Uniwd StatM
Environmental Prowction
Agency
Office <*
Emergency and
3«pt«mbar 198B
Superfund
Record of Decision
Blosenski Landfill, PA
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
/Pttaurtad Instnetiom ait the revtnt txfort computing]
\. RSFOFiT NO.
EPA/ROD/R03-86/029
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
SQPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Blosenski Landfill, PA
s REPORT DATE
September 29, 1986
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOS
7. AUTHORIS)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NC
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORISS
10. PROGRAM EuEMENf NO
1 I CONTW ACTtfjm AN r
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO AQORESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M street, S.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COv£ae;
Final ROD Report:
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
18. SUPPXEMiNTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
The Blosenski Landfill site is located on 13.6 acres in West Cain Township, Chester
County, PA. The site is bordered by heavily wooded and agricultural areas.
Approximately 467 residents live within one mile of the site. Beginning in the 1950s
the site operated as a landfill accepting municipal and industrial wastes. In 1971 the
site was purchased by Mr. Joseph Blosenski, who operated the landfill until the early
1980s. Wastes were randomly dumped on the surface during the operating period, and
included solvents, waste water treatment sludges, demolition and construction wastes,
undercoating materials and open and leaking drums. Numerous citizen complaints of
odors, smoke and airborne debris led to petition and regulatory actions against Mr.
Blosenski. In 1982, EPA conducted a Site Inspection and found serious ground water
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern are VOCs including benzene, toluene
and TCE, and inorganics including lead, cadmium, chromium and mercury.
The selected remedial action for the site will be conducted in four phases. Phase :
- installation of a public water supply to 12 residences; Phase 2 - excavation and
removal of buried drums and other material with offsite disposal in a RCRA landfill;
Phase 3 - perform a pre-design study to further sample ground and surface waters to
delineate extent and magnitude of contamination. Based on the results of the study,
(See Attached Sheet)
KEY WOAOS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
Record af Deaiaion
Blosenski Landfill, PA
Contaminated Media: gw, soil
Key contaminants: VOCs, heavy metals, TCE,
benzene, toluene
b.iOENTlBiERS-OPEN 6NOEO TERMS
c. COSATi Field.Croup
it. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY
i Tint Rtponi
31. NO. OF
JO. SECURITY
iTttitpatti
22.
(••nn 2230.1 (••». 4-77) VRCviOu* COITION i* OSSOI.ITK
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-86/029
Blosenski Landfill, PA
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
ground water will be pumped and treated for a maximum of two years to ACLs
established by EPA; Phase 4 - install a low permeability RCRA cover on the
landfill, divert surface water and construct a gas venting system. Phases
1-3 will be implemented concurrently. Estimated capital cost of the remedy
ranges between $11,000,000 and $15,000,000, with a baseline cost of
$13,000,000. O&M costs are estimated to be $534,300 for the first two years.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE DECISION
Site: Blosenski Landfill/ West Cain Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania
Documents Reviewed;
I am basing my decision principally on the following documents
'describing the analysis of cost effectiveness and feasibility of
remedial alternatives for the Blosenski Landfill Site:
- "Remedial Investigation Report and Feasibility Study" Blosenski
Landfill Site, Chester County, Pennsylvania (NUS Corporation,
February, 1986 )%
- "Focused Feasibility Study" Blosenski Site (PRC Engineering,
February 27, 1986)
- Staff summaries and
- Recomiendation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.
Description of Selected Remedy;
The Selected Remedy will be performed in a phased approach, with the
first three of the four phases being performed concurrently.
Phase 1
.Install a public water supply line to ao-estimated twelve (12)
residences. The water will be provided by the Coatesville Water
Authority. EPA will pay for the initial connections to these residences.
Phase 2
Excavate and remove buried drums in areas identified during
EPA's Remedial Investigation and any material in intimate contact
with the drums'and free standing liquid, and dispose of these materials
at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility. In
addition, EPA will perform trenching operations throughout other
areas of the Site in order to identify, excavate and dispose of other
buried drune.
Phase 3
Perform a pre design study which shall include further sampling of
residential wells, surface waters, and the installation of additional
monitoring wells and conducting pump testing to more fully delineate
the extent and magnitude of the ground water contamination. This
study will also be used to collect data for the design of an effective
ground water pumping and treatment system.
-------
-2-
Based on the findings of the pre-design study, ijnplement a. source
reduction program involving pumping and treating of contaminated ground
water for some period of time determined during design not to initially
exceed two years to Alternate Concentration Levels developed by EPA.
This will include the construction of an on-site treatment facility to
treat the ground water. After this specified period, an evaluation will
be made by EPA as to the effectiveness of the pumping and treatment for
reducing the groundwater contamination to EPA approved concentration
levels and for the need, extent and duration of future groundwater remedi-
ation.
Phase 4
Install a low permeability cover on the landfill in accordance with
the requirements of RCRA. Construct appropriate surface water diversion
system(s).
If needed, construct a gas venting system to protect the cover. An
air monitoring program will be conducted at these gas vents and treatment
of the off gases will be provided, if needed.
Institute periodic monitoring for ground water and surface water
contamination in the landfill area in compliance with RCRA closure
regulations. This will include sampling of selected residential and/or
monitoring wells in addition to surface water sampling.
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan (40
C.F.R. Part 300), I have determined that the-remedial actions described
above, together with proper operation and maintenance, is a cost effective
remedy and provides adequate protection to public health, welfare and the
environment. The remedial action provides for an alternate water supply
to affected and potentially affected residences and minimizes the threat
of further contamination of the environment. Ray elements of the remedial
action include a pre-design study which will assist in designing the
source reduction program. After the source reduction program is implemented,
the Regional Administrator will make a decision within two years of the
oaranenceraent o'f remedial action, to determine if further remedial action
is needed or if a cloeeout sequence on the pumping and treating should
begin. The State of Pennsylvania has been consulted and agrees with the
approved
I have determined that the action being taken is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other
sites. In addition, the selected alternative is the most cost effective
remedy that meets all relevant and applicable environmental standards,
and is necessary to protect public fflalth and the environment.
Date / / f James H. SeTi
{ ''-lional Adminis£rXtor
-------
Site Description and
Sunmary of Remedial Alternative Selection
For The Blosenski Landfill Site
Site Location and Description
The Blosenski Landfill Site is located on 13.6.acres in West Cain
Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. It is surrounded by heavily
VNiooded areas to the north and west, and by agricultural areas to the east
and northwest. Approximately 30 residents live within a quarter-mile
radius of the site. According to a dwelling count performed on the
Honeybrook 7.5-minute series topographic map, approximately 467 residents
live within 1 mile of the site. The Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources (PADER) estimates indicate that 600 residents live
within 3 miles of the site. The closest dwelling to the site is the house
trailer located adjacent to the site on the southern perimeter.
The land surrounding the Blosenski Landfill Site is primarily deciduous
forest and cropland. The land is used for agricultural, residential,
and commercial purposes. A service station is located south of the
site, across Kings Highway. Numerous private homes are located along
Kings Highway, to the south, and along Cambridge Road, which lies
northeast of the site. There are also residences north of the site on
Coffroath Road which extends east from Kings Highway and intersects
Cambridge Road northeast of the site (see Figure 1). Wooded areas are
located between Coffroath Road and the northern border of the site, and
also to the west of the site. Agricultural areas lie within one-quarter
mile of the site, both to the northwest and to the east. A trailer park
is located three-quarters of a mile to the north, and the Sandy Hill
Church and School and-, the Kings Highway Elementary School are located
within 2 miles of the site, to the southeast and east, respectively.
An intermittent, unnamed tributary of Indian Spring Run is approximately
500 feet north of the site. This tributary runs about 2 miles to the
west before joining Indian Spring Run. Indian Spring Run joins Pequea
Creek about 3.5 miles west of the site. Pequea Creek eventually flows
into the Susquehanna River, approximately 30 miles southwest of the site.
Site History *
».
Beginning in the 1950's, the landfill was reportedly operated for
the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. Aerial photography for
that period, however, indicates that visible landfill activity began
between 1951 «nd 1957. No specific information is available about site
operation* fton that period until the landfill was purchased in 1971 by
Mr. Joseph M. Blosenski, Jr.. Prom that tine, until operations ceased
in the late 1970s to early 1980s, wastes accepted at the site were apparently
dumped on the surface, as evidenced by mounding of the landfill surface.
Wastes, which reportedly included drunned industrial wastes, truckloads
of sludges, and municipal and camercial refuse, were dumped randomly at
the site. The various fllspnsiirt wastes were not segregated, and the area
was not lined. Materials reported to have been disposed on site include
solvents, paints, undercoating materials, wastewater treatment sludges,
cans of joint cement/sealer, demolition and construction waste, wallboard
and plaster, concrete block, waste from land clearing, paper, wooden
pallets, cans, open and leaking drums (near the southeast corner of the
landfill), old vehicles, and leaking tankers (at the western portion of
the landfill).
-------
*/
BASE -AP«
v y~ /•'>'./& .'*
V-- ,/^ / "- /V /\ \.
Vil «.
'? ' •*
HONEY BROOK. M QUADRANGLE (75 MINUTE SERIES. 1955. PHOTOR£VIS£O 1969 AND 1974) CONTOUR INTERVAL 2O*
FIGURE »
LOCATION MAP
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL SITE. WEST CALN TWR. PA
SCALE :f=2000'
•n!
-------
-2-
Aerial photography of the site frcm 1957 to L983 showed various
operating and junked vehicles on site, including cars, bulldozers, tank
trucks, and open-bed garbage trucks. Ground stains and dark-toned standing
liquid were evident throughout the site area. A berm running along the
northern perimeter of the site was visible in earlier photos, with standing
liquid at its base. In a 1969 aerial photo, a trench, possibly excavated
to prevent leachate and runoff frcm leaving the site, was visible extending
from the northeastern corner of the fill area to the northeastern corner
of the site. A trench north of the fill area on the western portion of
the site was also evident in a 1971 photo. In the 1969 photo, possible
leachate stains lead down the eastern slope of the fill area to a pit at
its base, and several other pits were visible over the site. A tank
truck apparently discharging a dark liquid could also be seen in this photo.
In the 1975 photo, the fill area appeared to be covered with earthen
material, except in the northwestern and southeastern sections. A ditch,
which apparently carried runoff to the southwestern corner of the site,
bordered the fill area on the south. Refuse was visible on the east face
of the fill area as well as southeast of this area. Throughout the years,
the landfill area expanded to the west, east and southeast. Much of it
was revegetated, and the trenches and ditches evident in earlier photos
became less distinct. By 1983, after the site ceased operations, ground
stains were visible only intermittently across the site, mounded material
was apparent along the center, and sane grading of the soil was evident
to the east.
Over the years of operation, nearby residents registered numerous
complaints of odors, smoke, and airborne debris arising from open burning
of trash at the site. There is a lengthy list of regulatory actions
against the owner, including site inspections, consent decree negotiations
and violations, sutmary hearings, contempt petitions, and closure orders
by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER).
Numerous permit applications for operation of the landfill were filed by
Mr. Bloeenski, but a permit was never granted.
Four monitoring" wells were installed along the northern property line
in the sunnier of 1982 by PADER'a consultant, Robert H. McKinney, Jr.,
Associates, Inc. However, three of these wells were apparently destroyed
in the spring of 1983 and cannot be used. During the winter of 1982, 50
to 60 drums and!' a leaking tank truck were removed from the site. Currently
the property is not fenced.
As part of the initial screening of potential sites under Super fund,
a Site Inspect inn was conducted by EPA at the landfill on April 20, 1982.
The results of the inspection revealed serious ground water contamination
at the site. As a result of this Site Inspection, a Hazard Ranking
-------
-3-
System score of 30.57 was generated by EPA, resulting in the placement of
the Blosenski Landfill Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
December, 1982.
Current Site Status
A remedial investigation (RI) was performed at the Blosenski Landfill
site from the Fall of 1984 through the Spring of 1985.
The RI consisted of several activities: geological characterization,
hydrogeologic study, surface investigation, and subsurface excavation.
Data from these activities were used as the basis for assessing the nature
and extent of site-related contamination and the associated risks to the
public health and the environment.
The geological characterization involved literature research, as
well as field'studies. The literature search consisted of reviewing
references and available maps. The field studies included the construction
of monitoring wells, excavation of test pits, geological examination of
outcrops, and study of air photos. The geologic investigation was
performed to gain understanding of subsurface conditions as they may
influence contaminant migration. This was achieved by drilling 15 test
borings at 11 locations around the site. Representative samples from
the borings were analyzed for EPA Hazardous Substances List (HSL)
compounds. The HSL represents a number of organic and inorganic (approxi-
mately 154 compounds) targeted by EPA as being toxic pollutants. In
addition to these physical and chemical observations, procedures such as
fracture trace analysis were used to characterize on site subsurface
conditions.
The results of the geologic study indicate that the Blosenski Landfill
site is situated in the Piedmont physiographic province. The characteristic
topography of this part of the Piedmont includes upland areas separated
by broad intervening valleys. Rocks underlying the site and nearby areas
include the dickies •Quartzite and Harpers Phyllite.
A fracture trace analysis of the site and the surrounding area showed
that the site is located between two faults that strike approximately
east/west, with--a linear feature suggesting a possible fault near the
southern boundary of the site. A total of 62 fracture traces were
identified in the analysis with the findings suggesting that two fracture
systems exist in the landfill area.
The data generated by the geologic investigation revealed that the
most important aspect of the geology at the Blosenaki Landfill site is
the presence of fracturee and schistoeity with preferred orientations.
The resultant impact on ground water movement in this type of geology is
some degree of unpredictability of ground water flow patterns.
-------
-4-
The hydrogeological study performed during the RI was supplemented
by the geologic investigation and also involved the installation and
sampling of monitoring wells. These wells were placed on the perimeter
of the landfill and at upgradient and downgradient locations. Figure 2
shows the location of the monitoring and residential wells and includes
the results of analyses of ground water samples for HSL compunds. These
wells were then used to observe ground water gradients and fluctuations
in water levels over the course of the study. The wells also served as
a means to perform hydraulic conductivity testing of the aquifer in
localized areas.
Samples of the ground water were obtained from these wells on several
occasions throughout the RI, as well as from residential wells in the
area, for analysis of Hazardous Substance List (HSL) compounds and other
water quality indicators.
Numerous HSL volatile organics were detected in ground water collected
from both monitoring and residential wells in and around the Blosenski
Landfill site. Volatile contaminants detected in ground water samples
include some contaminants identified in surface and subsurface samples and
some not detected in other environmental media at this site. Contaminants
identified in the ground water and their maximum concentrations encountered
in monitoring wells are listed in Table 1. Contaminants identified in
residential wells are listed in Table 2.
