgrOlfld)
Organlca:
..........................
Styrene c5 c5 c5 <5 c5 c5 c5 1
Toluene c5 c5 c5 <5 c5 <5 3 . <5
Trlchloroethene 1.75 . c5 c5 c5 c5 <5 c5 c5
lnorganlca:
................................
Ah.m11'1ll1\ 195 . 101 . c200 c200 clOO clOO c200 clOO
Ant lmony c27 c27 c17 cZ7 cZ7 <27 cll,. 7 c21,.7
Araenlc 2.9 . 3.1, . 2.7 . 2.2 . <2 . cl c2 <1
BerlUli 39.2 53.8 69.6 1,9.2 1,6.8 19 84.8 . 39.6
Beryiliun ,~! c2 ' c2 c2 <2 <2 <2' <0.5 cO.5
Cednh.m " cl, . ~ (c_) Ch~lcat was not detected U I concMtratton above the CLP Contract R~lred Quantitatton limit of ." "
..- -:
-;
-<
-------
CHEMICAL
SAMPLE I: 50-013
LOCATION: POND 1
(I)
OrganIcs:
"""'...e_.
AcUone
Benzene
bil(2-Ethythexyl)phthalate
Bromodlchtoromethane
BrOlllOfol'1ll
<4]
<9
510 . .
2 . .
<9
~
I
.....
......
Carbon dllulflde
Chlorobenlene
Chlorofol'1ll
cll-I,3-0Ichloropropene
Oibromochloromethane
1,l'Olchloroethane
1,1-0lchloroethene
1,2-0lchloroethene (total)
1,2-0lchloropropane
tranlo1,]-0Ichloropropene
<10
<10
<10 :~I
<9
<9
<10
4] . .
2
<9
<9
Ol-n-butylphthalate
Ethylbenzene
Noncarcinogenic PAHI
Acenaphthene
f I uor8nthene
85 . .
<9
<1200
<1200
<1200
<1200
<1200
]90 . .
<9
<9
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Styrene
Tetr8chloroethene
Tol~
I, I, I-Trlchloroethlne
i,I,2-Trlchloroethlne
T r I chi oroethene
Vinyl acehte
Xylenel (total)
150 . .
6 . .
<9
<9
<9
<9
50-017
PONO 1A
(b)
<27
17 .
<1800
8 .
4 .
27 .
77 .
21 .
7 .
6 .
111 .
18 . ,
17 .
16 .
7 .
<1800
17.
<1800
<1800
<1800
<1800
<1800
<8600
12 .
20 .
19 .
25 .
12 .
16 .
27 .
14 .
9
TABLE
SEDIHENT DATA SUHHART
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
fiNAL RI REPORT
(concentratlona In ug/kg)
50-014
POND 2
<20
<10
< 1]00
<10
<10
<10
48 . .
2
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<1]00
<10
<1]00
<1]00
< 1]00
<1]00
<1]00
<6500
<10
<10
4 . .
5 . .
<10
<10
<20
<10
50-015
PONO ]
<]0
<15
160 . .
<15
<15
<15
M . .
]
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<15
<2000
<15
<1900
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<9600
<15
<15
<15
8 . .
<15
<15
<]0
<15
50-016
POND 4
<61
<14
<1900
<14
<14
<14
68 . .
]
<14.
<14
<14
<14
<14
<14
<14
220 . .
<14
<1900
<1900
<1900
<1900
<1900
<9000
<14
<14
<14
7 . .
<14
<14
<28
<14
50-018
POt/D 5
<]8
<19
<2500
<19
<19
<19
86 . .
4
<19
<19
<19
<19
<19
<19
<19
<2500
<19
<2500
<2500
<2500
<2500
<2500
<12000
<19
<19
<19
10 . .
< 19
<19
<38
<19
50-020
DOWSTR A
]50 . .
<22
<2900
<22
<22
<22
<22
7 . .
<22
<22
<22
<22
<22
<22
<22
<2900
<22
970 . .
110
]40
180
]40
< 14000
<22
<22
7 . .
<22
<22
<22
<4]
<22
"
50-019
UPSTREAM A
(BackgrOtlld)
I
II
I,
! I
I I
-a
o
00
,o~
-
GJ,O
ZC
Jt> ~ (') ,.,... ,.....,.. .,. ,.. .,;,...." ".no .f ... ....,. 'nd . o,,1!,... '...,..
.-- -~ (bl Not lite-related ~au8e Pond IA II upgradient of the lite.
. Indicates I lite-related concentration.
. Ch~ical 0' potential concern (Section 6.21.
«_I Ch~lcal ..al 001 detected at a concentration above the ClP Contract Re-qulred Ouantltation limil 0' < "
<12
<6
<810
<6
<6
<6
<6
2
<6
<6
,
. ,
<6
<6
<6
<6
<6
I I
I.
I ' !
<810
<6
<810
<810
<810
<810
<810
<4800
<6
<6
I I
<6
<6
<6
<6
<12
<6
i i
-------
t-)
I
......
N
ro
'0
00
iO~
-
(;)0
z£-
~ )--~,
r- -',
-,.:.
TABLE 8 (Continued)
SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARY
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
(Concentrations In ug/kg)
I
i ,
CHEMICAL
SAMPLE .:
LOCATION:
so-on
POND 1
h)
SO-019
UPSTREAM A
(BackgrOlrd)
50-017
PON01A
(b)
SO-014
POND 2
SO-015
POND 3
50-016
POND 4
SO-018
POND 5
50-020
OOllNSTR A
lnorganlcs:
-.. - - ...................
AIYTllnun
Ant Irnony
Ars~lc
BariYTI
Beryl I IYTI
CadnlYTI
CalciUII
ChromlUII
Cobel t
Copper
13~0 13800 19300 15200 13500 16100 13500 13300
<11 <14.9 9.6 . ..
-------
---- -..
----
-.-- -- ---.
TABLE
10
~ILLS CREEK SURFACE ~ATER DATA SUMKART
FULTZ lANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
CConcentretions in ug/l)
CHEMICAL
SAMPLE': ~.010 $W-011
LOCATION: UPS TMT PLT 05 TMT PLT
$W.012 ~'009
05 WILLS ex IDEAL BRDG
CBackgrcx.n:l)
Organics:
.--..-...
DI-n'butyl phthalate
<10
<10
<10
0.6
lnorganlcs:
-..-.------
Alunlnua
An t I IIIOny
Arsenic
Bariun
Beryll i un
?360 1.89 4J.8 816
<2".7 <2".7 <2".7 <2".7
<2 <2 <2 <2
<106 105 99.2 101,
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<3.6 <3.6 <3.6 <3.6
159000 161.000 1 56000 166500
<5.5 <5.5 <5.5 <5.5
<".1
-------
--~---'"
-- ---
_. ----
-
TABLE 11
~llLS CREEr SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARY
FULTZ LANDFilL SITE
FINAL R I REPORT
(Concentrations. in ug/kg)
SAMPLE': SD.OZZ $D-On $D-OZI. $D-OZ1 (a)
CHEMICAL lOCA TIOII: UPS TMT PLT OS TMT PlT OS WilLS IDEAL BRDG
CBecltgrOll1d)
Organics:
---------
Acetone
-------
- --
-
--~.- --
-- -
-. ---'-'-.
._-._-._~
-
------
.- .~--
.._--- -.
TABLE 12
ON-SITE SURFACE SOIL DATA
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPoRT
(Concentrations in U;/k;)
Surface Soil 8ack;r~ (a)
.-.-----------.-.--.-.-....- ---_e_.____--.--.-.----.-.-
Frequency Range of Fr~ Range of
of Detected of Detected
Detection Concentruion Detection Concentration
.-
4/12 13-480 013 <10
6/11 310-720 0/3 <330
8/12 8-56 2/3 14-32
0/12 <330 113 260
0/12 <330 1/3 110
0/12 <330 1/3 150
1/12 8 0/3 <5
4/12 4-120 0/3 <5
10/10 8190-15075.6 313 10000-11800
10/10 4.9-27.2 3/3 6.1-7.6
10/10 45.3-264.6 3/3 73.5-209
10/10 0.7-1.4 2/3 0.7-1.3
9/10 1.6-3.8 3/3 0.8-3.05
10/10 l.89-8230 3/3 380-2330
10/10 21.1-37.1 3/3 1'.6-34.1
10/10 12.5-23.8 3/3 14.1-20.9
10/10 22.9-219 3/3 11.6-2'.7
10/10 27200-43800 3/3 15800-33700
10/10 20-34.4 313 13.6-l.8.6
10/10 2450-5416_2 3/3 1320-3440
10/10 233.5-872 3/3 455-831
2/10 0.2 1/3 0.2
10/10 23.2-58.2 3/3 13.1-1.!.3
10/10 704-3165 313 6/.8-1720
1/10 2 0/3 <0.75
7/10 0.5-1.2 1/3 0.5
10/10 55.5-452 313 76.7-564
10/10 22.5-46.2 3/3 21.4-41
10/10 74.2-113 3/3 44.8-122
Chemical
Orgenics:
-..-.....
. Acetone
. Di-n-butyl phthalate
. Methylene chloride
Noncarcinogenic PAHs
Na~thalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
. Tetrachloroethene
. Toluene
lnorgenics:
-----------
Aluainul
Arsenic
Baril..
Beryl I i UI
. CacaiUl
CalciUl
Chrc:niua
Cobalt
CGq)er
Iron
Leed
Magnes fI..
Man;.nese
Mercury
Nickel
PotassiUl
. SeleniUl
S il wr
SodiUl
V8n8diUl
Zinc
Ca) The b8ckgr~ samples for the on-site soil are SO-011, $0-012, and SO-013.
(b) Site-related ch..icals for this ~ia are based on the evalU8tion criteria discussed in
Section 4.1.3.
. OI_icals of potential concern.
