RECORD OF DECISION
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL SITE
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
River Road Landfill
The City of Hermitage
Pymatuning Township
Mercer County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OP BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the River Road Landfill Site ("the Site"), in the City of
Hermitage, Pymatuning Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The
remedial action was chosen in accordance with the requirements of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), 42 U.S.C. §§
9601 et. seq.: and to the extent practicable, the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40
C.F.R. Part 300. This decision document explains the factual and
legal basis for selecting the remedy for this Site. This
decision is based on the Administrative Record for this Site.
In accordance with Section 114(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9614(a),
nothing in this CERCLA response action shall be construed or
interpreted as preempting the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from
imposing any additional liability or requirements with respect to
the release of hazardous substances from the Site.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with the selected
remedy.
ASSESSMENT 07 THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, have greatly been addressed by the implementation of the
response actions already completed at the Site. The selected
response action in this Record of Decision ("ROD")/ is inclusive
of the additional action necessary to ensure that actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site which
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment do not occur.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The selected remedy for the Site is continuation of the operation
and maintenance of the Existing Treatment Scheme which already
exists at the Site along with the addition of Institutional
Controls. The Existing Treatment Scheme is comprised of: a
Fence, a PADER Solid Waste Cap, a Ground Water Dam, a Ground
Water/Leachate Collection System, and a Monitoring program. The
major components of the Existing Treatment Scheme previously
implemented and continuing to operate are described below:
• Continued operation and maintenance of the existing ground
water/leachate collection system.
• Continued maintenance of the PADER approved landfill cap and
integrated surface water drainage system and the passive
landfill gas venting system currently installed at the
landfill.
• Continued maintenance of the existing Ground Water Dam.
• Continued maintenance of the existing Fence.
• Continuation of the existing monitoring program (with
expansion or modification as required or approved by EPA and
PADEP).
The selected remedy will further protect the public from exposure
to hazardous substances. The selected remedy as described below
is the only planned CERCLA response action for the Site.
The selected remedy includes the following major components:
• Deed Restrictions to prohibit the installation of new on-
site potable wells.
• Deed Restrictions to prohibit the excavation or disturbance
of the soil cap which results in exposing the fill
materials.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. Implementation of the
selected remedy will not involve excavation, or other remedial
action measures that would pose any appreciable short-term risks
to the public or to the workers during construction or
implementation. EPA has determined that its future response at
2
aR30U763
-------
this Site does not require physical construction. Therefore, the
Site now qualifies for inclusion on the Construction Completion
List.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review under Section 121(c)
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c) will be conducted within five
years after the issuance of the ROD to ensure that the selected
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
Thomas C. Volt/aggda
Director,
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Date
3
AR30U76U
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
RECORD OF DECISION
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 3
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 10
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 11
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ... 15
IX. THE SELECTED REMEDY: DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE
STANDARD(S) FOR EACH COMPONENT OF THE REMEDY ... 26
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 28
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 30
XII. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 30
APPENDIX A FIGURES
APPENDIX B TABLES
APPENDIX C CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE PLAN
flR30l»765
-------
RECORD OP DECISION
RIVER ROAD LANDPILL SITE
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME/ LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Superfund Site addressed in this Record of Decision ("ROD")
is defined a9 the River Road Landfill Superfund Site ("Site")
The River Road Landfill Site lies within the boundaries of the
City of Hermitage, South Pymatuning Township, PA. The 102-acre
Site is located approximately two miles northeast of the City of
Sharon in southwestern Mercer County (Figure A). Approximately
37.5 acres of the Site have been used for refuse disposal. The
remaining property has never been developed. It consists of open
grassy areas, drainage ditches, and sedimentation basins.
The Site is bounded by River Road (Route 846) to the northwest.
The Shenango River forms the southern boundary of the Site,
beyond which is industrial development. Wooded and residential
properties are located to the northeast and east and west of the
Site. The natural topography slopes from the road at an
elevation of 920 feet mean sea level (MSL) to the Shenango River
at an elevation of approximately 860 feet MSL. The landfill is
I,000 feet wide by 2,100 feet long, along a nearly east-west
axis, and the top of the landfill is at an approximate elevation
955 feet MSL. The top slopes at about 1.5 to 6 percent to the
top of the side slopes. The side slopes of 12 to 20 percent are
broken every 10 to 20 feet in elevation by gently sloping
terraces, which collect and convey surface water runoff to two
sedimentation basins. Perimeter drainage channels also collect
and convey runoff to the two sedimentation basins. Each of the
sedimentation basins has an overflow for discharging water to the
Shenango River.
In accordance with Section 114(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9614(a),
nothing in this CERCLA response action shall be construed or
interpreted as preempting the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from
imposing any additional liability or requirements with respect to
the release of hazardous substances from the Site.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Industrial activity at the Site began in the 1940s, when the Site
was used for oil and gas production. Prior to that, the Site was
1
aR30U7 66
-------
reportedly used for agricultural purposes. In the late 1950's,
the property was operated as a sand and gravel mine. During the
period from 19S2 to 1980, the Site accepted municipal,
residential, and industrial waste from area communities. PADER
granted technical approval for operations in 1978, allowing
continuance of operations until PADER issued a final Solid Waste
Permit. Erie Disposal Company, a subsidiary of Waste Management
of Pennsylvania ("WMPA"), purchased the Site in 1980. PADER
issued the final solid waste disposal permit in 1984.
In 1980, WMPA initiated response actions at the Site, with
construction of a subsurface leachate collection system/ground
water dam on the south side of the landfill. The collected
leachate was temporarily stored on-site in a lagoon and
periodically collected and trucked off-site for disposal until
1983. After 1983, the collected leachate was discharged into a
regional Public Owned Treatment Works ("POTW") sewer main, which
traverses the Site. In 1982, WMPA installed soil erosion and
sediment control systems. The leachate lagoon was closed in
1983 .
Between 1982 and 1985, in accordance with PADER approval,
PCB-containing sludge was removed from segregation areas and
disposed with refuse in the landfill. WMPA capped the landfill
in accordance with existing PADER regulations in 1987, and added
further upgrades to the leachate collection system through 1988.
The Site stopped receiving waste in 1986. Closure activities
were completed and certified in accordance with the PADER
approved Closure Plan in 1987. Post-closure plans prepared by
WMPA were approved by PADER in 1988.
The activities which have been completed at the Site by WMPA.and
are currently being operated and maintained will be identified as
"the Existing Treatment Scheme" and include the following:
a fence, a PADER solid waste cap, a ground water dam, a ground
water/leachate collection system, and a monitoring program.
The fence is comprised of an 8-ft high chain-link fence. The
fence surrounds the Site on three sides, with access from the
fourth side blocked by the Shenango River. The fence is
maintained to control Site access, thus limiting exposure to the
Site. In 1986 and 1987, the PADER solid waste cap was
constructed over the entire landfill in accordance with a PADER
approved work plan. The landfill cap construction adequately
promotes surface water runoff. A surface water collection system
was integrated into the cap to promote surface water runoff and
collect sediment. Surface water runoff is discharged from the
basins to the Shenango River. The combination of the PADER solid
waste cap and the surface water collection system is minimizing
infiltration through the cap, and maximizing runoff from the
landfill. The ground water dam is located at the downgradient
(southern) perimeter of the landfill. The ground water dam was
constructed to limit potential ground water flow from the Site to
the Shenango River, and conversely, to limit flow from the
Shenango River toward the ground watj»i|^^^h^^e-yCollection system
-------
and is effectively meeting both objectives. The ground
water/leachate collection system consists of a perforated
pipeline in a gravel envelope, which was installed around the
entire landfill, below the water table. The ground
water/leachate collection system is effectively collecting
leachate percolating from the landfill and ground water flowing
beneath the landfill. However, it is suspected that the
collection system is partially blocked in one or more areas.
This blockage may be the reason that minor amounts of
contamination have migrated to the ground water immediately
adjacent to the northwest and east sides of the landfill.
The current monitoring program includes sampling and analysis of
ground water, leachate, and landfill gas and sediment.
The U.S. EPA listed the Site on the National Priorities List
("NPL") in 1989 on the basis of surface water, ground water, and
direct contact risk components of the Hazard Ranking Score
("HRS") score. An Administrative Order on Consent for the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was negotiated
with WMPA in 1990.
III. HIGHLIGHTS 07 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") Report and
the Proposed Plan for the River Road Landfill Site were released
to the public for comment on August 10, 1995 in accordance with
Sections 113(k)(2)(B), 117(a), and 121(f)(1)(G) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. §§ 9613(k)(2)(B), 9617(a), 9621(f)(1)(G). These documents
were made available to the public in both the Administrative
Record maintained at the EPA Region III Administrative Record
Reading Room, and the information repository located at the Buhl-
Henderson Community Library, Sharon, Pennsylvania. The notice of
availability for these documents and the notice for the public
meeting were published in the Sharon Herald on August 10, 1995.
A public comment period on the documents was held from August 10,
1995 to September 11, 1995. In addition, a public meeting was
held on August 24, 1995 at the South Pymatuning Volunteer Fire
Department in Sharpsville, Pennsylvania. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA and Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection ("PADEP", formerly known as PADER)
answered questions about the Site and the remedial alternatives
considered.
EPA's response to all comments on the Proposed Plan and related
documents received during the comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary in this ROD. A copy of the transcript of
the public meeting has been placed in the Administrative Record
file and information repository.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLB 07 R2SP0NSB ACTION
This Record of Decision ("ROD") mandates the final planned
3
AR30l»768
-------
response action for the Site. The previously conducted remedial
actions adequately address the threats to human health and the
environment posed by the presence of contaminants migrating from
the Site. This ROD is the only planned CERCLA response action
for the Site.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. LANDFILL CONDITIONS
During PADEP-approved closure activities many remedial systems
and monitoring programs were installed to prevent off-site
migration. These systems and programs include:
• Landfill Cap, with a Surface Water Control System
• Ground Water Dam
• Ground Water/Leachate Collection System
• Landfill Gas Monitoring System
Landfill Cap - A landfill cap was installed in 1986 through 1987
in accordance with the PADEP-approved closure plan.
Investigations have determined that the cap is structurally
sound, free „of cracks, deformities, major depressions, and seeps,
and promotes surface water runoff. Cap depth and soil type are-
generally consistent with the closure plan.
Surface Water Control System - Studies conclude that the surface
water control system collects approximately one-third of the
total rainfall to the local watershed. Steep landfill slopes,
and collection channels carry runoff directly to the
sedimentation basins.
Ground Water Dam - The ground water dam investigation confirmed
the presence of a 2,400 ft. compacted-soil dam that is keyed into
fine-grained till foundation over at least 75 percent of its
length. An approximately 9 ft. hydraulic, head drop maintained
between outside and inside the dam demonstrates the dams ability
to limit ground water flow.
Leachate Collection System - The leachate collection system is
functioning to collect leachate percolating from the landfill and
ground water flowing beneath the landfill. Collection volumes
are directly related to rainfall, with actual system response
variable depending on moisture levels of surface soils.
Landfill Oas - Landfill gas was not identified in significant
quantities on the landfill surface. Quarterly monitoring for
landfill gas at 13 perimeter monitoring stations demonstrate that
landfill gas is not leaving the Site.
B. GEOLOGY
The River Road Landfill is located in the Glaciated Section of
4
AR3QU769
-------
Che Appalachian Plateau physiographic setting. The Site is
directly underlain by unconsolidated materials which in turn
overlie Mississippian age sandstone and shale bedrock formations.
The unconsolidated material has been divided into three units
which in ascending order are coarse-grained till, fine-grained
till and alluvium, lacustine and ice contact deposits, and soil
fill. The Orangeville Shale and Berea Sandstone Formations are
the two bedrock units encountered during the Remedial
Investigation.
Coarse grained till directly overlies bedrock across most of the
Site and is described as very dense, olive gray to gray, fine to
coarse sand containing varying amounts of silt and gravel. This
was defined as a till based on the extreme compact nature of the
unit. This till is absent in the north-central portion of the
Site and up to 28 feet thick at the Site.
The fine-grained till overlies the coarse-grained till across the
majority of the Site and appears to be absent in the southeastern
portion of the Site. It is described as a medium dense to very
dense, gray to dark gray and dark yellow-brown, fine to medium
sandy silt with occasional layers of fine to coarse sand. The
thickness of this unit ranges from 1.5 to 83 feet at the Site.
A veneer of silt, silty sand, and sand was found overlying the
till units and regional information suggests that these sediments
are of variable genesis. These sediments may be the result of
Pleistocene lacustrine and ice-contact settings, and Pleistocene
and Recent stream valley processes. The depositional environment
could not be conclusively determined at each sampled location and
as a consequence in the RI this veneer was labeled as alluvium
for ease of identification. This unit was described as
consisting of fine to medium sands and silts, with occasional
gravel. The distinction between the alluvium and underlying till
was based on a combination of lithologic information and blow
counts recorded during drilling. This unit exceed 20 feet in
thickness at the southern portion of the Site along the river.
The top of bedrock surface ranges in elevation from 810.2 ft. MSL
to 855 ft. MSL across the Site. Two bedrock stratigraphic units
were encountered during the Site investigation. Based on
comparisons to the regional geologic information, these units
include the upper unit of the Berea Sandstone and lower unit of
the Orangeville Shale.
The Berea sandstone was described from Site drilling logs as
consisting of soft to medium hard, fine to medium sandstone with
variable amounts of shale interbedded with the sandstone. The
percentage of shale within the sandstone was recorded to be as
high as 20 percent with shale layers between 0.01 and 4 inches
thick. Bedding was observed to generally be horizontal with
fractures observed to usually occur in horizontal orientation
with some vertical fractures reported as well.
5
AR30U770
-------
The Orangeville Shale was encountered at some locations directly
above the Berea Sandstone with a reported thickness of up to 22
feet.
C. HYDROGEOLOGY
There are four hydrostratigraphic units at the Site that have
similar hydraulic characteristics which makes it difficult to
differentiate ground water flow along the stratigraphic units.
The hydrostratigraphic units in descending order are the
alluvium, fine-grained till, coarse-grained till and bedrock.
Both horizontal and vertical components of groundwater flow occur
at the Site with the horizontal component of flow to the south
toward the Shenango River. The vertical component of ground
water flow is generally in an upward direction, toward the
discharge area of the Shenango River.
The alluvium is the surficial aquifer and aquifer testing at
monitoring wells completed in this unit were analyzed for the
estimating the hydraulic conductivity. The results of the
analysis was a range in hydraulic conductivity between 2.6 X 10"2
cm/sec (5.1 X 10"2 ft/min) and 1.2 X 10"6 cm/sec (2.3 X 10"6
ft/min). The estimated mean hydraulic conductivity was
3.6 X 10"4 cm/sec (7.2 X 10'4 ft/ min). Ground water flow in
this unit is to the south toward the Shenango River, however,
based on water elevation data in the vicinity of the "groundwater
dam" and leachate collection system, it appears that the shallow
ground water is being intercepted by the leachate collection
system.
The estimated hydraulic conductivity ranges from aquifer tests
performed from monitoring wells in the fine-grained till are 2.9
X 10"4 cm/sec (5.7 X 10"4 ft/min) and 1.3 X 10~5 cm/sec with the
mean hydraulic gradient estimated at 6.1 X 10"s cm/sec (1.2 X 10"
4 ft/min).
The coarse-grained till estimated hydraulic conductivity ranges
from 8.9 X 10"3 cm/sec (1.8 X 10"2 ft/min) to 4.0 X 10"5 cm/sec
(7.9 X 10"5 ft/min). The estimated mean hydraulic conductivity
for the coarse-grained till was 6.2 X 10"4 cm/sec (1.2 X 10"
ft/min).
The bedrock aquifer, which underlies the coarse-grained till,
packer testing and slug testing results show an estimated
hydraulic conductivity range from 9.6 X 10"3 cm/sec (1.9 X 10
ft/min) to less than 1.8 X 10"7 cm/sec (3.5 X 10"7 ft/min). The
estimated mean hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock aquifer was
1.5 X 10"5 cm/sec (3.0 X 10"5 ft/min).
There was no observed confining unit between the unconsolidated
stratigraphic units, and the mean hydraulic conductivity values
of each of the units is approximately within an order of
magnitude of each other. Therefore, there appears to be no
AR30U77I
-------
significant contrast in hydraulic conductivity values among the
stratigraphic units beneath the Site. It is suggested that this
lack of contrast in mean hydraulic conductivity results would
result in ground water flow driven by gradients and not
stratigraphic boundaries. As reported in the RI, the estimated
range of ground water flow velocities was 4.3 X 10"3 to 0.86
ft/day.
D. SURFACE WATER
The Shenango River is south of the Site, and the Shenango Dam
located approximately 1.25 miles upstream of the Site regulates
peak surface water discharge with a high of 4,460 cubic feet per
second ("cfa.") and a low of 2,380 cfs. The 100 year flood plain
estimated for the Shenango River extends to just below the lowest
elevation of the landfill. A surface water drainage system was
implemented as part of the closure plan to control surface
drainage to the Shenango River. The surface water collection
system is designed to collect surface water from the western half
of the landfill to Sedimentation Basin A and the eastern half of
the landfill to Sedimentation Basin B (Figure B). Landfill
grading, and a series of surface water collection trenches have,
been constructed to direct surface water to the Basins.
A surface water assessment was conducted to monitor the flow of
surface water into and out of the two sedimentation basins.
Sedimentation Basin A - The base discharge flow from
Sedimentation Basin A, before the measured rain event, was 0.12
cfs or 53 gallons per minute ("gpm."). During the storm, the
water level in the basin rose a maximum of 1.3 ft, storing a
maximum of approximately 25,400 cubic feet ("cf.") of runoff at
one point. Basin storage discharge was limited to a maximum of
1.8 cfs. After the storage peak, the discharge of stored water
in Basin A continued, decreasing to 0.16 cfs. over a five-day
period. The estimated maximum storage capacity of the Basin is
121,000 ft3.
Sedimentation Basin B - The base discharge flow from
Sedimentation Basin B, before the measured rain event, was 0.001
cfs. This indicates Basin B barely discharged unless there was a
precipitation eveftt. During the storm, the water level in the
basin rose a maximum of 0.9 ft, storing approximately 29,300 cf
at the maximum water height. Basin storage limited discharge to
a maximum of 0.62 cfs. After the peak storage, discharge
continued, decreasing to approximately 0.026 cfs over a five-day
period, when another rainfall event occurred. The estimated
maximum storage capacity of the Basin is 194,000 ft3.
E. NATURE AMD EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
The nature and extent of contamination at the Site was
7
AR30U772
-------
characterized through sampling of leachate, sediment from
drainageways leading to the Sedimentation Basins and from within
the Basins, and soil composing the ground water dam, from beneath
the former leachate pond area, and in the area of the Site
entrance.
An assessment of the nature and extent of contaminants present at
the River Road Landfill Site indicates that the extensive
remedial actions performed at the Site have, for the most part,
been successful in controlling contaminant migration from the
landfill to the surrounding environment. However, investigations
have shown that limited migration of contaminants is occurring
from the landfill.
Leachate was considered the primary potential source at the River
Road Site. However, analysis of the leachate indicated that it
is limited as a potential source. No pesticides or PCBs were
detected in the leachate samples. Total concentrations of
volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and semi-volatile organic
compounds ("SVOCs") in leachate were less than 150 micrograms per
liter (ug/L). The drainageways leading to the Sedimentation
Basins and the Basins themselves, were found to have limited
potential to act as sources. Low concentrations of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") (concentrations less than 100
ug/L) were not detected in the drainageways leading to the
Sedimentation Basins. Aroclor 1248 was detected at
concentrations below the contract required quantitation limit
("CRQL") in Sedimentation Basin B. Metals concentrations varied
little among the inlet drainageway, Basins, and outlet
drainageways with the exception of a limited area in the spillway
from Basin B, which contained elevated chromium concentrations.
The extent of elevated chromium is limited to an area
approximately 20 feet in length, and is located at the downstream
end of the drainage system. This area with elevated chromium
levels is considered to be a source. Soil near the Site entrance
has a limited potential as a source of PCBs. The detection of
PCBs was limited to one sample out of a total of nine collected.
Two VOCs (2-butanone at an estimated concentration of 15
micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane at an
estimated concentration of 1 ug/kg) were detected in soil samples
underlying the former leachate pond. Soil does not appear to be
a source of VOCs in wells.
Organics were detected in the dam soil (SVOCs) at concentrations
below the CRQL. Of the SVOCs detected in the ground water dam
soil, only bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in the ground
water downgradient of the landfill at 26 ug/L. This detection
was not considered evidence of ground water impact, because
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was present in laboratory blank
samples and is a common laboratory contaminant. Therefore, soil
composing the ground water dam does not constitute a significant
source of contamination at the Site.
8
AR30U773
-------
Migration Pathway Assessment
Migration pathway assessment activities performed during the RI
included; sampling and analysis of sediments in the sedimentation
basin spillways, sampling and analysis of surface water samples
collected at Site springs and in the sedimentation basins,
sampling and analysis for indicator parameters of selected
monitoring wells, analysis of ambient air quality, and analysis
of the presence of landfill gas.
No substantial contamination was detected along potential
migration pathways. There is no evidence that contaminants are
migrating through the drainageways around the landfill. Organic
compounds detected in the Basin spillways were low concentrations
of PAHs below the CRQL in samples from the Basin B spillway.
Analysis of ground water samples for indicator parameters did not
show landfill impacts. Concentrations of major cations and
anions detected in the ground water samples indicated that
samples from the shallow and intermediate wells exhibited similar
ionic composition (calcium-sulfate-carbonate) while samples
collected from the bedrock wells exhibited a differing
composition (sodium-potassium-carbonate).
Ambient air quality at the landfill is not being impacted by
landfill gas emissions. Methane concentrations in ambient air
are substantially below explosive limits, and non-methane VOCs
are not measurable in either the ambient air or the leachate
headwells and manholes. Methane concentrations were elevated
inside confined manholes and leachate headwells, as would be
expected.
Chemical Characterization
Chemical characterization during the RI was performed for the
following media; ground water at Site monitoring wells and an
off-site private well and the on-site well, and sediment sampling
in the Shenango River
Limited impacts to on-site ground water have occurred, and no
impacts to river sediments can be attributed to the landfill.
There were 22 downgradient or sidegradient wells sampled at the
Site, three contained detectable concentrations of organics
similar to leachate compounds: two shallow ground water wells
adjacent to the ground water/leachate collection system, and one
shallow ground water well downgradient of the ground water dam.
The two wells adjacent to the leachate collection system
represent areas where the leachate collection system is
apparently not fully effective.
Xylenes were detected at a concentration of 2 ug/L in one
monitoring well during the first round sampling event only.
The private wells sampled exhibited no ground water quality
affects attributable to the Site. No target compounds list
9 flR30l»77l»
-------
("TCL") VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were detected in private
well samples.
PCBs were detected in sediments adjacent to and downstream of the
landfill and were within the concentration range of PCB
contaminated sediments located upstream of the Site.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITS RISKS
The Risk Assessment CRA") studies the carcinogenic, non-
carcinogenic, current and future risks at the Site based on the
levels of contaminants found during the RI and a reasonable
maximum exposure.
The National Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C.F.R. Part 300,
establishes a range of acceptable levels of carcinogenic risk for
Superfund Sites that range between one in 10,000 and one in 1
million additional cancer cases if cleanup action is not taken at
a Site. Expressed in scientific notation, this translates to a
generally acceptable excess risk range of between 1 X 10"4 and 1
x 10"6 over a defined period of exposure to Site related
contaminants.
In addition to carcinogenic risk, chemical contaminants that are
ingested, inhaled or dermally absorbed may present non-
carcinogenic risks to different organs of the human body. The
non-carcinogenic risk9 or toxic effect are expressed as a Hazard
Index ("HI"). EPA considers a HI exceeding one to be an
unacceptable non-carcinogenic risk.
The RA is used to evaluate the need for remedial action. It also
helps in determining the levels to which Site related
contaminants have to be treated to ensure the protection of human
health and the environment. The risk assessment is based on the
assumption that exposure to Site related contaminants can occur
only if a complete exposure pathway exists. The exposure pathway
consists of the following elements: contaminants; a medium (such
as water, soil, air) through which contaminants are transported;
a point of contact with the contaminants (exposure point); and a
route of exposure (such as ingestion, inhalation, or dermal
(skin) contact) at the exposure point.
Baseline Human Health Riek Assessment
No unacceptable levels of risk were calculated under the current
land use scenario. Estimated carcinogenic risks were less than 1
x 10"6, and hazard indices were less than 1.
Under the future residential land use scenario, estimated ^
reasonable maximum exposure carcinogenic risks above 1 X 10
were calculated for three potential exposure pathways: ground
water ingestion (3 x 10"s) , dermal contact withgsoil (2 x 10 )
and ingestion of sediment while wading (5 x 10 ) .
10
AR301+7 75
-------
The hazard indices for the future residential land use scenario
exceeded 1 for two ground water pathways: ingestion of ground
water and dermal contact with ground water. These non-
carcinogenic risks were driven by manganese and aluminum.
Manganese and aluminum are compounds commonly found in the Site
area and the risk is based upon people living on the landfill and
drinking and bathing in ground water from wells placed in the
landfill.
Environmental Risk Assessment
In the ecological risk assessment, a number of analytes detected
in surface water and sediment exhibited a potential for
ecological hazard. Aluminum, calcium, and lead were contaminants
within the probable significant effects range for surface waters.
However, these metals were determined to pose no risk greater
than risk associated with these metals in upgradient surface
waters.
Arsenic, 4,4-DDD, mercury, nickel, Aroclor-1248, cadmium,
chromium, dieldrin, and zinc were contaminants that may pose
possible significant effects for the sediments. However,
arsenic, nickel, and cadmium are common in sediments of the
region and potentially may not pose risk significantly greater
than background levels. The remaining contaminants are found in
sediments which over the years have become established wetlands.
These contaminates in their present location pose a minimal risk
if they continue to remain undisturbed.
The range of alternatives is limited to viable options that would
mitigate Site specific risks to human health and the environment.
coqci^sspy
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from- this
Site, have substantially been addressed by the implementation of
the response actions already completed'at the Site. The selected
response action in this ROD, is inclusive of the additional
action necessary to ensure that actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from this Site which may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment do not occur.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Feasibility Study ("FS") contains the remedial alternatives
considered for cleanup at the Site. The FS presents the process
to evaluate a comprehensive list of general response actions to
identify the best approach currently available to meet the
remedial action objectives for the River Road Landfill Site.
Through the screening process, general response actions which are
comprised of remedial technology subsets and further broken down
into process options, were assembled into five remedial action
AR304776
-------
alternatives for the Site. During EPA's review of the FS it was
identified that an additional remedial alternative was required
to detail the specific remedial action EPA feels is needed to
mitigate Site risk. Therefore the total number of remedial
alternatives discussed in this ROD is six. The range of
alternatives is limited to viable options that would mitigate
Site specific risks to human health and the environment.
Enhancement
In the FS, "Habitat Enhancement" was introduced as a component of
Alternatives 3 through 5. Habitat Enhancement will not be
included by EPA as an alternative which was considered in this
ROD since habitat enhancement is considered to be beyond the
remedial actions necessary to mitigate Site risk. Habitat
enhancement has been identified as being of particular importance
to WMPA and could possibly be completed by WMPA in the future to
establish a beneficial use for the property that is of value to
the surrounding community.
