United Stales        Office of
           Environmental Protection   Emergency and
           Agency           Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-92/212
September 1992
c/EPA   Superfund
          Record of Decision:
          Skinner Landfill, OH

-------
NOTICE.
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request 01
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement. but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document. All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.

-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROS-92/212
I ~
3. Recipienta Acc:eaalon No.
v
4. 1118 8nd Sub1IUe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Skinner Landfill, OH
First Remedial Action - Interim
7. Author(a)
5. Aepor1 Date
09/30/92
6.
8. Perfonning Organization Rept. No.
8. Perfonnlng OrgalnlDtion Name and Addresa
10. ProjectlT88klWork Unit No.
11. ConIr8c1(C) or Gr8nt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponaorlng Organization Name 8nd Address
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
.
13. Type 01 Report & Period Covered
Agen(;:y
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-964117
16. Ab8tract (Umlt: 200 wolda)
The 78-acre Skinner Landfill site is located in West Chester, Butler County, Ohio.
Land use in the immediate vicinity includes business and residential uses to the west
and crop farming to the north. Several geologic units that underlie the site are used
as aquifers by local residents. The site was used in the past for the mining of sand
and gravel, and was operated for the landfilling of a wide variety of materials from
approximately 1934 through 1990. Materials deposited onsite include demolition debris,
household refuse, and a wide variety of chemical wastes. A low area of the site,
referred to as the waste lagoon, was used for disposal of paint and ink wastes,
creosote, pesticides, and other chemicals. In 1976, in response to a fire onsite and
reports of observations of a black, oily liquid in a waste lagoon onsite, EPA
investigated the landfill. The owner asserted that nerve gas, mustard gas, incendiary
bombs, and other explosive devices were buried at the landfill in the lagoon area, but
subsequently retracted this claim. The U.S. Army and EPA dug several trenches into the
buried waste lagoon and found black ooze and numerous barrels of waste; no munitions of
any sort were found. In 1982, EPA conducted an investigation that showed that the
groundwater southeast of the buried waste lagoon was contaminated with VOCs. RI
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyaia L Deacrlptora
Record of Decision - Skinner Landfill, OH
First Remedial Action - Interim
Contaminated Media: Soil, sediment, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other
(arsenic)
organics (PAHs, PCBs, pesticides), metals
b. IdentifieralOpen-Ended Terms
c. COSA 11 FI8IcIIGroup
18. Avllliabiity Statement
19. Security Clua (Thia Report)
None

20. Security Clua (Thia Page)
Nnnp
21. No. 01 Pages
16
~
~ Price
(See ANSJ.Z39.18)
See Inslrllc/ions on Reverse
272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTlS-35)
Department 01 Conmerce

-------
EPA/ROD/R05-92/212
Skinner Landfill, OH
First Remedial Action - Interim
Abstract (Continued)
studies conducted between 1986 and 1989 investigated the site ground water, surface
water, soil, and sediment. In 1990, the state closed the site to further landfilling
activities. EPA has organized this project into two operable units. This ROD is an
interim action to protect human health by limiting site access to prevent ingestion of
and direct contact with contaminated soil, and to protect the potentially affected users
of ground water on and near the site. A future ROD will provide source control measures
and the remaining onsite contaminants as the final response action for this site. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, including
benzene; organics, including PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides; and metals, including arsenic.
The selected interim remedial action for this site includes fencing the portion of the
site that was used for landfilling and disposal of liquid wastes; posting warning signs;
monitoring ground water for organic and inorganic contaminantson a quarterly basis; and
providing an alternative water supply to those who are potentially impacted by migration
of contaminated ground water from the site. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is not provided. The capital cost is $160,000 and the annual O&M cost is
$30,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: No performance clean-up goals were provided for remedial
action. The subsequent ROD will address the clean-up goals for the chemicals of concern
contaminating the soil, sediment, ground water, and surface water.

-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Skinner Landfill
West Chester, Butler County, Union Township, Ohio
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial
action for the Skinner Landfill site in ~est Chester, Ohio, which
was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and to the extent practicable,
the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the factual and
legal basis for selecting the interim remedy for this site. The
information supporting this interim remedial action decision is
contained in the administrative record for this site.
The state of Ohio concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by implementing the respo~se action selected in
this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This interim action operable unit is the first of two operable
units for this site. This operable unit addresses potential
contamination of drinking water by eliminating the risks, by
providing alternative water supply to those potentially affected
users of groundwater, and by monitoring the groundwater at the
downgradient boundary of the site. It also provides for the
fencing of the contaminated portions of the site.

