## SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

PREPARED BY: United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 

### III Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Date:

_ _ '".LffAl/_

### Table ofContents List ofAcronyms iii Executive Summary iv Five YearReview Summary Form iv I. Introduction 1 II. Site Chronology 3 III. Background 3 IV. Remedial Actions 6 V. Progress Since Last Five-YearReview 12 VI. Five-YearReview Process 13 VII. Technical Assessment 21 VIII. Issues 22 IX. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 22 X. Protectiveness Statement 23 XI. NextReview 23 References for Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Five-YearReview : 24
Tables Table 1: Chronology ofSite Events Table 2: Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Construction Dates Table 3: Operation and Maintenance Costs Table 4: Summary ofGroundwater Sampling Results- Volatile Organics Table 5: Summary ofLandfill Gas Monitoring, 2010 Table 6: Summary ofLandfill Gas Monitoring, 2012 Table 7: Ambient Air Sampling Results Table 8: Issues Identified Table 9: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Figures Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site LayoutMap Figure 3: Groundwater Well and Gas VentLocations Figure 4: Summa Canister and Well Locations Attachments Attachment 1: Advertisement inthe Times Herald

11

### CERCLA EPA ESD 

### ICs MCLs 

### NCP NPL OU O&M PADEP 

### PCOR POTW 

### RIIFS 

### ROD RPM SARA 

### USACE List ofAcronyms
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act United States Environmental Protection Agency Explanation ofSignificant Differences Institutional Controls Maximum ContaminantLevels National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List Operable Unit Operations and Maintenance PennsylvaniaDepartment ofEnvironmental Protection Preliminary Close Out Report Publicly Owned Treatment Works Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Record ofDecision Remedial ProjectManager SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act of1986 U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers

111

### Executive Summary

The remedy for the Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site in Collegeville, Lower Providence Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania included gradil1g and leveling the site, constructing retaining walls athighly erodible areas, capping the site with a RCRA cap, installing a gas vent systemthatprevents landfill gas accumulation, collecting surface runoffand discharging it directly into the creek, installing a leachate collection and removal system, collecting leachate and discharging it to the publicly ownedtreatment works, and continuing to monitor groundwater and surface waters. The Site achieved construction completion with the signing ofthe Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) on September 17,2002. The trigger for the second five-year review is the date ofthe first five-year review which was completed on September 26,2007. This second Five-Year Review for Moyer's Landfill finds thatthe remedy has been constructed in accordance with the requirements ofthe ROD and is functioning as designed. The immediate threats have been address.ed though capping the landfill and collecting and properly disposing ofthe leachate. Since the Rerriedial Actions at both Operable Units are protective, the Site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. Long-termprotectiveness ofthe remedy will be maintained by continuing to perform operation and maintenance ofthe landfill cap and leachate collection system; monitoring the groundwater and ambient air; and enforcing the institutional controls.

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measure Review As part ofthis Five-Year Review, the GPRA Measures have beenreviewed. The GPRA measures and their status are provided as follows: Environmental Indicators: Human Health: Human Exposure Under Control (HEUC). GroundwaterMigration: Does not apply. Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU): The Site achieved the SWRAU measure on December20,2011.

ivFive-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION Site Name: Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site EPA 10: PAD980508766 Region: 3

NPL Status: Final Multiple OUs? Yes State: PA City/County: Lower Providence Township, Montgomery County SITE STATUS

Has-the site achieved construction completion? Yes
REVIEW STATUS Lead agency: EPA Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Sharon Fang Author affiliation: USEPA Review period: October 2011
- August 2012 Date of site inspection: January 19, 2012 Type of review: Policy Review number: 2 Triggering action date: 9/26/2007 Due date (five years aftertriggering action date): 9/26/2012

vFive-Year Review Summary Form (continued)
Issues/Recommendations
OUts) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review: 02
- Leachate CollectiQn System

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review: OUts): 01- Landfill Issue CategQry: Site Access/Security Cap Issue: Frequent trespassing and damage to the fence Recommendation: Enforcement ofTownship Ordinance should detertrespassing arid fence cutting Affect Current Affect Future Implementing Oversight Party Milestone Date Protectiveness Protectiveness Party No No Township EPAIPADEP Ongoing

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review: OUts): 01 Issue Category: Operations and Maintenance Issue: Erosion along the drainage bench-downslope drain transitions occurs more often than preferable Recommendation: Replace soil and plant grass at optimal time to establish the transition area along the grout bag channels Affect Current Affect Future Implementing Oversight Party Milestone Date Protectiveness Protectiveness Party No No PADEP EPA October2012

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement Protectiveness Determination: Protective Protectiveness Statement: Addendum Due Date (ifapplicable): n/a

This second Five-YearReview for Moyer's Landfill fmds that the remedy has been constructed in accordance with the requirements ofthe ROD and is functioning as designed. The immediate threats have been addressed though capping the landfill and collecting and properly disposing ofthe leachate. Since the Remedial Actions at both Operable Units are protective, the Site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. Long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy will be maintained by continuing to perform operation and maintenance ofthe landfill cap and leachate collection system; monitoring the groundwater and ambient air; and enforcing the institutional controls.

