United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-93/244
September 1993
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Powell Road Landfill, OH
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-93/244
3. Recipient's Accession No.
Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Powell Road Landfill, OH
First Remedial Action - Final
5 Report Date
09/30/93
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Nanw and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contraet(C) or Grant(G) No.
(Q
(G)
12 Sponsoring Organization Nama and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Parted Covered
800/800
14.
ia Supplamanlary Notes
PB94-964107
IE Abstract (Umlt: 200 words)
The 70-acre Powell Road Landfill site is a former gravel pit and landfill located in
Huber Heights, Montgomery County, Ohio. Land use in the area is mixed agricultural,
industrial, recreational, and residential. The site borders the Great Miami River, an
intermittent stream, woodlands, and residential housing. Site features include the
Great Miami River floodplain; the Great Miami River bu-ried valley aquifer, which is a
36 acresole-source aquifer that is divided into the shallow and primary aquifers; and a
landfill. Nearby residents use both private wells, installed in the primary aquifer,
and municipal wells to obtain their drinking water. In 1959, the site was converted
from a gravel pit into a landfill that operated under several owners. Commercial,
industrial, and non-hazardous domestic waste was disposed of in the landfill during
site operations. Degradation of this waste resulted in a release of hazardous
substances to onsite media. It also is believed that improper disposal of certain
types of industrial waste occurred at the landfill, including ink waste, paint sludge,
strontium chromate, and benzidine. In 1984, landfilling operations ceased. Also in
1984, State investigations identified onsite ground water contamination and requested
EPA assistance to assess site threats. Initial EPA investigations of 46 residential
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Powell Road Landfill, OH
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw, landfill gas, leachate
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Identlfiers/Opan-Ended Terms
c COSAT) Reid/Group
ia Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security CUss (TNs Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
108
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272(4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-93/244
Powell Road Landfill, OH
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
wells identified low levels of VOC contamination in 6 of the wells. Subsequent sampling
identified additional contamination by VOCs, other organics, metals, and other inorganics
migrating from the landfill. In 1985, the landfill was capped and seeded. This ROD
addresses a first and final action for source and ground water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris, ground water, landfill gas, and
leachate are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics,
including PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals, including arsenic, chromium,
and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating and consolidating
approximately 600 yd^ of contaminated soil and debris under an upgraded landfill cap;
extracting and treating contaminated ground water from the shallow aquifer onsite using a
system to be determined during the RD phase, followed by offsite discharge .of treated
effluent; allowing ground water from the primary aquifer to naturally attenuate;
collecting and treating contaminated landfill gas onsite by flaring, with discharge of
treated residuals to the atmosphere; extracting and treating contaminated leachate from
the landfill onsite using biological treatment to remove organics and metals, followed by
air stripping and granular activated carbon to remove VOCs and SVOCs, as determined during
the RD phase; discharging the treated effluent offsite to surface water; monitoring ground
water; implementing engineering controls, such as flood protection and storm water
controls; and implementing institutional controls, including deed restrictions and site
access restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $20,510,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $544,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil, debris, ground water, landfill gas, and leachate clean-up goals are based on
chemical-specific ARARs or a risk-based level of 10~4 or less. Soil and debris cleanup
goals include Aroclor 1016 0.3-61 mg/kg; Aroclor 1254 36-59 mg/kg; benzo(a)anthracene
0.05-5 mg/kg; benzo(a)pyrene 0.05-5 mg/kg; benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.05-5 mg/kg;
benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.05-5 mg/kg; beryllium 0.1-10 mg/kg; chrysene 0.05-5 mg/kg; 4,4-DDT
2-200 mg/kg; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.05-5 mg/kg; and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.05-5 mg/kg.
Ground water cleanup goals are based on SDWA MCLs and MCLGs, and include aluminum 50-200
ug/1; antimony 0.015 mg/1; arsenic 0.00004-0.004 mg/1; benzo(a)anthracene 0.000007-0.0007
mg/1; beryllium 0.00002-0.002 mg/1; chrysene 0.000007-0.0007 mg/1; lead 15-50 ug/1; TCE
0.25-25 ug/1; and vinyl chloride 0.00004-0.004 mg/1. Landfill gas cleanup goals include
benzene 0.12-12 ug/1 and vinyl chloride 0.012-12 ug/1.
-------
DECLARATION FOR. THE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Powell Road Landfill
Huber Heights, Ohio
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Powell Road Landfill in Huber Heights, Ohio, which was chosen
in accordance with the Comprehensive, Environmental, Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
administrative record for this Site.
The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedial action.
ASSESSMENT OP THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the remedial action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION
The remedial action will be a final site-wide remedy. The
selected remedial action addresses the sources of the
contamination by containment of the landfill and contaminated
soils and treatment of leachate and ground water. The major
components of the selected remedial action for the Powell Road
Landfill are:
institutional controls
improved landfill cap with liner
excavation of contaminated soils
consolidation of soils under landfill cap
ground water monitoring
flood protection
storm water controls
active landfill gas collection with flare
leachate extraction
on-site leachate treatment
extraction of ground water from the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill
on-site ground water treatment
discharge of treated ground water and leachate to river
-------
The selected remedial action will address the principal threats
posed by the Site.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedial action is protective of human health and
the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. The remedial action
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because this remedial action will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site, a review will be conducted within five years
after commencement of remedial action to insure that the remedial
action continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
Valdas V. Adamkus Date '
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
RECORD OF DECISION
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 2
A. SITE HISTORY 2
B. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 3
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
A. ON-SITE 6
B. OFF-SITE 8
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
A. HUMAN HEALTH RISKS 9
1. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 9
2. TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 11
3. RISK CHARACTERIZATION 11
B. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 13
C. RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS 14
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 14
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION 15
ALTERNATIVE 2 15
COMMON COMPONENTS 16
ALTERNATIVE 3 18
ALTERNATIVE 4 19
ALTERNATIVE 5 • 20
ALTERNATIVE 6 21
ALTERNATIVE 7 22
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .. 23
THRESHOLD CRITERIA 23
1. OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT 23
2. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT
AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS) 27
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA 29
3. LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE 29
4. REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR
VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT 29
5. SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS 30
6. IMPLEMENTABILITY 31
-------
7 . COST . 31
MODIFYING CRITERIA 33
8. STATE ACCEPTANCE 33
9. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE 33
IX. SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION - ALTERNATIVE 4 33
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 35
A. PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND
THE ENVIRONMENT 35
B. COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS 36
C. COST-EFFECTIVENESS 40
D. UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS
AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE 41
E. PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT 42
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 42
-------
FIGURES, TABLES AND ATTACHMENTS
RECORD OF DECISION
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION TRACES
FIGURE 3 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS
FIGURE 4 GAS VENT VAPOR TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS
FIGURE 5 LANDFILL LIQUIDS/GROUND WATER TOTAL VOC
CONCENTRATIONS
FIGURE 6 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 7 SEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 8 SURFICIAL AND SUBSURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 9 SITE PLAN (SOIL CONTAMINANTS)
FIGURE 10 EXTENT OF TOTAL VOC CONTAMINATION - PRINCIPAL
AQUIFER
TABLE 1 GAS VENT METHANE MEASUREMENTS
TABLE 2 GAS VENT VAPOR - FIELD ORGANIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 3 GAS VENT LIQUID - VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 4 GAS VENT LIQUID - SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 5 GAS VENT LIQUID - INORGANIC ANALYSIS
TABLE 6 SURFACE LEACHATE ANALYSIS
TABLE 7 AMBIENT AIR TENAX TUBE ANALYSIS
TABLE 8 SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
TABLE 9 SURFACE WATER ANALYSIS
TABLE 10 SURFICIAL SOILS ANALYSIS
TABLE 11 SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYSIS
TABLE 12 GROUND WATER ANALYSIS - VOCS AND ARSENIC
TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN ELDORADO PLAT
AREA GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS
TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
(ORGANICS)
TABLE 15 SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
(INORGANICS)
TABLE 16 ORAL TOXICITY CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
TABLE 17 INHALATION TOXICITY CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN
TABLE 18 COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS FOR
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN DETECTED AT PRL TO
FEDERAL MCLs
TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
CURRENT LAND USE CONDITIONS
TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS
TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS
TABLE 22 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
TABLE 23 STATE OF OHIO: SURFACE WATER STANDARDS
TABLE 24 STATE OF OHIO LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
TABLE 25 STATE OF OHIO: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 2 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
HUBER HEIGHTS, OHIO
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site (the Site) is located in
Huber Heights, Ohio, a suburb in the northern Dayton metropolitan
area of Montgomery County, Ohio. The Site occupies approximately
70 acres on the floodplain of the Great Miami River (see Figure
1). The landfill portion of the Site is located at 4060 Powell
Road in Huber Heights, Ohio, and is bordered by Powell Road and
residential housing on the north, an intermittent stream to the
east, wooded areas to the south and west, and the Great Miami
River to the south. The landfill covers roughly 36.3 acres and
rises 30 to 40 feet above the surrounding terrain. The nearest
residents live in homes owned by the current owner of the
landfill. The homes are located approximately 200 feet north of
the landfill along Powell Road. A residential area, known as
Eldorado Plat, is located south of the landfill in an area
immediately south of the Great Miami River.
The Great Miami River flows west to east along the southern
boundary of the Site, approximately 150 feet south of the
landfill. Two intermittent streams (Stream A and Stream B) to
the east of the Site drain south to the river. The Great Miami
River is classified as a warm water habitat (OAC 3745-1-21) and
is used for agricultural, industrial and primary contact (i.e.
wading) purposes.
Geologic materials in the area of the Site are outwash deposits
(sand, sand and gravel, and silty sand and gravel), till
(unsorted sand, clay, silt and gravel), lacustrine deposits (thin
layers of clay, silt and very fine sand) and bedrock (see Figure
3). The outwash deposits constitute the regional aquifer known
as the Great Miami River buried valley aquifer (GMR BVA) which
has been designated a sole-source aquifer under U.S. EPA's Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The GMR BVA is locally divided into shallow and primary aquifers.
Separation of the two aquifers by confining till deposits occurs
under the southern portion of the landfill and under the river.
(Hereinafter, these two locally separated aquifers are identified
as the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill and the primary
aquifer adjacent to the landfill.) The confining till deposits
are also present south of the river (Eldorado Plat area),
however, they are not continuous, therefore only one
interconnected aquifer exists in this area. (Hereinafter, the
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) is identified as
the primary aquifer.) Figure 2 identifies the location of
hydrogeologic cross-section traces. Figure 3 identifies cross-
1
REVISED 10-93
-------
sections C-C1 (north-south) and J-J' (east-west, Eldorado Plat
area) and labels the above-discussed local aquifers.
The GMR BVA is the main source of water supply to the Dayton
metropolitan area. Residents located south of the Site, in the
area immediately south of the river known as Eldorado Plat,
obtain their water from private wells installed in the primary
aquifer. Approximately 0.75 miles south of the Site are Ohio
Suburban Water Company (OSWC) wells, which supply water to
residents in most of Huber Heights and a small portion of Mad
River Township. Approximately 1.5 miles south of the Site, the
City of Dayton operates wells in the GMR BVA. These wells supply
water to residents of Dayton, a number of other local
municipalities, and Montgomery County. Approximately 0.5 miles
west of the Site the city of Dayton has begun operation of a new
well field.
II. SITE HISTORY AMD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
A. SITE HISTORY
The Site is a former gravel pit which was converted to a landfill
in 1959 and operated until 1984 under several different owners.
The current owner is SCA Services of Ohio, a subsidiary of Waste
Management of North America, Inc. Commercial, industrial, and
non-hazardous domestic wastes were disposed of in the landfill.
Degradation of these wastes resulted in a release of hazardous
substances. It is also believed that improper disposal of
certain types of industrial waste have occurred at the landfill,
including ink waste, paint sludge, strontium chrornate and
benzidine. The landfill ceased operation in 1984 and was capped
and seeded in 1985.
The Site was proposed for listing on the National Priorities List
(NPL) on September 8, 1983 and was final on the NPL on September
21,. 1984.
In December, 1984, after identifying contamination in the ground
water in the area of the Site, the Ohio EPA requested U.S. EPA's
support to determine if an imminent and substantial endangerment
to human health or the environment existed. U.S. EPA's Technical
Assistance Team (TAT) sampled 46 private residential wells.
Sampling results identified low levels of VOCs in 6 residential
wells. After reviewing these sampling results, U.S. EPA
determined that an imminent and substantial risk to human health
and the environment was not present at that time, and emergency
actions were not required at that time. However, the U.S. EPA
recommended that several activities be conducted in the area,
which included conducting a detailed Remedial Investigation of
the Powell Road Landfill (see Section V.).
-------
B. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In April, 1986, negotiations began for a 106 Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) under which Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) would perform the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) at the Site. These negotiations terminated in May, 1986,
and U.S. EPA began performance of the RI/FS at the Site.
During June of 1987, one PRP, SCA Services of Ohio, Incorporated,
contacted U.S. EPA and expressed interest in taking over
performance of the RI/FS. On November 12, 1987, an AOC was
entered into between the U.S. EPA, the Ohio EPA, and SCA Services
of Ohio, Incorporated (SCA) (currently a subsidiary of Waste
Management of North America, Inc.). This AOC requires SCA to
meet a number of requirements, including conducting an RI/FS and
paying all past costs associated with the Site. The final RI
report was approved in March of 1992 and the FS was approved in
March of 1993.
Initial PRP search activities at this Site identified seven (7)
PRPs. General Notices of Potential Liability and CERCLA Section
104(e) Information Requests were issued to all seven (7) PRPs on
December 2, 1985. Since 1985, U.S. EPA has issued 232
Information Request and 83 follow-up Information Requests.
General Notice letters were sent to thirty-seven (37) PRPs in
May, 1993.
Additional future Information Requests and follow-up Information
Requests will be issued as appropriate. All PRP information
which has been gathered to date is being reviewed. Special
Notice letters inviting participation in RD/RA negotiations are
expected to be issued to appropriate PRPs by U.S. EPA in the near
future.
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The public participation requirements of CERCLA sections
113 (JO (2)(B) (i-v) and 117 were met in the remedial action
selection process by the following:
A Proposed Plan was finalized and released to the
public on May 13, 1993;
The public was able to comment on the Proposed Plan
during a public comment period which started on May 20,
1993 and ended on July 9, 1993 (extended 21 days from
original date of June 18, 1993); and
The public also had the opportunity to participate in a
Proposed Plan public meeting held Wednesday, June 2,
1993, in Huber Heights, Ohio.
An informational letter was sent to all parties on the
mailing list on August 23, 1993. The letter discussed
residential well sampling which has been conducted at
-------
the Site from 1984 to present and the results of the
sampling.
Public interest at the Site has been high since the RI began. In
August, 1989 a Technical Assistance Grant was awarded to the
Miami Valley Landfill Coalition (MVLC), a local citizen's group.
During the RI, MVLC reviewed numerous documents and met with the
U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on several occasions to discuss documents,
present their ideas on additional field work, and their
interpretations of RI data. MVLC also commented on. technologies
identified in the FS, and the proposed remedial action presented
in the Proposed Plan.
In 1989,.when the RI was close to completion, MVLC concerns,
which reflect community concerns in general, were a major factor
in the U.S. EPA's and Ohio EPA's decision to install and sample
additional monitoring wells and resample select existing
monitoring and residential wells again. MVLC was concerned that
the connection between the Site and ground water contamination
identified approximately 4,000 feet south of the landfill, in the
Needmore Road area, had been missed. Installation of new
monitoring wells was planned specifically with the intent of
confirming the existence of any connection. Despite this
additional round of sampling, a connection between the Site and
the Needmore Road ground water contamination was not identified.
Public comments, verbal and written, received at the public
meeting on the Proposed Plan and during the public comment period
along with supporting documents, and response to significant
comments, are contained in the Responsiveness Summary attached to
this ROD.
IV. SCOPE AMD ROLB OF RESPONSE ACTION
The selected remedial action will address the principal threats
in contaminated media identified at the Site. These principal
threats are landfill gases, contaminated ground water, landfill
liquids (leachate) and contaminated soils. The landfill will be
covered by an improved landfill cap with a liner which will
prevent uncontrolled migration of landfill gases into the air,
and prevent infiltration of precipitation into the landfill,
thereby reducing the generation of leachate and also reducing the
percolation of leachate from the landfill into ground water.
Landfill gases will be actively collected with extraction wells
and thermally-treated on site with a flare.
Ground water contamination was identified in the primary and
shallow aquifers adjacent to the landfill and in the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). The selected
remedial action will address ground water contamination by
-------
extracting ground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the
landfill, treating ground water on-site, and discharging treated
ground water to the Great Miami River in compliance with NPDES
permit requirements.
Leachate is present in the landfill and is a source of ground
water contamination adjacent to the Site. Leachate will be
extracted from the landfill, treated on-site, and discharged to
the Great Miami River in compliance with NPDES permit
requirements.
Contaminated soils will be excavated and consolidated on the
landfill prior to construction of the landfill cap.
The geology of the Site indicates that ground water contamination
identified in the shallow aquifer, adjacent to the landfill,
could migrate under the Great Miami River and is a possible
source of ground water contamination identified in monitoring
wells south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). By extracting and
treating leachate from the landfill, and ground water in the
shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill, the two sources of
ground water contamination identified in the primary aquifer
adjacent to the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat
area), will be removed. Once the sources are removed, ground
water contamination identified in the primary aquifer adjacent to
the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), is
expected to decrease and meet cleanup levels.
A ground water monitoring network will be established on the Site
(around the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat
area)). The purpose of ground water monitoring is to: 1)
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containment
components of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (primary
and shallow aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitor
for changes in ground water flow and potential migration of
contaminated ground water from the Site.
The selected remedial action is expected to be the final response
for the Site. Because this remedial action will result in
hazardous substances remaining on-site, a review will be
conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action
to insure that the remedial action continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
-------
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI determined the nature and extent of on-site and off-site
contamination, and estimated the risks posed by the Site to human
health and the environment. The RI Report, finalized in
February, 1992, identified the following on-site and off-site
contamination:
ON-SITE (contamination associated with the Site)
Landfill gases consisting of methane with detectable
concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Leachate consisting of VOCs, semivolatile organic
compounds, and inorganic compounds
Surface and near-surface soils which contain
semivolatile organics, pesticides, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill
contain VOCs
Primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)
contains VOCs
OFF-SITE (contamination not associated with the Site)
Primary aquifer south of the river (Needmore Road area)
contains VOCs. A connection between the Site and
contamination found in this area could not be confirmed
and is therefore not addressed by the final remedial
action.
A. ON-SITE
The Powell Road Landfill is the source of ground water
contamination found in the immediate vicinity of the landfill and
is responsible for the generation of landfill gases and leachate.
The landfill consists of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of
material.
Landfill gases found in the landfill gas vents and air at the
Site consisted mostly of methane with detectable concentrations
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Figure 4 shows the
locations of gas vents and the total VOC concentrations found in
the gas vents. Table 1 shows concentrations of methane detected
in gas vents and Table 2 shows concentrations of VOCs detected in
gas vents.
Thirteen samples of leachate were collected from gas vents in the
landfill (Figure 5). Analysis identified VOCs (Table 3),
-------
semivolatile compounds (Table 4), metals, and other inorganics
(Table 5). Figure 5 shows the leachate/ground water total VOC
concentrations at the Site.
One sample of leachate was collected from the landfill surface.
Analysis identified VOCs, semivolatile compounds, metals, and
other inorganics. Table 6 presents the results of the surface
leachate sample analysis.
The chemicals and concentrations found in the surface leachate
were essentially the same as the leachate collected from gas
vents. Therefore, surface leachate and leachate collected from
gas vents are grouped together in further discussions.
Ambient air samples were collected at the Site (Figure 6).
Results identified trace amounts of VOCs (Table 7).
Eight sediment samples were collected from surface water bodies
on and around the Site (Figure 7). Analysis showed no impact
from the landfill in the form of VOCs or inorganic contaminants
(Table 8). Several semivolatiles were detected in both upstream
and downstream sediment samples.
Surface water samples were collected from the same locations as
sediment samples (Figure 7). Analysis showed no impact from the
landfill in the form of VOCs, semivolatile compounds, or
inorganic contaminants (Table 9).
Thirty-two surface soil samples and twelve sub-surface soil
samples were collected on the Site and in surrounding areas
(Figure 8). Surface and near-surface soils at the Site contain
semivolatile organics, pesticides and PCBs at limited locations
(Tables 10 and 11). Figure 9 identifies the location and
approximate extent of surface and subsurface soils contamination.
Ground water quality was investigated by analyzing water sampled
from 44 new and existing monitoring wells (four sampling events)
and 30 residential and water supply wells on two occasions.
VOCs were the major contaminant group found in ground water. A
total of 15 VOCs were detected in ground water samples collected
during the RI.
VOCs were detected in six monitoring wells in the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill and in two monitoring wells in the
primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill (Table 12).
VOCs were identified in the primary aquifer south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area) during the last sampling round (Table 13).
-------
Ground water sample analyses identified that MCLs were exceeded
for two VOCs (vinyl chloride and trichloroethene) and two metals
(aluminum and beryllium).
Ground water samples obtained during the RI, from residential
wells south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) did not identify
any contamination. Additional ground water samples of
residential wells in the Eldorado Plat area were collected and
analyzed in March, 1993. VOCs were detected in one residential
well. Similar levels of the same VOCs were found in this well
prior to the RI, but were not detected during the RI sampling of
the well.
