United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-89/065
November 1988
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Wildcat Landfill, DE
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION /1. AEPOATNO. /2.
.~ . PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-89/065 .
3. A8c:icII8nta Ac:cee8lon No.
4. n.e "".Subft8
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Wildcat Landfill, DE
~econd Remedial Action - Fi~al
lLIrtor(.1
So A8port ON
11/28/88
L
~ PwformInQ Organization AefM, No.
8. PwfonMII 0rgeIniD80n NMw ..., Add!.-
10. Proj8CtIT ulllWortI UNt No.
.
11. Contnc:t(C) 011 ar-(G) No.
(e)
12. ~-II 0rpnI.aII0n""'''' Add!.-
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.w;
washington, D.C. 20460
(GI ,
13. T'f118 of A8IIOft' 'Mod CoMNd
--
Agency
800/000
14.
15. ~No-
IL Abd8c:t (LImIt: 200 WGrd81
.
The Wildcat Landfill is located 2.5 miles southeast of Dover, in Kent County, Delaware.
A 2.7-acre pond, formed by the landfill blocking natural drainage from upland areas, is
located along the northwestern border of the site. The pond and the landfill are
located along the west bank of the St. Jones River and are bordered to the north and
east by the river and associated marshlands, and to the south and west by residential
.nd commercial development. Portions of the site lie within the 100-year floodplain of
81e St. Jones River. The. landfill was addressed in the first operable unit Record of
Decision signed in June 1988. This operable unit details the selection of a remedial
alternative which addresses the largely environmental concerns the landfill poses to :he
pond and associated biota. The landfill was operated as a State-permitted sanitary
landfill between 1962 and 1973, accepting both municipal and industrial wastes. During
its 11 years of operation, tbe facility routinely violated operating and other permits
issued by the regulatory agencies. In August 1973 the facility was ordered closed by
the State and the site owners were required to cover the site with soil and vegetation.
EPA began investigating the site in 1982. Industrial wastes suspected to have been
disposed of onsite include latex waste and paint sludges. Surface water and sediments
in the pond were contaminated by inorganic constituents
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Oocun8ftU"8Iyeia .. 08ecriplor8
Record of Decision - Wildcat Landfill, DE
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media:. sediments, SW
Key Contaminants: metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Id8nti""8I~End8d T8m18
c. COSA TI ReldiOrO&4l
Avlilabillty sa---..
18. Secwity CI... (Thi. Reportl
None
20. S8cwity CI... (Tht. Pavel
Nl1n'"
21. No. 01 P.vee
26
22. Price
(See AN$ol:l'.18)
See IM/lUCIi- 0" R.-
OPTIONAL FORM 212 (4-71)
(Formerty NTI5-35!'
O8tIer1m8nt of Colllln8fce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A AEPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Rlport Documentation Paglia baaed on Guidelines for Format and Production ot Scllntlflc and Technical R~ports, I
ANSI Z3g.18-1974 available from Amlrlcan National Standardalnatltutl, 1430 Br08dway, New York., New York 10018. Each separately
bound rlport-tor aumple, lach voluml In a multlvoluml Iat-shall haw Ita unique Rlport Documentation Page.
1. Rapor1 Number. Each Individually bound rlpor1 ahall CMrf a uniqui alphanumeric dlalgnation a..lgned by thl performing orga-
nization or provided by the IJ)On8Otfng organization In eccordancl wtth Amanc.n National Standard ANSI Z39.23-1974, Technical
Rlport Number (STRN). For reglltratlon ot report coda, contact NTIS Report Number Claartnghou.., Sprlngfl.,d, V A 22161. U..
uppercaslll«'" AlatHe numeral.. "'ahu, and hyphena only, ..In the following lump ,..: FASEBlNS-75/87 and FAAJ
RD-75/oe.
2. 1.8a" blank.
3. Raclplenta Acce..on Number, R.aarv8d tor u.. by ..eb rapor1 rectpient.
4. TItle and Subtltl.. Title ahould Indlcat. clearly and brietty the subfect cov"8g8 ot the raport, subordlnatl lubtltll to tha matn
tltI.. When. report la prepared In morl than one volum., rlpeat the prim.,., title, add vo/um. number and Includa subtilll for
the apecJflc volume.
5. Rlport Dati. Eech repor1 shall carry a date Indicating at I...t month and yur. Indlcat. thl b8a1a on which It W81 .llected (e.g.,
dale ot laauI, dati ot approval, date of prlparatlon, dati publlahed).
6. Sponaorlng Agency Code. 1.8avi blank.
7. Author(a). Give nama(a) In convlntlonal order (I.g., John R. Do., or J. Robert Do.). Uat author'a affiliation It It differs from
thl performing Organization.
8. Plrformlng organlzadon Report Numb.... Inaart If performing organlzaton wlshla to a..lgn thla number.
9. Performing Organization Nam. and Mailing Add,.... Give name, ItrNt, diy, atat., and ZIP coda. Uat no morl than two levela of
an organizational hlarachy. Dlaplay the name 0' the organization I.actly .. It should appear in Government Inde.ea such as
Go"mment Reporta Announcements. Inde. (GRA . I).
10. ProlectITaakIWork Unit Number. Ua. the project. tau and work unit numbera und.r which the rlport waa prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Numb4!f. Inaart contract or grant number under which report waa prepared.
12. Sponsoring Aglncy Name and Mailing Addra... Include ZIP code. CIII main lponsors.
13. Type 0' Report and Plrlod Covlrld. Statllntlrlm, final, arc., and, If appllcabt8, Inclualve datea.
14.. Parformlng OrganlzatJon Code. 1.8ave blank.
15. Suppllmentary Notl.. Ente, Intormatlon not Included II..where but u..tul, such aa: Prepared In cooperation with. . . Translation
0' . . . Prl..nted at conferance of . . . To be publlahed In . .. Whln a rapor1la rlvlaad, Include a statlment whether the new
report superaed.. or supplementa the oldlr report.
