United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-92/161
September 1992
x°/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Dixie Caverns County Landfill,
VA
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request .of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement. but adds no fur1her applicable information to
the content of the document. All supptemental material is, however. contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
.
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPOATNO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-92/161
I ~
3. Reclplenra ~Ion No.
4. TIUa and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Dixie Caverns County Landfill, VA
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. Autllor(a)
5. Rapott D8t8
09/28/92
6.
a. P8formIng 0rpnIz:8II0n R8pt. No.
9. Performing Org8n1z8llon N8Ine ..d AddrW8
10. ProIectfT8IIIIWork UnIt No.
11. Contr8cl(e) Of Gnnt(G) No.
(e)
1 ~ Sponaor!ng Org8n1z8tlon ....... and AddrW8
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(G)
13. TYJ18 01 A8por1. Pwtod Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. SupplemanI8ry NoI8a
PB93-963907
16. Ab81nct (Unlit: 200--)
The 39-acre Dixie Caverns County Landfill is a former municipal landfill in Roanoke
County, virginia. The surrounding land is rural, with the nearest residence located
one-half mile from the site. The site is situated on a steep ridge between two
valleys surrounded by heavily forested mountains traversed by small streams. Two
unnamed headwater streams receive surface water runoff from the site and discharge to
the Roanoke River, which is located 2 miles south/southeast. The landfill is
currently owned and was operated by the County of Roanoke from 1965 until its closure
in 1976. During operation, the landfill accepted an estimated 440,000 cubic yards of
municipal and industrial wastes, including refuse, scrap metal. fly ash, and sludge.
In 1983, EPA investigations identified several disposal areas, including a discarded
drum area, a sludge pit, and a large fly ash pile, which contained elevated levels of
metals. In 1987, EPA conducted a removal action that addressed the drum and sludge
areas, but recommended that removal of the fly ash be postponed. A 1991 ROD addressed
the fly ash pile as OU1 and provided for excavation and transportation of
approximately 9,000 cubic yards of fly ash to an EPA-approved high-temperature metals
recovery facilIty for treatment and subsequent re-use. In 1992, a second EPA removal
(See Attached Page)
17. Document ANIyaIs a. C IIA<-.
Record of Decision - Dixie Caverns
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
County Landfill, VA
b. IdanIlftan/Op8noEnd T-
c. COSATI Fl8lcWGnMIp
1 a. AY8II8bIIIIy S18I8m8n1
It. S8curI1y a.. (11118 A8por1)
None
20. S8curtty a- (TbI8 P8g8)
Non!'>
21. No. of P8g88
26
n Price
(Sea AHSI-Z3!1.18)
S.~onR-
272 (.- 17)
(Formerty NTlS-3S)
~loIC--"
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-92/161
Dixie Caverns County Landfill, VA
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
action addressed the northern drainage area and the soil in the vicinity of and directly
beneath the fly ash pile. This ROD addresses OU2, those areas at the site that were not
addressed by OUl or by the 1992 removal order. Previous and ongoing removal and remedial
actions have addressed or will address all risks posed by the site; therefore, there are
no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action.
associated with the no action remedy.
Thereare no costs
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
PE~T_tQ~
site Name and Location
Dixie Caverns Landfill Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2
Roanoke county, Virginia
Statement of Basis and Pur~ose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for Operable Unit 2 at the Dixie Caverns Landfill Superfund Site
("site"), Roanoke County, Virginia, which was chosen in
accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
("CERCLA"), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), and, to the extent
practicable, the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision is
based on the Administrative Record for the Site.
The Commonwealth of Virginia concurs with the selected
remedy.
. DescriDtion of the Selected Remedv/Rationale for No Action
EPA has selected no action as the remedy for Operable Unit 2
at the Site. EPA's rationale for this decision is that previous
and on-going remedial and removal actions have or will address
all risks posed by the Site and no further action is necessary.
The other response actions at this Site which have been completed
or are currently being performed are the following:
o
In September 1987, the County of Roanoke signed a
Consent Agreement and Order under section 106(a) of
CERCLA with EPA to conduct a removal action at three
disposal areas at the Site - the discarded drum area,
the sludge pit, and the flyash pile. The drum area and
sludge pit removal activities have been completed. The
flyash removal was suspended on EPA's recommendation.
On September 30, 1991, EPA issued an interim ROD to
address the approximately 9,000 yd3 of flyash (RCRA
K061 waste) at the Site. The flyash pile is being
addressed separately from the rest of the site as
Operable Unit 1 (OU-1). The remainder of the Dixie
Caverns Site was addressed in the Remedial
Investigation Report completed in January 1992. EPA is
attempting to negotiate a Consent Decree for the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (flRD/RAn) with the
o
-------
o
PRPs. In the event that the negotiations prove
unsuccessful, EPA will either issue a Unilateral
Administrative Order or initiate 8. federally-funded
RD/RA. EPA expects that an agreement can be reached
with the PRPs to begin implementation of this remedial
response action during the Fall of 1992.
On July 22, 1992, EPA determined that a threat to
public health, welfare and/or the environment exists
due to the actual release of lead, zinc, and cadmium
from the flyash pile into the northern drainage area at
the site and in soils in the vicinity of and directly
beneath the K061 waste pile. As a result, EPA has
determined that a removal- action is appropriate to
remove, treat and/or dispose of contaminated sediment
in the northern drainage area and in soils in the
vicinity of and directly beneath the K061 waste pile.
EPA negotiated an Administrative Order by Consent for
Removal Action with the PRPs. This removal action
commenced in the Fall of 1992 and should be completed
as early as the Summer of 1993.
This Record of Decision addresses those areas which are not
considered in operable Unit 1- (the K061 waste pile) and the
Removal Action (sediments in the northern drainage area and soils
in the vicinity and beneath the K061 waste pile). At the
completion of the Remedial Action for Operable Unit 1 and the
Removal Action, EPA expects that all risks posed by the site will
have been addressed. The public will be kept apprised.
statutorY Determination
This decision of no action for Operable Unit 2 is protective
of human health and the environment. Because this remedy will
result in hazardous substances remaining at the Site below
health-based levels, a review, as required by Section 121(c) of
CERCLA 42 U.S.C. S 9621(c) , will not be conducted to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
Declaration statement
EPA has determined that no further action is necessary at
Operable unit 2 of the Site. As described above, previous and
on-going response actions at the Site have or will eliminate the
need to conduct additional remedial action under CERCLA.
