SUPERFUND FINAL CLOSE OUT REPORT 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

EPA ID# PAD980508766 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This Final Close Out Report (FCOR) documents compliance with statutory requirements and 

provides a consolidated record of removal and remedial activities for the entire Moyer's Landfill 

Superfund Site (Site). All response actions have been successfully completed in accordance with 

the Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER 9320.2-22, May 2011 ). 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) conducted a pre-final inspection on August 30, 2002 and 

determined that the remedy has been constructed in accordance with approved design plans and 

specifications. Institutional Controls were implemented by township ordinance in October 2011. 

Additional construction activities are not anticipated. P ADEP continues the necessary Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M) on the Site. 

II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS 

Background 

The Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site is a 65-acre inactive privately owned landfill 

located at Moyer Road in Collegeville, Lower Providence Township, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania. The Site is about twenty-seven (27) miles northwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

(Figure 1, Site Location Map). According to the 2010 Census, Lower Providence Township has 

a population of25,436. 

The Site area consists of open land surrounded by wooded areas on steep slopes. Located 

on the Site are leachate collection tanks and a wooden storage shed in the south valley. Runoff 

from the landfill slopes flowed westerly into Skippack Creek, until the remedy was built. Now 

runoff is directed towards storm water basins around the perimeter of the landfill and routed off 

the landfill cap. The Skippack Creek is located about 350 feet north-west of the landfill. The 

Skippack Creek then discharges into the Perkiomen Creek which eventually discharges into the 

Schuylkill River (Figure 2, Site Layout Map). 

Land and Resource Use 

The landfill is bounded on the north and west by Evansburg State Park, on the east by a 

single original home and a new housing development (Valley High Estates) and on the south by 

the new housing development and undeveloped land (Figure 2, Site Layout Map). The area 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 1 
immediately surrounding the landfill is residential. The nearby Skippack Creek flows through 

Evans burg State Park and is stocked with trout. Also, there is a park just downstream ofthe Site 

at the confluence of the Skippack and Perkiomen Creeks which is a popular local fishing and 

canoeing/kayaking area. 

Groundwater in the Site area occurs in an aquifer which has poor water yields: The 

average depth of the wells in the area is 151 feet. Wells drilled into the deeper system are often 

artesian due to the dense, relatively impermeable layer of bedrock overlying the deep system. 

Most of the residents in the vicinity of the landfill are on public water. There are approximately 

ten residential wells along Moyer Road and Visitation Road, which are east of the Site. 

Groundwater flows to the west and south west, towards the Skippack Creek. There are no 

residential wells between the landfill and the Skippack Creek. 

History of Contamination 

The Moyer's Landfill property operated as a municipal landfill from the early 1940s until 

April 1981, during which time it received municipal waste, sev;age and industrial sludges. The 

landfill accepted a variety of solid and liquid hazardous wastes, including polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, solvents, paints, low-level radioactive wastes, and incinerated 

materials in bulk form and/or containerized drums. 

The original unlined landfill area was approximately 39 acres in size. In the late 1970s, 

the landfill owners submitted a request to expand the landfill boundaries to the northwest. Site 

preparation work began on a new area in 1977, and included installation of an asphalt liner prior 

to filling. Landfilling was reportedly limited to this new, lined area from the late 1970s to early 

1981, at which tim:e an order from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

(PADER), now PADEP, closed the facility. 

Originally, there was no management of leachate from the landfill and the discharge 

either seeped into groundwater or discharged directly to the Skippack Creek. In the early 1970's 

P ADER developed and implemented more comprehensive landfill regulations. As a result, a 

leachate collection system was constructed and began operating in 1972. However, leachate still 

overflowed continuously from several collection pits located on the property. 

Initial Response 

In 1981, PADEP closed the facility. The Moyer's Landfill became· a Superfund Site 

when it was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8, 1983. The Remedial 

Investigation and Feasibility Study were EPA lead. 

Basis for Taking Action 

In the early 1980s, on-site leachate and seep samples were collected and analyzed. The 

samples were contaminated with eighty-six (86) priority pollutants and sixteen (16) metals, 

nearly all contaminants of concern. The landfill surface showed a number of leachate and seep 

locations which served as a continuous source of pqllution by seeping lightly or leaching heavily 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 2 
contaminated water from the landfill to ground and surface waters. There was no evidence of 

any detectable level of air pollution. 

Surface water and sediment samples were taken from Skippack Creek and the Perkiomen 

Creek, and fish samples were taken from Skippack Creek. Contaminants were detected in low 

concentrations in surface water, sediment, and fish. The contaminants were attributable to the 

landfill. 

