FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SEPTEMBER 2023
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
sr%
PAUL
LEONARD
Digitally signed by
PAUL LEONARD
Date: 2023.09.18
08:58:12 -04'00'
Paul Leonard, Director
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Date
-------
Table of Contents
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 2
I. INTRODUCTION 3
Site Background 3
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 4
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 6
Basis for Taking Action 6
Response Actions 6
Status of Implementation 8
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 14
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 14
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 16
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews 16
Data Review 16
Site Inspection 20
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 20
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 20
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the
remedy selection still valid? 20
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy? 21
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 22
OTHER FINDINGS 22
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 22
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 23
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST A-l
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY B-l
APPENDIX C - SITE MAPS C-l
APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICE D-l
APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS E-l
APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST F-l
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS G-l
APPENDIX H - DATA REVIEW TABLES AND FIGURES 11-1
APPENDIX I - DETAILED ARARS REVIEW TABLES 1-1
1
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CD
Consent Decree
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CD
Consent Decree
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CIC
Community Involvement Coordinator
COC
Contaminant of Concern
EISB
Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD
Explanation of Significant Differences
FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
GWETS
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System
IC
Institutional Control
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
l-ig/L
Micrograms per Liter
MSC
Medium-Specific Concentration
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OU
Operable Unit
PADEP
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
SVOC
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TBC
To Be Considered
TCE
Trichloroethene
UAO
Unilateral Administrative Order
UU/UE
Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
2
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to
determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods,
findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR Reports such as this one. In addition, FYR Reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section
300.430(f)(4)(h)), and considering EPA policy.
This is the fifth FYR for the Blosenski Landfill Superfund site (the Site). The triggering action for this statutory
review is the completion date of the fourth FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
(UU/UE).
The Site consists of four operable units (OUs) that will be addressed in this FYR:
• OU1 - Installation of a public water supply line.
• OU2 - Drum excavation, removal and disposal.
• OU3 - Groundwater remediation.
• OU4 - Landfill capping activities.
The EPA remedial project manager, David Greaves (RPM) led the FYR. Additional participants from EPA
included the EPA community involvement coordinator, Akudo Ejelonu (CIC), human health and ecological risk
assessors, Martin Gelhaus, Site hydrogeologist, Ryan Bower, and legal counsel, Ami Antoine. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) also participated in the review. Skeo provided EPA contractor
support for this FYR. The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) were notified of the initiation of the FYR. The
review began on May 19, 2022.
Refer to Appendix A for additional resources and to Appendix B for the Site's chronology of events.
Site Background
The 13.6-acre site is in West Cain Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The unlined landfill at the Site
received municipal and industrial waste from the 1950s until the 1980s. Waste disposed at the landfill included
solvents, paints, leaking drums and tank truck contents. These waste disposal activities contaminated soil and
groundwater with hazardous chemicals.
The Site consists of a vegetated capped landfill and inactive groundwater extraction and treatment system
(GWETS). The Site is currently enclosed by an 8-foot-high chain link fence. Gas vents, gas probes, monitoring
wells, well vaults and an aboveground groundwater conveyance pipeline are visible on the surface of the Site.
Single-family homes and wooded areas are east and west of the Site (Figure 1). Single-family homes, an
automotive repair facility and Route 340 (West King's Highway) are to the south. The northern boundary consists
of single-family homes along Coffroath Road.
The Site is in the Piedmont physiographic province on top of fractured bedrock. The rock underlying the Site
includes the Chickies Quartzite and the Harpers Phyllite. Two hydraulic zones have been identified at the Site, the
Top of Bedrock zone and the Bedrock zone, both of which are unconfined and subject to seasonal variation. Flow
tends to follow local topography. The Site is located along a groundwater divide, with most of the site-related
groundwater flowing north, but with a small portion flowing south. The groundwater divide separates the
Delaware River Basin (southeastern portion of the Site) and the Susquehanna River Basin (northern and western
3
-------
portions of the Site). The groundwater divide is located near West King's Highway south of the Site and
represents a local groundwater recharge area for the Top of Bedrock zone.
A perennial, unnamed tributary of Indian Spring Run flows northwesterly about 300 feet north of the Site's fence.
It runs almost 2 miles west before joining Indian Spring Run. Indian Spring Run joins Pequea Creek about 4 miles
west of the Site, eventually entering the Susquehanna River, over 30 miles southwest of the Site. The unnamed
tributary serves as a local groundwater barrier that prevents site-related groundwater from flowing to the north.
Homes south (along West King's Highway) and east (along Woodland Drive) of the Site obtain drinking water
from a public water supply system because of the remedial actions completed on December 20, 1990. Homes to
the north of the Site (along Coffroath Road) use private wells. These homes and wells are north of the unnamed
tributary to Indian Spring Run and are, therefore, not considered hydraulically connected to site-related
groundwater. Residential wells along Coffroath Road have been sampled annually since 2007 and show no site-
related impacts.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Blosenski Landfill
EPA ID: PAD980539985
Region: 3
State:
Pennsylvania
City/County: West Cain Township / Chester
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
Yes
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: David Greaves, with additional support provided by Skeo
Author affiliation: EPA Region 3
Review period: 5/19/2022 - 9/19/2023
Date of site inspection: 3/16/2023
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 9/19/2018
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/19/2023
4
-------
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
West Cain Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map
is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site. Map
image is the intellectual properly of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its
licensors. All rights reserved. Sources: Esri, Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Chester
data.pa.gov, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/
NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, US DA, Maxar and the 2020 Focused Feasibility Study.
Last Modified: 4/28/2023
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Mai
iraiwfssii
;Hoffmanl Weill
Approximate Site Boundary
Former Recovery Well
OU1 Public Water Supply Line
Unnamed Tributary
I I Groundwater Treatment System
I "I OU2 Source Removal
Z2L2 OU4 Landfill Cap Boundary
5
-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
At the request of PADEP, EPA visited the Site in 1982 to investigate leaking tank trucks and drummed wastes
and performed a limited removal action. The removal action included draining and disposal of the tank trucks and
their contents. EPA added the Site to the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.
In 1986, EPA completed a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the nature and extent
of the site contaminants. The 1986 RI/FS indicated that air, surface and subsurface soil, groundwater, sediment,
and surface water were affected by wastes buried and dumped on the soil at the Site. As stated in the 1986 ROD,
the major exposure pathway and subsequent health risk identified at the Site was the ingestion and domestic use
of contaminated groundwater. The primary contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater collected from
monitoring wells and residential wells were volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs
were found in monitoring wells, but not in residential wells. Inorganic compounds were also detected in site
media.
An ecological risk assessment conducted in conjunction with the 1986 RI/FS determined that levels of
contamination in surface water and sediment were low and did not pose acute or chronic risks to aquatic biota.
The ecological risk assessment also determined that on-site soils and groundwater presented little risk to terrestrial
biota.
Response Actions
EPA issued the Site's 1986 Record of Decision (ROD) to document the selected remedy for the Site. The
remedial actions address four OUs:1
• OU1 - Installation of a public water supply line.
• OU2 - Drum excavation, removal and disposal.
• OU3 - Groundwater remediation.
• OU4 - Landfill capping activities.
The 1986 ROD did not specify remedial action objectives (RAOs). However, the 1986 ROD included the
following cleanup objectives:
• Prevent an increase in the current potential risk associated with the Site.
• Reduce the current potential risk associated with the Site to acceptable levels.
• Reduce the risk levels to those corresponding to background conditions.
EPA issued two Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) to modify the selected remedy in 1991 and 2013.
The 1991 ESD modified the disposal method for excavated drums under OU2 and the 2013 ESD modified the
groundwater cleanup levels under OU3 and added requirements for institutional controls. EPA also issued an
amendment to the ROD in September 2022. The ROD Amendment modifies the remedy selected for OU3.
EPA amended the cleanup objectives in the 2013 ESD by formally establishing the MCL for each Site COC as the
groundwater clean-up levels and added the requirement for a cumulative risk evaluation of the groundwater after
MCLs have been achieved.
1 The remedy selected in the 1986 ROD was to be performed in four separate "Phases," which were later renamed OUs for
purposes of Site cleanup administration.