SEP 28 1992
c7 iS~'
L-02-- ( L~
Edwin B. Erickson
Regional Administrator
u.s. EPA, Region III
Date
-------
. .
D8CI8IOB 8UXKARY
I. 81'18 ~.... LOCATIO.. ABD DB8CJU:PTIOB
The Dixie Caverns Landfill Superfund Site ("Site") is
located in Roanoke county, Virginia along State Route 778
approximately one mile west of Exit 39 on Interstate 81. The
landfill is currently owned by the County of Roanoke. The County
of Roanoke operated the landfill from 1965 until 1976. During
its operation, the landfill received unknown quantities of
municipal refuse, scrap metal, flyash, sludge, and other
industrial wastes. When the landfill was closed in July 1976, it
contained an estimated 440,000 cubic yards ("yd3") of waste
covering approximately 39 acres.
The site is located in a rural area with the nearest
residence located approximately 1/2 mile southeast along Twine
Hollow Road. A total of 235 residents live within a one-mile
radius of the Site and an estimated 2110 live within three miles.
Within 1 mile of the Site, private wells are used as a potable
water source.
The topography in the region is characterized by long,
narrow, parallel valleys and mountain ridges. The Site lies on a
relatively steep ridge complex between two steep valleys, each of
which contains an intermittent stream. The elevation at the site
ranges from approximately 1400 feet above mean sea level at the
Site entrance to 1650 feet in the northwest corner.
Two unnamed headwater streams receive surface water runoff
from the Site - one flows through the northern portion
(hereinafter referred to as the "northern drainage area") of
Site across the base of the flyash pile located on the Site;
other flows along Twine Hollow Road just beyond the southern
boundary. These streams discharge to the Roanoke River (see
Figure 1).-
The average yearly temperature for the area is approximately
56 deqrees Fahrenheit, with a maximum in the 90's and a minimum
in the 20's. The average precipitation is 44 inches, fairly
evenly distributed throughout the year.
the
the
site
Groundwater within the Mississippian-Devonian-Silurian (MOS)
aquifer system moves along bedding, fracture, and solution
channels from recharge areas to discharge areas at springs and
along stream valleys. The MDS aquifer system lies within clastic
sandstone, siltstone, and shale lithologies. Natural qroundwa~er
recharge is rapid because of the thin soil mantle on the ridges.
The depth to groundwater is usually greater than 20 feet, but
less than 100 feet. Boring logs taken from the valley containing
the drum disposal area and flyash pile indicate that the depth to
1
-------
PIGORB 1
SIU JUUt
DIZIB CAVBRX8 LAMDPILL SITB
\. :~111!......._-_._--:....,..:
" ,. -------
"
"'" R.~~PU,,' ". ......
~ ,~.. ~.., . ".
. "
"'-00.. ". ,,+~;r""-"
""..."'- ~_.... ........
........:.., "
-------
groundwater is found at 18.0 and 19.5 feet, respectively. In
general, the groundwater flow in the area would be expected to be
south to southeast ("south/southeast") in the direction of the
Roanoke River, but contaminant plumes fro~ the Site could also
move along the formation strikes, parallel to the mountain
chains. Groundwater quality within the MDS aquifer system is
classified as poor to fair. The MDS aquifer system generally
contains higher amounts of iron, manganese, and sulfate.
II. SITE HISTORY ARD BHPORCEMENT ACTrvITIBS
Municipal and industrial wastes were first disposed of at
the Dixie Caverns Landfill Superfund Site in 1965. In 1972 the
County of Roanoke was notified by the Commonwealth of Virginia
that their operation must be phased out by July 1, 1973, the
deadline for jurisdictions to obtain a solid waste disposal
permit. After several unsuccessful attempts to obtain a permit,
the landfill ceased operating in July 1976.
In June 1983, EPA completed a Preliminary Assessment of the
Site and identified several disposal areas including a large
flyash pile of undetermined constituents. As a result of these
initial investigations, the County of Roanoke signed a Consent
Agreement and Order with EPA in September 1987 to conduct a
removal action at three disposal areas - the discarded drum area,
the sludge pit, and the flyash pile. The County completed
removal activities in the drum area and sludge pit. EPA approved
the County plan to treat the flyash using a proprietary
stabilization process. The treated waste was to be placed on-
site. Prior to initiation of full-scale treatment, the
Commonwealth of Virginia identified inconsistencies between .the
County plan and state regulations. EPA consequently recommended
that the County suspend removal of the flyash pile.
On January 2, 1988 and April 26, 1989, EPA sent special
notice letters pursuant to Section 122(e) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. S 9622(e), to identified Potentially
Responsible Parties ("PRPs") to offer them the opportunity to
perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RIfFS")
at the Site. When the PRPs declined to perform the work in July
1989, EPA initiated an RIfFS to determine the full extent and
impact of contamination at the Site.
Although the Remedial Investigation ("RI") had not yet been
completed, in September 1991 EPA had sufficient information to
determine the appropriate remedy for the K061 waste (flyash)
pile. On september 30, 1991, EPA therefore issued a Record of.
Decision ("1991 ROD") to address the approximately 9,000 cubic
yards of K061 waste (flyash) present at the Site. K061 waste is
a listed hazardous waste under the regulations promulgated at 40
C.F.R. S 261.32 pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
3
-------
'-
Recovery Act ("RC!?_~-."), 42 U.S.C. SS 6901 t~~. The K061 waste
pile contains several metals, including lead, cadmium, and zinc,
at levels that present an imminent and substantial threat to
human health and the environment. As de;;:- ~ribed in the 1991 ROD,
the selected remedy fc ~ the flyash pile removal of the flyash
from the site and trei- ant of the flya- at a High Temperature
Metals Recovery ("H'rMf- - facility. The tlyash pile is being
addressed separately from the rest of the Site as Operable Unit
1. currently, EPA is negotiating with PRPs to implement the 1991
ROD.
At the time that EPA issued th~ _991 ROD, EPA designated all
other areas at the Site outside the _J~l w~ste (flyash) pile as
Operable Unit 2, and addressed thes~ ~reas as such in the
Remedial Investigation Report dated January 1992. The RI Report -
for Operable Unit 2 was completed in January 1992 and is part of
the basis for this ROD ("1992 ROD").