B. OFF-SITE
VOCs were identified in ground water 4,000 feet south of the
landfill (Needmore Road area) (Figure 10). The VOCs identified
in the Needmore Road area consisted mainly of "ethene" VOCs. The
ground water contamination found in the Needmore Road area could
not be connected to contamination found on the Site. If the Site
were the source of ground water contamination found in the
Needmore Road area, ground water contaminants would have been
found between the Site and the Needmore Road area. Additionally,
dispersion of contaminants caused by migration from the Site to
the Needmore Road area would occur, and downgradient contaminants
in the Needmore Road area, would be equal-to, or more likely,
less-than the ground water contamination found on the Site.
However, ground water contamination was not found between the
Needmore Road area and the Site, nor were the Needmore Road area
ground water contamination levels equal-to or less-than
contamination found at the Site. The "ethene" VOC contaminants
found in the Needmore Road area were found at levels up to 4-
times greater than "ethene" VOCs found in ground water adjacent
to the landfill.
However, if in the future a connection is found which identifies
PRL as the source of contamination in the Needmore Road area,
either a ROD amendment or an Explanation of Significant
Differences will be prepared, as appropriate.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
RI data identified the following contaminated media: air,
surface and near-surface soils, and ground water.
The RI data from each media was evaluated to select chemicals of
potential concern (CPCs). CPCs are those chemicals present at
the Site most likely to be of concern to human health and the
environment. CPCs were selected based on a comparison of
contaminants found in each media to background and blank sample
data for each meda^a. Table 14 (organics) and Table 15
(inorganics) summarize the GP.Cs 'selected for each media. (See RI
8
-------
Report, section 6.2, for tables summarizing RI data for each
media and CPCs for each media.)
Based on the results of the RI, U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA directed
the PRPs in calculating the risks that the Site would pose to
human health and the environment if no remedial actions were
taken at the Site. This process is called the Baseline Risk
Assessment (Risk Assessment). Risk assessment involves assessing
the toxicity, or degree of hazard, posed by the substances found
at the Site, and the routes by which humans and the environment
could come into contact with these substances.
The primary sources of uncertainty in the preparation of a risk
assessment are:
Environmental sampling and analysis, and selection of
chemicals •
Exposure parameter estimation
Toxicological data
See the RI Report, Section 6.0, for specific information on the
Baseline Risk Assessment prepared during the RI/FS.
A. HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
1. Exposure Assessment
Potential pathways by which human populations may be exposed to
chemicals at or originating from the Site were identified under
both current use and potential future residential land-use
conditions. Twelve complete exposure pathways were selected for
detailed evaluation under current use conditions. Current use
conditions were determined, and are presented, in the RI Report.
These pathways are:
Incidental ingestion of chemicals in surface soil by
trespassers on-site,
Dermal absorption of chemicals in surface soil by
trespassers on-site,
Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals emitted from
the landfill by trespassers on-site,
Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals emitted from
the landfill by nearby residents,
Incidental ingestion of chemicals in intermittent
stream A and Great Miami River sediment by nearby
residents,
-------
Dermal absorption of chemicals in intermittent stream A
and Great Miami River sediment by nearby residents,
Incidental ingestion of chemicals in intermittent
stream A and Great Miami River (backwater area) surface
water by nearby residents,
Dermal absorption of chemicals in intermittent stream A
and Great Miami River (backwater area) surface water by
nearby residents,
Ingestion of fish from the Great Miami River (backwater
area) by nearby residents,
Ingestion of ground water by nearby residents,
Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals by nearby
residents while showering, and
Dermal absorption of chemicals in ground water while
showering by nearby residents.
Six complete exposure pathways were selected for detailed
evaluation under potential future residential land-use
conditions. Future residential land-use conditions were
determined, and are presented, in the RI Report. These pathways
are:
Incidental ingestion of surface soils by a hypothetical
on-site resident,
Dermal absorption of chemicals in surface soils by a
hypothetical on-site resident,
Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals emitted from
the landfill by a hypothetical on-site resident,
Ingestion of ground water by a hypothetical on-site
resident,
Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals by a
hypothetical on-site resident while showering, and
Dermal absorption of chemicals in ground water while
showering by a hypothetical on-site resident.
Representative exposure point concentrations were developed for
the CPCs and each media based on RI data. The chronic daily
intake (GDI) of each chemical was estimated to assess exposure
associated with the selected pathways. (See RI Report, section
6.4, for tables identifying the exposure point concentrations and
resulting GDI for each CPC.) The exposures are quantified by
10
-------
estimating the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) associated with
pathways of concern. RME is a conservative estimate of potential
risk.
2. Toxicity Assessment
Toxicity information was compiled for each chemical of potential
concern. Individual chemicals were separated into two categories
of chemical toxicity based on whether they exhibited principally
noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic effects. Next, the health
effects of both categories of chemicals were evaluated. Table 16
presents oral health effects criteria for the chemicals of
potential concern. Table 17 presents inhalation health effects
criteria for the chemicals of potential concern.
3. Risk Characterization
Potential human health risks for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
chemicals of potential concern were calculated for each pathway
identified under current use and future residential land-use
exposures. (See RI Report, section 6.5, for tables identifying
chemical-specific carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks for
current use and future residential land-use exposure pathways.)
The Risk Assessment estimates the excess risk, posed by the Site,
of getting cancer, over and above the average risk. Cancer risks
from various exposure pathways are assumed to be additive.
Excess lifetime cancer risks less than IxlO"6 (one-in-one
million) are considered acceptable by U.S. EPA. Excess lifetime
cancer risks between 1x10** (one-in-ten thousand) to IxlO"6
require U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA (the Agencies) to decide if
remediation is necessary to reduce risks and to what levels
cleanup will occur. Excess lifetime cancer risks greater that
1x10"* generally require remediation.
For noncarcinogens, potential risks are expressed as a hazard
index. A hazard index represents the sum of all ratios of the
level of exposure of the contaminants found at the Site to that
of contaminants' various reference doses. In general, hazard
indices which are less than one are not likely to be associated
with any health risks.
Ground water chemical concentrations found in monitoring wells
adjacent to the landfill and in the Eldorado Plat area were
compared to U.S. EPA drinking water standards (maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs)). Three of the 19 chemicals of concern
in monitoring wells adjacent to the landfill were detected at
concentrations which exceed MCLs. One of the five chemicals of
potential concern in the Eldorado Plat monitoring wells exceeded
MCLs. See Table 18 for results.
11
-------
Although RI data does not support a connection between ground
water contamination located on the Site and the ground water
contamination found in Needmore Road area, U.S. EPA requested
risk calculations be performed on ground water data from the
Needmore Road area. These risk calculations are included in the
RI Report, and will no longer be discussed in this section.
Under current use conditions the excess lifetime cancer risks
were within a 10"6 to 10"4 cancer risk range for the following
pathways (Table 19):
inhalation of landfill gas emissions by nearby
residents;
dermal absorption through contact with Great Miami
River surface water by nearby child/teenager residents;
dermal absorption through contact with Great Miami
River surface water by nearby adult residents;
dermal absorption through contact with Stream A surface
water by a nearby adult resident;
inhalation of volatiles from showering with ground
water in the Eldorado Plat area (based on monitoring
well data);
ingestion of ground water in the Eldorado Plat area
(based on monitoring well data);
Under current use conditions, the excess lifetime cancer risks
exceeded 10"* for the following current use pathways:
ingestion of fish caught from the backwater area of the
Great Miami River;
Under current use conditions, the hazard index value was greater
than one for the following current use pathways:
ingestion of fish caught from the backwater area of the
Great Miami River;
The current use risks shown in Table 19 have also been summarized
across pathways for several potential receptor populations. For
the combination of pathways shown in Table 19, the excess
lifetime cancer risks exceeded a cancer risk level of 10"* and .
the hazard index value of one for residents who live in the
Eldorado Plat area. This receptor population's increased
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk is based on the regular
ingestion of fish caught from the backwater area of the Great
Miami River.
12
-------
Under future residential land-use conditions the excess lifetime
cancer risks were within a 10"6 to 10"4 cancer risk range for the
following future residential land-use pathways (Table 20):
Incidental ingestion of on-site surface soil;
dermal adsorption while showering with on-site ground
water (based on leachate data);
inhalation of landfill gas emissions; and
ingestion of on-site ground water (based on leachate
data).
Under future residential land-use conditions, the excess lifetime
cancer risks did not exceed a 10"* cancer risk level for any
future residential land-use pathways.
Under future residential land-use conditions, the hazard index
value was greater than one for the following future residential
land-use pathway:
ingestion of on-site ground water (based on leachate
data)
The future residential land-use risks shown ift Table 20 have also
been summarized across pathways for the hypothetical on-site
resident. For this potential receptor, the excess lifetime
cancer risks was 10"* and the hazard index value was greater than
one.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
B. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
An ecological assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential
risks to non-human receptors associated with the Site. Potential
receptors and exposure pathways were evaluated, including the
presence of endangered or threatened species in the area. A
site survey was conducted during the RI to identify terrestrial
and aquatic receptors. The following indicator species and
exposure pathways were selected for detailed evaluation: plants
exposed to surface soil, soil organisms (earthworms were used as
indicator species), and aquatic organisms (fish and aquatic
invertebrates) in surface water and sediment of the Great Miami
River and intermittent Stream A. Based on available toxicity
information [for four inorganic chemicals for plants based on
Kebata-Pendias and Pendias (1984) and Adriano (1986) and one
inorganic and one organic chemical for earthworms based on
13
-------
Malecki et al. (1982) and van Rhee (1977)], adverse effects to
plants and earthworms from exposure to soil are unlikely to
occur. Ambient water quality criteria was equalled or exceeded
for modeled concentrations of PCBs and DDT in the backwater area
of the Great Miami River. Ambient water quality criteria was
equalled or exceeded for measured concentrations of mercury in
intermittent Stream A. Adverse impacts to most species of fish
and aquatic invertebrates are, however, not expected to occur.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources had no records of rare
or endangered species in the area of the Site. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service did not have endangered species information
specific to the area where the Site is located; however, the
Indiana Bat is an endangered species that occurs in numerous
counties in Ohio, including Montgomery County, and may be present
at the Site.
C. RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS
Based on the above information, risk-based cleanup levels were
developed and are listed on Table 21. These cleanup levels were
calculated for each individual compound based on a 10*4 risk and
a 10"6 risk. Risk-based cleanup levels were calculated using
U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part B, dated
December 1991.
Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in all media
will be chemical-specific ARARs (see Section X.B.I). If multiple
contaminants are present in a media, and cleanup of individual
contaminants to ARARs result in a cumulative risk in excess of
10"4 across a media, cleanup levels of contaminants will be risk-
based and cumulative across a media to 1x10"* or less (Table 21).
If chemical-specific ARARs do not exist for contaminants, cleanup
levels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across a
media to ixlO'4 or less (Table 21).
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangennent to human health and the environment.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A feasibility study was conducted to develop and evaluate
remedial alternatives for the Powell Road Landfill. Remedial
alternatives were assembled from applicable remedial technology
process options and were initially evaluated for effectiveness,
implementability and cost. The alternatives meeting these
criteria were then evaluated and compared to the nine criteria
required by the NCP (See Section VIII.). Treatability studies
were not performed during the RI or the FS, and are not
anticipated to be a necessary part of implementation of any of
14
-------
the alternatives for this Site. In addition to the remedial
alternatives, the NCP requires that a no-action alternative be
considered at every Site. The no-action alternative serves
primarily as a point of comparison for other alternatives.
Alternative 1
Description: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $0
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $0
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: None
This alternative does not take any action to remediate the Site
and does not consist of any treatment components, engineering
controls, monitoring, or institutional controls.
Alternative 2
Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap with
liner, consolidation of contaminated soils under landfill cap,
ground water monitoring, flood protection, storm water controls,
active gas collection with flare.
The treatment component of this alternative is landfill gas
treatment. Landfill gas will be actively collected by gas
extraction wells installed in the landfill and treated thermally
on-site via a flare. The estimated volume of landfill gases to
be treated is 850 cubic feet/minute (cfm).
The containment component is capping the landfill with an
improved landfill cap with liner in accordance with Ohio EPA
Solid Waste Management Regulations (OAC-3745-27-11(G)). The
landfill cap will prevent migration of contaminated soils into
surface water, reduce infiltration of precipitation into the
landfill thereby reducing generation of leachate and also
reducing the percolation of leachate from the landfill into
ground water.
Ground water contamination and leachate are not addressed in this
alternative.
The preliminary screening of alternatives indicated that
Alternative 2 does not provide overall protection of human health
and the environment, therefore, Alternative 2 was screened out of
the detailed analysis of alternatives (see Feasibility Study for
details). Costs were not developed for Alternative 2.
15
-------
Common Components
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, described below, include the
following common components:
1. Institutional Controls
Institutional controls include fencing, deed restrictions, and
warning signs. Site access will be controlled by an 8-foot
chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Warning signs will be
posted to discourage unauthorized entry onto the Site. Deed
restrictions will prohibit disturbance of the Site and preclude
future development of the Site.
2. Flood Protection
Erosion control measures will be implemented during and after
construction to ensure the reduction of flood water velocity
during future flooding.
3. Storm Water Controls
Storm water control measures will be implemented and may consist
of runoff control berms and rip-rap-lined discharge ditches.
4. Improved Landfill Cap with Liner
An improved landfill cap with liner will be constructed over the
landfill in accordance with the Ohio EPA'a Solid Waste Management
Regulations. The landfill consists of approximately 2.6 million
cubic yards of material. The landfill cap will prevent migration
of contaminated soils into surface water, reduce infiltration of
precipitation into the landfill thereby reducing generation of
leachate and also reducing the percolation of leachate from the
landfill into ground water.
5. Ground Water Monitoring
A ground water monitoring network will be established on the Site
(around the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat
area)). Existing monitoring wells, new monitoring wells, and
select residential wells may be used to monitor upgradient and
downgradient ground water conditions. Ground water monitoring
will serve two purposes: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of the
treatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks in
ground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the
landfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado
Plat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow and
potential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.
The specifics of the ground water monitoring system, including
frequency and duration, will be determined during the remedial
design.
6. Consolidation of Contaminated Soils Under Landfill Cap
Approximately 600 cubic yards of soil contaminated with DDT
and/or PCBs will be excavated and consolidated on the top of the
landfill and then covered by the landfill cap. The areas
currently identified for excavation and consolidation are within
16
-------
approximately 400 feet of the landfill (see Figure 9). The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal
restrictions (LDRs) are not an ARAR for excavation of soils
around the landfill and consolidation of the soils under the
landfill cap because the soils being removed are from one "area
of contamination (AOC)". This AOC consists of the landfill,
surrounding contaminated soils, leachate and contaminated ground
water. Movement of waste within the AOC does not constitute
placement.
7. Active Gas Collection and Treatment with Flare
An estimated 850 cubic feet per minute of landfill gases will be
actively collected with gas extraction wells and thermally
treated on-site via a flare. The system will be designed to
comply with the Clean Air Act, Section 101 and 40 CFR 52.
8. Leachate Extraction
Leachate will be extracted from the landfill at a rate sufficient
to create a slight influx of ground water into the landfill and
prevent migration of leachate out of the landfill. A series of
vertical extraction wells will be installed in the landfill and
screened in the permeable water-bearing zones. Leachate will be
collected by a system of piping buried under the landfill cap and
will be temporarily stored in a holding tank prior to treatment.
The leachate extraction system may remove up to 50,000 gallons
per day (gpd) of leachate from the landfill.
9. Leachate Treatment
The leachate treatment system will be designed to remove volatile
organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, and metals.
The leachate treatment system may consist of a system of
biological bulk organic removal and metals removal, with
remaining volatile and semi-volatile organic removal by air
stripping and activated carbon treatment, respectively. Details
of the leachate treatment system will be identified during the
remedial design. Leachate will be treated to levels which will
allow discharge of effluent to the river under the NPDES permit
requirements (see discussion below). The leachate treatment
system could remove an estimated 1,100 Ibs. total of VOCs from
the leachate.
10. Discharge
Treated leachate effluent will be discharged to the Great Miami
River. Discharge will comply with all Federal and State of Ohio
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements (40 CFR 122.44, Clean Water Act Section 208, 40 CFR
125, 40 CFR 136, Ohio Revised Code). NPDES requires compliance
with state and federal water quality standards, whichever is more
stringent, and regulates discharge into surface water.
17
-------
Alternative 3
Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap with
liner, consolidation of contaminated soils under landfill cap,
ground water monitoring, flood protection, storm water controls,
active gas collection with flare, leachate extraction, on-site
leachate treatment, discharge to river.
Estimated Capital Cost: $11,463,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 398,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $16,820,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years
This alternative consists of all the common elements described
above and addresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, and
leachate. Existing ground water contamination will not be
actively remediated. Ground water monitoring will evaluate the
effectiveness of the treatment/containment components of the
remedy to reduce risks in ground water.
Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in each media,
ground water, leachate, and air, will be chemical-specific ARARs
(see Section X.B.I.). If multiple contaminants are present in a
media, and cleanup of individual contaminants to ARARs result in
a cumulative risk in excess of 10"4 across a media, cleanup
levels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across a
media to IxlO"4 or less (Table 21) . If chemical-specific ARARs
do not exist for contaminants, cleanup levels of contaminants
will be risk-based and cumulative across a media to IxlO*4 or
less (Table 21). The point of compliance for ground water
cleanup levels will be at the boundary of the landfill. Ground
water cleanup levels shall be achieved at and beyond the landfill
boundary. The point of compliance for cleanup levels of landfill
gas emissions shall be the fence surrounding the landfill.
Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare and
leachate treatment. Landfill gases will be actively collected
with gas extraction wells and thermally treated on-site via a
flare. Leachate will be extracted from the landfill at a rate
sufficient to create a slight influx of ground water into the
landfill and prevent migration of leachate out of the landfill.
A series of vertical extraction wells will be installed in the
landfill and screened in the permeable water-bearing zones.
Leachate will be collected by a system of piping buried under the
landfill cap and will be temporarily stored in a holding tank
prior to treatment.
The containment components are consolidation of contaminated
soils on top of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap with
liner. Contaminated soils will be excavated and consolidated on
top of the landfill followed by construction of an improved
landfill cap with liner. The landfill cap will comply with Ohio
18
-------
EPA's Solid Waste Management Regulations.
Alternative 4
Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap with
liner, consolidation of contaminated soils under landfill cap,
ground water monitoring, flood protection, storm water controls,
active gas collection with flare, leachate extraction, on-site
leachate treatment, extraction of ground water from the shallow
aquifer adjacent to the landfill, on-site ground water treatment,
discharge to river.
Estimated Capital Cost: $12,911,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 544,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $20,510,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years
This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 3
with the addition of ground water extraction from the shallow
aquifer adjacent to the landfill, on-site ground water treatment,
and discharge of treated effluent to the river. This alternative
addresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, leachate and
contaminated ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the
landfill. Existing ground water contamination in the primary
aquifer, adjacent to the landfill and south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area), will not be actively remediated. Ground
water monitoring will evaluate the effectiveness of the
treatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks
posed by existing ground water contamination.
Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in each media
are the same as discussed in Alternative 3.
Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare and
leachate treatment, as discussed in Alternative 3 above, and
ground water extraction from the shallow aquifer and ground water
treatment on-site. An estimated 400,000 gallons of ground water
will be pumped per day from extraction wells in the shallow
aquifer adjacent to the landfill, treated on-site, and effluent
discharged to the river (in compliance with all NPDES
requirements).
The containment components are consolidation of contaminated
soils on top of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap with
liner, as discussed above in Alternative 3.
19
-------
Alternative 5
Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap with
liner, treatment of contaminated soils, consolidation of treated
soils under landfill cap, ground water monitoring, flood
protection, storm water controls, active gas collection with
flare, leachate extraction, on-site leachate treatment,
extraction of ground water from the shallow and primary aquifers
adjacent to the landfill, on-site ground water treatment,
discharge to river.
Estimated Capital Cost: $13,884,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 618,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $22,620,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years
This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 4
with the addition of ground water extraction from the primary
aquifer adjacent to the landfill and treatment of contaminated
soils prior to placement under the landfill cap. This
alternative addresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, leachate,
and contaminated ground water in the shallow and primary aquifers
adjacent to the landfill. Existing ground water contamination in
the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), will
not be actively remediated. Ground water monitoring will
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containment
components of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water.
Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in each media
are the same as discussed in Alternative 3.
Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare,
leachate treatment, and ground water treatment, as discussed
above in Alternative 4, and treatment of contaminated soils prior
to consolidation under the landfill cap. An estimated 600 cubic
yards of contaminated soils will be treated to dewater, stabilize
and solidify the contaminated soils prior to placement under the
landfill cap. This alternative also includes the extraction of
ground water from the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill.
An estimated 900,000 gallons of ground water will be pumped per
day from extraction wells in the shallow and primary aquifers
adjacent to the landfill, treated on-site and effluent discharged
to the river (in compliance with all NPDES requirements).
The containment components are consolidation of treated soils on
top of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap with liner as
discussed above in Alternative 3.
20
-------
Alternative 6
Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap with
liner, treatment of contaminated soils, consolidation of treated
soils under landfill cap, ground water monitoring, flood
protection, storm water controls, active gas collection with
flare, leachate extraction, on-site leachate treatment, ground
water extraction from the primary aquifer south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area), on-site ground water treatment, discharge
to river.
Estimated Capital Cost: $12,600,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 519,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $19,810,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 8 years
This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 3
with the addition of ground water extraction from the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), on-site ground
water treatment, discharge of treated effluent to the river, and
treatment of contaminated soils prior to consolidation under the
landfill cap. This alternative addresses landfill gas,
contaminated soils, leachate and contaminated ground water south
of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Existing ground water
contamination in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the
landfill will not be actively remediated. Ground water
monitoring will evaluate the effectiveness of the
treatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks in
ground water.
Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in each media
are the same as discussed in Alternative 3.
Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare,
leachate treatment, ground water treatment, and treatment of
contaminated soils prior to consolidation under the landfill cap
as discussed above in Alternative 5. The ground water treatment
component of this alternative includes the extraction of ground
water from the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat
area). An estimated 250,000 gallons of ground water will be
pumped per day from extraction wells in the primary aquifer south
of the river (Eldorado Plat area), treated on-site and effluent
discharged to the river (in compliance with all NPDES
requirements). Ground water extracted from the primary aquifer
south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) will be piped across the
river for on-site treatment.
The containment components are consolidation of treated soils on
top of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap with liner as
discussed above in Alternative 3.
21
-------
Alternative 7
Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap with
liner, treatment of contaminated soils, consolidation of treated
soils under landfill cap, ground water monitoring, flood
protection, storm water controls, active gas collection with
flare, leachate extraction, on-site leachate treatment,
extraction of ground water from the shallow and primary aquifers
adjacent to the landfill and from the primary aquifer south of
the river (Eldorado Plat area), on-site ground water treatment,
discharge to river.
Estimated Capital Cost: $14,341,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 617,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $23,060,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 8 years
This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 5
with the addition of ground water extraction from the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). This
alternative addresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, leachate,
contaminated ground water in the shallow and primary aquifers
adjacent to the landfill, and contaminated ground water in the
primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Ground
water monitoring will evaluate the effectiveness of the
treatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks in
ground water.
Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in each media
are the same as discussed in Alternative 3.
Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare,
leachate treatment, ground water treatment, and treatment of
contaminated soils prior to consolidation under the landfill cap
as discussed above in Alternative 5. This alternative includes
the extraction of ground water from the primary aquifer south of
the river (Eldorado Plat area). Ground water treatment for this
alternative includes extraction of an estimated 1,150,000 gallons
of ground water per day from extraction wells in the shallow and
primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill, and extraction wells
in the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area),
on-site treatment and discharge of effluent to the river (in
compliance with all NPDES requirements). Ground water extracted
from the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)
will be piped across the river for on-site treatment.
The containment components are consolidation of treated soils on
top of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap with liner as
discussed above in Alternative 3.
22
-------
VIII. SUMMARY 0? COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives developed in the FS were evaluated on
the basis of the nine evaluation criteria listed below. The
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were then
compared to determine which alternative provides the best balance
among these nine criteria. The nine evaluation criteria are set
forth in the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part
300.430.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses
whether a remedial action provides adequate protection of human
health and the environment and describes how risks posed through
each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
Alternative 1 does not meet this criteria because it does not
take any action to protect human health and the environment and
does not eliminate, reduce or control risks.
Alternative 2 does not eliminate, reduce or control risks
associated with ground water contamination and leachate migration
into ground water. Alternative 2 was determined not to be
protective of human health and the environment and was screened
out from the detailed analysis of alternatives. Alternative 2
will no longer be discussed in this document.
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 utilize institutional controls to
reduce risks posed to trespassers by fencing the Site and posting
warning signs, and reduce the risks posed to potential future
users of the Site by imposing deed restrictions on the landfill
property.
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 utilize numerous source controls:
landfill cap; landfill gas collection and treatment; leachate
collection and treatment; and consolidation of soils under
landfill cap. The risks posed by inhalation of landfill gases
are reduced by collecting and treating landfill gases. The risks
posed by contaminated ground water will be reduced by extracting
and treating leachate from the landfill, the source of ground
water contamination. The landfill cap will reduce ground water
risks by reducing infiltration of precipitation into the
landfill, thereby reducing generation of leachate, and also
reducing the percolation of leachate from the landfill into
ground water. The risks posed by ingestion of fish are based on
the potential migration of contaminated soils into surface water
and sediment. These risks will be controlled and reduced by
23
-------
excavating and consolidating contaminated soils under the
landfill cap. Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 also provide additional
reduction of these risks by treating contaminated soils on-site
to dewater, stabilize and solidify the soils prior to
consolidation under the landfill cap.
Alternative 3 does not utilize treatment to actively reduce risks
associated with existing ground water contamination. Several
components of this alternative, however, will interact to address
and decrease ground water contamination and achieve cleanup
levels. The landfill cap will reduce infiltration of
precipitation into the landfill, thereby reducing generation of
leachate, and also reducing the percolation of leachate from the
landfill into ground water. Leachate in the landfill and ground
water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill are the
primary sources of ground water contamination identified in the
primary aquifer adjacent- to the landfill and south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area). Extraction and treatment of leachate from
the landfill will address one of the primary sources of ground
water contamination and risks associated with ground water
contamination. Once the landfill cap is constructed and the
landfill gas and leachate extraction/treatment systems are
operational, a minimum of 6 years will be required to decrease
ground water contamination and achieve ground water cleanup
levels in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the
landfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado
Plat area). Ground water monitoring will serve two purposes: 1)
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containment
components of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallow
and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitor
for changes in ground water flow and potential migration of
contaminated ground water from the Site.
Alternatives 4, 5, 6 and 7 utilize ground water treatment
technologies to further reduce risks posed by existing ground
water contamination.
Alternative 4 reduces risks associated with ground water
contamination by extracting and treating ground water from the
shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill. Existing ground water
contamination in the primary aquifer, adjacent to the landfill
and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), will not be actively
remediated. Several components of this alternative, however,
will interact to address and decrease ground water contamination
and achieve cleanup levels. The landfill cap will reduce
infiltration of precipitation into the landfill, thereby reducing
generation of leachate, and also reducing the percolation of
leachate from the landfill into ground water. Leachate and
ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill are
the primary sources of ground water contamination identified in
the primary aquifer, adjacent to the landfill and south of the
24
-------
river (Eldorado Plat area). Extraction and treatment of leachate
from the landfill and ground water from the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill will address the primary sources of
ground water contamination and risks posed by ground water
contamination in the shallow aquifer (adjacent to the landfill).
Once the landfill cap is constructed and the landfill gas,
leachate, and ground water extraction/treatment systems are
operational, a minimum of 6 years will be required to decrease
ground water contamination and achieve ground water cleanup
levels in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the
landfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado
Plat area). Ground water monitoring will serve two purposes: 1)
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containment
components of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallow
and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitor
for changes in ground water flow and potential migration of
contaminated ground water from the Site.
Alternative 5 reduces risks associated with ground water
contamination by extracting and treating ground water in the
shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill. Existing
ground water contamination in the primary aquifer south of the
river (Eldorado Plat area) will not be actively remediated.
Several components of this alternative, however, will interact to
address and decrease ground water contamination and achieve
cleanup levels. The landfill cap will reduce infiltration of
precipitation into the landfill, thereby reducing generation of
leachate, and also reducing the percolation of leachate from the
landfill into ground water. Leachate and ground water in the
shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill are the primary sources
of ground water contamination identified in the primary aquifer,
adjacent to the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat
area). Extraction and treatment of leachate from the landfill
and ground water from the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent
to the landfill will address the primary sources of ground water
contamination and risks posed by ground water contamination in
the shallow aquifer (adjacent to the landfill). Once the
landfill cap is constructed and the landfill gas, leachate, and
ground water extraction/treatment systems are operational, a
minimum of 6 years will be required to decrease ground water
contamination and achieve ground water cleanup levels in the
shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the
primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Ground
water monitoring will serve two purposes: 1) evaluate the
effectiveness of the treatment/containment components of the
remedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallow and primary
aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer south
of the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes
in ground water flow and potential migration of contaminated
ground water from the Site.
25
-------
Alternative 6 reduces risks associated with ground water
contamination by extracting ground water from the primary aquifer
south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) and treating ground water
on-site. Existing ground water contamination adjacent to the
landfill, in the shallow and primary aquifers, will not be
actively remediated. Several components of this alternative,
however, will interact to address and decrease ground water
contamination and achieve cleanup levels. The landfill cap will
reduce infiltration of precipitation into the landfill, thereby
reducing generation of leachate, and also reducing the
percolation of leachate from the landfill into ground water.
Leachate and ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the
landfill are the primary sources of ground water contamination
identified in the primary aquifer, adjacent to the landfill and
south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Extraction and
treatment of leachate from the landfill will address the one of
the primary sources of ground water contamination and risks posed
by ground water contamination in the shallow aquifer (adjacent to
the landfill). Once the landfill cap is constructed and the
landfill gas, leachate, and ground water extraction/treatment
systems are operational, a minimum of 8 years will be required to
decrease ground water contamination and achieve ground water
cleanup levels in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to
the landfill and in the primary aquifer south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area). Ground water monitoring will serve two
purposes: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of the
treatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks in
ground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the
landfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado
Plat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow and
potential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.
Alternative 7 reduces risks associated with ground water
contamination by extracting ground water, in the shallow and
primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer
south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), and treating ground
water on-site. Leachate and ground water in the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill are the primary sources of ground water
contamination identified in the primary aquifer, adjacent to the
landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Extraction
and treatment of leachate from the landfill and ground water from
the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the
primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) will
address the primary sources of ground water contamination and
risks posed by ground water contamination in the shallow aquifer
(adjacent to the landfill). Once the landfill cap is constructed
and the landfill gas, leachate, and ground water
extraction/treatment systems are operational, a minimum of 8
years will^be required to decrease ground water contamination and
achieve ground water cleanup levels in the shallow and primary
aquifers aGjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer south
of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Ground water monitoring will
26
-------
serve two purposes: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of the
treatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks in
ground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the
landfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado
Plat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow and
potential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards of control,
and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal or State environmental or facility
siting law that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate
requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control,
and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal or State environmental siting law that,
while not "applicable* to a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at
a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is
well suited to this particular Site.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedial action will
meet all requirements of federal and state environmental laws and
regulations and/or provide a basis for a waiver from any of these
laws. Federal and State ARARs are divided into three
categories: chemical-specific, action-specific, and location-
specific.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Federal: Table 22 identifies the federal chemical-specific
ARARs. The ground water cleanup levels for Alternatives 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7 will comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
(Note: only non-zero SDWA levels are potential ARARs) and RCRA
ground water ARARs by treating leachate and/or ground water
treatment. Ground water monitoring will continue until
contamination decreases and cleanup levels are achieved.
Alternative 3 will rely on treatment/containment components of
the remedy to decrease ground water contamination and achieve
cleanup levels in ground water adjacent to the landfill (shallow
and primary aquifers) and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)
(primary aquifer). Alternative 4 will treat ground water
extracted from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill and
rely on treatment/containment components of the remedy to
decrease ground water contamination and achieve cleanup levels in
ground water in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill and
the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area).
Alternative 5 will treat ground water extracted from the shallow
27
-------
and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and rely on
treatment/containment components of the remedy to decrease ground
water contamination and achieve cleanup levels in the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Alternative 6
will treat ground water extracted from the primary aquifer south
of the river (Eldorado Plat area) and rely on
treatment/containment components of the remedy to decrease ground
water contamination and achieve cleanup levels in the shallow and
primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill. Alternative 7 will
treat ground water extracted from the shallow and primary
aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer south
of the river (Eldorado Plat area) to achieve ground water cleanup
levels.
State of Ohio: Table 23 identifies the State of Ohio chemical-
specific ARARs. Surface water standards will be met by
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 by consolidation of contaminated
soils under the landfill cap (Alternatives 3 and 4) or treatment
and consolidation of contaminated soils under the landfill cap
(Alternatives 5, 6, and 7), thereby reducing the potential of
migration of contaminated soils into surface water.
Location-Specific ARARs
Table 24 identifies the State of Ohio location-specific ARARs.
Federal location-specific ARARs are discussed in Section X. All
alternatives, except Alternative 1, will meet location-specific
ARARs. .Location-specific ARARs include RCRA requirements for a
site in a 100-year floodplain, minimizing adverse impacts on a
wetland, and minimizing potential harm to and restoration of the
floodplain.
Action-Specific ARARs
Federal action-specific ARARs are discussed in Section X. State
of Ohio action-specific ARARs are identified on Table 25. All
the Alternatives will comply with the Federal and State of Ohio
(Ohio Revised Code (ORC) and Ohio Administrative Code (OAC))
action-specific ARARs. These ARARs include: Clean Water Act,
OAC, and ORC requirements for discharge of effluent to a river;
Clean Air Act, OAC, and ORC requirements for excavation of soils
on-site and gas collection and treatment; ORC and OAC
requirements for leachate removal and treatment; and ORC and OAC
requirements for ground water monitoring.
28
-------
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA:
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected
residual risk and the ability of a remedial action to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over
time, once cleanup levels have been met.
Alternative 1 does not reduce risks and will not provide long-
term effectiveness or permanence.
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 provide long-term effectiveness
and permanence by utilizing source controls (landfill cap,
consolidation of soils under landfill cap, landfill gas
collection and treatment, leachate extraction and treatment)
which will result in a minimal residual risk. The landfill cap
is considered to be an effective long-term technology to reduce
migration from the landfill, however long-term maintenance will
be required. Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 provide a more permanent
soils remedial action by treating soils prior to placement under
the landfill cap.
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 rely, to a certain degree, on
treatment/containment components of the alternatives to decrease
ground water contamination and achieve cleanup levels in ground
water. Long term ground water monitoring will be required for
alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 to: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of
the treatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce
risks in ground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to
the landfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado
Plat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow and
potential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.
Long-term ground water monitoring will be required for
alternative 7 to monitor for changes in ground water flow and
potential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
refers to an assessment of the degree to which a remedial action
utilizes treatment to address the principal threats to human
health and the environment at the Site. Details of the treatment
systems will be identified during the remedial design.
Alternative 1 provides no treatment and therefore no reduction in
contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV).
Landfill Gases
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 reduce toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contamination in landfill gases through treatment.
29
-------
Leachate
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 reduce toxicity, mobility, and
volume of leachate contamination through treatment.
Soils
Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 reduce mobility, but not toxicity or
volume, of soil contaminants through treatment prior to
consolidation.
Ground Water
Alternative 3 does not utilize treatment to reduce TMV of ground
water contamination. Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and 7 reduce TMV of
ground water contamination through treatment, but each
alternative treats different areas of ground water contamination
(shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and
primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)),
Alternative 4 utilizes treatment to reduce TMV of ground water
contamination in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.
Alternative 5 utilizes treatment to reduce TMV of ground water
contamination in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the
landfill. Both Alternatives 4 and 5 will reduce TMV of ground
water contamination in the primary aquifer south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area). Alternative 6 utilizes treatment to reduce
TMV of ground water contamination in the primary aquifer south of
the river (Eldorado Plat area). Alternative 7 utilizes treatment
to reduce TMV of ground water in the shallow and primary aquifers
adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer south of the
river (Eldorado Plat area).
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
Addresses the potential adverse effects that implementation of a
remedial action may have on human health and the environment,
i.e., effects to the community, workers and environment during
construction and before cleanup levels are achieved. Time until
protection is achieved is also evaluated.
Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) poses no potential
adverse short-term effects to on-site workers. Alternatives 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7 may pose risks to workers installing landfill gas
extraction wells and flares, workers excavating and consolidating
contaminated soils, and workers installing the landfill cap.
These risks will be negligible once gas extraction wells are
installed and operating, contaminated soils are excavated and
consolidated, and the cap is installed. Risks may be posed to
workers involved with installing institutional controls, flood
protection, and storm water controls. Workers involved with
routine ground water monitoring may be exposed to contaminated
ground water until cleanup levels are reached. Alternatives 5, 6
and 7 may pose risks to workers treating contaminated soils prior
to their placement under the landfill cap. Alternatives 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7 may pose risks to workers through direct contact with
30
-------
leachate/ground water while installing leachate extraction wells,
ground water extraction wells, and leachate and ground water
treatment systems.
These potential adverse effects will be controlled by
implementation of engineering controls, through the use of
personal protective equipment, and by the implementation of a
health and safety plan during construction.
Installation of the landfill gas wells may pose risks to the
community. Risks will be minimized by installing the wells
during suitable weather conditions.
Alternatives 6 and 7 may pose short-term risks to the residents
of Eldorado Plat due to dust and noise generated during drilling
and pipeline construction of the off-site ground water extraction
well system.
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, has no timeframe to
achieve protection. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 should attain
cleanup levels in approximately 6 years. Alternatives 6 and 7
should attain cleanup levels in approximately 8 years.
6. Implementability
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedial action, including the availability of
services and materials.
All alternatives are expected to be technically feasible and
administratively implementable. Alternatives S, 6 and 7 are
implementable; however, the soil treatment component to be
implemented prior to consolidation under the landfill cap, common
to these alternatives, is more complex to administer.
The leachate extraction and treatment system component of
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is implementable. Alternatives 4,
5, 6 and 7 are more difficult to implement than Alternative 3 due
to the installation and operation of the on-site ground water .
extraction and treatment system. Alternatives 6 and 7 are the
most complex alternatives due to the construction of a pipeline
crossing the river to transport ground water extracted from the
primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), north to
the on-site treatment system.
7. Cost
Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
costs for a remedial action, and also is expressed as net present
worth cost.
31
-------
Alternative 1
No Cost
Alternative 3
Estimated Capital Cost: $11,463,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 398,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $16,820,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years
Alternative 4
Estimated Capital Cost: $12,911,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 544,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $20,510,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years
Alternative 5
Estimated Capital Cost: $13,884,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 618,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $22,620,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years
Alternative 6
Estimated Capital Cost: $12,600,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 519,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $19,810,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 8 years
Alternative 7
Estimated Capital Cost: $14,341,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 617,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $23,060,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 8 years
Alternative 1 does not entail any cost at the present time, but
may result in the need for costly remediation in the future.
Alternative 7 is estimated to be the most expensive alternative,
followed by (from most to least expensive) Alternatives 5, 4, 6,
and 3.
32
-------
MODIFYING CRITERIA:
8. State Acceptance
State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the State of Ohio concurs, opposes, or
has no comment on the selected remedial action.
The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedial action.
9. Communi'ty Acceptance
Community acceptance addresses the community's acceptance of the
preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan based on
comments received during the public comment period. The
Responsiveness Summary, attached to this ROD, contains
significant comments received during the public comment period
and the Agencies' response to those comments.
IX. SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION
The U.S. EPA has selected Alternative 4 for the final remediation
of the Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site.
Alternative 4 includes:
institutional controls
improved landfill cap with liner
excavation of contaminated soils
consolidation of contaminated soils under landfill cap
ground water monitoring
flood protection
storm water controls
active landfill gas collection with flare
leachate extraction
on-site leachate treatment
extraction of ground water from the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill
on-site ground water treatment
discharge of treated ground water and leachate to river
Estimated Capital Cost: $12,911,000
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 544,000
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $20,510,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years
Contaminated soils will be consolidated on the landfill and a
landfill cap with liner will contain the landfill and
contaminated soils. The landfill cap will prevent migration of
contaminated soils into surface water, reduce infiltration of
precipitation into the landfill thereby reducing generation of
33
-------
leachate and also reducing the percolation of leachate from the
landfill into ground water. Leachate will be extracted from the
landfill and treated on-site. Ground water will be extracted
from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill and treated on-
site.
The selected remedy will address the two source areas for ground
water contamination at the Site; leachate in the landfill and
ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.
The geology of the Site indicates that contamination in the
shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill could migrate under the
Great Miami River and this aquifer is a possible source of
contamination identified in the primary aquifer adjacent to the
landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Adjacent
to the landfill, the shallow aquifer is separated from the
primary aquifer under the southern portion of the landfill and
under the river, therefore, leachate in the landfill and ground
water contamination in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the
landfill are the probable sources of ground water contamination
identified in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill and
south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). The selected remedy
will not actively remediate ground water contamination identified
in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill or ground water
contamination identified south of the river (Eldorado Plat area).
By extracting and treating leachate from the landfill and ground
water from the shallow aquifer, the source of ground water
contamination identified in the primary aquifer (adjacent to the
landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) will be
reduce and ground water contamination is expected to decrease and
cleanup levels will be achieved. Ground water contamination
should decrease and achieve cleanup levels in an estimated 6
years.
Ground water monitoring is an essential part of this remedy. A
ground water monitoring network will be established on the Site
(around the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat
area)). Ground water monitoring will serve two purposes: 1)
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containment
components of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallow
and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area); and, 2) monitor
for changes in ground water flow and potential migration of
contaminated ground water from the Site. If ground water
monitoring identifies that ground water contamination is not
decreasing and cleanup levels are not being achieved, the remedy
will be reevaluated. The remedial design will develop the
specific details of the ground water monitoring network,
including the number and location of wells necessary to monitor
ground water. The specifics of the ground water monitoring
system, including frequency and duration, will be determined
during the remedial design.
34
-------
Off-site ground water contamination identified in the Needmore
Road area during the RI, could not be connected to contamination
found on the Site. However, if in the future a connection is
found which identifies PRL as the source of contamination in the
Needmore Road area, either a ROD amendment or an Explanation of
Significant Differences will be prepared, as appropriate.
The remedial design will identify the appropriate number and
location of wells to collect/extract landfill gas, leachate, and
ground water.
Cleanup levels to be achieved by the selected remedial action
will be chemical-specific ARARs (see Section X.B.I.). If
multiple contaminants are present in the media (i.e. ground
water), and cleanup of individual contaminants to ARARs result in
a cumulative risk in excess of 10"4 across a media, cleanup
levels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across a
media to ixlO"4 or less (Table 21). If chemical-specific ARARs
do not exist for contaminants, cleanup levels of contaminants
will be risk-based and cumulative across a media to IxlO"4 or
less (Table 21). The point of compliance for ground water
cleanup levels will be the boundary of the landfill. Ground
water cleanup levels shall be achieved at and beyond the
landfill. The point of compliance for cleanup levels of landfill
gas emissions shall be the fence surrounding the landfill area.