VI

### Second Five-YearReview Report for Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Lower Providence Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
I. Introduction
The purpose ofthe Five-Year Review is to detennine whetherthe remedy at a Site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-YearReview reports identify issues found during the review, ifany, and recommendations to address them. EPA guidance on conducting the five-yearreview is provided by OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-YearReview Guidance (EPA, 2001). EPA personnel followed the guidance provided inthis OSWER directive in conducting the five-year review perfonned for the Site. Five-yearreviews are conducted eitherto meet the statutory mandate underthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 121, or as a matter ofEPA policy. The statutory requirementto conduct a five-year review was added to CERCLA as part ofthe Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). CERCLA §121states: 

## If the Presidentselects a remedial action thatresults in any hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining atthe site, the Presidentshall review such remedialaction no less often than eachjiveyears after the initiation of such remedialaction to assure thathuman health andthe environmentare beingprotectedby the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is thejudgmentof the President thataction is appropriate atsuch site in accordance with section [104j or[106j, the Presidentshall take or require such action. The Presidentshallreportto the Congress a listof facilitiesfor which such review is required, the results of allsuch reviews, andany actions taken as a resultof such reviews. The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 CFR §300.430(f)(4)(ii) states: 

## If a remedial action is selectedthatresults in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining atthe site above levels thatallowfor unlimiteduse and unrestrictedexposure, the leadagencyshallreview such action no less often than everyjiveyears after the initiation of the selectedremedial action.

1The statutory requirementto conduct a five-year review applies to CERCLA §121 remedial actions selected afterthe effective date ofSARA, Octol;Jer 17, 1986. The Moyer's Landfill Record ofDecision (ROD) was signed on September 30, 1985, which predates the SARA. For sites where a statutory review is not specifically required, reviews may be conducted as a matter ofpolicy for any ofthe following type actions: I. Apre-SARA remedial action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure. II. Apre- orpost-SARA remedial actionthat, upon completion, will not leave hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, but will take longer that five years to complete, i.e., achieve the cleanup levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. III. A removal action for a site on the NPL that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, and where no remedial action has orwill take place. The pre-SARA remedial action described above (item I) corresponds to the remedy specified for the Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site; therefore, EPA Region III has conductedthis five-year review ofthe remedy as a matter ofpolicy due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain atthe Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA Region III conducted the five-year review ofthe remedy implemented atthe Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site in Collegeville, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. This review was conducted for the entire Site by the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) from October 2011 through August 2012. This report documents the results ofthe review. This is the second five-year review ofthe Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site. The triggering action for this policy review is the previous five-year review dated September26, 2007. The five-year review is required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain atthe Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

2

### II. Site Chronology

Table 1 Chronology ofSite Events

Event Date Disposal in landfills Early 1940s to April 1981 State ordered closure oflandfill Early 1981 NPL listing December 30, 1982 (proposed) September 8, 1983 (final) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study September 30, 1985 completed Record ofDecision September 30, 1985 Remedial design complete April 20, 1989 Site Maintenance Plan January 1991 Construction complete for landfill cap, OU-l November 24, 1994 PADEP takes over O&M responsibility, EPA completes one year maintenance period including a May 24,1996 six month extension Explanation ofSignificant Differences (ESD)- January 2000 design work begins for leachate storage tanks Construction start for leachate treatment, OU-2 May 2000 Construction complete for OU-2 August 2002 Preliminary Close-out Report September 17, 2002 Remedial Action Construction Report April 4, 2004 First Five-year Review Report September 26, 2007 Second ESD- Institutional Controls (lCs) September 18, 2009 Five-year Review Addendum July 12,2011 Township ordinance implemented ICs October20, 2011



### III. Background Physical Characteristics The Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site is a 65-acre inactive privately owned landfill located at Moyer Road in Collegeville, LowerProvidence Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The site is about twenty-seven (27) miles northwest ofPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania


### 3(Figure 1, Site Location Map). According to the 2010 Census, Lower Providence Township has apopulation 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 in the south valley. Runoff from the landfill slopes flowed westerly into Skippack Creek, until the remedy was built. Now runoffis directed towards stormwaterbasins 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 Creekthen 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 eastby 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 immediately surrounding the landfill is residential. The nearby Skippack Creekflows through Evansburg State Park and has, in the past, been stocked with trout. Ground water 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 onpublic water. There are approximately ten residential wells along Moyer Road and Visitation Road, which are east ofthe site. Groundwaterflows to the west and south west, towards the Skippack Creek. There are no residential wells between the landfill and the Skippack Creek. 

### History ofContamination The Moyer's Landfill property operated as a municipal landfill from the early 1940s until April 1981, during which time itreceived municipal waste, sewage 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 areawas 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 ofan asphalt linerprior to filling. Landfilling was reportedly limited to this new, lined area from the late 1970s to early 1981, at which time an orderfrom the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources (PADER), now PennsylvaniaDepartment ofEnvironmental Protection (PADEP), closed the facility. 4

### 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 implementedmore comprehensive landfill regulations. As aresult, a leachate collection system was constructed and began operating in 1972. However, leachate still overflowed continuously from several collectionpits located on the property. 

