U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

 Evaluation Report 

Changes in Conditions at 

Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site 

in Delaware Call for 

Increased EPA Oversight 

 Report No. 10-P-0055 

 January 26, 2010 
Report Contributors: Carolyn Copper 

 Patrick Milligan 

 Denise Rice 

 Martha Chang 

 Kathryn Hess 

Abbreviations 

DNREC Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware) 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MW Monitoring Well 

NPL National Priorities List 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls 

PRP Potentially Responsible Party 

ROD Record of Decision 

RPM Remedial Project Manager 

Site Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site 

SVOCs Semi-volatile Organic Compounds 

SW Surface Water 

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

ug/L micrograms per liter 

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 

Cover photo: The remediated Wildcat Superfund Landfill Site near Dover, Delaware. 

(EPA OIG photo) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 10-P-0055 

January 26, 2010 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

The Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) is testing longterm monitoring results at 

Superfund sites the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has deleted 

from the National Priorities 

List. The Wildcat Landfill 

Superfund Site, located near 

Dover, Delaware (within EPA 

Region 3), is one of eight sites 

being reviewed. In April 

2008, the OIG obtained 

groundwater and surface water 

samples from the Site and 

conducted a site inspection. 

Background 

Wildcat Landfill was added to 

the Superfund National 

Priorities List in 1983 and was 

deleted from the list in 2003. 

The Site was contaminated 

from disposal of paint sludge 

and municipal, industrial, and 

latex waste. In 2005, the Site 

was sold to Kent County, 

Delaware (Site owner), which 

plans to reuse the Site for 

public recreation purposes. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional, 

Public Affairs and Management 

at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/ 

20100126-10-P-0055.pdf 

Changes in Conditions at Wildcat Landfill Superfund 

Site in Delaware Call for Increased EPA Oversight

 What We Found 

Our inspection of the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site, combined with the current 

owner’s plans for the Site, demonstrate that more sampling and EPA oversight are 

needed to ensure that the Site remains safe for humans and the environment based 

on planned future use. Our independent sampling results were generally 

consistent with Region 3’s historical results. However, surface waters at the Site 

have a sheen that resembles petroleum. The clean-up remedy does not address 

petroleum contamination and Region 3 had not tested for petroleum during its 

sampling events, but agreed to test for it in September 2009. In December 2009, 

the Region reported that it had detected petroleum at levels below public health 

standards and it will continue to monitor petroleum levels at the Site. 

OIG’s results also disclosed several instances where aluminum, iron, and selenium 

exceeded ecological protection standards. Further, Region 3’s historical samples 

were not always analyzed according to the required standard, which can prevent 

detection of contamination that exceeds standards. Region 3 corrected this error in 

a September 2009 sampling event. It also reported from its September 2009 

sampling event that levels of aluminum and selenium were within ecological 

protection standards, but iron was not. 

The Site has not been cleaned up to standards that allow for unrestricted public 

access. However, the Site’s owner plans to create a greenway and to construct a 

bike path on the landfill, which would open part of the Site to unrestricted access. 

A local small business owner who purchased an acre of the Site has also inquired 

about building a storage facility on that acre. Region 3’s oversight of the Site 

reuse plans has been informal and undocumented. The Region is currently aware 

of the Site owner’s plans and agreed to formally document discussions with the 

Site owner and review reuse plans as they become available. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that Region 3 modify its sampling and analysis approach to 

ensure proper testing of relevant contaminants, address contamination that exceeds 

ecological or human safety standards, and improve oversight of Site reuse plans. 

Region 3 agreed with OIG recommendations and has initiated or completed some 

actions. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Program Evaluation 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

January 26, 2010 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Changes in Conditions at Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site 

in Delaware Call for Increased EPA Oversight 

 Report No. 10-P-0055 

FROM: Wade T. Najjum 

TO: Shawn M. Garvin 

 Region 3 Administrator 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains the findings from our 

sampling at the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site and corrective actions the OIG recommends. 

EPA Region 3 concurred with and provided comments on the recommendations of the draft 

report. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final 

EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in 

accordance with established resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time, then adding in the contractor costs – 

is $285,382. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this 

report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective action plan for agreed upon 

actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to 

the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper, 

Director for Program Evaluation, Hazardous Waste Issues, at (202) 566-0829 or 
copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Patrick Milligan, Project Manager, at (215) 814-2326 or 

milligan.patrick@epa.gov. 
Changes in Conditions at Wildcat Landfill Superfund 10-P-0055 

Site in Delaware Call for Increased EPA Oversight 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 

Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 

Background ................................................................................................. 1 

 Noteworthy Achievements .......................................................................... 2 

 Scope and Methodology.............................................................................. 2 

2 More Sampling and Monitoring of Land Use Changes Needed .................... 5 

Site Contains Newly Identified Petroleum Products .................................... 5 

Metal Concentrations Exceed State Standards........................................... 6 

Modifications to Site Remedy Are Necessary Before 

Land Can Be Used for Recreation ....................................................... 8 

Conclusions................................................................................................. 9 

 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 10 

EPA Region 3 Response and OIG Evaluation ............................................ 10 

Kent County, Delaware, Response and OIG Evaluation............................. 11 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 12 

Appendices 

A OIG Sample Results Compared to Site Historical Data .................................. 13
 

B VOC Results from OIG Sampling...................................................................... 14 

C EPA Region 3 Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ....................... 16 

D Kent County Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ......................... 21 

E Distribution ......................................................................................................... 30 
10-P-0055 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is evaluating long-term monitoring at Superfund sites deleted from 

the National Priorities List (NPL). This is being done to ensure EPA has valid 

and reliable data on the conditions of these sites. The Wildcat Landfill Superfund 

Site near Dover, Delaware, is one of eight sites being reviewed. We collected 

groundwater and surface water samples and conducted a site inspection. We 

compared our results to past results reported by EPA Region 3. 

Background 

The Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site is located 2.5 miles southeast of Dover in 

Kent County, Delaware. The 44-acre Site is bordered to the north and east by the 

St. Jones River and its associated wetlands and to the south and west by 

residential and commercial development. The Site was operated as a permitted 

sanitary landfill between 1962 and 1973, accepting both municipal and industrial 

wastes. According to Region 3, industrial wastes suspected to have been disposed 

include latex waste and paint sludge. Region 3 indicated that the landfill owners 

routinely violated operating and other permits issued by regulating agencies 

during the landfill’s 11 years of operation. 

The Site was placed on the Superfund NPL in 1983. In 1988, EPA issued two 

Records of Decision (RODs) that described the clean-up goals and actions to be 

conducted – one ROD for each operational unit. Remedial actions included 

establishing haul roads throughout the Site, covering and re-vegetating 

barren/exposed areas on the landfill, draining and stabilizing an existing pond, 

stabilizing and capping contaminated soils onsite, removing drums, and 

establishing a wetland replacement pond known as the Wetland Mitigation Area. 

The Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) completed construction of the two 

operable units in 1992. In 1992, groundwater monitoring was initiated to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the Site clean-up. EPA deleted the Site from the NPL in 

2003, which signified clean-up goals were achieved through remedial action. In 

2005, nearly all of the Site was sold to Kent County, Delaware; a small business 

owns about an acre of the 44-acre site. 

1 
10-P-0055 

Noteworthy Achievements 

The selected remedial action for this Site included: 

•	 removing and disposing of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste; 

•	 grading the Site, installing a soil cover, and re-vegetating on-site direct 

contact risk areas; 

•	 replacing two wells adjacent to the site; 

•	 implementing institutional controls, including well and land use 

restrictions; and 

•	 monitoring groundwater. 

Documentation indicated the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) visits the site at 

least annually. The RPM inspects the site, looks for changes in land use on and 

around the site, and ensures there are sufficient sample data on which to make a 

protectiveness determination. Since it purchased the landfill in 2005, a Kent 

County representative stated that the County has removed large quantities of 

domestic waste and trash, and placed an earthen cap over a 12-acre area of the 

site. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our work from February 2008 to September 2009 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence 

to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

evaluation objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our evaluation 

objectives. 

We interviewed the Region 3 RPM and the Project Manager for the State of 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

(DNREC). We also interviewed the Kent County Director of Parks Division, a 

representative for the Site’s current owner, Kent County. We reviewed relevant 

guidance and Site documents such as the ROD, Five-Year Reviews, operation and 

maintenance reports, and institutional control documents. 

We acquired a qualified contractor to take groundwater and surface water 

samples, and conduct a site inspection at the Site in April 2008. The OIG’s 

contractor collected samples from three groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1B, 

MW-17, and MW-4) and two surface water locations (SW-01 and SW-02). See 

Figure 1-1. 

2 
10-P-0055 

Figure 1-1: Wildcat Landfill Map 

Map Legend 

MW – Monitoring wells 

SW – Surface water sample locations 

----- (Red) Area for future bike path 

----- (Orange) Light industrial 

----- (Pink) Approximate landfill boundary 

----- (Green) Partially cleared area 

Source: EPA OIG contractor. 

3 
10-P-0055 

A limited site inspection was conducted by OIG staff and the contractor. OIG 

staff members were present during the contractor’s inspection and sampling to 

ensure that proper sampling and site inspection quality assurance protocols were 

followed. According to the RODs, the primary contaminants of concern affecting 

the soil and ground water at the Site are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

and metals. Therefore, the samples OIG collected were analyzed by qualified 

laboratories for metals, pesticides, PCBs, VOCs, and SVOCs. 

To accomplish our data comparisons, we compared our results to historical data 

spanning back to 2002. OIG sampling results greater than two standard 

deviations above the average EPA historical concentrations were considered 

different. Our review did not include a full evaluation of the reasons for these 

differences. Where we observed differences, we compared OIG results to the 

relevant federal and State standards to determine whether OIG’s data had 

implications for human health or environmental protection. The relevant healthbased standard is the Delaware Water Quality Criteria for Protection of Aquatic 

Life. 

There were seven compounds for which the OIG’s results were higher than 

Region 3’s historical results. For three of those compounds (aluminum, iron, and 

manganese), our results were biased high and could not be expected to match 

historical data. For the four remaining compounds (magnesium, potassium, 

calcium, and sodium), there are no applicable State or federal standards to 

determine whether these results could have an adverse impact on human health 

and the environment. Appendix A shows the results of comparing the OIG 

sample results and the Region’s historical data. 

We also compared all OIG results to the applicable standard listed in the ROD by 

comparing our groundwater sampling results to the Delaware DNREC Freshwater 

Chronic Quality Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Life (DNREC standard). We 

identified all OIG results that exceeded the DNREC standard. 

A draft of this report was sent to the Acting Region 3 Administrator for official 

comment. Region 3’s comments on the draft report are in Appendix C. 

4 
10-P-0055 

Chapter 2

More Sampling and Monitoring of 

Land Use Changes Needed 

Our inspection of the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site, combined with the land 

use plans of the Site’s owner (Kent County), demonstrate that more sampling and 

increased EPA oversight of land use changes are needed. The surface waters at 

the Site have a sheen that resembles petroleum, but the Region has not tested for 

petroleum in the past and the remedy is not designed to address petroleum 

contamination. Region 3 agreed with OIG concerns about possible petroleum 

contamination and tested for it in September 2009. The results showed petroleum 

was found onsite at levels the Region reported were below the median State 

action levels, and Region 3 will continue to monitor for petroleum contamination. 

Kent County plans to use the Site for public recreation that is inconsistent with 

acceptable uses determined by EPA. Kent County's proposed reuse plans would 

call for increased Region 3 oversight. 

Site Contains Newly Identified Petroleum Products 

During our physical inspection of the site we observed a sheen on the surface 

waters throughout the site. The sheen was iridescent and oily in appearance 

(see photo below). While this sheen could be harmless, it could also indicate the 

presence of a petroleum product. Region 3 personnel said they were aware of the 

sheen at the Site but had concluded that it was naturally occurring. 

Iridescent sheen at Wildcat Landfill, April 2008. (EPA OIG photo) 

OIG samples from two monitoring wells contained several VOCs, which although 

found at acceptable levels could also be indicative of the presence of petroleum. 

Specifically, MW-4 contained benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, ethyl 

benzene, toluene, and xylenes. MW-17 contained small amounts of benzene and 

chlorobenzene. These compounds were historically found at the site in 

5 
10-P-0055 

concentrations equivalent to OIG results and at levels that do not exceed the 

DNREC Freshwater Chronic Criteria. In addition, Region 3 reported in its June 

2007 Five-Year Review that the amounts of these contaminants present in the 

historical samples were not in sufficient quantities to indicate a risk to human 

health and the environment. Appendix B includes all the specific results for the 

OIG sampling of VOCs. 

Waste disposed at the Site could account for the presence of VOCs in samples. 

Site documents indicate that paint sludge, which contains VOCs, may have been 

disposed of at the Site. There are also low levels of pesticides, which contain 

VOCs, historically present in MW-4. This may be the source of the low levels of 

VOCs in this well. However, VOCs are also indicators of petroleum products. 

Region 3 considered the possibility of petroleum contamination during its 

remedial investigation of the Site, but because the VOC levels were so low EPA 

stated it does not have evidence of petroleum products in subsurface soil, ground 

water or surface water at levels that indicated petroleum products were a 

significant concern at the Site. However, analysis of VOCs only is not sufficient 

for concluding that petroleum products were not a significant concern at the Site. 

Testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons is also necessary for determining the 

presence or absence of petroleum. 

Because the surface waters at the Site have a sheen and the contaminants 

consistently found in MW-4 are indicative of petroleum, the presence of gasoline 

or some other petroleum product at the Site is a possibility. Until September 

2009, the Region had not performed a test for petroleum products and, therefore, 

did not know if petroleum is onsite. Given the landfill’s history of violations, 

Region 3 may not possess complete records of all waste materials disposed in the 

landfill and may be not be aware of all landfill contaminants. At the request of 

the OIG, Region 3 sampled the Site for petroleum in September 2009. In 

December 2009, the Region reported that there is petroleum on the Site at levels 

below median State action levels. The Region will continue to sample for 

petroleum to reliably establish the levels of petroleum present onsite and evaluate 

whether petroleum hydrocarbons are present at levels that would adversely impact 

human health or the environment. 

