# r

RECOR D O F DECISIO

N* . REMEDIA L ALTERNATIV

E SELECTIO

N*% , fy 

### Site : Moye r Landfil l Site , Collegcville , Pennsylvani a Dat a Reviewed ; Th e followin

g document s describ

e th e analysi s o f cost-effectivenes s an d feasibilit yo f remedia l alternative s fo r th e Moye r Landfil l Site . I hav e bee n briefe d b

ym ystaf f o n thei r contents , an d theyfor

mth e principa l basi s fo r m

ydecision . Unles s otherwis e specified , th e underlyin

g technica l informatio n i s include d i n thes e reports :

- "Remedia l Investigatio n Report" , (Draft) , Moye r Landfil l Site , Collegeville , Pennsylvania , (IM S Engineers , Jul y,1985 )

- "Feasibilit

yStud yReport" , (Draft ) Moye r Landfil l Site , Collegeville , Pennsylvania , (IM

S Engineers , Jul y1985 )

- "Wor k Plan" , Remedia l Investigation/Feasibilit yStud yo f Alternatives , Moye r Landfil l Site , (NU S Corp . . Septembe r 1983 )

- "Remedia l Actio n Maste r Plan" , Moye r Landfil l Site , (NU S Corp . Septembe r 1983 )

- Summar yo f Remedia l Alternative Selection .

- Recommendation s b

yth e Pennsylvani a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Resources *

- Note s an

d outline s provided b

yth e sit e receiver .

- Staf f summarie s an

d recommendations , includin g thes e attached . Descriptio n o f the Selecte d Remedy ; Afte r carefu l revie

w an d consideratio

n o f sit e area s identifie d I n th e Remedia l Investigatio n whic h warran t remedia l action , an d o f al l alternative s develope d b yEP Ai n the Feasibilit yStud yan d the alternative develope d b

ythe sit e receive r i n the Addendu mt o the FeasibilityStudy , the sit e receiver' s methan e ga s generation/recover yalternative can be implemente d a t th e Moye r Landfil l Site . Thi s phase d alternativ e wil l mee t th e Superfun

d goal s o f minimizin

g presen t an

d futur e migratio n o f hazardou s substance s an

d protec t human healt h an d th e environment , whil e als o attaining al l applicabl e an

d relevant Federa l publi c healt h an d environmenta l standards , guidance s an

d advisorie s a t th

e poin t o f closur e (1 0 t o 2 0 years) *



# 00000 1

### Specificallythi s optio n proposes : Soi l cove r wit h a permeabilit yo f 10~*/10~5 cm/se c Erosio n an d sedimentatio

n contro l measure s Surfac e wate r diversio n 

### Leachat e collection , treatmen t an d discharg e / Methan e ga s recover

yan d sal e * ' ff p 

### Security/fencin

g measure s 5 % Groun d wate r monitorin

g j Al l closure activitie s i n complianc e with RCR Aa t th e conclusio

n o f ga s generatio n phas e (1 0 t o 2 0 years) . Thi s alternativ

e contemplate s broa

d remedia l wor

k an d It s Implementatio

n wil l depend upo n the succes s o f the ga s generation/recover yprogra man d 

### th e contribution s fro

mgenerator s an

d othe r potentiall yresponsibl e partie s (PRPs) . I f negotiations with th e FRP s fai l and/or th e methane ga s alternativ

e falls , EF

Aan d PADE R recommen

d Remedia l Actio n Alternativ e 

### 4.2 . Thi s alternative i s th e cost-effectiv e remed

yan d wil l satisf ya s wel l al l o f th

e contaminatio

n an d migratio

n objective s identifie d i n th e Remedia l Investigation * Specificallythi s optio n proposes : * Miscellaneou s wor

k preparator

yt o installation s o f RCR Acap : 

### grading , flattenin

g o f stee

p slopes , retainin

g wall s an

d instal

lation s o f rip-ra

p a t area s tha t ar e mos t likelyt o be eroded . 0 Ga s ventin

g an d ga s monitoring . 0 Surfac e wate r collectio n an d discharg e t o Sklppac k Creek . 0 Leachat e collection an d treatmen t tha t wil l mee t the 10~ ° ris k leve l i n the groun

d wate r an

d discharg e requirement s i n the stream . 0 Operatio n an

d Maintenance : groun d an d surfac e wate r monitoring , maintenanc e o f the ca p an d treatmen t o f leachate . Declaration s Consistent with th

e Comprehensiv

e Environmenta l Respons e an d Compensatio

n an d Liabilit yAc t o f 198 0 (CERCLA ) (4 2 U.S. C 59601-9657 ) an d th e Nationa l ContingencyPla

n (4 0 C.F.R * Far t 300) , an d ilO l (24 ) o f CERCLA , I hav e 

### determined tha t eithe r o f th e remedia l actions described above , togethe r wit h prope r operation an d maintenanc e constitut e remedie s whic h mitigat e an d minimiz e damag e t o publi c health , welfar e an d th e environment . Th e Pennsylvani a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Resource s ha s been consulte d an d agree s wit h the approve d remedy . Thes e activitie s wil l b e considere d par t o f the approve d actio n an d eligibl e fo r Trus t Fun d monies . I hav e determine d tha t th e actio n bein g taken i s appropriat e whe n balance d agains t th e availabilit yo f Trus t Fun d monie s fo r us e a t othe r sites . Jame s ona l Administrato r EP A- Regio n II I 

# 00000 2

### JEleilegevill e

MOYE R LANDFILL
.

QUADRANGL E (Z 5 M.NUT 6 LOCATIO N MA P MOYE RLANDFIL L SIT E COLLECEVILLE , P A Scale i 1 " « 2000 ' 

## 00000 3 FIGUR E 1 

# IM S Engineer s * Architecta . P.C

.Summar yo f Remedia l Alternativ e Selectio n 

### Moye r Landfil l Sit e Sit e Locatio n an

d Descriptio n The Moye r Landfil l i s a n inactive privatel yowne d landfil l locate d a t Moye r Road , R.D . #2 , Collegeville , i n Lowe r Providenc e Townshi p i n Montgomer y County , Pennsylvani a (figur e 1) . Th

e landfil l wa s permitted fo r 65* 5 acre s i n 197 6 o f whic h 4 5 acre s ha d bee n use d b

y1977 ; however , som

e dumping di d occu r on unpermitte d land * The sit e are a consist s o f open lan d surrounded b ywoode d area s o n stee p slopes * Located o n the sit e ar e leachat e sumps , an offic e building , an d a meta l repai r shed . Runof f fro mth e slope s o f th e landfil l flow s westerl yInt o Skippac k Creek , which i s locate d 35 0 fee t ves t o f th e site * The landfil l i s bounde d on the nort h b yEvan s bur g Stat e Park , on the sout h b ylan d owned b

yProvidenc e Builders , o n the eas t b ylan d owne d b

y Howar d P . Moye r an

d Catherine M * Moyer , an d on the wes t b

yothe r residen

tia l land . The are a immediatel ysurroundin g the landfil l i s spars e 

### residential , whil e larg e residentia l development s ar e locate d withi n on e mil e o f th

e site * Th

e nearb ySkippac

k Creek , whic

h flow s throug h Evan s burg Stat e park , ha s i n th e pas t bee n stocked wit h trout * Accordin g t o loca l Federa l Burea u o f Investigatio

n (FBI ) Officials , 

### the landfill , durin

g it s operation , accepte d a variet yo f soli d an d liqui d hazardou s wastes , Includin g pol ychlorinated biphenyl s (PCBs) , solvents , paints , low

- leve l radioactiv

e wastes , an

d incinerate

d material s I n bul k for mand/o r containerized i n drums * I n 197 2 whe n the Pennsylvani a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Resource s (PADER ) rule s an d regulation s becam

e mor e restrictive , thi s landfil l wa s cited , an d finallyi n 1981 , i t wa s close d an d brough t int o receivershi p o f the court * Sinc e then , som e remedia l wor

k ha s bee n don e a t the sit e unde r the directio n o f the receivershi p attorneyMs . Joanne Denworth , appointe d b ythe U.S . Distric t 

### Cour t unde r a 198 2 Consen t Orde r entere d i n a civi l actio n initiate d b y neighborin

g residents . Thi s wor k wa s carried ou t b

ySM C Marti n the 

### receiver' s consultant . The yhav e performe d certai n activities , I.e. , desig n o f collection system s an d leachat e treatabllitystudies , an d som e sit e wor k Includin

g coverin

g certai n expose d area s o f the landfill , 

### regradlng , an

d revegetation * Owin

g t o increase d involvemen t b yloca l resident s an

d PADER , th

e sit e wa s eventuall

yliste d o n th e Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t (NPL ) b yth e U.S * Environmenta l Protection Agenc y (USEPA) . Althoug h acces s int o an

d aroun d the sit e i s limite d somewha t b ya 

### heav ygrowt h o f trees , steep slopes , streams , puddle s an d ponds , the sit e i s stil l accessibl e b

yfoot * Th

e entranc e t o th

e sit e di d have a fenc e an d a gat e a t on e time , limitin g acces s t o vehicula r traffic . Elevation s 

# 00000 4range fro m27 5 fee t abov

e mea n se a leve l (MSL ) alon g th e wes t side o f th

e 

### sit e t o 49 7 fee t above MS L a t the to p o f the landfill . Drainag e fro m sit e are a flows westwar d Int o Skippac k Creek throug h direc t runof f an

d als o vi a smal l stream s located north , south , an d southwes t o f the site ^ Skippac k Creek drain s southwes t Int o Perkiomen Cree k approximatel y3,00 0 fee t downstrea

mfro mth e sit e Skippac

k Creek i s a recretiona l strea muse d fo r fishing . Skippac k Creek i s no t use d fo r municipa l wate r supplies . Groun d wate r i n the sit e are a occur s i n an aquife r which ha s poo r 

### wate r yields * The averag e dept h o f the well s i n the are a i s 15 1 feet . Well s drilled int o the deepe r syste mar e often artesia

n du e t o the dense , relativel yimpermeabl e laye r o f bedroc k overlyin g the dee p system . Sit e Histor

y Th e sit e had bee n operate d a s a municipa l landfil l fro mth e 1940* 8 unti l Apri l 1981 , durin g which time i t receive d municipa l refus e an d 

### sewage sludges . 

### I n the earl y1970 f 

### s PADE R develope d an d implemente d mor e comprehen
sive landfil l regulations . A s a result , a leachat e collectio n syste m wa s constructe d an

d began operatin

g i n 197 2 a t the Move r Landfil l Sit e The collectio

n syste mconsiste

d o f undergroun

d drai n pipe s place d on to p o f the bedroc k a t the to e o f the landfil l slopes . The leachat e collected i n thes e pipe s drained b ygravityt o earthe

n basins , calle

d "Lagoo n No * 1 " an d Lagoon No * 2" , fro

mwhic h the leachat e wa s t o b e pumped . The 

### concret e basin s wer e late r converte d t o function a s pumping stations . Afte r th e pump s wer e installed , th e usabl e storag e volume i n th e lagoon s 

### wa s reduce d t o on e o r two fee t becaus e a certai n amoun t o f leachat e had t o remai n i n th

e lagoon s t o preven t th

e pump s fro

mrunnin g dry . Subsequent testing b

yth e PADE R reveale d tha t leachat e - contaminate d groun d wate r wa s appearin

g a s spring s downgradlen t fro mthe leachat e collectio n pip e o n th e northwes t sid e o f th e landfill * A n additiona l pum

p statio n wa s the n installe d t o intercep t th e spring s an d return thi s contaminate d wate r t o Lagoo n No . 2 . Severa l forc e main s connected th e collectio

n syste mpumpin g 

### station s t o a concret e basi n (whic h ha s sinc e bee n abandoned ) a t th e top o f th e landfill * Fro

mthi s basin , leachat e wa s applie d t o th e to p o f th e landfil l an

d dispose d o f b

yspra yirrigation . Becaus e o f Increasinglystringen t environmenta l regulation s promulgate d b ythe Stat e o f Pennsylvani a durin g the mld-1970's , the owner s o f the landfil l wer e prohibited fro mfillin g beyon d th e origina l boundaries . The landfil l owner s the n submitte d an applicatio n t o the PADE R requestin g permissio n t o expan

d the landfil l boundaries . The origina l landfil l wa s 

### fo r a n estimate d 5 acres . I n the lat e 1970's , the landfil l owner s als o submitte d an applicatio n t o th e PADE R fo r a majo r expansio n t o an are a adjacen t t o th e existin

g landfill , bu t thi s application wa s neve r approve d b ythe PADER .


# 00000 3

### -3
-

In th e origina l fil l area (3 9 acres) , th e wast e wa s simpl ydumped , // > 

### compacted , an

d covere d wit h earth . I n th e new fil l area , th e plan s ' called fo r installin

g a n impermeabl e line r prio r t o filling . Sit e preparatio n work began on th e ne w are a I n 1977 . Landflllln g wa s reportedl y limite d t o thi s ne

w line d are a unti l th

e landfil l wa s close

d b ya PADE R 

### orde r i n earl y1981 . The earl yanalysi s on leachat e fro mthe landfil l date s bac k t o Februar y197 2 b yKapp e Associates , don e fo r the conventiona l parameter s such a s BOD , COD , an

d nitrogen . Thi s analysi s wa s conducte d i n orde r t o design an aerate d lagoon t o trea t the leachate . Later , leachat e fro

mthe landfil l wa s sample d extensivel yb yPADE R an d t o a lesse r exten t b yEF Aan d b yMover' s Landfil l Inc. , throug h 

### Lancaste r Lab s an

d SM C Marti n (PADER , Apri l 3 , 198 0 t o March 10 , 1982 ; Austin , March 10 , 1980 ; Bonder , Octobe r 3 , 1980 ; SM C Martin , Novembe r 26 , 1980) . Awid e rang e o f heav ymetal s an

d organic a wer e detected . I n on e situatio n sulfat e concentration wa s foun d t o be fou r time s highe r than USEPAMaximu

mContaminan t Leve l (MCL) . The heav ymetal s ar e indicativ e o f sludges , both sewag e an d industrial , know

n t o have been disposed o f o n the site . The organic s ma yhav e bee n component s o f certai n industria l sludge s (i.e . fro

mth e solven t recyclin

g o r plastic s industries) , bu t thei r probabl e origin s canno t b e determine d a t thi s time * The USEP Adetecte d severa l hazardou s compound s I n leachat e emanatin g fro mth e Move r Landfil l Site . Thes e included benzene ( 2 t o 4 ug/L) , toluen e ( 7 t o 5 0 ug/L) , trichloroethylene ( 9 t o 2 0 ug/L) , tetrachloroethylene (0* 1 t o 0. 5 ug/L ) an

d chlorobenzene ( 1 t o 3 ug/L) . Othe r compound s detecte d b

yth e USEP Ainclude ethylbenzene ( 2 t o 2 0 ug/L) , viny l chlorid e (0. 3 t o 7 ug/L) , methylen e chlorid e ( 7 t o 30 0 ug/L) , chloroethane (0. 7 t o 2 ug/L) , 1,1-dichloroethan e (0. 4 t o 10 0 ug/L , an d 1,1-dichloroethylen e ( 1 t o 2 ug/L) . Thes e volatil e organic s i n th e concentrate d o r pur e forms ar e associate d wit h industria l solvents . Fro mth e poin t o f vie

w o f conventiona l parameter s suc h a s BOD/COD , 

### the leachat e appear s t o be considerabl ylowe r tha n the leachat e emanatin g fro ma typica l landfill . Adetaile d chronologica l profil e o f the developmen t o f activitie s an d operation s a t the sit e i s presente d I n Appendi x A . The sit e i s liste d i n Grou p 6 on the Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t (NPL ) o f 41 8 sites , issued b y 

### the EP Ai n Decembe r 1982 . Awor k plan wa s develope d which identifie d the followin g dat a needs : * T o mor e full ydelineat e th e exten t an d natur e o f groun

d wate r contaminatio

n a t th e site . * T o determin e th e exten t an d natur e o f surfac e soi l contaminatio n 

### a t particula r locations . 

# OOOOO G

### -4
- 0 

### T o evaluat e groun

d wate r aquife r characteristic s throug h pumpin g test s an d t o recor

d water-leve l readings . 

### to Aremedia l Investigation/Feasibilit yStud ywa s funded a t a tota l 

### cos t o f $681,00 0 an

d fiel d work began Hay , 1984 . Curren t Sit e Statu s IM S Engineer s conducte d a soi l an d roc k sampling , an

d monitorin

g 

### wel l Installatio

n progra ma t thi s sit e t o define th e geologi c an

d hydrogeologi c regime o f th e sit e an d area s adjacen t t o th e site . Atota l o f thirtee n monitorin g well s hav e bee n installed . The yconsis t o f fou

r cluster s o f tw

o well s each , one (1 ) dee p an d one shallow , locate d withi n 

### 5 t o 1 0 fee t fro

meach other , an

d fiv e additiona l well s whic h ar e intersperse d aroun

d th e boundar

yo f th e landfil l sit e t o giv e a broade r 

### perspectiv e o f the geolog yan d hydrogeolog

yo f the site . The shallo w well s ar e abou t 3 0 t o 8 0 fee t deep , an d th e dee p well s ar e approximatel y 25 0 fee t deep . 

