United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-91/128
September 1991
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Old City of York Landfill, PA
-------
60272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R03-91/128
No.
4. TJ»»«nd8t*W»
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Old City of York Landfill, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
6. Report (M»
09/30/91
7. Al*IOf(*)
8. ivrfoniuiiy OfQwdzition RcpL No.
10. ProiMVTMk/WorkUnHNo.
11. Contracl(C) or Gfrmt(G) No.
(C)
(0)
12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Typ. of ReportI Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. 8u
ntaryftole
16. Ab*V*ct(LMt:200vo«te)
The 178-acre Old City of York Landfill site is a municipal waste landfill in
Springfield Township, York County, Pennsylvania. Land in the surrounding area is
predominantly agricultural and wooded. The site is bounded to the southeast and the
northwest by tributaries to Codorus Creek, and these tributaries are partially fed by
seeps discharging from the valley and hillsides near the landfill. Ten residences
located within 1/4 mile of the site have or had ground water from domestic water
wells as their drinking water supply. From 1961 until its closure in 1975, the City
used 56 acres of the site as a landfill for municipal, wastes, however, some
industrial waste was also disposed of at the site. In 1978, the property was sold to
private owners. After local residents expressed concern over water quality, the
State conducted a residential well sampling program from 1981 to 1985. VOCs were
identified in six residential wells; as a result, public water main was installed at
the site. In 1982, the State notified the city and site owners that operation of and
existing conditions at the landfill were in violation of the Clean Streams Act and
directed the city to conduct a site assessment to evaluate clean-up measures. During
1987 and 1989, the City, under a State order, installed a ground water recovery and
(See Attached Page)
17. Documnt Anefyeie . Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Old City of York Landfill,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, gw, sw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE)
PA
e. CO6ATI FWdOraup
19. Secuity CtaM (Trite Report)
None
20. Security Ctea* (Ttite Peg*)
None
21. No. of Page*
90
22. Me*
(See HMSO33.1t)
See kt*truc6m on Mmn*
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-91/128
Old City of York Landfill, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
treatment system connected to an air stripping tower, which has not yet started
operation. Eight onsite collection vaults containing a total of 1,120 cubic feet of
orange-tinted sediment and water are located on the site. These vaults are part of an
old leachate collection system which is no longer functioning. In 1991, the owner
placed a deed restriction on the entire site to prevent ground water and surface water
usage, additional agricultural usage, subdivision of the property, and soil
disturbance. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the long-term threats to soil,
ground water, and surface water produced by the landfill and vault sediment. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes restoring and revegetating the soil
cover in the northeastern portion of the site; disposing of vault sediment offsite;
installing a diversion swale along South Road; installing a ground water
recovery/treatment system using the existing air stripper, or adding additional ones,
as needed, with onsite discharge to surface water; installing a landfill gas venting
system with monitoring probes; maintaining perimeter fencing at the leachate collection
values; and monitoring ground water, surface water, and sediment. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is $8,291,080 which includes an annual O&M
cost of $259,080 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Remediation of ground water will continue until
contaminant levels meet the lower of site background levels, which are methods
detection limits; and Federal and State standards including SDWA MCLs, proposed MCLS,
and risk-based levels.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL SITE
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Old City of York Landfill Site
Springfield Township
York County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial
action for the Old City of York Landfill Site in York County,
Pennsylvania. The selected remedial action was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. §S 9601 et. sea.; and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. Thic decision is based on the
Administrative Record for the Old City of York Landfill Site.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER),
acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, does not
concur with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine,
pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9606, that actual
or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, as
discussed in "Summary of Site Risks,1* if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
On October 27, 1987, the City of York, Rite-Way Services, and
Alleco, Inc. (on behalf of The Macke Company and Service America
Corporation) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with
EPA to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) for the Old City of York Landfill Site (the "Site"). The
Site was operated as a municipal waste landfill from
approximately 1961 to 1975. Material disposed of at the landfill
was predominantly municipal refuse with some commercial and
industrial wastes. During the RI process, it was determined that
ground water contamination emanates from the landfilled areas
onsite, that the existing soil cover has eroded over a portion of
che- northeastern corner of the Site, and existing leachate
collection vaults onsite are filled tc capacity with ccntamit.atocl
seaimeat, -
-------
The selected remedy for this Site addresses the long-term threats
present at the Old City of York Landfill Site. The selected
remedy includes the following major components:
o Restoration of the soil cover in the northeastern
portion of refuse Area #3 to a two foot minimum.
o Operation of a ground water recovery/treatment system
in both refuse Areas #1 and #3 and the installation of
additional extraction wells in these areas, if needed.
o Removal of sediment from the concrete collection vaults
with subsequent disposal at an offsite permitted
treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
o Installation of a landfill gas venting system to
prevent landfill gas migration.
o Construction of a perimeter fence at the leachate
collection vaults to prevent public access.
o Implementation of a ground water and surface
water/sediment monitoring program to ensure continued
protection to human health and the environment.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective.
This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies, to the maximum extent practicable, and
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a
principal element.
Because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining onsite above health-based levels, a review under
Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9621(c) will be conducted
within five years after the commencement of remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
to human health and the environment.
Edwin B. Erickson Date
Regional Administrator
Region 171
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR
DECISION SUMMARY
SECTION
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ....'.. 6
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 8
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION B
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS B
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 20
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 27
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . .29
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 33
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 37
XI. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 39
APPENDIX A. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX- B. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OLD CITY OP YORK LANDFILL SITE
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Old City of York Landfill Superfund Site (the "Site") is
located in a rural setting approximately 10 miles south of the
City of York, on South Road in Springfield Township, York County,
Pennsylvania (the Site is shown on Figure 1). According to local
tax maps, the Site occupies a 178-acre tract of land.
Approximately 56 acres of the Site were actually landfilled.
A substantial portion of the Site consists of rugged
terrain, with heavily wooded areas, thick briars and steep slopes
(over 260 feet of elevation across the Site). The Site is
bounded to the southeast and the northwest by tributaries to the
South Branch of Codorus Creek (designated herein as the Southern
and Northern Tributaries, respectively). The Tributaries are
partially fed by seeps discharging from the valley and hillsides
near the landfill.
The Site is currently used mainly for grazing horses and
recreation by a private landowner, and a small northern section
of the Site (not over landfilled areas) is leased to grow crops
for animal consumption. Grasses and coniferous trees cover much
of the former landfill with thick briars and primarily deciduous
trees growing along tributary channels toward Codorus Creek.
The Old City of York Landfill Site lies within the surface
drainage basin of the South Branch of the Codorus Creek. The
South Branch of Codorus Creek has the classification WWF (warm
water fishes) by FADER. Surface water flow from the Site is
generally southwest and drains into the northwesterly flowing
South Branch of Codorus Creek, which is southwest of the Site.
Site-specific drainage features consist of seeps emanating
from valleys and hillsides converging into tributaries which
empty into the South Branch of Codorus Creek (see Plate 1). The
tributaries are ground water fed throughout most, if not all, of
their courses. The two main tributaries which drain the Site
have been designated the Northern and Southern Tributaries, both
of which are perennial. The Southern Tributary, originating at
an unnamed seep approximately 1000 feet south of the Boser
residence, flows along the southern property boundary of the
Site. As the Southern Tributary flows to the southwest,
additional flow is provided by Tributary B, entering from the
southeast. In addition, East and West Seeps enter the Southern
Tributary from the north. A ponded area within the Southern
Tributary is located approximately 500 feet upstream of the
locations where the East Seep drainage channel and Tributary B
enter tSTe Southern Tributary. The ponded orea is approximately
20 feet wide, 80 feo.t Xonq-ana-8 inches deep.
-------
Figure 1
-------
I A(,| WAM N I^IJMNAGi
INQCIfVOI TOMK I, ANOf tl L
SI'KING* i| I 1) 1OWNSI*?
TURK CtHIN I ₯ PA
^_ y**l** '»y'_ J\
JT-- I~~ JPSv"'~_--^. C ~-TT~ ~~ -r~~*-**
-------
The Northern Tributary flows along the northwestern Site
property boundary and originates at a small spring-fed pond on
the Fletcher property. The Northern Tributary is also fed by
Tributary D which drains the central portion of the Site.
Tributary D is characterized by seeps generally occurring along
the southern side of its drainage channel. The upper reaches of
Tributary D are intermittent. Tributary C enters the South
Branch of Codorus Creek between the Northern and Southern
Tributaries. Tributary C is intermittent in nature.
The seeps are discussed separately from the streams due to
the nature and the physical characteristics of the seeps. The
seeps originate from the hillsides and valleys adjacent to the
landfilled areas and, as such, contain dissolved and suspended
constituents from the landfill refuse. The seeps have an orange
coloration as a result of iron content, commonly associated with
virtually all municipal landfill seeps as well as many naturally
occurring springs. In general, the seeps are low flowing and in
some cases intermittent.
Regional Geology
The Old City of York Landfill Site is located within the
Physiographic Province known as the Piedmont Section of the
Appalachian Mountain Chain. The Piedmont is underlain by
metamorphic sediments and volcanics of Precambrian and Paleozoic
age.
The bedrock beneath the Site has been mapped as the Marburg
Schist, a member of the Wissahickon complex. Extensive surficial
weathering of the schist has resulted in a relatively thick
sequence of clays (saprolite) overlying bedrock. The Marburg is
a chlorite schist consisting of bluish gray, finely crystalline,
phyllitic schist containing chlorite, albite, muscovite and
quartz. Therefore, natural concentrations of sodium, aluminum,
potassium, magnesium and iron would be expected as dissolved
constituents in the ground water and in the composition of the
saprolitic soils and stream sediments. The Marburg is
predominantly argillaceous and arenaceous in composition, with
evidence to suggest that it is at least partially volcanic. In
the area surrounding the Site, the orientation of the planar
fabric of the rock- and formational boundaries are mapped as
trending approximately northeast-southwest. In York County, the
Marburg Schist occurs as part of the Martic Overthrust. Quartz
veining in fractures is also common in the Marburg Schist. Based
on well information, the Marburg Schist is at least 1000 feet
thick.
Hydroqeolocry
The Marburg Schist lack? significant primary porosity. The
movement xsf ground water occurs mainly through poorly developed
-------
secondary porosity features such as fractures, joints, and planes
of schistosity. The hydraulic conductivity of the formation is
relatively low, with most water bearing zones occuring within the
upper 200 feet of the formation because of the decrease in
fracture frequency with depth. Most of the fracturing within the
Marburg Schist occurs parallel to the schistosity resulting in
significant anisotropy in ground water flow across the Site.
Borehole permeability testing (both packer tests and slug
tests) were conducted as part of the RI. Packer testing data
measured hydraulic conductivities ranging from less than l.OE-04
feet/day to 6 feet/day; however, other than a shallow zone tested
in Well F (30 to 66.6 feet below grade), the highest hydraulic
conductivity value recorded was 1.3E-01 feet/day. In general,
the packer testing data indicated a decrease in hydraulic
conductivity with depth resulting from a decrease in fracture
density with depth. Slug test results reported a hydraulic
conductivity of 3.3 feet/day in Well F with the values for the
other five wells tested ranging from 6.2E-01 ft/day to 6.7E-03
ft/day.
Ground water exists primarily under unconfined conditions at
the Site, with the water table surface typically within bedrock
underneath the knoll areas and within the weathered schist in the
ravines. Ground water flow is dominated by topography with
recharge occuring in the upland areas and discharge occuring in
areas such as seeps and tributaries to Codorus Creek. Ground
water within the upper weathered zones of the bedrock moves
laterally towards local discharge areas and also recharges deeper
portions of the bedrock through near vertical fractures which
intersect the upper weathered and fractured bedrock. However,
given the low fracture density and low permeability of the
Marburg schist at depth, as well as insignificant vertical
gradients, vertical recharge through these fractures is expected
to be localized and occur at relatively slow rates in the
vicinity of the Site.
Horizontal gradients across the Site are generally on the
order of 0.10 ft/ft, but are on the order of 0.20 ft/ft along
steep .slopes. The ground water flow velocities have been roughly
estimated to be in the range of l.OE-02 ft/day to 7.0 ft/day.
Seasonal water table variations have been observed to be minimal.
Ground water from the Site is dominantly discharged to the
Northern and Southern Tributaries as well as the seeps. The
Northern and Southern Tributaries are discharge zones and serve
as hydraulic barriers to ground water flow in the upper portion
of the bedrock aquifer away from the Site along the northwestern
and southeastern Site boundaries, respectively. Some areas of
seepage appear* to be associated with the discharge of ground
water within ti?e upper fractured and weathered bedrock and appear
to be pcrrenial (East Seep, feast Seep, and unnamed seep at the
-------
origin of the Southern Tributary),. while other seeps appear to
originate from perched water above competent rock and are
intermittent (seeps along the southern bank of Tributary D).
Regional Ground Water Usage
Under the EPA aquifer classification system, the aquifer in
the Site area would be given a IIA classification. The IIA
classification indictates that the ground water is currently
being used as a drinking water source.
The folowing homeowners have or had domestic water wells
within approximately 1/4 mile of the Site: Boser, Pucillo,
Glatfelter, K. Chilcoat, Fletcher (formerly Rohrbaugh), Rascoe,
Winter, C. Chilcoat, Williamson, and Waldman. The location of
these homes are shown on the map in Figure 2, and with the
exception of the Waldman's, all of these residences are located
along South Road. The Waldman residence is located southwest of
the landfill off PA Route 616.
In 1986, municipal water service was extended along South
Road for the use of the residents. Of the residents listed
above, the following residents were connected to municipal water:
Boser, Fletcher, K. Chilcoat, Glatfelter, Pucillo, Williamson,
and Winter. Residences which do not utilize municipal water are
Waldman and C. Chilcoat. There has been no historical
documentation of VOCs in the Waldman well and VOCs detected in
the C. Chilcoat well are considered to be unrelated to the
landfill. Other residents connected to municipal water in the
vicinity of the Site are Zimmerman, Kessler, and Spine.
Residents with domestic water not suitable for drinking were
notified by the FADER in 1984 to use an alternate potable water
source. In addition, the residents connected to public water
were instructed not to use their wells as a potable water source
by officials of Springfield Township. PADER (1982) recommended
to Springfiel Township that a building moratorium be placed on
properties peripheral to the Site, although no formal legislation
has been enacted. The Rascoe residence was destroyed by fire and
currently there is no residence on the property.
Land Us*
The land use around the Old City of York Landfill property
is generally farmlands and woodlands, and has remained
consistently so throughout the lifetime of the landfill. The
Springfield Township Comprehensive Plan (1976) designated the
site partly as a Resource Protection Area (southern portion of
the Site, closer to Codorus Creek), and the remainder as Rural
Holding Area. According to the Springfield Township
Comprehensive Plan, the policy of the Township toward Resource
Protection Areas vill be to: (r/ encourage only recreational
activities *nd uses; (2) discourage all tittier developmental
-------
I I v,,«
M
H
g
O
H
IN
v i t AST?/
:-i\iL-q?*/
mm^i.^^
'jmw,-: -:Mi
Wf I L I OC*TION MAP
(» n (IH Of YORK I ANDF II L
lOWNSIIP
Yoim r(»iNi». PA
rr P"JC,R
I I ITi
C,ROIINIIWATKM
^ 5
8°
a.
-------
activities; (3) delay indefinitely any substantial improvement to
local roads; and (4) require property owners in development areas
to protect by easement any portion of their property designated a
resource protection area by offering incentives for planned unit
and cluster development.
The Township policy towards Rural Holding Areas will be to:
(1) encourage donations of land or easements to the County,
Township or appropriate non-profit group; (2) consider farming as
the primary land use activity and to take no legislative action
(through zoning or any other Township ordinance) which may tend
to discourage agricultural activity; (3) generally prohibit the
construction of new homes here other than those associated with
agricultural activity; (4) permit accesory commercial activities
upon farms as an additional source for farmers; and (5) cooperate
with the State and County in any preferential tax program which
enables a farmer to lower, either temporarily or permanently, his
property taxes.
The Site is zoned as a Conservation District and the
properties adjacent to the Sire have been zoned as agricultural
districts according to the Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance
(1977). The landfill property covers approximately 178 acres
with the actual fill area calculated to be approximately 56
acres, or 34% of the Site. The landfill ceased operating in 1975
and sold to the present owner three years later. The property
remains primarily undeveloped. Some land is used to pasture
horses and other portions yield small crops of soybean and corn
for animal feed. Crops are not grown over landfilled areas.
On April 9, 1991, a deed restriction was placed on the
entire 178 acre tract by the property owner which prevents:
ground water and surface water usage; further development or
subdivision of the property; additional areas to be used for
agriculture; and disturbance of the surface soils for any purpose
except as required by the United States or Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
Man-Made Features
Existing man-made features at the Site include two features
identified during 6n-site walk through reconnaissance surveys.
The two features identified are a concrete collection vault
system downslope (southwest) of the West Seep and a 14" drainage
pipe downslope (south) of the East Seep.
The concrete collection system near the West Seep was
constructed by a contractor for the City of York, to channel
leachate from the West Seep into eight approximately 1000-gallon
settling tanks (collection vaults). The overflow (supernatant)
from the collect.ion vaults was designed to subsequently discharge
through an eight ir»ch pipe to a diversion box locaiad
-------
approximately 400 feet southwest of the West Seep. At the
diversion box, the water would be directed to two subsurface
seepage beds approximately 500 to 600 feet long. It is not known
whether both seepage beds were actually installed, although some
clay riser pipes, believed to be for a seepage bed, have been
identified in the field in the vicinity of the proposed seepage
beds.
This collection system is believed to have been installed in
1968 during the operational period of the landfill to control
leachate in the area of the West Seep in order to obtain a FADER
permit to continue operation of the landfill.
The seepage bed(s) do not appear to be performing as
designed, likely as a result of clogging. Consequently, water is
overflowing from the diversion box and flowing overland to the
Southern Tributary.
The settling tanks contain an average of five feet of orange
tinted sediments below orange tinted water. Water flow
(estimated to be 5-10 gpm) was observed in the first settling
tank of the series. Assuming the tanks are six feet in diameter
and five feet of sediment is present in each tank, the sediment
volume in each tank is approximately 140 cubic feet, totaling
1120 cubic feet in the eight settling tanks.
The steel drainage pipe protrudes from the wall of a
drainage swail downgradient of the East Seep, just below a
service road. Field inspection of the pipe revealed that the
protruding end of the pipe was open and a trickle of water was
discharging from the pipe to the drainage swale. It is believed
that the pipe was installed to divert surface drainage beneath
the service road; however, the upgradient drain to the pipe
appears to have been clogged, resulting in surface drainage over
the service road. This underground pipe does not appear to be
part of any leachate collection or transport system.