Metal Concentrations Exceed State Standards 

We compared OIG sampling results to the DNREC Freshwater Chronic Quality 

Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Life to determine whether there were any OIG 

results that exceed the standard. Of the 197 compounds analyzed, in some cases 

our results for aluminum, iron, and selenium exceeded the DNREC standard (see 

Table 2-1). Region 3’s historical data for these compounds also exceeded the 

DNREC Freshwater Chronic Quality Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Life. 

6 
10-P-0055 

Table 2-1: OIG and Region 3 Historical Data that Exceed the Standard 

Total 

Metals 

(mg/L) 

Delaware 

Freshwater 

Chronic 

Standard 

(DNREC) 

(mg/L) 

Sampling 

Location 

Region 3 Historical Data 

OIG 

Sample 

Results 

April 

2008 

(mg/L)

May 

2002 

May 

2003 

May 

2004 

August 

2006 

August 

2007 

MW-17 0.0112 B < 0.2 0.29 0.59 B <0.2 0.11 

Aluminum 0.087 SW-01 -- -- -- 0.877 B 3.97 0.48 

SW-02 -- -- -- 10.2 0.74 2.2 

MW-1B 0.051 B <0.2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 3.5* 

Iron 1 

MW-17 45.5 37 49 65.6 57.8 61.6 

SW-01 -- -- -- 25.7 129 69.1 

SW-02 -- -- -- 27.8 13.7 96.0 

MW-4 0.0038 B <0.03 <0.03 <0.035 <0.035 0.0129 

Selenium 0.005 MW-17 < 0.002 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.035 < 0.035 0.0113 

SW-02 -- -- -- <0.035 <0.035 0.0182 

B – This contaminant was found in the blank processed with this sample. The concentration may be biased high. 

mg/L – milligrams per liter 

* Note: For sample MW-1B, the OIG sample exhibited matrix effect (properties which interfere with accurate 

analysis). Under that condition, data are not reliable enough for a valid comparison to the federal and State 

standards. However, the data are useful for comparison with the other wells and in determining that the type of 

metals sample being taken at the Site is inappropriate. The sampling point SW-02 is in a different location for each 

data point but was combined to do a whole site perspective. 

Source: OIG analysis based on OIG and Region 3 sampling data. 

In addition to the exceedances identified above, Region 3 did not take the 

appropriate type of sample for the metals analysis. The DNREC standard called 

for dissolved (filtered) metals samples. However, the Region has historically 

taken total (unfiltered) metals samples. During its September 2009 sampling 

event, the Region sampled for dissolved metals (filtered), as required by the 

DNREC sampling criteria. The levels of aluminum and selenium were within 

ecological protection standards, but iron levels continued to exceed ecological 

protection standards. In the future, if the contaminants are consistently above the 

DNREC standard, the Region will determine the extent of the exceedance 

spatially and whether it is a continuing release. Additional actions by the Region 

would include targeted investigations to identify site-specific toxicity values for 

those compounds to determine whether there is an impact to the wildlife and 

aquatic life on the Site. 

We also found that Region 3 was not analyzing other samples at the level of the 

standard. As a result, there is the possibility that the Site has contamination above 

the standard, but it has gone undetected and unaddressed by the Region. For 

example, the standard for aluminum is 0.087 mg/L, but in August 2007 the lab 

had only determined that there was less than 0.2 mg/L of aluminum onsite. This 

7 
10-P-0055 

means there could have been contamination between 0.087 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L 

that would not be identified by the lab. For its September 2009 sampling, 

Region 3 corrected this by having the lab analyze down to the level of the 

standard. The Region has indicated that it is now informally reviewing each data 

set as it is received for exceedances to the standard, followed by a formal review 

of all data during the Five-Year Review. 

Modifications to Site Remedy Are Necessary Before Land Can Be 

Used for Recreation 

Region 3 had not stayed current on Kent County’s Site reuse plans. Kent 

County’s future plans for the Site include converting the property into a 

recreational greenway by constructing a bike and pedestrian path through it and 

allowing unrestricted access to that portion of the Site. However, Region 3’s Site 

remedy only supports reuse of the land as a conservation area and greenway with 

access restricted to authorized personnel. Kent County has already secured 

funding for aspects of the project, entered into assistance agreements with the 

State of Delaware, and has placed a conservation easement on the Site. Region 3 

stated that it was aware of the County’s plans through its continued oversight of 

Wildcat, but the Region’s oversight has been informal and undocumented. Given 

the advanced stage of the County’s plans, the Region needs to increase its 

oversight through more frequent contact with the County and to provide direction 

and guidance throughout the County’s project to ensure the Site remains safe. 

According to EPA documents, the Site contains natural barriers to human access 

in the form of the St. Jones River, heavily treed borders, and a locked gate at the 

entrance of the site. According to Region 3, these barriers, along with the 

stabilization and capping of contaminated soils onsite, removal of drums, and the 

implementation of institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions, make the 

Site protective for a conservation area and restrict access of the Site to trained 

authorized personnel. Since Kent County purchased the Site in January 2005, it 

has used it as a conservation area. The purpose of the Site’s conservation 

easement is to assure that the property will be retained forever in its natural 

scenic, open, historic, and forested condition and to prevent any use of the 

property that will significantly impair or interfere with its conservation value. 

Between October 2005 and March 2008, Kent County entered into transportation 

enhancement agreements with the State of Delaware for design and review of the 

project (a recreational greenway with a bike and pedestrian path), conducting a 

feasibility study, and receiving technical assistance. These agreements, and the 

fact that the County has already secured funding for the feasibility phase of the 

project, indicate that the County is committed to making the recreational 

greenway a reality. The County and/or other partner organizations may also 

restore the manor house on the property for use as a museum. 

8 
10-P-0055 

When Kent County purchased the property, there was debris and exposed landfill 

waste at the Site. Region 3 stated in the ROD that future direct contact with 

wastes is a concern should residential or commercial development occur upon the 

landfill. Since February 2007, Kent County has cleaned up the debris on the open 

areas of the Site where the bike and pedestrian path would be. According to 

Region 3’s most recent Five-Year review, this level of clean-up is sufficient for 

the current use of the land and may be sufficient for the future recreational use if 

access to the Site is limited to the path only. However, exposed landfill debris 

remains on parts of the Site, which Kent County states it does not have the 

resources to remove. The debris could pose a hazard to Site users if access to the 

entire Site is unrestricted. In response to OIG’s concerns, the RPM requested an 

update from Kent County on how it was progressing with cleaning up the debris 

and addressing other issues about Site reuse plans. The update provided by Kent 

County showed that the Region was at least 6 months behind what the County had 

been doing at the Site and the County’s latest plans for controlling site access. 