### As Indicated b

ythe borin

g sample s the Move r Landfil l I s situate d o n a high , resistive ridg e o f shale , argillit e an d siltston e o f the Lockaton g Formation , o f Trlassi c ag e (figur e 2) . A

t som e o f th

e boreholes , th

e rock i s 

### disintegrate

d u p t o a dept h o f 4 0 t o 8 0 feet , beyon d whic h th e formatio

n i s verydense . 

### Permeabilit

ytestin g o f well s ha s indicate d th e permeabilit

yo f th e uppe r bedroc k abov e 10 0 fee t i s abou t 5 x 10~ 5 cm/se c whil e belo w 10 0 

### feet , th e permeabilit ydecrease s from1 x 10" ^ cm/se c t o 5 x 10" ' cm/sec * Groun d wate r movemen t fro

mth e vicinit yo f th e landfil l sit e i s generally t o the Wes t wit h discharg e aroun d the to e o f the fil l an d throug h seep s alon g the steep valle

yo f Skippac k Creek . Hydrauli c monitorin g ha s 

### demonstrate d tha t Skippack Creek i s a hydrauli c boundar yan d n o flo w o f leachat e crosse s th

e creek . I t i s calculate d tha t 9 5 t o 9 8 percen t o f th e flo w i s latera l an

d i n 

### a downgradlen t directio n fro mth e landfil l sit e whil e 2 t o 5 percen t i s vertica l Int o the les s permeabl e deepe r aquife r zone * The rat e o f flo w o f groun d wate r throug

h the fracture s i s i n the rang e o f 1 t o 7 0 fee t pe r day . Permeabilitymeasurement s a t the sit e confirms the othe r investiga

tions . The rat e o f leachat e generation ha s bee n estimate d t o be a t a n 

### averag e rat e o f abou t 18,60 0 gallon s pe r day . Aleachat e collection syste mInstalle

d b yth e owner s i s I n a poo r stat e o f repai r an d i s no w 

### inoperable . Dependin

g upo n th

e year , exces s leachat e I s generate d an d discharge s t o th e Skippac k Cree k syste mduring a period o f 5 t o 8 month s eac h year . • Dat a wa s obtaine d fro manalysi s o f sample s taken on tw o separat e occasions , Ma

y2 1 thr u June 1 , 198 4 an

d Octobe r 2 thr

u 12 , 1984 . Sample s wer e collecte d fro

monslt e monito r well s alon g wit h offsit e monito r an d 

# 00000 7GENERALIZE D COMPOSIT E STRATIGSAPH Y 

### (Base do n Subsurfac e Drillin g Work ) 

## 50f t 25f t 40f t 40f t 10ft 2 FDDT KE Y BE D —



## 20f t 

## 55f t 30f t 

## 15f t 

## 35f t 5f t 

## 25f t 40f t 

## 30f t

1 1 " - 50'+/ - ;20f t Core d Thickness * « rt/ * , rox . 455 ' 10ft Re d AgrlLU-t e Gray ArgiLlft e Re d AoriUrte

Re d t o Gra

y AgrtlUt e Gra y Arglllft e Gra y Argill m ke d t o bra

y AgrUUt e

Gra y ArQlllftc Gra y ArgilUr e Re d t o Gra

y AgrHUrt e Re d Aarnirte ArgltLft e Ga p I n Core d Sectio n
Gra y . ArgfUft e Re d AfirttUt e bra y Argltlft e Ver y F e

i ^ MOVE R LANDFIL L SIT E

CollegeHille , P A

M// V '°G(/J

w Lime y Bed s

\ < 

### ru i 

# s g § 5 \ a W \ OM >

/ j- i \
_ _« X U-i
. ; —• OH - 

### ~ a /

^ S /

w 

### » - 

# P / s S* r/

Z 

### S S /

J = 

### %/ ^^, a 

### < / ^ ^ *u^wi x ^r,r,u ^ , t

^ / *

*
Ver

y 1 .

p e w Lime

y Bed s

FIGUR E 2 

# 00000 3 

# IM S

' BAS E D F Engineer s • Architects , P.C.

# ^y'lMiS^ ^

. uti - . ^r^='V4 j BAS E MA P I S A PORTION OFTH

E U&G. & COLLE5EVTLLE , P A QUADRANGL

E CONTOU RINTERVALC * LEACEATE SAMPL E LOCATION S

MOTEE . LANDFIL L SIZ E COLLEGEVILLB , P

A (Z5 MINUTE SERIES , 1966,PHCTOREVEEDI973} . JIG . 3 * 

# 00000 9 

# IM S Engineer s • Architects , P.c . P.OCHESTB B *•*» • —— —BASE MA

P I S A PORTION OFTOE U&& & COLLESEV1U.C , P A QUADRANGL

E (T. 3 MINUT ESERES , 1966 , PHOTOREVSED1973) . CONTOU RWTERVALtf . ' 

### SEEP S LOCATION S KOTE RLANDFILLSIT

E COLLEG27IUJE , P

A 

# 00001 0

Engineer s • Architects , P.C ,

### -5
-

domesti c wells . Si x leachat e an d si x seep location s fro mth e landfil l £/#4 / sit e wer e sample

d fo r wate r and/o r sediment . Wate r sediment s an d fis h (fieri] 

### sample s wer e collecte d fro mupstrea

man d downstrea

mlocation s i n Skippac k * Cree k passin

g alon g it s western boundary . Groun d wate r sample s fro

m twenty-tw

o residentia l well s an d thirtee

n newlyinstalle

d monitorin

g 

### well s aroun

d the peripher

yo f the sit e wer e sampled . Thes e sample s wer e analyze d fo r priorit ypollutants , PCBs , dioxin s an d radioactivity * The laborator

ytes t result s indicat e tha t som e contaminant s observe d I n the leachat e an

d see p sample s fro

mthe landfil l sit e ar e als o presen t i n wate r an d sedimen t fro

mthe Skippac k Creek , I n the tissu e o f the fis h sample d downstrea

mo f the landfill , an d i n monitorin

g well s surroundin

g 

### the peripher

yo f the landfil l alte . The occurence , distributio n an d probabl ytranspor t o f the variou s chemical s I s summarize d below . Thi s wil l be presente d unde r thre e sub
headings : Onslt e Contamination , Offsit e Contamination , an d Contaminatio

n Transport . ONSIT E CONTAMINATIO

N Six (6 ) leachat e (figure 3 ) an d six (6 ) seep sample s (figur e 4 ) wer e collected . Leachat e sample s wer e analyze d for 12 9 priorit

ypollutants . On e additiona l leachat e sampl e wa s analyzed fo r radioactivity * The see p sample s wer e analyzed fo r pH conductivity , oxidation-reductio n potentia l an d temperature . The landfil l surfac e shows a numbe r o f leachat e an d seep locations . Thes e ar e supposedl ydischargin g severa l o f priorit y pollutant s an

d Bet a radlonucllde s int o the surfac e water . Therefore , the 

### landfil l sit e i s veryunsaf e fo r publi c trespass . I t I s a continou s sourc e o f pollutin

g groun d an d surfac e wate r wit h severa l priorit y pollutant s an

d radiatio n o f probabl yhospita l origin . The followin g i s a summaryo f contaminatio n observe d a t th e site : 

### * The sample s ar e observe d t o b e contaminate d wit h 8 6 priorit y pollutant s an

d 1 6 metals * Althoug h the concentration o f mos t o f thes e contaminant s i s low , nearl yal l o f the mar e contaminant s (e.g. , cyanide ) o f concern . * At leas t fou r (4 ) o f the priorit ymetals : arsenic , barium , lea d an d zinc , an

d eight o f th

e organi c priorit

ypollutants : trlchloroe
thylene , toluene , xylene , di-N-octylphthalate , 2-hexanone , an d 2-butanone , bi s (2-ethylhexyl ) phthalat e ar e observe d t o be abov e ambien t levels . * Lea d an d bariu mexcee d Unite d State s Publi c Healt h Servic e Drinkin g Wate r Standards . * Bet a Radiatio n (Technetiu m99 ) I s observe d i n the leachat e sampl e an d i s above Worl d Healt h Organizatio n (WHO ) Standards * Thi s contami



### nation i s suspecte d t o be o f hospita l origin . 

### * Ther e i s no evidenc e o f an ydetectabl e leve l o f ai r pollution . 

# ooooi i. .-._• - . w ,,*— -.— • .-r - *r

- W..ATi> ' ,C T • . . - . . «. ' • BAS E MA P 1 $ A PORTIO N O F TH E US.&S. CCLLEGEV1LU , W QUADRANGL E (7. 3 MINUT E SERES , I9eS,PHOTOREVSEDt973) . CONTOU R INTERVA L tf . .. . . . «——« , - FIGtJH E 5 ' • ' LEGEND S IM S 00001 3 

### Engineer s - Architects , P.C . ROCHESTER . NE W

YOR K MONITORIN

G WELL S LOCATION

S MOTE R LANDFIL

L SIT E COLLEGEVILLE , P

A 

### • Shallo w Well s Q Dee p Well sBAS E MA

P I S A PORTION OP TH

E US.& & COLLEGEVILLfi , M OUACRAN5L E (7 3 MINUTESERES , S6S,PHCTOREVISE D B7I) . CONTOU RINTERwaLtf . • " F1GOP E 6 MONITORE

D RESIDENTIAL VELL S KOTE RLANDFIL

L SIT E COLLEGEVILLE , PA 

# 00001 3 Engineer s • Architects , p. a • - / 

### 'f t -BAS E MA P t

S A PORTIO N O F TH E ULS.&S. OOLLESEVIUJE , P A QUADRANGL E (t

5 MINUT

E SERES , I96S,PHOTOR£V!S£DS73)
. CONTOU R WTERVAtCr . . FIGURE 7 CREEK S SAMPL E WATE 1 MOYERLANDFIL

L SIT E COLLECEVILLE . P

A 

# 00001 4 Engineer s - Architects , P. a—6
—

OFFSIT E CONTAMINATIO

N



### ————————————— — Thirteen monitorin

g well s (figur

e 5) , twenty-tw

o residentia l well s (figur e 6 ) borderin

g th e landfil l site , Skippac k Creek flowin g b yth e wester n boundar

yo f the landfil l site , Perkiomen Cree k acceptin

g flo w 

### fro mSkippac k Creek , an

d fis h fro

mSkippac k Cree k (figure 7 ) wer e sample d fo r priorit ypollutants , metals , organics , PCBs , dioxins , an d Bet a radiation . Th e followin g i s a summar

yo f th e contamination observe d of f th e Noye r Landfil l Site . * Th e residentia l well s borderin g th e landfil l sit e do no t sho w 

### an ydetectabl e level s o f organi c o r inorgani c pollution . Thi s wate r meet s al l Federa l USEP ADrinkin

g Hate r Standard s an

d is , therefore , saf e fo r human consumption . * The Skippac k Creek shows detectabl e level s o f contamination . Thos e contaminant s are : toluene , chloroform , 2-hexanone , bi s (2
- ethylhexyl ) phthalate , dl-N-octylphthalate » manganese , Iro n an d possibl ynickel . Th

e concentration s o f thes e contaminant s ar e verylow . However , thes e contaminant s ar e presen t an d thei r sourc e ca

n be trace d bac k t o the landfill . The cree k wate r meet s al l Federal , USEPA , an d Stat e o f Pennsylvani a Drinkin g Wate r Standard s an

d i s therefor e saf e a s a ra w wate r supplysource * * The fis h i n the creek als o sho w detectabl e level s o f contamination . Th e contaminant s observe d wer e lead , 0-xylene , 2-hexanone , TCE , 2
- butanone , toluene , di-N-octylphthalate , Again , the concentration s o f thes e contaminant s ar e ver ylow . Non e o f thes e contaminant s exceed s FD

Astandard s o f fis h consumptio n o f thi s fis h b yhumans . Th e contaminant s detecte d can b e trace d bac k t o th e landfill . * The shallo

w monitorin

g well s installed aroun d the peripher

yo f 

### the landfil l sit e sho

w substantia l concentration s o f som e contami

nants * Thes e well s ar e located on the western boundar yo f the landfil l site . Th

e directio

n o f groun

d wate r flo

w i s als o t o th

e west , northwest , an

d southwest * Thes e contaminant s ar e arsenic , lead , barium , an

d nickel . Th

e concentration o f bariu mi s 3,50 0 ug/1 , wherea s th

e USPH S standar

d i s 1,00 0 ug/1 . Th e concentration 

### o f lea d observe d i s 23 0 ug/1 , wherea s USPH S i s 5 0 ug/1 . Th e DSPRS i s considerin

g revisin

g th e standard fo r lead . Thi s i s expecte d t o be mor e stringen t than 5 0 ug/1 . Bot h bariu man d 

### lea d ar e toxi c t o humans . Th e arseni c concentration observe d i s 2 5 ug/1 , wherea s th e USPHS standard i s 5 0 ug/1 .



# 00001 5

### -7
-

* Thirtee n monitorin g well s an

d on e residentia l wel l wer e teste d fo r radiu

m226 , Gros s Alpha an d Gros s Bet a radiation . Monitor i well s M W 5 , 8 , an

d 1 0 contained Bet a radiatio n varying fro ma t o 124+20. 3 pCl/1 . Thes e thre e well s ar e shallo w well s an

d ar e th e mos t contaminated o f th e thirtee

n well s drille

d a t thi s site * 

### The residentia l wel l wate r Indicate d ver ylo w level s o f radiatio n includin g Bet a radiation . The WH O guidelin e fo r Bet a activit y i s 2 7 pCt/1 . 

### Evidentl ythe radiatio n activit yi n monitorin g wel l wate r fa r 

### exceed s th e maximu

mrecommende d fo r drinkin g water * I n orde r t o mak e a prope r healt h an

d environmenta l impac t o f thi s contaminant vi t i s essentia l t o determin e the exac t natur e o f thi s contaminan t a t it s Isotope leve l an

d als o possiblyidentifyIt s source . Fo r thi s purpose , sample s fro

mthes e well s wer e collected again . The Analytica l tes t result s ar e indicate d i n Table s 1 an d 2 . * Potassium-4 0 i s a naturall yoccurin g isotop e tha t ma

yhav e bee n contribute d b

yth e larg e amoun t o f suspende d materia l presen t i n th e collected samples * The Technitium-9 9 ma yb e attribute d t o hospita l waste s burie d a t the site . 

### " The shallo

w groun d wate r i s als o contaminate d wit h severa l o f the othe r organi c contaminant s foun d i n the creek water , sediments , an d fish . Therefore , th e shallo w groun d wate r flowin

g wes t an

d northwes t o f the landfil l sit e i s substantiall ycontaminated . 0 Th e vegetatio n an

d tree s o n th e wester n boundar yo f th e landfil l 

### sit e sho w stress . CONTAMINAN

T TRANSPOR

T Ther e ar e numerou s seep s a t the sit e tha t ar e eithe r seepin g lightl yo r leachin

g heavil ycontaminate d wate r fro mthe landfill * Eight ysi x organi c priorit ypollutant s an d sixtee n priorit y pollutan t metal s hav e bee n observe d i n the sample s fro mthe site . Ther e ar e thre e mechanisms o f transpor t o f the contaminant s fro m the site : air , surfac e wate r an d groun d water . N o detectabl e level s o f contaminant s ar e observe d i n the ai r a t the site . Certai n volatil e contaminant s such a s toluene , xylene , an d cyanid e hav e bee n detecte d a t th e site , bu t hav e no t bee n detecte d during ai r monitoring *



# 00001 6Tabl e

O O 

### O O RADIONUCLID E - ANALYTICAL TES T D/T A SUMMAR Y MOVE R LANDFIL L SITE , COLLEGEV1LL3 , P A

^ i i s t

i t u c n t

——)

•

i-i 

# s O . 5 5 OS O H 1- 1 O

- O'LEAR Y RES-WEL L * 1

1 1 0 * 1 1 * 1 2 #1 3 J 2 * 4 f 5 * 6 i 7 i S i ? 9 #4 22 6 K A

Concuntra t

ion : pCi/ L
0. 5 1 0. 1 0. 4 1 0. 1 2. 7 1 0. 1 0. 2 ± 0. 1 0. 5 ± 0. 1 0. 5 i 0. 1 0. 4 ± 0. 1 0. 6 t O. I '0. 1 i 0. 1 O. I J : 0. 1 2. 0 ± 0. 1 0 > 0. 1 0. 2 J 0. 1 CKOS S /LMI A

Concontt.

