### 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 ofremoval 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 ListSites 

### (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. PADEP 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 ofPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania (Figure 1, Site Location Map). According to the 2010 Census, Lower Providence Township has a population of25,436. The Site area consists ofopen land surrounded by wooded areas on steep slopes. Located on the Site are leachate collection tanks and a wooden storage shed inthe south valley. Runoff from the landfill slopes flowed westerly into Skippack Creek, until the remedy was built. Now runoffis directed towards stormwater basins around the perimeter ofthe landfill and routed off the landfill cap. The Skippack Creek is located about 350 feet north-west ofthe landfill. The Skippack Creek then discharges into the Perkiomen Creek which eventually discharges into the Schuylkill River (Figure 2, Site Layout Map). LandandResource Use 

### The landfill is bounded on the north and west by Evansburg State Park, onthe east by a single original home and a new housing development (Valley High Estates) and onthe 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 1immediately surrounding the landfill is residential. The nearby Skippack Creek flows through Evansburg State Park and is stocked with trout. Also, there is a parkjust downstream ofthe Site at the confluence ofthe 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 ofthe wells in the area is 151 feet. Wells drilled into the deeper system are often artesian due to the dense, relatively impermeable layer ofbedrock overlying the deep system. Most ofthe residents in the vicinity ofthe landfill are on public water. There are approximately ten residential wells along Moyer Road and Visitation Road, which are east ofthe 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 ofsolid 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

# arequest to expand the landfill boundaries to the northwest. Site preparation work began on a new area in 1977, and included installation ofan 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 ofEnvironmental Resources (PADER), now PADEP, closed the facility. Originally, there was no management ofleachate from the landfill and the discharge either seeped into groundwater or discharged directly to the Skippack Creek. In the early 1970's PADER 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 onthe 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 TakingAction 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 ofconcern. The landfill surface showed a number ofleachate and seep locations which served as a continuous source ofpqllution by seeping lightly or leaching heavily Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 2contaminated water from the landfill to ground and surface waters. There was no evidence of any detectable level ofair 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 thelandfill were sampled for priority pollutants, metals, organics, PCBs, dioxins, and beta radiation. These wells did not show any detectable levels oforganic or inorganic pollution. The residential groundwater met all EPA Drinking Water Standards atthe time. Shallow monitoring wells installed around the periphery ofthe landfill showed concentrations ofcontaminants 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 ofthe landfill. Site contaminants were transported directly to the surface waterbodies via surface water runoff and indirectlythrough contaminated groundwater (upper aquifer) discharged to the creeks. The deeper aquifer was not contaminated. The Record ofDecision (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 ofdirect contact with the waste. Leachate control is an integral part ofthe overall scheme in order to eliminate the continuing migration ofcontaminants across the Site and offthe 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 withthe waste and contaminated leachate and prevent off-site migration ofcontamination via surface runoffand 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 withpermeability 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 ofgas generation phase (10 to 20 years) The implementation ofthis remedy depended on the success ofthe 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 ofthe contingency remedy include:

• Miscellaneous work preparatory to installation ofRCRA cap: grading, flattening ofsteep slopes, retaining walls and installation ofrip-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 inthe groundwater and discharge requirements in the stream; and • Operation and Maintenance: ground and surface water monitoring, maintenance ofthe cap and treatment ofleachate on-site. In January 2000, EPA issued an Explanation ofSignificant Differences (ESD) which modified the leachate treatment portion ofthe remedy. The ESD changed the leachate treatment portion ofthe 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 ofan 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 ofthe remedy. ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that are necessary for the protection ofthe integrity ofthe remedial measures on-site to ensure long-term protection ofhuman 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 RemedialAction EPA executed an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) for the design ofthe Remedial Action, which was completed on April20, 1989. EPA executed another Interagency Agreement with the USACE for the construction ofthe Remedial Action. After beginning construction, local residents expressed concerns regarding truck traffic. In response, EPA then directed USACE to redesign a partial cap (instead ofa 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 ofthe remedial action as