Table 1.0
Monitoring Wells Samples
Chemical ''" Maximum Concentration (ppb)*
benzene • 11,000
toluene 600
ethylbenzene 54
total xylenes . 78
chlorobenzene * 34
1,1,1-trichloroethane 430
1,2-dichloroetlpne . 74
1,1-dichloroet^ane 270
chloroethane ' - 93
tetrachloroethene 5
trichloroetbane 260
1,2-dichloroethene 890
1,1-dichloroethene 21
vinyl chloride 450
chloroform 270
methylene chloride 2,000
acetone 43,000
2-butanone 350
2-hexanone 21
4-fnethyl-2-pentanone 7
*parts per billion
-------
VOLATILES PfTECTED IN
SAMPLES(MONTD«IN^&MSlQEMTiAk V!>EkkS)
zoo
MUSHEMEDIAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS. 1964 685
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL SITE. WEST CALN TWP.Rft
Figure
6 25
-------
-5-
Table 2.0
(3) Residential Well Samples
Chemical Maximum Concentration (ppb)
1,2-dichloroethene 18
trichloroethene 260
1,1,1-trichloroethane 26
Benzene 14
A total of 29 residences in the vicinity of the site were sampled
during the RI. Of those sampled, 3 residences that are situated adjacent
to the site (to the south) showed some type of significant volatile organic
contamination in their wells. Five other residential wells in the general
vicinity of the site showed some type of low level contamination with either
volatile organic or inorganic compounds.
Figure 2 presents the results of various organic compounds analyses
for the sampling rounds conducted in late 1984 and early 1935. The
figure reveals that high levels of contamination are evident at several
well locations.
HSL compounds were detected in a number of surficial soil samples
collected on and in the inroad iate vicinity of the Blosenski Landfill
Site. Surface soil samples were taken from the top six inches of soil
at 22 locations. Nine of the soil samples were taken from the embankment
on the north side of the landfill area, where surface leachate had been
detected. Chemicals detected and maximum concentrations encountered are
presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3
HSL Compounds in Surficial Soil Samples
Volatile Organics
Chemical Maximum Concentration (ppb)*
benzene 12
toluene 4,000
total xyltDM 1,100
ethylbenam 500
1,1,1-trichioroathane 390
l,l-dichlorc«thane 20
tetrachlorocthoM 110
trichloroethena 8
1,2-dUchloroethtnB 29
methylene chloride 1,300
acetone 850
2-butanone 1,000
4-methyl-2-pentanone 110
*ppb a parts per billion
-------
-6-
Table 3 (continued)
Senvi-Volatile Organics
Chemical Maximum Concentration (ppb)
phthalate esters 180,000
phenols 20,000
naphthalene 5 , 000
polynuclear arcmatics 17,500
isophorone 660
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene 330
diethlyphthalate 34
dlbenzofuran 660
PCS 1260 53,000
PCS 1242 10,000
3 , 3-dichloroberizidine 700
n-nitrosodimethylamine 66
benzole acid 8,000
VTIC 5,038
(Volatile Fraction-Tentatively Identified Compounds)
SVTIC 190,000
(Semi-Volatile Fraction-Tentatively Identified Compounds)
Literature
Chemical Maximum Concentratiqn (ppb) Background Level (ppb)
CSource)
As (Arsenic) 23,000 7,400 Shacklette
Cd (Cadmium) 280,000 60 Bowen
Hg (Mercury) 640 120 Shacklette
Pb (Lead) - 1,720,000 17,000 Shacklette
Cr (Chromium) 71,000 52,000 Shacklette
The findings of the surface investigation indicate that the residual
soil, which mantles the onsite bedrock, is variable in thickness. At the
landfill hillcrest, it is about 6 feet thick. At the base of the hill
below the landfill, material designated as soil is commonly 20 feet or
more in thictaess. these thicker intervals include colluvium derived
from mass IICTMIMIIL of soils and rock from the hillside above.
Given the nature of landfilling activities on site, it is difficult
to accurately define the natural soil horizon. In some areas of the
site, particularly in the western area, extensive grading and excavation
had ouuuiied, apparently to provide borrow material for Vanrlfm cover.
Therefore, variance in soil cover can be expected across the site.
-------
-7-
The subsurface investigation performed during the RI was intended to
specify the areas in which drum burial had taken place. A total of 22
test pits were excavated throughout the landfill area (Figure 3). Of
these, buried drums were found in test pits TP-5, TP-6, TP-11, TP-17, and
TP-18. These pits were located on the southern, western, and eastern portions
of the landfill.
Subsurface soil samples were obtained from both well borings and
test pits. During excavation, buried drums were found in test pits TP-5,
TP-6, TP-11, TP-17, and TP-18. These drums were all either crushed or
broken open. Black perched water was found during excavation of test
pits TP-11, TP.-12, and TP-13. Test pit samples included solid and liquid
drum contents, subsurface soil, and perched water. Typical HSL compounds
detected in well borings and test pits samples (which included drum
wastes and leachate) are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Subsurface Media Contamination (Volatile Organics)
Chemical Maximum Concentration (ppb)*
benzene 2,000
toluene 5,900,000**
ethylbenzene 15,400,000**
total xylenes 61,000,000**
1,1-dichloroethane 120
chloroethane ' 2,030
trichloroethene — 860
methylene chloride 4,900
2-hexanone 100
* ppb - ug/kg for solid sanples; ug/1 for liquid ssqples
**maxinun concentration present in waste samples from buried drums
-------
«• WStMC
Ct C«OMIUU
KftSHfl c. c»«o««.
'
II USI fll
MOWIUHINfi »MI
VIII TOIAL IINMIIVfll KXMliriCOCOMPOONUli
IVOtMUC FMACriOMI
SvllL TO1M. ItMIkTIViLt IDtHIIf tCO COMfUuhUS
ISCM VOIATHC ffUCTIONI
/ j I 1 1JYS1
I '• JwiH
ill ' JM« uii
1 INIUU
WHUtS HI HUH HO IN /ug/
MOMMNC1
ACIQ AND BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES.PESTIODES^CBt. INORGANICS. AND TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
OEIKTfD IN SuBSuPfACE SOIL SAMPLES-NUS REMEDIAL INVESTIGAT>ON RESULTS. i9§4
BkQSENSKI LAMDnLL_SJI£t V»£SJ CALJi JWP^ PA
200
aoo Figure 3
SCMC IMFCEI
6 34
-------
-8-
Table 4 (continued)
Semi-Volatiles
Chemical Maximum Concentration (ppb)
phthalate esters (drum solid) 5,260,000
naphthalene (drun liquid) 200,000
polynuclear aronatics (well borings) 79,200
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (drun liquid) 196,000
PCB 1254 (drun liquid) 2,900
PCS 1221 (drun. liquid) 1,900
PCB 1232 (drun liquid) 2,000
toxaphene (drun liquid) 13,000
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (well borings) 39,600
1,3-dichlorobenzene (well borings) 39,600
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether (well borings) 5,500
2,4-dinitrotoluene (well borings) 39,000
VTIC (soil)* 14,000,000
SVTIC (soil)** 3,500,000
"Volatile Fraction-Tentatively Identified Confounds
**Saru>Volatile Fraction-Tentatively Identified Compounds
(Inorganics)
Chemical Maxiimn Concentration (ppb)
Pb (lead) (drum solid)" 633,000
Cd (Cadmium) (drun solid) - 54,000
Cr (Chronium) (drun solid) 172,000
Hg (Mercury) (well borings) 2,000
Chemical analytical results indicate contamination in the following areas:
* Subsurface media in the vicinity of test pits TP-11, TP-12,
and TP-J.3, located in the eastern portion of the site.
* Subsurface soil in the vicinity of m 2-1.
* Subsurface soil in the vicinity of W 3-1.
Remaining subsurface samples were contaminated with only low levels
of toluene and/or methylens chloride and do not indicate that these
sampling locations are in the immediate proximity of major sources.
-------
-9-
Surface water samples were taken frcm the intermittent .tributary of
Indian Spring Run, north of the site, and just upstream of the Ooffroath
Road crossing of the same stream. Because of the intermittent nature of
flow in this stream, and dry weather during the RI, surface water was not
present in many locations during the sampling periods. Where surface
water samples were collected, sediment samples were taken at the same
locations.
Volatiles in surface water and sediment samples reveal evidence of
site related impact upon the stream north of the site. Volatile HSL
organics detected in the available surface water samples and sediment
samples included the following:
Surface Water
Volatile OrganiC8 Concentration,ppb *
2-butanone 27
1,1- dichloroethane 9
chloroform . 4
1,2-dichloroethene 3
Sediment
raethylene chloride 1,400 ug/kg **
trichloroethene 5 ug/kg
*ppb = parts per billion
**ug/kg » microgram per kilogram
In May 1986 EPA Field Investigation Team (FIT) performed additional
sampling of the surface water spring and the intermittent stream down-
gradient and west of the site. Analyses of the surface water spring
found the following volatile organics:
Vinyl Chloride 13
1,1-Dic^vloroethane 35
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethane 26
Chloroform 13
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 29
Trichloroethene ll
The preasnce of volatile organics in both sediment and surface water
samples indicate that discharge of contaminated ground water is occurring.
PCBs were detected in two surface soil samples: PCS 1260 (53,000 ppb)
and PCS 1242 (10,000 ppb). The occurrence of these oily substances and
the presence of base/neutral and acid extractables at these locations may
be evidence that these areas also constitute contamination sources.
Although erosion constitutes a primary migration mechanism for PCBs
deposited on the surface, sediments and surface waters appear presently
unaffected.
-------
-10-
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted a field
investigation downstream of the Blosenski Landfill in April 1984. The
investigation involved the collection of fish specimens frcm two locations.
The first fish specimens were collected approximately 400 meters west of
the site in the unnamed tributary that the site runoff drains into. The
second fish specimens were collected at approximately 1.8 kilometers
west of the site, downstream from the first location. The native fish
(brook trout, suckers and dace) were submitted for analyses for selected
metals, pesticides, PCBs and pathological examination.
The results of the inorganic analyses indicated that most of the
inorganics tested for were either not detected or within expected ranges.
Analyses for pesticides found low level concentrations of toxaphene which
was believed not to indicate a significant hazard to fish and wildlife
resources. Toxaphene was found en-site during the RI at 13,000 ppb in a
a liquid drum sample. PCBs were detected at 0.44 and 1.3 parts per
million (ppm) in fish samples. While the levels detected in the brook
trout samples are currently below the Food and Drug Administration action
level of 2 ppm (edible portion), it exceeds the National Academy of
Science/National Academy of Engineering Criteria of 0.5 ppm in whole
fish established to protect fish eating wildlife.
Based upon fish collections, fish flesh analysis, and the pathological
examination of fish, the USFWS concluded that contaminants leaching from
the landfill are not causing significant adverse impacts to downstream
fish and wildlife at this time. This conclusion was viewed in light of
the fact that they did not test for HSL compounds, and the fact that
although the fish population appeared to be healthy and the individual
fish appeared to be in good health, the fish downstream are exhibiting
some signs of stess that could be caused by environmental contaminants.
The USFWS recommended that the levels of PCBs in the samples are high
enough to warrant further sampling by EPA. to determine if they are coming
from the Blosenski landfill. The USFWS was also concerned that although
there does not appear to be a significant contaminant problem downstream
of the site at present, contaminants that are now at the site could move
off and enter £he aquatic environment at seme time in the future.
Transport'through ground water is the most significant mechanism of
contaminant migration at the Blosenski Landfill Site. Contaminants can
reach the ground voter zone either dissolved in water or as liquid phases
immiscible in water (Mckay, et al., 1985). The dominant factor in
dissolved contaminant migration within the Chickies Quartzite is advection.
This is the process by which solutes are transported by the bulk motion
of flowing ground water. These migrating contaminants are also subject
to dispersion within the fracture influenced flow system, although dispersion
will not significantly alter flow paths at the site.
-------
-11-
The potential sources of ground water oontamination are from the areas
surrounding MW 3-1 and M»*-10. Buried drums with high concentrations of
volatile organic compounds (such as benzene and toluene, in the percent
range) in the liquid and solid phase were found in and around these areas.
In addition, contaminated surface and subsurface soils were found in these
areas and contained many of the same organic compounds found in the ground
water (such as benzene, toluene and trichloroethene) . Generally aromatic
organic contaminants, less dense than water, were found in the ground water
samples obtained from these wells. Many of the same contaminants found in
the surface and subsurface samples were also found in other downgraiient
monitoring wells, such as W 6-1 and 8-1.
Contamination was found in nine of eleven monitoring wells. The
distribution of these contaminants follows patterns of advection transport,
due to general hydraulic gradient in conjunction with fracture/ joint
preferred flow in localized directions.
The implications from the geologic and hydrogeologic studies are as
follows:
9 The perched water table found in the eastern portion of the site where
drums were uncovered probably transmits contaminants in a lateral direction
prior to infiltration into the bedrock ground water. Thus contaminant
transport through the vadose (unsaturated) zone may be horizontal as well
as vertical, allowing contaminants to enter bedrock ground water some
distance from the source.
• Contaminants deposited at the southern periphery of the site may be
transported to the north, east, south, or west to varying degrees,
depending on seasonal weather conditions. ~~
* Circuitous flow paths and multiple on site contaminant sources probably
account for the extent of ground water contamination to the north of the
suspected
* Ground water contours reflect local topography around the intermittent
tributary to Indian Spring Run. The absence of contamination in MW 12-1
and Mf 11-1, north of the site, is probably indicative of preferential
flow to the northwest in a transmissive region below the intermittent
stream bed.
* Although conclusive evidence is not available regarding the location
of the southern ground water divide, topography suggests that it would
be located In the vicinity of Route 340. A shallow hydraulic gradient
may exist between Mf 2-1, 3-1 and residential wells 2 and 3 to the south,
indicating that this divide is located somewhat north of Route 340.
Fracture flow, abetted by the conical influence of residential well
pumping, probably causes migration of chemicals to the south of the site.
* The hydrogeology of the site and the analytical data indicate that
the contaminants are migrating to the north as far as the intermittent
tributary of Indian Spring Run.
-------
-12-
Infonnation provided by residences reveal that residential well 2
is approximately 25 feet deeper than residential well 1. Samples from
residential well 2 have been free of contaminants on all sampling occasions,
It seems possible that flow patterns vary with depth, especially under
the influence of pumping.
It also appears that biodegradation may play a part in the fate of
chemicals at the Blosenski Landfill Site. Among the implications of
this is the possibility that the chlorinated ethenes 1,2-dichloroethene
and 1,1-dichloroethene may biodegrade to the potentially more toxic
vinyl chloride. It is also possible that this substance will appear in
residential wells 1 and 3 to the south of the site. For example, although
vinyl chloride was not detected in soil and waste samples obtained at
the site, it was identified in several ground water samples. A sample
from MW-2 contained vinyl chloride at a concentration of 6 ug/1. Samples
from downgradient wells such as MW 6-1, MW 7-1, and MW 8-1 contained
vinyl chloride at concentrations ranging as high as 450 ug/1. However,
the possible existence of a vinyl chloride source cannot be discounted.
In addition to the hydrogeologic studies, surface and subsurface
investigations were performed during the RI. The surface investigation
included collecting samples of surface soils, water, and sediments, as
well as conducting a geophysical survey of the site. The subsurface
excavations were performed to locate and confirm the presence of buried
drums. The limited scope of the excavations precluded quantifying the
extent or origin of buried waste on site. However, the activities resulted
in the identification of distinct contaminant source areas in different
areas of the site, which added further support to confirming the cause
of local ground water .contamination.
Air monitoring during the RI resulted in identifying volatile vapors
mainly in the areas of the test pits- and from the boreholes.