Below are the Remedial Alternatives that were considered in this
ROD:
TABLB : Remedial Alternatives Examined
AMnl
Notation
Atomtflw2
No Furthar Action
» ¦ -J ft.L , _ « « «*- ** '
soHnQ iimwi aowni ra raouoons vonrai
MtonttfraS
^ - * ¦ • * ^ anri
OONnQ IfMMfl tttfWVW ¦flO ¦VBVSOfwi VXrsMI IMpQOT 01 SwQOTNni Vn
m 6^ndid MonioflnQ Ptoqwvi
Mmim0w4
BJOm TiliiiH Sshama and tnattudond Control OO-Ste Ohpuid at flwfliiiau and
Grand VMmAjmcMi ^alain EnhMOMMnl
AMNMlmS
BdMkig TraaBnart Sehama and • RCRA SubflBe 0 cap turn the already capped tandM,
Pound Wdartlaarhata Oyiteni Enhancement. tnaftuttowe) Control and OMh Ohpoeal o1
Alternative 1 - No Action
The no action alternative discussed in the FS assumes that no
further action to remove or treat contaminated media or to reduce
present or future exposure risks at the Site. In the case of the
River Road Landfill Site, components of a remedial treatment
scheme have previously been implemented as part of the upgrade
and closure activities, and are therefore included in the "No
Action" Alternative. It is comprised of Remedial Action
Components, including Fencing, the PADEP Solid Waste Cap, the
Surface Water Collection System, and the Ground Water Dam. Under
the no action alternative in the FS, the existing ground
water/leachate collection system would be shut down. Shutdown of
the ground water/leachate collection system would allow the
migration of leachate constituents to ground water beneath the
" AR30I<777
-------
Site. Also, no monitoring would be performed to document: ground
water quality changes which could lead to off-site migration of
ground water containing leachate constituents at concentrations
that represent an unacceptable health risk.
Alternative 2 - No Further Action (Existing Treatment Scheme)
(Fence, PADEP Solid Waste Cap, Ground Water Dam, Ground
Water/Leachate Collection System, and Monitoring)
Remedial Action Alternative 2 is the "Existing Treatment Scheme"
alternative. It includes the remedial systems which have
previously been implemented at the Site and are detailed in
Section V: Site Characteristics. The Existing Treatment Scheme
is comprised of remedial systems that have already been
implemented at the River Road Landfill as part of the upgrade and
closure activities performed by WMPA.
Alternative 2a - Existing Treatment Scheme and Institutional
Controls
(Fence, PADEP Solid Waste Cap, Ground Water Dam, Ground
Water/Leachate Collection System, and Monitoring) and
Institutional Controls
Remedial Action Alternative "2a is the "Existing Treatment Scheme
and Institutional Controls" alternative. It includes the
remedial systems and activities which have previously been
implemented at the River Road Landfill as part of the upgrade and
closure activities performed by WMPA (existing treatment scheme
as described in Alternative 2) with the addition of institutional
controls.
Institutional controls would include both zoning and deed
restrictions. Zoning restrictions would be proposed to be
implemented by the local zoning commission to prevent future
zoning changes that would allow for residential development or
other types of development that would be inappropriate for a
former landfill. Deed restrictions would include preventing:
residential construction on the Site, on-site installation of
extraction wells for potable water use, and disturbance of the
existing cap. The institutional controls will be designed to
allow for beneficial use of the property, assuming that the
beneficial use would not pose a risk to human health or potential
ecological receptors.
Alternative 3 - Existing Treatment Scheme and Institutional
Controls, Off-Site Disposal of Sediment and an Expanded
Monitoring Program , ^ „ ,
Existing treatment scheme (Fence, PADEP Solid Waste Cap, Ground
Water Dam, Ground Water/Leachate Collection System and
Monitoring) along with Institutional Controls and Off-Site
Disposal of Sediment and an Expanded Monitoring Program
Remedial Action Alternative 3 augments the existing treatment
scheme in Alternative 2a with an expanded monitoring program and
one additional remedial action component, off-site disposal of
AR304778
-------
Sediment.
monitoring - The Site currently has a monitoring program which
includes sampling and analysis of ground water, leachate, and
landfill gas. The expanded monitoring program proposed in
Alternative 3 would include additional annual Site inspections to
evaluate the condition of the landfill cover and Sedimentation
Basins. Site walkovers during each inspection to look for any
differential settlement or excessive erosion. Four media would
be monitored as part of Alternative 3: ground, leachate,
landfill gas, and sediment. A detailed monitoring plan would be
developed during the remedial design stage. Off-site disposal of
sediment would include the excavation and off-site disposal of
sediment contaminated with arsenic, Aroclor 1248, and chromium.
Remediation would include removing approximately 2,000 cubic
yards of sediment from the Site. Excavated material would be
tested and then disposed at an off-site secure landfill.
Alternative 4 - Existing Treatment Scheme and Institutional
Controls, Off-Site Disposal of Sediment and Ground Water/Leachate
System Enhancement
Existing Treatment Scheme (Fence, PADEP Solid Waste Cap, Ground.
Water Dam, Ground Water/Leachate Collection System and
Monitoring) Expanded Monitoring, Institutional Controls, Off-Site
Disposal of Sediment and Ground Water/Leachate System Enhancement
Remedial Action Alternative 4 adds a Ground Water/Leachate System
Enhancement component to the remedial systems described in
Remedial Action Alternative 3.
The ground water/leachate system enhancement would include
developing a detailed proposal of enhancement activities in
connection with remedial design. The enhancement would go beyond
existing routine maintenance of the system which includes a
program of cleaning the existing ground water/leachate collection
system lines which would correct the suspected partial blockage
of the collection system. Enhancement would possibly include a
study of the system and exploring system expansion and redesign
possibilities.
Alternative 5 - Existing Treatment Scheme and a RCRA Subtitle D
Cap (over the already capped landfill), Ground Water/Leachate
System Enhancement, Institutional Controls and Off-Site Disposal
of Sediment
(Fence, Ground Water Dam, Ground Water/Leachate Collection
System, Monitoring, Institutional Controls, On-Site Disposal of
Sediment, Ground Water/Leachate System Enhancement and RCRA
Subtitle D Cap)
Remedial Action Alternative 5 includes placing a RCRA Subtitle D
cap over the already capped landfill, in addition to ground
water/leachate system enhancement, institutional controls, off-
AR30U779
-------
Site Disposal of Sediment, and the existing remedial systems.
The RCRA Subtitle D Cap component would include constructing a
RCRA Subtitle D Equivalent Cap over the entire surface of the
landfill, which would include a passive landfill gas system.
To construct this cap the top 6 in. of topsoil from the existing
cap would be removed and stockpiled for later reuse. The top
surface of the landfill would be graded to promote surface water
drainage to the existing lined surface water control system
channels located on the southeast and southwest sides of the
landfill. The RCRA Subtitle D Cap is a multi-layer cover over
the landfill which essentially eliminates percolation of rain
water to the refuse. With a RCRA Subtitle D Cap leachate
production is nearly eliminated. Generated landfill gas would be
vented via a passive landfill gas system.
Coata
The estimated costs for each alternative discussed above are
presented in Table A.
These estimated costs are representative of the expenditures
which would be associated with the additional remedial work to
take place at the Site. Additional remedial work would be any
work over and above the "Existing Treatment Scheme" which already
exists at the Site and as described in Alternative 2.
TABLE A
Alternative®
Capital
O&M
Preaent Worth
Alternative 1
$0
$0
$0
Alternative 2
$0
$0
$0
Alternative 2a
$10,000
$0
$10,000
Alternative 3 •
$147,000
$47,000 to
$54,000
$1,120,000
Alternative 4
$475,000
$47,000 to
$54,000
$1,601,000
Alternative 5
$2,944,000
$67,000 to
$74,000
$5,654,000
VIII. SUMMARY 07 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVES
EPA evaluates each remedial alternative against the nine criteria
specified in the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"). The
alternative selected must first satisfy the threshold criteria.
Next the primary balancing criteria are used to weigh the
tradeoffs or advantages and disadvantages of each of the
is
AR30U80
-------
alternatives. Finally, after public comment has been solicited,
the modifying criteria are considered.
Below is a summary of the nine criteria used to evaluate remedial
alternatives.
Threshold Criteria:
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:
Whether the remedy provides adequate protection and how risks
posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
Compliance with ARARs:
Whether or not a remedy will meet all applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements ("ARARs") of Federal and State
environmental statutes and/or whether there are grounds for
invoking a waiver. Whether or not the remedy complies with
advisories, criteria and/or guidance that may be relevant.
Primary Balancing Criteria:
Long-Term Effectiveness and. Permanence:
The ability of the remedy to afford long term, effective and
permanent protection to human health and the environment along
with the degree of certainty that the alternative will prove
successful.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility or Volume:
The extent to which the alternative will reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the contaminants causing the Site risks.
Short Term Effectiveness:
The time until protection is achieved and the short term risk or
impact to the community, on-site workers and the environment that
may be posed during the construction and implementation of the
alternative.
Implementabilitv;
The technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement that remedy.
Cost ;
Includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance ("O&M"),
and net present worth costs.
Modifying Criteria!
State Acceptance:
whether the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on
the Selected Remedial Alternative. .
16
a R 3 0 U 7 8 I
-------
Community Acceptance:
Whether the public agrees with the Selected Remedial Alternative.
A. OVERALL PROTECTION OP HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
A primary requirement of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended ("CERCLA"),
is that the selected remedial action be protective of human
health and the environment. A remedy is protective if it
eliminates, reduces, or controls current and potential risks
posed through each exposure pathway to acceptable levels through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
All of the alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1 (the
No Action Alternative) provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. Because Alternative 1 is not
protective of the human health and the environment, it will not
be considered further.
Calculations in the Baseline Risk Assessment indicate that
unacceptable risk to human health might occur under a potential
future land use scenario through ingestion of contaminated ground
water. Alternative 2 includes the presently operating ground
water/leachate collection system which prevents ground water
impact. Alternative 2a would add institutional controls, which
would prohibit residential development and prevent installation
of drinking water wells, and thus eliminate the potential future
land use scenario and the potential future risk. Alternative 5
would introduce additional remedial components that limit ground
water contamination. These would include installation of a RCRA
Subtitle D Cap in Alternative S.
The Ecological Assessment indicates that minimal risk to
ecological communities might potentially occur at isolated
locations from exposure to sediment. This minimal risk would not
be addressed by Alternatives 2 and 2a. Alternatives 3 through 5
would equally address this risk, through removal of the
contaminated sediment. However removal of the sediment would
disturb the well established wetland areas on Site and may
result, during the actual excavation of the sediment, in a much
higher actual exposure risk to the workers and would result in
disturbance of the wetlands and loss of the established wetlands
species. Therefore EPA has determined that it is more protective
of the environment, to leave the sediment undisturbed.
Ground Water
The remedial action objectives developed to address ground water
include: 1) preventing off-site migration, and 2) preventing
ingestion of ground water containing leachate constituents at
concentrations creating an unacceptable health risk. These
objectives would be met by Alternatives 2a through 5.
Alternatives 2a through 5 would meet the remedial action
17
AR30U782
-------
objectives through continued operation of the ground
water/leachate collection system, monitoring, and institutional
controls.
Leachate
The remedial action objective developed for leachate is to
minimize the release of leachate constituents to ground water
that present unacceptable health risks. Alternatives 2 through 5
would meet this objective through on-going maintenance of the
current cap, and the surface water collection system which would
minimize erosion. Alternative 5 would offer a further
performance enhancement which would not be necessary to meet the
remedial action objective.
Sediment
The remedial action objective developed for sediment includes
preventing exposure to sediment contaminated by arsenic, Aroclor
1248, and chromium. Alternatives 3 through 5 would meet this
objective, through excavation and off-site disposal of the
contaminated sediment. Alternatives 2 and 2a would meet this
objective by leaving the contaminated sediment intact and on-
site .
Based on the discussions above, Alternatives 2a through 5 would
adequately protect human health and the environment by 1)
eliminating unacceptable risk to human health, 2) eliminating
unacceptable risk to the environment, and 3) by meeting the
remedial action objectives.
B. COMPLIANCE WITH ARARa
In accordance with Section 114(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9614(a),
nothing in these CERCLA response actions shall be construed or
interpreted as preempting the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from
imposing any additional liability or requirements with respect to
the release of hazardous substances from the Site.
Criterion 2 considers the chemical-specific, location-specific,
and action-specific ARARs that are potentially applicable to the
five alternatives. The following discussions are limited to
Alternatives 2 through 5.
Chemical-Specific ARARa
Ground Water - Further ground water remediation is not
contemplated at the Site because the existing ground
water/leachate collection system is an effective system in
limiting contaminant migration.
Leachate - The chemical-specific ARARs for leachate treatment are
the current permit requirements from the Upper Shenango Valley
Water Pollution Control Authority pertaining to the ongoing
operation and maintenance of the existing ground water/leachate
collection system (see 25 PA Code §§ 92.31, 92.57, and 92.71).
18
AR30U783
-------
Alternatives 2 through 5 would meet ARARs.
Surface Water - Surface water analyses collected during the RI
indicate that water quality criteria for aluminum and manganese
may be exceeded in the discharge from the Sedimentation Basins.
This water quality criteria ARAR is being waived pursuant to the
greater risk to human health and the environment waiver found at
section 121(d)(4)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4)(B).
Justification for waiver is based upon the Sedimentation Basins
having over the years developed into established wetland areas
and determination by the EPA, Biological Technical Assistance
Group that disturbance of these established wetland areas present
greater risk to human health and the environment than that posed
by possible water quality criteria exceedances in the discharge
from the Sedimentation Basins. In addition, the exceedances are
representative of the natural surface water quality for the Site.
Surface water quality would be monitored in Alternatives 2
through 5 to indicate any future changes and to ensure that
surface water discharge complies with State requirements under
the Pennsylvania NPDES Regulations (see 25 PA Code §§ 92.31,
92.57, and 92.71).
Location-Specific ARARs
Potential location-specific ARARs relate to construction
activities required for the excavation of sediments in potential
wetlands, within the small portion of the Site which is located
in a 100 year floodplain, and in habitats of endangered species.
Substantive requirements of location specific ARARS from PADEP
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required to
complete the sediment removal component of Alternatives 3 through
5 (see 40 CFR part 6, appendix A).
Action-Specific ARARs
Since in 1987 the landfill has been properly closed under the
supervision of PADEP (pursuant to 25 PA Code §§ 92.31, 92.57, and
92.71) and there are no additional ARARs in connection with
closure and post-closure which are not encompassed by these
plans.
C. LONQ-TTOM BPFgCTIVENBSS AMD PBRMANBNCK
This criterion evaluates the risk remaining at the Site after the
response objectives have been met, and the potential for change
in this risk over time.
Magnitude of Residual Risk
The magnitude of residual risk would be mitigated by Alternatives
2a through 5, and the calculated risk would remain if Alternative
2 were implemented. Alternatives 2a through 5 would mitigate
risk to human health and the environment through implementation
of institutional controls. Alternative 5 would include a RCRA
Subtitle D cap, which would enhance the current system's ability
to minimize leachate mobilization.
19
AR30U78U
-------
Remaining Sources of Residual Risk
Sources of residual risk include refuse, ground water, leachate,
and sediment. Ground water residual risk would be mitigated by
Alternatives 2 through 5, since cleaning and/or enhancement of
the ground water/leachate collection system would eliminate the
remaining ground water contaminant sources. Alternatives 2 and 3
would remove all except residual contamination in the immediate
vicinity of the landfill. Leachate residual risk would be
addressed by Alternatives 2 through 5 through continued
maintenance of the PADEP solid waste cap and the surface water
collection system. Alternative 5, which would include
installation of a RCRA Subtitle D Cap, would further limit
leachate mobilization. Sediment residual risk would be
eliminated by Alternatives 3 through 5 through removal and
disposal of contaminated sediment.
Fiva Year Review
Five year reviews would be conducted through implementation of
Alternatives 2 through 5. The five year reviews would be
conducted to assess the continued effectiveness of the remedial
systems for which ever alternative is selected.
Adequacy and Reliability of Controls
Site risk would be adequately and reliably controlled through
implementation of Alternatives 2a through 5. Potential future
risk and potential ecological risk would be addressed by
institutional controls, and sediment removal, respectively.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would provide further enhancement of the
leachate reduction.
Alternatives 2 through 5 would include engineering controls
consisting of long-term management, monitoring, operation and
maintenance, and system component replacement.
Alternatives 3 through 5 would present on-site treatment
activities
The long term effectiveness criterion would be satisfied by
Alternatives 4 and 5. These alternatives 1) mitigate residual
risk, 2) eliminate the remaining sources of residual risk with
the exception of refuse, which would remain at the Site, 3)
adequately and reliably control Site risk.
D. RgDPCTIOH OF TOXICITY. MOBILITY. AMD VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Criterion 4 addresses: 1) the treatment process used and the
material treated, 2) the amount of hazardous materials destroyed
or treated, 3) the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume
through treatment, 4) the degree to which treatment is
irreversible, 5) the type and quantity of treatment residuals,
and 6) the reduction of inherent hazards. The following
summarizes how each of the five alternatives would meet or fail
to meet each of these sub-criteria.
AR30U78S
-------
Treatment Process Used and Materials Treated
The treatments considered in the alternatives include: off-sice
treatment of leachate contaminants at the Sharon STP and
settlement of sediment in Sedimentation Basins A and B. Leachate
treatment and sediment settlement would be conducted in
Alternatives 2 through 5.
Amount of Hazardous Material Destroyed or Treated
Hazardous materials destroyed or treated consist of leachate and
sediment. Leachate constituents are treated at the Sharon STP in
Alternatives 2 through 5. Sediment is excavated and landfilled
in Alternatives 3 through 5.
Degree of Expected Reductions in Toxicity, Mobility/ and Volume
Through Treatment
Toxicity
The toxicity of leachate and contaminated sediment would be
reduced through off-site treatment and landfilling. Leachate
would be treated at the Sharon STP in Alternatives 2 through 5.
Sediment would be excavated and landfilled off-site in
Alternatives 3 through 5.
Mobility
The mobility of contaminated leachate and sediment would be
reduced through off-site treatment and stabilization/landfilling.
Leachate mobility would be reduced in Alternatives 2 through 5.
Sediment mobility would be reduced in Alternatives 3 through 5.
Volume
In Alternatives 2 through 5, the volume of leachate contaminants
would be reduced to a negligible amount. The Sharon STP would
reduce the volume of contaminants by digestion to water, carbon
dioxide, and biomass. In Alternatives 3 through 5, the on-site
volume of contaminated sediment present on-site would be
eliminated through excavation and off-site disposal in a secure
landfill.
Degree to which Treatment is Irreversible
Leachate treatment at the Sharon STP, after collection and
transport by the on-site interceptor line, would irreversibly
reduce the toxicity of landfill leachate contaminants in
Alternatives 2 through 5. Treatment of organics would be
irreversible due to the digestion of the treated organic
compounds which forms water, carbon dioxide, methane, and
biomass. Suspended solids and biomass would be dewatered and
placed in a secure landfill. In Alternatives 3 through 5,
sediment that has collected in the Sedimentation Basins by
gravitational settling would be transported off-site for disposal
at a secure landfill.
Type and Quantity of Residuals Remaining After Treatment
Treatment is limited to leachate and sediment contaminants.
21
AR30U786
-------
Alternatives 2 through 5 would treat leachate at the Sharon ST?
where organic contaminants would be converted into camon
dioxide, water, and biornass. The quantity of residuals remaining
after treatment would be negligible since VOCs would be easily
digested by the treatment system process.
All sediments would remain on-site for Alternative 2 and 2a
unless off-site sediment removal is deemed necessary by PADEP for
continued operation and maintenance of the existing treatment
scheme associated with the existing closure plan. After off-site
sediment removal in Alternatives 3 through 5, there would likely
remain some sediment trapped by the Basins.
Reduction of Inherent Hazards
Inherent hazards consist of ground water contamination through
leachate migration, and of sediment containing arsenic, Aroclor,
and chromium. Alternatives 2 through 5 would mitigate the hazard
from ground water through continued collection and treatment of
leachate. Human health and ecological hazards would be mitigated
in Alternatives 3 through 5 by the excavation and off-site
disposal of sediments.
Based on this comparison, Alternatives 3 through 5 would satisfy
the requirements of this criterion. These alternatives would
address 1) the treatment process used and the material treated,
2) the amount of hazardous materials destroyed or treated, 3) the
reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment, 4)
the degree to which treatment is irreversible, 5) the type and
quantity of treatment residuals, and 6) the reduction of inherent
hazards.
B. SHORT-TBRM gPPgCTIVENBSS
This criterion involves the assessment of the alternative in.
terms of its effects on human health and the environment during
the construction and implementation phase, up until remedial
action objectives are met.
Risks to Coanunity During Remedial Actions
Short term risk to the community associated with Alternatives 2
through 5 would increase with increasing construction activity.
Alternative 2 and 2a would not pose risk to the community, since
no construction related activities are involved. Alternative 3
would involve sediment removal, which would involve some minimal
construction related activities. Alternative 4, which would
include enhancement of the ground water/leachate collection
system, would potentially generate dust, and release volatile
organic compounds to the air. The installation of a RCRA
Subtitle D Cap (Alternative 5) would potentially generate a large
quantity of dust, and generate significant local truck traffic.
Potential dust and chemical releases could be controlled through
the use of engineering controls. Additional area truck traffic
22
AR30U787
-------
would be a continued risk to the community during the entire
construction period.
Risk to Workers During Remedial Action
There would be risks to workers in the implementation of
Alternatives 2 through 5. The cap installation (Alternative 5)
and ground water/leachate system enhancement (Alternatives 4 and
5), off-site disposal of sediment would expose remediation
workers to chemicals through direct contact, ingestion, or
inhalation. Workers would also incur risk of injury or death
while performing construction activities due to operation of
heavy equipment. These risks could be minimized by use of dust
control measures, personal protective equipment, and safety
procedures.
Workers performing sampling activities as part of a monitoring
program (Alternatives 2 through 5) would incur potential risk
through exposure to chemicals in ground water, leachate, and
sediment. These risks could be minimized by use of personal
protective equipment and safety procedures.
Environmental Impacts
Environmental impact resulting from the proposed remedial actions
would result from both recapping of the landfill and sediment
removal. Capping (Alternative 5) would disturb the habitat of
animals on the landfill surface. Sediment removal (Alternatives
3 through 5) would disturb the habitat of aquatic and vegetative
species living in Sedimentation Basins A and B and the discharge
channel from Basin B. Following installation of the cap and
removal of the sediment, the construction areas would be
replanted to restore these areas to their present condition.
Tiae Until Remedial Action Objectives are Achieved
Remedial action objectives associated with ground water,
leachate, and sediment are addressed by the construction
activities. Time frames for achieving remedial action objectives
for each media of concern are discussed below.
The remedial action objective for ground water would- be met upon
completion of the system enhancement construction activities
(Alternatives 4 and 5). It is estimated that installing
manholes, removal of sediments from piping, characterizing the
sediments, and off-site disposal of the sediments in an approved
landfill, would take approximately 12 months.
The remedial action objective for leachate in Alternative 5 would
be met upon completion of the RCRA Subtitle D Cap, which would
take 12 months. This time frame would include installation of
the passive landfill gas system, various geosynthetic layers,
soil layer, and revegetation.
The time frame for completion of the sediment removal response
action (Alternatives 3 through 5) would be approximately six
29
AR30U88
-------
months. This time frame would include sampling and analysis of
sediment from Basins A and B and the discharge channel from Basin
B and excavation, loading, and off-site disposal.
Based on this comparison, the short term effectiveness criterion
would be satisfied by each of the considered alternatives. In
general, short term effectiveness would decrease with increasing
alternative numbers, due to the increasing construction aspects
of each subsequent alternative.
P. IMPLEMENTABILITY
This criterion considers the technical and administrative
feasibility of carrying out the alternatives.
Technical Feasibility
The components of each alternative would be technically feasible.
RCRA Subtitle D landfill cap installation (Alternative 5),
cleaning sediment from the ground water/leachate collection
system (Alternatives 4 and 5), and removing contaminated sediment
(Alternatives 3 through 5) would be readily implementable. The
technologies are well developed and reliable methods of
preventing on-site exposure to and off-site migration of
contaminants. These remedial components would not inhibit
implementation of further remedial components, if they should
become required or appropriate. Monitoring of ground water,
leachate, landfill gas, and sediment (Alternatives 3 through 5)
would be a reliable technology and be an adequate method to
document successful performance of the remedial systems.
Availability o£ Service* and Material*
Materials, services, and equipment required to implement all of
the remedial activities in the considered alternatives are
readily available. The construction of the RCRA Subtitle D Cap
(Alternative 5) would utilize common construction materials and
employ experienced contractors. Sewer cleaning contractors would
be readily available for enhancement of the ground water/leachate
system (Alternatives 4 and 5). Contractors would be utilized to
remove contaminated sediment (Alternatives 3 through 5), and
maintain, the remedial components. Sampling and analytical
services to perform monitoring (Alternatives 2 through 5) would
be readily available from a qualified laboratory.
Based on this comparison, the implementability criterion would be
satisfied by each of the five alternatives. All alternatives are
1) technically feasible, 2) administratively feasible, and 3)
services and materials are readily available to implement the
alternatives.
Administrative Feasibility
The components of each alternative would be administratively
feasible. Institutional controls would require the assistance of
City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township officials.
24
AR3Qlt789
-------
G. COST
This criterion compares the cost of each of the alternatives
(Table A). All the costs listed are estimates, and could change
depending on the extent of contamination and effectiveness of the
treatment options. There are uncertainties and assumptions
associated with each alternative. The no action and no further
action alternatives are the least costly, followed in order of
increasing cost by Alternative Number.
Evaluation of cost for each alternative includes calculation of
the capital costs, O&M costs, and the net present worth. Capital
costs consist of direct items such as labor, materials,
equipment, and services. Operation and Maintenance costs or
annual costs, are the post-construction costs necessary to
maintain the remedial action. O&M costs include such items as
operating labor, maintenance, auxiliary materials, and energy.
O&M costs are based on a 30 year period of operation and a 5
percent discount rate. The present worth is based on both the
capital and O&M costs, and provides the means of comparing the
cost of different alternatives.
The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2a has an estimated
Capital Costs of $10,000, estimated Annual O&M Costs of $0 and an
Estimated Present-Worth Cost of: $10,000.
H. STATE ACCEPTANCE
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has concurred with the selected
remedy. A copy of the concurrence letter dated September 29,
1995, is included as an attachment to the ROD.
I. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
The Proposed Plan for the River Road Landfill Site was released
for public comment on August 10, 1995. The Proposed Plan
identified Alternative 2a Existing Treatment Scheme with
Institutional Controls as the Preferred Alternative. EPA
reviewed all written and oral comments submitted during the
public comment period. Public comments were generally concerned
with the quality of the water supply in the area of the Site and
what effect on-site containment of the waste would have on the
water quality. Generally, the public seemed conditionally
supportive of the Preferred Alternative identified in EPA's
Proposed Plan. EPA addressed most of the concerns of the public
during the Public Meeting and detailed discussion of EPA's
responses is contained in the Appendix C: Responsiveness Summary.
EPA determined that no significant changes be made to the remedy,
as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan.
After application of the nine criteria, and consideration of
public comment, the preferred alternative presented in the
Proposed Plan was selected by EPA to be the selected remedy at
25
flR30l*790
-------
the Site. EPA believes that the selected remedy represents the
best balance of the remedial alternatives with respect to the
nine criteria, and it best satisfies the statutory requirements
of CERCLA, and Superfund guidance involving the selection of
remedial alternatives at municipal solid waste landfill sites.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment or
resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent
practicable, and satisfies the statutory preference for remedies
that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume
as a principal element. Implementation of the selected remedy
will not involve extensive construction, excavation, or other
remedial action measures that would pose any appreciable short-
term risks to the public or to the workers during construction or
implementation.
IX. THE SELECTED REMEDY: DESCRIPTION AMD PERFORMANCE STANDARD(S)
POR EACH COMPONENT OP THE REMEDY
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has selected Alternative 2a, Existing Treatment Scheme with
the addition of Institutional Controls as the selected remedy for
the River Road Landfill Site. Based on current information, this
alternative provides the best balance among the alternatives with
respect to the nine criteria EPA uses to evaluate each
alternative. The existing treatment scheme includes remedial
actions which have already been completed at the Site through the
closure and post-closure plan and the imposition of deed
restrictions.
