PB94-963921
EPA7ROD/R03-94/184
October 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Bell Landfill Superfund Site, PA,
9/30/1994
-------
XrrX
Ul
o
RECORD OF DECISION
BELL LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
TERRY TOWNSHIP
BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
-------
RECORD O9 PBC.IBIOM
BELL LAHPFTT.I.
SITS HAMS AND LOCATION
Bell Landfill Snperfund Bit*
Terry Township
Bradford County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial
action plan for the Bell Landfill Superfund site (the "Site") in
Bradford County, Pennsylvania which was chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") , as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. S 9601
("SARA"), and to the extent practicable ,the National Oil and
Hazardous substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP") ,40
C.P.R. Part 300. This decision is based upon and documented in
the contents of the Administrative Record. The attached index
identifies the items which comprise the Administrative Record.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with the selected
remedy.
ASSESSMENT Of THE SITE
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine,
pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9606, that actual
or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, as
specified in Section VI, fimtmt^fY of site Risks, in the ROD, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public
health, welfare, or the environment.
*
DESCRIPTION OF TBS SELECTED REMEDY
The remedial action plan in this document is presented as
the permanent remedy for controlling the soil and jgroundwater
contamination at the Site. Ttiis remedy is comprised of the
following components:
• Capping two fill areas with a Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources ("PADER") municipal landfill cap.
-------
• Reconstructing the existing leachate collection system, and
collecting leachate in new storage tanks for off-site
treatment and disposal.
• Deed restriction preventing residential use of the Site.
• Removing visibly stained soils from the areas impacted by
leachate (followed by confirmatory sampling), and placing
these soils in areas to be capped.
• Long-term monitoring of ground and surface vater4
• Landfill gas venting system.
STATUTORY DBTBRMXHATIOHS
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine
that the selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
legally are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedial actions in which treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume is a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on site above health-based levels, a review will be
conducted within five (5) years after the commencement of the
'remedial action to ensure that human health and the environment
continue to be adequately protected by the remedy.
er-tf. Kostmayer Date
Regional Administrator
Region III
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR
DECISION SUMMARY
L INTRODUCTION 1
n. HISTORY OF WASTE DISPOSAL 3
EL RESPONSE ACTIONS BY EPA AND PADER 5
IV. PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS 6
V. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 8
VL SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 24
VH SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 31
Vm. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 36
DC SELECTED REMEDY 45
X. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 45
XL COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUMMARY 47
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM PROPOSED
PLAN 48
-------
TABLES
Table 1 - Leachate Analytical Results, Lined Fill Area 9
Table 2 - Leachate Analytical Results, Unlined Fill Area 10
Table 3 - Surface Soil Analytical Results, Unlined Fill Area 13
Table 4 - Surface Soil Analytical Results, Lined Fill Area 14
Table 5 - Surface Soil Analytical Results, Drum Area 15
Table 6 - Surface Soil Analytical Results, Debris Area « 16
Table 7 - Ground Water Analytical Results 19
Table 8 - Residential Ground Water Analytical Results 20
Table 9 - Surface Water Analytical Results 22
Table 10 - Surface Water and Sediment Field Parameter Results 23
Table 11 - Contaminants of Concern 26
Table 12 • Summary of Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Exposure Route, Current
Use Scenario 28
Table 13 - Summary of Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Exposure Route, Future
Use Scenario 30
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2
Figure 2 - Site Layout 4
Figure 3 - Locations of Leachate and Surface Sqil Samples 11
Figure 4 • Surface Water, Sediment, and Macroinvertebrate Sampling Locations ... 18
Figure 5 - Location of Monitoring Wells 21
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX B. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Bell Landfill Superfund Site
Terry Township
Bradford County, Pennsylvania September 30,1994
I. INTRODUCTION
The Bell Landfill Superfund Site (the "Site") is located in Terry Township, nine miles
southeast of the town of Towanda, in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. The Site consists of
approximately 33 acres of land situated in a rural, sparsely inhabited area. It is accessible
via Parker Road, a township road located between the villages of New Era and Evergreen.
The location of the Site is shown on Figure 1. ;
The Site is approximately rectangular in shape with its long axis oriented north-south.
Parker Road runs along the southern boundary of the Site, while the northern boundary is
an open cornfield. The eastern and western boundaries of the Site are two parallel
tributaries to Sugar Run (a creek). There is a small pond at the southeastern comer of the
. Site. To restrict entry, the Site is surrounded by a seven and a half foot high woven chain
link fence.
Most of the Site is situated on the southern flank of a low hill that is partly forested.
Two fill areas are covered with tall grass, and are flanked from the north by sparsely
vegetated borrow areas. From the access road the Site appears similar to the surrounding
woods and pastures. Land use in the area surrounding the Site is primarily agricultural and
residential. The population in the area is sparse. There are approximately 99 residents
living within a one mile radius of the Site.
Three siqall emergent wetlands are located within the Site boundaries. One is found
at the monitoring pond located south of the lined area. The other two are located within
depressions n^rth of the fill areas that appear to be an old borrow area. There is also one
small forested wetland on the southeastern corner of the site that resulted from a seep near
the unlined landfill leachate collection pit.
\
There are no threatened or endangered species presently known to be indigenous to
the area of the Site. There are no wildlife refuges, state forests or state game lands located
on the Site. The abundance of sparsely populated areas, mostly woods and pastures, around
the Site, however, creates a good game habitat
-------
*
s
N)
Figure 1
Site Location
n
Towanda, Pennsylvania
/ i \ n . ir •
Scale In Feel \§^
Souico. U.S.G.S. Topographic Quttkangl** Coltoy.
^•O^ -~N.':<:-^. — -x \w
Monioaion. and Dushw• PA.'
-------
II. HISTORY OF WASTE DISPOSAL
Aerial photographs taken in the 1950's reveal that the north-central portion of the
Site appeared to be heavily wooded and the southeastern portion of the site was mostly
pasture or grazing land. The photographs also show plowed fields adjacent to the north,
east, and west boundaries.
In 1967, Terry Township leased the property from Wayne and Walter Gowin and
began to dispose of household garbage at the Site. This action was taken in response to
residents' requests for a centralized place to dispose of refuse and garbage. The township
operated the open dump for municipal trash until 1969. At that time the township, unable
to meet Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources ("PADER") sanitary disposal
requirements, ceased its activities.
In August 1973, Herbert Bell leased the Site property from the Gowins and began
operating a dump. On March 14,1975, Mr. Bell purchased thirty-three (33) acres of the
Gowin property, including the 10 acres previously leased from the Gowins in August, 1973.
Mr. Bell began disposing waste on the Site in an area of approximately 3 acres in the
southeastern portion of the Site. This area, shown as the "unlined fill area" on Figure 2, was
operated as an unpermitted landfill from 1973 to 1975. On September 5, 1975, PADER
issued a solid waste permit for the unlined fill area for the disposal of primarily municipal
waste. Waste disposal continued in this area until 1978 when PADER issued an order to
cease operations in the unlined fill area.
In the same year, Mr. Bell obtained PADER's approval to construct a lined landfill
celL This part of the Site is referred to on Figure 2 as the lined fill area". As part of the
permit for the lined area, Mr. Bell was required to close the unlined fill area and install a
leachate collection system. He capped the unlined fill area with a thin layer of native soil
and constructed a drain leading to an eastern collection tank.
The lined fill area was constructed in 1978 and operated until August, 1981. This
landfill cell was constructed by partial excavation of the land surface, compacting this new
sub-grade, and lining the sub-grade with an asphalt stabilized base. An excavated trench
with a Poly Vinyl Chloride ("PVC") pipe was placed at the low end of the liner to collect
leachate. This, collection pipe was connected to the western leachate collection tank.
Another PVC pipe was placed beneath the cell liner to monitor leachate leakage. This
monitoring pipe drains to a monitoring pond downgradient of the lined fill area. The
landfill was permitted and used for the disposal of municipal waste as well as non-
hazardous, industrial, residual waste. In addition, the landfill was approved and used for the
disposal of industrial wastewater treatment plant sludge.
-------
Figure 2
Site Layout
Bell Landfill
Towanda, Pennsylvania
— • Property (Jnt
Dirt Access Rood
Fence Line (Approximate Location)
LoteroJ Extent of Fill Areas
Laacnatt Collection Drain (Approximate Location)
Leachate Collection Tank and Overflow
(Approximate' Location)
DC- 1
• Existing Monitoring Well
Approximate Extent of Debris Area
Approximate extent of Drum Area
Scale in feet
TMt
CROUP
C04ax.9e oi/u.ir «t-
-------
The owner/operator of the landfill, Herbert M. Bell, died on October 6,1980. Mr.
Bell died intestate and his wife, Olivia M. Bell, was named Administrator of bis estate and
kept the landfill open after his death until instructed by PADER to initiate closure of the
landfill in 1981. In August, 1981 PADER issued closure and post closure procedures which
were to be followed at the site due to improper i?pdfill operation and numerous permit
violations for improper cover material and inadequate maintenance of the leachate
collection tanks. As part of closure, the owner/operator capped the disposal area with
native soiL No known waste disposal has occurred subsequent to closing the lined landfill
in 1981.
Currently, there are several leachate seeps that originate from both the unlined and
lined waste disposal areas. Brown and orange seeps have stained the soil and appear to
have weakened vegetation. In addition, there are several seeps connected with the leachate
collection system:
• Leachate from the unlined fill area overflows onto the ground from the leachate
collection drain line upgradient of the eastern leachate collection tank.
• Leachate from the lined fill area overflows from the western collection tank.
• The monitoring pond, located in the vicinity of the lined fill area emits a foul odor
(similar to leachate in the lined area) and overflows at the southwest comer of the
Site.
III. RESPONSE ACTIONS ^Y EPA AND PADER
Contaminant releases related to the Site were initially identified in November, 1979
after nearby residents complained of leachate running off the site into nearby surface water.
This resulted in an initial inspection and sampling of the Site by EPA in February and May
of 1980. During an inspection on July 30,1980, a PADER official discovered approximately
fifty (SO) drums, approximately half of them filled with unidentified chemicals. The drums
were determined to have come from GTE-Sylvania (currently known as Osram Sylvania,
Inc.). Upon information and belief, GTE-Sylvania is thought to have made arrangements
to have these drums packaged and removed from the Site.
In 1984, EPA and PADER began a Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
("PA/SI") including laboratory analysis of leachate and residential well water samples. In
September 1986, EPA completed the PA/SI of the Site. Following further site investigation
and additional related studies, EPA proposed the Site for inclusion on'the National Priorities
List ("NPL)' of Superfund sites on June 16, 1988. After a public comment period, EPA
placed the Site on the NPL on October 4,1989,54 Fed. Reg. 401015.
-------
On February 11, 1991, EPA and three Settling Companies ("SCx*), EJ. DuPont
deNemours & Company ("DuPonf), GTE-Syrvania Corporation ("GTE"), and Masonite
Corporation ("Masonite") entered into ^Administrative Order by Consent fAGC"). The SCs
agreed in the Order to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study CRI/FS"), with EPA
and PADER oversight, of the entire Site in accordance with the applicable provisions of
CERCLA.
To streamline the RI/FS process and prioritize leachate discharges, EPA divided the
Ske into two Operable Units ("OUs") known as OU-1 and OU-2. OU-1 comprised the two
£01 areas and their associated leachate collection drains and tanks. OU-2 addressed the rest
of the Site. The RI/FS Work Plan for OU-1 was approved on Jury 30,1992 and the RI/FS
Work Plan for OU-2 was approved on August 18,1992.
The RI field work started in September 1992. In November 1992 sampling for both
Operable Units was almost entirely completed Because the draft RI/FS Report for OU-1
(December 1992) dealt with the major environmental issues associated with the Site
(leachate management and closure), and because field activities for OU-2 were proceeding
ahead of schedule, both EPA and the SCs agreed to re-combine the Site into a single
operable unit and produce a single Risk Assessment CRA")* Feasibility Study ("FS"), and
Record of Decision ("ROD") for the entire Site. \
The SCs submitted the results of the OU-2 investigation as the RI Report Addendum
One ("Addendum") on March 19, 1993. EPA approved both the RI Report and the
Addendum on December 16,1993. Following this study, EPA completed the site-specific
. Human Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") and the Ecological Risk Assessment ("ERA").
The Feasibility Study was submitted on Jury 7,1994.
IV. PREVIOUS Sira IKVB8TIQATION8
She Identification by EPA: 1979 and 1980
After an initial site inspection, EPA suspected that a faulty leachate collection system
may have contaminated surface and ground waters at the Bell Landfill Site. A
Preliminary Assessment was performed in February and May, 1980. Sampling taken
during the Preliminary Assessment revealed the presence of both trichloroethane
(TCE) and cadmium in a farm pond, and cadmium in leachate. Sampling also
revealed the presence of cadmium in a home weB.
-------
• PADER's Drinking Water Evaluation in 1983
PADER tested eight (8) residential wells located downgradient of Bell
PADER found that manganese and iron levels were slightly above "the recommended
levels for public drinking water supplies". PADER noticed the degradation of surface
waters downgradient of the landfill
NUS Corporation in 1984
In December 1984 NUS Corporation conducted a site inspection for EPA. The
predominant compounds in leachate samples were methylene chloride, ketones, and
phenols. Pentachlorophenol, which was not present in the leachate samples, was
detected in residential wells. No Volatile Organic Compounds ("VOCs") or Semi-
Volatile Organic Compounds ("SVOCs") were detected in surface water samples.
Private residents in 1984
Eight (8) residents sent water samples to three selected laboratories to evaluate
contamination of water in their wells along with samples from a farm pond and
Messersmith Creek. The only compounds detected (at low ppb detection limits)
were: phenols, phenanthrene, phthalates, fluoroanthrene and pyrene. Inorganic
analysis revealed slightly elevated levels of iron and manganese in the drinking water.
PADER's Aquatic Biological Investigation in March 1985
Chemical and biological samples were collected from six (6) locations (five taken
from a stream and one from the farm pond). The observed chemical quality of the
stream samples was good. Aquatic life in the stream indicated good stream
conditions. Landfill leachate, however, reduced the oxygen concentration in Master's
pond and therefore accelerated eutrophic conditions of this habitat
NUS Corporation in 1989
NUS Corporation collected Target Compound List (TCL") samples from two
leachate seepages, one on-site wen, and four residential wells. The leachate samples
consisted of the mixture of ketones, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and aromatics typical
for municipal landfill*. The on-site well sample revealed the presence of VOCs. The
samples taken revealed that drinking water in the residential wells was within the
Safe Drinking Water Act standards, 42 US.C. § 300(h).
-------
V. REMEDIAL
The Bell landfill Settling Companies retained Environmental Resources
Management, Inc. ("ERM") to conduct the RI pursuant to the Administrative Order by
Consent entered into between EPA and the SCs. The primary objective of the RI was to
collect the information necessary to select remediation for the Site. The RI included
information on the following: leachate, soil, groundwater, landfill gas sampling, geophysical
investigation, aquifer testing, residential well sampling, and an ecological survey.
»
LEACHATE INVESTIGATION
Leachate is a liquid that results from rain water collecting contaminants as it trickles
through wastes. This liquid may appear at the ground surface in the form of leachate seeps.
Leachate samples from seeps and collection tanks were analyzed. Leachate from the Site
contained a mixture of ketones, aromatics, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and heavy metals.
These contaminants are similar to leachate generated from typical domestic refuse.
Leachate analytical results from the lined and unlined areas are presented in Tables 1 and
2. Locations of leachate and surface soil samples are presented in Figure 3. Leachate from
the lined fill area was more concentrated and more acidic than from the unlined fill area.
