PB94-963901
EPA/ROD/R03-94/178
July 1994
EPA Super-fund
Record of Decision:
Hranica Landfill Site, PA
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
HRANICA LANDFILL SITE
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Hranica Landfill Site
Buffalo Township
Butler County, Pennsylvania
Operable Unit #2
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
Operable Unit #2 (OU2) at the Hranica Landfill Site (the Site) in
Buffalo Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, developed and
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended,
(CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et sea.. and to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision is
based on the Administrative Record for this Site.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Resources has not concurred with the Record of Decision (ROD).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The determination has been made that no further Remedial Action
is necessary at this Site. Therefore, the Site now qualifies for
inclusion in the "sites awaiting deletion" subcategory of the
Construction Completion category of the National Priorities List.
As specified in Section VI Summary of Site Risks, there are no
site-related risks that warrant further remedial action of any
kind.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This Operable Unit is the second and final operable unit for the
Site and it addresses ground water contamination. The selected
alternative for the ground water at the Site is No Action. Under
this alternative, no further Remedial Action will be taken at
this Site. Ground water will be monitored pursuant to the
remedial action selected in the ROD for the first Operable Unit.
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine,
pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606, that the
selected alternative is protective of human health and the
environment. Although no remedial action will be taken, ground
water quality at and in the vicinity of the Site will be reviewed
within five years in accordance with Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(c) to ensure that human health and the environment
continue to be adequately protected.
H XKostmayer
//"Regional Administrator
Region III
Date
-------
RECORD 07 DECISION
TABLE OF COHTEHT8
PAGE
I. SITE NAME, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUMMARY 4
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNITS 5
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 11
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 15
VIII.' RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 18
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
HRANICA LANDFILL SITE
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Hranica Landfill Site comprises 15 acres, and is located
approximately 21 miles north of Pittsburgh and just south of the
village of Sarver on Ekastown Road, Buffalo Township, Butler
County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The Site was used as a
landfill, drum disposal, and incineration facility.
The Site is located in a rural area in southern Butler
County near Route 28. It is surrounded by orchards, corn fields,
and wooded areas. Buffalo Township covers 23.9 square miles and
has a population of approximately 6,600 people. It is estimated
that 1,000 people reside within a one-mile radius of the Site,
4,000 people reside within a two-mile radius, and 10,000 reside
within a three-mile radius. The nearest offsite, private
drinking well is approximately 2,000 feet from the Site boundary.
Between 1966 and 1974, William Hranica and his brother,
Joseph, owned and operated a facility, which accepted both
municipal and industrial wastes. The initial waste disposal
methods for industrial wastes were open incineration and surface
impoundment storage. However, in or around 1968, the practice of
incinerating waste was temporary halted at the request of the
Butler County Health Department because of air pollution
problems. Mr. Hranica then disposed of the liquid wastes by
direct discharge into unlined surface impoundments. Within five
weeks of applying wastes to surface impoundments, an adjacent
property owner detected contamination in a spring on his
property. Upon discovery of the contaminated spring, the
Pennsylvania Health Department ordered Mr. Hranica to stop
disposing of liquid wastes into unlined surface impoundments.
Mr. Hranica abandoned surface impoundment disposal and began
to incinerate the wastes for a second time in large metal vats.
Mr. Hranica then applied to the Pennsylvania Health Department in
September, 1970 for permission to dispose of liquid wastes by a
method designed by Mr. Hranica which consisted of burning wastes
in a twin tank pit with air vents. However, the Pennsylvania
Health Department denied Mr. Hranica's request and requested him
to submit a satisfactory control plan by October, 1970. Mr.
Hranica did not submit the required control plan but did continue
to operate his disposal practices utilizing incineration. Mr.
Hranica disposed of the residual ash from the incineration
process in unprotected piles on the Site and continued to stage
numerous drums of waste on the Site until sometime in 1974.
-------
FIGURE 1
'
~ ''-
NTOTE: Base Map Taken From
Freeport, PA and Cunisviile. PA
U.S.G.S. 7.5 Min. Quadransles.
-~-- • - ,- -
v • . . i x. <
\ v..-b-is>^_
/Lr/s«^rS
SITE ACCESS ROAD
(HRANICADR.)
-------
In April 1981, a Site Investigation was performed by a Field
Investigation Team under contract to the EPA. The results of
surface water samples, including spring discharges and landfill
seepage, collected during this investigation indicated the need
for further study. A separate Preliminary Investigation at the
Site conducted by PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) also confirmed the
presence of contamination. The Site Investigation Report
indicated that the Hranica Site received paint and solvent wastes
from the PPG plant in Springdale, Pennsylvania, and from the PPG
Research and Development Center in Allison Park, Pennsylvania.
The Hranica facility also received plating wastes, metal sludges,
and waste oils from the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)
facility in Logans Ferry, Pennsylvania.