Each component of the selected remedy and its performance
standards are detailed in Section B below.
B. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1. Closure and Post-Closure Plan
The performance standards regarding closure and post closure are
those set forth in the closure and post closure plana
(incorporated by reference and attached hereto in appendix C) as
currently implemented or as modified by mutual agreement of PADEP
and EPA. The closure and post closure plans are in accordance
with 25 PA Code §§ 273.191 and 273.192.
The components of this aspect of the remedy shall consist of:
Continued operation and maintenance of the existing ground
water/leachate collection system that removes contaminated
20
AR30U79I
-------
leachate and ground water from the Site;
Continued maintenance of the PADEP approved landfill cap
and surface water drainage system;
Continued maintenance of the ground water dam;
Continuance of the existing Monitoring program developed
in connection with the PADEP closure plan (or modification
as required and/or approved by EPA or PADEP),•
Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of the existing
ground water/leachate collection system, and its
upgrading, as necessary, to prevent contaminant migration.
2. Institutional Controls (D«ed Restrictions)
Zoning restrictions would be proposed to be implemented by
the local zoning commission to prevent future zoning
changes that would allow for residential development or
other types of development that would be inappropriate for
a former landfill.
Deed restrictions shall be developed and submitted to EPA
for approval. Once approved, these deed restrictions
shall be placed in the deed to the Site by filing said
restrictions with the Recorder of Deeds of Mercer, County,
PA.
The deed restrictions shall prohibit excavation or
disturbance of the soil cap which results in exposing the
fill materials.
Deed restrictions to prohibit the installation of new on-
site wells for use for domestic purposes, including
drinking water.
The deed restrictions shall be designed to allow for
beneficial use of the property, providing that the
beneficial use would not pose a risk to human health or
potential ecological receptors. The deed restrictions
would, however, prohibit the building of residential
construction on the Site.
The deed restrictions shall be valid and binding in the
Township, County and the Commonwealth in which the Site is
located. The continuing need for these restrictions shall
be re-evaluated during the five-year site reviews which
are conducted under CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C.§
9621(c).
AR30U792
-------
3. Five-Year Reviews
Five-year reviews shall be conducted after the remedy is
implemented to assure that the remedy continues to protect
human health and the environment.
t
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
In accordance with Section 114(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9614(a),
nothing in this CERCLA response action shall be construed or
interpreted as preempting the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from
imposing any additional liability or requirements with respect to
the release of hazardous substances from the Site.
EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund Sites is to select
remedial actions that are protective of human health and the
environment. Section 121 of CERCLA also requires that the
selected remedial action comply with ARARs, be cost effective,
and utilize permanent treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The following sections discuss how' the
selected remedy for the River Road Landfill Site meets these
statutory requirements.
A. PROTECTION OF HUMA*f AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy will provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment by the continued maintenance and
operation of the existing treatment scheme, implementation of
institutional controls, and the continued monitoring of the
effectiveness of the existing treatment scheme.
B. COMPLIANCE WITH AND ATTAINMENT OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS CARARs")
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant
and appropriate chemical specific, location-specific, and action-
specific ARARs. Those ARARs are:
1. Chemical-Specific ARARs
Ground Water - The Remedial action alternatives evaluated for
this Site do not contemplate treatment of ground water. The
remedial action objectives for ground water stated in this ROD
are met by the existing PADEP closure plan activities and
imposing Institutional Controls at the Site. (See 25 PA Code §§
273.191 and 273.192)
Leachate - The chemical-specific ARAR (See 25 PA Code §§ 92.31,
92.57, and 92.71) for leachate is the current permit from the
Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority.
Alternative 2a would meet the requirements of this permit.
Surface Water - Surface water analyses collected during the RI
28
AR30U793
-------
indicate that water quality criteria may be exceeded in the
discharge from the Sedimentation Basins. This water quality
criteria ARAR is being waived pursuant to the greater risk to
human health and the environment waiver found at section 121
(d)(4)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (d)(4)(B)). Justification
for waiver is based upon the Sedimentation Basins having over the
years developed into established wetland areas and determination
by the EPA, Biological Technical Assistance Group that
disturbance of these established wetland areas present greater
risk to human health and the environment than that posed by
possible water quality criteria exceedances in the discharge from
the Sedimentation Basins. In addition, the exceedances are
representative of the natural surface water quality for the Site.
Surface water quality would be monitored in Alternative 2a to
indicate any future changes.
2. Location-Specific ARARs
The selected remedy does not contemplate any construction
activities, therefore location specific ARARs do not apply.
3. Action-Specific ARARs
Potential action-specific ARARs relating to monitoring are met by
the current closure and post-closure plans. (See 25 PA Code §§
273.191, 273.192)
C. COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedy is cost-effective in providing overall
protection in proportion to cost, and meets all other
requirements of CERCLA. The selected remedy meets these criteria
and provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to its cost.
The estimated present worth cost for the selected remedy is
$10,000.
D. UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AMD ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized while providing the best balance
among the other evaluation criteria. Of those alternatives
evaluated that are protective of human health and the environment
and meet ARARs, the selected remedy provides the best balance of
consideration in terms of long-term and short-term effectiveness
and permanence, cost, implementability, reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment, State and community
acceptance, and preference for treatment as a principal element.
The selected remedy will provide long-term effectiveness.
a
AR301+7 9U
-------
E. PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy satisfies CERCLA's statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element. The selected remedy addresses
the primary threat of future ingestion and direct contact of
contaminated ground water through continuation of the existing
treatment scheme and imposing institutional controls.
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SISNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the River Road Landfill Site was released
for public comment in August 1995. The Proposed Plan identified
Alternative 2a as the preferred alternative. EPA reviewed all
written and oral comments submitted during the public comment
period, it was determined that no significant changes be made to
the remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan.
XII. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Overview
The EPA established a public comment period from August 10, 1995
to September 11, 1995 on the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility study (RI/FS), the proposed plan which described
EPA's preferred remedial alternative, and other Site-related
information for the River Road Site. On August 24, 1995, EPA
held a public meeting to present the findings of the RI/FS and to
solicit comments on the Proposed Plan issued on August 10, 1995.
PADEP and EPA personnel were both present at the meeting and
approximately 10 residents and two Waste Management Personnel
were in attendance. One written comment was received during the
public comment period.
Summary of Public Comments and Lead Agency Response*
Comment: Concern was expressed that hazardous substances are
being left in place, and may pose a health threat at some time in
the future.
EPA Responae: EPA feels the selected remedy for this Site which
is inclusive of the many remedial activities which have already
been completed in connection with the PADEP closure plan in
addition to institutional controls is protective of human health.
The ROD provides for a re-examination of Site conditions in five
years to determine if the selected remedy is still effective. In
the interim PADEP will oversee the operation and maintenance of
the existing treatment scheme and will ensure that there are no
major changes in Site conditions.
Comment: A local official expressed concern over the integrity
of the ground water dam.
EPA Response: A letter detailing this comment was also received.
AR30li795
-------
EPA's response will be included m the following section,
"Written Comments Received During the Public Comment Period".
Comment: Interest was expressed in having the landfill moved to
another location.
EPA Response: Based upon the studies completed to date, the
River Road landfill consists of a high volume of material with
comparatively low toxicity and there is already a PADEP approved
landfill cap in place. It is not EPA policy to select remedies
which involve the excavation of landfills with high volume and
low toxicity. Containment is consistently the most practicable
remedy. EPA believes the selected alternative is protective of
human health and the environment.
Comment: Interest was expressed in determining why the landfill
was initially allowed to operate and who was responsible for
allowing this activity.
EPA Response: EPA's purpose in issuing a ROD is to determine how
the existing hazards at the Site should be addressed. Historical
information concerning the processing of local zoning and state -
permits and the identification of individuals associated with the
process is generally maintained in County records and can be
accessed by the public.
Comment: There was concern about the downstream location of the
Shenango Valley Water company intake and an interest in having
the intake moved upstream of the Site.
EPA Comment: Public water supply companies perform rigorous
testing to insure the quality of the water they provide. Studies
have shown that the release of contaminates from the Site into
the Shenango River is low and the Shenango Valley Water Company
intake has not been significantly affected by the Site.
Citizen: Concern was expressed over the amount of money Waste
Management has collected from small party contributors in
comparison to the estimated cost of the selected alternative and
if Waste Management will give back the money.
EPA Response: Questions concerning agreements made between
Potentially Responsible Parties should be directed to the
attorneys representing the parties involved.
Written Comment Received During the Public Comment Period
Comment: EPA received a letter from James White, Commissioner,
City of Hermitage. He is concerned about the integrity of the
ground water dam and the possibility of having the ground water
dam replaced for fear of it collapsing and releasing a plume of
contaminated leachate into the Shenango River.
31
AR3QI»796
-------
EPA Response: The use of the term "ground water dam" may be
misleading. The ground water dam is not functioning as a barrier
as it would ordinarily be recognized in connection with a dam
constructed for the retention of surface water. As part of the
Remedial Investigation (RI), sampling was performed to evaluate
the current performance of the ground water dam and the leachate
collection system. The ground water dam was basically
constructed immediately adjacent to the downgradient side of the
landfill between the landfill and the Shenango River with the
leachate collection line placed at the base of the dam on the
landfill side.
The RI investigation of the ground water dam included 1) the
excavation of two trenches at the ends of the ground water dam to
confirm its lateral extent; 2) several borings were performed
through and surrounding the dam to verify its location and,* 3)
collection of samples of the dam and the materials which it is
keyed into, were analyzed for physical and chemical analysis.
The results of the investigation confirmed that the dam was
constructed in a V-shaped trench. The bottom of the trench was 10
feet wide at a depth of 10 to 20 feet below ground surface while
the top of the trench reached 30 to a 50 feet width. A 10 feet
wide zone within the trench was compacted while the remaining
volume of the V-shaped trench was backfilled with a mixture of
excavated Site material and material used for the dam
construction. The boring logs indicate that the dam is keyed
into a fine grained till over three quarters of its length along
the western portion. Along the remaining length of the dam in
the eastern portion, the dam is keyed into a coarser grained till
material and possibly shale bedrock at the extreme eastern end.
In the eastern end of the dam, one of the boring logs described l
foot thick sand between the dam and the lower permeability till.
This was of potential concern as it may present a discontinuity
in the integrity of the dam as a physical barrier to leachate
migration beyond the landfill. In order to evaluate whether
leachate was migrating past the dam in this area a couple of
piezometers were placed in the dam at the location of the
discontinuity and two piezometers were placed downgradient and
outside the dam material to evaluate the ground water gradient
across the dam. The two sets of piezometers water level data
consistently showed a lower water elevation from the piezometer
through the dam by approximately 9 feet than the piezometer
located downgradient and outside the dam. This indicates a
strong ground water inward gradient toward the leachate
collection line. Consequently, leachate and shallow ground water
would be collected by the leachate collection line and prevented
from migrating past the ground water dam.
The leachate collection line was installed to minimize and
prevent the off-site migration of contaminated landfill leachate
through recovery and treatment. The system consists of a
perforated PVC pipeline in a gravel envelope just below the water
table and totally encompasses the landfill. The shallow ground
32
AR301+797
-------
water beneath the landfill and leachate generated by the landfill
drain into the leachate collection system and is discharged to
the local POTW. The results of these studies indicate that the
leachate collection system is effectively collecting leachate and
the ground water dam is not in danger of collapse. EPA feels
that the ground water dam does not need to be replaced.
33
AR30l»798
-------
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
AR3QI+799
-------
FIGURE A: RIVER ROAD LANDFILL SITE LOCATION MAP
0 2000 4000
scale in feet
AR30U800
-------
approximate location
or romitu siuwe wrs
(ClOSED 1 J82-»965)
SeOMEMIAHOM
BASIN A
FIGURE B: SITE FEATURES MAP
AWKWWATt
VOCATION Of nxwct
ItACHAte KW©
ORMNMX
ditch
Fonwat SM*w»nut
soncc tocaiment
rwXin-
SEOMCMTAtK>N BA9N B
norffiT
SCALE tW F5PT
CD
CO
-3-
o
CO
ac
-------
F EC
IA /
/
\
il
\
+ r
-»c
CSJ
o
CD
-ST
CD
e
S
-------
FIGURE D
CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
*o*nt
shbianqo wvb*
RR30U803
-------
appendix b
tables
ftR30U80U
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OP HUMAN HEALTH CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
ANALYTE
SOIL
GROUND
WATER
SURFACE
WATER
SEDIMENT
ORGANICS
Benzene
X
Chloroethane
X
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane
X
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
X
1,1-Dichloroethane
X
1,2-Dichloroethane
X
cis-1,2-
dichloroethene
X
1,2-Dichloropropane
X
Vinyl chloride
X
METALS
Aluminum
X
X
Arsenic
X
Barium
X
Lead
X
X
Manganese
X
Sulfur
X
Vanadium
X
PESTICIDES
Aroclorl248
X
MOBILE IONS
Nitrate* Nitrite,
Nitrogen
X
Nitrogen, Ammonia
X
X
AR301+805
-------
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OP ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTES OP CONCERN
fnnrammimw of
Coooon
Surface
Sod
Sediment
Sediment
Wat
Surface Wan
Surface Water
Wen
4,4-ODD
X
Aluminum
X
X
X
X
Arodoc 1248
X
X
Anenk
X
X
Banum
X
X
X
X
Benao(a)aiiifaraoene
X
X
Benxo(a)pyrene
X
BcnroOOthnrai throe
X
X
Benxofeh.iJ peltate
X
Bana(k)fluaraiitaie
X
X
Cadmium
X
X
X
raWiiw
X
X
X
dmeaimn, mi
X
X
Qnyaeoe
X
Cobalt
X
X
Cowrr
X
X
X
X
DiefcMn
X
FluoranlbeDC
X
X
lndeno(l ^,3-od)pyiaie
X
Iron
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mercury
X
Nickel
X
X
X
X
Niaur+Nitrite Nluugui
X
X
PtaenamlimK
X
X
Paambm
X
X
X
X
Pyrene
X
X
Sodium
X
X
Sulfne
X
X
UuWulllIM
X
X
X
Zinc
X
X
X
Lead
X
X
X
X
AR30U8Q6
-------
table - 3
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RiSKS-CLHRE.VT & FLTIR£ LSE SCENARIOS
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
OflTMtC Utt
Raddtat Adult & C&iM
Fotan Um
RME
AVC
RME
AVG
Sod
Derail Contact
1147
JI4I
2E4i
IE«W
Ingestion
4E-08
2E-09
IE-06
IE-07
Groundwater
Dermal Cooiaa
4E-07
3E-08
Ingestion
3E-03
7E-06
Vapor
3E-09
ZE-09
Surface Water
Denul Contact
a
a
a
a
Sediment
•
Dermal Contact
1S4»
3E*l»
11-91
3Mi
Ingesooo
5E-0S
6E-0»
JE-06
5E-0T
(a) No slope factors available
ftR30U807
-------
TABLE -4
SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGEMC HAZARD INDICIES-CURRENT AND FLTL'RE LSE SCENARIOS
RTVER ROAD LANDFILL
*Jwm*
¦wMw Adtit * CUM
mVrn
Fatal
Um
RME
AVG
RME
AVG
Sod
Dermal Contact
a
a
a
a
Ingestion
a
a
a
a
Groundwater
Dermal Contact
3
2
tupgiw
20a
50
Vapor Inhslatkw
0.0003
0X1006
Surface Water
Dermal Contact
0.00*
0.0004
0.0*
0.00*
Sediment
Dermal Contact
QJtt
QOTWfr
0j01
OJMQS
0.001
ojxm
0.09
0.
-------
APPENDIX C
CLOSURE AMD POST CLOSURE
RR30U809
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
•CLOSURE CERTIFICATION
AND POST CLOSURE PLAN
Sign 7 Date
TODD GIDDINGS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING HYDROGEOLOGISTS and ENGINEERS
Sox 388, Storehouse Road
Clarion, PA 16214
814-764-5507
pwa
SEP.? 0 1987
00
0'J ... .
11:. . . . .
MUjVIllI ». ,
00
-=r
o
CO
CC
<*x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART
1
1
1
2
APPENDIX
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
PLAN SHEETS
1
2
SECTION TITLE
1 Closure Certification
2 Certification of Facility Design and
Construction, Form No. 6
3 Notification for Underground Storage
Tank Removal
Post Closure Plan
FIELD REPORTS
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORTS
PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS
LEACHATE MONITORING PROGRAM FOR RIVER
ROAD LANDFILL
POST CLOSIRE GROUNDWATER MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
GAS MONITORING PROGRAM FOR RIVER ROAD
LANDFILL, HERMITAGE, PENNSYLVANIA
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR'S DUTIES
FINAL COVER CERTIFICATION
LEACHATE COLLECTION
DETAILS
AR30l»8 I I
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
h * »
River Road Landfill
CLOSURE CERTIFICATION
AND POST CLOSURE PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WMI) previously
conducted solid waste disposal operations at River Road Landfill
under Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PA DEP
permit #100019. Waste'disposal activities at River Road were
discontinued on May 31, 1986. In order to properly close the lc
fill, a closure plan was prepared by TODD GIDDINGS and ASSOCIATt
INC. CTGAI). A report by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. entitle'
'Application Amendment*tor Upgraded Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan Certification, River Road Landfill Facility, Merce:
County, Pennsylvania, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Permit No.
100019* was incorporated into the cldsure plan and submitted by
WMI to the PA OER on April 29, 1986.
A letter conditionally approving the closure plan was
received from the PA DER on March 31, 1987. A letter by WMI,
dated April 15, 1987, responded to specific conditions of the P.
DER approval letter. This report contains all of the requested
and proposed information and contains two major parts: CI) clos
certification documentation; and (2) post closure plan.
AR30U8 I 2
-------
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
1012 Vater Street
Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335
Telephone: A. C. 814/724-8526
March 23. 1987
CERTIFIED MAIL t? 414 751 696
Subject: River R:ad Closure Plan Sanitary Landfill
South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County
I. 0. Ho. 100019
Mr. Robert H. Heitman
c/o Waste Management
of (forth America, Incl
Eastern District Office
1121 Bordeatovn Road
Morrisville, Pennsylvania 19067
Dear Mr. Heitaaa:
The Department's Bureau of Haste Hanageaent has recently coopleted its
review of the subject closure plan response dated April 14, 1966 and received on
April 29, 1986. The closure plan is hereby approved vith the following
conditions:
1. Show cross-sections of sediaentatlon ponds A and B on plana.
2. Show Rip-Rap on cross-sections of the diversion ditches,
3. Compact all the diversion ditches beras to 100Z of the -.Ifled
proctor test.
4. Show cross-sections through the 24 inch diaseter culvert pipe,
Include headwater elevations.
5. The final foot of cover aaterial shall a«et the taxturai class
specifications as Indicated in J75.24(c)(2)(lx), and shall be
a soil that can support adequate vegetation. This shall be
determined by a soil test.
6. The re-vegetation plan indicated is hereby approved and shall be
implemented at the site with Che following conditions:
a. Crownvetch or Redcop shall be planted in addition to the
birdsfoot trefoil and tall fescue at the seeding rate of no
less than 20 lbs/acre for Crownvetch and 6 lbs/acre for
Redtop.
'8NNSYIVANIA
AR30U8 I 3
-------
2
b. Ia those areas where vegetative growth cannot be established
due to high landfill gas concentrations, wood chips and straw
or hay with mulch netting is recommended. Large stones
should not be implemented.
c. The soil conditioners to be utilized for the the top 12 inches
of cover shall coaslsc of either peat boss or humus.
d. The soil test shall include In addition to the parameters
listed, lime and fertilizer requirements.
7. deseeding and maintenance of the cover material shall be mandatory
until adequate vegetative cover is established to prevent erosion.
8. Waste Management shall submit a contingency plan on how co treat
all excess volume of leachate that might be produced over the
amount permitted to be discharged to the sewer system.
The aforementioned conditions and modlflcationa shall be Incorporated
into subject closure plan and the required proposals, as indicated above, should
be submitted to this office within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.
Vaste Management will be required to have completed subject closure operations
by September 30, 1987.
Please contact me if you should have any questions or comments
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Russell L. Crawford
Regional Solid Waste Manager
Bureau of Waste Management
RLC/LD/mls
AR301+8 I U
-------
RECEIVED APR PI !«0
April 15, 1987
Mr. Russell L. Crawford
Regional Solid Waste Manager
Bureau of Waste Management
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
1012 Watet Street
Meadvllle, PA 16335
S'JBJECT: River Road tondfilJ
Response to PaOER Letter Dated: 3/23/87
Conditionally Approving the Slta Closure Plan
Dear Mr. Crawford:
In response to specific conditions outlined in your March 23rd approval of
the River Road Closure Plan and the following consents apply:
1) Cross-sections of sedimentation basins A and B have been shown on the
plans. Please refer to attached revised plan sheets H047-E7 and
H067-E7A for details. In the case of Basin B the cross-section showr
constlcuces an as-bullt condition. The cross-section shown for Basin
A represents final design dimensions. Basin A is currently undergoing
cleaning, enlargement and principal spillway replacement to meet these
design conditions.
2) Rip rap has been shown and dimensioned on cross-sections of the
diversion ditches. See attached revised plan sheet No. H047-E6 for
details.
3) The diversion ditch berms will be compacted lo 90 - 95Z Standard
Proctor Density. Compaction of diversion ditch berms significantly
above this valwe Is .unnecessary and unachievable on side slope areas.
The ditches will be' stabilized with vegetation, and rip rap will be
utilized In high velocity reaches as shown on the plans. Experience
with final cover placement and compaction over the past 12 months has
shown that precise moisture control needed for 100X of the modified
Proctor test result is impossible to achieve with the moisture
sensitive soils used at the site. Furthermore, vlbiatory rolling is
unfeasible on 3:1 side slopes. The berms will be keyed into the side
slope using a small dozer blade to prevent slippage. Quality
assurance monitoring of berm placement will be performed to ensure
that three feet of final cover remains under the diversion berms.
Routine pose closure Inspection of the berms will determine the need
for repair and maintenance. The frequency and details of diversion
berm inspection and maintenance will be defined In the Post Closure
Plan to be submitted by September 30, 1987, along with the Closure
Certlf{cation Report.
AR3Ql»8 I 5
-------
Page 2
4) Cross-sections chrough che 24 Inch diameter culvert pipe have been
provided Including headwater elevations. See attached revised plan
sheet No. H047-E7 for deealls.
5) Composite soil sanples hava been collected and analyzed from both the
borrow area and final covered porclons of the site. Additional soil
samples will be collected, composited and analyzed during the final
phase of cover placement. Results of all soil textural classification
and hydrometer analyses will be Included '.n the Closure Certification
Report. Approximately two back hoe pits per acr; are being excavaced
by Todd Glddlngs and Associates to vei'fy the lequlred three foot
cover thickness. Soil samples are being composited from these pics
for laboratory Classification and analysis. Results of all of the
eleven composited samples analyzed to date have shown chat che final
cover material meets che cextural classification specifications
indicated in 75.25 (c) (2) (lx). Completed portions of the landfill
and borrow area currently demonstrate that the soils are capable of
supporting adequate vegetation.
6a) The 3eed mixture selected and used for final vegetation will contain
either Crown Vetch at the specified seeding rate of 20 pounds per acre
or Redtop at the specified seeding rate of 6 pounds per acre. This
seed mixture will be verified by a formula breakdown provided by the
seed distributor. Application rates are being checked by Todd
Clddings an i Associates and will be Included alonjj wlc'.i che send
breakdown in the Closure Certification Report.
6b) Although landfill gas concentrations are not anticipated to Inhibit
vegetaclve growth, means of soil stabilization other than large stones
are being utilized. Straw mulch and synthetic netting have l-een
successfully used to stabilize the eastern half of the landfill ami
che perimeter drainage ditch. These and/or similar saterials will
continue to be used as necessary on remaining areas to be revegctated
6c) Successful revegetatlon efforts to dace at the River Road Landfill
have demonstrated that organic soil conditioners such as peat moss or
humus are not required to establish a healthy vegetative cover.
Therefore, no such soil conditioners are proposed for general use in
the top 12 inches of final cover. Soil conditioners and/or straw
mulch will, however, be utilized on perpetual problem areas as part of
on-going post closure maintenance.
6d) Soil analyses being performed include tests for lime and fertilizer
requirements. The results of chis testing are belr.g used in che
selecclon of appropriate application races for revegecaclon. The same
composite test pit soil samples taken for cextural classification are
being split and sent co Merkle Labs In Scace loLiege for lime and
ferclllzer analyses. eleven composited soli saaples have been
analyzed co dace vich approximately four addldonal composite samples
co be taken and analyzed from remaining areas Jelr.g capped. The
results of all lime and fertilizer testing will be Included In che
Closure Cerclflcadon Reporc.
fl R 3 0 It 8 I 6
-------
Page 3
7) Reseeding and maintenance of final cover will be performed as needed
during Che post closure period to establish adequate vegetation. The
Post Closure Plan will detail the ongoing site inspection format which
will ensure continued site maintenance and erosion control. The
permanent vegetative species selected are self perpetuating, excremely
competitive and should preclude invasion by undesirable deep rooted
specie*.
8) A leachace disposal contingency plan will be included in the Post
Closure Plan. This plan will follow the Preparedness Prevention and
Contingency Plan format and will include emergency provisions for
canker removal of leachate. Discharges of leachate in excess of ehe
permitted 50,000 CPD are not anticipated due eo the installation of a
count - totalizer device which automatically shuts down ehe leachate
pump* and activates an automatic dial alarm system in the event that
eocal flows withir a 24 hour period reach 50t000 gallons. Flow
records at River Rc"l over the past 10 months have shown chat total
dally flows rarely approach 50.000 CPD. The one recorded occasion
where eocal daily flow reached 52,000 gallons was attributable to wet
weather following construction activities. The volume of the wet well
is such that an inward gradient from the Shenango River will
constantly be maintained. Upon completion of final capping the daily
flow rate is expected to decrease due to decreased Infiltration. The
Porc Closure Plan will also describe the programmable control
equipment and means of celemecering River Road leachace flow data and
recording the information at the Lake View landfill.
If you have any queselons concerning the above response to comments, please
give me a call.
A
Robert K. Heitman, P.E.
District Engineer
RHH/kag
cc: Mike Andrews
Jack. Blenk
Amy Surbott, Esq
Rich Carniewskl
Keith Doberspike, TCA
Tony Eith
Vlto Calance/Jlm Loveland
Paai Coodwin
Kevin Kohn
Ben victory
Chuck Xnighc
CO
-3*
O
CO
cc.
«cr
-------
Application for Permit for Solid Waste
Disposal and/or Processing Facilities
Form No. 1, Phase No. 1
AR30U818
-------
M—BWM—4:1/84
9/30/87
MPAJVTMVfT \
(II ONLY
e *
/ / / / /
/////////
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL RESOUKCES
BUREAU OF SCUD WASTt MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
and/or PROCESSING FACILITIES
Form No. 1
PHASE NO. 1
1. Applicant (Name and Addresal
Waste Management of PA,
1121 Bordencown Road
Morrisvllle, PA 19067
TiltpheM Number
Inc.
2. Application lor. Now FedBty
P*rmu Modification
Module 1 Wuti Approval
Additional Acreage
OetignyOpetational Change
N»v» Psrmftlee/Oparetor
'100019
~
~
~
3. Property Owrarls) [Nam* and Addreaal '
Waste Management of PA, Inc.
