United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-92/149
June 1992
>>EPA Superfund
Record of Decision;
Butz Landfill, PA
-------
NOTICE.
The ~ices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been I'8fI1CNed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain materiaJ which supptement. but adds no further tppIicIbMt infcrmation to
the content of the document. All ~ materiaJ is, however. contained In the admini8tratiYe record
for this site.
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION I 1. REPORT NO. I ~ 3. Recipiem'a Acce8aion No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-92/149
4. TItle and Subtllla 5. Report Dale
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 06/30/92
Butz Landfill, PA
6.
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. Authorea) 8. Performing Organization ReP1- No.
g. P8rfonnlng Orgalnlzation Name and Addreaa 10. ProjectlTukIWork Unit No.
11. ContraC\(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponaoring Organization Name and Add",.. 13. Type 01 Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14,
15. Supplementary Note8
PB93-963919
16. Ab8t1'8Cl (Unit: 2110 words)
The Butz Landfill is an inactive landfill in Jackson Township, Monroe County,
Pennsylvania. The 1.5-square-mile site extends into Pocono Township and includes the
known extent of contamination and the 8.S-acre landfill. The sole source aquifer
underlying the site supplies drinking water for approximately 3,300 people who live
within 3 miles of the site and an additional 3,000 people during summer tourist
seasons. In 1963, the property was purchased by :.he Butz family for landfill
development. Beginning in 1965, municipal waste, sewage sludge/liquids, and possibly
some industrial wastes were accepted at ::he 2.andL1I. During the years that the
landfill 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. In 1986, additional onsite
investigations revealed high TCE levels in domes:.:.c wells to the sou.th of the landfill,
which prompted a request to EPA that the si:.e be considered for emergency action. The
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyaia L Deseriptora
Record of Decision - Butz Landfill, P]I.
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE)
b. Identif18raiOpen-Encled To,ma
Co COSA TI FleldlGroup
18. Availability Slatement 19. Security Cia.. (This Report) 21. No. of Pagea
I None 76
20. Security C18a8 (Thia Page) n Price
None
. FOR'" 272 (4-77)
5OZ72.101
(See ANSI-Z38.18)
See Instructions on RevetSe
(Formerty NTls.35)
Department of Com"",,..,
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-92/149
Butz Landfill, PA
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
same year, 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. A 1990 ROD addressed the first of two
operable units, establishing an alternate water supply. This ROD addresses OU2, designed
to prevent human exposure to contaminated ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes installing ground water extraction
wells ~ediately downgradient from the landfill in the area of suspected ground water
and DNAPLs contamination; extracting and transporting ground water to an appropriate
treatment facility and treating the extracted water using either chemical precipitation,
followed by air stripping with vapor phase carbon units to control emissions or granular
activated carbon, as determined during the RD phase; discharging the treated ground water
onsite to surface water; and disposing of residuals produced during the treatment process
offsite. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action ranges from
$11,012,000 to $14,495,000, (depending on the final treatment selected during the RO),
which includes an annual O&M cost ranging from $561,000 to $861,000 for up to 10 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Clean-up goals for ground water are based on SDWA MCLs and state standards designed to
achieve background levels for all of the VOCs in the ground water, thereby restoring the
ground water to its beneficial use as a drinking water source. Background concentrations
will be determined by EPA based on contaminant concentrations in upgradient monitoring
wells.
-------
Q)
RECORD OF DECISION
BUTZ LANDFILL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Butz Landfill Superfund site
Pocono and Jackson Townships, Monroe County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial
action for the Second Operable Unit at the Butz Landfill Site,
Pocono and Jackson Townships, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The
remedial action was deveioped 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), 42
U.S.C. SS 9601 et. sea.~ and is. consistent with the National'
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This remedy selection
decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site
(index attached) .
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with this remedial
action (copy of the concurrence letter is attached).
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 this 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 contaminated ground
water. Implementation of this remedial alternative is intended
to clean contaminated ground water to background concentrations.
No remedial actions are necessary for surface water, sediments,
or for the landfill proper.
The selected remedy includes the following major components:
1.
The installation of ground water extraction wells
immediately downgradient of the area of suspected
-------
2
2.
DNAPLs and along the downgradient perimeter of the area
of contaminated ground water.
The construction of piping necessary to transport the
extracted ground water to an appropriate treatment
facility.
3.
The construction of treatment systems and the treatment
of the extracted ground water to discharge quality.
4.
The disposal of the treated ground water by discharge
to local surface water streams.
5.
The offsite disposal of any residuals produced during
the treatment process.
6.
The construction of access roads, electric power lines,
etc. as necessary.
7.
The operation and maintenance of the ground water
extraction and treatment system for up to 10 years. .
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action specified in this ROD was determined to be
necessary to clean up the contaminated ground water. There is
evidence of the possible existence of dense non-aqueous phase
liquids (DNAPLs) immediately downgradient from the landfill. The
recently recognized effects of DNAPLs, which, if present, provide
a continuing source of contamination, may extend the time
necessary for restoration or even preclude the restoration of the
ground water to applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). If, at a later time, EPA concludes that
fundamental changes are needed to this selected remedy, EPA will
amend this Record of Decision or may write a new Record of
Decision to address the ground water contamination.
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 second Operable Unit is part of a total
remedial action that has been selected for the site. The remedy
selected in this ROD employs treatment that permanently and
significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances as its principal element and utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
onsite above levels which would allow the unrestricted use of the
-------
3
ground water, a review under section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C
S 9621(C) will be conducted within five years of the start-up of
this action, and every five years thereafter, to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of public health,
welfare and the environment.
~~
~ Edwin B. Erickson
Regional Administrator
Region III .
"/30/'1<-
Date ...
-------
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE RECORD OP DECISION SUKKARY
BUTZ LANDFILL SITE
1. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Butz Landfill site ("Site") is located south of Camelback
Mountain, along Township Road 601, in Jackson Township, Monroe
County, Pennsylvania. The entire site, which includes the known
extent of trichloroethylene-contaminated ground water, covers
approximately 1.5 square miles and extends into Pocono Township.
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 a landfill on 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 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 ("Landfill") situated at the
foot of 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. Fracturing in the bedrock is controlled
by the thickness and brittleness of the beds. 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 ar~ very stony, moderately deep, well drained
soils. The topographic gradient in the area of the Site averages
5%, but exceeds 15% over some areas of the site.
Hydrogeologically, there are two aquifers in the vicinity of the
site. The shallow water table aquifer (overburden aquifer) is
-------
2
located above the bedrock surface, and is the saturated portion
of the glacial till. The depth to the ground water is greater
than 14 feet at the site but is shallower southeast of the
Landfill where the water table probably discharges to the
int~rmittent 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. Well 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 to the east-
northeast (Figure 3). This suggests that ground-water flow may
be controlled both by stratigraphy and geologic structure.
Ground water flow is confined to the primary and secondary
porosity of the bedrock. The secondary porosity is composed of
open fractures and joints and forms the more permeable pathway
for ground water flow. The degree of fracture and joint
development is controlled by the thickness and brittleness of the
sandstone, siltstone, and shale units that make up the Long Run
Member. Secondary porosity and permeability is, therefore, more
developed in the thinner bedded siltstones and sandstones than in
the more malleable shales. The siltstone and sandstone units
also contain the most primary porosity or intergranular pore
space. In this manner most ground water flow is confined by the
shales within the porous siltsone and sandstone units. The
bedrock aquifer at the Site is in direct contact with and
recharged by the overburden aquifer.
The water supply for the area around the Site is provided almost
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.
2. SITE HISTORY
The property on which the Landfill is located was acquired by
R~ssell and Luella Butz and .Ernest and Emma Butz in March 1963,
and landfilling operations began as early as 1965. Although the
-------
3
specific quantities of waste received are unknown, it is known
that the 8.5 acre Landfill, which is located near the north-west
limit of the Site, accepted municipal waste, sewage
sludge/liquids, and possibly some industrial wastes. An
op~rating permit application was submitted to the State 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 (PADER) made
the first site inspections in early 1971. Water well 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 PADER 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. ERB performed magnetometer and soil gas surveys
in the area of North Road and surveyed 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 was the most effective option complying with good
-------
4
engineering principles. In May 1988, an engineering firm 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 substantially
completed in January 1990.
In March 1990, the waterline project was transferred from the EPA
Region III Emergency Removal Program to the Remedial Program in
order to provide funding for the project. In August 1990, EPA
completed an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EEfCA). A
Record of Decision (ROD) calling for the construction of the
waterline was signed on September 28, 1990. Construction
activities relative to the waterline began in June 1992.
In November 1991, EPA finalized a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility study (RIfFS) Report. The RIfFS was conducted to
determine the types, degrees and extent of Site-related
contamination; to estimate risks to public health and the
environment as result of the contamination; and to establish a
set of possible alternatives for remediation of the Site.
Currently, EPA continues to provide bottled water and carbon
filtration systems maintenance to residents of the affected area
in addition to regular quarterly sampling.
3. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Administrative Record File 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 and were
available for public review on April 22, 1992. site related
documents were also maintained at the Region III office. The
availability of these documents and a brief description of EPA's
Proposed Remedial Action Plan was published in the Pocono Record,
a local newspaper, on April 22, 1992. In both the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan and the newspaper notification, the public
was advised of the opportunity for a public meeting. A public
comment period was held from April 22, 1992 to May 22, 1992. A
PUblic Meeting was held on May 7, 1992 at the Jackson Township
Municipal Building, Reeders, Pennsylvania. A response to the
comments received during this period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary which is part of this Record of Decision.
A transcript of the Public Meeting is included in the
Administrative Record for the site. These Community
Participation procedures were conducted in compliance with
Section 113{k) and Section 117 of CERCLA. .
-------
5
4. SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT
EPA has organized the response work into two operable units for
the Site. The first operable unit ROD was signed september 28,
1990 and authorized the construction of a drinking water
pipeline. Construction activities relative to the pipeline began
in June 1992.
The second operable unit authorized by this ROD addresses the
Landfill itself, surface waters, sediments and ground water and
the remedies, in addition to the waterline, that EPA has selected
to reduce risks to public health, welfare and the environment
resultant from exposures to Site-related hazardous substances.
s. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
As described above, the site is 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 comprising a fractured bedrock. Fracturing within these
'units is controlled by bed thickness and brittleness. 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 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 USEPA. These early 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.
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 having been
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.
-------
6
As a result of sampling for volatile organic compounds conducted
in 1986 by EPA, at least 22 drinking water wells were found to be
contaminated. The contaminants in these wells include: vinyl
chloride (up. to 11 parts per billion (ppb»j tetrachlorethane (up
to 1.5 ppb)j trichloroethene (up to 7,000 ppb)j trans-1,2
dichloroethene (up to 260 ppb)j and 1,1-dichloroethene (up to
8ppb).
Periodic ground-water sampling of up to 50 residential wells
located near the Landfill has been performed since 1986 (Table
1). (See Figure 6 for location of residences listed in Table 1).
The residential wells located immediately to the southeast of the
Landfill show the highest level of contamination - in the range
of 4000 to 7000 micrograms per liter (ug/1). The concentration
of TCE in these wells has remained fairly constant over the last
five years. other residential wells located both to the east and
southwest of the Landfill show much lower concentrations of TCE.
TCE concentrations in the ground water intercepted by these wells
have varied, depending on specific well location, over the last
five 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 foundj
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.
5.1
OVERVIEW OF RIfFS ACTIVITIES
As stated in the paragraph above, in 1987 EPA installed and
sampled 17 monitoring wells to assess ground water contamination
geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in the vicinity of the
site. In 1990, for the purposes of the RI/FS, the original 17
monitoring wells were sampled twice. EPA also installed and
sampled another monitoring well in the glacial till southeast of
the Landfill (well #T5). In addition, three business wells and
two home wells located east of the Landfill and beyond the
previously established limits of the known ground water
contamination were sampled (refer to Figure 4). The ground water
investigation included a review of the numerous samplings of
ground water from home wells in the vicinity, and also included
physical testing which was conducted to assist in determining
ground water flow characteristics.
The RIfFS investigation included the taking of 16 surface water
samples, 16 sediment samples, twelve samples for wetland
determination, and sampling for vertebrates and
-------
7
macro invertebrates at 9 surface water locations. Twenty-eight
backhoe pits and five soil borings were made directly into the
Landfill and resulted in the taking of bottom soil samples from
17 of the pits and 4 of the borings. Thirteen surface soil
samples were obtained, primarily from the Landfill surface. The
Landfill itself and the surrounding area were characterized for
benthic, riparian and terrestrial ecology and risks to human
health and environmental receptors due to site-related hazardous
substances were determined. The RIfFS information gathering
process included the review of historic data from previous EPA
and PA DER samplings and investigations.
5.2 THE BUTZ LANDFILL
The Landfill occupies approximately 8.5 acres on two adjacent
properties (Figure 7). For the purposes of the Remedial
Investigation, thirteen surface soil samples were collected
between December 3 and 7, 1990 (Figure 8). Samples S5-01 and S5-
02 were collected in a field north of the Landfill and were
intended as background samples. No organic compounds were
detected at SS-Ol. Acetone, fluoranthene, and pyrene were
detected at SS-02 in concentrations of 140, 180 and 150
microg~ams per kilogram (ugfkg), respectively (Table 3).
Obviously, this contamination of a background sample could not
have been anticipated. The contamination in the sample was not
site-related.
The only other locations where organic compounds were detected
were SS-07 and SS-08. SS-07 contained Aroclor 1260 at a
concentration of 270 (J) ug/kg and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
at a concentration of 110 ug/kg. (Note: The IIJII qualifier means
that the analyte is present, but the reported value is
estimated.) SS-08 contained butylbenzylphthalate at a
concentration of 170 ug/kg and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at a
concentration of 120 ug/kg. Of the inorganic contaminants,
beryllium was found in a concentration of 0.21 mg/kg at location
SS-04 while zinc was found at all locations in concentrations
ranging from 51.6 to 341 mg/kg. No evidence of leachate seeps
was observed on the Landfill or in the vicinity of the Landfill.
Twenty-eight test pits were excavated and 5 test borings were
drilled through the Landfill (Figure 9). The fill materials
ranged from 0 up to 19 feet thick (Figure 10). Weathered rock
was encountered at the bottom of Borings 01, 02, 03, and 05. No
soil was recovered from the bottom of Boring 04. The greatest.
thickness of fill is on the central eastern portion of the
property.
All samples collected from the test pits and test borings were
collected from soil that was found immediately beneath the fill
-------
8
materials. No soil for sampling and analysis purposes was found
at the bottoms of eleven of the test pits. .
Numerous organic compounds were found in the soil samples from
the borings and test pits. Trichloroethene was found in the soil
in Boring 01 (Table 5) in a concentration of 23 ug/kg. This was
the onlv soil sample out of 21 subsurface soil samples analyzed
that contained any TCE. Numerous semi-volatile organic
compounds, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
found in the soil from Boring 03 ranging from 88 to 900 ug/kg.
No organic compounds were detected in Borings 02 and 05.
No organic compounds were detected in soil samples from test pits
01, 02, 05, 19A, 07, 08, 20, and 23. The volatile organic
compounds ethylbenzene and total xylenes were present in 6 test
pits ranging from 3 to 90 (J) and 3 to 2,000 ug/kg, respectively
(Table 4). The greatest number of organic compounds was detected
in TP-19, which contained sewage sludge material. Soil from this
location contained elevated levels of the volatile organic
compounds chlorobenzene (22,000 ug/kg) and toluene (8,800 ug/kg),
the polychlorinated biphenyl aroclor 1254 (2,800 [J] ug/kg), 3
different pesticides totalling 1,173 ug/kg, and 10 semi-volatile
organic compounds totalling 490,600 ug/kg (all flagged with J .
qualifiers).