16. Abatract. Include a brlet (200 worda or 'e..) factual summ.ry 0' the moat algnlflcant In'ormatlon contained In the report. If the
rlport contalna a aJgnlflcant bibliography or lItarature aurvey, mantlon It hare.
17. Document Analyal.. (a). Descriptor.. S.lact from the The..urua ot Engineering and Scllntltlc Tlrma the proper authorized terms
that Idlntlfy the malor concept ot the re..arch and are sufficiently lpaclttc and precl.. to be u..d aa Inde. entries for cataloging.
(b). IdentJtlara and Open-Ended Term.. U.. Identlflera for protect names, code namea. equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended tlrma wrl«en In dlscrlptor form for tho.. sub/8Cta tor which no descrlplor e.'a.a.
(c). COSATI Fjeld/Group. Filid and Group aaalgnminta are to be taken torm the 1964 COSATI Subject Category Ust. Since the
ma/orlty ot documenta are multidisciplinary In nature, Ihe primary Field/Group aaaignment(s) will be the specific discipline,
area ot human endlavor, or type ot physical object. Thl appllcatlon(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
assignments that will follow thl primary postlng(s).
18. Distribution Statemlnt. Denote public releasability, for example "Rele... unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
security. Cite any availability to the public, with addre.., order numblr.and price, It known.
19. & 20. Security Cla..ltlcatlon. Enter U.S. Security Clasaltlcatlon In accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number ot pag.a. Inaert the total numberot pagea, Including Introductory pag.a, but excluding dlslributlon 118t, it any.
22. Price. Entlr price In paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) It known.
* :':<0
19in 0 - 381-SZ6 (a393)
-~
OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK (4-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-89/065
Wildcat Landfill, DE
Second Remedial Action - Final
6.
Abstract (continued)
leaching from the landfill. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the sediments
and surface water in the pond are metals including arsenic, chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: draining, filling, and
revegetating the pond area consistent with the landfill cover selected in the previous
ROD; constructing a new pond elsewhere on the site; implementing institutional controls
for land use restrictions; and ground water monitoring upgradient of the new pond. A
cost analysis was not performed because the remedy will be implemented as part of the
site remedy by the PRP Group.
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
wildcat Landfill Pond
Second Operable Unit
Kent County, Delaware
Statement of Basis
This decision is based upon the administrative record for the Wildcat
site including the pond adjacent to the landfill. The attached index
identifies the items which comprise the administrative record.
Landfill
Statement of Purpose
. This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Wildcat
Landfill pond (second operable unit) developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reautnorization Act of 1986, and to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (40 CFR 300).
The State of Delaware concurs with the selected remedy.
DescriPtion of the Selected Remedy
This operable unit consists of the pond located adjacent to the landfill and
it is the second of two operable units for the site. The first operable unit
Record of Decision (ROD) was issued on June 29, 1988. It addressed the source
of contamination by eliminating the existing direct contact risks posed by the
landfill contents. The first ROD also addressed the leachate seeps adjacent to
the pond as part of the selected remedy. The remedy selection for the pond is
based upon the remedy selected for the landfill and upon an additional study by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The major components of the selected pond remedy include:
-- Draining and covering the pond with soil. This work will be done
concurrently with covering the leachate seeps as detailed in the
June 29, 1988, ROD;
-- Testing and discharge of pond water to the St. Jones River;
-- Slope and vegetative stabilization of the pond fill surface;
-- Development of a new pond and associated habitat in accordance with the
design specifications and success standards developed by the appropriate
State and Federal natural resource agency representatives. This replacement
pond and habitat would be designed to have habitat values equal to or
greater than the pond that is to be covered;
-------
Construction of a monitoring well upgradient of the new pond consistent
with the monitor wells required in the June 29, 1988, ROD;
-- Monitoring of the ground water at the newly constructed well. Detection O!
contaminants in this well would trigger an assessment of the situation to
determine if any actions are necessary to protect the replacement pond and
habitat; and
.- Development of administrative restrictions at and adjacent to the newly
created pond and at the area of the filled pond.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains
Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate
to the remedial action, and is consistent with the remedy selected for the
landfill. This 'remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. But, because treatment of the
pond sediments was not found to be practicable, the remedy for the pond does
not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of
the remedy. However, the remedy is an appropriate solution to the problems
found in the pond. The location of the pond directly adjacent to the landfill
requires that the selected remedy be compatible with the remedy selected for
landfill. The agencies will reassess the range of alternatives and perf~rm a
cost-effective analysis if the selected remedy is not implemented by the
PRP Group. .
Because this remedy will be contingent upon the site remedy which resulted in
hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review
will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. .
i~>k
DAT I
Phillip G
Director
Division of Air and Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
State of Delaware
///x/te
?~-
DATE
es M. Seif
egional Administrator
Environmental Protection
Region III
Agency
.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
ROD DECISION SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
wILDCAT UU~DFILL POND
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA, PA
and
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
DOVER, DE
-------
I.
II.
III .
IV.
V.
V:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduc tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Location and Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pond and Site History.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Pond and Site Status..............................
A. Geology, Hydrogeology, and Surface Hydrology.. . . . . . . . . .
B. Chemical Evaluation....................................
C. Biological Assessment and Uetlands Delineation..... . . . .
Scope and Role of Pond Operable Unit..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R~.,edial Action Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of Alternatives...............................
Alternative 1: No Action..........,.......................
Alternative 2: Draining, Filling of Existing Pond and
Creation of a New Pond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . .
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives... . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . .
Community Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Documentation of Significant Changes......................
Selected Remedial Alternative. .................. ..........
A. Description of Selected Alternative and
Performance Goals.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Statutory Determinations...............................
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Administrative Record Index
Attachment B - Responsiveness Summary
Page
1
2
2
5
5
6
6
8
8
8
9
9
9
13
13
14
14
16
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map........................ ........,... .
Figure 2. Site Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3. Map of Selected Remedial Alternative..................
TABLES
Table 1. Table of Inorganics in Pond Area.......................