EPA needs to conduct routine and documented oversight of the County's plans 

and activities to determine necessary modifications to the plans, prevent unsafe 

exposures, and ensure safe uses of the Site if unrestricted access is permitted or 

likely to occur. Kent County stated that documented correspondence between the 

County and Region 3 will be extensive during the development of the design plan 

that would propose changes in land use at Wildcat. The County has also stated 

that once developed, a draft of the engineered access management proposal will 

be sent to Region 3 for design guidance and approval. 

In addition to Kent County’s Site reuse plans, a local small business owner who 

owns an acre of the Site inquired about building a storage facility on that acre. In 

conducting oversight of this activity, Region 3 has communicated to this business 

owner, via e-mail, that it will need to review the owner’s construction plans to 

ensure the integrity of the remedy is maintained. The deed restrictions imposed 

by Region 3 prevent the business owner from proceeding with plans without 

further consulting EPA and receiving permission from the State of Delaware. The 

deed restriction involves ensuring the landfill cap is not damaged. Routine and 

documented regional oversight will be needed to ensure the cap is not impacted. 

Conclusions 

Site conditions have changed at the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site that 

necessitate new testing and increased EPA oversight. New contaminants have 

been detected that the Region needs to monitor to determine potential risks. 

There are plans to have portions of the Site open to unrestricted public access. 

Under the proposed site reuse scenario, it is unknown whether known or newly 

discovered contaminants pose unacceptable risks to human health and the 

environment. A review of Site clean-up actions and existing engineered and 

institutional controls needs to be done to determine whether they are adequate for 

the planned reuses of the Site. As a result of OIG oversight, the sampling 

9 
10-P-0055 

protocols for the site have been changed to ensure that the data collected are 

adequate for monitoring the protectiveness of the Site. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Regional Administrator, Region 3: 

2-1 Establish a sampling plan for the monitoring wells and surface waters 

that includes testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons. 

2-2 If petroleum is found on the Site above acceptable and appropriate 

levels, take action to address the contamination and amend existing 

site documents or generate new site documents, to ensure the Site is 

protective of human health and the environment for current and 

planned land uses. 

2-3 Formally document oversight of the Site owners’ plans and 

agreements for use of the Site. This includes an evaluation and 

determination of the impact of construction or vegetation change on 

the remedy, and what modifications to the remedy and/or ROD will be 

needed to support unrestricted access to portions of the Site. 

2-4 Change the sampling protocol to include dissolved (filtered) metals 

analysis. Continue to require that the reporting limits for all analyses 

are at or below the DNREC standard to ensure that all contamination 

above the standard is detected. Assess the effect of the sampling 

results on the protectiveness determination of the Site. 

EPA Region 3 Response and OIG Evaluation 

Region 3 agreed with all four OIG recommendations. We made changes to the 

report based on Region 3’s comments where appropriate. The Region has 

initiated corrective actions on Recommendations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-4. Specifically, 

for Recommendations 2-1 and 2-2, beginning with its September 2009 annual 

sampling event, Region 3 modified its sampling plan for the monitoring wells and 

surface waters to include testing for petroleum. In response to the Region’s draft 

report comments, we modified Recommendation 2-2 to require action when and if 

petroleum levels exceed acceptable and appropriate levels. For Recommendation 

2-4, beginning with its September 2009 annual sampling event, the Region 

modified its sampling protocol to require dissolved metals sampling and that the 

reporting limits for all analyses are at or below the DNREC standard. Region 3 

agreed with Recommendation 2-3 and will document in the Site file discussions 

held with the Site owner regarding future plans and agreements for use of the Site. 

10 
10-P-0055 

We have designated all report recommendations open with agreed-to actions 

pending. The Region’s draft report response contained generally responsive and 

acceptable corrective actions. However, additional information, such as estimated 

milestone completion dates, are required in the Region’s final response to the 

report (90-day response). Appendix C provides the full text of the Region’s 

comments and the OIG’s evaluation. 

Kent County, Delaware, Response and OIG Evaluation 

A portion of the draft report was sent to Kent County’s representative for the 

County’s review and comment. Kent County cited no inaccuracies in the draft 

report but requested that we add additional information to the report. Generally, 

we did not agree to add additional information because these changes had the 

effect of modifying the meaning or transparency of OIG statements in ways we 

were unable to support. OIG added information to the report to acknowledge the 

efforts Kent County has made to clean and improve the Site since it purchased the 

Wildcat Landfill in 2005. See Appendix D for the full text of the County’s 

response and the OIG’s evaluation. 

11 
10-P-0055 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

2-1 

2-2 

2-3 

2-4 

10 

10 

10 

10 

Establish a sampling plan for the monitoring wells 

and surface waters that includes testing for total 

petroleum hydrocarbons. 

If petroleum is found on the Site above acceptable 

and appropriate levels, take action to address the 

contamination and amend existing site documents 

or generate new site documents, to ensure the Site 

is protective of human health and the environment 

for current and planned land uses 

Formally document oversight of the Site owners’ 

plans and agreements for use of the Site. This 

includes an evaluation and determination of the 

impact of construction or vegetation change on the 

remedy, and what modifications to the remedy 

and/or ROD will be needed to support unrestricted 

access to portions of the Site. 

Change the sampling protocol to include dissolved 

(filtered) metals analysis. Continue to require that 

the reporting limits for all analyses are at or below 

the DNREC standard to ensure that all 

contamination above the standard is detected. 

Assess the effect of the sampling results on the 

protectiveness determination of the Site. 

O 

O 

O 

O 

Region 3 Administrator 

Region 3 Administrator 

Region 3 Administrator 

Region 3 Administrator 

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

12 
10-P-0055 

Appendix A 

OIG Sample Results Compared to 

Site Historical Data 

OIG compared its sample results to Region 3’s historical sample results for the Site. OIG sampling 

results that were greater than two standard deviations above the average EPA historical 

concentrations were considered different. The table below shows the differences found. 

Sampling 

Location Total Metals 

Historical Sampling Results 

OIG Sample 

Results 

May 2002 

mg/L 

May 2003 

mg/L 

May 2004 

mg/L 

August 

2006 mg/L 

August 

2007 mg/L 

April 2008 

mg/L 

MW-1B Aluminum 0.0428 B <0.2 <0.2 0.446 B <0.2 3.6* 

MW-1B Iron 0.051 B <0.2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 3.5* 

MW-1B Manganese 0.0358 B <0.05 <0.05 0.0268 0.0307 0.15* 

MW-4 Calcium 47 52 56 51.2 64.7 70 

MW-4 Magnesium 27.3 28 32 27.8 38.8 44 

MW-4 Potassium 62.1 58 67 58.3 66.7 100 

MW-4 Sodium 149 140 160 127 231 K 253 

B – This contaminant was found in the blank processed with this sample. The concentration may be biased high. 

K – Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower. 

* For sample MW-1B the OIG sample exhibited matrix effect (properties which interfere with accurate analysis). Under 

that condition, the result cannot be expected to match the historical data. 

Source: OIG analysis based on OIG and Region 3 sampling data. 

