Environmental Protection
Agency
Emergency and
Remedial Response
September 1985
Superfund RODR0585023
Record of Decision:
New Lyme, OH
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-85/023
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
New Lyme, Ohio
5. REPORT DATE
September 27, 1985
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The New Lyme Landfill is located near State Route 11 on Dodgeville Road in Ash-
tabula County, approximately 20 miles south of the City of Ashtabula, Ohio. The land-
fill occupies about 40 acres of a 100-acre tract. Operations began at the site in
1969, and were initially managed by two fanners. In 1971, the landfill was licensed
by the State of Ohio and operations were taken over by a licensed landfill operator.
According to documentation, the New Lyme Landfill received household, industrial, com-
mercial, and institutional wastes and construction and demolition debris. However,
numerous violations of the license occurred, including: open dumping; improper
spreading and compacting of wastes; no State approval for disposal of certain industri.
wastes; and excavation of trenches into the shale bedrock.
fill was closed by the Ashtabula County Health Department.
In August 1978, the land-
Documents indicate that wa
te
at the New Lyme Landfill site included: coal tar distillates, asbestos, coal tar,
resins and resin tar, paint sludge, oils, paint lacquer thinner, peroxide, corrosive
liquids, acetone, xylene, toluene, kerosene, naptha, benzene, linseed oil, mineral
oil, fuel oil, chlorinated solvents, 2,4-D, and laboratory chemicals.
The selected remedial action includes: construction of a RCRA cap over the landfill
installation of extraction/containment wells around the perimeter of the landfill to
dewater the landfill and to eliminate leachate production; onsite treatment of
(continued on separage page)
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
New Lyme, Ohio
Contaminated Media: soil, gw, sediment
Key contaminants: VOCs, asbestos, oils,
sludge, solvents, toluene, resins and
resin tar and laboratory chemicals
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tills Report)
None
21. NU. Or PAucS
40
20. SECURITY CLASS (TMi page)
None
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the LPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Sol suhtitlc. if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, udd volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
6. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry • date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the hasis on which it was selected (e.g.. Jaic itj'iauie. dale of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe. J. Robert Doe. etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organi/ational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGtNCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. I r.msljlimi <>l. I'IXM. nK-il al cnnlcrciuY ui'.
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in Mie report. II Hie report contains j
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS • Select from the Thesaurus of engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authori/ed terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used us index entries for catalopnj:.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use- open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI MI- LD GROUP • Held and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI .Subject Calq.'ory List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplmary in nature, the Primary Held/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary I ieM/(iroup assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availahilily l<>
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, il any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, il known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (R.v. 4-77) (R.v.r.,)
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
New Lyme, Ohio
Continued
contaminated ground water and leachate using biological disc, sodium hydroxide
precipitation and granular activated carbon; onsite consolidation of contaminated
sediment; installation of gas vents; fencing of the site and installation of a
ground water monitoring system. Total capital costs for the selected remedial
action is estimated to be $10,798,000 with annual O&M costs of $252,000 for the
duration that water treatment is necessary. After that time, the annual O&M costs
are estimated to decrease to $44,000.
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE New Lyme, Ashtabula County, Ohio
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following documents describing the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of
the remedial action for the New Lyme site, New Lyme, Ohio have been reviewed:
- New Lyme Remedial Investigation Report, February 1985;
- New Lyme Feasibility Study, August 1985; and,
- Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection, New Lyme Site,
September 1985.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
- Installation of RCRA cap over the landfill.
- Extraction/containment wells around perimeter of landfill to dewater
landfill and eliminate leachate production. Wells must operate
Indefinitely to maintain effectiveness of remedy.
- Onsite treatment of contaminated groundwater and leachate using bio-
logical disc, sodium hydroxide precipitation, and granular activated
carbon until leachate is no longer produced and treatment becomes
unnecessary (after about 15 years).
- Onsite consolidation of contaminated sediment.
- Gas control, fence, groundwater monitoring.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300), it has been determined that taking source control action by capping
the landfill and consolidating contaminated sediment under the cap, and taking
management of migration action by extraction and onsite treatment of contami-
nated leachate and groundwater at the New Lyme site is a cost-effective remedy
that provides adequate protection of public health, welfare and the environment.
The State of Ohio has been consulted and agrees with the approved remedy. In
addition, the action will require further operation and maintenance activities
to ensure the continued effectiveness of the remedy. These activities will be
considered part of the approved action for a period not to exceed one year;
-------
It has also been determined that the action being taken Is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites
RegionaT~Administrator
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
NEW LYME LANDFILL
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The New Lyme Landfill 1s near State Route 11 on Dodgevilie Road In Ashtabula
County, approximately 20 miles south of the City of Ashtabula, Ohio. The landfill
occupies about 40 acres of a 100-acre tract. The general site location is shown
in Figure 1.
The landfill Is bounded by Dodgeville Road and a wooded, marshy area associated
with Lebanon Creek to the north and by wooded, marshy areas on the west and
south. The site is surrounded on 3 sides by wetlands. Land adjacent to the
eastern boundary has been cleared of trees and brush for agricultural use.
Leachate seeps are evident along the northern, western, and southern boundaries
of the landfill. Access to the landfill 1s by an unpaved road extending southward
from Dodgeville Road. The closest residences lie within 1000 feet of the site.
These households (approximately 10 residences) are presently using the groundwater
as their drinking water source.
The site lies entirely within the Lebanon Creek Watershed. Surface drainage from
the site can be divided Into four subwatersheds. The northern portion of the site
drains directly Into Lebanon Creek. The remainder of the site drains southward
to an unnamed tributary of Lebanon Creek. Lebanon Creek drains Into Rock Creek,
upstream of Lake Roaming Rock, a public water supply.
Bedrock at the site consists of the Ohio Shale Formation, gray siliceous shale,
to depths In excess of 2,200 feet. The surface of the bedrock 1s weathered
and fractured. The weathered zone was found to extend a minimum of 10 feet
below the rock surface. Bedrock Is overlain by glacial till, and ranges 1n
composition from clayey silt to silty clay to sandy clay, and contains small
quantities of pebbles. The total thickness of the till ranges from approximately
20 to 35 feet. The head data in the bedrock indicate that groundwater flows
east to west beneath the site. The geologic conditions and the water level
data Indicate that both the shale and the course grained lenses within the till
are under confined or semi confined conditions. In several bedrock wells, water
levels rise above the ground surface. The till appears to act as an aquitard
at the site. Some groundwater flow occurs along fractures In the till. Coupled
with the artesian conditions found generally across the site, and the upward
vertical gradients found in the west and northeast, the fractures apparently
allow groundwater to discharge to the surface in this general area. Relatively
constant discharges at major leachate seeps over a wide range of climatic
conditions Indicate that the source of water for leachate formation is primarily
groundwater opposed to direct recharge (Figure 2).
-------
NEW LYME
LANDFILL SITE
o
N
4000
2200
SCALE !N FEE'
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAF
NEW LYME LANDFIL,
-------
rOSStlLE WIT AREA OR
SEE? |"»ATM to§ EME en
WEST
IEEP
t AMDS. GRAVEL
EAST
(SEMI) CONFINING
LAYER
GENERAL GflOUNDWATER FLOW
(TOWARDS THE WEST!
SHALE
FIGURE 2
SCHEMATIC HYDROGEOLOGIC
CROSS SECTION
NEW LVME LANDFILL
-------
SITE HISTORY
The landfill began operations 1n 1969. The site was Initially managed by two
farmers. In 1971, the landfill was licensed by the State of Ohio and operations
were taken over by a licensed landfill operator. Violations of the license, the
Ohio Revised Code, and the Ohio Administrative Code which occurred throughout the
operation of the landfill Included the following: water 1n the trenches; open
dumping; uncontrolled access to the landfill; Improper spreading and compaction
of wastes; waste not being covered dally; Inadequate equipment; no Ohio EPA
approval for acceptance of certain Industrial wastes; and excavation of trenches
Into the shale bedrock. In early August 1978, the landfill was closed by the
Ashtabula County Health Department.
According to documentation, during Us years of operation, the New Lyme Landfill
received household, Industrial, commerial, and Institutional wastes and construction
and demolition debris. Fifty 55-gallon drums of cyanide sludge are believed by
the Ohio EPA to have been buried at the site.
Documents Indicate that wastes at the New Lyme Landfill site Include: coal tar
distillates, asbestos, coal tar, resins and resin tar, paint sludge, oils, paint,
lacquer thinner, peroxide, corrosive liquids, acetone, xylene, toluene, kerosene,
naptha, benzene, Unseed oil, mineral oil, fuel oil, chlorinated solvents, 2,4-D,
and laboratory chemicals.
t
CURRENT SITE STATUS '
Data collected during the remedial Investigation (RI), conducted during the period
of August 1983 to August 1984, has Indicated contamination of various media at
and 1n the vicinity of the New Lyme Landfill site. The quantity and type of
contamination present is summarized in Table 1.
Potential risks from contaminated soil, leachate and groundwater at the
site are based on the assumption that the site will be used in the future
for both residential and industrial/commercial development. The potential
human health and environmental effects of the site In the absence of any
remedial action are estimated. These risks are theoretical quantifications, and
are reported as excess lifetime cancer risks. Excess lifetime cancer risk is
defined as the Incremental Increase In the probability of getting cancer compared
to the probability If no exposure occurred. For example, a 10-6 excess lifetime
cancer risk represents the exposure that could Increase cancer by one case per million
people exposed. The risk levels were calculated using U.S. EPA Carcinongen
Assessment Group cancer potency values (U.S. EPA, December 1984).
Generally, due to Incomplete record keeping and documentation, the site contains
waste whose quantities, condition, and exact nature are not fully known. Based on
the exposure assessment, exposure to environmental media contaminated by a release
from the New Lyme Landfill site has the potential to result 1n current and future
risks to public health and the environment. Assessing the site by using a
1 x 10-6 excess lifetime cancer risk as a level of concern for public health,
exposure to leachate via wading, and ingestion of groundwater and soil present a risk
to public health. An environmental threat to wetlands and surface waters is
also posed by the continuing discharge of leachate from the site.
