EPA/ROD/R03-95/19*
October 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Bush Valley Landfill Superfund Site,
Abingdon, Harford County, MD
9/26/1995
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
SUPERFUND SITE
PREPARED BY
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
. .
. PROTECTION AGENCY
SEPTEMBER. 1995
I
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
PART I - DECLARATION
I.
site Name and Location
Bush Valley Landfill Superfund Site
Harford County, Maryland
II.
statement of Basi's and PurDose
This Record of Decision ("ROD") presents the final remedial
action selected for the Bush Valley Landfill Superfund site, '
("Site"), located near the town of Abingdon in Harford County,
Maryland. This remedial action was, chosen in acc~rdance with the
requirements of the'Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCI,.A"), 42 U.S.C.
~~9601 et. seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40
C.F.R. Part 300'. This decision document explains the factual and
legal basis for selecting the remedial action. The information
supporting this decision is contained in the Administrative
Record file for this site.
The Maryland Department 'of the Environment (uNDEn) has
provided letters to the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") indicating their concurrence with the selected remedy.
III. Assessment of the site,
, Pursuant to duly delegate4 'authority, t hereby determine, ,
pursuant to section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ~ 9606, that actual
and threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site,
as discussed in Part II, Sections VI and VII ,(summary of Human
Health Risks and summary of Environmenta~ Risks) of this ROD, if
not addressed py implementing the remedial action selected in
this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health or the environment. '. .
IV. Descriotion of the selected Remedv
This site is a former municipal landfill comprising
approximately 16 acres. The remedial action selected for this
Site is a final remedy which will address the wastes buried in
the landfill, contaminated soils,' leachate, landfill gas, the'
adjacent wetlands and streams, and contaminated ground water.
The selected remedy includes a combination of containment
measures and engineering controls in accordance with the EPA
directive, PresumDtive Remedv for CERCLA Municioal Landfill
i
-------
Sites, September.1993 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-49), which
establishes containment as the presumptive remedy for CERCLA
municipal landfills. .
The selected remedy includes the following major components:
.8
A single barrier cover system over the landfill;
A landfill gas management system;
8
8
A monitoring system for adjacent wetlands, streams
and ground water; and'
Land-use and access restrictions.
8
v.
statutory Determinations
. , .
. .
This selected remedy is protective of human' health and the
environment, complies with federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective.
Because this remedial action will result in hazardous
substances remaining onsite, a review ,by EPA will be conducted,
within five.yearsafter initiation of remedial action, and every
five years thereafter, as required by Section 121(c) of CERCLA,
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment. .
-1/~(; !7Y-
Date .
ii
-------
I.
II.
RECORD OF DECISION
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL SITE
DECISION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
site Name, Location, and Description. . .
. . . . . .
site History and Enforcement Activities
. . . . . . .
III. Highlights of Community Participation
IV.
V.
VI.
. . . .
. . . .
Scope and Role of Response Action
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . 1
. . 2
. . 5
. . 5
Summary of Site Characteristics. .. . . . . . . . . . .' ,6
A. General. . . . . . . . . . . .8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. site Geology. . .,. . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . 6
C. Landfill Characteristics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
D. Sampling Results. . . ~ . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 8
1. I..eacha te . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -8
2. Subsurface Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
a~ Upgradient Ground-water samples. . . . .. 10
b. Downgradient Ground-water Samples. . . .. 11
c. Domestic Ground-water Samples. . '. . . .. 12
4 .' Surface Soil ~ . . . '. . . . . . . .'. . . ,; .. 12
5. Surface Water and Sediment. ..." . ~ '. '. . . .. 13
a. HSedimentation Basin'. . . . . . . . . . .. 13
b. 'Drainage D1 tch' . . . . .. . . .. . . .. 14 '
c. BYnum Run Creek, the Bush River 'Tributary,
, James RUn,,' and the Unnamed T'ributary ,
d. Marsh Sediment' . .,. . . . .' . . . . . . .
6. ~ient Air. . . . . . . . . . ". .8.. . . . . .
Summary of Human Health Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . .
'A. Data Collection and 'Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . .
B. Exposure Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Toxicity Assessment. . . . . . . . . '. . .,. . . . .
D. Human Health Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Risk Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII. Summary of Environmental Risks
. . .
..........
VIII. Description of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Common Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, D. Alternative 3 . . . . . . ,. . . ,. . . . . . . ,. . . .
E. Al terriati ve 4a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. Alternative 4b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Al ternati ve 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
14
16
16
17
17
18
18
, 20
23
25
27
27
29
29
29
33
35
36
-------
IX.
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives. . . .
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Envirorunent.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Compliance with ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . . .
D. Reduction of Toxicity, MObility, or Volume through
Treatment. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
E. Short-Term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. Implementabil i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H. State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
I. Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
X.
Selected Remedy. . . . . . . . . .' . . . ., . . . . .. .
A. Description of Selected Remedy. . . . . . . . . .' . .
B. Performance Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .
Statutory Determinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Ov~rall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Che~ical Specific ARARs .. . . . . . . . . . ..
2. Action-Specific ARARs .,. . . . . . .. . . . . .
3. Location-apecific ARARs .... . .... . ... .' .
C. Cost-Effectiveness. . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Utilization of, Permanent Solutions' and Alternative
Treatment (or'Resource Recovery) Technoloqies to
the Maximum Extent Practicable. . .. . . . . . . .
E. Preference for Treatment as a principal Element ... .
, XI.
iv
37
38
40
41
43
43
44
45
46
46
46
46
50
55
55
56
57
57
59
59
59
60
-------
APPENDIX I - FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Site Location Map
FIGURE 2: Site Area Map
FIGURE 3: Well Location Map
FIGURE 4: single Barrier Cover System
FIGURE 5: Composite Barrier Cover System.
APPENDIX.n - TABLES
TABLE 1:.
TABLE .2:
TABLE 3:
TABLE 4:
TABLE 5:
TABLE 6:
TABLE 7:.
TABLE 8:
TABLE 9:
Summary of Leachate Sampling Results
Summary of Sub-surface Soil Sampling Results
Summary of Upgradient Ground-Water Sampling Results
MCL Exceedances in Ground-Water (found in text)
Summary of Downqradient Ground-Water Sampling Results
Summary of Resi.dential Well #1 Ground-Wat~r Sampling.
Results
Summary. of Residential Well #2 Ground-Water Sampling
Results
Summary of Residenti.al Well #3 Ground-Water Sampling
Results
Summary of Surficial Soil Sampling Results
TABLE. 10: Summary of. Sedimentation Basin Surface Wat$r Sampling
Results
. TABLE 11: Summary of Sedimentation Basin Sediment sampling
Results
TABLE 12: Summary of Drainage Ditch Surface Water Sampling
Results
TABLE 13: Summary of Drainage Ditch Sediment sampling Results
v
-------
TABLE 14: Summary of Bynum Run Creek Surface Water Sampling
Results
TABLE 15: Summary of Bynum Run Creek Sediment Sampling Results
. TABLE 16: Summ~ry of B~sh River Tributary Surface Water Sampling'
Results
TABLE 17: Summary of Bush River Tributary/Unnamed Tributary
Sediment sampling Results
TABLE 18: summary of Unnamed Tributary Surface Water Sampling
Results
TABLE 19: summary of Marsh Sediment Sampling Results
TABLE 20: Summary of Upwind Air sampling Results
TABLE 21: Summary of, Downwind Air Sampling Results
TABLE 22: Exposure Point Concentrations for each site'Media
TABLE 23: Reasonable Maximum Exposure Factors'
TABLE 24: Slope Factors/Reference Doses
TABLE 25: Cancer Risks for contaminants of Concern
TABLE 26: Non-cancer Risks for contaminants of Concern
, , '
TABLE 27: Common Elements for Alternatives (found in text)
TABLE 28: compilation of Site ARARs
TABLE 29:comparisson of Cost (found in text)
vi
-------
PART II - DECISION SUMMARY
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
I.
site Kame. Location. and Descriotion
The Bush Valley Landfill Site ("Site" or "landfill") is
located in the northeastern portion of Harford county, Maryland,
approximately 20 miles northeast of Baltimore and 8 miles
northwest of the Chesapeake Bay. The site is south of Route 7
just off of Bush Road. Abingdon is the closest town to the site
and is about one mile 'to the southwest (see Figure 1).
The ~andfill, as permitted in 1975 by the state of Maryland,
Department of Health and Mental -Hygiene ("D~n), was 29 acres in
size. The area where landfilling operations actually took place
consists of a rectangular shaped mound approximately '600 feet by
1200 feet within the 29-acre parcel (see Figure 2). The landfill
was designed as a trench and fill operation. Landfill design
drawings indicate that there were ten trenches covering
approximately 16 acres oriented east to west, approximately 50
feet wide and up to 25 feet deep, separated by a 5 foot buffer
strip. The landfill reaches an approximate height of 20 to 25
feet above the, surrounding terrain and is estimated to extend 25
feet below ground surface. Although initially designed as a
trench and fill operation, once the trenches were full wastes
were apparently piled on top of the trenches. This would account
for the elevation of the landfill above ground surface., Design
drawings of the trenches illustrate a b~ttom elevation that ~s
within approximately 5 feet of. the water table.
In general, the area surrounding the Site is residential,
with some wooded areas. To the north and east' of the site lies a
tidal freshwater marsh zone. -This marsh zone is part of the Bush
. Declaration Natural Resource Management Area ("BDHRMA"). The
BDNRMA ,is approximately 120 acres in size; development and use of '
the area 'is 'restricted. 'In 1985, the State of Maryland,.
Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") purchased a 12-acre
parcel of land which was part of the original 29-acre'permitted
landfill site. The 12-acre parcel of land purchased by DNR was
annexed as part of the BDNRMA. Byn1U\1 Run Creek, a perennial
stream, flows around the north side of the landfill in a
northeastwardly direction until it converges with James Run,
which flows into a Bush River Tributary.. The confluence' of the
Bynum Run Creek and James Run/Bush River TributarY is .
dpproximately 800 feet northeast of the Site. Another tributary ,
to the Bush River originates within a few hundred feet of the
southeastern portion of the landfill (see Figure 2).
The area west, south, and north of the site is primarily
1
-------
residential. Recent housing development in the vicinity of the
site includes the new Harford Town Community (formerly known as
the Hidden stream Development). This community is located less
than one quarter mile west of the site and will consist of
approximately 169 townhomes, 456 condominium units, and 57
individual homes when completed. The Beachwood Mobile Home Park
is located approximately 800 feet to the south of the Site.
In December 1989, a municipal water line was completed for
Harford County residents. Every residence located along Bush
Road, including the mobile home park ~d those residences closest
to the landfill ,are currently using public water for drinking'.
Any new housing in the area is required to connect to the public
water system. Domestic wells are still active at a few
residences in the vicinity of the Site; however, ~e water from
these wells is not used for drinking. Other land parcels in the
county have been identified as having wellsonsite; however, each
of .these wells is a significant distance from the Site and/or is
hydrogeologically upgradient or isolated from the site.
. At this time, there is no evidence of the existence of any
endangered or threatened species at the, Site. There is also no
evidence. of significant scientific, historical~ or archaeological
resources at or impacted by the. Site. Finally, there are no
properties included in or' eligible for the N~tional Register of
Historic Places and no National'Historic Landmarks at or impacted'
by the 'S,ite. . . ' '.
:IX.
site History and Bnforcement Activities
The Bush Valley Landfill property has'been'owned by the
~arris and Braxton families for ,many years~' Three generations'
ago, the Harris and Braxton families used'. the land for grazing
cattle and raising crops. At one point, Lloyd Harris, Sr. and
his son, Lloyd Harris, Jr., started a trash hauling business
which they owned and operated for a number of years. In 1974, in
order. to expand their business to include landfilling of sol~d
waste, Lloyd Har~is, Sr. and Lloyd Harris, Jr. leased the
property which waSf to become the Bush Valley landfill from
,Charlotte Harris, EvelYn Braxton Peaker, and Al~en and Martha
Braxton. In 1975,"Lloyd Harris submitted 'a site plan, procedures
of operation, and a permit application to the State. of Maryland,
DHMH. ' On Februa;ry 21, 1975, Harford County ("the' county")
entered into an agreement with Bush valley Landfill, Inc., Lloyd
Harris, James R. Harris, and Roger E. Harris to operate a
sanitary landfill for wastes generated in the county. The County
paid the landfill operators based on the weight of wastes
disposed of at the landfill; this initial agreement between the
county and the operators was extended on July 25, 1980, for the
life of the landfill. On August 25, 1975, DHMH permitted the
site for use and operation as a municipal solid waste landfill,
Permit No. 75-12-01-02A. Based on information gained during
2
-------
interviews with people living in the vicinity of the site, EPA
believes that Lloyd Harris began depositing waste at the Site
sometime during 1974 or early 1975, before the permit was issued.
Although the trench system of landfilling was used at the
Site, as discussed above, both DHMH and Harford County Health
Department ("HCHD") inspection reports indicate that the
operators of the landfill did not adhere to the site plan or the
operation procedures outlined in the permit. Bush Valley
Landfill, Inc. and Lloyd Harris were cited for, among other
things, improper sloping of the trenches, refuse ove~flow from
one trench to another, water accumulation in the trenches, and
lack of daily soil cover. In addition, Lloyd Harris may have
accepted hazardous waste at the 'landfill.. . Furthermore,. there are
reports of drums being disposed of at the landfill. Finally, on
numerous mornings, wastes were found on top of the daily soil
cover that had been applied the previous day, indicating that
"midnight dumping" had occurred.
On October 20, 1978, DHMH ordered Lloyd Harris and Bush
Valley Landfill, Inc. to undertake a series of actions to correct
operational and design deficiencies which caused violations of
State law. Bush'Valley Landfill, Inc. and Lloyd Ha~is failed to
comply with the order, and on May 6, 1979, DHMH ordered them to
hire a competent organization to take charge of the landfill to
assure that certain corrective measures were undertaken. Bush
. Valley Landfill, Inc~ and the.Maryland E~vironmental Services
("MES") entered into a contract whereby KES was to supervise.
operations at the landfill. .An KES employee rem~ined at the Site.
on a daily basis for most of the following year. This did not
result in the correction of the deficiencies noted in the
preyious violations. Thus, on May 2, 19.80,. DHMB again ordered
Bush Valley Landfill, Inc. and Lloyd Harris to un~ertake the
requ~site~orrective action to address the design and operational
deficiencies that were causing violations of Maryland law. Bush
Valley Landfill, Inc. and Lloyd Harris never brought the landfill
. into compliance. . . . .
. As of December 3, 1982, Lloyd Harris and Bush valley
Landfill, Inc. were still accepting solid 'waste at the landfi1l.
Shortly thereafter, the landfill was filled to capacity and Lloyd
Harris and Bush Valley Landfill, Inc. ceased to maintain the
site. The site received minimal cover material when landfill
operations were discontinued. A review of Maryland Department of
the Environment ("MeE") records from the time period between 1983
1 Information regarding the potential for the presence of
hazardous waste in the landfill, drums being disposed of in the
landfill, and the occurrence of midnight dumping was obtained
from interviews with people living in the vicinity of the site.
3
,.
-------
to 1985 revealed that stabilization of the landfill was
inadequate and that erosion of the cover had exposed refuse in
some areas. There wa$ insufficient maintenance of the northeast
sedimentation basin: during inspections, leachate seeps were
observed at numerous locations. The majority of leachate seeps
were located on the top of the northern and northeastern portion
of the landfill mound.
In 1983, MDE conducted a Site visit at the landfill for
purposes of preparing a preliminary assessment ("PAn) report.
This PA was submitted to EPA in August 1984. In 1984, NUS
corporation (an EPA contractor) collected samples during a Site
Investigation (nSIn) and prepared an SI report. EPA then
prepared a Hazard Ranking System (nHRS") : score t~.determine the
site's eligibility for inclusion on the. National Priorities List
("NPL"). The score for the site was 40.29: sites' which score
greater than 28.5 are eligible for inclusion on the .NPL.' rn June.
,of 1988, the site was placed on the NPL. .
. .
The site was assigned to MDE as a state lead response action
under a cooper~tive agreement in January 1989. A Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (nRIfFS") work plan was
subsequently deve,loped under MOE's supervision. The purpose of
. the RIfFS was' to identify the nature and extent of. contamination.
and to develop and evaluate' remedial alternatives. to address such
contamination. At this point, Harford co~ty opted to take a .
more active role in the development of the RIfFS and, as.a
result, in June 1990, the County began to negotiate an
Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") with EPA under which the
county would conduct the RI/FS at the site" The Aoe ,between the
County and EPA became effective on December 21, 1990. .
The County conducted the RI' sampling' program under the Aoe
from' January 1991 through May 1993 and the RI report was accepted
as final by EPA on March 7, 1995. The County submitted its
initial draft FS on February 24, 1995. The revised FS, submitted
on May. 25, 1995, was found' to be inadequate by EPA. The FS was
'revised by EPA and considered final on 'June 8,1995.
For a detailed . chronology of events at the site,' see Table.
2~1 of the Remedial Investigation Report ("RI"), which is part of
the Administrative Record.2
2 The Administrative Record file contains all of ''the site' .
information that was considered or relied upon in selecting the
remedy. The Administrative Record is located in a repository at
the EPA Region III Office in Philadelphia. A copy has also been.
placed at the Harford County Library in Bel Air, Maryland.
4
-------
1:1%.
Biahliqhts of Community ParticioatioD
The RI/FS Report. and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
(IIPRAP") for the Bush Valley Landfill site were released to the
public for comment on June 15, 1995,in accordance with the
requirements, of Sectipns 113(k), 117(a) , and 121(f) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended (IICERCLA" or "Superfund"), 42 U.S.C.
sections 9613(k), 9617(a), and 9621(f). These documents were
made available to the public in the Administrative Record at both
an information repository maintained at the EPA Docket Room in
Region III, Philadelphia and the Bel Air Branch of the Harford
County Library in Bel Air, Maryland. Notices of availability for
these documents were published in two newspapers of general ,
circulation in Harford County: in The Record on June 14, 1995 and
in The Aeais on June 16, 1995. The publ~c comment period for the
PRAP opened on June ,15, 1995 and. extended to July 14, 1995'. '
, .
In addition, a public meeting was held by EPA on June 26,
1995, at the Edgew60d High School in Edgewood, Maryland, in
accordance with section 117(a) (2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. section
9617(a) (2). At. this meeting, representatives from EPA presented
the findings of the RI/FS and answered questions about the Site
and the remedi~l ~lternatives that were being considered at that
time. . '
Following the public meeting and the close of the comment,
p~riod, EPA evaluated and considered comments received from the
public, including comments from MDE. Responses to all
significant comments, including those expressed verbally at the .,
public meeting, are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which
is part of this Record of Decision' ("ROD").'
1:V.
sco~e an4 Role of Resoonse Action
The selected alternative will address all areas and media
impacted by the, contamination at the Si~e, including the landfill,
itself, contaminated soils, contaminated' ground water~ landfill
gas, and the wetlands and streams adja~ent to the Site. EPA
anticipates that this response action will adequately address all
contaminated areas of the site: however, there is a potential for
subsequent actions regarding the ground water, landfill gas
emissions, and the wetland and streams. The necessity of any
subsequent response actions will depend on information obtained
during long-term monitoring associated with the selected remedy.
EPA has determined 'that addressing the site as separate operable
units for individual media is presently not warranted.
5
-------
v.
SummarY of Si~e Charac~eristics
A. General
The RI field activities and analytical program were designed
to define the extent of contamination in the l~ndfill itself, the.
soils, the ground water, surface water and sediments, leachate,.
and adjacent wetlands, as well as to identify migration pathways
and provide data to support a feasibility study ("FS") of
potential remedial actions. The following activities were
completed at the site during the.RI:
. site Reconnaissance;
. Geophysical Surveying; .
. Geological' Investigations;
. Ground Water Monitoring Well Installation:
. surveying and Water Level Measurements:
. Human Population and Land Use Investigations:
.
Ecological.Investigations; and
..
Sampling of Various Media.
B. Site Geoloqy
The site falls in the physiographic province of the Coastal
Plain Sediments. The Site is underlain by two distinct sand'
layers separated by finer textured materials. The upper s~d
zone is encountered approxima~ely fiva to twenty. feet. .
below qround surface and varies in thickness from two to ten
feet. The upper sand zone does nQt exist or becomes non-distinct
. to the east .of the Site!, .The thickness and physical. .
. ~haracteristics of the upper sand zone vary between locations,
suggesting the possibility that the upper sand zone may not be
continuous between locations~ It is likely that the upper sand
zone is intermittently or seasonally saturated at some locations.
Based on the information collected during the RI, the upper sand
zone may not contribute siqnificantly to the ground water flow
characteristics of the Site.
The upper and lower sand zones are separated by:a layer of
finer grained material that is variable in thickness and texture.
The separation layer was observed to range from 10 to 15 feet in
thickness. The fine-grained material separating the upper and
lower sand zones is dominated by clay and silt, and the sand
fraction tends to increase with depth as the lower sand zone is
approached. .
6
-------
The second or lower sand zone is encountered approximately
35 feet below ground surface on the west side of the site and
less than 20 feet below ground surface on the east side of the
site. The thickness of the lower sand unit was observed to be at
least 20 to 30 feet. The lower sand zone is considered the
uppermost continuous water-bearing unit in the vicinity of the
Site. Ground water elevations collected indicate that the
primary direction of ground water flow is from west to east
across the Site to the tidal marsh and the unnamed tributary of
the Bush River which serve as discharge locations for ground
water. The ground water flow rate from west to east across the
site within the lower sand zone is estimated to range from
0.0026 to 2.6 feet per day.
The RI information collected indicates that Bynum Run Creek
is also a discharge location for ground water flowing beneath the
. Site. Water elevation~ measured in the lower sand zone across
. the site iridicate that ground water beneath the site has both
lateral and upward components of flow. Therefore, Bynum Run
Creek and the tidal marsh are supported by the ground water table
characterized in the lower sand zone. The unnamed tributary to
the Bush River is beli.eved to be a discharge area. This
tributary originates a few hundred feet east of the site. It is
. therefore assumed that ground water discharge from the lower sand
zone occurs in the tidal marsh. within a few hundred feet of the
site.
C. Lan4fill.Characteristics
The Bush valley Landfili is comprised of solid waste that
has been exposed to precipitation. As a result, leachate has
develope~. The solid waste .and the resultant leachate are the
primary sources of contamination at the.Site.
The quality of leachate from most landfills is highly
variable and depends on th~ waste composition, depth of fill,
. type of cover material, operation Qf the landfill site, climate, .
and hydrogeology of the site.. .. The process. of leacha.te generation.
at the Site is dependent on a number of factors; however,
precipitation events playa major role. Precipitation re~ching
the l~ndfill surface can either. evaporate, transpire, infiltrate
through the landfill surface, or become surface runoff. When a
sufficient amount of water infiltrates the landf!ll an~ comes in
contact with the waste, leachate generation can occur. The .
.~olume of leachate generated and the extent of migration from the
landfill depends on such factors as landfill surface c;:onditions,
volume of water percolation through the' cells, refuse conditions,
and underlying soil conditions. The relatively permeable surface
and subsurface textures observed across the site during field
investigations suggest that precipitation can infiltrate and
leachate can migrate through the soils at the surface and beneath
the landfill cell; however, ponding of leachate within the cell
7
-------
could also occur.
Leachate generation occurs as the various waste constituents
are decomposed or stabilized by aerobic and anaerobic
microorganisms and converted to gasses and soluble orqanic and
inorganic compounds. The initial leaching includes the
dissolution of soluble material in the landfill such as salts and
organic material. These dissolved constituents usually impart a
brown/black color to the leachate. Biological activity within
the cells will initially produce more soluble end products such
as simple organic acids and alcohols. These products may undergo
further biochemical reactions to release gaseous end products
(e.g., carbon dioxide and methane): however, some of the soluble
organic material may be leached out of the cell. In addition, .
organic nitrogen is converted to ammonium ions, which are readily
soluble and 'can give rise to siqnificant quantities of ammonia in
thl:! leachate~ ... .
The nature and extent of contamination at the site is
discussed below and is organized by medium in the following
sequence: Leachate: Subsurface Soil; Ground Water; Surface Soil:
Surface Water and Sediment; and Ambient.Air. .
D. samp1inq Results
1. Leachate
. .
six leachate samples were collected in March 1993 from.
locations at the site. Leachate seeps, present on the top of the
northern and northeastern portion of the landfillmo~d,were
found to contain elevated levels of several orqaniccompounds and
metals. Samples from the leachate seeps contained toluene: 1,4- .
dichlorobenzene; 1,2-dichlorobenzene; 4-methylphenol: 2,4-
dimethylphenol: naphthalene; 2-methylnaphthalene.: and
diethylphthalate at concentrations ranging from 2 micrograms per
liter ("ug/l") to 9 ug/l. . Based on the lowest observed effect
levels, these organics are typically not considered. toxic to
. aquatic life until' the levels are in the milliqramper liter
("mq/l") range.. Gamma-BHC and Heptachlor were a180 detected in
leachate samples at traqe levels.
. .
Numerous inorganic constituents were detected in leachate
samples including al\Pl1inum, barium, cadmium, calcium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
nickel, potassium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc. A number
of these inorganics provide a potential for adverse ecological
effects. See Table 1 for a summary of contaminants found in
leachate.
8
-------
2. SUbsurface S011s
A total of twelv~ subsurface soil samples were collected in
June and July 1992, from various depth intervals ranging from 7
to 40 feet below ground surface. Four of the twelve samples were
obtained from locations that are upgradient of the landfill.
Both organic and inorganic constituents were detected in
subsurface soils.
Total Volatile organic Compounds ("VOCs") ranged from non-
detect (at 6 of 12 locations) to 576 ug/Kg. Comparable levels of
VOCs were detected in the upgradient and downgradient subsurface
soil sampling locations, with the exception of the deep soil
sample obtained from monitoring well GM2LSD, wh~ch is located on
the south side of the landfill.' This sample contained 576 ug/Kg
total VOCs and was found in an area where elevated levels of
VOC's were also found in the ground water. ' ' '
Twenty-two ,inorganic contaminants were detected in the
subsurface soils. For the most part, levels of inorganic
contaminants in subsurface soils are uniform throughout the site.
See Table 2 for a summary of contaminants found in sub-surface
soils.
3. Ground Water"
, The ,following'discussion focuses 'on'maximum constituent
concentrations detected in ground water samples collected among
, three sampling events performed in August 19~2, October 1992, and
,March 1993. All ground'water samp~es were analyzed for both
organic and inorganic constituents. For inorganic contaminants,
both total and dissolved inorganic analyses we~e conducted. In
most cases, dissolved inorganic constituent concentrations were
lower than total inorganic constituents. For all monitoring well
samples, the following discussions are specific to dissolved
inorganic constituents. For the domestic wells samples, total
inorganics are also discussed.. ' .
An examination of ground water data showed two potential
concentrated areas of contaminants. ' For risk assessment
purposes, the two different areas. (desiqnated Area 1 & Area 2)
were evaluated separately. While VOCs were detected throughout
the Site, the center of this plume appears to be in the vicinity
of monitoring wells 2, 3, and 4, which are located to the south
and east of the Site. These wells make up ground water Area 1.
On the north side of the landfill, the concentrations of organics
were lower, but concentrations of metals in ground'water were.
higher. Therefore, monitoring wells 5, 6, and 8 comprise ground
water Area 2. See Figure 3 for monitoring well locations.
9
-------
a. Opqradien~ Ground .a~er samples
A total of four upgradient ground water monitoring wells are
present at the site; these wells represent conditions in both the
upper and lower water-bearing zones. Each of these wells were
sampled during the two rounds of ground water sampling conducted
during the RI (August and October 1992). The upper water-bearing
zone at the site is a perched sand layer, and the lower water-
bearing zone is considered to be the uppermost continuous water-
bearing unit.
, '
, six organic contaminants were detected in uP1radient ground
water samples. Maximum contaminant Level ("MCL") exceedances
were detected in three of the four upgradient locations for
'trichloroethene ("TCEn) and iri one of the four upgradient
locations for tetrachloroethene ("PCE"),. Only on~ of the four
upgradient monitoring wells is i~ the upper water-bearing ~one
(GM1US) . The highest levels of TCE and PCE were detected in this
well. The HCL exceedances found in the upgradient ground water
monitoring well locations suggest that these locations have been
affected either by the site or, potentially, another
contamination source. ~t is possible that the site is the source
of the TCE and PCE found in the upgradient, monitoring wells due
to the following factors: (1) the volatil~ nature of the
contaminants' (VOCs); (2) the close proximity of the monitoring
wells in question to the landfill; and/or (3) the potential for
slight variations to the directional flow of, the ground water.
It should be noted'that the concentrations of TCE and PCE '
detected in several downqradie~t monitoring wells were
. considerably higher than the levels detected in the upqradient
monitoring wells. '
Thirteen dissolved inorganics were detected in upgradient
, ground water samples. Similar to the organics contamination
discussed above, the highest levels of inorganics were detected
in the monitoring well in th~ upper water-bearing zone. Nickel
vas detected in two upgradient monitQring wells above the nCL'and
cadmium was detected in one of these upgradient monitoring wells'
above the MCL. However, unlike the organics contamination, no
inorgan1cs exceeded MCLs in any of the downgradient monitoring
wells. There is no clear pattern, to the levels of inorganics and
it is not evident that they are Site-related. See Table 3 for a
summary of contaminants found in upgradient ground water. samples. ,
3 Maximum contaminant levels are contaminant-specific
drinking water standards established under the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act and applicable to certain pUblic water
suppliers.
10
-------
---~ ---- -.------.---
b. DOWDgradient Ground Water samples
Seven downgradient onsite ground water samples were
collected from the lower water-bearing zone at the Site during
each round of ground water sampling~ Ground water samples were
~ollected from each of the onsite monitoring wells in August and
October 1992. Ground water samples were also collected from.
monitoring wells GM2-LSS, GM3, and GM4-LSS in March 1993 (see
Figure 3 for locations of all monitoring wells).
Twelve organic cQnstituents were detected in downgradient
onsite samples. Benzene: 1,2-dichloroethane: 1,2-
dichloropropane: tetrachloroethane: trichloroethene; and vinyl
chloride were detected in concentrations exceeding MCLs (see
Table 4). The maximum concentrations for most of the twelve
organic constituents detected in onsite ground water samples also
exceeded the maxim~ concentrat~Qns detected at upgradient
sampling locations. . .