The second operable unit will provide for control of the on-site
contamination, and is intended to be the final response action
for this site.

-------
DECLARATXON
This interim action is protective of human health, complies with
Federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for this limited-scope action, and is cost-
effective. Further protection of human health, and protection of
the environment, will be addressed in future operable units.
This action is interim and is not intended to utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site.
Because this action does not constitute the final remedy for this
site, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element
will be addressed by the final response action. Subsequent
actions are planned to address fully the threats posed by the
conditions at this site. Because this remedy will result in
hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based levels,
a review will be conducted to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment
within five years after commencement of the remedial action.
Because this is an interim action ROD, review of this site and of
this remedy will be ongoing as U.S. EPA continues to develop
final remedial alternatives for this site.
¥~ ~ /r112.

Date
Valdas V. Ad us
Regional Ad nistrator
U.S. EPA, R gion V

-------
o
Decision Summary
SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION.-
The Skinner Landfill site is located in West Chester, Ohio, in
Section 22 of Butler County (see Figure 1).
The Skinner site is comprised of approximately 78 acres of hilly
terrain, bordered to the south by the East Fork of Mill Creek, on
the east by Conrail railroad tracks. Land uses in the immediate
site vicinity include business and residential uses to the west
and crop farming to the north. Cincinnati-Dayton Road borders
the site to the west. An elementary school is located
immediately across Cincinnati-Dayton road from the site.

The site was used in the past for the mining of sand and gravel,
and was operated for the landfilling of a wide variety of
materials from approximately 1934 through 1990. Materials
deposited on the site include demolition debris, household
refuse, and a wide variety of chemical wastes. A low area in the
center of the site, referred to as the waste lagoon, was used for
the disposal of paint wastes, ink wastes, creosote, pesticides,
and other chemical wastes.
Several geologic units which underlie the site are used locally
as aquifers.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In 1976, in response to a fire on the site and reports of
observations of a black, oily liquid in a waste lagoon on the
site, the Ohio EPA began an investigation of the Skinner
Landfill. During the course of this investigation, the Skinners
covered the waste lagoon with a layer of demolition debris,
thereby hindering the investigation. Albert Skinner, the site
owner at the time, dissuaded the Ohio EPA from accessing the
lagoon area by claiming that nerve gas, mustard gas, incendiary
bombs, phosphorus, flame throwers, cyanide ash, and other
explosive devices were buried at the landfill. This prompted the
Ohio EPA to request the assistance of the U.S. Army. Albert
Skinner, in the presence of Ohio EPA attorneys and the U.S. Army
investigators, subsequently retracted his claims of the presence
of ordnance. The U.S. Army and Ohio EPA then dug several
trenches into the buried waste lagoon, and found black ooze and a
number of barrels of wastes. Subsequently, records searches have
been performed by the U.S. Army, and have indicated that there is
no record of any munitions of any sort being disposed of at the
Skinner Landfill site.
In 1982, the U.S. EPA conducted a limited investigation of the
site for the purpose of scoring the Skinner Landfill site for
inclusion on the'National Priorities List (NPL). This

-------
2
investigation showed that the groundwater southeast of the buried
waste lagoon was contaminated with vo1atile organic compounds.
The Skinner Landfill site was then placed on the NPL.

In 1986, the U.S. EPA began a Phase I Remedial Investigation,
with the sampling of ground water, surface water, and soils.
biological survey of the East Fork of Mill Creek and Skinner
Creek was also performed.
A
In 1989, the U.S. EPA began its Phase II Remedial Investigation
("Phase II RI"), to further investigate the site groundwater,
surface water, soils, and-sediments. Overall, over 400 samples
from the site were analyzed in chemical laboratories. The
Remedial Investigation resulted in the installation of 33 soil
borings, and 39 groundwater monitoring wells.
In August 1990, through a legal proceeding, the Ohio EPA closed
the site to all further landfilling activities.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
During the course of the investigation, a number of meetings were
held with the community and with a local activist group.
A fact sheet outlining U.S. EPA's plans for the investigation of
the Skinner Landfill site was distributed to the public in March
of 1986.
A fact sheet describing the res'llts of Phase I of the Remedial
Investigation (RI) and plans for hlase II of the RI was
distributed to the public in April of 1987.