13 
10-P-0055 

Appendix B 

VOC Results from OIG Sampling 

The values in bold in the table below are compounds detected from our sampling. The presence of 

several of these highlighted contaminants, along with the sheen observed at the Site, indicate that 

petroleum may be present on the Site. 

Compound 

MW-1B 

(μg/L) 

MW-17 

(μg/L) 

MW-4 

(μg/L) 

Acetone < 50.0 < 50.0 < 50.0 

Benzene < 1.00 1.23 22.5 

Bromochloromethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Bromodichloromethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Bromoform < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Bromomethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

2-Butanone < 50.0 < 50.0 < 50.0 

Carbon disulfide < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Carbon tetrachloride < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Chlorobenzene < 1.00 6.80 17.7 

Chlorodibromomethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Chloroethane < 1.00 < 1.00 800 

Chloroform < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Chloromethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Cyclohexane < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Methylcyclohexane < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 1.00 < 1.00 1.42 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 1.00 2.21 3.81 

Dichlorodifluoromethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,2-Dichloroethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,1-Dichloroethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,1-Dichloroethene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,1,2 -Trifluorotrichloroethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene < 1.00 2.53 < 1.00 

1,2-Dichloropropane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Ethylbenzene < 1.00 < 1.00 4.23 

2-Hexanone < 50.0 < 50.0 < 50.0 

Isopropylbenzene < 1.00 < 1.00 13.3 

Methyl Acetate < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 

Methyl tert-Butyl Ether < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Methylene Chloride < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 

14 
10-P-0055 

Compound 

MW-1B 

(μg/L) 

MW-17 

(μg/L) 

MW-4 

(μg/L) 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 

Styrene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Tetrachloroethene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Toluene < 1.00 < 1.00 9.35 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Trichloroethene < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Trichlorofluoromethane < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Vinyl chloride < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 

Xylenes, total < 3.00 < 3.00 23.1 

Source: OIG sampling data. 

15 
10-P-0055 

Appendix C 

EPA Region 3 Response to Draft Report 

and OIG Evaluation 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION III 

1650 Arch Street 

 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

December 17, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Response to Draft Evaluation Report: Changes in Conditions at Wildcat 

Landfill Superfund Site in Delaware Call for Increased EPA Oversight, 

Project No. 2008-538, November 3, 2009 

FROM:	 Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator 

Office of the Regional Administrator (3RA00) 

TO: Carolyn Copper 

 Director for Program Evaluation 

 Hazardous Waste Issues 

 Office of Inspector General 

This is Region III’s response to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) draft Evaluation Report: 

Changes in Conditions at Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site in Delaware Call for Increased EPA 

Oversight, dated November 3, 2009. Overall, Region III agrees with the findings of the report. 

Outlined below are the Region’s responses to the proposed recommendations and a corrective 

action plan for agreed upon actions, including planned completion dates. 

OIG Recommendations for the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site (Site) 

2-1 Establish a sampling plan for the monitoring wells and surface waters that includes 

testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons. 

EPA Corrective Action 

Beginning with its September 2009 annual sampling event at the Site, EPA modified 

its sampling plan for the monitoring wells and surface waters at the Site to include 

testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). A map showing the Site area, and 

highlighting the Sampling Locations is included as Attachment 1 to this memo. 

16 
10-P-0055 

2-2 

Summary tables of the results of EPA Region III’s September 2009 sampling are 

included as Attachment 2. EPA will continue to monitor for TPH as long as is 

necessary to reliably establish the levels of TPH present onsite and evaluate whether 

petroleum hydrocarbons are present at levels that would adversely impact human 

health or the environment. 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 1: Region 3’s corrective action for Recommendation 

2-1 meets the intent of the recommendation. This recommendation is 

open with agreed to actions pending. In its 90-day response, the 

Region should provide milestone dates for the future sampling events 

where petroleum will be tested. 

If petroleum is found on the Site, determine actions needed to address the 

contamination and amend existing site documents or generate new site documents, to 

ensure the Site is protective of human health and the environment for current and 

planned land uses. 

EPA Corrective Action 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (or TPH) are a large family of several hundred 

chemical compounds that come from crude oil. TPH analysis is often used as a 

screening tool for suspected leaking undergrounds storage tanks. TPH analysis is 

further broken down into TPH-GRO (gasoline range organics) and TPH-DRO (diesel 

range organics). There are no federal regulations or action levels specific to TPH. 

Only 14 states regulate TPH. For the ones that do, the median action level is 1700 

ug/L1

. 

For the purpose of projecting potential risks associated with exposure to petroleum 

products, because toxicity varies dramatically among compounds, identifying levels 

of the individual constituents provides far greater value than reporting the total 

concentration. In the Superfund Program, the most toxic elements of TPH -- 

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene -- are, in fact, measured during routine 

analytical services. Then, screening is performed on these compounds to determine 

if a potential risk exists. (Note that quantifying risks associated with TPH is not 

possible.) These steps were taken at the Site. Based on the most recent sampling 

data for the Site (September 2009), of these compounds only benzene was detected 

at a noteworthy concentration (26 ug/L) in one onsite well (MW-4). However, given 

the expected future use of the Site (recreational), the observed concentration of 

benzene in groundwater poses no significant risk under a typical exposure scenario. 

For the reasons outlined above, Region III continues to prefer individual compound 

analysis vs. TPH analysis for risk assessment purposes. At OIG’s suggestion the 

Region is now routinely conducting TPH analysis on samples from the Site. The 

1

 Moran, Robert. “Health-Based TPH Closure Levels in RISC” Powerpoint Presentation. Indiana 

Dept. of Environmental Management, October 2009. 

17 
10-P-0055 

results of EPA’s September 2009 sampling of monitoring wells and surface water 

locations at the Site for TPH-GRO and TPH-DRO (See Attachments 1 and 2) 

showed contaminants present in some samples at relatively low levels. The highest 

detection (750 ug/L of TPH-DRO in MW-1B), was less than half the median state 

action level of 1700 ug/L. A few noteworthy facts about the September 2009 TPH 

sampling results are: 

1. MW-1B, the location of the highest detection of TPH-DRO, is a 

monitoring well located upgradient of the Site, indicating that that 

contamination is likely not related to the Site. Because it is below action 

levels, however, further investigation of that result is not warranted. 

2. The two surface water samples collected in locations with a visible oily 

sheen (SW-03 and SW-04) contained the lowest levels of TPH-DRO of any 

of the surface water samples collected on the Site as part of this sampling 

event (100 and 70 ug/L, respectively). SW-04 was the only surface water 

sampling location to have a detection of TPH-GRO, but that value (74 ug/L) 

was below the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL), and therefore 

“J” qualified (the “J” qualifier means “Analyte present. Reported value may 

not be accurate or precise.”). 