- Lio n pCi/ l 2. 5 1 2. 5 0. 1 J : 3. 5 9. 5 1 4. 2 

## 3.r > i (. 3 1. 4 I 2. 3 2. 3 :l . 1. 9 0. 8 1 2. 0 8. 2 J . >. 2 1. 6 J 1. 2 2. 5 * I.. 9 6. 5 i ». 0 -0. 2 J L 1. 7 

### 1. 8 i ->.j ; Detectio n

Limi t 1.54 5 3.43 9 1.68 6 1,14 4 1.57 2 0.75 3 1.79 9 16.1 5 0.72 1 1.34 1 4 . 05 6 1.51 9 0.62 9 GROS S BET A

Cuncohtra t

io n pCi/ L

19. 2 1 3. 4 34. 9 : L 6. 0 I K 4 J : ^. 0 2. 9 J 2. 3

' -0. 2 J 2. 5 7. 7 ! 2. 3 4. 4 ± 3. 3 92. 0 I !7. 6 5. 3 ± 3. 0 4. 0 H : 2. 7 124. 0 - t 20. 3 3. 0 1 2. 5 3. 9 ± 2. 5 Detec t lo t Liiiil t
1.52 6 2.56 6 1.40 5 1 . 30 8 1.65 3 1.43 5 1.89 9 6.J39 S 1.70 3 1.57 3 i>.-'.6 2 1.51 3 1.52 3 ^ r*>5 ?

### TABL E 2 ADDITIONA

L RACIA.'IO

NA ' 

### MOYE R LANDFIL L SITE , COLLEGER ! LLE , PA . 

### Sampl e Identificatio n Gros s Bet a Garrm a Spectru n pCl/1Ite r Contaminan t Monitorin g Well , MW 5 2 6 ± 6 Potas s tun-4 0 2 7 RadIun-22 8 < 1 Strontlun-9 0 1, 9 * 

### Monitorin g Well , M W 8 3 7 ± 7 Potas s I tm-^f O 

### Radlun-22 8 Strontlui>-9 0 3 1

< 1 <0. 5
Monitorin g Well , M W 1 0 3 2 * 7 Potas s I un-4 0 RadIun-22 8 

### Strontlun-9 0 2 9

< 1 <0. 5
Leachat e Wate rL S 2 19 9 ±1 2 Po t as s I cm-* * 0 RadIun-22 8 Stronttun-9 0 TechnetIur>-9 9 

### 16 7

< 1 <0. 5 3 5 ± 1 5
Leachat e Sediments , 7. 8 t 0. 6 LS S 2 

### Manganese-5 4 Ceslun-13 7 

### Potas s Ion-4 0 CadnIurv-10 9 «0.0 7 ± 0.0 2

^0.0 9 * 0.0 2 

### «5.6 6 ± 0.0 7 «1.3 1 * 0.3 5 «pCI/g m Cdry )


# 00001 8Th e ground wate r leve l 1 * lowe r tha n th e bottom o f th e landfill . Therefore , ground wate r l a no t th e direc t vehicl e o f contaminan t 

### transpor t fro

m the alte . The transpor t o f contaminatio n i s mostl y

due t o surfac e wate r percolatio n throughth e landfill . Th e expose d conta 

### minant s a t th e sit e ar e transporte d directl y t o th e surfac e wate r bodie s (Skippac k Cree k and Perkiome n Creek ) vi a surfac e runof f and indirectl y throug hcontaminate d groun d wate r (uppe r aquifer ) discharging t o th e creeks * Th e lowe r aquife r I s no t contaminated * Bet a Radiatio n and 

### othe r contaminant s observe d i nth e monitorin g well s (MW8 and MW4 ) ar e th e resul t o f th e transpor t route * Bet a radiatio nand othe r contaminant s coul d als o b e transporte d directl y vi a th e surfac e wate r runof f from 

### th e sit e t o th e surfac e wate r bodies * However , observe d concentration s I n thes e receptor s ar e lo w du e t o th e enormou s dilutio n effec t i n th e creeks * Th e shallo

w monitorin g well s o n th e wester n boundar y o f th e 

### landfil l sho

w thi s contamination . Th e majorit y o f th e pollutant s (trichlorethethylene , toluene , xylene , 2-hexanone , 2-butanone , aceti c aci d methylester ) observe d i n th e monitorin g well s and th e surfac e 

### wate r bodie s hav e hig hMobilit y

Indexan

d ar e consequentl y

easil y transporte d fro

m th e landfil l sit e t o thes e receptors . 

### Table s 3- 5 summariz e al l critica l contaminant s associated wit h the Move r Landfill * ENDANGERMEN

T ASSESSMEN

T Th e ris k assessmen t fo r th e Move r Landfil l Sit e i s base d o n hydro 

### geologica l an d chemica l analytica l dat a obtaine d durin g previou s investigation s and th e R I conducte d unde r thi s study . Th e objectiv e o f 

### thi s assessmen t I s t o defin e th e healt hrisk s associate d wit hth e presenc e o f hazardou s contaminant s o nand around th e sit e and t o defin e th e potentia l environmenta l effect s associate d wit hth e contaminant s i n 

### site-specifi c circumstances . I norde r fo r a healt hris k t o occur , contaminant s havin

g know n chemica l an

d biologica l toxi c characteristic s mus t b e present , actua l o r potentia l exposur e pathway s mus t b e present , an d huma n environmenta l receptor s mus t b e locate d i n th e exposur e paths . Typically , th e ris k assessmen t procedure s addres s th e developmen t o f 

### th e detail s o f th e locatio nand demographic s o f th e recepto r populatio n and mos t sensitiv e environmenta l receivers * Th e ris k assessmen t involve s assessing th e significan t contaminan t migratio n route s and exposur e pathways , identifying th e hazardou s compound s o f greates t concern , and evaluatin g th e possibl e effect s I n th e contex t o f probabl e exposur e scenarios * Th e majo r potentia l contaminan t transpor t pat hprovidin g exposur e o f huma n receptor s t o th e landfil l contaminant s i s th e ground wate r 

### flo w beneat hth e site * Ther e ar e als o severa l mino r route s o f transpor t o f contaminants * Volatilisatio n o f organi c and/o r inorgani c contaminant s 

# 00001 9

# 02000 0



# » l • a . r * * • P X r * 1

- 

# H i

P = 3 S ? 

### s 

# l

—» « 

# I -

C K-y ,

S s e 

## 5 - ^

- » • * " n-a 

# ! = z > 

## § i c 

## 3

a

f 

### a x

6 ? s a a . ? 

# II ft* l i E»l " 

# fi f I

I s 

# 1 

# •I 

# m J » 4*1 E 

# fi rT /

O O O O ————h —- —• - i= « - • v'HcnfBCBcaiita*
. *4^

l J5Sj5 n m <«IH«m«ar. J ' Mayo rLandfil l site , = « •g-vllle.Penneylwnl
.

* ~ ———————

—— —*** " » Cffrmmua

T ^n-^- ^ _

—————- • ±S i — — ______ _AmMant Wate r*_,

_rv-,_ . .

Contaminan

t 1 - Ananl c 2 . Bariu m X Laa d « • Mengena

M 5 . Mcke l 4 . Zin c 7 . Bat e Rattfetto n 8 . Trichlorathytwi a 9 . Toluen e 10 . Xylan a 11 . OI-N-Octylphthai « 12 . 24*xanon e 13. 2-autanon a 1*
. BU(2-athy»iaxy

O Phthalet e 15 . Aceti c Ad d *a

d Methy l eate r LM

«»--- - wate r



### . ••/L
. 0-8 1 239-721 0 0-97 5 512-54,90

0 61-48 1 24-273 0

M l 5- 4 « M l 10-1 9 6-10 5 cfiate a

eBvAfBiM.^M

^ s^oMnan 1 •Q/kna r 

### ff*w a 10-2 4 49-26 1 0-3 2 430-242 0 44-1 8 3M24 4J
104 1 14 K
140-59 0 47-1145 22-54 6 CVowd Wate rr- r-IL
. c.__ 1 |

_ t a MM
. 8aa . **m.j| « 

# -S/L _S L S r^

v

—= * ——Mtt- «a a - •»/> ! »- » 10-1 1 2

_ 1 0 50-350 0 28-4

4 47-54 13-5 7 *-V23 0 54 1 4.4.2 . 23-714 0 5-81 8 18-5 3 6442 0 W-W2 40 5-1 8 0-9. 7 *-» l 13-207

0 11.4 2 33-14 4 »4. 4

3 Z 3

8

« ! 3

"- W 274-36 2 ] 20-89 5 72-17 2 ftnmxjCrlterl a

Fl * ^ ^

- — —O" L Drinking FW
. • • Wate rani l Driniin , at e " «_ > r > ^wmKin i r«9^o rPPCL S ^ °S

^ * &



### - J^fl a 6L

t ^ ^ T S & H ».9iioA)5 0 0(2.2noA ) 2 IpO

W 1,00

0 ^• W » 5 0 5 0 5 0 4 < « 5 0 15. 4 °- 2 * » 1X 4 *- » 5^0 0

" ^

0-(2.7 ) (2.B

) 25-2 7 15,00

0 W( 3o o i 5f no n 8-1 0 108-1760 9 8 8 0 2700-528 0 21.03

0 -•"•» • -ww»on q Wnt« rAc

t

9 ItrflllhA.tvUnH ^ Irfa y KWay clwnl c «at! rya^ ; W L (2.5nqA) 5 0

5 0 5 0 5,00 0

2-0 2 0. 2 0.075 2*- 5 2. 2 0.3 4 l?- ° 1. 3 CU 2

Onl y on e raaldent M wal l W M testa d fo r radiatio n Concentratio n I n fbh/»adlmenta . I t I * I n mg/k

g fo r met« b an d ug/k

g fo r organl- i . Kwapacta d concentratio n t teMtha n

## o 

## o o IWIJ E 5 Critica l O ^ . Hnin u - Mobilit y Indexe s

Contaminan

t L Amnl e 2 . Bariu m 3 . Loa d 4 . Manaanaa

a 5 . Nlcfca l « . Zin c 7 . Dat a Radiatio n 9 . Totuen a 10 . Xytan * 11 . DI-N-OctylpHthaI« U 12 . 2-Haxanon a 13 . 2-Butanon a 14 . Bla (2-athythwyl ) L*arf i

•
0-8 2 238-721 0 0-87 5 512-54,80

9 «-48 3 24-2730

3-1 1 5- 6 8-6 1 10-1 8 a-iit f MnyarLancf n

RMC R O F COWtftMIIflU n C O ataa Grow* l Wata r a-r-j ^ •Vhqo rStell a Vtell a •W/w i aa/L m tfa 10-2 4 5-2 5 10-1 1 49-26 1 50-350 0 28-41 6 0-32 1.4-23

0 5-4 1 670-242 0 23-716

0 5-81 8 6.6-1 8 98-20 2 4 0 35-12 4 5-93 1 13-207 0 33-14 4 •*. * 6. J
10-4 1 / 14 K
140-59 0 41-114 5 39-160 f l a ) , CollagBviaa , Penmytvani a

(•C D VAtlO H i5ta*f c Samp

w rva i W-'ta rm/k

g a rug/toja r 2-1 0 t l 47- 1 13-5

7 2 4.4-2 8 0 - ,76 18 - 1 64-42 0 6 5-1 - 0-9. 7 0-2

11-6 2 4-1 4
4. 7 3 25-2 7

2 3 8-1 0 8 188-176 0 4 2 3 9 8 8 0 274 - 5 2 120-89

5 2700-528 0 SohfclUt y Soi l Vapo rI n AfMorp
. fVaavjra Wate rSpadfk ; Portlt
. a t 2 (P C a

t 2CP C Gravit

y Co*f f
.

6 0 1.10

0 1.4

6 12 0 2 2 52 0 0.867 39 0 5 18 0 0.8 8 76 0 1J * 0.28

5 0.9

9 49,69

5 2 35,000 0.83 13. 8 2 4 125,00

0 0.80

8 6,8

5 tO
. 0 1 0. 4 0.9 9 41,000 Phtnalat * 15 . Aceti c Ac M aa

4 M«tnyl*«C* r 22-546 72-17 2 20 252,63



## ro * Onl y an a raldantla l wal l W M tMtar f fo r ratflatlo n * •Concantratlo n I n flaVvmllmanto . f t to b i mgfttg

to r metal i an d ug/k

q fo r org nl c i . t ThlavaporpraaHraltat 200° b Kampecta

d concentratio n L lea i tha n 1.04 9 16.5 W««a r

Partl U Cnefr . Honiuy KOW

19 0 49 U 1,40 0 2. 7

1. 5 0.0 8 0.36f t3. 7 0.10 2 5.6

4

0.51 2 4.4 9

### -9
-

t o ambien t air , wit h the contaminated ai r moving of f site , ha s no t bee n observe d a t th e Move r Landfil l Site . Surfac e wate r runof f mixe d wit h (f t contaminated leachate s emanatin g fro mthe deposite d waste s a t Skippac k Creek , ma

yaffec t the environmen t an d surfac e water s o f Skippac k Creek , 

### and , consequently , ma

yhav e a possibl e impac t o n th e huma n healt h an d aquati c environment . 

### Potentia l receptor s include nearb yuser s o f groun

d wate r fo r drinkin g an d al l othe r purposes , person s usin g loca l surfac e water s fo r 

### recreationa l purposes , food grow n i n nearb

yfields , an

d person s eatin

g 

### grazin g animal s fed fro

mnearb yfields . The

yinclude consumin

g mil k o f animal s fe d fro

mnearb yfields , consumin

g aquati c biot a I n affecte d surfac e water , terrestria l faun a usin g affecte d aquati c animal s a s a 

### food source , vegetatio n tha t ma ybe stressed , an

d onslt e remediatio n workers . Althoug

h the residentia l well s adjoinin g the Moye r Landfil l Sit e wer e no t contaminate d a t the tim e o f sampling , the monitorin g 

### well s on the western boundar yo f the landfil l sit e di d sho w contamination fro mhigh level s o f lead , barium , an d arsenic . Bet a radiation i s als o suspecte d a t the landfill * Ther e ar e no nearb yresidentia l well s i n 

### the direc t pat h o f leachat e flow , which us e wate r fo r drinkin g o r an y othe r purposes . Individual s a t ris k fo r exposur e du e t o Bet a radiatio n an d othe r organi c an

d inorgani c contaminant s woul d includ e remedia l construction 

### worker s o r person s trespassin g the site , who ma

yencounte r the compound s emanatin g fro mthe seep s o r leachat e streams . However , thi s exposur e t o contaminant s woul d presen t concentration s i n the environmen t o f brie f duration . Ingestion o f lo w dose s o f Bet a radiation (Technitlu m- 99 ) 

### coul d be avoide d b

yprope r healt h an

d safetyprovision s fo r the worker s operatin g a t the site . ALTERNATIVE S EVALUATIO N Tabl e 6 present s a brie f compariso n o f al l alternative s included i n thi s document . The majo r objective s fo r remedia l actio n t o be take n a t the Moye r Landfil l sit e ar e t o mitigat e o r eliminat e environmenta l con taminatio n throug

h collectin

g an d treatin

g leachat e fro

mthe landfil l an d cappin g the sit e t o contro l leachat e generatio n an d soi l erosion . 

### The overal l strateg

yi s t o mitigat e an

d minimiz e har

mt o the publi c healt h an

d the environment . Thi s shoul d includ e minimizin g furthe r uppe r aquife r contamination an d the possibilityo f direc t contac t wit h the waste . 

### Leachat e contro l i s a

n integra l par t o f the overal l schem e i n orde r t o eliminat e the continuin g migratio n o f contaminant s acros s the sit e an d of f the sit e t o the Skippac k Creek . Implementatio n o f thes e measure s wil l benefi t bot h the healt h o f the loca l residents , a s wel l a s the environment * Contamination o f the food chai n wil l be eliminate d b y 

### bot h the preventio n o f contac t wit h the wast e area s a s wel l a s the preventio n o f leachat e migratio n int o the loca l wate r courses . 