As part of the completed Remedial Investigation for Operable
Unit 2, surface water and sediment samples were obtained from the
small streams adjacent to the northern portion of the Site
(Figure 2). The analYtical results of these samples were
evaluated and three contaminan~s of potential concern were
identified - lead (30,800 par~- per million ("ppm"», cadmium
(605 ppm), and zinc (127,000 1). ~he maximum concentrations of
lead and zinc observed in the adime~~s of the streams receiving
flyash runoff are presented i. Figure 2.
Because of the high levels of inorganic contaminants found
in the stream sediments, the EPA Region III superfund Removal
Branch was notified to determine the need for an expedited
remedial response. EPA took iditional sediment samples for lead
and cadmium on!arch 4 :nd 5! '..992. :'he maximum concent -ati;.;. s
found in the s6diment ~f~re 3~ 300 pp- for lead and 1,110 ?pm for
cadmium.
On July 22, 1992, EPA issued an endangerment determination.
Based on the information desc~ ~ed above, EPA determined the
threat to public healt1:., welt ~ and -r the envirc._---:nt exif.
due to the actual release of ~ardc _.: substances (lead, zinc,
and cadmium) from the Site. a re,-::.lt, on August 28, 1992, EPA
and the PRPs entered into an; .inistrative Order by Consent for
Removal Action ("Removal OrdeI j pursuant to sections 106(a) and
122(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. SS 9606(a) and 9622(a). The Remov"
Order requires the PRPs to identify the e:--tent of contaminatir
exceeding ecological ris%-basec ~9vels i~:wo str;ams at the ~
and in soils in the vicinity of and direc~ly beneath the K061
waste pile; eliminate the effect of contamination on aquatic and
vegetative species located in and around the two streams; and
remove, treat, and/or dispose of contaminated soils in the
vicinity of and directly beneath the K061 waste pile.
4
-------
. .
IXX.
BXGJlLXGJI'l'S OP COIlK1JllJ:TY PARTXCXPATXOB
A Community Relations Plan for the Dixie Caverns Landfill
site was developed in May 1990. This document lists contacts and
interested parties throughout the Federal and Commonwealth
governments and the local community. It also establishes
communication pathways to ensure timely dissemination of
pertinent information. EPA held a public meeting on January 23,
1991 to discuss the current status of RIfFS activities at the
site. In addition, a public meeting was held on August 22, 1991
at the Glenvar Branch Library in Salem, Virginia to present and
discuss the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1.
The Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2 was released to the
public on August 20, 1992. The Proposed Plan and supporting
documents were made available to the public in the Administrative
Record for the site.maintained at both the EPA Region III Docket
Room in Philadelphia and at the Glenvar Branch Library in Salem,
Virginia. The notice of availability of these documents and the
beginning of the public comment period on the Proposed Plan was
published in the Roanoke Times and World-News and the Salem Times
on August 20, 1992. The 30-day public comment period extended
from August 20, 1992 through September 21, 1992. EPA did not
receive any comments on the Proposed Plan during the public
comment period. A Responsiveness Summary, therefore, is not
included with this ROD. EPA stated in the Proposed Plan that it
would hold a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan if EPA
received a request for a public meeting on or before September 4,
1992. No requests for a pUblic meeting were received.
xv. SCOPB AND ROLB OP OPBRABLB URJ:T
This 1992 ROD describes the final planned response action for
Operable Unit 2. Other response actions at this Site have been
completed or are currently being performed. These response
actions are as follows:
o
In September 1987, the County of Roanoke signed a
Consent Agreement and Order under section 106(a) of
CERCLA with EPA to conduct a removal action at three
disposal areas at the Site - the discarded drum area,
the sludge pit, and the flyash pile. The drum area and
sludge pit removal activities have been completed. The
flyash removal was suspended on EPA's recommendation.
On September 30, 1991, EPA issued an interim ROD to
address the approximately 9,000 yd3 of flyash (RCRA
K061 waste) at the Site. The flyash pile is being
addressed separately from the rest of the site as
operable Unit 1 (OU-1). The remainder of the Dixie
Caverns Site was addressed in the Remedial
Investigation Report completed in January 1992. As
o
5
-------
o
described above, EPA is attemptinq to neqotiate. a
Consent Decree for the Remedial Design/Remedial Acti~u
("RD/RA") with the PRPs. In the event that the
neqotiations ~rove unsuccessful, EPA will either issu~"
a Unilateral ". -:!Dinistrative Order or initiate a
federally-fur: ;;d RD/RA. EPA expects that an aqreeme!
can be reached with the PRPs to beqin implementation .:.f.
this remedial response action durinq the Fall of 1992.
On July 22, 1992, EPA determined that a threat to
p~lic health, welfare and/or the environment exists
due to the actual release of lead, zinc, and cadmium
from the flyash pile into the northern drainage area at
the Site and in soils in the vicinity of and directly
beneath the K061 waste pile. As a result, EPA has
determined that a removal action is appropriate to
remove, treat and/or dispose of contaminated sediment
:n the northern drainage area an in soi:s in the
7icinity of and directly beneath :he K061 waste pile.
EPA neqotiated an Administrative Order by Consent for
Removal Action with the PRPs. This removal action
commenced in the Fall of 1992 and shall be completed as
early as the Summer of 1993.
~..j.s Record of _.~sion <'")dresses those 8,,;eas of th' Site
~ Jerable ant ~- '-:ich .!"e not address€: bY Opere e Unit
- thE: i{061 waste .,;.j&,L ~- ..~le Removal Ordf.~' (sedimer ..-.in
~t:reams Band E i1. -=he :-. .:the. :~ drainaae area and soils. . the
vicinitv of and beneath the K061 waste oile\. As descr~ :d
below, EPA has determined that with the exception of the K061
waste pile, the soils in the vicinity and directly beneath the
K061 wa:-'"':.e pile, :l th& ~ontam; -ated se~- :.ments StreE Band
E in t~ "\{ortherr :-ain . Area) resp. se ac' und£: =ERCLA
i,;; nec i.ry for ~rat !nit : the :. xie C, ~s La~ fill
S i '.;e . ri.": ter the A...medi... .~ctioL . jr Ope1.' .ole Un- 1 and .ue
Removal Order have been implemented, EPA expects that all risks
posed by the Site will have been addressed. The public will ~e
apprised of EPA's actions.
v. SUMMARY OP SITH CHaRACTERISTICS
The primary objectives of the RI for Operable Unit 2 at th~
Dixie Caverns Landfill Superfund Site were the follo*~ng:
o
to determine the nature, extent, and magnitude of
contamination on and adjacent to the Site focusing on
the solid waste disposal area, the discarded drum area,
the sludge pit, and the K061 waste (flyash) pile;
to identify and characterize all migratory pathways,
routes of entry, and receptors for contaminants from
o
6
-------
(
o
L
700
SCALE IN r£( T
(
(
)
~
. ..