6
-------
The 2022 ROD Amendment updated the OU3 objectives, referring to them as RAOs, to:
• Minimize the migration of contaminated groundwater.
• Restore groundwater to beneficial use.
• Minimize VOCs in groundwater that may migrate to indoor air of nearby buildings.
The Site's selected remedy, as documented in the 1986 ROD, 1991 and 2013 ESDs, and 2022 ROD Amendment
consists of the following components:
• Installation of a public water supply line (OU1, 1986 ROD).
• Excavation and off-site incineration of drums and contaminated surface materials (OU2, 1986 ROD and
1991 ESD).
• Performance of a pre-design comprehensive groundwater study (OU3, 1986 ROD).
• Installation and operation of a GWETS (OU3, 1986 ROD).
• Groundwater and surface water monitoring (OU3, 1986 ROD).
• Installation of a multi-layer cap over the landfill portion of the Site, including vegetative cover and
landfill gas venting system as well as fencing (OU4, 1986 ROD).
• Institutional controls (sitewide, 2013 ESD).
• Replacement of the GWETS with enhanced in-situ bioremediation (EISB) (OU3, 2022 ROD
Amendment).
Cleanup Levels
The 2013 ESD selected the final cleanup levels for OU3 groundwater based on the federal MCLs. The 2013 ESD
indicated that groundwater contaminants that do not have an associated MCL will continue to be monitored and
reported to EPA. The 2013 ESD also added the requirement for a cumulative risk evaluation of the groundwater
after MCLs have been met. The cumulative risk evaluation will consider risks posed by all site-related COCs,
including those for which no MCL had been established.
The 2022 ROD Amendment retained the groundwater cleanup levels in the 2013 ESD and the cumulative risk
requirement. For those contaminants without an MCL or non-zero maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), the
2022 ROD Amendment selected the PADEP medium-specific concentration (MSC) for residential groundwater
as the performance standard (Table 1).
Table 1: Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals
(>rouii(lw;iliT ( ()( s
( lOillllip (joill (Uli/I.)
Arsenic
10
Benzene
5
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
6
Cadmium
5
Carbon tetrachloride
5
Chlorobenzene
100
Chromium
100
Cyanide
200
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
600
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
75
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
cis 1,2-Dichloroethene
70
trans 1,2-Dichloroethene
100
7
-------
(iroiiiidwiilor ( ()( s
( loiinup (>o:il (iiii/l.)
Dichloromethane
5
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
Ethylbenzene
700
Lead
15
Pentachlorophenol
1
Styrene
100
T etrachloroethene
5
Toluene
1,000
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
200
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
Trichloroethene (TCE)
5
Trihalomethanes
80
Vinyl chloride
2
Xylenes (total)
10,000
Acetone3
38,000
Aniline3
2.1
Chloroethane3
250
Cobalt3
13
1,1 -Dichloroethane3
31
Delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Delta-BHC)b
—
1,4-Dioxane3
6.5
Ironb
—
Manganese3
300
Naphthalene3
100
Dichlorodifluoromethane3
1,000
2-Butanoneb
—
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether3
0.15
Notes:
Sources: 2013 ESD and 2022 ROD Amendment.
|ig/L = micrograms per liter
-- = Cleanup goal not specified
a. Indicates values that are derived MSCs from PADEP Act 2 and included as an applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement (ARAR). All other values are MCLs.
b. Indicates COCs that were identified in groundwater but do not have MCLs or MSCs. The impact of these
contaminants, if any, will be considered during the cumulative risk assessment for the Site.
Status of Implementation
EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) in 1991 to a group of PRPs for implementation of the OU2
remedy. In December 1993, EPA issued a second UAO to the PRPs for implementation of the OU3 and OU4
remedies. In September 1995, a Consent Decree (CD) was entered by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The CD superseded the 1993 UAO.
OU1 - Installation of a Public Water Supply Line
Under an agreement with EPA, the Coatesville Water Authority (now the Pennsylvania American Water
Company) began construction of the OU1 remedy in March 1987 and completed construction in December 1990.
The work consisted of the following activities:
• Installation of a new water supply pipeline from the Coatesville Water Authority facilities to the
residential area immediately east of the site property (a distance of about 8 miles).
• Construction of a new pumping station at the intersection of Route 340 and Ash Road.
• Connection of 77 existing homes to the new waterline and decommissioning of their residential water
supply wells.
8
-------
In 1999, the Pennsylvania American Water Company upgraded the water distribution and the pumping station.
The upgrade was not part of the selected remedy for the Site and does not impact the functionality of the OU1
remedy.
OU2 - Drum Excavation
The OU2 remedial action was implemented in accordance with the 1991 UAO. Over 800 drums were removed
from the Site in 1992. In 1995, during the landfill regrading activities (OU4, described below), an additional 500
buried drums were discovered, excavated and removed from the Site. The 1986 ROD anticipated that the
excavated materials would be disposed of off site in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) landfill.
After the 1986 ROD and pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 that amended RCRA,
EPA promulgated regulations restricting the land disposal of hazardous wastes. Therefore, EPA issued the 1991
ESD to require incineration of the excavated hazardous waste materials. All affected excavated hazardous wastes
were shipped to Ensco, Inc. in El Dorado, Arkansas for incineration.
OU3 - Groundwater
The PRPs performed the pre-design comprehensive groundwater study required by the 1986 ROD from 1996 to
1997. Based on the findings of this study, a source reduction program, consisting of installation of the GWETS,
began in 1998. Active groundwater extraction was conducted at the Site from September 1998 through October
2010.
By 2010, groundwater concentrations decreased to below MCLs and PADEP MSCs in 10 out of 22 monitoring
wells and one groundwater seep location. Decreases in groundwater concentrations were greatest in the initial two
to three years of GWETS operations, and immediately after source removal and landfill capping activities were
completed. Groundwater conditions at this time had reached asymptotic conditions, despite the expansion of the
extraction network in both 2003 and 2006.
The PRPs submitted a Proposed Temporary Shutdown Work Plan to EPA in March 2010 and EPA approved the
shutdown in October 2010. A semiannual groundwater monitoring program was implemented to monitor for the
potential migration and rebound of VOC concentrations in groundwater. Following the 2010 GWETS shutdown,
no evidence was found to indicate that migration or rebound of COCs was occurring. The current monitoring
program is annual.
The PRPs performed an evaluation of several in-situ remedial approaches to address the continued, low-level
VOC concentrations in site groundwater. Based on the evaluation, and with the concurrence of EPA, Enhanced
In-Situ Bioremediation (EISB), a technology in which amendments are added to groundwater to enhance
biodegradation, was selected for a pilot study to compare the effectiveness of this technology to the OU3 remedy
in the 1986 ROD. The PRPs submitted a final Remedial Alternative Implementation Plan to EPA in July 2015.
An enhanced reductive dechlorination approach was determined to be the most effective means of achieving
chlorinated VOC mass removal in the subsurface. Therefore, the EISB injection material consisted of an electron
donor mixture and a biological culture amendment injected directly into the selected monitoring wells. The pilot
study was conducted in two phases (2015 and 2018). To evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot injections, a
groundwater performance monitoring program consisting of a pre-injection baseline sampling event and four
quarterly post-injection performance monitoring events was performed.
The July 2015 phase of the pilot study was conducted at monitoring wells MW 2-D and MW 8-1 (Figure H-l in
Appendix H). The results indicated that groundwater chlorinated VOC concentrations decreased by over 90% and
54% compared to baseline conditions, respectively. In January 2018, the pilot study was expanded to the three
remaining perimeter monitoring wells (MW 3-D, MW 6-1 and MW 8-D) where remaining VOC concentrations in
groundwater had been detected above MCLs since the beginning of the GWETS shutdown period. Performance
monitoring indicated that chlorinated VOC concentrations in groundwater decreased by 48% in MW 3-D, 86% in
9
-------
MW 6-1 and 94% in MW 8-D. Chlorinated VOC concentrations had also continued to decrease in the 2015 pilot
study MW 2-D injection location. Overall, the results from the pilot study showed that nearly all chlorinated VOC
concentrations declined to below their respective MCLs except for vinyl chloride (a degradation product of
trichloroethene [TCE]). The contaminant 1,4-dioxane was added to the list of COCs in the 2022 ROD
Amendment due to the PA MSC of 6.5 ug/1 being included as an ARAR. The original pilot study did not
specifically evaluate the effectiveness of EISB on 1,4-dioxane.