The selected remedial action is expected to be the final response
for the Site. Because this remedial action will result in
hazardous substances remaining on-site, a review will be
conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action
to insure that the remedial action continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The U.S. EPA believes that Alternative 4 meets the threshold
criteria and provides the best protection with respect to the
criteria used to evaluate the alternatives (National Contingency
Plan 40 CFR Part 300.430 (f) (5) (ii) (A-F).
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 4 utilizes institutional controls to reduce risks
posed to trespassers by. fencing the Site and posting warning
signs, and reduces the risks posed to potential future users of
the Site by imposing deed restrictions on the landfill property.
Numerous source controls are utilized by Alternative 4: landfill
cap; landfill gas collection and treatment; leachate extraction
and treatment; and excavation and consolidation of contaminated
soils under the landfill cap. The risks posed by inhalation of
35
-------
landfill gases are reduced by collecting and creating landfill
gases.
The interaction of several components of Alternative 4 will
decrease ground water contamination and achieve cleanup levels.
The landfill cap will reduce infiltration of precipitation into
the landfill, thereby reducing generation of leachate, and also
reducing the percolation of leachate from the landfill into
ground water. Extraction and treatment of leachate from the
landfill and ground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent to
the landfill will address the primary sources of ground water
contamination and risks posed by ground water contamination in
the shallow aquifer (adjacent to the landfill). Leachate and
ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill are
the primary sources of ground water contamination identified in
the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill and south of the
river (Eldorado Plat area). Once the landfill cap is constructed
and the landfill gas, leachate, and ground water
extraction/treatment systems are operational, a minimum of 6
years will be required to decrease ground water contamination and
achieve ground water cleanup levels in the shallow and primary
aquifers adjacent to the landfill and in the primary aquifer
south of the river (Eldorado Plat area).
The risks posed by ingestion of fish are based on the potential
migration of contaminated soils into surface water and sediment.
These risks will be controlled and reduced by excavating and
consolidating contaminated soils under the landfill cap.
Cleanup levels to be achieved by the selected remedial action
will be chemical-specific ARARs (Table 22). If multiple
contaminants are present in the media (i.e. ground water), and
cleanup of individual contaminants to ARARs result in a
cumulative risk in excess of 10'* across a media, cleanup levels
of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across a media
to IxlO"4 or less (Table 21). If chemical-specific ARARs do not
exist for contaminants, cleanup levels of contaminants will be
risk-based and cumulative across a media to IxlO"4 or less (Table
21) .
Potential adverse short-term risks posed to on-site workers will
be controlled by implementation of engineering controls. No
cross-media impacts will be caused by implementation of
Alternative 4.
B. Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 4 will meet or attain all applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal or State requirements (ARARs) and will be
implemented in a manner consistent with those laws. It is
important to note that on-site actions are required to comply
with ARARs, but must comply only with the substantive parts of
36
-------
the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. Off-site
actions must comply only with applicable requirements, but must
comply fully with both substantive and administrative
requirements. For example, at the Powell Road Landfill Site, the
discharge to the Great Miami River of extracted ground water and
extracted leachate which has been treated will be an off-site
discharge, and will therefore be subject to both the substantive
and administrative requirements of Federal and State law
promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. The chemical-specific, location-
specific and action-specific ARARs for the selected remedial
action for the PRL are identified below.
1. Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical specific ARARs regulate the release to the environment
of specific substances having certain chemical characteristics.
Chemical-specific ARARs typically determine the extent of clean-
up at a Site. For the PRL site, these are:
a. Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs
Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs and MCLGs - Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) and, to a certain extent, non-zero Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), the Federal Drinking Water
Standards promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
are applicable to municipal drinking water supplies servicing 25
or more people. MCLGs are relevant and appropriate when the
standard is set at a level greater than zero (for non-
carcinogens) ; otherwise, MCLs are relevant and appropriate. At
the Powell Road Landfill (PRL) site, MCLs and MCLGs are not
applicable, but are relevant and appropriate since the aquifer in
which the PRL site is located is a sole-source aquifer for
drinking water for the City of Dayton. The point of compliance
for the Federal drinking water standards is at the boundary of
the landfilled waste and throughout the contaminated ground water
plume associated with the PRL site.
Clean Air Act (40 CFR Part 50) - The Clean Air Act requirements
include the TSP standard for air discharges. This requirement is
applicable to the PRL site because the gas extraction and
treatment, leachate treatment, excavation and consolidation of
contaminated soils, and various other treatment methods which are
part of this remedy are potential sources of fugitive dust,
particulate, and/or VOCs.
See Table 22 for a list of additional Federal chemical-specific
ARARs.
b. State Chemical-Specific ARARs
See Table 23 for a list of the State of Ohio Chemical-Specific
37
-------
ARARs
2. Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are those requirements that relate to the
geographic position of the Site. For the PRL site, these are:
a. Federal Location-Specific ARARs
The Clean Water Act Section 404 - This section of the Act
regulates the discharge of dredge and fill materials at sites to
waters of the United States. These regulations are applicable to
the PRL site, since there are wetlands located on the site.
Wetland Management Executive Order 11990 - This order requires
federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and
short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or
modification of wetlands. This requirement is applicable to the
PRL site since there are wetlands located on the Site.
RCRA location standards 40 CFR Part 264.18 - These standards
specify that a facility located in a flood plain must be
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent
washout of hazardous wastes by a 100-year flood plain. This
requirement is applicable to the PRL site if a hazardous waste
management unit is created on-site as a result of air stripping
or other on-site treatment, these standards are applicable to the
PRL because the site is located in a 100-year flood plain.
Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 - This order requires
minimization of potential harm to or within flood plains and the
avoidance of long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with
the occupancy and modification of flood plains. This order is
applicable to the PRL site since the PRL site is located within a
flood plain.
b. State Location-Specific ARARs
See Table 24 for a list of the State of Ohio location-specific
ARARs.
3. Action-Specific ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs are requirements that define acceptable
treatment and disposal procedures for hazardous substances. For
the PRL site, these are:
a. Federal Action-Specific ARARs
RCRA Subtitle C Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264)
38
-------
- These requirements govern the owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment storage and disposal facilities. These
requirements are applicable to the PRL site if a hazardous waste
management unit is created on-site as a result of air stripping
or other on-site treatment methods.
Clean Air Act Standards for the Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans (40 CFR Part 52) - These requirements govern
the approval and promulgation of implementation plans. These
requirements are applicable to the PRL site because of various
aspects of the remedy for the PRL site including excavation and
consolidation of contaminated soils, gas collection and
treatment, and the use of several treatments methods at the site.
Toxic Substances Control Act Standards for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions (40 CFR Part 761) - These
requirements govern the manufacturing, processing, distribution
in commerce and use prohibitions for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). These requirements will be applicable to the PRL site if
additional testing is done of the contaminated soils to be
excavated and consolidated as part of the PRL site remedy is
done, and the soils are found to exceed a PCB level of 50 parts
per million.
Clean Air Act Air Quality and Emission Limitations (Clean Air Act
Section 110). These requirements relate to air quality and
emission limitations. These requirements are applicable to the
PRL site due to various aspects of the remedy for the PRL site
including excavation and consolidation of contaminated soils, gas
collection and treatment, and the use of several treatment
methods at the Site.
b. State Action-Specific ARARs
See Table 25 for a list of the State of Ohio action-specific
ARARs.
4. To Be Considered
a. Federal to be Considered
"Control of Air Emissions from Superfund Air Strippers at
Superfund Groundwater Sites" (June 15, 1989) (OSWER Directive
9355.0*28) - This guidance indicates that sources that need
controls are those with actual emissions rates in excess of 3
Ibs/hr, or 15 Ibs/day, or a calculated rate of 10 tons/year
(T/yr) of total VOCs. This guidance should be considered at the
PRL site if one of the treatment methods used as part of the
remedy for the PRL site is a ground-water-pump-and-treat
technique used together with air strippers, and if the emission
rates at the PRL exceed these rates, and since the PRL is located
39
-------
in an ozone non-attainment area.
C. Cost-Effectiveness
The U.S. EPA believes that the selected remedial action is cost-
effective in mitigating the risks posed by the Site contaminants
within a reasonable period of time. Section 300.430 (f) (ii) (D) of
the NCP requires EPA to evaluate cost-effectiveness by comparing
all the alternatives which meet the threshold criteria of
protection of human health and the environment against three
additional balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through
treatment; and short-term effectiveness. The selected remedial
action meets these three criteria and provides overall
effectiveness in proportion to its cost. The estimated cost for
the selected remedial action is $20.5 million, which is a
reasonable value for the expected results to be achieved by the
selected remedial action.
D. Utilization of permanent solutions and alternate treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable
U.S. EPA believes that the selected remedial action represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
'technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective'manner to
address contamination and risks associated with the Site and
potential migration of contaminants away from the Powell Road
Landfill. The selected remedial action provides the best balance
of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness or permanence;
reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume; short-term
effectiveness; implementability; cost; and State and community
acceptance.
The criterion of overall protection of human health and the
environment and long-term effectiveness and permanence were
crucial in the decision to select Alternative 4. Overall
protection of human health and the environment was best achieved
by the selected remedial action because it provides protection of
human health from risks through treatment of leachate and ground
water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill. By
treating contamination in leachate and ground water in the
shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill, ground water
contamination will decrease, cleanup levels will be achieved, and
the continued migration of leachate and contaminated ground water
from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill is reduced.
Leachate and ground water contamination in the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill are the primary sources of ground water
contamination identified in the primary aquifer, adjacent to the
landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Extraction
and treatment of leachate from the landfill and ground water from
the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill will address these
40
-------
sources of ground water contamination and associated risks. Once
the landfill cap is constructed and the landfill gas, leachate,
and ground water extraction/treatment systems are operational,
contamination in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill and
south of the river, will decrease and achieve cleanup levels.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence was best achieved by the
selected remedial action due to leachate and ground water
treatment components. Leachate in the landfill and ground water
in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill will be extracted
and treated to reach cleanup levels and reduce residual risks in
ground water. The ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent
to the landfill has the highest ground water risks, and during
the breakdown and dispersion of ground water contamination, risks
to downgradient well users could exist. Once the landfill cap is
constructed and the landfill gas, leachate, and ground water
extraction/treatment systems are operational, the source of
ground water contamination in the primary aquifer south of the
river (Eldorado Plat area) will no longer exist and ground water
contamination in the primary aquifer (adjacent to the landfill
and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)) will reduce and
achieve cleanup levels (estimated to occur in a minimum of 6
years).
Alternative 7 is the only alternative that actively addresses all
areas of ground water contamination associated with the landfill
and reduces risks posed by ground water contamination. Ground
water contamination in the primary aquifer south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area) is addressed in Alternative 7 by extracting
ground water from the primary aquifer south of the river
(Eldorado Plat area), transporting the extracted ground water
across the river via a pipe, to the Site for on-site treatment.
This ground water technology was considered too expensive and too
complex to implement compared to the minimal reduction of ground
water risks.
The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedial action. The
community's comments received during the public comment period
are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary, attached to this
ROD, along with the Agencies' response to comments.
The selected remedial action meets the statutory requirement to
utilize permanent solutions and treatment technologies, to the
maximum extent practicable.
E. Preference for Treatment
The selected remedial action satisfies the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element. Landfill gases and
leachate will be collected/extracted and treated on-site. Ground
water will be extracted from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the
landfill and treated on-site. Leachate will be extracted from
41
-------
che landfill and treated on-site. The Powell Road Landfill, the
source of contamination, will not be treated, but will be
contained by a landfill cap.
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan was
Alternative 5. The Record of Decision identifies the selected
remedial action as Alternative 4. Because the selected remedial
action was one of the alternatives presented in the Proposed
Plan, the U.S. EPA was not required to seek additional public
comment on a revised Proposed Plan (NCP 40 CFR Part
300.430(F) (3) (ii) (A)). The differences between these two
alternatives are the following: 1) Alternative 4 does not
include treatment of contaminated soils to dewater, stabilize and
solidify the soils (prior to consolidation under the landfill
cap), and 2) Alternative 4 does not include extraction of ground
water from the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill.
The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan was
modified as a result of comments received during the public
comment period. Public comments caused the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA
(the Agencies) to reevaluate the preferred alternative. Several
major comments were received during the public comment period
which questioned various aspects of the leachate and ground water
extraction and treatment components of the preferred alternative.
Based on these comments the Agencies consulted technical experts
for assistance with the issues. Below is a summary of the
comments, followed by the actions the Agencies took to resolve
the issues.
Comment 1.
A ground water extraction system could compromise the leachate
extraction system, and pull contamination from the
leachate/ground water adjacent to the landfill, deeper into the
primary aquifer.
Action:
PRL documents were reviewed by the Agencies' technical staff and
calculations of estimated drawdown of the ground water table
which could be caused by a ground water extraction system were
calculated. These calculations estimate conditions under which
ground water extraction could have a negative effect on a
leachate extraction system.
Drawdown calculations of a ground water extraction system in the
shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill identified minimal
drawdown of the water table would occur (
-------
extraction wells closest to the southern boundary of the
landfill. Pumping rates of both extraction systems could be
adjusted as necessary to prevent any negative interaction of the
two extraction systems.
Drawdown calculations of a ground water extraction system in the
primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill identified substantial
drawdown of the water table may occur (possibly 4 feet) .
Therefore, extraction of ground water from the primary aquifer
adjacent to the landfill could increase downward migration of
contamination from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill
into the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill, except where
the confining till layer would limit vertical migration.
Therefore, the Agencies partially agree with the commenter.
Extracting ground water from the primary aquifer may compromise
the leachate extraction system. However, the Agencies believe
that it remains necessary to extract and treat ground water from
the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill to reduce the risks
posed by ground water in this aquifer.
Comment 2.
The Proposed Plan's preferred alternative 5 was questioned. The
rationale being questioned was that by extracting ground water
from the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill, contamination
identified south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), would be
reduced. The commenter states that there is no evidence that PRL
is the source of contamination found south of the river (Eldorado
Plat area).
Action:
This comment caused the Agencies to carefully review the geology
of the Site, the ground water contaminants and the migration of
ground water away from the Site.
The primary aquifer which underlies the landfill is separated by
a confining till layer which is present under the south side of
the landfill and under the river. This till layer separates the
aquifer into a shallow and primary aquifer. Although the till
layer is present south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), it is
not continuous and therefore the aquifers are interconnected.
Ground water contamination is found adjacent to the landfill in
the shallow aquifer and in the primary aquifer. However, south
of the river (Eldorado Plat area), geologic cross-sections do not
show a continuous till layer separating the aquifers in the
vicinity of the monitoring wells. RI ground water data in the
Eldorado Plat area identifies contamination in monitoring wells
both above and below the discontinuous till layer.
Ground water sampling and analysis found VOCs in the shallow
aquifer adjacent to the landfill (223 ug/L), in the primary
43
-------
aquifer adjacent to the landfill (ISO ug/L), and in the primary
aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) (13 ug/L).
VOC contamination identified in the aquifers adjacent to the
landfill tend to primarily consist of "ethane" compounds and VOC
contamination identified south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)
tend to primarily consist of "ethene" compounds. This is the
major argument used in the RI to discount the landfill as the
source of ground water contamination identified south of the
river (Eldorado Plat area). The Agencies disagree with the
argument because "ethene" compounds were found in landfill gas
vents (PCE, TCE), leachate (DCE), and in the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill (DCE). Ethene compounds were not
detected in monitoring wells in the primary aquifer adjacent to
the landfill.
Migration of contaminants away from the landfill are based on the
location of sources of contamination and the geology. The major
source is the landfill, which generates leachate, which migrates
into the ground water. Although the till layer does not exist
directly under the landfill, ground water flow in the regional
aquifer (GMR BVA) is horizontal from the north to south, and once
leachate migrates into ground water, it migrates horizontally to
the south. This is why the shallow aquifer adjacent to the
landfill contained the highest levels of contaminants and
exceeded MCLs during RI sampling. Some vertical migration of
leachate/ground water also carries contamination into the primary
aquifer (adjacent to the landfill), however, only 2 monitoring
wells in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill showed
contamination during RI sampling. Due to these area ground water
flow patterns at the Site, migration of contaminants from the
landfill to south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), must occur
horizontally from either the shallow or primary aquifers adjacent
to the Site (or possibly from both aquifers).
RI data suggested that the Great Miami River was a barrier to
migration of ground water from adjacent to the landfill, under
the river to the aquifer in the Eldorado Plat area. Thus,
contamination identified in the Eldorado Plat area must have
migrated from the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill.
However, in response to public comments the Agencies consulted
ground water experts at Ohio EPA and were advised that the Great
Miami River is not necessarily a barrier to ground water
contaminant migration under the river.
In conclusion, the Agencies believe that the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill is one of the primary sources of.
contamination found in the Eldorado Plat area. As a primary
source, remediation of the shallow aquifer adjacent to the
landfill will significantly reduce migration of ground water
contamination from the Site. This component of the remedial
action, combined with leachate extraction and treatment as well
44
-------
as the construction of the landfill cap, is expected to eliminate
migration of ground water contamination from the Site.
Comment 3.
Treatment of excavated contaminated soils, prior to consolidation
on the landfill, would not provide additional protection nor
provide significant reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume,
compared to Alternative 4.
Action:
The Agencies have reviewed the information provided by the
commenter, and consulted with the Ohio EPA RCRA program, and
agree that treatment of soils to dewater, solidify and stabilize
soils prior to consolidation under the landfill cap will not
provide any additional protection of human health and the
environment, nor provide any significant reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume.
v- -, - • .
45
-------
'.'.. .V* '••"
.' .-.'!•*+ '• '
^•AVKE: '
'$*iT~?' Miami '-.""'.a
'.:*>-"-• • . '::
Us -
r "j- — ELDORADO PLAT
LEGEND:
—— SITE BOUNDARY
........ STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
0 2000 *000 '
SCALE IN FEET
BASE MAP SOURCE: USGS71/2minut*
rangw mm Dayion North. Ohto 1965,
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
SCA SERVICES OF OHIO, INC.
FIGURE 1
srre vicaNrrr MAP
AMoon JOB MO. 7722-277^17
-------
-------
Eldorado Plat area
(soulh of river)
primaiy aquifer - aouth of river
(Eldorado Hal area)
primary aquifer - south of river ,
(Eldorado Plat area)
primary aquifer
(adjacent to (be landfill)
Eldorado Plat area
(soulh of river)
•Mil IIIU
HTtMOGCOLOOK CROSS -SECTION*
-------
p.Vfcll
, __„_
LEGEND:
— no
Fence
Inlermrtlent Stream
Topographic Contour
Vent Location
Surface Leachale
Sampling Location
Total VOC concentration Contour,
1 100 — Contour Interval «= 200 (dashed where
interred)
NOTE: All elavahons it-leiancod lo moan sua lavcl
Tolal voc Concentralion
(millgrams/cubic meter)
400
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
SCA SERVICES OF OHIO. INC.
flGURE 4
GAS VENT VAPOH
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS
-------
LEGEND.
v*
4>MWO7A
4M
NS
— 1000 -
223/M/O
Fence
Intermittent Stream
Topographic Contour
Vent Location
Surface Leachate
Sampling Location
Shallow Monitoring
Wei Location
Vent Liquid Total
VOC Concentration
(ntoograms/Mer)
October • November
1988
Not Sampled Due to
Access Problems
Vent Liquid Total
VOC Contour.
Logarithmic
Contour Interval
Ground Water Total
VOC Concentration
(micrograms/kter)
December 1988/
April 1989/February
1991
Total VOC Contour
Refecting Decembui
1988 Ground Water
Data
Total VOC Contour
Reflecting Apnt 19B9
Ground Water Data
100 —
Total VOC Contour
Reflecting February 1991
Ground Water Data
Approximate LandliH
Area
NOTE: All elevations
referenced to mean
i level
BASE MAP SOURCE Topographic Survey
ol Powell Rowl Landfill. Colins-SadcJIei &
Associates. January 16. 1988
300
bOO
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
SCA SERVICES OF OHIO. INC.
Hi.HUE S
LANDFILL LIQUIDS/GROUND WAIEII
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS
Itiroe. I Mum, l> ill III) //iVifb/li!
-------
BASC UAP ujuiirf
POM« Hojd I indl« Colm SoMlcil Asux.il.t
1911
1 1 Gl til)
O-— lopogiapliic Coiriouf
wriil Oieclon and lin^ icialuill
AII*> 2t 1988)
An«MOt« AM ;.jnfilu * MCIOUK nut.> ..'.'I-.
-------
SHSURG ROAD
2»S6 ***" SOURCE '-SCS
• • 7
•.-je'VOM •>•» JJrtO" NO<
:-*o 1965
GRAVEL PIT
S05/W05
07/W07
POWELL ROAD
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
NEEDMQRERQAD
LEGEND:
Approximate Limits o< Study Area
_— Approximate Landfill Limits
intermittent Stream
. Sediment/Surface Water Sampling
S02/W02 Location
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
SCA SERVICES OF OHIO, INC.
SEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
DAMES & MOORE JOB NO. 7772-277-017
-------
n SoJ Sj'HA',)
POWELL KOAI) I.ANDKII I
SCA SERVICES Of OHIO. INC.
IKHIME »
SUHMCIM »MO SIIBSUHIICKI
SOU SAMPLING IOC»IIOMS
-------
LEGEND
— — •— PHOPEHIV BOUNDARY
_ TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR (* EE I.