.", ...
}../ '"
.--'" ~
-",/ -: V)
. ,
"-. .
PIGORB 2
SBDIKBIIT COBCDI'l'RA'1'IOWS 01' LBAD .um
DIXIB CAVBRBS LANDI'ILL SITB
IIBC
"00
-,
F]
!~: .~:
\
\
\.
F- a1
I,:.ou .
jP-nJ ---
~!!.I
I
\
\
"
", f'
,.-'
---
-_.-
---
----
.-----
~~81
,~/
, .
~ ~
01 :J
--
~D
/
-
RUAUWA'/wQR~ AREAS
INlf"..,llfllT ',rkIAWS
.
DIII(R'>IUN C"A~jN£l
I~
'~._~J
llAU IN mq/"I
liNt. IN "II~/"IJ
..
WAIlH a: '.IIII"tNI ',"UI'IIII
IN ""lIN(1 I At .'
'II'" It ~ at '.. /11". tit I . .A",.'! I "
I~l 1"1 II INI J I 1"11 ,
''41'
"if AU t IIArlNt I
tJt ""tIlIN Pl,,)f.IO I)R L At\t AI-(f A
.IIIIMt nl
111..11"1' r. 1'1'1
.
.
,A.MI'lt 'INI'
7
POOR QUA~rfY
ORIGINAb
-------
o
the Site;
to determine fully if contaminants from the site pose a
threat to human health or the environment; and
o
to determine the need for appropriate remedial actions
. at the Site to reduce or remove any actual or potential
threat to human health and the environment.
The field investigation for the RI was performed between
November 1, 1990 and June 15, 1991. The following tasks were
accomplished during the field investigation to meet the
objectives of the RI:
o
a soils investigation in on-site areas of historical
waste disposal activities, including the discarded drum
. area, the sludge pit, and in the vicinity of the flyash
pile;
a groundwater investigation on-site and in the vicinity
of the Site;
o
o
an investigation of surface water and sediments from
water bodies in the vicinity of the Site; and
an ecological investigation in the vicinity of the
Site.
o
Results of the field investigation are discussed in detail
in the Remedial Investigation Report for the Dixie Caverns
Landfill Site, dated January, 1992. A summary of the field.
investigation results is provided below.
SOILS INVESTIGATION
Surface Soils
The primary objectives of the surface soil investigation for
OU-2 were to determine the magnitude and extent, if any, of
surface soil contamination and to determine if any environmental
or human health risk were associated by contact with surface
soil. A total of 13 surface soil samples were collected and
analyzed during the field investigation (see Figure 3). Three
background surface soil samples (identified as B-1, B-2, and B-3
on Figure 3) were collected in areas near the Site to establish a
baseline for comparison with soil samples obtained from areas
suspected to have contamination. Five surface samples (FAP-1
through FAP-5) were taken from areas surrounding the flyash pile
to assess the potential for transport of contamination by the
wind. In addition, five composite samples were taken from the
solid waste disposal area.
8
-------
.!-
.
," A'~ ~ :,...
. :. ~ ; :'.c
S~AC.
FIGti.RZ 3
SOIL S&aLI.G LOCATIO..
('
.
.
.
" .
<..
.
.
.:. ...
:
~~,..c :~..""'"
. . . .." ~ - ~ :1/S1 r
..:;.~ "-'" -'---- rll#.4
W ---'- ~...*t
. .1It. '0 .
r"-',~~
'1" -; .....
''''''/~; ,': .:;)
'~~") if " ;J
... ..dl'
\).. - -- r,' '.
... "'::--_~, -- ; ()<:Il,: ,~~
,. . JlllJVHf"LJ '/
''''''''''''.-:- ~ ,./'.
t') 1" '.""."''',
,') (y''''''' I .' 'Ii
I:
() .
~8D.-C
" \00'100
. ,""-:'0
'oC>.' )
"OO"On '0''''''/<
.
'-
-"::'''':>-.;.- '-.-..,... .
~ ~...~,:-_~-~-Z~~
.. . -...::...,.. ..":.~
~~
. "...
.
. 4 ........ ""..
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
'-1)NCi
'-
9
.
,)
.'--",
.. .
','. '.,'
~:)
~. '. .:.-..;.
.
'';'. ':''-
. .
.
.\
:.,---.--' -: -.
I' .;
. . ,
',01(). II
:. .. .
:.v. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.350
''''.'
;CALE 'N ;:-EE r
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
Acetone was the only volatile organic compound ("VOC")
detected in any of the surface soil samples. A concentration of
130 parts per billion ("ppb") was detected at sample location B-
3. In addition, the composite sample SWD-2 showed an acetone
concentration of 7 ppb. No pE ~icides or Polychlorinated
Biphenyl compounds ("PCBs") Wf _'e detected in any of the surface
soil samples. The majority of semi-volatile organic compounds
were detected at composite location SWD-2.
Results of metals analyses of surface soil samples indicate
that metals contamination exceeds backqround at the majority of
sample locations. Barium, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc
were present in all surface soil samples. Beryllium was present
in all samples from the solid waste. disposal area, and in three
samples taken near the flyash pile. Lead concentrations were
elevated above backqround concentrations at all sample locations
with highly elevated levels at sampling locations SWD-5 (290
ppm), FAP-3 (395 ppm), and FAP-5 (304 ppm).
Subsurface Soils
The objectives of the subsurface investigation were to
determine the magnitude and extent, if any, of subsurface soil
contamination, to confirm that past cleanup efforts by the County
of Roanoke were completed, and to determine if any environmental
or human health risks were associated with contact with
subsurface soil. A total of 29 subsurface soil samples were
collected from 14 soil boring locations (Fiqure 4).