Off-site residential wells bordering the landfill were sampled for priority pollutants, 

metals, organics, PCBs, dioxins, and beta radiation. These wells did not show any detectable 

levels of organic or inorganic pollution. The residential groundwater met all EPA Drinking 

Water Standards at the time. Shallow monitoring wells installed around the periphery of the 

landfill showed concentrations of contaminants above risk-based numbers. 

The groundwater contamination was mostly due to surface water percolation through the 

landfill and into the groundwater. The groundwater level is lower than the bottom of the landfill. 

Site contaminants were transported directly to the surface water bodies via surface water runoff 

and indirectly through contaminated groundwater (upper aquifer) discharged to the creeks. The 

deeper aquifer was not contaminated. 

The Record of Decision (ROD) identified the following contaminants which were above 

acceptable levels in leachate and seep samples: arsenic, barium, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, 

beta radiation, trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, xylene, di-n-octylphthalate, 2-hexanone, 2-

butanone, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and acetic acid. 

Remedy Selection 

The ROD for the Moyer's Landfill Site was issued before the Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and states the Remedial Action Objectives in the following 

manner: "The overall strategy is to mitigate and minimize harm to the public health and the 

environment. This should include minimizing further upper aquifer contamination and the 

possibility of direct contact with the waste. Leachate control is an integral part of the overall 

scheme in order to eliminate the continuing migration of contaminants across the Site and off the 

Site to the Skippack Creek." Because EPA is responsible for protecting human health and the 

environment, EPA conducted remedial actions such as capping the landfill and collecting landfill 

leachate and routing it for treatment. These actions prevented direct contact with the waste and 

contaminated leachate and prevent off-site migration of contamination via surface runoff and 

groundwater movement. 

The 1985 ROD identified a primary and a contingent remedy. The major components of 

the primary remedy were as follows: 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 3 
• Soil cover with permeability of 10-4

/10-5 em/sec; 

• Erosion and sedimentation control measures; 

• Surface water diversion; 

• Leachate collection, on-site treatment and discharge to surface water; 

• Methane gas recovery and sale; 

• Security/fencing measures; 

• Groundwater monitoring; and 

• All closure activities in compliance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) at conclusion of gas generation phase (10 to 20 years) 

The implementation of this remedy depended on the success of the gas 

generation/recovery program. The gas recovery system was not feasible due to diminishing gas 

generation, thus the contingency alternative was implemented. The major components of the 

contingency remedy include: 

• Miscellaneous work preparatory to installation of RCRA cap: grading, flattening of steep 

slopes, retaining walls and installation of rip-rap at areas that are most likely to be eroded; 

• Construction ofRCRA cap; 

• Gas venting and gas monitoring; 

• Surface water collection and discharge to Skippack Creek; 

• Security/fencing measures; 

• Leachate collection and on-site treatment that will meet the 1 o-6 risk level in the 

groundwater and discharge requirements in the stream; and 

• Operation and Maintenance: ground and surface water monitoring, maintenance of the 

cap and treatment of leachate on-site. 

In January 2000, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) which 

modified the leachate treatment portion of the remedy. The ESD changed the leachate treatment 

portion of the remedial action from on-site leachate treatment to leachate collection with 

treatment at an existing Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). This change better 

protected the surface waters and the environment from the potential failure of an undersized 

treatment plant. In addition, routing the leachate to the POTW was shown to be more cost 

effective than building and operating a leachate treatment facility. 

In September 2009, EPA issued a second ESD to require Institutional Controls (ICs) as 

part of the remedy. ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal 

controls, that are necessary for the protection of the integrity of the remedial measures on-site to 

ensure long-term protection of human health and the environment. ICs play an important role in 

site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and 

guide human behavior at a site. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 4 
Implementation of the Remedial Action 

EPA executed an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers 

(USACE) for the design of the Remedial Action, which was completed on April20, 1989. EPA 

executed another Interagency Agreement with the USACE for the construction of the Remedial 

Action. After beginning construction, local residents expressed concerns regarding truck traffic. 

In response, EPA then directed US ACE to redesign a partial cap (instead of a full cap) with a 

perimeter leachate collection trench. A partial cap meant that less fill was needed for 

construction, thus reducing the truck traffic. Less cover, however, also led to steeper slopes for 

the redesigned landfill cap. The redesign was completed in November 1992 and construction of 

the redesigned landfill cap was completed in November 1994. The Remedial Action Report for 

the landfill cap, Operable Unit 1 (QUI) was completed in December 1996. 