The Hranica Site was listed on the EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL) on September 8, 1983. The Site was listed as #123 out
of 418 sites on the NPL at that time. The Hazard Ranking Score
(HRS) for the Site was 51.94 on a scale from 0 to 100. After the
Site's inclusion on the NPL, PPG and ALCOA contracted D'Appolonia
Waste Management Services, Inc. to perform removal activities at
the Site. The removal activities were financed by ALCOA and PPG,
and were done according to a Consent Agreement with PADER. These
activities were performed during 1983 and 1984 and involved the
removal and ultimate disposal of more than 19,200 drums and 4,000
cubic yards of visibly contaminated soil. Three large tanks
containing oils and paint sludges were also emptied, and their
contents were incinerated at an offsite disposal facility. The
incinerator ash was then consolidated into a 2.5-acre area
located at the southern portion of the Site. After these
activities were completed, that portion of the Site was capped
with natural clay, graded, and revegetated to prevent or minimize
infiltration, storm runoff, and erosion.
Following the completion of these removal activities,
additional testing of the ground and surface water was performed
by PPG. The collected data were summarized by International
Technology Corporation (IT) in a Comprehensive -Site Investigation
Report, dated January 30, 1987, and then revised July 27, 1987.
The results of this investigation indicated that residual
contamination was still present at the Site. Therefore, EPA and
PPG entered into a Consent Order on March 13, 1987 requiring that
PPG conduct a Phase II Comprehensive Site Investigation, deemed
to be equivalent to a Remedial Investigation (RI), an
Endangerment Assessment (EA), and a Feasibility Study (FS) for
the Site.
The Draft RI/EA Report was submitted to EPA and PADER in
September of 1989. Based on comments received from EPA and
PADER, the report was revised and resubmitted on April 10, 1990.
The FS Report, dated February 1990, was submitted to the EPA and
PADER for comment. The FS Report was also revised and was then
resubmitted in May 1990.
-------
A ROD for the OUl was issued by EPA on June 29, 1990. OU1
addressed the contaminated soils that still remained onsite. The
remedy selected by EPA in the ROD consisted of: an eight-foot
fence around the entire perimeter of the Site to prevent
trespassing; a long-term ground water monitoring program of both
on- and offsite wells; placement of a soil cover consisting of
two feet of clay and one foot of topsoil on top of the remaining
areas of lead-contaminated soils, and deed restrictions to
prevent the soil cover from ever being disturbed and to prevent
the development of wells onsite.
A Consent Decree to perform the Remedial Design and Remedial
Action (RD/RA) for OUl was signed by ALCOA and PPG in June of
1991. The Remedial Design was started in February, 1992 and the
Final Design was approved on March 17, 1993. The Remedial Action
began in June, 1993 and was completed in September, 1993. The
Site is now completely fenced, and a Consent Decree with the
property owner to record the deed restrictions has been signed.
Approximately 3000 truckloads of soil were placed onsite during
the Remedial Action. A five-acre soil cover was placed on the
former disposal area and the adjoining hillside. This soil cover
has also been graded and seeded.
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUMMARY
In accordance with Sections 113 and 117 of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. §§ 9613 and 9617, EPA issued a Proposed Plan on February
25, 1994. The Proposed Plan and the technical documents upon
which it is based were made available to the public by
maintaining copies in the Administrative Record for the Site.
The Administrative Record is kept at the two locations listed
below:
Public Reading Room
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA
and
Buffalo Township Municipal Building
109 Bear Creek Road
Sarver, Pennsylvania
The notice of availability for the documents was published in
both the Valley Dispatch News and the Butler Eagle on February
25, 1994. A public comment period was held from February 25,
1994, through March 26, 1994. Additionally, a public meeting was
held at 7:00 P.M. on March 8, 1994 at the Buffalo Township
Municipal Building. At this meeting, representatives from EPA
and PADER answered questions about the Site and the ground water
beneath it. One written comment, a letter from PADER dated March
25, 1994, was received during the public comment period. The
-------
Responsiveness Summary is based on oral comments received from
the public during the March 8th public meeting, and the letter
from FADER. The above actions satisfy the requirements of
Section 113(k) and 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9613(k) and
9617. A transcript of the meeting was maintained in accordance
with Section 117(a)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9617(a)(2). This
decision document presents the selected remedial action for
Operable Unit #2 for the Site chosen in accordance with CERCLA,
and to the extent practicable, the NCP.
All documents considered or relied upon in reaching the
remedy selection decisions contained in this Record of Decision
are included in the Administrative Record for the Site and can be
reviewed at the information repositories.
IV. SCOPE AMD ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNITS
The Site has been divided into two operable units.
1. operable Unit #1
Operable Unit #1 (OU1) consisted of the onsite soils which
had concentrations of lead of 300 parts per million (ppm) or
greater. The Site-specific background lead level range is from
9-299 ppm. OU1 consisted of the soils where the lead
concentration was determined to be above the background range.
The soil areas, defined by OU1, posed a threat to human health
and the environment prior to the Remedial Action in 1993 because
of the risks associated with dermal contact or ingestion of these
soils. The purpose of the OU1 Remedial Action was to prevent
incidental dermal contact with or ingestion of contaminated
soils.
