United Sates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office o*
cntWQoncy find
Remedei Response
E PA/ROO/R03-89/074
June 1989
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Strasburg Landfill, PA
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-8°/074
Strasburg Lardfill, PA
First Remedi~l Action
16.
Abstrac~ (continued)
The leachate L.~. currently transported daily to an offsite treatment facility.
Additionally, .'urface water runoff was directed toward a sediment pond which discharged
directly into ',riar Run Creek. Proposed corrective measures, however, were never
completely implemented. Several seepage areas have since been observed near the
landfill. One large seepage area is near the southeastern corner of the landfill.
Liquid. from the seep ultimately flows into a sediment pond near the eastern edge of the
landfill which drains via a drainage channel towards Briar Run Creek. During heavy
rainfalls the sediment pond overflows into Briar Run Creek. The State has performed
analyses of seep water from Briar Run Creek and of leachate from a manhole near the
sediment pond and has monitored ground water for VOCs. Three residential drinking water
wells contain multiple organic compounds. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the sediment pond and ground water are VOCs including TCE and benzene, and other organics
inc]'lding toluene and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for this site includes leachate collection, using an
int~rceptor drain, and offsite treatment: and provision of an alternate water supply to
affe\.ted residences by installing point-of-use. activated carbon treatment systems at
resi ences with contaminated ground water above levels of concern. The estimated capital
cost for the remedial action is $42,850, with estimated annual O&M costs of $4,500.
Costs are based on an estimate of three residences requiring an alternate water supply.
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTAT10N. 1'. REPORTNQ. 12-
PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-89/074
2. A8c1pienc. Acc8MIan No.
4. 11118 and Sub08
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Strasburg Landfill, PA
First Remedial Action
7. AUlhor(.)
5. A8pIrt 0-
06/29/89
L
L P8rf0nnlng OrpniDllon R.pc. No.
f. P8rfonnlng Org8lnb:a1lon N8nw end ~
10. Proj8cUTulllWork Unit No.
11. Contt8c1(C) Of Grun(G) No.
(e)
(G)
12. Sponaoring Orgenlz8llon II8m8 end Addr8u
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
12. Typ8 o. A8IMI'1' Peftod Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Su~ No-
115. ~tr.C1 (Umlt: 200 _Ida)
The Strasburg Landfill site is a 22-acre facility in western Newlin Township, Chester
County, Pennsylvania. The surrounding area includes farmland and 200 homes within one
mile of the site. Two creeks, Brandywine and Briar Run, flow within 0.5 mile of the
site's western, southern, and eastern border~ and receive surface drainage. A major
aquifer underlying the landfill provides drinking water via private wells to all local
~esidences. These private wells are as close as 720 feet to the landfill. In the
spring of 1979 site owners began accepting industrial wastes and heavy metals which, by
year's end, included more than 1,000 yd3 of polyvinyl chloride wastes, 2,052 yd3 of..
industrial wastes and sludge, and 35,000 gallons of heavy ~etal sludge. In December
1979 the jtate claimed that industrial wastes from the landfill caused excessive
siltat.Lon of Briar Run Creek, and eight months later the State prohibited the site
owne: ~ from receiving any additional industrial wastes. In 1980 sampling revealed VOC
contamination in the ground water and by April 1983 leachate seeped at a rate of
several gallons per minute from the southeastern portion of the land~ill. After
charging the site owners with operating violations and subsequently suspending their
operating permit, the State ordered the landfill to be closed. As part of the closure
plan, leachate was collected and stored in 5,000 gallon tanks, and the landfill was
regraded and covered.
( C:o:>o:>
17. Document Anelye18 .. D88crfpto..
Record of Decision - Strasburg Landfill, PA
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw and leachate
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE), other organics (toluene, xylenes)
t.. Idanlltleralep..Endad T-
Co COSA TI Fl8fcl/Group
18. Availabllty StatamanI
II. S8cI8iIy CI- (ThIa A8poI1)
None
:za. S8cI8iIy CI- (Thla Page)
JIJ"no:>
21. No. o' Pig..
38
22. PrlC8
(Sea AHSJ.Z38.18)
Sea/mtrucll- on~-
272 (4.77)
(Fornwrty NTISo35)
D&parDnenlolComnMWC8
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCT10NS
Optional Form 272. Report Documentation Page Is bu8d on GUId8UM8 far Format and PYoduction of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from AmerIcan National Standards lnaUtute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018. Each separately
bound report-for exampte, each volume In a mulUvoIume set-shaD have lte unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each Individually bound report aha II carry a unique alphanumeric d88lgnatlon aulgned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization In accordance with American National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contect NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercaseleuers, Arable numerals, slashea, and hyphena only, aaln the following examp"s: FASEBIN~75/87 and FAA!
RD-75/09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Reclplenta AcceS8ton Number. Re88l'V8d far UN by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title ahould Indicate clearly and briefly the subject cov.... of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
title. When a report Is prepared In more than one volume, repeat the prlmwy title, add votume number and Inetude subtitle for
the specific volume.
5. Report Date. Each report shall carry a date Indicating at I...t month and year. Indicate the ba&ls on which It was selected (e.g.,
date of laaU8, date of approval, date of preparetlon, date publlahed).
6. Sponaoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) In conventional order (e.g., John R. Ooe, or J. Robert Ooe). Ust author's affiliation if It dlHers from
the performing organization.
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert If performing organlzaton wish.. to 888lgn this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Addre... Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. Ust no more than two levels of
an organizational hlerachy. Display the name of the organization exactly aa It should appear In Government Indexes such as
Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA & I).
10. ProjectlTaskIWork Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report wa. prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Addreaa. Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State Interim, final, stc., and, If apptlcable, Inclusive da....
14. Performing Organization Cod.. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Inctuded elsewhere but useful, such .s: Prepared In cooperation with... Translation
of . . . Presented at conference of . . . To be published In . .. When a report I. revised, Include a statement whether the new
report supersede. or supple menta the older report.
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 word. or Ie..) factual summary of the most significant Information contained In the report. If the
report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here.
17. Document Analysis. (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that Identify the major concept of the resesrch and are suffietently specific and precise to be used aa Index entries for catsloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Term.. Use Identifiers for proJect names, code name.. equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written In descriptor form for those subJect8 for which no descriptor emta.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group aaaignmenta are to be taken form the 1964 COSATI Subject Category Ust. Since the
majority of documenta are multldl8clpllnary In nature, the primary FIeld/Group a88ignment(s) will be the specific discipline,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The appllcatlon(s) will be croaa-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow the primary postlng(s).
18. DlatrlbuUon Statement. Denote public rel..sabillty, for example "ReIe... unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, If known.
19. & 20. Security Claaalfication. Enter U.s. Security Cl888If1catlon In accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of page.. In.ert the total number of pages, Including Introductory pagea, but exetudlng distribution list, If any.
22. Price. Ent.r price In paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) It known.
~ GPO: 1983 0 - 381-526 (8393)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 SACK
(4-77)
-------
REX:ORD OF DEX:ISICN
Strasburg Landfill Site
Ne..i 1 in Townshi P
Cht:$ter County, Pennsylvania
Statement of Basis and Puroose
This decision doctnrent presents the selected interim renedial actions
addressing an on-site leachate seep and off-site contaminated residential
wells for the Strasburg Landfill Site in Chester CO\.D1ty, Pennsylvania.
'TI1ese renedial actions were developed in accordance with the canprehensive
Envirol1I'reI1tal Resp:>nse, compensation Liability l>ct (CERCrA) of 1980, as
arnerAied by tile Superfund ~Ter'&:niientS ord ReoutJ1Orization ~-t (St\RA.) of
1986 and to the extent practicable ~ the National ContingeI"1GY Plan. This
decision is ba..<>ed on the administrative record for this site. The attached
index identifies the itE!nS that canprise the administrative record up:>n
which the selection of the rareclial actions are baSed. The Ccmronwealtl1
of Pennsylvania has concurred on the selected rate:ties.
DescriPtion of selected Ranedv
The selected Renedial ktion Alternatives (RAA) for the on-site
leachate seep and for the off-site contaminated residential wells are.
described below.. .
Leachate seeP
The selected reredy for the leach.?te seep involves collecting the
leachate and treating it off-site. The canp:>nentS of this ranedy are'
sumnarized as follows:
o Excavate a ditch below the leachate seep approximately 25 feet
long, 5 feet wide, r-:rl 2 feet deep;
o Install interceptor drain in the excavated ditch;
o connect the interceptor drain to the existing leachate COllection
an:! storage tank system, with a 4-inch diameter solid ~ pipe,
through the existing lead1ate collection system manhOle; and
o continue current diSp:>sal arranganents, including the transpJrt
of leachate to a RCRA authorized treatment facility.
Contaminated Water SUDPlv
The selected reredy for the off-site contamirlated residential wells
involves the installation of activated carbon treatrrent systems at
residences with contaminated water above levels of con::em.
-------
~mmarv of Hi3k and Rationale for selection (jf Alternatives
1\ typiCal arxl a reasonable \oIOrst-case scenario was evaluated in the
public healtiL evaluation for the Strasburg tzldfill site. '!he average
concentrati01'; of grourxiwater contam:i.11ants fc.lII'n in the residential
wells were used in the typiCal exp)SUre scenario. '!he maximum
concentration found in arrj of the residential wells 'WaS used to
represent a \oIOrSt-case scenario.