However, the differences can be explained by the age and degree of decomposition of the
waste, and also by the presence of red sludge (industrial waste) in the lined fill area.
A geophysical investigation consisting of an electromagnetic conductivity survey was
conducted to characterize the lateral extent of both fill areas. Further investigations were
performed to locate the drain line, and to determine its extent and condition. Results of
the surveys enabled ERM to estimate the volume of refuse at 59,600 cubic yards for each
portion of the landfill; and the rate of leachate generation: 2.6 gallons per minute ("gpm")
from the lined area, and 3 gpm from the unlined area. The survey of the leachate collection
system included leachate drains and two tanks. The collection drain was uncovered and
marked, and the lateral extent of both fill areas were delineated.
LANDFILL GAS SURVEY
To evaluate explosion hazards caused by the decomposition of landfill wastes, ERM
performed monitoring for methane (a common landfill gas) and for total VOCs. Methane
and VOC concentrations were measured around the perimeter of each fill area. Only 7 out
of 18 sampling locations revealed concentrations above 1,000 ppm. The concentration above
which methane becomes explosive is 53;000 ppm. Therefore, there is not a current threat
of explosion from on-site gases at the Site.
I
-------
TABUt
11
•MO
110 J
f« 4
MOO 4
400 J
4*« .1
«M
1MO
2000
MOO
130 J
20000
1400
920
«M
3100
3*00
110 J
4.4--OCT
4.7
O.tO
1*300
10.0
1.0
lit
1.0
4.0
UIOO
ir.4
14.0
II.J
0.1
4400
9004)
0.1*
0.0
1*4
40*0
1.0
0.0
1000
S.O
1T.1
100
2.0
1.0
S4
1(00
00
04
1.0
1.10
S.O
140
14
10
0.0
o.t
4.0
1.0
5.70
1000
**0
*.»
0.30
1010
4*0
10.0 vi
291 J
10*000*
M.O W
2IM J
100 U
0*100*
0.4 •
11*00*
10.0 (U
**.* vu
130000*
10.0 Ul
110 J
2400 ^
0.* J
1.0
40M
O.M
110
10.0 U
10.0 J
220*
1.0 U
100 i
2ST i
1440 J
120
TMOOO
10.0
24400O
0.17
irio
100
21400*
J.O Ul
07.1 t
010000
10.0 Ul
11.1 J
too* t
1.M t
1.0 U
37M
00*
000* t
2*4*
200
t.t*
00
1*10*
04*0 J
2.0 U
10.0 U
11*
4.0 U
0.0*
1.0
1.0
4.0
0.00
-------
TABLES
10
-------
, 3
Location* el L««cli«U *nd
Surlic* SON
•••IM4M
:""-" (fat *ce«i *•*
m
U-l O
U-l •
ItM)
MU-I A $01 Cntt
•» Prwi «n*
-------
SOIL CONTAMINATION
To characterize the surface soil contamination and determine background levels, ERM
collected samples from areas impacted by leachate seeps, along the leachate flow paths, and
from the areas where crushed debris were found. Samples were also taken from the points
where leachate overflowed onto the ground surface from the leachate collection tanks.
Background surface soil sample BGSS-1 was collected from a wooded area near the
northern fence line. Sample results are presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. Locations of
leachate and surface soil samples are presented in Figure 3. As anticipated, samples
collected close to the leachate seeps contained many of the same constituents found in the
leachate. Samples collected further from leachate seeps had lower VOC concentrations.
Concentration of VOCs decreased as the distance from the leachate seeps increased.
However, the concentration of metals, which were elevated above background in areas
impacted by leachate seeps, did not decrease with distance.
Two areas where crushed drums ("drum area") and bulldozed debris ("debris area")
indicated different soil contamination patterns were investigated. Samples from these areas
revealed elevated levels of metals, PAHs, and the presence of DDT.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
EPA has established several class types for groundwater aquifers using the following
criteria:
Aquifer Type
Class I
Special Grooiidwattr
Class HA
Class Iffi
Class m
Classification Criteria *
Highly vulnerable ground water that is irreplaceable with no
alternative source of drinking water available to substantial
populations.
Groundwater Currently used.
Groundwater that could Potentially be used.
Groundwater not a potential source of drinking water because
of quality.
EPA has classified the affected, aquifer at the Bell Landfill Site as a Class HA
aquifer, a current source of drinking water, in accordance with the EPA document
"Guidelines for Groundwater Classification" (Final Draft, December 1986).
12
-------
TABLES
UNUNOMU.AMA
(*•
M.PfNWn.VAMA
M no/Kg
Velttlle Oratrrte ComoouRds
ACM on*
Carton OtaUMe
t«a««uAAAM /*hl.MM^&
MeOTriene wnonov
2*8uf8Mn*
t.1.1 -TrienioreemtRe
Toluene
EUrftoenwo*
xytww (ton*)
Sen»l»ot»Hle Omnto Comeounds
Phenol
i mcnyipnenoi
NepMMeiw
TCL PeeUcWee/^CB* fnaAOl
ae«e-*MC
OleMM
4.4-.OOT
Aroetor-1242
TAL Mettle «* evert* (mo/tat
Aluminum
Anikimnf
ArscnJe
BATUMI
Beryllium
CaaMu*
CalchMt
Chromium
;OMN
Cooo«r
iron
UM
MegneMM
Menpnoe*
Mercury
Nickel
PotitiiMi»
SetentM
Silver
3mttum
rtidMvm
VtnMtum
Zlne
Cyend*
Tow OrgwM Ceroan (mo/Ko)
pM (lumen VMM
9/8/92 1
It B
2 j
3 B
* B
4 J
9 J
4 J
2*
290 J
480 J
270 J
180 B
73 J
0.71 J
73
8040
1.7 UJ
3.8 J
120
0.30
1X9
4840
29.2
94.4
17.9
30100
10.8
4300
3210
0.13
30.0
701
• 0.2* U
4.0
218
0.38 U
12.8
144 J
0.3* U
19000 J
8.82
-USSS.2
11 B
2 B
180 B
M)
11000
1.4 UJ
4.1 J
172
0.43
27.1
3330
23.2
44.1
33.0
39900
18.8 J
48*0
4830
0.23
33.0
1010
0.24 U
$.0
24*
0.47 U
17.1
144 J
0.2* U
12000 J
7.31
-UT88-1
9 B
1 8
2 B
1 J
2 J
7 J
to
1.1 J
*
119OO
1.4 UJ
4.2 J
121
0.42
O.S2 8
3100
10.0
22.0
21.8
22400
11.4 J
4310
2370
0.0*
2*.7
79*
0.29 U
3.0
1*0 9
0.30 U
18.0
74.9 J
0.31 U
4308
7.02
'?/?»*?
28 J
I 8
8 8
8 J
3 J
M J
to
0.90 J
9000
1.2 UJ
3.0 J
101
0.41
0.21 8
3140
17.0
13.4
18.4
19800
8.8 J
3830
2090
0.09 U
21.3 •
33*
0.2* J
2.3
t«3 8
0.44 U
12J
97.2 J
0.28 U
4000
7.1*
170
1 J
3 8
10 8
83 8
2.1 J
3*90
1.4 UJ
1.3 4
188
0.31
0.4* 8
18*00
21.4
34.2
2X4
43100
1X0
3720
10100
0.09
2*.2
1*1
0.20 UJ
3.7
29*
0.31 U
13.0
80.4 J
0.32 U
10000
8.92
19 8
4 8
• J
X>
0.7* J
12000
1.4 UJ
XI J
91.7
0.44
0.23 U
40* J
17.1
7.1 J
9.9
18400
III J
2380
1340 J
0.00
14.4
83*
0.24 U.
2J
84.* 8
0.4* U
17.0
8X* J
0.30 U
21000
4.*
-------
TA8U4
SUHMCt SQf. AJMtmeaj. MSUtlS
(A* mcuM am raportod in no/Kg —1U
veiotM Orq*nM' Compound*
Action*
CtiMn OteuriU*
MMftyMn* attend*
1 . 1 -Olcftloraatnafl*
2-Butanon*
i.t.t.Trlcnioreotnan*
Banian*
Trteliuroetnan*
4-M*lhyt'2.**ntan*n*
Toluon*
2-Haanan*
EthyWonson*
Xylon* (total)
SMMWMJI* Oroaxto ComeoundB
Phone*
2>Nltrepnonal
4.NttrepnoiM4
N-Nlt
0.79 J
12900
1.4 UJ
3.1 J
91.7
0.44
043 U
469 J
17.1
74 J
9.6
16400
12.5 J
2580
1340 J
0.00
14.4
630
044 UJ
24
44.4 B
0.46 U
17.0
6X6 J
0.3 U
21000
4.0
14
-------
TABLES
(AB mutt M»
•8U.LANWU.
TDWAMM.rtNWn.VMU
la 1191X9 uM*M ornfuiu
MoUtur. COMMA (%>
Voiitfte Ormnte eoiraountf*
Ac»»n«
Motnyion* Craorid*
1 1 1 •TriCftlQf OOttlAflt"
SwntoelMH* OrmnM Camoovndt
NMMMMM .
Fkioren*
ffuomntMm
Pyrnn*
8«nio(a}anwac«fl*
cnry**"*
ai»(2-8OTyHi»»»»)P»>ii«»«»
BMlSQ(4%/pyT9MO
TCL pmtieMMf»c** rua/Mt
Alarm
Ololdrt*
4.4'OOT
TAL yn*i wttf CvanM* <•»**•»
AlUffllfmM
AnMmony
Araanw
a«fhim
B«ry(llum
SMttMWN
CaldttM
CJwomtum
Cob«»
Copper
Iron
LMd
HipranliMn
MangHMM
Mtfcwy
NttkM
Pa(M*lu«
S444MWII
3iN«f
SodhM
TKttttuM
VanMMMi
Zinc
Cy«**
yZSZSF***
OP3S-1
9/9/92
28
20 8
9 a
00 J
Ml
4
73 J
110 J
88 J
78 J
130 8
f AJk i
• «w J
S4 J
0.88 J
0.83 J
4.3 J
12100
1.7 UJ
10.8 J
130
. 0.41
0.28 U
3400 J
34.2
24.0 J
01.4
28200
7840 J
3400
888 J
2,4
43.8
1030
0.37 UJ
4.0
121 0
O.S4 U
23.2
182 J
0.34 U
27000
7.30
to a
2 a
180 J
S4 J
210 J
SI J
01 J
110 J
500 a
t.2 J
1.S J
Ml
J
11700
1.4 UJ
2.0 J
1320
0.24 U
* 0.24 U
18800 J
30.1
110 J
28.1
24400
203 J
2830
1230 J
0.08
10.7
070
0.22 UJ
3.T
i7s a
0.48 U
18.4
170 J
0.3 U
20000
7.SS
19 8
4 a
to
0.70 J
12000
1.4 UJ
3.1 J
01.7
0.44
0.23 U
40S J
17.1
7.0 J
9.0
18400
12J J
2S80
1340 J
0.00
14.4
830
0.24 UJ
24
04.0 a
0.48 U
17.0
03.0 J
0.3 U
21000
4.8
15
-------
TABLE 6
SUflPAC* SOL ANALYTICAL RISW.7S
SELLLANOmU.
TOWANOA. PENNSYLVANIA
(All raaulta ar* roportad in pg/Ka. unltta athandM mtficand.)
Moitture Content (%)
Volatile Oraanie Compound*
Action*
Mothylone Chloride
1,1,1'Triehloroalhan*
Semivalatli* Organic Compounds
8lt(2-Elhyihe*yi)phtnel«e •
TCL T>««Ueld««/PC8* (uo/kO>
4,4'-OOT
TAL Mettle and CvanM* (me/ka>
Aluminum
Antimony
Aritnie
atrium
aeryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
iron
Lead
Mtgnettum
Mangantte
Mercury
Nickel
Potatalum
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total Organic Cartoon (mo/Kg)
pH (standard untta)
12 a
2 8
3 J
150 B
3.0 J
8820
1.4 UJ
3.0 J
87.2
0.53
3.4
2660
17.0
11.4
11.4
14400
9.4 J
4060
623
0.87
21.9 B
861
0.24 U
1.9
71.7 8
0.48 U
12.2
80.3 J
0.30 U
16000 J
8.9*
OASS.2
47213
9/8/92
13
2 a
3 J
82 8
1.4 J
12700
1.3 UJ
3.0 J
ISO
0.50
0.82 8
1880
15.9
9.8
10.4
16200
13.0 J
2870
3130
0.14
18.4 B
728
0.22 U
2.3
82.0 8
0.44 U
15.7
88.9 J
0.28 U
18000 J
8.68
17
19 a
4 8
8 J
to
0.79 J
12900
1.4 UJ
XI J
91.7
0.44
0.23 U
468 J
17.1
7.8 J
9.8
16400
12.5 J
2580
1340 J
0.08
14.4
638
0.24 UJ
2.2
64.6 8
0.48 U
17.0
63.9 J
0.3 U
21000
4.8
16
-------
Six (6) bedrock monitoring wells were installed to evaluate ground water quality and
to provide information on the site-specific geology. Information from well logs indicated
that the Site is underlined by alternating beds of sandstones, siltstones, and shales. The site
hydrology is characterized by groundwater flow within limited water-bearing fractures
resulting in low yielding wells. Two of these monitoring wells were used to perform a slug
test. This test is used to characterize hydraulic properties of the aquifer in the vicinity of
the landfill. The test showed low hydraulic conductivity, and confirmed the existence of a
low-yielding bedrock aquifer. The northern portion of the Site serves as a ground water
recharge area. The eastern tributary serves as a main ground water discharge point There
is also a smaller component of ground water flow discharging to the western tributary.
These conditions cause the majority of groundwater to flow from northwest to southeast, and
a smaller portion of groundwater to flow from north to northeast
Locations of the on-site monitoring wells are presented in Figure 4. Groundwater
analytical results are presented in Tables 7 and 8.
Samples from wells located downgradient of the unlined fill area revealed above
background concentrations of VOCs, primarily chlorinated hydrocarbons (5 ppb of vinyl
chloride, 8 ppb of perchloroethylene ("PCE"), 32 ppb of TCE), and minor amounts of
aromatics and one ketone. The concentrations of metals were within the drinking water
standards; however, there were some trace amounts of arsenic and elevated concentrations
of calcium, magnesium and manganese. No pesticides or PCBs were detected.
Five (5) residential wells were sampled. Samples from two of these wells revealed
levels of manganese elevated above background. One well was found to have above-
background levels of arsenic, and another well contained .both arsenic and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. However, there is no evidence that the residential water
contaminants are site-related, especially since iron, an indicator of leachate contamination,
was not elevated above background in four of the five sampled wells. As with the samples
of wells located downgradient of the unlined fill area, no pesticides or PCBs were detected
in the residential wells.
STREAM SURVEY RESULTS
Surface water and sediment samples were collected from eight (8) sampling points,
called "stations". Seven stations were located along the western and eastern tributaries; one
station was located at the farm pond. Surface water, sediment and macroinvertebrate
sampling locations are presented in Figure 5. Surface water analytical results are presented
in Tables 9 and 10.
17
-------
00
••fi
r
Figure 4
Surface Water, Sediment,
Macrolnvertebrate Sampling L
Bell Landfill
ueii Lanami
Towanda, Pennsylvania
' .'fi'.r- n
... and
Locations
A>-
x»i
,^
•V.
V.
T^ -'f,.