It appears that density difference among contaminants may affect
their migration patterns at this site. Trichloroethene and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane have been consistently detected in residential well
number 1 and 3. These contaminants are the most dense of the various
volatiles detected at the site. It is possible that these contaminants
descend further- into the bedrock near the source and reach flow conduits
more readily affected by residential well pumping.
Comparison of the subsurface results with those surface soils reveals
that surface-and subsurface soil contamination is present in similar
areas. Althoo^i the test pits did not uncover a large number of buried
drums, the**> results in no way preclude the presence of drums in areas
that were not excavated. However, the discovery of drums in three distinct
site areas suggest the presence of at least three significant contaminant
source areas. Based on the site geology and nydrogeology discussed
previously, contaminants emanating from these sources are migrating through
subsurface fractures and faults to other onsite and offsite locations.
-------
-13-
Based on the information provided in the RI, a Feasibility Study (?S)
was developed which identified a range of remedial alternative measures
and their associated oosts for remediation of the contamination at the
Blosenski landfill. In addition, a Focused Feasibility Study was developed
for this site in order to provide an evaluation and cost estimate for
alternative sources of potable water for affected residences.
Endangerment Assessment
Organic and inorganic chemical substances were detected in the
various waste, air, surface and subsurface soil, ground water, sediment,
and surface water samples collected at the site. The apparent source of
contamination- in the area is the waste buried and dumped on the soil at
the Blosenski Landfill Site.
Volatile organic chemicals, the primary contaminants, have entered
the water table and migrated beyond site boundaries. It appears that
these contaminants are transported to the northwest via ground water flow
in a transmissive zone lying beneath the intermittent tributary to Indian
Spring Run.
Chlorinated aliphatic compounds (primarily trichloroethene and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane) were consistently detected in residential wells located
to the south of the site. The most probable source of the residential
well contaminants lies in the vicinity of M* 2-1 on the southern portion
of the site.
Two other sources of ground water contaminants were identified: on
the west side, near NW 3-1 (monocyclic aromatics); and on the east near
TP-11 (monocyclic aromatics and chlorinated aliphatics).
Although detected at the site, semivolatiles, pesticides, PCBs, and
inorganic substances do not appear to be migrating beyond the site boundaries.
These relatively immobile chemicals appear to be confined to the immediate
vicinity of the deposition areas.
The major exposure pathway and subsequent health risk at this site is
the ingestion and domestic use of contaminated ground water. The major
contaminants detected in the monitoring wells and residential wells are
volatile organics. As a class, volatile organics are soluble in water
and do not readily adsorb to soil particles and therefore are likely to
migrate as a solute in ground water. For most of these compounds, chemical
and biological processes are unlikely to attenuate the observed concentrations
to a large extant. Reduction of concentrations will occur primarily by
diffusion and/or dilution. Distance from the contaminant source will
reduce contaninant concentrations, as is reflected in the RI data.
-------
-14-
Several contaminants, most notably n-nitroscdimethylamine and bis(2-
chloroethyl) ether, were found in the soils at the site but were not
detected in the groundwater. These compounds have high solubilities and
are known or suspected carcinogens with high potencies. Their propensity
to enter the ground water could increase carcinogenic risks from ingestion
over time.
A measure of acute and subchronic (10-day) toxic effects (where a
threshold limit may exist) associated with ingestion of ground water was
estimated by comparison of the observed concentrations of groundwater
contaminants to the Suggested No Adverse Response Levels (SNARLs)
guidelines developed by the USEPA Office of Drinking Water for non-regulated
contaminants in drinking water.
Benzene and 1,2-dichloroethene exceed the 10-day SNARLs. No
contaminants exceeded the 1-day SNARLa. The contaminant concentrations
found in onsite monitoring wells do not currently reaching residential
wells. However, toxic effects from short-term ingestion of ground water
are possible if people were to be exposed to the detected levels at some
future time.
Of the contaminants detected in the residential wells, only
trichloroethene (TCE) exceeded the SNARLs. TCE (260 ug/1) in residential
well no. 1 exceeded both the 10-day and long-term SNARLs. TCE has been
found to have a low to moderate oral toxicity in laboratory animals. The'
predominant physiological response to acute TCE exposure is depression of
the central nervous system.
Chronic health effects (where a threshold limit may exist) may result
from .long-term, repeated ingestion of ground water contaminants. The most
relevant criteria for evaluation of chronic health impacts are the SNARLs.
Levels of two contaminants, TCE and benzene/ exceeded their long-term
SNARLS.
Exposure to subthreshold concentrations of the remaining detected
contaminants could haw associated additive or antagonistic effects.
Additive effects are moot likely to result from contaminants that induce
the same health* endpoint by the same toxic mechanism (ICF, Inc., May 1985).
*,
In addition to chronic effects from ingsstion, domestic use of
ground water (i.e., showering, lawn watering, etc.) could potentially be
associated with health impacts. Repeated long-term dermal or inhalation
exposure of volatilized contaminants may produce chronic toxic effects.
Studiss havs shown that a large fraction of highly volatile contaminants
in potable water «r>i«MH«» during shower usage. This results in an
inhalation exposure, both to ths user of ths shower and to other inhabitants
of ths hone as ths shower air is distributed (Andslnan, May 1985).
In addition to inhalation exposure, ths absorption of chsmicals in
potable water during bathing may be comparable to that from direct
ingestion of water (Andslnan, May 1965 after Brown et al., 1964).
-------
-15-
Organic contaminants detected in monitoring well samples that are
known or suspected carcinogens (i.e., no known threshold concentration
below which toxic effects would not occur) are shown in Table 5.
Contaminants include those classified by the National Toxicology Program
(NTP) Report on Carcinogens as substances or groups of confounds that are
known to be carcinogenic or that may reasonably be anticipated to be
carcinogens (USDHHS, 1983). Table 5 is also a tabulation of estimated
cancer risks associated with chronic ingestion of the contaminants found
in monitoring and residential wells. If the contaminants are not listed
by the OTP, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifica-
tion based on an evaluation of animal test data is included (USDHHS, April
1985).
The tabulation is limited to those confounds for which an evaluation
had been conducted by the EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG). Lifetime
cancer risks are based on calculations using CAG's estimated unit risk
factors (USEPA, October 1984). The unit risk is defined as the lifetime
risk of cancer to humans fron daily exposure to a concentration of 1
ug/m3 of the pollutant in air by inhalation, or to a concentration of
1 ug/1 in water by ingestion (USEPA, October 1984).
The maximum observed concentrations of groundwater contaminants
exceed the Unit Cancer Risk (UCR) derived Preliminary Protective
Concentration Limits (PPCLs) for all but one (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate)
detected known or suspected carcinogenic ocnyound (USEPA, October 1984).
PPCLs are risk-based exposure criteria that represent the concentration
of a contaminant that could be ingested daily without exceeding a 10"^
cancer risk. Ingestion of contaminated groundwater at the site would
result in a cancer risk in excess of 10-5 (i.e., greater than one excess
case, in a population of one million). __
Impacts to casual recreational users of the surface waters appear to
be minimal because of the low concentrations of HSL contaminants. Dilution
frcm downstream flow and volatilization will reduce concentrations in the
surface waters. However, concentrations could increase with increased
precipitation and enhanced leaching.
The chemical analyses of soil, subsurface soil, drums and test pit
samples indicate contamination with a number of HSL ssmivolatile compounds.
Because draw found during the RI were reburied in position, there is no
current exposure to these drums by direct contact. However, the more
mobile cocwtitunts associated with those drums could be carried to the
groundwater toy infiltration.
Residents drinking the contaminated water would b» expected to have
an increased cancer risk. Dermal contact with contaminated soils also
presents an exposure route that will continue if no action is taken on
site. The potential for fire also exist at the site in the areas where
drums were found. Sons of the drum contents were found to contain
ignitable wastes.
-------
ESTMATED
vinyl cMorMo
CAS No. 7ft-01-4
CAS No. 127-10-4
CAS No. 70-01-0
t.l-«cMofootMM
CAS No. 7t-M-4
I.M-lrtcMoroMfc*
CAS No. 71-W-O
cMofdonn
CAS No. 07-00-3
CAS No. 71-43-2
TOD «M1N MOXSTON Of
LAMOniOni
W««i - CarclnOMnlc BUk/Pmon tel
I.O.IO-* • 20*
3.0»MT« • • MA
2.OBHT* • S7 MA *2.»hlO-« • •
2 All*-4 • 4M MA NO
00.10-* • 0 MA NO
4.0m10-» • W MO/1
21 M*^ NO
NO
NO
j
i MA ljO.10"* • 3 M
NO f
• 37
MI IMVI UMNT* • • MA i4«i«-« • IT* *•/!
2*14 NflA 1J>M-* • • |«A IAlir> • 1I.MW
17«W-» • Ml |«yl 4fcMr' • M MA IfeM'1 • 2JM M^ NO
NO
UMJmum
ConconirMton fl»
NO
NO
• 2M MB>I
NO
1 2.10 • « 28 poyi
4««io-< • 2 MO/I
2 UIO-* • 14
CAS No. 7ft-
lll
CAS No. 7449-M-2
CAS No. 7440-43-1
CAS No 7440-47-3
nfekrt
CAS No. 7440-02-0
Total
40»tO-> • M MA
I.I«M-> • o MA
• 0.4 MA
• 21
IM MA t.OMlO-> • 14 MA i.4i10*> • 12 7 MO/1 4.7«IO-> • 11 MO/I 04aUr> 9 14 MO/I
I.UIO-> • » MA 1.3*10-' • 0 MA 4 fcil»-« • 2 MA 2.2>tO~> • 0 I MOA 2 WO 3 • 11
37»IO-> • U MA I UIO-' • 14 MA IOnlO'2 • 102 MA 3UIO'' • 30 MA 2falO"2 « 22
3.0MIO-4 • 12 MA I.ORIO-* • 32 MA 12«l«-> • 30 MA I telO'* • 4
(I to 00)
(I
13.10-'
Ota 7)
(I In
04nlO~3
(1 In 120)
00.10-3 ^ 207 MO/1
4.3.10~2
(I ta 23)
(•) C«nc*r risk i
for cMmlccto tor wMck »»«lM>ttoiii bmo •*•* conducl*4 by £I>A'» CwdnooMOc AMMMMM (boup.
(b) ProbabNMv ol MBOMITO to • ttaeto d«l*cllon ol • coMMMtaMI ta drtaktao «Mor U low. MUk ctlcutottont tor •taoto
csl*gory lo •IIUOM • *worM
w«r* IncliMtod In in* manlmum conc«nir*tlon
(c) Aitum** (M cluotnkwn pr«»«nl •• lh« «6 Ion.
-------
-16-
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
The overall purpose of the Alternative Evaluation in the Feasibility
Study was to provide an array of technically sound, cost-effective remedial
action technologies that control the source and manage the migration of
contaminants, and provide protection to the public health, welfare, and
the environment. In accordance with this, various cleanup objectives and
criteria were established to provide a focus for the general response
actions and technologies available for remediating the Blosenski Landfill
Site. These objectives and criteria included;
Cleanup Objectives
a. No action
b.
c.
d.
Prevent an increase in
the current potential risk
associated with the site
Reduce the current potential
risk associated with the
site to acceptable levels
Reduce the risk levels to
those corresponding to
.background concentrations
Cleanup Criteria
a. Establish current potential risk
levels and take no remedial action
b. Establish current potential risk
levels and utilize remedial tech-
nologies to prevent an increase
in potential risk levels
c. Reduce the current potential
risk associated with the site
to a target cleanup criteria
of a 10~° potential risk level,
or other acceptable level
d. Utilize remedial technologies
to eliminate site contaminants
Based en the above objectives and criteria, numerous source control
and migration control technologies were screened in the Feasibility Study
to provide a limited number of technologies applicable for remedial
actions at the site.* Some of these technologies ware removed from further
consideration baaed on site-specific information gathered during the RI
and on the basis of other comparative criteria. These other criteria
include: '
* Technical performance
* Mngniturta of coats
* Health and environmental impacts
• Tnfltt* 1ftftr \ ifr**! T CTrxidflfat long
Each technology wa* evaluated not only in tarma of theoretical
feasibility but also in tarns of whether tha technology is applicable to
the site specific conditions. The candidate tf"hnologti?ff that wore
ftifiniiwri from retention ara presented in Table 6 with tha justification
for elimination.
-------
C Technology ]
-17-
Table 6.0
Sunmary of Eliminated Technologies
[ Justification for Elimination ]
Groundwater Treatment
Biological Treatment
Storage
Onsite storage
Offsite Disposal
Offsite Incineration
Alternative water Supply
1. On-line filters
2. Bottled water
3. Community deep well
Containment
1. Asphalt Cap
2. Chemically stabilized cape
3. Slurry wall
Groundwater Collection
Collection,galleries
#%
Innovative Treatment Technologies
1. Permeable treatment beds
2. Bi<
Ation
3. Solidification
4. Chemical treatment
5. Vitrification
Evaluation of Technologies
Contaminant concentrations
are not high enough to support
microbes
Hot a long-term solution
Costs are much higher than
onsite incineration
Difficult to determine if
operating properly
Does not reduce risk from
bathing, washing clothes and
dishes
Potential to become contaminated
from the site
Subject to cracking when placed
over waste
Subject to deterioration by
organic solvents
Not effective for bedrock aquifer
Not cost effective for this site
Not cost effective for this site
Much of the waste is not
biodegradable
Not statable for the amount of
organica on site
Not suitable for wide range of
wastes on site
Unproven, costly technology, not
suitable for the site
-------
-18-
In the alternative development process, several applicable ronedial
technologies were identified for each of the five cleanup categories
which are described in the USEPA Guidance Document on Feasibility Studies
under CERQA (EPA, June 1985). Each category represents a different
degree of site remediation.
These categories are presented in ascending order of cleanup, resulting
in a building-block approach in which the simpler technologies are used
for the lower levels of cleanup. To achieve a higher level of cleanup,
more complex technologies were added to the sinpler technologies. The
technologies presented in each category were combined into Remedial Action
Alternatives (RAAs) that will meet the requirements of that level of
cleanup. The RAAs generated for each category, as a result of the
development process, are surmarized below.
I. No Action
1. Implement no remedial action, but perform continued long-term
monitoring.
II. Alternatives That Meet CERCLA Goals but Do Not
Attain other Applicable or Relevant Standards
2. Install a low-permeability soil cap over the landfill, provide
alternate water supply to affected residences, and perform
long-term monitoring.
III. Alternatives That Attain Applicable or Relevant
Public Health or Environmental Standards, Guidance, or Advisories
3. Install a RCRA-specification multimedia cap, and provide an
alternate water supply. Extract and treat ground water.
Provide RCRA groundwater-detection monitoring and long-term
post-closure care and monitoring.
4. Construct » new, secured, onsite landfill and provide an alternate
water supply. Extract and treat groundwater, and provide RCRA
contaminant detection monitoring and post-closure care and
monitoring.
IV. Alternatives That Exceed Applicable or Relevant
Public Health and Environmental Standards, Guidance, and Advisories
5. Execrate and incinerate contaminated soils and wastes on site,
aof iiw**Tl multimedia cap over the residual wastes. Provide an
alternate water supply, and extract and treat groundwater.