2. operable Unit #2
Operable Unit #2 (OU2) is the onsite and offsite ground
water. A ground water verification study, which is further
explained on Page 8 of this ROD, was conducted to determine if
any remediation of this operable unit was required. A focused
Risk Assessment of the ground water data was then done to
determine if the ground water beneath, or adjacent to, the Site
posed a threat to human health or the environment.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The 1990 population for Buffalo Township was estimated to be
6,600. The township occupies 23.9 square miles, of which
approximately 25% is under agricultural use. Corn fields border
the Site to the north, west, and east, and orchards border the
Site to the south. The Site sits at the end of an east-to-
northeast-trending ravine. A small unnamed tributary of Little
Bull Creek discharges intermittently onsite through this ravine.
-------
The flow through the ravine originates from surface runoff and
infiltration/seeps from the Site. A sub-basin drainage divide is
marked by a flat hilltop which encircles the ravine except on the
northeast. To the west of the Site, an unnamed tributary of
McDowell Run flows south through a narrow, steep valley. There
are no environmentally-sensitive areas, such as wetlands or
parks, in the immediate vicinity of the Site. Similarly, there
are no endangered species or critical habitats located near this
Site.
Geologically, the Site is located in the west-central part
of the Allegheny Plateau Physiographic Province and is underlain
by sedimentary rocks of Pennsylvanian Age. Bedrock at the top
portion of the Site consists of medium-grained sandstone. These
sandstones are probably the bottom of the Morgantown Sandstone
Member. In the lower portions, bedrock consists of grey and red
Birmingham Shales and claystones. This layer also contains
interbedded reddish shales, locally called Pittsburgh Red Beds.
Ground water flows through the Site through three water-
bearing units contained in three different geological layers:
(l) The shallow Morgantown Sandstone unit is 15 to 60 feet thick
throughout the Site. The shallow water-bearing unit appears to
be a perched system with limited recharge and storage capacity.
The unit discharges through seeps and springs, and because of its
low productivity, it is unlikely to ever be used as a residential
water supply. (2) The Birmingham Shale/Pittsburgh Red Beds
layer is a semi-confined, water-bearing unit at a depth of 70
feet, which flows to the east toward Little Bull Creek, Bull
Creek, and the Allegheny River. This unit is also considered
unproductive, and therefore is not likely as a water supply
source. (3) The Saltsburg/Buffalo Sandstone is an apparently
confined water-bearing unit at a depth of 180 feet. This water-
bearing unit flows to the southeast, discharging to the Allegheny
River, and provides ground water to offsite residential wells
that are not served by local water authorities. Although this
lower aquifer has not been classified, EPA believes that it has
Class II characteristics, which means that it could be used as a
water supply.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Previous removal activities at the Hranica Landfill Site
resulted in the removal of over 19,000 drums and 4,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soils. A Remedial Action has also been
completed at the Site. The most recent studies revealed that
elevated levels of organic and inorganic contaminants are still
present at the Site. The primary contaminants of concern include
lead and benzene. The most contaminated portion of the Site is
the southern portion, near the ash mound, which is where most of
the drums were stored (Figure 2).
-------
FIGURE 2
APPROXIMATE
PHOPCTTY
BOUKOMY
APPROXIMATE
PPROXIMATE UMIT
QflOUNOWATER ELEVATWH
Q«OUNOWATEH FLOW DIRECTION
1280 — — SURFACE ELEVATION
OW-3
SCALE: r-200*
CLUSTER WELL
-------
Ground water analyses revealed volatile organic compounds at
elevated levels in the shallow, perched water-bearing unit below
the ash pit area (MW-3S). However, this water-bearing unit is
not used as a water supply source and is unlikely to be used as
such in the future. Onsite wells in the deeper aquifers indicate
minimal contamination. None of the ground water samples taken
from domestic wells exhibited elevated levels of site-related
compounds. In addition, there is minimal degradation of the
surface water quality in the Site area. Based on available
information, it is believed that offsite contaminant migration in
the deep and intermediate aquifers has not occurred to any
significant extent. Levels of contamination are decreasing over
time and therefore it is projected that no significant
contamination of the deep and intermediate aquifers will occur in
the future.
GROUND WATER VERIFICATION STUDY
The primary objective of the verification study was to
gather sufficient ground and surface water data at the Site and
the surrounding vicinity to assess the need for remediation, if
any, of the ground water. No air or soil samples were collected
as part of this study for OU2. Onsite monitoring wells, as well
as offsite residential wells, were sampled for four consecutive
quarters. Other objectives of this study were to evaluate
variations in water quality, to select monitoring.wells for the
long-term ground water monitoring program, and to provide
information necessary for the design and placement of additional
long-term monitoring wells if required.
The verification study was performed during the period from
April 1992 through January 1993, as outlined in the RD work plan.