W««!«m
"Tiibuuiy
"^•^ * »
(•Hull
w5
w m
EacUrn
TftMlUiy
^ v^;
fBUUU$
Pbnd,
I33J
-S
^
K
fe
^_.
P^
:X/
-i»oo-
rv.
^
(
*~;
W
r/
^
Sla.2
I:
I6U.3
--^
\
/^?^
/.
L
^
*• i
//
r«A.
v^;
\ \
•\\
~\
SU.7
\
i—-'too'.
•Bv.«
I
t*&
tr
/«.
rv:
^
/ff
-X^
1000 2000
^••••••J r ^ ,
Seal* In Fart \>. ^^^S^^^T^r:
Sooic*: U.S.O.S. Tofiogiaphic QuwkangU* Coltoy. Wyaluslng. Monioclon.
•*».
kv
^ N III?
•nd Oushof • PA.
?T.
-------
TABLE?
(MOUND WAI M.vncM.MMM.1*
(All
co
ItlUVfe HMkM
DM. C.M..1.4
ftiMII Moon Nu«b«f
L.M4M*n Nwikir
VM|I CMMIM
A444MM
14-0 'MM****** |l*44|
1 tuiinini
tiliHiinHiini
•MMM
«-W4W|4-a-P*M*»«M
rMT44M4M44MA*
l44tt*4>
MM* I**
ll.htltlHl OfMHf* CMMMM*
4M.W...I
r«.iM«>»i:f<
MI IM
M>
M>
a.i
72.4 •
4t2M
taat
IM
IIM i
MM) •
4*1 |
MW-1
4447I
t 4
1* U
a* . u
u
a*
i t
a j
i j
a 4
2 4
Ml
44
a** •
41*4)41
*.4
aai »
1*2*
«4
i*;* i
*2«
a»; e
MW-r
l»4»4
1
ia
21
J.4
IM
m
H.I
UW-4
ll»4<»2
44144
UM4II
10 U
4 t
to
to
ia»
».i
211 •
414**
4*
U* •
?4M
444
144* I
MM •
14* •
MW1
IU*/*2
4444*
10 U
II U
1 J
M>
M>
1*20
ia.i
U4 •
114*9
II.*
• 4
21* •
. 44*
n •
4>»4» 1
1.*
*t«l»
14*
12.4 B
MVX-4
II/4/4J
444(4
11*1412
1* (/
(• U
i;
It U
u
t t
» t
ia
i t
to
to
ia>*
i.»
a** •
44M4)
• 4
II**
4244
122
MIO t
I»4M
a.* •
214 •
MW-4'
JlllfO
tost*
a
i*
2*
».*
NA
NA
?.a
aUMJHMCOMk
t • TIM MM« M • 4]millll«IK» MUMI*
I • TIM MM* it I kUM* IM 4>I1K«II»»»
U • IM* M*%M to MI tttftltt Th» w«e
• • Tkh M4Uk it »iiKn»«»; iwtM «M4
NA
km IM Mw
in • MM* M • wmUi C4*c4»u*iiM.
Th»
nu
w F44MUMV I*M k>*BM«t »•
-------
TABLES
fteaoMTUi. OMUMO WATO ANALYTICAL MOULTS
i art npoflM to uoA. untoaa omrwiaa
VeiitM Oreante Compound*
Acaiona
Carton OUulflda
MamyMna CWortda
tiana-U-OloMofoatnana
2-8utanon*
i.t.i-TiUihMPwnanv
ToHjana
CMoraoanzan*
Xylana (total)
Compounds
S*f*vol*tlto Oroante Compounds
aWa^WMM
d«nWMCampmMd!iy
TAL Matala and Cvanlda
Anarte
Barium
Calcium
Coppar
Iran
Laad
Magnaaium
Manganaaa
Matojiy
Nidtat
Potuiium
Sodhjoi
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanida
MtaeaManaoua Panmatan
TotaJ Suapandad Soldi (mgH)
Total Olsaoivad Souaa (mgrtj
5.0 U
NO
NO
NO
95.8
37700
27.7 8
738
4930
314
743 8
4990
34 B
7.8 B
NO
NO
130
2.0 U
•
NO
21
NO
14
213
35200
17.4 B
374 8
4730
94 8
971 B
aeao
4.1 B
NO
NO
130
5.0 U
24 U
NO
5.0 U
NO
is
93.9
38100
10.8 B
8.0 B
2.4 B
5210
1110 a
14000
3.4 3
5.8 a
NO
NO
130
14
NO
NO
NO
934
38000
734 8
224 B
3580
o.ia a
1800
10700
124 8
NO
NO
140
5.0 U
NO
NO
NO
37J
28700
9.7 3
3410
54.0
0.18 a
1400 a
4200
NO
NO
90
QUAUMNCQOUl
J-TWaiaauHlaa
numbar raportad ia ttw wanKHlan to* fcr Ma anatyw.
tar analytaa «Meft wan not
20
-------
K)
Figure 5
Location ol Monltoilna W«H«
Pwvwylvante
• • ftnc* Un«
U-1 • ClMiP«
MV-1 •
«M (InMM IH2)
Onim
(•4HIKI/W l
-------
TABLE 9
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
BcHUmNM
(AH conc«nliMk>n» •>• reported In pgA. untow olh
ro
ro
i>mpl« LocHtoo
IBM TnHtc H«port Numb*
OiUofColUcUon
VoUUI* Of Mnlc Compound*
MrtiytorwCttoiid*
SwnlvoWU* Of Mnlc Compounds
Bk(2-MhyM«y*)P>iMtoM
TCLPMllcMMfPCB*
MMhoiydtof
TAL ktaUl* and Cymlito f Mil)
Akmtouni
Antimony
AfMnte
Bwlum
2*ldufli
Km
UMl
MagnMium
Pabulum
Sodum
TtaMum
Zinc
"*"**' JK! 6
TouiSmiMndMlSoMt
fTliHHnotrtd BflfrH
rauiHMdrMM
CtM«*c* Oxygwt Dwrnnd
Btotoojctl OiyQtn OwMnd
TdWOfMnlcCtAoA
sw-t
47790
9/15/92
NO
NO
NO
63 B
26.0
21600
21.4 B
3300
1.4 J
1170
3000
NO
64
NO
100
71
NO
NO
1.2
SW-2
47800
9/14/92
NO
NO
NO
29.4
22600
3690
3.0 J
1230 '
4570
14 B
NO
64
NO
100
74
NO
NO
U
SW-3
47801
9/14/82
NO
NO
NO
30.6
20000
3520
2.6 J
1440
6140
2.0 B
NO
52
NO
140
67
NO
3.0
1.3
SW-4
47802
8/15/92
3 J
NO
NO
260 B
141 B
27.7
16000
1300 J
1.0 B
2030
366 J
732
2120
2.6 B
7.0
NO
52
to
70
56
NO
NO
1*
6W-5
47803
0/15/92
NO
NO
•
NO
29.9
16500
156 J
1960
154 J
. 1210
2740
2.5 B
NO
52
NO
70
69
• NO
NO
4.6
SW-6
47804
9/15/92
1 NO
NO
NO
33.0
20600
208 J
2400
130 J
2120
183000
4.6 B
NO
59
NO
60
65
NO
NO
46
SW-7
47606
8M4/92
NO
1 J
NO
9.0
31.2
16600
2640
4.6 J
1660
3990
NO
49
NO
60
60
NO
NO
1.7
SW-8
47806
9/16/92
NO
NO
0.040 J
1.3
50.6
23700
562 J
4030
796 J
834
14700
4.7 B
6.5
NO
63
NO
130
82
NO
NO
7.2
aUAUFKRCOOCS:
J • TM« f Mud to • qH*nHtatty« •slbrato.
U-TNtwMlyMtaiMidMMttd. Tt* MtocUlM numt*< uportad |» lh> qmnBUUoo Urn* tot ihto xulytr
B • TN» MtuM to qumwiMly biMlU Hoc* Me wwlyto wu dMctod ki • bbnk H • rtrttorooncwurttaa
NO-NoitfMCMd.
UJ • Tlito dM*c«an NmlWiuMMIlalkm ln« itKHM b« con^
NoU:
-------
TABLE 10
Surface Water and Sediment Field Parameter flaeulla
Bell Landfill
Towanda, Panruylvanla
ro
CO
Station Number
SlaUon Location:
Data:
Surtaca Walar Collection Tlma:
Sadlmanl CoUacUoo Tlma:
Walar Quality ParamtUra
Temperature (*C)
OUtotved Oxygen (rooA|
Conductivity (umhot)
pH (Sundaid Unite)
EMmV)
Water Color
Odor
S«dlm*nl Field Paramatara
oH (Standard UrUUl
EhlmV)
1
Backgiound
Watl Tributary
0/16/02
1020AM
10:40 AM
12
9.8
130
5.62
NA
Claar
Nona
5.7
NA
2
Adjacent lo SMa
Waal Tcibulaiy
9/14/92
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
12.5
8.6
152
8.20
«30
Claar
Nona
6.02
«20
3
Oownslraam of Slia
Waal Tributary
9/14/92
2:55 PM
3:10 PM
13
5.6
300
6.00
410
Claar
Nona
6.03
4200
4
Background
Eau Tributary
9/15/92
4:00 PM
4:16 PM
15
6.6
101
6.27
NA
Claar
Nona
627
NA
S
Adjacam lo Slla
East Tributary
9/15/92
1:55 PM
2iSPM
16.5
6
119
6.16
NA
Claar
Nona
6.02
NA
! B
Downsliaam ol Site
East Tributary
9/15/92
12:16 PM
12:20 PM
15
6.8
130
6.03
NA
Claar
Nona
6.16
NA
7
ConHuanca ol Waal
and Eaal Trio*.
9/14/92
1:02 PM
1:30 PM
12.5
9.6
109
5.79
4100
Claar
Nona
6.12
•60
d'
Farm Pond
9/16/92
1:15 PM
2:16 PM
14 (20)
3.75 (6.7)
219
6.76
NA
Yallow Tint
Nona
6.56
NA
NA: Not analyiad dua to malar malfunction
* Tha paiamalaia lor lha pond aaaifrfa wara takan at • daptti ol 4.6 laai.
Tha maaxuramanla wtirUn lha 0 *"•'• talian at Mia water aurfaca.
-------
Some of these samples, especially those from the pond, indicated lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations causing some acceleration of eutrophic conditions of this pond. This
could be related to leachate discharges. The results of the surface water analyses indicate
that site-related contaminants had no impact upon the surface water. Methylene chloride
was the only VOC compound present in the samples and it was detected only once.
Similarly, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was the only detected SVOC, and methoxychlor the only
pesticide. Each of these were detected at only one station (sampling point). Of the six
metals detected, the difference between upstream and downstream stations, except for
sodium, was within one order of magnitude. Therefore, the observed water quality of
streams did not appear to be impacted by the Site.
Additional contaminants were detected in the sediment samples: five VOCs (including
carbon disulfide and methylene chloride), six SVOCs (including pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, fluoranthene, and phthalates), three pesticides, and twenty metals.
All of the sample concentrations were within an order of magnitude of each other, and the
samples from the farm pond indicated the highest concentrations.
ECOLOGICAL SURVEY \
Living organisms inhabiting the tributaries and pond indicate water contamination
which is similar to the laboratory analytical data. Some of these organisms
(macroinvertebrates), present diversity and abundance levels proportional to the cleanliness
of the water. At the Bell Landfill Site macroinvertebrate were surveyed at six (6) stations.
Five of the stations indicated excellent water quality. One station (downstream of the farm
pond) indicated good water quality.
An on-site habitat survey identified five major habitat cover types. The predominant
cover type, covering approximately 60 to 70 percent of the Site was a "successional old field".
It is a typical secondary vegetation, characteristic for ecologically disturbed areas, such as
landfills and borrow areas. The information on the Site habitats will be used to ensure
appropriate ecological restoration methods during the remedial design. No threatened or
endangered species are present or use the Site.
VI. SUMMARY Of BITE RISKS
Two Risk Assessment studies were prepared as part of the Remedial Investigation.
The studies identified existing and future risks, assuming that conditions of the site do not
change. The Human Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") evaluated human health risks while
the Ecological Risk Assessment ("ERA") evaluated environmental impacts at the Site.
24
-------
The HRA and ERA are used by EPA to evaluate the need for remedial action. These risk
assessments help determine the levels to which site contamination must be reduced to
ensure future protection of human health and the environment Both assessments are based
on the assumption that exposure to Site contaminants can occur only if a complete exposure
pathway exists. The exposure pathway consists of the following elements:
• a chemical source (contaminants);
• a medium (such as water, soil, air) through which contaminants can be transported;
• a point of contact with contaminants (exposure point); and
• a route of exposure (such as ingestion, inhalation, or dermal (skin) contact at the
exposure point).
The Human Health Risk Assessment
Contaminants of concern ("COC") evaluated during the process of the HRA and
determined to be relevant to this site are presented in Table 11. Potential risks for human
health are identified by calculating the risk level for carcinogenic chemicals and the hazard
index for noncarcinogenic chemicals.
Potential increased cancer risk is identified by the risk level. The concept of risk level
can be explained as follows: if we assume that approximately 25 percent (25%) of
population deaths were caused by cancer, in a population of one million, 250,000 people (or
25% of the population) would die of cancer. If this population was impacted by a superfund
site with a cancer risk caused by a specific contaminant calculated as 1.0 x 10"*, then, 250,001
people might die, and this one death above a "statistical" 250,000 level could be attributed
to the site . If the risk was 1.0 x 10~* the amount of people who die (still using the
population number of one million) might be 250,100. An additional one hundred people
above the 250,000 level The EPA Target Risk Range for lifetime cancer risk for a
superfund site is between 1.0 x 10"* and 1.0 x 10"*. Remedial action is generally warranted
at a superfund site when the calculated carcinogenic risk level exceeds 1.0 x 10~*.
The Hazard Index ("HI") identifies the potential for the most sensitive individuals to
be adversely affected by noncarcinogenic chemicals. If the HI exceeds one (1.0), there can
be concern for potential noncarcinogenic effects. As a rule, the greater the value of the
hazard index above 1.0, the greater the level of concern.
Potentially exposed populations under current use scenarios include child trespassers,
adult hunters, and residents who use private wells. The current use scenario assumes that
the use of the Site would not change. The future use scenario considered residential and
commercial use of the Site by residents and workers.
25
-------
TABLE 11
Contaminants of Concern
Bell Landfill Site
Towanda, Pennsylvania
Leachate
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Manganese
Molbydenum '
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Heptachlor Epoxlde
4-Methylphenol
delta-BHC
>, ; v. » ..
Surface Soil
'>
Arsenic
Jarium
terylllum
Cadmium
Chromium
.ead
Manganese
Mercury
Benzo(a)pyrene
Groundwater
«Mo:n|prjna)v\fe!fs)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Jarium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
.ead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
retrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Groundvyater
(Rwidentiaiyyells) -='.
Arsenic
Manganese
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
i
. Surface VVater
Manganese
•;
Se(ljrnent
Manganese
-------
A Risk Characterization . Current
Exposure routes include ingestion and/or dermal contact with leachate, ingestion of
soil, inhalation of dust, ingestion of water from private wells, ingestion and/or dermal
contact with surface water, and ingestion and/or dermal contact with sediment Estimated
risks associated with these exposure routes are summarized in Table 12 and discussed
separately below.