EPA identified the leachate collection and treatment portion of the remedial action as 

. Operable Unit 2 (OU2). In January 2000, EPA issued an ESD which changed the leachate . 

treatment portion of the Remedial Action from on-site leachate treatment to leachate collection 

with treatment at an existing POTW. The modified Remedial Action was originally described in 

the ROD, but was infeasible because the sewer interceptor was not available near the Site when 

the ROD was issued. The construction of the OU2 remedial action was initiated in 2000 and 

completed in August 2002. OU2 responsibility was divided as follows: 1) Montgomery County 

constructed the municipal interceptor, 2) EPA via USACE constructed the necessary leachate 

equalization tanks, and 3) PADEP was responsible for collecting and transferring the leachate to 

the equalization tanks and from the tanks to the municipal interceptor. The Remedial Action 

R~port for the leachate collection and treatment system (OU2) was completed in April 2004. 

Table 1 lists key dates for construction activities at Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site. 

Final Inspection 

For the original construction contract, a punch list inspection was conducted at the Site by 

EPA, PADER, the USACE, and the contractor, Chemical Waste Management (CWM), Inc., on 

June 30, 1992. Punch lists of tasks to be accomplished before the final inspection were generated 

and the punch list tasks were executed. The final inspection was performed on January 22, 1993 

by the USACE and CWM. 

For the redesigned portion of the landfill cap, a pre-final inspection was conducted by 

EPA, PADER, the USACE, and the contractor, Conti Environmental Inc., on November 14, 

1994. A post-maintenance period inspection was conducted between USACE and Conti in May 

1996 and a follow-up post-maintenance period inspection was conducted by USEPA, USACE, 

and P ADEP in August 1996. 

Inspection of the leachate storage system (OU2) was conducted in August 2000. A punch 

list was established at that time and all the issues were addressed by November 2000. Between 

August 2000 and August 2002, the sewer line was constructed and the leachate transfer system 

was updated. An inspection and training session was held in May 2002. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 5 
EPA and PADEP conducted a final inspection of the entire Site on August 30, 2002 and 

determined that the remedy had been constructed in accordance with the Retnedial Design plans 

and specifications and that no further response is anticipated for this Site. The Moyer's Landfill 

Superfund Site achieved construction completion when the Preliminary Close-out Report was 

signed on September 17, 2002. 

The performance standards attained during the remediation were documented in the 

Remedial Action Completion Reports dated December 19, 1996 and April 4, 2004. 

Table 1 Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Construction Dates 

Construction Event Date 

Remedial Design Analysis Report April 20, 1989 

Selected construction contractor October 13, 1989 

Construction start, landfill cap OU1 January 4, 1990 

Pru'iially terminate contract About October 1, 1990 

EPA directed USACE to redesign cap October 8, 1990 

Non-tem1inated portion of construction July 13, 1992 

completed 

Redesign Analysis Report completed November 13, 1992 

Final inspection January 22, 1993 

Selected redesign construction contractor April 23~ 1993 

Redesign construction start May 23, 1993 

Pre-final inspection November 14, 1994 

Redesign construction completed November 24, 1994 

Post Maintenance period inspection May 15, 1996 

Maintenance period ends May 24, 1996 

Remedial Action Report, OU1 December 19, 1996 

EPA issues an ESD modifying leachate January 2000 

remedy 

EPA begins constructing leachate storage May 2000 

tanks OU2 

Construction of leachate storage tanks August 2000 

complete 

Completion Report, OU-1 September 29, 2000 

Sewer line interceptor complete March2002 

Leachate flowing from Pump Stations 1 & 2 May 2002 

New flowmeters installed June 2002 

Pump Station #3 on-line- OU2 construction August 2002 

complete 

Preliminary Close-out Report September 1 7, 2002 

Remedial Action Report, OU2 April 4, 2004 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 6 
Implementation of Institutional Controls 

The September 2009 ESD required ICs as part of the remedy. ICs are legal controls, such 

as deed restrictions or restrictive covenants, to protect the integrity of the remedial measures onsite in such a way as to prevent or reduce exposure to hazardous substances. In October 2011, 

the Lower Providence Township approved an ordinance which serves as the IC for the Moyer's 

Landfill Site, which states: 

It shall be unlawfuLfor any Owner, lessor, lessee or occupier of the Property, or any other 

Person to engage in any activities on the Property that would in any manner disturb or 

interfere with the environmental remedial systems at the Property, including, without 

limitation, the landfill cap, gas vents, monitoring wells, leachate collection and 

conveyance system, and security measures, such as fencing, that prevent access to the 

Property. The prohibited activities include, but are not limited to the following: · 

A. Digging in or disturbance of the landfill cap, tampering with hardware or 

equipment associated with the gas vents, monitoring wells, leachate collection and 

conveyance systems or the security fencing. 