The study consisted of four rounds of sampling and analysis
spaced three months apart. Sampling was done in all four seasons
of the year, and samples were collected from existing onsite
ground water monitoring wells, onsite and offsite surface water
(i.e., streams, ponds, seeps, and springs) locations, and nearby
domestic wells as described in Table 1. The sample locations
were generally the same as those used to study the ground water
during the RI for OU1. The sampling program was designed to
account for the seasonal ground water fluctuation and discharge
from ground water systems in response to the relative amounts and
rates of recharge.
A. GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL SAMPLING
Only eight of the ten cluster wells installed in 1988 and
three of the shallow wells installed in 1982 contained sufficient
water to obtain samples. No additional monitoring wells were
drilled for this ground water study. Ground water monitoring
wells MW-lS and MW-2D were not sampled because they were either
completely dry or had an insufficient amount of water to perform
8
-------
Table 1
Sample Location Descriptions
Verification Study
Hranica T-atutffTl Site
Butler County, Pennsylvania
Sample Identification
Location
DW-l
DW-2
DW-4
DW-5
113 Hranica Drive - well at outside spigot
Lonesome Hollow Lane off Howes Run - well at
kitchen sink
143 Harvey Road - well at kitchen sink
238 Ekastown Road - well at outside spigot
GW-3, 4, and 7 Pre-existing shallow monitoring well
MW-1S, 11, and ID
MW-21 and 2D
MW-3S, 31, and 3D
MW-41 and 4D
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
SW-10
SW-11
SW-12
SW-13
Cluster Well Set 1
Cluster Well Set 2
Cluster Well Set 3
Cluster Well Set 4
Spring box (120-A Hranica Drive)
Intersection of ravine with unnamed tributary of
McDowell Run
Upstream of SW-2
Upstream of SW-3
Upstream of SW-4
Ponded water near Cluster Well Set 1
spring house
spring (i.e., square reservoir)
pond
Oak tree seep on adjacent property
Unnamed tributary of Little Bull Creek
Spring at sink in Ashland service station (264 Ekastown
Road)
Little Bull Creek at bridge (288-A Ekastown Road)
-------
sampling. Therefore, 11 of the 13 existing ground water
monitoring wells were sampled during each round. The ground
water appears to be most affected in the shallow perched water
directly underneath the former ash pit area. The water in this
perched zone is not used as a water supply and is not likely to
be used as such in the future. The residents around the site are
either connected to a public water supply or utilize a deeper,
more productive aquifer for their water. Some of the onsite
monitoring wells situated within the intermediate and deep
aquifer systems still exhibit low concentrations of a few
contaminants. Contaminants detected included volatile organic
compounds such as toluene, xylene and ethyIbenzene.
B. DOMESTIC WELL SAMPLING
Subsequent to performance of the RI, the local municipality
installed water lines along Ekastown Road; therefore, some of
the homeowners removed their wells from service (e.g., DW-3,).
Four of the five domestic wells were accessed and sampled during
the verification study with three wells (i.e., DW-2, DW-4, and
DW-5) being sampled a total of three rounds each. Alternate
domestic well sample locations which would provide relevant data
were.evaluated but could not be found due to current availability
of the municipal water supply. The total number of domestic
wells in the vicinity of the Site is gradually decreasing as more
homeowners hook up to the pubic water system. Prior to purging,
any residential water purification and/or softening equipment was
disengaged. Domestic ground water adjacent to and downgradient
from the Site does not display any significant contamination.
C. SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
All of the 14 surface water locations were sampled during
each of the four rounds. Surface water includes streams and
ponds, as well as spring and seep discharges at a variety of
locations near the Site. Surface water samples were collected
using random grab sampling techniques. The procedure for stream
sampling consisted of beginning at the farthest downstream
location and proceeding upstream. Spring and seep samples were
obtained from natural surface discharge points. Static water
bodies were sampled from the bank so as not to disturb the
sediments. Surface water samples from streams and ponds adjacent
to and downgradient from the site do not display any significant
contamination.
10
-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The scope of the Risk Assessment was limited to addressing
the human health risks related to potential use of contaminated
ground water by offsite residents downgradient of the landfill.
The results from the four deep wells, which were used for the
Risk Assessment, are described in Table 2. The Risk Assessment
is therefore considered focused in that only the ground water
pathway, and not other potential exposure pathways, was evaluated
and quantified.
The scenario addressed in the Risk Assessment was potential
future use of potable water supplies that may become contaminated
by the migration of landfill constituents in the ground water.
An exposure pathway is the course that a hazardous agent takes
from a source to a receptor via environmental carriers or media.
An exposure route is how the transfer occurs, i.e., by
inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact. For an exposure pathway
to be complete it must consist of four elements: (1) a source and
release mechanism, (2) a transport medium for released
contaminants, (3) a point of contact with the contaminated
medium, and (4) intake routes at the point of contact by a
receptor. The Risk Assessment emphasized the deep wells onsite
because the deep aquifer is the aquifer used by the residents in
the vicinity of the Site who are not connected to the public
water system.