1121 Bordentotm Road
MocrlsvllLe, PA 19067
Telephone Number
4. Nama of FadBiy River Road T andflll
Addreaa of Faculty 2430 River Road
LR43034
-------
PART 1, SECTION 1
Closure Certification
AR30U820
-------
GENERAL
Closure activities at River Road Landfill were initiated by
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WMI) site personnel in
June of 1986. Major items completed during the 1986 construction
season included placement of final soil cover over roughly forty
percent of the landfill, completion of the leachate collection
system, installation of lift station No. 1 and stabilization of
roughly ten acres of disturbed area. A construction contract was
awarded to David Construction in April 1987 for the remaining
earthwork and closure improvements. Additional items installed to
date include a flow control system, an automatic alarm system and
a perimeter security fence.
Supervision during closure activities was provided by the WMI
site manager. Kurtanich Engineers and Associates, Inc. provided
surveying support. TODD GIDDINGS and ASSOCIATES, INC. CTGAI)
personnel supplied construction management, engineering inspection
and quality assurance/quality control engineering certification
services. Detailed field reports are included with this report as
Appendix A. In general, the applicable Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (PA DER) rules and regulations have been
met or exceeded.
APPLICATION OF FINAL CAP
A minimum of tnree (3) feet of final cover material meeting
the PA DER soil textural requirements has been emplaced at River
Road Landfill. The material was obtained from the on-site borrow
area immediately to the north. A total of 129 cover certification
pits were excavated in order to verify final cover thickness,
textural classification and nutrient requirements. Sheet 1 of 3,
enclosed with this report, shows the surveyed locations of these
test pits.
TGAI field reports (see Appendix A) detail the final cover
thickness for each test pit. Areas found deficient were brought to
the attention of the site manager and corrected. Re-certification
of rhese areas was accomplished by additional, overlapping pits
and/or visual inspections. A small knob of less than one acre in
the extreme southeast corner of the landfill was not investigated
due to restrictions imposed by Penn Power Company within this area.
Soil samples were collected from each certification pit and
composited, based on location. These composites were sent to the
TGAI laboratory located in State College for textural analysis. A
split sample of each composite was sent to the Merkle Laboratory
at Pennsylvania State University for soil nutrient analysis. In-
dividual laboratory analysis reports can be found in Aopendix B.
The results of the textural analyses are summarized in Table
1. These textural results were plotted on a U.S.D.A. textural
classification triangle (see Exhibit I) in order to derive the
specific soil classification. As this information shows, all soil
materials sampled meet the PA DER textural criteria for final
cover material as set forth in Chapter 75.24 (C!(2)(ix).
aR30l»82l
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
River Road Landfill
Table 1
Textured Classification Summary
Composite Percent * U.S.D.A. Soils Classification
Test Pit » I.D. Coarse "Frag. X Sand X Silt X Clay Classification
1-12
RR1
22.4
51
34
15
loam
13-24
RR2
- 29.8
52
34
14
loam-sandy
28-35
RR3
49.1
63
25
12
oandy loam
36-48
RR4
29.8
57
32
11
sandy loam
49-53
RR5
32.2
47
43
10
loam
54-68
RR6
* 29.5
54
32
14
sandy loam
78-89
RR7
31.1
57
30
13
sandy loam
68B-77«
HR8
35.1
52
31
17
loam-s?ndy
117-118
•
110-116
RR9
38.4
51
35
14
loam
100-109
RR10
28.6
45
38
17
loam
90-99
RR11
45.8
48
37
15
loam
119-121
RR12
33.9
50
36
14
loam
122-124
RR13
28.7
53
31
16
sandy loam
125-127
RR14
46.7
53
32
15
sandy loam
128-129
RR15
26.9
55
2s'
11
sandy loam
Notes:
* Percent not passing through a No. 10 mesh sieve
1-2
AR30l»822
-------
silty day
g loam W
wwtigwiw ¦ * ¦ jrtmX
sandy clay loam
ptrcant sand
Exhibit I
Textural Classification of Final Cover
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.
River Road Landfill
V7 TODD GIDDINGS and
==¦ ASSOCIATES, INC.
— HYOROGEOLOGIST5 and ENGINEERS
RO.^i. 80* 388, Sion^hous* Rood, Clorion, PA i62l4
1-3
flR30l»823
-------
The results of the nutrient analyses are summarized in Table
2. As was expected with weathered.glacial material, the soil pH
was relatively high (7.3-8.2) and no lime addition was required.
Nitrogen requirements were a consistent 120 lbs/acre, while phos-
phate and potash requirements ranged from 120 to 200 lbs/acre and
120 to 280 lbs/acre, respectively.
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
The leachate collection system h-s been extended, in accor-
dance with the proposed specifications, along the eastern, western
and northern perimeters of the landfill base to completely encom-
pass the filled area. Manhole locations and invert elevations are
shown on sheet 2 of 3 enclosed with this report.
Other improvements made to the leachate management system
during closure operations include the installation of a new lift
station (No. 1), emergency tanker connection, flow control system
and alarm system. These projects were carried out by WMI person-
nel with the assistance of the following subcontractors: Arcadia
Controls, Inc., ADT Security Systems, Inc., Ferrick Construction,
and Penberthy Refrigeration Company.. Details of these improvements
are shown on the enclosed sheet 3 of 3.
Lift station No. 1 was constructed in November of 1986 and
consists of five foot diameter precast concrete manhole sections
and two (3 Hp) submersible pumps with associated float controls,
check valves and gate valves. Leachate flows from manhole No. 3
to lift station No. 1 by means of a 12 inch diameter PVC pipe
installed between the two structures.
Leachate is pumped from lift station No. 1 through the emer-
gency tanker connection which consists of a gate valve and a tee
fitted with a-cam-lock quick disconnect. Next in-line is the flow
metering box, where an E & H magnetic flowmeter has been installed.
The flow metering and control system is explained in Appendix 0,
"Leachate Monitoring Program", and includes equipment specification
manuals for the submersible pumps, flowmeter, flow controller and
back-up chart recorder.
An automatic alarm system has been installed to constantly
monitor lift stations No. 1 and No. 2. The system is activated
through normally open or normally closed relays., by any of the
following scenarios:
•Loss of incoming power
•Mechanical failure of a pump motor
•Breach of a pump motor seal
•High level float is engaged by rising leachate level
Once activated, the system initiates an alarm circuit at the
Youngstown, Ohio office of ADT Securities Systems, Inc. Personnel
on duty at the office, 24 hours a day, are then responsible for
notifying the emergency coordinators that an alarm situation exists.
4R30l)82U
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
River Road Landfill
Table 2
Nutrient Requirement Sunmary
Ccnposite Soil^ Nutrient Requirements^*
Test Pii #
I.D.
. -E!L
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potash
Line
(lb/A)
Ub/A)
(lb/A)
(lb/A)
1-12
RRl
7.9
120
200
200
0
13-24
RR2
-7.9
120
200
200
0
28-35
RR3
8.1
120
200
200
0
36-48
RR4
7.7
120
200
200
0
49-53
RR5
7.6
120
200
200
0
54-68
RR6
*7.6
120
200
200
0
78-89
RR7
8.2
120
180
240
0
6S&-77
RR8
7,8
120
140
240
0
117-118
110-116
RR9
7.6
120
130
200
0
100-109
RR10
8.1
120
160
270
0
90-99
RRll
8.1
120
180
260
0
119-121
RR12
7.4
120
150
150
0
122-124
RRl 3
7.3
120
120
120
0
125-127
RR14
7.8
120
130
170
0
126-129
RRl 5
7.9
120
190
280
0
^As per Merkle Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, College
of Agriculture (See Appendix B)
'-5 AR30lf825
-------
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
A system of eleven <11^diversions and channels has been
installed to route stormwater runoff through two sedimentation
ponds prior to discharging to the Shenango River. Enlargement of
sedimentation basin A and the associated installation of a new
principal spillway was completed as proposed by the original plans.
Survey control during construction verified the required elevations
were achieved. Sheet 2 of 3, enclosed, shows the as-built locations
of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. The diversions
were constructed by selectively excavating the borrow material
with a higher clay content, placing it in multiple lifts and top-
dressing the final cover material with microterraces. At a minimum,
critical areas of all channels were lined with the proposed riprap
materials.
Several field engineering modifications to the proposed plan
were instituted at two locations. The first design change is
located in the southeast corner of the landfill and was mandated
by the location of the Penn Power Company transmission tower.
Diversion No. 6 was moved approximately sixteen (16) feet verti-
cally upslope in order to provide an.adequate safety barrier for
equipment working in the vicinity of the tower. This change
necessitated the construction of an independent diversion berm
around the small knob immediately to the east of the transmission
tower. Another design modification in this area concerns the
alignment of the "B" reach of diversions No. 4 and 5. These
particular sections were constructed in such a manner as to
provide for a smoother, less turbulent, transition into reach "C"
of diversion No. 5.
The second field engineering change to the original design
plans was made at diversion No. 7, at the point it crosses the
former main access road. Due to the steep gradient from this point
to the confluence with the upgradient diversion ditch C.M.P., a
lined channel and riprap energy dissipater were installed to pre-
vent possible erosion of the final cover cap. The lining utilized
was a NOR-BLOC erosion control system comprised of interlocking,
precast concrete pieces overlaying a geotextile. General specifi-
cations for this system are included at the end of this section.
In summary, these modifications were dictated b/ actual field
conditions and were instituted using sound engineering judgement
in order to meet the required September 30, 1987 deadline. All of
the design changes have, to date, operated properly during major
precipitation events.
SITE RSVEGETATION
As disturbed areas were completed, the final surfaces were
prepared by microterracing with a small bulldozer. A fertilizer
mix averaging 120 lbs/acre nitrogen, 190 lbs/acre phosphate and
180 lbs/acre potash was applied as indicated by the soil nutrient
analyses previously discussed. Partial site revegetation of
AR30U826
1-6
-------
approximately fifteen acres of borrow and landfill area was accom-
plished during 1986. The seed mixture, Strip Mine Mixture No. 2,
was applied by the broadcast method at a rate of 100 lbs/acre and
is detailed below:'
29.55% Annual Ryegrass
29.401 Kentucky 31 Tall Fescue
14.951 Alsike Clover
9.95% Timothy
7.301 Empire Birdsfoot Trefoil
7.00% Birdsfoot Trefoil
1.23% Crop Seed
0.471 Inert Matter
0.15% Weed Seed
As requested by the PA DER letter of March 23, 1987, an addi-
tional 6 lbs/acre of Redtop was incorporated into the seed mixture
and utilized on all subsequent areas. All seeded areas were imme-
diately mulched with an average of 2.8 tons/acre of hay. Growth
to date indicates adequate revegetation has been and can be accom-
plished at River Road Landfill.
SECURITY
To limit post closure access to the site, a chainlink fence
has been installed on three sides of the landfill with the Shenango
River utilized as a barrier on the fourth side. The fence consists
of si., foot high posts, cemented in-place and covered with galvan-
ized chainlirk fence topped with three strands of four point barb-
wire. Dual swing gates were installed to permit authorized vehic-
ular entry at the main access road. Two monitoring wells situated
outside of this fenced perimeter were also enclosed by chainlink
fencing. A ten foot by ten foot concrete block building has been
constructed near lift station No. 1 to protect the flow control
and metering equipment. All applicable gates, buildings, manholes
and well caps are fitted with keyed alike, all-weather locks.
b^..3ING
WMI will supply the necessary bonding and insurance documen-
tation as required by the PA DER.
4R30i+827
1-7
-------
m
ifl
Awthori|(4 Dalit
^¦'5 •'i. i Vto aug 06 i3ti:
INC.
AftMCO
V
C«»tuu«llafl P'Odwtll
222 aEORQE STHEHT — HARFCR PAR*. 86CXLEY. W.VA. 28801 (304) 2B2«S17
¦AtCTOfttOF • AftMCO (IN A*TAININO WAUL » AMMCO MUI.T1^LATC 4 tUfCR-t^AMS • OUAAOff AIL
HOfUftl.nr SPECIFICATIONS
nFMFRAt, SPECIFICATIONS:
Height 4.25 in
Weight-PSF 35.2 lbs
Concrete Strength 4000 psi
Open Area 201
a
Norwood engineered NOR-BLOC erosion control systems shall be
comprised of interlocking and articulating concrete components
overlaying a geotextile, as specified.
The NOR-BLOC system may be placed on the surface to be protected by
hand assembling the interlocking components or by placing
pre-assembled mat sections.
The NOR-BLOC components shall be precast concrete units with the
following minimum requi rements.
Compressive Strength 4000 psi
Oven-Dry Weight 125 lbs/cubic ft ASTM C-115
Compressive testing shall be performed on random samples of NOR-BLOC
components.
FTt.TFR FA3RTC S PECT FT CAT ION S :
The underlay and mat support geotextile shall be NOR-BLOC Propex 6C66
as manufactured b/ Amoco Filter Fabrics. The geotextile is a woven
polypropylene ero.\ion control latric and shall meet the following
specifications.
Uniaxial Tension Test:
Machine Direction Strength (warp)
550 lbs/in
Secant Modulus § 105 Elongation 2850 lbs/in
Cross Direction Strength (fill)
550 lbs/in
Secant Modulus § 105 Elongation 3^10 ibs/Ln
1-8
¦¦fl'R'30^8'28"
-------
Ill
INC.
Auiho«li«tf Onto
ARM CO
V
Conitrucilofl Product*
222 aiowqe stReeT - harper park, bbckuy. w.va. zsaoi (304) aB2-a»i7
¦ NICTOMOP • AMMCOOIN HfTAINIMQ WALb ~ ARMCOMULTI-PCATt 4 tUMA-tPAHS • OUAHOHAIU
Uniaxial Tension Tests:
Seam Strength and J
Elongation at Failure
%
Soil-Fabric Friction Angle
20-30 Ottawa Sand
Average Abrasion Resistance.
Cross Direction Strength
Equivalent Opening Size
Average Coefficient of Permeability
277 lbs/in § 19S
30 Degrees
451 lbs
30 U.S. Standard Sieve
6.5 x 10 cm/sec
SITE PREPARATION:
Surfaces to te covered shall be free of debris, projecting stones or
other hard objects. All soft areas or voids should be filled and well
compacted with a suitable material. Certification shall be obtained
from Norwood, Inc. that the surface on which N0R-8LQC is to be
placed is acceptable.
N0R-8LQC erosion
depth of 2" with
This backfilling
com pi etion.
control systems should be backfilled to a minimum
a suitable material to allow for revegation.
should be executed within 21 days of revetment
ftR30U829
-------
PART 1, SECTION 2
Certification of Facility Design and Construction, Form No. 5
flfi30i,830
-------
in-WM-U COMMONWEALTH OF HNNJYIVANIA
DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
BUREAU Of SOLIO WASTE MANAGE MEN*"
CERTIFICATION OF FACILITV DC?"** AND CONSTRUCTION
font MOk •
I, Kerry D. Tyson f being # RegisierH Pro
(Imlimi't Nam* . Print *f " <»*>
fessionai Engineer in accordance with th* Pennsylvania Professional Engineer's Rsgitcidtion Law do
hereby certify that to the beet of my knowledge, information and belief that the:
FACILITY NAME: River Road Landfill (Closure Certification)
FACILITY LOCA. ION:Hermitage & S. Pymatuning Twp., Mercer County
NIVl (Cewotv)
it constructed, and prepare^ in accordance with the documents, statements, designs, and plans sub-
mitted as part of Application No. 100019 as approved by the Department of Environ-
mental Resources.
Engineer's Signature_. <1^ /sjjfr1*-
Name of FirmTOnn GTDDINGS and ASSOCIATES. INC.
Address: 3049 Enterprise Drive
State College, PA 16801
Telephone Number AC (814) 238-5927
Date: September 30, 1987
(SEAL)
fl R 3 0 U 8 3 I
-------
PART 1, SECTION 3
Notification for Underground Storage Tank Removal
AR30U832
-------
Westo Management of North America, tne.
Eaattm Otslrlct Office
1121 Bordantown Road • Morriaville, Pennsylvania 19067
215J 73 8-2000
September 11, 1987
PA. Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Manageatent/CM Unit
P.O. Box 2063
Marrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
SUBJECTi River Road Landfill
Revised Notification Form
for Underground Storage Tank Removal
Dear Sin
Please find enclosed a revised notification form for one 8,000 gallon
underground diesel storage tank removed from the ground in July, 1987 at
the above referenced facility. The notification form previously submitted
on 7/16/87 mistakenly listed 'one* tank instead of zero in Section II ot
the form. The enclosed form serves to correct ehis notational error.
If you have any questions concerning this revised notification, please
give me a call.
Robert H. H-»i
P.E.
District Engineer
RHH/nme
enclosure
ccs Mike Andrews
Mike Carlson
Nadine Ellis
Vito Calante
Kirk Corniak
Jim Loveland
SR30U833
-------
TANKS
RETUPN PA Oept of Environmental Resources
COMPLETED Bureau of Wfeter Quality Management/GW Unll
FORM PO. Sox 2063
TO Harriabuig, PA 17120
"ZrT***?# ~ ""'vr-"A." GENERACINFORMATtON>-r
10. Numbor
TfjTt
STATE US8 ONUT
OataHacewiod
Nodtatioa t> iai|i^td by Federal taw far «B taidamuund tank* that ha*« been
¦riHttwnyilimrilMtntniaMjMwyl. 1174. Hint an m lb* pound aa of
May a. IMA, oe that an bmoglubiioiM after May 1.1914. Tbeinformndoa requested
k rumiit) Tnlhw HWIof l&« Huomtti C«n»cr»»Bon an»l Retorrry ArMRCBAI.
TTt* primary purpose of thn notifiation program a 10 locate and evaluate under-
pound tanks thai uan or haw uored petroleum or haiudooa nibtanea. Il a
capeaed that ihe infonnmon you provid* «iU be bated on rosonably available
luuttU. or.inthe abiena of such rrrcrtx your knowledge. betef. or KcoUectm
Who Moat N«dh! Sen ton 4001 of RCRA. aa amended. require! thai, unless
rumpled. »«inn of underground tanks thai uore regulated subuanea must ooiify
designated Stat* or local agencies of the citsterce at Hicw tanks. O^ncr mam-
dt to the aw of aa underground uoragi tank m use on November I I9U. or
brought m ok after that date, any person who ewni >a undo ground uonge tank
used foe th# florag». use. or dispensing of rtguUud»ibHancn.tfid
(u| ia ih* aw of any underground storage tank in tat before Nosvmaer 1.1914.
but no)on|cr in in* ea ihat date, any pmta who owned me# unk imncdiaiety before
the discontinuation of a use.
What Ttais Art lactoded? Underground uoragi *>nk is defined as any one or
combination of tanka that (I) is used io contain an accumulation el *regulaird iufc
nances." and (11 rteit volume I including eonneeud underground piping) a I0<1 or
more benaihttwground. Soipceumplciare underground tanks uorwF I. gasoline,
used oil. or dmd fueL and L in£usirul wltnui pesmdev herbmdo or funu garni.
What Tanks An tertnrteiC Tanks remawii from the ground ait not vubjen io
soiifiaiioa. Other tanka excluded from noiifiraiton are
I. farm or ics^emial tanks of 1.100 pllons or less apnea yujed for uortn| motor fuel
for noncoauncicial purposes:
L lank* toed for nortag baling otl for eoniuniptite tat oaihc premises when stored:
Liepueiaaks
4. pipetane faohim linctvding pihcnng bnes) regulated under the Natural Cn
Pipeline Safely Act of I9M. or the Harardota Lajiud Pipeline lafet) Act ot 1979. or
which a an mrtauie pipeline 'aoKv regutaud under Suie laws.
1 wiser impound menu, puv ponds. ortagoonv
It storm water or wasie water coUeamtyucaia;
7. flow-through praceia tankc
I. bipod tnpsor associated ptberwg lumdirectly related to oil or gas prod urt ion and
gathering o^enuon:
V. uonge unka minted in an undtigiound area Ituch aa a basemeiu. eeltar.
oaneworkiflg. drift, ihafk or luanel) if the woage tank ia utuatrd upon or >feo>e ih*
Hiiface of the floor.
What Sufcuanea Are Comad? The nottficaiion mjmirmenti apply to under-
ground uonge unka that cooum regulaitd uiOuanm. Thra mcludo toy MibMjncr
defined at hanidowt in mciwo 101 (14) of the Con prehensile Cmvoiuiicnul
Rapoow.Conptmatianand Uabihty An of ntOlCERCI^kwah iheticrpiion of
thaw uihuanas nguiaied ta hanidoua watta under Subtitle C of RCRA. It aba
includes petroleum, e t- crude oil or any fnaion ihereof wh«h a Inftnd ai uandard
eondaiona of temperature and ptosun ((0 degma Fahmhea and 14.1 pounds per
¦quart inch abioiute).
When To Nodfy? Compleied muraiioa forms should be wnt to the addio*
jnen ai the top of Uua pa gr.
Whew To Notify? I.Ownenefundergraund>ion|etanki inoiaorihaihatebeea
taken ant of open lion after January 1. 1974. but UUI in I he ground. mtM notiftr by
May I. I9M. 2. Owners who bnna undtrground storage tanks umoib* after May g.
I9td. must notify wahia J4 day* of bnaguig the tanks into ia*.
rmalsksl Any owner wbo knowingly fa* io notify or r.
ibad be sob)e«1 to a dnl pemtry not to aaered I1MOO Car
aoOSfcado* la not gl»ea or
pemtry not to uuw IIMR tor art
He wtkb take Wormatton b attadaad.
taab Co* wtaek
I Ptaw type or pnni in ink ail itcnw except *iignatufe*in Section V. Tha fenn mutt by rompletn) for
^gach loetoon tofliaininj undcifround stor*{« tanks. If more than CflyWOIlH(!anOH>'''-
Araa Cod*
412
Phono Number
962-7643
|3T| Mark boa her* only if this is an amended or subsaouent noiilcanon lor wis location.
%
¦:¦' V iA.vcunVTOOIONtllaatfandaifeff
¦II if.'..
rtify under penalty of law mat I have personally examined and
cuments. and that based on my inquiry of tnose individuals immetit
submitted information is true, accurate, and complete.
wiih the information submitted m this and all attached
esponsioie tor otuamipg me information. I Deiieve tnat tns
i0ie tor otuainiri
/ >/
Nama and official till* of owner or owner s auinonted reprneniativ*
Robert H. Hei'.man. P.E., District Enqmeerl
epA 'orm /VJQ-M11-41)
p»«* I
-------
Mp«rWB»0>w>*cdaw»)M**f"* lnct^rton(from8«caa«tii) JLlvaf RoaS.
*' 1 r-*u< f
v r .Wl:DtoCniPTK3NOKUNOEflCfKllJNaSTOH*CEiTANItS(CompJ«H»for«*f»taT*J"feHk>ciltorr|> -
|knk WenlMotion No. (eg, AflC-123), or
^fettrvUy Assigned Sequential Number (e.g* 1A3-)
IbnkNa
TknkNa.
Tank No.
1
Tank No.
Tank No.
Meatus ol Tank Currently in Use
r Temporarily Out of Us*
r Permanently Out of Use
Brought into Use after 5/Wfi
CD
C=3
CD
cd
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
2. Estimated Aqa (Y«tn)
Unknown
1 Estimated Total Capacity (Gallons)
a.000
4. Malarial of Construction S{eft)
(Mrtoma) C0KntB
fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
Unknown
Other. Please SpecWy
i—i
CD
cd
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD !
CD ;
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
& Internal Protection nmt^.tinr,
IMtrk »u u**t tpptym) Cathodic Protection
Interior Lining !e.g.. epoay resins)
None
Unknown
Otfwr. Please Specify
CD
CD
cd
CD
! j
CD
CD
. 1=1
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
1 External Protactlcn CaBwUc Protection
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Coated
None
Unknown
Other. Please Specify
cm
cd
. CD
CD
C=D
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
m
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
7. Piping Sara Steel
Galvanized Steel
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
GatftoCicalty Protected
Unknown
Other. Please Specify
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
! CD
CD
CD
CD
C=D
8. Substance Currently or Last Stored j. Empty
In Greatest OuanUty by Volume ^
(Mar* *11 fhaf »pplfW) 0iese)
Kerosene
Gasoline (Including alcohol blends)
Used Oil
Other. Please Specify
c. Hazardous Substance
Please irdicate Name ol Principal CERCLA SuOstarce
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) No.
Mark pox 3 if tank stores a mixture of substances
d. Unknown
CD
cm
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
OO
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
(=J
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD !
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
'^Additional Information (for tanks permanently
|J^1 out ol sarvice)
a. Estimated date ia»i used (mo/yr)
b. Estimated cuantity of suostance remaining (gal)
c. Mark Qox a if lank was tilled with inert material
(e g.. sand, concrete)
/
/
? An
/
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CT-1
EPA Farm 7330-1 (lt.&S) Rmm
A R 3 fl ii 8_lS
tuA
-------
PART 2
Post Closure Plan
fl R 3 0 £» 8 36
9XSXiKnKI
-------
PREPAREDNESS, PREVENTION AND
CONTINGENCY (PPC> PLAN FOR
WASTE MANAGEMENT OP PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
SHARPSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
RR3DU837
-------
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The River Road Landfill, located in Hermitage and South Pyma-
tuning Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania, is situated north
of the city of Sharon, Pennsylvania on the northern bank of the
Shenango River (see Exhibit II). The facility comprises approx-
imately 102 acres, of which, only 37.5 acre? were permitted for
landfill operations.
Originally developed in the early 1960's, tha site was
acquired by Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WMI) in August
of 1980. It was operated as a municipal landfill until May 31,
1936, at which time closure operations began. The closure activi-
ties were completed on September 30, 1987. The landfill consists
primarily of municipal wastes with lesser amounts of commercial
and demolition wastes. Leachate generated by the landfill is col-
lected and discharged, by agreement with the Upper Shenango Valley
Water Pollution Control Authority (USVWPCA), to the sewer inter-
ceptor which parallels the Shenango River.
DESCRIPTION OP EXISTING EMERGENCY RBSPONSE PLAN(S)
A Plan of Operation was submitted February 13, 198J, as part
of a Solid Waste Disposal Facility Permit application which was
approved and issued (Permit No. 100019) by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (PA DER), Bureau of Solid
Waste. Management on November 30, 1984. Permit documents, including
the USVWPCA agreements, are included in this report as Appendix C.
In response to special condition No. 18 of this permit, a Contin-
gency Plan for Leachate Handling was submitted to the Department
on December 27, 1984. The contingency plan has been incorporated
into this PPC Plan, which supersedes the original submission.
An Environmental Monitoring Plan was prepared by Dames &
Moore and submitted to WMI on October 17, 1986. This plan is
intended for use by sampling personnel and is a compilation of
groundwater monitoring information. A copy of this plan will be
kept at rhe site as a reference source.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Exhibit III is an internally structured chain of command for
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. The titles and home phone
numbers of key personnel are included on this chart.
AR30I+838
-------
I SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7 1/2' SHARPSVILLE QUADRANGLE, PR 1970
IsCALE: 1" - 2000'
T37T
rr
vs % ry .<*
'•»
. •/' s 0 \u- \ T
( as
j m . ¦¦ j(
e.yv ¦ ..vc
J J 1 iK . ''/VT^PROPERTY BOUNDARY
f VM V /^Jr1 -IT'
* Sbr •>% ....i
--/*
a
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF DISPOSAL
U
:K "W
*
EXIBTT II
ocacion Map
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.
River Road Landfill
City of Hermitage,S.Pvmaruning Tvp.,Mercer Co
\7 TODD GIDDINGS and
ASSOCIATES, INC
= HYOROGEOLOGISTS and ENGINEERS
3049 Enterprise Drive. State College. PA iMOt
AR30U839
-------
EXHIBIT III
Organizational Structure Chart
River Road Landfill
Bill Gresham
f 3 L3 ) 827-7670
WMNA Northern
Regional
Monitoring
Coordinator
Alt. Emerg. Coord.
Maintenance
Supervisor
Bob Brogden
W (814) 825-3589
H (814) 864-2379
Kirk Gorniak
W (814) 825-8588
H (814) 82S-2361
Emergency Coord.