3. TPH was detected in one of the blank samples leading all the TPH results 

to be “B” qualified, meaning the contaminant was “not detected at levels 

substantially above the level reported in laboratory or field blanks.” Blank 

contamination indicates the sample results may be biased high, but because 

the reported results are still below action levels these results are still usable. 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 2: Region 3 generally agreed with Recommendation 

2-2. In response to the Region’s draft report comments, we modified 

Recommendation 2-2 to require action when and if petroleum levels 

exceed acceptable and appropriate levels. According to the Region’s 

draft report comments, its September 2009 sampling showed the 

highest level of TPH was 750 μg/L of TPH. The Region stated that this 

is less than half the median State action level of 1700 μg/L. However, 

the Region acknowledges in its comments that monitoring and 

evaluating individual components of TPH, such as VOCs, is how a risk 

determination is made. As a result, in addition to conducting TPH 

testing, the Region will also continue to test for the individual 

components of TPH. Region 3’s corrective action for Recommendation 

2-2 meets the intent of the recommendation. This recommendation is 

open with agreed to actions pending. In its 90-day response to OIG’s 

final report, the Region should describe its planned corrective actions 

for monitoring levels of TPH, assessing potential risk associated with 

levels of TPH that exceed acceptable and appropriate levels, and 

additional actions that should occur to address identified risks, 

particularly considering Site reuse plans. 

18 
10-P-0055 

2-3 Formally document oversight of the Site owners’ plans and agreements for use of the 

Site. This includes an evaluation and determination of the impact of construction or 

vegetation change on the remedy, and what modifications to the remedy and/or ROD 

will be needed to support unrestricted access to portions of the Site. 

EPA Corrective Action 

To date, the owner’s plans for the Site have been quite preliminary and physical 

realization of those plans has been estimated by the Site owner to be several years off 

in the future. As it awaits the owner’s actions, EPA will document discussions held 

with the Site owner regarding future plans and agreements for use of the Site in the 

Site file. Upon receipt of a formal design plan from the Site owner, EPA will 

complete an evaluation and determine the impact of construction or vegetation 

change on the remedy, and what modifications to the remedy and/or ROD will be 

needed to support any changes to access to portions of the Site that may be part of 

such a design. 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 3: Region 3’s corrective action for Recommendation 

2-3 meets the intent of the recommendation. This recommendation is 

open with agreed to actions pending. In its 90-day response to OIG’s 

final report, the Region should provide milestone dates for discussions 

it will initiate and schedule with the Site owner(s) as part of its plan for 

conducting improved oversight of the Site reuse plans. 

2-4 Change the sampling protocol to include dissolved (filtered) metals analysis. 

Require that the reporting limits for all analyses are at or below the DNREC standard 

to ensure that all contamination above the standard is detected. Assess the effect of 

the sampling results on the protectiveness determination of the Site. 

EPA Corrective Action 

Beginning with its September 2009 annual sampling event at the Site, EPA modified 

its sampling plan for the monitoring wells and surface waters at the Site to require 

that the reporting limits for all analyses are at or below the DNREC standard to 

ensure that all contamination above the standard is detected. EPA will carry this 

practice forward in all future sampling events at the Site. EPA will assess the effect 

of the sampling results on the protectiveness determination of the Site informally 

upon receipt of each set of validated sampling data, and formally no less frequently 

than once every five years as part of its Five Year Review. The next Five Year 

Review for the Site is scheduled to be completed in July 2012. 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 4: Region 3’s corrective action for Recommendation 

2-4 meets the intent of the recommendation and milestones have been 

provided. 

19 
10-P-0055 

Attachment 1 – Sampling Location Map (labeled “Figure 3”) 

Attachment 2 – Summary Tables of Analytical Results for Organic (labeled “Appendix C”) and 

Inorganic Compounds (labeled “Appendix D”) Detected in Groundwater and Surface 

Water Samples collected at Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site, September 2009. 

OIG Note: The OIG did not include the attachments in this report. 

20 
10-P-0055 

Appendix D 

Kent County Response to Draft Report 

and OIG Evaluation 

Denis K. Mumford Jeremy Sheppard 

Director - Acting Assistant Director - Acting 

Community Services Community Services 

(302) 744-2486 Kent County Divisions of 

(302) 760-4757 Fax Parks & Recreation 

(302) 744-2494 

(302) 760-4757 Fax 

Hillary Welliver Carl J. Solberg 

Assistant Director Department of Community Services Projects & Grants 

Community Services Administrator 

Division of Library Services Parks Division 

(302) 698-6444 (302) 744-2490 

(302) 760-4757 Fax (302) 760-4757 

D. Denise Rice December 22, 2009 

1200 Pennsylvania NW 

MC2460T 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Ms. Rice, 

Please may this serve to provide the comments of the Kent County Parks Division regarding 

the EPA OIG's 11/03/09 Draft Summary and Recommendations from OIG's 2009 site review of the 

Wildcat Landfill. Thank you for the opportunity. This correspondence replaces our email of 

November 30, 2009 in which this information was provided by addendum to the Adobe Acrobat file 

provided by EPA for the County’s response. 

Also, permit us to thank EPA for its diligence to monitor the effectiveness of the 

institutional controls at the Wildcat Landfill. Kent County is indebted to the rigorous attention your 

office and Region III have given to this project. The County’s work and public service at Wildcat 

are both supported and enhanced by EPA’s endeavors. 

As you know from earlier correspondence, (ref. 07/22/09 email to Patrick Milligan) Kent 

County Parks has engaged in many aspects of conservation restoration, cultural resources 

preservation, voluntary enhanced remediation of landfill areas where EPA found site controls to be 

unnecessary, proactive restriction of access conditions left by EPA, public outreach and community 

engagement, and considerable grant development. Considerable County revenues and in-kind 

forces have been deployed to secure, stabilize, and otherwise improve the Wildcat Landfill and its 

environs. 

21 
10-P-0055 

We are now developing a scope of work for design services by Whitman, Requardt & 

Associates, P.E., to be procured under a Transportation Enhancement Program grant by DelDOT. 

This professional services agreement will produce construction plans and other engineering 

documents together with approvals (including those of Region III) for a bike/ped pathway utilizing 

the existing geotec & stone road at the Wildcat Landfill. This PS&E scope of work will be based 

on the earlier concept plan (ref 5/2009 WR&A preliminary conceptual alignment study previously 

provided to Region III) and will be performed through to completion sometime in calendar 2010. 

Kent County is fulfilling its stated intentions, established with Region III at the time of 

property acquisition in 2004, to enhance the institutional controls established by EPA, elevate the 

environmental, conservation, cultural preservation, and passive recreational values and uses of the 

entire property acquired from Shirley L. Hunn. We have maintained continuous, informal 

correspondence with Region III's Remediation Section and occasionally with our colleagues at 

DNREC SIRB prior to property acquisition and throughout the County's voluntary additional 

remediation, and conservation and passive recreation planning which commenced in 2005. 

Kent County was inspired by numerous case studies provided by EPA, of beneficial re-use 

of CERCLA and Brownfields properties for our St. Jones Greenway, and we intend that in the 

fullness of time this site will provide a correspondingly noteworthy case study for EPA and others. 

The next phase of site development will complete the conversion of Kent County’s additional 

earthen cap restoration and the landfill cells remediated by EPA to a long-term meadow habitat 

based on recommendations of the Delaware Wildlife Action Plan and further informed by the 

County’s recognition that scrub shrub woodland conditions can not be supported by the shallow 

landfill cap. 

