United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response,
EPA/ROO/R03-89/064
March 1989
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Reeser's Landfill, PA
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPOATNO. - I ~
PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-89/064 -
3. A8rcip18nre ""c c... an No.
4.. 11118 8nd s.AIft8
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Reeser's Landfill, PA
'irst Remedial Action - Final
50 ~ 0..
03/30/89
..
-
'.~.I
I L """"""'in!! OrgMMz8l1on ~ No.
1a. ProiK'fTu8JW.... UNt No.
I. ~'U"18 ~.... 8nd.........
.
11. Concnct(C) CII GnnIIG) No..
Ie)
(G)
12. ~. 0rpnIaIIan""" .........
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
.
11 Type of R...,... Period Co-.c:t
Agency
800/000
14..
15. Su........., 160- -
16. Ab8hct (LImIt: 211D---1
The Reeser's Landfill site is an inactive unlined municipal refuse dump located
approximately five miles west of Allentown, Pennsylvania. The site is situated in a
valley used predominantly for farming; however, there are residences to the west and
northeast. The 15-acre landfill is located on the southern portion of a 51.5-acre
private parcel of land and historically operated as an open pit iron mine. After mining
'erations ceased local residents used the site as a dump, and in the late 1960s the
_~perty was leased to Reeser's Hauling Service. The landfill, which was never issued a
solid waste permit, reportedly received a variety of ~astes including domestic waste,
commercial, industrial, and demolition wastes, and possibly battery wastes and drums.
In 1981, after a fire burned in the northern corner of the landfill for several months,
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources order Mr. Reeser to properly
close the landfill to comply with the Pennsylvania municipal waste disposal regulations.
This has yet to~be carried out. Principal drainage i~ the area is via Iron Run, and the
landfill drains via-a series of seeps along the landfill perimeter and a network of
surface channels. EPA investigations have determined that no Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) were exceeded in the area ground water or in Iron Run. Furthermore, although
AWQC were exceeded for lead and chromium,
p(See Attached Sheet)
17. 00cun8nt An8Iy8i8 .. 0.1 -....
~ Record of Decision - Reeser's
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
Landfill, PA
b. Id8ntlfiaf8i~End8d Tenne
- Co C:OSA n AeidlGtCM4t
Av!!!~'1y SC8I8Ir8nI
11. Security 0- (Thi. Aapor1I
None
20. Security 0- (Th18 Pagel
- Non,..
21. No. 01 Plge.-
47-
22. PrIce
(See A~Z38.1') -
See In.tnII:tJ- 011 ".-
OPnONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(FOI'III8fIy HTlSo35)
- ~101C:o_c.
/.
-------
--~O NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
00.10.., 1'0... 272. R...~ 00""'...110.0....,. ..... o. G",..II...... Fanna. ... P...",",o. 0' Se'..lIffc... r.cll." 1""
AHS' 2:1..'8-1974 ""Ia... "om Am."c.. N.llo.., S,...."'. ,.,",,,... 1430 .,oa....y, No.. Yo". H... y... 1001.. Eacll ,-'.,.,
.ou.. '.P<>
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-89/064
Reeser's Landfill, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
~. Abstract (continued)
contaminant levels downstream showed no significant difference when compared to
contaminant levels upstream. There are no primary contaminants of concern affecLing
this site.
The remedial action for this site is a no-action remedy with ground water review
within five years.
"-
-------
JEX::..ARA.i"""'ICN FOR -mE ?.ECGPD Of 0ECISICN
Si te Name a.rxl La:ation
Reeser's LcirD£ill Sice,
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
0PE=€r [.:aclngie -=-o....,rship,
Statement of Basis and Pun:xJse
This decision dOCtllT'eI1t presents rJle selected
remedial action alternative for the Reeser's Landfill
Superfund Site in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The
selected remedial action altenlati~ie has ~Jl de'leloped
in accordance 'Nith CERCIA as amended by 5NiJ.A, and, to
the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
This decision is based up:m the Klministrati?e
Record. The attached index identifies those dses of this
decision document:
1. Draft final Remedial InvestiqationlFeasibilitv
StudY Report For The Reeser's Landfill Site.
lfI:Jcer Macunqie Township. pennsv 1 vania. Volumes
I, II, and III, prepared by CI:M Federal Programs
CorpJration, t-bvent:er, 1988.
The ComroI1\Nealth of Pennsylvania conCUIS on the
se lected renedy.
DescriPtion of the selected Remedv
. The selected alternative for the Reeser's Landfill
site is t-b Action With Ground Water Review. Under this
alternative, no ranedial actions will be taken at this
site and ground water quality in the linnediate vicinity
of the lc3I1dfill will be reviewed within five years.
Declaration
'!he selected alternative is protective of hUI1'aI1
health and the environrreI1t. ~ remedial action 'Nill be
taken, hJwever grolDlci"water quality in the vicinity.of
the site will be reviewed within five years.
....,
-"5
5tt>.
~c; ~ ./~ // /' L~.
r.Jj - .~-/.{-,' :/ c-'-...
.-.-:-- stanleY L. ~OWSki
-- Acting Regional Mninistrator
£PA, Region III
Date
-,/'
-------
Site Descript.ion and Slirrmary of ?emedial .'\ltema!:~':e
Selection for b'1e Reeser's L:li1d..f ill Suf;€rfUJl.c1 Si te
Lehigh COlil1ty I PennsYl'iania
Introduction
The SUperflmd investigation of the Reeser's Landfill Site addresses
various environmental media and their ~tential contamination ',.iit...'1 [1ea'I'/
metals and organic COmtXJUIlUS.The site '..;as studied for its ~tential
degradation of Iron Rlm, a nearby stream '..;hose "..Jaters e'ientually
discharge into the Lehigh Ri'ler, and of area ground '..Jater, P3It icular 1y
tJ1at of the neighboring residences and the Lehigh County Authority
N:>. 6 production '..Jell '.v'hich is located approximately 1800 feet east of
the landfill. The site '..Jas also investigated for its pJtential to
produce adverse health effects because of direct contact with site
soils.
This Record of Decision sllITlTErizes the results of a Renedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study !Nhich addresses the landfill and the
surrounding area, and prEsents the se lected renedial al ternat i ve.
Community Relations History
Pursuant to Section 300..67(c) of the National ContingeI1Cy' Plan
(NCP), a Community Relations Plan was developed for the Remedial Investi-
gation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS). A pJblic rreeting regarding the
initiation of the RI/FS activities was held at the Upper Macungie
Township Building on Septe11ber 29, 1987. In compliance with Sections 113
(k) (2) (i-v) and 117 of Si\RA, the Mministrative Record, includirig the
PrOFOsed Remedial ktion Plan, was placed for pJblic viewing at the
Parkland Conmmity Librazy, AllentO\m, PennsYlvania on ThurSday, February
23, 1989. An announcanent of the avai labi li ty of the Mministrat i'le
Record was placed in the AllentO'NI'l r.ati'v-e '..;ere sutrni t:OO
by EPA to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (FA DER)
for revie'..J and comnent during the RI/FS process.
-------
...,
'-
Site LOCation ard Desc~iPtion
IDe Reeser's Lar1d£ill site is ~~ca::ed .3.t. ~() '.::eq:-'=€s ): :-~;-::-'?S
SO secords '"iest longitude and -;-S rjegrees 39 7'i,lur..es ,25 .3~-:n~:.::: ':.::-.....::
latitude in IJPP2r H-oicungie To'..mship near Eaafs"ville. ?e.'lfIsy:.':=:..nia. -::[-,e
landfi 11 is an inactive unlined municipal refuse dump 'N'hicn '.,'as :: ~osEd
in a~rOXL'T\3.tely 1980 and '..;hich appears as 3. low-lying round '..:'i.L-.:'1
respect to local grade. The site is c+proxL~tely 5 miles hest '~r
Allentown, Pennsylvania, and is tx>unded by Old Route 22 to the 50\..lL1'1
and cultivated fields to the east, north, and 'N'est. Homes are located
west and nort.hwest of the site. Another ~rfund site, t:.f'.e HeJ:e L:.:a
Landfi 11 site, is located approxi.I1'ately on~half mi le to t...'1e -,.;est of
t11e Reeser's Landfill site. Reeser's Landfill and the surrOt:ndi::r;
areas are represented on the Topton, Pennsylvania, U.S.G.S. top:graphic
quadrangle. (Figures 1 and 2 show the location of the site). The
landfill is located in a snall valley ~hich is approximately one mile
'..Jide and surrOlmded by hi 11s on the :10rtl1, south, and '....est. The 'ialley
is characterized by relatively flat top:>graphy. Ele'lations in b'1e 'lalley
range from a low of 420 feet atove sea 1e'/el to a high of 525 reet.'
,Above this elevation there is a slope break with the sur~ounding hills.
Elevations for the hillS range from 500 to 700 feet atove sea 1e',"e1.
Iron Run provides the' najor drainage for the area and has its headwaters
in the hi 11s to the west of the valley. The valley al~ has a number
of water-filled circular or ellipsoidal-shaped depressions. These
depressions could represent either quarried-out areas or the surface
expression of sinkholes. Sinkholes are usually found in areas that
are underlain by soluble rock tmits and are one of the principal
" features of karst terrane. The valley contains t'..JO 5m3.11 towT'..5:
Haaf~ille, in the northwest comer of the !;a,lley, and Fcgelsville, ~n
the northeast comer of the valley. ' The rEm3.inder of the valley is used
for agriculturalpuI'p)ses. '
The site lies within the Shantz -Spring drainage basin. The city of
Alle.r~qwn draws aJ..rrost all of the flow from Shantz Spring for plbl ic
SlIppJ.y. The najor surface waters found in this baSin are Cedar Creek
and Iron RLm. Approximately 78 percent of the baSin ~:; underlain by
the Paleozoic carbonate rocks; the remainder of the basin recei \leS its
gro1..II1dw'ater frcm the Martinsburg Fornation. Within the cart:onate-floorecl
areas of the baSin, surface drainage is affected by a ff!..! irregularly spaced
shallow, entrenched streams that have gentle gradients. There are re la-
tively few tributaries to the principal streams because rrost of t..'1e
drainage is by subsurface routes.
In the valley in which Reeser's Landf i 11 is located, Iron ?t.m
strikes a course near the center flowing in an east-southeast dire-::": i,or..
Where Iron Run enters the valley, it flows '..Jithin several 1111T'tdred :~t
of the Hebelka SUperfund site. I~on Run is fed by several sm3.11, :.u:r.a.r,ej
tributaries. One of these tributaries drains tJ1e IMIshy area 350 feet
to the west of Reeser's Landfill before crossing Old Route 22 arD
connecting with Iron Run. The srrall tributaries in the valley have
their origin at seeps and springs near the contact between the
Martinsburg Shale and the cambrian~rdovic ian caroonates.
-------
A
•<, ,fc HeeoiJiis
lEldlEHCM
V
\
ooperi,buic \
Haaisviile
*~
Reeser's Landlill
i REESER'S LAf^ LL SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
HI t,IUtNIIAl Will
SAMSUNG L
-------
')
The 1.mnarred tr:butary to the 'N'est. of 2eeser's L3J1mil.lJ':'::;o ::-'?::~~':.::;s
a snaIl contribution to its floT'; from t-J1e S11\3.11 sedirne..'l.tat.:cn ;:or.d ~':<:""-~.-?'~
in the SOUthwest comer of r.l1e landfi 11 during p:?r-icds of ',':<::1: "':=:.":.-~:<:?::-.