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

treatment portion ofthe 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 ofthe 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 oftasks 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 ofthe 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 PADEP inAugust 1996. Inspection ofthe 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 5EPA and PADEP conducted a final inspection ofthe 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 ofconstruction 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 ofleachate 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 ofthe remedy. ICs are legal controls, such as deed restrictions orrestrictive covenants, to protect the integrity ofthe 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 shallbe unlawfuLfor any Owner, lessor, lessee oroccupier ofthe 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. Theprohibited activities include, but arenotlimitedto 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 orthe security fencing. B. Any use ofleachate generated at the Properly including, without limitation, any activities that could cause exposure to contaminants in the leachate via ingestion, vaporinhalation ordermal contact. C. Digging in or disturbance of tl1e landfill cap including, without limitation, any activities that couldresult in contact with contaminants in the soils atthe Property through ingestion, inhalation ordermal 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 ofthe monitoring events performed at the Site in support ofthe Fi've-Year Review signed 2012. GroundwaterMonitoring 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 oftheplume, and wells MW-R1 and MW-R2 are upgradient. Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Final Close-Out Report, November 2013 

### 7Samples taken at LS-1 are samples ofthe 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 ofGroundwater Sampling ResultsVolatile Organics ·(f.lg/1)

M:W-Rl Analvte name (2010) t-Butyl Alcohol 

## -- Chlorobenzene


### - cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 

## - 1, 1-Dichloroethane 

### - Ethylbenzene 0.66 m/p-Xylene 1.9 o-Xylenes 0.6 Tetrahydrofuran 

## -- Toluene 3.6 Trichloroethene 0.61 Vinyl Chloride 

## - Acetone 

### - *= MCL does not ex1st for these const1tuents --=Not detected +=Total Xylenes MCL is 10,000 J.Lg/1 = micrograms per Iiter


### 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 runofffrom the then-active pig farm. All but two home wells were non-detect for VOCs; ofthese, one was belowthe 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 8time, this particular home onVisitation Road was occupied by an older couple who operated a welding/metal working business out oftheir home. Atthe time, they reported that they did not drinkthe water without treating it first. Extending a public water line was not an option at the time. Ofeight 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 ofgroundwater flow and are not expected to be impacted by the landfill. No residential well sampling was conducted as part ofthe 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, PADEP sampled the Skippack Creek as part ofO&M. Stream water was collected at two locations, upstream (SW4) and downstream (SW5) ofthe observed leachate outfall and was analyzed for VOCs, semi-volatile organics, inorganics, pesticides, total PCBs, coliform and other chemical parameters. Since PADEP 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. PADEP discontinued sampling in 2006. No sediment samples from the creek were taken. 

### Landfill Gas Monitoring InDecember 2010 and February 2012, PADEP performed sampling ofambient air, gas vents and groundwater monitoring wells. The ambient air sampling was performed at seven locations around the perimeter ofthe landfill (Summa 1 -Summa 3, Summa 5- Summa 8) and one location at the apex ofthe 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 ofPart Per Billion by Volume (ppbv). To enable comparison to the June 2011 Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), EPA converted detected data to units ofmicrograms 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 1to 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 themto 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 