-------
VOC'a
Acroleln
1,2-Dlchtoroethane •
1,1-Dlchloroethane
Tran*-l,3-Dlchloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Hethylene Chloride
Chloromthane
Toluene
Trlchloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
2-Butanone
2-llexanone
4-Hethyl-2-Pentanone
Xylene
Huorotrlehloroaethane
Tctracliloroethene
Styrene
,1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
Carbon Dlaulflde
Acetone
„ Clilorobenzene
Trana-l,2-Dlchloroethene
SEM1VOLAT1LES
P-Chloro-H-Creeol
Pentachlorophcnol
Phenol
Benzole Acid
?-Hethylphenol
1 ,
-------
There is also concern with offsite migration of leachate into surface water
because Lebanon Creek drains into Rock Creek, upstream of Lake Roaming
Rock, a water supply reservoir.
Soil
Surface and subsurface soil contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at
concentrations In the part per billion range. Ingestion of contaminated
soil from areas of maximum VOC concentrations may result in an excess
lifetime cancer risk (above background) of 2 x 10-4.
Groundwater
Volatile organic and phenolic compounds were found in two on-site groundwater
monitoring wells 1n the low part per million range. The most widespread
organic compounds In onsite groundwater samples were phthalates at concen-
trations below quantification limits. Ingestion of contaminated groundwater
from the New Lyme Landfill site may result In a calculated excess cancer
risk of 1 x 10-4, the primary compounds of concern being tetrachloroethane,
methylene chloride and chloroform. The residences around the site rely on
the groundwater for their drinking water source. The residential wells are
not presently affected by groundwater contamination from the site. Although
it appears that the groundwater around the site 1s under an artesian head
and that groundwater Is flowing upward through the site as leachate, the
local water supplies may be affected in the future if contaminants move
offsite.
Leachate
Leachate includes both leachate seeps at the surface of the landfill and
water that 1s either stagnant or moving very slowly in or out of buried
waste trenches. Organic compounds identified in leachate water samples and
the monitoring well screened within a waste trench consist primarily of
volatile and phenolic compounds. Leachate water samples contain inorganic
compounds, Including heavy metals at concentrations that were generally an
order-of-magnitude or more greater than metal concentrations found in
surface water samples. Asbestos was also found in the leachate. It appears
that groundwater 1s flowing upward and 1s the source of the leachate.
Wading in these leachate seeps may result in absorption through the skin
and a calculated excess lifetime cancer risk of 8 X 10~6.
Sediment
Sediment In Lebanon Creek and associated wetlands, and sediment In leachate
seeps may have been exposed to contaminants contained in surface runoff
during site operations, and in leachate seep discharges. Organic compounds
Identified in leachate sediment samples consist primarily of volatile
compounds. Several organic base/neutral and acid extractable compounds
-------
were also detected. All levels were below levels of quantification (low
ppb's). Several organic acid extractable and base/neutral compounds were
found below quantifiable levels in a downstream sample from Lebanon Creek.
Ingestion of contaminated sediment may result in an excess lifetime cancer
risk (above background) of less than 10-6.
Surface Water
Organic priority pollutants occur at low part per billion levels in all
samples taken upstream, downstream, onsite, and offsite. There is no
apparent pattern to the distribution of low levels of organic contaminants.
For compounds detected in downstream samples, no compound which has a
standard or criteria for aquatic life protection exceeds that standard or
criteria.
ENFORCEMENT (See Attachment 1)
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The major objective of the feasibility study (FS) is to evaluate remedial
alternatives using a cost-effective approach consistent with the goals and
objectives of CERCLA. The National 011 and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (NCR), 40 CFR Part 300.68 defines a cost-effective remedial action as
"the lowest cost alternative that 1s technologically feasible and reliable
and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare or the environment." The NCP outlines
the procedures and criteria to be used in selecting the cost-effective
alternative.
An environmental assessment presented in Chapter 2 of the FS determined that
source control and offsite (management of migration) measures are necessary.
A comprehensive list of appropriate remedial response technologies was
Identified, and each technology was screened based on the characteristics
of the waste materials at the site, and applicability of the technology to
site specific conditions. Applicable technologies were further screened to
evaluate their use 1n remedial actions based on technical feasibility,
Including an assessment of performance, reliability, implementability and
safety, order of magnitude cost, and public health, environmental and
Institutional Impacts. This Initial screening 1s consistent with Section
300.68(h) of the NCP. The following technologies are considered applicable
to site conditions and problems:
0 Soil/Sediment
RCRA cap
Multimedia cap
-------
Landfill
Incineration.
0 Groundwater/Leachate
Vertical barrier
Treatment (onsite)
• Precipitation
- Air Stripping
- Filtration
- Granular Activated Carbon
• Biological
Treatment (offsite)
- POTW
- Treatment facility
Collection
- Extraction wells
- Subsurface drains
Technologies which were eliminated from further consideration include soil
incineration, groundwater and leachate treatment at a POTW or hazardous
waste facility, and onsite treatment using air stripping. Incineration
was eliminated because of concerns including facility unavailability,
extensive time for implementation, character of the residual ash (although
potential exists for ash to be dellsted, for the purpose of the FS, the ash
was considered as if It is a hazardous waste), and cost ($750,000,000 to
Incinerate the entire landfill contents). Treatment at a POTW or hazardous
waste facility was eliminated because of the unreliability of transporting
truckloads on a daily basis for many years, and the substantial O&M costs
(POTW - $500,000 per year, hazardous waste facility • $6,000,000 per year).
Air stripping was eliminated from further evaluation because it does not
remove refractory organic compounds, which are compounds of concern at the
site.
-------
Remedial action alternatives were developed from the technologies which
survived the screening process taking into consideration the magnitude and
extent of contamination, the waste characteristics, and the physical conditions
of the site. The technical feasibility of each alternative was evaluated
based upon performance, reliability, implementability and safety. The
capital costs, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and present worth
costs were estimated for each of the alternatives. The expected accuracies for
cost estimates are within +50 and -30 percent of the actual cost. The
individual alternatives were then evaluated for compliance with federal and
state environmental laws and regulations, protection of human health and
effects on Institutional parameters. This detailed analysis of a limited
number of alternatives is consistent with Section 300.68 (i) of the NCP.
Detailed Description/Evaluation of Alternatives
A comparative evaluation and description of the alternatives is presented below
and summarized in Table 2. The environmental laws which may be applicable
or relevant to the remedial alternatives are discussed in the section
entitled Consistency with Other Environmental Laws.
Overview of Alternatives 2,3,4 and 5
t
Alternatives 2,3,4 and 5 all Include either a RCRA or multimedia cap. The i
following Is a detailed description of both of these caps.
A multimedia cap (loam/synthetic membrane/geotextlle/sand), shown 1n
Figure 3, consists of a l-foot-th1ck sand drainage layer over the existing
cap, overlain by a geotextile and synthetic membrane. One and one-half
feet of loam will be used as the surface layer. The sand layer will
provide a pathway for gas migration to the apex (high point) of the landfill
where it can be vented. The sand layer can also be used as a pathway
for groundwater/leachate migration 1n a surface or near surface collection
system. The geotextile layer will bridge minor surface irregularities,
withstand some of the tensile stresses (stresses which will cause the membrane
to stretch) developed during construction, and be a clean surface on which
the field seams of the synthetic membrane can be made. Manufacturers of
the various synthetic liners have Indicated that the service life of membranes
range from 20 to 40 years when properly Installed, covered with soil, and
kept free from exposure to weathering, heat, and chemical attack. It is
estimated that 1,700 gallons of water per day flow through the existing cap.
With a multimedia cover it 1s expected that Infiltration will be reduced to
zero.
-------
TABLE 2 FINAL EVALUATION MATRIX
(Page 1 of 3)
TECHNICAL '
Performance
..
Poor
Contaminant mlgra-
tlon to off«lt<
soils and ground -
watar are expected
over a lonften
period.
_
Minimizes Infiltra-
tion Into the land-
fill, aurface water
run-off, and gas
build-up beneath the
cap. Groundwater
movement Into land-
fill la not controll-
ed. Does not ellml-
nate leachate seeps
around the perimeter
of the landfill.
+
Alternative mini-
mize* release of
hazardous Materials
from landfill.
Groundwater movement
Into landfill Is
controlled. Leach-
ate production would
be minimized and
leaehate seeps elim-
inated, the cap
would minimize Infil-
tration Into the
landfill, surface
water run-off, and
gas build-up beneath
the cap. Cap offers
a double layer of
protection against
failure. Collected
leachate-groundwater
vould be treated and
discharged. Leach-
*te treatment may be
reduced to a period
of 15 years
Reliability
0
Not Applicable
.
»
Require* Infrequent
attention with lit-
tle operations and
Maintenance. All
remedial techno-
logies have been
proven reliable in
the field under
similar condition!.
Typical of RCRA-type
landfills. Monitor-
ing of off-site loca-
tions required.
o
Requires dedicated
personnel to malnr
tain functions and
regular operation
and maintenance by
trained personnel.
All remedial tech-
nologies have been
proven reliable in
the field or under
similar conditions.
Implemantihlllty
+*
Easiest alterna-
tive to Implement.
.
%
•»
Alternative can be
implemented In
6 months. Routine
construction ef-
fort with Immed-
iate result* fol-
lowing Installa-
tion.
o
Can be implemented
In 1 year. Addi-
tional hydrogeolog-
Ical data la need-
ed to accurately
place pumping
wells. Excessive
construction ef-
fort is not re-
quired. Immediate
results can be
achieved within
implementation
period. Pilot
plant tests are
necessary for
water treatment.
Safety
++
No construction
required.
.