Fourteen dissolved inorganic constituents were detected in.
downgradient onsite ground water samples. As mentioned above,
nickel was detected in two upgradient monitoring wells (GMILSS
and GM1US) above the MCL and cadmium was. detected in one of these.
upgradient monitoring wells (GM1LSS) above the MCL. No
inorganics exceeded MCLs in any of the downqradient onsite
monitoring wells. For the most p~rt, levels of inorganics in the
onsi te samples were comparable to the levels ofinorqanics in the
upgradient samples. There is no clear pattern to the levels of
inorganics and it is not evident that they are site-related.
Table 5 provides a summary of both organic' and. inorganic
constituents detected in downqradient ground water wells.
'1'ABLB 4
KCL BXCBBDABCBS POR ORGAB7CS III GROUIfD Dua
COH'l'AKIDNT: KCL. (uq/l) GROmm BUR' (uq/l)
Benzene 5 75
. . 1404
1,2-Dichloroethane 5
1,2-Dichloropropane 5 14
4 The level shown in Table 4 represents the. hiqhest detected
concentration.
5 The detected concentration was accompanied by the "J"
qualifier, which means the associated positive value is an
estimated quantity..
11
-------
Trichloroethene' 5 52
Tetrachloroethene 5 56
Vinyl Chloride 2 13
c. Domestic Groun4 water samples
Ground water samples were collected in August and October
1992 from three residential wells (depicted on Figure 2 as
numbers 1, 2, & 3) which are adj.acent to the southern portion of
the site.
Residential well #1 is located approximately 650-feet to the
southwest of the site in an upgradient position. One organic. .
constituent, alpha-BHC,. was .detected in this w~ll at 0.004 ug/l,
which is the same concentration detected in. other upgradient
. wells. Nine inorqanic ~onstituents were detected in this well.
None of the concentrations of these nine constituents exceeded
eitherMCLs or other inorqanic. concentrations at other upqradient
locations. This domestic well is a hand-duq well that has been
out of service for .several years. See Table 6 for a summary.of
samplinq results from this well. . . .
Residential well #2 is located approximately 300-feet south
of the Site in a lateral hydraulic position. No orq~ic .
constituents were detected in this wel~. TWelve inorganic.
constituents were detected in this well, none of which exceeded
any MCL's. See Table 7 for a summary of sampling results from.
this well. . . .
Residential well #3 is located approximately .lSO-feet south
of the Site in a lateral hydraulic position. No organic.
.constituents were detected in this well. Eleven. inorganic
constituents were detected. None. of the constituent
concentrations in this well exceeded MCL's or upgradient
constituent.concentratiQns; with the exception of mercury.
Mercury was. detected in the .thiswell during the October 1992
sampling event at 0.00034 mq/l, Which is well below the MCL for
mercury. Mercury was not detected during the August 1992
sampling event or in any of the other ground water samples during
the October 1992 sampling event.. As a result, the detection of
mercury in this well is suspect. See Table 8 for a sWIDI1ary of
sampling results from this well.
c. Surface soil
A total of eight surface soil samples were collected from 0
to 0.5 feet below ground surface at the Site in Auqust 1992.
These surface soil samples included three upqradient samples
collected from borinqs located across Bynum Run Creek and'Bush
12
-------
Road.
The only VOC detected was acetone. Five semi-volatile
constituents were detected in surface soil samples. In general,
'the semi-volatile concentrations in onsite samples are comparable
to the levels found in background samples. There were slightly
elevated levels of fluoranthene and pyrene, 54 ug/Kg and 57 ug/Kg
respectively, in boring SUS6, which is located on the western
portion of the site directly on the landfill. ~so, some
relatively high levels of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were
detected in borings SUS7 and SUS7DUP, 6100 mg/Kg and 2300 mg/Kq
respectively. However, this contaminant is a common laboratory
contaminant and may not be site-related.
Fourteen inorganic constituents were detected in surface
soil samples, the most noteworthy being mer~ (0.25 ug/Kg at
SUS7). In general, the levels of inorganic constituents in
onsite samples were comparable to the levels of inorganic
constituents found in the background samples. In many instances,
the background concentrations were higher than the onsite
concentrations. However, at sampling location SUS7, which is
located in the northeastern portion of the Site, levels of .
barium, chromium,. and manqanese were detected at 1evels above
background levels. See Table 9 for a summary of constituents
found in, surface. soil. samples. . . . .
5. S~face .aterand Sediment,
Surface water. and sediment samples were collectedfr6m the
onsite sedimentation basins, the drainage ditch, Bynum Run Cr~ek,
the Bush River Tributary, James Run, and the Unnamed Tributary.
Sediment samples only were obtained from the marsh. Surface
water was not identified as .a medium of concern in either the
baseline or the ecological risk assessment. Unless otherwise.
specified, the ecological quidelines for sediments referred to in
. the text below are Effects-Range Low (IIER-L~) and Effects-Range
Median ,(IIER-M") values. These values are quidancevalues .
.developed'by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
("NOAA"). These values are not independently enforce~le and are
used only for purposes of screening sediment quality.
a. Sedimentation Basin.
Both surface water and sediment samples were obtain~d from
each of the two sedimentation basins. . The only organic.
contaminant detected in the surface water was carbon disulfide.
A.number of inorganics were detected in the surface water
samples. Aluminum and iron were detected at levels above Federal
Ambient Water Quality criteria (nAWQC"). Lead was detected at
0.0035 mq/l in one of the surface water samples; this level is
slightly above the Maryland Chronic Toxic Substances Criteria
("MCTSC"), which is 0.0032 mq/l. See Table 10 for a summary of
13
-------
constituents found in sedimentation basin surface water samples.
One semi-volatile constituent, bis(2ethyl-hexyl)phthlate,
and no VOCs were detected in the sediment samples from the
3edimentation basins. Several inorganic constituents were
detected in the sediment samples. None of the levels of
inorganics exceeded available ecological guidelines (ER-L and ER-
M values). Although there are no nbackground" sedimentation
basin samples per se to compare with, aluminum and iron appear to
be present at elevated levels, 12,900 mg/Kg and 23,700 mg/Kq
respectively. It should be noted that aluminum and iron are
common at rather high levels in both soils and sediments in this
area. See Table.11.for a summary of constituents found in .
sedimentation basin sediment samples.
b. DraiDaqe Ditch
A surface water and a sedim~nt sample were obtained from the
drainage ditch on. the northern .side of the landfill. Organic
constituents were not detected in either the surface water or the
sediment sample from the ditch. Both sediment and surface water
samples from the ditch generally contained in~rganic constituents
above those observed in background stream samples. AlWl1inwa and
iron were detected in the surface 'water sample at 0.232 mg/L and
. .1.43 mg/L respectively, which are above . the AWQc'. Lead was.
detected in the surface water s.ample from. the ditch at 0.0082 .
.JIlg/L which is higher than the MCTSC (0.0032 mg/L) . The results.
discussed' above are for total inorganics. Thedissolve~ organic.
analytical results .indicated.that no available criteria were
exceeded. . See Table 12 for a summary of constituents found in
the surface water sample from the drainage ~itCh. .
Several inorganic constituents were .detected in the 'sediment
sample from the drainage ditch; however, none of these exceeded
available ecological criteria (ER-L or ER-M values). See Table
13 for a sUmmary of constituents found in the sediment sample
from, the. drainage ditch. . .
c. ,Bynum Run Creek, the BUsh River ~ribu~arr,
James RUD, and the unn-..e4 ~ribu~arr
A total of six surface water samples and six. sediment
samples were co~lected in August and October 1992 from locations
within Bynum Run Creek, the Bush River Tributary, James Run, and
the Unnamed Tributary. Two of these samples were background
samples collected upstream of the Site in Bynum Run creek and
James Run. The background surface. water and sediment sample from
, The AWQC is .087 mg/L for aluminum and 1.0 mq/L for iron.
14
-------
James Run was the only sample taken from
contaminants were detected in any of the
water or sediment samples. See Figure 2
sediment sample locations.
this stream. No organic
downgradient surface
for surface water and
For the two downgradient surface water samples collected
from BYnum Run Creek (SW3 and SW4), the levels of inorganic
constituents were generally below those observed at the upstream
background locations. Total aluminum and dissolved mercury were
detected in surface water samples from this creek at 0.0889 mg/l
and 0.0003 mg/l respectively, which are above the AWQ~. The AWQC
for aluminum is 0.087 mg/l' and the HCTSC for mercury is 0.000012
mg/l. The dissolved mercury level was recorded at both of the
background locations. Also, the're, are concerns regarding the
reliability of the data. These factors suggest that the mercury
results are not representative of conditions in BYnum Run Creek.
The zinc, manganese, and iron concentrations observed at sampling
locations SW3 and SW4 were slightly above background levels. '
However, these contaminants are present at levels that do not
represent an adverse impact to BYnum Run Creek. The
concentration of inorganics in the sediment samples from Bynum
Run Creek downstream of the landfill were generally lower than
background levels and were below established ecolOgical criteria
(ER-L and ER~M values). See Tables 14 and 15 for a summary of
constituents found in surface water and sediment ,samples from
BYnum Run Creek.' '
The aver~ge concentrati~nof iron and manganese and the'
maximum concentration of magnesium in the surface 'water samples
from the Bush River Tributary were higher than the maximum levels
observed in the background samples. The concentrations of these
inorganic constituents dld not exceed estabiished'ecoloqical
criteria (either AWQC or MCTSC) and these inorganics are not
considered deleterious to aquatic life at the detected
concentrations. The levels of six inorganics and cyanide in the
sediment sample from the Bush River Tributary exceeded background
concentrations but did not exceed established'ecological crite~ia
(ER~L and ER-M values) . See Tables 16 and 17 for a summary of '
,constituents found in surface water and sediment samples from the
Bush River Tributary. ", " ,
The surface water samples from the Unnamed Tributary
contained levels of seven inorganics above those observed in the
background samples. The concentrations of total aluminum (0.337
mg/l), total iron (14.7 mg/l), and dissolved iron (8.14 mg/l)
were above established 'ecological criteria7. The sediment sample
for this location was fine-grained' and composed of fine silt. . .
7 The AWQC for aluminum is 0.087 mg/l and the AWQC for total
as well as dissolved iron is 1.0 mg/l.
15
-------
The levels of inorganics in the sediment sample from the Unnamed
Tributary were generally higher than those observed in Bynum Run
Creek, Bush River Tr!putary, and James Run. The concentration of
lead in the sediment sample from the Unnamed Tributary was above
the ER-L value but below the ER-M value. See Tables 17 and 18
for a summary of constituents found in surface water and sediment
samples from the, Unnamed Tributary.
4. Karsh Se4imeD~
Nine marsh sediment samples were cOllected,in August 1992
from the BDNRMA adjacent to the landfill. The site is located at
the headwaters of the adjacent freshwater tidal marsh: therefore,
background marsh samples were not attainable~ ' ,
A total of sixteen inorganics were detected 'in marsh,
sediment samples. The concentrations of inorqanics,in the marsh
. samples were generally higher than those observed in stream '
'Sediments,., Lead and mercury were present at levels, above the
available ecological guidelines, 37.6 mg/Kg and 0.19 mg/Kg
respectively. The ER-L for lead is 35 mg/Kg and the ER-L for
mercury is 0.15 mg/Kg. Although above the ER-L, both lead and
mercury concentr~tions were below the ER-M values of 100 mq/Kg
for lead and 1.3 mg/Kg for mercury. ,Seven organics, mostly semi-
volatiles, were a1so detected in the marsh sediment samples, at '
l,evels below the ER-L and ER-M values. ' See Table 19 for a
summary of ,constituents found in sediment samples from the marsh.
,. Ambient Air
A three-phase ambient air quality monitoring program was, '
performed at the site on April 16, 1992, September 16, 1992, and
December 1~, 1992.' The air samplinq program was implemented to
preliminarily assess. the nature and extent of the potential
~igration of Site-related VOCs in the ambient air. During' each
sampling event, one upwind sampling location and two downwind
sampling loca1:ions . were established. ' '
Thirteen VOCs were detected at upwind sampling locations,
eleven of which were also detected'at'downwind locations.' There,
were two contaminants (chloroform and chloromethane) detected at '
upwind locations that were not detected at downwind locations and
one contaminant (carbon tetrachloride) detected at downwind
locations that was not detected at upwind locations. The highest
VOC concentration at both upwind and downwind locations was for
methylene chloride (240 ug/m3). The detection of VOCs in the
upwind samplinq locations suggests 'that the extent of aDbient air
contamination is not fully understood at the site. See ~ables 20
and 21 for a summary of contaminants detected at upwind and
downwind locations.
16
-------
The air sampling program was implemented during the RI due
to a concern that landfill gasses emanating from the Site could
be contributing to the risk at the Site. However, data from the
dir sampling program was inconclusive, making it impossible to
, perform a quantitative risk assessment for landfill gas. A
remedial action is required at this Site based on the risks,
associated with the ground water. Since.a'remedial action will
be taken at this Site, although risks associated with landfill
gas have not been fully assessed, the ARARs8 associated with
landfill gasses will still have to be met. Additional air
monitoring data will be obtained during remedial design and after
implementation of the selected' remedy.
vx.
Summary of Human Heal~h Risks
As part of the RI/FS process, EPA conducted an analysis to
identify human health risk that could exist i~ no action were'
taken at the site., This analysis, completed in accordance with
the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (tlNCP"), 40 C.F.R. Part' 300, is referred to as a baseline
risk assessment. This asses'sment provides the basis for taking
action and indicates the exposure pathways that need to be
addressed by the remedial action. '
In general, a baseline risk assessment 1$ performed in four
'steps: (l)'data collection and evaluation, (2) the exposure
assessment, (3) the toxicity assessment, and (4) risk ,
'characterization~This section o~ the ROD will summarize the
result of each of these steps.
A. Da~a Collec~ion and Evaluation
, The data described in the prev~ous'section were evaluated
for use in the baseline risk assessment. This evaluation'
involved reviewing the quality ~f the data and determining which
data were appropriate to use to quantitatively estimate the risks
associated with site ,soil, leachate, sediment, surface water, and
, ground water. ' ,', '
, The aQalytical results from samples collected durinq the Ri
were used to estimate the exposure point concentrations (also
know as representative or Reasonable Maximum Exposure caRMEn)
concentrations) for use in ~he baseline risk assessment. For
chemical concentrations, the RME may be estimated by using the '
95% upper confidence limit ("UCL") on the,mean of a sample set.
If the 95% UCL of the mean exceeded the maximum detected
concentration, then the maximum concentration was substituted as
the RME concentration for the risk calculations. Representative
8 Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
17
-------
concentrations were calculated for each of the contaminants of
potential concern (nCOPcn) for each media sampled, where
possible. UCLs could. not be calculated for small data sets,
includinq evaluations for most surface water and sediment
locations, and residential wells, where fewer than five samples
were available. For such data sets, the representative
concentration was the maximum positive concentration. The RME
was calculated according to EPA risk assessment guidance. The
cOPCs and their respective exposure point concentrations for all
of the media at the site that were evaluated during the risk
assessment are presented in Table. 22.
B. Bzposure Assessment
There are three basic steps involved in an exposure
assessment: 1) identifying the potentially exposed populations,
both current and future, 2) determining the pathways by which.
. these populations could be exposed, and 3) quantifying the .
exposure. Under current site conditions, the populations that
could be potentially exposed to contaminants in onsite surface
soil, surface water, sediment, and leachate are primarily
trespassers/current local residents. There are residences
located within lOO.feet of the landfill and in some' instances the
landfill extends onto these residential properties~ Therefore,
both current and future residential use of. the Site' were' .
considered in the baseline risk assessment. Access to offsite
surface water and s~diment is unrestricted, and it is anticipated
that current local residents could'be exposed to these media. A
locked gate prohibits vehicular access to the site; 'however,
there are no barriers to'pedestrian access. Also,' current local
residents as well as potential future r~sidents could be exposed.
to contaminated ground water at the site and in the' Site
vicinity.
The potential pathways for exposure include: 1) ingestion of
onsite soils, sediments, leachate, and/or ground water, 2) dermal
contact with onsite soi~s, sediments, leachate,' and/or qround .
water, 3) inhalation of airborne contaminants from ground water.'
. In order to quantify the potential exposure associated with
each pathway, assumptions must be made with respect to' the
various factors used in the calculations. Table 23 summarizes
the values used in the baseline risk assessment.
c. Tozicity Assessment
The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to weiqh available
evidence regarding the potential for particular contaminants to
cause adverse effects in exposed individuals. Where possible,
the assessment provides a quantitative estimate of the
relationship between the extent of exposure. to a contaminant and
the increased likelihood and/or severity of adverse effects.
18
-------
A toxicity assessment for contaminants found at a Superfund
site is generally accomplished in two steps: 1) hazard
identification, and 2) dose-response assessment. Hazard
~dentification is the process of determininq whether exposure to
an agent can cause an increase in the incidence of a particular
adverse health effect (e.g., cancer or birth defects) and whether
the adverse health effect is likely to occur in humans. It
involves characterizing the nature and strength of the evidence
of causation.
Dose-response evaluation is the process of quantitatively
evaluating the toxicity information and characterizinq the .
relationship between the dose of the contaminant administered or
received and the incidence of adverse health effects in the
administer~d population. From this quantitative dose-response
relationship, toxicity value~ (e.g., referenqe doses and slope
factors) are derived that can be used to estimate the incidence
~r potential for adverse effects as a' function of human exposure
to the aqent.For the purpose of the risk assessment,
contaminants were classified into two qroups: carcinoqens and
noncarcinogens. The risks posed by these two types of compounds
are assessed differently because noncarcinoqens generally exhibit
a threshold dose below which no adverse effects occur, while no
. such threshold can be proven to exist for carcinoqens. As used
here, the term.carcinoaen means any chemical for which th~re is
sufficient evidence that exposure may result in continuing
uncontrolled cell division (cancer) in humans and/or animals.
conversely, the term 'noncarcinoaen means any chemical for which'
the carcinogenic evidence is. negative or insufficient. .
Slope factors have been developed by EPA's Carcinoqenic
Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to'potentially carcinogenic contaminants
of concern. Slope factors, which are expressed in units of
(mg/kg/day) -1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a
. potential carcinogen, in mg/kg/day, to provide an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposUre'a:t.that intake level. The termu"upper-bound" reflects
the conservative estimate of the risks calculated fro~ the slope
factor. . Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual
cancer risk highly unlikely. Slope factors are derived from the
results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal .
bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty
factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use ~f animal
data to predict effects on humans). Slope factors. used in the. .
baseline risk assessment are presented in Table 24.
Reference doses ("RfDs") have been developed by EPA to
indicate the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to contaminants of concern exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects.
RfDs, which are expressed in units of mq/kq/day, are estimates of
lifetime daily exposure levels which are likely to be without
19
-------
adverse effects for humans, including sensitive individuals. RfDs
are derived from human epidemiological or occupational studies,
or from animal studies, and incorporate uncertainty factors. The
uncertainty factors account for differences between members of a
population, differences between humans and animals, and other
sources of uncertainty. Reference doses used in the baseline
risk assessment are presented in Table 24.
D. Human Healtb Bffects
The health effects of the site cQntaminants that are most
closely associated with the unacceptable risk levels are
summarized below.. In most cases, the information in the
summaries is drawn from the Public Health statement in the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (nATSD~.)
toxicological profile for:the chemical.
A1.uminum: Aluminum is a common, virtually ubiquitous element."
This metal has been used in the smelting, refining, electrical,
aircraft, automotive, jewelry, petroleum processing, and rubber
industries. Aluminum foil is widely used in packaging. Aluminum
is not generally noted for toxicity. S~me aluminum salts have
been associated with skin and respiratory irritation. .Inhalation
of aluminum powder has been reported to cause pulmonary fibrosis.
30me studies have suggested". a. link between aluminum exposure and
Alzheimer's disease. Aluminum has not been classified as a
carcinoq.en by EPA. . " "
Arsenic: Arsenic has been use~.by the agricultural, pigment,
glass, . and metal smelting industries. Arsenic is a ubiquitous
metalloid element. Acute ingestion of arsenic can be associated
with damage to mucous membranes. including irritation, vesicle.
formation, and sloughing. Arsenic can also be associated. with
sensory loss in the peripheral nervous system and. anemia. Liver
injury is characteristic of chronic exposure. Effects of arsenic
on the skin can includehyperpigmentation, hyperkeratosis, and
skin ~ancer. EPA classifies arsenic in drinking water as a Qroup
A kDown oral hum~n carcinogen. .. .
Beryllium: The respiratory tract is the major ~arget of
. inhalation exposure to beryllium. Short~term exposure can
produce lung inflammation and pneumonia-like symptoms. Long-term
exposure can cause berylliosis, an immune reaction characterized
by noncancerous growths on the lungs. Similar growths can appear
on the skin of sensitive individuals exposed by dermal contact. .
Epidemiological studies have found that an increased risk of. lung
~ancer may result from exposure to beryllium in industrial
settings. In addition, laboratory studies have shown that
breathing beryllium causes lung cancer in animals. However, it
is not clear what cancer risk, if any, is associated with
ingestion of beryllium. EPA has classified beryllium as a Group
B2 probable human carcinogen based on the limited human evidence
20
-------
and the animal data.
cadmium: Cadmium can. cause a number of adverse health effects.
Ingestion of high doses causes severe irritation to the stomach,
leading to vomiting and diarrhea, while inhalation can lead to
severe irritation of the lungs and may cause death. People have
committed suicide by drinking water containing high levels of
cadmium. There is very strong evidence that the kidney is the
main target organ of cadmium toxicity following chronic exposure.
Long-term ingestion of cadmium has caused kidney damage and
fragile bones in humans. Long-term human exposure by the .
. inhalation route may cause kidney damage and lung disease such as
emphysema. The most sensitive or critical. effect of cadmium
exposure is, high concentrations of protein in urine, indicative
of abnormal kidney function. LOng-term inhalation of air
containing cadmium by workers is associated with an increased
risk of lung cancer. Laboratory rats that breathe cadmium have.
increased cancer rates. Studies of humans or animals have not
demonstrated increased cancer rates from eating or drinking
cadmium. EPA classifies cadmium as a Group 81 probable human
inhalation carcinogen based on occupational studies.
chromium: There are two major forms of chromium, which differ in
their potential adverse health effects, found in the environment.
One form, chromium VI (chromium 6+), is irritating; short~term,' .
. high-level exposure can result in adverse effects at the site of
contact, . causing ulcers of the skin, irritation and perforation
of the nasal mucosa, and irritation of the gastrointestinal .'
. tract. Minor to severe. damage, to the muc;ous.membranes of the
respiratory tract and to the skin have resulted from occupational
exposuz:e to as little as 0.1 mg/m3. chromium VI compounds. .'
=hromium VI may also cause adv~rse effects in the kidney and
liver. 'Long-term occupational exposure to low levels of chromium
VI' compounds has been associated with lung cancer in humans.
Chromium VI is classified by EPA as a Group A known human
carcinogen based on evidence from epidemioloqical studies. The
second form, chromium III (chromium 3+), does not result in ,these
effects ~nd is the form thought to be an essential nutrient. The
only effect ob~erved in toxicologic~l studies ,of chromium III is
a decrease in liver and spleen'weights in rats. This effect was
. used as the basis for the RfD. .
1,Z-Dichloro.~han. (l,Z-DCA): The lungs, heart, liver, and
kidneys are the organs primarily affected in both humans and
animals exposed to 1,2-DCA. Short-,term exposure to 1,2-DCA in
air may result in an increased susceptibility to infection and
liver, kidney, and/or blood , disorders. Effects seen in animals
after long-term exposure to 1,2-DCA included liver, kidney, heart,
disease, and/or death. 1,2-DCAhas caused increased numbers of
tumors in laboratory animals when administered in high doses in
the diet or on the skin and is classified as a Group 82 probable
human carcinogen.
21
-------
1,2-Dichloropropane: 1,2-Dichloropropane is a solvent that can be
used as a fumigant, scouring compound, and deqreaser. 1,2-
Dichloropropane can irritate the skin and eyes and can cause
dermatitis. 1,2-Dichloropropane can also cause liver, kidney,
and heart damage. Fatty degeneration of the liver and kidney have
been reported in animals. 1,2-Dichloropropane is classified as a
Group 82 probable human carcinogen by EPA via the oral route,
based on the occurrence of liver tumors in mice.
.~q8Des.: Manganese is used in the manufacture of dry cell
batteries, paints, dyes, and in the chemic~l and 'glass and
ceramics industries. Manganese is an e~sential nutrient in food;
the average human intake is reported to be approximately 10
mg/day. Previous reports of neurotoxicity from manganese were
generally reported from high-level occupational 'exposure to dust
and fumes. More recent studies have focused on exposures to
drinking water, with subtle neurologic effects being reported
after chronic' consumption of high' concentrations of manganese in
water. Manganese is not classified as a carcinogen by EPA.
Hickel: Nickel is a metal that has been associated with ore
refining, stainless steel, electroplating, jewelry, plastics,
batteries, enamels, coal'oils, and a variety of other industries.
Nickel, a skin sensitizer, can cause dermatitis. The kidney and
circulatory system may also .be potential targ~t organs. Nickel
has not been classified as a carcinogen by EPA.
, ,
Tetrachloroethene (PCB): Tetrachloroethene, also known as
perchloroethylene, is a commonly used solvent in the dry ,
. cleaning, degreasing, and texti~e industries. It is also used, as
an intermediate in the manufacture of organic chemicals. . '
Irritation of the skin can occUr after dermal exposure~ Bigh-
level inhalation exposure can cause respiratory and eye
'irritation. Other effects include CNS depression and liver
damage. EPA ECAO classifies PCE as a Group 82 probable human
carcinogen, although this is not considered an Agency-wide
consensus at this time. .'
Trichloroethene (TCB): Trichloroethene has been' used as a solvent
in deqreasing operations associated with both, "metal-using
industries and dry cleaning. TCE,has been used as an
intermediate in the production of pesticides, waxes, gums,
resins, paints, varnishes, and trichloroacetic acid. TCE
toxicity can include dermatitis, CNS depression, anesthesia, and'
effects on the liver, kidneys, and heart. TCE is a, volatile
compound, a11d inhalation eXposure may be significant. The
carcinogenicity'of TCE is currently under.reyiew.
Vanadium: Vanadium is a ubiquitous element. It has been
associated with petroleum refining, steel industries, pigments,
glass manufacturing, photography, and insecticides. Toxicity is
22
-------
usually reported after industrial inhalation exposure, which can
be associated with bronchitis, bronchopneumonia, irritation,' GI
distress, heart palpitations, and kidney damage. Ingestion of
vanadium has been associated with GI disturbances and renal and
nervous system effects. Experimental studies suggest the liver,
adrenals, and bone marrow as target organs. Vanadium has not
been classified as a carcinogen by EPA.
Vinyl'chloride (VC): VC may cause adverse health effects
following exposure by inhalation, ingestion, or by dermal or eye
contact. VC inhalation can cause dizziness or sleepiness.
Breathing very high levels of VC can cause unconsciousness and in
some cases death. On skin, exposure to liquid VC can cause
burns. Noncarcinogenic effects associated with long-term
occupational VC exposure include hepatitis-like changes in ~e '
liver, immune reactions, and nerve damage. VC has been shown to
cause liver and lung cancer in rats. and, liver cancer in wo~kers
occupationally exposed to air concentrations in the range of 25
ppm to greater than 200 ppm.' Based on this evidence, EPA has
classified VC as a Group A human carcinogen. Air standards as
low as 1 ppm are specified for occupational exposure to VC in
many countries. "
B. Risk Charaoterization
The risk characterization process integrates the to~icity
and exposure assessments into a quantitative expression of risk.
For carcinogens, the expos~re point concentrations and exposure,
factors discussed earlier are mathematically combined to generate
a chronic daily intake value tha~ is averaged over a lifetime,
(i.e., 70 years). This intake value is then multiplied by the , .,
toxicity value for the contaminant. (i.e., the slope factor) to
generate the incremental probability 'of an individual developing
cancer over a life-time as a result of exposure to the ,
contaminant. Cancer risks are generally expressed in scientific
notation (e.g., lX10-6, otherwise expressed as 1E-6). An excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1x10.6 i~dicates that, as a reasonable
maximum estimate, an'individuai has a 1, in 1,000,000 chance of
developing canger as a' result of site-reiated exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure
conditions at 'the site. ' The generally acceptable excess cancer
risk range, as defined by. Section 300.430 (e) (2)(i) (A) (2) of the
NCP, is between 1.0 x 10.' to 1.0 X 10-6. These cancer risks are
summarized in Table 25. .
The potential ,for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by
comparing an exposure level over a specified time period (i.e.,
the chronic daily intake) with the toxicity of the contaminant
for a similar time period (i.e., the reference dose). The ratio
of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard quotient. A Hazard
Index ("HI") is generated by adding the appropriate hazard
quotients for contaminants to which a given population may
23
-------
reasonably be exposed. Any media with an HI greater than 1.0 has
the potential to adversely affect health. These.non-cancer risks
are summarized in Table 26.
When evaluating the data to be used in predicting the risk
associated with exposure to contaminated ground water, it was
observed that there were two rather distinct areas of
contamination. While VOCs were detected throughout the Site, the
center of this plume appears to be in the vicinity of monitoring
wells i, 3, and 4, which are located to the south and east of the
site. These wells make up ground water Area 1 selected for
quantitative risk assessment. On the north side of the landfill,
the concentrations of organics were lower, but concentrations of
metals in ground water were higher. . Therefore, monitoring wells.
5, 6, and 8 comprise ground water Area 2 selected for
quantitative risk assessment. .
Unacceptable cancer and systemic health risks were
identified with respect to the future use scenario, specifically.
hypothetical future ground-water use. The excess lifetime cancer
risk determined under the future use exposure scenario from
incidental inhalation, ingestion, and dermal abs~rption of
contaminants in ground water is 9 X 10.4 for Area 1 and 3.5 x 10.4
for Area 2. In other words, if no remedial action is taken,
approximately nine individuals out of every ten thousand people
exposed to the groUnd water in Area 1 have a chance of developing
cancer as a result of the exposure and approximately three to
four. individuals out of every ten thousand people exposed to the
ground water in Area 2 have a chance of developing cancer as a
result of the exposure. In Area 1, the majority of this risk. is
. due to the presence of 1,2-dichloroethane, vinyl chloride, and
tetrachloroethene, the individual cancer risks for each of which
exceed i x 10.4. In Area 2, the majority of this risk is due to
the presence of beryllium and vinyl chloride, th~ individual.
cancer risks for each of which exceed 1 x 10-4. The baseline
risk assessment did not identify any other unacceptable
carcinogenic. health'risks associated with the remaining Site
. media (onsite soils, leachate, surface water, or sediments).