Of the inorganic contaminants, lead was present above background
in 9 test pits at levels ranging from 6.1 to 597 ug/kg.
Beryllium was also elevated in 4 test pits and 2 test borings at
levels ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 ug/kg.
Most of the fill materials can be described as typical municipal
garbage. A common type of fill observed was textile material in
long thin shreds. Of note, several test pits were excavated in
an area defined by magnetic anomalies identified in the previous
USEPA investigation (ERB/EERU, 1987). These areas were
investigated for the possible presence of buried drums. No drums
were found in the test pits (TP-12 and TP-18), however, abundant
car parts and other steel debris were encountered. A small (35
gallon) crushed drum was found in TP-11 and 2 open-topped crushed
drums were found in TP-22 but these were isolated occurrences.
In both of these instances, the drums were empty.
Also of note, several test pits were excavated in areas where
sewage sludges had reportedly been placed in pits and trenches.
These pits and trenches were identified in historical aerial
photography (EPIC, 1989). Sewage sludges were found in several
test pits including TP-19, TP-20, TP-24, and TP-30. These test
pits are located in the southern portion of the Butz property.
Sludge materials were generally found in 1 to 2 foot thick seams
at shallow depths (less than 8 feet). In several cases, the
sludge was encountered immediately overlying bedrock. In those
cases where no soil was present, no sample was collected.
-------
,-
9
No ground water or leachate was encountered in any of the test
pits or test borings.
5.3
GROUND WATER
As mentioned previously, 17 existing monitoring wells, 1 newly
installed monitoring well, and 5 residential wells were sampled
during the RI/FS. The 17 wells were initially sampled for the
purposes of the RI/FS during the last"week of October, 1990.
These wells were sampled again in December, 1990, along with the
new monitoring well (T5), two residential wells which had not
previously been sampled and three business wells which also had
not been sampled previously.
The monitoring wells were designated in the following manner: "T"
designates monitoring wells screened in the glacial till with
depths of the wells ranging from 12 to 28 feet; and "R"
designation denote monitoring wells open in bedrock with depths
ranging from 100 to 250 feet (Figure 11). .
The primary group of chemicals present in the ground water are
volatile organic compounds, especially trichloroethene, 1,2-
dichloroethene (total), and vinyl chloride.
In the first sampling round, TCE was present in every monitoring
well except R5, which is located to the west, and considered to
be upgradient of the Landfill (Table 6). Concentrations ranged
from 9 ug/l in well T1.1A to 8400 (J) ug/l in.well R1D.
Concentrations of TCE, 1,2-dichloroethene (total), and vinyl
chloride were highest in wells located in the southeastern corner
of the Landfill (R1D, R1S, T1A) and in well R2, which is located
southeast of the Landfill. .
In comparing results obtained in 1987 (ERB/EERU, 1987) (see Table
2) with the October, 1990 results, the concentration of TCE has
increased in well R1D from 5050 ug/l to 8400 ug/l. Well R2,
which previously had the highest concentration of TCE in 1987 at
approximately 15,700 ug/l, showed a dramatic decrease to 770
ug / 1.
Other than the VOCs, very few organic compounds were found in the
ground water. No pesticides or PCBs were detected above
quantitation limits. Of the inorganic contaminants, barium and
manganese were found above background. Manganese ranged from a
minimum of 27.9 ug/l in well R6 to a maximum concentration of
19,000 ug/l in well T2. Barium ranged from a minimum of 57.5
ug/l in well R3S to a maximum to 436 ug/l in well T2.
In the second round of ground-water sampling, TCE, 1,2-
dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride were again the compounds most
frequently detected (Table 7). In general, the concentrations of
-------
10
these compounds were less than those measured in October, 1990 in
the wells located nearest the Landfill, while concentrations
remained nearly the same for wells located farther from the
Landfill. In October, TCE was present above quantitation limits
in all wells except R5. In December, TCE was not detected above
quantitation in wells TIB, R4, R5, R6, and the new well, T5. The
only organic compound present in well T5 was 1,2-dichloroethene,
in a concentration of 14 ug/l.
Increases in TCE and 1,2-dichloroethene were noted in well T1.1B,
located near the Landfill and well R3S, located to the southwest
of the Landfill. In well T1.1B, the concentrations increased
approximately 15 times. In well R3S, the concentrations of TCE
and 1,2-dichloroethene doubled between October and December. In
well R2, the TCE concentration increased from 770 to 950 ug/l,
but the concentration of 1,2-dichloroethene decreased from 950 to
730 ug/l.
As in the first round of sampling, very few other organic
compounds were present above quantitation limits. Again, no
pesticides or PCBs were present in the ground water. Manganese
and barium were present as inorganic contaminants.
A comparison of the total concentration of volatile organic
compounds detected in the ground water in 1987 versus 1990
(average of October and December results) is depicted in Figure
12. Table 8 shows TCE concentrations in the EPA-installed
monitoring wells for the January 1987, October 1990, and December
1990 sampling events.
Ground water sampling was also performed during a pump test of
well R2. During the pump test, 2 samples were collected of the
influent water to the air stripper used to treat the discharge
water. One sample was collected 15 minutes into the pump test.
The concentration of TCE at the time was 110,000 ug/l compared to
concentrations of less than 1,000 ug/l measured in two separate
ground water sampling events on this well. After 19 1/2 hours,
the concentration of TCE had reduced to 7 ugfl (Table 9).
There is, as noted in Sections 4.7 and 5.0 of the RIfFS, evidence
that TCE exists in the bedrock as a dense non-aqueous phase
liquid (DNAPL) in the vicinity of the Butz Landfill. While
performing the pump test noted previously, a water sample was
collected which had TCE in a concentration of 110,000 ug/l (110
mg/l), or 10% of TCE's solubility in water.
TCE has a density of 1.46 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc) and a
solubility in water of 1100 milligrams per liter (mg/l). Since
the TCE is more dense than water, the non-dissolved portion will
sink by gravity through the ground water and bedrock until it
encounters an impermeable barrier. At the barrier, the TCE will
accumulate as a liquid, i.e., the DNAPL. There, some portion of
the TCE will dissolve into the ground water. The soluble phase
-------
11
of DNAPLs are rarely found in excess of 10% of their solubility.
The sampling results also indicate a continuing source of TCE in
the ground water in the vicinity of the Landfill even though
EPA's research has not found any evidence of TCE dumping at the
Landfill and the RI/FS activities found no indication that the
Landfill is a current source of the TCE contamination in the
ground water. This is further evidence to indicate that the
ground water contamination due to TCE possibly results from TCE
which exists as DNAPLs.
Five residential wells were sampled during the 1990 RIfFS, all
located to the east of the Landfill. The only organic compound
detected was naphthalene at the Thirsty Camel Restaurant, in a
concentration of 0.7 (J) ug/l (See Figure 4 for the well
locations). This residence is located approximately 1000 feet
northeast of the Landfill.
with respect to the inorganic contaminants in the residential
wells, aluminum was present in the ground water at the Mobil
station in a concentration of 79.30 ug/l; arsenic was present at
the Riday residence in a concentration of 2.40 ug/l; barium was
present in all wells tested, with the exception of the Mobil
Station, in concentrations ranging from 2.10 to 69.50; and
manganese was present at the Riday and the Shaffer residences.
The level of aluminum measured at the Mobil station exceeded the
maximum level of aluminum measured in any of the monitoring
wells. The maximum concentrations of the other inorganic
contaminants detected in the residential wells were within ranges
measured in the monitoring wells.
The results of the ground-water sampling of the domestic and
monitoring wells indicate widespread volatile organic compound
contamination (primarily TCE). As noted previously, periodic
ground-water sampling of up to 50 residential wells located near
the Landfill (Figure 6) has been performed since March 1986. The
residential wells located to the southeast of the Landfill show
the highest levels of TCE contamination, with cqncentrations in
the range of 4000 to 7000 ug/l (Table 1), and show the greatest
fluctuations in TCE concentrations over time (Figure 13, upper
block). Other residential wells located both to the east and
southwest of the Butz Landfill show much lower concentrations of
TCE, with concentrations in the range of 30-300 ugfl, and also
show less fluctuation in TCE levels over time (lower block,
Figure 13). The distribution of TCE in the residential wells,
based on the most current data available for each well, is
depicted in Figure 4.
-------
1-
,
,
12
5.4
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTS
The sampling of surface water and sediment in adjacent streams,
seeps, and potential wetland areas was performed to determine
whether these areas had been impacted by contaminants from the
Landfill and whether the level of contaminants, if any, posed a
risk to either human health. or the environment.
Surface water and sediment samples were collected at 14 locations
from streams surrounding the Landfill (Figure 14). A number of
physical and chemical parameters were measured in the surface
water and sediment. Stations 15 and 16 were located on a stream
west of the Landfill and were intended as background samples. In
general, the nature of the physical parameters, and the absence
of organic chemicals, indicate good water quality in the streams
surrounding the site.
All surface water samples were analyzed for Target Compound List
organic compounds and Target Analyte List inorganic elements. In
general, very few organic compounds were detected in the surface
water (Table 10). Many of the compounds that were detected are
qualified with a "J" and are found in low concentrations.
Trichloroethene (TCE) was detected in 6 of the 14 surface water
sampling stations (SW-01, SW-02, SW-03, SW-04, SW-10, and SW-13).
All of these stations, except SW-01, are located to the south or
southeast of the Landfill. Local drainage is controlled by the
topographic slope, which is to the southeast in the vicinity of
the Landfill.
Surface water sampling station
Landfill. No volatile organic
Mercury was the only inorganic
concentration of 0.25 ugjl.
The next station downstream from SW-04 is station SW-13. SW-13
lies southeast of the Landfill. At this station, TCE, vinyl
chloride, chlorobenzene, and total 1,2-dichlorobenzene were
detected in concentrations of 1 (J), 2 (J), 2 (J), and 10 ug/l,
respectively. These compounds have been found in the ground
water and probably reflect discharge of shallow ground water to
the surface at this location. Elevated levels of arsenic,
barium, iron, and manganese were also found in the surface water
at this station in concentrations of 2.4, 104, 749, and 2010
ugjl, respectively.
SW-04 is located upgradient of the
compounds were detected at SW-04.
contaminant found at SW-04, in a
Downstream from station 13, are Stations 02, 03, 09, and 01. TCE
was not detected at station 09, but was detected at stations 02,
03, and 01 in concentrations of 10, 2 (J), and 2 (J) ug/l,
respectively. Of the inorganic contaminants, iron and manganese
were detected above background levels at station 02. Mercury was
~etected above background at Station 03. Aluminum, iron, and
-------
13
mercury were detected above background at station 09. Barium and
mercury were detected above background levels at station 01.
TCE was present at station 10, which is a seep located south of
the Landfill, in a concentration of 1 (J) ugjl. No inorganic
contaminants were found at this station.
No organic contaminants were detected at stations OS, 06, or 07.
However, aluminum and iron were present above background at
station os, aluminum, barium, iron, and mercury were present
above background at station 06, and iron was above background at
station 07.
Two semi-volatile organic compounds (benzoic acid and Di-n-
butylphthalate) and two pesticides (delta-BHC and gamma-BHC) were
detected at station SW-14. Numerous metals were also found above
background at this station including aluminum, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium,
and zinc. station SW-14 is located in a wetland area adjacent to
the dam in Mountain Spring Lake approximately one mile from the
Landfill.
The detailed analysis of the data in the RIjFS concluded that the
presence of TCE in the surface water probably reflects the
discharge of ground water containing TCE to the surface water.
The surface water also contains aluminum, arsenic, barium, iron,
manganese, mercury vanadium, and zinc in concentrations above
background levels at certain sample locations. However, the
arsenic, mercury, and vanadium cannot be shown to have originated
from the Landfill. Aluminum, barium, iron, and manganese may
originate from the Landfill, although these metals may have other
local sources as well. None of the numerous contaminants at
station 14 can be shown to have originated from the Butz
Landfill.
Sediment samples were collected at the same time and the same
locations as the surface water samples on December 10-11, 1990.
Samples were analyzed for pH, total organic carbon, grain size,
and Target Compound List organic compounds and Target Analy~e
List inorganic elements. The pH of the sediments generally
reflects the surface water pH, ranging from 5.78 to 7.39. The
total organic carbon content of the sediment ranged from a low
value of 1200 mgjkg at Station 07 to a high value of 888,000
mgjkg at station 14. The value at station 14 is anomalously high
as the average value for the other 13 stations was 18,925 mqjkg.
The only volatile organic compound detected in the sediment was
toluene which was found at station 06 in a concentration of 16
ugjkg. A number of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
found at stations 06 and 09. The highest concentration of any of
the PAHs was fluoranthene found at 580 ugjkg at station 09.
station 09 is located immediately adjacent to a parking lot used
-------
14
by a utility company (adjacent to Route 715) and the presence of
PAHs at this station may be attributed to roadway runoff.
Because the PARs are not found at stations immediately
downgradient from the Landfill (such as station 13), it is not
likely the PAHs at stations 06 and 09 are Landfill-related.
Numerous metals were present in the sediment above background
concentrations (background concentrations were measured at SW-15
and SW-16). Aluminum was present at stations 10 and 13 in a
maximum concentration of 14,700 mg/kg. Arsenic was present at
station 09 in a concentration of 5.9 mg/kg. Barium was present
at stations 02, OS, 09, 13, and 14 in a maximum concentration of
54.5 mg/kg. Beryllium was present at all stations except 01, 09,
11, and 14 in a maximum concentration of 2.2 mg/kg. Cadmium was
present at stations 02 and 04 in a maximum concentration of 2.2
mg/kg. Chromium was present at station 09 at 49.4 mg/kg. Cobalt
was present at stations 02, 10, 13 in a maximum concentration of
32.5 mg/kg. Copper was present at stations 09, 10, and 14 in a
maximum concentration of 251 mg/kg. .Iron was present at stations
OS, 09, 13 in a maximum concentration of 52,700 mg/kg. Lead was
present at stations 02, 09, 10, and 14 in a maximum concentration
of 266 mg/kg. Manganese was present at stations 02, 09, 10, and
13 in a maximum concentration of 17,800 mg/kg. Nickel was present
at stations 02, OS, and 09 in a maximum concentration of 13.9 .
mg/kg. Finally, zinc was present at Stations 02, 09, 10, 13, and
14 in a maximum concentration of 822 mg/kg.
The above listing included any metal found in a concentration
above background. However, the source of many of the metals
present in the sediment cannot clearly be determined.
5.5
ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
An ecological investigation was performed along the streams and
stream banks in the vicinity of the Landfill to evaluate
potential environmental impacts of the site. The work was
performed in mid-February, 1991. Nine (9) macro invertebrate
stations were sampled and included Stations 02, 03, 04, 05, 07,
09, 11, 13, and 15. These stations correspond to the surface
water and sediment sampling stations. station 04 was upgradient
of the Landfill and Station 15 was outside the potentially
impacted area of the Landfill. No contaminants were expected to
be present at these two stations. The remaining stations were
sampled to address the extent, if any, of impact to the local
ecology.