# 00002 31ABJ E 6 mKNJl l U KBUL MCASO U JJf D DETCUOftKK

T V BE T BUL ACTION ALTEUUTIVE S 5 5S 5 s .U S

U ( I ^ urn t

UMULL» n ouzc n aim , »CNNSTLVANU

3 o « w o

* U « « • C M M M *50 5 * • a g * - - o lotto* ) i»j« r Secon d Thir d 3 5 3 1 c* o (Flr. tUy*r ) Uyt r Laye r 

## o 

## o

Aecelver' a RwdU I Actio n Alternativ e Tci/M e Yet/N o N o (Se c Attached ) KAA 1 I I SJUir-- *

IAA2- 1

UA1- 2

•AAZ- J H a Actio n Hanltotln g

Soi l Cove rvit h turfac * it« r collectio n *n d dlt * harge , leachat e collectio n d tTcatHeat . an d lonfi * (roun d an d cutf*c o •ate i vonitorlne ; KAA 2 provisiona l Leaehat * collectio n u p t o 0-3 0 ft . dept h an d treatwen ta t Hoye rLandfil l Sit * No Ha K O Yct/tl o N o N o

Vci/M o M «

rovlsluni i lc*ch«t « T« « H « collectio n u p t o 0-6 0 ft . dept h an d tr * a tven t« C Hoyc rLandtlt tSit * RAA Z pri>vl»lon* | Lcacbat tf «•/)! • »« t collectio n u p t o 0-3 0 (t . dept h an d treatmen ta t Oak * Treatmen tPlan t RAA1- 4 HA M pto*ltl«n* tUachat e

collectio n « » t o 0-4 0 ft . dept h an d tre»teien ta t Oak a Treatmen tFtan t MA2- S RAA I piovltlont i teachat *

collectio n n p t o 0*1 0 ft , dept h an d treat**n ta tV«He y For| * rian t •AA2- 4 RAA I ptovtslons i Leaehat *

collectio n u p t o 0-4 0 ft . dept h an d tteatrefi ta t Valle y Forg e rian t • o Vc * Soi l Soi l TM<k»** i M"<U- < ' Ti t K

o to K » Ye tYe tSoi l 42 ? Iat » a l Soi l f 1 0 /I t * C../IOC .

le tY* i Sol i No Ko

soil (i c -«/ir > cau/tnc . ' T o Ye tSoi l U T Bat * nl !* •

Soil <
Y«tTe * Soi l 42* . t M >n t" o Soll.CI O "

,« , Y« tSoi l *l* . to i «n tK o so i c
Tet/H o Yet/H o « • Ye tYe tSoi l 42 ^ K * an l SollC l

Ye t

II I R.U 3 Soi l Kn d CU y UCRA ) Ca p V* »

vlt h surf . ic e vatc r collectio n an d discharg e t o Sklpnac k Creek , loti(ter B (roun d an d twtfac e v-ate r0emltftrlB| . ga * ventin g V« « E »

V* * Ye tY d Soi l *2MU.tr* l K o (.r»/ir* Ho Fourt h Laye r N o No Ko Ti

t i t To p loachot o Uy* r Lay* rColl.etlo « 11 0 ¥t " K o ^ Y*
.

N o No

No

N o

No

K o

V.i * 14 1 JO oil BTRthe t ocohr * N o

10- 3 c./

te c Te«:i i Orainat * K o o - To

y lol l T« .

M o * " teo Sel l T , ,

N » 4 " To p Sail T« *

K * ft " lo » M tTo *

K o 4 " Tor toll Tn *

N o 4 " T * Soil Te«

4 " T M Sai l Te a Lcacbot * V * n tUs *

.. . No N o H o T« S N o

to* H o

Ho

to »

Katur^ l Soi l 4 - U p Stl l To s No

To * N o

To * N o

To *

# I i

5 " S * » g A 2. W ^ b

» ? 2. 5 » z 

### 5 s 

### h » » 

## I ; 

# n R J | | i t r* 

### | | C A 0 o n 1" ' « £ " « 

# n i - » : > * * « » *

- « | J 

# r ? 5 ?

. b E l " S •

• * • J B b ^ 5 S 

### « ! s ' ^ a . £< * 5 S o J ; • i j j *••* ' * 

### ==" R 

### '|^ * M n • « r—"C *

J f t B * * *


### " i * i. * ? n

X f t f t



### _ , f t ^ m f t ? ? * • ft 

# 1 i

A h i 6 * • I- J

" i A A 4 S n M S I! " A i • * S " A* " i f i t n * • » n

n O n -4

fi M * » n x D f t « i 2 1 • a a S M »

O M S • " i > f t

f * • ( S•AMprovlslona.cefloction«•totreatmentatVailSawagoPlant Hi | J *

*

J
J
n f t J f t 

# i

n * j 

# 1 2 Ae m i A A " 

### r t " i M £ 

### £l e f A '| P

* r t tff f « O « t a * S £ • • • a B ' " 5 P • " a £

• a C » e • * r • • * * a * " I * ? n
J

_ * J ? * S

A M 

# i - A 0 It 

### x 

# s . M S i ? A 

## ISJ 5 

## "* ? A n Hj f • e

• K • 

### r c t - S 

### "f f C *
_ « E

M 

### H? r 

# i n g? s I * " I ? o

X f t ^ 

### s ^ A » 

### ? f t 

# i

A M

^ M ( 1 A

^ M S

O " - A

^f t ^* l * * h U ' "I T f t f t a n ? P xe n < • » a 

### r c ^ • * " ? » *•AMprovisions,collection«ptotraatnMnCatHoyaSito

** C

[« f L H I r n n f t I B • W * • O ' t X * 

### J

f t ^ P f t 

### s ? f t 

# 1

n M 

# 1 2 n e n i 

### r l N X A M S '? '

. U A 

### r ° s * * * % . * A ft 1 ? xe E o 

### r c
• • S ** p CUMprovisions,collectionMptotraataeotacHoy«Slta 

# i n i** ? W P » C *.
. M • » a
' I ? •
? » H 5 X o M ? f t 

# i

A M 1 . f * t 

### r £ " S A 

### M S \l l A

O f t f t A

~ ? ) < O « 1 a IP S £ ^ 

### " f E 

### lii^r r L i
. &
. f

t i ^ 

### ??3?5 ? .?!?{.
. S»S.Sf f 

### ? s . " : " * 

### "S r 

### |l S |« * 8 J f

* I I o * ? • H * M a " X * 

### g

A M 

# 1 - ** ° l A « « 

### r• * M S » * s a - • A

f t n 7J
. a A

^ J M e S o

0 * M J • m t IT 

## [ c « 

# i ( S

Haet i CEKCL

A Coa U Hatt s Al l Standard * iMMd S Al l Standard s Monitorin g Sur f ac t U s ea r Collectio n an d Oiflehari; <

* 

# ! ? \
r * 1 f i 8 

## f | S B



# ~. E 

# | f ? ^ F * i I S S " * r g a « i • t a . 

### r ? M i a n " * f

__ a r* i f 

# fiftf

1 | 

# a | g e g E • • r i f e K 

## 5 * s
f e * P 1 5 6 ' g § — X 

# i

" R



# 00002 5

### -10
-

Th e NC F specifie s tha t remedia l alternative s shoul d b e classifie d (f&rfi eithe r as source contro l (4 0 C.F.R . 300.68(e)(2) ) o r offsit e (managemen

t ' o f migration ) remedia l action s (4 0 C.F.R . 300.68(e)(3)) . Sourc e contro l remedia l action s addres s situation s i n vhic h hazardou s substance s remai n 

### a t o r nea r the area s i n vhic h theywer e originallylocate d an d ar e no t adequatelycontaine

d t o preven t migratio n int o th

e environment . Offsit e 

### remedia l action s addres s situation s i n which the hazardou s substance s hav e migrate d fro

mthei r origina l locations . Alternative s develope d ma yfal l solel yi n eithe r classification o r ma yinvolve a combinatio n o f sourc e contro l an

d managemen t of migratio n measures , a s determined b ythe specifi c sit e problem s addressed * I n a n effor t t o determin e remedia l alternative s fo r the subjec t 

### site , feasibl e technologie s wer e identifie d fo r consideration i n eac h respons e action . Availabl e technologie s wer e the n screened t o eliminat e al l bu t the mos t definitiv e an d implementabl e alternatives . Thi s screenin g included : technica l (sit e condition s o r waste s characteristics) , environmenta l an

d publi c health , institutional , performanc e an d cos t 

### criteria . Certai n respons e action s an d technologie s wer e no t associate d wit h an yspecifi c remedia l objectiv e o r feasibl e technolog yfo r thi s site * Thes e technologie s an d respons e action s an d the rational e fo r no t includin g themar e liste d on Tabl e 7 * Furthe r detai l o f thi s initia l screenin g i s include d i n Section 1 2 o f th e Remedia l Investigation/Feasibility Study . Thos e technlogie s whic h passe d the technolog yscreenin

g proces s wer e use d t o for

mremedia l alternatives . Remedia l alternative s wer e develope d usin

g bes t engineerin

g judgemen t t o selec t a technolog yo r group s o f technologie s tha t bes t addres s the problem s existin g a t the sit e t o protec t publi c healt h an d the environment . I n orde r t o stud

ya wide rang e o f response s a t thi s site , a t leas t on e alternative ha s bee n propose d an d develope d i n eac h o f the fiv e cate gorie s suggeste d I n US EP AGuidanc e Documen t fo r FeasibilityStudie s Unde r CERCLA . Also , the Receive r Remedia l Actio n Alternative (RRAA ) suggeste d an d prepare

d b yth e receive r attorne

yfo r th e Move r Landfil l Site , i s included . Abrie f descriptio n o f th e RRA Aan d thos e o f th e five categorie s i s give n a s follows . * Receive r Remedia l Actio n Alternativ

e 

### The receive r propose s t o mee t al l applicabl e standard s b ythe implementatio n o f a closur e plan tha t include s amon g othe r thing s collectio

n an d treatment o f leachate , soi l cap , securit y measure s an

d a methan e ga s system . I t i s indicate d tha t the revenue s availabl e t o the receive r shal l be use d t o remediat e th e site . Th

e Receiver' s RRA

Ai s presente d I n Sectio n 13. 1 o f th

e RI/FS a s suc

h withou t an

ycomments . 

# 00002 6

# •11
-

TABL E 7 Rational e fo r Eliminatin g Variou s Technologie s Respons e Actio n Rational e fo r Elimination 1 * Alternative Wate r Suppl y 

### 2 * Groun d Wate r Barrier s 3 . Groun d Wate r Collectio

n 4 . Sourc e Reductio n 5 . Incineration N o Residentia l Well s Contaminate d No t Feasibl e No t Feasibl e Impossibl e t o Identif y "Ho t Spots " Incineration Period Estimate d t o b e abou t 3 0 Tears , VeryExpensive Inadequat e Cleanu

p



# 00002 7

## */S/v * 0 No action : No-action alternative s coul d include monitorin g f&*J^*l 

### activities . '*t y

- Alternative s tha t mee t th e CERCL Agoal s o f preventin

g o r minimizin

g presen t o r futur e migratio n o f hazardou s substance s 

### an d protecting human healt h an d the environment , bu t d o no t attai n al l o f the applicabl e o r relevan t standard s (Thi s 

### categor yma yinclude an alternative tha t closel yaproache s bu t doe s no t mee t th e leve l o f protectio n provide d b yth e applicabl e o r relevan t standards) .



### - Alternative s tha t mee t th e CERCL Agoal s an

d attai n al l applicabl e o r relevan t federa l publi c healt h o r environmenta l standards , guidance , o r advisories *



### - Alternative s tha t excee d al l applicabl e o r relevan t federa l publi c healt h an

d environmenta l standards , guidance , an d advisories .



### - Alternative s specifyin g offsit e storage , destruction , treatment , o r secur e disposa l o f hazardou s substance s a t a facilityapprove d unde r the Resourc e Conservation an d Recover

yAc t (RCRA) . Such a facilit ymus t als o be i n complianc e wit h al l othe r applicabl e EP A standards . 

### The evaluation criteri a selecte d were : technica l feasibility , publi c health , environment , institutiona l evaluation , lan d cos t effectiveness . 

### Particula r emphasi s wa s place d on :

- Technica l Feasibilit y

- Performanc e

- Implementabillt y

- Reliability

- Publi c Healt h Evaluatio n 0 Reduction o f Healt h Impact s

- Environmenta l Evaluatio n * Reductio n o f Environmenta l Impact s 

### * Protectio n o f Natura l Resource s

- Institutiona l Evaluatio n * Lega l Requirements , Institutiona l Requirement s * Communit yImpact s

- Cos t Effectivenes s * Capita l Cost s * Operation an

d Maintenanc e Cost s 

### * Presen t Wort h Value s * SensitivityAnalyse s 

# 00002 8

### ,-13
-

Technologie s remainin g afte r th e initia l screenin g wer e combine d i n " 

### logica l group s called component s i n orde r t o fi t int o th e five differen t categorie s mentione d above * Thes e component s wer e the n combine d t o for m variou s remedia l alternatives . Descriptio n o f Remedia l Alternative s Receiver' s Remedia l Actio n Alternative (RRAA ) The Receiver' s Remedia l Actio n Alternative (RRAA ) i s intende d t o accomplis h the closur e o f the facilityusin g bes t engineerin

g judgemen t t o selec t technologie s t o addres s problem s a t th e sit e consisten t wit h requirement s an

d objective s outline I n th e Nationa l ContingencyFlan 

### (NCP) . I n particular , th e progra mi s designe d t o avoi d significan t advers e environmenta l impacts , whil e a t th e sam e time providing adequat e contro l t o keep chemical s onsit e o r t o preven t thei r offslt e migratio n a t level s havin

g a detrimenta l an

d advers e effec t unde r minima l circum

stance s o f threa t o r har mt o publi c health , welfar e o r th e environment . I n thi s connection , the RRA Atake s int o consideration : 

### 1 . th e exten t t o whic h chemical s ar e a dange r t o publi c health , welfar e o r th e environment . 2 * the exten t o f chemica l migration . 3 . previou s experienc e i n simila r situations , an d 

### 4 * environmenta l effect s an d welfar e concerns . Th e RRA Acan b e classified a s a phase d sourc e contro l remedia l action . The RRA Aprovide s fo r a

n interi msoi l cla

yca p a s indicate d unde r th e section entitle d "Soi l Cap " compose d o f a materia l havin g a permeabilit y 

### o f 10" 4 

### /10~

5 

### t o a dept h o f 36 " which wil l substantiall yreduc e rai n wate r infiltration int o the landfil l site . Als o provide d wil l be surfac e wate r collection an

d discharg e t o the Sklppac k Creek , lon g ter mgroun d wate r an d surfac e wate r monitoring , collectio n an d treatmen t o f residua l leachate , extraction , scrubbin g an d upgradin

g o f methan e ga s fo r deliver y 

### t o the Philadelphi a Electri c Compan y(FECO ) instead o f ga s ventin g t o th e atmosphere * The provisio n o f the interi msoi l cla yca p wil l partiall yreduc e the problemo f erosion o f existin g cove r materia l an

d minimiz e transmission 

### o f contaminate d materia l fro mthe landfil l site . I t wil l als o partiall y reduc e the generatio n o f rai n Induced leachat e b ydecreasin

g rai n wate r infiltration Int o th

e landfill . 

# 00002 9

### -14
-

Th e leachat e collection an d treatmen t systempropose d i n th e RRA A 

### ar e designe d t o intercep t leachat e fo r the entir e peripher yo f the landfill . Th e leachat e collected wil l b e treate d a t a plan t constructe d a s th e sit e wit h th e effluen t subjec t t o a NFDE S permi t discharge d t o th e Skippac k Creek . Afte r completion o f methan e ga s collection , the sit e wil l b e close d i n complianc e wit h RCR Astandards . 

### Groun d wate r monitoring , stor mwate r managemen t an

d erosion an

d sedimen t contro l togethe r wit h sit e securitya s propose d b ythe Receive r 

### ar e intende

d t o mee t al l requirement s applicabl e t o th e site . Methan e Ga s Recover

y Information supplie d b ythe EP Aan d independen t measurement s a t the sit e indicat e tha t soli d wast e tonnag e presen t ma yrang e fro

m4 million ton s o f uscabl e waste s u p t o 5. 8 millions tons . O f thes e tonnages , significan t amount s ar e belive d t o be compose d o f sewag e sludge s an d othe r simila r waste s ric h i n ga s productio n potential . Assumin g tha t 4 millio n ton s o f solid wast e ar e presen t a t th e site , Mandevill e & Associate s (M&A ) estimate s tha t approximatel y1. 5 million cubi c fee t pe r da

yo f ra w landfil l ga s ca

n b e generate

d fo r a perio

d o f clos e t o a decade . Additiona l tonnages , no t accounte d for , coul d permi t the productio n o f greate r amount s o f landfil l gas . Th e 1* 5 million cubi c fee t o f ga s pe r da yi s estimate d t o hav e a methan e conten t o f 58Z , and , afte r processing , approximatel y625,00 0 cubi c fee t t o 700,00 0 cubi c fee t o f pipelin e standard ga s pe r da ycoul d be availabl e fo r introduction int o the PECO pipeline . Suc h productio n number s woul d b e dependen t upo n variou s contingencie s including : 1 . Confirmatio n o f ga s availabilityfro mth e landfill . 2 . Th e usage o f availabl e methane ga s t o ru n th e facility , an

d 3 . Efficiencyo f th

e ga s separation system . A t present , M&

Ai s considerin

g producin

g a high Bt u ga s (95 0 Btu* s pe r standard cubi c foot ) comparabl e t o processe d natura l ga s fo r sal e t o PECO throug

h the us e o f Monsant o PRISM ga s separators * Thes e separator s 

### incorporat e prove n technolog yt o upgrad e an

d "clean " the methan e ga s extracte d fro

mth e sit e i n orde r t o produc e pipelin e qualit ygas . Addi



### tiona l processin

g step s ma

ybe require d i n the even t tha t trac e element s o f certai n hazardou s material s ar e foun d i n the gas . 