All subsurface soil samples did not contain contaminants at
levels of concern. VOCs were detected in subsurface soil samples
at only four sample locations. Benzene was detected in sampling
location RIW-12, at 16-18 feet below qround surf2~e, at a
concentration of 40 ppb. Toluene was detected a-~- sampling
location RIW-2, at 14-16 feet below qround surface, at a
concentrat~on of 24 ppb. 2-Butanone was detected at RIW-1, at 5-
7 feet below qround surface, at a concentration of 73 ppb and 4-
methyl-2 penta none w~s detected at RIW-11, at 3-5 feet below
ground surface, at a concentration of 42 ppb. In addition, no
VOCs were detected in the former drum disposal area. No
volatiles or semi-volatile organics were detected in samples
taken from the former sludge disposal area. The maximum semi-
volatile organic compound concentration detected in the former
drum disposal area was found at DD-1, at a depth of 4-6 feet
(phenanthrene at a concentration of 140 ppb). The maximum levels
of semi-volatiles in areas other than the drum and sludge
disposal areas were from soil boring RIW-1 at 1300 ppb and 4800
ppb of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate from 1 to 3 feet and 3 to 5
feet depths respectively.
No pesticides were detected in any of the subsurface soil
samples. However, the PCB compound Arochlor 1254 was detected in
10
-------
,1/
8
'.
\
~IW-I .
8
":1'11-':1-
PI~ 4
SCBSOU'ACB SOIL SABLB LOCA'1'I0IJ8
8
8
8
8
8
-
~~,.,
,..I'Lc"
~,W- 5 '.
. . -3 I. 88
8 ..~I .~--.-"
8 ,;.~., ......:...- ~ .r. RI W - 4
'<6)1 . 00" -""'(
.- R'N-.: V)...: ";;'w-1"r: '-~~
RIW-f') ,..---- tD
I~.-
f{. ~IW- I ,
~I ;!
\;\ ~-;::::::!.'/ ' .
\'. .,r:Y j8
',--.. ",,;:..-""TOOL 8
~-:::~--] .
II..: RIW-IQ
If
li/
L£AC...,A ~E :;')NC'
- 8
8
;", 'If : ~
8
8
8
8
..
"
11
8
8
8
8
;)
.. .
~I._~.::-'-
~-~
.-
8
).~':---"
I
I
,
.~
8
:;C ALE IN 'EE r
.,': -!.......;
.. .
'-t -E.')'" . .~ ",
. "-. ~"" .
&
-t .::~. :";;". ;. ""i..' .-
-"'''t A"E"
.~J '; .~E.\t
'.-"..'.'
:1,.E~S,V/Io ~,=:
.....,yi~':""...,.. .-,\.,'.~
.
".I#tI':........- .'.:' -"''''''''
.)~- ~ 0t'..
..,-.-
"u,",' ~ .;tt'.., ~"'"
8
8
.
.
.
;Su
~.jO
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
the former drum disposal area at sample location DD-1 at
concentrations of 300 ppb (2 to 4 feet below ground surface) and
370 ppb (4 to 6 feet below grou.~d surfa-;e).
GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION
. The purpose of the groundwater investigation was to
determine the nature and extent of contamination of groundwater
at the Site. As part of this investigation, a geologic and
hydrogeologic characterization of the site was performed.
Monitoring wells were installed to collect groundwater quality
information and to determine groundwater flow direction.
Groundwater samples were collected from 12 monitoring wells
installed on-site and from 16 residential wells located near the
Site. In addition, aquifer tests were performed to determine the
hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface to provide further
understanding of the rate at which water recharges, moves
through, and discharges through other subsurface materials at the
site.
The analysis of the groundwater flow conditions at the site
has identified fracture controlled, localized patterns of
recharge/discharge typical of the MDS aquifer system. The
groundwater gradient is a subdued reflection of the surface
~opography. Results of the hydrogeologic investigation indica~e
that the groundwater flow direction at the Site is predominantly
to the south-southeast (see Fiqure 5). These groundwater flow
data, enhanced by the local topographic data, indicate that the
residential wells located along Meecham Road are not
hydrogeoloqically connected to the Site. The hydraulic
conductivity was calculated to be 0.66 feet per day.
Results of on-site monitoring well sampling shows that very
few VOCs were detected at extremely low concentrations. Only one
semivolatile organic c.~~pound, Napthalene, was detected (3 ppb at
RIW-4 during the secor,!.., round of sampling). Very low (below 0.01
ppb) concentrations o~ ~he pesticides endosulfan II, heptachlor
epoxide, gamma-chlord. ., alpha-chlordane, endosulfan sulfate,
and 4-4 DDD were detec~ed in RIW-2, RIW-3, and RIW-12 in sampling
round 1, and in RIW-6 and RIW-10 in sampling round 2.
Results of inorganic analysis of on-site monitoring wells
were generally inconsistent between sampling Round 1 and sampling
Round 2. The presence of abundant particulates in the sampled
groundwater is believed to be the cause of the observed wide
variation in results from one samplinq round to another. In
addition,. the occurrence of particulates causes the total
inorganics data analysis to be biased high as compared to the
actual inorganic concentrations itself.
Nine of the residential wells lie to the south/southwest of
the Site, and were determined to be hydrogeologically isolated
12
-------
.IGOR. 5
LOCAL GROmmOTD DIRBC'l'IOJI
(
)
"
,
'Le ~.
. I,~ '1-1'
"':1; ~ ~;l'
-/ ..,
1.1'
"Ii"
t' -/
\.
,-"
\
\
-, ).
. (../
,/.Iy
f'f?,
iV
.
o
,
700
SCAlE IN rEE I
/
(
~
--
(
. -..'-
. -.
.-
--
.
. .
--
1-,8
, '
, ,
...
','
-
ROAOWA T IWORIl AIU AS
D1v~R';jUN L"A"'''U
.
<.Jl 'V" ;"J/'< ..,,"'0 UH I A. E A~[ A
---
...
tt'LJkOlI)(;H.. ,UVll.l
'N It Rut r IE NT'> IRE A..')
\,f NlRA, ',"'''u",,,wA'ER rlOW 011/[1: liON
'J'~' :1ot''''''''HANNtl
. .I'~ I'" I..t. ' 'I
13
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
from the site. VOCs were detected in four of these nine wells
(PW-9, PW-l0, PW-12, and PW-14). The organic cont~inants
detected in the residential wells include acetone, bis(2-
chloroethyl) ether, qamma-chlordane, dieldr1n, endrin aldehyde,
alpha-BHC, gamma-B~': (als'" known as L:' ~ne), and heptachlor
p.poxide. However. ''lese.. '~anic cent n:1ants were not detected
in any of the well~ located at the Si~~ and are not considered ~~
be Site-related. In addition, the private wells located
south/southwest of the site are hydrogeoloqically isolated from
the site. A summary of contami:~nts detected in these wells is
incluced in Table 1. .