"••> SPOT ELEVATION (FEET. USI)
"•^•3 SHE COORDINATE SYSTEM
ACCESS flOAD
-- *-— TREES /WOODS
«Pf>RO»MAlC IOCMION Of
' fENCMG
SURFACE WA1ER DRAINAGE
— -- INTEHUinCNI S1REAM
• VI VENT tOCATIOM
. CONTAMINATED SOIL
* SAMPLE LOCATKMI
l:'#":'"l ESTIMATED HOT SPOT AREA
SCALE MFEEI
BASE IUP SOURCE
S,^™, <*
Ai •• tac>««
I'OWKI I.KOAI) 1 ANDHI I.
KCASERVCESOf OHIO MC.
ncimt:«
Slit ft AH
-------
\
-------
TABLE I
GAS VENT METHANE MEASUREMENTS
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
HUBER HEIGHTS. OHIO
Vent No.
VI
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
vio
vu
V12
VI3
V14
vis
V16
V17
V18
V19
V20
Date
10/25/88
10/25/88
10/25/88
1 1/08/88
1 1/08/88
10/28/88
1 1/08/88
1 1/08/88
10/25/88
10/28/88
1 1/08/88
1 1/08/88
11/08/88
1 1/08/88
10/25/88
10/28/88
11/09/88
11/09/88
11/09/88
11/09/88
11/09/88
11/09/88
11/09/88
Percent Methane*
38
60
61
62
61
12
56
58
62
11
59
58
30
58
61
19
56
42
46
24
18
19
16
" Approximated from combustible gas content readings from an MSA Gascope Model 23 CGI
-------
TABLE!
HKI.U <>H<;ANI< ANALYSIS • (;AS VKNT VAHHJ
POWKI.I. ROAD I.ANDHI I
IIUBCR HEIGHTS. OHIO
VcM Number
Mound 1
r*riB«lcr (B|/Bi3)
Benzene
CMonbenienc
CUoroedune*
I.l-Dichlaroeihinc
1.2 DkhkxoeUuM
•m 1.2 DicUoiocihene*
ilfayl berime*
MctfiykaecMonde*
Temchfcioeiheae*.
Toluene*
I.I.I TrkhloioeUiine
TrkUoraeAene*
Vinyl chloride
Xylenej*
VI V]
02
9 U
-
4 0.2
'.
.
9
-
209 75
.
1
26 23
17 4
VJ
38
JS
-
65
-
-
295
.
16
26
9
V4
1
5
-
13
7
56
31
30
VS V* V7
9 23 14
.
48
1
.
39 30 38
.
7 63
75 120 116
.
36 20 44
116 43 82
V*
2
14
32
8
-
W
77
120
-
26
73
V« VI* VII VII VIJ VI4
J 1) 1
28 9 05 5
1 • Jt> 4 12
• -• • 2 • -
J'> 9 U II
.
7 2 II
194 49 116 22 64 .'I/
.
2
21 8 J6 31 26 II
25 4 116 22 66 6>
VIS
1
II
IJ
^
21
75
IX
56
> Pvimewr not delected
= MndMory perfamuncc tundaid DM ameler
•'.•EC I ..I 2
-------
TABLE J (co.liou.JI
r.r».l«r <-c/.3>
Boucnc
CMnoboucnc
ChlonwduM*
1.1 Dichtoroc*h*nc
1.2 Dkhlafodlinc
•MU 1.2 Dichluroelhene*
Eihyl baiunc*
MediyknechlorMlc*
Tcnchhwicdicne*
Toluene*
l.l.l-TrtthkMoeihuie
TrkhlonMhoM*
Vinyl chtonde
XykMf*
- m PHMMM no* delected
• w~ %J^n1»in«-n t*tttmwHmit + clAfiri
VI*
03
5
-
4
-
-
13
-
7
60
-
23
xrfflnMMneui
Hound
VI7
03
14
16
-
-
39
•
55
165
-
4
31
121
1 (riinlliiucd)
VIM
9
-
60
-
22
-
14
116
•
5
44
43
Vl» Vlt
03
18 9
-
32 8
•
17 2
-
J 3
22 7
2
44
22 17
VCBI Number
Humid 1
VIO VIO
VI VJ V» (11:00) VIS VI* Vlt r>H20l (I7:OU>
4 II II J 7 7 II II |
168 261 JI4 IJ8 99 186 IB) Ittll
78 96 M) IUH 119 121 6) D II)
Blu* if MX » Not mily/cd
2 of 2
-------
TABLE]
VOLATILE OtUiANIC ANALYSIS
0
PaiMMtler* (|t|/L)
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methykne chloride
. Acetone
Carbon disuUide
I.I Dichtoroethane
UDkhtoroeihene (total)
Chloroform
2-Butanone
1 ,2 Dkhhif opropane
Trkhloroethene
Bouene
bans- 1 3- DiLhloroprapene
4 Mciliyl-2-penauione
IHeunone
TeincMarrxihene
Toluene
Chlorabcn/ene
Eihylbenicne
Slyrtne
Total lylencs
Total VOCi
Sample Numbrr/(Vrnl Number)
CRQL
(Ml'M
10
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
10
10
L»3Z«l(a)
(V3)
91
-
2J
450 D
•
-
4 J
-
780 D
3J
-
6
-
120
-
-
320 D
2J
no
-
260 D
2.0**
L04ZOI(a)
(V4)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
1 J
6
-
25
-
-
27
3J
140
-
290 fc
512
LOSZOI(b)
(VS)
-
-
-
380 B
-
5J
3J
-
500
-
•
4 J
-
120 B
-
3J
270
61
no
360
1,7*1
CROL • Comnct-feuuiied nianiilaiinn limit
LOSOID(a)
(VS)
6J
-
-
270 BD
-
-
•
-
430 D
-
•
-
-
90 B
•
-
66B
2J
26
-
82
972
L07ZOI(a) L
(V7)
3J
-
1 J
-
-
64
-
4 J
21
-
-
7
3J
100
-
310 b
494
IOZOI(c)
(VIO>
68 J
-
3.900 BD
-
II 1
-
5.500 D
-
II J
-
500
-
390
101
100
151
330
IU.HJS
LI2ZOI(a) I.MZOI(d)
(VI2) (VI4»
4 J (> J
21
-
20
-
2 J
3 J 5 J
ISO
13 3H
II 41
41 1 10
32 5 10 li
118 87J
LNOIIXdl
(VI4I
1 1
b
31
II
•) \
no
1 1
3;
i j
I'd
-mill:
MM J
(a) Detection levels consistent with CK
-------
TABLE J
Sample Number/(Vcal
Parameter* (ug/L)
Vinyl cMoride
Chloroethane
Methylenc chloride
Acetone
Carbon disuffide
I.I Dkhloroethane
UDkhloroethene (total)
Chloroform
2-Buunone
1.2-Dkhlaropropane
Trkhloroetheae
Bouene
bans- 1 3 Dichlorapropene
4 Methyl 2-peatanane
2 Hexaaone
Teoachlpfoeihene
Toluene
Cnlorobcnzenc
Eitiyrbeazene
Sryrene
Total tylcncs
Total VOCs
CROL a (Vmract-icaiMied (
CRQL
(|i|'M
10
10
5
10
5
5
5
5
10
S
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
S
5
5
5
maniiiaiioi
LI5Z«l(c)
(VIS)
-
-
24 BJ
670 B
-
-
-
-
1.500
-
-
19 J
-
54 J
-
-
220
' -
99
-
280
2.84*
i limit
LUZftl(c)
(VU)
8J
-
-
13
6J
8
-
20
-
2J
7
-
2V
-
2 J
190
31
110
-
260 b
• 58
LI7Z«l(a)
(VI7)
-
2J
-
42
6
13
-
-
75
-
-
4J
-
14
-
•
13
1)
120
-
290 E
580
LISZOKO
(VI8)
I7J
-
-
27.000 D
6J
-
-
39.000 D
-
-
9J
-
2.600 D
300
-
630
-
62
II J
160
•9,795
Number)
L20ZOI(a)
Concentration determined through dilution of sample
E = Conceninlion exceeds calibration range
J = Estimated value
(c) Detection levels I Ox greater than CKQI
(c) Deieciiun levels I 3x graiu:i than CKQI.
(0 Deiccuim levels 5» giejicr liijn CKQI.
Pagu 2 ul 2
-------
TABLE 4
SbMIVOI.ATII 1C OKCANIC ANALYSIS
<;AS vi NI i
I'OWKI.I. HOAI) I ANUHI I.
IIUBER iifcuairs. OHIO
Sample Numb«r/(Vcnl
P*ran«Ur* (tift'L)
ai, , . ,i
rnom
|<4-dkhlorobenzcne
Benzyl alcohol
1.2-dichlorobauene
2 Methylphcnal
4 Methylphcnol
riribnoocnxcnc
Isophorano
2.4 Dunelhylphenol
Beraoicacid
Naphihalene
^ ajfiitiuhiM^rilulnv*
AcenaphilicoD
Dibemonnn
DietbylptahaUie
Ruorene
N-Ninoiodiphcnylainine (1)
Ptntachlorophenol
PhenaitthfenB
Anthracene
Din butyl phlhalale
Ffcioranthene
Pytene
Butyfcciuyl phlhalale
Benzo(a)Bnhnccne
Crytene
bd<2 Eihylheiyl)phihalate
Di-n ocryt phlhalale
Total Scmlvvlatllca
CRQL
(pi'M
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
L«3Z*l(a) L«4Z«I<«) LOSZ«l(a)
(V3> (V4) (V5)
16 - 330
91 28
-
51
II 10 J
26 340
-
-
10 • 4 J
180
7 J 26 26
II • I
26
86 - 12 J
.
7 J
.
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
.
62
31
2*7 *7 9*9
L*5tlD(a)
(VS)
200 D
14
-
-
13
1.600 D
-
21
81
3IOD
31
5 j
.
25
.
.
•
.
.
51
.
-
•
.
•
21
2.215
L«7Ztl(«)
(VI2)
1.2110 9 1
17 J 81
321
.
.
191)
-
.
.
1101
191
•
.
.
2 1
.
-
6J
21
.
.
.
-
.
.
II
-
1.5*1 31
LI4ZOI(a) LI40ID(a|
1 .>9
18 71
CRQL = CanBKi-required qtumiuiian limit
- • Vmm&a not detected
D = Concentration determined ihruugh dilution of sample
I = Estimated value
(a) Detection level consilient »nli C'()KL
(b) Detection level 5i greaia than CQRL
-------
TABLE 4
Parameters ((i|/L)
Pbenol
M-didilurobeniene
Benzyl tlcohol
1 1-iij lilfmnKMiiJiLT.
2 Methylpbenol
4 Meihylphencl
Nitrobenzene
uopnoronc
2.4-Duneihylpheno)
Benzoktcid
Na|4tthaleii6
2 Mediyknaphtlukne
Aoenapttlhene
Oibeniofunn
Dielhylphtulaie
Ruarene
N Ninwodiphenylamine (1)
rVrtachlorophenol
•M .»
rriOMninrcnc
Aratncene
Di-fl-buryl pblluitu
Fatortmheae
Pyictc
Burylbenzyl phihtlue
Bemo(i)BnrMocnB
Cryiene
bn<2-EUiylheiyl)plttbalalc
Di-n ocryl nhihiUm
CRQL
(m/t)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
LlSZOI(a) LltZOI(a)
(V|J» (VU»
50 51
19 28
•
.
7J
130
211
-
•
.
21
51
31
31
27 10
-
•
21 1
SJ
.
51
-
.
•
-
-
.
Sumple
Numbcr/(Vcnl
LI7Z«l(a) LllZ*l(b)
(V17)
.
71
-
.
3J
-
-
-
-
-
24
61
-
-
6J
-
-
-
-
.
•
-
.
-
-
-
12
21
(Vl»|
3(1)1
.
-
.
151
2.600 D
-
-
-
5.600 D
-
•
-
•
84
-
-
-
-
-
-
231
-
-
130
-
Number)
LltZOMa) 1. 20101 102/01 I03ZOI
(V10) (PK20I) (Kield blank) (Field blank)
2*1
31
.
• - -
Ml
470
.
•
.
81
-
.
.
.
.
•
.
71
.
.
51
41
.
.
.
34
.
Total ScralvolallUi
CRQL = Ccobicl-required quuaiUlkn limit
- " Parameter not detected
D = Conceninliou deiennincdlluuugh dilution of
I - Estimated wiluc
275
»S
• 0
1.752
27
• 0«
(a) Detection level cmm^lcnl with (.'QKI.
(b) Detection level 5i gicalei than CQKI.
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLES
INOHI;ANIC ANALYSIS • GAS VKNT i.igiuu
KI I. HOAU I.ANDMI.I.
HUBtt HKIUHTS. OHIO
Sample Numlicr/(V«M
tummtttrt
SdMlt* Mrttb
Anenie
Bmm
Odnmun
Cknunim
Led
Mac try
Sdeaivm
Silver
Olkcr Uor|Mi<
CyMot
SMMium
Aluminum
AMIMMV
BayHtom
Calcium
Cobtll
Coaoa
b»
Muncawn
^j.-j.— .
Nickel
Pouiiium
Sodium
Thallium
Vamfeuni
Zwc
CBDi-'Coana
CtDL
(|i|/L)
10
200
5
10
5
02
5
10
• Gi|1<)
10
-
200
60
5
5.000
50
25
100
500
15
40
5.000
5.000
10
JO
20
icanirad aclccbai bmiL
LOJZM
(V3)
10 SN
|l 42|
-
56
209
-
-
16 N
1.060
501
-
-
209.000
|I6|
29 E
19.500
221.000
559
101
253.000
350.000
-
|62|
67.30)
L*4Z*I
(V4|
551 N
2.010
96
633
914
5.6
18 N
3.820 N
398.000
91 N
20
2.39O.OUO
360
1.040
1.160.000
1.270.000
9330 E
995
64.200
45.600
•
749
261.000
L«SZ«I
(V$)
238 N
I.OfcO
|4I|
279
670
1.5
|54|
17 N
2.110 N
II7.UU
II4N
|28|
1. 5911.000
177
143
921.000
596.000
1.130 E
551
166.0)1)
107.000
254
323.000
L*S4)IO
(VS»
240 N
968
•
263
676
2.6
-
21 N
2.050
IO4.UIO
|54|N
|l.4|
I.54U.ODO
155
295
851.000
570.000
7.770 E
4116
161.01)0
106.000
-
227
394.000
NuaitiiT)
L«7Z*I
(V7>
560 N
3.2(0
86
1.080
1.740
6
89 N
4.570 N
604.IKKI
33
4.820.OOO
697
1.510 1:
2.I60.UIO
I.980.UU
20.800
1.710
904.000
992.UIO
1.440
1.620.000
LltZtl
(VI*)
527 N
2.560
355
37
172 N
5.140 N
2.6HO
|I7|
6.2CU.OOO
67
720.0IW
2.750.000
1 2.800 E
87
|2.84II|
21.000
|2J|
347.000
LlZZtl
(VI2)
3) SN
427
57
56
05
6(10 N
3H.900
|5I|N
395.01)
|32|
86 E
71.200
I80.00O
1.470
119
1)7.00)
ID.UW
90
2.280
1.142*1
(VI4)
|I2|N
412
K4
J-n
07
814 N
4.4)0
542.(ll)
|47|
51 ft
42.(Ol
45b.a)0
669
261
7l6.lk»l
762.IIRI
l-"l
8).60il
1.14*111
(VI4»
U SN
127
l\
341
05
69) N
3.MII
)HI.I««l
54
51
J5/AKI
420.000
494
274
BI2.0III
905.0(11
|IV|
75.0011
b s t-V-^** • »il«t ttOmfXJi a not reported owing K> ttc pretence ul inlctiocnoc
N = bdicaie* spike junple recotuy if Ml wiihin coMoi limu
S »!•<***» vrfK delaniMd by mt*u4 of Mndwd wkkuoa
• > MkMct dupticue uulyiii It MM wiiHa ooaDd liniu.
(| = V»liie icpontd U ku ten C«DL
•> •= Inlicuci (he ccncUion caedidcM lu< nEiluJ ill tunJ^iJ nUium u kit lhaa 0 995.
I ol 2
-------
TABLE S (continued)
Faramtleri
SclMltO McUto Ou/L)
Ancruc
Bmm
Cadmium
Cluwiiiiiin
lot
Me*«y
Scfeorani
Silver
Olbcr laorgMlt* On/L)
Cya*k
Stjurihun
Alumiaum
AMfan»r
BoyUiam
Calciwn
Cobalt
Coppa
km
Magnesium
MMMBBXaB
Nkkd
faunium
Sodium
Thallium
Vaaadiwn
ZUK
CRDL = Coattacl-fcquiicd del
CRDL
10
20)
3
10
5
0.2
5
10
10
200
60
3
3.000
30
25
100
300
IS
40
5.000
3.000
10
30
20
KM burnt
LISZM
(VIS)
41) N
IJftO
»
414
997
1.2
234 N
S.720N
269.IMI1
93 N
II
1. 660. 01 10
277
102
938.0110
779.000
1.830 E
713
387.UMI
362.000
4V8
22.601
LUZtl
I05.0IKI
II9.UHI
U'l
2.350
L2»l»l
mil within coMul bmu
11 = Value lepafled U leu HIM CHOI.
« = liKBcalca Dtc canclniaa caefbcicnl loi nicihul ul kUiidwl •iUii«ia u lu> Ihui 0 WS.
2 ..i 2
-------
TABLE*
SIIHtACt
ANALYSIS
I. ROAD I ANOHI I.
HUtCR HMUIirS, OHIO
Selected Mrtali WD
Amc
Barium
Cadmium
Chnxnucn
leal
MeKury
Sckaiun)
Silver
Olbcr Uoriula (|i|/L)
Cyaiida
Snajriun
Aluminum
Aadmoay
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobalt
Coppa
lrau
Ma|nciium
Maa^aano
Nkfcd
Pouuium
Sodium
Thallium
Vawkura
ZlBC
CIDL
10
200
5
10
J
02
3
10
10
.
200
60
J
s.ooo
M
2J
100
SOO
IS
40
J.OOO
1.000
10
50
20
HtlZII
|9S|
IISI)
.
49
21
.
.
479 N*
739
J4»«
-
MM
76.0UU
SI
IS
2.310
22S.OOU
62 E
321
1. 270,01 Kl
I.2M.OU)
-
l»|
387
VuUIIU OriunUk (M('l-
CMu.uih.ne
Mcihykncchl.tiJc
Huuiac
T.Jucne
ChliM«4x:li/ciic
1 Uiylhenicne
lulil tylcncs
ScmlvuUlllc (lr|anU> i
2 McihylpJitnul
Nj|4li*lcne
4 Chluol iiLlliyl|>l>.iii4
ftitlhyl (Ainal^le
hMJ i:i*ylke»yl)|iliih.»U
CKCJI - CunlKCI icnuire J qi
1 = fc>am>uxj value
CHgi.
)
Hi
J
S
S
S
S
S
IHK'M
III
10
10
10
-. IU
uiiuuuun him
1101/01
1 1
2 1
7
2 1
•>
II
81
2 1
If
21
Jl
88
CKDL = Caana-tafMait dotccnon limit
- B pjnnvKv MM dcitcttu
K - lidicMci • value esamiul a nui icpuncd owing k> ihc pacncc u| inlcriacncc.
N = hdicato ifike unytc recovery u m witki* aMWd bain.
S = Indkatei vdue daamined by mifaud
-------
TABLET
AMIIIKNT AIH TKNAX TIIUK ANALYSIS Ki:slil
POWKI I. H(»AI) I ANDKII I
HUBtt HKIUIirS, OHIO
CcBpouid («|/B3)
Beume
CutandiHilBdc
Carbon Ic Bichloride
Meihylene chloride
TcmchkMocihcne
Toluene
I.I.I Tnchkraltunc
Tricbknjcibcnc
TrichlaruQuafometfunc
Xyleaci
Toul VUC*
Sample I.It.
Approilmilc Oilobtr 2i, 1911 IMulu-r IT. IVNil
DclccIlM U(«l«4 On»Uc lluwnwlml |i|iwlii,l lliullc IlimiiHliul
Ll«ll* A-tS A-«l A-»l A-«3 A *4 A •« A «7 A-M A-IJ A-ll A 10 A-0* A-01
00014 0001 J ...... 0001 J 01X11 1 ouil 1 it mil |
00005 ...... (Mll)l
00004 0.001 0001 ... UIIDI OUll ouil mini
00005 000) 000] OUll 0002 0001 OOO2 OOOI OIKI2 1MNII llmil limn OOIU
OOOOS OUll 1
00001 0.003 0002 000) OOOI OOOI 1 0002 OOOI 0005 UOOJ null OUll mill.'
0.0004 0.00) 0002 OOOI OU>2 OOOI 0(101 OOOI (1 0112 OOO2 O002 ouil ooul
OOOOJ - ..... OUM
00009 0005 0007 000) 0004 0002 0004 0002 OUI) IIUU (Mil/ ooll
00012 0005 0002 0002 OOOI J 0002 . OOOI 0004 OUH (Mill ouo 01x12
0021 0017 0010 0009 0006 0011 0006 OO24 (1015 (1(115 (Hill nii.'i
• OcMcaoa liniu »«ry wilh e»ch lunplc wx
-------
TABLE*
DITMmON SUHMAHt •
ICMMCNT
!«.••<«•«•••• llfMM* •• *VMI
rOWILL BOAD 1 ANDHI 1.
DUMB •tlCUt11.0UH>
ru~ l.rt
1 |l »«•> •wMkK 4.1 nuMn 1.