The highest total carcinogenic risk to child trespassers is 5.0 x 10"*, and for adult
hunters it is 2.0 x 10"5. Methylene chloride (a probable human carcinogen) and vinyl
chloride (a known human carcinogen) are the main contributors to the carcinogenic
risk. The risk for child trespassers is slightly above the EPA Target Risk Range for
lifetime cancer risk of 1.0 x 10"* to 1.0 x 10"*. Noncancer effects, caused
predominantly by manganese, are highest for child trespassers (HI 22), and adult
hunters (HI 1.2) ingesting leachate either through water or eating the meat of killed
game. <
Surface Soil Ingestion
Both the HI and total carcinogenic risk indices do not indicate increased risk
levels.
Inhalation of Dust
Both the HI and total carcinogenic risk indices do not indicate increased risk levels.
Groundwater Ingestion (Residential Wells
The highest total carcinogenic risk is 5.0 x 10*. This risk is for exposure of adults to
residential well groundwater in a residential use scenario. Arsenic is the main
contributor to the cancer risk. This risk level is within the EPA Target Risk Range
for lifetime cancer risk of 1.0 x 10"* to 1.0 x 10"*. The HI does not indicate increased
risk levels.
Groundwater Dermal Absorption
The HI and total increased carcinogenic risk indices indicate that no potential
adverse health impacts of significance are expected due to the exposure of receptors
to Site related contaminants by these pathways.
27
-------
TABLE 12
Summary ol Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Exposure Route
Current Use Scenario
Bell Landfill Site
Adult Hunter
Child Trespasser
5E-06
5E-06
6E-07
3E-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
1E-OS
.nadvertent Ingestlon of Leachate
Dermal Absorption of Leachata
nadvertent Ingastlon of Soil
nhalatton of Dust
.nadvertent Ingestlon of Surface Water
Dermal Absorption of Surface Water
nadvertent Ingestlon of Sediment
bermal.Absorptlon of Sediment
(Total Current RIs
Lifetime Resident
(6-Vr + 24ryrl
30-yr Adult Resident
24-yr Adult Resident
Child Resident
Exposure
Route
n of Groundwater
ton of Qroundwater
pormalAbso
Jon of Groundwater
Dermal Absq
ngosuon 01 uroun
bermal Absorption of Groundwater
otal Currant RIs
HI Hazard Index
NA Not Applicable
-------
Surface Water Ingestinn and AhsnTptinn
The HI and total increased carcinogenic risk indices indicate that no potential
adverse health impacts of significance are expected due to the exposure of receptors
to Site related contaminants by this pathway.
Sediment Ingestion and Absorption
Both the HI and total carcinogenic risk indices do not indicate increased risk levels.
B. Risk Characterization • Future Use
The future risk scenario evaluates the development of water supply wells for domestic
and/or commercial use within the area of an identified contaminant plume. The exposure
routes are the same as those identified in the current use scenario with the addition of
inhalation of VOCs released from groundwater while showering. Estimated risks associated
with these exposure routes are summarized in Table 13 and discussed separately below.
Leachate Ingestion and Absorption
The highest total carcinogenic risk is for child residents ingesting leachate. This risk
is 3.0 x 10*5, and it is mainly caused by methylene chloride. This calculated risk is
within the EPA Target Risk Range of 1.0 x 10"* to 1.0 x 10"*. The highest ffl of 22
is for child residents ingesting leachate. Manganese is the main contributor to the
noncancer risk.
Surface Soil Ingestion
The highest total carcinogenic risk of 2.0 x 10* is for child residents, this risk is
mostly caused by arsenic. This calculated risk level is within the EPA Target Risk
Range of 1.0 x 10* to 1.0 x KT*. The highest ffl of 5.0 is for child residents.
Cadmium is the main contributor to the noncancer risk.
Inhalation of Dust
Both the HI and total carcinogenic risk indices do not indicate increased risk levels.
29
-------
TABLE 13
Summary ol Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Exposure Route
Future Use Scenario
Bell Landfill Site
Adult Worker
Lifetime Resident
-vf + 24-yr
Inadvertent ingesUon of L«achate
Dermal Absorption ot Leachate
Inadvertent IngesUon ol Soil
Inhalation ol Oust
Ingestion of Groundwater
Dermal Absorption of Qroundwater
Inhalation of VOCs
Inadvertent Ingestion ol Surface Water
Dermal Absorption ol Surface Water
Inadvertent Ingestton of Sediment
Dermal Absorption of Sediment
HI Hazard Index
NA Not Applicable
VOCs Volatfo Organic Compounds
-------
Groundwater Inflection and Dermal Absorption ^Monitoring W«»ll
-------
The remediation of the fin areas, leachate system, ground water, and leachate contaminated
soils are interrelated. Therefore, this evaluation considers the general response actions
collectively for all media. The technologies determined to be most applicable were further
developed into remedial alternatives for the Site.
The alternatives evaluated are summarized below. The estimated costs reported for
implementing each alternative includes an estimation of operation and maintenance
expenses.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
Capital cost: $0
Annual Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $0
Present Worth: $0
Time to Implement: N/A
The No Action Alternative is included in the FS Report for comparison with other
alternatives under investigation. It would only be selected if the Site posed little or no risk
to the public health or the environment
Under the No Action Alternative the existing fence, leachate collection drain, and
landfill covers would not be repaired. There would be no additional measures undertaken
to remedy and evaluate contaminant sources or their migration pathways. Rainfall would
continue to infiltrate the surface cover on both landfills, and leachate would continue to be
generated. Leachate seeps and overflow from the leachate collection tanks would be
expected to continue until such time as contaminant levels were reduced through natural
attenuation. Risks from the Site would remain and could potentially increase with time.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - STMOTfFf RARRTFR CAP. TJTACflATPf COTIPCITON. AND
GROUND WATER MONITORING
Capital costs: $1,707,655.00
O&M Annual Costs (Year 1) $ 190,550.00
(Year 2) $ 129,550.00
(Year 3 through 6) $ 61,550.00
(Year 6 through 30) $ 34,325.00
Total Present Worth O&M $ 894,550.00
Total Present Worth Cost .. $2,870,000.00
Time to implement: 1 year
32
-------
In Alternative 2, a single barrier cap would be installed on both the lined and unlined
fill areas, the leachate collection system would be reconstructed, the debris and drum areas
would be cleaned up, and a ground water monitoring system would be established. Cleanup
of the debris and drum areas and reconstruction of the leachate collection system would be
performed prior to cap construction to allow any contaminated soils to be consolidated in
the areas to be capped.
Cleanup of the debris and drum areas would entail removal of scrap/waste materials
and drum carcasses for off-site disposal or recycling. Any visibly stained soils in the debris
area would be removed and placed in the areas to be capped. Confirmation soil sampling
should be conducted in the drum area, the debris area, and the areas of the leachate seeps
following excavation to ensure that the remaining contaminants do not exceed acceptable
levels. These levels will be based on the statistical comparison of background soil samples
and confirmation soil samples. Grading and revegetation of the debris and drum areas
would be performed as needed to restore the natural appearance of these areas.
Reconstruction of the leachate collection system would be accomplished by removing
and replacing the perimeter drain from the unlined fill area to the collection tank, replacing
the existing leachate collection tanks, temporarily installing a new leachate storage tank, and
piping the new leachate collection tanks to the new storage tank. Visibly stained soils, and
soils with contaminants exceeding background levels, from leachate seep areas and from the
leachate collection tank overflows would be removed and placed in the areas to be capped.
Confirmation soil sampling will ensure that the remaining contaminants do not exceed
acceptable levels based on the statistical comparison of background samples and
confirmation soil samples. A temporary storage tank would be installed to contain excess
leachate and provide a collection point for off-site transportation and disposal of leachate.
This tank would be used for up to two (2) years following capping, by which time leachate
production is expected to decline. The temporary storage tank would be removed from the
Site at such time as the leachate collection tanks were able to provide sufficient storage
capacity for leachate. Potential disposal options for leachate include the local Publicly
Owned Treatment Works ("POTW") or a permitted Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility
('TSDP). The areas around the leachate collection tanks would be graded and revegetated
to restore the. natural appearance of these areas.
Contamination of the groundwater at the Site is currently above background levels.
Sources of contamination within the landfill will be contained and eliminated from further
impact to groundwater by construction of the landfill cap and reconstruction of the leacbate
collection system. These components will significantly limit infiltration of rain water through
the landfill and collect water presently migrating through the landfill Groundwater
contaminant levels will begin to decrease when these components of the remedy are
constructed and established. It is estimated that groundwater background levels will be
achieved in thirty (30) years after cap construction and leachate collection reconstruction
are completed.
33
-------
Once all contaminated soils had been consolidated in the fin areas, cap construction
would begin. The two fill areas would be graded to achieve the required slopes for cap
placement, with additional fill imported as needed. A single barrier cap, would consist of
a low permeability layer overlain by a drainage or cover soil layer, overlain by a vegetated
topsail layer. A conceptual layout of the cap and leachate collection system is shown on
Figure 2.
At the completion of all construction activities, long-term O&M would be
implemented for the Site. The O&M would include: maintenance of the caps and leachate
collection system; installation and maintenance of any access restrictions (such as perimeter
fencing) deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the Site; and performance of ground
water monitoring. Long-term ground water and surface monitoring would incorporate
periodic sampling and analysis at predetermined locations which would adequately track
migration of contaminated ground water. The sampling parameters would be determined
during the Remedial Design. Because the proposed remedy of this site leaves hazardous
waste in place, 5-year reviews would be conducted to ensure that the Site continues to be
protective of human health and the environment
Vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety as vegetation native to the Site would
be planted on the capped area and areas disturbed by soil removal Deed restrictions to
prevent future use of on-site ground water and control access to the Site would also be
implemented.
ALTERNATIVES
PAPER MUNICIPAL LANDFP* rAP. T.F.AfMATR rnTLFfTION. PASSIVE GAS
EMISSIONS am j p/moN (VENTINGX AND GROUND WATER MONITORING
Capital Cost: $1,971,950.00
O $ M Annual Costs (Year 1) $ 190,550.00
(Year 2) $ 129,550.00
(Year 3 through 5) $ 61,550.00
(Year 6 through 30) $ 34,325.00
Total Present Worth O&M $ 894,550.00
Total Present Worth Cost $3,130,000.00
Tune to implement: 1 year
This alternative includes all of the components of Alternative 2 except that a
composite barrier cap, rather than a single barrier cap, would be constructed on the lined
and unlined fill areas, and a landfill gas emissions collection system would be installed. A
description of those components of Alternative 3 not included in Alternative 2 is as follow:
the composite barrier cap, also called a PADER cap, is similar to the Alternative 2 single
layer cap except that an additional drainage layer is included. A typical PADER municipal
34
-------
landfill cap includes one impermeable layer, overlain by a drainage layer, which is overlain
by a 24-inch cover soil layer, and finally overlain with a vegetated cover.
In addition to capping, the gas generated within the landfill would be vented to the
atmosphere by installing a passive type of gas collection system. Gas vents would be
installed to ensure the integrity of the cap to complete state approved lapdfpl closure plan
requirements. The vents would be installed during the installation of the landfill cap.
ALTERNATIVE 4 - RCRA f^AP, TPACHATE fr>TJ.FcnON. LANDFILL GAS
EMISSIONS rrffT.F.cnON (VENTINGX GROUND WATER rnTJ.FCTION AND
TREATMENT*, AND GROUND WATER MONITORING
Capital costs: $3,040,175.00
O&M costs (Year 1) $ 199,550.00
(Year 2) $ 142^50.00
(Year 3 through 5) $ 82^50.00
(Year 6 through 30) $ 55,325.00
Total Present Worth O&M $1,199,150.00
Total Present Worth Cost: $4,600,000.00
Time to implement: 1 year
This alternative includes all of the components of Alternative 3 and an additional
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") cap and water recovery and treatment
system. A RCRA-type cap, also called a composite barrier, is similar to a PADER
municipal landfill cap except that an additional impermeable layer is included.
Ground water recovery and treatment would consist of approximately five (5) new
wells installed in the southeast comer of the Site. The wells would yield a total of 4 gallons
per minute (gpm) and the recovered ground water (containing approximately 50 ppb of
VOC, 13 ppm manganese, and 40 ppm iron) would be pumped to a central, on-site
treatment facility. Precipitation would be used to remove manganese and iron, and carbon
absorption would be used for organics removal. The treated water would be discharged to
the eastern tributary at the Site.
Although this alternative is evaluated under the assumption that leachate would be
collected for off-site treatment and disposal, it is possible that collected leachate could be
treated in the on-site ground water treatment system. On-site leachate treatment would be
evaluated in detail during the RD.
35
-------
VIII. COMPARATIVE EVALUAT^ OF ALTERNATIVEg
Each of the four (4) remedial alternatives has been evaluated with respect to the nine
(9) evaluation criteria set forth in the NCP, 40 CF.R. Section 300.430(e)(9). These nine
criteria can be categorized into three groups: threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria,
and modifying criteria. A glossary of evaluation criteria is presented below:
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: addresses whether
a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs):
addresses whether a remedy witt meet all of the applicable, or relevant and
appropriate requirements of environmental statutes.
Primary Balancing Criteria
»
3. Long-term Effectiveness:
refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time once cleanup goals are achieved.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment:
addresses the degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
5. Short-term Effectiveness:
addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability:
the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the availability
of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
7. Cost:
includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance costs, and present worth
costs.
Modifying Criteria
8. . State Acceptance:
indicates whether, based on its review of backup documents and Proposed Plan,
the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
36
-------
9. Community Acceptance:
will be assessed in the Record of Decision fallowing a review of any public
comments received on the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan.
1. Overall Protection of Human health and the Environment
EPA has selected Alternative 3, as the remedy to be implemented at the Bell
Site. A primary requirement of CERCLA is that the selected remedial alternative be
protective of human health and the environment A remedy is protective if it reduces
current and potential risks to acceptable levels under the established risk range posed by
each exposure-pathway at the Site.
Alternative 1 does not reduce risk to human health and the environment, because
it does not address the risk posed through continued exposure to leachate* Therefore,
Alternative 1 will not be evaluated any further.
Alternatives 2 through 4 would eliminate the existing pathways of contaminant
exposure at the Site. Covering contaminated soils with caps and reconstructing the leachate
collection system would reduce surface infiltration, prevent direct contact, limit gas
emissions, and control erosion. Specifically, capping the high-volume, low-toxicity waste
disposed at the Site would minimize the leachate production and prevent further leachate
migration into soil and groundwater. It would also reduce the migration of leachate into
the Eastern and Western Tributaries and the Farm Pond, and minimise contaminant levels
in the sediment Caps would prevent the direct contact with landfill contents. Finally, caps
would control surface water runoff and erosion.
Alternatives 2 through 4 would provide protection to human health in the sense that
monitoring existing wells would likely warn about possible exposure to contaminants in the
ground water. Alternative 4 would provide protectiveness essentially similar to that provided
by Alternatives 2 and 3. Although Alternative 4 could theoretically provide enhanced
protectiveness by reducing contaminant levels in the aquifer through pumping and
treatment, there is evidence that due to the low hydraulic conductivity, it is not likely that
groundwater would be remediated any sooner than through natural attenuation. Alternative
4 would be impracticable as there are no receptors for on-site groundwater, and residential
wells have not been impacted by the Site. Future groundwater contamination is not
expected, particularly once the fill area is capped.
The deed and access restrictions in Alternatives 2 through 4 would protect residents
from possible direct contact with landfill contaminants.
