United States         Office of
             Environmental Protection   Emergency and
             Agency           Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-90/095
September 1990
&EPA    Superfund
             Record of Decision
             Butz Landfill,  PA

-------
50272-101
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION
        PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
     EPA/ROD/R03-90/095
                                           3. Recipient1 a Accession No.
 4. TNoandSubWe
   SUPERFUND  RECORD OF  DECISION
   Butz Landfill, PA
   First Remedial Action - Final
                                                                     5. Report Oat*
                                                      09/28/90
 7. AuMrta)
                                                                     8. Performing Organization Rapt No.
   PwfonninQ OroHfuntlon Nwnt tno Aooivtc
                                                                     10. ProJecVTa*k/Work Unit No.
                                                                     11. Contract(C) or Gr«nt(G) No.

                                                                     (C)

                                                                     (G)
 12. Sponaorlng Organization Name and Addreea
   U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency
   401 M Street,  S.W.
   Washington,  D.C.  20460
                                           13. Type of Report i Period Covered

                                                     800/000
                                                                     14.
 15. Supplementary Notee
 16. Abetrect (Limit: 200 worda)

  The Butz Landfill site  is  an inactive  landfill  in  Jackson Township, Monroe County,
  Pennsylvania.   The sole-source aquifer underlying  the site  supplies drinking water  for
  the vicinity,  which includes approximately 3,300 people who live within  three miles  of
  the site and  an additional 3,000 people during  tourist seasons.   Beginning in 1965,
  municipal waste,  sewage  sludge/liquids,  and possibly some industrial wastes were
  accepted at the landfill.   During the  years the landfill was  operated, the waste was
  disposed of without a State permit.   In 1971, onsite investigations revealed well water
  contamination  and the presence of leachate seeps.   By 1973,  the  State  ordered the
  landfill closed and required that corrective measures be taken,  including the
  development of a  surface water management plan, ground water  monitoring,  and placement
  of a cover over the landfill.   Additional onsite investigations  in 1986  revealed high
  TCE levels in  domestic wells to the  south of the landfill,  which prompted a request  to
  EPA that the  site be considered for  emergency action.  In 1986,  the State and EPA
  initiated emergency response activities,  including additional sampling,  installing water
  coolers, and  supplying bottled water or carbon  filters to homes  with contaminated well
  water.   This Record of Decision addresses the first Operable  Unit  (OU) ,  which

  (See Attached  Page)
 17. Document Analyela a. Descriptor*
    Record of Decision -  Butz Landfill,  PA
    First Remedial Action -  Final
    Contaminated Medium:  gw
    Key Contaminants:  VOCs  (PCE, TCE)

   b. kfontHfers/OpiMvDided Terms
   c. COSATI FMd/Group
 18. Availability Statement
                            19. Security Claaa (Thii Report)
                                   None
                                                     20. Security Ctaa* (Thia Page)
                                                             None
21. No. ofPagee
       47
                                                                                22. Price
(See ANSt-Z39.18)
                                      See Instruction* on Reverse
                                                      Or TIONAL rVJHM ZrZ (*-,/)
                                                      (Formerly NTIS-35)
                                                      Department ol Commerce

-------
EPA/ROD/R03-90/095
Butz Landfill, PA
First Remedial Action - Final

Abstract (Continued)

establishes an alternate water supply.  Subsequent OUs will address remediation of the
contaminated soil, surface water,  and ground water.  The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including PCE and TCE.

The selected remedial action for this site includes construction of new water service
lines and replacement of pumps, valves,  and drinking water storage tanks; connection of
new water supply wells to approximately 49 residences; and construction of access roads,
as required.  The total cost for this remedial action is $5,910,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $23,000 for 50 years.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:   Chemical-specific cleanup goals were not provided
because this remedial alternative will not address ground water contamination but rather
will mitigate and/or prevent human exposure to currently used contaminated ground water.
The selected alternative will provide potable water that will meet SDWA MCLs.  Water
from the water supply system will meet State standards.

-------
                       DECLARATION FOR THE
                        RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION,

Butz Landfill Superfund Site
Jackson Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania
Operable Unit One:  Alternate Water Supply

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial
action for a single operable unit at the Butz Landfill Site,
Jackson Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.  The remedial
action was developed in accordance with the statutory
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA),
and is consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
CFR Part 300.  This remedy selection decision is based on the
Administrative Record file for this site  (index attached).

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with this remedial
alternative (copy of the concurrence letter is attached).

Subsequent Record(s) of Decision addressing additional operable
units may be issued pending completion of further studies at the
site.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action(s)
selected in the ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedial alternative for this Operable Unit will
mitigate and/or prevent human exposure to currently used
contaminated ground water.  Implementation of this remedial
alternative will not address ground water contamination generally
nor will it address contamination at the sice in any other media.
EPA is presently undertaking a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)  to determine the nature and extent of
such contamination.

The selected remedial alternative will provide an alternate
supply of potable water for certain residents in Jackson and
Pocono Townships in Pennsylvania, who depend solely on ground
water for every day use.  These residents are located within the
boundaries of a ground water plume that is contaminated with
hazardous substances, pollutants and/or contaminants in excess of
health-based applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

-------
 (ARARs), or downgradient of this plume.  It has been estimated
 that 22 residences within the boundary of the contaminated plume
 do not have the services of a public water supply and depend on
 ground water for potable use.  In addition, approximately 27
 residences with wells are immediately downgradient of the
 contaminant plume and these wells are expected to become
 contaminated in the  future.

 The major components of the selected remedial alternative
 include:

     o    Construction of new water service lines, mains, and
          valves, and the connection to new water supply wells.
          It is estimated that 49 residences will be provided
          with this  service.  The number and location of
          residences that will receive public water will be
          verified for the design of this remedial action.

     o    The construction of access roads as required.

     o    EPA will transfer control of the new water lines and
          services to the Pocono/Jackson Joint Water Authority
          when construction is completed.

 DECLARATION

 The remedial action  selected for this Operable Unit is protective
 of human health and  the environment, attains Federal and state
 requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to
 the remedial action, and is cost-effective.  The remedial action
 selected for this Operable Unit is part of a total remedial
 action that will be  selected for the site pending completion of
 studies EPA is now conducting.  The remedy selected in this ROD
 does not, by itself, employ treatment that permanently and
 significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances as its principal element nor does it utilize
permanent solutions  and alternative treatment technologies.
 Implementation of the selected remedy will, however, eliminate
the threat to area residents presented by the continued use of
 contaminated ground  water.
                                              SEP 2 8 1990
Edwin B. Erickson                          Jate
Regional Administrator
Region III

-------
         REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
                        BOT2  LANDFILL SITE

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Butz Landfill site is located south of Camelback Mountain,
along Township Road 601, in Jackson Township, Monroe County,
Pennsylvania.  The closest town is Reeders, approximately one
mile south of the site (Figure 1).  A population of approximately
3,300 people live within three miles of the site.  Because of the
presence of various resorts and summer homes in the area, the
population approximately doubles during the tourist seasons of
winter and summer.  The generally low number of people per square
mile is associated with the two primary uses of land in the area:
recreational activities and farming.  The primary crops are corn,
hay, wheat and potatoes.

Surface water drainage in the area is mainly to the southeast,
following the topographic gradient.  The nearest sink for surface
water runoff is an intermittent stream located approximately
2,700 feet southeast of the site (Figure 2).  This stream is a
tributary to Reeders Run Creek.  Poorly drained areas and annual
springs also exist southeast of the site.

Geologically, the Butz Landfill site falls on the border of the
Appalachian Plateau and the Valley and Ridge Physiographic
Province.  Locally, Camelback Mountain forms part of the Pocono
Plateau escarpment, with the Butz Landfill site situated on the
southeast slope of the escarpment.  The site lies on the Long Run
Member of the late Devonian Age Catskill Formation.  The Long Run
Member consists of alternating gray sandstone and red siltstone
and shale.  Fracture joints in this consolidated rock unit are
well developed, abundant, and closely spaced.  The Catskill
Formation dips gently to the northwest in the Pocono Plateau but
becomes more complexly folded in the Valley and Ridge Province
located to the southeast.