The main contaminants of concern in the ground water at this
Site are lead and benzene. These compounds are present in
elevated concentrations onsite, and both are hazardous to human
health and the environment. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risks presented by these contaminants were calculated for the
ground water pathway. The ground water data for lead and benzene
which were utilized to evaluate risk are described in Table 3.
Risks were calculated both for current uses and potential future
uses of the property by a defined population (i.e., offsite
residents).
Excess lifetime cancer risks for the Site were determined by
multiplying the daily intake of chemicals from the ground water
pathway by the cancer potency factors. These risks are
probabilities expressed in scientific notation (i.e., 1E-6). An
excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-6 indicates that an individual
has a one in a million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime.
The EPA recommended upper limit for lifetime cancer risks is
between 1E-4 and 1E-6. However, the point of departure, as
described in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), is considered to be 1E-6. Cancer risks
from the ingestion of contaminants in the groundwater were
estimated at 9.77E-7 which is slightly less than one incremental
cancer case per one million exposed individuals.
11
-------
Table 2
Hranica Site Groundwater Monitoring Summary
Four rounds of 3 deep wells (11 samples)
Qualitative Screening of Constituents
Volatile*
Acatono
laruana
t-Butanone
Chlorolorm
Ethylbaniana
4-Mbthvt-2-pentanone
Toluana
Xytene* (total)
Samlvolatilaa
ieruoio Acid
bl8(2-Ethylhaxyllphthalate
Oi-n-butylphlhalata
Olathylphthalata
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Oi-n-octylphthalata
2-Methylnaphthalana
Naphthalene
Phanol
Paatlcldaa/PCBa
Aldrin
alpha-Chlordana
alpha BHC
delta BHC
4,4'-DDE
Endo»olfan II
Endrin
PCB-US4
Inorganic*
Antimony
Aluminum
Araonlo
Barium
Beryllium
MW-1D
1
ND
;
ND
ND
•
ND
ND
0.004J
0.008BJ
0.014
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.072
0.00026
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.018B
0.74
ND
0.22
ND
MW 3D
1
0.25
•
ND
ND
•
ND
ND
ND
O.OSB
0.00 U
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.027B
42
O.O05B
0.41
ND
MW 40
1
ND
ND
ND
-
0.004J
ND
ND
0.002BJ
0.002BJ
0.00 1,J
ND
0.001J
ND
0.002J
ND
6.6E-05
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.03BB
38
ND
1.9
0.0026B
MW ID
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.027
0.006
ND
•
ND
ND
-
ND
0.074
-
•
•
0.967
0.0038
-
0.001 2B
MW-3D
2
0.032
0.002J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
ND
-
ND
-
-
ND
0.032
-
-
•
-
-
-
•
-
1.42
0.0076B
-
ND
MW-4D
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.005
ND
•
ND
•
ND
-
-
ND
0.002J
-
-
•
-
-
.
-
13.1.
0.0068B
-
0.0048B
MW ID
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
O.OOSJ
ND
•
ND
-
ND
-
ND
0.03
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
0.0652B
ND
-
ND
MW 3D
3
ND
0.002J
ND
ND
0.002J
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
ND
-
-
ND
0.014
-
-
-
0.208
0.0065B
-
ND
MW 40
3
ND
0.001J
NO
ND
O.011
ND
0.002J
O.038B
ND
•
ND
•
ND
0.006BJ
-
-
ND
-
24
0.0023B
-
0.001 6B
MW ID
4
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.004J
ND
ND
0.027J
'
-
-
0.509
0.00 IB
NO
MW 3D MW 4D COC?
4 4
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
-
ND
0.417
0.0032B
•
ND
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yas
No
No
No
No
No
Yas
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yas
No
No
Nc
Reason
For Exclusion
Below OL
No dalacls
No delects
MCL=0.7
Low Freq.
Below DL
Blank
Low Freq.
Blank
Low Freq.
No detects
Below DL
No detects
Below DL
No delects
No detects
No detects
No detects
No detects
No detects
No detects
Blank
Blank/MCI =0.05
MCL = 2
Blank
-------
Table 2
Hranica Site Groundwater Monitoring Summary
Four rounds of 3 deep wells (11 samples)
Qualitative Screening of Constituents
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cofelt
Copper
Cyanide (total)
ron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MW-10
1
ND
2. SB
NO
NO
0.002 IB
ND
. 3.4
0.011
0.68B
0.14
ND
ND
0.6B
ND
ND
220
0.0022B
ND
0.5
MW-30
1
NO
7.3
0.01
0.0066B
0.004BB
ND
7.3
0.02
2.2B
0.11
ND
ND
4.3
0.0036B
ND
640
ND
0.0094B
0.03
MW-40
1
ND
10
O.OSS
0.01 9B
0.0238
ND
43
0.029
6.8
0.35
ND
0.051
8.8
ND
ND
400'
ND
0.073
0.15
MW-10
2
ND
0.0038B
0.0187
0.166
0.0083B
-
•
-
-
0.43
MW-3D
2
ND
-
0.0036B
'
0.0221
-
0.103
-
ND
-
•
-
-
0.0511
MW-40
2
ND
-
0.0242
0.0753
•
1.89
•
0.035B
-
-
-
.