This sediIrentation ?Jfl.d is fed, i.n ':1..L.'"Tl, by 3. ::::rair.2se '::::'::ch ~'X:"-~=:-j
along the larxlfill tee on the :-:ort..i:, ',,'est., and ::;out.h sides 0: ;-..:-:e ~2.rC~ ~~.
The sedimentation r::ond also recei..,es rLmoff from old Rout.e 22 ',;hi.c!:
torders the southern edge of the lancliill. Drainage and Li.l11off E::-cm -.J:e
eastern face of the landfi 11 is to tile south along the edge of -=-:-:e torc:er-
ing crop field.
A series of seeps a.long the nort.l1eastern, nort'1t,;estern, and SOlltJ1er.1
perimeters of the landfill and a net',;ork of surface stream channels,
generally on the southern flank of'the la.ru:lfill, rrost likely f'c?.nd:"e ~"'.e
surface and near-surface landfill drainage to the drainage dit.ch ~et~Drk.
A f~,; snaIl r::onds and/or p.Iddles are found in the nort_l1ern area of
the landfill. The largest of these, an open 'N'ater-filled pit in t.:'1e
northeast corner of the landfill, is the result of the excavation of
burning waste during attempts to extinguish a landfill fire in ~~e ',;:~ter
of 1980-8l.The origin of the other S11\3.1ler r::onds is not as clear but
m3.y represent areas ',;here the underlying ',;aste is 'particularly i..mt=:enneable.
r-bst of these PJnds are seasonal; however, they contained '.-later at all
times during the RI investigation, but water levels varied by a.l:xJut 0fle
foot. The total area of all PJnds onsite, including the sedimentation
PJnd, is approximately 6500 square feet. A series of offsite r::onds
exists in the area. These PJnds could be water-filled, naturallY-iX'curring
depressions, or water-filled pits from earlier iron mining activities.
Figure 3 shows the m3.jor surface drainage features in the vicinity of
Reeser's Landfill.
Reeser's Landfill is located in a part of Lehigh County that is
llllderiain primarily by Carnbrian~rdovician age caroonate rocks (limestone
and dOlomite) of the Bee.krTantO'w'rl group and the Jacksonburg forrration.
The BeekrnantO\.iI1 group is re{X)rted to be represented by the Ep ler
dolomite. The JacksOnburgforrration is suooivided into its upper and
. I .
lower menbers, canent llI\1estone and cenent rock, reS~tlvely. Other
geologic formations represented in the area are the Middle Ordovician
M:1rtinsburg shale arxl sane patchy Quarternary de{X)sits. A thick
saprolite (40 to 120 feet thick) mantles the caroonate rocks in the area.
. considerable fauJ,ting, fOlding, and fracturing of the caroonate
rocks have facilitated the process of '.-Ieathering and SOlution to develop
a karst terrane. Karst terranes are characterized Qy hydrolcgic
features ,such as springs, SOlution sinks (sink-holes), disa~ing
streams, thick soils, and saprolite and large vOlumes of grourd ~ater- in
storage. It Pas been deronstrated that grot.JIld:!,..rater flOw in the T/aEey
is from t.l1e hi Us surrounding the valley and that the flow is to',;ard
the center of the valley. Water levels from five deep bedrock ',;ells
and t-h.ree shallow overburden wells installed during the RI generally
sLIpJ;:Cct. this conclusion, Homes in theimnediate area of the landfill
use well '.-later for drinking. In addition, the Lehigh County Authority
. (LCA) operates a municipal well (LC:?\ 1t6) less than 2000 feet east of
the site. .
-------
•*» '
\
Unnamed
Tributary
v>
^e
"r
^\>o
Sedimentation
Pond
'•9.
2%
REESER'S LANOPILL SITE
MOOUCCO fo*:
U.S. ENVIRONMENtM. PWOTtCTON
COT«*CTE3 ST COM FCOCIAi. WOGMMS COW
EP* coNtwaer NQ «t-a-««» {*CMtn
FIGURE 3 SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERN
-------
Rainfall in the Al1e.."1to'..m area a'/er-aged ~..j,. 31
1951 to 1980. ~rTlE.l rronthly' precipitation '/C1.ries
the year, '..rith the greatest. arrount.s of ra::.n'£aL ~n
Septenber.
irlcl-:es ;:~!:'" "["-?3..:" :':-~n
11 t r:.l e rj'~/:;L:r:;I:'=.~ ~ r:.
;\11. ~l, .;L.:.C;;.wC, :.:~!j
Site History
The area t.f1.at is now the Reeser's Land..r'i 11 '..;as origif"'.ally r::~~J.r:.9::i
as an Op:'.-n pit iron mine until the late 1800s (Hiller, 194LJ. [.!iLe~
describes the iron mining op=rations. in the area as consisting .:)f eitller
surficial or shallow (less than 50 feet deep) deposits of lL~nite dis-
covered by the finding of float are deposits or Meas of strongly-color'?:!
brown soils. Miller (1941, p. 284) further describes the mine t:Jlat
existed on the site of Reeser's Landfill: "This pit is filled ',:iti',
'..;ater and the sides are grass grown. A little yello'..; clay is prese!lt,
considerable quartz, some Gf which contains lirroni tic rrateria1, some
lump ore, and a f~..; fragments of limestone. The ore, from the f~a~"1ts
on the side of the mine, must have been associated 'Hith darrourite slate."
Ownership of the mine is attributed to Jesse Laros. .
The iron mine was located on the southern half of an irregularly-
shaped 51. 5-acre prop?rty currently owned by Mrs. Arlene SchucKer. r-1rs.
Schucker's' hUSband allowed the open pit to be used as a dump by local
residents, In the late 1960s Mr. and Mrs. Schucker leased the proJ;::€'rty
to Edward F. Reeser of Reeser's HaUling Service. Aerial photographs
from 1971 show active fill oF€rations. A SOlid Waste Permit Application
sutmitted by Edward F. Reeser dated July, 1977 is on file '..rith FAbER;
however, the F€rmit was never iSSUed. The PADER ordered Mr. Reeser- in
1981 to proF€rly close the landfill to comply with ~~e PennsYlvania
rmmicipal waste disp:>sal regulations. Through a series of aH=€a1s by
Mr. Reeser, the order for proper closure has 1JecJ1 upheld. .
During its F€riod of operation, the landfill rePJrtedly receh'ed
rrany types of wastes, but no record of types and quanti!:ies '..;as kept.
Waste types listed on the 1977 Permit Application include domesticlDfl
conrnercial wastes from the Allentown area and industrial '..;astes such
as plastics, thread, brewery wastes, processed food wastes, and pap=r.
Derolition wastes were also diSp:>sed of onsite, including '...."OOden
pallets, tree limbs, and stone wastes. PADER personnel have stated r-,~t
battery '.vastes arx1 drums may also be present (NUS FIT Region III RePJrt,
1983) , fiJwever, this has not been confirmed. .
A study of available historical aerial photographs ~as perfo~ by
the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EnvirOnmental ?hotC'ST-3.pi'1.ic
Interpretation Center (EPIC) in Las Vegas, J:.Jevada, and Warrenton,
Virginia. Five photographs, representing 43 years of site history
(1939-1981), were examined. An old quarry containing '..;ater is ':isibi.e
in the 1939 aerial photograph. By 1971, landfill operations r.ad :crn-
menced, as evidenced by two active waste disPJsal areas. SUrface draiI1a.se
from the landfill is shown to flow west into Iron Run. The 1974 photo
shows continuing diSp:>sal operations. Operations !..;ere still ongoing in
1979 with disposal activity shifting to the northwest portion of the
landfill. The ~..IDdfill appears relatively dormant in the 1981 photograpf1
with leachate stains on the western edge and a concentrated area of dark
-------
)
stains in t.he mr-J'least comer.
In 1981, a fire started in the northeast comer of the 13.r.d.fill and
burned for a number of rronths." The fire -..Jas e'ler\tually e;~ :--:guished
tllrough the efforts of Cd...-ard Reeser and me local fire company, rut:. it
left a small '",ater-filled {X>nded area in that location.
In August 1983, the EPA Region III FIT team coOOUcted the Prelim-
inary Assessrrent/Site Inspection (PAlSI) of Reeser's Lanifill. The
results of the PAlSI are presented in Figure 4. A !"are well survey was
performed at that tiIre, am onsite and offsite sarrples were also
collected. 'Ihe results of the FIT investigations "'ere used as a basis
for deueloping the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score. 'Ihe HRS score for
Reeser's Larxifi 11 was 30.35. The FIT data were also used to recanrern
field investigation activities for the RI/FS.
A number of '..Jells in Haafsville were sant>led by the FIT team in-
cluding the wells at the Hilber, M:!rkel (Grene.lald), an:] Reed residerces
an:1 LC1\ well #:6. The Reed well, an abandOned, hard-dug well, at that
tiIre showed concentrations of 50 ug/L lead and 14 ug/L cadmium in an
unfiltered sample. MaxiIrum Contaminant Levels (M:::LJ for lead am
cadmium in drinking water are 50 an:1 10 ug/L, resp:cti vely. Elevated
concentrations of iron and manganese were OOted in the Reed well
sample and at 10'w"er levels in other ground water samples. Iron an:1
manganese affect the aesthetic quality of the water rot do not" fOse a
fOtential toxicological hazard. '!he M:!rkel (Grenewald) well sample was
the only ground water sample collected where an organic cat1p)UIXl was
identified. ;acetone was found at a concentration of 41 ug/L at this
location. 'Ihe presence of acetone alone in one sample may be susp:ct "
since acetone is camonly used for field decontamination of sampling
equiprent and is a ccmron laroratory solvent.
surface water samples were taken by" the FIT team at unspecified up- "
stream and downstream locations in Iron Rtm, the sedinentation fOrd, and
the fOnded. water in the pit where burning rraterial was excavated. only
"the downstream Iron Rtm water sample show'ed evidence of contamination
where mercury was detected at 0.6 ug/l. Revised EPA ~ient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) cur~ently establish a recommended level of
0.012 ug/l for active rrercury.
Water am sediment or soil samples were collected by the FIT team
from upstream am downstream locations, the 1..IIIDaIt'ed tributary, the sedi-
mentation fOnd, the burn fOnd, and stained lardfill soils. The sample
from the burn fOnd showed 0.6 rrg/kg of mercury am the stained soil sample
had 1.05 rrg/kg rrercury. In the northeastern U.S., mercury concentrations
in uncontaminated soil range fran 0.01 to 3.4 rrg/kg, '..Jith an arithmetic
mean of 0.12 m:J/kg (Shacklette, 1984). Low levels (less than 400 ug!kg
and 800 ug/kg) of {X>lynuclear ar0IT\3.tic hydrocartons (f'AHs) and phenol
were identified in the sedi.rrent sample collected frem an unnamed trilJ-
utary l, 950 feet to the east of the landfill. This stream flows by the
production well, LeA *6, but does not drain the landfill itself.