However, it should be noted that because the air monitorinq
results durinq the RI were inconclusive, risks due to exposure to
landfill qasses were notquantitati~ely evaluated.
The HI for the future land use scenario was developed
separately for the adult resident and child resident. With
respect to noncar~inogenic systemic risks, a total HI of greater
than one was calculated for a number of VOCs and metals. For
potential future residents exposed totbe representative
concentrations of the contaminants of concern in ground water
Area 1, the HIs would be 16.9 for adults and 37.3 for children
(if split data are not considered). If split data are
considered, the HIs for Area 1 would be 17.4 for adults and 38.4
24
-------
for children. For Area 2 the HIs are estimated at approximately
41.9 for adults and 95.2 for children. Potential future use of
ground water in these areas could pose non-carcinogenic health
risks. These risks are due mainly to VOCs and manganese and are
summarized in Table 26.
The evaluation of human health risks (both carcinogenic and.
noncarcinogenic) from exposure to the ground water is intended to
provide a reference point for evaluating future ground water
risks: it does not represent actual present day exposures since
residents in the vicinity of the site are connected to a public
water supply.
The baseline risk assessment did not identify any
unacceptable non-carcinogenic health risks associated with the
remaining site media (contaminated soils, landfill contents,
marsh and stream sediments, leachate, and surface water).
However, 'if no action were taken, the landfill contents and the
associated contaminated soils would represent.a continuing source
of contaminants to the ground water.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this Site, if not addressed by the selected remedy or one of the
other active measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to public. health and ~elfare.
VII.
SummarY of Environmental Risks
EPA evaluated the potential for ecological impacts at the .
site in the Bush Valley Landfill Ecological' Risk Assessment dated
August 8~ 1994. The ecological risk assessment indicates that.
certain Site media show .a potential for risk to ecological
receptors. Evidence of ecological effe~ts have been limited to
observations during onsite activities. 'Because no tissue
analyses or bioassays were performed, the assessment employs a
conservative approach using Environmental Effects Quotients
.("EEQs") based on. statistically derived concentrations of
contaminants found onsit~ and. in the study area.
The ecological risk assessment indicated that numerous
organic and inorganic contaminants were .found'at levels which
have the potential to, cause adverse ecological impacts in the
following five major media: soils, stream sediment, marsh
sediment, ground water, and leachate. The contaminants of
concern in these media 'are identified below. '
25
-------
contaminants of Concern
Soils:
Aluminum
Chromium
Cadmium .
Cobalt
Manganese
Di-n-butylphthalate
Aluminum
Iron
cyanide
Manganese
Stream Sediment:
Marsh Sediment:
Aluminum
Beryllium
cyan~<;le'
'Iron
Manganese
Ground Water:
Aluminum
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Leachate:
. Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Cobalt .
Copper'
Iron. .
Lead
Manganese
. Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
The ecoloqical risk assessment concluded that the potential
exists for impact to ecoloqical receptors due to threatened or
actual releases of hazardous substances from the site. This
assessment, based' on' Federal Ambient Water' Quality criteria as
well as calculations of EEQ's .for site-related media, concludes
. that the site is. the source of several contaminants that. could
'pose a risk to ecoloqical receptors~ It is apparent from the
conclusions drawn in the ecoloqical risk assessment that
additional ecoloqical characterization is needed for this Site.
Althouqh the selected remedy indirec~ly addresses ecoloqical
concerns, it is possible that additional response actions will be
necessary, based on results obtained durinq the long-term.
monitorinq proqram. In that event, . the additional response
actions would be selected and implemented.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this Site, if .not addressed by the selected remedy or one of the
other active measures .considered, may present a current or
26
-------
potential threat. to the environment.
VIII.
DescriDtion of Alternatives
In accordance with. section 300.430(e) (9) of the NCP, 40
C.F.R. section 300.430(e) (9), remedial response actions were
identified and screened for effectiveness, implementability, and
cost during the FS to meet the remedial action objectives
("RAOS") established for the site. The RAOs are as follows: (1)
the elimination of the potential for direct contact of human or
environmental receptors with landfill contents, onsite soils,
leachate, and landfill gas; and (2) the elimination of the
potential for exposure of human receptors to contaminated ground
water via ingestion or inhalation. The technologies that passed
the screening mentioned above were assembled to form remedial
alternatives. The alternatives were then evaluated using the
nine criteria required by 40 C.F.R. section 300.430(e>"(9)~ 'The .
FS evaluated a variety of technologies used in the development of
alternatives for addressing the sources of contamination at the
site as well as the existing ground water plume. As detailed in
the FS, the technologies and the approaches contained in the
alternatives listed below were determined to be the most
appropriate for this site. Additionally, it has been determined
that use of the presumptive remedy.guidance for municipal .
landfills is appropriate'for this site.. The descriptions. of the
. Alternatives 1 through 5 below are derived from the descriptions
in the FS. The capital costs, operation and maintenance ("O&M" ) '.
costs, present worth costs, and implementation times for each of
, the alternatives listed. below are estimates based on currently
available information. . .
A..
Common. Blaments
All of the alternatives will include a periodic review
pursuant to Section'12l(c) of CERCLA, 42 V.S.C. i 962l(c). With
the exception of Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, all of
the alternatives.include'institutional controls and a monitoring
program., The institutional controls' would include deed, land
use,. and acces~ restrictions. , .
. Deed restrictions would be placed on the property where
landfill contents remain ("the landfill property") to prohibit
(1) any activity that would interfere with the integrity of the
remedy, until such time as EPA, in consultation with MDE,
determines that such deed restrictions are no longer necessary to
protect public health and the environment; and (2) the use of
ground water unde~ the landfill property for' domestic purposes,
including drinking water, until such time as EPA has determined
that the ground water performance standards, defined later in
this document, have been met. Land use restrictions would also
be instituted which would prohibit use of ground water for
domestic purposes, including drinking water, from under any other
27
-------
land parcels in the area to which contaminated ground water from
the landfill property exceeding the 1 x 10-4 risk level has
migrated, until such time as EPA has determined that the ground
water performance standards, defined later in this document, have
been met. Access restrictions would include fencing and
signage. A perimeter fence would be constructed along the
boundary of the Site to limit the direct contact exposure
pathways of would-be trespassers and vehicular traffic. No-
trespassing signs would be posted along the fence. For each
alternative that includes a fence, the integrity of the fence
would be inspected'on a quarterly basis. ,For cost estimation
purposes only, a duration of 30 years is typically used for
operation and maintenance tasks such as fence inspection.
However, it should be noted that fence inspection may be required
indefinitely. ' ,
A monitoring program would be instituted for surface water
and sediments from the adjacent wetland area and nearby streams
as well as for the ground water at the Site. This program would
be implemented to periodically assess the contaminant levels of
these media and monitor the progress of contaminant degradation.
At this time, the available data does not show the need to design
and operate ~nactive treatment system for the ground water or
the need for active remediation measures in the streams and
"wetland areas. EPA will use the results of the monitoring
program to determine whether additional remedial measures would
be required for,these media. in the future to p~ovide protection
of hUman health and the environment. For cost estimation.
purposes only, 30 years, is typically assumed for the duration of
. moni toring programs. . However,', the duration and frequency of the
monitoring program for this site over the long term will be based
on the results of the samplin~ program. '
The ground water monitoring proqram would include sampling
of designated existing ground water wells and installation and
sampling of approximately five (5) new monitoring wells" The
'number of new wells was estimated at five for cost estimation
purposes-only: however, the actual number of new wells will be
determined based on information obtained during remedial design.
Also during the remedial design, EPA will determine the exact
locations for the additional monitoring' wells and the surface
water and sediment sampling points. Laboratory analysis would be
performed for the identified constituents of concern at the Site.
Sampling and analysis would initially be conducted ona'semi-
annual basis for a period of at l'east two years. The results
would be evaluated to determine the appropriate frequency for
subsequent sampling. '
The following table depicts additional elements for the
alternatives that were evaluated in the FS:
28
-------
TABLE 27
ALTERDTIVES: ,. 1 2 3 4a 4b 5
SINGLE BARRIER COVER SYSTEM X X X
STORMWATER CONTROLS, ,x X X X ' ,
LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT X X X X
GROUND WATER EXTRACTION X X
GW TREATMENT
(ACTIVE/PASSIVE) X X
B.
Alternative 1:
NO ACT lOB
CaDital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Total Present Worth:
$ -0-
$ -0-
$ -0-
Section 300.430(e) (6) of the KCP, 40 C.F.R. S 300.430(e) (6).
requires that a "no action" alternative be evaluated at every NPL
site in order to establish a baseline for comparison. Under this
alternative, EPA, would take no further remedial actions at the
site to prevent exposure to ~e contaminated media or to reduce
risks at the Site. '
c.
Alternative 2: INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
, . ,
CaDital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Total Present Worth:
$ 155.000
$ 91.000
$ 1.300.000
Alternative 2 consists of land use restrictions, access
restrictions, and a monitoring program. These measures are
described under' the common eleme'n:ts heading above.
D.
Alternative 3: SIBGLB BARRIER COVER SYSTEK
, AND LANDPILL GASDDGEKBft
CaDital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Total Present Worth:
$ 3.800.000
$ 160.000
$ 5.700.000
. Alternative 3 consists of deed restrictions,' access
restrictions, and a monitoring 'program, as described under the
common elements heading above. Additionally, under Alternative
3, a single barrier cover system, a stormwater conveyance system,
and a landfill gas management program would be implemented as
described below. This alternative would eliminate direet
29
-------
exposure pathways to landfill wastes and onsite soils, reduce
vertical infiltration of precipitation in order to control
leachate seeps and migration of contaminants into the ground
water, control surface water runoff and l~ndfill gas migration,
and reduce ground water contamination levels via natural
attenuation.
Site preparation for this alternative would involve.
regrading the landfill surface and side slopes. This activity
would provide drainageways for surface water runoff from the
landfill area and would minimize ponding of water on the surface
of the landfill. The purpose of these regrading activities would
be to provide a proper foundation for the single barrier cover
system described below.
The single barrier cover system is constructed of several
layers and serves to isolate the landfill waste. . Figure 4
-depicts a typical single barrier cover system. These layers can.
vary based on Site-specific conditions. Fina! specifications for
the cover system for Alternative 3 would be determined during
remedial design. The first layer to be installed, called the
"bedding layer," would be placed directly on the surface of the
landfill. EPA guidance recommends that the bedding.layer be
between 12 and 24 inch~s thick. At this Site, materials provided
by the regrading activities may serve as a portion ~f the bedding
layer. However, if the volume of these materials is .not adequate
to provide a 12 to 2. inch layer. over the entire landfill,
additional compacted soil materials would be needed to complete
the bedding layer.2 . .'. .
When landfill gas management systems are included in
remedial alternatives, as is the case for Alternative 3, a gas
collection layer is incorporated. into the single barrier cover
system. .This layer, sometimes called the "gas venting layer," is
placed on top of the bedding layer. The gas venting layer is
typically a 12 inch thick layer of sand, gravel, or other
granular material. The granular material provid~s a preferential
pathway over the entire 'waste area to allow for migration of .
la~dfill gas. Landfill gas migrating from the waste area would
be collected and vented to the atmosphere ..vi.a the gas collection.
layer in conjunction with. the other components of the landfill
gas management system, described below.
The third layer, called the "barrier layer," is a relatively
. impermeable layer that decreases the amount.. of precipitation that
9 The cost estimates for Alternatives 3 through 5 do not
include the potential cost for any additional compacted soil for
the bedding layer. Therefore, the actual costs for these
alternatives may be slightly higher than shown.
30
-------
reaches the waste in the landfill. The reduction of
precipitation reaching the waste minimizes the decomposition of
the waste material, which in turn reduces the generation of
landfill gas and leachate. The material used for the barrier
'layer, either clay or a synthetic membrane, is required to have a
permeability no greater than 1 x 10-7 em/sec.
The fourth layer, called the "drainage layer," is made up of
either 12 inches of a granular material or a synthetic drainage
material. The drainage layer minimizes any pooling of water from
precipitation which may occur on the barrier layer. This layer
is designed to discharge collected water into the perimeter
channels which ultimately transports the water to onsite
retention basins. A sYnthetic filter fabric would be placed over
the drainage layer to prevent any fine material from infiltrating
into the drainage layer and clogging the void space.
. . .
The next lqyer of the single barrier cover system, the
"protective layer," is made up of 18 inches of common borrow
material. The purpose of the protective layer is to provide
protection for the underlying layers.
. The top layer of the cover system is the "vegetative layer. II .
This layer is made up of 6 inches of nutrient-enriched topsoil to
establish vegetation. The purpose' of the overlying vegetative
layer is to prevent erosion of the cover system by wind and rain.
. . .
. .
The stormwater .conveyance system would include a. perimeter'
channel and three .sedimentation basins to convey and collect.
runoff and sediment, respectively. The. two existi~g .
sedimentation basins located in the southeast and northeast.
portions of the landfill would be redesigned to meet sediment and
erosion control requirements~ An additional sedimentation basin
would be constructed along the northwest boUndary to provide
additional storage capacity for surface water collected from the
northern and western portions of the landfill. Sediment would be
removed from each basin periodically so that it would not
accumuiate.to more than half the stora~e depth. The removed'
sediment would be disposed of offsite. The destination of this
sedimen~ would be det~rmined during remedial design. . Surficial
vegetation and/or riprap would be utilized in the perimeter
channels and sedimentation basins to reduce erosive surface water
velocities. Additional interim sediment control measures, such
as earth berms, silt fences, and straw bales, would be used
10 The cost of disposal of sediment removed from the
sedimentation basins (and of any accompanying requirements) has
not been included in the operation and maintenance cost estimates
listed in this section. Accordingly, the OkM costs may be higher
that the given estimates.
31
-------
during construction to direct and capture surface water flow and
control offsite transport of sediment.
The landfill gas' management system would include a vertical
gas interceptor, a gas collection layer (part of the single
bar~ier cover system described above), and gas venting wells
which would vent to the atmosphere. The vertical gas.
interceptor, a slurry wall, would form a below-ground impermeable
barrier on the south side of the landfill. Gas venting wells
would be installed, preferably towards the north side of the
landfill, to create a preferential pathway for landfill gas from
the gas collection layer to the atmosphere. Gas venting wells
would be installed directly north of the slurry wall (interceptor
gas venting wells). A single pipe would connect the interceptor
wells and t~ansport the gas away from the southern boundary of
the site before venting to the atmosphere. Vents .to the
atmosphere for this pipe' collection system would be. located on
the north 'to northeast side of the site. Routine monitorinq of
the venting equipment and the ambient air quality will be .
necessary since the venting system would be designed to vent to
the atmosphere. This passive gas extraction system would be
designed with the capacity to be converted to an active gas
extraction system in the event that the entire system needs to be .
enhanced to increase the migratio~ of gas from beneath the cover
.system. .
. Presently, it is not known whether VOC emissions from the'
'landfill gas cOllection/venting system would exceed levels that
require control under Federal .and state regulations. Field data'
would be collected' in order to assess landfill gas management
requirements and air emission controls would be implemented as
necessa~ to comply with the Federal and state applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements identified in this.ROD.
Based on the rate of reduc~ion of organic contaminants in
existing monitoring wells over time, it has been estimated that
the levels of organic contaminants present in the ground water
wil.l' be reduced to non-detect levels. via natural attenuation in
approximately 13' years without the single barrier cover system 11 .
It is anticipated'that the combination 'of the single barrier
cover system and natural attenuation will, accelerate the
reduction of the levels of organics in the ground water to
acceptable levels in less than 13 years. Using information
obtained from the ground water monitoring program, EPA wou~d
evaluate the effectiveness of natural attenuation. If
contaminant levels are not sufficiently reduced, additional.
" See June 1, 1995 memo from Barbara Rudnick (EPA
Geologist) to Melissa Whittinqton (EPA Project Manager) i~ the
Administrative Record.
32
-------
response actions may be required to address the ground water
contamination.
Alternative 3 could be constructed within approximately 12
months following commencement of the remedial action. Major
items to be installed during this 12-month period would include
perimeter fencing, the single barrier cover system, stormwater
conve~nce system, and landfill gas management system.
Although the existing monitoring wells may be used as part
of the ground water monitoring system, additional wells would
likely be required to ensure the effectiveness of this monitoring
system. The number of new wells was estimated at five for cost
estimation purposes. However, the actual number of new wells
will be determined using information obtained during remedial
~esign. Also during remedial design, the existing wells would be
. sampled to evaluate the current conditions and identify
. appropriate locations for the new wells. The complete ground
water monitoring program could be initiated following
installation of the new monitoring wells. The wetland monitoring
program could begin and deed and other land. use restrictions
could be implemented during the initial phases of remedial
design. .
.B.
Alternative 4a: SJ::NGLB BAIUu:BR .COVER SYS'nDI, t,.U1DPJ:LL GAS
IlARAGBXBII'l', AND AC'l'J:VB GRamm n~BR '1'RBA'1'JDD1'1'
.CaDi tal Cost :
Annual O&M Cost:
Total Present Worth:
.
S
S
S
4.800.000
. 1.400.000
'~2. 000.000
Alternative 4a consists of land use restrictions, access
restrictions, and a monitoring program, as described under the
common elements heading above. Alternative 4a also includes a
single barrier cover system, a stormwater conveyance system, and.
a landfill gas management program, as described under Alternative
3. In addition, Alternat~ve 4a includes a ground wa~er ..
extraction and active treatment component,. as described-below..
. The ground water extraction and active treatment system
would involve extraction of the ground water, onsite treatment of
the extracted ground water, and discharge of the treated ground
water to either a Publicly owned Treatment Works C"POTW") or
surface waters in the adjacent wetland. A pipeline could be .
extended to the Harford County sanitary collection system, which
is appr9ximately 100 feet from the site. This collection system
connects to the Harford County POTW, Sod, Run Waste Water
Treatment Plant. If it were determined during desiqn that
discharge to this POTw would be infeasible, then the treated
ground water would be discharged to the adjacent wetland or the
unnamed tributary located east of the Site.- The ground water
would be extracted via the existing ground water monitoring
33
-------
wells, if feasible. Additionally, approximately ten qround water
extraction wells would be installed beyond the perimeter of the
cap. The number of new extraction wells was estimated at ten for
cost estimation purposes only: however, the actual number of new
weils would be determined using information obtained during
remedial design. The actual location of these extraction wells,
as well as the rate of extraction, would also be determined
during remedial desiqn. The purpose of the extraction and
treatment system would be to reduce the levels of organic
contaminants in the ground water to MCLs and to reduce the levels
of inorganics in the ground water to MCLs or background levels,
whichever is higher. 12 At this time ,. background levels of
inorganic contaminants have not been clearly defined. Additional
investigation of the ground water during remedial desiqn would be
necessary to define background. Preservation of the adjacent
wetlands would be taken into account when designing the
extraction system and determining the rate of qround water
extraction. .
Data obtained during the RI indicated the presence of
volatile organic compounds C"VOCS") and heavy metals in the
ground water. The pre-desiqn data collection activities would
verify the contamination levels in the ground water. The
extracted ground water would be treated via air stripping to .
remove the,VOCs.. A mobile air stripping unit could be brought to
the site for thi~ purpose. The air stripper could be equipped
with carbon adso~tion enhancements to pOlish the treated,
effluent prior to discharge, if necessary. During the RI, no MCL
exceedances for metals were detected in downgradient monito~irig
wells.. The.total excess cancer risk, as discussed above" is
primarily due to organic contaminants, not' inorganic' .
contaminants.'3 Therefore, it .is highly unlikely that metals
12 The cost estimate for this alternative assumes 30 years
of opera~ion and maintenance..for the ground-water $xtraction and
treatment system. . This is'aconservative est:tmate. It has been
estimated that natural attenuation will allow the levels of
organic contaminants in ,the ground water 'to reach acceptable
levels in less than 15 years. Inorganic contaminants may already
be present at background levels: it has ~ot yet been determined
whether inorganics are site-related. .As a result, this
alternative would most likely cost considerably less than $22
million estimated in the FS.
. 13 Although there may be some non-carcinogenic risk
associated with inorganic contaminants in the ground water, the
available data does not indicate with certainty whether or not
this risk is Site-related. See discussion on page 48 regarding
the relationship between site-related levels and background
levels for inorganic contaminants.
34
-------
pretreatment would be necessary from a risk standpoint. However,
metals pretreatment may be warranted in order to achieve maximum
efficiency from the a~r stripping unit, to achieve ARARs, or as a
pretreatment requirement prior to discharge to the POTW.
, Accordingly, metals pretreatment has been included in the cost
estimate for this alternative.
The effluent from the treatment system would be discharged
either to the adjacent wetland or to the POTW. Table 28
identifies applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements
that would have to be met for surface water discharges.
Presently, capacity at the Harford county POTW is available to
handle the estimated volume of treated effluent; however,
projected housing development may deplete this capacity.
Evaluation of a discharge method would be performed during the ,
remedial design to determine the most feasible and cost effective
discharg~ option. The cost of discharge to the POTW has, been'
included in the co~t estimate for this alternative.
This alternative could be constructed within approximately
18 months following commencement of the remedial action. Major
items to be installed during this 18-month period would include
perimeter fencing~ the single barrier cover system, the ,
stormwater conveyance system, the landfill gas management system,
and the ground water extraction and active treatment system. The
ground water treatment system is expected to include air
stripping and carbon adsorption, only. A mobile air stripping,
'unit with carbon 'adsorption enhancements, if necessary, could' be
brought to the site and set-up reiatively quickly. If metals
pretreatment were determined to be necessary, additional,time
would be needed for construction of the necessary treatment
systems. The time required for implementation of the monitoring
program and land use restrictions would 'be the same as described
for, Alternative 3. "
P.
Alternative 4b: SIBGLB BARRIBR COVER SYS'1'BK, LABDI'ILL GAB
. ' ,KABAGBJlBN'l', AND PASSIVE GROtnm WATER '1'RBA'l'KBBT
CaDital Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Total Present Worth:
S 4.100.000
S 180.000
S 6.400.000,
Alternative 4b consists of ~and use restrictions, access
restrictions, and a monitoring program as described under the
common elements. heading above. Alternative 4b also includes a
single barrier cover system, a stormwater'conveyan~~ system, and
a landfill gas management program as described under Alternative
3. In addition, Alternative'4b includes a ground water
extraction system as described under Alternative 4a and a passive
ground water treatment component as described below.
The passive treatment system would be comprise4 of a riprap
35
-------
outfall and discharge to the marsh area for naturally occurring
bioremediation by the wetland vegetation. The extracted ground
water would flow over,the riprap outfall to a riprap or grass
erosion mat channel at the toe of the final cover system. Five
culvert pipes would discharge the extracted ground water to the
marsh area. The volatile organic compounds in the extracted
ground water would be aerated by flowing over the ~iprap outfall.
The FS assumed that the wetland species would remove the metals
in the extracted ground water via natural processes. A site-
specific demonstration that the above-described treatment
measures would adequately treat the extracted ground water
without unacceptable effects on the wetland or the air would be
necessary prior to full scale implementation of this passive
treatment system.
This alternative could be constructed within approximately
18 months followinq commencement of the remedial action. Kajo~
. items to be installed during this 18 month period would include
perimeter fencin~, the single barrier cover system, the .
stormwater conveyance system, the landfill gas management system,
and the ground water extraction and passive treatment system.
The time required for implementation of the monitoring program
and land use restrictions would be the same as described for
Alternative 3. .
G.
A1ternative 5: COXPOSITB BARRIBR COVB. SYSTBJI.
CaDital'Cost:
Annual O&M Cost:
Total Present Worth:
$
$
.$
4.10.0..0.0.0.
160..0.0.0.
6.10.0..0.0.0.
Alternative,S consists of land use .restrictions, access
restrictions, and a monitoring program, as described under the
common elements heading above. Alternative 5 also includes a
stormwater conveyance system and a landfill gas management
program as described under Alternative 3. In addition,
Alternative 5 includes ~ composite barrier cover system as
described below. This alternative would eliminate direct.
expo.sure pa~hways to landfill wastes and onsite soils, eliminate
vertical infiltration of precipitation in'order to cont~ol
leachate seeps and migration of contaminants into the ground
water, control surface water runoff and landfill gas migration,
and reduce ground water contamination levels via natural
attenuation.
A composite barrier. cover system is verY similar to a single
barrier cover system (see Figure 5).. However, the composite
barrier system is designed to eliminate vertical infiltration of
precipitation as opposed to reducing infiltration. The composite
barrier cover system included in this alternative includes all of
the layers described above for the single barrier system. The
difference between the two systems is found in the barrier layer.
36
-------
The barrier layer in the single barrier cover system can be
either one foot of clay or a sYnthetic membrane, as long as the
maximum permeability 9f the layer is 1 x 10-7 em/sec. The
barrier layer in the composite barrier cover system consists of
both one foot of clay and a s~thetic membrane, each with a
maximum permeability of 1 x 10-7 em/sec. This combination is
designed to eliminate vertical infiltration.
The layers included in a composite barrier cover system can
vary based on Site-specific conditions. Final specifications for
the cover system for Alternative 5 would be determined during
remedial design.
. .
Based on the rate of reduction of organic contaminants in
existing aonitoring wells over time, it has been estimated that
the levels of orga~ic contaminants present in the qround water
would be reduced tQ non-detect levels via natural. attenuation in
approximately 13 years without the composite barrier cover
system. It is anticipated that the combination of the composite
barrier cover system and natural attenuation would accelerate the
reduction of the levels of organics in the ground water to
'acceptable levels in less than 13 years. EPA would evaluate the
effectiveness of natural attenuation'using information obtained.
from the ground water monitoring program. If contaminant levels
are not sufficiently reduced, additional response actions may be
required to address the ground water contamination.' .
. .
. A~ternative 5 could be constrUcted within approximately 12'
months followinqcommencement of the remedial action.' Major
items to be installed during this 12-month.'period would include
perimeter fencing, the composite barrier cover syst.., the .'
stormwater conveyance system, and the' landfill gas manaqement
system. The time required for implementation of the monitoring
program and land use restrictions would be the same as described
for Alternative 3.
xx.
SummarY of Comoara~ive ADalvsis of Al~erna~ives
The six remedial action alternatives described above were
assessed in accbrdance with the nine'evaluation criteria set
forth in the NCP.at 40 C.F.R. S 300.430'(e) (9)'. These nine
criteria are categorized into three groups: threshold criteria,
primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria. The criteria
associated with each group are as follows:
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1. OVerall protection of human health and the environment:
and
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements ( II ARARS") .
37'
-------
.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
3. Lonq-term effectiveness and permanence;
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
treatment;
5. Short-term effectiveness;
6. Implementability; and
7,. Cost.
throuqh
MODIFYING CRITERIA
8. State acceptance;' and
9. Community acceptance.
These evaluation criteria are based on the requirements of
,Section 121 of CERCLA, '42 U.S.C. S 9621, and the NCP.
Threshold criteria must be satisfied in order for a remedy
to be eliqible for. selection. Primary balancinq criteria are
used to weiqh major trade-offs between remedies. state and
community acceptance are modifyinq criteria formally taken into
account after public comment is received on the Proposed Plan. A
summary of the relative performance of the alternatives with
.respect to each of the nine criteria follows. This summary
provides the basis for determininq which alternative provides the
"best balance" of tradeoffs with respect to the nine evaluation'
criteria. . ,
. A.
OVerall 'Protection of HumaD Health an4 the Bnvironment
, .
A threshold requirement 'of CERCLA is that the selected
remedial action be protective of h~an health and the
enviro~ent. Achievement of overall protection of human health
and the, environment involves addressinq'any unacceptable and/or
potential risks identified in the baseline risk assessment and
the ecoloqical risk assessment. There is no unacceptable current
exposure risk, as defined by EPAquidance, at the site for human
receptors. Howeve~,~n'unacceptable risk'was associateq with .
potential expo~ure to future residential qround water users. In
addition there is a poten~ial human health risk due to exposure
,to landfill qasses emanatinq from the landfill. However; this
latter risk could not be quantitatively evaluated in the baseline
risk assessment because the data from landfill qas moni~orinq
events were inconclusive. '
Achievement of owerall protection of human health and the
environment also involves meetinq the RAOs. As identified
previously in this document, the RAOs 'for this site are as
follows: (1) the elimination of the potential for di~ect contact
of human or environmental receptors with landfill contents,
onsite soils, leachate, and landfill qas; and (2) the elimination
of the potential for exposure of human receptors to contaminated
38
-------
ground water via. ingestion or inhalation.
No actions would. be taken to address the direct contact
threats or the potential risks due to exposure to landfill gas
under Alternative 1. In addition, no actions would be taken to
address the potential risks posed by the contaminated ground
water. Although natural attenuation would be exPected to occur
under this alternative, it would take approximately thirteen
years before the levels of contamination in the ground water
would achieve MCLs. No restrictions on access to or use of the
ground water would be required during that time. For the reasons
listed above, this alternative is not protective of human health
or the environment. Therefore, Alternativ~ 1 cannot be selected
and thus wi~l not be evaluated further in this comparative
analysis.