Page
3
4
15
7
-------
SUMMARY
OF RE~EDIAL ALTE~~ATIVE
Wildcat Landfill Pond
Second Operable Unit
Kent County, Delaware
SELECTION
I. Introduction
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the second of two operable units for
the Wildcat Landfill and associated environs. The landfill was previously
addressed in the first operable unit Record of Decision signed in June 1988.
This second operable unit consists of an approximately 2.7 acre pond located
directly adjacent to the landfill along its northwestern border. This ROD
details the selection of a remedial alternative which addresses the largely
environmental concerns posed on the pond by the landfill. The prior remedial
investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) are included in this description
of the remedial selection process as most of the study of the p~nd was done in
conjunction with the original RIfFS. A supplemental study by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on painted turtles in the pond is also used
in selection of an appropriate alternative. The Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control and the Environmental Protection Agency
have agreed that a separate feasibility study is not warranted because the
development and analysis of the alternatives is being performed at this..time by
the agencies and is included in this ROD. Also, based on the USFWS study and
the existing RI and FS, adequate information is available for selection of a
remedy for the pond.
A limited number of alternatives were evaluated by the
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Group has proposed
previously selected for the landfill simultaneous with
environmental problems posed at the pond.
agencies because a .
implementing the remedy
the remedy for the
The alternatives have been evaluated using the following criteria from the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 121: protection of
human health and the environment, compliance with other environmental
requirements, implementability, short-term effectiveness, long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume, and
community acceptance. Cost effectiveness was not considered in this
evaluation since the PRP Group has agreed to perform the pond remedy in
conjunction with the remedial activities on the landfill. However, if the PRP
Group does not perform the pond remedy, EPA and DNREC would perform a
cost-effective determination on a developed range of alternatives prior to
selection of a remedy. .
The public was given an opportunity to comment upon the Propose~ Plan and the
Administrative Record (Appendix A for index) which included the RIfFS, first
operable unit ROD, and the USFWS Report (November 1988). The comments and
concerns made by the public are considered in the alternative evaluation and
are specifically addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary (Appendix B).
This Record of Decision documents-the selection of the final remedy by DNREC
and EPA and is based upon the contents of the Administrative Record.
1
-------
II. Site Location and DescriPtion
The Wildcat Landfill pond is approximately 2.7 acres in area located along I
the northwestern border of the Wildcat Landfill site in Kent County, Dela~are.
2 1/2 miles southeast of Dover (See Figure 1). The pond and the landfill are
located along the west bank of the St. Jones River and are bordered to the
north and east by the river and associated marshlands, and to the south and
west by residential and commercial establishments (See Figure 2). The pond
was created as a result of the landfill blocking natural drainage from upland
areas to the west of the site.
III. Pond and Site History
The landfill was operated as a permitted sanitary landfill between 1962 and
1973, accepting both municipal and industrial wastes. Liquid and solid ~ast~s
were reportedly mixed together, compacted, and covered; drum wastes ~ere
reportedly emptied on-site and the empty drums recycled. Industrial ~astes
suspected to have been disposed include latex waste and" paint sludges; however.
there are no known records of the actual quantity of wastes which ~ere
disposed in the landfill.
The facility was permitted as a solid waste landfill by the Delaware State
Board of Health in 1962. The site was later permitted by the Delaware Water
and Air Resources Commission (WARC) and then by DNREC. However, during its
eleven years of operation, the facility routinely violated operating and other
permits issued by the regulatory agencies. In August of 1973 the facility was.
ordered closed by DNREC and the site owners required to cover the site with
soil and vegetation. There was some effort by the owners to provide soil cover
and vegetation. The entire regulatory history is discussed in the EPA
Remedial Action Master Plan (R&~P) which is contained in the Administrative
Record.
The site was investigated by the EPA in June 1982 for possible inclusion on
the National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites. The site was
subsequently listed in December 1983 and the RAMP was published that same
month. The Delaware DNREC requested and the EPA agreed to allow the state to
perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study. DNREC began the
remedial investigation in December 1985 and completed it in May 1988. DNREC
and EPA issued the Record of Decision for the landfill (first operable unit)
on June 29, 1988. The Final Feasibility Study report, which detailed the
selected alternative for the landfill, was released in July 1988.
The selected remedy, detailed in the June 1988 ROD, included the following
actions:
(1) Institutional restrictions on
(2) Institutional restrictions on
in areas adjacent to the site
potential risk;
(3) Grading, soil cover, and revegetation of areas
contact risks have been identified. This will
the Delaware Solid Waste Disposal Regulations,
all water well installations on the site;
all shallow aquifer water well installations
which have been identified as at some
on-site where direct
be done. in accordance with
August'l974;
2
/'
-------
--'--:-
1I~~"~
j
-
'-
-
..."
-
"
/
~
'>
- .
..-
-
",-.
«,\\fII
,.3
"
~\."
~a9
.~a~
o1-~
~9(
Figure 1 i..
GENERAL SITE -..
LOCATION MAP .
Wildcat Landfill, Dover, Delaware '-8
-------
A74CCO
478CCO
422:CC
I i
j~-:
, .
~
~
47400)
478CCO
4820c0
o
1XX)
2CCO
3D)
4CXO
FIgure 2
SITE LOCATION
t.4AP
Wldcat Landfll,
Cover, Defaware
---- .--
-- ~.
~ r . 2tXX1
-------
(4) Removal and off-site disposal of drums containing wastes and drum conte~~s
either by landfilling (if not hazardous) or incineration at a permitted
incinerator (if hazardous);
(5) Replacement of two domestic wells adjacent to the site which have been
identified as being potentially at some risk from the site;
(6) Institutional restrictions on commercial and residential building
development on the site;
(7) Installation of monitoring wells adjacent to Tidbury Creek to monitor the
quality of ground water discharges; and
(8) Ground water monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial actio~.
EPA and DNREC entered into negotiations with a PRP Group following signature 0:
the ROD for the first operable unit. In order to fully address the remedial
action, the PRP Group chose to negotiate remedial action .for the pond as well
as the remedial action for the landfill and implementation of both operable
units will be embodied into a single consent decree.