B. Any use of leachate generated at the Properly including, without limitation, any 

activities that could cause exposure to contaminants in the leachate via ingestion, 

vapor inhalation or dermal contact. 

C. Digging in or disturbance of tl1e landfill cap including, without limitation, any 

activities that could result in contact with contaminants in the soils at the Property 

through ingestion, inhalation or dermal contact. 

III. MONITORING RESULTS 

Environmental monitoring data provides information to assess and demonstrate that the 

remedy is achieving the performance standards described in the ROD, and provides information 

for the five-year review. Listed below is a summary of the monitoring events performed at the 

Site in support ofthe Fi've-Year Review signed 2012. 

Groundwater Monitoring 

Groundwater monitoring is performed in order to confirm that there is no migration of 

contamination from the landfill. The following locations were sampled in December 2010 and 

February 2012: 

LS-1 

MW4 

MW5 

MW-Rl 

MW-R2 

Manhole in the south valley, pumps to leachate tanks 

4" Well@ South Valley Outside Fence 

4" Well@ Roadside Between Sedimentation Basins #2 & #3 

6" Well@ Visitation Road and Grange Ave 

4" Well@ Visitation Road and Grange Ave 

Figure 3 is a map showing the on-site groundwater well locations, site features, and 

monitoring points. Groundwater flows towards the Skippack such that wells MW-4 and MW-5 

are on the downgradient edge ofthe plume, and wells MW-R1 and MW-R2 are upgradient. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 7 
Samples taken at LS-1 are samples of the leachate that is then collected in the tanks and treated at 

the POTW. 

The groundwater monitoring wells were analyzed for volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs). The leachate discharge and South Valley manhole (LS-1) were analyzed for VOCs, 

metals, cyanide, oil & grease and general chemistry. The groundwater and leachate were not 

analyzed for radiation because subsequent to the ROD, EPA determined that the levels of 

radiation found during the remedial investigation are within the acceptable range. Table 2 

summarizes the VOCs that were detected during groundwater sampling events in 2010 and 2012 

and lists the EPA drinking water standards, Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). For 

example, nothing is listed for MW -4 in 2010 because no contaminants were detected. 

Table 2 

Summary of Groundwater Sampling ResultsVolatile Organics·(f.lg/1) 

M:W-Rl 

Analvte name (2010) 

t-Butyl Alcohol -- Chlorobenzene -

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene - 1, 1-Dichloroethane - Ethyl benzene 0.66 

m/p-Xylene 1.9 

o-Xylenes 0.6 

Tetrahydrofuran -- Toluene 3.6 

Trichloroethene 0.61 

Vinyl Chloride - Acetone - * = MCL does not ex 1st for these const1tuents 

--=Not detected 

+=Total Xylenes MCL is 10,000 

J.Lg/1 = micrograms per I iter 

Residential Groundwater 

Location (year) 

MW-5 MW-Rl MW-R2 MW-5 

(2010) (2012) (2012) (2012) 

-- -- - 5.4 

0.55 -- -- -- 4.7 -- - 2.9 

- -- - 0.51 

-- -- -- - -- -- -- --

-- -- - --

3.7 -- -- 4.1 

1.6 -- -- - 2.7 -- -- 4.8 

1.9 -- - 1.9 

-- 3 4.3 --

MCL 

* 

100 

70 

* 

700 

+ 

+ 

* 

1,000 

5 

2 

* 

Most residents in the area receive water from the local public water supply. No 

residential wells exist between the landfill and the downgradient monitoring wells. 

In January 2001, PADEP sampled ten home wells along Moyer Road and Visitation Road 

for VOCs and bacteria. See Figure 2. At the time, there was a problem with runoff from the 

then-active pig farm. All but two home wells were non-detect for VOCs; of these, one was 

below the IviCL, and the other was higher than results from the iandfiil monitoring weiis. At that 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Repmt, November 2013 8 
time, this particular home on Visitation Road was occupied by an older couple who operated a 

welding/metal working business out of their home. At the time, they reported that they did not 

drink the water without treating it first. Extending a public water line was not an option at the 

time. Of eight homes tested for coliform bacteria, five showed detections that were above 

Montgomery County Health Department criteria. These results were reported to the Health 

Department. One resident used a filter and UV light to treat his water. These residents are sidegradient from the direction of groundwater flow and are not expected to be impacted by the 

landfill. No residential well sampling was conducted as part of the 2012 five-year review. 

Stream Sampling 

The current leachate and groundwater sampling shows no indication that contaminants 

are migrating from the Site at concentrations that may be negatively impacting Skippack Creek. 