### Th e syste mwil l include , amon

g othe r things , constructio n o f a syste

m o f ga s collection well s togethe r tie d int o a commo n manifold , ga s compressor , membran e separator s (th e Monsant o PRIS

M separators) , ga s monitorin g system , 

### ga s pre-treater , contro l building , pipelin e t o PECO , ga s measurin g equipment , an d fencin g securit ysystem . 

# 00003 0

### -15
-

Curren t capita l for th

e propose

d ga s facilit

yi s $2,873,000 , includin g specia l contingencie s relatin g t o ga s productio n a t a superfun d hazardou s wast e site . 

### Projecte d annua l operatin

g an d maintenanc e cost s attributabl e t o th e ga s processin

g facilit yar e anticipate d t o b e $332,000 , a certai n portio n o f which ar e attributabl e t o operation s a t a sit e containin g hazardou s waste . 

### Tes t well s drille

d b ySM C Marti n a t th

e sit e i n 198 3 provide d certai n dat a concernin

g contaminant s i n the ga s othe r than <X>2 . Althoug h the 

### ga s appear s "clean" , th e ga s generate d a t th e Move r Landfil l ma ycontai n trac e amount s o f toxi c volatlles . T o the exten t tha t additiona l contaminant s ar e found , i t wil l b e feasibl e t o instal l ga s pre-treatmen t (carbo n bed ) equipmen t t o assur e the deliver yo f ga s t o the pipeline meetin g PEC O specifications * Thes e contaminant s wil l b e treated . 

### Acomplet e descriptio n i s enclosed i n th e draf t Addendu mt o th e Remedia l Investigation/FeasibilityStudy . Summar yo f RRA A Th e RRA Adefine s th e ful l scop e o f remedia l work t o b e performe d i n the immediat e future . I t contemplate s broad remedia l work an d it s implementation wil l depen d upo n the succes s o f the ga s generation/recover y progra man d th e contribution s fro mgenerator s an

d othe r potentiall y responsibl e partie s (PRPe) . The gase s generate d a t the Move r Landfil l sit e ar e mos t likelyt o contai n trac e amount s o f toxi c volatile s an d 

### gases ; volatile s i f any , wil l be properl ytreated . The economi c 

### viabilit yan

d publi c acceptabilit yo f th e ga s recover yprogra mi s a prove n concep t i n presen t practic e i n othe r part s o f the U.S . A s proposed , thi s progra

mwil l mee t th

e NC F criteri a o f a correctiv e actio n planne d fo r a hazardou s wast e site . The contamination a t Moye r Landfil l sit e require s remediatio n t o mitigat e th e publi c healt h an d environmenta l concerns ; the ga s recover yprogra man d leachat e collection systemwil l addres s an

d remediat e th

e concerns . Afte r completio n o f methane ga s collection , the sit e wil l be close d i n complianc e wit h RCR Astandards . The followin

g remedia l alternative s an d sub-alternative s below hav e bee n prepare d b

yIM S Engineer s fo r the EFA . Adetailed description an d 

### evaluation o f each alternative ar e presente d a s follows : A . No Actio n Alternativ e Alternativ e No . 1 - N o Actio n wit h Monitorin g Unde r the no actio

n alternative , additiona l remedia l activitie s woul d no t b e performed . However , a long-ter mmonitorin

g progra mwoul d b e established t o provid e informatio n o n contaminan t concentration remainin g 

### an d exten t o f potentia l migration . The monitorin g progra mwoul d include groun d water , surfac e water , sediment sampling , an d respectiv

e analysis . 

# 00003 1Th e Remedia l Investigative work confirmed th e presenc e o f heav y£ metal s an

d the organi c contaminant s o f concer n i n the monitorin

g wells , (fieri] creek waters , leachat e samples , sediment s an d fish * Som

e o f thes e ' contaminant s ar e arsenic , barium , lead , nickel , zinc , trichloroethylene 

### (TCE) , toluene , xylene , dl-n-octylphthlate , 2-hexanon e an d 2-butanone methylethy l ketone (MEK) . Besides , the shallo w aquife r on the wes t an d southwes t o f the Moye r Landfil l exhibit s contaminatio n wit h Bet a radion



### uclldes , lead , an

d barium * Therefore , the no-action-monitorin g progra m shoul d include analysi s fo r al l contaminants . Sinc e fracture s i n the geologi c formation s ca n provide a pathwa

yfo r migratio

n o f contaminant s Int o the lowe r aquifer , i t I s necessar yt o monito r the groun d water . The lowe r aquife r wa s no t foun d t o be contaminated . Monito r well s constructed durin g the R I phas e o f thi s stud ycoul d be use d fo r monitorin g migrating contaminant s downgradien t fro mthe site . Surfac e water s ar e potentia l receptor s fo r leachat e tha t seep s fro m 

### the deposite d wastes . Als o the shallo w (uppe r aquifer ) groun d wate r ha s a potentia l fo r contaminatin g nearb ysurfac e waters . Thes e surfac e water s ma ybe use d fo r bathing , Irrigation , law n waterin

g an d recreationa l use s a s wel l a s providing a habita t fo r aquati c organisms * Unde r thes e cir

cumstances , the samplin g station s shoul d include the creek , som e selected residentia l well s an

d monitorin

g well s constructe

d durin g th e R I phas e o f 

### the study . Notwithstandin

g tha t the R I stud

yshowe d none o f the residentia l well s 

### wer e contaminated , monitorin g o f selecte d residentia l well s i s vita l sinc e the wate r i s bein

g use d fo r human consumption . The residentia l well s re commende d fo r monitorin g ar e 1 , 6 , 7 , 11 , 1 6 an d 1 9 a s show

n i n figur e 6 * Du e t o seasona l variations , samplin g an d analyse s shoul d be conducte d a t leas t onc e ever

ythre e months * Fo r costin g purposes , I t i s assume d tha t thi s progra

mwoul d be continued fo r 3 0 years . Thi s alternative wil l no t reduc e o r eliminat e an yo f the impact s re sultin g fro mth e landfill * I t wil l b e effectiv

e I n providin

g informatio

n abou t the movemen t o f the contaminants , s o that , i f necessary , futur e re media l action s coul d be taken . The sit e woul d continue t o be a sourc e o f contamination . Thi s landfil l wil l continue t o produc e leachat e tha t wil l caus e groun

d wate r t o continu e t o excee d 10~ 6 risk level s offsite . The possibilit yo f the publi c comin g int o direc t contac t wit h the hazardou s 

### substance s o r leachat e woul d remain . Contamination o f nearb ysurfac e water s woul d continu e a s leachat e flow s unchecked offsite . Ther e woul d be no capita l cost s fo r thi s alternative . B . Alternative s tha t mee t the objective s o f CERCL A(RAA2 ) Alternativ

e No . 2 - Soi l Cove r wit h Surface Wate r Collectio n an d Discharge , Long-Ter mLeachat e Collection an d Treatmen t an

d Long-Ter

mGroun d Wate r Surfac e Wate r Monitoring . 

# 00003 2

### -17
-

Thi s alternativ e propose s t o collec t surfac e vate r fro mthe landfil l sit e an d propose s t o discharg e t o the Skippac k Creek . I t propose s t o collec t leachat e u

p t o 0-3 0 fee t dept h fo r the entir e peripher yo f the landfill * Thes e var

yfro ma minimu

mo f 5 fee t dept h o n th e Northeas t 

### boundar yt o a maximu

mo f 3 0 fee t dept h o n the western boundar yo f the landfil l site . I t I s presume d tha t u p t o 50 X o f leachat e generate d migh t b e intercepte d b ythi s alternative . I n orde r t o assur e a muc h bette r 

### interception o f leachat e (80%) , i t I s propose d t o intercep t leachat e u p t o 6 0 fee t dept h fro

mth e western boundar

yo f th e landfil l site . Th

e depth s o f interception o f leachat e on the othe r part s o f the boundar yo f 

### the landfil l sta

ythe same . The leachat e collecte d coul d be treate d a t a plan t constructe d a t the Moye r Landfil l Sit e an d the effluen t discharg e t o Skippac k Creek * A s a n alternative , the leachat e coul d be transporte d 

### t o Oak s Sewag e Plan t o r the ValleyForg e Sewag e Plan t fo r treatmen t an d discharge d alon

g wit h the plan t effluen t fo r the purpose s o f evaluation o f thi s alternative an d mor e specificallydevelopmen t o f costs . Remedia l Actio n Alternative 2 wil l b e sub-divide d a s follows : RAA2. 1 Leachat e collection u p t o a maximu

mo f 0-3 0 fee t an

d leachat e treatmen t a t Moye r Landfil l Site . 

### * Soi l cover , 4 fee t thic k (Includin

g to p soi l fo r vegetation ) * Surfac e wate r collectio n an d discharg e t o Skippac k Creek * Leachat e collection a t depth s u p t o a maximu

mo f 3 0 fee t 0 Leachat e treatmen t a t onsit e treatmen t plan t RAA2. 2 Leachat e collectio n u p t o a maximu

mdept h o f 0-6 0 fee t an d leachat e treatmen t a t Moye r Landfil l Site * * Soi l cover , 4 fee t thic k (Includin g top soi l fo r vegetation ) * Surfac e wate r collection an d discharg e t o Skippack Cree k * Leachat e collection u p t o a maximu

mo f 6 0 fee t * Leachat e treatmen t a t onsit e treatmen t plan t RAA2. 3 

### * Al l Item s similar t o RAA2.1 , excep t tha t leachat e i s collected , transporte d an

d treate d a t Oak s Sewage Treatmen t Plant . RAA2. 4 * Al l Items simila r t o RAA2. 2 excep t tha t leachat e i s collected , 

### transporte d an

d treate d a t Oaks Sewag e Treatmen t Plant . RAA2. 5 * Al l items similar t o RAA2« 1 excep t tha t leachat e i s collected , 

### transporte d an

d treate d a t Valle

yForg e Sewag e Treatmen t Plant .

### -18
-

RAA2. 6 0 Al l Item

s similar t o RAA2. 2 excep t tha t leachat e I s collected , transporte d en

d treate d a t Valle

yForg e Sewag e Treatmen t Plant . Soi l cove r ha s bee n demonstrate d t o b e a fairl yeffectiv e metho d o f excludin g a substantia l portio n o f rainwate r fro mth e waste s tha t ar e bein g covere d wit h soil . The expecte d usefu l lif e o f the cove r system propose d herei n i s unlimite d i f the soi l cove r i s properl ymaintained . Thi s ca n be accomplishe d b

yfillin g i n natura l soi l fo r an ysettlement s 

### cause d i n the lin

e an d grad e o f the cover . Als o propose d uni t processe s fo r treatmen t o f leachate s ar e conventiona l technologie s an d ar e know

n 

### t o perfor

madequately . Percolatio

n o f precipitatio

n Int o th

e fil l an

d int o th

e wast e woul d 

### b e reduce d b

ythe propose d soi l cover ; however , leachat e wil l continu e t o be generated . The leachat e collection an d treatmen t wil l considerabl y reduc e the groun

d wate r contamination . Therefor e the ecologica l receptor s wil l hav e reduce d exposur e t o th e contaminants . I t i s assume d tha t a large r percentag e o f the leachat e wil l be collecte d b yusin g thi s alter
native ; however , i f meticulou s maintenanc e I s no t carrie d ou t periodi

cally , ther e I s alway s the possibilit ytha t crack s ma yoccu r durin g the 

### summe r month s an

d the leachat e ma

yeventuall yblee d out . Als o thi s alter
nativ e doe s no t tak e car e o f the leachat e tha t migh t percolat e belo w the depth s th e leachat e i s intercepted * Eve n thoug h i t can b e argue d tha t th e contributio n wil l be onl ymlminal , thi s alternativ e doe s no t resolve the groun d wate r contaminatio n completely . Emission s an d discharge s fro

mth e leachat e treatmen t proces s unit s shoul d no t adversel yaffec t the environmen t o r ecologica l receptor s i f thei r operatio n meet s regulator ypermi t levels . Thi s alternativ

e provide s a distinc t improvemen t i n th e protectio n o f groun d wate r an

d surfac e wate r receptor s compare d t o RAA 1 (Remedia l Actio n Alternative 1) . The RCR Arequirement s stipulat e provisio n o f a soi l cove r tha t shoul d be les s permeabl e than the bottomo f the landfill . Fro mthi s standpoint , thi s alternative doe s no t compl ywit h th e curren t RCR Arequire

ments . However , thi s alternative doe s reduc e the contamination o f groun d wate r whic h i s a majo r CERCL Arequirement . The discharg e requiremen t level s wil l b e me t b

ywa yo f leachat e treatment * The capita l cost s o f construction , annua l operation an d maintenanc e costs , present-wort h o f operation s an d maintenanc e cost s fo r 3 0 year s an d the tota l present-wort h cos t ar e presente d i n detai l i n the RI/FS . Thes e cost s estimate s incoprorate d the sensitivityanalysi s fo r thos e Item s o f work , the cost s o f whic h ar e likel yt o var ydurin g implementatio n o f thi s alternative . Dependin g upo n th e sub-alternative , th e capita l cost s o f construction var

yfrom$10,557,50 0 t o $23,881,500 , th e annua l operatio n an d maintenanc e cost s fro m$254,30 0 t o $327,000 , an d the tota l present wort h cost s includin

g present-wort h cost s fo r operatio n an d maintenanc e fo r 3 0 years , varie s fro m$13,085,00 0 t o $26,812,100 . 

# 00003 3

### -19
-

C . Alternative s tha t Satisf yAl l Applicabl e Standard s (RAA3 ) RCR ACa p wit h Surfac e Wate r Collection an d Discharg e t o Skippac k Creek , Ga s Ventin

g an d Short-ter

mGroun d Wate r an

d Surfac e Wate r Monitoring . 

### Thi s alternative provide s fo r a RCR Aca p t o essentiall yeliminat e the rainwate r infiltratin g int o the landfil l site . I t als o provide s surfac e wate r collection an d discharg e t o Skippac k Creek , short-ter m 

### groun d wate r an

d surfac e wate r monitoring , an d ga s ventin

g t o the atmosphere . Thi s alternativ

e doe s no t provid e fo r collection an d treatmen t o f residua l leachat e tha t wil l be trappe d onc e thi s RCR Aca p i s installed . Provision 

### o f thi s ca

p wil l stop the proble

mo f erosion o f existin g cove r materia l an d minimiz e transmission o f contaminated materia l fromthe landfil l site . Compare d t o RAA2 , thi s alternative wil l substantiall yreduc e the generation o f the rain-induced leachat e b ypreventing rainwate r Infiltration int o th

e landfill . Th e U.S . Arm

yCorp s o f Engineer s (Hydrologi c Simulation o n Soli d Wast e Disposa l Sites ) ha s develope d a compute r mode l t o estimat e th e amoun t o f leachat e generate d b yth e movemen t o f wate r throug h a multi

layered syste

msimilar t o the one tha t I s bein g discusse d here . I t ha s been demonstrate

d tha t suc

h a n impermeabl e ca

p i s extremelyefficien t i n divertin g wate r awa

yfro mthe soi l beneat h it . O n a n average , 9 5 percen t o f the precipitatio n tha t fall s on the are a o f infiltration-contro l woul d 

### be diverte d befor e i t reache s the soi l beneat h the cove r system . The soi l layer s tha t ar e bein g contemplate d fo r thi s alternative ar e muc h mor e stringen t an d thicke r than the soi l ca p describe d i n RAA2 . Therefore , the quantit yo f leachat e tha t i s expecte d t o be generate d i s negligibl y les s du e t o the soil-cla yca p optio n propose d here . Theoretically , the quantit yo f leachat e t o be treate d woul d be the residua l leachat e tha t i s capture d withi n th e sit e du e t o th e construction o f the cap . Fo r al l practica l purposes , tha t wate r tha t i s percolatin g throug h the landfil l i s assumed t o be jus t enough t o saturat e the landfil l 

### wastes , bu t practicall yno exces s leachat e bleed s out ; i t i s the excee s leachat e tha t normall ybleed s out , an d i n thi s theoretica l case , ther e woul d b e n o excess . 

### Thi s frequentl yapplie d cappin g technolog

yha s demonstrate d the abilityt o effectivel yeliminat e infiltration an d minimiz e subsequen t leachat e generation . Cappin g i s perhap s th

e mos t consistentl

yrecommended 

### remedia l technolog

yfo r wast e disposa l sites . Ga s collection an d ventin g ar e als o reliable , remedia l technologies .