A fact sheet describing the results of Phase II of the RI and
plans for the Baseline Risk Assessment (RA) and Feasibility Study
(FS) was distributed to the public in June of 1991.
Representatives of the U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA held a public
meeting in West Chester, Ohio on June 20, 1991 to discuss the
results of the Phase II RI and plans for future activities at the
Skinner site.
A fact sheet describing the results of the Feasibility study, and
presenting the U.s. EPA's preferred alternative for a
comprehensive cleanup of the entire Skinner Landfill site was
distributed to the public in April, 1992. A component of this
cleanup plan was on-site incineration of approximately 17,000
cubic yards of lagoon wastes. A public meeting to discuss the
proposed plan and to gather pUblic comments was held on May 20,
1992. A second public meeting on this subject was held on July
29, 1992. An ancillary purpose of this second public meeting was
to present to the pUblic the results of an assessment of the
risks posed by the on-site incineration option, which had been

-------
3
requested at the May 20, 1992 public meeting. However, this
meeting was disrupted by a local activist group to the point that
the risk assessment information was not adequately conveyed to
the public.
Subsequent to the second public meeting, and due to concerns
expressed by members of the public and by elected officials, the
U.S. EPA decided to alter its decisionmaking approach for this
site. On August 7, 1992, U.S. EPA mailed an announcement to
members of the public and issued a news release, indicating that:
1) U.S. EPA proposes to select an interim remedy for this
site, including fencing the contaminated portion of the site
and providing alternative water supply to potentially
affected homes;
2) The comment period for fencing and alternate water supply
will end on August 31, 1992;
3) The comment period for the remaining portions of the
remedy will remain open until further notice, in order to
address community concerns.
A coalition of various West Chester community groups and
residents was formed after the July 29, 1992 public meeting in
order to discuss th~pkinner Landfill cleanup and to meet with
the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA. This coalition includes
representatives from'~he Township Trustees, the Chamber of
Commerce, C.L.E.A.N;...the School Board, the Old West Chester
Merchants Associatiort, the Union School PTA, the Home Builders
Association, the Firefighters/service Group, and a number of
Township Residents. The U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA have met several
times with this coalition, and expect to meet with them in the
future.
~.
'i
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT WITHIN THE OVERALL SITE
STRATEGY
The U.S. EPA has organized this project into two operable units.
The first operable unit is an interim action to protect human
health by limiting site access to prevent ingestion of and direct
contact with contaminated soils, and to protect the potentially
affected users of groundwater on and near to the site. The
second operable unit will address source control measures, . and
the remaining on-site contamination. This interim action
operable unit is considered to be consistent with any conceivable
overall site remedy..1.....

-------
4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This description of site characteristics is limited to those site
characteristics which relate directly to the interim remedy, i.e.
the extent of soil contamination, and the potential for
downgradient migration of groundwater contamination.
The buried waste lagoon appears to be a source of groundwater
contamination. Additional sources may exist elsewhere on the
site. The groundwater in two wells, GW-20 and B-OS, located
immediately adjacent to and downgradient from the lagoon, were
the most severely impacted of wells tested during Phase II.
Contaminants detected in these wells include 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane,
chloroethane, ethylbenzene, chloroform, trichloroethene 1,3-
dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, naphthalene and vinyl
chloride.
The flow of groundwater within the unconsolidated deposits (those
deposits lying above the bedrock) on the site appears to be
generally controlled by the surface topography, which in turn
mirrors the bedrock topography. The groundwater surface maps
indicate that the groundwater flows downgradient, along the same
direction as the slope of the ground surface.
The area encompassing the Skinners' residential well is separated
from the waste lagoon by a groundwater divide. This means that
groundwater would not be expected to flow, for example, from the
buried waste lagoon area, across the groundwater divide, to the
Skinners' residential well. The Skinners' residential well has
been found to be contaminated with several volatile organic
compounds at concentrations less than the drinking water
standards. Therefore, it appears that there is a source of
groundwater contamination within this area, other than the buried
waste lagoon. The Proposed Plan indicated that this source would
be identified as part of the overall site remedy.
The fenced area encompasses the landfill and the buried waste
lagoon, which the Remedial Investigation identified as the
primary areas of contamination.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Because the Skinner Landfill accepted a variety of wastes since
1934 until it was closed in 1990, numerous chemicals have been
detected at the site. Following the RI, an analysis was
conducted to estimate the potential health or environmental
problems that could result if the site was not cleaned up. This
analysis is referred to as the Baseline Risk Assessment (RA). In
this assessment, approximately 166 contaminants representing