IV. Current Pond and Site Status
The RI Report described the geology, hydrogeology, surface water and sediment
character of the pond, and both the biological assessment and the wetlands
assessment of the landfill, the pond, and the adjacent environs. The RI was.
continued to determine if there were any effects on wildlife in the area
including the turtles living in the pond or on the migratory birds feeding in
the pond. Namely, whether the contaminants in the pond water and sediments
were being bioaccumulated within the food chain. In their November 1988
report, the USFWS completed a study of the effects of elevated lead levels in
painted turtles found in the pond.
A. Geology, Hydrogeology, and Surface Hydrology
The general geology and hydrogeology of the entire study area are detailec. in
the RI report but a more specific description of the area of the pond is
discussed here. The pond is directly underlain by meander 'channel organic
silts with some clay, wood fragments, and root fibers. These sediments range
from approximately 15 feet in the southeastern border to 0 feet along the
northern and western edge of the pond. These sediments are underlain by sands
of the Columbia Formation or reworked river sediments within the meander
channel of the St. Jones River and are estimated at from 20 to 30 feet thick.
As stated previously, the pond receives relatively little direct run-off. Mas:
of the surface water in the pond comes from groundwater discharge (both from
the landfill and from adjacent upland areas), seeps, and from direct
precipitation into the pond. Surface run-off from the upland areas to the
north and west is intercepted by a drainageway located to the north and west of
the pond. Surface run-off from the landfill is probably minimal except for
very strong rainfall events because the surface of the landfill is very sandy
with a relatively shallow slope (approximately 3%) in the area of the pond.
Consequently, discharge from the landfill occurs largely from leachate seeps
just above the pond surface and from discharge through the wetland sediments
beneath the pond into the surface of the pond.
5
-------
The elevation of the pond is approximately J feet above mean sea level (~SL)
although the level in the pond fluctuates both seasonally and with rainfall
events. The maximum surface area of the pond is approximately 2.7 acres ~i:~
the surface area reduced by two-thirds during the late summer. There appea~s
to be no direct surface water connection between the ~ond and the
drainageway except during exceptionally high water events. This is further
evidenced by the chemical data available for the drainageway as compared to
the pond.
B. Chemical Evaluation
Surface water and.sediments in the pond were contaminated by inorganic
constituents leaching from the landfill. Organic contaminants, while presen:
in the leachate seep along the edge of the pond, were not found in the pond.
Water in both the seep and the pond had relatively high concentrations of
aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, vanadium, and zinc.
Of these, barium, lead, and zinc were found to be elevated in either painted
turtles or mummichogs. Nickel was also found to be elevated in the painted
turtles but not g~nerally elevated in the pond. Iron was found to be
particularly high in the seeps adjacent to the pond although the physiological
effects of high iron were not considered. The general comparison of inorganic
levels for the seep and the pond water are found in the Table 1.
C. Biological Assessment and Wetlands Delineation
Four general habitats in the area of the pond and it's associated wet areas
are defined in the RI report: herbaceous, Phragroites, woodland, and open
wa.ter. Thirty-four plant species, two fish species, three turtle species,
three frog species, and numerous bird species were documented either in or
near the pond. The total wetland loss (ie. wetlands that existed prior to the
landfilling) in the vicinity of the pond is 2.7 acres which now constitutes
the ,open waters of the pond. Although certain rare plants have been
documented on the site, none were identified in the area of the pond and none
will be impacted by implementation of the pond remedy.
The bioaccumulation studies in the pond indicated elevated levels of barium,
lead, and zinc in mummichog fishes (Fundulus heteroclitus) and elevated
levels of barium, lead, and nickel in eastern painted turtles (Chrysemvs
Dicta). The USFWS supplemental report (November 1988) indicated suppressed
levels of delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (ALAD) , an enzyme which, when
lowered, may indicate physiological effects of lead. In addition, a
histopathological study of the mummichogs in the RI indicated elevated
incidence of lesions in the Wildcat pond population indicating either ef~ects
from the elevated levels of lead or general environmental stress' or both.
Acute toxicity tests indicated moderate toxicity in the southwestern corner of
the pond in a s~rface water pool somewhat separated from the main area of the
pond. Other samples both from the pond and the drainageway did not indicate
any toxicity. The results of these tests are contained in the Administrative
Record.
6
-------
COMPARISON OF WILDCAT WATER S&~~LES TO EPA'S
FRES~NATER CR!~ERrA
Contaminant b c c~ronicd e
Seeo .1 Pond Acute
Cd 15 5.S 1.1 3 . 9
Cu 22 6 2 18
Fe 97,300 61,200 1,000
Pb 46 3.2 82
V 19 26 7-104
ZN 2,170 71 110 120
aAll concentrations in uq/l (ppb).
csample taken at southwest corner of pond.
cMaximum observed concentration.
dcriteria calculated with 100 mq/l of hardness.
eUnpublished EPA advisory value for protection of
freshwater li:e
WDRJ 47/023
Table 1.
Inorganics in Pond Area
1
-------
V. Scope and ~ole of Pond Ooerable Unit
The pond is the second of t~o operable units associated wi~h the wildcat
Landfill site. The first operable unit addressed the landfill contents,
surface features. and ground~ater concerns. Tne second operable unit address211
the pond that is being impacted directly by the landfill. These impacts are
environmental rather than human healt~ risks. The remedies considered for t~e
pond will be selected to assure that they are consistent and compatible with
the landfill remedy such as the selective soil covering for the leachate seeps
located at the boundary of the landfill and the pond.
Since the remedy selected for landfill will not include the removal or
treatmenl of the landfill contents, any assessment of the potential future
impacts of the landfill into the pond and it's associated biological communi:';
will remain somewhat uncertain.
VI. Remedial Action Objectives
The remedial action objectives for the pond were developed in response to the
affects of inorganic contaminants emanating from the landfill on biota found
in the pond and the possible effects on migratory birds feeding at the pond.