C< ) OI_ical wa. not detected at a concentration above the CLP Contract ReqJired
--- Ouantitation Li.it of < 8---8.
OOR QUf.\U'''t
~ OR\G\NAl
-1'-15
-------
TABLE
13
CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN AIR
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
F I HAL R I REPORT
MAXIMUM COWCENTRATION
---------------------
CHEMICAL FREQUENCT (ppb) (ug/ll3)
. Acetone '17 '5.1 107
. Benzene 1/7 7.15 21.5
. Carbon disulfide 117 0.953 2.86
. Toluene 217 0.701 2.63
. . Chemical of pot~ti.l concern.
"".-:
T-16
POOR QUAUTY
ORtG\NAL
-------
-- ------
---
----
-- -""--
-- --.-----
--
TASLE
14
SLOPE FACTOR HEALTH EFFECTS CRITERIA FOR EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL R I REPORT
Chemical (a)
SI~
Factor (SF)
(1IIg/Itg/dey)"
SF
Basis
Weight-o#-Evidence
Classification (b)
Type 0#
Cancer (C)
ORAL
Organics:
1,1,Z'Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2'Oichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidene
Benzene
bis(2-EthylhexYI)phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Carcinogenic PAHs (iii)
(Benzo Ca] pyrene)
Chloro#ol'l8
Dibromochloromethane
Heptachlor
Methylene Chloride
N-nitrOSodiphenylamine
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
lnorganics:
Arsenic
Beryl I hll
INHALATION (h)
--------------
Organics:
---------
Benzene
Branofot'll
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Vinyl Chloride
SF
Source (d)
5.7E-02 C Liver Cavage IRIS
9.1E-02 B2 HeIII8ng i oqrc~ Cava;e HEA
6. OE -01 C Adret\81 Cava;e IRIS
6.8E-02 82 Li vel' Cavage HEA
2.4E-02 82 Li ver Cavage HA
'.5E-01 82 _. 118l1li\8 ry Diet HEA
2.9£-02 A 8100d Oral IRIS
1.'E -02 82 Li ver Diet IRIS
1.3£-01 82. Li ver Cava;e IRIS, H£A
1.3£-01 82 Liver Cava;e IRIS
1.15E+01 82 ForestOlll8ch Cava;e (e)
6_1E-03 82 r:idney Water IRIS
8.1.£-02 B2 Liver Cavage IRIS, HEA
4.5E+00 82 Liver Diet IRIS
7.5E-03 82 Li ver Ing. , Water IRIS
4.9£-03 82 Urinary/818Clder Diet IRIS
2.'7E+OO C LU"IIiI Cava;e IRIS, HEA
5.1£-02 B2 Li vel' Cavage IRIS, HEA
1.10£-02 B2 Li ver Cava;e HA, H£AST
2.3£+00 A LU"IIiI Ingest ion HEA
2.0£+00 A Skin Water (f)
4.3£+00 82 Ceneral Water IRIS
2.9£-02
3.9£-03
1.3£-01
1. 2£+00
1.4£-02
2.95£-01
A
82
82
C
82
A
8100d
Intestinal
Liver
r:idney
Liver/LU"IIiI
Liver
Imalation
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
1111 S
HEA
Cavage
Imalation
Imaluion
Imalation
-- . No available dBta.
(., 'o""ty """,. ." no, 'v"'oO.. f.. "''''''h...; >,'-""'h",..",. "'n'oo.,I"'h.I.,,; vinyl ..".,,; ""'n...;
calcha; Cobalt; iron; lead; 8Ignesiun; potassiun; lodiun; and chloride.'
Cb) EPA weight of evidence classification Icheme for carcinog8n8: A--Hunan Carcfnogen, 1U##icient evidence from
hunan epidelllliologfcal studiesi I'--Probable HUIIBn Carcinogen, li_ited evidence fre. epidelliological Itudiel
arc1 adequate evidence frOlll 81'11..1 Itudies; a2'-Probably HUIIIn Carcinogen, i~t. evic~enc. from epiden1iological
studies and ~te evidence frOll Inilllll ItUl1ies; C"Possible HUlllln Carcinogen, I i.ited evidence in anilllil
'n ,h, '''..., of ..... do'., .-"0' "...'fied .. '0 h.... ""'''''''''ty, ... ,--,......, of """,1.....".".
(C) Type(l) of cancel' identified for Clas. A carcinogens only.
(d) IRIS.. the ch88ie.1 files of EPA'I Integrated Risk Information System (a. of 03/01190); H£A . Health E#fectl
Assessment SUIIII8ry Tables CJlnUllry/April 1990); HA . Health Advilory (Office of Orinleing Water).
(" '..I,h 'ff"" ........., fo, ""0(.,,,..... ,.... '"'''"''"''' .""". ... ",......, Off'". "00'''''', Ohio.
Septentler 1984. EPA 540/1-86/022.
(f, ,p, ..... ""'.1 '''''' on ''''''ed 'no'..n', "'''''' S"n ....", '.""''''' ",..".1'... ",' ",......, '0"'. .
Washington, D.C. EPA/625I3-a7-01JF. July 1988.
IS) '0' th', 'hoo',., """', '''''''' do'. fo, ... of 'ho 000' ,.." '........ 'n 'h, ""0<" ""0(',,,,,,,. .,
used to represent the ent i re .i xture.
(h) Toxicity criteria are not available for acetone, brClllOdichloromethane, carbon dilulfide, chloroethane,
dibromochI oromethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, ethyl benzine, toluene end xylene..
T6-41F.wk1
-4':.:
T-17
I!OoR QUALITY
" ORIGINAL
-------
--.---..-
----
TABLE
15
RtD HEALTH EFFECTS CRITERIA FOR EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
FULTZ LANOFILL SITE
FIIW. RI REPalT
Chroni c R to Uncertainty Target I1to RtO
Chemi ca I (mg/lcg-day) Factor (a) Organ (b) Bas i s (c) . Source (d)
OIIAL (e)
.-.--.-.
Organic:s: -
1,1, 1-Tric:hloroethane 9.0E-02 1,000 Liv~ Imalation- IRIS
1,1,2-TriC:hloroethane I..OE-03 1,000 Blood Chl!!llistry \Jater IRIS
1,1-DiC:hloroethane 1.0E-01 1,000 Ki~y Inhalation HEA
1,1-DiC:hloroethene 9 .OE - 03 1,000 Li ver \Jater IRIS
1,2-Dic:hloroethene (total) (f)
trans- 2_0e-02 1,000 Blood \Jater IRIS
c:is- 1.0E-02 100 Li ver \Jater IRIS
1,I.-Dic:hlorobenzene 1.0E-01 1,000 Liver, Kich!y Imalation HA
Z-Butanone (MEK) 5.0E-02 1;QOO Neurotox, Fetal Tox. Imalation IRIS
2-Hethylphenol 5.0e-02 1,000 \Jeight, Neurotox Cavage IRIS
I.'Methylphenol 5.0e-02 1,000 \Jeight, Neurotox Gavage IRIS
I.-Methyl'2-pentanone 5.0e-02 1,000 Liver, Ki~ Cavage IRIS
Acetone '1.0E-01 1,000 Liver, Ki<*1ey Gavage IRIS
Benzoic: ac:id '.OE+OO Malaise, Irritation Diet'Hunan IRIS
Benzyl alcohol 3.0e-01 1,000 Gastrointestinal Gavage HEA
bis(2'Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.0e-02 1,000 Li ver Oiet IRIS
Bromodic:hloromethane 2.0E-02 1,000 Kidney Gavage IRIS, HEA
Bromofonn 2.0e-02 1,000 Li ver Gavage IRIS
Butylbenzylphthalate 2.0E-01 1,000 \Jeight, Liver, Diet IRIS
Kidney
Carbon tetrachloride 7.0e-0I. 1,000 Li ver Gavage IRIS
Ch loroi:lenzene 2.0e-02 1,000 Liver, Kidney Capsule IRIS
ChlorofonD 1.0e-02 1,000 Liver Food IRIS
cis'1,3-Dichloropropene 3.0e-()l. 10,000 Nasal Inhalation IRIS
Organ \Jei;ht Diet
Dibromochloromethane 2_0e-02 1,000 Li ver Gavage IRIS, HEA
Diethylphth818te 8.0e-01 1,000 \Jeight Diet IRIS
Di-n'butylphthalate 1.0e-01 1,000 Mortality Diet IRIS
ethyl benzene 1.0e-01 1,000 Liver, Kidney Gavage IRIS
Heptachlor 5.0e-0I. 300 Liver Diet IRIS
Methylene chloride 6.0e-03 100 Li ver lJater IRIS
Noncarcinogenic PAHs (f)
(Naphthalene) '.Oe-03 1,000 eye, Gastro- Diet HEA
intestinal
Pentachlorophenol 3.0e-02 100 Liver, Kidney Gavage IRIS
Phenol 6.0e-01 100 Fetal lJeight Gavage IRIS
Styrene 2.0E-01 1,000 Blood, Liver Gavage IRIS, HEA
Tetrachloroethene 1.0E-02 1,000 Liver Gavage IRIS, HEA
Toluene 3.0E-01 100 Neurotoxicity Gavage IRIS
trans'1,3'DiC:hloropropene 3.0e-0I. 10,000 Nasal Imalation IRIS
Organ Weight Diet
Trichloroethene 7.35e-03 1 ..000 Li ver Imalation HA, HEAST
Xylenes (total) 2.0e+oo "1t)0 Neurotox, Nasal, Imalation IRIS
Throat
Weight, Hyper- Gavage
activi ty
lnorganics:
Antimony Io.oe-OI. 1,000 Blood Clemi stry Water IRIS
Arsenic: 1.0e-03 1 Skin \Jeter HEA, EPA 1988
Bari~ 5.0E-02 100 Blood \Jater IRIS
Beryl I iun 5.0E-03 100 Blood, Skin \Jater IRIS
Ceani~ 1.0e-03 food (g) 10 Kidney Hunan IRIS
Caaniun 5.0e-0I. water 10 Kidney Hunan IRIS
Chromiun 1.0e+00 III 1,000 Liver Diet IRIS
Chromiun 5_0e'03 VI 500 Liver, Ki~y \Jater
Copper (i) 3- 7E-02 Gastrointestinal Hunan Oral HEA
. Cyanide 2.0E-02 500 Weight, Thyroid Diet IRIS
Manganese 2.0E'01 100 Neurotoxicity Imalation, HEA
Water
F-34-D
T-18
I?Oor~ QUALITY
" ORIGINAL
-------
.-
-'---'-
TABLE
15 (conrir-ued)
RfD HEALTH EFFECTS CIITEIIA FOR EXPOSuRE TO CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FIICAI.. RI REPORT
Chronic IIfD Uncertainty Targer IIfD RfD
Chemical (1II9/kg'day) Factor (a) Organ (b) 8aSls (C) Source (d)
lnorganics (continued):
Mercury (mercurial) 3.DE-04 1,000 Kidney Dier HEA
Nickel 2.0E-02 300 Organ Weight Dier IRIS
SeleniUII 3.0E-03 15 Skin Food HEA
Sit ver 3.0E-03 2 Argyria (ski,,) Drug 11115
Tha II i UII 7.0E-05 3,000 BlOOd Chemistry Cavage HEA
Val'l8diua 7.0E-03 100 Skin lIater HEA
Zinc 2.0E-01 10 BlOOd Drug HEA
I NHALA TI ON (i)
------.-------
Organics:
Carbon disulfide 1.0E'01 100 Fetal Tox. Inhalarion IRIS
Ch I orobenzene 5.0E-03 10,000 Liver & Kidney [nnalarion HEA
1,1-0ichloroethane 1.0E+00 1,000 Kidney IMalarion HEA
Methylene chloride 8.6£'01 (j) 100 Liver [nhalarion HEA
Toluene 5.7E-01 (j) 100 CNS [nhalarion HEA
Xylenes 8.6e-02 (j) 100 CNS [nnalarion HEA
-- . No available data.