The PRPs completed a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for OU3 in January of 2020. The FFS incorporated the
findings of the 2015 and 2018 pilot studies and data from historical and more recent sampling events to document
the nature and extent of contamination, updated the human health and ecological risk assessments, and provided a
comparison of the remedial alternatives to address the remaining contamination. The modified remedy described
in the 2022 ROD Amendment replaces the GWETS with the more efficient and cost effective EISB.
The modified remedy consists of the following components:
• Injection of the EISB amendment material in the remaining well with vinyl chloride contamination above
the applicable MCL and the remaining three wells with 1,4-dioxane contamination above the MSC.
• The type of EISB amendment material shall be determined during the remedial design and could be
changed based on the outcome of groundwater monitoring.
• Bioaugmentation shall be conducted if bacterial populations are insufficient for complete biodegradation
of the remaining vinyl chloride and 1,4-dioxane as determined during groundwater monitoring.
• Details regarding the specific amendments to be used as well as anticipated outcomes of the EISB
amendments will be shared with the public prior to implementation. Periodic groundwater monitoring
throughout the groundwater contaminant plume will be conducted.
In consultation with EPA and PADEP, instead of the development of a traditional remedial design, the PRP is
developing a pre-design investigation (PDI) memo which will include pre-design data from the April 2023
sampling event that will focus on VOCs, field parameters Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and Oxidation Reduction
Potential (ORP) at the monitoring well locations identified in the 2022 ROD Amendment. The PDI will be used
to characterize the current post-injection state of the groundwater to guide the next steps for determining the
types of amendments needed (if any) to decrease the remaining contaminants at the Site to levels below the MCLs
and PADEP MSCs.
The PRPs' contractor is conducting annual groundwater and surface water monitoring in accordance with the
EPA-approved groundwater monitoring program. See the Data Review Section of this FYR Report for more
information on the data collected during this FYR period.
Vapor Intrusion
In 2016, the PRPs' contractor conducted vapor intrusion sub-slab soil gas and indoor air sampling at three homes
south and east of the Site. The results were provided in the 2016 Vapor Intrusion Investigation Summary Report
and summarized in the 2018 FYR Report. Overall, the results showed no unacceptable risks from vapor intrusion
and EPA concluded no further action was needed for existing homes, assuming that site conditions remain stable
or improve.
In April of 2019, the PRPs' contractor conducted an additional vapor intrusion sampling event at a single
residence that had initially refused access for VI sampling and had recently sold. The results were consistent with
the 2016 results and no unacceptable risks were identified. The PRPs' contractor will continue to monitor home
sales in the area around the Site and reach out to new homeowners if the previous homeowner had refused access.
10
-------
OU4 -Landfill Capping
The 0U4 remedy required the installation of a low-permeability cover over the landfill portion of the Site in
accordance with the requirements of RCRA. The following work was performed by the PRPs in accordance with
an approved U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design and specification package.
• Installation of a landfill cap system in accordance with RCRA requirements.
• Vegetation of the landfill cap that shall act as an effective and permanent cover capable of stabilizing the
soil surface from erosion.
• Installation of a landfill gas venting system on the cap surface to minimize the potential for off-site
migration of landfill gases.
• Installation of fencing.
The design and construction of the OU4 remedy took place from March 1995 to September 1997. The Site
achieved construction completion status when EPA signed the Preliminary Close-Out Report in September 1998.
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The 2013 ESD required activity and use limitations on the site property. The 2013 ESD further indicated that an
Environmental Covenant (EC) would be implemented restricting site land use, prohibiting disturbance of the
landfill cover, restricting soil excavation and drilling, prohibiting installation and/or operation of groundwater
wells, and requiring a vapor barrier or other vapor mitigation system for any new structure to be built on the Site.
The institutional controls were implemented by a September 2017 Notice of Contamination (NOC), which was
recorded on the deed of the site property (Table 2, Figure 2).
The 2013 ESD did not require institutional controls for off-site properties for groundwater use or for the potential
for vapor intrusion. Currently, groundwater contamination is present outside of the main property boundary to the
north and east (Figure 2). There is no current groundwater use on these parcels, and none planned. The properties
to the east of the Site are on public water. In addition, the 2016 vapor intrusion study indicated no further action in
regard to vapor intrusion.
11
-------
Table 2: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Medi;i.
r.niiiiK'civd
( oulrols. iiiid
AiViis 1 h;il Do
\o( Support
I I /I 1 IJilSed
on ( iii'ivul
( oudilious
ICs
Needed
ICs ( idled
lor in (lie
Decision
Documents
Impiieled
Piireells)
IC
OI).jee(i\e
Tide ol' IC liislruineiil
Implemented ;ind l);i(e
(or pliiuiied)
Groundwater,
subsurface
contamination
Yes
Yes
Tax parcel
28-5-75,
Tax parcel
28-5-80
To prevent the following:
• residential use of the
property;
• installation or operation of
groundwater wells at the
property unless for
groundwater sampling;
• any activity that would
adversely impact the
operation of the
groundwater extraction,
treatment and discharge
system consisting of the
on-site treatment system,
groundwater monitoring
wells, groundwater
conveyance piping and
extraction wells;
• any activity that disturbs
the impermeable cap; and
• disturbance of the site
erosion controls.
Notice of Contamination
September 22, 2017
Groundwater
Yes
No
Off-site
areas
overlying
groundwat
er
contamina
tion
The installation and/or
operation of groundwater
wells on the Property is
prohibited and groundwater
beneath the Site and offsite
shall not be used for any
purpose other than
groundwater sampling related
to future Site investigative
activities related to the
remedial action.
Chester County Health
Department Rules and
Regulations; Chapter 500,
Water Wells
West Cain Township
Subdivision and Land
Development Ordinance
Implemented
12
-------
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
West Cain Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is
not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site. Map image
is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors. All
rights reserved. Sources: Esri, Esri Community Maps Contributors. County of Chester, data.pa.gov, ©
OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies. Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA,
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar, Chester County. PA and the 2020 Focused Feasibility Study.
Last Modified: 4/28/2023
Figure 2: Institutional Control Ma]
^77///////A
///////////A
mmm\
* xmk
Groundwater Concentrations
in Excess of Cleanup Goals (2022)
££2 OU4 Landfill Cap Boundary
Parcel subject to 2017 Notice of Contamination
13
-------
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The PRPs' contractor has performed operation and maintenance (O&M) activities since September 1998. O&M
of the GWETS was performed from 1998 through 2010 when the system was in operation. Prior to the 2022 ROD
Amendment, the PRPs had maintained the groundwater extraction and treatment system in a condition that it
could be restarted within two weeks. However, since the updated remedy, the PRPs have not maintained the
system as approved by EPA. Once EPA provides the final approval, the PRPs plan to demolish the system in
2023.
Current O&M activities consist of the following:
• Quarterly inspection of the landfill cap including the vegetative cover, settlement, stability and erosion.
• Quarterly on-site and off-site landfill gas vent and gas probe inspection, repair and monitoring.
• Quarterly inspection of site drainage and storm water control features.
• Annual groundwater and surface water monitoring and data collection.
• Monthly inspection and maintenance of the perimeter fence.
• Semiannual mowing of the landfill cap surface
All maintenance activities have been conducted and no issues were noted during this FYR period. The monitoring
results are provided in the Data Review of this FYR Report.
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the previous FYR Report as well as
the recommendations from the previous FYR Report and the status of those recommendations (Tables 4 and 5).
Table 4: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2018 FYR Report
()l #
PrnleclheiR'ss
DcliTiniiiiilion
PmleclheiK'ss Sliiiomonl
1
Protective
The (JL1 reined} i!> pi'olccliv c of human licullli and die
environment. Installation of the water line, construction of a
new pumping station, connection of residences to the new
waterline and decommissioning of residential water supply
wells prevents the ingestion and domestic use of contaminated
groundwater.