The major contamination in the area of the pond is from leachate seeps which
flow into the pond although this human exposure risk was addressed in the
initial ROD. The impact of the landfill contaminants on mummichog fishe~ and
turtles is not considered a human health risk since neither would be consumed
by humans. fhis second operable unit ROD addresses these environmental
concerns. The extended investigation by the USFWS documented physiological
effects in the turtles (reduced ALAD production) possibly as a result of
elevated lead levels.
The remedial action objectives for the pond are:
1. Minimize or eliminate the impact of contaminants upon biota in the pond:
2. Stabilize the area of the pond to minimize or eliminate the exposure of
biological organisms to contaminants from the landfill.
VII. Descriotion of Alternatives
The environmental concerns found at the pond, while an environmental concern,
do not pose any human health risk. Consequently, the alternatives avai~able
for consideration include the "no action" alternative and "action" alternative.
In the case of the action alternative, the 'worst-case' scenario was considered.
The feasibility study for the first operable unit evaluated a range of
alternatives including "no action" and the selected alternative. Because of
the time constraints imposed on completing the PRP negotiations, a feasibility
study specific to the pond was not completed. However, information in the
existing feasibility study is considered adequate at this time to evaluate the
two alternatives considered for the pond.
8
-------
Alternative 1: No Action
The "no action" alternative requires no remedial action; however, the exis~~~~
remedy for the site would remain unaffected and would include covering,
stabilization, and planting the areas of the leachate seeps located a~ the
edge of the pond. The direct contact risks identified in the initial remediai
investigation would be remedied since the leachate flow into the pond would be
eliminated. However, the pond and its biological Gommunity would remain
intact but the potential effects of further bioaccumulation in biota would
remain. Applicable or relevant and appropriate federal or state requirements
may not be met by the existing conditions since Federal Water Quality Criteria
may be exceeded and future releases or exposure would remain. However, as
stated previously, the landfill remedy will largely eliminate this
possibility.
Alternative 2: Draining, Filling of Existing Pond and Creation of a ~ew Pond
This alternative would require that the pond be drained, filled, and vegetated.
The wetlands adjacent to the pond would not be covered except in the area of
leachate seeps as required for the landfill remedy. The fill material would be
capable of supporting plant growth. The area will be graded with the final
elevation to approximately 3 to 4 feet above MSL or the existing high water
level to allow for desirable wetland plant growth. Further, the newly filled
area would be stabilized so as not to be a hazard. The minimum tWo-foo~ cover
requirements for the landfill and for the leachate seeps would not be altered
by this alternative. Rather, the cover for the pond would be an extension of
the landfill cover.
A monitor well would be
monitor the groundwater
in conjunction with the
remedy.
constructed upgradient of the newly created pond :0
in the. area of the new pond. Monitoring would be done
monitoring requirements of the previously selected si:e
A second pond of equal or
wetlands would be created
landfill contaminants. A
documented in the area of
associated wetlands would
greater surface area and with suitable surrounding
elsewhere on the property in an area unaffected by
plant community would be established similar to that
the existing pond. The habitat of the new pond and
be maintained during the course of site maintenance.
Institutional restrictions will be pursued by the State to assure that the new
pond .and its associated environs are not disturbed. Also, institutional
controls will be put in place to prevent development on the filled area of the
existing pond.
VIII. ComDarative Analysis of Alternatives
The initial feasibility study details the analysis of alternatives considered
for the landfill. The initial feasibility study is considered adequate to
evaluate the alternatives considered for the pond. This comparative analysis
will be based upon eight of the nine criteria developed by EPA as the factors
on which to base Superfund site decisions. They are as follows:
9
-------
- short-term effectiveness;
- long-term effectiveness and permanence;
- reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume;
- implementability;
. compliance with ARARs;
- overall protectiveness of human health and the environment; and
- community acceptance; and
- state acceptance.
Cost effectiveness is also a criteria developed by EPA for the analysis of
alternatives. However, since the action alternative will be an extension of
the selected site remedy as part of the PRP Group implementation of the remedy.
a detailed cost analysis was not performed and will not be considered here.
The short-term effectiveness of the alternatives takes into account ~he ti~e
until action is complete, protection of the community during the remedial
action, protection of workers during the remedial action, and environmental
impacts.
The "no action" alternative for the pond would take no time to complete,
not require protection of the community or workers, and would cause no
additional environmental impacts although the existing environmental
conditions at the pond would remain as they are.
would
The draining and filling of the pond and creation of the new pond would
require time for stabilization by a plant cover to assure erosion control.
There would be increased dust levels during the construction phase both at the
existing pond and at the newly created pond. However, this would be '
restricted to the time of actual construction activities. Neither the existi~s
pond or the new pond ~re on the landfill; therefore, any activity would not
involve direct contact with deposited material. The draining and filling of
the existing pond would change the open water habita~ to a ~etland habitat
resulting in a net wetlands increase of 2.7 acres. Consequently, the -
biological community relying on the open water areas would be eliminated. The
wetland areas adjacent to the pond to be filled would not be covered except in
the immediate area of the leachate seeps. The creation of the new pond
elsewhere on the property would be completed concurrent with the remedy for
both the landfill and the pond. However, there will be an extended time
following creation of the pond during which the biological community will be
becoming established.
The draining of the pond will be done over a very short
expected to have no impact on the St. Jones River. The
pond will be evaluated prior to draining to assure that
will occur.
period of time and is
water quality of the
no detrimental effects
The long-term effectiveness and Dermanence considers the magnitude of residual
risk, the adequacy of controls, and the reliability of controls.
The "no action" alternative would not address the environmental risks of
contaminant bioaccumulation posed to the pond biota. However,these risks are
dependent upon the future effects of ' the elimination the discharge of leachate
seepage into the pond as required in the landfill remedy. Covering the
leachate seeps will reduce the future risks to the pond environment.
10
-------
The draining and filling of the existing p~nd would reduce the residual
risks posed to the biological community in the open water of the pond as this
area will be replaced by wetland habitat. (The potential human health direc:
contact risks associated with the leachate seeps has already been addressed i~
the remedy selected for the landfill.) The cover and slope stabilization and
planting requirements would provide long-term reliability but would require
initial maintenance to assure that the slope is stable and subsidence is
controlled.