C., """"..y '"'''' ." ,.. P'","". .. "'<""'nty "'00''''" and ODd"y'" ..".... "","'.in,y "'00,,"",. 00"
to develop reference doses generally consist of multiples of 10, with each adjusrmenr representing I specific area of
uncertainty in the dati Ivailable. The standard uncertainty adjustments include the fOllowing:
. a 10-fold factor to account for the variation in sensitivity among the members of the human POPUlation;
. a 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating animal data to the case of humans;
. a 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating from less-rhan-chronic NOAELs to chronic NOAEls;
and
. a 10-fold factor to account for the uncertainty in extrapolating from LOAELs to NOAELs.
Modifying factor. are applied It the discretion of the reviewer to cover other uncertainties in the data.
(b) A target organ i. the or9an most sensitive to a ch~iClI's toxic effect. RfOs are baSed on toxic effects in the
target organ. If an IUD was based on a stUdy in which a target organ was not identified, rhe organ listed is one
Icnotm to be affected by the particular chelllical of concern.
(c) Route of exposure in toxicity stUdy upon which toxicity criterion is baSed.
(d) IRIS. the chelllical files of EPA's Integrated Risk InfoMnition System (as of 03101/90); HEA = Health Effects
Assessment SUllllary.
(e) Toxicity criteril are not available for ehloroethane; 2,'-dimethylphenol; di-n-octylphrhalate; vinyl acetate;
alUllinUD; calciua; cobalt; iron; lead; 18;nesiun; potassiUII; sediua; and chloride.
,., F., ,.". ""'"'' """", 'OO"'ty do" .., one of ,., ..., '00" '''''""'' In ,., .i.,",. i. 00" " ""'.,n,
the entire mixture, e.g., naphthalene for noncarcinogenic=pAHs and cis-I,2-dichloroerhene for 1,2-dichloroethene
(total). In addition, chrauiun VI toxicity data is used -for chrauiUII.
CO, .~ """""'. w.th "A gu......, ,.. ""'UO O'D fo, f.., '. used ,., ,..,C...., fi.', .nd ".., ......... ..,.,I,l,
(I.e., SOil).
Ch) This is the current drinking Wlter Standard for Copper which is baSed on local GI irriration. The Drinking Water
Criteria Document concluded that the toxic data were inadequate for calculations of a verified RfO for copper.
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(i) Toxicity criteria .re not available for acetone; bromodichloromethane, bromoform, dibromochloromethane;
1,2-dichloroethane; and ethylbenzene.
Cj, CoI'ul",. ..,"'., 1m bo... '" , do.. ,. 3 .,/03 c..thyl"" 'hI,,'do', 2 .,/03 "oi_>, 0.3 .,/03 ('yl...., "..
and an inhalation rate of of 20 mg/m3 for I 70 kg adult.
F-34-D
T-19
EOOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE
16
LEAD UPTAKE AND BLOOD LEAD LEVEL ESTIKATES Ca)
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPOI!T
Leed Uptake Blood Lead
for the Level for the
Source of RME Case RME Case
Exposure Cug/day) Cug/dl)
IMalation 0.11 0.01.
Diet (b) 5.5 2.2
Direct Contect. wi th 0.002 0.0008
Soi I 8nd Dust
Direct Contect with 0.010 0.001.
Sediment
Ingestion of Croundwater
Shallow .Aqui fer 32 13
Deep Aqui fer 9.6 3.9
Total Leed Intake
Shallow Aquifer 38 15
Deep Aqui fer 15 6.1
Maternal Blood Lead 0.71
Total Blood Lead (c)
Current Site Use Conditions: 3.0
Future $itl Use Conditions:
Shallow Aqui fer 16
Deep Aqui fer 7.0
(a) Blood lead levels calculated using Integrated
Biokinetic/Uptake Model from EPA (1989c).
(b) Includes ingestion of drinking water containing backgrOlrCl
lead concentrations ~ to 16 ug/l.
(c) Current site use conditions include all pathways
except ingestion of grOlrClllater frc. the shallow
or coal .ine aquifer. Two pathway c:aatlinations are
evaluated for future site use conditions, one including
ingestion of grOlrClllater fr~ the shallow aquifer plus
all other pathways, and one including ingestion of grOlrCl-
water from the coal .ine aqui1er plus all other pathways.
..- . Not applicable.
."Y:
T-20
POOR QUAL I I ,
ORIG\NAL
-------
. .
S~le
Location
POND 1:
POND 1A:
POND 3:
DOWNSTR A:
POND 1:
POND 1A:
-- --_.. - --
.-.----
---
---.
- --- --
_._-
TABLE
17
EXPOSuaES AND RiSes TO CHILDIEN AND TEENACERS FROM
INCIDENTAL DIRECT COMTACT WITH STREAM A SEDIMENTS
FULTZ lANDFILL SITE
FIlIAl.. RI R£PalT
Potential Carcinogenic Effects
RME Estlmatea ChronIc
Daily Intake (CDI) (a)
(mg/kg-day)
Chemi cal
.------.-------------------
Sl~ Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1 (b)
Bis(Z-ethylhexyl)phthelete
Bromodichloramethane
Benzene
8romodic:hloramethen8
Ch lorofoMII
Dibromoc:hloramethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1-0fchloroethene
1.Z-0ic:hloropropane
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
'.1,2-Tric:hloroethane
Tric:hloroethene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Arsenic
Chlorofol"lll
Incidental Del"lll81
Ingestion Absorption
3.0E-08
2.3E-10
Z.OE-09
9.'E-10
2.5E-09
7.0E-10
2.1E-09
2.1E-09
1.9E-09
1.I.E-09
2.3E-09
1.I.e-09
1.ge-09
9.'e-09
5.1e-09
8.2E-10
1.6£-07
2.1E-09
1.SE-08
8.I.e-09
2.2£-08
6.3E-09
1.9£-08
1.9E-08
1.1£-08
1.3E-08
2.1E-08
1.3E-08
1.1£-08
5.1E-08
NC
7.'e-09
1.4E-02
1.3E-01
2.9E-02
- 1.3E-01
6.1E-03
8.'E-02
9.1E-02
6.0E-01
6.8E-02
Z.'7E+OO
5.1E-02
5.7£-02
1.1E-02
1.4E-02
Z.OE+OO
6.1E-03
Potentfal Noncarcinogenic effects
RIlE est1.ted Chrotuc
Daily Intake CCOI) Ca)
(1liii/kg-day)
--------.-----.-.-----....-
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bromodlchloramethane
Ch lorobenzene
DI-n-butylphthallte
Pentachlorophenol
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Tric:hlorOithane
1,1,2-Tric:hlorOithane
1,1-0ic:hloroethane
1,1-Dfchloroethene
1,2-0ic:hloroethene (totll)
Bromodic:hloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon disulfide
Ch I orobenzene
Chlorofol"lll
cis-1,3-01c:hloropropene
Olbromoc:hloramethane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,3-01c:hloropropene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (toul)
Incidenul Oel"lllll
Ingestion Absorptfon
2_1e-07
1.6E-09
3.5e-08
7.0e-08
3.2£-07
1.2£-07
4.9E-09
2.1e-08
9.9E-09
1.5E-08
1.5e-08
1.'e-08
6.6E-09
3.3E-09
2.2e-08
6.3E-08
1.7E-08
5.1£-09
4.9E-09
1.,e-08
9.9£-09
1.6E-08
1.6E-08
5.7£-09
1.3e-08
1.1e-08
1.1e-06
1.5E-08
3.2£-07
3.1e-07-
8.6E-07
1.1E-06
'.4E-08
1.se-07
8.se-08
1.3E-07
1.3E-07
1_3e-07
5.9£-08
2.9E-08
2.0E-07
5.1£-07
1.5E-07
5.2£-08
'.'E-08
1.3E-07
8_SE-OS
1.5E-07
1.1oC-07
5.2£-08
1.2£-07
1.0e-07
Reference Dose
(1liii/kg-day) (e)
2.0e-02
2_0e-02
- 2_0E-02
~ 1.0E-01
3.0E-02
3.0E-01
9.0£-02
9.0E-02
4.0e-03
1.0E-01
9.0e-03
1.0e-02
2.0E-02 -
2.0E-02
1.0E-01
2.0e-02
1.0E-02
3.0E-04
Z.OE-02
1.0E-01
2.0e-01
1.0e-02
3.0E-01
3.0E-04
7.3E-03
2.0E+OO
'T' "11
Weight of
Evidence
Class (c)
B2
82
TOTAL:
A
82
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
C
~2
C
82
B2
A
B2
TOTAL:
TOTAL:
TOTAL:
Target
Organ (1)
Li ver
ICf~
Liver. ICI~
MorUl1 ty
Liver, ICI~
Neurotox i city
Liver
Excess Upper
BoU'1d Lifetime
Cancer Risk (d)
3E.09
3E-10
......e....._---..