### 9Table 3 Summary ofLandfill 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 cht oronle

. 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· 11 11!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 1E-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 ofLandfill 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!'LUOROMETIlANE 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 ofmultiple results from multiple analysis, or the average ofthe averages ofduel 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 ofthe VOCs that were detected were below the RSLs; however, some ofthe samples had ambient air concentrations ofacrolein, benzene and carbon tetrachloride over their respective RSLs. All ofthe 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. PADEP 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 PADEP Collegeville Area Air Monitoring Project SamplingResults for Benzene and Carbon Tetrachloride RSL Moyer's Moyer's Collegeville Evansburg 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 ofbenzene and carbon tetrachloride observed in ambient air at the Site were very similar to those measured at PADEP air monitoring stations innearby 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 of8 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 PADEP; however, it is a ubiquitous chemical inthe ambient air found in all areas of the country. Although exceedances ofRSLs 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 ofthe passive gas vents. Several chemicals measured directly at the on-site gas vents exceeded RSLs, sometimes by two orders ofmagnitude or more. However, these concentrations are not indicative ofexposure under current land use conditions. Dilution ofthe 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 11In summary, the results ofPADEP's sampling ofthe landfill gas vents and perimeter ambient air monitoring at the Moyer's Landfill showthat 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 ofthe landfill for the first eighteen months. A Site Maintemt11ce Plan, dated January 1991, documented the expected activities to maintain and monitor the integrity ofthe 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 ofthe cap area and associated drainage/collection systems, with corrective actions for identified problems. However, the plan states that "the number ofmonitoring 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 ofthe 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 bythe Oaks POTW to meet their pretreatmentprogram standards. PADEP currently reports O&M status and issues to EPA. PADEP O&M consists ofthe following activities: 1) Site Inspections: Routine site inspections include observations ofthe fence line, road, soil cap and functioning ofthe leachate collection system at least once per month. The leachate collection system is inspected specifically for integrity ofthe leachate holding tanks, the leachate level in the manholes, the flow meter reading, and the state ofthe discharge pipe. Inspections are performed at least once permonth, and typically twice a month (once by DEP, once by DEP's contractor). 2) Leachate Monitoring: Monitoring leachate involves taking a monthly reading ofthe leachate volume discharged to the POTW, and reporting information ontotal gallons per month and average daily flow rate to the POTW on a monthly basis, bythe 15 1 h ofthe month. 3) Grass cutting: The grass at the Site is cut no less than twice a year in order to discourage the growth ofsmall trees and shrubs, mid also to aid in the identification ofsoil 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 124) Cap Repairs:_Ideally, this task is performed during the growing season as needed to ensure integrity ofthe 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 orhave 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 ofLaboratories at least every other year. a) Groundwater monitoring- Five monitoring wells, and the leachate sump in the South Valley are analyzed for VOCs, 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 orderto 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 PADEP. EPA and PADEP 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 13The QA/QC program used throughout the RA was sufficiently rigorous and in conformance with EPA and PADEP standards. EPA and PADEP determined that all analytical results are accurate to the degree necessary to assure satisfactory execution ofthe RA and consistency with the ROD and RD documents.


### VI. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW EPA conducts five-year reviews ofthe remedy as a matter ofpolicy 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 ofthe last Five-Year Review report.
VII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA Construction completion at the Site was documented by the signature ofa Preliminary Close-Out Report in September 2002. All preliminary construction completion requirements for the Site have been met as specified in Close Out Proceduresfor National Priorities ListSites, 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 ofDecision, 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 14U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 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 ofEngineers, 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 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.25 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 1Skippack Creek Visitation Rd. Moyer Rd. Barrington Rd. Grange Ave.

Map created September 2007 0 210 420 630 840 105 Feet 

#  ̄

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 at

Prnt( ":::t\C<>**/>.[. }<jf** **;c; ·~** **~-~i!<::: >r~>** **:;r:up** r**-; ;:** **)nr;** i,HSCO;**~).N ;**  • Gf O;{OiMC Jt.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~ ···** **:!]** leachat e GJ Manhole M onitoring W.::H**':fi ~**  . :::11' Surface V ja;er

r BASE MAP INFORMATION REPRODUCED FROM

PAUL C. RIZZO ASSOCIATES, INC. DESIGN DRAWINGS TITLED CONSTRUCTION RECORD DRAWINGS, HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP , MOYER LANDFI LL SUPERFUND SITE , MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLV AN IA, DATED 12-8-96

Figure adapted by US EPAfrom 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