37
-------
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARfil
Under Section 121(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (d), and EPA guidance,
remedial actions at CERCLA sites must attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal and promulgated State environmental standards, requirements, criteria and
limitations which are collectively referred to as "ARARs11, unless such ARARs are waived
under Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4). Applicable requirements are
those substantive environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal or State law that are legally applicable to the remedial action to be
implemented at the Site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under Federal
or State law which, while not applicable to the hazardous materials found at the Site, the
remedial action itself, the Site location or other circumstances at the Site, nevertheless
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the Site that their
use is well-suited to the Site. ARARS may relate to the substances addressed by the
remedial action (chemical-specific), to the location of the Site (location-specific), or to the
manner in which the remedial action is implemented (action-specific).
Chemical-Specific ARARs
• The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires that contaminated ground water be
actively remediated to background (25 PA Code §§ 264.90-264.100 and in particular, §§
264.97(1), (j), and 264.100(a)(9)). Analytical results of what has been determined to be
background levels for groundwater are presented below. Alternative 1 does not meet this
ARAR. Alternatives 2 and 3 (the Selected Remedy) would potentially achieve this ARAR
as a result of natural attenuation over time once the caps were installed and leachate
production minimized. Alternative 4 could potentially clean the ground water to
background in a shorter period of time than Alternatives 2 and 3. However, due to the low
hydraulic conductivity in the area of the Site, it is not likely that ground water would be
remediated much sooner than through natural attenuation.
• Relevant and appropriate Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs") promulgated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C § 300f to 300J-26, and set forth at 40 C.F.R.
§ 141.61(a) and 55 Fed. Reg. 30370 (July 25,1990), are presented below in comparison with
background groundwater levels:
38
-------
CONTAMINANT
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
1-2-Dichloroethane (total)
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
CONCENTRATION (mg/liter)
BACKGROUND
MCLs
0.05 to 0.2 (secondary)
0.05
2
0.004
0.1
13 (action level)
0.015 (action level)
3 (secondary)
0.1
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.065
0.0025
0.068
0.011
0.058
Alternatives 1,2, and 3 (the Selected Remedy) do not include active ground water
remediation. Alternatives 2 and 3 (the Selected Remedy) would meet these ARARs
through limiting infiltration in the ground water and through natural attenuation. There are
chemical specific ARARs for ground water clean up, and Alternative 4 would meet these
ARARs relating to ground water remediation and treatment
• Alternative 3 (the Selected remedy) and Alternative 4, include as part of the remedy
a gas collection system and must meet NESHAPs and Pennsylvania Air Quality Control
Regulations, 25 Pa. Code §§ 123.1,127.1,and 131.1 siSSS,-
39
-------
rogation-Specific ARARs
• 40 C.F.R. Part 6, Section 6302 (a) and Appendix A which governs on-Site wetlands
requirements (requiring Federal Agencies conducting certain activities to avoid, to the extent
possible, activities which would have an adverse impact on wetlands or loss of wetlands)
would be met under Alternatives 2 thru 4.
•.
Action-Specific ARARs
• The Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Regulations, 25 PA Code Article Vm specifically,
25 PA Code § 271.113 set forth requirements for municipal landfills These regulations
require specific procedures be undertaken to close a landfill, and Alternative 1 does not
meet most of these procedures. All four alternatives would meet the requirements of
Section 273.212 (Access control). Alternatives 1 and 2 would not meet specific requirements
of Sections 273234 (Final cover and grading), 273322(a)(b), and 273.171 (Gas monitoring
and recovery plan). Alternatives 2, 3 (the Selected Remedy), and 4 must follow Sections
273.235 (Revegetation), 273236 (Standards for successful revegetation), and 273242-273.244
(Soil erosion and sedimentation control).
• Alternatives 1, 2, 3 (the Selected Remedy) and 4 must meet the requirements of Soil
and Water Conservation Regulations, Chapter 102 (25 Pa. Code § 102.1 et seq.1 Water
Quality Management Regulations, Chapters 92,93 and 95 (25 Pa. Code §§ 92.1,93.1, and
95.1 et seq.^. Chapter 102.1 sets forth provisions that impose requirements on earth moving
activities which create accelerated erosion to the soil or create a danger of accelerated soil
erosion to plan and implement effective soil conservation measures. Chapter 92.1 sets forth
provisions for the administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") program within Pennsylvania. Chapter 93.1 sets forth specific standards for the
quality of Pennsylvania's waters and includes specific water quality criteria and designated
water use protection for each stream in Pennsylvania. Chapter 95.1 sets forth waste
treatment requirements for all dischargers including general requirements for "high quality
waters" and "exceptional value waters" and the procedures for dealing with special
circumstances (such as discharges to acid impregnated streams and discharges to lakes,
ponds, and impoundments).
• 25 Pa. Code §§ 123.1 and 123.2 are applicable to capping and require that dust
generated by earthmoving activities be controlled with water or other appropriate dust
suppressants. This applies to Alternatives 2, 3 (the Selected Remedy), and 4.
• Treatment and discharge of contaminated ground water (Alternative 4) would have to
meet the requirements of Pennsylvania's NPDES program. These requirements, as set forth
in 25 Pa. Code §§ 93.1 through 93.9, include design, discharge, and monitoring requirements
for groundwater collection and treatment.
40
-------
• 25 Pa. Code §§ 264.111 (closure performance standards), 264.117 (postclosure care and
use of property), and 264J10(b),(i), (iv) and (v) (closure and postclosure care) contain
relevant and appropriate requirements with respect to maintenance of the existing cap.
These provisions also require adequate repair of the landfill cap. This applies to
Alternatives 2, 3 (the Selected Remedy), and 4.
• Reconstruction of the leachate collection system, as outlined in Alternatives 2, 3 (the
Selected Remedy), and 4 may result in the generation of hazardous wastes. The Selected
Remedy must be implemented consistent with the requirements of 25 Pa. Code Part 262
subparts A, §§ 262.11 and 262.12 (relating to hazardous waste determination and
identification numbers), subpart B, §§ 262^0, 26122, and 262^3 (relating to manifesting
requirements .for off-site shipments of hazardous wastes), and subpart C (relating to pre-
transport requirements); 25 Pa. Code Part 263 (relating to transporters of hazardous wastes).
With respect to operations at the Site generally, the Selected Remedy must be consistent
with the substantive requirements of 25 Pa. Code Part 264 subparts G, I (concerning
hazardous waste generation as part of the Selected Remedy maintained in containers), J
(concerning hazardous waste generation as part of the Selected Remedy treated/stored in
tanks),
• 49 C.F.R. § 171.1-171.16 sets forth applicable requirements regarding off-site
transportation of hazardous wastes (recordkeeping and manifesting of all hazardous wastes
shipped offsite and includes packaging, labelling, and placarding of shipping containers).
• 29 CFJEL § 1910.170 sets forth applicable requirements regarding worker safety in the
handling of hazardous substances. This applies to Alternatives 2,3 (the Selected Remedy),
and 4.
3. Reduction
This evaluation criterion addresses the degree to which a technology or remedial
alternative reduces tenacity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances at the Site. Section
121(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.G § %21(b), establishes a preference for remedial actions which
include treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the tenacity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (the Selected Remedy) do not employ an on-site treatment.
Leachate would be stored on-site and trucked off-site for treatment or disposal.
Technologies that provide no treatment do not require evaluation under this criterion.
Alternatives 2, 3 (the Selected Remedy), and 4 employ leachate collection system
reconstruction and capping which will mfammVe or eliminate the migration of waste from the
Site. This system will control seepage along the perimeter of the capped areas and prevent
41
-------
prevent discharges to the surface and groundwater. A leachate collection system could
achieve some longterm reduction of landfill volume as a direct result of leachate extraction.
Alternative 4 would theoretically reduce contaminant toxicity, mobility and volume
through water recovery and leachate collection. It would also reduce the volume and
toxicity of water contaminants through ground water treatment Practically, however, the
low well yields at the Site would result in a long period of time necessary to remove a
significant mass of contaminants from the ground water.
4. Imolementabilitv
This evaluation criterion addresses the difficulties and unknowns associated with
implementing technologies, the ability and time necessary to obtain required permits and
approvals, the availability of services and materials, and the reliability and effectiveness of
monitoring.
Alternative 1 is a No Action Alternative and is currently implemented at the Site.
Alternatives 2 and 3 (the Selected Remedy) would be easily implemented at the Site. The
materials, labor, equipment, and services needed to remove and consolidate contaminated
soils, reconstruct the leachate collection system, remove debris from the Site, install new
caps on the fill areas, install gas vents, and institute ground water monitoring are readily
available, and the technologies to be used are proven and reliable. There would be no
permits required to implement these alternatives, but implementation of the ground water
and site use restrictions would require cooperation among various governmental agencies,
(such as PADER and County and Township officials). Long-term water monitoring,
including both on-site wells and residential wells, is adequately protective.
The main difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 (the Selected Remedy), and
Alternative 4 is that the last alternative includes ground water recovery. The technical
feasibility of ground water recovery at the Site is complicated by a low hydraulic
conductivity, low well yields, and a small zone of influence of any one welL It is very
probable that these factors will increase after the PADER cap is installed on both disposal
areas. It is very probable that once the caps are established, groundwater recovery would
become even more difficult
S. Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses how protective an alternative is to human health
and the environment during the construction and operation phase of the remedial action.
42
-------
Short-term effectiveness is not applicable to Alternative 1 since there are no
construction activities undertaken. The short-term effectiveness of Alternatives 2, 3 (the
Selected Remedy), and 4 is essentially equivalent Construction of a composite barrier cap
and installation of the groundwater recovery and treatment system under Alternative 4 could
extend the period of time required for implementation and increase the potential short-term
risk. All three alternatives would be completed within relatively short time frames with
minimal impacts to the community, workers, and environment.
6. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence evaluates the risk remaining at the site after
the remedial action goals have been achieved.
Alternative 1 would not provide long-term effectiveness since the pathways of
contaminant migration and the risks would remain unchanged. Alternatives 2, 3 (the
Selected Remedy), and 4 provide a significant degree of long-term effectiveness and
permanence. A cap in conjunction with the reconstructed leachate collection system would
reduce leachate generation and contaminant mobility, and eliminate the risks associated with;
direct contact for as long as the systems were properly maintained. The potential risks;
associated with ingestion of contaminated groundwater would be permanently reduced oven
time. The risks would be further reduced through institutional controls, such as deed and
access restrictions to prevent future on-site well construction.
Effectiveness of Alternative 4 is questionable, since the low well yields and small
zone of influence would not be practicable.
7. Cost
CERCLA requires selection of a cost-effective remedy that protects human health
and the environment and meets the other requirements of the Statute. Evaluation of costs
of each alternative generally includes the calculation of direct and indirect capital costs and
the annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, both calculated on a present worth
basis. The present worth of each alternative has been calculated for comparative purposes.
Direct capital costs consist of the following:
• Remedial action construction
• Equipment
• Building and services -.
• Waste disposal cost
43
-------
Indirect capital costs include:
• Engineering expenses
• Environmental permit acquisition
• Start-up and shakedown
• Contingency allowances
Annual O&M costs include the following:
Operating and maintenance labor and material costs
Maintenance materials and labor costs
Chemicals^ energy, and fuel
Administrative costs and purchased services
Monitoring costs
Cost for periodic site review (every five years)
Insurance, taxes, and license costs
The remedial action alternative cost estimates have an accuracy range of +50 percent
(+50%) to -30 percent (-30%). For the purpose of the present worth calculations, all
Alternatives have a performance period of 30 years.
Alternative 1 is a No Action Alternative. It would cost $0.
Alternative 2 would cost $2,870,000. This cost would include installation of a cap,
leachate collection system, and O&M.
Alternative 3 (the Selected Remedy) would cost $3,130,000. This cost would include
installation of a PADER municipal cap, leachate collection system, and O&M.
Alternative 4 would cost $4,600,000. This cost would include installation of a RCRA
cap, leachate collection system, ground water treatment, and O&M.
8. State Acceptance-
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in agreement with and concurs with the
se'scted remedy outlined in this Record of Decision ("ROD").
9. CV*mff)Uuity Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative has been evaluated, and will be
described in the Responsiveness Summary.
44
-------
IX* y^IfiBTT^P RBMBPY
Based upon consideration of information available for the Bell Landfill Site, including
the documents available in the administrative record file, an evaluation of the risks currently
posed by the Site, the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the alternatives,
and public comments, EPA has selected Alternative 3, a containment remedy, as the remedy
to be implemented at the Bell Landfill Site.
The Selected Remedy shall include the following: installation of a PADER municipal
landfill cap on two disposal areas, reconstruction of the Leachate Collection system, removal
of visibly stained soils from areas directly impacted by leachate, installation of passive
Landfill Gas Emissions Collection (venting), and implementation of long-term Ground Water
Monitoring. In addition, the Selected Remedy will include: maintenance of the cap, a
leachate collection system, and the perimeter fencing; access and deed restrictions; surface
water monitoring; 5-year performance reviews; and proper revegetation.
It is estimated that the present worth cost of the Selected remedy is $3,130,000.00.
The selected remedy will be effective, and will significantly reduce and control Site risks.
This remedy represents a reasonable choice, and provides good value in comparison to the
costs of the other remedial action alternatives.
Leachate and the contaminants contained in the leachate is considered a major
environmental concern at the Site, and the Selected Remedy will reduce leachate generation
by capping the disposal areas and reconstructing the leachate collection system. The
PADER cap will prevent direct contact with contaminated soils another major environmental
concern and leachate. It wfll also tpmimfaa the potential of off-site migration of
contaminants in ground water. Ground water will be remediated via natural attenuation.
EPA estimates this goal wfll be achieved in less than 30 years after cap construction and
leachate collection reconstruction are completed. Other important considerations in the
selection of Alternative 3 include compliance with ARARs, and the duration and simplicity
of implementation.
Remediation of the Bell Landfill Site wfll effectively eliminate the risk associated with
potential exposure to contaminants in the leachate, groundwater and soils at the Site.
X. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Ca
The required final cover for a municipal waste landfill in Pennsylvania, as presented
in 25 Pa.Code § 273.234, shall be placed Over both waste disposal areas. The cover shall be
designed to achieve a permeability of no more than 1 z 10*7 cm/sec.
45
-------
This cap shall eliminate direct contact with waste. It shall also reduce infiltration and
surface water runoff and subsequently reduce leachate generation. The cap shall be graded
to reduce soil erosion and not crack extensively under dry weather conditions. The cap shall
be capable of supporting the germination and growth of a vegetative cover. The cover shall
be maintained for at least 30 years.
Leachate Collection
The reconstruction of the Leachate Collection system shall be sufficient to collect all
leachate generated hi the waste disposal areas and transport it into collection tanks. After
capping and leachate collection reconstruction, leachate seeps from the disposal areas shall
be greatly reduced (it is anticipated that the leachate seeps will eventually cease). Leachate
collection drains and tanks shall be designed to handle the highest estimated volume of
leachate without clogging and over-topping. Leachate will be transported off-site via tanker
truck. The collection rates must reflect leachate generation to avoid tank over-topping. The
areas around the leachate collection tanks must be graded and revegetated as needed to
restore the natural habitat
Current analytical data show that the leachate is not a RCRA waste. However, it is
possible that the concentration and contents of the leachate can change. Therefore^
additional sampling during remedial design will be required to determine the constituents
of the leachate and its concentrations, and the variability of leachate characteristics, such
as seasonal variations of influent flow, chemical content, and other conventional parameters
(BOD, COD, TOC, TSS, etc.). This data will be used to determine whether direct discharge
.to Publicly Owned Treatment Works ("POTW") may be appropriate or whether off-site
pretreatment may be required.
The transportation of leachate off-site requires both EPA and PADER approval of
the facility accepting the leachate. Contractual arrangements shall be made in advance with
the receiving facility so as to prevent excessive storage of leachate on-site.