# 00003 4

### -20
-

Maintenanc e o f thi s alternative i s relativel ymino r an d stralghtfor

w O&M fo r RAA 3 i s considerabl yles s tha n O&M fo r RAA2 . Periodi c inspectio n 

### o f the soi l an

d vegetativ e cove r an

d o f the ga s collection syste mwil l be 

### require d t o ensur e prope r operation . An yproblem s resultin

g wit h th e ga s collectio n system s o r the cove r laye r mus t be corrected . Post-closure , groun d wate r monitoring , an d analysi s wil l als o be require d fo r thi s 

### alternative . Unde r thi s alternative i t i s no t propose d t o collec t the leachat e 

### tha t ma yb e give n of f b

yth e wast e materia l trappe d unde r th e RCR Acap . Thes e waste s hav e a high moistur e content , an d woul d b e expecte d t o produc e leachat e fo r five t o te n years * Thi s leachat e wil l be continuousl y dischargin

g int o the groun

d an d o r surfac e water . The discharg e o f leachat e int o surfac e wate r i s not , however , throug h the surfac e run-of f bu t leachat e discharge s int o the Skippac k Cree k throug h groun d water . 

### Al l hydrogeologica l evidenc e indicate s tha t the cree k act s a s a sin

k fo r the groun

d wate r fro

mthe landfil l site * The impac t o f thi s leachat e on groun d wate r an

d surfac e wate r an

d othe r environmenta l an d ecologica l 

### receptor s canno t b e estimate d a t thi s time . Realistically , a majo r concer n tha t remain s i s tha t the uppe r aquife r migh t b e infiltrated 

### laterall ya s wel l a s vertically . I f thi s i s th e case , th

e sit e wil l continue t o generat e leachat e tha t coul d migrat e int o the lowe r aquife r throug h fractured bedrock . However , the implementatio n o f thi s alternative doe s hav e the provisio n fo r groun d wate r an

d surfac e wate r monitoring . Thi s provision wil l assis t i n makin g a n assessmen t i f th

e environmen t i s effecte d i n the future . Soi l havin

g permeabilit yo f les s tha n 10~ 7 cm/sec , i s no t availabl e i n the vicinityo f the site * The closes t sourc e fo r the cla yi s a t a distanc e o f mor e than 2 0 miles . Thi s facto r wil l significantl yincreas e the cos t o f thi s alternative . However , the othe r majo r component s an d ancillar yneed s fo r contruction o f a ca p ar e obtainabl e clos e t o the site . Ther e ar e n o interna l sit e restriction s tha t woul d preven t a timel y completion o f thi s technology * Implementatio n o f thi s alternative i s mor e efficientl yperforme d during dr yweathe r an

d coul d b e complete d i n a 6-month perio d fro

mMa yt o October * Schedulin g o f materials , labor , an d equipmen t shoul d be don e s o tha t the yar e availabl e onsit e whe n needed . The capita l cost s o f construction , annua l operatio n an d maintenanc e costs , present-wort h o f operatio n an d maintenanc e cost s fo r 3 0 years , an d the tota l present-wort h cost s ar e presented i n detai l i n the RI/FS * Thes e cost-estiamte s incorporat e the sensivit yanalysi s fo r thos e items 

### o f work , the cost s o f which , ar e likelyt o varydurin g the implementatio n o f thi s alternative . The capita l cost s o f construction fo r the alternative var yfro m$16,777,70 0 t o $20,506,000 ; th e annua l operatio n an d maintenanc e cost s varyfro

m$222,30 0 t o 271,700 , an d th e tota l presen t wort h costs , includin g present-wort h cost s fo r operation an d maintenanc e fo r 30/ 5 years , var

yfro m$18,290,10 0 t o $22,354,400 . 

# 00003 5

### -21
-

D ' Alternative s tha t Excee d Al l Applicabl e Standard s (RAA4 ) Thi s alternativ e contain s al l the provision s mad e i n RAA3 . I t als o propose s the followin g additiona l provision s unde r thi s alternative : * Residua l leachat e wil l b e collected , treated , discharged . The residua l leachat e wil l be collecte d an d treate d I n the same 

### manne r a s the leachat e generated , collected , an d treate d unde r Remedia l Actio n Alternative 3 . Additionally , include d i n thi s alternativ e i s th e collection o f leachat e fro m0 t o 3 0 fee t an

d 0 t o 6 0 feet . Fo r the purpose s o f evaluatio n o f thi s alternative and , mor e specifically , fo r the developmen t o f costs , the RAA 4 wil l be divide d a s follows : RAA4. 1 * Miscellaneou s work preparator yt o installation s o f RCR Acap : grading , flattenin

g o f stee p slopes , retainin g wall s an

d installa

tion s o f rip-ra

p a t the area s tha t ar e mos t likel yt o be eroded . * Surfac e wate r collectio n an d discharg e t o Sklppac k Cree k * Leachat e collectio n betwee n 0 t o 3 0 fee t dept h an d treatmen t a t Moye r Landfil l Site * RAA4. 2 * Sam e a s RAA4. 1 excep t th e leachat e shal l b e collecte d betwee n 0 t o 6 0 feet * RAA4. 3 * Sam e a s RAA4. 1 excep t th e leachat e wil l b e treate d a t th e Oak s Sewag e Treatmen t Plant . RAA4. 4 0 Sam e a s RAA4. 2 excep t tha t th e leachat e wil l b e treate d a t th e Oak s Sewag e Treatmen t Plant . RAA4. 5 * Sam e a s RAA4. 1 excep t tha t th e leachat e wil l b e treate d a t th e Valle yForg e Sewag e Treatmen t Plant . RAA4. 6 

### * Sam e a s RAA4. 2 excep t tha t th e leachat e wil l b e treate d a t th e Valle yForg e Sewag e Treatmen t Plant . 

# 00003 6-22
- 

## * ORIGINAL 

## (Red ) I n spit e o f the fac t tha t interceptio n o f the maximu mamoun t o f leachat e i s proposed , (a

n estimate d 802) , i t ma yno t be possibl e t o collec t al l the leachate . However , som e leachat e wil l stil l percolat e t o groun d water . Base d on the finding s o f the RI , 2 1 o f the uncapture d leachat e woul d migrat e verticall yan

d th e othe r 18 Z woul d discharg e int o th e creek . Short-ter

m groun d an d surfac e wate r monitorin g migh t hel p asses s the impac t an d als o 

### indicat e an

ypotentia l futur e monitoring . Unde r thi s alternative , the leachat e woul d b e collecte d an d treate d t o mee t th

e 10- 6 ris

k level s i n th

e groun d wate r an

d discharg e requirement s i n the stream . Thi s i s estimate d t o take 5 years * Secondly , the quantit y o f leachat e tha t i s expecte d t o be generate d unde r alternative RAA 4 i s les s tha n 50 Z o f wha t woul d b e generate d unde r RAA 2 (15,00 0 gp d vs . 30,00 0 gpd) , 

### unles s the uppe r aquife r i s bein g recharge d laterally . As pointe d ou t unde r RAA3 , soil s havin g permeabilit yo f les s tha n 10~ ? 

### cm/se c ar e no t availabl e i n the vicinityo f the site . The closes t sourc e o f suppl yo f the required cove r materia l i s a t a distanc e o f mor e tha n 2 0 miles . Thi s wil l consequentl ygreatl yincreas e th e cos t o f thi s alternative . However , 

### the othe r majo r component s an d ancillar

yneed s fo r construction o f a ca p ar e obtainabl e clos e t o the site . Ther e ar e no loca l sit e restriction s tha t woul d preven t a timel ycompletio n o f thi s technology . Implementatio n o f thi s alternativ

e i s mos t efficientl

yperformed durin

g dr yweathe r an

d coul d b

e completed I n a 6-mont h perio d fro mHa yt o October . Schedulin g o f materials , 

### labor , an d equipmen t shoul d be don e s o tha t theyar e availabl e onslt e whe n needed . The publi c an

d environmenta l healt h benefi t o f thi s alternative ha s bee n discusse d i n RAA2 . The ca p wil l compl ywit h curren t RCR Arequirements , which requir e tha t 

### the ca p shoul d no t be les s permeabl e tha n the botto mo f the landfill . The regulation s als o requir e elimination o f groun d wate r contamination , which thi s alternative addresse s through residua l leachat e collection an d treatment . As par t o f RCR

Arequirement s fo r closur e o f existin g lan d disposa l facilitie s (par t 265) , RCR

Aprovide s tha t n

o syntheti c line r i s require d I f th e uni t 

### doe s no t hav e syntheti c underllner s t o effectivel ycontro l the quantitie s o f leachat e produce d presently . Monitorin g o f groun

d wate r an

d surfac e water , leachat e treatment , an d maintenanc e o f the ca p woul d be par t o f the operations . Thi s alternative exceed s al l the institutiona l requirements , wit h n o additiona l publi c o r environmenta l benefits .



# 00003 7

### -23
- 

## ORIGINA L (Red ) 13.4.4. 6 Cos t Th e capita l cost s o f construction , annua l operatio n an d maintenanc e 

### costs , present-wort h o f operatio n an d maintenanc e cost s fo r 30/ 5 year s an d th e tota l present-wort h cos t ar e presente d i n detai l i n the RI/FS . Thes e cos t estimate s incorporat e the sensitivityanalysi s fo r thos e item s o f work , the cost s o f which ar e likelyt o var ydurin g the Implementatio n o f thi s alternative * Dependin g upo n the subalternatlve , the capita l cost s o f construction wil l var yfro m$21,200,00 0 t o $36,585,300 , th e annua l operatio n an d maintenanc e 

### cost s var yfro m$287,70 0 t o $377,410 , an d th e tota l present-wort h cost s includin g present-wort h cos t fo r operation an d maintenanc e fo r thirty/fiv e years , wil l varyfro

m$23,912,50 0 t o $40,153,100 * E . Alternative s tha t Specif yOffsit e Disposa l (RAA5 ) Thi s alternative consist s o f constructin g a new RCR

Alandfil l sit e on a n are a o f lan

d adjacen t an

d upstrea

mo f Moye r Landfil l Site . Th e 

### wast e material s shal l be excavate d fro mthe Moye r Landfil l Sit e an d 

### dispose d o f a t the new landfil l site . The existin g sit e shal l be minimall y grade d an

d revegetated . Groun

d wate r an

d surfac e wate r monitorin g program s a s i n othe r alternatives , shal l als o be implemente d fo r a perio d o f five 

### (5 ) years . Th e Moye r Landfil l Sit e currentl ycover s approximatel y6 1 acre s o f 

### which abou t 43. 5 acre s ha s bee n used fo r depositin g wast e materials * Fo r al l practica l purposes , the waste s ar e assume d t o be dumpe d randoml yal l ove r thi s 43. 5 acre s o f land . Th e maximu melevatio n a t th

e landfil l i s 493. 5 feet . Differen t sectiona l view s o f th e Moye r Landfil l Sit e wer e 

### draw n i n orde r t o comput e the tota l volum e o f the materia l contained i n the site . The volume o f waste s burie d on the sit e i s compute d t o be approximatel yequa l t o 7* 8 millio n cubi c yards . Placin g thes e waste s Int o a new secur e landfil l involve s excavation an d haulin g wast e materia l fro

mth e Moye r Landfil l t o a nearb yonsit e RCRA-approve d landfill * Contaminant s woul d be released fro mthe disturbe d landfil l throug h volatilization , which woul d lea d t o possibl e ai r pollution . The leve l o f pollutio n wil l depen

d upon the locatio

n an d the typ e o f waste s burie d a t the 

### sit e an d climati c condition s durin g excavatio n an

d transpor t o f wastes * Specialize

d construction/excavation technique s woul d have t o b e develope d t o 

### mlmlniz e the amoun t o f ai r pollution * The technique s unde r consideration ar e the us e o f a temporar yliner ove r excavate d portion s o f the landfil l an d covere d truck s durin

g an ytyp e o f transportation . Excavatio n an d haulin g 

### woul d take plac e 1 6 hour s each da yt o minimiz e th

e lengt h o f time th

e materia l i s t o be exposed * The excavatio n o f the fil l ca n be accomplished wit h powe r shovels . If , durin

g excavation , an

ysaturate d materia l i s removed , i t wil l 

### be deposite d o n the roa d b ydraglines * Thi s we t tras h wil l be picke d u p an d move d t o a dewaterin

g pad fo r subsequen t disposal . Wate r fro mth e dewaterin

g pa d wil l be conveye d an d mixe d wit h residua l leachat e tha t i s otherwis e bein g 

### treate d an

d discharge d int o Skippack Creek . 

# 00003 8

### -24
- 

## ORIGINA L

Long-ter moperation o f a

n onsit e disposa l facility , suc h a s th e one (Red ) describe d here , Increase s the ris k o f cancer , chroni c healt h effects , an d acut e healt h effect s t o offsit e receptors . Thi s occur s becuas e o f the 

### potentia l fo r emission s durin g storag e o f the waste , followin g excavatio n an

d prio r t o processing * Asimilar increas e i n ris k t o user s o f offsit e surfac e wate r ca n be expecte d i f discharge s fro mthe wastewate r treatmen t plan t excee d 

### the applicabl e healt h an d safet ywate r qualit ycriteria . Excavatio n o f the landfil l pose s the highes t potentia l fo r deleteriou s 

### environmenta l effect s durin g the implementatio n o f the alternative s previousl ydiscussed * The leve l o f Increased ris k canno t be quantified . However , tw

o majo r factor s tha t ten d t o increas e healt h ris k an d 

### environmenta l damag e unde r thi s alternativ e are :

- Construction activit ywil l b e mor e intens e an d o f greate r duratio n 

### durin g an yo f the previou s options ,

- Th e concentrated wast e wil l b e expose d t o th e environmen t an d 

### handle d routinel yfo r a considerabl e lengt h o f time . The capita l cost s o f construction , annua l operatio n an d maintenanc e 

### costs , present-wort h o f operatio n an d maintenanc e cost s fo r 30/ 5 year s an d 

### the tota l present-wort h cos t ar e presente d i n detai l i n the RI/FS . Thes e cos t estimate s Incorporat e the senslvit yanalysi s fo r thos e item s o f work , the cost s o f which , ar e likel yt o var ydurin g the implementatio n o f thi s alternative . Recommende d Alternatlve(s ) Sectio n 300.68(J ) o f th

e Nationa l Contingenc yFlan (NCP ) [4 7 F

R 31180 ; Jul y16 , 1982 ] state s tha t the appropriat e exten t o f remed yshal l b e determine d b

yth e lea

d agency' s selection o f th e remedia l alternative whic h th e agenc ydetermine s I s cost-effective (I.e. , th e lowes t cos t alter
native tha t i s technicall yfeasibl e an d reliable ) an

d whic h effectivel y mitigate s an

d minimize s damag e t o an d provide s adequat e protectio n o f publi c health , welfare , an

d the environment . I n selectin g a remedia l alternative EP Aconsider s al l environmenta l laws tha t ar e applicabl e an d relevant . Receiver' s Remedia l Actio n Alternativ e Base d on the evaluation o f the propose d alternatives , the comment s receive d fro

mthe public , information fro mthe FeasibilityStud yan d Informa
tion fro mPADER , the Receiver' s Remedia l Actio n Alternativ e (RRAA ) ca n be implemente d a t the Moye r Landfil l Site . Thi s phase d remed ywil l satisf yal l o f the contaminatio n objective s identifie d i n the Remedia l Investigatio n a t 

### th e poin t o f closur e (1 0 t o 2 0 years) * The propose d ga s recover ysyste mwil l collect , clea

n an d upgrad e the methan e ga s generate d i n the Landfil l instead o f ventin g i t t o the 

### atmospher e an

d provid e energ

yfo r the operation o f the leachat e treatmen t plant . The receive r wil l receive royaltie s fro mthe sal e o f the ga s t o PECO which wil l be applie d towar d the overal l closur e cost * 

# 00003 9

### -25
- 

## ORIGINA L

Th e leachat e collectio

n syste man d treatmen t plant wil l eliminat e the offsit e migratio n o f untreate d leachat e int o adjacen t surfac e waters . Th e placemen t o f a soi l cove r with a permeabilit yo f 10~VlO~ 5 cm/sec , 

### wil l allo

w the mos t efficien t recover yo f methan e gas , an

d stil l reduc e the generation o f leachat e t o be collected an d treated . At the conclusion o f th e ga s recover

yprogra mth e RRA

Aprovide s fo r th e constructio n o f an additiona l ca

p whic h wil l mee t RCR Astandards * Th e groun d wate r monitorin

g 

### progra mwil l assur e tha t necessar yenvironmenta l standard s ar e met * I t i s contemplate d b

ythe RRA

Atha t capita l financin g cost s fo r the 

### leachat e collectio

n syste man d treatmen t plant , soi l cap , soi l erosio n program , securityan

d fencing , the methan e ga s recover yfacilitie s an

d al l othe r relate d capita l expenditure s wil l b e finance d throug h limited 

### partnershi p investment , ban k financin

g an d othe r capita l contributions * Operating an

d maintenanc e cost s relatin g t o the methan e ga s recover y syste m(exclusiv

e o f thos e cost s relatin g t o the hazardou s wast e aspec t o f suc h O&M ) wil l be pai d ou t o f gros s revenue s generate d fro mthe productio n an

d sal e o f methan e ga s a t the facility * Operatin g an d maintenanc e cost s fo r the leachat e collection an d treatmen t syste

man d 

### othe r relate d cost s includin g maintenanc e o f th e soi l cap , a portio n o f securityan

d fencing , deb t and/o r leas e renta l payment s relatin g theret o wil l b e pai d fo r b

yth e PRP S an

d ou t o f royalt

ypayment s due th

e receive r 

### fro mth e methan e ga s recover yprogram * Capita l investmen t fo r th e methan e ga s recover yprogram , expecte d t o rang e fro

mapproximatel y$ 2 million an d $2. 5 million , wil l b e a t ris k wit h paymen t subjec t t o the abilit yo f the projec t t o generat e pipeline 

### qualit yga s fo r deliver yt o PEC O pursuan t t o the contrac t betwen ERF an d PECO . Revenue s generate d pursuan t t o the PEC O contrac t ar e base d upo n the amoun t o f ga s sol d t o PECO , pai d fo r a t the rat e o f 90 % o f the the n curren t Transc o ga s pipeline tariff . At the present , sai d tarif f i s $3.5 5 pe r 100 0 cubi c fee t o f gas * ER F estimate s tha t tariff s i n effec t a t the tim

e o f initia l ga s productio n i n earl y198 6 wil l remai n a t suc h 

### leve l unti l 1987 . Thereafter , annua l pric e increase s o f 5 2 ar e estimated . I t I s anticipated tha t thes e gros s revenue s wil l b e sufficien t t o cove r operating an

d maintenanc e expense s fo r th e methan e ga s recover y program , enabl e ER F t o mak e necessar ydeb t servic e payment s an d t o prov e a fai r return t o it s investors . Capita l expense s fo r the non-methane ga s recover yportion s o f the RRA Abas e cos t i s t o b

e $3,425,50 0 million . Deb t servic e on thes e amounts , an d operatin

g an d maintenanc e cos t relatin g theret o wil l be pai d fo r b y 

### th e PRP S pursuan t t o a closur e agreemen t tha t provide s securit ysufficien t t o assur e tha t require d payment s wil l be made . Th e securit

yfor suc

h payment s aa

yinclude , provisio

n o f operatin

g an d deb t servic e reserv e funds , letter s o f credit , o r corporat e guarantee s a s appropriat e unde r th e circumstances . 