UI1der the typical exposure scenario, no adverse noncarcinogenic
health effects \oIOuld be expected. However, the carcinogenic risk is
calculated to be aOOut I in 2,400 or 400 tiIres greater than the
I x 10-6 (one in a million) lifetime carx:er level prop:>sed by the EPA.
UI1der the reasonable \oIOrst-case: scenario t noncarcinogenic adverse
eff<:>ct.s may be lX'ssible. The carci.r1Ogenic risk is calculated to be
about 1 in 1,350 or 700 times greater than the EP.l\ I x 10-6 proposed
risi( level.
The leachate seep control alterr.a.tive, to collect and pi];:e the
leacl1ate to the existing collection arxl storage system, was selected
because it meets established ranectial action objectives with regard
to human health ancI" the environment. The caT1(X)nents of this alternative
are well darcnstrated arxl represent a reliable arxl cost effective
Irethcd for leachate seep collection arxl di~. .
The lX'int~f-use activated carbon treatment alternative was selected -
because the alternative meets established raneclial action objectives by
providing an effective, reliable treatIrent rrethod to reduce pJtential
m-nan health risks fran ing~ion, inhalation and dermal ar' ~rption of
contaminated groundwater. 'me treatment units are camercially
available and can be installed in a short time.
Declaration
'Itle rened:c' ~lected to address the contaminated residential drinking
watf'lr is prOtective of human health arxl the envirorurent, attains Federal
and State requirenem:s that are applicable or relevant arxl appropriate
for this renedial action and is cost effective. '!his reredy satisfies
the statutory prefererx:e for ranecties that employ treatment that reduces
toxL:ity , IrCbility or volume as a p~ incipal element, and utilize
peI'11\;iI1S1t solutions and alternath~ treatment tecl1n:)logies to the
maxim.mt extent practicable.
'Itle raredy selected for the leachate seep is protective of human
health arxl the environment., attains Federal aID State requirements that
are applicable, relevant and appropriate arxl is cost effective.
How'ever, it is only a partial ranedy arxl hazardous substances above
health-based levels contiriue to remain on-site. Treatment of these
substances are not within the limit~ scope of this action but will be
-------
;ddressed during the Ranedial ~t igatiOIl/Feasibility Study. Future
o.~rable mits to address theSe sU}l,<.tar1Ces will meet the statutory
prefererx:e for treatment ani utili~.. .tion of pennanent solutions to the
n'ot2Xinum extent practicable. AlthOu:lh this interUn renedy for the
leachate seep results in hazardous SUbStances ranaining on-s i te aOOve
health-based levels, the fiv~year facility review will not apply to
this action.
-
~ J, . /1cfj
Date
~
D
ErickSon ,
Regi . Mninistrator
Region III
-------
'!HE DEX:ISICN sur+1MY
'"
,'",
Intrrrl 1rt ion
This Record of Decision (ROD) will SUITll'larize the findings of a
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for the StrasbUrg Landfill Site that
addressed an on-site leachate seep and off-site contaminated residential
wells, and will present ranedial measures for these t'NO areas of
concern.
Site Location and Descriotion
The Strasb.1rg Landfill is a 22-acre facility located on Strasburg
Road in ~-5tern Newlin Township, C1ester Co\mty, Pennsyl"wa (see
Figure 1); '!he coordinates of the site are North 39°56 '?S" Latitude and
West 7504~ '18" tDngitude. '!he entrance road to the landf,ill is blocked
by a locked gate, but access to the site is essentially LtTLrestricted.
The l;;ndfill was built in a valley and the shape of t:..:le facility is
roughly elliptiCal. Brandywine Creek is located within a half-mile of
the western and southern bOundaries of the facility. Briar Run Creek is
located within 300 feet of the eastern bo\JI1dary of the site. Briar RLm
Creek flows into Brandywine Creek to the south. Land use in the area is
pri.I1arily residential and agricultural. '!here are 201 single-family
residences within a l-mile radius of the site. A schanatic site map of
the laI1d:fill is shown in Figure 2.
'me topJgraphy of the area is characterized by a combination of
. gentle and steep hills. The highec;t elevation of hills south of the
site in Newlin Townsl'1ip approach~ 550 feet abOve Mean sea. Level (MSL).
'!he elevation of the Brandywine Creek floodplain to the south is
approxil1'a.tely 250 feet atove r-.&..
'!he peak elevation of the landfill is rep:>rted to be 470 feet aOO\'e
MSL' (EPA Region III P!1,s 1986). ' '!he south and east sides of' the lanr..fill
have a steeper Slop"! tl1an the north and west sides. surface draina':;le
fran the site flows to the south and southwest toward Br~ Creek
and the east and southeast toward Briar Run.
Briar Run flows into Brandywine Creek, which is a water supply
source for the Embreeville State Hospital. '!he water int tke is
approximately 4 miles downstream fran the site. Brarx}ywine Creek is
alSO used for canoeing and tubing. 'Die Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (FADER) accepted the "lA" nanination for tt.e
Brandywine Creek, aec laring that the creek exhibits several unique,
outSta11ding, or irreplaceable values, is of statewide or national
significance and has a 1'roSt urgent need for prOtection."
'!he major aquifer in a 3-mile radius around the Strasburg Landfill
is contained within the Peters Creek SChiSt and the Wissahicmn Fonra-
tions. Fractures are considered to be the major feature in both forIl\3.-
tions prc:m:>ting groun:1water roovanent. '!be Peters Creek SChist underlies
1
.
-------
~
~
~
'f:.
~
~
.~
'.
.
SLA PftOP£RTY
INCLUDING
LANDFILL AREA
AReA OF
CONTAMINA no
RESIDENTIAL WELLS
NEWLIN TOWNSHIP, CHESTER COUNTY, PA
o
SCA&..I
"
, MILl.
,
o ,5
."...... --
, KILOMITIR
.
Figure 1 SITE LOCATIOI" ~.4A.P
2
-------
TOT OF LAMOFILL SURFACf
Figure 2 SCHEMATIC SITE MAP OF STRASBURG LANDFILL
-------
the landfiH aIXi is therefore the water-bearing fonnation of concern.
wells c~leted in the Peters Creek SChist fonnation range in depth
fran 32 to~426 feet ani have yields ranging fran 0 to 312 gallOns per
minute. !.
T.oJo-hundred-three private residences in the area draw water from
private wells completed in the Peters Creek SChist fonnation. tb
rm.micipal supply is currently available. '!he closest well to the site
is 720 feet fran the landfill.
'Ihree p.1blic water supply canpanies are located wi thin a 3-mi Ie
radius of the StrasbJ.rg LaIxlfill, but all three draw their water from
the Wissahickcn Formation. '!he B & E pJblic Sl.1(:ply water cc:mpany owns
wells as close as 2S feet to the landfill property boundaIy. These
wells serve two housing developnents near the site.
A generalized profile of the landfill, based on details obtainE'd
frcm the PADER pennit application and closure order, is shown in Fi~.ure
3. '!he actUal construction has not l:een verified. '!he landfill is
completely covered. A layer of soil covers the t"I(3Ste. On top of tiLe
soll is a 20 mil PVC cover to prevent infiltration of precipitation. on
tC? of the PVC cover is another 2 feet of cover material. The eastern
edge of the landfill is Steep (greater than. 8% slope) in areas and
erosion is occurring such that the PVC liner is e>q:osed in places.
vegetation density ranges fran fairly thick grasses in sore areas to
non-existent in the erosion areas.
Eelow the waste material is a layer of screened soil about 2 feet
th:':k. Within the screened soil is a network of perforated PVC p~pe
which drains leachate fran the lan:lfill. Beneath this leachate
collection systan is a 20-mil PVC liner, lD'XJer which is another 2 feet
of screened soil. Within this second layer of soil is another grid of
perforated PVC pipe. .ibis grid acts as a "witness systan" to detect
whether leachate is passing through the primary liner. 80th the
leachate collection systan and the witness systan drain to a m3I1hole
near the east,;rn bOunda.ty of the landfill. Fran the manhole, the
leachate flO'~ by gravity into ~ 5,00
-------
coveR MATERIAL.
~'.)-.k..~~'
SOIL
-
~ AEFUU
" I
','
".~ LAYIR SO'I.
o
o
o
2.'OOT LAYIR SOIL
2.JOOT LAYIR SO'I.
o
.
\
I
.eDROC~
.
!
L
sou RCa: NUS Coroo,nlOft 19U
~-i
,
I'VC coveR
LANOtlIL&. SURFAC&
- --..A"""""
8ASI Otl AEFUsa
_"'NCM I'VC Lu.otATI
COI.UCT10N SYS'nM
Il.ACX 20 MIL I'VC I.INER
",HeM I'VC.W'TNISS SYSTIM
MC-30 LAyeR
"'Na4 I'VC UNOIR DRAINAGE
SYSTIM
NOT TO ~a.e
Figure 3
STRASBURG LANDFILL PROFILE SHOWING GROUNDWATER
LEACHATE MONITORING SYSTEM
-
'-f
"Ii
!