SOIZOI - • 51 41
soioiaouti ... 64
SOUOI 0*4 >» 17
soizoi 0014 - • • »i
SOJZOKMJPl - 1 • • 10
S04ZOI ... nt ||
soszoi - «» ii
SOSZOI ... H
SOTZOI ... JO
SOUOI ... M
•-.H«lfrlMMll»»MCBOl.«att)l.»H>llll«M 1 Ilill.
L»« <«.>.. i •rt" I'-
ll imcill 6* 7.440
11 IIBUII 1510
J) (I.UU 1) IIHW
11 111 uii 1) lu.UM
II wl.MU 17 l.vtO
li imun 10 ituio
11 '«»«> 14 1)10
10 HIMll 14 I1M
60 IKIUII •) 6.1W
7* DII.UIII 61 1)10
M^.. M^— ^
4»;m m ii
»«.« ,<,,
11 *U 101 II
16 Mil III II
HUH 111 ii
ItUM 411 11
11 «lt 116 II
11 »>l 111 II
41 Ml lot,
fclttil III
-------
TABLE*
DfrecTlltN SUMMARY •
SURFACE WATCH
(CoK>*lratlMM rtputltd In Vf/l
rowtl I HOAU I AMIKII I
S*mpk vllfc SM»|
PrtKlUa Km
wolzoi
WOIOIIXDUF)
WOIZOI
W02ZOI
WOIZOI
WOIZOI
WOIZOKDUP)
WOIZOI
W04ZOI
W04Z01
WMZOI
WMZ01
W06ZOI
W06Z01
woaouXDUP)
WOIZOI
W07Z01
WOIZOI
WOIZOI
•
*!•« MrthytcM
»•» rUmttt Cmnmtom l*mt Mercury Cy»ld« StnwOui
1.5*0
I.)M
1*1 102 - - 4)4
I.)JO
101 10 02 - 4)1
4 .... |.)jp
!.)»
162 >4 162 46)
1.700
III II* l»3 406
46*
441
11)
*2 - 101
»2 - MO
IM
III
11 - 117
1 071 • 1)1
TaraauUri
AlunUum
114
646
11.600
110
11.400
60)
74*
14.600
*96
16.700
31)
).640
3.120
.
121
416
1.6)0
Cilclum
70 min
lo.ioo
J6IOO
1I.1UO
a.)i»
61.2IU
64 KB
)1.0IU
II.6IU
4I.IIH
64. >lll
6).9)»
52IOU
)).nn
5). 000
12.2111
)9.100
M.ino
11.000
ln>.
l.nni
«»6
20100
1.200
11.000
911
954
IrbOO
1.420
22.MN)
2iy
7)1
•41 1)
1490
332
1430
1060
63OU
Ma^Mnlual
35.IINI
14.100
20.900
14.600
I9.2OO
14.100
14.100
20.WO
16.100
19.100
15.100
29.100
11.300
20.400
21.000
11.000
11.700
11.100
11.100
M* •(••*••
2)1
214
202
264
1) I
2U
161
174
164
21
192
FuliMluni Sudlun /!•>
.'•'Ml 111
21
5.5HO «.«l») IM
«
Ilk,
5 HO III
5010 46
Ilk.
5.IKI 21
r<.
5)
II. lull Ib5
21.900 II
12.900 KV 1
I4)IW lli>
I4.IIDI til
11)1111 t2k
22.11X1 Mil
15 IIIO 64)
• Detected tbo»c unna lu
• - NM 4flh» aMcant Sqa
M 1 Siapfc* arteaal Apnl
) M con* tcl f
.
I9U
iaai (CtUH |
-------
TABLE II
DETECTION SUMMARY •
SUHFICUL SOILS
lraOoM nputU4 Is ni^All
HIIAD I ANIlt II I.
IIUBEI HE1UHTS. OHKl
finaiilui
Stmftt «Hlk Aradtr-
Dilialii 4.4--DDT 111*
FOIZOI
FOIOIDflDUP)
FOIZOI
F010IDOMJP)
FOIZOI - 11
FMZOI
FUZOI
F06ZOI
F07ZOI
FOIZOI
FWZOI
FIOZOI
FIIZOI
FIZZOI (() 0044
FUZOI
FUZOI
FUZOI
FI6ZOI
FI7ZOI
FIIZOI
FI9ZOI
Fiyoiixitui*)
F20ZOI
FIIZOI
F22ZOI
F2JZOI
FMZOI
F25ZOI (•)
F16ZOI
F77ZOI
FBZOI
F29ZOI
FIOZOI
FIIZOI
FIIZOI • . .
, Aradw
ItM Antik •triuM
19 106
101
61
74
. - 11
16
'
71
91
71
19 122
12 - »*
O2» • 74
11
99
10*
70
7 106
«2
64
11
• i
71
a
14
UN
121
20 100
Oil • 114
111
41
Cftmtimm Ctttmtum
16
I*
II
12
f 1
14
69
11
II
U
12
U
11
14
19
11
94
10
12
12
76
61
46
12
71
14
11
1 1 24
14 11
10
10
11
61
74
11
11
11
96
IS
IS
27
12
1}
21
1>
24
21
40
17
91
91
II
12
14
41
21
19
61
21
19
14
Mercury Aluiulvum
II 8110
11400
K.7UO
9.1MO
9.CIIO
11.400
H.MO
I2.9UII
10.600
7.160
Oil 6.110
Oil 11/00
III.6OO
I.MU
6.160
6.410
I0.4IKI
1 M««)
c*w"-
116(100
•4.700
lll.OOU
II6.UUO
96.100
41700
16.700
11)1.11111
I01.0UU
117.000
II1.IIUU
61.100
61.100
0.'.4IHI
61.100
IK.IMU
vi.sao
i i».ono
t°""
11
11
n
16
III
16
10
14
14
12
lu
111
14
11
in
11
61
Icui
11.1111
19.900
7.190
I4.4IU
14.61 III
I1.9UI
16.6111
II Illl
V.»IO
1.110
iii.mn
in. mi
>l 'Mil
14.0111
•>. 140
II -Mil
'l.tHO
M^*.
)).4IM
J1.7OO
10.000
ly.imo
IS Klin
19.400
11.7110
44 4IDI
40400
47.100
J>V(«I
1IIIIKI
.'.'M«l
U VI ill
4l.7mi
41 4I»I
49 1IKI
M.H«
144
146
119
HI
111
914
116
.'»i
111
111
HI
IU
IV
116
1<9
11)
106
Deiedal «bo»c coau»a tafuiea ifnaanian *•• (CRQII a uMin.iici|uifcJ tkiuiMi how |tVDL|
- - Hoi dcuari Ao*» CBQL CRDL. a <
"' 2
-------
TABLE
NMd
HMZOI
FOIOIDtDUF)
F02ZOI
FQ20HXDUP)
FOSZOI
FD4ZOI
FOSZOI
HMZOI
F07ZOI
FOWOI
F09Z01
FIOZOI
FIIZOI
FlltOI (>)
FIIZOI
FI4ZOI
FISZOI
FI&ZOI
HTZOI
FIIZOI
FIWOI
FI90IDIIMIP)
F70ZOI
F2IZOI
F22ZOI
FIIZOI
F14ZOI
F25ZOI (•)
1-76201
F77ZOI
F2IZOI
F29ZOI
F1DZOI
FIIZOI
F12ZOI
II
IT
22
11
II
21
*
12
19
II
21
II
12
12
20
16
11
1)
11
12
10
-
14
11
12
14
17
II
II
27
16
11
IS
12
1.100 26
27
2.6/0
16
2.040 - 23
.
21
21
21
26
24
19
17
II
)2
21
17
24
1.7JIO
1.240 I.1JO 1)
1.700 1.170
II
1.440
.
I.S50
2.470
27
1.540 • 19
21
21
12
IS
4*11
Zlu (>) Scouvolnilo mac Hkiml in ttc l-nilo«nii| tutfla (|if
-------
TABLE It
B01ZOI
B03MI
B05ZOI
BOiZOI
•OIZIO
• 10201
•IIZOI
•IIZOI
•I5ZOI
•UZOI
•ISOUXDUT)
•azoi
• TJOIDdMJP)
• 19ZOI
SM|* »fck
""""••
B02/OI
•01ZOI
B05ZOI
BOtZOI
Botzio
•IOZOI
•IIZOI
•IIZOI
• UZOI
• UZOI
BUOIDOUJP)
•azoi
BltOirxDIlP)
B19ZOI
1
.
015
.
.
.
Ctf
56
11
It
J»
11
}}
11
11
10
»4
91
11
Ararit
41
tl
.
54
.
.
11
44
41
IM
11.100
11.500
11.700
11.100
11.500
14.600
10600
9.110
19.600
7.710
7JK>
11.100
9.990
11.600
51
91
143
IM
IM
M
M
.
10
61
55
116
M^Mfc—
51100
15.500
11.000
ll.MO
19.000
11.700
9.4*0
50.700
19. WO
17.000
1 110
2 (.(WO
16.400
15.700
11
MMfMMM
2)4
467
179
5)7
501
1)1
6SI
101
691
131
IM
141
)IO
515
SI
{Ctmttmti
POWI
HUB
16
II
19
11
11
11
10
11
10
51
II
99
19
Mckd
14
II
11
11
M
II
II
11
10
II
9 1
11
11
IBSUU ACE SOU
i»»M»tif«riiMb«M P|I«K rMI»lMi
44
94
11*
1)7
119
1)9
M 064 116
111 Oil |)W I
))
)6
)1
61
)l
17)
• DtkcM* (BOM
dOM dlQU CRU, «
lUM (OUM.)
-------
TABLE 12
UKTEtTlON SIIMM4HV •
VIM • AND AHitMC INUBINJNII WA 1 1 H
r<>Wtl I. MI>AU I J\NII» II I.
HUM* aUVHTS.OHIO
WdbWtth
Vt.fl
1.1-OkklVMkMM
IJ DfckUrmktM MHk|4n> I.I.I TVIcUatu Ttfckk** Aiuok
1A
1A
It
16 4
M
17
1A
7A
IU(7Jup)
II
41
4IR
I1C
I JO
IX)
41
41 (I tOfefriicml
CWhHi
lit
• • Daconl itavc uatumn tu^mta qiilll«lK>« kmi ll'RQI.) 01 CIMUKI l«fiyal dciaiiua Inul |LHIU )
4 • - No) «M«M4 I**N CRQL OUH, •• Mkwo
Sunpte End I anipla uilluled ll/l/IMI
SMi^b Exu 1 • Sunffci callKUJ 4/I/IN9
4 •
-------
TABLE U
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN THE
ELDORADO PLAT AREA GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
HUBER HEIGHTS. OHIO
l.:-Diehlote*UMM
bi« 2-
Tnchloroeilwot*
:/10
1 /6
:/ to
1.7
3
3
3.3 - 3.1
3
41-3.3
3.6
3.1
NO
1.3
Aluminum*
VKBIC
i '.Ucium
Cdbttt
Copcw
Cy
[rot
Merewy
POUMHUB
S«lranim
Sodium
SOMUUffl
Ziac
I 16
5/6
6/6
6/6
5/6
3/6
I /6
5/6
:/6
6/6
5/6
3/6
5/6
1/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
• « Chemical oi pouMMl oo«c«m.
SO « Not 4*ucu4 in iwoew.
,») The oumbw of uopta » «*»«* *•
24
43
:*o
89.000
5.7
6.1
5.6
1.200
14
35.000
64
0.2
3.900
4.2
:&.ooo
1.000
5.6
6.1
: 9.1
'.M-340
71.100- 103.000
3.4-1.1
5.1-7.6
IJ
52 • 3.220
2-17
30.600-39.700
26.6- ia
01
iJOO-3.310
13
7J40-4a350
301 • 1.493
17 -1.3
4.7 - 10.3
:3.7fd)
H.2
.<4(Xd)
97.000
l.l(d)
7.6(d)
6.1
3.220Td)
17(d)
39.000
0.2M)
U
40J5
-------
TABUU
SUMMMT Of CHENICALS OF POTENTIAL CCNCERN FOR THE
OOUCLL DOAO LANDFILL. CHIO
C3RGAMICS)
:HEMICAL
•CENAPNTHENE
•CETONE
ANTHRACENE
AROCLOR 1016
AROCLOR 1254
BENZENE
3ENZ01C ACID
8ENZO(i>ANTNRACME
BENZO(«)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(g.n,i)PERTLENE
BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BUTANONE (2-1
BUTYLSENZYL PHTMALATE
:ARIOM OISULMOE
CHLORO (4-) METNYLPHENOL (3-)
CHLOROtENZENE
CHLOROCTHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHUTSENE
DDT (4.4'-)
OIIENZOFURAN
OIlENZOd.njANTHRACENE
D1CHLCMOIEHZENE (1.2-)
DICMLOROBENZENE (1.4-)
OICHLOROIENZIOINE (3.3'-)
OICMLOROETHANE (1,1-)
OICHLOROETHENE (1,2-)
OICHLOROPROANE (1,2-)
OICNLOROMOPENE (TRAMS -1,3-)
OIETMYL PNTNALATE
DIMCTNYLPNENOL (2.4-)
OINITRO(4,6-)HETHYLPHENOL (2->
OI-N-tUTYL PMTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTNALATE
ETNYLSENZENE
BIS(2-ETNYLNEXYL1PNTNALATE
FLLOUNTNENE
FLUOIENE
HEXANOHE (2-)
INOCMO(1.2.3-C,d)PYREHE
!SO»NO*ONE
NETNYL (4-) PENTANONE (2-)
MEYNYLMAPMTNALEME (2-)
NETHYLPNEMOL (2-)
"ETNYLPHENOL (4-)
NAPHTHALENE
NITROJENZENE
N-NITROSODtPMtMYUWIME
PEHTACNLOROPNtinL
PNEMAMTNRENI
PHINOL
PYREHE
STYHNE
TEYRACNLOtOCTHENC
TOLUENE
TRICNLOROETHAME (1,1.1-)
TRICHLOROCTMENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
MS VENT
,.
x
na
•
x
na
na
na
na
na
11
na
I
ni
-i
<
x
na
na
na
na
na
na
X
X
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
X
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-ANOFILL
.: QUIDS
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
•
•
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
X
•
X
•
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X •
X
X
X
•
X
X
X
SURFACE SUBSURFACE
SOILS SOILS
X
-
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
-
•
X X
•
X
X X
X
X
X X
•
X
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
X
•
•
X X
x x
X
-
X X
-
•
X
•
X
X
•
X
-
X X
•
X X
•
•
•
-
•
•
"
ELDORADO
;.M.R. CM-SITE »LAT
SEDIMENT ^OUNOUATER CaOUNOWATER
.
* X I
X
X
X
0 - -
X
X
x
3
.
X
X
X
X
•
0
.
.
.
.
.
,
X
X X
.
.
.
.
X
.
.
.
XXX
X
.
.
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
X
.
0
.
X
.
X
X
X
X
SEEDMORE
jSOUNOwATER
x
.
.
.
x
.
.
.
.
.
X
.
.
•
•
•
•
.
.
x
-
•
•
•
•
X
X
'
x • S«k*etM is • chamcat of Dot ant til concern.
0 « Not satactad; Hithin bactfroM iavfta.
• • Not dotaetad
na • Not maiyiad for.
C.N.I. > Great «ta»i R
-------
TABLE 15
SUWMT Of CHEMICALS Of »OTENTIAL CONCERN '0*
'OUILL 80*0 UNOmi. CHID
c INORGANICS)
THE
:HEMICAL
ALUMINUM
IkMHOMT
»»SENIC
3ARIUM
3ERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
IALCIUM
:H«OMIUH
:3tALT
:3PMR
:TANIOE
:RON
.EAD
'AGNESIUM
MANGANESE
"ERCURT
MI «IL
'OTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
STtONTtUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
X Selected
.ANOMLI
.10UIOS
X
E
«
E
E
<
E
x
E
E
X
E
c
X
E
X
.
X
E
•S CHaniCal
o Net selected: m«ntn
•JR'ACE
SOILS
0
t
a
a
0
X
E
0
E
I
0
E
0
E
E
0
E
e
E
X
X
0
E
.U8SUIFACE
SOILS
3
a
X
D
X
E
X
E
E
E
X
€
E
0
e
e
E
X
•
0
E
:.M.I.
SEDIMENT
0
0
0
0
e
0
E
E
-
E
0
E
E
E
E
0
0
E
STREAM
SEDIMENT
3
0
X
0
E
0
E
E
E
0
E
E
•
E
X
•
0
E
:.*.«.
SJtUCE
-AIM
0
X
0
X
E
0
E
E
0
E
0
E
E
E
E
E
X
•
0
E
STREAM
SURFACE
WATER :
0
•
X
X
X
E
-
E
E
•
E
X
E
i
X
•
E
•
E
0
•
0
E
3N-SITE
ROUKOUATER
I
0
0
X
E
X
E
E
0
E
X
E
E
0
E
E
E
X
E
0
•
0
E
: '.DORADO
= UT
1B(»
X
3
0
E
0
E
E
0
E
X
E
E
0
E
~
E
0
•
0
E
xEEOMOlE
»at»
i
0
a
D
E
0
c
E
0
e
e
c
E
.
•
s
E
0
-
0
E
of potential concern.
oacxgrovna
levet*.
; Net selected; blank contaminant.
net detected.
E Essential
nutrient used «s basis
far removi
il in accordance «ith
USCM teflon
v specifieat
ions (USC»A
1991e>.
G.M.R. « Great Mieai River
-------
TABLE U
3RAL TOXICITT CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CINCERN
:n«mieii
38AL
Organic cnwiiealt:
teanacntnarw
Acatorw
Antnracene
Btniot a )antnraeana
Banterte
Banze(a)ovrene
Benso(O) fluorentnerie
9«nioig.n,i)perytene
Btnzec k ) f l uorantnana
Sansoie acid
Stoivi neonol
2-Butanone (matnvl ttnyl katona)
3utvio«n»viDntftaiate
Caroon Otiuiftde
. -CM oro-l-matnyionanoi
(<.-CMoro-m-eresoi )
CMoreoeniene
Chloroatnana
Chlorororn
Cnrvsene
DDT
Di-n-eutvlerithalata
Di-n-octyi pntnatata
o i benxo< a , n )antnracene
3ibenxoturan
i , 2 • 0 1 eft l oroeeraene
1 , 4 -0 i eh t oroMniaro
3,3'-OiclUoroBensidine
1,1-0iehloroet«an»
cit-1.2-Diehloroetfiene
trana-1 ,2-Oichloroew»ene
Diehloroorooanea
(1,1-, 1,2-, 1,3-, 2.2-)
1 ,2-DicMoroorooene
1 , 3 -0 i cM orooreoene
:nne-1.3-OicJUoroprooene
Oietnvtontnaiate
2,4-Oioetnylpnenol
Etnvlberuene
bit<2-Ethyihexvl)pnthalate
fl uorantnana
Fluerana
2-Nexenene
lndenoO
4-nettiyiphenoi (p-ereeaiO
N-Nltroaodipflenytaanne
Naofithalene
Nitreeanxana
PCI* (total)
Pentacmeraaianol
Phenantnrene
Phanoi
Slooa
'•etor (SF)
(mg/Kg-dav)-*
...
...
...
••• (a)
2.90E-02
1.1JEHJ1
-•• (a)
...
••• (a)
...
...
...
—
...
...
6.10E-03
•-- (a)
3.401-01
...
...
•-- (a)
...
...
2.40E-02 (f)
4.SOE-01
...
...
...
...
6.80E-02 (f)
1.801-01
...
...
...
...
1.401-02
...
...
...
••-
4. 101-03
• • •
• • •
...
..*
4.901*03
..*
...
7.701*00 (I)
1 .20E-01
...
...
waignf
t'-€vioanea
c;aiaittcatien
3
3
3
B2
A
82
32
3
92
0
...
3
r
D
...
82
82
B2
...
...
82
0
0
c
82
C
0
...
...
82
82
...
0
...
0
82
...
0
...
82
C
• « •
• ••
...
...
82
0
...
82
82
D
0
Slooa
:»ctor
Sourea
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
IRIS
:RIS
...
...
IRIS
...
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
...
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
...
HEAST
HEAST
...
IRIS
...
IRIS
IRIS
...
IRIS
...
IRIS
IRIS
...
...
...
...
IRIS
IRIS
...
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
Tronic «»0
'.it?/ kg -aav)
S.OOE-02
1.00E-01
3. OOE-01
. . .
...
...
•-• d)
-.OOE*00
3. OOE-01
S.OOE-02 (b.e)
2. OOE-01
'.OOE-01 (c)
...
2.00E-02
...
1.00E-02
5.QOE-04 (d)
1.QOE-01
2.00E-02 (a)
•-• (a)
9.00E-02
I.OOE-01
I.OOE-01 (a)
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
...
...
3.00E-04
8. OOE-01
2.00E-02
I.OOE-01
2.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
...
...
2. OOE-01
i.OOC-OZ
••• (O
S.OOE-02
S.OOE-02
4.00C-03 (f)
5.00E-04 (B.e)
1.00E-04 (•>
3.00E-02
••• (a)
6. OOE-01
"irqat
nrjan
l i var
kidney/I iv
none oosar
...
. . .
...
...
...
nataite
foreatomae
:etoto»
( wr/Bratn
'etotox
l war
...
Liver
...
liver tea
mortality
l iver,Kidn
...
...
liver
kidney
kidney
heeatol
liver
...
...
...
kidney
Body vt
neuro/heffie
liver, *ion
liver
kidn/liver
heaetol
...