The reduction in toxicity. mobility. and volume evaluation addresses the
statutory preference for selecting a remedial alternative that employs
treatment. In regards to the pond, this criteria applies to the surface
and sediments.
'..rater
The "no action" alternative would not meet this statutory preference.
The draining and filling of the pond would reduce the mobility of the
contaminants in the biological community by eliminating the surface water
route of exposure. There would be a reduction in toxicity since the direct
surface water route would be eliminated. However, the volume would not be
reduced. The remedy for the pond is not particularly relevant to this
criteria since the waste materials are not being addressed in this remedial
action.
The imDlementability analysis refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of implementing the alternatives.
The "no action" alternative would require no action and would be easily
implemented.
The draining and filling of the pond would require no special equipment and
would be accomplished by the soil cover activities already required for the
landfill remedy and would, thus, be easily implemented. The sediments
underlying the pond are prior existing wetland sediments ranging from
approximately 15 feet to 0 feet. The stability requirement for this remedy
would require an as yet undefined amount of fill material. However, this would
not affect the general equipment requirements or implementability of the
remedy.
The ARAR comDliance evaluation of the alternatives includes a review of the
state and federal applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-specific,
action-specific, and location-specific requ~rements, and other concerns
identified as to-be-considered (TBC). The TBCs do not meet the regulatory
prerequisites of ARARs. The ARARs were evaluated for the site remedy in
Technical Memorandum Number 1 which is found in the Administrative Record. T~e
potential list of requirements for the pond remedy is the same as for the si:e
remedy and the analysis of these requirements is taken from the Feasibility
Study report for the site. No other federal or state requirements have been
identified although additional TBCs have been identified for the creation of
the new replacement pond. The major ARARs and TBCs for the pond remedy include
the action-specific requirements of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
regulations (May 28, 1986), the federal Executive Orders regarding wetlands
and floodplains, the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404, Delaware's Criteria
and Guidelines for Creating Waterfowl Impoundments in Regulated Delaware
11
-------
Wetlands, effluent limitations of the ~atiohal Pollution and Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) pursuant to Section 402 of the C~A, and the
Delaware Regulations Governing the Construction of Water Wells (January 20,
1987). Permits are not required for any of the proposed remedial act:on
activities except for the construction of the monitor ~ells.
The Delaware River Basin Commission regulations apply to the filling of greate~
than 2S acres of wetlands or where there is no other Federal or State reviewir.g
agency. Because the pond is 2.7 acres and there are other reviewing state and
federal agencies, the DRBC requirements are not considered as ARARs. In the
case of the filling of the existing pond, Section 404 of the CwA requires that
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issue a permit for such activities. Sinre
the activity is associated directly with site remedy, a permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is not required under Section 12l(e) of SARA, however.
the substantive requirements of the Corp's regulations will be followed. The
creation of the replacement pond will not require any permits since the area of
the new pond is in a previously disturbed upland area, unaffected by the
landfill. These ARARs do not apply to the "no action" alternative.
Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains) requires that action be
taken to avoid adverse effects, minimize potencial harm, and restore and
preserve natural and beneficial values. This requirement is applicable to the
remedial alternative for the draining and filling of the pond and is in fact
trying to restore the natural and beneficial values of the existing pond at the
newly created pond. The "no action" alternative does not clearly comply with
this ARAR. Executive Order 11990 (Protection of ~etlands) requires that action
be taken to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. Since
the ~pen water area of the pond will be altered to wetlands and since the new
pond will be of at least equal surface area and habitat value, these
requirements will be complied with. The "no action" alternative also complies
with this ARAR by not taking any action in the wetland areas.
. -.
The Delaware Regulations Governing the Construction of water wells (January
20, 1987) requires a permit for all water wells within the state. A permit
would be required in the draining and filling alternative to monitor ground
water discharge into the pond. Since these wells are off the site and not
within the study area of the pond, permits are required. These regulations do
not apply to the "no action" alternative because a monitor well would not be
required.
The Guidelines for Creating Waterfowl Impoundments in Regulated Delaware
wetlands is a state TBC which apply to the creation of the new pond. This TEC
would not apply to the "no action" alternative.
The NPDES requirements of CWA Section 402 are not applicable to the draining
of the pond as the draining will occur over a relatively short time period and
will be done in an existing drainageway. Also, prior to discharge. the pond
waters will be analyzed to assure that the Federal Water Quality Criteria are
not exceeded in the St. Jones River. Since the pond would not be drained in
the "no action" alternative, this ARAR would not apply.
The overall orotection of human health and the environment criteria is a
general summary of the protectiveness of the alternatives. The previously
selected remedy already has considered the protection of human health and the
12
-------
environment in relation to the landfill and the
remedy is to address the environmental concerns
biological community.
leachate seeps. The pond
associated with the pond's
The "no action" alternative would adequately protect human health but ''''ould
not address the existing or potential environmental concerns for biota in the
pond. However, the covering of the leachate seeps entering the pond will help
to maintain or reduce the status quo of contaminants in the pond. Thus, it ~:_-
provide some level of protection for the biological community in the pond.
The draining and filling of the pond would be more protective of the
environment than the "no action" alternative. By reducing the biota's contact:
with the pond surface water and surface s2diments, the quality of the
environment is improved. Also, by the construction of a replacement pond
elsewhere on the property removed from any likely effects of the landfill. the
migratory birds should be lured away from the existing pond and to the newly
created pond.
The community acceptance criterion indicates those features of the
alternatives the community supports, those for which they have expressed
reservations, and those they strongly oppose. The remedy selected for the
landfill showed some opposition at the public meeting toward not addressing
the pond as part of the site remedy. Since this record of decision will be
addressing the pond and would be implemented concurrent with the site remedy,
those prior concerns are addressed. This evaluation is based upon comments
submitted to either the state or EPA as well as those made at the public
meeting.
The state acceDtance criterion is already met as the State of Delaware is the
lead agency for the site and is a co-selector of the remedy along with EPA.