# 00004 0

### -26
- *j. ; '

T o the exten t tha t the receiver' s .interi mremedia l measure s ar e •'' - insufficien t t o accomplis h the permanen t closur e o f the sit e i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e environmenta l standards , th e RRA Ainclude s provisio n tha t the FRP S wil l furnish such additiona l fund s a s ma ybe necessar

yt o clos e the sit e consisten t wit h the remedia l action alternativ e describe d below an d wil l pos t a bon

d o r othe r securit ysufficien t i n amoun t t o mak e necessar yaddition s an

d alteration s t o the existin g interi mremedia l 

### measure s s o a s t o permanentl yclos e the site . The abov e financin

g progra mcontemplate s initiatio n o f desig n an d 

### constructio n o f the facilitie s o n a fas t trac k basi s which wil l allo w the methan e ga s generatio n syste mt o be i n operatio n i n earl y198 6 an d th e leachat e treatmen t facilitie s t o b e operationa l b yth e summe r o f 1986 . The RRA

Adefine s the ful l scop e o f remedia l wor k t o b e performe d i n 

### the immediat e future . I t contemplate s broa d remedia l wor k an d it s imple

mentatio n wil l depend upo n the succes s o f the ga s generation/recover y progra man d the contribution s fro mgenerator s an

d othe r potentiall y 

### responsibl e partie s (PRF) . The gase s generate d a t the Moye r Landfil l sit e ar e mos t likel

yt o contai n trac e amount s o f toxi c volatile s an d gases ; the ga s wil l be cleaned t o pipelin e qualit yan d toxics , i f any , 

### wil l be properl ydisposed . The economi c viabilit yan d publi c acceptabilit y o f the ga s recover

yprogra mi s a prove n concep t i n presen t practic e i n othe r part s o f the U.S . A s proposed , thi s progra mwil l mee t the NC P 

### criteri a o f a corrective action planned fo r a hazardou s wast e site . Th e contamination a t Moye r Landfil l sit e require s remediatio n t o mitigat e the publi c healt h an

d environmenta l concerns ; the ga s recover yprogra m wil l addres s an

d remediat e the concerns . I f negotiation s wit h the PRP s fai l and/o r the methan e ga s generation / recover yprogra mfails , w e recommen

d Remedia l Actio n Alternativ e 4 wit h 

### a modificatio n t o th e cap , b e Implemente d a t th e Moye r Landfil l Site . Thi s remed

ywil l satisf ya s wel l al l o f the contaminatio n objective s 

### identifie d i n the Remedia l Investigation . Alternative 4 Th e modifie d Alternativ e 4 meet s al l federa l standards . I t consist s o f a 10~ ? RCR

Aca p withou t the syntheti c liner , wit h surfac e wate r collectio

n an d discharge , leachat e collection(rangin g betwee n 0-6 0 feet ) 

### an d treatment , ga s ventin g an d groun d wate r an

d surfac e wate r monitoring . The ca p originall ypropose d i n RAA 4 doe s no t provid e an yadditiona l 

### healt h o r environmenta l benefits , exceed s al l standards , require s a longe r constructio

n perio d an

d i s no t a s costeffectiv e a s the propose d 10" ' RCR Acap * I n addition , th e leachat e collection syste mwil l be designe d t o mee t the 10~ 6 ris k leve l i n the groun d wate r an

d discharg e requirement s i n the streams . The dept h coul d var yanywher e fro

m0 t o 6 0 feet . I n spit e o f the fac t tha t interception o f the maximu mamoun t o f 

### leachat e i s proposed , i t ma yno t be possibl e t o collec t al l the leachate . Som e leachat e wil l stil l percolat e t o groun d wate r an

d als o probably , t o a certai n extent , throug h th e groun

d wate r t o th e surfac e water * However , the quantitie s o f leachat e wil l be s o minima l tha t thei r exac t impac t coul d no t be predicte d a t thi s time . Short-ter mgroun d an d surfac e wate r monitorin

g migh t hel p asses s the Impac t an d als o indicat e an

ypotentia l futur e monitoring . 

# 00004 1

### -27
-

Th e ca p wil l compl ywit h curren t RCR Arequirements , whic h requir e tha t the ca

p shoul d no t be les s permeabl e than the botto mo f the landfill . The regulation s als o requir e elimination o f groun d wate r contamination , which thi s alternative addresse s throug h residua l leachat e collectio n an d treatment * A s par t o f th e RCR Arequirement s fo r closur e o f existin g lan d disposa l facilitie s (Far t 265) , RCR Aprovide s tha t no syntheti c line r i s require d i f the uni t doe s no t have syntheti c underliner s t o effectivel ycontro l the quantitie s o f leachat e produce d presently . Monitorin

g o f groun

d wate r an

d surfac e water , leachat e treatment , an d maintenanc e o f th

e ca p woul d be par t o f th

e operations * The capita l cost s o f constructio n an d annua l operatio n an

d maintenanc e 

### cost s ar e a s follows :

1 . Soil/Cla

y1(T 7 

### Ca p * $9,308,40 0 2 . Ru n Of f Collectio n an

d Discharg e 330,00 0 3 * Ga s Ven t Syste

m331,80 0 4 . Acces s Roa d fo r Maintenanc e Purpos e 108,00 0 5 . Leachat e Collectio n * * 4,650,00 0 6 . Leachat e Treatmen t 656,60 0

Tota l Capita l Cost s $15,384,80 0 Annua l Operatio n an

d Maintenanc e 343,10 0 * Thi s ca

p doe s no t includ e a 2 0 mil . syntheti c liner . * * Desig n parameter s whic h directl yaffec t the siz e o f the syste man d quantitie s o f the material s require d influenc e costs . Trench dept h i s the mos t cost-Influencin g factor * The exac t dept h o f the collection syste

mwil l be base d o n corin g result s develope d i n th e Desig

n Phas e an

d a fat e an

d transpor t mode l t o determin e th e amoun t o f leachat e tha t need s t o b e treate d t o maintai n discharg e requiremen t level s int o th e Skippac k Cree k an

d 10~ ° risk level s i n groun d water . Operation s an

d Maintenanc e Monitorin

g an d Post-Closur e Maintenanc e activitie s ar e require d t o 

### verif ythe sit e cleanup , effectivel ymaintai n permanen t onsit e actions , monito r potentia l contaminan t migration . Detaile d cost s ar e Itemize d i n Volume I Sectio n 1 3 o f th e Remedia l Investigation/Feasibilit yStudy . Al l sample s take

n wil l b e analyze

d for Hazardous Substanc e Lis t (HSL ) parameters . Schedul e fo r Alternative 4 Approv e Remedia l Actio n (Sig n ROD ) 9/30/8 5 Negotiation s wit h PRP Conclude 11/30/8 5 

# 00004 2

### -28
-

Star t Desig

n 12/30/8 5 Complet e Desig

n 8/30/8 6 

### Star t Constructio n 9/30/8 6 Evaluatio n o f Alternative s No t Selecte d The No-Action wit h Monitorin g alternativ e wa s no t selecte d sinc e soil , sediment , an

d surfac e wate r contaminatio n wil l continue t o pos e a 

### direc t contac t threa t t o human health an d th e environment . Ther e woul d h e a continue d migratio n o f contaminant s t o th e groun d water , surfac e wate r an d releas e t o the air . Alternative 2 an

d subcomponent s mee t CERCL Agoal s bu t fal l shor t o f providin g ful l protectio n fro mcontamination o f shallo w groun d water . 

### The soi l cove r wil l stil l allo w leachat e generatio n an d subsequen t contamination o f the groun d water . O&M wil l be mor e expensiv e tha n O&M I n Alternative 4 , Permit s wer e unobtainabl e fo r offsit e treatment . 

### Alternative 3 satisfie s al l applicabl e standards , reduce s furthe r contamination b

ystopping the generation o f fres h leachate . However , i t 

### doe s no t provid e fo r the collection , treatmen t an d disposa l o f residua l leachat e tha t i s trappe d unde r th

e impermeabl e cover . 

### Alternative 5 wa s no t chosen du e t o extremel yhig h costs , difficult y i n Implementing , safet yconcern

s an d length yconstructio

n duratio

n o f 1 0 t o 2 0 years . Consistenc

ywit h Othe r Environmenta l Laws 

### EP AI s currentl yproposing regulation s requirin g the agenc

yt o selec t 

### a remedia l Superfun

d remed ywhich "...attain

s o r exceed s applicabl e o r relevan t Federa l publi c healt h o r environmenta l standards. " Se e propose d 4 0 C.F.R . 1300.68(f) . Environmenta l law

s whic h ma yb e applicabl e o r relevant t o remedia l 

### activit yare :

- Nationa l Environmenta l Polic yAc t (NEPA )

- Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA )

- Clea n Wate r Ac t (CWA )

- Saf e Drinkin

g Wate r Ac t (SDWA )

- Resourc e Conservation an d RecoveryAc t (RCRA )



# 00004 3- Pennsylvani a Clea n Stream s Ac t



### - Toxi c Substance s Contro l Ac t (TSCA ) Thes e tw o chose n alternative s mee t NEP Afunctiona l equivalenc y 

### exception becaus e the necessar yan d appropriat e investigatio n an d analysi s o f environmenta l factor s a s theyspecificall yrelat e t o the Moye r Landfil l Site . I n addition , a meaningfu l opportunit yfo r publi c commen t o n environ



### menta l issue s wa s provide d befor e the fina l selectio n o f the remedia l 

### alternative s wer e made . Complianc e wit h al l substantiv e requirement s o f the CW Aan d CA Aa s wel l a s th e Pennsylvani a Clea n Stream s Ac t wil l b e incorporate d int o th e desig n o f th e remedia l alternatives . An ydischarge int o th

e atmospher e 

### o f ga s wil l be monitore d t o assur e al l applicabl e standard s ar e no t exceeded * Discharg e o f treate d surfac e wate r wil l compl ywit h appropriat e standards * Th e ca p chose n wil l mee t al l o f th e RCR Arequirement s unde r 4 0 C.F.R . 1264.310 .



# 00004 4MOYE R LANDFILL RESPONSIVENES S SUMMAR Y

INTRODUCTIO

N The preferre d alternative s a s describe d i n thi s ROD generall yar e supporte d b

ythe loca l communit yan d it s leaders . Bot h resident s an d 

### publi c official s ar e frustrate d b ythe duratio n o f the RI/F S process , an d the relative expedienc yo f the receiver' s proposa l i s see n a s it s mos t desireabl e feature . Th e communit yals o ha s voice d concer n tha t EPA' s "fal l bac k alternative " be read yfo r implementatio n i f the receiver' s proposa l fail s I n som e way . Th

e onl ysubstantive chang e i n th e ROD proces s a s a resul t o f communit yinpu t wa s an extentio n o f th e commen t perio d fro

mSeptembe r 1 8 t o Septembe r 23 .

COMMUNIT

Y INVOLVEMEN

T HISTOR

Y Accordin g t o availabl e information , th e firs t thre e decade s o f Moye r Landfil l histor

ywer e marke d b

yminima l communit yInterest . However , i n 1977 , whe n th e operator s o f th e landfil l sough t t o expan d th e sit e fro

m 4 4 acre s t o 18 5 acres , resident s i n the vicinit yo f the landfil l joined togethe r an

d forme d a grou

p calle d th e Lowe r Providenc e Concerne d Citizen s (LPCC ) t o figh t the expansio n plans . I n additio n t o stoppin g the growt h o f Moye r Landfill , th e LPCC demanded tha t th e existin

g sit e b e closed . LPC C concern ove r wha t wa s perceive d a s th e PADE R indifferenc e t o citizen' s complaints , an d t o obviou s violation s o f Stat e an d Federa l environmenta l laws a t th e Moye r Landfil l Site , le d t o th e filin g o f a civi l sui t i n Federa l cour t i n Jun e 1980 . The LPC C wa s Joine d i n thi s effor t b yapproximatel y10 0 Individual s an d severa l loca l civi c an d sportsmen' s groups , includin g th e Leagu e o f Wome n Voter s o f th e Valle y Forge (Pennsylvania ) area , th e Valle yforg e Audubo n Society , an d th e Countr yBo yBas s Association . The origina l sui t name d the PADER , a s wel l a s the owner s an d operator s o f Moye r Landfill , Inc. , a s defendants ; bu t th e sui t wa s dismissed . Later , a combine d sui t wa s file d b yth e citizen s an

d organization s mentione d abov e an d th e PADE R agains t th e owner s an

d operator s o f Moye r Landfill , Inc . Althoug h the earl yyear s o f LPC C existenc e wer e marke d b ydifficultie s wit h loca l government , th e organizatio

n an d othe r resident s ar e please d wit h th e presen t electe d official s an d repor t a goo d workin g relationshi p wit h them . Th e community' s relationshi p wit h th e PADE R can b e characterize d a s cautious . Loca l official s an d resident s wer e satisfie d whe n the EP A bega n investigatin

g th e Moye r Landfil l Site , bu t bot h group s ar e unsatisfied wit h th e duratio n o f th e RI/F S proces s an d hav e demande d effectiv e clea n u p actio n a s soon a s possible . 