### Initial Response In 1981, PADEP closed the facility. The Moyer's Landfill became a Superfund Site when itwas listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8, 1983. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study were fund 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 ofconcern. The landfill surface showed a number ofleachate and seep locations which served as a continuous source ofpollution to ground and surface waters. Numerous seeps at the site were seeping lightly or leaching heavily contaminated water from the landfill.There was no evidence ofany detectable level ofairpollution. Surface water samples were taken from Skippack Creek and the Perkiomen Creek, and fish samples were taken from Skippack Creek. Contaminants were detected in low concentrations inboth surface water 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, andbetaradiation. These wells did not show any detectable levels oforganic orinorganic pollution. The residential groundwatermet all EPA Drinking Water Standards atthe time. Shallow monitoring wells installed around the periphery ofthe landfill showed concentrations ofcontaminants above risk based numbers. The groundwatercontamination was mostly due to surface waterpercolation throughthe landfill and into the groundwater. The groundwater level is lower than the bottom ofthe landfill. Site contaminants were transported directly to the surface water bodies via surface waterrunoff and indirectly through contaminated groundwater (upper aquifer) discharged to the creeks. The deeper aquifer was not contaminated. The ROD identified the following contaminants which were above acceptable levels: arsenic, barium, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, betaradiation, trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, xylene, di-n-octylphthalate, 2-hexanone, 2-butanone, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, acetic acid and methylester. 5

### IV. Remedial Actions Remedy Selection The ROD for the Moyer's Landfill Site is apre-SARA ROD and thus does not contain the same information or level ofdetail as a more current ROD. The ROD stated 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 contactwith the waste. Leachate control is an integral part ofthe overall scheme in orderto eliminate the continuing migration ofcontaminants across the site and offthe site to the Skippack Creek." Because EPA is responsible for protecting the human health and 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 runoffand groundwater movement. The 1985 ROD identified a'primary and a contingentremedy. The major components of the primary remedy were as follows: '

• 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;
• Groundwatermonitoring; 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 workpreparatory 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 watercollection and discharge to Skippack Creek;

• Security/fencing measures;
6• Leachate collection and on-site treatment that will meetthe 10-6 risk level inthe groundwater and discharge requirements in the stream; and

• Operation and Maintenance: ground and surface watermonitoring, maintenance ofthe cap and treatment ofleachate on-site. In January 2000, EPA issued an Explanation ofSignificantDifferences (ESD) which modifiedthe leachate treatment portion ofthe remedy. The ESD changedthe 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 protectedthe surface waters and the environment from the potential failure ofan undersized treatmentplant. In addition, routing the leachafe 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 Explanation ofSignificantDifferences (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 of the remedial measures on-site to ensure long-termprotection ofhuman health and the environment. ICs play an importantrole in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contaminationby limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. 

### Remedy Implementation Implementation ofthe Remedial Action EPA executed an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) for the design ofthe remedial action, which was completed on April 20, 1989. EPA executed another Interagency Agreement withthe USACE for the construction ofthe Remedial Action. After beginning construction, local residents expressed concerns regarding trucktraffic. In response, EPA then directedUSACE to redesign apartial cap (instead ofa full cap) with a perimeter leachate collection trench. A partial cap meantthat less fill was needed for construction, thus reducing the trucktraffic. 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 inNovember 1994. The Remedial Action Report for the landfill cap, Operable Unit 1 (OUl) was completed in December 1996. EPA identifiedthe leachate collection and treatmentportion ofthe remedial action as Operable Unit 2 (OU2). In January 2000, EPA issued an Explanation ofSignificantDifferences (ESD) which changedthe leachate treatmentportion ofthe Remedial Action from on-site leachate treatmentto leachate collection with treatment at an existing POTW. The modified Remedial Action was originally described in the ROD, but was infeasible because the sewer line was not available nearthe site when the ROD was issued. The construction ofthe OU2 remedial action was initiated in 2000 and completed inAugust 2002. OU2 responsibility was divided as 7follows: 1) Montgomery County constructed the municipal interceptor, 2) EPA viaUSACE constructedthe 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 Report for the leachate collection and treatment system (OU2) was completed in April 2004. Below is a table listing the key dates for construction activities at Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site. Table 2 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 OUI January 4, 1990 Partially terminate contract About October 1, 1990 El?A directed USACE to redesign cap October 8, 1990 Non-terminated 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, OUI December 19, 1996 EPA issues an Explanation ofSignificant January 2000 Difference (ESD) EPA begins constructing leachate storage May 2000 tanks OU2 Construction ofleachate storage tanks August 2000 complete Completion Report, OU-l September29,2000 Sewer line interceptorcomplete March 2002 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 17, 2002 Remedial Action Report, OU2 April 4, 2004 8Final Inspection Forthe original construction contract, apunch 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. Forthe redesigned portion ofthe landfill cap, apre-final inspection was conducted by EPA, PADER, the USACE, and the contractor, Conti Environmental Inc., onNovember 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 in August 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 additional inspection and training session was held in May 2002. EPA and PADEP conducted a final inspection ofthe entire site on August 30, 2002 and determined thatthe remedy had been constructed in accordance with the Remedial 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-outReport 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. Implementation ofInstitutional Controls The September2009 ESD required ICs as part ofthe remedy. ICs are legal controls, such as title restrictions, restrictive covenants, etc., to protectthe integrity ofthe remedial measures on-site in such a way as to prevent orreduce exposure to hazardous substances. In October 2011, the LowerProvidence Township approved an ordinance which serves as the IC for the Moyer's Landfill Site, which states:



### 9It shall be unlawful for 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. The prohibited activities include, but are not limitedto 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 ofleachate generated at the Property including, without limitation, any activities that could cause exposure to contaminants in the leachate via ingestion, vapor inhalation or derma! contact. C. Digging in or disturbance ofthe 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. 