2
Protective
The OU2 remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. Over 800 drums were removed from the Site in
1992, and, during landfill re-grading activities in 1995, an
additional 500 buried drums were discovered, excavated and
removed from the Site. This drum removal activity eliminated
potential exposure pathways and potential continuing sources
of groundwater contamination.
14
-------
()l #
ProUiiiteiK'ss
Dolci'iniiiiilion
PmleclheiK'ss Sliiiomonl
3
Short-term Protective
The OU3 remedy is protective of human health and the
environment in the short-term. Although the groundwater
treatment system is currently shut down, groundwater
monitoring is being performed to ensure that contaminated
groundwater is not migrating toward potential receptors.
Additionally, the groundwater extraction and treatment system
is maintained in a condition that it could be operational within
two weeks to address any contaminant migration. An in-situ
bioremediation pilot study is currently being performed to
evaluate an alternate remedial technology to address
contaminated groundwater. Vapor intrusion from
contaminated groundwater was determined not to be a concern
at the Site. ICs are in place to prohibit groundwater use and
require that any new construction at the Site be equipped with
a vapor barrier to prevent vapor intrusion. In order for the
OU3 remedy to be protective in the long-term, EPA will need
to determine if a modification to the selected remedy is
necessary following completion of the bioremediation pilot
study.
4
Protective
The OU4 remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. Construction of the multi-layer cap, installation
of passive gas collection and venting system, and construction
of a series of soil berms, culverts, spillways and sedimentation
basins effectively prohibits exposure to the landfill
contaminants. ICs are in place to prevent disturbance of the
landfill cap and associated features.
Sitewide
Short-term Protective
The Site is protective of human health and the environment in
the short-term. A waterline (OU1) has been installed to
prevent the ingestion and domestic use of contaminated
groundwater; drum removal activities (OU2) eliminated the
immediate threats posed by the actual and threatened release
of hazardous substances. The groundwater extraction and
treatment system (OU3) was effective in reducing contaminant
concentrations in groundwater, when in operation and an in-
situ bioremediation pilot study is being conducted to evaluate
alternative remedial technologies to achieve cleanup levels.
The installation of the landfill cap system (OU4) effectively
prohibits exposure to the landfill contaminants. ICs are in
place to prevent residential use of the Site, prevent disturbance
of the landfill cap, prohibit groundwater use, and require that
any new construction at the Site be equipped with a vapor
barrier to prevent vapor intrusion. In order for the Site to be
protective in the long-term, EPA will need to determine if a
modification to the OU3 selected remedy is necessary
following completion of the bioremediation pilot study.
15
-------
Table 5: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report
()l #
Issue
Kccommciuliilion
( iinvnl
Siiiius
( iinvnl Impk'iiK'nliiliun Siiiius
Description
( om plot inn
Diilo (i r
iippliciihlo)
3
The groundwater
extraction and treatment
system has been offline
since 20 fO and
groundwater continues
to exceed the cleanup
levels.
Evaluate the results
of the bioremediation
pilot study conducted
by the PRP to
determine if a
modification to the
OU3 selected remedy
is necessary.
Completed
The 2022 ROD Amendment
modified the selected remedy in the
1986 ROD by replacing the GWETS
with EISB.
9/8/2022
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews
A public notice was published in the Daily Local News on June 1, 2023 and on June 7, 2023 in the Chester
County Press, stating that the FYR was underway and inviting the public to submit any comments to the EPA.
Appendix D provides a copy of the public notice. The results of the FYR and the report will be available at the
Site's information repository at the West Cain Township Building and online at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/blosenski.
During the FYR process, postcard mailings were sent out to the community on May 25, 2023 in order to
determine if the members of the community had any concerns about the Site and if they would desire to be
interviewed the EPA in person or by phone by the EPA. The EPA did not receive any communication from the
community members with a citing a desire to be interviewed. On 8/16/2023, the Site RPM and Site CIC visited
the West Cain Township Office to meet with the township manager and view the Site Repository. During this
visit, the Township manager informed the EPA that he has not had any residents inquiring about the Site,
expressing complaints or concerns, or anyone coming into the office to review the Site repository.
Data Review
The PRPs conduct monitoring at the Site. The monitoring consists of groundwater elevation monitoring,
groundwater analytical monitoring (chlorinated VOCs, 1,4-dioxane and geochemical parameters), surface water
monitoring and residential well monitoring. This FYR report reviewed the monitoring results with a focus on the
most recent data available for review (February 2022) as well as the overall conclusions from the 2020 FFS.
In general, the data collected at the Site indicates the following:
• Groundwater concentrations continue to decrease due to EISB injections as part of the 2015 and 2018
pilot studies.
• In 2022, chlorinated VOCs were not detected above their respective cleanup goals with the exception of
MW 8-1 and EW-1 (this well is located within the footprint of the landfill). In addition, geochemical
parameters continue to show favorable conditions to further decline in VOCs near MW 8-1.
• 1,4-Dioxane continues to exceed the PADEP MSC (6.5 micrograms per liter (j^ig/L)) at select monitoring
wells. In 2022, two monitoring wells had concentrations above the PADEP MSC (MW 15-D and EW-1).
The maximum concentration was 8.7 (ig/L at MW 15-D.
• Surface water results at SW-2 are below cleanup levels and PADEP MSC (1,4-dioxane), which is
consistent with historical results.
• At residential wells, only chloroform was detected, which is consistent with previous results. Chloroform
was detected at estimated levels in residential wells RW-1, RW-3, RW-4 and RW-6 at estimated
concentrations ranging from 0.12 to 0.43 (ig/L (MCLG of 70 (ig/L).
16
-------
Additional details are provided below.
Groundwater Monitoring
The current groundwater monitoring program consists of 24 monitoring wells (including the five pilot study
injection wells), one groundwater seep location and six residential water supply wells (Figure H-l in Appendix
H).
The PRPs' contractor prepared potentiometric maps using data from the February 2022 groundwater sampling
event and results are generally consistent with historical findings and interpretations (Figures H-2 and H-3 in
Appendix H). Throughout the main portion of the Site, groundwater flow is generally to the north. A groundwater
divide is present to the south of the Site in the Bedrock Zone. A southerly component of groundwater flow
continues to be present between monitoring well MW 14-1 and the Hoffman Well toward monitoring well MW
22-1 (Figure 3). The unnamed tributary north of the Site acts as a hydraulic barrier in both the Top of Bedrock
Zone and Bedrock Zone.
Groundwater analytical data from October 2010 and the most recent 2022 data are presented on Figure H-4 in
Appendix H. Concentration trends for select monitoring wells are shown in Appendix H (Figures H-5 through H-
17).
EISB amendments were previously injected into wells MW 2-D, MW 3-D, MW 6-1, MW 8-1 and MW 8-D as
reported in the Pilot Study Expansion Performance Monitoring Report. Previous results at these locations
indicated that chlorinated VOCs were consistently detected above MCLs since the GWETS shutdown in 2010.
Chlorinated VOCs were also detected above MCLs in monitoring wells MW 3-1, MW 15-D, MW 22-1, MW-29-
D, EW-1 and EW-5, although not consistently. February 2021 results indicated that chlorinated VOCs had
decreased to below MCLs in the above monitoring wells. In 2022, vinyl chloride again exceeded its MCL;
concentrations have fluctuated with an overall downward trend. The PRPs will continue to conduct annual
monitoring to determine if concentrations continue to decrease.
In the 2022 ROD Amendment, the cleanup goal was established for 1,4-dioxane based on the PADEP MSC of 6.5
ug/L. With the exceptions listed in Table 6, 1,4-dioxane results from the February 2022 monitoring locations are
below the PADEP MSC and have detection limits below the PADEP MSC. In monitoring well MW 3-D, 1,4-
dioxane concentrations increased from not detected in 2019 (less than 0.2 (ig/L) to 49 (ig/L in 2021 and then not
detected again in 2022.
Table 6: 1,4-Dioxane Concentrations, Select Years
Monitoring
1.4 l)io\:ino ( onconlrnlions
Locutions
,u»/l.