Inorganic contaminants detected in residential wells
south/southwest of the Site include arsenic and lead. Arsenic
was found in well PW-14 at a concentration of 4.5 mi~roqrams per
liter ("ug/l"), well below 50 ug/l, EP~'s Maximum Contaminant
Limit ("M'::L") for arsenic in public drinking water. The levels
of lead :. Jund ir; PW-10 in two sampling events (26 ug/l in the
first ev~~t and i6 ug/l in the second event) exceed EPA's Ac. .on
Level of 15 ug/l for lead.
Barium, manganese, nickel, and zinc were the only chemicals
of potential concern selected from the residential wells located
downqradient (south/soutbeast) from the site. These constituents
are not found in elevated concentrations in the groundwater, as
compared t- ba:~ :ground. In addition, it is unlikely that these
wells are ._~nk~d to the Site given the distance from these wells
to the site and the general low mobility of inorganics in
. g.roundwater.
SURFACE WATER M-'J SEDDn;NT INVESTIGATION
The goal of the surface water and sediment investigatio~ was
to determine the movement of cont:- . inar." ~, if any, . :)m the .:e
along the two major drainage patt. is ~ th~ north~ and
southern portions at the Site. ~w~ ro~~ ~s of surfa_~ water
sampling were performed under dry- and wet-weather conditions at
27 locations. One sampling event for sediment was perform€~ at
28 locations.
Results of the surface water sam!'ng show th2-':: the
predominant contamination in surface wa~er are inorganic ana_.=es
(metals) in the northern drainage area, with the highest
concentrations of metals contamination in ~treams closest to the
Y' ~1 waste (flyash) pil~. Th ~ WE ,no ( wated leve 3 of -
( ~cted in any surface ..ater :mp~ in ~ '1er samp .1g ev\
( - one semi-volatile contam.:.. "nt \I;:.~ fou. during tha surfa
wa~er sampling (bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at SB-6 (210 ppb)
during high flow conditions.
Only one VOC was detected at. one sediment sampling locat
Acetone (44 ppm) was detected at Station SB-5.
:'1.
14
-------
TABLB 1
SmomRY OP t!II1!IIJ:CALS DETBCTBD IN RBSIDD'1'IAL WBLLS(a)
~
CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRATION (~Db)
PW-9 (b)
PW-10(b) (C)
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
8.00
Acetone
Gamma-chlordane
Gamma-BHC
Dieldrin
Lead
13.00
0.002
0.002
0.002
26.00
PW-12 (C)
Heptachlor epoxide
Alpha-BHC
Endrin aldehyde
0.003
0.002
PW-13
PW-14 (d)
0.004
Arsenic
4.50
(a)
All residential wells in Table 1 are located to the
southwest of the Site. They are not hydroqeoloqically
connected to the Site.
(b)
A second sampling event was performed at these locations.
Sample results at PW-9 were below detection limits for
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether. Total lead levels of 16 uq/l for
lead in PW-10 were detected.
(c)
The carcinoqenic risk associated with the low detected
concentrations of pesticides in PW-10 and PW-12 was
calculated to be 1 X 10-6.
(d)
The maximum observed concentration of arsenic in PW-14 was
found to be well below 50 uq/l, EPA's MCL for arsenic in
pUblic drinkinq water.
15
-------
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PABs") and phthal~te
esters are the predominant semi-volatile organic compounds found
in the sediments at the Site. In the southern drainage area,
phthalate compounds are most c:"".:nD1on, and iT..:.ude bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n- .ctylphthal?' .;. Phthalate
compounds were identified in Stream A at '~pling locations SA-4
and SA-5. PABs, including benzo(a)pyren~ dnd
benzo(b)fluoranthene, were found in stream B downstream of the
former drum disposal area at sampling locations SB-4, SB-5, SB-6,
and SB-7.
The major occurrence of inorganic contamination at the Site
appears in the northern drainage area. Contamination with or by
metals, including lead, chromium, manganese, zinc, silver,
cadmium, antimony, and barium increases dramatically in the
vicinity of the K061 waste (flyash) pile. EPA has determined
that a threat to public health, welfare and/or the environment
exi~""s due to the actual rele.~se of r."?zar'~~:us :<:ubstances (lead,
zin< and cadmium) from the Si.~e. A~ :i re..sult; EPA has
nego~iated a Removal Order pursuant ~~ Sections 106(a) and 122(a)
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S5 9606(a) and 9622(a), with the PRPs. This
removal order was signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on
August 28, 1992. Implementation of this Removal Order was
co~enced in the Fall of 1992.
ECOLOGIcAL INVESTIGATION
The objective of the ecological investigation was to
identify and evaluate the quality of the aquatic and terrestrial
communities in the vicinity of the site. In addition, an
ecological risk assessment was performed to determine the
effects, if any, on the aquatic and terrestrial communities in
the vicinity if the Site. The major conclusions made in t~e
Remedial Investigation reqarding potential risks to aquatic and
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the site are discussed in
detail in the Remedial Investigation Report and are summarized in
section VI" (Environmental Risk) below.
VI. SUKHARY OP SITJ RISKS
The purpose of the Risk Asse$sment, which is included in the
Remedial Investigation Report, is to determine the risks to human
health from exposure to the current or future site conditio~
a' ~ing no r ediation cccurs. is an:: :ysis 'f tL ~'No Act:.- .".
s.. :-io is r'z ~erred to ~s the B ".ine ::. sk A~ .ssm" :. The
fc . of the -: . seline F.-k Asses~ t wa~ ')n th JOS~ :.le human
he h effect~ .hat cou_.- occur u : cur - -:1t or :;ote... .:ial
fut_~e-use cond1tions.
The media of concern considered by EPA in the Baseline Risk.
Assessment include groundwater, surficial soils, and surface
water and sediment. Potential noncarcinogenic risks to human
16
-------
health were identified by calculating the risk level or. "hazard
index" ("HI") for such chemicals. The HI identifies the
potential for the most sensitive individuals to be adversely
affected by chemicals with noncarcinogenic endpoints of toxicity.
If the HI exceeds one (1.0), there may be concern for potential
noncarcinoqenic effects. As a rule, the qreater the value of the
hazard index above 1.0, the qreater the level of concern.