-------
SOppb
14ppb
Fe Elevated
eed and Grain
Corn Field
3 Family
Dwelling
Standing Walei
(Excavated Bum Aiea)
•
I
Diain.iyc
Oild i
LANDFILL AREA
Mercury in Soil at Seep 1 05 ppni
Phenol and
PAH's in
Tributary
East ol Site
Sedimenlalion
Pond
i Aullioiily
Well «b
Meicuiy
06ppb
CONTAMINATION IDENTIFIED 1 F REPORT • REESEH S LANDFILL SITE
-------
~0
.4.n aerial ;:hotcgraph caken in 1987 5r.0'",'5 d:e Reeser's l....2.r:r1:=~~L '3:-.::::
.and the surrol..ll"nir.g area as it 3f1:'€ared during ""~'1e 9.1:/"?S a.ct i ',-i c ~'?S.
shCJ',.is that feN if any changes ha~je ccc,u-!:"ed -:i~ 0e .:;:. te :; irTe ~ ~;..:; ~.
July 1987, the Reeser's La.r1.d.fin site "':03.3 ir,c~'x:ed -:;n ...~:e :':2;:i.':~.2':'
?riorities List (UPL). ;q Remedial ;:~"1vestigacion and :easibilic'/ S,:,.:c..\'
(RI/FS) of the site :~ authorized by ~ in .~ril, 1987. The f~e~d
'..,;ork for the Remedial Investigation ',.,as conducted in t.he fall of L'187 ":.!'d
the '..,;int.er of 1988. The overall objectit,-e of tl1e remedial in;ieSti'~ation
(RI) '..,;as to collect inforrration needed to evaluate actual -md pJCeT:ciaL
risks to receptors from e:q:osure to Site-related contamination in soi L,
surface 'Nater, or ground water. This inforrration would also sUppJrt a
feasibility study of remedial alternatives for the Reeser's Landfill
site.
..
Specific objectives of t..'1e RI included:
.
Determining '..,;hether significant soi 1 contamination exists oot...'1
on and off the site and, if so, determining the approxUnate
horizontal and vertical e..'tential con-
taminant migration pathways. In particular, determining if
highly permeable soil zones or rrajor fraCtures or solution
cavities in bedrock near or under the site serve as conduits
for preferential ground 'Hater or contaminant rrovenent.
.
Olaracterizing horizontal and vertical ground water flow
patterns and rates on the site relative to the subsurface
stratigraphy, and determining the p:>tential for offsite con-
taminant migration via ground water.
.
Determining the nature, rragni tude, and extent of any ground
water contamination relative to the source area and p:>tentially
sensitive receptors, especially private and public water supply
wells in the area.
.
Determining the nature, rragnitude, and extent of any surface
water contamination r.elative to the source area. Determining
if this contamination, if present, is from the Reeser's Landfill
site or fram same other source.
The RI 'Has conducted in one phase of field activities lasting approx-
irTately 6 rronths that included:
*
. Geophys ical survey.
*
Landfill test 'pits and sampling.
.
Onsite and offsite surface soil and surface water sampling.
-------
, ,
- ...
*
Installat.ien of fi'ie t€r1--.rccl.( :raniwr ',.ie1.1.s ar..d four over::-llr(:en
:rani tor ',.ie 11s.
...
Ccmp1etien of se'ien acrE::. :":::~l .:::ns i::e
torings.
:lrd '.: f f:; ~ ': -2 :;0 i ~
*
.~lysis of soil and Hater samples frem each of tr,e ~el13
installed during the RI.
'"
Analysis of water samples from public and nine private water
sUW1y r,;ells.
'"
Completion of an aquifer pumping test.
'"
Developnent of an endangerrrent assessment based on tlle results
of tJ1e RI program,
Field activities for the project were completed in March, 1988.
,~l investigations at tJ1e site have been federally funded. EPA
mailed 47 information request letters pursuant to section 104(e) of
CERCI.A. ~tice Letters were mailed to Edward Reeser ard Mrs. Arlene
SChucker offering than the OPPJrtunity to participate in the renedial
process; however, this offer !,;as not accepted. EPA's enforcerent efforts
have found no records or evidence connecting the site !,;ith hazardous
wastes that may have been produced or shipped by any of the waste genera-
tors that were contacted during the potentially responsible party search.
ScoJ:e and Role of Resoonse l>ction
A Renedial Investigation was conducted in 1987-1988 to de-
termine the risks posed by the site through direct contact with landfill
soilS, irlgestion of ground water, or to biota in the runoff receptor
stream, Iron Run.
This Record of Decision presents the selected renedial alterr~tive
for allasp:!Cts of the entire site and does not represent an o[:€rable
unit.
SUmmarv of Site Characteristics
The 1983 Site Inspection (SI) found low levels of lead (Pb) and
cadmium (Cd) in the !,;ater of an abandoned, hand-dug ',;ell (the "Reed"
Nell) approximately 800-1000 feet nOrL~west of the Reeser's ~D£ill.
The SI also fotID::i low levels of mercury (Hg) contamination in t...'1e runoff
receptor stream, Iron Run, in an onsite pond sediment sample, and in a
soi 1 sample from a l.,ndfill leachate seep.
-------
i2
For the ~ses of t..~e 1987-38 ~e:.edial ::-:',:r:?stic;ation, 3. :-:L17't-=~ --
media '..Iere Sampled and ~.alyzed. The ~ia 5C:.mpi.~ i~cl~.:cer.l >1.::['':: L
soi Is, area ground '..;ater, and. 'jar iOlls SLtr Idce '...'d;:'::'C-S, ~::C~, :c: ::'.::; -.>=
receptor stream, Iron Rtm. Table 1 presents .3. 5lullT'.ar/ of ~':.e 32DPli::'G
and. analysis performed for the RI. The follo'..Iing is ~ brief sumr'=::'t ion 'J f
the RI sampling effort:
During the 1987-88 RI, EPA analyzed t'..IO rounds of '..Iater saIT1ples
from a number of nearby residential. '.vater supplies and from the Lehigtl
COI.mty Authority (LQ\) r-b. 6 production well. r-b organic contamir.ation
of concern '..;as detected in these '.vater supplies. A Slightly ele',-ated
lead (Pb) level (46 ppb) '.vas found in the Grener..Jald '..Jell (see Figure ;2
for location). However, neither this nor any of the other 101,.;' levels
of contamination detected '.vere related to the Reeser's Landfill Site.
The RI also established eight offsite monitoring wells in order to
ascertain "background" ground '.vater quali ty and to determine the quali ty
of ground '..:ater that might carry contaminants from the site. (figure 5
shows the locations of these monitor '..Jells.) The '.vater in cr,ese '..;ells
showed no contamination aOOve health-based levels. Table 2 sho'..Js rraxi.rnum,
minimum and average concentrations for inorganic constituents for those
samples ~here positive analytical results were realized.
Five vertical t:x:>rings were made directly into the landfill. These'
t:x:>rings showed the trash layer to be approximately 30-60 feet thick.
Figure 5 shows the approximate locations of these t:x:>rings and Figure 6
gives a'detail of each of the five t:x:>rings. Soil '.vas encountered at t-Jle
t:x:>ttom of each of the five t:x:>rings, ard t:x:>ring 58-095 '.vas continued into
this soil for 53 feet without encounter.ing bedrock. . It is esti.~ted t..h.ar
the native soil beneath the trash is approximately 57 feet thick and '.vas
found to be uniformly dry in all five t:x:>rings. . All Samples of soi l
collected beneath the trash layer '..Iere subjected to TCLP analysis and
none of these samples failed that testing for any analytes. .
The fEMoJATER-l cOlTlplter M:>del was cho~en to simulate moisture flow
in the unsaturated zone beneath the landfill. The erodel is a generalized
cOlT1p.1ter code that can be used to simulate a wide variety of ground 'N'ater
floW' problens including those involving complex, t1..rre-1Tarying t:x:>undary
conditions, multiple layers and soil types, and defOrmable soil and Nate~
matrices.
The results of the steady-state simulation indicate t.hat measured
soil moisture values fram soil samples .were nearly at steady State.
The results of the transient simulation suggest Chat Nater is ~or
percolating through the land£ill and reachirig the natural soil :rantle
beneath the landfill since much higher moisture content 'Talues '..-auld
have been observed. This conclusion is further reinforced by the
observed higher moisture content values in the offsite wells (0.44)
-------
l3
T:ible 1
,:)'~"i....':~a=-y
'Jf 5~~?::.::g
3.::0:: ~::al"{3is
~edia
Sampl~
:"ocation
Analyses ?~rformed
SOIL.
Leachate seeps
rield surface soils
Off-site shallow wells
SURFACE WATER AND
. ASSOCIATED SEDIMENT STREAMS
Sedimentation Pond
Off~site Ponds
On-site Ponds
Springs
Iron Ru~
U~n~ed Tributary'.
~S-Ol thru L5-11
rS-Ol thru FS-IO
S8-01 thr~ SB-05
SW-l thru SW-09
(exclude location
SW-7 for water)
S5P-l thru SSP-3
P-l thr\1 P-S
L.P-l thru L.P-4
S5-1
Target Compound tist (orqa~i~s)
(VOAr 3NA. ~esticides. ?C3s)
Target Analyte L.ist (inorqanics)
:yanide
Total Organic Carbon (~CC)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SURrACE W.\TER
Target Compound L.ist (organics~
(VOA, BHA, pesticides. PCBs)
Target AAalyte L.ist (inorganics)
( unfiltered)
Cyanide
An'Iftonia
Temperature (field)
pH (!ie.ld and lab)
Conductivity (field and lab)
SEDIMEH"l'
Target Compound L.ist (organics)
(VOA, BHA, pesticides, PCBs)
Target Analyte tist (inorganics)
Cyanide
Total Organic Carbon (TOe)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Grain 5i:e Analysis
-------
14
Media
Sample Location
Analyses Performed
WASTE
Test Pits
Well Borings
DRILLING MUDS
OFF.-SITE MONITORING WELLS
Deep
Shallow
TP-A thru TP-E.
TP-G thru TP-P
TP-R, TP-T thru
TP-Y
SB-07 thru SB-10
DM-1, DM-2
Target Compound List (organics)
(VOA. SNA, pesticides. ?C3s)
Target Analyte List (inorganics)
EP Toxicity (TCLP)
Cyanide
Total Organic Carbon (TOO
Target Compound List (organics)
(VOA. SNA, Pesticides, PCBs)
Target Analyte List (inorganics)
Cyanide
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SB-01D thru SB-03D Target Compound List (organics)
SB-05D and SB-06D
SB-03S, SB-04S,
SB-06S
(VOA, BNA, pesticides, PCBs)
Target Analyte List (inorganics)
(filtered)
Cyanide
Total Organic Carbon (TOO
Dissolved Organic Carbon DOC)
Nitrogen Series
Chlorides
Total Nitrogen Nitrogen
Reducing Potential (field)
Dissolved Oxygen (field)
pH (field)
Temperature (field)
Conductivity (field)
-------
15.
Media
Samoie Location
Analyses Performed
RESIDENTIAL WELLS
Round 1
Round 2
Identified by
resident's name
Target Compound List (organics)
(VGA, 3NA, pesticides, ?C3s)
Target Analyte List (inorganics)
(filtered)
Cyanide
Total Organic Carbon (TOO
Dissolved Organic Carbon COC)
Nitrogen Series
Chlorides
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Reducing Potential (field)
Dissolved Oxygen (field)
pH (field)
Temperature (field)
Conductivity (field)
-------
L*f)«nd
Vertical Point 3 O<> I •
xontolPouil H 3
NGSUM GiJtoOn
(ft
U
Wtll AHU SOIL BORING
-------
17
Table 2.