Stringent safety
procedures and
precautions re-
quired during con-
struction. Monitor-
ing for airborne
asbestos fibers
would be a neces-
sary precaution.
Possible presence
of cyanide In
landfill may pro-
duce toxic gases.
Potential for ex-
plosions to occur
due to the presence
of ignltable gaser.
.
See Assembled Alter-
native 2.
(Construction)
o
Not Applicable
o
Migration of waste
contaminants is not
expected to be a
problem during con-
struction except
for groundwater.
Short disruption of
neighborhood due to
increased truck
traffic.
o
Production of
limited amounts of
dust, odors, con-
taminants, and
noise. Short dis-
ruption of neigh-
borhood due to In-
creased truck traf-
fic.
ravnwunrrAL
(Operation)
__
Site poses an envi-
ronmental threat
to neighboring com-
munities.
.
New cap would re-
duce onslte prob-
lems of surface
water run-off,
uncontrolled gas
migration.
Contaminant migra-
tion to offslte
would continue due
to uncontrolled
groundwater flow.
o
Release of toxic
contaminants would
be reduced or elimi-
nated. Future re-
leases of contami-
nants can occur be-
cause the waste re-
mains in place.
Dewaterlng of ap- .
proxlmately 1) acres
of wetlands sur-
rounding the land-
fill will occur.
Leachate production
would be reduced to
a minimum. Treat-
ment system may be
turned off after
15 years of
operating.
•
Institutional •
— —
Uncontrolled vast*
site. Site does
not comply with
RCU or other
federal and state
environmental laws.
_
Groundwater and
surface waters may
be in violation of
the federal and
state environmental
laws.
+
treated leachate
will meet the
requirements of
NPDES. Water will
eventually be
uncontsminatcd when
the landfill Is
dewatered and
leachate production
Is reduced.
Public Health
— —
Migration of con-
taminant* from
•it* would con-
tinue unabated.
Pathway* of dir-
ect contact with
contaminants 1*
unmitigated. Ex-
cess lifetime can-
cer risk* from
residential toll
and groundwater
Ingest loo is
.r.at.rjthan
. »'
Potential offlst*
exposure of neigh-
boring public to
contaminated
leachate by way
of groundwater.
Excess lifetime
cancer risks from
ingestion of
Uachate and
froundwater is
greater than
10 e.
»
Releaae of or ex-
posure to contam-
inants should be
eliminated. Ex-
cess lifetime can-
cer risks from
Ingestion of
groundwater and
leachate Is re-
duced to less
than 1 x 10 D.
COST ($1,000- s)
Present Capital Annual
Worth Cost OMt Cost
-0 -0 -0
. .
6,000 S.400 25
10,800 8,300 250
e:
-------
TABLE 2 FINAL EVALUATION MATRIX
(Page 2 of 3)
TECHNICAL
I
I
Performance
.
+
Type II cap offers a
single Isyer of pro-
tection against
failure. Otherwise,
same as AA-3A.
o
Minimizes release of
hazardous materials
from landfill. Con-
trols groundwater
movement. Leachate
production would be
reduced. Some in-
filtration into
landfill will occur
across slurry wall
boundary. Cap would
minimize infiltra-
tion into landfill
from the top surface
and surface water
run-off would be
controlled. Cap
offers a double
layer of protection
against failure.
Collected leachate
would be treated and
discharged.
Extended treatment
period required.
o
Type II caps offers
s single layer of
protection against
failure. Otherwise,
same as AA-4A.
Cap would minimize
Infiltration Into
landfill from the
top surface and sur-
fsce water run-off
would be reduced.
Leachate production
would not be re-
duced. Gas migra-
tion thru landfill
would be controlled.
Collected leachate
is treated and dis-
charged. Extended
treatment period
required.
Reliability
-
See
o
Regular operations
and maintenance
required by trained
personnel. Exten-
sive monitoring may
be required. Tech*
nologles have been
proven reliable In
the field or under
similar conditions.
0
See
o
Regular operations
and maintenance
required by trained
personnel. Exten-
sive monitoring may
be required. All
remedial techno-
logies have been
proven In the field
or under similar
conditions.
Implementablllty
o
Safety
-
Assembled Alternative 3A
Installation of
•lurry wall will
require careful
excavation, tho-
rough mixing of
material!, and
effective place-
ment of materials
can be Implemented
In 1+ years.
Materials may not
be locally avail-
able.
_
See Assembled Alter-
native 2.
_
Assembled Alternative 4A
o
Alternative can be
Implemented in
6 months. 20 ft.
perimeter drain
may require care
In construction
and Installation.
See Assembled Alter-
native 2.
Short Term
(Construction)
-
o
Production of limit-
ed amounts of dust,
o.lors, contaminants,
aid noise. Short
disruption of neigh-
borhood due to in-
creased truck traf-
fic and heavy
equipment.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Long Term
(Operation)
o
-
o
Release of toxic
contaminants would
be reduced or elim-
inated. Future re-
leases of contami-
nants can occur
because the waste
remains in place.
Long-term operation
of treatment
facility by state
agency required.
o
Institutional
o
'Public Health
•f
See Assembled Alternative 3A
o
Treated leachate
will meet NPOES •
requirements.
Would be considered
a hazardous waste
facility.
.
.
Release of or ex-
posure to contam-
inants should be
eliminated. Ex-
cess lifetime
cancer risks from
Ingestlon of
groundwater end
leachate la
reduced to less
than 1 x 10 °.
*
See Assembled Alternative 4A
0
Migration of waste
contaminants is not
etpected to be a
problem during con-
struction. Short
disruption of neigh-
borhood due to In-
creased truck traf-
fic and noise.
o
Leachate production
will continue be-
cause the waste Is
still In place.
Release of toxic
contaminants should
be reduced or
eliminated. Long-
term operation of
treatment facility
by state agency
required.
,
«* *
o
Discharge of treat-
ed leachate will
meet the require-
ments of the NPDES
program. Would be
considered a
hazardous waste
facility.
Release of or ex-
posure to contam-
inants should be
reduced or el 1m-
Irated. Excess
lifetime cancer
risks from Inges-
tlon of ground-
water Is reduced
to leaf, than
1 x 10 .
COST (Sl.OOO'a)
Present Capital Annual
Worth Cost O&M Cost
i
9,000 6,700 2SO
. . i
43,000 4.100 80
41,300 40,200 80
11,900 9,000 250
-------
TABLE 2 ! FINAL EVALUATION MATRIX
(Page 3 of 3)
TECHNICAL
Performance
•»
Type II caps offer*
• single layer of
protection against
failure. Otherwlee,
MM a* AA-5A.
o
Content* of landfill
would be excavated
to upgrade existing
landfill to RCRA
atatua with a leach-
ate collection aye-
ten. Should ade-
quately control the
releaae of hazardous
materlala. Perfor-
mance of this alter-
native la Halted by
the ef fcctlvencaa of
the RCKA landfill to
keep the water table
beneath the land-
fill.
»*
Excavation of land-
fill content* com-
pletely remove*
aource of contamlna-
tlon.
Reliability
o
See
o
Require* periodic
operation* and main-
tenance. RCRA land-
fill* have been
proven reliable In
the field. Col-
lected leachate
would be treated on
or off-alte.
+»
Hoat reliable alter-
native. No opera-
tion* and malnte-
nance required.
Implemratablllty
0
Safety
_
Aaaemtated Alternative SA
.
Alternative re-
quire* 1 year or
longer to Imple-
ment. Depreaslon
of vater table
would be required
during excavation.
Dewaterlng would
be required during
excavation.
'
Alternative re-
quire* 2 or more
yeir* to Implement
due to the large
volume of waste,
trucking logls-
tlca, etc. De-
preaslon of water
table and dewater-
Ing would be
required.
.
In addition to Al-
ternative A2, exca-
vation would re-
quire extensive
aafety precaution*
and personnel pro-
tection due to the
presence of aclda.
cyanides, asbestos,
methane, and vocs.
.
Sane as AA-6A.
ENVIROHMENIAL
Short Term
(Construction)
o
long Term
(Operation)
0
Institutional
o
Public Health
*
. See Assembled Alternative 5A
.
Extensive site ex-
cavatlon would gen-
erate duat, odors,
noise, and surface
water run-off.
Large amount of
excavated waste/
debris would be
generated for em-
placement Into re-
designed landfill.
— —
Disruption of
neighborhood and
highway traffic due
to truck transport
of waste offslte.
Extensive site
excavation would
generate duats,
odors, noise, and
surface water
run-off.
»
System would coo-
tain waste mater-
ials according to
RCRA regulations.
Leachate collection
system would handle
landfill generated
liquid*. Collected
leachate would moat
probably be treated
offslte.
++
Removal of waate
eliminate* the
migration of con-
taminant* and bar-
rier* to future use
of thl* alte.
_
Alternative will
meet RCRA approval
with atlpulatlona
due to location In
a wetland and above
a Claa* II aquifer.
.
+
Most comply with
DOT hazardous waste
transport regula-
tion* for off-site
disposal.
+
Re tease of or ex-'
posure to toxic
substances Is
reduced or elimi-
nated. Temporary
short -term expo-
sure risks to on-
slte personnel.
Excesa lifetime
cancer risks from
Ingestlon of
groundwater la
less than or equal
to 1 x 10 .
4+
Source of expo-
sure removed.
Excess life tine
cancer risks from
Ingestlon of
gruundwater la
le«s tban
1 x 10 °.
COST ($1.000'.)
Present Capital Annual :
worth Coat O&M Coat
10,100 7.300 ISO
'
99,200 98.600 25
1
262,800 262,800 -0
1
-
-------
SYNTHETIC MEMB«*NE
30 MIL
JFT. CLAY/LOAM
COVE* -v.
j '
FIGURE -3
TYPE II CAP (LOAM/SYNTHETIC
MEMBRANE/GEOTEXTILE/SAND)
NEW LYME LANDFILL
-------
The RCRA cap (loam/gravel-sand/synthetic membrane/clay) shown in Figure 4 consists
of a multilayer cap of 2 feet of loam or clay overlying 1 foot of a gravel/sand
drainage layer over a minimum 20 millimeter synthetic membrane over 2 feet
of clay. The primary difference between the RCRA cap and the multimedia
cap Is that the latter has a sand drainage and a geotextile layer beneath
the synthetic membrane and additional clay 1s not Installed over the existing
cap.