.
I
,
j
o
5
.
-------
site Historv
Strasburg Assoc'iates (St\) p..1I'chased the si te in December 1973. In
August 1975, St\ rec.~ived a PADER pennit to accept rrunicipal wastes at
the 22-acre facilit.l. .
From 1976 through 1978, opening of the 22-acre landfill was delayed
by issues between St\ and the west Bradford Township concerning: 1) use
of residentially zoned roads; 2) propJsed sale of the landfill to Stras-
burg Larldfill Associates (SIA); and 3) pennitting of a propJsed 200-acre
expansion of the facility. srA ~chased the site in August 1978. In
February 1979, the 22-acre lardfill was opened. In the spring of 1979,
ne..r FADER penni tS were granted to SIA to receive certain industrial
wastes and heavy netals. By te:ember 1979, rrore than 1,000 cubic yards
of pJlyvi yl chloride (F'\C) wastes; 2,052 cubic yards of industrial
wastes and sludges; and 35,000 gallons of heavy neta.l sludge had been
accepted at the landfill (EPA Region III HRS 1986).
In DeC"ember 1979, PADER charged srA with causing excessive siltation
of Briar h..m Creek. In August 1980, PADER perrranently prohibi ted the
landfill fran receiving in:iustrial wastes. ~cipal wastes were still
accepted. .
In 1980 the sampling of rronitoring well M2 revealed three to eight
partS per billion (~) of l,i ,l-trichloroethane. A sample of discharge
water frem the witness zone pipe in 1982 shewed 245 pPJ of
1 ,1 , I-trichloroethane. In Apri 1 1983, leachate seeped at a rate of
several gallons per minute fran the southeast portion of the landfill.
Djscoloration was alsO noticed in a seep area near Briar Rtm, directly
~ll of the southeast seep area. Water samples fran the seep
containej eight organic carpJ\.Il1ds (Meiser and Earl 1984).
In April 1983, FADER charged SIA with violations including runoff
pollution, slopes in excess of allowed limitS, failure to cover
compacted wastes, and irJo3dequate sedimentation and erosion controls. In
May 1983, FADER suspended the Strasburg Landfill operating penni t and
ordered the landfill closed. As part of the closure plan, SIA regraded
the landfill, covered it with 2 feet of soil to~ by a P\X: cover,
stabilized the site with an additional tW'O feet of soil and planted
vegetation. 'I1'1e systan to collect leachate and store it in the 5,000-
gallon tankS was installed as a part of the closure plan. COllected
leachate js currently transp:>rted by tank truck to an off-site treatment
facility. ~tionally, surface water runoff is rr1J directed toward the
sediment pn110cated near the eastern bol.D'X1ary of the site. A. sediment
pond in the SOUthw~t corner of the site is no longer used. .
Prior to the installation of the leachate collection 5ySten, surface
water runoff and leachate fran the lan:1fill was directed into the
unlined seciim:!nt p:n1S located SOUthwest am east of the landfill. It
is believed that this collected leachate and rurx:>ff was dumped back onto
the fill and/or was allowed to evaporate (T.H. Cahill and Associates
1983). r.bt all leachate arx1 runoff has been harXUed in this marmer.
'!he sediment p:n:1 on the east side of the lanifill discharges to Briar
6
-------
Run via an overflow stack and pipe.
In August 1983, PACER analysss of water from well M2 and of leachate
from the witness drain (see Table 1) revealed organic and inorganic
contamination. Ip 5eptanber 1983, analyses of water samples collected
frcrn M2, the wi mess drain, and r dar Run (see Table 2) revealed
significant levels of toxic chanicalS.
In OCtober 1983, ~ER COllected water samples from four off-site
pri vate wells. Various organic CClT1[:OUI1ds were detected in one of these
wells, located southwest of landfill. '1he analytical results of the
sample collected fran this well are sumnarized in Table 3.
SUbsequent to these findings, FADER required srA to install ad-
ditional rronitoring wells, perfonn additional sanpling, and prepare a
hr...rogeologic/engineeri:19' report evaluating t.~e exte.'1t of grcund',.;ater
contamir103.tion and pJssible ranedial measures.
. 1
In F'ebruary 1984, four additional rronitoring wells were installed:
three da..ngradient wel~.; near the original well M2 (M2A, M2B, and M2C) ,
and one well west of thr landfill (MS) to be used to evaluate the extent
of groundwater contaminant migration.
In July 1984, the hydrogeologic/engineering re{:Crt evaluating the
extent of groundwater contamination was cc:mpleted (Meiser and Earl .
1984). The six corrective rreasures delineated in the re).X)rt included:
o Extending the PVC liner;
i .
o Installing new leachate collector drains;
o Installing a lS-mil PVC manbrane cap;
o Regrading soil to attain 2-1/2:1 or 3:1 fi11al outSlopes;
o Revegetating the sides and the top of the laI'ldfill; and
o Regrading soil to divert S\...::face water away fran the fill.
~lementation of these corrective measures was not Cc:mpleted. The
eastern edge of the landfi 11 is steep (greater than 8% slope) in areas,
and erosion is occurring such that the PVC liner is exposed in places.
Vegetatian is ncn-existent in the erosion areas.
several areas of seepage have been observed around the landfi 11.
One large seep area (awroximatel:r 20 feet by 20 feet) is located near
the southeast comer of the landfill at the base of the landfill slope.
Liquid fran the seep flows overland in a northeasterly direction until
it is intercepted by a drainage ditch. 'me ditch drains into' the
sediment pni near the eastern b:Juniary of the landfill. Reddish-brown
stains are present along the drainage path fran the seep to the eastern
sediment pni. 'A drainage channel extends frcrn the eastern sediment
pJnd east\oJard into the woods towardS Briar Run. IXlring heavy rainfall,
sed1.mant. pni. overflows into Briar R1m have been doCUmented (NUS 1983).
7
-------
Table 1
StM-M'l OF ANM.YTI~ RESULTS FOR SiI*1PLES
COI..LEX:Tm FRCM WEIL M2 MID
WI'INESS DRAIN PIPE,
FADER, AImSI' 1, 1983
(ug/L)
wi tness Drain Well
CCrrpJund Pipe M2
(l11oroethane 27 7
..
Q1l.oroethene 126 8
1,2-Dichloroetl1ane 11
1,1-Dichloroethane 109 16
1,2-Dichloroethene 140 3
1,1-Dichloroethene 10
1,1,1-Tricr_oroethane 6 47
Trichlc .-oethene 9 3
'I"atrachloroethene 14
Q1l.oraret.hane 2 2
Dichloranethane 86 3
Dichlorofluoranet:l1ane Trace
Trichlorofluoranetl1ane Trace 9
Benzene 34 2
Toluene 76 Trace
Ethyl b'..:nzene 12
C11orobenZene 4
SOUrce: T.R. Cahill and Associates, 1983.
8
-------
" .
Tab J;("~- 2 .
~y OF AN.'\LYTI<:::AL .<,"SUI:rs FOR S2\MPLES
COLLEX:"1'ED fRCM WELL M2, '!HE WI'1NFSS DAAIN PIPE,
~ BRIAR RUN,
PADER, ~ti"!'El"1BER 6, 1983
(ug/L)
Well Witness Drain Briar
COlT1pjta1d M2 Pipe Rlm
C11oroethane 8.7 6.7
Ctloroethene 18 Estimate 180 2.2
1,2-Dichloroethane 1.2 13
1,1-Dichloroethane 22 Estimate 150 1.5
1,2-Dichloroethene 9 100 1.7
1,1-Dichloroethene 8.4 2.1
1 ,1 ,l-Trichloroethane 65 16 1.5
Trichloroethene 4.1 ~.4 Trace
'l'etrachloroethene 18 5.8 Trace
Ctloranethane
Dichloratet.hane 4.& 34
Dichloroflucranethane Trace
Trichlorofluoranet.hane. 3~7
Benzene 6.2 47 1.0
Toluene ' , 97 1.0
... ...1
Ethyl benzene 19
Ctlorobenzene 3.8
SOurce: T.H. cahill an:! Associates, 1983.
9
.
..
-------
.. -
- .
Table 3
~YTI\' \L RESULTS OF '!HE ~
COLLEX:'1'ED FRCM
AN OFF-SITE
RESIDENI'IAL WELL,
PADER, OCI'OBER 14, 1983
(ugjL>
CanpJUI'd
well
Residential
-..
CJ1) ...:. roetl1ane
O1lur'oethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,l-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1,l-Dichloroethene
1 ,1 , l-Trichloroethane
Trj.l.:hloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
0110ratethane
Dichloranethz.i~"
Dichlorofluoranethane
Trichlorofluoranet.hane
~
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
O1lorober1zene
0.9
7.8
3.4
3.3
5.8
9
8.5
Trace
source:
T.H. cahill and Associates, 1983.
10
-------
Recent analytical results of seep water- fran near Briar Rlm and
leachate fran a nanhole near the sediment rnnd are shown in Table 4.
sample fran Briar Run, approximately 200 yards downstream of the
sediment p::md outfall, in March 1988, show'ect toluene (1. 3 r:o) and
cis-l,2~chloroethylene (1.0 Rb) (PADER 1'}88).