Positiie Analytical Results for
Inorganics: Monitor Well Water Samples
(~9/L)
n Av~rage Ma%imum Minimum
Aluminum 2 78.5 134 23
Barium 8 45.1 247 3 . 9
Beryllium 1 1.2 1.2 1.2
Calcium 8 53,962.5 107,000 11,800
Copper 1 8.0 8 8
Iron 8 1,038.4 1,910 840
Magnesium 8 5,766.3 8,670 3,860
Manganese 8 133.3 789 4.6
Nickel 4 81.8 280 14
Potassium 8 1,424.8 2,830 30
Sodium 8 4,740.0 12,700 2,550
Zinc 8 201. 9 1,490 5.6
n . Number of samples in which inorganic
contaminants ~ere detected.
-------
525 —
515 —
505 —
SB 07S SB MS
Trash Thickness Trash Thickness
i Feel A/ 31 Feel
~506i—iG.S
SB09S SB 10S
Trash Thickness Trash Thickness
A/40Feet ^47 5 Feel
GS
507 31—i GS
SB IIS
Trash Thickness
/l/47 Feel
,GS
495 —
4971—iGS
•s >
II
485 —
475
465-
455 —
445 —
435 —
425 —
416 —
40b
Estimated
Native Mantle
Thickness
Beneath Site
-466
'466
4425U-J TO
4341 1 JO
471
4181—J TO
459 8
454.3' 'TO
'472
Legend
SB- US Soil Boring
Trash Layer
Native Soil
Bedrock
Ground Suilace
Total Depth ol Bonny
G S
I 1)
'i1 rJr1
^'
LANDFILL BORING ELEVATIONS/STRATIGRAPHY
-------
19
which receive natural recharge as compared with the samples ber.each --•-.<=
Landfill (0.32).
Twenty-five backhoe pics were dug into the laixif i LI .'~ee F:-:rur= "/.
Each pit was two feet vide by L2 feet deep by 20 feet Long. Soil .sample.-,
taken from the pits were subjected to TCL? testing, again with r.o sample
failing the analysis. Observations of the wastes found during -_;:ese
excavations revealed no evidence of the dumping of hazardous wastes.
Samples were collected from the upper 3 inches of soil from offsire
locations in order to identify and evaluate potential health risks
resulting from direct contact with hazardous contaminants and to detenru.-e
the extent of contaminant migration, if any, due to wind transfer. An
additional objective was to determine background levels of contaminants.
A total of 10 surface soil samples were collected from the offsite
locations shown in Figure -0. These samples were designated FS-01 through
FS-10. Sample locations were at varying distances from the landfill.
Those positions closest to the landfill were used primarily to evaluate
any contaminant migration. Samples collected farthest from the landfill
attempted to establish background levels of-contaminants.
Samples FS-02 and FS-03 were collected farthest away from the land-
fill to determine background soil conditions. However, when results.
from these samples were compared to the samples taken closest to the
landfill, in most cases concentration levels were either about the same
or only slightly higher. The one exception was the presence in sample
FS-08 of an elevated concentration of cadmium at 202 mg/Kg and lead at
393 mg/Kg. However, since this sample was obtained in the farm field vest
of the site and is far in excess of all other analysis results for lead
and cadmium, including those obtained directly from the landfill, this
reported concentration is considered to be an anomaly. The pattern seems
to demonstrate that little, if any, transport of contaminants has occurred
from the landfill.
Eleven soil samples were collected at areas of stained soil on the
slopes of the Reeser's Landfill under the assumption that these stained
areas were evidence of leachate seeps and would represent a "worst case"
analysis. The approximate locations of these sample points are shown
on Figure 8. Only one volatile organic compound (1,1,1 tri-
chloroetnane) was detected in a leachate seep sample (LS-05) and only a
few BNAs were detected in any of the samples. Several occurrences of
pesticides were also found and are most probably related to the intens-
ive agricultural activity which surrounds the site. As with the field
soils, the concentrations of inorganics in the leachate seep soil samples
were either slightly elevated or the same as compared to concent rat iorjs
found in the background soil samples FS-02 and FS-03. Mercury,
originally detected in a leachate seep on the landfill during the FIT
investigation, was absent from these samples. Leachate seeps are usually
considered places where landfill contaminants, if present, are detected.
The absence of significant concentrations of constituents above back-
ground levels in the leachate seeps suggests that the surface and near-
surface of the landfill are relatively uncontaminated. Table 3 is a
comparison among inorganic analyses of landfill soils and background
field soils.
-------
i.*g«nci
Ttst Pit
Location
FIGURE 7
TEST PIT LOCATIONS
-------
r-------
--.
-
-~
.--
~
'.
,-
....--
. -
(
.---
---
- ..
.':
..---
. . ~
~----
--
~
.' .-
. .......----
-'
.-
'.'
-...;-' ..
.
.:"---.
.' I
.. . a. ~ .
..,..
~';:.
FS02
..~~
~;.:
"'.'" t.
.. -.-
.'. .
'-r
.:..
...~ I
,.,.
~'
----.
-, ;
. <
-''<>,
."':"
FS03
~',
'-
,
-~
'.\
:.:'
~'~I --'" .
. ,... .,,' .-!'.:7'
~.-~~---.
"
1-;.1.
I.. 1CS 10, ..
~l
","
I .
- ---
,," -- . ,.,... .".
,., 111- ,~.. _.I~.,-
o. . . ~
J
. . .
-J~,-'
,:, --.
. .""..
-., ....
.J
..,---
~.. ..
-.
:-.~ _.........~'-
----- - -
.-.:.------" ---
-. ...
.+~ .u.
~.,.
....
... ,
'.
'.FS01
FS09
"
. "
. .
~ :::.
..-~
'.,.."
'0_/
--- '\
/ ~
..-..-' .
- ----
'.0."
"
""
,.
"
, ...,
_/.~
,_. ,,-'Z-
'-' '" " '. . "'~:~~5" ~
""--.. ,00. ~.".,~,. " ..sJ"
"" ~., "~LS09'..ia~.._,...'FS101 " //
. '. ..' ..' ~., -..; " '" ,'/
", .: '. , IV: ~_:. :..,;~ '. LS10..- "
. ~. > ~.~\... ~~.~ ~-'~. ..'
. . -- - _. -- 'LS08 -. - -
. 6LS1/ ..-;:--f.:-P-~- ~_-:. .. ~ l' ,
_F~ ~z~A',,;<,~,~, 'J::":'.,
. ~~'.:;; - _:...:.., - -- ,,- i
.t~~' . ~ '" .----:;;;. .' '--{. I
'-- -'-, -'l!L~/, ~ 'j~~,~,'F~7 ...'~~. ~~;~;.:
.~~ "LS03~' ~ .,~. ~:,;-:-~
~ ':-~~taf~ '.: '::> ~:~;::; :~ .
~.,~;<......~-:.;;~~. .. ~~._'.:'~'~',
;...==- :". . -2- ..,~~~, I
=UOf--:' - :-=---x:...~--' ~~- .. _.-~' . .~~.
.=- :- ~ ~~-;>LS04:- ~ --: ,.,, ~.;" ~~
, .-1 ~. .-'. LS05.......-'.' ~ ,,,,,~ . .-=:-
-../,.- '. -' -: -5-.::..--- ~ ------ .- - >. .--...."
~LS08~,. /' -
. . ~ "~'~ ~-'\")' \ .\
:- ~~~~~._. :.( "~t~~ :.. "".
~~ ~-~'" -, .~ \; ',- ~
5;~{"'f- ~. ."t.(.~ --~ '="'~"-
" . ~, '- '
'....." " .... ~:J -J'~
fl. -, .
>It I
I
I
-
"",.r\.
,/
---., .
~,/
"
"
\
. ...,
. ..--.......
.....-/ ......-' ~. .
. "'.~C:=~ .U' . ..'-./
-, _c:..~~....:-._. - :-:.."
'''. '--....
- .Jb--..
-.
- "'1\
~~.
~....!. .
..~.-.
. .,--.
,
.~
'W'
"
'"
--------.
. .--;
~""'-"
",
.'
. .,.., f
.,
-------
-.
---....
~I
-,,-
',-" \
\
. '
,-'
'''' .
.'."I~
.... - \p
8-
FSOa:
, .
.., f'
"
;it
..
,..0'
-.
.~\
~
~.
'-.
..u
:.'
-.'
",'
.'
:,
.l-
-_.
..',
.~~
._---..._--
.._--._.~
o 250
~
Scale in Feet
500" - .
!
,-
:. ~
,
. Legend
Vertical POint
Horizontal POint
N.G.S. B M
Field SOils
Leachate Seep Soil
.,/.
3-02.E \
A-3.\
G-260C
.
.
TOI'OGIlu.<1C SITE "'''P
.;
REESER'S LANDFILL.
SITE
:...
.....
""'-I."''''''''' ,.. '" 4011'" "..~I.. 68OC""U
c.-... c...-.. ...--.. IIM-"', "".8"'.""',
" -O'Olll'-8C 1ICf.", ~ ...... ......-.-.
8.". -..-, ...IMP
..
N
11_- _I r_.I.OO.." ~QUIIn, .t.,,,..-..
IIIIOOI.CED ,0It:
U,S,ENVIIOMN'mL~ ,,,I;y
CQIICTIUCT!D IY: C DIll FtOlR~ ~""M:. ...."p.
I,.. CCImtIICT' NQ. n-a-t8H 'ltt:.. I I )
,..'~ ..
'W~,-.."
4ft ..
FIGURE
B
. SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR FIELL
AND LEACHATE SeEP SOilS
.... J--".
-------
T:1.3U:
3
Analytical ~esults for 3 Typical Landfill Leachate
3eepSo..iJ ~llp.le.s Cc,ffi;>at:'ed ~,;) 2
-' .
::: ~c .<:.s r-:::J:-~ ':
:- ield 50 i.l
Sa8~les
<:;;5/~5)
i~iORGA~IC I Landf ill Soil 3ackgrvund
Soil
:\~AL 'iIE
. LS-03 LS-07 LS-10 FS-02 FS-03
Aluminum 9 5L~0 8360 7400 12900 15100
Antimony \) 12.113 0 0 I)
.\rsenic 39 22 29.7 23.4 25
Barium 162 71.6 106 94.4 S3.3
Beryll ium 2.6 2.2 3.9 1.1 1
Cadmium ,, 0 0 3.1 1.9 0
"
Chromium 21 23.4 19.8 17.6 25.8
Cobalt 98.4 65.2 102 14.9 15.9
Copper 71.7 72 63.3 54.5 47.1
Lead 13.1 24.9 14.1 25.9 27.7
- I
Mercury 0 0 0 0 0,
Nickel 67.4 65.4 112 15.2 22
Selenium 0 0 0 0 0
Silver 0 0 0 0 0
Vanadium 27 27 24.3 23.8 27
Zinc 165 208 275 88.7 l.J 5
Cyanide 0 0 0 0 0
B - Analyte not detected ,,_Jtantially above the level reported in
laboratory or field blanks. '
-------
23
A total of 10 samples (inc ludir:g c.'Up L icates) '..,ere co LJ..'?:r.'?d :' rem
the '..later and sediments of four ~nds located 3.t -:C:.I iOl:S rlis':a.l:ces ::0:--::-
east, east, southeast, and nOrt'......'7..ies't of r-~"1e ~ar'.c.:'i.ll. The-;,J.rr:plC?s,,:er-e
designated P-1W t..ltrough P-,)~unds were detected in any of the landfill FOnd sediment or
'..Jater samples. The inorganic analytes in the landfill FOnd '.-later samples
were below federal drinking water standards '(M:Ls) except for samples
LP-3W, and LP-4W which showed. 30 ug/l and 20 ug/l for cadmium resp=ctiveLy.