All of the sample stations were located on first-order streams
(i.e. streams which have no tributaries), except ECOL-09 which is
second order (i.e. a stream which has first-order streams as
tributaries). Estimated stream flow ranged from 0.003 to
0.18m3/s for the first-order' stations, and 0.414 m3/s for ECOL-
-------
15
09. station ECOL-13 was located where surface water discharges
from a wetland and was nearly stagnant. The dominant inorganic
substrate was cobble, except at ECOL-04 and ECOL-13, where it was
silt.-
The overall ecological assessment of the aquatic community
represented at most of the stations indicates healthy conditions
when compared to the reference station. ECOL-05 appears to have
a shift in community structure, but appears to be healthy. ECOL-
9 was a second-order stream and therefore had some different
parameters but appeared healthy. The community shift between
stream orders is due to habitat changes.
The aquatic investigation indicated an overall excellent aquatic
community and habitat. The stream at the reference station was
slightly smaller than at the other stations, however, the stream
characteristics and community appeared to be representative of
headwaters in this area. Numerous sensitive organisms were
collected. Diversity of organisms was superb. The only
exception was found at ECOL-13 where ecological impairment was
evident. The poor habitat which is naturally present at this
location, as well as potential impacts caused by the discharge of
contaminated ground water from the shallow aquifer, contribute to
the impairment. ECOL-13 is located southeast--downgradient--of
the Landfill. (It is significant that, as noted previously, no
leachate generation nor incidences of ground water intrusion were
evident at the Landfill itself during the Remedial
Investigation). The streams in the area of the Landfill are
ranked as High Quality Cold Water Fish streams (HQ-CWF) by the
state of Pennsylvania. The aquatic community reflects this
ranking.
The terrestrial walk-through which was conducted for the purposes
of the RIfFS revealed that the Landfill is experiencing early
successional growth typical of a disturbed area in that region.
There is poor surface soil present in some areas on the Landfill
resulting in patches of sparse vegetative growth. Given time,
the vegetation will eventually return to woodland similar to that
which surrounds the landfill.
The wildlife is also typical of that found in successional
growth. Populations of small mammals and game species were
present. Birds observed are typical of those found in the
particular habitat and season of the visit. wildlife populations
utilizing the Landfill are expected to change with time as the
vegetation succeeds back into forest.
6.
SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
Over fifty chemicals were selected as contaminants under review
at the site including carcinogenic PAHs, VOCs, and heavy metals.
-------
16
Trichloroethene was the primary contaminant at the Site.
Trichloroethene was selected for evaluation for ground water
(residential and monitoring wells) and surface water; however,
trichloroethene was not selected for surface soil, subsurface
soil, or sediment. As noted previously, trichloroethene was
detected in only one subsurface soil boring sample at a
relatively low concentration of 23 ug/kg. Several carcinogenic
PAHs were selected as contaminants under review for subsurface
soil and sediment. PCBs were detected only once in surface and
subsurface soils at the site. Arsenic, beryllium, and mercury
were the primary inorganic contaminants selected for evaluation.
For sediments, some stations closest to the Site were found to be
the most contaminated, especially with regard to inorganics.
However, for surface water, some of the most contaminated
stations were the greatest distance from the Site. The source of
many of the inorganic and semi-volatile contaminants is unclear,
especially for surface water. For example, mercury was selected
as a contaminant under review at several surface water stations,
however, it was not present in any other media. In addition,
levels of mercury increased further downstream from the Site.
This suggests that mercury is probably not site-related.
The following current land-use exposure pathways were
quantitatively evaluated:
o
ingestion of untreated ground water from residential wells
in the vicinity of the Landfill;
o
dermal absorption of untreated ground water while bathing
from residential wells in the vicinity of the Landfill;
o
inhalation of VOCs while showering using untreated ground
water from residential wells in the vicinity of the
Landfill;
o
direct contact with surface water and sediments by children
playing in streams and seeps in the vicinity of the
Landfill;
dermal absorption of ground water by hypothetical residents
while showering; and
o
o
ingestion of fish caught in streams in the vicinity of the
Landfill by recreational fisherman.
The following future land-use exposure pathways were
quantitatively evaluated in this report:
o
ingestion of ground water at the site by future hypothetical
residents; and
-------
17
inhalation of VOCs while showering by future hypothetical
residents who use ground water at the site.
Exposure point concentrations were estimated for each contaminant
and "exposure pathway. Exposure point concentrations and exposure
parameter values were combined using a chemical intake equation
to estimate exposure, i.e., chronic daily intake [CDI] for the
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) case for each contaminant and
pathway. Toxicity criteria and CDIs were combined to quantify
potential carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards
associated with the exposure pathways quantitatively evaluated in
the baseline risk assessment.
o
Potential carcinogenic risk was quantified by multiplying the CDI
by the carcinogenic slope factor (risk per milligram per kilogram
per day of dose) when the cancer risk was less than 10-2. (At
cancer risks greater than 10-2, the full exponential form of the
multistage model was used.) Chemical-specific cancer risks were
summed in order to quantify the total cancer risk associated with
exposure to a chemical mixture. Potential carcinogenic risks are
expressed as an increased probability of developing cancer over a
lifetime (i.e., excess individual lifetime cancer risk) (USEPA
1989a).- For example, a 10-6 increased cancer risk can be
interpreted as an increased risk of 1 in 1,000,000 for developing
cancer over a lifetime if an individual is exposed as defined by
the pathways presented. A 10-6 increased cancer risk is the
point of departure established in the National oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP") (USEPA 1990). In
addition, the NCP (USEPA 1990) states that "for known or
suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels are generally
concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound
lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between 10-4 and 10-6...
Carcinogenic risks in excess of the acceptable risk range are
likely to trigger a remedial response. Carcinogenic risks within
the acceptable risk range, yet in excess of the point of
departure (i.e., 10-6), also may trigger a remedial response.
Noncarcinogenic effects associated with exposure to a contaminant
was quantified by dividing its CDI with its reference dose (RfD).
This ratio is called the hazard quotient. If the hazard quotient
exceeds unity (i.e., 1), then an adverse health effect may occur.
If the estimated hazard quotient is less than unity, then adverse
noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur. The potential
risk from a chemical mixture was evaluated by calculating the
hazard index which is the sum of the chemical-specific hazard
quotients.
A summary of the potential carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic
hazards estimated for the exposure pathways quantitatively
evaluated in the Butz Landfill site baseline risk assessment are
presented in Table 11.
-------
18
6.1 Current Use Conditions: Use of Untreated Ground Water from
Residential Wells in the Vicinity of the Butz Landfill site - Of
the 57 residential wells sampled by EPA, 31 had detectable
concentrations of VOCs while the remaining residential wells
(i.e., 26) had no detectable concentrations of volatile organic
compound (VOC) contaminants. Trichloroethene (TCE) was the most
frequently detected contaminant in residential wells. other VOCs
detected in residential wells included 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-
dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, and
tetrachloroethene. No VOCs were detected in the 5 residential
and business wells sampled during the RI.
The contaminant concentrations detected in the ground water
during the RI include: vinyl chloride (up to 13 ppb);
tetrachloroethene (up to 4 ppb); trichloroethene (TCE, up to
8,400 ppb); 1,2-dichloroethene (total of cis and trans) (up to
950 ppb); and 1,1-dichloroethene (up to 14 ppb). Maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) have been established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for: vinyl chloride (2 ug/l);
tetrachloroethylene (5 ug/1)i TCE (5 ug/1); 1,1-dichloroethene
(7 ug/1); and trans-l,2 dichloroethene (100 ug/1). In addition,
non-enforceable maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) have also
been established under the Safe Qrinking 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.
The primary routes of possible human exposure to the volatile
organic contaminants in the ground water from the Butz Landfill
Site are ingestion, inhalation (during showering), and dermal
contact. .Vinyl chloride is a known ("Group A") human carcinogen;
TCE and tetrachloroethene 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.
Potential carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards to
residents were estimated for ingestion and dermal absorption
exposure to untreated ground water and inhalation of VOCs while
showering, in order to evaluate the no-action alternative. Of
the 62 residential wells sampled during the various EPA sampling
events, the potential carcinogenic risk associated with
ingestion, dermal absorption exposure, and inhalation exposure
for 31 residential wells exceeded the NCP point of departure
-------
19
(10-6) (USEPA, 1990). with respect to the spatial distribution
of wells, carcinogenic risks for residential wells which exceeded
a 10-6 cancer risk extended approximately 0.5 miles
south/southwest of the Landfill and 1 mile east and southeast of
the Landfill. However, the potential carcinogenic risks
associated with use of untreated ground water from only 8
residential wells (See Table 6-60) exceeded the upper-bound of
the NCP acceptable risk range (i.e., >10-4). Most of these
residential wells are located within approximately 1,000 feet of
the Landfill. Figure 15 shows the locations of residential wells
with the associated 10-6 carcinogenic risk for each well.
For noncarcinogenic hazards, the hazard indices for most of the
residential wells were below unity by more than an order of
magnitude. Therefore, noncarcinogenic effects associated with
use of untreated ground water are unlikely to occur. Of the 62
residential wells evaluated in this report, the hazard index (HI)
exceeded or equaled one for 10 residential wells; with F.
Possinger (HI=105) and L. Rinker (HI=74) having the highest
hazard indices. Trichloroethene was the only contaminant with a
hazard quotient above unity. Noncarcinogenic effects may occur
from chronic use of untreated ground water from these wells due
to trichloroethene exposure. Figure 16 shows the location of the
residential wells and the associated non-carcinogenic hazard for
each well.
6.2 Current Use Conditions: Direct Contact with Surface Soil bv
Children Playinq at Butz Landfill - Potential carcinogenic risks
to children playing in surface soil at Butz Landfill due to
dermal absorption and incidental ingestion were below the NCP
point of departure (i.e., 10-6). Aroclor-1260 and beryllium
which are considered probable human carcinogens (Group B2) were
the only potential carcinogenic contaminants identified in
surface soil. Levels of arsenic in surface soil may be of more
concern than the other contaminants evaluated, however, this
compound was within natural background levels. With respect to
noncarcinogenic hazards, all of the contaminant-specific hazard
quotients, as well as the hazard index, were below unity (1) by
at least two orders of magnitude. Therefore, noncarcinogenic
effects associated with direct contact with surface soil while at
the Butz Landfill are unlikely to occur.
6.3 Current Use Conditions: Direct Contact with Surface Water
and Sediments by Children Playinq in Streams and SeeDS - The
potential carcinogenic risks associated with dermal absorption of
contaminants in surface water and sediments at all sample
locations were well below the NCP point of departure (i.e., 10-6)
except for Stations 13 and 14 (USEPA 1990). with respect ~o
noncarcinogenic hazards, the hazard indices estimated for the
dermal absorption route for all stream and seep locations were
several orders of magnitude below unity (1). The hazard indices
estimated for Mountain Spring Lake, however, slightly exceeded
-------
20
unity (1) due to exposure to arsenic, cadmium, manganese, and
zinc. The target organs for these chemicals at such dose levels
are not similar, and the summing of hazard quotients may not be
appropriate.. Therefore, noncarcinogenic effects may not occur.
At any rate, the chemicals of potential concern detected at
Mountain spring Lake are not linked to site-related activities.
Direct contact with surface water and sediments in the vicinity
of the Landfill does not appear to present appreciable risk to
children.
Probable human carcinogens identified as contaminants in
sediments include beryllium (stations 2, 6, 10, 13),
benzo(a)pyrene (Equivalent) (stations 6 and 9), and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (station 9). Arsenic, a known human
carcinogen, was identified as a contaminant under review at
stations 2, 9, and 13. The potential carcinogenic risks
associated with incidental ingestion of sediments at Stations 2,
6, 9, 10, and 13 slightly exceeded the NCP point of departure
(i.e., 10-6), yet were within the NCP acceptable risk range
(i.e., <10-4) (USEPA 1990). Potential carcinogenic risks ranged
from 2X10-6 (Station 6) to 3X10-5 (station 13). .
with respect to noncarcinogenic hazards, hazard indices estimated
for all stream and seep locations were below unity (1) and ranged
from 4x10-2 (station 10) to 4X101 (Station 2). Therefore,
noncarcinogenic effects associated with incidental ingestion of
sediments while playing in streams and seeps in the vicinity of
the site are unlikely to occur.
It should be noted that it was conservatively assumed that
children would play 125 days per year for 10 years at a given
location and would ingest 140 milligrams of sediment per day
(USEPA 1989a, 1991d). In addition, it is not evident that the
contaminants detected at each station are actually associated
with Site-related disposal activities. For example, surface
water runoff from roads may contaminate streams with PARs which
are formed from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons from
vehicles or .from the asphalt road surface itself.
6.4 Current Use Conditions: Inqestion of contaminated Fish -
The potential carcinogenic risks associated with ingestion of
fish due to exposure to trichloroethene from all sample locations
were below the NCP point of departure (i.e., 10-6) (USEPA 1990).
with respect to noncarcinogenic hazards, mercury, which was
detected at Stations 1, 3, 6, and 9, was the only contaminant
with a hazard quotient exceeding unity (1). The concentrations
of mercury detected in surface water ranged from 0.25 to 1 ug/L,
which exceeds the USEPA Ambient Water Quality criteria (AWQC) of
0.15 ug/L for consumption of fish (USEPA 1986c). Thus,
recreational fisherman who ingest 54 grams of fish per day for
thirty years from one of these locations (i.e., stations 1, 3, 6
or 9) may experience an adverse health effect. However, the
-------
21
site-relatedness of mercury is doubtful. Mercury was- not
detected in ground water monitoring wells, surface soil,
subsurface soil borings, or test pit samples collected at the
site. In addition, the levels of mercury along the North Fork of
Reeders Run increase further downstream from the Landfill.
6.5 Future Land-Use Conditions: Use of qround water bv
Hvpothetical Residents at the Butz Landfill Site - If ground
water at the site were used as a source of water in the future,
then residents may be exposed to contaminants via ingestion,
dermal absorption exposure, and inhalation of VOCs while
showering. The total potential carcinogenic risk from ingestion
and dermal absorption exposure to ground water and inhalation of
VOCs while showering is 3x10-3. This risk exceeds the NCP point
of departure (i.e., 10-6) and upper-bound of the NCP acceptable
risk range (i.e., 10-4) (USEPA 1990). The majority of the risk
is associated with ingestion, dermal absorption exposure, and
inhalation of trichloroethene. The highest detected
concentration of trichloroethene was found at monitoring well R1D
which is located along the eastern boundary of the Landfill
property. with respect to noncarcinogenic hazards, the hazard
index associated with use of ground water at the Butz Landfill
exceeded unity by a factor of 183, mainly due to trichloroethene.
Trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, and antimony were the only
contaminants with hazard quotients that exceeded one. Therefore,
noncarcinogenic effects from ingestion of ground water from the
Butz Landfill Site may occur, in addition to carcinogenic risks,
if this aquifer were to be utilized as a water resource in the
future.
7.0
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL RISKS
The terrestrial ecology on the Landfill does not appear to be
impacted by any organic compounds or inorganic elements found in
the surface soils. The contaminants in the surface soils,
primarily heavy metals, are not present at levels sufficient to
cause toxicity to either the vegetation or wildlife. Both
organic and inorganic contaminants were present in the subsurface
soil of the Landfill. These contaminants were not uniformly
dispersed, and it was assumed that terrestrial wildlife would not
typically come in contact with organic compounds. The subsurface
soils were noted to be hard and mixed with crushed shale. This
soil type is not expected to be utilized by burrowing soil
invertebrates. During the course of two site walk-throughs,
numerous signs and sightings of small mammals, game animals, and
avian species were observed. The vegetation was typical of that
which is expected to occupy a successional field.