In 1999, PADEP connected the leachate collection system to the POTW, and some 

leachate continued to discharge to the Skippack Creek from the NW Valley outfall. From 2000 

to 2006, P ADEP sampled the Skippack Creek as part of O&M. Stream water was collected at 

two locations, upstream (SW4) and downstream (SW5) of the observed leachate outfall and was 

analyzed for VOCs, semi-volatile organics, inorganics, pesticides, total PCBs, coliform and other 

chemical parameters. Since P ADEP did not note any discernible difference between the 

upstream and downstream samples during sampling, they concluded there was no ongoing 

impact from the leachate outfall. P ADEP discontinued sampling in 2006. No sediment samples 

from the creek were taken. 

Landfill Gas Monitoring 

In December 2010 and February 2012, PADEP performed sampling of ambient air, gas 

vents and groundwater monitoring wells. The ambient air sampling was performed at seven 

locations around the perimeter of the landfill (Summa 1 -Summa 3, Summa 5- Summa 8) and 

one location at the apex of the landfill (Summa 4). See Figure 4 for 2012locations. All ambient 

' air samples were taken with standard Summa canisters fitted with 8- hour regulators, and were 

analyzed by PADEP's Bureau ofLaboratories in Harrisburg, PA. 

In March 2011 and March 2012, PADEP forwarded the data from the sampling events to 

EPA in units of Part Per Billion by Volume (ppbv). To enable comparison to the June 2011 

Regional Screening Levels (RSLs ), EPA converted detected data to units of micrograms per 

cubic meter (11g/m3

). The RSLs are risk-based concentrations derived from standardized 

equations combining exposure information assumptions with EPA toxicity data. EPA considers 

RSLs 1 to be protective for humans over a lifetime and are calculated for a Carcinogenic Target 

Risk oflE-06, and/or a Noncancer Hazard Index (HI) of 1. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the data 

from the two sampling events and compare them to the RSLs. 

1 A carcinogenic risk of IE-06 means that exposure to contaminants at a site would be expected to result in one extra cancer for 

every I million people exposed. A noncancer HI of I means that no adverse noncancer effects are anticipated from exposure to 

site contaminants, where the HI is the ratio between the highest dose at which no adverse effects are anticipated and the dose to 

which a receptor is exposed at the Site. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 9 
Table 3 Summary of Landfill Gas Monitoring, 2010 (1..1g/m3

) 

summa Summ:e Somma Summ~ summa summa Summ;~ summa 

RSL ~00 1 1'002 H003 r1004 #005 #006 11007 

An 3lyt& ug/m3 ugfm3 uglm3 ug/m:l UJlfm3 l.lgfm3 u_Otm3 ug/m3 

uenzene 0 31 c 0.36 0.'35 0.3?. J 0.32 030 ,I 0.35 0.35 

tOluene 5200 11 0.29 J 0.30 J 0.30 J 0.26 J 0.24 J 0.28 J 0.29 J 

ltltlllorofluorometllane 730 n 1.57 I 57 1.52 I..SG 1.57 1.57 1.57 

dlahiOrodllluorometharte - 100 n 2.91 2.97 2.43 1.50 2.62 3.02 

chtoronle.th.:me 9·1 (I 1.30 1.37 0.91 I 18 1.'13 

tilll>Cfl letmchtorloc O ...t I c O.G-3 J 0.132 J 0.59 J 0_62 J 0.62 .) 0.62 

1. 1.2·trlchToro-1.2.2· 1111!uoroelh;Jne 3100U 0 0.1)9 J 0.70 J 0 .6:1 J . 0 G6 .I OG& J 0.71 

lorooene 3100 n 091 0 so 1~ 0.83 

Reg1onal Screemng Levels (RSLs) are from the June 2011 table. 

RSL cancer values (c) are 1 E-06 and non-cancer values (n) are HI= 1. 

Analyte concentrations flagged with a "J" are estimated values below the laboratory's reporting limit. 

Table 4 Summary of Landfill Gas Monitoring, 2012 (1..1g/m3

) 

RSL S-Ol S-02 

Analytc ul!/m3 ue/m3 ue/m3 

Benzene O.JI c 0.43 0.41 

Toluene 520() n 0.22 J 0.23 

Acrolein 0.021 n 0.92 0,4:1 

Acetone 32000 n 15.46 0 6.76 

TRICHLORO!'LUOROMETI lANE 730 11 1.23 U9 

I)ICHI.OR0l)iFI U01~0ME'I1-IANE 100 n 2.34 2.36 

2-Bulanone (MEK) 5200 n 2.20 Qf 0.89 

Chloromcth:mc 94 n 1.14 1.23 

Ci\RBON TETR.i\CI!LORIDE 0.41 c 0.48 J 0.48 

I, 1,2-TRlCHLOROTRlFUJOROETHANE J 1000 n 0.60 J 0.57 

Propene 310() n 1.09 Q 0.83 

Reg10nal Screenmg Levels (RSLs) are from the November 2011 table 

RSL cancer values (c) are lE-06 and non-cancer values (n) are HI=1 

S-03 S-04 S-05 

ug/m3 UJl/mJ ug/m3 

0.40 0.39 0.49 

J 0.21 J 0.23 J 0.29 

0.57 0.45 0.61 

IOJ 10.17 0 7.04 tJE 7. \] 