-------
. ~......~
. - -
~
¥
-
.,'
.,'
,
.---i----
-.
-
.--
--
'.'
--.-
. '
"..,
~ ~=: -
.,
_.....~
~ '""ttI ...
, '
. .
...,.
~... -
..,
.,..
JC'I
. :
"
'-
"
..,.
- :"~:.
-,
~ ':~
.II1II' .-./
.
P-3, .
.:9.
-
... '
:..-
# !"!;:,.'
. \
, . .
t. "OC! ... ~
-.
:::.-:,: - '- .'
-,;
,
- ---
:r.~. .~.
..~, ~#~"",,:,I
"
. . .
-J.::1~- '
!:.. --
.. f~'..
'.,
'.
,~.;---:
P-4
-
.~ '"
.f....'
-
.-
.'
." f".
..,-
,
....,., ...,
'--"
,:>0
--
- --=.:-
,~ .
~-:'."
--------=-----. -. ~
...-
-'-.
..;.
--
.",
-------
."\.' .~ .. :'....;..
..-:o~<- ~'.~
. -~...---.......~,,11: .-,.; .
--- .---.-"'" "....~ ~ .
. ~1LP.1~' .
.:.-: ~ . QLP-4~""""". .
. ~ - .,1 .
- . LP-3
'~---~.__.~
,~,. .--- I
:-LP-2
. ... /J -~ "
/' . ; . ...~ - J~C~... -
/.'/ --
.
JI. ..
"
'"
- .,.. .
- ,
-
.""~ -
-'
.
'U
~-~.# ~ '''~.
- t..!t..I8.-------.
''''/
""-
,.,-\' ,
~,\
P.2.! .'
...','
55-1.
'''''-
..--~.
."., ..
.-
'). " "".
.:~~.1" ~,r:
'---.." "S"'''''''-~ .3,~ ~ ... ~ ~~;:.t."
.-- " ....'" .j~:-- . "
~ '-',~.: !"t._;-",:~~~' '~, :- -::;--:~~.
..,-"'~,,,,,. ',.-' - ,
""'-".' \".""""-, --. . ',-.--'...~,
.-- .~ :-..--~. --- ~'!"~:"': ._-~>.:" ~- ~ -- .~.
. " ..-. . ~-----~.-.-~. ,;w--...: ,~" P.1~-'"
- . ""." ...:.--....'~ ,.:".- -.~ . -----/ .. .... P 5----
i -7-- --- ~ . ...
SS'p.~ ~.. -~-:-:---:'.('''
. ..-- ~ - . .._~'\, . \ ;
. 55P:1'~¥~~"':~" ~\_- '~\.
:... .;r-SSP.2 ~ .. . '. . ~ >
.., - ~ ---=-..........., ~ :~. :,. '.. ,/
r ' .... :". .~- --:~'!i.7 c -..----- '::~ ~. -'..
. :-...~ '. Legend
'.._- .' 5:-,/-6 . " Vertical Point 3-02-E
f-;:~::2-- " .~; -:' "L -. - --.-,- Horizontal POint R-3 .
5W'4 , \:.-. <- . '",- G 60
-: - &.---:.4t> 5W.5 N.G.S. B M -2 .:.:
[<.;. ~W.3 ~.. Landfill Pond Sample.
. 5~.9 5W.2 ~.~ Location
- '. . / \ "'~ . 5W- ~:~ Surface Water .
-'../ ~ Pond .
. -" ~ .' .'. ~~ :..'~ ... Surface Sediment Pond +
:... /'. -' :~'-~':~'~~~);.I t Surface Seep .
..., -.~ ~.'~'
. ,~. -..",
---...
.,
...,
.'''' ,
"
...
.""
~.
..;
,-H'
.
5W-8 .--;:-
- '!.
"!o ~'
-....
'-
.
'.
-J:I~
,
'---
'.,
",
.t.~
. - ---
o '250
~~
Scale in Feet
~co
!
T:POGIU","'C SIT! IOAI>
REESER'S LANOFILL SITE
u--C. .ACVItGIC r~.'-DtIO'" :~..,..,.. -(""''Pt...
..
N
'""CJ()I.C£O '011:
U. S. ENVlRONWEPmL. PROT'EC'T'1CW t.GE~
CONnw:rm !lY.COM '!D€J'AL ~OGIt&..s c:
EPA CONTRACT' IItd '.-<1..", (liE" I I J
FIGURE 9
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMEt-
oJ
-------
I:XJRGA.'JIC
.-\.."JAL YTE
Antlrrony
Arsenic
Barium
Bery llu im
Cadmium'
Chranium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Hercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
pH
25
:. \B Li:
Off-site
~
8Jnd Water Analjses (unfiltered), u9/1, and Off-site FOnd
Sediment Analyses, ::g/1
-------
These y-iiues ire -ruest iorviDle, hcvever, cec.vase :;arple LP-1X "j:fr
of •!?-=tt showed no cacraiLnn. Tr is also ' iirpor-.^-r.t to -.oce •;•_-.• -.
O'cnld l"iave the nicr.es t pocer^iiL :"or cont^miCation of .ill '_'.e ;;Lyrics
water samples because of their direct ar.d prolonged cor. tact wi-_h -".e
ianlfiil. Hcvever, very Lin-le concanunar.ion was evident.
"Ilu'ee ;.uu:ii!:9reci vater s-amples and tJiree sediment samples vere
obtained from the Landfill sedimentation pond Located at tiie soirj-vest
corner of the Landfill. Tliese sample Locations are sho'.vTi on Fioiire 1
and are designated SSP-LS tiirough SSP-3S for the sediment samples and
SSP-L'.-/ throuch SSP-.3W for ciie vater samples.
f/o organic compounds above metiiod detection LLnu.u.s vere ro'Lr".d l:\
any of the sediment or vat^r samples taken from the sedimencaticn pond.
Slightly elevated concentrations of Lead (60 ug/L in ssp-2//) , •
chromium (50 ug/L in SSP-3W) and cadmi'JiTi (20 ug/L aiKi 10 ug/L in SS?-Z'.-.r
and SSP-3W, respectively) are most probably due to soil particles sus-
pended in the unfiltered samples and to the relatively acidic (pH5)
nature of the pond water. All of the samples vere collected from the
pond at the same time, and the pond was not overflowing its containment.
It is relevant to note that vater sample SSP-1W showed no cadmium and
that SSP-2W and SSP-3W showed very little lead in their analyses. Also,
the analyses of water samples SSP-1W and SSP-2W indicated very little
chromium.
The sedimentation 'pond sediment samples did not show any signifi-
cant concentrat ions of inorganics when compared with data from the
background soil samples. (Table 5 surmarizes inorganic water .and .
sediment contaminant data.) • ' •
Iron Run is the principal surface water drainage stream in the
valley in which Reeser's Landfill is located and is a tributary of the
Lehigh River. An unnamed tributary of Iron Run drains the .area irmedi-
ately west of the site. As part of the RI, the unnamed tributary and
Iron Run were sampled (1) to determine if contaminants are migrating
from the site via surface water, and (2) to evaluate potential health
effects of any direct contact with these surface waters.
A total of 17 offsite water and sediment samples were collected
from Iron Run and its .unnamed tributary. The samples were designated
SW-iW through SW-9W (for water samples) and SW-LS tiirough SW-9S
(for sediment samples). Samples SW-9W and SW-9S were duplicates of
SW-.3W and SW-.3S. Sample locations were distributed along Iron Run,
with the first sampling location (SW-1) located farthest downstream
and sampling point SW-4 located farthest upstream. Sampling locatic;^
SW-5, SW-6, and SW-8 represented the unnamed tributary of Iron Run.
Sediment sample SW-7 was taken to determine if any contaminants were
migrating from the sediinentation pond to the unnamed tributary of Iron
Run. Because of low flow conditions, no water sample was taken at
location SW-7. Approximate sample locations are shown on Figure 9.
-------
TABLE 5
Sedimentation Pond Water Analyses (unfiltered) u,/i
and Sedimentation Pond Sediment Analyses, mgykg
INORGANIC
ANALYTE
-------
-- J
c..v
~.iit..:~ Gl.e ~v.:ceptioI1 t)f ::in .:U~C~P."..1.1C.li..sL'1. ;lir;f1 '..~i.'i.e '-:;[ :~..€t"":'~;-:;?!~C -,' -.
ide in SW-8 (1, WO ug,' l), :~f) or'Jaric c:Jmpx;rc..s ',.:"?re rlet:.'?:.",:::::....~ ~:: :.: .':' ~-
:-1",e surface stre2..rn 'N'.3.r..er S2..rq::~':s. ,;-r.~':' -'..J) :::--::':;:,:-;:.:' >:Cr--;:1::~--, .~ ~
;:ot:ern:ial err.ri.r-on...rne.r"tral i~'or:c~~-::~:',? :~-7.::;P!:~ ~:"~ -:'.-=?s~ .:~~~"1=<::-s: '~~"'~'-!"~ :.~
-~'.d ~e2d. Conc"::..>1t.:-3.:::::.0t'.S 1)[ :-.::2S2 ':'C!'?)\.:r:c:.s ':C".c:';':~8.J;1 c.: )': :'~ : :-::~
~ea.d, 20 ug/l for cr.romiumJ '....:ere 2€Lc.-,.j [9:"'1er21.. (:.r:':L:.::i::o '.,:.,:-=?,: :-:::'~'>:'-~
,3.P.d 2..re fOILT'ld ::ot...'l3t:ove and ::~ \.0'..; ,:]:e coni ~: :'?r~ce 0 f :-.,:,e '_~'r'.,,-:'=:! -:': ~.I ~
t2r{ ':0 ~r:)n ~_;:1 indicating ':lla.t R.e'7?ser's W!\d£ill is ::ot '.::02 ,';CI,.:-ce 0::
1"1'.e con::'<.1I"r.ir11Ilt.s. In addir:.ion, concentrati0ns of Lead found Lr~ '.::"?
'..JC\ter sampled from rJ1e urmarr:ed t.ribu1':C\.ry are i.o\..;~r than :-J:.ose ~'.)I!2:d ~;~
Iron RtUl. Cadmium '..Ias not tmmd in ',v'ater samples from rJle I.UlJ'...."li;1ed
tributary.
."'. !lumber of organic cOITlp)wlds ',;ere detected in Sedi.il'€!~t:. s.JrT'p ~es
from Iron Rl.m and its llI1f\.a,mecl uibut<1ry. only one sawple, S.j-2S,
contained BNi\ COITlp)lUlds ab'; ie L'le ::P."'. contract lAtnratory n=jqu i r?J
detection limits. TIlese coITlp)'-u~ds ,:lIe S110'..m in Table 6. :£lese (,'C!rpJl.i1:._';
can rrost protxibLy te attributed r:o ,1sprtaLr or diesel rl:el fr2c::.iorLs in.
the sawple since Iron R1m is in c Lose proximity to hea'.;ily ::"c:;e Le-d tr-x!<-
ing routes.
Inorganic cOITlp)lmds '..Iere detected in a number of stream seJi,,;nent
sample locations. Concentrations of t.hese cOlT1p)unds '..:ere at:out the same
as those measured in the background soil samples (FS-02, FS-03). These
cOlT1pJW1ds are shown in Table 7. .