Provide RCRA contaminant detection monitoring and post-closure
care and monitoring. (Option: Provide in-situ stabilization of
residual uBMy£im instead of multimedia cap.)
-------
-19-
V. Alternatives Specifying Offsite Storage, Destruction, Treatment, or
Secure Disposal of Hazardous Substances at a Facility Approved under
RCRA
6. Excavate and dispose of contaminated waste deposits in an offsite,
secured landfill currently in compliance with RCRA. Dispose,
contain, or treat contaminated soil residuals underlying the
waste deposits. Extract and treat ground water and provide an
alternate water supply.
The above alternatives include some type of monitoring of soil and
ground water contamination. All of the above alternatives, with the
exception of £he no action alternative, will require grading, erosion
control, surface water diversion, fencing and revegetation. Alternatives
3, 4, 5 and 6. incorporate ground water pumping and treatment. Table 7
presents Alternate Concentration Levels (ACLs) developed by EPA for
ground water.criteria established to protect human health, aquatic life,
and wildlife. The criteria presented will be reevaluated during design
as additional sampling data and results become available from the pre-design
studies.
Also, criteria for Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) and metals
will be evaluated during design. All criteria were developed using EPA
criteria or advisories and empirical scientific formulations (e.g.,
Preundlich isotherms). Ground water extraction, treatment, and discharge/
injection will also be subject to state and local regulatory agency
restrictions.
Table 7
Alternate Concentration Levels (ACLs)
Ground Water Remediation Level
Compound ACL (source) (ug/l/ppb)**
*vinyl chloride " 0.015 (ICT6 UCR)
*trichloroethene 1.8 (adjusted KT* UCR)
*l-2-dicnloroeth«n« 70 (adjusted 10"6 UCR)
*l,2-dichloroethane 0.95 (1Q-* UCR)
1,1,1-tricMorbethane 22 (HA)
*l,l-dicnlorc«thene 0.24 (IV6 UCR)
•chloroform 0.19 (10-6 UCR)
*benzene 0.70 (10"6 UCR)
xylene 440 (HA)
toluene 2000 (HA)
ethyl benzene 680 (HA)
phenols 300 (taste)
phthalates 3 (aquatic life)
* Carcinogens
** ug/1 * microuram perliter / ppb - parts per billion
Note: TIC criteria will be determined during design or predesign
' UCR - Unit cancer risk
* HA - Health Advisory Level
-------
-20-
Description of Remedial Alternatives
I. No Action Alternative
1. No Action with Long-term Monitoring
Under a no action alternative, no measures will be taken to mitigate
the potential health risks associated with contaminant migration. The
contaminants will continue to migrate into the groundwater and surface
water by leachate production and storm water runoff.
The most critical exposure pathway and subsequent health risk at the
site is the ingestion and other domestic use of contaminated groundwater.
As long as bottled water is used for drinking, showering, and other
domestic uses, contaminated groundwater should present no problem. If
no action is taken at this site, it is likely that contaminant concentra-
tions in the 'groundwater will increase because of the high levels of
contaminants in the subsurface soil areas with drums and in the perched
water table, and risks will increase accordingly. Residents drinking
the contaminated water would be expected to have an increased cancer
risk. Dermal contact with contaminated soils also presents an exposure
route that will continue if no action is taken on site. The potential
for fire also exist at the site in the areas where drums were found.
Some of the drum contents were found to contain volumes of igni table
wastes .
Under this alternative groundwater will be monitored to observe
changes in aquifer contamination and to monitor potential public health
risks. The monitoring wells constructed during the RI can be used for
continued monitoring. In addition, ten new monitoring wells will be
installed: four downgradient (north) of the site, one west of the site,
and five upgradient (south) of the site just north of the adjacent
residences. These wells would extend approximately 40 feet into bedrock,
which would put them at about the same depth as the existing monitoring
wells. The adjacent residential wells, south of the site, should also
be sampled concurrently with the monitoring wells. For posting purposes,
it was assumed that the monitoring wells and five residential wells
would be sampled four times per year. Surface soil samples would be
taken to determine variation in onsite surface contamination. For costing
purposes it was assumed that surface soil sartples would be taken twice a
year. The data collected from this program can also be used to form a
data base fior predicting rates of contaminant migration and decay.
Both grouodwater and surface soil samples should be analyzed for EPA
HSL organic and inorganic compounds. All analyses should be performed in
accordance with EPA analytical protocols to ensure compatibility between
the existing and additional results. Far costing purposes, it was assumed
that the sampling and analysis t^oyiaiu would continue for 30 years.
The no action alternative can be implemented without obtaining
regulatory permits, other than those required for monitoring well
installation. However, it will not satisfy any applicable environmental
protection regulations, and it will be necessary to make arrangements for
an agency to conduct the sampling, analysis, and interpretation of data.
-------
-21-
Most of the costs for the no action alternative are related to
sampling and analysis. Capital costs for the no action alternative are
estimated to be between $80,000 and $130,000. Annual sampling and analysis
costs are estimated to be $197,700. The 30-year present worth of the
costs for the no action alternative is estimated to range from $1,953,000
to $2,003,000.
II. Evaluation of Alternatives that Meet CERCLA Goals but Do Not Attain
Other Applicable Standards
2. Onsite Capping of Contaminated Soils and Wastes; Extension of
the Coatesville Water Authority Public Water Supply; and Long-Term Monitoring.
This alternative provides a source control remedy that meets the
CERCLA objective of reducing the likelihood of present or future threat
from the hazardous substances found at the site. The technologies used
to meet the objective of this alternative are as follows:
* Provision of a soil cap to reduce the public health risk
associated with dermal contact, ignition of the wastes or ingestion
of the site's surface soil contaminants, and to reduce leachate
generation, (but not reduce the concentration).
* Installation of a municipal water supply to reduce the potential
health risks associated with consumption or utilization of
contaminated groundwater.
* Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to provide data
on the effectiveness of the remedial action and to detect any
future contaminant migration from the_site.
Site remediation will be initiated with the construction of 10
additional monitoring wells and the establishment of a grid matrix soil
sampling and testing study. The additional monitoring wells will supply
important groundwater quality, geologic, and hydrogeologic information
that is needed to assess the site's groundwater conditions over time.
The soil sampling and testing study is based on data that is obtained
from a 100-foot grid matrix laid out around the perimeter of the existing
surface and subsurface sampling points that have contaminant levels in
excess of the levels corresponding to a 10"6 health risk. Initially the
grid matrix is used for soil gas sampling and screening purposes. Sub-
sequent soil sampling of the grid will aid in defining the horizontal
extent of thi mviltlmtrlla cap. The soil sampling grid will be expanded in
both directions as the field data is gathered and analyzed.
The approximate area of capping is 9.37 acres. The actual construction
and testing specifications will have to be prepared after the selected
soil-cap material is tested and analyzed tor slops stability and permeability
characteristics. Soil or materials with a permeability within the range
of 10-5 cm/sec are assumed applicable to this alternative.
-------
-22-
The estimated quantity of material required for the cap is 40,300
tons. Mditional site grading plans will be required during the design
phase and the new soil quantities developed may vary fron those estimated
in the FS. Also, the additional soil sampling and testing may increase
or decrease the limits required for the soil cap and the estimated soil
quantities.
Because wastes will remain on site and groundwater will refrain contam-
inated, potential exposure risks associated with ground water contaminant
migration would not be eliminated. Potential contact and ingestion risks
associated with contaminated surface soils and airborne exposures would
be reduced, although background levels of soil contamination would not
be achieved since the wastes are left in place.
Hazards remaining after covering the contaminated soil are dependent
on the permeability and longevity of the cap. Consequently, although the
cap will immediately eliminate the potential for dermal contact or
ingestion of.surface materials, there is a potential for future ignitabilty
of site wastes and direct contact with site contaminants if the cap
dries out or is disturbed in some way. Restriction of future land use
should reduce the potential for cap disturbance. The cap proposed under
this alternative will meet CEPCLA objectives for controlling contaminant
migration and exposures, but will not meet RCRA specifications for the
containment of hazardous wastes.
Alternate Water Supply-Extension of Public Water Supply
This alternative utilizes an alternate water supply to replace the
contaminated domestic wells found near the site and potentially affected
wells. The alternate water supply system identified for all the subsequent
remedial action alternatives associated with the Blosenski Landfill Site
is a-public water supply system. The system consists of a 4-inch branch
line from the existing 18-inch water main of the Coatesville Mater Authority.
The approximate distance between the site and the water main is 3.5 miles.
The line losses encountered over that distance coupled with a change in
elevation requires that an in-line booster pvxqping station be incorporated
into the preliminary design and cost estimate. In a focused Feasibility
Study prepared by PRC Engineering for the EPA, it was reported that the
Coatesville system had an adequate supply of water to handle the additional
load described, in the study. The study costed and reviewed a system that
replaced only the two domestic wells in the area. However, the proposed
supply lint «es calculated to service up to 20 residences. The Coatesville
Water Authority has indicated that sufficient capacity is available in
their plant to supply water to the landfill area. Additional study will
be needed during the design phase to determine the system routing, capacity,
and service area to actual and potentially affected wells. Additional
deed restrictions or other institutional device* may be required to
reduce the risk of new wells being developed in the area and creating
new health risks.
-------
-23-
Upon completion of the 10 new monitoring wells described previously,
a monitoring program will be initiated to provide additional information
about the extent of ground water contamination and the site's hydrogeology.
After site capping is completed, the monitoring program will continue as
needed and adjustments will be made to supply pertinent information
about the site conditions. For costing purposes, all 21 monitoring
wells are assumed to remain in service for the next 30 years and will
undergo quarterly sampling and analysis for HSL contaminants.
Provision of an alternate water supply for the affected residents
should result in no additional impacts to either residents or remediation
workers during construction. It will also eliminate contaminated ground
water use to those homes that tap into the system. Overall, corresponding
potential risks are not eliminated entirely, however, as long as seme
hones remain on wells that possibly could became contaminated in the
future. Long-term monitoring, therefore, would provide data to determine
any changes in contaminant related potential risks to these well users
over time.
Institutional issues related to installation of a public water supply
are not expected to be complex. The City of Coatesville, of course,
virould have to approve the proposed connection. Construction of the system
then must conform to state and local standards governing a public water
supply.
Capital costs associated with all elements of this alternative are
estimated to range from $2,706,000 to $4,812,000. The 30-year present
worth of the costs is estimated to fall between $5,122,000 and $7,233,000.
III. Evaluation of Alternatives that Attain All Applicable or Relevant
" Standards, Guidance, or Advisories
3. Qnsite Multimedia Capping of Contaminated Soils and Wastes;
Extension of the Coatesville Water Authority Public Hater Supply;
Groundwater Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge/Injection; and Long-term
Monitoring.
This alternative provides a source control remedy and a management
of migration remedy that meets the CEHCLA objective of attaining applicable
and relevant Federal public health and environmental standards. The intent
of this alternative is to attain the objective of a potential health risk
no greater than 10~€ associated with the site contaminants. This
alternative is a combination of the following remedial actions:
* Installation of a multimedia cap to reduce the potential exposure
risks associated with dermal contact or accidental ingestion of
the site's contaminated surface soils, and to reduce the volume
of leachate generated by the site.
* Installation of a public water supply to minimize the potential
health risks associated with ingestion or utilization of the site's
contaminated groundwaters.
* Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to observe future
contaminant migration, and provide data on the effectivenes of
site remediationa performed.
-------
-24-
0 Installation of a ground water extraction, treatment, and discharge/
injection system to help restore the quality of contaminated ground
water system as a natural resource.
Site remediation for this alternative will begin with construction
of the ten additional long-term monitoring wells as described for
alternative one.
After the site is regraded a multimedia cap is installed based on
EPA's January 1985 Hazardous Site Control Division guidance, and the
EPA's May 1985 Minimum Technology Guidance, EPA-530-SW-85014. The
first zone is a 6-inch layer of permeable, granular material that will
allow free flow of the gases generated by the capped waste materials.
The next layer of the multimedia cap is an impervious zone, consisting
of a 30-roil synthetic membrane and a 2-foot thick layer of contacted low
permeability soil material with a demonstrated permeability of at least
1CT7 on/sec.:
The impervious zone is included in this design to reduce leachate
production caused by percolation and infiltration of precipitation through
the site's cover soil and waste pockets.
The final layer of the multimedia cap includes a 1-foot-thick flow
zone of granular material to collect the infiltration that percolates
down through the overlying 2-foot thick zone of cover soils.
The entire cap then will be revegetated and a security fence installed
to reduce site intrusion and vandalism. The use of the multimedia cap
is an effective, useful, reliable remedial action that can be implemented
quickly and has demonstrated beneficial results as soon as construction
is completed. The site is suitable for capping following regrading of
the northern slopes to aid in oonstructability. The cap materials are
available in the immediate area of the site, including clay soils that
have laboratory falling head permeability test results of approximately
10-7
This alternative also includes the provision of an alternative water
supply to replace the contaminated domestic wells found near the site.
As described for Alternative Two, the alternate water supply system identified
for all of the remedial action alternatives associated with the Blosenski
Landfill Sit* is a public water supply system consisting of a 4-inch
branch line from the existing 18-inch water main of the Ooatesville Water
Authority. Service lines will be provided from the branch line into the
affected
The risks associated with the ingestion or utilization of the
contaminated groundwater are virtually eliminated, so long as the water
supplied by the proposed extension is not contaminated.
-------
-25-
The ground water treatment system will be designed to handle
organic contaminants, exceeding Alternate Concencentration
Levels (ACLs) at compliance points, however, if additional studies reveal
inorganic ground water contamination, the treatment facility will be
constructed to handle these contaminants as well. The first stage in the
treatment system uses precipitation, flocculation, and sedimentation
processes to pretreat the metals found in the ground water that could
interfere with the organic treatment process.
The removal of the organic chemicals found in the site's ground water
will be achieved through the use of an air stripping process to remove
volatile organics, followed by carbon adsorption.
The ground water extraction and treatment system provides a feasible
means of removing contaminants fron the ground water. However, the
efficiency of extraction is subject to the uncertainty of localized well
yields due to the fractured bedrock. Ground water extraction is believed
to be feasible for the following reasons: aquifer testing during the RI
identified sustained yields with ground water being intercepted on every
monitoring well. These wells averaged 70 feet in depth. The proposed
pumping wells will be 150 feet deep, so yield should be greater. Even
though the hydraulic connection between individual recovery wells may be
unpredictable, the overall gradient can be controlled so that the ground
water in fractures between the wells will eventually migrate toward the
pumping well due to the pumping-induced gradient.
The treatment process is expected to be effective in removing ground
water contaminants. Site-specific pilot testing and monitoring are
required to assess the efficiency of the system prior to scale-up. A
gaseous chlorinator may be needed once treatment commences if significant
biological growth occurs on the packing media"or GAC contactors. Pre-
treatment should ensure that total suspended solids are low enough to
prevent plugging of the media.
The potential exposures and corresponding health risks associated
with residual contaminants will be reduced after completion of the multi-
media cap. The alternate objective of cleaning the site to the same
levels as the identified background levels is not attainable because the
contaminants wj.ll remain on site in the waste deposits and in the soils.