0.175
MW-1D MW-3D MW-4D MW 10 MW 3D MW 40 COC7,
3-3 3 4 44
ND ND ND ND
.
ND 0.0168 0.0353 ND
.
.
0.0138 0.0023B 0.0228 0.0026B
.
0.0061B 0.0339 0.239 0.0425
-
ND ND 0.02848 ND
.
•
.
.
.
0.024 0.0093B 0.079 0.067
ND
ND
0.0026B
0.041
NO
-
•
-
0.0943
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Reason
For Exclusion
No delects
Nutcient
MCL =0.1
Blank/Nutrient
Blank/Nutrient
No detects
Nutrient
Blank/Nutrient
Blank/Nutrient
No delects
MCL = 0.1
Nutrient
Blank/Nutrient
No detects
Nutrient
Blank
Nutrient
Notes:
QOC • Chemical of (potential) concern
Concentrations ara In mg/L as presented in the Groundwater Verification Study Report
Reason for exclusion:
'Below DU - any contaminant found was at a level below the method detection limit, and therefore all concentrations listed are estimated and qualified "J."
No detects • Chemical not datacted In any of the samples.
MCL - The maximum concentration found was below the drinking water standard Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established by the EPA Office of Drinking Water.
Low Fraq. - Chemical found in only one of the samples, below detection limit and estimated in some cases.
Blank - The laboratory blank analyzed with this sample also contained this constituent; the result is qualified "B."
Nutrient - Essential nutrient, and concentrations found ara not considered to be in the toxic range.
- Not analyzed
J • Estimated value; concentration is below the detection limit.
ND - Not detected
Duplicate results - Concentrations from the original sample were used, and the duplicate treated as a QC sample.
Wall MW-3D was dry during the last round of sampling, and no sample was collected.
-------
Table 3
Contaminants of Concern Analytical Summary
CONTAMINANT
OF
CONCERN
BENZENE
*LEAD
MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT
LEVEL (MCL)
5
N/A
95%
UCL
DETECTED
ATHRANICA
2.5
30.9
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
3/8
8/11
All concentrations are expressed in parts per billion (ppb).
The 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) is derived from the mean, or average
concentration of a contaminant actually detected in the ground water at the Site. The
95% UCL exceeds the true mean or average sample 95% of the time, and is therefore a
conservative estimate of the mean.
*EPA has not established an MCL, Reference Dose or Carcinogenic Slope Factor for
lead, but it was evaluated using the Integrated Uptake Biokinetic Model. The Model
was used to estimate the potential impacts to children that could result from ingestion
of lead reported in the ground water at the Site. The risks to these offsite residents
from lead via the ground water pathway appear to be within the range normally
considered acceptable.
14
-------
As to the non-cancer effects, the calculated Hazard Index
(HI) for both adult and child residents was zero. An HI greater
than 1.0 is characterized as presenting an unacceptable
noncarcinogenic risk. The HI is the measurement expressing the
overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed by
contaminants. The HI is the ratio between the average daily dose
of a contaminant received by a human population and the reference
dose. Reference doses have been developed by EPA for indicating
the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to
chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. In conclusion, the
risks associated with the ground water pathway are within an
acceptable range, less than 1.0, and ground water remediation is
not necessary.
VII» DBSCRIPTIOH OF THE "NO ACTION** PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Under the "No Action" Alternative, EPA will not undertake
any type of remedial action as there are no remaining Site-
related risks which would warrant EPA to implement a remedial
action. The previous removal and remedial actions, which were
completed by contractors working for ALCOA and PPG, have
remediated the Site so that the residual risk posed by the Site
is below health-based standards and therefore does not warrant
any further remedial action. However, ground water monitoring
required by the OU1 ROD will be reviewed every five years in
accordance with CERCLA § 121(d) to assure that low-level
concentrations of organic compounds remaining in onsite
monitoring wells will not change so as to pose a risk to human
health or the environment. A ground water monitoring program
will be implemented in accordance with the ROD for OU1 to enable
EPA to meet this requirement and to ensure Site conditions do not
change so as to pose an unacceptable risk. Ground water
monitoring will begin in the Spring of this year and sampling
will be done twice a year. A total of ten rounds of data will
therefore be collected prior to the first five year review.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has expressed the opinion
that the following Pennsylvania regulations are relevant and
appropriate requirements for this operable unit remedial
alternative: 25 Pa. Code Sections 264.97(i) and (j),
264.100(a)(9). These Pennsylvania regulations generally require
remediation of contaminated ground water to background levels.