Overlying the bedrock in the area are reddish glacial tills
deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch.  Till deposits consist of
a sorted and non-sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, pebbles,
cobbles, and some boulders, and ranges from 5 to over 25 feet in
thickness.  Developed upon the glacial till in the immediate
vicinity of the site are the Lackawanna-Wellsboro-Oquaga Series
Soils.  These soils are very stony, moderately deep, well drained
soils.  The topographic gradient in the area of the site averages
5%, but exceeds 15% in some areas of the site.

Hydrogeologically, there are two primary aquifers in the vicinity
of the site.  The shallow water table aquifer (overburden
aquifer) is located above the bedrock surface, and is the
saturated portion of the glacial till.  The depth to the water is
greater than 14 feet at the site, but is shallower southeast of

-------
the site where the water table probably discharges to the
intermittent stream.  EPA wells screened in the water table
aquifer have water levels ranging between 2 to 19 feet below
grade.  The ground-water flow direction in the water table
aquifer is apparently to the southeast similar to that of surface
water drainage.  Hell yields from this aquifer are generally low.

The other major aquifer in the area is the bedrock aquifer
occurring in the Long Run Member of the Catskill Formation. Well
yields are higher in this aquifer than the water table aquifer
and commonly range between 15-40 gallons per minute (gpm), but
may exceed 75 gpm.

The ground water flow direction in this aquifer is both to the
north/northeast and to the southeast (Figure 3).  This suggests
that ground water flow may be controlled both by stratigraphy and
geologic structure.  Ground water flow is constrained by the
primary porosity and permeability within the alternating
sandstones and shales making up the Long Run Member.  Ground
water flow through the sandstone units is probably the primary
pathway for ground water movement.  However, ground water flow is
almost certainly also influenced by the abundant fractures and
joints in the Long Run Member.  This aquifer appears to be
recharged by the water table aquifer, and may be locally confined
or unconfined.

The water supply for the area around the site appears to be
provided exclusively from ground water wells which are primarily
privately owned.  Most ground water users, including private
homeowners, extract ground water from the bedrock aquifer.

A community water supply system is used by Tannersville, located
more than three miles east of the site.  Water quality in the
area is generally good with low levels of dissolved solids and
hardness.  The primary recharge zone for local ground water is
probably the Camelback Mountain area to the northwest of the
site.
SITE HISTORY

The site was acquired by Russell and Luella Butz and Ernest and
Emma Butz in March 1963, and landfilling operations began as
early as 1965.  Although the specific quantities of waste
received are unknown, it is known that the landfill accepted
municipal waste, sewage sludge/liquids, and possibly some
industrial wastes.  An operating permit application was submitted
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the landfill in 1970, but
the permit was subsequently denied due to insufficient technical
information about the landfill site.  Waste disposal apparently
continued at the site without a permit.  The first local citizen
complaints about the landfill are documented as early 1971, and

-------
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources  (PAOER)
made the first site inspections in early 1971.  Well water
pollution and leachate seeps were discovered at that time,  in
early 1973, PADER ordered the landfill closed due to improper
operation, and required development of a surface water management
plan, ground-water monitoring, and a landfill cover.  Waste
disposal apparently ceased at the site in late 1973.  Ground
water monitoring of local wells was performed until 1979.
Field examination of the landfill and surrounding areas was again
initiated by PAOER in 1984.  Additional soil, water, and
groundwater samples were collected in March, April, and June of
1986.  The results indicated high levels of trichloroethene (TCE)
in domestic wells to the south of the landfill which prompted a
request from PADER to EPA Region III that the site be considered
for emergency action.

During July 1986, PADER and EPA initiated area-wide response
activities including additional site inspections, public
information meetings, residential well sampling, and the
installation of water coolers and bottled water supplies to homes
with contaminated well water.  Bottled water was provided to 28
locations, and carbon filtration systems were installed at 22
residences.  In addition, 17 groundwater monitoring wells were
drilled for further tests and sampling.

In August 1986, the EPA Emergency Response Branch (ERB), which is
known now as the Emergency Response Team (ERT), provided
assistance in determining the scope and nature of the
contamination problem.  ERB performed magnetometer and soil gas
surveys in the area of North Road and surveyed-in the well
locations for the hydrogeological investigation which continued
throughout the fall, winter, and spring months.  A hydro-
geological report was subsequently prepared.  The report, dated
May 1987, strongly implicated Butz Landfill as the source of
contamination.  In April 1987, EPA completed a preliminary
engineering study and cost estimate for the provision of
alternate water supply systems to serve the area of contaminated
groundwater wells.

The EPA study concluded that drilling new wells at an elevation
protected against groundwater contamination from the landfill,
and constructing a storage tank with a closed-end distribution
system is the most effective option complying with good
engineering principles.  In May 1988, Pennoni Associates, Inc.
was retained by EPA to provide design engineering services for
the water systems, and in March 1989 three new wells were drilled
as recommended by the preliminary engineering study.  The design
work for the water distribution system was completed in January
1990.

-------
Currently, BPA continues to provide bottled water and carbon
filtration systems maintenance to residents of the affected area
in addition to regular quarterly sampling.

In view of this situation, EPA has determined that certain
remedial actions should be taken quickly to achieve significant
risk reduction promptly at the site.  See Section 300.430 of the
CERCLA National Contingency Plan (NCP), 55 Fed. Reg. 8846 (March
8, 1990).

                 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This first operable unit Record of Decision is for the purpose ol
addressing the establishment of an alternate drinking water
supply for residences and institutions having ground water
supplies which are contaminated with hazardous substances
originating at the Butz Landfill.  The site is on the Long Run
Member of the late Devonian Age Catskill Formation.  The Long Rur
Member consists of alternating gray sandstone and red siltstone
and shale comprising a fractured bedrock.  Fracture joints in
this consolidated rock unit are well developed, abundant, and
closely-spaced.  Overlying the bedrock are reddish glacial tills
consisting of a sorted and non-sorted mixture of clay, silt,
sand, pebbles, cobbles, and some boulders.

Hydrogeologically, there are two primary aquifers in the vicinity
of the site: The shallow water table  (overburden) aquifer, and
the bedrock aquifer.  The water supply for the area around the
site appears to be provided exclusively from ground water wells
which are primarily privately owned.  Most ground water users
extract drinking water from the bedrock aquifer.

Extensive environmental investigation began at the site in early
1986 by PADER and EPA.  Environmental investigations included
ground-water sampling from over 50 domestic water supply wells;
surface water sampling from nearby steams, seeps, and springs;
sediment sampling from streams and seeps; a soil vapor survey of
a portion of the landfill area; and the installation, pump
testing, and sampling of seventeen monitoring wells in the
vicinity of the landfill site.

The results of the ground water sampling of the domestic and
monitoring wells indicate widespread volatile organic compound
contamination, primarily trichloroethene  (TCE), in the vicinity
of the landfill and strongly point to the landfill as the source
of the contamination.   Figures 4 and 5 show the extent of the
TCE plume in the bedrock aquifer and the overburden aquifer,
respectively.

As a result of sampling for volatile organic compounds conducted
in 1986 by EPA, 19 residential water wells, 2 camp wells, and 1
business well have been found to be contaminated.  The

-------
contaminants include: vinyl chloride (up to 11 ppb);
tetrachlorethane (up to 1.5 ppb); trichloroethene  (up to 7,000
ppb); trans-1,2 dichloroethene  (up to 260 ppb); 1,2 dichlo-
roethene (up to.300 ppb); and 1,1-dichloroethene (up to 8ppb).

Periodic ground water sampling of up to 50 residential wells
located adjacent to the landfill has been performed since 1986
(Table 1) (see Figure 6 for location of residences listed in
Table 1).  The residential wells located to the southeast of the
landfill show the highest level of contamination - in the range
of 4000 to 7000 ug/1.  The concentration of TCE in these wells
has remained fairly constant over the last four years.  Other
residential wells located both to the east and southwest of the
Butz Landfill show much lower concentrations of TCE (30-300
ug/1).  TCE concentrations in the ground water intercepted by
these wells have varied depending on specific well location, over
the last four years.