2010
20 16'
2019
2020
2021
2022
MW 2-D
35
16
11
2.3 J
2.9
<4.0
MW 3-D
12/12b
29
<0.2
<40
49
<2.0
MW 8-1
ll/12b
9.6/8.4b
12
4.6
6.8
5.4
MW 8-D
<5
15
19 J
<20
15
<2.0
MW 15-D
<5
5.9
3.4
5.5
12
8.7
EW-1
6
12
3.1
7
5.1
6.9
Notes:
Source: 2022 Data Summary Report.
J = estimated concentration
Bold = exceeds cleanup goal of 6.5 |ig/L
< = less than laboratory detection limit
a. Samples were collected twice in 2016; the higher of the two samples is shown here.
b. Results reported for both parent and duplicate samples.
17
-------
Surface Water Monitoring
Surface water samples were collected from the SW-2 location annually. Consistent with previous results since the
GWETS shutdown in 2010, chlorinated VOC analytical results were below MCLs, and the 1,4-dioxane
concentration was below the PADEP MSC.
Residential Well Monitoring
Results from residential supply wells remain below MCLs. Groundwater analytical results have been below
MCLs at the residential supply wells since the residential well sampling program began in 2007. 1,4-Dioxane has
been detected in residential supply wells at low concentrations. Detections of 1,4-dioxane in residential wells
downgradient of the Site have historically been and currently are well below the cleanup level. Typical 1,4-
dioxane results at the residential well locations have been reported at levels below detection limits ranging from
0.3 |ig/L to 0.5 |ig/L. In 2022, there were no detections of 1,4-dioxane. The residential well results confirm that
potential downgradient receptors are protected.
Chloroform was detected in four residential supply wells, which is consistent with previous observations.
Chloroform was detected at estimated levels below the detection limits in residential supply well locations RW-1,
RW-3, RW-4 and RW-6 at estimated levels ranging from 0.12 |ig/L to 0.43 |ig/L. These results are well below the
MCLG of 70 (ig/L. Consistent with previous observations, chloroform was non-detect in residential supply well
RW-5.
Residential supply well RW-2 was not sampled during the February 2021 groundwater monitoring event because
the property owner was not home. A sample was obtained from this location in May 2021 and February 2022.
Laboratory analytical results were not detected above MCLs in any of the samples.
18
-------
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
West Cain Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is
not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site. Map image
is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors. All
rights reserved. Sources: Esn', Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Chester data.pa.gov. ©
OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA,
NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Maxar and the 2020 Focused Feasibility Study.
Last Modified: 4/28/2023
Figure 3: Detailed Site Map
Residential Monitoring Wells
(RW)
*SMW-5ai
v Ew|lr
Hoffman Well
Approximate Site Boundary
* Monitoring Well Location
Residential Well Sampling Location
~ Surface Water Sampling Location
19
-------
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on March 16, 2023. Participants included the EPA RPM, the PADEP project
manager, PRPs' contractor representatives and Skeo (EPA support contractor). The purpose of the inspection was
to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. Participants observed the landfill cap, fencing, monitoring wells,
landfill gas vents and general site conditions. The landfill cap was generally in good condition. Fencing
completely surrounds the Site and appears to be in good condition. Monitoring wells were locked and functioning.
Participants did not observe the inactive GWETS. EPA indicated the system would be decommissioned pending
final approval. See Appendix F and Appendix G for the site inspection checklist and photos, respectively.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question A Summary:
Yes. The installation of a public water supply line (OU1) served to eliminate the risks associated with the use of
contaminated groundwater by local residents, the removal of the drums from within the landfill (OU2) effectively
removed a contamination source, and capping of the landfill (OU4) prevents exposure to landfill waste and
reduces infiltration of contaminants to groundwater. The GWETS (OU3), along with landfill capping activities
and source removal, have been successful in reducing levels of site-related COCs in groundwater. However, EPA
and the PRPs agreed that the GWETS would not effectively reduce COCs in groundwater to achieve the cleanup
levels for the Site. The GWETS was shut down in 2010 to evaluate alternate remedial technologies to achieve
groundwater cleanup levels. Two pilot studies evaluating EISB were conducted in 2015 and 2018. In 2022, EPA
modified the OU3 remedy to EISB in a ROD Amendment. As mentioned above (Page 10), the PRPs are currently
completing a preliminary design investigation for the modified remedy. Groundwater monitoring since the start of
the EISB pilot study shows decreasing VOC concentrations. In 2021, VOCs were below groundwater cleanup
levels but fluctuated above in 2022 (vinyl chloride). 1,4-Dioxane remained above its cleanup level in four
monitoring wells in 2021 and in two monitoring wells in 2022. In 2023 VOCs were detected above in MCLs in
one upgradient well and in one downgradient well. Also in 2023, one upgradient well and one downgradient well
had concentrations of 1,4-dioxane above its cleanup level. Monitoring will continue to further evaluate the
effects of the pilot study. The 2022 ROD Amendment amended cleanup goals for several contaminants and added
cleanup goals for several contaminants.
The PRPs' contractor has performed O&M activities since September 1998. The current primary activities are
maintenance of the landfill surface area and landfill gas venting system and groundwater monitoring. Institutional
controls are in place via a Notice of Contamination.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the
remedy selection still valid?
Question B Summary:
No. While the RAOs used at the time of the 1986 ROD and 2022 ROD Amendment remain valid, risk assessment
methodology, exposure assumptions and toxicity factors have changed since the original risk assessment.
However, the remedy has prevented exposure via the landfill cap, the excavation and off-site incineration of
waste, installation of the water line, and the institutional controls. In addition, a cumulative risk assessment will
be performed once groundwater cleanup levels are achieved, to confirm that the total groundwater risk is
acceptable. Therefore, the changes do not affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
20
-------
Changes in Standards and TBCs
The 2022 ROD Amendment updated the groundwater cleanup levels based on current MCLs and selected PADEP
MSCs for those COCs for which no MCL is promulgated. This FYR compared the updated groundwater cleanup
levels to current standards (Appendix I). The EPA MCLs remain unchanged. The PADEP MSCs for lead, cobalt
and acetone have become more stringent. These COCs are not currently monitored at the Site but have never been
detected.
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics
There have been no changes to toxicity and other contaminant characteristics that affect the protectiveness of the
remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methods
There have been no changes to risk assessment methods that affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Exposure Pathways
The major exposure pathway anticipated in the decision documents, ingestion and use of contaminated
groundwater, remains valid. An additional exposure pathway, vapor intrusion, was evaluated in 2016 and in a
supplemental evaluation in 2019.
Vapor intrusion sampling was performed at nearby homes in 2016, and no unacceptable site-related risks from
vapor intrusion were identified. Therefore, EPA concluded that no further action was needed for existing
residences, assuming that site conditions remain stable or improve. If site conditions change in the future, such as
large increases in VOC concentrations in groundwater, EPA will reconsider the potential for vapor intrusion.
Institutional controls are in place to require installation of a vapor barrier in any new construction at the Site.
During this FYR period, the PRPs completed more vapor intrusion sampling at a home that had recently been
sold. Consistent with the previous results, no unacceptable site-related risks were identified.
Expected Progress Toward Meeting RAOs
Except for restoring groundwater to beneficial use, all other RAOs have been attained at the Site. Migration of
contaminated groundwater and migration to indoor air has been minimized by the GWETS as well as the current
EISB remedy. The landfill cap, drum excavation, water line installation and institutional controls have reduced
potential risk associated with the Site to acceptable levels. Surface water has been monitored regularly and does
exceed levels of human health concern.
The current OU3 remedy is expected to restore groundwater to beneficial use. Groundwater monitoring is
ongoing and the PRPs and their contractor are working on the remedial design for the updated OU3 remedy.
QUESTION C : Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy?
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
21
-------
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issucs/Rccommcndations I clout i I'icil in the l;M<:
OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4
OTHER FINDINGS
EPA considers per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to be an emerging contaminant of concern. PFAS are
a group of manufactured chemicals used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s because of their
useful properties. Due to the unknown nature of wastes disposed of in landfills, sampling for PFAS is
recommended at this Site.