Potential carcinoqenic risks are identified by a risk level from
a potential exposure to a chemical. For example, a risk level of
1 x 10-6 indicates that one additional cancer case per one
million exposed individuals may occur. In most instances, a
carcinoqenic risk level equal to or less than 1 x 10-4 is
considered as acceptable by EPA.
The following current land-use exposure pathways were
quantitatively evaluated in the baseline risk assessment:
o
direct contact with surface soil by trespassers
(children) playing on-site;
ingestion and dermal absorption of chemicals of
potential concern in groundwater from private wells by
off-site residents; and
o
o
direct contact with surface water and sediments by
children playing in various streams in the vicinity of
the Site.
The following future land-use exposure pathways were
quantitatively evaluated in the baseline risk assessment:
o
direct contact with surface soils by hypothetical
future residents; and
ingestion and dermal absorption of chemicals of
potential concern in qroundwater from wells located on-
site by hypothetical future residents.
In order to quantitatively estimate the potential risks to
human health which may occur as a result of exposure to
contaminants in the media of concern, numerous assumptions
regarding exposure parameters were required. Conservative
assumptions were used to estimate exposure for the various
exposure pathways. As an example, under future land-use
conditions, it was assumed that an individual could ingest
surface soil at a rate of 120 milligrams per day ("mg/day")
(weighted average of children: 200 mg/daYl and adults: 100
mg/day). Direct contact was assumed to occur over a 30-year
period (6 years as a child and 24 years as an adult). EPA
recommends that conservative assumptions be used to ensure that.
risks are not underestimated.
o
17
-------
A summary of the potential carcinogenj~ risks and
noncarcinoqenic hazards for the exposure r '1ways is.presented
below.
On-Site Surface Soils
CUrrent Land Use: Direct Contact with Surface Soil Bv Trespassers
(Children}
The total excess cancer risk associated with incidental
ingestion and dermal absorption from exposure to on-site soils is
2 x 10-5 for a child playing at the Site. This value falls
within the EPA acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 10-6.
Benzo(a.)pyrene, beryllium, and arsenic were the only potentially
carcinoqenic contaminants identified for evaluation in the
Baseline Risk Assessment. The only significant concentration of
benzo(a)pyrene was found at sampling location SWD-2 (2,500 ppm).
The ]F-ximum values of beryllium and arsenic were found to be 1.3
ppm (at SWD-1) and 27.6 ppm (at SWD-1) , respectively. Because
the HI was calculated to be less than 1, noncarcinoqenic effects
are unlikely to occur.
Severa" co. ervat:. ass~ptions -ade in calculating the
,k to chi. lre; from ~. : :'..den1. 1 inges -;ior. ~nd dermal absorption
oX: contaminants may ca'~~::. an overestimate in the actual ri -. -:.
For example, the frequency that children would play in thE
surface soil was conservatively assumed to be three times r
week during colder weather and five times per week during warmer
weather periods (when the temperature is above freezing). The
tot~l num' ~r c-::lays exposed per year was estimated to be 125
da- 'yea!: Fe." ~e age group evaluated (2 year~ to 12 yes
ol~J, a weighted average of 140 milligrams per day (nmg/d~. ) was
assumed (~~O mg/day for children between the ages of 2 to . and
100 mg/de )8tween the ages of 6 to 12).
Future Land-Use: Direct Contact With Surface Soils Bv
HVDothetic~.~- F'Uture Residents
Potent 3.1 carcir!oqeni.:. risks ":0 t. . }ot: . tical rE idents Co
the site from incidental ir.cestioli of .:iurfa:e soils.s
calculated to be 5 X 10-5. "'The potential carcinogenic: risk from
dermal absorption was determined to be 4 x 10-5. These values
are within the EPA acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 10-6.
The HI associated with incidental ingestion of surface soils
at the Site by hypot~~tical ~esident~ :as calculated to be 0.1.
Because the Hazard: ~x was ~a1culat to be ~:ss than 1,
noncarcinoqenic effe~_s are unlikely ~~ occur.
Conservative assumptions were used to estimate exposure
under future land-use conditions. For example, it was assumed
that an individual would ingest surface soil at a rate of 120
18
-------
mq/day (weighted average of children: 200 mg/day, and adults: 100
. mg/day). Direct contact was ass\med to oC~Jr over a 30-year
period (6 years as a child and 24 years as an adult). In
addition, it is highly unlikely that the Site will ever be used
for residential purposes. Therefore, potential risk to
hypothetical future residents may be overestimated.
Residential Wells
As a part of the Remedial Investigation, groundwater samples
were collected from eighteen private residential wells in the
vicinity of the site. No potentially carcinogenic chemicals were
detected in nine residential wells located downgradient (to the
south/southeast) of the Site. The highest HI of all wells
located south/southeast of the Site was 0.3. Therefore,
noncarcinogenic effects associated with ingestion and dermal
absorption of contaminants are unlikely to oCC\Jr. Of the nine
residential wells located to the south/southwest of the Site,
only four wells showed any indication of contamination. These
four wells are located uoaradient of the Site. contamination in
these wells cannot be attributed to the Site.
On-Site Wells
Under a future residential-use scenario, the potential
carcinogenic risk via ingestion and dermal absorption (through
bathing) of groundwater from on-site wells was estimated to be 3
. X 10-4. This translates to three additional cancer cases per
10,000 exposed individuals. This risk exceeds EPA's acceptable
risk range of 10-4 to 10-6, which equates to one additional
cancer case per 10,000 to 1,000,000 exposed individuals. The
primary cause for this level of risk is due to the presence of
arsenic in samples from two on-site wells. However, the maximum
observed concentration of arsenic (5 ug/l) was found to be well
below 50 ~g/l, EPA's MCL for arsenic in public drinking water.
The HI associated with theoretical ingestion of groundwater
at the Site was calculated to be 5, mainly due to the presence of
antimony and manganese. Therefore, noncarcinogenic effects from
the ingestion of groundwater from on-site wells may occur~
Antimony was detected in four monitoring wells: RIW-1
(background well), RIW-7, RIW-10, and RIW-12. Manganese was
detected in all monitoring wells. The maximum observed
concentrations of antimony and manganese were 18.6 ug/l (at RIW-
12) and 1,780 ug/l (at RIW-2), respectively. There is no MCL for
manganese. The MCL for antimony is .Oa6.mq/l, or 6 ug/l. It
should be noted that these inorganics do not appear to be
substantially elevated above naturally occurring background
levels.