-------
~
5
essentially all classes of chemicals were evaluated for carrying
through the risk assessment. Of the~~, 114 contaminants were
retained from these chemical classes for use in assessing site
risks. These chemicals can be found on Table 3-1 of the RA
Report, and include inorganic, volatile and semi-volatile organic
chemicals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins and furans.
Those contaminants contributing the most significantly to current
and future site risks included: volatile organics such as carbon
tetrachloride, vinyl chloride, benzene, chloroform,
dichloroethene and bis (2-chloroethyl) ether; pesticides such as
heptachlor, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, chlordene, and
hexachlorobenzene; PCBs, specifically Arochlor 1254, and
inorganics such as arsenic and cobalt.
The most highly contaminated media included the soils of the
buried waste lagoon. Lower levels of contamination were found in
the remaining site-wide soils which included the buried pit area.
Lower levels of contamination were also found in the ground water
and in the sediments in Mill Creek, Skinner Creek, and the Duck
and Diving Ponds. Additional contamination may be from drums
located north of the buried waste lagoon which were sampled in
1976 and 1986.
The remaining portions of the landfill contain smaller quantities
of solid and industrial waste mixed with larger quantities of
demolition materials. However, ground water monitoring wells
located within the landfill indicate that the landfill is also a
source of contamination. Leachate is created at this site when
rain water or melting snow percolates through the waste lagoon
and landfill. The majority of compounds in the waste lagoon are
largely immobile, because they bind tightly to the clayey soils
below the waste lagoon and are not dissolved by water. However,
mobile VOC compounds in permeable zones beneath the waste lagoon
have been detected. These compounds are apparently mobile in the
water table and in perched ground water zones above impermeable
layers. Contamination of the bedrock layer was minimal.

The majority of ground water contamination in the unconsolidated
sediments appears to originate from within the buried waste
lagoon. Additional sources may exist to the north and east of
the buried waste lagoon as well as upgradient of the Skinner's
residential well in the buried valley. Two wells located
immediately adjacent to, and downgradient from, the lagoon are
the most impacted. These wells contain a wide variety of
contaminants with the majority being volatile organic and
chlorinated semi-volatile organic compounds. Three wells located
within the landfill indicated elevated levels of primarily
benzene. Ground water monitoring wells located downgradient of
the waste lagoon and landfill, and adjacent to the East Fork of
Mill Creek, show considerably fewer contaminants and at much
lower concentrations.
~

-------
6
Surface water contamination is minimal in all ponds and creeks.
However, pond and creek sediments cor.~ain low levels of some
semi-volatile organic compounds, PCBs, arsenic, and pesticides.
The most likely reason for the contamination is due to surface
water runoff from the site.
The potential migration pathways for these contaminants include
leaching from the soils to the ground water, movement of
contaminated ground water to surface water and sediments, and
volatilization of chemicals to air from water and soils.
Sampling has indicated that concentrations of volatile chemicals
in surface soils and water do not represent a significant source
of concern for air. Additionally, the depth of contaminated
soils in the waste lagoon limits the emission of these chemicals
to air.
Currently, the only evidence of contaminants potentially leaving
the site through ground water migration is the detection of
ethylbenzene at low levels located across the East Fork of Mill
Creek from the buried lagoon. The only potential off-site routes
of migration for surface water and surface water sediments are
through the East Fork of Mill Creek and Skinner Creek. The
leachate seeps and ground water discharges into the East Fork of
Mill Creek appear to originate from within the buried waste
lagoon and clearly indicate a pathway for off-site migration of
contaminants.
The RA showed that the potential routes of current and future
exposure include: ingestion of and direct contact with
contaminated soils; ingestion of affected ground water; dermal
contact with ground water; inhalation of chemicals that
volatilize from ground water to air during showering; and,
ingestion of and direct contact with surface water and sediments
during recreational activities. Inhalation of fugitive dust and
volatile chemicals was also evaluated qualitatively as a
potential exposure route but did not warrant a quantitative
assessment because emissions from surface soil would likely be
low. This is because the most contaminated portion of the site,
the buried waste lagoon, is beneath up to .40 feet of demolition
debris and is not considered a source of air risk under the
current conditions.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The proposed plan for this site presented five alternatives. The
first was a no action alternative, which is evaluated at all
Superfund sites in order to assess the potential risk to the
public which could occur if no cleanup was done. The other four
alternatives evaluated a range of source control response
options. However, each of the other four options included
identical provisions for monitoring, fencing and provision of