3£-09
6E- 10
1E-09
1E-10
6E-10
2£'09
IE-08
1E.09
3E-08
1E.09
BE-10
2£-10
..-...............----
6E-08
SE.10
1E-08
5E-11
....-.-...-.-...--
1E-08
CDI :RfO (9)
1£-05
BE-07
2£,05
'£-06
'e-05
'e-06
5E.07
HAZ..UD INDEX: <1 (1E-Dl.)
-.-------...-.
Li ver
Blood Chemistry
ICI~
LIver
Liver
ICI~
LIver
Feul Toxicity
Liver, r::1~
Liver
Nas.l, Organ Weight
Liver
Liver, r::1~
Blood, Liver
Lfver
Neurotoxicfty
NI..l, Organ Weight
Live!"
Neurotox, Nasal, Weight
2E'06
ZE.05
1E-06
2£-05
1E'05
3e-06
2E-06
2£-06 -
3E,05
2£-05
ZE.()l.
ZE'06
1E.06
5E-07
z.e'05
5E.07
2E'()l.
2£-05
6E-08
-c.
o
00
;;C ?O r
Q0
~~
r-C
~
-<
HAZARD INDEX: <1 (5E-Dl.)
----.................
-------
--
- - ---
TABLE
17(contirued)
EXPOSURES A~ RIS(S TO CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS FROM
INCIDENTAL DIRECT CONTACT WITH STREAM A SEDIMENTS
FULTZ LANDFIll SITE'
FlIW.. R I RfPa!T
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects
RHE EstlIMtec C.VOnlC
Dai Iy Intake (CO I ) (a)
(qa/kg-day)
-.---------------------.-.-
Incidental Denne I
Ingestion Absorption
Reference Dose
(lIIg/kg-day) (e)
Target
Organ (f)
COI:RfD (g)
POND 2: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1o.1E-09 3.1£-08 9.0e-02 Liver 5E.07
Ant imony 7.9E-09 NC I..OE'O/. Blood Chemistry 2E'05
Chlorobenzene 3.9E-08 3.5E-07 2.0E-02 liver. I(idney 2E-05
Toluene 3.3E-09 2.9E-08 3.0E-01 NeurotoJ:icity 1E-07
.....-----------
HAZARD INDEX: <1 (I.e-05)
POND 3: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 6.6e-09 5.9£-08 _. 9.0e-02 liver 7E-07
Bis(Z'ethylheJ:yl)phthalate 6.6e-08 3.5e-07 Z.DE-02 Liver 2E-05
Chlorobenzene 5.3E-08 4.7E-07 2.0e-02 Liver, lI::idney 3E-05
----....-..--.-
HAZARD INDEX: <1 (5E-5)
POND I.: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.7E-09 5.2E-08 9.0e-02 li ver 6E-07
Ch loroeenzene 5.6e-08 5.0E-07 2.0e-02 liver, I(idney 3E-05
Di-n-butylphthalate 1.8£-07 8.1E-07 1.0e-01 Horta Ii ty 1E-05
-..--..---....-..
HAZARD INDEX: <1 (I.E-D5)
POND 5: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8.2E-09 7.loe-08 9.0e-02 liver 9E-07
en lorobenzene 7.1E-08 6.3E-07 2.0e-02 liver, I(idney /,E.05
Cyanide 3.0E-09 NC 2.0E-02 We i 9h t, Thyroid 2E-07
Mercyry 2.5E-10 2.2E-09 3.0e-0/. lCicr.ey 8E'06
Selenhm 1.8£-09 NC 3.0E-03 Skin 6E - 07
Silver 5.3E-09 NC 3.0E-03 Argyria (skin) 2E-06
Thail lun 1.8£-09 NC 7.0£-05 Bleed Chemistry 3E-05
----..---.-..---
!\AZARO INDEX: <1 (7E-05)
OCMISTR A: Acetone 2.9£-07 2.6E-06 1.0E-01 Liver, Kidney 3E-05
Arsenic 3.6e-Q8 IIC 1.0e-03 Skin /,E.05
SariUII 3.8£-07 NC 5.0e-02 Blood 8E.06
Cac211 i un 5.5E-09 NC 1.0e-03 I(idney 6E-06
Chloroform 5.7E-09 5.2£-08 1.0E-02 Liver 6E'06
Manganese 1.2£-05 NC 2.0e-01 NeurotoJ: i ci ty 6E-05
Noncarcinogenic PAHs Io.OE-07 3.6e-06 4.0E-03 Eve, Gastrointestinal 1E.03
Silver 10.2£-09 NC 3.0E-03 Argyria (skin) 1E-06
Toluene 5-7E-09 5.2£-Q8 3.0e-01 NeurotoJ:icity 2.£-07
------..--..-..-
HAZARD INDEX: <1 (1 E -03)
~
(a) Presented previously in Section 6.3
(b) Presented previously in Table 6-41
(c) EPA weight of evidence cllslificltion Icheme for carcinogens:
A . HLman carcinogen, sufficient evidence frCII hUDln epide!lliological studies;
B2 . Probable Hunan Carcinogen, inadequate evidence frCIII epidemiologicil stu::lies and adequate evidence
frOlll anilllll stuelies: and
C . Possible Hunan Carcinogen, lIlIIited evidence in anillllls in the absence of hunan data.
(d) Calculated by multiplying the COI by the Ilope factor.
(e) Presented previously in Table 6-42
(f) A terget organ il the organ DOSt sensitive to a chemical's toxic effect. RfOs are based on toxic effects in the
target.organ. If an If 0 was based on I ltudy In Wiich . target organ "'II not identified, the organ listed il one
known to be effected by the particular chemicil of concem.
(51) Calculated by dividing the cot by the IfO.
NC m Not Calculated.
For inor;anics, denll8l Ibsorption assUDed to be negligible.
T-22
POOR QUALrl1
< ORiG\NAL
F-34-0
-------
-------
---- ---
~--
... , -.--.-"--- -- --
.---
--
--
--.--'-
TABLE 20
EXPOSURES AND RISKS TO INDIVIDUALS FROM THE
INCESTION OF CROUNDWATER FROM OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL WELLS
FULTZ lANDFIll SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
RilE -
Esti..ted Chronic Weight of Excess Upper
Residential Daily Intake (CDI) Slope Factor Evidence B()II"Cj L i fet i me
Well N~r (lIIg/kg-dey) (a) (lng/kg-day)-1 (b) Claaa (c) Cancer Risk (d)
cneaicals with Potential
Carcinogenic Effects
........--.-.........---....-
RU001: Arsenic 6.1E-05 2.0£+00 A 1E-I)I,
RU002: Bromodichloramethane 1.5E-05 1_3E-01 B2 2E-06
Oibromochloromethane 7.3E-06 8.4E-02 B2 6E-07
-.---.-..--
TOTAL: 3E'06
RW003: Arsenic 2.9£-1)1, 2.0E+00 A 6E-I)I,
RME
Estimated Chronic
Residential Daily Intake (CD I) Reference Oose T8rget
Well N~r (mg/kg-dey) (a) (lIIII1/kg-day) (e) Organ (f) CDI :RfD (g)
Chemicals with Potential
Noncarcinogenic Effects
-----------.....-.----..-----
RU001 : Arsenic 1.4E-04 1.0E-03 Skin 1 E - 01
Mang-.e 1. n-02 2.0£-01 Neurotoxicity 8E-02
----_.-----
HAZARO INDEX: <1 (2E-01)
RU002: Bromodichloramethane 3.4E-05 2.0£-02 K i ct1ey 2£-03
Oibromochloramethane 1.n-05 2_0£-02 liver 9£-04
Manganese 1.6£-02 2.0E-01 Neurotoxicity 8E-02
-----_._---
HAZARD INDEX: <1 (8E-02)
RU003: Arsenic 6.9£-04 1_0£-03 Skin n.01
B8riUl 1.1E-02 5.0E-02 Blood 2E-01
Mang-.e 8.0£-03 2.0£-01 Neurotoxicity 4E-02
Zinc: 6.3e-03 2.0£-01 Blood 3£-02
.------.---
HAZARD INDEX: .1 (1E+OO)
RU005: BariUl 5.0£-03 = 5_0E-02 Ilood 1E-01
RU007: Mang-.. 5.8£-04 2.0E-01 Neurotoxicity 3£-03
(a) Presented previously In Section 6.3
(b) Presented previouslY In Table 6-41
(c) EPA weight of evidence classification scheme for carcinogens:
A . Hunan Carcinogen, sufficient evidence frOll hunan epidemiological stu::lies:
B2 . Probable H~ Carcinogen, inadequate evidence frOll epideliliologic.l stu::lies end ~te evidence
frOll ani..l stu::lies: and
C . Possible Huaan Carcinogen, li.ited evidence in ani..ls in the absence of h~ deta.