The RCRA cap will prevent Infiltration similarly to the multimedia cap. The
RCRA cap has an advantage, however, In that there 1s extra protection against
cap failure because of the clay layer.
Alternatives 3,4 and 5 all Include the following treatment system for leachate
and groundwater as shown In Figure 5.
The landfill leachate Is expected to contain significant amounts of biodegradable
organic compounds. However, because the leachate 1s a result of the relatively
rapid upflow of groundwater through the landfill, the contact time with the
waste Is reduced, and it should be more dilute than typical landfill leachate.
The BOD removal can be addressed with a type of biological treatment system
called the biodisc. Biological treatment may remove or significantly
reduce the VOCs present In the leachate either by blodegradatlon or by
volatilization. The construction cost of this system 1s $140,000, with an
annual O&M cost of $20,000.
Granular activated carbon (6AC) has been widely used to remove refractory
organic compounds which remain after biological treatment. GAC Is effective
on a wide range of organic compounds that pass through a biological treatment
system. A packaged GAC adsorber system 1s recommended to minimize design
and development requirements. The GAC adsorber system consists of two
pressure adsorbers mounted on a skid. The adsorbers are operated downflow
only in a series arrangement. The system has an installed cost of approximately
$150,000 and an annual O&M cost of $80,000.
A treatment system Installed will have to be designed to remove barium,
iron, lead, manganese, and nickel. Chemical precipitation using sodium
hydroxide with filtration and sedimentation is the recommended metals
treatment process. Asbestos, also found in the leachate, can be removed by
filtration. The metals treatment system has an estimated installed cost of
$130,000 and an annual O&M cost of $110,000.
The pH adjustment system and other ancillary details (building, storage
tanks) have a construction cost of $268,000 and an annual O&M cost of
$6,400.
-------
DRAINAGE LAYER
SAND
CEMENT. IENTONITE
OR GROUT SEAL
MISTING TOP
Of LANDFILL
LOAM/CLAY
20 MIL (MINI LINER
EXISTING TOP
OF LANDFILL
GAS VENT
DISCHARGE
CLAY
SYNTHETIC
MEMBRANE
CAS VENT LOCATION
NTS
MUSHROOM TOP
ATMOSPHERIC VENT
- iFTDRAfNAGE LAYER
XX
SAND
GRAVEL
PACK
GAS VENT DETAIL
NTS
20 MIL (MINI LINER
SYN.
MEMBRANE
NTS • Mot To toll
FIGURE 4
TYPE I CAP AND GAS
COLLECTION SYSTEM
NEW LYME LANDFILL
-------
tIMNMI I
OncCOMIKfOII
4,.
•MtMtllAtKM
lOUMUAIMW
flMl
•OMtMMI
1MB
I
MNCVIfAIOI
MUD01 OtVQMt
rNMUUStMNT
•00/OOOIMATMtNf
MTMt >*OUM MMOVAt
OHO MMC COMPOUNDS
NIMOVAl tOGAC
FIGURES
METALS PRECIPITATION -
PH ADJUSTMENT FOR LEACHATE/
GROUNDWATER
NEW LVME
-------
Sludges generated by the treatment system will contain oxides and hydroxides
of Iron, nickel", manganese, lead, arsenic, and other inorganic constituents.
It 1s assumed that sludge, because of the metals content, will require
disposal at a RCRA-licensed landfill. Actual production and analysis of
the sludge is necessary to determine if other disposal options are feasible.
The construction worth cost of the treatment facility 1s $688,000 and
annual O&M costs are $216,400.
Alternative 1 •
Under this alternative, no remedial action will be taken at the site. The
threat to public health and the environment as described earlier and in FS
Chapter 2, Exposure Assessment, will remain.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of a multimedia cap with gas control as described
earlier. Implementation of this alternative eliminates exposure due to
Inhalation or Ingestion of contaminated soil. It will also minimize the
exposure to landfill gases and will manage the gas. However, contaminated
groundwater and leachate will continue to leave the site since this alter-
native does not control upward flow of groundwater.
Monitoring wells will be Installed upgradient east of the site, and at
downgradient locations west of the site. The upgradient well will provide
background water quality data for comparison with data collected downgradient.
Sediment and surface water samples will be collected offsite to provide a
means of evaluating contaminant migration resulting from surface water
runoff and leachate seeps. Sediment and surface soil samples will also be
periodically collected at selected points along the landfill perimeter to
enable data comparison between onsite contaminants and contaminants, if
any, found in groundwater and surface water.
A multimedia cap is an effective and proven technology. Gas vents will be
Installed Into the cap to prevent gas buildup. Contaminated sediment will
be consolidated under the cap.
The present worth cost of Alternative 2 is $6,014,000 with annual OSM costs
of $25,000.
Alternatives 3A and 3B
Alternatives 3A and 3B, which include a RCRA or multimedia cap respectively,
as described earlier, and extraction/containment wells, water treatment,
monitoring, and gas migration control, address all exposure pathways of concern.
-------
Implementation of either of these alternatives will eliminate the exposure
pathways of direct contact with leachate seeps, ingestion and inhalation of
soil, and exposure to groundwater.
Implementation of Alternative 3A will substantially comply with applicable
and relevant environmental laws. The environmental laws which may be ,
applicable or relevant are the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA),
the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Executive Orders for Wetlands. The cap described as part of Alternative 3B
will not meet all the requirements of Part 264.310 for closure of a landfill
if subsidence occurs such that the Integrity of the cap is not maintained.
The other elements of Alternative 3B substantially comply with the other
applicable or relevant environmental laws. This is discussed later in this
document 1n the section entitled Consistency With Other Environmental Laws.
As discussed earlier, caps are effective in reducing water Infiltration
through the top of the landfill, contaminant transport by surface water
runoff, airborne emissions, and human contact. The caps are flexible, and
this makes the caps less susceptible to cracking from settlement or frost
heave. The landfill surface will need to be regraded during the construction
of the cap to allow Improved control of surface water runoff. Capping 1s a
proven and reliable technology. It 1s estimated that one year 1s required
for Installation of either of these caps.
The landfill will be dewatered, and the flow will be controlled through the
use of extraction/containment wells around the site perimeter. The extraction
system will collect groundwater at a rate of 60,000 gallons per day. The
wells will be used to Inhibit the movement of groundwater Into and through
the landfill by Intercepting groundwater before It enters the landfill. Pumping
will lower the groundwater and effectively dewater the landfill. Leachate
production will be minimized and the leachate seeps will be eliminated. This
system does not differentiate between uncontaminated groundwater and leachate
draining from the landfill. Because leachate and groundwater will both be
collected, treatment of the water will be required. The need for treatment
will decrease over time as the landfill will be gradually pumped dry (estimated
to be 15 years). After such time, the extracted groundwater can be discharged
directly to Lebanon Creek or the surrounding wetlands. In the interim, the
collected water will be treated onsite with a blodisc, sodium hydroxide
precipitation, and GAC as described earlier. A groundwater monitoring
system as described under Alternative 2 will be established. The present
worth cost of Alternative 3A 1s $10,798,000 with annual O&M costs of $252,000.
The present worth cost of Alternative 3B 1s $9,017,000 with annual O&M
costs of $252.000.
Alternatives 4A and 4B
Alternatives 4A and 4B which Include a cap (either RCRA or multimedia respectively,
as described for Alternatives 3A and 3B), gas collection, slurry wall,
leachate collection, water treatment and site monitoring, address all exposure
pathways of concern. Implementation of either of these alternatives will
-------
10
eliminate the exposure pathways of direct contact with leachate seeps, ingestion
of soil, and groundwater.
Implementation o.f Altenative 4A will substantially comply with applicable
and relevant environmental laws (RCRA, CWA, NEPA and Executive Orders for
Wetlands) as discussed in the section entitled Consistency With Other
Environmental Laws. The cap described as part of Alternative 4B may not meet
all the requirements of Part 264.310 for closure of a landfill because of landfill
subsidence. The other elements of Alternative 4B substantially comply with
the other applicable or relevant environmental laws.
The effectiveness of capping the site was discussed earlier in this document.
A cement-bentonite slurry wall around the entire landfill 1s necessary to mitigate
groundwater migration. To be effective, the slurry wall must penetrate through
the fractured permeable zone of the underlying shale. The cost estimate 1s
based on an average 90-foot wall (40 feet through the till and 50 feet Into
the shale). It Is estimated that 1 x 10-6 cm/s is the lowest hydraulic
conductivity to be reasonably achieved through a cement-bentonite slurry wall. This
hydraulic conductivity, an order-of-magnitude less than estimated for the till, will
result in a reduction in groundwater Infiltration and the associated generation
of leachate. Groundwater levels within the capped area will be an estimated one-
foot below those outside of the slurry wall to maintain an Inward hydraulic
gradient. This one-foot difference results in an estimated 6,000 gallons per day
of Infiltration. Presently, 1t Is estimated that groundwater flow Into the
landfill as a result of upward vertical gradients 1s about 40,000 gallons
per day. This Infiltration will pass through the toe of the landfill, and
be collected by a gravel drainage blanket placed Inside of the slurry wall
around the landfill perimeter, and then collected in a sump and pumped to
treatment. This technology has been proven effective and durable in hazardous
waste applications. A groundwater monitoring system as described under
Alternative 2 will be established.
The present worth cost of Alternative 4A is $43,033,000 and of Alternative
4B is $41,246,000. Annual O&M costs for either Alternative 4A or 4B is
$80,000.