-------
~
7
alternate water supply. Therefore, only two alternatives for the
fencing and alternate water supply ar~ discussed in this ROD.
ALTERNATI:VE 1
NO ACTI:ON
The Superfund program required that the "no action" alternative
be considered at every site. Under this alternative, the U.S.
EPA would take no action to control site access, or to provide
alternate water supply to potentially affected residences.
Obviously, there is no cost associated with the no action
alternative.
ALTERNATI:VE 2. FENCING AND PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE WATER
SUPPLY
The portion of the site which was utilized for landfilling and
the disposal of liquid wastes, as shoWn in Figure 2, will be
enclosed by a 6' tall chainlink fence, topped by two strands of
barbed wire. In order to minimize any potential interference
between this interim remedy and any future action taken at this
site, the fence line has been drawn to encompass the potential
future boundaries of a cap, as described in the Proposed Plan.
Gates will be installed where the fence intersects on-site roads,
and will be wide enough to permit access to emergency vehicles.
Keys will be provided to the local police and fire departments,
and to any other'agencies identified by U.s. EPA. Signs will be
installed on the fence, indicating the presence of Superfund
chemical waste site. The signs will state: "Danger, Keep Out,
United state Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Site".
The fence will be periodically inspected, and repaired, if
necessary. The fence will be kept locked to the maximum extent
practicable.
Those who use groundwater for drinking purposes, who are
potentially impacted by migration of contaminated groundwater
from the site will be offered alternative water supply, along
with the current on-site residents. The' area of potential
groundwater impact is shown in Figure 3. This area is based upon
the projected rate and direction flow of groundwater from the
site through the surficial deposits.
Groundwater at the downgradient site boundary will be monitored
for organic and inorganic contaminants on a quarterly basis.
Implementation of this option will require the installation of
several groundwater monitoring wells.
Capital Cost: $160,000
Annual O&M Cost: $30,000

-------
8
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives developed during the Feasibility study
were evaluated by the U.s. EPA using the following 9 criteria.
The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were then
compared to determine which alternative provided the best balance
among these 9 criteria. These criteria are set forth in the
National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.430.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether of not a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls or institutional
controls.
2. ComDliance with ARARs 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.
3. Lona-term Effectiveness
ability of a remedy to maintain
health and the environment over
met. .£!:.'I
and Permanence refers to the
reliable protection of human
time once cleanup goals have been
4. Reduction of'Toxicitv. Mobilitv or Volume is the
anticipated performa~ce of the treatment technologies a remedy
may employ. '.
5. Short-term Effectiveness involves the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any adverse impact on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and im~mentation period until cleanup goals are
achieved.
6. ImDlementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of goods and
services needed to implement the chosen solution.

7. Cost includes capital and operation and maintenance
costs.
8. State AcceDtance indicates whether, based on its review
of the RIfFS and Proposed Plan, the State of Ohio concurs,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.

9. Community AcceDtance will be assessed in the Record of
Decision following a,review of the public comments received on
the FS report and the Proposed Plan.

-------
o
9
Each alternative was
selected alternative
alternatives compare
follows.
evaluated against these nine criteria. The
is Alternative 2. A discussion of how the
to each other based upon these criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The fencing is designed to limit access of nearby residents
to the contaminated portions of the site, and therefore is a
positive contribution toward the overall protection of Human
Health and the Environment. The groundwater-related portion
of the interim remedy is designed to address the threat of
offsite groundwater contamination, rather than any existing
offsite groundwater contamination. As such, however, it
provides protection of human health and the environment from
the threat of offsite groundwater contamination.
Compliance with ARARs
Installation of groundwater monitoring wells will be
performed in accordance with the pertinent portions of OAC
3745-9, Water Well Standards. There are:
OAC 3745-9-01 Definitions
OAC 3745-9-05 Construction of New Wells
OAC 3745-9-06 Casing for New Wells
OAC 3745-9-07 Surface Design of New Wells
OAC 3745-9-09 Maintenance & Modification of Wells
OAC 3745-9-10 Abandonment of Test Holes & Wells
OAC 3745-9-11 Use of Wells for Disposal
Any construction activities, provision of hook-ups to the
local water mains, will be conducted in accordance with
local construction codes.
Lana-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This interim remedy offers permanent, long-term protection
to the potentially affected users of groundwater.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv or Volume
This interim remedy does not address the contaminant source,
and therefore does not provide for any reduction in
toxicity, mobility or volume.