Ground water sampling of the 17 monitoring wells installed by EPA
was performed once in 1987 (Table 2).  Sixteen of the seventeen
wells were sampled for volatile organic compounds.   Well R1S was
sampled for all Priority Pollutant Compounds.  Again, volatile
organic compounds were the predominant type of contaminant found;
trace levels of base neutral compounds were also detected.  A
high of 236 ug/1 of TCE was found in the overburden aquifer.  A
high of 15,700 ug/1 of TCE was found in the bedrock aquifer in
the vicinity of the landfill.


                     COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

An Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) which is a
study that considers alternatives for action, a Hydrogeological
Investigation report, and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan for
the Butz Landfill site were placed in a public information
repository located near the site at the Pocono Township Public
Library, Tannersville, Pennsylvania.  Site related documents were
also maintained at the Region III office.  -
-------
                                6

                  SUMMARY OF HTTMXM HEALTH RISKfl


As a result of sampling for volatile organic compounds by EPA,
twenty-two (22) drinking water wells downgradient of the Butz
Landfill have been found to be contaminated.  The contaminants
include vinyl chloride (up to 11 pp); tetrachlorethane (up to 1.5
ppb); trichloroethene  (up to 7,000 ppb); trans-l,2-dichloroethene
(up to 260 ppb); 1,2-dichloroethene (up to 300 ppb); and 1,1-
dlchloroethene (up to 8 ppb).

Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act for vinyl chloride (2 ug/1);
tetrachloroethylene (5 ug/1); TCE (5 ug/1); 1,2 dichloroethene
(70-ug/l); 1,1-dichloroethene (7 ug/1); and trans-1,2
dichloroethene (100 ug/1).  In addition, non-enforceable maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs)  have also been established under
the Safe Drinking Water Act for these compounds.  MCLGs for
1,1-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene and 1,2
dichloroethene are the same as the MCLs.  The MCLG for
tetrachloroethylene, TCE, and vinyl chloride is 0.0 ug/1.  (MCLGs
represent the concentration of a drinking water contaminant that
is protective against adverse human health effects and allows an
adequate margin of safety.)

The primary routes of possible human exposure to the volatile
organic contaminants in the ground water in the vicinity of the
Butz Landfill via the drinking water wells are ingestion,
inhalation (during showering), and dermal contact.  Vinyl
chloride is a known ("Group A")  human carcinogen; TCE and
tetrachlorethane are suspected ("Group B2") human carcinogens;
1,1-dichloroethene is a possible ("Group C") human carcinogen.
Exposure to high concentrations of TCE in air may cause
irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.  Skin contact with TCE
may cause dermatitis.  Chronic exposure to vinyl chloride may
cause hepatic damage; angiosarcoma of the liver; and excess
cancer of the lung, lymphatic and/or nervous systems.  Trans-1,2-
dichloroethene can act as a primary irritant producing dermatitis
and irritation of mucous membranes.  It can also act as a
narcotic, causing central nervous system depression.  Table 3 is
a brief summation of some site-related human health risk
information.

Human health risks and risks to wildlife and plant life due to
the possible contamination of soils, surfuo* waters, ground water
not currently used as drinking water and air are not addressed in
this first operable unit Record of Decision.  These risks will be
addressed through studies presently being conducted by EPA.

-------
This ROD announces selection of remedial action(s) for one
operable unit at the site.  This remedy will provide an alternate
drinking water supply for residents and institutions whose ground
water wells have become contaminated with hazardous substances
originating at the landfill, or whose ground water supplies are
in danger of becoming contaminated in the foreseeable future.
Contaminated soils, surface waters and ground water will be
addressed in at least one additional Record of Decision following
the completion of a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) which is currently being conducted by EPA.


                   DESCRIPTIOH OF ALTERNATIVES'

Using the information collected during EPA's Emergency Response
activities and the EE/CA, EPA has developed the alternatives
described below for first operable unit remedial action at the
Butz Landfill Site:

     1.   MO ACTION

          Under this alternative, EPA would not implement any
          measures, including measures currently being
          implemented, to protect the population from the
          existing threats posed by contaminated ground water.

          This alternative would not minimise nor eliminate the
          endangerment.  In addition, this alternative would not
          satisfy the statutory preference for permanent
          solutions nor would it be protective of human health.
          Under this alternative, no remediation at the site
          would be conducted until the completion of a Remedial
          Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) report.

     2.   CONTINUATION OF CURRENT REMEDIES

          Under this alternative, EPA would continue to provide
          bottled drinking water and/or carbon filtration systems
          to institutions and residences with contaminated well
          water.

          EPA currently provides bottled water to 28 locations
          and maintains carbon filtration units at 22 locations.
          Periodic monitoring of the filtration units is required
          to verify the efficiency of the systems, as well as to
          ensure that the contaminant concentrations at
          residences without filter systems do not reach unsafe
          levels.

-------
                           8

     Th« cost of the continuation of current remedies has
     been estimated to be $3,272,900 over a 50-year period.
     Fifty years was chosen because that is the expected
     service life of a ductile iron water distribution
     system and therefore allows comparison to alternatives
     3 and 4.  The following is a brief summary of the costs
     of this alternative:
     Item                                  Annual Cost

 Maintenance and Supplies                    $38,000
 Analytical costs                             11,118
 Overhead                                      7,920
 15% Contingency                               8.420
 Total Annual Cost                           $65,458

 Total Costs ($65,458 X 50 years)          $3,272,900
3.   INSTALLATION OP A NEW WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BY
     CONKECTINQ TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER 8DPPLIBS

     This alternative would involve the construction of a
     water distribution pipeline to supply potable water to
     the approximately 49 locations which have,  or which are
     threatened by, contaminated ground water downgradient
     from the But2 Landfill site.  Figure 7 is a map of the
     pipeline configuration. " The new distribution pipeline
     would be connected to an existing municipal water
     supply.  The only known reliable municipal water
     sources are located in Stroudsburg and East
     Stroudsburg.  Both are located approximately 10 miles
     east of the site.  Connection to these purveyors would
     require the piping and equipment necessary to pump the
     water uphill over a ten-mile distmce.  The pipeline
     would cross both public and private lands and would
     cross several County, State and Federal highways.

     This alternative is expected to cost an estimated
     $7,100,000 for the initial construction.  Ownership of
     the pipeline and the associated equipment would be
     relinquished to the Pocono/Jackson Joint Water
     Authority which has been set up to operate the water
     system.  Costs of maintenance over a 50-year period are
     estimated to be $1,300,000, bringing the total cost
     estimate for this alternative to $8,400,000.  The
     following is a brief summary of the estimated costs of
     Alternative 3:

-------
                                          Cost

Construction                           $6,173,913
15% Contingency                           926.087
Total                                  $7,100,000

Operation and Maintenance
($26,000 X 50 years)                   Si.300.OOP

Estimated Total Cost                   $8,400,000
INSTALLATION OF A MEW WATER DISTRIBUTION BYBTBM O8IKQ
NEW WATER SUPPLY WELLS.

This alternative involves use of new groundwater supply
wells and distribution piping to affected residents.
Elevation and direction from the site, among other
things, would be considered in determining the most
appropriate location for the new supply wells.  The
depth of these wells and the well casing size would be
selected based on relevant hydrogiologic data.

An option for this remedial alternative would be to use
three existing ground water supply wells installed by
EPA on a property west of the site during prior
response activities (see Figure 7).  Current
information suggests that this water is of adequate
quality and that the wells produce sufficient output to
meet the needs of the potential users.