II. 8ITB HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Old City of York Landfill was operational from 1961 to
1975 and was intended to receive only municipal wastes. The
landfill was owned'and operated by the City of York until 1968,
at which time the operation of the landfill was transferred to
private firms which were under contract with the City of York.
Material disposed of at the landfill was predominantly municipal
refuse with some commercial and industrial wastes. There are no
records or other information that any Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes were disposed of in the
landfill. The landfill was closed in 1975 and the property was
solcTto Dr. Roger and Mary Lou Boser in 1978. The Bosers
currently own and reside on the Site property.
-------
In 1975 PADER informed the City that it could no longer use
its landfill in Springfield Township. PADER assumed the
responsibility for permitting landfill operations in 1971.
Although the Old City of York Landfill continued to operate until
1975, it was never permitted by PADER.
Based on questions concerning water quality raised by local
private residents in the early 1980's, a residential well
sampling program was undertaken to analyze well samples for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals and other water quality
parameters. VOCs were reported in six residential wells located
adjacent to the Site. As a result of the presence of VOCs in
these residential wells, a public water main was installed along
South Road from the Town of Seven Valleys, located 1.5 miles
northwest of the Site. Currently, eleven residences along South
Road have been supplied with public water.
In September 1982, PADER instituted proceedings against the
City of York and Dr. Boser by filing an Order, which charged that
the operation of, and existing conditions at the landfill had
caused violations of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Act. The
Order directed the City to conduct a hydrogeological assessment
of the landfill, including an evaluation of containment and
cleanup measures. A Consent Order to this effect was entered
into by the City of York and PADER on November 16, 1982.
A ground water recovery and treatment system, consisting of
two ground water extraction wells (designated as RW-1 and RW-2)
connected to an air stripping tower was installed by a contractor
for the City of York in the area of the Boser residence between
1987 and July, 1989 at the request of the PADER Bureau of Water
Quality Management. The system has not commenced operation since
it has only recently received the necessary National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for operation. The
system has remained non-operational pending the outcome of the
RI/FS.
Under the provisions of CERCLA, the Site was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in December 1982 with a hazard
ranking score (HRS) of 31.09. The regulations enacted pursuant
to CERCLA require that a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) and 'baseline Risk Assessment be conducted at each
NPL site. The purpose of an RI is to characterize conditions at
the site. The subsequent FS then develops, screens, and analyzes
a series of remedial alternatives for addressing contamination at
the Site. On October, 27, 1987, the City of York, Rite-Way
Services, and Alleco, Inc. (on behalf of The Macke Company and
Service America Corporation) entered into an Administrative Order
on Consent with EPA to conduct the RI/FS for the Old City of York
Landfill Site.
-------
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS and Proposed Remedial Action Plan (Proposed Plan)
were released for public comment as part of the administrative
record file on July 19, 1991, in accordance with Sections
113(k)(2)(B), 117(a), and 121(f)(1)(G) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§
9613 (k)(2)(B), 9617 (a), 9621 (f)(1)(6). These and other
related documents were made available to the public in both the
administrative record file located in Region III Offices and at
the Jacobus Library in Jacobus, Pennsylvania; a notice of
availability was published in the York Dispatch on July 19, 1991.
A public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan was held on July
30, 1991, in Seven Valleys, Pennsylvania. EPA's response to all
comments on the Proposed Plan and related documents received
during the comment period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary in this ROD. In addition, a copy of the transcript of
the public meeting has been placed in the administrative record
file and information repository.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OP RESPONSE ACTION
There is no principal threat at the Old City of York
Landfill. Previous Site investigations have detected VOCs, semi-
volatile compounds (SVOCs), as well as some inorganic
constituents in ground water and surface water onsite as well as
in some residential drinking water wells; however, these
residences no longer use their wells for drinking water purposes.
Based on a review of chemical concentrations measured in
ground water monitoring wells onsite. Federal and State drinking
water standards were exceeded for the following chemicals
(maximum detected concentrations are in parentheses): 1,2-
dichloroethane (8 ug/1), 1,1,2-trichloroethane (23 ug/1),
trichloroethene (8 ug/1), and vinyl chloride (4 ug/1). The
proposed Federal drinking water standard was exceeded for
tetrachloroethene (14 ug/1).
The presence of these chemicals at these concentrations
indicates that an excess lifetime cancer risk for potential
exposure to ground water is greater than the acceptable EPA risk
limits. Since there are no principal threats at the Site, the
goals of the proposed Remedial Action are to minimize the
potential for exposure to landfill refuse, recover and treat
contaminated ground water, restore ground water to beneficial
uses, and prevent the sudden release of sediments from the
leachate collection vaults near the West Seep.
V. SUMMARY OP SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Landfill/Sitv-CharacterizRtion
In order to determine tue lateral.extent and thickness of
8
-------
the landfill material, field investigations and a review of
existing aerial photographs of the Site and landfill records were
completed. The field investigations consisted of a geophysical
survey and soil borings. A diagram prepared by the City of York
Engineering Department delineates the sections of the Site which
were landfilled and the timeframe in which those areas were
filled (Figure 3).
In summary, the data compiled during the remedial
investigation indicates that refuse was disposed of in three
areas of the Site (Figure 4). The approximate extent of these
areas are:
o Area 1 is approximately 5.5 acres in areal extent with
maximum fill thickness of 15 feet and an average fill
thickness of approximately 10 feet.
o Area 2 is approximately 0.5 acres in areal extent with
maximum fill thickness of 16 feet and an average 'fill
thickness of approximately 10 feet.
o Area 3 is approximately 50 acres in areal extent with
maximum fill thickness of 45 feet and an average fill
thickness of approximately 20 feet.
The landfilled areas associated with the operation of the
Old City of York Landfill are currently entirely covered with
soils which are vegetated with grasses, brush and coniferous
trees. Soil cover material is believed to consist of the native
soils at the Site which were spread over the refuse. Shallow
soil borings taken during the RI reveal that the soil cover is a
minimum of three feet thick in the northern-most portion of the
Site; approximately two feet thick in the southern portion of the
Site; and one to two feet thick near the Boser residence
(believed to be the result of diminished vegetation due to
grazing of horses in that area and subsequent erosion).
B. Surface soils
Sampling locations for the laboratory analysis of soil
samples were based on the results of a soil gas survey using a
portable gas chromatograph with a photoionization detector (PID)
and scanning soil cuttings from shallow borings with a field PID.
Surface soil samples for laboratory analyses were collected at
twelve biased locations across the Site based on the qualitative
assessment of total VOC concentrations. Non-detectable VOC
concentrations and low to non-detecteable SVOC concentrations
were detected in surface soils. Concentrations of inorganic
constituents were generally within background ranges. Pesticide
compounds were detected at six locations distributed across the
Site, all at concentrations of 0.014 mg/kg or less. The PCB
-------
FIGURE 3
LEGEND
SITE BOUNDARY
STREAM
Q COMPLETED SANITARY
LANDFILL
LAHDFILLED SECTIONS OF THE SITE
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL
YORK COUNTY, PA.
SOURCE' LEACHATE STUDY, SANITARY
LANDFILL, ENGINEERING DEPT.,
CtTY OF YORK, YORK, PA.
AUO.IS.l97a
ffl
GROUNDWATER
TECHNOLOGY
-------
FIGURE 4
LATFRAL BOUNDARY OF FILL AREA
ON CONP JCTIVITY SURVEY DATA AND DRILLING LOGS
<*,D feltt OF YORK LANDFILL SITE
TOWNSHP
YQRK fidUNTV, PA
LANOflLLeOUMIMrr COffltSKMOS
TO 7 MILUMHOS/M MVMCNT
ooNDucnyirr coNnxm
-------
Arochlor 1260 was detected at three sample locations with a
maximum concentration of 2.1 mg/kg.
Both qualitative field screening techniques used at the Site
were not capable of detecting or quantifying methane gas. It is
believed that methane gas is being generated within the refuse
areas, as is common in municipal landfills. This is supported by
vapor monitoring conducted during the installation of the ground
water recovery equipment in RW-2 on July 10, 1989. At that time,
soil vapors were scanned with an organic vapor analyzer (OVA)
equipped with a flame ionization detector and an explosimeter.
At each of the subsurface sampling locations, a reading greater
than 1000 ppm (calibrated to methane), the maximum limit of the
instrument, was recorded on the OVA and a reading of 100% of the
lower explosive limit was recorded on the explosimeter. OVA and
explosimeter readings were also taken in the ambient air during
the recovery well installation. No readings were detected at any
of the locations. It should be noted that all points reporting
the elevated methane levels are located within or directly above
refuse.
Also on July 10, 1989, OVA and explosimeter readings were
taken throughout the basement of the Boser residence, including
directly above visible cracks in the concrete floor. No vapors
were detected anywhere within the Boser basement.
Due to the relatively permeable nature of the soil cover
over the refuse, venting of low levels of methane through the
cover is expected to be continually occuring. As a result of the
continuous diffuse release of methane throughout the landfill, it
is unlikely that there would be a significant lateral migration
of methane induced by build up of methane pressure.
C. Ground Water
l. Monitoring Wells
Ground water quality data has been tabulated from three
rounds of sampling which were conducted in October and November
of 1988 and in December.1990 of the RI. The analyses represent
water quality from seven shallow bedrock wells (1-9), five deep
bedrock wells (A-F), and five shallow well points (WP 1-5).
Analytical data from Wells 1 and C are indicative of background
ground water quality.
VOCs were reported in twelve wells with a maximum total VOC
concentration of 382 ug/1 at Well A. The most frequently
detected VOCs and their maximum reported concentrations are 200
ug/1 for l,1-dichloroethane, 6 ug/1 for 1,1-dichloroethene, 11
ug/1 for 1,2-dichloroethene (total), 8 ug/1 for trichloroethene,
14 ug/1 for tetrachloroather.e, 21 ug/1. for 1,1,1-trichloroethane,.
"and 23 ug/1 for l,l,2-trichlornetju*n«. Wfclls A and 5, located
10
-------
directly adjacent to Fill Area 1, exhibited the greatest number
of different compounds (eleven). These are also the wells in
which the highest concentrations of total VOCs have been detected
(see Tables 1-3).
Of the monitoring wells on the perimeter of the Site
(3,7,9,10,D,F, and Well Points (1-5)), only Well D reported VOC
concentrations greater than 4 ug/1 in samples collected during
the 1990 sampling event. Well D reported 27 ug/1 total VOCs, 20
ug/1 of which was acetone, a common laboratory contaminant that
was not confirmed in this well in the two 1988 sampling rounds.
Of all the perimeter wells, no VOC was detected above current
MCLs. However, tetrachloroethene was detected in Well 7 on two
occasions (8 ug/1 in October, 1988 and 7 ug/1 in November, 1988),
at concentrations exceeding the proposed MCL of 5 ug/1.
Chloroform was detected in WP-3 during the October, 1988 (10
ug/1) and November, 1988 (3 ug/1) sampling events but was not
detected in the December 1990 sampling event. Chloroform was not
detected in any other onsite sample from any medium.
Five SVOC compounds were detected in seven separate
monitoring wells (see Table 4). The only compound detected more
than once in the same well was 1,4-dichlorobenzene in Wells 2 and
4. The only compound detected above 14 ug/1 was
bis(2ethylhexy)phthalate (BEHP). BEHP was detected in four
different locations on two separate occasions and only detected
one time in each well. This compound is a common laboratory
contaminant. The only compound detected in any perimeter well
was BEHP (10 ug/1) in WP-l on one occasion.
The pesticide beta-BHC was detected at 1.8 ug/1 in Well A in
the sampling round of November 1988. This compound was not
detected in the previous round of sampling in October 1988.
Alpha and gamma chlordane were detected in the Winter well in the
October and November 1988 sampling at concentrations of 0.57 ug/1
and .034 ug/1, respectively. These pesticides are not believed
to be site related. No PCBs were detected during any sampling
event.
The concentrations of the major cations in Site monitoring
wells (see Table 5) are generally similar to those measured in
Wells 1 and C (background wells). Cadmium was detected in Wells
9, F (but not in the duplicate sample), and WP-3 in the 1990
sampling round at concentrations ranging from .0052 to .0069
mg/1. Cadmium was not detected at any wells during the two 1988
sampling rounds and is not believed to be a site-related
constituent. In the 1990 sampling, lead was detected in two
samples (Wells C and 5) at concentrations of .0032 and .0085
mg/1, respectively. Lead was not detected in any wells during
the 19£Q sampling rounds.
ii
-------
TABLE 1
\
Volatile Organic Compounds In Groundwaler - Positive Identifications Only (October, 1988) (All Results In ug/l).
ANALVTE
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroe thane
Methylene Chloride
1.1-Olchloroethene
1,1-Dlchtoroethane
1,2-Olchloroethene (total)
Chlorofora
1.2-Dlchlorocthane
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
1.1.2-TrichloroethMM
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobeniene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
Total VOCs
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Sanples Collected « 17)
(No. of Sanples with VOCt Identified » 6)
Uell 2
...
...
...
...
...
5
...
...
...
z a
...
...
...
7
Uell 4
...
...
...
1 J
7
...
...
1 J
...
...
1 J
2 J
4 J
17 J
33
Uell S
3 J
32
33
6
170
7
6
21
7
19
IS
...
...
...
317
Uell 7
...
...
...
...
7
1 J
1 J
S
...
...
...
17
UP-1
...
...
...
4 J
...
...
...
...
...
4
UP-J
...
...
10
...
...
...
...
10
Uell A
L* J
42
45
6
200
9
...
8
23
8
23
14
...
...
...
382
Uell D
...
...
...
2 J
...
...
...
...
...
...
2
-- Not Detected
J - Estimated Value
Note: Does Not Include Residential Uells
C.KOHNIAVMI.K
Tl.UINOKH.V
-------
TABLE 2
Volatile Organic Compounds In Groundwater - Positive Identifications Only (November, 1988) (AH Results In ug/1).
MIAITTE
yipryi fr.o; idt
§hi«ro«tft*w
N«mtl*i. Oilrfvl*
«|*I«P«
Jjl-ftuhorotthen*
1.»-OlcM«roeth«ne
j »-»ieMo'Mthcfw (total)
IhUM^
l.f-Dlchtt'MthMW
*-lut»fjnt
1.1.1-Vlelilorotthant
Irielllorottlwnt
1.1.*Mrlehlorottlwnf
tfflf*0*
Tttrwnloroethene
CMofobenif.ie
Kvtcn»
-------
TABLE 3
Volatile Organic Compounds In Groundwater - Positive Identifications Only (December. 1990) (All results In ug/iy.
ANALVTE
Chloronethane
CM oroe thane
rfethylen* Chloride
1.1-dlchloroethane
1,2-dlchloroethene (total)
1.2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
1,1,2-trlchloroethane
Tttrachloroethene
CMorobeniene
Acetone
1 'jilorofom
|j ironodlchloroMthane
[ Total VOCs
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected * 21)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified = 7)
Well 4
...
...
...
...
4 J
...
...
3 J
...
...
4 J
...
...
11
Well S
10 J
7 JX
14
83
3 J
4 J
S
3 J
a
a
...
...
...
...
us
Well 6
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
10
...
...
...
10
Uell A
20
18
120
4 J
6
7
S
12
11
...
...
...
203
Well B
...
...
...
...
31
...
...
31
Well C
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
24
3 J
27
Well D
...
...
3 J
...
...
...
4 J
...
20
...
...
27
Not O'.tected
J - Esti«et*d Value
JR. E»tto#'.ed value. MS* tpectrua doe* not Met EPA CCP criteria for confirmation, but compound presence is strongly suspected.
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
('.KillINI(WA'IT.H
-------
TXBLE 4
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater Positive Identifications Only (All results in ug/i).
October, 1988
ANALYTE
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Isophorone
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 17)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified = 5)
WELL 2
2 J
WELL 4
11
WELL A
2 J
WELLB
1 J
WELLE
2 J
1 J
12 J
November, 1988
ANALYTE
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
bis(2-ethyihexyt)phthalate
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected - 17)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified
WELL 2
2 J
220
= 2)
WELL 4
12
-
November, 1990
ANALYTE
bis (2-ethythexy!)pnthalate
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 21)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified =
2)
MW-E WP-1
14 J 10
J
Not Detected
J - Estimated Value
Now- Does Not Induoo Residential Wells
.TECHNOLOGY
-------
TABLE S
Dissolved Metals in Groundwater (November, 1990)
A SLANK CONTAMINATION
ESTIMATED VALUE LESS THAN CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMIT BUT
GREATER THAN THE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LIMIT
, THIS SAMPLE FROM WELL MW-3 WAS MISLABELED BY LAB AS WP3.
NOTE SAMPLE MW-8 IS A FIELD DUPLICATE OF SAMPLE MW-F.