Removal of Leachate Impacted Soils
Any visibly stained soils in the debris area, the drum area and areas of leachate
seeps, or soils which have been impacted by leachate seeps, will be removed to a minimum
of 6-inch depth and placed under die caps. The accuracy of this work, based on the results
of confirmation soil samples will be approved by EPA.
46
-------
T anfffiTI Gas Venting SvsteiH
The landfill gas venting system shall meet the requirements under 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 127 (specifically Section 127.12(a)(5) for new air emission sources). The number
and location of gas vents shall be determined during the remedial design. To monitor the
potential occurrence of landfill gas migration, perimeter gas monitoring probes shall be
installed at the same time the soil cover is installed.
Long-Tcim
Approximately six (6) on-site monitoring wells will be sampled and analyzed quarterly
for a list of indicator parameters including VOCs, manganese and wet chemistry parameters
which are indicative of the processes of natural degradation. Three (3) surface water and
three (3) sediment samples will be collected annually from stations 3, 6, and 7, which
locations are presented on Figure 4. In addition, all six (6) off-site residential wells will be
sampled for VOCs and metals on an annual basis. Long-term monitoring results will be
used to determine the risk to off-site receptors. If the data continues to show no site-related
impact, the sampling frequency may be reduced by EPA.
Peed and Access Restiiclioii
A deed restriction shall be placed on the Bell Landfill property which shall prevent
any use of this property for residential purpose. The existing perimeter fence shall be
maintained for at least 30 years.
XI. COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUMMARY
In accordance with Sections 113 and 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C §§ 9613 and 9617,
EPA in conjunction with PADER, issued a Proposed Plan to present the preferred remedial
alternative. The Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports were made available to the public
in the copies of the administrative record maintained at the EPA Region ffl offices and at
the information repository listed below:
Terry Township Municipal Building
RDNo. 2
PO Box 180 A
Wyalusing, Pennsylvania 18853
(717) 746-1133
(717) 746-1634
47
-------
EPA set a public comment period from July 5, 1994 through August 4, 1994, to
encourage public participation in the selection process. In response to citizens' letters, the
comment period was extended to September 3,1994. As part of the public comment period,
a public meeting was held on July 19,1994 to present information and to accept oral and
written comments and to answer questions from the public regarding Site remedial
alternatives. A transcript of the meeting was maintained in accordance with Section
117(a)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C § 9617(a)(2). Responses to the oral and written comments
received during the public comment period are included in the attached Responsiveness
Summary.
Announcements of the public meeting, the comment period, and the comment
period's extension were published in the Towanda DaUy Review on July 4,1994 and August
9, 1994. All documents considered or relied upon reaching the remedy selection decision
contained in this Record of Decision are included in the Administrative Record for this Site
and can be reviewed at the information repositories.
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM PROPOSED PLAN
The Proposed Plan for the Site was released for comment in July, 1994. The
Proposed Plan described the alternatives studied in detail in the Feasibility Study and
identified Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. EPA reviewed all written and verbal
comments submitted during the comment period and at the public meeting. Upon review
of these comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the remedy presented
in the Proposed Plan were necessary.
48
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
BELL LANDFILL
BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OVERVIEW
On July 5,1994, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued
a Proposed Plan that stated its preferred alternative for the Bell Landfill Superfund Site in
Bradford County, Pennsylvania. EPA's preferred alternative addresses leachate seeps and
contaminated soils, groundwater and surface water at the site. The preferred alternative
involves the following actions:
• prevent leachate generation/seepage and further groundwater contamination and
subsequent off-site migration by capping the waste areas, reconstructing the leachate
collection system, and maintaining the new caps;
• prevent direct contact with contaminated soils and leachate by moving contaminated
soils to the two waste disposal areas, capping the disposal areas, and maintaining a
fence;
• protect the cap from explosion hazards from landfill gas by installing a Landfill Gas
Emission Collection (venting) system; and
• provide additional protection by implementing institutional controls to restrict the use
of the site and institute long-term ground and surface water monitoring.
Based on comments received during the public comment period, the residents of
Bradford County support EPA's preferred alternative and believe it will be effective.
Several residents did however, express some concerns for further action near the Site.
The following sections document concerns raised by the community and EPA
responses to those concerns.
-------
B. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community interest in the Bell Landfill Site dates back to 1979 when residents
adjacent to the site complained to state authorities that leachate seeps from the Site were
contaminating soil and surface water on their property. Since 1979, local residents have
continued to be concerned about the leachate seeps and their impact on human health, local
wildlife, and adjacent properties. Community interest in the landfill became more vocal
once EPA was involved at the Site.
EPA published the Proposed Plan on July 5, 1994 and EPA held a public meeting
with residents at the Terry Township Municipal Building in Wyalusing, Pennsylvania on July
19, 1994. At the public meeting EPA representatives summarized the results of the
Remedial Investigation ("RI"), the Feasibility Study ("FS"), and the Risk Assessments
("RAs") performed for the Site. These representatives presented EPA's preferred remedial
alternative for mitigating the public health and environmental threats posed by
contamination at the Site. EPA explained that the Proposed Plan addresses contamination
in the fill areas on the former landfill and leachate seeps, reconstruction of the leachate
collection system, and monitoring ground water contamination. The transcript of the public
meeting is contained in the Administrative Record for this Site. ;
Local residents, a reporter from the Towanda Dedfy Review, and a Terry Township
Supervisor offered comments and asked questions on the Plan. Because of additional issues
not addressed in the Proposed Plan, a local resident requested an extension of the public
comment period so that he and others would have additional time to review EPA's
preferred alternative. EPA granted a thirty (30) day extension in the public comment period
to accommodate this resident and the comment period ended on September 3,1994. EPA
received four (4) written comments during the public comment period which are addressed
below.
C. SOVIMARY OF COMMENTS BY THE COMMUNITY RECEIVED DURING BOTH
PUBLIC MEETING AND DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND
EPA'S RESPONSES
Comments raised during the Bell T-anrifill public comment period on the Proposed
Plan are summarized below. The comment period opened on July 5, 1994 and ended on
September 3,1994. Residents noted that they had studied the Proposed Plan and concurred
with EPA that Alternative 3 would be an effective remedy for the Site. In addition to the
Site, Residents in the community were concerned with four (4) other areas they believed
warranted additional attention by EPA. These four areas addressed (1) wildlife (specifically
deer) in the area of the Site; (2) a road which runs along the border of the Site; (3) creeks
which flow through the Site; and (4) adjoining lands/properties. The comments are
summarized under these areas of concern.
-------
Wildlife
Residents have been concerned for some time that wildlife, particularly deer, may
become sick from drinking leachate onsite and that individuals who hunt and eat deer may
also become sick. The residents also expressed concern that wildlife may be trapped onsite
by the perimeter fencing.
1. A reporter from the Towanda Dajfy Review attended the public meeting and asked
questions regarding deer trapped onsite. It was the reporter's understanding EPA
had stated that deer located within the perimeter of the fence would have to be
tested before they could be released into the wild. The reporter questioned whether
this had been done. Some residents voiced concern about the possibility that a deer
that died onsite last winter may have died as a result of exposure to contamination
(drinking water onsite which contained leachate), and that other deer may have the
potential to pass contaminants on to those who hunt and eat deer meat
EPA Response: With regard to trapped deer, representatives of the Pennsylvania
Game Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believe that deer are not
trapped onsite by the existing fence. The Fish and Wildlife representative stated that
deer can jump as high as fourteen feet from a standing start, so a seven and one-half
foot fence would not stop deer from entering or exiting the Site.
With regard to testing potentially trapped deer for contaminant ingestion, any testing
would be the responsibility of the PRPs. However, EPA believes the probability for
deer to be affected by the Site is low because of low levels of contaminant found in
the leachate. A deer's average life-span is three to five years. Therefore, the deer
that died onsite probably died of natural causes during an unusually harsh winter and
not as a result of being poisoned by drinking leachate within the fenced area.
In addition, EPA believes once the cap is constructed and in place, any potential
contaminant exposure to wildlife (such as deer) from leachate will be mitigated.
2. Another resident was concerned that the fence was not high enough to keep deer
from entering the Site as well as other small animals capable of carrying
contaminants into the natural food
EPA Response: The selected remedy should prevent further leachate seeps and
any problems associated with animals ingesting contaminants.
-------
The Road
1. Several residents were concerned with dust from the road. They also requested that
polluted ditches adjacent to the Site be cleaned out and that the road be rebuilt with
an impervious dust-free surface.
EPA Response: It appears that the residents want EPA, as part of the remedy, to
pave the dirt road with some type of dust-free material At this time, the proposed
remedy does not address the resurfacing of this road. However, the concern about
dust during construction of the remedy will be addressed during the remedial design.
EPA will include in the remedial design ways to mitigate construction caused
roadway dust EPA will work with the residents to alleviate their concerns.
The Creek
1. The same residents expressed concern with an unnamed creek that flows near the
Site. They recommended that the stream bed be cleaned out and straightened to
reduce flooding and facilitate movement and dilution of leachate.
EPA Response: At this time, EPA has not recommended any remedial actions that
specifically clean or straighten the creek. While the residents are concerned with one
creek, EPA wants to clarify that there are actually two (2) creeks which border the
Site. The ecological risk assessment performed by EPA did not reveal any significant
contamination to surface waters (i.e. the creeks) that would warrant the actions
recommended by the residents. In fact, once the Site is remediated the risk of
further leachate releases into these surface waters should be eliminated. EPA does
plan to monitor these creeks in the future; and if monitoring indicates any adverse
impacts, further actions will be considered and addressed.
Adjacent Lands
1. The same residents also expressed concern that areas downgradient from the dump
areas allegedly "have suffered severe degradation and should be cleared out and
restored to at least their original usefulness and appearance." More specifically these
areas include Master's pond (east of the dump areas) which has become a leachate
collection and settling basin for the East dump. On the west side, denuded areas
extend from the dump zone toward the creek. Residents did not specify what clean-
up actions they believe would be effective short of soil removal.
EPA Response: Based upon the correspondence submitted by the residents, EPA
is unclear as to what areas the residents are referring to downgradient from the
dump areas. At this time, EPA has not recommended any remedial actions that
-------
specifically, restore the alleged degraded areas or Master's pond. After the Site is
remediated and leachate seeps are eliminated, areas affected by leachate
contamination should return to their natural state on their own. Based upon results
of sampling and ecological tests, there is no indication at this time that areas
downgradient of the Site warrant specific remedial action.
Technical Questions/Concerns Regarding Remedial Alternatives
1. At the public meeting Mr. Francis Hardenstine, the Terry Township Supervisor,
asked a series of questions regarding past and future groundwater monitoring.
Specifically, Mr. Hardenstine inquired about the frequency of monitoring of wells
drilled by EPA and if additional monitoring would occur during the selected remedy.
EPA Response: Based upon a review of the transcript from the public meeting, it
appears that Mr. Hardenstine's concern addressed wells which were drilled in 1992.
Mr. Hardenstine inquired as to how often the wells have been monitored. Since
1992, the monitoring wells were sampled twice. The selected remedy calls for the
continued monitoring of these and other wells twice a year. During the first remedial
investigation, EPA noticed a high concentration of metals, arsenic, and manganese
in the groundwater. Continued monitoring will allow EPA to see the extent of
groundwater contamination and whether the contamination is migrating to other
areas near the Site.
2. The reporter from the Towanda Daify Review asked how long after the public
comment period would construction start, assuming the project is approved.
EPA Response: Once the Record of Decision ("ROD") is signed by the Regional
Administrator, EPA usually sends out Special Notice Letters ("SNLs") to the
identified potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") for the Site inviting them to enter
into good faith negotiations for a consent decree for implementation of remedial
design/remedial action ("RD/RA"). If the PRPs are willing to negotiate with EPA
during this special notice period, a consent decree can be signed within 60 days or
a period of time not to exceed 120 days from receipt of special notice.
If the PRPs and EPA enter into a negotiated consent decree for RD/RA, then the
PRPs commence remedial design. The remedial design phase of the cleanup could
take approximately two (2) years to complete. EPA estimates that construction
(remedial action) of the selected remedy could take up to one year (or longer) to
complete and will commence once the remedial design phase is completed.
-------
D. REMAINING CONCERNS
At this time, EPA believes there are no remaining community issues which have not
been adequately addressed during selection of the remedy for this Site.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
LNDFILL
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE *
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
IDENTIFICATION
1. Memorandvua to file from Mr. Alan J. Snelson,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, re: Investigation and
findings on Herb Bell Landfill, 6/1/77. P. 100001-
100001.
2. Letter to Mr. Herbert Bell, O.M. Bell Sanitary
^Landfill, from Mr. Lawrence M. Sattler, Pennsylvania .
Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) , re:
Response to request for permission to dispose of waste
asbestos from Proctor [sic] and Gamble at Bell
Landfill, 3/26/79. P. 100002-100002.
3. U.S. EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Identification
and Preliminary Assessment, 1/17/80. P. 100003-100006.
4. Site Inspection Report, Bell's Sanitary Landfill,
3/29/80. P. 100007-100019. A Potential Hazardous
Waste Site Log is attached.
5. Tentative Disposition Report, Bell's Landfill, 8/27/80.
P. 100020-100027. A Final Strategy Determination
Report and two Tentative Disposition Reports are
attached.
6. Hazardous Waste Inspection Report, TSD Facilities -
Parts A and B, 6/18/82. P. 100028-100032.
7. Hazardous Waste Inspection Report, Generators - Parts
A, B, and C, 6/18/82. P. 100033-100035.
8. Letter to Mr. Stanley Poss, GTE Sylvania Corporation,
from Mr. James J. Young, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, re: Violations found during hazardous
waste inspection, 6/23/82. P. 100036-100037.
9. Hazardous Waste Inspection Report, Generators - Parts
A, B, and C, 9/16/82. P. 100038-100044. A Hazardous
Waste Inspection Report, TSD Facilities - Parts A, B,
and C, is attached.
10. Memorandum to file from Mr. William Walsh, U.S. EPA,
re: Review of RCRA Inspection Report, 10/29/82.
P. 100045-100046. A telephone conversation record is
attached.
Administrative Record File available 5/18/92, updated
7/9/92, 4/7/94, 4/14/94, 7/1/94, 7/18/94, and 9/22/94.
-------
11. Report: Report of Testa for Friend Laboratory. Inc. L
Lab. Number aA-72Q52- prepared by New York Testing
Laboratories, Inc., 3/23/84. P. 100047-100074.
12. Report: Report of Tests for Friend Laboratory. Inc.,
T^frit Number 84-73apq. prepared by New York Testing
Laboratories, Inc., 6/27/84. P. 100075-100119.
13. Memorandum to Mr. Richard L. Bittle, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, from Mr. Ronald E. Hughey, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, re: Aquatic biological investigation
of the unnamed tributaries to Sugar Run that receive
leachate from Bell's Landfill, 5/7/85. P. 100120-
100128. The following are attached:
a) Figure l, Sampling station locations for an
aquatic biological investigation of unnamed
tributaries to Sugar Run in the vicinity of
Bell's Landfill;
b) Table 1, Aquatic Biological Investigation
Sampling Station Locations;
c) Table 2, Aquatic Biological Investigation
Water Chemistry Data;
d) a table containing Benthic Macroinvertebrate
data.