Site Manager
Bob Heitman
<215) 736-2000
WMNA Eastern
District
Engineer
(To be assigned)
Local Site
Security
Contractor
WMNA Eastern
District
Engineering
Manager
vito Galante
215) 736-2000
Ben Victory
(609) 298-9063
WMNA Eastern
District
Landf ill
Manager
Dennis Grimm
(215) 736-2000
WMNA Eastern
District
Manager
WMNA » Waste Management of North America, Inc.
AR30ls8ijQ
-------
Mr. Gorniak, along with the district and regional personnel,
will have responsibility for maintaining the PPC Plan through peri-
odic review and evaluation. This t^view should include inspection
and monitoring programs, reporting piocedures, coordination of emer-
gency activities, and effectiveness oi traj .ing and educational
programs. As a minimum, this review nust jccur when:
•1. Applicable Department regulations are revised;
•2. The Plan fails in an emergency;
•3. The installation changes in its design, construction,
operation, maintenance, or other circumstances, in a
manner that materially increases the potential for
fires, explosions or releases of toxic or hazardous
constituents; or which changes the response neces-
sary In an emergency;
•4. The list of emergency coordinators changes;
•5. The li^t of emergency equipment changes; or
-6. As otherwise required by the Department.
MATERIALS AND WASTE INVENTORY
River Road Landfill consists mainly of municipal wastes with
lesser amounts of residual and demolition wastes. By-products of
a landfill waste disposal system include leachate and landfill
gases. The leachate is sampled quarterly with results of the
analysis sent to the USVWPCA office in Sharpsville, PA. Landfill
gases, primarily methane, may accumulate within manholes and con-
fined structures on-site. However, migration of landfill gases
ot'f-site is not anticipated.
SPILL AND LEAK PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
Downward migration of leuchate is prevented by the low perme-
ability till underlying the site. Therefore, the primary leachate
flow direction is from the base of the landfill towards the Shenango
River. An underground clay dike has been constructed between the
landfill and the river to prevent leachate from entering the ground
water or the river. A leachate collection system has been installed
upgradient of the dike, a.€ the base (toe) of the landfill (see sheet
2 of 3>. A perforated/solid PVC piping network intercepts and
directs the leachate flow to manholes and ultimately to lift sta-
tion No. 1. A submersible pump delivers the leachate, through a
metering device, to the sewer interceptor owned by the USVWPCA.
2-i
AR30U8UI
-------
Extending above th«Tsurface of the landfill are numerous PVC
pipe risers which indicate the location of the existing leachate
collection lines. The risers at the base of the landfill locate
the main collection lines while the risers situated above the base
of the landfill locate the existing fingerlines. These finger lines
were installed to collect and convey leachate that had surfaced on
the landfill as a seep. The risers permit convenient access to
the existing piping network in the event that a seep should appear
in the future.
Additional protection has also been designed into the system
with the installation (in lift station No. 1) of dual identical
pumps on alternating control circuitry. Back-up equipment, such
as portable generators, spare pumps, or tankers for off-site
disposal, are readily available from Lake View Landfill (WMI) or
local suppliers. A valve and cam-lock hose connector has been
installed between lift station No. 1 and the metering box for
quick access should the USVWPCA sewer interceptor be unavailable
for leachate disposal. Sheet 3 of 3, enclosed, shows details of
the existing leachate collection and control systems.
INSPECTION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Site inspections will be conducted by WMI personnel familiar
with the site. Inspections will be conducted on a monthly basis
through December. 19tf7 and quarterly thereafter. These site inspec-
tions will include visual examination of drainageway3, slopes, sedi-
mentation ponds, vegetative cover and security fencing and will
insure proper operation and maintenance of pumping equipment and
alarm systems. The site manager, Mr. Gorniak, will schedule the
requited maintenance activities utilizing personnel and equipment
from Lake View Landfill.
Leachate flow from lift station No. 1 to the USVWPCA sewer
interceptor is constantly monitored by a flow control system. Main
components of the system include an in-line flowmeter, a program-
able flow controller and a direct connect modem. A seven day cir-
cular chart recorder has been installed as a backup system. Flow
metering calibration will be conducted annually by the manufac-
turer's representative. Details of the flow control system are
included in Appendix D, "Leachate Monitoring Program" and sheet 3
of 3 of the enclosed drawings.
Ground water and gas monitoring programs will be conducted on
a quarterly basis and are detailed in Appendices E and F respec-
tively. Gas probe and monitoring well locations are shown on
sheet 2 of 3 included herein.
AR30U8U2
-------
SECURITY
A chainlink fence, topped with barbwire encloses the landfill
on the north, east and west sides and terminates at the Shenango
River to the south. Two monitoring wells situated outside of this
perimeter have also been enclosed by chainlink fencing. Locked
gates allow access to these wells for sampling purposes. Locking
dual swing gates at the main access road allow for authorized
vehicular entry. All applicable gates, buildings, manholes and
well caps are fitted with keyed alike, all-weather locks. A key
control list follows:
Organization
waste Management of Penna.,
Inc. - Lake View Landfill
Contact Person
Xirk Gorniak
Bob Brogden
Phone Number
(814) 825-8588
Waste Management of North
America, Inc. - Ea3ttfrn
District Office
Bob Heitman
(215) 736-2000
Penn Power
Hermitage Volunteer Fire
Department
Jim Sull (412) 962-7831
Robert Goeltz (412) 342-0669
ADT Securities Systems, Inc.
Jim Moody
(216) 744-1159
EXTERNAL FACTORS
While power outage is certainly possible, steps have been
taken to minimize a substantial delay of service. According to
Penn Power Company, the incoming service line (single phase, 120/
240 volts) provides primary service which has the highest degree
of service reliability. The alarm system on site has been wired
into the incoming power line through the use of a normally closed
relay. Should there be any disruption of incoming power, the
alarm will be activated and the appropriate people notified. In
the event of a significant power disruption, a portable generator
is available from Lake View Landfill or may be rented from local
suppliers such as The Ohio Machinery Co., 4000 Lake Park Road,
Youngstewn, Ohio.
2-6
AR30lt8U3
-------
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEMS
An automatic alarm system has been installed to constantly
monitor lift stations No. 1 and No. 2. The system is activated,
through normally open or normally closed relays, by any of the
following scenarios:
• Loss of incoming power
• Mechanical failure of a pump motor
• Breach of a pump motor seal
• High level float is engaged by rising leachate level
Once activated, the system initiates an alarm circuit at the
Youngstown, Ohio office of ADT Securities Systems Inc. Personnel
on duty at the office, 24 hours a day, are then responsible for
notifying the emergency coordinators that an alarm situation
exists.
EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAM
waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. has an active and
ongoing employee training program that deals with all aspects of
landfill operations including leachate handling, manhole entry anc
emergency procedures. Monthly safety meetings between personnel
and their supervisors are held to review existing safety pro-
visions and to introduce new measures. Training meetings are held
quarterly for supervising personnel.
EMERGENCY COORDINATORS
The primary emergency coordinator is Kirk Gorniak, Site
Manager. The alternate emergency coordinator will be Bob Brogden,
Maintenance Supervisor. Mr. Gorniak shall be responsible for
coordinating all emergency response measures if and when an
incident occurs. The proper response measures shall include the
following:
1. Notify the emergency response agencies
2. Identify the problem
3. Stabilize the situation
4. Assess the possible health or environmental hazards
5. Provide adequate monitoring
Appendix G gives further examples of the emergency coordin-
ator's duties and responsibilities as stated in the PA DER Guide-
lines for the Development and Implementation of Preparedness,
Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plans.
AR30U8UU
-------
AGENCIES TO BE NOTIFIED
The following list of agencies must be contacted in the event
of an emergency:
Agencies
PA. D.E.R.
PA. Fish
Ccmnission
Mercer County
Dept. of health
l£per Shanango
Valley Water
Pollution Control
Authority
bhenango valley
Water Ccrpany
Hermitage Volunteer
Fire Department
Police
State Police
Location
Meadville
Franklin Office
Cochranton
Sharon
Meadville''.
Sharpsville
Sharon Plant
Hermitage
Hermitage
South Pymatuning
Mercer
Contact Person
Telephone
Number
Russell Crawford 814/724-8526
Cloyd Hollen
Walter Lazusky
(nights/weekends)
Pernard Scully
Eric Buzza
Robert Goeltz
81-4/437-5774
814/425-7562
412/983-5150
814/336-6920
412/962-5331
412/347-7418
412/981-8100
412/981-4671
412/962-7844
412/662-4200
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONTRACTORS AND EQUIPMENT
Emergency personnel and equipment such as submersible pumps,
portable generators or self-contained breathing apparatus are
available from Lake View Landfill Erie, PA. (814/825-858?/. ucvid
Construction, West Middlesex, ?A. (412/342-6811 ) or Robert Ferric'-
Construction, Erie, PA. (814/864-2428) have the capability to
supply excavation equipment, if needed. Vacuum trucks and/or tank
trucks are available from Warren Sanitary Service, Hartford, Ohio
(216/744-0902) .
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AGENCIES AND HOSPITALS
The following is a list of facilities which shall be avail-
able for injuries or accidents:
1. Sharon General Hospital 412/983-3911
2. Shenango Valley Medical Center 412/981-3500
3. Gold Cross Ambulance Service 412/981-3900
2-8
fl R30^8l*5
-------
APPENDIX C
PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS
-------
Uppar Shanango Vallay Watar Pollueloa
Control Authority
Industrial Vasca Discharge Panic
AR30l»8U7
-------
UTPEfc SHENANGO VALLEY WATER POLLUTION CO:.TROL A_TnO?.IT7
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT
Permit No. 001
In accordance with all terms and conditions of the
Industrial Sewer Use Rules and Regulations of the Upper
Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority, and any
applicable provisions of the State and Federal pretreatment
regulations; permission is hereby granted to:
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.
24SO River*Road
Sharpsville, Pennsylvania 16150 ,
to discharge from River Road Landfill
Municipality of Hermitage
Mercer County, Pennsylvania
to t.he Authority's 18-inch diameter main interceptor along
the north shore of the Shenango River at Manhole No. 19.
This permit is granted in accordance with the permit
application filed on February 10 , 19 82 , and in
conformance with plans, specifications and other data sub-
mitted to the Authority in support of the aforementioned
OO
application, all of vhich are filed with and considered part
of this permit, together with the following conditions and 00
requirements contained herein- CD
CO
Effective this lst day of 19 83 «r
Tc expire the l5t day of 19 96
Chairman If
Upper Shenango Valley Water
Pollution Control Authority
Page l of 9
-------
Permit No.
001
SECTION I - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Discharge Limitations
A. The maximum daily quantity of effluent discharged
to the sanitary sewer system shall not exceed
19,500 gallons per day (gpd).
B. The quality of the wastewater div harged at a rate
of 19,S00 gpd shall be as follows:
4
PARAMETER
MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
CONCENTRATION
MAXIMUM DISCHAi
LOADING
Total Cyanide
0.10 mg/1
0.016
lb/day
Arsenic
0.70 vg/1
0.114
lb/day
Barium
1.00 mg/1
0.163
lb/day
Cadmium
0.20 mg/1
0.032
lb/day
Total Chromium
1.00 mg/1
0.163
lb/day
Copper
0.70 mg/1
0.114
lb/day
Lead
0.30 mg/1
0.049
lb/day
Mercury
0.08 mg/1
0.013
lb/day
Nickel
1.0 mg/1
0.163
lb/day
Selenium
0.10 mg/1
0.016
lb/day
Silver
• 0.80 mg/1
0.130
lb/day
Zinc
1.0 mg/1
0.163
lb/day
PCB'S
Detectable Limit*
For any flow rate of less than 19,500 gpd, the
quality of the wastewater discharge may exceed the
maximum discharge concentration specified above
provided that the calculated loading based on
monthly average daily discharge flow during the
sampling period is less than the maximum discharge
loading specified above.
#As determined by Method 608 - Organorhlorine Pesticides
and PC3's; 40 CFR Part 136 (Federal Register Vol. 44,
No. 233, December 3, 1979).
Page _2_ 9 _
-------
Pern.it No. 001
2. Self-Monitoring Requirements
A. Interim Monitoring Requirements - During the first
12 months of operation, the permittee shall effec-
tively monitor the quantity and quality of the
wastewater discharge in accordance with the follow-
ing sampling schedule:
TYPE OF
PARAMETER
FREQUENCY
SAMPLE
Total Flow (gpd)
Continuous
PH
Monthly
Crab
BOD5 (mg/1)
Monthly
Grab
COD (reg/1)a
Monthly
Grab
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Monthly
Grab
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Monthly
Grab
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1 N)
Monthly
Grab
Nitrates + Nitrites (mg/1 N)
Monthly
Grab
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1 C)
Monthly
Grab
Total Organic Halogen (ug/1 CI)
Monthly
Grab
Chlorine Demand (mg/1 Clj)
Month.1 j
Grab
Specific Conductance (vmhos/cm)
Mon^ily
Crab
Total Cyanides (mg/1)
.'lonthly
Grab
Phenols (mg/1 PhOH)
Monthly
Grab
PCB's (vg/1)
Monthly
Grab
Arsenic (mg/1 As)
Monthly
Grab
Barium (mg/1 Ba)
Monthly
Grab
Cadmium (mg/1 Cd)
Monthly
Grab
Copper (mg/1 Cu)
Monthly
Grab
Total Chromium (mg/1 Cr)
Monthly
Grab
Lead (mg/1 Pb)
Monthly
Grab
Mercury (mg/1 Hg)
Monthly
Grab
Nickel (mg/1 Ni)
Monthly
Grab
Zinc (mg/1 2n)
Monthly
Grab
Selenium (mg/1 Se)
Monthly
Grab
Silver (mg/1 Ag)
Monthly
Grab
Iron (mg/1 Fe)
Monthly
Grab
O
CO
QC
Page 3 of 9
-------
Perir.it No.
001
B. Subsequent Monitoring Requirements - After the
first 12 months of operation, the permittee shall
effectively monitor the quantity and quality of
the wastewater discharge in accordance with the
following sampling schedule or as hereafter
amended pursuant to the Agreement of the Authority
and the permittee dated March lf 1993:
TYPE OF
PARAMETER
FREQUENCY
SAMPLE
Total Flow (gpd)
Continuous
PH
Quarterly
Grab
BOD$ (mg/1)
Quarterly
Grab
COD (mg/1)
Quarterly
Grab
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Quarterly
Grab
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Quarterly
Grab
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1" N)
Quarterly
Grab
Nitrates + Nitrites (mg/1 N}
Quarterly
Grab
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1 C)
Quarterly
Grab
Total Organic Halogen (vg/1 Cl)
Quarterly
Grab
Chlorine Demand (mg/1 Clj)
Quarterly
Grab
Specific Conductance (wmhos/cm)
Quarterly
Grab
Total Cyanides (mg/1)
Quarterly
Grab
Phenols (mg/1 PhOB)
Quarterly
Grab
PCB*s (ug/1)
Quarterly
Grab
Arsenic (mg/1 As)
Quarterly
Grab
Barium (mg/1 Ba)
Quarterly
Grab
Cadmium (mg/1 Cd)
Quarterly
Grab
Copper (mg/1 Cu)
Quarterly
Orab
Total Chromium (mg/1 Cr)
Quarterly
Grab
Lead (mg/1 Pb)
Quarterly
Grab
Mercury (mg/1 Hg)
Quarterly
Grab
Nickel (mg/1 Ni)
Quarterly
Grab
Zinc (mg/1 Zn)
Quarterly
Grab
Seleniur. (mg/1 Se)
Quarterly
Grab
Silver (mg/1 Ag)
Quarterly
Grab
Iron {mg/1 Fe)
Quarterly
Grab
LO
CO
J?
o
CO
oz
«X
Page
of
-------
Permit No.
001
C. Sample: and measurements taken as required herein
shall be representative of the volume and nature
of the monitored parameter. Samples should be taken
on days when the discharge flow is equal to, or
greater than, the monthly average daily discharge
flow for the preceding month whenever possible.
Wastewater samples shall be collected from the
monitoring manhole installed between the leachate
pump station and the interceptor sewer.
D. All sampling and analyses shall be performed in
accordance with procedures established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to
Sectiop 304 (g) of the Clean Water Act and con-
tained in 40 CFR Part 136, as amended, and are
subject to approval by the Authority.
CVI
LO
00
J*
o
CO
cc
*d
Page 5 o? _9
-------
Penr.it No.
C01
3. Reporting Requirements
The permittee is required to submit to the Authority
the monitoring data required by Item 2 of the Special
Conditions of the permit. Monitoring data/ total daily
flows, and the monthly average daily flow shall be
summarized in a monthly discharge monitoring report to
be submitted to the Authority. A discharge monitoring
report, properly completed and signed by an authorized
representative of the permittee, oust be submitted
within 30~days after the end of each monthly reporting
period. The discharge monitoring report must be sent
directly to the Authority's office at the following
address: ,
Opper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control
Authority
94 East Shenango Street
Sharpsville, Pennsylvania 16150
4. The terms and conditions of this permit and any renewal
hereof shall be subject to and governed by the Agree-
ment entered into between the Authority and Waste
Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., dated March 1, 1983.
5. This permit shall be renewable upon application of the
permittee or its successor in interest; provided at
the time the application is submitted the service shall
not be suspended by the Authority, in which event the
permit shall be renewable upon the curing of the condi-
tions for which the service was suspended.
6. In the event there is any conflict between the terms
of the permit and the Agreement dated March 1, 198 3,
the Agreement shall govern. ^
OO
-3-
O
CO
oc
*x
Page 6 of
-------
Perr.it No.
001
SECTION II - GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. All wastes discharged under the terms of this permit
shall be amenable to treatment by the Authority's
existing treatment facilities.
2. The Authority i6 not responsible for the removal of
non-biogradable constituents contributed by the per-
mittee, and their subsequent discharge to the Shenango
River. If such discharge is in violation of present or
future requirements of either the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources or the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the permittee shall be
responsible for removal of said constituents prior to
discharge!to the Authority's sewer system.
3. All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent
with the terms and conditions of this permit and any
applicable special agreement.
4. Any changes in the activities of the permittee's opera-
tions or anticipated expansion and/or modification of
the permittee's facilities, that will alter the volume
and/or characteristics of the waste discharge authorized
by this permit must be reported to the Authority.
Modifications to this permit may then be made to
reflect any necessary changes in permit conditions,
including any necessary effluent limitations for any
pollutants not identified or limited herein.
5. In the event that either the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency or the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources shall establish effluent standards or
pretreatment requirements (including any schedule of
compliance) for a pollutant which is present in the
permittee's discharge, and such stzndard or requirement
is more stringent than any condition imposed by this
permit; this permit shall be revised or modified in
accordance with such standard or requirement and the
permittee shall be notified.
6. Future limi-ations required of the Authority and/or
the Sharon Sewage Treatment Plant by either the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources or
the United States Environmental Protection Ager.cy shall
be cause for changing the terms and/or conditions of
this permit.
Page 7 of 9
A R 3 f» fi Q c; I,
-------
Permit No.
001
7. Industrial waste surcharges far excess BODj and sus
pended solids shall be in accordance with Article V l
of the Authority's Joint Sewer System Rules and Reg
lations. After the end of each fiscal year, the
Authority will calculate the surcharge rates for th;
preceding year based on actual costs for the preced.ng
year. When this computation has been made, the sur-
charge billing for the preceding year will be adjus:ed
by crediting or additional charge, as the case may ae.
The adjusted surcharge rates will then be used for
surcharge billing during the current fiscal year.
8. The permittee shall allow the Authority and/or their
authorized representatives, upon the presentation of
credentials:
ft
(a) To enter at reasonable times upon the permittee's
premises where the discharge source is located or
in which any records are required to be kept uider
the terms end conditions of this permit;
(b? To have access to end copy at reasonable times my
records required to be kept under the terms and
conditions of this permit;
(c) To inspect at reasonable times any monitoring
equipment or monitoring method required in this
permit; or,
(d) To sample at reasonable times any discharge of
pollutants.
9. If for any reason the permittee does not comply with o*
will be unable to comply with any effluent limitation
specified in this permit, or should any unusual,
accidental spill, or extraordinary discharge of wastes
occur from the facilities herein permitted, the per-
mittee shall immediately notify the Authority and the
Sharon Sewage Treatment Plant by telephone at
(412) 34aS-3339, and provide the Authority with the
following information in writing within five days of
such notification:
(a) A description of the non-complying discharge
including its location, nature# ccuse, duration,
quantity of flow, and impact upon the sewage
treatment systsm.
Page 8 of 9_
&R30U855
-------
Permit No.
001
(b) Cause of non-compliance.
(c) Anticipated time the condition of non-compliance
is expected to continue or if such condition has
been corrected* the duration of the period of non-
compliance.
(d) Steps taken by the permittee to reduce and elimi-
nate the non-complying discharge.
(e) Steps"to be taken by the permittee to prevent
recurrence of the condition of non-compliance.
10. 2n the event of any change in control or ownership of
facilities from which the authorized discharge eman-
ates, the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner
or controller of the existence of this permit by
letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the
Authority. Any succeeding owner or controller must
apply for a new permit and comply with the terras and
conditions of this permit until a new perwit is granted.
11. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude
the institution of any legal action, nor relieve the
permittee from any responsibilities or liabilities
established by any applicable Authority Rules and
Regulations, any applicable state and federal regula-
tions, or any Special Agreement(s) between the Authority
and the permittee.
Page 9 of _9
AR30U856
-------
AGREEMENT
THIS AGMSHEWT made and entered into this 1st day of Hatch
1983, by ard between
UPPER SBENMCO VALLEY VMER POLLUTION (DSTXtt. AOTBORItt,
an authority organized and existing under the lavs of the
CorroRwealth of Pennsylvania, with its office at 94 East
Shenango Street, Sharpsville, Pennsylvania 16150,
hereinafter referred to as the "Authority",
MO
WSTS KK9CEKSST OP PENNSYLVANIA, IMC., formerly known as
ERIE DISPOSAL GO., a Pennsylvania corporation with offices
at P.O. Box 9, 2450 River Road, Shaxpsville, Pennsylvania 16150,
hereinafter referad to as the "Contractor".
WITNESSETH:
HKEKSnS, the Contractor presently conducts a landfill cperation on
land owned ty it situate in the Municipality of Bermitaee, formerly
Hictory Tcwnship, Mercer County, Pennsylvania; and
VHESEAS, the Authority owns and operates an interceptor sewer vhich
traverses the property of the Contractor; and
WESSAS, the Contractor has requested permission to tap into the
interceptor sewer of the Authority fcr the piztcse of discharging
leachate £rcn its landfill operation into suci interceptor seuer for
transportation to and treatment at the Sharon, Pennsylvania, sewage
treatment plant; ard
KHEKIAS, as one of the considerations for an easentent to construct
aid maintain said interceptor sewer across Contractor's property, by
AR3QU857
-------
right-of-^ay agreement between Joseph David, Jr., et *1., predecessors in
title of the Contractor, and the Authority dated July 15, -1974, the
Authority agreed to provide one connection on the interceptor sever line
to accomodate a future tap on such sever line for the discharge of
leachate from said landfill operation but with the right to discharge
such leachate being subject to the approval of the Ccnronwealth of
Pennsylvania/* the City of Sharon, the Sharon Sanitary Authority, the
Borough of Sharpsville and the Tevnships of Hickory and South Pyttatming;
VHEREAS, the Hater Quality Management Permit for such interceptor
sewer, issued June 25, 1971, by the Department of Environmental Resources
to the Township of South Pymatuning, the tomhip of Hickory ard the
Borough of Sharpsville, which permit remains in the nare of these three
municipalities, provides as one of its conditions, as follows:
"Attention is directed to the necessity of having a qualified
person rake proper study of all industrial waste proposed for
discharge into the public sewer systaa, to detecnine the degree
of preliminary treatment, if any, viuc±> is necessary before these
wastes n*f be discharged into said systeo.
"No industrial wastes shall be disdiarged into the sewer system
vhidi will prejudicially affect the sewerage structures or their
functioning, or the processes of sewage treatment, and any
permission granted by the permittee for industrial wastes
disdiarged into the sewer system should reserve to the pesnictee
the right to regulate the rate of such discharge or to require
such further preliminary treatment as may be necessary, or the
exclusion of the said industrial wastes frcre sewers, i£ this be
deemed necessary to protect the permittee's interests."; and
BR3GU858
-------
WHEREAS, the City of Sharon, as operator of the Sharon treatment
plant, is the permittee of the NPDES permit for said plant; and
WHEREAS, the Authority's consulting engineer has advised the
Authority that the analyses of the constituents of the leadiate submitted
to it by the consulting engineer for Contractor including the socles
analysed in its report dated October 24, 1980, and the analyses of
additional seiples submitted on March 26, 1982, and sarnies taken by the
Authority's consulting engineer on Karch 17, 1982 do not indicate thr
»
presence of constituents at a level that would affect adversely the
biological processes at the Sharon swage treatment plant; and
WHEREAS, the Authority's consulting engineer has also advised the
Authority that the foregoing analyses and sailings nay not be
representative in quality or quantity of the constituents that may be
discharged into the sewer system in the event the leadiate is permitted
to be discharged into the system; and
WHEREAS, the Authority's consulting engineer has rscamended to the
Authority that in the event it permits a t^> into the interceptor sewer
to serve the Contractor's landfill operation, the Authority reserve the
right to disconnect the tap-in or otherwise cause suspension of
wastewater treatment services to be accomplished upon the occurrence of
those events mentioned in paragraph 3 hereinbelovj and
WHEREAS, the Authority is willing to permit a to into the sewer
systen subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned,
BR30U859
-------
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound
hereby, agree as follows:
(1} The Contractor is hereby granted the right to tap into the
interceptor sewer at Authority Manhole No. 19, subject to the following
terms and conditions:
(a) The landfill operation shall be oonfined to the present
-operating site, unless the Pennsylvania Department of
Environnental Resources hereafter oonsents in writing to
the use by the Contractor of additional lard for its
l&reJfill operation, and provided, further, that the use of
the additional land Is in accordance with all applicable
local laws;
(b) to hazardous waste, as that tem is now or hereafter
defined by either federal or state 1 aw or regulation,
shall knowingly or negligently be deposited on the
landfill site, and no hazardous waste, so defined, shall
be discharged into the interceptor sewer;
33#
~ri
^ (c) So long as this agrccrant retains in effect, the
c
-p-
co
crt Department of Environnental Resources ("CER") or any
Contractor shall have authorization frcm the Pennsylvania
successor state agency, and any other authorisations now
or hereafter required by any state or federal agency to
conduct its landfill operation, and it shall at all times
be in substantial caipliance with the terra and conditions
of such \ithorization(s).
-------
(d) The flow per day of leachate into the interceptor sewer
shall not exceed 19,500 gallons except with the written
permission of the Authority.
(e) tte Contractor shall install and keep properly maintained
a strip chart recorder at a location and of the type
satisfactory to the consulting engineer of the Authority
that will measure continuously the flow of the leachate
discharged frcra the landfill into the interceptor sewer.
*
The Contractor shall cause the strip chart recorder to be
checked for accuracy at least once every year by a
qualified technician acceptable to the Authority's and
Contractor's consulting engineers and who shall furnish to
the Authority a certificate as to its accuracy, lhe
Authority may at any reasonable tire examine the
strip-chart recorder to determine its readings.
(f) The Contractor shall install and maintain a na.-.kDle
between the leachate put? station, row located at the
site, and the interceptor sewer, at a point clcse to the
interceptor sever to be used for the taking o£ samples to
test the leachate quality. During the first year of
operation, the Contractor at its cost shall tske samples
once a ircnth and shall have the scales promptly tested by
a laboratory certified by DER or EPA for the constituents
set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and r-ade a part
hereof. Reports shall be submitted monthly ty the
rr30U86>
-------
Contractor to the Authority within 30 days oC the end of
the sampling period which will indicate the leachete
Characteristics of the samples taken during the preceding
30-day sampling period, the flow volume per day for that
period and the nonthly average daily flow for that period.