We find in general, that OIG's summary correctly reflects the overall conditions and 

planning context for the Wildcat Landfill. It does, however, contain some inaccurate 

representations of fact and process which these comments are intended to clarify. The conclusion 

regarding enhancement of the correspondence between Kent County and Region III flows, at least 

in part, from the impression that OIG has formed that Region III is “....at least 6 months behind 

what the County had been doing at the Site and the County’s latest plans for controlling site 

access.” (Ref. Draft – For Review and Comment Purposes Only, Page 2). We hope the net effect of 

our response will serve to convince the OIG to amend this impression. We are, in any event, very 

grateful to Region III for its assistance and will continue to apprize it of all our planning activities 

as they continue. 

The following comments apply to OIG's Draft Summary Report of 11/03/09 and are 

referenced by numerical notations where they have been inserted in the Word document as 

applicable. We request that the final report reflect the information provided herein. 

# 1 

Kent County prefers the following text: 

"...limited pedestrian and bicycle access on a pre-existing stone roadway within the landfill." 

22 
10-P-0055 

#2 

Kent County prefers the following text: 

"...and placed an earthen cap within non-remediated landfill in all areas adjacent to the intended 

pathway, leaving distant and environmentally sensitive landfill areas undisturbed due to cost and 

designation of these areas for non-access." 

#3 

Kent County disagrees with this characterization as we are developing a design plan to be submitted 

to EPA for its review..... We prefer the following text: 

"...allowing limited bicycle and pedestrian only access on the existing stone roadway and 

conversion of the landfill cap to a conservation meadow management unit." 

#4 

Omitted statement of fact, 

"....and further restricted unmanaged public access by removing four wooden bridges through the 

property's forested buffer and installing an additional 500 LF of denial of access fencing where no 

controls existed." 

#5 

It is not clear from this sentence that OIG is referring to the voluntary Conservation Easement 

placed on the property by Kent County and the State of Delaware and recorded at the time of 

property acquisition in January, 2004. 

#6 

Omitted information. 

"Kent County's contract for professional design services is being developed with DelDOT at this 

time and will include extensive correspondence requirements with EPA Region III regarding the 

design plans for this pathway." 

#7 

Omitted statement of fact, 

"In consultation with Region III since 2006, Kent County removed large quantities of surficial 

domestic waste and trash, and placed an earthen cap over a 12-acre area including all un-remediated 

landfill areas adjacent to and substantially beyond the existing landfill roadway where the bike and 

pedestrian path would be." 

#8 

Clarification is needed. 

"....remain on remote parts of the site which are environmentally sensitive and distant from the 

proposed use of the roadway. These areas are designated for non-disturbance under the 

conservation management objectives for the Site and access will not be enabled by the County's 

bike path." 

23 
10-P-0055 

#9 

A factual error can be corrected as follows: 

"Kent County has not yet engineered its access management proposal as this is a deliverable from 

its design consultant, and this will be conveyed in draft to Region III for design guidance and 

approval when it is developed." 

#10 

“Kent County agrees that documented correspondence between the County and Region III is a 

requirement of any design plan for passive access to the Conservation Area and Landfill.” 

#11 

"Unrestricted" landfill access is not intended. Kent County has placed more restrictions on access 

than those left by EPA's remedy - when footpaths and wooden bridges were removed by Kent 

County and additional fencing was installed in 2006. The proposed bike path on an existing stone 

roadway will continue to preclude vehicular access. Since the draft concept design plan by WR&A 

(5/2009) was conveyed to Region III, Kent County has removed the one segment originally 

envisioned to be placed on landfill cap as not feasible. Approvals of the final selected design plan 

by Region III will be a deliverable in the actual engineering phase for 2010. Kent County prefers to 

refer to bike/ped use of the stone roadway as "...managed access to portions of the Site." 

Please let me know if I can help you with this or if any additional clarification would be 

helpful. With EPA’s assistance, the Wildcat Landfill will emerge as a persuasive case study of 

local and federal coordination and community service. 

Sincerely, 

Carl J. Solberg 

Kent County Parks Division Projects & Grants Administrator 

CC: Michael PetitDeMange, Kent County Administrator 

Keith Mumford, Kent County Community Services Director 

Jeremy Sheppard, Kent County Parks and Recreation Director 

Hillary Thornton, Region III Remediation Project Manager 

Patrick J. Milligan, EPA OIG Project Manager 

24 
10-P-0055 

Changes in Conditions at Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site 

in Delaware Call for Increased EPA Oversight 

(OIG Note: Kent County’s 11 comments to our draft report are inserted in numerical order 

in the following text.) 

At a Glance 

The Site’s owner has plans to use the Site as a greenway and to construct a 

bike path on the landfill, which would open part of the Site to unrestricted 

access. 

(Comment 1. Replace “unrestricted” with "...limited pedestrian and bicycle 

access on a pre-existing stone roadway within the landfill.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 1: Based on information available to OIG, the phrase 

is accurate, transparent, and readable. No changes made. 

The owner has cleaned up landfill debris where the bike path would be but 

indicated it does not have the resources to clean up exposed debris on other 

parts of the Site. 

(Comment 2. Kent County prefers greater clarity as follows: “The Owner has 

removed landfill debris and placed an earthen cap within non-remediated 

landfill in all areas adjacent to the intended pathway, leaving distant and 

environmentally sensitive landfill areas undisturbed due to cost and 

designation of these areas for non-access.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 2: The OIG acknowledges the efforts Kent County 

has made to further clean and improve the site. These efforts are 

acknowledged in the Noteworthy Achievements section of this report. 

In addition, a local small business owner who purchased an acre of the Site 

has inquired about building a storage facility on that acre. Region 3 is aware 

of the site-use plans but needs to increase its oversight to ensure unacceptable 

short- and long-term risks to humans and the environment remain controlled. 

Modifications to Site Remedy Are Necessary Before Land Can Be Used 

for Recreation 

Region 3 may not always be current with details of Kent County’s reuse 

plans. Kent County’s future plans for the Site include converting the 

property into a recreational greenway by constructing a bike and pedestrian 

path through it and allowing unrestricted access to that portion of the Site. 

25 
10-P-0055 

(Comment 3. Kent County disagrees with this characterization as we are 

developing a design plan to be submitted to EPA for its review..... We prefer 

the following text: "...and allowing limited bicycle- and pedestrian- only 

access on the existing stone roadway and conversion of the landfill cap to a 

conservation meadow management unit.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 3: Based on information available to OIG, the 

phrase is accurate, transparent, and readable. No changes made. 

However, Region 3’s Site remedy only supports reuse of the land as a 

conservation area and greenway with access restricted to authorized 

personnel. Kent County has already secured funding for aspects of the 

project, entered into assistance agreements with the State of Delaware, and 

has placed a conservation easement on the Site. Region 3 stated that it was 

aware of the County’s plans through its continued oversight of Wildcat, but 

the Region’s oversight has been informal and undocumented. Given the 

advanced stage of the County’s plans, the Region needs to increase its 

oversight through more frequent contact with the County and to provide 

direction and guidance throughout the County’s project to ensure the Site 

remains safe. 