14. Letter to Mr. Russ Sloboda, NUS Corporation, from Ms.
Diana Pickens, U.S. EPA, re: Revised organic review
for Bell Landfill, Case 3650, 9/26/85. P. 100129-
100152. The following are- attached:
a) revised quality assurance review information;
b) sample data summary organic target compounds;
c) two pages on analysis results for target
compounds;
d) quality assurance review information;
e) a quality assurance review of organic
analysis lab data package;
f) a chart on target compound matching quality;
g) quantitative calculations;
h) a pesticide evaluation standards summary;
-------
i) a pesticide/PCB standards summary;
j) a water surrogate percent recovery summary;
k) a soil surrogate percent recovery summary;
1) a water matrix spike duplicate recovery
chart;
m) a soil matrix spike duplicate recovery chart;
n) tentatively identified compound sample
results;
o) a sample location map.
15. Report: Target Population Study Report. Bell Landfill.
prepared by NUS Corporation, 11/5/85. P. 100153-
100201.
16. Report: Site Inspection of Bell Landfill, prepared by
NUS Corporation, 1/9/86. P. 100202-100308.
17. Laboratory Report for sample number 8697034, 6/16/86. -
P. 100309-100316. The following are attached:
a) a special analyses report on well water;
b) a letter regarding the results of water
analysis;
c) sample analyses on Bell Landfill;
d) a hand-drawn sketch of water quality sampling
pond;
e) Table 1, Water Quality Analysis;
f) a letter regarding drinking water test
results.
18. Data Sample Packet, Case Name 101018, 3/10/87.
P. 100317-100335. The following are attached:
a) a laboratory report for sample number
8755480;
b) two special analyses reports for sample
number 2420005;
c) three special analyses reports dated 3/31/87;
-------
d) a laboratory report for sample number
8755484;
e) two special analyses reports for sample
number 2420013;
f) a laboratory report for sample number
8755481;
g) a special analyses report for sample number
2420007;
h) a special analyses report dated 3/23/87;
i) a laboratory analyses report for sample
number 8755482;
j) a special analyses report for sample number
2420009;
k) a special analyses report dated 3/28/87;
1) a laboratory report for sample number
8755483;
m) two special analyses reports for sample
number 2420011;
n) a special analyses report dated 3/23/87.
19. Region III Incident Notification Report, 8/25/88.
P. 100336-100341. The following are attached:
a) handwritten notes on the discussion with
Harry Daw;
b) handwritten notes on the briefing of Bell
Landfill;
c) handwritten letter on the briefing with Bruce
Smith;
d) handwritten telephone conversation record
regarding health consultation.
20. Memorandum to file from Mr. Mark Donovan, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, re: Analysis of the residential well
and leachate seep samples for BNAs, VOAs*, and
inorganics, 6/28/89. P. 100342-100349. The results
are attached.
-------
21. Manorandum to Mr. Jack Owens, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Charles LaCerra, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Information
on the background, site activities, and analytical
results of Bell Landfill Site, 10/11/89. p. 100350-
100378. The following are attached:
a) analytical tables on priority pollutant
metals, semi-volatiles, and volatiles;
b) a site location map;
c) a Bell Landfill Site sketch;
d) a handwritten list of residents;
e) a letter and analytical results on sludge and
water.
22. Sample results of lagoon sludge, 4/4/91. P. 100379-
100381. A cover letter and a letter regarding the
evaluation of waste streams are attached.
23. Letter to Mr. Bhupi Khona, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Albert P.
Lelis, Jr., GTE Products, re: Leachability data
obtained in the early 1980's on the GTE "Red Sludge,"
8/7/91. P. 100382-100387. The leachability data is
attached.
24. Letter to Ms. Judith Hykel, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Robert
O. Fox, Manko, Gold, & Katcher, re: Summary of the
understandings and process by which the settling
companies and EPA agreed to divide the site into two
operable units, 8/22/91. P. 100388-100393.
25. Letter to Mr. Robert D. Fox, Manko, Gold, & Katcher,
from Ms. Judith R. Hykel, U.S. EPA, re: Clarification
of the reasoning for completing the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in two operable
units (OU), 10/9/91. P. 100393A-100393B.
26. Letter to Mr. Robert D. Fox, Manko, Gold, & Katcher,
from Ms. Judith R. Hykel and Mr. Bhupi Khona, U.S. EPA,
re: EPA's response to Robert D. Fox's comments
addressing "hot spots," 2/12/92. P. 100394-100395.
-------
II. pffMEDIAL ENFORCEMENT PLANNING
1. Administrative Order by Consent for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study In The Matter Of:
Bell Landfill, Docket #III-91-ll-DC, 2/11/90.
P. 200001-200053.
2. Letter to Mr. Christopher Brown, Bell Landfill, from
Mr. John Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, re: Information on the
stops and pick-ups at small businesses that were made
for Bell Landfill, (undated). P. 200054-200054.
3. List of names and locations requested from Mr.
Christopher Brown, Bell Landfill, by Mr. John
Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, regarding all waste pick-ups that
he made while working for Bell Landfill as a truck
driver, (undated). P. 200055-200060. A handwritten
list and an envelope are attached.
Athens Area School District
4. Letter to General Counsel, Athens School District, from
Mr. Peter W. Schaul, U.S. EPA, re: 104(e) request for
information, 8/29/89. P. 200061-200065. A certified ;
mail receipt is attached.
5. Letter to Mr. John Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, from Mr. B.
John Gee, Athens Area School District, re: Response to
104(e) inquiry, 10/4/89. P. 200066-200066.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company
6. Letter to Mr. J.C. Violette, E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Company, from Mr. Peter W. Schaul, U.S. EPA, re:
104(e) request for information, 11/14/89. P. 200067-
200080. The following are attached:
a) general facility information;
b) disposal site information;
c) a memorandum regarding waste disposal;
d) a status report on solid waste removal by
O.M. Bell.
7. Letter to Mr. John Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, from J.C.
Violette, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, re:
Response to 104(e) inquiry, 12/18/89. P. 200081-
200109.
-------
8. Letter to Mr. J.c. Violette, E.I. DuPont Nemours &
Company [sic], from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re:
General Notice letter, 5/29/90. P. 200110-200115.
A certified mail receipt is attached.
9. Letter to Mr. Martin Kotsch, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Jerome
C. Violette, E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, re:
Response to General Notice letter, 6/22/90. P. 200116-
200116.
10. Letter to Mr. J.C. Violette, E.I. Dupont Nemours &
Company [sic], from Mr. Thomas C. Voltaggio, U.S. EPA,
re: Special Notice letter, 7/3/90. P. 200117-200153.
-A list of Bell Landfill Special Notice letter
recipients, a good faith offer, and an Administrative
Order By Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study In The Matter Of Bell Landfill, Docket No. 11-90-
XX-DC, are attached.
The First National Bank of Bradford County
11. Letter to Mr. John RajkowsJci, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Charles fl. Weir, The First National Bank of Bradford [
County, re: Response to 104(e) inquiry, 6/6/90.
P. 200154-200155. An envelope is attached.
Gowin (Walter & Dorothy and Wayne & Hannah)
12. Letter to Mr. Walter and Mrs. Dorothy Gowin from Mr.
Peter Schaul, U.S. EPA, re: 104(e) request for
information, 8/29/89. P. 200156-200159.
13. Letter to Mr. John Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Fred
N. Smith, an attorney representing Mr. Walter & Mrs.
Dorothy Gowin and Mr. Wayne E. & Mrs. Hannah L. Gowin,
re: Response to 104(e) inquiry, 10/6/89. P. 200160-
200162.
GTE North Operations Inc. or General Telephone Equipment Company
14. Letter to Mr. Stanley M. Poss, GTE Sylvania, from Mr.
Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, re: 104(e) request for
information, 11/6/85. P. 200163-200165.
15. Letter to Ms. Lorie A. Acker, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Marc
E. Gold, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, re:
Response to 104(e) inquiry for GTE Products
Corporation, 12/11/85. P. 200166-200167-.
-------
16. Letter to Mr. James R. Hobson, GTE Products
Corporation, from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re:
General Notice letter, 5/29/90. P. 200168-200173.
A photocopy of a certified mail receipt is attached.
17. Letter to Mr. Martin Kotsch, U.S. EPA, from Mr. James
A. Gass, GTE Precision Materials, re: Response to
General Notice letter, 6/12/90. P. 200174-200174.
18. Letter to Mr. James A. Gass, GTE Products corporation,
from Mr. Thomas C. Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: Special
Notice Letter, 7/3/90. P. 200175-200212. A list of
Bell Landfill Special Notice letter recipients, a good
faith offer, and an Administrative Order by Consent for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study In the Matter
of Bell Landfill, Docket No. II-90-XX-DC, are attached.
19. Letter to Mr. Martin J. Kotsch, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Robert D. Fox, Manko, Gold & Katcher, re: Response to
Special Notice letter for GTE Products Corporation,
Dupont, Masonite Corporation and Procter and Gamble
Paper Products Company, 9/5/90. P. 200213-200215.
Herman Rynvelds and Sons Corporation
20. Letter to Herman Rynvelds and Sons Corporation from
Peter W. Schaul, U.S. EPA, re: 104(e) request for
information, 8/31/89. P. 200216-200221. An envelope,
a certified mail receipt, and a map of Bradford County
are attached.
21. Letter to Mr. John Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, from Herman
Rynveld's Son Corp., re: Response to request for
information, 9/7/89. P. 200222-200232. Six invoices,
a letter regarding bills, and two checks are attached.
Jay Carpet Center
22. Letter to Mr. David Rosenbloom, Jay Carpet Center and
Warehouse, from Mr. Peter H. Schaul, U.S. EPA, re:
104(e) request for information and notice of potential
enforcement activity, 6/22/90. P. 200233-200237. A
certified mail receipt and a map of Bradford County are
attached.
23. Letter to Mr. John Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, from Mr. David
Rosenbloom, Jay Carpet Center, re: Response to 104(e)
inquiry, 6/29/90. P. 200238-200241. A telephone
message and a telephone conversation record are
attached.
8
-------
Cororatio
24. Letter to Mr. A.W. McGowan, Masonite Corporation, from
Mr. Bruce P. Smith, U.S. EPA, re: 104 (e) request for
information, 5/19/87. P. 200242-200245. Two certified
mail receipts are attached.
25. Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
James P. Ridolfi, Masonite Corporation, re: Response
to 104(e) inquiry, 6/2/87. P. 200246-200246.
26. Letter to General Counsel, Masonite Corporation, from
Mr. Peter W. Schaul, U.S. EPA, re: 104 (e) request for
information, 8/29/89. P. 200247-200252. A certified
mail receipt and a map of Bradford County are attached.
27. Letter to Mr. James P. Ridolfi, Masonite Corporation,
from Mr. Thomas C. Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: General
Notice letter, 5/29/90. P. 200253-200259. A certified
mail receipt, a list of Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) who received General Notice letters, and
concurrences are attached.
28. Letter to Mr. Martin Kotsch, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Steven
J. Ginski, International Paper, re: Response to :
General Notice letter, 6/5/90. P. 200260-200261.
29. Letter to Mr. James P. Ridolfi, Masonite Corporation,
from Mr. Thomas C. Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: Special
Notice letter, 7/3/90. P. 200262-200299. The
following are attached:
a) an Express Mail slip;
b) a list of Bell Landfill Special Notice letter
recipients;
c) a good faith offer;
d) an Administrative Order By Consent For
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study In
The Matter Of Bell Landfill, Docket No. II-
90-XX-DC.
P.M. Bell Trucking and Landfill
30. Letter to Mrs. Olivia M. Bell, O.M. Bell Trucking and
Landfill, from Mr. Bruce P. Smith, U.S. EPA, re:
104 (e) request for information, 5/19/87. P. 200300-
200303. Two certified mail receipts are attached.
-------
31. Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Frank J. Niemiec, Davis, Murphy, and Niemiec, re:
Response to 104(e) inquiry for Ms. Olivia M. Bell,
6/12/87. P. 200304-200305.
32. Letter to Mrs. Oliva [sic] M. Bell from Mr. Thomas
Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: General Notice letter,
5/29/90. P. 200306-200311. A certified mail receipt
is attached.
33. Letter to Mrs. Oliva [sic] M. Bell, O.M. Bell Trucking
and Landfill, from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re:
General Notice letter, 5/29/90. P. 200312-200317.
A certified mail receipt is attached.
34. Letter to Mrs. Oliva [sic] M. Bell, O.M. Bell Trucking
and Landfill, from Mr. Thomas C. Voltaggio, U.S. EPA,
re: Special Notice letter, 7/3/90. p. 200318-200356.
The following are attached:
a) an Express Mail slip;
b) a certified mail receipt;
c) a list of Bell Landfill Special Notice letter
recipients;
d) a list of elements of a good faith offer
investigation;
e) an Administrative Order By Consent For
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study In
The Matter Of Bell Landfill, Docket No. II-
90-XX-DC.
35. Letter to Mrs. Oliva [sic] M. Bell from Mr. Thomas C.
Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: Special Notice letter,
7/3/90. P. 200357-200395. The following are attached:
a) an Express Mail slip;
b) two lists of elements of a good faith offer;
c) a list of Bell Landfill Special Notice letter
recipients;
d) an Administrative Order By Consent for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study In
The Matter Of Bell Landfill, Docket No. II-
90-XX-DC;
10
-------
36. Letter to Mr. Martin T. Kotsch, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Frank J. Niemiec, Davis, Murphy, and Niemiec, re:
Response to Special Notice letter for Ms. Olivia Bell
8/27/90. P. 200396-200396.
37. Letter to Ms. Colleen Bell from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio,
U.S. EPA, re: General Notice letter, 8/12/91.
P. 200397-200403. A list of Bell Landfill General
Notice letter recipients is attached.
38. Letter to Mr. Herbert M. Bell III from Mr. Thomas
Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: General Notice letter,
8/12/91. P. 200404-200410. A list of Bell Landfill
General Notice letter recipients is attached.
39. Letter to Mr. Mark 0. Bell from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio,
U.S. EPA, re: General Notice letter, 8/12/91.
P. 200411-200418. A list of Bell Landfill General
Notice letter recipients is attached.
The Procter and Gamble Paper Products Company
40. Letter to Ms. Ann K. Baily [sic], Procter and Gamble :
Paper Products Company, from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, U.S.
EPA, re: General Notice letter, 5/29/90. P. 200419-
200424. A certified mail receipt and concurrences are
attached.
41. Letter to Mr. Martin Kotsch, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Ann K.
Bailey, Procter and Gamble Paper Products Company, re:
Response to General Notice letter, 6/14/90. P. 200425-
200425.
42. Letter to Ms. Ann K. Baily [sic], Procter and Gamble
Paper Products Company, from Mr. Thomas C. Voltaggio,
U.S. EPA, re: Special Notice letter, 7/3/90.
P. 200426-200463. The following are attached:
a) an Express Mail slip;
b) a list of Bell Landfill Special Notice letter
recipients;
c) a list of elements of a good faith offer;
d) an Administrative Order By Consent For
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study In
The Matter Of Bell Landfill, Docket No. II-
90-XX-DC.
11
-------
gayre Area School District:
43. Letter to General Counsel, Sayre Area School District
from Mr. Peter W. Schaul, U.S. EPA, re: I04(e) request
for information, 8/29/89. P. 200464-200467.
A certified mail receipt is attached.
44. Letter to Mr. John Rajkowski, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Robert
J. Landy, Landy & Zeller, re: Response to 104(e)
inquiry for Sayre Area School District, 9/11/89.
P. 200468-200469. A letter regarding the response to
request for information is attached.
Terrv Township
45. Letter to Mr. Robert Morton, Terry Township, from Mr.
Thomas C. Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: Special Notice
letter, 7/3/90. P. 200470-200507. The following are
attached:
a) an Express Mail slip;
b) . a list of Bell Landfill Special Notice letter
recipients;
c) a list of elements of a good faith offer;
d) an Administrative Order By Consent For
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study In
The Matter of Bell Landfill, Docket No. II-
90-XX-DC.