The arove data indicate that Reeser's Landfi 11 is not acting rt.....S a
source of either organic or inorganic contc:unina.tion to the desigJ1..aced
receptor stream, Ir.on Run, and its rLSsociated sedi.meIlts. It is i,q::or,:,'1::
to note t.l1a.t no mercury ',v'as detected in aD.y of the 17 S?..I11p Les. TIle ~ ')8.3
51 re~rt had indicated that merst.ry '..;as a contaminant of concern detect
-------
Table -5
Stream Samples - Sediment
Positive Analytical Results for Organics
(ug/kg)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Acenaphthene
Dibenzof uran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzl phthalate
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo ( b) fluoranthene
Benzo( a) pyrene
Indeno( 1,2, 3 -cd) pyrene
Benzo (g, h, i)perylene
n » Number of samples in
•detected.
n
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
4
3
4
2
4
which
Average
•3.0
28.0
350.0
160.0
250.0
1,016.7
620.0
1,230.0
896.7
390.0
180.0
417.5
656.7
350.0
254.5
168.5
Maximum
3
28
350
160 .
250
2,500
620
2,800
2,000
390
180
1,100
1,*500
940
440
420
organic contaminants
Minimum
3
23
350
160
250
260
620
430 -
340
390
180
190
220
140
69 ' •
6.4
were
-------
SIREAM
SEOIHENI
INORGANIC ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
. NUtt8ER
------........
I
SW-1S
SW-2S
Sw-1S
SW- c.s
SW-5S
SW-6S
Sw-7s
SW-8S .
SW-9S
MAIRIX CONC X-COOl
870509
fOR
HAY9,87
«OAIE>:>
'I'dbl e 7
Enter NO onl y
if None -~
II HE NO
I NORG INORG INORG I NOIIG INORG
Al'8li,.. Ant i80nY f-N Ar$enic f -N BertYO BerylllYl'
.. .. .. ...... .. - --..----- .......----
110 100 It 10.0 K 70
13]00 It 8.0 K 60
110600 It 5.5 K 100
151000 R 8.0 K 60
10200 It 7.8 k no 2.6
20900 R 6.9 k 190 1.1
15800 It 7_9 k 100 1.1
]9]00 It 20.0 k UO
17000 It 9_10 k 50
Y-COOR
.. .. .. ...... ..........
.... .. ...... ........
925
955
1100
1135
1020
1050
1500
13105
1105
SAMPLE INORG INOIIG 1 NOIIG I NUliG to.
INORG INORG INOQG I NORG INORG 1 NORG I NORG 1...'
NUMBER C0(8h.. f-N C.tci'81 ChraaiUl f -N CobB I t Copper Iron f-N lead f-N Hagoe6iUl f-N Hengane$e f.N Hercury f oN Nickel I."
.. .. .. .. ... .. .... .... .....---..-- .. .. .. - .. .. .. .... ..- ....--.-
SW-1S 15100 110.0 l 100 108200 J 50 J 7900 1100 J Ul jO I
SW-2S 3.3 7900 30.0 l 20 100 102500 J 50 J 8700 1600 J Ul 100 I
SW-3S 2.9 2900 50.0 l 100 581000 J 30 J 6700 1000 J Ul 20 I
SW-I,S 1000 It 100 57200 J 40 J 8200 11,00 J Ul 30 I
S"-5S 10_0 2000 It 90 70 15]000 .J JO J 2000 10800 J UI. 100 I
SW-6S 2.9 2400 It 30 100 69500 J 20 J 3000 1900 J UI 20 I
SW.7S 6.7 1400 It 50 60 71,1000 J 10 J 2900 3100 J Ul SO I
SW-8S 6.0 3800 70.0 l 50 90 109300 J 160 J SOOO 2900 J UL III
SW-9S 5800 It 40 47800 J 40 J 9600 61,0 J UI. Ul
SOIL
SOil
SOil
SOil
SOil
SOil
SOil
SOil
SOil
au/Kg 2580863 459803 871106
-U/K8 2580660.5 459856.5 871106
-UIKg 2580152 459915.5 871106
au/Kg 2579902 459758 871109
-UIKg 2580581 459942 871106
-U/Kg 2580S87 460107 871109
-UIKg 871109
-U/Kg 2580497.5 460185 871109
-u/Kg 2580152 459915.5 871106
SAMPLE 1 NOIIG INORG 1 NOlI G -.0 1 NOIIG INOIIG INORG INORG INORG I NOIIG
NUMIIE It Potas6i.. Scleni'81 f-N Sitver f-N SodiUl Ihattiua f-N lin V8n8di'81 Zinc f-N Cyanide
I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. ...... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
SW - 1 S It Nit 20 190 I 0.2
I Sw,2S It Nit 20 160 l
SW.3S II Nit 20 150 I
SW'IoS It Nil 20 160 I
Slol-SS II Nil 30 290 L 0.6
SW-6S ILOO II Nil 10 180 I
Sw-7S II Nit 20 190 I
Sw.8S II Nit 50 510 I
SW.Cj/S It Nil 10 110 l 0.2
-------
, ,
:.3.::i-.:
-'
::x?osure
Med i '.JJTI
.3 'J.. -nrr. a :"(.J f
::~da~ger~ent ~ssessmeat
Carcinogenic
Effects MaJ:i-
mum EJ:posure
Hazard IaceJ:
Ma.z im..JJTI
EJ:posure
Route of
E:zposure
G roundvate r
Off-site Residen-
tial \o/ell
Off-site Moni-
tor ing \o/ell
So i 1 s
Surficial
Subsurface
Beef produced
locally
Current off-site
ingestion
future off-site ingestion
future on-site dermal
contact and ingestion
Future field soil dermal
contact and ingestion
Intermittent on-site
dermal contact and ingestion.
Intermittent field loil
dermal contact and ingestion
Construction of on-site
housing and conse~uential
eJ:posure to volatiliaed
subsoil organics
On-site feed produc-
tion and inge.tion of water
f rom land f ill ponds
Field soils feed produc-
tion and ingestion of water
from field ponds
NR
( 1
KR
( 1
1 J: 10-9 ( 1
9 a 10-10
-------
~ ,
):..-
,...:3.1'1 t€ SEO.J1 in c..'le table, no' c.1rC_::u::e-.~.:' ,::>r::,?-:::,s ',,',::..c:-: :--.:.. -::t~~ ~"?
rltrributed '-0 .J1.e lariliill ',,;ou~d :x,::r;...x~ ::!: ~<::f:'C;;:r~ :;:',,?-':.,.,=,' -"-.
:3 :::-:..)-8 .'\1.30, ,1o -3CeI'..3r~0 in-,:O-L':~:'~G :'.:,J":"2: ~~~~c,::;':..:'~ -:-:- -:.'-? ;~-.'-? -.,':,:
:''?sui.::: ~n -:l Hazard -=:,:ee.:.: Or ~ :)r ':,,?,:.':.~,, .~~~ -::~''- :::.:'c=::'..., ':-:-:'-':
'-?:':'ec:s are c.I-IOSe lil'!Ger r-Jle 2:-:t:c<-?S€ iT12..:':::rn:::1 '::---:'I:(:»::'i-_S -::: '~:c :.~:'":i.:C=:~
r: Lon scenario. This is cons ieered ::0 ::~ ::'.1: ~-::.:-ene :'...r:d '::: ~ >2 ~'.: :.-:=-:::'::....<:..
,V'D, .jle~~for-e, is not cor....') Leered pr')b;>..b ~~ ,:n:.er- G ;rr0....r:t c-r :"...:=:' L.:."''''' ~ :::r:
i.Lse. ,,. ~:" iITTp)c':3I1t to ::'..)I...e::.hat ~jlis "'.,;ocst C2..c;~" .;L::1iaCLcr: i::':r..:~':,?,':
tl:e t',3,rm : L2 Lrls and ule surface ',.;ater-s ',.iflicil surr-'')LUld ':1:e l.'l1:d: ~ ~ ~, :.!.~
'.,'hictl '..;ere LIl'i'?stiqated as "background" during r..fle Rl, arKi (.toes ,:0':
i nvo l ve the landf i 11 i tse if .
[ron Rlm, '..:hich f lo'.-IS '.,;est to east ','il :-"...:'---:1:1 .~~r0:-:~:'..,,::.e ~'/ '~:;y, ~.::::'?,.. '-
r:11e Lal1clfiLL, is r-J1e primary surrace ',.;atee draini'1ge'...;~y :'or -:j-~e c.:e':erc,!
tllOUS.-:tIld acres '"jhich comprise r-J1e 'ialley i.n ',.;hictl ~e€S2r 's La!:c.: ~ L ~ ~',
located, <1r.d, ,15 such, is !.::.?A's designated :,urface '.;ater c'?:e~or :or
pl.rp)ses of ~...ssessing risks. The stream rsc'?i"/es a tin,' ;:0r<-::: :: :-c;
'..;ater as runoff b": '.v'ay of o'ierfloT,.J fcom t-Jle Wnd..fLl sedLrneIltdtion ~r~d
into an intermit:t, ~nt unnamed. tribut,lI'j :ocated '.,.:est: of !-lle s i :-.e, QU::'
onLy during ext.ended pericds of !lea'i'i precipicat.ion. ::11e SIr.aLL (.-;urface
area approx. 0.1 acre) sedimentation pJnd acts as a settling basin for
runoff from the approximately lS-acre lCUldfill.
As noted earlier, four Samples and one duplicate sample of '..:ater
ond sediments '.-Iere obtained from Iron Run. Samples S"w-l and 5'11'/-2 '..;ere
obtained downstream from the pJint at '.-Ihich .my landfi 11 n.Uloff misr,t
enter tlle stream (see Figure 3, Surface Water Drainage PatterllS, 'lild
Figure 9, Surface Water and SedLTteI1t Samplir.g La::atioJ1.s). Siwples
S-J- 3 and 5"...1-4 '..;ere obtained upstream of ITJ.3.t pJinr:. Samp Le :':>Vj-9 is a
duplicate of 5...1-3.
Analys is of the water samples showed .no contaminat ion rrcnTI 0rS,~.n:c
compXUlds. All inorganic concentrations ',,;ere te 101.-1 I'-aximum COTlce.r:trat icn
Limits (r-as). There were no significant differences arrong'samples..
obtained ttpstream and those obtained downstream from the pJint ',.;here ....:~e
unnamed tributary enters Iron Run.
. Federal ~ient Water CUality Criteria (AW:X) for tl1e ci1ronic (!onq-
term) 8.'qX)sure of fresh water aquatic 1 ife are slight ly exceeded Eql:ally
upstream and dot.m.stream of the site for lead and chromium. l'b aCUf.e'
(short-term) exJ:Osure criteria are exceeded. Table 9 SI10''';S tlle Rereo:li 1:'
Investigation '.-later sample analyses ror I ron Run. Table 9 ~~lcl\.:.cles :::?A
FStQ::. for rretals.
Results of inorganic analysis of ule sedL--nents of [ran Run ,~~c. ':'[' -, c
'1lD.named rributary are shown on Table 7. Again. cont..Jm.ir'.3I1ts q:.str.:::::.:;r'1 ':'C:
clol..,1':-;t ream are approxilTBtely equal. It is notable t.I1dt Ll~e rost c :n-:"",i::-
ated sedLrnent sample obtained during tlle Renedial Investigation, S'l-ds,
',,;as obtained in the unnamed tributar/, upstream from the pJint of '311: r"j"
- of rJ1e landfill sedimentation pJnd inflow. 1".-10 Haafsville residences
discharge set.-lage into this intermittent tributary. Sample 5w-2s '.,:as
contaminated with elevated levels of Ba..c:;e i\Jeutral/Acid E:
-------
----- --- J~.