A
PADER has conducted quarterly zronitoring of the residential drinking
water wells in a southerly directiori fran the landfill since O:tober of
1983. As part of the ITCni toring program, PADER has sampled and analyzed
water for volatile organic CaT1J;OunCs fran approximately 30 residential
drinking water wells. Three residential drinking water wells have show'11
multiple organic contaminants. Table 5 is a list of organic cOlT1p)unds
and the highest concentration detected in the residential water wells
during 1987 and 1988 samples.
In :-1arch of 1989, the Strasburg Landfi 11 SitE. was added to the
National Priorities List (NFL) afu~r receiving a Hazard Ranking Score
(HRS) of 30.71. An HRS of !TOre than 28.5 is required for inclusion to
this list of the nation's !TOst ser lOUS haZardous ',taSte sites. Because
the StrasbUrg Landfill Site is an NFL site, it is eligible for long-term
SUperfund Renediation. .
Enforcenent Historv
In August 1975, PADER granted sa. a permit to operate a 22 acre
landfill. '!he opening was delayed until February 1979 because of local
concerns over the use of residentially zoned roads, the prop:lSed sale of
the landfill to StA aID permitting of a prop:>sed 200 acre expansion.
In the Spring of 1979 new PADER penni ts were granted 1-0 receive
certain industrial wastes. By July 1979, srA was accepting sewage
treatJrent plant sludge and ~ rranufacturing wastes. Tn December 197.~,
PADER prohibited the disp:>sal of certain industrial wastes because the
waste characteristics did not match those on the approved waste di5'fX)sal
application rrodule. 1\150 in December 1979, FADm fined srA fur iInproper
surface run-<>ff and sediment control. FADER ~enp:>rarily suspended
industrial waste dispJsal at sr.. in March 19[/', and permanen1:ly
prohibi ted iroustrial waste disp:>~,al in ~ 1980. BetW'E!eI1 January
and JlD1e 1981, FADER cited srA for operational problans (dust control,
daily cover, and litter control) at the landfill.
PACER corXlucted periodic insprtions, both cr"I1Ounced and
unannounced, during the landfill vperation. I)J.ring--an unannounced
inspection in April 1983, PADER fourn four major o~rating violations:
. ilT1pro~r run-<>ff control i slo~ in exces.~ ("\": allowed l.uuiLs i failure to
cover canpacted waste; and inadequate sedimentation and erosion control.
PACER issued srA a notice of violation and required tl1at the violations
be corrected within 30 days. '!he violations were not corrected within
the specified time. In May 1983, PADER Sl1SJ;)E!I1ded the larxtfill operating
~nnit and ordered the lanifill closed. srA closed the landfill in May
1983, by providing a final soil cover, a P\C cover, stabilized the site
with an additional layer Of soil, planted vegetation, and installed a
leachate storage tank systan. PADER also issued an order requiring SIA
. ;
, .
il
.8
-------
..
Table 4
~y OF ~YTIGJ:. RESULTS FOR
SEEP AND rANDFIIL ~ ~
(ug/L)
CCJ1P'UrlCl
seep East of
5ediment: Porx1
\
20
Vinyl Q1J.oride
l,l-Dichloroethane
trans-l,2-Dichlor~lene
1,2-DiChloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Toluene
Q1J.orobenzene
Xylenes
cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Q1J.oroethane
Ethylbenzene
10 '
30
1.0
4.3
2.9
3.4
2.2
8.4
26
2.0
35.0
7.8
1.0
Landfi 11
Leachate
10
280
15
Est. 950
13
Est. 50
12
130
SOurce: ~, March 9, 1988.
12
.
-------
-
Table 5
LISI: OF ~ FCX.1ND IN
RESIDENl'IAL DRJMCIN:; WATER WELLS
(ug/L )
Contaminant
Ma.xinum Detected
Concentration
Benzene
3.4
Chlorobenzene
1.4
Chlorofonn.
1.7
.1 , I-DichloroetlJane
16.0
l,2-Dichloroethane
1.3
cis-l,2-Dichloroethy1ene
413.9
l,2-Dichloropropane
1.2
l,l,l-Trichloroethane
2.5
Trichloroethylene
35.8
1 11 12 ,2-Tetrac:hloroethy1ene
3.5
Vinyl. chloride
2.5
SOurce:
~ 1987-1988.
13
.
-------
to rarove ce-llected leachate for off-'3i te treatment and di.sp:>sa1.
nJring sampling by ~ER in Cktob::r 1983, volatile organic
c~ were detected in off-site residential drinking water wells
Based an their findings, ?ADER ~l~ed a p:riodic !TOni toring proc: 1'311\
of the residential drinking water welL;.
In August 1986, EPA prep3Ied an fiRS package to determine the
Strasburg Landfill site eligibility for prop:>sa1 to the NFL. The
Strasburg Larxlfill was prop:>sed to the NPL on l1pjate 11:7, in May 1988.
At tl1at tiIre, EPA con::hJcted a p:>tentially re5tXX15ible party (PRP)
search. As a result of this investigation, EPA c~iled a list of
notice letter candidates. Additional information on enforcanent
activities is included in AttaCl1ment B.
Nature and EXtent of Con~
This section will focus :'In the contaminants that may p,.,e hazards
to the p..Lblic health due to t.tle release of leachate frem th~ major seep
area at the southeast corner of the landfill and the contami .1ated
drinking water supply.
T.p~rh;:!te 5ee?
The leachate fran the seep at the southeast corner of the landfill
has not yet been directly sampled and analyzed; hoINever, data are
avai lable on landfi 11 leachate collected fran a rranhole near the
sediIrent p:>nd and a seep located between the sediment p:>nd and Briar Run
Creek. Recent analytical results for samples of these materials are
given in Table 4. These materials are presumably derived fran the saIre
general source as the liquid fran the seep at the southeast comer of
the landfill and may exhibit similar contamination pattern~. .
The liquid discharging fran the southeast seep flOW'S overland in a
northeaster ly direction to a drainage ditch that empties into the
sediIrentation p:>nd iIrmediately east of the l.andfill.. roring heavy
rains, the sedimentation I,X)l1d overflOW'S and discharges via an overflow
stack running east'JaI'd fran the" !X>11d through the woods and into BriaJ.
Run, which in tUZ11 flows into BraI1dy..rine Creek. Liquid dis :harged frem
the southeast seep may alSO migrate to groundwater via infiltration at
various p:>ints along the overland flow pat.l'lw'a.y. Groundwater rrcvanent in
the area. is mainly via fractures in the Peters Creek SChist Formation.
Potential pathways of ext-OSUI'e to the seep material in;lude the
fOllMnq:
o " Direct contact (in::luding dermal and oral exp:>sure) with the seep
material by \oIOrkers on-site and by members of the general
p:>p.l1ation (adults and children) who might enter the site for
miscellaneous plIp:)Ses; for exarrple, children playing in the
area ;
o Inhalation of volatile organics emitted fran the seep material
and soils along t.he overland flow patl1wa.y by on-site workers an:1
14
.
-------
~.l
mat1bers of the general fXJpllation that may C(U'e into close
proximi ty to the seep material on its over lan:l flC1J pat:l1w'ay j ard
o Dermal, oral, and inhalation exp:>sure to contaminants that might
reach Briar Run or the Brandywine Creek by 11S\~ Jers of the general
fXJpllation using the Brandywine for recreatiOnal p.lI"pJses such as
canoeing, tubing, swimning, bathing, wading, fishing, or as a
drinking water source. .
'lhe seep material ItBy also have infiltrated the grourd and reached
the groundwater which is used as a water supply source by 263 residences
in the vicinity of the landfill.
Contaminated Water Stmclv
A number of hazardous volatile organic contaminants have been
detected in grOlll1dwater derived fran domestic wells in the vicinity of .
the site. r-tlltiple contaminants have been detected in three out of 25
residential water supplies that were sampled during 1987 and 1988. The
contaminant concentrations are 5lm1rarized iI' Table 6.
There are a variety of expJsure pathways to the contaminated
groundwater which, Irost notably include:
o Ingestion of grOU11dwater by drinking;
o Inhalation and denral absorption, or ingestion of contaminants
during showering or bathing j and
o Inhalation and dermal absorption or ingestion of contaminants as'
a result of other household use of groundwater.
Of those liSted a.OOve, the first t'NO sets of water-related expJbure
pathways are expected to be neSt impJrtant. Drinking water ingestion is
a major expJsure pathway because subStantial anDUntS of contaminated
water may be consumed. ShOwering and bathing result in significant
expJS\lres due to inhalation of contaminantSvolatilizrn fran the water
at typiCal shower temperatures, and the large skin surface area subject
to dermal absorption. .
Public H42~ 1 th Evaluation
'me cantaminant.s in the landfill leachate and s~. (Table 4) and in
the residential water supplies of the affected hares (Table 6) consist
of a variety of hazardous volatile organic c~. This section
provides a sunrnary of the pJtential risks to human health fran these
contaminants in the absence of arrj reredial action.
T.p~rMte seeo
since the southeast seep has not yet been analyzed directly, it was
determined to be iIlappropriate to attarrpt to quantitatively estiInate
~ential expJsures and risks resulting fran direct contact with seep
15
.