Alternatives 5A and SB
Alternatives 5A and 5B include the construction of a RCRA or multimedia cap
respectively, as described earlier, and the Installation of vents to control
gas migration, subsurface pipe drains for leachate collection, and site
monitoring. This action will address all exposure pathways of concern
(direct contact with leachate seeps, ingestion of soil and groundwater).
Implementation of Alternative 5A will substantially comply with applicable
and relevant environmental laws (RCRA, CWA, NEPA and Executive Orders for
Wetlands) as discussed in the section entitled Consistency With Other
Environmental Laws. The cap described as part of Alternative SB may not
meet all the requirements of Part 264.310 for closure of a landfill because
of landfill subsidence. The other elements of Alternative SB substantially
comply with the other applicable or relevant environmental laws.
-------
11
Leachate generated by the landfill will be collected using subsurface pipe
drains Installed around the perimeter of the landfill to the depth of the
fill. These drains may also collect some uncontaminated groundwater outside
of the landfill before 1t passes throuqh the landfill, reducing the amount
of leachate. The drains will be approximately 20 feet below the ground
surface. Water treatment will be required Indefinitely because the leachate
will be generated at a rate of 40,000 gallons per day from groundwater
continuously coming Into the landfill bottom. Treatment onslte will Include
blodlsc, sodium hydroxide precipitation, and GAC as discussed earlier.
It is expected that contraction of this alternative will take about six
months.
The present worth cost of Alternative 5A Is $11,868,000 with annual 0AM
costs of $252,000. The present worth cost of Alternative SB Is $10,084,000
with annual 0AM costs of $252,000.
Alternative 6A
Alternative 6A Includes excavation of the existing landfill and creation
of an onslte RCRA-type landfill.
Alternative 6A will eliminate the Identified exposure pathways of direct
contact with leachate seeps, Ingestlon and Inhalation of soil and sediment,
and exposure to groundwater.
Implementation of this alternative will substantially comply with applicable
and relevant environmental laws (RCRA, CWA, NEPA and Executive Orders for
Wetlands) as discussed In the section entitled Consistency with Other-
Environmental Laws.
Onslte disposal of excavated materials will Involve removing waste materials
from the landfill so a bottom liner and leachate collection system can be
constructed. Excavated materials will be stockpiled onslte in a bermed
containment area and segregated by hazardous waste type. Water draining
from the excavated materials will be collected and treated. Leachate
generated through biodegradatlon within the landfill will be collected in
the bottom drains and also treated. Stockpiled fill will be placed back
Into the landfill as each new cell In the bottom liner system 1s completed.
Excavation and bottom construction will continue across the site until all
materials are renoved and the bottom liner completed. A RCRA cap will then
be placed over the new landfill. A fence will be constructed around the
site and a monitoring network established as discussed in Alternative 2.
The present worth cost of this alternative 1s $9^,176,000 with annual 04M
costs of $25,000.
Alternative 6B
Alternative 6B Includes excavation of the existing landfill and offsite
disposal 1n a RCRA compliant facility. This alternative will also eliminate
all exposure pathways of concern.
-------
12
Implementation of this alternative will substantially comply with applicable
and relevant environmental laws ( RCRA, CWA, NEPA and Executive Orders
for Wetlands) as discussed 1n the section entitled Consistency with
Other Environmental Laws.
The excavation will occur as described in Alternative 6A. The soil will be
transported offsite and disposed of in a RCRA-compliant facility. The
site will be backfilled with clean soil.
This alternative will require greater than two years to Implement.
The present worth cost of this alternative 1s $262,818,000 with no annual
O&M costs.
Consistency With Other Environmental Laws
The technical aspects of the remedial alternative Implemented at the New Lyme
site will be consistent with other applicable and relevant laws. Other
environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the remedial alter-
natives evaluated are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean
Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and Executive Orders for
Wetlands.
The provisions of RCRA applicable to remediation at New Lyme are the 40 CFR
Part 264 technical standards for closure of a landfill, and the Subpart F,
Groundwater Protection standards. RCRA requires removal of contaminated soil
to background or to another standard protective of human health and the environ-
ment (closure as a storage unit by removal), or capping of the landfill (closure
in place as a landfill).
The capping alternatives evaluated in the FS are consistent with those actions
which would be taken during "closure" of a RCRA land disposal facility. To
close a landfill, it is required that the cover be designed to provide long-term
minimization of liquids through the landfill, promote drainage and require
minimum maintenance, accommodate settling and have a permeability less than
or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner or natural subsoils present.
The RCRA cap described earlier will meet these requirements.
At New Lyme, there 1s concern that the multimedia cap may not accommodate
settling of the landfill. Therefore, the multimedia cap at New Lyme may not
meet all the requirements of RCRA closure. It 1s expected that natural subsi-
dence will occur over time and, in addition, any groundwater system that changes
the groundwater gradient (such as extraction wells) will cause more rapid
settling. Although a synthetic Uner will stretch to some degree to accommodate
settling, damage to the synthetic Uner may occur. The RCRA cap (synthetic and
clay Uner) has additional protection against failure due to landfill subsidence.
-------
13
The alternative which fully contains the contaminated soil on-site
1s consistent with those actions necessary to build a new hazardous waste
landfill, and to close such a landfill. For all new landfills, it is
required that such a landfill or unit be constructed with two or more liners
and a leachate collection system above and between such liners.
The complete soil removal alternative evaluated in the FS is consistent
with that action which would be taken during closure of a RCRA storage
facility. Closure of a storage facility requires either that all waste be
removed, or if some waste residues are left, that the site be closed as a
landfill unless 1t has been determined that wastes have been removed to
levels such that the residue contamination poses no threat to health or the
environment through any route of exposure.
The Groundwater Protection standards of RCRA will be applicable to the
groundwater monitoring at the New Lyme site. 40 CFR Section 264.92 states
that hazardous constituents entering the groundwater from a regulated unit
must not exceed concentration limits in the uppermost aquifer underlying
the waste management area beyond the point of compliance.
40 CFR Section 264.94 states that the concentration of a hazardous constituent
must not exceed the background level of that constituent 1n the groundwater,
or an alternate concentration limit (ACL) for that constituent which will
not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment as long as the ACL 1s not exceeded. The hazardous constituents
of concern are those hazardous substances which were detected in the
groundwater during the RI.
»
The waste management area Is that area of the site which will be covered by
a cap. The point of compliance Is at the hydraullcally downgradient limit
by the capped area and extends down Into the uppermost aquifer underlying
the unit.
At New Lyme, the most widespread organic compounds in onsite wells were
phthalates [b1s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate], at concentra-
tions below quantification limits. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
primarily found in the two monitoring wells associated with a waste cell,
but some VOCs and phenolic compounds were also found below quantification
limits 1n the other wells (phenol, chlorobenzene and acetone). No significant
migration of contaminated groundwater was Identified. Although no significant
offsite groundwater migration has been detected, a monitoring system will
be Installed. Because of the artesian geological conditions at the site,
it appears that groundwater flows upward through the landfill and discharges
as leachate. Therefore, remediation of onsite groundwater contamination
1s expected to-be accomplished through leachate collection.
Any discharge of treated groundwater and leachate at the site to Lebanon Creek
will comply with substantive requirements of the Clean Water Act. During
construction, care will be taken to avoid stormwater runoff from the site.
-------
14
The functional equivalent of NEPA is carried out through the institutional/
environmental/public health analysis of alternatives and public participation
procedures.
Executive Order-11990 and Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 6, entitled "Statement
of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetland Protection" may apply
to remedial actions taken at New Lyme. The site does not lie in a floodplain
but the site 1s surrounded by wetlands. If no practicable alternative exists
outside the wetlands, the action should minimize potential harm and avoid
adverse effects to the wetlands. Since the site is surrounded by wetlands,
any remedial alternative will affect the wetlands to some degree. A Statement
of Findings summarizing the effects of the recommended alternative on the
wetlands Is Included in this document as Attachment 2. Section 404 of the
CWA does not apply to the New Lyme site because nothing 1s expected to be
Introduced Into the wetlands through Implementation of remedial actions (no
filling or dredging). If during design. It Is determined that dredging or
filling 1s necessary to properly Install the cap, care will be taken to
minimize adverse effects and substantive requirements of Section 404 will be
met.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Limited community concern has been expressed at the New Lyme Landfill site.
The Region has received no phone calls or correspondance from New Lyme
citizens, although a few residents of Rock Creek (location of the Old Mill
site, about ten miles away) fear that contamination from New Lyme will
affect the Rock Creek water supply.
Three public meetings were held in New Lyme: the first in November 1983 to
describe the RI/FS process, the second in February 1985 to describe the
results from the RI; and the third in August 1985 to describe the recommended
alternative and to receive public comments. Each meeting was attended by
about 25 persons, including township and county officials.
At the Initial meetings, the major concern of the residents was that material
allegedly buried in the site, including drums of cyanide sludge, may eventually
work their way into the local water supply. There was also concern about
asbestos found in the leachate.
At the meeting held In August 1985 to take public comment on the recommended
alternative, there were few questions and no public comments on the FS or
proposed actions. A public comment period was held for 3 weeks following
publication of the FS. No public comments were received.
Since publication of the FS, U.S. EPA has reevaluated the alternatives. The
remedial alternative which 1s recommended In this document for Implementation
at the New Lyme site 1s different from the alternative which was originally
recommended. A different cap, with an extra layer of clay, will be Installed.
Both caps were considered in the FS, and were described in some detail in
documents provided to the public. Because the level of concern at the New Lyme
site 1s limited, and the recommended alternative has not changed significantly,
no additional public comment is planned. A fact sheet will be prepared to
-------
15
describe the selected alternative and will be available to the public along
with this document.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Using the information presented earlier and summarized in Table 2, the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are compared in order to
recommend a "cost-effective" alternative as defined in the NCR.