TABLE 9
Comparison of Water Anal~ses from Iron Run With MCLs
And Chronic AWQC *
ug/1
I~ORGANIC UPSTREAM MCL AWQC DO\iNSTR I:' AM
ANALYTE .
SW-3101 SW-4W 51,01-91,01 SW-1W S\oI-2W
.~..
Antimony 0 0 0 N/A 1,600 0 0
A ""'An; (" () 11 11 "f\ fLll 1"\ f'\
Barium a 0 0 1000 . N/A 0 0
Beryl! ium 0 0 0 N/A 5.3 0 0
Cadmium 0 0 9 10 1.1 0 0
Chromium 0 20 20 50 10 0 10
Cobalt 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 .. 0
Copper 0 0 0 N/A 12 0 0
Lead 3.1 J 20.0 10.0 50 3.2 3.8J 30.0
Manganese 0 0 0 N/A N/A .0 0
Mercury 0 0 0 2 0.012 0 0
Nickel 0 0 0 N/A 160 0 0
Selenium 0 0 0 10 35 0 0
Silver 0 0 0 SO .12 0 0
Thallium 0 N/A -
0 0 40 0 0
-
Tin 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0
--'-
Vanadium 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0
Z':nc 60L 60L 50L N/A 110 90L 80L
Cyanide. 0 0 0 N/A 5.2 0 0
6.0 5.5 6.0 N/A I ,
PH 6.5 6.5 6.5 ..J
* Assumes a hardness of 100 mg/l.
N/A = Not Available
-------
, \
..>.."
LC' .=..spt':al.r: or fue 1 ccntaminat ion ~€C2use e ~2':a::~j
?JUI:Cs '...:ere not. obserled in tl:.e 50 i 1s, sEd i.:.,8'.::5 ,
~..:1I':c_L ll. '
~~':~.~~:~ l:Jr
-::'.:.?se '-::.r::-
::[ ;c:!:C ',':.~::~r-::
- - -'.-.
... - - ~ ..
= ~ ~s
.-: :.. ~ar
:- :-'~m ~~:""~ese
~l:'~Je~...3.:: :c'rs
- ""0.--- -.''''''
, -
- ..._~ - l '-
. .
". . .......,- ..
. _. - -... - ~ ,
. .
....::. .:::-'-:~~-,
---" '---
~9'/els of ~.J1e '/arious conta.minanr-,s fOIU":d
!-j~9~C origins -:"1.t r.he Reeser's Landfill.
i r1 ~ ~I::n ?i. :r: ::.: i Ij ~c::
:~1..'~
C'€scr i::rc ~I:n '.J f '~e ~':O .;;Ction i\.lc.emat i.-:e
Under the ~Jo .;;Ction altemat i'le, no r9nE:'diCll .1Ct ion.s ',.;i LL ~~ ":,'...~eIl
a.t !-11e Reeser's La.nd.fill.B€cause the site i:-; a landfiLL, tential e.xists for use of !-Jlese sources
as p::>table '..;ater in :the future. No [vas :...:ere exceeded in the area ground
wa.ter, nor in Iron Run.
r-1aximum Contaminant Levels have not been considered for tlle '/ariol1s
seasonal p::>nd.s onsite nor for the landfill sedimentation p:>nd becalL':;e
these are not u.sed as drinking water SOUIces and because no likelihocd
exists for their, pJtential future use as p:>table water s\lpplies.
O1ronic .'\rnbient Water Quality Criteria (.~.cc) for the proti?':'tL'')!1 '-',':
aquatic life develoP=d p..lrsuant to Section 30.t(a) (1) of tlle i'::lean :-id!:2r-
.;;Ct ''''ere considered with regard to i.....'1e orts i te sedirnentat ion pJnd. :: :"X1
Rl.Ul, t:,he ult LrrBte receptor of any disch.arge from d:e sedimem:at Lon ?=r,ci
''''as a.ls'J evaluated under chronic ASt:Q:..
-------
,-
,~
, -'
.:!.wx- for G'1e ?ratect:. ion c.f ;quac ~c ~ ~:I? lr'? ~':c~ej :;' c::-~ ,-. ?":r ='~:-
G'1e contamif1.ants l'?ad and cr-L!'"cmil!In. :-:o'..:c:':.:::[ -::e-:-(:!;I"- :JT1::-.a'- >~r; >?':<=-.';
faur.:d dC'...nstream of ?'Jssi.ble ~.;>:'? l!l£';'uer:c'? ::::c..;' ,'!:; -<~;T'.~:'~r:-ii.-:' ~~=:"':c',-:::r--.:
"...-r.erl compared. "":.0 corltarnir1at~on ~e~/e~~ ::;JS:-:':-'?~~"Tl : .-.;~~ -=-_:D_-:? ':'.
Chronic ~ t"or Ule prot'?Ction of aCtli"3L~C Li.::-:> '..;,?[,? s':c~:e:! ::: ..:-::c;
or rrcr'? of rj'.e seci:...rnentation ?'Jnd llrlfijr.er<:?d '..;;,":.e[ :',:mpLes :'.')::- '-':'-~:'::::,
chrom~:J11, ':0~€r, lead, -:md f=Qssibl'/, sij';er 2nd z.i!:c !C'crry.....l"'? 'H'-C.~'l':~e)
in Tabl'? 5 '..i~tll f'v,,'Q::. ';alues listed ill Table 9). TIlis SJT\3.11 (~r:::.;:--; -:L.:r~
0.l acre) t:Ond recei,,'es its ',.jater 2S nmoff fr'Jm the landfLLl ,1Ia:.! .:1.2.:";0 1..'"';
n.moff from a JOO-foot-long section of Old Route 22 (see clgure 3), Tr.e
t:Orld's designated p..lrp)se is to catcll and contain sLlspended so i: p.:...:-. :-:: >"''';
from L:3l1dfi 11 ~moff ',,'ater. The pJnd contributes '..:at:."?r to ~ rcn ?1.J; ':':.."
tlle intermittent, wLfl.a11ed tributary on tJ10se irl.frEqUent occasiorc.s '..:he!l
its containrnent capacity is ezceeded. This occurs onl y c.tu.ri..~:q ~-:--':~:d'?'..!
periods of hea'1Y precipita':ion. ~''''ater levels in r.....'1e t:Ond ha.:,? rle:rcr:.S::.r2~,::~j
seasonal fluctuations of greater tJ1aIl t'N'O fe<=t . TIle :p)nd conta:.,,S .~.o
fish, but is used by muskrats, frogs, ana a number of s~ies of c:.ql!at.ic
invertebrates. The plcmt and anirT'al t:OPllatiorLs '..:i..r-.....'1in r-.Ile lLrnit:.ed ',;atr::r
capacity of tJle pJnd llave been obser/ed to te !lealthy. Iron Rlm, as r-rle
principal surface '....rater drainage'....ray t.hrough the ./alley in '..;hich Reeser's
landfill is located, receives LUnoff contributions from several hUf1Dred
acres, principally farmland, upstream before being i.nfluenced by any
runoff contribution from the 15-acre landfill via 1:.he sedimentation "t:Ond.
several offsite (backgrolmd) ponds in the vicinity of Reeser's Land-
fill t....rhich ',.jere SamPled during the Remedial Invest igation '....rere fOUfld ':0
contain inorganic contaminants in concentrat ions equal to,. or greate~
than, the landfill sedimentation pond (see Table 10).
for the P-U"PJses of this e'.7aluat ion, tJle cons iderat ion of .~'.c.c i::;
inappropriate with respect to the sedimentation pond for tlle following
reasons :
*
. .
me t:Ond's designated P-U"PJse is to trap silt in n.moff ',,'ater
from the landfill.
*
The pond's inadvertent wildlife popllations are apparently
healthy.
*
'!he total contribution from the pond to the '..Jater \/olume and
water quality of Iron Run is insignificant.
*
'!he water quality in Iron RlUl is essentia11~' tl'.e same dC'"T;S::':''7~1IT1
and upstream of the site.
*
The t:Ond :s too small to be a significant ir~luence on
popllations in the area.
.~'i l.~l i Ee
*
~oJater quality in the sedimentation t:Ond i.s not si.gnificantly
different from that of the nearby (background) ponds.
-------
i- ---~-
..J'''''
TABLE
;. I
- ..J
Comparison Of Sedimentation Pond and Offsite Pond ~ater Samples
Inorganic Analyses, ug/1
--' '---
Lr:organic SEDI:1ENTATION ?OND OFFSTTF: DnN1J<:::
Arithmetic
Analyte Highest Valu ~ean* Highest Value (s) Sample (s)
Antimony 0 0 fin P-2\l
50 P-l\l
5.8J P-3\l
Arsenic 0 O. 4.0J. P-4\l
50 J (J) R?O P -/11..
Barium 53 90 P-1\l.P-2\l:P-3W
Beryll ium 0 0 9 P-4W
--
')/\ P-1u
r~A_~..- ?r\ In 2~ P-4\l
Chromium 50 30 ?7r\ D-l..U
')0 P-1\l: P-3\l
Cabal t 100 60 270 P-4W
70 P-3W
Copper 150 90 330 P-4W .,
lJ.U r-- HI
'6.n P-4W
Lead 60 25.5 30 p-jW
~anganese 3100 2630 11 ,000 UL P-2W
"1<>,..,.,,~v () UL
0 -
. 1?r\ 1'-/.\.1
:iickel 80 46.6 AO P-1W
Selenium 0 0 UL -
SiLer 90 L 50 (L) 50 L P-1W
Thall ium 0 0
- 0
Tin 0 0 ~R
Vanadium 30 J 10 (J)
100 P-4~
(L) 1300 ?-4io1
Zinc 190 L 153.3 LOU C' - y",
Cyanide 0 0 0
-
---.
'"0':
The Arithmetic ~ean is the sum of the three values (representing the three
samples) obtained from the Se~!mpnt Pond, divided by 3.
-------
3"7
The r-b ktion alteIT'.ati'/e site is protect:i':e of COr:11 rllJ""d!: ; ~~~---':
aDD. b'1e environment. All [X)teIltlal p:'lt-jl'..,;;ws ',.,;ere ~-:;::m~!:ed ~:: ::-.:c:- -:.
:raJ
-------
'-..-,. ...IU..'I. ,I '.li'ii.Lll~-il-j[~j.l~~Uc.y
Requests Comments on the Proposed Plan
for Reeser's Landfill Superfund Site in
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
I
. ,
. .
The U.S. EPA has completed a Draft Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study for the Reeser's Landfill Superfund Site. The Draft
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility StUdy, conducted to
quantity any contamination which might be attributable to the site
. and evaluate alternatIves for cteanup, are now available for pubUc
review at: -
. Parkland Community Library
4422 Albert Avenue ~ "'---
Allentown, PA 18104 C41 t ,;:." / 'j n
; Listed be/ow are the cleanup alternatives set forth in the Feasibility Study:
1. No action.
2. Restricted access with ground water monitoring tor thirty (30) years.
3. Regrade the site, divert surface water, and revegetate the landfill
surface. .
4. Install perimeter permeable trench to intercept and vent methane gas in
addition to those options listed under Alternative 3. . .