The aquatic communities within the tributaries at and near the
site were of excellent quality. Rich diversities, high
abundances, stable and high quality habitats, good water quality,
-------
22
and impressive representation of sensitive organisms indicate no
ecological impairment. Insignificant levels of organics and low
levels of inorganics do not appear to be affecting the aquatic
community, nor do they pose a concern when compared to values
from toxicological literature.
The exception occurred at station 13, where manganese and arsenic
occurred at levels sufficient to pose a potential risk and iron
and aluminum concentrations were approaching levels which may
cause risk (surface and subsurface soil samples do not implicate
the Landfill as the source of the arsenic). These metals
combined are expected to contribute to limited risk. It should
be noted that the stream habitat evaluation revealed that the
stream section associated with station 13 was poor in quality.
Heavy sedimentation, poor flow (almost stagnant), high seasonal
flow variation, and poor stream substrate (i.e. lack of cobble
and other attachment sites) were the primary poor stream
parameters. Iron flocculent was also observed at this station.
The benthics collected at SW-13 were fair. However, when
compared to the other excellent stations, station 13 was
considered poor. ECOL-13 naturally supports a lower quality
aquatic community than is typical of the area, and manganese,
iron, and aluminum, which may have been originally derived, in
part, from the Landfill may be further suppressing the aquatic
community. (Manganese, iron, and aluminum are not hazardous
substances under CERCLA.)
A number of semi-volatiles and inorganic compounds were detected
at station 09. These compounds do not appear to be site-related.
At present, these compounds do not appear to be affecting the
aquatic community. Potential sources of the contaminants may be
the adjacent unpaved parking lot used by a utility company, and
run-off from sprayed farm lands.
A number of contaminants were present in the surface water and
sediment at station 14. Aluminum, cadmium, irqn, lead, mercury,
zinc, delta-BHC, and gamma-BHC were present at levels that may be
of risk to aquatic organisms. The metals previously mentioned
were also present at elevated levels in the sediments. These
contaminants are not likely to be site-related because station
14, located at the outlet of Mountain Spring Lake, is more than
one mile from the Landfill. In addition, stations 05 and 07
(located between station 14 and the Landfill) would be expected
to intercept surface water and shallow ground water discharge
from the Landfill, therefore, any site-related contamination
would be expected to be detected at these stations. However, no
site-related contamination was detected at stations 05 and 07.
-------
23
8.0
RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION
EPA has found no evidence of endangerment to the public health or
welfare or to the environment from the Butz Landfill proper, or
fr~m surface waters or sediments which might be affected by the
site. However, actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances in ground water at the Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment, based on the risks described
above in section 6.
9.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Using the information collected for the purposes of the RIfFS,
EPA has developed the alternatives described below for the
second, and final, operable unit remedial action to address
contaminated ground water.
1.
NO ACTION WITH MONITORING
This alternative would not involve any remedial action, but
would include ground water monitoring activities. The
ground water monitoring would include the biannual sampling
and analysis of water from at least three of the existing
shallow aquifer monitoring wells and at least three of the
existing bedrock aquifer monitoring wells for a period of 30
years. This alternative provides a means by which ground
water contaminant concentrations can be quantified over
time.
No construction activities would be required to implement
this alternative. The capital cost associated with this
alternative would be for professional consulting services to
plan and implement the monitoring program. The estimated
capital cost is $70,000. Annual operation and maintenance
(O&M) is estimated to cost $125,000. The estimated present
worth of this alternative, considering a 30-year
implementation period, is $1,391,000.
CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER EXTRACTION. TREATMENT AND
DISCHARGE
2.
This alternative includes provisions for the active
extraction and treatment of contaminated ground water from
the bedrock aquifer. The alternative includes the
installation of bedrock aquifer extraction wells, treatment
of the extracted ground water to remove organic
contaminants, and discharge of the treated water to surface
streams. The wells would be placed hydrogeologically
downgradient of the Landfill in the area were DNAPLs are
-------
24
suspected and at the perimeter of the area of contaminated
ground water. This alternative provides a reduction in the
toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants by
extracting and treating the ground water. The alternative
would minimize or prevent the migration of organic
contaminants through the bedrock aquifer thereby reducing
the likelihood that the area of contaminated ground water
would increase in size. The intent of this alternative is
to reduce the concentrations of organic contaminants in the
aquifer to background levels.
Two of the treatment options that are available for
implementation of this remedy are (1) treatment of ground
water by chemical precipitation of metals and air stripping
of volatile organic compounds, and (2) treatment of ground
water using granular activated carbon. Option number 1 is
estimated to require a capital expenditure of $5,082,000
with estimated annual O&M costs of $561,000. The estimated
present worth of Option 1 is $11,012,000. Option number 2
is estimated to require $5,395,000 in capital expenditures
and an estimated $861,000 in annual O&M. . The estimated
present worth of Option 2 is $14,995,000. The best option
would be selected during the remedial design process.
10.0
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The two alternatives described in the preceding section for this
remedial action were evaluated against the following nine
criteria, as required by the NCP:
1.
overall protection of human health and the environment;
2.
compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs);
3.
long-term effectiveness and permanence;
4.
reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume; through
treatment
5.
short-term effectiveness;
6.
implementability;
7.
cost
8.
state acceptance; and
9.
community acceptance;
-------
25
1.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1, No-Action with Monitoring, has no provision
for the active protection of human health or the
environment. Alternative 2 would provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment considering
that EPA has already established plans (outside the scope of
this operable unit) to construct a pipeline to supply
potable water to area residents whose wells currently are,
or might become, contaminated with volatile organic
hazardous substances thereby eliminating the possibility of
exposure. Alternative 2 will also prevent the spread of the
contaminants beyond the current limits of the contaminated
area.
2.
ComDliance with ARARs
No chemical-specific ARARs pursuant to section 121 of CERCLA
will be met by Alternative 1, No Action with Monitoring.
Implementation of the No Action with Monitoring alternative
would not trigger any location-specific nor action-specific
ARARs.
ARARs relevant to Alternative 2 are discussed in detail in
section 14 of this ROD. Alternative 2 will assure that no
residents are exposed to any Site-related hazardous
substances in ground water which exceed the requirements set
forth as Maximum contaminant Levels (MCLs) or (non-zero)
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) under the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act and under the Pennsylvania Safe
Drinking Water Act. This alternative would be designed for
the purpose of remediating ground water to meet the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requirement for cleanup of
ground water to background concentrations. Since no Site-
related volatile organic contaminants were detected in
background samples, the requirement to meet MCLs and non-
zero MCLGs will, therefore, also be met.
Alternative 2 would comply with all location-specific ARARs
(e.g. wetlands preservation requirements) involved in the
siting of the extraction wells, piping, treatment units and
other equipment. The Alternative would also comply with all
action-specific ARARs (e.g. air emission standards and
effluent discharge standards) required for the construction
activities and the functioning of the extraction and
treatment equipment.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regulations regarding
closure of municipal waste landfills are not applicable
because those regulations were promulgated in 1988 and the
Landfill ceased operations in 1973. The regulations would
be relevant and appropriate if 1) the regulations addressed
-------
26
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the site, and 2) if the regulations were well
suited for use at the site. EPA has determined that the
municipal waste landfill closure regulations are not
relevant and appropriate because the RIjFS showed that the
Landfill is not currently contributing to the volatile
organic ground water contamination, nor is it resulting in
any other significant environmental or human health concerns
that otherwise might be addressed by landfill closure
pursuant to those regulations. The Landfill was closed
under an agreement between the Landfill operators and the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources in 1973.
3.
Lonq-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Selection of the No Action with Monitoring alternative is
unlikely to achieve a reduction in the size of the area
currently contaminated by volatile organic compounds in the
ground water.
Alternative 2 is expected to prevent further contamination
of the bedrock by actively pumping the ground water in the
vicinity of the Landfill where DNAPLs are suspected to be
present. This Alternative would also be expected to prevent
the enlargement of the area of contamination. The ground
water extraction system would require continuous
maintenance. This alternative is effective in the long-term
because the cleanup levels (i.e., background) will be met in
the area of attainment. .
4.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv. or Volume Throuqh Treatment
Alternative 1, No Action with Monitoring, would provide no
reduction of toxicity, mobility, nor volume of any of the
ground water contaminants. Alternative 2, contaminated
Ground Water Extraction, Treatment and Discharge, would
result in a reduction of volatile organic contaminants by
removing those contaminants from the extracted ground water
prior to effluent discharge. Under this alternative, the
mobility of the contaminants would be restricted because the
pumping and extraction of the ground water would cause an
alteration of the ground water flow pattern resulting in the
contaminated ground water being directed toward the
extraction wells. Because the volatile organic compounds
would be removed from the ground water via a treatment
process, the concentrations of those compounds would be
reduced thereby reducing toxicity.
-------
27
5.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The No Action with Monitoring alternative would not
eliminate the threats posed by the possible spread of
. contaminated ground water as described in sections 6 and 8,
above.
Alternative 2, upon commencement of ground water extraction,
would result in alteration of the flow of ground water and
reduction of the contaminant concentrations. The
alternative would reduce the likelihood area of further
contamination of the bedrock aquifer and would prevent the
contamination from spreading.
6.
Implementability
Both alternatives are implementable. The No Action with
Monitoring alternative requires monitoring of existing
ground water wells for volatile organic contaminants. The
resources for this alternative are available and are
considered to be routine exercises in sampling and analysis.
The technologies required to implement Alternative 2 are
wQll-established and commercially available. This
alternative would possibly require negotiations with private
land owners for access, for the establishment of maintenance
roadways, for the construction of the extraction wells and
treatment units, and for the extension of electrical
service.
7.
Cost
The present worth of the No Action alternative is estimated
to be $1,391,000. The present worth of Alternative 2 is
estimated to range between $11,012,000 and $14,995,000
depending on the treatment scenario that would be chosen as
a result of the remedial design activities as previously
described. The estimates for both alternatives are
predicated upon the assumption that either alternative would
require 30 years for implementation.
8.
State Acceptance
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with the selection
of Alternative 2. A copy of the concurrence letter is
attached.
9.
Community Acceptance
Only one letter commenting on the Proposed Remedial Action
Plan was received by EPA. That letter expressed opposition
-------
4.
28
to the selection of Alternative 2 mainly because of the cost
of the alternative.
11.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
After careful consideration of the proposed remedial action
alternatives and evaluation of the nine criteria listed above,
and the public comments, EPA has selected Alternative 2,
Contaminated Ground Water Extraction, Treatment and Discharge as
the appropriate remedy for meeting the goals for this second
operable unit at the, Butz Landfill site. In the judgment of EPA,
the remedy selected represents the best balance among the
criteria evaluated. The selected alternative consists of:
1.
Construction of ground water extraction wells downgradient
from the Landfill in the area of suspected DNAPLs and at the
perimeter of the area of contamination. The number of wells
and the extraction rates shall be sufficient to prevent the
contaminated ground water from expanding into other areas
and to extract the volatile organic contaminants from the
contaminated ground water in order to achieve background
levels and to return ground water to its beneficial use as a
source of drinking water.
2.
Construction of piping and treatment units, as required, to
achieve the necessary extraction and routing of ground
water, the treatment of the ground water to remove
contaminants to NPDES-allowed levels, and the discharge of
treated water to surface streams.
3.
Construction of access roads and electric power lines as
required.
The operation and maintenance of the ground water
extraction, treatment and disposal system until contaminants
in the ground water at the site are at background
concentrations, in accordance with the performance standards
set forth in (12), below. EPA will operate or direct
operations of the system for a maximum of 10 years. If a
period of greater than 10 years is required, the system will
be turned over to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
continuation of the operation and maintenance pursuant to
section 104{c) (6) of CERCLA.
A schematic drawing of the possible locations of the ground water
extraction wells is included in this ROD as Figure 17. The
actual number of wells and the locations of'the wells and other
equipment would be determined during pre-design and/or design
activities. Table 12 gives a breakdown of various cost items for
the ground water treatment option employing chemical
-------
29
precipitation and air stripping. Table 13 is an estimate of the
cost items for the carbon absorption option.
12.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The selected remedy will achieve background levels for all of the
volatile organic contaminants in the ground water thereby
restoring the ground water to its beneficial use as a source of
drinking water. The Pennsylvania ARAR for hazardous substances
in ground water, 25 PA Code ~~ 264.90 -264.100, specifically, 25
PA Code ~S 264.97{i) and (j) and S 264.100{a) (9), is relevant and
appropriate under the circumstances at the Butz Landfill site.
. The listed chapter citations require that ground water must be
remediated to "background" quality. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania also maintains that the requirement to remediate to
background is also found in other legal authorities. For the
purposes of this remedy, the background ground water sampling
location is EPA-installed monitoring 'well R5 (see Figure 2). No
volatile organic compounds were detected in this well during the
RIfFS. The remedy therefore will achieve non-detectable levels
of volatile organic compounds in ground water for the entire
site. The requirement to meet MCLs and non-zero MCLGs will,
therefore, also be met. The background concentrations will be
determined by EPA based on available technologies and
methodologies during the remedial action. As of the date of this
ROD, the appropriate methods of analysis are 40 C.F.R. Part 136
(Series 601 and 602), and 40 C.F.R. Part 141 (series 524.2).
All extracted ground water will be treated to levels which 'will
allow for discharge into nearby surface water streams in
compliance with the requirements of State (25 PA Code Chapters
92, 93 and 95) and Federal discharge regulations.
13.
POSSIBLE EVENTS IF THE REMEDY IS NOT ACHIEVED
If at any time during the design or implementation of this
remedy, EPA determines that protectiveness of public health and
welfare and the environment has been achieved even though the
performance standards in this ROD have not been met, or, in
corroboration with hydrological and chemical evidence, that it
will be technically impracticable to achieve and maintain the
cleanup levels throughout the area of attainment, then EPA, in
consultation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, may write
another ROD, amend this ROD, or issue an Explanation of
Significant Differences to inform the public of alternative
ground water cleanup actions which may include, but not be
limited to, any of the following:
-------
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
30
engineering controls such as physical barriers, or
long-term gradient control provided by low level
pumping, as containment measures;
the waiving of chemical-specific ARARs for the cleanup
of portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further contaminant
reduction;
institutional controls to restrict access to those
portions of the aquifer which remain above remediation
standards;
continued monitoring of specified wells; and
periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for
ground water restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures could be made
during periodic reviews of the remedial action which will occur
at least once every five years in accordance with CERCLA section
121(c).
14.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This remedy satisfies the remedy selection requirements of CERCLA
and the NCP. This remedy is expected to be protective of human
health and the environment, complies with ARARs, is cost
effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Because it will treat the ground water to remove contaminants,
the remedy also meets the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy. The following is a discussion
of how the selected second operable unit remedial action
addresses these statutory requirements:
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedial action protects human health and the
environment by cleaning up ground water such that levels of
volatile organic compounds will not exceed background
concentrations. All ground water extracted from the aquifer will
be treated and discharged to local streams in compliance with the
substantive requirements of state and federal discharge
regulations.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Reauirements
These standards are considered applicable to this action:
-------
31
This action will cause no violation of NAAQS due to fugitive
dust generated during construction activities (Clean Air
Act, 40 C.F.R ~ 50.6 and 40 C.F.R. ~ 52.21(j». Fugitive
dust emissions generated during construction activities will
comply with fugitive dust regulations in the Federally
approved state Implementation Plan for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Clean Air Act, 40 C.F.R. Part 52, Subpart NN,
52.2020 - 52.2023, state Implementation Plans for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards).