MW-I Q
("8"'
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.0 U
« 1 J
1.0 U
S.O U
6920
60 U
6.0 U
S.O U
83.8 j
1.0 U
4010 j
14.8 B
0.20 U
12.0 U
II 10 j
3.0 U
S.O U
3500 j
1.0 U
4.0 U
13.1 j
MW-2 Q
(ui/l)
* p"1
10.0 U
23.0 U
3.0 U
162 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
28800
S.O U
22.2 j
4.0 U
2300
1.0 U
9100
7560
0.20 U
13.4 j
1440 B
3.0 U
3.0 U
4160 j
1.0 Ul
S.O U
MW-3* Q
(ug/1)
10.0 U
23.0 U
3.0 U
16.3 j
1.0 U
S.O U
18300
S.O U
8.0 U
4.0 U
9S.7 B
1.0 U
2460 j
26.2
0.20 U
13.0 U
503 U
3.0 U
3.0 U
2130 j
1.0 UJ
S.O U
II 8 B
MW-4 Q
(UK/I)
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.0 U
Sll
1.0 U
S.O U
52400
6.0 U
SOS
S.O U
23300
1.0 U
20000
13400
0.20 U
S89
8020
3.0 U
S.O U
16800
1.0 U
4.0 U
19.3 j
MW-S Q
(UK/I)
47.3 j
30.0 U
3.0 U
21.3 j
1.0 U
S.O U
15300
6.0 U
2S.O j
S.O U
7100
8.S
8150
2270
0.20 U
18.1 j
1250 j
3.0 U
S.O U
4330 j
1.0 U
4.0 U
7.5 B
MW-6 Q
(Ug/l)
10.0 U
23.0 U
3.0 U
17.7 j
1.0 U
S.O U
19400
S.O U
8.0 U
4.0 U
8.S B
1.0 U
9780
33.6
0.20 U
13.0 U
503 U
3.0 U
3.0 U
6610
1.0 U
S.O U
5.1 j
MW-7 Q
(ug/1)
10.0 U
23.0 U
3.0 U
177 j
1.0 U
S.O U
57200
S.O U
8.0 U
4.0 U
50.8 B
1.0 U
19900
1160
0.20 U
13.0 U
1000 B
3.0 U
3.0 U
14700
5.0 U
S.O U
15.4 j
MW-9 Q
(ug/1)
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.0 U
1.8 j
1.0 U
6.1
6900
6.0 U
6.0 U
S.O U
6.1 B
1.0 U
4250 j
37.S
0.20 U
12.0 U
828 j
3.0 U
5.0 U
2210 j
1.0 U
4.0 U
156
MW-IO Q
(ug/1)
31.5 j
30.0 U
3.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
S.O U
7380
6.0 U
6.0 U
S.O U
56.4 B
1.0 U
2320 j
23.9
0.20 U
12.0 U
1050 j
3.0 U
5.0 U
3050 j
1.0 U
4.0 U
61.9
MW-A Q
(ug/0
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.0 U
57.3 j
1.0 U
S.O U
34700
6.0 U
6.0 U
S.O U
37.7 B
1.0 U
8720
223
0.20 U
12.0 U
1620 j
3.0 U
S.O U
5870
1.0 UJ
4.0 U
4.8 B
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
Q - QUALIFIER
U - UNDETECTED. VALUE STATED IS EQUAL TO DETECTION LIMIT
UJ - UNDETECTED. ESTIMATED VALUE £» C.UOHNDWATI-K
TlXIINOI.OC.V
-------
TABLE 5 CON'T
Dissolved Metals in Groundwater (November, 1990)
Sanyfe 'J
ANJt.nES
Aluminum
Anilto&ay
AtMnic -
Hferium
Beryllium ,
tfadir,t«<>t
dMi**
ttaromlum
CeWi
Cod*'
IrtW
U*»
M««it*iura
M'fti^ann*
MCKMP
j
Nic^'*
POtBJtli^f *
Srl«ii««n
Silver
Strfiym
YMtium
Vanadium
?,nc
MW-B Q
(ug/l)
26.7 B
23.0 U
3.0 U
75.1 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
31100
S.O U
8.0 U
4.0 U
20.5 B
1.0 U
4410 j
113
0.20 U
13.0 U
1080 B
3.0 U
3.0 U
1270 j
1.0 UJ
S.O U
7.1 B
MW-C Q
(UR/I)
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.0 U
54.4 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
22500
6.0 U
6.0 U
5.0 U
55.1 B
3.2 j
2310 j
163
0.20 U
12.0 U
922 j
3.0 U
5.0 U
12700
1.0 U
4.0 U
10.3 j
MW-D Q
(ug/l)
10.0 U
23.0 U
3.0 U
278
1.0 U
5.0 U
87700
5.0 U
8.8
4.0 U
4500
1.0 U
19000
1340
0.20 U
13.0 U
1520 B
3.0 U
3.0 U
14600
S.O UJ
5.0 U
6.8 B
MW-E Q
(ug/l)
10.0 U
23.0 U
3.0 U
31.0 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
34200
S.O U
8.0 U
4.0 U
17.1 B
1.0 U
7800
438
0.20 U
13.0 U
2490 B
3.0 U
3.0 U
100000
S.O UJ
S.O U
7.8 j
MWF Q
(ug/l)
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.2 B
9.6 j
1.0 U
6.9
13400
6.0 U
6.0 U
S.O U
8.2 B
1.0 U
8430
7.0 B
0.20 U
12.0 U
1420 j
3.0 U
S.O U
2510 j
1.0 U
4.0 U
40.3
MW-8 Q
(ug/l)
29.9 j
30.0 U
3.0 U
9.6 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
13500
6.0 U
6.0 U
S.O U
99.1 j
1.0 U
8520
10.7 B
0.20 U
12.0 U
1110 j
3.0 U
5.0 U
2540 j
1.0 U
4.0 U
43.5
WP-I Q
(ug/l)
10.0 U
23.0 U
3.0 U
13.9 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
7990
S.O U
8.0 U
4.0 U
30.8 B
1.0 U
5050
17.9
0.20 U
13.0 U
840 B
3.0 U
3.0 U
3000 j
1.0 UJ
5.0 U
71 B
WP-2 Q
(ug/l)
17.6 B
23.0 U
3.0 U
142 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
53100
S.O U
8.0 U
4.0 U
12.5 B
1.0 U
21600
106
0.20 U
13.0 U
23400
3.0 U
3.0 U
38700
10.0 UJ
5.0 U
65 B
WP-3 Q
(ug/l)
44.5 j
30.0 U
3.0 U
15.3 j
1.0 U
5.2
14900
6.0 U
6.0 U
S.O U
130
1.0 U
7430
292
0.20 U
12.0 U
2570 j
3.0 U
5.0 U
9570
1.0 U
4.0 U
18.8 j
WP-4 Q
(ug/l)
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.0 U
8.6 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
11300
6.0 U
60 U
5.0 U
31.1 B
1.0 U
5620
165
0.20 U
12.0 U
1780 j
3.0 U
5.0 U
10200
1.0 UJ
4.0 U
5.3 B
WP-5 Q
23.0 U
30.0 U
3.0 U
15.3 j
1.0 U
5.0 U
12900
6.0 U
6.0 U
5.0 U
S.O U
1.0 U
3310
9.8 j
0.20 U
12.0 U
744 U
3.0 U
5.0 U
4470 j
1.0 UJ
4.0 U
7.0 B
08
32 so
OQ
B - Bl ANK CONTAMINATION J - ESTIMATED VALUE
j . ESTIMATED VALUE LESS THAN CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMIT BUT Q - QUALIFIER
G«!:ATER THAN THE INSTRUMENT DETECTION LIMIT U - UNDETECTED. VALUE STATED IS EQUAL TO DETECTION LIMIT
. - HIISSAMPLEFROMWELLMW3WASMISLABELEDBYLAB ASWP3 UJ - UNDETECTED. ESTIMATED VALUE &1! Ofl (UNWVATrU
NOTfi : SAMPLE MW 8 IS A FIELD DUPLICATE OF SAMPLE MWF. Ti:< IINMI t KiV
-------
A comparison of Federal Drinking Water standards to observed
concentrations of contaminants in ground water for the Site
monitoring wells is presented in Tables 6 and 7.
2. Residential Veils
Historically, residents located adjacent to the Site and the
Boser residence, located on the Site, complained of objectionable
odors from their domestic wells. A water quality sampling and
analyses program was conducted between 1981 and 1985 and a total
of ten residential wells were tested. The results showed the
presence of VOCs in six of the ten residential wells. Total VOCs
ranged from 2 ug/1 at the Williamson well to a maximum of 413
ug/1 in the Boser well, which was installed through the landfill
refuse. The six residents with VOCs detected in their domestic
wells, in addition to four other residences, were connected to
the Seven Valley public water supply in 1986. Currently, only
the C. Chilcoat and Waldman residences in the vicinity of the
Site are not connected to public water. As part of the RI, two
of the ten residential wells (Boser and Winter) were sampled
during the 1988 ground water sampling program. Residential wells
historically sampled are shown on Figure 2 and the total VOC
results presented in Table 8.
Total VOC data for onsite monitoring wells 1,2,3, and 4 have
also been included on Table 8 as these wells have been
historically sampled along with the residential wells. The
following observations are presented on residential water quality
prior to initiation of RI investigative activities in 1988:
All residences where VOCs had been historically
observed, with the exception of the C.Chilcoat
residence, have been connected to public water.
VOCs were detected in six of the ten residential wells.
VOCs were not detected in the Waldman, Winter, Rascoe,
and Pucillo wells.
The only VOCs detected in the Williamson well were
chloroform and methylene chloride at low concentrations
(2 and 6' ppb, respectively) and on one occasion only.
Methylene chloride is suspected to have been the result
of laboratory contamination and chloroform is not
believed to be a site related compound. On the most
recent sampling event (12/83), no VOCs were detected in
the sample from this well.
Highest total VOC concentrations recorded were in the
Boser well {413 ug/1) , which is located bei.eath the
landfill refuse.
12
-------
TABLE 6
Notes:
Comparison of Federal Drinking Water Standards (MCLs) to Observed Volatile and
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations In Groundwater Monitoring Wells at
the Old CKy of York Landfill. (All Concentrations in pg/l).
cavxuo
Vinyl Chloride
CMoroethene
1,1-DicMoroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Oichloroethene (Total)
Chlorofor*
1 , 2-0 i eh loroethane
1 , 1 , 1 -Tri eh loroethane
Trichloroethene
1 , 1 ,2-Tri chloroethane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
ChloroMthane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
1 ,4-Oichlorobenzene
Isophorone
Phenol
Benzoie Acid
bii<2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
(-SITE WELLS (1)
Fre-
quency
3/19
6/21
4/21
9/21
12/21
0/21
6/21
6/21
11/21
6/21
2/14
9/21
1/21
4/21
1/20
2/21
1/21
7/17
4/10
6/21
1/20
1/2
1/21
'2/8
kange of
Detects
1(J)-4(4)
7-44
5-6
1CJ)-200
2(J>-11
NO
4-8
5-23
1(J)-8
8-23
2(J)-3(J>
KJ)-14
KJ)
1-4(J)
4(J)
8-17(J)
10(J)
1(J)-4S
7-360
2(J)-12
1(J)
KJ)
12(J)
14
-------
TABLE 7
Comparison of Federal Drinking Water Standards (MCLs) to Observed Dissolved Metal
Concentrations in Groundwater Monitoring Wells at the Old City of York Landfill (All
Concentrations in jig/I).
COMPOUND
Alunirun
Antimony
Barium
Cadmiun
Calciun
Cobalt
Iron
lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Seleniuo
Sod tun
Zinc
OB-SITE WELLS (1)
Fre-
quency
1/u
1/19
10/13
0/20
20/20
5/18
12/H
1/13
19/20
20/21
5/17
8/13
0/20
12/12
8/10
lange of
Detects
47.3U)
101
17.7(J)-511
HO
14,900-
65,300
22.2-505
1,030-26,500
8.5
4,410(J)-2,000
57.7(J)-13,400
13.4(J)-589
1,250(J)-25,600
HO
1.270-
100,000
5.1(J)-225
f of
XCL
..
1
0
0
--
..
12'"
0
19I4>
2
..
0
0
PEXIPKEML WELLS (2)
fre-
quency
4/15
0/20
11/15
4/26
26/27
1/17
11/12
0/15
23/25
25/27
0/19
10/15
1/24
19/19
7/7
tange of
Detects
20.7(J)-4840
NO
1.8(J)-177(J)
4.7-6.9
6,900-
87,700
8.8
99.1(J)-8,820
NO
2.320CJ)-
27.300CJ)
9.8{J)-2,170
NO
828(J)-26,500
7.2
2,130{J)
47,600
1S.4(J)-1S6
ff of
HO.
..
0
0
0
--
..
6">
0
--
19u,
0
..
0
"
0
NO.
..
10/5'"
1,000"'
10'"
--
..
300"'
50
--
SO141
100"'
..
10'"
--
15,000"'
(1) On-site Hells » Wells 2. 4, 5, 6, A, B, E
(2) Peripheral Wells « Wells 3, 7, 9. 10, D, f and Well Points 1 through 5
(3) Proposed MCI
(4) Secondary MCL based on aesthetics rather than health criteria, not enforceable
(5) Standard to be lowered to 5 w/l in 7/1992
(6) Standard to be raised to 2000 «/l in 7/1992
(7) Standard to be raised to 50 M/l in 7/1992
No Published Standard
NO Not Detected
(J) EstiBated Value
Table reports only dissolved concentrations
All results consider Oct. 1988. Nov'. 1988 and Nov. 1990 sanpling events.
If a duplicate sacple was collected, the tuo concentrations were averaged and considered as one value.
? GROUNDWATER
.TECHNOLOGY
-------
TXBLB 8
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL WELLS SAMr-uED 1981 - 1988 AT THE OLD CITY OR YORK LANDFILL
(ALL RESULTS IN ug/l)
WELL
LOCATION
DATE
7/ai
8/81
9/ai
12/91
1/82
1/82
1/62
9/82
0/88
7/82 j
0u
083
MS
MM
P/M
»/w
ifKB^J
Ifc4
9/84
1IHW
ims
3»S
6«*
!?$&
gwe""*1
1(V86
16^
11/00
12/00
BOSER
93
n--
413
313
i.3
286
240.3
91.6
216
111
242
203
222
196
164
147
187
31
27
38
C. CHILCOAT
37
46
35
14
12.7
8
27
ND
25
20
21
15
15
4
11
K. CHILCOAT
25
3
3
24
19
1
22
23
7.2
30
8
22
29
19
23
26
19
15
13
GLATFELTER
4
12
4
9
ND
2
7
4
2
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
---
.
PUCILLO
...
ND
---
_
RASCOE
_
...
ND
ND
ND
ND
...
...
. ~_
...
ROHRBAUGH
WELL
8
39
19
10
10
10
16
19
15
to
11
ND
ND
11
*.
SPRING
...
ND
ND
ND
1
---
...
WALDMAN
.*.*,
ND
...
...
.
---
WILLIAMSON
...
2
ND
-
---
WINTER
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
85
88
32
3
25
14
7
11
ND
3
22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
18
20
24
27
16
33
34
11
Nu - Not Delected Not Analyzed
ffaportod VOC concentrations do not Include Acetone or Melhylene Chloride (common lab contaminants).
individual well residential sampling results have been Included In Appendix H.
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
'(Kill INI >W/Ym<
TI.UINOIOCY
-------
The most commonly reported compounds were
trichloroethene (TCE), trans 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE),
tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,l-dichloroethane (DCA, and
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). These compounds were
found in the four wells: Boser, Rohrbaugh (now
Fletcher), Glatfelter and K.Chilcoat.
Methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, and benzene have
also been sporadically detected in the Boser well.
VOCs in the C.Chilcoat well are not believed to be a result
of Site activities based on hydrogeological information and the
nature of the constituents detected. The Northern Tributary (a
groundwater discharge area) flows between the Site and the
C.Chilcoat well. According to well construction data, the depth
of the C. Chilcoat well is 60 feet. By comparing the elevation
of the bottom of the C. Chilcoat well to the elevation of the
Northern Tributary, it was determined the elevation of the bottom
of C. Chilcoat is approximately 5 to 10 higher than the Northern
tributary between the C. Chilcoat well and refuse Area 1 and
approximately 30 feet higher tnan the Northern Tributary between
the C.Chilcoat well and refuse Area 3, based on survey data.
Based on this information, Site related dissolved constituents
would have to move hydraulically upgradient to migrate directly
from the refuse areas to the C. Chilcoat well. Furthermore, the
only VOCs detected in the C. Chilcoat well were carbon
tetrachloride and 1,2-dichloroethane. Carbon tetrachloride was
not detected in any other well or any other medium sampled in the
study area during or previous to RI activities. 1,2-
dichloroethane was not detected in any monitoring well on the
western periphery of the Site (Rohrbaugh, Winter, Well 3, Well F
and WP-1).
VOCs have not been detected in the Glatfelter well during
the five most recent sampling events (conducted in 1985 and
1986). VOCs were not detected in the Rohrbaugh (Fletcher) well
in October, 1985 and May, 1986 although 11 ug/1 total VOCs was
measured in that well in October, 1986 (no compounds exceeding
MCLs). These are the three most recent sampling events for the
Rohrbaugh well.
VOCs historically detected in the K. Chilcoat well may have
been drawn into the well through pumping. The K. Chilcoat well
and Area 3 of the landfill are located along bedrock planes of
schistosity. Preferential ground water flow through pumping is
expected along this orientation. As mentioned previously, the K.
Chilcoats have been supplied with public water since 1986
lessening the potential for VOC migration toward that well
through active pumping.
In general, the analytical results for VOCs indicate a
Significant decrease in the number of compounds detected and in
13
-------
concentrations of those compounds between 1981 and 1988. The
total VOC concentration in the Boser well was consistent in the
two RI sampling events: 27 ug/1 and 38 ug/1, respectively. No
VOCs were detected in the Winter well on either occasion. In
November 1988, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate
were measured in the Boser well at concentrations of 1 and 33
ug/1, respectively. These were the only SVOCs detected and were
not reported during the October 1988 sampling. No SVOCs were
detected in the Winter well.
The pesticides alpha and gamma-chlordane were detected in
the Winter well at a maximum estimated concentrations of 0.044-
0.057 ug/1 and 0.025-0.034 ug/1, respectively. These pesticides
were not detected during any other sampling event in any medium
and are not considered to be Site related. Cyanide and PCBs were
not detected in either well. Mercury was detected in the Winter
well in the October 1988 sampling at an estimated 0.3 ug/1 (below
the MCL of 3 ug/1), and was not detected in that well during the
November 1988 sampling.
D. surface Water (Streams & Seeps) and Related Sediments
1. Seep Water
To determine if the landfill materials have affected the
surface water and sediment quality in the seeps and streams
(tributaries) emanating from or in the vicinity of the Site,
surface water and sediment samples were collected at headwaters,
convergence (confluence) points, and locations upstream and
downstream of the Site. Water samples were collected from each
of four identified seeps. As discussed previously, seeps
represent the discharge of groundwater within the upper portion
of the bedrock or perched water above competent rock surface,
along hillsides or valleys adjacent to landfilled areas. Seep
water samples were collected in two sampling events, the first
during 1988 and the second in 1990 as part of the RI (see Tables
9 to 11).
Groundwater quality at wells 1 and C is considered to be
indicative of background seep water quality.
Of the thirty.-four volatile organic compounds analyzed, only
1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), chlorobenzene, and benzene were
detected. Chlorobenzene was detected in both sampling rounds but
at two separate locations; SPW-l at 20 ug/1 in 1988 and at SWII-
3B at 10 ug/1 in 1990. Benzene and 1,2-DCE were detected once at
SPW-l in 1988 at 3 ug/1 and 2 ug/1, respectively.
Of the sixty-five semi-volatile compounds analyzed, only
seven compounds were detected and all at low concentrations (less
than 13 ug/1): I,4-dichloroi>«3nzsne( 1,2-^ichlorobenzene^
naphthalene, n-nitrosndiphenyisunine, butyii»eBz.ylphthala4-.e, and
li
-------
TABLE 9
Volatile Organic Compounds in Seep Water - Positive Identifications Only
(All results reported In ug/l).
May, 1988
ANALYTE
1,2-dicWoroethene (total)
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 3)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified = 2)
SPW-1
2
20
3
SPW-4
-
5
-
April, 1990
ANALYTE
Chlorobenzene
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 5)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified >
SWII-3B
10 J
= 2)
SWll-98*
10
J
Not Detected
J Estimated Value
* - Sample SW1I-9B is a blind duplicate of SW1I-3B
==y£ GROt'NDWATER
TECHNOLOGY
-------
TABLE 10
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds in Seep Water Samples
Positive Indentifications Only (All results in ug/l).