...
-------
~
-
Table 6
~CNS OF ~ IDENI'IFIED IN
RE'SmENl'IAL DRJ:NKIN:; W1aER WELLS
COntaminant
Number o£
TiIres .
Detected\ 1 )
;a.verage
Detected
Concentration
(ug/L)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration J
(ug/L>
Benzene 1 3.40 3.4
Ol.lorobenzene 1 1.40 1.4
Ol.lorofonn 1 1. 70 1.7
l,l-Dichloroethane 7 6.26 16.0
1,2-Dichloroethane 1 1.3 1.3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 7 90.2 413.9
1,2-Dichloropropane 1 1.2 1.2
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 7 14.9 35
( 1,1, I-Trichloroethane 7 1.69 2.5
Trichl.oroethylene 7 14.57 35.8
Vinyl Ql10ride 2 2 2.5
(1) Total number of times the contam:i.Ilants were observed in residential water supplies
tested by PADER during 1987 am 1988. '!his mJmber may include multiple observatiorl..q
of tl1e sane contam:i.Ilants in the same residences on different sampling occasions.
SOurce:
PADER 1987-1988.
16
-------
'!
materia.l,. i11ha.lation of volatile contaminants emitted by thE! seep
material: or soils in COntaCt with tl10se materialS, or recreational or
other uses of the Branc1y...rine Creek. Eight of the thirteen (;ontaminants
found in the seep east of the sediIrentation p;n:i have also been found in
the ~tic water supplies of residences in the vicinity of the
landfill. nus suggests that seepage frem the landfill may i1ave
contributed to contamination in these water supplies. '!he hydrogeology
of the area has not been sufficiently characterized to permit a
quantitative estimate to be l1'ade of the extent to which the southeast
seep may have contributed to the grourrlwater contamination found in
nearby residential wells.
Contaminated water SUp:>lv
'Ihe grOUI1Clwater in the vicinity of the Strasburg Landfill Site has a
c. significant pJtential adverse health impact on the affected hares
presently using the groundwater for danestic water SUWly p.lI1X)ses.
- -. Both the drinking water and .sheJWering expJsure patl1Ways evaluated in the
i ITS contributed significantly to the estimated ri~ks associated with
using the contaminated gro~ter.
Exp:>sure estimates and hazard and risk estimates corre5P)nding to
t.IO exp:>sure scenarios were prepared baSed on the SUperfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual (SPfiEM) (U.S. E:P1\, Q:tober 1986). '!he first
scenario uses the average concentrations found in the residential wells
and was assumed to represent a typiCal exp:>sure level, baSed on current
inforrration. '!he second scenario uses the maxinun concentration found
in any of the residential wells, and was assumed to represent a
reasonable worst-case scenario. MditiOnally, for risk assessment
p.lI1X)ses, groundwater contaminants detected in the residential drinking
water wells were dividr..j into p:Jtential carciI1cgens and noncarcinogens
according to EPA weight-<>f-evidence criteria. Table 7 sumnarizes EPA' 5
classification of t~ 11 contaminants of concern.
under the typiCal expJsure scenario, the aggregate hazard' index for
the noncar("'inogenic contaminants is less than 1; therefore, no 2I£1verse
noncarcinogenic health effects would be ~ed. '111e aggregdte
carcinogenic risk, however, was 4.13 x 10- , or about 1 in 2,400. '!his
aggregate carcinogenic risk is 400 times greater t..1an the 1 x 10-6 (one
in a million) lifetime cancer risk level propJsed by the EI?A as a p:>int
of departUre for selecting acceptable carciI1cgenic risk levels at
hazardous waste sites. Uf¥:1er the reasonable t"IQrst -case scenario, the
aggregate hazard imex was 37. 2, indicating that n.JncarciI1cgenic adverse
effects nay be p:JSSible. '!he aggregate carcinogeruc risk was 7.45 x
10-4, or about 1 in 1,350 (700 times greater than the EI?A 1 x 10-6
prop:Js&,;, risk level).
Target grOtD1dwater concentrations for the pJtentially carcinogenic
contaminants \tJOuld be such that the aggregate carcin;:)genic risk would be
less than 1 x 10-6. Table 8 provides one canbination of concentrations
corresponding to an aggregate risk of 1 x 10-6 in which the risk is
divided equally am:mg the contaminants. 'lhese are calculated, health
baSed, values and sore of the concentrations may fall belOW'.the
detection limit of starmr'd EPA analytical rrethods.
17
-------
.-.
'-
i,.
Table 7
'.
. .;:
~:m:aNICITY crASSIFICM'ICN OF ~
~m::; 'ID
EPA WEIGHl'-OF-EVIDEN:E au'I'E:RIA
Contaminant
EPA. carcinogenicity
Weight-of-Evidence
. category
Benzene
l,l-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene(cis)
A
D
~,
B2
C
B2
D
C
C
D
B2
A
Q1lorobenzene
Q1loroform
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
l,l,l-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl d" ~vride
SOurce:
EPA 1986a .
Ke": ;
t-\ = Hum:m carcinogen - sufficient evidence' fran
epidaniOlogica.l studies
82 = Probable a.mian carciI1cgen - usually a cCltlbination
of sufficient eviderx:e for animals anj ~te
data for humans
C = Possible Human carciI1cgen - limited evidence of
carcinogenicitY in animals in the abSence Of
human data
. D = t>bt Classified - inadequate an:imal eviderx:e of
carcinogenicity
18
.
-------
'-
Table 8
~ ~ <:::cN:ENI'RATIroethene
Vinyl Q1l.oride
0.123
0.0014
SOurce:
EcOlogy and Environment 1989.
19
.
-------
Target' grolIl'ldw 3.t,~r concentrations for the noncarcinoqenic
contaminantS 'w'Ould be such that the aggregate hazard i.rQ.:x 1NQuld be less
than 1 (iIxticatingro adverse noncarcinogenic health effects would be
expected) . Reducti~, of the concentration of cis-l, 2-dJ.chloroethene to
less than 11.1 ug;r. '.vould reduce the hazard iIJdex under' the VJOrst~ase
scenario to less tr. ~:l 1.
Drinking water standardS and criteria which rray also be considered
in selecting the target groundwater concentrations for p:>tential
remedial rreasures are given in Table 9.
Camunitv Relations
'A formal COnm..Inity'Relations Plan will be developed during the
project planning stage of the RIIFS. An information rep:>sitory was
established at the Coatesville Area Public Library and an Mninistrative
Record is ~vailable there for I=Ublic review. .
In re:..,~tion to the Focused Feasibility Study (ITS), some ccmmmity
relation ,":tivities have occurred. The ~lic. notice of ~'s propJsed
plan, to amess itens in the ITS, was plblished on April 24, 1989; A
thirty-daj plblic canrent pericd on the ITS beyan on April 24, 1989 and
extended to May 24, 1989. A plblic meeting was held on May 17, 1989 at
the Po Mar Lin Fire Company in unionville, FA. A transcript of the
I=Ublic rreeting was placed in the Mninistrati ve Record. Q.lestions and
COlllllentS received during the I=Ublic COi1ll61t. pericd and presented at the
I=Ublic meeting are discussed in the respJnSi veness Slm1T\a.IY.
Acclicable. Relevant and Accrooriate Re:nrirenents (ARAR,s)
. '!he renedial action alternatives selected for the b.IO problen areas
of concern (the leachate seep and .' he contaminated water ~1y) must
meet or exceed all applicable, relevant and appropriate requirenents
(ARARg) unless a waiver provi~~ by ~ section 121 (d) (4) and 42
use 9621 (d) (4) is invoked. '
Renedial action alt.:!..natives for the leachate seep are .Y.Jt intended
as final ranedial act,ln11S for the site. MARs are \oIaived (40 use 9621
[c] [4] [a» for t.ht:: .:m-site pJrtion because it is only part of a total
renedial ...ction alternative to be developed in the up:aning RIIFS.
Offsite disp:>sa.l requiranents will canply with all RCRA transp:>rt and
diSp:>sal regulations. . ,
For tl: ! contaminated water ~ly, the maxinun contaminant levels
(M:I.s) established unjer the safe Drinking Water h:t constitute ARARs.
EI'A health advisories and 1 x 10-6 cancer risk concentrations are
to-be-considered ~~) guidan:e for the ITS.
DescriPtion of Alternatives
'l\.Jo Renedial ~ion Alternatives (RMs), including the no-action
. alternative~ were developed for the leachate seep area and three RAAs
including the no-action alternative were developed for the contamil1ated
water supply.
20
.
-------
Table 9
DR.I:NImJ:i ~ STANIJARDS MID CRITERIA
FOR RESIDENl'IM. WEU. ~
.....
'0
r
Lifetime 10-6
C""J1Cer Risk
Conc~ntration for
I.ncti vidual Comp:>unds
in Drinking Water
(ug/L)
contaminant
safe Drinking
Water h:t M:L
(ug/L )
Drinking Water
Health °Mvisories
O'1ronic
(ug/L>
anzene
011orobenzene
Q1loroform
5.0
1.2
300
100
5.7
l,l-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
5.0
1,400
70
0.38
0.38
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene --
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200
0.51
0.18
200
TriChloroethylene
Vinyl Q1loride
5.0
2.0
3.2
0.015
SOurce:
40 CFR 141 and ~ 1986a.
21
-------
Descritt.ion of Alternatives For r,p~~hat~! seep
Al ternati ve 1:
~~ion
As mandated by ~, EPA is requireu to review a no-ac.:don
alternative for any anticipated task designed to ranediate a site.