(d) Calculated by ~ltiplying the CDI by the slope factor.
(e) Presented previously in Table 6-42
(f) A target organ Is the organ moat sensitive to a chemical's toxic effect. RfOa are beaed on toxic effects in the
target organ. If an RfO was based on a stu::ly in wnich a target organ was not identified, the organ listed is one
known to be affected by the particular chemical of concern.
(;) Calculated by dividing the CDI by the RfO.
T-25
POOR QUAUTY
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 21
EXPOSURES AND RISeS TO CHILDREN AND TEENACERS FROM
INCIDENTAL DIRECT CONTACT WITH LEACHATE WATER
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAl RI REPalT
POt~t~al Carcinogenic Eff~:s
Cherai cal
RMf
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake CCDI)
(mg/kg-day) (a)
weight of
Evidence
Class Cc)
Excess Upper
Bolrd Lifetime
Cancer Risk (d)
Slope Factor
(mg/kg~day)-1 (b)
Organic Chemicals:
Benzene
BlsC2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
N'Nltrcsodiphenylamine
TOTAL
Cherai cal
5.9£-08 2.9£-02 A 2E-09
8.9£-08 1.I.E-02 B2 1E-09
9.1E-08 1,.9£-03 B2 I.E-10
-------...
3£-09
Potential Noncarcinog~ic Effects
RMf
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake (CDI) Reference Dose Terget
(mg/kg-day) Ca) (lII9Ik;-day) (e) Organ (f) CDI :RfD (g) .
Organic chemicals:
Z-MethylJ:lhenol
4'Methylphenol
Acetone
Benzyl alcohol
BlsC2~ethylhexyl)~thalate
Ch loroben%ene
Olethylphthalau
Ethylbenzene
Noncarcinogenic PANa
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Inorganic chemicala:
BarlUl!
Ch rallh.1II
Manganese
IIAZ.W) 1 NDEX
9.0E-01 5.0E'OZ ~eight. Neurotox 2E'05
8.0E-07 5.0e-02 Weight, Neurotox 2E-05
2.0e-06 1.0e-01 Liver, IClct'Iey 2E-05
7.4e-07 3.0e-01 Gastroint~tinal 2e-06
6.2£-07 2.0E-02 Liver 3E'05
8.5E-07 2.0E-02 Liver, Klch!y 4E-05
3.2£-07 8.DE-01 Weight 4E-07
1.9E-06 1.0E-01 Liver, Klchey 2£-05
5.3E-07 Io.OE-03 Eve, Gastrointestinal 1E-0l0
7.se'07 6.0E-01 Fetal Weight 1e-06
1.3E-06 3.0E-01 Neurotoxicity I.E-06
1.7E-06 -. 2.0E+OO Neurotox, Nasal, Weight 8E-07
9.1E-05 5.0E-02 Blood 2E-03
4.5E-05 5.0e-03 Liver, Kidney 9E-03
3.7E-0l0 2.OC'01 NeurotClJticity 2E-03
.....-----
~: <1 C1E-02)
(a) Pr~ented previously In Section 6.3
(b) Presented previously In Tacle 6.41
Cc) EPA lleight of evidence classification scheme for carcinogens:
A . HtAI8n Carcinogen, Illfficient evidence frail hUllan epideraiological stUdies;
B2 . Probable HUlIn c.rcl~, i~te evidence frail epidemiological studi~ and ~te evidence
frca ani..l studies; ~
C . Possible HIomBn c.rclnogen, I Imi ted evidence In anllll8ll in the absence of hUllan dati.
Cd) Calculated by III.Iltlplying the CD1 by the slope factor.
Ce) Presented previously In Tacle 6-42
Cf) A target organ la the organ most sensitive to a cheralcal's toxic effect. RfOs are based on toxic
effects In the target organ. If an RtO was based on a Study in which a target organ was not Identified,
the organ llated 18 one knowt to be affected by the pertlcular chemical of concem.
(;) Calculated by dividing the CDI by the RfO.
F-34-D
T-26
POOR QUALITY
ORiGiNAL
-------
------- --
-..
-- .
-
- --
- ----- --
------
--
--_._-- --
--- .-..-----.- -
- ----
TULE
22
EXPOSURES AMD RISKS TO CHILDREM AMD TEEMACERS FROM
IMCIDEMTAL DIRECT ~TACT WITH LEACHATE SEDIMEMTS
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FIIAl II RfPCIIT
Potential Carcinogenic Effects
RME Estill\lted Chronic
Daily Intake (CDI) (a)
(mg/kll-day)
---------------------------
Chemical
Incidental
Ingestion
Slope Factor
(mg/kll-day)-1 (b)
Oel'lll81
Absorpt i on
Organic Chemicals:
1,4-0ichlorobenzene
3,3-0ichlorobenzidene
8is(Z-ethylhexyl)phthlllte
Carcinogenic PAHs
Methylene chloride
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Weight of
Evidence
Class (c)
EACesS U~r
BO\61d l i fet i me
Cancer Risk (d)
2.1E-08 1.9E-01 2.4E-02 82
7.0E-08 6.3E-07 4.5E-01 82
2.4E-08 1.3E-01 -1.4E-02 BZ
5.9E-09 2.1E-08 1.15E+01 B2
6.5E-10 5.1IE-09 1.5E-03 B2
1.2£-08 1.1E-01 4.9E-03 B2
5E-09
3E-07
2E-09
3E-07
5E-11
6E-10
TOTAL
-------..-
Potential N0nc8rcinogenic Effects
6E-07
RM£ Esti.ted Chronic
Olily Intlke CCDI) CI)
Cmg/k; - day)
-----..-.....--...--..--.--
Incfdentll
Il'IQest f on
Oe...l
Absorption
Reference Oose
Clll8llcg-day) (t)
Orvanic ChemicaL.:
1,4-0Ichlorobenzene 1-5E-07 1.3E-06 1.0E-01
Acetone 8.0E-09 1.2£-08 1.0E-01
Bls(2-ethylhexyL)phthILate 1-7E-01 9.1E-01 2.0E-02
BUtylbenzylphthllate 1.41-07 6.3E-07 2.0E-01
Ch l orobenzene 6.5E-09 5.1IE-08 2.0E-02
Ethylbenzlnl 6.3E-09 5.1£-08 -1.0E-01
Methylene chloride 4.5E-09 4.1E-08 6.0E-03
Noncarcinogenic PAM. 2.2£-07 2.0E-06 4.0E-03
Toluene 6.2£-09 5.5E-08 3.0E-01
Xylenes Uotll) 4.41-09 3.9£-08 2.0E+OO
Inorganic Chemical,:
~:
Cyanid8 4.1E-10 NC 2.0E-02
SeLenhll 5.7E-10 NC 3.0E-0]
S IL wr 8.0E-10 NC 3.0E-03
Thall I", 4.5E-10 NC 7.0E-05
IfAZ.UDIIIDEX
Target
Organ (f)
CDI :RfO (II)
liver, ICf~
Liver, ICIct1ey
Li ver
Weight, Liver, ICIa,ey
Liver, ICIa,ey
Liver, ICfdney
liver
Eye, Glstrointestinal
MeurotoAicity
NeurotoJl., Nasal, Weight
1E-05
1IE-01
5E-05
4E-06
3E-06
6E-07
SE-06
5E-04
2£-07
2£-08
Weight, Thyroid
Skin
Argyril (skin)
Blood Chemistry
2£-08
2£-07
3E-07
6E-06
--------..
<1 (61-04)
(I) Presented previousLy in Section 6.3
(b) Presented previously In TabLe 6-41
(C) EPA weight of evidence cL"lificatfon sdleme for carcinogens:
A . MUllIn Clrcinogen, sufficient evidence frca hUll8/'\ epidemiologicil stu::1les:
82 . ProbabLe Hunan Carcinogen, i~te evidence fraa epldemioLogicll stu::1ies and edequate evidence
fraa anialll stu::1ies' and
C . Pos.iblt Hunan carcinogen, l i.ited evidence In ani.ls in the absence of hunan dati.
(d) CIlcullted by aultipLying the COI by the sLope factor.
(e) Presented previousLy in TlbLe 6-42
(f) A target orgln i. the organ G08t sensitive to I chemicil's toxic effect. R10s are based on tOJl.ic effects
effects In the tlrllet organ. If an RfO wa, based on I study in which a target organ was not identified,
the organ listed Is one know! to be Iffected by the particular chemicil of concern.
(II) Cilculited by dividing the CDI by the RfO.
NI: . Not Cllculued. For lnorganics, de,.,.l absorption IllUDed to be nagllgible.
r-3.-0
- T-27
in the
EOOR QUAU--';'
, ORIGINAL
-------
--
TABLE
24
EXPOSURES AND RIS&:S TO HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENT FRO!
INCIDENTAL DIRECT CONTACT WITH SOIL
FULTZ lANDFIll SITE
filIAL. R I REPOR T
Potential Carcinogenic Effects
RME Est ill8ted Chronic
Daily Intake (CDI) (a)
(lIIg/kg'day)
..----..-.--------------.-.-
CIIemi cal
Incidental De". I
Ingestion Absorption
Sl~ Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1 (b)
Weight of
Evidence
Class (c)
EAcess UPPer
80U"1:j l i fu irne
Cancer II isk (d)
Organic Chemicals:
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
4.0e-09 2.3e-08 7.5e-03 82 2E-10
1.3e-09 7.5e-09 5.1E-02 82 I.E -10
-----.---.-.
]C-10
Potentfal Noncarcinogenic Effects
RME Estllll8ted Chronic
Daily Intlke (CDI) (I)
(lIIQ/kll-d8y)
------------------------.-.