...
kidney
Uver/kioMy
...
neurotu
neweto*
-------
TABU U I
:RAL TSXICITT CRITERIA *OR CHEMICALS or VOTINTUL CONCERN
SI 00*
factor (Sf) ;
*-€v?atnci
Sloe*
: actor
T'ronic RfO
ar.t
:nmicai (maykg-oav)-' C'.asnf teatten Sourc* i-iq/kg-aav) 3r?*n
'vrtn*
Stvr*n*
'etr*cnioro*tn*n*
tp*rcnioro*tnvi*n*)
'oluen*
1 , 1,1-Trie«loroetn*n*
rrtcnloro*tti*n*
Vinyl CM or i at
ivitnm (total)
—
3.30E-02 (f)
5.10E-02 (9)
...
...
1.10E-02
1.901*00
...
3
32
32
3
0
B2
*
3
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
:RIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
3.QOE-02
i. OOE-01
' .30E-02
3. OOE-01
V. 001-02 (b.O
T.3SE-03
2.001*00
(idnev
SIC/ I ivtr
l w*r
L i v*r , K i an
•. i v*r
( wtr
...
CNS. aortal
5»0
jourc*
:RIS
:RIS
:RIS
:RIS
HA
:RIS
.-ctrtfirv
: jetor
! . 300
',300
\500
',000
-,300
',000
100
Inorganic Chmicus:
Antimony
— ...
... —
c i ) •••
... ...
82
0
... ...
... ...
o
... ...
...
IRIS
...
IRIS
IRIS
...
...
IRIS
...
IRIS
IRIS
...
...
IRIS
• • •
(..OOE-W
l.OOE-03 («)
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
3.00E-0*
•-20E-OJ
1.00E*00
5.00E-03
2.00E-02
...
3.00E-04
3.00E-03
• ••
7.00C-OS (k)
7.001-03 (*)
blooa cnm.
sun
me IP
totiltuiar
ktanev
«ton*v
l ivtr
CNS
nvel in a*g
CNS
»rgyri*
...
S*ruB.lald
livr.kidn*
'EAST
HEAST
IRIS
:RIS
:RIS
' R IS
:BIS
IRIS
:RIS
HEAST
IRIS
...
HEAST
HEAST
',000
I
J
•oo
•o
•o
•,000
300
500
1,000
2
. . .
3,000
100
(«) No ertt toneuy MM «rt ivtiliblt for thMt PAN't. HoM««r, t turro««tt v«lu» (far c»reinoo«n» wuai to thit of
b*nie(«)ovrmt; for nonc«rcirx>»«m MUBI to tnit of n*ontntl»») n«» M«r> iitignM.
(b) l*t«d an rout* to rout* tutripotition.
l*in« r*eomie*r*a Dv or*l RfO wor«trt>uo.
(d) v*tu* i* for »,4'-oOT.
(•) under r*viM bv RfO/RfC workgroup.
(f) ura*r rvvitu ev CRAVI workfrouc.
(9) Quint! tit i v« titiMtn *9T9 net calculated bv CRAVt yorkfrota.
(n> A VJMI risk of 5E-05 (ug/L>-> hat o*«n oropeaad bv th* risk aiamaMnt forvia and thia r*coM*nd*tion naa
oc«n tencouiM for SA» r*vt««. Thia it «quivai«nt to K71 (og/kg-oay)-i iaa«ain« a 70 kg tndivioual
tngvat 2 I of water o»r aav. Thl* i* rovnaM to two aignifieant figura* out to martamtv.
(i) valu* i* o*riv«d fro* current drinking Meter ttanaerd of 1.3 «g/l; drinking water mineam eoncluoeo toxtcitv infonaation
•er* .inadequete for calculation of an RfO for cooper. ThU i* equivalent to 3.71E-02 ag/kg-dav ttiuatng i 70 kg
individual drinka 2 L/dav. Th<* rouma to 4.0E-02 due to uncertainty.
(j) thtr« it inaoaouet* *via*nce for carcinogenicity of thia eaapeu« by th* oral route.
(k) value i* thekliua in soluble aalta.
(I) Saaed on Arecler 1260.
(•> Derived by Cleaent. laaed en A roe I or 1016.
NOTE:
IRIS
NEAST
HA
< Integrated lick Information Sytte* • March 1, 1991.
* Health Effect* Aimaeam Suvary Table* • i°91.
< nealtn Adviaory • Maren 1987.
-------
TABLE 17
INHALATION TOX1CITT CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS IF POTENTIAL CONCERN
un
:ii»ic«i
INHALATION
:rgtnic Chcmieaii:
Aceneontntnt
Acetone
Anthracene
aensene
8tfuo(«)intnr«ctne
9enxo( t )Dyreoe
8tnzo(B)f luorintntno
atnio(9,n.' Jpervitne
3tnto( K ) 1 1 uorentnene
Stntoie ic id
3 era vi »iconol
2-Sutinont tmethvl ttnvt ketone)
Sutvvbenxvionthaiatt
:»roon Oisuitiat
-•CMoro-J-netnvionenoi
rhlorooenzene
Chloroetnane
Chloroform
Chrveene
DOT
Oi-n-oetyl ofcthalite
Oibenzou.njantnracene
Dibenzofuran
1,2-Oiehiorooenzene
,4-Oichlorooanzene
,3' -Oiehloroeenzidine
i.l-Olchloroetnane
cia-l,2-0iehioroetnene
trene-t.2-0ichloroethene
DtcMoroorooerat
(1.1-. ',2-. 1.3-. 2.2-)
1,2-Dichloroorocene
1,3-Oiehiorooroeene
trana-l.J-Oiehlorocrooene
Sietnviontnoiate
2,4-Oimethvtcnenoi
Sthyldenzene
oi j(2"E thYihexvi )pHth4l>t*
f luor«fnn«n«
Fluerorw
2-Htxmorw
lnd*no(1,2.3-e,d)pyrm«
1 soonoron*
<.-n«tliyl,2-p«ntinon« (NIU)
2-N»thyir»ontniitm
2-Mtnvlpnenoi (o-ernel)
4-H«tnvipninai (p-ernai)
Mvtftyl Etnyl K«tom (2-butwm)
H-di tro»odio*ieflyie*irt*
M«BHtnittn«
N i trootratn*
PCS* (total)
Pontaen l o roenane 1
Phonmtnrw
Phenol
Pyrent
Styrtne
TotreeniorMthtne
( percm orottny lent)
Toluene
1 , 1 , 1 -Tr< etiloroetnene
Trteftloroetnene
inyl Chloride
ylene (total)
it Risk (UR) -'
Cu9/*3>-l -l«
...
3.30E 06
1.70E 03
••
•-
••
...
2.30E-05
9. TOE OS
•-
...
3. TOE-OS
...
...
...
...
...
...
• • •
...
...
...
. • •
5.70E-OT (b)
5.20I-OT (e)
I.TOE-Oe (d)
8.40E-05
•*i«nf
•E vi otfiee
sur icatior
0
Q
Q
A
82
82
82
82
g
...
...
0
82
82
82
82
0
0
c
82
C
0
82
82
0
0
82
82
c
. . •
• •*
0
S2
o
• • •
82
0
Q
Q
82
82
0
0
82
A
0
.nit RISK
i Souret
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
MEAST
IRIS
r a | •
I K I *
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
MEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAT
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
:.-.ronte R'C
;no/rJ)
...
...
...
...
...
3.00E-01
'.OOE-02
2. OOE-02
••- (•)
2.00E-01
7.00E-01
5.00E-01
!II
2. OOE-02
1.00E*00
. • •
• . .
. • •
...
8.001-02
...
. ••
2, we -03
...
...
. *.
...
2.00E*00
1.001*00
3. OOE-01
"*r?tt
Crjin
. . .
...
...
...
...
...
...
:NS
'etetoi
tid/livtr
...
body ft
liv/kid
Kidney
...
natal nuco
atvelooBent
...
...
...
...
liv/kid
• • •
...
...
liver/kidn
...
...
...
...
...
CHS, frit
liver
• • •
CIS, reep
9fC
Source
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
...
IRIS
rtEAST
HEAST
IRIS
"EAST
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HIS
...
HEAST
HCAIT
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
..ictrtimn
:actor
•-
-.
* *
••
* .
-.000
'.000
•c.ooo
...
1,000
100
1,000
• . •
...
...
30
300
• •
• "
1.000
...
• ••
• . •>
...
• ••
3,000
...
...
...
...
100
1,000
100
-------
TABLE 17 (CMOSBS*!
:MMAIATION TOXICITT CRITERIA *OR CHEMICALS Of POTENTIAL CCNCIRH
Jtiant-
jnit Risk (UR) -'-evioenct jnit Risk
;,„»,„! Cug/eJ)-l :;assification Source
-organic C.iemieais:
Aiuminun
Ant imonv
Arsenic
Sariun
ServUnJ"
Caomiun
Chromiun 1 1 1 «na Comoomas
Cnroniun vl ana Coneotnos
Cyanio*
.tao
itreurv, !nor9inie
Silvtr
Stronttun
•ha U ion and CORBOVMS
/inaaiun
...
4.30E-03 (e)
2.40E-03
i.SOE-03
1.20E-02
— — - — — — — — — •
A
32
31
A
92
o
...
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
...
IRIS
Tronic RfC
:mq/nS)
5.00E-04
2.00E-06
2.00E-06
—
3.00E-04
...
••- (f)
"irq*t
:rqsn
Cancer
cancer
:etotox
natsi njco
iasa)t nuco
CMS
-iturotoi
...
...
—
...
»'C ..icertaiit
Source : ic tor
•EAST
IRIS
:RIS
HEAST
:RIS
,'RIS
'EAST
•EAST
:RIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
...
HEAST
HEAST
...
: . 300
300
300
—
30
...
...
...
••• • no oat a ivauaoit.
* » ">9/C
;a) lasta on 4,4-DOT.
(D) unowr review Ov CRAVE Wortaroue.
(c) Quajntitttiv* tstimttts Mr* not calculttM ov CRAVE WorkfroiB.
Id) HIM on nttapolizia oos*.
(e) An inorotion factor of 30X If used to eiieutttt tn* unit risk fron tn* stop* fitter.
(f) Used on tmuii* in toiubto ttltt.
•E: IRIS > lnt«*r«tM Risk Information System • "arcfl \. 1991.
HEAST > xccktn Efftets Ass*tsi«nt SunHnr T«Dl»» • 1991.
-------
TABLE IS
::«PABISC»<
CNCSNT«TIC»IS *c» CHEMICALS ;F »oTSMfi»L ::NCERN O
': CE!ERAL "«II»UN CCNTAHINANT .;,£^3
::;ncentra;-srs recortea •• -q/ 1 )
":": *f "-£ =:-£..
:.aoraao P. a:
'anttor-ng wetis
iritnmetic
"ean
•annum
:eteetea
Isncentrat ions
r'tnmetic :«tec:«o
"«an tjncentratio
>3B'ai
ientent '•O
ientoic acia NO
Z-3utinont NO
laroon Oisul»iO« NO
Iiiorooeniene NO
:•;oroetn»nt NO
'.'-Dicniorottnin* • NO
' 2-3icnioroetnen« (totil) 1.7
:• s(2-etMvine«vi lontnmtt 3
'<:-»enioroetn»n» NO
1 ' ' • •'icmoroetnant NO
. '-vi C.iioriae NO
• />en«s cstli) NO
"-•intoroetnent 3
-orginics
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
3.8
S,
NO
NO
HO
SO
2.5
2.
'.5
2.5
2.5
7.3
'2
;
-.2
.3.3
'04
.'.8
3.5
•C.8
NO
'30 tb!
•Z Cb) (cm
- (P,£!
': CS)
•:,:cc :e
NO
(P
iL
iiuminum 24
3«rvi I tun
Chromiuni
teao 2.4
Silver
> xot available.
> Not oetectea in samples.
) Proooieo.
• Action level.
23.7 50
1.8
6.8
2.7 3.5
4.6
2
n
24
4
73
.4
.5
.3
.6
=0 • 200
i
100
50
'5
100
(b.
(p
(b)
(a.
(AL
(b,
9)
C)
e)
. f )
0)
(a) 40 CFR, Part 141-National Primary OfinKinj yattr fttqutattons. 559-561, 620-621.
:B) Envtrormntit Protection Aftncv (EPA). :991. National Pnm*ry Onnitint y»ttr Regulations: Final Suit.
:ea«rai Reguttr. vol. 56. NO. 20. ytdnotoaiv, j*nu«rv 30, 1991. 3526-3597.
:c) Efviromntitai Protection AO««CV <£P») '990. sationai Primary ana Secondary Ormmnq water Regulations;
Svntnetic Organic Chemicati ana Inorganic Chtmicais. Proootta Rule. Feoerti Register, .ai. 53. NO. U3,
•ea. juiv 25. 1990.
:a) Stconoarv MCL.
;«) The MCL tor tead is in eHect until Dee timer 7, 1992 nh«n tne Action Level HiU tat* its olace.
(M Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Drinking water Regulations; Maimui Contaminant level Coals
ana National Primary Ortrattng water Regulations for lead ana Coooer; ftnal Rule, federal Register;
;ol. 56, No. 110, 26460-26564, Friday, June 7. 1991. Stanaaros will go into effect Oeceneor 7, 1992.
-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY Ot rmtHTIAl lltAl.TH RISKS A SSI II IA ll.lt WITH
CURRENT LAND USE CONDITIONS
KtWtl I «<»AO I-ANOFII
Ucukaul hgctto* ol OmiMc Surface Sal
Ml COJIM wi* OWM Surf.™ Sad
(c)
UriiiajJ UftaM o( SOCM A S««
bcifcMa) b«tfliaB al Oral Mum km* ScikmcM
DaMl COMKI «r* SBCMI A Su>l«* WMCI
lK>4uul hcuHM J OR* Mimi Ri«« Suil^c
mi MIMI Rivet Suite* W
Taul bfOMB
t Tfaouifc All Pnkw.i
l Above (c)
ciUo* a( Ooulc Surface Soil
w* Otniic Svfan S«l
«<
)tOI
SE09
3E07
NC
lilua* o
IwMeMil UIUUM ol Sucam A eiaei
Ito4t*ul UICMMM al Gita MIMH RIVCI SC.IHIKM
Dund CIMUCI wtti SBCMI A Surlxc W*ei
Iia4*ual U(c*tk« of Otui Mixni Riva Suforc W«ui
DrtMl CMUCI ««t> UIM MIMM Ri«ei Surface WM (d)
Total Eapnuic Ttuou|> All PMkw*y> Above (c)
ItOt
IE 01
JEOi
"iiToT
o
II «M
It 01
5F. 04
IhOS
3t06
4k 04
It 04
It 01
TlfoT
Da(c I at 2
-------
TABLE
SIIMMAKV UF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASMH Ultll WITH
CURRENT LAND USE CONDITIONS
POWELL HOAl> I JtNIIKII I.
HUBCR HEIGHTS. OHIO
Upp.rl.w4
KltCM UMa«
CMK» HI* (•)
Ntuty RnUnt (EUarafe PUl)
(•) Tkc Vfftl bou«4 i*4ivie dope (KUI lot Ajoclof 1 2dO
lifcjuo* of Grand Wuei horn RuideMul Wells
bfcjtioB of Gnaad W*Jc* Inm MoMoiii| Wella
lakafeuc. of VOCi White Shoratof. Uiia| MoBiiorug Welli
Denial Coetat) »*> Oraud Watt Wkik ShoMruf Uiiag RuidcMul Wcll>
Daavl CcMUd «i* OtoiaW Watt While Skowiug U«i«| MoMoia> Wclb
lafejbo* of Ra% (mm Greet Miacai Riva Btckwaut Aie. (d)
UuhaiOB of U*4Til VOC bmutoe* (c)
Tout CapOHB* Froa* All Rciiilratal Wei Paikway* Above (e)
NC
7EO/
2EO)
NC
2EOI
2E03
IE 06
2EOI
?F ni
AC UJ
<\ 4k 1H
l 6E.OO
l 6K.OO
%l JLLPtiTM
>l OCtUU
b fact, dwrc MC Mimi<«n pooibk corabiBMjoM of pouoiul cipoucc pMkwqr* dM could be cu«>ideied (•»
Ike Me. Howevel. cumukiive riiki •oou pHhw^yi wefe picieMed u Aowm ebuve n *ccuAu«ll>c Ucdi B«el»c Kisk AucumeM (CUrocH I99lb)
NC Not Cilmbud. Chenucali tuuciticd oiih cuUf c«ciiu|caic IN •uac«iiiulcit> wcic IH><
tttta*4 tot cv^ulioa dwou(k dx lifted putiny. « were Ml dcieUceV
Soucce - SCCUOB 6 of die Remedial loveui|aii.ia
P«(c 2 of 1
-------
TABLE 2«
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH KISKS AS.MU MVLII WITH
rUTUKE LAND USB CONDITIONS
POWtl I HIIAIIIJMSDHI I
HU1E* HCIfJHTS. OHIO
Upper >«««n<
Eico* Ufctkw
Ur
i (b)
HypMbHleil 0«rfl* t«MnM
(•extend U|eslk» of OuMc Surface Sal (c)
Demri Caua wrtt Owiw SUrbn Soil
Ittultfios of LuMU VCX: Bniniou (4)
IMOUO* of OuiM Croud WMM
(•IwlMtoB of VOCi While Skowen.i IU.*| (teiue GiauMl W.
•«< ««k Ouiu GroM« W«ef Wkife SbwMriif
4EOI
ZEOS
7EOS
2K07
3E06
ikOj
SEM
4EOI
JE.OO
21:02
51:02
Total boom TWougfc All P«itow««« Above (e)
It (M
>l
JL.dil
(•) The ufpct bouxi iadlVHk>W ciccu lilcumc cmacci tuk itpftxMl (he iddiUoMl fVcbabtlNy ch« u iuluj
m»y 4»»»lon r«»nrt ova • 10 j/tm McliMC •• • tcuik i4 MDOWR co«4iiio«« t- -V'TiH
(b) TW b*ar4 naVl iadicMe* »4etic» or Ml cipawvc lo HvilufU ol •occaiciiufciic ckciniult inay cc\uh ID
•ivai* hcakk cflectt, A ku*4 Miki leu to* out w4icnu rtul kudu* huMi cflecu MC wbUly lo u. 011
(c) Tkt a*0f mk •» aW prioHnly 10 Ofci»o(eBic PAIIt. «kkk •ere coucrvalively cvakiuled •«•§ otly (he ilupc
ttaa (at beuo(*|piirae. ow of Ihe imM puieM PAHs.
(d) TBekfle4rilkuM«|3>ct b(M*4. pmtculitflyduc lalke cuctcrvMivc UuiiUill cnuiKoai nioJcl ui^J, 11 nuy
be tntnttmutt by M nudi M tout <* al nu^inuac
(e) h ubi|My wkktly Aul *«>(k i«*v»*nl >n«U be lunukucouily cipuwJ ihiuu|h ill ul ihctc p«li»>)i
U fad. tern •• mmmauai pauibk amtukMiou of pouttut cipoaute p*)b«tyi *• coj< be cucudeicd !•«
Ike Me. HOWCKI. cuniUlive risks aaou pMhw veie preieMe4 u Aowm ibuve 11 •ca»da»oe wuiti UStPA
Repa* VJOErA(lMI)co«neMi<»lbe U»fl Bueboe H»k AueumeU (a
-------
TABLE 11
SI.MMAHV lit RISK ll\St:i>ri.K\M.|' I I \ I I s
rmvt:i i KOAIH ANIIHI i
IIUBER HU(illTS, OHIO
Remedial Actlc* Objective
Current Land Utc Conditioni
• Neaiby ictidcnu hum inkalaiion of
of land) ill gas emission
• Ncaiby reside nu horn tkinul
contact with Ihe backwateii
of the Great Miami River*
• Ncaiby rcniknu fiom ikinul
contact to Stream A surface waiei *
• Neaiby reiidenU horn wgcslion of
full caught hum Ike backwater area
of the Great Miami River*
•Ncaiby letiiknU hum intulallun uf
volatile! horn gnmad water
Kulurc Land Use Condition*
• Onuic icsidcnti fiom ingeslion of
toil
Reference
Calculation
Table < 'hciut*! of Concent
Utlllbll 1 Vinyl ililunitc
Exhibit 2 Htiylliuni
4.4 our
Aniclor 1016
AIW.I.K 12)4
Ii»hibti2 Iliiylhuiii
44 01)1
An>cliK 1016
Aiutlut 1214
Illhlbll2 lltiylliuni
4.4 DDT
Aniclur 1016
Aiuclni 1234
Inhibit J liKlil»ii«:ihciic
liihibii 4 lk»/ii(<)pyiciic
Rcn)fli»>ianlliene
(luyvcne
l)iben/u(j.h)j»ihiaii-iic
lnJcnoO.2.) ul)pyicne
WaliT (n^'l I SK| In
111=1 l*-«Riik IU4Hisk It 6 Risk
O 1
2
0 106
0 1 04
II 1
2
in 06
0104
0 1
2
II 1 (16
U 1 04
025 2)
005
005
005
005
1105
005
iig/k^) \n i
U-4 RiJt !• 6 Midi
II III 2
III
200
3561
1659
In
20O
35 61
J659
III
200
3561
16 59
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
•Onsilc iciuknu (turn inhalalion uf
landfill |U cmeiionj
1-JihibilS
Bcn^tne
0012
0 U
-------
TABLE II (cuuliimt-d)
MIMMAHYOt- MISK ll.\Si:iM I I.A.M'fl I \l I .