May 1988
ANALYTE
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine(1 )
Di-n-butytphthalate
Butytbenzylphtnalate
Benzole Acid
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 3)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified = 3)
SPW-1
13
1 J
3 J
2
-
3
-
SPW-2
1
-
-
-
-
4
-
SPW-4
3
-
-
-
1
-
11
Not Detected
J - Estimated Value
TBCSHWSLGCY
-------
TABLE 11
Total Metals and Cyanide in Seep Water
April, 1990
Sample Id
(units)
ANALYTES
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
rhromiuni
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lewi
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Pccasrium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
SWU-IB Q
(mg/I)
0.305
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.595
0.0115
0.002 U
65.2
0.009 U
0.0142
0.009 U
11.3
0.0019 B
25.6
0.509
0.0002 U
0.0183
50.4
0.003 U
0.003 U
53.7
0.010 UJ
0.004 U
0.0372 B
SWU-2B Q
(mg/D
0.0355 B
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.387
0.001 U
0.002 U
74.7
0.009 U
0.007 U
0.009 U
2^6
0.001 U
21.7
0.402
0.0002 U
0.0205
41.2
0.003 U
0.003 U
40.4
0.01 UJ
0.004 U
0.0335 B
SWH-3B Q
(rag/1)
0.183 B
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.513
0.001 U
0.0046 B
41.5
0.0096
0.0107
0.009 U
24.5
0.0027 B
28.3
5.01
0.0002 U
0.018 U
25
0.003 U
0.003 U
57.7
0.005 UJ
0.004 U
0.0475 B
SWD-9B * Q
(rag/1)
0.0678 B
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.508
0.001 U
0.0024 B
42.8
0.009 U
0.0138
0.009 U
20.1
O.C013 B
28.8
5.05
0.0002 U
0.018 U
27.1
0.003 U
0.003
59.2
0.005 UJ
0.004 U
0.0248 B
SWD-7B Q
<«ng/l)
0.021 U
0.028 UJ
0.003 U
0.176
0.001 U
0.005 U
29.5 J
0.009 UJ
0.0338
0.009 UJ
0.638
0.001 U
15.3 J
7.13 J
0.0002 U
0.018 U
8.88
0.003 U
0.003 U
26
0.001 U
0.004 U
0.0232 B
B - BLANK CONTAMINATION -
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
Q - QUALIFIER
U . UNDETECTED, VALUE STATED IS EQUAL TO DETECTION UMTT
UJ . UNDETECTED. ESTIMATED VALUE
- SAMPLE SSII-9B IS A BUND DUPLICATE OF SAMPLE SSII-3B.
GlOLNDVt'ATER
TECHNOLOGY
-------
benzole acid. Five of the detected compounds were reported at
SPW-l (West Seep).
No pesticides or PCBs were detected in any seep water
samples.
Cyanide was not detected in any of the seep water samples.
Beryllium was detected in one sample (SWII-1B) at a concentration
of 0.0115 mg/1 in the 1990 sampling program. Cobalt was detected
in three samples (SWII-1B, 3B, 7B) at concentrations ranging from
0.010 to 0.033 mg/1 in the 1990 sampling program. Copper was
detected in one sample (SPW-2) at a concentration of 0.0144 mg/1
in the 1988 sampling. Copper was not detected in any of the 1990
samples. Lead was confirmed in two samples (SPW-l, SPW-2) at
concentrations ranging from 0.008 to 0.079 mg/1 in the 1988
sampling. Lead was not confirmed to be present in any of the
1990 samples. Silver was detected in one sample (SWII-9B) at a
concentration of 0.003 mg/1 in the April 1990 sampling. However,
sample SWII-3B, a field duplicate of SWII-9B, reported non-
detectable levels. Mercury was detected in one sample (SPW-2 at
the East Seep) at a concentration of .0002 mg/1 in the May 1988
sampling, however, it was not detected in the 1990 sampling at
location SWII-2B (also at the East Seep). Sample results for
location SSII-7B, a seepage area at the northeast portion of the
property, generally contains significantly less metals than
samples from the other seeps (East and West Seeps) located at the
southeast portion of the Site.
2. Seep Sediments
Sediment samples were collected at or immediately adjacent
to the points of seep water discharge. The results of seep
sediment analyses are listed in Tables 12 to 14 and are
summarized below.
Of the thirty-four volatile organic compounds analyzed for
in each seep sediment sample only four compounds were detected.
Two of the compounds, methylene chloride and acetone, were
detected only once and are common lab contaminants.
Chlorobenzene was reported in four samples and one duplicate
sample at concentrations between 0.004 mg/kg to 0.023 mg/kg at
locations SPS-2 (East Seep), SPS-4 (unnamed seep at origin of
Southern Tributary), SSII-9B (duplicate sample of SSII-3B
collected at the West Seep).
Of the sixty-five semi-volatile compounds analyzed for,
eleven compounds were detected, eight of which were reported at
values less than 0.34 mg/kg. Two compounds benzoic acid and di-
N-butylphthalate were detected in all three samples and at
maximum concentrations of 1.2 mg/kg and 1.5 mg/kg, respectively.
Eight of the eleven compounds vere detected only at one sample
(SP3-4), collected at an unnamed seep located at the headwaters
15
-------
TABLE 12
Volatile Organic Compounds in Seep Sediments - Positive Identifications
Only (All Results in mg/kg).
May, 1988
ANALYTE
Methyiene Chloride
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 3)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified
SPS-2
.009
.061
.004
J
= 2)
SPS-4
.006
April, 1990
ANALYTE
Chlorobenzene
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Sampled Collected = 5)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified = 2)
SSII-1B
.018 J
SSII-9B*
.023
J
Not Detected
J - Estimated Value
* Blind Duplicate of SSII-3B
ML CBOLNDWATER
TECHNOLOGY
-------
TABLE 13
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound* In Seep Sediments
Positive Identifications (All results In mg/kg).
May, 1988
ANALYTE
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
Benzole Acid
Phenanthrene
Ruoranthene
Benzo(a)anthacene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethythexyl)phthalate
DkvbutylphthaJate
Acenaphthylene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 3)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified = 3)
SPS-1
1.1
2.000
1.5
SPS-2
1.2
.44
1.3
SPS-4
0.120
0.340
0.150
0.110
0.120
0.120
.940
.120
.200
.260 J
Not Detected
J - Estimated Value
-------
Metals In Seep Sediment
TABLE 14
April, 1990
T?
o
oo
22 7~
QO
II
\
. 'Sample Id
(uniu)
ANALYTES
Alunliym
ArtUnony
Ancate
Barttim
1
toryUium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
CoMOl
Copier
lird
Lad
Migoetium
Manganete
Mctcuiy
Nickel
PoUuiura
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tfolliura
Vanadium
Tine
SSII-IA Q
("«*/*«)
3270
IS.7 UJ
2.S I
689
0.56 U
I.I U
10000
12.9
25.7
16.6 B
331000
43.3
1070
386
0.30 U
18.9
1410 U
17.9 UJ
9.9
184 B
0.60 UJ
2.2 U
95.6 B
SSII-IB Q
("ttftti
' 11600
8.0 UJ
3.1 I
188
0.28 U
0.62 B
989
24.1
62.9
29.4 B
48600
13.6
3190
2310
0.15 U
25.0
7IS U
4.7 UJ
1.8
122 B
0.31 UJ
9.1
107 B
SSU- 1C Q
("»«*»)
10300
9.8 UJ
21.3 J
390
0.35 U
0.70 U
1520
15.0
54.2
27.0 B
142000
18.0
2000
833
0.20 U
14.5
876 U
1.4 UJ
4.6
303 B
0.46 UJ
8.8
67.2 B
SSII-2A Q
(mg/kg)
8790
28.3 UJ
15.1 J
765
1.0 U
4.3 B
9710
41.9
13.8
89.0
276000
643
2250
1890
0.48 U
28.5
2540 U
33.3 UJ
8.7
544 B
1.10 UJ
26.8
1330
SSII-2B Q
(mg/kg)
12000
6.8 UJ
10.0 J
114
0.24 U
0.49 U
1120
17.2
13.5
21.6 B
66600
34.2
3120
493
0.14 U
22.9
6.3 U
9.8 UJ
2.0
92.2 B
0.35 UJ
10.7
164 B
SSII-2C Q
(mg/kg)
1640
13.9 UJ
72.0 J
493
0.50 U
1.0 B
2100
4.5 U
103
4.5 U
480000
25.0
583
3290
0.23 U
8.9 U
1250 U
16.3 UJ
17.8
170 B
0.54 UJ
2.0 U
66.0 B
SSII-3A Q
(mg/kg)
400
25.9 UJ
31.5 J
665
0.93 U
1.9 U
2840
8.3 U
11.7
22.7 B
390000
25.5
493
1580
0.50 U
16.7 U
2330 U
31.4 UJ
12.6
357 B
1.0 UJ
3.7 U
241 B
SSU-3B Q
(mg/kg)
15800
9.7 UJ
8.9 J
179
0.35 U
0.69 U
1200
24.5
19.0
31.4 B
161000
142
3770
954
0.17 U
31.1
868 U
11.6 UJ
5.4
127 B
0.39 UJ
15.1
359
SSII-3C Q
(mg/kg)
11700
10.7 UJ
14.4 J
1590
1.2
0.77 U
1120
15.9
381
42.2 B
136000
21.5
2460
17400
0.20 U
42.6
961 U
12.6 UJ
7.3
144 B
0.42 UJ
9.8
125 B
UNUSABLE DATA DUE TO EXCEEDED ANALYTtCAL HOLD.NO T.MES (REPORTED AS UNDETECTED)
I
oFiER UJ- UNDETECTED. ESTIMATED VALUE Tl ( HNOl, ,(.V
NOTES SAMPLE SSU, ,C ,S A BL.ND DUPUCATB OP SAMPLE SSH-7C.
, < . , r «,,.,« ,« A BLIND DUPLICATE OF SAMPLE SSII-3D.
-------
TABLE 14 CON'T
Metals in Seep Sediment
April, 1990
Sample Id
(mil*)
ANALYTES
Aluminum
Antimooy
Arsenic
B«rium
Beryllium
C*draium
Celciura
Chromium
Cobill
Copper
Iroa
Lt»A
M«|nuiuro
Mu>gMt«<«
Memiry
Nickel
Poumura
Selenium
Silvw
Sodi'.m
Thallium
Vtr*dium
line
SSII-7A Q
(n>g/kg)
2560
49.3 J
3
444
0.86 U
4.3 U
1140 J
7.8 UJ
79.2
7.8 UJ
542000
9.2
461 J
3140 J
0.44 U
30.7
2170 U
2.6 U
22.8
203 B
0.98
22
237
SSII-7B Q
(mg/kg)
7480
7.6 J
2.4
182
0.38
1.3 U
1240 J
27.1 )
62.1
45.2 1
44500
8.4
1930 J
3830 J
0.12 U
17.1
673 U
0.86 U
2.2
85.4 B
0.42
17.2
56.1 B
SSII7C Q
(rag/kg)
11400
4 U
2.5
127
0.43
0.86 U
2320
24.6
64.8
40.5
61200
14.9
4350
1890
0.14 UR
31.9
476
0.9 U
1.5
III
0.3 U
10.3
101
SSII-9B (2) Q
(mg/kg)
9710
7.8 UJ
13 J
148
0.28 U
0.63 B
1000
14.5
15
23.3 B
127000
148
2080
779
0.28
21.1
700 U
10 UJ
4.4
123 B
0.33 UJ
6.5
286 B
SSII-IIC(I) Q
(mg/kg)
1360
36.1 J
2.2 U
304
0.51 U
2.5 U
858
4.6 UJ
54.9
4.6 UJ
383000
6.2
324 J
2140 J
0.38 U
17
1280 U
2.2 U
14.7
159 B
0.74
14.4
176
8 - BLANK CONTAMINATION
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
Q - QUALIFIER
R UNUSABLE DATA DUE TO EXCEEDED ANALYTICAL HOLDING TIMES (REPORTED AS UNDETECTED)
U - UNDETECTED. VALUE STATED IS EQUAL TO DETECTION LIMIT
UJ - UNDETECTED. ESTIMATED VALUE B* I
MOTES : (I) SAMPLE SSII-11C IS A BLIND DUPLICATE OF SAMPLE SSII 7C.
ruiNni.ot.v
-------
of the Southern Tributary. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, a common
lab contaminant, was detected at .44 mg/kg and 2.0 mg/kg at the
East and West Seeps, respectively.
Pesticides and PCBs were absent in all samples except for
location SPS-1 (West Seep) which revealed 0.29 mg/kg of PCB
Arochlor 1260.
Concentrations of iron ranged from 48,600 mg/kg (SSII-1B at
the unnamed seep at the origin of the Southern Tributary) to
542,000 mg/kg (SSII-7A at the unnamed seep along Tributary D).
Concentrations of manganese ranged from 493 mg/kg (SSII-2B at the
East Seep) to 17,400 mg/kg (SSII-3C at the West Seep). Silver
was detected in all samples collected in 1990 ranging in
concentrations from 1.8 mg/kg to 22.8 mg/kg. Cyanide was
detected at only one location SPS-2 (unnamed tributary at the
origin of the Southern Tributary) at 11.5 mg/kg in May 1988.
Zinc and lead concentrations exceeded national background ranges
for soils in sediment samples at the East Seep, detected at
maximum concentrations ranging from 527 mg/kg to 1330 mg/kg and
25 mg/kg to 643 mg/kg, respectively.
3. Stream Water
Water samples were collected from the Northern and Southern
Tributaries, Stream A (located northeast of the Site), Tributary
B which feeds the Southern Tributary from the southeast,
Tributary C which intermittently feeds Codorus Creek from the
north and at points along Codorus Creek. A summary list of
compounds which were detected are presented in Tables 15 to 17
and are further discussed below. Background stream water quality
is characterized by water quality in Stream A (SW-ll and SW-12),
Tributary B (SWII-8B and SW-5) and Codorus Creek (SW-9 and SW-
10). A comparison of background and non-background stream water
quality to PADER and EPA water quality standards in presented in
Table 18.
Of the thirty-four VOCs analyzed at sixteen separate
locations, only seven compounds were detected, all at low
concentrations. The maximum concentration of any compound was 7
ug/1 for acetone (a common lab contaminant). Six of the seven
compounds were found in two samples, SW-1 and SW-6, which are
located along Tributary D and the Northern Tributary,
respectively. VOCs were not reported in Codorus Creek or Stream
A. Sampling in 1990 did not detect any VOCs.
Semi-volatile compounds were analyzed for in stream water in
one sampling round conducted in May of 1988 and results are
listed in Table 16. The results indicate:
Two of twelvs sampling locations displayed semi-
-------
TABLE 15
Volatile Organic Compounds in Stream Waters - Positive Identifications Only
(All results in ug/l).
May, 1988
ANALYTE
1 ,2-dichloroethane
Crdorobenzene
Methytene Chloride
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
Chloroethane
Acetone
Trichloroethene
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 12)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified = 3)
SW-1
1
4
-
-
5
-
-
SW-2
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
SW-6
-
-
3
5
-
-
0.7
Not Detected
April, 1990
No. of Samples Collected « 4
No. of Samples with VOCs Identified = 0
-------
TABLE 16
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds in Stream Water - Positive Identifications
Only (All Results in ug/l).
May, 1988
ANALYTE
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
Bis(2-«thy1hexyt)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 12)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified
SW-1
2
= 2)
SW-3
31
1
Not Detected
£8Ol" VEftVA'.PDR
-------
TABLE 17
Total Metals in Stream Water
April, 1990
(unitt) 1
ANALYTES
Aluminum 1
1 Antimony j
lAnenie 1
JB«rium 1
Beryllium 1
Cadmium 1
ICUlcium 1
jchromium 1
jCcb.lt
Copper ]
llron
Le«d
(Magnesium
JMuiginete
Mercury
Nickel
Ipoturiura
I Selenium
Isavet
1 Sodium
Thallium
(Vanadium
Zinc
irnyij i
O.U7 B
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.0597
0.001 U
0.0022 B
175 1
0.009 U
0.007 U 1
| 0.009 U
0.362
0.001 U 1
8.91
1 0.117
0.0002 U
0.018 U
9.06 B
0.003 U
1 0.003 U
1 11 O
1 ll«r
0.001 U
0.004 V
1 0.043 B
\***ar -* i
0.879
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.0494
0.001 U
0.0043 B 1
28 1
0.009 U
0.007 U
0.009 U
i 157
0.0015 B
1 14.4
I 0.112
0.0002 U
I 0.018 U
I 3.48 B
1 0.003 U
0.003 U
652
jl 0.001 i
1 1 0.004 I
1 1 0.0343 I
0.229
0.028 U 1
0.003 U
0.0741 1
0.001 U
0.0022 B
1ft 1
lo»J
0.009 U
i 0.007 U
0.009 U
0562
1 0.001 U
I 0.226
0.0002 U
I 0.018 U
5.27 B
1 0.003 V
1 0.003 I
1 14.2
0.17
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.0165 1
0.001 U 1
0.0044 B I
1 6>1 1
0.009 U
0.007 U
0.009 U 1
0.306
1 0.001 U
4.67
I 0.002 U
1 0.0002 U
I 0.018 U
251 U
I I 0.003 U
I 0.003 U
1 3.19
Ijl 0.001 UJJ 0.001 t
J 1 0.004 U 1 0.004 I
t \ 0.005 U 1 0.0232 j
12 U
28 U
3 U
3 U
1 U 1
2 U
174 B
9 U
1 7 U
9 U 1
11.4 B
1 U
40.3 B
2 U
0.2 U
18 U
2510 U
1 3 U
3 U
| 253 B
IJJ » U
I 41
>1 23.4
25 B
28 U
3 U
3 U
1 U
2.3 B
156 B
9 U
j 7 U
105 B
43.9 B
1.3 B
0.2 U
18 U I
3100 B
3 U
3 U
112 B
r 1 1 U 1
[ 1 1
M 4 u
J 57.6 J
B BLANK CONTAMINATION
J . ESTIMATED VALUE
Q - QUALIFIER
. UNDETECTED. VALUE STATED IS EQUALTO DETECTION LIMIT
UJ UNDETECTED. ESTIMATED VALUE
5GRDUNDVCATER
TECHNOLOGY
-------
TABLE IB Constituents Detected In Sire*-** Waters Compared to EPA and PAGER
Water Quality Criteria (t icentratlons In ug/l)
GMtY limn ::
OC1EC1GD
:
CMorMthant
1.1-
Olchlorcwthane
1.1,1-
TrlcMoro* thane
CMorobtnitnt
TrlcMofMthen*
1.4-
jjlchlorotoenieot
M-OOT
AlunlrMft
"'IP
C'u!ffl.-,
Irwh
le»4
tfitgnMiUR
MWMBf^fe
««H^8L..^r ..