Incfdental Dennal Reference Dose Target
Ingestfon Absorpt I on (~/kll-d8y) (e) Organ (f) CDI :RfD (II)
TOTAL
Chellicll
Organic Chemlclll:
Acetcne
Df-n-butylphthalata
Methylene chlorfde
Tetrac:hloroethene
ToLuene
HAZAlDIIIDEX
9.3E-09
2.81-07
9.3E-09
3.0E-09
5.8E-09
5.41-08
8.11-07
5.41-08
1.7E-08
3.31.08
1.0E-01
1.0E-01
6.0E-03
1.0E-02
3.0E-01
Liver. rlctwy
MorUllty
Liver
Llyer
Neurotoxicity
6E-07
1E-05
1E-05
21-06
1E-07
-------...-.
c1 (2E-05)
(I) Presented prevlOl.8Ly fn Sectfon 6.3
(b) Presented prevfOl.8ly fn Table 6-"
(c) EPA weig/lt of evfdence cla..fflcatfon 1dI.. for carcinogens:
A . HUD8n Carcfnogen, lufflcfent evfdenca frf:8 hUllln epidemiolQ9ic:al st\.dies:
12 . ProbabLe HUII8n Carctnoven, Il'\8deqI.8te evfdence frCIII epidemioLogicl1 st\.dies ~
~te evldenc8 fraa en'.l ltudfa: Ind
C . PoslibLe HUI8n Carctnoven, Ifafted evfdence In ani..ls in the absence of 1'1I.lIIln data.
(d) CaLcuLated by ILILtlpLyf~ the CDI by tile .lope feetor.
(e) Presented previ«aly In Table 6-42
(f) A tlr;et organ fs the orllan 8D8t sensftlve to a chellical's tOAic efft
-------
--
..
TABLE
23
EXPOSURES AND RISKS TO NEARBT RESIDENTS FROM THE
INHALATION OF AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FIlIAl II R£PCIIT
Chemi ca l
RME
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake (CDI)
(1liii/kg-day) (I)
Slope Factor
(ms/kg-day)-' (b)
Weight of
Evidence
Class (c)
Excess Upper
BOU'Id Li fet ime
Cancer Risk (d)
Chemicals with Potential
Carcinogenic Effects
..------------.-.-------
Benzene
3.9£-03 2.9£-02 A 1E-0l.
RME
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake (CDI) Reference Dose Target
(lIIIiI/kg-d8y) (a) (lI1;/kg-c:lr" (e) Organ (f) CH:RfD (g)
Chemi ca l
Chemicals with Potential
Noncarcinogenic Effects
------------------------
Toluene
1.1£-03
5.n-a1
Neurotoxicity
<1 (2£-03)
(e) Presented previously In Section 6.3
(b) Presented previously in Table 6-'"
(c) EPA weight of evidence classification ach- for carcinogens:
A . MUllIn Carcinogen, sufficient evidence frCIII hUllln epidemiological studlesi
B2 . ProCable MUllIn Carcinogen, Il'\8dequate evidence frCIII epidemiological studies end ~te evidence
frCIII anl..l studies: end
C . Possible HUIan Carcinogen, l f.lted evidence In anl..la fn ttle absence of hu8n dIIta.
(d) Calculated by ILIl tfplyfn; the CH by the slope factor-
(e) Presented previously in Table 6-42
(f) A targlt organ ia the organ IDOSt s..itfve to a chemical'a-toxic effect- RfDs ara baaed on toxic effects in the
target organ. If an R10 was baaed on a study in which a tarvlt orvan ..as not identiffed, the organ listed is one
knoIon to be affected by the particular chemical of concem.
(g) Calculated by dividing the CD! by ttle RfD-
~
F-3~-D
T-28
eOOR QUAlrri
" ORIGINAL
-------
-
--
--- -
---
TABLE 2 5 -
EXPOSURES AND RISKS TO FUTURE RESIDENTS FROM THE
INGESTION Of GROJNOWATEI FROM SHAllCW AQUIFER
FULTZ LAWDFILL SITE
FIIAl RI REPaIr
Poter1: I a l Car::, nogen i c: Effec:ts
Chemicil
R.l4E
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake COOl)
C~/kg-day) CI)
Weight of
Evidence
Class Cc)
Excess Upper
BOI61d Lifetime
Cancer Risk (d)
Slope Factor
Cmg/kg-day)-1 (b)
....----.
Organics:
1.1-Dlchloroethene
Benzene
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Clrcinogenic PAH.
Methylene chloride
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Vinyl chloride
lnorganics:
---.-.---
Arsenic
Bery III UII
TOTAL
3.4E'05 6.0E'01 C 2E-05
1.2E '05 2.9£-02 A 4E-07
9.7E'05 1.4E'02 B2 1E-06
4.7E-DS ;.1SE+01 B2 SE-()I.
1.2£'05 7.5E'OJ B2 9E-08
2.4E-05 4.9£.OJ B2 1E-07
5.8E-05 2.3E+OO A 1E-()I.
2.3E'04 2.0E+OO A 5E-()I.
7.1E'05 4.3E+OO B2 3E-()I.
---------
1E-03
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effect.
0I8IIicil
RME
Estlm8ted Chronic
CIlly Intlke (001)
Cmg/kg'd8y) (I)
Referenr:. Dose
(II8Itg-d8y) (e)
rl/";et
Organ (f)
001 :R1D (g)
Organic chemical I:
-------............----------
1,1'Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dlchloroethene (total)
2'8utanone
4-Methyl'2'pentanone
Acetone
Benzoic acid
BlsC2'ethylhexyl)phthlllte
BUtylbenzylphthalltl
Carbon disulfide
Ch lorobenzene
Dlethylphthilite
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Noncarcinogenic PAHs
Pentachlorophenol
Toluene
Xylenes (toul)
Inorganic chemlcIls:
..-------.-------------------
Antimony
Arsenic
Bariua
Beryll lUll
C8cin I UII
OIromlua
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenh.lll
Silver
Thellfun
Venadiua
Zinc
HAZARO IIIOEX
8.0e.os 9.oe-03 Liver 9E-03
7.n-05 1.0£-02 Liver SE-03
1.5E'04 -5.0E-02 Neurot~{ Fetal tax 3E-03
1.5E-04 5.0E-02 liver, IC a.y 3E-03
1.5e-04 1.0£-01 Liver, ICldney 2E'03
2.9£-05 4.0E+OO "'llise 7E-06
2.3E-04 2.0£-02 Liver 1E.02
5.n-05 2.oe-01 Weight, Liver, Kidney 3E'()I.
5.n-05 1.0e-01 Fetal t~ 6£-()I.
7.n-OS %".OE-02 liver, IClci'ley 'E-03
1.9£-04 8.0e-01 Weight 2E-()I.
4.6E-OS 1.0E-01 Liver, Klchry SE-()I.
2.9£-05 6.0e-03 liver SE-03
1.3e-03 4.0e-03 Eye, Gastrointestinal 3E-01
6.0e.05 3.0E-02 liver, IClchry 2E-03
8.0e-OS 3.0E-01 Neurot~ 3E-()I.
8.3e-05 2.0e+oO Neurot~, Weight, Nasll 'E-05
5.n-04 4.0E-04 Blood Chemiltry 1E+OO
5.4e'04 1.0E-03 Skin SE-01
2.0e'02 5.0E'02 Blood '-E-01
1.6E-04 5.0E-OJ Blood, Skin 3E-02 J~
1.5e-04 5.0e-04 Klchry 3E-01
2.6£-03 5.0E-03 Liver. IClci'Iey SE-01
2.7E'03 3.7E-02 G..trointestinel 7E - 02 .00
1.2£-01 2.0e-01 Neurot~ 6£-01
2.9E-05 3.0E-04 IClchy 1E'01 ,c ;~.;
3.5e-03 2.0E'02 Orvan Weight 2£-01 -
9.1e-05 3.0e-03 Skin 3E-02 C'Jo
8.6E-05 3.0E-03 Ar;yrll Cskin) 3E-02 ZC
1.1E'04 7.0E'05 Blood Chemistry 2E.OO
2.7E-03 7.0E-03 Skin 'E-O' '»?
1.1E-02 2.0e-01 Blood 6£-02 r-t:.
_.._.e..... ~
>1 C7E..oo)
T - .1 ()
F-J4-D
-------
T AaLE 2 5 ( cant i nueen
EXPOSURES AND .'SKS TO FUTURE .EStDEMTS FROM THE
IMGESTlOII OF CiRIUIOWATER FRC»c SWAllOW AQUIFER
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FIlIAL II IEPCRT
(a) Presented previously in Section 6.3
(b) Presented previously in Table 6-"
(c) EPA weight of evidence classification 5cheme for carcinogens:
A . H~ Carcinogen, suff.icient evidence from huaan epiderDiological studies;
82 . ProCable Hunan carcinogen, i~te evidence frOlll epiderDiological studies and 8dequate evidence
frOlll ani.l studies; and
c: . Possible H~n carcinogen, If.ited evidence in ."i_ls in the. absence of hl.ll1an data.
(d) calcullted by aultiplyfng the CDI by the slope factor.
(e) Presented previously in Table 6-'2 .
(f) A tlrvet organ is the organ most sensitive to a chemical', toxic effect. RfDs are based on toxic effects in the
target organ. If an RfO ..., based on I study in Ntlfch I target organ was not identified, the organ listed is one
known to be affected by the particular chemical of coneem.
(;) calculated by dividing the CDI by the ltO.
"-:
F-34-D
T-31
eoOR Lt-,-,' __l'fY
;~;~ORIGiNAL
",..
-------
---
---
--- ~-
_. --- --
-----
__n~__- --.----
TA8LE
26
EXPOSURES AND RISKS TO FUTURE RESIDENTS FROM THE
INGESTION OF GROUND~ATER FROM THE DEEP NINE AQUIFER
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAl III IIEPORT
PotentIal Carcinogenic Effects
Chemical
RI4IE
Est imeted Chroni c
Daily Intake CCDI)
Cmg/ltg-day) (a)
Slope Factor
(mg/ltg-day)-1 Cb)
Weight of
E v i denc:e
Class Cc)
E..:cess Upper
801rtd li fet i me
Cancer Risk Cd)
Organics:
----.-...