Pumping and treatment of the contaminated ground water is intended to
reduce the potential public health risk to a 1CT6 risk Unit Cancer Risk or
less.
The proposed multimedia cap will meet the RCRA regulations for
closure of a facility (Closure and Post-closure Care 40 CFR 264.310).
Implementation of the ground water extraction and treatment system
will require approval of state and local officials. Air pollution control
equipment may be required on the air stripper to reduce gaseous emissions
to acceptable limits. Permit requirements for air stripper emissions and
ground water injection must also be met.
-------
-26-
The estimated range of capital costs for this alternative, based
on a sensitivity analysis of the estimated quantities and unit costs is
between $8,481,000 and $13,037,000. Operation and maintenance costs assume
a 30-year Life of the cap and monitoring system, but only five years of
ground water treatment. The range of 30-year present worth costs is
estimated to be between $13,150,000 and $17,706,000.
4. Construction of a Secured Onsite Landfill; Extension of the
Coatesville Water Authority Public Water Supply; Ground water Extraction,
Treatment, and Discharge/Injection; and Long-term Monitoring.
This alternative provides a source control and management of migration
remedy that meets the objective of attaining applicable and relevant
Federal public health and environmental standards. Technologies used in
this remedial action alternative include:
" Construction of an onsite above grout *I landfill to encapsulate the
on site waste materials, thereby controlling contaminant migration
via ground water, surface water, and air transport.
0 Provision of a public water supply to eliminate potential health
risks associated with ingestion or utilization of contaminated
ground water.
* Extraction, treatment, and discharge/injection of ground water to
remediate the contaminated aquifer.
* Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to observe future
contamination levels, and to provide information on the effectiveness
of the remedial actions performed.
Extension of the Ooatesville water supply; ground water extraction,
treatment/ and Discharge/Injection; and long-term monitoring were described
and evaluated in the* proceeding alternative. Therefore, only the onsite
landfill will be described and evaluated in detail here.
A secured'hazardous waste landfill meeting RCRA specifications will
be constructed to contain all contaminated materials encountered at the
site. The total volant of wastes to be disposed of is estimated to be
385,000 cubic yards (cy) as determined by the RI sampling results, and by
comparing current and pre-landfill topographic maps. This volume includes
185,000 cy of wastes and 200,000 cy of contaminated soils. The depth of
contaminated natural soils is estimated to be 15 feet, which is very
close to the top of bedrock in the western portion of the site, and 5 to
10 feet above bedrock in the eastern portion. The actual extent of this
excavation, which will directly affect the landfill rnpltnl cost, must
be determined by additional sampling during the design and implementation
phases of this alternative.
-------
-27-
A controlled hazardous waste landfill must be double-lined and contain
leachate collection and detection systems capable of removing leachate
that may be produced. The landfill must be operated according to RCRA
regulations listed under 40 CFR Part 264. A comprehensive ground water
monitoring program must be utilized during construction and after landfill
closure according to Subpart F of Part 264.
Construction and operation of a RCPA-specification landfill is a
relatively new technology. Its effectiveness is highly dependent upon
proper installation techniques, particularly with the synthetic membrane
and the sealing thereof. Installation of the various landfill components,
such as compacted soil and synthetic membranes, are widely used and
accepted construction techniques. A geotechnical evaluation of the
proposed landfill site should be performed during the design phase to
ensure that the additional loading fron the liners and waste material
will not cause excessive settlement and stability problems. Installation
of this alternative should take approximately 2 years.
A controlled hazardous waste landfill requires significant operation
and monitoring systems. The leachate collection and detection systems
require frequent inspection for leaks and clogging. The capping materials
require periodic maintenance to prevent erosion and surface ponding.
Installation of a landfill would greatly increase the exposure risk
(during installation) above that associated with a surface cap because all
the contaminated soils will be excavated, stockpiled, and replaced.
Operation of the landfill will decrease the long-term risk of exposure
and health effects to, off site receptors. The high degree of containment
provided by a landfill built to HCRA specifications isolates the wastes
from'surface water and groundwater contact, tRereby greatly reducing
contaminated surface water runoff, groundwater infiltration, and offsite
contaminant migration.
Installation o£ a controlled hazardous waste landfill includes many
unknowns, such as actual amounts of contaminated soil, material costs,
and site conditions during construction. The moot critical factor is the
volume of contaminated soil which directly affects the capital cost of
the landfill. ..A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the
effects of variations of quantities of contaminated soils to be excavated,
clay liners, and synthetic linsr materials. These sensitivity factors
range from -40 to +5O percent. The capital costs for this alternative
range from $14,317,000 to $31,508,000. There is a significant amount of
operation and maintenance costs associated with a landfill, including
ground water monitoring/ maintenance of the leachate collection system,
and maintenance of the cover soil and vegetation. The total 30-year
present worth is expected to range from $18,966,000 to $36,177,000.
-------
-28-
IV. Evaluation of Alternatives That Exceed Applicable or Relevant. Public
Health and Environmental Standards, Guidance, and Advisories
5. Complete Excavation of Contaminated Soils and Wastes; Onsite
Incineration With Multimedia Cap Over Residuals; Extension of the
Goatesville Water Authority Public Water Supply; Groundwater Extraction,
Treatment, and Discharge/Injection; and Long-Term Monitoring.
This alternative provides remediation of the site in a manner which
exceeds applicable and relevant Federal public health and environmental
standards, in accordance with EPA's Guidance on Feasibility Studies under
CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan. The technologies comprising
this remedial action alternative include:
0 Excavation, incineration, and capping of the waste materials
to reduce potential risks associated with dermal contact and
accidental ingestion of surface materials, and to reduce organic
leachate generation.
9 Provision of an alternate water supply to minimize potential
health risks associated with use or ingestion of contaminated
groundwater.
• Extraction, treatment, and discharge/injection of groundwater to
restore this natural resource, and to reduce future exposure risks
to human and environmental receptors.
4 long-term monitoring of the site to detect any future contamination
and provide information on the effectiveness of the remedial action.
This alternatives employs complete excavation of contaminated soils
and wastes. Unlike previous alternatives, however, the organic contaminants
in the materials are destroyed (via incineration) before they are returned
to the site for disposal. Seme of the solid wastes, such as druns and
scrap metal, may require off site landfill disposal. However, the volume
of this material is not expected to be significant, and off site unit
disposal costs are not expected to exceed the unit incineration costs.
The incinerator residue, along with the inorganic-laden soils and
wastes, is backfilled and compacted, and the multimedia cap described in
Alternative Three is placed on top of the residues. The area of the cap
is assumed to be approximately 9.4 acres. Assuming overall volume reduction
of 40 percent for the combined waste and soil materials after incineration
(80 percent reduction for wastes and negligible reduction for soils),
231,000 cubic yards of residue will be disposed of in the area from
which it MM- excavated.
-------
-29-
The incineration process for this alternative is a mobile, rotary-
kiln system. A 0.5 ton/hour unit will be used initially for any test
burns necessary to meet RCRA requirements and to determine the most
efficient loading rates for site operation. The PADER has already
approved such a design. During this time, a second, larger unit (capable
of processing 4 tons/hr of soils) would be built of similar design as the
smaller unit. Since both units would have similar design and operating
characteristics, no regulatory problems would be expected with this
larger unit. It is estimated that this unit could be operating on site
within one year after incineration commences with the first unit. Both
units would be retained on site for a combined processing rate of 4.5
tons/hr for the duration of the project.
Incineration is a proven technology for destroying hazardous organic
compounds in soils and municipal wastes. It may be effective for the
destruction of these materials in certain areas at the Blosenski Landfill
Site. Prior, to commencement of incineration, however, pilot studies will
have to be performed to determine the BTU content of the wastes/soils,
percent ash, etc. The overall destruction efficiency of the incinerator
must be greater than 99.99 percent. Certain materials sue as PCBs may
not be incinerated on site due to special permitting requirements and the
potential for generation of hazardous combustible byproducts.
This alternative as presented assumes that the residual incinerator
ash will not qualify as a hazardous waste based upon the EP Toxicity
Test Procedure as described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II. If so, it
can thus be delisted as a hazardous waste under RCRA and may be disposed-
of onsite under a multimedia cap as previously described. However,
incineration will not destroy the heavy metals found in site materials.
Because of the reduction in volume after incineration, the metals concentra-
tios- in the ash may actually be higher for a-given unit mass of metals.
This effect may be more pronounced in the waste materials than in the
soils because of the greater volume reduction for wastes (approximately
30 percent) than for soils (negligible) after incineration.
In light of this, various options to capping the incinerator residuals
should be considered. Assuming that the residual soils do not qualify as a
hazardous waste based upon the EP Toxicity Test Procedure and the wastes
do not, the soils can remain on site and be capped while the waste materials
(approximately'"37,000 cy) can be disposed off site in a secure hazardous
waste landfill. A preliminary cost estimate for this option indicates
that $8.8 million would be necessary in addition to the costs for the
complete capping alternative.
If neither the wastes nor the soils pass the EP Toxicity Test Procedure,
and the entire 231,000 cy of residual materials must be disposed off site,
this alternative becomes similar to Alternative Six for excavation and off site
disposal (without incineration). The site would be backfilled with clean
fill and revegetated, with an additional cost of $55.4 million over
capping and leaving the ash on site.
A final option would be to build a RCRA landfill on site to dispose
of the entire 231,000 cy of ash. Preliminary calculations indicate that
using a landfill of similar design as in Alternative Pour, an additional
cost of $6.7 million would be incurred over the capping alternative.
-------
-30-
Using the proposed incineration system outlined previously,
approximately 16 years will be required to incinerate the 474,000 tons of
soil and waste material. An alternative to this system would be to use
multiple Large (4 tons/hr) units to be built during the first year of
remediation, or to design and build a unit with a higher throughput.
While this could substantially reduce the time required for cleanup, it
would proportionally increase the cost.
Various incineration alternatives were evaluated based on combinations
of the 0.5 tons/hr unit and the 4 tons/hr unit. The proposed system accounts
for approximately 524 million (present-worth) of the total remedial action
alternative cost for 16 years of incineration. Various combinations of
incinerators were evaluated with costs ranging as high as $63.8 million
for 8 large incinerators completing the destruction in 3 years.
Risks due to inhalation of incinerator emissions should be very low
to the local public provided that the air emissions are maintained below
the design emissions criteria, the flue gas from the incinerator will be
passed through a baghouse or scrubber to reduce emissions to required
environmental standards before being discharged to the atmosphere. The
emissions will be sampled and analyzed for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and total hydrocarbons. There should be little or no environmental
impact as long as the air pollution control equipment is functioning
properly.
The incineration process should destroy essentially all of the
organic contaminants found in the onsite soils and wastes and thus reduce
the risks due to the presence of these materials. Also, incineration
will not destroy the heavy metals found on site. The risks associated
with the heavy metals may rise as a result of the effective increase in
metals concentration as the waste volume decreases during incineration,
and the fact that some metals (such as chromium) are more toxic in their
oxidized state, which is facilitated during incineration.
The combination, of incineration and capping should greatly reduce
the amount of contaminants leaching into the groundwater and surface
water. The groundwater treatment system will restore this natural resource
and prevent risks to public health and the environment, while the provision
of an alternate., water supply will eliminate any current public health
risks.
The costs for this alternative were developed assuming that the EPA
would incur the capital and O&M costs for both incinerators, as opposed
to rental. Ono» removed from the site, the units could then be used for
cleanup at similar CERCXA sites. As with the previous alternative, the
amount of contaminated soil was varied to determine the resulting range
in capital costs. The capital cost to purchase the two incinerators was
varied by ±10 percent to account for vendor price fluctuation, while
annual O&M costs were varied from -30 percent to +50 percent to account
for the difficulty in predicting these costs at this time. The variation
of these costs should be greatly reduced after field testing with the
first incinerator. The resulting total capital costs for this alternative
ranged from $26,113,000 to $32,207,000. The total 30-year present worth
for this alternative is between $47,858,000 and $53,952,000.
-------
-31-
5. Option - Conplete Excavation of Contaminated Soils and Wastes;
Onsite Incineration with Stabilization of Residuals; Extension of the
Coatesville Water Authority Public Water Supply; Groundwater Extraction,
Treatment and Discharge/Injection; and Long-Tern Monitoring.
This alternative utilizes stabilization of the incinerator residuals
in lieu of the placement of a multimedia cap, and will exceed applicable
and relevant Federal public health and environmental standards. Because
of the similarity to the Alternative Five for incineration, this discussion
will focus only on the stabilization of incinerator residuals (ash) versus
capping them.
The stabilization process that warrants further investigation for the
metals-laden residuals is a pozzolanic process utilizing fly-ash and
cement as the additives. The process can be either a batch or continuous
operation depending upon the quantities of materials to be stabilized.
Placement of materials can also be performed by one of t-*o methods. In
one method, water and a dust control material are mixed with the ash, and
the resultant material stockpiled. Periodically (every few months), the
stockpiled material can be placed, compacted, and allowed to "set up"
until it has a form similar to concrete. The second method involves
placing the ash as it is discharged from the kiln, and periodically
injecting the material with the additives necessary for solidification.
The second method is thought to be less expensive since there will be
less materials handling involved. The determination of the most effective
process for this site should be made by field or laboratory testing.
The solidfication process should tie up the metals in the ash to
some extent, thus "fixing" them, although this should be verified during
the design phase by laboratory analysis of a representative sample of
ash. The resultant matrix should, however, be of high strength and low
permeability (10~7 to lOr^ cm/sec), virtually eliminating leachate
production.
The amount of contaminants leaching into the groundwater and surface
water will be significantly reduced by this option, producing a corresponding
reduction in potential exposure risks. State and Federal approval will
have to be granted to allow disposal of incinerator ash on site by this
method. The stabilized material will require delisting as a hazardous
waste under RCRA by passing leachability testing in the laboratory.
Costs for this option were developed similarly to the basic Alternative
Five. Differences in final coats are a result of replacing the costs for
capping, backfilling, and compacting the incinerator ash (231,000 cubic
yards) with the costs for stabilization (additives, mixing, spreading,
and compacting costs provided by a vendor) and covering with the flow
zone and topaoil materials included in this option. As such, the total
capital cost for this option ranged from $30,378,000 to $43,258,000. The
total 30-year present worth for this alternative ranges from $53,392,000
to §66,272,000.
-------
-32-
V. Evaluation of Alternatives Specifying Offsite Storage, Destruction,
Treatment, or Secure Disposal at a Facility Approved under RCRA
6. Excavation of Contaminated Waste Deposits and Disposal in an Off site
RCRA-Approved Landfill; the Option to Dispose, Contain, or Treat the Con-
taminated Soils that Underlie the Waste Deposits; Extension of the
Coatesville Water Authority Public Water Supply; Groundwater Extraction,
Treatment, and Injection; and Long-Term Monitoring.
Alternative Six provides a source control remedy and a management of
migration remedy that meets the CERCLA category of an alternative that
utilizes treatment or disposal at an offsite facility approved by the
EPA. The intent of this alternative is to attain the objective of a
potential health risk no greater than 1CT6 or a health risk no greater
than background health risks for the area not influenced by the Blosenski
Landfill Site. This alternative is a combination of the following remedial
actions: :
* Excavation of the contaminated waste deposits to eliminate the
source of contaminants.