Because of the natural elevation of the terrain where
the three potential supply wells are currently
installed, an elevated storage tank is not considered
necessary and a tank sitting on a foundation at grade
would be sufficient.  The grade elevation of the
storage tank would allow gravity flow at adequate.
pressures for the residences at both the highest and
lowest elevation.  The pipeline from these three supply
wells would run along the course of an existing power
line right-of-way for approximately 5/8 mile before
encountering the first service outlet (see Figure 2).
The construction of an access road to this well area
would potentially disturb wooded wetlands in that
location.  The impacted wetlands provide a variety of
functions and values important to the public interest
including serving as nesting, resting, feeding and
breeding habitat for a variety of wildlife species;
serving as storage areas for flood and stormwaters; and
aiding in the maintenance and improvement of the
quality of waters feeding Reeders Run.  EPA would
require that the impact to any wetlands be evaluated

-------
                                10

          and minimized in accordance with 40 CFR section
          6.302(a), as a design criterion, if this well location
          is chosen.

          Another location option for the new water supply wells
          is more-or-less directly north of the Butz Landfill on
          the south face of Camelback Mountain in Big Pocono
          State Park.  The drilling of the supply wells at this
          location would involve the disturbance of state park
          lands for the construction of an access road and the
          placement of a storage tank and other equipment.  The
          necessary access road would be approximately 1,500 feet
          long and would also impact private property on the
          north side of North Road.

          As with Alternative 3, the ownership of the waterline
          would be relinquished to the Pocono/Jackson Joint Water
          Authority.  The cost of this alternative is estimated
          to be $4,760,000 for the initial construction,
          including new well installation.  Costs of operation
          and maintenance over a 50-year period are estimated to
          be $1,150,000.  The total cost estimate is $5,910,000.
          The following is a brief summary of the estimated costs
          of this alternative:

             Item                               Cost

          Construction                       $4,139,135
          15% Contingency                       620.865
          Total                              $4,760,000

          Estimated Operation and Maintenance
          ($23,000/yr. X 50 years)            Si.150.OOP

          Total Cost                         $5,910,000


SUMMARY Of THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

     The four alternatives described in the preceding section
were evaluated against the following nine criteria:

     1.   protection of human health and the environment;
     2.   compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
          Requirements  (ARARs);
     3.   short-term effectiveness;
     4.   long-term effectiveness and permanence;
     5.   reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume;
     6.   implementabilty;
     7.   state acceptance;
     8.   community acceptance; and
     9.   cost.

-------
                                11


1.  Protection of Human Health and th« Environment.

     The No-Action alternative provides no protection of human
     health or the environment.  Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all
     provide adequate protection of human health and the
     environment from threats presented by exposure to ground
     water contaminants by current users.  Note that none of the
     alternatives is intended to protect human health or the
     environment from other site-related contamination.  As
     previously stated, any such threats will be examined and
     addressed through studies currently being performed by EPA.

2.   Compliance with ARARs

     No ARARs pursuant to Section 121 of CERCLA will be triggered
     by the No Action Alternative.   Alternative 2,  3, and 4 will
     provide potable water meeting the requirements set forth as
     Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the federal Safe
     Drinking Water Act and under the Pennsylvania Safe Drinking
     Water Act.  Design of a water supply system under
     Alternatives 3 or 4 would comply with the substantive
     standards for public water supplies promulgated at 25 Pa.
     Code Section 109 et. seq.  Any disturbance of wetlands
     resulting because of necessary access road or other
     activities under Alternative 4 will comply with the
     substantive requirements of Section 404 of the federal Clean
     Water Act, 33 CFR Part 330 et. sea.. 40 CFR Section 230.10,
     the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, the 25 Pa
     Code Chapter 105 regulations and 40 CFR Part 6.302(a).
     Stormwater runoff and soil erosion control during
     construction activities will comply with the substantive
     requirements of the Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act
     and the Pa. Code Title 25, Chapter 102 erosion control
     regulations.

3.   Short-term Effectiveness

     The No Action Alternative will not eliminate nor reduce the
     threat posed to ground water users by site-related
     contaminants.  Alternative 2,  the Continuation of Current
     Remedies (i.e., bottled water, carbon filters, etc.) reduces
     the threats posed by the contaminants to current users of
     the ground water.  However, such systems require continuous
     monitoring to assure their efficiency.  The possibility
     exists for contaminants to reach the tap in the event of
     filter overloads or "break troughs."  Alternatives 3 and 4
     would provide, upon completion, immediate and permanent
     relief from the threats of contamination to current users of
     the ground water.

-------
                                12

4.   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

     Selection of the No Action Alternative will not eliminate
     nor reduce the threat presented to ground-water users by
     volatile organic contaminants in well water supplies.

     Regarding Alternative 2, EPA is currently monitoring and/or
     maintaining the home water filters, bottled water,  air
     strippers, etc., with the cost of this monitoring/
     maintenance being charged to the Emergency Removal  Program.
     If EPA were to discontinue these activities, as must
     eventually occur under this program, the monitoring/
     maintenance of these systems would most probably become the
     responsibility of the individual home owners.  As such,
     those homeowners would have to bear the expense of the
     monitoring/maintenance of their individual well water
     systems and there could be no assurances that such
     monitoring/maintenance activities would be continued.  This
     could result in the consumption of contaminated ground water
     by the residents or by unknowing future owners of the
     properties.

     Piped water supplied under Alternatives 3 and 4 will not be
     affected by the ground water contaminants originating at the
     Butz Landfill.  A ductile iron water distribution system
     requires routine maintenance and monitoring but, under
     favorable conditions, has a service life of 50 to 75 years.


5.   Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility, and Volume

     No reduction of toxicity, mobility, nor volume of any of the
     ground water contaminants detected at the site will result
     from implementation of any of the Alternatives for this
     operable unit.  As previously discussed, these requirements
     will be addressed following the completion of an RI/FS.

6.   Implementability

     The No Action Alternative requires no implementation.

     The water treatment systems (Alternative 2) are currently
     installed and functioning at 22 locations affected by
     contaminated ground water.  Twenty-eight locations are
     currently being supplied with bottled water.

     The use of piped water distribution systems (Alternatives 3
     and 4) is a well established technology that has been used
     in many areas and has been used successfully by EPA in
     numerous response actions where contaminated ground water
     presented a threat to human health.
     The construction of a pipeline for existing purveyor water

-------
                                13

     (Alternative 3) is estimated to require 280 calendar days.
     The construction of a water distribution system utilizing
     new wells (Alternative 4) would take an estimated 210 days.

     As part of the removal action at the s.lte, EPA completed
     design of a closed-loop, 6 inch ductile iron water
     distribution system to serve 49 locations and drilled and
     tested three supply wells on the Mt. Gilead Camp property
     west of the Butz Landfill just north of the electric line
     right-of-way that bisects the Camp property.  An access road
     to service these three wells has not been established but
     would impact a wooded wetland area.

7.   state Acceptance

     The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with the selected
     Remedy .

8.   Community Acceptance

     Responses to public comments are addressed in the
     Responsiveness Summary section of the ROD.

9 .   Cost

     No costs are associated with the No Action Alternative.

     Costs for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 wexa estimated for
     budgeting purposes assuming a 50-year service life for a 6"
     ductile iron supply line.  Alternative 2 is estimated to
     require the expenditure of $3,272,900 over 50 years.
     Alternative 3 would cost an estimated $7,100,000 for
     installation and $1,300,000 for operation and maintenance
     over 50 years.  The development of a water distribution
     system using new wells (Alternative 4) would cost an
     estimated $4,760,000 for construction and $1,150,000 for
     operation and maintenance for 50 years.


THE 8ELBCTB
Based on the information available and the analysis conducted to
date, Alternative 4, the construction of a water distribution
stem utilizing new ground water supply wells, is selected as the
appropriate remedy for meeting the goals for this operable unit
at the Butz Landfill Site.  This alternative consists of:

     1.   Construction of a 6-inch ductile iron closed loop water
          supply pipeline to service approximately 49 locations.

     2.   Construction of access roads, as required.

-------
                                14

     3.   The placement of pumps, valves, tanks, and wells as
          required to provide adequate water supplies to the
          users.

     4.   The transfer of ownership of the water distribution
          system to the Pocono/Jackson Joint Water Authority
          following completion of construction.