Alternative 2 would provide a low degree of protection of
human health and the environment. The risks associated with the
contaminated ground'water would be addressed through land use
restrictions. Land use restrictions would preclude use of local
ground water resources that are contaminated above health-based
levels, thereby eliminating the exposure pathway of future ground
water users to ,the contaminated ground water. Natural"
attenuation would be expected to occur under this alternative and
the ground water would be" monitored on.a long-term basis." The' "
, long-term monitoring program would provide protection by "
evaluating the effectiveness of natural attenuation as well as
allowing for detection of any increase in or migration of groUnd
, water contamination. A~ditional respons~ actions may be
identified and required for the ground water, based on the
results of the monitoring program.' The potential for direct
human contact with contaminate~ onsite media under Alternative 2
would be reduced via fencing; however, this would not necessarily
reduce the potential for exposure of environmental receptors to .
contaminated onsite.media. Any risks that may be posed by
exposure to landfill gas will not be addressed by this
alternativ~.' " , "
, Alternatives 3 and 5 are sUfficiently protective of human
health and the' "environment.. 'For' both of these alternatives, the
risks associated with the contaminated ground water would be "
addressed through land use restrictions, as discussed above under
Alternative 2. Additionally, the single barrier cover system
included in Alternative 3 would reduce the vertical infiltration
of precipitation through the landfill wastes an4 the composite
barrier cover system included in Alternative 5 would essentially
eliminate the ve~ical infiltration of precipitation throug~.the
landfill wastes. This reduction/elimination of vertical
infiltration would significantly reduce the potential for further
degradation of the ground water quality; therefore, under these
alternatives, it is anticipated that the decrease in
contamination levels in the ground water as a result of natural
39
-------
1----
attenuation would be accelerated. The ground water would also be
monitored on a long-term basis under both of these alternatives,
thereby allowing for an evaluation of the effectiveness of
natural attenuation as well as the detection of any increase or
migration of ground water contamination. Additional response
actions, beyond those included under these alternatives, could be
identified and required for the ground water, based on the
results of the monitoring program. Both cover systems would
eliminate the possibility of direct contact of human and
environmental receptors with the contaminated onsite media. The
landfill gas management system included under both of these
alternatives would address the risks, ,if any, to human health
posed by landfill gas by directing the landfill gas away from
'nearby residences, and by providing for treatment of the landfill
gas if treatment were determined by EPA to be necessary to meet
ARARs.
Alternatives 4a and 4b are fully protective of human health
and the environment. For both of these alternatives, the risks
associated with 'the contaminated ground water would be addressed
through land use restrictions, as described above for Alternative
2. 'In addition, these alternatives include ground water
extraction systems along with either active or passive treatment
of the contaminated ground water. Extraction and treatment of
,the ground water'would directly reduce the overall ground water
contamination, and eliminate the potential for migration of the
ground water contamination.- The single barrier cover systems
inctuded in these 'alternatives would reduce the vertical'
infiltration of precipitation ,through the landfill wastes and
thereby reduce the potential fpr further degradation of ground
water quality; as well as eliminate the possibility of direct
contact of human and environmental 'receptors with the
contaminated onsite media. The landfill gas management system
included under both of these alternatives would address any risks
to human health posed by landfill gas by directing the ~andfill
gas away from nearby residences, and by providing for treatment
'of the landfill, gas if treatment is ,determined by EPA to be ,.
necessary to meet ARARs... ,
B. "
Compliance wi~h ARARs
This criterion addresses whether a remedy will meet all of
the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, ("ARARs")
contained in Federal and state environmental laws and state '
facility siting laws, and/or provides grounds for invoking a
waiver under Section 121(d) (4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S l~l(d) (4),
and the NCP at'40 C.F.R. S 300.430(f) (l)(ii)(C).
Alternative 2 would not comply with the substantive
requirements of 40 C.F.R. S 6.302(a) and (b) (relating to
wetlands protection and floodplain management). Alternatives 3
through 5 would meet the requirements of existing Federal and
40
-------
state ARARS.'4 ARARs are location, chemical and action specific.
See Table 28 for a complete listing of ARARs related to this
Site. See Section X {Selected Remedy) and Section XI (Statutory
Determinations) for a list of ARARs that apply to the selected
remedy. .
Because the landfill area constitutes a sinqle area of
contamination ("AOC"), the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRsfl)
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") are not
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the movement of
hazardous waste (e.g., as a result of qrading) withi~ this area.
Any contaminated soil removed during the construction of the
slurry wall would also be part of this same AOe and could
therefore be deposited in the landfill arid included in the area'.
to be covered without trigqering LDRs. 55 Fed. Reg. 8758 (March
8,1990) . .
Waste resulting from monitoring activities or other
investigation-derived waste, if not part of the same area of
contamination as the landfill, will have to be disposed of
offsite. This offsite disposal and all other offsite activities
that are part of the remedy must be performed in compliance with
all Federal, state and. local substantive and proced~ral laws in
effect at the time the offsite activity takes place. 55 Fed.
Reg. 8758 (March 8, 1990).. .' .
The state has indicated. that the state laws curr~ntly in
effect and applicable to offsite shipments of hazardous waste are'
qenerally found in CO~ 26.13.01, 26.13.02, 26.2'3.23, and
26.23.04... This citation is provided here for information
purposes. The leqal requirement remains that offsite activities
co~ply with al.l applicable laws in effect at the . time the offsite
activity takes place. .
C..
Long-Term Bffectiveness anel Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers. to the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
. health and the environment over time, once the cleanup levels
have been met. .'.. . . .
Alternative 2 would provide a low degree of long-term .
effectiveness. Neither a single barrier nor composite barrier
cover system is included in this alternative. Therefore, the
14 Alternative 1 is not considered to be a remedial action;
therefore, the CERCLA section 121 requirement that ARARs be met
or waived is not triggered. However, this Alternative is not
protective of human health and the environment and cannot be
selected for that reason. .
41
-------
1------
potential would ~xist for further deqradation of the aquifer.
This alternative would not be effective in limitinq the
production of leachat~ seeps or landfill qas over the long term.
The qround water and surface water monitorinq proqrams would be
effective in monitoring the miqration of contaminants over the
lonq-term. This alternative is not a permanent remedy in the
sense that hazardous substances in the landfill would be left in
place.
Alternatives 3 and 5 would provide a moderate deqree of
lonq-term effectiveness. Construction of the sinqle or composite
barrier cover system under these alternatives would reduce the
potential for further deqradation of the aquifer and reduce the
potential for leachate seeps by limitinq:thevertical ,
infiltration 'of contaminants to the qround water 'over the lonq
term. It is anticipated that qround water contamination levels
will be reduced via natural attenuation in conjunction witb. '
, either the sinqle barrier or composite barrier cover system. The'
ground water and surface water monitorinq proqrams would be
effective in monitoring the miqration of contaminants over the
lonq term as well as in evaluatinq the overall effectiveness of
the remedy. .
Under Alternatives 3 throuqh 5, ,ambient air would be re~
sampled to determine whether controls are needed ,to meet ~
~nd to verify that the landfill qas manaqement system is .
protective, of human health and the environment over thelonq-
term. . '
, Alternatives 4a and '4b would be, effective, in the long-term.
Construction of the sinqle barrier cover system under these, '
alternatives would reduce the potential for further deqradation
of the aquifer and reduce the potential for leachate seeps by
limiting the vertical infiltration of contaminants to the qround .
water over the lonq-term. The qroundwater and surface water
monitorinq proqrams would be effective in monitoring the
miqration of contaminants 'over ,the long-term as well as in
"evaluatinq the overall effectiveness of the remedy.
Alternatives 4a and 4b would be more effective in the long-term
than Alternatives 3, and 5 becausethe'existinq ground water.
contamination would be reduced by ground water extraction and
treatment.
, Alternatives 3 throuqh 5 are not considered permanent
remedies because the waste present in the landfill would remain
in place and the cover systems would require maintenance over the
lonq-term in order to ensure the lonq-term effectiveness of these
alternatives. In addition, for Alternatives 4a and 4b, , ' '
maintenance would be required on the ground water extraction and
treatment system to ensure lonq-term effectiveness.
42
-------
D.
Reduction of Toxicity, Xobility, or Volume through
Treatment
This evaluation criterion addresses the degree to which a
technology or remedial alternative reduces the toxicity,
mObility, or volume of hazardous substances at a site. Although
section 121(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. section 9621(b), establishes.
a pre~erence for remedial actions that permanently and
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances, EPA may use a combination of treatment and
engineering controls to achieve protection of human health and
the environment, as set forth in the NCP. Specifically, section
300.430(a) (1) (iii) (B) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. .s .
300.430(a) (1) (iii) (B), states that EPA expects to use engineering
controls, such as containment, for waste that poses a relatively
low long-term threat or where treatment is impracticable. The
preamble to the NCP identifies municipal landfills as a type of
site where treatment of the waste may be impracticable because of .
either the size and/or heterogeneity of the contents. 55 Fed.
Reg. 8704 (March 8,1990). Waste in CERCLA landfills usually is
present in large volumes and is a heterogeneous mixture of
.municipal waste frequently co-disposed with industrial and/or
hazardous waste. Because treatment is usually impracticable, EPA
generally considers containment to be the appropriate response
action, or the "presumptive remedy,. for municipal landfills.
See Presum'Dtive Remedvfor CERCLA MuniciDal Landfil.l. Sites,
September 1993 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-49). .
Alternatives 2,3, and.5 do not include treatment of the
affected media at the site. Therefore, implementation of these
alternatives would not.result in any reduction in the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of .the constituents of concern throuah
treatment 'Drocesses. . .
Construction of the single/composite barrier .cover systems
included in Alternatives 3 through 5 would reduce the vertical
infiltration of precipitation, which would decrease leachate
generation and decrease.the mobility of contaminants.
The ground-water extraction and.treatment systems included
in Alternatives..a and 4b would reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of contaminants in onsite qround water through the
implementation of either active or passive treatment systems.
B.
Short-Tera Effectiveness
This evaluation criterion addresses the period of time
needed to achieve protection of human health and the environment,
and any adverse impacts that may be posed during the construction
and implementation period of a remedy, until cleanup goals are
achieved. The time for completion of the remedial actions for
each of the alternatives listed below does. not include the time
43.
-------
for long-term mo~itoring, which will be required for all of the
alternatives. All of the timeframes listed below are estimates.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4a, 4b, and 5 would all be protective of
human health in the short-term. These ,alternatives would not
,adversely impact the health and safety of the community.
Although there 'is the potential for short-term risks to the
community from air emissions from the air-stripping unit
(Alternative 4a), air emissions from the passive ground water
treatment system (Alternative 4b), and air releases of landfill
gas (Alternatives 3 through 5), air monitoring would be used to
verify that these potential risks were addressed by the controls,
if any, necessary to meet ARARs.
Under Alternative~ 3 through 5, workers would be exposed ,to
physical safety hazards associated with operation of heavy
equipment during cover system construction'and potentially
exposed to air-borne contaminants due to the disturbance of
sur'face . soils during construction activities. ilowever, these
risks would be minimized by the use of experienced and trained
personnel, the use of specialized equipment and adher~nce to
health and safety. procedures by the workers. Construction of the
single/composite barrier cover syste~ coul~ have some short-term
. environmental impacts due to soil erosion, but these effects
would be minimized through the use of standard engineering runoff
controls. '.
Under Alternative 4a, if metals pretreatment were determined .
to be necessary for the contaminated ground water prior to air
stripping and carbon adsorption, transportation of treatment.
residuals through the local communities could pose a marginal
intermittent impact to'these communities. These potential
impacts would be minimized by requiring,adher~nce to Department
of Transportation ("DOT") requlationsassociated with
transportation of hazardous wastes. .
Alternative 2 cou~d be completed within approximately 30
days of initiation, of. re:medial action. Alternatives 3 and 5
could be completed within approximately 12 months of initiation
, of the remedial action. ,Alternatives 4a'and 4b could be
'completed within approximately 18 months of initiation of the
remedial action.
P.
~plemeD~ability
This evaluation 'criterion addresses the technical and
administrative feasibility of each r~edy, including the .
availability of materials and services needed to implement the
chosen remedy. The components of Alternative 2 would not pose
any implementation problems.
The landfill gas management system and stormwater conveyance
44
-------
system included in alternatives 3, 4a, 4b, and 5 would not
present any implementation difficulties.
The sinqle or composite barrier cover systems included in
Alternatives 3, 4a, 4b, and 5 could be constructed and maintained
without difficulty. However, lonq-term maintenance and repairs
would be required to ensure the inteqrity of the cover systems.
The required labor, equipment, and materials are readily
available to build the cover system.,
The qround water extraction and ac~ive treatment system
included in Alternative 4a would rely on proven technoloqies (air
strippinq, carbon adsorption, and possibly metals precipitation)
and could be implemented without difficulty. ,The qround water
extraction and passive treatment system included in Alternative
4b would require treatability studies to ensure that the system
, could effectively treat the contaminated qround'water.
G.
Cost Effectiveness
Section 121 of CERCLA, 42'U.S.C. S 9621, requires selection
of a cost-effective remedy that protects human health and the
environment and meets 'the other requirements of the statute., The
alternatives are compared with respect to present worth cost,
which includes all capital costs and, operation and ,maintenance
cost incurred over the life of the project. Capital costs
include' those ,expenditures necessary to impl~ent a remedial
'action, includinq construction' costs. All of the costs indicated'
below are estimates. ,The cost associated with each alternative
that satisfi~d the threshold: ,screeninq criteria is as follows:
'rABLE 2'
ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST ANNUAL O&M TOTAL COST
2 155,000 91,000 1,300,000
3 3,800,000 160,00,0 '5,700,000 ' ,
, 4a 4,800,000 1,400,000 22,000,000
4b 4,100,000 180,000 6,400,000
5 4,100,000 160,000 6,100,000
The present worth costs of'the remedial action alternatives
ranqe from $1,300,000 for Alternative 2 to $22,000,00q for
Alternative 4a. Alternative 3 is the most cost-effective of the
alternatives that provides protection of human health and the
environment and meets both the RAOs for the site and the ARARs
for that alternative. The present worth cost of Alternative 3 is
$5,700,000, as listed above.
45
-------
B.
state AcceptaDc~
MDE has actively. participated in selecting a remedy for this
site by, among other things, reviewing and commenting on the
RIfFS Reports and the proposed Remedial Action Plan. MDE concurs
with EPA's selected remedy (Alternative 3). MDE will continue to
actively participate in the remediation of this site by reviewing
and commenting on the remedial desiqn deliverables and throughout
the remedial action phase of the project.
I.
community Acceptance
On June 26, 1995 a public meeting was held at the Edgewood'
High School, in Egdewood,. Maryland to discuss the results of the .
RIfFS and EPA's preferred alternative for remediation of the
site. The pUblic meeting had been. advertised in two local
newspapers, The Aeais and The Record; however, the public meeting
was sparsely atten~ed. No one at the public meeting voiced any
overall objections.to the preferred remedy. However, there were
concerns about the cost of the preferred remedy ($5.7 million)
and who was going to have to pay for implementation of the
remedy. Local officials were concerned about whether adequate
notice of the public meeting had been'provided to the local
community. The pubiic comment period was held from June 15, 1995
through July 14, 1995. MOE submitted written comments on the
Proposed Plan; these comments have been addressed in the'
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision.
No other written comments were received.
x.
Selected Remedy
Following review and consideration of the information in the
Administrative Record file, the requirements of CERCLA and the
NCP, and based on an evaluation of the nine criteria above, EPA
has selected Alternative 3 as the remedy for addressing the
contamination at .this Site. EPA believes that Alternative J
provides the best balance among the criteria used tQ evaluate the
'alternatives-. . Alternative 3 provides an appropriate level of
protection to human health and the environment, satisfies all
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate, and
is cost~effective. Alternative 3 consists of remedial actions
for addressing all of the environmental ~edia of concern at the
site. This remedy is also consistent with EPA's presumptive
remedy guidance developed to address remediation at municipal
landfill sites. .
A.
Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy consists of the following components:
46
-------
(1)
Sinqle Barrier Cover System
Construction and. maintenance of a sinqle barrier cover
system shall serve to contain the landfill .contents and onsite
. soils while reducinq the amount of leachate produced. Prior to
construction, the existinq topoqraphy shall be reqraded to
provide a sound foundation for the cover system. The single
barrier cover system shall then be constructed over the landfill.
The cover system shall meet the applicable substantive
requirements for municipal landfill caps identified in Table 28.
(2)
Stormwater Control System .
A stormwater conveyance system shall be constructed to
convey and collect runoff and sedimept, to create positive .
drainaqe, and to minimize the potential for erosion of the cover
system. .This conveyance system shall include'a perimeter channel
and three sedimentation basins. The sedimentation basins shall
be designed to meet the relevant and appropriate erosion and
sediment control requirements identified in Table 28.
(3)
Landfill Gas Management System
A landfill qas manaqement system which includes a vertic~l
qas interceptor .(slurry wall), a qascollection layer, and qas
ventinq we1ls, shall be constructed as part of the selected
remedy. This system shall be designed to create a preferenti~l
'pathway for landfill gas from the.qas collection layer to the
atmosphere. Theqoal of the landfill qas manaqement system shall
be to direct and/or transport landfill qas away from the .
residences located to the south of the Site before venting to the
atmosphere. . .
. Presently, it is not known whether VOC emissions from the
landfill qas collection/ventinq.system will exceed levels that
require control under Federal and State applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements 'identified in Table 28. Air
monitoring data at the points of discharqe shall be coilected,
and EPA shall determine if air emission controls are necessary to
comply with. the Federal and State ARARs. If ~o, such controls
shall be required.
(4)
Ground Water Monitoring Proaram
A lonq-term monitorinq proqram shall. be instituted for the
qround water at the site. This proqram shall monitor the
proqress'of contaminant deqradation.to ensure that the
concentrations of Site-related contaminants are reduced to
acceptable levels.
Based on the rate of reduction of organic contaminants in
existinq monitorinq wells over time, it has been estimated that
47
-------
the levels of organic contaminants present in the ground water
would be reduced to non-detect levels via natural attenuation in
. approximately 13 year~ without the single barrier cover system.
It is anticipated that the combination of the single barrier
cover system and natural attenuation will accelerate the
reduction of the levels of organics in the ground water to
acceptable levels in less than 13 years.
with regard to contaminants in the ground water, the risk
assessment indicates that the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risks associated with exposure to contaminated ground water at
the Site exceed acceptable levels. In order to address 'this
unacceptable risk, the selected remedy includes a requirement to
monitor the ground water until the 'concentrations of the site-
related hazardous substances, when considered cumulatively, are
reduced. to an acceptable risk level (i.e., carcinogenic risk of 1
x 10-6 and a hazard index of less than or equal to 1.0). In .
'addition, for'organic compounds a requirement of the selected
, remedy is achievement of MCLs and non-zero HCLGs in the. ground
water, and for inorganic compounds, a requirement of the selected
remedy is achievement of MCLs and non-zero HCLGs if these values
are higher than the established background levels.
There is not sufficient evidence, at this time, to determine
whether the elevated levels of inorganic contaminants detected in
the ground water are due to background levels Qr are site- .
related. The goal o~ the selected remedy, specifically the
single barrier cover system in conjunction with natural' '.
attenuation of contaminants in the ground water, is to reduce the
level of inorganic contaminants in the ground water to a level
that achieves ARARs and is protective of,human health and the
environment, given the background levels. 'In order to attain
this standard, the background levels of inorganic contaminants
must be established via additional ground water study during
remedial design. Once backgroUnd levels for inorganics .are
established, a comparison between the background and the onsite
. (downgradient) wells wi!,l be made. If the level's of inorganic.
. contaminants found in the ground water at the Site are greater. '
than ,the es~ablished background levels, this contamination will
be considered site-related. Therefore, the performance standard,
for inorganic contaminants shall be the risk-based levels
discussed above (cumulative carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10-6 and a.
cumulative hazard index of ~ 1.0) or the established background
level, whichever is higher. Additionally, for inorganic
,contaminants, the performance standards shall also include
achievement of MCLs and non-zero HCLGs if these values are higher
than the established background levels. .
The ground water monitoring program shall. be instituted to
evaluate the effectiveness of natural attenuation. Ground-water
monitoring shall continue until the concentrations of all
hazardous substances that are determined to be site-related are
48
, '
-------
reduced to an acceptable risk level (i.e., cumulative
carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10.6 and a cumulative hazard index of
less than or equal to.1.0)15 or to the established background
level, whichever is higher. The method for evaluating the,
cumulative risk for site-related hazardous substances shall be
subject to review and approval by EPA, in consultation with MDE~
In addition,' ground-water monitoring shall also continue until,
the concentrations of organic compounds reaches the MCLs and non-
zero MCLGs in the ground water and the concentrationm of all
inorganic compounds reaches the MCLs and non-zero MCLGs if these
values are higher than the established background levels. If the
results of the ground water monitoring program suggest that the
levels of site-related hazardous substances are not decreasing,
or if the projected time for achieving the established
performance standards is extended, EPA may require that .
additional response actions be taken to address the ground water
contamination. Such response actions are not selected in.this
ROD. . .' .
(5)
Ecoloaical Monitorina Proaram
A monitoring program shall be instituted for surface water
and sediments from the adjacent st~eams and' wetland area at the
site to ensure that the selected remedy is protective of the
environment. Xf EPAdetermines that the seles;:ted remedy does not
provide adequate environmental protection, then additional
remedial measures maybe required. Such additional remedial,
measures are not selected in this ROD. '
(6)
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions shall be placed on the property where
landfill contents remain ("the landfill property") to prohibit
(1) .any activity that would interfere with the integrity of the
remedy, until 'such time as EPA, in consultation with MeE,
determines that such deed restriction is no longer necessary to
protect public healtn and the environment; and ,(2) the use of
ground water under the landfill property for domestic purposes,
including drinking water, until such time as EPA decides that
adequate data , exists to. determine that' the ground water
15 This risk level is consistent with "EPA's preference for
setting cleanup levels at the more'protective end of the risk
range..." 55 Fed. Reg. 8716 (March 8, 1990). EPA considered the
factors that allow for revision to a different level within ~e
acceptable risk range but determined that the relevant criteria
did not justify such revision. In fact, the fact that some risk
may be associated with the background levels of inorganics
strengthens EPA's preference for achieving a cleanup level at the
more protective end, of the risk range.
49
-------
performance standards have been met. Land use restrictions would
also be instituted prohibitinq use of ground water for domestic
purposes, including drinking water, from under any other land
parcels in the area to which contaminated qround water from the
landfill property exceedinq the 1 x 10-4 risk level has migrated,
until such time as EPA decides that enouqh data exists to
determine that the qround water performance standards have been
met. ,These land use restrictions are necessary to ensure that
the selected remedy is protective of public health and the
environment.
Access restrictions shall be provided by a perimeter fence
ahd signaqe.
(7)
Oceration and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance of the single. barrier cover
. system, the stormwater control system, and the landfill gas
management system shall continue Until EPA determines that these
systems are no longer necessary. to assure protection of human
health and the environment. At this time, EPA anticipates that
such measures will be necessary indefinitely.
B.
Performance Standards
(1)
Single Barrier Cover System Performance Standards
. .
.A single barrier cover system shall be installed in
accordance with the substantive standards of COMAR
26.04.07.21 A, B, 0, and E. The cover system shall cove~
the entire area of solid waste disposal, approximately 16
acres. .
.
The cover system shall consist of..a.bedding . layer, a gas.
venting layer, a barrier layer, a drainage layer and a .
protective layer in conformance with the sinqle barrier
cover system specif~cations presented in the EPA Municipal
Landfill Guidance ("EPA/540/P~91/001). .
The barrier layer of the cover system shall consist of 24
inches of clay with a permeabil~ty less than or equal to 1 X
10-7 centimeters per second ("em/see"), or a sYnthetic liner
that is equally protective, as determined by EPA. The
choice of materials for the barrier layer shall be made by
EPA, in cons~ltation with KDE, during remedial design.
.
.
All clearing, gradinq, and excavation activities .associated
with construction of the cover system shall be conducted in
accordance with the substantive standards of COMAR
26.09.01.01, 26.09.01.05 A and B, 26.09.01.07 B, and
26.09.01.08 A and B.
50
-------
.
.
.
.
. (3~
.
.
.
Maintenance. of the cover system shall be performed in
accordance with the substantive standards of COMAR
26.04.07.22 A, B* and C, to prevent degradation of the
system and to ensure long-term effectiveness.
cover
The vegetative cover on the cover system shall be
constructed in accordance with a management plan developed
for the purpose of creating and maintaining a grassland or
grass/shrub habitat. Consultation with EPA's Biological
Technical Assistance Group (IIBTAG") shall be necessary
during development of this managem~nt plan and the plan
shall be subject to EPA approval, in consultation with.MDE.
(2)
stormwaterControl System Performance Standards
The sedimentation basins and stormwater control channels
shall be. constructed to minimize erosion, 'in accordance with
the substantive standards of COMAR 26.09.02.02,26.09.02.05
A and B, 26.09.02.06 A(2), and 26.09.02.08.
All clearing, grading, and excavation activities associated
with construction of the stormwater control system shall be
condu~ted in accordance with the sqbstantive standards.of
COMAR 26.09.01.01,26.09.01.05 A and B, 26.09.01.07 B, and
26.09..01.08 A and B.. ...
. .
Landfill Gas Management System Performance Standards
The landfill gas.management system, once it is installed,
shall control landfill gas emissions, in accordance with the
substantive standards of COMAR 26.11.06.01, 26.11.06~02,
26.11.06.03, 26.11.06.06, 26'.11.06.08, and 26.i1.06.09.
The effectiveness of the landfill qas management system in
controlling landfill gas emissions shall be evaluated in
accordance with a landfill gas emissions monitoring plan
that shall be developed during remedial design., The plan.
shall include sampling at the landfil~ qasdischar~e points.
and at the Site boundaries for site-related VOCs. The
monitoring plan shall comply with the. substantive standards
for monitoring contained in the ARARs identified for. the
.landfill gas management system. The landfill gas emissions
monitoring plan shall be subject to review and approval by
EPA, in consultation with MDE. Landfill gas emissions.
monitoring shall be conducted semiannually, with the first
round immediately following completion of remedial action,
and then semiannually thereafter for. a period of' at least
fiv~ (5) years.
The landfill gas vents or any other source of emissions must
also comply with the substantive standards of Maryland's
Regulations Governing Toxic Air Pollutants, COMAR 26.11.15.
51
-------
r -
i
i
,
.
An active landfill gas management system equipped with RACT
shall be require~ in accordance with the substantive
standards of COMAR 26.11.19.01, and 26.11.19.02 G if total
VOC emissions from the landfill exceed 25 tons per year.
If the landfill gas monitoring data indicate that emission
standards set forth in COMAR 26.11.06.02, 26.11.06.03,
26.11.06.06, 26.11.06.08, 26.11.06.09, 26.11.19.01, 26.11.19
G, and 26.11.15 are not being met, then, at a minimum,
emission controls shall be required, and, in addition, the
passive gas collection system shall be converted to an
active gas collection system if necessary to meet these
emission standards.
.
.
A slurry wall shall be installed to reduce horizontal
migration of gasses from -the landfill. At a minimum, the
slurry wall shall be as deep as the water table and shall be -
located to the south of the Site between-the landfill and
adjacent residences. The exact location, depth, and
specifications, for the slurry wall shall be developed
during remedial design.
(4)
Ground-Water Monitorina Performance Standards
A ground water monitoring system shall be installed to
evaluate the degradation of Site-related contaminants and/or
the migration of-site-related contaminants beyond the -
landfill area in accordance with the substantive monitQring
requirements ~f 40 C.F.R.- Part 264, SubpartF. ~esystem
shall include selected exi~tinq wells. and, at a minimum,
five new wells, the location of which shall be determined
during remedial design. - All-monitoring wells shall be
constructed in accordance with the substantive requirements
of COMAR 26.04.04.02 and 26.04.04.07. Any wells to be -
abandoned shall be abandoned in accordance with the
substantive requirements of COMAR 26.04.04.11.- Newly -
installed monitoring wells shall be located in the uppermost
continuous-water-bearing aquifer. A ground water monitoring
plan, subject to approval by EPA, in consultation with MDE,
shall be developed during remedial design.
.
.
The ground water monitoring system wells shall be sampled in
accordance with the substantive monitoring requirements of
40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart F on a semi-annual basis for a
period of at least two years. Sampling shall begin during -
the remedial design phase. FOllowing evaluation of the
semi-annual sampling results, the scope and frequency for
subsequent sampling shall be determined by EPA, in
consultation with HOE. Samples shall De analyzed for all
EPA Contract Laboratory Program Target Compound List VOCs
and Target Analyte List Metals. The ground water monitoring
S2
-------
program shall continue until EPA decides that adequate data
exists to determine that the Site-related hazardous
substances have been reduced to meet the performance
standards found in Subsection A(4) of Section X (Selected
Remedy). '
(5)
Ecoloaical Monitorina Proaram Performance Standards
.
The effectiveness of the selected remedy in protecting
ecological resources shall be monitored in accordance with
an ecological monitoring plan that shall be developed during
remedial design. The plan shall include monitoring of the
adjacent wetland and stream surface water, sediment, and
benthic environments. The plan shall 'be submitted for
review and approval by EPA, in consultation with MDE.
Ecological monitoring shall be conducted annually, with the
first round'prior to the start of remedial action to
establish a data baseline, and then annually thereafter for
the period determined to be necessary by EPA, in' ,
consultation with MDE, which period shall be for at least
five (5) years.
.
The ecological monitoring activities shall include chemical
analysis of surface water and sediments. :If analytical
results from the surface water and sediment sampling ,
indicate that there may be adverse ec010gical effects due to
Site-related,contaminant,s, then ,sediment bioassays may be
required. Toxicity testing' shall be run on the sediment'
samples, if determined to be necessary by E~A, in
consultation with'MDE." ,
.
As stated,previously in this document, background
, wetland/marsh samples were not possible due to the fact that
,the Site is located at the headwaters of the adjacent
wetland. Therefore, although not necessarily in a
"background" location, an ecoloqical reference station with
similar sampling, protocols shall be established as part, of "
the' ecological monitoring plan. 'Sampling shall not be ' '
conducted after a storm event.
.
, ,
A minimum of ten (10) sampling stations shall be established
for monitoring the wetlands and streams (specifically Bynum
Run Creek, the Bush River Tributary, and the Unnamed
Tributary).
Chemical analysis,of sediments shall be conducted according
to the EPA~approved monitoring plan. Samples shall be split
for toxicity testing. Sediment samples shall be collected'
from areas estimated to have a minimum of SO, fines
(percentage of sediments that can pass through a 63 micron
sieve).
.
53
-------
'.
.
Sediment toxicity testing, if determined to be necessary by
EPA, in consultation with MDE, shall be conducted according
to the EPA-approyed monitoring plan. A 30% or greater
reduction in survival compared to the control sample shall
be considered a significant impact.
(6)
Perimeter Fencina
.
A chain-link fence shall be constructed around the
perimeter of the cover system in order to prevent
unauthorized access to the site. No-trespassing signs
shall be posted on this fence.