# 000041 5COMMEN T SUMMAR

Y y \ Thi s section i s divide d int o tw o parts : ^6/r* I . Remark s an

d Issue s voice d durin g a Septembe r 1 0 publi c meeting . II . Othe r remark s an d issue s concernin

g the Moye r Landfil l sit e includin

g thos e raise d durin

g a Septembe r 1 0 briefing wit h Townshi p representatives .
Apubli c meetin g wa s hel d a t 7:0 0 p.m . o n Septembe r 10 , 1985 , a t th e Lowe r Providenc e Townshi p Municipa l Building i n Lowe r Providenc e Township , Pennsylvania . The purpos e o f the meeting wa s t o discuss , wit h Intereste d parties , th e result s o f th e Remedia l Investigatio n (RI)/Feasiblllt

yStud y(FS ) conducte

d b yEF Aa t th e Moye r Landfil l site , an d t o reques t comment s fro mth e publi c concernin g th e cleanu

p alternative s presente d i n the FS . Ther e wer e approxlmatley4 0 individual s I n the audienc e includin g representative s fromth e loca l newspape r an d televisio n station , variou s stat e agencies , contractor s wh o hav e bee n involve d i n sit e work , the U.S . EPA , an d Intereste d citizens . Official s hostin

g the meeting include d To mVoltagglo , Chie f o f the Superfun d Branc h o f EPA ; Gre g Crystall , membe r o f the enforcemen t sectio n o f EPA ; Stephani e De l Re , sit e projec t office r o f EPA ; Ra y Germann , Communit yRelation s Specialis t o f EFA , Do n Beeker , fromth e Pennsylvani a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Resource s (PADER) ; Joann e Denworth , cour t receive r fo r th e Moye r Landfill ; an d Fre d Ehmann , representing Energ

yRecover

yPartners . Attache d i s a summaryo f issue s an d question s raise d during th e meeting , an

d th e response s give n b yEPA . Publi c an

d Environmenta l Healt h ISSUE : Anumbe r o f question s pertaine d t o th e natur e an d exten t o f contaminatio n a t the site . Severa l citizen s wante d t o know wha t healt h risks contaminatio n (I.e. , radiation ) fro mthe sit e pose d t o them . RESPONSE : Th e remedia l investigatio n repor t define s th e natur e an d exten t o f contamination a t th e site . Radiatio n level s detecte d offsit e wer e belo

w drinkin

g wate r standards . Th e mai n problem a t th e sit e i s th

e heav ymetal s an

d volatil e organlc s foun d i n the leachat e tha t i s flowin g offslt e int o Skippac k Creek . The cour t receiver' s remedia l alternativ e woul d adequatel y 

### addres s th e leachat e problem . 

# 00004 6 " " 2 * *ISSUE : Severa l citizens expresse d concer n tha t leachat e i s entering the shallo

w groundwate r an

d contaminating thei r wells . RESPONSE : Mos t o f the leachat e i s flowin g int o Skippac k Creek vi a ground
wate r an d seeps . Th e rock formatio n separating th e uppe r an d 

### lowe r aquifer s i s verytigh t an d residentia l well s ar e drille d belo w th e roc k formation . Ther e i s ver ylittl e seepag e o f leachat e throug

h th e roc k formation an

d therefor e littl e dange r o f residentia l wel l contaminatio n nea r the site . ISSUE : Severa l citizen s wer e concerne d abou t leachat e flowin g int o the Skippac k Creek . The ywante d t o kno

w wha t kin

d o f damag e thi s leachat e coul d b e causin g t o the creek , fis h i n the creek , an

d childre n playin

g nea r the creek . RESPONSE : EP

Aha s conducte d extensive testin g o f Skippac k Cree k an d ha s foun d onl ylow level s o f contaminatio n i n the wate r an d i n fish . EF

Aacknowledge s tha t leachat e flowin g int o Skippac k Cree k I s a majo r problema t th e site . Th e recommende d remedia l alternative wil l provid e fo r collectio n an d treatmen t o f leachat e entering the creek . ISSUE : Acitizen reporte d tha t periodicall ylarg e truck s driv e u p toward s th e sit e are a a t nigh t an d retur n a shor t time later . I s dumpin g stil l occurrin g a t th e site ? RESPONSE : The landfil l i s closed . Dumping ha s bee n reporte d o n area s

adjacen t t o the site . An yspecifi c informatio n o n Illega l dumpin g shoul d be passe

d on t o th

e EPA * ISSUE : Afe w citizen s wer e concerned tha t th e propose d ga s lin e fro m th e landfil l woul d damag e thei r property . RESPONSE: * The ga s compan ywil l negotiat e t o bu yprivat e right-of-ways an d i f thi s i s unsuccessful , the n the publi c right-of-wa ywil l b e used . N

o resident s wil l b

e force d t o accep t th

e ga s lin

e throug h thei r property . EP ACleanu p Proces s ISSUE : Severa l citizens wanted t o kno w wh yman ystudie s have bee n conducte d a t th e sit e ove r th e year s bu t nothin g ha s bee n don e t o stop th e flo

w o f leachat e fro

mth e site . Citizen s wante d t o kno

w a definitiv e dat e whe n sit e cleanu p woul d begin . 

### RESPONSE : Studie s ar e length ybu t ar e require d t o accuratel ydefin e th e natur e an

d exten t o f contaminatio n a t the site . Informatio n fro mthe RI/F S an

d hydrogeologica l assessmen t conducte d a t the sit e wil l b e carefull yevaluate d b yEPAs o i t can selec t a cleanu p alternative tha t i s environmentall ysoun d an d cost effective . EP

Ai s anxiou s t o begi n cleanu p work a t the sit e an d encourage s publi c commen t on th e variou s cleanu

p alternatives . EP Awil l decid e o n th e cleanu p alternative b

yth e en d o f th e month , 

# 00004 7ISSUE : Acitizen wante d t o kno w i f th e peopl e wh o ar e responsibl e fo r contaminatin

g th e sit e wil l clea

n u p th e site . RESPONSE : Th e responsibl e partie s shoul d definitel ypla ya rol e I n cleanu

p a t the site . The cour t receiver' s plan woul d provid e fo r thi s b ymaking generator s a financia l part yi n an ycleanu p agreement . At leas t 2 8 potentiall yresponsibl e partie s hav e bee n contacte d b yEPA . I f anyon e ha s additiona l documentatio n o f othe r potentiall yresponsbll e parties , EP Awoul d lik

e t o hav e thi s 

### information . ISSUE ; Acitize n expresse d concer n whethe r fundin

g wa s availabl e t o clea n u p the site . RESPONSE : EP

Awil l likelysig

n the record o f decisio n (ROD ) a t the en d o f th e month . A t tha t time , potentiall yresponsibl e partie s (PRPs ) hav e 6 0 day s t o ente r int o an agreemen t wit h EP At o hel p clea

n u p th e site . Afte r thi s 6 0 da yperiod , funding i s eithe r mad e availabl e fro

mPRP s o r fro

mEP AI f n o agreemen t i s made . Thi s mean s tha t fundin

g fo r sit e cleanu

p shoul d be availabl e i n lat e November . Thi s schedul e assume s tha t Congres s passe s a ne w Superfun d bil l presentl yunde r debat e i n Congress . ISSUE : Severa l citizen s state d tha t the ywante d t o be informe d o f 

### cleanu p progres s a t the site . RESPONSE : EP

Awil l mee t wit h concerne d citizen s agai n I n Octobe r t o infor mthemo f progres s an d plan s an

d t o addres s additiona l concerns . The cour t receive r als o emphasize d tha t citizen participatio n i s ver

yimportan t i n th e cleanu p process . ISSUE : Arepresentativ e o f som e o f th e PRP , wante d t o hav e th e commen t perio d extende d t o hav e adequat e time t o commen t o n th e RI/FS . RESPONSE : Th e commen t perio d wil l b e extende d unti l Septembe r 23 . ISSUE : Acitizen expresse d th e opinio n tha t sta r war s an d th e Pentago n i s preventing th e Governmen t fro madequatel yprotecting th e publi c ai r an

d water . Th e individua l suggeste d tha t cos t shoul d no t b e a consideratio n i n sit e cleanup . RESPONSE : Non e Technica l ISSUE : Acitizen who live s nort h an d wes t o f th e landfil l nea r Eagl e Strea

mwante d t o know wh

yhi s wel l had no t bee n tested . RESPONSE : EP

Awil l investigat e thi s possibilit ybu t i t i s likelytha t the wel l ha s bee n teste d an d EP Acan fin

d the result s I n the RI/F S document . 

# 00004 8ISSUE : Acitize n expresse d concer n tha t methan e ga s wil l caus e th e 

### cla yca p t o crack . RESPONSE : Ther e wil l be continuou s maintenanc e o f the cla ycap . ISSUE : Acitize n wa s concerne d tha t leakag e wil l slowlyoccur from

th e uppe r aquife r int o th e lowe r aquifer . Hav e recover ywell s bee n considere d t o withdraw contaminate d groundwate r an d t o preven t seepag e int o th e lowe r aquifer ? RESPONSE : Th e leachat e collectio n systeman d RCR Aca p wil l captur e mos t o f th e leachat e an

d monitorin

g wil l continu

e t o provid e informatio n o n condition s I n the lowe r aquifer . Recoverywell s wer e 

### no t considere d cost-effective o r necessary . (A

Remedia l Actio n Alternative s ISSUE : Acitize n wante d t o kno w wha t wil l happe n I f th e cour t receiver' s alternativ e fall s du e t o a lac k o f cooperatio n fro

mpotentiall y responsibl e parties . RESPONSE : EPAha s a preferre d "fal l back " alternativ e whic h provide s fo r

a sit e cap , leachat e collection an d treatment , ga s venting an d monitoring . I f th

e cour t receiver' s alternativ e fails , fo r whateve r reason , EP

Awoul d implemen t the "fal l back " alternative . ISSUE : Acitize n wa s concerned tha t EPA' s 'fal l back " alternativ e

wa s dangerou s becaus e cappin g woul d trap th e methan e gas . RESPONSE ; EPA' s preferre d "fal l back* * alternativ e Include s a provisio n fo r ventin

g methan e ga s t o stop an ydangerou s build-u

p o f ga s an d t o preven t damag e t o th e cap . ISSUE : Acitize n wante d t o kno w wha t wil l b e don e t o collec t th e leachat e seep s i n Evansbur g Stat e Park . RESPONSE : Th

e selecte

d alternativ

e wil l provid e fo r collectio n o f leachat e fro

mal l majo r source s o f generation . ISSUE : Acitizen inquire d whethe r EP Ahad accepte d th e cour t receiver' s alternative . RESPONSE : EP

Aprefer s th e cour t receiver' s alternativ e bu t ha s no t accepte d it . Publi c commen t i s require d prio r t o makin g a decision * Publi c comment s ar e strongl yencourage d b yEP Aduring th e cleanu

p process . ISSUE : Acitizen wante d t o kno w wha t woul d happe n i f something wen t wron g afte r th e cour t receiver' s alternativ e had bee n Implemente d an d suddenl ymoneywa s no t availabl e fo r sit e cleanup . RESPONSE : EP

Arequire s tha t ther e b e enoug h financia l backin

g behin d the cleanu p pla n s o tha t i f somethin g goe s wron

g ther e i s stil l enoug h mone yt o clos e th e sit e a s require d unde r EF Aguidelines .



### - 5 - 

# 00004 9

### ISSUE : Severa l citizen s expresse d a favorabl e opinio n regardin g th e alternativ e presente d b yth e cour t receiver , bu t wante d t o know whe n the remedia l action coul d begin . RESPONSE: * I f EP

Aapprove s the alternative , fina l closur e an d cleanu p plan s coul d begi n Immediately . Th e facilitie s coul d b e buil t an d pu t Int o operatio n b

ylat e spring . EP

Aofficial s emphasize d tha t th e cour t receiver' s alternativ e woul d allo w cleanu p t o begi n soone r than allowed unde r EPA' s alternative . * Th e respons e t o th e commen t wa s mad e b yJoann e Denworth , cour t receive r fo r the Moye r Landfill . II . Thi s section addresse s pas t an d presen t Issue s no t alread yInclude d i n th e meeting summary * ISSUE : ATownshi p officia l wa s concerned tha t EPA' s plan s fo r cleanu p wer e no t mor e specific , an d tha t w e di d no t alread yhav e specifi c plan s fo r th e preferre d alternative . RESPONSE : EPAand/o r th e receive r wil l dra w u p specification s an

d begi n desig n afte r th e commen t perio d close s an d a RO D I s written . Th e F S proces s outline s concepts , bu t doe s no t dra w u p specifications . ISSUE : Aloca l lan d owne r suggeste d creatin g a lined landfil l adjacen t t o the curren t sit e an d requirin

g that , fo r eac h to n o f new wast e deposite d i n th e line

d landfill , th e owne r b e require d t o accep t on e to n fro

mthe Moye r landfill , eventuall ytransferrin g the entir e Moye r landfil l int o a lined facility . RESPONSE : Avariatio n o f thi s suggestio n i s Include d a s an optio n i n th e

FS . I t woul d Include tota l excavatio n ove r a ter mo f 5-1 5 years , an d encounte r stron

g resistanc e fro

mloca l residents . ISSUE : Potentiall yresponsibl e partie s wer e no t give n adequat e tim e t o commen t o n the RI/F S prio r t o developmen t o f the ROD . RESPONSE : The RI/F S wa s received b yPRP s Jul y24 . The commen t perio d ende d Sept . 23 . The Nationa l Contingenc yPla n (NCP ) call s fo r a 30-da y commen t perio d o n th e RI/F S befor e a cleanu p alternativ e i s chosen . ISSUE : The Informatio n obtaine d t o dat e show s tha t the actua l environmenta l

Impac t tha t ha s occurred an d th e potentia l fo r futur e Impact s d o no t represen t an

yImminen t dange r t o th e environmen t o r huma n healt h an d safet ynea r the Moye r Landfill . Also , ther e ar e severa l area s 

### I n whic h the dat a bas e an d analysi s ar e Insufficient . RESPONSE : Whil e the evidenc e suggest s tha t ther e ha s bee n littl e o r no Impac t

upo n publi c healt h o r th e environmen t fromsit e contaminatio n t o date , th e continued flo w o f contaminate d leachat e fro mth e landfil l ma ypos e a futur e threa t t o publi c healt h o r th e environment . Thi s possibilit yI s sufficien t t o justif yremedia l actio n unde r the Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Respons e Compensatio n an d LiabilityAc t (CERCLA ) an

d th e Nationa l Contingenc

yFlan (NCP) . EP

Aconsider s 

### th e sampling plan an

d protoco l outline d i n th e R I sufficien t t o accuratel ygaug e potentia l risks pose d b ythe site . 

# 00005 0ISSUE : Th e RI/F S evaluate s a numbe r o f remedia l actio n alternatives . I n general , th e environmenta l benefit s whic h ma yb e obtaine d fro

m thei r implementatio n hav e no t bee n identifie d o r weighe d agains t the ris k o f potentia l harmsuggeste d i n the R I o r agains t an y risk s whic h ma

yb e presente d b

yth e alternative s themselves . Shoul d a comprehensiv e ris k assessmen t b e conducted , i t i s likel y tha t i s woul d identif yeithe r RAA- 1 o r RAA- 2 a s th e measure s mos t 

### consisten t wit h the NCP . RESPONSE : A s outline d i n th e FS , eithe r o f th e preferre d alternative s wil l

adequatel yaddres s th e flo w o f leachat e of f site , thereb y eliminatin

g th e futur e ris

k t o publi c health o r th e environment . EP Abelieve s tha t th e provision s i n th e preferre d alternative s provid e cleanu

p benefit s superio r t o thos e include d i n othe r remedia l actio n alternatives .



### - 7 - 

# 00005 1PENNSYLVANI A

Burea u o f Soli d Wast e Managemen t COMMONWEALTH O F PENNSYLVANI A DEPARTMENT O F ENVIRONMENTA L RESOURCE S

Pos t Office Box 206

3 . Harrlsburg , Pennsylvani a 1712 0 

### September

27 , 1985 717-783-781 6 Unite dState s Environmenta l 

### Protectio n Agenc y Regio n II I 84 1 Chestnu t

Buildin g Philadelphia , P A 19107 

### Attention : Thoma s C . Voltagglo , Chief

Superfun dBranc h Re : Moyer s Landfil l Superfun dSit e

Lowe r Providenc e Townshi p 

### Montgomery Count

y 

### Dear Mr . Voltaggio : Thi s lette r

constitute s ou r

respons e t o th e Remedia l Alternativ e Selectio n Summar y fo r th e Moye r 

### | Landfill , whic h w e receive do n Septembe r 26 , 1985 . I t

i s th e Department' s positio n tha t governmen t 

### fund s shoul dno t

b e utilize dfo r

remedia l actio n project s whe n othe r monie s ar e readil y availabl e t o b e use dfo r

suc h purposes . Thi s enable s a n agenc y t o reserv e fund s fo r cleanu p situation s whe n | n o othe r source s o f

relie f ar e provided . I n th e Moye r Landfil l case , w e concur with EP A o n th e Irecommende dreceiver s Remedia l Actio n Alternativ e (RRAA) , a s discusse do n page s 2 4 throug h 2 8 

### o f summary . A s aprecaution , EP A propose s t o resort t o Alternativ e 4 i n even t tha t th e methan e |ga s recover y progra mdoe s no t

materialize , o r

fall s to accomplis h th e require dremedial work . 

### Thi s offic e strongl y recommend s tha t individual s wh o propos e t o undertak e th e ga s [recovery progra mprovid e ampl e bon dt o assur e tha t al l th e remedia l wor k

ca n occur . A propose d 

### (schedul e wit h remedia l desig n phase s concomitan t wit h th e progres s o f

th e methan e recover y irogra mshoul db e prepare dfirst . EP A shoul dthe n conside r enterin g int o abindin g legal 

### igreemen t

wit h th e PRP s t o ensur e thei r commitmen t

t o satisf y th e entir e scop e o f

th e remedia l iction , an dt o perfor mOperation s an dMaintenanc e a t th e sit e fo r

3 0 years . W e hop e tha t

al l futur e activitie s a t

th e Moye r

Landfil l wil l develo p t o everyone' s satisfaction , an despeciall y t o th e improvemen t o f th e environment . Ver y trul y yours , Dwigh t D . Worley , Chie f Divisio n o f

Emergenc y an dRemedia l Respons e



# 00005 2