This alternative will eliminate all present and potential threats
currently posed to users of ground water in the vicinity of the
Butz Landfill.  This alternative will result in the maximum usage
of previously developed federal government: .itudies, designs and
construction activities and will utilize well-developed and
readily available technologies.  The use of new water wells is
less costly than connection to currently available municipal
water sources and offers a greater assurance of risk reduction
and user satisfaction than the continuation of current remedies.

STATUTORY DETERMINATION

EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake
remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health
and the environment.  In addition,  Section 121 of CERCLA
established several other statutory requirements and preferences.
The following is a discussion of how the selected first operable
unit remedial action addresses these statutory requirements:

1.   Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy provides protection of human health and the
environment by completely eliminating the threat currently posed
by ground water drinking supplies which are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds exceeding health-based levels.

2.   Compliance with ARARs

While the selected remedy will not result in the actual cleanup
of site-related chemical contamination, the remedial action will
comply with the action-specific, chemical-specific and location-
specific ARARs presented below.

     Action-specific ARARs:

     25 Pa. Code Section 109 et.seq. sets forth water quality
     standards and requirements for public water supply systems
     under the statutory authority of the Pennsylvania Safe
     Drinking Water Act.  Stormwater runoff and soil erosion
     control during construction activities will comply with the
     substantive requirements of the Pennsylvania Stormwater
     Management Act and the Pa. Code Title 25, Chapter 102
     erosion control regulations.

-------
                                15

     Chemical-specific ARARs:

     Maxima contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the
     federal Safe Drinking Water Act and drinking water quality
     standards for public water supplies established at 25 Pa.
     Code Section 109 et.seq. will be met or exceeded for the
     water supplied by the new public water system.


     Location-specific ARARs:

     Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; 40 CFR Section 230.10;
     31 CFR part 330; 40 CFR part 6.302(a); the Pennsylvania Dam
     Safety and Encroachments Act; and 25 Pa. code Chapter 105
     address the limitations on activities which disturb
     wetlands.  Any construction activities affecting wetlands
     will be minimized in compliance with these statutes and
     regulations.

3.   Cost-effectiveness

The selected operable unit remedy is cost effective because it
provides overall effectiveness proportional to its costs.

4.   Utilization of permanent solutions and alternative treatment
     technologies to the maximum extent practicable

The selected operable unit remedy will not address the actual
cleanup of site-related contaminants.  However, EPA considers the
provision of a piped water supply to be a permanent solution
resolving the threat posed by the possible exposure to
contaminated drinking water by the (current) users of ground
water supplies in the vicinity of the Butz Landfill.

5.   Preference for treatment that reduces toxicity. mobility, or
     volume.

The selected operable unit remedy will not address the actual
cleanup of site-related contamination.  This will be addressed in
one or more Records of Decision following completion of an RI/FS.

RE8PON8IVBHB88 SUMMARY

In compliance with Sections 113(k) and 117 of CERCLA, the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan and the Engineering Evaluation and
Cost Analysis (EE/CA) were placed for public viewing at the
Pocono Township Public/Library, Tannersville, Pennsylvania.  An
announcement of the availability of these documents was placed in
the Pocono Record on August 24, 1990.  The Proposed Remedial
Action Plan listed the alternatives developed pursuant to the
EE/CA.

-------
A period for public review and comments on the Proposed Remedial
Action Plan was held from August 24, 1990 through September 24,
1990.  During that comment period, only one letter of comment on
the Proposed Remedial Action Plan was received by EPA.  That
letter, from the Jackson Township Secretary/Treasurer, expressed
approval of EPA's selection of Alternative 4.

-------
FIGURES

-------
      iu»0»»*KX£ LOCATION
SOURCE:  USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP MOUNT POCONO OUAORANGLE
FIGURE    1
GENERAL  LOCATION NAP
BUTZ LANDFILL

-------
      BIO
                   BUTZ
                   LANDFILL
                                                                 \
                                                               v:
                                                  K
IWM   II
 I 1 I I I I
UHK1   ,'IMW   MU
 I  :  -r~    »
/M>M
 I
                                                            FIGURE 2
                                                            BUTZ LANDFILL AND LOCAL AREA
                                                            MAP

-------
                                BUTZ
                                LANDFILL
                                          UKOUNUWATKK HEAD (II  ABOVE MSI.)

                                          CHMUNDWATKK MjOW DIKECTION
                                          ADAITKD t ICOM  EKB/^U. IUD7
 •
—

          i i i i
FIGURE 3
GROUND-MATER FLOW DIRECTION
BEDROCK AQUIFER
BUTZ LANDFILL

-------
                                   TCE CONCENTRATIONS (ug/l)
                                   ADAPTED  KROM KKII/EEKU.  1987
                                   EKU/EKU  MONITOKING WEIJ.S
                                   RESIDENTIAL  «ri:n.s
H4H)     U
 tJ I  I I 1
                          XMM)    4i«H
FIGURE  A
ICE CONTAMINATION  IN
BEDROCK AQUIFER
BUI/  LANDFILL

-------
LEGEND
   $     ERB/EERU MONITORING  NELL

   •     RESIDENTIAL MONITORING WELL

  10O    TCE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR 
-------
LANDFILL
                REEDERS
LEGEND

 • RESIOENIIAL WEI IS

 • ERB/ERU MONIIOKING WELLS
FIGURE 6
MCU LOCATIONS - BUTZ LANDFILL
AND VICINITY

-------
                \
    FIGURE 7
WATER LINE LOCATION
      PLAN
                  \

-------
TABLES

-------
                                        TABLE  1


                             GROUND-WATER  SAMPLING  RESULTS
                                    RESIDENTIAL WELLS


                              Concentration of TCE (ug/1)*
RESIDENT
1 P. Strausser
2 Meckes
3 I. Rinker
• 4 *. Possinger
5 lauer
6 C. StreeMide-dining
7 C. Streaaiside-chapel
8 Stille
9 Wilgus
10 lerthold
11 Flowers
12 Kinsley
13 Detriek/Mongiluti
U N. Strausser
15 F./K. Strausser
16 taker (was Olshefski)
17 Shoemaker
16 Otteson
19 Adcock Farmhouse
20 C. Dee Adcock
21 Petrus
22 N. Possinger
23 E. Possinger
24 Wood I ing
25 Cappolelta
26 Jacoby
27 Sett i cher
28 Kiday
28a O'lrien
29 Mate
30 P. Strausser jr.
31 Young
32 Pelak
33 Tatlada
34 Mrs. woodrou Adcock
35 gunnel I
36 N. tinker
37 groderick
38 Grinauay
39 Sehiek (trailer)
40 Munox
41 Farda/Smee
42 Kelly (Miner)
43 Sehiek (houM)
44 Tony Farda
45 Summit Resort
46 Fuel-Rite
47 uhi taker
48 lane/Streuaaer
49 Streemside (Mt. View)
Tallada
Starrier
lisbing
1986
(a)
NA*. JUL. AUG. OCT. NOV. DEC.



2600 (286
27 (39


















NO X
NO X
2000 Z
) 7000 Z
23 X
4.7 4.5
4.5 X
4 X
76 X
290 X
300 X
89 X
2 x
NO X
NO X
32 X
NO
NO
640
NO
30
NO
X NO
X X NO
X X 17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
270 (411)
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
200
160
NO
X
NO
5.4 Z
3.6
3.3
NO
NO
X
X















X
X
X
4700 3900
6200 5220
34.4
31.8
X NO
X 8.7
x 18.2
20.6
183
129
7.9
X
X
36.7
• X X X
X X NO
Z X X
XXX
Z X 21
X NO
X
NO
35.5
75.5
249
X
X
NO
•8.8 Z-2. 13.2
X X
X NO
X X
X X
Z 23
NO X
NO X X
NO X X
NO X X
NO X X
33.8 Z 11.
NO X
NO X
NO
Z
216
15.6 18
X NO
X NO
X X
X X
X X
1987
JAN. FEI. MAT JUN. OCT.
X 1.5 NO X NO
X X X X
X X 4190 X 4480
X X 5090 X 5010
145 X 93.2 X 107
X X 26.5 X 8.6
X X NO X 5.2
15 X 17.1 X 19.2
X X 19 X 19.3
X X 22.9 X 28.2
X X 149 X 132
X X 83.6 X 94.2
8.8 X 11.1 x 8.8
X NO NO X X
X NO NO X NO
X X 24.6 X 34.2
X X X X X
X X NO X 10
X X X X 58.6
X X X X X
X X 12.8 X 16.6
X X NO
X X NO
X X NO
X X 29.6
X X 99
190 X 223
X X NO
X X X «
X X NO
XXX
18.5 15 20.8
X X NO
NO X NO
XXX
X X 49.6
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X 9
XXX
XXX
NO
X
NO
24
110
186
X
X
.NO
14.4
19.4
X
X
X
43.5
X
X
X
X
X
6.3
X
X
X X NO X X
X X X X X
X X 75.4 X X
X X 16.4 X 17.
X X X X
X X NO X
NO X X X
X X NO X
X X NO X
  • •  Total volatile organic compound concentration in parentheses, if known.
(a) •  Sampling performed by PAOER.  All other sanpling performed by USCPA Technical Assistance Team (TAT).
 NO •  Not Detected
  X •  Ground-water not tested.
  Z •  Tested at tap only.