9 Disposal, containment, or treatment of the residual contaminated
soils that underlie the waste deposits to further reduce the potential
risks that may be associated with dermal contact or ingestion of the
site's remaining contaminated soils.
* Installation of a public water supply to minimize the potential
risks associated with ingestion or utilization of the site's contaminated
groundwaters.
* Installation of a groundwater extraction, treatment, and
discharge/injection system to help restore the contaminated groundwater
system as a natural resource.
* Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to observe future
contaminant migration, and to provide data on the effectiveness of site
remediation.
t
Site remediation will begin with a drilling program and the installation
of 10 long-term monitoring wells, and a test-boring and soil sampling program
to define the limits of excavation.
This alternative requires the removal of all the wastes deposited at
the site. H» horizontal extent of waste deposits is based on the
information obtained during the RZ and information interpreted from the
historical photographs presented in the EPIC study. The actual extent of
waste-depositing activities may differ from the approximate limits
established for this study.
Excavation and offsite disposal is a frequently used remedial action
at hazardous waste sites. Little or no onsite maintenance activities are
required for offsite disposal. Mo technical problems are foreseen in
using this technology except. The estimated time for completing this
alternative is approximately two years.
-------
-33-
The offsite disposal facility must be authorized under RCRA to
receive the identified contaminated soils and waste. In addition, the
facility must currently comply with RCRA groundwater monitoring requirements,
and must have no unauthorized surface or groundwater discharges of
contaminants. A facility inspection and document/records review will be
necessary to verify satisfactory compliance status. The nearest offsite
landfill believed to be in current RCRA compliance is operated by CECOS
International, and is located near Buffalo, New York, approximately 450
miles from the site. Implementation of this alternative may require
development by the regulatory agencies of an Alternate Concentration
Limit (ACL) for determining the acceptable contamination levels that may
remain in the residual soils.
For this alternative, three options were developed to address
remaining contaminated soils, underlying the excavated wastes.
Option A is a continuation of this alternative. Contaminated soils
are excavated and taken offsite for disposal in an approved landfill.
The excavated areas are then backfilled with clean soil from a local
borrow area. The backfill is graded and compacted to match as best as
possible the surrounding topography, and then the area is revegetated.
The remaining actions are constructed and a long-term monitoring program
initiated.
Option B utilizes the construction of a multimedia cap over the
contaminated soils to reduce the amount of infiltration. Since the
remaining contaminated soils are believed to be above the groundwater
table, the amount of leachate generated by the site should be reduced to
near zero. The remaining remedial actions of this alternative can be
completed in conjunction with this option.
Option C consists of a series of studies to evaluate the potential
use of an innovative or emerging technology such as soil washing technology
to detoxify the contaminated soils.
•
There are two contaminated media found at the Bloeenski Landfill
Site that might be detoxified by utilizing an innovative or emerging
technology. They are as follows:
*.
' Burned and unbumed contaminated municipal solid waste (MSW),
with crushed drums and drum residuals.
* Contaminated Soils
-------
-34-
Offsite disposal will reduce the possibility of future groundvater
contamination by removing the source from the site. Due to the Large
volume of material to be disposed of, it may be necessary to consider
using several landfills provided they will accept the waste materials.
Option B will require the installation of a multimedia cap over the
contaminated soils. Multimedia capping is a proven technology that has
good reliability and can be expected to perform effectively for the next
30 years or more.
Option C, the soil detoxification study (or soil washing), does not
require extensive construction activities. However, a high level of
technical expertise will be required to develop a thorough study and
apply it to the actual field conditions. Since the exposed contaminated
soils will be susceptible to filtration and leachate production, the
shortest period of time possible trust be used to develop, perform and
evaluate the site-specific soil washing technology. The study should be
well along even before the excavation of the waste deposits is initiated.
Data from the initial soil investigation should be used to evaluate the
applicability of the technology. The pilot study should be initiated as
soon as a large enough area of contaminated soils is exposed. Ideally
the soil washing technology should be ready for field application before
the waste excavation is 50 percent complete or rejected so that one of the
other options can be initiated.
Excavation, capping or detoxification of the contaminated soils will
greatly reduce the residual dermal and accidental ingestion risks. It is
intended that excavation and detoxification will leave behind only soils
whose concentrations result in less than a 10"* risk.
The offsite disposal facility must be authorized under RCRA to
receive the identified contaminated soils and~waate. In addition, the
facility must currently ocnply with RCRA groundwater monitoring requirements,
and must have no unauthorized surface or groundwater discharges of
contaminants.
The excavated wastes would be manifested and transported to the RCRA
disposal facility by licensed haulers in accordance with DOT (49 CFR
Parts 170-199 and 390-397) and RCRA (40 CFR Parts 262 and 263) regulations.
All necessary transportation licenses, permits, and manifests must also
be obtained from PADER before this alternative may be implemented.
Costing for this alternative is highly dependent upon the volume of
waste excavation, which in turn affects transportation and disposal costs.
It was uniis»1 that the materials would dewater sufficiently by gravity
for transport and disposal, and that all of the wastes will be disposed
of in one location, 450 miles from the site.
-------
-35-
Option A
Capital cost estimates for this alternative option range from
$39,388,000 to $257,503,000. The total 30-year present worth for this
alternative is expected to be between $93,858,000 and $261,973,000.
Option B
Capital cost estimates for this alternative option range from
$44,815,000 to $123,872,000. The total 30-year present worth for this
alternative is expected to be between $49,484,000 and $128,451,000.
Option C
Capital cost estimates for this alternative option range from
$45,756,000 to $126,006,000. The total 30-year present worth for this
alternative is expected to be between $50,027,000 and $130,877,000.
Alternative Trade-Off Matrix
The trade-off matrix presented in Table 8 summarizes: the technologies
comprising the alternatives; technical, public health, and environmental
advantages and disadvantages and institutional considerations.
EVALUATION
COSTS
A summary of the range of capital, annual 0 & M, and 30-year present-
worth costs for the remedial alternatives are. presented in Table 9.
Present worth costs is the amount of investment needed today to finance
operation and maintenance necessary for each alternative.
Consistency With Other Enviroiinental Laws
*
The six alternatives presented in this ROD were evaluated to determine
consistency with other environmental laws such as RCRA, TSCA, and Clean
Water Act (CWA) §404.
Only alternatives 3,4,5 and 6 comply with RCRA requirements for
off site groundwater plume abatement. RCRA also requires soil contamination
be isolated or excavated to background levels unless mathematical models
illustrate safe levels which require no action. Alternatives 5 and 6
remediate soil and are thus in compliance with RCRA. All alternatives
should be in compliance with CWA §404 since no alternative recommends
the filling in of a wetland.
-------
Table 8
WIK
•nslltutloiwJ
C
-------
TABLE
Ad**M«go«
Institutional
Considerations:
4. OnsMo
Aftomato Wator
f *r
and Tr«M-
lone-Twin
- El
R«<|ulr«t
IsotaDM
COMWnlNWH*
•wing faipta-
My and com-
con**
groundwMw
proarwH.
lad.
pen-nil tor
IfMMaon
COOlfOl I
m«nl on air
•Irtpp-wto
in*M PAMN
CtMUsvW*
tranafarof
a o»-
i from
mm
to
•mltstoni IIMMI
conlotm to
NAAQS
I po-
r
abfcomo con-
pMtoo |M yrt). contact
itakol
*M)tolnctn-
EnHlincy ot
Uon *M to
•novation. «nd
•u* lo Incbi-
Irantpon ol orator «l*ck||«t
contwnhMnU. •mlittont during
Moduco* oporallon
•utattno
groundwotor
contoniMMtloo.
110
rractMrad
OrotMdwMor
-------
.'it. Lc
IntlltutkMMl Community
Con«M*r*tloni: Conild*<«lton«:
BfgMlc M4
Swn* •• •bov*. - Sent* •• abov*.
plu»:
Ml
K «•
ftCAAkw
to* MOM-
itaktfv-
10
torgo
ol
MulMtetehi
•ccor4Mtc«
lot ground-
wMor
M*y ro^ulro *lr
•oHulloM coMf ol
FAOCN r*«ulrwnwil».
B»«u>»«« oparovil
tiom CoatoivMto
Walw AuHMwtty.
-------
Table 8
Advantaga*
Institutional
ContMaratlona:
(•cavMton and
lot
Potantlal
tranalof ol
o»- poiantM rtak tfnr-
In0 • RCHA-
tracMoma
itofrac-
ItOl
Ion and
tranapart ot
from ground-
w«l«r to
iMWty lo
r«c*lv« IM*
ol
nwlwtal* tn
during
MCMAMdOOT
lor ground-
May !••>*• oh
•oNulloH control
•qulpoiont on ak
FAD€H r*«julr*m*nt«.
Irom Co*l«tiriH«
WMOT AuthofNy.
N«9«tr«« Itatf-
oil
*MMft»C-
avrtaco Uanifar of
tromoort ol
homo watar to
ttanaport atmoapnart
of coMam-
a^atkig
groundwatar
pormlltad
lo
torg*
of matoftote.
tostatlon of
n»l*rt*l* hi
accordance
HCRA and DOT
regulation*.
Raquka* B«nnlt
for ground-
May roqtdra air
poMutlon control
aqulpmant on ak
•iitpp** 10 maat
PAOCM raqulramanli
- Raqulra* approval
Irom Coata*«Ma
Walar Authority.
- Haqulra* RCMA
parmlt for cap-
ping of <••«!••
-------
1U-LC 0-J>
ContMw«Monr.
iC:
tfoi
•cotton of
•MOC- Itokow-
*•»
MM
10
- fMMtW
IrMWtoro
May raoxlr* air
poNudon con-
Iroli
10
•trtopor lo
mootFAMN
MMtMO MM
toMM tor olr- pom* tor
opprovot Horn
CoMmvM*
WMor Authority.
In* • NCflA-por-
•*
to i
MCftAM*OOT
if AOiR
tor
-------
Tablt
ACTON AUiMMMWt* COOT SUMMARY I
OporMton ft MihNoiMaco Cost*
VMT No:
i.
a.
130
4J12
107.7
2W
107.7
265
107.7
2SS
107.7
2»»
Pr«i«nt Worth
AiMlvMi 130 Vr».l
low
1.053
ft. 122
0.401
14317 22,720 91,1
1.073
ft.047
•M 010 270 270 10.000 27.307
Htif
2.003
7.233
MM 1X037 02ft 010 270 270 13.150 14.220 17.700
30.177
20.113 20.424 UM7 I.ft03 3.104 2.0ft4 234 47.0SO 61.189 53.062
Ik. OMft* t^MTHtou. ctaMNM- 3M70 3WI3 437*0 1.037 3.320 2.700 300 63.392 01.227 00.272
OpMo* •: f •cavMlo* wrf
oNtN* dtepOMl of MOt In •
OOJOO 17370ft M7.ft03
7H 266 266 03.060 177.73S 201.073
Option •: ConMruclton of
cc
c: CucMMkm
-------
-36-
Reccmnended Alternative
Section 300.68(j) of the National Contingency Plan (MCP) [47 FR
31180; July 16, 1982] states that the appropriate extent of remedy shall
be determined by the lead agency's selection of the remedial alternative
which the agency determines is cost-effective (i.e. the lowest cost
alternative that is technically feasible and reliable) and which effectively
mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of
public health, welfare and the environment. In selecting a remedial
alternative EPA consults other environmental laws that are applicable and
relevant. Based on the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of each of
the proposed alternatives, the comments received from the responsible
parties evaluation of the alternatives, the public comments, information
from the Feasibility and Focused Feasibility Studies and information
from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, we recommend
that the following alternative be implemented at the Blosenski Landfill
site:
• Alternative Water Supply,
• Excavation and removal of buried druns,
• Groundwater remediation,
• Capping, and
• Monitoring
The concept of the Recommended Alternative is a combination and blend
of Alternatives Three and Five.The Recommended Alternative includes the
following:
1) Supply alternative water to affected and potentially affected
residences, by installing a branched water line from an existing
mainline (from Coatesville Water Authority). At this time, EPA
estimates that at least 12 residences which reside directly south
of the landfill along Route 340 '(Kings Highway) and also reside
adjacent to the landfill on the west will be provided this water
service.
2) Excavate and remove buried druns found during a trenching
operation of the landfill. Due to the nunber of pocketed areas
of druns found during the EPA-funded Remedial Investigation
and the associated hazardous material found in these areas,
EPA will perform a trenching operation to identify, excavate
and dispose of buried druns. This operation will ensure that highly
contaminated materials in druns that are currently leaking into the
subsurface soils and ground water are removed. In addition, unopened
druns containing contaminated materials, that may eventually rupture
and release their contents to the environment, will also be removed.
EPA will enpioy geotechnical techniques to assist in isolating
pocketed areas of druns.
Excavated druns will be initially characterized in the field to
determine if the contents are of a hazardous nature. The character-
ization will be used to satisfy RCRA transportation requirements and
also to provide information for consideration for any alternative
technologies that could be performed on-site to decrease the volune
for offsite shipment of druns to a RCRA approved facility and to
also decrease the associated costs for such shipments.
-------
-37-
3) Perform a pre-design study which will include the installation
of additional monitoring wells and conduct pump testing to
more fully delineate the extent and magnitude of the ground water
contamination. This study will also be used to collect data for
the design of an effective ground water pumping and treatment
system. Residential wells, surface waters and sediments will also
be sampled during design to assist in determining the extent of.
contamination from the site and its potential impact to the
environment.
4) Based on the findings of the pre-design study, a source reduction
program will be implemented involving pumping and treating of
contaminated ground water that exceeds Alternate Concentration
Levels (ACLs) developed by EPA, for a specified period of time
determined during design, not exceeding two years. During this
initial period, the ground water pumping and treatment program will
be evaluated to determine the effectiveness and technical feasibilty
of reducing the ground water contamination to the EPA developed ACLs.
Based on this evaluation, a determination will be made to continue
the pumping and treatment program for another specified period using
the proposed or new ACLs or. to discontinue with ground water monitoring.
This process will continue cycling until EPA deems it appropriate
to discontinue pumping. This strategy is necessary because the
effectiveness of pumping to reduce VDC contaminants to low part per
billion levels over a long time period, is unknown. The proposed
ACLs for the first period are outlined in Table 7. These ACLs will
be reevaluated during design to ensure technical feasibility and
protection of human health and the environment.
The groundwater will be treated to levels established in a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program implemented
by PADER and either discharged into the intermittent tributary north
of the site and/or reinjected into the ground. Ground water may be
treated for inorganic and organic removal by precipitation, filtration,
air stripping and granular activated carbon. The NPDES permit will
consider technical feasibility of treatment and protection of aquatic
life and humans or wildlife which may ingest aquatic life, using CWA
and USEPA Aquatic Water Quality Criteria and/or Pennsylvania State
Water Quality Criteria or Standards.
Vtien the decision is made to discontinue the pumping and treatment
program a closeout sequence will be initiated to decommission the
pumping wells and treatment facilities in a manner to mitigate post
closure maintenance requirements.