Ll9 1.20 LSI 

2.34 2.34 2.77 

13 1.46 B {)_78 n 0.77 

Q 1.25 Q 1.25 Q 1.24 

J 0.47 J 0.48 J 0.58 

J 0.58 J 0.61 J 2.04 

1.0 I Q 0.84 1.00 

J- indicates an estimated value, below the quantification limit, but above the method detection limit 

S-06 

ug/m3 

J 0.44 

J 0.24 

!) 0.78 

11 11.76 

L32 

2.38 

JB 1.10 

1.11 

J 0.50 

u 0.61 

1.02 

3.0'( 

1.?.4 

J 0.63 

J 0.'12 

O.CIG 

S-07 

ug/m3 

0.41 

J 0.22 

0.50 

Q 8.14 

1.26 

2.45 

B 0.88 

1.12 

J 052 

J 0.59 

0 0.85 

Q- This flag identifies the average of multiple results from multiple analysis, or the average ofthe averages of duel column 

analysis methods. 

B-This flag is used when the analyte is found in the associated blank as well as in the sample. 

U- Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected. The sample quantitation limit is reported. 

J 

j 

J 

Q 

ll 

J 

J 

1tOOB 

ug/mO 

0.35 

0.26 

1.!52 

2.97 

1.3:> 

0.60 

0.70 

S-Oli 

uglm3 

lH2 

023 

0.64 

13.00 

1.29 

2.36 

2.03 

1.10 

0.52 

0.61 

0.99 

Very few VOCs were detected in the ambient air. Most of the VOCs that were detected 

were below the RSLs; however, some of the samples had ambient air concentrations of acrolein, 

benzene and carbon tetrachloride over their respective RSLs. All of the carbon tetrachloride 

sample results were flagged with a 'J' because the contaminant was detected at a value below the 

laboratory reporting limit and is considered to be estimated. 

P ADEP has sited four air toxic samplers in Montgomery County near the Moyer's 

LandfilL The samplers are located in Spring City, Trappe, Collegeville, and Evansburg. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 10 

J 

1-

J 

J 

J 

Q 

13 

J 

J 
PADEP's Collegeville Area Air Monitoring Project- Third Report, November 17, 2009, lists 

annual average concentrations for VOCs sampled in 2007 and 2008. The report can be found at: 

http :/lwww. dep. state.pa. us/ dep/ de put ate/ airwaste/ aq/toxics/projects/collegevill e/ 

collegeville _jinal_lll709.pdf. Table .5 contains data for benzene and carbon tetrachloride for the 

four air toxic monitoring sites as well as the maximum concentrations measured at the Moyer 

Landfill. 

voc 

benzene 

carbon 

Table 5 

Moyer's Landfill and P ADEP Collegeville Area Air Monitoring Project 

Sampling Results for Benzene and Carbon Tetrachloride 

RSL Moyer's Moyer's Collegeville Evans burg Spring 

(ug/m3

) Landfill Landfill (ug/m3) (ug/m3) City 

2010 2012 (ug/m3

) 

(ug/m3

) (ug/m3

) 

0.31 0.35 0.491 0.54 0.51 0.57 

tetrachloride 

0.41 0.63 J 0.58 J 0.50 0.57 0.50 

Trappe 

(ug/m3

) 

0.61 

0.69 

Concentrations of benzene and carbon tetrachloride observed in ambient air at the Site 

were very similar to those measured at P ADEP air monitoring stations in nearby towns 

(Collegeville, Evansburg, Spring City and Trappe). This implies that conditions around the 

landfill do not differ significantly from the background air quality in this area. 

In 2012, acrolein was detected in 7 of 8 ambient air samples at concentrations up to 0~92 

ug/m3 and the concentrations in the landfill gas were similar, implying that the acrolein in the 

landfill gas is not a significant contributor to the ambient air. Acrolein has not been measured in 

the past by P ADEP; however, it is a ubiquitous chemical in the ambient air found in all areas of 

the country. 

Although exceedances of RSLs were noted for acrolein, benzene, and carbon 

tetrachloride, no chemicals were detected in any ambient air samples at concentrations that would 

pose an unacceptable risk under a residential exposure scenario. 