Zinc
NON'BACI
CTtEANjl
rueo.
i/»
1,9
i/»
1/9
'./9
1/6
1/6
III
V3
5/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3,3
3/3
3/4
1/6
r1!*flM)*a
*Ttt .:', . .;;:.
MHCE Of
KTECT*
S
1
S
4
0.7
2
.047J
229-879
49.4-74.1
17500-28000
562-1570
5.5
8910-14400
112-226
6520-14200
7.2J-14J
15J
lAOCCMI
STREAM 1
ft«.
MO
MD
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
3/4
1/1
HO
1/1
HO
HD
j»w;:v->. .
JMW
MIKE Of
OCTECtS
..
--
..
..
*
..
170
16.5
6100
306
6.7-10.7
4670
..
3190
--
--
AQUATIC LirE - ACUTE
EPA"*
HA
HA
18.000
HA
45.000
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
|I.I»I«II-I.M<| III
8H 'SO 100 200
CrlfW 82 197
HA
HA
HA
(.FBMM'C.MMI (t|
8H «50 100 200
Crlt -65 120 210
22
MATE
fADEI "'
HA
HA
3,025
1.180
2.250
730
1.1
HA
HA
HA
HA
|I.H4tl«.t.«l«l III
ax -so 100 200
Crit>34 82 200
HA
HA
HA
(.M»I|M>«.MM| Itl
BH >50 100 200
Crlt >65 120 210
22
1 QUALITT CRITERIA
AQUATIC Lift - CHRON
EPA"1
HA
MA
9400
MA
MA
MA
NA
NA
NA
MA
1,000
|l. II IIMt-«. »*! |tl
ax «so 100 200
Cr«t «1.3 3.2 7.7
NA
NA
NA
SH «50 100 200
Crlt -59 110 190
2.5
1C
PAOER"1
NA
HA
605
216
450
146
.001
0.1 of 96hr141
LCM
NA
NA
1,500'"
II.M«I««-4.MII |tl
3H =50 100 200
Crit =1.3 3.2 7.7
NA
1000'
NA
I*.MII1M*.».»I4| |»)
9H >50 100 200
Crlt -59 11^ 190
5
HUMAN H
EPA"'
NA
NA
200
100
5
75
NA
NA
1,000
NA
NA
50
NA
NA
NA
5.000
200'"
EALTH
PADER"1
NA
NA
1000
20
I
400"'
.00002
NA
NA
NA
NA
50
NA
NA
NA
5.000
200'"
\ fc»rer«nre: PADER (1990). unless otherwise noted
§ Re?«f»:ice: USEPA (1986)
1 trU'H* based on total dlchlorobenienes present
« Reference: PAOER (Title 25, Part I. Subpart C, Article II, Chapter 93)
§ H*rd)ic8S dependent, H = Hardness as mg/l CaCO,
t> Reference: USEPA (1990)
7 pr-opo««d MCL
fu-7 SU-'? SU 4 SU-ft. SU-7, SU-8, SUII-4B,
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
NA - Not Available
NO - Not Detected
-- - Does Not Apply
J -_e«timated Value
Tr.i IINOUH.Y
SUII-5B, SUII-6B
-------
Three SVOCs were detected: 1,4-dichlorobenzene, BEHP,
and di-n-butylphthalate. Sample SW-1 along Tributary D
showed a concentration of 2 ug/1 of 1,4-dichlorobenzene
and SW-3 revealed di-n-butylphthalate at 1 ug/1.
Sample SW-3, collected in the Southern Tributary,
showed 31 ug/1 BEHP. However, a duplicate sample (SW-
4) did not reveal BEHP and the upstream seep water
samples (SPW-2 and 4) did not reveal BEHP. The BEHP is
likely a lab contaminant. Sample locations SW-2 and
SW-6 (located in the Southern and Northern Tributaries,
respectively) located downstream of the locations
reporting SVOCs showed no detection of any SVOC.
Similarly, Codorus Creek and Stream A reported no
SVOCs.
Twelve stream water samples were analyzed for twenty
pesticide compounds and seven PCB Arochlors. Analytical results
indicate:
Only one pesticide (4,4-DDT) was reported and no PCB
compounds were detected. The estimated .047 ug/1
(4,4'-DDT) in SW-3 field duplicate (SW-4) did not
confirm the presence of the compound.
The results of the total metal and cyanide analyses are
presented on Table 17. Total Iron was measured at 1.57 mg/1 in
the Northern Tributary (SWII-5B) which exceeds the chronic PADER
and EPA chronic water quality criteria (1.5 mg/1 and 1.0 mg/1
respectively). However, the next downstream sampling location
(SWII-6B) from SWII-5B revealed an iron concentration of 0.562
mg/1 below the water quality criteria. PADER and EPA water
quality criteria for lead is hardness dependent (refer to Table
18). PAPER and EPA hardness adjusted chronic water quality
criteria is exceeded for lead at SW-7 (criteria =2.86 ug/1,
observed = 5.5 ug/1), SW-9 (criteria =.82 ug/1, observed - 6.7
ug/1), SW-10 (criteria « .82 ug/1, observed = 7.1 ug/1), and SW-
11 (criteria = .82 ug/1, observed » 10.7 ug/1). As noted
previously, locations SW-9, SW-10 and SW-ii are background
sampling locations; therefore, the occurrence of lead in stream
water is not considered to be Site related.
PADER and EPA chronic water quality criteria for cyanide (4
ug/1 and 2.5 ug/1, respectively) were exceeded at SW-3 (estimated
concentration of 20 ug/1), however cyanide was not detected in
the duplicate sample and was not detected in any other stream
water samples. Other than lead, no metals or cyanide were
reported in Codorus Creek or Stream A (analyses completed for
priority pollutant metals only). Zinc was detected at an
estimated range of concentrations .007-014 mg/1 in three samples.
17
-------
4. Stream Sediments
Stream sediment analyses consisted of 3 sampling events, one
in 1988 and two in 1990. As part of the October 1990 sediment
sampling round, two samples were collected from surface water
locations other than the tributaries. Sample SS-21, was
collected from a small ponded seepage area approximately 100 feet
south of the Northern Tributary, near the Codorus Creek flood
plain. Sample SS-25 was collected from a seepage area in the
bank of the Codorus Creek, near where the Southern Tributary
enters Codorus Creek. Background stream sediment quality is
indicated by sampling locations within Tributary B (SSII-8A,
SSII-8B and SSII-8C) which does not receive drainage from the
Site. The results of the stream sediment sampling programs are
listed in Tables 19 to 21. VOCs were detected at low
concentrations at six locations. A total of four compounds were
detected. Methylene chloride and/or acetone (common lab
contaminants) were the only VOCs detected in four of the six
stream sediment sample locations at maximum levels of 0.036 mg/kg
and 0.089 mg/kg, respectively. 2-Butanone, also a common lab
contaminant, was detected in sample SS-27 and 25 at estimated
values of 0.007 mg/kg and 0.031 mg/kg, respectively. The only
VOC detected in stream sediments which is not commonly associated
with laboratory contamination was chlorobenzene in one sample in
1988 (SS-l in Tributary D), at an estimated concentration of
0.015 mg/kg.
Of the sixty-four SVOC compounds analyzed for in each
sample, a total of only seven SVOC compounds were detected in the
sediments. Tributary D revealed five of the seven total
compounds. Di-n-butylphthalate occurred with the greatest
frequency, present in four of the five Tributary sediment
samples. Sample SS-28, obtained from the small ponded area in
the Southern Tributary, revealed two SVOCs, however, a duplicate
sample (SS-27) did not reveal any SVOCs. Sample SS-25, collected
from the bank of Codorus Creek, reported four SVOCs ranging in
concentrations from 0.43 to 0.82 mg/kg. The only SVOCs common
with the SVOCs observed in the stream sediments are 4-nitrophenol
and BEHP.
Pesticides and PCBs were not detected in any stream sediment
samples collected 'in 1988. The following compounds were detected
in only one sample SS-25, on the bank of Codorus Creek, in the
1990 sampling: ehdosulfan sulfate at 0.11 mg/kg and PCB Arochlor
1260 at 1.6 mg/kg.
D. Leachate Collection Vault System
Located at the West Seep is a leachate collection system
designed to collect leachate discharging from the West Seep and
provide retention time to allow settling out of suspended
particles and precipitates. Clarified leachat.<> is subsequently
18
-------
TABLE 19
Volatile Organic Compounds In Stream Sediments - Positive Identifications
Only (All Results In mg/kg).
May, 1988
ANALYTE
Acetone
Methylene Chloride
Chlorobenzene
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 7)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified = 5)
SS-1
.015 J
SS-3
.011
SS-4*
.003
SS-6
.007
SS-7
.019
.036
April, 1990
No. of Samples Conectlon « 4
No. of Samples with VOCs Identified - 0
December, 1990
ANALYTE
Acetone
2-Butanone
SAMPLING LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected - 3)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified - 2)
SS-25
.089
.031
J
SS-27
.007
J
Not Detected
- SS-4 Is a blind duplicate of SS-3
J - Estimated Value
S GROLNDWATER
TECHNOLOGY
-------
TABLE 20
Semi-Volatile Compounds In Stream Sediments Positive Identifications Only
(All results In mg/kg).
May, 1988
ANALYTE
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzole Acid
Dl-n-butytpnthalate
bls(2-Ethy1hexy1)phthalate
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 7)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs
Identified - 5)
SS-1
0.40
0.36
1.6
2.3
1.0
SS-2
0.53
-
SS-3
0.93
-
SS-4D
0.54
0.17
SS-6
.28
October, 1990
ANALYTE
4-chloro-3-methyphenol
Ruoranthene
Pyrene
Bls(2-Ethylnexy1)pnthalate,
4-Nttrophend
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 3)
(No. of Samples wtth SVOCs Identified = 2)
SS-25
0.43 JX
0.56 J
0.59 J
0.82 J
SS-28
0.45
J
-
-
0.38
J
Not Detected
J - Estimated Value
X - Mass spectrum does not meet EPA CLP criteria for confirmation, but compound presence Is strongly
suspected
JX Estimated Value, mass spectrum does not meet EPA CLP criteria for confirmation, but compound
presence Is strongly suspected
- SS-O Is a blind duplicate of Sb-3
==.«
-------
Metals and Cyanide In Stream Sediment
TABLE 21
April, 1990
sample M
JHBJH) _
AN*Hfli!|
Aldmmuwi
Afiiiflwnjr
Aw«fil*
Buiwm
Bsrytliiif"
«4miHm
OJcjHm
C»»«ml«m
£«6§h
c°pp«
Iron
U«i
Mtgnttlure
MMgMtM
M«wry
NicM
PoteMlum
Sdmlum
8Uvt»
Sodium
Thriliim
Vtmdlum
Zlne
*S.|4A Q
(ro|/kg)
14800
6.5 UJ
1.7 J
76.5
0.23 U
0.47 U
391 B
21.8
18.2
21.7 B
45200
7.0
4570
5340
0.12 U
27.5
587 U
3.7 1
2.0
58.3 B
0.25 UJ
12.8
(06 B
SSIUB* Q
(mg/kg)
14600
5
2.5
85.7
0.82
0.94 B
586
32.5
19
18.8
53500
9.6
4020
1410
0.14 R
25.6
587
0.94 U
1.2 U
104
0.31 U
19.8
III
SSII-4C * Q
(«8/ks)
1770
6.1 UJ
1.9 J
18.2
0.22 U
1.3 B
194 B
4.9
2.9
7.6 B
6280
8.9
416
239
0.13 U
3.9 U
546 U
3.9 J
0.65 U
29.2 B
0.28 UJ
2.8
13.2 B
SSII-5A Q
(rag"**)
10000
7.7 UJ
4.2 J
63.1
0.27 U
0.55 U
1170
16.4
20.1
17.1 B
23500
14.1
1710
550
0.12 U
11.0
690 U
8.7 J
0.82 U
53.6 B
0.30 UJ
12.8
52.9 B
SSI. SB Q
(mg/kg)
14900
8.5 UJ
5.0 J
80. 1
1.6
0.61 U
1470 B
19.9
24.3
22.8 B
30800
22.5
2510
698
O.IS U
165
764 U
9.9 J
1.3 B
65.4 B
1.4 UJ
17.5
81.3 B
SSII-IOB Q
(mg/kg)
13900
8.6 UJ
4.6
80.4
1.6
0.62 U
1540 B
17.7
23.9
23.5 B
27000
17.5
1970
644
0.14 U
14.3
775 U
9.5 J
0.93 U
108 B
0.32 UJ
17.5
73.7 B
SSII-5C Q
(mg/kg)
18500
9.0 UJ
7.1 J
79.7
1.8
0.66 B
2310
24.2
33.7
24.2
37200
20.6
2200
893
0.17 U
17.4
805 U
1.0 J
1.2 B
III B
0.41 UJ
22.5
78.9 B
SSII4A Q
(mg/kg)
12900
6.2 UJ
5.7 J
95.5
1.2
0.44 U
2800
23.8
30.5
23.4 B
47000
10.5
4290
1950
0.13 U
24.7
558 U
7.7 J
1.2 B
32.0 B
0.26 U
.4.7
93.4 B
SSII-6B Q
(mg/kg)
10400
5.4 UJ
12.6 J
523
0.97
0.39 U
207 B
14.3
30.2
14.) B
29000
16.9
3040
1070
0.13 U
21.8
487 U
8.0 J
0.86 B
25.9 B
0.27 UJ
9.3 B
64 8 B
SSII-6C Q
(mg/kg)
9870
5.5 UJ
7.4 J
35.0 B
I.I
0.67 B
315 B
18.9
17.0
28.3 B
3.500
S.S B
2720
657
0.12 U
21.7
498 U
7.5 J
1.2 B
80.1 B
0.25 UJ
9.5 B
80.2 B
SSII-8A Q
(mg/kg)
10800
6.9 UJ
2.6 J
14.2 B
1.3
0.49 B
195 B
21.0
10. 1 B
18.1 B
30700
14.3
2090
78.7
0.11 U
14.6
621 U
8.1 J
0.74 U
34.9 B
0.27 UJ
14.4
60.9 B
SSII-8B Q
(mg/kg)
7560
6.4 UJ
4.3 J
13.2 B
1.2
0.46 B
192 B
18.9
.5.1
16.0 B
27500
17.2
983 B
177
0.13 U
9.9
572 U
7.8 J
0.68 U
24.5 B
0.26 U
11. 1 B
44.9 B
SSII-8C Q
(mg/kg)
8910
5.8 UJ
2.4 J
14.8 B
1.2
0.42 U
173 B
22
20.8
21.3 B
38000
15.6
1310
381
0.14 U
15.4
523 U
8.1 J
11 B
19.4 B
0.27 U
13.6
62 8 I)
COHTAM.NAT.ON
vZE
QU Ar,UR
R - UNUSABLE DATA DUE TO EXCEEDED AN ALYT.CAL HOLDING T.MES (REPORTED AS UNDETECTABUE)
U - UNDETECTED. VALUE STATED ,S EQUAL TO DETECT.ON L.M.T
"' - UNDETECTED. EST.MATED VALUE
(.KOHNItWAil
TllllNOIIH.V
-------
TABLE 21 CON'T
Metals and Cyanide in Stream Sediment
October. 1990
Sample Id
j
AjMLYTES
Aluminrm
An li irony
Artenie
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magneiiurn
MingaM*
Mercury
Nickel
PoUuiuir
Sclenii m
Silver
SOdltt.n
Thallium
Yitrtldium
fcinc
Cyanide
% Solid?
SS20 Q
(mg/kg)
13000
16.2 UR
7.9
229
0.54 U
2.7 U
2160
5.6
43.6
17.0
53100
27.0
2470
4110
0.24 U
20.1
573
1.6 U
2.7 UJ
112
0.52 U
16.9
92.4 J
1.3 U
36.6
SS-21 * Q
14400
- 10.2 UR
6.2
IIS
0.34 U
1.7 U
1400
11.7
35.5
21.9
43600
22.1
3330
2670
0.17 U
21.3
259
1.0 U
1.7 UJ
84.5
0.34 U
17.6
98.7 J
0.86 U
57.6
SS-22 Q
(mg/kg)
10600
16.4 UR
14.6 J
356
O.SS U
2.7 U
1930
5.8
59.9
16.9
46400
35.3 J
2200
6870
0.26 U
20.5
695
1.6 U
2.7 UJ
152
0.53 U
13.1
77.1 J
1.4 U
36.3
SS 23 Q
(mg/kg)
10000
12.8 UR
9.9
147
0.43 U
2.1 U
957
2.6 U
39.1
8.5
99700
17.2
2280
1870
0.21 U
12.1
440
1.3 U
2.1 UJ
134
0.42 U
13.5
80.4 J
I.I U
46.0
SS24 Q
(mg/kg)
21200
12.7 UR
5.4 J
255
0.42 U
2.1 U
2160
22.7
38.4
31.3
5/^00
46.1
4020
2820
0.21 U
24.5
850
1.2 U
2.1 UJ
139
0.41 U
40.8
136 J
I.I U
46.7
SS25 Q
(mg/kg)
17300
16.7 UR
6.0
no
0.56 U
2.8 U
3210
31.4
24.7
41.6
36700
39.6
4070
959
0.26 U
24.7
812
1.7 U
28 UJ
159
0.57 U
40.4
123 J
1.4 U
34.2
SS 26 Q
(mg/kg)
13800
II. 5 UR
3.7 1
183
0.42
1.9 U
1200
6.3
23.9
14.4
53500
19.9
3110
2550
0.19 U
19.3
558
1.2 U
1.9 UJ
124
0.39 U
15.9
95.2 J
0.98 U
49.9
SS-27 Q
(mg/kg)
16200
16.5 UR
4.8
406
0.70
2.7 U
4480
8.0
46.6
18.8
52100
34.5
2730
4260
0.28 U
19.9
1210
1.6 U
2.7 UJ
363
0.55 U
21.5
101 J
1.4 U
35.7
SS-28 Q
(mg/kg)
14700
IS.O UR
5.6
444
0.50 U
2.5 UJ
4440
5.4
43.1
17.7
54600
28.9
2510
4130
0.24 U
15.7
938
1.5 U
2.5 UJ
321
0.50 U
22.0
96.6 J
1.3 U
38.4
-o
08
ggzD
OO
! . r.STIMATED VALUE R UNUSABLE DUE TO POOR SPIKE RECOVERY
o yuALiriER " - UNI>ETI;CTI;I>. VALUE STATED is EQUAL TO DETECTION LIMIT
. I'ONOED AREA ADJACENT TO THE NORTHERN TRIBUTARY UJ - UNDETECTED. ESTIMATED VALUE
NOTE: SS-78 IS A HELD DUPLICATE OP SS 27.