-------
                                    TAILE  1   (continue)


                               GROUND-WATER SAMPLING RESULTS
                                      RESIDENTIAL WELLS
                                Conctntratlon of TCE (ug/1)'
KStOCNT
1 P. Strauaiar
Mackas
I. Hinkar
R. Powingar
lauar
'C. Straamaida-dinlnf,
C. Straameida-chapal
Stilte
uilgua
10 larthold
11 FleMtrt
12 Kfnslty
13 Oatrick/HonflHutlv
14 N. Strauaiar
15 F./K. Strautsar
16 lakar (was Qlthtftki)
17 Shoamakar
IS Ottaaon
19 Adceek Farnhouaa
20 C. OM Adcock
21 Patrua
22 H. Poaaingar
23 1. Poaaingar
24 wood ting
25 Cappolalla
Farlaigh
Kirkpatriek
26 Jacoby
27 Sattichar
28 Hiday
2Sa O'lrttn
29 Matt
30 P. Strauaaar Jr.
31 Young
32 Palak
33 Tallada
34 Mr«. woodroM Adcock
35 lurvwll
36 M. Rinktr
37 irodarick
34 Grtna*ay
39 ScMck (trailtr)
40 Mwnos
41 Farda/SoM
42 Kally (Mfntr)
43 ScMck (heuM)
44 Tony Mrda
45 fcjajMt «Mort
46 Fu»l-*ltt
47 yMtakar
4« Lant/Straus««r
49 StrtaMid* (Nt. Vlw)
Tatlafla
Hanty
Coblt*
Sullivan
M». .
X
X
4470 (4686.0)
5360 (5382.1)
X
10.3 (10.3)
X
17.1 (17.1)
15.4 (13.4)
26.0 (26.0)
94.6 (99.0)
105.0 (112.0)
10.5/4.8
NO
X
75.6 (80.8)
X
X
X
X
12.9 (12.9)
X
X
2 • 1.6
26.9 (28.9)
17.1 (17.1)
X
91.3 (95.7)
145.0 (147.4)



9.8 9.8)
13.0 13.0)



38.6 40.0)





8.S 8.S)





21.3 22.7)






1988
S8PT.
X
X
4910.0 (4931.6)
X
X
8.8 (8.8)
X
18.0 (18.0)
23.0 (26.0)
80.1 (85.1)
83.3 (87.1)
94.6 (101.4)
7.3/3.6
2 • NO
2 • NO
50.9 (55.5)
X
X
X
X
17.4 (17.4)
2 • NO
X
2 • NO
31.1 (31.1)
72.3 (24.1)
X
92.0 (98.6)
119.0 (122.5)
X
X
Z • NO
7.0 (7.0)
6.8 (6.8)









2.9 2.9)


2 NO





X
1
24.3 (24.3)
X
'C8.
X
X
4610 (4622.2)
5190 (5206.5)
X
10.1 (10.1)
X
13.1 (13.1)
28.3 (28.3)
72.0 (77.8)
4.0 (4.0)
107 (111.0)
6.3/4.0
2 • NO
X
46.3 (S4.7)
X
X
53.6 (58.71)
X
19.3 (19.3)
X
X
X
36.0. (40. 6)
X
48.7 (54.2)
101 (113.2)
127 (133.2)
X
X
2 • NO
5.6 (5.6)
4.2 (4.2)
X
X
X
69.3 (76.5)
X




3.8 3.8)










18.V(18.1)
X
1989
JUL.
X
X
4620 (4633.3)
X
X
2 - NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
8.0/3.1
2 • NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
26.8 (26.8)
X
X
2 • NO
41.3 (45.1)
18.2 (18.2)
1X
X
101 (103.9)


2 NO
6.1 6.1)




52.7 55.1)





4.6 4.6)









64.3 (64.3)
13.1 (13.1)
X
DEC.
Z • NO
X
4410 (4435.4)
6090 (6181.1)
X
9.4 (9.4)
X
7.3 (7.3)
43.3 151.7)
97.3 (114.5
7.6 (7.6)
X
11.3/4.0
Z • NO
X
65.8 (73.5)
X
X
x .
x •
19.6 (19. '6)
X
X
Z • NO
31.0 (31.0)
14.1 (14.1)
43.6 (45. 2)
150 (170.1)
116 (122.4)
X
X
Z • NO
X
3.9 (3.9)
X
X
X
47.3 (52.1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3.2 (3.2)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11,9 (11.9)
10.6 (10.6)
 •  • Total volatile erfanlc e
(a)  • Saaplint p*rforwd by MDf*.
  NO • Nat Oatactad
 X  • Grovrd-xatar not ttatad.
 2  • Taatatf at tap only.
  concentration in perantftoeee,  if
All other aaapUr* performed by  u«f»A Technical AMiatance Tt
(TAT).

-------
                                    TABLE 2
                              GROUND IMtH MIMING KSUTS
                                  CCMI INSIM.IEO KllS

                           Concentration of Volatile Oraanict (uo/l)
                                    JMUMY 19B7
MUl
fU
110
11.1*
11.10
12
19
14
•It •
010
01. tt
01.10
02
09S
aflat
04
OS
0*
fOIOO.000-
crofifoi

29».(
40.1
110.1
17.
m.
IS*.
190.
4000.
MO.
M*.
19700.
497.
ISO.
MS.
J-2.
1270.
trana-1.2-
aHcMaraatkara
9.
) 97.
I S.
1 20.
•7.
2*.
42.
41.
2*7.
99.
27.
7.
99.
7.
22.

1M.I
vinyl
i cklarlato
11.0
19.7


99.7


12.2
J-1.4


M.7




1
baniana atkyl tetra-
bentene ckloroatbana

J-4.1 J-1.9


J-2.4
J-1.0
J-1.5
J-J.O
J 5.2
f

40.9 10.4




•
toluene





J-2. 2
J 2.1


J-1.1
J-1.4

$.9
J-1.7



cartoon cMaro- 1.1-dichloro- wthylene cfcloro-
tetracnloride lorn atkene chloride benzene
7.2



1J.O

7.6
29.0
J-1.6
J-1.4

J-2.0 J-4.9 7.5 J-1.9 J-1.3




•
balm llarft al ojMntlflcatlon; conaldtrad
J- paaltlva

• - Ittla Mall Maa aaaplaa* far all frlorlty Pollutant*.
    •a aaatlclolaa. fGi'a. cyanl* ar ahanala iwra dttactad.
              nautral  faajim»li aava paaltl«« raapanaaa but Mara balaM tba llailt af quantification.

-------
                           TABLE  3

                    Summary Of  Primary
                       Butz Landfill
                  Ground  Water Contaminants
Compound
trichloroethene (TCS)
t etrachloroethene
1 , 1-dichloroethene
trans-l^-dichloroethene
1 , 2-dichloroethene
vinyl chloride
ug/1 in
wells *
7,000
1.5
8
260
300
11
MCL
ug/1
5
5
7
100
70
2
MCLG
ug/1
0
0
7
100
70
0
Cancer
Group
B2
B2
C
D
0
A
ug/1
1CT4
Cancer
Risk *
300
70
0.02
	
— -_
1.5
* Maximum concentrations found in residential wells.