### System Operation/Operation and Maintenance The USACE was responsible for maintenance ofthe landfill for the first eighteen months. A Site Maintenance Plan, dated January 1991, documented the expected activities to maintain and monitorthe integrity ofthe Site, i.e. monitor the leachate, the groundwater in both the shallow and deep zones, and the gas vents on a quarterly basis, visual inspections ofthe cap area and associated drainage/collection systems with corrective actions for identifiedproblems. However, the plan states that "the number ofmonitoring locations, analytical parameters, and sampling frequencies may be modified during the maintenance periodby PADER.

.." PADEP tookresponsibility for the landfill cap maintenance in May 1996. The responsibility for operations and maintenance (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 by the Oaks POTW to meet theirpretreatment program standards. PADEP currently reports O&M status and issues to EPA. PADEP O&M consists ofthe following activities and annual O&M costs are shown in Table 3: 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. Typically, inspections are performed twice a month (once by DEP, once by DEP's contractor).
102) Leachate Monitoring: Monitoring leachate involves taking a monthly reading ofthe leachate volume discharged to the POTW, and reporting infonnation ontotal gallons per month and average daily flow rate to the POTW on a monthly basis, by the 15th ofthe month. 3) Grass cutting: The grass at the site needs to be cut no less than twice a year in orderto discourage the growth ofsmall trees and shrubs, and also to aid in the identification ofsoil erosion. The landfill cap and surface water management features are inspected priorto each mowing. 4) Cap Repairs:Jdeally, this task is perfonned during the growing season as needed to ensure integrity ofthe HDPE 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 orderto prosecute orreceive compensation to perfonn the repair. 7) Tree removal: This task is limited to trees that have**dam~ged** the perimeterfence 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 sampling will be collectedby Departmentpersonnel and analyzed by the PADEP's Bureau ofLaboratories at least every otheryear. Infonnation on the environmental monitoring is included in the DataReview section ofthis five-year review. The two sampling events in this five-year review period occurred in December 2010 and February 2012. a) Groundwater monitoring

- Five monitoring wells, and the leachate sump in the SouthValley are analyzed for volatile organics, TAL metals, and cyanide. The leachate may also be analyzed for other parameters requested by the POTW. b) Air monitoring

- Eight Summa canisters are deployed around the hmdfill (upwind.and downwind) in orderto identify concentrations of volatile organic compounds. In addition, the Department also deploys 11up to six smaller, silica-lined Summacanisters to sample directly from active gas vents on the site.

Table 3 Operation and Maintenance Costs (in $)



### *-Only Jan -Apnl 20II data avatlable for Sewer, Electnc, and Telephone; 20II costs are Jan-Apr costs multlphed by three

. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* O&M 96,371 15,704 157,999 27,634 44,809 Sewer 22,342 18,194 29,531 21,899 21,533 Electricity 1,326 2,120 3,779 1,839 2,187 Telephone 354 392 437 418 421 Total Annual Cost 120,393 36,410 191,747 51,790 68,951

. .


### V. Progress Since Last Five-Year Review This is the second five-year review for the Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site. The first five-year review's protectiveness statement is as follows: This first Five-YearReview for Moyer's Landfill finds thatthe remedy has been constructed in accordance with the requirements ofthe ROD and is functioning as designed. The immediate threats have been addressed though capping the landfill and collecting and properly disposing ofthe leachate. However, a short-term protectiveness determination ofthe remedy cannot be made until further information is obtained. This information will be obtained by taking appropriate ambient air samples to ensure landfill gas migration is not an issue to the adjacentresidents. It is expected that these actions will take approximately 6 910nths to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be made. In order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, institutional controls will need to be implemented as part ofthe remedy and ambient air monitoring will need to be performed. Continued operation and maintenance ofthe landfill cap and leachate collection system; and monitoring the groundwater and ambient air will ensure the remedy's long-term protectiveness. The first five five-year review cited the following recommendations: I. An O&M Plan shouldbe developed to document the activities to be performed for the Site and frequency expected. An annual report should be submitted each year in orderto document what O&M activities were performed. 12

### 2. The remedy should be modified to include ICs. A plan should be developed to identify how the institutional controls for the Site will be implemented in accordance with the modified remedy. 3. To further stabilize the drainage bench-downslope drain transition, low-growing prairie grass should be planted to establishthe transition area along the grout bag channels. 4. Ambient air monitoring should be performed in orderto determine iflandfill gas migration is an issue for adjacent residents. Also, continued groundwater monitoring and data evaluation is essential to ensure vapormigration is not an issue. The recommendations have beenresolved as follows: 1. 