46. Letter to Mr. Francis D. Hardenstine, Terry Township,
from Mr. Bhupi Khona, U.S. EPA, re: Special Notice
follow-up letter, 10/10/90. P. 200508-200509. A
certified mail receipt and an Express Mail slip are
attached.
47. .Letter to Mr. Glen Potter, Terry Township, from Ms.
Lydia Isales, U.S. EPA, re: Special Notice follow-up
letter, 10/24/90. P. 200510-200510.
48. Letter to Mr. Ray DePaola, Griffin and Dawsey, from Ms.
Judith R. Hykel, re: Terry Township's decline to be
part of the Administrative Order by Consent for a
RI/FS, 12/6/90. P. 200511-200511.
12
-------
III. REMEDIAL RESPONSE
1. Memorandum to Mr. Stephen D. Jarvela, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Joseph A. DeAngelis, Weston-Sper, re: Preliminary
Assessment Survey, 1/18/89. P. 300001-300014.
The following are attached:
a) a Preliminary Assessment Fact Sheet regarding
the file inventory summary;
b) a Removal Assessment Fact Sheet;
c) Attachment A, a list of owners, operators,
generators, and transporters;
d) Attachment B, a list of people and their
affiliation involved with Bell Landfill;
e) Attachment C, site information;
f) two site location maps;
g) a handwritten telephone conversation record
regarding health consultation.
2. Memorandum to file from Mr. Mark Donovan, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, re: Residential well and leachate
seep samples, 6/28/89. P. 300015-300023. The sample
data summary and analytical results are attached.
3. Report: Preliminary Health Assessment for Bell
Landfill. Wyalusincr. Bradford County. Pennsylvania.
prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR), 1/2/90. P. 300024-300042.
4. Memorandum to Mr. Bhupi Khona, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Reginald F. Harris, U.S. EPA, re: Environmental
concerns about the leachate seeps emanating from the
Bell Landfill, 7/3/91. P. 300043-300043.
5. Report: Bell Landfill Ecological Risk Assessment.
prepared by U.S. EPA, 10/14/93. P. 300044-300118.
6. Reportt Toxicolooical Data Management. Bell Landfill
Risk Assessment, prepared by COM Federal Programs
Corporation. 2/8/94. P. 300119-300297. A cover letter
is attached.
13
-------
7. Letter to Mr. Romuald Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr. James
A. LaRegina, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
re: Review comments on the Risk Assessment Report on
behalf of the Bell Landfill Settling Committee,
3/23/94. P. 300119-300293.
8. Memorandum to Mr. Romuald A. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Reginald F. Harris, U.S. EPA, re: Responses to
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.'s comments on
the Risk Assessment, 4/4/94. P. 300294-300296.
9. Report: Draft Bell Landfill Settling Companies.
Feasibility Study Report. Bell Landfill Superfund Site.
prepared by Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
5/2/94. P. 300297-300427.
10. Letter to Mr. Romuald Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr. James
A. LaRegina, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
re: Responses to EPA's Feasibility Study comments,
6/20/94. P. 300428-300432.
11. Letter to Mr. Romuald Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr. James
A. LaRegina, Environmental Resources Management, Inc.,
re: Revised alternative cost estimates, 6/22/94.
P. 300433-300433.
12. Proposed Plan, Bell Landfill Superfund Site, Towanda,
Pennsylvania, 7/5/94. P. 300434-300467.
13. Report: Final Bell Landfill Settling Companies.
Feasibility Study Report. Bell Landfill Superfund Site.
prepared by Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
7/7/94. P. 300468-300604.'
14. Memorandum to Mr. Romuald Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Bruce Rundell, U.S. EPA, re: Time frame for natural
attenuation at the site, 9/8/94. P. 300605-300605.
15. Memorandum to Mr. Bruce Rundell, U.S. EPA, from Ms.
Barbara Smith, U.S. EPA, re: Information on the
classification of ground water, 9/12/94. P. 300606-
300607.
16. Report: Bell Landfill Final Remedial Investigation
Report, prepared by Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., 7/30/93. P. 300608-300992.
14
-------
V. CONGRESSIONAL COMESPOMPRNCE/COMMUNTTY
l. Letter to Mr. Morris Messersmith from Mr. William
Schmieg, Friend Laboratory, Inc., re: Final part of
New York water testing report for samples collected
March 20, 1984, 5/11/84. P. 500001-500001. This
letter refers to the report No. 11 in Section I of this
index entitled, "Report of Tests for Friend Laboratory,
Inc., Lab. Number 84-72052," P. 100047-100074..
2. Letter to Mrs. Diane Masters from Mr. William Schmieg,
Friend Laboratory, Inc., re: Final test results from
New York Testing Laboratory, 7/3/84. P. 500002-500002.
_This letter refers to the report No. 12 in Section I of
this index entitled, "Report of Tests for Friend
Laboratory, Inc., Lab. Number 84-72890," P. 100075-
100119.
3. Letter to Mr. Morris Messersmith from Mr. William
Schmieg, Friend Laboratory, Inc., re: Final test
results from New York Testing Laboratory, 7/3/84.
P. 500003-500003. This letter refers to the report No.
12 in Section I of this index entitled, "Report of
Tests for Friend Laboratory, Inc. , Lab. Number -"
84-72890," P. 100075-100119.
4. Newspaper article entitled, "Bell Landfill: Who Will
Pay for Clean-Up?", (periodical unknown), 7/28/88.
P. 500004-500004.
5. U.S. EPA Environmental News entitled "Study to Begin At
Bell Landfill Superfund Site," 1/91. P. 500005-500007.
6. Transcript of Proceedings In Re: U.S. EPA Proposed
Plan meeting for Bell Landfill Superfund Site, Operable
Units 1 & 2, 7/19/94. P. 500008-500041.
7. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Ernest 6. Parker, re: Comments on the situation at the
Bell Landfill and request for an additional 30 days to
review the plan, 7/27/94. P. 500042-500044. An
envelope is attached.
8. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Ernest 6. Parker and Ms. Anna H. Parker, re: Comments
on the proposed plan and concurrence with Alternative
3, 8/10/94. P. 500045-500046.
15
-------
9. U.S. EPA Public Notice entitled "The United States
Environmental Protection Agency Announces a 30-day
Extension of the Proposed Plan Public Comment Period
for the Bell Landfill Superfund Site," 8/11/94.
P. 500047-500047.
10. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Ernie Parker, ret A list of documents obtained over a
period of time, 8/16/94. P. 500048-500055. A
chronological list of documents pertaining to the Bell
Landfill is attached.
11. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr. &
Mrs. M.J. Messersmith, re: Comments on the proposed
plan and concurrence with Alternative 3, 8/17/94.
P. 500056-500057.
12. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA re: Comments
on the proposed plan and concurrence with Alternative
3, 8/23/94. P. 500058-500059.
13. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from The
Davis', re: Comments on the proposed plan and
concurrence with Alternative 3, 8/31/94. P. 500060-
500063. An envelope is attached.
14. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr. &
Mrs. Stanley D. Bundle, re: Comments on the proposed
plan and concurrence with Alternative 3, 9/6/94.
P. 500064-500066. An envelope is attached.
15. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Ms.
Nancy Caudell, re: Comments on the proposed plan and
concurrence with Alternative 3, 9/6/94. P. 500067-
500069. An envelope is attached.
16. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
David & Dianne Masters, re: Comments on the proposed
plan and concurrence with Alternative 3, 9/7/94.
P. 500070-500078. The following are attached:
a) a letter dated September 14, 1983 regarding
sample results from Bell Landfill;
b) a Waste and Hastewater Report;
c) lab testing results;
d) an envelope.
16
-------
17. Handwritten letter to Mr. Roman, u.s EPA, from Mr.
Russell M. Wells, re: Concurrence with the Parker
Family proposals and concerns with the landfill,
(undated). P. 500079-500080.
18. U.S. EPA Public Notice entitled "The United States
Environmental Protection Agency Announces the Proposed
Plan and Public Comment Period for the Bell Landfill
Super fund Site,1* (undated). P. 500081-500081.
17
-------
a,nMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR THE UNILATERAL ORDEP F?R
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
PROPERTY DOCUMENTS
1. Deed, Bell Landfill, granted to Mr. Wayne Gowin, Ms.
Hannah L. Gowin, Mr. Walter Gowin, Ms. Dorothy L.
Gowin, and Mr. Herbert Bell, 3/13/74. p. 1-16.
2. Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration for the
Estate of Mr. Herbert M. Bell, Jr., (undated). P. 17-
21. The following are attached:
a) an Oath of Personal Representative;
b) a Register of Wills;
c) a Renunciation form;
d) an Inheritance Tax Return for Insolvent
Estates.
3. Notice of Filing for Appraisement for the Estate of Mr.
Herbert M. Bell, 1/26/81. P. 22-29. The following are
attached:
a) a Liabilities Appraisal;
b) an appraisal of a small coin collection;
c) an appraisal of landfill equipment;
d) an appraisal of used guns;
e) an appraisal of vehicles.
4. Copy of State Interstate Succession Law (20 PA. Cons.
Stat. 301 (b)), (undated). P. 30-30.
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY; INFORMATION REQUESTS
5. Letter to Ms. Olivia M. Bell, O.M. Bell Trucking and
Landfill, from Mr. Bruce P. Smith, U.S. EPA, re:
104 (e) information request, 5/19/87. P. 31-33.
6. Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls , U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Frank J. Niemiec, Davis, Murphy, and Niemiec, re:
Response to a 104 (e) information request, 6/16/87.
P. 34-75. The following are attached:
a) three Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (PADER) inspection
reports;
b) an envelope;
c) a letter regarding a subject order;
d) two contract orders;
e) four PADER Land Disposal Inspection Reports;
f) five invoices;
* Administrative Record File available 1/3/92.
-------
g) a letter regarding guidelines for landfill
closure;
h) Guidelines for Closure Plan of a Sanitary
Landfill;
i) a letter regarding a contract order
alteration;
j) a letter.regarding black sludge;
k) sampling information;
1) O.M. Bell Sanitation Service letterhead.
7. Letter to Mrs. Olivia H. Bell from Mr. Thomas
Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: Notice of potential
liability, 5/29/90. P. 76-82. Two certified mail
receipts are attached.
8. Administrative Order by Consent In the Matter of: Bell
Landfill, Docket No. III-90-xx-DC, 6/25/90. P. 83-121.
The following are attached:
a) a cover letter to Ms. Olivia M. Bell;
b) two good faith offers;
c) a list of Special Notice Recipients;
d) a certified mail receipt.
9. Administrative Order by Consent In the Matter of: Bell
Landfill, Docket No. III-90-xx-DC, 6/25/90. P. 122-
159. The following are attached:
a) a letter to Mrs. Olivia M. Bell, O.M. Bell
Trucking and Landfill;
b) a good faith offer;
c) a list of Special Notice Recipients;
d) a certified mail- receipt.
10. Letter to Mr. Herbert M. Bell, III from Mr. Thomas
Voltaggio, U.S. EPA, re: Potential liability notice,
8/12/91. P. 160-166. A general notice letter
recipient list is attached.
11. Letter to Mr. Mark O. Bell from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio,
U.S EPA, re: Potential liability notice, 8/12/91.
P. 167-174. Two general notice letter recipient lists
are attached.
12. Letter to Ms. Colleen Bell from Mr. Thomas Voltaggio,
U.S. EPA, re: Potential liability notice, 8/12/91.
P. 175-181. A general notice letter recipient list is
attached.
-------
DOCUMENTATION
13. Summary of U.S. EPA Expenditures, Bell Landfill,
prepared by Ms. Leslie Vassallo, 6/11/91. P.182-182.
FTLED ACTIONS AND SETTLEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO TOT? pELL LANDFILL
14. Administrative Order by Consent In the Matter of: Bell
Landfill, Docket No. III-91-11-DC, 12/27/90. P 183-
235.
^ T^NPFILP StJPERFUND SITE ADMINISTRATIVE UNILATERAL ORDER FOR
ACCESS
15. Administrative Order for Access In the Matter of: Bell
Landfill, Docket No. III-91-47-DC, 10/22/91.
P. 236-255.
16. Letter to Ms. Olivia M. Bell from Ms. Judith R. Hykel,
U.S. EPA, re: Unilateral Order for Access, 12/24/91.
P. 256-256.
17. Letter to Mr. Herbert M. Bell, III from Ms. Judith R. ;
Hykel, U.S. EPA, re: Unilateral Order for Access,
12/24/91. P. 257-257.
18. Letter to Mr. Mark o. Bell from Ms. Judith R.
Hykel, U.S. EPA, re: Unilateral Order for
Access, 12/24/91. P. 258-258.
19. Letter to Ms. Colleen Bell from Ms. Judith R. Hykel,
U.S. EPA, re: Unilateral Order for Access, 12/24/91.
P. 259-259.
20. Memorandum to Mr. Edwin B. Erickson, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Tom Voltaggio, and Ms. Marcia E. Mulkey, U.S. EPA, re:
Unilateral Order for Access, (undated). P. 260-261.
21. Memorandum to Mr. Edwin B. Erickson, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Tom Voltaggio, and Ms. Marcia E. Mulkey, U.S. EPA, re:
Unilateral Order for Access and Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP) Indemnification Agreement, 12/19/91.
P. 262-263.
22. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement between
U.S. EPA and GTE Products Corporation, 11/27/91.
P. 264-264.
23. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement between
U.S. EPA and E.I du Pont de Nemours and Company,
11/19/91. P. 265-265.
-------
24. Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement between
U.S. EPA and Masonite Corporation, 11/15/91. P. 266-
266.
-------
RECORD OP DEGTSTOW
DECLARATION
SITS NAME AND LOCATION
Bell Landfill Superfnad site
Terry Township
Bradford County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial
action plan for the Bell Landfill superfund Site (the "Site") in
Bradford County, Pennsylvania which was chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. S 9601
("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 upon and documented in
the contents of the Administrative Record. The attached index
identifies the items which comprise the Administrative Record.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with the selected
remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine,
pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9606, that actual
or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, as
specified in Section VI, ?\nMary of site Risks, in the ROD, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public
health, welfare, or the environment.
DESC&IPTXOM OF TKB SELECTED REMEDY
The remedial action plan in this document is presented as
the permanent remedy for controlling the soil and groundwater
contamination at the Site. This remedy is comprised of the
following components:
• Capping two fill areas with a Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources ("PADER") municipal landfill cap.
-------
Reconstructing the existing leachate collection system, and
collecting leachate in new storage tanks for off-site
treatment and disposal.
Deed restriction preventing residential use of the site.
Removing visibly stained soils from the areas impacted by
leachate (followed by confirmatory sampling), and placing
these soils in areas to be capped.
Long-term monitoring of ground and surface water.
• Landfill gas venting system.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine
that the selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
legally are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment ;;
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedial actions in which treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume is a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on site above health-based levels, a review will be
conducted within five (5) years after the commencement of the
remedial action to ensure that human health and the environment
continue to be adequately protected by the remedy.
Peter H. Kostmayer
Regional Administrator
Region III
Date
Con
t
Symbol
3HW23
3HW23
3HWOO
JRC23
3RC23
3RC20
3HW50
5HW63
Surname
R.ROHAN
S.BREGMAN
E.ASHTON
CARDAMONE
VMONE
P-TAN
Eg
Date
ft
Symbol
3HW20
HW02
3RAOO
Surname
KOSTMAYER
Date
------- |