UI1der the no-action alternative, the grolIf1d',.rater and surface water
lTOnitoring program implemented by the PADER would be continued. The
grolIf1d',.rater lTOni toring would track migration of contaminants from the
landfill and lTOnitor water quality in the area hanes. N:) active
remedial zrea.sures would be anplOyed.
Alternative 2:
COllect Leachate and Treat Off-Site
'!he canpJnents of Alterna, ive 2 are 5lm1I\ari2..~d as follows:
o Excavate a ditch below::he leachate seep .~~?proxirratelY 25 feet
long,S feet wide, and ~ feet deep. All material excavated from
the ditch will be prope.:ly containerized f.)r off-site disp;jsal at
a RCW\ authorized facility;
o Install interceptor drain in the excavated ditch;
o Comect the interceptor drain to the existing leachate collection
and storage tank systan, with a 4-inch solid P\C pipe, through
the existing leachate collection systan manhole (assurre material
excavated dul i.ng pipe installation can be used as backfill over
the pipe); cud
o AsstmY' "'rr~'I1t diS};X)sal arrangenents, including the transp::H:'t of
lead1di ,. I,) .1 RCRA authorized treatment faL:lity, will continue.
Figure 4 shOws the (II" .1 Us of Alternative 2
Descritt.ion of Alternatives for Contamird,.ted water SUDolv
A.l ternati ve 3:
~~ion
'!he discussion provided for the previous no-action alternative for
the leachate seep alSO descrit'~ the no-action alternative for the water
supply operable 1.mit. Grouro .lter and residential water supplies would
continue to be naUtored, ~'t no active remedial treaSUres ~ld be
taken.
Alternative 4:
Point-of-Use Treatment with 1>cti vated Caroon
'nUs alternative involves installation of activated caroon treatment
systens (see Figure 5) at the affected residenCes. 'these systans would
treat all water entering the house distribution systans. Canisters
conta:ining activated carton would be Pl.3ced directly inside the houses,
in-line after the house pressure tank. Design assumptions are as
follows:
22
-------
U)
SEEP DRAINAGE AREA
EXISTING
TO
S' EXISTING
MANHOLE
IK4
:XISTING |
GRADE V r*
•PERFORATED 4" rVCMPf t-fltTEH f ABHIC SOLID 4" PWC PIPE-
LENGTH CROSS SECTION OF INTERCEPTOR DRAIN
V'-; ^^'y^- :'?>%:%! >!>: '• "• '::'.V:'-'
-f SHfOHATtO 4" fVC PIPE
WIDTH CROSS SECTION
Figure 4 DETAILS OF ALTERNATIVE 2
-------
L~'3
I~~n ~
~
)
WATER
SUPPl Y
WELL
IN
, I:'-
I
I
.- .
I :
Figure 5
T...
'0""
HOUSE
PRESSURE
TANK
---.
TO HOUSE
,T... DISTRIBUTION
.oln. SYSTEM
TW~i.VESS~L ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
- -- -1
-------
..
o 'l\io canisters operating in series;
o Flow capacity of 7 gallons per minute (gpn);
o canister configuration may be switched to nore econcmical
parallel operation as contaminant concentrations are reduced
over tiIre, allowing 14 gpn flow ca.pac i ty ;
o carton usage rate (calculated based on adsorption isothenn
data) is approximately 1,150 lbs of carton per year.
Final design of the carton treat.rrent lD1its will be based on capacity
and configuration of the house water supply, water usage rates, and
contaminant concentrations in the influent. It is recarrnended that a
treatability test be run using contaminant corcentrations fourd in th.~1
local gro\.lI'X1l..later in order to determine actual carton usage rates.
Alternative 5:
Extend CClTItU1i ty Water SUpply Systan
'nris alternative involves extending a cormunity water SUWly syste.:.n
to the hcmes affected by contaminated drinking water (see Figure 6).
Table 10 provides a sumnary oft.he costs associated with the R1>As.
costs are presented in 1989 dollars.
All
Table 11 addresses the nine criteria which EPA considers for each 8M.
Reccmrended lliternative
EPA's preferred alternatives for remediation of the Strasburg
Landfill Site are Alternative *2 for remediation of the
leachate/sediIrent pnj and alternative #4 for contaminated well
remediation (see Figures 4 ani 5).
'!he leachate seep control alternative, to collect and pipe the
leachate to the existing collection and storage systan, is preferred
because it meets established ranedial action objectS with regard to human
health and the envirUUl1::I1t. '!he CanpIDents of this alternative are Wull
daronstrated and represent a reliable and cost effective rnet.hod for
leachate seep COllection and dispJSa!. .
'me p:>int~f-use activated carton treatment alternative is preferr~
because the alternative meets established remedial action objectives by
providing an effective, reliable treatment rnet.hod to reduce p:rtential
human health risks fran ingestion, inhalation and dermal adSorption of
contaminated grotniwater. '!he treatI1'eI1t units are camerciallY
available and can be installed in a short tine.
By reducing volune and toxicity, these alternatives are protective
of h1.m1an health and the envir01Jmeht, and canply with all c3R'ropriate
MARs, are cost effective, utilize permanent solutions to the maxim.Im
extent practicable and satisfy the statutory preferen:e for pernanent
reduction of toxicity, nobility, or voltme. 'me alternatives will also
provide long-tem effectiveness if properly rraintained.
! -.
25
.
-------
~~~..:. .'
, .'.-
- .,~--' '.
.,~",~:-", .
. ~ . ': .." .
.
.' ~
~
~
. ','. : '. ~
"':~~~:;~:;";'''!: .',. %
PROPOSED
P'PEUNE
EXTENTION
SLA PROPERTY
INCLUDING
LANOFfLL AREA
AREA OF
CONTAMINATeD
RESIDENTIAL WELLS
I.
NEWLIN TOWNSHIP. CHESTER COUNTY, PA
o
SCAU
)i
, MiLl
,
o .5
- --
, KII.OMCTeR
,
Figure 6
PROPOSED COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY EXTENSION OF B 8& E
WATER COMPANY SYSTEM FOR ALTERNATIVE ('W~
26
-------
Table 10
~y OF RrnEDIAL ACTICN
AL'I'ERNM'IVE (RM) COSTS
~timated Esti..1'!Sted
capital CostS 0 & M CostS
lU.ternative 1
Leachate See~~ion SO SO
lU.ternative 2
Collect;Leachate/Treat Off-Site S32,320 SO
lU.ternative 3
Water SUpply-r-b-~ion SO. SO
. *
lU.ternatlve 4
Point-of-Use/carton Treatzrent S3,SOO/l1Clre Sl,SOO/year(hOme
lU.ternative 5
EXtend Ccmruni ty Water SUpply $297,950 S3S0/year
* - currently 3 hanes are being considered for Point-of-Use treat.trent.
., .'
"
27
-
-------
I..... II
~-, 0. :tIAlllO UAlllAll1it Of KQl{OIAl AlllRIIAIIVl:S
_1.1
AIt......t.... .
~.t. --
Alt.,....... .
110 Acll...
Au.n,.t h. 2
Coil..,. LUCH'.
..4 T,....
Olt -~It.
CG8'_I...... W.'., ~...,I,
AIt.,-n8' Iv. )
No A(; II on
eo.., II uc.
Wit" NIAAa
o 110. ."lIe"'l. 10
.... Ieee...,. -
o No. ."Uc8bl.
to .111. 'eacu..
.-
0"'" not ...,
Id.nll t 1.4 AAAR.
r..-.... _""'108
... ,....Ielt"
-III." or 1101-
0...1. aot -. ...
..tat"tor, ,,....reoc.
lew ..'.e.1"8 r-"
.1.. act.oo, ....
,..-...11, 884 .Ig-
.ltle.AII, ,84"".
.....cI." _lilt"
01" _01.... 01 ".'.'0-
OUI .ubl.' 8IK..
o 1,...,..... o' col-
lec'ad 'iNC".'. .t
8A 0"-'''. 'eeU-
It, .111 .Igoltl-
c..", rtMIUCa ...
to.lcI,'f. 'but. -,-
Jng ..... ,'.'..or,
p".'ar.-c8
0"'1'1'01 _t Ihe
...,.,101,. ..r.'8'-...'.
'01' ,.lec'lny r_-
411.. .c.~......~ 11101
p.,..nan. -, an4 "'Y-
Ait I~.n' I, r.d~.
'oal,h,,, ""'''''.
O( w~I.... o' ho.l.'-G.
ou=a ""'SI:tl.ncu\
SIIort -I.,.
tit eet .....u
o GrQUA".'." ....
.",'ee. ..t....
-'''01'148 "0\11".
8, .,,...4W ..".-
8Mte4; 'b"'.'0f'8"
t...,. .oul' ... ...