5. Air monitor and construct a multilayer cap consisting of clay, geotextll~
. materials and soli cover In addition to those optIons fisted under
Alternative 4.
The detailed Remedial Investigation fQund no contamination in the local wells
. or. streams and concluded that human health and the environment are riot:
. endangered. EPA's preferred alternative Is amodlfJed version of Alternatives 1 :
and 2. Under the modified. alteaatJve, EPA will not implement any remedial j
actions althe site. However, the"ter in the ground water wells will be sampled I
and analyzed each year for a period of five (5) years. If, during this time, conta. -t
mlnation Is detected in the wells. the risk posed by that contamination will be 11
determined, and appropriate ,.ion will be taken. - -'
TIle pUblic comment period is open until March 26. 1989. If there is sufficient" ; I
Interest, EPA may hold a pUblic meeting\during the pUblic comment period. i i
Interested ma~ contact Theresa Bickel at (215) 597-8573 by March 10 to ;
request a pUbll~eetlng.., ~
. The remedy selected will be documented in a Record of Decision that:
summarizes EPA's decision process and~ponds to the public comments::,
received. CItizens are encouraged to revie . cuments related to the Reeser'st
Landfill Remedlal.lnvestigation and Feasl ility Study and submit writt. .
i comments to following address:
.,
.. Theresa Bickel (3PAOO)
Public Affairs Specialist
. U.;;. EPA - Region III .
Philadelphia, PA 1'9107
-------
?EESER'S ~~CFILL SITE
ADMINISTRATI\~ ?ECCRD fILE * **
:~;CEX OF CXXLME:ITS
SITE ID~~IFICATICN
Preliminary .;Ssessr.,er.t/Site Inspection
1 )
Report: Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection of Reeser's Landfill,
prepared by ~US Corporation, 12/21/84. P. 1-170. References are listed
en p~ 60, 61, and 170. .
.,
* Administrative Record File available 2/9/89, update 3/6/89.
** Supporting Sampling Data is located at the EPA Region III Central Regional
Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland.
Note:
Company or organizational affiliation is mentioned only when it appears
in the record.
1
-------
RE..'1EDL~ ENFCRCE.M£J.'IT PLA'>"NING
Potenti=~ly Responsible Party C~neral Corresponcence
1 )
:"'~tter to Mr. ECward f. Reeser frCTT"L ~.\r. Ste9her: ~. :;as3erSl:<;, :...:.S. =-=-_:.,
r-e: :'iotice letter to £=.€rform corrective action, 2/6/36. ? 1-4.
2
-------
REMEDIAL P£S?CNSE P~\~ING
\';0rX. Plans
1 )
?er;oct: ~ealth and 5afet'l Plan fo!:" ?ee:=er-'s Lar.dfill Si::e, f~'::C€!:"
Macun~ie Township, Pennsylvania, (no autnor cited), 6/87. P. 1-37.
2 )
Report: final hork Plan for Reeser's Landfill Site, CDP€r Macungie
Ta.vnship, ?er.nsyl'lania, for Preparation of Remedial Investigation/
feasibility Study, Volume I, prepared by Mr. Michael F. Coia, Roy r.
v~ston, Inc., 7/15/87. P. 38-169.
3)
Memorandum to t~~ File from Mr. Victor J. Janosik, U.S. SPA, re: Fonral
approval of the Reeser's Landfill Sampling and Analysis Plan, 3/4/88.
P. 170-297. The Sampling and Analysis Plan is attached.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Reports
l)
Report: Draft Final, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studv, for
the Reeser's Landfill Site, Upper Macungie Township, Pennsylvania,
Volumes I-III, prepared by Mr. Raymond Scheinfeld, Roy F. ~Jeston, Inc.,
11/88. P. 1-930.
Correspondence and Supporting Documentation
1)
Letter to Mr. Mark Cleveland, Roy F. weston, Inc., f~ Mr. Ronald F. Klinikowski,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, re: Transmittal of the
draft copy of a list of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements'
for remediating non-specific sites, 5/23/88. P. 1-1. .' -
2) . Letter to Mr. Ron Klinikowski, Pennsylvania Depart.Irent of Environmental
Resources, from Mr. Victor J. Janosik, U.S. EPA, re: Hydrogeology review
of the Reeser's Landfill Draft Remedial Investigation, 1/27/89. P~ 2-2.
3
-------
IMAGERY
1)
Letter to Mr. Victor Janosik, U.S. EPA, rrcrn ~"I:'. L.any :1ata,
CorpoI:'ation, I:'e: Transmittal of the Site ,~~al!si3, ?eeser's
Haarsville, Pennsylvania, Interim Report, 3/1C/8i. P. L-19.
RefOrt for Reeser's Landf ill is attached.
:'~'2 3:,s't.eti..:s
~r.cf : ~ 1,
-. .. .
-~ ""'-~W-.-
-..- -..L_'-_."
~e~oI:'andum to MI:'. Victor Janosik, U.S. EPA, f~Jm MI:'. RichaDd G. ?3r.~, C.S.
EPA, I:'e: Aerial photographic analysis of ReeseI:"s Landfill, Haafsville,
Pennsylvania, 3/25/87. P. 20-20.
2)
Memorandum to Mr. Victor Janosik, U.S. EPA, f~ Mr. Richard G. Park, U.S.
EPA, re: Transmittal of the Site Analysis for Reeser's Landfill, 4/1jei.
P. 21-21.
3)
"
4
-------
CCMMUNITY I~VOLVE1-1EN'I'
Community Relations Plans
1 )
Report: Final Community Rela~ions Plan for the Reeser's Lancfill Site,
Cpper Macungie Township, Pennsylvania, prepared by ~r. Robert T. ?ierce,
Roy F. Weston, Inc., 4/28/88. P. 1-23.
Fact Sheets, Press Releases, Public Notices
1)
Report: Superfund PrcxJram Fact Sheet, Proposed Remedial Action Plan,
prepared by U.S. EPA, 2/23/89. P. 1-6. .
Meeting Summaries, Trip Reports, Correspondence with the Public
1)
Merrorandum to Mr. Ray Germann, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Victor J. Janosik,
U.S. EPA, re: Reeser's Landflll Monitoring Wells, 7/14/87. P. 1-1.
2)' Letter to a resident from Mr. Ray Germann, U.S. EPA, re: Permission
to use a portion of the resident's property for sampling, 7/21/87. P. 2-2.
3)
Handwritten memorandum to the File from Mr. Victor J. Janosik, U.S. EPA,
re: Field trip to visit residences imnediate1y surrounding the site,
7/24/87. P. 3-5. '
4)
Merrorandum to the File fran Mr. Victor J. Janosik, U.S. EPA, re: Reeser's'
Landfill home wate r supply samples, 3/11/88. P. 6-8. A map of home
water supply sources for October, 1987 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study sampling is attached. ' '
5). Letter to Mr. Harvey Merkel fran Mr. Victor J. Janosik, U.S. EPA, re:
October, 1987 home water supply analysis, 3/18/88. P. 9-10.
6)
Letter to Mr. W. Scott and Ms. Gwen Kleinshuster fran Mr. Victor J.
Janosik, U.s. EPA, re: October, '1987 home water supply analysis,
3/18/88. P. 11-11.
7)
Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Frank. and Anna Tercha fran Mr. Victor J. Janosik,
U.S. EPA, re: October, 1987 home water supply analysis, 3/18/88.
P. 12-13.
8)
Letter to Mr. Glenn B. Higbie, Lehigh County Authority, from Mr. Victor
J. Janosik, U .5. EPA, re: October, 1987 Reeser's Landfill water
sampling, 3/18/88. P. 14-14.
5
-------
GENERAL GUIDANCE CCCLMENT5 *
1) "Promulgation of Sites fron Updates 1-4," Federal Register, dated 6/10/86.
2) "Proposal of Update 4," Federal Register, dated 9/18/85.
3) Memorandum to U. S. EPA front Mr. Gene Lucero regarding community relations
at Superfund Enforcement sites/ dated 3/28/85.
4) Groundwater Contamination and Protection, undated by Mr. Donald V.
Feliciano on 8/28/85.
5) Memorandum to Toxic Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-x from
Mr. William Hedeman and Mr. Gene Lucero re: Policy on Floodplains and
Wetlands Assessments for CERCLA Actions, 8/6/85.
6) Guidance on Remedial Investigations under CERCLA, dated 6/85.
7) Guidance on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, dated 6/85.
8) "Proposal of Update 3," Federal Register, dated 4/10/85.
9) Memorandum to Mr. Jack McGraw entitled "Community Relations Activites
at Superfund Sites - Interim Guidance," dated 3/22/85.
10) "Proposal of Update 2," Federal Register, dated 10/15/84
11) EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, dated 9/84.
12) Memorandum to U.S. EPA from Mr. William Heckman, Jr. entitled
"Transmittal at Superfund Removal Procedures - Revision 2," dated 3/20/84.
13) "Proposal of Update 1," Federal Register, dated 9/8/83.
14) Community Relation* in Superfund: A Handbook (interim version), dated
9/83.
15) "Proposal o£ First National Priority List," Federal Register, dated
12/30/92.
16) "Expanded Eligibility List," Federal Register, dated 7/23/82.
17) "Interim Priorities List," Federal Register, dated 10/23/81.
18) Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site Ranking System: A User's Manual
(undated).
19) Field Standard Operating Procedures - Air Surveillance (undated).
20) Field Standard Operating Procedures - Site Safety Plan (undated).
* Located in EPA Region III office.
-------
..~
.~~,\
PENNSYLVANIA
~
.~
........~
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DePARTMENT OF ENV1RONMENTAL RESOURCES
Post Office Box 2063
Hemsburg, Pennayf"ania 17120
March 31, 1989
,-
Oeputy Secretery fo,
-', . " . I,.. an tal Protection
(717) 787-5028
Stephen R. Wassersuq, Director
Hazardous Waste Manaqement Division
EPA Reqion III
841 Chestnut Buildinq
Philadelphia', PA 19107
Rei Letter of Concurrence
Reesers Landfill, Upper Hacunqie Twp., Lehigh Co.
~a(~rd of Decision (ROD)
Dear Mr. Wa88ersugl
The Department has reviewed the documents associated
with the above referenced Superfund Site. The selected remedial.
~=tion alternative for Reesers Landfill include I
I
*
*
The No Action &1 ternati ve. Under this a1 ternati ve ,.
no remedial actions will be taken at the site. This
alternative 1s protective of human health and the
environment a8 all potential path~ay8 were examined
to make this determination.
In accordance with section 121 (c) of SARA, the
ground water quality 1n the vicinity of the lite will
be reviewed by EPA within five years. -
I hereby concur with the SPA's proposed remedy with the
followinq conditions I
I
~
I
I
*
The Department will be qiven the opportunity to concur
with decisions related to the remeininq waste
and evaluate appropriate alternatives to assur&
compliance with DER cleanup ARAR8.
The Department will reserve our riqht and
responsibility to take independent enforcement actions
pursuant to state law.
*
..
This concurrence with the selected ramedial action is
not intended to provide any assurances pursuant. to SARA
Section l04(c)(3). .
-------
Stephen R. Wassr98ug, Director
-2-
March 31, 1989
Thank you for the opportunity to concur with this BPA
Rec~rd of Decision. If you have any questions regarding this
matter please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
. ~rl!iJ.c(((/ffi
Deputy Secretary
Environmental protection
TOTAL P. ~)g
------- |