The no action alternative does not prevent further contaminant migration from
the site, does not mitigate the existing contamination at the site, and does
not reduce current or future public health risks. There Is a potential for
exposure of the public to contaminants at the site at levels that may adversely
affect public health and welfare. If no action Is taken, groundwater will
continue to come Into the site and be discharged as contaminated surface water,
and contaminated soil and sediment will continue to be generated due to storm-
water runoff. Remedial action 1s therefore required to reduce or minimize this
exposure. Thus, the no action alternative Is not recommended for Implementation
at the site.
Alternative 2 does not mitigate offsite migration of groundwater or leachate.
The present worth of Alternative 2 Is $6,014,000, but the amount of contaminated
water leaving the site will be reduced by only about 4 percent. The environmental
and public health risks associated with surface water, groundwater, and leachate
will not be significantly mitigated. Accordingly, Alternative 2 is not recommended
for Implementation at the site.
Both Alternatives 3A and 3B will address all of the exposure risks to public
health and the environment at the site. Alternatives 3A and 3B differ only in
the cap type. Alternative 3A has a RCRA cap (clay and synthetic) while Alterna-
tive 3B has a multimedia (synthetic) cap. The effectiveness of this alternative
depends on the minimization of infiltration of groundwater and precipitation
into the landfill. Although both caps effectively prevent the downward
infiltration of stormwater into the landfill, the RCRA cap offers additional
failure protection because It has two liners. The clay liner in the RCRA cap
will provide more certainty of retaining the effectiveness of the remedy in
case the synthetic liner should fall. The clay liner will also react better to
subsidence In the landfill, which Is expected to occur. Alternatives 3A and 3B
have present worth costs of $10,789,000 and $9,017,000 respectively. Because
the cap Included as part of Alternative 3A provides additional protection
against liner failure and 1s more reliable than the cap 1n Alternative 3B,
Alternative 3B Is not recommended for Implementation at the site.
Similarly, Alternatives 5A and 5B differ only by the cap type. The present
worth costs of Alternatives 5A and SB are $11.868,000 and $10,084,000 res-
pectively. Because of the additional reliability and protection against cap
failure provided by the cap Included as part of Alternative 5A, Alternative
SB Is not recommended for Implementation at the site.
-------
16
Alternatives 4A and 48 also differ from each other by the type of cap. Alter-
natives 4A and 48 address all exposure risks to public health and the
environment at a much greater cost than any of the other alternatives
Involving caps, because of the great expense of constructing a slurry wall.
Alternatives 4A and 4B have present worth costs of $43,033,000 and $41,246,000
respectively with no additional public health or environmental benefits.
Accordingly, neither Alternative 4A nor 4B are recommended for implementation
at the site.
Alternative 6A will completely address the exposure risks to the public health
and the environment at the site. All offsite migration will be prevented
because all of the waste and contaminated soil and sediment will be placed
In an onsite double-lined RCRA landfill. Alternative 6A has a present
worth of $115,000,000. Alternative 6B will also completely eliminate the
chance for offslte migration and the resulting exposure risk because all of
the contaminated wastes, soil, and sediment will be removed from the site.
Alternative 6B has a present worth of $257,700,000. Alternatives 6A and 6B
are at least an order of magnitude more expensive than Alternatives 3A and
5A, with no significant reduction of exposure risk. Accordingly, Alternatives
6A and 6B are not recommended for Implementation at the site.
Two alternatives remain for comparison.
0 Alternative 3A - RCRA cap with extraction/containment wells,
water treatment, monitoring, and gas
migration control.
- Present worth cost - $10,798,000
- Annual O&M cost - $252,000
0 Alternative 5A - RCRA cap with leachate collection, water treatment,
monitoring and gas migration control.
- Present worth cost - $11,868,000
• Annual O&M cost - $252,000
These alternatives differ 1n the method by which the leachate migration
Is addressed, and in the cost. The environmental and public health benefits
as measured by the elimination of contaminant migration from the site and
minimization of the direct contact threat are the same for each alternative.
In Alternative 5A the leachate will need to be collected (passive drainage
-------
17
system) and treated for an Indefinite period of time. In Alternative 3A It
1s expected that after approximately 15 years the need for treatment will
be minimized as .the landfill will be gradually pumped dry. In this respect,
Alternative 3A produces a greater benefit, as the treatment facility will
not be needed and the water collected from the dewatering wells can be
discharged directly to Lebanon Creek, because the water will be uncontaminated.
Continuous pumping of the landfill required by Alternative 3A may over time
dewater approximately 15 acres of wetlands surrounding the site. The
trench and drain system of Alternative 5A will collect much less water than
the pumping wells of Alternative 3A. Only water which Intrudes by going
under the drain will be drawn from the wetland. As the wetlands dry out,
the plant community will change from a wetland to an upland community.
Since the New Lyme Landfill site Is located In a wetland, both alternatives
will affect, to a slight degree, the wetland. Neither of the alternatives
will significantly diminish the natural or beneficial values of the wetlands
relative to their current state. Since both reduce the migration of contaminants
Into the wetlands, the ability to support wildlife and the values as a
wetland will be enhanced.
Although there 1s natural subsidence which occurs within all landfills, 1t
1s estimated that dewatering the landfill (Alternative 3A) will expedite
this settling process. This may have an adverse Impact on the Integrity of
the cap and may reqlre more extensive O&M than with Alternative 5A. Because
the cap will have both a clay liner and a synthetic liner, there 1s more
protection 1n case a leak should occur 1n the synthetic liner. It 1s
estimated that a maximum of five feet of settling will occur. The costs
associated with the subsidence have been included 1n the O&M cost estimate.
Since the trench and drain collection system is a less active system than
an extraction/containment system, the everyday problems and costs associated
with O&M of the leachate collection system are somewhat less for Alternative
5A than for Alternative 3A.
As mentioned earlier, the greatest difference between these two alternatives
1s that the treatment system will eventually be unnecessary with Alternative
3A. This 1s an attractive benefit, as an onsite treatment facility is
labor-intensive and costly.
Since the environmental and public health benefits are the same, and the
present worth cost of Alternative 3A ($10,798,000) 1s less than the present
worth cost of Alternative 5A ($11,868,000), and the O&M costs are the same,
Alternative 3A Is recommended for Implementation at the site.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
It Is recommended that Alternative 3A 1n the FS be selected as the cost-effective
alternative 1n accordance with Section 300.68 (j) of the NCP. This alternative
1s necessary to protect public health and the environment from risk created
by further exposure to contaminated groundwater, leachate, sediment and
-------
18
soil. This alternative substantially complies with all other environmental
laws and has a total present worth cost of $10,798,000.
DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
This alternative includes the construction of a RCRA cap over the surface of
the landfill, and the installation of gas vents. In addition, the landfill will
be dewatered and groundwater flow will be controlled through the use of
extraction/containment wells around the site perimeter. Contaminated
sediment will be moved onsite and consolidated under the cap.
The cap will consist of a multilayer cap of 2 feet of loam or clay overlying
1 foot of a gravel/sand drainage layer over a synthetic membrane, over two
feet of clay. This cap 1s expected to minimize Infiltration through the
landfill.
Approximately 40,000 gallons per day are estimated to flow from the aquifer
Into the landfill and out at the surface as leachate. Six extraction/containment
wells (9UO feet on center) drilled to a depth of 90 feet and pumping 7
gallons per minute will be Installed around the landfill. With reversal of
the gradient through the landfill, extracted groundwater 1s expected to
Include some leachate. Twenty feet of drawdown at the center of the landfill
will lower the zone of saturation below the estimated landfill depth,
eliminate upward vertical gradients, and reduce leachate production.
Currently, based on the nature of the area (described as a marsh) and the
measured upward gradients, groundwater appears to be flowing up Into the
landfill and generating leachate by flushing up through the burled wastes.
Drawdown will eliminate the flushing action and will eventually dry out the
landfill.
Based on pumping 7 gallons per minute from six wells, an estimated 3 months will
be required to develop the steady-state, 20-foot drawdown. After approximately
15 years, leachate should not be generated because the landfill will have
been dewatered. The withdrawal wells should be pumping 100 percent uncontaminated
groundwater which will not require treatment. The wells will need to be
operated indefinitely to maintain the effectiveness of this remedy.
While leachate 1s being removed, all water will be pumped from the wells to
a central treatment/collection facility onsite. The preferred treatment
system consists of pH adjustment, biodlsc, metals removal by NaOH precipitation,
and granular activated carbon finishing. Pilot and bench scale treatment
plants will be developed to determine actual system design and performance.
Following onsite treatment, the water will be discharged to Lebanon Creek or
to the wetlands. Concentrations in the extracted groundwater may eventually,
after leachate production ceases, be reduced to an acceptable level for
direct discharge.
A groundwater monitoring system will be Installed around the landfill.
Alternative 3A has a total present worth of $10,798,000 with annual O&M
costs of $252,000 for the years that water treatment 1s necessary. After
-------
19
that time, the annual O&M costs will decrease to $44,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Each alternative* was evaluated for present worth and O&M costs as shown in
Tables 3 through 11. The O&M costs were estimated on an annual basis over
30 years. The O&M for the recommended alternative will require an offslte
groundwater monitoring program consistent with RCRA closure regulations, cap
repair and replacement as necessary, groundwater extraction to effectively
dewater the landfill for an Indefinite period of time, and operation of an
onslte water (leachate and groundwater} treatment facility for as long as
contaminated leachate Is being produced. It 1s estimated that the water
will need treatment for about 1-5 years. The cost of O&M 1s estimated to be
$252,000 annually for the first 15 years and $44,000 annually thereafter.
The State of Ohio will assume responsibility for long term O&M of the
remedial action. The U.S. EPA will enter Into a State Superfund Contract
with the State of Ohio to formalize this agreement.