Any surface water discharge will comply with the Clean Water
Act NPDES discharge regulations (40 C.F.R SS 122.41-122.50),
the Pennsylvania NPDES regulations (25 PA Code S 92.31), the
Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards (25 PA Code SS 93.1-
93.9) and the Pennsylvania Wastewater Treatment Regulations
(25 PA Code ~~95.1 - 95.3).
Handling, treatment or disposal of any residual considered a
hazardous waste under 40 C.F.R. ~ 261.3 will comply with 40
C.F.R. ~S 264.1 - 264.50 and 25 PA Code ~ 75.264(v) which
requirements regulate the land disposal of hazardous wastes.
Offsite transportation of contaminated materials or
treatment residuals will be done in compliance with Federal
regulations applicable to generators and transporters of
hazardous wastes (40 C.F.R. Part 262 and 40 C.F.R. Part 263)
as well as with Pennsylvania regulations (25 PA Code S
75.263) .
Any disturbance of wetlands resulting because of access road
construction or other construction activities will be
minimized and mitigated in compliance with the substantive
requirements of Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act,
the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, the 25 PA
Code Chapter 105 regulations, 40 CFR Part 6.302(a), 33 CFR
Part 330 et.sea.. and 40 CFR section 230.10.
Stormwater runoff and soil erosion control during
construction activities will comply with the substantative
requirements of the Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act
and the 25 PA Code Chapter 102 erosion control regulations.
Extraction well construction and operation will comply with
the regulations of the Delaware River Basin Commission
(DRBC). Applicable DRBC regulations are: DRBC Ground Water
Protected Area Regulations Nos. 4, (6) (f), 9 and 10; and
Water Code of the Basin, Sections 2.20.4 and 2.50.2.
These standards are considered relevant and appropriate to this
action:
-------
32
The contaminated ground water will be cleaned to background
contaminant levels as required by 25 PA Code SS 264.90 -
264.100, specifically, 25 PA Code S S 264.97(i) and (j) and
264.100(a) (9).
Onsite treatment will comply with RCRA regulations and
standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, 40 C.F.R. SS
264.170 - 264.178 (containers), ~~ 264.190 - 264.200
(tanks), ~~ 264.220 - 264.249 (surface impoundments) and ~~
264.601 - 264.603 (miscellaneous units) and will comply with
SS 264.1032 - 264.1033 which regulate air emissions from
process vents and ~~ 264.1052 - 264.1062 which regulate air
emissions from equipment leaks.
This directive is a "to be considered" criterion:
Off-gas from any air strippers used to clean the ground
water before discharge will comply with OSWER Directive
9355.0-28 which requires air pollution controls for air
strippers with certain emission rates.
Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is determined by comparing the costs of the
alternatives being considered with the overall effectiveness of
the alternative to determine whether costs are proportional to
the effectiveness achieved. The present worth cost of the ground
water extraction, treatment, and disposal remedy is estimated to
range from $11,012,000 for the option employing treatment of
ground water by chemical precipitation of metals and air
stripping of volatile organic compounds, to $14,495,000 if ground
water is treated using granular activated carbon. This remedy is
judged to afford overall effectiveness proportional to its cost
such that the remedy represents a good value. When the
relationship between cost and overall effectiveness of the remedy
is compared to the cost and effectiveness of No Action With
Monitoring, the only other alternative considered, the
contaminated Ground Water Extraction, Treatment, and Discharge
remedy is judged to be more cost effective.
utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technoloqies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedial action represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies can be utilized while providing the best
balance among the other evaluation criteria at this time. The
remedy provides the best balance in terms of the nine evaluation
criteria.
-------
33
Preference for Treatment as a princi?al Element
The remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment as a principal element to permanently reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances. By
extracting ground water from the aquifer and removing
contamination from it before it is discharged to local streams,
the remedy addresses the primary risk posed by the site through
the treatment.
15.
Responsiveness Summary
In compliance with section 113(d) and 117 of CERCLA, the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan and the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) 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 April 22, 1992. The Proposed Remedial
Action Plan listed the alternatives developed pursuant to the
information contained in the RI/FS. A period for public review
and comments on the Proposed Remedial Action Plan was held from
April 22, 1992 through May 22, 1992.
On May 7, 1992, a Public Meeting was held at the Jackson Township
Municipal Building, Reeders, Pennsylvania. The meeting was
attended by approximately seventy interested citizens and public
officials including officials from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. At the Public Meeting, EPA presented a
brief summary of the two alternatives which were delineated .in
the proposed Remedial Action Plan and the reasons for EPA's
preference for Alternative 2, Contaminated Ground Water
Extraction, Treatment and Discharge. Most of the concerns voiced
by citizens at the Public Meeting concerned the costs associated
with Alternative 2. EPA answered all of the questions posed at
the Public Meeting. A transcript of the Meeting has been
included in the Administrative Record for the site.
EPA received one letter of comments on the Proposed Remedial
Action Plan during the comment period. That letter, dated May
13, 1992, disagrees with EPA's choice of Alternative 2, in part,
because the commentor feels that the alternative is too costly,
because no significant environmental effects have been shown to
exist, and because the absence of treatment does not appear to
have increased the areal distribution of the ground water
contamination.
EPA maintains that it is necessary to clean up contaminated
ground water resources and to thereby make those resources
available for future use. Also, EPA is required by CERCLA to
comply with ARARs unless a waiver of an ARAR is invoked. The
major ARAR of concern in this regard is the Commonwealth of
-------
I--
I
34
Pennsylvania requirement that ground water be restored to
background contaminant concentrations. The NCP also requires
that ground water be restored to its beneficial use, which, in
this instance, is the historic and on-going use of the ground
water as a drinking water source. If, at a later time, EPA
concludes that the remedy is not appropriate, EPA will then
re-evaluate the remedy.
-------
FIGURES
-------
""""-'::::~'----7-~?--~_-1-'i-,~ ---'-"=-- ~-,- -")\\ ,: .)" '--"cSt
-'---Ca~~-:r::::----.,. .~./ ~..:f"r.~' ,/ ); ;;7" - :"~'~~!';.-
rneloac:k/ M1 ---.............-- ','-.-/.,: I', /, ,
~,~/-~I ".o_Cl_nt.a.I.D,.,:,~_~-:,;-_/"'-.C'" -- .',.'/ ~i\,/,/ .'; ,'~~'" ,,' ./
-I . ,'- -~-:--:. ..,' I .'., .' /,~ ,'- \~, - - --- 0 " . - ('
. .. "..;;::- ~-=.-.-:..'._' ""1/ I ,.....-" ...-/ \. I' __0 0""/' .,
'.-'-' " R~<.I'O;:'..,,,,:, "11.1]'.. Rc5'dc1SI~"" ".',.'.... V, /~,.., ~----',-:::::..
'---. ' ~Qw.' Loo~out" "",1<$"'- >-':., ' :>/ ),-_/~,'y~,> )-::-:-~:~,:=>,~=~~-'~' '.:\ '~\,,~r-';,
'-.. --- .--- -' "/" - ~ ~: ",,=,'c"--~', . -:,~~)r"~HJ.G
I' BUTZ LANDFILL -=- "~.~,.:-=.~~.,,-< ,':'-' ~"/ ::;:;} "'," '::::"~l~~
-- ,- ,;;:::/ /' :/ '.'J" ; '-, .//'11>/ ~,../ .
--.. ,~'!" / ~/ .,/1
-1 ,/.-- /. -- ;/7/' / ". "L,/',
, . ----- s ,/' ( '.\, , " ,.' /....
. L - ,-"-";.~..'..,.--, . /-/ .. J ,- "'.. // ,.....,.. ,,~--
" ,_/ ' ',... "'" :_" . "1. '.....' BM ,/ ,. -....". -.;
-. \ .... '\..~........... ~
\ "i \, -'0', ./9B6, '-
. '/'----../'''"'--':-:' "',' '-'." -' ~~~~, '
(' ~ 'r', ".~'\'';~7 .\"~ 7>:' ,," ----/---,
J '._,' '\ ,.\ ',,: ,: ", ..... I,~" ~ -
,"~..:_../ '\ ,./ -/ ,'/, " : f ,,'
..' . . '\. ,I L\, ;. I ' .. ....
i .,\ '..,: /T ,', ,"
. , v '
: ' \ ,~>"--" ~ I ' ) : /," ( " '
',\ . ./ / 1'\ : ,', ! 'x'"
" " ',', ~. . ' :\:,~'----' - \ \ ,,:l ,/ ( ,/ "-
.': " ,..:~:,.:.:r,-:;=--~~') 'eM'I!.:'~' .(; ,/7'1,\,../ . ' . ' -: "-, ,
;' .~; .' -Q,., '.. ,'" ';" 979 .', /' 'J / .' >".
,.' ,I "', ~' .. Reeder.t': '.~," /: / /' '-., ..' ,,' '-,'-::
, 8M , , ,~ ,,,,,)~', :' :o~,~, .'~. :; ,'" -/' -....., """"'~..: ' . ...:.., -' , .
....f't?89- ::~,' , .. ,~'" -. ,/ Cern '. .r" nshlp .~\ / \ . .~ -', . ,
~ .;""'-""..',,- " .' i(,~ '~~f."~h~"") ,--,;",--("" '--
,,",,,,; . , .. '\, I ~ ~\. ~"- --,; '"" . , ( , J
"""," ~-\ '/?~::=:;{::.a~:a~~-:~Lf'~:=r.~~ Z'.. . .....~ . . 8_', '; ""'~/"""'L'
-'../ ~.-~"-'\ . -\ .' -. ,'~~. ~ . A.. ~ ..,,- "
.... k.~ . \\ ~ ''''''0 . -" ~.; ~..., ~ ..
':I t.\Jo , , -. ~.. ,,',0 ---""',
I fi.1'~/"-' - ~"''''';r:I:~~t'-, '\ ~, '--'''';'~<"
\ :,,'" s~:-" "~f.J,v~:-, ~< "'.0'" :j, '\~"..:.-....:4o ~'::~e... \------. /'~-.'\-..' ,-oJ::'"'
1"\.~ ' .~, "'''-i\ '., 'V""",~:')'.~ )-,~ --- / "\ '-:;;'''-'
\ y , ,,~~~.~: . --,-. . .. ,y'" '-', c... - --7- "
\ 1'.\\) ;' :t'.:;..:. -" .." o' " .,.'... ',\ -"::,,',,..J ' ., - .' . . ,
". '. ,', .sj~-- . ----" ' ,.--":,', \~ \/~-_.- I~ .~<,':~'
\- A -----....A \..;). I!'\. '\- ~ ~ ~
/-,,' \"~\, -~/ 5t-:_"-'\J'I"~' :': -.!-"~_/'--;"'. ,-,,"\ '~..> "~~./'''1\~r...'/>~:::
.,,""'-- \ ,\.,';-;=--- "..8 ---," . ~ J". "'" ~ 8. t,,- ~ ~~ d J' "..'
,\ I; '..~,.". .....'~ '......, ~ ~"t~ :;-;./2 '" ;~," ).....~,..
.----' '~-- /::",\/' '.,,~.~/- .n,' -"')' H' ..~. r.' ""'a"""~;"!. \."~:~,...~..
.' .': ..: \. . "," ,-"". ..". ",'.8 ~ '\ ',. ..,'
\ ;1 "", ' 'l" . \ ',,'~ ,
..----,..,: r;'-:');<. . J./ _.' '. ~-...... /) '~L
, . ';~ ,.' 0 "~.'" /.': \,.0.\C.6 / ,.,---' ) r' 816"..
\:-/1"". ~,~/ 'f1'0"'1. ,..\ -' .', //' ;; :t~;t
I01~:,' '}IfJ /. ,. ~. '( / ,/,'0 .../. ,
~.'" .: " I .'. , 947 '-, -;... I / '. v.~ j
1»:) 2':00 3000 ~ 5<."<:0 6<."«: 7()C':)F'EET,' /,./ a\)t -,/
I / /' t'I.....-
..', ~.
- ,
"
, :J-.--
-'
. ~-I
--
.,'
"
...-r
/
/
1 :'YJ
o
- --
I
I ?ENN~YlVANIA 8!'
. '
L. .--. --. "',
QUAORANGlE lOCATION
FIGURE 1
"'GENERAL UDCATION MAP
BUTZ LANDfILL
SOURCE:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP MOUNT POCONO QUADRANGLE
.'
-------
»\G
~CO~O
S'tt.'tE
rt.~~
,.()
0/ 00
'ie. 0 l:
'to"~
.J- \.,i'j
~~~
a+: ,,"J.
't>' ~.o
~,.() '\.
, "
--- \.
- - - - - ROAD \.
-
\--
\
\
- - -.- ..l
--
"--
r-
-_J
---
--
- - ~!..ilc.u.
, ----
BUTZ
LANDFILL
,
RAILROAl>
-:;'::;:,:;.
\.
'-', \.
-"" \.
"'" ! \.
""" : \.
-", : \.
'i \.
\ \.
: \.
I--~\
" \.. ,\
" , '
! '\. \
\.
"~
--
.
...
.
,
,
.
.
;
,.
I
!
I
I
;
I
I
,
.
:
6---
"""",
,
.
I
\
I
,/
~.
./
t\..
\\.\.
~',,-
.if
WOUNTAIN ROAD
I
,
.
!
_..",--
...
...
...
fJ GURE 2
8UTZ LANDfiLL AND LOCAL AREA
MAP
""'" " 111011 ?IIIIII jllllil 4UIII!
prl=-l"H:::=:"':': F -~.-:r::.,~: .:-L.:.-: ,-- ~'=C, '
~,u,,"
'r"
101"'<1
,',
"!Ilk!
, .
- ~------
.--- - ------ -~---
-- -- ---
----
, ,
---- --~ -. --
- -
-'~ -'--.-~.'- '--'-- -- -- _._~_.- -- - - -- - ----- -- ---
- -.--.---------.---. ~---
. - -----
.-- ._.~~--.- ~-
-------
~\G
s't/'.'t£
pOCO~O"
rt>\tY-
-
-
BUTZ - - - - : - -
r - LANDFILL .:;'::".".....,IIT ",
---- - - - - ; - - J >",,,,,, 'fi1,!@!!j:. "".....) \\\\
" """- - - - - ~.1]ICAL ~ \,
~ i ,
~-- I--~\
" " .\
.. , .
.' . ',\
,
6---
"
"
,
.
I
\
,
,/
,.
./
MOUNTAIN ROAD
.."".....""_.
~
...
.<>
<./ 00.
-ie. 0 ~
'tC;-'f
'J- ,lJ
?J f '"
o ~ ,\~,j\
't-' ~.<>
~.<> ,
"
,
ROAD'
-
C'
\
\
---_.J
RAIl-ROAD
0"-- ""'-, (.
. ,
" ,
"',' .
, .
. I
\, I
\.... -.. _.....",......."''''''''':~
,
I
",,/
I
!
...
....
.....
G~OUNIIWAn;J( fLOW DIHJ::CTlON
10"" "
t"-tt-ll-t
I""" 2""" 300" 4""''' !."'"'" LI1I1Ir1
=:::::I:::"" --" -,----,- -'-'r- ':::::"~L~,;:::' _.:-':;' ..