BisC2.ethylhe..:yl)phthalate
Vinyl chloride
1. 7E -03 1.'E-02 82 2E-05
8.6E.05 2.3E+00 A 2E-0"
2.2E-()I, '.3E+00 82 9E.()I,
. ......... "''''''''''''''''
1E-03
lnorganics:
-.....-----..
8erylli18
TOTAL
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects
RHE
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake CCD!)
Cmg/ltg-day) (a)
Aeference Dose
(m;/ltg-day) C e)
Target
Organ C f)
CD 1 : A fO (g)
Chemical
Organics:
.-.------
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
2-8utanone
Acetone
8enzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhe..:yl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
. Ethylbenzene
Noncarcinogenic PAHs
Toluene
Xylenes Ctotal)
Ant imony
Bariun
Beryll iun
Cacin i un
Chromiun
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadiun
Zinc
8.3E-05 1.0E-02 Liver BE-03
2.3E-()I, 5.0E-02 Neuroto..:, Fetal to..: 5E-03
3.6E-()l. 1.0E-01 Liver, Kia,ey 'E -03
8.BE-()I, '.oe+oo Mallise 2e-O"
'.OE-03 2.0E-02 Liver 2E-01
1.3E-()I, 1.0E-01 Hor-u l i ty 1e-03
5.7E-05 1.0E-01 Liver-, Kia,ey 6C-()I,
2.9£-05 '.OE-03 Eye, Gastr-ointestinal 7E-03
8.6C-05 3.0E-01 Neur-otox 3E-()I,
S.7E-OS - 2.0e+00 Neur-otox, Nasll, Weight 3e-05
1. 7E-03 4.0E-04 Blood Chemistry 'e+oo
'.5E-02 5.0E-02 Blood 9£-01
5.1E-()l. ,.5 .0E-03 Blood, Skin IE-OI
3.0E-()I, ~'5.0e-()l. lCicr.ey 6C.01
9.9£-03 5.0E-03 Liver-, lCicr.ey 2E+00
1.5E-02 3.1E-02 Castr-ointestinll "e-01
5 .6C-01 2.0e-01 Neur-otox 3E+00
1.3e -02 2.0e-02 Or-gan Weight 7E-01
1.3E -02 7.0e-03 Slcin 2E+00
3.7E-02 2.0E-01 Blood 2e-01
.""'---..-...-
>1 CIE+01)
lnorganlcs:
-----...---
HAZARD INDEX
CI) Presented pr-eviously in Section 6.3.
Cb) Presented pr-eviously in Table 6.'1.
Cc) EPA weight of evidence cllssification scheme for- car-cinogens:
A = Hunan Clrcinogen, sufficient evidence fr-OII hunan ~idemiological studies;
SZ . Pr-obable Hunan Clrcinogen, inadequate evidence from ~idemiologicil studies and adequate evidence fr-om Inimal
studi es; and
C = Possible Human Car-cinogen, limited evidence in animals in the Iblence of human dati.
(d) Calculated by multiplying the CDI by the slope factor.
Ce) Presented previously in Table 6-'2.
(f) A tar-get or-gan is the or-gan most sensitive to e chemical's toxic effect. AfOs Ire based on toxic effects in the
target organ. If an RfD was based on I study in which I tar-get or-;an WaS not identified, the organ listed is one
known to be affected by the par-ticular chemiCll of concer-n.
Cg) Calculated by dividing the CDI by the IIfO.
F-34-D
T-32
"""'-.."" ". ,.-
~;:~JI~ i.. '. : i ! "J
,.., '-"i \110.... 4 I..
'" ORiGINAL
-------
----
-------
------
TABLE
27
EXPOSURES ANI) RIUS TO FUTUlE RESIOENTS F"OM INHALATlOII
~HILE SHOWERING WITH GaOUMDWATER FROM THE SHALLOW AQUIFER
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FIlIAl II R£P(II T
Potential Carcinogenic Effects
, Chemical
RHE
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake (CDI)
(DIg/kg-day) (a)
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1 Cb)
Weight of
Evidence
Class (c)
Excess Upper
B~ Lifetime
Cancer Risk Cd),
1,1-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Methylene chloride
Vinyl chloride
Total
S.SE-OS
2.2E-OS
2.1E-OS
'.1E-()I.
1.2E+00
2.9£-02
1.I.E-02
2.9£-01
C
A
B2
A
7E-OS
6E-07
3E-07
3E-OS
............
1E-()I.
Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects
Chemical
RME
Estimated Chronic
Daily Intake (CDI)
(DIg/kg-day) (a)
Reference Dose
(mg/kg-day) Ce)
Target
Organ (1)
CDI:RfD (g)
Ch lorobenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
1.2E-()I.
I._SE-OS
1.I.E.0l0
1.3E-()I.
S.OE-03
8.6E-01
S.7E-01
8.6E-02
Liver, Kia,ey
Liver
CJlS
CJlS
2E.02
6E-OS
2E-()I.
2E-03
Huard Index
...............
<1 C2E-02)
Ca) Presented previously in Section 6.3
(b) Presented previously in Table 6-41
(c) EPA weight of evidence classification scheme for carcinogens:
A . Hunan Carcinogen, sufficient evidence frCIII huaan epidemiological studies;
82 = Probable HI.IIIIn Carcinogen, inadequate evidence frail epidemiological studies and adequate evidence
frOl'l anillllll studies; and
C = Possible Hunan Carcinogen, l illlited evidence in Inilllllls in the absence of hunan data.
(d) Calculated by multiplying the COI by the slope factor.
(e) Presented previously in Table 6-42
(f) A target organ is the organ IIIDSt sensitive to a chemical's toxic effect- RfOs are based on toxic effects in the
target organ. If an RIO .,as based on a study in which a target org8n .... not identified, the organ listed is one
known to be affected by the particular chemical of concern.
(9) Calculated by dividing the COI by the RfD.
~
'-34-0
T-33
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
. .
---
-------
. ---- --
"- ----
--0-
---- --- -...
TABU 28
EXPOSuRES AND RIseS TO FUTURE RESIDENTS FROM INHALATION
WHilE SHO.UING WITH GRC1JNDWATER FROM THE DEEP AQUIFER
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FIlIAl.. Rl R£PalT
Potential Carcinogenic Effects
Chemical
RME
Estimmted Chronic
Daily Intake (COI)
(mgjkg'day) (a)
Slope Factor
(mg/kg'daY)-1 (b)
IJeight of
Evidence
Class (c)
Excess U~r
801rd lifetime
Cancer Risk (d)
Vinyl chloride
1.7E-~
Z.9E-01
A
SE-OS
-
Potential Nonc:arcinogenic Effects
Chemical
//ME
Estimated Chronic
Dai Iy Intake (CO I )
(mg/kg'day) (a)
Reference Dose
(lIIg/kg-day) (e)
Target
Organ (f)
COI :RfD (g)
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
HaUrd Index
1 .SE-~
9.2E-OS
S.7C-01
8.6E-02
CNS
CNS
JE-04
1E'OJ
...------
(8) Presented previously in Section 6.3
(b) Presented previously in Table 6-"
(c) EPA weight of evidence clusification sc:hlllll! for carcinogens:
A " Hlllll!ln Carcinogen, sufficient evidence frOlll hunan epidemiological studies;
82 " Probable HUIan Carcinogen, inadequate evidence frOlll epidemiological studies and adequate evidence
frOlJl enilllli studies; and
C " Possible HUIIBn Carcinogen, I imited evidence in animals in the absence of hUllSn date-
(d) Calculated by multiplYing the COI by the slope factor.
(e) Presented previously in Table 6-'2
(f) A target organ is the organ most sensitive to a che=ical's toxic effect. RfDs are based on toxic effects in the
target organ. If en RfD was based on a stUdy in which II--target organ was not identified, the organ listed is one
known to be affected by the pertic:t.llar chemic.l of conc:ern. .
(9) Calculated by dividing the COI by the RfO.
<1 C1E-03)
.~_-:
T-34
POOR QUALilY
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE
29
SUMMARY OF UNCERTAIMTIES 1M T"E BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FilIAl RI REPORT
ASSUHP T I ON
MAGN I TUDE OF
EFFECT ON RISK (a>
DIRECTION OF
EFFECT ON RISI(
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
----------------------------------.
Potentially naturally occuring levels at
inorganics and chemicals that may be
associated with mining operations
attributed to site.
Moderate
Sufficient s~les may not have
been taken to characterize surtace water,
sediment, end off-site residential wells.
Systematic or random errors in the
chemical _lyses /lilY yield erroneous
data.
May over-estimate risk
Low May over- or under-estimate
risk
Low May over- or under-estimate
riSk
Low May over- or under-estimate
risk
Chemical concentrations reported ..
"below the contract rt!q.lired ~titltion
limit (e.g., labled "V"> are included
a. one-half the quantitation li.it.
EXPOSURE PARAMETER ESTIMATION
.-.......--------------------
The standard a.s~tions regarding
body weight, period exposed, life
expectancy, population characteristics,
end l Hestyle NY not be re$)resentative
of arry 8Ctual exposure situation.
The amount of media intake is assumed
to be constant and representative of the
exposed population-
Moderate
Low
Concentrations of contaminants remain
constant over exposure period
Ccai:llning ~rbou'ld esti/llltes of
exposure parameters using a simple
intake t!q.IItion to estimete exposure
to represent the lIME-
Moderate
Moderate
TOXICOLOGICAL DATA
-.-.--------------
The cancer slope factors used ere ~r
bo..rId estiNtes.
- High
~.:.
Risks are assumed to be 8dditive. Risks
/lilY not be additive because 01 s.,nergistic
or antagonistic actions of other chemicals.
Dose-response dati were not available
tor III 01 the selected chemic.ls 01
potential concern.