### In February 2012, EPA approved PADEP's O&M Plan which documents the activities and frequency oftasks performed for the Site. An annual report will be submitted each year in order to document what O&M activities were performed. 2. An 

### ESD was issued in September2009 to include ICs in the remedy. The township implemented the ICs via local ordinance in October2011. 3. To further stabilize the drainage bench-downslope drain transition, PADEP decided to continue using standard contractor vegetation mixes that were heavy onperennial rye and red fescues. Finding suppliers for prairie grass plugs proved more difficultthan expected, and the pricing provedprohibitively high. PADEP found thatproperly timing the construction andreseeding was more importantto establishing new vegetation than the type ofvegetation used. 4. Ambient airmonitoring was performed in December2010. A five-year review addendum was issued in July 2011 which stated that landfill gas migration is not an issue for adjacent residents.



### VI. Five-Year Review Process 

### Administrative Components The five-year review team included SharonFang, EPA Remedial ProjectManager (RPM), Bruce Rundell, EPA hydrogeologist, Dawn loven, EPA toxicologist, Betsy Lukens, EPA counsel, Tim Cherry, PADEP HSCA supervisor, Colin Wade, PADEP project manager, Dennis Kutz, PADEP projectmanager, Tim Gallagher, EPA RPM, and PatriciaFlores, EPA air specialist. The reviewbegan in October2011. 13

### Community Involvement
To infonn the community ofthe five-year review EPA placed an advertisement in the Times Herald on January 23, 2012 notifying area residents ofthe five-year review (Attachment 1). The advertisement explained what a five-year review consists of, why EPA was conducting a five-year review and provided both the RPM and Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) as contactpeople for questions orcomments. Neither the RPM nor the CIC received any questions or comments as a result ofthe advertisement. 

### DocumentReview
The five-year review consisted ofa review ofrelevant documents including the RIIFS; the ROD; two ESDs; the ConsentDecree; Site Maintenance Plan; the Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR); the Remedial Action Completion Reports; and dataprovided by PADEP. 

### DataReview Environmental data provides infonnation to assess and demonstrate that the remedy is achieving the perfonnance 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. GroundwaterMonitoring Groundwater monitoring is performed in orderto 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-R1 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. Groundwaterflows towards the Skippack suchthat wells MW-4 and MW-5 are onthe downgradient edge ofthe plume, and wells MW-R1 and MW-R2 are upgradient. Samples 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 volatile organic compounds, metals, cyanide, oil & grease and general chemistry. The groundwater and leachate were not analyzed for radiation because subsequentto the ROD, EPA determined that 14the levels ofradiation found during the remedial investigation are within acceptable range. Table 4 summarizes the volatile organic contaminants that were detected during groundwater sampling and listthe EPA drinking water standards, Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). For example, nothing is listed for MW-4 in 2010 because no contaminants were detected. 

### Table 4 Summary ofGroundwater Sampling ResultsVolatile Organics (ug/l)
Location (year) MW-R1 MW-5 MW-R1 MW-R2 MW-5 Analyte name (2010) (2010) (2012) (2012) (2012) MeL t-Butyl Alcohol 5.4 

### * Chlorobenzene 0.55 100 cis-I,2-Dichloroethene 4.7 2.9 70 I,I-Dichloroethane 0.51 

### * Ethylbenzene 0.66 700 m/p-Xylene 1.9 + o-Xylenes 0.6 + Tetrahydrofuran 3.7 4.1 

### * Toluene 3.6 1.6 1,000 Trichloroethene 0.61 2.7 4.8 5 Vinyl Chloride 1.9 1.9 2 Acetone 3 4.3 

### *

* = MCL does not exist for these constituents

-- = Not detected + = Total Xylenes MCL is 10,000


### Residential Groundwater Mostresidents inthe areareceive waterfrom the local public water supply. No residential wells exist between the landfill and the downgradient monitoring wells. In January 2001, PADEP sampled tenhome wells along MoyerRoad and Visitation Road for volatile organics and bacteria. Atthe time, there was aproblem with runofffrom the thenactive pig farm. All buttwo home wells were non-detectfor volatiles; ofthese, one was below the MCL, the otherwas higherthan results from the landfill monitoring wells. This particular home on Visitation Road is occupied by an older couple who operate a welding/metal working business out oftheirhome. Atthe time, they reportedthat they did not drink the water without treating itfirst. Extending apublic water line was not an option atthe time. Ofeighthomes tested for coliformbacteria, five showed detections that were above Montgomery County Health Departmentcriteria. These results were reported to the Health Department. One resident used a filter and UV lightto treathis water. These residents are side-gradient from the direction of groundwater flow and are not expected to be impacted bythe landfill. No residential well sampling was conducted as part ofthis five-year review. 15Stream Sampling Uponreview ofthe current leachate and groundwater sampling, there is no datathat indicates that contaminants are migrating from the Site at concentrations that may be negatively impacting Skippack Creek. Even after PADEP connectedthe leachate collection systemto the POTW in 1999, some leachate continued to discharge to the Skippack Creek from the NWValley outfall. From 2000 to 2006, PADEP sampled the Skippack Creek as part ofO&M. Streamwater was collected at two locations, upstream (SW4) and downstream (SW5) ofthe observed leachate outfall and was analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, inorganics, pesticides, total PCBs, coliform and other chemical parameters. Since DEP did not note any discernible difference betweenthe 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 creekwere taken. Landfill GasMonitoring In December 2010 and February 2012, PADEP performed sampling ofambient air, gas vents and groundwatermonitoring wells. All the samples were analyzed by PADEP's Bureau of Laboratories in Harrisburg, PA. In 2010 and 2012, 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 (Summa4). See Figure 4 for 2012 locations. All ambient air samples were taken with standard Summacanisters fitted with 8- hourregulators. In March 2011 and March 2012, PADEP forwarded the data from the sampling events to EPA in units ofppbv. To enable comparison to the June 2011 Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), EPA converted detected datato units ofug/m3

. The Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are risk-based concentrations derived from standardized equations combining exposure information assumptions with EPA toxicity data. EPA considers RSLs to be protective for humans over a lifetime. They are calculated for a Carcinogenic Target Risk oflE-06, and/or a Noncancer Hazard Index (HI) of 1. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the data from the two sampling events and compares them to the Regional Screening Levels.