SCHEDULE
MILESTONES
• Approve Remedial Action (ROD)
- Award IAG for Design
- Begin Design
- Complete Design
- Award State Superfund Contract
- Amend IAG for Construction
- Begin Construction
- Complete Construction
FUTURE ACTIONS
DATE
September 1985
October 1985
January 1986
June 1986
June 1986
June 1986
October 1986
October 1987
Long-term O&M activities are necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the
remedy. Since the source of contamination remains at the site, monitoring
will need to continue for an Indefinite period. The extraction/containment
system will need to be operated Indefinitely. The cap will require periodic
repair and maintenance. The treatment system will need to be operated until
1t 1s determined that treatment 1s no longer necessary. Additional Information
on landfill gas production, composition, and monitoring will be gathered
during the remedial design. Pilot studies will also be done as part of the
design to optimize the treatment process and to assure that biological
treatment will be effective.
-------
ft5-2 7Y£ II K3 iiiTr lasV-IB
C3T
1. Sitt Preparation an! Cap Construction
for Typt I! Cap
2. Monitoring Nfetwrk and riret
3. Gas Migration Control
CCNSTaCTTCK SLSTDTflL
Bid CentingtnciN (18)
Scopt Contingtncits (20%)
KTOTRL
Emitting and Ltgal (5«)
Strvicn Durino Construction (»)
TOTS. IX7J&NTRTIK OSTS
g Onipi Coits (8t)
CSTS
2,928,000
140,000
£31,000
•••BMBOBB
3,Z99,000
495,000
860,000
4,454,000
223,000
356,000
5,033,000
403,000
KX3L
10,000
15,000
342,000
0
0
an
342,000
TSTRL WITRL CC5T5
Annual MX Coitt
Rtoiacwtnt Coit*
25,000
342,000
TDTfiL P5ES-VT OJTH
6,014,000
Total pnwnt wrth coctt an dtfintd as tht SUB of thi caoital costs, tht reolacc-
•rit costt, ant tht prtstnt North of tht annual DM txpnui over a 30-ytar ptrioo at
10 ptrctnt inttnst. Tht unifon prtstnt Mrtii factor of 9.4££9 was ustd.
This cost incluCts rtoair of tht caa dut to lubsibtnct at ytars 10 ami 20, and rtciactcent
of tot tirtirt cap «t tht tnd of year 30.
-------
CST
Tabit . 4
TYPE i cap »iTn s» «8WT!w am.
KWTSiUS 1E1S , f?0 USTIR TEATKESt
1. Siti Arrant ion and Cap Construction
for Type I Cap
2. Monitoring tat«ork and Ftnct
3. 6a* Kigration Control
4. liatir Trtatamt
S. Ancillary Dttails
6. Wiring Wills
7. ElKtrical Powtr/Ughting fttquirMints
I. Dnobilization of Uatir Trntifnt Syvtn
C95T%ZTI3! 55TUTIL
Bid ContingtreiH (15*)
Scopi Contin$frem (20%)
T3TBL
ini and Li;al (3»
Scrvicts Burin] Construction (BX)
TS7RL IK7LDEKTRT10K COSTS
Enginttring Cnign Cotti (8%)
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
'3,940,000
140,000
231,000
324,000
258,000
81,300
40,000
27,000
5,051,000
758,000
1,010,000
(,819,000
341,000
546,000
7,706,000
616,000
SM
CCST5
10,000
15,000
0
208,000
6,000
13,000
0
0
flBHB^HBVKHiV
252,000
CSTS"1"
0
460,000
0
0
19,COO
0
0
0
0
> MHHHBmEU^DI
479,000
TDTRL CA?IT(L COSTS
ntolactavnt Cofti
8,322,000
252,000
475,000
TCT3L. VOSSSXJ OSTH •
10,738,000
Total prtstnt north costs art dtfinrt as t^t SUB of tht caaitil costs, t.ni rtalaet-
•tnt costs, ant tht prtstn; north of tni annual OtX npensis for the Mtir trtatcmt systn
ovtr a 15 yur ptriod and ail othtr OIK cxotnus ovtr a 33 yiar otriod. tach at 10 sircfnt
inttnst. Tht unifont prntnt north factors UMC Hirt 7.6061 ant 9.42c3 rtspsctivtly.
b
This cost inclutK rtaair of tht cap dut to subsidcnct at ytars 10 and 20, and rtplactctnt
of tnt tntirt cap at tht tnd of ytar 30.
Ancillary cttails for tht tattr trtatnnt systn includt a storagt tank, a building to
HOUM tnt «attr trtatctnt systtc, and sludgt nsoval.
-------
Table 3
03T tSTlWTE SJffiMY
»-3B TYPE ii cap KTK sas KBWTIW coma.,
DEWTERIN3 CiS , AND i^T&R TUiATKEST
CST
1. Site Preparation and Cap Construction
for Type 1 Cap
2. Monitoring Network and Fence
3. Sas Migration Control
4. iiater Treatvnt
e
5. Ancillary Details
6. OeMtering tells
7. Electrical Power/Lighting Requireeants
8. Demobilization of Uater Treatment Systei
SaTOTK.
Bid Contingencies (ISO
Scope ContinQfrcin (2W)
coNsrajcriox TCTAL
Penitting and Legal (5*)
Services During Construction (81)
TCTAL IKPLCCCThTIW BSTS
Engineering Design Costs (BY)
COSTS'
2,928,000
140,000
231,000
324,000
268,000
81,300
40,000
27,000
4,039,000 '
606,000
BOB, 000
5,452,000
273,000
436,000
6,162,000
493,000
HKSL
04*
CJSTS
10,000
15,000
0
208,000
6,400
13,000
0
0
252,000
•CPLACE'ENT
CuSTS
342,000
0
0
19,000
0
0
0
0
•••9B3B9BKH
361,000
:
T7HL CAPITAL COSTS
Annual DIM Costs
RepiacsMTit Costs
6,635,000
252,000
361,000
TCTR. PJESDfT K09TH •
9,017,000
Total prtttnt worth costs art dtfinn! as the sui of tnt caaital costs, ttw mlaee-
vnt costs, and thi pnsmt iorth of thi annual OW noenset for thi Mtir trtatunt systn
ovtr a 15 ytar ptrioc and all othtr CM ixomscs ovtr a 30 ytar period, etc* at !0 Dfrcent
interest. The unifort present •orth factors used Mere 7.6061 and 9.4269 respectively.
b
This cost includes naair of the caa due to subsidence at years 10 and 20, and riDlactaent
of the entire cap at the end of year 30.
This cost includes reaair of the cap due to subsidence at years 10 and 20, and realaceeent
of the entire cap at the end of year 30.
-------
Table -6
COST ESTIHCTE SJW5RY
APr4ft TYPE I CAP UITH 60S r.IGWTias C3N7R3L, CNITOSINS,
SLURRY WHS, AKD HATER TREATMENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
9.
i.
7.
a.
_ *
CCST C3JO05M
Siti Preparation and Cap Construction
for Typt I Cap
ftonitoring Network and Fret
Gas Migration Control
Uater Treated
e
Ancillary Details
Slurry liall Construction
Eltctrical Po«er/!.ighting RtquirtBirrts
Beaoailization of Katir Trtatant Systn
c&snsmoN smraiK.
Bid Contintmcin CSX)
Scopt ContingtneiM (2W)
C3€7iL37I(Bi TtJTfL
Ptnittinj and Ltgal (9)
Strvicti During Comtruction (W)
TH7AL DOLEKEKTATIOX COSTS
Engimtring Onign Corts (IX)
casntcriON
COSTS
3,940,000
1*0,000
231,000
11,000
{7,000
20, 19ft, 000
20,000
7,000
S,3M,000
3,808,000
5,077,000
34,2£3,000
1,713,000
2,742,000
38,724,000
3,098,000
PJMJAi.
CM
COSTS
10,000
15,000
0
52,000
2,000
0
0
0
79,000
REPUOEST
CCSTS
460,000
0
0
5,000
1,000
0
0
0
•••nHMHBI
4tt,000
.
TC7RL CRPITBL GETS
Annual Ott Cottt
Rtpltctvnt Costs
41,822,000
79,000
466,000
T37RL PRsSsKT IDRTK »
43,033,000
Total prestnt north costs art defined as tnt SM of tnt caoital costs, the rtalaci-
•nt costs, and tht present wrth of the annual DM exaenses over a 30-yeir period at
10 percent interest. The unifore present North factor of 9.42S3 MS used.
b
This cost includes reaair of the cu due to subsidence at years 10 art 20, and replacesent
of the entire cap at the end of year 30.
Ancillary details for the Mttr treatcent system' include a storage tank, a building to
house the water treatment system, ana siuc&e reeoval.
-------
Twit -7
WKB TY5- i: cap aiTH sas^iswriw cotnoL, KSITSSIW,
SLUfWY WUS, WD WTtR
ftWWL
CONSTRUCTION ' OW Rt'LRCE'-VT
CiST ETPOB.7 C33TS . C3STS ' CT3
1.
2.
1
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
Sitt Preparation and Cap Construction
for Typt II Cap
Monitoring Nttwork and Ftnct
6as Migration Control
totir Tnatwnt
Ancillary Oitails
Slurry toll Construction
Etctrical Pontr/Litfrtinj Rtquir««nts
taobilization of Uttr TnatHnt Systti
BKST!&mOii SJBTCTJL
Bid Continjtreitt (151)
Scoot Contingtncits (2W)
BKST1&£TIQM TCTPL
Ptnittinc and Ltgal (»)
Strvins Durin; Construction (8X)
T^SL MPLBSCRT1W COSTS
Snginttring Dtsign Colts (8t)
TCTt CWITBL CCSTS
Pjmual MX Costs
RtplacHtnt Costs
•
TOTAL PiESEMT ICHTH •
b
2,926,000 10,000 3A2,000
140,000 15,000 0
231,000 0 0
61,000 52,000 5,000
67,000 2,000 1,000
20,898,000 0 0
20,000 0 0
7,000 0 0
24,372,000 79,000 348,000
3,656,000
4,874,000
32,902,000
1,645,000
2,632,000
37,179,000
2,974,000
40,153,000
79,000
346,000
41,246,000
Total prvseni north costs art defintd as tht sui of tht caaital costs, tnt rtslact-
wnt costs, and tht pmtnt Morth of tht annual SiX txptnsts ovtr a 30-ytar ptriot at
10 ptrctnt inttrtst. Tht unifon prtstnt north factor of 9.4££9 vat usttf.
b
This cost includt* rtpair of tnt cao dut to subsidtnct at ytars 10 and 20, art rtaltctwr.t
of tht tntirt cap at tht tnd of ytar 30.