"'"'iI
. ":.,
.1/
~
\',
L '-,-
fI GURE 3
GROUND-WATER flOW DIRECTION -
BEDROCK AQUIfER
BUTl LANDfIll
-~_.
- ----,---- _.~-
---.. -----
,. ,
-------
? t-.~\Z
,
\
\
\
WES\TERN
-- --- ~... o.
---- .3
(
.,0
TAHHERSVILLE
Q
~\G
NOTL SEE FIG. 1-3 AND TABLE 1-2 FOR IDENTIFICATION OF RESIDENTS
->100-
TCE CONCENTRATIONS (uell)
o
I
2500'
3000'
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF TCE IN
RESIDENTIAL WELLS
BUTZ LANDFILL
LEGEND.
.
TCE CONCENTRATION IN RESIDENTIAL WELL
SOURC!. USEPA TAT RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPL.INO DATA.
lASED ON 18..0-1881 DATA
SCALE
-------
~
--
--
--
. -
LEGEND:
S
.
---100----
(10)
,
"-
&1G
pOCo~O
51 ~1t:.
Pt.~y.
r
\
\
\
.j
-
-
!lOAD
"
,
,
,
"
"-
,
--
. ---- .-
MOUNTAIN ROAD
ERB/EERU MONITORING WEu..
RESIDENTIAL MONITORING WEu..
TCE CONCENTRATION CONTOUR (u~/I).
1'Ca,: CONCt:N'I'UATION AT Wt:I.L (ug/I)
'~::a:-~::_-.-:.:.;~~:-=~,:o~~...::--~~-:::=}~1~. . l't'.
'IL"""
.1
h)'tk)"
I
-
HA\l.ROAU
DRIVE:
,
"
--7'
/V
\"-,
"
\ ',-
\ """
'--. -. ~ .
'.
FIGURE 5
TCE CONTAMINATION IN
OVERBURDEN AQUifER
BUTl lANDfill
-------
~\G
T AHH£RSVlll£
o
~
Eo-<
«
Eo-<
en
LEGEND,
'S 'TETRA TECH RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
. USEPA TAT RESIDENTIAL WELL LOCATIONS
o
I
2500'
5000'
FIGURE 6
RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
BUTZ LANDFILL
NOTE, NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO NAMES OF RESIDENTS IN TABLE 1
SCALE
-------
Q
N.O.L.
awNUt, ROIERT II. MIND
SOURC. 0' TITLL DIY 783-tO.
.. ~/~'Oo.
. / . ~@ . -~""7~
".0.1. / ~
OWNER. GUTHRIE L STRUSSER /. . Y
SOURCE 0' TIT1.£. 01'1 1180-1' <>!it/'
0" .0
.. ~
+
. N.O.L.
~ OWND. ROBERT RIDAY
w SOURCE 0' TITLE. D/V 1481-1055
4)
q
N 17'..'00' .. "'.00'
\
\
...:fJl
'\ '*' /..'" "
~ ~.- ,
..0 d~ ~
.011;
+~
~~,
PARCEL ONE ~
\ OWNER. ERNEST W. BUTZ II EMMA I. BUTZ H/W
... SOURCE OF TITLE. DIY 988-80
~
~ "
~\ "~
n .
~
f'I
~ ,,"
s ;:#..~ \ "
~.~. "
.," .'f \.
'0'
N.O.L. ~
OW..'" W1UJAIiI C. WOODUNG ..~
SOURC. o. TI1'LILo DIY 318-1010 -e..
. .
- -&,1)&01£
..,. ,0
.,'1,$
PARCEL TWO
OWNER. RUSSEL C. BUTZ II LUELLA T. BUTZ H/W
SOURCE OF TITLE. DIY 308-87
1
s
-
..
I~
1~
w
..
N
'0
q
ILO.L
ow..... UROY RINKIR
SOURC. O. nnL DIY ""-105
o
I
150'
300'
SCALE.
~ iILMf1Li1 UfHJ{], OW@.
FIGURE 7
SITE PROPERTY LINES
BUTZ LANDFILL
-------
.t:::.
.~
. SS-'
. SS-5
\
\
"~
"
"
~.
. SS-7 "
"
I
I
. SS-8
SS-13.
SS-12.
."..
."..
~
."..
."..
o
I
150'
300'
I
.
SCALE
LEGEND,
. SURFACI SOIL . SAMPLe
~~~~E ~IL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
BUTZ LANDFILL
-------
t
(J
~TP-tO
"
". ~TP-I TP-~ TP-t7 I
~ CII BOR-4 ~ I
~TP-8 ~TP-t2. ~ TP-t8
. ~ ~TP-t5
STP-7 "" TP-t1 STP-14
~P-t8 STP-22
TP-21 .
~ Tp.tlA ~. BOR-S TP-30
S TP-20 ~
~~~~ it.. "
-- \
\
~--
o
I
150'
300'
SCALE
LEGEND.
S TEST PIT LOCATION
. SOIL BORING LOCATION
FIGURE 9
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
BUTZ LANOFI lL
NOTE: 11fE LOCATIOII OF TEST PIT 31 VAS OBSCURED BY SNOWFALL
BEFORE IT COULD BE SURYEYm. IT IS II 11fE 6EJtERAL
YICINITY OF TP30. 11fERE AR£ 110 TEST PITS WI11f
DESI6NATIONS 25.27. OR 29. TEST PIT 28 HAS BE£I
DESI611ATm AS All fQUIPMEIT RIISEATE SMPLF..
-------
g
o
I
150'
300'
SCALE
LEGINDt
-15 - THICKNESS OP FlU MATERIAL
UN FUTt
FIGURE 10
THICKNESS OF FILL MATERIAL
BUTZ LANDFILL
NOTL BASED ON 28 TlST PITS. . nST BORINU
-------
1---
8UTZ
LANDfLL
sTt.
T1-tA S TtA
S SlItD
SII1-tA Slit.
, Sa1-.'
S-
T1-.
ICALI 'AC'" L'.
--------------------------------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
LEGEND.
S MONITORING WELL LOCATION
I
Q1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
.
I
I
1
1
Q
IIM-IIOAD
1)811'4.
R4
R3S T4 - - - - - -$- - - -
S - - -s- - -
-$t3 - --
SR3D
o
I
1500'
3000'
SC,AI~
RIS
G
4
G
.
IL8CTIIIC~ ~- - -
---
--
fiGURE 11
MONITORING WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
BUTZ LANDFILL '
-------
I
I
Q:
I
I
I
I
I
I
BUTZ .
LANDfILL T1 I
T1A I
n-1A 100 78 I
101 12831~ 127.81:
14'.81 R1-18 II~'
~ 71 nil'
~ 11Ml S 1I~1I: .
R1-1A ~ II" I
l:ll~V~ ...- 117 :
T1-18 lUll I
100 .
11381 :
KALa PAC"" ua
-----.--------------------------
--------
--
---
LEGEND.
Q
RI.....
41 QO
114181
IIALROAD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- ------------1
RZ'" 12 -----
1704QO ~J4 r\"" ~
117,1171 1140.41
~TI
&fEw WELU
~
o
.
:
.
R3S '" -- - - .- - -
~ --~-
14711 - - - - - R4
'" T3 - - 6) - 10
~......-::::- - - - T 4 11881
-af" - 148 21
S 1221.11 12101
R3D
148
11...
- .CTIIIC~ !:!!!I- - ..
-~-
l
.
S MONITORING WELL LOCATION
10 TOTAL woe CONCENTRATION FROM 8AMPUNG EVENTS
OCT 1880 , DEC 1880 IA VERAOEl
1101 TOTAL voe CONCENTRATION FROM IAM'UNO EVENT
IN JAM 1887
FlGURE 12
COMPARISON Of TOTAL VOCs
IN GROUND WATER
1981vs- 1990
BUIZ LANDfJ II
o 1500' 3000'
L___... --.--.---.---,
SCALE
-------
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
280
....... 240
'-
00
;J 200
z 160
Q
E-
< 120
....
<:
Z
:oJ 80
u
z
0
u 40
c.:J 0
U
....
280 J
240
200
160
120
80
40
o
SOUTHEAST
OF
LANDFILL
V.
. R. POSSINGER
o 1.. RINKER
SOUTHWEST
OF
LANDFILL
. JACOBY
o FLOWERS
6 BAKER
.. CAPOlElLA
I.
EAST
OF
LANDFILL
. KINSLEY
o 8ETTICHER \
6 PETRUS
co
co
"-
co
I
1:-
o
01
"-
... ;;;:
0) ~
;, \A
co
co
"-
M
co
co
"-
0)
01
co
"-
l:-
01
co
"-
N
-
o
en
"-
~
o
en
"-
co
co
-co
"-
o
E'-
co
"-
.0
E'-
co
"-
o
-
01
co
"-
N
co
co
"-
N
-
...
[11:] Ulfuf:]/)j fJfnXJ, 0[:](5.
FIGURE 13
TCE CONCENTRATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL
WElLS OVER TIME
BUTZ LANDFIll
7/86-3/91
-------
I \
~ I" \
Z I "'- 0 ,,~'i-.
< "'- ~ ~~ \
....:I I ~s'\t>.,\p
~CXJI co~o ".... (" ~
~ C"J \" -a. \ G t> 0 ""'~o'" -- -- -l,
« . v ~ 't.t~ I'; -- --
~ 0 I 't ..~, (
Z O;',\>~
-------
o
.~ 'f.
~\;
-------
C---
Q
~'f.
1 \'>
~O
CO
~O
. C,
~\
BUTZ
LANDFILL
o
I
1650'
3300'
SCALE
LEGEND.
. RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 16 .
NON-CARCINOGENIC HAZARD
ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF UNTREATED
GROUND WATER
VALUES CALCULATED FROM MOST RECENT SA\1PLE RESULTS AVAILABLE
FOR A GIVEN RESIDENCE
NCIIIiELi. Dwe
-------
(
)
\
\
\
\'
~
'"
""
""
"'"
"" AO
V'f~"O
"ot ,~O
~O+" J-o
J-~~+~
~+~A
~A"'"
>/"
()
\' r-.R¥-
S~ I\ ~£
CO~O
~\G ?O
TANNERSVILLE
---
---
/"
/"
~
/"
---------
~
)
~I
~}
4
"'" ~:
"'" ~ :
------------.1
~----\
--------- " \
-- '" \
""'-..
~
~
\,""
\, ""
,
\.---~_.
ROAD
_f
[11:) f1f1UE1!)j fH3XJ, DW@.
LEGEND.
,-.
~ DEEP AQUIFER EXTRACTION WELL
II TREA TMENT PLANT LOCATION
- - - - - EXTRACTION WELL PIPING
o
I
1500'
3000'
FIGURE 17
PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF EXTRACTION WELLS
AND TREATMENT PLANT
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 2
SCALE
ALT- f) Dwe
-------
TABLES
-------
Table 1
Ground-Wate" Sampling Result.
Rasldentlal Wells
Concantration of TCE ("9/1)8
":.:.:;<.: - lQ8 . DEe I FEB~" OCT I
'" IIAlllal JUt: JAIl J
Ras I d81lt.. AUG OCT NaY .
I P. r Nn r r r X X 1.5 NO X NO
2 "~~~n X NO X X r r r r r r
1 lOt."... X 20M 7 4700 r 1QM r r 41QO r 14M
4 R pnu In"." 2600 128601 7000 Z 6200 X 5220 X X 5090 X 5010
~ Aau... 27 "01 " r 7 r 14.4 14~ r 01' r 107
/I C. -dlnlno r 47 4~ 7 7 11.11 r r 'II. ~ r II II
7 C. 5t...aIMlda.chaoal r 4.~ r r r Nn r r Nn r ~,
8 St I 11 0 X 4 X X X 8.7 IS X 17. I X 19.2
a 1 Wl1n". r 7/1 X Z X 18.2 X X 103 X 103.1
10 A...thnld X 290 r 7 r ?n.1I r r "0 r '".,
II FI"...... X 100 r 7 r III' r r In r \1,
12 Kln~h. X 89 X Z X 125 X X 83.6 X 94.'
11 r , X r X 7.03 A.8 X 1l.1 X 8.A
14 N. r NO X X X X X NO If!) X X
10; F ./r X NO X X X r X NO NO X NO
1/1 Bat." Iwu 01 sh.'~~11 X 32 X 7 X 36.7 X X 74.11 X 34.2
17 r r NO r I I r X r 1 1
IA I nUnn.. 1 X NO X X NO X X NO X NO
103 A00 Z :II. 75.5 X X 99 X 110
'7 1 1 1M Z :II. 249 190 X 221 X 1811
28 Rid... X X ND X X X X X Nn X X
'11. I n'II...... r r 1 1 r r r 1 1 NO 1
'03 INd. r 1 NO 1 1 NO X X NO X NO
'0 P. .I... X X 5.4 7-8.A 1-2.0 n.2 X X "I "I 14.4
]l Y"uno X X 3./1 X X X 18.5 10; 20.8 X 103.4
" a.h. 1 r " 1 r Nn r r Nn X X
1] X X NO X X X NO X NO X X
'U N.... W.."d..... 'd......" X X NO X X I X I r r r
]5 Aunn.l1 270 14111 X r 1 It 2] It It 49.11 It 43.5
'11 II Di...... r .. r Nfl .. r .. 1 r X X
'7 1 r X NO 1 I r 1 1 I X
18 I .. I NO I r I 1 X r X
]9 S~htd. r r r NO X X I It X X X
an II"...... I .. .. Nfl r r ... 1 1 1 1
141 1 1 1 ".11 7 11.11 r I 0 r II.]
" hl1.. (111....\ Nn I I NO I r I X r I I
U S~ht.... (h......\ I X X NO X X I X X It X
U T_v ~...... r X X X NO X X X Nn r r
4~ (,,_. h...... I I I I 1 I It r r r r
4110 F".1.D'" I I I I 2111 I I I 75.4 r It
47 I It X I 15.11 18 X X 111.4 X 17.6
411 I X I r X 11ft I r r r r
1403 III. V...., Nn r It I I Nn I I Nn X I
I I X X X I NO I I I I
<:tam.. X X X X X X X I NO X X
BI.bl- X X X X X X It X NO X X
. .. Total votattte o~antc c~d concentratton In ,arenthe..s, 11 known.
(al .. Semplll19 pe"fonaed by PADER. Alt otlle" semplll19 ,er1onnecl by USEPA TKllntcal Ass1stance T.. (TAT).
NO .. Not Detected
X .. Ground-.ate" not tested.
I .. Tested at tap only.
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Ground.Wate,. SlIIVllng Result.
Re.ldentlal 11811.
Concentration of TCE (ug/l)-
10M 10110
RESIDE"'. MAli. S~PT rEB Jut nfl'.