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Operable Unit:
1
Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination:
Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU1 is protective of human health and the environment. Installation of the water line, construction
of a new pumping station, connection of residences to the new waterline and decommissioning of residential water
supply wells prevent the ingestion and domestic use of contaminated groundwater.
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
2 Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU2 is protective of human health and the environment. Drums were excavated and removed from
the Site. This drum removal activity eliminated potential exposure pathways and potential continuing sources of
groundwater contamination.
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
3 Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU3 currently protects human health and the environment. EPA, PADEP and the PRPs are in the
remedial design phase of implementing the updated groundwater remedy. Long term protection will be
achieved when groundwater sampling results are consistently below cleanup levels. In the meantime,
institutional controls are in place to prohibit groundwater use and require any new construction on site to be
equipped with a vapor barrier to prevent vapor intrusion. EPA has determined that vapor intrusion is not a
22
-------
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
4 Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU4 is protective of human health and the environment. Construction of the multi-layer cap,
installation of passive gas collection and venting system, and construction of a series of soil berms, culverts,
spillways and sedimentation basins effectively prohibit exposure to the landfill contaminants. Institutional controls
are in place to prevent disturbance of the landfill cap and associated features.
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. Installation of the water line,
construction of a new pumping station, connection of residences to the new waterline and decommissioning of
residential water supply wells prevent the ingestion and domestic use of contaminated groundwater. Drums were
excavated and removed from the Site. EPA, PADEP and the PRPs are in the remedial design phase of
implementing the updated groundwater remedy. Long term protection will be achieved when groundwater
sampling results are consistently below cleanup levels. In the meantime, institutional controls are in place to
prohibit groundwater use and require any new construction on site to be equipped with a vapor barrier to prevent
vapor intrusion. EPA has determined that vapor intrusion is not a concern off site. Construction of the multi-
layer cap, installation of passive gas collection and venting system, and construction of a series of soil
berms, culverts, spillways and sedimentation basins effectively prohibit exposure to the landfill contaminants.
Institutional controls are in place to prevent disturbance of the landfill cap and associated features.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the Blosenski Landfill Superfund site is required five years from the completion date of
this review.
23
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Data Summary Observations, Woodward & Curran, June 2016
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Remedial Alternative Pilot Study Expansion, First Quarterly Post-Injection
Data Summary Observations, Woodward & Curran, June 14, 2018
Explanation of Significant Differences, Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Chester County,
Pennsylvania, EPA Region 3, June 14, 1991
First Five-Year Review Report for the Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Chester County, Pennsylvania,
EPA Region 3, September 30, 2008
Fourth Five-Year Review Report for the Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Chester County, Pennsylvania,
EPA Region 3, September 19, 2018
Record of Decision, Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Chester County, Pennsylvania, EPA Region 3,
September 29, 1986
Record of Decision Amendment, Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Chester County, Pennsylvania, EPA Region
3, September 8, 2022
Second Five-Year Review Report for the Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Chester County,
Pennsylvania, EPA Region 3, September 29, 2008
Third Five-Year Review Report for the Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site, Chester County
Pennsylvania, EPA Region 3, September 25, 2013
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table B-l: Site Chronology
I.mmH
D.ile
The Site served as a local dump for area residents
1950s to 1971
The Site was purchased by Joseph M. Blosenski, Jr. and operated as a
dump for various construction and hazardous chemical wastes from local
industries
1971 to about 1982
EPA first visited the Site and performed a limited removal action that
consisted of the draining and disposal of the tank trucks and their
contents
1982
EPA listed the Site on the NPL
September 1983
The Superfund-financed RI/FS took place
September 1983 to February 1986
EPA signed the Site's ROD
September 1986
The water line (OU1) installation was completed
December 1990
EPA issued a UAO for drum removal (OU2)
December 1990
EPA issued an ESD for incineration and disposal of excavated drums and
associated contaminated soils
June 1991
The drum removal remedial action took place
1992
EPA issued a UAO requiring the remedial design/remedial action of
OU3 (groundwater) and OU4 (landfill)
December 1993
The PRPs entered into a CD for recovery of past costs and completion of
the OU3 and OU4 remedies
September 1995
The OU4 multi-layer cap construction is completed
September 1997
The OU3 GWETS installation is completed
September 1998
EPA conducted a pre-final inspection of all remedial actions
September 1998
EPA issued the Site's Preliminary Close-Out Report
September 1998
EPA approved the Site's O&M Plan
September 1998
EPA signed the Site's First FYR Report
September 2003
A GWETS shutdown/rebound test took place
December 2004 to April 2006
Monitoring well MW 8-D was converted to an extraction well
April 2006
EPA signed the Site's Second FYR Report
September 2008
A GWETS shutdown/rebound test took place
October 2010
EPA signed the Site's Third FYR Report
September 2013
EPA issued an ESD
September 2013
The PRPs submitted the Final Remedial Alternative Implementation Plan
for EISB to EPA
July 2015
The first phase of the pilot study began
July 2015
The PRPs submitted the Post-Remediation Performance Monitoring
Report for pilot study to EPA
October 2016
The pilot study was expanded to three more wells
January 2018
EPA signed the Site's Fourth FYR Report
September 2018
The PRPs submitted the Pilot Study Expansion Performance Monitoring
Report to EPA
June 2019
The PRPs completed the FFS for OU3
January 2020
EPA issued the 2022 ROD Amendment for OU3
September 2022
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C - SITE MAPS2
Figure C-l: Pre-GWETS Operation, Extent of VOCs Above MCLs (1998)
Residential Wells (RW)
FIGURE 6
PRE-GWETS OPERATION EXTENT
OF VOCs ABOVE MCLS
1998
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
CHESTER COUNTY. FENMSTLVANiA
PREPARED FOR
DLOSENSKI PERFORMING ^ARTIES
Flttsaursh. FA 16235
{41Z) an-tSO0
Tux. (412) £41 7500
jRAWN UY: C.J. Miiler
CHFCKFD BY: R.J. Jones
A->P;
-------
Figure C-2: Post-GWETS Operation, Extent of VOCs Above MCLs (2010)
-------
"igure C-3: Post-EISB Pilot Studies, Extent of VOCs Above MCLs (2023)
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICE
EPA PUBLIC NOTICE
EPA REVIEWS CLEANUP
BLOSENSKI LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing the cleanup that was
conducted at the Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site located in West Cain Township,
Pennsylvania. EPA conducts Five-Year Reviews to ensure that cleanups continue
to protect public health and the environment. EPA conducted the previous Five-
Year Review in 2018 and concluded that the remedy was working as designed and
was protective in the short-term. EPA will make the findings from this Five-Year
Review available in September 2023.
To access site information, including the Five-Year Review, visit:
www.epa.gov/superfund/blosenski
To access the QR codes above, please open the camera app on your smartphone. Move your camera so the QR
code is in the frame and able to be scanned. Hold the device steady until the camera app can read the code
For questions or to provide site-related information for the review, contact:
Akudo Ejelonu, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator
215-814-5536 or ejelonu.akudo@epa.gov
D-l
-------
APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Blosenski Landfill
Date of Inspection: 3/16/2023
Location and Region: West Cain Township.
Pennsylvania. Region 3
EPA ID: PAD980539985
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: 40s. sunny
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
1^1 Landfill cover/containment
Access controls
1^1 Institutional controls
Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
53 Other: Enhanced in-situ bioremediation
~ Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: EH Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager
Name Title
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone:
Problems, suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
2. O&M Staff
Name Title
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone:
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
3.
Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.
Agency.
Contact
Name
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Title
Date
Phone No.
Agency.
Contact
Name
Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.
Date
Phone No.
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
Agency
Contact
Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
Agency.
F-l
-------
Contact
Name Title
Problcms/suaaestions |~~| Report attached:
Date
Phone No.