16

### Table 5 Summary ofLandfill Gas Monitoring, 2010 (mg/m3)
Summll Summ;l Summ:l Summ3 Summa Summ;z Summ:a Summ;a RSL If001 1002 1003 '004 1005 M006 11007 .008 An:llvte ug/m3 uglirl3 ualm3 UCI!m3 uglm3 uatm3 ug/m3 ualm3 uaJm3 !>enzene 031 C 0.35 035 0.32 J 0.32 030 J 0.35 0.35 0.35 IOluene 5200 n 0..29 J 0.30 J 0.30 J 0.26 J 0.24 J 0.26 J 0.28 J 0.26 J Irlcl)lOronuoromelhilne 730 n I.S7 1.57 1.52 1.46 1.51 1.51 157 1.52 dlclllorQdllluoromellk\ne 100 n 2.97 2.97 2.43 1.56 2.62 3.02 3,07 297 chloromelhane 94 n 1.30 1.37 0.91 1.18 1.43 124 1.35 cillUon teu<lchlOrlCle 0.011 c 0.63 J 0.62 J 0.59 J 0.62 J 0.62 J 0.62 J 0.63 J 0.60 J 1.1.2·trlChloro-l.2.2-lrlOuoroelllaoe 31000 n 0.1>9 J 0.70 J 0.601 J 066 J 0.&9 J 0.71 J 0.72 J 070 J IDrooene 3100 n 091 050 0.16 a.OJ 0.86 Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are from the June 2011 table. RSL cancer values (c) are listed at 1 E-06 and non-cancervalues (n) are listed at a HI =1. Analyte concentrations flagged with a "J" are estimated values below the laboratory's reporting limit 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 theirrespective 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.



### Table 6 Summary ofLandfill Gas Monitoring, 2012 (mg/m3)

RSL S.01 8-02 S.03 S-64 S-65 S-06 S·07 5-08 Analyte uglm3 ug/m3 U2/m3 U21m3 u2lmJ ull!m3 UItIrn3 u,vm3 ug/m3 Benzene 0.31 c 0.43 0.4] 0.40 0.39 0.49 J 0.44 0.41 0.42 Toluene 5200 n 0.22 J 0.23 J 0.21 J 0.23 J 0.29 J 0.24 J 0.22 J 0.23 1 Acrolein 0.021 n 0.92 0.43 0.57 0.45 0.61 U 0.78 0.50 0.64 Acetone 32000 n 15.46 Q 6.76 or 10.17 Q 7.04 

### pE 7.13 B 11.76 Q 8.14 Q 13.00 Q TRlCHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 730 n 1.23 Lt9 1.19 1.20 1.51 1.32 1.26 1.29 DJCKLORODIFLUOROMITTHANl1- 100 n 2.34 2.36 2.34 2.34 2.77 2.38 2.45 2.36 2-Butanone (MEK) 5200 n 2.20 QE 0.89 B 1.46 I) 0.78 B 0.77 JB 1.10 R 0.88 B 2.03 13 Chloromethane 94 n 1.14 1.23 Q 1.25 Q 1.25 Q 1.24 l.ll 1.12 1.10 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.41 c 0.48 J 0.48 J 0.47 1 0.48 J 0.58 J 0.50 J 0.52 J 0.52 J 1,1.2·TRICHLOROTRlfLUOROETHANE 31000 n 0.60 J 0.57 J 0.58 J 0.61 J 2.04 U 0.61 J 0.59 J 0.61 J Propene 3JOO n 1.09 Q 0.83 1.01 Q 0.84 \.00 1.02 Q 0.85 0.99 RegIonal Screenmg Levels (RSLs) are from the November 2011 table RSL cancer values (c) are listed at IE-06 and non-cancer values (n) are listed at HI=I J- indicates an estimated value, below the quantification limit, but above the method detection limit 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.
PADEP has sited four air toxic samplers in Montgomery County nearthe Moyer's Landfill. The samplers are located in Spring City, Trappe, Collegeville, and Evansburg. PADEP's Collegeville AreaAirMonitoring Project

- Third Report, November 17,2009, lists 17annual average concentrations for VOCs sampled in 2007 and 2008. The report can be found at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/ deputatel airwaste/ aq/toxics/projectslcollegeville/ collegevilleJinal_111709.pdJ Table 7 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. Table 7 Moyer's Landfill and PADEP Collegeville Area AirMonitoring Project Sampling Results for Benzene and Carbon Tetrachloride RSL Moyer's Moyer's Collegeville Evansburg Spring Trappe (ug/m3) Landfill Landfill (ug/m3) (ug/m3) City (ug/m3) 2010 2012 (ug/m3) VOC (ug/m3) (ug/m3) benzene 0.31 0.35 0.49J 0.54 0.51 0.57 0.61 carbon 0.41 0.63 J 0.58 J 0.50 0.57 0.50 0.69 tetrachloride