While EPA expresses no opinion herein as to whether applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements apply to a no-action
remedial alternative, EPA notes that the selected no-action
alternative for OU2 will in fact achieve a reduction in
contamination to background levels through natural attenuation
and will therefore achieve the same level of control as that
specified by 25 Pa. Code Sections 264.97(i) and (j) and
264.100(a)(9). Based on the reduction in the concentration of
contaminants observed in site monitoring wells, it is estimated
15
-------
that contaminant concentrations should reach background levels
within the next ten years. Table 4 depicts the historical rate
of attenuation of ground water contamination at the Site. Levels
of all contaminants show over 95% reductions from the earliest
rounds of ground water sampling in 1982-83. Wells that were not
drilled until 1988 have also shown significant reductions in the
last six years. For example, Wells 2-1, 4-1, and 4-D have
contaminants present in substantially lower concentrations than
these same wells did during the 1988-89 sampling. The rate of
reduction of contamination is not constant; it is higher in the
more contaminated wells than it is in slightly contaminated
wells. If the average rate of reduction is plotted, it is not a
straight line plot, the concentrations approach the level of non-
detection asymptotically.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has also expressed the view
that 25 Pa. Code $ 264.117 applies to the no-action alternative
and has requested that EPA include a provision for groundwater
monitoring for a period of thirty years or until it can be
demonstrated that concentration levels of hazardous constituents
have remained at background levels for a period of three
consecutive years. EPA expresses no opinion as to whether
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements apply to a
no-action remedial alternative. However, EPA notes that the
groundwater monitoring program which will be conducted pursuant
to the ROD for OU1 will comply with the requirements of 25 PA
Code S 264.117.
Documentation of significant Changes
The alternative originally identified in the Proposed Plan
is also the alternative selected in the ROD. There have been no
significant changes made to the selected alternative in the time
period between the issuance of the Proposed Plan on February 25,
1994 and the signing of the ROD.
16
-------
Table 4
Hranica Landfill - Natural Attenuation Data
l. Highest Hits from 1982-1983 Data (2 Rounds of Sampling)
GW-3 GW-4 GW-7
benzene 14 ND 5700
ethylbenzene 10 ND 15000
toluene 42 ND 24700
lead 260 30 220
2. Highest Hits from 1988-1989 Data (2 Rounds of Sampling)
GW-3 GW-4 GW-7
benzqne <5J <5J <5J
ethylbenzene ND ND 350
toluene <5J <5J <5J
xylene ND 6 4400
lead ND ND ND
3. Highest Hits from 1992-1993 Data (4 Rounds of Sampling)
GW-3 GW-4 GW-7
benzene ND ND 3J
ethylbenzene ND ND 3J
toluene ND ND ND
xylene ND ND 27
lead 8.1 12 7.9
All concentrations are expressed in parts per billion (ppb)
J means the contaminant was present but at a level
below the quantitation limit.
17
-------
VIII. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The EPA established a public comment period from February
25, 1994 to March 26, 1994 on the Proposed Plan (which described
EPA's Preferred Remedial Alternative) and other site-related
information for the Hranica Landfill Site in Buffalo Township,
Butler County, Pennsylvania. The Ground Water Verification Study
and other site-related documents utilized by the EPA to select
the No Action Alternative for Operable Unit #2 are included in
the Site's Administrative Record file and have been available to
the public since the beginning of the public comment period. A
public meeting was held on March 8, 1994 and approximately 15
people were in attendance. A technical presentation by EPA at
the meeting was followed by a short question and answer period.
The only written comments received during the public comment
period were from PADER.
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to summarize
significant comments, criticisms and new data received during the
public meeting or in writing, and to provide EPA's responses to
the comments.
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided
into the following sections:
Section I. Overview; A discussion of the public's response
to the No Action Alternative.
Section II. Background of Community Involvement and Concernst
A discussion of the history of community interest
and concerns raised during remedial planning
activities at the Site.
Section III. Summary of Significant- Poiinn«an'frg Received during
the Public Comment Period and Agency Responses. A
summary of comments or questions and the EPA
responses categorized by topic.
Section I. Overview:
Comments received from the public suggest that area
residents do not object to the No Action Alternative. The
residents seem satisfied that response actions undertaken at the
Site have adequately remediated the site. Some residents did
have questions about the future sampling during the semi-annual
monitoring of the ground water. The residents were informed by
the EPA that the ground water monitoring program will be carried
out twice a year for the next five years. All of these data will
be analyzed in the five-year review to assure that human health
and the environment are being adequately protected.
18
-------
Section II. Background of Community Involvement and Concern:
The Site history dates back to 1957. Between 1957 and I960,
the landfill was first used as a disposal area for industrial
waste, and between 1960 and 1973, industrial wastes were burned
at the site. Public attention was first focused on the site in
the late 1960's when contamination of springs on an adjacent farm
was attributed to the disposal of waste liquids at the landfill.
A Preliminary Assessment of the Site by EPA was conducted in
April, 1981 and the results of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
ranked the Site for inclusion on the National Priorities List.
On May 9, 1983, local residents met with representatives of
PADER, PPG, ALCOA and D'Appolonia (the removal contractor) to
discuss removal actions planned for the Site, in addition, an
executive meeting with municipal, county, state, and federal
officials was conducted by PADER to discuss the removal actions.