I I) I X X I Z - Nn
, Meeke- X X X X X
'\ I Qlnk... '~7n luu n\ 140\(1-0 140'\1.1\1 41\10 14622.21 4620 14/1'\1. '\\ UIO 11.1.1~ 1.\
I. I) ~1/1n I ~1A' 11 X 5190 (52011.5\ X MOO 1111111.11
~ A...... r r X X r
/I r Stro""""do.tl'nln" 10.1 110.'\\ 11.8 18.111 10.1 ItO. 1\ 1 - 110 9.4 10 4\
, r .~k .R.' r r r r r
A ~..II.. 17 1 11711 IA n IIA nl 13.1 (13.1\ X 7.'\ 17.'1
o 1111..... I~ 4 II~.&I "n I,/I.nl 211.1 128.11 I 4'\.1 1~1 71
10 Rartholt1 '8.0 (211.01 80.1 185.11 72.0 (77.8\ X 07.] I 1I4.~
It n A_.- 0& ~ 100 n\ A1 1 IA7 11 4.0 14nl X 7 1\ 17 1\1
" ~'".1aw IMn II"nl 04./\ 11nl.41 107 (It LOI X r
n In~/4.11 7."'.11 11.114.0 lI.n".1 " 1/1. n
14 N Str-u...r 110 1 - NO Z - liD 1 - NO Z - NO
1~ F ./r.. X 1 - NO X X r
18 A.~... Iv.. 7~ II 1M AI ~n 0 (~~~I 4/1.' 1~4.71 X II~A 17'\~1
17 r r r X x
111 Ottuon X X X X X
10 '''~A~~ r I ~1.6 (~8:7t\ r I
20 c. n... &"~A~~ X X X X r
1" I)..~,. " 0 /"01 171. 117.1.1 19.] (19.3\ 211.8 (26.8\ 19.11 (10111
" N P""'n"or X 7 - NO I X X
" ~ I I I I I
I,.. 1 - 1.6 Z - NO X Z . ND Z . Nn
,~ 'II 0 I'A.OI 111 (',11 311.0 (40.6) 41.] (45.11 31.0 1'\1.01
F'arlel"h 17.1 117.1\ 7'.' 1'4. II X 18.2 (18.2\ 14.1 (14.11
r I 48.7 1~.21 11 4'\.8 II.~ "
'" .1.~Akw 91.] (9~.71 92.0 (98.61 IDI (11].21 X 150 (17n 11
I" 11.~ n (147.tI 119.D (122.51 127 (1]].21 101 (10].91 118 (1"&1
I'A IIlda. X X X X X
I'll.. n'A..io.. I r r r .
1'0 M_to I 7 - NO 1 - NO 1 - NO 1 - IIIn
110 I p Jr. 9.11 (9.81 7.0 (7.01 ~.8 (~.81 8.1 (8.11 .
111 I'''''n.. \J.O (1].01 8.8 (8.81 4.2 (4.21 X 1.9 ('\01
17 11).1a~ r r X X r
11 hl1A".. r r r r X
14 M... \/"""...... &"r..r" X r r r .
35 Runna11 ]8.8 (en.ol X 69.1 (78.51 52.7 (55.11 47 3 (0 11
111 III I)...~.... X X X I r
17 X r X X r
'\11 t:..4.._av r X X X r
]0 S..h4r" I Y X X I
1.0 III..... Y Y r y .
41 A C (A CI 2.9 (2.91 1.8 (].81 4.8 ('.111 I
&, 1t..11. (111.......1 X X X X r
41 S,.h4r" (h..u.al r X X X y
1.1. T... FA"". r 7 - Nn r r .. .. I.. .,\
&C c.._u D.u- I y r X r
411 F...1 .11 tt. X X X X .
41 \Ih'''~a.. 21.3 (21.71 X X X r
'" r r I I .
.0 (lilt. V'_I X r y r r
TAllo". X r r r .
II.... X X I 84.] (84.:n r
r..hl.. r 24.1 (24.11 18.1 (18.11 15.1 (15.11 a (11 al
Su11han X X X X 10.6 (10.111
. . Tota1 '10181.118 D"1Ianlc c~ fOllcent..atlO11 In p8l'tiltlle.n. If knO!lll.
(a) . SUip tll9 perlo1'l8cJ b1 PADEI. Al Dtlla.. .-..11119 perlo,.o b1 USEPA Tec:Mtc:a1 Asatatance T- (TAT).
NO . Not Detacted
X . Gl'GWld-.ate.. not t..ted.
Z . r.atea at tap 0111,..
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Ground.Water Sampling Results
Residential Wells
Conclntratlon of TeE (u9/1).
. .. .< ....'. I~" I 194.- I
RESIDENT'::' APAIL AUGUST NOVEMSEII' "AIICK
I I> r r r Nn.7
, N.r~.' r r r r
1 I~' n~.,. 1670 11689.11 14M /14100\ r x
4 R. P05.>-.. 14n 11 4 011 r
'" N r I NO.1 X
" ~ r r r X
" W"odI1n" X NO.1 Ho.l X
'5 10.9 "'" 111 4 14n
F....l.lah 11.6 111.7 1'1.1\ r
St.9 (561 X I r
26 Jacoby 122 tl35.81 143 (152.81 173 (182.41 94.7 1102.51
" OQ.l (101.' 111\.' (110.11 104 (120.4\ 68.1 (72.61
28 Rid... r X z X
'II. n'8..1In X I . I
'0 ".t. X NO.1 NO.1 NO.1
10 P .1,.. 1./1 ,., 1.7 X
11 . Yauna a.a 5.1 NO X
12 P.hk r r X X
13 T..llada X Ho.l HO.l X
u N_. IIft"'.f_- 4.f..",..~ I Y Y I
'~ R..M.l1 111.1 'a.o 1'./1 /45.&\ 50.7 /5';'6\
1/1 N. RInk.,. I 1 1 1
37 '1 1 I. 1
18 1 1 1 X
10 t:..h4.... 1 1 1 X
10 II........ X X X 1
41 1 3.9 X 1
" hl1 v (11411...\ I 1 1 1
a1 5rh I rk (h"...., 1 1 1 I
" TM. ~..Pd" '.11 X 'I 'I
as .5unlll1 t h.art X 1 I X
411 "'".I.D'" Y Y Y 1
&1 1 1 .. 'I
UI 1 1 'I 'I
40 (lit. VI..I 1 1 1 I
T,,11..d.. 'I Nn.7 'I NO.1
U..n... 1 'I 1 'I
Cohl... 1 1 1 1
Sul11 VIII X 46.0 147.61 59.4 1631
.. . Total yolaUle ol'1l8llic coavound concllltratton In parentftllll. If kII_.
(II . S...I1"9 IIIrfonDIG 111 PADER. A11 otller s8111111109 parlo..... 111 USEPA Tedlatc.1 Asststance Ta. (TAT).
lib . Not Detected
X . Ground..ater not t..ted.
Z . Tilted at t., 0111,.
-------
TABLE 2'
GROUND WATER SAMPLING RESULTS
EERU INSTALLED WELLS
Concentration of Volatile Organics (ug/I)
JAIIUAIY 1987
[[[-..................---..--.-.-....-....---..........................---...
I I.ICMl~ Irena-1.2- vinyl benlene ethyl tetr.. toluene carbon chloro- 1,1-dichloro- ~thylene chloro-
WELL ElIUE. dlchloroethene chloride benzene chtoroethene tetrachtoride tor. ethene chloride benzene
[[[-.........-..............-....-................-......................-...-......
J1A
1,. 256.0
1'.'A 40.0
11.1' 118.0
12 17.8
I] 196.0
I' 156.0
.,. . 1]8.0
.'D 4800.0
.11.IA 680.0
.".11 166.0
12 15700.0
.], 4]7.0
I3D 156.0
I' 165.0
Ii J-Z.9
16 1270.0 186.0 . .
....~............................................_._[[[
9.7
37.4
5.8
20.8
67.5
26.4
42.5
41.]
267.0
35.7
27.7
7.5
13.1
7.6
22.5
11.0
13.7
7.2
".4.1
..., .]
]9.7
13.0
"-2.4
"-1.0
J.],8
J.2.2
J'2.1
7.6
J.1.5
J.3.2
29.0
12.2
"-'.4
J-1.6
68.7
J'1.1
J.1.4
5.9
,H.7
J-1.4
7.5
J-1.9
J-1.3
40.]
10.4
J-Z.O
J-4.9
-------
Table 3
Surface Soil Samples
But: landfi 11
Organic Concentration'
Samp 1 e loca tf on ClP I " Compounds Detected " (ug/kg)
SS-OI CED64 none
SS-02 CED65 [v] Icetone 140
f:~) fl uorathene 180
sv pyrene 150
SS-03 CED66 none
SS':'04 CED67 none
SS-I~) (dup. of CED68 [v] Ice tone 16(J)
SS-04
SS-05 CED69" none
$$-06 CED70 none
SS-07 CED1l fPC8] aroc10r 1260 270 (J)
sv] bis(2-ethy1hexy1) phthalate 110
SS-08 CED7Z fs~~ butlybenzy1phthalate 170
sv bis(2-ethylhexy1) phthalate 120
SS-09 CED73 none
SS-10 CED74 none
SS-l1 CED75 none
SS-12 CED76 none
$S-13 CED77 none
SS-16 (equip. CE079 none
rinseate blank)
TB-04 CED86
v - vol.tiles
sv - se81-volatiles ,
PCB - polychlorinated b10phenyls
-------
Table 4
Test Pit Soil Samples
December 3-7. 1990
Butz landfill
. Organi c:.. .. . al.
. . Conc1'~:I::~.on..
. ~4mol~.locat1o".. .CLP"... Conmounds OetectedUt.. .. . uk.
TP-Ol ClO' \ CEXOI none
TP-02 (7-8'\ CEX02 none
TP-04 (8') CEX04 f~~ ethyl benzene 4
v total xVlenes 7
TP-M (8.5'\ C~XOS none
TP-19A (6'\ CEX08 none
TP-07 (3'\ CEX09 none
TP-08 (4'\ C£110 none
TP-10 (13') CEX12 [v] styrene 5
(p] aldrin 13(J)
rsvl Total H2\ 2 . 020 - all (J)
TP-16 (7') CEX18 rsvl Total H2\ 5 297 - no (J)
TP-17 (14') CEX19 fv) ethyl benzene 3
v total xylenes 3
r sv 1 Total (1\ 480 - (J\
TP-18 (18') CEX20 [v) ethyl benzene 7
v total xylenes 21
rsvl Total 0) 440 - (J)
TP-29 CEX21 ~Vj ethyl benzene 12
(dup of TP-18) v total xylenes 31
v chlorobenzene 2
rsvl Total (11\ 2.470 - a11 (J)
TP-19 (6') CEX22 !~ ethyl benzene 90(J)
total xylenes 2,000
chlorobenzene 22,000
1,2-d1chloroethene 16
benzene 23
tetrachloroethane 22
toluene 8,800
(PCB] aroclor 1254 2,800(J)
[p] total pesticides l,173(J)
rsvl Total (101 490 600 - all (J1
TP-20 (6'\ CEX23 none
TP-22 (18') CWI 1~ ethylbenune 28
v total xylenes 90
v chlorobenzene (1\ 15
SVI ota. 2 lOW
TP-23 (.', CEX27 none
TP-24 (8') CEX28 v ethylbenzen8 3
v total xylenes 17
v chlorobenzen8 110
v acetone 190
v toluene (5) 26
sv. ota. 90
TP-25 (6') CEX29 fsvl Total (1) 120
g'-28 (equip. c) CED78 non8
Inseate blank
TB-O~) (tri P CEX24
blank
(I) v - volatiles p - pesticide
IV - s_-volatiles PCB - polychlorinated b1phenols
~) (12) . number of compounds detected; 2,020 . total concentration
-------
Table 5
Subsurface Soil Samples
December 3-7. 1990
But: Landfill
Organic Concentration
Salllple Location CLP #"H Compounds Detected (ug/kg)
BOR-Ol (10-12') CEOO0 [v] trichloroethene 23
BOR-Ol (13-15') CEOO1 none
BOR-03 (13.5-15.5') CEOO2 [n] phenol 630
fsv] 4-methylphenol 310
sv naphthalene 580 .
sv phenanthrene 610
sv anthracene 160
sv di-n-butylphthalate 110
sv fluoranthene 260
sv pyrene 300
sv benzo(a) anthracene 150
sv chrysene 130
sv bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 180
sv benzo(a) pyrene 96
sv 2-methylnaphthalene 900
fsv f1 uorene 88
n n-nitrosodiphenylamine 150
[sv] Total 4654
BOR-OS (10.5-12.5')
CEOO5 none
BOR-OS (equip.
rinseate blank) CEOO7 [v] TCE 5
v - volati 1 es
sv - semi-volatiles
-------
TAble 6
Ground-Water ~amples
Round 1
October 29-November 2. 1990
Butz landfi 11
~,<:,'::", ", " , ORGAHICCIJ4POUHDS DETECTED luo/l \ ..' ,'ii:"''',,,
,..
Shtiol! .. "" .. .... " ,TO~f1S8111..'
",;..:;;':::.:: :../::', :::::":' VillY1 ' '
Locotlon 'c(fi' ", Chloride 1.2-Dichloroethene TCE Benzene Other Volatiles 'Vo .tHin
n.lA-OI CETS6 -- 81 260 --
n.1B-01 CET57 -- -- 9 -- totol xtlenes , H~l
1.1-dic loroethene .
toluene .
TlA-OI eFTS4 6/J\ 160 360 -- chlorobenzene 8 12 I 8 130/J\
Tl8-01 CET55 4(J) 25 13 3(J) 1.1 dichloroethene . 2{JJ 1 . U(J)
toluene : 1: J
ctiiorobenzene
T2-01 CET58 9(J) 40 8 2(J) ch1oroethane . 5(J)
chlorobenzene . 8
13-01 eET59 -- 15 120 --
T4-01 eET60 -- 4/J) 21 --
115-01 cn61 4/J) 120 260 -- chloroben7ene 8 7fJ\
'~~~lnf lIS' CET7l 4(J) 110 240 -- ch1orobenzene . 7(J)
R8-01 (Field CET72 -- -- -- --
Matrix Blank\
R9-01 (Equip. CET73 -- -- -- --
Ri nuate Blank)
7(J) 720(J) 8400(J) 4(J) . . 6 J
Rlo.-Ol CET62 tetracholoroethlne
1.1-dichloroethene . 3 J
carbon tetrachloride . 1 J
chlorobenzene . 1 J
Rl.IA-OI CET63 4/J) 35 520 --
Rl.1B-01 CET64 -- 11 67 --
RZ-Ol CET65 -- 950 770 -- carbon disulfide . ~~~I 1 . 4(J)
1 1 dichloroethene .
R3S-01 CFT66 -- 8 60 -- toluene iii 3/J) 1 , 15
R30-01 CET61 -- 8 130 --
14-01 CET68 -- 3(J\ 14 -- carbon disulfide . 2(J\
R5-01 CfT69 -- -- -- -- 1 8 41J\
R6-01 CET70 -- 24 59 --
-------
",::",:::::::'::(,:\ :"
, St.U on .:',
Lotdion ' ','
Tl.IA-02
T1 .IR-02
TlA-02
TlB-02
TZ-02
T1_0?
T4-02
'RIS-02
R7-02
lOuD of R15)
R8-0~ (~1.1~.
Matr1k luankl
R9-02 (EQ!!1p. .
Rinsed. Blank-
RID-02
III. U-02
RZ-02
RSS-02
R30-02
R4-02
RS-02
R6-02
15-02
It~~ RlanH
I¥;?~ BlAnk\
:,;,::<:;'::::;.,\';::;::':. I:>:,: :
, .""'.. '.. ':)::'"Y1nyl
:::' CLP'/ '::Ct\loride'
CE038 --
Cfn63 --
CEX30 --
CEXn --
CEX32 13
cru] --
CEX34 --
CEnS 31J)
CEU6 S(J)
eEXU --
eEX38 --
CEX39 3(J)
CEX41 --
CEX42 31J\
CEXU --
CEX44 --
crus --
CEX46 --
CEX47 --
CEXS6 --
tEI07 --
CEXOS --
TAb 1 e 7
Ground-Water Samples
Round Z
December 3-7, 1990
BUTI LANDfill
ORGANIC C()\POUNDS DETECTED 'Ull Jl \ ,.'