-------
-38-
5) Installation of a low permeability cover on the landfill in
accordance with requirements of RCRA. During the trenching and
excavation operations on the landfill, additional soil samples
will be collected and analyzed to assist in the design of an
on site RCRA cover. The soil analysis will also be used for the
evaluation of the need for development of 10"^ unit cancer risk
criteria for target compounds remaining in the soil. The cover
design may be reevaluated based on additional data to provide
the necessary environmental protection that meets CERCIA goals and
which ;nay be more cost effective, than the cap in Alternative Three.
The cost estimates in this ROD are for a RCRA cover detailed in
Alternative Three.
6) Institute , periodic monitoring for ground water and surface water
contamination in the landfill area in compliance with RCRA closure
regulations. This will include sampling of potentially affected
residential wells in addition to surface water sampling.
7) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) will be implemented by the State of
Pennsylvania on the landfill cap, gas venting, surface diversion
system and monitoring program one year after construction of these
systems. The ground water treatment system will be eligible for
trust fund monies.
Coats
Design Cost
Additional sampling, monitoring wells, and pump testing (pre-design)
has been coated as part of the design. Design is estimated to cost approx-
imately $1,000,000. The pre-design study is estimated to cost $200,000.
The pre-design and design costs will be funded 100% by Trust Fund monies.
fqi •Ka 1
Capital cost estimates range from $11,000,000 to $15,000,000 with
an estimated baseline of $13,000,000. For these estimates, capital costs
included all costs associated with excavation, regrading, revegetation,
capping, installation of the gas venting treatment system, and ground
water pumping and treatment. Cost estimates for putping and treamertt were
based on a five year operational period. Trust fund monies will be used
to pay for 90% of these costs and the State of Pennsylvania will finance
10% of
-------
-39-
Operation and Maintenance (0 & M)
0 & M costs are estimated to be approximately $534,300 for the first
two years.
The components of the recommended alternative that may require 0 & M
are:
- Landfill Cap
- Surface Water Management Systems
- Gas Venting System
- Monitoring (excluding that necessary to monitor the effectiveness
of the pumping and treatment program while it is being financed by
the Trust Fund).
The above listed items will be considered normal operation and mainten-
ance and will be the responsibility of the State of Pennsylvania one year
subsequent to completion of construction.
The ground water purping and treatment program will be considered
part of the approved remedy for a period of at least two years. If
targets are not reached after two years of remedial activity the
Regional Administrator will determine if it is technically feasible
to reach those targets. If further puiping and treatment are required,
this will also be considered as part of the approved remedy and eligible
for Trust Fund money up to ten years with 10% financed by State money.
Estimated Schedule *
Approve HOD 9/86
Start PreDesign 11/86
Complete PreDesign 5/87
Award Superfund IAG
to US Corps of Engineers for Design 11/86
Start Design " 5/87
Design Complete 10/87
Award Construction Contract 2/88
Start Construction 4/88
* Dependent upon CERCLA, reauthorization
-------
BLOSENSKI RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER,
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into the
following sections:
Section 1. Overview* This section discusses EPA's preferred alternative
for remedial action, and public reaction to this
alternative.
Section 2. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This section
provides a brief history of community interest and
concerns raised during remedial planning activities
at the Blosenskl Site.
Section 3. Summary of Major Comments Received during the Public Comment
Period and the EPA Responses £o_ the Comments.
Both written and oral comments are categorized hy
relevant topics. EPA responses to major comments
are also provided.
Section A. Remaining Concerns. This section describes remaining
community concerns that EPA and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources should be
aware of in conducting the remedial design and
remedial action at the Blosenski Superfund site.
-------
1. OVERVIEW.
On Thursday July 31, 1986 EPA conducted a public meeting to announce the
Agency's preferred remedial action and to discuss the Remedial Investigation,
Feasibility Study and the Focused Feasibility Study for the Blosenski Landfill
Superfund Site. The documents were placed in the repository at the West Cain
TownshiD Building in June, 1986. An announcement of the public meeting was .-nade
by sending a press release to the local media, which includes West Chester and
Coatesville. The public comment period closed on September 11, 1986.
The Agency's preferred alternative includes three phases:
Phase I.: Install a public water supply provided by the Coatesville Water
Authority to an estimated 12 residents.
Phase 2.: Excavate and remove buried drums in areas Identified during FPA's
Remedial Investigation and any material in intimate contact
with the drums and free standing liquid, and dispose of these
materials at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
facility. In addition, EPA will perform trenching operations
throughout other areas of the Site in order to identify,
excavate and dispose of other buried drums.
Phase 3.: Perform a pre-design study which shall include sampling of
residential wells, surface waters, and the installation of
additional monitoring wells and conducting pump testing to
more fully delineate the extent and magnitude of the groundwater
contamination. This study will also be used to collect data
for the design of an effective groundwater pumping and
treatment system.
Phase 4.: Install a low pernlabllity cover on the landfill in accordance
with the requirements of RCRA. Construct appropriate surface
water diversion systems. Construct a gas venting system to
protect, the cover. A monitoring program will be conducted at
these gas vents and treatment of the off gases will be provided
if needed. Institute periodic monitoring for ground water and
surface water contamination In the landfill area in compliance
with RCRA closure regulations. This will include sampling of
potentially affected residential wells in addition to surface
water sampling.
At the RI/FS public meeting, several questions relating to the EPA
preferred alternative were raised. The following is a list of questions asked
by the residence who attended the meeting. EPA responses to those questions are
given as they were answered at the public meeting.
Phase 1. Water Line Installation
1. Have you decided which residences will receive water from the
City of Coatesville?
-------
page 2.
Those homes whose water Is already affected and those chat adjoin
the site will be connected to the line first. That is approximately
12 homes. During the predesign stage, additional evaluation
will occur to better define the potential for contamination. If
additional hones appear to be at risk, they will be connected to the line,
How long after the initial 12 residences are connected to the water
supply line can other residences hook up. For instance, if a hone Is
not affected now, but becomes affected 3 years fron now, will the EPA
still pay to connect it to the public water supply line?
The EPA will evaluate with sufficient care to determine which hones
are potentially affected either now or in the future. If the EPA
believes that a home is potentially affected, based on the way the
ground water is flowing or where the contamination is located , that
home will be connected to the public water supply.
3. How far is the water line going to be extended and will it be a
large enough diameter to serve additional people, after the first
12 homes are connected? Or, will the EPA have to replace the
line with larger pipe when additional hook-ups are made?
A water line approximately 3 1/2 miles from a water main will be
installed directly to the site area and will service those residences
. which have been impacted by the ground ..water contamination.
4. Does the EPA have money for the pipeline?
At this time no, not until Superfund is reauthorized.
5. Can people who have not been affected by the site hook-up to the
new water line at their own expense?
•
The EPA 'is focusing on the affected and potentially affected
residences. There is no provision for the Agency to provide
a connection to anyone else or even to provide a larger line to
accoaodate others.
6. If other members of the community living along the route that
the water line extension will take want to hook-up, can they get
action going in their behalf?
-------
page 3.
The EPA will not prevent anyone from connecting to the water line.
The people should address that question to the Coatesville Water
Authority. That means more customers for the water authority,
and they would probably want to know that others are Interested
so that the line can he properly engineered.
7. Have the families who will he connected to the water line by the
EPA been informed of this?
The EPA does not know who all of the potentially affected families
are at this time, but those families will he notified as soon as
the determination is made.
8. How reliable have the EPA's predictions about potentially affected
parties heen in the past?
Hopefully, enough monitoring wells will be installed to determine
"potential" accurately. The EPA will be very conservative in its
predictions and will look at it as a worst case senario and then
act accordingly.
9. Wouldn't it be a good idea to put the water line in right away?
The people whose wells are contaninated'are already on bottled
or filtered water, but as soon as money is available, the water
line will be installed.
10. The EPA will extend the water line. Do Individuals have to pay to
run the pipe from Che street to their homes?
The EPA will pay for the initial connection.
Phase 2» Drum Excavation
1. In the landfill area, is it known how deep contamination has pone?
The site is not homogeneous. In some areas, it has been excavated
and backfilled. In other areas, the bedrock has been exposed. In
some areas bedrock is 15 to 25 feet deep. The contamination that
we have found is in pockets In the drum areas, and it is 12 to 15
feet deep.
-------
page 4.
2. Is there a way chat you can dig a trench around the site and spray
some material in it to keep contaminants from coming out of the
site?
What your talking about is a slurry wall or a grout curtain. The
problem is that those are site specific techniques. It is unlikely
that they would he successful here because the contamination gets
right into the rock and is going through very small crevices.
Those techniques work when contamination is moving through the soil.
At this'site there is very little contamination migrating through
the soil.
3. How will Phase 2 work? How will you actually remove any drums you
find, and how will you know when you dig a trench that there aren't
any barrels just a few feet away?
Trenches will'be constructed very close together.
4. There ace 4 to 6 tank trucks right on the surface that are now laaking.
Is there any way that they can be removed right away?
One thing that will be needed is money. Right now, there is no money
to begin a cleanup here, or at any remedial site in the region.
Congress has not yet agreed on the taxing authority for Superfund.
Once Superfund is reauthorized the design stage for the cleanup
will begin.
5. After the site contaminants are consolidated into one place, how
will vertical migration be controlled?
First of all the purpose of excavation is to remove any hot spots
that may still* be present, such as buried, leaking drums. Many of
the organlcs deposited on-site in these areas nay have already
leached out. EPA will try to remove any remaining drums. The
way that 'contaminants get into the groundwater is through
infiltration. The purpose of the proposed cap is to limit
infiltration.
Phase 3. Pre-deslgn Study
1. Are there any plans to monitor beyond the hones adjacent to the
site - perhaps on a cyclical basis?
The EPA will determine if further monitoring is needed. Monitoring
will be extended as far as potential risk is conceivable.
-------
page 5.
Health Concerns
1. Whac can you tell us about the specific health hazards of contaninants
from the site?
The contaninants migrating from the site Include, trtchloroethylene,
trichloroethane, and dichloroethylene. These are all very similar
compounds. They are basically just a 2 carbon molecule with double
bonding ./between them and substitute chlorides on the carbons. They
are all used as industrial degreasers. They are of concern to EPA
because, in the long run, they can cause cancer. The ability of
these compounds to cause cancer is not only a property of the
chemical but is also a matter of how much of the compound is present.
2. Is the health risk only from drinking the water?
The risk is from drinking the water, from inhaling vapors from the
water during showering, and from allowing the water to contact your
skin. All of those risks exist but not at equal levels. Ingestion
poses the greatest risk. The risk from showering is about 1/3 the
risk of drinking, but of course, it depends on how long the shower
is and how hot it is and also on how well ventilated the room is.
The risk from dermal contact is about 1/10 the risk of drinking
the water.
3.' Are the aged or the very young nore susceptible than a healthy,
young person?
That's a very good question. The way the guidelines are set, the
most sensitive, members of the population are protected. So, if the
entire nation was drinking trichloroethylene, at 2 ppb - say 200
million people - for a lifetime, the portion of that population that
would most likely get cancer would be the aged and the young. That
would still be only about 400 cases over a lifetime.
Enforcement
1. How long will it take for the PRPs to clean up? Isn't Blosenski
the one who is responsible, and does EPA have to go through the
process of suing the PRPs?
Negotiations are In progress now. Mr. Blosenski is one of the
PRPs, but he is not the only PRP. Any generators or haulers of
wastes at the site, as well as any past or present owners, are also
PRPs.
-------
page 6.
EPA does not have to sue the PRPs. The Agency can go ahead with
cleanup if the PRPs refuse, and Chen come back and recover costs
from the PRPs, if necessary.
2. Will this negotiation with the PRPs become a long, drawn-out, legal
affair?
The way the law reads, the responsible parties must first be given
an opportunity to perform the cleanup. If they do perform the
remedial actions, there are very specific time constraints written
into the agreement. A compliance schedule is part of the consent
agreement.
3. If an agreement is reached with the PRPs and a consent decree is
issued, what kind of teeth does the EPA have to enforce it?
If the PRPs do not adhere to the consent decree, the EPA can take
them to court and sue them for 3 times the cost of remediation.
4. Do the PRP's comments carry more influence than the public's?
No, they are equal.
Community Involvement
1. Does the public have an opportunity to comment on the PRPs proposal
for cleanup?
Yes.
•
2. Can the public get a copy of the government guidelines for
contaminant levels?
f
There is'a list, and it would be a good idea for the public affairs
office Co provide it for you. (Speaker offered to draft a list of
contaminants and suggested public call public affairs officer to
request it.)
3. If the general public doesn't provide written comments will the EPA
go with the PRP's recommendations?
This is not a competition. The EPA wants to hear from the public,
but if it doesn't, that doesn't mean that the Agency will decide
to do nothing. The EPA has come to the community to tell you what
the Agency plans to do and to ask community members how they feel
about this alternative. If you disagree with the alternative the
EPA wants to know that. However, please include the reasons that
-------
page 7.
you feel another alternative would be nore effective. A complete
investigation was performed to develop: this alternative. This i*
Che public's chance to put their words intothe final document, and
the PRP's can also comment. In the end, though, it will be Che EPA
who makes the decision.
Who makes the decision on the final alternative selectLons? Is it
3 financial decision?
After public comments are received, a document known as a Record
of Decision (ROD) will be written. The ROD will describe the
preferred alternative, and it will be reviewed by several people
at the:EPA, including EPA headquarters personnel, and by the state.
The final decision is delegated to the EPA Regional Adninistrator.
2. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS.
The Blosenski Superfund Site Is a 13.6 acre landfill in rural West Cain
Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Operating from the 1950's until it
was closed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources in
1979, the landfill was used as an open dump for municipal and industrial
wastes. At the time of closure, the site was owned by Joseph M. Blosenski,
Jr. who"had purchased ic during the 1960's from "Perry Phillips, the site's
original owner. The landfill was unlined and unperraitted throughout its
operating history.
Private wells are Che source of drinking water for the residents in
West Cain Township. Lajnd uses in the area are residential, commercial and
agricultural. The southern border of the site along State Route 340 is
a residential area. While the site was in operation, numerous citizens
expressed concern,that the odors and airborne debris related to the open
burning of waste at the site were responsible for various minor ailnents,
such as skin rashes. When the landfill was closed, the complaints decreased,
but the citizens renained aware of environmental issues in the area. In
December, 1982 the site was added to the National Priorities List.
In 1984, EPA conducted a community assessment around the site by going
door to door to interview the residents. Although no organized citizens
group is formed, the residents have a number of concerns. Among their
main concerns, is the quality of groundwater in the area. Although
remedial actions may stabilize groundwater quality, residents want to
see the aquifer restored to an uncontaminated state. They are apprehensive
of the long term effects of drinking even minimally contaminated water.
They have also expressed concern about the safety of using their well
water for laundry or bathing prior to the completion of remedial actions.
-------
page 8.
In December, 1984 during EPA's Remedial Investigation, trenching
was conducted to see if drums were buried on-site, and where they were
located. A.t that time, residents were visited by EPA. They were not
concerned about the specific trenching operation, but they did project
positive feelings that EPA was doing something to address the problem.
However, they were apprehensive that EPA might decide on a remediation
alternative based solely on cost effectiveness.