According to EPA documents, the Site contains natural barriers to human 

access in the form of the St. Jones River, heavily treed borders, and a locked 

gate at the entrance of the site. According to Region 3, these barriers, along 

with the stabilization and capping of contaminated soils on site, removal of 

drums, and the implementation of institutional controls in the form of deed 

restrictions, make the Site protective for a conservation area and restricts 

access of the Site to trained authorized personnel. Since Kent County 

purchased the Site in January 2005, it has used it as a conservation area. 

(Comment 4. Insert requested. “...and further restricted previously 

unmanaged public access by removing four wooden bridges through the 

property's forested buffer and installing an additional 500 LF of denial of 

access fencing where no controls previously existed.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 4: The suggested wording does not add 

necessary information to the report and the content is not germane 

to the issue. No changes made. 

The purpose of the Site’s conservation easement is to assure that the property 

will be retained forever in its natural scenic, open, historic, and forested 

condition and to prevent any use of the property that will significantly impair 

or interfere with its conservation value. 

(Comment 5. It is not clear from this sentence that OIG is referring to the 

voluntary Conservation Easement placed on the property by Kent County and 

26 
10-P-0055 

the State of Delaware and recorded at the time of property acquisition in 

January, 2004.) 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 5: This level of detail is not necessary in the 

report. No changes made. 

Between October 2005 and March 2008, Kent County entered into 

transportation enhancement agreements with the State of Delaware for design 

and review of the project (a recreational greenway with a bike and pedestrian 

path), conducting a feasibility study, and receiving technical assistance. 

These agreements, and the fact that the County has already secured funding 

for the feasibility phase of the project, indicate that the County is committed 

to making the recreational greenway a reality. 

(Comment 6. This would be the appropriate place to include: "Kent County's 

contract for professional design services is being developed with DelDOT at 

this time and will include extensive correspondence requirements with EPA 

Region III regarding the design plans for this pathway.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 6: The point of this report passage is to substantiate 

that Kent County is firm in its plans. The additional comments are not 

needed to further substantiate this for purposes of our report. No 

changes made. 

The County and/or other partner organizations may also restore the manor 

house on the property for use as a museum. 

When Kent County purchased the property, there was debris and exposed 

landfill waste at the Site. Region 3 stated in the ROD that future direct 

contact with wastes is a concern should residential or commercial 

development occur upon the landfill. Since February 2007, Kent County has 

cleaned up the debris on the open areas of the Site where the bike and 

pedestrian path would be. 

(Comment 7. Insert requested. 

"In consultation with Region III since 2005, Kent County removed large 

quantities of surficial domestic waste and trash, and placed an earthen cap 

over a 12-acre area including all un-remediated landfill areas adjacent to and 

substantially beyond the existing landfill roadway where the bike and 

pedestrian path would be.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 7: The OIG acknowledges the efforts Kent County 

has made to further clean and improve the site. These efforts are 

acknowledged in the Noteworthy Achievements section of this 

report. 

27 
10-P-0055 

 According to Region 3’s most recent Five-Year review, this level of clean-up 

is sufficient for the current use of the land and may be sufficient for the future 

recreational use if access to the Site is limited to the path only. However, 

exposed landfill debris remains on parts of the Site, which Kent County states 

it does not have the resources to remove. 

(Comment 8. Insert requested. “However, exposed landfill debris remains on 

remote parts of the site which are environmentally sensitive and distant from 

the proposed use of the roadway. These areas are designated for nondisturbance under the conservation management objectives for the Site and 

access will not be enabled by the County's bike path.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 8: In Kent County’s e-mail of October 28, 2008, 

it stated the following, “The minor examples of incidental trash 

exposed by throw-down which they observed, are in the margins of 

the uncapped landfill that our resources can not reach.” The 

language the OIG uses in the report is an accurate portrayal of 

what the OIG observed and the County’s response to the condition 

at the site. 

The debris could pose a hazard to Site users if access to the entire Site is 

unrestricted. In response to OIG’s concerns, the RPM requested an update 

from Kent County on how it was progressing with cleaning up the debris and 

addressing other issues about site reuse plans. The update provided by Kent 

County showed that the Region was at least 6 months behind what the 

County had been doing at the Site and the County’s latest plans for 

controlling site access. 

(Comment 9. Insert requested. "Kent County has not yet engineered its 

access management proposal as this is a deliverable from its design 

consultant, and this will be conveyed in draft to Region III for design 

guidance and approval when it is developed. Also, the May 2009 Conceptual 

Plan for use of the existing roadway as a bike path was previously transmitted 

to Region III.”) 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 9: The OIG understands that the County’s plans 

are still being formulated. However, this portion of the report is 

referring to the situation as it existed during the early part of the 

OIG’s evaluation, before May 2009. Region 3 stated that it was 

aware of the County’s plans through its continued oversight of 

Wildcat, but the Region’s oversight has been informal and 

undocumented. 

EPA needs to conduct routine and documented oversight of the County's 

plans and activities to determine necessary modifications to the plans, prevent 

28 
10-P-0055 

unsafe exposures, and ensure safe uses of the Site if unrestricted access is 

permitted or likely to occur. 

(Comment 10. Insert requested. “Kent County agrees that documented 

correspondence between the County and Region III is a requirement of any 

design plan for passive access to the Conservation Area and Landfill.”) 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 10: The OIG agrees and will revise the report 

accordingly. 

Recommendation 

Formally document oversight of the Site owners’ plans and agreements for 

use of the Site. This includes an evaluation and determination of the impact 

of construction or vegetation change on the remedy, and what modifications 

to the remedy and/or ROD will be needed to support unrestricted access to 

portions of the Site. 

(Comment 11. "Unrestricted" landfill access is not intended. Kent County 

has placed more restrictions on access than those left by EPA's remedy - 

when footpaths and wooden bridges were removed by Kent County and 

additional fencing was installed in 2006. The proposed bike path on an 

existing stone roadway will continue to preclude vehicular access. Since the 

draft concept design plan by WR&A (5/2009) was conveyed to Region III, 

Kent County has removed the one segment originally envisioned to be placed 

on landfill cap as not feasible. Approvals of the final selected design plan by 

Region III will be a deliverable in the actual engineering phase for 2010. 

Kent County prefers to refer to bike/ped use of the stone roadway as 

"...managed access to portions of the Site.") 

3⁄4	 OIG Response 11: The OIG report modifies the term unrestricted 

by using it in conjunction with the phrase, “on portions of the Site.” 

The OIG understands that the County and EPA Region 3 plan 

additional restrictions to keep the public on the intended path. 

However, until the access management plans are complete and 

available for evaluation, it cannot be determined if the controls are 

a sufficient deterrent to accessing parts of the Site that are not 

intended for public use. 

29 
10-P-0055 

Appendix E 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Regional Administrator, Region 3 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response 

Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Region 3 

Acting Inspector General 

30