The chain-link fence shall have a minimUm h~ight of six feet
and shal'l be equipped with locking gates.
.
.
The fence shall be maintained 'in a manner sufficient to '
prevent unauthorized access to the site until such a time as
EPA,'in consultation with MDE, determines that access
restrictions are no longer required. Plans for maintenance
of the fence shall be subject to EPA approval, in
consultation with MDE. '
(7)
ODeration and Maintenance Performance Standards
.
, ,
Operation and maintenance of the sinqle barrier cover'
system, the stormwater management system, the 'landfill gas
management system and the perimeter fencing shall be '
conducted in accordance with an operation and maintenance
plan' that shall be sUbject to r~view and approval by EPA, in
consultation with MDE. The plan shall incorporate all, '
substantive operation and maintenance requi~ements contained
in the ARARs identified for' a particular remedial activity.
(8)
Investiaation-Derived Waste
Investigation~derivedwaste which is hazardous waste within
the"meaning of COMAR 26.13.02 and' which is to be disposed of
offsite shall comply with the substantive standards of COMAR
26.13.03.05,E,while beinq.stored'onsite. '
EPA.may modify or refine the selected remedy during remedial
design and construction. Such modifications or refinements, if
any, would generally reflect results of the engineering design
process. The estimated present worth cost of the selected remedy'
is $5.7 million. This estimate is comprised of a capital cost of
$3.8 million and $1.9 million for 30 years of 'operation and
maintenance. ", ,
If EPA, in consultation with MDE, determines that the
monitoring data indicates that implementation of the selected
remedy has not effectively reduced the contamination of the
54
-------
wetland and stream areas observed during the RI or that the
contamination levels have increased since implementation of the
selected remedy, addi~ional remedial measures addressing the
wetland and stream areas, beyond those contained in this selected
remedy, may be required.
A determination of whether the implemented remedy is
proteQtive of the environment shall be based on at least two (2)
years of ecological monitoring data. This data shall be
evaluated by EPA, MDE, and any necessary support agencies, using
state of the art risk assessment methods. Decisions regarding
the need for any possible additional remediation activities,at
the site shall be made by EPA, in consultation with MDE.Nothing
in this paragraph limits the authority of EPA, in consultation
with MDE, to require additional remedial activities and/or
different remedial actions prior to completion o'f the remedy's
implementation. '
If the results of the ground water monitoring program
suggest that the levels of Site-related contaminants are not
decreasing as a result of implementation of the selected remedy,
or, if the estimated time period needed to meet the established
performance standards via the selected remedy is determined to be
longer than e~ected,EPA may require that additional response
actions be taken to addre~s the 'groun~ water contamination,
. beyond those contained inth~s selected remedy. '
XI.
statutory DetermiDatioDs' .
EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to select
remedial actions that are protective of human health and the .
environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. i
9621, establishes several other statutory' requirements .and
preferences. These requirements/preferences specify that, when
complete, the selected remedial action for a site must comply
with applicable or relevant arid appropriate requirements
. established under Federal and State envirQnmental ,and facility
siting laws, unless a statutory waiver is justified. The'
selected remedy must also be cost-effective and utilize permanent
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute also contains a
preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy
for this Site ~eets these statutory requirements.
A.
OVerall ProtectioD of Human Health and the BDviroament
The baseline risk assessment for the Bush Valley Landfill
site determined that the site potentially presents an
unacceptable risk to future residents in the vicinity of the Site
who might use ground water for drinking. Specifically, the risk
assessment indicates that the cumulative risk posed by ingestion
55.
-------
and inhalation of VOCs in ground water is unacceptable.
Furthermore, a number of these contaminants exceed HCLs. OVer a
lifetime, the total excess cancer risk associated with exposure
to contaminated ground water at the site in Area 1 is 9 X 10.4,
and in Area 2 is 3.5 X 10-4, for future residents.
The single barrier cover system would provide protection of
human health and the environment by decreasing the infiltration
of precipitation through the landfill and thereby curtailing
continued degradation of ground water. Protection from exposure
of human receptors to the contaminated ground water will be
provided through land use and access restrictipns. Additionally,
it is anticipated that natural attenuation processes will reduce
the levels of contaminants in the ground water to acceptable
levels in 13 years or ~ess. Protection from exposure of human
. .and environmental receptors via direct contact to the landfill
itself, onsite contaminated soils, and leachate, shall be
provided through construction; operation and. ma.intenance of the
single barrier cover system, and deed restrictions on the'
landfill property. .
If it is det~rmined that the ground water contamination is
not being sUfficiently reduced or ha~ migrated, then EPA, in
consultation with MDE, may require additional ground water
remediation activities to ensure protection of human health and
. the environment. .
The short-term threats associated with construction of the
selected remedy will be readily controlled and no adverse cross-
media impacts are expected as a result of implementation this
remedy. The selected remedy is protective of human health and
the environment.' .. . .
During all site work, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration ("OSHA") Standards, set forth at 29 C.F.R. Parts
1904, 1910, and 1926 governing worker safety during hazardous
waste operations,. shal+ be met. .'. . . .
. compli.ance vi th Applica])le or aelevant and
Appropriate Requirements
Under Section 121(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9621(d), and EPA
guidance, remedial actions at Superfund sites must attain legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State
environmental or facility siting standards, requirements,
criteria, and limitations (collectively referred to as ARARs) .
Applicable requirements are those substantive env~ronmental
protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal or State law that specifically address hazardous
material found at the Site, the remedial action to be implemented
at the Site, the location of the Site, or other circumstances at
the Site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those which,
B.
56
-------
while not applicable to the Site, nevertheless address problems
or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the
Site that their use i~ well-suited to the site.
The selected remedy will comply with all ARARs.
are presented below:
The ARARs
1. Chemical-SDecific ARARs
.
The Safe Drinking Water Act's maximum contaminant level
goals ("MCLGs"), 40 C.F.R. SS 141.50-.51, are relevant and
appropriate requirements for those substances, pollutants
and contaminants' that have a MCLG of greater than zero;
provided however, that the MCLGs are not relevant and
appropriate for those inorganics for which the background
level exceeds the MCLG. ~e single barrier cover system, in
conjUnction with natural attenuation processes associated'
with the ground water contamination, will allow. for
compliance.with these requirements.
The Safe Drinking Water Act's maximum contaminant levels
("MCLs"), 40 C.F.R. SS 141.11-.12 and 141.61-.62, are
relevant and appropriate requirements for those substances,
pollutants and contaminants that have a maximum contaminant
lev.el goal. ("MCLG") of zero; provided however, that the MCLs
are not relevant and appropriate for those inorganics for
which the background level exceeds the MCL. The single
barrier cover system~ in conjunction with natural .
attenuation processes associated with the ground water.
contamination, will allow for compliance with.these
requirements. . .
.
.
Compliance with the Clean Water Act's Federal Ambient Water
Quality criteria for tne Protection of Aquatic Life, 33
U.S.C S 1314; Maryland Surface Water Quality Criteria, COMAR
26.08.02.03; Maryland Toxic Substance Water Quality
criteria, COMAR 26.08.02.03-1; Maryland Numerical criteria
. for. Toxic SUbstances,COMAR 26.08.02.03-2; and Maryland
Water Quality criteria Specific to Designated Use criteria
for Use I Waters~ COMAR 26.08.02.03~3 A shall be' attained
via the natur~l degradation processes of the selected
remedy.
2. Action-sDecific ARARs
.
In accordance with COMAR 26.02.03.03 A, Maximum Allowable
Noise Levels shall not be exceeded during construction and. .
operation of the selected remedy, unless the activity in
question is subject to an exemption from these Levels
pursuant to COMAR 26.02.03.03 B(2). The standards specified
in COMAR 26.02.03.03 D(2) and (3) shall apply to sound level
meters to be used to determine compliance with the Noise
57
-------
Levels.
.
The qround water. monitoring component of the selected remedy
will comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R Part 264
Subpart F.
.
The Single Barrier Cover System shall be constructed in
accordance with the substantive standards of Maryland
sanitary Landfill Closure Regulations, COMAR 26.04.07.21 A,
B, D, and E.
.
The Single Barrier Cover system 'shall be maintained in ,
accordance with the substantive standards of Maryland Post-
Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Regulations for'Sanitary
Landfi~ls, COMAR 26.04.07.22 A, B, and C. ' ,
Any 'land clearinq, qradinq, or excavatinq'performed during
the course of the selected remedy shall comply with the
substantive standards of Maryland Erosion and Sediment'
Control Requlations, COMAR 26.09.01.01, 26.09.01.05 A and a,
26.09.01.07 B, and 26.09.01.08'A and B.
.
.
Stormwater shall be manaqed in accordance with the
substantive standards of ~aryland stormwater Manaqement
Regulations, COMAR 26.09.02.02, 26,.09.02.05 A and, B,
26.09.02.06 A(2), and '26.09.02.08. '
.
, ' .
, ,
Emissions from landfiil qas vents sball meet emission
limitations in accordance with the substantive standards of,
Maryland Regulations Governinq Air Quality, COMAR
26.11.06.01, 26.11.06.02, 26.11.06.03,26.11.06.06,
26.,11.06.08, and 26.11.06.09. If the ,emissions from the gas
vents exceed these limitations, then additional control
measures shall be required as part of this remedy.
The landfill gas vents or any other source of emissions must
also comply with the substantive standards of Maryland's
, 'Regulations Governinq Toxic Air, Pollutants, COMAR 26.1r.15.
.
.
An active landfill gas manaqement'system equipped with
Reasonably Available Control Technology shall be required in
accordance with COMAR 26.11.19.02 G if total VOC emissions
from the landfill exceed 25 tons per year. '
All monitoring well's shall be constructed in accordance with
the substantive requirements of COMAR 26.04.04.02 and,
26.04.04.07. Any wells to be abandoned shall'be abandoned
in accordance with the substantive requirements of COMAR
26.04.04.11
.
.
Investigation-derived waste which is hazardous waste, within
the meaninq of COMAR 26.13.02 and which is to be disposed of
58
-------
offsite sha!l comply with the substantive standards of COMAR
26.13.03.05 E while being stored onsite.
3. Location-SDecific ARARs
.
Any remedial activities that may affect the wetlands
adjacent to the site shall comply with the ~ubstantive
standards of 40 C.F.R. S 6.302(a).
The substantive standards of 40 C.F.R. i 6.302(b) shall
apply to all activities at the Site.
.
.
Any remedial activities that involve construction,
reconstruction, dredging, or filling' in the tidal wetlands',
located east of the landfill shall comply with the
. substantive standards found in COMAR 08.05.05. Any remedial
activities that involve: (i) removal, excavation, or .
dredging of any materials, (ii) changing existing drainage
characteristics, sedimentation patterns, flow patterns, or.
flood retention characteristics, (iii) disturbance of the
water level or water table by drainage, impoundment, or
other means, (iv) dumping, discharging of, or filling with
material, or placing of obstructions, (v) grading or removal
of material that would alter existing topography, or (vi)
destruction or removal of plant life that would alter the
character of a nontidal wetland, shall .compiy with the
substant~ve ~equirements'of COMAR 08.05.04.
c.
Cost-Bffectiveness
. .
section 300.430(f) (1) (ii) (D) of ~e NCP requires EPA to
evaluate cost-effectiveness by first determining if the
alternative satisfies the threshold criteria: protection of human
health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. The
effectiveness of the alternative is then determined by evaluating
the following three of the five balancing criteria: long-term
. effectiveness' and permanence: reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment: and short-term effectiveness. The.'
.selected~emedy meets these criteria. The selected remedy is
cost-effective because the costs are proportional to .its overall
effectiveness. The estimated present worth cost for the selected
remedy is $ 5,700,000.
D.
utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment (or Resource Recovery). Technoloqies to the
Maximum Bxtent Practicable
. .
section 121(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. f 9621(b), establishes
preference for remedial actions that permanently and
significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous
substances over remedial actions which will not.
a'
59
-------
This remedy. is consistent with the presumptive remedy
guidance for municipal landfill sites. When the RI/FS was
initiated, it was det~rmined that the presumptive remedy guidance
for municipal landfills would be followed. The framework for
evaluating a presumptive remedy for municipal landfill sites is
presented in a manual entitled Conductinq Remedial
Investigations/Feasibilitv Studies for CERCLA Municical Landfill
Sitesr February 1991 (OSWER Directive 9355.3-11). This guidance
was followed when conducting the RIfFS and evaluating remedial
alternatives at this site. Based on that guidance and the rest
of the Administrative Record for this site, EPA .is selectinq a
remedy for this Site which does not use treatment to permanently
and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances at the Site. . .
B.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal' Bleaent
Remedial alternatives identified in the presumptive remedy
guidance for municipal landfills are appropriate for this site.
presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common
categories of sites, based on historical patterns of remedy
selection and EPA's scientific and engineeririg evaluation of
performance data ,on technology implementation. The objective of
. the presumptive remedies initiative is to use the.Superfund .
program's past experience to streamline site investigation and
speed up selection of cleanup actions. ' OVer time, presumptive
remedies are expected to ensure consistency in remedy selection
and reduce the cost and' time required. to clean up similar types'
of sites. Presumptive remedies are expected to. be used at all
appropriate sites except Under unusual site-specific'
circumstances. ' . .
The EPA directive, PresumDtive Remedv for CERCLA MuniciDal
Landfill sites, September 1993 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-49),
establishes containment as the presumptive remedy for CERCLA
municipal landfills: therefore, the selected remedy does not
include treatment as a principal element. '
60
-------
PART III - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
This Responsiveness Summary documents public concerns and
comments received by ~he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") during the public comment period for the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP" or "Proposed Plan") for the Bush
Valley Landfill Superfund site ("Site"). Comments were received
both verbally at the public meeting held on June 26, 1995 and in
writing. This summary. also provides EPA's responses to those
comments. The information is organized as follows:
I.
Overview
II.
Summary of comments received during the June 26, 1995,
pUblic meeting and EPA.responses .
III. Summary of written comments received during the comment
period arid EPA responses
I.
overview
A public comment period was held from June 15, 1995 through
July 14, 1995 to receive comments from the public on the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") Reports, the
Proposed Plan, the preferred .alternative, and the remaining .
r~medial alternatives outlined in .the Proposed Plan.' A public
meeting was held on June 26, 1995 at 7:00 pm at the Edgewood High
Sch~ol, in Edgewood, Maryland. The public'meeting was attended,
by EPA and Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDE") staff,
representatives from Harford' County, local elected officials, and
local residents. The transcript. of the public meeting is
contained in the Administrative Record for the site.
. , .
The public meeting was preceded by a briefing of the local
elected officia~ from the. County Distri~t where.the site is
located. This briefing was held at 3:30'pm at the Harford county
Offices ,in Bel'Air, Maryland. The bri~fing was attended by EPA
and HDE staff ,'. a representative from Harford County Department. of
Public Works, the County Attorney, and a member of the Harford
County Council.
Comments received during the public comment period are
presented below wltha response to each.
I
II.
Summary or Commen~s Received.durina ~he JUDe 2'. 1995 PUblic
Mee~inq and SPA Resoonses
Significant questions and comments presented at the June 26,
1995, public meeting are listed and/or summarized briefly in this
1
-------
section. The EPA response follows each of the questions or
comments presented.
Comment 1: One commenter asked what basic contaminants EPA would
b~ looking at.
BPA ReSOODse: The medium of greatest concern at the site is the
ground water. The major contaminants of concern in the ground
water are Volatile Organic Compounds ("VOCs"). There are some
elevated levels of inorganic contaminants (heavy metals) in the
qround water, but there is no clear pattern to the metals
contamination. EPA has concluded. that, although inorganics are
present, it is not clear at this time that they are site-related.
With regard to contaminants in the ground water, the baseline
risk assessment indicates that the carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks associated with expo~ure to contaminated
ground water at the Site exceed acceptable levels. In order to
. address this unacceptable risk, the selected remedy includes a
requirement to monitor the ground water until the concentrations
of the Site-related contaminant~ of concern, when considered
cumulatively, are reduced to an acceptable risk level (i.e.
carcinogenic risk of 1 x 10.6 and a hazard index of less than or
equal to 1.0). In addition, for organic compounds a.requirement
of the selected remedy is achievement of Maximum Contaminant .
Levels ("MC~") and non-zero Maximum contaminant Level Goals
("MCLGS")' in .the ground ~ater and for inorganic compounds a
:requirement of the selected remedy is achievement of MCLsand
non-Zero MCLGs if these. values are higher than. the established
background levels. ..
Comment 2: One commenter wanted to know how many test .wells were
present at the site and if EPA had obtained "positive readinqs"
at all locations.
BPA ResooDse: There are eleven (11) monitoring wells at the
site. Four of these wells are considered to be upgradient.
Also, three residential wells were.sampled during the Remedial
.' Investigation ( "RI n) . ... .. .
Both organic and inorganic (heavy metals) contaminants were
detected in the monitoring wells; however, only organic
contaminants (VOCs) were consistently detected above drinking
water standards, specifically MCLs. Two heavy metals, nickel and
cadmium, were detected above MCLs ih two monitoring wells;
however, these w~l~s. are located upgradient from the Site and
1 Maximum Contaminant Levels and Maximum contaminant Level
Goals are contaminant-specific drinking water standards
established under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act that, are
applicable to certain public water suppliers.
2
-------
these contaminants are not considered to be
inorganic contaminants were detected in the
and these inorganics were present at levels
respective MCLs. .'
Commen~ 3: One commenter asked about the proposed landfill gas
management system and what type of treatment would be used, if
necessary. She specifically asked if EPA would be using flares
for gas treatment.
Site-related. Only
residential wells,
that are below their
BPA Response: The .landfill gas management system is made up of a
number of components including: the gas collection layer (sand
layer) which is part of the single barrier cover system, a siurry
wall, and gas venting wells. The landfill gases will be blocked
by the slurry wall to the south of the landfill and channeled to
specific points of discharge at the northern portion of the
.landfill. The discharge points will be monitored to determine if
.federal and. state landfill gas emission standards are being met.
If these standards are not being met, then the gases will be
treated. The use of flares for treatment may be appropriate.
CODUlen~
-------
municipal landfill sites around the country. As a result, only
'alternatives that have been successful at other similar sites are
evaluated. This approach has been shown to save time and money
during the RI/FS process.
CommeD~ 7: The same commenter wanted to know specifically why EPA
didn't consider excavation and offsite treatment for the waste at
this site and what that kind of alternative would have cost.
EPA ResDonse: As stated above, EPA applied the presumptive remedy
, guidance to "the site. The cost of excavating, treating and
disposing of the contents of an entire landfill would be
prohibitively expensive. ' Excavation of specific sources of
hazardous substances in, a landfill may be ~ appropriate remedy
when such sources have been identified. No discrete sources of
contamination within the landfill were found at this site.
Therefore, EPA could not justify the cost of excavation
especially when (1) there is no current ,risk posed by the
landfill and (2) the landfill can be effectively contained with a
cap. The actual cost of excavating this landfill was not
calculated: however, based on the costs associated with
excavation and offsite treatment at othe~ Superfund Sites~ it
certainly would be substantially greater than the cost of the
selected remedy ($5.7 million). ' ,
. ,
CODlDlen~ 8: 'one comenter wanted to know the breakdown of capital
costs and operating costs for .the selected reaedy.'
BPA ReSDonse: The capital cost for the selected remedy is $3.8,
million and the present worth cost for operation and maintenance
of the selected remedy over the next 30 years is $1.9 million.
Comment 9: One commenter made ,the following remark: "Of course,
all of this is going to be paid by the County.n
BPA ReSDonse: Ha:r:'ford County is currently the only party that
has entered into an agreement ,with EPA to do work at this Site,
'specifica-lly, the RI/FS. However, a number .of other'potentially
responsible parties have been identified for the Site. Fol1owinq
issuance of this Record of Decision ("ROD")J EPA will give all of
the potentially responsible parties, including the County, the
opportunity to negotiate a Consent Decree with EPA for the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action ("RD/RAn).
Comment 10: County Council Member Mitch Sha~ wanted to know how
the citizens that were present had found 'out about the public
meeting. The response was that they had been notified of it in
The Aeais. Hr. Shank then indicated that he was concerned that
the people from Philadelphia Station, Harford Town community,
etc. may not have had the opportunity to see EPA's ad in ~
Aeais. He then wanted to know if this was the only scheduled
meeting for this site.
4
-------
EPA ReSOODSe: In addition to running an ad in The Aeais, EPA also
ran an ad in The Record. However, The Aeais has a general
circulation of 35,000. persons throughout Harford County. There
are people living in the Philadelphia station area and Harford
Town community who do subscribe to this newspaper and it is
available at local Harford County newsstands and stores. At the
public meeting; EPA representatives indicated that, following the
meeting, Mr. Shank would be contacted for names and numbers of
the local homeowners associations so that EPA could notify them
and determine if they were interested in receiving information on
the Site. EPA then indicated that if there was public interest
in the issue, a public availability session co~ld be held where
EPA staff would respond to questions regarding the site.
Although EPA called Mr. Shank a number of times,EPA was .unable
to get further information regarding parties that may have been
interested in additional information and did not schedule an
availability session. .'
III. SummarY of .ri~~eD CommeD~s Received 4urina the Public
CommeD~ period aDd EPA ResDoDses .
The only written comments on the Proposed Plan received
during the public comment period were from the Maryland'
Department of the Environment ("MDE"). MDE's significant.
comments are summarized below along with. EPA's responses.
CommeD~ 1: A number of MDE's comments requested language changes
. to the Proposed Plan. .
. .
EPA ReSOODse: The Proposed Plan was issued on June 15, 1995. as a
final document.
CommeD~ 2: HOE asked for documentation of statements made in the
Proposed Plan regarding natural attenuation of the ground water -
- specifically, the statement that "[i]t is anticipated that the
combinationof.the single barrier cover system and natural.
attenuation will accelerate the reduction of the levels of
organics' in the ground water to acceptable levels in less than 13
years. n .' . . . .
EPA ReSOODse: This documentation can be found in the
Administrative Record file in a memo from Barbara RUdnick, EPA
geologist, to Melissa Whittington, EPA Remedial Project Manager,
dated 6/1/95.
Based on contaminant reductions seen in historical ground-
water sampling data, 'the natural attenuation rate of organic'
contamination was calculated. These calculations did not take
the potential effects of the single barrier cover system into
account (which should shorten the attenuation period). For most
of the contaminants, it was calculated that reduction of
5
-------
contaminants to undetectable levels would occur within 5 years:
however, one contaminant (1,2-dichloroethane), was estimated to
take 13.1 years. Considering that the Performance Standards for
ground water are higher than non-detect and that the single
barrier cover system will accelerate the contaminant reduction
due to natural attenuation, it is anticipated that the
contaminants in the ground water will meet the designated
performance standards in less than 13 years.
Comment 3: The description of the preferred remedy in the
Proposed Plan indicated that the material used for the barrier
layer of the single barrier cover system CQuld be either clay .or
a synthetic membrane as long as it had 'a maximum permeability of
1 x 10.7 em/sec. The permeab~lity factor is acc~ptable to KDE;
however, MDE recommends the use of a synthetic membrane as
opposed to a clay layer. '
SPA ResDoDse: The decision regarding what materials will be used
during construction will be made during the Remedial Design phase
of the project. .MDE's preference for a sYnthetic membrane bas
been noted and MOE is encouraged.to comment on.the Remedial
Design work plan documents.
,
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
'~
)r
ABINGDON
MARYLAND
SITE LOCATION
FI (',URE ,
0; ,.
,(
-------
, , ,
~USH VALLEY LANDFILL SITE
iARFORD .COUNTY, MARYLAND
, ,FI'U"~' ~.
+ JAMES
: ~ , '.110
t ~ 1'"
~
~'\~ . " .. ~
,i". : ~
~O ~ .V
.." ~
.. ", '~
HARfORD TOWN.
COMMUNITY
.
.
NORm
A
"
..
RESIDENCES.
..
SITE BOUNDARY ~ '
I ,
"
. ,
-------
, .
I
I
~"
II
'.
:4
I :
'."
. \
... ~
...~
NSIPC.Ht,,,
\0 W~L.\...~
F' E,U~\; "!J
"'~
-------
u j
-------
~
Ii:
I!!
~
II:
Q
!!
:I
Q
~
f
~
3
Q
III
~
~
.,
I. .
.,
Q
I
c
.1
.
~
o
z
:I
...
a
.ft
i
i
~
f
-.
j
0'-6"
PROTECTIVE LAYER. .
-... -
... -..
GEOTEXTtLE FABRIC
COMMON BORROW
. -- . .
GEONEr OR MINIMUM
12-INCHES GRANULAR
DRAJNAGE LAYER.
..-..
,,-- I--' ~ ~
40-MIL HDPE SYNTHETIC
MEMBRANE
BARRIER LAYER
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SAND
. GAS VENTING LAYER
SOIL FILL MATERIAL
BEDDING LAYER
. (N.T.S.)
f'.Q.U'-'. S
1YPICAL ~ BAlI...t COve. Sr~It:rA
~ COUNTY COYERN"ENT
BUSH VALLEY w.QFlLL. HARFoRD COUNTY, WARYUNO
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES'
-------
" O~currem;e Sunlllliuy fur CllnslilUcnh Dclc~leli in Leach.sh: 'S!:c:p-Wiilcr SaUlplcs. !insh Valley Liinlilili. lIilrfllrll CIIIIIIIY. Mill rliu1l!. I'age I III 2
-I
Frctlll~I":Y Rang.: uf Dd.:cls Total Raug.: Surfa.:.:- WaleI'
Cunslilucnt Detects I Total Min - M8Jt MiD. Max . Mc:an UCL Crileria lal
VOCs
I, 2-Dichlorobcnzc:nc: I 16 . 0.005 0.005 - 0.005 0.0050 0.0050 lI.7u3 Ilil
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 3/6 0.002 - 0.006 0.002 - 0.006 0.0050 0.0063 0.763 Ibl
Toluene .1 16 0.002 O.OO~ . 0.002 .0.0020 0.0020 NA
Semi- VOCs
Dic:lhylphlhalale 51b 0.001 - 0.004 0.00 I . 0.00-1 0.0021 0.0031 NA
2,4-Dim~lhylphenol 1 16 0.004 0.004 - 0,()()4 0.0040 0.0040 NA
2- Melhylnitphlhalene I 16- 0.002 0.002 - 0.002 0.0020 0.0020 NA
4-Melhylphenol 1/6 0.004 0.004 - 0.004 0.0040 0.0040 NA
Naphthalene 3 15 0.002 . 0.009 0.002 . 0.009 0.0052 0.0016 11.96 IlIl
PCBslPeslicidcs
gamma-BHC . 1/6 0.000004 0.00000-1 - 0.00000-1 0.0000040 0.0000040 O.IIIIIIIIK lei
Heptachlor .1 16 0.000056 0.000025 - 0.000056 0.000030 0.000041 0.00000311 lei
Inorl!anic (lola1)
Alumil,1um 516 0.301 . 119 0.02145 - 119 41 110 o.mi1 Ilil
Barium '6/6. 0.0686 .6.88 0.0686 - 6.88 1.4 3.6 NA
Cadmium 1 16 0.0062 0.0015 - 0.0062 0.0023 0.0039 0.001
Calcium 6/6 102 - 332 102 . 332 180 ' - 250 NA
Chromium 5/6 0.0066 - 0.669 0.003 - 0.669 0.15 0.31 0.21 (0.011)
Cobala 516 0.0098 - 0.248 0.004 - 0.248 0.058 0.14 NA
Copper 4/6 0.0018 - 0.244. 0.0025 - 0.244 0.084 0.11 0.012
Iron 6/6 2:88 . 1,340 . 2.88 - 1.340 . 330 160 1.0 lei
Lead 4/6 0.0039 .0.215 '0.001 - 0.215 0.058 0.13 0.0032
Maanesium .
6/6 19.4 - 80.4 19.4 - 80.4 46 68 NA
Manganese 6/6 0.513 . 10.1 0.513 - 10.1 3.0 6.2 NA
Mercury 116 0.00021 0.00005 .0.00022 0.000018 0.00014 0.000012
Nickel' 6/6 0.0118 - 0.341 0.0118 .0.347 0:090. 0.20 0.16
Potasium '6/6 10.7 - 99 . 10.1 - 99 47 19 NA
Silver 1/6 0.0053 0.002 . 0.0053 0:0026 0.D031 0.00012
Sodium . 616 24.6 .360 24.6 - 360 -130 240 NA
Vanadium 4/6 0.0109 - 0.421 - 0.0015 .0.421 0.13 0.28 NA
Zinc 4/6 0.0161 - 1.25 O.alOOS - 1.25 . 0.36 0.17 0.11
fuulnolo8lppoar on pi" Z.
[ . TAI'-.' ,
i
-------
.'
. Occurrence Summary l'or Constiltletlb tklcClcJ in'Leachate S~p-Watcr SiIlI\JI!.:S, Blish Vattcy LanJlitt, 1I,III'IIhi Cllllnly, t.lill)'laml.l'.I!;C l "I!
Ch.,.'.:nuations arc reported in milligrams rcr Iii". (1111:/1.).
Ja)
Ihl
Ie)
Mean
NA
Toli.1 rang"
UCl
Marylilnd Chronic Tuxic Slilisiall""s C.ikria for Ihe rrOI~lion of frc:shwaler a'l"ali.: life (COMAR, 26.0H.02, Wa!.:r QWolllY,
(19921>, unles~ spc:cified otherwise. . .
No Mllryland Surfac'".Water Quality C.ih:ria available, Val~e prcsc:nt.:J it> Ih.: hJ".al Ambicnl Wa..:r Qllalily C.il".ia
. (A WQC) (or the protection.uf freshwah.:r aquatic life via chronic exposure (USEP A, 1986).
. No Maryland Surface-Waler Qllalily Crileria availabl." Value pre~nted is Ihe Federal Aqlhient Walc:r QUillily CII!.:..a
(A WQC) for the prot.:ction of frc:shwllh:r aquatic !ife via chronic exposure (USEPA, 1!J92).
Arithmelic uverage of the tolal nlllllh.:r IIf sampll:s, using pro'xy conl;C:lllralions fur lIun-dctc:cts,
Not available.
All villucs us.:J III the mean and (JCt. l'ilkulaliuns, including proxy concentfalillns fur nun-delcels.
9S ~rcen' upper confidence limit (on.:-tailc:d) on the mean, assuming a normal distribution.