Gas samples were collected directly from five of the passive gas vents. Several chemicals 

measured directly at the on-site gas vents exceeded RSLs, sometimes by two orders of magnitude 

or more. However, these concentrations are not indicative of exposure under current land use 

conditions. Dilution of the vent gases appears to be occurring rapidly, as demonstrated by 

ambient air samples collected at the landfill. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 11 
In summary, the results ofPADEP's sampling ofthe landfill gas vents and perimeter 

ambient air monitoring at the Moyer's Landfill show that the landfill gas emissions are not 

adversely impacting the ambient air quality. 

IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIRED 

The USACE was responsible for maintenance of the landfill for the first eighteen months. 

A Site Maintemt11ce Plan, dated January 1991, documented the expected activities to maintain 

and monitor the integrity of the Site, including: monitoring the leachate, the groundwater in both 

the shallow and deep zones, and the gas vents on a quarterly basis; and visual inspections of the 

cap area and associated drainage/collection systems, with corrective actions for identified 

problems. However, the plan states that "the number of monitoring locations, analytical 

parameters, and sampling frequencies may be modified during the maintenance period by 

P.~i\:..DER ... " Pi~:~.DEP took responsibility for the landfill cap majntenance in ~.1ay 1996. 

The responsibility for O&M of the leachate storage and transfer system has always been 

with PADEP. EPA provided training on the system for PADEP and PADEP has been operating 

the system since start-up. The leachate currently is permitted by the Oaks POTW to meet their 

pretreatment program standards. 

PADEP currently reports O&M status and issues to EPA. PADEP O&M consists of the 

following activities: 

1) Site Inspections: Routine site inspections include observations ofthe fence 

line, road, soil cap and functioning of the leachate collection system at 

least once per month. The leachate collection system is inspected 

specifically for integrity of the leachate holding tanks, the leachate level in 

the manholes, the flow meter reading, and the state of the discharge pipe. 

Inspections are performed at least once per month, and typically twice a 

month (once by DEP, once by DEP's contractor). 

2) Leachate Monitoring: Monitoring leachate involves taking a monthly 

reading of the leachate volume discharged to the POTW, and reporting 

information on total gallons per month and average daily flow rate to the 

POTW on a monthly basis, by the 151

h of the month. 

3) Grass cutting: The grass at the Site is cut no less than twice a year in order 

to discourage the growth of small trees and shrubs, mid also to aid in the 

identification of soil erosion. The landfill cap and surface water 

management features are inspected prior to each mowing. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 12 
4) Cap Repairs:_Ideally, this task is performed during the growing season as 

needed to ensure integrity of the RCRA cap, as it is vitally important to 

reestablish vegetation on any soil repairs to limit additional erosion. 

5) Perimeter Road Repairs: Areas to be repaired are noted during site 

inspections and repaired accordingly. This task includes the "bridge 

crossings" over surface drainage features. 

6) Fence Repairs: Holes in the fence or damage from fallen trees are noted 

during site inspections and repaired as needed. Holes in the fence or 

damage from trespassers shall be enforced per local ordinance. Local law 

enforcement will identify trespassers in order to prosecute or seek 

compensation to perform the repair. 

7) Tree removal: This task is limited to trees that have damaged the 

perimeter fence or have the potential to damage the cap. Trees to be 

removed are identified during the site inspections. 

8) Sampling: Groundwater and air monitoring/gas vent samples will be 

collected by Department personnel and analyzed by the PADEP's Bureau 

of Laboratories at least every other year. 

a) Groundwater monitoring- Five monitoring wells, and the leachate 

sump in the South Valley are analyzed for V OCs, TAL metals, and 

cyanide. The leachate may also be analyzed for other parameters 

requested by the POTW. 

b) Air monitoring -Eight Summa canisters are depfoyed around the 

landfill (upwind and downwind) in order to identify concentrations of 

VOCs. In addition, the Department also deploys up to six smaller, 

silica-lined Summa canisters to sample directly from active gas vents 

on the Site. 

V. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE AND 

QUALITY CONTROL 

Activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, two ESDs and design documents 

reviewed and approved by EPA, and P ADEP. EPA and P ADEP quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) procedures were followed during construction, testing, and monitoring activities. 

Construction activities for the landfill cap and the equalization tanks were overseen by USACE 

and verified to conform with the RD documents approved by EPA. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 13 
The QA/QC program used throughout the RA was sufficiently rigorous and in 

conformance with EPA and P ADEP standards. EPA and P ADEP determined that all analytical 

results are accurate to the degree necessary to assure satisfactory execution of the RA and 

consistency with the ROD and RD documents. 