At a second meeting held on December 17, 1984 between PADER
and the Buffalo Township Board of Supervisors, the Township
expressed the need for an investigation of health related
impacts, and a formal request by the Township for a cancer study
was itfade on December 27, 1984. In July, 1985, after analyzing
cancer mortality data from the Pennsylvania vital statistics
system for Buffalo Township and Butler County, the Pennsylvania
Department of Health concluded that no substantial evidence of
aberrant cancer mortality levels or patterns were detected in the
data and the data did not indicate a need for further study or
analysis.
A public meeting on the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit #1
was held on June 7, 1990. The public comments focused on
individual contact with contaminated soil onsite and definition
of organic and inorganic compounds. There were also several
questions on the nature and extent of the ground water
contamination.
>
Another public meeting was held on June 24, 1993, just prior
to initiation of the Remedial Action for the contaminated soils.
The different aspects of the Remedial Action were explained to
the residents and this was followed by a short question and
answer period. There were several questions about a small bridge
on the road leading up to the Site. The bridge was reinforced as
part of the Remedial Action to enable it to withstand the extra
weight of the trucks loaded with soil.
Public comments on the meeting on March 8, 1994 focused on
the ground water and the future ground water monitoring program.
The township supervisor stated that he had received no complaints
from residents concerning the Site or the manner in which the
Site was being remediated.
19
-------
Section III. Summary of Manor Comments Received during the Public
Comment Period and Agency Responses.
1. Living Near the Site
Comment: A resident asked if the Site was still a threat to
human health, and whether the nearby residents were in any way
endangered by it.
EPA: The Site does not present a significant threat to human
health or the environment through any possible exposure pathway.
There were several organic compounds found at low levels in
onsite monitoring wells in the most recent study of the ground
water. However, the site-related contaminants are at such low
levels that they do not pose a significant human health threat
via the ground water pathway.
2. Offsite Migration of Contamination
Comment: A resident asked whether any site-related contamination
was migrating offsite via the ground water and impacting nearby
drinking water wells.
EPA: Although Site-related contamination is present at low
levels in onsite monitoring wells, it is not migrating offsite
and contaminating nearby drinking water wells. The recent ground
water verifications studied included sampling five residential
wells. The residential wells which were sampled did not show any
site-related contamination.
3. Completion of the Remedial Action
Comment: A resident asked if the Remedial Action, which began in
June, 1993, had been completed.
EPA: The Remedial Action for OU1 was completed in late
September, 1993. However, O & M activities will occur
periodically in the future. These activities include the
groundwater monitoring program and also inspections of the Site
to check that the fence and soil cover have not been disturbed in
any way.
4. Future Ground Water Monitoring Program
Comment: PADER inquired about the length of the future ground
water monitoring program.
EPA: Most of the onsite monitoring wells, as well as several
offsite surface water locations, will be sampled twice per year
for the next five years. After five years, EPA in consultation
20
-------
with PADER, will examine all ten sets of the data, and decide
whether human health and the environment continue to be
adequately protected by the remedy. As described on Page 31 of
the ROD for OU1, this ground water monitoring program is part of
the Operation and Maintenance (O & M) for the Site and will
continue for a total of 30 years.
5. FADER Ground Water ARAR
Comment: PADER has expressed the opinion that the following
Pennsylvania regulations are relevant and appropriate
requirements for OU2: 25 Pa. Code Sections 264.97(i) and (j),
264.100(a)(9). These regulations generally require remediation
of contaminated ground water to background levels.
EPA: EPA disagrees with this opinion, and does not consider the
above regulations as relevant and appropriate requirements for
this operable unit. See Page 15 of this ROD for a more detailed
explanation.
6. Rate of Natural Attenuation in the Future
Comment: PADER also asked about the future rate of natural
attenuation, and more specifically about the basis for the EPA
estimate that it would take ten years for all contaminants to
reach background concentrations.
EPA: The ten-year cleanup estimate is based on the historical
rate of decrease in contaminant levels in the onsite monitoring
wells over the last ten years. For example, between 1982 and
1988, the concentration of benzene at monitoring well GW-7
decreased from 5700 ppb to 5 ppb. This reflects a decrease of
949 ppb/year assuming a constant rate of decrease over the six-
year period. Clearly, the rate of decrease is not constant,
since over the four-year period from 1988 to 1992, the
concentration of benzene in the same well decreased from 5 ppb to
3 ppb, which reflects a rate of decrease of 0.5 ppb/year. If
this rate of decrease continues in the future, the concentration
of benzene in this well should be 1 ppb in four years. Given
that the rate of contaminant decrease will probably continue to
diminish in future years, and that the Site has recently been
disturbed by placement of the soil cover, it will undoubtably
take longer than four years for contaminant concentrations to
reach 1 ppb, but it should take less than 10 years based on this
analysis of historical data that are available for the Site.
21
------- |