. i~.\.1. ,
( Co"",t\~U )
-------
. "0": 11111
O.:cuncnce Summary fllr Cunslilucnls Ddcd.:1.1 in Subsurface Soil Samples. Bush Valley Landfill. Ilarford Cllunly. Maryland.
I I
lIpgratlicnl
fr~UI:ncy Runge of D.:I<:.:IS Total Range NOAA NOAA Range lal
. Constituc!nt Detects / Total Min. Max Min. Max Mean UCL ER-L ER-M Min - Max
Yill&
Acetone I /8 0.49 0.005 - 0.49 0.067 0.18 NA NA <0.012 - 0.022
Benzene 1/8 0.00] 0.003 - 0.003 0.003 0.003 NA NA <0.012 - 0.005
2-Butanone 2/8 0.072 - 0.078 0.005 - 0.078 0.023 0.045 NA NA <0.012 - 0.025
. Carbun disulfide 2/8 0.004 - 0.014 0.004 - 0.014 0.0055 O.OO'/Ii NA NA <0.012 - 0.005
I.I-Dichloroethane I /8 0.004 0.004 - 0.004 0.004 0.004 NA NA <0.0t2 - <0.014
Methylene chloride I /8 0.007 0.002 . 0.007 0.0034 0.OO4b NA NA
-------
" ". I
OeCIIHCIICG Summary for Cun:;\iiuCII\:i Ddcdetl ill Sub:iurfac~ Soil Samples, Bush Villicy 1..a,lIliill. lIarfurd CUlm!>,. M.II)'hllhl.
j'age.! ,II!
ConslilUlJnl
f'ro:qu.:ncy
Deleels / Tolal
Rang~ of Dele':\:;
Min - Max
TOlal Rlm~~
Min - Max
NOAA
ER-l
l'll!:ra,liclll
RanglJ ~
Min - Max
M~n
UCL
NOAA
ER-M
'noq,;anics tConlinlloo}
Magnesium 8/8 560 - 3,1110 560 - 3.180 '1.400 2,000 NA NA 74.2 . 1,990
Manganc:se 8/8 33.5 - 300 33.S - 300 110 180 NA NA 10.2 .200
Mercury 1/8 O.IK 0.05 - 0.18 0.074 0.1 0.15 1.3 < O. II - O. n
Nickd 8/8 4.5 - 1"1.6 4.5 - 17.6 10 IJ 30 50 -1.2 . rJK
l'ol8ssium 8/8 111 - 629 111 ~ 629 430 SSO NA NA .41.2 - 615
Silvc:r I /8 1.5 0.7 - 1.5 0.86 1.0 1 2,2 <1.4.,1:/
Sodium 8/8 47.2 . 1,5-10 41.2 - 1.540 510 900 NA NA bO.4 .- 291
Tin 8/8 41.9 - 99.6 43.9 - 99.6 80 92 ,NA' NA 42.8 -85
Vamulium 8/8 12.5 - 43.9 12.5 - 43.9 28 36 NA NA 27,6 -'60,1
Zinc 8/8 10.6 - 65.7 10.6 - 65.1 33 46 120 270 8.2 - 238
Concenlralions are reponed in milligrams per kilogram (n\g/kg).
Subsurface soil samples incl~t.le OMJ. OM4LSS. ,OM4LSD. GMS. GM6. GM8. GM2LSS, IIlId GM2LSD collo;cled al dc:plhs ranging from 7 III 34 ICcl helow
land surface. - - '
(a)
ER-L
ER-M
Mean
NA
NOAA
PCBI
Toial ranae
'UCL
VOC.
, , ,
Range of concentrations in upgradient IIiImptcs GMlUS. GMILSS. GM-1, and GM-9 collo;cled al dcplbs nwging frolD 10 10 401"1 hduw
laild surface.
Effects range-low (NOAA. 1990)..
Effects'raD,e-median (NOAA. 1990). ,
Arithn\l:tic average of Ihe tolal numbl:r of :iampl~s. using PIOILY concentrations fOI non-ilclects.
Not available. . ,
National Oceanic and Almospbcric Admini~lrillion.
Polychlorinated bipbenols.
All values used in the mean aqd UCL C:llkulalion~, ineludins PI01Y concentrations for non-delecls.
95 ~ICc:n' up~r confidence Ihm' (onc-taih:d) on tbe mean, usumioS . Donnal distribution.
Vol.lile or,uic compouods. '
TA9\.. ,~ '
(eo,t.""..4) .
-------
'. .' . . . . 1';11:( 1 II. ~
" I Occllm:ncc: Summary fur CoosJihlcli1s D.:kdcJ in UI1gradil!nt Groundwall!r ~aIll11ks. Blish Valky Lmdlill. lIalhllll CUIIIII)'. Mal)'lilllll.
FrCtI"ellcy' I{allge u" Delcels Tolal Range
COlisliluc:nt Dl!lects / Total Min - Mal Min. Max Mean UCL f\ICI.
VOCs
Benzem: I /11 0.003 0.003 - 0.003 0.0030 0.0030 0.00:> lOll
Bromometham: J {8 0.005 0.005 - 0.005 0.0050' 0.0050 NA
I,I-Dichloroethane I /8 0.003 0.00] - 0.00] 0.00]0 0.0030 NA
T ctrachluroethene 2/8 0.0] - 0.034 0.005 . 0.034 0.012 0.020 0.005 Ihl
Toluene I /8 0.003 0.003 - 0.003 0.0030 0.0030 1.0 Ibl
1,1,1- T richloro.:llulRc I / 8 0.004 0.004 - 0.004 0.0040 0.0040 O,21al
T..ichloroethene 118 . 0.011 0.004 - 0.011 . 0.0064 0.0082 0.00:) Ihl
Pesticides
alpha-BHC I /11 0.OOOOQ41 0.0000041 - 0.0000041 0.0000041 0.0000041 0.Ouu2 Ihl
Inorl!.anic {Tolal)
Aluminum 1/8 0.12 - 1.43 0.058 - 1.43 0.65 1.0 0.05 - 0.2 Icl
Barium 8/8 0.0212 - 0.0133 0.0212 - 0.0733 0.052 0.(6) I (al
Beryllium 3/8 0.0012 - 0.0021 0.0005 - 0.0021 0.00091 0.0013 0.004 Ihl
Cadmium 1/8 0.0105 0.0015. - 0.0105 0.0031 0.0051 0.005 Ibl
Calcium 8/8 2-.45 ~.61.4 2.45 .61.4 22 39 NA
Chromium 1/8 OJ)()88 0.004 - 0.00118 0.0051 0.0062 0.051al
Cobalt 6/8 0.0124" . 0.4~2 0.0035 - 0.452 0.15 0.26 NA
Copper 4/8 0.0087 - 0.0122 0.00]5 .0.0122 0.0077 0.010 I.J (dl
Iron 8/8 0.526 - 28.2 0.526 - 28.2 1.8 15 0.31cl
Magnc:sium 8/8 1.26 - 21.1 1.26 - 21.1 10 11 NA
Manganese 8/8 0.0251 .4.27 0.0257 .4.27 . 1.9 ].2 0.2 (,II
Nickel 6/8 . 0.0314 - 0.789 0.0035 - 0.789 0.25 0.45 0.1 (bl
Potassium 8/8 0.678 - 8.84 0.618 - 8.84 4.3 6.9 NA
Sodium 8/8 5.67 - 118 5.61 - 118 31 69 NA
Vanadium I /8 0.012 0.003 - 0.012 0.0041 0.0061 NA
Zinc 4/8 0.234 .0.341 O.ooIS .0.347 O.IS 0.25 Sic)
Footnotes appear on plgo 2.
TAi\.E .~
-------
. ,,' I 1',lg..: ~ "I 1
Occum:ncc: Summary for Cunstituents Ddeo,:lcJ in UI)gradic:nt Grou'ndwatel' Samples, Hush Valley'l..andlill. IhulilrJ Cuunty. Ma'r)'I:lu,l.
Constitul:nl
Frc:quency
Dele<:I:I / Total
I{:lng~ of Dt:lecls
Min' Max
Tolal Ranl:~
Min. Max
M~n
UCL
MCt.
Inorl!.:lnics lDissolvcd}
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickc:1.
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
'117 0.0122 0.0305 . 0.0122 0.052 0.06-1 U.US - 0.21.:1
1/1 0.018 .0.0741 0.018 . 0.0141 0.052 0.064 1 lal
2/1 0.001 .0.oot9 O.oooS - 0.0019 0.00017 0.0012 0.004 Ihl
, '111 3.37 .60.S 3,31 .60.S 2S 42 NA
4/1. . 0.0152 . 0.481 0.0035 '. 0.487 Q.15 0.27 NA
117 0.164 .25:2 ,0.164 - 25.2 1.2 15 0.3 lei
1/7. 1.39 .29.1 1.39 .29.1 12 20 NA
117 0.0291 "4.41 0.0291 - 4.41 2.2 3.1 u.21t11
, 1/7 0.00049 0.0001 - 0.00049 0.00016 0.00026 0.002 Ihl
'5/7 O.O.U8 .0.846 0.0035 - 0.846 0.31 0.56 O.t Ibl
1/1 0.659 .9.12 0.659 - 9.12 4.3 6.9 NA
1./1 6.13~123 6.13 - 123 45 84 NA
4/7 0.0253 . 0.408 0.001 .0.408 0.11 0.29 5 lei
Concentrations are rcported in milliBrams perlitcr (mg/Lr '
Upgratlic:nl g~ountlwater samples include GM 1 US, GM I LSS, OM1, and GM9.
la) Stale MCt (Code of Maryland Regulalion:; ICOMAR) 26.08.02. Water Quality, 1991).
[bl Federal Mct (USEPA,'I9na).
Ie) Secondary MCt (USEPA, I 992a).
Id) Maximum contaminant lev.;1 goal (USEPA. 19~2a).
MCL Maximum contaminant level.
Mean Arithmetic avcfllSo of tho totul numbc;r of IilimplCli, WiinS prol'l concentrations for non-dc:lects.
NA . Not available. '
Total r1lO80 All values used in tho mean IWd UCt cill.;uliitions, includins proxy concenlralions for non-delect8.
UCL9S percent upper confidence limit (ond-tailed) on the meaD, uauminl . normal dislributioD.
vacs Vol.tilo or811Oic compounds.' '
T~:'\.. ~ ~.
( C,owo."&tW\,,")
-------
TABLE 4
-
SEE PAGE 11 OF.
DECISION SUMMARY
. .
-------
O.:.:um:nc.: Summary fur C:llnslilu.:nls D.:kd.:d jn On-Sil~ GrouniJwat~r Sal1ll)h:s, Bush Valley LamJlili. UarfllnJ Counly. Mill ylillll.l. ."'6<: I .). 2
'.' ,
lJl'gradicnl
Fn:qu~ncy Rallb~ uf D.:tc.:ls . Tolal Range Range laJ
Consliluenl Detects 1 Tolal Min - Max Min - Max Mean UCL MCL Min - Mal(
VOCs
Benzene 6119 0.003 - 0.001 0.001 - 0.007 0.0042 0.0047 0.005 Ihl < 0.010 - 0.003
Chlorobenune 5/19 0.004 - 0.008 0.0015 - 0.008 0.0053 0.0058 NA <0.010
Chloroethane 4119 0.006 - 0.013 0.005 - 0.013 0.0061 0.001 NA <0.010
1 ,'I-Dichlorobenzene 1/19 0.002 - 0.009 0.002 - 0.009 0.0049 0.0056 0.075 lei <0.010
I,I-Dichluroethane 9/19 0.003 - 0.049 0.003 - 0.049 0.010 .0.015 NA <0.010 - 0.003
1.2-Dichluroethane 12/19 0.00] - 0.14 0.00] - 0.14 0.026 0.040 0.005 J.:I <0.019
1,2 Dichloroelhene (Total) 5/19 0;00] - 0.008 0.00] - 0,008 0.0049 0.0053 . 0.07 [.:,d} <0.010
1,2-Dichloropropane 6119 Q.006 - 0.014 0.005 - 0.014 0.0062 0.0071 0.005 [c) <0.010
Tetrachloroethene 6119 0.014 - 0.056 0.005 - 0.056 0.012 0.011 0.005 lei 0.03 - 0.034
T richloroethene 5119 0.003 - 0.052 0.002 - 0.052 0.0095 0.014 0.005 lei <0.008 - 0.011
Vinyl chloride 6119 0.003 - 0.013 0.003 - 0.013 0.0063 0.0014 0.002 lei <0.010
peslicides
alpha-BHC I 119 0.000012 0.000012 - 0.000012 0.000012 0.000012 0.0002 (c) < 0.00005 - 0.0000041
Inorganic (folal) .
Aluminum 18 /19 0.159 - 3.83 0.0305 - 3.83 1.0 1-.5' 0.05 - 0.2 lei 0.12. 1.4]
Arsenic 3119 0.0032 - 0.0042 0.001 - 0.0042 0.0018 0.0022 0.05 (bJ <0.003
I Barium 19/19 0.0181 - 0.173 0.0181 - 0.113 0.086 0.10 I [b) 0.0212 - 0.0733
I Beryllium 5/19 0.0012 - 0.0033 0.0005 - 0.00]] 0.00097 0.0013 0.004 (cl 0.0012 :- 0.0021
I Calcium 19/19 5.3 - 31.7 S.j - 37.1 2i 2S NA 2.45 - 61.4
Chromium 4/19 0.0084 - 0.0239 0.003 - 0.0239 0.0065 0.0085 0.05 (bl 0.0088 - O.OOlUS
Cobalt 15 119 0.0145 -0.187 0.0035 - 0.187 . 0.064' 0.085 NA 0.0124 - 0.452
Copper II 119 0.0069 - 0.0183 . 0.0025 - 0.0183 0.0074 0.0092 1.1(t] 0.0081 - 0.0122
hon 18 119 0.192 - 105 0.0695 -. 105 32 46 0.3 (e) 0.526 - 211.2
lead 1119 0.0025 0.0005- 0.0025 0.0015 0.0018 0.015 (81 <0.001 - <0.0028
M1socsium 19 119 . 1.S2 - 21.3 1.52 - 21.) II 14 NA 1.26 - 21.1
Mangantse 19 J 19 O.OSI2 - 8.62 O.OSI2 - 8.62 2.6 3.6 0.2 (I) 0.0251 - 4.21
Nickel 9 1 19 0.01 - 0.05.48 0.0035 - 0.0548 0.014 0.020 0.1 (c) 0.0374 - 0.789
Potassium 19 J 19 0.858 -1.85 0.858 -1.85 2.4 3.1 NA 0.678 - 8.84
Sodium 19 1 19 5.6 - 44.5 S.6 - 44.S 24 30 NA 5.61 - 118
Vanadium 4119 0.0103 - 0.0164 0.0015 - 0.0164 0.0053 0.0010 . NA <0.006' - .0.012
Zinc 4/.19 0.0326 - 0.349 0.0015 - 0.349 0.038 0.069 5 (el 0.234 - .0.347
I. T A~L e. ~.
-------
'. I
Occurr~ncc: Summary fllr Cllnsliluc:rils D':ledell in R~.,i6"","i"'" W.." W,
Samples, Uush Vallc:y lam'fill, lIarCon' COllllly, Maryl.lllti.
frt;quc:ncy Riln!>&: uf D&:I"ls Tulill Rango
Constituent Dc:tecls / Total Min ' Max Min - Max
Pesticides
alpha-BHC I 12 O.OOOOO~ 0.000004 .0.000004 0.0000040 0.0000040 0.0002 Ib} <0.00005 . 0.00000-11
IlIorl!anic (Tolan
Aluminum 2/2 0.16 .0.267 0.16 - 0.261 0.2' 0.55 0.05 - 0.2 lei 11.12 1.43
Barium 2/2 0.011-0.0182 0.0166 ,0.0182 0.011 0.022 1 (d) 0.0212 . 0.07J3
Calcium 2/2 4.59 - ~.6 4.59 - 5.6 5.1 8.3 NA 2.45 . 61.4
Iron 2/2 0.111 - 0.90!' 0.113 - 0.909 O.tH 1.4 0.1 (~I 0.)26 . 28.2
Magn.:sium 2/2 2.69 . 2.11 2.69 - 2.13 2.7 2.8 NA 1.26 . 21.1
Manganese 2/2 0.09 - 0.111 .0.0891 - 0.111 0.10 0.17 0.2 (cl 0.0257 . 4.21
Nickel 1/2 0.0123 0.001 - 0.0121 0.0091 0.026 O.llb) 0.0314 . 0.189
Potasl>iulII 2/2 0.365 - 0.421 0.365 - 0.421 0.40 0.59 NA 0.618 . 8.84
11.1" 12.2 . I
Sodium 2/2 11.3 . 12.2 .2 IS NA 5.61 . 118
Mean
UCL
MCL
UI'C1,u'icnl
RlUIgc: Iill
Min. Max
Concc:ntrations are reportc:d in millisrams pc:r lit.:r (maiL).
(a)
(bl
(el .
Id)
lei
MCL
Moan
NA
ToCaI nolo
UCL
Ranae of detected concentrations in uparadi.:nt 8roun~Wlter IImplea GMIUS, OMILSS, OM1, and OM9.
in lho uPlndieat IImples,. the lowest delection limil is rCPfJrtcd. .
Pederal MCL (USEPA, I 992a). .
SecondaryMCL (USBPA; '992a).
5talo MCL (Cod.: of Maryland ReBulations (COMARI26.08.02. Waacr Qualily, 1991).
Mllimum conllminanllevel goal (USBPA, 19928).
Maximum contaminanllevel. . .
Arilhmetic avcnso of 'he 10111 number of ~mplc:s, 'usio, prolY conccolraiioDi for oon-dc:lc:cls.
Not available. .
All valuCi usod io tho mcao IWd UCL calculiations, iocludina prolY cODCColnlioDS for non-dclecls.
95 pereeot \lppereoafid~eo limit (ono-tailed) on the mean, ....ada.a DO"" di..ribution.
If the coostitueot was not d.:h:clc:d
TA&L.E. .t.
-------
.'. I
OCCllrrcnc( Summary for CUIISliluelllS DLl<:dL:d ill R.ti cilnt'i"" we" -a.. Sillllple:;, IIII:;h Valley LandliU. Harford COllnl y. Mill )'1011111.
lJpl:".Ji.:nr
fr«:queney Rung.: (II' U"k.:1s T olal Range Rang~ lal
Constilul:nl Detects / Tolal Min - Max Min - Max Mean UCl MCt t.tin - Max
Inoreanic nQlan
Barium 2/2 0.01011 - 0.t1l81 0.0108 - 0.0181 0.014 0.0]1 I Ibl 0.0212 - O.U13J
Calcium 2/2 1.3 - 3.6~ 1.3 . 3.64 2.5 9.9 NA 2.45 - 61.4
Cobalt 1/2 0.001i] 0.001' - 0.008] O.OU71 0.012 NA u.0124 - OAS!
Cop(II:r , 12 0.012 0.0069 .0.012 0.0095 0.026 1.3 (el 0.0081 - 0.01'21
Iron 1 12 0.0986 0.0525 - 0.0986 0.016 0.22 0.] Idl O. S26 - 211.2
Magnesium 2/2 0.951 - 2.12 0.951 - 2.12 1.5 5.2 NA 1.26 - 21.1
Manganese 2/2 0.0065 - 0.0232 0.0065 . 0.0232 0.015 0.068 0.2 [el 0.0251 .. 4.21
Mercury 1 /2 0.00034' 0.0001 - 0.00034 0.00022 0.00098 0.002 lei < 0.0002
Nickel I /2 0.0239 0.001 - 0.0239 0.015 Q.069 0.' ,~, U.OH4 - 0.1119
POIaS1iium 2/2 0.288 - 0.]94 0.288 - 0.394 0.34 0.68 NA 0.618 - 8.84
Sodium 2/2 ].92 - 7.39 3.92 - 1.39 5.7 11 NA 5.61 - 118
Zinc 1/2 0.0205 0.00215 - 0.0205 0.011 0.069 51dl 0.234 - 0.J.l1
Concentrations are reported in millisrams per liler (ms/l).
(al
Ibl
lei
(d)
.Iel
MCL
Me8D
NA
TolIII no.o
UCL
RanBe of detcctc:d c:onc:cntrations in uPKnuJient .rouadwatcr ..mplea OM I US, OM 1 LSS, GM1, IDd OM9;
in dto upKfldicot SIIiIples, Ibe'lowest delec;tioD limit is reported. .
Shale MCL (Cod" of MarylaniJ ReBulations (COMAR) 26.08.02. Water Quality, 1991).
Maximum contaminanllevel goal (USEPA.. 1992a).
Secondary MCL (USEPA, I 992a).
federal MCt (USEPA, 1992a). .
If tbe constitucnt was not dCh:ctcd
Maximum contaminant levcl.
Arithmetic: .veralo of &bo t01ll1 number of tiamples, usin, proa, wnc:ealrations for non-dctcc..:
Nol availablo. '., .
AI~ villues used ia the -=an ud UCL c:4I&.:uhltions, ineludinJ proJ,y conci:ntntioDS for non-dc8cc:Ia.
95 percent upper «:oofidCDCC Ii mil (oDc-tailed) on tho meaD, usumio. . normal dislribution.
TA~~~. 1
-------
'. ! OCCUm:IICe SUllllllary furCunslilll.:lIls O.:I.:.:k.11II ~"id...tiA.' ~U"!t Samples, Hush Vallcy t4tndfill. "affurd COllllly. ~1a1 )'1011111.
,
t JpCfallicli1
F r.:qucm:y Ran~c ..I' Ddccts Total Range R:lI\g~ 1"1
Conslilucnt Delect. 1 Total Mill - 'Max -Min - Mllx Mean UCL MCL 1\1ill . Mall
Inorganic (Tolal)
Barium 2/2 0.0101 - 0.0163 0.0101 .0.0163 O.OJ) O.O}} Ilhl 0.0212 - O.013J
Calcium 2/2 1.43 - 3.02 1.41 - 1.02 2.2 7.2 NA 2.4S . 61.4
Copper I 12 O.OO~" 0.0084 - O.OO~" 0,0011-1 0.008-1 1.3 Ie I 11.0\181 . 0.0112
Iron 2/2 0.112.0.141 0.112 -0.141 0.13 0.22' 0.31dl 0.526 - 21n
Maglll:sium 2/2: 0.986 - 1.96 0.986 . 1.96 I.:i 4.5 NA 1.26 - 27.1
MangancllO 2/2 0.0042 - 0.0222 0.0042 - 0.0222 O.OIJ 0.010 0.21.;1 II.01S7 . 4.27
Mercury I 12 0.00034 0.0001 - 0.00034 0.00022 0.00098 0.002 lei < O.OIlOl
Nickc:t 112 0.0198 0.003S :.. 0.0198 0.012 0.06] 0.11c:1 0.IU14 .O.n9
POlassium 2/2 0.327 - 0.344 0.321 .'0.344 0.34 0.39 NA 0.618 . 8.84
Sodium 2/2 4.06 - 6.7 '4.06 -'~.1 5.4 14 NA 5.67 . 118
Zinc 112 0.0193 o.ooia - O.OI!)} u.OII 0.066 511..11 U.234 . 0.J"7
Concenlrations are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
, (al
(bl
Ic)
rd)
lei
MCL
Meao
NA
Total raalo
UCL
Range of d.:l~ted conccnlralions in upcradicnl groundwater sampleJi OM 1 US~ OM I LSS, G M 7, IUld OM9,
in tho upSradicnt Ii8mplca, Ih~ lowest detection limit is reported. .
Slate Mct (Code: of Maryland Regulations (COMARI26.0B.02. Waler Q~lity, (991).
, Maximum contaminant level Soal (USSPA, 1992a).' ,
Secondary MCt (USEPA, 19918). '
Federal MCL (USBPA, 1992a).
Maximum contaminant leve:l.
Arithmetic aVCf8lo' 0' tbo tDlal number of Ampt.:s, usinS proxy CODCCDtntiODS for non-delc:cts.
Not available. ' ,
All values used in &tie IRI:aO IIIId UCL 'a":ul~lilln:i, indudini PIOIY conunllalions for non-tJd~la.
9' percenl upper confidence limit (oniHailed) on the mean, assumJu,. DOI'IDaI di.tributioo.
If the coolililueol WIIS Dot dct&:Ctc:d
TA~L~ '8
-------
O-:-:uu.:nCe Summary ."ur CUII'~lilu':lIl~ Dd"d~J in Surface Soil Sampl.::!, UII~h VillI.:y LlluJfill, lI~rloltJ CUllllly, Mill ylilnd. I .I/':': I III !
I
1 'pcradiclIl
Frequo:n.:y Rango: U,. DO:IC:Cls Toul Range: NOAA NOAA Range I~
Consliluenl Deleels / Toul. Min - Mal( Min - MIx Mc:an UCL ER-L ER-M Min - Max
VOCs
Acelone I 15 0.03 I. 0.006 - 0.03 I 0.011. 0.022 NA NA <0.012 - <0.011
~c:mi-VOCs
Benzo(b)Ouoranlhene I 15 0.064 0.064 . 0.064 0.064 0.064 NA NA
-------
O.:nlrr.:IIC': Summary lilr ClIlIslilllClih I),'kd<:ll ill SlIrfa.:.: SUIo Jalllph:s, Bush Vallc). 1..111111111. lIarllllll CIIUIIIY, I\I.uyl;lII'l.
CllnC':III.OIliuIIS arc h:PUrlcJ in lIIillignlllls Ilcr kilu!:!;..11 (Illg/kg).
Surface suil :"'IIIJlle:; iliclUlle SU5-1,SlJ55. 51JS6. 511:11, ..Ill! SUSS coll!:Clc:d wilhin lop 6 inchc:s:
(OIl
Rangc uf cOII<:t:lllrali.ins in upuraJiclI1 >lIlli.:i;,1 suil SOIlIIpl.:S SUSI. SUS2. and SUS] collcdt:J wilhin lup 6 inches.
ER-L Eff&:Cls range-low (NOAA. 1990).
ER-M Errecls range-median (NOAA; 1990). .
Mean Arilhmelic IIverage of Ihe 10lal nllmbc:r uf :;OImlll.:s; using proxy concenlralions (or flUII..lelc.:I:;.
NA Nol availahle. .
NOAA National Oceanic !lnll Almuspht:ric Alimilli>II.lliulI.
TOlal rang~ All values used in Ihe mean and UCl calculalions. inCluding proxy. cODcenl(alions fur IIIlIi-ltcl.:t:IS.
UCl 95 I!l:rcenlllpper c,;,nfidencc limil (1I1I.:-lailcJ) llllihe mean, assuming 8 nomlal dislrihllliuli.
VOCs . Volalile organic compounds. .
TAGL~
(( OVItinlJfd )
.,
J": ! III f
--...-- -.-
-------
...Ib': I III .~
O':':UI"(CIII:C 5ullllllary (IIr CIlIiSlilllelll, I ).:l.:de,llIIlh.: Nurlh.:asl iUU! SlIulhcil~1 5,',hlll"III,lliuli UasillS Sud,lev Will.:I 5,11111'1.-".
Bush Vall~y landfill. Harford Counly. Maryland. .
lIpgrilJiclI1
Fr.:quclI':y .Rallgo.: ,)f Ddo.:dS Tolal Rallge. Sur(aL,:-Wilh:r Range IhL-
Consliluenl Detects / Tolal 'Min - Mall Min. Max . M.:all UCL Criteria la) Min - Mal(
----_. -----_.__.-
VOCs
Carboll disullid~ 2/2 O.OlH - lI.un 0.003 - 0.032 O.ot~ 0.11 NA "':U.UIU "'::'U.OIO
IlIlIrl!allics (11I1al)
Aluminum 2/2 2.2 - 2.JS 2:2 - 2.35 2.3 2.1 .0.08111:1
-------
1'.11..:": 111' .!
Occllrrc:nc.: SlImmary fur Cunslilll':lIb I kkd.:d inlh.: Norllli:asl and Snlliheasl S".IIIII.:lIlaliuli Uasins SlIrfa.:e' Wakr S.lIlIpl.".
Bush VillI.:y Landfill. llarfnrd Cnllllly. Murylalld.
Concemralions ar.: reporttd in milligrains p.:r likr tm~Ii.).
1<11
NUllheasl an.d Suulh.:asl Dasins surfae,:'wah:r sallljlks illclud.: SW811nd SW9, rCIipec;liv.:ly:
Ibl
1.:1
Itil
Mean
NA
Tolal range
UCL
VOCs
I .
I,
[
1
Maryland Chronic Triliic Suhslanc.:s f'rikria fur Ihe prul.:cliun of freshw
-------
. "l;~ I ul ;
O.:curr.:nc.: Summary for C.uisliluO:lIls D"h;..ieJ in NUllh.:asl anJ Soulh.:asl 5"Jillleulillioll U..sills 5o:Jilllelll Silluples. U"sh V..lky L"..IIIII.
Harford Counly. Marylanl!. .
_.___--0.__-
Consliluenl .
Frc:qucllcy
Deleets 1 Total
Range
-------
I ----.--------------
'I;~ .! ..I ~
Oc.:urrC:llcc: Summary fur Cunsliluc:nls I).:IL".I.:" in Nordlc:ilstand Soulhc:asl S.xIimcllla'lllll Uasills Sc:dilllc:nl Sillll!,l.:s. UII~h Vall.:y 1.<....11111.
Harford County, Muryland. .
--- -- ---
Cuncc:nlraliulls arc: r.:purletl in milligrams pc:r kilogram (mglkg). .
IaI
Nurllu:asl ilnd SIIIIIIII.:"SI Scdimc:illulilln Basins s.:4lil\lcllI'~iIlIIlll.:s includc SD8 and SD9, rcspc4:livc:ly,
. .
Range IIf cllncc:nlralillns'in slr.:am 1I11glillli':lIl sedimenl samplc:s 50-1 and SO-So
ER-L
ER-M
Mean
NA
NOAA
Total fling!:
UCL
EffC:Cls rancc-Iow (NOAA, 1990).
Erreds range.media~ (NOAA, 1990), .
ArilhmC:lic uv~rag~ ol'lhe 101111 numb.:r ul' ~a1ll111o:s, using proxy concentralion:i fur nllll..."iecls,
Not available. . .
Na~ional Oceanic and Almosl1111:ric Admilll~lraliun, .