Low
Low
Surrogate chemicals were selected to
represent mixtures of chemiclls in I class
(e.g., carcinogenic PAHS).
Cancer risks were added across chemicals
with di1ferent EPA weight-of-evidence
classifications (e.g., adding risks for a
Gr~ A are a Group 82 carcinogen)-
Low
Moderne
Would tend to overestimate
risk given the conservative
aS$~t i ens used
Would tend to overestimate
risk given the conservative
assUl1't i ons used
Would tend to overestimate
risk to most chemicals
Would tend to overestimate
exposure and risk
May over-estimate risk
May over- or under-estimate
risk
May under-estimate risk
May over-estimate risk
May over-estimate risk
(a)
As I general guidel ine, ass~tlons marked IS "low", may affect esti/llltes of
of exposure by less than on order of magni tude; aSl~tions /IIIrked "moderate" may
affect estimates of exposure by between one are two orders of magni tl.Oe;
are ass~tiens /IIIrked "high" l118y affect estimates of exposure try more than
two orders of magni tude-
T-35
F-34-D
POOR QUAliTY
ORIGINAL
-------
-----.--.-- .
- ~ ---. - -- -
-.
- ..
.-"----
-.
TABLE
30
COIICENTIUTIOIIS OF INOIIGANICS IN SWlFACE WATER FRC»I STREAA A AND
RE~ENOEO "-'XINUN OIETAIY lEVELS FOIl LIVESTOCK DRINKING WATER
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
r fiCA!.. II r REPOR T
CALI concent~.tiGn8 in U&/L)
Chemicil of
Potential Coneern
Pond 1 C.)
.......---[[[
coneentt'8tiona in Sut'f8Ce Wltet' AIOt'II $t~e... A
Pond 1A
Pond 2
Pond 3
Pond ,
Pond 5' OOW'll t t'e...
of Pond 5
NuillUD level
II t!CCIIIIIended .
by PUls C 1988)
IIU illUD levl!
lIt!Calmendeg
by lIAS (1980
Ca) Values p~esented It'e the It'ithmetic means of the Simple and . ~Iiclte Simple.
" . Not selected 1$ I chemicil of coneet'n.
NA . Not IVlillble.
A hllli nu. 195 201 5,000 NA
At'senic 2.9 3.' 2.7 2.2 200 50
Blt'iun &.8 1,000 IIA
Cobilt 5.1 1,000 1,000
C~t' 7.1 7.3 5.5 500 1,000
N'"Vlnese 82' 339 626 '85 1106 251 1,530 50 IIA
-------
TABLE
31
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSHENT
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
Exposure Pathway
Total Excell lifetime Non-Clrclnogenlc
Carcinogenic lilt Hazard Index
lME C..e
.......--..........--
..............-...
lHE ClSe
------------..---
Conments
, I
Current land Use
Direct Contact with Sediment.
by Children and Teenlgerl
Strelllll A: Pond 1
Pond 1A
Pond 2
Pond J
Pond 4
Pond 5
Downstrelllll A
IIllIa Creet
.,
I
W
-....J
Direct ContlCt with Surf Ice "ater :~I
by Children .nd 'eenlgerl
Stre. A: Pond 1
Pond 1A
Pond 2
Pond J
Pond 4
Pond 5
Dowmtrelllll A
Direct ContlCt with Soil
by Chi Idren and feenagera
JE-Q9
-------
- ---- ----
..----
AlTERMATIVE 4-A -
FUL TZ
TABLE 32
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
MULTI-LAYER CAP, GaOUMDWATER EXTRACTIOM AND TREATMEMT
(With Grout Pillerl)
LAMDFILL SITE - FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
ITEM
===:..cac:_.:::::.==.....::=:=::.=:=:=:=:=:.-::===:=::=:=====....".....:a==..=.....................=======.8==
===:==:====:===..........=:=..=:.=:::=====
I. IMSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS
1. D~ Restrictions
2. PI.bI i c E~lt ion Progr..
3. lnatitutionel Controll
4. Alternate Weter Supply
Sl.btoUI:
------------------------------------
II. GENERAL ACTIONS/SITE PREPARATION
1. .Site Fencing
2. Nobilizltion, Decon, Stl;ing Arel
Sl.btotll:
------------------------------------
III. MULTI-LAYER CAP
,. Multi-Llyer Cap Instlllition
2. Lelchlte Collection System
3. Grout Pillirl
Sl.btoul:
------------------------------------
IV. WATER CONTROl
1. Subsurfece Diversion Ditch
2. Surflce Wlter Diversion Ditch
3. Pond Exclvltions
4. Erosion & Sediment Controls
5. Wetlanas RepleclDent
SU:>totll:
------------------------------------
V. EXTRACTION AND ONSITE WATER TREATMEM
1. Extrectfon Wells
2. Treltment Plant Building
3. Treltment System
4. ResicSJel Dlapoall
Sl.btoul:
------------------------------------
v.
LONG-TERM MONITORING AND REVIEWS
1. Monitoring Well lnatlllition
2. Environnenul S-.pling
. 3. 5 Yelr Revl~
QUint I ty
ClplUI
Cost
Atruel
o & M
Present lIorth
0&lil1 R ep llc emen t
30 yelrs, 5% 30 yelrs, 10%
...............=:=====.=.=====
---------------------.--.----.
--------------------....---.--
1123,000
S7'5,ooO
=========:===..:=....................
MA S10,ooo
MA S20 , 000
NA 120,000
S25 .1117,000
------------------------.------------
1167,000
------.------------------------------
10000 FT
NA
S16O,ooo
S131,ooo
sa,ooo
---------------...-.-......--.
1123,000
S7'5,OOO
---------.---------------------------
1291,000
sa ,000
----------------------.-.--.-.
S332, 000
S173,OOO
----------.--------------------------
22 Icres
NA
MA
S5,771 ,000
$1.02,000
1900 , 000
------.-------------------....
1286,000
S150,OOO
-----.-----.-.-----------------------
17,073,000
-------------------------------------
1600 FT
1600 FT
MA
MA
MA
1978,000
110,000
$1.95,000
1174,000
1250,000
-------------------..--..--...
------------------------.-----
-----------------------..-----
1231,000
S14 1,000
'971,000
166,000
-------------------------------------
",907,000
-------------------------------------
12 Wells
NA
NA
NA
1150,000
S350,000
1165,000
115,000
1103,000
17,000
11,583,000
1108,000
------------------------------
S1,922,ooO
S1,178,OOO
-------------------------------------
1665,000
1125,000
------------------------------
'1,307,000
S83,ooo
$801,000
SI.6,OOO
-------------------------------------
5 will
.
6 Revi ews --
140,000
185,000
------------------------------
Sl.btotll: $1.0,000 185,000 ",390,000 S8/.7,000
=========................................. ................=.................... .=.a..===..=:..=:=::==._....==
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 110,143,000 1218,000 13,721,000 S2,250,OOO
Hellth end Safety
Bid Contin;ency
Scope Contingency
51
101
101
=:========..===......................==-..a=....==zaa..===-=:=:.....===.=::::=:====:=:::==:::=============:::==
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
-------------------------------------
1507,150
~,014,300
ST,014,300
'12,678,800
TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST
Penaittin; & L89I1 51 S63J,940
Services Durin; Conatructton ax 11,014,304
=[[[a............-....:.:======....:....=.=...===-:==.==
"4,327,000
Engineering & Design 101 ",432,700
=====...................==.........==:.-....==...:==:===.=====.........==..=================..======z==:.......
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS '15,759,700
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
NA:
.
..
NOT APPLICABLE
Monitoring period of 30 yelrs. EnvirOt'llll!nul s~ling includes:
groundwlter, III of which are sampled semi-annually.
Present worth value of reviews based on current c:ost of S15,OOO/review.
Revievs It t-5 yr, 10 yr, 15 yr, 20 yr, 25.yr, Ind 30 yr.
-------
TABLE
31 (Coot inued)
'I r1.~
. I
I I
Ii i! I !'
I I , I,
I
I
KAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSHENT
FULTZ LANDFILL SITE
FINAL RI REPORT
Total Excess Lifetime Non'Carclnogenlc
Carcinogenic Risk Hazard Index
Exposure Pathway
.............. --...... ---...-..
............................
RHE Case
RHE Cue
COIIIIIents
,
, I
! I
Off-alte
RU001
RU002
RU003
RU005
RU007
Residential ~ells
1E-01,
3E-06
6£-()I,
<1 (2E-01)
<1 (8E-02)
.1 (1E+00)
<1 (1E-01)
-------
Attachment 1
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency - Letter of Concurrence
...y.-
~OOR QUALfrV
" ORIGINAL
-------
aiGEPL\
St.ote of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P Q. Box 1049, 1800 WatsrMari( Dr
c':lumbu's, Ohio 43256-0149 .
(6; 4) 6J.4.3020
FAX (614) 6J.4.2329
Gacr;e 'J. \/cir.cv:C:1
Gove~~cr
u
Se?tembe:o
30, 1991
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
u.s. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear !
-------
Valdas V. Adamkus
Page 2
D
Accordingly, the September 19, 1991, request for State
concurrence (attached) implied that consensus had been reached
and the ROD was final. Rather, the decision documents were
prematurely submitted to me, without the requisite consensus of
the parties concerned, specifically, the Region 5 Office of
Regional Counsel. Better coordination between our agencies in-
the future is necessary to ensure smoother finalization of RODs.
CVJ111 ~
gardus
L
Enclosure
cc:
Jenny Tiell, Chief-DERR, Ohio EPA
Jan Carlson, Assistant Chief-DERR,
Don Vanterpool, Legal, Ohio EPA
Kathy Davidson, DERR, Ohio EPA
Tom Bloom, USEPA
Don Bruce, USEPA
Chris Vanecko, SEDO
Ohio EPA
~_:
G
------- |