4. Other Interviews (optional) 1"! Report attached:
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
~ O&M manual ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
M N/A
1 1 As-built drawings ~ Readily available
1 1 Up to date
M N/A
~ Maintenance logs ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IE|n/a
Remarks:
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
~ Readily available
~ Up to date ^
|N/A
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
~ Readily available
~ Up to date £<
| N/A
Remarks:
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date ^
|N/A
Remarks:
4. Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Readily available
~ Up to date £<
| N/A
~ Effluent discharge
~ Readily available
~ Up to date £<
|N/A
~ Waste disposal, POTW
~ Readily available
~ Up to date ^
|n/a
I"! Other Dcrmits:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date £<
|n/a
Remarks:
5. Gas Generation Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date £<
|n/a
Remarks:
6. Settlement Monument Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date £<
| N/A
Remarks:
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date ^
|N/A
Remarks:
8. Leachate Extraction Records
~ Readily available
~ Up to date £<
| N/A
Remarks:
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
M N/A
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available
~ Up to date
M N/A
Remarks:
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
~ Readily available
~ Up to date £<
|N/A
F-2
-------
Remarks:
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
1 1 State in-house
1 1 Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-house
1X1 Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house
1 1 Contractor for Federal facility
n
2. O&M Cost Records
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
1 1 Funding mechanism/agreement in place Unavailable
Orieinal O&M cost estimate:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
I-! Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS |EI Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Gates secured I I N/A
Remarks: Fencins was senerallv in sood condition. Some vesetation was dresent leanins asainst. or
srowins throush. the fence but it did not affect the funcationalitv of the fencins.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures
1 1 Location shown on site map ^ N/A
Remarks: Sisns were faded and no words were apparent.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
F-3
-------
Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
I~1 Yes
~ No £
3 N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
~ Yes
~ No 0
3 N/A
Type of monitorine (e.g.. self-reportine. drive b\ ): Self-reportine
Freauencv: Semiannual
Responsible partv/aeencv: PRP contractor
Contact
Name Title
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
I~1 Yes
~ No
IE|n/a
Reports are verified by the lead agency
I~1 Yes
~ No
|E1 N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
IEI Yes
~ No
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
I~1 Yes
~ No
|E1 N/A
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2. Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: Additional ICs may be needed for areas with groundwater contamination located outside the
landfill property boundary.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Roads adequate I I N/A
Remarks:
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (low spots) ~ Location shown on site map £3 Settlement not evident
Area extent: Depth:
Remarks:
2. Cracks ~ Location shown on site map ^ Cracking not evident
Lengths: Widths: Depths:
Remarks:
F-4
-------
3.
Erosion
Area extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
Erosion not evident
Deoth:
4.
Holes
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
1X1 Holes not evident
Deoth:
5.
Vegetative Cover
1X1 Grass
1X1 Cover properly established
I~1 No signs of stress
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6.
Alternative Cover (e.£
Remarks:
armored rock, concrete)
IE|n/a
7.
Bulges
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
1X1 Bulges not evident
Heisht:
8.
Wet A rcas/Water Damage ^ Wet areas/water damage not evident
~ Wet areas
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
I~1 Seeps
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
1 1 Soft subgrade
1 1 Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
9.
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
~ Location shown on site map
1X1 No evidence of slope instability
Area extent:
Remarks:
B.
Benches ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 N/A or okay
C.
Letdown Channels
Applicable ~ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
F-5
-------
1.
Settlement (Low spots) EH Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
E3 No evidence of settlement
Deoth:
2.
Material Degradation EH Location shown on site map
Material tvne:
Remarks:
No evidence of degradation
Area extent:
3.
Erosion EH Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
EH No evidence of erosion
Deoth:
4.
Undercutting EH Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
E3 No evidence of undercutting
Deoth:
5.
Obstructions Tydc:
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Size:
Remarks:
E3 No obstructions
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Tydc:
1^1 No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Remarks:
D.
Cover Penetrations ^ Applicable EH N/A
1.
Gas Vents EH Active ^ Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance EH N/A
Remarks:
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
1 1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning EH Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance EH N/A
Remarks:
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
153 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration EH Needs maintenance EH N/A
Remarks:
4.
Extraction Wells Leachate
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled EH Good condition
F-6
-------
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs maintenance N/A
Remarks:
5
Settlement Monuments Q Located Q Routinely surveyed ^ N/A
Remarks:
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1
Gas Treatment Facilities
I~1 Flaring Q Thermal destruction Q Collection for reuse
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
F.
Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1
Outlet Pipes Inspected Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
2
Outlet Rock Inspected Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Siltation Area extent: Dcoth: I-! N/A
1 1 Siltation not evident
Remarks:
2.
Erosion Area extent: Dcoth:
1 1 Erosion not evident
Remarks:
3.
Outlet Works Q Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
4.
Dam ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1
Deformations EH Location shown on site map ~ Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement:
Rotational displacement:
Remarks:
F-7
-------
2.
Degradation Q Location shown on site map
Remarks:
1 1 Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Siltation Q Location shown on site map
153 Siltation not evident
Area extent:
Dcoth:
Remarks:
2.
Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
[El n/a
Area extent:
Tvpe:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
153 Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure Q Functioning
Remarks:
|E1 N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable g
3 N/A
1.
Settlement Q Location shown on site map
1 1 Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Performance Monitoring Tydc of monitorine:
1 1 Performance not monitored
Freauencv:
1 1 Evidence of breaching
Head differential:
Remarks:
IX.
GROUNDWATER/SURF ACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines ^
3 Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
~ Good condition Q All required wells properly operating
1 1 Needs maintenance ^ N/A
Remarks: Groundwater extraction svstem is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
~ Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks: Groundwater extraction svstem is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1 1 Readily available ~ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks: Groundwater extraction svstem is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
F-8
-------
approval.
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1 1 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
C.
Treatment System ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
I"! Filters:
I"! Additive (e.e.. chelation asent. flocculent):
n Others:
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I"! Ouantitv of groundwater treated annually:
I"! Ouantitv of surface water treated annually:
Remarks: Groundwater extraction svstem is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1^1 N/A ~ Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks: Groundwater extraction svstem is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
1^1 N/A ~ Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs maintenance
Remarks: Groundwater extraction svstem is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
1^1 N/A ~ Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks: Groundwater extraction svstem is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
F-9
-------
5.
Treatment Building(s)
1^1 N/A ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair
1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks: Groundwater extraction system is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs maintenance N/A
Remarks: Groundwater extraction system is inactive and will be decommissioned after final EPA
approval.
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
1^1 Is routinely submitted on time £3 Is °f acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring Data Suggests:
153 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ^ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs maintenance N/A
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The OU1. OU2 and OU4 remedies are functioning as intended. There is no exposure to contamination due
to the landfill cat) (OU4). the installation of the Diiblic water suddIy lines (OU1) and removal of source
material from the Site (OU2). The OU3 remedy consisted of sroundwater extraction and treatment. In
2010. the svstem was turned off. Enhanced in situ bioremediation oilot studies in 2015 and 2018 were
successful in reducins concentrations of remainins contaminants in sroundwater. In 2022. EPA modified
the OU3 remedy, reolacine sroundwater extraction and treatment with enhanced in-situ bioremediation.
EPA. PADEP and the PRPs are in the oroccss of conductins the remedial desisn for the undated remedy.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
O&M aoocars adeauate. The landfill cat) is well vesetated and mo wins is conducted semiannually.
Monitorins wells are locked and in sood condition. The former sroundwater extraction and treatment
system is no lonser ODcratins and is no lonser maintained. EPA is in the oroccss of sivins final atroroval
to dismantle the system.
C.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
F-10
-------
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None.