Short-term Effectiveness
This interim remedy is simple and may be implemented
quickly, thus maximizing short-term effectiveness.

-------
10
ImDlementabilitv
This interim remedy is easily implementable using proven,
readily available technologies.
Cost
The cost of this interim remedy is commensurate with its
benefits in terms of the other criteria.
state AcceDtance
The state of Ohio accepts this interim remedy.
Communitv AcceDtance
The Community appears to accept this interim remedy.
Comments are summarized in the responsiveness summary.
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON
Under the No Action alternative, contamination could migrate from
the site without being detected, and potentially could be
consumed by humans. Also, humans could trespass onto the site
and encounter contaminated soils. For these reasons, the No
Action alternative is not considered to be protective of human
health, and therefore is not a viable option for this site.
Selected Remedy
Alternative 2
The fencing, groundwater monitoring and provision of alternate
water supply will provide for protection of public health in a
very short time frame and for a reasonable cost, and is the
preferred alternative for this interim action operable unit.
This interim action will not exacerbate the existing situation
and it is consistent with the goals of the final operable unit.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
i
\
Under its legal authorities, u.s. EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
.adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
addition, section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other
statutory requirements and preferences. These specify that when
complete, the selected remedial action must comply with ARARs
under Federal and State environmental laws, unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy must also be cost.
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative

-------
~
11
treatment or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, the statute i~~ludes a preference for
remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly
reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants and contaminants. The following sections discuss how
the selected remedy, where applicable, meets the statutory
requirements and preferences.
A.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy provides for protection of human health by
limiting the potential for consumption of contaminated drinking
water within the potentially affected area and by limiting access
to the most contaminated area. As a public water supply system,
the selected remedy is a proven and reliable method of providing
a permanent and safe drinking water supply through required
treatment and monitoring.
The remedial objective of this operable unit is protection of
human health only. Protection of the environment will be
achieved by future operable units that address contaminated
groundwater and on-site sources of contamination.
B.
ComD1iance with ADp1icab1e or Relevant and ADDroDriate
Reauirements (ARARs)
All ARARs will be met for this operable unit remedial action.
The RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions do not apply to this operable
unit remedial action, because no contaminated soil will be dug
up. Local construction codes will be followed.
C.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective.
D.
utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternate Treatment
Technoloaies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
U.S.EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions can be utilized in
the most cost effective manner to address potential drinking
water contamination in the affected area. U.S.EPA has determined
that the selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs
in terms of short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost and
State and community acceptance. The critieria of long-term
effectiveness and permanence are met by the permanent hook-up of
residences to a public water supply.

This operable unit does not address the reduction in toxicity,
mobility or volume achieved through treatment or the statutory

-------
.
12
preference for treatment as a principal element of the selected
remedy. Future operable units will ~?ecifically address the
remediation of on-site sources and contaminated soils and
groundwater with respect to applicable statutory requirements.
E.
Preference for Treatment
Since the selected alternative does not involve any treatment,
this operable unit does not address the preference for treatment.
Again, this statutory preference will be evaluated in future
operable units that specifically address contamination at the
site.
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Appended to this ROD is the Responsiveness Summary which present
background information, describes community involvement and
categorizes the public comments received during the public
comment period and U.S.EPA's responses to the comments.

-------
Skinner Landfill
+
Fencing
+
WW Engineering & Science
Key:
Approximate
Fence Location = -
<0
c-
--.-
@

0kr~~O 390
Scale in Feel
600
I
IlgUlu 1 .?
Topographic M;op
Skinner Lalllilill
\V,!sl CfIf'Sf(:1 Cl1n)
ApI/I 1992
0.10.
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL

-------
~kmner LanOUli
Precautionary provision of alternate water supply
. Key: Approximate extent of site = D
Off-site area to which alternate water supply will be offered = 0

-------