(iKiiUNhUAII
'I i riiNni i ii.y
-------
directed into a seepage bed(s) via a diversion box system. To
better characterize discharge from the West Seep, at this
location, water and sediment samples were collected from the
first vault in the system and the diversion box during both
initial and supplemental phases of the RI. Analytical parameters
for 1988 sampling events included VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs,
and priority pollutant metals. Analytical-parameters for the
1990 sampling event were total TAL metals, BOD, COD, and leachate
parameters. In addition, an extraction procedure toxicity
(EPTOX) analyses was conducted on sediments contained within the
collection vault.
Table 22 reports positive identification of compounds
detected in both water and sediment from the vault and diversion
box and indicates the following: Low levels of chlorobenzene,
xylenes, 1,2-dichloroethene, and acetone were detected, ranging
from 0.002 to 0.006 mg/1 in water and 0.025 to 0.15 mg/kg in
sediments.
Table 22 reports positive identifications of SVOCs detected
in water and sediment and indicate the following: 1,4-
dichlorobenzene at 7 ug/1, naphthalene at 3 ug/1, and di-n-
butylphthalate at 1 ug/1 were detected in diversion box water.
Di-n-butylphthalate was measured in the vault sediment at 14
mg/kg and in the diversion box sediment at 3 mg/kg. Benzoic acid
and BEHP were also detected in the diversion box sediment at 1.3
and 0.98 mg/kg, respectively.
The only pesticide or PCB detected was the pesticide Endrin,
at a concentration of 0.030 mg/kg in sediment from the vault
sample collected in 1988.
Table 23 reports metals and cyanide concentrations in
sediment and water from the vault system. Data collected between
1988 and 1990 indicates: An analyses of the supernatant water of
a vault sediment sample (after sediment had settled) reported a
total iron concentration of 11,800 mg/1. However, a water sample
from the same location collected in 1990 (with less suspended
material) was significantly less at 37.1 mg/1 of total iron. A
sediment sample from the vault was reported to contain 453,000
mg/kg of iron or 45.3% of the sample by weight.
EPTOX analytical results from a vault sediment sample
collected in 1990 show no herbicides, pesticides, or PCBs.
Barium at 6.83 mg/1 was the only compound detected by the
analysis and is at a concentration well below the EPTOX "limit"
of 100 mg/1, (EPTOX has since been replaced by the total
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)). The sediment is not a
RCRA hazardous waste on the basis of toxicity characteristics or
the other RCRA hazardous waste characteristics.
19
-------
TABLE 22
Volatile Organic Compounds In Collection Vault System Water and Sediment Samples
- Positive Identifications Only
1988
ANALYTE
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Xytene (total)
1,2-DIchloroethene
(total)
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected = 3)
(No. of Samples with VOCs Identified = 3)
VAULT
(Sediment)
mg/kg
0.15
0.025 J
SPW-3
(water)
mg/l
0.004
0.006
0.002
SPS-3
(Sediment)
mg/kg
0.14
0.065
Not Detected
J - Estimated Value
Note: Samples SPW-3 and SPS-3 collected from the diversion box
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds In Collection Vault System Water and
Sediment Samples - Positive Inderrtlflcatlons Only
1988
ANALYTE
1,4-Oichlorobenzene
NapthaJene
Dkvbutytphthalate
Benzole Add
bis(2-Ethythexyl)phth8Jate
SAMPUNG LOCATION
(No. of Samples Collected - 3)
(No. of Samples with SVOCs Identified * 3)
VAULT
(Sediment)
mg/kg
14.0
SPW-3
(Water)
ug/1
7
3
1
SPS-3
mg/kg
_
3.0
1.3
0.98
Not Detected
J- Sit/matedValue
Note: bamyfcw SPW-3 anO SPS-3 collected from the diversion box
TECKXOLOCV
-------
TABLE 23
Metals and Cyanide in Leachate Collection System Water and Sediment Samples
Sample Id
Date Collected
Units
ANALYTES
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
C hroniiu m
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
i
.gnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
LEACHATE Q
COLLECTION
VAULT
(WATER)
8/19/88
(ug/1)
17100 J
5130 J
2.1 U
28000 J
1.0 U
33.7 J
93500 J
3.0 UJ
1130 J
3.0 UJ
11800000 J
224.0
11900 J
40300 J
038
116.0 J
15700
41.0 U
3.0 U
43400 1
2.1 U
3.0 UI
1830 J
10.0 U
SPW3 Q
(TOTAL)
(WATER)
5/24/88
(ug/1)
34.0 U
NA
2.1 U
NA
1.0 U
4.0 UJ
NA
7.0 U
NA
6.0 UJ
NA
S.I B
NA
NA
0.2 U
15.0 U
NA
31.5 U
7.0 U
NA
2.1 U
NA
21.2 I
20.0 U
SPS3 Q
(TOTAL)
(SEDIMENT)
5/24/88
(mg/kg)
18.5 U
NA
5.4 J
NA
0.8 U
3.1 U
NA
5.4 U
NA
4.6 UJ
NA
16.4
NA
NA
0.100 U
11.6 U
NA
13.1 UJ
5.4 U
NA
0.88 U
NA
156.1 J
20.0 U
VAULT SAMP-W Q
(TOTAL)
(WATER)
4/11/90
(mg/1)
0.0367 B
0.028 U
0.003 U
0.364
0.005
0.002 U
37.2
0.009 U
0.0128
0.009 U
37.1
0.0015 B
18.8
3.66
0.0002 U
0.018 U
15.9
0.003 U
0.003 U
34.4
0.001 UJ
0.004 U
0.005 U
NA
VAULT SAMP-S Q
(TOTAL)
(SEDIMENT)
4/11/90
(mg/kg)
1510
25.7 U
5.1 B
1340
0.92 U
1.8 U
5780
8.3 U
30.3 B
15.2 B
453000
38.1
932 B
2500
0.48 U
16.5 U
2300 U
29.3 J
14.7
293 B
0.98 U
3.7 U
102 B
NA
B - BLANK CONTAMINATION
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
Q - QUALIFIER
NA - NOT ANALYZED
U - UNDETECTED. VALUE STATED IS EQUAL TO DETECTION LIMIT
UJ - UNDETECTED, ESTIMATED VALUE
- LEACHATE COLLECTION VAULT SAMPLE WAS ANALYZED AS THE AQUEOUS PORTION OF
THE SEDIMENT SAMPLE. OTHER SAMPLES WERE ANALYZED AS SOLID PORTIONS.
.TECHNOLOGY
-------
E. Ecology
Ecosystems identified and evaluated during the RI include
wetlands, primary growth and transitional woodlands. No flora or
fauna species of special concern or protection (threatened, rare,
endangered) were identified in the field or are recorded on
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory files within the study
area.
A fishery and benthic survey of the portions of the Northern
and Southern Tributaries and Codorus Creek indicates that these
fauna do not appear to be impacted by the presence of the
landfill. An observed decrease in fish diversity and benthic
macro invertebrates in the upper reaches of the tributaries was
consistent with the patterns observed in other stream systems not
influenced by anthropogenic activities.
A wetlands survey of the study area identified seven areas
displaying physical characteristics of wetland areas. Five' of
these wetland areas are narrow bands of riparian wetlands
associated with local water courses. The two remaining wetland
areas are located along the floodplain of Codorus Creek in the
vicinity of where the Northern and Southern Tributaries enter the
floodplain.
Stressed vegetation was observed in five locations within
the study area, encompassing a total of approximately 0.72 acres
(see Figure 5). A total of approximately 0.55 acres of stressed
vegetation was identified onsite which represents 0.3% of the
Site. Onsite areas of stressed vegetation consist of three areas
associated with iron rich seepage, and one area (Area 2) is
believed to be the result of physical disturbance and/or
deposition of soils by motorized equipment. Area 5 is located on
the floodplain of Codorus Creek and not associated with iron
stained soils.
No wildlife refuges or sanctuaries have been identified
within a one mile radius of the Site. Additionally, no
historical or archeological sites have been recorded on or within
a one mile radius of the Site.
VI. SUMMARY OF BITE RISKS
A. Indicator Chemical Selection
Based on sampling results and a review of the summarized
data, chemicals identified as potentially Site-related were
selected for further evaluation in the risk assessment. The
criteria for selection included presence in environmental media
above background and/or blank concentrations.
20
-------
FIGURE 5
AREAS OF VEGETATIVE STRESS
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL SITE
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP
YORK COUNTY. PA.
-------
Several potentially site-related compounds were eliminated
from further evaluation based on weight of evidence
considerations, including:
(a) low toxicity,
(b) infrequent and inconsistent detection in individual
media and across media,
(c) infrequency of detection [item (b)], coupled with no
risk-based concentration for an exposure scenario
associated with the specific medium of interest, and
low detected concentrations compared to RBCs for other
exposure scenarios.
Sample concentrations of inorganic chemicals were compared
with those levels considered to be naturally occurring in the
region; if the detected levels were elevated above background,
the chemical was considered for further evaluation in the
assessment.
Based on a review of the Old City of York Landfill RI/FS
data, a set of chemicals of potential concern has been selected
for detailed evaluation in the risk assessment. The overall
results of the indicator chemical selection process is summarized
in Table 24.
B. Exposure Pathways
This step in the risk assessment process involves
determining the potential routes of exposure to the human
population, the estimated concentrations to which the population
is exposed, and the population at risk. The baseline risk
assessment at the Old City of York Landfill Site considered the
potential exposure routes which included: (1) dermal contact
with soil, groundwater (i.e. showering), and stream sediments;
(2) incidental ingestion of soil; (3) ingestion of ground water
and (4) inhalation of dust and inhalation of vapors from ground
water.
C. Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment is the component of the risk
assessment process which qualitatively and quantitatively
evaluates the potential for chemical compounds to induce adverse
health effects in exposed populations.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure
to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed
in units of (mg/kg-cu;Y) -1, are multiplied by tht estimated
21
-------
TABLE 24
SUMMARY OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS SELECTED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
Non-Baclcaround stream Sadiaent (a)
Arochlor 1260 Arochlor 1260
Arsenic
Zinc
Onaite Ground Water (Walls A ft 5)
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
1, 2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane
Tetr ach 1 or oe thene
Benzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Lead
Of fait* rond Water (Wells D ft 7)
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
NOTES
(a) Based on sampling points SS-
1,2,3,4,,6,7,8,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, and SSII-4,5,6,10
-------
intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an
upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk
associated with exposure at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the
actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors are
derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or
chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation
and high-to-low dose extrapolation have been applied.
Reference Doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs are
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals, that
are likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health
effects. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media
(e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived
from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which
uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the
use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These
uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not
underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects
to occur.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard
quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake to the
reference dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a
medium or across all media to which a given population may
reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) is generated.
A summary of the toxicological indices of the indicator
chemicals is presented in Table 25.
D. Risk Characterization
Risk Characterization is the final step in the baseline risk
assessment. Results of the toxicity and exposure assessments are
combined to quantify potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
health effects. The risks are then combined across exposure
pathways to estimate a cumulative potential risk for the receptor
(see Table 26).
The individual exposure pathway associated with the largest
theoretical, upper-bound, incremental cancer risk is exposure
(i.e., dermal contact, ingestion, and inhalation of vapors) to
onsite ground water. Reasonable maximum exposure over a lifetime
to volatile organic compounds in onsite ground water could result
in =m increased risk of 5.36E-04 ( i.e., no more than 5 excess
cancers per 10,000 exposed people) for the residential child or
4.84iXK for the residential adult. Upperbound risks associated
22
-------
TABLE 25
Indicator Chemicals Carried Through Quantitative Risk Assessment
CPf Chronic RtD Subchronle RID
(mfl/ko-4ay) (mgAa-day) (mg/kg-day)
Oral Inhal Oral Inhaj Oral Inhal
5.70E-02 5.70E-02 4.00E-03 4.00E-02
1.1-DicritoroelMene 6.00E-01 1.20E+00 9.00E-03 - 9.00E-03
1,2-Diehloroetrane 9.10E-02 9.10E-02
1.4-Dichlorobenzene 2.40E-02 - - 2.00E-01 - 2.00E-01
Arsenic 1.50E+00 5.00E«01 1.00E-03 - 1.00E-03
Benzene 2.90E-02 2.90E-02 -
Lead . - 1.40E-03
Methykme CMoride 7.50E-03 1.60E-03 6.00E-02 8.58E-01 6.00E-02 8.57-1
PolychlorinaiM Biphenyts (Arodor 1260) 7 70E+00 -
Tetrachloroeihene 5.10E-02 1.82E-03 1.00E-02 - 1.00E-01
TrieWoroettwne 1.10E-02 1.70E-02 -
Vinyl Chtonde 1.90E*00 2.90E-01 -
-------
TABLE 26
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL MID COMBINED
RECEPTORS
Pathway RisX
Adult. Onsite
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 5.59E-07
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 9.21E-07
Inhalation of Entrained Particulate 6.50E-10
Exposure to Ground Water 4.84E-04
Child. Onsite
Dermal Contact with Stream Sediment 7.01E-08
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 2.19E-06
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 1.68E-06
Inhalation of Entrained Particulate 1.68E-09
Exposure to Ground Water 5.36E-04
Combined Adult and Child, Onr.it* 1.03B-03
Adult. Offsite
Exposure to Ground Water 5.00E-05
Child. Offsite
Dermal Contact with Stream Sediment 7.01E-06
Exposure to Ground Water 5.18E-05
Combined Adult and Child, Offsite 1.02B-04
KOTE8
(1) Exposure to ground water includes the following exposure
pathways: (1) inhalation of vapor during showering; (2)
dermal contact with ground water during showering; and (3)
ingestion of.ground water.
(2) Well pair A & 5 were used to calculate ground water exposure
risk for both the onsite adult and child. Well pair D & 7
were used to calculate ground water exposure risk for both the
offsite adult and child.
-------
with potential exposure by onsite receptors to media other than
ground water result in cumulative risks of 3.9 in a million
(child) and 1.5 in a million (adult). These risk estimates are
associated with PCBs in surface soil at an exposure point
concentration of less than 0.5 mg/kg.
Theoretical risks for offsite receptors are also associated
almost exclusively (greater than 99% of the total risk) with
ground water exposure pathways. The cumulative risk for the
combined child-adult receptor is i.OE-04. Off site risks are
based on ground water concentrations in the D/7 well pair only.
Table 27 presents the potential noncarcinogenic toxicity
estimates for each receptor, by pathway, by individual compound.
In addition, cumulative estimates of hazards are calculated for
each receptor across pathways (Table 27). All estimates of
hazards for individual compounds and across pathways, are less
than one, i.e., estimated intake levels are below those
considered safe. The hazard quotient for ingestion of ground
water from well pair A/5 is 0.2. All the individual compounds
evaluated over all potential exposure pathways, other than
ingestion of ground water, were associated with a hazard index of
less than 0.2.
B. Potential Environmental Impacts
The overall objective of the environmental evaluation is to
assess the potential effects of chemicals of concern from the Old
City of York Landfill on plants and animals which occur within
the study area.
Environmental exposure points of concern at the Site include
the surface soils, stream sediments and stream water. Other
media sampled include the collection vaults, seep sediments and
water, soil borings, ground water , and air. fhe seeps and
vaults are potential areas of concern to the streams. There is
no significant exposure of terrestrial or aquatic organisms to
the chemicals in soil borings, ground water, or the collection
vaults. The concentrations of chemicals of concern in stream
water, stream sediment and surface soil were compared to
background concentrations (for metals), available toxicity
information and available water quality or sediment quality
criteria.
Individual seep water concentrations, were compared directly
to the chronic water quality criteria, although water quality
criteria are not applicable standards at the seeps themselves.
Iron, manganese, and lead were reported in concentrations in
excess of water quality criteria at more than one seep sampling
location (although lead concentrations also exceed the water
quality criteria at three or four background -stream locations).
However, only lead Corritft over vo streaa water as beii/g in
23
-------
TABLE 27
HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES, FOR INDIVIDUAL CHEMICALS,
BY RECEPTOR AND EXPOSURE PA THWA Y
Acceptor / Pathway
Chtmleal
HDD
Chemical
AD AEF Hazard
Ouettonf
Expoaurt Pathway
Hazard
lnd»x
Child, On-SIt* A Off-Site/
Dermal Conuet with Non-Background Stream Sediment
Arsenic
7.426-06 1006-03 NA 7.42E-03
7.42E-03
Adult On-Slu/
Ingeaoon ot Groundwatar (Walla S ft A)
2.31 E-04 1.40E-03 NA 1.6SE-01
1.65E-01
Child, On-Slt«/
IngMtlon ot Oroundwcttr (W»IU 3 A)
3.246-04 1.40E-03 NA 2.31 E-01
Adutt, Oo-8lt«/
OwiMl Contact wltti Oroundwater During Showering (Walla 5 & A)
3.77E-07
ChBd.Oo.8IU/
Dwmal Contact with Qroundwatat During Showering (Watta 5 ft A)
5.07E-07
140E-03 0.06 S.39E-03
1.406-03 O.OS 7.24E-03
2.31 E-01
5.39E-03
7.24E-03
TOTAL HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES BY RECEPTOR
ffeeaptor
firpoaur* MtfMvy
Jn0mr
ConMbutfonlo
Tow Haani Infrx
Total Hazard
Adult, On-Wt* (Walla 3 ft A)
DormaJ Contact wlt» GreundwaW Dunng Showering S.39E-03
tnoeaOon ot Greundwaw 1.656-01
3.156%
96.844%
1.716-01
Chttd, On«ta (WaOa 3 ft A)
DennaJ ContKt-wHh Stream Sodtonent 7.426-03
Dermal Contact witi Qroundwnar Ouhng Showering 7.246-03
ingeeoon ot Qreundwaier 2,316-01
3.017%
2.942%
94.041%
Z466-01
CMM. ^tMHkt'WeBa 7 ft 0)
Dermal COMM w» Stream Sedhnert
7.42E43
100.000%
7.426-03
-------
excess of water quality criteria. Concentrations of other
inorganic compounds (silver and mercury) which exceed water
quality criteria are not found consistently across sampling
locations, or even at the same location between different rounds
of sampling, and neither compound was detected in stream water.
Although leachate periodically escapes from the collection
vaults, the aquatic field investigation confirms that there is no
impact on aquatic organisms downgradient from the vaults. Based
on the results of a fish and macrobenthic invertebrate study
conducted at the Site, the streams appear to have a healthy
population of aquatic life.
Based on the results of the analysis of potential impact on
aquatic organisms, it appears unlikely that concentrations of
various inorganic compounds detected in seep areas will have
adverse effects on fauna. Terrestrial organisms are likely to be
less sensitive to environmental concentrations than aquatic
organisms and will not be relying exclusively on seep areas for
water or nourishment, furthermore, the aquatic life criteria
assume that organisms live in water, rather than only
occasionally being exposed to water as in the case of terrestrial
organisms.