Concentrations ofbenzene and carbon tetrachloride observed in ambient air atthe site were very similarto those measured at PADEP 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 of8 ambient air samples at concentrations up to 0.92 ug/m3 and the concentrations inthe landfill gas were similar, implying that the acrolein in the landfill gas is not a significant contributorto the ambient air. Acrolein has not been measured in the past by PADEP, however, it is aubiquitous chemical in the 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 aresidential exposure scenario. 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.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 of magnitude ormore. 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 atthe landfill. 18

### Site Inspection A key component ofthe five-year review at the Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site is the physical inspection ofthe landfill cap, the leachate holding tanks, and the leachate collection system, fence, groundwater monitoring wells and landfill gas vents. The EPA and PADEP project managers met on January 19,2012 to inspectthe site. During the inspection, the weather was sunny and windy and the temperature was approximately 30° Fahrenheit. The inspection consisted ofwalking the landfill cap, inspecting the surface waterdetention structures, inspecting the leachate tanks and viewing the perimeterfence. 

### Inspection of Moyer's LandfillSuperfundSite Forthis inspection EPA used the relevant portion ofthe checklistin EPA's Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA relied on PADEP's institutional knowledge ofthe current operations and maintenance ofthe site. The following is a list ofitems identified during inspection: Fence

• Access hole cut in fence at NE comer. Evidence ofvehiculartraffic atthis spot.

• Approximately Ipm, we saw an all-terrain vehicle on the top ofthe landfill. PADEP contacted the township to notify them.

• One fence post onthe west side ofthe cap was displacedby a fallen tree. Landfill Cap

• Ponding (frozen) along a few landfill benches indicates minor settlement.

• Some woody growth on the cap. All seem to have trunk diameters ofless than 2."

• No bulges or cracking ofthe cap were evident. No evidence ofslope instability.

• No issues noted with gas vents.

• Vegetative cover appears satisfactory. Access Roads

• South side access road has erosion, approximately 250' long, with variable width (maximum 10" wide) and variable depth (maximum 12" deep). The erosion doesn't appearto be interfering with the remedy.

• North access road has erosion. The erosion doesn't appearto be interfering with the remedy. Downslope drains

• Numerous areas ofundermining at transition points betweenbench and downslope drain, particularly on south side facing the leachate tanks. EPA and PADEP discussed the need to replace soil and attemptto vegetate during optimal growing times.

• Numerous instances ofundercutting the downslope concrete mats.

• Sedimentbuild-up in one eastern downslope drain, which interferes with design flow of stormwater. EPA and PADEP discussed the need to remove sediment and repairthe 19downslope drain. This appears to be the cause ofthe erosion ofthe south side access road.

• Sediment build-up in one northern downslope drain, which caused minorponding upslope ofthe drainage structure. Leachate Collection

• Minor leak in the valve ofone leachate tank. Leak could potentially escape secondary containment viaa floor drain nearthe leachate that was frozen. On March 23,2012, PADEP reported the following response to several ofthe items identified during the January 19,2012 inspection:

• The fence was repaired on March 1,2012; as ofMarch 20, 2012, the perimeter fence was intact.

• The leaking valve was repaired on March 1,2012

• The erosion issues had yetto be addressed, but discussions were underway between PADEP and their contractor.


### Interviews On January 19,2012, EPA and PADEP met with the LowerProvidence Township representatives (Interim Township Manager Geri Golas, Chairman ofthe Board ofSupervisors Rick Brown, Township SolicitorMike Sheridan, and Grants/Project Coordinator Casey Snyder) to discuss the five-year review process and solicit feedback on the Moyer's Landfill Site. The following topics were discussed:

• Ownership: The LowerProvidence representatives voiced a concern with the ownership ofthe landfill. The township would like to purchase the landfill in orderto protect it from inappropriate use. The township has applied for a solarpanel grant with hopes of installing solarpanels on the Site.

• Ordinance: The township also discussed enforcement ofthe local ordinance to protect the landfill and preventtrespassers. The township committed to letting the police know aboutthe ordinance and requesting they performperiodic patrol for trespassers.

• Communication: The township appears pleased with the communication aboutthe Site. They perceive the landfill,as a non-issue as they are not receiving any complaints about the landfill.

20• Discharge: The township asked ifthe discharge is clean enough to send to the Creek instead ofthe POTW. PADEP replied that while the discharge quantity and contaminant levels continue to decrease, direct discharge is unlikely atthis point.