.Ioort-t.,. .".ct
08 ,b. "'.'f"0A88A1
..4 laU88A ........
o St.o.-t-t.... ,ubll'
......., an' ....1-
rOA88At.1 a"~"
.u. be A~H811.1.,
,rovl." .d~...la
'ult cORlrot ....
iura" .... I...A ....
OSHA proc..",., .r.
'0..",,84
, ea...t,.uctIOft II-
h ."'fo....'.I,.
Z .....,
-
o Cro"nd..' o. ."..
,,,,'.ce ..'.r ~.
Ito. .ng '"'1''' II.
.......d, 11IIp'.-
..,,'.d; th.,oh)....
Iho,e .01011. h no
ibo,t-t.... utl.....1
on It,. .nVI((H~101
8u\l h....n buo t . h
long-I.,.
tUectlvM8t..
aAd P~a
Q WII I AO' 'f...1
COA...t...1
eI8,..IIOG
.. CG8t1A- po..llIl.
.lg,.II.. o. coa-
...,,,.... to
,fQuA".'." ea'
,.......:. ..'er
Q loAy-''''. ...Ir-Oft-
_t.. ........
w"l per''''
Q Ooeo, DO' ....
.~I.b' "".4 ,....-
.1.1 oIIJect....
o P..I. e ",,'1.. ...-
'poA~. obJect I...
.f. AO' ..,
o t"eellve _Ibod
'0' ..K".t.
cOlleellOG
Q ~..~ col'ec'.d
I..c".t. h08 ,..
.It.
o P"ov,d., '01 t,..I"
...., o. l.-c..t. 10
,"..c:. to.''''.
0"." .,1.a.1"".4
Q [oul..lno'." d'. 'nk'"
'AW ".'.r ...p,1 I.,
10 "'au... OA 18..f.'
IIood wowlll COAt In..e
II ~. n~' -.-
.,,'aLtlhr..d '"--
dial wJo,-tlvo.
4,1.".."'1" ',..llh ,.-
,pun.. oI.tJ~llw".
.,,, nv' ....
1...I_t.lIlIlI,
o MoAIIOf"IAg prOS""
Ii .1.....,. 'A
....I.Ac.
o ~on..." o. ....
aU.f....h. ..w.
be- ..11-
'--.:aR"r.'.d and
'og.I"~ '86'''.'''''
. rall.ta'. "'''04.
'10M" IMC".'8 ....
cOllecllo. 8Ad
dhpo".1
Q Munllul"ln~ ,'oy'"
h a,....d, In
.ah'.n..:.
Coo.
.._.
o f,,1 ...184
101.1
c.pll.1
cOih a".
U2, )20
u hvu.
C_It,
1lMe1l..
o -III .01 ,r.veA'
I..chat. ..., COR-
,..I...t .'8f.lloo.
.. fb. 'OAI-t....
"'VIHX""'.'
tb,.... .111
,.,.....
Q "...1. .,I.b'I.""
,._.Iel wj.c-
lew..
o Ite884lal obJe«;1 h.,
::::~~:'~~r. ':~ II ..
..w810it'84 and .wol-
u.a.d I" tb. 'U"'''.-
q...t Rl/tS
u 1',,&11 h. ...llh
u&lJ8(' I I wo. .,..
n~t ...
St.l.
Ac.;."...c.
o Iik)uI4 AO' be
accept.a... 10
conc.r."
.t.t. .i*'cl.~
0liiio..14 k
occ.,labl. 10
eonc.,-n" .Ial.
ayenel."
u lMIu..ld nul a..
...:c....etal. hi
cun.:.' n."
~.... .~.R..:I."
PfotKtlOA O'
_a tteall"
..4 I".
(AwlrOA88Qt
o long-t.r.
"'wYA ....Ith
.n4 _"lrOlll-
....1.'.
........ ., II
p.",'"
OM..', ..Io&'-
I hh.'" .....-
die' ObJec-
th." ....
,.ga"4 I"
I........ "..II h
.nd t...
environ......'
u 'un~-'o'"
h..... h...tlh
rh"" tr..-
.......".Iu..
and 4....'
."."'p"un
ul ...un...t-
...I.d Ijhulh"-
..1.. .111
i'u,..I:a1
-------
'.~I. II 1ce.....1
"'ul...:tlUR O'
P..-..-t _UCtlO8 (f~';~::U tk80n ttNltb
_1.1 eo.p Ileac. o' 'oxlclt" SbOl",-I.... CU88UA' " SI... 8n'" th-
AI'.r..tl... II"~ MAIle _lilt" or '91- U fee, ....... _4 P......8Aca ..,I_t.bIIIlV c.... Reaction A(;cep 'onc8 fnwlrUA88Q'1
AI,."".".a 4
PoI.'-o' -110. . 0 ...... 1-1111... 0 Ca,- "'.....pIlO8 0 No 'hort-.... ..- 0 Af;t h.t.d ,arbon" 0 eo-.I'clall, ."011- 0 Caplt.' 0 Aayu'." ,,'Atenonco 0 Wo4Ilca p,o.14. 0 M..h .,'ab'"
Ac. h.'''' MAIle ... aub&«4YM' r.- lee'. OA ..... - .fleetl". tech- .". eAI .11.1, co." ""Mul. .......,.... aD acceptable 11.".4 r..."
'I; c.,- "..._t _er.II08 o' 11>. ...u. uti ... DO'og, tOt" '880..' ...IM _t~ lor ,..1.' ha_.. .,........'h. 410' obJec:-
, .p...t cer- .111 _..,.~. o. OI'88olclo '''''''A8 ew:-. 10.. OIM 0 '..-'ocllc '0.,11", tlw..
_t 11>.. .t.t.tor, ,,,''''1''1 III.'." COIo t. 8Qd- o' 'he "...184
,r.f.reac. 0 U.. '0 p...-dt... 0 a.llabl.. _11'04 lor ..,pll.' ."'81, ....,. _II' be CQA-
aA' Cf.....la'a 1.- ,rowldlAg ..1. blgIId- dlKl8CI b, 'b. ...t.
"'811.1108 0' WAI" .rI.",'a8 .o'.r It '0 corbon 10 1.lur. .".ell....
I. lKI8ea .,11..... rtliul.,. ..a.'ano.c. "'-ve ,of. ~.ro.ang 01 Ih.
.1 2 to 4 ...1 Ic..8d..,. .. 1."-
'01100"
011111 reduce po,.,.-
.te, rh"', 10 blol88A
....... fro. '''9.'-
1100 ...41 41.,...1 84-
aCM"pllOA O' cOQ'.r
l.ot84 groun4..'.r
AIt.,-....h. ~
(.. eA' eo-r..a". 0 "." 1_1111" 0 .,111 AO' .... IbI, 0 Shorl-'.r. .1184:', 0 118'" r.d"". po'.,,- 0 R.I'.. Oft ,'0"4.r4 u (:.,118' 0 P,.o.,I...." . "u...,.". 0 "oyld p",.....ld. 0 Will ,.......c.
Mot.,. So..",I. MAIle ...t..lot'l' p,.'.rMC. 04 """A ........ 88.. ..., ......., '0 ......" -8,.....1°9 .nd c....., 0' 4...0111t 1....,10&11. o. acc.p'obl. pul..-.llo'
e.wlrOA88A' .111 ~ "..II... h08 Ing..- :::I~ :..:~~~:. ".'o.h.l, .01... 01 '.'-.0' h. ,.1"...::.. I..
'".8gllgIDI.. '''0- lion .n, ..,.., .4- ....,..... .....,. It...... .....llh
..... OW ,leA- aoc"llon 01 conl..- ~'1W)d ot ....,I,ln~ c~sU r.'- 0 Acl..o' ~uu::..I'..t.:llon hU8 In".,..
d."'" .,. '011011.. I..'.' I'OUR'..'.' ....r 10.. ---"I Ie .Ih.lr .clhllld.O" 1"'- lion .u'
...rlAg CORi'ructlOA .,. I.. (08- hU88080.'" 1'...,,- d.,...1 ."'o.
p.r.o 10 .,.1. -0..141 ~ ,u,...I'un ul
o II.. '0 d..lyn .Ad 0 0,.,.. '0.. and ..In. polo'-ol" .p,roa',,'ulw ~ Cu..ltWIIln.'84
conlu",,1 .,....,.. . 8O"'C. bond IIMI --, ..to. .,...1- da,. ~I.u"!,d-o'.r
.1 -1.1-- o. 6 ....r 8ulbW"ltr .....
8Qn'.'
.
o IPQIee.II.1 41.1....
.., b8 Caus.d b,
II.. 10 ~I.I.
r'ihh-o'-wa, ."4
"1' lech.'e.1 ."d
IIAo"elat A.YO"-
o"on, hl....n cu"-
'."Q.d ,0...11."
-------
. -----. ----
..
-------
References
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IIJ, 1986, fiRS of Strasburg
L.anifill, Strasburg Road, Coatesville, Pennsylvania.
EPA 1988a, SUperfund ExpJsure Assessment Manual, EPA 540/1-88/001,
Office of Energency and Raneclial Re5p:)nse, Washington, D.C.