I.Z-0ichloroethene TCE
-- 61
Z9 150
31 53
-- --
45 3(J)
2~. 140
4lJI Z9
39 83
36 78
-- --
-- --
360 5Z00
51 530
730 950
15 130
8 150
2(J\ --
-- --
-- --
14 --
-- --
-- --
Benlene
--
--
ZlJ\
--
l(J)
--
--
IfJ\
I(J)
--
--
2(J)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Other Volatiles
chlorobenzene
, 2
chloroethane
chlorobenzene
! Z(J)
. 11
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
, 16
, 16
1,I-dich1oroethene "H11
1,IZ-trichloroe.thane ! 44 JJ
tetrachloroethine .
,:'<:.':':"'(':::":::"
'" ..... ..
Tohl::$..t~,
'YolOtifes'
, I
1 , 130(J\
-------
TABLE 8
EPA-INSTALLED UDNITOR WELLS
TCE CONCENTRATIONS
ug/l
Well II 1/87 11/90 12/90
* '
TIA -- 360 53
TIB 236 13 --
Tl.lA 40 260 61
T1. IB 118 9 150
T2 18 8 3
T3 196 120 140
T4 156 21 29
RlS 138 260 83
RID 5050 8400 (J) 5200
Rl.IA 680 520 530
R1. IB 116 67 not sampled
R2 15700 770 950
R3S 437 60 130
R3D 156 130 150
R4 165 14 --
R5 3 (J) -- --
R6 1270 59 --
TS II N/A N/A -
* -- designates that the sample contained no TCE above analytical
dection limits.
II Well TS was installed during RI/FS activities.
was obtained from this well.
Only one sample
-------
Table 9
Pump Test Sampling ~g/l)
Butz Landfill
O"9ani c: .. . . . Concentration
Sample DatejTfme Compounds Detected. COIIIII8nts
R2-PT lZ/11/90 1415 vinyl chloride 34 influent to air stripper
l.l-dichloroethene 6 15 minutes into pump test
1.I-dfchloroethane 3
I.Z-dichloroethene 1.200
t ri ch 1 oroethene 110.000
1.I.Z-trichloroethane lZ
benzene 17
tetrachloroethane 8
PT-02 lZ/12/90 0930 1.2-dichloroethene 3(J) fnfluent to air stripper
trichloroethene 7 19J, hours into pump test
PT-EFF l2/1Z/90 0945 I.Z-dichloroethene 3(J) treated effluent
trichloroethene 7
TB-08 non.
(trip blank)
-------
. . .. . .
... ........ .. ..
S~~p le>toca t ion.
SW-Ol
sw-oz
SW-03
SW-l~, (dup. of
SW-031
SW-04*
SW-OS
SW-06
SW-07
SW-09
SW-I0
SW-ll
SW-13
SW-14
SW-IS
SW-16
SW-18 (field
matrix blank)
SW-19 (equip.
rinseate blank)
SW-ZO"
v
sv
volatiles
- semi-volatiles
.....
... Cll»- I
CEDZS
CED29
CEDZ8
CED34
CEDZ7
CED30
CED31
CED32
CED3S
CED36
CED37
CED40
CED41
CED42
CED43
CED44
CED26
Table 10
Surface Water Samples
December 10-11. 1990
Butz landfill
.. . Organic. . . ..,.
. Compounds Detected;:.
r v 1 TCE
r v 1 TCE
[v] TCE
[v] TCE
.. I,"....;. ,...; ~oncent;,a t.i 0",;;:
.. I.;.;..: . ....:. (ug/l ,...:....,.,...,..... .
2 (J)
10
3(J)
1 (J)
[v] TCE/none
32(J)/none
none
none
none
none
rvl TCE
l(J)
none
[v] vinyl chloride
[v] 1,2-dichloroethene
[v] TCE
[v] chlorobenzene
[sv] benzoic acid
H[SV] di-n-butylphthalate
p] delta SHC
"D] gallll1a SHC .
2(J)
10
1 (J)
2(J)
25(J)
5(J)
0.16
0.08
none
none
[v] chlorofol"lll
4(J)
none
p
- pesti ci de
Note: Quantitation units are compound and sample specific.
. complete list.of data.
See Appendix C for
*
SW-04 collected upgradient of landfill. Initial results from 12/90 thought to
be anomalous. Confil"lll4tory sampling performed in 6/91 indicated no volatile
organic compounds were present.
**
SW-20 collected approximately 20 yards upstream of SW-04 in June. 1991.
-------
r ab Ie 11
Cone Ius lOllS for thl:: Butl Landf i II
Base 1 ine Risk Assl::ssml::nt
-!xposure Pathway
Current Land-Use Conditions
Use of Untreated groundwater
from 62 Re~idential Wells (a)
Children Playing in Surface
5011 at Butz landfill
Children P\aylng In Streams
and Groundwater Seeps.
Potential
Carcinogenic
Risk
No carcinogens
detected in 31 wells.
Risk range for remaining
31 we lis:
*
2E-6 - 6E-3
6E-1.
Groundwater Seeps Near Butl Landfill
Station 10
Stat ion 13
West Fork of Reeders Run
Station 5
Station 6
Stat ion J
Mountain SprlnQ Lake
Station 14
North Fork of Reeders Run
Station 2
Station 3
Station 9
Station 1
Wetland fast of Landfill
Station 11
2£-6
6E-5 .
no contaminants
2£-6
. no contaminants
5E-5
lE-5
9£-8
8E-6
9E-8
*
This notation means 2 x 10 b
Potential
Noncarc'inogen ic
Risk
(Hazard Indi::x)(HI)
COffilients
O. 10 - 105
When evaluating ingest ion. dermal absorption and inhalation of
VOCs while showering using untreated groundwater. the potential
carcinogenic risk for all 31 of the res idl::nt ial. wells exceeds the
NCP point of departure (i.e.. 10.6). Risks excQed the upper-bound
of the NCP acceptable risk range (i.e.. 10~) only for Baker.
Barthold. Jacoby. F. Possinger. L. Rinker. Kinsley. Betticher and
Adcock farmhouse residences due to TCE and 1.1-0CE. HI exceeds
unity (1) for 10 of the residences due to TCE; F. Possinger
(HI aiDS) and L. Rinker (Hla74) representing the two highest
residences. Therefore. noncarcinogenic effects may occur from use
of untreated groundwater from these welts. Treatment sys~ems are
installed at contaminated wells to prevent exposure.
<1(6£-3)
Potential carcinogenic risk below NCP point of departure (10'°).
HI below unity (1); tt~refore, noncarcinogenic risks unlikely to
occur.
<1(4£-2)
1
Potential carcinogenic risks associated with direct contact with
sediments certain locations slightly exceeded NCP point of
departure (i.e., 104). yet were well within the acceptable risk
range (i.e., <10~). Risks due to PAHs and heavy metals. which may
not be related to site disposal activit ies. His for al\ locations
were below unity (1) (with the exceptions of stations 2. 13. and
14); therefore, noncarcinogenic effects unlikely to occur.
selected
<1(1[-2)
selected
l
<1(8[-3)
< 1 (0. Z)
<1(2[-2)
<1(9[-3)
to 6 x 10 3 ,or, 2 in 1,000,000 to b 10 1,UUU
-------
Table 11 (ConL)
Cone Ius ions for the 8utz LamH ill
Baseline Risk Assessment
Exposure Pathway
Current land-Use Conditions
Ingest ton of Ftsh In Streams
by Recreational Fishermen
West fork of Reeders Run
Station S
Station 6
Station 7
North Fork of Reeders Run
Station 2
StAtion 3
StatIon 9
Station I
(uture Land-Use Conditions
Use of Groundwater It
Butz landft'l by Hypothetlca'
Residents (a)
Potential
Carcinogenic
Risk
Potential
Noncarcinogenic
Risk
(Hazard Index)(HI)
selected
No contaminants
8.4
selected
No contaminants
6[-7
2[-7
2E-7
9[-3
1.0
2.1
2.1
8.4
183
Conrnents
Potential carcinogenic risks are below the HCP point of departure
(I.e., 10'°). HI exceeds unity (1) for several stream locations
due to mercury. Mercury levels ranged from 0.25.to 1 ug/L which
Is below the drinking water MCL (2 ug/L), but exceeds the AWQC for
Ingestion of fish (0.15 ug/L). Mercury, however, was not detected
In groundwater, surface soil, or subsurface soil at Butz Landfill.
In fact, mercury levels increased In the North fork further away
from the site. Therefore, mercury may not be present due to stte .
related activities.
Potential carcinogenic risks exceed upper-bound of NCP acceptable
risk range (\.e.. 10~) due to TCE. HI exceeded unity (1);
therefore. noncarcinogenic effects may occur from use of
groundwater. Harzard quotients for 1,2-0CE and TCE exceeded
unity. Similar levels of TCE In on-5lte monitoring wells were
found In off-site residential wells. RID had the h1ghest detected
concentration of TCE (6.800 ug/L). TeE was detected tn all
bedrock monitoring wells.
(a)
Risk estimates Include Ingestion.
HI - Hazard Index
TCE - Trlchloroethene
1,2-0C[ - 1.2-0 Ich 10roethene
l.l-0CE - 1.I-Dlchloroethene
dermal absorption and Inhalation (showering) exposures.
-------
TABLE 12
ALTERNATIVE 2, OPTIOO 1
CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, TREATMENT BY AIR STRIPPING AND DISCHARGE
ITEM
Bedrock Aquifer Extraction Well System
Direct Capital
clearing & grubbing (3.0 acre for
. access & pipes)
tree removal (1.5 acre)
piping to treatment plant (6,400 LF @ $20/LF)
6" . well installation. = 150 feet deep
(15 wells @ $15.000 ea.)
decontamination; disposal of cuttings &
water (15 @ $6,000 ea.)
electrical power (15 @ $3,000 ea.)
electrical equipment. controls. 15 gpm
pumps, pit-less adaptor, low water
shut-off, etc. (15 @ $7,000 ea.)
Annual O&M
power (15 @ $2,000 ea.)
equipment replacement
Site Work/Road to Treatment Plant
Direct Capital
1.500 LF @ $50/LF
Chemical Precipitation System - 225 gpm
Direct Capital
Annual O&M
equipment replacement
and sludge disposal
DIRECT
CAPITAL
ANNUAL O&M
20,000
10,000
128.000
225,000
90.000
45.000
105.000
--------
$ 623.000
30, COO
15,COO
-------
$ 45.000
$ 75.000
$ 1.000.000
$ 60.000
-------
TABLE 12, CONTINUED
ITEM
DIRECT
CAPITAL
ANNUAL 0&1-1
Air Stripping Towers and Vapor Phase Carbon - 225 gpm
Direct Capital - based on 25 mg/l VOC influent
System: two towers ea. 4' tp 26 ft. tall
towers, two vapor phase carbon units,
dual heaters, two blower, two pumps,
5.000 gallon flow equalization tank,
control panel, and installation
clearing & grubbing (0.5 acre)
tree removal (0.5 acre)
buil di ng
electrical power supply from North Road
Annual O&M
equipment replacement,
power, and carbon regeneration
or disposal
Stream Discharge
Direct Capital
clearing & grubbing (0.25 acre for
access & pipes)
tree removal (0.25 acre)
pipe (500 LF @ S80/LF)
Annual O&M
. stre~ monitoring ($4,OOO/month)
laboratory coordination, data validation,
data evaluation, and report preparation
Start Up
Sub Total
Direct Capital Contingency (10%)
Total Direct Capital Costs
Total Annual O&M Costs
450,000
5,000
3,000
150,000
40,000
--------
$ 648,000
$ 260.000
3,000
2,000
$ 40,000
--------
$ 45,000
$ 48,000
36 , COO
-------
S 84,000
S 40,000
$ 2,431,000
243,000
S 2,674,000
$ 449,000
-------
TABLE 12, CONTINUED
DIRECT
ITEM CAPITAL ANNUAL O&M
SUMMARY
Total Direct Capital Costs $ 2,674,000
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 449,000
Remedial Action & Remedial Design
Consulting Services (40%) 1,070,000
Legal & Administrative (25%) 669,000
Contingency (25%) 669,000 112,OCO
Total Capital $5,082,000
Total Annual O&M $ 561,000
Present Worth of Annual O&M
(8 \ % for 30 years) J 5.930.00..9...
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST $ 11,012,000
-------
TABLE 13
ALTERNATIVE 2, OPTION 2
CON'l'AMINATED GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, TREATMENT BY CARBON ADSORPI'ION, AND DISCHARGE
'ITEM
Bedrock Aquifer Extraction Well System
Direct Capital
clearing & grubbing (3.0 acre for
access & pipes)
tree removal (1.5 acre)
piping to treatment plant (6.400 LF @ S20/LF)
6" 4> well install aHon. = 150 feet deep
(15 wells @ $15.000 ea.)
decontamination; disposal of cuttings &
water (15 @ S6.000 ea.)
electrical power (15 @ $3.000 ea.)
electrical equipment. controls. 15 gpm
pumps. pit-less adaptor. low water
shut-off. etc. (15 @ $7.000 ea.)
Annual O&M
power (15 @ S2.000 ea.)
equipment replacement
Site Work/Road to Treatment Plant
Di rect Capital
1.500 LF @ S50/LF
Chemical Precipitation System - 225 gpm
Direct Capital
Annual O&M
equipment replacement
and sludge disposal
DIRECT
CAPITAL
ANNUAL O&M
20.000
10.000
128.000
225.000
90.000
45,000
105,000
--------
$ 623,000
30,OCO
15,OCO
-------
S 45.000
$ 75,000
$ 1,000,000
S 60,000
-------
TABLE 13, CONTINUED
ITEM
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) - 225 gpm
Direct Capital - based on 25 mg/l influent
System: four skids, equalization tank,
control panel, transfer pump, two
GAC units in series and two in
parallel, installation
clearing & grubbinr (O.S acre)
tree removal (O.S acre)
building
electrical power supply from North Road
Annual O&M
power, equipment replacement,
and carbon regeneration/replacement
Stream Discharge
Direct Capita 1
clearing & grubbing (0.25 acre for
access & pipes)
tree removal (0.25 acre)
pipe (SOO LF @ S80/LF)
Annual O&M
stream monitoring (S4,OOO/month)
laboratory coordination,. data validation,
data evaluation, and report preparation
Start Up
Sub Total
Direct Capital Contingency (10%)
Total Direct Capital Costs
Total Annual O&M Costs
DIRECT
CAPITAL
600,000
5,000
3,000
150,000
40,000
--------
s
798,000
. 3,000
2,000
$ 40,000
--------
$ 45,000
S 40,000
S 2,581,000
258,000
S 2,839,000
ANNUAL O&M
S 500,000
S 48,000
36, COO
-------
S 84,000
S 689,000
-------
j
"
TABLE 13, CONTINUED
DIRECT
ITEM CAP IT AL ANNUAL O&M
SUMMARY
Total Direct Capita1 Costs $ 2.839.000
Total Annual O&M Costs $ 689.000
Remedial Action & Remedial Design
Consulting Services (40%) 1.136,000
Legal & Administrative (25%) 710,000
Contingency (25%) 710,000 1l2,ax)
Total Capital $ 5,395,000
Total Annual O&M $ 861,000
Present Worth of Annual O&M
(8 \ % for 30 years) ~
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST $ 14,495,000
I
I
i .
------- |