IX. Community Relations
Community relations have been ongoing throughout the remedial investigation and
through completion of the first Record of Decision for the site. Local
officials were briefed upon completion of the proposed .plan for the first
operable unit. The same officials were contacted by phone upon completion of
the second operable unit proposed plan but declined a briefing. A public
meeting was held on November 15, 1988, to discuss the proposed plan for the
second operable unit and obtain public comment. The comment period extended
from November 4 . 28, 1988. The administrative record for the site and the
pond was available for public inspection both at the Dover Public Library,
locate~ near the site, and at the EPA Region III office.
DNREC and EPA have responded to all public comments in the attached
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix B).
X. Documentation of Significant Changes
No significant changes to the preferred alternative presented in the proposed
plan have occurred.
13
-------
XI. Selected Remedial Alternative
Both CERCLA and SARA require the selection of a remedy which (1) provides
protection of human health and the environment, (2) is cost-effective, (3)
utilizes permanent solutions and alternate treatment technologies or resource
recovery options to the maximum extent practicable, and (4) that attains
federal and state ARARs unless otherwise waived. In addition, treatment of the
principal threat at the site to reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume of
the hazardous substance is preferred. However, as described previously, the
PRP Group's offer to implement the remedy for the pond in conjunction with the
site remedy has enabled the agencies to defer a cost-effectiveness analysis at
this time. However, such an analysis would be done prior to selection of the
remedy if the selected remedy Lor the pond is not implemented as part of the
Group's offer. The remedy selected for the Wildcat Landfill pond is discussed
below.
A. Description of the Selected Alternative and Performance Goals
The remedy selected for the pond by DNREC and EPA is the draining and filling
of the existing 2.7 acre pond and the construction of a new pond elsewhere on
the property unaffected by the landfill (See Figure 3). The selected remedy
will be consistent with the remedy selected for the landfill (June 1988, ROD).
Both remedies would be implemented concurrently.
The general features of t~e preferred alternative are as follows:
1. The pond will be drained by way of an existing drainageway along the north-
western side of the landfill. Prior to drainage, the waters would be
analyzed to assure that Federal Water Quality Criteria are met. The waters
would drain into the St. Jones River to the north of the site;
2. The entire 2.7 acres of surface water area of the pond will be filled to an
elevation of between 3 and 4 feet MSL. The intent of this requirement is to
provide for a stable slope and vegetative cover while allowing wetland type
vegetation to grow in the area. The existing wetland areas to the southwest
of the pond would not be filled. Further, the uppermost area of the fill
material within this area would be capable .of supporting vegetation.
3. The filling of the pond will be conducted in accordance with the cover
requirements of the leachate seeps. This will prevent duplication of effort
for the landfill and pond remedies and will assure that the seep areas are
properly remedied.
4. A new pond will be constructed elsewhere on the site property in an area
unaffected by the landfill. The pond will be designed to provide at least
2.7 acres of surface water area and provide at least equivalent habitat
value as that being lost. This will i~clude the appropriate water depths,
plant types, transition zone areas, and other features.
5. A monitor well will be constructed upgradient of the pond and will be of
the same design as the monitor wells required in the previous remedy. The
purpose of the monitor well is to assure that the pond is unaffected by the
landfill and that the appropriate Federal Water Quality Criteria are met at
the ground water discharge location.
14
-------
. ~, ....~
....
'Or.
.- .F",-IIIIIUIMIIIiIj
I
~r
<177:00
'~j
)
POND TO DRAINED
AND FILLED
~
t5
~
BARDEN PLUMBING &
o. 8. WILLIAMS
ELECTR ICAL COMPANY
LIBERTO
CONSTRUCTIO
- -
--
~
~
'--
"- .......
" ...,
" "
''':..-',
. -
S T J O~E S
47~
F1gur8 3
,
I:
...-
.
APPROXIMATE LANDFILL BOUNDARY
General Features of Gene:
. Remedial Alternative'
o
1D)
1!CI)
2Cd)
WIdCIt L..cfI ,
COV", Cetaware
eco
---
-- -
seALS ,. . 'ar/
Ii
-------
6.
Sampling 0: :he new pond and :~e monitor ~ell ~ill be done in accordance
with the landfill remedy monitoring requirements.
7. Restrictions will be made to assure that the integrity of the new pond is
maintained and that there will not be development at or near the pond that.
would lower the established habitat value. Institutional controls ~ill als:
be put in place to prevent development on the area of the filled pond.
The selected alternative mitigates the existing environmental problems posed
at the existing pond and allows for the creation of an approximately equivalent
resource nearby. Further, the remedy, which is consistent with the site remedy
has been proposed as part of the overall landfill and pond remedy by the PRP
Group and is adequately protective of human health and the environment. The
statutory preference for treatment of the principal threat at the site will not
be met by this remedy with treatment of the surface water as the possible
exception. It is felt that dredging or treatment of the pond sediments would
not be practical because of projected difficulties encountered in working in
the marshy areas compared to the exclusively environmental risks identified.
Also, since the landfill contents will not be removed nor will there be any
treatment of the groundwater, there is nothing to preclude the future movement
of contaminated surface water or groundwater into the area of the pond. It
should be noted that closure of the existing pond area is consistent with the
closure remedy previously selected in the June 29, 1988 ROD. The drai.ning and
filling of the existing pond reduces the existing and potential environmental
concerns posed at the pond in that the direct contact from the leachate seeps
and the sediments is mitigated by the filling requirement. Further, th& biota
of concern will no longer be at that area and a new pond will be created
elsewhere of equal or greater value.
The monitoring requirements for the pond are included only as a safeguard
measure. Although the pond is downgradient of the southwestern area of the
landfill where there is documented movement of low levels of certain
contaminants, the documented levels from wells directly adj acent .to the
landfill are below MCt levels and are not likely to affect the pond. Further,
sampling within the area of the new pond showed no evidence of contamination..
However, to maintain protectiveness of the remedy, we have proposed to install
this monitoring well.