F. Conclusion
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
the Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in the ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
VII. DESCRIPTION OP ALTERNATIVES
The Superfund process requires that the alternative chosen
to cleanup a hazardous waste site meet several criteria. The
alternative must protect human health and the environment, be
cost-effective, and meet the requirements of environmental
regulations. Permanent solutions to contamination problems
should be developed whenever possible. The solutions should
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the contaminants.
Emphasis is also placed on treating the wastes at the site,
whenever this is possible, and on applying innovative
technologies to clean up the contaminants.
The FS studied a variety of technologies to see if they were
applicable for addressing the contamination at the Site. The
technologies determined to be most applicable to these materials
were developed into remedial alternatives. In addition to the
alternatives presented in the FS, EPA and PAOER have developed an
additional alternative (Alternative 7) based on information
provided in the RI and FS reports. These alternatives are
presented and discussed below. All costs and implementation
?iraefraa»3S specified below are estimates, -
24
-------
COMMON ELEMENTS: All of the alternatives being considered
would include common components. Each alternative would include
the following: (1) the restrictive covenant would remain in
place and would continue to prohibit any further development of
the property for residential, commercial, industrial or other
purposes, and prevent the use or development of the surface water
or ground water on or beneath the property; (2) the public
drinking water pipeline installed in 1986 to service residents
would remain in place for all the alternatives: (3) a long-term
(30-year) ground water monitoring program to measure
concentrations of Site-related contaminants over time; and (4) an
EPA review of the Site every five years to ensure continued
protection to human health and the environment for each of the
alternatives.
Alternative i: No Further Action
Capital Cost: $0
Operation and Maintenance: $25,000
Present Worth: $384,000
Months to Implement: 0
The National Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA's regulations
governing the Superfund program, requires that the "no-action"
alternative be evaluated at every site to establish a baseline
for comparison with the other alternatives. Under this
alternative, no remedial action would be taken at the Site.
However, at the Old City of York Landfill Site, remedial
actions have already been taken. Thus, a true "no-action" is not
possible. The best approximation of a no-action alternative is
ceasing current actions, that is removing the restrictive
covenant for the Site and shutting off the public water supply.
However, since these remedial actions will not cease, this
alternative has been termed "no further action11. In this
alternative, the public water line will remain in service and the
restrictive covenant would continue to prohibit any further
development of the property for residential, commercial,
industrial or other purposes, and prevent the use or development
of the surface water or ground water on or beneath the property.
The Site would be left in its current condition. A long-term
(30-year) ground water monitoring program would be implemented at
the Site using the existing wells.
EPA would review the Site every five years in accordance
with the requirements of CERCLA to assure continued protection to
human health and the environment.
Alternative 2: Ground water recovery and treatment refuse
Area t3 (northeastern portion), ground water
monitoring, vault sediment removal with off-
trite disposal
-------
capital Cost: $128,100
Operation and Maintenance: $154,600
Present Worth: $2,504,700
Months to Implement: 6
The major components of this alternative include ground
water recovery/treatment in the northeastern portion of Area #3
and onsite discharge of treated ground water. The ground water
recovery system will consist of three pumping wells which will
remove the contaminated ground water by pumping it to the surface
for treatment. The recovery (extraction) wells will be the
existing extraction wells RW-l and RW-2, and the Boser
residential well (not in use). The extraction wells are
constructed and located such that pumping these wells is expected
to create a combined capture zone capable of preventing future
ground water migration to the east from this area and to draw
back constituents onto the Site that have migrated offsite in the
vicinity of the Boser residence.
The existing onsite air stripper will be used to treat the
recovered ground water. In the air stripper, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) transfer from the water phase into the air
phase. The treated ground water will be discharged to an onsite
tributary in accordance with NPDES requirements. The air
stripper will comply with the Clean Air Act and the requirements
promulgated under the Pennsylvania Pollution Control Act at 25
Pa. Code Chapter 127 for emissions from the air stripper.
In addition to the ground water recovery and treatment, this
alternative will also include the periodic removal of accumulated
sediment in the concrete vaults near the West Seep. The sediment
would be removed by pumping out the sediment from the vaults with
a standard vacuum pump truck into 5,000-gallon tank trucks for
offsite disposal at a permitted treatment/disposal facility.
Subsequent removal/disposal of sediment would be conducted when
the vault tanks reached approximately three-quarters full.
Alternative 3: Ground water recovery and treatment refuse
Area #3 (northeastern portion), restore soil
cover at refuse Area #3 (northeastern
portion), ground water monitoring, vault
sediment removal with off-site disposal
Capital post: $2,737,400
Operation and Maintenance: $180,900
Present Worth: $5,214,200
Months to Implement: 12
This alternative consists of the same remedial actions as
Alternative 2 plus restoring the landfill cover in the
northeastern portion of -Area #3 which ei^ompasses approximately
.rixteen acres. This restoration would involve bringing all
26
-------
refuse areas containing less than two feet of cover up to a
minimum of two feet. Restoration of the existing cover at the
northeastern portion of Area #3 would include the following
elements: (1) controlling surface run-on by installing a
diversion swale along South Road by the Boser residence; (2)
applying a uniform soil cover over the northeastern portion of
Area #3 which will bring the total soil cover up to two feet; (3)
hydroseeding the newly covered portions along with any required
erosion matting; and (4) conducting cover inspection and
maintenance.
This alternative would incorporate gas pipe vents to
intercept and vent migrating landfill gas (e.g. methane).
Monitoring probes would be installed outside the perimeter of the
restored cover for monitoring the effectiveness of the gas
control system. Gas monitoring would be conducted to ensure the
effectiveness of the venting system.
Alternative 4: Multi-layer cap over Area fl, ground water
recovery and treatment at refuse Area #3
(northeastern portion), ground water
monitoring, vault sediment removal with off-
site disposal
Capital Cost: $2,433,300
Operation and Maintenance: $205,800
Present Worth: $5,597,000
Months to Implement: 12
This alternative incorporates all the remedial actions
described under Alternative 2 in addition to establishing a
multilayer cap over refuse Area #1. The cap design would be in
conformance with current Pennsylvania performance standards for
municipal landfills as described in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 273. The
purpose of the cap would be to reduce infiltration of
precipitation, which will ultimately reduce the amount of
leachate produced from the landfilled area, thereby reducing the
concentration of leachate constituents in the ground water.
The cap alternative would incorporate gas pipe vents to
intercept and vent migrating landfill gas (e.g. methane).
Monitoring probes .would be installed outside the perimeter of the
cap for monitoring the effectiveness of the gas control system.
Gas monitoring would be conducted to ensure the effectiveness of
the venting system.
Alternative 5: Multi-layer cap over Area #3 (northeastern
portion), ground water monitoring/ vault
sediment removal with off-site disposal
Capital Cost: $5,506,200
Operation and Maintenance: $120,300
21
-------
Present Worth: $7,355,600
Months to Implement: 12
This Alternative incorporates a partial multilayer cap over
the northeastern portion of Area #3 encompassing approximately 16
acres in the vicinity of the Boser residence. The cap design
would be in accordance with current Pennsylvania performance
standards for municipal landfills described in 25 Pa. Code
Chapter 273. The purpose of the cap would be to reduce
infiltration of precipitation, which will ultimately reduce the
amount of leachate produced form the landfilled area, thereby
reducing the concentration of leachate constituents in the ground
water.
The cap alternative would incorporate gas pipe vents to
intercept and vent migrating landfill gas (e.g. methane).
Monitoring probes would be installed outside the perimeter of the
cap for monitoring the effectiveness of the gas control system.
Gas monitoring would be conducted to ensure the effectiveness of
the venting system.
This Alternative would also include the removal of the
accumulated sediments in the West Seep vaults as described in
Alternative 2.
Alternative 6: Multi-layer cap over refuse Area #3 (entire
area), ground water monitoring, vault
sediment removal with off-site disposal
Capital Cost: $17,534,400
Operation and Maintenance: $207,200
Present Worth: $20,719,600
Months to Implement: 24
This alternative is similar to Alternative 5 except that
instead of just the 16-acre northeastern portion of the Site
being capped, the entire area comprising refuse Area #3 would be
covered with a multilayer cap constructed in accordance with 25
Pa. Code Chapter 273. Refuse Area #3 encompasses approximately
50 acres. Approximately one acre of Area #3 in the vicinity of
the East Seep, where the existing slope is on the order of 40
percent, would require regrading/filling of the slope to reduce
the severity of this slope to a maximum of 33 percent with
terracing to facilitate construction.
Alternative 7: Multilayer cap over refuse Area #3 (entire
area) and Area #1, ground water
recovery/treatment in Area #3 and Area #1,
ground water monitoring, vault sediment
removal and offsite disposal
Capital Cost: $21,000.000
28
-------
Operation and Maintenance: $300,000
Present Worth: $26,000,000
Months to Implement: 24
This alternative incorporates the construction of a
multilayer cap over refuse Area #1 (approximately 5.5 acres) and
#3 (approximately 50 acres). The cap design would be in
accordance with the Pennsylvania performance standards for
municipal landfills set forth at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 273. The
construction of the multilayer cap will effectively reduce the
infiltration of precipitation to the landfilled areas of Area #1
and #3, thereby reducing the concentration of leachate
constituents in the ground water. A fence would be constructed
around the capped areas to restrict access and protect the
integrity of the cap.
The cap alternative would incorporate gas pipe vents to
intercept and vent migrating landfill gas (e.g. methane).
Monitoring probes would be installed outside the perimeter of the
cap for monitoring the effectiveness of the gas control system.
Gas monitoring would be conducted to ensure the effectiveness of
the venting system.
A ground water recovery/treatment system will be employed at
both Areas #1 and #3. Recovery (extraction) wells will be
located such that pumping these wells would create a combined
capture zone capable of preventing further migration of
contaminated ground water and treatment of ground water that is
currently contaminated. The exact number of wells would be
determined during the remedial design. Air stripping will be
used to treat the recovered ground water. To the extent
feasible, such recovery wells will be incorporated into the
existing ground water recovery/treatment system.
In addition to the ground water recovery and treatment, this
alternative would also include the removal of the accumulated
sediments in the West Seep vaults as described in Alternative 2.
VIII. SUMMARY OP COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A detailed analysis was performed on the seven alternatives
using the nine evaluation criteria specified in the NCP in order
to select a remedy.' The following is a summary of the comparison
of each alternatives' strength and weaknesses with respect to the
nine evaluation criteria. These nine evaluation criteria are
listed in Exhibit A.
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
All the alternatives would provide varying degrees of
protection to human health and the environment by eliminating,
reducing, or controlling-risk through treatment, engineering
29
-------
EXHIBIT A
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - Addresses whether the remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls or institutional
controls.
Compliance with ARARs - Refers to whether or not a remedy will meet all Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) of federal and state environmental
statues and/or provides grounds for invoking a waiver.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - The ability of the remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time once the "clean-up" goals have
been met.
Reduction of Toricity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment - Relates to the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies with respect to these criteria.
Short-Term Effectiveness - Refers to the period of time needed to achieve protection, and
any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation, until "clean-up" goals are achieved.
Implementabiliry - The technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
Cost - The following costs are evaluated: estimated capital, operation and maintenance, and
net present worth.
State Acceptance - This indicates whether, based on its review of the Feasibility Study and
the Proposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment regarding the
preferred alternative.
Community Acceptance - Will be assessed in the Record of Decision following a review of
the public comments received on the Administrative Record and the Proposed Plan.
-------
controls, or institutional controls. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 7
would reduce the risk to human health from exposure to
contaminated ground water through ground water recovery and
treatment. Alternative 7 would be the most protective of these
alternatives since it addresses contaminated ground water in both
Areas #1 and #3 through ground water recovery/treatment.
Alternative 5 provides for placing a multilayer cap on the
northeastern section of Area #3, and Alternative 6 provides for
placing a multilayer cap over the entire area of Area #3.
Although both Alternatives 5 and 6 would result in some reduction
in ground water contamination in Area #3, neither includes ground
water recovery/treatment which would prevent further migration of
contaminated ground water in Area #3 nor does either alternative
address ground water contamination in Area #1. Alternative 1 (No
Further Action) would be least protective of human health and the
environment since this alternative does not actively address
reducing or controlling contamination at the Site.
All the Alternatives (excluding the No Further Action
Alternative) provide for the removal of accumulated sediments in
the collection vaults at the West Seep which would eliminate
potential aquatic life impacts to the Southern Tributary onsite.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
The following applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) have been currently identified: Clean Air
Act, Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act, Clean Water Act,
Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Pennsylvania Solid Waste
Management Act, Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Management
Regulations, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the
Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
The No Further Action alternative would not meet ARARs. The
ground water recovery/treatment system for Alternatives 2, 3, 4,
and 7 would comply with the Clean Air Act and requirements
promulgated under the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at
25 Pa. Code Chapter 127 for emissions from the treatment system.
The landfill gas venting systems under Alternatives 4 through 7
would have to meet the requirements under 25 Pa. Code Chapter
127, and specifically Section 127.12(a)(5) for new air emission
sources.
All discharges of treated process water to onsite
tributaries from the ground water treatment system would meet
NPDES requirements developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act and
the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law. The Pennsylvania Water
Quality Criteria promulgated at 25 PA Code Chapter 93.1-93.9 and
93.16 are ARARs for the tributaries onsite. However, EPA has
determined that these criteria are not directly applicable to the
? seaps because no aquatic life exists in the seeps.
30
-------
The Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Management Regulations
promulgated at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 273 are not legally applicable
or relevant and appropriate for the landfill closure requirements
because the landfill was closed in January 1975. However, the
regulation would be both relevant and appropriate for design and
construction of the multilayer cap under Alternatives 4, 5, 6,
and 7.
The Pennsylvania ARAR for the remediation of ground water
which contains hazardous substances is that all ground water
shall be remediated to "background" quality. The clean up levels
for these alternatives is remediation to background levels for
ground water. If implementation of the selected remedy
demonstrates, in corroboration with hydrogeological and chemical
evidence, that it will be technically impracticable to achieve
and maintain the remediation levels throughout the area of
attainment, the EPA in consultation with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, will consider amending the ROD or issuing an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) to inform the'public
of alternative ground water clean up levels.
Disposal of the recovered sediments from the collection
vaults at the West Seep would be conducted in accordance with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, as required.
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Each of the alternatives considered addresses the ground
water contamination at the Site and the accumulation of
contaminated sediments in the concrete collection vaults at the
West seep. By eliminating contaminants present in the ground
water and the accumulation of sediments in the collection vaults,
each of the alternatives achieves a certain degree of long-term
effectiveness and permanence. The difference between the
alternatives with regard to the long-term effectiveness and
permanence is directly related to how each alternative addresses
ground water contamination at the Site.
The ground water recovery/treatment system of Alternative 7
provides the greatest degree of long-term effectiveness and
permanence. For this Alternative, the implementation of a ground
water recovery/treatment system in both Areas #1 and #3 would
provide for a greater reduction in ground water contaminant
concentration than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 since these
alternatives address ground water recovery/treatment in the
northeastern portion of Area #3 only. Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and
7 include constructing a multilayer impermeable cap over selected
areas of the Site. A cap would effectively reduce the
infiltration of precipitation through the refuse thereby
decreasing the amount of contaminant leaching .into t2\e ground
31
-------
water. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include construction of a
impermeable cap over any of the refuse areas. An advantage of
not placing an impermeable cap over landfilled areas is that it
would allow the continuous flushing of Areas #1 and #3 through
the infiltration of precipitation into these areas. The
continuous flushing action would permit the ongoing degradation
of constituents in the refuse and would eventually reduce the
mass of the contaminants in Areas #1 and #3.
The multilayer capping options of Alternatives 5 and 6 do
not include ground water recovery/treatment nor do they address
ground water contamination in Area #1.
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY. MOBILITY. OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
The volume of contaminants in the ground water will be
irreversibly reduced by ground water recovery and treatment under
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 7. Recovery and treatment of the
ground water would permanently remove constituents from the
aquifer, and treatment of the ground water will make the
remaining ground water less toxic. The hydraulic barrier created
by the pumping will contain the constituents thereby reducing the
mobility of the constituents in the ground water. For
Alternative 7, however, the reduction in contaminant volume,
toxicity, and mobility in the ground water will be greater since
the recovery/treatment system will encompass both Areas #1 and
#3.
All the Alternatives (excluding No Further Action) would
provide for the reduction in mobility of the accumulated
sediments in the collection vaults by removing these sediments.
The toxicity and volume of the contaminants would be reduced at
the offsite disposal/treatment facility.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 would present short-term
risks to workers and the community due to increased truck and
construction traffic during the installation of the additional
soil cover or construction of a multilayer cap. Fugitive dust
emissions from the Site may occur during construction activities.
Risks to onsite workers could be minimized by the use of proper
operating procedures and personal protective gear. Precautions
would be taken to ensure that these emissions would not impact
the community.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 7 would also present short-term
risks to workers who might come in contact with contaminated
ground water resulting from maintenance activities on the ground
water treatment system, recovery wells, or associated piping.
The health risl's associated witb such short-term exposures is
considered minimal. Pisl-.s to onsite workers could be minimized
32
-------
by the use of proper monitoring, operating procedures and
personal protective gear.
Other short-term risks to onsite workers might occur during
the removal of the vault sediment. Such risks are physical in
nature, such as possible falls and potential accidents involved
with equipment.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Each of the alternatives under consideration would be
implamentable at the Site using conventional construction
practices. Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 may pose some implementation
problems during construction of the multilayer cap due to the
proximity of the Boser residence to Area #3.
C08T
The lowest cost alternative (excluding the No Further Action
Alternative) is Alternative 2 at $2,504,700. The highest cost
alternative is Alternative 7 at approximately $26,000,000. The
cost of the other alternatives considered are provided in the
Summary of Alternatives section of the ROD.
STATE ACCEPTANCE
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not concur with the
selected remedy.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Community acceptance is assessed in the attached
Responsiveness Summary. The Responsiveness Summary provides a
thorough review of the public comments receivsd on the RI/FS and
the Proposed Plan, and EPA's responses to comments received.
IZ. SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of information available for the
Old City of York Landfill Site, including the documents available
in the administrative record file, an evaluation of the risks
currently posed by the Site, the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, EPA
has selected a modified combination of Alternative 3 and
Alternative 7 as the remedy to be implemented at the Old City of
York Landfill Site.
The selected remedy shall include the following: (1) the
restoration of the soil cover (see Figure 6) in the northeastern
portion of refuse Area #3 to a two foot minimus?; (2>) installation
of a diversion svale along South Road in the vicinity of the
33
-------
FIGURE 6
RESTORATION OF EXISTING SOIL COVER
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL SITE
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP
YORK COUNTY. PA.