All values used in the mean' and UCl.:alculalions, including prolY concentrations fill" IIlIn-ddccts.
9S llerec:nl "P110.:r cunfidcnc,? li'mil (ulld..ile..) UII Ihe mc:an, assumina . normal dislrihllliun.
~"OL~ It
( (o"..;",,,«..d )
-------
, I
. . ..
Occurr~nc~ Summary for ConSl1hh:nls O~":ct.:d in Ihe Drainage Dih.:h SlIda..:e-Wa..:r Samples,
Bush Valley Landfill, I-Ia..klrd Counly, Maryland.
. .1[;': 1111 ~
Consliluenl
Drain Oih:h
. SW2
3/12/93
Surface-Waler
Crile:ria (a)
Inorl!llnics lIotal\
Aluminum
Barium
CalciLOm
Coball
. Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
. Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
.0.232
0.050
25.9
0.0141
0.0052
1.43
0.0082
8.13
0.960
0.0105
5.93
24.6.
0.0209
.0.081(cl
NA
NA
NA
0.012
1.0 (dl
.0.0032
NA
NA
0.16
NA
NA
0.11
Inor,anics (disSQlved)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
ManBanesc
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
0.0316
0.0454
28.4
Q.0098 .
0.489
8.77 .
1.0]
6.21
26.4
0.0084
0.081 (c)
NA
NA
NA
. 1.0(d)
NA
NA
NA
~A
0.11
LJpgradicnl
Range: I "I
Min. Max
<0.116 . 0.153
0.02 . 0.0245
14.9 . 20.9
<0.001 - <0.014
0.0011 - 0.0011
.0.124 - 0.327
<0.001 0 <0.002
6.04 - 1.51
0.02)] 0 0.0414
<0.001.0 <0.014
1.82 . 2.69
8.51 - 10.5
<0.0092 - <0.0156
<0.061 - <0.116
0.019] . 0.023
16.9 0 22.3
<0.001 - .<0.014.
0.0661 o' 0.0904
6.96 - 8.11
0.022] . 0.041!.1
2.05 0 2.75
8.94 0 11.2
<0.002" 0 <0.003
Footnoles appear on page 2.
TA6'- E. .
-------
Oceurrcm:c SUIIIIII.al)' fll' t ';'II~liluenlS DclC:Ch:d in Ihe Drilinilge Dildl :)1I1I..,c- Wakr Salllplc~,
Bush ValiGY l.andfill. liartilfd County. Maryland.
".\~~ ! ,,' '
Concentrations ar.: r.:ported in milligfalll~ per liler (mc/l). .
lei
MiirylamJ CllIlInic Toxic Sl"h~tilnces Criteria (or the protection of freshwater aquatic life:
(COMAR. 26.08;02. Water Q",ality, (19921), .unless specified othelWise.
Range: of concel'llralions in upcradienl surface-waler samples SW-I and SW.). If Ihe:
constituent was not det~t~J in the upcradient sampl"ll, tbe d.::tcclion limil is re'ported.
No Maryland Surface-Waler QualilY Criteria livailable. Value presclIl..:d is the f&:deral Ambi!:nl With:r
Quality Criteria (AWQC) fur the prulc:ction of frtshwatcr aquatic life: vir. chroni~ exposure (USEPA, 19116).
No Maryland Surfacc-Wah:r Qualily Crileri" avaitable:. Value: I\rc:i<:ntcd IS Ihe Fcdcrul Ambic:nl Wah:r
Qnalily Crilclia (AWQC) lilt the: prulcclion \If freshwah:r aljllatie lil'c: via duuuic ex"CI~urc: (USI:I)A.'I~)~)2J.
lal
IN
1.11
NA
Nutllvailuhk
TAGLE. ,-
( l&n+it\ved )
-------
0':':11110.:11-0.: :)11111111'" Y fur C.mslilll.:lIls D.:h.:d.:tJ III Dlillll.lg,. IJII<:II ~.:tJilll':lIl
. Samples, Blish VIIII.:y Lalllifili. Harford County, Maryland.
Constituent
Drainagc Dilch
SD2 .
08/12/92
NOAA
ER.L
NOAA
ER.M
Inofsanics
Aluminum
Arll~nic
BariulQ
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Coball
Copper
Iron
I..ca"
Magnesium
Manganacse
POlusium
Vanadium
i1800
3.1
131
0.65
21110
. 30.1
18.8
25
31400
26.1
4030
1910
13-10
. 46
NA
]]
NA
NA
. NA
80
NA
10
NA
JS
NA
NA
NA
NA
. NA
85
NA
NA
NA
145
NA
390
NA
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
. .
Concenl~lions are repore.:d in milligrams per kilogram (mglke).
ER-L .
ER-M
NA
NOAA
En~b. flmgc-Iow (NOAA. 1990).
Effects range-median (NOAA, 1990).
Not available. . .
National O~c:.uiic and Ahnuspheric AdmioislralioQ,
TAGLE
..
-------
" .
. tlpglOuJi':lIl
Fr.:tjllem:y Rall~c ..I Ude.:IS Tulal Ran~c= Surfa\:c,Willcl R.mgc ~-
Cunsliluc:nl . Deleels I TOIaI Min. Max Min - Mil Mc:an UCL Crileria 1 a) Min . Mal(
Jnllrlfanic!i Iiolal\
Aluminum .214 0.0756 . 0.0889 .0.058 . 0.0889 0.07 .0.0118 0.0871.:1 <0.110 . 0.15J
Barium 4/4 '0.0189 .0.0215 0.0189 -'0.0215 0.02 0.021 NA 0.02 - 0.0245
Calcium 4/4 15.6 - 16.7 15.6 - 16.1 16 11. NA 14.9 - 2U.9
Iron 4/4 0.254 - 0.32 0.254 - 0.32 0.211 0.3 1.0 ,<.I, 0.124 - 0.:.12"
Magnesium 4/4 6.27 . 6.72 6.21 - 6.72 6.5 6.8 NA 6.0-1.. 7.51
Mansancse 4/4 0.037] - 0.0-18 0.037] - 0.048 0.04~ . 0.05 NA 0 ()'lSJ - 0.0.0'-
PlIllIssium 414 2.0] - 2.27 2.03 .' 2.21 2.2 2.3 NA 1.82 - 2.ti9
Sd~nium I 14' D.OOI O.OOOS . 0.001 0.01106] 11.00092 0.005 ,0.001 "':0.001
Sodium 4/4 8.61 - 10 8.61' - JO 9.] 10 NA 11.51 - 10.S
Zinc ] /4 0.0052 - 0.0265 0.0052- 0.0265 0.011 0.U2] 0.11 < O.OII!).! - ..:: 0.111 5()
Innfl.!lInics Idissolved}
Barium 4/4 ' 0.011111 - 0,0202 0.0188 - 0.020t 0.02 0,01 NA O.lIl!)] '- O.lrB
Calcium 4/4 16.8 - 11.5 16.8 - 11.S 11 11 NA 16.9 - 22.3
Iron 4/4 0.0965 - 0.156 0.0965 ~ 0.156 0.13 0.16 1.0 (&II 0.11662 - 0.090-1
Magnc=sium 4/4 6.81 -7.1 6.81 - 7.1 6.9 7.1 NA 6.96 . 8,11
Manganese 414 0.0341 - 0.0-1-19 0.0]41 - 0.O"4~ 0.041 0.047 NA U.O'l23 - 0.0-11~
Mercury I 14 0.0003 0.0001 - 0.0003 0.00016 O.O()()]O. 0.000012 <0.0002 <0.00U2
POlassium 4/4 2.14 - 2.41 2.1~ -2.41 2.3 2.4 NA 2.05 2.15
Sodium 4/4 9.06 - 10.4 9.06 - 10.4 9.1 II NA 8.94 11.2
Concen'R.ions .re reported in milli.Rms per lilc:r (mg/L).
Bynum Run Creek liurface-waler samples iDclude SWJ and SW4.
(a)
Ibl
lei
1&11
Mean
NA
ToM naio
IICt
0':':111"':11':': SlIlIIlIIill'Y 1111 Ctlll~lIIlh:llhl ) d.:": 1.:,1 III ah.: U)
Counly, Maryland. .
.,un Cr.:ek SlIdil":'" W.1kl Samples. Uush V..II"y I iIlhlllll. 11..01",,1
. Maryland Chronic Toxic Subslancc:s Crilc:ria for I~O proleclion of freshwaler 8qualic life: (COMAR, 26.08.02, Waler Qualily,
(1992'0, unless specified olherwise. . . . . .. '
Rango of concenlRlions in uPiradienl surface-walc:r Amplc::! SW-I'and SW-5. It Ihe consliluenl was 001 tlc:lcclc:d io Iho.:
uPBnuJicnt 88mple., Ibo deleclion limit is reported.
. . No Maryland Surface-Waler Qualily Cnl.:ria av.iMilc. V..luc= prescDIc=d i:; .ho fc=d.:rlll AmbicnI Waler QUlLlily Crilc:ria (A WQC)
for Ibc prolcclion 01 frcshwiller aqualic life via chronic exposure (USBPA, 1986).
No Maryland Surfacc-Waler Quali.y Caileri. availablo. Value presc=n'«I ili Ihe Pc=dc/id 'Ambic=nl WI!Ic:r QUillily Crilc:riil (A WQC)
for Ihot proleclion of.freshwalcr aquatic life vi. CbreJDic elpolURI (USEPA, 1992).
Arilhmetic averaao of Ihc= Iotal numh.:r of samplcs, using prolY c;o~cenlralions ror non-dele4:I~.
Not anilable. . '.
All vulu!!, used in Ihtllll~lIlIlId UCI. c;,J.:Ululillllii, illl:llI&linI11mIl1 ~\lIII:\:lIlrllli\lll:; JI'allllll-,.Motlli.
90S IlUr\:t:nllll'por 4:onfi&lc:ncalimil (ClII''''iIilud) un '''0 m08n, '.lI1lml~II.. num..' dlNtrihullnn. .
-r1\\;Lf. .,,,,
-------
OeCllnence Summary f..~ C..n~lihh;lIls f).:I.:cIc:d in Bynum Run Creek S.:Jim':lII S.IIIII'I.:S, Hush Valley LanJlill, /lalf"nl C,uIlIlY.
Maryland.
UpgralliclIl
frc:qu.:ncy Rang~ 01 Dct.;els T olal Range NOAA. NOAA Range lal
Conlililuenl PeacelS I Total Min - Max Min - Max Mean UCL ER-L ER-M Min - Max
Inorl!anics
Aluminum 2/2 1,74u. 1,1150 1,740 - 1.850 1,800 2. IOU NA NA 1 ,~..IIiU - l,J1U
Arsenic I /2 1 0.37 - I 0.68 2.7 ']] 85 <0.75 - 1.8
Chromium 2/2 b,2 - 8.:> 6.2 -8.5 7.4 15 80 I
Iron 2/2 6,570.7,100 6,570 - 7,300 6.900 9.200 NA NA 6,7.10 - 9,5-10 .
Magm:liium 2/2 706 - 1,060 706 - 1,060 880 2,000 NA NA 848 . 1,120
Manganaese 2/2 62.1 - 111.3 62.1. - 78.] 70 120 NA NA 127 - 1%
POlasium 2/2 20~ - 2611 206 - 268 2.10 430 NA NA 184 - HS
Vanadium 2/2 8.8 . 9.1 8.8 -9.1 9.0 9.9 NA NA K.8 - 12,'3
" :
Concenlralions are reported in milligrams per kilntlram (mglkg).
Bynum Run Creek sc:dimcnl samples includt: SO] and S04.
(a)
ER-l
SR-M
Mean
NA
NOAA
Tohlll8lllo
UCl
Ranse of concenlralions in lilrc:am uPtlradienl Sedimeolsamples 8D-1 and 80-5.
Im~ls range-low (NOAA. 1990).
Sffecls Rnsc-naedian (NOAA, 1990).
Arilbme.lic avenac of Ihe 10lal Dumber of samples. UlinS prox)' coocenlralions for nOQ-detecls.
NUl available. . .
National Oceanic and Almoliphclic Adminili'la,ion.
All valuCl used hi the mean and UCl calculations. iDc:ludiD, p,qIY concenlrattons for nOQ-delocts.
9S percent upper confadenu limil (on'o;-taile4) on tho meIII,'usumin,. aonnal dislribulion.
. .
TABLE "
-------
O':CIII'r':IICC SUlllmary fur C':1"1:; T ulal Rang~ . Sur'aCG-Willcr Ran!:c.l~L
Cunstit"tnt Detects I Tolal Min' Max Min - Max M~n lICl Crileria 181 Min . Mu
IQor,anics lIlItan
Barium 212 0.021 .11.0216 0.020? - 0.0216 (},021 0.023 NA 0.02 - u.02-15
Calcium 2/2 16.9. 19.1 16.9. 19.1 18 2S NA 14.9 . 20.9
Iron 2'/2 - 0...2] . 0.-02 0...2] - 0.4]2 O.4j u..lo !.O Icl 0.1'.:!4 . 0.:.12/
Mugncsium 2/2 6.51 .7.41 6.S1 - 7.41 7.0 9.9 NA (..O.t . 7.SI
MungancliC 212 0.08 . 0.0811 0.08 - 0.0811 U.081 o.08~ NA U.lnSJ . O.O~ J.I
Polassium 212 1.93 .2.62 1.93 - 2.62 2.3 ".5 NA 1.82 . 2.11')
Sodium 212 9.82 .9.88 9.82 - 9.88 . 9.9 10 . NA 8.S1 1115
Inorl!anics {dissolved}
Darium 2/2 0.02 . 0.0222 0.0204 - 0.0222 0.021 0.027 NA 0.0193 . U.Ol]
Calcium 2/2 17.9 .20.8 17.9 - 20.8 19 29 NA 16.9 - 22.3
Iron 212 0.169 .0.342' 0.169 - 0.342 0.26 0.8 1.0 (el 0.0662 - 0.09U~
Magnl:5ium 212 1.12-.8.1\ 1.12-8.21 1.1 II NA 6.96 - 8.11
Manganese 2/2 0.015 - 0.0821 0.0149 - 0.0821 0.019 0.10 NA 0.0223 - 0.0419
Potassium 2/2 2.12 - 2.66 . 2..12 - 2.66 2.4 4.1 NA 2.0S . 2.75
Sodium 2/2 10.3 -,IO.S 10.3 - 10.5 10 11 NA 8.94 - 11.2
ConCtntrations Iro reported in milligrams per liter (mg/l).
Bu:;h River Tribulary liurrItC~-Waler samldeli inchuJc SW6:
IaI
Mean
NA
Total ranlo
(JCL
Milryland Chronic Toxic SUblitilOl.;C~ C.ilcrill for &bc prolcctioD of freshwaler IIqualic life (COMAR, 26.08.02, Waler QualilY,
(1992)), unless specified otherwi~.
Rangoofconceotrations in upgradicnl ~urface-wah:r Ii8mpl~ SW-llIOiJ SW-S.
No Maryland Surfacc-Wat.:r Quality Crileria available. Value presented is Ihe F~o:ral Ambieat Waler Qualily Cri.c:rill
(AWQC) for Ihc plOl~lion of fn:shwaler aqualic li(o viII chrooic: clposure (U5EPA, 1992).
. Arilhmt:tic Ivt:rlAio of Ihl: 10M number lIf samples. usina proxy concc!ntrations for IIOO~O:a.,cts.
Not available. '.
All values usciJ in tbe m"" and UCL cillculillionli, includanl proxy conctntliliioRs fur non~clects.
9S percent uprer confidence limit (Clne-taited) on tho mean! ISIUnUnl' nOf1Qlll dislribution.
Ibl
Ie)
TA%\..~
\t.
-------
Uush Itl"er Tnt".....) "IUIU"lIa...e" Trib'ulary SeJim';lIl Sa"'l'k~. 11..:.11 Vall';y 1""1\11'111, 11'1/ 1....1
County. Maryland.
.Bush RIver 1IlInall\~ t 'P1:",.ti"lIl
Tributary Tribulary NOAA NOI\A Range lal
Consliluenl . (SD6) (SD7) ER-L ER-M' Min -Max
Inort1anics
Aluminum 2.950 22,SOO NA NA 1.980 .2.J1U
Arsenic <0.73 .3.1 33 8:i <0.75 . 1.8
Barium 21U 136 NA NA 111.3 . 19
Beryllium <0.2.1 0.18 NA NA <0.24 - o.n
Calcium 3140 < 1640 NA NA 860 - I .190
Chromium 9.1 38.8 80 145 10.~ - 13
Cobalt 4.6 20.5 NA NA 3.8 . 4.5
Copper 3.4 -3f.i 10 390 4.8 - 6.S
Cyanide 2.8 < 1.2 NA NA <0.60 - <0.62
hon 6,550 ' 48,900 NA NA 6,740 - 9,540
lestl <4.0 39.1 3S 110 <4.] - <10...
Magnesium 999 4,]20 NA NA 848 - l,pO
Manganaese 602 1,980 NA NA 121 - 196
Nickel 5.7 <27.2 30 50 5.1 .8.1
POlasium . 580 997 NA NA 184 - 335
Sodium <94.8 < 115 NA NA in siram up&Rd,,:n' IiC:diment sample~ SD-I and SD-S. .
tiR-L
BR-M
NA
NOAA
I:rf&:cls fiUlI:C-low (NOAA, 1990).
Effecls range-median (NOAA,1990).
Nol available.
National Oceanic ali
-------
., . I
. I
O.:currem;e Summary /ilr CII.IISliwCIIIS I >..:ledal ill Ih.: Ullnam.:d Tribulary Surfa.:c- Waler Samples, Bush Valley Lan.!.. II 0 1\,,,1011,1
Counly, Maryland.
I J I'gnuliC:1I1
F rC'luclIC y RallI:o.: III' Do.:Io.:cls T 0101 Range: Sul'fuco.:-Walo.:( Rang.: I~I-
Cunsliluo:nl Delcets / Tolal Mill - Mu Min - Max Mc:an UCL Criteria 1-) Min - M;all
Inorganics (lolal)
Aluminum 2/2 0.126 - 0.331 0.126 - 0.3]1 0.23 0.90 - 0.OK111:1
-------
OI:\:lIrrclI\:c SlIlIIlIIillJI""r C'III~IIIII';IU:. P.:lcdctl in Mai:.n Sc:dilllcni Sallll'h:~. UII:.h Vallcy Lantllill. lIilrlilitl CUlllUy, t.lillyl.III
-------
O.:curr~nct: ~ummary fur CUII:iIlIlI.:nlS D.:I.xIc:tJ in Ma."n Sc:tJimt:nl Samilles, UII:ih Valley ullu.llill. lIar/'lrd CUllllly. Milly/an.1.
. .
. .1';0: .! "I 1
CUllcc:nlrulinns arc: rc:porlc:tJ. in milligrams per killlgram (mg/kg).
Marsh st:lIim~nl samples includl: MSDllhrollgh MSD9..
~R-L
ER.M
Mean
NA
NOAA
Tolal range
lJCL
VOCs
l:fr.xls rang~-Iow (NOAA, 1990). ':
Effects range-median (NOAA, 19!JO).
Arilhmelic average.of Ihe iolal numbc:r of sampl.t:s. usinS prox)' concenlrations I
-------
OCCIIH~nc~ Summary fur Volatih: Organic Constituents D~teclcd in Upwind Amhient Air Slimpies. Bush Vall~y Ltndfill.
liar lord Counly, Maryland.
. Frequency Range of Deteets Total Range
Conslituent Deteets / Total Min - Mu MiD - Max Mean UCL MEG
VOCs
Acetone '3"13 0.521 - 1.943 0.S21 - 1.943 1.3 2.S 1,405
Benzene 3.13 1.108 - 2.589 1.108 - 2.589 1.1 3.0 11.4
Carbon disulfide 2/3 1.041 - 2.342 0.905S - 2.3.42 1.1 . 3.1 143-
Chlorolonn 3/3 0.087 - 0.124 0.087 - 0.124 0.11 0.15' 23
Chlorome.hane 2/3 0.464 - 0.761 0.0095 ~ 0.761 0.41 1.1 500
Ethylbenzeno 2/3 0.}84 - 0.58 0.005 - 0.58 0.32 0.82 1,040
Metbylene chloride 3/3 12.26 - 106.043 . 12.26 - 106 86 120 619
Te'rachloroe.bene 3/3 0.IS1-0.1J9 0.152 - 0.139 0.31 0.91 1,595
Toluene 3/3 . 3.014 - 23.032 3;014 - 23.03 10 29 841
I, 1,1- Tricbloroe.hane 313 1..241 - 3.038 1.241 - 3.038 . 1.9 3.6 1,214
T richloroe'beoo 313 20.i22 - 89.623 20.822 - 89.62 52 110 1,214
Trichlolonuoroinelhane 2/3 .0.406 - 0.863 O.OO9S - 0.863 0.43 1.1 NA
Xylenes (Iolal) 313 1.096 - 1.681 1.096 - 1.681 1.5 2 1,040
Concentntions are reported in microsrams per cubic meter Cl-s/Pl')..
MeIU1
MEO
NA
Towl fUlBI)
UCL
vacs
Arithmetic averase of tbe lotal number of Simples, usia, proa, COII&:CIIItnlioos for ooa-dcta:ls.
Mullimcdi. tiaviroamcal8l 0011.' ."
Not available. .
All values used in the mean and UCL calculations, including plOl' OOIICaIlr.lions for _-detects.
9S percent upper conlidence limi. (one-tailed) on the meaD, 811Umia, a aonMI disaribu.ioo.
Vola.ile organic compOuDds.
i"~lE. .; :
-------
Oc~um:nc.: Summary for Volalil!: Orj;anic Conslilu.:nl:i Dc:I~I.xI in DownwilUJ Amhicnl Air Samp!.:s, Hush Valley L.anllhll.
Harford County, Maryland. .
Frequency Range of Delecls Tolal Range
Constiluent Del~ts I Tolal Min - Max Min - Mo Mc:an UCl MEG
~
Acetone 4/5 0.725 - 3.955 0.0395 - 3.955 1.3 2.8 1,40.5
Beoz.eao 5/5 1.341 - 1.108 1.341 - 1.108 1.5 1.6 11.4
Carbon disulfi~ 415 0.011 - 1.5 . 0.0055 - .1.5 0.S2. 1.1 143
Carboo .te&l8Cblorido 2/5 O.S21 - 3.S94 O.OOOS - 3.S94 0.92 2.4 30
Elhylbeoz.eoe 4/5 0.011 - 1.5 0.005 - 1.5 0.44 1 1,040
Mctbylcoo c:blorido 5 {S 9.012 - 240 9.012 - 240 100 210 619
Tetncbloroolbeoe 5/S 0.011 . 0.164 0.011 .0.764 0.34 0.63 1,595
TolUCDO S/5 1.98 - 33.169 1.98 - 33.11 9.6 22 80
1,1,1- Tricbloroelballo SIS 1.014 .21.38 1.014 - 21.38 6.8 18 1,274
Tricblorodbeoe S IS. '2.101-88.15 2.101 - 88.16 . 31 64 1,214
Tricblo(Oftuoromr-tb-uo J/S 0.795 . 1.192 0.011 . 1.192 0.69 1.4. NA
Xyl- (1otaI) 4/5 . 0.013 - 1.091 0.0055 - 1.091 2.1 ".9 1,040
C4Jacca1nli0lUl ale RpOr1aI in microal'8lDl per cubic: mclcr (pa'm'). .
(I)
AD MEO iI DOl IVulabio for c:i.-I,2-dich1oroclheaoi MOO for aiau-I,2-dicblroetbcac i. 95 ",/m'.
Mean . ArilluDdic Ivenae of Iho 10&81 Dumber of amplea, usin, proa, COOCCIIltalioDi for Doa-dccecas.
MOO Mullimodia EayiJoamallai Goal. . .
TOCaI noae . All val.. UIed in Ibe meao aod UCL calculalions, iocludin'ProllY c:oocCntJa.ioDI for aoo-deacx:ts.
UCL . 95 pon:eaI Upp" c:oafidaace Umil (OOO-IUIod) 00 Iho -, 1IIUmia., aormal dillribulioo.
Voc. Volalilo 011- compnaiD/l.. .
TAQ.lE. .~,
-------
TABLE 22
S 1...: M \~..:..~ ':,' : = .~ = ~ -= =:;32"~ - ; ~ ;'., = :Of\tC-c ".:-?A:- .C"-i = 8F ::HE i,LC ~~:5 :.~ :C','-.C = = ~~
BUSH VAL.L..~Y ~!\jDF:l~
SPLIT
MILTON FLEET WASH:NG- STREAM MARSH MA.~SH
TON SED SED 1 SED 2
(UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (MG.:KG) (MG,:KG) (MGiKG)
----------.--------------------------------------------------------
MANGANESE 23.2 22.2 111 N/A N/A N/A
BERYLLIUM N/A N/A NiA 0.34 0.74 0.96
ARSENIC N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.6 3.1
CHROMiUM N/A N/A N/A N/A 42.6 45.7
VANADIUM N/A N/A N/A . N/A 63.4 67.6
ALUMINUM N/A N/A 'N/A N/A N/A 24800
VINYL CHLORIDE N/A N/A N/A N/A. N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE N/A N/A N/A N/A N!A N/A
. 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE N/A N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A
BENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
TETRACHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,4-DICHLOROBENtENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
T~ICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CADMIUM. N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A
ALPHA-HCH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
. AROCLOR 1254 N/A . N/A . N/A' N/A .N/A N/A
NICKEL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
LEAD N/A . 5.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
SPLIT SPLIT
MARSH :SURF SURF SURF SW-7 SD-2
SED2 'SOll SOIL DUST
(MGiKG) (MG/KG) . (MG/KG) (MG/KG) (UG/L) (MG/KG)
----------"--------------------------------------------------------
MANGANESE N/A N/A N/A. 737 4220 1970
BERYLLIUM 0.96 0.53 0.53 N/A N/A 0.65
ARSENIC 5.2 N/A 3.5 N/A N/A . 3.7
CHROMIUM 45.7 207 207 207 N/A N/A
VANADIUM 67.6 . 52.94 52'.94 N/A N/A N/A
. ALUMINUM 24800 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
VINYL CHLORIDE N/A ' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,2 -DICHlOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE . N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A . N/A
1,2-DICHlOROPROPANE N/A N(A N/A . N/A N/A N/A
BENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
TETAACHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A' N/A
CHlOAOBENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 A-DICHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .
TRICHlOA-QETHENE N/A N/A 'N/A N/A N/A. N/A
HEPT ACHlOR EPOXIDE N/A N/A N//\ N/A N/A N/A
CADMIUM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ALPHA-HCH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AROClOR 1254 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NICKEL N/A N/A N/A N/A. N/A N/A
LEAD N/A .N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
-------
TABLE 22 (CONT'D)
SU~'.!.~.~{:F ~.c:;::!::"':;E', -~;,'~ ::C".;CE"iRATIC~.3 OF :HE"'~,':~;..~:JF :Q/'-.:EQN
'Bt.JSH VAL-L.EY J\~iCF"!..L
SPUT SPLIT
SO-7 SD-9 LEACH MW MW MW
AREA 1 AP. EA 1 AREA 2
(MG/KG) (MG,KG) (UGiL) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UGfL)
----------.--------------------------------------------------------
MANGANESE 1980 N/A 10700 2588 2588 7450
BERYLLIUM . 0.78 0.45 N/A 1.125 1..125 2.726
ARSENIC 3.1 6.8 N/A 3.51 '. 5 NfA
. CHROMiUM 38.8 N/A N/A 16.16 16.16 N/A
VANADIUM 64.5 54.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
ALUMINUM 22500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
VINYL CHLORIDE N/A N/A N/A 10.03 10.03 3
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A 5.9 5.9 N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE N/A N/A N/A 75.51 75.51 12.61
1.2-DICHLOROPROPANE N/A N/A N/A .9.53 9.53 N/A
BENZENE N/A N/A N/A 5.32. 5.32 N/A
TETRACHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A 51.22 51.22 N/A
CHLOR08ENZENE N/A N/A N/A 6.77 6.77 N/A
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A 6.39 6.39 N/A
TAICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A 52 52 N/A
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.005 N/A
CADMIUM N/A N/A N/A'. N/A 5.8 N/A
ALPHA-HCH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.012
AROCLOR 1254'. . N/A . N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NICKEL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
LEAD N/A N/A 215 N/A. N/A N/A .
WELL
SB-5 SB-8' GM1US.
I (MG/KG) (MG/KG) (UG/L)
----------.--------------------------------
MANGANESE N/A N/A 4270
BERYlLIUM 1 0.81' 1.2
ARSENIC N/A N/A N/A
CHROMIUM N/A N/A N/A
VANADIUM N/A N/A N/A
ALUMINUM. . N/A . N/A N/A
VINYL CHLORIDE N/A N/A N/A
1,2 -DICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOAOETHANE N/A N/A N/A
1,2 - DICHLOROPROPANE N/A N/A N/A
BENZENE N/A N/A 3
TETRACHLOROETHENE N/A N/A 34
CHLOR08ENZENE N/A N/A N/A
1,4 - DICHLOA OBENZENE N/A N/A N/A
TRICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A 11
HEPT ACHLOR EPOXIDE N/A N/A N/A
CADMIUM 3.1 8.6 N/A
ALPHA-HCH N/A N/A N/A
AAOCLOA 1254 0.024 0.25 N/A
NICKEL N/A N/A 789
LEAD N/A N/A N/A
-------
Table 23 . Reasonable Maximum Exposure Assessment Factors
Children and Adult Residents (Curent and Future)
Child Adult
Exposure Factors (1 to 6 years) (greate; than 7 years )
INGESTION EXPOSURE PATHWAY
.
Ingestion Rate:
Soil and Sediment 200 mg/day 100 mg/day
Surface Water (wading) 0.06.5 liters/day 0.065 liters/day
Ground Water 1.0 liters/day 2.0 liters/day ..
Leachate 0.001 liters/exposure 0.001 liters/exposure
. .
Exposure Frequency: . .