B. Statutory Determinations
The purpose of this section is to describe the ability of the selected
remedy to be consistent with the statutory requirements of Section 121 of
CERCLA and will describe the adequacy of the remedy to be protective of human
health and the environment, attain ARARs, utilize permanent solutions and
alternative technologies or resource recover technologies to the maximum extent
practicable, and address t. : preference for reduction in toxicity, mobility and
volume.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy selected for the pond did not need to address the human health
concerns because no human health concerns were identified at the pond. The
selected remedy for the pond is adequately protective of the environmental
concerns, namely, bioaccumulation of certain inorganic contaminants that were
identified. The open water habitat of the pond would be replaced by wetland
16
-------
habitat thereby removing the biota of concern from the sediments of concern.
Further, the filling of the pond would cover the sediments of concern creating
a wetland scenario as exists elsewhere around the landfill. Although they are
not considered part of a treatment system, these highly organic sediments have
effectively prevented the movement of both organics and inorganics off the site
to such rates as to not be detected within a few feet from the landfill.
The selected remedy will not pose unacceptable short-term risks. There should
be no cross-media impacts since all materials will remain in place.
Attainment of the ApDlicable or Relevant and AooroDriate Reauirements
The selected remedy for the pond meets the intent of the applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal and state environmental and public health
requirements. One state to-be-considered is included in this discussion.
complete listing of ARARs and TBCs (with the exception of the Delaware
Criteria and Guidelines for Creating Waterfowl Impoundments in Regulated
Delaware Wetlands) are found in the Feasibility Study Report (May 1988) and
Technical Memorandum #1 (May 1988).
~1..
~ ..e
The chemical-specific reauirements ;;'e:
1. 40 CFR 122 (Clean Water Act) - This is a relevant and appropriate
requirement which includes the acute and chronic ambient water quality
criteria (WQC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. These"'
requirements are to be met at the ground water discharge point along
the new pond. These requirements would also apply to the draining of the
existing pond prior to the filling of the pond.
2. State of Delaware Water Quality Standards for Streams (December 23, 1985)-
This is a relevant and appropriate requirement for discharges to surface
waters from point sources. These requirements are enforced under the
Delaware Regulations Governing the Control of Water Pollution.
3. State of Delaware Regulations Goyerning the Control of Water Pollution
(June 23, 1983)- The applicable requirements concern the discharge of waters
to surface wat~r and this would apply to the discharge of waters from the
pond. The requirements would have to be met although a permit would not be
required as this activity is an integral part of the remedy and is in the
immediate area of the landfill and the pond.
The 10cation-sDecific reauirements are:
1. 40 CFR 264.l8(b) - Actions within the 100-year floodplain must be designed.
constructed, operated, and maintained to avoid washout.
2. Executive Order 11988, Protection of
This applicable requirement requires
minimize potential harm, and restore
values.
FloodDlains (40 CFR 6, Appendix A) -
actions to avoid adverse effects,
and preserve natural and beneficial
3. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (40 CFR 6, Appendix A) -
Measures must be taken to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of
wetlands.
17
-------
The action-s?ecific reauirements are:
1. State of Delaware Regulations Governing the Construction of Water Wells
(January 20, 1987) - These regulations detail the construction and permi::~
requirements for water well constructio~ within the state.
The to-be-considered (TBCs) are:
1. Delaware Criteria and Guidelines for Creating Waterfowl Impoundments in
Regulated Delaware Wetlands - This TBC is not an ARAR as it applies solely
to creation of these impoundments in existing wetlands and the new pond is
to be constructed in an upland area. The general criteria and construction
guidelines are to be used.
Cost-Effectiveness
A cost-effectiveness analysis was not performed as the remedy will be
implemented as part of the site remedy by the PRP Group. Should the Group not
implement this remedy, the agencies would perform a cost-effective
determination as part of a re-evaluation of the alternatives prior to
implementing a remedy.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technoloiies .
The elimination of the pond and its replacement elsewhere provides a
permanent remedy to the potential for bioaccumulation within biota living and
feeding in the pond. The creation of wetlands by filling the pond is
consistent with the existing landfill remedy. Since the landfill contents wil
not be removed and since there will be no treatment to preclude the future
movement of surface or groundwater into the area of the pond, the draining and
filling of the pond is entirely consistent with the landfill remedy. The
creation of the new pond will be done to provide at least equal habitat value
while the area of the existing pond will also become a wetlands area similar to
the wetland areas elsewhere around the periphery of the landfill. The filling
of the pond will also further mitigate the direct contact by the biota of
concern.
Preference for Treatment as a PrinciDal Element
The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element is not
practicable for the pond remedy as discussed previously. These concerns have
already been addressed as part of the landfill remedy. There are no human
contact or other risks associated with the pond since the leachate seeps are
addressed in. the landfill remedy.
18
-------
APPENDIX A: Administrative Record Index
~~~
-------
APPENDIX B: Responsiveness SUDIIIary
-------
~ildcat Landfill - Responsiveness Summary
Section 117 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that a proposed plan be
made available for public review. DNREC and EPA have accepted comments on ~he
Proposed Plan beginning on November 4, 1988 and ending on November 28, 1988.
A public meeting was held on November 15, 1988, at the DNREC building in the
City of Dover, Delaware, Kent County to discuss the contents of the proposed
plan for the second operable unit (the pond) of the ~ildcat Landfill site.
The characteristics of the pond, the alternatives evaluated, and the preferred
remedy were discussed and public comments were solicited.
During
remedy
sewage
on the
the meeting one public comment was made regarding the already
for the landfill. It was suggested that sludge from the Kent
treatment plant be used as a soil amenity for plant growth in
landfill to be covered.
selected
County
the areas
In response, both DNREC and EPA have agreed to look into the matter of using
this sludge as a supplement to the fill and cover requirements on the
landfill. However, the various potential county, state, or federal.
restrictions needed to be examined before a decision could be made. This
evaluation is really part of the June 1988 Record of Decision for the l~dfill
and the associated remedial design for the remedies.
No written. comments were received on the proposed plan for the second operable
unit during the public comment period by either EPA or DNREC.
,
------- |