One faolly whose well is known to be contaminated has been using
a carbon filter, and has been drinking bottled water. However, that
family has had to haul water from a relative's home, and has had the
added expense of installing and maintaining their carbon filter. They
have repeatedly:asked if EPA would reimburse them for all or part of
the cost of the filter. Along that same line, several residents have
asked that bottled water be provided by EPA until the Superfund Bill is
reauthorized and a waterline could be installed.
Another major concern in the area, is property value. This concern
is one that is not exclusive only to the residents who live within one
mile of the site, but has been expressed at two public meetings by most
of the participants. They feel that because a Superfund site exists
in the township, a stigma has been attached to all the property in
that township. Throughout the past two years EPA has received several
calls from realtors and potential buyers, requesting information about
the Blosenski site.
Finally, a big concern that has been expressed by everyone who lives
near the Blosenski Superfund Site, Is the reauthorization of Superfund.
At the RI/FS public meeting, several residents 'announced that they
were planning to write to their elected officials in hopes of expediting
the bill's reauthorization. They were deeply concerned that if
Superfund was delayed any longer, EPA would not consider the Blosenski
site a priority* When .chat statement was made, EPA explained that the
site's priority would not be changed by the delay, and that once funds
were made available, Che design stage of the project would begin. The
EPA also explained that there is the chance that Superfund money might nor
be needed, if we reach an agreement with the potentially responsible parties
(PRP's)to do the work. The residents said that they would like to see the
PRP's pay for Che work, however, they also said that they would continue to
push for a stroof Superfund Bill.
3. SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND EPA RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS.
During the coonenc period which lasted from June,1986 through
September 11, 1986, EPA received 7 letters from the general
public, 1 letter from the Township Supervisors, and 2 letters
from the PRPs.
-------
page
A. COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS.
1. Three residents commented that remedial alternative 5 or 6
would he a better choice.
At the public meeting, EPA explained that we would not he
able to excavate the entire landfill and dispose of it
in ^n offsite facility. That choice would not be technically
feasible, or cost effective.
2. Only one resident wrote that they were not in favor of the
water line proposal. That resident suggested drilling a
new well.
EPA explained at the meeting, that the residents had the
option of accepting the water line connection. Those who
preferred to continue using well water would not he
forced to connect to the water line.
3. Three comments agreed with the entire EPA alternative.
4. Four letters agreed with Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the
EPA preferred alternative.
5. Six of the residents letters agreed with the water line
extension, and two of those asked EP~A to pay their water
bills.
EPA explained that the purpose of Superfund was to address
abandoned toxic waste sites across the country, and if
migration from a site causes a potentially health threatening
situation, procedures will be taken to remediate the threat.
i
The aption to connect to the water line will be made available to
the affected and potentially affected parties, but EPA does not
have the authority to insist that they accept the water line.
B. COMMEKTS PROM LOCAL OFFICIALS.
1. The West Cain Township Board of Supervisors commented that
they thought the RI/FS was too lengthy an investigation, and
that the projected cleanup operation should have a proposed
time schedule.
A time schedule for the clean-up will be detailed in the
pre-design study.
-------
page 10.
2. The supervisors also commenced that the water supply from Che
Coatesville Water Authority might be contaminated.
The residents have an option to accept or not accept the
water line. Water companies test the water quality
regularly.
3. Their letter states that we might not extend the water line
far enough for the entire township to connect.
EPA is providing the water line to the highly contaminated
wells and to those that have a potential for contamination.
C. COMMENTS FROM POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.
This section has been addressed on the following four pages.
-------
page 11.
C. Response to contents on the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility and Focused
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS/FFS) for the Blosenski Landfill Site submitted by
the following Potential Responsible Parties: Joseph M. Blosenski, Jr; 3etz
Laboratories, Inc.; The Budd Company; C & D Batteries; A. Johnson and Company,
Inc.; ICI Americas, Inc; Delaware Container Corporation; and Jeanne and Perry
Phillips, dated 9/11/86.
Garment: Failure to sufficiently identify the ground water flow system and the
existence, extent and direction of a contamination plume; failure to document
the mechanics of and the existence of contamination migration to off-site
residential wells as well as a failure to correlate on and off-site compounds;
Response: The Agency does recognize the fact that further ground water investi-
gation is necessary in order to more accurately define the extent and magnitude
of ground water contamination before an effective ground water remediation system
can be designed and implemented. As outlined in Phase 3 of EPA's Preferred
Alternative, a pre-design study will be performed during which additional wells
will be installed and sampled as well as other residential wells and surface
waters. The information presented in the Remedial Investigation shows that
the ground water underlying the Blosenski Landfill has been grossly contaminated
with organic compounds that were deposited on or in the landfill. 'Many of the
same contaminants found in the landfill's surface, subsurface and ground 'water
samples (onsite) were found in ground water (monitoring wells), surface water,
and residential well samples in offsite areas, as detailed in the RI. As the
RI points out, the migration of these contaminants in the ground water are
reflective of the hydraulic gradient of the site, but is difficult to predict
due to the multiple onsite sources of contaminants, fracture influence in the rock
densities of contaminants, cones of depression attributable to residential wells
and depth of residential wells. Therefore, therconcept of a well defined plume
may not be applicable.
The Agency feels that information contained in the RI is adequate to
characterize the release of y**T»rrir*i* substances into the environment and to
direct our efforts toward remediation of the health and environmental threat
posed by such release and the threat posed by potential releases into the
environment. The, comnsntors place a great deal of emphasis en the lack of evidence
for contamination, of the residential wells. The ground water data provide
solid evidence that the ground water aquifer is contaminated, and while it is
important from a health standpoint to know whether wells which are used for
drinking and bathing are being affected or not, the fact that contamination
exists in the ground water is significant in and of itself, since it presents
a potential hssdth and environmental threat to users of that aquifer.
EPA seas no reason to delay the Record of Decision to "precisely define
the extent of contamination," when yVM*ior*i information can be provided
during a pre-design phase, thus allowing other remedial actions to be initiated
in a timely manner. EPA does not feel that information gathered during the
pre-design study will significantly alter the concept of the remedial alternatives
which have been selected, but will instead enhance EPA's remediation efforts.
-------
page 12.
Garment: Failure to identify and evaluate non-site potential sources of
contamination and correlation of on- and off-site compounds;
Response: The correlation between contaminants found on site (in soils and
in drums samples) with those found in ground water is strong and is sufficient
to show the landfill to be the cause of ground water contamination in the area.
The possibility of other sources being responsible for seme of the contamination
found in certain offsite wells has not been ruled out and will be investigated
further during pre-design studies; however, this possibility would not signifi-
cantly alter our conclusions based on the onsite ground water data contained
in the RI. This correlation is made strong by the evidence of similar compounds
being detected in different sample types, and by the concentrations of contamin-
ation found in waste, soil, and ground water samples. The contribution by
other sources, therefore, becomes negligible in light of the gross contamination
which has been shown to be a direct result of the disposal of hazardous substances
in the BlosensKi Landfill.
Comment: Inadequate soil contamination data to support a trenching program and
the need for excavation of contaminated waste/soil;
Response: The EPA selected alternative specifically addresses removal of drums
and contaminated material in intimate contact with the drums from the landfill
during trenching operations and not contaminated waste/soil. Trenching operations
performed on the site during the RI were successful in locating areas of buried
drums and pooled liquids containing hazardous contaminants. Because the RI
identified these source areas as containing high concentrations of contaminants,
EPA feels that it is necessary to locate, excavate and dispose of these drums to
ensure drums containing contaminated materials, that are currently leaking
into the subsurface soils and ground water, are removed. In addition, unopened
drums containing contaminated materials, that may eventually rupture and release
their contents into the environment, will also be removed. EPA may evaluate
alternative technologies to treat the contents of these drums after excavation.
The trenching operation will attempt to employ geophysical techniques to assist
in isolating pocketed areas of drums, however, some of these techniques were
employed during the RI without much success.
Comment: Preferred alternative remedy of overlapping and unnecessary levels
of remediation; ..
Response: The EPA selected alternative addresses multiple health and environ-
mental concerns caused by the contamination from the landfill. Because of these
concerns and th» ^r*"*i and potential threat to human health and the environment,
EPA feels that a number of remedial measures are necessary at the site to
(1) eliminate the public health threat posed by the use of contaminated ground
water by area residents, (2) eliminate contamination source areas to the maximum
extent possible, (3) reduce and/or eliminate the potential for infiltration of
contaminants into the environment, and (4) reduce levels of existing ground
water contamination.
-------
page 13.
Garment: The preferred alternative calls for ground water treatment in
fractured bedrock, the necessity and feasibility of which is seriously
questioned;
Response: The results of the RI show that the ground water underlying
landfill and sane offsite areas is grossly contaminated with a variety of
volatile organic compounds, many of which are carcinogenic. In addition,
results of surface water sampling during the RI and subsequent sampling
episodes performed by EPA indicate that these same compounds are migrating
offsite via ground water movement. As stated in the FS, ground water extraction
and treatment provides a feasible means of removing contaminants from the
ground water. However, the Agency recognizes the efficiency of extraction is
subject to the uncertainty of localized well yields due to the fractured bedrock.
Because of this situation, EPA has selected an approach in which the pre-design
study will be used to assess the extent and magnitude of ground water contam-
ination and assist in the development of a source reduction program that will
be implemented to reduce ground water to Alternative Concentration Levels
developed by the Agency, for a specified evaluation period.
Comment: Cost effectiveness of extending the waterline;
>
Response: As expressed in former comments, the ground water data provide
solid evidence that the ground water aquifer is contaminated and presently
affecting residential wells. At the present time, at least three residences
that are in close proximity to the landfill have contamination in their wells
that the Agency considers to be an immediate health threat. Preliminary
indications from ongoing sampling of the residences around the landfill show
that as many as 12 to 18 residences may have seme type of volatile organic
compounds in their wells. Based on the hydrogeology and contaminant information
provided in the RI, the Agency feels that there exists a potential for other
wells directly adjacent to the site and wells in close proximity to the site to
become contaminated, if they have not been so already. EPA is continuing its
efforts to identify and evaluate affected residential wells. Because of this
situation, EPA has elected to provide affected residences with an alternative
water supply that will eliminate their contact with contaminated ground water.
As referenced in..the FFS, a variety of alternatives were explored that would
provide adequate protection for affected residential wells. The Agency reviewed
the development, of a new community well initially as a favorable alternative.
However, the alternative was eliminated due to a number of uncertainties associated
with this alternative such as: the ability of the fractured rock systsn to provide
enough water to affected and potentially affected residences; the responsibility
and cost of long term operation and maintenance of such a system; the possibility
of future contamination of the well from the contaminated aquifer; responsibility
and future costs of easement agreements and/or permits; and the overall hydrogeo-
logic effect on the surrounding area or community.
-------
page 14.
Garment: Need for a multimedia cap;
Response: As presented in the RI, the surface and subsurface soils in the
3losenski Landfill contain a number of organic and inorganic contaminants.
Because many of these contaminants are expected to remain in the soils after
the trenching operation has been completed, the Agency must comply with the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) of November 20, 1985 which specifies "The
appropriate extent of remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's selection
of a cost effective remedial alternative that effectively mitigates and minimizes
threats to and provides adequate protection of public health and welfare and
the environment^..this will require selection of a remedy that attains or
exceeds applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public health and environ-
mental requirements"... The requirements set forth in the NCP direct the Agency
to satisfy the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
in landfill closure such as the Blosenski landfill and post closure care.
Specifically, the RCRA requires the cap or final cover to be designed to minimize
infiltration of precipitation into the landfill after closure. It must
be no more permeable than the liner system. It must operate with minimum
maintenance and promote drainage from its surface while minimizing erosion.
It must also be designed so that settling and subsidence are accormodated to
minimize the potential for disruption of continuity and function of the final
cover. The Agency believes that a three layer final cover (cap) will adequately
minimize infiltration of precipitation, which is the primary purpose of the
final cover. The final cover acts to minimize infiltration by causing
precipitation to run off through use of slopes, drainage layers, and impermeable
and slightly permeable barriers. By minimizing infiltration, the generation
of leachate will also be minimized, thereby reducing long-term discharge of
contaminants to a bare minimun at the Blosenski Landfill site. In order to
satisfy the RCRA requirements, the Agency selected a multi-media cap as proposed
in Alternative Three for the Blosenski Landfill. However, since a trenching
operation will be performed at the site and additional sampling of the residual
soils will be performed to determine if significant contamination remains, the
Agency may reevaluate £he cost effectiveness of the cap components during
design.
-------
page 15.
4. REMAINING CONCERNS.
The community surrounding Che Blosenski Superfund Site is concerned
about the continuation of the Superfund Bill. They are fearful that
EPA will be forced to walk away from the cleanup and the situation
at theT&i.te-rWill-'aot .be changed.
The more specific-concern that remains in the community is whether
or not Che EPA can supply bottled water to the Bardsley family, (the
family that has the most contaminated well). Mr. and Mrs. Bardsley
„,-. have repeacedly requested that the EPA reimburse them for either
part of or the total cost of their carbon filter. FPA is investigating
the posstbij-i-ty of reimbursing the Bardsleys.
Finally, the concerns about property values will remain in the community
until a remedial action is complete at the Blosenski site.
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
PENNSYLVANIA Pott Offlct ^ 2()63
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
September 26, 1986
Bureau of West* Management 717-787-9871
Mr. Thomas Voltaggio
Chief, Superfund Branch
U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Dear tyr. Voltaggio:
*
The review of the draft Record of Decision for the selection of the alternative for the
remediation of the Blosenski Landfill site has been completed. We concur with your assessment of
the proposed alternatives and with the selection of the final remedial measures set forth in the
draft ROD.
A branch water line will be installed from an existing mainline of the Coatesville Water
Authority to supply alternative water to affected and potentially affected residences. A trenching
operation of the landfill will be performed to excavate and remove the buried drums, any material
in intimate contact with the drums, and the free-standing liquids for disposal at a RCRA facility.
A low permeability cover will be installed on the landfill with appropriate surface water manage-
ment and gas venting. Ground.water and surface water monitoring will be instituted in compliance
with RCRA closure regulations. The remedial design, based on information obtained during trench-
ing and excavation operations, will be in accordance with all applicable RCRA requirements, and
will provide necessary environmental protection consistent with CERCLA goals.
A pre-design stady will be performed to more fully delineate the extent and magnitude
of the groundwater contamination and to collect data for the design of an effective groundwater
pumping and treatment system. The groundwater contamination source reduction program will be
implemented for a period of time determined during design but not to initially exceed two years.
At the end of two years, an evaluation will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the
pumping and treatment system and the need, extent, and duration of future groundwater remediation.
P re-design and design costs will be funded 100 percent by trust fund monies. The
groundwater pumping and treatment program will be considered part of the approved remedy and
will be eligible for trust fund money and 10 percent financed with State money. Operation and
maintenance will be implemented by the State of Pennsylvania on the landfill cap, gas venting,
surface diversion system, and monitoring program (excluding that necessary to monitor the
effectiveness of the pumping and treatment program while it is being financed by the trust fund)
one year subsequent to completion of construction.
We recommend that the installation of the public water supply and performance of the
pre-design study proceed as quickly as possible.
I
------- |