Foster, S.A. and P.C. C1rostowsJd., 1986, Integrated HousehOld ExpJsure
M:rlel for Use of Tap Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic
C1eniCals, 79th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Associ-
ation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 22-27, 1986.
ICRP, 1984, Rep:>rt of the :ask Group on Reference Man, ICRP Publication
23, Perg.-~rron Press, New York.
IRIS, variow: (1.11 !"~:, 1"PA's cCl11p.lterized online Integrated Risk Informa-
tion System (1H1 S I, using the rrcst recent upjate for each chenical.
~iser and Earl, July 23, 1984, Results of GroUJ1dwa.ter Investigation,
Strasburg L.anifill, Newlin Township, Clester COtmty.
NUS Corp:>ration, ~vanber 1983, Project for Performance of Renedial
Resp:>nse ~ivities at uncontrolled Hazardous SUbstance Facilities
- Zone 1, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
OIID, 1988, EPA Office of Research and Developnent cOIl'pilation "Toxicity
Data for Potential carcinogenic Effects-Risk O1aracterization,"
Jtme 1988.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Lab::>ra-
tories, ~r 11, 1988, Special Analyses Rep:>rts.
, Decenber 14, 1987, Special Analyses Rep:>rts.
, Jtme 16, 1987, Special Analyses Rep:>rts.
, July 7, 1987, Special Analyses Rep:>rts.
, March 9, 1988, Special Analyses Rep:)rts.
, 1987-1988, Analytical Laboratory Rep:>rts on Residential
Water SUWlies.
T.H. cahill and Associates, Environmental Consultants, ~vE!11ber 29,
1983, GroundWater Contamination at the Strasburg Landfill, A RepJrt
to the Board of ~rvisors, Wes-r. Bradford Township, West C1ester,
Pennsylvania.
united States Environmental Protection 'h:jency, 1985, Health Assessment
. I:'ocUment for Trichloroethylene, Office of Health and Environrrental
Assessment, Washington, D. C.
-------
, 1985a, 'D1e Driilking W. tt".er Criteria D:x:ument for Trichloro-
ethy lene, Office of Drinking vater, washington, D. C.
, 1985b, Handbx>k on Rer.. mal k:tion at Waste Dis{X>sal Sites,
Washington, D. C .
, ~vember 13, 1985c, NatiOnal Primary Water Regulations,
Volatile Synthetic organic O1anicals, Rule and Pro{X>sed Rule, 40
CFR Parts 141 and 142, Federal Register 50:46880-46935.
, september 24, 1986, Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assess-
ment, Federal Register 51:33992-34012.
, 1986a, SUperfund Public Health Evaluation MarnJal, Office of
En"ergency am Rare::'j al RespJI1Se.
, 1987 kXiend1:m to the Health Assessment D:x:urnent for
Trichloroethylene: Jpjated Carcinogenicity Assessment for
Trichloroethylene, (ffice of Health ani Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D. C.
, 1987a, Health klvisories for 25 organics, Office of Drinking
Water, washington, D.C.
, 1987b, National Primary Drinking water Regulations:
Synthetic Organic O1aniCalS; MJnitoring for unregulated
ContaminantS, Federal Register 52:25690-25717.
-------
Attachment A
Strasburg Landfill, Newlin Township, Pennsylvania
Resp:msi veness SUnmary
A. Overview
EPA Region III 11,1S ['(()~sed ilT1plerenting an expedited resp)nse action at
the Strasburg Land1 i i 1 to address t"w'O concerns: control of a leacp.ate
seep on the southeast ~;ide of the landfill; and prov{ding an alternate
water supply for affected residences. A Focused Fe~bility Study (ITS)
was completed to evaluate reneciial measures for the tW'O issues. 'Ihe
preferred alternative specified in the Record of Deci3ion (ROD) for
control of the leachate seep is installation of an interceptor trench
and connecting the trench into the existing leachate collection and
storage tank system. currently, leachate is I"eroved daily and
transp)rted by tank truck to a RCRA authorized treatment facility. The
preferred alternative specified in the ROD for- provision of an alternate
water supply to affected residenCes is !;X)int~f-use activated carton
treatment t.mi ts.
From the minor conments received during the p.lblic contllent period and
the p.lblic meeting, the residents and local goveL11IIslt officials of
Newl in Township and West Bradford To\mShip supp:>rt ilT1plerentation of the
preferred alternatives specified in the ROD.
B. ~ckqround 011 COI'I1'IU..IIlitv Involvanent
Corrmmity interest in the Strasburg landfill site dates to the fall of
1983 when volatile organic comp:>tU1ds were detected in off-site
residential dri..nk:iIlg water wells. The Newlin Township and West Bradford
Township residents and govemnent officials are concerned aoout the
iropact the landfill may have on gro\JI1dw'ater, the area drinking water
source, air and surface water in the area of the site. '!he ilT1pacts to
these nella will be addressed during completion of the Reredial
InvestigatiOll/Feasibility Study.
C. SUrnnarv of Ccmnents Received I:X1rinq Public Cornrent Period
A p.lblic ccmrent period on the ITS was held fran April 24,1989 to May
24, 1989. A p.lblic meeting was also held at the Po Mar Lin Firehouse in
unionville, Pennsylvania on May 17, 1989.
One cc:mnent concerning the ITS was received during the p.lblic ccmnent
period and one C:UIII.ent concerning the ITS was received at the p.lblic
meeting. 'n1e two ccmnents and resp:mses are .stmnarized below:
. ~
1. '!he Clester County Health Depa.rt.ne1t made a CUIUeJ:lt. a.txJut the design
of the prop::>sed interceptor trench.
.
-------
StrasbUrg Landfill
RespJI1Si veness SUmnary
Page 2
EPA Resp:>nse: As the renedial design of the interceptor trench has not
been initiated, the carrrent raised will be considered during the remedial
design process.
2. A local resident carrrented at the p.lblic meeting on the decision to
install the individual activated carton treat.rnent units rather than
extending a pJblic water supply systEm.
EPA Resp:>nse: At this p'int, the econanics "-aver installation of
individual activated carbon treatment units..,- However, if additional
residential drinking water wells are found t8' be affected, the economics
of plI'cha.se and installation of i.ndi vidual tr"eatment units versus
extending a camtmity water systEm will be rl..=va..luated.
-------
Conm.mit,v Hell1tions Activities at the Str;:!~burq Landfill
COITIY11.D1ity relations aCtivities conducted at the Strasburg landfill site
to date have included:
An infonnation rep:>sitory, which was established at the
Coatesville Area Public Library (April 1989).
o A public notice, p.1blished by EPA, of the prop:>sed plan to
address items in the ITS (April 1989).
o
o A public meeting, held by EPA, at the Po Mar Lin Firehouse in.
unionville, Pennsylvania on May 17, 1989, to infom area j
residentS and local government officials of the exp:!dited ;:;
reSt=Cnse action and to obtain their comrents. "A. transcript or
the meeting is available at the Coatesville Area Public
Library .
, l.
.J
-------
AttachIrent B
Enforcenent History
The Strasburg Landfill Site was prop;Jsed to the National Priorities
List on Up:jate ~7, in May 1988. At that ti.rre, EPA conducted a
pJtentially resp:>nsible party (PRP) search. As a result of this
investigation, EP.A compiled a list of 26 notice letter candidates.
EPA issued "special" notice letters (SNL) on o:tober 7, 1988,
invi ting the parties to participate in a Raredial Investigationl
Feasibility Study (RIIFS) at the site. A sixty day ITDratoriurn follOWed,
during which time the PRPs were encouraged to indicate to EP.A whether or
not they were willing to participate in the RI/FS. Of the parti:3 who
received SNLs, two (I):)wningtown RegiOnal Water Pollution Control Board
and West C1ester Area SChOOl DistriCt) indicated a willingness tr}.
cooperate, however, they wished to be considered as "de minirnus'" .
parties. 'I\.'elve other parties (Alex Barry, Buckley & Co., 5oIrer~ ~
Stri~rs of Virginia, E.L CUp:>nt j~ ~urs & Co., Hercules, II1I..:.,
Leksi Co., Maxus Energy Corp., O:c:dental Electrochenicals Corp., West
O'lester Goose Creek Treatment Plant,' w~ Goshen Town.s1:lip, Delaware
container Corp., a1ld Eldredge, Inc.) deClined to participate, and the
rE!tBinder provi.ded no reSIXJnse.
Since no viable F"RPs agreed to perfonn the RIIFS, the site was
transferred to tile Sll~rfund Branch for a ftm:1-lead RIIFS. A second
roU11d of SNLs were sel \1- out on May 2, 1989 for the Prop:>sed Plan which
calls for the collection and treatment of leachate fran the s~ area
and the installation of activated carton treatment systens at the
affected residences. 'nle sixty day ITDratorium comnenced on May 11,
1989, allowing the PRPs the q:pJrttmi ty to cane forward and finance the
prop:>sed remedial alternatives. If , after sixty days, EPA receives a
negative r~nse (or no respmse) fran the PRPs, EPA will either p..IIsue
Section 106 enforcerent action against the PRPs or finance the
renediation of this operable mUt.
on May 10, 1989, a federal lien was filed in the united Sta-ces
District court, Eastern District of Per1nsyl vania, against Strasburg
LaI1df i 11.
------- |