Htmcdul Action Objective
•Onuic icsiUcnls (loin ingcitiun
of (found wato«»
• Unsiic residenu horn dermal
Kcfirencc
('•IrulilMm
Table 4 hi nut al oM'omcrn
llftlilbllb Aiiliiininy
Heni:i '" \n ijij;
Ill-l 11-tHiik III 4 Kith ID 6 Ri»% lt-4 Kitk It-t Hiilt 1
(Mlli
IIKHUKI) (Mlllf
ll(««)7 IIIIII)
UOOOTM (MUM
OimNM II KM
OUMI2 IIIH2
COBUCI wnk poiiad WMCI**
' Soil cleanup leveli ptuvukd due to pouniul luiUcc w»il>
conumiiulloB havin| bcci detected during the HI sampling.
• 'Future land u«e ruki from pound waler bttot on eiputun: to kaihate iiu»liluciib
•••ClcmuplcvcU specific lialhu pathway aic not calculated bccaunc (l)demul op»>uic (ui.loiuc
it am yet available ttomllic US tPA and (2) fiuunJ wjici will be icmediaied laitd on
riikj auociaied with ingciltun ol giuund «aler.
i»> LUIICIII u^c >uiU>.c
2ol
-------
TABLE 22
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OK
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQIIIRKMKN I S
POWELL KOAU LANDFILL
IIUBER HEIGHTS. OHIO
Wtlcr
Oif Mk ChtMkal
Aroclot 1016
Arocloi I2J4
Benzene
BenzoO)anlhr*cenc
Bcnzo(b)fluof>ilhcnc
Baizo(k)nuaiuilhciie
Bcnzo(i)pyTcne
Chryicnc
4.4f DDT
Dibcnin(aji)anllu*ccne
Indent* UJ^xDpytene
Trichlonicihcnc
Vinyl chloride
• —— t- f*±*^lrml
IMN^BMC t.awBKM
Antimony
Ancnic
Beryllium
Mercury
SDWA
MCI.
(«g/L)
00005
00005
0005
00001
00002
00002
00002
001102
NA
0000)
00004
0005
0002
001 A) 005
005
0001
0002
MCLti
(MI/LI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0003(b)
0
0
0
RCRA
MCI.
(mj/U
NA
NA
0005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0005
0002
NA
005
NA
0002
Only nun ttios MCLGs untici the SUWA are potentially ARAK
-------
TABLE 13
STATE OF OHIO: SURFACE WATER STANDARDS
FOR THE POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
HUBER HEIGHTS, OHIO
D««lgnitlom
\aualic lift
Chemical
Organic Chtmiwl
Bemouaaamoe
Beuab)fluonouae
Habitat iWinn Wtttr Hibit«t> fug/Li
Human Iiuidt
M«lng Zone Htalth Mixing
JO-Day 30- Day Zona
Wattr Sunnlv
Maximum Avaraga
NA
NA
1.100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
&
NA
l*»rga»ie Chtmieal
0.001
0.001
560
NA
NA
NA
0.001
NA
"
NA
Public Agricultural
WaUr WaUr
Avcraga Maximum Supply* Supply0
0.00079
0.00079
710
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.00024
0.31
-
5.250
NA
NA
2.100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
5
0.02S
O.OH
0.028
0.00024
0.028
2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Si
NA
NA
-
NA
I."
• Values preaenajd are bnied on human «»eaim 30-day average.
b Values prcaeoBdat bond on 30-day avenge.
c Values can be aaamA baled on wa tantaeas and Tabte* 7-10.7-11. and 7-12 of Water Quality
Standards. Ohio EPA Regulations OAC 3745-1-22.
-------
TABLE 14
STATE OF OHIO
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARi
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
HUM* HDGBTS. OHIO
Mfc* op
Mud Of fftvcl pili.
Optn buf«*| fcofcibiud vilboui
Nc* tolid wule UndfllU at tipuuiao
o( clilliiif to|i4 *«•!• ludlllU
EiplaMoa |U •nailorioi pUii
1941
A. B. C. D
OAC J7452I41I
A. B
OAC 174) JJ 12
B.E
Alcu of icuoiic Miiviiy wd RtiUKltd mm( ol hu*i ouu
TSOf.
Locttion. uliai ol new (found New wclli nuul be loctlcd >nd
•uiMUMd la ptveM
IMC JI41 il-ll
A. B. C
OAC J74)y M
A.B
-------
TABLE IS
AcU*M
STATE OF OHIO
AcnoN-srccmc ABARI
rOWELL ROAD LANDFILL
HUBU U1CBTS. OHIO
AM polluuca uiuMce palubtud
Cao4
Off me anna cnuuaa canual bom
A> md »Ma perm* aniau uilxcni
Detip ml ofcnueo ol ku» JMU
CIIXlOB
OAC1M1 IJ06
UAC JMJ IJ07. A
OACI74) I«OJ. B.C
OAC J74> 21-07. A. B.I
OAO74VJIOJ
UACJ74SMI). A-C<«>
OAC J741 i4 Jl<«>
Cimul ifcyxk «i ijufciy wfeac
OMMI f^ilr • eiol to « IRMCI
*• *tolM in OAC 374 J- I7fll
Vuibk cirauxm ml nuiimu
on puundMc CIHUIUMU
AfrtHoK ur qu^iry «jndirdi In
PMttGHlMttA
AfTt»a< » ifulily lumtvib la MiUui
OAC 174} M )l A. B. C. I)
OAC 1741UII
OAC3745 MM
OAC J745 M )7 A
OAC 174) 54 57, A F
OAC 1741 M5S
OAC 1745 MM. A !<•>
OAC 1745 174)5
OAC J745 I7-U7
OAC 1745 17-10
OAClMi I74IJ
OAt JN5 not
I o(U
-------
TABLE 25k
AclUat
Ait
(Cart)
fcfcdxxb la detamnng unftmitt
•ift rilMrtfc Mite 4»u*
Sulta dwtidc •ii
Sulfui droluk cimuioa bow
pro* BUM.
Opm bununf ajnduifc •> no»-
AntMO* w ifMliry lunlwb «nd
11>M carii*
C«x* dcpwfc MI
-------
TABLE
I *KittC Removal
(CM-4)
AiMnmul permit informiiua «xl
Dui|n ol link ty«Ufm. caafraotnu.
Clow* to*
WtM
Provide* utfwnry to ptoMciu luc
}7M.
Provide* ubafy lo nvutigiu
• • mj •• wkmita
Likn«eai<>jraMlel'
OAC J74J » W. A. •
(IAC U45 i4 H. A.U.I . l>
UAC1M5-M 11
OAC JI41 M-M
OAC J7« M 11. A
OAC 114) )4 U A f
OAC 174 VMM
OACIKVM^M.A !<•>
OAC 1745 H 92. A F
OAC 1141 3J 91. A G.I
OAC 114S 51 94. A. B. C
OAC 3)45 JJ 91 AD
OAC 174) 55 M. A. B. C. U. t.
F
OAC 174) 15 91. A. B<»>
OAC 174) 55 I4<«>
OAC174J17 14
OHC17M 10
Noiiouf imelb •ml obaimcuan/
Elplotivc |u immitof in| plan md
CouktMni tot diq»ul ol
kUMdnw *uw lultd • « O H
Au polluiiua IIUUMIL'C ptulabilcd
Emuion conaab lor fugitive duil.
Allow iMe ncihodi ol >alid wtiu
OHC1767.il
(IKC 17M04I
ItkC i/M I4|(«>
IIAt. )74) 1)07. A
OAC )74) 1701. Al. A2. B. It
(IAC 174) 270). A. B. C
1.1 I)
-------
TABLE IS
AclUlt
Clowe >Mfa W»jie
hPUot (Cirri*)
Tcdmcal rfonnlKXi md ttfouty
Fnl ckMim wd MMvy ImdTil.
Pofl-cloun ctn. UDUry iMxtftU
PcaM intommma mil U h»milmn
mfHltraUm
Pmnil infmiMiun f« ill fr-»—«•-••
EmMiik i^nunuvc fojuacmuu lor
Canal Malyiu ol (uimlnia »«iic
lUnkKta (a tumilmu ouu
TSOI
DUIJB «nd oftnuun ol hinntmi
turn, local *iMtiu>ity
CltalUi
OAC JI41 1706. B. C
OAC JNJXM4. A<«»
OAC JMJ »44. B.CT**'
OAL J/« M I). A»«»
«IAf J74J M-IJ. A «.•<••
OAC U41-S4-I7. A.t<*>
OAC JN) H Jl<»
OAC 374) VI 31. A.B. C. I)
OAC374VJ413
OAC 1741 S4M
OAC ]74> M IS
OAC 174) M )7. A
OAC 1)4) 54 U A I-
OAC 3741 MM. A
OAC 3145 MM
OAC 174) M M. A !<•)
4 of I]
-------
TABLE 25 IroatiaiMd)
Acll*»
»«h Wuu
(ioicnl duim fafaumux tutted
•t*. hunt* — wuu l*akq>.
Contents ol f kmm plan and bauitljui
*ult bulky
DupoulAlecaiuiiiinMiua ol
Subnmiioo o( iwvcy pld loltowin|
Poll clown Hit mil iuc o( puficiiy.
Potf-closuic plan uilomuuao.
Notice la Local Und Authodty
Envmminfiul pafonnMwc tunkKk.
LmdM mfMfcinaiu (u*
UmttU canun
Providej tiitunly la p>iueciat lof
VWMIOBJ «f Mqr MOiMi •! Cluptii
)TM.
Appoval ol pUiu lot ilupoiil of
A>poll,
Emiuian canliob lot fufiuvc dun
Allow tblc mahadi o(
OAC 174S-J5 19. B<*>
IIA( J7I5 5)01. A I)
OAC IMS II 01. A I
OAC 114)174)]. A. B
10. A.B)1'>
OAC 1741 JMJ, A. U*1'
UAC174) 5717. A<«>
OKC 1734 10
UNC6IM41
ORC JIM02
OACI74}-!2-lllt»toufb
OAC1J4J 51-44
OAC 174J 1»
(»AL JM5 I5U/. A
OAC 174J 1701. Al. A2.B I)
OAC1741 J70$. A. B. C
loll)
-------
TABLE It fcoMi«Md)
*(!!•••
ComolidMioa
(Caart)
Svuury UndTil opaniaral
Opauni raputimnu ml Mmuiy
Acu of mutt poUuuon pfolubaul
Cootptimce vMh uimul tf Oucu
Surface wMa «ulyiiuJ ml cdlccaon
Swfue wuai ilitll nftt 'fnt'
Wda ute duifiiMwiu. (iiui Mum
Ot»o NFDES pa nil l
t nil far POTW mil pie-
CamavMcy duuia mlci ml
i. xwat. dc.
WHO Quilny O«ai« fur ifetuiaii by
A* ml »da pan* Lilian uitncm
r1ai1>
Muiinun umtiiiuidg lc»cli IM
Muimum conunmuiil levcU fur
orgMicdKiacab
(h|mic canunwiuu i
11At (Mi 27 06. B.C
OAC 31452)01. C.D II
OAC 3MJ 21 09. C. F. II. 1.1.
N.O
OAC JMJ27 IJ. A B. I) t.
M. N
OAC JM1 JMV.A-L.Ng
OHC6MKM
UKL'6III042
OAOM) I 01
IIAOI4SUI (M
OAC 174S 01 01
IIAf 174)01 21
UAL 374) 01 17
OAC 174) 31
OAC 374] 03 01 lo W
tiki 6101 iy
OAC 374)
(IM IMS 31 O)
OAC J74) II II. A. B
OAC 374} II 12. A C
OAC J/4) II 21. A
OAC: 174) II 24. A ti
tot II
-------
TABLE IS (cMliwMdt
Adi***
D*ca Duduitc ol
Etcaniioo
AaiJyiKil ItOuu^ucj I* MIX*.
Plovutu wtftoiify la poiccuu lot
violMHW d My «eai«i «f Ckipa
)7M.
Au pulhuwm IWUMKC p
EauixMi camob fv AifUivc Am.
S«Mwy Imtfil opttmoiuJ
Pmridci tudwrty to iivcsligiic
Good
OAC J74V17O6. 8.C
OAC 11411)07. A.B. C II
OAC 1)45 17 01. C.D II
OAC 174) U 09. C. F. II 1.1,
N.O
OAC IM5 21 12. A. B. l>. E. II.
1.1. N
OKC
OAC 174) 1)06. Al. AJ
OAC 174) 164)1. B. C
OAC 174)21-07. A. B.I
OAC 1)4) IJ4H
Antecn w ifuliiy HMMtuOi lo lutfw
OAC 174) 1
OAC 1745 17 10
OAC 1/4) 1101
OAC 1M) 1
-------
TABLE 15
AclUa*
(iu Collection tnl
Method! In iki
M* dbMbfc «lfll
Cimol c
yriiit* u OAC IT4S-U-01
ConBol of cmiuioiu of cvbon
toi
Metfndi fot muiucmmu
Carnal drp«k w
CIUMf fMHjf to efMl la If
*• ^tfiUrf h OAC J74 J-2MI
Cli.ll..
OA( IMS II CM
OAL J)4i II 0). A
OAC 1)4} 1106. A-O
OAf J74i IVIM. A l>
OA( )74$2I«J
OAL 1745 JI-01
OAC 374) 2141
OAC 174) 21-01
OACJ74) J)02
UACJ74) 2)04
i dMUMk c million canuvl:
Emiuion conuol piufimi if cnvi 0 2)
IOM ftt 4tf oi nan «4 «r
i fat vkuft M <
Opecamf reqiBKinaiu ••< muuiy
A* ml wiia paim avat* tnittat
UAL 174) 2J4)o
OACJM) 2)0)
OAC 3745 2701. C.I) II
OAC 174) 27 l». A L. N Q
OAC 374) 27 IJ. A. B. I). I. I
I. L. M. N
OAC: 374) 3io)
loll]
-------
TABLE 25 (coMiMicd)
Aciloci
Cu CoUeaioB Kid
EjuUufc wtuUMivi fequBcmtiiU (w
iinumiime pcnudj I|MI •
Gcnait •ntlytu ofluufdaui wuu.
bupeclioa re4|wfcu
T/SObdlibu.
Puifn «nd opcnuoii ol luuHilutu
Eim*|cncy ojupmoK.
local •uboiHy
OAM
Providu m^MMy to pro*ecuu lot
fiotaUBU Waay i«aiM of Oupi
)TM.
Provider tutlwjily la uvejbfatt
caaattoM • «qr IM wlMf* *W
•unnM. Monfc «
UAC1I4J-M-I1. A>(>
OAIJMS S4 II. A d»>
OAC )MJ H 17. A •«•«*»
UAC )74J S4 ](<•>
OAC JMJ J4-12. A. B. f. D<«»
UACl>4$M-li
OAOHf MM
OAC IMS MM
OAC 1M5 M 17. A
OAC IKS J< II. A F
OACJ14SM «. A
OAC IMS MSI
OAC IMS MM. A I
OAC )M1 il M<»>
ONI J)J4 10
ORC JJJ4 W">
OAC J 74 J- J7 0). A. B. C
OAC 1)41 jaw. B. «i<*>
»0«IJ
-------
TABLE 15 (tMtkuicd)
AclUai
CAM (Com d)
Idmtific* muinumiimc ptnods thai •
•pcmoj ol t rionfe bcibly.
ll«iMilr»« wulc Itcibly poiul
Gcnnil Hulyiu ol hM*f*""* wutt.
SecurilY (« humkMu wtuc liLil
bufxdjon mjuseiwdi for ""t^*"1*
t>ui(n ml apaMmi ol buxikui
•MMlxiliUU.
Diipoial/decanunnniiion ol
tfifmmt. fnamiM M4 Mik.
Abmdanncal ol ICM holu oiuy la paiecuc l»
violMiou W wy italw of dupta
J7M.
Provkicj uMlkxny lu invcwguc
MtdMMM <• ••» ••* •*•• *K
to *vMk haftk at ufay. of
Afpiavil ol pl«u (of AifoHt ol
Akpell
Ck|nic man cmiiiicn omuol faoro
ca (kui
< J)4J 51 Vl(*>
Eauiion cantiol faff an il cii» 0 25
OAt
OAL 374} 54 11. A<»>
OAC 1)4554 M. A. B.C<«>
OAC1)5*IS.AU<«>
OAl )/4i 54 )!(<>
OAC J74J 55 I4(«»
OAC II459 10. A C
(iHi: JIM 10
OHC J7J4 W**)
CMC 61 1 1.45
OAC JJ45 IS4JJ. A
OAC 1745 214)7. A. B. I
OAC 374} 25 Ol
Ail did WMO Fan*
OAC 1745 31415
10 of II
-------
AclUM
TieMflEi* (Can )
TABLE IS IcoalWued)
EitiMuh whumiivc lapw
AllilllKlful pOTIMS 11 JiM IIMIJUtl Mkl
IdeMifiu ntumumume pcnodi ihu •
•utt wihau kci>( caaiidaad IB
i of • >tan|c t«cilny.
Gcaatl mJyiu of huMdoui wuie.
ciKy pa nil
»ibiuucinciu la lumilnia
Duifn Hid opcnlui ol hkmikui
Em>|ency ajuipiiKnl.
. in^ir«niM. K^amc u
ipdU a tuiki. clouc iad pan-
KMiH Rumucncnu (»
wicc funl«
1IAC J74S V) i|l*>
OAC 3)45 S4 IJ. A C<*>
OAl JJ4i M Jl<'>
(•AC j)41 S4 >l. A. B. f. I)
OAOM5S4 1)
OACIT4IM M
OACJ745M 11
OAC 1)4) M 17. A
OAC 1141 14 12. A K
OAC 1J41 14 14. A
OAC 1J41 14 11
OAC 1141 14 54. A !<••
<>M 174) it !4<>t
()A( 3745 11 »J. A. B
OAC1741 1191. A B. I
OAC 1I4H1 94. A. B. (
OAC 1)41 11 91. A I)
OAC 1)41 11 M.A. B. T. I:
OAt:i)41119).A.B'«>
(IAC J741 57 IJ A.U'*1
IIA( J745 )7 VI. A. B. C
II o<
-------
TABU; is
AclUci
Piovtdu uJhutify lo uivuli|*ie
mnrt«K»ii • my iiu what to
mam. H>**|e or dupaul al
huwtoii* VMM n«y f»MMi«uic • Uiiui
lefMHK lakli ai ufeqr.« d>aiea
Gnml WMO aununnf ml fc«»-..i~»
•rutt haliqr.
Pou-dotuc tme tat utt
Connnnticti iluign surtup «id
Cllilla*
OMC J/M 2M**>
UAC J 74 i S4 SO Uiuufli 96
OAC 114) M 91. A II
OAC J74J M 91. A I
OAC 1J4J M 99. A I
OAC IMS)) 11. Alt*)
OACJ74VSJ I7.B<»>
OAC JM3905. AI.I1 K. II
MAC 114) 9 06. A. B. U. E
OAC 114) 947. A F
OAC 114) 9 01. AC
OAC 174) 9 09. A - C. t <•
Abwdaaniail al ICM bakJ nd (nxnl
OAC 574) 9 10. A C
-------
rod iiu OnOf4.ii HO
>We4t* brand flu trarwrwui
S*u 4 Otito BcTiiMMMl rmoctio* Agnqr
K.O. Vtt 10«J.
B5T
El*!
[K5T
HE
iV.
30, 199J
POWTIX ROAD LANOFIIX
MONTGOMERY COUMTY, OHIO
RECORD OP
RBJ
Mr. Valduv v.
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region v
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois oubU4
o««r Mr. Adamkus:
The Ohio EPA has received and reviewed the Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Powell Road Landfill (PRL) Superfund Site in Montgomery
county, Ohio. Ohio U'A concurs with the selection of Alternative
4 for remedial action at this site. The selected remedial action
presented in the ROD differs from the preferred remedial
alternative outlined in the proposed plan. The sslected remedial
action, Alternative 4, includes tha following components:
- institutional controls;
- improved landfill cap with liner;
- excavation of contaminated soils;
• consolidation of excavated soils under landfill cap;
• ground water monitoring;
- flood protection;
• storm water controls;
- active landfill gas collection with flare;
• leachate extraction;
• on-site leachate treatment;
- extraction of ground water from the shallow aquifer
adjacent to the landfill;
- on-site ground water treatment;
• discharge of treated ground water and i«*rhat» to the
river.
Estimated present worth cost of this remedial action is $20.51
million. Estimated eoet of operation And maintenance for this
remedial action is $44,000 per year.
Specifics of the remedial action such as the exact number and
location of ground water extraction and monitoring wells, leaohate-
extraction wells, and gas extraction wells, as well as the amounts
of media to be extracted and treated will be determined in the
reaedial design. The leachate extraction system will be designed
to create a alight influx of ground water into the landfill.
-------
SEP-30-93 THii
UtTH/VUK
(1U
Mr. Valdus V. Adaakus
Pag* 2
Language in the ROD also indicates that, should a connection ever
be found between PRL and the area of contamination irnnwn as the
Heedaore Road pluae, either a ROD amendment' or an Explanation of
Significant Differences will be prepared a« appropriate.
Ohio EPA believes that the •alactwd ramedtal act-.lrm for Pnw*T I Road
Landfill provides the best balance among the alternatives when
evaluated against the nine criteria set forth in the National
Contingency Plan, 40 Cft, Part 300.430.
Sine
4>wd?
dus// ^ ~-^
Distributioni
Jan Carlson, Acting Chi«t, OBRR
Jenifer Kwasniewski, Section Manger, TKP88, OBRR
Catherine ttroup, L«gal, Ohio IPA
lay Gibbons, SWDO, DBRR
Jeff Kines, SWDO, DIM
Jan Bartlett, KPK, U.S. BPA
Joe Dufficy, OK/XK Branch, U.S. BPA
------- |