Soil and Sediment 350 . dayS/year 350 days/year
Covered Sediment 7 days/year 7 days/year
Surface Water (wading) 7 days/year 7 dayslyear
Ground Water 350 days/year 350 days/year
Leachate 120 days/year 120 days/year
DERMAL CONTACT EXPOSUR~ PATHWAY
Surface Area Exposed:
Soil and Sediment 1 ,800 cm2 . 3,000 cm2
Covered Sediment 860 cm2 1,800 cm2
. Surface Water (wading) . . 2,700 cm2 3,800 cm2
. Ground Water 7,200 cm2 18,000 cm2
Leachate 1 ,800 cm2 . 3,000 cm2
Soil/Sediment to S~in Adherence Factor 1.0 mg/cm2 1 .0 mg/cm2
Exposure Time per Event:
Surface Water 2.6 hours 2.6 hours
Groud Water 0.33 hours 0.2 hours
(shower or bath)
Exposure Frequency:
Soil. and sediment 350 dayslyear 350 . days/ye81
Covered Sediment 7 days/year 7 days/ye81
Surface Water (wading) 7 days/ye8l. 7 days/year
Ground Water (shower) 350 days/ye81 350 days/ye81
Leachate 120 days/ye81 120 days/ye81
INHALATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Inhalation Rate:
Water Vapor (shower) N/A 20 m3/day
Exposure Time:
Water Vapor (shower) N/A 0.2. hours/day
Exposure Frequency:
Water Vapor (shower) N/A 350 dayslye81
'.
-------
Table 23 -. Reasonable Maximum Exposure Assessment Factors
Children and Adult Residents (Curent and Future)
Child Adult.
Exposure Factors (1 to 8 years) (greater than 1 years )
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT CONSTANTS
Exposure Duration 6 years 24 years
Body Weight 15 kg 70.kg
Averaging Time:
Carcinogens 70 years )( 365 days/year 70 years x 365 days/yesr
Noncarcinogens 6 years x 365 days/year 24 years x 365 days/year
-------
Table 24. Slope Factors and Reference Doses
Slope Factors (mg/kg-dayr' Reference Dose (mgjkg-day)
Chemical Oral Inhalation Class "Oral Inhalation
Aluminum 2.9
Aroclor 1254 7.7 B2
Arsenic 1.75 A 0.0003
Benzene 0.029 0.029 A 0.0017
Beryllium 4.3 8.4 B2 0.005
Cadmium 6.3 81 0.0005 rN>
Chlorobenzene 0.02 0.0057
Chromium 41 A 0.005 0.000000571
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.024 C 0.23
1,2-Dichloroett:lane 0.091 0.091 B2 0.0029
1.2-Dichloroethene 0.009
1.2-Dichloropropane 0.068 B2 0.0011
Alpha- " " 6.3 6.3
Hexechlorocyclohexane
Mariganese 0.005 rN> 0.000014
0.14 (F)
T etrachloroethene 0.052 0.002 B2 0.01
-
Trichloroethene 0.011 0.006 0.006
Vanadium 0.007
" Vinyl chloride" 1.9" 0.03 A
Heptachlor Epoxi,de 9.1 Q.1 B2 0.000013
Nickel' ,," 0.02
Key:
W=Water
F= Food
Class = EPA Weight-Of-Evidence Class 10r Carcinogenicity
C
Human Carcinogen - sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies to support a
causal association between exposure and cancer "
Probable Human Carcinogen.
. At least limited evidence 01 carcinogenicity to humans from epidemiological studies
. Usually a combination 01 sufficient evidence 01 carcinogenicity in animals and
inadequate evidence 01 carcinogenicity in ,humans
Possible Human Carcinogen - limited evidence 01 carcinogenicity in animals in the
absence 01 human data
Not Classified - inadequate evidence 01 carcinogenicity in animals
A
B
81
B2
D
-------
TABLE 25
SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE CANCER RISKS
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
SPLIT
MILTON FLEET WASHING- STREAM MARSH MARSH
TON SEe SED 1 SED 2
MANGANESE O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO N/A N/A N/A
BERYLLIUM N/A N/A N/A 4.60E-08 5.00E-06 6.4OE-06
ARSENIC N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.10E-06 8.4OE - 06
CHROMIUM N/A N/A N/A N/A O.OOE +00 O.OOE+OO
VANADIUM N/A N/A N/A N/A O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO
ALUMINUM N/A N/A N/A N/A . N/A O.OOE+OO
VINYL CHLORIDE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 'N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
. 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE N/A N/A , N/A N/A N/A N/A
BENZENE . N/A N/A ,. N/A N/A N/A N/A
TETRACHLOROETHENE. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 ,4- DICHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
TRICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A
CADMIUM N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A . N/A
ALPHA-HCH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AROClOR 1254 N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A
NICKEL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
I,
TOTAL 'O.OOE+OO O.OOE +00 O.OOE +00 4.SOE-08 ~ .21E-05 1.48E-05
SPUT SPLIT
MARSH SURF . SURF SURF SW-7 SO-2
SED 2 SOil SOIL DUST
MANGANESE N/A N/A N/A O.OOE +00 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO
BERYLLIUM 6.4OE -06 3.SOE-OS 3.SOE-06 N/A N/A 4.40E-OS
ARSENIC 1.43E-05 N/A 9.6OE-06 N/" N/A 1.01E-05
CHROMIUM O.ooe +00 O.OOE+OO ,O.OOE+OO 1.31E-06 N/A N/A
VANADIUM . p.ooe +00 O:OOE+OO O.OOE+OO'. N/A N/A N/A
ALUMINUM O.OOE+oo ,N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
. VINYL CHLORIDE, N/A. N/A N/A' N/A N/A N/A
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE . N/A N/A N/A' N/A N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
BENZENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
TETRACHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CHLOROBENZENE ' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1.4-DICHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A .N/A N/A '. N/A N/A
TRICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CADMIUM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ALPHA - HCH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AROCLOR 1254 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NICKEL . N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
- 1.45E- 05
TOTAL 2.07E-05 3.SOE-06 1.32E-05 1.31E-06 O.OOE+OO
-------
TABLE 25
(con tinued)
SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE CANCER RiSKS
BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
SPLIT SPLIT
SD-7 SD-9 LEACH. MW MW MW
AREA 1 AREA 1 AREA 2
MANGANESE O.OOE+OO N/A O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 0.001;+00 O.OOE+OO
BERYLLIUM. 1.06E-07 3.01E-06 N/A a.6SE -OS a.6SE -05 2.09E-04
ARSENIC 1.71E-07 1.86E-05 N/A 9.22E -OS 1.30E-04 N/A
CHROMIUM O.OOE+OO N/A N/A O.OOE+OO 0.00E+00 N/A
VANADIUM . O.OCE +00 O.OOE+OO N/A N/A N/A N/A
ALUMINUM O.OOE +00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
VINYL CHLORIDE N/A N/A N/A 3.39E-04 3.39E-04 1.03E-04
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE N/A . N/A N/A .1.91E-04 1.91E-04 3.18E-OS
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE N/A N/A N/A 1.02E-OS 1.02E-OS N/A
BENZENE N/A N/A N/A 5.66E -06 S.66E-06 N/A .
TETRACHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A 1.62E-04 1.62E-04 N/A
CHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A O.OOE+OO O.OtE +00 N/A
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A 3.2SE-06 3.25E-06 N/A
TRICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A 2.48E-05 2.48E-OS N/A
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE N/A N/k N/A N/A 9.76E-07 N/A
CADMIUM N/A N/A N/A N/A O.Ooe:+OO N/A
ALPHA- HCH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.94E-06
AROCLOR 12S4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NICKEL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ,N(A.
TOTAL 2.77E-07 2.16E-OS O.OOE +00 9.1.5E-04 9.54E-04 3.46E-04
WELL
SB:"S S8-8 GM1US
MANGANESE . N/A. N/A O.OOE+OO.
BERYLLIUM 6.70E-06 S.40E-06. 9.14E-OS
ARSENIC N/A N/A N/A
CHROMIUM N/A N/A N/A.
VANADIUM .N/A N/A N/A
ALUMINUM N/A N/A .N/A.
VINYL CHLORIDE. N/A .N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A N/A
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE . N/A N/A N/A
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE N/A N/A. N/A
BENZENE N/A N/A 3.28E -06
TETRACHLOROETHENE N/A N/A 1.15E-04
CHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A
1 ,4~DICHLOROBENZENE N/A N/A N/A
. TRICHLOROETHENE N/A N/A S..22E-06
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE N/A N/A N/A
CADMIUM O.OOE+OO O.OOE +00 N/A
ALPHA- HCH N/A N/A N/A
AROCLOR 12S4 S.87E-07 6.10E-06 N/A
NICKEL N/A N/A . O.OOE +00
TOTAL 7.29E-06 1.15E-OS 2.15E-04
-------
TABLE 26
; .""",;:. ;= .,.,,-.- -...-,,; -,;".:,i'.c:=: ~ ;
: .:- ..1--;"1.,.1"'::- ..
SP' - -
.. :'.". - \II~~. .:"" :'.=: N:'~-"'~- ~.=:.a\l Y.1='3- ""''&=5-
-:-. 3=:> .;ej' ;c:: 2
"'...'" :.:...-.: J: : .) ~ . 2 ) ~ I ".A -...4 "'.A
:c:""'-. '-'" ...A "':A' "'A : YF..c'; .,.X("2 ) xr.-""
o\'?Si"'C ...:A ".A ...,0 ":A ) ~:2 J :J'C
:,..~=~ '...'-4 ...:A ".A "'A ".A ) ~:2 ) 1'J
"/"""'~I_"" ...:A ".'11. ".,0' ..:A ) ::2 ).~. J
.~'-""~.'-4 ....A ...,0 ".A "'A ".A ~ 0'2
v:!toI""'. :-~ :.:Ij:e ...:A ".A 'of A "':A ...,A "'.A
. 2-:I':"-_:C::o:--E"j ".A ".A "A '<:A ";A ..A
. ~- :tC-'... :~:="''''d ".A .." ..:. ....A ...;A ..:A
. 2- :::IC-'_:~:::=c=~~. "'.A "'. ~!A "A ".A "'.A
;e'. Z:': ".A ....;A ,,'A "iA ...,,0 ...;A
-E-=..-.:-L :~::r"'=~E ... '-!A . "'.~ ..;A ...;A ...;A
:-\.. :':':';E"'Z~~ ...:. \i:A ..:,0 ..,.iA ...,A ...:A
, A- :'C-L::':S£"":E! "fA ..:. '-",'-A N/A N/A N;A
1'~ICj.oL :'"~~-~= N.A "1,0 "':A !OJ:A /oj.A "..,.A
...e=-"=""'L:;iI =='':X'::i /oj:A ..:A ...:A OJ;A NIA .../A
:.s.:--"'I-... NIA 'OI,;... 0.12 0.0117 0 0117 NIA NIA NIA
ALUr.4IN'~'" 0.11 NIl'. N/A N/A NIA NIA
VINY\. C"LOR'ce NIA MIA HIA HIA HIA NIA
12-OICHLOPCE7HE"1 HIA HIA HII'. HIA H/A NIA
1.2-OICHL'="ICET"'A'" H/A' N/A N/A' N/A NIA HIA
1.2-OIC"LC~CP!;CP.i N/A MIA N/A "1/10 N/A HIA
ae,ZENE HIA NIA NIl'. N/A N/A NtA
rE1'R.AC~ o"o.."e..! N:A N/A N/A NIA N/A >4110
CML::"CSe,4/A N/A N/A NIA HIA
r~lIc "L ':JRO..'"e.e N/A NIA N/A N/" N/A NIA
~E7!'''''CIoo\.~R :.=--:Jx:OE N/A >4/A N/A NiA N/A NIA
CAO""'":,,, N/A >4/A N/A NIA N/A NIA
"L!"4/A
NIC>
-------
TABLE 26 (CONT'D)
L\,oIV:'=' := :. J. '." -... . '.; ". :"': ~ '''. :: = : ~...~
.;:.. 3- t" ....:' -""":= u
;.:.-.. 3~_.7'
.1.:1...'-'" ,)....-. ;:- ~ -="~'" lAW '-4',.,. \AW
A?E..-' . J. =::.J. . ~.=:.'" 2
'-"u.... ~A,"":)~ : xcc<; "'." :~ .. .. ., ~
3E=y"u '.\A ::0:0:' J :r.C'2 .""... j X:-J : X~3 ~ ~"
"'.=S:~;~ , .XC<, : c::J'. ...... "32 Joe ".,0
::-~:"'''-''' ~:«":C' "':,0 'I."" ::& : :a; .......
'.~"":",,'" ~ xc.cS OC" ..... ".,0 "'.,0 .......
""L'~U''''.U : XC'2' ....... 'I.'" ..,A 'I.'" .......
'.JI~""- -:"':.:':::1E ..... ".,0 ....... J ) .J
. 2-:tt:~:_:'::E"-'-:'1 ",.,0 'I."" 't.A ,j1 e : :. 5 'i,A
. 2-:'C-'..:'::::-:""'''''' ",.,0 ,,:,0 ...:.... J... ,po '.'e
~ 2-:'~:-~:~~~C::~A. ....... 'I:"" ".A ,:IJ ::IJ ~.....
3E"~:'= ...... "."" ....... J '. , .. ".A
-:-=....:-c.:= ::--:"1 ...... 'I."" ....... j .Ig "j'; .......
:~L:Q:=~,"Z:.,"~ ".,0 ~:... ~,A , 05CI .J cs.e ...:....
~ '-:IC~'-:':':5~'Z=' '1.,0 '1:,0 ,,:.... )~ :.y~ 'I:""
':"~JC""~:':::~-~; 'Ii.... 'I:"" 'I:A 051 .J 5' '4;A
-E~"":-L:;:;' :=-:I.:e '-"A SlA 'I/A >';IA '011 S/A
:":-""-'" NiA 'I..A 'I:A N:A '.33 'I:""
"L?"'A - <'. 'II'" 'II'" 'Ii'" "':... 'I:A 0
..~::x:~.:ji' . 2SO Nf... ...i'" ~jA 'IiA 'I:A' NiA
-.,e>(:;. "/A ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
TorAC' OOO'J.44 , ':'<2'2 O.oe.e ,e;c:., : 7 3d22' .,e77
C""LO
'-4A~'~A':3E 0 ocoe ~/A 027 33.1 33.1 lae2
3EC!Yi..~.I.i"" 0 oooc.o 0,)()'2 "/14 00'7 00'7 0 04.1
"'~SE""e o.~ 0.29 NIA 0.75 1.' N/A
="'RCU:L'U 0.002 N/A NiA 0.2' 02' ~iA
VANA:t:"~ 0 0024 0.' N/A .~". N/A .../A
.:a'':a.t:~'..'" 0002 N/'" "/14 "/10 N/A SlA
VIN'!". =...~ :i':OE ~iA NiA N/A 0 0 0
I .2-QlC"\.'::i'OE":''''E~I N/A N/A N/. 0.04.1 0.04.1 'I:.
, .2-OtC"'L:i'.Ce-...ANI '4iA N/... NiA 0 0 0
1 .2-0IC"'L':~OpqCP"': N/A N/'" N/A 0 0 N/A
9E...ze..e N/A ,.../A "'/'" 0 0 N,'A
TeTRA'::!-\. :":e-;.e.'IE N/A N/A N/. I." , e NiA
C"'~O"06E"'ze-e N/A loll'" N/A. 0.029 0.029 NIA
, .4-OIC...~:"I:BE"ZEr N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A
TRle"'~Cl\ce-;.,e-< NiA N/'" H/A N/A N/A 0
"'~CCLOR :.SO NIA N/'" N/A N/A .N/A N/A
NIC>(E!.. ~ ~ 1.:.1'
roT-":;:- 0.00577 0.0'522 25.0178
C"I~O
IooIANGNoE;E N/A N/A SS.I
geilYl\.I\.004 0.002e 0.002: 0.0';
.....se!lIC N/A N/A N/A
C"RCUIWOo4 NIl. NIl. N/A
VANAOO\.Oo4 N/... NIA NIA
.LU"'INt:~ N/A 101110 NIl.
VINYl C...~ORloe N/... N/A NIl.
I .2-OIC"'~O"loe->
-------
. ' TABLE 27. - SEE PAGE 28. OF
DECISION SUMMARY
J
-------
TABLE 28 - ApplIcable amI/or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARa)
aod TBCs for the Bush Valley Landfill Site (Page 1 of 7)
,
ARAR or TBC Legal Citation' Classification fn Summary of Requirement Applicabilily to Remedial Alternatives
I. CHEMICAL "
SPECIFIC
-
A. Water
1. Safe Drinking 42 V.S.C. ~ 300f ~~.
Water Act -
a. Maximum 40 C.F.R. ~ 141.11-.12 and Relevant and Appropriate MCLs are enforceable standards The NCP requires that remedial actions
Contaminant 141.61-.62 for public drinking water for ground water that is a current or
Levels (MCLs) supply systems which have at least 15 potential source of drinking water shall
service connections or are used by at meet the MCL for each site-related
least 25 persons. These contaminant if the Maximum
requirements are not directly Contaminant Level Goal ("MCW") for
applicable since they only apply to that contaminant is set at a level of zero
delivery at the tap by a public and MCLs are relevant and appropriate
drinking water supplier. under the circumstances of the site. At
this Site. MCLs are relevant and
appropriate for those substances,
pollutants or contaminants that have an
MCW of zero because the groundwater
is a potential or current source of
drinking water; provided, however, that
MCLs are nOI relevant and appropriale
for those inorganics for which the
background level exceeds the MCI-
b. Maximum Contaminant 40 C.F.R. ~ 141.50-.51 Relevant and Appropriate MCWs are non-enforceable heallh The NCP requires that remedial actions
Level Goals (MCWs) goals for public water supplies which for ground water shall meet non-zero
have alleasl15 service conneclions MCWs for pollulants. contaminants and
or are used by at least 25 persons. hazardous substances, where lhey are
relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances of the site. Non-zero
MCWs are relevant and appropriate for
the groundwater at this Sile because the
ground waler is a pOlenlial or current
source of drinking water; provided,
however, that MCLGs are not relevanl
. and appropriale for those inorganics for
which the background level exceeds the
MCW.
fn
Unless indic;ated
and TBCs.o'n this
to be considered
otherwise under the Classification column, the ARARs
chart are applicable, . relevant, and appropriate, or
for Alternatives 2 through 5. .
-------
.,
Table Z8, ARARa and TBCs (Continued) Page 2
ARAR or THC legal Citation Classification Summary of Requirement Applicability to Remediol AJternolives
,
2. Clean Water Act: 33 U,S.C. fi 1314 Relevant and Appropriate These are non-enforceable guidelines The wetlands adjacent to the Site and
Federal Ambient Water established pursuant to Section ~04 the unnamed tributary to the cast of the
Quality Criteria for,the of the Clean Water Act that set the Site are designated for protection of
Protection o[ Aquatic poncentrations of pollutants which aquatic life. lliese criteria are relevant
We are considered adequate to protect and appropriate to the wetlands and the
aquatic life. Federal ambient water Iributary.
quality crileria may be relevant and
appropriate to CERCLA cleanups
based on the uses of a water body.
3. Maryland Waler QualilY Applicable! These are criteria to maintain surface The wetlands adjacent to the Site oml
Criteria: Relevant and Appropriate water quality. the unnamed tributary to the east or. the
COMAR 26.08'.02.03 . , Site are surface waters of the State of
Surface Water Quality Maryland and are designated for Use I
Criteria under COMAR 26.08.02. Therefore,
COMAR 26.08.02.03.1 these criteria are applicabte to any
Toxic Substance Water discharge to Ihese surface waters. In
Quality Criteria Ihe absence of a discharge, they are
COMAR 26.08.02.03-2 relevant and appropriate to the
Numerical Criteria (or wetlands, and must be met.
Toxic Substances in
Surface Waters
COMAR 26.08.02.03-3 A
Water Quality Criteria ,
Specific to Designated
Use/Criteria lor Use I
Waters
II. LOCATION SPECIFIC
A, Wetlands
I. Maryland Wetlands
Regulations
a. Tidal Wetlands COMAR 08.05.05 Applicable Provides criteria [or any dredging; There are tidal wellands immediately
filling, construction or reconstruction east of the landlill. Any remedial
activities in a tidal wetland. activities that involve construction,
reconstruction, dredging, or filling in
these wetlands must comply with the
substantive standards of these
regulations.
-------
Table 28, ARARs aod TOCs (Cootioued) Page 3
ARAR or TOC Legal Citation Classification Summary of Requirement Applicability to Remedial Alternatives
b. Nontidal Wetlands COMAR 08.05.04 Applicable Provi,des criteria for the follow~ng There are nontidal wetlands
activities if undertaken in a nontidal immediately norlh of the landfill. Any
wetland or their buffer zone: (i) remedial activities in these wellands or
removal, excavation or !1redging of their buffer zone that involve the
any materials, (ii) changing existing following must comply with the
drainage characteristics, subsiantive standards of these
sedimentation patterns, now patterns, regulations: (i} removal, excavation or
or nood retention characteristics, (iii) dredging of any materials. (ii) changing
disturbance of the water level or existing drainage characteristics,
water table by drainage, sedimentation patterns, flow patterns, or
impoundment or other means, (iv) nood retention characteristics, (iii)
dumping, discharging of, or filling disturbance of the water level or water
. with material, or placing of table by drainage, impoundment or
obstructions, (v) grading or removal other means, (iv) dumping, discharging
.' of material that would alter existing of, or filling with material, or placing of
topography, or (vi) destruction or obstructions, (v) grading or removal of
removal of plant life that would alter material that would alter existing
the character of a nontidal wetland. topography, or (vi) destruction or
removal of plant life that would alter
the characler of a nontidat wetland.
2. Federal Regulation of 40 C.F.R Section 6.302(a) Applicable No activity that adversely affects a . The subslantive standards of this
Activities in or Affecting wetland shall be permitted if a regulation are applicable to any
Wetlands . practicabl~ alternative that has less remedial activities that could affect the
. effect is available. wetlands adjacent to the Site.
3. Federal regulation of 40 C.F.R Section 6.302(b) Applicable No activity that adversely affects a The substantive standards of this
activities in or affecting noodplain should be permilled if a regulation apply to all activities at the
floodplains practicable alternative that has less Siie, because the Site is in a floodplain.
affect is available. If there is no . These substanlive standards .would also
other practicable alternative, impacts apply to any discharge to the wetlands
m~st be mitigated. or Ihe unnamed Iributary eaSI of the
Site, since these surface waters are also
in a floodplain.
-------
Table 28, ARARs and TOCs (Continued) Page 4
ARAR or TOC Legal Citat.ion Classification Summary of Requirement Applicabilily 10 Rcmcdial Allernatives
III. ACTION SPECIFIC
A. Noise -
1. Control of Noise Pollution COMARs 26.02.03.03 A, Applicable Provides limits on noise levels for the Subslantive slantlards of these
0(2), and D(2) and' (3) protection Of human heahh and regulalions shall be mel at the landfill
. welfare and exemplionno those property boundaries during construction.
limits, and specifies slaodards to be and operation of the remedy, unless the
met by sound level meters to be used activity in queslion is subject to an
to determine compliance. aemplion under COMAR 26.02.03.03
0(2).
B. Waler
1. Regulation of Water COMAR 26.04.04.~ Applicable Establishes requirements for well All wells shall be conslructed in
Supply, Sewage Disposal, COMAR 26.04.04.01 construction and abandonment. accordance wilh the substanlive
and Solid Waste COMAR 26.04.04.11. . requirements of COMAR 26.04.04.07.
Any abandonment of wells shall be
done in accordance wilh Ihe substalllive
requiremenls of COMAR 26.04.04.11.
2. Stormwater Manasement COMAR 26.09.02.02 Relevanl and Appropriate Contain minimum requirements for The substantive requirements are
COMAR 26.09.02.05 A and 0 the control of stormwater, to be relevant and appropriate to the
COMAR 26.09.02.06 A(2) included in ordinances to be .adopted remedial activities at the Site, unless
COMAR 26.09.02.08 by local government bodies. such activity would be exempted under
COMAR 26.09.02.05 D.
3. Erosion and Sediment COMAR 26.09.01.01, Relevant and Appropriate . Requires preparation of an erosion The substantive standards of these
Control COMAR 26.09.01.05 A and B and sediment control plan for regulations shall apply to clearing,
COMAR 26.09.01.07 B activities involving land clearing. . grading, and excavation aClivitics at the
COMAR 26.09.01.08 A and B grading, and other earth Site.
disturbances. and establishes erosion
and sediment conlrol criteria.
. I I
-
-------
Table 28, ARARs and TOCs (Continued) Page 5
ARAR or THC Legal Citation - ClassifICation Summary of Requirement Applicability to Remedial Allernatives
4. Controls on Discharges COMAR 26.08.02.04 Applicable to Alternatives Contains requirements to be met for AlJernatives 4a and 4b both include
COMAR 26.08.03.01 4a and 4b dischargeS to surface water, inclu'ding direct discharges to surface waters of
COMAR 26.08.03.07 monitoring requirements. the State: 4a to either the wetlands or
COMAR 26.08.64.01 B the unnamed tributary east of the Site
COMAR 26.08.04.02 and 4b to the wellands. The substantive
COMAR 26.011.04.02-1 A' standards of these requirements,
COMAR 26.08.04.02-1 D including monitoring requirements,
would be applicable to any such
discharge. However, no permit would
be required. As provided in Section
I.A.3 of this Table, the substantive
Maryland water quality criteria listed
under chemical specific ARARs are also
applicable to these discharges.
5. Water Appropriation and COMAR 08.05.92.01 Applica~le to Alternatives Establishes criteria and terms for The substantive standards of these
Use COMAR 08.05.02.03 4a and 4b persons appropriating or using water. regulations would apply to any
COMAR 08.05.02.05 r appropriation of ground water necessary
COMAR 08.05.Q2.06 to implement Alternatives 4a and 4b.
C. Air
1. Maryland Regulations COMAR 26.11.06.01 Applicable Provides air quality standards, The landfill gas vents shall meet
Governing Air Quality COMAR 26.11.06.06 . general emission standards and substantive standards of these
(Volatile Organic restrictions for air emissions from regulations. If any other equipment or
Compounds) articles, machine, equipment, etc. construction capable of generating,
capable of generating, causing, or causing or reducing emissions were
reducing emissions. required (e.g., an air stripper), it would
al$o have' to meet substantive
requirements.
2 Maryland Regulations COMAR 26.1Uj6.01 Applicable Provides air quality standards, The landfill gas venls shall meet
Governing Air Quality COMAR 26.11.06.02 general emission standards and substantive standards of these
(Visible Emissions, COMAR 26.11.06.03 restrictions for air emissions from regulations. If any other equipment or
Particulates, Nuisance, COMAR 26.11.06.08 ' articles; machine, equipment, etc. . construction capable of generating,
Odors) COMAR 26.11'.06.09 capable of generating, causing, or causing or reducing emissions were
reducing emissions. " required (e.g., an air stripper), it would
also have to meet substantive
requirements.
I .
-------
Table 28, ARARs and TOes (Continned) Page 6
ARAR'or TBC Legal Citation Classification Summary of Requirement Applic.~bility 10 Remedial Alternatives
3. Major Source Controls COMAR 26.11 .19.01 Applicable Requires reasonably available control The substanlive standllrds of these
COMAR 26.11.19.02 G: technology (RACI) for control of regulations shall be met if 101111
emissions from exisling sourcesthal potential VOC emissions from the
have the potential to emit more than landfill exceed 25 tons per year..
25 tons of VOCS per year in specific
areas, including HarCord County.
4. Maryland Regulations COMAR 26.11.15 Applicable Requires emissions of Toxic Air The landfill gas vents shlllll11eet the
Governing Toxic Air Pollutants ("TAPs") from new arid substantive standards of these
Pollutants existing sources to be quantified; requirements. If any other source were
establishes ambient air quality operated as part of a remedial action
standards and emission limitations (e.g. an air stripper), it would also have
Cor TAP emissions from new sources; to meet the substantive standards oC
requires best available control these requirements.
technology for toxies for new sources
.. oeTAPs.
5. Control of Air Emissions OSWER Directive 9355.0-2S, To Be Considered' This policy guides Ihe decision of If an air slripper were required, Ihis
from Air Strippers al June 15, 1989 whether additional controls (beyond policy would be considered in
Superfund Ground- waler. thse required ~y statute or determining the necessary emission
Sites regulation) are needed for air controls. Sources most in need oC
strippers at gr~nd-water sites. additional controls are those with
emissions rates in excess of 3 Ibs/hour
or a potential rale of 10 tons/year of
total VOCs.
-
D. Solid Waste
.
1. ~anitary Landfill Closure COMAR 26.04.07.21" A. D, D, Applicable ~tablishes minimum requirements The specifications oC the landfill cap
and E for closure of municipal landfills shall, at II minimum, comply with the
including minimum cap 'substantive stilndards oC these
specifications. . requirements.
2. Sanitary Landfills. Post: COMAR 26.04.07.22 A, B, Applicable Establish minimum post-elosure Post-(;Iosure 1110nitoring and
Closure Monitoring and and C monitorins and mainlenence mainlencmce of Ihe landfill shall comply
Maintenence requirements for sanitary landfills. with the substantive standards of these
requirements.
-------
Table 28, ARARs and TOCs (Continued) Page 7
ARAR or THC Legal"Citation . Classification Summary or Requirement Applicability to Remedial Alternatives
.
E. Hazardous Waste
,
1. Hazardous Waste COMAR 26.13.01.03 Applicable Provides definitions ror when These criteria and definitions shall be
Management System and COMAR 26.i3.01.0S hazardous waste managenient used in determining whether or not
Identification and Listing COMAR 26.13.02 requirements are triggered. Contains investigation-derived waste to be stored
or Hazardous Waste criteria and lists ror identil'ying temporarily onsite are to be handled as
characteristic and listed wastes. hazardous waste.
-
2. Aocumulation Limit COMAR 26.13.03.018(1) Applicable Provides requirements ror persons Investigation-derived wastes that are
and (6) who treat, store or dispose or hazardous waste pursuant to COMAR
COMAR 26.13.03.05 E hazardous waste onsite. 26.13.02 and are to be shipped OrrS!te
shall be managed (while onsite) in
accordance with the substantive
standards in COMAR 26.13.03.05 E.
3. Monitoring Requirements 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart F Relevant and Appropriate Includes requirements ror The substantive standards ror
groundwater monitoring groundwater monitoring contained in
these regulations are relevant and
appropriate to the groundwater
monitoring program included in
Alternatives 2 through 5.
-------
.
. TABLE 29 -.SEE PAGE 44 OF.
DECISION SUMMARY
------- |