The sampling period shall end on the last day of the
~ calendar month in vhich the samples are taken.
The Authority may take samples during the business
* hours of the Contractor at the aforementioned monitoring
manhole and have the samples tested by an independent
testing laboratory certified by OCR or EPA. Contractor
shall be entitled to split samples and the Authority shall
furnish a copy of the report of its samplings to the
Contractor. For the purpose of taking the samplings the
Authority shall engage the services of its consulting
engineer or other qualified person. The cost of soch
additional sampling and testing conducted by the Authority
shall be at the cost of the Authority; except that in the
event the cost of any sample of any of the patenters set
forth in Exhibit "A" hereof exceeds the Contractor's
monthly service rate under paragraph 2(a) hereof,
Contractor shall reimburse the Authority for such excess.
After the first year of operation the Contractor
shall take samples and test, at its cost, for the
parameters set forth in Exhibit "A" at a frequency to be
determined by the consulting engineer of the Authority,
UR30U862
-------
whose decision shall be based on reasonable ground*, but
not irore frequently than quarterly, except that th«
Authority, upon the recommendation of its consulting
engineer, which is based on reasonable grounds, may
require the Contractor to senple and test, at Contractor's
cost* on a more frequent basis, not to exceed ronthly, for
~any particular parameter or parameters for vhich more
frequent sanpllng may be reasonably necessary. Exanples
%
of circumstances in vMch such more frequent sanpllng may
be reasonably necessary shall include, but not be limited
to, the following:
(i) In the event pcetreatnent is initiated mder the
terms hereof, the Contractor may be required to
sample and test the parameter or parameter* being
pretreated on a more frequent basis.
(ii) For purposes of the application of the Authority's
industrial surcharge rates, monthly monitoring may
be required.
(iii) Any other circumstances vftere in the judgment of
the consulting engineer, whose decision is based
on reasonable grounds, additional sampling is
necessary.
Reports of the samplings taken after the first year of
operation shall be submitted by the Contractor to the
Authority within thirty (30) days of the end of the
sampling period indicating the aforementioned leadiate
RR30W863
-------
characteristics. Fbr these purposes, the sanpling period
shall end on the last day of the quarter, or such other
calendar period (whether trore or less frequent than
quarterly) as determined in accordance with the above.
However, a nonthly report shall also be subnittaJ to the
Authority by the Contractor showing the Claw volume per
day and the average daily flow for the preceding thirty
days.
(g) la addition to the sampling required of the Contractor in
subparagraph (f), aid notwithstanding any language in that
subparagraph that may appear to be to the contrary, the
Authority may, *3ased on the recommendation of its
consulting engineer, require the Contractor at its cost to
to tate up to four additional samples during any given
year and furnish reports thereof to the Authority. Before
the Authority may exercise its rights under this
subparagraph (g) it shall furnish the Contractor with
written notice on each occasion stating the reasons why
such sampling and testing are deened necessary.
(h) 7ne Authority nay, upon prior written notice to the
Contractor stating the reasons therefor, require the
Contractor to include in the analyses required hereinabove
such other leachate Aaracteristics as the Authority fran
tine to time may determine, based on the recommendation of
its consulting engineer as reasonably necessary for
reasons related to the operation of the interceptor sewer,
the treatment plant or tx ®atinent plant sludge.
HR30U861*
-------
(i) The Authority shall have the right, upon reasonable prior
written notice to thr Contractor, to have three of the
nonthly samples required during the first year and two of
the sanples required i/> any year thereafter taken by a
qualified person of its designation and tested at a DER or
EPA certified laboratory for the constituents specified
herein. For those sampling periods for %bich the
Authority exercises this right. Contractor shall net be
required to sanple or submit a report on the leachate
constituents; however, Contractor shall report orb the flow
volim as required herein and Shall reiirburse the
Authority for the reasonable costs of taking and analyzino
the samples as aforesaid.
(2) The Contractor shall pay to the Authority, quarterly or nonthly
as the Authority shall deteonine, for the privilege of discharging its
leachate into the interceptor sewer, the following:
(a) The rate Luposed by the Authority as a transportation ard
normal treatment charge which currently is $7.00 per ESQ
(Equivalent Domestic Unit) per itonth. Each 350 gallons of
flowage per day shall be regarded as one EDU;
(b) A surcharge industrial rate imposed by the Authority as
determined in accordance with Article VII of the Joint
Sewer Rules and Regulations of the Authority.
(3) The Authority, upon the happening ot certain events as
hereinafter provided, may suspend the wastewater u-eatment services to
AR30U865
-------
the Contractor. The following shall constitute the grourds upon whidi
the Authority may disconnect the hook-up or by reasonable rears otherwise
suspend the wastewater treatment service, in the event of shich the
Authority shall provide twenty-four (24) hours aJvance written notice to
the Contractor stating the reasons therefor:
(a) Whenever the maxunxn level of any constituent as set forth
"In the leaehate specifications prepared by The Chester
Engineers (Exhibit "A* hereto), as now existing or as
hereafter amended, is exceeded in two consecutive
samplings during-any year arri the Authority determines,
upon the recommendation of its consulting engineer, vbose
decision is based on reasonable grounds, that the
continued discharge of leaehate will have a prejudicial
effect on the interceptor sewer, pumping station
structures, treatment plant structures or the process of
sewage treatment (collectively, the "sewerage systen");
(b) Whenever the flow per day into the interceptor sewer
exceeds 19,500 gallons, except where the Authority has
previously consented in writing to the excess flowage;
(c) whenever the Authority determines, upon reccrrendation of
its consulting engineer, vhose decision is based on
reasonable grounds, that the continued dirjharge of
leaehate will have a prejudicial effect on the sewerage
system;
ftR30U866
-------
(d) Upon the failure of Contractor to pay any proper rate
billing from the Authority within the time provided by the
Authority to its customers for payment thereof or to
comply with the sanpling or reporting schedule set forth
herein; provided that no suspension of service shall take
place under this subparagraph 3(d) unless and until the
Authority has afforded the Contractor ten days frcn
receipt of written notice of any deficiency hereunder to
cure saae and Contractor has failed to do so. In the
event of a disconnection or suspension under this
subparagraph, the Authority shall reconnect Contractor and
resume service to the Contractor at such tire as
Contractor's deficiency is corrected.
(e) In the event the continued discharge of leachate'is
causing contamination of the sludge and hindering or
making more costly to the City of Sharon the disposition
of the sludge either at the sewage treatment plant or at
the site to which the sludge is hauled.
In the went of the disconnection by the Authority of the took-up
or cessation by other roeir.s of the wastewater treatment service based on
the occurrence of any of the afor mentioned events described in
subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) or (e) of this paragraph 3, the Authority
shall reconnect the hook-up or resume service, at the reasonable cost, if
any, of the Contractor, at such time as the Contractor has demonstrated
AR30U867
-------
to the consulting engineer of the Authority that the continued discharge
of legate will not exceed the leachate specifications (as to
subparagraph (a)] or flow limitations (as to subparagraph (b)], or
prejudicially affect the sewerage systera [as to subparagraph (c)], or
contaminate the sludge and hinder or make sore costly its disposition [as
to subparagraph (e}}. Determinations required to be made by the
consulting engineer of the Authority with respect to any of the foregoing
shall be based on reasonable grounds. If the Authority's consulting
engineer shall determine, based on reasonable grounds, that pretreafcment
of the leadiate discharge is necessary to accomplish any of the
foregoing, either before or after closure of the landfill, a pretreatroent
facility shall be constructed, operated and maintained by the Contractor
to iteet specifications that the consulting engineer of the Authority
shall reasonably determine are necessary to allcw the leachate-to be
discharged into the interceptor sewer, said obligation to continue so
long as leachate is discharged into the interceptor sew&r and
pretreaoent thereof is required hereunder. The Authority, however,
reserves the right to cease receiving the discharge and to disconnect the
tap or by other means suspend the wastewater treatment service upon
reasonable notice to the Contractor after such pretreatnent facility is
placed in operation upon the occurrence of any of the events set forth in
subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) or (e) of this paragraph (3), subject to the
terms ard oorditions set forth hereinabove.
(4) The Contractor shall protect, indemnify and save harmless the
Auttwrity arri each of the participating municipalities frcm ard against
aR30U868
-------
all liability, loss, costs and expenses of any kind whatsoever, including
attorneys' fees, that the Authority or any of the participating
municipalities may incur at any time as a result of any action instituted
against them or any of then by any person, firm or corporation for
personal injury or property damage resulting principally frcm (a) the
discharge of leachate from the landfill into the interceptor sever, (b)
the transportation through the interoeptor sewer of its leachate to the
Sharon treatment plant, (c) treatment of sudi leachate at the Sharon
treatment plant, and (a) disposal of such leachate in the form of sludge
ft
thereafter. The Contractor shall procure and maintain in effect at all
times a liability insurance policy with the Authority and each of the^
participating municipalities named as insureds therein that will insure
the Authority and each of the participating nunicipalities against all
such liability, loss ard expense. Such policy shall be in the minimum
amount of $300,000.00 for injury to ave person frcn any occurrence,
$1,000,000.00 for injuries to more than one person in any occurrence, and
$50,000.00 for property damage frcm any occurrence. Such policy shall
provide that it shall not be subject to cancellation except after thirty
days' written notice to the Authority. A certificate evidencing coverage
by such insurance shall be furnished to the Authority by the Contractor
at the time of execution of this agreement.
(5) Hie Contractor does hereby agree to protect, indemnify an3 save
harmless the Authority and the City of Sharon from any loss or expense
either may incur due to injury or damage sustained to the Sharon
treatment plant or its equipment, or to the interceptor sewer or jxstp
AR30U869
-------
CD
-31
a
cn
cc
«CS
station of the Authority or its equipment caused principally by metal or
other constituents, organic or inorganic, contained in the leadiate from
the landfill operation.
(6) The Authority agrees to give Contractor notice of any claim,
I
liability# action, suit, proceeding, denand, adjustment, cost or expense ^
that nay be asserted to which paragraph (4) applies within a reasonable
time after the Authority receives notice thereof. In the event of any
action or suit to thich the Authority is a party and in which the
Contractor is not joined as a party, the Authority shall extend to the
Contractor a reasonable opportunity to consult with the Authority in
connection with the defense thereof. In uhe event the Authority fails to
comply with the terms of this paragraph, the obligations of the
Contractor as to the Authority as set forth in paragraph (4) shall be
null and void.
(7) At such time as the Contractor conrences discharging leadiate
into the interceptor sewer, the Contractor shall pay to the Authority the
sum of 52,000.00 to assist the Authority in paying The Chester Engineers,
Inc., for its services in its investigation, study, specifications for a
permit, preparation of reports and any other services it has rendered,
for which it has not heretofore reimbursed the Authority, with respect to
the request of the Contractor to discharge ieachate frcm its landfill
into the Authority's interceptor sewer and all engineering and legal
expenses the Authority has incurred in the preparation of this
agreement.
-------
(8) In the e/ent any state or federal agency at my time orders the
Authority, the City of Sharon oc any of the other participating
municipalities to require pretreatrent of the leachate frar. the landfill
operation of the Contractor and In connection therewith requires the
preparation of pre treatment regulations or specifications for such
landfill site that are nore stringent than those prescribed by the
ua consulting engineer of the Authority, the Contractor shall reimburse the
va
co Authority or the City of Sharon or the other participating municipalities
C
-P~ for all engineering and any ether expenses incurred by the "Authority or
CD
—1 by ary of these municipalities in the preparation of such regulations or'
specifications, and any ccetreatment facilities that nay be directed by
any state or federal agency to be constructed in accordance with such
regulations or specifications, shall be constructed by the Contractor in
strict accordance therewith, and the Authority shall have the right to
discontinue the connection to its interceptor sewer until such time as
such pre treatment facility has been properly constructed and ready to be
placed in operation; provided that Contractor reserves the right to
contest any such order, and to the extent that said ord»r is in any way
reversed or enjoined by any agency or court of competent jurisdiction,
the obligations and rights of this paragraph shall be null and void.
(9) Contractor agrees to include in its 9olid waste disposal bond
required by DER under the Solid Waste Management Act adequate provisions
requiring the construction, maintenance and costs of operation of a
pretreatment facility subsequent to closure of the landfill, if needed,
and for the continued maintenance and costs of operation of any
pretreatjrent facility constructed prior to closure of the landfill.
-------
(10) The Contractor agraes that After the closure of the landfill,
it will Continue to pay the rates prescribed by the Authority for the
transportation and treatment of leadiate from the landfill discharged
into the interceptor sewer, this obligation to continue 90 long as
leachate is discharged into the sewer system from the landfill site.
(11) At the tire of the execution of this agreement, the Contractor
shall furnish the written guaranty of Waste Management, Inc., a Delaware
corporation with its corporate offices at 3003 Butterfield Road, Oak
*
Brook, Illinois 60S21, of vhich the Contractor herein is a subsidiary, in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
(12) At the tine of the execution of this agreement, the Authority
shall issue a permit to the Contractor in accordance with its Rules, and
Regulations and the terms of this agreement, but no discharge shall be c\
r-
permitted into the interceptor sewer until such time as CER. and 0C
-3
Contractor have entered into a Consent Order and Agreement for the CH
c:
operation of its landfill. OS
(13) This agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and
their successors, and it shall not inure to the benefit of any other
person or entity not a party hereto, except as expressly provided herein.
This agreeMnt shall not be assigned by the Contractor without the
written consent of the Authority, nor shall it be assigned by the
Authority without the written consent of the Contractor.
(14) This agreement, including the guaranty mentioned Li paragraph
(11) hereof, shall remain in effect so long as any permit issued try the
Authority to the Contractor pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
-------
Authority remains In effect and thereafter shall remain Ln effect with
respect to all obligations of the Contractor as set forth here Ln after
the closure of the landfill.
(IS*, This agreement shall not be altered except by a writing
executed by both parties.
(16) As used herein, the phrase "consulting engineer' shall ncan a
professional engineer registered in the Connonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(17) Until written notice is given to the oontracy, all notices to
be given by either party to the other shall be given in writing and shall
be railed by registered or certified U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, return
receipt requested, to Contractor at either of the following addresses:
Mr. Robert Berry Site Manager
District Landfill Manager River Road Landfill
Waste Management, Inc. or P.O. Sox 9
933 frank Road 2450 River Road
Colistbus, Ohio 43223 Sharpsville, PA 16150
and to the Authority at the following address:
za
C-O Upper Shenango Valley Water
^ Pollution Control Authority
94 Cast Shenango Street
GO Sharpsville, Pennsylvania 16150
^ or by personal delivery of such written notice by the Authority to the
Site Manager or other person in charge of the River Road landfill, or by
personal delivery by the Contractor of such written notice to the
-------
Chalroan of the Authority; provided, however, that aoy notlee of
suspension of service shall be given by telephone, teletrta or equivalent
prompt seens whether by written or oral coasunleaelon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their properly authorixed
officers, have caused this Instrument to be executed the day and year
first above vrltten.
Attest:
UPPER SHEKASCO VALLEY UATES
POLLUTION' CONTROL AUTHORITY
(Authority)
Secretary
(SEAL)
Attest:
(SEAL)
Vice President
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA. INC
(Conu«cor) _
-------
EXHIBIT *A*
1. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
A. The maxijntn dally quantity of effluent discharged to the
sanitary sever system shall not exceed 19,500 gallons per
day (gpd).
B. Tbt quality of the wastewater discharged at the rate of
19,500 gpd'shall be as follows:
KtfXMUM DISCTARGE MAXIMUM DISOUJCE
PARMETER CCNCSffaATION (mq/1 LOADING (lbs/day 1,
Total Cyanide
0.10
0.016
Arsenic
0.70
0.114
Bariw
1.00
0.163
Cadmium
0.20
0.032
Total Chromivn
1.00
0.163
Copper
0.70
0.114
Lead
0.30
0.049
Mercury
0.08
0,013
Nickel
1.00
0.163
Selenitxa
0.10
0.016
Silver
0.80
0.130
Zinc
1.00
0.163
PCB's
r."ecta61e Limit*
For any flow rate of ler.s than 19,500 gpd, the quality of
the wastewater discharge may exceed the maximum discharge
concentration specified above provided that the calculated
loading based on the monthly average daily disdiatge flow
during the sailing period is less than the maxijun discharge
loading specified above.
*As (fctermined by Method 608 - Organodilocine Pesticides and
PCB'sr 40 CFR Part 13$ (Federal Register Vol. 44, No. 223,
December 3, 1979).
aR30U875
-------
2. SELF-HONITORDC KBQUIR&gWIS
The ronitoring data to be collected and submitted to the Authority
shall Include the following parameters vhich parameters, except for
total flow, shall be sampled by grab sacrple.
PARAMETER
Total Plow (gpd)
PB
B005 (mg/1)
COO (mg/1)
Total Suspended Solids (rrrj/l)
Total Dissolved Solids (ng/1)
Amonia Nitrogen (mg/1 N)
Nitrates ~ Nitrites (ng/1 N)
Total Organic Carbon (mg/1 C)
Total Organic Balogen (mg/1 CI)
Qilorine Demand (mg/1 C12)
Specific Conductance (unhos/ca)
Total Cyanides (mg/1)
Phenols (iiq/1 FtOH)
PCB's (ug/1)
Arsenic (mg/1 As)
Barium (mg/1 Ba)
Cadmiin (mg/1 Cd)
Copper (mg/1 Cu)
Total Chroeaim (ng/1 Cr)
Lead (mg/1 Pb)
Mercury (mg/1 Bg)
Nickel (mg/1 Ni)
Zinc (mg/1 Zn)
Selenium (mg/1 Se)
Silver (mg/1 Ag)
Iron (mg/1 Fe)
AR30U876
-------
GUARANTY
INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND HEREBY, Watte Management,
Inc., a corporation, with its office and nailing address at
3003 Butterfield Road, Oak Brook, Illinois 60521, the under-
signed, do hereby absolutely and unconditionally guarantee to
Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority, 94
%
East Shenango Street, Sharpsville, Pennsylvania 16150, (the
"Authority"), its successors and assigns, as a party to the
Agreement, dated March 1, 1983, between the Authority and
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., formerly known as
Erie Disposal Co., a Pennsylvania corporation, the perfor-
mance of all of the obligations of Waste Management of
Pennsylvania, Inc., under its said Agreement with the
Authority, the undersigned to be bound in the same manner as
if the undersigned were a party participant to the said
Agreement between the Authority and Waste Management of
Pennsylvania, Inc., dated March 1, 1983.
Upon receipt from the Authority of written notice of the
neglect or failure of Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.,
at any time or from time to time to perform any of the
obligations of said Agreement between the Authority and the
Contractor, the undersigned will promptly cause such obliga-
tions to be performed.
AR30l(877
-------
The undersigned does hereby declare that this obligation
i6 absolute and unconditional and agrees that it will not be
released by any extension of tine for the performance of any
obligation to be performed by the Contractor or by any other
matter or thing whatsoever, whereby it, as absolute guarantor
or surety, otherwise would or night be released.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this
Cuaranty to be executed by its Vice President, whose signa-
ture has been attested by its Secretary, with its corporate
a
seal hereto affixed, this 2nd day of March ,
1983.
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
(SEAL)
Vice President
N
flR30l»878
-------
ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT
THIS ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT dated torch L2 ,1995,
amending the Agreement dated March 1, 1983, by and between
UPPER SHENANGO VALLEY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
AUTHORITY (the 'Authority'),
AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.,
(the •Contractor')#
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Contractor has requested the Authority to
modify paragraph (1)
-------
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, intending, to be legally
bound hereby, agree as follows:
1. Paragraph (1)(d) of the existing agreement between
the parties dated Karch 1. 1983, is amended to read as follow
*(d) The total flow per day of leaehate
into the interceptor sewer shall not
exceed 50,000 gallons except with the
written permission of the Authority
and the discharge rate shall not
1 exceed 50 gallons per ninute (gpm)
except with the written permission
of the Authority."
2. Based on the new maximum discharge flow, the maximum
allowable discharge loadings shall also be revised, and
there shall be substituted for the maximum discharge loadings
as set forth in Exhibit 'A' of the existing agreement
dated March 1, 1983, new maximum allowable discharge loadings
as ace set forth on a sheet, also marked Exhibit "A* (Revised
2-95) hereto attached and made a part hereof.
2. Permit No. 001 heretofore granted by the Apriority ?:
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., effective March 1.
1983 and expiring March 1. 1988, is anenced by substituting
fcr existing Page 2 of 9 of this Permit, which sets icrth
Discharge Limicacisns under SECTION I - SPECIAL CCS::7IQSS.
a new Page 2 of 9 (Revised 2-S5) , a copy of which is r.ereto
attached and made a part hereof, which sets forth revised
maximum discharge loadings.
AR30U880
-------
4. From and after January 1, 1985, an EDU (Equivalent
Domestic Unit) shall mean each ISO gallons per day (gpd) of
leachate or other sewage flow, which is more consistent with
the estimated water consumption for households within the
service area, and, accordingly, Paragraph 2(a), page 9, of
the existing agreement dated March 1, 1983, is amended to
read as follows;
" (a) The rate imposed by the Authority as a
transportation and normal treatment charge,
t which currently is $7.00 per EDU (Equivalent
Domestic Unit) per month. Each ISO gal. ;?.s
of flowage por day shall be regarded as one
EDU."
5. Unless the annual certificate required under
Paragraph (1)(e) of the existing agreement dated March 1,
1983, is furnished by the date of execution of this agreement
to the Authority, the contractor shall have the flow meter
inspected, calibrated and certified to the Authority b\
qualified manufacturer's representative within thirty d^ys
of the date of execution of this agreement, and failure to
furnish such certification shall be a ground upon which
CO
the Authority nay ii3ccn.-,ect the hcokup or by reasonable 00
means otherwise suspend the wastewater treatment service ^
until such tirse as cms deficiency is corrected. Cc-
6. Paragraph lib), page 10, cf the existing ac.-eer.er.:
dated March 1, 198 3, is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Whenever the flow per d*y into the inter-
ceptor sewer exceeds 50,000 gallon., or
-------
whenever the flow per minute exceeds 50
gallons, except where the Authority has
previously consented In writing to the
excess flowage."
7. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the
existing agreement between the parties dated March 1, 1983,
during the 6 month period following the date of execution
of this addendua, the Contractor, at its cost, shall take
samples to test the leachate quality once a month and shall
have the samples promptly tested by a laboratory certified
by DER or CPA for the constituents set forth in Exhibit 'A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof. Reports shall be
submitted by the Contractor to the Authority within 30 days
of the end of the sampling period which will indicate the
leachate characteristics of the samples taken during the
preceeding 30-day sampling period, the flow volume per day
for that period and the monthly average daily flow for'that
period. The sampling period shall end on the last day of the
calendar month in which the samples are taken.
Except as expressly set forth hereinabove, the r:=hts
and obligations of the parties concerning the sa.-.pl ;r. r z:
leachate as set fsrtn in paragraphs 1 {£}, ($), (r.) , i.-.c : .*
of the existing agreement between the parties citsd
March 1, 198 3 shall be unaffected.
8. All other provisions of the existing icre*-*.".':
March 1 , 1983 and o: the existing Permit No. CO", sna.l rs~a.-
in full force and effect.
AR30U882
-------
9. The Contractor shall pay all expenses of the
Authority incurred to The Chester Engineers in considering
the request of the Contractor to increase the flowage rate of
leachate into the interceptor sewer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their properly
authorized officers, have caused this instrument to be
executed the day and year first above written.
Attest:
UPPER SHENANGO VAX LEY WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
/w Aft mAh
Secretary 7
(SEAL)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Attest:
(SEAL)
flR 30U883
-------
EXHIBIT "A"
-3"
CO
oo
-3"
CD
CO
cd
ax
Total Cyanide
o
•
H
O
mg/L
0.042
lbs/day
Arsenic
a.7o
mg/L
0.292
lbs/day
Barium
1.00
mg/L
0.417
lbs/day
Cadmiun -
0.20
mg/L
0.083
lbs/day
Total Chromium
1.00
mg/L
0.417
lbs/day
Copper
0.70
mg/L
0.292
lbs/day
Lead
0.30
mg/L
0.125
lbs/day
Mercury
0.08
mg/L
0.033
lbs/day
Nickel
1.00
mg/L
0.417
lbs/day
Selenium
0.10
mg/L
0.042
lbs/day
Silver
0.80
mg/L
0.334
lbs.'day
Zinc
1.00
mg/L
0.417
lbs/day
PCB's
Detectable Limit*
For A.-.y flow rate cf less thar. 50,000 cpd. the
quality a! the wastewater discharge xay exceed c.-.e
r.axi.-.-r discharge concentration specified a=cve
?rov:iei that the calculated loading based cr.
aor.C.'.ly average daily discharge flew during the
sancli.-.; period is less thar. the na:
-------
Permit So.
001
SECTION I - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. Discharge Limitation*
A. The maximum daily quantity of affluent discharged
to the sanitary sewer system shall not exceed
50,000 gallons per day (gpd) and the maximum dis-
charge rate shall not exceed SO gallons per minute
(gpm).
B. The quality of the wastewater discharged at a race
of 50,000 gpd shall be as follows:
PARAMETER
Total Cyanide
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
PCS's
MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
CONCENTRATION
£.10
mg/L
0.70
mg/L
1.00
mg/L
0.20
mg/L
H
•
O
o
mg/L
0.70
mg/L
0.30
mg/L
0.03
mg/L
1.00
mg/L
0.10
mg/L
0.80
sig/L
1.00
mg/L
Detectable Lixit*
MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
LOADING
0.042 lbs/day
0.292 lbs/da£
0.417 lbs/dap
0.083 lbs/day
0.417 lbs/day
0.292 lbs/day
0.12S lbs/day
0.033 lbs/day
0.417 lbs/day
0.042 lbs/day
0.3 34 lbs/day
0.417 lbs>'day
Fsr a.-.y flew race of less than 50,0CC zzi, : - e
quality c: the wastewater discharge rtay ey.zai tr.e
naxi.iu.T. discharge concentration specified aiive
provided that the calculated loading based :r.
monthly aver are daily Jischar;e flew d - r i" t.-.e
saxplm^ period is less than the .-.axinc?. c:s:r.jr
Icadir.g scarified atcve.
As deterxined by Method 603 - Or:a~ochlccme Pestici-as
and PCB's; 40 C?R Part 136 (Federal Register Vol.
No. 233, December 3, 1979) .
?aqe 2 o£ 9 (Revised 2-B5)
— AfTTOU885
-------
STATE Or PENNSYLVANIA
: as.
COUNTY or KERCER >
On this, the 29th day of March ,
1985, before m, th« undersigned officer, personally Appeared
Joseph J« Siaons , who acknowledged himself to be
the Chairman or the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution
Control Authority, end that he, as such officer, being
authorised to do eo« executed the foreg' - instrument for
the purposes therein contained by signing the name of the
Authority by hiaself as such officer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
official seal.
V. > (SIAL)
Public
i Calk. HtAvj »\MSe
%m Uami C*« Hi
Hy citeFfwiymwrtw"1 "M
STATE OF"XWc**
ranvvn
COUNTY OF
ss.
On this, the day of /i(flr?cl .
1985, before oe, the undersigned officer, personal1-/ appeared
Cyf-jp.vt.» . who acknowledged himse.:' to be
the" v7l of Waste Management of Pennsyivar.: j
Inc., and that he, as such officer, being authorized :: dc 3
executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein
contained by signing the nane of the Corporation by himsel:
such officer.
IN WI7SESS KHEaiCF, I have here-r.to set r.y ha.-.i sr.d
official seal.