It is also important to note that the carcinogenic and
19
-------
noncarcinogenic risks are calculated based on the assumption that
groundwater at the Site would be used as a water source for
bathing and ingestion. For the future use of groundwater, it was'
assumed that a resident may install a well in the vicinity of the
most contaminated monitoring wells at the Site. It is highly
unlikely that residents would actually use groundwater from the
site as a source of bathing or drinking water in the future.
Surface Water and Sediments -- Southern Drainaae Area
The carcinogenic risk associated with direct contact with
surface water in the southern drainage area was calculated to be
6 x 10-7, well below the EPA acceptable risk range. Because. the
HI for the southern drainage area was calculated to be less than
1, noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur.
Surface Water and Sediments -- Northern Drainaae Area
The most siqnificant threat at the Site is associated with
runoff from the flyash pile. The potential noncarcinogenic
hazard associated with exposure to lead in sediments was
evaluated using a pharmacokinetic approach. According to this
approach, children regularly playing in the sediment would have a
96% chance of experiencing blood-lead levels exceeding the
interim criteria of 10 microgra~s per deciliter (Rug/dln).
A carcinogenic risk of 8 x 10-6 is expected as a result of
exposure to contaminants in the northern drainage area. This
value is within the EPA acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 10-6.
Due to the high potential noncarcinogenic hazard posed by
contamination in the northern drainage area, EPA has determined
that a removal action is appropriate to address the contamination
identified in the northern drainage area. As a result, EPA has
taken measures to remove, treat and/or properly dispose of
contaminated sediments in streams in the northern drainage area.
The removal a~tion for the northern drainage area began in the
Fall of 1992. This removal action would eliminate the release or
threat of release of contaminants in the northern drainag€ area.
Environmental Risk
The major conclusions made in the Remedial Investigation
regarding potential risks to aquatic and terrestrial habitat in
the vicinity of the site are listed below:
o
The Roanoke River contains a federal endangered .
species, Roanoke Loqperch (percina rex) and a candidate
species, orangefin madtom (Notorus gilberti).
Sediment-related impairment of the aquatic community
has been identified in the northern drainage area near
20
-------
the site boundary.
o
contaminants found in surface soils at three areas at
the Site impose an ecological risk to terrestrial
wildlife (mammals and birds). Risk is found in the
immediate vicinity of the K061 waste (flyash) pile and
near the leachate collection pond. A third area which
poses an ecoloqic risk is located in the solid waste
disposal area near the eastern boundary of the Site
(Fiqure 3). PABs found in the surface soils covering
solid waste in this area (shown as "SWD-2" in Fiqure 3)
impose chronic toxicity to mammals.
Levels of metals contamination in the area immediately
adjacent to the K061 waste (flyash) pile are sufficient
to be toxic to vegetation.
o
No detailed terrestrial sampling for mammals or 'birds was
performed during the ecological investigation. Modeling of
indigenous species was performed to evaluate the risks to the
terrestrial community. Conservative assumptions regarding the
weight, food consumption, and exposure rates were made. For
example, in the formulation of the exposure assessment of
terrestrial receptors, it was assumed that animals spend all of
their time living and feeding in areas of the highest
contamination concentration. The actual exposure rate is most
likely less than what is predicted; therefore, the actual risk to
terrestrial wildlife posed by the surficial soils in the solid
waste disposal area and near the leachate collection pond is most
likely overestimated.
Ecoloqical risks posed by the presence of contamination in
the vicinity of the K061 waste (flyash) pile and in the northern
drainage area are addressed by other response actions. As
discussed above, the flyash pile is being addressed separately
from the rest of the Site as Operable Unit 1. On September 30,
1991 EPA issued an interim Record of Decision (1991 ROD) to
address the K061 (flyash) pile. The selected remedy in the 1991
ROD requires the removal of the K061 waste (flyash) pile from the
Site and treatment of the waste at a High Temperature Metals
Recovery (HTMR) facility. currently, EPA is negotiating with
PRPs to implement that ROD.
In addition, on August 28, 1992, EPA and the PRPs entered
into a Removal Order requiring the PRPs to eliminate the effect
of lead, cadmium, and zinc contamination on aquatic and
vegetative species located in and around two streams in the
northern drainage area, and to remove treat, and/or dispose of
contaminated soils in the vicinity of and directly beneath the'
K061 waste (flyash) pile. This removal action commenced in the
Fall of 1992 and shall be completed as early as Summer of 1993.
21
-------
%1.
B%pT..~~10. OP S1GH1P1CANT CHANGBS
The Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2 at the Site was
released for public comment on August 20, 1992. EPA has
determined that with the exception of the K061 waste pile, the
soils in the vicinity and directly beneath the K061 waste pile
and the Northern Drainage Area, no response action under CERCLA
is necessary for operable Unit 2 at the Dixie Caverns Landfill
Site. The Proposed Plan identified no action as the preferred
alternative. EPA received no written or oral comments during the
public comment period. EPA has determined that no significant
changes to the remedy, as it was originally identified in the
Proposed Plan, were necessary.
22
-------
GLOSSARY
A4mi~i8trative Record: An official compilation of documents,
data, reports, and other information that is considered important
to the status of and decisions made relative to a Superfund site.
The public has access to this material.
C08prehensive BDvironaent8l .esponse, co.p8D8a~ion and Liability
Act ("CBRCU"), or superfund: A federal law passed in 1980 and
modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act. The Act created a trust fund, known as Superfund, to
investigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites.
Plya.h: Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production
of steel in electric furnaces.
Opera))le Onit ("00"): A portion of a Superfund site that has
been conceptually separated from the rest of the site to allow
for easier management.
Record of Deciaion ("ROD"): A legal document that describes the
interim or final remedial action selected for a Superfund site,
why the remedial actions were chosen and others not, how much
they cost, and how the public responded.
Remedi.al %nvestiqation/Peasibility study (I~.%/PS"): A two-part
study of a hazardous waste site that supports the selection of a
remedial action for a site. The first part, the RI, identifies
the nature and extent of contamination of the site. The second
part, the FS, identifies and evaluates alternatives for
addressing the contamination.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRAII): A federal law
enacted in 1976 and amended in 1980 and 1984 desiqned to co~trol
hazardous ~aste from the generation of the waste to its ultimate
treatment, storage, and disposal.
23
------- |