# One additional cancer can theoretically be expected in a
  population of 10,000 people if each individual is exposed to
  this concentration for a lifetime.

-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

-------
                 BUTZ LANDFILL SITE
            ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE *
                 INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

SITE IDENTIFICATION

1.   U.S.  EPA,  Potential Hazardous Waste  Site
     Identification and Preliminary Assessment,  8/20/84.
     P.  100001-100007.

2.   Memorandum to Mr.  Gary Moulder,  U.S.  EPA,  from Mr.
     Randy Roush,  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania  Department
     of  Environmental Resources (PADER),  re:  Butz
     Landfill analytical results,  5/23/86.  P.  100008-
     100042.   Site results are included.

3.   Report:  Site  Inspection Report,  prepared by PADER,
     6/86.  P.  100043-100276.

4.   Letter to Mr.  David Whitaker and Mr.  Dale
     Schoenwald,  Streamside Foundation,  from Mr. Gary
     Moulder,  PADER,  re:  Well water sample results,
     6/4/86.   P.  100277-100278.

5.   Letter to Mr.  Robert Miner,  from Mr.  Gary  Moulder,
     PADER, re:  Well water sample results, 6/4/86.
     P.  100279-10'0279.

6.   Letter to Mr.  and Mrs.  Robert Bauer,  from  Mr. Gary
     Moulder,  PADER,  re:  Well water sample results,
     6/4/86.   P.  100280-100281.

7.   Letter to Mr.  Roy Possinger,  from Mr. Gary Moulder,
     PADER, re:  Well water sample results, 6/4/86.
     P.  100282-100283.

8.   Letter to Mr.  Leroy Rinker,  from Mr.  Gary  Moulder,
     PADER, re:  Well water sample results, 6/4/86. '
     P.  100284-100285.

9.   Letter to Mr.  and Mrs.  Richard Bunnell,  from Mr.
     Gary Moulder,  PADER, re:  Well water  sample results,
     6/5/86.   P.  100286-100287.

10.  Handwritten memorandum to Mr. Tom Massey and Mr.
     Steve Jarvela, U.S. EPA,  from Mr. Doug Lorenzen,
     PADER, 6/19/86.   P. 100288-100288.
Administrative Record File available 9/28/90.

-------
11.  Letter to Mr.  Tom Massey,  U.S.  EPA,  from Mr.  Douglas
     J.  Lorenzen,  PADER,  re:   Butz Landfill,  6/20/86.   P.
     100289-100290.

12.  Handwritten memorandum to Mr. Ben Mykijewycz,  re:
     Information regarding contaminated wells,  6/23/86.
     P.  100291-100291.

13.  Analytical data,  North Road Landfill Site,  prepared
     by  Enviresponse,  Inc.,  3/23/87.   p.  100292-100315.

14.  Memorandum to Mr. Stephen Posten,  Enviresponse,  from
     Mr. William Young,  Foster Wheeler USA Corporation,
     re:  Transmittal  of updated preliminary engineering
     study and cost estimate for a water supply system in
     Monroe County, Pennsylvania,  4/14/87.  P.  100316-
     100359.  The study is included.

15.  Report:  Final Draft Report,  prepared by Mr.  Stephen
     Posten and Mr. Kenneth Tyson, ERB/EERN,  5/6/87.
     P.  100360-100524.

16.  Letter to Mr.  Bhupi Khona,  Roy F.  Weston,  Inc.,  from
     Mr. Michael L. Klusaritz,  Hess Environmental
     Laboratories,  re:  North Hill Road sample results,
     4/15/88.   P.  100525-100541.  The results are
     attached.

17.  Memorandum to Mr. Dave Wright,  U.  S. EPA,  from Mr.
     Dennis Matlock and Ms. Linda Ziegler, Roy F.  Weston,
     Inc., re:  North  Road draft water system hookup,
     7/1/88.  P. 100542-100548.

18.  Letter to Mr.  Dennis Matlock, Roy F. Weston,  Inc.,
     from Mr.  Michael  Klusaritz, Hess Environmental
     Laboratories,  10/13/88.   P. 100549-100564.   The
     results are attached.

19.  Letter to Mr.  Dennis Matlock, Roy F. Weston,  Inc.,
     from Mr.  Michael  L. Klusaritz,  Hess Environmental
     Laboratories,  re:  North Road sample results,
     3/16/89.   P. 100565-100591.  The results are
     attached.

-------
20.  Letter to Mr.  Dennis Matlock, Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
     from Mr.  Michael L.  Klusaritz, Hess Environmental
     Laboratories,  re:  North Road sample results,
     8/27/89.   P.  100592-100608.  The results are
     attached.

21.  Letter to PADER, from Mr. Albert W. Ricciardi,"
     Pennoni Associates,  Inc., re:  PADER/COE Joint
     Permit Application Pocona/Jackson Join water
     Authority,  11/22/89.  P. 100609-100669.  The
     application is enclosed.

22.  Letter to Mr.  Bhupi  Khona, Roy F. Weston,  Inc., from
     Mr.  Michael L. Klusaritz, Hess Environmental
     Laboratories,  re:  North Road sample results,
     1/11/90.   P.  100670-100684.  The results are
     attached.

23.  Letter Mr.  Dennis Matlock, Roy F. Weston,  Inc., from
     Mr.  Michael. L. Klusaritz, Hess Environmental
     Laboratories,  re:  North Road sample results,
     5/25/90.   P.  100685-100704.  The results are
     attached.

24.  Handwritten note, re:  Nine additional wells,
     (undated).   P. 100705-100709.  Four maps are
     included.

-------
III. REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLANNING

     1.   Report:  Bidding process, prepared by  Pennoni
         Associates,  Inc.,  1/24/90.   P.  300001-300375.

     2.   Memorandum to Mr.  Victor J.  Janosik, U.S.  EPA,'from
         Mr.  Bob  Davis, U.S.  EPA, re:  Wetlands at  proposed
         road re-route & wetlands verification  near the  site,
         7/26/90.  P. 300376-300377.

     2.   Report:  Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for
         Butz Landfill a.k.a.  North Road Site,  prepared  by
         the  U.S. EPA, 8/90.   P. 300378-300411.

     3.   Press Release from U.S. EPA  entitled,  The  United
         States Environmental Protection Agency Announces
         Proposed Remedial  Action Plan for the  Butz Landfill
         Superfund site, Jackson Township, Monroe County,
         Pennsylvania, 8/24/90.  P. 300412-300414.

     4.   Fact Sheet:  Butz  Landfill Superfund Site,  Jackson
         Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, (undated).
         P.  300415-300422.

-------
IV.  REMOVAL RESPONSE PROJECT

     1.    Incoming  spill  report,  Butz  Landfill,  6/19/86.
          P.  400001-400001.

     2.    Pollution Report  #1-177,  7/17/86-8/10/90.
          P.  400002-400143.

     3.    Incoming  spill  report,  Butz  Landfill,  7/22/86.
          P.  400144-400144.

     4.    Special Bulletin  A-D,F,G,  7/23/86-8/27/87,  11/9/87,
          11/19/87.   P. 400145-400158.

     5.    Memorandum  to Dr. J. Winston Porter, U.  S.  EPA,  from
          Mr. James Seif, U.  S. EPA, re:  Justification for
          approval  of additional  funds for North Road site,
          8/11/86.  P. 400159-400173.   The following  are
          attached:

              a)   a memorandum requesting additional funds
                   for the CERCLA removal action;
              b)   Butz Landfill, well water-volatile
                   organics analysis;
              c)   a site map;
              d)   a site sketch;
              e)   a Special Bulletin-Butz Landfill site;
              f)   a letter regarding the health assessment
                   of Butz Landfill.