I
fsr.-i
>dic.iry PuDi ic
My c-rnissic: e.xgires:!<&
flR3DU886
-------
« Km. MO CCMUONWSAiTH Of PENNSYLVANIA
OffAATUSMt 01 INVIA0MMIM7AL RHOURCIS
IURVAU OP 10110 WASTl MANAOIUINT
Solid Watt Disposal and/or Procealnj Facility
FOAM NO. S
Parmit No. lOOOlt
Oiti Issued Hambtt 30. nu
Date Expired
Under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Solid Wmi Management Act of July 7, I960,
Act 97, a permit for * solid waste dlfpoui and/or processing facility at (municipality)
City of He mi cat* ^^ , .
«»„>». In the County ?. Herrar
granted to (applieant) Waate Hanaaeaant af *Tlvawia. Ine,
(addran) *1154 Weat Utit Street
trie. Peanaylvania 16312
This permit Is applicable to tho fadWy namad as livat toad Landfill
__________________________ *** described ar
K1VEH too UUtpnLL
Latitude: *1° 16' 00"
Uosituda: 80» 29* 20"
This permit it subjact to modification, amendment and supplement by the Dapartmam
of Environmental Resources and is further subjact to revocat*n or suspension by tha
Department of Environmental Resources for any violation of tha applieabla law* or tha rulas
and ragulations adoptad tharaundar, for failura to comply In whole or in part with tha
conditions of this parmit and tha provisions sat forth in tha application no. 10001*
«hich is mada a part hereof, or for causing any condition inimical to tha public htalth.
safaty or welfare.
Sea attachment for waste limitation* and/or special m* /9
conditions Bi.lftiflimnw <
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
k —
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TRANSFERABUE
Paft —L. of J2-
AR30U887
-------
OOttUOM^flALlM OF HNNmVAMlA ..
* r 30, 1
O411 E»»red
i 1. TM» 9*fit la laaued for the construction and operation of *37.3 acre
' sanitary landfill In the City of Heraltage Identified u liver Hood
S Landfill." Th« poralt *111 affect 62 acres of land la the City of Heraltage
! and South Pyastunlng Township pursuant to the explication (or peralt dated
October 24. 1980 and the following Information:
•
a) Phase I Xoport, aa prepared by Xurtanlch Engineering, wdatod and sub*
•lttad on Septeaber 11, 1973.
{ b) Slta Application Modulo Ffcaoo 1, as praparad by lurtanich Engineering,
datod August 17, 1973 and aubalttad aa September 11, 1973.
•
] c) Modulo SA - Suppleaentary Geology and Groundwater Information, as pre-
parad by ttooij gad Aasociatea, lac., datad August 17, 1973 and subaltted
on Septaaber 11, 1973.
d) Phaae II ftoport, aa praparad by Kurtaolch Engineering, datad August 29,
1974 and aubalttad on Decoaber 19, 197},
• ) Slta Application Modulo Phase XI, aa praparad by turtsnich Engineering,
datad August 29, 1974, ravlaad April 11, 1973 sod submitted on Decoaber 19.
1973.
f) Plan of Operation, aa praparad by Kurtanlch Engineering, undated, aub-
alttad on Deceaber 19, 197S ood revised on March 17, 1976.
I g) Ught-of-Way Agraaaant, datad July 15, 1974 snd sutaltted oi^ April IB,
J I97S.
• h) Voter Quality Oata Kaport, os praparad by Moody aad Associates, lac.,
dotad October 26, 1973 and aubalttad on October 30, 197).
1) Groundwater Module SA, aa prepared by Kurtanlch Engineering, dated April 12,
1976 and aubalttad on April 13, 1976.
J) Design Plans - 5 pages, as prepared by Kurtaolcb Engineering, suboltted
on March 6, 1976.
k) Notarised Stateaent, aa prepared by tobert C. Berry, dated ttovlaber 10,
I960 and aubalttad oo November 14, 1960.
|_
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TRANSFERABLE . g g g
Page 2 of JJL.
-------
COM«ONVI|*Hm 0* UNNSYIVANIA
OIPAATlltNT Of |NVI*0NM(HTAI AtSOU*C!S
IUKIAU Of SOltO WASTE MANAGfMINT
htmtl
fm
Solid Wajta Oiipeui and/or Proctning Facility
FORM Na •
Ptrmit No. 100019
0«t Ittutd HovwbT 30. TnT
Ottl Exdfd
1) Tronafor of Ovnarahip Rarratlva, as praparad by VUllaa J. Kosuh, datad
Novaabor 11, 1980 aad aubalttad oa Rovaabar 14, 1980.
a) Hydrogoologtt lavaatigatloa laport, aa praparad by Todd Ciddiaga and
Aaaoclataa, lac., datad Octobar 23, 1980 aad aubalttad oo Octobar 2*,
1980,
a) Supplaaant to Phaaa XI Daalga taport, aa praparad by Todd Ciddiaga aad
Aaaoclataa, Inc., datad Rovaabar 13, 1980 aad aubalttad oo March 20, 1981.
a) Hodula No, 8, aa praparad by Todd Clddtaga and Aaaoclataa, lac., datad
April 1, 1981 aad aubalttad oa Nay 26, 1981.
p) Xnvastlgatlon of Allagad 011 aad Co* Ualla taport, aa praparad by Todd
Clddloga and Aaaoclataa, Inc., datad August 6, 1982 aad aubalttad on
Auguat 10. 1982.
q) Revlav Rasponaa latter, aa praparad by Tadd Clddlngt and Asaoelaies,
Inc., datad Oacaabor 13, 1982 aoi aubalttad on Daeaabar 1*, 1982.
r) Uachata Collactloa aad Olapoaal Xaport, aa praparad by Todd Clddfnga
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TKANSFER^^ ^ Q Q 0
Page 3 of 10
and Aaaoclataa, lac., datad Octobar 2*, 1980, revlaed April 19, 1983 and j
aubalttad on April 22, 1983. j
a) Hodula Ho. 10, aa praparad by Vaata Kanagaaant of Pannaylvanla. Inc.,
undatad, ravlaad July 21, 1983 aad aubalttad oo July 27, 19«.
t) Eroaloa aad Sadlaantatlon Control Plan, aa praparad by Todd Clddlnga and
Aaaoclataa, lac., datad Saptaabar I, 1983 aod aubalttad on Saptasbar 26,
1983.
u) Revlav Raapooae latter-, aa praparad by Todd Clddlngs and Aaaoclataa, Inc.,
datad February 6, 1984 and aubalttad en yabruary 7, 1984.
v) Revlav Xaapoaaa lattar, aa praparad by Todd Ciddiaga and Associates,
Inco, datad February 10, 1984 aad -maaltted oa fabruary 13, 1984.
' i
-------
I M til
COMMONWEALTH 0» PENNSYLVANIA
OEPAHTMENT OP CNVIRONMCNTAL RESOURCES
IURIAU Of SOIIO WASTE MANAGEMENT
Ptrm»t
Pot
Solid Warn Ditpeul Md/er Procuring Facility
WRM NO. 8
Pti mit No. 1QU0I9
Data tnutd Hpveabet 30, t
Dm Eaairtd
w) Plan of Operation, u prepared by Todd Ctddlnga and Aaaoclatea, Inc.,
undated and aubalttad oo *ebroary 13, 1984.
*) Form Ho. 2, aa prepared »y Todd Clddlnga and Aaaoclatea, Ise., dated
January 1ft, 1984 and aubalttad oo February 13, HM.
y) Landfill Caa Veatlng and Monitoring Han, aa prepared by Todd Ctddiaga
and Aaaoclatea, Inc., mdatad and aubalttad oa February 13, 196*.
a) Review Raapoaae Latter, aa prepared by Todd Clddloge and Aaaoclatea,
Inc., dated Roveaber 13, 1984 and aubalttad oo Roveaber 13, 1984.
aa) Dtilp Plana - 4 pagaa, aa prtparad by Todd Clddlaga and Aiiedatu,
Inc., aubalttad oo Beeeaber 14, 1982.
Vh«ra thera la a eoofltet between an aarlltr and a latar datad aubslttal, the
latar datad aubalttal ahall taka pracadaaca.
2. If there la a conflict between tha application, lta auppoctlng docuaenta
end/or aaandaaata oo ooa hand aad the tirii and coadltlooa of thla parole on
> | . tha other hand, tba taraa and condltloaa ahall apply.
3. Tha poralt la leased for tha conetruetloo and operation of tha 37.3 acra
landfill aa delineated on ahaat 2 of * of the Dealga Plana, aa prepared by
Todd Clddlaga and Aaaoclatea, Inc., aubalttad on Deeaaber I*, 1982.
4. Vaatea approved for dlapoaal within "liver Road Landfill ahall be Halted
to ainlclpal vaatea, demolition vaatea, and the following raalduil veate*
I generated by Hodge Foundry J
' a) foundry aand
b) redala - baghooaa duet
e) ahotblaat - baghouae duat
d) ladle alag
a) floor aveeplaga
f) furnace alag
g) furnace refractory |
All other realdual vaatea are prohibited taleae a perait notification or j
written approval la obtained froa the Departaent. j
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TRANSFWABU
page 4 at 10. RR30U890
-------
COMMONWEALTH o* ftNKSVLVAS.A
OEPAflTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
BUREAU Of SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
P»rmn
For
Solid Wuu Disposal and/ot ProoiainQ Facility
FORM NO. 8
Permit f*lo. 100019
Ostt lgued"""*HoveBibar 30. '19fc-
Dsti Expired"**"
5. Tnt permittee la prohibited from accepting or disposing of any hatardous
waste* at the 'Uvii load Landfill."
6. Groundwater anflltorlag rapor; ~mii: be nbaitttd to the Departaent for oonl-
torlng point a 101, 102A, 102 i OA, 103 aad 106, as Idaotlflad and proposed 1b
the Nodula No. 8 and tba lav:. n Response Lattar datad Noveabar 13, 1984.
Koaitorlag wt hi conducted la aeeordaoca with tha following achadula:
Cbaaleal awiy la Annual Report for aaeh aonltorlng point within thirty
(30) diyi of the issuance data of this parmlt.
b, chaalcal Analysis Quarterly Report for each aoaltorlng point on a
quarterly baals thereafter*
c. chealcal Aaalrala Annual Report for each aonltorlng polot on or before
tha annivereary date of thle perait.
The quarterly and annual aonltorlog ahall Include tha «tar elevation, tea-
perature, and the seapllng aathod for aaeh aaapllng point. The quarterly
test peraoatera Include: pR, alkalinity, total Iron, sulfatee, total
solid*, cholorldea, ODD, BOD aad apeclfle codttctance. The annual teat para-
meters' include all the quarterly paraaeter* plua tha following additional
paraactare: aangaaeie, alualoua, fluorides, albualnold nitrogen, oaonla
nltrogeo, ortho phoaphatea, nitrlte-nltrogea, nitrate-nitrogen, suspended
solids, settleable solids, T0C and PCB. The «>aitorlng wells oust fas purged
prior to quarterly end annual aaapllng, and this should be noted on the report
submitted.
All aonltorlog report* are to be sutaitted to the Bureau of Solid Waste
Managtaeat, Departaent of Envlronaental Resources, 1012 Water Street,
Headvllle, Pennayleanla 16333.
7. All earthen aaterlala to be utilised for dally aad intermediate cover shall
be soils that fall within the Dnited States Departaent of Agriculture (USDA)
textural classes of eandy loaa, loaa, saody clay loaa, allty clay loaa,
lossy sand, and allt loaa. All other co*er aaterlals «i*t ke approved by
the Departaent. The coarse fragaeot content (fragments not paaslng the So. 10
aesb sieve, 2m.) shall not «eeed 73X by voluae and the combustible and/or
coal eontent shall not e»" ? i2X by «oluae.
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TRANSFERABLE
hpjL-.ii flR30U891
-------
Commonwealth or Pennsylvania
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
BUREAU Of SOUO WASTE MANAGEMENT
Permit
to
Solid Watte Oiiposal and/or Processing PwiPtY
FORM NO. 8
Permit No, I0o01»
Oltl (sued Hoveaoer JO. 1994
Date Expi rwT"
8. All earthen materials co to utilised (or final cover ah* 11 be soils that I
fall within tha USOA textural elaaaaa of aaody loaa, loam, Bandy clay loae,
alley clay loaa, and allt loaa. All other final cover aaterlala must be
approved by tha Department. The aoll auat coapact well, doc crack excessl-
vely when dry and aupport a vegetative cover. Tha coarae fragment centant
(partlclea not pesrtng the No. 10 aeah sieve, 2aa.) ahall not exceed 602 by
volume.
9. All earthen aaterlala to be utilise* for daily, intermediate and final cover
auat be aaapled in a aanner approved by the Departaent. The exact aaapling
locatlone, aechoda of compositing, and aaapling deptha mist be epproved by
the Department. An analyaia of the coarae frepeat content and the grain
site ahall be conducted on each aaaple and aubaitted to the Departaent and
approved by the Departaent prior to lta utilization.
10. The Departaent ahall be notified at leaat five (3) bualneaa day* prior to
collection of aaaple* for permit eondltloo 6 and 9 eo that a Departsencal I
repreaentatlve may be present.
. It. The horizontal grid control aystea ahall be controlled and tied to a per-
manent physical marker or object loeated on alte. The vertical control
shall be tied to an elevation established tor the permanent marker. The per-
aanent aarker aist be eacabllahed and identified within thirty (30) day* of 1
the l**uaoce date of this peralt. I
12. The peralt area thall be staked out with a minlaua of a three (3) foot high •
aarker prior to construction survey of each atage area. This gerait area |
oust reaain identified throughout the life of the site. Staking should '
' occur in each stage area before earth work or ditch installation coaoenccs
| on that stage. ,
13. A topographic survey of the site aust be performed aach year and a topo- i
graphic map of the area utilised the previous year shall be eubeicted to
the Departaent within forty-five (*S) days of the anniversary date of this
. permit. Thl» map auat bear the signature and seal of a registered
' professional engineer or a registered surveyor and be prepared according
| eo the aaae acale and grid aystea a* provided in the approved design
' plans. In addition to the ma^ the permittee shall provide atatlstics of
the waate volumes received and rhe remaining sice capacity in cubic yards.
THIS PERMIT IS NONTRANSFERABLE
AR30U892
-------
COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA
0EPAATMEN7 Of ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
BUREAU Of SOL'O WASTE -MANAGEMENT
PtrijM
For
Solid Waitt Diipoul and/or Processing Facility
FORM NO. 8
Permit No. 100019
Date Issued November 30, 196-
Date Expired
I
i
14. You ire required to jubsit, on • fora as provided, certification by a
Regiacered Profeeaiooal Engineer of aite conetruetioo In accordance with
the approved plane.
15. Nothing in thie perait ehall be eonatrued to authorire the reaoval of
alnerala by surface alnlng without the peraittee firat obtaining all
necessary peraita and authorltationa purecir.t to the Surface Mining
Conaervatloo and Reclamation Act, 52 £.S. Section 1396.1 et eeq.f and the
Clean Streaas Uv, 35 P.S. Section 691.1 et aeq., froa the Departaent.
16. All accuaulated Uquida/leaehate ahall be peraltted to drain freely froa the
leachate collection eyataa to the puap atation aanhole. Ulthln sixty (6C)
days and thereafter the liquid level in the puap atation aanhole, as shown
on Sheet 1 of 2 of the leachate Collection and Diapoaal Report, eubeltted on
April 22, 1983, ahall be aalntained at or below the invert elevation of the
¦ Influent line to the aanhole.
17. Thie perait doea not authorise nor ehall be eonatrued aa aa approval to
! discharge induatrial waete, including without limitation any leachate
I discharge froa the peraltted area to watera of the Coaaonwealth, absent an
NPDES discharge perait. j
I
; ( l
IB. Within thirty (30) daye of the ieauance date of this perait, the peraittee |
I shall subalt e written contingency plan to the Departaent to address the (
' prevention of unauthorised leachate discharges froa the leachate collection
systea and/or landfill in the event leachate i» precluded froa discharging i
to the sanitary aewer due to a power outage, puap failure or suspension of
j j waacewater traataent aervlce by the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution
i 1 Control Authority.
19. Sediaentation Basin B as delineated in the Iroeioo and Sediaentatlon Control
Plan aubaltted on Septeaber 26, 1983, ahall be constructed and operational by
June 1, 1985.
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TRANSFERABLE
PagCj_of_UL flR30l+893
-------
COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA
D£?APTWC\T Of Cf.-VIHONMFN'TAL RESOU* C E S
BUREAU Of SOliO waste management
Ptrmit
fw
Solid Watte Ditpoal ind/or Proceafng Facility
FORM NO. «
Permit No. 100019
Dtte ISUed Ncven.igr 30 196..
Date Expino^
I
I .
20. Under this permit a*. Issued, the permittee U responsible for the landfill
operations and the conditions at the landfill to the extent required by the
Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act, the Clean Streams Lav, the Rules and
Regulations promulgsted thereunder as well as eny decisional law interpreting
the aforesaid statute and regulations*
21. The Surety Bond in the oount of 586,600 executed In support of this permit
between the permittee and the Department Is approved. Conditions of this
bond shall be mended in aeeorde&ce with Rules and Regulations promulgated
under Act 97. Such amendment shall be executed within 90 days of the effec-
tive date of those regulations.
22. All construction, operation, and procedures shall be In accordance with
the application and aubmlttals aaa supporting docmentatlon, and such
application, submittils and supporting docuaenutloa art hereby made s
part of this permit.
23. Aa a eondltloo of this permit and of the permittee's suthority to conduct
the activities authorised by this permit, the permittee hereby authorites
and consents to allow authorised employees or agents of the Department,
without ^vance notice or aearch warrant, upon presentation of appropriate j,
credentials, and without delay, to have access of and to inspect all areas H
or adjacent areas to which Solid Waste Management activities are being or
will be cooducted. This muthorlxatlon and consent shall include consent to
collect samples of waste, water or gaaes, to take pbotographa, to perform
measurements, surveys, and other tests, to Inspect any monitoring equipment,
to Inspect the s*thods of operation, and to inspect and/or copy*documents,
books and papers required by the Department to be maintained. This permit
condition Is referenced In accordance with Sections 608 and 610.7 of the
Solid Waste Management Act (Act 97).
24. Any final operation, design or other plan developed subsequent to permit
Issuance which exhibits changes in the structures, locations,
specifications, or other changes of substance shall be submitted to the
Department for subsequent permit action. Any devietlon of plans herein
approved shall not be implemented before first obtaining a permit
amendment, or written approval from the Department.
-------
COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA
department of environmental resources
Bureau of solid wast? management
P«rmil
For
Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Facility
FORM NO. 6
Permit No. 100019
Date Itsued"""" November ju. iirST
Date E»pirecf**""
25. The permit, as issued, shall ooc be construed to have allowed or authorized
any disposal aetlvltes which took place prior to the lssusnce hereof.
26. In the event that the Department determines that the operation of this
disposal alts causes an adverae affect upon the quality or quantity of any
non-eomuoity or private water supply, within twenty-four (24) hours of said
notice to the permittee by the Department, the permittee shall replace the
supply with a temporary source of water of at least equal quantity and
quality. If the temporary «»pply ** purchased from a drinking water pur-
veyor, the purveyor ahall be licensed by and in good standing with the
Coenonwealth of Pennaylvania. The permittee ahall continue to provide the
teaporary supply until the quantity sad quality of the original supply has
been restored or a permanent alternate water supply Is provided.
Within fifteen (13) days after the Department determines and has notified ,
the permittee in writing that the permittee has affected the quality or .
quantity of any ooanunity water supply eo as to render it unsuitable for
treatsent for use by the public purauant to the requlrenents of the j
Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act, Act of May 1, 1984 (P.L. 206, Ho. 43), j
(35 P.S. Section 721.1 - 721.17) and the regulations adopted thereunder, or ,
affected the quality or quantity of any non-coanunlty or private water •
supply, the permittee shall submit a plan to the Department for Its appro- |
val. The plan ahall set forth the wans by which the permittee will provide
4 permanent alternate water source of at least equal quality and quantity or
restore the original eource, and shall include a schedule of implementation.
The plan for restoration or permanent alternate supply shall be completely
implemented within Sixty (60) days after the permittee receives *he
Department's approval.
27. Approval of any plans or facilities herein refers to functional design, but
does not guarantee stability or operational efficiency. Failure of the
measures and facilities herein approved to per.form as intended, or as designed, i
or in compliance with the applicable Rules and Regulations of the j
Department, for any reason, shall be grounds for the revocstlon or suspension
of this permit. Failure of the Permittee to comply with the terms of the J
permit or conditions, or failure of the Permittee to construct or operate
the proposed facilities in conformity with the approved plans shall be .
grounds for the revocation or suspension of this permit.
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TRAN
Page _9- of _10
-------
COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OP ENVIftOpMCNTAl RESOURCES
BUREAU OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Ptrmit
F oi
Solid Waste Diipoiaf and/or Proceuing Facility
~ FORM MO. 8
Permit No. 100019
Oat« (sued November 30, 19o<.
Date Expired ______________
28. Nothing In Chit peralc ahall be eonatrued to aupercede, aaend, or authorize
vloletloo of, the provlslona of any valid and applicable loeal law, ordinance,
or regulation, provided that aald loeal lav, ordinance, or regulation 1* not
preeapted by the Pannaylvaala Solid Vaate Maaageaent Act, the Act of
July 7, 1980, P.l. 3J0, Do. 97, 35 P.S. Section 6018.101 et aeq.
29. All aaendaenta or aodlflcatlooa to thia permit atull be laaued by the
Departaent la vrltlqg. Such aaendaeata ehall be attached hereto and ehall
be cone effective oo the data apedfled thereupon.
THIS PERMIT IS NON-TRANSFERABLE
flR30U896
-------
I* saw at i'i^ commonwealth o* mmsuvanu
OCPAJtTOCNT or INVnONMIMTAl MCOUHCU
•URIAH Of SOUD WASH MAMAOIMIMT
FORM NO. 13*A
MODIFICATION TO SOUD WASTE DISPOSAL AND/OR PROCESSING PERMIT
Unde* the proviiioni of Act #7, the Solid Www Management Act of July 7, 1980. Solid Waitt Permit
on (data original permit was iaiuedl y\ iqba
taafmitfa.t Waste Management of Pennsylvania. Inc.
(address) 1154 West 16th Street
Erie. PA 16S12
is hereby modified as follows:
Haste Kaaageaent of Pennsylvania, Inc. la ^areby aithorlsed to expend Its
leachate collection aystea to include the astellatloa of "flngerllaee", col lec-
tio a llnee, end conveyance lines along the eastern and oorthera perlaeter of the
River Road Landfill, aa described la "liver Road Landfill Requeet for Approval
of Plagerllne Connection"* aubalttad May 31, 1983, received June 3, 1985, and
shows on Todd Ciddinge and Assoclatea, Inc. Drawings Sheet 5 of 6, revised 3/85,
and 6 of 6 dated Nay 1985, received June 3, 1983.
This modifiestion shall be attached to the existingSoIid W«*t» Permit
s pert thereof effective on (dste) Septanber 18, 198 a
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
lit described ebove and shall become
11 _ 13
AR30i»897
-------
i« sam 3i bt:
COMMONWUlTM 0* WMSriVAMU
OCTARTMNT Of (NVMOMMtMTAi UlOUMCIt
aUftfAU Of SOU© WAJT1 UAMAOtMINT
FORM NO. 13-A
MODIFICATION TO SOUO WASTE DISPOSAL AND/OR PROCESSING PERMIT
Una** the provisions oI Act 97. tht Solid Wane Management Act of July 7. 1980. Solid Watts Ptrm^t
Numnar 100019 kauarl en (0afa Qfioin«l oetmit was issued) November 30, 1984
Ipermittat.J,
UdflreSSl
y«ute.Y.^dnV%TOli?Wia7:! tedl
11!>4 Mtn Iftlft b»Ml :
mi, ftUMylvmll—t6?lt
i* hereby modified m follows:
Tht Vesta Management "W Penneylvanla, Inc. 1* hereby authorised to accept the
following generic residual waste at the liver Road Landfill for disposal:
Demolition asbestos waste.
Thla authorisation la given subject to the following conditions:
•
1. Thla la a generic peralt approval for the above-described residual waata.
Residual vaste approved thereunder shall have characteristics genetically
the BtM aa the vaste froa Asbestos Absteaant and Dlaposal Corp., Auatlaburg
Ohio aa described la the Module Ho. 1 subolaeloo to the Departaent prepared
oo Deeeaber 1984 and received by the Department on February 20, 1985.
Approval of specific streams of the seas generic category of reslduel waste
froa different generators aay be granted pursuant hereto provided that the
waste characteristics do not differ substantially froa the waste charac-
teristics of the fenerlc vaate category approved hereto.
2. The permittee shall not accept, receive, duap, deposit, dlacharge, process,
or dlapose of the generic reelduel vasts froa sny generator or source other
than that apeclflcally described la Condition #1 without obtaining prior
written approval of the Department*
3. This authorization does not supersede conformance with previously approved
design and operational requlreaentt except aodlflcatloo(s) authorized herein.
4. Thla waste sust be aanaged durlog disposal at the site to alnlalze and ell-
alnste the potential for airborne aabesto* flbera by following all aan-
detory eabestos handllog practices and following the disposal oathod at
subaltted on June 11, 1983.
3. The waste shall not contain or be mixed with sny hazardous wsste as defined
in 23 Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 73.26(d) or any other permitted or unper-
altted residual wsste except as specifically authorised herein.
This modification shaft be attached to the Mittino SolidyyaiieJJerrTiit described above and mart become
a part thereof effective on (date) SepteteerlS, IMS
'far
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
HR30U898
-------
(•S*UM li?
eoMMONwuiTN or pcnnsyivania
MPAXTMINT Of IMVOIOMMIMTAi ft||OUKU
MMIAU 0* IOUO wun MANAOIMINT
FORM NO. 1J-A
MODIFICATION TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND/OR PROCESSING PERMIT
Under the pfovinoni o( An 97. the Solid Woato Manama mant Act ot July 7,1980. Solid Wasto.eermct.,
Nwmbtf w — 3°»
lis* Will 16L>i illiil -
(address) Brio; P»npayl»onlo liiU ¦
is hereby modified •• foflowa:
6. Nothing hereto shall bo construed to aupereede, aaaod or authorise violation
of provlelone of a&y valid and applicable local law, ordinance, or
regulation, provided that aald local lew, ordlaance, or regulation la not
preeapted by the ^eansjrlvanla Solid Vaata Management Act, tbo Act of July 7,
1980, Act 97, 35 P.S. 6018.101, ot eeo.
This modification shall ba attached to tha exiiting Solid Waita Parmit daacribad above and snail bscoms
a part thereof effective on (data) September 18, 1985
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAt RESOURCES
&R30t»899
-------
CONSENT OJCgR AND AGREEMENT
HOW, THEREFORE, OA this day of September, 1985
after full and complete negotiations of all matters sac forth
in this Agreement# end upon mutual exchange of covenants
herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, it is agreed
between the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental fcesourees
("Department") and Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc.
("WMPX") as followsi
1. WMPX is a corporation qualified to do business
in the Coononwealth of Pennsylvania. WMPX owns and operates
a solid waste disposal site known as the River Road Landfill
in the City of Hermitage, Mercer County.
2. The Department issued a permit to operate the
River Road Landfill to WMPX, Solid Waste Permit No. 100019
(the "Permit"), on November 30, 1984.
Settlement of Appeal
i. WMPX filed a timely appeal of Conditions No.
6, 16 and 26 of the Permit with the Pennsylvania Environmental
Hearing Board on December 24, 1984 (the "Appeal").
4. The Department and WMPX have agreed to the
modification of conditions no. 16 and 26 in the form attached
hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively. The Department
hereby orders that the Permit be modified to substitute the
wording of conditions no. 16 and 26 as set forth herein.
5. The Department has determined that WMPX is in
compliance with paragraph no. 6 of the Permit.
AR30U900
-------
6. WKPI knd the Department have agreed tj »*ttle
the Appeal in accordance with the Above.