LMOX.LBOUMMHY COWfSPONOS
TD 7 MilllMllOS/u APPWICHT
IOUA
Ani*vni£H£ ixistiNGcoven
WCHMOBEUPCnAOCD
-------
Boser residence; (3) revegetation of the soil cover; (4) a ground
water recovery/treatment system in both Areas #1 and #3 including
30-year ground water monitoring; (5) a landfill gas venting
system in the vicinity of the Boser residence and installation of
gas monitoring probes in the northeastern portion of refuse Area
#3; and (6) vault sediment removal with offsite disposal at an
EPA and PADER approved facility. In addition, the selected remedy
would include a perimeter fence at the leachate collection vaults
to prevent public access, and a surface water/sediment monitoring
program for the leachate seeps and tributaries onsite to ensure
continued protection to human health and the environment.
It is estimated that the present worth cost of the selected
remedy will be approximately $8,000,000. In estimating the cost
of the selected remedy, EPA used the present worth cost of
Alternative 3 and the present worth cost of a similar ground
water recovery/treatment project at a similar Superfund Site as a
basis in estimating the present worth cost of the selected remedy
(see Table 28 for a detailed capital cost summary).
Remediation of the low level threats at the Old City of York
Landfill Site will effectively eliminate the risks associated
with potential exposure to contaminated ground water at the site.
Performance Standards
(1) Restoration of the Soil Cover
A uniform and compacted layer of soil shall be placed over
the northeastern section of refuse Area #3 to restore the soil
cover in this area to a two foot minimum. This soil cover shall
(1) provide dermal protection from the refuse in the northeastern
portion of Area /3; (2) be capable of supporting the germination
of propagation of vegetative cover; and (3) compact well and not
crack excessively when dry. The cover shall be maintained for 30
years.
(2) Installation of a Diversion svale Along South Road
A diversion swale to control surface water run-on and run-
off shall be constructed along South Road by the Boser residence
to prevent erosion of the soil cover. The management of surface
water and control of soil erosion shall be based on the 24-hour
precipitation event in inches to be expected once in 25 years.
(3) Revegetation of the Restored soil Cover
Vegetation shall be established on the restored soil cover
in the northeastern portion of Area #3. Revegetation shall
provide for an effective and permanent vegetative cover of the
same seasonal variety as vegetation native to the Site and
capable of self regeneration and plant succession. Revegetation
34
-------
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES FOR CAP SYSTEMS
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS
TYPE OF COVER
AREAL EXTENT
DURATION
DIRECT CAPITAL COST
01 FIXED COSTS
02 MONTHLY COST
09 REaRADING-SLOPE REDUCTION/FILL
04 SITE PREPARATION
OS CONSTRUCTION OF CAP SYSTEM
06REVEGTATION
07 QA8 MONITORING PROBES
UNIT COST
S166.000.00
$76.000.00
S301.000.00
S1.MO.OO
S83.600.00
S16.700.00
S3.000.00
UNIT
L8
MONTH
LS
ACRE
ACRE
ACRE
PROSE
QUANTITY
1
6
0.1
16
16
16
16
TOTAL
ALTERNATIVE 3
SOIL COVER
AREA43-16AC
4 MONTH
SI 66,000.00
S460.000.00
S20.100.00
S20.000.00
SI67.600.00
sasi .200.00
SU.000.00
WARNING SKINS
TOTAL DIRECT CAPTTAL COST
INDIRECT COSTS
PROJECT MANAQEMENTOO*)
PROJECT ENGINEERINQ(10«)
S100.00 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTlNaENCY(20H)
TOTAL
S400.00
SUM .600.00
S166.160.00
S166.1SO.OO
S2434.160.M
$446.632.00
$2,660,002.00
$2.661.000.00
SITE PREPARATION COST INCLUDE CLEARING/GRUBBING
IN8TALATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES
REGRADING SLOPE REDUCTION IS CONSIDERED TO BE MINIMAL
10%% OF TOTAL COST ASSUMED
COSTS ARE ROUNDED OFF Tb THE NEXT HIGHER HUNDRED DOLLAR
-------
TABLE 28 CON'T
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATION
GROUNOWATER RECOVERY/TREATMENT
BY AIR STRIPPING
DIRECT CAPITAL COST
DESCRIPTION
RETROFITTING THE 3 RECOVERY
WELLS WITH 2HP SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS
MISCELLANEOUS HARDWARE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ELECTRIC WORK
CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT AREA
UNIT COST
S7.600.00
$8.000.00
S3.000.00
S3.000.00
UNIT
EACH
L.8.
US.
L.S.
QUANTITY
3
1
1
1
ESTIMATED COST
S22.SOO.OO
SS.000.00
S3.000.00
$3.000.00
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COST
S33.600.00
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
PROJECT MANAQEMENT(10*)
PROJECT ENGINEERINGOOH)
SUBTOTAL
CONTINOENCY(20H)
TOTAL
S3JSO.OO
S3.3SO.OO
S40.200.00
st.o40.oo
S4I.240.00
S4«.30o.oo
AIR STRIPPING TOWER ALREADY IN PLACE
THE PIPING AND TRENCHES ALREADY IN PLACE
NOTBl
The capital cost stated above is for ground water
recovery/treatment in the northeastern section of Area #3 only.
The EPA selected remedy includes ground water treatment in both
Area #1 and #3 (entire area). The capital cost associated with
the additional ground water recovery and treatment in these areas
is estimated at $1,500,000 based on a similar size project.
-------
TABLE 28 CON'T
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
VAULT SEDIMENT REMOVAL/DISPOSAL
DIRECT CAPITA! COST
DESCRIPTION
SITE PREPARATION
ACCESS ROAD
MATERIAL STAQININQ AREASCWM"!' CONCRETE)
REMOVAL OF SEDIMENTS FROM VAULTS
TRANSPORTATION OF SEDIMENTS
DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS IN
PERMITTED FACILITY
UNIT
COST
$10.000
$20,000
suo
$2,100
$210
UNITS
16
IS
VAULT
LOAD
TON
QUANTITY
1
1
1
3
62
BUDGET
COST
$10.000.00
$30,000.00
$6.000.00
$6,300.00
$13.100.00
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COST
INDIRECT CAPITAL COST
PROJECT ENQINEEWNO(10tt)
PROJECT MANAQEMENTftO*)
SUBTOTAL
CONT)N<1ENCY(20H)
TOTAL
ACCESS ROAD COST INCLUDES UPGRADING THE EXISTING
ROAD WAY
MATERIAL STAGING AREA COSTS INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION
OF CONCRETE PAD WITH EROSK3N CONTROL MEASURES
$56.400.00
$8,640.00
$3.640.00
$66.460.00
$13.296.00
$79.778.00
$79.600.00
-------
TABLE 28 CON'T
COST SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY (a)
CAPITAL COST AMMUAL O&M
Restoration of Soil Cover $2,681,000 $37,000
Ground Water Recovery/Treatment $1,548,000 $120,000
Vault Sediment Removal $79,800 $7,080
Annual Ground Water Monitoring $0 $80,000
Annual Surface Water/Sediment $0 $15,000
Monitoring
TOTAL $4,308,800 $259,080
Total Present Worth Cost = $8,291,000
(a) EPA estimated cost is based on information contained in the
Feasibility Study Report
-------
shall provide a quick germinating, fast-growing vegetative cover
capable of stabilizing the soil surface from erosion. Mulch
shall be applied to regraded areas where necessary to control
erosion, promote germination of seeds and increase the moisture
retention of soil.
(4) Ground Water Recovery/Treatment System and Ground Water
Monitoring
Ground water recovery/treatment shall be conducted in both
refuse Areas #1 and #3. The recovery wells shall be located
within the contaminated plumes emanating from both refuse areas
#1 and #3. The final number and location of recovery wells for
both Area #1 and #3 shall be determined by EPA during the design
phase of the project. The existing air stripper onsite shall be
used to treat the recovered ground water. If needed, an
additional air stripper and/or recovery wells or monitoring wells
shall be installed as part of the remedial action to ensure
compliance with the clean up levels of the selected remedy.
The ground water extraction system will continue to operate
until the remediation to clean up levels of contaminants is
reached throughout the area of attainment. The area of
attainment shall encompass the area outside the boundary of Areas
#1 and #3 and up to the boundary of the contaminant plumes. The
clean up level for the aquifer contaminants are, for each
contaminant, the lower of (1) the standards listed in Table 29
and (2) the background level of the contaminant. Background
levels for each of the contaminants listed in Table 29 shall be
the method detection limit for the method of analysis utilized
with respect to that contaminant. The appropriate methods of
analysis are 40 C.F.R. Part 136 (Series 601 and 602), and 40
C.F.R. Part 141 (Series 524.2). To this end, monitoring wells
shall be sampled on a quarterly basis for at least 30-years. The
number and location of these monitoring wells will be specified
during the remedial design, and additional monitoring wells shall
be installed, if required. If sampling confirms that background
levels have been attained throughout the area of attainment and
remain at the required levels for twelve consecutive quarters,
operation of the extraction system can be suspended. If,
subsequent to the extraction system shutdown, quarterly
monitoring shows the ground water concentrations of any
contaminant of concern to be above the levels specified in Table
29, the extraction system shall be restarted and continued until
the levels in Table 29 have once more been attained for twelve
consecutive quarters.
All extracted ground water shall be treated to levels which
will allow for discharge into Tributary D in compliance with the
requirements of Federal and State discharge regulations. All
emissions from the air stripper suall be in compliance with the
Clesn Air Act and the requirements uf tue Pennsylvania Air
35
-------
TABLE 29
REQUIRED REMEDIATION LEVELS FOR GROUND WATER
COMPOUND (a)
BENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
REQUIRED CONCENTRATION (Ud/1)
VALUE
5
75
5
7
11
5
5
5
2
BASIS
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
RISK BASED (b)
t
MCL (proposed)
MCL (proposed)
MCL
MCL
NOTES
(a) Includes all chemicals evaluated for ground water exposure
risks at the Old City of York Landfill Site.
(b) Risk-based levels are calculated assuming ingestion of 2
liters/day, 365 days/year, for 70 years Ly a 70 kg individual
-------
Pollution Control Act promulgated at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127.
It is estimated that it will take in excess of thirty years
to achieve the ground water remdiation levels as specified in
this ROD. If implementation of the selected remedy demonstrates,
in corroboration with hydrogeological and chemical evidence, that
it will be technically impracticable to achieve and maintain the
remediation levels throughout the area of attainment, the EPA in
consultation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, will consider
amending the ROD or issuing an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) to inform the public of alternative ground
water clean up levels.
(5) Landfill Gas Venting System and Installation of Gas Probes
A landfill gas venting system shall be installed in the
vicinity of the Boser residence to minimize the potential for
landfill gas migration toward the Boser home. The number of gas
vents shall be determined during the remedial design. The
landfill gas venting system shall meet the requirements under 25
Pa. Code Chapter 127, and specifically Section 127.12(a)(5) for
new air emission sources.
To monitor the potential occurence of landfill gas migration
in the northeastern portion of Area #3, perimeter gas monitoring
probes shall be installed the same time the soil cover is
installed. These gas monitoring probes shall be tested quarterly
for 30 years or until EPA determines that no gas monitoring is
necessary.
(6) Vault Sediment Removal with offsite Disposal
The accumulated sediment from the concrete collection vaults
located at the West Seep shall be completely removed and disposed
of at an offsite permitted facility. Prior to disposal, TCLP
testing shall be conducted on the sediment. If the sediment
fails the TCLP procedure, it shall be disposed of at an approved
offsite RCRA subtitle C facility. If the sediment passes the
TCLP procedure, it may be disposed of at an EPA and PADER
approved and permitted solid waste landfill. Sediment from the
concrete collection vaults shall continue to be periodically
removed when the vaults reach three quarters full.
(7) construction of a Perimeter Fence
A perimeter fence shall be constructed around the concrete
collection vaults located at the West Seep to prevent public
access to the vaults. This fence shall be maintained for 30-
years.
36
-------
(8) surface Water/Sediment Monitoring
Surface water (Streams and Seeps) and sediment (stream and
seep) monitoring shall be conducted for 30 years. During the
first five years, sampling shall be conducted semi-annually
during base flow conditions. This data shall then be evaluated
by EPA, in consultation with PADER, to determine if further
surface water and sediment sampling is necessary for the next 25
years. Parameters to be monitored include, but are not limited
to, the following: volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile
organic compounds, TAL inorganics (metals), particle size, and
leachate parameters.
In addition, the surface water/sediment monitoring program
will include a fish and macrobenthic invertebrate study that
shall be conducted once a year during the spring season for a
five year period.
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that are
protective of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA established several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete,
the selected remedial action for a site must comply with
applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is granted. The selected remedy must also be
cost-effective and utilize treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that
permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous wastes.
The selected remedy will be protective of human health and
the environment by eliminating the threat posed by hazardous
substances within the Old City of York Landfill. These hazardous
substances currently pose a threat to human health due to
potential exposure to ground water at the Site. Implementation
of this remedy would effectively eliminate the potential risk to
human health which may result from exposure to ground water from
the Site and restore ground water at the Site to beneficial uses.
The selected remedy would effectively minimize the potential for
exposure to landfill refuse by restoring the soil cover in the
northeastern portion of Area #3. The selected remedy would also
eliminate the potential risk to aquatic organisms from a sudden
discharge of sediment from the collection vaults at the West
£
-------
Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621(c) , would be required
to monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.
The selected remedy will not pose any unacceptable short-
term risks or cross-media impacts to the Site, the workers, or
the community. The selected remedy will be readily
imp lament able .
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will attain all applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements for the Site. These requirements
are shown in Appendix A. Most specifically, the Pennsylvania
action-specific requirement to remediate ground water to
background concentrations (25 Pa Code, Chapter 75, Part 264.97)
will be met through implementation of this remedy. If
implementation of the selected remedy demonstrates, in
corroboration with hydrogeological and chemical evidence, that it
will be technically impracticable to achieve and maintain the
remediation goals throughout the area of attainment, the EPA in
consultation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, will consider
amending the ROD or issuing an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) to inform the public of alternative ground
water goals.
Effectiveness
The estimated present worth cost of the selected remedy is
$8,000,000. EPA believes the selected remedy is cost effective
in mitigating the risks posed by the Old City of York Landfill
Site. Although the no-further action alternative can be
implemented at a much lower cost, that alternative is not
protective of human health and the environment and does not meet
ARARs.
utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Extent Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedial action
represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized while providing the best
balance among the. other evaluation criteria. Of the alternatives
that are protective of human health and the environment and meet
ARARs , EPA has determined that the selected remedy provides the
best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness;
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
state and community acceptance; and the CERCLA preference for
treatment .
The selected remedy addresses the lona-term, low-level
threats posed by tha Site contaminants at the Old City of York
38
-------
Landfill. The remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, meets ARARs, and is cost-effective. Treatment as a
principal element is provided for in the onsite treatment of
extracted ground water prior to discharge.
XI. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Old City of York Landfill Site was
released in July 1991. The Proposed Plan described the
alternatives studied in detail in the Feasibility Study, and EPA
reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the
comment period and at the public meeting. Upon review of these
comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the
remedy, as presented in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
39
-------
APPENDIX A
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL
REQUIREMENT
Ground Water
RCRA Maximum
Concentration Limits
(40 CFR 263.94)
Safe Drinking Water
Act Maximum
Contaminant Levels
(40 C.F.R Part 141)
PA Hazardous Waste
Management Regulations
(25 PA Code 264.97)
PA Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1984
(25 PA Code 109 et.
seq.)
PA Municipal Waste
Management Regulations
(25 PA Code 273.281 -
288)
Surface Water
Clean Water Act,
NPDES discharge
regulations
(40 C.F.R. 122-124)
PA Clean Streams Lav
(35 P.S. Section
691.1 et. seq.)
PA NPDES Regulations
(PA Code Title 25,
Chapter 92)
DESCRIPTION
Federal Standards for several toxic
chemicals are set forth to protect
ground water. Standards will be used
when setting goals for acceptable levels
of the listed chemicals.
Federal standards for several chemicals
including the RCRA MCLs, adopted to
protect public drinking water systems.
Standards will be considered and used in
characterizing human health risks
associated with possible contaminated
ground water used for human consumption.
Requires clean up of ground water to
background levels.
State act which established drinking
water standards as least as stringent as
Federal standards.
State requirements on monitoring ground
water for potential leachate constituents
Federal regulations on limitation of
discharge from treatment facilities.
State requirements set forth to protect
and ensure the integrity of streams.
Provisions for the administration of the
NPDES program within Pennsylvania.
-------
PA Water Quality
Standards (PA Code
Title 25, Chapter 93.1
through 93.9 and 16)
PA Wastewater
Treatment Requirements
(PA Code Title 25
Chapter 95 et. seq.)
PA Code Title 25,
Chapter 101
Sets forth general and specific standards
for the quality of waters and includes
specific water quality criteria and
designated water use protection for
streams in Pennsylvania.
State requirements that set levels for
surface water releases from treatment
facilities.
State requirements for incidences which
would endanger downstream users of
Pennsylvania waters.
PA Air Pollution
Control Regulations
(PA Code Title 25
Sections 123.1, 123.2)
Construction,
Modification,
Reactivation, and
Operation (Air
Stripping) (PA Code
Title 25, Section
127.l2(a)(5))
Clean Air Act
National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
(40 C.F.R. 61.64(b))
State requirements for fugitive emissions
and specific limitations for particulate
matter, odor, and visible emissions.
Requirements include BAT (Best Available
Technology), plan approval, and special
requirements in non-attainment areas
for new air emission sources.
Requirements for hazardous air emissions
Waste Management
Standards Applicabe to
Generators of
Hazardous Waste
(40 C.F.R. Part 262)
Standards Applicable to
Transporters of
Hazardous Wastes
(49 C.F.R. 171.1 to
171.16)
Requirements for generators of hazardous
waste. ARAR for the selected remedy if
vault sediment fails TCLP.
Department of Transportation requirements
for transportation of hazardous wastes.
ARAR for the selected remedy if vault
sediment fails TCLP.
-------
Land Disposal Requirements include BOAT (Best
Restrictions (LDR) Determined Available Technology)
Requirements be used to treat hazardous waste prior
(40 C.F.R. 268.1 to to disposal.
268.50)
PA Hazardous Management State requirements relating to the
Regulations (25 PA Code identification and determination of
Subchapter D, Sections hazardous waste, generator and
260.2-260.22, 261.1- transporter rules and regulations.
261.34, 262.10-262.60,
and 263.10-263.32)
PA Hazardous Sites Outlines hazardous sites clean up in the
Cleanup Act State of Pennsylvania.
(PA Code Title 35,
Chapters 1-13)
Occupation Safety and Health Act (Q8HA)
29 C.F.R. 1910.170 Safety and health regulations for
construction work
------- |