### VII. Technical Assessment Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? The review ofrelevant documents and reports and the site inspection indicate thatthe remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. The landfill cap and drainage structures are functioning properly with some minor deficiencies, e.g., erosion ofthe road onthe South side of the cap, and minor waterpooling on benches. The leachate collection system is being operated and maintained. The data shows that contaminant levels are generally decreasing. Institutional controls are currently required by the ROD and implemented by township ordinance. Site inspections confirmthat on-site groundwater is notbeing consumed; there have been no earth moving activities on-site not associated with the maintenance ofthe remedy; and the land use has not changed. Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used atthe time ofthe remedy still valid? Applicable orrelevant and appropriate Federal public health orenvironmental standards are identified in the ROD. Many ofthese standards were met during construction ofthe remedy and the remaining standards are being achieved during the operation and maintenance ofthe Site. While there have been changes in toxicity values and exposure assumptions since the ROD was issued, these changes do not affect the protectiveness ofthe remedy. The remedy remains protective. Question C: Has any other information corne to light that could caU into question the protectiveness ofthe remedy? No. The post-construction sump and groundwater sampling has confirmed thatthe remedy has reduced surface water and groundwater contamination. Also, EPA has confirmedthatthe remedy is not affecting ambient air. Technical Assessment Summary The remedy has been constructed in accordance with the requirements ofthe ROD and is functioning as designed. The immediate threats have been addressed though capping the landfill and collecting and properly disposing ofthe leachate. Since the Remedial Actions at both Operable Units are protective, the Site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. Long21term protectiveness ofthe remedy will be maintained by continuing to perform operation and maintenance ofthe landfill cap and leachate collection system; monitoring the groundwater and ambient air; and enforcing the institutional controls.



### VIII. Issues Table 8 Issues Identified Affects Current Affects Future Issues Protectiveness Protectiveness (YIN) (YIN) Frequenttrespassing and damage to the fence. N N Erosion along drainage bench-downslope drain N N transitions and access roads



### IX. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions Table 9 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Affects Recommendations Party Oversight Milestone Protectiveness Issue and Follow-up Responsible Agency Date (YIN) Actions Current Future Frequent Enforcement of Township trespassing and Ordinance should Township EPA! Ongoing N N damage to the detertrespassing PADEP fence and fence cutting Erosion along drainage bench- Replace soil and October downslope drain plant grass at PADEP EPA 2012 N N

transitions and optimumtime

access roads

22

### X. Protectiveness Statement This second Five-Year Review for Moyer's Landfill finds thatthe remedy has been constructed in accordance with the requirements ofthe ROD and is functioning as designed. The immediate threats have been addressed though capping the landfill and collecting and properly disposing ofthe leachate. Since the Remedial Actions atboth Operable Units are protective, the Site is protective ofhuman health and the environment. Long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy will be maintainedby continuing to perform operation and maintenance ofthe landfill cap and leachate collection system; monitoring the groundwater and ambient air; and enforcing the institutional controls. 

### XI. Next Review The next five-year review for the Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site is requiredby August 2017, five years from the date ofthis review.

23

### References for Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site Five-Year Review 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. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Remedial Action Report, Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, December 1996.

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Preliminary Close Out Report, Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site, LowerProvidence Township, Pennsylvania, September 2002. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Remedial Action Report, Moyer's Landfill Superfund Site, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, April 2004.

24

# ! .

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

\ .. \ 

## \\ ' \



### \\



### . 

# ,<\. !J\:l ND;

• G(OTtCHr*e.-.l. ItORlp.tC (!],,, WAHHClC.

P\."loIf' S'AilQN

• CAS II'OfT + (X!1t.ACnOH ""'£U 1BI**S(~..c"'(HT** ;>u,tt: nST PH @J It!

8 Manhole Monitoring W,:,li

. Surface Wa!p.f

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

# Serfund Site 

# EPA PUBLIC NOTICE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ReviewsCleanup at Moyers Landfill Site The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting its second Five

-Year Review of the Moyers Landfill Superfund Site located in Eagleville, Montgomery County. This review seeks to confirm that the cleanup conducted at the site, which included capping the landfill and collecting and properly disposing the leachate, continues to be protective of human health and the environment

. A previous EPA review of the site conducted in 2007 confirmed the remedy was functioning as designed. Most recently, institutional controls (restrictions of future use) were put in place to ensure thecontinued, long-term protectiveness of the remedy. 

### What is an EPA Five-Year Review? EPA inspects Superfund sites every five years to ensure that cleanups conducted remain fully protective of human health and the environment. These regular reviews, which are required by federal law when contaminants remain at a site, include:
 Inspection of the site and cleanup technologies;
 Review of monitoring data, operating data, and maintenance records, and
 Determination if any new regulatory requirements have been established since EPA’s original cleanup decision was finalized. 

### When will EPA’s Five-Year Review Report be available? The Five-Year Review report will be finalized and made available online athttp://epa.gov/5yrin June 2012

.

There are several ways toreviewinformation on this site

. The Administrative Record (AR), which includes EPA decision documents used for selecting the cleanup remedy, is available for public review at www.epa.gov/arweb and at the Lower Providence Township Building.Youmay also reviewthe ARand additional siteinformation at the following locations: Lower Providence Township Building 100 Parkland Drive Eagleville, PA 19403 Phone: (610) 539-8020 EPA Region 3 Public Reading Room Attn:Paul Van Reed (3HS42) 1650 Arch Street, 6thfloor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 814-3157 (Call tomakean appointment) David Polish Community Involvement Coordinator U.S. EPA Region 3 (3HS52) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 814-3327 or (800) 553-2509 Email:polish.david@epa.gov Sharon Fang Remedial Project Manager U.S. EPA Region 3 (3HS21) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 814-3018 Email:fang.sharon@epa.gov 

# For more information You may also contact

For comprehensive information on the site, please also visit: www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PAD980508766/index.htm