Ancillary dfftails for the tatrr trtatitnt systta ircluct a stora;t tank, a builCin? to
houst tht Mttr.trtatnn: systes, and sluegt rtcoval.
-------
"able ^J
TYPE I M? WITH Ps'ttSfoTItt VBffWL. rSWTC'INS,
LEADOTE « : erring (^ URTER TSEflTXeNT
CONSTRUCTION
fa>3- C3*!*2?»Dfr r^|tjT^
1.
L
3.
4.
3,
6.
7.
1.
Site Preparation and Cap Construction
for Type I Cap
Monitoring Network and Fence
Gas Migration Control
Uater Treatemt
(•ciliary Details
LMChate Collection
Electrical/Power Recuirtaents
Oesobilization of Water Treatment Sysiei
1
COK3TRITT10N SUBTOTRL
Bid Contingencies (15«>
Scope Contingencies (20X)
CONSTRUCTION TUTPL
Pereitting and Le;»l ««
Services During Construction (8t)
Engineering Design Costs (fit)
3,940,000
140,000
231,000
324,000
497,000
40,000
27,000
HHi^iVHBB^B
5,467,000
820,000
1,093,000
7,360,000
369,000
590,000
8,339,000
££7,000
OH
CSTS
10,000
15,000
0
208,000
£,400
13,000
0
0
252,000
HEWCSSKT
C2STS
b
460,000
0
0
23,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
••XXCS33BM9I
486,000
s
CA9ITRL COSTS
Annual OM Cost!
RtolaciMnt Cotts
9,006,000
252,000
486,000
TDTRL PRESENT IQRTK
11,868,000
Total artunt worth costs aft defined u thi sun of the caaita! costs, tnt rtalace-
«nt costs, and the present wrtn of tne annual 04* exeenses over a 30-year periot- at
10 percent interest. The unifore present north factor of 9.4IS3 was uset.
b
This cost induces reaair of the cao due to tcasicerce at years 10 and 20, and realacenertt
of the entire cap at tne end of year 30.
ancillary details for fie water treatment systen include a storage tank, a building to
house tte water trtatunt systee., anc sludge reeovai.
-------
Twit -9
SET SSTlWTt SISWWY
TYPE i: Cfi? «-* sas MISSION CONTROL, KJN:TG««,
LEKHATI rrr. • erring flKD WTER TSEflTKZNT
T3T%. CfflTRL COSTS
Annual OK Costs
RtplactBtnt Costs
7,340,000
1.
2.
3.
4.
9.
&.
7.
8.
CsTS C3K?COiT
Sitt Prtparation and Cap Construction
for Typt 11 Cap
Monitoring NttMrk and Fret
Gas Migration Control
Uattr Trtatwnt
Axillary Dttalls
Ltachatt Colitction
Eltctrical/PoHtr Rtquirtwnts
Onabilization of Trtatunt Systt*
O5TXC7I8N SuBTOTRL
Bid Contingmits (ISt)
Scoot Contingtncits (2Cft)
nJSTSsnox TCTHL
knitting and Ltgal (S»
Strvicts During Construction (B*)
TCTJL IKPL3®TRT1QX COSTS
Enginttrinj Dtsijn Costs (W)
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
MM
140,000
231,000
324,000
268,000
497,000
40,000
27,000
4,485,000
666,000
691,000
1,014,000
301,000
461,000
6,796,000
844,000
COSTS
10,000
15,000
0
206,000
£,400
13,000
0
252,000
CCSTS
b
3^,000
0
0
22,000
2,000
1,000
0
noBXEX=zxa
366,000
25S,000
366,000
TOTflL ?!ESEN7 UORTH •
10,084,000
Total pnscnt North costs art difintd as tht sui of tht capital costs, tm rtoiase-
ant costs, ant thi prtscnt vorth of tiw annual OIX cxptrttts ovtr a 30-yt*r ptric: at
10 ptrctnt inttrtst. Tht unifora prtstnt north factor of 9.42E3 MI ustd.
b
This cost includts rtaair of tht cao dut to suasidtnct at ytars 1C v£ 20, ard rt?iacteer.t
of tht tntirt cap at tht tnd of ytar 30.
c
Ancillary dttails for tht Mttr trtatstnt systtff incluct a storagt tank, a buiiCin; to
houst tht Mttr trtatnrit systta, and siuo;t rtaoval.
-------
fift-tt
Tablt 10
COST E'lWSTE SIWR8Y
WITH WSITE DISPOSAL IN AN W3ITE (CSA-TY^
C3ST
1. Excavation
2. Monitoring Nttvork and Ftnct
X fiat Migration Control
4. Stockpilt (Ha
5. BottOB Untr SystM
& Rtplactrtnt of Kattriali
7. Injtallation of a Typt I Cap
CONSTRUCTION SUJIQTRL
Bid Contingtncitf CSX)
Scoot Contingtncits (20*)
N TUTU.
Ptnitting and Legal (5<)
StrvitM Osrinj Construction (B»
T3TflL IH7JSNTBTICN CDTS
Snginicring Dtsign Cost* (8%)
OKSTffJCTION
CC5TS
26,960,000
140,000
231,000
2,500,000
8,550,000
17,524,000
3,940,000
59,845,000
8, 977,000
11,969,000
60,791,000
4,040,000
6,463,000
91,294,000
7,304,000
tKXjPL
OM
COSTS
0
15,000
0
0
0
0
10,000
25,000
•W
0
0
0
0
0
0
342,000
••BUMPsMl
342,000
.
TCTfll SiPITAL COSTS
Annua! OtKCoits
Costs
98,598,000
25,000
342,000
TCTAL
99,176,000
Total prtstnt worth costs art dtfimd as tnt sui of trw caaital costs, tnt rniace-
•tnt costs, and thi prtstnt North of tht annual OM txptnsts ovtr a 30-ytar ptriot at
10 ptrctnt intsrtst. Tnt unifort prtstnt nortl factor of 9.4239 Has ustti.
This cost inclubts rtoair of tht caa dut to subsidenct at ytars 10 and 20, and rtplastnnt
of tht tnt in cap at tht and of ytar 30.
-------
M-6B
1. Eicavation
2. Offsitt Disposal
1 Backfill Eicavation
4. Toptoil for Vtgitation" Covtr
3. Transportation Costs
Tablt 11
CDST ESTItfTE SUTTPRY
UiTH 0?FSlTt 015=03*. IN ft OWEWI773 J*C?iil
C3ST3
££,360,000
80,700,000
7,414,000
1,420,000
43,028,000
0
0
0
0
0
O5T5
0
0
0
0
0
SLETSTRL '
Bid Contingffrcin ll»)
Seopi Cofrtinjrcits (201)
7UTPL
Pknitting and Ujal (5X)
Ssrvicts During Construction (8X)
TDTRL DPJJeiTRnON COSTS
•nginstring Dttign Cofti (W)
TCTR. CPITfiL CC37S
Annual W Costs
RtplacsMnt Costs
159,522,000
23,926,000
31,904,000
215,354,000
10,768,000
17,228,000
243,350,000
19,468,000
262,818,000
TDTflL PiESENT
262,818,000
Total prnmt worth costs art dtfintd as t!» sui of tM capital costs, tr.t rezlacf-
•nt costs, and thi prtsmt north of thi annual CM axatrsis ovtr a 30-yaar ciriod at
10 ptrctnt irittrtft. Tht unifon prflsent north factor of 9.4263 MS usK.
-------
Attachment 2
WETLANDS. A1SE.SSME NT
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
This "Statement "of Findings" documents the wetlands assessment performed
at the New Lyme site. The statement is in accordance with Excecutive Order
11990 - Protection of Wetlands, which requires Federal agencies to take
action to minimize the destruction, loss or degredation of wetlands, and
to preserve and enhance the beneficial value of wetlands.
The New Lyme site Is surrounded on three sides by over 100 acres of wetlands.
The recommended alternative for the remedial action proposes to cap the land-
fill and draw down the groundwater level below the bottom of the landfill.
These remedial actions are being taken in an effort to reduce contaminated
leachate and groundwater production by eliminating vertical Infiltration
through the landfill and by effectively dewaterlng the landfill Itself. This
action will affect the wetlands. Approximately 15 acres of wetlands around
the site may be dewatered.
Because the site 1s located in a wetland, there are no alternative actions or
locations to be considered for taking remedial action.
The proposed action will substantially comply with state and local wetlands
protection standards.
Groundwater recharge of treated water through the wetland was considered and
found to be Infeasible because of the low permeability of the receiving till.
The design for construction of the cap will Include safeguards to minimize
harm to the wetlands during operations. The dewaterlng and treatment system
will end discharge of untreated leachate to Lebanon Creek and wetlands as
well as remove contaminated groundwater. Continuous pumping of the dewaterlng
wells may lower the water level under approximately 15 acres of wetlands
surrounding the site. The vegetative and faunal communities adjacent to the
site are adapted to the ephemeral nature of the wetlands and any visible
difference in vegetative cover or faunal complement will be minimal during
operation of the dewatering system. The wetlands may gradually dry out and
the plant community adjacent to the site may gradually change from wetland
to upland species.
Although there will be some Impact on the wetlands because of Implementation of
this proposed remedial action, the overall effect 1s beneficial. The
natural or beneficial value of the wetlands relative to its current state
will be enhanced because the release of contaminants Into the wetlands will
be eliminated and the ability of the wetlands to support wildlife will be
enhanced. •
------- |