F-ll
-------
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
Locked entrance gate
Inactive GWETS facility
G-l
-------
Landfill cap, gas vents and adjacent property
G-2
-------
Gas vents with unnamed tributary in the background
Monitoring well MW 29-D
G-3
-------
APPENDIX H - DATA REVIEW TABLES AND FIGURES3
Figure H-l: Monitoring Well and Residential Well Location Map
Residential Wells (RW)
uw 13-19 MowrroRiMC wll location
© tfJANDCNED MONITORING WELL LOCATION
51*'-2 ® SURFACE VM.TEK SAUPLE LOCATION
RESiDEnnAL YELL SAMR.NG LOCATION
(NOT CONNECTED TO PUBLIC WATER J
3 Source: 2022 Data Summary Observations
H-l
-------
Figure H-2: Top of Bedrock Zone Potentiometric Surface Map, 2022
«|i
DATE: 3/30/2022_
97236B586
LEGEND:
WW 13-1 ® MONITORING WELL LOCATION
£> ABANDONED MONITORING WELL LOCATION
SW-2 ® SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION
790.36 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION, FT. MSL (2/22/2022)
— 760 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONTOUR, FT. MSL
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
^ GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
O fN
I— IN
Z !N
£ >"
w
-------
Figure H-3: Bedrock Zone Potentiometric Surface Map, 2022
«|i
DATE: 3/30/2022_
97236B587
2 fvj
O ™
!= ^
2 <
^ LJJ 3
LLJ ^
* £ m
J LU
^r, UJ u_
- Z CL
¦ o <
IM ^
^ u_»
o <
q: u-
S =>
CC LO
LEGEND:
MW 13-1 $ MONITORING WELL LOCATION
® ABANDONED MONITORING WELL LOCATION
SVi-2 ® 5URFACE WATER 5AMPLE LOCATION
789.19 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION, FT. MSL (2/22/2022)
— 790 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE CONTOUR. FT. MSL
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
H-3
-------
Figure H-4: VOC Concentrations - Post GWETS Shutdown, 2010 and 2022
H-4
-------
Figure H-5: MW 2-D VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 2-D
Extraction Well - Bedrock Zone
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
--
/V
--
--
/
--
/
:
--
1———\
^ \7i
tL ^ ^ ... * JKw , W ^
c
o
u
^ ^ ^
Date
—*—Benzene —A- TCE —~—1,1-DCE -*-cis-1,2-DCE
rA"i
^ ^ -O^ _n#
^ ^ ^ ^
-Vinyl Chloride
-System Off
-Pilot Injection
H-5
-------
Figure H-6: MW 3-1 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 3-1
Extraction Well - Top of Bedrock Zone
Date
—*- TCE )( Benzene x cis-1,2-DCE —Vinyl Chloride System Off
H-6
-------
Figure H-7: MW 3-D VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
200
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 3-D
Extraction Well - Bedrock Zone
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
Date
Benzene
TCE
¦1,1-DCE
•cis-1,2-DCE
-Vinyl Chloride
¦System Off
¦Pilot Injection
H-7
-------
Figure H-8: MW 5-1 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 5-1
Monitoring Well - Bedrock Unit
—¦—Vinyl Chloride —A-Trichloroethene X cis 1,2-DCE —I—1,1,1 TCA PCE System Off
H-8
-------
Figure H-9: MW 6-1 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
100
90
80
70
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 6-1
Monitoring Well - Top of Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
e 60
c
o
c
0}
u
c
o
u
50
40
A*
I—Vinyl Chloride
—* Trichloroethene
<\v *$>V A.V
Pilot Injection
H-9
-------
Figure H-10
: MW 8-1 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 8-1
Monitoring Well - Top of Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
Date
—¦—Vinyl Chloride —*- Trichloroethene —*-Benzene —*— cis 1,2-DCE System Off Pilot Injection
H-10
-------
Figure H-ll: MW 8-D VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 8-D
Extraction Well - Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
/A
* A .J ^
¥ \Z
i
1
—¦—¦ ¦ ¦— . ,
L-*-*1-*—* * —
¦srS- ¦-¦ ¦ =w ¦
if
i bfi
iV
rA^
rtf>
rA*
„fA<°
i\%
-------
Figure H-12: MW 15-D VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 15-D
Monitoring Well - Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
I
II
\
1
'
1
1
1
A
A 1
1
1
/ V A
A / x /\
i \ / \ / \
/ \ / \f \ i
/ \ /A \
/>- \ / / \ \ \
\ jry / *
U ~l 1 i 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i i
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Date
—±- Trichloroethene —*— cis 1,2-DCE System Off
H-12
-------
Figure H-13: MW 22-1 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 22-1
Monitoring Well - Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
Date
TCE —cis 1,2-DCE System Off
H-13
-------
Figure H-14: MW 24-1 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW-24-1
Monitoring Well - Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
25 i
20
15
Date
—TCE System Off
H-14
-------
Figure H-15: MW 29-D VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - MW 29-D
Monitoring Well - Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
fST ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
¦1,1-DCE
h—1,1,1-TCA
Date
—TCE
-cis-1,2-DCE
-System Off
H-15
-------
Figure H-16: EW-1 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - EW-1
Extraction Well - Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
>( Benzene * TCE ~ 1,1-DCE X cis-1,2-DCE Vinyl Chloride System Off
H-16
-------
Figure H-17: EW-5 VOC Concentrations, 1998 to 2022
Select VOC Concentrations - EW-5
Extraction Well - Top of Bedrock/Bedrock Unit
Blosenski Landfill Superfund Site
Date
—*¦ TCE System Off
H-17
-------
APPENDIX I - DETAILED ARARS REVIEW TABLES
Table 1-1: Groundwater Cleanup Levels Review
(>niuii(l\\;iicr ( ()(
( loiiiiup (ioiils
(iili/l»
( iiriviil >1(1.'
(uii/l I
( iirivnl MSC1"
(uii/l I
Chiinuc
Arsenic
10
10
10
No change
Benzene
5
5
5
No change
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
6
6
6
No change
Cadmium
5
5
5
No change
Carbon tetrachloride
5
5
5
No change
Chlorobenzene
100
100
100
No change
Chromium
100
100
100
No change
Cyanide
200
200
200
No change
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
600
600
600
No change
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
75
75
75
No change
1,2-Dichloroethane
5
5
5
No change
1,1 -Dichloroethene
7
7
7
No change
cis 1,2-Dichloroethene
70
70
70
No change
trans 1,2-Dichloroethene
100
100
100
No change
Dichloromethane
5
5
5
No change
1,2-Dichloropropane
5
5
5
No change
Ethylbenzene
700
700
700
No change
Lead
15
15
5
More stringent
Pentachlorophenol
1
1
1
No change
Styrene
100
100
100
No change
Tetrachloroethene
5
5
5
No change
Toluene
1,000
1,000
1,000
No change
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
200
200
200
No change
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
5
5
No change
Trichloroethylene
5
5
5
No change
Trihalomethanes
80
80
80
No change
Vinyl chloride
2
2
2
No change
Xylenes (total)
10,000
10,000
10,000
No change
Acetone3
38,000
—
31,000
More stringent
Aniline3
2.1
—
2.1
No change
Chloroethane3
250
—
21,000
Less Stringent
Cobalt3
13
—
10
More stringent
1,1 -Dichloroethane3
31
—
31
No change
Delta-HCH (Delta-BHC)b
—
—
—
—
1,4-Dioxane3
6.4
—
6.5
Less stringent
Ironb
—
—
—
—
Manganese3
300
—
300
No change
Naphthalene3
100
—
100
No change
Dichlorodifluoromethane3
1,000
—
1,000
No change
2-Butanone b
—
—
—
—
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether3
0.15
—
0.15
No change
1-1
-------
(jrouikIw ;i(oi- ( ()(
( loiiiiiip (ioiils
(ll'j/l)
( iiriviil MCI.
IU "/I)
(ill
VIII MSC1"
(llii/l)
Chiinuc
Notes:
~ = No standard
a. National Primary Drinking Water Standards located at:https://www. epa. gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-
primarv-drinking-water-regulations (accessed 3/20/2023).
b. PADEP MSCs for Organic Regulated Substances in Groundwater (based on Used Aquifer, Total Dissolved Solids less
than 2,500, residential use) located at:
https://files.dep.state.pa.us/EnvironmentalCleanupBrownfields/LandRecYclingProgram/LandRecYclingProgramPortalFi
les/GuidanceTechTools/Vaporlntrusion/November 2021/Table%201 .pdf (accessed 3/20/2023).
c. PADEP MSCs for Inorganic Regulated Substances in Groundwater (based on Used Aquifer, Total Dissolved Solids
less than 2,500, residential use) located at:
https://files.dep.state.pa.us/EnvironmentalCleanupBrownfields/LandRecYclingProgram/LandRecYclingProgramPortalFi
les/GuidanceTechTools/Vaporlntrusion/Januarv 2022/Table 2.pdf (accessed 3/20/2023).
1-2
------- |