Sedimentation Basin
7. Condition No. 19 o£ the Permit required the
construction of Sedimentation Basin B by Jur.o 1, 19«5.
8. WMPI via not able to construct Sedimentation
Basin B in accordance with the permitted plans because a
surveying error resulted in the planned location of the
sedimentation basin on property not owned by HMPX* WMPI
submitted plans*for the relocation of Sedimentation Basin B
on its property on or about May 30, 1915, which plana were
approved by the Department on or about June 21, 1985. The
Basin was constructed and substantially completed on or
about July 2, 1985.
9. WMPI shall, within 30 days of the date of
this Consent Order and Agreement, pay the sum of $2,000 to
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Solid Waste Abatement Fund by
making a check payable to the Comnonwealth of Pennsylvania
Solid Waste Abatement Fund and sending the check to the
Department of Environmental Resources, 1012 Water Street,
Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335. This payment shall be in
full and complete settlement of any civil penalty liability
for any violation of condition no. 19 of the Permit.
Terracing/Surface Water Diversion
10. By letter dated May 30, 1985, wm?X submitted
a proposal to the Department for constructing a terracir- surface
water diversion system as an alternative to the presently
permitted system, including the Implementation of said plan
fl R 3 0 U 9 0 I
-------
in connection with final capping And closure <.t River Kua.i
Landfill.
11. By letter dated July 2, 1985, hMPX prcposeel
the implementation of interim measures pending preparation
of the final terracing/water diversion plan and approval
thereof as part of WKPX's final closure plan.
12. 3o Ion? as WMPX complies with the interis*
measures, makes timely submission of the final plans and
designs for its'terracing/surface water diversion proposal
as set forth in its letter of -Hay 30, 1985 and implements
said plans upon approval thereof, the Department will not
assert failure to implement a final terracing/surface water
diversion plan as pounds for the denial of or refusal to
act upon any approval requested under the Pennsylvania Solid
Waste Management Act or Clean Streams Law by WMPX or any of
its parent, subsidiary, or affiliated companies or divisions.
13. This Consent Ordor and Agreement shall have
the force and affect of, and be enforceable as an Order of
the Department issued pursuant to S602 of the Solid Waste
Management Act of 1980, 3S P.S. $6018.602, 5610 of the Clean
Streams Law, 35 P.S. $691,610 and S1917-A of the Administrative
Code of 1929, as amended, 71 P.S. §510-17. WM?I, recognizing
9R30U902
-------
its right to appeal the issuance of any such order fcdrcfcy
content* to the entry of this Order and knowngly wjw«»» its
rights to appeal from this Order to the Environmental n-uring
Board.
CORPORATE SEAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
By i VyOK/ tfh€S
By i j
¦¦ C&/&-
¦ ftO—¦ CCft.. j)xir
Oats: tjia^fVo
Date: *?/'*/**"*
Date
¦COMMONWEALTH 0f PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
By;
ttorney for WASTE MANAGEMENT
OP PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
ftR30U903
-------
CONDITION 16
16. a. The permittee shall attk^pt to ma l.-.tain
the liquid/laachata level in manhole 13 at c: below th-s
elevation of the Influent pipe by removing, if available.
50,000 gallons par day of liquid/laachata fc.r conveyance co
the municipal saw*?* treatment system for treatment m
accordane* with the permittee's agreement with tha Upper
Shenango Vallay Watar Pollution Control Authority ("Authority")
-b. Should tha pumping rata of SO,000 gallons
per day of liquid/laachata ba inadequate to maintain tha
liquid/leachate elevation in manhole 13 at greater than cne
foot below the water elevation in well 104, che permittee
shall seek approval of tha Authority to increase its discharge
rate so that tha permittee may maintain the liquid/leacnate
elevation in manhole #3 at greater than one foot below tha
water elevation in well 104. . Pending such approval, the
permittee shall eithar store any excess leachate in a holding
tanX(s) on-site for eventual discharge to the sewer ar pump
such liquid/laachate for hauling and disposal so that tr-.e
liquid/laachata elevation in manhole 13 is one foot lower
than the water elevation in well 104.
c. Tha permittee shall measure and record
the following measurements with respect to t.iis per nit
condition:
(1) tho daily flow from manhole «3 to
the sewage system.
(2) weeXly elevations of che liquid/leachi
levels in manhole 13 and tha water level in well 1C4.
d. The data shall be recorded contemptraneausI
with the measurements, maintained at the facility for a
period of one year thereafter and submitted to the department
on a quarterly basis.
Exhibit "A"
a R30U90U
-------
Condition No. 26
Zn the svene that the Department d-stermints ti.-c
the operaeion of this disposal sit* causes ar. adverb* eifjct
upon (1) the quality of any non-community or private water
supply used for drinking or other personal or household
purposes so as to cause such supply to exceed the maximum con-
taminant levels provided for under regulations adopted pursu-
ant to the Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act, Act of May 1,
1984 (P.L* 206, No. 43), (33 P.S. Section 721.1-721.17),
(2) the quality of any non-community or private water supply
used for other than drinking or other household purposes such
as would cause such supply to adversely affect the public
health in such use or (3) the quantity of any non-coirmnity
or private water supply, within twenty-four (24) ho< rs of
notice of said determination to the permittee by the Department,
the permittee shall replace the supply with a temporary source
of water of at leaut equal quantity and quality. Zf the
temporary supply 1s purchased from a drinking water purveyor,
the purveyor shall be licensed by and in good standing with
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The permittee shill continue
to provide the temporary supply until the quality and quantity
of the affected supply has been restored to its pre-existing
condition or a permanent alternate water supply is prc-ided.
As soon as possible, but no later than thirty (30)
days after the Department determines and has notified -.ha
permittee, in writing, that the permittee has affected cfte
quality or quantity of any community drinking water supply so
Exhibit "B"
SR301+905
-------
as to sender it unsuitable for treatment for use by ;hc
pursuant to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Safu Dc^.-.kxn?
Water Act, Act of Hay 1, 1984 (P.L. 205, No. 43), (35 ?.£.
Section 721.1-721.17} and the regulations adapted thereunder
or affected the quality or quantity of any non-community
or private drinking water supply as provided above, the
permittee shall,submit a plaa to the Deportment for its
approval, the plan shall set forth the means by which the
permittee will provide a permanent alternate drinking water
source of at least equal quality and quantity or restore the
supply to its pre-existing condition, and shall include a
schedule of iaplementation* The plan for restoration or
permanent alternate supply shall be completely implemented
after the permittee receives the Department's approval,
provided that the plan be implemented by the permittee
within such period of time as approved by.the Department.
A R 3-0 U 9 0 6
-------
GENERAL
On March 1, 1983, an agreement was executed by Waste Manage-
ment of Pennsylvania, Znc. (WMI) and the Upper Shenango Valley
Water Pollution Control Authority (USVWPCA) granting permission to
discharge leachate from River Road Landfill into the Authority's
main interceptor system. This document and related agreements are
included in this report as Appendix C. As required by these
documents, ^ leachate quality and quantity are monitored at River
Road Landfill on a quarterly basis.
LEACHATE QUALITY MONITORING
A manhole (HH-2)-has been installed adjacent to the sewer
interceptor manhole (MH-1) for the purpose of obtaining leachate
quality samples (see sheet 2 of 3). The leachate grab samples are
collected on a quarterly basis by WMI personnel trained in proper
sampling procedures. -»The samples are promptly analyzed, by a
certified laboratory, for the parameters listed in the aforemen-
tioned documents. A report of the analyses is submitted to the
USVWPCA within thirty days of the end of that particular quarter.
LEACHATE QUANTITY MONITORING
In accordance -with the documents included in Appendix C,
total daily flow of leachate discharged to the USVWPCA system is
limited to 50,000 gallons. This requirement, therefore, necessi-
tates constant monitoring of discharge quantity.
All leachate collected at manhole No. 3 flows by means of a
12 inch diameter PVC gravity drain pipe intc life station No. 1.
Dual submersible pumps, equipped with check valves to prevent
backflow, have been installed to pump the leachate to the USVWPCA
interceptor sewer. An E * H magnetic flowmeter has been installed
in-line and produces two output signals to the adjacent pump
control building.
The first is a 24 volt pulsed signal adjusted to provide one
pulse per gallon. This signal is received by a Honeywell 620-15
industrial programmable controller and is stored in an ASCII
module, an accumulator. The controller will automatically shut
the pumps off when the total number of gallons pumped reaches
50,000 in one day. The pumps are not permitted to operate until
the internal time clock reaches 12:00 midnight. At that point,
the data is stored in a daily file and the controller resets to
zero gallons. If the number of gallons pumped in the 24 hour pe-
riod does net reach 50,000, the total daily flow is still recorded
in a file and the system is automatically reset to zero gellons.
AR30U907
-------
The controller can store a maximum of sixty files which are
accessable by a computer/printer system. The computer system can
be connected directly into the controller or it can access the
information from a remote location by way of the installed
telephone modem.
The second signal produced by the flowmeter is a 4-20 mA
signal. This signal is received by a Honeywell seven day circular
chart recorder/controller which serves a back-up system.
Daily/monthly leachate quantity reports will be generated by
Lake View Landfill personnel and submitted to the USVWPCA as
required. Following are the equipment specifications for the flow
control system.
RR304908
-------
APPENDIX E
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
cr>
September 30, 1987 O
cn
sr
CD
CO
or
«x
-------
GENERAL INFORMATION
Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WMI) proposes the
following post closure groundwater monitoring program for River
Road Landfill through May 1998. WMI will sample, on a quarterly
basis, monitoring wells 101, 102A, 103A, 104, 104A, 105 and 106.
Monitoring well locations are shown on the enclosed sheet 1 of 3.
Waste Management Policy, in accordance with Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources (PA DER) regulations, governs all
groundwater monitoring programs and includes the following
subjects: field measurements, methods of sample collection,
preservation and shipment cf samples and chain of custody control.
The monitoring program will be executed by WMI personnel trained
in proper sampling procedures. Contract sampling crews will be
used as a backup to WMI sampling teams. All samples will be sent
to OER approved analytical laboratories and a copy of the results
will be submitted to the PA DER, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
A li3t of the analytical parameters monitored along with a
schedule of the sampling frequency are shown on the following
page.
REFERENCES
The post closure groundwater monitoring program is based oi
the findings of several reports commissioned by WMI. They are.
'Hydrogeologic Investigation of River Road LandfiJl, Hermitar^
Township, Mercer County, PA.,* by Todd Giddings anu *ssoci'..e3,
dated September 5, 1980; 'Hydrogeologic Investigation rur River
Road Landfill,* by Oames and Moore, dated October 24, 1986; and,
'Environmental Monitoring Plan for River Road Landfill," by Dames
and Moore, dated October 17, 1986.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Also included in this appendix is lithologic data, well con-
struction details and analytical water chemistry results for the
monitoring well network at the River Road Landfill site. This
information immediately follows the analytical parameters/sampling
frequency page. As documented by Michael J. Hess of Dames and
Moore, monitoring well B106 was decommissioned, in accordance with
PA DER specifications, on August 10, 1987.
fl R 3 0 U 910
-------
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
PAOPOSED POST-CLOSURE GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
THROUGH MAY. 1998
2
UAATERLY" SEMI- ANNUAL
FEB/AUG) ANNUAL (NOV) (MAY)
PU xxx
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE XXX
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON XXX
TOTAL ORGANIC HALOGEN XXX
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND X X X
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS XXX
f CHLORIDE + X
v/FLUORIDE X
v^IRON + X
\/MANGANESE + x
^SODIUM + X
'/COPPER X
-------
»*M I •#»
wiwm otiw tmmn H4U
UHTIUi 11 nr M
sun M. v.: 100011
(M 14. «.!
lit M.
*.i at
iflunen %*m, n
UKimna
tot
10U
I«U
IM
I0U
n Mtaauiat
*•
tumrm
HtU HUM
Mil
Mil
Mil
Mil
Mil
wm naaxi
tMrttrlf *
9—rUrlf
SMTttrlf
tHTWl)
imiwt
M*V*U*
.
WVH*
Ml'lt*
io*»»7*
unna
41«M1»*
•
414IIH*
ft*!!**
41*1111*
Mm enoiwit
«-!.•
ttn.tt
roo.ao
Mlt.S
1MTJI
USTCMDIMTI
ITU Ut
400 .fl
«¦«
im.il
itfi.ia
UUTm 04 U1I (Wl
m
t
a
St
t
H1UW MTMO
mwr
m^r
tmfr
mumr mot
•
•
•
•
m
wimm. aim tuui.».)
M/4*
*.1/4*
4.1/4'
iim cum
V
V
»•
»*
4*
a* jot
m
IM
Oaw
tM
tea
iv 9 ennui una tin.
HIM*
Ml 41'
r«ja*
Mf.ll*
144. M'
nr 9 irruui casm an.
4BJT
M.lt*
4M.M'
441.44'
i» r«u na® an.
.
.
•
•
.
*vjci on;
»4*
417 J'
M«'
M4.I0'
44/.40'
torm 9 otrm cum an.
.
.
WJ'
•
9
torn* or iniH cum an.
Ill J#'
48.00'
HO J#'
•*».»'
tv 9 ua« an.
mjo'
4T.0B'
MUD'
Ml.)#*
IV .40'
httoi or urn an.
KIJI'
tn-co'
mom'
Mf .11'
441.40'
temn v «u an.
111.10'
m.aa
MS JO'
•4I.I0'
M».40'
siauuMnt
U.O*
tA'
M'
«J'
10'
«tu. son
.#'
rwuriM wmi4. it cun
M/lrml
laM/lrml
»
-------
»M» 1 •' I
WWW pnw MMT M(|
uartuu H««r M
nn ia
a.> isbiii tn ij. m.t
ne i.».ta
UUIIOfe »»«•. M
(UHiKHnai
i«
l« Mil
MKtMlTtai
-
MUHIU
H*U MCI
Mil
mil mmm«
IMM nwu»
tHrlrlf 1
QMM«r1} tMffffl/
IMIKM
K*n')T
uTim
Itliw
•
on caoatun
mtji
•
an (OBniuii
WtJt
• •
uuna ¦ tfv oni
m
ft ft
wuwm
mm
itmvtat mm
•
•
&TU* WIS IU.IIJ.)
M
UiH*
htom. una iw.it.«.t
tmmt
I*
*•
iv w nun una an.
W.V
mm*
TV 9 W1NML CUt« OR.
(M.M*
mj)'
t» 9 *u mui an.
¦
•
tmta an.
IM.1B
mat"
wrrai or am cum an.
•
m
wrta* 9 inuM ujm an.
Ml. 10*
maf
t» 9 Km an.
MS.101
wrrai or tan an.
•1.14'
maf
Mtmtr «u an.
¦1.10*
mat'
cnoina
»•#•
«u ««
11.9*
MA'
anwi turn nra-»
JJV
tM
uTTMM. turn ma•*
l-M*
tM'
aiWM cum *mi«.
Jttrt
IMl
Iim CUM MTttlA
m
m
mi «iuut
PK
«
ww wmi«
VmX
tM
nam imi
Ml*
t.0*
UOIT MIOIt
OMI
(NMt
wer-iara
14*
IJ'
r
-------
n-WM-j£ «•* Mt
¦ ccwohwuuw w wotivjjcu
MPMTMCKT Of PWdWMWitt WSOUICSS
9/21/8?
auauu o» waiti MAfuotMorr
1
0
0
0
I
9
GROUND WATER MONITORINQ
MODULE NO. 8
PHASED
Facfflty Identification
Nam* Wiwr Road Landfill Reviewed by Dm
MunWpsfltv Hermitage Ttewnahlp Recommend approval dUapprovai
County Mercer cauntv- Permit Conditions
TO BE SUBMITTED ON COMPLETION Of GROUND WATER MONITORING SYSTEM
1. For approved monitoring sitae cogtpiete the following
A. Walla
1. Location
UPM.
i
1
I
MmhiI hem
W*WCww
VIM
m
.IT****
OmoMmi
Nwft
Mm
Wmi
U*ydi
Idnpfuife
•
upgradient
Sharpsville
1958,PR 197(
2* PUC
3.69
15.33
41* 16"23"
80*29-13*
102A
Jomqradient
Sharpsville
1958,PR 197(
2* PWC
2.89
15.5?
41*15'58*
80*29"19*
103A
dewngradient
S' trpsville
1*58,PR 197(
2" PWC
2.97
15.05
41*15-59'
80*29*05-
104
downgradient
Sharpsville
1958, PR 197C
2* PVC
2.74
15.92
41*15-55"
80*29-28*
'Number all monitoring points consecutively- These numbers must not be changed; they vwU be used tn
an subsequent reports and communications I use numbers only).
* 'Unless otherwise indicated measuring point is assumed to be top of casing.
2. Completion Oeta
¦- *
w«»
NwittM*
•WPBWJ
OriM
Om
Cotw*««0
we
Ondi
'wnr'
wmon
*1 34MB
Want
Ifv*
» Stadc
Wtut M
Dm •*
101
Auger
8/5/80
24.36"
941.99'
926.li-
15.88
12/17/60
102A
Auger
9/13/84
45.0-
869.48"
as?.48"
2.0
9/13/84
^ 103A
Auger
12/6/80
17.20'
870.58-
862.25
a. n
104
Auger
8/7/80
15.45-
867.13'
857.92'
9.21
12/17/80
RR30U9IU
-------
t».WM.|* ft*. M
[ ^ 9/21/87
commonwmum or wnv*w*
qsmwmpitop BivwowMpnAt womcu
MUIOF WOTI MUUCUNNT
GROUND WATER MONITORING
MODULE NO. 8
PHASE U
ftcBty Identification
Nemt River Road Landfill
fl itii |i^ ri
wvnww oy
Oate
MunWpefty
County
Hermitage Tt^nship
Mercer County
Recommend approval
Parmit Conditions _
disapproval
TO BE SUBMITTED ON COMPLETION Of GROUND WATER MONITORING SYSTEM
1. For approved monitoring sites complete the following
A. Walla
1. Location Continued
or
Nan* •* Oat
* Tee^neNe
Omomm
lanqftud*
E?
win
<
•
downoradient
Sharpsville
1958.PR 198:
2-JVC
2.65
15.90
41*15 * 52"
80*29'27*
105
downqradient
Sharpsville
1958. PR 198:
2" PVC
2.67
16.13
41*15-53-
80*29'33*
106
downqradient
Sharpsville
1958,PR 1981
2' PVC
2.90
15.32
41*15-58-
80*29 12*
¦
'Number all monitoring points consecutively. These numbers must not be changed: they will be used in
all subsequent reports and communications (use numbers only).
* 'Unless otherwise indicated measuring point is assumed to be top of casing.
2. Completion Date Continued
i'i
tWod
OiM
Om
Conwfcmd
W«l
Own
Mli^l
Mm"
SmdoK
DnMon
t» Sues
wm
Ow*
WmiUmI
Dsn at
MlBOWIl
104A
Auqer
5/15/86
15'
866.38'
859.21-
7.17'
6/16/86
105
Auqer
8/7^80
13.03-
867.37'
861.60*
5.77-
12/17/80
® 10,
Auger
1/14/85
15.0-
865.74'
857.74-
8.0'
1/14/85
RR30WT5
-------
n-Wtf-Itti tow. Mi
9/21/87
eOWWNWUtTH Of WMSYVVAMA
o^MTworr o> invwonmcntal msokcis
IUMAU V WAST1 tMMAQOMNT
GROUND WATER MONITORING
MOOULE NO. 8
PHASE n
2. Completion Data (Continued)
a~*
ItH*
o£L.
sz
"tr"
tmm
lam*
1C1
PVC
2" *
0-
24.3«
14.36-
24.36
Sand
0-2.0'
Concrete
102A
PVC
2*
0-46
41.2-
46
Sand
0-2.0'
Cement/
Bentonite
2.fl-
103A
PVC
2*
0-
17.2
,,
14.2-
17.2
Sand
0-1.25'
Concrete
ips'
104
PVC
2*
0-
15.4!
www
11.45-
15.45
Sand
0.3.0'
Concrete
3.0'
a. Indicate how samples will ba secured.
(3 Dedicated pump ~ Portable pump ~ Oedicated bailer Portable bailer
b. If samples will ba secured by a pump indicate type of pump. (Well wizard)
~ centrifugal S Header Other (Specify)
c. Specify size of entrance port for samplers.
All monitdnng wells must have protective locking caps which dearly indicate the monitoring point
number.
All monitoring wells must have steel protective outer casing.
All monitoring must have concrete collars and aprons and be graded to prevent pocding of surface
water in the vicinity of the well.
* Number all monitoring points consecutively. These numbers must not be changed; they will be used m all subsequent
reports and communications (use numbers only).
2
AR30U916
-------
OUWM-X2A: Rot. Ml
2/21/87
It i
COMMONWUITM Of P0HSVIVAMA
OVAHTMOtr 0* (NVMONMtNUl HUOUKI5
MJRUU 0? WASH MUUGtMNT
GROUND WATER MONITORING
MODULE NO. 8
PHASE II
0 0 0 1 9
2. Completion Data (Continued)
MM
(Ttprt
""ST
1mm
tad**
Sn
U*m
104A
PVC
2*
0-15
0.02*
5-15
#2
Sand
0-1*
Cement/
Bentonite
1'
105
PVC
2"
0-
13.03
•w*
9.03-
13.03
Sand
0-2'
Concrete
2'
106
PVC
2'
0-
15.0
0.01*
10.5-
15.0
Sand
0-2.5'
concnt/
Bentonite
2.5*
a. Indicate how samples wilt ba secured.
Q 0tr icated pump ~ Portable pump "1 Dedicated bailer Portable bafler
b. If samples win be secured by a pump intfcate type of pump, (well wizard)
~ centrifugal 3 biaoder Other (Specify)
c. Specify size of entrance port fo* samplers.
All monitoring wells must have protective locking caps which dearly indicate the monitoring point
number.
All monitoring weOa must have steel protective outer casing.
All monitoring must have concrete collars ard aprons and be graded to prevent ponding of surface
water in the vicinity of the weB.
* Number all monitoring points consecutively. These numbers must not be changed; they will be used in all subsequen
reports and communications (use numbers only).
2
SR3049 I 7
-------
JI-WM-12#: Rm. Ml
9/21/87
Pt«pa»ad
COMMON WtAlTH Of PCNNSYIVANM
OCPAflTMCNT OP tNVMONMCNTAl HISOUHCI3
•UMAU OP WMTI MANAQf MINT
GROUND WATER MONITORING
MODULE NO. 8
PHASE II
0 0 0 1 9
3. Pump T«*t Data
«• -¦ * - *- »- - *» -»¦ -
fw mimr
101
102A
103A
104
104A
(Jaa «f «m orSar than mc«horti»t
Mfca. damiwlc. aanKarr faJdaa. ateJ
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
Kamlite
—
Hanelite
Hcmeliee
T*P*
Suction
Suction
Suction
__
Racad Capacity
—
Pi)
-------
dt-\VM-22& lUv. MS
9/21/87
COMMOHWUlTM Of P0WSWVANU
OCFAMTMOIT 0* INVMQMMBNTAl MSOUftCIS
8UUAU OP WAIT! MAMA6CMCMT
GROUND WATER MONITORING
MODULE NO. 8
PHASE It
3. Pump Test Dsta
MantMtog Mnt Nuabar
105
106
Uw wi mf othm tan nwftwlif
((In. Jamais, unharr facfldai. tteJ
NONE
NONE
Hcmelite
Trl*
Suction
RrtadCapadrr
—
—
Oap* tt Pump tfU
—
Owdiw Wm
kioteltU
11.0
—
fcpTaatOan
—
liM« M
icm^jwfwm iumi
3.12
to*,
Ipriot m ttan al pumping)
t(U
5.77
pump mm)
IftJ
11.00
O
CO
Onadnoi IH.I
5.71
.
«x
tangtfi of Pump Tnt (hrt.l
1.0
—
Spadfle Ctpadty I0MUPII
0.6
___
Pgmpbig Rat*
| Diimluwii
1
3.12
5.23
—
a. Are the required geologic logs attached for each well?
Yes _JL No
3
-------
Initial Annual Analysis Reports
AR30U920
-------
APPENDIX P
GAS MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR
RIVER ROAD LANDFILL
HERMITAGE, PENNSYLVANIA
April 9, 1986
Prepared flyi
Landfill Gas Management Group
Environmental Management
Department
Waste Management, Inc.
3003 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook. IL 60521
Revision 2: June 11, 1986
Revision 3: September 30, 1987
AR30U92I
-------
GENERAL
The objective of a landfill gas monitoring program is to
evaluate on an ongoing basis, the presence or the potential fort
1) Off-site landfill gas migration, and 2) Accumulation of
landfill gas within buildings and structures on or adjacent to
the landfill property.
MONITORING
On a quarterly basis the percent combustible gas shall be
measured at thirteen (13) bar-hole probe locations and within
buildings and structures as detailed below and illustrated on
the 'Leachate Collection System," sheet two (2) of three (3),
enclosed herein.*
Bar-hole probe locations B-L thru B-13 are located as shown to-
monitor the gas conditions at -the site boundaries. Structure
sampling shall be conducted at locations S-l and S-2 where
potential exists for accumulation of gas within confined areas
(i.e. floor drains, cracks in foundations, conduits entering
through the foundations, etc.).
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Instrumentation
For landfill gas sampling, a dual range combustible gas
detector should be used to determine concentrations as percent
methane by volume. Detector limits should be 0-51 and 0-1001
methane by volume with detection methods equivalent to the Gas-
TECH NP204, catalytic and thermal conductivity detectors
respectively, (see appendix attachment I).
Structure and Confined Space Sampling
Affix to the intake of the detector an extension hose and
ridged (fiberglass or metal) thirty (30) inch long probe and
adjust the meter for operation as per manufacturer's
specifications. Insert the ridged probe into the area to be
sampled; i.e. confined areas where gas may accumulate such as
crawl spaces, underground utility conduits entering the building,
floor cracks, drains, etc.
BR30U922
-------
With the instrument in the high (H) range, squeeze the
aspirator bulb slowly and releese several times noting the
highest reading obtained. If the concentration is less than five
(5) percent methane by volume purge the detector and repeat the
procedure in the low (L) range. Record data obtained on the
attached monitoring report form.
Bar-Hole Probe Monitoring
Affix to the Intake of the detector an extension hose and
thirty (30) inch long ridged (fiberglass or metal) probe.
Utilizing a bar-hole punch, insert the punch-rod into the ground
to minimum depth of thirty-six (36) inches. After adjusting the
detector as per manufacturer's specifications, remove the punch-
rod and insert the ridged probe without delay. With the detector
in the high (HI range, squeeze the aspirator bulb slowly several
times noting the highest reading obtained. If the concentration
is less than five (5) percent methane by volume, purge the
detector and repeat the procedure in the low (L) range. Record
data obtained on the attached monitoring report form.
MONITORING SUGGESTIONS
If a series of probe locations all give readings of less than 5
percent volume by volume, it is unnecessary to go through the H
range step each time. However, be aware of the instrument's
limitations when sampling gas concentrations above the L range
detection limits, (for the Gas-TECH NP204, see instrument manual
section VZ C., rich mixtures).
When bar-hole probe monitoring, a metal probe with an open end
and side perforations will minimize the amount of clogging an-
cleaning required to perform numerous probe monitorings in
succession.
When structure sampling, a fiberglass probe with 4 single end
opening will enable monitoring of a precise location.
Calibrate the detector prior to every quarterly monitoring.
ANALYST QUALIFICATION
Personnel performing the above monitoring should be familiar
with the sampling procedures and propel use of the combustible
gas detector. To obtain consistency of data, it is preferred to
have the same analyst perform all monitoring.
AR30l»923
-------
REPORT
In addition to regional distribution, a copy of all monitoring
results will be sent toi
Kris Alzheimer
Waste Management, Inc.
946 Parnsworth Avenue
Bordentovn, NJ 08505
609/296-9063
AR30U92U
------- |