VI. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 

EPA conducts five-year reviews of the remedy as a matter of policy due to the fact that 

the ROD which predates SARA and the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants remain. The next Five-Year Review will be completed no later than August 10, 

2017, five years from the signature of the last Five-Year Review report. 

VII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA 

Construction completion at the Site was documented by the signature of a Preliminary 

Close-Out Report in September 2002. All preliminary construction completion requirements for 

the Site have been met as specified in Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites, 

OSWER 9320.2-22, May 2011. Table 6lists the activities necessary to achieve site completion 

and the associated schedule. 

Table 6 Schedule for Site Completion 

Task Estimated Responsible 

Completion Organization 

Deletion from NPL 6/30/2014 EPA 

Third Five-Year Review Report 8/10/2017 EPA 

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site, 

Collegeville, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, September 1985. 

IMS Engineers Architects, Remedial Investigation- Feasibility Study, Moyer's Landfill Site. 

Collegeville, Pennsylvania, January 1986. 

Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Site Maintenance Plan, Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, January 1991. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 14 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Remedial Action Report, Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, December 1996. 

U.S. Environmental Piotection Agency, Preliminary Close Out Report, Moyer's Landfill 

Superfund Site, Lower Providence Township, Pennsylvania, September 2002. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Remedial Action Report, Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, April 2004. 

Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site 

Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 15 
!.

Schuylkill River

Stony Creek

Perkiomen Creek

Skippack Creek

Sawmill Run

Crow Creek

Trout Creek

Mine Run

Plymouth Creek

Valley Creek

Indian Creek

Mingo Creek

Pickering Creek

Crossmans Run

French Creek

I 276

I 476

Egypt

I 76

Main

US Hwy 422

Germantown

Skippack

3rd

Township Line

1st

Trappe

Trooper

Dekalb

Whitehall

Park

Swede

4th

Marshall

Gulph

Nutt

Lewis

Butler

2nd

Burnside

Markley

Gay

State Hwy 23

Allendale

Morris

Elm

New Hope

Conshohocken

State

Fornance

US Hwy 202

Starr

Front

Walton

Bechtel

Collegeville

Black Rock

Rittenhouse

Pothouse

Swedeland

Schuylkill River

Whitehorse

Baptist

Old Arch

Johnson

Fairfield

River

Valley Forge

Fayette

Valley Forge

I 476

I 276

Main

Gulph

Main

I 476

Valley Forge

I 76

US Hwy 422

I 476

I 76

Valley Forge

Map created September 2007

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Miles

 ̄

Legend

Railroads

StreetsGDT

MajorHighwaysGDT

NationalHydrographyDataset

NationalHydrographyDatasetWaterBodies

Parks

States

Moyers Landfill Superfund Site Location Map

!.

Overview Map

Moyers

Landfill

Evansburg State Park

Valley Forge National

Historic Park

P h o e n i x v i l l e P h o e n i x v i l l e

N o r r i s t o w n N o r r i s t o w n

Figure 1
Skippack Creek

Visitation Rd.

Moyer Rd.

Barrington Rd.

Grange Ave.

Map created September 2007

0 105 210 420 630 840Feet

 ̄

Legend

StreetsGDT

NationalHydrographyDataset

NationalHydrographyDatasetWaterBodies

Parks

Moyers Landfill Superfund Site, Site Layout

Evansburg State Park

Figure 2
Figure 3 Moyers Landfill 

Groundwater Well and Gas Vent Locations 

Wells R-1 & R-2 a t 

Prnt(":::t\C<> />.[.}<jf;c;·~

~-~i!<::: >r~> :;r:up r -;;:)nr; i,HSCO; 

~).N ; 

• GfO;{OiMCJt.l &OR<NC 

Q MANHQL( 

SUUP ... ANiiOU: 

(iAS "t:NT 

S{~~(NT PL;t.T'(. 

TtSlPI! 

LS Leachate Sampling Location 

MW Monitoring Well Location 

R Residential Well Location 

c~ ··· :!] leachate 

GJ Manhole 

M onitoring W.::H 

':fi~ .:::11' Surface Vja;er 

r BASE MAP INFORMATION REPRODUCED FROM 

PAUL C. RIZZO ASSOCIATES, INC. DESIGN 

DRAWINGS TITLED CONSTRUCTION RECORD 

DRAWINGS, HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP, 

MOYER LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE, MONTGOMERY 

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, DATED 12-8-96 

Figure adapted by US EPA from one 

provided by Rust Environment & 

Infrastructure Inc. 
Moyer Landfill - Summa Canister and Well Locations 

February 21, 2012 and February 28, 2012

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Environmental Clean-Up & Brownfields