     6.    Memorandum  to Dr. J. Winston Porter, U.  S.  EPA  from
          Mr. James Seif, U.  S. EPA, re:  Six-month
          exemption/additional funding request for North  Road
          site,  1/9/87.   P. 400174-400187.   The  following are
          attached:

              a)   a memorandum regarding continuation of
                   removal activities at the North Road site;
              b)   a hand  drawn map;
              c)   North Road site information sheet;
              d)   a memorandum regarding Butz Landfill;
              e)   a memorandum regarding Butz Landfill.

     7.    Special Site Status Bulletin,  5/11/87.
          P.  400188-400188.

-------
8.   Memorandum to Dr.  J.  Winston Porter,  U.S. EPA, from
     Mr.  Timothy Fields,  Jr.,  U.S. EPA,  re: Addendum to
     Region III request for a  $2M exemption and ceiling
     increase for the North Road site,  5/26/87.  p.
     100489-400203.  The following are attached:

          a)    a memorandum regarding North Road site
               exemption;
          b)    a handwritten map;
          c)    a site location map prepared by  Roy  F.
               Weston,  Inc.;
          d)    a site location map prepared by  Roy  F.
               Weston,  Inc.;
          e)    a list of bottled water deliveries;
          f)    a list of carbon filter installations.

9.   Pollution Report,  10/2/87.   P.  400204-400205.

10.  Special Bulletin,  (undated).   P.  400206-400206.

11.  Memorandum to Mr.  David Wright,  U.S.  EPA, from Mr.
     Stephen Jarvela, U..S. EPA,  re:  Acknowledgement of
     Special Site Status Bulletin, (undated).  P. 400207-
     400207.

-------
V.   COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

     1.   Letter to Mr.  Brian Seraile,  The Pocono Record,  from
          Mr.  Thomas C.  Voltaggio,  U.S.  EPA,  re:   Information
          requested under the Freedom of Information Act
          (FOIA),  7/31/86.   P.  500001-500002.   An information
          request form is included.

     2.   Letter to Ms.  Carol A.  Barbett,  Slap, Williams and
          Cuker,  from Mr. Thomas  C.  Voltaggio,  U.S.  EPA,  re:
          Information requested under FOIA,  1/16/87.
          P.  500003-500005.   An information request  form and
          cover letter are included.

     3.   Letter to FOIA officer,  U.S.  EPA,  from  Mr. Michael
          Noone,  Morgan,  Lewis, and Bockius,  re:   Request for
          information regarding recent additions  to  EPA
          Superfund list, 4/14/89.   P.  500006-500007.

     4.   Letter to Mr.  Michael Noone,  Morgan,  Lewis, and
          Bockius,  from Mr.  Christopher Pilla,  U.S.  EPA re:
          Information requested under FOIA,  5/15/89.
          P.  500008-500009.   Request form for FOIA information
          is  attached.

     5.   U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers,  Regulatory Letter,  re:
          CERCLA response actions,  6/10/89.
          P.  500010-500012.

     6.   Letter to Mr.  Harry Fisk,  Pocono/Jackson Joint Water
          Authority,  from Mr. Richard C. Shannon,  Jr.,  PADER,
          re:   Request for additional information before
          application to maintain access road,  3/16/90.
          P.  500013-500014.

     7.   Fact Sheet:  Butz Landfill Superfund Site, Jackson
          Township,  Pennsylvania,  8/90.   P.  500015-500018.

     8.   Letter to Mr.  John Ferguson,  U.S.  EPA,  from Mr.
          Victor J.  Janosik,  U.S.  EPA,  re:  Local government
          reimbursement information,  8/8/90.
          P.  500019-500019.

     9.   Handwritten memorandum  to Mr.  Tom Ziemba,  from Mr.
          Victor J.  Janosik,  U.S.  EPA,  re:  Butz  Landfill
          Record of Decision, 8/30/90.   P. 500020-500020.

-------
10.  Handwritten memorandum to Mr.  Don Becker,  PADER,
     from Mr.  Victor J.  Janosik,  U.S.  EPA,  re:  Butz
     Landfill  Record of  Decision,  8/30/90.
   .  P.  500021-500021.

11.  Handwritten letter  to Mr.  Joe  McGraw,  Eastern
     College,  from Mr. Victor J.  Janosik,  U.S.  EPA,'re
     Change in relocation,  8/30/90.   P.  500022-500022.
                          8

-------
                 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

1.   Activated Carbon Filters,  by Ann Lemley,  1986.

2.   ATSDR Health Advisory for  North Road Site,  October
     1987.

3.   Bottled Waters,  by Theodore Shelton,  March  1985.

4.   Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation
     and Liability Act of 1980.

5.   Culligan Ultraviolet Water Disinfection System
     (Brochure)  (1989).!.

6.   Draft of Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
     Guidance for Non-Time Critical Removal Action,
     December 1987.

7.   Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories,  by
     Office of Drinking Water,  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.

8.   Groundwater and Wells,  by  F.  Driscoll,  1986.

9.   Guidance Document For Providing Alternate Water
     Supplies,  by CDM Inc. and  C.C. Johnson Inc.,
     February 1986.

10.  Memorandum of.Agreement Between the Environmental
     Protection Agency and the  Department of-the Army
     Concerning Region Determination of Mitigation Under
     the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l)  Guidelines.

11.  Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers,  by F.
     Merritt, 1983.

12.  Standard Operating Procedures for Groundwater Sites,
     TAT Region III,  September  1989.

13.  Treatment of Contaminated  Groundwaters with Granular
     Activated Carbon and Air stripping, by Stenzel  and
     Gupta, December 1985.

-------
STATE CONCURRENCE LETTER

-------
    SEP-27-1990 15:58  FROM
                       DER EP OX UB
                                                                   82155973150    P. 02
  PENNSYLVANIA
I
                           COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
                        D6WVRTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
                            Office  of Environmental Protection
                             90  East Union Street - 2nd Floor*
                          Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania  18701-3296
                                      (717) 826-2511

                                     September 21, 1990
Mr. 6dw1n 8. Erickson,
Regional* Administrator
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
Region  III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA  19107

Dear Mr. Erlckson:

The Record of Decision for  the  Initial operable unit, which addresses an
alternate water supply at the Butz Landfill site, has been reviewed by the
Department.

The major components of  the selected remedy Include:

     *   Construction of new water service lines, mains, and valves,
       .  and the connection to  new water  supply wells.  It 1s  ...
         estimated that  49  residences will be provided with this
         service.  The number and location of residences which will
         receive public  water will be verified for the design of this
         remedial action.

     *   The construction of access  roads as required.

     *   EPA will transfer  control of the new water lines and.services
         to the Pocono/Jackson  Joint Water Authority when construction
         1s completed.

I hereby concur with the EPA's  proposed remedy with the following conditions:

     *   The Department  will be given the opportunity to concur with
         decisions related  to the design  of the Remedial Action for
         the Alternate Water Supply Operable Unit, to assure compliance
         with DER cleanup ARARs and  design specific ARARs.

     *   The Department  will be given the opportunity to concur with
         decisions related  to  subsequent  operable units (specifically,
         tho future Remedial inv«aliyaliun and Feasibility ituoy
         addressing the  extent  of the contaminated groundwater aquifer),
         and evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives to assure
         compliance with DER cleanup ARARs and design specific ARARs.
I

-------
S£P-27-199e   15^59  PROM    DER EP QJC UB           TO           82l55973'.Sa   P.03
   Mr. Edwin  B. Erickson,.
   Regional Administrator
   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency     -2-                  September 21, 1990
         *    EPA will  assure that the Department 1s provided an opportunity
             to fully participate 1n any negotiations with responsible
             parties.

         *   -The Department will  reserve our right and responsibility to
             take Independent enforcement actions pursuant to state law.

         *    This concurrence with the selected remedial  action Is not
             intended  to provide  any assurances pursuant  to SARA       ' ''-r'CY
             Section 104(c)(3).                                          ^    .

    Thank you for the  opportunity to concur with this EPA Record of Decision.  If
    you have any questions regarding thlv matter, please  do not hesitate to. contact
    me,                         ' "  "  '"• •                        •  ; .. ;,;  • ' v::#t':':
    Sincerely,
    Regional  Environmental
    Protection Director

-------